Conference realignment?

[hornonthe40]

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.

WOW! Vanderbilt and Florida are both pretty good academic schools. I think you need to rethink your statement on the top schools in the south. you clearly forgot two.

 

[Irish in SEC country]

WOW! Vanderbilt and Florida are both pretty good academic schools. I think you need to rethink your statement on the top schools in the south. you clearly forgot two.

I know a little about both. Vanderbilt is the SEC's only private school. Florida would be 5th on the list of most prestigious state universities in the south.

Is your point that both those schools belong in the ACC? ND would be for Vanderbilt joining, no doubt. It is another major city to play in. But the ACC already has 2 schools in FL, so adding Florida would mean nothing to ND.

 

[Irish in SEC country]

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.

If you agree with the post 100%, then shouldn't you also agree that Texas will never have lacrosse?

Yes, lacrosse is growing at an amazing pace in TX. Many lacrosse teams recruit TX every year. I don't think ND has any Texas kids right now, but I know the staff has recruited in the state.

And I will bet that the powers that be at UT would love to become the lacrosse power located in the southwest, because no team sport says eastern elite like lacrosse.

 

[Lord Vader]

I know jack crap about Lax, but I was of the impression it was one of the sports being considered for addition once Patterson trims the bloat off the Athletic Department

 

[Nakona Horn]

I know jack crap about Lax, but I was of the impression it was one of the sports being considered for addition once Patterson trims the bloat off the Athletic Department

Correct sir.

 

[GetHooked]

Right now I am more interested in getting a new coach.

 

[J.B. TexasEx]

If you agree with the post 100%, then shouldn't you also agree that Texas will never have lacrosse?
Yes, lacrosse is growing at an amazing pace in TX. Many lacrosse teams recruit TX every year. I don't think ND has any Texas kids right now, but I know the staff has recruited in the state.

And I will bet that the powers that be at UT would love to become the lacrosse power located in the southwest, because no team sport says eastern elite like lacrosse.

Bad phrasing on my part.

Right now lacrosse isn't a viable sport for UT. I predict that will change in the next decade. LHN needs more content too.

 

[coolhorn]

For personal reasons, I would love Texas to join the Pac 12. We could have 4, 4 team pods:
Pod A - Texas, TX Tech/Baylor, OU, OSU

Pod B - UA, ASU, CU, Utah

Pod C - UCLA, USC, Stanford, Cal

Pod D - UW, WSU, Oregon, Oregon St

Games against teams in our Pod, then play against all teams from a specific pod (rotates every year), and then one team from each of the other 2 pods (again, rotates every year), and then rest OOC games.

3 games - against teams in our pod

4 games - against teams in different pod

2 games - against one team from the other 2 pods

3 games - OOC games

Larry Scott has done a tremendous job with the Pac 12. He and Patterson could make the Pac very special.

Now that Patterson has a new football coach in place, he has to clean the dead wood out of Bellmont Hall, and perhaps hire new basketball and baseball coaches. I also look for him to take over running womens' athletics too. I expect him to then start looking into UT's conference affiliation.

The Big XII, barring some miracle adds, which I just don't see out there, is too much of a regional conference without a big enough conference footprint for media purposes. This has nothing to do with the quality of competition within the league...just its' makeup. The only possible additions going forward that might make the Big XII viable would be a move into Florida to get UCF and perhaps Miami. That being said, I don't see Miami as ready to jump the ACC in the foreseeable future.

The GOR is a problem for the length of time it has left, but maybe NOT an unsolvable problem. UT, and to some degree, OU, OSU, and Tech would have to work with several other conference members to find soft landing places. At minimum, KU, KSU, TCU, WVU, and Baylor would need somewhere to go that keeps them relevant in sports. I'm not dismissing Iowa State either. I could see KU going to the B1G, which would find their basketball, academics, and proximity to Nebraska and Iowa attractive. West Virginia, with a little arm-twisting, might be an add for the ACC...they already have rivalries with several teams in that conference. IF the AAC could be assured of a place at the big boys' table, Baylor, TCU, KSU, and Iowa State would be very good adds. They could form the basis of a western division of that conference, with SMU and Houston. There's a lot of moving parts here, but what I'm trying to say is that with a little creativity and thinking outside the box, anything is doable.

Now, the elephant in the room...the LHN. UT would probably have to be willing to modify it, with ESPN's approval of course, into something that would fit with the PAC's current regional networks plan. I think with Dodds out of the way, and if UT is assured that it's not gonna lose money, the LHN would not be a roadblock to moving to the PAC.

I put the comment about pods in there because I'm NOT crazy about the pod system, but could live with it if I had to. I like the idea of a PAC East much better...UT, OU, OSU, Tech, the Arizonas, Colorado, and Utah. Allow each school one permanent cross divisional rival if needs be..

Okay...that's what I've got. Thoughts?

 

[Nakona Horn]

Here are some more of my thoughts:

Pac 12

Texas and the Pac 10/12 have flirted with each ever since the early 90s. The UT "DNA" is closer to the west coast schools like Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC and Washington so I think a lot of UT stakeholders from academics, athletics, politics, and business would be on board.

A Pac 12 move would be path of least resistance mainly because it would allow us to move with local conference mates and cover us politically. In all reality, we would probably make a move with OU, OSU and Texas Tech. This is key here. Tech is a public school and it is in the State's best interest for Texas Tech to be able to excel academically, athletically, and be financially sound. A Pac 12 move ensures this for Texas Tech.

Another compelling attribute for the Pac 16 model would be four competitively balanced and geographically sound pods. The ACC, Big 10, and SEC all struggle in their own way to maintain schedules that are fair and make sense from a travel standpoint. This leads to discontent and bitterness each year a schedule is released. The ACC has struggled for years in the division alignment they have set up. LSU was complaining for years about the inequity of the SEC schedule that requires them to play Florida every year while Bama plays Tenn. There are a lot of needs to satisfy. You want balanced schedules, you want to play in geography that is close to fertile recruiting grounds, and you want to maintain rivalries as much as possible. Very delicate balance to maintain. The Four Pod Pac 16 model alleviates all this.

Pod 1: Texas, Texas Tech, OU, OSU

Pod 2: Arizona, ASU, Colorado, Utah

Pod 3: Stanford, Cal, USC, UCLA

Pod 4: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, UW

You play all teams in your pod every year. Then you play two teams from each other pod and rotate after two years. This four your cycle will allow matchups between all teams. Everyone has access to games in California and Texas. You maintain rivalries. Pac 12 gets into the Central time zone. Cali and AZ recruiting grounds are open even further. Here is a sample schedule from UT's end with two year cycles:

OU

OSU

Tech

USC/UCLA

CAL/Stanford

Washington/Washington State

Oregon State/Oregon

Colorado/Utah

Arizona/Arizona State

Three non-conference games

You could showcase a conference that can highlight the following games: UT vs OU, UT vs USC, USC vs UCLA, Oklahoma vs Okie State, Oregon vs Oklahoma, Stanford vs Oklahoma, Texas vs Arizona, Texas vs Tech, Notre Dame vs Stanford, USC vs Notre Dame, Texas vs Notre Dame, UCLA vs Oklahoma, ASU vs Oklahoma. Now THAT is a compelling conference!

Non rev sports would be enhanced.

You would need to workout a strategy for the conference championship game. Do you alternate between neutral sites? Do you designate Jerryworld as host? Do you go with #1 team at home site?

The biggest drawback would be the LHN. UT wants to keep that and the Pac 12 TV deal does not allow teams to own their third tier rights. So The Pac 12 would need to sign off on allowing a special rule for Texas and who knows how that would turn out.

Another thing to keep in mind is the Cotton bowl and Big 12 match up with the SEC. Let's say the Pac 16 move happens. What happens to the Cotton bowl? Right now, the Big 12 splits $80mil 10 ways for that game. Do you work out an agreement that the Cotton Bowl is now a Pac 16 vs SEC match up? What happens to the Rose bowl? How do you decide which team goes where? What about Fiesta Bowl? Is that absorbed into the Pac 16 model? Lot of moving parts on the Bowls.

I would love a Pac 16 move. I think it could work and be huge. It checks a lot of boxes and makes a lot of sense. But I think the biggest hurdle is the tier 3 rights. Scott would pretty much have to make a special exception for Texas and LHN.

 

[abcee]

Best academics of any FBS university in the South/

Texas, Duke, Vanderbilt and Rice have to be the top 4, in no particular order.

Georgia Tech would likely be number 5.

If you're talking major conference schools, just sub in GT for Rice and you have your top 4.

Best public universities would be Texas, UNC, UVa and a rather large drop off after those three.

I went to Ole Miss.

We have The Grove.

 

[JMagana]

I just dont want to loose OU rivalry, plus like it when we dominate Texas schools.

 

[SoTexHorn]

Title games cost the B12 a number of MNC opportunities through upsets. It remains to be seen if accurate, but I distinctly remember during realignment discussions, that once the playoff system was in place, the B12 champion was thought to have an easier path to it. I don't think the B12 expands by 2 until they test that theory unless the Bigs form a football only division. Also, the PAC12 would already be at 16 but didn't want Baylor so they pre-emptively took Colorado (great decision there) wanting only UT (pre LHN), atm, OU, OSU and TT. When the B12 stayed together, PAC had to take Utah (another great decision). The landscape of CFB would have been much different if the PAC had loved Baylor.

 

[housebrand]

I think if you went to the SEC, you could keep a lot more recruits here at home. TexasStrong

 

[Ellie44]

Having four sixteen-team "supersonferences" sounds good, but how do the other 60 FBS schools get structured? They have to have a realistin shot at the title or anti-trust problems present themselves.
I am becoming more and more in favor of some sort of relegation system where the structure of. 16 team conferences is fluid. Two Eight-team conferences per conferences, so seven division games, three or four OOC games that can be scheduled in advance to maintain traditional rivalries. Add a conference championship and then a 4 team playoff. This effectively makes it an eight team playoff and the national championship plays 14 games. Lesser teams play 11 games. Lowest finishing teams are relegated to the divivion of 60 to have a shot at winning their way back into the division of 64. The downsides to this are it anhilates traditional conferences, makes scheduling a mess done less than a year in advance and means a lot more travel to places teams may never have played before.

Like the English Premier League?

Love that idea. Makes a lot of sense....and therefore, will never happen.

 

[SFlonghorngirl]

Like the English Premier League?
Love that idea. Makes a lot of sense....and therefore, will never happen.

Champions League

 

[Ellie44]

Champions League

Thank you. Wasn't sure what it was called, but I do understand that you play your way into the higher divisions with your performance on the field. Which makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[TheContractor]

Relegation system would be amazing!

 

[coolhorn]

I think if you went to the SEC, you could keep a lot more recruits here at home. TexasStrong

You never say never, but I seriously doubt UT would ever entertain a move east. There was a time, back in the early nineties, when that could have happened...matter of fact, it almost did. However, UT sees the PAC as having more peer-type schools, Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, U-Dub, Oregon. I think UT is also reluctant to consider the SEC because a move in that direction would seem too much like UT was following agricultural's lead, and also, there's that whole "cheating in the SEC" issue that UT wants to avoid. If there's to be a move for UT, I think it's west, not east.

 

[SFlonghorngirl]

I just dont want to loose OU rivalry, plus like it when we dominate Texas schools.

OU was in Big 8. Texas in SWC. Rivalry between the 2 schools will not be lost.

 

[JMagana]

Egos are big in these parts, I nver saw Texas not playing the aggies.