AggieYell (Rivals) is reporting that Texas A&M has accepted an offer from the SEC.
If true, what next?
Share this Post
AggieYell (Rivals) is reporting that Texas A&M has accepted an offer from the SEC.
If true, what next?
Share this Post
Comments
Someone else is going to head to the SEC. Maybe OU. I wonder who else they might go after.
BerseliusQuote Reply
http://www.kbtx.com/blogs/darrylbruffett/Aggies_Appear_To_Be_SEC_Bound_127558883.html
another source
BerseliusQuote Reply
This is interesting.
mb21Quote Reply
Somehow I got rid of the sidebar on UOV. I’ll fix that tomorrow.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]Someone else is going to head to the SEC. Maybe OU. I wonder who else they might go after.[/quote]
My guess is that OU makes the next move, but I kind of doubt it will be to the SEC. The SEC can sit back and evaluate their options. B12 remnants will have to scramble.
GWQuote Reply
Not to mention the OSU problem.
GWQuote Reply
[quote name=GW]My guess is that OU makes the next move, but I kind of doubt it will be to the SEC. The SEC can sit back and evaluate their options. B12 remnants will have to scramble.[/quote]
Kansas and Missouri are probably desparately calling the big east
BerseliusQuote Reply
ISU is probably preparing to make an offer to join any conference. Any one at all.
mb21Quote Reply
http://www.sbnation.com/2011/8/11/2358390/texas-a-m-sec-rumors
mb21Quote Reply
My guess is that Larry Scott is already on the phone with OU, talking about a Pac14 that would include OSU. That would really put the screws to UT, and their considerations of independence. In retrospect, B12 should have offered BYU last summer to give them a little cushion here.
GWQuote Reply
I don’t think there was anything the Big 12 could do to stop this. A loosely tied alliance of universities like the Big 12 is destined to fail. I’m not even surprised it failed before they even played a game. I thought it would last up to 5 years, but not surprised at this. It’s going to be interesting to see where the others go. OU, OSU, Texas to be precise. Couldn’t care less about the others.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]I don’t think there was anything the Big 12 could do to stop this. A loosely tied alliance of universities like the Big 12 is destined to fail. I’m not even surprised it failed before they even played a game. I thought it would last up to 5 years, but not surprised at this. It’s going to be interesting to see where the others go. OU, OSU, Texas to be precise. Couldn’t care less about the others.[/quote]
Yes, and I think they had to stand pat in order give large departure fee bribes/handouts to the remaining members (which didn’t work). But now they are on the brink of not being able to field a full schedule of tv games, and have to be worried about future bcs inclusion. Each member has to trust that all the others will stay, and that’s a recipe for disaster, given the past inclinations of Mo et al.
GWQuote Reply
Assuming aTm is gone, Texas is fleeing to the Pac 12 or Big Ten. They’d have done so last summer if the state government hadn’t intervened. Now they’re free to go wherever they want. There are reasons they may end up in either conference. If it’s about money, and I think conference realignment is about nothing but money, they end up in the Big Ten. Texas will have to give up the LHN, but they’d more than make up for that with the additional revenue they’d get in the Big Ten.
But the Big Ten sucks at baseball and Texas is proud of their baseball program. The Pac 12 has solid programs and some very good ones. They’d fit in nicely, but baseball makes no money.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Assuming aTm is gone, Texas is fleeing to the Pac 12 or Big Ten. They’d have done so last summer if the state government hadn’t intervened. Now they’re free to go wherever they want. There are reasons they may end up in either conference. If it’s about money, and I think conference realignment is about nothing but money, they end up in the Big Ten. Texas will have to give up the LHN, but they’d more than make up for that with the additional revenue they’d get in the Big Ten.
But the Big Ten sucks at baseball and Texas is proud of their baseball program. The Pac 12 has solid programs and some very good ones. They’d fit in nicely, but baseball makes no money.[/quote]
I wonder if the presence of the college world series makes the conference stuff less of a big deal. They’ll still compete for plenty of national championships and play top teams.
BerseliusQuote Reply
I think baseball has a lot more opportunities for non conference games too fwiw
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]I wonder if the presence of the college world series makes the conference stuff less of a big deal. They’ll still compete for plenty of national championships and play top teams.[/quote]it’s possible, but it will be harder for Texas to be taken seriously in baseball in the Big Ten. If the conference can add Notre Dame that helps. I think UNC is a candidate as well if they went to 16 so that would make a huge impact, too. I also wonder if the Big Ten would allow Texas to play a larger portion of their baseball schedule out of conference. That seems an easy enough fix to that problem.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Assuming aTm is gone, Texas is fleeing to the Pac 12 or Big Ten. They’d have done so last summer if the state government hadn’t intervened. Now they’re free to go wherever they want. There are reasons they may end up in either conference. If it’s about money, and I think conference realignment is about nothing but money, they end up in the Big Ten. Texas will have to give up the LHN, but they’d more than make up for that with the additional revenue they’d get in the Big Ten.
But the Big Ten sucks at baseball and Texas is proud of their baseball program. The Pac 12 has solid programs and some very good ones. They’d fit in nicely, but baseball makes no money.[/quote]
I’m not sure how easy it would be for them to get out of the LHN, even if they wanted to. Depends on the language in the contract, probably. Regardless, my guess is that the P12 caves on the network, the B1G doesn’t, and that’s how it shakes out.
GWQuote Reply
There’s no chance the Big Ten allows the LHN. I don’t think the Pac 12 allows it in the way it’s been reported. Wouldn’t be surprised if they demand it be rolled into a network featuring Arizona and ASU as well. It’s not the road block that it is in the Big Ten, but that network was built for a team in the Big 12 or an independent team. The question I figure is how much money is that going to generate and whether or not it’s worth fighting to keep. The Big Ten tv contract with ESPN could be restructured if they joined the conference in a way that gives them some benefits if Texas has trouble getting out of the tv contract. i don’t think that’s an obstacle.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]The Big Ten tv contract with ESPN could be restructured if they joined the conference in a way that gives them some benefits if Texas has trouble getting out of the tv contract.[/quote]
ESPN has no desire the B1G to get stronger, quite the opposite, I’d say.
I dunno, I guess independence for UT wouldn’t surprise me at all.
GWQuote Reply
[quote name=GW]ESPN has no desire the B1G to get stronger, quite the opposite, I’d say.
I dunno, I guess independence for UT wouldn’t surprise me at all.[/quote]
Now that aTm is leaving (with Perry’s blessing) they don’t have to worry about the legislature. I think that was the biggest road block
BerseliusQuote Reply
I look forward to aTm getting the shit booed out of them at every B12 stadium this year. That is, if I watched any aTm games (dying laughing)
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]Now that aTm is leaving (with Perry’s blessing) they don’t have to worry about the legislature. I think that was the biggest road block[/quote]
You are suggesting that their moves towards independence were simply to avoid legislative wrath? Could be. They seem to be all-in with the LHN, though. Mack recently said it was a full-time job, IIRC, and my guess is that they could get an ND-type deal if they went all-in.
GWQuote Reply
[quote name=GW]You are suggesting that their moves towards independence were simply to avoid legislative wrath? Could be. They seem to be all-in with the LHN, though. Mack recently said it was a full-time job, IIRC, and my guess is that they could get an ND-type deal if they went all-in.[/quote]
Given a lot of the kerfuffle around the LHN this year I think that it just becomes unaffiliated with UT and becomes the Texas high school football network. DeRosa knows that could stay afloat here.
BerseliusQuote Reply
Seems like neither of you think independence is a viable option, whereas I see it as much more likely than them joining the B1G.
Imo, likelihoods are as follows:
1. P16
2. Indy
3. Revamped B12/ some other frankenstein of a conference
4. B1G
where 1-3 wouldn’t surprise me, and 4 would.
GWQuote Reply
[quote name=GW]Seems like neither of you think independence is a viable option, whereas I see it as much more likely than them joining the B1G.
Imo, likelihoods are as follows:
1. P16
2. Indy
3. Revamped B12/ some other frankenstein of a conference
4. B1G
where 1-3 wouldn’t surprise me, and 4 would.[/quote]
They can make a lot more money in the B1G if they add UT and ND. BTN carried nationally = a shit ton of revenue for everyone involved.
Even without conference interference I think NCAA would give them trouble if they tried to air HS football, which is their easiest revenue source.
BerseliusQuote Reply
I missed the part where ND showed any interest in the B1G (maddog referenced something earlier). And all the UT interest during the last round seemed to come from the B1G headquarters, not vice-versa.
GWQuote Reply
[quote name=GW]I missed the part where ND showed any interest in the B1G (maddog referenced something earlier). And all the UT interest during the last round seemed to come from the B1G headquarters, not vice-versa.[/quote]
He’s got the links somewhere. Supposedly their resistance to joining is thawing. Their NBC contract should be up soon too, though they could still probably rip that up if they joined.
BerseliusQuote Reply
ND has softened their stance on remaining independent over the last year or two. Their AD even acknowledged that longterm the program would have to make a decision regarding their independence. He said that under no circumstances will they be left behind and that’s what is going to happen to them if they remain independent. It’s what will happen to Texas if they go that route. I don’t really care which they choose, but college football is headed in the direction of 4 super conferences that leave the umbrella of the NCAA. That’s been the plan all along. The SEC/B10/P10/ACC would like to have ND and Texas along for the ride, but the exclusion of those two universities, only one of which has been a major player throughout college football’s history, isn’t going to stop it.
Texas and Notre Dame can play pickup football in the backyard if they wish and play with the likes of ISU and KU, but I’m pretty sure there isn’t going to be any money for them.
I agree that P10 is the most likely, but independent is a short-term solution and nothing more. Texas isn’t going to be left behind in all of this. Texas can’t survive long-term as an independent and it’s unlikely that even Notre Dame could.
As for ND showing interest in the B10, they’ve played cat and mouse for a decade (when the B10 last invited them). With regards to Texas and the Big Ten, they asked the Big Ten if they could join before they created the Big 12. Both the Pac 10 and Big Ten said no thanks and Texas was left to form the Big 12.
Long term solutions for Texas in order of most likely are P10 or B10. I think most people always saw the LHN as nothing more than a cushion for Texas when the Big 12 failed. it gives them some time to weigh their options, but that’s it. I don’t really think anyone thought it was anything more than that. There’s a reason Texas invested $0 in it and almost certainly have an out-clause that’s probably as simple as a phone call. Texas didn’t create a network that was going to make it harder for them to leave a dead conference and get left behind. That almost happened to them before.
There’s a reason Jim Delany first said that they need to have scholarships cover full cost of attendance. A little less than half the FBS teams will be able to afford it. They’re sick and tired of Boise State taking their money so they’re pricing them and others like them out of it.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]He’s got the links somewhere. Supposedly their resistance to joining is thawing. Their NBC contract should be up soon too, though they could still probably rip that up if they joined.[/quote]I’m pretty sure there are links somewhere on The Hawkeye State, but I’m not going to look for them. (dying laughing)
mb21Quote Reply
I don’t think the plan could be any more clear and the truth is that it really doesn’t matter what conference any of these teams end up in. After some bitching from the big guys about the Boise State’s stealing their money by being able to go to Bowl Games they built up over many, many years, what do they do? They pick apart the Big 12, suggest what seemed an impossible idea to pass in the singular attempt to get the Boise State’s off their lawn, gain momentum to pass such idea, listen to complaints from the have nots, move forward with idea, listen to complaints, ignore them, and then pick apart the Big 12 some more and so on. It’s actually kind of funny.
They’re all working together here so they can again share all the money that they feel has been stolen from them in recent years.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]… but college football is headed in the direction of 4 super conferences that leave the umbrella of the NCAA. That’s been the plan all along.[/quote]
I agree that everyone in the 4×16 would be better off, I’m just not sure how we would get there from here. That is, only in specific cases would the incentives line up for each conference to expand in that fashion. I could really only see one scenario where we end up with something resembling a 4×16:
1. Pac12 takes texas and its neighbors to make them happy, forming the pac16.
2. BigTen takes ND and along with the SEC, they divide up the core of the ACC.
3. What’s left of the acc joins up with some big east teams? Not exactly a superconference.
If instead, texas opts for the big ten, where would the 4×16 come from? The pac12 is not going to 16 without texas. If the bigten takes texas, and that’s enough to sway ND, why would they possibly expand beyond 14? maybe they throw rutgers and syracuse a bone to try to get NYC, but I doubt it. In all likelihood, you end up with P12 (14 at most), B14, SEC (14), and acc (14?).
There are only of handful of schools the big ten would even consider, and most of them currently make up what would be the fourth superconference (the acc). Same goes for the SEC, minus all those pesky academic considerations.
GWQuote Reply
[quote name=GW]I agree that everyone in the 4×16 would be better off, I’m just not sure how we would get there from here. That is, only in specific cases would the incentives line up for each conference to expand in that fashion. I could really only see one scenario where we end up with something resembling a 4×16:
1. Pac12 takes texas and its neighbors to make them happy, forming the pac16.
2. BigTen takes ND and along with the SEC, they divide up the core of the ACC.
3. What’s left of the acc joins up with some big east teams? Not exactly a superconference.
If instead, texas opts for the big ten, where would the 4×16 come from? The pac12 is not going to 16 without texas. If the bigten takes texas, and that’s enough to sway ND, why would they possibly expand beyond 14? maybe they throw rutgers and syracuse a bone to try to get NYC, but I doubt it. In all likelihood, you end up with P12 (14 at most), B14, SEC (14), and acc (14?).
There are only of handful of schools the big ten would even consider, and most of them currently make up what would be the fourth superconference (the acc). Same goes for the SEC, minus all those pesky academic considerations.[/quote]
There are plenty of Texas and western schools that the P12 can snap up. They might have grabbed some of these already (can’t remember).
Boise St, BYU, Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas, Baylor, KSU, Colorado State, Utah, OU, OSU
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]There are plenty of Texas and western schools that the P12 can snap up. They might have grabbed some of these already (can’t remember).
Boise St, BYU, Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas, Baylor, KSU, Colorado State[/quote]
junior college, mormon, peon, peon, no market, christian, no market, no market
the pac10 requires unanimous approval, and the cal/stanford axis isn’t going to stand for byu or baylor or boise state, and the rest of them most likely won’t break even for their tv network.
GWQuote Reply
that’s why they offered to let texas bring the entire neighborhood (minus baylor) last year, they are the only big fish left west of the mississippi
GWQuote Reply
I don’t think they care if TT or TCU are peon schools, they just want the Texas market
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=GW]that’s why they offered to let texas bring the entire neighborhood (minus baylor) last year, they are the only big fish left west of the mississippi[/quote]
I figure the Texas neighborhood play was to smooth things over with the statehouse
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]I don’t think they care if TT or TCU are peon schools, they just want the Texas market[/quote]
neither of those schools will get it done.
GWQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]I figure the Texas neighborhood play was to smooth things over with the statehouse[/quote]
that was the attractive part of it from ut’s perspective. the pac10 agreed to hold their noses for tech.
GWQuote Reply
[quote name=GW]neither of those schools will get it done.[/quote]
Obviously they’d prefer UT but I think getting some of those would make it work. What about OU/OSU
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]Obviously they’d prefer UT but I think getting some of those would make it work. What about OU/OSU[/quote]
OU/OSU could happen, given OU’s prominence. Even so, I think they make that offer to press Texas; if texas is off the board, it becomes a tougher sell
GWQuote Reply
The Pac10 is pretty close in culture to the big10 as far as academics/snobbery. As I understand it, some of them are still upset about the arizona/asu expansion.
GWQuote Reply
[quote name=GW]The Pac10 is pretty close in culture to the big10 as far as academics/snobbery. As I understand it, some of them are still upset about the arizona/asu expansion.[/quote]
(dying laughing). Even though it’s been reasonably explained to me multiple times the whole academic standards argument still reads as complete bullshit to me.
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius](dying laughing). Even though it’s been reasonably explained to me multiple times the whole academic standards argument still reads as complete bullshit to me.[/quote]
IIRC, USC held the league hostage to get the pac8 to expand. There was some grumbling in the big10 after nebraska came aboard (along the lines of: “don’t do this again” to delaney)
GWQuote Reply
[quote name=GW]IIRC, USC held the league hostage to get the pac8 to expand. There was some grumbling in the big10 after nebraska came aboard (along the lines of: “don’t do this again” to delaney)[/quote]I didn’t hear much about that, but it wouldn’t surprise me. Money is the driving force here. All Big Ten coaches opposed the 9-game schedule and it was passed anyway by all schools.
i’m not so sure we’re looking at 16 team super conferences anymore. I think 14 team ones would do the trick. As I mentioned earlier, there’s enough evidence to suggest these conferences are working with one another on this project. I don’t think the Big Ten cares if they get Texas or not. I’ve always thought that when these conferences do leave the umbrella of the NCAA that the Big Ten and Pac 10 form one side of a league or a conference while the SEC/ACC form the other side. Each league or conference has two divisions in it.
So the names of these conferences aren’t going to mean as much. The important part is all the important schools come along for the ride.The bowl games aren’t going away because they’re so valuable, but what we’d likely see is an 8-team playoff tacked onto the end of the season.
But they aren’t going to wait for Texas or Notre Dame to make a decision. Neither school is going to get left behind so the decision is already made. It’s just a matter of when.
As for OU/OSU, I’d be shocked if they end up anywhere other than the SEC.
mb22Quote Reply
Texas A&M, OU to the SEC
OSU, Texas to the Pac 14
Notre Dame, Rutgers/Syracuse/someone else to the Big Ten
Who to the ACC to make it 14 in each conference? TCU? Tech? I think that’s enough.
mb22Quote Reply
[quote name=mb22]Texas A&M, OU to the SEC
OSU, Texas to the Pac 14
Notre Dame, Rutgers/Syracuse/someone else to the Big Ten
Who to the ACC to make it 14 in each conference? TCU? Tech? I think that’s enough.[/quote]
ACC grabs some Big East schools that still play football (e.g. Louisville), and the rest form a basketball-only conference
BerseliusQuote Reply
I honestly don’t even know what value the LHN could have now that the NCAA ruled they cannot show high school games. I think that’s a very short-lived network. What are they going to show? Vince Young’s 40 greatest games?
mb22Quote Reply
[quote name=mb22]I honestly don’t even know what value the LHN could have now that the NCAA ruled they cannot show high school games. I think that’s a very short-lived network. What are they going to show? Vince Young’s 40 greatest games?[/quote]
Does it matter? So long as the network shows even one UT game people are going to subscribe. Subscriptions = the $$
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]Does it matter? So long as the network shows even one UT game people are going to subscribe. Subscriptions = the $$[/quote]Advertising equals money. BTN had subscribers right out of the gate, but didn’t make shit. They started making money as they started attracting advertisers. To attract advertisers you have to show something people care about and they aren’t going to care about a Texas/North Bumfuck State game.
mb22Quote Reply
[quote name=mb22]Advertising equals money. BTN had subscribers right out of the gate, but didn’t make shit. They started making money as they started attracting advertisers. To attract advertisers you have to show something people care about and they aren’t going to care about a Texas/North Bumfuck State game.[/quote]
Not that many subscribers. It wasn’t on Charter, for one, which is one of the bigger if not the biggest midwest cable companies
BerseliusQuote Reply
The holy grail for subscriptions is to get it into the basic cable packages. I can get BTN in Texas but I have to buy a sports tier. I’m not sure if it applies now, but IIRC when BTN launched the same applied if you wanted it on dish network. I’m pretty sure it’s still a add-on package with dtv, since I don’t think my in-laws get it. When I left WI it was part of Charter’s basic package, so even if you didn’t want BTN you were still sending them fees. That was the sticking point in their negotiations with Charter which is why it took so long to get a deal done.
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=mb22]Texas A&M, OU to the SEC
OSU, Texas to the Pac 14
Notre Dame, Rutgers/Syracuse/someone else to the Big Ten
Who to the ACC to make it 14 in each conference? TCU? Tech? I think that’s enough.[/quote]
Missouri makes a ton of sense on a few levels here, as long as the academics arent in play. location it gives them the St. Louis market, is another natural rival team for Neb Ill and Iowa and Mizzou jumps at that chance in a heart beat. if the 4×16 goes there is going to be some bottom feeders added…Mizzou is going to be one and the B1G makes sense
Snyds01Quote Reply