You should be representing the SEC, then, and let them know they don't need unconditional releases from the rest of the Big XII. :grin: The truth is, none of us have seen the contracts, and no one has been very specific with respect to what contract we're talking about. Don't forget, the Pennzoil/Texaco tortious interference case was founded on a handshake deal; not even a written agreement. The foundation of the case might be Loftin's comments about a year ago where he linked A&M's pledge to the Big XII to its "word" and "integrity." Or it might be SEC being aware of TV deal and knowing their actions with A&M would interfere with it. Remember, elements of tortious interference in TX do NOT necessarily include that A&M breach anything.
apparently Chip Brown called into the afternoon show in Austin yesterday and said if UT heads east, they'd take Baylor with them to the ACC....if they head west to Pac-whatever they'd take Tech. he metions that in the article, but apparently called to talk about that pretty specifically yesterday.
Exactly. Why make it harder on yourself by cmpounding hte mistakes of Pullman & Corvallis with Stillwater.
And here my bowl of popcorn was running low... and they just keep pulling me back in! Time for a refill.
absolutely nothing from my guy at BU this morning. I did send a text asking him if he's hearing that. We'll see.
Any explanation for that? I don't see any reasoning for them to take one vs. the other depending merely on the direction they head.
I don't know. I understand he called in to yesterday's afternoon show in Austin to expound on it, but I haven't heard reasoning. My understanding is Tech is alllllll about heading west....maybe geography is more of a factor for Lubbock than Waco if UT heads east? Not sure, really. EDIT: if academics matter, BU just ranked 75 in US News & World Report rankings...Tech is at 160.
Seriously the ACC would be great, and Baylor would fit there, UT could still rule the conference in football, and would be in a very cometitive basketball league. And all the other sports fit in as well. This is the best option from all those I have read, in my opinion. DD
It just doesn't make a lot of sense for UT to prefer one vs. the other (based purely on whatever conf they're going to), nor does it make a lot of sense for Tech to get choosey all the sudden either. What does make sense, however, is the ACC preferring one vs. the other. So, maybe he left out that little detail. That would be my guess. Not that UT couldn't flex enough muscle to shoehorn whoever they wanted into the ACC, but Baylor would make a little more sense for the ACC than Tech would.
yeah, it's probably more that if they go to one of those conferences, they'll probably be "taking" a texas school with them. taking in that those schools probably wouldn't be considered for those conferences without texas, but they're not the ones with the weird preference of school depending on conference.
I think Tech wants to head to the Pac16 just from a proximity perspective, though I have no idea if they'd be invited without Texas. Realistically, without Mike Leach, Tech is no better an overall athletic department than Baylor so I imagine it's a wash from Texas' perspective. To me, the ACC solution is about as bad as the crappy remains of the Big12. For the past decade, there have been 4 exciting football conferences: SEC, Big12, Pac10, Big10. The ACC and BigEast have been the clear secondary conferences. Even ACC fans don't care - none of their teams except VaTech ever sell out their games. With the Big10, you replace OSU, A&M and OU with Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Penn State, and potentially ND down the line - not as good teams now, but at least there a bunch of historical brands. With the Pac10, you replace Nebraska and A&M with USC and Oregon. With the ACC, you replace Nebraska, OSU, A&M, and OU with VaTech and Florida State? Might as well just keep OSU and OU at that point if we're going with the crappy schedule anyway. It's like merging the worst of the Big12 with a terrible conference to just create a bigger terrible conference. From the ACC perspective, it makes perfect sense though - they are at risk of being raided, so why not jump the line and create the first 16 team superconference? They don't make much football money, so they would be more willing to do whatever it takes to accommodate Texas. But the LHN $$ argument is just so weird. The Pac12 Network is expected to generate $11-$12MM per school within a few years once its up and running - with more growth potential over time (as opposed to UT being locked in at $15MM for the next 20 years). With Texas and OU in the fold, that would easily go up. So Texas could make potentially more money with the Pac12 than they are now, even without the LHN. I'm not sure how much they'd make in an ACC16, but it doesn't seem like it would be as much as the Pac16 in total.
Maybe so - but then so do fans, polls, and on-the-field-results. Because all of them show those two as superior than the ACC year after year. Outside of VaTech and Florida State, can you name an interesting football program in the ACC? In the last 10 years, the ACC has had a team ranked in the final top 10 a grand total of 4 times (out of 100 total spots in 10 years) - all of them were VaTech, never ranked higher than 7th. By comparison: The terrible BigEast had had 7 (a mix of Louisville, West Virginia, and Cinci), not including new member TCU The Pac10 has had 15 (USC, Oregon, Cal, Stanford, WSU), not including Utah The Big10 has had 20 (OSU, Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn State, Iowa). There just hasn't been a worse football conference than the ACC, both in terms of total results and overall depth. I didn't look at the MWC or WAC, but those conferences probably had as many or more top 10s with Utah, Boise, and TCU.
Undersell much? While neither of them is good every single year, year-in and year out, Clemson/Georgia Tech/North Carolina/NC State/Maryland/Boston College/UVa usually produce 2-3 top 25 caliber teams among them in any given year. Unsurprising since the southern VA - Carolinas area produces a boatload of NFL draftpicks. And of course who knows what's going to happen with Miami, though it's not like the Pac 12 doesn't have its own NCAA problems with Oregon and USC.
Major, Texas doesn't need a powerful conference to be ranked, they could go independent and have that respect. Just by being Texas and having a good record, they will be ranked, and the ACC is a BCS conference. Personally, I think Texas gets a major boost in national championship chances by being in a marginal conference and having less competition. Even the Big 12 was marginal with only OK challenging for the most part of the last decade, while other teams were good and ranked they were really not as good as UT or OU. DD
