Friday, May 22, 2009

Longhorns to the ACC?

See comment two to the Who Takes Vick post.


  1. Texas loses an administrative decision and pulls a Cartman-- "screw you guys, i'm going home"

  2. Baskind thinks, and Oxey and I agree, that it is about (1) money and (2) recruiting. The Big 12 television market, excluding the State of Texas, consists of small market states (Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Colorado). A move to the ACC would greatly enlarge that market, and we all know that Longhorn fans will watch and travel. If A&M went along, then even better, because Texas would retain that traditional rivalry. The only other Big 12 team that the Longhorns care about is Oklahoma, who they still could include in their non-conference schedule. And, in the ACC the Horns could recruit in Florida, which (like Texas) is a top 5 high school football
    state. Plus, there aren't as many good teams in the ACC as there are in the SEC, so the Longhorns would have less competition, even though a move to the SEC seems like a more natural match. This is starting to make sense to me. Final point made by Baskind: the Longhorns must think that the increased t.v. revenue would make up for the increased travel costs, which would include costs for the non-revenue producing sports (baseball, tennis, swimming, etc).

  3. To bbl,

    I agree with Cartman -- always do. He is the source of my moral values. Those wimps Kyle and Stan are always trying to learn the proper lesson from each situation. Cartman, on the other hand and thinking like at true UT fan, simply wants what is best for Cartman. Applying that rationale, all college sports issues and questions should be resolved in a manner which advances the interest of UT.

  4. Of course it is about money, everything NCAA is about money. If it wasn't all about money there might be a rule about graduation rates for scholarship atheletes and eligibility for bowl games or NCAA tournaments. It sure will mean less interesting football in the midwest.