Conference Realignment: Where Texas Stands
by Peter Bean on Sep 19, 2011 11:23 PM CDT
in Texas Longhorns Football
Email
PrintThe last time we went through this a little more than a year ago, I noted from the outset that I thought the best (and most interesting) way to evaluate conference realignment was as a giant game of live, high stakes game theory in action. And in fact it was by evaluating Texas' position through that prism that I predicted that rather than make a move to another conference UT would sit tight and buy time.
Fast forward fifteen months and the landscape has changed a good deal, and though I think we'd all rather this drama were contained to the offseason, now seems the right time to revisit what I said about Texas' position last summer and re-evaluate it in light of recent events.
As an initial question, do those same evaluations from fifteen months ago still hold today? I think that they largely do, for one important reason: without any particular costs to bear from operating in a weakened conference in the short-term, what Texas would like at this stage of the game more than anything else is still more time. Although it's easy to focus on maximizing our revenue potential, that's a (very important) means to an end, but not the ultimate end. Likewise, while finding a neat fit for our sports is, by definition, what this is all about, it isn't necessarily the case that we're interested in deciding right now where we will be in, say, 2020.
Instead, if you're in Texas' position, what you most want is to slow the realignment dance down, buy as much time as you can, gather as much information as you can, and to the greatest extent possible control the pace at which realignment unfolds.
I actually think that if you look at Texas' position heading into this past summer, it was pretty much ideal, and exactly what we wanted. We were preparing to launch the Longhorn Network, had a workable Big 12 conference in which to operate profitably and competitively for the forseeable future, and -- assuming there would be a change at some point in the near-ish future -- were in great position to gather information and evaluate what we wanted to do next.
The problem, of course, is that there are other stakeholders in this game, and though I still think Texas made the right play by adopting the course of action that it did, UT was and is powerless to prevent others from taking actions that are disruptive to our preferred timeline of events.
That brings us to the one big caveat of that initial analysis: "If the entire sport were headed towards four 16-team super-conferences, [Texas might then] be forced to make that hard choice, but unless and until it is, it’s going to serve and protect its entrenched position." Alas, three recent moves now force Texas to that very re-evaluating and re-calculating of its position:
1. Texas A&M's SECession. The most important event was Texas A&M's decision to adopt a different strategy than UT. I've argued extensively that the Aggie strategy is a foolish one, but for better or worse they plowed ahead with their plan to join the SEC as soon as possible, and this -- more than anything else -- is the catalyst of the rapid unfolding of recent events.
2. Oklahoma decides to act for itself. The Aggies' decision to bolt the Big 12 meant that even if Texas was going to do everything in its power to preserve the status quo for as long as possible, it was at least as likely -- probably more so -- that the Big 12 would implode. Oklahoma was fine with the original timeline when it looked like the Big 12-2 could chug along well enough for at least a while, but upon A&M announcing its intention to leave, the Sooners concluded that they had to begin taking a proactive approach to their future home.
3. The ACC makes the first move. With the SEC poised to add a 13th team, it stood to reason that a 14th (and possibly 15th and 16th) might not be far behind, and among the best candidates for the SEC to poach are two ACC schools -- Virginia Tech and Clemson. Meanwhile, with Oklahoma (and by extension Oklahoma State) making noise about making an immediate move to the Pac 12, we suddenly had ourselves two moves that together added up to the first big step towards a possible landscape of four 16-team superconferences. And who would those super-conferences be? For certain we'd have the Pac-12, the Big 10, and the SEC. With the Big 12 imploding, that leaves either the ACC or Big East as the fourth, and facing the possible consequences of acting second/too slowly, the ACC concluded it had to assert itself as the conference that would survive. Welcome aboard, Pitt and Syracuse, and good luck with what's left, Big East.
WHERE TEXAS STANDS
So where do recent events leave Texas? There are three possible outcomes: (1) salvage some sort of Big 12-3, (2) go independent, or (3) join one of the four super-conferences.
Let's momentarily set aside what is going to happen and consider, again, what Texas would like to happen. Again, for Texas, the optimal short-term solution is to salvage some kind of workable Big 12, slowing down the fall of realignment dominoes and buying some time to make its long-term decision. Why is time so important? Because with a little more time, and all the information that will come with it, there are -- at least potentially -- more options on the table for Texas. The extra information might reveal independence to be more viable/workable than it appears right now (i.e. less risky). The extra time and information might also open up possibilities for Texas and, say, Notre Dame, to make a move together. It's also possible that the extra time and information might leave Texas more or less in exactly the same position it is in right now, but the opportunity to make that decision with the additional information would be valuable in and of itself.
Will Texas get that extra time? That's the million dollar question, but as this process steamrolls forward, I don't think you can divorce the evaluation of what will be best for Texas in the long-term from that which would be most beneficial in the short-term. It seems to me that if it can find a way, Texas ideally would like to convince Oklahoma to sit tight and ride out the Big 12-# for a little while longer. The case Texas makes is that (1) Oklahoma stands to benefit from more time and information, as well; (2) Oklahoma is better off -- long-term -- being in the same conference as Texas (for many reasons, including recruiting); and (3) that if the Pac-12 is going to be the right destination for both of them then they'll both benefit from stringing this out and recapturing leverage with respect to the Pac-12.
That last part is key, because on an accelerated timeline the Pac-12 has much more leverage than it would if, say, Texas and Oklahoma held out together and then forced the Pac-12 to negotiate favorably with the two schools in order to secure their presence in its super-conference. Because let's face it, if the Pac-12 strikes out on both, it's a big, big blow to their stature in a super-conference future. Look at the other western-oriented candidates... it's slim pickings.
At least to me, that's what this all boils down to: Can Texas talk Oklahoma into holding out from an immediate move, getting by in a duct-taped Big 12, and leveraging their collective strength into a more favorable position down the line. There are many reasons that's far from a sure thing, not least of which is because it requires a leap of faith on the part of Oklahoma that Texas won't ultimately go a different direction. Whether Texas is willing to make enough assurances to Oklahoma to keep them on board probably depends on how realistic/attractive UT considers its other options, but if Texas sees the Pac-16 as its ultimate destination, it's in its interest to make some commitments now, even if it forecloses other possibilities later.
If, on the other hand, Texas thinks there are a number of viable options that it wants to leave on the table, it's at the mercy of Oklahoma and will have to decide whether to make its long-term decision now, or scrounge together another interim plan while it holds out for more information and better leverage. Given those two options, I'm inclined to think that Texas tries its best to band with Oklahoma and negotiate collectively with the Pac-12. Together, Texas and OU have leverage, because together they can always MacGuyver the Big 12 for a little while longer. Separated, Texas' options get messy, and they'll have to decide whether to compromise pretty heavily as part of entry into the Pac-12, or hold off on their own.
Interesting times....
582 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I agree with the source in the latest Chip Brown article...
If the Pac 12 is unwilling to budge on the LHN, Texas should hold out as long as possible – even to the point of daring the Pac 12 to take OU/OSU without Texas. If they go ahead and take OU/OSU, Texas can still join the Pac 12 without any concessions. If they don’t take them, Texas gets more time.
I would say at this point PAC takes OU/OSU no matter what
Simply because if they ultimately know that super conferences are coming and they know they want OU as part of it they they woudl take them now regardless whether Texas is signed up or not. They know that will force Texas’s hand. And either Texas gives in to what the PAC says, or they go and take two other teams, lets say Missu/Kansas or some other variation. Don’t get me wrong we all Know that Texas is their first pick. But just because they are their first pick don’t think that they won’t go another direction without them.
Let him do it
and then let him try to sell to his TV partners that they should get a huge increase in tv money b/c they added OKC, Norman, Stillwater, and Tulsa tv markets (minus everyone that is at the Indian casino on Saturday).
Oklahoma is a big name program, but the majority of folks in Cali don’t really care enough to watch their own teams week in and out, much less some team from the middle of the country so you wouldn’t add that much interest in existing markets.
Then make him come begging for Dallas/Houston/San Antonio/Austin tv markets.
If anyone can convince people its him.
Look at the deals hes already pulled.
Plus there are already amendments in the tv contract that deal with expansion, obviously I haven’t seen it, but I would be surprised if its already set up to get larger without him having to negotiate it.
Yes, but
I assume how much those contracts would automatically increase would depend on the size of the tv markets added, otherwise you could add two tiny schools from the existing area (San Diego St and Fresno St. say) just to jack up the money if the increases were just a set amount per team added. Perhaps the profile of the team added figures into the equation, but I assure you market size does as well.
Theres no reason for him to bluff,
Like someone said theres only a small amount of schools that are plausible fits for the PAC in the west, so if OU is one of those school you want, then you take them regardless if you believe everythings going to super conferences
Do you take OU/OSU now even if it forces Texas to another conference?
Then you’re stuck with Kansas/KSU when you might have had Texas/Tech if you had waited.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 19, 2011 11:51 PM CDT up reply actions
Or you sit at 14 teams until you decide you want to go further
not everyones going to jump to 16, some may take their time. So you take those teams now knowing you want them later
But if you force Texas into the hands of the Big Ten - who is your eventual move to 16?
Or do you stay at 14 forever?
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 19, 2011 11:55 PM CDT up reply actions
The point is if texas is going to give up the LHN they can go either pac or big 10
So regardless what you do you can’t change that. But if you already have OU in your conference that helps to get Texas if they decide to give up the LHN. Lets say they choose big 10, at least you got OU, which is better then nothing.
If i learned anything from the last year
its that you don’t sit and wait, cuz anything can happen. We thought it was a done deal last year, then swoop it was gone. So if you have a chance to take them now you get the deal done get them in your conference before someone else can make a play
Then they should do it today.
Lets get this started.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 12:08 AM CDT up reply actions
They may. I wouldn't be surprised if OU doesn't make an announcment in the next few days.
Why else would OSU be holding its meeting wed?
OU has basically already said yes - I think they need an invite.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 12:12 AM CDT up reply actions
But they need an assurance of acceptance before they can apply.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 12:21 AM CDT up reply actions
I dont think they really need assurance
If they apply and it gets voted down they just stay in the big 12. They always have that. But ikm sure if it gets to the point where they apply then it will be a done deal… just like in the SEC everyone was saying “its going to get voted down” before it all happened, then all of a sudden it passes.
Because there is a process and it hasn't played out yet
OU just yesterday said they were looking, they will get invited and accept all in good time.
by ev on Sep 20, 2011 9:25 AM CDT up reply actions
They just yesterday said they have had discussions with the Pac 12.
They said they were looking a while ago.
Yes and as we have seen with TAMU
there is a process: look, announce leaving, ask, invited, accept. Otherwise Baylor will come knocking.
by ev on Sep 20, 2011 9:47 AM CDT up reply actions
I think you have to ask them
They are probably making sure everything box is checked so they don’t get sued either.
by ev on Sep 20, 2011 9:53 AM CDT up reply actions
I think they have a pretty good chance of being sued if they leave.
They’re certainly not going to get a waiver to leave.
Well asking for a waiver is pretty stupid
no one is just going to give you one. No OU isn’t waiting for that, and we both know a lawsuit has little chance. However you still don’t want to make it easier for them now do you?
by ev on Sep 20, 2011 9:56 AM CDT up reply actions
I suppose they could wait for the SEC to move.
But I’m thinking the SEC is going to wait for OU to move.
Exactly
The Big10 isn’t going to accept the LHN either, in fact they have even more problem with it. No one is forcing Texas to do anything, certainly not the PAC. Texas has options. However if OU wants in the PAC, they will be taken with or without Texas.
I think the Big Ten actually has less problems with it - because they do not sign over all of their related rights to the conference.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 12:00 AM CDT up reply actions
The Big10 doesn't have regional networks
and Big10 programs do sign over all their sports. The fact they don’t with academic (for lack of a better term) content isn’t worth very much. However if the PAC moves on, what difference would that make to them?
I'm not convinced the Pac 12 network will be any better.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 12:07 AM CDT up reply actions
BTN was smart
…by forcing its way onto “basic” cable packages in a very public fight. But it poisoned the waters for the LHN’s of the world when it failed to deliver content and incremental viewers.
Yes but the PAC also learned from the BTN
They learned the importance of full ownership and holding onto premium content. It allowed the PAC 12 network to again the leverage needed to force those deals. Something they have already done a year in advance.
Um, have you watched any of it?
It’s every bit as good, if not better, than any of FOX’s regional sports networks and every ESPN that isn’t the mothership or #2. If you took the level of production at the BTN and then applied it to content featuring your favorite school you might have a different opinion. Also, Gus Johnson = WIN.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 20, 2011 1:17 AM CDT up reply actions
They all blow
Except for ESPN, the Duece, and believe it or not VS and the Outdoor Life Network. I can’t believe someone made college bass fishing fun to watch.
LHN is already better than the BTN.
by Erasmus Funderburke on Sep 20, 2011 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions
Bob Roll & Paul Sherwin are glaring at you.
Outdoor Life Network Versus, your Tour de France network.
You’re right. It’s a great niche sports channel.
Sorry, this is just too funny in retrospect
He was bluffing
Either way - I think Texas' best move is to wait and see.
If the Pac 12 is really willing to take KU/KSU to fill up to 16 teams – I think we’re better off in the Big Ten anyway (if we’re going to have to give up the LHN in either case).
I’m still not fully convinced about OU/OSU, but I’m even less convinced about KU/KSU.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 19, 2011 11:49 PM CDT up reply actions
What happens if they move to 14 and stay there.
Then Texas is without a conference, and has to make a decision. Either leave the LHN and comply to Pac and join the OU’s or leave the LHN and comply with big10 (assuming they want to grow), or go independent which is the same options they pretty much have right now. so nothing changes for the Pac if they take the OU schools, so if thats the case you take them regardless.
Theres not alot of big time schools that even come close to fitting in the PAC due to location. I mean its a stretch just for OU, so if you knwo your going to get bigger you might as well do it now rather then risking the chance you don’t get them later and your stuck with fresno state or someone else
If you take OU/OSU, I think it forces Texas hand.
If the Pac 12 isn’t willing to give on the LHN, I don’t see why Texas wouldn’t go to the Big Ten in that instance (unless we’re hindered by the legislature).
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 19, 2011 11:56 PM CDT up reply actions
I can tell you why they choose PAC over big ten
The california market. Say what you want but Cali, TX, and Florida are your three big recruiting grounds. If they go Big10 they lose out on one of those markets that they could really expand in. thats hte whole reason they are looking that way now.
Plus it depends on if the BOR makes them take Tech with them.
The big 10 isn’t taking Tech, the PAC will. That is another thing that may be handcuffing Texas.
That's the killer in a B1G move.
The B1G isn’t taking “filler”. Texas & Texas Tech? Nope. Texas & Missouri? OK, but UT doesn’t have any control over that.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 20, 2011 1:19 AM CDT up reply actions
Killer or plus?
The Big 10 is showing more class in this process than the PAC. The Big 10 is not will to dilute their brand and are not trying to stampede Texas into joining the Big 10. Compare that to Larry Scott’s high pressure car salesman approach.
That response only work if you assume the Big10 actually
wants Texas. That may be the case, but to date they have shown no indication to that. So now somehow the PAC is now bad since they are willing to take a required travel partner of Texas? How the hell did that get turned around?
by ev on Sep 20, 2011 9:29 AM CDT up reply actions
There were quotes from the Big Ten about Texas - related to the Tech problem.
And as for bringing Tech along – I think the Pac 12 is using it as leverage to pressure the politicians to send Texas west in order to keep Tech in a premier league.
So now the Tech problem is caused by the PAC
You can’t blame the PAC for using whatever leverage Texas is giving them right?
by ev on Sep 20, 2011 9:52 AM CDT up reply actions
That would a corrupt Texas political system?
Just want to make sure we are both talking about the same thing.
by ev on Sep 20, 2011 9:57 AM CDT up reply actions
The University of Texas system is accountable to voters.
by Skin Patrol on Sep 20, 2011 12:47 PM CDT up reply actions
Because it's only indirectly accountable to voters.
It’s only accountable to regents, who are all appointed by Perry, an A&M grad, who let A&M go to the SEC without taking any of their little brothers.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 12:50 PM CDT up reply actions
So Texas is accountable but Texas A&M is not?
Is that why you think it is cronyism?
If so, the lesson to Texas graduates is never elect an Aggie.
Indeed.
Unfortunately, without term limits, I wouldn’t be surprised if we have the same governor for another 20 years.
I think one takeaway from all this...
I don’t know what Texas Tech’s political clout is. I hope it is strong enough that we continue to be "problem"atic for anyone seeking to leave us behind.
If true, the Texas BOR has taken a long-term approach to the Tech problem (if any), and A&M has taken a short-term approach to the Tech problem (if any).
If something horrible happens to any major Texas public university in realignment, and fingers can be pointed, they will eventually be pointed. If Texas didn’t get what it wants in realignment in part because A&M bolted first, then that should have political consequences for A&M.
If Texas doesn’t get what it wants because of a “Tech” problem, that has potential political consequences for Texas Tech.
You can pretty well expect that if Texas Tech ends up in the WAC as a result of Texas or Texas A&M’s failure to take us with them, there will be political consequences if Tech advocates have political power. It will be similar in kind to the bitterness of SMU or TWC fans when they were left behind, but (at least in my opinion) dissimilar in scope and degree, because SMU and TWC are not public universities, and Texas Tech will have 40-50 thousand students, most of them in-state, within your lifetime.
I’m not trying to overstate Tech’s political capital, because I frankly do not know what it is. But plucky little Baylor alone has proven that a little of it goes a long way, and I can state confidently that Texas Tech advocates won’t take a realignment buttfuck lying down.
Texas Tech advocates will not take a realignment buttfuck which lands us in the Big East lying down.
I do not think Tech fans want to go to the SEC.
Travel to the SEC West would have been a nightmare, which the Aggies will soon find out (although they at least can get to Arkansas and LSU). In any event, the recurring story since last year has been Texas/Texas Tech to the Pac-12, so we’re already attached to that narrative. The SEC isn’t a reality, and if A&M wants to go, whatever. We’ve hitched our wagons to you because no one wants to hitch it to the Aggies’ trailer. I assume you are flattered.
Definitely not flattered.
It’s just annoying that Texas might not have a say in what conference we are in because Tech prefers the Pac 12.
To be specific, that was Ohio State president Gordon Gee saying that.
That’s not to say that Jim Delany & the other 11 Big Ten presidents don’t feel the same way and want Texas, but I do think the Big Ten’s lust for Texas is more conditional than its lust for Notre Dame.
Be the change you wish to see in the world.
Follow @semicorrect
by Semicorrect on Sep 20, 2011 10:41 AM CDT up reply actions
Gee was clearly being used as a back-channel
the way Barry Alvarez was at Nebraska. And the B1G’s “lust” for Notre Dame at this point seems more of an obsession at not being denied at this point.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 20, 2011 10:42 AM CDT up reply actions
"Jack Swarbrick, I will not be ignored!"
Be the change you wish to see in the world.
Follow @semicorrect
by Semicorrect on Sep 20, 2011 10:52 AM CDT up reply actions
(Sigh)
This is way closer to the truth than I wish. The back and forth of slights and insults in the tumultuous courtship between the two parties goes way back to Fritz Crisler’s anti-Catholic sentiment in the early part of the Twentieth Century. The love-hate relationship has only gotten stronger since.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 20, 2011 10:57 AM CDT up reply actions
Thankfully we're in a position of strength now and in the future.
Even if the demographics of the US shift to the south (which they probably will), the number of Big Ten fans who care about football and saturate markets will remain the strongest, which gives the conference long-term strength. We can afford to not openly beg Notre Dame and Texas to join and instead reserve them for daydreams. At this point, I’m okay with ND not joining up. Hopefully that becomes Delany’s & the next commissioner’s point-of-view as well.
Be the change you wish to see in the world.
Follow @semicorrect
by Semicorrect on Sep 20, 2011 11:34 AM CDT up reply actions
Oh, I'm with you
I just don’t know that the powers that be are.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 20, 2011 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions
I'm pretty sure Delany is
And without his support there’s no way the Big Ten adds anyone. I just hope the next commissioner is as smart.
Be the change you wish to see in the world.
Follow @semicorrect
Big 10 wants Texas
Texas is a huge market, great program, good academics, and does not cheat (unlike USC and Oregon). Larry Scott is trying to stampede Texas into joining the PAC by colluding with OU (who wants to limit Texas options and financial muscle). What is cool is that Scott’s strong arm tactics most likely will backfire.
Scott desperately needs Texas or his expansion to 16 teams will end up costing PAC members money and will have diluted the PAC brand.
Eh, WANTED Texas.
The previous conversations were had in a world without the LHN. I’m not sure the same level of desire is there or you would hear all sorts of rumblings to the contrary.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 20, 2011 10:27 AM CDT up reply actions
I didn't hear any more Big Ten rumblings last year either until that stuff came out.
I think the Big Ten is just more quieter.
And if the Pac 12 won’t accept the LHN, then the Big Ten is likely in the same boat.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 10:30 AM CDT up reply actions
More quieter?
Sounds like you’ve got a “Tech problem”…
I would agree on this count as well, though. I’m just having trouble figuring what Delany’s game is. I still tend to believe the conference feels secure in their current structure and is loathe to expand in any way that doesn’t follow the prestige pattern of Penn State and Nebraska.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 20, 2011 10:40 AM CDT up reply actions
It's not the Pac-12'a fault that OU wanted to get out of the conference
And you completely overstate the Pac-12’s need for UT. Larry Scott wants Texas but he doesn’t need them. Your last line makes absolutely no sense, especially since every Pac-12 team will be pulling in $35-$40m from TV related revenue within 3 years. Adding Texas would increase that but it wouldn’t matter if Texas gets different terms then everybody else (which will never happen).
That are just estimates - you don't know what they will actually be getting from the Pac 12 Network.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 10:30 AM CDT up reply actions
Yes but we do know they for a fact have 40M households
and conservative estimates are 60M at start up. We also know what the Big10 gets for that many and the fact the Pac10 doesn’t split revenue. It’s a pretty good guess they know how much they will be making in the short term, say the next 3-4 years.
But the Big Ten gets so much because they have such rabid fanbases in the states in which they have schools.
I’m not sure the Pac 12 will be able to get 80 cents a subscriber in CA, etc.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions
Yes but the Pac12 get get as much with only
half of the subscribers too. The benefits of 100% ownership.
But they also have to pay for the start up and operations.
The downside of 100% ownership.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 11:07 AM CDT up reply actions
Here you go
* BUSINESS MODEL
Scott wouldn’t talk dollars but said the network is guaranteed to be profitable in the first year (I assume because of because of rights fees paid by the four cable partners).
"How profitable depends on future distribution and advertising," he said.
What this means:
1. The conference won’t need to dip into its expanded coffers (thank you, Fox and ESPN!) to launch the networks.
2. The individual campuses won’t be on the hook to cover start-up expenses (equipment and perhaps the construction of studios).
As for revenue and expenses, Scott gave a general picture of each:
* Revenue buckets: Advertising and affiliate/sub fees from distributors (cable, telcos and satellite companies).
* Expense buckets: Production, management, operations, technical, marketing.
(The production costs for seven networks and 850 events are going to be massive).
That doesn't seem to suggest nearly the money you've been talking about.
Also – I thought you said you would be able to get other regional networks outside of the regional. Where did you see that:
“He also said that it’s "an open question" as to whether the carriers will offer other regional networks within a home region — such as Pac-12 TV-Oregon being available in Seattle.”
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions
We discussed the regional network structure yesterday so I am not sure why you are surprised
If a provider is already carrying the other regional networks, there is almost no cost to include them within a sports package, similar to the FSN channels.
As to the projected revenues of the Pac-12 network, the article actually doesn’t address it them at all.
Google is your friend
Just as it applies to the conditions being right for adding UT.
Nothing more.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 20, 2011 10:26 AM CDT up reply actions
It did not handcuff aggie from going to SEC
Why would it handcuff Texas from going to Big 10?
A&M is a flagship U, too
If A&M isn’t bound to take Tech, then neither is Texas. Texas may choose to force PAC to take Tech for pod purposes but there is no requirement for Texas to take Tech along with them.
Don't think so
If A&M, a Texas flagship U, goes to the SEC, they don’t have to take Tech.
If Tech goes to the PAC, they don’t have to take Texas.
Why would Texas have to take Tech?
Texas had a Tech problem back in the days of stability. Now that mass scale pandemonium has ensued (triggered by A&M unilaterally going to the SEC), the rules have changed.
Tech is going to be OK. BTW, Tech hates us and will be thrilled to be in a different conference from Texas.
I don't think Tech gets an invite to the Pac 12 without us.
Not sure they get an invite at all except for a possible Big XII/Big East merger.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 10:17 AM CDT up reply actions
re: A&M is a flagship U, too
the difference is: UT is The flagship university…
Because
you can’t explain away a political problem simply by insisting “Texas isn’t bound to Tech” or “there is no requirement for Texas to take Tech along with them.”
If voters think Texas needs to take Tech with them, it won’t matter that you think it is unfair or inconsistent. I don’t know if Texas Tech has the political clout to force the issue, but I don’t think you can dismiss that reality by appealing to things like the fact that some other University wasn’t forced to take Tech to the SEC.
One reason why things are different is because Texas A&M took the second to last life-preserver on a sinking ship, and now the political pressure is on you to share the last one with us. If you had taken A&M’s life preserver, you’d perhaps be in a different spot, but you didn’t, and you’re not.
Also, since you are THE flagship Texas university, there is some expectation that you have more responsibility for Texas Tech than does A&M. If you get the good “half” of the PUF, maybe voters consider you more accountable than A&M, for instance.
by Skin Patrol on Sep 20, 2011 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions
Unfortunately voters don't get a say.
I think it would be different if the governer were a Texas, Tech, Baylor, or TCU grad.
The Tech problem is that Texas is attached to Tech.
Since Tech cannot get into another conference, Texas is likely forced to take an inferior deal in order to bring Tech with them. But it’s not the voters that get to decide. It is the regents, all of whom were appointed by Rick Perry.
So don't vote for an Aggie!
I think at least some of the political pressure exerted on the Texas BOR comes from beyond the Governor’s office.
How much more can Texas expand their recruiting grounds?
If anything, it opens Texas up to the likes of the Arizonas and Utah every bit as much as it opens California to the Horns. And no offense to Austin (which is as magnificent a college town as I’ve seen), but it’s a lot tougher to convince a kid from San Diego to head to Texas than it is to get a kid from Odessa to go to Los Angeles.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 20, 2011 1:23 AM CDT up reply actions
San Diego to Texas is tough?
Then you must have forgotten about our most recent Heisman winner.
Please don’t lump Austin in with Lubbock, Stillwater, and Norman. None if those cuties were jammed with visitors, with every flight and hotel jammed last weekend like Austin was. None if them will have the first purpose built F1 track in the country. Austin is a national destination.
Reread that.
Please don’t lump Austin in with Lubbock, Stillwater, and Norman. None if those cuties were jammed with visitors
I didn’t. In mentioning that I’ve “seen” Austin, I hoped I had shown I’ve been there and love it. Hell, it took my wife and I the better part of a year to pay off our trip to Austin because we had a bit too much fun.
But I stand by my original statement; it’s not that it’s an impossibility to get someone from California to come to Texas, especially once you’ve got them on campus. It’s just tougher to get someone with offers from USC, UCLA and Arizona State who has never left the Pacific Time Zone to consider a place that they may have preconceived notions of (because believe it or not, the whole country holds some stereotypes regarding Texas).
In most of the threads extolling the virtues of Pac-16 memberships I keep reading words like “weather” and “beaches” and “culture”. If this commentariat has positive notions about West Coast life (idealized as they may be), you’d better believe young people do, too. I’m just pointing out the one-way logic in claiming new recruiting territory.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 20, 2011 10:37 AM CDT up reply actions
In a couple of more years
Texas will know the LHN’s real worth (or at least more so than now) so will be able to make a better decision on how much to negotiate on that issue, so you let them take OU and OSU, bide your time, and decide a couple of years later. Only the real threat of them filling up now to 16 should force our hand so quickly.
But can you really grow having no real conference for a few years?
Thats the unknown righ tnow that no one really knows.
Not an urgent need to grow
Texas is super rich and already has a guaranteed $300 million contract for the LHN with ESPN. Keeping our options open, especially the LHN, is much more important. The reality is that being a member of a 16 team super conference run by a puppet master like Scott is something that Texas wants to avoid. So long as the Big 12 champion is an AQ, Texas can hang with it, buying time. In the meantime, let’s see how OU does with their recruiting after divorcing themselves from this part of the country. OU really, really wants Texas to go with them to the PAC. Scott really, really wants Texas way, way, way more than OU and OSU. Scott needs Texas way, way more than Texas needs the PAC.
Scott strikes me as a guy who doesn’t give a shit about college football and has no deep connection with college football. Scott is all about forcing this deal through, getting his cut, and then moving onto his next gig before the shit hits the fan.
Pac and Other Conference would like UT but they dont NEED UT
Ut is a great program and would get an invite almost anywhere because of the TV market they enjoy. Many conferences would love to have the Texas market -Sec, Big 10 and Pac but to go to any one of the quality conferences Texas will have to part with control over the LHN and share revenue from it.
I agree that Texas will not be going to the Pac because it will not let go of the LHN and the reality is it cant join the BIG 10, Pac 12 or SEC with the LHN.
PAC desperately needs Texas
way, way, way more than any other school and will hold a spot open until Texas makes up its mind.
The best thing the PAC has going for it is that, inexplicably, Texas has chosen Bill Powers to lead the negotiations. Why the Texas BOR thinks that Powers is remotely qualified to negotiate this thing is beyond me.
To be credible, you need to prove your statement that neither the PAC or SEC will take Texas with the LHN. Who knows what happens in negotiations? You do realize that the LHN is all about 3rd tier rights, correct?
should have said: " neither the Big 10 nor SEC"
To be credible, you need to prove your statement that neither the Big 10 nor SEC will take Texas with the LHN. Who knows what happens in negotiations?
To me, if Texas ends up joining a conference, the SEC is looking better all the time. It is the best football conference and it makes sense geographically. Aggie, Arkansas, and LSU are next door.
+1
I don’t want the PAC or the ACC…and what is TCU going to do about the BigEast?
"Nobody leaves this field until we beat the hell out of them".................... L.J."Louis"Jordan in 1913 before kickoff of the Texas/ou game.
Nice idea for an avatar.
Whoever said laughter is the best medicine had clearly never tasted Scotch.
What is your beef with Bill Powers?
I suspect he is one of the better negotiators of just about anything.
by MarkInAustin on Sep 20, 2011 9:23 AM CDT up reply actions
Bill Powers
Objections to Powers:
He is obviously greatly prejudiced towards the PAC. I suspect that Powers and Boren colluded on this OU move towards the PAC.
With all due respect, Powers negotiating with Larry Scott is a huge mismatch in favor of Scott. Powers may be ok as a negotiator for an academic but I would much prefer to bring in a junkyard dog who negotiates for a living.
The Pac isn't going to hold a spot open
There is a distinct disadvantage to that option. They don’t have the options to wait and hope Texas accepts, if just a couple of schools decided to go somewhere else the opportunity to expand to 16 will be lost. If Texas waits too long, there will be no invited from the PAC. Yes we all know it’s about 3rd tier right, do you know those are part of the PAC12 network (I’m sure you do).
by ev on Sep 20, 2011 9:35 AM CDT up reply actions
If the Pac 12 is willing to take Kansas and Kansas State - I say let them do it.
I have no doubt that Texas will not get left out of a BCS conference. If the Pac 12 really wants Kansas and Kansas State right now, that would be fine with me. I’m skeptical that the Pac 12 wants KU/KSU.
I'm sure you are right
however that doesn’t change the situation, the PAC can’t wait in hope Texas will accept. IF they do, and Texas decides to go elsewhere, they the PAC is in worse shape had they not waited at all.
by ev on Sep 20, 2011 9:55 AM CDT up reply actions
How are they in worse shape?
If they wait – they take OU/OSU and see what happens. If they don’t wait, they take OU/OSU/KU/KSU and lock themselves in. Are they really better off that way?
yes
the PAC will need 16 teams for a POD system, They will need a POD system to rotate the schools against the Cali teams more often.
So yes, the PAC will need to get to 16 in time to schedule next season.
Because there is no guarantee
KU, MU or even KSU will be there after Texas takes it’s time and decides to move on.
MU is probably not there now - they will likely go to the SEC if the Big XII blows up.
KU/KSU will still be there – or they’ll be in a secondary Big East. They won’t say no to the Pac 12 today or in the Big East.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 10:08 AM CDT up reply actions
I don't think MU will get an SEC invite
at least not in this around. It throws of the east west balance and the SEC is not splitting up Alabama and Auburn. Clearly the drop from MU to KSU is enough to warrant not waiting by itself.
Auburn has already said they are willing to switch.
Hell – they almost appear to favor a switch at this point.
MU is the favorite for the 14th team to the SEC right now.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 10:20 AM CDT up reply actions
If you say so
everything I’ve read is WVU is leading for the #14 spot and Auburn doesn’t want to move. Maybe I need to read up some more?
Steward Mandel's twitter:
“ACC thumbs nose at WVU academics. SEC wants TV sets, and W Va doesn’t have enough of them.”
Brett McMurphy:
“Multiple Big East sources said they have been told by WVU officials that WVU rejected by ACC & SEC”
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 11:12 AM CDT up reply actions
Used all of their political capital to get into the ACC.
No way they can go now.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 20, 2011 12:02 PM CDT up reply actions
Ha ha
Yeah, because the PAC is so eager to add Kansas. Come on, your strategy is to stampede Texas. Texas is the only school that you can add that will raise your prestige and make you a ton of money by opening up a huge market. You are under our thumb.
Here's the problem
You are under our thumb.
This is the attitude that makes other conferences leery of whether the revenue UT adds is worth the problems it brings. If it were confined to message boards and fans, that would be one thing, but TPTB share it to some extent, too.
by TwoPalePonies on Sep 20, 2011 10:39 AM CDT up reply actions
effect on recruiting
The point you make about OU recruiting is key.
Mack somewhat addressed this, if indirectly, when he spoke about the parents. IMO, had we gone to the PAC as a 4-some (the Okie schools + Tech) then this would have preserved several chances for the Texas parents to conveniently see their sons in person with an easy car trip. Combined with other regional OOC games, it would have worked out.
However, if the OK schools go w/o the two Texas schools and end up having to forego those same type of games, then (I think) it will make a difference in their Texas recruiting, which is the life-blood of their entire football program, and always has been. Stoops seems convinced he can make up for any losses with California talent. I dont know if this is true or not. He will be trading a relatively sure thing for an unknown. There is a great deal of risk involved.
Some folks keep trying to minimize this aspect of the whole realignment shake-out by pointing out how different the world is now. That watching their kids on TV is so much easier today (which is true). And traveling around by air is so much easier now (which is also true). But I think alot, perhaps most, Texas parents would much prefer to be able to drive to Houston or Waco or Dallas or perhaps San Antonio versus the added expense and hassle of air travel (hotel/rent car/time itself). Maybe this does not apply to everyone but I say it does to a significant number. Enough to make a big impact on your recruiting.
Anyways, I just think OU is taking a big risk here by doing it this way.
by Juan Grande on Sep 20, 2011 10:40 AM CDT up reply actions
If Oklahoma was on the other side of the country and wasn't an established national power these concerns might have a little more merit
As it is I don’t think a move makes any difference at all
ou recruiting
do you mean on their recruiting overall, or their in-TX recruiting?
b/c this move, if it is w/o us, is going to involve less games in Texas
by Juan Grande on Sep 20, 2011 10:46 AM CDT up reply actions
Norman will not be moved to the Pacific time zone
It will still be as close or closer than Austin for kids from DFW and north Texas in general. In all likelihood, the RRS will remain even if it goes out of conference. OU will still play at least 6 games per season in Oklahoma or Texas and will have the option to schedule Texas cupcakes instead of some out-of-region cupcakes for OOC games. I think you vastly overestimate the effect on recruiting.
by TwoPalePonies on Sep 20, 2011 10:46 AM CDT up reply actions
Show me a quote from the King
that says OU needs to be in conference with UT to recruit in Texas — it never was during his tenure, during which OU won 3 MNCs — and I’ll reconsider.
by TwoPalePonies on Sep 20, 2011 10:49 AM CDT up reply actions
"I don’t know where they’re going," Switzer said Monday. "But I think (OU & OSU) would be making a hell of a mistake to not go where Texas goes."
by Juan Grande on Sep 20, 2011 10:50 AM CDT up reply actions
more from that article
Switzer emphatically suggested that all the current recruiting efforts at OU and OSU should focus solely on convincing Texas to stay in the same conference as the Sooners and Cowboys.
by Juan Grande on Sep 20, 2011 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions
"...the King"? Credibility fail
Make you a deal, TPP. Go back to using the recruiting resources from Switzer’s tenure and we’ll hold the door open for you at every Texas high school. Times have changed a tad. If OU cuts ties with Texas, it will negatively affect OU’s recruiting in the state.
We're going to play like we're in a bad mood.
Logic fail
If times have changed from Switzer’s period, it undercuts rather than supports the assertion that because recruiting Texas was more difficult out-of-conference in the 70s and 80s, that is necessarily the case now.
by TwoPalePonies on Sep 20, 2011 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions
Valid, but I believe it will be relatively more difficult if OU doesn't have games in Texas.
An opinion to be sure, but one that fits the conventional wisdom that you recruit better in areas where you have a physical presence.
And the credibility comment wasn’t cool, but calling that shady bastage ‘the King’ is a little hard to stomach in these parts!
We're going to play like we're in a bad mood.
No offense taken
I fully recognize that referring to Switzer as the King is a bit of trolling on this board. And it was fun.
I understand the point and logic about a physical presence, but in terms of seeing games, Norman will still be as close as Austin for North Texas families, and at least 90% of the UT posters I’ve seen here and elsewhere seem to support keeping the RRS, at the CB, as do most Sooners, so I think that game remains until it becomes unworkable for one reason or another. OU is likely to keep playing OOC games in Texas, also.
None of us can really know what the full effect on recruiting would be — my own opinion is that it would be far less than devastating to OU’s football success.
by TwoPalePonies on Sep 20, 2011 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions
Well played.
Point for Juan Grande.
As I’ve consistently said on this board and others, I’d prefer that OU be in a conference with UT, provided it’s a stable, premier conference (meaning not the Big XII under any scenario I see as likely). I think OU will still get its fair share of blue chippers from Texas even if OU and Texas part ways.
by TwoPalePonies on Sep 20, 2011 10:59 AM CDT up reply actions
but continue to get 3/4's of your team
from TX?
this is the issue. and, if not, can that loss of 4* talent be made up elsewhere, like from CA?
i dont know
by Juan Grande on Sep 20, 2011 11:02 AM CDT up reply actions
3/4 is overstating it
But I think so even at that. Among scholarship players, 3/4 of any year’s 25 maximum is only 18-19. UT will still be limited to 25 scholarships, just like everybody else in the country. And if OU and OSU go to the PacX without UT, one of the following will be true: UT will be playing in a conference that is viewed as a bottom-tier AQ conference along with the dwarves, UT will go play in the B1G or ACC, where it will lack conference-mates in Texas, or UT will go independent, where it will lack conference-mates in Texas. I think those things change the landscape in OU’s favor for recruiting.
by TwoPalePonies on Sep 20, 2011 11:11 AM CDT up reply actions
Disagree - but I guess we may find out.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 11:13 AM CDT up reply actions
We just might.
Again, I hope not. I’d like to see UT join OU and others in the PacX. I think the risks of remaining in a moribund Big XII for OU outweigh the risks that we might lose out on some UT recruits, particularly when the move should advance the ball for SoCal recruiting, where we’ve had some signficant success for years.
I’m curious to hear what you and the other horns think about the recruiting impact of UT playing either not in a conference with other Texas schools or in a diminished conference.
by TwoPalePonies on Sep 20, 2011 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions
I don't think a diminished conference is an option.
But I think playing in the Big Ten would be a coup for Texas. I think we will generally get ours in Texas, but it can’t hurt to be playing the top programs (Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska) as the only school located in the warmer part of the country.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions
Playing Michigan will always be a bigger draw than playing Oklahoma State, just based on the tradition.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 11:30 AM CDT up reply actions
Wow, short memory there buddy.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 20, 2011 12:09 PM CDT up reply actions
So you think Michigan is going to be good in the next 4 years?
Currently their entire offense is based on one player and very little talent other wise. Their defense is horrible and they are still struggling with the Spread concept.
You do realize that Texas has had a longer-lasting
“down” period in recent memory than Michigan has had since the 60’s? For you to write them off as a has-been already is absurd. It’s been barely 5 years since UM entered the final week of the season undefeated and ranked #2. List all of the Big XII and Pac-12 schools that fit that description, it’s a small list.
I expect UM to struggle this year and possibly next. After that, underestimate them at your own peril, you’ll look silly.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 20, 2011 12:30 PM CDT up reply actions
we really need a concise term to describe the process of making one single statement that terminates one’s entire message-board credibility for the rest of eternity, because ppilot just did it.
by BrooklynHorn on Sep 20, 2011 12:53 PM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
If you need this explained
you live in a tiny corner of the world.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 20, 2011 1:12 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm thinking
“Domer’d himself,” as it implies a similar level of absurdity, as in “Why doesn’t the Big XII just take Notre Dame?”
by BrooklynHorn on Sep 20, 2011 1:21 PM CDT up reply actions
B1G would be attractive to UT for a number of reasons
but it undercuts the idea that playing most of the games close to home is so important for recruiting or otherwise. I agree that UT gets most of the Texas players it wants in any power conference scenario — it always has — but don’t think that is necessarily to the detriment of OU vis-a-vis what’s always gone on.
by TwoPalePonies on Sep 20, 2011 11:30 AM CDT up reply actions
Its an issue
I concede, as schedules will be reworked. Hopefully, we can add a regular series with the Irish, which would be a coup IMO. I hope it works out. If not, we might be forced to keep the aggy game, which I am not in favor of.
However, to your point about schollie limits, I think what you are overlooking is that OU is going to lose those good state of Texas players to aggy and its cheatin new breathren.
by Juan Grande on Sep 20, 2011 11:18 AM CDT up reply actions
Meh.
OU is going to lose those good state of Texas players to aggy and its cheatin new breathren.
I’m not so sure about that. I think you’re right that A&M going to the SEC is going to make recruiting Texas a little easier for other SEC teams, but I think A&M will continue to get what it’s always gotten, and OU will continue to pull the talent it needs to compete out of Texas and beyond.
by TwoPalePonies on Sep 20, 2011 11:25 AM CDT up reply actions
On the numbers
OU current depth chart shows 4 offensive and 5 defensive starters from Texas. The rest are from Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, Louisiana, California and New Mexico. I think the number of top players OU really needs to get out of Texas is often overestimated — its a long way from 3/4 of the team. So the recruiting question is whether OU can continue to get the relatively few blue chippers it needs from Texas if it is not in the same conference as UT. It may be a little tougher recruiting overall, but I don’t think it would severely hamper OU’s chances of success on the football field.
by TwoPalePonies on Sep 20, 2011 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions
These quotes
are interesting:
“I think we’d all rather this drama were contained to the offseason”
“what Texas would like at this stage of the game more than anything else is still more time.”
“Instead, if you’re in Texas’ position, what you most want is to slow the realignment dance down, buy as much time as you can, gather as much information as you can, and to the greatest extent possible control the pace at which realignment unfolds. "
I think those who started and are trying to finish this (ATM and the PAC specifically) know this and that was the very reason this started when it did. The offseason would have entailed lots of people with lots of spare time and plenty of time to weigh all decisions and slow-play any attempt to speed it up.
During the frenzy of the very beginning of the season they hoped to get things done that would have been impossible during the offseason and force some that would normally make more reasonable longterm decisions into huge mistakes. Let’s hope our guys have the nerve to stay steady and take as much time as necessary to get it right instead of just right now.
That would required TAMU and the PAC to be working together
I highly doubt that is the case. One decided to strike, the other took advantage. You really can’t hold the PAC looking out for it’s best interest against them can you?
Why would it require both parties to be working together?
I think both parties are trying to maximize their leverage and minimize Texas’ leverage.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 19, 2011 11:50 PM CDT up reply actions
You're right
I think ATM saw it as their chance to do it in a frenzy. PAC and ACC just decided to go ahead and take advantage now as well instead of waiting for the off season when others had more time to make better decisions.
I thought
getting out of the Big XII for Aggie required action taken prior to the season starting to get out by next year. I may have misread something …
Yeah, I can hold it against the PAC
Larry Scott’s high pressure tactics irritate the crap out of me. Larry Scott, the PAC high pressure car salesman, does not care about college football. All he cares about is getting his deal done. At this point I much prefer any of these options: staying in the Big 12 for awhile (so long as it is an AQ), joining the Big 10, going independent, or joining the SEC, to joining the PAC.
If Bill Powers gives in to Larry Scott, shame on Bill Powers. Now is when Texas needs its big cigars to take charge. Leaving this decision to an academic like Bill Powers is a big mistake.
PAC regulations are set
There really is no giving in- Ut can join the Pac under the same rules as UCLA and USC and the rest of the teams or it can pass. OU will go to the Pac under those rules and Powers just needs to decide if the can live with the rules of the Pac or not because they are not going to change.
Negotiation
Anything is possible in a negotiation. Fortunately Powers has to get final approval from the BOR on anything he negotiates.
We’ll see if OU goes to the PAC without Texas. Clearly OU would like to stampede Texas but it isn’t clear that Texas is going to fall for it. The Big 12 has been extraordinarily great for OU. The Big 12 survives easily as an AQ conference so long as OU and Texas stay in the Big 12. Most likely OU is just trying to force Texas to make concessions as their price for staying in the Big 12.
So you will hold that against the PAC
but the demand to keep the LHN network shouldn’t be held against Texas. Ok I guess there is some logic somewhere that explains that.
by ev on Sep 20, 2011 9:36 AM CDT up reply actions
Was just thinking aloud on Twitter
and the only way I see to salvage the Big 12 is to form some sort of 16-team merger with the Big East, although the more that I think about it, the more that only adding three of those teams and maybe even having a way, way outside shot at convincing Notre Dame to join the conference makes sense. As I kind of worked through, the biggest impediment to such a merger is that without Syracuse and Pittsburgh, there just aren’t many appealing teams left in the Big East.
Lousiville semi-appealing. USF? Meh, as I doubt it would really bring much of Florida into the mix. Cincy? Meh — it’s the 33rd-largest media market in the country and I don’t think that Bearcat football really commands much of a presence in the rest of Ohio. So on and so on.
Not only that, but merging the Big East and Big 12 would be dependent on keeping Oklahoma and Oklahoma State in the conference, which seems like a difficult sell right now unless Texas can somehow convince Oklahoma that the potential for a school network and/or larger measure of control in revamped Big 12 outweighs the benefits of the Pac-12/16.
Follow me on Twitter: @GhostofBigRoy
Burnt Orange Nation
by Wescott Eberts (GoBR) on Sep 19, 2011 11:46 PM CDT reply actions
What about.....
looking at potential adds based upon growth rate of fan bases? Programs on the rise with increased admissions, new or refurbished stadiums, in a growth area? Betting on the come? Does anyone stand out if the field were limited like this?
As an example, UCF has 56,000 students.
by Juan Grande on Sep 20, 2011 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions
Does simply attending a school make someone a fan?
My brother went to Ohio University in Athens, OH. Nearly everyone there grew up an Ohio State fan and retained their allegiance to that school even when the two schools went head-to-head. I’m willing to bet the vast majority of UCF students have family/childhood allegiances to either UF or FSU.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 20, 2011 12:12 PM CDT up reply actions
Good post Peter
In GoBR’s post concerning the Boren/Powers regent relationships, I initially thought that it wasn’t a terrible dynamic to have Powers negotiate with the PAC but still be accountable to the BOR. However, if the more important relationship is the one between the two administrations (OU and Texas), you’d ideally want two empowered executives to be able to commit their institutions to a particular course of action. Are you really asking (among other things) if OU can trust Texas?
Sigh...
I know I’m in the minority on this, and I’m fine with that; however, I just want this to all end sometime soon. Everything we’ve read is all speculation and rumor-mongering, and that’s expected, but its making my brain hurt thinking about all of the different options available. Not to mention the mind numbing 700+ comments per post on realignment, that somehow all say the same thing (just echange PAC 16 for Indie, ACC, or Big 12 as they all have pros and cons).
Sadly, I know Texas holds the best cards at this poker table, but I feel that there is SO MUCH bluffing by all players that the game is becoming convoluted with bullshit, and as fans of the game we may really not know whats going on in regards to this realignment process. Of course we hear the latest scoop from Chip and Halliburton, but within the next 20 minutes, we’re going to hear the exact opposite. This has all left a very sour taste in my mouth as a fan.
Don’t get me wrong, as you can tell from my avatar, I WANT PAC-16 over anything else, but i want it now. Not in 3 months, or next year. Now.
Eight Walls a new MMA blog from Fantake
Follow me on Twitter
Follow Eight Walls on Twitter
SECede?....Whoop(s)!!
by kriess on Sep 19, 2011 11:52 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
all
I’m not even sure that OU isn’t bluffing, that their real desire isn’t just concessions from UT.
Call everyone’s bluff. Stay put until Pac/OU/SEC/ACC show their cards.
We can wait, even if it means a couple of years in a Big 12-2-1-2. The remnant BE schools are coming whether we are there or not.
I just wish this wasn’t happening during fb season.
What concessions
Do you think OU is looking for? OU has done well under the unequal revenue sharing. I think OU is looking for long-term stability in a premier conference more than anything else. Of UT’s potential moves and motivations discussed here and elsewhere, none foster long-term stability.
by TwoPalePonies on Sep 20, 2011 8:38 AM CDT up reply actions
none
I think you’re right. But its possible that this is a bluff and they want ESPN to pay up for their 3rd tier (which they’re building now) and UT/TLN to give up on the HS games. UT & everyone else could assign 1st and 2nd tier media rights to the conference. What else, I don’t know. Maybe they want the start of some sort of research consortium like the CIC or they’ve got some big project maybe in geology they want cooperation on. Boren has mentioned he wants to be with schools he works with outside of sports.
NCAA
Why can’t the NCAA control all of this mess? If they see themselves as a legit Association, they should control Conference alignment and policies. If they can’t, there should be no NCAA.
the NCAA doesn't have the power to do anything
They are a membership orgainization and the members decided a long time ago not to give them that power.
And an organization
that is on the brink of irrelevance in the sport of college football.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 20, 2011 1:24 AM CDT up reply actions
Brink?
They are Wile E. Coyote, looking back at that cliff and holding up a sign that says “Uh-oh.”
Nick Bloomfield: EDSBS Hero.
At any rate
Now would be the time to have a strong president stand up and say “Resect mah authoritah!”
What’s happening now is in no one’s best interest. It is going to shrink the market for college football by excluding non-powerhouse schools.
by Erasmus Funderburke on Sep 20, 2011 3:34 PM CDT up reply actions
Regent Powerplay.
I am terrified that the reason that the BOR didn’t approve Powers to make any moves without final approval is that the Regents are going to make sure we take Tech with us. Thus, if Powers comes back with a deal to go to the Big Ten with ND (for instance), they will shoot it down.
I was hoping
That the BOR actually gave Powers more authority privately than they wanted to ever read about in the papers. If true, it would give him a few more tools in the negotiating process and make it more about the integrity of the process than the will of an individual. Plus take away any perception of bias on his part since he did his undergrad at Cal. One can hope that there were no more political motivations than that…
Thats another problem with the debate we had above
If tech is a must to go with texas then PAC is your only real landing spot right now. Big 10 isn’t taking tech anytime soon. Which means its one less card in your hand, and one more in the PAC’s hand, especially if it was told to them
Although best case for Texas might be for the Pac 12 to take OU/OSU and force Texas' hand.
Perhaps that would help get Tech off of our back.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 12:04 AM CDT up reply actions
possibly... I could see that as a chance.
The PAC’s not going to have an easy decision either way. But I look at it this way if OU is one of the teams you want long term, you take them know and roll the dice for Texas. If TX goes elsewhere atleast you got one of your pieces. Cuz without rolling the dice you may end up with Neither.
I think you only end up with neither if the Big XII lives.
OU/OSU aren’t going to another conference – it’s either Pac 12 or nothing.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 12:09 AM CDT up reply actions
You have it backwards
There is no requirement for Texas to take Tech since A&M was not forced to take anybody with them into the SEC. The LHN is far more important to Texas than Tech. The reason that Texas might require the PAC to take Tech is to complete a pod.
Notre Dame
I’ve already heard a report that if Notre Dame is “forced” to join a conference because of Super-Conferences, that they will join the ACC.
I heard a report that your report is BS
Whoever said laughter is the best medicine had clearly never tasted Scotch.
I should stop reading and commenting on these re-alignment posts
Every day it’s something new. Sigh. Just do it already so I can get back to focusing on enjoying my Saturdays.
Go ahead and wait...
Larry offers OU/OKaggy/ Tech…who are all there without even packing…if UTexas does not want to jump on that train then good luck in your future endeavors…TXaggy to the SEC and Texas Tech to the PAC and UTexas where? The Horns cannot afford to sit around and wait to see what is going to happen…granted Larry is looking to secure UTexas but he will not be left at the alter again…he will just insert Kansas who would also be there in a second…KU delivers the KC market and Tech gives the PAC the foothold it desires in the state of Texas, namely DFW…
Okies will not stay…this goose is cooked…
"Fill it up again". "It's so good! Once it hits your lips it's so good!" -Frank the Tank
That would be the perfect solution for Texas.
Tech/OU/OSU to the Pac 15 – leaving Texas free from Tech to join the Big Ten. That would be my dream scenario – the Pac 12 taking Tech without Texas.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 12:11 AM CDT up reply actions
Can't wait for that Texas/Indiana matchup at 1100am on a cold Saturday morning in November...
come on guys…ever been to California? Are you serious about the Rustbelt Conference?
"Fill it up again". "It's so good! Once it hits your lips it's so good!" -Frank the Tank
It ain't all about football, hoss
Being tied to Aggy was bad enough, now we gotta accommodate Tech, too? Oy. It’s tough being the big brother…
by iamjackburton on Sep 20, 2011 12:16 AM CDT up reply actions
I'd be willing to put up with a couple of cold games a year (and it might not even be that many) for all of the CIC benefits, etc.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 12:16 AM CDT up reply actions
go for it then...why isn't this being discussed more...Delaney has been conspicuously silent
"Fill it up again". "It's so good! Once it hits your lips it's so good!" -Frank the Tank
Probably because Rick Perry will pin Tech to Texas to make sure A&M gets a clean getaway.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 12:22 AM CDT up reply actions
That's something that has had me worried.
I said months ago that if aggy leaves, then Texas could easily be left holding the Tech bag. Maybe with a sack of Baylor, too, but that’s less likely.
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
― Isaac Asimov
by burntorangehorn on Sep 20, 2011 12:25 AM CDT up reply actions
All he has to do is tell the regents he appointed to do it.
There must be a reason they weren’t willing to let Texas move on without the final say.
While I said it was doubtful TAMU and Scott were working together
I say the opposite is the case with Scott and Delaney. There was a reason they spent almost a week together a month or so ago. They weren’t spending all that time talking about a modified plus one model.
Delany is a bastard
but an irritatingly genius one (unless picking divisional names). Unfortunately, his plans are being derailed in his own backyard as Notre Dame continues to undermine his grand scheme. As bitter a pill as Texas Tech would be to swallow, a Texas/Notre Dame/Maryland-Missouri tonic would most-likely do the trick with B1G presidents.
Irrelevant on the playing field or not, the Irish are very much the major prize in terms of the B1G’s market plan (read; NYC, NJ & DC) and, in union with current members, would all but deliver those locations. Where Notre Dame will ultimately kill them is that I suspect they will be either school # 15 or #16 in the ACC’s plan, and because of ND’s revulsion at the idea of being pigeon-holed as a “Midwestern school”, they would likely accept. I only hope that Michigan, Purdue and Michigan State have enough self-respect to end that rivalry if that comes to pass.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 20, 2011 1:33 AM CDT up reply actions
I think Texas would fit best with the PacX
But I don’t think OU, OSU, and Tech do at all. That said, it’s not about that. It’s about a money grab.
Speaking selfishly, I’d love to see Texas in the ACC, because then I would have half the conference foes within a couple of hours of my house here in the DC/Baltimore ‘burbs. But I think the PacX is the best fit. The Rust Belt doesn’t excite me one little bit, but I think a lot of those most clamoring for it are probably those with (well-founded) interest in seeing Texas join the Committee on Institutional Cooperation, which could truly help Texas reach elite academic status. There’s a lot of value in that, but I suppose there’s no reason there couldn’t be an institution of similar value shared with the PacX schools, potentially a stronger academic group than the Big Ten.
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
― Isaac Asimov
by burntorangehorn on Sep 20, 2011 12:23 AM CDT up reply actions
agreed...Tech is on the rise...another Tier 1 state university in the state of Texas benefits all of it's citizen...
this will happen sooner than later…a student population approaching 40,000 by the end of the decade would make it the 6th largest in the PAC 16 (5th if UTexas goes elsewhere) It’s fan base currently would be the 4th largest in the current PAC. Tech alumni include space shuttle astronauts, CEO of General Motors, and the Commander of the USS Abraham Lincoln, one of the largest warships in world. (Had to add that one. He’s a fraternity brother of mine) Hardly, trailer trash, tdwalsh.
Rubbing elbows with Stanford and Cal Berkeley is not all bad for UTexas (note caps)
"Fill it up again". "It's so good! Once it hits your lips it's so good!" -Frank the Tank
Tech is on the rise?
Now I KNOW you’re not from Texas…
by iamjackburton on Sep 20, 2011 1:09 AM CDT up reply actions
Or you're a Tech fan LOL
Now it all makes sense.
by iamjackburton on Sep 20, 2011 1:10 AM CDT up reply actions
You don't think Tech is becoming a better and better institution?
Everything I’ve read is that they’re significantly improving facilities, research, academic reputation, etc.
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
― Isaac Asimov
by burntorangehorn on Sep 20, 2011 8:58 AM CDT up reply actions
But is their reputation really improving?
Their rankings aren’t improving. They were passed up for tier one status – which went to UH instead.
That's for research alone, right?
The problem is there’s not really a good way to measure academic excellence for the general student population. Research is largely irrelevant to undergraduate education.
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
― Isaac Asimov
by burntorangehorn on Sep 20, 2011 9:28 AM CDT up reply actions
The rankings are for undergraduate and the tier one status was for research.
Tech is probably not in the top 5 schools in Texas, even with the advantage of being in a BCS conference.
What rankings? US News?
Those rankings are only arguably better than nothing, really.
Tier 1 at least has a reasonable methodology.
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
― Isaac Asimov
by burntorangehorn on Sep 20, 2011 10:06 AM CDT up reply actions
I just mentioned both because that's what I have.
You’d think they’d be improving in some of the rankings if they were actually getting so much better.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 10:09 AM CDT up reply actions
A lot of the USNWR rankings is static reputation
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
― Isaac Asimov
by burntorangehorn on Sep 20, 2011 10:11 AM CDT up reply actions
Sure - I'm welcome to the idea that Tech is improving faster than UH or UT-Dallas or any of the other Texas public schools.
I just haven’t seen any evidence of it.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 10:12 AM CDT up reply actions
U of H already tier 1
Tech isn’t.
It seems like UT Dallas must pose a bit of a threat to Tech since so many Tech students are the not so bright kids from Dallas (i.e. those kids or their parents might decide that UT Dallas is a good enough school to compete with Tech and much more convenient).
I’m always amazed at the lack of respect UT throws towards Tech (and anyone else, for that matter) when it comes to this discussion. Are we Harvard on the Plains? Good lord, no. But if you actually take a few minutes to research where Tech has been and where they are today (just go back 15 years) with admission standards, test scores, research money, quality of professors (read the bios on them), etc. you’d be less inclined to slam them. This is a YOUNG university that has made tremendous strides in just the last decade with almost no outside help, relatively speaking.
research dollars will be a fight
as will any money from the FEDs, PAC 16 would help Tech/OSU more than any other schools, they should send a thankyou note to A&M
PAC Is A Better Fit IMO
Big 10 and PAC both have good academics, SEC sucks for academics. PAC has better weather and recruiting and quite frankly better fan destination spots.
Texas needs stability. This idea of holding out with a temporary patchwork conference just furthers the spoiled child reputation and honestly is not fair to other teams in a “temporary” solution. In the end it’s about what is right for Texas but I don’t think it’s cool to use other schools to get there knowing that you will drop them at the first sign of a better deal. Texas has to be better than that.
you do realize right
that you would have to give up MORE to go to the Big Ten then the PAC?
Both share TV…but in the Big Ten they also share: GATE REVENUE
If UT wanted to actually share, they can go tomorrow to the PAC or the BIG or the ACC…but they aren’t so that leaves UT 3 choices: Rebuilt Big12, SEC, Independence.
Yes but whatever that amount is, is more than in the PAC
I’m not saying the Big10 doesn’t want Texas, any conference would. However any issues Texas has with the PAC are smaller (however much), than they are with the Big10.
by ev on Sep 20, 2011 9:39 AM CDT up reply actions
It should also be noted that the Big Ten has a much bigger pot of money than the PAC.
So Texas would have to do more sharing, but it’d get more revenue.
Be the change you wish to see in the world.
Follow @semicorrect
by Semicorrect on Sep 20, 2011 10:46 AM CDT up reply actions
Yes they do now since they have the BTN up and running
The PAC is launching theirs next year. Apples and Oranges.
And they have 4 of the most popular football teams in the country.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 11:05 AM CDT up reply actions
Don't think that will be lost on the Big Ten
the next time contract negotiations come up.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 20, 2011 12:14 PM CDT up reply actions
No
The Pac 12 signed their major contracts after expanding (at about $20 million/school/year), whereas the Big Ten signed their first tier football rights in 2006 (worth $10 million/school/year). When the Big Ten renegotiates the contract in 2016, the Big Ten will be making substantially more money than the Pac 12.
Tech delivers
three trailer parks, one which will be destroyed by a meth explosion, and various sandstorms and farm houses that have to plant cedar trees around them to keep them from blowing away. And not even a crazy pirate anymore.
Three trailers?
Man, you’re really overvaluing Tech there, chief.
by iamjackburton on Sep 20, 2011 12:18 AM CDT up reply actions
nice...sounds like you have a familiarity with double wides and meth labs...
"Fill it up again". "It's so good! Once it hits your lips it's so good!" -Frank the Tank
Oh relax, Tech boy
We’re just havin’ some fun at your expense, is all.
by iamjackburton on Sep 20, 2011 1:14 AM CDT up reply actions
Difference between a tornado and a TT divorce?
None. Either way, someone is getting a new double wide. Get your grades up, or get your guns up say all the HSers I know.
And I will see your CAPT of Lincoln, and raise you the only four star SEAL in the world. UT ’77.
No, I didn't...really
"Fill it up again". "It's so good! Once it hits your lips it's so good!" -Frank the Tank
Did I say deliver?
"Fill it up again". "It's so good! Once it hits your lips it's so good!" -Frank the Tank
Does PB
get paid per comment? I think that may be why he keeps throwing up two or three of these realignment posts everyday and driving us crazy. Ka-ching!
As much as it deeply troubles me to do this...
I agree with you, PB, and in almost every point you make. Good opinion piece.
by Texas Our Texas on Sep 20, 2011 12:28 AM CDT reply actions
What's next
ACC adds UCONN and Rutgers – 16 teams
PAC adds UT, OU, Tech and OSU – 16 teams
SEC adds West Virginia – 14 teams
If we are headed to four 16 team Superconferences, who gets the last 2 seats with SEC and last 4 seats in Big 10?
It would be ideal if Kansas, Missouri, Notre Dame ??
4 SuperConferences
Who says? What about the other half of Division I schools?
The arms race to 4 superconferences seems to assume that 50 or 60 division I schools are excluded from “mnc” potential. I just don’t believe that the 50-60 schools will be excluded by 4 superconferences. I’m wrong a lot of times, but maybe the Big 10 agrees. And maybe the Pac 12 will also. Why all this rush to be 16? It is a make believe magic number for a conference.
A&M: Ready,Set, Go.....
just about to post this
Why stop at 64? If all of the Presidents and/or commissioners have declared expansion good, why not take that next step beyond 16? First to do it would have the advantage.
Cuz if i remember right theres only 66 FBS teams currently
So if they went to 4 conferences only 2 would get left out.
No dude...
There are 119.
"Either we need to re-calibrate our rectangle, or Alfonzo Marquez is not having a good night." - Josh Lewin
by utlonghorn24 on Sep 20, 2011 1:58 AM CDT up reply actions
yeah
I think there are 60-something bowl spots, remember there are 32-34 bowl games. Doesn’t make sense that there are only 66 bowl schools, then EVERYBODY would basically be in a bowl game.
by Houstonhorn on Sep 20, 2011 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions
Every time bowl season rolls around
it sure seems like everyone is in a bowl game.
Because being a Texas fan means never having to say you're sorry.
by dukeoforange on Sep 20, 2011 1:02 PM CDT up reply actions
Did you mean BCS where you said FBS above?
Whoever said laughter is the best medicine had clearly never tasted Scotch.
And 16 is not the best "number" for a FB conference
The most workable number for a football conference, from recent experience, is 12, separated into geographical divisions of six. Expansions beyond 12 seem to be driven as much by panic over the potential for other conferences to grow “bigger” than by market lust.
If we were talking about academic equals and no geographic limitations, an 8 team conference of Stanford, Duke, Rice, Vandy, Northwestern, Army, Navy, and Air Force would make as much sense as 16 team conferences of teams with nothing in common.
12 teams along the Great Lakes and 12 teams on the high plains and 12 teams in the heart of the deep south make sense. 16 teams from Boston to Lawrence or from Austin to Seattle?
We will get used to it, but it will eventually self destruct, or devolve into regional 12 team conferences again.
by MarkInAustin on Sep 20, 2011 7:48 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
+1 to MarkinAustin ...
only 53,000 at the Rose Bowl last weekend, for mighty Texas? You all will hate the PAC in the long run.
oh hail the Purple and White
Longhorns
Crowd sounded as much Longhorn as Bruin.
Meh
UCLA will simply be the new Baylor.
by BrooklynHorn on Sep 20, 2011 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions
rumors
floating around that UCLA is looking at trying to get Peterson from Boise. That would make for some fun matchups if Texas went Pac. After all, once you got Pac, you dont go back!
Because being a Texas fan means never having to say you're sorry.
by dukeoforange on Sep 20, 2011 1:21 PM CDT up reply actions
watching the game last Saturday
I was struck, in hindsight, by what a mistake it was for UCLA to take Rick Neuheisel. I’m sure they thought they were gaining some wisdom and stability by choosing a coach who had a lot of success in the 90’s (or at least a coach with a recognizable name) , but it seems current success is trending more toward innovation than it is toward experience or past success, which is to say I don’t expect big things from Steve Spurrier this decade. I think UCLA had a window of opportunity to catch USC, but its likely closed now.
by BrooklynHorn on Sep 20, 2011 1:37 PM CDT up reply actions
So much hate for Neuheisel
I still blame him for the downfall of the Colorado program. He left CU with over 100 violations or infractions. He is not a good coach and brings sleaze with him where ever he goes. Granted I may be a bit biased as I was going to CU during his tenure.
Not a fan either
and I would really have enjoyed seeing the balance of power in shift in Los Angeles.
Aside from the sleaze, though, that UCLA team that took the field this past Saturday was among the most poorly coached teams I’ve seen. It reminded me of John Blake’s years at Oklahoma.
by BrooklynHorn on Sep 20, 2011 2:04 PM CDT up reply actions
Wow.
It reminded me of John Blake’s years at Oklahoma.
That’s bad. I still have nightmares about the Twister mats on the sidelines to try to get the correct personnel on the field and OU’s utter inability to run 3 plays in a row with 11 men on the field, none of whom jumped offside.
by TwoPalePonies on Sep 20, 2011 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions
It was that bad
I’d like to say we crushed the Bruins, but we merely stepped aside as they crashed into a brick wall. Offsides, false starts, delays of game, illegal substitutions, illegal blocks… we received a lot of gifts.
by BrooklynHorn on Sep 20, 2011 2:20 PM CDT up reply actions
I was thinking
Last year the UT vs UCLA game was a rematch of offensive coordinators from the 2005 Rose Bowl. Both were considered the top OCs in the nation in 2005 (outside of Austin for GD). Both had disappointing years last year and both were let go.
Judging by the game last week, Texas made a good call changing personnel, UCLA not so much.
I wouldnt expect much from the ol' ball coach either
with all those fresh infraction findings coming out.
Because being a Texas fan means never having to say you're sorry.
by dukeoforange on Sep 20, 2011 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions
I still have a pipe dream of UCLA hiring Bob Stoops.
I really think that UCLA is a sleeping giant but only the right forceful coach will wake them up. Saban or Stoops would have the chutzpah to do it. I also think Coach Mack would be a good fit but I don’t know of many others, besides those 3, that could get them out of USC’s shadow. They are great at every other sport and don’t see why their football has never taken off.
Peterson has potential
but that program seems cursed, so nothing would surprise me.
by BrooklynHorn on Sep 20, 2011 2:22 PM CDT up reply actions
There was no reason for UCLA to have thought Rick
would get them to the promise land. Nothing in his make up or history would lead one to believe that. The fact he has proven that out only makes it worse.
by ev on Sep 20, 2011 2:45 PM CDT up reply actions
UCLA is not going to land Peterson
Not only has he already turned them down once before, but he currently makes more than they are willing to spend.
by ev on Sep 20, 2011 2:43 PM CDT up reply actions
FWIW
I was at Baylor’s last home game and they appeared to have mostly sold out the game. It was about 95% full, mostly Baylor fans, and they were playing SFA. Winning helps. And I suspect that’s part of UCLA’s problem.
Whoever said laughter is the best medicine had clearly never tasted Scotch.
Just taking a jab at Baylor
but in all seriousness the 3 or 4 times I’ve been to Waco to see Texas play, we’ve brought what looked to be about 20,000, and it would appear our games at the Rose Bowl hold that same potential (whether UCLA is good or bad, the size of the stadium and the size of LA’s TexasExes would probably guarantee it). I suppose we might expect a similar turnout at the Colosseum.
I wonder what we could get in NorCal. Does anyone remember how many Texas fans attended the Stanford game about a decade back?
Hmmmm. Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Francisco? It’d be interesting if our road attendance increased substantially simply because of the amount of alums living on the West Coast. Can’t imagine we have many living in Iowa and Kansas.
by BrooklynHorn on Sep 20, 2011 2:32 PM CDT up reply actions
No, I understand
Just saying that that old jab at Baylor seems to be becoming outdated.
Whoever said laughter is the best medicine had clearly never tasted Scotch.
Just asking...
But wtf is Dan Beebe in all of this? I feel like he has waited idly by both last season and this one…just letting the chips fall where they may.
Could the Big 12 have a less effective leader? If I were Kansas St., Kansas, Iowa St. or Baylor, I’d be lobbying to fire his ass. Has he done anything other than react to what happens?
I dont think he is ineffective by choice
I mean how do you think he stacks up against Bill Powers? You think Bill would even listen to him, let alone consider what he says? I don’t.
Because being a Texas fan means never having to say you're sorry.
by dukeoforange on Sep 20, 2011 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions
One National Conference
of 112 teams. Then we can break out into sub “pods” for the regions around the country, like one for the East Coast and … oh, never mind.
Why hasn't anybody asked JOE PARKER his opinion?
JOE PARKER and I just talked and agreed…..SOLID article PB!
At least to me, that’s what this all boils down to: Can Texas talk Oklahoma into holding out from an immediate move, getting by in a duct-taped Big 12, and leveraging their collective strength into a more favorable position down the line. There are many reasons that’s far from a sure thing, not least of which is because it requires a leap of faith on the part of Oklahoma that Texas won’t ultimately go a different direction.
I wonder what that would take at this point? In the Pac, OU will get a bump up in pay, be in stable conference where they don’t have to worry about it falling apart every year, and have Big 8 foes and regional foes to play not to mention some great match-ups out West in a conference that they will have a great shot at winning right away and in the future not to mention they will improve academically—I just don’t see why they would think they would need to leverage the Pac.
The only thing that OU might be worried about is recruiting, but if they leave, 1. Would Texas really stop playing them especially if UT stays in a significantly weakened Big 12 or goes Indy where in both UT would need to keep OU on the schedule to keep a decent schedule and 2. Even if UT does not play OU, I’m not really sure if it would hurt recruiting all that much in Texas and OU can improve out West also with the tradition they have.
Reporter: What would you say a Greg Studrawa offense is like? Stud:
"Attack and be very physical…fly around…attacking, come after you and come after you and come after you…." Me: I love this answer.
GET TO THE RIM HEAT (and SKY)! ATTACK THE PAINT!
by mjtig on Sep 20, 2011 1:08 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, try convincing those 5-star Cali kids to go play on the plains of Oklahoma
I’m sure that’s what they dream of when they dream of playing big time college football. Okla-friggin-homa. In the smack dab middle of Nowheresville.
I’m sure you’ll be able to get one or two elite players who wants to play for a “name” school (if you’re lucky), but more often than not you’ll get the cast-offs and the not-quite-good-enoughs for USC, UCLA, etc.
by iamjackburton on Sep 20, 2011 1:14 AM CDT up reply actions
OU's top five players for their next class next are from OK, MO, Fl, and VA repectively and they all grade 80 or better per ESPN
I looked over the last couple of years per ESPN and OU recruits well in TX and nationally getting some players out in Cali that were 150 players in ‘10 and other 150 players out West over the last five years. They have tradition and a solid program and will get their share of Texas recruits no matter imo—could always schedule A&M also to get another game in Texas in UT did not want to play anymore; I just don’t think recruiting will be a big factor for them when deciding.
Reporter: What would you say a Greg Studrawa offense is like? Stud:
"Attack and be very physical…fly around…attacking, come after you and come after you and come after you…." Me: I love this answer.
GET TO THE RIM HEAT (and SKY)! ATTACK THE PAINT!
*if UT did not want to play anymore
Reporter: What would you say a Greg Studrawa offense is like? Stud:
"Attack and be very physical…fly around…attacking, come after you and come after you and come after you…." Me: I love this answer.
GET TO THE RIM HEAT (and SKY)! ATTACK THE PAINT!
Yeah, OU will never be able to recruit Cali kids to Norman
Kenny Stills says hi.
Tony Jefferson on this year’s team, Roy Williams and Jamelle Holieway are a few others that spring to mind.
by TwoPalePonies on Sep 20, 2011 8:47 AM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
Waiting Does Not Help the Value of the LHN
Cable and satellite providers were already hard sells on picking up the LHN, biggest complaint being who’s going to buy it for just two games a year. With so much uncertainty about what LHN will look like in the future under all of the possible conference affiliations, independent status, content, prohibitions, etc., the providers have even less reason to come to terms with ESPN/LHN anytime soon. We can pretty much count on the KU game being a Radio Revisited-only affair this season, just like Rice, for 98% of the nation.
This is untenable both for UT and ESPN. Too many dollars at stake to let this drag on. A duct-taped B12-X will not compel providers to do anything with LHN, save perhaps a few large market ones in Texas. LHN under that construct is not national and adds no true means of determining its value; it screeches to a loud thud, shelved by carriers until a permanent solution is found. That’s simply unacceptable to all parties concerned.
by RMHorn on Sep 20, 2011 1:22 AM CDT via mobile reply actions
Thats one of the problems
Just cuz you have a network doesn’t meant cable providers will carry it, and thats where they are hitting a wall. Unlike the PAC network which already has 4 of the largest cable providers as carriers.
lets focus on the big picture here.....
when we go to the PAC-12 do we get to take Samantha Steele with us?
formerly "Horns102591"
by horns1025 on Sep 20, 2011 1:24 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Domer Law, by the Domer's themselves possibly...
saw on ESPN ticker that ND would rather stay indy in football with other sports in BE, but if the school decides it can’t stay indy in football, it would pursue ACC before BIG as reported by Andy Katz—the BE could still remain a good place for its other sports I guess even with the teams leaving (b-ball will take a big blow with ’Cuse and Pitt leaving and possibly UConn), but even rumor, this is the first I have heard about ND in a while and clearly suggests that ACC is the #1 choice if not Indy.
Reporter: What would you say a Greg Studrawa offense is like? Stud:
"Attack and be very physical…fly around…attacking, come after you and come after you and come after you…." Me: I love this answer.
GET TO THE RIM HEAT (and SKY)! ATTACK THE PAINT!
good article
a couple of thoughts
1. UT is strong enough to go independent. Not the same history as Notre Dame but a more bright future going forward. UT should negotiate from position of strength, not needs.
2. there are currently 5 BCS bowls, possibly a 6th with the Cotton Bowl angling to join up.. There is plenty of room for more than 4 super conferences. By the math room for 6, possibly more.
3. There is no reason to just bandage up the big twelve if UT wants to stay. Convince OU to stay in an expanded big 12 (go to 14 for stability). There are good programs and markets to gain, especially through raiding what is left of the Big East (Louisville, Cincinnati, USF) and add others weaker programs for geographical footprints (UCF, Colorado State, Tulane)
4. Texas will grow. So will Florida. California will implode. The southeast is a better market for football players, fans and viewers.
Excellent points
I would add that Texas needs to look out a bit more for the members of the Big 12 so that they are happy to stay.
Texas should vigorously promote a playoff system. A 8 or 16 team playoff system takes the wind out of the super conference sails and will be very attractive to all the div 1 schools (roughly half of them) who don’t fit into one of the 4 super conferences that puppet masters Delaney and Scott are conspiring to produce.
A playoff system where conference champions are AQ will radically encourage much stronger OOC scheduling because losing OOC will no longer cost a school the chance to compete for a national championship. This means that interesting and lucrative OOC games will be much easier to schedule for Texas. The post season playoff will also be quite lucrative.
Understanding Motivation
While I appreciate Peter’s use of Game Theory, Motivation Theory reveals a different set of outcomes.
David Boren is motivated to improve Oklahoma’s academic and athletic lot in life. He turned down the Pac 12 once before. He does not want to miss that opportunity a second time. Moving to the Pac 12 instead of the SEC improves Oklahoma’s lot in life a lot (could not resist).
Texas A&M has been motivated to join the SEC since at least the late 1980s. Has everyone forgotten their attempted move with Arkansas? A&M finally achieved their objective this fall. If you are upset by this turn of event, then you do not understand A&M’s motivation. They want (and have wanted) to join a school of large academically marginal schools (spare me Vanderbilt, Florida) that have large, passionate followers of their respective athletics programs.
The Pac 12 is motivated to get the Texas market. If they add Kansas and Missouri as has been rumored, then it is simply to protect the eastern flank and reduce travel costs for the Oklahoma schools. The presidents are not thrilled with the idea of Oklahoma State. Remember, the presidents torpedoed Texas’ Pac 10 bid in the mid-90s. They have power. They want academic prestige. Only Texas offers what the presidents AND ADs seek.
The ACC is motivated by fear. Fear of an expanded Big East. Fear of of a Big 11 and SEC nipping off some member schools. The ACC wants to avoid the Big 12-2’s fate. If they add UConn and Rutgers as rumored then they (A) destroy the Big East as a threat, (B) move to a conference structure (North/South) that satisfies nearly all concerned, and © gives a cushion should a school leave.
Rutgers and Missouri are motivated by time. They want to be Big 11 members. However, the Big 11 moves very slowly with no guarantees that a bid will be arriving. Hence, they are motivated to do anything that provides an exit to the Big 11.
The Big 11 is motivated by power. The BTN is shot against ESPN, who is not viewed with the same warm and fuzzy feelings that ESPN engenders elsewhere. The Big 11 will do anything to protect and strengthen the BTN. Look at the league’s move in college hockey, which were executed to add more programming for BTN. In addition to to the Big 11 will be made to add more eyeballs and programming. Texas offers eyeballs but not much programming except for baseball.
Big 11 member schools are motivated by AAU and CIC. The demographics discussion is the most laughable argument I have heard in this entire process. The Univeristy of MIchigan’s draws more than 50% of its UG population from out of state. Ditto Wisconsin and Michigan State. The remaining schools are moving toward this balance. The brand power of the Big 11 schools has been understated and underestimated. Few schools offer the ability to participate in the AAU and CIC.
Texas wants to be in the Big 11. The Pac 12 discussion is leverage and the ACC discussion is safety.
In the short term, things look bad for Texas. A rebuilt conference from the ashes of Big 12-2 and Big East will prove disastrous for the ‘Horns. Notice the darkest period of Texas football came during the ill-fated all-Texas SWC. However, it looks like Texas’ best option to achieve its goal: membership in the Big 11.
Laryy Scott is not bluffing
He will take OU, OSU, Kansas and Tech if not UT and be stronger for it in basketball where the money is. PAC 16 now UT.
Seriously?
… basketball where the money is.
You do know that UT makes more on a single DKR game than Duke men’s BB makes all season, right?
Duke's men's BB made $27M last year
per Dept of Education’s Equity in Athletics data
So, while the money may not be in basketball right now (although all that changes if the superconferences secede from the NCAA), your claim is not correct
Sorry, guess I failed to define "made"
I always thought “made” meant net, not gross. You are right — Duke BB grossed $26M and change last year, while UT FB grossed $93M (down from $108M the year before). But after expenses, and plus LF giving (which I don’t know about you, but if it didn’t get me better FB tickets, I doubt how much I’d give) that is designated for FB, UT netted $88M. Divided by six home games, that is $14.5M, greater than the $14M Duke’s men’s BB team netted.
Sorry for not making that clear.
I don't know what LF giving is (endowment contributions?)
but are you adding it in for Duke as well?
The Equity in Athletics data show Texas netting $68M off of football. I don’t think you can spread that over just the six football games since substantial portions of that come from TV contracts for away games and Texas’s share of the Big 12 bowl payouts.
Thanks KS i didnt do a good job of making my point and nvrfrgt63
meant more games, less capital soon to be even more exposure, yes I think BB takes FB sooner rather than later. You can win the tournament with the right 6 or 7 guys. I also like the prospect of Baseball with the right tv deals like LHN to get exponential program interest, like He77 am I paying for MLB in the offseason…In short PAC 16 to me isnt all about Football, but I think football drives it, wildcard is ND to Big 10 or ACC and I hope UT resists. ACC basketball/baseball is no joke providing some of the pause. I favor UT to the PAC16 with OU
I get the feeling OU isn't interested in partnering up with Texas on PAC-12 negotiations because of the LHN.
My source close to the program can beat up your source close to the program!
by burrito on Sep 20, 2011 7:02 AM CDT reply actions 2 recs
Agree OU will NOT let UT leverage OU to get a better deal for UT
agree 100%
by yaaa on Sep 20, 2011 8:35 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Right.
What does OU get out of helping UT get leverage against the PacX? For stability reasons OU does not want a better deal than the other PacX schools.
by TwoPalePonies on Sep 20, 2011 8:52 AM CDT up reply actions
Can't You Buy Time This Way?
Join the ACC with ND for all sports with the exception of football? Isn’t the country ready for 2 national brands? Then we get the ACC basketball with all the money we rightly deserve for football and the LHN.
Change isn't good or bad it just "is". Don Draper of Madmen
OU is not looking to give Ut leverage with the Pac
What Ou has learned is that letting Texas control its fate is not in OU’s best interest and make no mistake OU does not want to give Ut leverage in the negotiation with the Pac. To the contrary, looking at OU’s president’s comments yesterday “equal” “partners in ANY network” “stability” the last thing OU wants is for UT to get a special deal with the PAC. OK will not let Ut leverage OU to get a better deal for UT.
Scott took Colorado and Utah- anyone who thinks Scott must have Ut to take OU and OKst is only fooling himself.
Going through this kind of drama takes away from the program in many ways and OU does not want to go through this again next year or later when Ut wants to go independent. While Texas wants more time and for the Big 12 to continue- OU wants the opposite- stability NOW!
When the Big 12 approached other schools no BCS caliber team would touch the conference- SMU, UofH and other smaller schools sure.
The truth is the LHN will have to be modified to keep OU in the Big 12 and have to be turned over to the Pac to go to the Pac 12. That is something UT will not do.
Ut will in the end not go to the Pac because it does not want to part with control of the LHN.
Just suppose 7 schools remain in the Big 12...
UT, TT, MO,I St., K, and K St. and Baylor
Frankly, I would nominate Rice, SMU, TCU, BYU, and AF to quickly fill out the Conf. Two excellent academic schools in Rice and AF.
UT, TT, Baylor, Rice, SMU, and TCU in the south.
MO, I St., K, K. St., BYU, and AF in the north.
It would not be an elite football conference a la the SEC, but it would not be uncompetitive. The southern division would not be a cakewalk for UT and the north would not be a cakewalk for MO.
I pose it as a geographical 12 that works and whose champion would be in the BCS mix every year.
It could also be a “holding” pattern for UT until the conferences shake out, several years down the road.
by MarkInAustin on Sep 20, 2011 9:10 AM CDT up reply actions
I know this is a waste of typing effort, But the very fact that UT is trying to “negotiate” “leverage”, “get a better deal”, play a “game” etc is the problem.
The PAC is equal…..UT can join tomorrow if they take the same deal USC has, and UCLA has, and Colorado has, and Utah has, etc…..but UT can’t even begin to think that way…it’s got to “negotiate” “leverage” “get a better deal”. In no way does the idea of signing up for the PAC and getting the same thing as USC gets make any sense to UT and it’s fans.
All that says is the PAC which shares TV revenue equally isn’t for UT. Fine, UT should do what is in the best interest for UT. If OU thinks the PAC to be best for them, great. If that’s not the best for UT, then don’t go there.
But that leaves UT 3 options:
1) SEC
2) Rebuilt the Big 12 (what I use to call the New SWC option, but with the Big East orphans it’s much more national)
3) Independence
If UT wants to share and come in on a conference terms the Options are:
1) anywhere you want to go.
Why is that a problem?
Wouldn’t it be irresponsible for Texas to not look out for its best interests?
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
― Isaac Asimov
by burntorangehorn on Sep 20, 2011 9:03 AM CDT up reply actions
and try and join a conferece where everyone has the same deal?
yeah…that’s a problem. In the PAC, the BigTen, and the ACC there is no “best interests deal”. It’s the Conference’s set up or no.
It’s fine for UT to not take the conference set up if they don’t like it…but it’s wrong to try to think the conference will make an exception and a special deal for UT better than the other 14 schools took
and the very fact that as a UT fan you don’t see the difference is the problem
Utah has the same deal, they just have to wait a year to get it
So would Texas accept more for two years, and then go to full revenue sharing afterward? You know, a Utah deal but in reverse.
by ev on Sep 20, 2011 9:45 AM CDT up reply actions
You are right, two years.
Still Utah isn’t really helping your argument, it’s not like they are taking a permanent cut. Texas wants a permanent bonus.
I think your math is still off - it is only 2011-12 right now.
From what I’ve heard, Texas wants a bonus only if the LHN makes more money than the Pac 12 Network. It’s not that different from the conditional bonus USC/UCLA got.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 10:02 AM CDT up reply actions
No it's the opposite of the deal USC/UCLA got
Huge difference. USC and UCLA only got a bonus if revenue was less, not more. I’m sure Scott could work out the same deal for Texas, but of course that isn’t needed or wanted.
Texas would be fine with a deal where if Pac 12 revenue is less than what they would otherwise get, they get more.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 10:10 AM CDT up reply actions
No I was wrong on that
looking back it was open ended. There was an agreed low threshold of $170M in revenue, at that point the bonus ended for good. A figure the Pac12 met with the original agreement. I could see the PAC doing something like that with Texas, but again it would be a low threshold amount. Probably not a number many Texas fans would like. The “two” I remembered turned out to be the amount, USC and UCLA were to get a $2M bonus, sorry for the confusion.
by ev on Sep 20, 2011 1:04 PM CDT up reply actions
Does Oklahoma not benefit greatly from inequitable division of revenues?
How hypocritical is that?
The fact that you don’t think conferences are going to budge, even a little, for the school with the greatest economic value in college sports is kind of weird.
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
― Isaac Asimov
by burntorangehorn on Sep 20, 2011 9:36 AM CDT up reply actions
That's not clear
Yes, over the last decade or so, OU has received more revenue under Big XII unequal revenue sharing than it would have under the same contracts if revenue were shared equally. Then again, that may have been among the factors in losing Nebraska and Colorado. Certainly not THE reason, but the Big XII might have been able to hang on to its original members with a more fully equal setup.
And having seen the Big XII break apart, due at least in part to LHN, OU does not want to be in a conference where UT or anyone else gets special privileges and different rules that are likely to chafe other members and reduce stability.
The fact that you don’t think conferences are going to budge, even a little, for the school with the greatest economic value in college sports is kind of weird.
I think what you and some other posters are missing here is that although UT may be the most valuable college sports franchise, if UT behaves in a way that it fails to generate value for other schools in a conference, there is no reason for them to want UT.
by TwoPalePonies on Sep 20, 2011 9:47 AM CDT up reply actions
But UT DOES generate revenues for other schools in a conference.
I wonder what a new Big XII deal would look like without Texas.
And A&M was the only school demanding a huge premium (20 million), paid for out of the pockets of the four northnern schools, in order to stay in the Big XII last year.
I used value for a reason
You’re right that in any competently-managed scenario, UT entering a conference should embiggen the revenue pie enough to give everyone a bigger slice. But if the result is chafing, instability and possible defections, there’s no long-term value. That’s the issue other conferences have to weigh with UT.
by TwoPalePonies on Sep 20, 2011 9:58 AM CDT up reply actions
But if the result is chafing, instability and possible defections, there’s no long-term value.
This is only the case if the costs of the chafing/instability/defections are more than the value UT adds, which is something that is difficult to determine.
Whoever said laughter is the best medicine had clearly never tasted Scotch.
Yeah, that's totally the same thing.
Whoever said laughter is the best medicine had clearly never tasted Scotch.
Which Pac 12 teams do you think might defect?
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 10:01 AM CDT up reply actions
Hell if I know
But I didn’t think A&M would actually leave until it was near being a done deal (which I suppose is where it still stands).
by TwoPalePonies on Sep 20, 2011 10:26 AM CDT up reply actions
A&M has wanted to leave for years and almost left last year.
Maybe UCLA is secretly itching to join the SEC.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 10:32 AM CDT up reply actions
TwoPalePonies speaks the truth
your distinction between increasing revenue and increasing “value” is spot on in this whole mess. As an outsider, I am amazed when I read the posts on here by so many Longhorn fans that just assume other conferences, particularly the B1G, will be willing to allow Longhorn to excersize its over-inflated opinion of itself on a stable conference. Not gonna happen. Folks have learned what Longhorn is about, and I think you are finding out others don’t want you in their sandbox. Fix the B/12. That is your best option, IMHO.
oh hail the Purple and White
UT didn't stop generating money for other schools
You know that the LHN didn’t take money out of the mouths of the other conference schools, right? Whether the LHN did actually cause the breakup, or if it was just used as an excuse by whiners, it did not hurt Iowa State, Baylor, etc. except insofar as it would give more money and exposure to Texas. It’s not a zero-sum issue.
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
― Isaac Asimov
by burntorangehorn on Sep 20, 2011 10:01 AM CDT up reply actions
It isn't because Nebraska and A&M have already left
The problem with the Big XII was not the unequal revenue sharing. All of the schools that benefited the most from it (and repeatedly voted to keep it) are the ones that have left and are leaving. The problem was that it was a conference made up of teams that are too disparate in terms of revenue, fan base, etc. Texas/OU/A&M/Nebraska were too different from Baylor/ISU/KSU/Tech/KU/OSU. The Big Ten is the strongest conference because it has both huge revenues and similarly situated universities.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 10:57 AM CDT up reply actions
Purdue, Indiana, Northwestern
are in no way similar, in fanbase support, to Mich., OhState, and Nebraska. Look up the average attendance at home games for each school. The difference is very simialar to the difference between KSU and Tx for instance.
oh hail the Purple and White
Northwestern will always be the odd duck
because they’re not only a private school playing in a public league, but a national school playing in a regional conference. There’s a reason NU’s home attendance is terrible but their bowl draw is actually pretty strong; NU alums end up strewn about the country, largely on the East Coast.
Indiana is, for all intents and purposes, exactly like Kansas (is it basketball season yet?) but you’re wrong on Purdue; their attendance is more a function of a smallish stadium, not support. You also overlooked the overarching theme of Wahoo’s post; even the B1G’s “middling” schools are far bigger revenue-producers than the Big XII’s middle. Go back and look at the NYT stats. When Iowa has a small stadium by B1G standards and still draws over 70K a game and has one of the 20 most-followed programs you’re on a different level.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 20, 2011 12:22 PM CDT up reply actions
But the very fact that UT is trying to "negotiate" "leverage", "get a better deal", play a "game" etc is the problem.
This is what I should have responded on Frank’s blog yesterday.
The University of Texas has spent years and a considerable amount of money and manpower to build and launch a network from scratch — a network which was completely permissible under the Big 12 conference rules which OU supported every step of the way.
If circumstances have changed to the point that it might be impossible for Texas to keep the LHN as-is if forced into another conference if it wants to avoid slumming with a bunch of cast-offs, damn straight they’re going to “negotiate” to get the best deal possible for its network. To do otherwise would be financial malpractice.
So let’s get off our high horse on this issue. Everyone’s going to take care of their own needs and get the best deal possible. Including Texas.
"History lesson: Everything bad that has happened to Texas has been due to its association with the South. Everything good that has happened to Texas has been due to its association with the West." -- Paul Burka, Senior Executive Editor of Texas Monthly
by Hopkins Horn on Sep 20, 2011 9:44 AM CDT up reply actions
Everyone’s going to take care of their own needs and get the best deal possible
but the best deal in the PAC…is the same deal. there is no “best deal”. Yes I realize that you can’t understand that.
It’s also why I’ve said for a long time UT won’t be in the PAC (or the Big10 or the ACC)
If everyone gets the same deal - why does Utah have to wait 3 years to get a full share?
And why wouldn’t Texas request to at least be made whole from their loss of the LHN? If the Pac 12 is okay with giving some schools less money for a few years, why wouldn’t they be okay with giving some schools more moeny for a few years?
Sorry Wahoo, you "can't understand that"
"History lesson: Everything bad that has happened to Texas has been due to its association with the South. Everything good that has happened to Texas has been due to its association with the West." -- Paul Burka, Senior Executive Editor of Texas Monthly
by Hopkins Horn on Sep 20, 2011 9:52 AM CDT up reply actions
Utah: They were paying for the admission and moving up in the conference world
Pay for the Loss of the LHN: Who cares? The PAC was not a party to that deal. It’s not their issue or problem.
I'm just saying - they clearly don't care as much about equality as you're letting on.
They treat Utah as unequal for a while because they can (they were doing Utah a huge favor).
If the PAC thinks that adding UT will add enough value
that the cost of helping UT with the LHN for a few years, then there is absolutely a reason to make it their issue.
Alternatively, maybe it’s still better for UT to go to the PAC even with the loss of the LHN, and so eventually UT will drop that from their demands at the table. The point is that the parties are going to NEGOTIATE to see if they can get the best scenario, and to fault them for that is extreme silliness.
Whoever said laughter is the best medicine had clearly never tasted Scotch.
it's one thing to ask
but if the answer is:
we have one deal….take it or leave it
and you keep trying to “negotiate”….I’m thinking the silliness is not on the PAC’s side, it’s on the one that thinks they are more special.
But the point is that it isn't "we have one deal"
Whoever said laughter is the best medicine had clearly never tasted Scotch.
The Pac 12 does seem to be taking a hell of a long time...
…to say those five words. That’s like almost a word a day!
"History lesson: Everything bad that has happened to Texas has been due to its association with the South. Everything good that has happened to Texas has been due to its association with the West." -- Paul Burka, Senior Executive Editor of Texas Monthly
by Hopkins Horn on Sep 20, 2011 10:07 AM CDT up reply actions
USC/UCLA
They got their guarantees from the Pac last year. They negotiated a special deal. They asked for what the Sooners and Horns refused. They wanted a guaranteed minimum revenue of $17 million and the Pac gave it to them. Obviously there is not one take it or leave it deal in the Pac.
They got a two year deal, not a permanent one
There is a huge difference right there. Keep in mind they also got it to give up exactly what Texas is asking for, another huge difference. So to get the same deal, the PAC could give Texas a two year say $5M bonus? Would that work?
So if he thinks that he can make more than UT will make on the LHN
Then why not make the deal again?
If you're so confident about the Pac 12 Network's projections, why not make it a 20 year deal.
If the Pac 12 Network makes as much as you seem to think it will, it won’t matter.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions
Why do you use two years?
As far as I can tell there is no two year limit on USC and UCLA’s deal:
This deal means full revenue sharing will kick in as soon as this contract begins. As part of an agreement to give up their historically larger share of television revenues, Southern California and UCLA each was to receive a $2 million premium any year that the media rights did not reach $170 million.
What makes you think there's no room for negotiation?
The PacX isn’t CostCo. There’s a lot of wrangling to be done, and already done.
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
― Isaac Asimov
by burntorangehorn on Sep 20, 2011 10:03 AM CDT up reply actions
Negotiating is fine
But the Pac is likely to stand firm for the same reason Costco does. If you see the guy behind you in line pay less for something than you do, you’re going to be unhappy and less likely to do business there.
by TwoPalePonies on Sep 20, 2011 10:05 AM CDT up reply actions
That is actually not at all why CostCo does that.
The reason CostCo does that is negotiations with each customer would not be cost effective. Do you think that when CostCo makes purchases from suppliers that they pay the same price as all other retailers? Of course not. The reason they can give their customers low prices it that they negotiate low prices with suppliers.
Any time there is a business deal of this magnitude it will be a negotiation and there is no one price to get into the PAC. This is obvious from the differing deals with USC, UCLA, Utah and Colorado.
What does that have to do with anything?
That has nothing to do with the fact that each school negotiates its entrance into the PAC.
These are financial negotiations, Redhawk.
Stop thinking that the negotiators share your purely emotional “reasoning”. Texas will do what is in their best interest…financially. Texas’, and our, arrogance is moot. Yep, we think we deserve more because we not only bring more but we PROVIDE more for our conference brethren. Is that arrogant? In the current context…WHO CARES! It’s not relevant to these conversations nor, thankfully, to those being held by the actual decision-makers. In my opinion, which also doesn’t matter an iota, aggy is going way too fast because of emotion. I have to believe the grownups among Texas and the conferences won’t make that mistake.
We're going to play like we're in a bad mood.
So your assumption is that there aren’t schools in these other conferences that wouldn’t object to Texas making more money then them from a TV rights standpoint? Especially schools that already agreed to equal revenue sharing to benefit the weaker schools in their conferences?
Perhaps!
Again, leaving emotion out of it…what if this were true: School A makes $10mm now. Adding Texas to the conference brings a much bigger TV deal so going forward School A makes $15mm. Texas, however, requires $20mm to join said conference. From a strictly financial standpoint, what’s the problem there?
“But Mommy, that’s not FAIR!”
“Welcome to Earth, son.”
We're going to play like we're in a bad mood.
The financial issue
In a conference like the Big Ten or Pac 12, strong programs could make a fair amount more with unequal revenue sharing, but they chose to accept equal revenue sharing in order to make the conference more stable. So the situation is more analogous to this:
School A, with equal revenue sharing, makes $20mm/year. With Texas coming in, School A would make $25mm/year, while Texas requires $30mm/year. However, School A could make $25mm/year with an unequal revenue distribution with the current conference membership. As such, School A would not be remotely inclined to accept Texas because they figure that if they were going to have an unequal revenue distribution, they would be at the top.
It's fine to look out for yourselves, but understand why other conferences want no part of it.
The University of Texas has spent years and a considerable amount of money and manpower to build and launch a network from scratch — a network which was completely permissible under the Big 12 conference rules which OU supported every step of the way.
As it turned out, that network looked doubtful, then looked great, then helped blow up a conference. Nobody else necessarily owes you for that.
It’s easy to say that A&M misplayed its hand turning down an invitation to be part of it, but I’m not sure about the rest of the Big XII (I don’t remember if UT ever supported a Big XII network for all schools) and the PacX has no responsibility to make it up.
by TwoPalePonies on Sep 20, 2011 10:02 AM CDT up reply actions
The Big XII voted down a conference network when the Big Ten came up with their network.
That’s why Texas started working on their own network.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 10:04 AM CDT up reply actions
Noone knew
And noone wanted to find out except Texas and Nebraska.
But we owe it to ourselves to see what value can be retained
The Pac 12 can ultimately say “no” to any compromise whatsoever, and that’s their right. I’m arguing that the fact that we’re being criticized for even attempting to negotiate for the best deal possible for the LHN is silly.
"History lesson: Everything bad that has happened to Texas has been due to its association with the South. Everything good that has happened to Texas has been due to its association with the West." -- Paul Burka, Senior Executive Editor of Texas Monthly
by Hopkins Horn on Sep 20, 2011 10:04 AM CDT up reply actions
Opinions may vary
I don’t fault UT for trying to negotiate a deal, but disagree with the sentiment expressed here and elsewhere that UT is necessarily entitled to a better deal. There are also issues with some of the specifics of what I’m seeing — UT wanting to retain control of rights that other schools grant to the conference, and unequal revenue sharing for the foreseeable future. I see those as destabilizing factors.
A short-term, reasonable bump in revenues to compensate for the loss of LHN? That I could support. As an OU guy, I want to go to the PacX for stability, and I want UT in to insure that we keep the rivalry and to maximize the pie IF UT behaves in a way that doesn’t undermine stability.
by TwoPalePonies on Sep 20, 2011 10:09 AM CDT up reply actions
I don’t fault UT for trying to negotiate a deal
If that’s the case, then we’re in agreement here.
"History lesson: Everything bad that has happened to Texas has been due to its association with the South. Everything good that has happened to Texas has been due to its association with the West." -- Paul Burka, Senior Executive Editor of Texas Monthly
by Hopkins Horn on Sep 20, 2011 10:10 AM CDT up reply actions
Cats and dogs living together!
we’re in agreement here
It’ll be anarchy!
by TwoPalePonies on Sep 20, 2011 10:16 AM CDT up reply actions
I can more or less agree with that
We aren’t entitled to a better deal because “OMG we’re Texas and we’re super awesome and we deserve it!!!111,” but if it provides value for the parties involved then it makes sense for us to get a better deal.
Whoever said laughter is the best medicine had clearly never tasted Scotch.
A lack of "revenue"
for BigTimeCollegeFootball, especially for the Big Boys, is not a problem. Hence, many will weigh the merits that stability adds to the “value” side of the equation more heavily than any marginal increase in “revenue.” Texas is percieved as adding more on the revenue side, but a negative on the stability side. That simple. So, how much do you love that TLN?
oh hail the Purple and White
Yeah, that's why I said "value" and not "revenue"
If the increased value is more than the negative implications for stability, then it makes sense to do it.
Whoever said laughter is the best medicine had clearly never tasted Scotch.
I'm with you on that
And also agree with Furnace76 that stability may be valued more highly, and is difficult to quantify. Other conferences see that UT added lots of revenue to the Big XII but the LHN ultimately was a significant factor in blowing it up. Now Baylor, ISU, KSU, KU and possibly even Missouri and TTech are at some risk of being relegated to non-AQ conferences and losing boatloads of revenue.
Considering it from the perspective of someone who has to represent Washington State, Oregon State, Colorado and others, that suggest that the stability side should be weighted heavily.
by TwoPalePonies on Sep 20, 2011 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions
You represent Washington State, Oregon State, and Colorado in what capacity?
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions
Larry Scott
has to look out for the interests of all the conference members. I don’t know if the presidents have given him absolute authority or whether they have retained veto power if they think he goes completely off the rails, but looking around the conference landscape, the Pac 12 have-nots would seem to risk a great deal from any action that is likely to be destabilizing.
by TwoPalePonies on Sep 20, 2011 2:04 PM CDT up reply actions
I think there are more options
We have numbers 4)-Big 10, and 5) ACC and probably even some other ways to keep football independent and join a conference for other sports like Notre Dame.
A&M: Ready,Set, Go.....
Notre Dame didn't join the Big East as a football school
and that conference will now die because of it. Don’t expect any other conference that doesn’t want to paint itself as weak to make the same mistake.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 20, 2011 10:44 AM CDT up reply actions
What actual data exists that equality exists?
This constant narrative, with zero supporting data, is wearing me out. The only detail I can find on school revenue beyond conference and bowl appearance fees is here; and the very last picture it paints is one of equality. Given those numbers, the idea that it somehow fails the giggle test for UT to look to be closer to (say) University of Washington on that list than (say) Oregon is just plain silly.
Good for Larry Scott and other conference commissioners for getting “all of our member schools are equal partners” into the zeitgeist, and if anyone has contradicting data I’d love to see/read it. But from the published data I’ve been able to find, equality looks to be more of a magic trick than reality.
easy now, everyone here cares about the best interest of UT sports
we all have horns on the cars and see differently. I dont want to ditch rivals for the ACC/Big 10 is the difference and really the only one.
So I can't watch the LHN and may never be able to.
IF the LHN was not part of the equation, what is best for Texas? We all assume we have to keep the LHN. Maybe we do and maybe we don’t. I don’t see it but what I want to know is IF we were not talking about the best deal WITH the LHN, what is best for Texas?
3rd Degree Longhorn
@RBR
I’m starting to warm up to Pac 12/16.
I would definitely prefer to take a vacation and go to a game on the west coast rather than in the midwest. Thanks for my Big 10 Avitar, but I may be switching.
A&M: Ready,Set, Go.....
problem with your thought process...
If OU and Texas wanted the same thing then waiting would be beneficial for OU but OU doesn’t want the same things that Texas does. OU doesn’t have the motivation to maximize its own TV network like Texas does, OU wants to be a level player in a great stable conference. Texas wants to be the Yankees of any conference they are a part of, they want to dominate the conference, so the two schools have different end goals and Texas will no longer be able to convince OU to be a partner to their power play.
This Is True
And I don’t understand why this is true other than vanity. Texas with equal rights and revenue sharing is still a conference top dog, but with more integrity imo.
Sigh...
OU wants to be a level player in a great stable conference
That’s why they’ve always supported 100% equal revenue sharing in the Big 12, didn’t want to stick by Texas in the Big 12 last year, and were the first to jump at the opportunity to leave long before the Aggies made their move towards the SEC. Oh wait, none of those things are true.
by TheElusiveShadow on Sep 20, 2011 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions
I'm not talking about the past
I was referring to what they want in this new college conference shuffle.
by dudoo on Sep 20, 2011 11:00 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
OU is looking for stability
Not necessarily a level playing field. However, since the former might have to come with the latter, they won’t have a problem with equal revenue sharing (which is not NEARLY the big deal many people make it out to be). If Oklahoma could stay put and take the largest portion of TV revenue in a stable Big 12, they would, but they’re no longer completely convinced the Big 12 is viable so they’re looking around. Why didn’t we hear a peep out of them until the Aggies decided to leave?
by TheElusiveShadow on Sep 20, 2011 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions
Texas only wants to use OU as extra leverage to get what they want
and OU doesn’t want to be a part of that.
What are they waiting for?
Tell them to take Tech with them.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 10:57 AM CDT up reply actions
Dwarf Conference?
If OU, OSU and Tech all leave, would Texas be happy running the show with a bunch of also-rans? That would really hurt recruiting imo when everyone else is playing big-time teams and Texas spends its time playing Baylor, Kansas, Houston, SMU, etc.
Beyond that, why would the “also-rans” want to stay in a conference that Texas is waiting to bolt when the right offer comes along?
I think Texas needs to look at the big picture here.
If Tech leaves with OU/OSU, there is no way Texas stays.
Texas would likely go to the Big Ten at that point.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 11:14 AM CDT up reply actions
That Would Be Very Viable
I think the PAC is more appealing personally, but can’t complain about a Big 10 membership.
You keep on saying the Big 10 except there is no way the other teams in the conference would allow Texas to be the only one with a regional network
It would require the Big 10 to completely alter their business plan /infrastructure
dang
you are more anxious to get OU done then I am
(I’m actually surprised a little that OU hasn’t withdrawn from the Big12 yet today. It might have to do with OSU’s regent meeting on Wednesday. I assume it will all be done by the end of this week)
I'm just ready for it to happen if it is going to happen.
I don’t think Texas will make any move until OU/OSU goes through with it – whether they take the Kansas schools with them or not.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 11:14 AM CDT up reply actions
Then take OU/OSU now so we can wait on KU/KSU.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions
I just want OU or A&M to go ahead and make the jump.
This “you go first” garbage is getting ridiculous.
Perhaps in theory - although the Pac 10 was never going to accept Baylor.
CU was going to the Pac 10 regardless of what everyone else did.
In hindsight you can say that
but I think it was not as black and white as you make it out to be.
As a CU alumni with many friends who still follow CU, I can tell you that my friends and I were very worried that Baylor was going to screw CU out of the deal and we would get stuck in the Mountain West.
My wife is a CU alumni as well.
Almost everyone was saying that the Pac 10 would never admit Baylor.
I agree with Wahoo
CU was always going to get an invited, and Baylor never. As long as the Pac10 was going to expand, CU was in.
by ev on Sep 20, 2011 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions
Alumna?
I hope she’s not a man. Then again, whatever makes you happy.
by TwoPalePonies on Sep 20, 2011 1:49 PM CDT up reply actions
Not necessarily
But it signals male or indeterminate gender. If you’re sure your wife is a female, she’s a Colorado alumna. If she’s a man or you don’t know, she’s an alumnus.
A UT degree sure does mean you know everything!
/trollin’ trollin’ trollin’, rawhide!
by TwoPalePonies on Sep 20, 2011 2:22 PM CDT up reply actions
Maybe I don't like to disclose facts about my wife.
and thus choose the generic version.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
the steps to switching conferences:
1) get the agreement done behind the scenes and close doors. Nothing official..just a hand shake
2) Empower one person to make the deal official. It’s a contract and you need a “decision maker” that can sign it
3) Withdraw from current conference
4) Apply to the new conference
5) get accepted to the new conference and hold the presser
And….between 2, 3 and 4 there should be 24 hours of “cool down” to cover your #$$ in case of law suits.
As the ACC showed, all this can happen in a matter of hours….but with the threat of law suits over the Big12, it’s going to take a few more days.
You don't think the Big East had the threat of lawsuits - they have a history of suing when the ACC takes their teams.
So is it your stance that OU is currently at step 3? Why would you want to cool down between giving someone the authority to sign a deal and leaving the conference – especially after talking about going to a specific conference already. I would think you would want to make it look more like you were leaving the Big XII first and then thinking about where to go.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions
cool down
is a legal term. It’s a way of showing that this wasn’t all done in advance and that a party took the time to do due diligence.
yes, OU is at 3)….but they might want to wait for OSU…which is at 2) until their regents meet Wednesday. Not sure why…but they might.
So many opinions...
…so few facts. This is more a fascinating sociology study than anything else!
We're going to play like we're in a bad mood.
Maybe use a broader lens to view the issues
Though Football drives a lot of the issues there is a whole other athletic program to think about. Texas has many Champion ship athletic programs not just football and they have to be figured into the puzzle.
If Texas joined the Big 10 how would that effect the baseball program, Track and field etc. when there is snow on the ground in Michigan, would UT start a Ice hockey program?
From a negotiating stand point Texas holds the cards with so many excellent sports programs. It will bring money and fans to not just football but will fill the gyms of many other sports and show up bus loads of world class athletes in a dozen sports. There are only 2-3 schools that are the peers of UT in all of collegiate sports. Some conferences will see that as a negative and others will see it as an opportunity, but it really doesn’t matter where ever UT goes it will be the gorilla in a room filled mostly with guinea pigs.
It's called "crew"
not “Champion ship”…
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 20, 2011 11:00 AM CDT up reply actions
Thanks!
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 20, 2011 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions
You're also using a very selective measurement.
There are only 2-3 schools that are the peers of UT in all of collegiate sports.
Texas sponsors (I believe) 18 NCAA sports. Iowa, which is about average for the B1G and a school less than half the size of UT, sponsors 23. Ohio State has well over 30. You’re assuming UT would be the equal in all these programs.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 20, 2011 11:04 AM CDT up reply actions
So, again, small by B1G standards.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 20, 2011 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions
It can't be that much smaller than the average Big Ten team, since the Big Ten only sponsors 25 sports total.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 12:46 PM CDT up reply actions
Only Purdue (18) and Northwestern (19) offer fewer than Texas.
Penn State 29
Michigan 27
Iowa 23
Indiana 24
Ohio State 36
Michigan State 26
Minnesota 23
Nebraska 21
Illinois 21
Wisconsin 23
Consider that certain sports (like hockey, at least until next year) aren’t conference sports.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 20, 2011 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm not exactly sure what we're arguing about.
Why does it matter to anyone that Penn State plays at least 4 sports outside of the Big Ten?
I wouldn't call it an argument
I was just making the observation that, while Texas has excellence in the vast majority of the sports it sponsors, it has a massive student body and one of the best-funded athletic departments in the country but offers a smaller number of sports than most B1G schools. I was merely making the observation that if Texas were spread a bit more thin then maybe you wouldn’t see that consistent excellence. Or maybe you would, who knows?
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 20, 2011 1:09 PM CDT up reply actions
That's the whole point of not sponsoring 30 sports.
Texas has made the concious decision to only sponsor sports that it will excel in.
As opposed to serving as the state flagship university
and offering as many athletic opportunities for those exceptional students whose passions for “niche” sports would otherwise take them somewhere else. Texas isn’t wrong, but neither are the B1G schools.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 21, 2011 1:15 AM CDT up reply actions
FYI - it is being reported that WVU has been rejected by both the SEC and the ACC.
I’m guessing that means Mizzou is the likely SEC take. WVU is likely doomed to the Big East/XII.
A "what if" question
Peter, You stated that Texas “was powerless to prevent others” from doing what they wanted to do, which leads to our present dilemma. It has been stated many times (rightly or wrongly) that Dan Beebe was in the hop pocket of Deloss Dodds (or at least Dodds had great influence over him). What if a year or 18 months ago Beebe had been replaced by someone more capable and proactive? Or what if Dodds had forced Beebe to be more proactive? What if as soon as Neb and Colorado left, instead of complaining there were no perfect candidates with academics, athletics, geography, and a big new TV market, we grabbed the best available. TCU and Pitt look pretty good now that it is too late, as do BYU, West Virginia, Louisville, and others. Might not have replacing Neb and Colorado quickly have at least delayed the demise of the Big 12 and bough UT the time you talk about?
"Only angry people win football games." --DKR
TCU still looks terrible - and they will likely be in the Big XII/Big East hybrid anyway.
I think if Texas had told Beebe to add TCU/Pitt, A&M and OU would have left last year instead of waiting until this year. Splitting the same pie 12 ways was never going to get A&M to their demanded 20 million a year mark.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 11:05 AM CDT up reply actions
Crazy....
If anyone thinks Texas will let the LHN keep them out of Championship runs at any level they are crazy.. Since superconferences seem to be the new trend, not only Texas, but ND and BYU better get to looking. These conferences will make it difficult for Indie’s to play for titles..
What if Texas stays in Big 12? and adds Big East Members?
Current Big 12: Texas, Baylor, Texas Tech, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri,
Additions from Big East: West Virginia, USF, Louisville, Cincy, Rutgers
Off to the ACC: Uconn, Syracuse, Pittsburgh
That would leave the Big 12 with 12 members.
West Virginia isn't too different than A&M in terms of on field production.
OU would be a big loss.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 11:23 AM CDT up reply actions
You forgot about OSU.....say what you want to about them but I would say they are equal to WV as well
That leaves a significant two team hole
OSU has very little fan support and is only occassionally any good.
According to the New York Times info, UConn would replace most of OSU’s fans.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 12:48 PM CDT up reply actions
My theory on the Tech problem
We’re probably being harder on Tech than they deserve, since I think this is more of a “either Tech or Baylor” problem. In any event, I think this problem exists for Texas more at the Legislature level than specifically at the BOR level. Simply put, I think there is considerable Legislative pressure on Texas not to make any precipitating moves that don’t involve taking either Tech or Baylor with them (I’m guessing we only have to take one, and can buy the other off with some sort of OOC home/home commitment). It at least appears right now that they only super-conference option that would take either is PAC.
This goes back to one of Peter’s primary points that what’s in Texas’s best interest right now is to sit tight for as long as it can. One of the many ironies at play here is that Texas has very limited options right up until it appears it has no options at all.
Texas Doesn't HAVE To Take Tech
…at least I think they could get out of it. The thing is, why wouldn’t they WANT to take Tech? A great regional game. The 2008 game of Tech v Texas was the highest rated TV game of the year.
I think the only scenario where Texas doesn’t WANT Tech along for the ride is the Big 10 since they wouldn’t take Tech for sure.
Only the Pac 12 takes Tech - the problem is that they limit our bargaining position.
We have little leverage because the Pac 12 is our only option with Tech.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 11:19 AM CDT up reply actions
Yes but
I think the legislative pressure dissipates once realigeddon reaches a point that it appears Texas is otherwise out of options. In the mean time, the smartest play appears to be exactly what Texas is doing: don’t make any rash moves, play the theoretical moves out as best as you can to see where the chess pieces go, and engage in the Kabuki theater of trying to hold the Big-12 together. OU will go, or not; and the rock will roll, or not.
If Texas moves before full realigeddon happens, then it has to take Tech to the PAC; if Texas sits tight and waits, taking Tech to the PAC may well prove the “best” option but other ones also open up.
we want Tech
Tech isn’t just a good regional game. Its about helping them up the academic ladder to relieve some of the pressure on Texas caused by the 10%/8% law. And another regional Tier I university helps us.
How much influence does Mack Brown have in this?
He seemed pretty adamant about staying in Big 12 ( for the coaches, players, rivalries, etc.)
Wahoo.
You seem to be really staying on top of all of this. What do you think is the best option for Texas?
I don't have any inside knowledge - I just like to try to stay informed because it will have such a long-lasting effect on the University.
I still think the Big Ten is the best option for the University (assuming the Pac 12 won’t accept the LHN). We would likely get more money, get to be in a conference with the top large public institutions in the country (not to mention the CIC research benefits), and we would have marquee games against top name programs (this is especially true if ND joins with us). This is all moot if we’re stuck with Tech.
If the Pac 12 is willing to accept the LHN – I think that’s a better option. All things being equal though, I think the Big Ten is the best.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 11:27 AM CDT up reply actions
I agree.
However, I haven’t heard anyone mention of Texas moving to the Big 10 on any news affiliate. Why is that?
I think it's because the Big Ten plays it closer to the vest.
No one knows what they are doing – so it’s not as much fun to speculate about.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 20, 2011 11:32 AM CDT up reply actions
Give some credit to the ACC
They managed to keep the Syracuse and Pitt negotiations quiet until the very end. No offense, but I think it’s mainly the Big 12 administrations that aren’t capable of keeping quiet on this stuff.
B1G = BIG Yuck!
Small towns with terrible major airport access to force fans to navigate and pay through the nose to get to. Not to mention the weather that 95% of our recruits have never played in. That is a regional conference that most teams and fans drive to away games for, taking up a geographical footprint the size of Texas before Nebraska was added. How many of you fly to games in TX (or even in OK)?
At least most P12 teams play near big cities with low-cost carriers available. And under the pod system we’ve heard about only three non-con games a year will force you to endure the TSA 3rd-base date.
by RMHorn on Sep 20, 2011 1:09 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Yeah
State College, PA is pretty remote, but most Big10 towns are large enough to have a major airport (Columbus, Chicago, Minneapolis, etc.) or are within an hour of one (Ann Arbor, Bloomington, etc.).
by BrooklynHorn on Sep 20, 2011 1:18 PM CDT up reply actions
Actually, Just Looked Up B1G Towns, Much WORSE Than I Thought!
Here’s the B1G airport logistics problems (airfares all DEP Austin Friday, RET Sunday, R/T, Per Person):
Purdue – 70 mi. closest, $362 (Indianapolis)
Indiana – 50 mi. closest, $362 (Indianapolis)
Penn St – 5 mi. closest, $612 (U Park) or 90 mi. to Harrisburg, $353
Michigan St – 6 mi. closest, $431 (Lansing) or 88 mi. to Detroit, $340
Wisconsin – 5 mi. closest, $355 (Madison) or 75 mi. to Milwaukee, $222
Iowa – 17 mi. closest, $361 (Cedar Rapids)
Illinois – 7 mi. closest, $477 (Champaign)
Nebraska – 5 mi. closest, $309 (Lincoln) or 54 mi. to Omaha, $207
Ohio St – 10 mi. closest, $356 (Columbus)
Michigan – 20 mi. closest, $340 (Detroit)
Minnesota – 10 mi. closest, $341 (Minn/St Paul)
Northwestern – 17 mi. closest (avg), $257 (Chicago O’Hare + Midway)
Avg Cheapest Airport = $332
Avg Closest Airport = $380 (sorry, didn’t track # of connections)
Here’s the P12 airport logistics for comparison:
Oregon St – 45 mi. closest, $395 (Eugene) or 85 mi. to Portland, $268
Colorado – 40 mi. closest, $193 (Denver)
Oregon – 10 mi. closest, $395 (Eugene) or 105 mi. to Portland, $268
Washington St – 2 mi. closest, $415 (Pullman) or 75 mi. to Spokane, $256
Arizona – 8 mi. closest, $321 (Tucson) or 120 mi. to Phoenix, $252
Washington – 20 mi. closest, $241 (Seattle)
California – 20 mi. closest (avg), $281 (San Francisco + Oakland)
Stanford – 18 mi. closest (avg), $281 (San Francisco + Oakland + San Jose)
USC – 16 mi. closest, $252-$277 (LAX closest but several options)
UCLA – 15 mi. closest, $252-$277 (LAX closest but several options)
Arizona St – 10 mi. closest, $252 (Phoenix)
Utah – 7 mi. closest, $291 (Salt Lake City)
Avg Cheapest Airport = $257
Avg Closest Airport = $298 (sorry, didn’t track # of connections)
Multiply these airfares out by the number of athletes, staff, alumni, families of all and the total cost difference is stark. The P12 has only three small town possible winter weather destinations (WSU, OR, OSU) you could get stuck in or have difficult drives to/from (with a pod system proposed that would put you there only once a football season). The B1G has seven (NU, IL, IN, IA, MSU, PSU, PUR), two of which you have no option but to drive for an hour or more, and every single destination has winter weather possibilities (so no guessing how many times you could get scheduled during a football season). Also, while I didn’t track the non-stops available to these destinations, it looks like the P12 has more likely NS flights than the B1G towns do. IMHO, UT would be absolutely foolish to chase membership in the B1G, the travel and demands on everyone involved would be far greater.
When UT bases its entire athletic/academic destiny
on the travel demands for fans, it will officially be ready for SEC membership.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 21, 2011 1:20 AM CDT up reply actions
Implicit P12 & B1G Are Academic Equals, SEC Not
Doubtful B1G & P10 income substantially different, but travel costs substantially greater to B1G. 4-Pods work for football, keeping Central & Mountain TZ 2×4 pods (8 teams) in same division for other sports vs. N-Pac & S-Pac TZ 2×4 pods in other division.
Other than to satisfy some bizarre fantasy that some Texas fans (probably living in the upper midwest) have of Longhorns playing football on frozen tundra in grainy b&w film with leather helmets as something to aspire to a move to the B1G makes ZERO sense.
by RMHorn on Sep 21, 2011 2:48 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Maybe si, maybe no
I would think that, at a minimum, his input on the overall impact to recruiting and program-building will be taken into account as a (and certainly not the) factor. That said, whether he does or does not have influence is likely immaterial, since he’s playing exactly the role Texas needs him to play, namely that of the folksy, sentimental traditionalist.
Like it or not, Texas’s reputation is that of a greedy, arrogant powerhouse. The ultimate “have” trying to keep the have-nots down as much as possible. Interestingly, at least until a couple of weeks ago, OU’s reputation was that it was tied to the hip of Texas and wouldn’t move anywhere without it. Viewed through that prism, the comments of both Coach Brown and Coach Stoops the past couple of weeks have played exactly the same roll of being a foil to the reputation of their respective schools.
In essence, Coach Brown is the good cop to the Dodds/Powers bad cop, just as Coach Stoops is the bad cop to Castiglione’s “good” cop.
My question on Pat Forde 2 min ago
Dustin (Austin, TX)
Why aren’t we hearing more about Texas, Notre Dame to the B1G as a possibility?
Pat Forde (12:37 PM)
Dustin: Texas has this thing called the Longhorn Network, and the Big Ten has this thing called the Big Ten Network. Not sure the two would coexist easily. Texas basically needs a sweetheart deal, and the Big Ten doesn’t have to give it one.
Pat Forde said that?!
Well, now I’m convinced that Texas to the Big Ten is happening.
Independence is the current best option, IMO, if the PAC won't compromise on the LHN
Let’s ride the LHN as far as it can take us. If it’s a mess in 5-10 years, we can always eat crow and join a conference.
I don’t think it’s worth surrendering the LHN to get in a tidy PAC deal. We balk, take our network, deny the PAC Houston and Dallas markets, and ally ourselves with ND, the Big East and the remainder of the Big 12.
We should work to keep our games with OU, A&M, Baylor and TT alive, we should try to rekindle matchups against Arkansas, and start new series with BYU and Notre Dame.
Let’s go big and see if it burns us.
even without any confirmation as to the validity of those sources
I’m choosing to believe this, simply because it suits me to do so.
by BrooklynHorn on Sep 20, 2011 1:22 PM CDT up reply actions
So the Big12 will lose TAMU, OU, OSU and MU
on top of NU and CU. That’s a lot!
by ev on Sep 20, 2011 1:32 PM CDT up reply actions
Unless Boone Pickens can save the day:
"I think the Aggies are sobering up," Pickens told The Oklahoman.
Read more: http://newsok.com/boone-pickens-big-12-isnt-dead-texas-am-sobering-up/article/3605929#ixzz1YWFQPIeJ
A&M staying in the conference is the best case scenario for us
I don’t know why they would do it, or what concessions they would want regarding the LHN.
Would they want it toned down more or less than the PAC?
Didn't Pickens also say it would require full revenue sharing?
by ev on Sep 20, 2011 2:48 PM CDT up reply actions
He just said he would push for "equitable revenue sharing."
Unclear exactly what that means.
I mainly posted it as a joke – Boone Pickens is not going to save the day.
just to mix it up today
I like Jaxon better than Jordan, Super frosh
I’ll give Case the early edge as the better athlete over Colt
Anyone else want the two youngins over the olders and think the best is yet to come?
I think both of those statements are a stretch at this point.
Let’s get a 4-year body of work and then check notes.
Burnt Orange Nation
Follow Along on Twitter @TXStampede
Oh, go ahead and stomp out his fun.
But I’ll take the “over” on Diggs at this point, to surpass his brother Jammer.
I'll second this bet
But I’ll take the under on Case. At a bare minimum, I don’t think he’ll be the running threat his brother was.
Yeah, nothing short of a national championship is going to trump Colt's career.
Dude had it goin’. I love Case’s game but he sure does have a steep legacy to climb.
What really are our options?
Looking at it from a purely rational perspective, I’m not sure which is truly our best option without the LHN. $ are a guesstimate from TV reports:
Stay in a Big12-x - Big12 reconstituted with the leftovers from Big East plus B12 (No Domer)
Short Term $ – $30M ($18M from Conf + LHN)
Long Term $ – Indeterminate, depends on which leftovers come to the party, should be no less than Current.
Branding – LHN branding improves in Texas. National standing will drop some as perceived to be in a “weak” football conference
Academics – No real change in status
Join the PACX without the LHN – Assume LHN is folded into a PAC
Short Term $ – $30M ($18M from Conf + LHN)
Long Term $ – Demographics and football tradition should allow this to be as rich as any conference
Branding – National Standing should increase as part of a more visible conference, lose the LHN
Academics – Ability to rub shoulders with a few of the finest public universities in the country, still have non AAU yoke of Land Thieves, Tech, ASU, etc.
Join the B1G without the LHN- LHN is limited to academics, not sports related content
Short Term $ – $25 – $28M depending B10 Network expansion on Basic Tier
Long Term $ – Once again, Demographics and football tradition should allow this to be as rich as any conference (w/ UT)
Branding- National Standing should increase as part of a more visible conference, lose the LHN
Academics – CIC Membership. The finest Academic conference
Join the ACC + Reworked LHN – Assume LHN is folded into a ACC Regional Network, primary branding is “LHN an ACC Regional Network”
Short Term $ – @ $25M
Long Term $ – May approach PAC X revenue (w/TX)
Branding – National Standing should remain at current, lose some value of the LHN
Academics – Ability to rub shoulders with a few of the finest public universities in the country, excellent Academic profile for the most part
Independence + LHN – ESPN buys Tier 1 & 2 rights to home games + LHN
Short Term $ – ?? $40M: Tier 1 rights @ $20M LHN at $20M (ND money + additional LHN value of more BBall games)
Long Term $ – Should be among highest in Football
Branding – LHN branding improves in Texas. National standing will drop some as Independence leaves us out of Conf Title discussions
Academics – No real change in Status
SEC + LHN –
Short Term $ – $29 – $35M
Long Term $ – The richest possible outcome
Branding – National Standing should increase as part of a more visible conference, LHN drives a bigger presence in Texas, some negative academic brand impact potentially
Academics – No real change in Status (similar profile to Big 12)
Texas has a new deal being finalized
I’m not sure what it is, but I do know that it is near.
A&M: Ready,Set, Go.....
HOW DO YOU KNOW?!?
Sorry, just going stir-crazy here. :)
"History lesson: Everything bad that has happened to Texas has been due to its association with the South. Everything good that has happened to Texas has been due to its association with the West." -- Paul Burka, Senior Executive Editor of Texas Monthly
by Hopkins Horn on Sep 20, 2011 2:43 PM CDT up reply actions
Take some comfort in knowing it won't be weeks
That made me feel better…….but I’m like you. My eyes about popped out of my head. As I asked for a smidgeon of detail I was completely shutdown.
A&M: Ready,Set, Go.....
Notre Dame to B1G
I’m sure that’s all it is.
by Infield Elephant on Sep 20, 2011 2:58 PM CDT up reply actions
Per Chip Brown's pants
The Longhorns’ first option remains holding the Big 12 together with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State in it, the source said. The Big 12’s TV partners (ABC/ESPN and Fox) are not interested in continuing their current contracts with the Big 12 if Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas are not all in the league, sources said.
…
“The Pac-12 would hold open a spot for Texas.”
by Infield Elephant on Sep 20, 2011 3:03 PM CDT reply actions
Posted 09/19
but refers to 2-week timeline. K, I’m done.
by Infield Elephant on Sep 20, 2011 3:06 PM CDT reply actions
holy crap
reply fail after date miss after muffed joke to HH.
I’m out. :(
by Infield Elephant on Sep 20, 2011 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions
Me three
I about died when all this happened last year and I am too freaking old to be put through all this crap again this year. I can’t even sleep.
I have clearly made the leap from sports fan to crazed and obsessed Longhorn stalker.
A&M: Ready,Set, Go.....
the worst of it is the timing
I can handle this in May. But the emotional exhaustion associated with the actual games themselves cannot be compounded with these conference shenanigans. Its simply too much, particularly considering the latter concern places far more at stake than does the result of next weeks game.
I’d like to be obsessing over getting to 4-0 in Ames, but the conference with which Texas chooses to align (and maybe for the next half-century) is actually the far more pressing issue.
by BrooklynHorn on Sep 20, 2011 3:18 PM CDT up reply actions
view from calif
here in calif., we are concerned that adding ut would dilute the conference academically. football wise, it would make it a stronger conference. but academically, you in texas should be concerned about raising your standards. don’t get offended, just look at the usnews rankings and the facts.
Texas would rank third in that conference behind Stanford and Cal
We have decidedly better academic value than ASU, WSU, UO, Utah, UofA, CU, and OSU, slightly better than UW and USC, and its about a push with UCLA.
by BrooklynHorn on Sep 20, 2011 3:43 PM CDT up reply actions
Uhhhh.. we are not a push with UCLA
Keep dreaming. Would be nice. We are a push with USC – yes USC is good if not as big as Texas, but very selective.
Don’t like that fact? Talk to your state rep about our horrible admissions policies. There’s no reason we can’t be back in the discussion with UCLA, UVA, UNC, Michigan, etc. But right now we’re not.
by Erasmus Funderburke on Sep 20, 2011 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions
Oh but anyone who gets their info from US News & world reports
Should probably have their degree revoked from whereever they got it.
Also, somewhere above it mentioned what a mess California is right now. I agree and it’s another reason I think a PAC alliance is a dumb idea. When your bellweather state is about to have a constitutional crisis, you’ve got problems.
by Erasmus Funderburke on Sep 20, 2011 3:52 PM CDT up reply actions
Don't know why we are responding to the troll
But even by the much maligned US News rankings (which get a bad rap because people are trying to use them for a different purpose than what they are intended to be, a tool for high school students to compare undergraduate education), Texas is #45. Above them are Stanford (5), Cal (21), USC (23), UCLA (25), and Washington (42). After that the next best is CU (94), then Oregon (101), Washington St (115), Utah (124), Arizona (124), Arizona St (132) and Oregon St (138). Not exactly diluting the the conference.
depends on whether you're looking at undergrad, grad, research, etc.
I still say its a push.
by BrooklynHorn on Sep 20, 2011 3:53 PM CDT up reply actions
By many measures, Texas is a top school
But in many other ways we are not. Since I have left the state I have learned that we Texans are not very good at embracing reality to improve our standing – we epitomize rugged individualism.
In order to get better in the rankings, we need to drastically lower the number of students per faculty (yes in reality, not just by including part-time librarians like A&M), increase state support for libraries, scholarships, and facilities, and drastically change the university’s admissions procedures.
We do very well regardless, but we coast on our huge endowment and research funding (which per student is not that great) and there is a ton of room for improvement.
by Erasmus Funderburke on Sep 20, 2011 9:15 PM CDT up reply actions
You're talking about the University of Tennessee, right?
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 21, 2011 1:23 AM CDT up reply actions
as stated, i did not want to offend. my point is that ut moving to the pac 12, it would increase academics for ALL. ut is THE school in TX. TX is the 2nd largest state. Moving to the Pac 12, you will be affiliated with the high tech centers of silicon valley, l.a.(caltech, ucla, usc), and seattle. I know Austin is in the mix. ut will not be ‘competing’ with berkeley, or stanford, but will join the club, as partners. It is a win-win situation for ut and the state of tx.
You're not making any sense
If you include CalTech can we include Rice? It’s equally relevant. California has very little to offer Houston and Austin in terms of tech centers. Last I checked the world’s #1 PC maker was in Austin. The portable computer was invented at a House of Pies in Houston.
UTs grad programs absolutely compete with Stanford and Cal. Perhaps not undergrad, but you can get as good of an education at Texas as anywhere in the country. The difference is that at Texas you have to actively manage the process. At Cal it just happens.
I work at a thinktank. We hire people from the best institutions in the country (and world). I can tell you this – there is very little difference between people at the grad level. The smartest person I know went to grad school at Texas, a couple of other bright folks went to Maryland. Michigan and Duke have exceptional undergrads, Stanford is also good across the board. Cal has smart people, but in my experience can’t seem to make the rubber meet the road. Harvard is the most overrated institution by an order of magnitude – their value is entirely in who you know.
I have come to the conclusion that our best hires at the undergrad level come from very small schools or state schools. The big name private schools (e.g., Rice, Harvard) cannot hold a candle to some of the good smaller schools. CalTech is probably an exception but they are extremely narrow in focus… that being said I am sure Rice is absolutely fantastic in a couple of areas. But I hire researchers with liberal arts backgrounds, and for those folks, Rice does not do well at all. I’d rather hire a middle of the road UT, VT, or Wisconsin grad.
by Erasmus Funderburke on Sep 20, 2011 9:30 PM CDT up reply actions
FYI I am pretty drunk
Ommegang Aphrodite is teh sith.
OK, plus a Reisdorf Kolsch and Paulaner Oktoberfest.
by Erasmus Funderburke on Sep 20, 2011 9:39 PM CDT up reply actions
Even when drunk
you’re far more astute than “redstar”.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 21, 2011 1:25 AM CDT up reply actions
So UT would become imaginary partners with Stanford and Cal (as well as Oregon State! EEEEEE!)
as opposed to actual partners with Northwestern, Michigan, Wisconsin, et.al. Are you in sales?
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 21, 2011 1:27 AM CDT up reply actions
Well looky here
From NewsOK: The Sooners will stick with the Big 12 if certain “demands” are met.
Looks to me like Texas might have gotten through to Oklahoma. The salvage job is on. The rest is about public posturing, so OU can say to its fans, “Look, see? We’re in charge. We’re not being led around by the noses by Texas.”
75-37-5. Now GTFO.
Behind closed doors, this overheard from Boren:
“Okay, I think I’m still confused. It’s been a rough week. Bill & Deloss, just write out on a sticky-note whatever you want me to say to the press so that I can read it without saying the wrong thing. I’m sorry I’m being so slow today. ‘Hook It!’, or whatever it is that you guys say all the time..”
Because the California schools just remembered they had standards?
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Sep 21, 2011 1:28 AM CDT up reply actions
oops,please ignore
You guys already have it up,my apoligies
Thinking outside the box
The real question to me is how to salvage the big12 and protect itself from mega-conferences so that each team has time to work on their own network, or find a new conference, or so that the big12 has time to come up with a revenue model that pleases everyone. Everything I’ve read has explored answering those problems by adding more teams, but I think each conference may not even be focused on that sort of solution. If Texas, OU, and the big12 are considering all there options they must have thought of other ways of putting off conference realignment besides just adding teams or ditching.
Seems to me like ONE solution that doesn’t necessarily involve adding teams would be to buddy up with the big east and come to a few terms:
- require each team to play one out of conference game against the opposite conference. The TV rights can go to the individual team or conference networks, depending on the conferences’ model (big12 would give these rights to teams networks, big east may air them on the big east network or however they dole out there third tier rights).
-have a championship game between the top team from each conference. The TV rights to this game should be given to each conference and net profit should be put into a fund dedicated to assisting “have-not” schools in developing their individual or paired networks (imagine kansas/kst. network, etc.).
-furthermore this sets up the possibility for a larger basketball network airing the best basketball in the nation (big12 vs big east!!)
Seems like this could stall at least until each school is ready and has some plans for the future, and also sets up protection in case super conferences do happen the big east and big12 teams wouldnt really be forced into super conferences because 1. they don’t really need one with the tournament and auto bid and 2. they could just combine to form a super conference and already have much of the infrastructure set up.
AND, the big east, LHN, and big12 network are all affiliated with espn
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Burnt Orange Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
