Big 10 Expansion: Hook ‘Em Horns?

[highonhawks]

I think it would be awesome to have Texas in the BigTenIsh


http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2...-expansion-index-a-different-shade-of-orange/

 

[tiggerhawk]

I think it would be awesome to have Texas in the BigTenIsh


The Big Ten Expansion Index: A Different Shade of Orange FRANK THE TANK’S SLANT

So did the Big Ten, that sounded out Texas before considering Penn State twenty years ago.

UTA was VERY interested in the Big Ten. Unfortunately, Texas politicians were not. The state regents told the Longhorns that they must remain in the same athletic conference as arch-rival TS A&M. When the UTA administration passed this information on to the Big Ten, the BT presidents quickly made it known that they were NOT willing to take TX A&M in a package deal. That ended the matter, and the BT turned its attention to Penn State instead.

There is no assurance that the BT in fact will end up giving serious emphasis to expansion anytime soon. The BT office staff in Chicago periodically (about every five years) does a prelminary review of the likely situation of the BT in the immediate future and beyond, including research funding prospects, potential of expansions, combined capital expenditures, etc. In November this initial review recommended that further study should be given to possible expansion alternatives, with the possibility of a positive recommendation that the BT presidents put exapnsion on their annual agenda for 2010 or 2011. A lot of hurdles before the BT every gets around to considering a specific candidate for admission to the BT consortium.

There is no question that the priorities in determining such a candidate will be its potential contributions to the research goals of the BT universities individually and collectively. Do NOT expect athletic competition to be a factor considered by the BT presidents much if at all.

There are really only two universities that are likely to get consideration: Pitt and Rutgers. And of those two, the overwhelming favorite is Rutgers.

 

[NewMexHawk]

That would have been a kick in the nuts to the Big 12 wouldn't it...

 

[bws258]

texas politicians may be more willing now due to the money involved ... and no, I don't mean kick-backs, I mean money coming into the university

 

[GrandpaHawk]

The Big 12 doesn't have a share revenue policy so why would they want to come to the Big Ten.The only schools that would want to would be the lower half in the Big 12

 

[tiggerhawk]

texas politicians may be more willing now due to the money involved ... and no, I don't mean kick-backs, I mean money coming into the university

Probably any possible monetary gain is not significant to outweigh the political clout of TX A&M alumni, boosters, legislative leaders. The Tidelands Oil Act early in Eisenhower's first term passed in Congress with restrictions that require Texas to allocate the funds primarily to post-secondary public education--i.e., UTA, TX A&M. It is the reason why UTA has gone from mediocrity to becoming one of the most prominent and prestigious of state universities. Meaning that UTA (& TX A&M) do not have real concerns about adequate funding--and are not likely to have any in the near future.

What hasn't changed almost certainly is that UTA would leap at the chance to join the BT consortium if allowed to do so. But it will take a lot more than financial considerations to make that possible politically in Texas.

 

[latrans]

The Big 12 doesn't have a share revenue policy so why would they want to come to the Big Ten.The only schools that would want to would be the lower half in the Big 12

You need to read the article Gramps. Texas would get significantly more money being in the big ten.

That being said Texas will never never join the big ten - as I said elsewhere, do you think the texas players or coaches would want to travel halfway across the country to play half their games in much much colder places? How do you think the fans would like it?

 

[tiggerhawk]

The Big 12 doesn't have a share revenue policy so why would they want to come to the Big Ten.The only schools that would want to would be the lower half in the Big 12

Not really. The big attraction of Big Ten membership is to share in the BT consortium. It is almost impossible to exaggerate the academic and research advantages that it brings, not just in sharing facilities & programs, etc--but in access to grants, foundations support, federal funding, etc etc. Every Big 12 school would be delighted to acquire those advantages...but it probably would matter most to the few Big 12 schools that are major research universities--TX, TX A&M, Iowa State.

The revenues derived from athletics is relatively minor--less than 5% of university budgets in the Big Ten, not a whole lot more in the Big 12. And bear in mind that most Big 12 athletic programs operate in the red year after year, depend upon student fees, general college funding, and taxpayers to balance the books. In that sense the point is valid that the lesser programs would welcome BT membership more than perennial powers like TX & OK that sell out consistently and go to bowl games every year.

 

[ShadasRevenge]

I think it would be awesome to have Texas in the BigTenIsh


The Big Ten Expansion Index: A Different Shade of Orange FRANK THE TANK’S SLANT

I think that you and the writer of that article are smoking some serious peyote if you think Texas would ever think about joining the Big 10.

 

[highonhawks]

I only said it would be awesome to have them in the big 10,
nowhere did I say that they would.

 

[ShadasRevenge]

I only said it would be awesome to have them in the big 10,
nowhere did I say that they would.

It would be awesome, but it'll never happen. Texas controls everything that happens in the Big 12, and take in the lions share of the TV revenue in the Big 12 (which is based on number of appearances), and would lose that in the Big 10.

I'll grant you that the Big 10 would instantly be a lot better with Texas in the fold, but I'd have a hard time believing that Texas would benefit in any way.