Texas, Texas Tech, OK, & OK St to the Pac-10- Rumor False

• krambman

  

  ts1227;389705 wrote:http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5286672

  
  Thanks. The thing that I find so odd about the Longhorn Sports Network is how they think it could possibly make them more money than the Big Ten Network. There's no way that the LSN would ever be a national network on basic cable. It will only ever be on basic cable in the state of Texas. Also considering that the Big Ten Network is the second most expensive network on basic cable at $3 per subscriber (just behind ESPN) I doubt that UT could get more per subscriber than that. Yes, they would have advertising money as well, but again, I still can't see that being that much. If you think about the BTN being on every TV in Texas is UT joined the Big Ten (so it would be on the same number of TV sets the LSN would be on in Texas) plus all of the other states the BTN is in, I just have a hard time seeing how they could make more money from their own network than from the BTN. Also, we know that their conference TV contract will never come close to touching the Big Ten TV contract. If the Pac-10 starts their own network, most if this would likely be true for that network as well. I just think that UT is costing themselves a lot of money.
• ts1227

  

  Oklahoma and A&M have came out and said they are staying put
• jordo212000

  

  All that excitement for nothing. Man it's crazy that Texas has the other universities (aside from A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State) by the balls to this extent. I guess these schools said would stay if they would get a substantial chunk of the dough. I think Texas thinks they'll get like $20 mill per year.
  
  I just can't believe the other schools are letting them do this. The unequal distribution was what almost ended the conference to start with. I know the other schools really don't have much leverage, but I am shocked at how little resistance Texas is getting
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Fantastic news.
  I hate all the rumors and speculation driven by ESPN.
  In the end no one knew really anything.
  Much like everything else in college football, the decision was decided by the almighty dollar.
  
  Now, I propose the Big 10 and Big XII change names haha.
• TheMightyGators

  krambman;389711 wrote:Thanks. The thing that I find so odd about the Longhorn Sports Network is how they think it could possibly make them more money than the Big Ten Network. There's no way that the LSN would ever be a national network on basic cable. It will only ever be on basic cable in the state of Texas. Also considering that the Big Ten Network is the second most expensive network on basic cable at $3 per subscriber (just behind ESPN) I doubt that UT could get more per subscriber than that. Yes, they would have advertising money as well, but again, I still can't see that being that much. If you think about the BTN being on every TV in Texas is UT joined the Big Ten (so it would be on the same number of TV sets the LSN would be on in Texas) plus all of the other states the BTN is in, I just have a hard time seeing how they could make more money from their own network than from the BTN. Also, we know that their conference TV contract will never come close to touching the Big Ten TV contract. If the Pac-10 starts their own network, most if this would likely be true for that network as well. I just think that UT is costing themselves a lot of money.

  The Big10 has to split their tv revenue with 11 other teams evenly right? Texas is a huge state and I'm sure they can get that $3 a subscriber, in the state of Texas, that the BTN is currently getting. What I would like to know is what kind of an impact do you think that the LSN will have on recruiting? I realize almost their entire roster is made up of Texas kids, but I have to think they still want to play in front of a national TV audience. No way does the LSN get on national cable services. They might get into a bordering state or two, but even that is probably a stretch.
• karen lotz

  

  devil1197;388400 wrote:Yeah, because the B12 is suddenly going to stay together?
  
  The moves are not official, but they WILL happen. The landscape of college football has changed and no longer can ND have an independent status.

  oops.
• the_system

  TheMightyGators;389768 wrote:The Big10 has to split their tv revenue with 11 other teams evenly right? Texas is a huge state and I'm sure they can get that $3 a subscriber, in the state of Texas, that the BTN is currently getting. What I would like to know is what kind of an impact do you think that the LSN will have on recruiting? I realize almost their entire roster is made up of Texas kids, but I have to think they still want to play in front of a national TV audience. No way does the LSN get on national cable services. They might get into a bordering state or two, but even that is probably a stretch.

  
  I read somewhere else that every team in the B12 will get 17-20 million guaranteed from a new TV contract. 7 teams will get 17million, while Texas, OU, and aTm will get 20mil each. Not to mention Texas used this entire thing as leverage to get their LSN a green light. So they will get 20million + millions more from their own network.
  
  And how will the B12 manage to pull in a $180mil+ TV contract when they couldn't get $120 mil with Nebraska and Colorado. Unless it's a 15+ year deal or something.
• Sykotyk

  

  the_system, probably. And they're too slow to understand inflation and will be crying poverty ten years from now.
  
  Everybody knew their contract would be higher when it renews (every other conference saw huge increases). It's not like Nebraska or Colorado walked away from it uninformed. They just knew that when the new contract came, it'd come with an unbalanced payout. Which lets the rich get rich, and the poor get poorer. There's a reason Iowa State will never contend in the Big 12. But, there is a reason Northwestern, Illinois, etc can contend from time to time in the Big Ten. Because the schools share revenue from television.
  
  The Big 12 apparently sold their souls to Texas because they know they're not wanted without the Orange. Texas gets what it wanted, gets more money, and will continue to pull away from the rest of the league financially. And maybe, just maybe, as more teams become disenfranchised by them, they'll look elsewhere. But, hopefully they won't be considered damaged goods at that point and will get a spot where they can truly be part of a 'league' and not a collective held hostage.
  
  Sykotyk
• enigmaax

  the_system;389812 wrote:I read somewhere else that every team in the B12 will get 17-20 million guaranteed from a new TV contract. 7 teams will get 17million, while Texas, OU, and aTm will get 20mil each. Not to mention Texas used this entire thing as leverage to get their LSN a green light. So they will get 20million + millions more from their own network.
  
  And how will the B12 manage to pull in a $180mil+ TV contract when they couldn't get $120 mil with Nebraska and Colorado. Unless it's a 15+ year deal or something.

  
  Yeah, since I heard that I've wondered where that money is supposed to come from. I've only had a glance at a couple articles and heard what was said on the radio, but seems like wishful thinking to me. Did the guy with the magic idea for the next TV contract actually account for this money?
• dazedconfused

  

  it's like texas is leading a cult
• the_system

  dazedconfused;389856 wrote:it's like texas is leading a cult

  
  It basically is.
  
  The only school to ever go against things that benefited Texas the most......Nebraska. Lots of 11-1 votes over the years. Colorado had an eye on the pac-10 for years, but they still didn't have the nuts to challenge Texas. As soon as they saw an opening though, they ran for it. Missouri was the same with the B10. Then when they realized the B10 didn't want them, they came back kissing the B12's ass. KU, ISU, KSU, and Baylor would have been happy with $5mil a year in the B12 as long as they didn't get cast down to mid-major status. I bet they are partying like it's 1999 right now.
  
  OU is the strangest. They're a big enough name that they can do what they want if they felt like it. However, their limp-wristed administration just takes a bend over approach to Texas. I think the fear of losing Texas recruits scares the shit out of them.
  
  Texas chose to stay for a few key reasons.
  
  1. Power. They control all of it in the B12 and after all of these threats of leaving, the remaining schools are going to let them control anything they want to keep Texas in the league.
  2. Money. No other conference was going to let them take the largest cut of the TV contract AND double dip with their own network. Except the B12.
  3. Fame. 2 teams gone from the North. One was a legit contender to them. Now Texas, or possibly OU, will walk through the conference every year. Meaning they will be almost guaranteed a BCS and likely a national title spot on a yearly basis.
• sjmvsfscs08

  Will the Big XII add two more teams? Arkansas wants out of the SEC and Utah would bring the Salt Lake City market of 900,000 viewers (compared to 1,500,000 with Denver). Will we see the Pac-11 and Big XII fight for Utah?
  
  I think the Big XII (read: "Texas") doesn't want to split the pie so they are hesitant towards expansion.
  
  I've never seen a larger collected of milquetoasts in my life, the administrations at the other Big XII schools are pathetic.
• ts1227

  

  Will anyone want to join the Big 12 if invited?
  
  "Come be Texas's bitch even moreso than before this all went down" isn't a compelling tagline... and I won't believe this TV contract Beebe is promising until I actually see it happen.
• Speedofsand

  

  This whole spectacle of action/ non-action in college football has been extremely interesting for me. At first I didn't care, didn't believe what I heard. Then real changes came along, then BIG deals were real, until everything magically fell apart as the clock strikes 0:00.
  So, the Big10 adds Nebraska. I'm hearing they want to add two more schools and call it "The Big 10-4"
• sjmvsfscs08

  I agree with you ts1227, I think Utah would much rather choose to go to the Pac-10 over the "Texas XII" any day. I think Missouri is hoping the Big Ten invites them. I think the Pac-10/SEC won't expand because they think this is a temporary fix and Texas will eventually kill the Big XII.
• j_crazy

  

  IMO, this is great news for the B10.
  
  the pac 10 adding Utah and Colorado is not a power, or football thing, it's a money thing. they got 2 big markets. The b10 got another good football program.
• krambman

  

  I think all of the power is now back in the Big Ten and it is up to them to set the expansion tone again. They could choose to stay at 12 for now and not act any further. They could choose to go to 14 and add two Big East schools. They could choose to go to 14 and extend one of those invites to Missouri. It'd be interesting if Missouri would now stick with the new Texas Ten or choose to jump to the Big Ten like they wanted to all along. If Missouri went to the Big Ten then the rest of the Texas Ten would be right back where they started from. If the Big Ten really wants to see college football go to four super conferences, adding Missouri might be able to make it happen. If they wanted to get to 16 teams they could add three Big East schools or two Big East schools and Missouri in an attempt to try and pressure Notre Dame into the conference.
  
  Right now I think we're going to be done with Big Ten expansion for a while. I think that if the Pac-10 is only going to add one more team right now that the Big Ten will be content at 12 for the moment and reopen expansion possibilities in the future.
  
  I also won't believe that anything is really official with the Big XII staying together until this rumored new TV contract is inked. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they all agree to stay together and then a months from now things change again.
• krambman

  

  the_system;389928 wrote:It basically is.
  OU is the strangest. They're a big enough name that they can do what they want if they felt like it. However, their limp-wristed administration just takes a bend over approach to Texas. I think the fear of losing Texas recruits scares the shit out of them.

  While Oklahoma is a football powerhouse and also a good basketball program they have two big obstacles to leaving on their own.
  
  1. Academics - OU is ranked 102 on according to US News and World Report. Not exactly a top notch academic institution that is going to elevate a conference academically.
  
  2. Market - Oklahoma isn't exactly a huge media market, so financially, they wouldn't bring much to a conference in terms of TV dollars. They also don't have the alumni base of schools like Texas and Ohio State so nationally, even when they're really good, they don't tend to get the same number of national telecasts as some others.
  
  What has become very clear with all of this expansion that these two things (academics and TV market (read: money)) are the two most important factors in a conference adding new members.
• jordo212000

  

  sjmvsfscs08;389972 wrote: I think the Pac-10/SEC won't expand because they think this is a temporary fix and Texas will eventually kill the Big XII.

  
  The Pac 10 will have to add one more at least. They have 11 now. It seems like Utah is their guy and if that happens there won't be much of a ripple effect because the Mtn West will just add another mid-major. However if they can poach one Big 12 school that would likely cause all of this to start all over again
• enigmaax

  jordo212000;390215 wrote:The Pac 10 will have to add one more at least. They have 11 now. It seems like Utah is their guy and if that happens there won't be much of a ripple effect because the Mtn West will just add another mid-major. However if they can poach one Big 12 school that would likely cause all of this to start all over again

  
  I'm not so sure the Pac 10 will jump to add that 12th team right away. Even with their plan of going to 16 teams, there were quotes from officials stating that they were not interested in a conference title game. If they went to 16, they were going to try and secure two BCS autobids and NOT have a title game. The big change the Pac 10 is looking for with expansion is starting up their own network and getting into good markets. With that in mind, it doesn't matter if they have 11 or 12. At the very least, they can take some time and evaluate the value versus the additional share of whoever they may or may not want to add.
• krambman

  

  enigmaax;390264 wrote:I'm not so sure the Pac 10 will jump to add that 12th team right away. Even with their plan of going to 16 teams, there were quotes from officials stating that they were not interested in a conference title game. If they went to 16, they were going to try and secure two BCS autobids and NOT have a title game. The big change the Pac 10 is looking for with expansion is starting up their own network and getting into good markets. With that in mind, it doesn't matter if they have 11 or 12. At the very least, they can take some time and evaluate the value versus the additional share of whoever they may or may not want to add.

  
  Correct. The Pac-10's ultimate goal is a 16 team conference, and they want to expands with quality schools that they feel are on their level academically athletically. They aren't going to add a 12 team now simply because they feel compelled to unless it's a team they wanted all along.
• jordo212000

  

  krambman;390282 wrote:Correct. The Pac-10's ultimate goal is a 16 team conference, and they want to expands with quality schools that they feel are on their level academically athletically. They aren't going to add a 12 team now simply because they feel compelled to unless it's a team they wanted all along.

  
  huh?
  http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2010/06/pac-10-next-move-expected-to-be-addition-of-utah-as-12th-team/1
• se-alum

  

  I really don't see Mizzou passing up an invite from the Big 10.
• se-alum

  

  I used to like and respect the Texas program, but that's waivering a bit now.
  
  http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5289050
  
  Of course they led the charge, it's the only way they could get the LSN off the ground. Luckily for them, there seems to be plenty of schools willing to ride their coat tails.
• the_system

  se-alum;390511 wrote:I used to like and respect the Texas program, but that's waivering a bit now.
  
  http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5289050
  
  Of course they led the charge, it's the only way they could get the LSN off the ground. Luckily for them, there seems to be plenty of schools willing to ride their coat tails.

  
  Yeah, if this quote from the article above isn't shady, I don't know what is.
  
  "Kansas, Kansas State, Baylor, Iowa State and Missouri -- who were in danger of being left homeless if the conference dissolved -- agreed to give up their share in buyout penalties to be paid by Nebraska and Colorado for leaving the league, Beebe said.
  
  The idea is to have that money go to Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma, the schools the Big 12 needed to stay to remain viable, to make up for the difference in revenue that those three might have made going elsewhere."
  
  
  
  How is that not Extortion?
  
  Extortion: Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.