What Texas Gains in the B10 for Dummies!

Submitted by HAIL 2 VICTORS on June 12th, 2010 at 9:59 PM

Althoug different parts of this piece have been sighted in different threads I thought this was the most straight forward and all encompassing article that touches most every reason Texas would be best served in the B10.


Nebraska, Texas and Notre Dame -- and Texas A&M, if it so desires -- fit best into the Big Ten's desire to boost its unique brand of tradition, power and academics, while making it the most money.

All but Notre Dame are members of the prestigious Association of American Universities, the collection of 63 leading research-intensive universities in the United States and Canada.

All are in the top 96 of the most recent U.S. News & World Report college rankings. (All but Nebraska are in the top 61).

All are national brands, possessing national followings. And each of those four have huge football stadiums to help feed the appetite.

The Big Ten hands out an estimated $22 million to each of its members, thanks to a TV deal with ABC/ESPN, the Big Ten Network, bowl game revenue and NCAA basketball tournament money. There's conjecture that a bigger Big Ten with Nebraska, Notre Dame and Texas could eventually push revenue near $40 million per team per year.

Even an expanded Pac-10 with 16 teams and its own TV network projects to make only about half what the Big Ten earns now -- even if it bring along the Texas schools and Oklahoma and Colorado.

While most national media types and fans still don't consider the Longhorns a realistic option for the Big Ten, the lure of academic prestige, research possibilities and stability -- along with a load more in revenue -- do make the move appealing.

In the Big Ten, the Longhorns would, for the first time, be in a conference with all like-minded academic institutions.

And they would have the benefit of the Big Ten's Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC), which claims to receive 12 percent of all federal research funds for its members, totaling $3.5 billion in 2006-07.

That relationship, for example, has helped Penn State soar past Texas in research money -- a $200 million lead -- since joining the Big Ten two decades ago, according to The Sporting News.

That's where money could trump geography and rivalries.



June 12th, 2010 at 10:02 PM ^

Seems like the more I learn about Texas the less they fit to me with Big10. Me first attitude and trying to strong arm others. I wouldn't be surprised if they demanded more than an even split of revenue. Texas doesn't fit the Midwestern attitude of the conference. I think Nebraska may be the only team added. 


June 12th, 2010 at 10:10 PM ^

We both want the same things - and Texas is DESPERATE to prove itself as an academic powerhouse.  Texas' "me-first" attitude is irrelevant since the Pac-10 wont put up with it either.

Honestly, Texas would be dumb to pass on the B10 for the P10.  I suspect we'll revisit them as an expansion candidate in another 10 years if they dont hop on board now.  The money will be too stretched out with too many deadweight schools in the Pac10, and Texas will ultimately find themselves in a poorer position than they were in the B12.   Texas should save itself a lot of trouble and turn itself into a true powerhouse on and off the field by joining the Big Ten.   Trust me, it wont be too long before schools like Florida start perking their ears up.  These regional conferences will be a thing of the past - the stakes are too high to keep your product strapped into a pisspoor academic conference like the SEC or its ilk.


June 13th, 2010 at 10:27 AM ^

Do you think weather is a factor for Texas? Do they really want to play in the cold of a northern winter? What about their baseball/softball teams? Do they want to trade that nice, warm weather, for cold-rainy springs?


June 12th, 2010 at 10:19 PM ^

Culturally, Austin fits in the Pac 10. Academically, it fits in the Big 10 (Pac10 would be fine too). The state wide fan base is hard to narrow down. It could fit in the Pac10, SEC, Big 12, and to some extent the Big10. Texas is a pretty diverse state and the fan base is hard to nail down. The compatibility with the Pac10 makes me think it would fit well with the Big10, as I think many of us would admit that the Big Ten and Pac10 have been linked not only through the Rose Bowl, but our academic and cultural similarities (if not quite exactly the same, we are pretty similar in many regards).

For those reasons, I'm not opposed to the rumors of Texas to the Big 10. I don't think they'd be a horrible fit, but I more importantly don't think that "cultural fit" is a big issue either.

The Big House

June 12th, 2010 at 10:31 PM ^

As much as I would like to think that Texas would be a good fit for the B10, I just don't see it happening, mainly because I don't see Texas cutting ties with their southern rivals. The P10 deal would at least allow their sports teams to continue to compete against their traditional rivals. I just think this factor is too important for Texas to give up. The P10 is no slouch and Texas would most likely benefit from the academics, research, and financial opportunities that that conference has to offer.


June 12th, 2010 at 10:34 PM ^

The problem with Texas joining the Big 10/12 would be that OU, OkSt., and at least one other Texas team would likely follow/be contingent on this acceptance, creating a monstrosity of a conference.  They can join the Big 10/12 if they want and it would certainly be a major score for the conference, but if it means dragging along a couple more schools, I'm not sure it is worth it.  UT in the Pac-10 makes more sense from a geographical perspective, and while I'm sure that they will be dragged down by some poor schools in that conference, it's not like IU football or Northwestern BBall have been flag-bearers for the Big 10/12.


June 12th, 2010 at 10:40 PM ^

There's some grumbling down here in Tx about how it's gonna be tough to stay up till dark:30 every night to watch sporting events. Even though football games can happen at 2:30 bball and baseball not so much.

Zone Left

June 12th, 2010 at 10:44 PM ^

I think Texas athletics probably benefit more from the PAC-10 (if they get the go ahead to launch their own network), but Texas getting into the CIC might make them the most powerful public school in the country, period.  Texas has enormous built in advantages that I really don't think any public school in the US can match.  The reasons could go on for a long time, but most of the really strong northern schools have dwindling population and budget issues and the California university system is a mess (along with the rest of the state).

I think the appeal is much more on the academic side than on the playing field.


June 12th, 2010 at 10:49 PM ^

UT joining the Big Ten makes the most sense, and may still happen, especially if the rumors that A&M prefers the SEC and that Oklahoma is interested in the SEC come true. W/o those two schools, I can see it easily deciding on the Big Ten or the Pac Ten removing the invitations to the other schools and offering just Utah and Texas, with preference going to UT obviously


June 13th, 2010 at 8:39 AM ^

.... I see three scenarios for Texas, and the first one could drop off today:

1. Somehow hold together the Big 12, with Texas even more in control.  This is the "Texas is greedy" option.  There may be a Big 12 network talked about, but it really would be the Longhorn Sports Network.

2. Texas, and some others, go to the Pac 10.  Frank the Tank is already on record that Texas would make about the same with this option as it currently does with the Big 12.  But, with a weakened USC, Texas could dominate on the field.  This is the "Texas is weak" option.

3. Texas joins the Big Ten, likely with ND following.  All the other things sort out that are holding Texas back, and it works financially and academically.  This is the "Texas is smart" option.

I really think all the other schools talked about for the Big Ten are second-stringers to Texas and ND.  If they don't join, or particularly if Texas doesn't join, I expect the Big Ten to slow down a bit, keep its powder dry, and evaluate its options.

Remember, the Big Ten started this fire, with Jim "Death Star" Delany lighting the fuse.  We got the teams, the demographics, the academics and THE NETWORK.

We have to play a strong hand strategically.  And we are...

P.S. My Stupid Poker Move Award goes to the Big 12 brass for demanding that Nebraska and Missouri state their intentions by this weekend.  Well, yeah, I guess you really got Nebraska to state its intentions, didn't you...


June 13th, 2010 at 10:16 AM ^

I have been trying to wrap my head around the whole "Texas-in-the-Pac-10" notion. It is really an odd fit. I live in LA--home of USC and UCLA. There are about 10x as many people here as any other place with good NCAA football/basketball. Despite the population, there exists very little passion for either school. Sure, there are fans (especially when the teams do well), but the only ones who really care are students. Alumni are passive fans--if there is nothing better to do, they watch or pay attention to games. I have lived in the Bay Area too, and this same trend holds for Cal/Stanford*. I know there is passion in Oregon, but they do not have the national profile that USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal or Texas have.

What is my point here? I think Texas will be very disappointed at the apathy they will find in the Pac-t0. College football on the west coast is something people pay attention to on the weekends if there isn't anything better to do. Could you imagine the first Texas-USC game? People from Austin come to LA. Texas wins and fans go to a bar to celebrate. They see a guy in a USC shirt and start talking about the game. The guy with the big smile on his face in the USC shirt starts the conversation with: "Is the game over? Who won?" Texas fans' buzz immediately killed despite victory. It will happen.

*Of course there are exceptions. I am talking about the observable behavior of the masses.