From Chadd Scott...

Dodds and UT wanted to punish A&M for leaving the Big 12

In fairness, this is coming from the perspective of one man, but it's possible that this is entirely true.

IF so then I suggest we bypass adding Texas should the opportunity present itself. If UT and A&M are incapable of getting along then we run the risk of sowing the seeds of discord that could cause far more harm than good.

I think Oklahoma and Oklahoma State should still be a priority for a lot of reasons. Kansas, West Virginia, and TCU have something to offer if we go beyond that.

I couldn't care less who a conference adds but I just don't see how the benefits Texas brings outweigh the detrimental effects of having the Longhorns. Even if the benefits were more, are the negatives really worth having?

(07-16-2017 11:09 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  From Chadd Scott...

Dodds and UT wanted to punish A&M for leaving the Big 12

In fairness, this is coming from the perspective of one man, but it's possible that this is entirely true.

IF so then I suggest we bypass adding Texas should the opportunity present itself. If UT and A&M are incapable of getting along then we run the risk of sowing the seeds of discord that could cause far more harm than good.

I think Oklahoma and Oklahoma State should still be a priority for a lot of reasons. Kansas, West Virginia, and TCU have something to offer if we go beyond that.

A&M isn't the only school that Texas is incapable of getting along with. Plus they will be looking for a special deal that neither the SEC nor the B1G will offer. We will see if the ACC or PAC are willing to do so. If not they will just take more money from the little 8 leftovers and keep the XII going.

(07-17-2017 05:10 AM)reick Wrote:  

(07-16-2017 11:09 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  From Chadd Scott...

Dodds and UT wanted to punish A&M for leaving the Big 12

In fairness, this is coming from the perspective of one man, but it's possible that this is entirely true.

IF so then I suggest we bypass adding Texas should the opportunity present itself. If UT and A&M are incapable of getting along then we run the risk of sowing the seeds of discord that could cause far more harm than good.

I think Oklahoma and Oklahoma State should still be a priority for a lot of reasons. Kansas, West Virginia, and TCU have something to offer if we go beyond that.

A&M isn't the only school that Texas is incapable of getting along with. Plus they will be looking for a special deal that neither the SEC nor the B1G will offer. We will see if the ACC or PAC are willing to do so. If not they will just take more money from the little 8 leftovers and keep the XII going.

I think the PAC has more to lose by not giving in to more of Texas' demands. The PAC has far fewer decent options in realignment.

I don't know how true this is

While their fans might try to bluster about "you left so never again" I'm pretty sure that if we offered a home and home to Baylor, Tech or TCU their AD couldn't sign the contract quick enough.

UT is a little different. Like in all things they only want things on their terms and compromise is a foreign concept.

On the one hand their AD wants the series back because they have no guranteed marquee rivalry games at DKR right now. This year's home schedule is a good example:

Maryland
San Jose State
Kansas State
Oklahoma State
Kansas
Texas Tech

Not exactly must see FB. 3 stinkers and 3 "classic B12" games...by which I mean games against an opponent like OSU or TT who are good enough to beat you but if you win, no one cares because no one respects their program and if you lose it looks really bad because no one respects their programs so it's a lose lose proposition for any name brand team. There's also not a single true rivalry game (no, Tech is not a real rivalry to UT) they can only tie so many ticket packages to the OU game

So of course the UT AD would love A&M back on but the ego simply won't allow it. The only way it would happen is for 1) UT to be back to form and A&M in a slump so they were sure they'd likely win and 2) some form of prostration by A&M. IOW they would demand a narrative where they don't care or want it but A&M just begged and begged because they are just soooo obsessed with UT and can't live without them. The ultimate form of this would be an A&M legislator filing a bill that required the game be played so they can claim for all eternity that they are FORCED to play this horrible game they don't care about against their will.

Obviously for us, this drama queen BS requirement from them means we tell them they can go eff off and the game can rot

(07-17-2017 10:29 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  I don't know how true this is

While their fans might try to bluster about "you left so never again" I'm pretty sure that if we offered a home and home to Baylor, Tech or TCU their AD couldn't sign the contract quick enough.

UT is a little different. Like in all things they only want things on their terms and compromise is a foreign concept.

On the one hand their AD wants the series back because they have no guranteed marquee rivalry games at DKR right now. This year's home schedule is a good example:

Maryland
San Jose State
Kansas State
Oklahoma State
Kansas
Texas Tech

Not exactly must see FB. 3 stinkers and 3 "classic B12" games...by which I mean games against an opponent like OSU or TT who are good enough to beat you but if you win, no one cares because no one respects their program and if you lose it looks really bad because no one respects their programs so it's a lose lose proposition for any name brand team. There's also not a single true rivalry game (no, Tech is not a real rivalry to UT) they can only tie so many ticket packages to the OU game

So of course the UT AD would love A&M back on but the ego simply won't allow it. The only way it would happen is for 1) UT to be back to form and A&M in a slump so they were sure they'd likely win and 2) some form of prostration by A&M. IOW they would demand a narrative where they don't care or want it but A&M just begged and begged because they are just soooo obsessed with UT and can't live without them. The ultimate form of this would be an A&M legislator filing a bill that required the game be played so they can claim for all eternity that they are FORCED to play this horrible game they don't care about against their will.

Obviously for us, this drama queen BS requirement from them means we tell them they can go eff off and the game can rot

I was just wondering why no one suggested Texas Tech for expansion. Sure they aren't Texas or Oklahoma but they are decent with a decent following that has shown potential in the past. It's no home run add but I think it would be decent. Obviously their academics are not what you would want but they are similar to Louisville. I know I wouldn't mind seeing a Tech game. Just wondering since it's the offseason.

(07-17-2017 11:27 AM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(07-17-2017 10:29 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  I don't know how true this is

While their fans might try to bluster about "you left so never again" I'm pretty sure that if we offered a home and home to Baylor, Tech or TCU their AD couldn't sign the contract quick enough.

UT is a little different. Like in all things they only want things on their terms and compromise is a foreign concept.

On the one hand their AD wants the series back because they have no guranteed marquee rivalry games at DKR right now. This year's home schedule is a good example:

Maryland
San Jose State
Kansas State
Oklahoma State
Kansas
Texas Tech

Not exactly must see FB. 3 stinkers and 3 "classic B12" games...by which I mean games against an opponent like OSU or TT who are good enough to beat you but if you win, no one cares because no one respects their program and if you lose it looks really bad because no one respects their programs so it's a lose lose proposition for any name brand team. There's also not a single true rivalry game (no, Tech is not a real rivalry to UT) they can only tie so many ticket packages to the OU game

So of course the UT AD would love A&M back on but the ego simply won't allow it. The only way it would happen is for 1) UT to be back to form and A&M in a slump so they were sure they'd likely win and 2) some form of prostration by A&M. IOW they would demand a narrative where they don't care or want it but A&M just begged and begged because they are just soooo obsessed with UT and can't live without them. The ultimate form of this would be an A&M legislator filing a bill that required the game be played so they can claim for all eternity that they are FORCED to play this horrible game they don't care about against their will.

Obviously for us, this drama queen BS requirement from them means we tell them they can go eff off and the game can rot

I was just wondering why no one suggested Texas Tech for expansion. Sure they aren't Texas or Oklahoma but they are decent with a decent following that has shown potential in the past. It's no home run add but I think it would be decent. Obviously their academics are not what you would want but they are similar to Louisville. I know I wouldn't mind seeing a Tech game. Just wondering since it's the offseason.

Location, doesn't offer anything A&M already delivers. Academics aren't the greatest, not a huge draw on schedule.

Exactly

Tech offers very little. Their academics are mediocre, their market share is mediocre and their sports are mediocre to bad right now outside of baseball. People forget that they are only in the P5 because they were lucky enough to have an influential alumni in power at the time to play politics for them. IOW it would be like East Carolina using politics to force its way into the ACC

The only reason they get mentioned in realignment is that UT likes having them around as a reliable henchman/stooge that is can't survive without UTs patronage and so they will always vote the way they're told and is an especially easy win for UT in almost everything.

Of course, there is the influence of ESPN and the leash they currently have on Texas. Personally, I think ESPN would rather Texas end up in the SEC or ACC. Can't see a reason why they would want anything else. And ESPN will certainly have their say.

SEC membership would make for the best match-ups, no doubt. Texas in the ACC would strengthen that league(and the investment), but it would also be a heck of a travel schedule.

Now, the 3rd option that's been discussed has been Texas rebuilding a Big 12 with leftovers...perhaps even something as small as 8 schools to allow flexibility for them in OOC play. Logistically, it works. I think the question for Texas is...what do they value most?

If they most cherish their fiefdom then we may see the SWC 2.0 after all. Let's say ESPN allows something akin to this...

Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Houston, BYU, Kansas State, and Iowa State

That's a fairly solid 8 that would allow Texas to play mostly regional schools while also having the flexibility to keep the RRR and perhaps even play Notre Dame annually. That gives them 3 more games to schedule whatever they want.

Now, I think the LHN contract runs through 2031 if I'm not mistaken. ESPN could offer a network option on an extension of the contract. At that point, you could give this experiment 6-10 years from the time the Big 12 ceases to exist in order to figure out if its valuable or if it's going to knock UT down to size. I think it would be the latter.

If UT is diminished then they may be more amenable to playing nice with others. So the long term reset for UT might occur later than it does for everyone else. That's just me spitballing though.

Point being, if a SWC 2.0 did arise then I don't think it would last long because the value wouldn't be there. For Texas though, they might have to learn that lesson the hard way. Perhaps they would have to experience life without both OU and A&M in order to be humbled a little bit.

(07-17-2017 01:42 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Of course, there is the influence of ESPN and the leash they currently have on Texas. Personally, I think ESPN would rather Texas end up in the SEC or ACC. Can't see a reason why they would want anything else. And ESPN will certainly have their say.

SEC membership would make for the best match-ups, no doubt. Texas in the ACC would strengthen that league(and the investment), but it would also be a heck of a travel schedule.

Now, the 3rd option that's been discussed has been Texas rebuilding a Big 12 with leftovers...perhaps even something as small as 8 schools to allow flexibility for them in OOC play. Logistically, it works. I think the question for Texas is...what do they value most?

If they most cherish their fiefdom then we may see the SWC 2.0 after all. Let's say ESPN allows something akin to this...

Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Houston, BYU, Kansas State, and Iowa State

That's a fairly solid 8 that would allow Texas to play mostly regional schools while also having the flexibility to keep the RRR and perhaps even play Notre Dame annually. That gives them 3 more games to schedule whatever they want.

Now, I think the LHN contract runs through 2031 if I'm not mistaken. ESPN could offer a network option on an extension of the contract. At that point, you could give this experiment 6-10 years from the time the Big 12 ceases to exist in order to figure out if its valuable or if it's going to knock UT down to size. I think it would be the latter.

If UT is diminished then they may be more amenable to playing nice with others. So the long term reset for UT might occur later than it does for everyone else. That's just me spitballing though.

Point being, if a SWC 2.0 did arise then I don't think it would last long because the value wouldn't be there. For Texas though, they might have to learn that lesson the hard way. Perhaps they would have to experience life without both OU and A&M in order to be humbled a little bit.

A rebuilt SWC/B12 could benefit Texas the most. Regional travel for Olympic sports. Having about half their schedule being nonconf would allow UT to schedule OU and other quality opponents.

I agree with your schools except I would remove Houston as UT-A does not get along with the cougars. Plus that means only 6 conference games. TV money could be split evenly for B12 games, but schools keep their own nonconf games' money. Playoff and Bowl games can be agreed upon later. That could create enough money for UT to stay competitive.

(07-17-2017 02:05 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(07-17-2017 01:42 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Of course, there is the influence of ESPN and the leash they currently have on Texas. Personally, I think ESPN would rather Texas end up in the SEC or ACC. Can't see a reason why they would want anything else. And ESPN will certainly have their say.

SEC membership would make for the best match-ups, no doubt. Texas in the ACC would strengthen that league(and the investment), but it would also be a heck of a travel schedule.

Now, the 3rd option that's been discussed has been Texas rebuilding a Big 12 with leftovers...perhaps even something as small as 8 schools to allow flexibility for them in OOC play. Logistically, it works. I think the question for Texas is...what do they value most?

If they most cherish their fiefdom then we may see the SWC 2.0 after all. Let's say ESPN allows something akin to this...

Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Houston, BYU, Kansas State, and Iowa State

That's a fairly solid 8 that would allow Texas to play mostly regional schools while also having the flexibility to keep the RRR and perhaps even play Notre Dame annually. That gives them 3 more games to schedule whatever they want.

Now, I think the LHN contract runs through 2031 if I'm not mistaken. ESPN could offer a network option on an extension of the contract. At that point, you could give this experiment 6-10 years from the time the Big 12 ceases to exist in order to figure out if its valuable or if it's going to knock UT down to size. I think it would be the latter.

If UT is diminished then they may be more amenable to playing nice with others. So the long term reset for UT might occur later than it does for everyone else. That's just me spitballing though.

Point being, if a SWC 2.0 did arise then I don't think it would last long because the value wouldn't be there. For Texas though, they might have to learn that lesson the hard way. Perhaps they would have to experience life without both OU and A&M in order to be humbled a little bit.

A rebuilt SWC/B12 could benefit Texas the most. Regional travel for Olympic sports. Having about half their schedule being nonconf would allow UT to schedule OU and other quality opponents.

I agree with your schools except I would remove Houston as UT-A does not get along with the cougars. Plus that means only 6 conference games. TV money could be split evenly for B12 games, but schools keep their own nonconf games' money. Playoff and Bowl games can be agreed upon later. That could create enough money for UT to stay competitive.

I understand why people say they would stay in a rebuilt conference, but the won't. ATU is correct in that ESPN will want them placed where they add content value and most likely either in the SEC or ACC.

I can't emphasize enough that the market model is dead. Streaming means only content adds value. Texas would find it extremely difficult to monetize a bunch of games the nation would not care about.

That's why Texas will move to be Independent. They will dump every other sport into the AAC. By doing this, Texas could actually have a great football schedule with most games being viewed through LHN. They could easily sign long term deals with BYU, New Mexico, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech. Heck, Both Arkansas and A&M could be persuaded into signing deals. Especially Arkansas. We like playing Texas and Texas A&M. After that it is just a mixed bag of various FBS programs.

(07-18-2017 09:54 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  That's why Texas will move to be Independent. They will dump every other sport into the AAC. By doing this, Texas could actually have a great football schedule with most games being viewed through LHN. They could easily sign long term deals with BYU, New Mexico, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech. Heck, Both Arkansas and A&M could be persuaded into signing deals. Especially Arkansas. We like playing Texas and Texas A&M. After that it is just a mixed bag of various FBS programs.

Well they would have plenty of Texas schools in the AAC to choose from at that point. S.M.U., T.C.U., Baylor, and Houston could all be part of a 5 game agreement with the AAC. So I'd say it was feasible.

(07-18-2017 10:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 09:54 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  That's why Texas will move to be Independent. They will dump every other sport into the AAC. By doing this, Texas could actually have a great football schedule with most games being viewed through LHN. They could easily sign long term deals with BYU, New Mexico, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech. Heck, Both Arkansas and A&M could be persuaded into signing deals. Especially Arkansas. We like playing Texas and Texas A&M. After that it is just a mixed bag of various FBS programs.

Well they would have plenty of Texas schools in the AAC to choose from at that point. S.M.U., T.C.U., Baylor, and Houston could all be part of a 5 game agreement with the AAC. So I'd say it was feasible.

AAC would give UT local and eastern exposure. Well the old Big East had the original Norte Dame deal, so this could work out.

The money would be pretty weak in the AAC though.

I think a partial membership in the ACC would be more likely than that.

(07-18-2017 10:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 09:54 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  That's why Texas will move to be Independent. They will dump every other sport into the AAC. By doing this, Texas could actually have a great football schedule with most games being viewed through LHN. They could easily sign long term deals with BYU, New Mexico, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech. Heck, Both Arkansas and A&M could be persuaded into signing deals. Especially Arkansas. We like playing Texas and Texas A&M. After that it is just a mixed bag of various FBS programs.

Well they would have plenty of Texas schools in the AAC to choose from at that point. S.M.U., T.C.U., Baylor, and Houston could all be part of a 5 game agreement with the AAC. So I'd say it was feasible.

Texas does have games scheduled with South Florida in'20, '22, & '24 and Central Florida in '23 for Florida exposure.
Maryland, LSU, Ohio State and Michigan are scheduled for national exposure and Rice for a Texas cream puff.

(07-17-2017 05:10 AM)reick Wrote:  

(07-16-2017 11:09 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  From Chadd Scott...

Dodds and UT wanted to punish A&M for leaving the Big 12

In fairness, this is coming from the perspective of one man, but it's possible that this is entirely true.

IF so then I suggest we bypass adding Texas should the opportunity present itself. If UT and A&M are incapable of getting along then we run the risk of sowing the seeds of discord that could cause far more harm than good.

I think Oklahoma and Oklahoma State should still be a priority for a lot of reasons. Kansas, West Virginia, and TCU have something to offer if we go beyond that.

A&M isn't the only school that Texas is incapable of getting along with. Plus they will be looking for a special deal that neither the SEC nor the B1G will offer. We will see if the ACC or PAC are willing to do so. If not they will just take more money from the little 8 leftovers and keep the XII going.

I can think of four off hand. It must have been bad enough to create conference changes.

I feel like ESPN will offer the ACC a sweet deal to take Texas in a Notre Dame type arrangement, but I'm not sure the league will bite - nor am I 100% sure I'd want them to! I like the idea of adding another national brand, but boy are there a lot of strings attached!

(07-19-2017 09:18 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I feel like ESPN will offer the ACC a sweet deal to take Texas in a Notre Dame type arrangement, but I'm not sure the league will bite - nor am I 100% sure I'd want them to! I like the idea of adding another national brand, but boy are there a lot of strings attached!

Eventually Florida State and Clemson are going to balk at more sweetheart deals.

I really think that West Virginia and Notre Dame just need to join in full.

That gives you contiguity, the branding you need, and in West Virginia a school that boosts all 3 major sports in competitiveness. (Just buy stock in sofas.)

(07-19-2017 09:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 09:18 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I feel like ESPN will offer the ACC a sweet deal to take Texas in a Notre Dame type arrangement, but I'm not sure the league will bite - nor am I 100% sure I'd want them to! I like the idea of adding another national brand, but boy are there a lot of strings attached!

Eventually Florida State and Clemson are going to balk at more sweetheart deals.

I really think that West Virginia and Notre Dame just need to join in full.

That gives you contiguity, the branding you need, and in West Virginia a school that boosts all 3 major sports in competitiveness. (Just buy stock in sofas.)

That would be my preference also.