This piece on conference realignment seems to think so.
http://www.thechaosindex.com/cest-l...-to-change-a-whole-lot-more-than-you-realize/
http://www.thechaosindex.com/cest-l...-to-change-a-whole-lot-more-than-you-realize/
Big 12 going the way of the SWC?
- Thread starter charleshustle
- Start date
- Status
Your link doesn't work (at least not on my iphone).
But, yes, that's the direction this dump of a conference is headed in. Being trapped here is the price we're paying for letting the myopic track coach call the shots for too long.
But, yes, that's the direction this dump of a conference is headed in. Being trapped here is the price we're paying for letting the myopic track coach call the shots for too long.
"...letting the myopic track coach call the shots for too long."
Classic...that made me laugh. Sad, but true.
Classic...that made me laugh. Sad, but true.
I am sure this will not be a popular reply to this thread, but Texas is the 800-pound gorilla in the room and the Big-12 is whatever Texas wants it to be. If Long Horns don't like the conference, you need only look to your leaders. The Big-12 is fully controlled by the wishes of Texas. If it fails, it is because Texas wants it to fail. If it succeed, it is because Texas saw the need to apply some effort.
As probably the most valuable brand in college athletics, the University of Texas dwarfs everyone else in Big-12 or indeed, in any conference. When Texas decides the fate on a particular subject it is by default deciding for all the members of the conference.
Texas is in rather rarified air, it has the ability to make noble decisions but so far has not chosen to be noble. The Long Horn Network is a superb example of this. Texas gets 15 million a year for their involvement in this production. Last I looked Texas had an operating budget in athletics of 175 million. If I am in error please correct me. 15 million is pocket change to Texas, but the set up of the LHN has cost the conference long-time members and creates an air of instability in those remaining. This is solely at the feet of the UT administration.
A school with the depth of resources like Texas can afford to be generous for the good of the conference and a noble school would do that, especially if that act of nobility was seen as genuine. I lived in Texas for many years and was 'naturalized' in Barton Springs so I think I understand the mentality a little. Texans have a bloated self-image but it is not without merit that they can back up that posture. Texas is a great state with great people but Texas as a conference member could be greater than it is. It is more of a short-sighted simple minded bully than it is a big picture, practical leader.
The Big-12 is exactly what Texas wants it to be. The next biggest kid on the block is Oklahoma and they are nobody in comparison. The rest of us are ants on the playground.
I hope Texas choses to be great, it can be, it should be, but so far it has not been.
Texas kept the conference together when others bailed. You can hate Texas all you want and call us selfish but that doesn't change the reality that the Big XII survived because of UT. The aggys on the other hand lied through their teeth multiple times, took a larger share of revenue in a promise to stay and then stabbed their partners in the back.
You almost convinced me to vote for Bernie Sanders!
So, ESPN offers your school, whatever school that is, a boat load of cash, they wouldn't, and you think your school would be "noble" and turn it down? If you're so bent on blaming LHN, blame ESPN. This was their idea, not Texas'. You never blame someone for taking a boat load of cash, when you know damn well you wouldn't turn it down.
It won't be a popular reply because it's a mostly ignorant reply.
The LHN is not the reason that the Big 12 lost members. It makes a great scapegoat for a gullible public ignorant of larger trends when other schools make perfectly rational decisions to accept more money from conferences that are far and away the Big 12's demographic superiors, though. The fault goes to our leadership for doing nothing to counter this bullsh*t hypocritical narrative from schools that were simply chasing more money. Nebraska and aggy were among the programs that voted down pursuing a Big 12 Network before Kevin Weiberg threw up his hands and left; they wanted to preserve the opportunity to negotiate more lucrative independent deals for their third-tier rights. Lo and behold, big, mean Texas went and did exactly what these other schools said they were interested in doing but failed to do. How rich that they would then peddle the lie that big, mean Texas and its LHN -- along with unequal revenue sharing, which I disagree with, but which they also voted for -- somehow made them leave. But the public is stupid enough to believe it, sportswriters as a group are not intelligent enough to understand and relate what's really going on (and the ones that are intelligent enough to do so cynically understand that manufactured surface soap-opera drama is more interesting to the idiot link-clicking hordes than deeper and impersonal structural changes), and our leadership was content to let the moronic narrative take shape and persist.
Conference realignment has been going on for over a quarter-century. As far back as the 1980s, Nebraska and Missouri talked about hoping to join the Big Ten, Colorado talked about wanting to move to the Pac-10, and Oklahoma talked about wanting to be somewhere other than the Big 8. This stuff isn't new. After the ACC dismembered the Big East, the Big 12 was the weakest remaining power conference demographically. With money in college football growing at an exponential rate, it was only a matter of time before the most well positioned conferences turned to poaching members from the demographic weakling with no good options for expansion -- the Big 12. To anyone who understood the trends driving realignment, this was obvious more than a decade ago.
Texas is the only reason this sh*tty conference still exists. After other schools made perfectly rational, self-interested, and foreseeable decisions to make more money elsewhere, Texas (stupidly) decided to keep this rusted-out trash barge afloat. Why? Because of the LHN. Yes, that's right: Texas's desire to keep the LHN is the only reason half of the Big 12 isn't in mid-major conferences where they should be but for accident of history.
There's nothing that Texas can do to make this conference great because there's simply nothing that can be done to make this conference great. Mighty magical Texas does not have the power to direct population growth and football talent to the empty and barely growing Plains (and Appalachian) states in this conference. Mighty magical Texas cannot compel desirable schools in other power conferences to give up millions upon millions of dollars and join the demographically doomed Big 12. Mighty magical Texas cannot force TV networks to vastly overpay the conference once again when our TV deal comes up for renewal.
While Texas is the heavy-hitter in the Big 12, it can neither snap its fingers and make the conference worth a damn, nor is it the only school that can determine the Big 12's fate. If David Boren wants OU to leave for a conference with better TV exposure (which is indeed what he really wants -- his demands are just good politics in laying the groundwork for a departure) and succeeds in a challenge to the GOR, then OU can single-handedly blow up the Big 12. Mighty magical Texas can't stop that.
Last edited:
I do not hate Texas. I am familiar with the A&M style of business and I agree with your opinion on that.
But, you also support my position even if you don't realize it. "Texas kept this conference together when others bailed" Like I said, Texas is the Big-12. If it is not the conference you think it should be, you need to look at Texas for why that is. Texas calls the shots, all of the shots.
You are taking what I said out of context. I cannot fault Texas for the LHN deal, any school would take that deal and laugh all the way to the bank. LHN is easy money.
Where the difference comes in is when you compare that 15 million to Texas' operating budget to the budget of other members. 15 is a small slice in Texas' budget not so much in other conference members. Besides, it is not the money that is the problem, Texas is swimming in money as it is probably the most endowed school in the nation and Texas has the number one brand. In that light 15 million is chump change.
My original response was in answer to those thinking the Big-12 was a crappy conference. The state of the Big12 lays solely at the feet of Texas. I was using the LHN as an example where UT could compromise and work as a member of a conference instead of coming off - at times - as too good for its fellow members.
I understand Texas pride, much of it is deserved but not all of it is and that is the problem others have with Texas.
When I first moved to Texas in 1978 I loved it. I still do. But, after I got to know my neighbors - which was fast because they were so friendly and welcoming, they asked my about West Virginia. I told them what I knew and then asked them what states they had been too. None. In all of the people I asked that question, none of them had ever left Texas except to Colorado for some God-awful reason - snow skiing I suppose. When I asked why, they universally replied, "Why would I ever leave Texas, everything I want is right here." They then listed all of the great reason why and while I agreed those were great reason, none of them saw the provincial nature of their replies and had I not known them better it would have come off as arrogant.
I would hazard to guess this same mind-set pervades the minds of the administration in making their choices with the Big-12. It is a great way to think of one's state, maybe not the best way to do business as part of organization spread across multiple states. You have to realize the members that left all pointed to this as the main reason they made their departures. At some point the University of Texas, if wants a viable Big-12 is going to need to understand why that is.
If they don't and they don't have to, then whatever becomes of the Big-12 is still on Texas' watch and no one else's. It is as simple as that.
A) No I don't.
B) Didn't say Texas was the conference. I said Texas staying made it viable. They're not mutually exclusive.
C) Texas doesn't call all the shots. That's an oft repeated lie. The entire conference voted on: third tier media rights, whether to have a conference tv channel or not as well as unequal revenue shares. Texas did not make the rules. Just wrong.
OK. All credibility gone.
I get it you hate the Big-12. I can understand that I hated the Big East as much if not more. But just because you do not agree with an opinion really is not enough of a reason to call people names, it lessens your credibility and if we are to reach some sort of mutual understanding, being credible is key.
But, Texas is magical. Why can't you see that? Every fan and administration in the conference knows this simple fact. Texas is the Big-12. Boren can huff and puff all he wants, it is going no where. If Oklahoma could leave, it would have. Problem for Oklahoma is it is not enough on its; own and it wont be going alone. It would have to at least take OSU with it and as much as the Cowboys are a valuable Big-12 member, they are not as valuable as Oklahoma is.
No one wants Oklahoma; harsh, perhaps but it is true. The SEC does not need another apex predator. The Big Ten has a pretty strong record on the AAU angle and OU isn't. Of course can be broken or at least bent such as for Nebraska who was AAU but now isn't. Still would the Big Ten really want Oklahoma AND OSU. Oklahoma might offer enough to overlook AAU, but OSU certainly does not. The PAC-12 had their chance at Oklahoma just as it did with UT and the deal was not good enough then, it is probably less good now. As for the ACC, no one wants in that conference because everyone wants more money and the ACC is poor and getting poorer by the day. So Oklahoma has no place to go and Boren is just whining.
I guess I just have more respect for Texas and it the power it represents than you do. The Big-12 will do or not do what Texas says it will. It is that simple and all of the members knows this.
You are saying it is Texas holding the conference together, that implies an imperial power. Seems like you are.
If Texas is against something it does not happen. Right now all it takes is 3 no votes to keep anything from moving. Baylor, TCU and TT all line up behind Texas. What Texas wants is what happens. It holds the number of votes it has to when it comes to shaping the course.
Yes, because Texas has A&M's best interest in mind. Talk about a lie. Others bailed because of Texas.
aggys are proven liars, Doc. Shameful human beings. We didn't sell out our conference mates like you liars did. aggys are still lying about why you left too.
And we offered you morons a tv deal with us so STFU with your complete BS.
And we offered you morons a tv deal with us so STFU with your complete BS.
Last edited:
That the sports-watching public at large is too dim and/or uninformed to figure out what's going on is not a controversial fact, and I'm frankly not concerned with any effect that my aspersions toward that public has on anyone reading posts on this message board. If I'm ever asked to write a column on realignment for a major publication, I'll remember to be more charitable toward these gullible mouthbreathers.
It may well be that Oklahoma can't break up the Big 12 on its own because it lacks another landing spot. Though OU leaving may be improbable, it's not impossible. Unlike the Kansas schools, OU and OSU have separate Boards of Regents; some people with OU believe that they may be able to disentangle themselves from OSU in future realignment scenarios. If Boren can secure membership in another conference -- which, again, is not impossible -- and can successfully challenge the GOR, Texas, despite its alleged supernatural powers, cannot stop OU from leaving.
Understanding that Texas is most influential school in the conference does not require that I recognize it as all-powerful. It isn't. You didn't object to my statement that there's nothing Texas can do to make this conference great. Shall I take that as agreement? The Big 12 has fatal flaws that Texas is powerless to remedy. Texas is powerful, but it isn't magical. This conference is a demographic weakling in an era in which TV money reigns supreme. There's absolutely nothing Texas can do to change that.
You're not bright enough to be a liar, so let's just go with stupid.
I would also point out that getting rid of the LHN doesn't automatically mean the Big 12 gets a network. It's not a given than ESPN or Fox would want to start up league network. It wouldn't make sense for Texas to give up the LHN unless it's a 100% sure thing the Big 12 got a network. Plus, if the network ended up being like the Pac 12 network, it really wouldn't be worth it in the first place.
Steve Pederson was the AD @ Nebraska that voted down the B12 network. Tom Osborne was the AD @ Nebraska that went to the B10 (mostly) because of the LHN.
That's not why at all. Nebraska and Colorado left because the Pac 10 and Big 10 were talking with other Big 12 teams. Nebraska and Colorado were afraid of getting left behind, so they made the first move.
Sports talk radio carried the Neb. to B10 media conference in June of '10. Tom Osborne fessed live on the radio that (in so many words) Neb. left the B12 (mostly) because of Texas. If you could have listened to either sports talk radio stations in KC (@ that moment) you would have heard the exact same thing I heard. You cannot change that..
Yes, everyone is aware of Nebraska's false and self-serving claim as to its reasons for leaving. Read the thread. That's not in dispute.
That's not why they left. See, everybody keeps saying this, and then forgets the actual timeline. It wasn't even Nebraska that started talking to the Big Ten in the first place. It was Missouri. If Nebraska was really so upset that they wanted to leave the Big 12, then they would have been trying to get out long beforehand.But they didn't. Nebraska only tried to get out of the Big 12 after Missouri started talking to the Big Ten and Texas and Oklahoma started talking to the Pac 10. It's clear what the motivation was. Nebraska was afraid they would get left behind, so the preemptively made a move and got into the Big Ten. That doesn't square with Nebraska leaving the Big 12 because they had their nose out of joint. It squares more with a school afraid of being left in a diminished conference and being proactive.
Bingo.
Fortunately, Nebraska and the rest can count on the majority of people to be too stupid to figure this fairly simple stuff out. Just blame big mean Texas and pretend you're the noble, selfless, and aggrieved program that just had no choice but to accept those millions upon millions of extra dollars from a demographically dominant (and thus stable) conference.
I do think we had something to with them leaving, but it was just an underlying issue. Texas completely dominated Nebraska on the football field. I mean owned them like no power school should own another power school. It was borderline illegal what Texas did to them. Starting from the very beginning of the Big 12, when Nebraska was on top of college football, Texas began chopping them down. Texas was the beginning of the fall of the Husker empire, and was right there every step of the way to keep knocking them down. Even through bad years for Texas, through snow in Lincoln, they could find no way to beat Texas. This left a very bad taste in their mouths. You bet your ass they were sick of Texas, but that's not the only reason. Tiger, BBR, and Scholz have laid out the rest of the story.
Bernie wants the successful to do things against their own self interest in order to help others.
You seem to want rich schools to help poor schools, who will then use those dollars to help them compete against the charitable rich school.
Charity is great, forced charity is socialism. I think I get the correlation he was aiming for.
I hate to take up for Texas, but they should put their own self interest first. If they think they can make the most $ long term in the Big12, or win the most games against Big12 teams, or if whatever else makes them happy is better in the Big12 - they should stay. If not, they should go.
The fact that the Big12 is Texas, Oklahoma, and not much else could be seen as a positive or negative for Texas. But it should be their choice.
The fact that the Big12 is Texas, Oklahoma, and not much else could be seen as a positive or negative for Texas. But it should be their choice.
Using this logic Texas would have little value to a conference, as they have sucked the last few years. That is not how it works.
TCU and baylor have been good lately, but they are not the type of schools that hold a conference together. If Texas or Oklahoma leaves the Big12, the Big12 explodes (it might hang around as a mid major).
If baylor or TCU bolts (which can't happen as they have nowhere to go), it would be embarrassing - but no biggie, hello Houston. Rinse and repeat.
Last edited:
So it's ok for Texas to look after their own well being and A&M shouldn't? More money for A&M in the SEC. Better situation. They took advantage of it. Good for them.
Speaking of Nebraska...Texas still living rent-free in that deformed Cornhusker head: https://nebraska.forums.rivals.com/threads/did-anyone-just-see-the-uni-uterus-finish.118275/
LMAO
LMAO
- Status
