not every response is a counter-argument... but THIS post will be. Not the prior one.
(
EDIT: I kept looking after writing this... found a story mentioning "a Chicago Tribune report that the firm of William Blair & Co. had presented the
results of the commissioned study . " Then I followed a frew links withing those (NBC sports) that ended in a story where Alvarez.. the linker.. says Texas was NOT among the 15 schools that the Big Ten got reports on. Soooo... ignore the rest of this post that justifies me thinking that Texas was a target way back when? I know I read it somewhere.
here is a link saying Delany HAD NOT BEEN in contact with Texas ..that's a little stronger than, say, when trying to hire a coach, that you never offered)
****************** original, ultimately wrong, response follows ***************
All I am saying is the Big Ten was interested in Texas. They paid a consulting firm to come up with a report evaluating all the candidates (used very loosely.. lets make that "possible targets"). And Texas was number 1 and Notre Dame was number 2. Then Rutgers.
While I cannot find a link to that newspaper story.. a Chicago paper, iirc.. that referenced that report. I could find a
Frank-the-Tank blog post from 2010 (I know that sounds funny but hte dude obviously references a lot of sources and knows *something* ). It tries to value the added revenue of each.. prospective candidate.. and Texas if 1 and Rutgers 2. No Notre Dame was considered.. and since they are not even in a conference that seems reasonable.
Now clearly, the consulting firm, iirc, did not consider USC or UCLA as possible targets. Now while Delany (or his people) did not even consider those teams because of non-contiguous states... they did seem to ask texas to be included in that report. Otherwise, why would I remember the order was Texas-ND-Rutgers?
I do think Delany considered Texas a viable target.. just like Notre Dame.. but he got neither. ND wanted its independence.. tradition. Texas had its own plan and was the kind of the Big XII.. the Big Ten probably seemed risky to them and their travelling fan base / donors were likely not interested.
Texas decision to join the SEC is not a repudiation of the Big Ten's interest earlier. As I said, I think A&M forced the issue.