The Coup.... OU, Texas, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech to the PAC-16
by notsofst on Sep 1, 2011 11:48 AM CDT
Email
Print
Loftin said that Texas A&M was making a 'hundred year decision' when A&M started exploring the options of other conferences. The overriding sentiment here in the Longhorn Nation is that the Aggies may have been being petty. Things aren't working out, so they're taking their ball and heading elsewhere.
However, in imagining the scenarios that could unfold as this plays out, I'm starting to think that what we've been being fed is not the whole story.
I feel we're missing here the undertones of a discussion that is happening above the heads of the fans. The landscape of college football is probably going to change forever, and while we all know what the final destination is, we're going to be none-the-less surprised when we arrive.
The talk after the last alignment shuffle was all about "super-conferences". Why move to larger conferences? It's all about the money. More schools in a larger conference structure can collectively bargain for larger TV money. Four "super-conferences" would effectively have a monopoly on upper tier collegiate athletics, and would be able to squeeze every last dime possible out of the television networks.
The college football "haves" don't want to be amateur any more... they want NFL size money, and whether they need to pay the players or not is an afterthought. The AD's of top tier schools around the nation are smelling blood in the water.
Knowing this, it's apparent that "super-conferences" are primarily in the interest of the schools, and not in the interest of the television networks. Right now the T.V. networks are facing a divided collegiate world and it's probably keeping their costs down.
Back during the last realignment, with CU and NU moving out of the Big 12, this picture could have become clear to the schools. Maybe they realized they had the upper hand, and started a slow slip towards a more organized "upper-tier" of college football.
The first move to create one "super-conference" would have to be moving Texas A&M to the SEC. A&M and Texas discussed the PAC back when CU moved over. A&M didn't feel the PAC was a fit, so things stalled for a year or two. There was also the "Tech Problem".
Now, with A&M packing its bags and leaving, there's a nice package of four teams that could pull out of the Big 12:
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Texas.
The result would be the first super-conference. It's not the first time we've talked about heading to the PAC, and it still makes sense.
Now, the PAC has its own regional networks as part of the conference, potentially removing the LHN as an obstacle. If we make that move and divide the teams into their "logical" regional areas, we would have a "West" and a "SouthWest" division. The "SouthWest" division of the PAC would have coverage in these cities, listed by TV market size:
By picking these 8 teams:
Oklahoma, Texas, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah.
Every single team in that division would be bringing something to the table, and the television deal would be monstrous. Those 8 teams would be negotiating TV deals along with the California teams that would be covering Los Angeles(2) and SF-Oakland-SanJose(6).
Step back and think about it. Four of the top 10 TV markets in the country would be held by this PAC-16, not to mention the significant holdings of Seattle, Denver and Phoenix giving this PAC-16 seven of the top 20. A&M is taken care of by joining the SEC, their fanbase's pride fed and their position in the coming era of college football secure.
So what are the barriers? Well for starters it would destroy the Big 12, and I assume the new PAC 16 would demand that they have the Big 12's BCS bid. This could cause an arms race between the PAC-16 and the SEC/Big10, but with teh SEC moving to 14 teams, maybe the SEC is waiting for another BCS bid to make the move to 16. Again, we can't rule out the possibility that the PAC, Big 10, and SEC are colluding in this process.
Also, some plan needs to be made for the teams in the Big 12 that don't move to the PAC. The Big 10 and SEC might be looking to poach teams to make it to 16 as well, though there's no doubt that there will be some losers in this scenario.
Talks along the line of reforming the BCS have already occured, we've heard the announcement that the PAC and Big 10 were considering a "plus-one" format.
Could this be a prelude to four 16 team conferences? Four Conference Champions? Two "Semi-Final" bowls, One Champion?
This may not happen this year, or even next year, or even in the next 5 years. But, to me, it makes too much sense... and money, to ignore.
If A&M and Texas are on the inside of this transition, it's possible that Texas would even encourage A&M to find a new home to make this neat 16 team package work. We haven't seen Texas make any strong moves to keep A&M in the conference, and that would align with us having another agenda that didn't necessarily involve A&M being tied to us and doesn't involve independence.
This potential PAC-16 would be a conference without peer in the college sporting world. The remaining three mega-conferences would be free to split the last 6 of the top 10 TV markets to our 4, paving the way for the long term success and stability of this 16 team configuration.
If you think with your wallet, you have to think about the PAC-16.
All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.
58 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
As I understand it, the LHN would prohibit us from making this move.
The Pac-12 (or 16 as written), will have it’s own regional networks. In order for Texas to make this move, they would effectively have to dissolve the LHN to make way for a regional network that would likely cover both Texas and Texas Tech (and I assume it could also include OU/OSU if they didn’t get their own). So, the issue becomes whether Texas is ready to effectively write off the LHN as a failure before it ever begins. Put another way, they would take their deal with ESPN and divide up the proceeds with Texas Tech for the Texas regional network.
It would seem that the prudent thing to do for the future would be to go ahead and make the deal, but Chip Brown and others believe that Texas may be hesitant to blow up the LHN so quickly….
I would HATE that.
As someone living on the east coast, I can’t wait to get a channel showing 100% Longhorn programing (I get FIOS soon). If we made it into a regional network with Tech, I would probably just get the main Pac 16 network which would just show 3rd tier football games (rarely Texas games) and other assorted Pac 16 programing. Ugh.
There's no question that the LHN would be great.
The issue then becomes is it worth digging out heels in order to save this network, or are we better off in the long run by going to a stable, super conference with quality competition?
I guess the question is what are the chances of Texas eventually getting left without a chair.
Is there a possibility that all of the conferences will go to 16 and no one will take Texas in 5 years? I’m doubtful that it is a possibility, so I’d rather ride out this LHN thing and then reconsider in a few years.
Is that an option?
We’re a signatory to a contract with ESPN. A lot of people have speculated that ESPN’s purpose in paying us so much $$ was to keep us from going into a superconference. Can we just “undo” the contract now because we want to enter a superconference?
I know nothing about the contract as written.
I’m sure there’s some teeth written into the contract should they walk. Then again, I’m sure there were consequences written into the agreement the Aggies had with the Big 12.
In the contract, there is stipulation that allows ESPN exclusive bidding time and offer matching on any of UT's TV.
If Texas leaves the Big 12, the Longhorn Network lives on: According to the contract, ESPN will have a 60-day window of exclusive negotiating rights with Texas if it became an independent. After that period, ESPN can match any offer Texas receives within 48 hours. This also applies if the Big 12 dissolves or if Texas chooses to go independent in football like Notre Dame.
So ESPN would have the ability to try and match/beat the Pac-16 offer. I don’t see ESPN vetting us for another 30-50 million a year for first and second tier rights, but they would have the opportunity to outbid any PAC regional network offer.
The Pac12 deal isn't set up that way
There are no third tier or regional rights. ESPN and Fox own 55 % of the football games, the Pac12 network owns the rest. They all take turns picking each week for the games. A similar set up is in place for basketball, all the other sports belong to the network.
by ev on Sep 1, 2011 3:18 PM CDT up reply actions
As far as regional, I was referring to this announcement
[Link](http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6809599/pac-12-launch-national-regional-networks)
That I would view as the “third tier”.
I messed that up, fixed below
I would envision the LHN operating with and getting similar content to one of the PAC regional networks mentioned in that article.
I'm no lawyer, but
per the excerpt you quoted, ESPN would only have the ability to match/beat the Pac-12 if they pursue independence. If Texas changes conferences, they are not an independent. Therefore, ESPN is unable to match the Pac-12 offer. You might claim the Big-12 would be dissolving, but as a series of events, the four schools leaving the conference technically left the conference and joined the Pac-12 before the Big-12 dissolved.
Nonetheless, I fully expect the mouse network to exert the full weight of their evil empire to force both Texas and the Pac-12 into major financial repercussions if the LHN is abandoned.
I support the NBA player's union.
I've always found it interesting
Larry Scott set up regional networks under a national umbrella. If you know what I mean!
by ev on Sep 1, 2011 5:08 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm not so sure
The major issue with the LHN network is that it is entirely owned by ESPN/Disney, whereas every Pac-12 media enterprise, all games, all networks, all digital applications, EVERYTHING is owned by the Pac-12. We merely sublease games to Fox and Espn. The Pac-12 wants to continue this precedent, which means the Pac-12 would want espn to relinquish its ownership of the LHN. That is going to be a costly endeavor, particularly since espn does not want super conferences, and new tv networks to challenge its authority over both the message and broadcasting of college athletics.
I don’t see ESPN selling the LHN to the Pac-12 being feasible, rather a settlement between espn and Texas to dissolve the network (the settlement would be partially financially backed by the Pac-12). Then, the Pac-12 would create a new network for Texas, it would maintain all the same programming and could retain the same production talent, essentially it could be identical to the LHN, but under a different owner.
I support the NBA player's union.
I think that's where we disagree
The Pac-12 wants to continue this precedent, which means the Pac-12 would want espn to relinquish its ownership of the LHN.
I think the PAC-12 would break this rule to let the LHN continue. That would probably have to be part of the deal for the PAC.
I’m not saying this is a non-issue, just that it’s not a big enough issue to keep the move from happening.
It appears we have reached an impasse
I don’t think the Pac-12 would let espn maintain ownership, but I guess we will wait and see. This whole exercise is probably moot anyway as the Big-XII is just as likely to add schools instead of breaking apart.
I support the NBA player's union.
I believe if you receive the national network, you’d be able to log into Pac-12.net (or whatever the online division is called) and be able to watch any broadcast available on any of the regional networks.
I support the NBA player's union.
I Apologize for making three comments instead of one succinct one. F my brain!
Several times per year, the Pac-12 Network will have the first or second pick of games to air for that weekend. That means two things: 1) They’d be able to choose the best games several times throughout the year (potentially the Red River Shootout, or Texas – USC). 2) Because the Pac-12 controls scheduling, they can insure they still have a quality game even if they choose last. For example, they schedule USC-Stanford, UCLA-Cal, and Washington-Oregon (all of which are strong rivalry games without being THE rivalry game), regardless of which game the Pac-12 is left with, they are still presenting a game with significant draw along the west coast.
I support the NBA player's union.
I'd prefer to watch it on my TV and not on a computer, though, and I don't have an internet ready TV.
I could possibly live with that, but it would be far inferior to LHN. One of the reasons I want LHN is because there is nothing to watch on TV half the time and LHN would always give me something to watch. It it is half Tech stuff, I would have to check the schedule to determine if there would be something on the channel I want to watch.
Come on, man
You’re tailoring Texas’ future to your VERY particular preferences at this moment, on this day? You live on the East Coast and don’t like the start times, you don’t yet have an internet-ready TV. Its a bit short-sighted, mate. You’lll certainly have an internet-ready TV by the time all this happens, and you might not always live on the East Coast. Have some vision.
I wouldn't mind joining the Pac 10 - I just don't see the allure of being in the Pac 10 - West with Utah, CO, AZ, AZ ST, Tech, OU, and OSU.
Isn’t that basicaly what we have now, only with more travel and no LHN?
I can see why we’d want to be associated with the California schools for academics, but if we only play a california school once a year or less – are we really associated with them at all?
It isn't ideal
but along a continuum between ideal and horrible, the position isn’t bad.
Isn’t that basicaly what we have now, only with more travel and no LHN?
Kind of, but two points. First, we’d be swapping Iowa St., Kansas St., Kansas, etc. for Utah, Arizona, and Arizona St. For me its a slight improvement, but I understand if someone disagrees. Second, staying the same is kind of the idea. If Texas could hold its permanent position forever, I’m sure it would. The problem is that the current situation is almost certain to disappear, and the alternatives (Independence, Big East, etc.) are not as good as what we have now, or what we’d have in the Pac-16, which as you pointed out, is similar to what we have now.
I guess I'd like to hold out hope for the ACC or Big Ten for a while longer.
I just don’t see any reason to tie ourselves down with the Pac 16 until we absolutely have to.
So you think ACC>PAC for Texas?
And if the sonofabitches are gone, then it is goodbye. Good enough. nt-whills
The Pac12 network will work much like the Big10 one does
If you get the channel, or pay for it, you will get to see every Pac12 game anywhere there is coverage. Right now, a year before roll out, the network already has deals in place with Time Warner, Cox, Comcast and Bright House. The last one is mostly for streaming, like with ESPN3. The network is expected to sign deals with both Direct TV and Dish network right after this season is over. The major advantage the Pac12 network has, as you point out, is the large amount of content. The network has over 45% of all Pac12 football games (games not shown on ABC/ESPN or Fox), with that much content (a third of which is premium), cable and satellite companies will have a hard time not carrying the Pac12 network.
by ev on Sep 1, 2011 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions
And the Pac 12 Network will be picking before ABC/ESPN and FOX several weekends?
That’s kind of odd.
Yes, I think they get four first choices
and the corresponding number of second and thirds. The Pac12 looked at the issues the Big10 had and adjusted accordingly. Scott needed to be able to pick meaningful games during the last part of the conference race. It was all part of his plan in order to strong arm the cable companies into taking the Pac12 network. The amazing thing is ESPN and Fox agreed to go along.
by ev on Sep 1, 2011 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions
AGREE with Wahoo
Stuck on the East Coast, need a pay-up option to get the regional or all Texas programming. Want the PAC Texas football then versus ACC or Big East yuck we are stuck with.
We can't possibly tell today
how football will be viewed by global audiences in 10 years. Everything is going to be distributed online at some point, rather than broadcast, at which point we may be paying for channels ala carte, and you may be able to watch all 12 Texas games from Nairobi.
Let’s not choose a conference affiliation (which could shape the program for 30-50 years) based on our television-watching preferences in 2011.
Which is why I prefer waiting it out and deciding later.
I don’t see any way Texas is left without a dance partner if it wants one.
I agree
I assume most of the powers that be would prefer to wait as well, but Aggie had a fit of premature ejaculation and ruined it for us all.
Why not keep the LHN
Put OU, OSU, and Texas Tech in a regional network?
OU has also expressed interest in its own individual network, so maybe OU gets its own too, and OSU and TT pair up.
I just think the PAC won’t leave this kind of money/monopoly on the table just because of the LHN. The LHN is a negotiating point, not a deal breaker.
I don't think it's going anywhere
These schools join, and it’s up to OU/OSU/TX/TT to figure out how their “regional” networks are allocated, including the LHN… the PAC then can renegotiate its tier 1 and tier 2 rights for more money, and everyone wins… well, except Baylor.
The sticky thing for me is the BCS bowl bid of the Big 12. I don’t think they’ll want to move to 16 teams without 2 AQ bids.
All the TV/LHN stuff appears to me to be a non-issue. I may be the only person that feels that way, but Texas monopolizing its third tier rights just doesn’t sound to me like something that would keep the PAC from creating the first, and likely most powerful superconference.
Makes sense to me.
I’m just passing along what I’ve heard from Chip Brown on the radio, who’s become a guru of sorts on this subject. From what he’s hearing, these regional networks are a big deal to Pac 12 commissioner Larry Brown.
Ultimately, that’s what kept the Big 12 together last year; Beebe let Texas have their network in exchange for not bolting the conference. The Pac 12 wouldn’t have done the same.
Kirk Bohls at AAS
Says that the move is OU’s to make. It has always been up to Texas and OU, so this isn’t exactly surprising news.
http://www.statesman.com/sports/longhorns/one-more-move-and-big-12-is-over-1809134.html
I can’t believe the aggies did all this shit right at the beginning of the season. All this shit could have waited until after the season. We should be exicted about the new season instead of wondering what the hell is happening.
A&M: Ready,Set, Go.....
Why should this year be any different?
I have always wondered “what the hell is happening?” for one reason or another. Greg Davis? Simms/Applewhite? Benson on the bench during the OU game? The whatbone offense? Bubble screens against OU? White towels on the Longhorn bench? (That was really more of a WTF than a what the hell) Many years,,many questions.
If a man is alone in the woods and he speaks, if no one hears him,,is he still wrong?
PR Move
a$m has repeatedly said they are trying to boost their national image. By keeping up the realignment game they have also kept their name in the headlines and the national media is talking about the Agros which is what they wanted.
Agros care less about winning than their perception in the college football landscape. Case in point – their move the the $EC. Look at me , talk about me, just don’t mention our winning percentage and the fact that we haven’t sniffed a conference title in a long, long time. Whoop there it is!
"Sectional football games have the glory and the despair of war, and when a Texas team takes the field against a foreign state, it is an army with banners."
~John Steinbeck
by HazzardousHorns on Sep 1, 2011 1:28 PM CDT up reply actions
OU superceded
OU solved that problem. Nationally, noone is talking about the SEC anymore. It was briefly about what will OU do. They and T. Boone have tipped their hand. Now its more about what will UT do.
by bu2 on Sep 6, 2011 9:46 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm just gonna leave this here....
" Answers --Become Resources."
Without Questions, There are limited Resources...
by KWashburn on Sep 1, 2011 4:20 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Tech
Remind me again why they are coming along?
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you're a mile away AND you have their shoes.
We need protection
And Zorro offers alot of protection from the evils we might find in the Southwest.
Hilarious movie
Well played.
There is so much beauty because life can be so symmetrical that it gives birth to this almost silent poetry . . . (like) a girl who's terrible at grammar saying, "Mama, you raised me good," and then being pushed down a well . . .
I think it's more along the lines of
we’ll leave without you.
" Answers --Become Resources."
Without Questions, There are limited Resources...
The "Tech Problem"?
I don’t think this issue has disappeared between the last conference reshuffle and this one.
There's a lot of question marks in here
but good post. Nice job.
by Infield Elephant on Sep 1, 2011 9:18 PM CDT reply actions
There's a lot of talk today
About OU/OSU/KU/MU to the Pac 12. It’s probably a leverage move to entice UT to the table, but things appear to be heating up.
http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/how-far-north-will-the-dirty-south-go/#comment-105861
That’s the same four pack that was rumored to have shopped themselves to the Big 10. This rumor is also coming out after it broke that KU & KSU are not legally bound together.
Pac16/LHN/Vios/Independent/Big12-2...Blah, blah, blah
I just want my sideways passing attack !!!! Internet Radio here I come.
If they outlaw Willie Nelson, only outlaws will be Willie Nelson
Conferences
Shouldn’t the NCAA have more control over conferences? I think smaller regional conferences would be better than these large super-conferences. I say the NCAA should step in and put in conference rules if they are a legit association. I would rather have the Big 12 just add 3 teams and move on. I say the SEC should tell A&M that they should come with Texas or not come at all which of course Texas will never ever want to join the SEC. A&M should calm down and clear their head on the “100 year decision.” This decision is more like the “100 year” mistake.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Burnt Orange Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
