Texas to the Big 10 would be a disaster...

[hawkinn3]

Although I might be in the minority I feel the Big 10 to be a very competitive league and adding a superpower like Texas would really mess that up.

The first consequence would be that the lower tier would have no shot of rising up. NU, Indiana, Illinois, would have to go through Texas, OSU, Mich, Iowa, etc. Is that ever gonna happen? NO, are they gonna beat out all those teams for an recruits? No.

Plus, its not going to equal that much more money for the conference. Nobody in Texas will care about any game besides OSU. They will have no natural rivals and college football will be hurt without OK vs TEx every year.

This last year should have told us the Big Ten is fine and can field great teams. It is the 2nd richest conference already. Why mess that up?

 

[GrandpaHawk]

Don't worry it's not going to happen.They don't have a wrestling team and the Big Ten isn't going to let someone in that doesn't have all of the sports that we have.Big 12 is pretty pathetic only 5 schools have wrestling.

 

[iowahawkeyes89]

Although I might be in the minority I feel the Big 10 to be a very competitive league and adding a superpower like Texas would really mess that up.

The first consequence would be that the lower tier would have no shot of rising up. NU, Indiana, Illinois, would have to go through Texas, OSU, Mich, Iowa, etc. Is that ever gonna happen? NO, are they gonna beat out all those teams for an recruits? No.

Plus, its not going to equal that much more money for the conference. Nobody in Texas will care about any game besides OSU. They will have no natural rivals and college football will be hurt without OK vs TEx every year.

This last year should have told us the Big Ten is fine and can field great teams. It is the 2nd richest conference already. Why mess that up?

This is probably one of the most ignorant posts I've seen, congratulations.

Adding a team like Texas to your conference is good for EVERYONE, regardless of ranking.

Do you have any idea what the size the Texas TV market is? Do you realize how much revenue the BTN would receive due to higher ratings?

Dallas,Houston, San Antonio and Austin are all big markets that would boast the ratings and bring in more dough for all the Big Ten schools.

Adding Texas would also reestablish a recruiting presence in Texas, which hasn't been as good to us as it use to.

Ohio State beat Texas in Austin in 2005, and has played very competitively with them over the years. Not to mention in a down year we nearly beat Texas in the Alamo Bowl.

Texas is also a top notch academic school, maybe not a Northwestern, but definitely a top notch public institution.

 

[ibahawkeye]

Don't worry it's not going to happen.They don't have a wrestling team and the Big Ten isn't going to let someone in that doesn't have all of the sports that we have.Big 12 is pretty pathetic only 5 schools have wrestling.

It's all about money and football/basketball are the money sports so I doubt that Texas not having a wresting program would be a deal breaker.

 

[JonDMiller]

I actually am not excited about Texas coming in. Because that likely means A&M too plus another team. And they would be in iowa's division. And all of the teams we have grown up watching Iowa play would be greatly affected by teams we have Zero connection to

now I would be in favor of Mizzou and Nebraska coming into the league plus say a Rutgers or Pitt. I know it doesn't t make the dollars only sense that texas does but I am looking at it from having state borders with Nebraska and Mizzou and what that would create each year. I think that would be a good replacment for losing some of the annual games we are used to seeing.

If I had my pick I would take Notre Dame and no one else

 

[HandsyHobo]

"2nd richest conference"?

 

[iowahawkeyes89]

I actually am not excited about Texas coming in. Because that likely means A&M too plus another team. And they would be in iowa's division. And all of the teams we have grown up watching Iowa play would be greatly affected by teams we have Zero connection to

now I would be in favor of Mizzou and Nebraska coming into the league plus say a Rutgers or Pitt. I know it doesn't t make the dollars only sense that texas does but I am looking at it from having state borders with Nebraska and Mizzou and what that would create each year. I think that would be a good replacment for losing some of the annual games we are used to seeing.

If I had my pick I would take Notre Dame and no one else

I agree with you about adding A&M plus another team.

But if we could get JUST Texas, I would take it and run.

Financially, this move would help everyone.

I still can't believe people are actually against this idea, nothing but exposure for the Big Ten, and our program.

 

[hawkinn3]

This is probably one of the most ignorant posts I've seen, congratulations.

Adding a team like Texas to your conference is good for EVERYONE, regardless of ranking.

Do you have any idea what the size the Texas TV market is? Do you realize how much revenue the BTN would receive due to higher ratings?

Dallas,Houston, San Antonio and Austin are all big markets that would boast the ratings and bring in more dough for all the Big Ten schools.

Adding Texas would also reestablish a recruiting presence in Texas, which hasn't been as good to us as it use to.

Ohio State beat Texas in Austin in 2005, and has played very competitively with them over the years. Not to mention in a down year we nearly beat Texas in the Alamo Bowl.

Texas is also a top notch academic school, maybe not a Northwestern, but definitely a top notch public institution.

Ok, it means more money. Do we need more money in the Big Ten? No, the Big Ten is doing pretty damn well already. And under your thinking where does this end? Doesn't it make sense for Florida, Ohio State, Texas, USC, Michigan, Alabama, etc. to form one super conference? IF the only reason for having a team in conference is money,then that is the natural evolution of things. I like to think that is not the only reason, natural geography and rivalry have somethign to do with it. Now as much as Im sure the potential yearly match up of Texas vs. Illinois would set rating records, how bout we keep teams in conference where people give a **** about the rivalries?

 

[Hawkfromnorwalk]

I actually am not excited about Texas coming in. Because that likely means A&M too plus another team. And they would be in iowa's division. And all of the teams we have grown up watching Iowa play would be greatly affected by teams we have Zero connection to

now I would be in favor of Mizzou and Nebraska coming into the league plus say a Rutgers or Pitt. I know it doesn't t make the dollars only sense that texas does but I am looking at it from having state borders with Nebraska and Mizzou and what that would create each year. I think that would be a good replacment for losing some of the annual games we are used to seeing.

If I had my pick I would take Notre Dame and no one else

+1 on Mizzou, Nebby, and an eastern team. I could care less about the money Texas brings to the table.

 

[busabus114]

I actually am not excited about Texas coming in. Because that likely means A&M too plus another team. And they would be in iowa's division. And all of the teams we have grown up watching Iowa play would be greatly affected by teams we have Zero connection to

now I would be in favor of Mizzou and Nebraska coming into the league plus say a Rutgers or Pitt. I know it doesn't t make the dollars only sense that texas does but I am looking at it from having state borders with Nebraska and Mizzou and what that would create each year. I think that would be a good replacment for losing some of the annual games we are used to seeing.

If I had my pick I would take Notre Dame and no one else

Couldnt agree more. The thought of not beating down Wisky and Minnesota every year is depressing. Adding ND would be the best but playing Mizzou and Nebraska would be fun as well. Just thinking about heading to South Bend for a conference game gets me excited

 

[iowahawkeyes89]

Ok, it means more money. Do we need more money in the Big Ten? No, the Big Ten is doing pretty damn well already. And under your thinking where does this end? Doesn't it make sense for Florida, Ohio State, Texas, USC, Michigan, Alabama, etc. to form one super conference? IF the only reason for having a team in conference is money,then that is the natural evolution of things. I like to think that is not the only reason, natural geography and rivalry have somethign to do with it. Now as much as Im sure the potential yearly match up of Texas vs. Illinois would set rating records, how bout we keep teams in conference where people give a **** about the rivalries?

Hey, you said this move wouldn't get the Big Ten much money, which is completely ignorant and untrue. I'm just telling it like it is.

Florida, USC and Alabama would never end up in the same conference, what the h*ll are you talking about.

Adding a few teams to make things even wouldn't ruin college football like your trying to make it sound.

This is the 21st century, and like it or not, money talks. Big time.

 

[iowahawkeyes89]

Couldnt agree more. The thought of not beating down Wisky and Minnesota every year is depressing. Adding ND would be the best but playing Mizzou and Nebraska would be fun as well. Just thinking about heading to South Bend for a conference game gets me excited

Playing Texas and Texas A+M would benefit us more then playing a garbage arse team like Minnesota.

The exposure in the state of Texas alone would be better, let alone the fact that both schools have better programs.

 

[beaverdaleguy]

I would be all for Missou, for many reasons, but I dont think I'd embrase nebraska. Maybe Kansas. If we could somehow land Missouri and Kansas, plus maybe a Pitt or Rutgers (I'd rather have Rutgers) that would make more sense recruiting, academically, and financially from a cost-perspective. Less travel distances, more non-revenue sport options, high basketball and decent football programs..etc.

 

[DDThompson]

I'm sick of the groveling for Notre Dame. I know people aren't, but it has the appearance.

If A&M is handcuffed with Texas then fine. Do it. Texas won't dominate the Big10 like the do the Big12. I recall wails and gnashing of teeth that Penn State would dominate. How's that worked out?

And with Texas in the conference it will make a bigger inroad to recruit "2nd tier" Texas athletes, which of course, would be 1st tier athletes in all but two of the Big10 states.

Anyway, I don't think it's going to happen.

 

[Billso]

They will have no natural rivals and college football will be hurt without OK vs TEx every year.

Why would OK and TX stop playing? Are you aware they were not in the same conference for most of the 20th century, but still played each other?

Ever heard of "non-conference games"?

Delete this whole thread before we all get dumber.

 

[BA96MA99]

Texas will join the Pac 10. Why? Summer sports.

If you look at Texas message boards, blogs, etc., the one question somebody always asks is, "Does the Big Ten play baseball?" Seriously. They're concerned about baseball.

The Big Ten does wrestling and hockey (well, not Iowa, but others do). They do baseball.

 

[hawkinn3]

Why would OK and TX stop playing? Are you aware they were not in the same conference for most of the 20th century, but still played each other?

Ever heard of "non-conference games"?

Delete this whole thread before we all get dumber.

There is no way two top 10 non conference programs are going to commit to playing each other every single year. It makes no sense to schedule that hard of a game non-conference and it takes away a home game every other year.

And if you disagree that's fine, but don't be a ****ing ****** about it. And Im sorry if my topic made you dumb but I doubt it was a long journey.

 

[iveywk]

There is no way two top 10 non conference programs are going to commit to playing each other every single year. It makes no sense to schedule that hard of a game non-conference and it takes away a home game every other year.

And if you disagree that's fine, but don't be a ****ing ****** about it. And Im sorry if my topic made you dumb but I doubt it was a long journey.

Well it looks like Texas and Oklahoma have played each other every year for about 109 years.

Red River Rivalry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyway it seems like they did a pretty good job of playing each other for about 95 year or as a non conference game. I'd imagine they could figure it out again.

Also they play in a neutral stadium every year, half of the tickets go to each school. So they don't lose a home game.

Unfortunately this thread has indeed made me slightly less intelligent, and now I need some sleep to hopefully recover.

 

[Hawk123456]

I agree with you about adding A&M plus another team.

But if we could get JUST Texas, I would take it and run.

Financially, this move would help everyone.

I still can't believe people are actually against this idea, nothing but exposure for the Big Ten, and our program.

Let's see, fan interest in Iowa basketball is at an all time low because we aren't able to compete for the conference title any more.

We have been to three Rose Bowls in 50 years, sure let's throw Texas in there so that we go to zero Rose Bowls over the next 50 years, that will be great for Iowa fans.

I still fail to see how gaining a few television dollars in return for gutting Iowa's, (not to mention Indiana, Northwestern, and Minnesota's) chances of athletic success (winning conference championships) is good for Iowa or any individual member of the Big Ten Conference.

Yes, the conference as a whole would be a little richer and a little more prestigious, but the athletic success of each current member of the Big Ten would suffer for it.