(01-30-2020 08:53 PM)JRsec Wrote: (01-30-2020 07:41 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote: (01-30-2020 12:03 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: This thought occurred to me the other day so I figured I'd toss it out there.
What if Texas is carving a path to independence?
You've got Boise State suing the Mountain West and apparently looking to exit if it's feasible. Makes sense that if they're exploring options then they might just have a better one. Otherwise there's not much reason in exploring. The American is a possibility, but the money wouldn't be that much better and even then they can probably only join in football. The travel costs alone might cancel out most of the benefit.
What if there's some sort of backroom working that is leading them to the Big 12? Perhaps along with current independent BYU?
That potentiality was brought up to me the other day and it got me thinking.
What if Texas is interested in adding some schools to the Big 12 in order to hedge their bets? They could be interested in putting ESPN in an awkward position. For one, adding 2 schools to the Big 12 so close to the end of the GOR might make life more difficult for ESPN. It means they have more mouths to feed for a little bit, more pieces on the board as they try to work a solution for all the products, and it creates leverage for Texas for those reasons.
So why would Texas need leverage? Don't they already have a good bit and wouldn't ESPN be interested in giving them most anything they want? Maybe not.
Maybe Texas simply doesn't want to be in another conference full time. Membership in the ACC(full or partial) doesn't make sense. The PAC wouldn't be profitable. The Big Ten is too far and going to the SEC would be a blow to their pride as they want to view themselves as superior to A&M if for no other reason.
And maybe it's as simple as Texas still likes controlling the Big 12 and they don't want the conference to dissipate in any fashion. The question is why would that be a concern? At least enough of a concern that it would encourage a fairly uncharacteristic set of decisions?
The reality is that the Big 12 is going to change one way or the other. Either the league will be parsed out or severely weakened. The money difference is too great and there are a few attractive products that are likely to head elsewhere near the end of the GOR. Texas can't stop that without guaranteeing much larger payouts and that's not going to happen. They can't recruit other P5 products in the current environment and even if they could, it would take a lot of work to get up to the level of the SEC and Big Ten. That all limits the options Texas has available to them if their interest is to maintain some semblance of the status quo.
A move that puts Boise State and BYU in the Big 12 is interesting for several reasons. It gives Texas the ability to play hardball with ESPN and if everything doesn't work out precisely like UT wants then they still have 2 fairly solid options to replace departing members. BTW, that also means they have 2 fairly solid options that would owe their elevated status directly to Texas. And I think that's really where we're going...
Oklahoma and Kansas have suitors and more money available to them. They're as good as gone unless the networks make their payouts more in line with the SEC or Big Ten. Not going to happen though as the Big 12 simply isn't worth that kind of money. So would ESPN rather allow them to go to the Big Ten where they lose some content while also weakening the value of the Big 12 that they've invested in(likely for content purposes)? It's easier and more profitable to move them to the SEC where they would have full control.
Given that potentiality, Texas is on an island and will be forced into doing something they would prefer not to do. Well, that's not UT's style. They want to run the show, not be forced into a corner. So they could do something drastic. The safest and potentially most profitable thing for them to do is move to independence. Leave their basketball and Olympic sports in the Big 12 while maintaining the LHN and granting a new Tier 1 contract to ESPN. They could maintain maybe 4 football games with the Big 12, keep Oklahoma on their schedule, make more room for A&M, and also give themselves the space to travel to other locales more often. That and they don't have to give up all those games against in-state opponents.
So helping BYU and Boise State into the Big 12 helps fill a content gap should Oklahoma and Kansas leave. It helps stabilize a conference that Texas isn't ready to part with. It could look like this...
Boise State, BYU, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, and West Virginia
Texas as a partial along with the strategic additions keeps the Big 12 payouts at a reasonable amount albeit lower than their current contract. They could play a round robin with 8 league games and still play a CCG for a little extra cash. Reducing the number of conference games would also free up their members to schedule more big games in non-conference. That's a tactic that the SEC and ACC have taken full advantage of while other leagues have been slow to realize this.
The underrated feature here is that the Big 12 remains viable and that allows the political cover needed for Oklahoma and Kansas to leave. There's also no need for Texas to bring tag-alongs or concern themselves with picking over who gets relegated or not because their fellow instate schools are preserved. Nonetheless, they are preserved in a way that reduces their status when compared to UT themselves.
Oklahoma gets more money and doesn't have to play 2nd fiddle any longer. Texas A&M also makes plenty of money and doesn't have to worry about being slighted in conference matters as UT does not follow them. Conversely, Texas can still maintain an illusion of superiority in independence while also maximizing their media revenue through a top notch Tier 1 contract that ESPN will probably be happy to pony up for. If for no other reason, that approach would save ESPN money as they don't have to pay the rest of the Big 12 as much, but they still get viable content that can be marketed as a "power" league all the while getting access to basically every game Texas is involved in.
Likely as well, ESPN gets full control of the Big 12 at the end of the current contract. FOX has more or less already abandoned them. That not only replaces some of the games ESPN lost in recent years, but it allows a similar dynamic to what we're seeing between the SEC and ACC. More non-conference games can be scheduled against each other because there's a single master pulling the puppets' strings. That's yet more content for ESPN. I think you'd see Texas and Texas A&M come back, but you'd also see a lot of other games between the 3 leagues. That keeps the match-ups fresh and the schedules flexible.
The Sugar Bowl is still viable if Texas is allowed a tie-in and why wouldn't they? The SEC/Big 12 Challenge is still viable too.
No waves need be made. No hard decisions for anyone. No real sacrifices. Just a few inconvenient transitions into a more stable future where basically everyone is better off.
I've some theories on what would happen with the Big Ten and other leagues should this materialize, but I'll save that for another post.
If Texas pressed hard for Big12 expansion, the conference would add members. The problem is that none of the G5 schools are particularly appealing. Boise State and BYU each have drawbacks, some that are similar, some different. Before, they rejected UCF and USF, schools in a lucrative market that have top fb attendance figures in the G5 with good sports facilities. Cincinnati, Tulane, Houston, SMU, Memphis, and a few others, were also rejected a few years ago.
This has been mentioned during the last couple of years, even by a few PAC12 figures: Do some form of consolidation/assimilation with the PAC12, then divide into two co-op conferences or 2 to 3 largely autonomous divisions that could add a couple/few schools, such as Air Force and UNM, that are not currently in either the B12 or PAC12.
I am not necessarily advocating for the above, but it could place all current B12 and PAC12 members in a new design, with the exception of WVU that needs to go to the ACC.
ATU was more correct with the other thread. It's the ACC that keeps us from having at least 3 competitive conferences. It's much easier to build a strong conference around Texas and Oklahoma than it is to do it around UNC, Duke, and UVa.
There are three significant issues with regard to building that type of conference around Texas and Oklahoma. It works on paper, but there are very good reasons it hasn't already happened.
1. The ACC power vortex or whatever we want to call it is still running through North Carolina(all 4 schools to varying degrees) and to a lesser extent, Virginia. They won't tolerate being in a league with both the bloc of Florida State and Clemson and simultaneously the bloc of Texas and Oklahoma. I know that was the point in moving the legacy schools out to the SEC and Big Ten, but the problem is they have to voluntarily abandon their power vortex for it all to work.
I don't see it. Those schools built the ACC from the ground up and they appear to enjoy running the show. Parse them out anywhere else and they immediately lose influence. Yes, they would make more money, but they would have made more money several years ago and they still wanted to maintain their core within the framework of the ACC.
I do agree with you that UNC and Duke would probably head to the SEC if push came to shove, but the ACC has to be disintegrating basically. The threat of that is what made them look elsewhere last time. If the ACC is viable then I don't think they even consider abandoning ship.
Texas clearly likes running the show as well, but they are so much more valuable than the other schools around them that it forces the economics to work differently. The other Big 12 schools, with the exception of Oklahoma, have no ability to anchor a profitable conference. Texas leaves their familiar bed and they lose influence too, but not as much. They'll bring so much value to any suitor that they immediately wield a decent amount of influence just by showing up.
More to the point, despite this reality, their options are limited because most of the valuable pieces left voluntarily for greener pastures. In other words, Texas can't ensure the viability of the Big 12 with their own efforts. It will crumble or weaken no matter what they do. If they leave then they don't have as much to lose. If they stay in some capacity then their status doesn't drastically change because the Big 12 pieces are mostly weaker in comparison to UT.
UNC and company on the other hand are not in the same stratosphere with Texas and Oklahoma. They leave their familiar bed and they get downgraded big time. They'll make more money, but they will trade a lot of comfort and influence in order to get it. The average threshold, if you will, within the ACC is at much more of an equilibrium. UNC and company are not even the most valuable pieces and they aren't that much more valuable than the average ACC school.
2. If Florida State and Clemson were made to change conferences then I can't see them not pushing for the SEC instead. Their rivals are there and other fairly familiar regional rivals are right down the road. They'd make a ton of money in the SEC and they'd be with more familiar schools as opposed to their current ACC brethren. This sort of sentiment probably applies to a handful of other ACC schools as well.
They almost got out in 2011, and I'm sure they would take more money, but being hitched to the power vortex of Texas and Oklahoma may be another matter. They'd take it if that was their only option, no doubt, but being in the equilibrium of the ACC has certain benefits. Those benefits would be disrupted if Texas and Oklahoma and a ton of other schools that owe their status to them are on the other side of the league.
It works financially compared to what Florida State and Clemson have now, but I can't think of a single reason they wouldn't prefer the SEC instead.
And that's the rub. If Florida State and Clemson along with a few other regional powers within the ACC are going to be nudged out then they have to have incentive to do so. ESPN isn't going to pay them more money to be in this amalgamated league as opposed to the SEC. ESPN can't simply tear up the GOR and declare it invalid either so worst case scenario is status quo. That's very rarely sufficient motivation to force anyone to do anything drastic.
3. I'm sure Texas and Oklahoma would rather the Big 12 survive, and adding several solid ACC schools would certainly do just that. The problem is you'd still have to alter the power balance to a significant degree.
In whatever new amalgamated Big 12 emerged, the bloc of Texas and Oklahoma would wield significant influence. If you added no more than 2-4 ACC schools then you haven't altered the balance too much. The problem is you'd have to add far more than 2-4 in order to adequately break up the ACC.
The only other option would be to set a few more schools apart for the SEC and Big Ten. That's problematic for everyone so it's not really an option.
Otherwise, you have a clear power divide within the Big 12 and I don't think Texas or Oklahoma even would be too interested in that. You'd have 6-8 schools on either side of the conference aligning in very different directions. At that point, the same dynamics that doomed the original incarnation of the Big 12 are likely to rear their ugly head again.
If nothing else, you might see some of these secondary schools within the current Big 12 meander over to the Eastern power bloc simply so they don't have to be beholden to Texas anymore. That really messes with the power dynamics.
I mean; Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas were apparently willing to abandon their power bloc in the past and make a crap ton of money in the ACC, but that was a different set of circumstances. In that scenario, Notre Dame was involved. The NC and VA schools were involved. The economic potential was much more significant and they likely would have been on equal footing with the SEC and Big Ten.
This new amalgamated Big 12 however? Their money would be better, but it won't be in the same ballpark really.
It's not that these schools would outright refuse to be in a conference with one another. It's that there are simpler and better options available to them.
And that's my overarching point. This maneuver would be incredibly complicated to pull off because of all the moving parts. There's no reason it shouldn't already have happened if it were viable.
It's simpler and more profitable for Oklahoma to go to the SEC. It's simpler for other schools to make different moves as well.
/
Texas Independence and Other Incremental Movements
