[College Football] Big Ten, Texas have initial talks

eh, i'm good with it. we'll be the favorite to win the Big XII in hoops next year...ranked somewhere in the top 6 or so going in.

 

The Texas Legislature just doesn't seem like they hold a lot of cards at this point. If I had to bet, I'd guess Colorado will still go over Baylor... but a lot of may depend on what Texas' thinking really is here. I still can't figure out if Texas wants to ideally stay in the B12 if they can hold ittogether, or if they are really excited about jumping ship.

If it's the former, they very well could push to keep Baylor in the mix. If it's the latter, I don't imagine they care much and would let the Pac10 do whatever brings in the most $$ (pick Colorado).

 

how about 20 team behemoth.
a cable network + 4 team playoff to determine the champ = $$$$$

west:
washington
washington st
oregon
oregon st
cal
stanford
usc
ucla
arizona
arizona st

east:
utah
colorado
kansas
kansas st
oklahoma
oklahoma st
texas
texas a&m
texas tech
baylor

 

The only reason Texas would want to stay is to start their own tv network. The Big 12 has already shot down the idea of a conference network and the Pac 10 would jump on the opportunity should they expand (they might do it anyway). Texas stands to make millions with their own network.

 

Huh? The Texas Legislature has a lot more power over UT than you give them credit. Granted, I don't think Baylor has the kind of power to get the legislature to care.

 

Obviously, they do. How else would Baylor even be discussed? They would have never been considered for the Big 12 if it weren't for Ann Richards and the Leg. Same thing is happening now. Ken Starr is pulling his republican cards to get them included.

 

Sorry, I didn't mean the to suggest the legislature as a whole. Just the Baylor influence in the legislature. They don't have the power brokers that they had last time - I can't see a big band of legislators making a stand for Baylor.

 

everybody always says this with regards to that, but baylor of the early 90s (and well before that) was not the baylor of the late 90s-00s.

 

I've never understood this idea of a UT-only network. What exactly would be on it? As long as Texas is good, the majority of football games would go to ABC, ESPN, etc. Maybe 2-3 football games a year would be on it. A bunch of basketball games, and then a bunch of sports no one watches on TV? I can't see how this can work. A conference-wide network, yes - because you have enough content for it. But a single school? There's already Bevo On Demand and no one watches that as is.

 

Colorado has the bigger media market in Denver...no doubt of that.

But stack up BU v. CU over the past 10 years in terms of total athletics...I think you'll be surprised. When the last time CU did the equivalent of what BU did this last year, filling Reliant Stadium in the Elite Eight?

 

Just to clarify - I agree with you that Texas wants this. I just think its doomed to failure.

 

I think the real issue is the upside of Baylor vs. Colorado. We have to look 10-20 years out here. After all, 10 years ago, Texas, USC, Alabama, OU, etc all sucked at football, so I think a lot of this is about brand recognition, etc. I think if you ask most people, they could envision Colorado reasonably becoming a national powerhouse. I don't think most people would say the same about Baylor (regardless of the merits).

Besides the recent run in basketball, Baylor's always been good at the non-revenue sports (tennis, track, etc) - but those aren't what sell conferences.

 

9 divisional games per year? what about cross division games? ooc games?

not going to work.

 

I don't disagree with that.

One other negative...CO doesn't field a baseball team....the PAC 10 is a good baseball conference.

The PAC10 loves it some track and Olympic-style sports...BU exceeds in those.

Football is the name of the game though...and I definitely won't argue BU deserves in over anyone in that game.

BU needs UT to care about the 4 TX votes to counter 4 CA votes going foward in the new conference. If TX cares enough to say, "look...we're bringing BU," then I think it happens simply because UT is the crown jewel.

 

Hold on there, partner. Sure, Texas, USC, Alabama and OU have had some down time. However, they are historical/traditional powerhouses. Neither Baylor nor Colorado fit that description. Please refrain from comparing them in that light.
That said, I actually think Baylor has a brighter athletic future than Colorado (especially outside of football).

 

Agreed with this post. CU is not going to be a powerhouse anytime soon in football. Neither is Baylor but Baylor is way ahead of CU in other sports. CU would never get 50k for a basketball game like BU did last March.

Nobody cares about the Denver tv market. The Pac 10 wants UT and if BU has to be a part of that deal for whatever reason, they will get the invite.

 

Certainly - I'm not suggesting Colorado is at that level. I'm just pointing out how looking at things at a static point in time can make things look different. Colorado was a national champion in the early 90's and got in the top 5 in the early 2000's, so they've at least had success in multiple time frames and in the B12.

 

A lot that I'm reading suggests that CU doesn't bring you the Denver TV market, anyway. That they're not nearly as followed in Denver as Texas colleges are in Houston/Dallas/SA/Austin.

Again...it all comes down to what UT dictates.

 

CU basically split MNC in 1990 (6 years before the Big XII was created). But I know what your saying...

 

If the Pac 10 could freely choose between CU and Baylor, they would choose CU. Baylor becoming good on basketball recently, at least gives their supporters a way to make a legitimate argument.

However, please note that CU has won 17 NCAA national championships in skiing. How many skiing championships has Baylor won?