Message board rumors: Texas to B1G?

Submitted by Stephen Y on October 25th, 2013 at 9:05 PM
Didn't see this posted. Via random message board...…
Texas is playing the Big12 for fools. Oliver Luck learned yesterday that UT had entered a non-disclosure agreement with the Big10 a few months back and have been hammering out details for UT to join the Big10 with another school(GT-according to what Luck was told) to make 16. The LHN, which was once considered the biggest hurdle to overcome, would remain UT's and Espn's but BTN would also get UT content-just not as much as the other 15. UT would take a smaller share of BTN revenues(which will grow astronomically after adding GA and TX) than the other members but still stands to make over $50 million per year for all tv money(non-postseason ) according to projections from the B10. That's all the info I have been able to obtain in regards to this matter and what I have now was obtained from eavesdropping on my sources part. Luck seemed shocked and surprised at this news but it doesn't seem to have deterred him from taking the job even though during his interview he pitched a 12 team B12 with 8 games and a CCG. I won't pretend to understand how the big10 plans on skirting the GOR but everything I've been hearing is hinting that the answer is in the details of what the networks are actually paying for-yes, they are TV rights to a university's athletic games-but those games have a specific name and description. Failing that, the B10 has stores of cash to pay for a broken GOR or 2 if need be. Will UT move to the Big10 and what does that mean for WVU and the rest of B12? Before anyone jumps off a bridge keep this in mind: last year the Big10 had as many as 8 of those non-disclosure agreements in place with various schools and only 2 came to fruition. But if UT were to bolt the B12...well, that changes everything.


Section 1

October 25th, 2013 at 11:07 PM ^

It was a virtual all-Texas conference!  And one of the absolute best football conferences in the country.

For most of my lifetime, it was Texas, Baylor, A&M, Texas Tech, TCU, SMU, Rice, Houston and the only non-Texas school, Arkansas (which got as many of its players from Texas as Michigan gets from Ohio).




October 26th, 2013 at 11:45 AM ^

We could expand across the pond and pick up Oxford and Cambridge. They probably aren't the best addition for athletics, though. 

Someone already posted Oxford and Cambridge. Probably should read through all the comments when trying to be witty. 


October 25th, 2013 at 10:05 PM ^

Nebraska would be pissed though don't think Michigan and Ohio State would let them become the kings of the conference. Certainly could be a very good thing to have Texas recruiting come into play. Fight fire (Florida and California) with fire (Ohio, Texas, and Virginia).

Don't think this happens but like somebody else said it is a bye week. Speculation commence.


October 26th, 2013 at 12:54 AM ^

Because Texas immediately dominated the politics of the Big Twelve--Texas won basically any time there was a disagreement. Money splits was one disagreement but far from the only one. I don't think Texas would have nearly the same sway in the Big Ten, but they would still be very unhappy--most Nebraska fans I know were happy to never need to deal with Texas again.


October 25th, 2013 at 10:14 PM ^

Just curious how is this Bolivia worthy? The OP posted a very clear title on a topic that is very much on topic. Now you may not agree with the move if it happens but this is new material that seems perfect to discuss especially in a bye week.

On a side note this is kind of why not having pos and neg bangs is a good thing since of this is the kind of post that can get somebody thoroughly negged there is a problem.

Again I definitely understand distaste in further expansion though I do think these two teams would be interesting but why not have a discussion?


October 25th, 2013 at 10:19 PM ^


OK sheriff.  Glad to know you disapprove.

Personally, I think that its a relevant topic and the OP cites the primary material.  You, I, and the rest of us well-educated folks can form a reasoned view on the veracity of the rumor, but we don't need Sheriff KSmooth to make that call for us.   Personally, I think it's a load of BS, but its fairly posted. 


October 25th, 2013 at 10:17 PM ^

IF this happens (a B1G IF) I'm going to game at UT just for the tailgates. Barbecue and more barbecue. I can practically smell the chile rubs and kicked up sauces already. 


October 25th, 2013 at 10:20 PM ^

Why do we need them? More money? They're probably going to be way more of a pain than it's worth. There's a reason Missouri, Nebraska, and Colorado went with the first gentlemen who asked them to dance

Mr. Yost

October 26th, 2013 at 8:03 AM ^

They're #5 in the country and Rutgers is in the American Athletic Conference.

That was be more publicity and TV time that Rutgers would get the league...AND we'd have two teams in the top 5. 

Nexr year the West would have a nice balance with the East.


October 26th, 2013 at 9:52 AM ^

I think you're wildly underestimating Missouri and overestimating Rutgers.  They had a nice little run there of going to bowl games in Birmingham and Toronto and such under Schiano.  Otherwise their most famous accomplishment happened in 1869.  Historically they are among the absolute worst programs ever.  Even their pinnacle of success under Schiano doesn't match what Missouri accomplishes in an average year.

There is no rational B1G fan anywhere that wouldn't trade Rutgers for Missouri in a heartbeat.  The only person that likes that is Jim Delany.


October 25th, 2013 at 10:30 PM ^

I wouldn't disapprove.  I think we benefit by going to 16 teams.  If we are going to add teams, we should add better programs than Rutgers and Maryland - though these are not terrible programs, and they do add great regional significance and other factors such as research,etc.  But moreso, adding a program like UT?  That is great.  Would like to see UT and UNC, but GT is also good.

An Angelo's Addict

October 25th, 2013 at 10:53 PM ^

Was really hoping UNC would be included in the next conference expansion. But adding UT sounds like a great idea for many reasons. it does throw the whole Big 10 Midwest footprint into the south which is good for recruiting but I dunno, I guess I always kinda liked the Midwest feel of the conference


October 25th, 2013 at 10:55 PM ^

This is almost certainly hogwash. But if it's real and the B1G is looking to add, Texas is just about the best option from a program and academic standpoint. I'm wary of their political baggage, of course, but a key here is to get teams that are actually worth growing for.

Rutgers and Maryland were not such teams. Texas is. GT isn't bad from a regional or academic perspective and is probably better than either R or MD, too.


October 25th, 2013 at 11:20 PM ^

If they had 8 NDAs out last year, I have a little more faith in the idea. I can't stand the idea of some weird 14 or 16 team conferences. If you are going to blow up the conferences, make two divisions of 10 teams with one of them being the old Big Ten.

I just don't know that the B1G can pull that off.


October 25th, 2013 at 11:33 PM ^

Southwest and the B12. It won't happen. The added revenue isn't worth the expense if having to travel that much. Texas will remain in the B12


October 26th, 2013 at 12:13 AM ^

From a money standpoint it'd be great becaue we would get the HUGE markets of Atlanta and the entire state of Texas, with the additions of NYC and the Baltimore/DC/Northern VA markets, we would make serious bank with the TV rights negotiations in 2016.  From a recruiting standpoint this is a no brainer.  Texas and Georgia are two of the most fertile grounds in the country and it would seriously aid the weak looking B1G West by helping Nebraska get back to recruiting Texas and NW recruit Texas even better, and Michigan would clean up in both states.  From an academic standpoint its great because these are both premier institutions.  And competitively it would be great because again premier programs.  The only downside is 16 teams seems like a little much but I'm sure we'd get over it


October 26th, 2013 at 9:57 AM ^

I can think of a lot more downsides than that.  Doesn't take much effort.

How about we just collect 'em all and add USC, UCLA, FSU, Miami, Washington, Oregon, Oklahoma, LSU, and Alabama?  Those schools all fit most or all of your criteria.  Would you like to just have a 28-team conference?