Texas to the Big 10????

[JimR]

Dodds preferred the ACC. that is where UT would have gone if OU bolted.

BTW, no public entity in Texas can enter into an agreement to keep a document private. the Texas Public Information Act prohibits those agreements. there would have to be an applicable exception to disclosure under TPIA.

 

[joebobb]

Dodds Preferred the ACC because he was going to try and swing a sweetheart deal like Notre Dame got. Powers obviously preferred the Big 10.

 

[JimR]

I dunno re sweetheart deals. I just know what the next move was going to be.

 

[Irish in SEC country]

ND is not in the ACC for football, so any scheduling agreement would be outside of that arrangement, Texas could play ND every year in the Big 10 if it wanted to. Therefore, ND does not factor into the ACC football equation. I will agree, if the ACC gave Texas an ND type agreement they are better there, but the ACC already has upset a lot of its members by doing that. They would not do that again. ND is a different animal than TX because of its national reach. Texas has a national reach but it is different than ND. Texas is more akin to an Ohio State, Michigan, in its reach where you have a lot of alums who have spread out to other cities. ND on the other hand has many fewer alums but rather a mystique that has spread across the country to a lot of the Catholic population in the major cities. ND is a different animal for that reason.

ND is not fully in the ACC for football. We play 5 ACC teams per year in football, starting in 2014. Those games are scheduled by the ACC office just like all league games are. We have to play each of the other 14 at least once every 3 years and at least twice every 6 years. That is part of the ND membership in the ACC.

Being an Irish fan, I think it is extremely likely that such ND scheduling across the ACC will help its smaller schools and schools with less football history recruit better. It will even help schools like Georgia Tech and North Carolina recruit against SEC schools. Over time, it will make ACC football deeper. It also will mean that ACC football will gain TV viewers across the country.

And that is very important to future TV deals. As we learned with our move to the ACC, the last set of statistics on the numbers of TV viewers for the revenue sports saw the ACC, even with Florida State and Miami down at the same time, 3rd, behind the SEC and Big Ten, barely ahead of the Big 12. With both FSU and Miami improved and ND playing 5 ACC games per year, the ACC's number of viewers will move well past the Big 12.

I'm just arrogant enough about ND football's power to draw viewers to say that if ND becomes a full member of ACC football, ACC football may well pass the Big Ten's total viewership.

If Texas were to play 9 Big Ten games and ND every year, it would become so entrenched in the midwest that people around the country would see it the way most see the Big Ten now. As like watching paint peel, or maybe like watching worthless fat rich kids parading around.

Notre Dame is an easy drive to Chicago, Indianapolis and Lansing. We are smack in the heart of the midwest. But even the vast majority of our fans who are midwestern born and bred and midwestern to dead know that the only way ND football could have a real chance to get back to what we want is to cut most or all of our ties with the midwest. Home games in South Bend are all the midwest we need.

I think the ACC would welcome Texas with the same deal we have.

 

[Brasky]

it sure is a good thing that we have representation to make sure that we don't do awesome things like join the ACC.

 

[joebobb]

My wife went to nd and we get to a couple of games a year up there. The idea of seeing games against Louisville wake UVA on a regular basis is a yawner. Michigan excites the fan base, penn state excites the fan base. The only reason why nd choose the weak acc over the big is that they could not get a better deal from the other conferences. They wanted to remain independent in football and they achieve that with the acc. All things being equal they would have gone to the big 12 or 10. If you need proof to that look at why they joined the big east. It was the weakest of the power conferences at the time And needed to cut a deal, fast forward to last year and the acc took over the role of the big east. Weakest power conference

 

[Irish in SEC country]

My wife went to nd and we get to a couple of games a year up there. The idea of seeing games against Louisville wake UVA on a regular basis is a yawner. Michigan excites the fan base, penn state excites the fan base. The only reason why nd choose the weak acc over the big is that they could not get a better deal from the other conferences. They wanted to remain independent in football and they achieve that with the acc. All things being equal they would have gone to the big 12 or 10. If you need proof to that look at why they joined the big east. It was the weakest of the power conferences at the time And needed to cut a deal, fast forward to last year and the acc took over the role of the big east. Weakest power conference

So are games against Indiana, Minnesota, Rutgers yawners? Or are they somehow like other Michigans? Are games against FSU, Miami, Clemson yawners?

Are you aware that almost everyone, and every computer, rates ACC football this year better than the Big Ten and most see the ACC as at last equal to the Big 12? That is before we start playing 5 ACC games per year, which will up the ante.

The Big East and the ACC are quite different and ND's relations with the BE show how we felt about it. We were never in any sense part of BE football. The very idea of the BE office scheduling even one of our games for us for one season would have led to widespread demands from boosters and athletics department people to leave. You may not understand why it is so, but it is so. One way to help see that it is so is to know that before we ever agreed to join the ACC we had played away football games at Wake and Duke.

I hope that you as a Texas fan know that ND is not really open to the idea of playing at Baylor or Vanderbilt. We would love to play Baylor in either Dallas or Houston, but not in Waco in that small stadium. Yet we went to smaller stadiums at Wake and Duke.

Again, that may make absolutely no sense to you. In fact, it made no sense to a number of ND fans at the time. But it made sense to the people who run the athletics department. I think it is because ND has long worked behind the scenes with the ACC on various issues related to sports and academic standards. It is also because the ACC, like the SWC was, is a conference with multiple smaller private schools. ND is a small private school, and our AD people and most boosters do not like the changes in college football that have led to a growing number of private schools being left behind, forced away. The ACC is the conference that has added private schools ND would prefer see allowed seats at the table, like BC and Syracuse.

If you think that ND would be willing to be governed by a dozen or more absolutely huge state universities, you don't know either the real powers that run the athletics department or the university. What ND has always desired in that area is what the ACC is: schools of all sizes and types. Again, like the SWC.

The only way that ND would have ever joined the Big Ten is if it had no other option. The same goes for the Big 12, even with a second private school.

 

[joebobb]

So are games against Indiana, Minnesota, Rutgers yawners? Or are they somehow like other Michigans? Are games against FSU, Miami, Clemson yawners?
Are you aware that almost everyone, and every computer, rates ACC football this year better than the Big Ten and most see the ACC as at last equal to the Big 12? That is before we start playing 5 ACC games per year, which will up the ante.

The Big East and the ACC are quite different and ND's relations with the BE show how we felt about it. We were never in any sense part of BE football. The very idea of the BE office scheduling even one of our games for us for one season would have led to widespread demands from boosters and athletics department people to leave. You may not understand why it is so, but it is so. One way to help see that it is so is to know that before we ever agreed to join the ACC we had played away football games at Wake and Duke.

I hope that you as a Texas fan know that ND is not really open to the idea of playing at Baylor or Vanderbilt. We would love to play Baylor in either Dallas or Houston, but not in Waco in that small stadium. Yet we went to smaller stadiums at Wake and Duke.

Again, that may make absolutely no sense to you. In fact, it made no sense to a number of ND fans at the time. But it made sense to the people who run the athletics department. I think it is because ND has long worked behind the scenes with the ACC on various issues related to sports and academic standards. It is also because the ACC, like the SWC was, is a conference with multiple smaller private schools. ND is a small private school, and our AD people and most boosters do not like the changes in college football that have led to a growing number of private schools being left behind, forced away. The ACC is the conference that has added private schools ND would prefer see allowed seats at the table, like BC and Syracuse.

If you think that ND would be willing to be governed by a dozen or more absolutely huge state universities, you don't know either the real powers that run the athletics department or the university. What ND has always desired in that area is what the ACC is: schools of all sizes and types. Again, like the SWC.

The only way that ND would have ever joined the Big Ten is if it had no other option. The same goes for the Big 12, even with a second private school.

IRish - You do make good points, the addition of long time rivals Pitt and BC and Syracuse helped to make the ACC transition palatable as they were joining some northern rivals with whom they share some culture. Yes, there are some synergies to the Olympic Sports in the ACC. Also the connections with Corrigan and White and other top athletic people and their ACC connections don't hurt either. Yes there is a tie there, just like Maryland's leadership ties to the BIG which is why they left. Relationships make these things happen. Yes ND plays 5 games against ACC schools but the they also get access to the ACC's bowl slate (ahead of ACC teams who would otherwise qualify) It was essentially the same deal with the Big East but now they have to play 5 games as opposed to the gentlemens agreement with the BE to play 3 games. Also, ND values their football independence so much that they would never give it up if the ACC came to them in 5 years and demanded it. All things being equal, if ND were to give up football independence, they would go to the PAC of BIG before the ACC

However, on a top to bottom scale, it is easier to get excited about playing the Big 10 slate as opposed to the ACC slate. You point out that this year the ACC is higher rated than the BIG. While that is nice, what about the last 20 years? The ACC was a joke in football pretty much since FSU went in the tank. Clemson has never done anything in football (yes, the got votes to win a NC in 1980 but have done nothing since) but they like to puff their chests out that they are a power (Clemsoning was not just invented out of thin air). Miami can put a good team on the field but their brand is diminished, they are an undercard game, not the main event. They do not draw well nor do their fans travel. FSU is the only legitimate power in the ACC with the brand and the fan base

All I am saying is that if Texas wants to be the best and showcase itself off in front of the biggest fanbases in the country, then the BiG is the way to go. Do you want to bring Longhorn Football into the cracker boxes of Wake, GA Tech, NC State or Duke, or would you rather see them playing in front of 100k+ fans each week at OSU, Neb, Mich, Penn State, hell even WI and MSU approach those numbers. That creates excitement.

 

[joebobb]

One more point Irish - right now the ACC is sexy, but that fades. Look at the traditional powers over the last 50 years. The ACC has had none except for FSU which joined them in 1992.

If you are looking for the foundation that will be there a long time to establish your brand with, do you want the fly by night brand or a brand with substance and stability.

Look at the long term powers, ND, Tex, Oklahoma, USC, Bama, Tennessee, Ohio State, Mich, Nebraska. You cant go through a decade without at least a 2-3 of these schools winning at least one NC. How many of them play football in the ACC. Zero.

 

[Nakona Horn]

Irish, glad you're on this board. I'm a big ND fan and root for yall whenever possible. I also have a few good work associates who are big Domer fans and graduates. I can' think of a WORSE conference for ND to be affiliated with than the Big 12. That was never going to happen.

I don't know why Dodds thought he could pull it off, but it was a massive fail on his part.

ND has NOTHING in common with the overwhelming majority of Big 12 schools. No tradition, no history, etc.

The academics in the Big 12 are inferior to every conference out there.

The demographics and recruiting footprint are a horrible fit. If ND can schedule a four game series with Texas and play random games in Texas, than why join the B12 conference?

Of all the places in the country, middle america has the least ND fans. There are probably more ND fans in the city of Chicago than the states of Iowa, Kansas and Oklahoma combined.

The Big 12 doesn't compete in other popular sports like soccer, lacrosse, etc.

What a miss by Dodds. I hope Texas links up with the ACC ASAP.

 

[Irish in SEC country]

IRish - You do make good points, the addition of long time rivals Pitt and BC and Syracuse helped to make the ACC transition palatable as they were joining some northern rivals with whom they share some culture. Yes, there are some synergies to the Olympic Sports in the ACC. Also the connections with Corrigan and White and other top athletic people and their ACC connections don't hurt either. Yes there is a tie there, just like Maryland's leadership ties to the BIG which is why they left. Relationships make these things happen. Yes ND plays 5 games against ACC schools but the they also get access to the ACC's bowl slate (ahead of ACC teams who would otherwise qualify) It was essentially the same deal with the Big East but now they have to play 5 games as opposed to the gentlemens agreement with the BE to play 3 games. Also, ND values their football independence so much that they would never give it up if the ACC came to them in 5 years and demanded it. All things being equal, if ND were to give up football independence, they would go to the PAC of BIG before the ACC
However, on a top to bottom scale, it is easier to get excited about playing the Big 10 slate as opposed to the ACC slate. You point out that this year the ACC is higher rated than the BIG. While that is nice, what about the last 20 years? The ACC was a joke in football pretty much since FSU went in the tank. Clemson has never done anything in football (yes, the got votes to win a NC in 1980 but have done nothing since) but they like to puff their chests out that they are a power (Clemsoning was not just invented out of thin air). Miami can put a good team on the field but their brand is diminished, they are an undercard game, not the main event. They do not draw well nor do their fans travel. FSU is the only legitimate power in the ACC with the brand and the fan base

All I am saying is that if Texas wants to be the best and showcase itself off in front of the biggest fanbases in the country, then the BiG is the way to go. Do you want to bring Longhorn Football into the cracker boxes of Wake, GA Tech, NC State or Duke, or would you rather see them playing in front of 100k+ fans each week at OSU, Neb, Mich, Penn State, hell even WI and MSU approach those numbers. That creates excitement.

No, the ACC deal is nothing like ND in the BE. Football was not part of ND in the BE. After a decade in the BE ND agreed in principle to try to play 3 BE teams per year in football, but we never met that goal. If we had, it would have been totally on ND's terms. We would only play the BE teams in football when and where we wanted.

The ACC is scheduling 5 football games per year for us. That makes us members of ACC football, just not full members who can play for a conference title. WE must play all the other 14 teams at least once every 3 year cycle. The Aggies will play all but 1 SEC East team less than we will play all ACC schools in football.

I think you may not be able to grasp how big a deal that is and thus what it means. That is as big a leap as when we decided to play in bowls. It is a revolutionary, and the tide cannot be turned back. ND is bound with the ACC, and that includes football. We have already given up football independence; if we were still independent, we would not be given part of our schedule by the ACC office. The issue is whether we will remain forever a half member of ACC football or go full member.

You equate football greatness with large attendance and media puffing. The Big Ten has both. It also has a widespread reputation among fans of college football who are not Big Ten fans of being dull, boring, a slow snooze fest. If Texas were to join the Big Ten, A&M as an SEC team would begin a process of gaining at the expense of Texas, gaining interest from Texas high school players and from fans on college football in Texas who are not UT grads. The Aggies will be seen as in a sleek, fun, interesting, exciting conference, and the Longhorns will be seen as in a plodding conference.

 

[Irish in SEC country]

One more point Irish - right now the ACC is sexy, but that fades. Look at the traditional powers over the last 50 years. The ACC has had none except for FSU which joined them in 1992.
If you are looking for the foundation that will be there a long time to establish your brand with, do you want the fly by night brand or a brand with substance and stability.

Look at the long term powers, ND, Tex, Oklahoma, USC, Bama, Tennessee, Ohio State, Mich, Nebraska. You cant go through a decade without at least a 2-3 of these schools winning at least one NC. How many of them play football in the ACC. Zero.

Well, let's look at it this way, which is one of the points that Jack Swarbrick is alleged to have made to a powerful ND booster who opposed, with much violence of language, any move by ND to be part of a conference for football and whose position was to go Big Ten if we had to make such a move because Big Ten football, the booster was certain, was much better and would always produce more national champs. Beginning with 1970, the Big Ten has 2 national titles in football - Michigan in 1997 and Ohio State in 2001. In the same time, the ACC has 4 - Clemson in 1981, Georgia Tech in 1990, Florida State in 1993 and 1999.

Big Ten football is not now, and was not last decade or in the 1990s or 1980s, anywhere near as good as you think, and ACC football is now, and was back then, better than you think.

ND did not make a fast move without knowing all the variables. Swarbrick is certain that not only will ND as a half member of ACC football help it close the gap some with the SEC in terms of both recruiting and numbers of national TV viewers, but that if ND becomes a full member, ACC football will take a back seat to no one.

 

[theknighttrain]

Well I wouldn't call the Big 12 plodding, not with the offensive firepower in it right now.

But outposts, yeah, we got several of those teams too.

 

[joebobb]

BEVO in the BIG. Has a nice ring to it.

Things are always BIGger in Texas.

Just think of the marketing taglines

 

[Irish in SEC country]

Irish, glad you're on this board. I'm a big ND fan and root for yall whenever possible. I also have a few good work associates who are big Domer fans and graduates. I can' think of a WORSE conference for ND to be affiliated with than the Big 12. That was never going to happen.
I don't know why Dodds thought he could pull it off, but it was a massive fail on his part.

ND has NOTHING in common with the overwhelming majority of Big 12 schools. No tradition, no history, etc.

The academics in the Big 12 are inferior to every conference out there.

The demographics and recruiting footprint are a horrible fit. If ND can schedule a four game series with Texas and play random games in Texas, than why join the B12 conference?

Of all the places in the country, middle america has the least ND fans. There are probably more ND fans in the city of Chicago than the states of Iowa, Kansas and Oklahoma combined.

The Big 12 doesn't compete in other popular sports like soccer, lacrosse, etc.

What a miss by Dodds. I hope Texas links up with the ACC ASAP.

Texas is similar to ND this way: few sports fans are neutral about us. They either like us a lot or despise us. I don't think any other team is in the same category - maybe Miami is close.

ND alums live overwhelmingly on the east coast. Our fans are as much in the northeast as in the midwest. We also have a large fan base in CA, and a fast growing one in the southeast. And we have a nice sized fan base in Texas. You are correct about the size of fan base in Chicago compared to all Big 12 states minus Texas. And that is why the Big 12 was never an option unless we had no choice. ND, and this is more true for basketball, lacrosse, soccer and women's sports generally than for football, must play in and to the northeast.

I hope you do too. I think Texas playing ND annually would quickly become as big an inter-sectionbal rivalry as ND vs. SC. That, not playing the Big Ten, is how Texas neutralizes and overcomes TAMU in the SEC.

 

[Irish in SEC country]

Well I wouldn't call the Big 12 plodding, not with the offensive firepower in it right now.But outposts, yeah, we got several of those teams too.

I hope I didn't say the Big 12 is slow and plodding. Or unexciting. That is the Big Ten. I think Big 12 football has always been interesting, less so now than before the 4 defections. But it is still far more interesting to me than Big Ten football. And that won't change as long as Texas is in the Big 12.

 

[joebobb]

So while we agree that the Big 12 is more interesting than the BIG, both are less interesting then the pathetic ACC

 

[vp19]

I don't disagree but the ACC's ceiling in football his a lot higher. Better demographics and growth in states like SC, NC, FL, and GA.
You forgot Notre Dame.

Baseball would suffer big time.

I think Texas still has a shot to go indy with the ACC and mimic what ND did. ESPN owns all three tiers of the ACC so it would be a lot easier to absorb LHN as is and work out all the games across ESPN networks. Finally, if the ACC is serious about getting their own network, adding a few games against UT and ND would be a good way to do it.

The problem is the ACC's weak football brand and that outside of Virginia and North Carolina, it has no #1 team in its state. Pitt is no PSU, Clemson is a bit behind South Carolina, Georgia Tech hasn't been close to Georgia since the Bobby Dodd days, Florida State and Miami invariably trail Florida, and Louisville may be ahead of Kentucky in football, but so what?
I'm a Maryland alumnus who's glad to be leaving the ACC for a conference with a real, old-money football culture; I can't imagine anyone in Austin would be thrilled about playing Wake, Duke and BC in football every few years.

Also, in terms of distance, it's not as if the ACC is next door to UT. The closest members would be Louisville and Florida State, probably not that much closer to Austin than WVU is to Ames. Distance would be a problem for Texas in switching to any major conference -- the least difficulty would be the SEC, but A&M probably would have veto power and from an academic perspective, in the SEC, UT would feel like its IQ was shaved ten points.

I doubt the entry that opened this thread (UT and Georgia Tech to the Big Ten) has any possibility of happening...but let's say it did. Tech is AAU, just like Texas. Atlanta is a wonderful city to visit, easily accessible by air as the "crossroads of the Southeast." And adding both the Longhorns and Yellow Jackets gives the Big Ten a legit one-two punch in baseball, alleviating some concerns and perhaps persuading some current Big Ten members to bolster their programs.

Unless Texas maintains the status quo and remains in a withering Big 12, it won't be calling the shots in its new home. Perhaps it could to some extent in the Pac with Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Okie State, but not in the Big Ten (it's an all-for-one, one-for-all philosophy traditionally alien to Austin), and certainly not in the ACC (as Notre Dame will discover when it locks heads with the Research Triangle schools, particularly UNC -- it thinks it's an alpha dog like Texas without alpha dog football). There will have to a change in mindset in burnt orange country, no matter where the Longhorns move.

 

[Lord Vader]

Yanno, even with all the trouble Dodds has caused, it is pretty cool to be one of the only schools in the position of doing whatever the hell it wants.

 

[joebobb]

Well Said VP.

Wherever Texas would go outside of the Big 12, they would give up some Alpha Dog status. However, instead of being THE player in the conference, they would be one of 3-4 players. In the BIG, Texas would have to share with OSU and MICH, but would be elevated above PSU, Neb, and everyone else.

In the ACC they would have to play nice with UNC and UVA and Duke. FSU and Clemson are not the alpha dogs in that conference.