I get the feeling TCU wouldn't be too excited about that. Its a damn shame TCU is currently having more success than UH. It just isn't right.
The school they add has to add enough revenue to be worth splitting 10 ways (or 12 ways) instead of the current 9 ways. So it can't just be an addition, but a significant addition. I think the argument is that the Texas schools don't bring enough new eyeballs or interest to make it worth it. Plus, there's an image issue, right or wrong. SMU is C-USA. UH was recently C-USA (they moved to the MWC, right?). The Big12 is trying to project health and stability, and losing members to the SEC/Big10/Pac10 and replacing them with C-USA members doesn't project much strength for the conference.
Then they're kinda boned, because it doesn't look like anybody short of BYU and ND would count for that (and ND ain't coming). And they're certainly not poaching any Big 10/Pac10/SEC schools. So unless they're willing to invest a little bit in their expansion (Pitt, Louisville, etc. bring just as much to the table as UH, if not less), they're going to have to stay at 9. Even then, I'm not sure why a Big East school would jump to the Big 12. It would be plausible, but you'd be trading some stability for money. My guess is the Big 12 ends up at 12 teams again, and the revenue sharing ends up basically paying the new members pretty much nothing. You don't necessarily have to "add" to the pie, as long as you don't take too much away from it.
Just a guess, right now TCU has the BCS edge on a school it has to directly compete with. If TCU wants it I think it would be exciting. Its just crazy to me how easy that conference is. UH could easily become a legitimate BCS threat each year.
In theory, Pitt/UL/etc at least bring totally new markets and open up the conference to new parts of the country. But in general, I agree - and that's why I think the Big12 is in such a mess and just needs to implode itself. ND would clearly be an upgrade, and BYU could be considered a lateral move to A&M, but there's really no other school that can say the same. I also have heard that Texas annoyed that they have to take Tech whereever they go, had to deal with the Baylor fallout last year, and were annoyed by all the A&M stuff. And as such, they don't want to attach themselves to more Texas schools who they are going to have to "take care of" down the line if the Big12 does implode. No idea if that's true or not.
I think it would help the conference enough to override any territorial concerns with TCU. Creates an even 10 member football conference (and an even 18 overall), adds another major media market, gives an even bigger footprint in the state of Texas, and a natural traveling companion and rival for geography hampered TCU. TCU might not like it, but given how much it would help their conference, they might swallow that pill with a smile on their face.
Looking at this as objectively as I can, I can't say I disagree with Andy Staples on this one bit. He has been all over this from the beginning ... http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_staples/09/01/texas-dodds-realignment/index.html
pitt/louisville/byu would be interesting. if the big xii wants to remain together, they need to start looking at the big east or even acc if va tech goes sec, provided the whole lhn mess is still a consideration in the next couple years.
^^^^^ So basically A&M had a shot to get in on a joint network with UT, declined, then griped later about said network and used it as one of the reasons for leaving? I can understand getting pissed about the network, but that was before knowing A&M had a chance to partner in it. How do Aggies defend the oversight on this one? I know you still are coming out in a good situation but you guys wouldn't have preferred to be 50/50 on this ESPN deal? And this was too funny: <iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9VA7Tz3s8HE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
This is false. According to Dakota, and several other UT fans, TAMU left solely out of "spite" and "butt hurted(ness)".
I would have preferred an OU, OSU, UT, TAMU joint network. It would have made more sense and glued the Big 12 powers together. The stability of the conference would have been much stronger. With just a TAMU/UT network, OU would probably be looking for a new home.
Please reread that article in order to properly comprehend. I'm not being insulting and I haven't watched the video (which I'm assuming is a dig at A&M), but I don't see how you can conclude blaming A&M from the information presented in that article.
i don't understand why it'd be ok with just the powers and not just one. to me, it seems like it'd be all or nothing if you have the opinion just one is wrong. what's funny is if you add the college football revenues (from 08-09), the other three don't add up to ut. in fact, all three are closer to baylor in total revenue than they are to ut.
*Forgot to mention Nebraska should have also been a part of that imaginary network I made up* If all the powers have a network, the big boys are all happy. The little boys have no room to complain, they're lucky to just be in the conference. UT's football revenues don't matter, a network is based on TV revenues, not how many jerseys are sold, and regardless, major carriers are balking at the network because they don't feel enough people care. With 5 teams backing it you'd think it might actually wind up on TV. BYU and ND are backed by religion. Honestly, who's gonna watch UT soccer aside from its grads?
30% is still around $75M and increased exposure for your athletic programs. That's still good IMO. I realize none of the numbers were known at the time, but how can you not have the foresight to want to get in on your own network? This is not a bash Aggie post either. I just think it's a blunder to pass on not wanting your own network.
