Started By
Message
re: Texas To The SEC?
Posted on 9/20/13 at 8:25 am to Cooter Davenport
Posted on 9/20/13 at 8:25 am to Cooter Davenport
Its Texas vs Baylor, you don't think Texas would get what they want? Baylor fricked.
1
Posted on 9/20/13 at 8:26 am to beejon
Adding Texas and OU would allow Mizzou to move to the West and Alabama and Auburn to move to the East, fixing the schedule controversies.
Posted on 9/20/13 at 8:28 am to Cooter Davenport
quote:
They'd be in deep shite with that stadium debt and operating expenses. They'd sue UT for breaking the GOR and damaging them in the process. Baylor is Trial Lawyer U. Most of the nastiest litigants in this state are Baylor attorneys
These are all excellent points that I agree with.
Posted on 9/20/13 at 8:28 am to beejon
Obviously not aware as to how much Texas hates the SEC. They think TAMU is a good fit, and they do not mean it kindly when they say it.
Then you have to address the LHN. How would that work with the SEC Network. And the grant of rights the Big XII signed just a year ago.
Then you'd further have to explain why they would choose the SEC over what they wanted just 2 years ago - the PAC. Which TAMU ruined when they refused to go along because we are a bad fit in the PAC.
Personally, if they do leave the Big XII without the LHN or some new form of it, I think they would go PAC or ACC.
As to the SEC, with the way media rights are structured now, I think you'll see the SEC go after new states. Which I think will therefore exclude attractive teams like Texas, Clemson, Florida State. A team like UNC/NC State or Va/Va Tech would provide more money.
Then you have to address the LHN. How would that work with the SEC Network. And the grant of rights the Big XII signed just a year ago.
Then you'd further have to explain why they would choose the SEC over what they wanted just 2 years ago - the PAC. Which TAMU ruined when they refused to go along because we are a bad fit in the PAC.
Personally, if they do leave the Big XII without the LHN or some new form of it, I think they would go PAC or ACC.
As to the SEC, with the way media rights are structured now, I think you'll see the SEC go after new states. Which I think will therefore exclude attractive teams like Texas, Clemson, Florida State. A team like UNC/NC State or Va/Va Tech would provide more money.
This post was edited on 9/20/13 at 8:30 am
Posted on 9/20/13 at 8:29 am to Master of Sinanju
I'd prefer to see OU head west. They're a dinosaur like Nebraska. Once they quit playing games in Texas they'd go extinct.
Posted on 9/20/13 at 8:30 am to harmonics
quote:
The SEC already has Texas A&M. The SEC already has Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. The SEC doesn't need Texas for the same reasons the SEC doesn't need Florida State, Georgia Tech, or Clemson. frick Texas.
While I agree, frick Texas, you are crazy to think the SEC office wouldn't open their arms as wide as the grand canyon to allow UT and that money maker in the conference. A&M is a money machine but Texas is plenty big enough to have two schools and still increase veiwership and revenue as much as adding another state.
Posted on 9/20/13 at 8:41 am to Linkovich
Texas and Oklahoma would be awful additions to the SEC...let Texas slide into further irrevelance by joining the PAC 12...Oklahoma, who cares
Posted on 9/20/13 at 8:42 am to vl100butch
Hi Butch sir
Posted on 9/20/13 at 8:43 am to vl100butch
quote:
let Texas slide into further irrevelance
How exactly do you define irrelevance?
Posted on 9/20/13 at 8:43 am to Hugh McElroy
quote:
Literally every sentence in this post is false
No, it's all truth. The "fit" argument is dumb, because "fit" has nothing to do with league expansion.
A&M doesn't "fit" geographically, nor culturally.
And Texas has nothing to gain from joining the SEC. They're cashing mad checks, so there's no financial gain. They're on TV plenty enough already, so there's no exposure gain. They're in an easier conference, so there's no competetive advantage gain.
A&M had something to gain. They got out of big brother's shadow a bit and can do their own thing in a different conference. Texas calls the shots in the Big 12 and prints money when they need it, so why would they leave that?
Posted on 9/20/13 at 8:47 am to beejon
Maybe you should start drinking so that you don't start stupid threads
Posted on 9/20/13 at 9:08 am to HMFIC
HMFIC,
Your post was full of fail, but this part took the cake:
A&M just bought a Law School in Fort Worth which is a better location than CS. You want Med Schools on campus but Law Schools in your big metros. If you think the PUF is going to get messed with over conference re-alignment you truly know nothing about the State of Texas. First off, Texas isn't going to effectively give A&M $5 BILLION or so to join the SEC. That's more money than the entire SEC TV contract for all the schools. Second, the US Congress can privatize SS a lot easier than the PUF can be messed with. Third, if the PUF were to change it would shift from 2/3rds Texas, 1/3rd A&M to 1/3rd Texas, 1/3rd A&M, 1/3rd to all the other public schools. Third, Texas has already been forced to share more and more of the PUF with their satellite schools (UTSA, UTEP, UT Arlington, etc.), that is their compromise in staying with the same size student body.
Texas isn't coming to the SEC and the SEC doesn't want or need Texas. You might as well talk about Penn State or Ohio State, they are more realistic (and aren't happening either). OU isn't going to happen because OSU is attached and those 2 as a combo is a major crap sandwich financially.
Your post was full of fail, but this part took the cake:
quote:
- Missouri, Arkansas, LSU, and A&M all have reasons to prevent a Texas accession into the SEC (recruiting, bad blood from B12 or SWC). Not saying they will, just that they have reasons. But A&M could be bought out for the right price (ex: On Campus Law School, more equal distro of PUF, etc...). If A&M were to change it's tune it'd probably make accession into the conference a lot easier.
A&M just bought a Law School in Fort Worth which is a better location than CS. You want Med Schools on campus but Law Schools in your big metros. If you think the PUF is going to get messed with over conference re-alignment you truly know nothing about the State of Texas. First off, Texas isn't going to effectively give A&M $5 BILLION or so to join the SEC. That's more money than the entire SEC TV contract for all the schools. Second, the US Congress can privatize SS a lot easier than the PUF can be messed with. Third, if the PUF were to change it would shift from 2/3rds Texas, 1/3rd A&M to 1/3rd Texas, 1/3rd A&M, 1/3rd to all the other public schools. Third, Texas has already been forced to share more and more of the PUF with their satellite schools (UTSA, UTEP, UT Arlington, etc.), that is their compromise in staying with the same size student body.
Texas isn't coming to the SEC and the SEC doesn't want or need Texas. You might as well talk about Penn State or Ohio State, they are more realistic (and aren't happening either). OU isn't going to happen because OSU is attached and those 2 as a combo is a major crap sandwich financially.
Posted on 9/20/13 at 9:23 am to beejon
quote:
Texas would be a very good fit in the SEC
Are you this retarded in real life?
Posted on 9/20/13 at 9:25 am to beejon
quote:
Texas would no longer have the control they currently have over a conference
And that's why they will not be coming to the SEC. They are the jones' and all that bullshite.
Posted on 9/20/13 at 9:30 am to Spaceball 1
quote:
Its Texas vs Baylor, you don't think Texas would get what they want?
No, because when you look at the Big 12 contract it clearly states that on top of any exit fee there is a stipulation that a leaving entity is liable to pay for the difference in the media contract their leaving causes. Baylor held that knife to our throat when we left, and then since then a GOR has been added on top.
Oh and Baylor would get political help from Tech and TCU so it would never just be Baylor vs Texas. So a move alone to the SEC (or the B1G) is out of the question. Texas's best shot is the PAC where Tech can help give some political cover.
But maybe not, Larry Scott blamed the failure of the PAC 16 on Texas politics for a reason.
Posted on 9/20/13 at 9:30 am to HMFIC
quote:
more equal distro of PUF
Yeah, that's not going to happen. We be at 2/3, 1/3 and it will always be that way. The PUF continues to dwindle as a percentage of the annual budgets.
Thankfully A&M's own, non-PUF related, endowment is at $1.5 billion.
Posted on 9/20/13 at 9:36 am to Linkovich
quote:
the SEC office wouldn't open their arms as wide as the grand canyon
the SEC office doesn't decide who gets invited and who doesn't, the teams in the SEC do
there is no Dan Beebe tu puppet in this conference
keep dreaming as tu slips further into irrelevance as the punchline in burnt orange jokes
This post was edited on 9/20/13 at 9:37 am
Posted on 9/20/13 at 9:42 am to Old Sarge
It's far too much fun watching OU and Texas fade in the B12, frick em. Texas destroyed what use to be a great conference. They made their bed, let them sign a 100 year GOR and stay there with exciting matchups against the little sister state schools every week while the SEC drains the state of Texas of it's top talent.
Posted on 9/20/13 at 9:43 am to KaiserSoze99
Because we need to extend an invitation to a school that can't keep it's own conference from falling apart...multiple times - at least looks like they are headed that way again.
There's probably a good reason schools seem to want to bail on them.
There's probably a good reason schools seem to want to bail on them.
This post was edited on 9/20/13 at 9:45 am
Posted on 9/20/13 at 9:47 am to Cooter Davenport
quote:
UT is stuck with the kids.
Page 4 of 5
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News