Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

Why is the Big 12 breaking up or in trouble?

They lied? Really? You know they had no intention of staying at the time?

I think you do not know that.

Are we all agreed that College football is "business"? Does anyone here in this discussion think for a moment that any of this centers around anything other than dollars and cents? I didn't think so.

In a business arrangement things change. Business doesn't always work out the way we want it to. Sometimes you look at a deal and think "That's simply not in my best interest. I've got to do something about that" and you do something about it.

Did A&M change their minds and decide to do what's best for them? Of course. Is OU in the process of doing the very same thing right now? Is OSU hanging on for dear life and prepared to follow OU anywhere they go? Of course they are. Texas has done what's best for them and Baylor & Tech did what was in their best interest when they shoehorned themselves into a bed of roses following the breakup of the SWC. Nobody likes landing in a bucket of ****. Even I get that.

UH did in fact land in said bucket and at times it looked like they were never going to get out. When they finally started to get respectable again along came their old SWC pal Baylor looking for a head coach. Just business.

I think A&M would have already "manned up" if the SEC hadn't been spooked by Ken Starr's attempt at avoiding the inevitable. If the SEC stops dead in their tracks and tells A&M that they don't want to risk any legal problems from this BUT... OU and OSU decide to go ahead and bolt anyway will Starr and Baylor sue them? Will they try and pull some strings again? I don't think the people in charge in Oklahoma give a fancy frickasseed flying fart who went to Baylor or what they think. The simple fact is Baylor's bag of tricks is empty and I'm going to enjoy the show.

I've got nothing against A&M so I don't care if they head for the SEC. I think that's where UH should eventually go. Keep winning, build your stadium, build your brand, and eventually they'll call. Baylor can go to hell though. They need to get their butts down to playing Sam Houston St. & Stephen F. Austin. You know, in a fine conference that suits them.

And if it really is all about money, then you know A&M just can't wait to see OU and OSU bolt for the Pac12. If they leave, the conference will be dead and all three will avoid paying exit fees which could go as high as 30 million. That would be a big win for A&M.
 
I would also like to point out that UH, TCU, and SMU have all built their programs and facilities during the period they were in a lesser conference. What has Baylor done from a facility standpoint? Not to mention the huge crowds they draw and the high demand for their tickets.

tickets.jpg
 
One last link that does a pretty good job of answering the OP's question in the thread title.

TEXAS A&M AND OKLAHOMA DECLARE INDEPENDENCE FROM TEXAS


Slowly but surely Texas's arrogance, me-first attitude, and bullying nature has isolated it from other schools in college football. The Longhorns desperately want all the benefits of independence without the hindrance of actually being independent. For years Oklahoma and Texas A&M, the two rivals that helped to make Texas the program that it is, took the incessant provocation from Texas's insistent ambition without response. Other strong schools sick of being held under Texas's boot left. Arkansas leapt to the SEC, Nebraska and Colorado joined the Big Ten and the Pac 12, all of these schools recognized an immutable truth -- Texas would bully them forever.

This left Texas with two major program allies: Texas A&M and Oklahoma.

See, the NFL realized long ago that a league was only as strong as its weakest link. In order to be good, all the teams have to be competitive; there has to be the possibility of anything happening in any given week.

Texas doesn't believe that to be true.

The Longhorns believe that they are the lone star in a sky devoid of other celestial bodies. The heliocentric theory meets football, Texas as the sun, the moon, and the stars.

Finally, Texas A&M had enough.

What was the final impetus, the straw that broke the Longhorn's back?

Texas had the gall to sign a deal with the ESPN to create the Longhorn Network, a nakedly self-serving attempt to brand itself as a stand-alone superpower. The very contract itself prevented the other Big 12 schools from banding together to form any network that included Texas. The Longhorn Network, the TV deal that launched a thousand ships, wasn't just about Texas having its own network, it was about the scope and ambition of the intent. ESPN ponied up $15 million a year over twenty years to carry Texas athletic events, but anyone who read the contract -- and lots of y'all did here -- knew that ultimately Texas wasn't going to be content with showing just one or two football games on the network.

No, in order for this network to make long-range sense it had to include the ultimate prize -- Longhorn football games.

And it had to include more than one of those games, and it had to include high school games, and it had to be clear that Texas wasn't just the Lone Star state's preeminent program, this was about annexation of the nation, Pax Texana. The Longhorn Network had to have something that people actually wanted to watch to make up the 8,760 hours of yearly programming. Cooking with Vince Young and Boating with Cedric Benson is only good for 500 hours a year.

Otherwise, how much shilling for Texas could ESPN really do? (That's a sarcastic question. The answer is, of course, infinity).

Anyone with half a brain could see that the Longhorn Network gave Texas the long-range goal of being independent. Only, you guessed it, in the meantime the Longhorns could have their cake and eat it too. The money of independence with the cushy creature comforts of a conference it dominated. Texas was the baron, the other schools were the serfs. It was separate but equal football, he with the biggest boots wins.

And Texas had the biggest boots around.

But then Texas A&M, the perpetual little brother, finally had enough. The Aggies realized that Texas was committed to going it alone in the future and just using A&M until that day came. So A&M did what Texas believed it would never have the guts to do, A&M joined the SEC.

Then Oklahoma, long used to playing second fiddle to Texas -- even as it waxed the Longhorns on the field -- realized that Texas wasn't interested in anyone but Texas. So Oklahoma looked west to the Pac 12, "The Grapes of Wrath" without the Joads, loaded up its program and decided to head west. (Hopefully going west ends better for the Oklahoma schools than it did for the Joads). Taking Oklahoma State along for the ride an emboldended Oklahoma coach Bob Stoops even said its rivalry game with Texas wasn't necessary anymore.

The rivalry game, by the way, that was already the only major game that garnered the Big 12 national attention.

Suddenly Texas, the school that was going to own the nation, is riding second saddle, clinging to A&M and Oklahoma for dear life.

Only most Longhorn fans haven't realized it yet.

That's because Oklahoma and Texas A&M finally stared down Texas, tumbleweeds blowing past, with both schools poised to fire. Texas blinked first.

Yes, the Big 12 may well survive thanks to the television contracts. And Texas may well make even more money.

But money without good games is a dangerous place to find yourself in a country that is soon to be over run with mega-conferences with mega-weekly contests.

If Texas stays in the Big 12 and plays Texas Tech, Missouri -- assuming it resists SEC overtures --, Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, TCU, SMU and Houston (or two or three other schools that jump to join the Big 12) is that a schedule that is going to make the Longhorns a national power? Throw in a couple of challenging games out of conference and the Longhorns stride across the nation's stage but rarely. Meanwhile Texas A&M, the little brother, will be playing massive national games every week.

After all this does Texas need Texas A&M and Oklahoma as much or more than either school needs Texas?

The answer is yes.

Only those schools have finally messed with Texas and won.

The Longhorns are too scared to join the Aggies in the SEC and won't be able to keep their precious Longhorn Network in the Pac 12. So Texas may have to capitulate to join the Pac12, follow Oklahoma's lead.

What then for Texas, the school that attempted to take over the nation and ended up losing its dominant grip on a region?

Already Texas is frittering away its past rivalries: Arkansas, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma are gone, and schools that should have become major national rivals have left as well, Nebraska and Colorado. The final kicker? All of those schools find themselves in better positions than Texas.

Texas's own naked ambition has isolated the Longhorns. Pax Texana, the era that was supposed to begin with the Longhorn Network, is looking a lot more like Pox Texana, the Longhorns have cursed themselves.

The Longhorn Network may have won Texas the battle, but in the process Texas A&M and Oklahoma have won the war.
 
You are still missing my argument that the difference is that aTm just agreed to stay and save the Big 12. aTm just agreed to a new television payout deal which all members agreed to. That is why Baylor and others are mad. They dont like being lied to. Also they have other money deals depending on the current Big12 members.

I don't think you're fully understanding of the sequence of events; but a&m was supposedly guaranteed via handshake/gentleman's agreement about certain things and then the longhorn network comes pushing extra conference games and high school highlights and all the other drama and our leadership realized that it would never stop so we decided to take actions to leave. there was no binding contract, and baylor is mad because they are being left out in the cold.

Why doesnt aTm man up and just leave? Call Baylor's bluff and GTFO.

really? why don't we man up? wtf has been going on for the past month? yeah, I suppose staying in the big 12 - 2 is a lot more manly than running scared off into the SEC west... as for the second part, you really think we like sitting here exposed like this? I guarantee you if push came to shove we would say eff it and just go, because the grounds for baylor's lawsuit are absolutely laughable and everyone knows it; it just hasn't come to that point yet and mike slive and the a&m leadership know they can move forward methodically as long as they cover all their bases
 
One thing I want to say; while we all dont agree here, and are very passionate about the subject, I think its nice that we can keep it civil around here! Much better than that "No Spin Zone."

Kudos!
 
One thing I want to say; while we all dont agree here, and are very passionate about the subject, I think its nice that we can keep it civil around here! Much better than that "No Spin Zone."

Kudos!


This thread has gone amazingly smoothly, given the fanbases involved. The mods were probably gearing up for some bans when they saw the threads on this started.

Kudos back at ya!
 
Actually, I dont see how Baylor joining the big 8 and leaving the other teams behind is the same as Texas aTm agreeing to stay & save the big 12, then less than a year later jumping ship.

If you can provide any historical data that suggests Baylor did the same BS move then show us.
As GHF mentioned earlier, the point the rest of us are making is that Baylor had no issues leaving old SWC ties behind when THEY jumped to the Big-12. Given that their recent hue and cry has been the loss of "old school rivalries", it's more than a little hypocritical of them.

You are still missing my argument that the difference is that aTm just agreed to stay and save the Big 12. aTm just agreed to a new television payout deal which all members agreed to. That is why Baylor and others are mad. They dont like being lied to. Also they have other money deals depending on the current Big12 members.

Why doesnt aTm man up and just leave? Call Baylor's bluff and GTFO.
Actually, they ARE manning up and leaving, so what's your issue here? Baylor cares only about the $$, they haven't re-invested in their program like Texas, A&M, Oklahoma have, but they've been happy to ride the coattails and cash the checks that the conference generates. Show me where they've made great strides with that TV $$ to upgrade their facilities & their program and then we'll talk.

"Texas A&M University is committed to the Big 12 Conference as it is today."
That's right, he said TODAY. As in before the Big-12 decided that "The Longhorn Network" was all hunky-dorey. In case nobody can see the writing on the wall, that's a HUGE precursor to UT becoming an independent. Quite simply, A&M has far more to LOSE than Baylor in this equation by staying in the Big-12.
 
....That's right, he said TODAY. As in before the Big-12 decided that "The Longhorn Network" was all hunky-dorey. In case nobody can see the writing on the wall, that's a HUGE precursor to UT becoming an independent. Quite simply, A&M has far more to LOSE than Baylor in this equation by staying in the Big-12.


That's very true. Right now you are looking at a conference that almost everyone agrees will live or die by UT's choices. Setting up their own immensely profitable TV network puts UT in perfect position to decide later that upgrading the quality and variety of opponents is in their best interest.

Right now it's Baylor crying that A&M's actions will bust up the conference and leave them out in the cold. in my eyes A&M is preemptively moving before they find themselves in that exact same situation alongside the rest of the "minor" Big 12 schools when UT goes.

It's not like UT and A&M haven't previously broken up a conference in the past. They each know what the other is capable of. A&M just has options, whereas Baylor and the rest of them are kind of stuck in that bucket I mentioned in one of my previous posts. If Baylor had the same options as A&M they might very well already be gone.
 
That's right, he said TODAY. As in before the Big-12 decided that "The Longhorn Network" was all hunky-dorey. In case nobody can see the writing on the wall, that's a HUGE precursor to UT becoming an independent. Quite simply, A&M has far more to LOSE than Baylor in this equation by staying in the Big-12.

Well, I don't know about that. In absolute numbers, A&M will be missing out on about 10+ million a year by staying in the Big 12, but if the conference dissolves and Baylor ends up in the WAC or something, they will lose a much larger percentage of their program's income and prestige. It's all relative, but everyone has a dog in the fight. I think at this point though, the superconferences are coming, and A&M wants a seat at the biggest and most lucrative table.
 
"Texas A&M University is committed to the Big 12 Conference as it is today."
That's right, he said TODAY. As in before the Big-12 decided that "The Longhorn Network" was all hunky-dorey.

Committed to the Big 12 as it is today? What a crock statement. He might as well said, "Would I ever leave this conference? Look, I'm all about loyalty. In fact, I feel like part of what we are being paid for here is our loyalty. But if there were some other conference that valued loyalty more highly, we're going wherever they value loyalty the most.

In case nobody can see the writing on the wall, that's a HUGE precursor to UT becoming an independent.

The same LHN that A&M was offered to be partners in 4 years ago and declined? Looks to me like A&M's leadership lacked the foresight to be apart of the network, rather than threatened by it.

Quite simply, A&M has far more to LOSE than Baylor in this equation by staying in the Big-12.

I would like to hear your reasoning behind this statement.
 
I have a question about this process and what will result that maybe someone here might be able to answer. I keep reading that anything left of the Big 12, whether it includes Texas or not might lose it's automatic qualifying BCS spot. Now, I don't keep up with a lot of this the way I do NFL stuff so forgive me if this sounds ignorant BUT..... aren't there exactly "x" number of bowl games that need "y" number of teams? If the Big 12 champion no longer automatically gets a spot then why wouldn't that go to the next best remaining conference that doesn't automatically qualify? If that's the case then who would that be?

I've thought that what might not be a bad idea in a worse-case-scenario situation for the Big 12 leftovers would be to join C-USA and re-org that into an even bigger multi-division conference. Give them that automatic bid and you've shut up a lot of the have-not teams.
 
I have a question about this process and what will result that maybe someone here might be able to answer. I keep reading that anything left of the Big 12, whether it includes Texas or not might lose it's automatic qualifying BCS spot. Now, I don't keep up with a lot of this the way I do NFL stuff so forgive me if this sounds ignorant BUT..... aren't there exactly "x" number of bowl games that need "y" number of teams? If the Big 12 champion no longer automatically gets a spot then why wouldn't that go to the next best remaining conference that doesn't automatically qualify? If that's the case then who would that be?

I've thought that what might not be a bad idea in a worse-case-scenario situation for the Big 12 leftovers would be to join C-USA and re-org that into an even bigger multi-division conference. Give them that automatic bid and you've shut up a lot of the have-not teams.

Good question. But I dont think the BCS wants to have anymore clunker (new CUSA conference) teams in their big money games than they already get in the current format. You can tell that the BCS games with the Cincinnati's and Utah's just dont have the money power that a Alabama/Ohio State does.
 
Committed to the Big 12 as it is today? What a crock statement. He might as well said, "Would I ever leave this conference? Look, I'm all about loyalty. In fact, I feel like part of what we are being paid for here is our loyalty. But if there were some other conference that valued loyalty more highly, we're going wherever they value loyalty the most.
So, if all the other teams left, they'd be obligated to stay? If the other teams de-funded their football programs, they'd be obligated to stay? They are leaving within the guidelines of the Big-12 contract they signed...prove otherwise or deal with it.


The same LHN that A&M was offered to be partners in 4 years ago and declined? Looks to me like A&M's leadership lacked the foresight to be apart of the network, rather than threatened by it.
A&M part of the Longhorn network? Does that even sound logical to you?
Byrne also says that Texas A&M was not offered the chance to join the Longhorns in the venture.
link
Of course they're threatened by it, and so is every other powerhouse in the conference. OU wants to leave as well because they're OK with everything? (Hell, even McClain the Baylor grad sees this move as a threat to OU) The Big-12 either needed to have a Big-12 network and be done with it, or prohibit individual schools from striking their own deals.


I would like to hear your reasoning behind this statement.
Simply put, Baylor was the economic weak-sister since the move from the SWC. Baylor is putting fans in the seats and you can be certain that the TV networks aren't eargerly signing contracts just to get those high-rated Baylor games. Baylor falling off the map of collegiate football altogether wouldn't be a big deal. A&M has much more to lose by staying aboard a sinking ship (and thereby to gain) by going to the strongest football conference in existence. Somehow, I don't see the SEC beating down Baylor's door to gain their nationwide following.


I'm sorry you perceive this as nothing but an "A&M is running away" scenario. They've chose to leave for underlying reasons taht have to do with the long-term viability of the Big-12. Baylor is jsut upset that they aren't the prettiest girl at the dance.
 
Last edited:
As GHF mentioned earlier, the point the rest of us are making is that Baylor had no issues leaving old SWC ties behind when THEY jumped to the Big-12. Given that their recent hue and cry has been the loss of "old school rivalries", it's more than a little hypocritical of them.

Actually, they ARE manning up and leaving, so what's your issue here? Baylor cares only about the $$, they haven't re-invested in their program like Texas, A&M, Oklahoma have, but they've been happy to ride the coattails and cash the checks that the conference generates. Show me where they've made great strides with that TV $$ to upgrade their facilities & their program and then we'll talk.

That's right, he said TODAY. As in before the Big-12 decided that "The Longhorn Network" was all hunky-dorey. In case nobody can see the writing on the wall, that's a HUGE precursor to UT becoming an independent. Quite simply, A&M has far more to LOSE than Baylor in this equation by staying in the Big-12.

I agree with everything you say here (and I'm a UT fan) except for the last sentence. And it's really only a small thing.

I wouldn't say that A&M has more to lose than Baylor by staying. The way I see the situation, I would just word it a little differently. They just stand to gain more by leaving. No matter how this shakes out Baylor stands to lose more than A&M, because they really have nothing to offer anybody.

A&M loses nothing by staying in the Big XII. But why stay pat when they could gain more from a move to the SEC?

I have no problem with A&M leaving. I just hope we can keep the Thanksgiving game.
 
I have a question about this process and what will result that maybe someone here might be able to answer. I keep reading that anything left of the Big 12, whether it includes Texas or not might lose it's automatic qualifying BCS spot. Now, I don't keep up with a lot of this the way I do NFL stuff so forgive me if this sounds ignorant BUT..... aren't there exactly "x" number of bowl games that need "y" number of teams? If the Big 12 champion no longer automatically gets a spot then why wouldn't that go to the next best remaining conference that doesn't automatically qualify? If that's the case then who would that be?

I've thought that what might not be a bad idea in a worse-case-scenario situation for the Big 12 leftovers would be to join C-USA and re-org that into an even bigger multi-division conference. Give them that automatic bid and you've shut up a lot of the have-not teams.

I think I may have an answer for you. First off, the BCS has some sort of process or formula which they use to determine which conferences are worthy of "AQ" status. When a conference gets below the acceptable level (like the Big East would have if they had not added TCU), they lose their bid. If a conference gets above the acceptable level (as the Moutain West likely would have if TCU had stayed), they gain a bid.

Even if teams left, the Big XII would keep their automatic bid for however many years until the conferences were re-examined by the BCS (I don't know when or how often this happens).

When that finally did happen, if the Big XII lost their AQ bid, it would likely go to nobody. That spot would just become an "at large" bid for the highest ranked BCS team that wasn't already invited to a BCS game.

I'm not exactly sure of all the intricacies of the system, but I think I hit close to the mark. Anyone who knows more about it should feel free to step in and correct me.
 
I agree with everything you say here (and I'm a UT fan) except for the last sentence. And it's really only a small thing.

I wouldn't say that A&M has more to lose than Baylor by staying. The way I see the situation, I would just word it a little differently. They just stand to gain more by leaving. No matter how this shakes out Baylor stands to lose more than A&M, because they really have nothing to offer anybody.

A&M loses nothing by staying in the Big XII. But why stay pat when they could gain more from a move to the SEC?

I have no problem with A&M leaving. I just hope we can keep the Thanksgiving game.
Fair enough interpretation.
 
Committed to the Big 12 as it is today? What a crock statement.
Loftin's a smart dude and new exactly what he was saying. A&M was committed to the Big 12 "as it was that day" - a 12 team conference. Nebraska and Colorado moved which left only 10 teams. This isn't the Big 12 anymore. I think that was a really well thought out and smart response.... not a crock statement at all.
Loftin did acknowledge that he publicly expressed his commitment to the Big 12 in June 2010 with the following statement: "Texas A&M University is committed to the Big 12 Conference as it is today."

On Monday, Loftin stressed the importance of the phrase "as it is today."

"At that day, [the Big 12] had 12 members," he said. "It does not have 12 members today."
http://www.theeagle.com/am/SEC-is-ready-for-A-amp-amp-M
 
A&M part of the Longhorn network? Does that even sound logical to you?

Obviously it wouldnt have been called the LHN, dissacks3.

Byrne also says that Texas A&M was not offered the chance to join the Longhorns in the venture.

Texas AD says it was offered. And aTm AD acknowledged it happened.

When Texas was merely pondering an idea for its own sports network, Dodds called Texas A&M counterpart Bill Byrne with an offer

“Three or four years ago we talked about doing a joint flagship channel,” Byrne said.

Asked if different response from A&M four years ago could have changed Big 12 history, Dodds said: “I think we would be in a different place than what we are.”

LINK.

Who do we believe?

Personally I am ready for the Aggies to pay their exit fees and move on. OU and OSU will join the PAC14. Texas will go Independent, and us fans can get on with our lives. Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech, and Missouri will have to beg to get other conference membership.
 
Texas AD says it was offered. And aTm AD acknowledged it happened.

“Three or four years ago we talked about doing a joint flagship channel,” Byrne said.

Wow, Cherry-pick much? How about including the next sentence in YOUR linked article?

“I liked the idea, but our fans should know me better than to think I would pass on a $150 million deal for Texas A&M. That never happened

Sure sounds like the was never much of an offer.
 
Obviously it wouldnt have been called the LHN, dissacks3.



Texas AD says it was offered. And aTm AD acknowledged it happened.







LINK.

Who do we believe?

Personally I am ready for the Aggies to pay their exit fees and move on. OU and OSU will join the PAC14. Texas will go Independent, and us fans can get on with our lives. Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech, and Missouri will have to beg to get other conference membership.

As a Texas fan I would hate this. Which independent school is actually relevant year-in & year-out in college football? I would prefer Texas to join the Pac-14 if Oklahoma & OSU decide to take that route.
 
I think I may have an answer for you. First off, the BCS has some sort of process or formula which they use to determine which conferences are worthy of "AQ" status. When a conference gets below the acceptable level (like the Big East would have if they had not added TCU), they lose their bid. If a conference gets above the acceptable level (as the Moutain West likely would have if TCU had stayed), they gain a bid.

Even if teams left, the Big XII would keep their automatic bid for however many years until the conferences were re-examined by the BCS (I don't know when or how often this happens).

When that finally did happen, if the Big XII lost their AQ bid, it would likely go to nobody. That spot would just become an "at large" bid for the highest ranked BCS team that wasn't already invited to a BCS game.

I'm not exactly sure of all the intricacies of the system, but I think I hit close to the mark. Anyone who knows more about it should feel free to step in and correct me.

Which is why this BCS **** has to go all together b/c that would be a deliberate snub directed at the smaller schools/conferences. As for this Big 12 crap, i'm all for it desolving & don't have any problem whatsoever with A&M leaving as i think it's a great move. Texas finally pushed too damn hard & all the other peons finally are getting tired of it. Anyone who looks at this whole fiasco objectively can see it plain as day, UT is angling to be an independent b/c it just doesn't make sense from a competitive standpoint why they would sign that deal.

-for 1, CP spoke on this yesterday, no other conference permits schools to have their own network so if the big 12 folds, UT will have to drop the LHN to get into these other conferences or stay independent...check that, maybe the ACC lets them get away with it, but all the other major conferences aren't having it.

-2, I mean they had to know that by signing that deal, this was something that was likely to happen with all the uneveness in the conference already. They had too. I say this b/c u just had 2 of your upper tier programs leave the conference basically b/c they were fed up with you & rumors also circulated about 2 others upper tier programs leaving in the same time just last year.

Furthermore, if you're as interested in keeping the conference together as Dodds claims, you don't make self-serving moves like that or try to tip the scales in you & your other big school counterparts favor at every turn. Instead you use your influence to build up the conference...Obviously, a conference network where the money is split evenly amongst conference schools would've been the best way in achieving that.
 
As a Texas fan I would hate this. Which independent school is actually relevant year-in & year-out in college football? I would prefer Texas to join the Pac-14 if Oklahoma & OSU decide to take that route.

What about Texas to the Big Ten? Texas in that conference with the likes of Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio St., Penn St., Wisonsin, etc just feels like a good fit to me.
 
Obviously it wouldnt have been called the LHN, dissacks3.

I believe "The Lone Star Network" was the working title.


Texas AD says it was offered. And aTm AD acknowledged it happened.

LINK.

Who do we believe?

Byrne has confirmed that he had been approached about it years ago. The problem is that neither side has been clear on the details of the offer. Some rumors say it would have been 50/50, other say Texas wanted 70/30 of the profits. I don't know who to believe on that, but I don't blame A&M for turning it down. They don't need to hitch their wagon to UT, they apparently are attractive enough for the SEC to fire the first shot in the superconference war.

Personally I am ready for the Aggies to pay their exit fees and move on. OU and OSU will join the PAC14. Texas will go Independent, and us fans can get on with our lives. Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech, and Missouri will have to beg to get other conference membership.

Exit fees are kind of the hitch in all of this right now. I think A&M is hoping (quitely) that the Big 12 implodes on the news of their SEC invite. They want OU, OSU and Tech/Kansas to be forced into jumping to the Pac 12 to dissolve the Big 12 and avoid any exit fees, but still reap the rewards of the NU/CU exit fees. That's the best case scenario for A&M in all of this monetarily speaking. However, if they end up paying 15-30 mill in exit fees to jump to the SEC, then no big deal. 15 of that is covered by the NU/CU payout, the rest will likely be covered by boosters, but the increase in conference revenue from the SEC over their current payouts will be worth it in the longrun. Let the chips fall where they may and move on.
 
What about Texas to the Big Ten? Texas in that conference with the likes of Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio St., Penn St., Wisonsin, etc just feels like a good fit to me.

I just question the traveling predicament that would come with Texas joining the Big Ten. The closest team to Texas would be Nebraska? Joining the Pac-14+ would put them in a division of Tech-Oklahoma-OSU-Arizona-Arizona State, etc.. Not much traveling problems there IMO.
 
I just question the traveling predicament that would come with Texas joining the Big Ten. The closest team to Texas would be Nebraska? Joining the Pac-14+ would put them in a division of Tech-Oklahoma-OSU-Arizona-Arizona State, etc.. Not much traveling problems there IMO.

That would create a pretty good division but Arizona is still over 1,000 miles away. Away games to places like Washington, Oregon and even Stanford would be brutal. Particularly with the majority of all the Pac 12/14 games being in that time zone.

Big Ten-wise, you wouldn't get the OU/OSU which would be really good for Texas but the rest of the games really aren't any further for flying than Pac12/14. Plus you'd be in a much better time zone than playing at different hours for players or even fans.

Either way, I'd like to see Texas in a conference and not independent.
 
Cherry pick? You already stated that Byrne denied it. Why do I need to quote the exact same thing?
He didn't say they never spoke.

Here's the quote again: "Byrne also says that Texas A&M was not offered the chance to join the Longhorns in the venture."

Having discussions and "being offered" are quite different beasts. I've had discussion with lots of companies about joining their staff, but I've only had an offer from a smaller subset of that group.

In the end we'll agree to disagree over this. I'll take the A&M AD at his word.
 
That would create a pretty good division but Arizona is still over 1,000 miles away. Away games to places like Washington, Oregon and even Stanford would be brutal. Particularly with the majority of all the Pac 12/14 games being in that time zone.

Big Ten-wise, you wouldn't get the OU/OSU which would be really good for Texas but the rest of the games really aren't any further for flying than Pac12/14. Plus you'd be in a much better time zone than playing at different hours for players or even fans.

Either way, I'd like to see Texas in a conference and not independent.

Same. If Texas joined the Big Ten I would enjoy the Wisconsin, Michigan & Ohio State games each year. Hopefully they will join one of the major three conferences (SEC, Big10, PAC) if they decide to leave the Big 12-3.
 
Now you can choose your own conference realignment.

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/09/15/conference-realignment-choose-your-own-adventure-style/


fun game

NC State shocks its fans, the ACC and the college football world by ditching the ACC for the SEC. A charter member of the Atlantic Coast Conference, no one saw this coming.

The SEC covets entry into the North Carolina television markets of Charlotte and Raleigh/Durham, while the Wolfpack reaps the financial windfall of joining the SEC.

Outraged by State's betrayal, UNC, Duke, and Wake Forest vow never to play the Wolfpack again.

Raiding the ACC for the Wolfpack creates enormous acrimony between the ACC and the SEC. This hostility affects many partnerships the two conferences have, including bowl games.

The ACC is shocked by the SEC's raid and needs time to assess its future. It has decided to hold at an uneven number until all members can agree on how to proceed.

Conference realignment is finished...for now.
 
What's needed here is for some powerful men at various "significant" universities to step forward, get the NCAA off its collective asses and create a national realignment. This haves/have-nots bullshit and constant shaking up of the various conferences isn't good for anybody. All of the Division I schools need to get together and create some set number of divisions that distributes the powerhouses among the weak sisters and gives everyone a chance to play in for a championship if they can beat everyone in front of them.

Seriously, I wouldn't even allow "independents" in this scenario. You want to play NCAA football with the other schools then you get in the conference you're assigned and play the schedule you draw. The NCAA (for lack of a better candidate) needs to take the bull by the horns and fix this. A national realignment that brought everyone back into the fold and distributed the best teams evenly could actually serve as a precursor to a playoff if they could ever get that on the table.
 
Back
Top