Texas to the Big 10????

[Irish in SEC country]

Texas doesn't give a crap about anyone, everyone knows this! However, the state of Texas cares about basic economics and tax revenues from games.
Hypothetically speaking of course;

Let's go over Texas' scheduling first

Texas leaves to the Big 10 with no one else and the big 10 is now at 16 teams.

This means the state will potentially force Texas to continue it's RRR and possibly one game a year alternating between TTech and Baylor. Everyone knows the A&M and Texas rivalry is coming back, which means Texas can potentially have 3 OOC games out of the big 10, that are not going to be cupcake teams!

Let's address the above scheduling issues. They can be overcome if Texas joins the ACC as we have. We only play 5 ACC football games per year. WE play each of the 14 football members at least once over 3 years, and twice over 6 years. If Texas were doing that, and playing us annually, as I think we both would like, that would leave Texas 6 games. OU and A&M could be played annually. That would leave 4 games. Texas could rotate playing Baylor, TCU, SMU, Houston, Rice and even UTEP, say playing 2 or 3 of them each year.

Toss in playing a couple of series per decade with teams on the Pacific coast, and Texas would have both a truly national schedule (the ACC has teams in the southeast and northeast, and we are in the midwest) and a schedule that has Texas maximizing its ties to the southwest.

 

[ridik01]

The big 10 also brings the problem of putting Texas in a division full of lackluster big 10 teams that aren't notorious for traveling! The only teams I could see coming in swarms is Nebraska and maybe Iowa. The only viable conference I could see Texas going alone is to the SEC, and I would be extremely pissed!

 

[Irish in SEC country]

I went to the Texas vs. TTech game last year which was pretty packed(and that was a Texas down year).Dude this is flying right over your head, Texas and OU are the Alabama, LSU, and Florida of the big 12! We come in swarms when we go to football games anywhere around the country!

2012 season

New Mexico 58,955

#17 Oklahoma 60,800

#5 West Virginia 57,328

Texas 60,879

Kansas 55,052

OU and Texas have the highest attendance to Jones AT&T stadium in the 2012 season.

I would be happy with an extra 2-5k people spending money in my city every other year!

Any town that needs 2000-5000 extra fans per year for 1 football game to make its economy healthy is in as bad shape as Detroit.

 

[ridik01]

Let's address the above scheduling issues. They can be overcome if Texas joins the ACC as we have. We only play 5 ACC football games per year. WE play each of the 14 football members at least once over 3 years, and twice over 6 years. If Texas were doing that, and playing us annually, as I think we both would like, that would leave Texas 6 games. OU and A&M could be played annually. That would leave 4 games. Texas could rotate playing Baylor, TCU, SMU, Houston, Rice and even UTEP, say playing 2 or 3 of them each year.
Toss in playing a couple of series per decade with teams on the Pacific coast, and Texas would have both a truly national schedule (the ACC has teams in the southeast and northeast, and we are in the midwest) and a schedule that has Texas maximizing its ties to the southwest.

And I would be okay with joining the ACC, but creating a western conference bringing most of the big 12! However, this post was directed toward Texas going to the big 10 alone, which I think will never happen! OU and Texas are a joint deal anywhere!

 

[ridik01]

Any town that needs 2000-5000 extra fans per year for 1 football game to make its economy healthy is in as bad shape as Detroit.

Not making it healthy, it brings in a extra boost that politicians will use to not allow Texas to destroy the big 12 and go do their own thing!

 

[Jhablinski]

Completely false

 

[ridik01]

Any town that needs 2000-5000 extra fans per year for 1 football game to make its economy healthy is in as bad shape as Detroit.

Let's do a little math here, 2-5k x 2 = 4k - 10k people.

Let's say that each person spends $30 in tax while in Lubbock for the weekend, that comes out to 120,000k - 300,000k in taxes for the city and state alone!

If Texas can no longer continue the RRR because of issues with the big 10(which I really doubt could happen)

92,500 this year.

Let's say $30 again while everyone stays in Dallas, the city and state generated $2,775,000 of tax revenue off of that one game!

 

[Irish in SEC country]

Let's do a little math here, 2-5k x 2 = 4k - 10k people.
Let's say that each person spends $30 in tax while in Lubbock for the weekend, that comes out to 120,000k - 300,000k in taxes for the city and state alone!

First, if you think even $300,000 means much to a city of even just 50,000, then you don't know current government finances.

But there is this: 2012 season

New Mexico 58,955

#17 Oklahoma 60,800

#5 West Virginia 57,328

Texas 60,879

Kansas 55,052

What is important there is that OU and UT mean less than 2000 more fans in Tech's stadium than does New Mexico, which has never been in a major conference and has no football history. Kansas is a joke in terms of football fans, both its own and getting opposing fans out to the stadium, and Tech's stadium has just 5000 fewer fans for KU than for UT.

Maybe Texas Tech needs the Big 12 to add UNM.

 

[ridik01]

First, if you think even $300,000 means much to a city of even just 50,000, then you don't know current government finances.
But there is this: 2012 season

New Mexico 58,955

#17 Oklahoma 60,800

#5 West Virginia 57,328

Texas 60,879

Kansas 55,052

What is important there is that OU and UT mean less than 2000 more fans in Tech's stadium than does New Mexico, which has never been in a major conference and has no football history. Kansas is a joke in terms of football fans, both its own and getting opposing fans out to the stadium, and Tech's stadium has just 5000 fewer fans for KU than for UT.

Maybe Texas Tech needs the Big 12 to add UNM.

Haha, maybe we should add UNM! I'm just expressing it as a way an economist would look at it. Texas and OU will always sell out the TTech stadium, Boise st., Oregon, Stanford, etc.. and others may not! It's a gamble that the state may not want to take by allowing Texas to leave for the big 10, we don't know if a new OU or Texas look alike will emerge to generate 300,000 dollars in tax revenue in one weekend for one sporting event!

I added the money generated from the RRR to my last post.

 

[ridik01]

We also haven't taken into account the politicians that are alumni from those three schools that are just looking out for the betterment of their universities! College football is just a huge advertisement for each university!

 

[Slot 9 Right]

Bring it on. Anything but this conference.

UT v Michigan

UT v. OsU

UT v Penn St.

UT v Wisconsonon nah nah nah

Even if its every 2 years it would be greatness.

 

[Wolfman]

1. WVu board(s) are notorious for spreading disinformation.

2. If UT did sign a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement, discussing those details with a potential candidate would violate the agreement.

3. If Luck discussed those talks with anyone at WVu or anywhere, he can kiss the UT job goodbye.

4. I don't believe UM or tOSU is looking for an equal. They want teams they can outspend by $50-75 million.

 

[Brasky]

I'd prefer some sort of merger with the ACC though it would be pretty funny to go in and piss Nebraska off all over again.

 

[joebobb]

Why do people want the ACC here, top to bottom in football it is inferior. Talent wise they may have been about equal now, but come on, this is Texas, shouldn't we show off in front of the biggest and best. The ACC except for FSU and Miami is a bunch of historically middling programs that except for Clemson and FSU, play in front of small fan bases. Assuming that a Notre Dame type deal is not going to happen in the ACC, look at the schools from top to bottom, which conference would excite a fan base week in and week out more.

OSU > FSU (play in front of 110k fans in a tradition rich environment)

Mich > Clemson (same reason as above, how cool would it be to play them on an annual basis)

Neb > Miami (stick it to Neb again, and also Miami does not really draw anyone to its games, lucky if they have 40k in the stands)

Penn St > Va Tech - Happy Valley is one of the best college football places around, Better tradition at PSU although Lane Stadium is a cool place to watch a game

Wisc > UNC - UNC has done nothing in football and never will

MSU > GA Tech - Atlanta is a cool place hang out but Mich State is still a better game day experience

Iowa = Virginia - better weather, hotter girls in at UVA, better football atmosphere in Iowa. I give the edge to Iowa because they play in front of 80k fans a week

Northwestern > Duke - Same school, but at least NW has won a bowl game in the last 60 years.

Minnesota < Louisville - Louisville is just the cute girl on the block now but really this could change easily over the next 5 years once Strong leaves.

Illinois > Syracuse - Two teams that have done nothing over the last 20 years but at least IL can have a pulse every few years. Plus they play in front of a larger fan base

Purdue = Pitt - Two struggling programs, Pitt will never be the power they were again, Purdue is like an ISU or K-State, can be plucky

Indiana < NC State - ACC may have a better matchup here

Maryland > Wake Forest - Meh to each of these but at least Maryland is a cooler place to visit

Rutgers > BC - Again Meh but NYC is better than Boston.

if you look at the schools comparatively, I cant see why people favor the ACC

 

[Nakona Horn]

Why do people want the ACC here, top to bottom in football it is inferior. Talent wise they may have been about equal now, but come on, this is Texas, shouldn't we show off in front of the biggest and best. The ACC except for FSU and Miami is a bunch of historically middling programs that except for Clemson and FSU, play in front of small fan bases. Assuming that a Notre Dame type deal is not going to happen in the ACC, look at the schools from top to bottom, which conference would excite a fan base week in and week out more.
OSU > FSU (play in front of 110k fans in a tradition rich environment)

Mich > Clemson (same reason as above, how cool would it be to play them on an annual basis)

Neb > Miami (stick it to Neb again, and also Miami does not really draw anyone to its games, lucky if they have 40k in the stands)

Penn St > Va Tech - Happy Valley is one of the best college football places around, Better tradition at PSU although Lane Stadium is a cool place to watch a game

Wisc > UNC - UNC has done nothing in football and never will

MSU > GA Tech - Atlanta is a cool place hang out but Mich State is still a better game day experience

Iowa = Virginia - better weather, hotter girls in at UVA, better football atmosphere in Iowa. I give the edge to Iowa because they play in front of 80k fans a week

Northwestern > Duke - Same school, but at least NW has won a bowl game in the last 60 years.

Minnesota < Louisville - Louisville is just the cute girl on the block now but really this could change easily over the next 5 years once Strong leaves.

Illinois > Syracuse - Two teams that have done nothing over the last 20 years but at least IL can have a pulse every few years. Plus they play in front of a larger fan base

Purdue = Pitt - Two struggling programs, Pitt will never be the power they were again, Purdue is like an ISU or K-State, can be plucky

Indiana < NC State - ACC may have a better matchup here

Maryland > Wake Forest - Meh to each of these but at least Maryland is a cooler place to visit

Rutgers > BC - Again Meh but NYC is better than Boston.

if you look at the schools comparatively, I cant see why people favor the ACC

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.

 

[Marian Hinton]

I really, really doubt this as well. I don't think Texas and OU will part ways either now that they've been in the same conference.

 

[joebobb]

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.

 

[joebobb]

I also don't see the ceiling in the ACC. Yes, population trends shift south but the big powers will always be the big powers. Look at the top 20 schools in the 1980's and look at the powerhouse schools today. With some jockeying of spaces what schools have popped up over the last 20+ years to challenge the traditional rivals.

USC, ND, Ohio State, Mich, Florida, Bama, FSU, Miami, LSU, Oklahoma, Texas, Nebraska, Oregon/Washington

Look at the top 20 schools over that tiem period, you will see that these dozen are pretty much in almost every poll. Go to the power conferences and there are about 3 teams a conference that are power teams. The schools with the money and facilities get the best prospects, demographic shifts play a part in it but at the end of the day, Ohio State will always beat Wake Forest or NC State in recruiting because they spend more. Michigan State will outspend Pitt in football and has better facilities, etc. Demographics are only part of the key.

Plus there are some very good players in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Just look at Jordan Hicks (Ohio)

 

[TheContractor]

Why do people want the ACC here, top to bottom in football it is inferior. Talent wise they may have been about equal now, but come on, this is Texas, shouldn't we show off in front of the biggest and best. The ACC except for FSU and Miami is a bunch of historically middling programs that except for Clemson and FSU, play in front of small fan bases. Assuming that a Notre Dame type deal is not going to happen in the ACC, look at the schools from top to bottom, which conference would excite a fan base week in and week out more.
OSU > FSU (play in front of 110k fans in a tradition rich environment)

Mich > Clemson (same reason as above, how cool would it be to play them on an annual basis)

Neb > Miami (stick it to Neb again, and also Miami does not really draw anyone to its games, lucky if they have 40k in the stands)

Penn St > Va Tech - Happy Valley is one of the best college football places around, Better tradition at PSU although Lane Stadium is a cool place to watch a game

Wisc > UNC - UNC has done nothing in football and never will

MSU > GA Tech - Atlanta is a cool place hang out but Mich State is still a better game day experience

Iowa = Virginia - better weather, hotter girls in at UVA, better football atmosphere in Iowa. I give the edge to Iowa because they play in front of 80k fans a week

Northwestern > Duke - Same school, but at least NW has won a bowl game in the last 60 years.

Minnesota < Louisville - Louisville is just the cute girl on the block now but really this could change easily over the next 5 years once Strong leaves.

Illinois > Syracuse - Two teams that have done nothing over the last 20 years but at least IL can have a pulse every few years. Plus they play in front of a larger fan base

Purdue = Pitt - Two struggling programs, Pitt will never be the power they were again, Purdue is like an ISU or K-State, can be plucky

Indiana < NC State - ACC may have a better matchup here

Maryland > Wake Forest - Meh to each of these but at least Maryland is a cooler place to visit

Rutgers > BC - Again Meh but NYC is better than Boston.

if you look at the schools comparatively, I cant see why people favor the ACC

Some of those points are valid and big10 has better history but if u look at the future, you don't want to be in the rust belt. Population changes alone give Acc an advantage over Big10. tOsu, Mich and PSU aside, the big 10 sucks. Other than FSU, Clemson, either the U/VT different years, ACC isn't all that.

You want to be in southeast for recruiting and level play vs Aggies. Big 10 has nothing to offer that's greater than ACC besides better history. Also, ACC and Big12 play similar sports, no ice hockey like big 10.

I think you keep more of the southern hospitality in ACC.

 

[joebobb]

Texas will be a top school no matter what conference it is in. TX is the top school in the big 12. TX will be able to compete in the BIG, ACC or PAC 12 or SEC just as well.

TX already is a good demographic area and does not need to recruit as hard in FL or GA as other schools because those athletes are already in TX, so it does not matter the demographic trends there. If Texas were located in Nebraska, or West Virginia, then I think that is a valid discussion.

The rust belt should not scare anyone. Chicago, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Columbus are all thriving cities. Add in NYC and Washington DC with Rutgers and MD, and the BIG encompasses many of the nations financial centers. These are where the jobs are still. Outside of Atlanta, where in the South (besides Texas) do grads go for jobs?? BIG 10 cities (especially once Texas joins), Atlanta, or the West Coast in CA.