Texas News Response to Texas/Big 10 Rumors
http://www.statesman.com/sports/longhorns/texas-headed-to-the-big-ten-n…
Again, Texas isn't coming.
February 12th, 2010 at 11:56 AM ^
I was certain they'd make the jump. Or that they'd at least proclaim that it's a possibility before making the jump.
February 12th, 2010 at 11:59 AM ^
FWIW, that journalist appears to be the Drew Sharp/Michael Rosenberg of Texas. Almost every comment is blatantly disagreeing with him, and a few mention he has a bad habit of fabricating "reliable sources".
February 12th, 2010 at 12:06 PM ^
Thanks, I will read the comments. That said, Texas still isn't moving. Brian's post yesterday laid out excellent reasons, and beyond that I think travel is still too prohibitive.
February 12th, 2010 at 12:57 PM ^
But I don't think it's enough to keep a team like that from joining the Big Ten. With that said, I don't think that it's going to happen. If Texas wanted to join the Big Ten, the traveling would be an issue but not the straw that broke the camel's back. The added money they would be making in joining the Big Ten would more than make up for the inconvenience of distance. I think what would ultimately keep them from leaving the Big 12 would their fan base. In leaving the Big 12, Texas would be giving up all of their rivalries, saving maybe the Red River Rivalry. I'm sure they could keep at least one rivalry game to play each season. But they have more rivalries than that. They have a rivalry with Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Nebraska as well. In fact, the Texas-Nebraska rivalry is almost as big as the Texas-Oklahoma rivalry. And the Texas-Texas A&M rivalry is like the Michigan-MSU rivalry. In the end, the fanbase would be completely incensed to lose those rivalries that are all so close to home. It would be like Michigan all of a sudden not playing MSU anymore. Football in Texas is like a religion, as they say. Inter-Texas rivalries are HUGE.
February 12th, 2010 at 12:57 PM ^
You lost me when you said the following:
"In fact, the Texas-Nebraska rivalry is almost as big as the Texas-Oklahoma rivalry. "
Uh, no.
February 12th, 2010 at 1:17 PM ^
The Big TEN springing for a cross continent bullet train from Austin to Chicago. Maybe get Granholm to lobby for some stimulus money and have the train go from Detroit to Chicago to Austin?
February 12th, 2010 at 1:22 PM ^
the only schools that UT has a rivalry against outside of Texas (i.e. Tech and the aggies)would be OU, obviously, and Arkansas, which has been dying due to the fact that Arkansas left the old SWC and went to the SEC.
February 12th, 2010 at 1:25 PM ^
A UT alum I work with, who's a big booster/donor, told me that, in reality, their fans only care about the A&M rivalry and the OU rivalry. He is actually in favor of them joining the Big Ten, which I thought was interesting. Let's be honest: If UT was in the Big Ten, it would be tremendous. I've been to Austin, it's a damn good time. I'd love to go there every other year for a game (granted, we'd lose most of the time if recent history is an indicator).
February 12th, 2010 at 1:26 PM ^
I'm from Texas. Believe me. It's a rivalry. Maybe I was incorrect in saying it was almost as big as Texas-Oklahoma, but it's definitely a big game.
February 12th, 2010 at 1:27 PM ^
I'm curious about this UT- Nebraska rivalry. They were in different conferences up until the Big XII formed. Did they play a nonconference series against each other or something for a long time? (I honestly don't know). The Big 12 was formed in 1998, right? If they have a rivalry with Nebraska, which they very well might, we could have a similar "rivalry" with them after 10 years of being in the same conference. . . in different divisions, which they are, right? Nebraska in the BXII North, Texas in the BXII South with OU, et al.
February 12th, 2010 at 1:44 PM ^
Texas 9-4-0
years played
1933,1959,1960,1974,1996,1998,1999(twice),2002,2003,2006,2007,2009.
so before the BIG 12 they played four times.
http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/big12/texas/opponents_recor…
February 12th, 2010 at 1:50 PM ^
Anyone who says that about the NU-UT "rivalry" should have their head smashed by Gallagher.
February 12th, 2010 at 2:27 PM ^
I don't think the travel will play a big role in the decision. It certainly didn't for Boston College when they joined the ACC.
When BC was in the Big East, they had a ton of games that required short travel. Now their cloest away game I believe is Maryland.
February 12th, 2010 at 12:11 PM ^
Beat me to the punch. I think all but one bashed the colum. Let the realignment debate begain. CFN (Pete Fiutak) had West (TEX,IOWA,WIS,ILL,MIN,NW) East (UM,OSU,MSU,IND,PSU,PUR). This sets up good for Texas but the east is stacked.
February 12th, 2010 at 12:21 PM ^
Do we even need divisions? Couldn't we just keep it the same as now, but with 12 teams and have the 2 best teams play in the CCG? The first tie breaker could be pairing up two teams that didn't get to play each other in the regular season.
February 12th, 2010 at 12:36 PM ^
I'm not for expansion, I'd rather get rid of a team (which will never happen) and play a round robin. Hell I'd take nine conf. games instead of eight. The BIG TEN is already playing on Thanksgiving weekend this year, I'm old and change scares me.
February 12th, 2010 at 3:11 PM ^
Screw it, can't we just be like the ACC and have nonsensical divisions?
University division: Texas, Michigan, Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana
State division: OSU, PSU, MSU, NW, Purdue, Wisconsin.
Why isn't Wisconsin in the other division? Because Fuck Wisconsin, that's why.
February 12th, 2010 at 12:04 PM ^
is what this is all about.
If they make a threat to go, all the folks who want them to stay show up begging, and they get concessions for just having made a suggestion.
Classic negotiation / bargaining strategy. Things can get interesting if they start making demands and aren't compensated, but that's pretty much the only way anything big could come of this.
February 12th, 2010 at 12:07 PM ^
I personally don't really want Texas in the Big Whatever it's going to be called. I would rather we get Pitt or Mizzou
February 12th, 2010 at 4:38 PM ^
Why is this getting negbanged? It's a guy's opinion.
February 12th, 2010 at 12:12 PM ^
"I can't imagine a single Longhorns coach wanting to trade in the Big 12 for the Big Ten. Does Mack Brown really want to play a late November game in Madison?"
What's the difference in weather between Ames and Madison in November? Or for that matter, Boulder, Lincoln or Columbia?
February 12th, 2010 at 12:13 PM ^
Sorry, he presented no new legitimate argument in that piece. And, I am also familiar with Bohls' reputation; let's just say he's not going to save the newspaper industry. Still think it's a possibility, especially if Missouri is our number two option.
February 12th, 2010 at 12:33 PM ^
If Texas is the "pretty girl at the dance", as his article puts it, then Mizzou is the "not quite as pretty but easier friend that can be used to make said pretty girl jealous". There's also the added bonus of the Big 12 likely crumbling as soon as a few teams are leeched by the Big 10/Pac 10 to give Texas that extra encouragement to be the first to take the lifeboat, instead of being stuck on a sinking ship.
February 12th, 2010 at 12:39 PM ^
Before the Big 12 was formed Texas asked both the Pac-10 and the Big-10 if they could join. They really are not in love with the current conference. The huge increase in money more than offsets a few travel costs. Having Texas in the Big 10 is not a far fetched fantasy. That being said I am not sure that they will make it. This is still massive speculation on the part of fandom about the "what ifs". If Missouri were to leave Texas may bolt for a different conference anyways, they have no loyalty to the Big 12, there isn't that much in it for them. They want more national coverage and appearances, then they need to play more than 3 games outside the state of Texas each year.
February 12th, 2010 at 1:07 PM ^
I thought they asked the PAC10 and SEC before joining the Big12. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think there was ever any big 10 talk.
February 12th, 2010 at 2:30 PM ^
Texas asked the Pac 10 and Big 10 while Texas A&M was courting the SEC.
February 12th, 2010 at 12:27 PM ^
Sharp can barely write. At least Bohl can put coherent sentences together and provide something close to facts to support his arguments.
Bohl's info may be right or wrong, but I'm not ready to compare him to the Minister of Misanthropy just yet.
February 12th, 2010 at 12:40 PM ^
I'm going to "go out on a limb" and say that there is no way Texas joins the Big 10. Why can't we just kick Indiana out?
February 12th, 2010 at 2:33 PM ^
Over/under on minutes until jamiemac has some words with you: 8.25
February 12th, 2010 at 12:46 PM ^
I forgot they were in the Big 10.
As a UofM fan in Texas I would love to see this happen.
February 12th, 2010 at 1:25 PM ^
Appreciate the post but I will not take the value of the Statesman.com's opinion until I hear something from Texas themselves. They will sacrifice kids travel and school schedules for the Big Ten revenue's!
February 12th, 2010 at 2:34 PM ^
They are talking about Texas on both sports-talk radio stations in the A-T-L....The one important difference is that it is in the context of Texas JOINING THE SEC!...
Most of the callers and hosts (paraphrasing)are arguing that, "if Texas is considering the B10, then they would jump at the chance to join the SEC". Most of the callers support the idea, but I find it funny that they derailed the real story by making it about themselves versus discussing the real story.....As JT "The Brick" would say, "I like to dip things in reality".....WTF
February 12th, 2010 at 2:40 PM ^
I hope Penn St. crushes Alabama this fall.
February 12th, 2010 at 3:31 PM ^
Good luck with that.
February 12th, 2010 at 3:18 PM ^
If Texas is even pretending to care about academics, there's no way that they would jump to a conference whose lone academic star is Vanderbilt. Our worst 2 schools (MSU, IU) are better than their #4 school (Bama)
February 12th, 2010 at 3:33 PM ^
The SEC is deluded. Texas would take an improvement in academics and a huge financial increase rather than demote themselves in both areas to be in a marginally better football conference. Just... no. The SEC is so overrated.
February 12th, 2010 at 4:32 PM ^
if texas comes ill go poop on jim tressel, might do that anyway
+1 point