Someone over on the dirt site posted an article that is supposedly of UT wanting to leave XII..? And ranked a "tier system" for all schools...
Iowa State/ Kansas/ Oklahoma/ Oklahoma State/ Texas/ TCU/ Texas Tech/ Colorado/ Utah/ Arizona/ Arizona State/ USC/ Oregon/ Washington = 14...
That's 9 AAU brands, not counting if merged league could add one of (or both) UCLA &/ or California too, giving double-digit AAU schools & rivalries...
---
Originally posted by OU48A View Post
This is not wrong from the perspective of UT.... Clearly not all Texas people are happy with this Big 12. https://www.burntorangenation.com/20...ger-conference
Declarative statement: Texas needs to be in a new, or different, athletic conference.
What would be ideal? What’s the goal? Who from the current Big 12 2 needs to stay . . . could stay . . . might have to stay to keep the league roster at a decent size . . . who needs to go? What schools would be the best targets for a larger, or a retooled, Big 12?
This is written from a SOLELY Texas perspective. The future for Baylor or Iowa State is a topic for somebody in Waco or Ames.
I would hope our athletic director and our administration have been working on this issue for several years.
If not, they’re probably not going to position us any better than we currently are. Which is, I suppose, OK when/if/BIG IF we get the football program somewhere close to what it was the first decade of this century.
Second declarative statement: I don’t think where we are is acceptable.
Simply put: We need a conference with a larger footprint. I’ll describe footprint as a geographic reach or spread that takes in as many Tier 1 and Tier 2 schools as possible (read on); a conference that covers as many states/regions as possible. For excellence at this model, look at the revamped B1G and SEC, though the former has some flaws along with many excellent aspects. I’ll do a conference breakdown in a separate story in a day or two.
I approach this "Texas’ place in the near the future" with the belief that we can do better. That we have the clout, we have money, we have (hopefully) the leadership and foresight to make it happen.
We pretty much had what you’d want for the 15-year period ending in 2010. I believe the Big XII, or a new conference we help start, NEEDS Texas.
Yes, we need conference brethren. But they need us (and Oklahoma) more than we need them. A package deal of Texas and Oklahoma, just the two, would make every conference in the country snap to attention and light up the phone lines. We are the IT factor.
As Reggie Jackson famously said, "We are the straw that stirs the drink." We should not accept, or support, conference members, or prospective members, that have a smaller reach, fewer resources, than we do – simply because it makes sense on the map.
We can do this because we can deliver significant as in massive dollars and lots of TV viewers and plenty of fans who will travel anywhere, given program success and the right conference membership. Much more on this in my overview of the Big 12.
There will be several parts to this prospectus. I’ll offer opinions, which I back up (maybe not very well). There will be potential solutions, several, which will come at the end.
Declarative statement No. 3: The current conference does not serve our needs.
Neither did the Southwest Conference . . . not as the college game became more national, and more and bigger markets and fan followings and potential television viewers became critically important.
The original Big 12 served us well. It fit what I’ll call the "right template" as to quality and makeup of member institutions. It was geographically coherent. The breakup of the original Big 12 has left us competing (not well, much of the time; that’s a coaching issue) with a shallow, hollow league with too few heavy hitters to attract the kind of TV package – and thus, the recruiting clout and multiple major bowl chances each year – that the University of Texas can, and should, demand.
part 2
https://www.burntorangenation.com/20...ower-5-schools
I wrote yesterday about the need for Texas to find new partners in a new conference – or, new members in a revamped Big 12. Need, as in why stay in a conference with schools that are in smaller states, that have smaller budgets, and that rely on Texas and Oklahoma to retain their Power 5 status?
Today, I look the 65 schools that constitute Power 5. I’ll do this by placing schools in tiers, from strongest to weakest: State or public schools first, followed by the private/church schools.
The best thing a conference can have – speaking from a football point of view, but it can include other sports – is what I call PRIMARY STATE universities. This is the top, the elite of the elite athletic programs, especially football, in larger states. Or schools that have large student enrollment and ample booster backing and the kind of facilities that can/should produce regular Top 10 to 15 finishes.
There are around a dozen of these PRIMARY STATE schools: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Texas and, I suppose, Washington and Oregon. This is Tier 1. California is its own little (well, too big) world. No easy fit from the Golden State in this tier.
Tier 2 is major public universities, many in mid-size states, some in larger states that are not the PRIMARY STATE university. (Texas A&M readers are not going to like this designation.) This group consists of Tennessee, Texas A&M, Missouri, Auburn, Colorado, UCLA, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan State, Florida State, Miami, Clemson, North Carolina and Louisville. Clemson is Tier 1 – but it hasn’t been in the past and it might regress once the current head coach leaves; South Carolina is not a large state and not every coach will recruit like Dabo Swinney does. Wisconsin has been Tier 1 for close to 15 years, but it wasn’t for a long time and it’s easy to see where it could fall down a rung, or two, as has happened to Nebraska, Tennessee, Arkansas.
Tennessee belongs in Tier 1 – it has the size and backing but has made a series of dreadful coaching and administrative decisions and is decidedly a rung below the big four (six, with Texas A&M and Auburn) in the SEC.
Tier 3 is a smaller/less-financed version of Tier 2. Mostly smaller states: One or both of the Arizona schools fit here, one or both of the Mississippi schools, Utah, Arkansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, Indiana, Kentucky, South Carolina, Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh, North Carolina State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, West Virginia. You could argue Virginia Tech belongs higher; it’s the largest public school in its state, but it’s almost in West Virginia geographically, and has displayed – in recent seasons – a significant slip from the excellence of the previous two decades.
Tier 4 is Tier 3 on a smaller level . . . Oregon State, Washington State, Cal-Berkeley, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Maryland, Purdue, Rutgers, Illinois. It’s important to look at where a school CURRENTLY IS, and what it’s likely to be over the next decade. Not what’s happened in the past. K-State was Tier 2 until recently, probably ceilings at Tier 3 unless the 50-year-old version of Bill Snyder resurfaces.
Private/Church – Notre Dame and USC are on the Tier 1 level . . . Stanford might be – it clearly is when the school’s entire sports program is considered – but I’m putting the Cardinal in Tier 2 . . . Baylor, TCU, Boston College, Virginia, Northwestern, Syracuse are Tier 3, though the Orange are trying hard for Tier 4 . . . Georgia Tech, Duke, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt are Tier 4. You could put the first two of these higher; Duke belongs in Tier 3 as long as Mike Krzyzewski is running the basketball program. Some of these have had stretches where they were Tier 3.
Brigham Young is classed as a Group of 5 member; they’re a football independent I would rank below Stanford and pretty close to Northwestern or UVa. BYU is close to Tier 3 status except that its football schedule is weak enough (largely Group of 5 teams) that it’s not considered Power-5.
The placement is arbitrary. The right coach could take a Nebraska or Louisville close to Tier 1. The wrong coach could take an Oregon or a Texas to Tier 3. (Don’t say it; I was already thinking it . . .)
--- I personally have no issues [as I've said before] of Oklahoma looking to be in a larger footprint (along with UT)...In doing so together as to hold the most logic, but to think an expansion/ merger isn't an option would be false...Tier 1SEC - Alabama, Florida, Georgia, LSU,ACC - Clemson, Notre DameB1G - Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, WisconsinXVI - Oklahoma, Texas, Washington, Oregon, USCTier 2SEC - Tennessee, Texas A&M, Missouri, Auburn,ACC - Florida State, Miami, North Carolina, LouisvilleB1G - Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan State,XVI - Colorado, UCLA, StanfordTier 3SEC - Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Arkansas, Kentucky, South Carolina,ACC - Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh, North Carolina State, West Virginia, Boston College, Virginia, SyracuseB1G - Nebraska, Minnesota, Indiana, Northwestern,XVI - Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, TCUTier 4SEC - VanderbiltACC - Georgia Tech, Duke, Wake Forest, DukeB1G - Maryland, Purdue, Rutgers, IllinoisXVI - California, Kansas, Iowa State
Note, that Nebraska, 1 decade after the move, by this opinion, has the Cornhuskers as "Tier 3" take it as such..?Again, the "XVI" stacks up well as an option for OU & UT, as logistically, Great Lakes west is 999 miles for UT...Now, keep in mind, that article is subjectively based on opinion, as well as teams rated, meh XII needs growth...And growth UCF/ USF is not the same as [potentially] Oklahoma & Texas weilding power to raid USC/ Oregon...
---
My thoughts are this stuff's still somewhat fluid especially if we may be looking at an impending market correction before the 2025 GoR...
Keep in mind this proposed alignment would pay 14 members $65 million each/ and a 16 member setup would still pay $57 million (before a 3rd tier)...
That's before discuss of 3rd tier backed by Disney streamed on ESPN+, can place 1st & 2nd tier games on ABC/ ESPN/ ESPN2... *Split tier 1 on CBS..?