TCU was a long time member of the SWC, 80-100 years? Then TCU was left out of the SWC-->Big 12 and bounced around finally ending up in what the WAC? Mountain West? Then brought back to the Big 12. I have worked most of my career in downtown Fort Worth and the work their alumni base did was very real. I'd be curious what their year-by-year historical revenue was from pre-SWC ending to current year. We're not TCU so not trying to make an actual comparison, but they did a great job rebuilding their program and surviving for the right time and even then it was probably just fortune that brought them back to the Big 12, but they did a lot of preparation or at least a lot of them will tell you they did. I know many of their alumni became highly committed to season tickets, donations to the program etc.

Anyone know the history of their revenue during the span from SWC to current in Big 12?

peanuts btw SWC and Big 12

TCU has been more quiet than Baylor.

ilbb990912 said:

---

peanuts btw SWC and Big 12

---

And yet, they managed to succeed at a national level.

That should be our goal, regardless of where we end up.

bear2be2 said:

---

ilbb990912 said:

---

peanuts btw SWC and Big 12

---

And yet, they managed to succeed at a national level.

That should be our goal, regardless of where we end up.

---

That would be great, if it really mattered. ESPN wants big schools with big alumni bases. It does not matter how successful they are, it is ALL about media revenue.

TomW said:

---

TCU was a long time member of the SWC, 80-100 years?

---

The SWC was around for 82 years (1914-1996). Tcu was not a founding member, they came along 8/9 years later so they were a member for about 74 years.

BEAR 45 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

ilbb990912 said:

---

peanuts btw SWC and Big 12

---

And yet, they managed to succeed at a national level.

That should be our goal, regardless of where we end up.

---

That would be great, if it really mattered. ESPN wants big schools with big alumni bases. It does not matter how successful they are, it is ALL about media revenue.

---

I don't care about any of that ***** Winning (with integrity) is all that matters to me. I won't see a penny from any of these TV contracts. Just adapt to whatever our new reality is and commit to continued excellence. There have been a bunch of programs prove over the years that that's possible with lesser resources, TCU included.

bear2be2 said:

---

ilbb990912 said:

---

peanuts btw SWC and Big 12

---

And yet, they managed to succeed at a national level.

That should be our goal, regardless of where we end up.

---

Bingo! TCU took a horrible situation and over the past 25 years went 13-6 in bowl games, finished in the Top 10 on 6 occasions. 3 of those Top 10 finishes were in the Big 12.

We can be successful no matter which conference we end up in. Maybe, eventually, more successful.

TCU played 5 seasons in the WAC after missing the Big 12 boat. One of the 5 seasons they finished in the Top 25. They played in 3 bowls going 2-1.

TCU played 4 seasons in the CUSA. 2 of the 4 seasons they finished in the Top 25. They played in 3 bowls going 1-2.

TCU played 7 seasons in the Mountain West. 6 of the 7 seasons they finished in the Top 25. They played in 7 bowls going 6-1 in their bowls. They had 3 seasons where they finished in the Top 10. #2 when they went 13-0 and won the Rose bowl, #6 when they went 12-1 and lost in the Fiesta. #7 when they went 11-2 and won in the Poinsetta.

They have 9 seasons in the Big 12. 3 of the 9 seasons they have finished in the Top 25 (actually Top 10). 6 bowl games going 4-2 in those bowls. They finished #3 in 2014 going 12-1. They finished #7 in 2015 going 11-2. They finished #9 in 2017 going 11-3.

We share many similarities with TCU. They recovered nicely after the SWC imploded. Let's be positive and schedule UT, OU and other SEC teams in non-conference instead of Texas Southern, Texas State, Louisiana Tech and North Texas.

I've been saying for years our giving pigskin enemas to NW State, Buffalo, Lamar, Rice, Wofford, Louisiana Monroe, Sam Houston, Stephen F Austin, Kent State and other Briles/McCaw silver platter patsies hurt us in the long run. It looked good for stats and W's but hurt our reputation nationwide as a bully beating up on 98 lb weaklings.

Sorry guys but you cannot see the forest because of the trees. These are different times and it takes money to maintain college athletics and that money comes from TV revenue and alumni. TV wants viewers, they do not care about ANYTHING else ! Baylor has had remarkable athletic success according to Livingstone siting 85 conference championships [ second in the conference ] and that does not matter one bit to the TV networks. We could have Kansas record in football and if we had 30,000 students and a couple of hundred thousand alumni and we would be golden.

TCU has never been a big TV revenue school, so they've supplemented that money with a significant level of alumni donations, and I'm talking large donations (millions at a pop). That's how they paid for all the various football and baseball stadium renovations and upgrades for example. They've been able to pull this off mainly because of two reasons. The first one . . . the biggest . . . is the fact that the TCU fan base is more financially well-off than the typical large state school base. They have a number of old West Texas oil & gas tycoons that pretty much paid for the entire upgraded football stadium from money they found under their couch cushions. Remember, all those new facilities were paid for before they even broke ground. But that brings up the more interesting reason number 2.

They were starting all their fundraising for all these various building projects while TCU was still in the Mountain West and their 7 million per year TV revenue! But many TCU supporters will tell you that those Mountain West days were the most fun they've had because TCU's emphasis back then was winning as an underdog, as opposed to striving for TV ratings or revenue. They still remember all these games with BYU and Utah, trying to win the Mountain West championship and struggling to get into the Top 25, then shooting for that last slot in the new CFP system.

For whatever reason, that emphasis on "getting into the playoffs" vs playing for enhanced TV ratings or market share is still the main motivating factor for the TCU fans. That's why many don't really worry that much about being relegated to some Big 12/AAC hybrid, as long as the expanded CFP system remains in place, and the new league is relatively stable for a change. If they get a new league where they don't have to climb out from under OU every year, and they have a reasonable chance of winning the conference and making the CFP playoffs, they're good to go.

They will continue to pour money into the program when necessary because they will be able to enjoy college football once again, just like in the old Mountain West heydays!

Actually just in Texas Baylor has 100,000 alumni so nationally that may not take it to 200,000, but I bet it's at 125,000. Student wise we're likely between 10K to 15K all graduate schools included. We have a larger undergraduate student population than Stanford. Their undergrad is 6,996. Graduate is 10,253.

We have 19,500 students total. We are probably churning out between 4-5k grads per year. I would estimate we likely have churned out 60k or so grads just this century. So I would guess your estimates are a little low.

Thee:

In the past decade plus a couple of years, TCU has played the following powerhouses:

Arkansas-Pine Bluff
Southern
Jackson State
South Dakota State
Samford (not Stanford)
Southeastern Louisiana
Grambling State
Louisiana-Monroe
Portland St.
Tennessee Tech
Stephen F. Austin

Most years TCU played one patsy, normally the first game of the year. Makes sense. Has TCU played a tougher non-conference schedule than Baylor? Yes. But let's not overlook the fact that TCU and almost all P5 schools, schedule cupcakes.

I don't think Art or Ian scheduled those games for Patterson. He called the shots.

I heard recently Baylor has about 160,000 living alumni.

Wolf 359 said:

---

TCU has never been a big TV revenue school, so they've supplemented that money with a significant level of alumni donations, and I'm talking large donations (millions at a pop). That's how they paid for all the various football and baseball stadium renovations and upgrades for example. They've been able to pull this off mainly because of two reasons. The first one . . . the biggest . . . is the fact that the TCU fan base is more financially well-off than the typical large state school base. They have a number of old West Texas oil & gas tycoons that pretty much paid for the entire upgraded football stadium from money they found under their couch cushions. Remember, all those new facilities were paid for before they even broke ground. But that brings up the more interesting reason number 2.

They were starting all their fundraising for all these various building projects while TCU was still in the Mountain West and their 7 million per year TV revenue! But many TCU supporters will tell you that those Mountain West days were the most fun they've had because TCU's emphasis back then was winning as an underdog, as opposed to striving for TV ratings or revenue. They still remember all these games with BYU and Utah, trying to win the Mountain West championship and struggling to get into the Top 25, then shooting for that last slot in the new CFP system.

For whatever reason, that emphasis on "getting into the playoffs" vs playing for enhanced TV ratings or market share is still the main motivating factor for the TCU fans. That's why many don't really worry that much about being relegated to some Big 12/AAC hybrid, as long as the expanded CFP system remains in place, and the new league is relatively stable for a change. If they get a new league where they don't have to climb out from under OU every year, and they have a reasonable chance of winning the conference and making the CFP playoffs, they're good to go.

They will continue to pour money into the program when necessary because they will be able to enjoy college football once again, just like in the old Mountain West heydays!

---

Wolf 359 said:

---

TCU has never been a big TV revenue school, so they've supplemented that money with a significant level of alumni donations, and I'm talking large donations (millions at a pop). That's how they paid for all the various football and baseball stadium renovations and upgrades for example. They've been able to pull this off mainly because of two reasons. The first one . . . the biggest . . . is the fact that the TCU fan base is more financially well-off than the typical large state school base. They have a number of old West Texas oil & gas tycoons that pretty much paid for the entire upgraded football stadium from money they found under their couch cushions. Remember, all those new facilities were paid for before they even broke ground. But that brings up the more interesting reason number 2.

They were starting all their fundraising for all these various building projects while TCU was still in the Mountain West and their 7 million per year TV revenue! But many TCU supporters will tell you that those Mountain West days were the most fun they've had because TCU's emphasis back then was winning as an underdog, as opposed to striving for TV ratings or revenue. They still remember all these games with BYU and Utah, trying to win the Mountain West championship and struggling to get into the Top 25, then shooting for that last slot in the new CFP system.

For whatever reason, that emphasis on "getting into the playoffs" vs playing for enhanced TV ratings or market share is still the main motivating factor for the TCU fans. That's why many don't really worry that much about being relegated to some Big 12/AAC hybrid, as long as the expanded CFP system remains in place, and the new league is relatively stable for a change. If they get a new league where they don't have to climb out from under OU every year, and they have a reasonable chance of winning the conference and making the CFP playoffs, they're good to go.

They will continue to pour money into the program when necessary because they will be able to enjoy college football once again, just like in the old Mountain West heydays!

---

In other words, their priorities are in order.

Wolf 359 said:

---

TCU has never been a big TV revenue school, so they've supplemented that money with a significant level of alumni donations, and I'm talking large donations (millions at a pop). That's how they paid for all the various football and baseball stadium renovations and upgrades for example. They've been able to pull this off mainly because of two reasons. The first one . . . the biggest . . . is the fact that the TCU fan base is more financially well-off than the typical large state school base. They have a number of old West Texas oil & gas tycoons that pretty much paid for the entire upgraded football stadium from money they found under their couch cushions. Remember, all those new facilities were paid for before they even broke ground. But that brings up the more interesting reason number 2.

They were starting all their fundraising for all these various building projects while TCU was still in the Mountain West and their 7 million per year TV revenue! But many TCU supporters will tell you that those Mountain West days were the most fun they've had because TCU's emphasis back then was winning as an underdog, as opposed to striving for TV ratings or revenue. They still remember all these games with BYU and Utah, trying to win the Mountain West championship and struggling to get into the Top 25, then shooting for that last slot in the new CFP system.

For whatever reason, that emphasis on "getting into the playoffs" vs playing for enhanced TV ratings or market share is still the main motivating factor for the TCU fans. That's why many don't really worry that much about being relegated to some Big 12/AAC hybrid, as long as the expanded CFP system remains in place, and the new league is relatively stable for a change. If they get a new league where they don't have to climb out from under OU every year, and they have a reasonable chance of winning the conference and making the CFP playoffs, they're good to go.

They will continue to pour money into the program when necessary because they will be able to enjoy college football once again, just like in the old Mountain West heydays!

---

Good for you! Maybe you can explain why TCU fans were sooooo but hurt about not being able to join the Big 12 in the first place ? especially since it was a slice of heaven in the Mountain West

BEAR 45 said:

---

Wolf 359 said:

---

TCU has never been a big TV revenue school, so they've supplemented that money with a significant level of alumni donations, and I'm talking large donations (millions at a pop). That's how they paid for all the various football and baseball stadium renovations and upgrades for example. They've been able to pull this off mainly because of two reasons. The first one . . . the biggest . . . is the fact that the TCU fan base is more financially well-off than the typical large state school base. They have a number of old West Texas oil & gas tycoons that pretty much paid for the entire upgraded football stadium from money they found under their couch cushions. Remember, all those new facilities were paid for before they even broke ground. But that brings up the more interesting reason number 2.

They were starting all their fundraising for all these various building projects while TCU was still in the Mountain West and their 7 million per year TV revenue! But many TCU supporters will tell you that those Mountain West days were the most fun they've had because TCU's emphasis back then was winning as an underdog, as opposed to striving for TV ratings or revenue. They still remember all these games with BYU and Utah, trying to win the Mountain West championship and struggling to get into the Top 25, then shooting for that last slot in the new CFP system.

For whatever reason, that emphasis on "getting into the playoffs" vs playing for enhanced TV ratings or market share is still the main motivating factor for the TCU fans. That's why many don't really worry that much about being relegated to some Big 12/AAC hybrid, as long as the expanded CFP system remains in place, and the new league is relatively stable for a change. If they get a new league where they don't have to climb out from under OU every year, and they have a reasonable chance of winning the conference and making the CFP playoffs, they're good to go.

They will continue to pour money into the program when necessary because they will be able to enjoy college football once again, just like in the old Mountain West heydays!

---

Good for you! Maybe you can explain why TCU fans were sooooo but hurt about not being able to join the Big 12 in the first place ? especially since it was a slice of heaven in the Mountain West

---

Because being left out sucks ... as we are currently learning.

Wolf 359 said:

---

But many TCU supporters will tell you that those Mountain West days were the most fun they've had because TCU's emphasis back then was winning as an underdog, as opposed to striving for TV ratings or revenue. They still remember all these games with BYU and Utah, trying to win the Mountain West championship and struggling to get into the Top 25, then shooting for that last slot in the new CFP system.

For whatever reason, that emphasis on "getting into the playoffs" vs playing for enhanced TV ratings or market share is still the main motivating factor for the TCU fans. That's why many don't really worry that much about being relegated to some Big 12/AAC hybrid, as long as the expanded CFP system remains in place, and the new league is relatively stable for a change. If they get a new league where they don't have to climb out from under OU every year, and they have a reasonable chance of winning the conference and making the CFP playoffs, they're good to go.

They will continue to pour money into the program when necessary because they will be able to enjoy college football once again, just like in the old Mountain West heydays!

---

That version of the Mountain West was a BLAST! Utah as the original BCS Buster, BYU as everyone's #1 enemy with their religious tinted "Quest for the BCS," TCU making it in a few years later, Air Force coming back to life under Troy Calhoun, great rivalries like Utah-BYU ("The Holy War") and CSU-Wyoming, putting 3 or 4 basketball teams in the tourney every year...

If only the MWC had invited Boise before Utah, BYU and TCU left... what could have been?

If Baylor ends up in a conference like that, it's all good.

Well, the SWC/Big 12 thing happened a long time before things really started gettin' good in the Mountain West. If you'll recall, TCU had to wander through the wilderness for a good while while things were bad. First there was Conference USA with the Southern Mississippi's, Tulanes, and East Carolina's of the world. Then it was on to the WAC, with their unworkable 16 team "pods" setup. Even then, things weren't looking too much better. Then we come to the Mountain West years with the Worlds greatest Commissioner Craig Thompson. Like I said, most TCU fans didn't really start to enjoy life until then, then it was off to the Big East for a minute and a half. I'm sure you know the rest of the story!

Oh, and one final housekeeping note! The butt in "butt hurt" is spelled with two t's!

Wolf 359 said:

---

Well, the SWC/Big 12 thing happened a long time before things really started gettin' good in the Mountain West. If you'll recall, TCU had to wander through the wilderness for a good while while things were bad. First there was Conference USA with the Southern Mississippi's, Tulanes, and East Carolina's of the world. Then it was on to the WAC, with their unworkable 16 team "pods" setup. Even then, things weren't looking too much better. Then we come to the Mountain West years with the Worlds greatest Commissioner Craig Thompson. Like I said, most TCU fans didn't really start to enjoy life until then, then it was off to the Big East for a minute and a half. I'm sure you know the rest of the story!

Oh, and one final housekeeping note! The butt in "butt hurt" is spelled with two t's!

---

Thanks f or the correction but that was addressed to the half a--s people here.Only one T

GruntTuff said:

---

Thee:

In the past decade plus a couple of years, TCU has played the following powerhouses:

Arkansas-Pine Bluff
Southern
Jackson State
South Dakota State
Samford (not Stanford)
Southeastern Louisiana
Grambling State
Louisiana-Monroe
Portland St.
Tennessee Tech
Stephen F. Austin

Most years TCU played one patsy, normally the first game of the year. Makes sense. Has TCU played a tougher non-conference schedule than Baylor? Yes. But let's not overlook the fact that TCU and almost all P5 schools, schedule cupcakes.

I don't think Art or Ian scheduled those games for Patterson. He called the shots.

---

They have played the following during that time:

Purdue
Ohio State
Arkansas (twice)
Minnesota (twice)
LSU
Virginia
Air Force
Oregon State

Show me a season where we had schedules with these types of non-conference opponents.

We were patsy kings!

Thee University said:

---

GruntTuff said:

---

Thee:

In the past decade plus a couple of years, TCU has played the following powerhouses:

Arkansas-Pine Bluff
Southern
Jackson State
South Dakota State
Samford (not Stanford)
Southeastern Louisiana
Grambling State
Louisiana-Monroe
Portland St.
Tennessee Tech
Stephen F. Austin

Most years TCU played one patsy, normally the first game of the year. Makes sense. Has TCU played a tougher non-conference schedule than Baylor? Yes. But let's not overlook the fact that TCU and almost all P5 schools, schedule cupcakes.

I don't think Art or Ian scheduled those games for Patterson. He called the shots.

---

They have played the following during that time:

Purdue
Ohio State
Arkansas (twice)
Minnesota (twice)
LSU
Virginia
Air Force
Oregon State

Show me a season where we had schedules with these types of non-conference opponents.

We were patsy kings!

---

I acknowledged in my reply that TCU played a tougher non-conference schedule than Baylor, but I also noticed that TCU, like all Power 5 schools, plays patsies.

I'm curious (and don't know the answer) about which administration scheduled Baylor's terrible non-conference schedule for this season. Thee, do you know? If it was Art and Ian, I'm disappointed. I can understand playing one easy game a year and when Art arrived and Baylor's football was in the tank, I can understand him wanting more than one easy game for a few years. But to schedule the ridiculous non-conference Baylor has this season long after Baylor righted the ship is absurd.

Boston College is as close to Baylor as you will find in College Football in the P5.

Small, academic religious school that hasn't compromised, as much, on the religious mission and still maintained as a P5 member. Now, they don't win alot, but they are there and have gone from independent to Big East to ACC. The only thing BC has is a bigger Alumni base. Several others started religious, but moved away. But, that is it in big time football - Baylor, TCU, BC, and Notre Dame. I can't think of any other power 5 schools that have small religious schools.

RMF5630 said:

---

Boston College is as close to Baylor as you will find in College Football in the P5.

Small, academic religious school that hasn't compromised, as much, on the religious mission and still maintained as a P5 member. Now, they don't win alot, but they are there and have gone from independent to Big East to ACC. The only thing BC has is a bigger Alumni base. Several others started religious, but moved away. But, that is it in big time football - Baylor, TCU, BC, and Notre Dame. I can't think of any other power 5 schools that have small religious schools.

---

This is only current year, but here's Boston College student population: "A total of 14,720 students have enrolled at Boston College - 9,927 undergraduate and 4,793 graduate. By gender, 6,802 male and 7,918 female students are attending the school. By attendance status, there are 13,165 full-time students and 1,555 part-time students."

Baylor is said to have 180,000 living alumni so I'd have to think BC couldn't have much more than that. True?

GruntTuff said:

---

I acknowledged in my reply that TCU played a tougher non-conference schedule than Baylor, but I also noticed that TCU, like all Power 5 schools, plays patsies.

I'm curious (and don't know the answer) about which administration scheduled Baylor's terrible non-conference schedule for this season. Thee, do you know? If it was Art and Ian, I'm disappointed. I can understand playing one easy game a year and when Art arrived and Baylor's football was in the tank, I can understand him wanting more than one easy game for a few years. But to schedule the ridiculous non-conference Baylor has this season long after Baylor righted the ship is absurd.

---

Grunt,

You did acknowledge. My bad. Sorry.

To find out who drilled us on this season we'd have to pull old press releases or media guides. They are all negotiated several years in advance. I say it smells like Ian & Art.

Frankly, playing with a chip on our shoulder in a competitive but somewhat disrespected conference might be a lot of fun, especially without having a bloated overhyped UT floating around in the pool and stinking up the place for everyone else.

Fk the revenue. Hasn't helped Texas. Didn't hold back TCU.

It's entirely possible that in 10 years Baylor has been in the new expanded playoff more times than ou and Texas, as it will require them to likely be one of the top 3 teams in the sec. since 2009 Texas has been that zero times and ou maybe twice. Baylor was best team out of the eight remaining at least four times the last decade and could consistently compete for championships that would virtually guaranty playoff appearances once expanded. You never know if this might Not be a blessing in disguise. That being said I think the acc would be awesome (playing Clemson and Florida st in football and duke and North Carolina in the best basketball conference in the country) and would jump at that in a second. Could also live with a new mega pac 12. No reason to fret in any case. Nothing lasts forever.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Frankly, playing with a chip on our shoulder in a competitive but somewhat disrespected conference might be a lot of fun, especially without having a bloated overhyped UT floating around in the pool and stinking up the place for everyone else.

Fk the revenue. Hasn't helped Texas. Didn't hold back TCU.

---

This is my thought. Embrace what we are and what we have. Rebrand the league as one that sets its priorities on field/court and prove we can win at a national level there. Just be as big a thorn as we can in the side of the establishment and a constant/inconvenient reminder to them just how badly some of these blueblood programs underachieve.

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Frankly, playing with a chip on our shoulder in a competitive but somewhat disrespected conference might be a lot of fun, especially without having a bloated overhyped UT floating around in the pool and stinking up the place for everyone else.

Fk the revenue. Hasn't helped Texas. Didn't hold back TCU.

---

This is my thought. Embrace what we are and what we have. Rebrand the league as one that sets its priorities on field/court and prove we can win at a national level there. Just be as big a thorn as we can in the side of the establishment and a constant/inconvenient reminder to them just how badly some of these blueblood programs underachieve.

---

We are going to get poached from with NIL and transfer rules, but we can also do some poaching. Go get some kids who are riding the pine at blue blood schools - kids who remember you from recruiting and who are sick of sitting on the bench.

Ewalker80 said:

---

It's entirely possible that in 10 years Baylor has been in the new expanded playoff more times than ou and Texas, as it will require them to likely be one of the top 3 teams in the sec. since 2009 Texas has been that zero times and ou maybe twice. Baylor was best team out of the eight remaining at least four times the last decade and could consistently compete for championships that would virtually guaranty playoff appearances once expanded. You never know if this might Not be a blessing in disguise. That being said I think the acc would be awesome (playing Clemson and Florida st in football and duke and North Carolina in the best basketball conference in the country) and would jump at that in a second. Could also live with a new mega pac 12. No reason to fret in any case. Nothing lasts forever.

---

A nice happenstance of the ACC would be no west coast late night games which would happen in the PAC-12

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Frankly, playing with a chip on our shoulder in a competitive but somewhat disrespected conference might be a lot of fun, especially without having a bloated overhyped UT floating around in the pool and stinking up the place for everyone else.

Fk the revenue. Hasn't helped Texas. Didn't hold back TCU.

---

This is my thought. Embrace what we are and what we have. Rebrand the league as one that sets its priorities on field/court and prove we can win at a national level there. Just be as big a thorn as we can in the side of the establishment and a constant/inconvenient reminder to them just how badly some of these blueblood programs underachieve.

---

We are going to get poached from with NIL and transfer rules, but we can also do some poaching. Go get some kids who are riding the pine at blue blood schools - kids who remember you from recruiting and who are sick of sitting on the bench.

---

Exactly. The new transfer rules will go both ways.

But if you can make the playoffs out of the Big 12 (or AAC, if we end up there), your culture will matter more than your conference affiliation, as far as transfers are concerned. The guys who commit to your school will do so knowing what conference you're in. You'll just have to do the best you can to keep them happy.

TomW said:

---

Ewalker80 said:

---

It's entirely possible that in 10 years Baylor has been in the new expanded playoff more times than ou and Texas, as it will require them to likely be one of the top 3 teams in the sec. since 2009 Texas has been that zero times and ou maybe twice. Baylor was best team out of the eight remaining at least four times the last decade and could consistently compete for championships that would virtually guaranty playoff appearances once expanded. You never know if this might Not be a blessing in disguise. That being said I think the acc would be awesome (playing Clemson and Florida st in football and duke and North Carolina in the best basketball conference in the country) and would jump at that in a second. Could also live with a new mega pac 12. No reason to fret in any case. Nothing lasts forever.

---

A nice happenstance of the ACC would be no west coast late night games which would happen in the PAC-12

---

Yep. I'm not terribly interested in a true merger with the PAC-12. Here in a couple of years, the PAC-12 will be in the exact same position the Big 12 is in now. Joining that league would only delay the inevitable for a couple more seasons and make it inconvenient to follow our team in the meantime.

That said, we're won't joining the ACC. An expanded Big 12 or the AAC are our realistic options.

Baylor's problem will be in recruiting top recruits in the face of the attraction of playing in a super conference with big time NIL $$.