This whole tread is just one big farting contest!

(03-30-2017 02:34 PM)green Wrote:  

(03-30-2017 02:07 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-30-2017 10:25 AM)green Wrote:  ...And with no Big 12 left to spend money on (in all likelihood), ESPN can probably help make the Longhorn Network palatable to the ACC by giving the ACC a break-the-bank television deal with Texas on board that will blow the ACC members away.
-- rivals posted on 9/13/2011 by Chip Brown

FIFY. That is based on Chip Brown's speculation almost 6 years ago!

JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY

It's time for Texas fans and faithful to start getting their heads around a possible move to the ACC. It's by no means a done deal. But it's looking more and more like Option No. 1 for the Longhorns if the Big 12 falls apart.
-- rivals

hyperventilate much ...
nothing in the interim has altered that informed opinion ...

MOUTHPIECE SNORE

First, for everyone else on the board who is interested in where Green is getting certain quotes in his posts from, here is the LINK. Not sure why he didn't link it previously, like the FranktheTank quote in another post. Probably slipped his mind.


Yes, if the B12 were to fall apart, I think the ACC would be in the running. But then the other four conferences would be as well. This notion however that things haven't changed in the interim (since September 2011, when the ACC and Texas were actually in talks) is flawed in my opinion.

The ACC didn't have a conference network back then, ND wasn't a partial member back then, from all I have heard the ACC actually turned down one of Texas' requests in not willing to take Texas Tech (although that may now actually be more likely under today's climate then it was back in 2011), and finally the gap between the Greater 2 and the Lesser 3 has widened since 2011. So yes, things have changed. Again, not saying the ACC wouldn't be in the running, but I don't see it as the front runner like Chip Brown did in 2011 or obviously you do as of right now.

But I have been known to be wrong before. Time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

Frank said that Texas would want Oklahoma & Kansas to come with them "to create an 18-school ACC behemoth."

https://frankthetank.me/tag/texas-to-the-acc/

Ah yes – Texas. The Longhorns aren’t oblivious to their rivals to the north. In a perfect world for Texas (as described to me by my Big 12 guy), they would want to join the ACC as full members with… wait for it… Notre Dame. Apparently, the UT people are convinced that the new College Football Playoff system will eventually drive the Irish to join a conference and Texas wants to be right alongside them. In turn, UT would also have Oklahoma and Kansas follow along to create an 18-school ACC behemoth. Texas would be fine with the same type of move to the Big Ten (although Notre Dame is contractually obligated to join the ACC if it chooses to drop independence until 2027, which would seemingly make that prospect impossible). The new Texas leadership doesn’t have the West Coast preference that their leaders circa 2010 had, so any new deal with the Pac-12 seems to be out. At the same time, the SEC continues to be simply a non-starter for the Longhorns.

(03-30-2017 07:22 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  ....... The new Texas leadership doesn’t have the West Coast preference that their leaders circa 2010 had, so any new deal with the Pac-12 seems to be out. At the same time, the SEC continues to be simply a non-starter for the Longhorns.

I don't like using the word "NEVER", but ... Texas will never join the SEC. They've always had the academic snob factor over the SEC. So that is strike 1, but maybe a bigger strike would be Texas A & M in the SEC.

So ... it's really only a 3 conference "race" ... and I think "going west" won't be something Texas want's to do .. so ... it's REALLY only ...

.... Big Ten versus ACC.

Or football independence. Which honestly plays to the ACC's advantage. As they can do the "Notre Dame deal".


Time will tell.

All of this presupposes that the Big XII will fail... it seems like it's headed in that direction, but it's far from a done deal.

The ultimate long play would be for the P5 (probably P4 by the time it occurs) to form a league similar to the pro sports, a virtual monopoly (or a real monopoly in MLB), possibly with a second tier (the remainder of Div1). All the teams would share equally in the TV revenues and there would be more sharing but still plenty of opportunity for marketing differential.

Teams could then be re-arranged into more comprehensible (read regional) divisions without risking mega-dollar buy-outs, etc.

For those thinking Texas will not bolt from the Big 12, recall that they flirted with the idea until TAMU joined the SEC (where they wanted to be at least since Arkansas left the SWC). From friends that are connected at various levels to UT, UT is not looking west (not enough eyes, not enough sports interest, not buying into the Asia market for college sports); The SEC has never been on their radar for academic reasons; the B1G is top heavy and UNL has not succeeded in ruling the B1G (not that they ruled the Big 12), not a promising opportunity; The ACC offers the best opportunity but, as noted, the travel can be harsh (not so much for football but for all other teams), though they often admit, flying to Boston, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and Miami would not be that much different than now (they would actually save the 90 minute bus ride from Pitt to Morgantown!).

It is hard to believe that ESPN will continue to pay 10 teams when they can "move" a few to other conferences, saving money while paying the other conferences more (win-win), especially when there is so little viewership in comparison to the ACC, SEC and B1G. Expansion failed (yeah, several reasons) because there are no home-runs available in the G5. The LHN benefits UT, no doubt; however, ESPN is not making the $ they thought they would, the deal is not likely to continue unless ESPN turns it around, which may be harder that people think:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/...ly-into-it

(Thanks Wicked Orange from: https://syracusefan.com/threads/acc-conf...489/page-2)

Note: The B1G is also heavily vested in the cable subscribers and will probably lose revenue in the not to distant future (not that it will hurt them much).

The PAC is likely safe as they are too far away for picking. The B1G has the large state schools across the northern midwest and plains. The SEC has been tied together for so long that it is hard to think anyone would leave unless forced to do so. The ACC core has been together as long as the SEC and B1G cores and the additions are stable and have strong ties with the core schools. That leaves the Big 12, with the least coverage, population, desirable schools, and least desirable places to visit for the pickings. Texas and Oklahoma are the top prizes.

(03-30-2017 08:05 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(03-30-2017 07:22 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  ....... The new Texas leadership doesn’t have the West Coast preference that their leaders circa 2010 had, so any new deal with the Pac-12 seems to be out. At the same time, the SEC continues to be simply a non-starter for the Longhorns.

I don't like using the word "NEVER", but ... Texas will never join the SEC. They've always had the academic snob factor over the SEC. So that is strike 1, but maybe a bigger strike would be Texas A & M in the SEC.

So ... it's really only a 3 conference "race" ... and I think "going west" won't be something Texas want's to do .. so ... it's REALLY only ...

.... Big Ten versus ACC.

Or football independence. Which honestly plays to the ACC's advantage. As they can do the "Notre Dame deal".


Time will tell.

And yet they have been in talks with the SEC three times since just prior to the '92 expansion. What folks say and what they will do are often two different things separated only by a justification. And in the years that are ahead of us money may be all the justification they need. And if not that they could always say they joined the conference that would give their brother state school Texas Tech a home as well.

Suffice it to say that in politics, business, and conference realignment there are no gestalts.

(03-30-2017 09:40 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  The ultimate long play would be for the P5 (probably P4 by the time it occurs) to form a league similar to the pro sports, a virtual monopoly (or a real monopoly in MLB), possibly with a second tier (the remainder of Div1). All the teams would share equally in the TV revenues and there would be more sharing but still plenty of opportunity for marketing differential.

Teams could then be re-arranged into more comprehensible (read regional) divisions without risking mega-dollar buy-outs, etc.

For those thinking Texas will not bolt from the Big 12, recall that they flirted with the idea until TAMU joined the SEC (where they wanted to be at least since Arkansas left the SWC). From friends that are connected at various levels to UT, UT is not looking west (not enough eyes, not enough sports interest, not buying into the Asia market for college sports); The SEC has never been on their radar for academic reasons; the B1G is top heavy and UNL has not succeeded in ruling the B1G (not that they ruled the Big 12), not a promising opportunity; The ACC offers the best opportunity but, as noted, the travel can be harsh (not so much for football but for all other teams), though they often admit, flying to Boston, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and Miami would not be that much different than now (they would actually save the 90 minute bus ride from Pitt to Morgantown!).

It is hard to believe that ESPN will continue to pay 10 teams when they can "move" a few to other conferences, saving money while paying the other conferences more (win-win), especially when there is so little viewership in comparison to the ACC, SEC and B1G. Expansion failed (yeah, several reasons) because there are no home-runs available in the G5. The LHN benefits UT, no doubt; however, ESPN is not making the $ they thought they would, the deal is not likely to continue unless ESPN turns it around, which may be harder that people think:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/...ly-into-it

(Thanks Wicked Orange from: https://syracusefan.com/threads/acc-conf...489/page-2)

Note: The B1G is also heavily vested in the cable subscribers and will probably lose revenue in the not to distant future (not that it will hurt them much).

The PAC is likely safe as they are too far away for picking. The B1G has the large state schools across the northern midwest and plains. The SEC has been tied together for so long that it is hard to think anyone would leave unless forced to do so. The ACC core has been together as long as the SEC and B1G cores and the additions are stable and have strong ties with the core schools. That leaves the Big 12, with the least coverage, population, desirable schools, and least desirable places to visit for the pickings. Texas and Oklahoma are the top prizes.

Just a couple of weeks ago Mike Slive gave an interview over one of the Birmingham FM stations. When asked about realignment he made two statements. 1. "I think it is on the back burner for immediate future." 2. "But when the current media contracts start to expire we could be looking at something that is substantively different as we may be moving toward very, very large conferences."

Now in light of those remarks from one who has been on the cutting edge of recent developments I have to take pause at what "very, very, large" might actually mean.

I doubt we ever move into one large league because of anti-trust issues. But two competing leagues might well be something lurking over the horizon.

I also think that athletic associations of any kind in the future will be intentionally distanced if not segregated from academic associations. The league, rather than a conference, might be exactly the kind of construct that could permit the Big 10 to act in its best interest athletically without being constrained by academicians. We'll see.

(03-30-2017 01:33 PM)omniorange Wrote:  the ACC distributes it TV monies evenly and therefore would make allowing Texas keeping the LHN unlikely.

Still, I find it interesting that you ignored my overall point and didn't give any thoughts of your own as to why the ACC would allow the LHN to continue on as is despite a rivals reporter saying it was likely it would.


Cheers,
Neil

Of all the things I’ve been associated with in 32 years in Texas—starting the foundation, building facilities, all those things—the Longhorn Network, 10 years from now, will maybe be the biggest thing we did.

It’s just going to separate us from everybody else.

And I’m not saying the SEC or Big 10 or Pac 12 did the wrong things by doing a conference network, because they’re going to have a beautiful network, and it’s going to be a lot money. But Florida’s going to sit down there, and they’re going to be one-fourteenth of something. And Ohio State is going to be one-fourteenth of something and USC’s gonna be one-twelfth of something, and we’re going to be 100 percent.
-- DeLoss Dodds

I'm afraid the longhorn network is here to stay ...
but the league set a precedent for accepting uneven arrangements with notre dame's partial membership/full benefits ...
under certain circumstances ...

SUCK IT UP BUTTERCUP

The end game could be 2 leagues, big 10 and sec between 20-40 members each. Thus, you would have divisions in those leagues that act as conferences. I would like to see the big 10 at 40 with 4 divisions of 10 and the sec at 24 with 3 divisions of 8. Both leagues would have a 2 game playoff and its winners would meet in a bowl

(03-30-2017 11:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-30-2017 08:05 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(03-30-2017 07:22 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  ....... The new Texas leadership doesn’t have the West Coast preference that their leaders circa 2010 had, so any new deal with the Pac-12 seems to be out. At the same time, the SEC continues to be simply a non-starter for the Longhorns.

I don't like using the word "NEVER", but ... Texas will never join the SEC. They've always had the academic snob factor over the SEC. So that is strike 1, but maybe a bigger strike would be Texas A & M in the SEC.

So ... it's really only a 3 conference "race" ... and I think "going west" won't be something Texas want's to do .. so ... it's REALLY only ...

.... Big Ten versus ACC.

Or football independence. Which honestly plays to the ACC's advantage. As they can do the "Notre Dame deal".


Time will tell.

And yet they have been in talks with the SEC three times since just prior to the '92 expansion. What folks say and what they will do are often two different things separated only by a justification. And in the years that are ahead of us money may be all the justification they need. And if not that they could always say they joined the conference that would give their brother state school Texas Tech a home as well.

Suffice it to say that in politics, business, and conference realignment there are no gestalts.

But ... A & M Is in the SEC now. And the A & M - Longhorn rivalry is VERY real. Texas AIN'T going to the SEC ... EVER.

Also -- at the end of the day, Texas won't sacrifice itself, to save Texas Tech. Or any other school in the state of Texas. They look out for themselves first, period.

(03-31-2017 12:06 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  Texas AIN'T going to the SEC ... EVER.

why would they ...
when an improved ACC offers comparable football ...
better basketball ...
markets ...
academics ...
cultural fit ...
on top of ...
a willingness to accommodate their nonnegotiable network ...
some things can't be duplicated or compromised ...
all you ever wanted ...

MUST BE NICE

(03-31-2017 12:06 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(03-30-2017 11:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-30-2017 08:05 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(03-30-2017 07:22 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  ....... The new Texas leadership doesn’t have the West Coast preference that their leaders circa 2010 had, so any new deal with the Pac-12 seems to be out. At the same time, the SEC continues to be simply a non-starter for the Longhorns.

I don't like using the word "NEVER", but ... Texas will never join the SEC. They've always had the academic snob factor over the SEC. So that is strike 1, but maybe a bigger strike would be Texas A & M in the SEC.

So ... it's really only a 3 conference "race" ... and I think "going west" won't be something Texas want's to do .. so ... it's REALLY only ...

.... Big Ten versus ACC.

Or football independence. Which honestly plays to the ACC's advantage. As they can do the "Notre Dame deal".


Time will tell.

And yet they have been in talks with the SEC three times since just prior to the '92 expansion. What folks say and what they will do are often two different things separated only by a justification. And in the years that are ahead of us money may be all the justification they need. And if not that they could always say they joined the conference that would give their brother state school Texas Tech a home as well.

Suffice it to say that in politics, business, and conference realignment there are no gestalts.

But ... A & M Is in the SEC now. And the A & M - Longhorn rivalry is VERY real. Texas AIN'T going to the SEC ... EVER.

Also -- at the end of the day, Texas won't sacrifice itself, to save Texas Tech. Or any other school in the state of Texas. They look out for themselves first, period.

This is Exactly why you can't rule anything out!

(03-31-2017 02:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 12:06 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(03-30-2017 11:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-30-2017 08:05 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(03-30-2017 07:22 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  ....... The new Texas leadership doesn’t have the West Coast preference that their leaders circa 2010 had, so any new deal with the Pac-12 seems to be out. At the same time, the SEC continues to be simply a non-starter for the Longhorns.

I don't like using the word "NEVER", but ... Texas will never join the SEC. They've always had the academic snob factor over the SEC. So that is strike 1, but maybe a bigger strike would be Texas A & M in the SEC.

So ... it's really only a 3 conference "race" ... and I think "going west" won't be something Texas want's to do .. so ... it's REALLY only ...

.... Big Ten versus ACC.

Or football independence. Which honestly plays to the ACC's advantage. As they can do the "Notre Dame deal".


Time will tell.

And yet they have been in talks with the SEC three times since just prior to the '92 expansion. What folks say and what they will do are often two different things separated only by a justification. And in the years that are ahead of us money may be all the justification they need. And if not that they could always say they joined the conference that would give their brother state school Texas Tech a home as well.

Suffice it to say that in politics, business, and conference realignment there are no gestalts.

But ... A & M Is in the SEC now. And the A & M - Longhorn rivalry is VERY real. Texas AIN'T going to the SEC ... EVER.

Also -- at the end of the day, Texas won't sacrifice itself, to save Texas Tech. Or any other school in the state of Texas. They look out for themselves first, period.

This is Exactly why you can't rule anything out!

The SEC can be ruled out, because Texas A&M would block a Texas invite quicker than you can say "gig em aggies".

(03-31-2017 03:37 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 02:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 12:06 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(03-30-2017 11:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-30-2017 08:05 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  I don't like using the word "NEVER", but ... Texas will never join the SEC. They've always had the academic snob factor over the SEC. So that is strike 1, but maybe a bigger strike would be Texas A & M in the SEC.

So ... it's really only a 3 conference "race" ... and I think "going west" won't be something Texas want's to do .. so ... it's REALLY only ...

.... Big Ten versus ACC.

Or football independence. Which honestly plays to the ACC's advantage. As they can do the "Notre Dame deal".


Time will tell.

And yet they have been in talks with the SEC three times since just prior to the '92 expansion. What folks say and what they will do are often two different things separated only by a justification. And in the years that are ahead of us money may be all the justification they need. And if not that they could always say they joined the conference that would give their brother state school Texas Tech a home as well.

Suffice it to say that in politics, business, and conference realignment there are no gestalts.

But ... A & M Is in the SEC now. And the A & M - Longhorn rivalry is VERY real. Texas AIN'T going to the SEC ... EVER.

Also -- at the end of the day, Texas won't sacrifice itself, to save Texas Tech. Or any other school in the state of Texas. They look out for themselves first, period.

This is Exactly why you can't rule anything out!

The SEC can be ruled out, because Texas A&M would block a Texas invite quicker than you can say "gig em aggies".

Obviously you have no clue as to how the SEC presidents work, and they are the ones with the votes. No school can blackball another. The "gentlemen's agreement" as a coalition of Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina along with Texas A&M and / or Kentucky to keep fellow member schools from the same state out of the SEC is pure internet hooey! Always has been, and always will be! In 1992 Georgia was willing to sponsor Georgia Tech and Florida did nominate Florida State. Florida's president expressed a willingness to do the same again in 2011. That prompted Mike Slive to ask for a "Gentlemen's Agreement" not to nominate schools already within the footprint (now pay close attention here) until the requirement that was in the contract that said we could renegotiate our contract with the addition of two new markets was met. After that Slive said there would be no stipulations against nominating fellow in state schools and that they would be considered as everyone else would be which is based upon their worth to the conference.

Florida and South Carolina both wanted their in state rivals in the conference in 2011. The reason is a simple one. The more conferences expand the harder it is to hold a slot for your rival on the schedule. If they are in the conference the games are guaranteed in spite of realignment. Furthermore both South Carolina and Florida predicate their athletic donations on prioritizing who gets tickets to the Clemson and Florida State games. How do I know their presidents were concerned about this? I had family in the room at the time of the discussions.

Texas A&M would not block a Texas application. Their president might abstain from voting to save face with their T-shirt fans, but 4 votes would have to be against Texas before that could happen. There aren't 4 university presidents in the SEC who would vote against Texas because they all would covet the academic associations with the University of Texas. There aren't 4 athletic directors (and they don't vote) who decline them either because they would all love to have Texas on the schedule.

Texas was in heavy discussion with the SEC from 1989 through '91. They were in discussions again in 2010-1, and have been since.

Now I'm not saying that Texas won't consider the ACC, Big 10, or PAC because they can do anything they like, but what actually transpires between Texas and other conferences, including the SEC, clearly indicates that all options are on the table. They are merely seeking the best possible terms with as many perks as they can get if a move needs to happen.

But you can drop this Aggie will block them crap because it simply isn't so, and never was. Now the average mentality of a poster at SEC Rant might believe that, but that's not how the conference office, its bylaws on membership, or the actual process works. Texas is AAU, prestigious, and adds a lot of value, and if Bevo wanted in nobody at that presidents quorum would vote against them unless Texas was asking for something nobody else in the conference could have. We don't do special deals. Everyone is the same in privileges or they aren't part of us.

(03-31-2017 10:18 AM)green Wrote:  

(03-30-2017 01:33 PM)omniorange Wrote:  the ACC distributes it TV monies evenly and therefore would make allowing Texas keeping the LHN unlikely.

Still, I find it interesting that you ignored my overall point and didn't give any thoughts of your own as to why the ACC would allow the LHN to continue on as is despite a rivals reporter saying it was likely it would.


Cheers,
Neil

Of all the things I’ve been associated with in 32 years in Texas—starting the foundation, building facilities, all those things—the Longhorn Network, 10 years from now, will maybe be the biggest thing we did.

It’s just going to separate us from everybody else.

And I’m not saying the SEC or Big 10 or Pac 12 did the wrong things by doing a conference network, because they’re going to have a beautiful network, and it’s going to be a lot money. But Florida’s going to sit down there, and they’re going to be one-fourteenth of something. And Ohio State is going to be one-fourteenth of something and USC’s gonna be one-twelfth of something, and we’re going to be 100 percent.
-- DeLoss Dodds

I'm afraid the longhorn network is here to stay ...
but the league set a precedent for accepting uneven arrangements with notre dame's partial membership/full benefits ...
under certain circumstances ...

SUCK IT UP BUTTERCUP

Agree with your point that the league did accept uneven arrangements with ND. Which is why Texas to the ACC in a similar such deal is even discussed on these boards and my post showed how that will likely develop - Texas with a partial deal like ND and the LHN going away to become a Texas football only TV contract like ND's football TV contract with NBC.

But keep in mind the circumstances back then when ND was given their partial membership deal were hardly the conditions that exist now. The ACC was in a very precarious position back then and was perceived as the P5 conference most likely to implode - until the ND deal solidified the league.

So, under the current conditions, about the best Texas could do with the ACC at the moment is either the same type of deal (which would exclude an LHN, the main point of contention between us) or full membership with at least "friends" added to the league - something ND already had in place with the league when they joined in Pitt, BC, and SU (but again, no LHN since it would be folded into the ACCN).

As for your silly quotes from the Texas side of the LHN connection, here are some from a non-Texas viewpoint:

Given that ESPN has guaranteed Texas in the neighborhood of $15 million a year and the costs to launch and run the network were substantial, this also means ESPN has lost money every year the Longhorn Network has existed.

The launch of the Longhorn Network was such a disaster that ESPN used it as a road map for what not to do when they launched the SEC Network.

George Bodenheimer, the president of ESPN at the time of the Longhorn Network's launch, just wrote a great book about his tenure at ESPN...He covers just about every major decision that was made by the network over the past 35 years. He praises countless channel and product launches...He doesn't mention the Longhorn Network in the entire book. Not once.

That's because it's the worst television programming decision in ESPN history. The Longhorn Network has already cost ESPN tens of millions of dollars, and that cable money pit appears to have no end in sight. Sure, no one is watching. But even worse, no one is complaining because they aren't able to watch.

The Longhorn Network proves that in today's sports marketplace, there's no room for single-team channels. Despite all the pronouncements about how it was going to change college sports forever, in the end the Longhorn Network was all hat, no cattle.

Link to full article: LHN All Hat, No Cattle

Again, posted mainly as food for thought. But which viewpoint about the LHN is the more prevailing one throughout the nation?

Cheers,
Neil

Count me among those who think that the LHN exists primarily to keep Texas away from Fox.

Therefore, if Texas joined the ACC either all-in or as Notre Dame, there would be no justification for the LHN.

Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using CSNbbs mobile app

(03-31-2017 07:39 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Count me among those who think that the LHN exists primarily to keep Texas away from Fox.

Therefore, if Texas joined the ACC either all-in or as Notre Dame, there would be no justification for the LHN.

Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using CSNbbs mobile app

Mark they would simply convert it into another regional studio like Charlotte. I would think that both the SEC and ACC would use it and that Texas would be compensated for a % of the remaining contract either by reductions in the increase to the other teams in whatever conference they joined (and I do think it would have to be ESPN held) or ESPN might simply buy it out at a reduced rate. Either way it is a very workable situation.

It's just that I think optimally the Horns will want a couple of buddies. So if they joined as a partial it might make sense for the ACC to take two of those buddies as full members to 16. Then N.D. and U.T. could work whatever # of conference games they ultimately agree to play into your network whether that was just their road games or their road games and a dedicated home game.

I just don't see the Horns headed your way without regional/state buddies being part of the deal. Travel for their minor sports will need some more local venues besides their own to reduce overhead.

(03-31-2017 04:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 03:37 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 02:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 12:06 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(03-30-2017 11:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And yet they have been in talks with the SEC three times since just prior to the '92 expansion. What folks say and what they will do are often two different things separated only by a justification. And in the years that are ahead of us money may be all the justification they need. And if not that they could always say they joined the conference that would give their brother state school Texas Tech a home as well.

Suffice it to say that in politics, business, and conference realignment there are no gestalts.

But ... A & M Is in the SEC now. And the A & M - Longhorn rivalry is VERY real. Texas AIN'T going to the SEC ... EVER.

Also -- at the end of the day, Texas won't sacrifice itself, to save Texas Tech. Or any other school in the state of Texas. They look out for themselves first, period.

This is Exactly why you can't rule anything out!

The SEC can be ruled out, because Texas A&M would block a Texas invite quicker than you can say "gig em aggies".

Obviously you have no clue as to how the SEC presidents work, and they are the ones with the votes. No school can blackball another. The "gentlemen's agreement" as a coalition of Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina along with Texas A&M and / or Kentucky to keep fellow member schools from the same state out of the SEC is pure internet hooey! Always has been, and always will be! In 1992 Georgia was willing to sponsor Georgia Tech and Florida did nominate Florida State. Florida's president expressed a willingness to do the same again in 2011. That prompted Mike Slive to ask for a "Gentlemen's Agreement" not to nominate schools already within the footprint (now pay close attention here) until the requirement that was in the contract that said we could renegotiate our contract with the addition of two new markets was met. After that Slive said there would be no stipulations against nominating fellow in state schools and that they would be considered as everyone else would be which is based upon their worth to the conference.

Florida and South Carolina both wanted their in state rivals in the conference in 2011. The reason is a simple one. The more conferences expand the harder it is to hold a slot for your rival on the schedule. If they are in the conference the games are guaranteed in spite of realignment. Furthermore both South Carolina and Florida predicate their athletic donations on prioritizing who gets tickets to the Clemson and Florida State games. How do I know their presidents were concerned about this? I had family in the room at the time of the discussions.

Texas A&M would not block a Texas application. Their president might abstain from voting to save face with their T-shirt fans, but 4 votes would have to be against Texas before that could happen. There aren't 4 university presidents in the SEC who would vote against Texas because they all would covet the academic associations with the University of Texas. There aren't 4 athletic directors (and they don't vote) who decline them either because they would all love to have Texas on the schedule.

Texas was in heavy discussion with the SEC from 1989 through '91. They were in discussions again in 2010-1, and have been since.

Now I'm not saying that Texas won't consider the ACC, Big 10, or PAC because they can do anything they like, but what actually transpires between Texas and other conferences, including the SEC, clearly indicates that all options are on the table. They are merely seeking the best possible terms with as many perks as they can get if a move needs to happen.

But you can drop this Aggie will block them crap because it simply isn't so, and never was. Now the average mentality of a poster at SEC Rant might believe that, but that's not how the conference office, its bylaws on membership, or the actual process works. Texas is AAU, prestigious, and adds a lot of value, and if Bevo wanted in nobody at that presidents quorum would vote against them unless Texas was asking for something nobody else in the conference could have. We don't do special deals. Everyone is the same in privileges or they aren't part of us.

I don't need to know the rules of the SEC to know that Texas A & M and Texas will NEVER be in the same conference again .. EVER.

It has nothing to do with gentlemen's agreement.
It has nothing to do with markets.
It has nothing to do with university presidents.

It has EVERYTHING to do with the relationship between Texas and Texas A & M.

Now listen closely ...

A & M left the Big XII because of Texas.

Additionally ... Texas would never admit that A & M made a good move by making the same exact move themselves, years later. Especially when there are BETTER academic conferences to choose from.

Texas will NEVER join the SEC. EVER.

(03-31-2017 09:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 07:39 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Count me among those who think that the LHN exists primarily to keep Texas away from Fox.

Therefore, if Texas joined the ACC either all-in or as Notre Dame, there would be no justification for the LHN.

Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using CSNbbs mobile app

Mark they would simply convert it into another regional studio like Charlotte. I would think that both the SEC and ACC would use it and that Texas would be compensated for a % of the remaining contract either by reductions in the increase to the other teams in whatever conference they joined (and I do think it would have to be ESPN held) or ESPN might simply buy it out at a reduced rate. Either way it is a very workable situation.

It's just that I think optimally the Horns will want a couple of buddies. So if they joined as a partial it might make sense for the ACC to take two of those buddies as full members to 16. Then N.D. and U.T. could work whatever # of conference games they ultimately agree to play into your network whether that was just their road games or their road games and a dedicated home game.

I just don't see the Horns headed your way without regional/state buddies being part of the deal. Travel for their minor sports will need some more local venues besides their own to reduce overhead.

Agreed. Which also would restrict the ACC in terms of expansion now if they are indeed waiting on Texas.

Cheers,
Neil