Realignment talk not going away

[Aqua Buddha 14,582]

Here's a thought for this august body.  I would wager the networks don't want mega conferences because they're just paying out more money.  (Then again, there's the ESPN/SEC deal.)  Would it be in the networks best interest to money whip two other teams into the current Big 12 as is?  I know Texas hates Houston but would they get over it with an additional $50M per year with the additions of Houston and Arkansas?  Networks get to keep the status quo.

Is there any possibility in that?

[gmr548 16,576]

Again your school is riding coat tails.  We bring something to the table wherever we go.  

Ah, the old brag about eyeballs and revenue because we're garbage in every major sort approach.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Al_4_ISU 12,451]

6 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Here's a thought for this august body.  I would wager the networks don't want mega conferences because they're just paying out more money.  (Then again, there's the ESPN/SEC deal.)  Would it be in the networks best interest to money whip two other teams into the current Big 12 as is?  I know Texas hates Houston but would they get over it with an additional $50M per year with the additions of Houston and Arkansas?  Networks get to keep the status quo.

Is there any possibility in that?

I agree that they don't want mega conferences (as evidenced by their financial willingness to keep UT and OU in the Big 12).

I could see something along the lines you're proposing, but I'm not sure how they go about it.  I could see Arkansas and Missouri maybe.  The SEC doesn't really lose a ton with Aggy still in the fold giving them a Texas presence, and I can't imagine either school truly enjoys their current situation much.

You've got a lot of pride and all that, but if they would make the money the same as those schools are currently getting in the SEC, I think they'd really consider it.  Missouri makes way more sense than Houston, and if you can lure Arkansas, you can lure Missouri.

[BabaYaga 15,288]

7 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Missouri makes way more sense than Houston, and if you can lure Arkansas, you can lure Missouri.

Will $50M overcome a mountain of butt-hurt?  Both schools have giant burnt-orange sticks up their asses.  MO is a bi-polar 4 that thinks she's an 8 or 9.  They were at the precipice of all this mess.  Courting the B10, getting turned down, unwilling to return, then jumping to the SEC in a move that made little sense outside of TV markets.  AR is the jaded ex.  Mired in obscurity but too prideful to change.  They have no recruiting.  No readily available talent, and miss after miss in their coaching searches.  They hoped a coach with DFW roots would help.  They hoped the annual game with the ags would help, but so far getting donkey-punched YOY hasn't helped much.  Who knew.....

Edited December 27, 2019 by BabaYaga

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

Oddly, I'd rather have Houston than Missouri, though obviously Missouri makes more sense in terms of independent TV markets. I was never interested in seeing Texas play Missouri in any sport. I am sure I would regret this attitude, if we were to get Houston, the first time the Cougar High mentality showed itself. 

Both/either of those is contingent on Arkansas, though. Without Arkansas, forget it (expansion). 

[Lone Star Horn 2,016]

3 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

Oddly, I'd rather have Houston than Missouri, though obviously Missouri makes more sense in terms of independent TV markets. I was never interested in seeing Texas play Missouri in any sport. I am sure I would regret this attitude, if we were to get Houston, the first time the Cougar High mentality showed itself. 

Both/either of those is contingent on Arkansas, though. Without Arkansas, forget it (expansion). 

FUCK cougar high, let them wallow in obscurity 

[Al_4_ISU 12,451]

9 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Will $50M overcome a mountain of butt-hurt?  Both schools have giant burnt-orange sticks up their asses.  MO is a bi-polar 4 that thinks she's an 8 or 9.  They were at the precipice of all this mess.  Courting the B10, getting turned down, unwilling to return, then jumping to the SEC in a move that made little sense outside of TV markets.  AR is the jaded ex.  Mired in obscurity but too prideful to change.  They have no recruiting.  No readily available talent, and miss after miss in their coaching searches.  They hoped a coach with DFW roots would help.  They hoped the annual game with the ags would help, but so far getting donkey-punched YOY hasn't helped much.  Who knew.....

I think Missouri is less prideful than the other schools that left, and really are more into money and or perception.

I don't think any of this will happen, but I do think it's plausible.  At the end of the day, I think the current conference alignments will continue for at least another 15 years.

Edited December 27, 2019 by Al_4_ISU

[6th Street 6,390]

3 minutes ago, Lone Star Horn said:

FUCK cougar high, let them wallow in obscurity 

Yeah UH adds zero value - commuter school in a sketchy part of town with non-existent local support. If you want to add a poor football school, just take Tulane to pad the win count and the occasional weekend in New Orleans.  

['stache 21,795]

We should have seen the Big East demise and acted early to take WVU, Pitt, and Louisville. I’d also take Memphis and Tulane for a broader eastern block.

Edited December 27, 2019 by 'stache

[closetohumping 17,435]

1 hour ago, gmr548 said:

Ah, the old brag about eyeballs and revenue because we're garbage in every major sort approach.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 

Not bragging if it’s true.  We are what kept this conference alive.   

[Houtexjhawk 7]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I think Missouri is less prideful than the other schools that left, and really are more into money and or perception.

I don't think any of this will happen, but I do think it's plausible.  At the end of the day, I think the current conference alignments will continue for at least another 15 years.

I used to think that there would not be any significant realignment until this SEC deal with ESPN was announced.  Vanderbilt, Missouri and Arkansas are getting an extra $20M per year just because they are a part of the conference.  I have a hard time seeing a Big 12 deal that keeps the media rights in the ballpark with the SEC and Big 10.   One could argue that this locks in the Big 12 schools because any expansion by the SEC or Big 10 would have to add $75-100M/ year just to not dilute the payout to the other schools.   I think there are two schools that can add that much value- UT and Notre Dame.  OU is also possible, but the more money negotiated by the conferences, the harder to justify adding new members.  I have never though KU was a candidate to move and this deal only solidifies my belief. 

As the GOR approaches, it will be interesting to see if it is extended.  Can the Big 12 negotiate a decent deal?  Does OU and UT demand higher distributions than the rest of the conference?  How would the other eight react if that happens.  What real options do OU and UT have if they want to leave?  
 

 

[TrashMaster G 17,547]

10 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Umm...no there is not a lot of value (when compared to who could be in our conference) nor a strong following.  Let’s nip this in the bud right now, because I get so tired of hearing this from the non UT/OU Big 12 schools.

This was written in November of 2018 and it held up even after the end of the season. https://www.barkingcarnival.com/2018/11/14/18095134/tv-ratings-the-canary-in-the-big-12-coal-mine

Here are the number for this year. https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/ (note: I did this by hand on an iPad so I might have missed or mistyped something, if I did let me know and I’ll fix it)

Big 12 CCG Oklahoma v Baylor 8.7m

LSU v Texas 8.63m

Oklahoma v Texas 7.25m

Oklahoma v Baylor 6.79m

Oklahoma v Okie St 5.82m

UH v Oklahoma 5.44m

Oklahoma v K State 4.21m

Okie St v Texas 3.64m

Iowa St v Oklahoma 3.17m

Texas v West Virginia 3.16m

TCU v Oklahoma 3.15m

Oklahoma v Kansas 2.98m

Tech v Texas 2.89m

Tech v Oklahoma 2.81m

Texas v TCU 2.58m

West Virginia v Oklahoma 2.54m

Oklahoma v UCLA 2.74m

Baylor v Okie St 2.23m

Tech v Arizona 1.73m

K State v Miss St 1.7m

Iowa St v West Virginia 1.57m

Iowa St v Baylor 1.25m

West Virginia v TCU 1.2m

Iowa v Iowa St 1.17m

Texas v Baylor 1.15m

West Virginia v Baylor 1.13m

Texas v Iowa St 1.07m

K State v Texas 1.05m

West Virginia v K State 980k

Okie St v West Virginia 870k

Tech v Baylor 810k

TCU v Okie St 797k

Okie St v Oregon St 789k

West Virginia v Missouri 782k

Baylor v TCU 728k

Iowa St v K State 641k

K State v Tech 633k

West Virginia v NC St 606k

Okie St v Tulsa 605k

Baylor v Kansas 581k

TCU v Tech 562k

Okie St v Iowa St 529k

Okie St v Tech 456k

Tech v West Virginia 429k

Baylor v K State 418k

SMU v TCU 410k

TCU v Iowa St 403k

Tech v Kansas 379k

Iowa St v Tech 343k

Kansas v Okie St 334k

K State v Kansas 296k

ULM v Iowa St 159k

Kansas v TCU 133k

 

So...

Texas had 3 not listed: LA Tech and Kansas both on LHN, and Rice on CBSSN.

Oklahoma has 1 not listed which was PPV against South Dakota (FCS).

 

Omitting those games, Oklahoma and Texas account for 17 of the top 17 games involving Big 12 teams.  UT v K State was opposite most watched game of the year in LSU v Bama (16.64m which even beat every CCG) and pair of late season Texas games were lower down the list but the viewership still never fell below 1 million.  Only a single Big 12 game not featuring Oklahoma or Texas pulled 2 million viewers.

This is much the same as last year.  The rest of the Big 12 just doesn’t pull a national audience.

Going to the Big Ten and ACC aren’t real options.  The SEC wouldn’t be great but it could work.

The best option is the PAC but not in its current form because like the Big 12 they have too much dead weight so they need to just start a new conference and leave the old members behind.  Missing the playoffs multiple years, making a deal with the devil (ESPN) with late night/Friday games (and still making less than most other conferences), having a network that is being dropped from many cable packages has made the PAC12 vulnerable, so much as they are looking to sell equity in the conference’s future earnings for more money today to keep the peace.

USC/UCLA and Texas/Oklahoma can partner together to make a better situation for everyone.  Basically take the 4 Big 12 public universities in Texas/Oklahoma (for political reasons) and the 4 PAC12 universities in California (also for political reasons) and take the best from the rest.

Texas, Tech, Oklahoma, Okie St, Colorado, Arizona

USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Washington

8 conference games allows for a permanent OOC rivalry (a token peace offering to the state schools left behind ASU, OrSU, WSU but also works for USC/Stanford with Notre Dame and Colorado/Colorado St) to go along with a good non rival OOC opponent.  This is a far better solution for everyone involved/included.

They could add Kansas (for bball and market) and another (Utah?) if they need to go to 14 but that would limit OOC schedule and reduce access to games in in California or Texas which are desirable for recruiting purposes.  I doubt any pair of universities would overcome that negative and pull their weight pound per pound with the above lineup.

This covers basically every major market within the current footprint of the two conferences except SLC and KC but it’s not like those were bringing in a ton of eyeballs (see Kansas v K State game above with 296k viewers; while Utah’s most viewed were against Oregon (CCG) 5.89m, Colorado 2.43m, Washington 1.96m, UCLA 1.53m and USC 1.42m which is pretty good but they had a good season which helps but omitting the CCG those are basically the same as Iowa State’s numbers).

I'm curious as to the mental gymnastics to envision a scenario where Arizona and ASU don't end up in the same conference.  You mention the politics for Texas and OU carrying their state brethren, what makes you envision an Arizona split?

[closetohumping 17,435]

You know it may be quite possible that none of these schools want to join us?

[SnowAggy 154]

42 minutes ago, Houtexjhawk said:

As the GOR approaches, it will be interesting to see if it is extended.  Can the Big 12 negotiate a decent deal?  Does OU and UT demand higher distributions than the rest of the conference?  How would the other eight react if that happens.  What real options do OU and UT have if they want to leave?  
 

 

In what sense?  Do you mean making a deal with a conference that already has a deal in place?  I presume that at least UT has many options.  What conference is not made better in every way by adding UT?

[Thiefery 4,995]

Still think the best plan is to stay as is.. Kick Baylor out.. and add anyone else.. (tulane).  The conference will still get paid and maybe ESPN decides to buy out UT for the LHN channel and switch it to the conference channel.  I still like the big 12 for Texas, and matching big name OOC opponents is good too.

[TKthunder2 4,985]

41 minutes ago, TrashMaster G said:

I'm curious as to the mental gymnastics to envision a scenario where Arizona and ASU don't end up in the same conference.  You mention the politics for Texas and OU carrying their state brethren, what makes you envision an Arizona split?

You take the 4 California and 4 Texas/Oklahoma public universities and that probably good enough to secure a CFP bids/bowls from both the PAC12 and/or Big 12 (does the SEC want Baylor in the Sugar or B1G want Utah in the Rose?).  Colorado (with no instate/in conference ties) jumps in because they get both California and Texas exposure which is great for them.  So now you have 9 teams.  Offer Arizona, Oregon and Washington publicly but make it clear that Utah, Kansas and TCU are under consideration.  The in state. public pressure to be in a Power 4 league will beat out local politics.  No one wants to see every university in the state be down graded to a lesser conference so while these states may try to get in both teams ultimately it won’t work.  This new conference could say pat with 9 teams for a while if they had to but the leftovers will either try to merge or add within their footprint but the TV money just won’t be there without California, UT/OU.

 

Here’s your best of the rest conference (and that’s assuming the B1G or SEC doesn’t grab Kansas or ACC doesn’t grab West Virginia.)

Washington, WSU, Oregon, OrSU, Arizona, ASU, Utah (+maybe Boise St or BYU)

Baylor, TCU, Kansas, K State, Iowa St, West Virginia (+maybe Houston, Memphis, Cincy)

out of the leftover Big 12 school the biggest games was K State v Miss St (OOC) at 1.7m and the biggest conference game was Iowa St v West Virginia at 1.57m.

The leftover PAC12 assuming the 3 pairs of schools united together has some power but still not enough for them to get a major TV contract as they’ve already proven with California and Colorado in tow.  The only way these states will be able to stay in the game is for their flagship schools to join the California schools in the new conference because the SEC’s possible new deal is going to be the measuring stick all conferences will be reviewed against going forward and the PAC12 is the worst off of the Power 5.

If they stand pat the PAC12/Big12 might get a pity bid but it doesn’t take a genius to see that this will turn out similar to the Big East in the early 2000’s and eventually they’ll be left out like the current AAC.

[Houtexjhawk 7]

3 hours ago, SnowAggy said:

In what sense?  Do you mean making a deal with a conference that already has a deal in place?  I presume that at least UT has many options.  What conference is not made better in every way by adding UT?

As I pointed out, I think only UT and Notre Dame bring enough value to consider expansion.  If a move is related to more money, then there the two options, unless there is a massive restructuring, would be the Big 10 and the SEC. As has been pointed out, there are pros and cons to joining which have been cited in this thread.  Would UT want to join the Big 10 where the closest school is 800 miles away?  Would UT want to be in the SEC?  Could a handful of schools stop an invitation? 

[utee94 15,805]

22 minutes ago, Houtexjhawk said:

As I pointed out, I think only UT and Notre Dame bring enough value to consider expansion.  If a move is related to more money, then there the two options, unless there is a massive restructuring, would be the Big 10 and the SEC. As has been pointed out, there are pros and cons to joining which have been cited in this thread.  Would UT want to join the Big 10 where the closest school is 800 miles away?  Would UT want to be in the SEC?  Could a handful of schools stop an invitation? 

For your final question, no.  There is no cabal of SEC schools that could stop an invitation to Texas, because the SEC is operated firmly from its commissioner's office.  If Texas stated today it wanted to join the SEC, the paperwork would be largely completed tomorrow.  Honestly, I'd be pretty shocked if the preliminary paperwork for the SEC's invitation to Texas isn't already written up and signed, awaiting opportunity.  Same thing goes for the B1G.

When it announced expansion in 2009, the B1G initiated a wide opens arms race with the SEC-- they declared war and they knew exactly what they were doing.  Both conferences made moves that improved their financial position, but neither conference landed a killing blow.  And now, for either conference, grabbing Texas would be the undisputed Finishing Maneuver. Both now sit at the highly awkward and undesirable number of 14 members.  They could both stand pat, but the danger in waiting is that the other conference will perform the Finishing Maneuver and end it.  So they're not likely to stand at 14, at least not willingly, but they also ONLY want to add high value properties, not fluff.

So, theoretically, Texas could move to any conference it wanted to.  All would welcome Texas immediately.

Realistically, as you've pointed out, there are a lot of reasons that make ANY move challenging and undesirable.  The ACC and PAC are both financially worse off than the B12 and the only thing that would improve either one is adding Texas. So at best, adding Texas brings their revenue even to the current B12, and Texas isn't making any more money, but now has a MUCH worse logistical problem with respect to travel and scheduling, for zero benefit.  Despite what Texas fans might say on this thread, the PAC is a non-starter, and the ACC is a never-was.  (Splintering off only the valuable California schools in the PAC and starting a NEW conference is something else entirely, but even less likely IMO).

So the only real choices for a move, are SEC or B1G,

And the only realistic choice of those two for a bazillion reasons related to logistics/travel/scheduling, is the SEC. 

The other alternative is simply staying put and pushing for more money from the TV partners.  They paid us to maintain the status quo once before, it's possible they'll do it again.  There's also the potential for streaming services to enter the fray and change the financial dynamic entirely.  

So that's my response, clear as mud, eh?

 

[utee94 15,805]

^^^^^^^

I'll add to the above that Notre Dame is also, obviously, a big fish.  They're THE BIG FISH to be honest, bigger than Texas.  But they're also completely capable of maintaining themselves without any conference affiliation whatsoever, and they've adamantly maintained that position, so I'm not counting them into the realignment equation at all.  But if somehow the B1G landed Notre Dame before Texas, then I'd expect the SEC to land the Brinks truck in Austin and make us turn down every single one of the things.

[TrashMaster G 17,547]

The ONLY Texas-to-the-SEC scenario I would endorse is if we made it a pre-condition that aggy be booted out upon our arrival.

And Nick Saban be fired.  Just because.

[Tom 2,959]

15 hours ago, TrashMaster G said:

The ONLY Texas-to-the-SEC scenario I would endorse is if we made it a pre-condition that aggy be booted out upon our arrival.

And Nick Saban be fired.  Just because.

 

So what you're saying is you don't support us going to the SEC at all?  Because we would be laughed out of the room if we approached the SEC with any demands at all.

The only way we end up in the SEC is if the Big 12 is imploding and we have no other options.

[kopp0e 1,135]

On 12/27/2019 at 7:35 AM, Tom said:

 

5 new Big 12 schools above means at least a PAC 17 or a PAC school getting the boot.  Not going to happen.

Realignment blows.  The SEC and B1G are too big and the Big 12 is too small, both by number of schools and population.  There's no good way to fix it unless you can somehow convince a few decent schools from another P5 to switch over.  This starts with getting rid of the LHN for a conference network, acting more unified, and doing things the way more attractive conferences do.

On the 1st sentence:

Either a 16 team alignment or 18 team alignment would be used, in 16, 60% of current XII remains/ in 18, 80% of current XII remains...
Add to this, an old XII in league rival would be reunited with the expanding XII (Colorado), so either 7 or 9 current & former rivals stay...
Iowa State/ Kansas/ Kansas State*/ Oklahoma/ Oklahoma State/ Texas/ Texas Tech/ TCU*/ Colorado/ Utah/ Arizona/ Arizona State/
UCLA/ USC/ California/ Stanford/ Oregon/ Washington all remain within the same league, coverig 106 million residents (* not in 16 team model)...

But I agree, realignment sucks & I would hate to see the day Oklahoma & Texas are in seperate mega conferences, that strains ability of annual game in Dallas...

On the 2nd paragraph:

I agree, if I myself had a choice, things would not be much different, than a few changes from when XII formed...

If XII had used a model to drop a few duplicate markets, maybe things would have been different from the stert...
As some may not know, Oklahoma was in talks to join SWC before talk of forming XII began (after Arkansas exit)...

What XII (maybe) should have done is "keep" old Big8 brands & added prime SWC institutions, just before Arkansas exit:

Iowa State/ AAU brand, loyal fan following
Nebraska/ AAU brand, historic football & biggest foe of Oklahoma
Missouri/ AAU brand, brings markets Kansas City & St. Louis
Kansas/ AAU brand, solid basketball tradition
Colorado/ AAU brand, brings the market of Denver
Oklahoma/ well known historic football brand
Oklahoma State/ umm, well the in-state rival of OU
Arkansas/ a regional power & biggest in conference rival of Texas
Texas/ AAU brand, historic football & flagship brand in the entire state
Texas A&M/ AAU brand, umm, well the in-state rival of UT
Texas Tech/ largest in state school in western half of state, in-state foe of UT

A few teams that could have been added (for #12), in an era lacking outragious media revenues that constrict what teams can be added:

BYU/ ironically, XII was in talks to join XII before Baylor was somehow strong armed into league
Utah/ flagship of the state, (has now become an AAU brand since joining PAC) could be taken with or w/o BYU
New Mexico/ some may not be aware, XII had looked to add the Lobos, originally copyrighted the names #Big12/ #Big14 & #Big16
TCU or Houston, Rice/ left out of the merger, Horned Frogs decent in state brand-Cougars can be valuable in nation's 4th largest city-Owls AAU brand in Houston
 

[Doc Sam Beckett 5,792]

Before people start trying to create another expansion shit storm, does the money really make a huge difference? Going for the maximum payout definitely fueled previous conference realignment, but how important is it in the grand scheme of things?

The current football and basketball national champions are both from the ACC, a conference that has always been on the lower end of payouts. Rutgers, Maryland, Mizzou, Nebraska etc are all still the same as they were before realignment, and in some cases worse. The bottom dwellers in the secsecsec and the Big 10 are still at the bottom, despite making so much more money. 

[DFW Horn 6,123]

1 minute ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

Before people start trying to create another expansion shit storm, does the money really make a huge difference? Going for the maximum payout definitely fueled previous conference realignment, but how important is it in the grand scheme of things?

The current football and basketball national champions are both from the ACC, a conference that has always been on the lower end of payouts. Rutgers, Maryland, Mizzou, Nebraska etc are all still the same as they were before realignment, and in some cases worse. The bottom dwellers in the secsecsec and the Big 10 are still at the bottom, despite making so much more money. 

Yes, but now aggy can pay their HC $75MM to go 8-5

[DFW Horn 6,123]

On 12/27/2019 at 9:04 AM, 'stache said:

We should have seen the Big East demise and acted early to take WVU, Pitt, and Louisville. I’d also take Memphis and Tulane for a broader eastern block.

I'd like to see the metrics that make Pitt, Louisville, and BC more "P5 worthy" than UH.

My guess is Cougar High's attendance would spike with Big 12 opponents in town.

[Lone Star Horn 2,016]

4 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

I'd like to see the metrics that make Pitt, Louisville, and BC more "P5 worthy" than UH.

My guess is Cougar High's attendance would spike with Big 12 opponents in town.

 

On 12/27/2019 at 8:53 AM, Lone Star Horn said:

FUCK cougar high, let them wallow in obscurity 

again

[utee94 15,805]

2 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

Before people start trying to create another expansion shit storm, does the money really make a huge difference? Going for the maximum payout definitely fueled previous conference realignment, but how important is it in the grand scheme of things?

The current football and basketball national champions are both from the ACC, a conference that has always been on the lower end of payouts. Rutgers, Maryland, Mizzou, Nebraska etc are all still the same as they were before realignment, and in some cases worse. The bottom dwellers in the secsecsec and the Big 10 are still at the bottom, despite making so much more money. 

Very good points.  Our previous AD was narrow-minded and hidebound.  He viewed maximizing top line revenue as his sole purpose, but in all fairness, that's what his bosses at the time mandated, so he was just hitting his metrics, and rather effectively at that.

I think out current AD and university leadership are more open, thoughtful, and have better foresight about the long term nature of college football, college athletics, and where their activities should fit into that grand scheme.

But ultimately, trailing Alabama or Ohio State by $20M/year, or more, isn't a sustainable position for Texas to be in.  Balancing all of those factors won't be easy.

I mention Texas specifically because it's the school of this message board, and it's obviously one of the last 2 big movers that could shake up the realignment world.  If Texas doesn't feel the need to move, then I don't see much further expansion, because I don't think Notre Dame would fully join a conference unless the playoff construct forced them to do so.  OU is also a bit of a wildcard, because if they REALLY get the itch to move, I don't see Texas staying in a B12 without them.

[DFW Horn 6,123]

1 minute ago, Lone Star Horn said:

again

Duly noted, you've got animosity towards UH but no compelling argument for the "P5 worthiness" of the ACC's city colleges.

[Aqua Buddha 14,582]

Travel to the PAC really isn’t that bad.  Most of those schools are close to major airports with direct flights from the Texas cities and OKC.

When OU played at UCLA, they brought like 35K fans.  

[DeadArmadillo 907]

I'd like to see the metrics that make Pitt, Louisville, and BC more "P5 worthy" than UH.
My guess is Cougar High's attendance would spike with Big 12 opponents in town.

It would increase, but would it be because of visiting fans or Cougar High fans? For schools to have value, they need a lot of money spending, football watching supporters. If it brings lots of Coog fans out of the woodwork, then that’s great

And I’m pretty sure Louisville brings more to the table than Houston, but I think Houston is about equal to Pitt and a much more valuable conference mate that Boston College. Duke (football), BC, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, don’t bring much to a conference

[Pancho 44,710]

2 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Travel to the PAC really isn’t that bad.  Most of those schools are close to major airports with direct flights from the Texas cities and OKC.

When OU played at UCLA, they brought like 35K fans.  

For football fans, no. 

For the athletes (especially the Olympic sports), yes, yes it is bad. 

[Aqua Buddha 14,582]

2 minutes ago, Pancho said:

For football fans, no. 

For the athletes (especially the Olympic sports), yes, yes it is bad. 

How is it worse than going to Morgantown on a weeknight in January?

[DFW Horn 6,123]

10 minutes ago, DeadArmadillo said:

It would increase, but would it be because of visiting fans or Cougar High fans? For schools to have value, they need a lot of money spending, football watching supporters. If it brings lots of Coog fans out of the woodwork, then that’s great

And I’m pretty sure Louisville brings more to the table than Houston, but I think Houston is about equal to Pitt and a much more valuable conference mate that Boston College. Duke (football), BC, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, don’t bring much to a conference

Yeah, I'm an old SWC guy who enjoyed the water-cooler trash talk back in the day.

I'm cool being in a league with the OK teams, but give zero fucks about KS, IA, and WV. At least during football season. KU and ISU are fun for hoops, but we can play 'em OOC.

To each his own.

[Pancho 44,710]

24 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

How is it worse than going to Morgantown on a weeknight in January?

 

Do you understand time difference bro?

[Aqua Buddha 14,582]

1 minute ago, Pancho said:

 

Do you understand time difference bro?

I understand getting flights into rural outpost airports.

[Pancho 44,710]

30 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

I understand getting flights into rural outpost airports.

Right...but that's not even what I'm talking about. 

The time difference in terms of hours lost/gained when traveling back to Austin would be detrimental to the athletes of those other sports.  That's what I'm talking about. 

But it's irrelevant as we aren't going to the PAC anyway.  It's either Big 12, Big 10, or ACC.

[Aqua Buddha 14,582]

4 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Right...but that's not even what I'm talking about. 

The time difference in terms of hours lost/gained when traveling back to Austin would be detrimental to the athletes of those other sports.  That's what I'm talking about. 

But it's irrelevant as we aren't going to the PAC anyway.  It's either Big 12, Big 10, or ACC.

Time zone factors get eaten away with connecting flights.  There are multiple non stops a day between the Texas airports and all of the CA airports.  I can leave LA at 10:30 am PST and be in Dallas by 3 pm CST.  Getting to Auburn, AL involves a connection and that can easily be a 7 hour trip.

[David Dennison 18,850]

36 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Right...but that's not even what I'm talking about. 

The time difference in terms of hours lost/gained when traveling back to Austin would be detrimental to the athletes of those other sports.  That's what I'm talking about. 

But it's irrelevant as we aren't going to the PAC anyway.  It's either Big 12, Big 10, or ACC.

And that sucks because we should be doing everything in our power to join the SEC.

[Pancho 44,710]

43 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Time zone factors get eaten away with connecting flights.  There are multiple non stops a day between the Texas airports and all of the CA airports.  I can leave LA at 10:30 am PST and be in Dallas by 3 pm CST.  Getting to Auburn, AL involves a connection and that can easily be a 7 hour trip.

 

I know how the flights between CA and TX work.  But, once again, this is a fan perspective.  I'm talking about the teams themselves.  They aren't taking 7 hours to get to anywhere. 

You can leave Morgantown after an 8pm basketball game and still get to Austin by midnight.  You can't say the same after a 7pm PST tip at Oregon.   

But as I said before, this is all moot because we aren't going to the PAC.  That ship has sailed. 

[Aqua Buddha 14,582]

36 minutes ago, Pancho said:

 

I know how the flights between CA and TX work.  But, once again, this is a fan perspective.  I'm talking about the teams themselves.  They aren't taking 7 hours to get to anywhere. 

You can leave Morgantown after an 8pm basketball game and still get to Austin by midnight.  You can't say the same after a 7pm PST tip at Oregon.   

But as I said before, this is all moot because we aren't going to the PAC.  That ship has sailed. 

Since when do the schools give a flying fuck about athlete travel schedules?  Iowa State was making the basketball team fly out at 6 am the next morning and making them spend the night in the airport to save on hotel money.  

[HornsofBevo 122]

53 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

And that sucks because we should be doing everything in our power to join the SEC.

Outside of finding a way to make the BIG XII better, this is the option Texas and OUsux should be choosing. Just getting to play LSU, Piggy, aggy, Oklahoma, Mizzou and others every year would be a far superior schedule to the one we've been playing from a regional and historic perspective. One reason some people don't want to join the SEC is because of the belief that they don't care about academics but the SEC currently has 4 AAU member schools and a potential 5th with Georgia if they are willing to put in the work. Money would probably be the final reason to go. The gap between the B1G, SEC and others conferences is only going to continue to grow to the point that lower tier schools will start out earning traditional blue bloods stuck in the have-not conferences.

I know there are a few that hate the SEC but it is the only conference outside of a remodeled BIG XII that makes sense for Texas and Oklahoma.

[David Dennison 18,850]

8 minutes ago, HornsofBevo said:

Outside of finding a way to make the BIG XII better, this is the option Texas and OUsux should be choosing. Just getting to play LSU, Piggy, aggy, Oklahoma, Mizzou and others every year would be a far superior schedule to the one we've been playing from a regional and historic perspective. One reason some people don't want to join the SEC is because of the belief that they don't care about academics but the SEC currently has 4 AAU member schools and a potential 5th with Georgia if they are willing to put in the work. Money would probably be the final reason to go. The gap between the B1G, SEC and others conferences is only going to continue to grow to the point that lower tier schools will start out earning traditional blue bloods stuck in the have-not conferences.

I know there are a few that hate the SEC but it is the only conference outside of a remodeled BIG XII that makes sense for Texas and Oklahoma.

It would be so much fun. 

Instead we're probably going to add lame teams to our lame conference and call it a day.

[Comfort Hire 12]

31 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It would be so much fun. 

Instead we're probably going to add lame teams to our lame conference and call it a day.

If g5 programs don't add revenue above what the Big 12 already earns on a per school basis, then it won't happen.  There are no lesser G5 programs that add revenue.  The answer is to go to an 8 team playoff with 4 conference champ spots and 4 at large berths.  Texas moves to the SEC with OU.  This forces ND to go ACC with West Virginia.  B1G picks up leftover choices from Northern Big 12 Schools.  Likely KSU and ISU.  Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, and OSU go west to form an eastern conference with the Arizona schools, Utah, and CU in the PAC.   We are already a big Disney partner and this SEC contract with ESPN cements that relationship.  Disney wants us in the SEC..  It would bring all of our past rivals together with LSU.  I abhor the Mississippi schools but what can we do?  I would love to play LSU, aggy, Arkie, and OU every year.  I'm not sure our coaching staff would like this level of competition given the level of scrutiny but fun conference football would be back.

Edited December 28, 2019 by Comfort Hire

[DFW Horn 6,123]

 

[TKthunder2 4,985]

4 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

 

SMU doesn’t play baseball.  They have a men’s soccer team instead.

[Samson's Wig 3,191]

2 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

SMU doesn’t play baseball.  They have a men’s soccer team instead.

And in thirty years or so, they may be laughing all the way to the bank while the other Texas schools are just getting programs started in what will then be the most popular college sport.  I mean, maybe?

[Valmy77 13,225]

3 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

And in thirty years or so, they may be laughing all the way to the bank while the other Texas schools are just getting programs started in what will then be the most popular college sport.  I mean, maybe?

Soccer may end up booming but I am very skeptical college Soccer will. We'll see.

[TrashMaster G 17,547]

15 hours ago, utee94 said:

Very good points.  Our previous AD was narrow-minded and hidebound.  He viewed maximizing top line revenue as his sole purpose, but in all fairness, that's what his bosses at the time mandated, so he was just hitting his metrics, and rather effectively at that.

I think out current AD and university leadership are more open, thoughtful, and have better foresight about the long term nature of college football, college athletics, and where their activities should fit into that grand scheme.

But ultimately, trailing Alabama or Ohio State by $20M/year, or more, isn't a sustainable position for Texas to be in.  Balancing all of those factors won't be easy.

I mention Texas specifically because it's the school of this message board, and it's obviously one of the last 2 big movers that could shake up the realignment world.  If Texas doesn't feel the need to move, then I don't see much further expansion, because I don't think Notre Dame would fully join a conference unless the playoff construct forced them to do so.  OU is also a bit of a wildcard, because if they REALLY get the itch to move, I don't see Texas staying in a B12 without them.

We're trailing by $20mil/yr?

 

[Valmy77 13,225]

Yeah I think we are tied completely to OU. They are our big rival and we cannot afford to lose them. So if they bail we must follow IMO. Sucks but there it is. 

[tonedeaf 56]

16 hours ago, Comfort Hire said:

If g5 programs don't add revenue above what the Big 12 already earns on a per school basis, then it won't happen.  There are no lesser G5 programs that add revenue.  The answer is to go to an 8 team playoff with 4 conference champ spots and 4 at large berths.  Texas moves to the SEC with OU.  This forces ND to go ACC with West Virginia.  B1G picks up leftover choices from Northern Big 12 Schools.  Likely KSU and ISU.  Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, and OSU go west to form an eastern conference with the Arizona schools, Utah, and CU in the PAC.   We are already a big Disney partner and this SEC contract with ESPN cements that relationship.  Disney wants us in the SEC..  It would bring all of our past rivals together with LSU.  I abhor the Mississippi schools but what can we do?  I would love to play LSU, aggy, Arkie, and OU every year.  I'm not sure our coaching staff would like this level of competition given the level of scrutiny but fun conference football would be back.

PAC wont take baylor.  They were pretty adamant about that last time.  They will be CUSA or AAC.