Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Conference realignment?


johnabeard
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

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. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Old Tascosa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by J.B. TexasEx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

🏈 Texas vs. Kansas State

  • Days
  • Hours
  • Minutes
  • Seconds

Darrell K. Royal - Texas Memorial Stadium
Austin, TX
Kickoff Time 11:00 AM- TV FOX


  • 2021 Texas Football Schedule

    Week
    Opponent
    W/L
    9/4
    Louisiana
    W 38-18
    9/11
    @Arkansas
    L 21-40
    9/18
    Rice
    W 58-0
    9/25
    Texas Tech
    W 70-35
    10/2
    @TCU
    W 32-27
    10/9
    Oklahoma
    L 48-55
    10/16
    Oklahoma State
    L 24-32
    10/30
    @Baylor
    L 24-31
    11/6
    @Iowa State
    L 7-30
    11/13
    Kansas
    L 56-57 OT
    11/20
    @West Virginia
    L 23-31
    11/27
    Kansas State

Our Affiliation

USATDP_Logo.png

Quick Links

×
×
  • Create New...