Flame away Texas Hata's.....just passing along info from Texas sources, which obviously might be biased. ________________________________________ I never thought I would mention these words but, in defense of OU, Scott flat out lied to Boren. He was told that they had the votes to take OU and OSU alone. Scott told Boren he really wanted Texas in the deal and they both tried to work on Texas. Scott felt that the threat of OU leaving would cause Texas to budge. Texas was then told by Scott that he would take the LHN as is, that is when all the reports started coming out. The truth is, it was not a done deal at that time, the parameters were just set. Texas still wasn't sure we wanted to move, but if the LHN was accepted as is, then we were moving forward with negotiations. The next morning Scott tells Texas that we would have to change the name and possibly add TTU to the network. Deal dead, conversation over. This was the second year in a row that Scott tried to change the deal in the 11th hour. In all likelihood, we are done with Scott for the foreseeable future. So we told OU that if they were going they would have to go without us. OU didn't really want to do that but decided to weigh their options. The PAC 12 decides to get out in front of everything and issue a statement, thus making OU look horrible. Texas considers OU an ally and we want to be in the same conference as them. I was told last night that we had to figure out a way to "...keep OU from having egg on their face...". Concerning the ACC and other conferences. We never got further than parameters with any of them. We gave them some parameters we needed to meet and then told them we would get back in touch if we decided to move. The ACC and Big 10 were told that the Big 12 would likely stay together. We did not want to lead any potential partner on, so we left it at that. The reports that the ACC told Texas no were completely inaccurate. There was nothing to say no to. I will say this, Texas and the Big 10 have an excellent relationship and we could work together if the right opportunity came up. This was not the right opportunity and did not fit anyone's timeline. The Big 12 is likely to stay together, but is NOT a done deal. There are some serious issues to be addressed. We have the aggy issue to deal with even though we are content to let them go. We have an ally who has a bruised ego and we have several schools who are scared to death. Look for Texas to make some concessions, but the LHN will not be one of them. We are willing to sign an iron clad 10 year agreement to stay in the Big 12 and help stabilize it. We are willing to share Tier I & II rights. There are some other concessions as well to make everyone feel better. However, much of it will be to save face. I have heard BYU is still likely to join once an agreement is in place. Lastly, as Texas fans (or anyone reading this), it is important to realize that all of the spin against Texas is just that. We leave more money on the table to be in a conference than any school in this country. Texas accounts for the VAST majority of the revenue generated in this conference. We are a good partner and we do not force our will on everyone. We have vision for the future and sometimes others can't see it. For instance, we tried to get a Big 12 Network, but they couldn't see the future. We didn't want Bebee, but they couldn't see the future. Texas is the only reason these schools can make north of $15 million a year in TV revenue. So do not buy into the Evil Texas spin.
Not sure you can hate the PAC 12 for that. They wanted no part of OU/OSU without UT and once it became clear that UT wasn't going to play ball, they got themselves out of there. There was basically no process for OU to walk through IMO. Completely agree with this.
I disagree that there was no interest in OU/OSU without UT. I do think Larry Scott told Boren that he could make it happen, and had some interest in doing so. Ultimately, he couldn't persuade the presidents, and Boren ended up looking silly. I don't really hate the Pac 12, as their reasons are justified. I just selfishly wish Scott had taken a couple more days to feel out his presidents, because it would have given OU more time to try and leverage UT into needed moves. By the way, I'm still not 100% convinced that Mizzou stays. I do think it's likely, yes. But the fanbase right now is LIVID over the possibility of rejecting an SEC "offer" (assuming one is there), and most of the athletic department - led by Gary Pinkel - has gone on the offensive and spoken out against the Big 12. Even as recently as this morning. Brady Deaton, Mizzou's chancellor, is chairman of the Big XII board and a big proponent of saving the conference. Ultimately, he'll probably get his way. But he has a lot of power people within the school pushing him to go SEC, and the school's board of curators is still meeting Thursday morning. Moreover, while numerous officials from OU and Texas have issued pro-Big 12 statements today... there's nothing at all from Columbia. I still think MU stays, but each hour that passes without comment makes me a little suspicious.
If all the Big12 does is "add" BYU to make it a 10 team conference then they are idiots. They are putting themselves in a position (AGAIN) to be vultured by another conference a few years down the road. The ACC got it right. They were "pro-active" in their steps to making it a stronger conference. They beat out the Big East and are trying to keep the SEC at bay. The Big12 caught a HUGE break with the Pac-12 (for now) not taking anymore teams. Big 12 got a second chance. Don't blow it. BIG 16 West: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Baylor, BYU, TCU, Air Force East: Missouri, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, West Virginia, Louisville, Cincinnati, South Florida
Good article about OU's intentions. I hope they're right, but I don't completely trust Deloss Dodds to hold to all agreements without leverage. http://newsok.com/article/3606281
What could the reforms possibly be? I think it's clear UT isn't sharing any 3rd tier revenue and they already seemed to be ok with sharing 1st and 2nd tier last year. Maybe a longer committment to the conference? Iron clad rules of what the LHN can show?
Probably no High School highlights, 1 Non-Conf Game, Being part of a future conference network Hahahahaha ... Like Texas is going to do that now when they know OU has no leverage. If Texas had stuck with those things to begin with, A&M would have never left and ESPN wouldn't have given them $300MM either
It starts with getting rid of Dan Beebe, who ironically was OU's choice (not UT) several years ago for commissioner. From there, the equal 1st/2nd tier revenue sharing still hasn't happened. The athletic directors approved it, but the presidents never acted. Beyond that, you're right - more ironclad rules for the LHN, longer commitments and raised exit fees, etc. I also think and hope that expansion is a part of it. At this point, the Big XII needs to be more than 10 members to re-establish itself as an elite conference. Dodds, however, doesn't want that because it could take away a bit from each school's revenue over the short-term. Hopefully someone steps up (Mizzou?) and uses what little leverage they have left.
Even though we still are relying on rumors, is it safe to conclude that UT still has the majority of the leverage here and is still the big elephant in the room, as opposed to the reports coming out that we have to scramble to find a place to go? Pac 12 WANTS UT....so bad that it's willing to take on other "poor" academic institutions....but they won't let us have our $$ and we don't want to give it up. Big 10 WANTS UT but the timing isn't right for either side. ACC WANTS UT and will probably let us keep our $$ but they are just our backup plan. OU may not want UT but are kind of tied to us. Other Big 12 schools, besides Missouri, clearly WANT UT because they can't get the same amount of $$ on their own. And Aggies want nothing to do with us, aside from the Thanksgiving game which benefits them more than us. It's still nice to be UT. Fair to say?
Among the changes: removing of Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe; adopting common rules for individual networks like the Longhorn Network; phasing in revenue sharing from primary television rights; and requiring a commitment of rights of more than five years from conference schools, which would commit all of their game revenues to the Big 12 during that time and make moving to another league difficult to impossible. Read more: http://newsok.com/source-ou-preferred-reformed-big-12-all-along/article/3606281#ixzz1YckNfz7W
I don't buy this article for some reason. A couple thoughts... Exactly who were UT/OU trying to sell these reforms to? Both schools, especially UT, generate the most revenue for the conference by far and I personally think the other schools would have followed along absent some ridiculous stipulations. I just don't think they would have to work together in some elaborate scheme to convince the other 7 programs that reform is needed. Especially since the prospective reforms (i.e. equal 1st/2nd tier revenue sharing, commitment) would benefit them more than it would OU/UT. I completely agree that Beebe needs to be gone, but I don't see why OU would agree to be the only party to "demand" it, especially since they were his biggest proponent when he was hired. I also don't think it would take much for the other schools to agree to remove Beebe. Again, revenue sharing and commitment to the conference actually benefit the other 7 schools more than it would UT/OU. With A&M gone, UT/OU were the only 2 schools that received more t.v. revenues, I don't it would take much to convince the other 7 to agree to spread it equally. As for the LHN, OU has the most to lose from it so I don't see why they would "work" with UT to limit it's content.
Haha...you're right. Saw Cat's comments and thought it meant OU's agreement with Dodds. This realignment stuff just needs to end.
Report: Dan Beebe to leave Big 12 http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...ob-big-12-conference-commissioner-report-says
Big 12, Big East moving forward http://www.boston.com/sports/colleges/football/articles/2011/09/22/big_12_big_east_moving_forward/ Nostradonny's guess: Big 12 adds BYU, a year later Mizzou leaves for SEC*, after that TCU, Houston, and Air Force are added to the Big 12 to make 12. ECU and UCF go to the Big East to make 10. Afterwards, the 9 teams in CUSA and the 7 teams in the MWC merge to form a 16 team league. *If this does not come to pass, then nix Air Force from Big 12 and add one Sunbelt school (no idea who, maybe UNT to the MWC or FIU to CUSA?) to the MWC/CUSA merger to make it 18. It would essentially be two autonomous leagues with a championship between the two of them.
If TCU, UH or SMU want in Big 12, they should consider hosting UT, OU or OKSU in Reliant or Jerryworld every year as a neutral site game. Mabe OSU/SMU could play at the Cotton Bowl the other weekend of the State Fair from TEX/OU. It gets out from of the stadium 'issues', brings the big show to the big cities so the alumni can see them and provides for recruiting exposure in the target rich zones. Texas historically has played a lot of games in Houston and it's not really a road game for them. Even though it is technically losing a home game, the revenues would be better and what alumni really want to go outside in September to watch the cupcake games? (wonder if LSU/AM plan to renew their Jerryworld clash?) Nobody wants Boise, with their isolated location, tricked up offense, goofy name and blue field.
