UT and independance

[leopold]

My 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.

[SoCal_Pony]

Nice read.

There is only 1 school in the nation that can compete with UT for occasional athletic supremacy in Texas and that is SMU. I will stand behind this statement as I have for the past 30 years, and not because I am an alumnus.

Only 4 schools carry academic cachet in this state; Rice, UT, A&M and SMU. DMN stories about SMU having the second most chief executives at Fortune 50 companies or our Law school having the most billionaire graduates only reinforces my belief.

The beauty of our campus and co-eds is only matched by UT.

But what really sets us apart is our locale. Waco, Lubbock, Ft Worth and College Station can at best be described as New Jersey wannabes standing in the shadows of the big boys, at worse, they can be described as sh*t holes. Austin is the states’ most desirable city, followed by either Dallas or Houston. Debate Dallas vs. Houston if you want, but the fact is Houston is occupied by a 2nd rate commuter school and Rice, a school simply too brainy to be brought into any serious athletic discussion.

Texas dominates its current in-state competition in recruiting. Give TCU or Houston BCS membership and nothing would change. Give SMU Big12, SEC or PAC10 membership and that would be a game changer. I think our Austin brethren know this and would do everything possible to prevent it from happening.

[westexSMU]

I think you are right So Cal Pony.....We have the money, the coaches, and our recruiting is headed where we want it, but we need to start putting more butts in the seats on game day real soon. An improved marketing plan is needed to make it happen.

[Charleston Pony]

yes...and our rabid fan support sets us apart from everyone else, too.

[SoCal_Pony]

Fan base is a big negative, no doubt, but playing worthy opponents would go a long ways in fixing that problem.

Look at our biggest crowds over the past 15 years; they have been at Moody for Tech and Memphis, at Ford for Tech and TCU.

I would argue that more SMU students and fans would show up at Moody for a 12-8 SMU team playing Oklahoma State than a 17-3 SMU team playing Marshall with C-USA championship implications. I think last years’ SMU fan support versus TCU, when everyone was expecting a pro-TCU crowd, yet from what I read on PonyFans and witnessed online was a decidedly pro-SMU crowd, proves my point.

Play in a real conference and Moody with its small capacity solves itself. Ford also would be a perfect venue. Increase it to 45k, and then when a really big opponent arrives, move to JerryWorld or the Cotton Bowl (especially during the State Fair).

Not saying this will happen, but with the BCS shake-out, I still think SMU has a lot to offer, certainly a lot more than some current BCS members.

[EastStang]

I think a lot of SMU fans have never really adjusted to the demise of the SWC. Part of the fun was playing UT, A&M, Baylor, TT and Arkansas every year and travelling to away games. Yes, Tulsa is about as close as Little Rock. El Paso is further than Lubbock and used to be more fun until the death squads showed up in Juarez. New Orleans is a bit farther than College Station but more fun. But you are right. People will make an effort to see SMU/TT or SMU/UT, but not SMU/Marshall, UCF, USM, ECU, or UAB. Its sort of like going slumming to some degree.

[Charleston Pony]

even in the 80's when the Pony Express could play with anyone, it took games against UT, A&M and Arkansas to fill Texas Stadium and it only happened because those schools could bring as many fans as SMU did. Look it up. There were a few exceptions (from 6k to 60k vs Rice and over 50k for Grambling come to mind), but generally speaking SMU has done well to draw 30k in the modern era (post Cowboys arrival in Dallas) and that is not going to earn us a seat at the table when the big boys of college football decide to distance themselves further.

I'm really not sure what it would take for SMU to attract 50-60k of it's own fans on a regular basis. Winning consistently at a Top 25 level did not get it done. Ask the guys who played in the 80's.

[mrydel]

even in the 80's when the Pony Express could play with anyone, it took games against UT, A&M and Arkansas to fill Texas Stadium and it only happened because those schools could bring as many fans as SMU did. Look it up. There were a few exceptions (from 6k to 60k vs Rice and over 50k for Grambling come to mind), but generally speaking SMU has done well to draw 30k in the modern era (post Cowboys arrival in Dallas) and that is not going to earn us a seat at the table when the big boys of college football decide to distance themselves further.

I'm really not sure what it would take for SMU to attract 50-60k of it's own fans on a regular basis. Winning consistently at a Top 25 level did not get it done. Ask the guys who played in the 80's.

This is correct. I saw this in the media guide and discussed it a while back. We need to work right now on getting 30,000 into Ford. The stadium looks great when full. After that we can go to phase 2 which would be trying to increase on the 30,000.

[SoCal_Pony]

I experienced Pony Express firsthand and know all about SMU attendance issues.

If the best SMU can do is C-USA affiliation, I suspect no upgrades are needed to Ford, regardless of how successful we become. Even if we are Top 25, I cannot see any conference game being a legitimate sell-out besides possibly Houston or UTEP and even that would require one of those teams also having an outstanding year. There are many reasons for this, most important I feel is that C-USA entertainment value is considered 2nd rank and there are simply too many other options for Dallasites.

But put us in a BCS conference and that becomes a game-changer. Attendance could easily average 50k per game, just like the old SWC days when we played top-flight opponents.

Here are some schools that already have the benefit of BCS membership, including BCS $$$ for facilities upgrades and most important to this conversation, big-school BCS conference opponents:

Arizona, Arizona St, Baylor, Boston College, Cincinnati, Colorado, Connecticut, Duke, Georgia Tech, Indiana, Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St, Louisville, Maryland, Miami, Minnesota, Mississippi St, Northwestern, Oklahoma St, Oregon St, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Rutgers, South Florida, Stanford, Syracuse, Vanderbilt, Virginia and Washington St.

That is 30 BCS schools in total. Guess what, they averaged 43,000 fans per game in 2009.

[SoCal_Pony]

This is for you CP.

While you criticize SMU for its attendance problems (can’t say I blame you) and feel that it is a deal breaker for BCS membership, I doubt you would ever question Indiana’s right to same BCS membership.

This from ESPN
Indiana has averaged 40,478 fans through its first five home contests and will easily surpass that number for Saturday's rivalry game against Purdue (Big Ten Network, 3:30 p.m. ET). The attendance is way up from 2008 (31,782 average) and will top the 40,000 mark for the first time since 1992.

[Undercover Frog]

The beauty of our campus and co-eds is only matched by UT.

The TCU Showgirls beg to differ.

















Though I'm sure SMU has some nice cheerleaders too.


Oh . . . Oh, my.

[Charleston Pony]

This is for you CP.

While you criticize SMU for its attendance problems (can’t say I blame you) and feel that it is a deal breaker for BCS membership, I doubt you would ever question Indiana’s right to same BCS membership.

This from ESPN
Indiana has averaged 40,478 fans through its first five home contests and will easily surpass that number for Saturday's rivalry game against Purdue (Big Ten Network, 3:30 p.m. ET). The attendance is way up from 2008 (31,782 average) and will top the 40,000 mark for the first time since 1992.

This is for you SoCal:

I have no problem with Indiana NOT being invited to play big boy football. They are clearly in that "next tier" and should be competing with Northwestern and the 2nd tier state universities from states where football is more important. Indiana has never put the same emphasis on football that they have on basketball and rightfully so.

When I consider the formation of "super" conferences, I'm talking about the football factories that historically have comprised the Top 25. I'm not sure there are even 64 worthy programs. In Texas and Oklahoma, for example, I would envision UT, A&M, OU and OSU and possibly Tech competing at the highest level, but it would become political and Tech might be on the bubble. I would imagine it would be all about budget and funding would be controversial, to say the least. That's why I think those programs that can draw 60-100k fans and cover most of their operating costs through ticket sales, booster clubs and merchandising may eventually separate themselves from those who can't.

TCU has had a great run, but I don't see them sustaining what they have unless they significantly expand the size of the school and continue growing their fan base to almost twice the size it is today.

I'm not advocating this type of arrangement. I'm just acknowledging that the true powerhouse college football programs seem to be getting tired of sharing the wealth. I agree with those who think that any further separation could blow up in their faces. Cal, for example, is a program that does not belong competing at the "highest" level but maybe they don't understand that?

Maybe the way things are evolving today (with the big boys not equitably sharing all revenues with conference mates) is the solution to keep things as they are. From where I sit, college football is enjoying an unprecedented popularity so they should be careful not to destroy what they have.

[Bergermeister]

My father asked me about Texas going independant.

In all probability, your father asked you about Texas going independent.

[mrydel]

The beauty of our campus and co-eds is only matched by UT.

The TCU Showgirls beg to differ.

















Though I'm sure SMU has some nice cheerleaders too.


Oh . . . Oh, my.

I believe our coeds will match up with any University in the country. However, and I hate to admit it, TCU far surpasses us in the Cheerleader/Dancers category.

[Bergermeister]

I believe our coeds will match up with any University in the country. However, and I hate to admit it, TCU far surpasses us in the Cheerleader/Dancers category.

For whatever reason, our Cheerleaders/Dancers still ascribe to the high school model/mentality. Be nice if they'd develop "real college" spirit groups. Right now, they're just going through the motions.