It is on the Texas Rival Boards but some very intelligent and knowledgeable Posters down there talking about which conference they should join in case the Big-12 becomes raided?
LINK:
Big 10 pursuing Texas?
http://texas.forums.rivals.com/threads/big-10-pursuing-texas.107165/
Some comments I liked learning from:
BringBackRoyal, Yesterday at 9:24 AM
No thanks. It's the last of the other four P5 conferences I'd want us to join.
Thanks, swVAHorn. I realize I'm in the minority in my deep opposition to the B1G, at least on this board. Of the other four conferences, the B1G has by far the worst demographic trends, the most painfully boring football, mostly awful road destinations, the worst late-season weather, and it has diluted itself with relative dead weight in the latest round of expansion (Nebraska is a good name, of course, if no longer a good program or much of a TV value, but Maryland and Rutgers are awful additions from a fan perspective). It also already has too many teams for Texas to be able to bring along a few other schools, meaning Texas would be a complete geographic isolate. Other than staying in the Big 12 forever, I can't think of a better way to hand aggy more of a long-term benefit than to join a conference with as many negatives as the B1G has compared to the SEC for a recruit from Texas. Also, we would join the B1G West, which has none of the true marquee programs (Nebraska's a permanent has-been to me). Look at Iowa's schedule this year. Or Nebraska's. Just awful. We would have those years.
A Pac-16 with Texas (and Oklahoma) would have the two most populous states in the country, two of the three states with the most talent, five of the eight fastest-growing states (seven of the top 20, and eight of the top 23), and a population footprint of 96 million. (The SEC currently has a population of ~67 million plus some portion of East Texas, as there's only one school in Texas that delivers the entire state.) The B1G has a very large population footprint, but it also has five of the 12 slowest-growing states, with all states but one in the bottom half, and a hollowed-out, declining economic core. The demographic future is in the West and the South.
Texas would play in the Pacific time zone all of twice per year in the Pac-16, and some of these would be afternoon games. The Pac-16's scheduling patterns would also inevitably shift somewhat to take advantage of the conference's expansion into the Central time zone, which it craves, and this would work in our favor. We would also bring along some neighbors, meaning we wouldn't be the one geographic outlier, and I would also be happy about continuing to play some teams with which we have at least some history (Tech and OSU) rather than severing all old relationships. Opening a permanent connection to the tremendous and growing Southern California talent zone -- which exceeds what the local teams use -- would be a big gain, and the conference's collective talent base wouldn't be nearly as saturated as the B1G's. I would also much rather have our coaches recruit against the backdrop of a Pac-16 schedule in general -- given the conference's many great road destinations, far better weather, and what would be the inclusion of a few schools located nearby -- than against that of the miserable B1G West.
cwillfromdatx, Today at 12:23 AM
I would rather see us moved into the PAC if we were to relocate. We would only be playing 4 schools in the pacific time zone if we were put into a pod system. The NW pod would be UW, WSU, Ore, OSU. Cali pod would be Stan, Cal, USC and UCLA. Mountain pod would be Ari, ASU, Utah and CU. Tex pod would be UT, TT, OK, and OK st. That would be 3 games in the central time zone, 2 from the mountain time zone and 4 from the pacific time zone. That would give us a total of 9 conference games( the same as we have now) and 3 out of conference games. This would be much better than a freezing, snowing cold day of the up north. Playing up in Seattle once in for years is really not that bad as some may think. I would be totally against the late start games for us and they would most likely work around that in our favor
BringBackRoyal, 19 minutes ago
Strongly disagree. Some people said this same sort of thing when people started wanting out of the declining SWC (things like "Let's get our house in order before we move to a better, tougher conference."). But, in reality, it's too bad we didn't get out of that dump of a conference a decade earlier. The crappiness of the SWC is precisely what prevented us from putting our house in order, as it put a low ceiling on our potential for success (without cheating). (No, it wasn't the coaching hires. That was a symptom of our weakness, not the cause.)
You don't evaluate moving to a different conference through the lens of the program's current on-field performance -- you evaluate it based on what appear to be the long-term advantages and disadvantages. The Big 12 isn't as bad as the latter-day SWC by any means, but it's a relative demographic weakling, and it will be at a serious and perpetual disadvantage in TV contract negotiations, TV coverage, and all-around prestige. It has no appealing realistic options for significant expansion. Everyone's happy because we got substantially overpaid this time around. That won't happen again, and, even with the money, the actual TV exposure for the conference is crap. TV exposure influences how much your program gets talked about in general, and it has a big impact on recruiting (see the latter-day SWC).
Texas needs to get out of this conference as soon as is practicable to a conference with more market power. This sets the foundation for better sustained performance in the current era of college football. How we're playing today is irrelevant.
LINK:
Big 10 pursuing Texas?
http://texas.forums.rivals.com/threads/big-10-pursuing-texas.107165/
Some comments I liked learning from:
BringBackRoyal, Yesterday at 9:24 AM
No thanks. It's the last of the other four P5 conferences I'd want us to join.
Thanks, swVAHorn. I realize I'm in the minority in my deep opposition to the B1G, at least on this board. Of the other four conferences, the B1G has by far the worst demographic trends, the most painfully boring football, mostly awful road destinations, the worst late-season weather, and it has diluted itself with relative dead weight in the latest round of expansion (Nebraska is a good name, of course, if no longer a good program or much of a TV value, but Maryland and Rutgers are awful additions from a fan perspective). It also already has too many teams for Texas to be able to bring along a few other schools, meaning Texas would be a complete geographic isolate. Other than staying in the Big 12 forever, I can't think of a better way to hand aggy more of a long-term benefit than to join a conference with as many negatives as the B1G has compared to the SEC for a recruit from Texas. Also, we would join the B1G West, which has none of the true marquee programs (Nebraska's a permanent has-been to me). Look at Iowa's schedule this year. Or Nebraska's. Just awful. We would have those years.
A Pac-16 with Texas (and Oklahoma) would have the two most populous states in the country, two of the three states with the most talent, five of the eight fastest-growing states (seven of the top 20, and eight of the top 23), and a population footprint of 96 million. (The SEC currently has a population of ~67 million plus some portion of East Texas, as there's only one school in Texas that delivers the entire state.) The B1G has a very large population footprint, but it also has five of the 12 slowest-growing states, with all states but one in the bottom half, and a hollowed-out, declining economic core. The demographic future is in the West and the South.
Texas would play in the Pacific time zone all of twice per year in the Pac-16, and some of these would be afternoon games. The Pac-16's scheduling patterns would also inevitably shift somewhat to take advantage of the conference's expansion into the Central time zone, which it craves, and this would work in our favor. We would also bring along some neighbors, meaning we wouldn't be the one geographic outlier, and I would also be happy about continuing to play some teams with which we have at least some history (Tech and OSU) rather than severing all old relationships. Opening a permanent connection to the tremendous and growing Southern California talent zone -- which exceeds what the local teams use -- would be a big gain, and the conference's collective talent base wouldn't be nearly as saturated as the B1G's. I would also much rather have our coaches recruit against the backdrop of a Pac-16 schedule in general -- given the conference's many great road destinations, far better weather, and what would be the inclusion of a few schools located nearby -- than against that of the miserable B1G West.
cwillfromdatx, Today at 12:23 AM
I would rather see us moved into the PAC if we were to relocate. We would only be playing 4 schools in the pacific time zone if we were put into a pod system. The NW pod would be UW, WSU, Ore, OSU. Cali pod would be Stan, Cal, USC and UCLA. Mountain pod would be Ari, ASU, Utah and CU. Tex pod would be UT, TT, OK, and OK st. That would be 3 games in the central time zone, 2 from the mountain time zone and 4 from the pacific time zone. That would give us a total of 9 conference games( the same as we have now) and 3 out of conference games. This would be much better than a freezing, snowing cold day of the up north. Playing up in Seattle once in for years is really not that bad as some may think. I would be totally against the late start games for us and they would most likely work around that in our favor
BringBackRoyal, 19 minutes ago
Strongly disagree. Some people said this same sort of thing when people started wanting out of the declining SWC (things like "Let's get our house in order before we move to a better, tougher conference."). But, in reality, it's too bad we didn't get out of that dump of a conference a decade earlier. The crappiness of the SWC is precisely what prevented us from putting our house in order, as it put a low ceiling on our potential for success (without cheating). (No, it wasn't the coaching hires. That was a symptom of our weakness, not the cause.)
You don't evaluate moving to a different conference through the lens of the program's current on-field performance -- you evaluate it based on what appear to be the long-term advantages and disadvantages. The Big 12 isn't as bad as the latter-day SWC by any means, but it's a relative demographic weakling, and it will be at a serious and perpetual disadvantage in TV contract negotiations, TV coverage, and all-around prestige. It has no appealing realistic options for significant expansion. Everyone's happy because we got substantially overpaid this time around. That won't happen again, and, even with the money, the actual TV exposure for the conference is crap. TV exposure influences how much your program gets talked about in general, and it has a big impact on recruiting (see the latter-day SWC).
Texas needs to get out of this conference as soon as is practicable to a conference with more market power. This sets the foundation for better sustained performance in the current era of college football. How we're playing today is irrelevant.
