Pac 10--Texas or Bust?

[Stallion]

Hyperbole aside-Every decision made by Texas administrators in the 1990s related to the breakup of the SWC was in the best long term interest of the university in order to enhance the tradition of a strong nationally prominent football program. Each of you should have expected nothing less from SMU's administrators and school leaders-and yet there barely a whimper from SMU fans until it was too late. Can the administrators of SMU, TCU, Rice or Houston even remotely look in the mirror and claim the same. Each of those schools failed to understand the valuee of a big time football program and each has tried to desperately play catch-up after decades of neglect. Could any rational person actually claim that UT made the wrong decision?

[EastStang]

Anything that means more $$$$ in everyone's pocket is going to move things. The PAC-10 does not have the ability to promise Texas more $$$$ than they are already getting from the Big XII. Now if two northern teams (or three) move, then Texas might look eastward to the SEC. It would certainly create a new market for the SEC, but it would not be without some heavy issues from teams who lose some games with some teams. Tennessee, Kentucky, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida would find games with reduced with Alabama and LSU. Would having the Whorns coming to town make up for losing LSU as often? Would the Aggies make up for losing games with Alabama? Don't know. Vandy will not open its mouth. They just will tell them where to send the checks. But once you get above 12, things get dicey for scheduling cross-over games. You would have 7 divisional games and would you then have a permanent cross-over game or would you get to play one team from the other division every 7 years and have them at home every 14 years. Thus a Florida -UT game would only occur every 7 and 14 years ditto for Florida-LSU. Now its every four years. This could be a sticking point for some of the SEC teams who are not in the division with UT and LSU. And if there is a permanent cross-over game, then a team like Kentucky never ever hosts Texas (depending on break-down of the divisons). As for politics in Texas or Oklahoma, I can imagine that legislative mischief still could destroy any Aggie-UT exit. On the other hand, for every TT and Baylor and OSU grad, there is probably a UTEP, SMU, TCU, UH, UNT or Tulsa, grad sitting there hoping for Big XII implosion.

[35straight]

New Logo?

[Hoop Fan]

i don't see Texas subjecting itself to the rigors of the SEC. The SEC is already top heavy as it is. Texas only ends up with more money if it is still is winning conference championships and keeping alumni pride and donations sky high. I think Texas likes the Big 12 just as it is, its perfect for them, and not too difficult. does anyone really think that Texas wants 8-3 seasons? They already have more money than God.

[1983 Cotton Bowl]

[quote="Hoop Fan"]i don't see Texas subjecting itself to the rigors of the SEC. The SEC is already top heavy as it is. Texas only ends up with more money if it is still is winning conference championships and keeping alumni pride and donations sky high. I think Texas likes the Big 12 just as it is, its perfect for them, and not too difficult. does anyone really think that Texas wants 8-3 seasons? They already have more money than God.[/quote]

I don't disagree with the statement that Texas likes the Big-12 just as it is. I think, however, that most people are speculating about what UT might do if the Big-12 is raided. If, for example, Colorado and/or Missouri go, then the only options are to accept not being a 12 team conf. with a championship game (less money and less prestige) or taking on schools that are not a good fit for the Big-12, like TCU, Utah, etc. (less money and less prestige). At that point, I think UT would at least listen to other offers.

Someone earlier made the point that UT wouldn't want to join the SEC because it wouldn't be able to dominate the conference the way it did with the SWC and the Big-12. That is also a good point that did occurr to me. Obviously, entering the SEC means playing an equal lessor role to the traditional SEC powers (Alabama in particular comes to mind. Florida and Georgia also wouldn't allow UT to dictate things). But let's face it, that is not an insurmountable obstacle. If the deal makes sense for all parties financially, they would make it work. Anything else would be foolish. And UT athletics are certainly not run by a bunch of fools.

[Dutch]

Texas only ends up with more money if it is still is winning conference championships and keeping alumni pride and donations sky high.

they've only won 3 conference championships. '96,'05,'09
only 2 of those were under mack brown

never won the big xii basketball tourney, been regular season champ 3 times (two of which it shared with KU)

only won baseball 4 times.

so it's not like their dominating the BigXII - they just win the revenue game. that's the important one.