Texas to the Big 10????
- Thread starter Lord Vader
- Start date
texasdobbs
#Hookem
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2012
- Messages
- 1,538
What's so compelling with this current conference schedule?
Irish in SEC country
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2013
- Messages
- 106
Right - because Big Ten football is respected across the country for its amazing depth of quality.
Big Ten football is a bloated mess, existing with any decent reputation on the the overhyping of the media that goes back to the 1920s. It is no mistake that Meatchicken led a boycott of ND. And then when it was obvious that open bowls were proving that BT football was weak and grossly overrated, suddenly Meatchicken wanted to play us and approved the BT trying to woo us.
The Big Ten needs ND far more than ND can risk becoming contaminated with the BT. ND in the BT would yield more money than any other conference could ever hope to get close to equaling. Yet we resisted it, and will forever.
In short, the issue for Texas is whether it should follow the example of ND or of Nebraska.
If the University of Texas is led by people who would prefer to make BFF with Nebraska, Meatchicken and Blowhio State than with Notre Dame, I will be sad for Texas.
Irish in SEC country
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2013
- Messages
- 106
Big Ten football nationally is seen as both boring and poor in quality. One thing ND football boosters have been realizing even more after last year's blowout to Bama is that the more midwestern/Big Ten you are in recruits and playing style and schedule, the less your chances to play well on the national stage. If Texas were join the BT with OU going to the SEC, both OU and A&M would gain immeasurably in football at the expense of Texas.
Texas cannot afford to become seen part of midwestern football.
doc longhorn
V.I.P.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2013
- Messages
- 2,985
Ridiculous speculation. In the history of college sports, a GOR has never been broken. Texas is wealthy, but it is basically run by humongously successful money donors. They didn't become mega wealthy by losing money, which is exactly what would happen if UT tried to get out of the GOR.
Write this article off as someone trying to be a hit magnet.
Irish in SEC country
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2013
- Messages
- 106
You mean that you think Texas football would take a step backward in joining the ACC. And even with a resurgent FSU, which last year sent a record 11 players to the NFL via draft and is better this year with a team younger than last year's which should lead to an even better team in 2014, such a case might make sense if ND were not involved. If you think that our presence across ACC football is not going to help all ACC teams recruit better against especially the Big Ten and even the SEC, then you don't know much about the allure of playing ND.
Of course, there is more than just football involved. Those who lead the University want much more from sports than a couple of big football games per year. Using all sports to fully mark the University of Texas as a full peer of the other most elite state schools in the south, Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia Tech, matters a great deal to academics. If that can be done by creating permanent ties with ND, so much the better. If that can be done placing Texas basketball in the best conference in the country, so much the better. If that can be done placing Texas non-revenue sports in the best possible conference for them overall, so much the better. If all that can be done giving Texas direct football access to FL and GA, so much the better.
I'm still trying to figure how you manage to see Big Ten football as better than anything above the MAC. Its quality is insignificantly better than the AAC (UCF, Louisville, Houston and Cincinnati are a high quality foursome), and it is largely boring to anyone outside the midwest and without ties to a BT school.
Here is nice blog article from a BT fan on the BTN destroying BT football. That is the same BTN that drove the recent expansion, adding Rutgers and Maryland to get the BTN placed to demand big money from 2 new TV markets rather than adding to improve football quality.
The end of the article:
"Of course, during the seven-year period of unmatched financial growth, the Big Ten’s actual football product has devolved into by far the worst of the “Major” five conferences, and neck and neck with the American at the moment.
For all the ridicule Louisville received for its soft schedule to open the year, it slightly obscured the fact that Ohio State’s schedule is just as bad. With the notable exception of Wisconsin and depending on Michigan’s fate, Ohio State is likely to play the softest schedule in the history of the program.
In 2007, Ohio State made the BCS title game – despite a home loss to a 3-loss Illinois team – thanks to one of the strangest seasons, if not the, in college football’s recent history. They were blown out in the title game by a 2-loss LSU team.
A year later, Penn State entered November undefeated and ranked #3 before losing to Iowa. That was five years ago. That was the last time the Big Ten had a national title contender in November.
The conference has won 1 Rose Bowl game since the 2000 season. The conference paid out more than $25 million to each school in the last fiscal year.
How is this possible? We’ve been led to believe that money equals success in college football. It is thought that more money means better salaries for coaches and better facilities to lure recruits.
When it comes to on-field success, money falls behind something far important – exposure. In essence, the Big Ten sold its exposure for money. It’s not working.
While the Big Ten trumpets the fact they have a “national” network, that is hardly the case. ESPN is a national network. So is ESPN2. So is Fox Sports 1. So are broadcast channels. They are available on basic cable on almost every cable system in the country.
The Big Ten Network is a regional network. It is on basic cable only in Big Ten country.
I live in Washington, D.C. I get the Big Ten Network. But I pay extra for it because I’m addicted to sports. It’s part of the “sports geek” package that includes ESPNU, CBS Sports Network and BEIN Sport.
If you’re a high school recruit, the lure of playing a national network – the quaint notion that kids call sell parents on being able to watch every game – is a fallacy. If you live where I live, you can’t watch your kid play every week in the Big Ten unless you pay extra. It’s a small but important difference.
It dramatically limits the exposure – why do you think the Big Ten Network does not release rating information? Because a fraction of the ESPN audience is watching their games.
More importantly, the Big Ten moving to its own network opened another void. Suddenly, ESPN had more slots to fill than usual. The noon hour used to be the Big Ten showcase. For a decade, it seemed that ESPN and ESPN2 did nothing but show Big Ten games after College Gameday. It used to frustrate me as a fan, then living in Connecticut, to be cut off from almost every other conference – namely the SEC – to watch Northwestern/Minnesota games.
The void was filled, in spectacular fashion, by the SEC. The Noon game on ESPN – once a Big Ten stranglehold – has been commandeered by the SEC. Think of just this season alone. There has been Miami/Florida, Missouri/Georgia and South Carolina/Tennessee in those coveted timeslots, drawing millions more for an audience than the Big Ten.
The Big Ten left to collect a paycheck. The SEC stepped in and now collects five-star recruits. Is it any wonder that the SEC’s run of dominance coincided with the launch of the Big Ten Network? They have, and will always be, the two dominant conferences in college football. The Pac-12 controls the West by the time difference will always keep it third. And the ACC and Big 12 will forever and always be top-heavy conferences run by a select few on the football side.
The power balance, though, is thrown off because of the SEC’s collective dominance over the past decade. It’s not just Alabama and Florida – like the Big Ten is just Ohio State and Michigan. It’s South Carolina. It’s Auburn. It’s LSU. It’s Tennessee. It’s Arkansas. It’s different.
The Big Ten is now so money-driven that it’s about to submarine the football side even further in its never-ending chase for cash.
The SEC and Mike Slive would still be at 12 teams if it didn’t stumble into a gold mine known as Texas A&M. For the all the insults hurled at Texas A&M prior to joining the SEC, which included my own, the fact remained that it was a football school, through and through, that had success. They dominated the last vestiges of the Southwest Conference. They competed in the Big 12. Furthermore, they opened up Texas.
The Big Ten added Nebraska in 2010. They added a great football program, and the state of Nebraska.
The SEC added Texas A&M in 2012. They added a good football program, and the state of Texas.
You see the difference?
Even in power grabs for eyeballs, the SEC outmaneuvered the Big Ten – at least in football quality. Missouri has been a consistently good to great team under Gary Pinkel for nearly a decade, even reaching #1 in 2007. The 2012 season was an obvious outlier due to an abundance of injuries – just ask Mark Richt about that.
The Big Ten doesn’t care about on-field performance. They care about market size. That’s why they gobbled up Rutgers and Maryland, two of the most mediocre football programs you could possibly imagine that happen to be within a stone’s throw – okay, a 30-minute stone’s throw – of two of the largest media markets in the country.
For the Big Ten, in the words of Chief Wiggum, “It’s going to get worse before it gets better.”
Starting in 2014, all that will matter is the college football playoff. It is becoming increasingly apparent that strength of schedule is going to play a dominant role in selecting these teams, as it should.
The Big Ten, in its infinite wisdom, believes that its path to schedule strength is no FCS games and more conference games.
Have you seen the Big Ten teams? Playing more is not good.
The competitive imbalance may – should? – cripple Ohio State’s chances for a BCS title through no fault of its own. If you don’t play anyone good, how do we know if you’re any good?
The Big Ten is a terrible football conference. The Big Ten is a rich football conference.
Which is more important?"
Irish in SEC country
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2013
- Messages
- 106
The football giants Rutgers and Maryland will make 14 for the Big Ten.
TheContractor
Premium Members
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,857
There is another option you didnt mention, Pac.
Personal preference, ACC/PAC > Big10.
Big 10, other than academics has nothing at all to offer. Stay away from Rust Belt.
Every conference has crappy teams and will. Every team needs a few of these on the schedule.
Personally, i feel:
ACC has the southeast, takes away Aggie advantage in recruiting. East coast, Florida, Ga recruiting. A few good games(teams that have been to conf title game or been competitive):Fsu, Miami, Clemson, VT, GT and a few bad games: Syracuse, BC, Wake, Nc St.
Pac would also be a good fit, similar culture, West Coast, California and Arizona recruiting. A few good games(teams that have been to conf title game or been competitive):Stanford, Oregon, USC, UCLA, Wash, Oregon St and a few bad games: Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Cal.
Using the same thinking lets look at Big 10:a few different sports than Texas plays. good $, Ohio and Pennsylvania recruiting. A few good games(teams that have been to conf title game or been competitive):tOsu, Michigan, Mich St, Wisconsin, NW and a few bad games:Iowa, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois.
Independent should be considered bc i think Texas is one of the few schools that could do that though i am not a fan of Independence. I think if Texas goes Independent its only bc of $ and we have enough so i hope we dont. Unless you schedule games in a specific area only Texas would be your bread and butter and that should be ok but not ideal(Big12 doesnt offer more than Texas at this time). We can schedule anyone we want. Probably schedule and annual game with Ou, ND and probably TT, Bu & Rice. Eventually Aggies would probably be on schedule also. We could set up a game in Cali and Florida yearly.
TheContractor
Premium Members
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,857
Game time is a legitimate concern but something Texas can easily get around. All home games can be played at normal times 2:30pm, 6pm, or 7pm central, hopefully we dont do 11am games anymore. We could do some type of rule that we dont do night games for road games on west coast. So games must start by 5pm PST.
Alternate CCG btw Cali and Texas
Well, judging by the record of Texas football under DeLOSSY Dudd, those money donors have done a lousy job facilitating the development of a top football program for the most part of the past three decades.
In Texas, one can become rich by cultivating connections and buying off law makers. Also true for the US in general.
I don't see Texas joining the Big Ten though.
Last edited by a moderator:
Irish - Your argument for the ACC rests on speculation and reacting to the media hype that the BIG is down. That article was an opinion piece that stated the BIG is no better than the MAC and has does not land quality recruits. When you take the poorly written articles with no basis in fact that you find on SB Nation, you can end up believing that the BIG is not worthy of being a power 5 conference and the ACC is the next best thing to the SEC and possibly will overtake it one day.
These assertions are far from the truth.
For those who talk about the ACC speed basing it off FSU, remember that is one program (in fact the only program in the ACC), Ohio State has just as much of that speed. Ohio State has the talent to compete with any SEC school on any given year, regardless of whether they play in the BIG. Remember is was not too long ago they beat Arkansas in the Sugar Bowl when Arkansas had all the SEC speed. The ACC may recruit top HS talent but they do nothing with them and the players are busts, outside of FSU. 2012 was a bad year for the BIG, but look at the rosters of Ohio State and FSU, the flag bearers for each conference. They probably have about the same number of players who will play on Sundays and equivalent talent.
You talk about how great ND is making the ACC, remember ND got beat by a bad Michigan team this year. A team out of the weak BIG. They almost got beat by Purdue too. This from a team that was in the Natl Championship game last year.
Secondly, when you rate the talent in each league objectively, when you rate the strength of each league from top to bottom each year, based on current numbers, the ACC always comes in ranked below the SEC, PAC, BIG XII, AND BIG. This is not based on the historical power of the conference or each team, this is based on current results, strength of schedules, etc. THE ACC is DEAD LAST. Why on earth would Texas want to join that league of jokers. It is a fine academic conference but athletic wise, outside of soccer and lacrosse and FSU football it is a joke. I do not advocate for the BIG, just not the ACC which is a joke of a conference.
These assertions are far from the truth.
For those who talk about the ACC speed basing it off FSU, remember that is one program (in fact the only program in the ACC), Ohio State has just as much of that speed. Ohio State has the talent to compete with any SEC school on any given year, regardless of whether they play in the BIG. Remember is was not too long ago they beat Arkansas in the Sugar Bowl when Arkansas had all the SEC speed. The ACC may recruit top HS talent but they do nothing with them and the players are busts, outside of FSU. 2012 was a bad year for the BIG, but look at the rosters of Ohio State and FSU, the flag bearers for each conference. They probably have about the same number of players who will play on Sundays and equivalent talent.
You talk about how great ND is making the ACC, remember ND got beat by a bad Michigan team this year. A team out of the weak BIG. They almost got beat by Purdue too. This from a team that was in the Natl Championship game last year.
Secondly, when you rate the talent in each league objectively, when you rate the strength of each league from top to bottom each year, based on current numbers, the ACC always comes in ranked below the SEC, PAC, BIG XII, AND BIG. This is not based on the historical power of the conference or each team, this is based on current results, strength of schedules, etc. THE ACC is DEAD LAST. Why on earth would Texas want to join that league of jokers. It is a fine academic conference but athletic wise, outside of soccer and lacrosse and FSU football it is a joke. I do not advocate for the BIG, just not the ACC which is a joke of a conference.
Hanna - You are not getting the rust belt with the BIG anymore. Unless you all Chicago, New York City, Washington DC, Philly, Indianapolis, Columbus, Minneapolis, Madison the rust belt. ( Yes they are upper Midwest but they would not be considered true old manufacturing towns. In fact, these cities are the financial and accounting centers as well as major biomedical research areas. It is no wonder why these schools are consistently the top public schools in the country.
The rust belt is Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Syracuse, Gary Indiana. The ironic thing is that there are more ACC schools in the "Rust Belt" than BIG 10 schools. There are more ACC schools closer to that footprint than BIG Schools. (Syracuse, Pitt, ND are all rust belt in the ACC, whereas the BIG besides MICH/MICH ST has no schools within a 2 hour drive of those rust belt cities).
Look at the BIG Cities v ACC cities and which inspire more excitement and growth. You have in the ACC
Ralaigh, Durham, Winston Salem, Atlanta, Tallahassee, Miami, Pittsburgh, Boston, Syracuse, Blacksburg, Charlottesville, Louisville, South Bend, Clemson.
In the BIG you have - Chicago, New York, Washington DC, Columbus, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, Madison, Champaign, Iowa City, Lincoln, State College PA (Philly,Pitt, Harrisburg), Detroit (Ann arbor), Lansing.
Where are the jobs?? where is the employment. In the ACC you have Atlanta, Research Triangle, Boston, Pittsburgh, and Miami, hell through CHarlotte in there too. IN BIG Country, there is Chicago, New York, DC, Minneapolis (All financial centers), Columbus and Indy, Pittsburgh and Philly.
Point being, there is still a lot more opportunity in the "rust belt" then the sleepy south.
The rust belt is Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Syracuse, Gary Indiana. The ironic thing is that there are more ACC schools in the "Rust Belt" than BIG 10 schools. There are more ACC schools closer to that footprint than BIG Schools. (Syracuse, Pitt, ND are all rust belt in the ACC, whereas the BIG besides MICH/MICH ST has no schools within a 2 hour drive of those rust belt cities).
Look at the BIG Cities v ACC cities and which inspire more excitement and growth. You have in the ACC
Ralaigh, Durham, Winston Salem, Atlanta, Tallahassee, Miami, Pittsburgh, Boston, Syracuse, Blacksburg, Charlottesville, Louisville, South Bend, Clemson.
In the BIG you have - Chicago, New York, Washington DC, Columbus, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, Madison, Champaign, Iowa City, Lincoln, State College PA (Philly,Pitt, Harrisburg), Detroit (Ann arbor), Lansing.
Where are the jobs?? where is the employment. In the ACC you have Atlanta, Research Triangle, Boston, Pittsburgh, and Miami, hell through CHarlotte in there too. IN BIG Country, there is Chicago, New York, DC, Minneapolis (All financial centers), Columbus and Indy, Pittsburgh and Philly.
Point being, there is still a lot more opportunity in the "rust belt" then the sleepy south.
TheContractor
Premium Members
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,857
I see what you are saying and you have some good points but you lied with the cities you used. No school is in New York City so you cant use a school thats far away. Also, No school is in Chicago. IF you are comparing large close markets then do that do.
Also, by that logic SEC should suck:Baton Rouge, Tuscaloosa, Athens, Lexington, etc. No big market right?
I can give you New York city, since Rutgers is about 45 minutes away, but Northwestern is in Chicago (Evanston is a suburb and part of the public transportation system) Also, University of Chicago is part of the BIG even though they don't play sports.
Also, size of the market does not have anything to do with sports success, however, the size of the market helps contribute to the value of the "brand" Texas would not be Texas if it were located in Louisiana. Over the last 30 years, you could say that Bama, LSU, Florida, Ohio State, Nebraska, Oklahoma and maybe one or two others have had more success than Texas on the field, however, combining that with the fact that Texas has a HUGE fan base and alumni network give them the foundation to have sustained success. They alumni network own, run, manage successful companies who contribute to ensuring the university has sustained success on the field and in the classroom. It is a mentality that feeds itself. Being located in the second largest state in the country and having one of the largest campus's population wise is a key reason for this.
I would guarantee that if asked, LSU and Bama would trade places with Texas any day even if it meant giving up their reign on the Crystal Football because of all the other intangibles Texas brings to it. That is where my argument about population centers carries the most weight.
I would guarantee that if asked, LSU and Bama would trade places with Texas any day even if it meant giving up their reign on the Crystal Football because of all the other intangibles Texas brings to it. That is where my argument about population centers carries the most weight.
About Us
