President Greg Fenves & Chancellor William McRaven both prefer the Big 10

[coleastherb]

Bobby Burton - conference realingement

Burton covers Texas at 247Sports.

With conference expansion now seemingly all but a foregone conclusion based on the events of yesterday, there are two pressing matters to discuss.
Which schools are the best fits to join the conference? And what does the future for Texas look like as a result of this decision?

**
Debates over which schools are best to join the conference can be had. The general candidates are:

Houston
Memphis
Cincinnati
UConn
Central Florida
South Florida
BYU

Here's the problem with that list. Five of those seven schools are considered "commuter" schools, which tend to breed the lifetime loyalty of its students (both former and current) about as much as San Jacinto Junior College does. If the Big 12 expands to 14, it's a given that Houston, Memphis and Cincinnati will be three of the four. The fourth comes down to UConn or either of the directional Florida schools with the likely preference of UCF.
If it's just two teams, it'll likely be Cincinnati and Memphis or Cincinnati and Houston.

However, what could throw a real wrench in the plans of those commuter schools is if a school from a Power 5 school wants to throw its hat in the ring. But I think the likelihood of that ever getting much traction is remote because, based on the people I have spoken to at Texas, I doubt Texas is willing to give the assurances necessary to any such incoming member regarding its long-term commitment to the conference. So while some may mention Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado, Arizona and Arizona State as possible additions, none of those schools would leave their current deals for a Big 12 that did not include a long-term commitment from Texas.

The only assurance Texas, or any school for that matter, could truly give to any newcomer is the "grant of rights" to the league that is currently in place. That grant for Texas and all of teams of the Big 12 extends to 2025. Yet I don't see an extension of the grant of rights occurring based on my discussion with a high-ranking Texas official this morning. "I do not like any of the choices," the official said. "(I) want to watch to see if there is a move to extend the grant of TV rights. I will fight that tooth and nail." So there you have it. There will be multiple discussions and iterations of a possible newly minted Big 12 with new teams, but Texas is unlikely willing to bestow its TV rights beyond 2025. That means the Big 12 will be looking primarily at adding commuter schools, which, in turn, only means Texas is likely headed to either the Big 10, SEC or Pac-12 come 2025.

**
As for my opinion on the matter, I think Texas is a better fit in the Big 10 or SEC in the future. I'd personally favor the SEC, but it's my understanding that Texas president Greg Fenves and UT chancellor William McRaven both prefer the Big 10. In that case, expect Texas to ask for an annual trip to Chicago (playing either Northwestern or Illinois 80 miles down the road from there) and to either of the East Coast markets (either DC, by playing Maryland, or NYC, by playing Rutgers

 

[ekal48]

I don't think it's a given that Houston would be in.

Pretty sure I read that it takes 8 of the 10 members to vote a team in, and if that's true I really don't think it's a given Houston's in. I could see Baylor, Tech, and TCU voting no.

The B1G has always been my 1st choice and is still is.

 

[ekal48]

Problem with the B1G and the ACC is geographical isolation. That will be a tough sell and it will kill the non revenue sports. It will also make recruiting much more difficult. SEC would make the most sense.

I've never really been a fan of going to the SEC, but that map makes a hell of a lot of sense, not to mention some badass football games.

 

[clob94]

Nebraska fans will lose their corn fvcking minds!

 

[FlourBluffHorn]

Go Independent and play who the hell we want to!



Hook'em

 

[cwillfromdatx]

Things have been picking up everywhere in regards to schools getting an invite. Would you guys like the idea of getting UCLA, AZ or ASU, BYU and Cincy? How about going to 16 teams. UCLA, USC, AZ, ASU, BYU and Cincy? I personally would love us getting the LA area and the state of AZ. The negative would be the time zone but it wouldn't be that bad. Would you guys jump up and down for a UT/USC match up or prefer a local travel to UH?

 

[speedstrength]

One of the things that killed our move to the PAC a few years ago was three time zones. We aren't adding teams in the Eastern, Mountain and Pacific time zones. Not going to happen. Its either 2 or 4 teams in the east, BYU as football only and 1 or 3 teams in the east or drop WVU and add 3 or 5 teams in the mountain time zone.

I am starting to get the feeling we are doing a money grab and will try and add 4 teams in the east from Cincy, UConn, Memphis, UCF and USF. Honestly I think the teams that are willing to take the worst terms will get in. If that happens look for UT to leave the Big 12 once the GOR ends.

 

[Steve91562]

It's delusional to think the B12 will pick off any PAC teams.

 

[cwillfromdatx]

One of the things that killed our move to the PAC a few years ago was three time zones. We aren't adding teams in the Eastern, Mountain and Pacific time zones. Not going to happen. Its either 2 or 4 teams in the east, BYU as football only and 1 or 3 teams in the east or drop WVU and add 3 or 5 teams in the mountain time zone.

I am starting to get the feeling we are doing a money grab and will try and add 4 teams in the east from Cincy, UConn, Memphis, UCF and USF. Honestly I think the teams that are willing to take the worst terms will get in. If that happens look for UT to leave the Big 12 once the GOR ends.

If the Big12 is looking to get stronger athletic/academic. UH will be a no go. If it's all about who takes the least, then UH will get an invite. If this is the case, watch for UT and OU to get out the conference once the GOR are over. That's one of the reason why I think the other teams wouldn't want a UH invite because they know UT will leave. The conference needs UT and OU to stay.

 

[OULegacy76]

Lol@continous conference talk. I guess I'll never understand why people obsess with this year after year. Is our conference expected to be down this year? Sure but most years we will have TCU, Ou, Texas leading the way. That's not too shabby. Add in OSU, tech and Baylor and we are just fine.

 

[RITZCOOG]

Bobby Burton - conference realingement

Burton covers Texas at 247Sports.

With conference expansion now seemingly all but a foregone conclusion based on the events of yesterday, there are two pressing matters to discuss.
Which schools are the best fits to join the conference? And what does the future for Texas look like as a result of this decision?

**
Debates over which schools are best to join the conference can be had. The general candidates are:

Houston
Memphis
Cincinnati
UConn
Central Florida
South Florida
BYU

Here's the problem with that list. Five of those seven schools are considered "commuter" schools, which tend to breed the lifetime loyalty of its students (both former and current) about as much as San Jacinto Junior College does. If the Big 12 expands to 14, it's a given that Houston, Memphis and Cincinnati will be three of the four. The fourth comes down to UConn or either of the directional Florida schools with the likely preference of UCF.
If it's just two teams, it'll likely be Cincinnati and Memphis or Cincinnati and Houston.

However, what could throw a real wrench in the plans of those commuter schools is if a school from a Power 5 school wants to throw its hat in the ring. But I think the likelihood of that ever getting much traction is remote because, based on the people I have spoken to at Texas, I doubt Texas is willing to give the assurances necessary to any such incoming member regarding its long-term commitment to the conference. So while some may mention Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado, Arizona and Arizona State as possible additions, none of those schools would leave their current deals for a Big 12 that did not include a long-term commitment from Texas.

The only assurance Texas, or any school for that matter, could truly give to any newcomer is the "grant of rights" to the league that is currently in place. That grant for Texas and all of teams of the Big 12 extends to 2025. Yet I don't see an extension of the grant of rights occurring based on my discussion with a high-ranking Texas official this morning. "I do not like any of the choices," the official said. "(I) want to watch to see if there is a move to extend the grant of TV rights. I will fight that tooth and nail." So there you have it. There will be multiple discussions and iterations of a possible newly minted Big 12 with new teams, but Texas is unlikely willing to bestow its TV rights beyond 2025. That means the Big 12 will be looking primarily at adding commuter schools, which, in turn, only means Texas is likely headed to either the Big 10, SEC or Pac-12 come 2025.

**
As for my opinion on the matter, I think Texas is a better fit in the Big 10 or SEC in the future. I'd personally favor the SEC, but it's my understanding that Texas president Greg Fenves and UT chancellor William McRaven both prefer the Big 10. In that case, expect Texas to ask for an annual trip to Chicago (playing either Northwestern or Illinois 80 miles down the road from there) and to either of the East Coast markets (either DC, by playing Maryland, or NYC, by playing Rutgers

What P5 conference would entertain the idea of admitting a new school which has it's own tv deal and won't share ?

 

[speedstrength]

What P5 conference would entertain the idea of admitting a new school which has it's own tv deal and won't share ?

If Texas leaves the Big 12 we have the rights to negotiate new terms with ESPN. If we go ACC or SEC then ESPN already has the tier three rights to those schools so it wouldn't be that big of a deal. We probably would not be able to go PAC or B1G because of their conference networks.

 

[speedstrength]

It's delusional to think the B12 will pick off any PAC teams.

Big 12 schools make more money than PAC 12 schools and they would retain their tier three rights. Depending on school they could make 10-15 million more per year in the Big 12.

 

[Son of Wasatch]

My first choice is to go Independent in Football and move all our other sports to another conference like C-USA. We keep the LHN and can have full control over all the schools we play. 6 solid schools and 6 fill-in schools. Even if we are crap we still have a 6-6 record. Texas can also play 7 home games each year, and we can still keep Oklahoma on our schedule.

Pretty sure we can also make Notre Dame a regular as well. Our tier 1 football rights should net us around 40 to 50 million a year from ABC/ESPN and Fox.

Then there is the idea that the conference TV networks will all be deregulated by the NCAA which will make the LHN capable of extending some of it's programming to high school and even UTEP and UTSA for filler games.

My second choice would be Texas joining the B1G. We have a trump card in negotiations with them. The 3 biggest recruiting states are Texas Florida and California. Out of the 5 power conferences on the B1G doesn't have a foot print in any of those big 3 states. They have to convince kids from those states to leave home and go a heck of a long way just to play for them. Adding Texas gives them stronger leverage to recruit kids from Texas.

Joining the B1G would mean buying out the LHN, but that isn't a bad thing since it would mean full distribution of the B1G network in Texas and a conference footprint that covers nearly half the US population.

Third is the SEC which makes the most sense geographically but the least from a competitive standpoint. A conference with 3 or 4 national teams is strong, one with 6 or 7 is over kill. The SEC with Bama, LSU, Florida as Blue Blood programs is good. But add Auburn, Georgia and Tennessee and you have a really strong conference. Add to that Texas and Oklahoma and you have five blueblood programs in one conference. Then you add to that Aggsy, Ole Miss, and USCe and you have a crazy conference that no one will ever make it through undefeated.

 

[Mister Moses]

I agree you should go independent. Competition make teams better and that's what a big time conference brings. Texas is a gargantuan brand that is bigger than any conference in the country. I support your way of thinking. The Sooner the better and you can become another Notre Dame.

 

[misterTeasyEmalcomXf'inAkicksome]

As much as I think that 16 is the ideal upper end for how many teams should join a conference (and that's exactly how many I'd shoot for if Texas were to head west to the Pac 12, or east to the SEC), if the Big 10 ends up being the destination, I think Texas should push for 18. For what it's worth, I honestly have trouble seeing a way the ACC makes sense, being that I WOULD want nearby conference opponents, and I don't see any way that could work out cleanly into divisions aside from accepting that it's us and either OU or Notre Dame joining a conference that doesn't have any nearby schools.

I think with the Big 10, you'd want to do something like push for Kansas (who is an AAU member, brings basketball star power has a natural rivalry with Nebraska based on location, and helps bridge the gap in typical Big 10 neighbor-states fashion) and Oklahoma (who isn't AAU but certainly has some strong research programs in the mix and has been working on improvement as part of Boren's legacy... plus we can point to Nebraska as another exception to the rule now, has a strong, desirable athletic program, particularly when paired with rivalries with Nebraska, Texas, and Kansas, and continues the neighbor-state bridge), Texas (who is a big part of why the Big 10 would consider bending their usual rules for OU), and then ask Notre Dame one last time. If they say no, then just grab a less powerful athletic, but more powerful academic program like Rice or Tulane to round things out and because Big 10 teams (including Texas) would like to have another game in Texas or at least in the region for travel and recruiting reasons.

This would result in conference divisions that either looks like this:

Illinois Indiana
Northwestern Purdue
Wisconsin Notre Dame
Minnesota Michigan State
Iowa Michigan
Nebraska Ohio State
Kansas Penn State
Oklahoma Rutgers
Texas Maryland
​

... or this (with the unfortunate effect of having to pair Illinois and Northwestern as permanent cross-division rivals the way that Indiana and Purdue currently are):

Northwestern Illiniois
Wisconsin Indiana
Minnesota Purdue
Iowa Michigan State
Nebraska Michigan
Kansas Ohio State
Oklahoma Penn State
Texas Rutgers
Rice/Tulane Maryland​

I suppose there's always also the option that they could go after Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, or Georgia Tech to maintain a balance, but I think that it would be in Texas' interest that, if Notre Dame isn't playing ball, they should bring in another travel partner.

The cross-divisional schedules (even if they were to approve having 10 regular season conference games per season) wouldn't be all that ideal, since you'd play cross-divisional teams so infrequently, but because of how far removed Texas is from the Big 10, this would be the way to go in my opinion.

Just for shits and giggles, the Pac 16 seems to split up more neatly keeping essential rivalries intact and keeping travel to the furthest opponents to 1-per season (since you'd likely be playing two cross-divisional games, one away and one home, every season). I'd be open to debates about OSU and Tech or possible replacements, but it seems like it would make all the politicians happiest if you stuck with the plan of:

Washington Utah
Washington State Colorado
Oregon Arizona
Oregon State Arizona State
California Oklahoma
Stanford Oklahoma State
UCLA Texas
USC Texas Tech
​

... while the SEC, my least favorite choice for trying to keep out of the murkier aspects of college athletics, and the acknowledgement that the other two associations have academic benefits as well, would actually be kind of fun schedule-wise since, if they kept a permanent rival model like they have now, and put OU in the east, we'd end up playing 3 of our biggest historical rivals annually (not to mention Alabama and LSU, along with the others). Not the best choice for many reasons, but... the schedules are fun.

Texas ---------------- Oklahoma
Texas A&M --------- South Carolina
LSU ------------------- Florida
Arkansas ------------ Missouri
Mississippi ---------- Vanderbilt
Mississippi State -- Kentucky
Alabama ------------- Tennessee
Auburn --------------- Georgia
​

And again, I have no idea how to make sense of what would happen with the ACC aside from just saying, maybe it would be Texas and Notre Dame joining and us just only playing Texas and Oklahoma teams in our OOC slate from now on since everything else will be nowhere nearby.

Basically, the Big 10 is a little unwieldy but i understand why university presidents and system chancellors would be interested and I could warm to the schedules if the expansion was done right (and would be entertained Nebraska's collective head exploding as we accepted our invitation). The Pac 12 still seems to make a lot of sense to me and provides some of the academic associations that the prez and chance would like, though nothing as formal as the CIC as far as I can tell. The SEC is a murky proposition, but the idea of playing OU, Arkansas, and A&M annually would appeal to my sense of tradition, while LSU and Bama would assure some more big annual games to look forward to. And the ACC is... complicated. And spread out. Especially for Texas. If anyone has a way that makes sense to expand the ACC with a few more regional schools for us, I'd be interested to hear it. The only way I can come up with is the original way I liked, where either the Big 12 steals ACC members, or both conferences merge and cut some fat.

PS - pardon the formatting here. I couldn't figure out a good way to make columns on this board, tabs don't work, and it just ate my spaces between the two divisions... but I don't have time right this second to neaten it up.​

 

[misterTeasyEmalcomXf'inAkicksome]

I agree you should go independent. Competition make teams better and that's what a big time conference brings. Texas is a gargantuan brand that is bigger than any conference in the country. I support your way of thinking. The Sooner the better and you can become another Notre Dame.

Still don't see how this works for anything outside of football. We'd need a place to put all the non-football sports. Texas likes their non-football sports too much to go along with C-USA or anything. The Big 10, SEC, and Pac 12 wouldn't be interested in just the non-football sports. And the ACC, who might be willing to make a Notre Dame-type deal with us, would mean that our track teams' closest conference track meets would be in Tallahassee and some might be in Boston or upstate New York. I actually still think that Notre Dame's days as an independent are numbered, and the fact that they have less and less scheduling autonomy at this point just backs up that idea (with 5 ACC games, Navy, USC, and Stanford annually at this point).

 

[Son of Wasatch]

One other thing that isn't getting enough thought is the idea that Texas bands together with a few other unhappy schools and creates a new conference.

Take about 4 or 5 teams for the Big 12, couple from the ACC and SEC and even the B1G and create a new 12-16 team conference.

Texas
Oklahoma
Okie Lite
Kansas
Tech
Arkansas
LSU
FSU
Clemson
Nebraska
Miami
Georgia Tech
Notre Dame
WVU


Every one has grumblings that they might be interested in moving to something new.
The drawing point is a conference featuring Texas and Notre Dame, two of the biggest draws in college football.

 

[RoboCocks21]

Now that's a conference!

 

[BringBackRoyal]

Texas will never go independent. It's not even worth discussing.

Also, the Big 12 is also not picking off any P5 teams. Yes, Pac-12 members are disgruntled over their current revenues and the disaster that full league ownership has created for the Pac-12 Network, but (1) the Pac-12 has far, far better long-term demographic fundamentals than the Big 12; (2) the Big 12 is an overpaid league that will face some very unpleasant music in the next round of TV contract negotiations -- assuming they even take place with something resembling the current membership; and (3) regardless of current payouts, nothing is attractive to other P5 schools about a league with two marquee brands in football and a bunch of other schools with small to tiny fan bases (Kansas basketball being the exception), most of which are from empty states, where those two marquee brands are seen as very high flight risks.

It would take a lot more than Arizona and ASU to make this conference worth saving for the long-term, and the Big 12 doesn't have the leverage to bring even these types of schools aboard.

 

[BringBackRoyal]

while the SEC, my least favorite choice for trying to keep out of the murkier aspects of college athletics, and the acknowledgement that the other two associations have academic benefits as well, would actually be kind of fun schedule-wise since, if they kept a permanent rival model like they have now, and put OU in the east, we'd end up playing 3 of our biggest historical rivals annually (not to mention Alabama and LSU, along with the others). Not the best choice for many reasons, but... the schedules are fun.

Texas ---------------- Oklahoma
Texas A&M --------- South Carolina
LSU ------------------- Florida
Arkansas ------------ Missouri
Mississippi ---------- Vanderbilt
Mississippi State -- Kentucky
Alabama ------------- Tennessee
Auburn --------------- Georgia
​

There has a lot of talk from SEC sources in the past that Alabama and Auburn would move to the East and Mizzou would move to the West if Texas and OU ever came aboard.

 

[speedstrength]

Lots of crazy talk. Its damn near impossible to kick a school out of a conference. ND isn't going to be a full member of a conference as long as it has it's deal with NBC. Texas isn't going to be able to go to the PAC or B1G until the 20 year deal with ESPN expires. ESPN basically owns our tier three rights so the only landing spot for us would be SEC or ACC due to ESPN owning the networks that control the tier three rights. Texas is in the Big 12 until the the GOR expires. Fox and ESPN really aren't too keen on the Big 12 adding teams from the AAC because they don't add any value to the current inventory of games. AAC schools are getting 3 million for their media rights and that they don't want to pay 30 million for that inventory.
So most likely we stay in a 10 team league until 2024 and we either add schools from the PAC or we join the ACC or SEC.

 

[BringBackRoyal]

Texas isn't going to be able to go to the PAC or B1G until the 20 year deal with ESPN expires. ESPN basically owns our tier three rights so the only landing spot for us would be SEC or ACC due to ESPN owning the networks that control the tier three rights.

ESPN would not force Texas to keep the LHN if Texas were willing to give it up in order to move to another conference.

 

[mm42]

ESPN would not force Texas to keep the LHN if Texas were willing to give it up in order to move to another conference.

Bingo. ESPN is fun to kick around, but don't believe they love bleeding cash. Seems like a win-win.

 

[Son of Wasatch]

Bingo. ESPN is fun to kick around, but don't believe they love bleeding cash. Seems like a win-win.

hardly, a win win by their account.

Yes, they are losing money, but they also know if/when Texas turns it around they will be back as a national magnet and the product will sell itself.

They also know that if the LHN goes away and for arguments sake, Texas goes to the B1G They will be taking a bunch of TV sets away from ESPN, and ESPN knows it.

Does anyone think Aggsy vs. Bama would get nearly the coverage as Texas vs. Ohio State, or Texas vs. Michigan? Not happening.

Even with losing money right now, ESPN is better keeping Texas in the fold than letting them go.

 

[speedstrength]

ESPN still owns the rights. According to the contract if Texas leaves the Big 12, the school must keep the terms of the present agreement, provide ESPN an exclusive 60-day window to negotiate for the other rights and allow ESPN a 48-hour window to match any offer. A prohibition on licensing content to third parties, prevents Texas from participation in a potential Big 12 network but does mean Texas could join the ACC or SEC since ESPN owns those conference networks. It also means that Texas cannot license its rights to the PAC or B1G networks which would kill any potential deal

 

[LonghornSoldier]

It's delusional to think the B12 will pick off any PAC teams.

Is that why UCLA basically stated they would like to leave the Pac and even go to the Big 12? Or why the word has been that BOTH AZ schools would be interested in leaving for the Big 12 if the $$ situation were worked out in terms of exit fees etc.....

Yup.. sounds pretty delusional that any of them would actually come seeing as how they all just basically put their names in the hat so they could be considered without being formal about it or trying to make formal arrangements bfore everyone can talk....

Maybe we get some, maybe we dont... but to call it delusional when schools in the Pac have specifically said they would leave for the Big 12 under certain circumstances..... I mean, do you even actually bother to read up on any of this before you come and dpo your hit and run post laed with bullshit?

 

[GetHorned]

Is that why UCLA basically stated they would like to leave the Pac and even go to the Big 12? Or why the word has been that BOTH AZ schools would be interested in leaving for the Big 12 if the $$ situation were worked out in terms of exit fees etc.....

Yup.. sounds pretty delusional that any of them would actually come seeing as how they all just basically put their names in the hat so they could be considered without being formal about it or trying to make formal arrangements bfore everyone can talk....

Maybe we get some, maybe we dont... but to call it delusional when schools in the Pac have specifically said they would leave for the Big 12 under certain circumstances..... I mean, do you even actually bother to read up on any of this before you come and dpo your hit and run post laed with bullshit?

What are your sources? No PAC schools have demonstrated an interest, it's a bunch of speculation from sports blogs. Please lay off the pipe, the established rivalries and history within that conference along with geographic factors - regardless of money - rule out any respectable blue blood program like USC or UCLA coming to the turbulent Big 12 to play in Lubbock and Waco. People aren't lining up to enter this conference, we're counting the days until we can leave.

 

[cwillfromdatx]

Is that why UCLA basically stated they would like to leave the Pac and even go to the Big 12? Or why the word has been that BOTH AZ schools would be interested in leaving for the Big 12 if the $$ situation were worked out in terms of exit fees etc.....

Yup.. sounds pretty delusional that any of them would actually come seeing as how they all just basically put their names in the hat so they could be considered without being formal about it or trying to make formal arrangements bfore everyone can talk....

Maybe we get some, maybe we dont... but to call it delusional when schools in the Pac have specifically said they would leave for the Big 12 under certain circumstances..... I mean, do you even actually bother to read up on any of this before you come and dpo your hit and run post laed with bullshit?

I think the idea of the AZ schools is realistic to move to the Big12. Throw in USC and UCLA. Maybe Cincy and BYU to form the first 16 team conference. Make it a EAST division and WEST division. I would be loving that