Explaining Texas to the SEC

[harveycmd]

I've been listening to quite a few SEC talking heads opine on the "Texas won't run the SEC" mantra. I have yet to see or hear anyone grasp the totality of the dynamic at work. They keep wanting to talk about idiotic things like voting. Now, the proper analogy for Texas running the Big 12 isn't voting (you don't vote your way achievement) but rather influencing through power politics and economics. For example, the US runs NATO. Member countries have a vote, but they don't have the money and the power. The US has the money and power. That's the deal. As American citizens we think we should run NATO because we foot the bill and back it up with military strength. 

Likewise, Texas is more economically vibrant and has more overall political power than other SEC states because Texas has more overall wealth and has more depth of talent because of its population. Georgia and Florida can compete with Texas in these areas when viewed from a per capita perspective, but they lack the size to measure up in totality. I don't think these guys can wrap their minds around this. It's not a matter of completely dominating the football field. Obviously Texas hasn't done that. Texas provides the engine that literally powers the conference (Big 12 or SEC). Look at the roster for the Sooners and you will immediately see what this means. Texas won't exercise the same level of control over the SEC that they did over the Big 12, but you can't wish or vote away inherently natural strengths.

[Alex Butler]

Perfectly said, love the NATO analogy! I don’t think Texas necessarily wants to “run” the SEC anyway. If they keep rollin the way they are we’ll be happy just being a part of the whole. However, you’re so right the minute our power and influence is needed we will expect, naturally, a more significant voice. All that blustering is insecurity from the smaller states/schools that don’t want to be left outside looking in with all this restructuring going on in college athletics. 

[THookem]

Eventually there will be only 30 total teams in one single league.  So don’t get used to the SEC.  

[harveycmd]

5 minutes ago, THookem said:

Eventually there will be only 30 total teams in one single league.  So don’t get used to the SEC.  

I think something like this will happen, although I'd bet there will more than thirty. This will alter the dynamic, but the apex position Texas enjoys will remain. Someone might ask, "What about California?" California is declining and fragmented. As a result of this, there is not the same level of state pride in college athletics in California as there is in Texas.  

[Jack Lala]

36 minutes ago, harveycmd said:

I've been listening to quite a few SEC talking heads opine on the "Texas won't run the SEC" mantra. I have yet to see or hear anyone grasp the totality of the dynamic at work. They keep wanting to talk about idiotic things like voting. Now, the proper analogy for Texas running the Big 12 isn't voting (you don't vote your way achievement) but rather influencing through power politics and economics. For example, the US runs NATO. Member countries have a vote, but they don't have the money and the power. The US has the money and power. That's the deal. As American citizens we think we should run NATO because we foot the bill and back it up with military strength. 

Likewise, Texas is more economically vibrant and has more overall political power than other SEC states because Texas has more overall wealth and has more depth of talent because of its population. Georgia and Florida can compete with Texas in these areas when viewed from a per capita perspective, but they lack the size to measure up in totality. I don't think these guys can wrap their minds around this. It's not a matter of completely dominating the football field. Obviously Texas hasn't done that. Texas provides the engine that literally powers the conference (Big 12 or SEC). Look at the roster for the Sooners and you will immediately see what this means. Texas won't exercise the same level of control over the SEC that they did over the Big 12, but you can't wish or vote away inherently natural strengths.

You make solid arguments, especially the NATO analogy. Yet, I disagree to an extent. In that schools like Bama, Georgia, Tennessee and Florida have plenty of money and great alumni support. So I do agree that we will have influence just not as much as we did in the Big 12.

[TexasMDcoach]

TV revenue is why Texas carries so much sway and continues to do so. It is that simple really.  We have a gigantic fan base, alumni and state population that live and die for Texas football and sports.  Yes, we are a great academic institution and have political power etc as well.   We do not run the conference but we will always sit at the front of the table. 

[HookemTexas]

1 hour ago, TexasMDcoach said:

TV revenue is why Texas carries so much sway and continues to do so. It is that simple really.  We have a gigantic fan base, alumni and state population that live and die for Texas football and sports.  Yes, we are a great academic institution and have political power etc as well.   We do not run the conference but we will always sit at the front of the table. 

Completely agree, and while aggy likes to complain about it, when Texas is winning, the amount of non-alumni fans (aka t-shirt fans as defined by aggy) grows significantly compared to many other schools.  During my career, I've had many moments where I have met other Texas fans all around the world during travels on every continent (except Antartica, I haven't been there yet).