[College Football] Big Ten, Texas have initial talks

You call us arrogant and claim that you don't need us financially yet you also admit that y'all basically need UT's permission to leave. Aggies have just as much power in the Texas legislature to make the move if they really want IMO. But there has to be concerns about not being in the same conference with Texas and I'm willing to bet that the financial consequences are at the top of the list. All I'm saying is that UT isn't the only party holding y'all back from leaving.

BTW, I'm not saying that y'all need us in any way and I agree that the SEC is better fit for y'all, but I do think A&M is concerned about "going out on their own."

http://www.aggiesports.com/blogs/-1...hletics-department-news-to-me--how-about-you-

 

I agree that there is concern in going out on our own, but I disagree that it is economic. Either the Pac 10 alliance or the SEC would come with a substantial increase in TV revenues. I would think that the concern comes from not having any of our former SWC/Big XII bretheren with us in the SEC. There is history and tradition there and as much as I hate Tech, I would miss having that game on the schedule every year. I would also miss the "Lone Star Showdown" with Texas. You simply cannot buy history like that.

Of course, I was also salivating at the thought of going to LA or Seattle to watch the Ags play every so often.

 

I honestly don't see why A&M wants to join the SEC, from a football point of view. I really don't see kids from GA, FL, AL or LA choosing to leave those states to come to College Station. There is enough in-state talent to compete down the line, but that conference is so tough that I don't see any Texas team just staying dominant year in and out. It's just a tough football conference in general.

Any Aggie care to share the advantages? Is it all about getting from under UT's shadow?

 

The SEC t.v. deal would definitely increase revenue for y'all which would definitely help ease any financial concerns (if there are any). I completely agree that the classic Big XII matchups would sorely be missed; but at least you will have Arky with you.

 

I think it's the last piece. If you're a kid in Texas right now, and you want to stay in Texas, Texas has the advantage over A&M simply because they are better in the same league - so more media attention, more chance to win titles, etc. Obviously, if A&M is better than Texas, that advantage flips (as it did in the 90's), but you're always competing for the same kids and the better school has an advantage. Meanwhile, if you're a kid in Texas that wants to go to the SEC, you have to leave the state.

By moving to the SEC, they aren't competing for the same kids as Texas. They can go after all the Texas kids that want to go play in the deep South / SEC and givem them an in-state alternative. I think it gives a unique selling point to A&M that UT would not have. Plus, it makes it theoretically possible for both schools to be great at the same time - that's more difficult if both schools are in the same conference.

 

I don't think A&M is going in thinking they're going to steal recruits from the SEC states but rather they'd start stealing Texas recruits from UT since there is an appeal of playing in the SEC.

 

first, ppl like winners. the first few years in the sec, atm is gonna get pounded. this isnt gonna help them get more recruits.

second, for the texas kids who leave for the sec, i think theyre leaving bc they want to go out of state. so i dont think atm will have that much of a recruiting advantage by offering an sec home option.

for those texas kids who have their hearts set on playing in the sec, see the first point.

 

These are decisions made with a 40+ year time horizon. The first few years are irrelevant. Some players certainly want to go out of state - but others just hear about the greatness of the SEC and want to play there. Louisiana kids who want to leave home but still want to play all the teams they grew up watching also would be potential targets.

Bottom line is it gives A&M a selling point that's distinct from Texas. Sometimes, it might be good, sometimes not. But it gets them out of the "little brother" situation.

 

i dont think selling the sec is gonna make that much of a difference as far as recruiting. like you already mentioned, football is cyclical.

i just think atm is gonna miss out on being affiliated with better academic institutions.

 

I don't know what's going to happen. You don't know what's going to happen.

Let's just wait and see.

Btw, you're kidding yourself if you think that UH's athletic dept has more potential than Baylor's. Get the facilities first and then we'll talk.

 

Dude, you had 15 years in the Big 12 (and 90 years in the SWC before that) and didn't do diddly with it. If you had potential (in football, the main driver of this discussion), it would've happened by now. At least when UH got into a big conference they won it a few times.

The BBall success is nice, but its extremely recent, and not exactly a long tradition of success that everyone expects to be sustained.

The highest highs UH athletics have seen are higher than the highest highs Baylor has seen, that's not me trying to piss on Baylor, that's just fact. Another fact is, the lowest lows UH athletics have seen are probably lower than Baylor, too.

 

I agree there - I think A&M will go to the SEC, but it seems to be driven by athletics. I think it's a really dumb decision from an academic perspective.

 

That's true in football, but Baylor has had success all around in the B12. Over the past 7 years, they are 3rd in the B12 in conference titles - behind Texas and A&M. They are sort of like a really poor man's version of Stanford, who has no success in football but is nevertheless a powerhouse in athletics overall.

I don't think they bring much in terms of $$ that Texas doesn't already bring, so that's a major problem for them. But in terms of facilities and all around athletics, they actually aren't that bad.

As for Baylor vs UH, Baylor surprisingly had more success than you may think. They won the SWC 5 times (most recently in 1994) compared to UH's 4 (most recently in 1984). UH only one the conference once outright while Baylor did it four times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Southwest_Conference_champions#Football

 

Yes, yes, yes, we've all gone over and know about the other sports, but they're not really the main driver of the realignment. And I'm definitely not arguing against their facilities. UH never really had any facilities. Robertson is a converted track stadium. Hofheinz is a landmark but was built back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth. When they get new facilities and into a better conference, the sky seems like the limit. Whereas Baylor has been in the Big Boy league for a century and isn't exactly lightyears ahead of UH.

As for 5 vs 4 football championships.

UH did 4 in 20 years.

BU did 5 in 80 years.

 

i agree w/ the football but there also seems to be a touch of little man syndrome with the whole wanting to become independent from ut.

several yrs down the road, the sec may not be the power house it is now.

i dont think atm will get another chance to become affiliated with stanford, cal, ucla, and washington. the only way to top that would be to join the big 10 (michigan, ohio st, northwestern, illinois).

pac 10 seems to offer the best package. strong academics, a growing population (west and south), money (new tv contract coming soon), strong athletics programs...

 

I get the feeling that Utah leaving the MWC for the Pac 10 is going to change things for the rebuilt Big 12.

They are going to cherry-pick now and be much more selective, probably stopping at 12 teams.

North Division:
ISU
KSU
KU
Mizzou
BYU
Boise State

South Division:
Houston
TCU
Baylor
New Mexico
Air Force
UTEP or Memphis or Colorado State

Now, of course, all of this is riding on KU/Mizzou being locked out of the Big 10 (Delaney said he is done raiding the Big 12, whether he means it, who knows?), and A&M going to the SEC. So we'll have to see. This is what I'm hoping shakes out, though.

 

I would be shocked if the Big 12 didn't fold.

The forgotten five have no leverage. I think I read somewhere that a conference needs at least 6 teams to have played together at least 5 years or something like that to keep the BCS autobid.

No BCS autobid. No leverage.

 

I agree. If all of these teams bolt I think there is very little chance that the Big 12 stays around, and if it does, I think there is an even smaller chance that it continues to get an automatic BCS bid.

 

That's not the BCS rule. That's the NCAA basketball tourney rule.

I read there is some way around that, as well.

The only way the Big 12 folds is if 2 or more of the remaining 5 are invited to a BCS conference.

No way they leave a BCS auto-bid on the table or the penalty money they're due from the 7 defectors.

 

FedEx reportedly is prepared to deliver big bucks to any BCS conference willing to add the University of Memphis.

http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/...e-%2410M-to-add-Memphis%2C-report-says-061210