Texas and A&M invited

Donate To GopherHole
Unregistered User

Unregistered User

Wild animal with a keyboard
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
15,895
Reaction score
6,591
Points
113
Another unsubstantiated rumor that the Big 10 has formally invited Texas and A&M.

No mention of Tech, which seems odd with the political landscape around these programs.
 

Unregistered User said:
Another unsubstantiated rumor that the Big 10 has formally invited Texas and A&M.

No mention of Tech, which seems odd with the political landscape around these programs.
Click to expand...

The Big Ten will not formally invite a school unless they know 100 percent certain they will accept. Jim Delaney will not put himself in the position to be asked....what's your reaction to Texas turning down your invitation.
 

That's why I couched it as an unsubstantiated rumor.

It's like asking a girl to a high school. You know you're going to do it, she knows you're going to do it, but the asking doesn't happen until both the boy and the girl already know what the answer is.

Again, we would just be debating semantics over "formally", which is a pointless exercise.
 

Unregistered User said:
Another unsubstantiated rumor that the Big 10 has formally invited Texas and A&M.

No mention of Tech, which seems odd with the political landscape around these programs.
Click to expand...

Big 10 wouldn't invite Tech, for academic reasons. Supposedly, there was some rumbling about Nebraska, but it was felt they weren't that far from Big 10 standards. Tech is.
 

TAW said:
Big 10 wouldn't invite Tech, for academic reasons. Supposedly, there was some rumbling about Nebraska, but it was felt they weren't that far from Big 10 standards. Tech is.
Click to expand...

Right...and that was my point. I thought that Texas, A&M, and Tech were inextricably linked, so if you invite one of them (Texas, really) you almost must invite the other two.
 


Unregistered User said:
Right...and that was my point. I thought that Texas, A&M, and Tech were inextricably linked, so if you invite one of them (Texas, really) you almost must invite the other two.
Click to expand...

no, texas and texas a&m are the two schools that are inextricably linked. i don't really see tech going to pac 10, which makes me wonder if there won't be an expanded mountain west conf. that would inclue baylor, tech, kansas, k-state, iowa st. and maybe add a boise or fresno.

i'd like rutgers to be one of the schools the big ten invies, along with texas and a&m. that would give you the eyeballs on the eastern seaboard and make ny a covered market, while opening yourself up to the 20+ million market of texas.
 


Gopherphile said:
no, texas and texas a&m are the two schools that are inextricably linked. i don't really see tech going to pac 10, which makes me wonder if there won't be an expanded mountain west conf. that would inclue baylor, tech, kansas, k-state, iowa st. and maybe add a boise or fresno.
Click to expand...

Methinks Tech is linked enough if OSU's president is mentioning a "Tech Problem" in his e-mails to Delaney. And since the Pac-10 reported already offered Tech as part of the package deal, I'm not sure where the bolded above comes from.
 

Texahoma Conference

Texas
Texas A&M
Texas Tech
TCU
Baylor
Oklahoma
OSU
UTEP
North Texas
Houston
SMU
Tulsa
 



Unregistered User said:
Thanks...I must have had bad info.
Click to expand...

No. I think you actually got wind of information disclosed about emails between tOSU and Texas in which Texas advised that they had a Tech problem with the expansion proposal essentially. However, it is fairly clear that The Big Ten will only invite Texas and A & M to join if they are so inclined to apply.
 

Unregistered User said:
Right...and that was my point. I thought that Texas, A&M, and Tech were inextricably linked, so if you invite one of them (Texas, really) you almost must invite the other two.
Click to expand...
Rumors are that the SEC is interested in Texas A&M and that they could go there without Texas (although I'm guessing they both wind up in the Pac 10).
 

I have not yet seen anyone explain what the PacTen has to offer Texas. I think this is all a bunch of BS leaked to Orangebloods to distract the country from The Fall of Troy.

The PacTen's biggest football superpower is now going to be the Oregon Ducks. There are several ADs running annual deficits that would love to get into the Texas market. Few of the major markets in Pac Ten country give a rip about football (especially college football), and that's where the money is. But why would Texas ever agree to let their athletes run away to the beaches of California while subsidizing athletic programs at Oregon State and in Pullman, WA?

From a football-fan perspective it seems that Texas needs to bring Oklahoma, Texas A&M and Texas Tech along with them into the brave new world of superconferences. But I'm not convinced Texas is so willing to tie their fate to its rivals either.
 

Goldmember said:
I have not yet seen anyone explain what the PacTen has to offer Texas. I think this is all a bunch of BS leaked to Orangebloods to distract the country from The Fall of Troy.

The PacTen's biggest football superpower is now going to be the Oregon Ducks. There are several ADs running annual deficits that would love to get into the Texas market. Few of the major markets in Pac Ten country give a rip about football (especially college football), and that's where the money is. But why would Texas ever agree to let their athletes run away to the beaches of California while subsidizing athletic programs at Oregon State and in Pullman, WA?

From a football-fan perspective it seems that Texas needs to bring Oklahoma, Texas A&M and Texas Tech along with them into the brave new world of superconferences. But I'm not convinced Texas is so willing to tie their fate to its rivals either.
Click to expand...

Look at the new PAC 10 east, it is basically the Big 12 south. Texas gets to take all their buddies along that for the most part would never make it into the Big 10 and at the same time they move into a conference with much better TV revenue potential. The PAC 10 seems willing to cater to all of their needs and wants.
 



Goldmember said:
I have not yet seen anyone explain what the PacTen has to offer Texas. I think this is all a bunch of BS leaked to Orangebloods to distract the country from The Fall of Troy.
Click to expand...
1) More money than the Big XII now that it is collapsing.
2) Better academics than the current (or a potential future) Big XII or the SEC.
3) A willingness to plug their nose and swallow Texas Tech (which is huge since the Big Ten offers better options for #1 and #2 but won’t take Tech).
 




So basically, Texas is supposed to sign its television revenue rights away to an organization that couldn't manage to find a way to make money and avoid running defecits in the best economy in decades, despite that they had the greatest college football dynasty, no NFL competition in LA, and control of the entire West Coast?

And Texas is supposed to do this because the PacTen is the most willing to make the(questionable, desperate) business descision to allow Texas to bring with whoever it wants, regardless of how badly they dilute revenue???

Now that sh!t's crazy!
 


According to the guy that's on his way to becoming a household name in all of this:

http://twitter.com/ChipBrownOB

There's a Kansas City TV report saying Texas and A&M to the Big Ten. That would be news to those schools.
 

There was an article quoting a Pac Ten official, talking about 2 divisions, each with a BCS invite, but no championship game. If you had that, you wouldn't have a conference, you would have two seperate conferences. The Pac Ten that he describes would be more like a mini-NCAA, handling rules and membership for the organization.

This same person also claimed that the Big 12 didn't like the championship game. That's rather peculiar, if the Big 12 didn't like it, why did they choose to have it?
 

RodentRampage said:
This same person also claimed that the Big 12 didn't like the championship game. That's rather peculiar, if the Big 12 didn't like it, why did they choose to have it?
Click to expand...

I think it was something that they came to dislike after it was in place and they needed the money, not that everyone hated initially. Also, I'd love to know who the "they" is in this scenario. :) Something tells me not Texas.
 

I still think the biggest question mark that I have not seen addressed in the media and have not seen a single comment on this from Stanford is the simple fact that the Pac 10 requires a consensus vote to add any school to the conference...any school votes no and it can't happen. So will Stanford agree to dilute the academics of the conference for money??? Baylor, Tech, Oklahoma & Colorado to get Tx and A & M...man that is an academic mess and brings the the Pac 10 down a notch...might as well say SEC West...
 

The Pac 10 already has five teams above 100 in the US News rankings in Arizona, Washington State, Oregon, Arizona State, and Oregon State. Adding Colorado (77), Baylor (80), Oklahoma (102), Texas (47) and Texas A&M (61) would actually help the conference academic standing.
 

Now, out of those schools I listed, only two (Texas and Texas A&M) would improve the Big Ten's academic standing. The rest are below our current bottom (71).
 

Goldmember said:
I have not yet seen anyone explain what the PacTen has to offer Texas. I think this is all a bunch of BS leaked to Orangebloods to distract the country from The Fall of Troy.

The PacTen's biggest football superpower is now going to be the Oregon Ducks. There are several ADs running annual deficits that would love to get into the Texas market. Few of the major markets in Pac Ten country give a rip about football (especially college football), and that's where the money is. But why would Texas ever agree to let their athletes run away to the beaches of California while subsidizing athletic programs at Oregon State and in Pullman, WA?

From a football-fan perspective it seems that Texas needs to bring Oklahoma, Texas A&M and Texas Tech along with them into the brave new world of superconferences. But I'm not convinced Texas is so willing to tie their fate to its rivals either.
Click to expand...

The Pac Ten is the one conference that would let Texas have its cake and eat it too. The theory is the Pac Ten would allow Texas to establish a Texas based cable network in conjunction with a Pac Ten network.
 

GoAUpher said:
Methinks Tech is linked enough if OSU's president is mentioning a "Tech Problem" in his e-mails to Delaney. And since the Pac-10 reported already offered Tech as part of the package deal, I'm not sure where the bolded above comes from.
Click to expand...

If Texas left aTm behind they would lose funding as was made clear back in the early-to-mid-90's when Texas got a Pac 10 invitation but Stanford vetoed aTm. The result was the formation of the Big 12 which brings us to where we are now. From past precedent (and the governor of Texas being an Aggie) we know that Texas & aTm have a solid link. However, Tech doesn't have near the political support in Texas that the other two schools have so the link isn't as firm. Tech fans claim that the state legislature wants to make Tech a Tier One Research Institution so they will do their best to veto Tech being left behind but it isn't completely clear if that is accurate. There is clearly some political pressure ("The Tech Problem") but it has to be tested to know more.
 

Sportsfan24 said:
The Pac Ten is the one conference that would let Texas have its cake and eat it too. The theory is the Pac Ten would allow Texas to establish a Texas based cable network in conjunction with a Pac Ten network.
Click to expand...

That seems unlikely to be a possibility if they form a Pac 16 TV network. Somebody has to have the media rights to show UT sports and it seems unlikely that they would allow two networks to show the games in one media market thereby diluting ad revenues. Without UT games the Pac 16 Network won't get penetration in Texas and without games it will be hard for a UT network to have the content to succeed.
 

The rumor is during the meeting between Texas and A&M that the SEC game a presentation via video conference trying to convince them to join there. I know that there are a lot of Aggie fans that would prefer the SEC. The SEC would also likely let Texas have their own network, Florida has their own already.
 

Goldmember said:
I have not yet seen anyone explain what the PacTen has to offer Texas. I think this is all a bunch of BS leaked to Orangebloods to distract the country from The Fall of Troy.

The PacTen's biggest football superpower is now going to be the Oregon Ducks. There are several ADs running annual deficits that would love to get into the Texas market. Few of the major markets in Pac Ten country give a rip about football (especially college football), and that's where the money is. But why would Texas ever agree to let their athletes run away to the beaches of California while subsidizing athletic programs at Oregon State and in Pullman, WA?

From a football-fan perspective it seems that Texas needs to bring Oklahoma, Texas A&M and Texas Tech along with them into the brave new world of superconferences. But I'm not convinced Texas is so willing to tie their fate to its rivals either.
Click to expand...

:clap: This is a great post. I too have been deeply disturbed and confused by the rumors of Texas heading for the Pac Ten. The Big Ten has a ton more to offer Texas both financially and academically. I hope if those rumors had any legitimacy JD wouldn't be stupid enough to break up the Big 12 by adding a small fish like Nebraska, only to have the big prize, Texas, bolt for our rival conference.

Bottom line, if Texas comes to the Big Ten, I won't question JD ever again.

BUT, if Nebraska's supposedly imminent entry to the Big Ten breaks up the Big 12, and Texas ends up in the Pac-Ten, then JD will go down as one of the dumbest people in sports history, like Kevin McHale or the guy who traded Babe Ruth.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom