Texas refuses to leave for Pac 10-new deal in works


Status
Not open for further replies.
Its all football..Baylor offers nothing....Vanderbilt is the Baylor of the SEC...A&M is intriguing but their program is average in eyes of football folks but their attractive paired with an OU or UT

Texas Tech in my opinion is the one that's the throw-in..Lubbock, Texas? Average program at best that got its name with a gimmick offense....
 
the band fan said:
Its all football..Baylor offers nothing....Vanderbilt is the Baylor of the SEC...A&M is intriguing but their program is average in eyes of football folks but their attractive paired with an OU or UT

Texas Tech in my opinion is the one that's the throw-in..Lubbock, Texas? Average program at best that got its name with a gimmick offense....
Click to expand...

I disagree... Baylor has been down in football and had issues with it's men's basketball program but in women's basketball they are recent NCAA champs and seems to be poised to be perennial Final Four participant with Kim Mulkey-Robinson. Men's basketball looks promising under the new coach Drew. I think Briles will turn things around and that turnaround would speed up if they played in the SEC and got exposure to recruits in the SouthEast on a regular basis.
 



MikeBigg said:
I agree...but I still think that the SEC should add BAYLOR and TxA&M. Both schools would benefit from the SEC exposure and the SEC would benefit from the Houston and Dallas area market. I know some question Baylor, but other than football their other programs are playing very well and I think their football will be on the come up with Briles. Arkansas and LSU would benefit in creating a rivalry with those two schools, imo.
Click to expand...


No sir, Baylor needs to stay right where they are. The SEC would already have the Texas market by just having Texas A&M no since in adding Baylor. Baylor brings nothing to the table, the SEC is not going to add another doormat program. Art Briles would be completely outclassed by just the SEC West Coaches(Saban, Petrino, Mullen, and Nutt) and we haven't even ventured to the east with Meyer, Richt, and Spurrier. As was already said, adding Baylor would be like adding another Vanderbilt. If being in the SEC has made Vandy a winner yet, then what makes you think Baylor is going to any better? Vanderbilt is also good in basketball and baseball, so Baylor just wouldn't be that smart of an add.

Why add Baylor, when you could get Kansas. Their powerhouse basketball program overshadows everything about Baylor.
 
How about the Big 12 looking at

TCU and SMU

TCU and Houston

or

TCU and Rice?

The Big 10 has 12
The Big 12 has 10
The Pac 10 has 11

These mofos can't count.
 
Da_Sperm said:
The Big 10 has 12
The Big 12 has 10
The Pac 10 has 11

These mofos can't count.
Click to expand...

The Big Ten has had 11 for a while that's why the Big 8 took the name of the Big 12 before the Big Ten would add a 12th team and use the name. The Big Ten decided to stay the Big Ten even though they had 11.
 
number1 said:
No sir, Baylor needs to stay right where they are. The SEC would already have the Texas market by just having Texas A&M no since in adding Baylor. Baylor brings nothing to the table, the SEC is not going to add another doormat program. Art Briles would be completely outclassed by just the SEC West Coaches(Saban, Petrino, Mullen, and Nutt) and we haven't even ventured to the east with Meyer, Richt, and Spurrier. As was already said, adding Baylor would be like adding another Vanderbilt. If being in the SEC has made Vandy a winner yet, then what makes you think Baylor is going to any better? Vanderbilt is also good in basketball and baseball, so Baylor just wouldn't be that smart of an add.

Why add Baylor, when you could get Kansas. Their powerhouse basketball program overshadows everything about Baylor.
Click to expand...

Kansas does nothing for Brand expansion for the SEC and geographically they are not a good fit. Their football recruits most likely come from regions that the SEC schools are not even interested in getting access too... the same can't be said of the football rich state of Texas.

The Dallas market would gobble up SEC games on various cable packages and give the SEC some clout in a football crazed region of the state. A&M has a Dallas fanbase, but adding both Baylor and A&M would create even more of an interest and also be nice road trip games for LSU and Arkansas fans. Vanderbilt is in Tennesee... ain't a lot of SEC talent coming out of the state of Tenn. There's lots of talent in Texas.
 
New conference logo...

newbig12logo.jpg

:lol:
 
MikeBigg said:
Kansas does nothing for Brand expansion for the SEC and geographically they are not a good fit. Their football recruits most likely come from regions that the SEC schools are not even interested in getting access too... the same can't be said of the football rich state of Texas.

The Dallas market would gobble up SEC games on various cable packages and give the SEC some clout in a football crazed region of the state. A&M has a Dallas fanbase, but adding both Baylor and A&M would create even more of an interest and also be nice road trip games for LSU and Arkansas fans. Vanderbilt is in Tennesee... ain't a lot of SEC talent coming out of the state of Tenn. There's lots of talent in Texas.
Click to expand...



SEC will not add Baylor today, tomorrow or ever..
The SEC may not add anyone cause splitting $206 million a year between 12 schools is enough to stand pat right now. If Texas A@M and Oklahoma came on board, then so be it. If not, the SEC is not going to cry over what the Pac 10 and Big 10 is doing. More people, the more mouths to feed.
 
So Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas A@M will get $20 million a year while the rest of the scrubbs in the Big 12? will get only $13 million........Up from the chump change $8 million they were getting.

On top of that, TEXAS is the only school that is free to start their own TV sports network.
I see why Nebraska and Colorado broke camp. They the only smart schools in that conference cause TEXAS is pimping the rest of those dummies. :lol:
 
jstate83 said:
SEC will not add Baylor today, tomorrow or ever..
The SEC may not add anyone cause splitting $206 million a year between 12 schools is enough to stand pat right now. If Texas A@M and Oklahoma came on board, then so be it. If not, the SEC is not going to cry over what the Pac 10 and Big 10 is doing. More people, the more mouths to feed.
Click to expand...

The key word is may not... Glad you added that second part because the first statement you made came across as more of a fact than an opinion.
 
MikeBigg said:
The key word is may not... Glad you added that second part because the first statement you made came across as more of a fact than an opinion.
Click to expand...

I say the SEC not being interested in BAYLOR is fact.
I said MAY NOT to the SEC idea of expanding at all no matter who it is.
They sitting pretty with 12 teams and unless a team like TEXAS or OKLAHOMA comes in and bring millions of TVS with them, it don't make sence just to add some second tier school from a conference that could not compete with the SEC as a whole anyway.

The SEC has no interest in BAYLOR. If it was not going to be either Oklahoma, Texas, Or Texas A@M, the SEC ain't interested. Truth be told, as far as TV SETS and REVENUE, BAYLOR would be another VANDERBULT game for SEC opponents. The SEC will go after GEROGIA TECH, Clemson, or Florida State long before they would even consider thinking about BAYLOR in a package deal. BAYLOR would bring nothing 2 years down the line but would gobble up $20 million a year as a SEC member.

Nobody is going to get all hyped about ALABAMA/BAYLOR, BAYLOR/LSU or even OLE MISS/BAYLOR. :lol:
 
Last edited:



jstate83 said:
So Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas A@M will get $20 million a year while the rest of the scrubbs in the Big 12? will get only $13 million........Up from the chump change $8 million they were getting.
Click to expand...

Put it to youlike this-how many NFL, NBA, MLB, AFL,NDBL & maybe WNBA players have those schools popped out versus the rest?

Now mind you all the NBA players Texas A&M put out were guys MELVIN WATKINS recruited not his two white boy replacements-who haven't produced any.

Kansas can brag about NBA players, one of whom might cost them that NCAA title in 08 and that might be it-same with K-State.

Colorado & Nebraska did right by leaving.

TCU and SMU

TCU and Houston

or

TCU and Rice?
Click to expand...

SMU is too PRISSY-the large knock on them is that YOU don't choose to attend SMU-SMU CHOOSES YOU. That's why thier basketball team sucks worst than a Washington Intern in the Oval Office.
75% of Black DISD HATES that school.

Houston-Yes.
Rice? Let them fix thier basketball program first.
TCU-I think TCU likes where they are at. Unless you can convince them that being in the Big 12 will fix that wreck of basketball program since it got ruined when they went to the MWC-they mght as well stay put. They have a tv deal with the MWC already.
North Texas-won't go because they are the big dog in the Sunbelt in both sports.
Any Southland school would probably stay put.
PV?
 
The Big XII (10) will not expand the conference within the Texas footprint.

Also, I just read neither of the remaining Big XII (10) teams signed a commitment letter to the league. It was all verbal gentlemen's agreement. Nor is there a TV contract. Can someone explain to me how a 10-member league without a championship game is going to get at deal that averages ($15.8) 17.9 million per team (that is $20 million for three UT, TAMU and OU as well as $14 ~ $17 million for others = $158 ~ $179 million) that could pay on average more than the $17 million the SEC ($204 million) paid out this past year?

Millions of Reasons
Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma would reportedly each receive at least
$20 million annually from a new Big 12 TV contract, comparable with what the top conference deals pay now.

BCS conference Amount of contract
Big Ten $242 million
SEC $205 million
Big 12 $78 million
ACC $67 million
Pacific-10 $58 million
Big East $33 million

Texas Legislature said no to Texas (Pac-10) and Texas A & M (SEC) splitting ways.
 
So, Texas didn't want to go to the SEC because

the SEC is inferior academically.

The NCAA last week released its latest APR numbers, which measure how well student-athletes progress toward a degree.

Consider the following facts for the four-year rolling averages from 2005-06 through 2008-09:

Alabama's football program scored a 957 for that period.

That score was higher than 10 of the 12 Big 12 schools before Nebraska announced it was leaving for the Big Ten and Colorado said it was leaving for the Pac-10.

Alabama's score of 957 was higher than the Texas score of 947.

Among Big 12 schools, only Oklahoma (962) and Missouri (958) scored higher than Alabama, but just barely.

Four SEC schools -- Vanderbilt (975), Georgia (973), Florida (971) and LSU (965) -- scored higher than Oklahoma, the highest-scoring Big 12 school.

How many times did we read during the last few weeks that Texas wouldn't consider moving to the SEC because it considers itself academically superior to SEC schools?



http://blog.al.com/kevin-scarbinsky/2010/06/alabamas_a_lot_smarter_than_th.html
 
Re: So, Texas didn't want to go to the SEC because

I thought it was because Texas wanted a lucrative TV deal. To to be honest, I don't think this whole conference realignment issue has anything to do with academics at all or tradition or any of that other stuff. It all comes down to money and how much these schools can get collectively and individually.
 
Re: So, Texas didn't want to go to the SEC because

Academics my ass. The University of Texas not joining the SEC has nothing to do with athletics. Hell, UT football players are not any smarter than ours (BAMA). :lol:

In my opinion, Texas could not pimp the SEC like they could the Big 12. That is the main reason that UT would not join the SEC.
 
Poor UH.....they try but like the little brother who can't get selected to play with the big brothers....timed their stadium plans earlier than normal to generate interest and an invite but received thanks but no thanks!!
 
the band fan said:
OU probaby saw that SEC schedule and realized a 10-team Big 12 is way easier to the national title game than playing LSU, Alabama, Tennessee, Florida, etc. on a consistent basis...

Tech with gimmick offense, Kansas (inconsistent), Baylor (:emlaugh:), Kansas State (Inconsistent), Iowa State (:emlaugh:)..Oklahoma State (Gunday :emlaugh:)....win that and you got a BCS bid...please
Click to expand...




OU wouldnt be no punk in the SEC...

UGA (undisciplined and inconsistent) South Carolina (never live up to expectations) UT (you serious?? OU would kill Tennessee) Kentucky (basketball school) Vandy (lmao) LSU (wont be ish until Les Miles leaves) Miss. State (ha) Ole Miss (see South Carolina) Auburn (might give OU some trouble)

yall act like every team in the SEC is a beast.
 
Re: So, Texas didn't want to go to the SEC because

TSU/BAMA said:
Academics my ass. The University of Texas not joining the SEC has nothing to do with athletics. Hell, UT football players are not any smarter than ours (BAMA). :lol:

In my opinion, Texas could not pimp the SEC like they could the Big 12. That is the main reason that UT would not join the SEC.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%. All this talk about how a particular team does not "academically" fit within a conference is a bunch of BS!

I guess when Bama whooped Texas in the national championship game, Texas folks didn't really care, cause they're so "academically" better than Bama. :smh: :scared:



Da Sperm said:
Arkansas needs to join the Big 12.

Arkansas / Texas A&M at Cowboy stadium for the next 29 years.

Arkansas / UT

Arkansas / OU

all of these three games are better than any rivalry matchup that Arkansas can get out of the SEC
Click to expand...
Sperm,
I thought Arkansas/LSU is a pretty big rivalry.
 
Re: So, Texas didn't want to go to the SEC because

TSU/BAMA said:
Academics my ass. The University of Texas not joining the SEC has nothing to do with athletics. Hell, UT football players are not any smarter than ours (BAMA). :lol:

In my opinion, Texas could not pimp the SEC like they could the Big 12. That is the main reason that UT would not join the SEC.
Click to expand...

The "academics" are not related to student athletes. The academics part is related to the entire academic landscape of the school.

Secondly, Texas NEVER considered the SEC. Unlike the SEC, profit share is not equal in the Big 12. This was indeed about money, but it had nothing to do with "pimping" one side or the other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top