(05-02-2018 05:01 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 04:13 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 03:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 01:05 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If Texas was going to bother with AAC schools then the simplest thing to do would be to add a few to the existing Big 12 framework for the purpose of filling out a league. There's no reason to "join" the American.

Texas takes in about as much T3 money as the entire AAC makes in aggregate.

I don't think it's that likely even if they took that route. Some other league will take the aforementioned TX schools and both the brand power and money will be better.

If Oklahoma is going to leave, which is the assumption, why oh why would Tejas want to keep Iowa State, and Kansas State on it's schedule? Kansas, Oklahoma State, Give me a break.
The old Big 8 schools (minus Oklahoma) hold nothing for Tejas. It's also not necessary to recreate a conference when there is already one taylor made for the Horns, that would accommodate them and their pals for less money expended by ESPN, plus they could keep the LHN. Your lucky that Tejas would condescend to play Missouri if they joined the SEC as a partial.

Yeah, that doesn't make a lick of sense.

Why would Texas look to throw in with the AAC? Outside of maybe 3 or 4 schools, who in that conference would they ever remotely care about playing? Who would sell tickets?

I could see Texas interested in playing Houston, but you don't need to join the AAC to make that happen. Just ask UH to join you and it's a slam dunk. UCF or USF? That's a maybe and UT could get some recruiting value out of playing in FL regularly, but again, just ask them to join you.

I'll be generous and say SMU might have some sentimental value, but why join a league with them? That's wholly unnecessary to play a school like that. As it stands, UT could have SMU play in Austin every single season if they wanted. Texas already left them behind once to join the very Big 8 schools that you say they have no interest in playing.

The old Big 8 schools are not high on Texas' priority, granted, but at least those schools have some decent sized fan bases. Adding the current TX schools to the AAC wouldn't be a motivating factor. They'll stick with Texas no matter where they go.

While it's true that ESPN would love to spend less money, that's not exactly going to be a selling point for Texas.

ESPN: "Hey Horns, how about you go over here so we can pay you less money and still get all your content."

Texas: "Um...no."

Not all partial relationships are the same. Notre Dame plays 5 games a year in the ACC, this includes playing every school in the conference at least once every three years. Before they agreed to this plan, the ACC offered them a package where the Irish would play six games a year including permanent yearly contests with Pitt and Boston College while rotating the other 4.
The point is this; if Tejas enters into a partial relationship (or if you prefer to call it a scheduling agreement), I believe it will be with selected teams (just like the deal Notre Dame was offered). So whether it is the PAC, SEC or American the bulk of "conference" games will be against teams of Tejas choosing. So in the American Tejas could play every year Houston, SMU, Baylor, Texas Tech, and TCU, plus attach their non-revenue sports to the American west where they will have familiar foes and minimal travel.
The American with Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU and West Virginia with Texas as a partial would have at least as much of a claim of being a "P" conference as the PAC based on recent performance.
Tejas has enough clout and can generate enough income to pull this off. And who does it help? ESPN. And just who has the marketing muscle to make the country believe the American has graduated into a "P" conference? ESPN.
It would cross pollinate the ACC, SEC and American in the majority of the country that cares about watching college football (and baseball). And all of this is regardless of what Oklahoma and Kansas do.
Get out of the box you are trying to put realignment in and think of strategies that ESPN might employ to solidify their markets and inventory for another 20 years. Even a brand like Oklahoma will fade in a market like Dallas over time without exposure. How many fans in Indiana, North Carolina or Kentucky would pay to stream Kansas basketball?
You guys can pooh-pooh all you like, but the next phase of realignment is not about the schools, it's about the networks (ESPN/FOX) and how they can secure and solidify their positions for the foreseeable future.

Marty! You're not thinking 4th dimensionally!

I doubt that Texas wants a partial agreement in the first place, but if they did then there's no still reason to leave the Big 12. They could get precisely the same arrangement with their current league and most of those schools would be happy to take it.

All they have to do is invite a couple of American schools to fill the numbers out. Simpler and far more effective.

ESPN's not going to be crazy about putting Texas into the American for several reasons, but one of them is that if UT is a partial then there's very little upside to most AAC games. You could theorize that the AAC would get a lot more play with UT and a few Texas schools on board, but if UT is only playing a handful and most of those are the games they were already playing then where's the gain? Texas as a full member would add a lot of value to the AAC, but as a partial...what's the point? None of those other AAC games are going to become interesting to a wider audience.