(05-09-2017 02:09 PM)Lou_C Wrote: It's very hard for me to imagine Texas landing in the ACC without state partners. There's political considerations that would be unbearable, and just the flat out fact that they would be so on an island.
I don't think the ACC is going to get Texas, but if I did, I think it would be a brokered deal with ESPN and the SEC that sent OU and OSU to the SEC and Texas and TT to the ACC. If they really wanted to break the Big 12's GOR (by having 8 vote to resolve the Big 12), they could potentially do Texas, TT, TCU, KSU to the ACC, and OU, OSU, Kansas, and WVU to the SEC. There are a lot of things about that which are crazy, but also a lot of things that make a ton of sense. A lot of rivalries would be preserved or renewed, the two conferences would share two major bowls, and most importantly, it would totally checkmate any future realignment additions of any consequence at all by the B1G and PAC.
I think Texas could get away with leaving Baylor behind as tainted as they are right now. They might be able to leave TCU behind if ND was willing to take that spot. But that only places 7 of the Big 12 schools, so you're waiting out the GOR in that case.
I don't think that's going to happen, but it makes some sense and has some plausibility.
There really are no political considerations. With TAMU in the SEC, nobody wanting TTech, Baylor and TCU religiously affiliated schools and SMU, Rice and Houston in the G5, who is going to force UT to do anything. TAMU would help UT get what they want, there is no incentive for TAMU to fight over what is a non-issue to them.
Baylor has little influence in State politics, as opposed to when Ann Richards was governor (when the Big 12 formed). TCU has no influence of note. U of H is a far more desirable University that TTU, plus Lubbock is in the middle of nowhere - you may as well invite the PAC, Hawaii and U's of Tokyo, Shanghai, and a few others because they have potential for growth in their markets, but not Lubbock.
It is likely that UT is waiting to see if there is a viable option of keeping the Big 12 together (add teams, a defection or two from a P5, Hillary Clinton to stop sounding shrill, Trump to keep his mouth shut, Al Qaeda to befriend Israel, Putin to to be nice to Russians, essentially the impossible). If not, then UT will be flying to lots of places they would rather not, though, these places are likely to be better destinations that they currently are traveling to:
Currently:
Lubbock
Iowa (I have driven through Iowa twice, that's three times too many)
Manhattan (the little apple, not the Big Apple)
Stillwater (the name says it all)
(I leave off OU/Norman because the game is played annually in Dallas)
SEC:
Gulf Coast schools
Atlantic Coast schools
Alabama
College Station (easy drive, they hate each other, great for TV)
PAC 12:
California (X4!)
Arizona
Washington (O.K. Maybe not, and having to go to to Oregon would negate and Washington benefit)
Colorado (the mountains, something few Texans ever really get to see) negated by Utah (cool mountains, not as much revelry as Texans tend to like)
B1G:
A few good for TV games but weak on destinations
Rutgers (close to NYC, but they would have to attend a game in a cesspool of waste)
Columbus is close to the NFL HoF and the USAF museum
ACC:
East Coast from Beantown to Miami
Several made for TV games
Every team located close enough to things to do (can make a long weekend for an away game trip)
Great hoops
Best lacrosse (UT has a good club team!)
Excellent baseball conference (as s the SEC)
Playing in Pitt would be better than Morgantown because they would lose the 90 minute bus ride from Pitt to Morgantown plus be in a bigger city
The LHN has proven that UT cannot go solo. They lack the cache (not the cash) to go solo and they have always enjoyed being in a conference. The issue is which conference to join.