The Pac-10 is Panicking

[JHHawk]

People in Texas do not want to travel to the Northern Midwest in November. The Pac Ten is not panicking. People like you who realize that the Big Ten will not be the only player when it comes to a conference network are the ones that are panicking. Cause that is the only reasonable explanation for a ridiculous post like this.

November in the midwest is horrible? What about Texas in September?

Last year in the second weekend in November at OSU, Iowa played in warm weather. And btw, Texas always plays A & M in their last game so that is one date that will always be in Texas in November...they might travel north for 1 or 2 november dates each year...and play in 50 degree tempatures...ohhh noooooo!!!

 

[CAARHawk]

November in the midwest is horrible? What about Texas in September?

Last year in the second weekend in November at OSU, Iowa played in warm weather. And btw, Texas always plays A & M in their last game so that is one date that will always be in Texas in November...they might travel north for 1 or 2 november dates each year...and play in 50 degree tempatures...ohhh noooooo!!!

Why play in 50 degree weather 1500 miles away, when you can play in 70 degree weather in your own backyard. Believe me, you people in the North don't get it. But people live in the south for a reason. Also Texas plays a certain type of football that is suited to certain conditions.

 

[fsanford]

November in the midwest is horrible? What about Texas in September?

Last year in the second weekend in November at OSU, Iowa played in warm weather. And btw, Texas always plays A & M in their last game so that is one date that will always be in Texas in November...they might travel north for 1 or 2 november dates each year...and play in 50 degree tempatures...ohhh noooooo!!!

Or it might be snowing like crazy, 30 degrees.
Right now the furthest north Texas has to travel is Lincoln or Ames every 4 years. And they usually play those games in October.

It would pretty much suck for them if they had to go to East Lansing,
Madison, Minneapolis, in November.

 

[briankaldenberg]

Why play in 50 degree weather 1500 miles away, when you can play in 70 degree weather in your own backyard.

Because you can get paid millions of dollars more.

 

[ShadasRevenge]

Why play in 50 degree weather 1500 miles away, when you can play in 70 degree weather in your own backyard. Believe me, you people in the North don't get it. But people live in the south for a reason. Also Texas plays a certain type of football that is suited to certain conditions.

The humidity? Fresh seafood? Great nightlife?

What type of football does Texas play, and under what conditions is it suited for? If they had to play at say...Minnesota around Thanskgiving would they have to forfeit because the weather doesn't suit their style of play?

 

[CAARHawk]

Because you can get paid millions of dollars more.

This is not true. The television contract that Fox will put together to form the new network will compare favorably to the BTN contract. Why can't people see tomorrow, beyond today? People see the BTN money and don't think it can be emulated anywhere else. Fox knows this isn't true and has made it clear to the parties involved.

Fox wants to own the football content for the North East, Central and West. Not just the central.

 

[CAARHawk]

The humidity? Fresh seafood? Great nightlife?

What type of football does Texas play, and under what conditions is it suited for? If they had to play at say...Minnesota around Thanskgiving would they have to forfeit because the weather doesn't suit their style of play?

A fast break type of football that is best suited for good weather. They don't want swirling cold winds. Also, the Texas boosters don't want to sit in frigid stadiums. That is why your question is moot, because it will never happen.

 

[thejumper5]

Or it might be snowing like crazy, 30 degrees.
Right now the furthest north Texas has to travel is Lincoln or Ames every 4 years. And they usually play those games in October.

It would pretty much suck for them if they had to go to East Lansing,
Madison, Minneapolis, in November.

Wouldn't they have a problem with playing in Corvallis (average high 53 in Nov), Pullman (43), Eugene (52), or Seattle (51) in November? I guess they would have to play MAYBE 1 more game per year in cold weather in the Big 10, but I honestly don't see this as being any kind of argument for Texas joining the Pac 10 ahead of the Big 10 (though I see lots of other arguments and think the P10 is more likely overall).

 

[ssckelley]

This is not true. The television contract that Fox will put together to form the new network will compare favorably to the BTN contract. Why can't people see tomorrow, beyond today? People see the BTN money and don't think it can be emulated anywhere else. Fox knows this isn't true and has made it clear to the parties involved.

Fox wants to own the football content for the North East, Central and West. Not just the central.

This is true IF the Pac 10 can pull this off. Otherwise you put the Texas market, along with a good deal of the national market, in the Big 10 and that 20+ million each team is getting grows rapidly.

Fox could be panicking right along with the Pac10 over the B10's expansion.

 

[fsanford]

Wouldn't they have a problem with playing in Corvallis (average high 53 in Nov), Pullman (43), Eugene (52), or Seattle (51) in November? I guess they would have to play MAYBE 1 more game per year in cold weather in the Big 10, but I honestly don't see this as being any kind of argument for Texas joining the Pac 10 ahead of the Big 10 (though I see lots of other arguments and think the P10 is more likely overall).

Or maybe the could play in Los Angeles 72, Tempe 72, Tucson 72.
Plus under the Pac 10 scenario, OU Tech, OSU would also be included.

I do agree there are probably more viable arguments out there,.

 

[fsanford]

This is true IF the Pac 10 can pull this off. Otherwise you put the Texas market, along with a good deal of the national market, in the Big 10 and that 20+ million each team is getting grows rapidly.

Fox could be panicking right along with the Pac10 over the B10's expansion.

The question is wich is has the potential to generate more $$?

Right now the Pac 10 does not have a regional network, and the major cable providers like Time Warner Cable do not show the Big 10 network in California. So you add Texas, to the Pac 10 and create a Pac-Tex Network that would be shown in California and Texas along with most states west of the Mississippi

Or option B

Texas joins the Big 10 and you add more Big 10 network subscribers, from Texas, but you still leave out the most heavily populated state in the country.

Seems to me the biggest $$ play is to bring Texas in the The Pac 10 and
get a network established that would include the states of California and Texas.

If it truly about $$ then Fox Sports will spare no expense in setting up this up the way they want it.

 

[ssckelley]

But the thing is the BTN is already established and is a proven money maker. The income of the BTN is mainly reliant on the amount of cable subscribers to it's network and rely's very little on the advertising dollar and ratings. You add in the Texas market and the revenues will potentially increase dramatically. IMO, if I am Texas I am weighing this strongly into consideration because the Big 10 can offer me guarenteed money that will only increase over time.

The Pac10 and Fox can put together a package to rival the Big 10 but what guarentees does it have? The problem is you are putting your confidence into a contract, and contracts have expiration dates. What if Fox throws all this money at it and finds out people still do not care about watching Stanford vs Washington and they lose a ton of money? Do you think they resign a contract that is losing them significant amounts of money?

IMO, the biggest other player for Texas is the SEC. The TV revenue will always be there for the SEC. The downfall the SEC is they offer Texas very little academically while the association with the Big10 or Pac10 does.

But I have to say, Texas is in a good spot right now with all the choices they have.

 

[bhawk326]

Briankaldenberg, I feel you are being very naive.

First, the decision to admit universities into the Big 10 is decided by the university presidents, not by Jim Delany or the ADs. Have you met a Big 10 President? I met Sally Mason and David Skorton while a student at Iowa and they were much more interested in academics than athletics.

Second, research dollars trump athletic dollars. The CIC (Committee on Institutional Cooperation) which includes the Big Ten + University of Chicago discharged $6 Billion in research dollars in 2008. The Big Ten athletic departments discharged about $0.9 Billion. The money is in research and almost 7 times as much. Oklahoma only discharged $275 million dollars in research expenditures, which is well less than any school in the Big 10.

Third, what does Oklahoma truly bring to the Big Ten? It's a small state (3.7 million) so it isn't going to increase the Big Ten Network coverage map all that much and with big name schools already in the conference it isn't going to increase the Big Ten's contract with ABC/ESPN. How did they do getting the Big 12 a big contract? Oklahoma probably brings in fewer dollars than the share it would get from equal revenue sharing. No current Big Ten school is going to agree to a deal that would effectively decrease revenue.

Finally, how easy do you think it is to raise academic standards for a university, especially a large public institution? Oklahoma is currently ranked 102nd in the U.S. News and World Reports. The current lowest ranking school in the Big 10 is a tie between Indiana, MSU and Iowa at 71st. That is a huge gap. While Missouri is also ranked 102nd, it already has the research and professional training capabilities (Engineering, Veterinary Medicine, Medicine, Pharmacy, Agriculture and Law Colleges) to easily move up in the rankings. Oklahoma doesn't have those advantages. I don't think even the elevated status that being in the Big 10 would give Oklahoma would be able to raise it up. There are so many other things the university would have to do to get their academics raised up to the rest of the Big 10.

So I think when you take a further look at the overall facts about Oklahoma I just do not see them being invited into the Big 10.

 

[bhawk326]

CAARHAWK, remember that the decision is made by University Presidents and not Boosters and ADs. There is so much more money to be made for Texas in research collaborations with Big 10 universities than any TV contract or slightly annoyed booster who will probably still donate money anyways. You made the point about the Pac 10 raiding the Big 12 much earlier than anyone else and I applaud you for your astute observation, but to think Texas wouldn't join the Big 10 because of boosters and football teams being unhappy about cold-weather games is disappointing coming from a keen observer like yourself.

ssckelley, if Texas goes to the SEC then they would be going into a conference with universities with much worse academics than the Big 12. Texas would then open recruiting to the state for schools with much worse academic standards and the university would get no increase in collaborative potential to get more grant dollars. There is little logic behind Texas joining the SEC.

 

[jjkandlak]

I have always been under the impression that Texas and Texas A & M would go as a tandem to another conference. There's also the "Tech problem" that the UT prez referred to in an email to the OSU prez via FOA :

Big 12 meetings update: Texas apparently has a ‘Tech’ problem | GazetteOnline.com

 

[HawkeyesWin]

I have worked with folks in California and folks in Texas and I just don't see Texas fitting in with anything related to California. Texans have a lot more in common with the midwesterners that comprise the Big Ten than the Wack-doodles on the west coast.

 

[Billso]

You're all aware that Fox is a part-owner of the BTN, right? So I fail to see how Fox would be panicking.

Those who believe Texas would never consider joining the Big Ten need to explain why OSU's and Texas' presidents are talking about just that. Refer to the emails disclosed by Columbus Post-Dispatch yesterday. Doesn't guarantee it will happen, but they are certainly talking.

I just laugh at the weather arguments. It isn't about weather, it's about $$$ and Texas would make many millions more with the Big Ten as has been detailed in several articles.

 

[HawkeyeShane]

I have worked with folks in California and folks in Texas and I just don't see Texas fitting in with anything related to California. Texans have a lot more in common with the midwesterners that comprise the Big Ten than the Wack-doodles on the west coast.

This made HawkeyeShane laugh...yes, I'm easily amused...

 

[CAARHawk]

CAARHAWK, remember that the decision is made by University Presidents and not Boosters and ADs. There is so much more money to be made for Texas in research collaborations with Big 10 universities than any TV contract or slightly annoyed booster who will probably still donate money anyways. You made the point about the Pac 10 raiding the Big 12 much earlier than anyone else and I applaud you for your astute observation, but to think Texas wouldn't join the Big 10 because of boosters and football teams being unhappy about cold-weather games is disappointing coming from a keen observer like yourself.

.

You don't know Texas. Do yourself a favor and Netflix the Television show Friday Night Lights. That is high school. UT is like that on steroids. Decisions that affect UT football that don't jibe with the desires of boosters and alumni will get the president bounced in a second, believe me. I would agree completely with this point for the vast majority of schools, but this perspective has to be tempered with Texas.

However, even considering this point, I went to California Berkeley for undergrad. Believe me, the Pac Ten schools, particularly the California schools Berkeley, UCLA, Stanford, and USC hold their own in research funding.

However, this is where the mix between athletics and academics is particularly interesting for Texas. The athletics program does not want their teams having to travel a ton of miles to compete. So, they want to keep some of their neighbor institutions in play. They also want to keep the extremely lucrative Red River Rivalry, which is played in Texas each year. But the research institutions of the Big Ten would really have to swallow a bitter pill to take OU. And, like you said, the Presidents make the decisions in the Big Ten. Conversely, the Pac Ten has already brought in non-AAU schools such as OSU, WSU, and ASU. So it is easier to understand how they would be more amenable to bringing in OU along with Texas and TAMU.

The questionable choice I see is OSU. I really think the SEC is a much better fit for that institution. If I were the Pac Ten I would reconsider Kansas. They are AAU and that side of the league would be particularly strong in basketball with Kansas, Arizona, and Texas. And then the Pac Ten would only have to hold their nose for OU. However, I do know some people at OU and they are committed to raising their research profile.

(On another note, If OSU goes Pac Ten there will actually be two OSU's in that conference.)

 

[bhawk326]

I have some family in Texas and some friends who are graduate students at UT. Believe me, I know how crazy they are about Longhorn football. I just felt some of your posts were shortchanging the impact of academics on UT. If it was only about football then I feel UT would take a much greater look at joining the SEC or becoming an independent.

The more I've looked into it, I find myself agreeing with you. The Pac 10 is probably the best fit when considering keeping some local teams and rivals, not having to fight the Texas legislature (I don't see the Big 10 wanting to take Texas A&M and they would absolutely not want Texas Tech), not having to travel far too often (even though with Texas having the largest athletic budget in the country I don't feel this is as big of a deal) and they would be joining a conference with good to great academic standards.

Where things could get particularly interesting is on two factors. One, will the Texas and Oklahoma state legislatures prevent the more desired universities (Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma) from joining the Pac 10 without the less desired universities (Texas Tech and Oklahoma State)? Texas Tech and Oklahoma State are ranked as Tier 3 universities by U.S. News & World Reports meaning they have very low academic standards and little research funding. Second, the Pac 10 requires a unanimous approval of current members to admit new members. I think Colorado and Texas are mortal locks with Texas A&M nearly so and Oklahoma could probably woo its way to a successful vote. The real question is would Stanford, Cal and maybe UCLA really vote on allowing Texas Tech or Oklahoma State into the Pac 10. If even one of them votes nay, then could Oklahoma or Texas be put in a position of going to court to try and fight the legislature if they would not allow them to join the Pac 10 without the other state university.

I have a friend at Oklahoma and they are trying to raise their academic standards and research funding. They discharged $275 million in research dollars last year and are upgrading some of their facilities. I don't see this being enough for the Big 10 to consider them, but I could see the Pac 10 finding their academic profile in the Arizona State and Washington State category and ultimately finding them an acceptable addition.

Kansas is an interesting other option for the Pac 10 and I think it is viable. I could see Kansas in a tier with Texas A&M where it probably wouldn't have a problem convincing the Pac 10 of its credentials and worth to the conference. Once again, would a legislature step in to try and block one state university from joining without the other?

Oklahoma State, and I think maybe Texas Tech as well, might being a fit for the SEC. While I agree with you that either of these schools would be interested, I wonder if the SEC would find them worthy. Texas Tech is 6 hours from Dallas and Austin and doesn't have much cache in the state. Oklahoma State is under 2 hours from both Oklahoma City (31st TV market) and Tulsa (47th), but is a far second in the state to Oklahoma. It would be interesting to see if the SEC would be more interested in either of these schools when expanding west or would it more interested in Baylor (under 2 hours from Dallas and Austin) or Houston to try and help recruitment for the state of Texas.

There are some really interesting facets to this and I could see a real scattering of universities from the dismantling of the Big 12. Iowa State is by far in the worse shape with Kansas State right there depending on if the Kansas legislature tries to make them a package deal with Kansas.

So I have to ask, how does a Cal grad become an Iowa fan? I'm assuming that since you referenced Cal as your undergrad, that you went to grad school. Where did you go for grad school?