I like our conference. I don’t like our bowl tie ins and the fact that we don’t get the pay and opportunity to play for a National Championship. If the AAC could somehow obtain those things, then it would be golden. But until that happens, we should strive better.
5 Likes
the question is do we have the political muscle to threaten the states big 12 school’s funding if they don’t add UH in an expansion situation
similar to the lbtg bathroom travel blockage by california…forbid california schools from playing in Texas if the big 12 doesn’t add UH
UT haven’t sold that land yet…they will use it against us again. We will let y’all in, if y’all let us build UT Houston. I say no, I’d stay in the AAC rather than allow UT Houston.
3 Likes
I agree!
Tell me what you guys would prefer IF the TV deal and bowl tie-ins are comparable.
- Join a gutted Big 12 minus UT, OU and possibly Kansas OR 2)remain in the AAC with east coast exposure and with developing rivals we enjoy?
I’m thinking if UT and OU bolt the Big 12 the next TV negotiation will be substantially les for the Bi12 leftovers.
I would much rather remain in the AAC then join the Big12 which would essentially be a flyover States conference + Texas Tech + small Christian schools in Texas
Now, if they unofficially “merge” with the best of the AAC (UH, UC, UM, UCF, etc.), I’ll entertain that option.
1 Like
I’ve said ad nauseam that money is a big consideration in conference affiliation but is by no means the ONLY consideration. If it were the only consideration, USC would be jockeying for Big 10 membership.
The biggest reason Colorado gave for going to to PAC 12 was not that it’s a huge financial windfall. It was that the largest concentration of CU alums outside of the state of Colorado live on the west coast.
As far as trying to get UH pull to force the Big 12 to bring in UH with USC - Doesn’t exist now. No need to change the voting requirements from 8 to 6. The only political pull would be against Big 12 public schools in Texas, of which only Texas and Tx Tech apply. TCU and Baylor being private are not subject to the same political powers that be, so still 8 schools that can vote to expand.
Very small chance the Big 12 tries to get just USC. More likely they would try for 4 Pac schools if any. That would create a western division to control travel and rivalries. The Big 12 also owns the Big 14 name already.
The B12 is set to make $40M per team. That means each new school would have to carry itself by first bringing in $40M plus more that a 5% bump to each existing school.
USC and maybe Oregon can do it but I do not think any of the other schools can. The B12 doesn’t have a network to collect cable subscriber fees so a new territory isn’t really going to pay a new school way into the B12.
If one school is worth $40M of its televised home games, why don’t it go independent?
I don’t think it will happen but I think it could be USC and another nationally relevant school.
Independence is tough. It’s more than the TV deal. There’s also scheduling difficulties and bowl tie ins. Also, a school’s TV value can ebb and flow over time depending on their success.
There’s a reason Notre Dame decided to align with the ACC. If being indy was hard for them, it would be harder for anyone else.
2 Likes
With conferences, I do think the idea of the whole is greater than the sum of its parts is applicable. It is not simply the ratings on one teams TV games.
Also as an independent, who would they play, as I doubt the PAC schools would be willing to keep them on the schedule, and there are not many other west coast options for a full schedule.
I guess the Athletic has to write about something and this was what they came up with.