What Should Texas Do?

[bodey24]

Let me just inform you for any future attempts at steering the argument. That might work on Miller or Bodey (that's the only explanation I have for how you guys got into digging up hometowns of All-Pros and comparing Vandy/Kentucky to Arizona State/Washington State :biglaugh

[/SIZE][/SIZE]

It got brought up because those Pac-10 teams were good more recently than Kentucky and Vandy. All of them a very long time ago but that's the only lame thing he could come up with to explain the Pac-10 being deeper.

 

[Miller]

Not getting back into the back and forth, but something of note to add. Herd interviewed the new Pac-10 commish today. The Pac-10 commish stated the reason he was brought in was to address the two largest challenges that the Pac-10 currently faces:

1. Revenues.....he stated they are looking into options such as a Pac-10 network or more traditional contracts with ABC/ESPN and the like. Colin stated the Big Ten 242 million TV revenue figure. The Pac-10 commish stated that the Pac-10 number last year was in the high 50's.

2. National relevence. This is the confrences 2nd biggest obstance per the new commish himself and one core challenges he is trying to over come. The conversation on this was over the fact that the Pac-10 is extremely regional in appeal and does not hold the national attention that other confrences such as the SEC and Big Ten do. A fact that the commish was quick to acknowledge.

Something else that Colin was discussing when talking about the issues of the Pac-10 was the less than stellar Bowl tie in's. Here is another spot where a confrence like the Big 10 has a very big advantage.

I have only been able to find partial lists, if anyone has the Bowl tie-ins, it would be interested to see them.

Pretty interesting discussion with the new commish of the challenges that lie ahead for him.

 

[Kingdome]

I deleted your entire meaningless post and trimmed it down to the only argument you tried to make that mattered, and you still screwed that up. You're once again trying to assume things. Don't assume. It makes an...well, you know LOL. The move is being discussed for this year.

No, it is not going to be a one year deal. The intention is for it to be a long term deal. And it isn't happening in 2010 and probably not even 2011.

I know that is not what you are saying above, but just looking at the near term is foolish. Looking at the de#s today, right now, the Pac-14 looks better than the Big Ten does. Not only that, the Pac-10 is a better geographical, cultural, & athletic fit.

Sorry, but the chips are stacked against you. If 11 schools from the rust belt can get a good deal, just wait for the contract that covers 6 of the 13 largest media markets in the country.

No argument toward "well, we will eventually in 5 years have a network and a big contract blah blah blah....", we are discussing a possible move for Texas when????

The plan is to have a new Pac-10 deal coincide with expansion. If Texas agrees to join the Pac-10, we will have a bigger media deal than the Big Ten for sure.

Just for clarification, in the time frame that this discussion is taking place, the Pac-10 is LEAGUES behind the Big 10 in financial compensation, a fact you have willingly admitted to Miller in a previous discussion on the topic.

And that is all irrelevant if the Pac-10 expands to add Texas, Texas A&M, Colorado, & Utah. Right at that moment, our demographics will be significantly greater than the Big Ten's #s. Plus more large media markets!

You can't compare apples & oranges.

So all those facts you put up there, they don't mean jack, because you're assuming a premise that the Pac-10 and Big 10 are equal right now in income as far as their network deals, ESPN deals, etc. They're not, not even close.

Again, I am comparing demographics and markets from the Pac-14 vs. the Big 11. When is the Big Ten media deal up, 2016? Pac-10 is looking for a new deal right now. You are cashing in now, we will be cashing in more than you if we add Texas.

Do you honestly think a conference of Texas, Texas A&M, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Arizona State, USC, UCLA, Stanford, California, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, & Washington state would get less money in a media contract than the Big Ten did when they signed the deal back in 2006?

You think the economy is doomed?

I'll take a look at what looks like a list of stuff, but honestly, there won't be a comment for me, because in order for any of that crap to be relevant, they have to be equal in finances right now.

That is a stupid argument. Comparing the Pac-10 about ready to make new deal to Big Ten who already has made a new deal is silly. It's comparing apples to oranges! If the Pac-10 alignment stays the same, I doubt we match your deal. We add Texas, Texas A&M, Colorado, & Utah, we easily beat your deal. Look at the #s!

Since the Pac-10 is obviously not going to get the same amount of money in a new deal, especially with a larger conference, why make such a stupid argument?

Let me just inform you for any future attempts at steering the argument. That might work on Miller or Bodey (that's the only explanation I have for how you guys got into digging up hometowns of All-Pros and comparing Vandy/Kentucky to Arizona State/Washington State :biglaugh, but it seriously won't work on me.

What the heck are you talking about? Those are two entirely different discussions. Those were discussions related to conference depth vs. the SEC and talent base. The first of those two issues is irrelevant to Texas. The 2nd one isn't however.

Go ahead and brag how clever you think you are, but at least try to keep up with the discussion and subsequent tangents.

So, once again, for the FIFTH time, I ask you........please, either tell me how the Texas AD and the University President are wrong, or just concede and admit that in the area of finances, that you are wrong.

Wrong about what? I obviously read and researched that article more in-depth than you did. And if your argument is valid, what ever it is, how does that make the Big Ten a more attract fit for Texas than the Pac-10?

 

[Kingdome]

Something else that Colin was discussing when talking about the issues of the Pac-10 was the less than stellar Bowl tie in's. Here is another spot where a confrence like the Big 10 has a very big advantage.

That is one of the Pac-10's geographical disadvantages. I brought it up in the SEC conversation.

The reason is because most bowls are back east and is want tie-ins with conferences near by so they can sell as many tickets as possible. So eastern smaller bowls prefer eastern & southern teams. The only way for the Pac-10 to over come this shortfall is to expand east of the Rockies. I also hope the Pac-10 tries to build up the Las Vegas Bowl. Of the western bowls, it has the most potential not realized.

Thanks for posting that Miller! It seriously sounds like the Pac-10 is looking east of the Rockies for expansion.

 

[maverick824]

LOL, I'm DEFINITELY not the one trying to steer the discussion off into tangents, believe me, that's CLEARLY been stated before I ever got into the mix.

The question I, once again, have asked time and time again, is your ridiculous assessment that in the financial aspect, EVERY sport will matter. Your stance has been that Texas will do what is right for EVERY sport, and not just football. That was taken as a direct quote from you. All I did was show you the ridiculousness of that, and instead of admitting you were wrong, you've once again tried to spin it off.

Once again, I'll ask, for the 6th time!

Please either give me facts and show me that the Texas AD and the University president are wrong and their budget facts don't mean anything, or just admit you're wrong.....pretty simple.

 

[Miller]

Thanks for posting that Miller! It seriously sounds like the Pac-10 is looking east of the Rockies for expansion.

He was pretty non-committal on the whole subject. Utah was the name that kept coming up. My personal impression of it was that he did not sound like he was in a hurry to do anything, but is looking at all possibilities.

 

[Kingdome]

The question I, once again, have asked time and time again, is your ridiculous assessment that in the financial aspect, EVERY sport will matter. Your stance has been that Texas will do what is right for EVERY sport, and not just football.

The obvious caveat: unless it hurts football or men's basketball.

That better? I thought this was already addressed / widely assumed already.

A move to the Pac-10 won't hurt football or basketball. Since those sports are ok, how well do the other sports fit? This is where the Pac-10 really separates itself from the Big Ten when comparing the athletic aspects of a conference move.

Please either give me facts and show me that the Texas AD and the University president are wrong and their budget facts don't mean anything, or just admit you're wrong.....pretty simple.

Wrong about what? I still don't see what straw you are grasping at. If you think Texas is going to ignore their other programs, you are a fool. Read the last paragraph of that article. Those lesser sports can build a university's athletic program. Don't believe me, ask Oregon.

Since your argument is that football is king, then the Pac-10 move is the easy choice. Complimentary climate, better recruiting base, potential for more media revenues.

But academics are important too, which is why the conference that can top the hypothetical Pac-14 in both football & in revenue, the SEC 14, isn't much of a threat to land Texas. They are not a good match academically and Texas has been adamant about being associated with peer elite research institutions.

The best super conference fit for Texas is the Pac-14.

 

[maverick824]

LMAO, you've spun this around so many different ways, it's really difficult to really remember, I actually had to go back and look at it....

You had made the case to Miller, blah blah blah, something about rowing and other non-budgeted sports being one of the big bullet points in your argument why Texas should come to the Pac, were basically lowlighting the fact that the AD and the President were interviewed in an article dated a week ago showing that the football program is the main provider for the athletic budget. Miller tried and tried to get you to understand that a move would be made based on the best interests of the football program, I posted that article basically putting factual proof behind his statement, and I think from there, every time someone puts something remotely suggesting the Pac-10 might be inferior in any way, you've spun off a tangent from the exact point they've raised as a response.

here's the short version of every tangent argument you've made from this thread.....

- Miller corrects you by giving the rundown on relevant Big 10/Pac 10 national titles, using more or less the most prestigous collegiate sports, you respond by listing every national title known to man in a ridiculous amount of sports most people don't follow...

- You respond to my original post about water polo by stating that they'll look at every single sport, and quote the fact of the multi million dollar facilities they have at Texas.....facilities paid for by the football team revenue provided in the article I found LOL

- Miller made the point off your tangent from the original topic about Big 10 vs Pac 10 top 10 finishes, you spun it off and turned it into a laughable debate about who has a deeper conference, since you simply couldn't argue Big 10 18, Pac 10 11

- You made a completely asinine comment about half the teams in the SEC (how that topic ever got brought up, who knows) "not having been in the top 25 in the past 25 years," and when Bodey asked you to list those teams, you pulled up a list of teams that hadn't made the top 10 in a while.....not what he asked! When you were corrected, you then apologized and told him you wanted to talk about top 10, sure, it fits your theory better LMAO

- You then decided, instead of keeping the debate on a thread about Texas about Texas, to spend a couple of pages debating how the teams in the Pac-10 are better than the pack of teams in the SEC....

- You were also then the first to try to steer the topic into the land of the NFL, and who produces more NFL talent, which, to attempt to shorten this list of hilarity, consisted of you debating that first more NFL'ers and All-Pros come from the Pac 10 vs Big Ten (false), then when proved wrong there, tried to spin it into "more NFL'ers and All-Pros are BORN in the West (also proven wrong) LOL

- When the original people trying to talk sense into you finally tired and decided the discussion had been won and the debate was over, you were the one firing off more stats about Pac 10 superiority, we win this, we win that, blah blah blah....

- And finally, we come to the fact that Miller makes the point 3 posts before my article about how the football program is the reason this whole move is even being discussed, the original point we started on, and I think for the past 5 pages I've asked you to answer one question, and every single time I ask that question, I'm being given all sorts of opinions that aren't even remotely related to the original point that was brought up.

Dome, I'm pretty certain I can find anyone's thread in any area of this forum, doesn't matter the topic, and I can quote a couple of points in their post, and throw it onto a tangent that isn't even related to the discussion at hand. For 14 pages, this is what you've done. 14 pages long.......all the info you've laid out, all the members on this forum......you would think if your argument had any merit whatsoever, SOMEONE would come out and agree with you. Not once, my friend. The only comments that have been made are comments that they can't believe you're serious. And that might be the most telling stat of all.

I gave ya plenty of material, go ahead, quote me, try to ask ridiculous questions that aren't related to the one question that's been asked over and over.

 

[Kingdome]

LMAO, you've spun this around so many different ways, it's really difficult to really remember, I actually had to go back and look at it....

You are spinning things around in your head. You are making assumptions and taking things out of context.

You had made the case to Miller, blah blah blah,

Exactly, you are not following the discussion close enough.

the football program is the main provider for the athletic budget.

NO S__T! DID YOU JUST FIGURE THIS OUT WHEN YOU READ THE ARTICLE LAST WEEK!?! THAT'S THE CASE AT ALMOST EVERY SINGLE SCHOOL!

Now that you are clear that this is an obvious assumption that most everyone already comprehends, re-read everything.

Texas is a better fit in the Pac-10 if you look at football, and football alone. Look at the other sports and it makes more sense than ever, especially when comparing to the Big Ten.

Miller tried and tried to get you to understand that a move would be made based on the best interests of the football program,

And I made the point that the Pac-10 is a better football fit. I further strengthed my case by showing the entire picture of the entire athletic department. If football is a wash, why make a move where you suffer most everywhere else?. Our package is better than your package.

I posted that article basically putting factual proof behind his statement, and I think from there, every time someone puts something remotely suggesting the Pac-10 might be inferior in any way, you've spun off a tangent from the exact point they've raised as a response.

Nonsense. I am honest about our strengths and weaknesses.

- Miller corrects you by giving the rundown on relevant Big 10/Pac 10 national titles, using more or less the most prestigous collegiate sports, you respond by listing every national title known to man in a ridiculous amount of sports most people don't follow...

And? Since 1990:

Football: Pac-10 3, Big Ten 2
M. Basketball: Pac-10 2, Big Ten 1
W. Basketball: Pac-10 2, Big Ten 1

Or if that is still too many sports for you:

Football: Pac-10 3, Big Ten 2

I go back too far?

Since 2000:

Pac-10 2, Big Ten 1

Pac-10 vs. Big Ten head to head in football since 2000: 32-21

- You respond to my original post about water polo by stating that they'll look at every single sport, and quote the fact of the multi million dollar facilities they have at Texas.....facilities paid for by the football team revenue provided in the article I found LOL

No, you did not prove that all. It said it covered the expense of the teams & department, not facility construction. If you dig deeper, I bet you find large private donations paid for them.

- Miller made the point off your tangent from the original topic about Big 10 vs Pac 10 top 10 finishes, you spun it off and turned it into a laughable debate about who has a deeper conference, since you simply couldn't argue Big 10 18, Pac 10 11

There is a logical reason why the Big Ten has cracked the top 10 more than the Pac-10. Easier schedule! Big Ten plays one less conference games which means some years, a team can skip playing Michigan & Ohio State in the same year! Switch things around and our w-l records go up, yours will go down. It is easier beating Western Kentucky than it is Illinois. Disagree? Other than missing Indiana, missing those two Big 10 teams a year is an advantage, not a disadvantage, unless of course you think the Big Ten stinks.

- You made a completely asinine comment about half the teams in the SEC (how that topic ever got brought up, who knows) "not having been in the top 25 in the past 25 years," and when Bodey asked you to list those teams, you pulled up a list of teams that hadn't made the top 10 in a while.....not what he asked!

I meant top 10, I think I made that point clear in a subsequent post.

When you were corrected, you then apologized and told him you wanted to talk about top 10, sure, it fits your theory better LMAO

I never meant to say top 25, it was an unintentional typing error, nothing more. I am a huge college football fan, I remember Eli leading Ole Miss to an almost top 10 season or the Jackie Sherrill JUCO days at Miss. St.

- You then decided, instead of keeping the debate on a thread about Texas about Texas, to spend a couple of pages debating how the teams in the Pac-10 are better than the pack of teams in the SEC....

Off shoot tangent, duh? Both Bodey & I have tried to make that clear to you already.

- consisted of you debating that first more NFL'ers and All-Pros come from the Pac 10 vs Big Ten (false),

NEVER SAID THAT! I just asked for a list of the top 10 NFL players from the Big Ten. Miller was the one that provided the all-pro lists. I was more interested in a sizeable list of players and where they are from and Miller more than delivered.

-

And finally, we come to the fact that Miller makes the point 3 posts before my article about how the football program is the reason this whole move is even being discussed,

TEXAS IS THE #1 REVENUE GENERATING FOOTBALL PROGRAM IN THE COUNTRY! I don't think they want to move, it is that they may have to move with the Pac-10 & Big Ten going after other Big 12 programs!

 

[maverick824]

LOL, and your last post simply goes to prove my point, I went back and used this thread to point out what the discussion was, and you've used it once again to spin it around. There's no reason to get mad, man, it's a discussion, honestly, one you're not very good at LOL, but it's still a discussion.

I didn't ask you who had more money, didn't ask you to spin it off into all sorts of weird reasonings, just simply asked you to admit you were wrong in saying that these other sports like rowing were big time stuff and would be reason enough not to move. I posted the article, and every time you come close to admitting that, you have to give a reason, beat your chest, Pac 10 this, blah blah blah LOL......

I think you've been bludgeoned into the dirt plenty, it'll be nice in the future to dig this little gem up from time to time to remember the good old days.....and since you never asked me in the first place what my opinion even was (you didn't care, you were too busy making assumptions)

I don't honestly think Texas goes anywhere. I could care less where you think the better fit is, because it ain't happening. In all likelyhood, they are using the Big 10 as a leverage chip for a better TV deal out of the Big 12. In the absolutely unlikely event that Texas does leave, the odds are likely the Pac 10 follows suit and makes overtures toward Colorado and another school from the Big 12.

This has been fun, but since you don't want to keep the discussion on point, I really don't feel the need to continue it.

 

[Kingdome]

There's no reason to get mad, man,

THEN QUIT SPINNING MY WORDS AROUND! Holy cow, you are something else. For how many posts were you trying to goat me into saying something that 99% of college sports fans already understand and assume that others already understand? What next, trying to get me to say the earth is spherical?

just simply asked you to admit you were wrong in saying that these other sports like rowing were big time stuff and would be reason enough not to move.

Dude, are you dense or just playing games? Those sports matter. They will not throw those sports under the bus if they don't have to. Why piss off big $ donors when you don't have to?

Lesser sports can build entire athletic programs. Track built Oregon. Oregon's big $ booster is a track guy. Track and Cross Country are his baby. If Oregon ever tried to harm track (and they won't, it is too important) they would piss off the university's largest donor by far.

You seriously think Texas would throw its baseball program under the bus when it doesn't have to?

If you look at basketball & football alone, I'd argue the Pac-10 & Big Ten can offer something really close to each other, with a slight & growing edge to the Pac-10 for geographic and demographic reasons. Academics is also close too, with a slight and shrinking edge to the Big Ten. It's when you look at the other sports Texas competes in that the Pac-10's starts to greatly distance itself from the Big Ten.

The Pac-10 is a better fit for Texas. Disagree?

I don't honestly think Texas goes anywhere.

I think Texas doesn't want to go anywhere, but they might have to if the Pac-10 & Big Ten start landing away fellow Big 12 members. If the Big 12 collapses, Texas's likely destination is either the Pac-10 or Big Ten, not the SEC because of academics.

I could care less where you think the better fit is, because it ain't happening.

Then why the heck are you in this thread? This thread is intended to discuss the pros & cons from the Univ. of Texas's perspective. As I stated before, I am in favor of the staus quo. I think the 10 team conference model is the best around. I'd prefer the Big Ten dump a team & the Big 12, ACC, & SEC dump two each, so we can have conferences where everyone plays everyone in football, plus home & away round-robin for the other sports. But this thread isn't about that. It is about what Texas should do. Since the Big 12 is in danger of being plucked apart, Texas may have to make a choice between the Pac-10 or Big Ten, fix the Big 12, or even try to start another conference.

In all likelyhood, they are using the Big 10 as a leverage chip for a better TV deal out of the Big 12. In the absolutely unlikely event that Texas does leave, the odds are likely the Pac 10 follows suit and makes overtures toward Colorado and another school from the Big 12.

So the Big 12 starts falling apart, yet they get a better TV deal? The Big 12 is in trouble if you haven't been paying attention. The north-south split is ripping the conference apart.

I know you hate tangents, but this is relevant to this thread:

One solution to fix the Big 12 is dump the north-south split and go to a "zipper" system. That way the northern schools play in recruit rich Texas more often.

The north-south split is the lesser of two factors that prevented the Pac-10 from expanding in the past. The lack of Pac-10 worthy universities in the west was the #1 reason why no expansion. The new economics are forcing us to look hard outside of our current region.