I don't live in Texas, but the feedback that I've received from pretty knowledgable UT alums is that they don't have any emotional ties to the Big 12 at all and they are very open to moving to either the Big Ten or Pac-10. Please take a look at how Texas ended up in the Big 12 in the first place:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/MYSA081405_3N_SWCbaylor_tech_1ca3e1c…
As you'll see, after the SWC imploded, Texas approached the Pac-10 as its first option. Stanford rejected Texas, which killed the move because the Pac-10 requires a unanimous vote to expand. Texas then approached... the Big Ten. The Big Ten was interested but was in the midst of a 4-year moratorium after having just added Penn State. In both cases, Texas would've left Texas A&M behind (who was looking for the spot in the SEC that eventually went to Arkansas). It was only after all of that when Texas and Texas A&M approached the Big 8 to form a 10-team conference. Neither of them wanted anything to do with the other Texas-based SWC schools, but politicians in Texas got wind of the plan and supporters of Baylor (specifically then-Gov. Ann Richards) and Texas Tech forced UT and A&M to take those schools along.
So, UT was essentially forced to go to a conference that was its 3rd option with 2 Texas-based schools that it no longer wanted to be with. I'm not saying that Texas to the Big Ten is a probability at all - it could very well be killed by Texas state politicians. However, the University of Texas as an institution and a good portion of its alums understand that the Big 12 is not very stable, especially if Missouri (which represents the largest population base in the Big 12 other than the state of Texas) leaves. The prospect of Mizzou leaving is the catalyst for worrying that the Big 12 looks a lot like the SWC that broke down back in the 1990s. If you realize how incredible the Big Ten's TV and other conference-level revenue is compared to the Big 12 as of today, that's exacerbated even further with Mizzou leaving. That alone would get Texas to at least seriously consider the Big Ten to be an option.
Once again, I'm not saying that this is a probability. However, look at the history of how Texas approached the Pac-10 and Big Ten about 15 years ago. This isn't a situation where it can be passed off as the same as suggesting that the Big Ten invite USC or Florida. The Big 12 is much weaker and unstable than a lot of people realize (which is why schools like Mizzou would want to jump in the first place). If any Big 12 school might look to make a move, why should the Big Ten settle for anything less than the top school in that conference? By the same token, Texas dominated a weak SWC and was left scrambling when it broke down, so it will examine the Big Ten if only as a CYA measure.
That's part of why the Big 12 conference commissioner at that time ended up leaving his job to run... the Big Ten Network. Texas wanted the ability to start is own cable network instead. It hasn't gotten off of the ground yet, so that's part of the reason why there might be a sense of urgency on the Big Ten's part to invite Texas before that happens (as Texas might look at the costs and time of starting its own network up and determine that it would rather be participate with the Big Ten Network).
I've always been a big fan of MGoBlog even as an Illinois alum. I agree with you that a 14-school conference is unwieldy and personally don't want to see that happen. The reason why I've discussed it at length is because there is a ridiculous number of people out on the Interweb that are completely convinced that this is indeed the Big Ten's plan (i.e. it would add Syracuse, Rutgers and Pitt or Mizzou, Kansas and Nebraska all at once). What I've tried to point out is that there is a limited scenario where the Big Ten would go up to 14 schools: if the Big Ten truly wants Texas, it might take Texas A&M as well to quell the possible political firestorm in that state and then a 14th member would be necessary on top of them. Other than that, I don't want or foresee a 14-school Big Ten.
I personally like Pitt, but there's been one thing that Jim Delaney and the Big Ten has made clear with expansion: a new school needs to add a new market (or in the case of Notre Dame, add a true national name). Pitt doesn't bring a new market because Penn State already covers it and you can't really call it a national name. It's sad because Pitt is definitely a lot better athletic and academic fit than Syracuse and Rutgers on a lot of levels, yet the lack of a new market is what will doom Pitt's bid from what the Big Ten has openly stated is the baseline criteria.
Anyway, the standard is who would the Big Ten add that wouldn't legtimately cause buyer's remorse if Notre Dame all of the sudden wants to join a conference in a decade. Do Pitt or Mizzou meet that standard? Nebraska? Texas? Anyone else?
Recent Comments