UT has already signed its first commitment of the 2011 class, a ridiculously talented receiver that no other school recruited. Were they unaware of him? No. Does he have off-the-field issues? Only with PETA. Then why?
Seriously, why wouldn’t any other school recruit Jaxson Shipley? ;)
Yeah, but the problem with that isn’t the backs themselves. It’s the OL. This is supposed to be a big year in Texas for OL talent. Unfortunately, last year wasn’t so much, and so we only signed, like, 2 guys.
So, here’s a slew of opinions on expansion. It will be interesting to see who fires the first bullet. Texas will definately be in the discussion but I don’t think they will be the first domino to fall, if at all.
From the Big 12, I think the most likely to make the first move would be Colorado. I could see why they would be a good fit with the Pac 10 and they could be matched up with Utah.
If the Big 12 lost somebody, TCU sure would be attractive to add. They’ve been very solid.
Well, Rimbo will be along shortly to explain this in much greater detail than I will but right now I believe it is merely just speculation. Supposedly, “higher-ups” at UT have said it won’t happen. Of course, we know how those positions can change. Other than greed, there’s not a compelling reason right now to tinker with the Big 12, IMO.
As I understand it the TV contract isn’t an equal split amongst all the teams. Basically, the bigger schools can pay-per-view their games if they’re not on ABC/ESPN, and they keep that money. Of course, a whole lot of people would pay to see Texas wallop a Division 3C opponent. Not so many would pay to see a Missouri to do the same. Essentially, the rich-get-richer. The Missouris of the conference are sort of pissed about that.
The Pac 10 TV contract is an equal split. All money goes into a pool with each school getting 10 percent.
What’s Texas’ grief with the Big 12, aside from getting royally screwed out of the National Championship game a couple of years ago?
Aside from Texas and Oklahoma, a lot of Big 12 teams areoff from their historical peaks in terms of football play and fanbase. This is bad for the whole conference since it means less national TV attention and TV money for conference play. The theory is that Texas could get even more money by being part of a conference that featured more big time matchups each year in conference play.
An impediment to the idea of mix/matching some of the teams rumored for the Pac 10 is that many states want their “rivalry” schools in the same conference. As was mentioned in the previous thread, there would be opposition in Texas if UT went to another conference by itself. The same applies to the Idaho and Utah schools that are being talked about. Colorado is one of the few states that has allowed it’s two major schools to be in different sports conferences.
Obviously, it costs nothing to speculate. When the real musical chairs start, if they do, that’s when the political ramifications will be hashed out. The history of the SWC is interesting to look at for how politically difficult things get done when the tensions are high.
It’s not going to be the Idaho schools. Boise State is a freaking joke in terms of academic/research standards compared to the Pac-10, even the low-end Pac schools like WSU and OSU have substantial research arms. Boise State doesn’t, and there’s no way Stanford or Cal are going to elevate Boise State to the Pac. Idaho is even worse off; it’s Boise State without the football team.
Besides which, the Idaho television market is tiny. It doesn’t add anything substantial in terms of revenue; in fact, it would probably mean that the amount each school receives would be smaller than it is today.
I’m also reading some people seriously suggest Fresno State, which is a hoot. Fresno is a joke of a television market (besides, USC/UCLA/Cal/USC already own the California market), and there’s no way in hell that UCLA or Cal will promote it to the Pac. They view the conference as elite academics and athletics. Promoting any of the UC or Cal State schools is a dead end; Cal and UCLA view all their UC sibilings as drastically inferior, and don’t even get them started about the Cal State schools.
If UT goes off and leaves the Big12, and subsequently, all it’s natural rivals behind in Texas, students 20 years from now will be passing through the halls of UT Austin laughing about all those football trophies on display because “this is UT, we suck at football!”. I think the alumni support for UT football would evaporate, though it might look good on paper for a couple of years afterwords.
I don’t see the Idaho schools either, but Boise State has been mentioned. I think the Utah/BYU thing is most likely because I wonder if the state of Utah would allow Utah to join the Pac10 by itself, say in conjunction with Colorado.
There are a ton of things that can be pointed to as reasons why the Pac10 won’t expand; I just think the political/economic reality is different now and the opposition from certain schools may not be as great as it would have been in the past. You don’t make the new guy the commissioner and let him hire the guy he just hired if you don’t want to change things up. All the comments I’ve seen locally from the UW AD indicate they are very willing to change things up.
So if they are going to expand, that leaves the California schools you’ve mentioned (which I agree aren’t much of a gain), Colorado, and the Utah schools. They can find two they like in that mix IMHO, even if it means taking one that isn’t perfect.
Dropping a&m, tech, baylor, and okstate from the schedule and replacing them with penn state, oh state, michigan, mich state, etc will cause UT fans to disappear? What?
UT won’t leave the big12 first. They have little reason to. The b12 tv contract is up in a couple of years and they should be able to get more money then. Texas is also working on getting their own tv network which would help a lot as well.
If Missouri or Colorado leaves, replacing them with another team in texas would be bad from a money perspective. The b12 already owns the texas tv markets.
The main problem is that the Big XII has an awful TV deal. It’s with FSN, and the broadcasts, payment and coverage are just atrocious. The Big Ten (for example) represents a substantial upgrade in that department.
For teams like Texas, A&M and Colorado, the Pac-10 and Big Ten also represent an academic neighborhood more like their own; current Big XII restrictions on partial qualifiers were essentially imposed by UT alone as a condition for joining, over and above the objections of Nebraska. I don’t think Nebraska would cry if we left for that reason alone.
On top of that, there are financial benefits to academics of UT joins the Big Ten. So the money and prestige in the Big Ten alone are reason enough for Texas to jump ship.
Texas won’t be the first to leave, though, but not because it has no reason to; rather, there’s a political incentive to not appear to be the home-wreckers of the Big XII which might cause non-Longhorn alumni in the state legislature to threaten the University Fund. For this same reason, I can’t help but expect that UT leaving would also require a package deal with A&M; they’re also a good enough research university for either conference, and might be a decent draw financially.
As for Texas being irrelevant in 20 years… well, welcome to my undergraduate years, when we lost to football powerhouses like Rice.
UT is still a Texas school and most of it’s alums still live in Texas (or at least, in the Greater Texas Area, so to speak). The idea that Texas alumns would care more about beating Michigan State instead of Oklahoma State is a bit farcical. It’s like trading Ameri-pop for Euro-pop; why move half way around the world to have the same thing? Also, and correct me if i’m wrong, but don’t you live in California now Rimbo? It doesn’t quite surprise that a UT grad living in Cal wants to see UT in a Pacific conference, now does it :) ?
The problem with the Big 12 is that it’s saddled with three or four under-performing programs and the conference has at best regional appeal. Frankly that’s as much an issue of perception as performance, and it has a bit of reverse conference bias. Aside from the TV contracts the biggest difference i’ve noticed is the degree of participation in their fan bases. Big 12 fans love their teams, but by comparing tailgating it’s nothing like the SEC. Perhaps it’s just an element of the climate or regional culture, but while Texans love their football they’re just … more self-conscious?.. and don’t go for the overboard craziness of a typical SEC game. The typical Texas college fan is as concerned with getting a good parking spot so as to leave as soon as possible as getting there to party, imo :).
You’re insane. You think we really give a shit about Oklahoma State? That’s like thinking we’d care about dropping TCU and SMU off our schedules when we left the SWC. We didn’t care then, and we don’t care now. They care about us, because in many cases they’re staffed by players who didn’t get offers from us and coaching staffs whose careers would be made by just one sweet, sweet victory over Big Bad Texas. Hell, we went 4-7 in 1997 and Baylor fans rushed the field after beating us. (Beat OU, though.)
No UT alumnus gives a flying fuck about Okie State. There are exactly two teams in our conference that we care about; OU and A&M, neither of whom will be removed from our schedule if we move. (OU was part of our regular season schedule annually when we were in the SWC and they were Big 8; why would that change if we left the Big XII?) Every single other team in the conference – we’d just as soon play Iowa, Wisconsin and Michigan State. It don’t make a shit.
But the draw of adding regular games against tOSU, Michigan and Penn State would be awesome.
As for being in California, I’d much rather we join the Big Ten than the Pac-10, so there goes that theory.
I think Texas should just enjoy their cute little schedule each year in the Big 12. It will keep them in the running for the MNC each year unless they stub their toe, and then they can lose to whatever behemoth managed to survive the SEC slaughterhouse that year.