Expansion: Big Ten is reportedly talking to..

[Gopher07]

Texas.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/feb/11/big-ten-making-overtures-texas/?sports

[Schnauzer]

This one has been out there awhile. A very juicy prospect. I'd love a road trip to Austin.

[positively4thstreet]

yes. absolutely, yes.

[WAGopher]

Texas would seem like a home run, but do they have the mindset to fit in with the other Big 10 schools? This quote from the linked article has me wondering:

"Texas already receives the most TV money in the Big 12 because of its frequent national network appearances, but the source said Texas still thinks it can get a better deal for itself and is considering forming its own state-wide TV network."

A huge reason there is dissatisfaction in the Big 12 is the unbalanced revenue sharing. I have never heard any of the Big 10's elite schools ask for more revenue because they bring in more. It may be a subject that's discussed privately, but I haven't read of anyone publicly advocating it.

If Texas does get admitted to the Big 10, they will bring influence and a full vote with them. How might the Big 10 change if Texas begins advocating more perks for the elite schools like unbalanced revenue sharing?

[dalostpinoy]

Adam/ESPN also writes about the Texas and BigTen talk in his blog.


http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/19529/texas-reportedly-talks-with-big-ten

[JoeDirt]

"If Texas were to join the Big Ten it would be the biggest thing to happen to college sports in over a decade, this story is HUGE, it gets no bigger than this in NCAA athletics." Colin Cowherd. I'll try and get a link to Colins bit on this subject as soon as it's listed, it was a terrific segment about 10 minutes long.

[Saskatchewan Gopher]

GopherGod would have a complete meltdown, he wouldn't know who to cheer for :rolleyes:

Reality would set in and I'm sure he'd know how to make the ever so slight backhand to the face of the Gophers, which he is so good at doing.

[BleedGopher]

This would be an excellent addition for the Big Ten and a major blow to the Big 12. It will be very difficult, if not impossible, for them to replace the impact that Texas has in that conference.

I wonder what we would do about our home-and-home we already have scheduled with them, probably drop it and replace it with a new non-conference opponent, as opposed to playing a conference game early. Or maybe we could play them twice in a year! Ha!

Go Gophers!!

[GopherGod]

I just don't see Texas making the move especially if they believe they can make more with their own TV network. I also don't see them wanting to have an equal vote in the Big 10 while they have been able to essentially call all the shots with the Big 12 conference. For instance, they were largely behind the choice for the first Big 12 commissioner, refused to join if other schools in the Big 12 were allowed to take Prop 48 recruits as they had done as members of the Big 8, got the conference HQ moved to Dallas from KC and are also pushing to have the conference championship game moved permanently to Cowboy Stadium. Ultimately they would not be able to run roughshod over the Big 10 conference politics because of the big players like PSU, OSU, UM while they can in the Big 12. I would also suspect that the Texas Legislature would not make it easy for Texas to leave A&M behind due to the negative impact it would have on them if they left A&M behind. If the University of Texas were to push this matter then the legislature may look to reallocate more of the Permanent University Fund to the Texas A&M system.

[highwayman]

This would be an excellent addition for the Big Ten and a major blow to the Big 12. It will be very difficult, if not impossible, for them to replace the impact that Texas has in that conference.

I wonder what we would do about our home-and-home we already have scheduled with them, probably drop it and replace it with a new non-conference opponent, as opposed to playing a conference game early. Or maybe we could play them twice in a year! Ha!

Go Gophers!!

Texas is actually a nice fit from a wow factor, academic factor, and financial (re: TV) factor. I'd take Texas over Notre Dame any day.

Since they would be in our division, we would keep it as is and build the Big Ten 2015 and 2016 schedule around it. We could then add another NC game as fits the schedule.

2015
Sat, Sep 05 South Dakota State TCF Bank Stadium TBA
Sat, Sep 12 Colorado State at Fort Collins, Colo. TBA
Sat, Sep 19 Texas TCF Bank Stadium TBA
Sat, Sep 26 Ohio TCF Bank Stadium TBA

2016
Sat, Sep 03 New Mexico State TCF Bank Stadium TBA
Sat Sept 10 Indiana State TCF Bank Stadium TBA
Sat Sep 17 Texas at Austin, Texas
Sat, Sep 24 Colorado State TCF Bank Stadium TBA

Divisions as I see it (E/W):
Great Lakes
Indiana
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Penn State
Purdue

Great Plains
Illinois
Iowa
Minnesota
Northwestern
Texas
Wisconsin

[magpie]

100% against this. Keep the Big Ten regional. I would rather play Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa St, Pitt, or even Syracuse -- before Texas (in terms of rivalries).

[froggopher]

It will never happen. Way too far to travel for the rest of the teams. Let's just stick with Mizzou or Pitt for another team. Makes more sense.

[GoAUpher]

If Texas does get admitted to the Big 10, they will bring influence and a full vote with them. How might the Big 10 change if Texas begins advocating more perks for the elite schools like unbalanced revenue sharing?

It's possible I suppose but I think that more than 2/3's of the schools in the conference have to agree for those types of changes to take place. Even with Texas on board that means 8 schools would have to support this kind of move. Supposing they were feeling greedy I could see OSU, Mich, PSU, Wisky, and maybe Iowa supporting this. That's only 6 including Texas. MSU is a wild card to me in this hypothetical but I'm betting you'd see MN, IU, Purdue, NU, and Illinois all oppose a move like this since they would be the hardest hit.


I just don't see Texas making the move especially if they believe they can make more with their own TV network. I also don't see them wanting to have an equal vote in the Big 10 while they have been able to essentially call all the shots with the Big 12 conference. For instance, they were largely behind the choice for the first Big 12 commissioner, refused to join if other schools in the Big 12 were allowed to take Prop 48 recruits as they had done as members of the Big 8, got the conference HQ moved to Dallas from KC and are also pushing to have the conference championship game moved permanently to Cowboy Stadium. Ultimately they would not be able to run roughshod over the Big 10 conference politics because of the big players like PSU, OSU, UM while they can in the Big 12.

Fair points GG. My question would be with the bolded. Would they really be able to make more than $22 million per year with their own network (which is what B10 teams make in TV revenue right now...a number that would likely jump with the additional markets Texas would add)? The entire BXII only makes $78 million per year (of which Texas gets about $12 million). Despite its stranglehold on Texas I wonder whether they could secure a deal worth almost 30% of the entire BXII deal. Especially since they'd lose all the non-Texas markets (and the Texas markets that would buy in would still have to pay for the BXII via the current agreements with ABC/ESPN/FSN).

I'm not saying they'd leave. Financially and academically it makes a lot of sense for Texas (in fact on those 2 reasons alone its probably a no-brainer). But that doesn't mean other factors like politics, rivalries, equal voice vs. lots of power, etc won't trump that. Because at the end of the day Texas still has one of the best financed athletic depts in the country despite being handicapped by the BXII's terrible TV deal.

[bigtenchamps1899]

it would be the beginning of the end for the big ten, and would usher in an entirely new 'super conference." the big ten would no longer be about historic rivalries and regional universities, it would be all about the money. the big names in the big ten will get tired of playing the also-rans and they would demand that they put up or shut up.

these also-rans (of which minnesota is one) would be forced out of the conference in favor of the better teams that would bring more revenue. i wouldn't be surprised to see a sort of english premier league set up, in which the three or four worst teams in the 'super conference' perennially drop off and the three or four best teams waiting in the wings would be added.

there is absolutely no way to justify adding texas to the big ten other than money.

[GoAUpher]

It will never happen. Way too far to travel for the rest of the teams. Let's just stick with Mizzou or Pitt for another team. Makes more sense.

Once you hop on a plane it really doesn't matter how far you have to fly. And any of the proposed schools from the East or West would result in a majority of the conference hopping on a plane to play them. For example, any team that flies to PSU would still have to do so for Pitt. Any team that flies to MN or Iowa would have to do so for Mizzou. Texas simply increases travel by a majority of schools for a new member (read 8 or 9) to all of them. Also, the increased revenue from adding the Texas TV markets would dwarf the additional travel costs each school would incur.

[GoAUpher]

it would be the beginning of the end for the big ten, and would usher in an entirely new 'super conference." the big ten would no longer be about historic rivalries and regional universities, it would be all about the money. the big names in the big ten will get tired of playing the also-rans and they would demand that they put up or shut up.

these also-rans (of which minnesota is one) would be forced out of the conference in favor of the better teams that would bring more revenue. i wouldn't be surprised to see a sort of english premier league set up, in which the three or four worst teams in the 'super conference' perennially drop off and the three or four best teams waiting in the wings would be added.

there is absolutely no way to justify adding texas to the big ten other than money.

I just don't see it. As I noted in an earlier post, the "also rans" have enough votes to keep changes like this from taking place. Also, the historic rivalries would not be affected by Texas anymore then they would by Mizzou or Pitt (though both of them add a rival into the conference for Ill and PSU respectively). And to be a super conference we'd need more than 12 schools.

[maxwellsmart]

Travel concerns? Alaska Anchorage plays in the WCHA and Fairbanks in the CCHA, don't they? If travel was a major concern for college sports teams they would a) not follow the above conference configuration in hockey, b) immediately stop scheduling Hawaii with any mainland school and c) terminate regular season cross-country non-conference games. It just seems like travel will be the least point of contention.

[GopherGod]

Travel concerns? Alaska Anchorage plays in the WCHA and Fairbanks in the CCHA, don't they? If travel was a major concern for college sports teams they would a) not follow the above conference configuration in hockey, b) immediately stop scheduling Hawaii with any mainland school and c) terminate regular season cross-country non-conference games. It just seems like travel will be the least point of contention.

I am not saying that travel costs alone would be a reason but in your example the long travel of the WCHA only affects one sport here at the U. If Texas joined the big 12 these additional travels costs would be felt by football, M &W basketball, track and field, soccer, cross country, tennis, golf, wrestling, etc. These costs would be felt by all the sports that do not generate self sustaining revenue to begin with.

[bigtenchamps1899]

I just don't see it. As I noted in an earlier post, the "also rans" have enough votes to keep changes like this from taking place. Also, the historic rivalries would not be affected by Texas anymore then they would by Mizzou or Pitt (though both of them add a rival into the conference for Ill and PSU respectively). And to be a super conference we'd need more than 12 schools.

actually, the gophers have played pitt nine times and mizzou 8 times. we have played texas once.

i am willing to bet that teams that are closer to the traditional 'midwest' (i.e. OSU, michigan, pen state, illinois, NU, purdue, indiana) have played these two teams even more that the gophers.

so yes, historically, pitt and mizzou are better rivals, both in numbers and regionally, than texas.

the only BCS team that we have played out of conference more than pitt is nebraska (and perhaps iowa state, washington and kansas would have similar numbers)

[GoAUpher]

I am not saying that travel costs alone would be a reason but in your example the long travel of the WCHA only affects one sport here at the U. If Texas joined the big 12 these additional travels costs would be felt by football, M &W basketball, track and field, soccer, cross country, tennis, golf, wrestling, etc. These costs would be felt by all the sports that do not generate self sustaining revenue to begin with.

Very, very true. But the additional revenue Texas would see would cover the difference multiple times over.

[GoAUpher]

actually, the gophers have played pitt nine times and mizzou 8 times. we have played texas once.

i am willing to bet that teams that are closer to the traditional 'midwest' (i.e. OSU, michigan, pen state, illinois, NU, purdue, indiana) have played these two teams even more that the gophers.

so yes, historically, pitt and mizzou are better rivals, both in numbers and regionally, than texas.

the only BCS team that we have played out of conference more than pitt is nebraska (and perhaps iowa state, washington and kansas would have similar numbers)

I never said they weren't better rivals (in fact I noted that they added strong historical rivalries to the conference). All I was saying is that adding Texas doesn't upset the existing B10 rivalries more than any other 12th school does.

Also, playing someone 9 times isn't a rivalry. That kind of talk will get Lakes talking about NDSU being our rival again. :)

[bigtenchamps1899]

I never said they weren't better rivals (in fact I noted that they added strong historical rivalries to the conference). All I was saying is that adding Texas doesn't upset the existing B10 rivalries more than any other 12th school does.

Also, playing someone 9 times isn't a rivalry. That kind of talk will get Lakes talking about NDSU being our rival again. :)

it absolutely is a rivalry when it is another BCS school.

but the point i made is that texas doesn't fit in the big ten, not that it screws with our rivalries. texas is not a midwestern school in any stretch of the imagination, doesn't share a border, doesn't share midwestern culture, doesn't share the same side during the civil war (granted neither did missouri, but missouri is a strange bird in that respect) any addition is going to screw up the rivalries in the big ten as there is no way to keep them all and split the division into two, but the spirit of the big ten is midwestern, not money.

another thing that texas to the big ten does is kill the big twelve. OK would want to leave without texas and then what are you left with.

[GoAUpher]

it absolutely is a rivalry when it is another BCS school.
Not in the sense that most people think of. 9 random games is not the same as OSU/Mich or MN/WI. That's what I consider to be a rivalry. Everyone else is just an opponent.

but the point i made is that texas doesn't fit in the big ten, not that it screws with our rivalries.
Rereading your OP I noticed that I missed the "regional university" part of the comment and focused on the "historical rivalry" part. My apologies for that.

texas is not a midwestern school in any stretch of the imagination, doesn't share a border, doesn't share midwestern culture, doesn't share the same side during the civil war (granted neither did missouri, but missouri is a strange bird in that respect)
I don't buy the whole Midwestern culture argument...Missouri's culture is different than Pennsylvania's which is different than Minnesota's. That's just how it is. Having a border with an existing B10 state doesn't mean you've got the same culture. I don't disagree it would severely muck up the traditional geographic makeup of the conference. That bugs me too but in the end I'd be able to deal with it. As for the whole Civil War thing...well, i just don't get that and I'd love to see the B10 justify not choosing Texas with that reasoning.

any addition is going to screw up the rivalries in the big ten as there is no way to keep them all and split the division into two, but the spirit of the big ten is midwestern, not money.
If the spirit of the conference is midwestern then PSU needs to go. Pennsylvania is part of the East Coast...it is not Midwestern in any way shape or form. And ya know what? That doesn't matter.

another thing that texas to the big ten does is kill the big twelve. OK would want to leave without texas and then what are you left with.
I could care less about what happens to the Big XII personally. But I agree, Texas leaving would put them in a huge bind when it comes to TV contracts.

[FireDaveLee]

Trying to think from Texas' point of view. A reason for Texas to consider joining the Big Ten is they don't want to be left without a chair when the music stops, so to speak.

If Mizzou leave the Big 12 for the Big 10, suddenly the XII can't have a conference title game unless they add another team. There's not many options out there. Arkansas bolting the SEC for the Big XII? TCU? New Mexico? Colorado State?

Pretty much any option for a new Big XII team would not benefit Texas financially as much as other conferences could. They would possibly be better off seeking refuge in either the Pac Ten or the Big Ten. Suddenly, a long trip for the Horns to Detroit or Columbus doesn't sound as rough as one to Seattle. Happy Valley sounds like a quick jaunt to grandma's house compared to Pullman.

One thing that Penn State did was they were able to see how things were going to potentially play out, so they got in on the Big Ten while they had the chance. I think something similar could happen with Texas. The addition of many schools wouldn't really affect Texas, but if the Big Ten does grab Mizzou, that could trigger many things.

Personally, I'd love it. Texas may not share many things with Big Ten schools, but I don't exactly feel a tight bond with Penn State either. Academically, they're EXACTLY what the conference is looking to add. And MSP to DFW or wherever else isn't horrible. I think Minnesota would be better off travel wise than others. Not to mention the Big Ten Network windfall that would occur helping out that cost.

[GoAUpher]

Trying to think from Texas' point of view. A reason for Texas to consider joining the Big Ten is they don't want to be left without a chair when the music stops, so to speak.

If Mizzou leave the Big 12 for the Big 10, suddenly the XII can't have a conference title game unless they add another team. There's not many options out there. Arkansas bolting the SEC for the Big XII? TCU? New Mexico? Colorado State?

Pretty much any option for a new Big XII team would not benefit Texas financially as much as other conferences could. They would possibly be better off seeking refuge in either the Pac Ten or the Big Ten. Suddenly, a long trip for the Horns to Detroit or Columbus doesn't sound as rough as one to Seattle. Happy Valley sounds like a quick jaunt to grandma's house compared to Pullman.

One thing that Penn State did was they were able to see how things were going to potentially play out, so they got in on the Big Ten while they had the chance. I think something similar could happen with Texas. The addition of many schools wouldn't really affect Texas, but if the Big Ten does grab Mizzou, that could trigger many things.

Personally, I'd love it. Texas may not share many things with Big Ten schools, but I don't exactly feel a tight bond with Penn State either. Academically, they're EXACTLY what the conference is looking to add. And MSP to DFW or wherever else isn't horrible. I think Minnesota would be better off travel wise than others. Not to mention the Big Ten Network windfall that would occur helping out that cost.

This is pretty much how I see it too. If Mizzou jumps not only do they get replaced with a less attractive team but the Big XII loses those TV markets which means their TV contracts (already sucky) would likely be worse coming out of the next round of negotiations. Texas tried to be like PSU in the 90's when they approached the Big Ten. And I'm betting they'd already be in the conference if it weren't for the self-imposed 3 year ban on expansion that the conference enacted after PSU. They weren't part of the original Big 8 and don't have the ties to any of those schools (outside of the rivalry with Oklahoma which could continue).

Like you said, they'd be an academic home run, an athletic home run, and a TV home run. I'm not sold on it, but I like the idea more than Pitt, Syracuse, or Rutgers.

[buddylee853]

Gut feeling tells me this would just not be a good fit.. looking at the big picture, anyway.

[GoAUpher]

Gut feeling tells me this would just not be a good fit.. looking at the big picture, anyway.

What do you mean by "looking at the big picture"?

[Ski U Mah Gopher]

The Texas legislature.

Remember back when UT made their last overtures? A & M threw a hissy fit and basically had the legislature force them into the Big XII.

[GoAUpher]

The Texas legislature.

Remember back when UT made their last overtures? A & M threw a hissy fit and basically had the legislature force them into the Big XII.

Yea. This is the kind of stuff that I could see derailing the idea. The trifecta of TV money, academics, and competitive athletics all favor the move. Tradition, geography, politics, etc may stand in the way. Of these possible misc category reasons I'd go with politics as the most likely killer of a potential deal.

[FireDaveLee]

The Texas legislature.

Remember back when UT made their last overtures? A & M threw a hissy fit and basically had the legislature force them into the Big XII.

I think it actually was Texas Tech & Baylor that threw the hissy fit more than A&M (I think Texas actually was in A&M's corner & said A&M was the only team they had to have come with them), but you're premise is correct.....Ma Richards, the governor at the time of Texas, was a Baylor grad, & there were more Tech representatives than any of the other SWC schools & threatened any UT additonal funding bills dead unless Tech was included.

I think politics would play more of a role of Texas not becoming a member of the Big Ten more than anything else.....

[ruralgopher]

In case anybody cares I'm pretty conflicted about this. I see the benefit to the Big Ten. I wish that whoever we bring in would be from a 'cold weather' area, though, which I don't consider Mizzou either.

[Ski U Mah Gopher]

I think it actually was Texas Tech & Baylor that threw the hissy fit more than A&M (I think Texas actually was in A&M's corner & said A&M was the only team they had to have come with them), but you're premise is correct.....Ma Richards, the governor at the time of Texas, was a Baylor grad, & there were more Tech representatives than any of the other SWC schools & threatened any UT additonal funding bills dead unless Tech was included.

I think politics would play more of a role of Texas not becoming a member of the Big Ten more than anything else.....

I do remember the political mess, but forgot that is was the little 2 that forced the Big XII on us.

[GoAUpher]

I think it actually was Texas Tech & Baylor that threw the hissy fit more than A&M (I think Texas actually was in A&M's corner & said A&M was the only team they had to have come with them), but you're premise is correct.....Ma Richards, the governor at the time of Texas, was a Baylor grad, & there were more Tech representatives than any of the other SWC schools & threatened any UT additonal funding bills dead unless Tech was included.

I think politics would play more of a role of Texas not becoming a member of the Big Ten more than anything else.....

Depending on who you talk to it wasn't Richards that made it happen. As I understand it real power in the Texas government structure is in the hands of the Lt. Governor. That’s because the Lt. Gov is the president of the Senate and controls the upper chamber by setting the legislative calendar and controlling committee assignments. The Lt. Governor also chairs the Budget Board, and therefore controls the budgeting process. (See Wikipedia for more here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieutenant_Governor_of_Texas)).

The story I’ve read from Texas fans is that in the 90’s the Lt. Gov was Bob Bullock, who was a graduate of Texas Tech University and Baylor School of Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Bullock). It was Bullock who said that Tech and Baylor had to go to the Big XII or that the legislature would slash the appropriations for Texas and A&M.

Whether or not that is true, the current Texas Lt. Governor is David Dewhurst (http://www.ltgov.state.tx.us/). He went to Arizona. I’ve seen it written that he is an Aggie. If so it would be as a fan not as a grad since his bio says (http://www.ltgov.state.tx.us/about.php) he went to Georgetown Law after UofA. So no idea how that dynamic plays out now.

[Weddings and Steak Frys]

When discussing expansion, has anyone heard it definitively said it would be 1 school only. Could a Texas, A&M and Mizzou package ever be on the table. That builds a 14 team super conference and would bring with it some established rivalry's, the TV markets in St. Louis (that which isn't Illinois loyal) along with Dallas/Ft. Worth, San Antoinio, Houston and Austin. It would allow some geographic proximity (although IIRC Columbia is further from Austin than Urbana-Champaign). Put together a couple of 7 team divisions and you have a major earthquake on the college sports landscape. Imagine this line-up...

Division A:
Minnesota, Iowa, Northwestern, Michigan, MSU, PSU and Wisconsin

Division B:
tOSU, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Texas, A&M and Mizzou

The only downside to this is the academic issue (which I think is bigger than many really appreciate) with A&M. Mizzou would be a bottom level academic institution in the Big 10, but is close enough in its rankings to be arguable. A&M on the other hand is not at the level where most would like to see the conference go academically. If they were to go this direction, I would think there would need to be iron clad guarantee's that A&M would upgrade itself academically. We'll see. I still say the conference is leveraging its Big XII dance partners to entice Notre Dame.

[GoAUpher]

When discussing expansion, has anyone heard it definitively said it would be 1 school only. Could a Texas, A&M and Mizzou package ever be on the table. That builds a 14 team super conference and would bring with it some established rivalry's, the TV markets in St. Louis (that which isn't Illinois loyal) along with Dallas/Ft. Worth, San Antoinio, Houston and Austin. It would allow some geographic proximity (although IIRC Columbia is further from Austin than Urbana-Champaign). Put together a couple of 7 team divisions and you have a major earthquake on the college sports landscape. Imagine this line-up...

Division A:
Minnesota, Iowa, Northwestern, Michigan, MSU, PSU and Wisconsin

Division B:
tOSU, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Texas, A&M and Mizzou

The only downside to this is the academic issue (which I think is bigger than many really appreciate) with A&M. Mizzou would be a bottom level academic institution in the Big 10, but is close enough in its rankings to be arguable. A&M on the other hand is not at the level where most would like to see the conference go academically. If they were to go this direction, I would think there would need to be iron clad guarantee's that A&M would upgrade itself academically. We'll see. I still say the conference is leveraging its Big XII dance partners to entice Notre Dame.

There were some unsourced quotes right after the B10 announced they were considering expansion that said 14 or 16 schools would be looked at, but I don't think it was ever followed up with anything more definitive. As always it depends on money. Does going to 14 teams get the BTN into enough new markets to make up for the fact that 3 more teams are getting a slice of the pie? Also, as you note academics play a big role too.

[hyaluronic]

Good. I'd rather have Texas than Notre Dame, though if we can snag both somehow, that'd be awesome.

[MrGopher]

Good. I'd rather have Texas than Notre Dame, though if we can snag both somehow, that'd be awesome.

How about USC and UCLA too?? It would be so awesome!! OMG and how about, umm... Florida, Alabama, LSU, and Georgia WOW!!

And can you imagine the national interest if we brought in UNC and Duke?? Holy Crap, it would be so profitable!!!

You know who really doesn't bring enough to the table? Northwestern. Also, Purdue and Minnesota are not bringing in enough TV sets and money. Let's drop them. Oh, and Iowa isn't up to snuff academically, and they also don't bring in enough TVs. Not worth having.

Here's how I would align the conference:

Big Bucks division:
USC
UNC
Duke
Notre Dame
Florida
Alabama
Texas
Penn St.

Cake Eaters division:
OSU
Michigan
Michigan State
Indiana
Oklahoma
UCLA
Georgia
LSU

I really dont see how you can argue with that.

[MrGopher]

By the way, that sarcastic post wasn't a particular stab at hyaluronic, but rather a general stab at all the folks who even consider Texas to be a serious option.

[jovs]

Won't creating these cross continent super conferences impact costs. I would think that they would skyrocket if Texas was added. Traveling from Happy Valley to Austin is a distance. There are a ton of non revenue sports where this would happen. Tennis, baseball, etc..

[Gopher07]

Travel costs would be more than offset by the gains in TV revenue. Distance Minneapolis to Austin = 1,173 miles. Distance Minneapolis to Happy Valley = 974 miles. It's far (~1,000-1,500 miles for each BT school) but it's not like a lot of teams aren't dealing with the fact already. Plus, it's negligible when you're traveling by airplane.

[GoldenHerbs]

Not gonna happen, do you really think the fanbase would be happy about having to travel so far for road games. The closest big ten school to Austin would be what, Iowa?? Not gonna happen, just another stupid rumor.

[GoAUpher]

Won't creating these cross continent super conferences impact costs. I would think that they would skyrocket if Texas was added. Traveling from Happy Valley to Austin is a distance. There are a ton of non revenue sports where this would happen. Tennis, baseball, etc..

A plane ride is a plane ride. Once you have to fly the costs are pretty fixed. And Happy Valley to Mizzou would be a distance too.

[Weddings and Steak Frys]

Not gonna happen, do you really think the fanbase would be happy about having to travel so far for road games. The closest big ten school to Austin would be what, Iowa?? Not gonna happen, just another stupid rumor.

As Lee Corso says, "Not so fast my friend". First off, as I stated in an earlier post in this thread, I think the endgame is to pressure the folks in South Bend. But to dismiss this as "just another stupid rumor", is well, stupid. The story has enough legs to be talked about on the ESPN website and the Lawrence newspaper, so there most likely have been some discussions, serious ones- who knows, but there is enough smoke for it to be mentioned by several sources. Secondly, do yourself a quick favor and check back to the days preceeding the founding of the Big XII. Texas was very near a PAC 10 deal at that time but as has been discussed here, the politics of the state may have swayed UT from making that move. For UT, a move to the Big Ten makes sense from a financial and academic standpoint, and that shouldn't be discounted. Athletically, it makes sense only from the regard of money, but if UT can add and additional $10-15 million per year to the coffers, it certainly pays for a lot of travel expenses. I would argue that the "travelling fanbase" argument only goes so far. Its football-centric and those fans at UT who get away tickets are those who donate real dollars and can afford to and will pay to fly where the team plays. Also remember, the athletic department gets its dollars from TV and home gate mostly. Will UT pass up the financial gains to help their non-donor fans continue to get tickets to see the team play at Baylor? Will UT pass up the dollars to make sure that maybe 1,200 fans can watch the 'Horns play hoops at Kansas State (which is a pretty good hike BTW)? Will they pass up the dollars so 100 fans can watch the 'Horns swim team compete in Lubbock? Don't know. I personally think that this all amounts to nothing, but to discount the rumors is foolish.

[Weddings and Steak Frys]

A plane ride is a plane ride. Once you have to fly the costs are pretty fixed. And Happy Valley to Mizzou would be a distance too.

Correct. And you are right in the plane ride idea. It's not like PSU gets its volleyball team together and hops in a van on Friday to travel to a Friday night game in Madison or even Bloomington for that matter. So the proportional cost differential is less than it appears. Further, I would suspect the BigTen would make some scheduling changes similar to the PAC10 where if you play MSU on Thursday, you would play UM on Saturday. Using that mindset, a super-conference with A&M and Mizzou makes it that much more reasonable.

Travel Partners
UT- A&M
Mizzou- Iowa
Illinois- Northwestern
Minnesota- Wisconsin
IU-Purdue
MSU-UM
PSU-OSU

I still say all this comes to nothing, but there are some valid ways/arguments why it could and should work. For the third time, I think this is all to lever Notre Dame into thinking this is her final chance.

[tikited]

No to Texas.

Yes to Mizzou or Pitt.

I don't see a big need to bring in a team that would crush all but two teams in the conference right off the bat. Bringing in a team that could have a chance to do big things makes more sense to me. Teams should have to improve to be in the top-half of a conference imo.

[GoAUpher]

No to Texas.

Yes to Mizzou or Pitt.

I don't see a big need to bring in a team that would crush all but two teams in the conference right off the bat. Bringing in a team that could have a chance to do big things makes more sense to me. Teams should have to improve to be in the top-half of a conference imo.

As a fan this makes a lot of sense to me. But the folks making the decisions don't care about this as much as they care about TV markets and academic fit. If an OK athletic school (Mizzou) with ok academics delivers the similar/better return on investment as and academic/athletic powerhouse like Texas then I could see it. But if Texas were willing to move and the TV money was significantly better I don't think the school presidents will care one bit about the fact that they are adding an athletic whale instead of a minnow.

[Bo Darville]

Somehow I get the feeling that Texas to the Big Ten is the first step in Minnesota, Northwestern, and Indiana to the MAC.

[Gopher07]

TV money would be the deciding factor in bringing in Texas. When you add Dallas (#6 TV market), Houston (#10), and San Antonio (#37) it's a big deal. For reference, Chicago is the #3 market, Philly #4, Detroit #11, and MSP #15 in terms of current Big Ten footprint.

[howeda7]

Yea. This is the kind of stuff that I could see derailing the idea. The trifecta of TV money, academics, and competitive athletics all favor the move. Tradition, geography, politics, etc may stand in the way. Of these possible misc category reasons I'd go with politics as the most likely killer of a potential deal.

That is the fly in the ointment. When the ACC expanded, they wanted Miami and Syracuse. The governor of Virigina ORDERED UVa to vote no unless Virginia Tech was the second school. They needed 9 votes and didn't have it without UVa. So guess what, Va. Tech became the second school, not Syracuse. A similar situation would likely occur if we try to raid Texas from the Big 12.

And this talk of adding Texas, Texas A&M and a 3rd school and then kicking out two existing schools like Minnesota and Iowa, will never fly. I'm not sure what the Big 10's by-laws are, but I'm guessing they need 8-9 votes to approve this. Obviously Minnesota and Iowa are not going to vote yes on thier own expulsion.

[NateDawgUM]

No to Texas.

Yes to Mizzou or Pitt.

I don't see a big need to bring in a team that would crush all but two teams in the conference right off the bat. Bringing in a team that could have a chance to do big things makes more sense to me. Teams should have to improve to be in the top-half of a conference imo.

The point isn't to make a team prove itself. The point is to MAKE MONEY. Period.

[GoAUpher]

Somehow I get the feeling that Texas to the Big Ten is the first step in Minnesota, Northwestern, and Indiana to the MAC.

Seriously, no. The "big boys" would need 8 votes to make this happen. They don't have them (even if Texas joined). Plus, membership in the Big 10 also includes the research benefits of the CIC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Institutional_Cooperation). The Big Ten won't boot out long term members that are also good research schools over football.

[howeda7]

Somehow I get the feeling that Texas to the Big Ten is the first step in Minnesota, Northwestern, and Indiana to the MAC.

Yeah, one of the 6 greatest basketball programs in America is going to end up in the MAC. Somehow I doubt it. The current Big 10 schools likely need a near-unanimous vote for any change to be approved. No one will vote yes on thier own demise. Any change will be adding schools only, not kicking anyone out. That said, I'm against expansion altogether.

[FireDaveLee]

I don't see a big need to bring in a team that would crush all but two teams in the conference right off the bat.

Athletically speaking, the only two sports that they would "crush" the rest right off the bat would be baseball & swimming (I'll accept golf as well).

They would definitely be an upper division team in football, no doubt....but a move to the Big Ten would change some dynamics as well. A road game at Camp Randall or Kinnick in November wouldn't be a picnic. They'd be the favorite year in & year out in the Big Ten West, but I see some similarities in terms of Penn State being able to crush the Big Ten when they came. Penn State is definitely one of the Big 3, but they don't exactly "crush." I see something similar with Texas....they'd be the "Big 4."

Texas isn't immune to "down" season either....they've seen the Alamo Bowl & Holiday bowl in the past 5 years as well.

Basketball wise....very good, but they definitely wouldn't crush. They'd be in the mix every year, just as Michigan State, Wisconsin, Ohio State & Illinois are. Not to mention that Indiana will eventually be back along with the potential that Minnesota & Michigan possess in terms of stability....two programs that definitely can be a player. And I'm not even mentioning Purdue.

I guess I just don't see them walking over everyone without a trace of doubt....

[howeda7]

IMO, the only way Texas is a viable option is if they go completely for broke and expand to 16. Then a case could be made for adding Texas, Texas A&M (likely a requirement to get Texas) Mizzou, Rutgers and Pitt.

An east division of Pitt, Rutgers, PSU, MSU, Michigan, OSU, Purdue and Indiana.

A west division of Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Mizzou, Texas and Texas A&M.

[FireDaveLee]

Reading a bit of the Texas rivals site, there definitely seems to be some interest amongst some fans. They see the benefits.

As mentioned, I think politics will be the biggest player.......I don't see Texas coming without Texas A&M. At that point, we're back to adding 1 school, at least, once again, whether it's Pitt, Mizzou, Rutgers, Syracuse, Iowa State, Nebraska or Notre Dame.

Unless there's complete chaos......
-Texas joins the Big Ten
-Texas A&M & Oklahoma join the SEC
-TCU joins the Big XII
-Big XII & Big Ten swap names since the Big XII now has 10 teams & the Big Ten has 12 teams. :)

[GoAUpher]

IMO, the only way Texas is a viable option is if they go completely for broke and expand to 16. Then a case could be made for adding Texas, Texas A&M (likely a requirement to get Texas) Mizzou, Rutgers and Pitt.

An east division of Pitt, Rutgers, PSU, MSU, Michigan, OSU, Purdue and Indiana.

A west division of Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Mizzou, Texas and Texas A&M.

Well, 14 could work too. Texas, A&M, and Syracuse gives you a stranglehold on the Texas TV markets and a footprint into NY (you could substitute Rutgers or Pitt for Syracuse but Syracuse might deliver the best increase in TV share).

East: Cuse, PSU, OSU, MSU, Mich, Purdue, Indiana
West: Texas, A&M, MN, Iowa, WI, IL, NW

[tikited]

The point isn't to make a team prove itself. The point is to MAKE MONEY. Period.

The point of my post was what I want. I don't care what "they" want...they don't care what I want. Just stating my opinion.

[RodentRampage]

Seriously, no. The "big boys" would need 8 votes to make this happen. They don't have them (even if Texas joined). Plus, membership in the Big 10 also includes the research benefits of the CIC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Institutional_Cooperation). The Big Ten won't boot out long term members that are also good research schools over football.

Getting a team out of a conference is like getting a cat into a bath. A bath that already contains a dog and a screaming child. (do not attempt this, it won't be fun for anyone, except perhaps the dog) Even if the other Big Ten schools wanted some programs out of the Big Ten, it just couldn't happen. If the other 8 Big Ten schools, plus Texas did want these three schools out, the only option would be to leave the Big Ten, form a new conference, and then not invite these three teams to join.

And even if that exceedingly unlikely event happened, we wouldn't be reduced to the MAC, Minnesota, Northwestern and Indiana would just form the nucleus of of a new Big Ten (we'd still be members of the Big Ten, after all). We'd have the Big Ten bowl tie-ins until the contracts expired. :D We'd poach some other teams, maybe the top of the MAC, Iowa State, and the Big Ten would still be in business.

But realistically, we aren't going anywhere.

[MrGopher]

The only way a school is going to leave the Big10 is for that school to bail by its own accord. The member schools are actually quite a solid bunch, and never would vote one of their own off the island.

Losing schools will not happen in my lifetime, unless they choose to leave, or the conference is broken in two.

I agree with the feeling that this is just to bait the 'Domers into doing what everyone has known for years and years to be the right thing. I also think it is possible that Texas might be a good choice because they are a good temporary boost for the conference. They are easily removable on grounds of geography, tradition, travel, etc. Once Notre Dame wants in, they will be in, even at the expense of Texas.

[bigtenchamps1899]

all this talk about what the big ten won't do is crazy. ten years ago i would have said that the big ten will not accept a team like texas, and yet here we are talking about it.

when you inject money into it, anybody will do anything. it is not a stretch to imagine the big ten finding the votes to jettison an underachieving school, when the advantage is more money and more acclaim.

if the only reason to bring in texas is for money, then there is no reason to believe that tradition or the amount of votes needed will stand in the way of other drastic changes.

[SFBaygopher]

The best argument I have seen for Texas joining is made in this blog

http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2009/12/27/the-big-ten-expansion-index-a-different-shade-of-orange/

I know it's been posted before, but based on a lot of the comments in this thread I doubt many have read it. It has 2 main Premises:

#1) think like a University President, not a sports fan. to paraphrase, think funding, academic advantages and prestige and research dollars. (This is mostly focused towards reasons Texas would want to join) Texas fits academically in the middle to upper eschelon of the big ten institutions. Joining the big ten adds prestige and benefits that the big 12 will never match.

In my words, you are judged by your association, If you are a University President do you want your school to be associated with Nebraska, Kansas, Texas Tech, Iowa State, because you are seen ase their superior or do you want to be associated with Michigan, Northwestern, Penn State and Wisconsin because you are now part of a group of academic institutions generally rated as superior. The lowest ranked B10 school per US news and world reports are Iowa, Indiana and I believe Michigan State tied at #71 - If I recall correctly Texas is the only school in the B12 that would ranked ahead of those 3 schools. (there might be 1 more)

#2) As the author puts it 11+1=13 (think Penn State, they set the expansion bar very high) The big ten is not expanding for a championship game in football, and it is not expanding to split the pie with another institution. In short, the additional institution has to not only fit into the big ten academically and athletically, It has to bring more than the +1 of being the 12th school. Texas and ND fit the bill. The author eliminates a lot of the other schools mentioned in this thread based on his criteria (which may or may not be valid) but it is a well laid out argument and I wouldn't dismiss the possibility.

The SEC has a lot of advantages athletically, I think the goal of the big ten is to maintain it's reputation of being both a superior academic and athletic conference. ND and Texas are the 2 most logical school to forward that goal. The Big 12 and Big East is not a stable conferences, that is why they are the most likely to provide the 12th team. So forget the "If Texas, why not UCLA, USC, Florida or whomever else. The SEC and PAC-10 are stable and none of their schools are looking for an out. The big Twelve and Big East both have schools that would jump at the opportunity to join the big 10.

As far as travel distances, check the milage from (Pac 10) Seattle to or Phoenix (1112), or (ACC) Boston to Miami (1261). in Comparison state college to Austin (1325)

I am all for this, I think Texas Joins the Big Ten - It nearly did 20 years ago. And Colorado joins the pac-10 This has been a rumor for a while. I hate to say it but the Big twelve is left as the Big East in the middle.

[Weddings and Steak Frys]

The sky is not falling. The unlikely, but possible addition of Texas to the Big 10 does not mean the end of Minnesota's conference membership. Sheesh, take a deep breath. There are documentable talks about addition, there are historical precendents for addition. No such evidence supports the fear of being kicked out. The Big Ten has never even discussed that option for any school. Further, I'm not sure how much more clearly it can be stated that THE CIC IS LARGER THAN THE BIG TEN TO THOSE WHO RUN THESE UNIVERSITIES!!!!! Maybe to quote the much reviled Common Man Dan Cole, if your world only revolves around sports, sports, sports, I can see the fear. That said, UT is an institution of academic quality that would place it much more in line with the Big Ten schools than the so-called learning institutions that make up the Big XII or SEC. UT would consider joining the Big Ten based on the financial AND academic standpoints. They would be very hesitant to give up the opportunity to have access to the academics that the CIC provides to them. There is nothing to suggest there would be any interest in kicking out a team(s) or precedent for that happening, short of a program getting the death penalty for NCAA violations, and even that would be unlikely. There is some independently verified corroboration of the goal orf expansion, the only comments on contraction are people saying "I bet they will kick someone out". Two very different situations. Take a deep breath. There is only about a 1% chance any addition of Texas comes to fruition.

[RodentRampage]

Throw a baseball against a wall. It bounces back. But it's just barely possible that every atom of the baseball might miss the atoms of the wall and pass right through the wall. It's beyond mind-bogglingly unlikely that it would happen, but not actually impossible. If every person on a the planet threw a baseball against a wall every second until the sun turned into the red giant and burned up the Earth in a few billion years, the odds of this happening even once would still be nearly zero.

Still, this is more likely than any Big Ten school being tossed out of the Big Ten.

[hyaluronic]

How about USC and UCLA too?? It would be so awesome!! OMG and how about, umm... Florida, Alabama, LSU, and Georgia WOW!!

And can you imagine the national interest if we brought in UNC and Duke?? Holy Crap, it would be so profitable!!!

You know who really doesn't bring enough to the table? Northwestern. Also, Purdue and Minnesota are not bringing in enough TV sets and money. Let's drop them. Oh, and Iowa isn't up to snuff academically, and they also don't bring in enough TVs. Not worth having.

I really dont see how you can argue with that.

As far as adding more than one team, I am not entirely sure about how I feel. I can envision a situation where ND initially balks, which it has done publicly, then once they realize the Big Ten door is closing on them, change their tune. If this happens, I think the B10 would try to accommodate both schools and then do a quick search to find a suitable third school. Other than this scenario (or an oddly similar one), I assume that the B10 would prefer to keep the expansion to one team, to help prevent the type of upheaval you describe above.

Others have made the Texas is a valid option argument, and I will not regurgitate it again. However, Texas is such a good option with a definitive untapped geographic fingerprint for TV markets, and a well respected research-oriented university, that it may trump ND. I really don't know how many TV markets that the B10 network would break into with ND.

While they all may be small contributing factors, geographical proximity and established rivalries will be small factors. I hate the Yankees. I hate the Cowboys. I hate the Spurs. These teams are not geographically close to me, and oftentimes aren't even in the same division. I'm apathetic towards the Brewers and the Bucks. Rivalries will evolve over time, and changing conferences inherently destroys current rivalries and creates new ones. The B10 wants a big fish, and Texas happens to be a big fish in a relatively unstable conference.

[GoAUpher]

all this talk about what the big ten won't do is crazy. ten years ago i would have said that the big ten will not accept a team like texas, and yet here we are talking about it.

when you inject money into it, anybody will do anything. it is not a stretch to imagine the big ten finding the votes to jettison an underachieving school, when the advantage is more money and more acclaim.

if the only reason to bring in texas is for money, then there is no reason to believe that tradition or the amount of votes needed will stand in the way of other drastic changes.

The problem is that important logic (money, academics) support adding Texas. The same logic doesn't support kicking schools out of the Big Ten. Especially MN. Losing the Twin Cities market isn't something the Big Ten wants to do. More important is the academic side of things via the CIC. Worrying about whether the Big Ten would boot MN is like worrying about whether the Vikings will become permanent co-residents at TCF. Technically possible but completely unlikely. Also, as noted multiple times, there are not enough votes to make it happen. The "little fish" of the Big Ten that you worry will be gone are not going to band together and let one or two of their number get booted. Period.

[frozengopher]

Would the Texas state legislature have any say in regards to this situation? I thought I heard that mentioned at some point as being a significant roadblock.

[GoAUpher]

The best argument I have seen for Texas joining is made in this blog

http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2009/12/27/the-big-ten-expansion-index-a-different-shade-of-orange/

Thanks SF...I probably should have given Frank's work his own post like you instead of dropping the links in the midst of other thoughts.

If you read everything this guy researched and wrote you'll see why the idea of Texas isn't crazy. I still don't think its likely, I'm still not sure its the best move, but logically it makes sense. Of course, you have to be willing to accept the 2 main premises of the argument first. :)

[GoAUpher]

Would the Texas state legislature have any say in regards to this situation? I thought I heard that mentioned at some point as being a significant roadblock.

I think Texas faces the same potential problems that the U does when it comes to PO'ing the legislature...funding. Otherwise I'm not sure if they can stop anything. The stories about Texas' move to the Big XII along with TTech/Baylor focus on how the Lt. Gov threatened to slash Texas and A&M's funding if the little 2 didn't get to join as well.

[RodentRampage]

The problem is that important logic (money, academics) support adding Texas. The same logic doesn't support kicking schools out of the Big Ten. Especially MN. Losing the Twin Cities market isn't something the Big Ten wants to do. More important is the academic side of things via the CIC. Worrying about whether the Big Ten would boot MN is like worrying about whether the Vikings will become permanent co-residents at TCF. Technically possible but completely unlikely. Also, as noted multiple times, there are not enough votes to make it happen. The "little fish" of the Big Ten that you worry will be gone are not going to band together and let one or two of their number get booted. Period.

Agreed. For one it's really tough to get enough votes to kick a team out of a conference. It's something that rarely happens in any conference. And, despite the inferiority complex that many Minnesotans have, the Twin Cities is not a small market, it's the around the 13th or 14th biggest market in the country. It would be foolish to throw that away. And even if it did happen, we'd probably just wind up in the Big 12 - they wouldn't let that market slide.

[GopherGod]

I think Texas faces the same potential problems that the U does when it comes to PO'ing the legislature...funding. Otherwise I'm not sure if they can stop anything. The stories about Texas' move to the Big XII along with TTech/Baylor focus on how the Lt. Gov threatened to slash Texas and A&M's funding if the little 2 didn't get to join as well.

The legislature down there can get in the way of this big time if they choose to by holding the money of the Permanent University Fund over their heads. This is a huge fund that is worth billions that is funded by gas and oil rights and established many years ago. 2/3 of the proceeds go to the University of Texas system while 1/3 goes to the A&M system. For instance, in 2007-2008 alone UT-Austin received 143 million dollars from this fund.

[GoAUpher]

The legislature down there can get in the way of this big time if they choose to by holding the money of the Permanent University Fund over their heads. This is a huge fund that is worth billions that is funded by gas and oil rights and established many years ago. 2/3 of the proceeds go to the University of Texas system while 1/3 goes to the A&M system. For instance, in 2007-2008 alone UT-Austin received 143 million dollars from this fund.

Assuming Texas even wanted to leave, this little nugget is exactly why it would fall through. Thanks GG.

[RodentRampage]

I wonder if Texas is really serious, this could be just some sort of ploy to get something out of the Big 12?

[GoAUpher]

I wonder if Texas is really serious, this could be just some sort of ploy to get something out of the Big 12?

Who knows? No reason not to. I don't know if we'll ever know if any potential addition or the Big Ten is serious until it happens. Which is what will make this so much fun/so frustrating for months and months to come! :)

[hyaluronic]

Much of the Big 12 is upset with the current conference structure, hence its instability and the reason Texas is a plausible option. Texas already has a decided advantage over other schools in the conference, and I would not expect the "smaller schools" to make concessions without planning to bolt the conference.

[MrGopher]

While they all may be small contributing factors, geographical proximity and established rivalries will be small factors. I hate the Yankees. I hate the Cowboys. I hate the Spurs. These teams are not geographically close to me, and oftentimes aren't even in the same division. I'm apathetic towards the Brewers and the Bucks. Rivalries will evolve over time, and changing conferences inherently destroys current rivalries and creates new ones. The B10 wants a big fish, and Texas happens to be a big fish in a relatively unstable conference.


I can generally agree with that, but at the same time, we play the Buckeyes just about every freaking year, and that is not much of a rivalry. Don't get me wrong, I hate them, but even though we've played them a whole bunch of times in football, there isn't much competitiveness there. The fanbases aren't especially mixed in any part of the country.

[Goldmember]

Divisions as I see it (E/W):
Great Lakes
Indiana
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Penn State
Purdue

Great Plains
Illinois
Iowa
Minnesota
Northwestern
Texas
Wisconsin

I think that's definitely how they would align the expanded conference. Except I think they're going to name them "Central" and "Eastern" after their respective time zones.:)

[metrolax]

People.....there's no way UT makes a move like that without A&M, and there is almost
no chance that both schools make that move together.

[Glass-at-50%-guy]

Texas' biggest rival isn't A&M, not even close. It's Oklahoma. A&M is to Texas as Michigan State is to Michigan. Michigan State wants to be Michigan's top rival, but Ohio State will always be. There is zero chance this happens. If we expand, it's Pitt or Mizzou. I think it's Pitt.

[metrolax]

UT fans want to beat OU, that's true. But within the state of Texas, the two universities
are extremely well tied together. It has nothing to do with rivalry, and everything to do with
state politics.

[PigAxeJug]

Not happening. Travel expenses would murder all their other sports. Football and Bball are (most likely, maybe baseball too) the only sports bringing in more money than they lose, so they could handle trips to Madison, Twin Cities, Happ Valley, Columbus, Etc. But Tennis? Swimming? Volleyball? those not profit sports would get a hell of a lot more expensive, and I'm not sure if Texas is willing to deal with that. It all depends on if the money they get from the BT tv deal is substantially greater than the price increase of traveling.

IMO, I think this is a ploy by Texas to scare the B12 into giving them more $.

[station19]

Not happening. Travel expenses would murder all their other sports. Football and Bball are (most likely, maybe baseball too) the only sports bringing in more money than they lose, so they could handle trips to Madison, Twin Cities, Happ Valley, Columbus, Etc. But Tennis? Swimming? Volleyball? those not profit sports would get a hell of a lot more expensive, and I'm not sure if Texas is willing to deal with that. It all depends on if the money they get from the BT tv deal is substantially greater than the price increase of traveling.

IMO, I think this is a ploy by Texas to scare the B12 into giving them more $.

I think the extra 10 million could handle that. Having said that, I'd prefer Mizz.

[GopherinPhilly]

Why are we only discussing the addition of a single school?

Seems to me that the big ten network gives us tremendous power and prestige...why not go after 3 schools and create the power conference we need to compete with the ACC and SEC. Texas, Nebraska and A & M or Mizzou could be added and we have a tremendous conference. Pitt, Syracuse, Iowa State are also in the mix.

Central and Eastern divisions with 7 teams in each division would be fabulous.

[Goldmember]

Assuming Texas even wanted to leave, this little nugget is exactly why it would fall through. Thanks GG.

The financial aspect, national prestige, etc. cannot be argued against. The legislature will recognize that a move to the Big Ten is absolutely in UT's best interest.

The question is how much political grand-standing they want to do over it. There have been Texas legislators that have tapped into the archaic parochialism of rural Texas voters in the past. But a lot has changed in Texas over the last 10-15 years. Nowadays it's harder for Texas politicians to claim that Texas is this isolated place that isn't interested in interacting with the rest of the world.

Not to mention, the other Texas schools were afraid of losing UT and A&M in the past. UT has left A&M in the dust to such a degree that this is about 1 school at this point. If you let UT go, it reopens the possibility that the rest of the Texas schools rejoin each other again.

I think the only thing that could kill this is the reaction from A&M and Oklahoma. No one wants to see either or both of those two go to an expanded SEC.

[hyaluronic]

Not happening. Travel expenses would murder all their other sports. Football and Bball are (most likely, maybe baseball too) the only sports bringing in more money than they lose, so they could handle trips to Madison, Twin Cities, Happ Valley, Columbus, Etc. But Tennis? Swimming? Volleyball? those not profit sports would get a hell of a lot more expensive, and I'm not sure if Texas is willing to deal with that. It all depends on if the money they get from the BT tv deal is substantially greater than the price increase of traveling.

IMO, I think this is a ploy by Texas to scare the B12 into giving them more $.

They already fly to the majority of their destinations, and fuel is a marginal cost.

Texas already gets an uneven share of B12 revenue - asking other schools to give up more will not go over well. I have heard some speculate that the B12 would be dramatically reshaped if Missouri left, and Missouri has, essentially, openly campaigned to be invited. If Texas gets more revenue share, it will hasten the dissolution of the B12, not stabilize it. At this point, we can use Missouri as a pawn to get the big fish. If we are expanding beyond 12 teams, we can take Missouri and Texas, and another school (A&M, Pitt, etc.)