Texas and Big Ten Expansion: Great for the Big Ten But HORRIBLE for Texas!

The Big Ten is seeking to expand, and, of course, its fans have its sights set on Texas. The benefits to the Big Ten are obvious: better TV contracts including more money for the Big Ten Network, adding a top athletics program, plus all those Texas viewers and recruits. It is tempting for the Big Ten, but they should forget about it as a delusion and move forward.

It isn't going to happen, it would only result in the embarrassment of being turned down and whoever they go after next being the second choice, which would hamper the Big Ten's negotiating position, as they would be making the offer after having already been turned down already.

The reason why it isn't going to happen is that, despite the many benefits for the Big Ten that adding Texas would bring, it would have no benefit for Texas whatsoever. Big Ten fans, of course, love their conference and regard it as the best, and I am not going to debate the merits of the Big Ten academically or athletically. Quite the contrary, I admire both about the conference.

Instead, the simple fact is that despite the Big Ten's obvious merits in general, those merits will not benefit Texas specifically.

Big Ten fans cite money and academic reputation as the primary reason for Texas to make the jump. In doing so, Big Ten fans greatly overstate the University of Texas at Austin's need for either. If there is one thing that the University of Texas will never have a shortage of, it is money.

Just consider the entire state of Texas, the second most populous and one of the five wealthiest in the nation, as a blank check. Texas could raise the funds to cover any athletics need or want in a matter of days without batting an eye, and as it stands is one of the most profitable athletics departments in the country.

Of course, Texas has its long term athletics revenue to think about, as they won't have Mack Brown as their cash cow forever. But even when Mack Brown is no longer around, Texas will still have its other many attributes to cut whatever deal they need or want in the future.

As far as academics goes, Big Ten fans would be interested to know that Texas is already one of the top universities in the country. The list of universities in the Big Ten that are incontrovertibly academically superior in reputation to Texas-Austin may be as small as two (Michigan and Northwestern) and is likely no greater than four.

Even Big Ten chauvinists (as well as those who generally have a low regard for southern universities) would be forced to acknowledge that Michigan State and Ohio State are clearly lesser regarded than Texas, and that Iowa, Penn State, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Indiana are in no position to claim superiority. So in addition to Michigan and Northwestern (and go ahead and throw in Illinois), we are talking about Wisconsin, Indiana and Purdue.

Surely even Big Ten chauvinists must realize that the academic benefit to Texas would not be very large. It is nothing approaching the benefit that FSU and Virginia Tech received from joining Duke, Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina in the ACC.

With that out of the way, let us talk about how joining the Big Ten would inconvenience Texas. First off, Texas basically rules the Big 12 because of its size, wealth, political clout, and success. They are not a big fish in a small pond, but the big fish in a big pond.

Why they would want to trade that for not only joining similar powerhouses in Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State, but being the new kid on the block and thus at or near the bottom of the totem pole is something that would have to be explained.

Texas would go from being, well, Texas in the Big 12 to having no more power or prestige in the Big Ten than Minnesota...clearly behind the big three of OSU, PSU and Michigan and no real advantage over Wisconsin and Iowa. Also, who would be Texas' partner with shared regional or geographical interests the way that Michigan-Michigan State or Indiana-Purdue can be? The amount of political clout that Texas would be surrendering is incredible.

Then there are competitive considerations, especially in football. Right now, Texas can rule the Big 12 indefinitely because the Big 12 depends on the state of Texas for elite talent, and of course Texas-Austin dominates that talent market. But join the Big Ten, and they are competing with universities that have their own recruiting networks, including Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, and Illinois with their own in-state or nearby talent markets.

Granted, Texas is as talented or more than those programs right now, but by joining the Big 12, those schools would be better able to recruit in Texas. Maybe they wouldn't get any prospects that Texas really wants, but they WOULD be able to get more of the four and highly desirable three-star prospects that would otherwise go to the other Big 12 schools, as well as the many Texas products who already leave the Big 12.

Imagine Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State with more players from Texas at WR, RB, DE, LB, and DB added to their existing talent cores. That helps those schools much more than it would help Texas, yet Texas would have to beat those schools.

And that is not all. Even among the Big Ten programs that are not regular BCS bowl challengers, they would face challenges for a southern university that has abandoned its power football roots and now relies on a finesse spread passing game and speed on defense. Thus, it is not in the interests of Texas to play road games in November in places like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan State and Northwestern, cold weather games against power football teams. 

And then there is the Big Ten championship game. Such a game would be held in December and in a place like Philadelphia, Chicago or Detroit. In order to win the Big 12, Texas would have to overcome the same obstacles that Big Ten fans claim that their teams do in having to travel to places like California, Arizona and Florida to play bowl games. Texas versus Ohio State, Michigan, or Penn State in Chicago in December?

Who is going to win that game seven times out of 10? Texas would fare no better than would OSU, Michigan or Penn State in an SEC or Pac-10 title game held in Atlanta or Los Angeles. 

Further, consider Texas' traditional rivals, most of whom are in the Big 12 (however some are now mid-majors and there is Arkansas in the SEC). Big Ten advocates would counter that Oklahoma and Texas A&M are the only ones that truly matter—at least on an annual basis—and that Texas is free to play them out of conference. Which is, of course, a thoroughly ridiculous idea.

What are, say, Ohio State and Penn State going to do in order to reciprocate Texas playing a current powerhouse (Oklahoma) and a potential powerhouse (A&M, who would replace Texas in the Big 12) out of conference IN ADDITION to their Big 10 schedule? Play Alabama and Virginia Tech every year? Or maybe USC and Miami? Not a chance.

Where the Big Ten would get major benefits from adding the Texas viewing and recruiting markets, Texas gets reduced political clout, having to play 3-4 cold weather road games a year, being placed at a huge disadvantage in the Big Ten title game, and having to play Oklahoma and Texas A&M out of conference.

So, Texas goes from being the big fish and a national title contender to seeing 9-3 as a successful season, and not so much because the Big Ten is so much better than Texas or the Big 12 as because Texas would bear the brunt of having to play 4-5 road games far outside its geographical region every year.

Again, even were the Big Ten to sweeten the deal by guaranteeing that Texas would get their conference road games out of the way by mid-October (something that the Big Ten schools who actually want to beat Texas would be loathe to agree to) Texas would still have the pleasure of opening every season with all those Big Ten road games.

Bottom line: If Texas goes anywhere, it would be the Pac-10, which would allow that conference to form a TV network that would rival the Big Ten network, and would give Texas whatever academic benefit it wants from being in a conference with Stanford, Cal-Berkeley, UCLA, Washington, USC and Arizona, and where Texas would enjoy political clout similar to what they now enjoy in their current conference.

Seriously, Big Ten fans, Texas would actually benefit more from joining TCU, Utah, and BYU in the Mountain West or the several former SWC members in Conference USA (SMU, Rice, Houston, UTEP) than joining the Big Ten. That would be a scenario that would allow Texas to basically be what Boise is now in the WAC, and would be the only thing that would make playing Oklahoma and Texas A&M out of conference a sensible idea.

Were Texas to run the table in the Mountain West or Conference USA plus beat Oklahoma and whatever other former Big 12 teams that they schedule out of conference, they would be guaranteed a spot in the BCS, and they would also be very hard to leave out of the national title game, especially in years where there are fewer than two undefeated teams. 

As a matter of fact, Texas would give the Mountain West an automatic bid, especially since in that scenario the MWC would bring in Boise and Houston and have Texas (UT, Houston), Colorado (CSU, which means Denver), Salt Lake City (Utah and BYU) and California (San Diego State) in terms of media markets, and also give them Texas, Utah, Boise, TCU and BYU as consistent top 15 programs on the field.

Not as much in terms of money or academic reputation as the Big Ten, but it would be more than worth it in retaining their political clout and rivalries while playing a schedule that actually gives them a chance, instead of the absurdity of having cold weather road games against Big 10 powerhouses plus still having to play Oklahoma and Texas A&M out of conference. 

So, leaving the Big 12 whiners (who prefer complaining about Texas' outsized influence in the conference to hiring coaches that can actually beat Mack Brown on the field; it can be done as Brown didn't exactly dominate the ACC while at North Carolina) behind to create a Mountain West Conference that would be better than the Big East while giving Texas maximum out of conference scheduling flexibility is something that Texas should consider as a viable option should the Big 12 insist on revenue sharing and measures designed to limit the Longhorns' recruiting prowess.

But the Big Ten is not an option for Texas. Before Big Ten fans claim "Texas is scared of the competition," Big Ten fans should ask themselves if they would want for their own institutions to suffer such political and competitive harm for a few extra million dollars a year that they don't really need and the privilege of affiliating with Michigan and Northwestern.