Most scuttlebutt says No to a Texas-Big Ten marriage

The closer to Austin you get, the less likely a Texas-to-the-Big Ten scenario sounds.

From Kirk Bohls of the Austin American-Statesman:

I'll put this as succinctly as possible: Texas isn't joining the Big Ten. No way, no how. So put down your Ohio State pompoms and that JoePa pennant. . . .

I've been assured by higher-ups at Texas that this is nothing more than a wishlist on the Big Ten's part. As one school official said, "We're the good-looking girl at the dance." Another even higher up the food chain told me, "It ain't going to happen."

No one could blame the Big Ten for asking Texas out. If I were commissioner Jim Delany, I'd ask. Maybe the league is doing it to put more pressure on Notre Dame to come aboard. . . .

there are too many obstacles that would keep Texas from bolting the Big 12 and going north.

Chief among them would be the enormous demands of travel, the inordinate amount of missed classes by all the sports teams and the likelihood that the Texas Legislature would insist that Texas A&M accompany Texas to the Big Ten. Where'd the governor go to school again?

I can't imagine a single Longhorns coach wanting to trade in the Big 12 for the Big Ten. Does Mack Brown really want to play a late November game in Madison? Augie Garrido wouldn't have a home date in April or May because the Big Ten schools would all have to trek down here in February and March.

Would fans travel to basketball road games in Iowa City and East Lansing? To tennis matches? Cross country meets? Highly unlikely.

Well-heeled fans and story-hungry media would love the move. But it's not going to happen.

From Jimmy Burch of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

Despite leaning on an unnamed source whose “ties to the Big 10” may or may not be strong ones, the (Lawrence Journal-World) report may be accurate. But that does not mean Texas officials are eagerly perched, anxious to jump to another conference. Far from it, frankly, if you listen to the folks in Austin. Publicly or privately.

After news of the Big Ten's expansion plans surfaced in December, Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds made it clear that his school understands the logistical challenges (nightmares?) that would be involved with competing as a Big Ten member in all the non-revenue sports _ men's and women's _ fielded by the school.

“It (the Big 10) is a long ways away,” Dodds said at the time. “We're a member of the Big 12. We helped put the Big 12 together.” . . .

Granted, the school toyed with the idea of Pac-10 membership during the dying days of the Southwest Conference, which coincided with the formation of the Big 12. But at that time, Texas officials knew a jump to another league was inevitable and checked out the Pac-10 possibilities.

Another move is not necessary in today's economic climate. And it only stands to reason that Big Ten administrators would sound out Texas' interest as part of their due diligence in following up on announced plans to explore expansion options for the next 12 to 18 months.

From Richard Justice of the Houston Chronicle:

On one level, this isn't really news. Texas is No. 1 in terms of generating revenues, media coverage, merchandise sales, etc. Texas is the school every other is measured against. So the idea that the Big Ten would want Texas is a giant, ''Duhhhhhh!''

Of course, the Big Ten wants Texas. So does the Pac 10, SEC, Big East and ACC. Texas can play where it wants to play. . . .

In weighing the pros and cons, there's just one huge one for Texas. That's the long-distance travel. One of the selling points for recruits is that parents will have relatively easy trips to Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor and Oklahoma State to see their kids. . . .

Would Texas make more money? I have no idea. I would presume so. Why else would it come up? . . .

In the end, I can't see why Texas would do it unless the money is dramatically better. Seeing how Texas football generated around $80 million, it's hard to see it being more.

From Blair Kerkhoff of the Kansas City Star:

The reports make the conference seem ripe for picking because its current TV deals don't measure up the Big Ten's. When the Missouri governor preens for the Big Ten, and the message boards at Colorado and Texas blow up with fans certain the grass is greener elsewhere the Big 12 has public relations problem. . . .

Texas to the Big Ten doesn't make much sense. Yes, there's more revenue for sports and academics. But has money ever been an issue with the Longhorns? Athletic Director DeLoss Dodds like to say, “We are the Joneses.” Everybody else keeps up with Texas.

The Longhorns have plenty going for it in the Big 12, including a revenue-sharing formula to their liking, the best regular-season game in college football (Oklahoma) and conference championship contenders in every sport. Texas already has some of the deepest pockets in all of college sports.

And there's talk of the school starting its own TV network for its non-Big 12 contracted games. That wouldn't happen in a conference with its own network.

From Jon Solomon of the Birmingham News:

Texas to the Big Ten would be a game-changer.

It would be the confirmation college athletics is headed to super conferences with a total of 30 or 40 schools. It would be a stark reminder that there's a significant gap between the haves and have-nots of Division I-A football. It might leave many Division I universities asking whether they actually belong in that classification. Get ready for conference expansion to be the major issue in college athletics over the next year.

As it is, Texas already receives the most amount of TV money from the Big 12. When the Big 12 was created in the mid-1990s, Texas negotiated a larger chunk of TV revenue by basing half of the TV money pot off TV appearances. It's also true that Texas' rivals are all in the Big 12, although nothing's stopping Texas from still playing Oklahoma and/or Texas A&M in non-conference games.

So why would Texas leave? For more than a year, the Longhorns have been studying the creation of their own state-wide TV network. Clearly, they think there's more TV money out there than what they're currently getting through the Big 12. Frankly, they're right. Maybe that additional money is through a Big Ten Network that's already been created and has a national audience.

Big Ten schools clear $9 to $10 million more annually in TV revenue than Big 12 schools. Every SEC and Big Ten school receives a larger annual conference payout than Texas gets from the Big 12. Yes, that includes Vanderbilt and Northwestern. As Texas took home $10.2 million from the Big 12 in 2007-08, every Big Ten school was enjoying around $18.8 million. Imagine what the Big Ten numbers would look like with Texas.

From Teddy Greenstien of the Chicago Tribune:

Yes, Texas would make more money from the Big Ten's television agreements, but would that be enough to compensate for flying non-revenue teams to Minneapolis and State College rather, than bussing them to Waco and College Station?

"How could the state of Texas even let them go? I don't see it," the Big Ten source said.

A source from another conference said the Big Ten, which could expand to 12 teams, 14 teams or bond with another league to form a super-conference, will make its decision strictly on finances.

"It will be purely an economic decision," the source said.

Meaning if the league decides schools such as Missouri, Pittsburgh and Rutgers qualify on the athletic and academic fronts, the decision on whether to extend invitations will come down to university presidents asking: Which, if any institutions, can make us the most money?