Exactly...it's sort of like Texas A&M woke up 2 months ago, Rip van Winkle style, and realized "golly gee whiz, the t.u. teasip sissies actually have a huge national brand and more $$$ and a higher profile than we do and probably always will....OMG OMG OMG We've got to leave them before they crush us!!" Really nnot a surprise if you've been paying attention to like...reality.
So had A&M left for the SEC last year, would they have gotten the flak they had the past few weeks or would it still be the same reactions of "jelousy mentality" and "trying to get away"?
Nebraska (along with TX, OU, and A&M) was one of the beneficiaries of the unequal revenue sharing. Nebraska left because they were tired of being bullied by the Texas schools (not just UT) - on academics, on the location of the conference offices, on dictating general league policy, etc. AND because the opportunity presented itself to go to a better situation. Colorado left because their primary rival was leaving and they got the opportunity to go to a better situation. A&M left because they were annoyed with the whole situation and felt like they made a mistake last year. LHN put them over the edge (especially their fan base). And yes, things did change between the original thought behind LHN and what it became. The minute ESPN got involved, it all changed. It was originally envisioned as an independent network for 3rd tier rights. What it became is a network that is constantly promoted by ESPN - not through ads, but on the bottom line ticker, etc. It has gone beyond 3rd tier rights: the BYU game was not a 3rd tier game, and it was being discussed for LHN. Why? Because ESPN controls both 1st and 3rd tier rights. Texas Tech would NEVER have been a 3rd tier game under any circumstance, and ESPN - a Big12 partner - was trying to bully Tech into moving their biggest game on to it, and threatened to pull other Tech games if they didn't. Simply put, once the big money came into play, the whole thing became far more than even Texas envisioned (Dodds and Powers have admitted that). The high school game thing got delayed - for a year - but who knows what will come from that. And, maybe most of all, the Big12's primary media partner has shown a consistent willingness to prioritize UT over the Big12 thus far - if you're another Big12 school, that absolutely should concern you or piss you off. So if you're A&M, do you wait to see how this plays out? Of course not - you have the opportunity you regretted not taking last year sitting in front of you right now. (You also have a sympathetic governor that might help smooth over the politics.) You jump at it while available. That's the theme that keeps coming through here. OU and OSU are now on the clock and in the same boat. Who knows if the Pac12 option will be available in 2 or 3 years. So if you're unhappy - and apparently, both are also unhappy about the LHN and Texas' conference bullying - now would be the opportunity to jump. I said this last year, long before details about the LHN came about, that this thing was held together by a bandaid - everyone except TX and OU was here involuntarily. No one wanted to be here, and whenever people had the opportunity to jump, they would. OU being unhappy too is a surprise, and I certainly didn't think it would last only a year - I thought the money would placate people for a few years. But Texas is the only team truly happy in their current situation - everyone else was ultimately always going to jump if they had the chance. It appears those opportunities are materializing a lot faster than expected. And money doesn't seem to be the driving factor - it's unhappiness that Texas is dictating the terms of this conference, whereas teams get equal say in virtually every other major conference out there. A&M is the first domino, but they were not and are not alone in being unhappy or wanting out. They are just the first one that was willing to take on the consequences of doing what they wanted to do.
I do care...I'm just saying I don't care what conference BU goes to if they're in a non-BCS conference. I do care where BU ends up, BCS or non-BCS...but I don't care which non-BCS conference they end up in if that's what happens. A lot of my interest in all of this is mixed in with the whole legal/political/business issues that are intertwined...part of it is because i keep getting phone calls and texts from friends in places that know a lot more than i do, first hand.
i don't expect any sympathy for anyone. wouldn't do anyone any good anyway. all of this is driven by money/self-interest. BU arguing for tradition is an argument to preserve a status quo that's generous to them.
it would be different for me at least had they left last year. before they signed on to big time conference media money for the big xii. i just think their arguments about LHN ring completely hollow when they knew going in what it was...they just didn't know the amount of $$$ that would be thrown at the Horns. That changed everything.
Not too much new, but a couple of interesting highlights here. http://blogs.mercurynews.com/colleg...ment-update-the-pac-12-doesnt-want-to-expand/ Hope everyone had a happy and safe holiday … Here’s the latest, based on weekend conversations with sources from several conferences and numerous schools: *** The Pac-12 presidents and chancellors do not want to expand. Their strong preference is for Texas A&M-to-the-SEC to implode and for the Big 12 to remain viable — essentially, they want the status quo for as long as they can get it. Why? Because they have everything they want. The conference has stability… it has a football championship game … it has the richest TV deal in college sports history … and it has a wholly-owned network(s) to serve its fans, provide unprecedented exposure for its athletes, promote the league’s academic mission — and generate millions of dollars per school annually once it attains maximum distribution. The CEOs believe the Pac-12 is the best-positioned conference in the country. They don’t want 16 teams, and they don’t want the SEC and Big Ten going to 16 teams, either. But … *** If Texas A&M becomes the SEC’s 13th team, that sets the superconferences in motion. “The SEC won’t stop at 13, or even 14. And if the SEC is at 14 or 16, the Big Ten will do it,” a source said. ”At that point, (the Pac-12) would be crazy not to entertain the idea of expansion.” (Multiple sources said the SEC’s 14th team would most likely be Missouri. Combine untapped TV dollars with geography, and the schools that make the most sense for the SEC are Texas A&M, Missouri and Virginia Tech.) Only if the SEC goes to 13 would the Pac-12 evaluate its options. It won’t take Oklahoma unless A&M leaves first, despite the accelerated timeline laid out last week by Oklahoma President David Boren. *** And yes, in all likelihood the Pac-12 would take Oklahoma and Oklahoma State even if Texas were off the table, multiple sources said. “Right now, it’s wait-and-see mode,” added one. “The happiest result for the Pac-12 is if the status quo is maintained.” Academics would be a point of contention if the status quo unravels, however. Sources said that at least five schools (Stanford, Cal, USC, UCLA and Washington) have serious questions about admitting the Oklahoma schools, which are not members of the Association of American Universities. But when I asked a source close to Stanford president John Hennessy, one of the league’s most influential CEOs, if the AAU issue would be a deal-breaker, the answer was: “Probably not.” Said another source: “If Larry (Scott) thinks adding (Oklahoma and OSU) is the right thing, the CEOs will ultimately fall in line.” (Utah is not an AAU member. Nor are Arizona State, Oregon State and Washington State, for that matter.) *** Would Texas be off the table for the Pac-12? Sources said the implosion of the Big 12 would leave the Longhorns with only two choices: the Pac-12, or independence. In other words, the Big Ten is not an option for the Longhorns because the B10 doesn’t want Texas Tech — and TTU would be a package deal with UT. Taking the independent path would be fraught with challenges for Texas, which would have to find a home for its Olympic sports. As noted on the Hotline recently, and confirmed by sources in the media-rights industry, there is more money for Texas in the Pac-16 than in the Big 12 or as an Independent — perhaps not in the first few years, but certainly once the league’s TV network(s) ramps up distribution and advertising. But Texas-to-the-Pac won’t work unless the Longhorns agree to the league’s revenue sharing model, and the CEOs won’t budge on that issue. So UT would have to swallow its pride and take the same cut as Texas Tech. (Cue chuckles from Lubbock … and College Station.) *** At the root of Big 12 destabilization is not Texas A&M’s departure — that’s hardly a death blow — but the deteriorating relationship between Texas and Oklahoma. “Their bond has frayed,” a source said. “Texas overplayed its hand … “Oklahoma wants into the Pac-12 with or without Texas. The partnership is no longer sacrosanct.” *** If massive realignment occurs with the Oklahoma schools, Texas and TTU joining the Pac-12 … and with A&M and Missouri headed to the SEC … then Kansas probably goes to the Big East, likely in tandem with Kansas State. The Big 12 schools in the biggest trouble would be Baylor and Iowa State. “They might have to go backwards,” said a source — meaning Conference USA or the Mountain West. *** A critical but oft-overlooked component to the realignment game is the SEC’s financial aims. The conference cannot renegotiate its long-term deals with CBS and ESPN without membership change, and in order to get maximum value, it needs 16 teams. From Gainesville to Knoxville to Baton Rouge, and all points along the way, the feeling among SEC athletic directors can be summed up like this: “We’ve won five consecutive national titles and the Pac-12 has a richer TV deal than we do. What’s the hell’s going on?” Hence the sooner-than-expected developments with A&M. *** The Big Ten won’t expand until it’s time to renegotiate the league’s deals with CBS and ESPN, which expire in 2016, according to a source. At that point, if the Pac-12 and the SEC have grown to 16 teams, then Notre Dame will join the Big Ten.
Yeah - all these anonymous sources could be nobodies... that part you quoted also doesn't fit with the last line of the same article - that said the Big10 would only expand in 2016 if Pac16 and SEC had expanded. Sort of circular there.
My view of it is that they may be right that the Pac12 doesn't want to expand right now - but due to geography, they have limited options. So if there's any chance of getting OU/TX now, they have to get them while available. If those schools go elsewhere, there's not a lot of good options for the Pac16 down the line whenever it does happen (and the commish seems to be convinced that's the way of the future). The other part that makes a lot of sense is SEC to 16 teams to force open their TV agreement. There's been a lot of talk that A&M wouldn't be enough to redo the agreements - but 16 teams would certainly change that. So if the goal is to get out of the bad TV contract, that would be a clear financial motivation for the SEC.
Not saying they won't get an invitation, they probably will...the problem is that aside from a powerhouse football program, decent basketball, and the rest, Oklahoma (and to a greater extent Oklahoma state) doesn't really offer that much to Pac 12. Academically Oklahoma is just sort of middle of the pack w/respect to the other Pac 12 schools; OK State would be at the bottom with the Oregon States and Washington States of the world, so basically they are a net drag there. It's a smallish state, population wise so it's not delivering humongous TV sets, and you're setting the west coast schools in the Pac 12 up for a really awful set of roadtrips to Norman and Stillwater...the primary problem with these not just being the distance, but the fact that at the end of them, you're in Norman and Stillwater. Corvallis and Pullman are bad enough as is.
The Pac 12 will talk over and over again about how important academics are...but it won't be about academics. It's talk. It's snobbery without substance. There are some excellent universities in the Pac 12 to be sure...but they're not remotely close to a conference of nothing but top tier universities. According to US News rankings: Baylor - 76 Iowa St. - 94 Univ. of Kansas - 104 OU - 111 (tie with Wash. St.) Wash. St. - 111 (tie with OU) Univ. of AZ - 120 OK St. - 132 (tie with K State) Kansas State - 132 (tie with OK ST) Oregon St. - 139 AZ State - 143
I hear your point but to be fair that's just undergraduate programs....having a research affiliation for the graduate programs with places like Stanford, UC-berkley/LA, UW, USC etc is the real prize in that department.
absolutely...but Stanford, UCLA and USC all rank high even for undergraduate. Those are great institutions either way. U of AZ AZ ST Oregon ST Wash ST those are fine schools, but in no way should they be confused with top tier institutions that would somehow prohibit an invitation to any school that's currently in the Big 12. it can be about other reasons...but not that.
just because they're not kicking out their own academic riff-raff doesn't mean there isn't going ot be resistance to adding even more (lubbock, i'm looking at you....)
that's true, too. but at the end of the day, if they invite in OU and Ok St. it's going to ring pretty hollow.
