Pretty much. Texas' best interests and the rest of the Big 12's best interests are slowing drifting away from one another. That's not a good thing. Inequity has always been a problem there, and now it's just worse. I'm not sure that Texas will join another conference though. (I think) LHN is here to stay, and no other conference is going to allow that to exist. Texas could easily survive and thrive as an independent. Whether UT would ever be allowed to torpedo the Big 12 or not is the real question. They would face tremendous pressure from within the state to stay. Like you said, if the Big 12 is ever going to fracture (without UT pulling the trigger), it is going to be because some combination of OSU, OU, KU, KSU, TTU, etc. surmise that they can both make more money and be more equitable partners in another conference.
OU's president made comments about how OU will do what is best for OU but the university backed off after the Pac 12 reportedly let OU know that they were only interested if they were paired with Texas. I don't know where you guys are getting that Texas's interests in the big 12 are waning? No one who covers the program is reporting anything close to that. Seems like wishful thinking around here. Texas gets paid a ton of money from the main TV deal and 10 million a year from their network which wouldn't fly in any other conference. They had a lot of teams in the top 15 and would have made it to the final 4 if they had a conference championship. Having more programs that are respected by the national media is a good thing for the conference and for Texas. TCU and Baylor both did better than A&M and Nebraska did in the last 5 years they were in the conference. It's better for Texas to beat programs that the national media think are good. What's more, the big 12 commish was fired because he was thought to have too close ties to Texas. Yet, this BS is still coming up. Of course Texas still has a lot of clout because they are the biggest brand in college football and make the most money. Everything in this thread is a giant reach.
Here's the biggest problem with the Big 12. Quality wise, it may be the strongest it has ever been from top to bottom. Gone are the days of 5+ gimmie wins for the teams at the top of the league. Perception wise, the Big 12 is probably the weakest it has ever been. A team won't get lead a SportsCenter story for beating TCU or Baylor, no matter the ranking. Nobody is dying to tune into a Kansas St./TCU matchup, even if both are top 10 teams. Name any other conference that has a team in the top 5 like TCU that many national pundits were expecting to lost to an unranked 6-5 school like Texas. It boils down to no respect. The teams in our conference don't get respect for beating the other quality teams. I have no doubt Mississippi State would be a middle of the road team in the Big 12, yet there they were on national TV every week and teams like Alabama and Ole Miss got huge perception boosts for beating them. This isn't an issue that will go away, either.
Texas is fine with it, UT loves the status quo. If Texas wanted to leave the Big 12 they would have. This way they have their conference and their precious LHN. It's the rest of the conference that is probably gonna have problems eventually. There is a gross disparity between Texas and everybody else, and they may eventually decide there is more money to be made elsewhere.
This is exactly right. No one but Texas and maybe OU *wants* to be here. They just have no better options. The 4 teams that could get out did. You can be sure if other teams could have left, they would have. That's the flaw with the conference and why it's ultimately doomed. That's not the case with other conferences. Most of the teams in those conferences are happy where they are (with a few exceptions). They all get equal say and equal treatment in the conference. Ohio State doesn't have more influence than Minnesota. Alabama doesn't drive SEC policy. Those teams didn't ask for or get exemptions at expense of the rest of the conference members. The Big12 is the only conference where a few teams have tended to be the driver of policy that isn't always beneficial for everyone. LHN destroyed any possibility of a Big12 Network and that's the one that's always talked about, but there are far more things that Texas influenced and/or dictated. If teams ever have the opportunity to get out, they will - that's what creates the constant instability.
Has any other university been offered a LHN-style network by ESPN? I don't believe they have, so it's both naive and unfair to assume that Texas is unique in driving policy, seeking exemptions, etc... What are the other major instances? The only other ones I know of are the ones that Nebraska fans b****ed about a few years ago: moving the conference headquarters (not a Texas only preference), split of traditional Big 8 rivalries (again, not a Texas only preference), and unequal revenue sharing (again, not a Texas only preference and particularly ironic). If you take a look at the issues with the Big 12, everyone pretty much always acted in their own self-interest, not just Texas. Pretty much every school who would benefit from unequal revenue sharing (ou, a&m, nebraska, and Texas) voted for it. When Texas was offered the LHN, they took it, and a&m even tried to back their way into it. Maybe self-interest is unique to the original Big 12 schools, but it's certainly not unique to Texas. I hate to go back through all of this because I thought the subject was beaten to a pulp during the last couple conference realignments, but the finger-pointing and deflection continues.
It doesn't really matter if they were offered it. If LHN was successful, several big schools would have been next in line. But they agreed to partnerships that took that off the table. I wouldn't disagree with this - but that gets to the root of the instability problem. Most conferences have a spirit of cooperation and the powerful schools do what's best for their conference as a whole. The Big12 never has had that - the strong prey on the weak and everyone takes what they can get. Texas is the biggest of the bunch, so they took the most (particularly destroying any possibility of a B12 Network). That's why its flawed. Even many of the strongest partners weren't happy in that environment and bolted at the first opportunity. The weak ones are stuck, but it's not by choice. If there's another round of expansion by the other 4 big conferences, the Big12 schools are now the most attractive remaining schools in the country - they will bolt the minute they have the opportunity.
Sorry - forgot to address your other point about examples of Texas power. In addition to the examples you gave, there was a lot of chatter during realignment that Texas wanted to stay at 10 while most other members wanted to grow to 12 (before the new TV deal was signed), and that in general, Texas was dominating realignment talks after the B12 originally stabilized after losing the first two teams.
Do you not think the agreement for surrendering media rights to the conference (or however it is properly described) will keep all teams in the big 12? Or do you think it's like any other agreement and that it will get worked out in court. I think it would be easier for Teams like Clemsen and Florida St to break the ACC agreement since they voted against it to begin with. Seems odd that a school is forced to give anything up. Every team in the big 12 voted for it though.
Yep it would be nice to see my team play in Houston every other year. I'm not opposed to it at all. Excitement in the city football-wise at the college level would be good to see again.
The Big 12 - where each school including the ones that left wanted what was best for itself. Exactly. The other conferences are about doing what's best for the sum of all parts. Iowa State cant support their own network. No school can. But they cant do anything about it.
That is exactly what matters. Sure, several schools could have been next in line, but, if they had been first in line, it's naive to think they wouldn't have jumped at this deal. Especially in an era when it wasn't clear how lucrative a conference network could be. Beyond that, there's a pretty short list of schools that have good football programs, passionate fanbases, well-rounded athletic departments (can't play football 24/7), and huge student bodies. tOSU, Florida, and... a&m? Without all of those factors, a school-centric network is a non-starter. So we agree that Texas just happened to be the biggest of a bunch of self-serving schools? I'm not a fan of everything Dodds did, but it sounds like the expectation was that Texas should have taken the high road even though similarly, if slightly lesser, powerful schools were going to chase their own interest. Frankly, before the playoff system (and the revelation that 13 games > 12 games, regardless of strength of schedule), a 10 team setup didn't sound terrible. Making it through that schedule undefeated all but guaranteed a berth in the national championship. Regardless of who the undefeated team was, why risk losing to a team you've already beaten? There just haven't been any national championship-caliber teams in the Big 12 over the past 4 years. Still see all of this as finger-pointing and deflection. Not so much Missouri and Colorado (who just said **** this ****, let's bounce), but Nebraska, a&m, and you for sure.
This isn't true. These schools also didn't do all the other things Texas (and other dominant B12 schools) did in dominating their conferences - that's sort of the point. There's no evidence that if they were first in line for a school network, they would have done it at the expense of their conference. All 4 other major conferences are run with a different, cooperative philosophy. The schools just don't aim to screw each other over. And we did already know how lucrative conference networks could be - the B10 network was thriving at the time and served as a model. The P10 and B12 had already discussed the possibility of networks as well. It's also why, despite Texas thinking everyone would want them on their terms, no other conference was willing to take them with the LHN. They don't make special rules for different members, no matter how rich or important they may be. That's at the core of how those conferences are run.. Except this ignores the fact that the biggest partner has the most influence. If Texas was less greedy, everyone else would likely fall in line. But if they see one school trying to grab everything it can, of course everyone else will do so as well. It's no different with any group of people or entities that have powerful people and weak ones. TCU and Baylor would disagree, as would Vegas. But regardless, it doesn't change the fact that Texas got its way despite the majority of the conference being in favor of expansion. And Texas' way, of course, was also to make things as easy as possible on itself. It's no surprise then that the Big12 doesn't get any benefit of the doubt. Notice that the most successful conference in the country - the SEC - has never run away from having a title game and it's never stopped them from winning national titles. You call it finger-pointing. I call it reality. I pointed this all out as it was happening - Texas made every possible bad decision during conference realignment. They ended up in a partnership with a bunch of schools that hate them and would love to get out if ever given the opportunity. So the instability will continue.
I think this is a really good and important question - I really have no idea. Those media rights agreements are supposedly ironclad, but it seems in reality that these things are never ironclad, so I have no idea. The teams may certainly all be stuck as long as that rights agreement is in effect. But on the flipside, one of the reason the exit fees always get negotiated down is that there tends to be a desire for mutual consent. If a school publicly says they hate the Big12 and want to be in the Big10 (and the Big10 wants them), does the Big12 really still want them against their will? This is why, IMO, A&M got out so easily. At the end of the day, a publicly unhappy member is not good for a conference. So maybe there's a way out of the media rights thing that way. Or the alternative is if you can blow up the whole conference at once. If 6 schools can find a way out together (say the SEC wants 2, the Big10 wants 2, the Pac12 wants 2), then the whole thing might collapse on it's own if the schools vote away the agreement (no idea if that's possible - I remember in the ACC, it just required a majority to lock them all in, which I thought was absurd).
As stated in previous post the big12 and University of Texas made some awful decisions during realignment (Uneven revenue sharing, LHN, ect). Leading to the departure of schools that had the option to leave. I think adding UofH would be a great move for the big12 in terms of credibility and longevity. Adding and fostering growth of the athletic programs at UofH would add creditability to what a lot of people view as a conference on life support. Adding a team like Boise State is just a band-aid for a dying conference. One thing that makes the SEC so great is the geographic proximity of the schools. Geographic relevance and regionality enhances rivalries and draws more fans to games. UofH is now a tier 1 school and has upgraded the athletic facilities on campus. UofH does not enhance the big12's tv market but could add a competitively relevant athletic program to the big12. If UofH is playing big12 teams every week I see huge increases in attendance at UofH facilities and the emergence of a larger UofH fan base in Houston. In the right conference UofH could get it's athletic program on par with say a Louisville. While Texas has traditionally been against adding UofH there has been some talk that the schools outside of the state of Texas in the big12 are pushing for UofH because they want to get into the Houston area for recruiting.
I think the Big XII should add San Diego State and BYU (if they could get the Sundays thing worked out)
