UT already made their decision. Now it's up to the Big 12 to convince them of a better alternative. As of right now, none of the alternatives presented have shown that. 1. Conference Network - Yes the B1G and SEC Network have been a hit but the PAC-12 network has been an absolute dud. You would have to think a Big 12 network would be closer to, if not worse, than the PAC-12 network as it stands right now. Maybe it would calm some folks down and play nice, but for UT, that's a pretty hefty price to pay. 2. Conference Championship Game - This just doesn't make any sense given the round robin schedule. Data shows that a CG could increase playoff chances by some percentage but who really knows? With four spots and five power conferences, someone will always get left out. Lose out in 2 of 3 years and think there maybe something to it. Otherwise, the Big 12 and PAC 12 are .500. Could easily be the ACC's turn next year. 3. Conference Expansion - Easily the most controversial issue and based Dodd's article the other day, there is not even consensus in the pro-expansion crowd. UT may not even need to publicly oppose it now that the OU BOR has done that for them.
Evidently not you !!! ! 1!1!! Thanks for posting in a thread you obviously have no !!! interest in th!ough!!
i have interest in UofH making a decision that helps the area the most. i also have interest in Big 12 not helping and ignoring many local great young men and students with serious talent. they don't ignore the women though...
That's how I felt too though, when I WAS in the Big 12. For whatever reason (actually a ton of well documented reasons) it grew stale and I wanted something else (specifically, the Pac 16 pipedream). I'm almost at the point where I want the whole damn thing blown up across the board. Spoiler SEC, SEC, SEC
It's been noted many times in this thread that I loathe the Big 12. I watch SEC, Big 10, ACC and Pac 12 on Saturdays when Texas is getting an ass kicking or after the game is over. Rarely ever do I tune into a Big 12 game just to watch. Maybe OU and Okie Lite but that's really it. I want independent, the continuation of the Texas/OU game and a reboot of the Texas/A&M annual game. I give zero ****s about the rest of the conference. Just no interest in watching Texas High School pee pee football 62-58 point games.
Agreed. None of the teams other than OU interest me. Probably why I am against anything that could potentially stabilize the Big 12. It's basically what a conference would look like if Michigan and Ohio State decided to join the MAC tomorrow.
Technically true but it's just %5 more likely to make the playoffs by expanding and adding a conference championship. That's something but you have to do a cost/benefit analysis with all of the financial matters and the difference adding a +1 championship game could make. http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...-knew-12-teams-title-game-are-best-for-league Just looking at a (still small) sample size: 2015 -OU was never at risk of falling out of the playoffs before the conference championship weekend -Baylor and TCU were both ranked in the top 4 for a few weeks until they started losing. There is no reason to think they would have dropped out if they would have won out 2014 -I think the biggest factor here was the big 12 declaring co-champions instead of sticking to the power of the round robin and declaring Baylor champion because they beat TCU. -Baylor also had a particularly bad SOS that year which the playoff committee called out specifically. Ohio St had a 11-2 win against Navy -TCU was #3 when they lost at the end of the season to #5 Baylor. I don't believe they would have been left out if they won out but you never know They're 1-1. It's worth giving it another year or two to see how it shakes out I agree with that sentiment. Missou-Kansas had one of the oldest rivalries in football. However, I don't believe adding a few random schools that have no connection to the big 8 and aren't really close geographically addresses this issue at all. I feel it's more likely the old big 12 north would like to go back to a division system where they would only play Texas, OU, Baylor, and TCU every two years instead of every year. There was only 2 times in the last decade of the big 12 championship game where the north team had a better record/owned tiebreaker over the 2nd place team in the south. However, that's just me speculating. This just isn't true for a very big reason. Texas, A&M and OU used to get the bulk of the TV revenue because payouts were relative to ratings and they were always at the top. They agreed in 2010 to change the system to an even payout so Iowa St makes as much as OU every year. That has allowed a lot of big 12 teams to catchup to the bigger schools in terms of facilities and other improvements. You're talking about a **** ton of money. I don't really think they care about being "king" but I agree it's about the money and the longhorn network. I don't think they give up the longhorn network unless the big 12 is able to break Florida St and Clemsen (or something similar) out of the iron clad conference agreements. They will never get the longhorn network back and I have no reason to think a big 12 network will have the appeal and value the big 10 or SEC network has. I feel like it'll be closer to the pac 12's 1 million a year payout. There simply aren't enough big brand nationally popular teams. I think the network would do well in Texas because it would show off all of the good high school football players but all the other states in the big 12 are in the bottom half of national population and aren't going to bring in a ton of TV sets. People in Ohio might watch coverage of Cincinnati but they don't care about Iowa St, Texas Tech or most of the other big 12 schools. Also, they can't just change the longhorn network to the big 12 network. They have to re-negeotatite with all of the longhorn network tv providers and that took years to build. Part of the reason they have lost so much money is because hardly anyone had the channel for two years. Now they are on 17 different providers reaching almost 8 million people. Plus, they were able to push to be included in basic cable packages and not extra sports packages (I believe they still do) and that is just not easy to do. As far as UT being independent...hard to tell. They would be covered in TV money with the longhorn network and the ability to negotiate their 1st and 2nd tier rights with any network they want (ESPN has right to match). They can manage scheduling football games especially if some of the Texas teams still want to play annually. I think they would take the money over spite. Scheduling all of the other sports would be tough. BYU is in the West Coast Conference & Mountain Pacific Sports Federation for everything non football. Notre Dame is in the ACC. I don't see Texas joining one of those small conferences and I don't see a major conference letting Texas join in most sports with the longhorn network. The pac 12 might since their network sucks but who knows. I agree it doesn't make a ton of sense especially since it's a lot less likely now to see teams in other conferences have repeat matchups in their championship game due to the declining number of cross divisional games. I think you wait and see how this year shakes out. Seeing OU and Ok St play two weeks in a row would have been a little strange however that still happens in the NFL between teams in the same division after playing two regular season games. The embarrassing situation with Boren brings up the possibility that their are other schools that have regents that disagree with their presidents about expansion. UT is already being blamed for TCU and Texas Tech being against expansion (which would block expansion) but if OU comes out against it as well, it's dead. It really really doesn't make any sense at all and the only reason people are talking about it so much is because Boren ran his mouth so much even though OU easily made the playoffs. Adding these tiny stadiums to the big 12 when 6 out of 10 have 60,000+ seats would not make the conference stronger. All of the teams being discussed aside from South Florida, Memphis and BYU have tiny stadiums.
Small update from Chip Brown. Nothing new really but echos a lot of what a few folks have been saying... With ESPN hemorrhaging cash and Fox's new deal with B1G, not sure how much they'd be willing to throw at a Big 12 network. Interesting that Florida St. and Clemson are even being mentioned, thought the GOR through 2026 would make them a non-starter.
Sure did. The Fox/B1G deal is reportedly $250M/year for 1/2 of the football and basketball games with the other 1/2 still up for grabs. It's only a 6 year deal so either there wasn't enough money for a big long-term deal or they're setting themselves up for a new contract right before the other P5 deals expire.
I'd imagine most UT fans wouldn't want to watch other Big 12 games and have to see all of those other football programs that were inferior to UT for years that have all passed them by. Honestly though, after watching the garbage that is UT's excuse for a football program it probably rubs it in even worse.
Even when they were top dogs I never at all cared to watch any other Big 12 games. The conference is just not interesting at all for my viewing pleasure.
Fair enough, I'm just saying if you sit through the garbage that is UT football, you shouldn't be knocking ANYONE else, especially not more successful football programs like damn near everyone else in the Big 12.
IMO, Baylor and Boise St are similar. All it will take is one mediocre to bad season to turn them back into pumpkins. As far as the Big 12 goes, I don't find myself ever watching a Iowa State v. Kansas football game. I'll watch UT and I'll watch OU if they're playing a meaningful opponent. I'd love to see UH get in but I don't see it happening.
Yea, I'm sure people nationally would much rather watch Kansas St, Iowa St, Oklahoma St, Texas Tech and West Virginia for 12 hours a day. I'm finally going to bite on your lame UT jabs (the Big 12 wouldn't miss them because they aren't competitive comments). Many programs go through ups and downs. It's been 3 years since they've competed for a conference championship but about 6 since they were really good. The program itself still has a solid reputation and brand which the great recruiting classes for the last couple years can attest to. Say what you want about holding on to the past but Texas was still the last Big 12 team to win a championship and they and OU are the only ones to win and (along with Nebraska) are the only ones to even get there. They've certainly been passed up by other teams in terms of record but that doesn't mean they attract less national attention especially since they've had flashes of decency with wins against Baylor and OU last year. Their popularity in terms of march sales has been tops for the last 9 years. That's not be all end all but it's still a reflection of the attraction, interest and engagement people have with the brand. In terms of interest in successful in all sports, texas has more than twice the amount of conference championships than anyone else and those sports are what is going to fill a lot of the channel. That doesn't mean they would dominate ratings however to say they won't have much interest is just silly. My overall point is that giving up the longhorn network and ending up with nothing is a very very real possibility. I still don't know why there is a reason to think a big 12 network would be as profitable as the big 10 and not as awful as the pac 12. The only thing the big 12 has going for it is college basketball but I'm not sure how many games would be there. All of the non-texas teams do well in their states but their states are also not very populated and there are no expansion options that have a lot of interest outside of their own cities. Memphis and BYU might be the exceptions. TLDR: No one is going to watch the big 12 network while the Longhorn Network at least as the possibility of improving financially, pays out 5 million to the academics and gives a lot of national exposure.
Than UT? For the most part, yeah. Not everyone wants to watch terrible football just because once upon a time the program was good. I'd imagine a lot of Cowboys fans would be down for that though.
It's not a comparison to UT. It's a comparison to the schools that are being shown off in other conferences because the point is to weigh the potential success of a big 12 network vs to the big 10. My point is that the network is not going to be a success and it's too big of a risk for UT to lose their own network and end up with nothing if the network folds or the value to them is crap. Unless you can give me a reason (genuinely asking) why the big 12 network would be more like the big 10 network as oppose to the pac 12. Also, my big post might be too long to read. I want to emphasize the numbers run by Chicago-based Navigate Research show the Big 12 has a 4-5 percent better chance of reaching the top four in the CFP by adding two teams, playing one less conference game and holding a championship game. That is not much of a head turner.
