wingsauce7
Well-Known Member
Texas dudn't even have Wrestling!
True. I would feel bad for KSU personally. They'd be stuck most likely.Few people would cry about Baylor and TCU being left out, which is all but guaranteed.
Tech and Boone State might fare little better, but I don't see a league like the PAC or the SEC going, "Ohh, we want the Cowboys and Red Raiders!"
I don't really see a competitive upside to grabbing Texas , obviously they'd bring money but it's not the 60s and 70s anymore so I'm not sure it's that big of a deal on the field . Obviously if you can get OU but need to take Texas too then it's all good . Personally I'd rather have OU and Kansas because you add storied tradition in football and basketball as opposed to only football . I get the money aspect though so it'd likely need to be UT.
To me 18 teams makes more sense though so grabbing OU, Texas , Kansas and WVU would be my play
You expand based on TV sets and assets. You aren’t basing it on 5-8 years of on field performance. This is an incredibly narrow minded take
As opposed to Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State?
Personally I don't think it would ever happen, but as several have pointed out, if Texas has problems convincing kids to play for them, it has nothing to do with what conference they're in.
You expand based on TV sets and assets. You aren’t basing it on 5-8 years of on field performance. This is an incredibly narrow minded take
Money has been the only reason for any of the previous expansions. Some naive souls think it is for more altruistic reasons.
Purdue plays in the Big Ten. They're what booted the B1G, not the Big 12. If OSU doesn't shit the bed against Purdue, ya'll could've played 10 CCGs and it wouldn't have mattered.Gotta love the timing on this, right after the Big12 uses their superior CCG set up to boot the BIG completely out of the playoff picture SOURCES say BIG is targeting OU and Texas in 6 years
I smell fake news
No I said I understand the money aspect but I'm questioning if it's necessary competitively . If you're solely looking at revenue sports from a competition standpoint I think you're you're better off adding OU and KU. Clearly Texas brings the most cash thoughYou expand based on TV sets and assets. You aren’t basing it on 5-8 years of on field performance. This is an incredibly narrow minded take
You would still have the RRSO, the SEC is already in Texas, and what’s the difference in a plane ride to Nebyand a plane ride to Iowa State?As opposed to paying 3 in state rivals, the RRSO in Dallas, and okie light up the road. My point is if the big 12 blows up and the SEC moves in on the state, UT would be left out in the cold recruiting wise trying to convince parents a plane ride to Nebraska isn't that bad. The big 12 is in great shape, if anything they'll try to steal a pac 12 team or 2.
3 words.I'm sure most fans of the land thieves and rusty cows would love to play at historic places like Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State. But I'm not sure they would be all that thrilled to play Minnesota, Illinois and Rutgers. Hell, they are already punished by having to play in Lawrence, Lubbock and Waco.
I don't really see a competitive upside to grabbing Texas , obviously they'd bring money but it's not the 60s and 70s anymore so I'm not sure it's that big of a deal on the field . Obviously if you can get OU but need to take Texas too then it's all good . Personally I'd rather have OU and Kansas because you add storied tradition in football and basketball as opposed to only football . I get the money aspect though so it'd likely need to be UT.
To me 18 teams makes more sense though so grabbing OU, Texas , Kansas and WVU would be my play