Texas and Oklahoma not committed to the Big 12, maybe UT to ACC and OU to SEC
- Thread starter FSUTribe76
- Start date
Boren cooled off on the Big XII expansion talk not long after OU got their ass handed to them by Houston.
I think the Big 12 is doomed whether they expand or not. The old model of sticking to your area for teams for ease of travel doesn't work for football money and football money is what is driving conference expansion. Ultimately you need to create new viewership not repeat old viewership to justify more money from tv and internet sources. And most fans don't just watch their team, but their it instate rivals as well (to see them lose).
Sooner or later the ACC will expand into Texas, hopefully with UTexas but I could see Houston as a target as well. From the ACC perspective Texas and Houston would be who I want long term, but I could see us taking four Texas teams (Texas, Texas Tech, Houston and Baylor or TCU) and either Cincy, UConn or Navy to go with Notre Dame to get to a high $$$ 20 team superconference.
I've been following realignment for years, and I'm deeply embedded in OU's main expansion forum.
The bottom line is, it's a mess with no easy answers, and no easy exit plan.
Up until a few weeks ago, I was pretty sure that the Big 12 would add two, extend their TV deal and GOR and get a big raise, and the world would move on. I've always thought that a stable Big 12 best served all it's members.
I still think that, but the Big 12 is just so unbelievably dysfunctional, I'm less sure of that than ever. This expansion process for them has been the biggest clown show in the history of college sports, and it's just their latest. There's no analogue in any other conference. I'm beginning to come around to the idea that they are just fundamentally not viable.
With all their entanglements among members, there's no easy way to dissolve the conference and get to the 4 x 16 model people seem to want. The Big 10 isn't going to take Oklahoma State or Texas Tech, the SEC isn't taking Oklahoma State without Oklahoma, Kansas is tied to KSU, etc. The Big 12 needs 8 votes to dissolve the conference, which would be the only way out of the GOR.
In my opinion, the best way out would involve 18 team conferences. Texas, TT, TCU, KSU to the ACC. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, WVU and Kansas to the SEC. That preserves the most relationships, restores/preserves some great rivalries, etc.
I don't see a world where Texas alone joins the ACC, even if ND agrees to partner. There's just no easy resolution in parsing out the Big 12.
The bottom line is, it's a mess with no easy answers, and no easy exit plan.
Up until a few weeks ago, I was pretty sure that the Big 12 would add two, extend their TV deal and GOR and get a big raise, and the world would move on. I've always thought that a stable Big 12 best served all it's members.
I still think that, but the Big 12 is just so unbelievably dysfunctional, I'm less sure of that than ever. This expansion process for them has been the biggest clown show in the history of college sports, and it's just their latest. There's no analogue in any other conference. I'm beginning to come around to the idea that they are just fundamentally not viable.
With all their entanglements among members, there's no easy way to dissolve the conference and get to the 4 x 16 model people seem to want. The Big 10 isn't going to take Oklahoma State or Texas Tech, the SEC isn't taking Oklahoma State without Oklahoma, Kansas is tied to KSU, etc. The Big 12 needs 8 votes to dissolve the conference, which would be the only way out of the GOR.
In my opinion, the best way out would involve 18 team conferences. Texas, TT, TCU, KSU to the ACC. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, WVU and Kansas to the SEC. That preserves the most relationships, restores/preserves some great rivalries, etc.
I don't see a world where Texas alone joins the ACC, even if ND agrees to partner. There's just no easy resolution in parsing out the Big 12.
For the Big XII to survive and stave off encroachment from the East, U of H is one I think they would have to take. Houston is the 4th largest city in the country and a huge hotbed of D1 recruiting. I think Cincy and Houston would be the most obvious choices for TV markets.
If the ACC did expand into Texas and took 4 Texas teams, TCU would be a wiser choice than Baylor. It sits in the D/FW Metroplex which is both a HUGE TV market and a major recruiting ground. I've never understood what Baylor and Tech bring to the table. The only reasons Baylor went to the Big XII in the first place when the Southwest Conference broke up were purely political.
And, although it's silly to presume that "100 year decisions" would be based on a single season, I have to think that the abysmal performance of the Big 12 this year has to be playing into decisions about whether to extend GORs. They are dramatically the worst of the power five conferences this year.
Since you've been a part of the conversation over there, what's the logic behind those groupings? Texas, Baylor, and TCU fit nicely with ACC academics while WVU fits geographically and shares a rivalry with Pitt (not sure about the VA schools).
In an absolutely ideal world for the ACC, I would take Notre Dame, Cincy, Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech and Houston. That way you get east Texas (Houston), central Texas (UT), west Texas (Texas Tech) and north Texas/Oklahoma (OU). Texas and California are so large I think the old "rule" about not double dipping in states for expansion is meaningless and securing all of Texas would be fantastic for $$$ figures.
BUT, I don't think this is entirely realistic for a couple of reasons.
1) Notre Dame is joined at the hip with Navy for very important historical reasons (ND would have folded as a school but for the navy's assistance) and I think they will demand they join rather than the more lucrative Ohio market.
2) Oklahoma and Texas are frenemies at best and probably full enemies at heart. Older Oklahoma alums have a fondness for the preUT Big Eight days and preferred Nebraska as a friend to Texas. Oklahoma does not enjoy its current "little brother" status with Texas and a lot of powerful boosters there (including my FIL) do not want to stay with Texas regardless of what conference that is. So I think Oklahoma will move on to the Big 10 or SEC if Texas goes to the ACC. Oklahoma is powerful enough to choose its own conference unlike Houston and Texas Tech.
3) Oklahoma has been protective of its own little brother Oklahoma State. And I think the two are joined at the hip. While Oklahoma is an ok fit for the ACC, Okie State is probably too poor academically to be wanted by the ACC.
So that's why I think we won't get Cincy and Oklahoma.
Texas is pretty protective of Texas Tech as they are both state schools. Unless Texas Tech can be guaranteed a spot in the PAC-12 (which makes sense, the PAC-12 has run out of ideal expansion candidates at 12 unless it can move into Texas), I don't see Texas moving to a conference without TT.
Sorry for not being clear...that premise is mine, and mine alone, and I've thrown it out a few places and it gets zero traction. For a myriad of reasonable reasons. 18 team conferences are not appealing, KU doesn't fit in the SEC, etc. It's just that there's no way to get to an ideal.
As for the conversation over there, it's all over the place, between people that want the PAC, the B1G or the SEC. A lot of debate about how tied Oklahoma is or should be to Texas and Oklahoma State. The discussion has been going on for years, and there's still no consensus on where they should go, even if they were free to go. Add in the entanglements, and there's to clear road map.
In listening to my well heeled and connected OU booster FIL, if the Big Ten offers they're a done deal to go. Despite rumours and press to the contrary, they did NOT get an invite along with Nebraska. The Big Ten had eyes on bigger prizes at that moment as they were convinced they were getting UVA and pursuing Texas hard core.
Now if Texas gets into the Big Ten, I do think in a pique of rage that OU just takes its ball and goes to the SEC.
But if you want MY logic for the groupings...
1) Restores Missouri-Kansas rivalry
2) Preserves OU-OSU, UT-TT, KU-KSU, Pitt-WVU, RRR (the later three become SEC-ACC rivalries to add to those we have)
3) TT, OSU, KSU, TCU (who nobody really wants) all get protected into a P4 conference
4) KSU to the ACC instead of KU is because the SEC is going to be asked to eat a fair amount of trash to go with it's one plum, OU. KU basketball (in a struggling SEC BB league) is a better reward than anything KSU. It also restores KU-MU.
5) WVU to the SEC instead of ACC is because I think Texas would want 3 Texas schools so that the ACC was a legit conference in Texas. I have a hard time believing that Texas wants to be in an island in a conference. I think that's as equally important to them as protecting TT and maybe others.
With a pod system, 18 and 20 team superconference works just fine in my opinion. No I do personally prefer the two team pod system to a four or six team pod because too many old rivalries get destroyed.
Take this lineup (the current ACC plus Texas, Texas Tech, Houston, TCU, Notre Dame and Navy). With the four team pod system the best design I could come up with is this.
Pod 1
FSU
Miami
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Pod 2
Texas
Texas Tech
Houston
TCU
Pod 3
North Carolina
NC State
Wake Forest
Duke
Pod 4
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Louisville
Pitt
Pod 5
Notre Dame
Navy
Syracuse
Boston College
With this lineup (all pods playing their pod mates and one static rival plus four rotating teams) you lose out on too many old rivalries lose really good potential ones.
I think that the B1G is the desire of the OU administrators, by far.
However, I think there is actually a fair amount of concern among boosters about going to the B1G WITHOUT Texas. There is some concern that having only one game in Texas/vs a Texas school each year is bad news for OU recruiting. The lack of success for Nebraska (at least before this season) after separating from Texas gives pause.
Also, however remote, the thought that Oklahoma State might end up in the SEC while OU is playing in the B1G is scary for some OU folks.
I actually think that going to the B1G with Texas is a no-brainer for OU, gives them the best of all worlds. However...can OU and Texas just walk away from all their little brothers?
Texas isn't at all protective of Texas Tech. The "who goes with who" mantra matters more to the legislators in the Texas House than it does the schools themselves.
OU doesn't fit the academic profile the B1G covets. Of the last four schools that joined the B1G (Penn State, Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland), three belong to the AAU. Nebraksa lost their AAU status in 2011.
You do make a good point about the concern for OU recruiting if they went to the B1G. They saw what happened to Nebraska once they moved to the B1G and, being almost completely dependent on Texas recruits themselves, it wouldn't be a wise move for them.
Agree. A lot of talk though is that the B1G is willing to make an AAU exception for OU. Especially if paired with an AAU school in KU and/or UT.
It's been confirmed that the B1G at least did due diligence on OU, which indicates at least some flexibility there. But at the end of the day, it will be up to the presidents, so I agree it could still be an issue.
I think the fact that the ACC schools are all off limits now, is leaving the general consensus that the B1G would make an exception for OU. The alternatives would be Iowa State or University of Buffalo. I think the AAU thing was a bigger obstacle when presidents might have been holding out for Virginia or GT or UNC.
But it might not be the slam dunk that some people think.
This is all very exciting - thanks for the football diversion from football lol
I don't have a scenario, but I would love to have Texas, ND, Navy, TCU, OU, TBD.
Also in my dream we could swap someone out for Tulane - imagine going there for a game plus we'd add New Orleans as a market and Louisiana as a slim recruiting toehold.
We'd add Dallas, DC to the list of Big Cities. We'd add ND and Navy as national market teams. Then there are the obvious football upgrades.
I don't have a scenario, but I would love to have Texas, ND, Navy, TCU, OU, TBD.
Also in my dream we could swap someone out for Tulane - imagine going there for a game plus we'd add New Orleans as a market and Louisiana as a slim recruiting toehold.
We'd add Dallas, DC to the list of Big Cities. We'd add ND and Navy as national market teams. Then there are the obvious football upgrades.
The problem for the B12 is that Texas controls the conference and the money. That's why the Aggies left. They got fed up dealing with Texas at the conference and state level. The Longhorn channel was the last straw. Same goes for why Nebraska left. OU almost jumped ship.
Nebraska and Oklahoma are tied at 111 in US News now, so it's not like there's any real drop off. Kansas is 118th. FSU is currently 92.
Texas carries the baggage of the Longhorn network. I would hope that a condition of joining the conference would be their ACC revenue share lowered by Network revenue....or drop the network all together. I bet ESPN would gladly sign off on that. I like the idea of everyone being equal partners in the conference. Playing favorites is one of the main reasons the Big 12 is in the sad shape it's in.
Texas is a good fit for the Big 10, ACC, and PAC 12. I'm not sure they (Horns) are going to be able to call the shots. They have some power, but not like they did when they were 4 or 5 years removed from a national championship. I hope we can add them to the ACC.
Texas is a good fit for the Big 10, ACC, and PAC 12. I'm not sure they (Horns) are going to be able to call the shots. They have some power, but not like they did when they were 4 or 5 years removed from a national championship. I hope we can add them to the ACC.
In OU's case, I'm sure an exception would be made since their brand is absolutely huge.
Yep, there was a lot of chatter than the B1G would consider waiving AAU for OU or FSU, especially if other AAU schools were part of the addition. Neither is so far off the academic radar to be indefensible.
One thing I've found is that people in Big 12 country think that Texas is the equal of Notre Dame in stature and value and national brand. I think there's a major disconnect there...I keep telling them that unless Texas is contending for a national title, nobody gives a damn about Texas on the east coast, in any sport. It's not the same as ND's coast to coast fan base (although even that is diminishing every decade in my mind). Everyone in the country either roots for Notre Dame, or roots against them, but they pay some attention. I just don't think Texas (or any other brand) is in that category.
I'm 44. In the lifetime of my fandom, Texas was an elite player for eight years, between 2001-2009. They were mostly trash before, and trash after. To me, Oklahoma's national brand kicks the hell out of Texas'.
Please don't get me wrong...Texas is a great brand and a college football blue blood. But I don't think they have the clout to dictate to the ACC or PAC they way they might think they do. But I'm not sure they see it that way.
I'm pretty sure apparel sales would say otherwise about UT. They aren't ND (no one is) but they are certainly a huge brand. Why do you think there is a "Longhorn Network" and not a "Sooner Network?"
So out of curiousity I looked up the apparel royalties and it looks like FSU has some shoddy negotiators.
Texas had the second highest clothing sales in 2015 while FSU was 12th. But FSU is only getting $4.2 million in its advertising deal with Nike to "wear" Nike uniforms which places it 22nd while Texas is getting $16.67 million from Nike which is the 3rd most lucrative deal. We are getting basically half as much money as Miami!
http://allthingsfsu.blogspot.com/2015/04/clc-names-top-selling-universities-and.html?m=1
http://www.forbes.com/sites/carlybe...le-college-sports-apparel-deals/#1bce0c926087
Best negotiator clearly goes to UCLA as they had the #1 clothing deal with Adidas getting $18.6 million despite only selling the 34th most apparel behind even Illinois and Louisville.
I'll add to that a bit. In 2015, we average 3.35 million viewers a game while Texas averaged 2.4 million per game. FSU had 36.6 million total viewers to their 24.1 million.
Twenty teams is a division or a league, not a conference. It's getting crazy.
Twenty teams is a division or a league, not a conference. It's getting crazy.
They are a gigantic brand, mainly they are the far and away biggest brand in the biggest college football state. That's awesome.
However, that doesn't translate to relevance on the east coast like Notre Dame has. Yes, Texas brings millions of eyeballs in Texas, and that means money. But if they want to call their shot with the ACC or another conference with a Notre Dame type deal, I don't know if that is going to go the same way. Texas has had some good basketball and baseball teams, but I don't think them showing up at ACC venues is going to get that many people hard. There certainly aren't going to be a bunch of Texas fans showing up like ND locals do.
Sure, a football game against Texas will always be a big deal...but no bigger than a game against Ohio State, Alabama, USC, Oklahoma, Florida, etc, and I'd argue that being locked into games with Texas every few years at the expense of games with more locally relevant powers would not be all that attractive. Notre Dame, at least now, is still the number one team you can put on your football schedule. Texas is great, but I don't know that it's substantially better than an Auburn or Georgia when it comes to visiting fans and recruiting impact. It doesn't necessarily guarantee a prime broadcast network slot like Notre Dame usually does.
I'm not disparaging Texas, they are an elite brand, but they are not Notre Dame. The TV ratings more than bear that out. But I think they think they ARE the equal of Notre Dame, and that's probably going to make any attempt for a conference to absorb them more difficult.
That's exactly what I said in the post you're responding to.
Also, you used a bunch of examples of programs that would be equally as big of a football game as Texas...but none of those programs are currently in the ACC. So from an ACC standpoint, I think it would be a pretty spectacular addition.
Ok, we're on the same page, I think they'd be a great addition too.
My premise was that I think one obstacle to their addition is their belief that they are a big enough deal to dictate unrealistic terms. Like, "If the ACC takes TCU and Baylor as full members, we will join as non-football members with a ND type deal." They may not be able to negotiate the deal they think they will with the ACC, that's all.
From reading the Notre Dame boards there's starting to be a consensus they should join a conference fully themselves. There's some dumb dumbs who still want to join the Big Ten not realising that immediately keeps them trapped in the Rust Belt and relegated to Northwestern status but most are now coming around to the ACC being an ideal spot for them.
Ahh. Yeah, that wouldn't happen. It would be ND and Texas, or ND and someone else.
Have a friend who is, along with his very well connected father, ND alums and big boosters. They say ND wil join ACC in full, only a matter of time.
They have been VERY pleased with the basketball, women's athletics, helping their baseball, and direction that ACC is going in. It's either Indy or ACC for them.
Two things of note:
1. Bringing in Navy (a move I would LOVE) would expedite process of ND joining in full.
2. Staying with 8 conference games is MUCH preferred by them. Would be a backwards step in our pursuit of ND if we went to 9.
I'm ok with Navy coming in with Notre Dame. I would never in a million years add Navy voluntarily by itself but if required by Notre Dame it's ok. Frankly I really enjoyed my trip to Annapolis so it would be a nice spot for away games, it just doesn't bring enough eyeballs and $$$$ to make it worth it on its own.
I HOPE we can convince ND to let us bring in Cincy or even UConn as its partner as I think they both bring more eyeballs and better sports teams. But I would be ok with Navy.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Softball FSU honors seniors, sweeps UNC, picks up 14th straight win
- Latest: Bob Ferrante
-
