Conference realignment?

[Lord Vader]

Randolph:

As it pertains to the anti trust issues, I think the only way is to make the Division 4 split. The schools that can qualify get in, the remaining FBS teams go into a second tier. Then there is still FCS, D2, and D3.

That way everyone has something they can shoot for. No one is locking out a school like Texas State or Boise State , but theyve got to earn the right to get in across the board.

Charlotte is starting a football team and will debut in FBS as members of Conference USA. Charlotte should not have the right to dictate what North Carolina wants to do.

 

[Boobie Miles]

^ I agree with what you say about B1G. Would the University of Texas be able to grow without being part of the B1G and CIC? Yes, obviously. The academic arguments bother me. What happens on a football field does not dictate whether or not one university will have a research agreement with another. For academic sakes, I'd place most if not all of the other conferences ahead of the Big 12. It doesn't hurt us now that most of the Big 12 doesn't have stellar academics. Even in the B1G we would swap Kansas/KSU/ISU for Minnesota/Illinois/Iowa. Yes, the B1G has some national powerhouse schools, but even Delaney realizes that football lies in the Sun Belt. That's why they seek to grow their brand down the Atlantic Coast.

Texas can align itself as an Indy, Big 12, or Pac and no major change in the academic prowess. For the sakes of realignment it just needs to focus on football. THAT IS ALL. If Texas has a bad season people are less likely to fill DKR. When you have a home slate that could include TCU/KU/KSU/WVU in a season (hypothetically) who would come? Arguably, if we were to have a bad season and have LSU/A&M/Mizzou/Vandy, which grouping of games would bring the most excitement? Granted the ship has sailed, but the best possibility for Texas outside the Big 12 would be going independent or being in the SEC. Although, the latter may not ever get a chance at happening.

 

[Randolph Duke]

Randolph:
As it pertains to the anti trust issues, I think the only way is to make the Division 4 split. The schools that can qualify get in, the remaining FBS teams go into a second tier. Then there is still FCS, D2, and D3.

That way everyone has something they can shoot for. No one is locking out a school like Texas State or Boise State , but theyve got to earn the right to get in across the board.

Charlotte is starting a football team and will debut in FBS as members of Conference USA. Charlotte should not have the right to dictate what North Carolina wants to do.

Charlotte would have to have as reasonable a chance to compete for the FBC championship as North Carolina or anti-trust concerns kick in and the courts would throw out whatever structure that was put in place.

As for what conference Texas might go into, none of the conference is acceptable as things are. The SEC is out for academic and cultural reasons. We aren't going to compete with a bunch or redneck schools willing to tolerate being in the running for the Fulmer Cup every year because you can't win a national championship without winning the Fulmer Cup.

The Big 10 isn't happening. Texas generated $163 mil last year in athletics revenue. Here are the revenue numbers for various schools. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/

Big 10 schools share Teir 1,2 3 broadcast revenues, bowl money and all the way down to gate receipts. Big 10 schools average around $80 mil in revenue. There is no way Texas is going to agree to write a check for $80 mil every year to be a member of the Big 10. Never. gonna. happen.

Pac 12 is in a similar situation to the Big 10. They would want Texas to write a check every year to belong. Even with Phil Knight's money Oregon, the highest earning Pac 12 school is only at $93 mil, some $70 mil/yr less than Texas. UCLA, Cal and Washington are all around $75 mil and you think they are going to say nothing about Texas being at $163 million (over twice their revenue)?! Again, we would have to equalize the money somewhat and it would still mean we would be paying around $50 million/year to be part of that conference. Never.gonna.happen.

Being the wealthiest program in the nation (by far) has its positives and its negatives. Any conference we join is going to want us to pay tens of millions to equalize revenues. What do we get from a conference for writing an 8 figure check to join a conference? It sure isn't money. What are we going to get for our $20/30/50/70 million dollars?

(Edited to correct Texas' revenue at $163mil)

 

[HornNdriftwood]

I can't vouch for its veracity, but the info I was given was that the current thinking for the D4 is to limit it to the largest investing 72 football teams (other exclusive criteria as well) and have them play in either 8 regional round robin groups of 9; or 6 "mini" regional conferences of 12, all irrespective of current conference affiliations. The 12 would be split with the usual 5/3 schedule and a championship game. Either the 8 round robin champions; or the 6 "mini" champions supplemented with the 2 highest ranked non-champions, would then form an 8 team playoff, seeded by the committee. The remaining schedule would be filled only with games against other D4 teams which would not count toward the conference championships, but would toward the rankings/committee selection.
If this is accurate, then realignment becomes unnecessary and regional rivalries will once again rule. The next 3-4 months should be very interesting. Obviously a lot of details and contracts to be worked out, but it is thought to be feasible.

Good post, Tascosa.

All the panic driven, greed motivated, fruit-basket-turnover alignment that's occurred in the last 2 yrs. will be shown to be wrong-headed, IMO. It's reactive instead of proactive.

There should be a long term goal for major college football and all subsequent realignment should flow from that. A real playoff system should be priority No. 1.

 

[Bandit]

^ I agree with what you say about B1G. Would the University of Texas be able to grow without being part of the B1G and CIC? Yes, obviously. The academic arguments bother me. What happens on a football field does not dictate whether or not one university will have a research agreement with another. For academic sakes, I'd place most if not all of the other conferences ahead of the Big 12. It doesn't hurt us now that most of the Big 12 doesn't have stellar academics. Even in the B1G we would swap Kansas/KSU/ISU for Minnesota/Illinois/Iowa. Yes, the B1G has some national powerhouse schools, but even Delaney realizes that football lies in the Sun Belt. That's why they seek to grow their brand down the Atlantic Coast.
Texas can align itself as an Indy, Big 12, or Pac and no major change in the academic prowess. For the sakes of realignment it just needs to focus on football. THAT IS ALL. If Texas has a bad season people are less likely to fill DKR. When you have a home slate that could include TCU/KU/KSU/WVU in a season (hypothetically) who would come? Arguably, if we were to have a bad season and have LSU/A&M/Mizzou/Vandy, which grouping of games would bring the most excitement? Granted the ship has sailed, but the best possibility for Texas outside the Big 12 would be going independent or being in the SEC. Although, the latter may not ever get a chance at happening.

Boobie, how's the knee after all these years? Ever run across Booger Brooks?

 

[austinite]

The big 12 as it is will not last, we will either have to add teams or leave to go to a bigger conference.
Any thoughts on maybe a big 12 and acc mix of 16 teams, seems like that's where the conferences are headed to in the future.

How long did the 10 teams in the Big Ten last? I'd say it's long enough.

If Saban comes to Texas, and a good coach takes over Kansas State when Bill Snyder retires, the Big 12 will have more than enough competitive teams to remain a good conference.

The question is really how long Baylor and Oklahoma State will remain competitive like this year.

 

[PanicStream]

Number one the money we are missing out on for not having a championship game, number two having an out right winner is important, no one likes a tie

We are only missing out on about $800,000 per school for not having a championship game. That's not a lot in the grand scheme of things.

How many ties for 1st place ever happened in the SWC or PAC 10?

Look the Big 12 currently blows away the ACC in payouts and is actually ahead of the SEC until they start their new network. The B1G makes more than anyone.

We aren't leaving much money on the table when you consider we only have to split the pie 10 ways. If we go to 12 teams then the teams we add have to increase the TV contract by $40 million in order for everyone to still make the same amount currently. There's no one available that has that much value.

In any event, no realignment is going to happen until the question of creating a Division 4 is answered by the NCAA.

 

[NLeininger]

Much like a lot of other things, Dodds all eggs in one basket approach has left Texas at a competitive disadvantage. The Big 12 is a horrible conference and much like in the ole SWC, we are being brought down to the mediocrity of the rest of the teams. It was only after Texas helped form the 1st mega-conference that we saw an upgrade in football, basketball, and baseball. Now we are stuck in a similar situation thought the Big 12 is actually one of the top basketball conferences in the country. Adding Louisville would have helped in all 3 sports as they won a BCS bowl, won the NCAA tournament, and made the CWS all last year. That's a feat that ends at them. Adding UCF or Cincinnati along with Louisville would have given West Virginia some company on the Eastern front, and in UCF's case would have exposed the Big 12 to the fertile Florida recruiting grounds.

 

[Topstarr]

Patterson will take us to 12 teams (UCF & Cin.) for a Big 12 CC game to participate in the 4 team playoff. Not enough time to join the ACC for a 16 team conference for next year.

Hook'em

 

[doc longhorn]

How strict is the GOR? Is the penalty that steep? And how realistic is it for the top 4 conferences to break away from the NCAA?

I think it is more realistic for conferences bolting from the NCAA than breaking a GOR. To my knowledge, a GOR has never been broken.

Would you still want us away from the Big 12, had we taken in FSU and Clemson?

 

[Embrey]

Forget conference realignment. What we need to push for is a real playoff (at least 8 teams). Does anyone really care about conference affiliation or championships in CBB. It's just the pathway to the playoffs. With a real playoff, I don't think it really matters what conference you're in, unless it affects your RPI.

If UT is winning and going to the playoffs, nobody will care about joining another conference.

Here is what Texas needs to do:

Dominate the recruiting scene in Texas (this could take a few years) and dominate everybody they play. As Driftwood said, the point is not alliances, it is making the playoff. For a playoff to be legitimate it must be at least 8 teams.

Conference affiliation is 20th century thinking in my opinion. Further, and this is not directed at anyone, it is elitist.

We are talking football here. If you want to be the best you have to prove it on the field, not by the company you keep.

 

[SFlonghorngirl]

Would you still want us away from the Big 12, had we taken in FSU and Clemson?

Great question! Had FSU and Clemson joined the Big 12, personally, it would be my 2nd option. That's up from the Big 12 being my last place option without FSU/Clemson. PAC would still be my 1st choice.

I feel culturally, academically, and athletically, we fit better in the PAC.

Bottom line is, I want the sexy matchups every weekend.

 

[Old Tascosa]

If the scenario of the D4 regional schedules I described works out, then The SEC & the B1G will be broken up somewhat for the football schedule. Not literally, just for scheduling. The revenues and home game TV schedules will still go to whatever conference arrangements exist, but the conference championships will be replaced with the regional championships and the playoffs. Not all of the teams in the Power 5 conferences will be included, and some outsiders might be. The criteria will include budget, facilities, attendance and possibly academic ranking. I would expect some of the schools typically at the bottom of each conference to be sweating some bullets, or relieved that they will no longer have the financial pressure of trying to keep up.

Texas could wind up playing LSU, Arkansas, OU, OSU, Tech, Baylor, A&M, & TCU or Kansas State. I can't imagine that you wouldn't be happy with that.

 

[Irish in SEC country]

Ok...here goes:
You can blame DeLoss Dodds for not being at 12. Louisville was on its knees to get in this conference and he rejected them. Now they are laughing all the way to the ACC at our expense.

In a nutshell, if you HAD to expand now, the most viable options are going to be Cincinnati and Central Florida. Gets you TV sets in Ohio/Kentucky and TV sets/recruiting foothold in Florida. Neither school is locked into its conference like the Power 5 schools are with GOR agreements.

BYU would be a longshot since they seem to be going ok so far being independent. UC and UCF give WVU a couple travel partners to make them feel better about the decision they made to join the Big 12.

Houston adds nothing to the conference. Its a school in a market already pretty saturated. Arkansas wont leave the SEC.

That is where things are right now.

Notre Dame is glad that Dodds and Texas did not want the Big 12 to get back to 12 members. Our basketball rivalry with Louisville has become smoking hot, and the baseball rivalry is set to become as hot. We also will like playing football at Louisville, because the location makes it a nearly perfect trade off for not playing Big Ten teams.

Now if we can get Texas to join the ACC as we did, partial in football with the pair of us playing each other annually in football, we'll have things right.

 

[Irish in SEC country]

how do you know it can't or won't last?
I'm not a huge fan either but what is there happening right now to suggest it can't make it?

The Big 12 will make it as long as Texas wants the Big 12 to make it.

If Texas decides to move on, the Big 12 no longer will make it.

 

[Irish in SEC country]

Texas' most realistic home IMO is the ACC as a full time member or associate member like ND. But a lot of things need to happen first.
Texas needs to get back to elite/top 10 status in football.

LHN will need to gain significant distribution and expand to Direct-TV and Dish.

Texas needs to start the capitalization projects for the new basketball facility

Texas will start Lacrosse and men's soccer.

Texas is talking to ND about adding four to six more games

This will be about 5-7 years in the making.

The ACC is best option for Texas for several reasons. First, there is the fact that Texas is one of the four most elite state universities in the south. The other three are in the ACC - Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia Tech. Texas belongs with that group as an institution.

Second, Texas' athletic history features rivalries with multiple private schools. For years, the SWC was majority private schools. The ACC has Duke, Wake Forest, BC, Miami, Syracuse and now Notre Dame.

Third, the ACC would take Texas as it has ND, as a half member in football.

Fourth, the Texas leadership would love to become the southwestern version of an ACC school in terms of having multiple non-revenue sports that are nationally competitive, including sports that exude 'eastern elite'. There is no better way to do that than to be in the ACC. Just look at Florida State's entire athletics department, which is no longer 85% football, 9% basketball, 5% baseball, and 1% women's sports. It is a nationally powerful all around athletics department that before joining the ACC was a rubber stamp for a football factory.

Fifth, nothing would bother and even frighten the SEC like Texas joining ND in the ACC.

 

[joebobb]

Why go independent?? I just don't see the advantages that Texas does not already have in the Big XII. They pretty much control the conference anyway. They have the most influence and will always have a seat in the national picture. Going independent wont change that, but they have a lot of scheduling assistance by being affiliated with the Big XII. As long as Oklahoma is there, it is a strong conference. Texas can make the most money in the BIg XII. Probably more than they could as an independent, due to bowl tie ins, scheduling alliances, and other residual benefits to being in a conference. In addition, it would cost more to field an independent program.

All the other conferences have warts. There really is not a better alternative to the BIG XII at this time, Why change. They should invite Cincy and UCF to join to get to 12 and they can get the national exposure of a CCG. In addition, bringing in those schools will bring in an additional 100k plus students with them.

 

[Nakona Horn]

Why go independent?? I just don't see the advantages that Texas does not already have in the Big XII. They pretty much control the conference anyway. They have the most influence and will always have a seat in the national picture. Going independent wont change that, but they have a lot of scheduling assistance by being affiliated with the Big XII. As long as Oklahoma is there, it is a strong conference. Texas can make the most money in the BIg XII. Probably more than they could as an independent, due to bowl tie ins, scheduling alliances, and other residual benefits to being in a conference. In addition, it would cost more to field an independent program.All the other conferences have warts. There really is not a better alternative to the BIG XII at this time, Why change. They should invite Cincy and UCF to join to get to 12 and they can get the national exposure of a CCG. In addition, bringing in those schools will bring in an additional 100k plus students with them.

Texas would make a LOT more money as an independent. We've seen numbers around $50 mil per year. If we go associate ACC members we have a lot more compelling schedule in football with ND, OU, and four other ACC teams. Patterson is trying to add Tamu back on the schedule. We would probably continue to play Tech every year and at least one of Baylor or TCU. A sample schedule could look like this

Notre Dame

OU

Texas A$M

Lville

FSU

UNC

Pitt

Tech

Baylor

Rice

UTSA

Stanford/Michigan/Arkansas

I would take that schedule every day and twice on Sundays as opposed to what we have now.

In addition, Texas competing in the ACC for basketball would grow our hoops name more than we've ever seen.

Baseball is also elite in the ACC.

Adding UCF and Cincy for "markets" is the dumbest thing we can do. The big 12 is different. We don't have and never will have a conference network so adding crappy schools with no football tradition just for "market" sake is not going to work. Also, good luck convincing the other schools of adding UCF and CIncy and then splitting back up into un-equal divisions. I know you went to Cincinatti but they really don't move the needle at all. We have enough schools in this conference with 35k seat stadiums.

For the Big 12 to survive, the schools/networks need compelling CONTENT. Playing more relevant games instead of Wofford, Buffalo, etc. You are starting to see the Big 12 improve it's non conference games with WVU playing PSU, Pitt and Vtech and Texas Tech adding Arkansas.

Remember, ESPN owns all three tiers of content for the ACC so all of our games would fall on an ESPN entity. ESPN, ESPN 2, ABC, and LHN.

By 2030 55% of the US population will live in the ACC footprint.

ACC all the way.

 

[Randolph Duke]

Fourth, the Texas leadership would love to become the southwestern version of an ACC school in terms of having multiple non-revenue sports that are nationally competitive, including sports that exude 'eastern elite'.

Nothing personal, but you don't understand Texas. The schools which promote multiple non-revenue sports are generally smaller schools ie: Notre Dame, Duke, Stanford and schools such as the academies (the REAL academies, not the fake one) where every student is also expected to participate in a sport. At Texas, with almost 50,000 students, that isn't happening. There aren't enough non-revenue sports to have 50,000 athletes on the rosters. Also, Texas doesn't compete in a sport to finish last in the conference year after year, just so we can say we participate in a large number of sports. We compete sports, in business and in every other pursuit to win. Lacrosse simply isn't big enough in Texas to recruit in-state athletes to compete and win a national championship. Same with wrestling, gymnastics, rowing and a number of other sports that ACC schools compete in. Texas isn't in a rush to add multiple non-revenue sports that can't supported by in-state students.

 

[J.B. TexasEx]

Nothing personal, but you don't understand Texas. The schools which promote multiple non-revenue sports are generally smaller schools ie: Notre Dame, Duke, Stanford and schools such as the academies (the REAL academies, not the fake one) where every student is also expected to participate in a sport. At Texas, with almost 50,000 students, that isn't happening. There aren't enough non-revenue sports to have 50,000 athletes on the rosters. Also, Texas doesn't compete in a sport to finish last in the conference year after year, just so we can say we participate in a large number of sports. We compete sports, in business and in every other pursuit to win. Lacrosse simply isn't big enough in Texas to recruit in-state athletes to compete and win a national championship. Same with wrestling, gymnastics, rowing and a number of other sports that ACC schools compete in. Texas isn't in a rush to add multiple non-revenue sports that can't supported by in-state students.

I agree with this post 100%, but I think you'll see lacrosse at UT within the next decade or so. It has grown in popularity by leaps and bounds with suburban TX youth. It's still a club sport for now, just like hockey, but that should change soon.

No reason the UIL can't offer league play for 5A and 6A schools. They like money, too.