|
Post by nothingbutcorn on Aug 31, 2011 20:30:34 GMT -5
Really the blame for undoing of the Big 12 can go to all of the 12 teams/formers teams. They made some big mistakes when it was formed. Football is the driver and always will be. OU and NU was lost. That matchup should have been contnued every year. At the time NU was on a amazing run and OU was down so OU helped put an end to the yearly game. Look what the B1G has done. They are keeping the must see matchups. If the Big 12 had looked to schedule football better then it would not of lost NU. Also UT and NU should have played every year. Again a missed chance to showcase your confernece. It had poor management from the start.
|
|
|
Post by gilles13 on Aug 31, 2011 20:35:22 GMT -5
The Big 12 as a whole can't command the TV contracts other power conferences can, so Texas decided on a paradigm shift, junking the type of conference "we-all-share-in-the-spoils" philosophy that other BCS schools have, and creating what will probably end up as a fatal imbalance in terms of revenue and exposure in the Big 12. Did Texas throw the rest of the conference under the bus by doing so? Yeah, pretty much. But whether or not Texas did it out of necessity or out of arrogance depends on which side of the fence you're on. Actually Texas didn't create anything, ESPN did. If you're a large scale business owner are you going to say no to another huge corporation when they offer you millions of dollars for them to give you media coverage leading to further opportunities to gain revenue? Anybody that answers in the affirmative to this question would fail miserably as a business owner. Trade and gain of capital drive economic activity, not emotions or a desire to be liked by other corporations who are competing with you for money. Animals and animal populations exhibit dominance by gaining territory. Humans and human populations exhibit dominance through a gain of higher economic status. Relationships between economic entities therefore usually directly model animalistic relationships. Animal life is inherently hostile and therefore so is economy. Only the strong will survive and propagate further, and if you are ceasing you're activity to feel sorry for yourself, the harsh world of business will gobble you up and erase you from existence.
|
|
|
Post by southie on Aug 31, 2011 20:37:26 GMT -5
Oklahoma has been pretty vocal about having their own TV network since last summer. Unfortunately, there hasn't been much interest from those who would fit the bill. Similar to A&M, they underestimated Texas' marketability. OU has been very quiet about the Longhorn Network, but chances are slim that the Sooners can rake in anything close to what ESPN is paying Texas.
|
|
|
Post by Keystonekid on Aug 31, 2011 20:42:59 GMT -5
I don't have a dog in this hunt, since I only have a mild interest in the Big XII, but a few things here: The Big 10 didn't set off the expansion wars, the ACC did in 2005, when the conference went to 12 teams after poaching the Big East. But that's not really all that important, as the real issue is why conferences or schools have incentive to move in the first place:TV money. In that respect, the Big 10 does assume some responsibility, in the sense that it created the cash cow that is the BTN. The success of the BTN created an arms war where success isn't measured in wins and losses, but in expanding to new media markets, increased ad revenue, cable subscription fees, multiple media platforms, and conference-owned networks. Right now, the king of the hill in that respect is the Pac-12, but who knows how long that will last, particularly as expansion continues. BTW, I'm not blaming the Big 10 for anything, the BTN was a gamble, and one that worked out beautifully for the conference. Here's the thing, though - the three richest conferences (Pac 12, Big 10, SEC) operate as quasi-socialistic organizations. USC doesn't get any more conference TV money than Washington St. Same goes for Alabama and Vanderbilt etc. etc. Now, USC etal get to keep their own merchandise sales and so on (hence the "quasi"), but the big money from TV is shared equally. So why doesn't USC, Alabama, LSU, Ohio St., Michigan go it on their own? Because they all understand that at the end of the day, they're going to make more money as part of their conference than they are going it alone. For example, the annual payouts to Pac 12 schools from the new contract dwarf what Texas is getting from the LHN (about double in 2012). Unfortunately for the Big 12, it's rich in talent, tradition, and fans, but poor when it comes to large media markets. The Big 12 as a whole can't command the TV contracts other power conferences can, so Texas decided on a paradigm shift, junking the type of conference "we-all-share-in-the-spoils" philosophy that other BCS schools have, and creating what will probably end up as a fatal imbalance in terms of revenue and exposure in the Big 12. Did Texas throw the rest of the conference under the bus by doing so? Yeah, pretty much. But whether or not Texas did it out of necessity or out of arrogance depends on which side of the fence you're on. Youre correct ACC was the first to do it. Big Ten had been sniffing around for years however. It was however the Big Ten that came after Big 12 schools, that was my point. This aint over either, and Oklahoma is a big player. They cant wait around to see if Texas jumps, leaving them in a weak Big 12. I dont think any of the schools in the rumor mill, BYU, PITT (thats a joke) may do it. I think youre gonna see Oklahoma and Texas in different conferences, why would OU care where they were, it doesnt affect them. Texas would like to stay where they are, its their market and demographic. I can tell you Nebraska is looking at this and saying "whew" we are right where we wanna be.
|
|
|
Post by Pirate VB Fan on Aug 31, 2011 20:44:26 GMT -5
As a Texas native but an ISU alum (in the Big 8 era), I hated the day we let those "southerners" into the conference. I know you can't go back, but eight teams was just about perfect for a conference.
|
|
|
Post by nothingbutcorn on Aug 31, 2011 20:46:45 GMT -5
OU is in the drivers seat. If OU leaves then this house of cards fall.
|
|
|
Post by nothingbutcorn on Aug 31, 2011 20:50:24 GMT -5
I know many blame UT but they have been played by the Evil Empire. Yes ESPN. They are power hungry and they are always looking to gain more.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Aug 31, 2011 20:55:00 GMT -5
In the Oklahoma article it mentions that Stoops would be excited to get access to the recruiting base in California.
Thinking that way for a second... Southie mentions that Texas A&M is not as valuable at Texas, and if that's your chief rival, and the LHN is only going to create a bigger gap going forward, you can't keep doing business as normal. The SEC has a healthy annual payout, and you can offer recruits in Texas opportunities that UT cannot, which is the obvious part. But also, the Longhorns football team is almost entirely from Texas, and if Oklahoma values the Pac 10 to get to recruit in So Cal, wouldn't Alabama, Kentucky, Ole Miss and friends love to get better football connections and exposure in the state of Texas? The kids the SEC can draw east will leave a dent in the recruiting of the Texas school's, and while A&M will get better connections in the southeast, specifically Florida, UT and friends will not. By inviting in their new friends, they are screwing with their old friends and if it works, they may have a shot to backdoor their way into becoming the top dog in Texas again.
|
|
|
Post by Keystonekid on Aug 31, 2011 20:55:01 GMT -5
OU is in the drivers seat. If OU leaves then this house of cards fall. Texas will move on, ISU, KSU, etc will become mid majors. Thats were college sports is going 36-45 power schools and then the rest.
|
|
|
Post by Keystonekid on Aug 31, 2011 20:56:45 GMT -5
In the Oklahoma article it mentions that Stoops would be excited to get access to the recruiting base in California. Thinking that way for a second... Southie mentions that Texas A&M is not as valuable at Texas, and if that's your chief rival, and the LHN is only going to create a bigger gap going forward, you can't keep doing business as normal. The SEC has a healthy annual payout, and you can offer recruits in Texas opportunities that UT cannot, which is the obvious part. But also, the Longhorns football team is almost entirely from Texas, and if Oklahoma values the Pac 10 to get to recruit in So Cal, wouldn't Alabama, Kentucky, Ole Miss and friends love to get better football connections and exposure in the state of Texas? The kids the SEC can draw east will leave a dent in the recruiting of the Texas school's, and while A&M will get better connections in the southeast, specifically Florida, UT and friends will not. By inviting in their new friends, they are screwing with their old friends and if it works, they may have a shot to backdoor their way into becoming the top dog in Texas again. Dont be so sure Texas couldnt end up in the SEC either. Texas could be in any league they want, with one phone call.
|
|
|
Post by southie on Aug 31, 2011 20:59:46 GMT -5
I Unfortunately for the Big 12, it's rich in talent, tradition, and fans, but poor when it comes to large media markets. The Big 12 as a whole can't command the TV contracts other power conferences can, so Texas decided on a paradigm shift, junking the type of conference "we-all-share-in-the-spoils" philosophy that other BCS schools have, and creating what will probably end up as a fatal imbalance in terms of revenue and exposure in the Big 12. Did Texas throw the rest of the conference under the bus by doing so? Yeah, pretty much. But whether or not Texas did it out of necessity or out of arrogance depends on which side of the fence you're on. Are you aware that when the Big 12 conference was formed, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, and Texas were in favor of unequal revenue sharing? Texas didn't make that decision by themselves. As for other conferences, Florida gains exposure and revenue from the Sunshine Sports network. Do you think they are going to share any of that "advantage" with Texas A&M when they don't share it with other current SEC members? Notre Dame is the one school who has a special deal in football with regards to qualifying for the BCS bowl bids. Do you think that's fair to all the other schools across the country? Bottom line is that life isn't fair. Things aren't "equal" in the world of high-dollar athletics.
|
|
|
Post by nothingbutcorn on Aug 31, 2011 21:01:03 GMT -5
Keystone - UT could make one phone call but I am sure they would need to give somethings up. I just don't know if the folks in charge at UT would be so willing to do that.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Aug 31, 2011 21:03:11 GMT -5
The interesting question is where would Oklahoma go?
The Pac-12 would probably still want them, but only with Texas and not the Texas TV deal. So much for that, although I could see Texas re-considering the Pac-12 with OK with the Pac-12 able to re-negotiate an even better TV Deal. The Big10 & Pac-12 don't necessarily want to expand more, although I could see as a stretch for the Pac-12 go for the Oklahoma, Missouri, Ok State & Texas Tech or Houston. The Pac-12 is set up nicely for Coast and Southwest divisions.
The SEC probably wants Ok a lot more than OK wants to end up in the SEC, prob. the one place they don't want to go.
It seems Texas may have boxed themselves into a corner (conference wise), with the TV Deal.
|
|
|
Post by nothingbutcorn on Aug 31, 2011 21:04:17 GMT -5
I could see UT and ND forming a sort of national conference. A little east, west, midwest.
|
|
|
Post by nothingbutcorn on Aug 31, 2011 21:07:25 GMT -5
KU and KSU are joined at the hip, just like OU and OSU are.
|
|