Because it will be UT's decision to end the game. Conference affiliation is a weak excuse. As major already pointed out. If UT wants to play the game, it will get played.
Sure, but Texas could theoretically make more money playing Notre Dame or Ohio State as one of its OOC games.
Sure, and that's their choice to make. But A&M isn't forcing them to make it. We all know the Aggies, they will play Texas anytime anywhere. It's all in UT's hands.
Of course - but that doesn't make it "difficult" to play the game. It makes it Texas' choice. 2012: They have Wyoming, New Mexico, and Ole Miss on the schedule. They could easily drop one of the first two. 2013 & 2014: They already have both BYU and A&M on the schedule. So if BYU replaces A&M in the Big12, it would require no change at all - just make BYU the conference game and A&M the non-conference game. 2015-2017 might be a little more difficult, in that they already have 2 good games and only one scrub game. 2018 and beyond has plenty of empty slots. So the only difficult period is 2015, 2016, and 2017. That assumes the Big12 goes to 10 teams and maintains a 9-game conference schedule. If it expands to 12, then it would go to 8 conference games and open the door for another game every single one of those years.
It's really disappointing to hear Dodds falling back on the 10-team conference line. That's just not good enough. The ACC is at 14. The SEC is at 13, and wants 14. The Pac 12 is interested in 16, under the right circumstances. It saddens me that the Big XII higher-ups, even after all this, still don't seem to get it. It's not about the money. It's about ego and stability. Three schools have left in 15 months, and other leagues are going to keep coming and coming as long as big schools like OU and Mizzou appear somewhat unhappy and at UT's whim. Just adding BYU alone isn't going to fix this. You need three nationally-viable programs. You need a conference championship game. You have schools like West Virginia and Cincinnati, with decent markets and very quality football, there for the taking amid a drastically-weakened Big East. If you make a big move, you can start to rebuild the Big XII brand. I know, I know... those schools might not bring enough to justify "splitting the pie" more ways. I've heard it before. But that's short-term thinking. Big picture, this league needs multiple major acquisitions to survive - and it should be in UT's best interest to do so! I hope Max is right and they're seriously considering a 12- or 14-team league. But the comments today from Dodds have me worried that it's more of the same, and we'll be right back here in a year or two.
I know you guys are tired of hearing this, but if Cincinatti gets in over TCU/UH I will punch kittens. Preferably ones that look like Bearcats. There are some schools I can totally see as members of the Big 12, but them, especially over local flavor, oh helllllllll no.
This is exactly right - there is no long-term thinking at all in any of this junk. They keep putting bandaids on it, but aren't ever addressing the real issues. As long as that's true, teams will jump whenever the opportunity arises - and there's no doubt other conferences are slowly going to expand. Having a conference without a championship game at this point is just lame.
He never said that we would never play ATM, it would just be difficult to schedule an automatic game. If we have a 9 game conference schedule, having ATM penciled in really only gives us an opportunity to play 1 or 2 additional out of conference opponents. We still need a couple of cake walk warm up games.
I'd love UH or TCU, but I'm convinced Texas would block any in-state addition, so I suggested Cincinnati to work within the likely parameters. I also think WVU would probably want a Big East school with them so that they're not on an island. That said, WVU, another Big East school (Cincy/Louisville) and UH/TCU would work for me as well.
That's why I hate that the Pac 12 came out with this statement when they did, as opposed to letting OU work through the process for a couple days. It destroys a lot of OU's leverage. Maybe Mizzou still has some with the SEC, but that's iffy. In theory, I'm fine with the Big 12, and this whole mess actually gives them a few opportunities, given the Big East problem. But it's clear that Dodds doesn't want to take advantage. I keep hoping that he'll come around on one of these meetings (the next call is tomorrow)... but does anyone have enough power left to squeeze his arm?
In a couple of years, schools will realize that all this super conference stuff is bad for the individual schools and this stuff will die down. This is what the PAC-12 and schools like Texas have already figure out. I hate to bring up the the Cuban article but he is right on the money about this realignment crap. http://blogmaverick.com/2011/09/04/so-what-should-big-12-schools-do-say-no-to-super-conferences/
The real test will be if they take A&M off the 2013 and 2014 schedules. Because that would require no change at all if we go to the 9 game schedule with BYU replacing A&M. So if they take A&M off those schedules, it's not because it's difficult - it's just because they don't want to play them.
I'd also point out that we never had a problem scheduling an OOC game with OU with an 8-game conference schedule when there were only 10 or 11 regular season games allowed for about 60 years.
North ISU KU KSU MIZZ LOU WVU/CINCI South BU UT TTU OU OSU TCU/UH Would actually be a pretty cool looking conference. That'd be one hellacious basketball division in the North, anyway. Pretty condensed regionally. Pipe dream, of course.
http://blog.chron.com/longhorns/2011/09/ut-athletic-director-says-big-12-will-survive/ UT athletic director says Big 12 will survive AUSTIN — Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds said Wednesday the university is now focused on “the Big 12, period” and vowed that he and other conference leaders will take steps to ensure the long-term stability of the league. But while Dodds said UT is committed to equal revenue-sharing of first- and second-tier television rights, sharing its lucrative third-tier Longhorn Network deal is non-negotiable. In a wide-ranging interview with a small group of reporters at Bellmont Hall, Dodds said he was “relieved” that the Big 12′s chances of survival skyrocketed after the Pac-12 announced it has no intentions of expanding beyond a dozen teams this week. The Pac-12 had been in discussions with UT, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech about joining that conference before commissioner Larry Scott bailed on the plan Tuesday night. Dodds said despite reports of a rift between the Longhorns and Sooners, “the stability of Oklahoma and Texas is strong,” and both schools are now committed to making the Big 12 work. A member of the Big 12′s expansion committee, Dodds said he would like to keep the conference at 10 teams, but would be open to expanding to 12 if the rest of the league leans in that direction. In either case, the Big 12 would need to find a replacement for Texas A&M, which has made no bones about its intention to leave after this year. “In my mind, they’re in the SEC,” Dodds said. “And I think people are OK with that.” Dodds said the expansion committee hasn’t met in several weeks but that he expects conversations to pick up in that area. He did not specify the schools the league would look at, but said there are several good candidates. In terms of TV revenue, Dodds said the Big 12 already shares its second-tier (cable) revenues equally, and that the athletic directors voted unanimously last spring to do the same with first-tier (network) revenues. That plan has yet to be voted on by the presidents, but Dodds said it has UT’s support. What will not happen, Dodds said, is UT agreeing to share any of its 20-year, $300-million deal with ESPN for LHN. Among Dodds other comments: On playing A&M as a non-conference game: “I think it will be hard to schedule that game.” On whether UT’s image has taken a hit: “We are who we are. People say what they say. The outcome is the outcome. We’re proud of ourselves. We’re proud of how we do business.” On the option of moving to the ACC: “They were interested in us, but it’s not going to happen.” On realignment fatigue: “Don’t you think presidents are tired of this? I think presidents are embarrassed by it. I am.”
Yes, but the OU game had national championship implications almost every year and attracted a national audience. It was a huge money maker for everyone involved. The ATM game is only really important in the state of Texas and its more important to ATM than it is to Texas from a financial standpoint. That game is ATM's only guaranteed national televised game. Texas gets a nationalized game playing a scrub UCLA team.
Most of what Cuban said is factually inaccurate, especially about being too many games to televise and all that nonsense. When you have the same number of schools playing the same length schedule, there aren't more games to televise. He's just making stuff up. #1 is clearly wrong - a bigger conference means more ability to have marquee games every week. #2 is total nonsense given that you have the same number of games. #3 also nonsense. No one is talking about 11 or 12 game conference schedules. The Pac10 had 9 game conference schedules for the longest time; the Big12 has them now. #4 College Station to Alabama is no worse than College Station to Nebraska. This is also silly because most of these superconferences are still geographically compact. The only exception would be some crazy Big12 with BYU and WVU, or the potential Pac16 that was in discussion. The ACC, SEC, and Big10 can all expand and remain compact. And OU vs Oregon would sell out every year in both stadiums regardless. #5 - this is the only one he has a legitimate argument on.
I personally like the 10 team conference. I like being able to play everyone in the conference every year. I hated the fact that we only played Nebraska once every few years before they left.
