UT and independance
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:51 pmMy father asked me about Texas going independant. I told him I'd get back to him and e-mailed him this. I know it's about Texas, and old news, and people still don't get it anyway, but thought I'd post it here anyway.
OKAY. WHY WAS TEXAS LOOKING AT THE PAC 10 IN THE FIRST PLACE AND WHY AREN'T THEY THERE NOW?
The University of Texas, academically, athletically, and culturally, has long looked at Stanford, Cal, UCLA, and the rest of the PAC 10 and thought they belonged alongside them (And truth be told, they kind of do). TV markets, exposure, liberal college towns, and a recruiting base that would be second to none make a Texas-California partnership desireable. The new PAC 10 Commish Larry Scott agreed and convinced schools like Stanford to agree to UT.
But there were major hurdles involved. Logistically and financially it's a nightmare going to Oregon or L.A. everytime your tennis team plays a match, the Pac-10 wouldn't agree to a Longhorn network (which we now know is worth $12M a year), and your alumni and potential recruits don't care about playing Washington State and Arizona. So Texas can't just pick up and go by themselves - they need people to come along. This was supposed to be A&M, OU, Baylor, Tech, and Colorado, who was on their way already.
WAIT. TEXAS DOESN'T NEED BAYLOR.
No, but they need A&M and Oklahoma if they want a conference (even if they will NEVER admit it) and Texas WANTS a conference.
UNDERSTAND SOMETHING: Conferences aren't just about a straight-up paycheck. They are about leveraging athletic, academic, financial, political, and strategic control over schools both inside and outside of your conference. (Just ask a Memphis fan) And everybody knows Texas and their money and TV base run the Big XII, with A&M and OU as acting Leiutenants - there is a reason Texas shared TV and penalty monies with OU and A&M and nobody else. UT, who has shown they can dominate in-state recruiting against the Sooners and Aggies, uses the Big XII as a way to keep control of Texas and it's recuiting base and TV markets. Who cares about competing against Kansas? But A&M didn't think they were a good fit for the Pac 10 culturally or geographically, and called up the SEC about joining. When Slive announced that Alabama, LSU, Arkansas, Auburn, and Florida were about to have the keys to the Texas UT had to turn right back around and think their Good Idea.
SO? WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOUTHERN CAL AND ALABAMA? BESIDES, YOU STILL GET CALIFORNIA RECRUITS AND EXPOSURE.
Because it's not a fair trade - you have to compete with the SEC for recruits now but don't get their money.
USC, UCLA, Berkely, and Stanford have their own recruiting heaven - they aren't going to try to compete with Texas in their own backyard. And why does a kid from L.A. want to go all the way to Austin? Certainly the All-Americans in California aren't going to your school when they have USC down the street. But LSU is right next door. Arkansas is foaming at the mouth to get back into Texas. Alabama has built dynasties on stealing other states kids. All they need is a way through the door. And if A&M goes to the SEC, that's exactly what you'll have - over half the SEC, three of whom just won National Championships (UF doesn't need Texas), competing for their kids. Arky and Bama will nickel and dime them to death. If Texas had looked anywhere for a new conference, they should have at least looked right next door, but they have said consistantly 'No way.' And don't buy that "Academics" argument: They had no problem associating with Iowa State. Texas knows all they have to do is dominate in-state recruiting and they will be in the NC game every five years, so they can't have the SEC running loose in Houston.
Oh, and by the way, you still have to win. Texas' losing season this year caused home attendance to drop 10,000. That cost Austin millions of dollars of revenue each week.
SO THEY'RE JUST SCARED OF THE SEC?
Not just the SEC. If the Longhorns go to the Pac-10 and the Aggies go to the SEC, that changes their own recruiting equation. Straight up, Texas is a better school, with a prettier campus (and prettier girls), better college town, bigger stadium, better history, and a proven coach who has won a National Championship there - they should win every time. But now A&M is now telling kids they are the lone Texas representative in the best conference in college football while UT is trying to sell kids on Tempe. Now A&M is making more money off of conference affiliation than UT, with lower overhead. Now there's an Aggie network, but not necessarily a Longhorn network. Now 15,000 Auburn fans are fighting for tickets to College Station - How many do you think Cal brings? Now Texas A&M is playing Arkansas in Jerry-land in their own version of the Red-River Rivalry, just like they are now, only its a conference game.
Do you see the difference? Because A&M's fans and alumni do. There are now 'SECede' stickers on Aggies cars. A&M's president was forced to explain on his website his decision to stay in the Big XII: http://president.tamu.edu/2010/06/16/qa ... onference/. (Long story short: It was the money) Texas got it also, that's why they were forced to go back and work it out with the rest of the conference. Texas, Baylor, Tech, Colorado, and maybe Oklahoma (OU made have their own in-state problems going west without a T. Boone Pickens-backed OSU) wasn't enough to get out without A&M and a Longhorn network coming along. Plus, alumni weren't happy with the prospect of having to go 1500 miles for half the conference games.
FINE. SO WHERE IS THE BIG XII NOW?
Texas had to come back to the conference and split the new TV contract and $15M in penalty money with OU and A&M to keep them in as well. In the short run, it's actually a win for the schools financially, even if they all have egg on their faces. Kansas's AD has said publicly that there are signed contracts in place to prevent schools for leaving for 10 years:
http://cjonline.com/sports/basketball/2 ... ig_12_deal. The specifics of the deal haven't been released and nobody else is talking about it, but stiff penalties could keep everybody together for the time being. Essentially UT, A&M, and OU keeping their options open while the other 7 pray that nobody goes anywhere.
SO WHAT, THEY'RE STUCK TOGETHER?
For the time being. But there are certain arrangements and problems that will have to be resolved in the coming years:
1. The current TV contract. Dan Beebe saved his conference and his job when he convinced ESPN/ABC to leave the same amount of money on the table for 10 schools as they had for 12, divided up the extra money between them, with the Big 3 getting the most. (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5286672) When the contract has to be renegotiated for 10 schools, sans the Colorado and Nebraska TV markets, we will see how it affects the money the schools make.
2. The Colorado and Nebraska penalty money. It cost these two schools just over $15M in penalty money - with only the Big 3 getting any of it - to leave and go to their new conferences. Being that A&M currently has a seven figure athletic deficit, that money could be spent quickly.
3. No championship game. This is going to hurt the conference in the wallet, in exposure, and, if you believe the Big 10, who believed it was affecting their on-the-field performance, on the scoreboard. But frankly the extra money they are making in the short run from the renegotiated TV contract and penalty monies should offset this, and the football coaches love not having a championship game.
4. A&M's ego. They are sick of playing third fiddle behind UT and OU and have been offered a chance to get out from behind their shadow, and I've just listed the reasons why they would do it. Frankly, their win over the Longhorns this year could go a long way to keeping them in check.
When these issues come to a head, 3 or 4 years from now, the Big 3 will have to decide to stay or go, and if they stay, whether to go with 10 schools or 12.
SO IF THEY NEED TV SETS AND A CHAMPIONSHIP GAME, WHY DON'T THEY JUST GO AHEAD AND EXPAND?
For a couple of reasons. As I stated earlier, they are actually making more money for the short run, so they don't need to at the present moment. They won't look to expand if they can keep the same amount of money they are getting now. But there's also the matter of the schools they bring in - it's not enough to have schools, you have to have the right schools.
1. The Big XII desperately needs TV markets. The were dead last amongst BCS conferences even before they were raided, and it's going to get a lot worse now. For that reason, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Baylor will never allow another Texas school in the Big XII while all four are there - they have the state of Texas, with its recruits and TV market, wrapped up. If, and that's a HUGE if right now, but IF one of those were to leave, then maybe, just MAYBE they would look at a program. But that's a long, long way away, so everybody just forget about any other Texas school joining, and you can add Tulsa for the same reasons.
2. BYU, who has had their act together for decades out there, brings something to the table. Frankly, they would fit in fine academically and culturally with KSU, ISU, KU, Baylor, and others. But it's slim pickens after that. It is probably the second biggest reason the Big XII didn't just go out and replace NU and CU. BSU is just a good football program, nothing more. AFA is a bad fit for the simple reason it is not built to compete consistantly against major programs as they have other priorities. Most others now in the MWC are small time athletically, financially, and TV-market wise, on the field records be damned - there is a reason BYU went independant.
Essentially, the Big XII, including Texas, is in a wait and see attitude. But Texas, most likely, isn't going anywhere if it threatens it's base.
SO IS TEXAS GOING INDEPENDANT?
Probably not. Never say never, but not only do they walk away from the $17-20M a year they make from the Big XII, they lose the political and stretegic clout that comes with running it. Like I said, the Big XII does a lot for Texas and have shown a willingness to do whatever it takes to keep them there. And even Notre Dame is having it's problems going it alone. My guess is that they will take the money in the short term, re-evaluate the situation in a few years, and not do anything to dramatic. They make the most money, by far, of any school in the country, and that was before they had their own network. There is no reason for them to re-invent the wheel now. Most likely, they will keep quiet and be on the look-out for any schools that might bring the conference to a stable 12 school league. Or the BCS might contract (whole other issue). But most likely, they stay put.
OKAY. WHY WAS TEXAS LOOKING AT THE PAC 10 IN THE FIRST PLACE AND WHY AREN'T THEY THERE NOW?
The University of Texas, academically, athletically, and culturally, has long looked at Stanford, Cal, UCLA, and the rest of the PAC 10 and thought they belonged alongside them (And truth be told, they kind of do). TV markets, exposure, liberal college towns, and a recruiting base that would be second to none make a Texas-California partnership desireable. The new PAC 10 Commish Larry Scott agreed and convinced schools like Stanford to agree to UT.
But there were major hurdles involved. Logistically and financially it's a nightmare going to Oregon or L.A. everytime your tennis team plays a match, the Pac-10 wouldn't agree to a Longhorn network (which we now know is worth $12M a year), and your alumni and potential recruits don't care about playing Washington State and Arizona. So Texas can't just pick up and go by themselves - they need people to come along. This was supposed to be A&M, OU, Baylor, Tech, and Colorado, who was on their way already.
WAIT. TEXAS DOESN'T NEED BAYLOR.
No, but they need A&M and Oklahoma if they want a conference (even if they will NEVER admit it) and Texas WANTS a conference.
UNDERSTAND SOMETHING: Conferences aren't just about a straight-up paycheck. They are about leveraging athletic, academic, financial, political, and strategic control over schools both inside and outside of your conference. (Just ask a Memphis fan) And everybody knows Texas and their money and TV base run the Big XII, with A&M and OU as acting Leiutenants - there is a reason Texas shared TV and penalty monies with OU and A&M and nobody else. UT, who has shown they can dominate in-state recruiting against the Sooners and Aggies, uses the Big XII as a way to keep control of Texas and it's recuiting base and TV markets. Who cares about competing against Kansas? But A&M didn't think they were a good fit for the Pac 10 culturally or geographically, and called up the SEC about joining. When Slive announced that Alabama, LSU, Arkansas, Auburn, and Florida were about to have the keys to the Texas UT had to turn right back around and think their Good Idea.
SO? WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOUTHERN CAL AND ALABAMA? BESIDES, YOU STILL GET CALIFORNIA RECRUITS AND EXPOSURE.
Because it's not a fair trade - you have to compete with the SEC for recruits now but don't get their money.
USC, UCLA, Berkely, and Stanford have their own recruiting heaven - they aren't going to try to compete with Texas in their own backyard. And why does a kid from L.A. want to go all the way to Austin? Certainly the All-Americans in California aren't going to your school when they have USC down the street. But LSU is right next door. Arkansas is foaming at the mouth to get back into Texas. Alabama has built dynasties on stealing other states kids. All they need is a way through the door. And if A&M goes to the SEC, that's exactly what you'll have - over half the SEC, three of whom just won National Championships (UF doesn't need Texas), competing for their kids. Arky and Bama will nickel and dime them to death. If Texas had looked anywhere for a new conference, they should have at least looked right next door, but they have said consistantly 'No way.' And don't buy that "Academics" argument: They had no problem associating with Iowa State. Texas knows all they have to do is dominate in-state recruiting and they will be in the NC game every five years, so they can't have the SEC running loose in Houston.
Oh, and by the way, you still have to win. Texas' losing season this year caused home attendance to drop 10,000. That cost Austin millions of dollars of revenue each week.
SO THEY'RE JUST SCARED OF THE SEC?
Not just the SEC. If the Longhorns go to the Pac-10 and the Aggies go to the SEC, that changes their own recruiting equation. Straight up, Texas is a better school, with a prettier campus (and prettier girls), better college town, bigger stadium, better history, and a proven coach who has won a National Championship there - they should win every time. But now A&M is now telling kids they are the lone Texas representative in the best conference in college football while UT is trying to sell kids on Tempe. Now A&M is making more money off of conference affiliation than UT, with lower overhead. Now there's an Aggie network, but not necessarily a Longhorn network. Now 15,000 Auburn fans are fighting for tickets to College Station - How many do you think Cal brings? Now Texas A&M is playing Arkansas in Jerry-land in their own version of the Red-River Rivalry, just like they are now, only its a conference game.
Do you see the difference? Because A&M's fans and alumni do. There are now 'SECede' stickers on Aggies cars. A&M's president was forced to explain on his website his decision to stay in the Big XII: http://president.tamu.edu/2010/06/16/qa ... onference/. (Long story short: It was the money) Texas got it also, that's why they were forced to go back and work it out with the rest of the conference. Texas, Baylor, Tech, Colorado, and maybe Oklahoma (OU made have their own in-state problems going west without a T. Boone Pickens-backed OSU) wasn't enough to get out without A&M and a Longhorn network coming along. Plus, alumni weren't happy with the prospect of having to go 1500 miles for half the conference games.
FINE. SO WHERE IS THE BIG XII NOW?
Texas had to come back to the conference and split the new TV contract and $15M in penalty money with OU and A&M to keep them in as well. In the short run, it's actually a win for the schools financially, even if they all have egg on their faces. Kansas's AD has said publicly that there are signed contracts in place to prevent schools for leaving for 10 years:
http://cjonline.com/sports/basketball/2 ... ig_12_deal. The specifics of the deal haven't been released and nobody else is talking about it, but stiff penalties could keep everybody together for the time being. Essentially UT, A&M, and OU keeping their options open while the other 7 pray that nobody goes anywhere.
SO WHAT, THEY'RE STUCK TOGETHER?
For the time being. But there are certain arrangements and problems that will have to be resolved in the coming years:
1. The current TV contract. Dan Beebe saved his conference and his job when he convinced ESPN/ABC to leave the same amount of money on the table for 10 schools as they had for 12, divided up the extra money between them, with the Big 3 getting the most. (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5286672) When the contract has to be renegotiated for 10 schools, sans the Colorado and Nebraska TV markets, we will see how it affects the money the schools make.
2. The Colorado and Nebraska penalty money. It cost these two schools just over $15M in penalty money - with only the Big 3 getting any of it - to leave and go to their new conferences. Being that A&M currently has a seven figure athletic deficit, that money could be spent quickly.
3. No championship game. This is going to hurt the conference in the wallet, in exposure, and, if you believe the Big 10, who believed it was affecting their on-the-field performance, on the scoreboard. But frankly the extra money they are making in the short run from the renegotiated TV contract and penalty monies should offset this, and the football coaches love not having a championship game.
4. A&M's ego. They are sick of playing third fiddle behind UT and OU and have been offered a chance to get out from behind their shadow, and I've just listed the reasons why they would do it. Frankly, their win over the Longhorns this year could go a long way to keeping them in check.
When these issues come to a head, 3 or 4 years from now, the Big 3 will have to decide to stay or go, and if they stay, whether to go with 10 schools or 12.
SO IF THEY NEED TV SETS AND A CHAMPIONSHIP GAME, WHY DON'T THEY JUST GO AHEAD AND EXPAND?
For a couple of reasons. As I stated earlier, they are actually making more money for the short run, so they don't need to at the present moment. They won't look to expand if they can keep the same amount of money they are getting now. But there's also the matter of the schools they bring in - it's not enough to have schools, you have to have the right schools.
1. The Big XII desperately needs TV markets. The were dead last amongst BCS conferences even before they were raided, and it's going to get a lot worse now. For that reason, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Baylor will never allow another Texas school in the Big XII while all four are there - they have the state of Texas, with its recruits and TV market, wrapped up. If, and that's a HUGE if right now, but IF one of those were to leave, then maybe, just MAYBE they would look at a program. But that's a long, long way away, so everybody just forget about any other Texas school joining, and you can add Tulsa for the same reasons.
2. BYU, who has had their act together for decades out there, brings something to the table. Frankly, they would fit in fine academically and culturally with KSU, ISU, KU, Baylor, and others. But it's slim pickens after that. It is probably the second biggest reason the Big XII didn't just go out and replace NU and CU. BSU is just a good football program, nothing more. AFA is a bad fit for the simple reason it is not built to compete consistantly against major programs as they have other priorities. Most others now in the MWC are small time athletically, financially, and TV-market wise, on the field records be damned - there is a reason BYU went independant.
Essentially, the Big XII, including Texas, is in a wait and see attitude. But Texas, most likely, isn't going anywhere if it threatens it's base.
SO IS TEXAS GOING INDEPENDANT?
Probably not. Never say never, but not only do they walk away from the $17-20M a year they make from the Big XII, they lose the political and stretegic clout that comes with running it. Like I said, the Big XII does a lot for Texas and have shown a willingness to do whatever it takes to keep them there. And even Notre Dame is having it's problems going it alone. My guess is that they will take the money in the short term, re-evaluate the situation in a few years, and not do anything to dramatic. They make the most money, by far, of any school in the country, and that was before they had their own network. There is no reason for them to re-invent the wheel now. Most likely, they will keep quiet and be on the look-out for any schools that might bring the conference to a stable 12 school league. Or the BCS might contract (whole other issue). But most likely, they stay put.
