I know I am in the minority. I get that. But I have a lot of concerns regarding the current UT position on expansion and the direction our leadership is heading. And I know most of the commenters here and over at BON hate the Big 12 and want us to go to the PAC, Big 10 or now for some reason the ACC, or even go independent. All of those options appear less desirable than our current position.

The other conference options, in my view, all have the same problems: 1) still have to get rid of the LHN, 2) loss of regional rivals, and 3) travel for other non-football sports.

The PAC and the ACC have an additional issue. They either have no conference network, or it is a massive failure. Their member institutions make less or similar amounts per member for all media than the Big 12 members for only Tier 1 and Tier 2 rights. Yes there is a big gap between the Big 12 and Big 10 and SEC. But Texas will not make their situation any better going to the PAC or ACC (and also having to relinquish the LHN) for a conference that distributes less per member than the current Big 12.

The Big 10 could probably at least make Texas whole monetarily (at least on its face), but you still have the other travel issues and lack of regional rivals. Sure, West Virginia has made it work in the Big 12. West Virginia also saw a large growth in revenue switching from the Big East to offset those costs. Texas will probably make about the same amount as it does currently when you factor in the pooled Tier 3 rights versus the LHN money. But all sports have to travel to places like State College, PA, College Park, Maryland, etc. The end result is still a loss in funds. For the PAC and ACC, take this issue and multiply its weight considering that Texas is already starting off in a worse financial position.

This brings us to the loss of regional rivals. I know some or most of you may not care. You have the stereotypical Longhorn hubris that many of our detractors associate our fan base with. You look down at the Texas Techs, TCUs, et al. But ask a Nebraska fan about it. My dad and I started to travel to different stadiums around the country a few years ago to see the different venues. Last year took us to Nebraska. Following the game we went to a local watering hole for dinner and libations where we struck up a friendly conversation with the local Huskers. We told them that we were UT folks and what we were doing at Nebraska, and we asked them how they felt about the move. They were almost unanimously underwhelmed with the Big 10. The Big 10 has proud programs in Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State. Nebraska enjoys playing those games, but even those games don't carry the weight of games against K State, Oklahoma, or even though we were more recent rivals, Texas. Then you have the games against Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana, and so forth. Our friendly Huskers said that even though the Big 12 has Kansas and Iowa State as comparable programs, at least Nebraska had a history with those teams, so the fans were still invested. There is no investment with the lesser Big 10 teams. I do not know how the Nebraska administration feels, but the fans we spoke with definitely have buyer's remorse with the Big 10. Additional money for the administration does not equal fan happiness. You would think Steve Patterson would have taught us this lesson already.

I think Texas would be wise to heed these lessons no matter where it seeks to go. While you may dismiss Texas Tech and TCU as "beneath us" you are at least invested when UT plays them. Would you feel the same way if we traded them for Wake Forest, Arizona, or Purdue? You may ask, well what about A&M? They seem happy. Well yes they do, but you have to look at the different circumstances. A&M at least had history with Arkansas as a member of the SWC and an on again - off again rivalry with LSU; their older alumni could at least circle these games every year. No landing spot for Texas, outside of the SEC (which ain't gonna happen), has any built-in rivalries unless we bring some with us.

Finally we look at independence. Independence is a self-defeating proposition for one giant reason. Any collapse of the Big 12 will usher in the era of super conferences. No conference will leave OU football or Kansas basketball sitting on the table without a home. The same goes for Texas Tech and Oklahoma State. They are solid enough additions that they will get picked up somewhere. Once that first super conference comes into being, and this is speculation on my part obviously, I think the dominoes fall and everyone goes to 16. Once this happens, I think the pressure becomes too much and Notre Dame finally folds and joins the ACC. And all of the sudden you have Texas sitting independent by itself (maybe with BYU still) in an era of 16 team super conferences. Mind you I think Texas does seek to join a conference at that point, but the negotiating position is ruined. Instead of being able to negotiate membership from a position of strength as a blue blood program with multiple options, Texas is instead a blue blood program with no other options trying to catch a life raft.

So what to do? Fix the Big 12 by doing one of two things: 1) stay pat with 10 for now but everyone commit to the Big 12 and revisit expansion as we get more information on the Playoff, get closer renegotiating media rights, and see if anything shakes in the other P5 conferences, OR 2) get proactive and expand to get a championship game and create a Big 12 network.

The first option would only work if you had public written commitments to the long term health and stability of the conference from all current members. Option 2 requires creativity, something the conference's leadership has lacked in the past. The expansion candidates may not be home runs, but there are some with growth potential. Rather than focus on the short term addition, look at the long term growth prospects of each candidate (think Utah in the PAC 12 and how TCU has grown in the Big 12) and make the decision on that basis (sorry Memphis).

As far as a network, do NOT go for the traditional network model. The ACC and PAC are struggling because they are approaching these networks from the traditional model as cable companies deal with cord cutters and falling revenue. Instead my thought would be to approach a company like Netflix for a streaming service. Think about it. Your Netflix subscription is $9 a month. Netflix gives you the option of a live Big 12 streaming network addition (shows up on your homescreen if you subscribe) for an additional $2 per month. Every Big 12 fan with Netflix already likely ponies up. In addition you probably have a few non-Big 12 but college sport fanatics with Netflix who also pony up at $2 a pop. The last I heard ESPN is worth about $1.50 - $2.00 (seems low so I could be wrong) per month on your cable bill, so you have Netflix actually charging the same amount for a Big 12 Network that cable companies charge for ESPN, but what makes it tolerable is that it is an optional addition to your Netflix subscription. Then you throw in the additional selling point for Netflix: you will inevitably have some people without Netflix subscriptions who are strong enough Big 12 / College sport fans to get an $11 Netflix subscription with the Big 12 network, which really boosts their bottom line. As an alternative, if Netflix did not deem interest strong enough to try this option they could boost everyone's subscription fee by 50 cents to a dollar, which most casual Netflix subscribers would pay anyway without notice, and give the Big 12 network automatically with every subscription.

This is my long winded rant as I struggle with what seems like UT's and some of the fan base's short sighted approach to the current situation. Love the idea; hate it; but always Hook 'em.