[College Football] Big Ten, Texas have initial talks

If Texas were to join the SEC, the SEC contract would immediately be structured. Just joining the SEC with the current SEC deal is not one of the alternatives on the table - it dramatically increases the SEC footprint.

Right - I was basing it on the supposed Beebe deal as the baseline. If the B12 can get $200M/yr, then a hypothetical Pac10 can get several times that amount. They have more people, more growth, higher overall wealth, a Pac10 Network, more teams and more games, etc.

Realistically, I don't think the $600M is reasonable, because I also didn't think $200MM for the B12 was either - it was just an apples-to-apples comparison. It turns out the B12 deal probably is - by making a ridiculous 18 (!!) year commitment if what we're hearing is accurate. So inflation really reduces the real value of the contract. None of these leagues should be signing 18 year deals (SEC included) unless they believe the market is going to collapse.

Keep in mind - the Pac10 deal is relatively outdated. They are in line for a substantial increase even without expansion (same with B12 to some extent). And my projections account for the creation of a Pac10 Network, which is where the real money was generated in the Big10 model. A Pac16 *should* be able to generate more total TV money than the current SEC or the new Big10. Obviously, they'd have to execute that by creating a Pac16 Network and all, but if you're looking at potential, it has more than any other option. It has more people, more geography, and more population growth than any other conference. The only group that could match that would be a Big10 w/ Notre Dame or Texas in it.

 

he's going to look dumb if this isn't right. he keeps validating his opinion on twitter saying, "i'm not backing down..." etc

but he's right.

 

http://twitter.com/ChipBrownOB

A&M is at the table and Gene Stallings told AP he'd be "tickled" if B12 saved. ...RT @EKohli: @ChipBrownOB / So Tex AM is on board also??
half a minute ago via TweetDeck

Getting better by the minute. Unreal. Crazy. ... RT @John_Castelli: @ChipBrownOB what would u say chances are big 12 works this out?
12 minutes ago via TweetDeck

 

So Texas would end the season with A&M and then OU? This is just silly. The beauty of OU-TX playing early is that the loser is still in the mix for BCS invites, national title games, etc. If the idea of staying is to help make UT's path to national titles easier, this doesn't help.

I still can't figure out the benefit of staying. The new TV deal would make it less bad. But, besides getting to play A&M every year (which they could do anyway), what is the actual benefit to UT over the alternatives (either Pac10 or Big10)?

 

The Pac Ten's TV contract size is generated by the Cali TV market right. Texas isn't as big as Cali but Texas is a pretty large TV market. If you are basing these projections on TV contracts, why wouldn't you just add UofH.

You have the Houston TV market, which you have anyway with A&M and UT, and you still have one of the two of the best programs over the last decade, which is more than you can say for the Pac 10

 

Who comes off looking downright stupid...imo...in this whole thing today is ESPN and Joe Shad.

You run this whole story because orangebloods runs it to begin with ..... Chip breaks it all and you report it as Gospel.

Today you wake up and Chip says, "nope...not happening...we're moving in a different direction."

But somehow Joe Shad finds 4 SOURCES(REALLY???) in the UT athletic department who say a move to the Pac 10 is imminent???

Chip responds in Twitter saying, "i'm not backing down..."

Seriously...not exactly the worldwide leader in sports-style reporting, fellas.

 

Right. We have nothing to counter period. Whether the new Big X is better or worse than the Pac10 without CU or NU is the issue. This proposed Big X is a LAME conference. There are TWO "relevant" football programs: Texas and OU. Period. Sure, NU has fallen on some tough times, but at least they've won championships in the past (even CU has 1/2 of one). Without them (and I think they both suck), the Big X is even worse. Seriously. Name ONE relevant football school outside of Texas and OU in the new Big X. If you say aTm or TT, you're fooling yourself. Baylor? Rrrriiiiiiiight.
The proposed Pac16 was AWESOME even with USC having to "rebuild." I realize those schools haven't been competing for championships either, but at least they're competitive. The remaining Big X teams are really pretty pathetic in the big picture, in my opinion.

 

http://twitter.com/ChipBrownOB

Once Neb and CU made their moves, a TV network saw realignment about to blow and stepped forward with the plan stop chaos and save B12.
less than a minute ago via TweetDeck

 

For you kids, the TU/A&M rivalry was massively subdued by the Bonfire tragedy.
It used to be bitter, and contested, but when the neighbors kids die, it takes all the fun out of it.

 

Hahahahahahaaaaaa...
Spoken like a true aggy. Seriously. The game was somehow more bitter and contested before the freakin' bonfire...and now it's lost some of its luster? Please...

 

were you saying this a couple of seasons back when UT/Tech/OU were all in the top 5??

are you honestly suggesting the Pac 10 has been a superior football conference to the Big 12 over the last 5 years or so??? really????

were nebraska and cu soooo critical to the Big 12's success??

 

Don't forget Mizzou was #1 in the nation!

 

seriously? where's this talk coming from?

i get wanting to go out to california..and i get the whole academic thing (even if i think it's not nearly as important as others here think it is)

but to suggest that you're sticking around in an inferior football conference given what the Big 12 has done over the last 5 years or so is nonsensical to me

 

The Big 12 North has only had 4 10+win teams since 2004. The North has been totally irrelevant for years. Good riddance to Nebraska and CU.

 

Were you there? Before and after?

I was.

Though I do have a degree from A&M, I grew up shagging balls for Longview HS,
UT quarterback James Street the Summer before his National Championship. I kinda lean orange.

And, back then A&M was all Corps and UT was all Hippie so there really was a culture clash. Nowadays they are both just Frat kids from the same towns.

 

No, I wasn't. I thought for a second TT might be able to play for real. I was drinking the tortilla Kool Aid like everybody else. They came crashing back to earth pretty quickly, didn't they? I stand by my statement that Texas and OU are the only relevant football programs in the Big X.
I'm not saying the Pac10 is a stronger football conference. I'm saying the Pac16 would be an awesome/competitive conference.
I'm simply stating my opinion that the Big X has little to offer the rest of the country (TV sets) outside of Texas and OU.

Are YOU saying that folks outside of this conference care about aTm, TT, Baylor, OSU, KSU, KU, ISU Mizzou from a football perspective? No way. Just like nobody outside of the west coast cares about any of the other Pac10 schools unless they're upsetting USC.

USC is their Texas and OU.
Oregon is their TT (I guess...given that they ended in the top 5 once).
OSU = OSU
Arizona = KU (basketball)
ASU = KSU (they've had their moments)
UCLA = aTm (little brother status, not much else -- ignore all those bball championships)
UW = Mizzou (somewhat...I guess)
WSU = ISU
Berkeley and Stanford have no counterpart in the Big X
Pac10 has no counterpart to Baylor

 

i honestly could not care less about whether people in the rest of the country want to watch. big 12 football has been incredibly entertaining over the last 5 seasons or so. and the whole country has been treated to a heaping helping of longhorn football of late.

with USC under probation going forward, i think the Pac 10 is in real trouble...but i'm sure the Buffs will swoop in to save the day.

 

It's not an inferior football conference - it's an inferior conference. Academically, financially, etc.

Even looking at football - you're using UT/OU to bolster the strength of the B12, but that's not the apples-to-apples comparison. UT/OU/TT would be in either conference. So when UT is looking at the two options, which is a stronger football conference:

The current Pac10
The remaining Big 12 minus UT/TT/OU

Those are the two alternatives sitting in front of UT. If losing Nebraska is irrelevant, then why is losing Mizzou, Kansas, KSU, Baylor, and ISU relevant?

 

Big X
Texas
OU
TT
OSU
aTm
Baylor
KU
KSU
ISU
Mizzou

Big 12
tOSU
UM
MSU
PSU
NU
N
Wisc
Minn
Ill
IU
Iowa
PU

Pac12
USC
UCLA
Oregon
OSU
UW
WSU
Cal
Stanford
Zona
ASU
CU
(??? Utah???)

SEC
Alabama
Ark
Aub
UF
UGA
UK
LSU
Miss
MSU
USC
UT
Vandy

Do you think the Big X is on par with all these conferences from a football standpoint? This is an honest question. I think there's something lacking, personally. It just doesn't seem to have..."it." It's probably just me, though.

Again, I'm not saying the current versions of these conferences are better than the "current" Big X. I am saying the proposed "super conferences" seemed so much more interesting.

The "current" model certainly pleases the douchebaggery over at BCS headquarters. Fo' sho'

 

I agree. The Super Conference model with Championship Games leading to the BCS bowls certainly provides the most intriguing entertainment.

It can still come down to a vote though.