Big Ten making overtures to … Texas

[dbackjon]

A source with ties to the Big Ten said that while most people’s attention has been trained on the conference stealing Missouri, the Big Ten has engaged in “preliminary exchanges” with a much bigger fish from the Big 12.

“There have been preliminary exchanges between the Big Ten and Texas,” the source told the Journal-World on Wednesday. “People will deny that, but it’s accurate.”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/feb/1 ... as/?sports

People on here said I was crazy to say Texas to Big 10...

[clenz]

I didn't say you were crazy. I was just wondering where you got the info. I hadn't heard it before.

[collegesportsinfo]

dback, much of these have already existed and been discussed in other threads with new threads being created anyways. As a mod, do you recommend us creating new threads on topics going forward when such a topic is already being discussed elsewhere? Just wanna know for future reference.

[collegesportsinfo]

A source with ties to the Big Ten said that while most people’s attention has been trained on the conference stealing Missouri, the Big Ten has engaged in “preliminary exchanges” with a much bigger fish from the Big 12.

“There have been preliminary exchanges between the Big Ten and Texas,” the source told the Journal-World on Wednesday. “People will deny that, but it’s accurate.”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/feb/1 ... as/?sports

People on here said I was crazy to say Texas to Big 10...

Perhaps on here. But elsewhere, Texas has been the #1B option all along after Notre Dame. The bulk of the discussions have been around Missouri, Rutgers and Syracuse because those are schools, like Pitt, that would accept with no hesitation. Texas on the other hand isn't a gimme. The Big Ten pecking order has always been 1) Notre Dame or Texas, 3) anyone else from the Rutgers, Syracuse, Missouri pool, 4) Pitt. Just like the Pac-10 pecking order certainly doesn't start with Utah...it's just that Utah is the one school that the Pac-10 knows would accept should Texas and Colorado show no interest.

[CatMom]

They just had a story about this on one of the news stations here in Austin so, to me, that makes it a legit option. (Even if they said it was a rumor and that it would be tough travel for UT)

[dgreco]

it just seems like its out of the footprint. That seems to be the ACC problem with BC and the Big East problem with USF. It works, but its not ideal. Would Texas leave an ideal situation for possibly a "better one"?

Just asking, I have no specific knowledge.

[CatMom]

It would kill a lot of long standing rivalries and more than likely diminish some of the TV market value in Texas. However, the Texas market would help the Big 10, I am sure. I would think it would be a better fit to send Mizzou to the Big 10 and add TCU to the Big XII. TCU was part of the old SWC but I bet some of those old members would block this move. They don't want any more competition than they already have. Plus, there are rumblings over in Arkansas to move back with their old compadres. (Whose leaving in 1990, btw, was the frist step in the collapse of the old SWC - along with SMU's death penalty, of course)
I don't see anything as really being an advantage for UT except getting away from a few underperforming teams but every conference has that. Every team can't win every game. Plus it may actually put UT in a position to not have those contant 11-1, 12-0 seasons. Fans in Austin wouldn't stand for that

If UT left, or MIzzou left for elsewhere or they brought in other teams, or downsized there wouldn't be a reforming of the old SWC. They'd have to get back to 12 to keep that name. The SWC name belongs to someone associated with the SLC.

[Seahawks]

Rutgers makes a lot of sense to me. Would love to see it happen.

[collegesportsinfo]

it just seems like its out of the footprint. That seems to be the ACC problem with BC and the Big East problem with USF. It works, but its not ideal. Would Texas leave an ideal situation for possibly a "better one"?

Just asking, I have no specific knowledge.

Geography means very little. Look at Uconn to USF or Missouri to Texas A&M or USC to Washington St.
As someone pointed out on my site, Hawaii (highest travel budget) spent $2 million last year. If Texas were making $9-$12 million more by being in the B10, they'd still come out on top.

[collegesportsinfo]

And as an update, Big Ten AD ]jim Delaney denied that the Big Ten has spoken with Texas. Story over.

[collegesportsinfo]

It would kill a lot of long standing rivalries and more than likely diminish some of the TV market value in Texas. However, the Texas market would help the Big 10, I am sure. I would think it would be a better fit to send Mizzou to the Big 10 and add TCU to the Big XII. TCU was part of the old SWC but I bet some of those old members would block this move. They don't want any more competition than they already have. Plus, there are rumblings over in Arkansas to move back with their old compadres. (Whose leaving in 1990, btw, was the frist step in the collapse of the old SWC - along with SMU's death penalty, of course)
I don't see anything as really being an advantage for UT except getting away from a few underperforming teams but every conference has that. Every team can't win every game. Plus it may actually put UT in a position to not have those contant 11-1, 12-0 seasons. Fans in Austin wouldn't stand for that

If UT left, or MIzzou left for elsewhere or they brought in other teams, or downsized there wouldn't be a reforming of the old SWC. They'd have to get back to 12 to keep that name. The SWC name belongs to someone associated with the SLC.

I disagree. The biggest Texas rivalries are those with schools from the Big 8, not the SWC. Texas and Oklahoma would continue to play each year, just like they did prior to Texas joining the Big 8 (12).

Think about it:
Texas would play 8 conference games (vs Big Ten or Pac 10 if they left)
4 OOC games: Oklahoma and Texas A&M each year, and 2 games from a pool of others like Tech, Baylor, OK St, Nebraska, Kansas, etc)

[CatMom]

Next time you're in Austin for a UT/A&M game and all that happens that week, good and bad, let me know and we'll talk.

[collegesportsinfo]

Perhaps I should have clarified: the only 2 rivalries that matter with Texas are OU and Texas A&M. After that, Texas vs Missouri, Kansas, Kansas St., Colorado, Oklahoma St, Nebraska, as well as the other 2 former SWC schools, Baylor & Tech just aren't rivalries that Texas fans would lose much sleep over. Especially if you kept playing Oklahoma, Texas A&M (and maybe even Tech every year) on top of Michigan, Ohio St., Wisconsin, Iowa, Penn St., etc.

[clenz]

And as an update, Big Ten AD ]jim Delaney denied that the Big Ten has spoken with Texas. Story over.

That doesn't maean anything. I know so many people who have said, I'm not going to do that, or I'm not talking with them...then it turns out they were they just couldn't discuss it yet.

[UNI88]

It would kill a lot of long standing rivalries and more than likely diminish some of the TV market value in Texas. However, the Texas market would help the Big 10, I am sure. I would think it would be a better fit to send Mizzou to the Big 10 and add TCU to the Big XII. TCU was part of the old SWC but I bet some of those old members would block this move. They don't want any more competition than they already have. Plus, there are rumblings over in Arkansas to move back with their old compadres. (Whose leaving in 1990, btw, was the frist step in the collapse of the old SWC - along with SMU's death penalty, of course)
I don't see anything as really being an advantage for UT except getting away from a few underperforming teams but every conference has that. Every team can't win every game. Plus it may actually put UT in a position to not have those contant 11-1, 12-0 seasons. Fans in Austin wouldn't stand for that

If UT left, or MIzzou left for elsewhere or they brought in other teams, or downsized there wouldn't be a reforming of the old SWC. They'd have to get back to 12 to keep that name. The SWC name belongs to someone associated with the SLC.

I disagree. The biggest Texas rivalries are those with schools from the Big 8, not the SWC. Texas and Oklahoma would continue to play each year, just like they did prior to Texas joining the Big 8 (12).

Think about it:
Texas would play 8 conference games (vs Big Ten or Pac 10 if they left)
4 OOC games: Oklahoma and Texas A&M each year, and 2 games from a pool of others like Tech, Baylor, OK St, Nebraska, Kansas, etc)

That could be a brutal OOC schedule. UT has shown a willingness to play tough OOC games (Ohio St) but I don't think they would schedule that many. I agree that the rivalries UT would be most worried about would be OK and A&M but I'm not sure the Horns would schedule the others on a regular basis except maybe Tech and Baylor.

[clenz]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/f ... itter_feed