ADVERTISEMENT

David Boren, Conference Realignment, Texas Recruiting

WestCoastCornhusker

All-American
Nov 28, 2005
4,280
100
63
Shocked to see the poor start to recruiting by OU & Texas. SEC is now dominating Texas Recruiting. Big 12 looks weak like the demise of the old SWC. Boren starting the process, there is nothing the Big 12 can do now to upgrade. Hoping for the likes of Florida State, Clemson, N Dame, ect. Is NOT going to happen. Boren sees the future and it is either SEC with OSU or the Pack 12 with Texas and possibly Tech and OSU. ACC already has 16 teams. Basically Boren and OU realize before Texas admits it, that it is either Pack 12 or SEC, possibly BIG. Otherwise, it is old SWC demise. JMHO.
 
This is old news from Boren. He has always been pushing for 12 teams. He wanted Louisville in the big 12, but couldn't convince the rest of the conference to buy in. He sees the long term benefit of a 12-team stable conference instead of the clusterf&#$ they have now. They had the ACC on the ropes but let them off the hook because slicing the pie 10 ways instead of 12 seemed like the best short term option. If he can't get the big 12 to 12 in the next 5 years, they might decide to split and take KU with them to the BiG TeN.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BolderHusker
This is old news from Boren. He has always been pushing for 12 teams. He wanted Louisville in the big 12, but couldn't convince the rest of the conference to buy in. He sees the long term benefit of a 12-team stable conference instead of the clusterf&#$ they have now. They had the ACC on the ropes but let them off the hook because slicing the pie 10 ways instead of 12 seemed like the best short term option. If he can't get the big 12 to 12 in the next 5 years, they might decide to split and take KU with them to the BiG TeN.

Adding Cincinnati and C Florida or BYU isn't going to help much. They still will be considered 2nd class to the big power 4 conferences. Texas Recruiting is very telling right now that the perception of Big 12 is turning into the Big East or old SWC.
 
Well I guess it's important to look at what assets the Big 12 has and who would want those assets.

Texas, OU, WV, & KU (basketball) are really the only major assets I can think of in the conference.

If the B1G wanted to pick those 4 up, it would certainly improve the conference and you would have 2 divisions of 9 teams.. It would be a sweet setup I would think.
 
What St. Anger said. They did us no favors. To quote Ray Finkel's mom in Ace Ventura-- the Big 12 should die of gonorrhea and rot in hell. Something to that effect.
 
Well I guess it's important to look at what assets the Big 12 has and who would want those assets.

Texas, OU, WV, & KU (basketball) are really the only major assets I can think of in the conference.

If the B1G wanted to pick those 4 up, it would certainly improve the conference and you would have 2 divisions of 9 teams.. It would be a sweet setup I would think.

Texas and OU are the only assets left, KU basketball is still small value compared to OU Football. Watching the decline in recruiting for OU and Texas is fun to watch. IMHO Texas has no other choice than Pack 12 with OU and OSU and Tech. Hopefully this is delayed as long as possible.
 
Well I guess it's important to look at what assets the Big 12 has and who would want those assets.

Texas, OU, WV, & KU (basketball) are really the only major assets I can think of in the conference.

If the B1G wanted to pick those 4 up, it would certainly improve the conference and you would have 2 divisions of 9 teams.. It would be a sweet setup I would think.
 
Please--no talk of Texas joining the Big Ten---I want no part of those narcissistic horns. let them go independent or join the pac 12. the rest of the big 12 better scramble for the SEC or ACC
 
I hear you guys, but think of it this way.. Texas is not going to have the same type of control they had in the old big 12, you can be certain of that. Before things kind of went south, we actually got along well with them, and I guess to me, I'm ready to let it go, and those people in positions of power over there are no more.

Another benefit I see is, it kind of re-makes the the west division of the B1G with the best Big 12 teams, and the traditional powers of the B1G have their east division. Is Wisconsin, Minnesota, & Iowa better than the old Big 12 North rivals of Colorado, Missouri, and Kansas State? (yes two of those have moved on to other conferences now) but adding OU, and UT, I think it would be a pretty strong conference in both divisions.

Then there is the recruiting aspect, and no one can deny the hot bed of recruiting that Texas is.

So I guess the way I look at it, is from a less emotional standpoint, and one of what do they bring to the table. OU is certainly just as tradition rich, with maybe less eyeballs in a certain market, but OU is still a national draw, just like we are.

From the commissioner's standpoint, you're going to want to add teams that add value and bargaining power and I doubt he's going to be thinking about a 1 second on the clock or some good ole boy texas antics from five years ago that rubbed Nebraska fans the wrong way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Link-
I hear you guys, but think of it this way.. Texas is not going to have the same type of control they had in the old big 12, you can be certain of that. Before things kind of went south, we actually got along well with them, and I guess to me, I'm ready to let it go, and those people in positions of power over there are no more.

Another benefit I see is, it kind of re-makes the the west division of the B1G with the best Big 12 teams, and the traditional powers of the B1G have their east division. Is Wisconsin, Minnesota, & Iowa better than the old Big 12 North rivals of Colorado, Missouri, and Kansas State? (yes two of those have moved on to other conferences now) but adding OU, and UT, I think it would be a pretty strong conference in both divisions.

Then there is the recruiting aspect, and no one can deny the hot bed of recruiting that Texas is.

So I guess the way I look at it, is from a less emotional standpoint, and one of what do they bring to the table. OU is certainly just as tradition rich, with maybe less eyeballs in a certain market, but OU is still a national draw, just like we are.

From the commissioner's standpoint, you're going to want to add teams that add value and bargaining power and I doubt he's going to be thinking about a 1 second on the clock or some good ole boy texas antics from five years ago that rubbed Nebraska fans the wrong way.

Adding OU and Texas would add value and that would probably leave Notre Dame out of the BIG unless this process would force them to join. Not sure if BIG goes beyond 16 teams. Not sure if this is even an option for OU if they are joined at the hip with OSU.
 
The B1G presidents would revolt over the idea of admitting the Sooners and T-sips.
 
Won't Texas have to give up their Longhorn Network to join another conference? No conference with its own network will want the Horns if they don't give up their media rights.
 
I don't believe that Oklahoma would ever be invited. I know they have a good football team but their academics just aren't up to standard. Delaney has repeatedly stressed the importance of academics to the conference. They also have one of the worst graduation rates in all of college football.
 
I don't believe that Oklahoma would ever be invited. I know they have a good football team but their academics just aren't up to standard. Delaney has repeatedly stressed the importance of academics to the conference. They also have one of the worst graduation rates in all of college football.

I think the old Big Ten would think that way but now they might soften their stance a bit. I think OU and KU would be good additions, and probably the best realistic options.
 
All those eyeballs in Texas. Delaney would take Texas in a heartbeat....if not faster.
 
You people are to dismissive of TCU & Baylor. Both have become outstanding football programs that I would trade your kidney for, in return for their recent success. Just because you didn't grow up watching them play for national titles when we were, doesn't mean they aren't badass now. They also have two of the most highly coveted coaches in the land.
 
You people are to dismissive of TCU & Baylor. Both have become outstanding football programs that I would trade your kidney for, in return for their recent success. Just because you didn't grow up watching them play for national titles when we were, doesn't mean they aren't badass now. They also have two of the most highly coveted coaches in the land.
GREAT POINT.. A+ M already taught us this. A Univ in Texas is enough for sports fans; T U isn't all that outside Tx.
 
All those eyeballs in Texas. Delaney would take Texas in a heartbeat....if not faster.

BIG definitely would take Texas, I wouldn't want it but they would. If OU is joined with OSU then OU can't join BIG but SEC or PAC12. Texas can join any conference they want as long as they close LHN and become equal member like everyone else. Same with ND.
 
I am curious how tied to the Longhorn Network they are, or if it's ESPN that is pulling the strings there? I've also read in the past that OU and OSU are tied together, and their regents won't let them be separated. Now, if push came to shove and OU was going to get left out, maybe they would allow it but I doubt it. I just don't see OU or UT in the Big Ten by themselves, especially with the Longhorn Network still active. I think OU now also has their own network, and that would probably have to go. But, we do televise some events on NET so nothing would surprise me. I do see the Big 12 imploding in the next five years though.
 
Well I guess it's important to look at what assets the Big 12 has and who would want those assets.

Texas, OU, WV, & KU (basketball) are really the only major assets I can think of in the conference.

If the B1G wanted to pick those 4 up, it would certainly improve the conference and you would have 2 divisions of 9 teams.. It would be a sweet setup I would think.
Forget WVU. They will never be in the Big 10.
Shocked to see the poor start to recruiting by OU & Texas. SEC is now dominating Texas Recruiting. Big 12 looks weak like the demise of the old SWC. Boren starting the process, there is nothing the Big 12 can do now to upgrade. Hoping for the likes of Florida State, Clemson, N Dame, ect. Is NOT going to happen. Boren sees the future and it is either SEC with OSU or the Pack 12 with Texas and possibly Tech and OSU. ACC already has 16 teams. Basically Boren and OU realize before Texas admits it, that it is either Pack 12 or SEC, possibly BIG. Otherwise, it is old SWC demise. JMHO.
Seriously, what happens to Iowa St, Ok St, KSU if the Big 12 falls apart? I remember Iowa St being in a tizzy and threatening state aid and courts if the Big 12 fell a part & the Big 10 wouldn't take Iowa. That's where the money shares go to hell and is a major hurdle for the Big 10 going after Texas, jmho
 
Forget WVU. They will never be in the Big 10.

Seriously, what happens to Iowa St, Ok St, KSU if the Big 12 falls apart? I remember Iowa St being in a tizzy and threatening state aid and courts if the Big 12 fell a part & the Big 10 wouldn't take Iowa. That's where the money shares go to hell and is a major hurdle for the Big 10 going after Texas, jmho

Iowa State and budgets don't matter. A few flyover country voices in the wilderness against serious ESPN money is no contest.
 
Either the ACC or the Big 12 will be broken with big upheaval. Boren knows this is ultimately where things are headed, so which conference will be stronger? IMHO ACC is gaining some strength while Big 12 power base is declining.
 
I'm so glad that Nebraska will not be brought up again in conference realignment when it happens.
 
I previously posted this under another thread but it's relevant here...

If the Big 10 expands, Texas and Oklahoma would be the likely targets. Here’s why:

  • During the last conference realignment upheaval, Texas and the Big 10 had very serious, very advanced discussions – much more serious and advanced than people realize (per a source very high in the UT athletic department). Keep in mind too that Texas purportedly inquired about joining Big 10 around 1991 after Arkansas decided to leave the SWC and after Penn State had announced it was joining the conference. There has been a lot of mutual interest, a lot of familiarity and there has been a lot of quiet discussions over the years (including, presumably, now).

  • When it comes to expansion, one must think like a university president (academic benefits / prestige) and that realignment is based on football (where the money is). The speculation is that the new Big 10 TV contract will yield current Big 10 members $45 - $48 million per year! If Texas and Oklahoma were part of the Big 10, it’s not hard to imagine the new TV deal to be possibly over $60 million per year per school with matchups of football blue-blood brands that included Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska, Texas and Oklahoma!! (And, this doesn’t even take into account Michigan State and Wisconsin when talking about attractive matchups amongst conference members.)

  • Texas would be able to keep playing their top rival (OU) and they could schedule Texas Tech or Baylor for nonconference games which could placate possible political concerns. Texas would also be able to re-establish their nasty rivalry with Nebraska. Outside of OU and TT and/or BU, is there any current Big 12 team on Texas’s schedule that they need/want to play?? Even with a nine-game Big 10 conference schedule, there are still three / four open games to schedule…

  • The Big 10 would gain the UT/OU Red River rivalry and, by adding Oklahoma, would re-establish the classic Nebraska / Oklahoma rivalry. Oklahoma could guarantee that they would play Oklahoma State every year as a non-conference game (like UF/FSU or even UT/OU in the SWC/Big 8 era) which could address possible political concerns. Would Oklahoma jeopardize its own future just to secure that of Oklahoma State?

  • The Longhorn Network has been very disappointing and underwhelming to date. It would not be surprising if ESPN is looking for a way out of the contract. It’s not far-fetched to imagine Jim Delany figuring out some creative financial solution with ESPN and Fox to either end the LHN (if UT was going to make significantly more money in the Big 10, would they be so adverse??) or roll the LHN into some sort of expanded BTN version with regional networks that still preserves equal (and massive) revenue distribution to all conference members including Texas.

  • The academic side of the Big Ten - the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) – entails annual research expenditures topping $10.2 billion — more than the Ivy League and the University of California System combined. The benefits from being part of such a prestigious organization with such an expansive footprint across the nation holds enormous appeal to Texas (which strongly values its academic reputation) and to Oklahoma. Again, conference realignment is not just about money (and football) for university presidents. Yes, OU is not an AAU member but they are respectable enough and the Big 10 would make an exception for them given the brand value (in football) they bring and given the potential financial windfall that all conference members would gain from having both schools in the Big 10.

  • Texas has been humbled in the last few years especially since Texas A&M successfully moved on to its new life in the SEC. They have struggled in football (badly), baseball and basketball in the last five years. There is a lot of discontent among its alumni and fans. They now have a new president and a new athletic director. They have seen Texas A&M eclipse them by joining the SEC. The Big 12 does not have big-name teams (outside of UT and OU), it does not and cannot match the TV revenues of the Big 10 or SEC, and the revenue differences will only grow much more significant in the coming years. With the current fragmented Big 12 situation, the unpromising future for a largely regional conference (minus WVU) and with the intolerable notion that Texas A&M has surpassed Big Brother, Texas might be willing to give up its power and control in the Big 12, play nice, and be a team player (along with its partner, Oklahoma) in the equitable Big 10. They can’t afford to be so arrogant these days especially with an environment so unsettled and when their future is uncertain. Being an unrivaled power player in the conference hasn’t worked out so well for them in the last five years and there is now probably grudging recognition of this by university leaders. By joining the Big 10, there won’t be time zone issues (PAC 12), there are tremendous academic benefits (as with the SEC – just kidding!), they will be able to revive their brand relative to Texas A&M by joining a top conference featuring prestigious football blue bloods - OSU, UM, PSU, UN along with OU - and Texas will be securing their future as the money (which is the bottom line for most decisions) will be astronomical!
 
  • Like
Reactions: baseball31ne
and it was just as wrong in the other thread. I will give you a pass because you haven't had the 'privilege' of being in the same conference as texass. They could have 100 losing seasons in a row and they would never be humbled. And they would never accept being in a conference where they are equal partners. They truly believe everything should revolve around them and that they should always get preferred status no matter what. They are just hardwired that way. They know no other perspective. It doesn't even occur to them. When push comes to shove, they would rather go independent than concede favored status. OU and KU continue to be the most realistic options for the BiG TeN.
 
I previously posted this under another thread but it's relevant here...

If the Big 10 expands, Texas and Oklahoma would be the likely targets. Here’s why:

  • During the last conference realignment upheaval, Texas and the Big 10 had very serious, very advanced discussions – much more serious and advanced than people realize (per a source very high in the UT athletic department). Keep in mind too that Texas purportedly inquired about joining Big 10 around 1991 after Arkansas decided to leave the SWC and after Penn State had announced it was joining the conference. There has been a lot of mutual interest, a lot of familiarity and there has been a lot of quiet discussions over the years (including, presumably, now).

  • When it comes to expansion, one must think like a university president (academic benefits / prestige) and that realignment is based on football (where the money is). The speculation is that the new Big 10 TV contract will yield current Big 10 members $45 - $48 million per year! If Texas and Oklahoma were part of the Big 10, it’s not hard to imagine the new TV deal to be possibly over $60 million per year per school with matchups of football blue-blood brands that included Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska, Texas and Oklahoma!! (And, this doesn’t even take into account Michigan State and Wisconsin when talking about attractive matchups amongst conference members.)

  • Texas would be able to keep playing their top rival (OU) and they could schedule Texas Tech or Baylor for nonconference games which could placate possible political concerns. Texas would also be able to re-establish their nasty rivalry with Nebraska. Outside of OU and TT and/or BU, is there any current Big 12 team on Texas’s schedule that they need/want to play?? Even with a nine-game Big 10 conference schedule, there are still three / four open games to schedule…

  • The Big 10 would gain the UT/OU Red River rivalry and, by adding Oklahoma, would re-establish the classic Nebraska / Oklahoma rivalry. Oklahoma could guarantee that they would play Oklahoma State every year as a non-conference game (like UF/FSU or even UT/OU in the SWC/Big 8 era) which could address possible political concerns. Would Oklahoma jeopardize its own future just to secure that of Oklahoma State?

  • The Longhorn Network has been very disappointing and underwhelming to date. It would not be surprising if ESPN is looking for a way out of the contract. It’s not far-fetched to imagine Jim Delany figuring out some creative financial solution with ESPN and Fox to either end the LHN (if UT was going to make significantly more money in the Big 10, would they be so adverse??) or roll the LHN into some sort of expanded BTN version with regional networks that still preserves equal (and massive) revenue distribution to all conference members including Texas.

  • The academic side of the Big Ten - the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) – entails annual research expenditures topping $10.2 billion — more than the Ivy League and the University of California System combined. The benefits from being part of such a prestigious organization with such an expansive footprint across the nation holds enormous appeal to Texas (which strongly values its academic reputation) and to Oklahoma. Again, conference realignment is not just about money (and football) for university presidents. Yes, OU is not an AAU member but they are respectable enough and the Big 10 would make an exception for them given the brand value (in football) they bring and given the potential financial windfall that all conference members would gain from having both schools in the Big 10.

  • Texas has been humbled in the last few years especially since Texas A&M successfully moved on to its new life in the SEC. They have struggled in football (badly), baseball and basketball in the last five years. There is a lot of discontent among its alumni and fans. They now have a new president and a new athletic director. They have seen Texas A&M eclipse them by joining the SEC. The Big 12 does not have big-name teams (outside of UT and OU), it does not and cannot match the TV revenues of the Big 10 or SEC, and the revenue differences will only grow much more significant in the coming years. With the current fragmented Big 12 situation, the unpromising future for a largely regional conference (minus WVU) and with the intolerable notion that Texas A&M has surpassed Big Brother, Texas might be willing to give up its power and control in the Big 12, play nice, and be a team player (along with its partner, Oklahoma) in the equitable Big 10. They can’t afford to be so arrogant these days especially with an environment so unsettled and when their future is uncertain. Being an unrivaled power player in the conference hasn’t worked out so well for them in the last five years and there is now probably grudging recognition of this by university leaders. By joining the Big 10, there won’t be time zone issues (PAC 12), there are tremendous academic benefits (as with the SEC – just kidding!), they will be able to revive their brand relative to Texas A&M by joining a top conference featuring prestigious football blue bloods - OSU, UM, PSU, UN along with OU - and Texas will be securing their future as the money (which is the bottom line for most decisions) will be astronomical!

As I said in the other post... it will not happen.
 
If the B10 chooses to expand, what is necessary to add a team? For example, what if the commissioner wants to add Pitt, but Penn State does not want them in the conference? Can one team veto the expansion? Is it a majority vote? I can't remember from when Maryland and Rutgers were added; or when we were added for that matter.
 
I previously posted this under another thread but it's relevant here...

If the Big 10 expands, Texas and Oklahoma would be the likely targets. Here’s why:

  • During the last conference realignment upheaval, Texas and the Big 10 had very serious, very advanced discussions – much more serious and advanced than people realize (per a source very high in the UT athletic department). Keep in mind too that Texas purportedly inquired about joining Big 10 around 1991 after Arkansas decided to leave the SWC and after Penn State had announced it was joining the conference. There has been a lot of mutual interest, a lot of familiarity and there has been a lot of quiet discussions over the years (including, presumably, now).

  • When it comes to expansion, one must think like a university president (academic benefits / prestige) and that realignment is based on football (where the money is). The speculation is that the new Big 10 TV contract will yield current Big 10 members $45 - $48 million per year! If Texas and Oklahoma were part of the Big 10, it’s not hard to imagine the new TV deal to be possibly over $60 million per year per school with matchups of football blue-blood brands that included Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska, Texas and Oklahoma!! (And, this doesn’t even take into account Michigan State and Wisconsin when talking about attractive matchups amongst conference members.)

  • Texas would be able to keep playing their top rival (OU) and they could schedule Texas Tech or Baylor for nonconference games which could placate possible political concerns. Texas would also be able to re-establish their nasty rivalry with Nebraska. Outside of OU and TT and/or BU, is there any current Big 12 team on Texas’s schedule that they need/want to play?? Even with a nine-game Big 10 conference schedule, there are still three / four open games to schedule…

  • The Big 10 would gain the UT/OU Red River rivalry and, by adding Oklahoma, would re-establish the classic Nebraska / Oklahoma rivalry. Oklahoma could guarantee that they would play Oklahoma State every year as a non-conference game (like UF/FSU or even UT/OU in the SWC/Big 8 era) which could address possible political concerns. Would Oklahoma jeopardize its own future just to secure that of Oklahoma State?

  • The Longhorn Network has been very disappointing and underwhelming to date. It would not be surprising if ESPN is looking for a way out of the contract. It’s not far-fetched to imagine Jim Delany figuring out some creative financial solution with ESPN and Fox to either end the LHN (if UT was going to make significantly more money in the Big 10, would they be so adverse??) or roll the LHN into some sort of expanded BTN version with regional networks that still preserves equal (and massive) revenue distribution to all conference members including Texas.

  • The academic side of the Big Ten - the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) – entails annual research expenditures topping $10.2 billion — more than the Ivy League and the University of California System combined. The benefits from being part of such a prestigious organization with such an expansive footprint across the nation holds enormous appeal to Texas (which strongly values its academic reputation) and to Oklahoma. Again, conference realignment is not just about money (and football) for university presidents. Yes, OU is not an AAU member but they are respectable enough and the Big 10 would make an exception for them given the brand value (in football) they bring and given the potential financial windfall that all conference members would gain from having both schools in the Big 10.

  • Texas has been humbled in the last few years especially since Texas A&M successfully moved on to its new life in the SEC. They have struggled in football (badly), baseball and basketball in the last five years. There is a lot of discontent among its alumni and fans. They now have a new president and a new athletic director. They have seen Texas A&M eclipse them by joining the SEC. The Big 12 does not have big-name teams (outside of UT and OU), it does not and cannot match the TV revenues of the Big 10 or SEC, and the revenue differences will only grow much more significant in the coming years. With the current fragmented Big 12 situation, the unpromising future for a largely regional conference (minus WVU) and with the intolerable notion that Texas A&M has surpassed Big Brother, Texas might be willing to give up its power and control in the Big 12, play nice, and be a team player (along with its partner, Oklahoma) in the equitable Big 10. They can’t afford to be so arrogant these days especially with an environment so unsettled and when their future is uncertain. Being an unrivaled power player in the conference hasn’t worked out so well for them in the last five years and there is now probably grudging recognition of this by university leaders. By joining the Big 10, there won’t be time zone issues (PAC 12), there are tremendous academic benefits (as with the SEC – just kidding!), they will be able to revive their brand relative to Texas A&M by joining a top conference featuring prestigious football blue bloods - OSU, UM, PSU, UN along with OU - and Texas will be securing their future as the money (which is the bottom line for most decisions) will be astronomical!


Wow $60 million / year for Indiana and Purdue. Notre Dame may want to replace OU? TEXAS
I previously posted this under another thread but it's relevant here...

If the Big 10 expands, Texas and Oklahoma would be the likely targets. Here’s why:

  • During the last conference realignment upheaval, Texas and the Big 10 had very serious, very advanced discussions – much more serious and advanced than people realize (per a source very high in the UT athletic department). Keep in mind too that Texas purportedly inquired about joining Big 10 around 1991 after Arkansas decided to leave the SWC and after Penn State had announced it was joining the conference. There has been a lot of mutual interest, a lot of familiarity and there has been a lot of quiet discussions over the years (including, presumably, now).

  • When it comes to expansion, one must think like a university president (academic benefits / prestige) and that realignment is based on football (where the money is). The speculation is that the new Big 10 TV contract will yield current Big 10 members $45 - $48 million per year! If Texas and Oklahoma were part of the Big 10, it’s not hard to imagine the new TV deal to be possibly over $60 million per year per school with matchups of football blue-blood brands that included Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska, Texas and Oklahoma!! (And, this doesn’t even take into account Michigan State and Wisconsin when talking about attractive matchups amongst conference members.)

  • Texas would be able to keep playing their top rival (OU) and they could schedule Texas Tech or Baylor for nonconference games which could placate possible political concerns. Texas would also be able to re-establish their nasty rivalry with Nebraska. Outside of OU and TT and/or BU, is there any current Big 12 team on Texas’s schedule that they need/want to play?? Even with a nine-game Big 10 conference schedule, there are still three / four open games to schedule…

  • The Big 10 would gain the UT/OU Red River rivalry and, by adding Oklahoma, would re-establish the classic Nebraska / Oklahoma rivalry. Oklahoma could guarantee that they would play Oklahoma State every year as a non-conference game (like UF/FSU or even UT/OU in the SWC/Big 8 era) which could address possible political concerns. Would Oklahoma jeopardize its own future just to secure that of Oklahoma State?

  • The Longhorn Network has been very disappointing and underwhelming to date. It would not be surprising if ESPN is looking for a way out of the contract. It’s not far-fetched to imagine Jim Delany figuring out some creative financial solution with ESPN and Fox to either end the LHN (if UT was going to make significantly more money in the Big 10, would they be so adverse??) or roll the LHN into some sort of expanded BTN version with regional networks that still preserves equal (and massive) revenue distribution to all conference members including Texas.

  • The academic side of the Big Ten - the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) – entails annual research expenditures topping $10.2 billion — more than the Ivy League and the University of California System combined. The benefits from being part of such a prestigious organization with such an expansive footprint across the nation holds enormous appeal to Texas (which strongly values its academic reputation) and to Oklahoma. Again, conference realignment is not just about money (and football) for university presidents. Yes, OU is not an AAU member but they are respectable enough and the Big 10 would make an exception for them given the brand value (in football) they bring and given the potential financial windfall that all conference members would gain from having both schools in the Big 10.

  • Texas has been humbled in the last few years especially since Texas A&M successfully moved on to its new life in the SEC. They have struggled in football (badly), baseball and basketball in the last five years. There is a lot of discontent among its alumni and fans. They now have a new president and a new athletic director. They have seen Texas A&M eclipse them by joining the SEC. The Big 12 does not have big-name teams (outside of UT and OU), it does not and cannot match the TV revenues of the Big 10 or SEC, and the revenue differences will only grow much more significant in the coming years. With the current fragmented Big 12 situation, the unpromising future for a largely regional conference (minus WVU) and with the intolerable notion that Texas A&M has surpassed Big Brother, Texas might be willing to give up its power and control in the Big 12, play nice, and be a team player (along with its partner, Oklahoma) in the equitable Big 10. They can’t afford to be so arrogant these days especially with an environment so unsettled and when their future is uncertain. Being an unrivaled power player in the conference hasn’t worked out so well for them in the last five years and there is now probably grudging recognition of this by university leaders. By joining the Big 10, there won’t be time zone issues (PAC 12), there are tremendous academic benefits (as with the SEC – just kidding!), they will be able to revive their brand relative to Texas A&M by joining a top conference featuring prestigious football blue bloods - OSU, UM, PSU, UN along with OU - and Texas will be securing their future as the money (which is the bottom line for most decisions) will be astronomical!
$60 million per year for Indiana and Purdue. Notre Dame may want in, Texas and ND?
 
ADVERTISEMENT