|
Post by gibbyb1 on Jul 22, 2021 10:12:26 GMT -5
I imagine the answers to this question will vary widely depending on the fandom of the answerer. Texas fan - no, not at all. Colorado, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Houston, etc... yeah. They'll have a different answer. SWC needed texas: texas didnt need SWC big 12 needs texas: texas doesnt need Big 12 SEC Doesn't need texas Texas needs SEC The SEC and every conference in the country would take Texas in a second. Texas is a great partner o. The only thing that matters to conferences, money. It’s also a terrific academic institution.
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Buckeye on Jul 22, 2021 10:15:02 GMT -5
Says the guy who has to resort to ad hominem. Thank you for conceding the debate via logical fallacy. Texas is absolutely toxic to their host conference, and it will be fun watching them bring down the evil empire of the SEC. I’m no Texas fan but this is silly. It would be mutually beneficial to both parties. Well it's good for Texas. They get to be in a division with their three biggest rivals in Oklahoma, Texas A&M and Arkansas. It kinda sucks for Oklahoma. They get to revive their rivalry with... Missouri? It really sucks for the Mississippi schools. They are basically not even in the SEC anymore, as they will be shoehorned into a West division with Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma with limited crossover play. LSU will be their only true blue SEC divisional opponent.
|
|
|
Post by Wjordan078 on Jul 22, 2021 10:17:35 GMT -5
I have no idea what they are thinking. Everything is about football, and I would like my chances of getting to the playoffs from the BIg 12 and beating SEC powers in a one off rather than trying to get to the playoffs and win the title through the grind of the SEC. Being in the SEC, though, would give them the benefit of a tough schedule and they would potentially have "good" loses that could actually be a major benefit with the possibility of an expanded football playoff.
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jul 22, 2021 10:20:12 GMT -5
I’m no Texas fan but this is silly. It would be mutually beneficial to both parties. Well it's good for Texas. They get to be in a division with their three biggest rivals in Oklahoma, Texas A&M and Arkansas. It kinda sucks for Oklahoma. They get to revive their rivalry with... Missouri? It really sucks for the Mississippi schools. They are basically not even in the SEC anymore, as they will be shoehorned into a West division with Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma with limited crossover play. LSU will be their only true blue SEC divisional opponent. This is the type conference move that Texas should have made in 94/95. Big 12 was always a band-aid solution that had the majority of schools looking elsewhere from the beginning. A&M wanted to be in the SEC even then, Missouri wanted to be in the Big 10, Colorado in the Pac 10, etc.
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Jul 22, 2021 10:20:24 GMT -5
I imagine the answers to this question will vary widely depending on the fandom of the answerer. Texas fan - no, not at all. Colorado, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Houston, etc... yeah. They'll have a different answer. SWC needed texas: texas didnt need SWC big 12 needs texas: texas doesnt need Big 12 SEC Doesn't need texas Texas needs SEC
Agreed that the SEC doesn't need Texas (since they already have a footprint in the state of Texas with Texas A&M). But, they do need to invite Texas to join their conference if it keeps them from joining the B1G, and elevates them to be the largest revenue-earning conference.
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Jul 22, 2021 10:23:06 GMT -5
SWC needed texas: texas didnt need SWC big 12 needs texas: texas doesnt need Big 12 SEC Doesn't need texas Texas needs SEC
Agreed that the SEC doesn't need Texas (since they already have a footprint in the state of Texas with Texas A&M). But, they do need to invite Texas to join their conference if it keeps them from joining the B1G, and elevates them to be the largest revenue-earning conference.
Respectfully disagree: SEC already has the biggest TV deal moving forward and this was made without Texas!
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Jul 22, 2021 10:25:14 GMT -5
SWC needed texas: texas didnt need SWC big 12 needs texas: texas doesnt need Big 12 SEC Doesn't need texas Texas needs SEC The SEC and every conference in the country would take Texas in a second. Texas is a great partner o. The only thing that matters to conferences, money. It’s also a terrific academic institution. Respectfully disagree: academics = check. Athletic department: ask A&M if they want them?
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Jul 22, 2021 10:27:09 GMT -5
Agreed that the SEC doesn't need Texas (since they already have a footprint in the state of Texas with Texas A&M). But, they do need to invite Texas to join their conference if it keeps them from joining the B1G, and elevates them to be the largest revenue-earning conference.
Respectfully disagree: SEC already has the biggest TV deal moving forward and this was made without Texas! You don't think the B1G would get the biggest TV deal if they added Texas? Most are projecting an additional $10-15 million in TV revenue per SEC school with the addition of Texas and Oklahoma; that would go to the B1G if they were the ones adding Texas and OU.
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Jul 22, 2021 10:29:29 GMT -5
The SEC and every conference in the country would take Texas in a second. Texas is a great partner o. The only thing that matters to conferences, money. It’s also a terrific academic institution. Respectfully disagree: academics = check. Athletic department: ask A&M if they want them? Yeah, A&M didn't want us. But, they wanted to keep playing us in all sports when they announced they were leaving for the SEC.
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Jul 22, 2021 10:32:36 GMT -5
Respectfully disagree: SEC already has the biggest TV deal moving forward and this was made without Texas! You don't think the B1G would get the biggest TV deal if they added Texas? Most are projecting an additional $10-15 million in TV revenue per SEC school with the addition of Texas and Oklahoma; that would go to the B1G if they were the ones adding Texas and OU. Who is “most projecting”? Claiming 2 schools increase total conference payout by 240 million? The league only gets a 300 mil. Tv contract without those 2: those 2 add another 240 mil?
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Buckeye on Jul 22, 2021 10:33:59 GMT -5
Well it's good for Texas. They get to be in a division with their three biggest rivals in Oklahoma, Texas A&M and Arkansas. It kinda sucks for Oklahoma. They get to revive their rivalry with... Missouri? It really sucks for the Mississippi schools. They are basically not even in the SEC anymore, as they will be shoehorned into a West division with Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma with limited crossover play. LSU will be their only true blue SEC divisional opponent. This is the type conference move that Texas should have made in 94/95. Big 12 was always a band-aid solution that had the majority of schools looking elsewhere from the beginning. A&M wanted to be in the SEC even then, Missouri wanted to be in the Big 10, Colorado in the Pac 10, etc. That's what they'd've done had they been forward thinking. Instead they decided that they wanted to be a big fish in a small pond. Only now, they are not even that. I hope the SEC is gentle.
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Jul 22, 2021 10:34:52 GMT -5
You don't think the B1G would get the biggest TV deal if they added Texas? Most are projecting an additional $10-15 million in TV revenue per SEC school with the addition of Texas and Oklahoma; that would go to the B1G if they were the ones adding Texas and OU. Who is “most projecting”? Claiming 2 schools increase total conference payout by 240 million? The league only gets a 300 mil. Tv contract without those 2: those 2 add another 240 mil? I'm stating what I've read in the last 18 hours or so; not making up numbers out of thin air. Regardless, we'll both know what's accurate when new TV deals are finalized.
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Jul 22, 2021 10:36:05 GMT -5
Respectfully disagree: academics = check. Athletic department: ask A&M if they want them? Yeah, A&M didn't want us. But, they wanted to keep playing us in all sports when they announced they were leaving for the SEC.
Respectfully disagree!
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Jul 22, 2021 10:37:11 GMT -5
Who is “most projecting”? Claiming 2 schools increase total conference payout by 240 million? The league only gets a 300 mil. Tv contract without those 2: those 2 add another 240 mil? I'm stating what I've read in the last 18 hours or so; not making up numbers out of thin air. Regardless, we'll both know what's accurate when new TV deals are finalized. Asking where you read? Not saying you created
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Jul 22, 2021 10:42:20 GMT -5
Yeah, A&M didn't want us. But, they wanted to keep playing us in all sports when they announced they were leaving for the SEC.
Respectfully disagree! You disagree that A&M wanted to continue its sports rivalry with Texas despite bolting for the SEC? Many quotes out there from A&M if you want to bother searching the internet.
|
|