The PAC and the B1G had plenty of chances to give up their nut and declined. Now the SEC gets em for free. Lol.
This thread has certainly taken a turn for the hilarious. Keep it up, Landry. This has been so very educational.
As someone with degrees from both UH and UT, I feel like I have to weigh in on your insane notion that UT and UH are roughly equivalent. They aren't. I love both schools but there's no comparison in their following. No comparison in their brand appeal, or their tradition, facilities, or alumni base. That's been true my entire life, even when they were in the same conference. It really seems like you have a major blind spot in your inability to see what Texas brings to a conference. I guess it's good that the SEC doesn't agree with you.
UH has largely been supressed by being in an inferior conference for the past 30 years or so. The number of students are roughly the same. That was the point i was making and you seemed to have read more into than was said. The UT student population is much younger if you're comparing demographics. The endowment the state of Texas gave UT is 3 times as large. It's silly to deny the UT brand hasn't been run into the ground. Ask yourself if the Longhorn Network was going to get renewed... that would tell you what you would need to know... i think that was a primary motivation by UT who got used to that cash and wants to keep the train rolling by leeching off the SEC. UH is trending upwards. They will never be UT without a 2 billion infusion into their endowment but they could make up a lot of the eyeballs on tv ratings which was the context of the student body population. Before you label notions insane please consider whether anyone had that notion in the first place.
He's essentially advocating for a return to the SWC without Texas, Texas A&M or Arkansas. Not only is this being presented as a good idea, but it's apparently something that middle-tier Big 10 and SEC schools would abandon their decades-long conference histories and rivalries for so that they can "win titles." It's the perfect message board take.
UH was part of a big time conference before the SWC disbanded and still wasn't a consistent football contender. Even basketball wasn't winning consistent conference titles outside of Phi Slama Jama. It's fine for UH to have big aspirations, but let's not act like they've had some sort of glorious history that's been depressed by other schools keeping them out of big conferences for 30 years. To quote @rockbox ... Those revenue and merchandise sales really scream "brand that's been run into the ground"... We know that football has been disappointing for 10 years now. We have a whole thread full of us complaining on this very sub-forum. You should find the posts from when we lost to Kansas because all of us were posting our most unhinged, entertaining opinions. We've got a weird camaraderie going on in that thread. However, your opinions about Texas go against reality and facts. UT just won the award for the top athletics department in the country despite firing Tom Herman and Shaka Smart. The women's basketball team made the Elite Eight; the volleyball team made the national championship game; swimming and tennis won championships; the baseball team made it to Omaha; and now Chris Beard's preseason basketball team is being ranked in the top-3 in the nation after the transfer window closed. This does not speak to an athletics department in disarray. If football can get going then all of that revenue will only increase. The Longhorn Network was never going to be renewed regardless of UT's success because the media landscape has shifted since ESPN offered it to UT. Devoting that much money and programming to one school was crazy 10 years ago and the fact that a similar offer was never made to any other big time program like Alabama, Ohio State or Clemson - all of whom now take part in the conference network arrangement - shows that it was a mistake from the get-go.
I get it, you're an irrational homer. UT at its best wasn't a top 5 football program. Maybe a top 10... The argument about money is a dumb one. I've been talking about on field product. I'm aware of a financial hit, but that isn't long term. A competitive conference with good teams will get paid. The SEC wasn't anything special 25 years ago. After that the big schools will follow the money, as they are doing here. Money is more important to them.
What are you calling a "middle tier"? Nebraska? Arkansas? Who are at the bottom? Also, the old swc is a good thing relative to a conference dominated by UCF. I just don't like the other fits for the remaining teams. As a big 12 fan i really don't care about texas or OU. I don't care if we're the 5th best instead of 4th best conference or 6th instead of 5th. You're acting like the Big12 is going from best to worst... These schools can afford a 20 million short term drop in revenue. Blip in their budgets and they can get creative with raising more money.
I'd define middle tier, at least in terms of football, as Nebraska, Arkansas, Minnesota, Mizzou, Mississippi State, etc. Bottom feeders are schools like Vanderbilt, Rutgers, Kentucky and others whose best hope is finishing in the middle of their division. There is a reason that the SWC dissolved and it would not be a wise business decision to recreate it. ESPN published a great oral history of the SWC last year that shows why the SWC wasn't sustainable in the changing college football landscape. I've flat out said that the Big 12 is the most disappointing power conference in the playoff era and would agree that Texas is the most disappointing big time program during the same time period. Others have pointed out that 1-loss Big 12 teams like TCU and Oklahoma State were denied shots at the playoff. That hardly makes me an "irrational homer." I could go that way, though, and remind you how few people outside of Waco, Lubbock or Fort Worth care about about Baylor, Tech and TCU. Wait, I already did that when I demonstrated how awful Big 12 ratings were when intra-conference games without Texas or Oklahoma were aired on FS1. Another assumption. Don't underestimate the impact COVID has had on these universities' budgets. What university president is going to tell their regents "Hey, we're about to lose tens of millions of dollars in revenue for the next few years aside from pandemic-related losses but we're going to take the chance that ESPN and FOX will give us a better deal in a few years if we partner with regional schools?"
You seem to be unaware there are more than 4 playoff spots now. It's a completely different scenario. I just don't see how the aac is an upgrade or paying millions in expensive travel for big 10 or pac 12 road games. They are better off sticking it out and building things up. You are also naive that the remaining schools could do nothing to boost revenue or lure other schools. If the remaining conference is so weak a school like Nebraska would tell themselves they would win it most years and collect a 30 or 40 million dollar check the Big 12 suddenly offers to their football champ. I don't think you're being serious when you pretend there is no alternative actions or behavior the remaining teams will take other than beg someone to take them. I'm sorry, but you are a homer and you need to realize it. The cash grab and 3 or 4 wins a year isn't going to boost UT merch sales and ratings. They will be another Tennessee in the SEC. Enjoy the cash though... UT could really use it i guess...
I think it's a little weird a clearly naive homer thinks losing a middle tier program matters that much... It's Oklahoma that gave the conference credibility...
Wins since 2012: Baylor - 68 TCU - 69 OSU - 78 Iowa st - 49 Kansas st - 68 Texas Tech - 51 West Virginia - 62 Texas - 65 I chose 2012 because that's when tcu/wv joined... OSU, Baylor, TCU, and Kansas State all more wins. You can talk about off field money all you want but it's not showing in the product. Money follows product in the long run. We're likely to see an entire generation pass where texas was never a contender... That will affect the money in the long run. I don't really care how much UT gets. I'm concerned about wins, not profit... A lot of parity in the conference once Oklahoma is gone.. Should make it exciting to be wide open... like when Tom Brady left the AFC east...
In one corner, a self-proclaimed "Big XII fan", sporting goods store owner, and UT hater. In the other corner, everyone else's opinion. Who will win? Never met anyone so passionate about the ongoing viability of a sinking conference.
Texas is the Dallas Cowboys/ Connor McGregor of college football. You will pay to watch them win and you will pay to watch them lose. Either way, you pay. Every school in Texas considers UT their biggest rival when UT really only considers OU a rival.
