Texas Longhorns: Pac-10 Makes More Sense Than Big 10

There has been much talk about what a great thing it would be if Texas joined the Big 10. Not surprisingly, virtually none of it has been coming from Texas fans.

Instead, most of it has come from Big 10 fans who are convinced that being in their glorious conference would be such a great deal for anyone.

In this case, Texas should be happy trading 11-2 and 12-1 records every year for 9-3 or 8-4. They should also be happy to give up being the top Big 12 program to become a middling one—not to mention, an outsider and stepchild—in a conference where they share no cultural, political, geographical, traditional ties, or interests with no other institution.

The rest of the talk has mostly been from fans who don't like their teams competing against the Big 12 on the football field where they generally come up short, and simply want to weaken, or even cause the conference's demise. In both scenarios, it's those who are putting their own best interests in mind before Texas'.

Do any of these folks care that joining the Big 10 would practically make it impossible for Texas to win another national title?

Nope.

Instead, Big 10 fans want Texas so their powerhouses can win national titles, and fans of other conferences want the Big 12 out of the way so their teams can do the same.

This is why these people love pointing out the great benefits for Texas to join the Big 10 by only saying it will bring them more money and help their academic reputation. None of them ever mention how it will aid Texas' football program from a short and long-term perspective because they know that it doesn't. That's why they are so flippant when saying Texas can continue playing out-of-conference games against other Big 12 teams to preserve their rivalries.

The number of Big 10 teams that would do the same? Ohio State? Penn State? Iowa? Wisconsin? Anyone? Please, don't talk to me about how Michigan plays Notre Dame until the Irish beat a top five team or wins a major bowl game.

As Big 10 fans and others want the Big 12 to roll over and die so that they can celebrate by feeding off meat from its decaying carcass, let's think about Texas for a second.

The Pac-10 is actually a better option for Longhorns. It would mean a Pac-10 network that includes the California and Texas markets, not to mention other markets like Phoenix, Seattle, and Portland. Since Colorado would certainly come too, add Denver to the list as well. Other potential options include Utah or BYU with Salt Lake City's market. Financially, this would make it very competitive with the Big 10.

As a member of the Pac-10, Texas also has a chance to compete for the top spot with USC. This means they could come in on their own terms and write their own ticket. That is a clear contrast to the Big 10 who would regard the addition of Texas as doing them a favor, making them take a back seat behind traditional Big 10 powerhouses. Texas would be able to enter the Pac-10 on better terms, financially among others, than the Big 10, and also win more battles down the road.

The crowd that argues for the academic benefit of Texas moving to the Big 10 needs to look at some of the schools in the Pac-10: Arizona, Washington, USC, UCLA, UC-Berkeley, and Stanford. The Big 10's lower tier may be stronger because they don't have schools like WSU and Oregon State, but the Pac-10 is stronger at the top with UCLA, UC-Berkeley, and Stanford.

Texas has what is often referred to as the "Second Silicon Valley" in terms of engineering research. Why not join up with the original? That's just with engineering and the hard sciences. Texas would benefit more in the liberal arts by being in the Pac-10 than the Big 10.

As far as travel costs are concerned, even with Texas' proximity to Arizona, Arizona State, and Colorado, they're likely going to be higher than they would in a more geographically favorable conference like the Big 10.

That's the only real downside.

On the other hand, Texas would more than make up for that downside by not having to play powerhouses that take football seriously like Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State.

It would be just the Longhorns' luck if Illinois, who could and should be a powerhouse, also started taking football seriously after Texas joins by not hiring coaches like John Mackovic, Ron Turner, and Ron Zook. The same if Michigan State and Minnesota, who actually want to be better, were to find out how to do as Iowa and Wisconsin have.

Instead, Texas would play the Pac-10.

USC? Now that's a challenge.

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State, Arizona, Arizona State, Cal, Stanford, and UCLA? Not so much.

Pac-10 fans love to promote and defend their conference's football. More power to them. We SEC fans do the same for our conference's academics, and can talk about the great strides Florida, Georgia, and Ole Miss have made in recent years. The same goes for Alabama's medical programs, Auburn's engineering programs, and all other research that goes on at SEC institutions.

At the end of the day, the SEC knows it doesn't match the level of academics in the Pac-10, Big 10, and ACC. Pac-10 fans should similarly admit that Texas would do very well for itself against Pac-10 competition. 

Pac-10 competition would allow Texas to continue playing Oklahoma and Texas A&M every year. If Texas joins the Pac-10, their biggest games would be the Pac-10 championship game—likely against USC—Oklahoma, and Texas A&M. That isn't much tougher than the road Texas currently navigates.

The Big 10 is a completely different story. Their biggest games then would be against Oklahoma, Texas A&M, two against Ohio State/Michigan/Penn State, and two more against the Wisconsin/Iowa/Illinois group. Even Illinois has been to two BCS bowl games this past decade.

Is the Big 10  better than the Pac-10? Well, the results of the Rose Bowl 10 years before Pete Carroll got USC going again should answer that question. Case in point: The Pac-10 was 0-3 against Wisconsin's single wing offense. Granted, the Pac-10 would improve by virtue of adding the Longhorns. Even more damaging, the Pac-10 only won two Rose Bowls between 1993-2004, coming from wins over Northwestern and Purdue.

The Big 10 would improve as well. The Longhorns would be more concerned with Ohio State improving, more so than Oregon. Texas would also get more recruits from California as a result of joining the Pac-10 than they would from Ohio and Pennsylvania from joining the Big 10. 

Basically, Texas would go from having to get by Oklahoma to win the Big 12, to having to get by USC to win the Pac-10. Like it or not, it's still true, Pac-10 fans. Compare the average recruiting class rankings for Texas and any Pac-10 team besides USC for the past 10 years to understand my point. It's a wash.

Sure, they would still have out-of-conference games against Oklahoma and Texas A&M, but they could lose to Oklahoma and still beat USC in the conference title game to make a national title game. They could beat Oklahoma, lose to USC, and still get an at-large bid to a BCS game. That's very different from having to play Oklahoma, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, and Iowa in the regular season. Texas could go 3-2 against those teams and get squat.

Advantage, Pac-10.

Another drawback is the Pac-10 championship game being in Los Angeles. However, if you are Texas, would you rather play the Pac-10 championship game in Los Angeles, or the Big 10 championship game—given they create one—in Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, or Indianapolis? Where would Texas fans rather be during the first week of December? All you have to do is go to any beach in Southern California, and see all the Big 10 fans to have your answer!

Texas to the Big 10? Horrible idea. Texas to the Pac-10? Much better in the Longhorns' interests.