Gee: Big 12 puts expansion on hold

[BoremanEer]

Based on where Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri, and Texas A&M are right now, all moving out of the Big XII because of growing wearing of Texas's heavy handiness, I do think Oklahoma's rumblings are to be taken seriously. Four schools bolting is enough to make you worry that this conference is on shaky ground. Panthergrowl13, Texas made some motions toward the ACC when the last shift occurred and Texas's insistence on keeping their own TV network make it a non-issue. The ACC is not much better off than the Big XII, with the Big 10 making some motions toward UNC and UVA recently. And you might recall, Panthergrowl13, what a parasite Notre Dame is.

We will all have to wait and see what, if anything, comes down the pike. In the Big XII, only Texas and Oklahoma call the shots. In the ACC, UNC and Duke call the shots in basketball and Clemson and Florida State in football. Neither conference is as secure as the Big 10 or the PAC 10, so neither Pitt nor West Virginia has the right to say too much to one another.

Also, Panthergrowl13, according to Vernon, WVU was the first school the ACC called when Maryland bolted the ACC, not Louisville. Just thought I would bring that tidbit up.

 

[Buckaineer]

One thing about it though. IMG also has to get paid, not just Texas. ESPN actually pays IMG for the LHN, and then IMG splits that money with Texas. I don't know how much IMG gets, but the whole pot is $15 million + IMG's take. That's actually what has to be paid off, not just the $15 million to Texas.

I'm going to go "out on a limb" and guess you don't know what Texas' specifics of its deal with IMG are regarding the LHN. Texas and IMG have deals that will continue regardless of what happens to the LHN-just like the things you like to spout off about other schools having. Texas IMG deal is between them and the IMG--not the BIG 12 and IMG--and it will be Texas' responsibility to work out the arrangements with IMG on the LHN portion of rights not the BIG 12s. With Texas' national cache bigger than an entire conference like the ACC--somehow, I don't think IMG is going to have too many problems with maintaining a strong relationship with them with or without the LHN.

 

[Rootmaster]

all this statistics stuff might be true...in fact I think it is...but it boils down to institutional ego on who the conference schools feel are "worthy" of inclusion. while they smoke cigars and sip martinis the college athletic world will continue to consolidate without them. expand all ready! any conference with "12" in their name should have 12 members. maybe they are afraid that cincy or byu or even uconn might end up kicking their asses.

 

[Buckaineer]

The conference must wait until the Big Ten deal is done- they must know the numbers and the situation going forward for the networks.

 

[topdecktiger]

I'm going to go "out on a limb" and guess you don't know what Texas' specifics of its deal with IMG are regarding the LHN. Texas and IMG have deals that will continue regardless of what happens to the LHN-just like the things you like to spout off about other schools having. Texas IMG deal is between them and the IMG--not the BIG 12 and IMG--and it will be Texas' responsibility to work out the arrangements with IMG on the LHN portion of rights not the BIG 12s. With Texas' national cache bigger than an entire conference like the ACC--somehow, I don't think IMG is going to have too many problems with maintaining a strong relationship with them with or without the LHN.

Actually, here is the contract for the LHN, so yeah, I do know the specifics. http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2638907-Longhorn-Network-contract.html

However, that's beside the point. Your whole premise is that Boren's plan is to convince Texas to give up the LHN by making Texas whole financially. Well, if you make Texas compensate IMG out of their own pocket, then Texas isn't whole. Even if you give Texas $15 million, if they have to pay off IMG, then Texas still ends up with less money.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

I see nothing that prevents UT, IMG and ESPN from adjoining UT to a conference network as long as all parties agree.

The only way to effectively expand the income of the LHN is to expand the broadcast footprint to new areas with substantial population. That would only happen with an expansion of the Big 12 to additional major broadcast markets with the LHN part of a larger Big 12 Network.

As revenues expand that $15 million becomes less and less significant. Based upon 2014, $165.7 million with a $19 million surplus puts that $15 million in perspective. It's a guaranteed 9% of the athletic budget and is stuck at $15 million.

I am not privy to the studies done and being done by all parties involved, but the prospects for growth certainly must be examined. Texas will do what is best for Texas, but we do not yet know what that is. I'm very curious to see what happens after the Spring meetings of the Big 12.

 

[topdecktiger]

I see nothing that prevents UT, IMG and ESPN from adjoining UT to a conference network as long as all parties agree.

The only way to effectively expand the income of the LHN is to expand the broadcast footprint to new areas with substantial population. That would only happen with an expansion of the Big 12 to additional major broadcast markets with the LHN part of a larger Big 12 Network.

As revenues expand that $15 million becomes less and less significant. Based upon 2014, $165.7 million with a $19 million surplus puts that $15 million in perspective. It's a guaranteed 9% of the athletic budget and is stuck at $15 million.

I am not privy to the studies done and being done by all parties involved, but the prospects for growth certainly must be examined. Texas will do what is best for Texas, but we do not yet know what that is. I'm very curious to see what happens after the Spring meetings of the Big 12.

Well yeah, if they all agree to it then there isn't a problem. The issue is getting them all to agree.

Texas gets $15 million from the LHN. By way of comparison, the BTN pays out $8 million, and the SECN pays out $5 million. I think it's frankly wishful thinking that the Big 12 would double or triple those amounts. Point being, it's questionable if Texas would be inclined to give up LHN based on that.

IMG gets some amount from LHN. (Don't know how much.) They don't get to replace that revenue if LHN is gone. They would have to be compensated. Pretty hard to see IMG giving up LHN without getting that compensation.

ESPN owns LHN, so they are the one with the money here. If the Big 12 goes with ESPN on a network, then it makes more sense. If the Big 12 goes with Fox (or whomever), it's more questionable if ESPN would simply let go of LHN.

Point is, there is a lot that has to be overcome to get them all three to agree.

 

[skygusty]

I see nothing that prevents UT, IMG and ESPN from adjoining UT to a conference network as long as all parties agree.

The only way to effectively expand the income of the LHN is to expand the broadcast footprint to new areas with substantial population. That would only happen with an expansion of the Big 12 to additional major broadcast markets with the LHN part of a larger Big 12 Network.

As revenues expand that $15 million becomes less and less significant. Based upon 2014, $165.7 million with a $19 million surplus puts that $15 million in perspective. It's a guaranteed 9% of the athletic budget and is stuck at $15 million.

I am not privy to the studies done and being done by all parties involved, but the prospects for growth certainly must be examined. Texas will do what is best for Texas, but we do not yet know what that is. I'm very curious to see what happens after the Spring meetings of the Big 12.

Many of the other schools will go along with Texas because the Big12 without Texas is pretty much dead. What Texas wants is more important than what Oklahoma wants. What Texas wants is more important than all the other schools combined. I think Texas has a block of votes that will vote with Texas because ultimately they know the score. If the day ever comes that Texas starts to seriously consider options in other conferences, when the money they are offered exceeds what they currently get by a significant margin then the other teams in the Big12 are in serious trouble. Yeah, it would be great if Texas played nice but this whole process is ruled by self interest.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Many of the other schools will go along with Texas because the Big12 without Texas is pretty much dead. What Texas wants is more important than what Oklahoma wants. What Texas wants is more important than all the other schools combined. I think Texas has a block of votes that will vote with Texas because ultimately they know the score. If the day ever comes that Texas starts to seriously consider options in other conferences, when the money they are offered exceeds what they currently get by a significant margin then the other teams in the Big12 are in serious trouble. Yeah, it would be great if Texas played nice but this whole process is ruled by self interest.

It may not be a matter of Texas holding up expansion, a conference network and CCG. As you said Texas will do what is best for Texas. While $15 million sounds significant, it shrinks as a percentage of athletic income every year as the only revenue source that is not growing.

The LHN is limited in broadcast material and is pretty much stuck inside the Texas borders. National exposure would be enhanced by a conference network. It all depends on what the separate studies show in common. If a conference network would only be worth $5 million per team, even IMG would have to say "Well love their hearts, isn't that cute!" (They are a southern company) IMG paid WVU $6.7 million for 2015 third tier rights.

 

[Buckaineer]

We keep hearing the myths about UT and how they are supposedly so dominant iver the rest of the schools.

No schools are going to go against their best interest to placate Texas. Texas is popular, but they dont own or control the conference and no one is putting their own school in jeopardy to placate the Longhorns. Everyone will look at what their choices are to best take care of their own and the conference as a while. Texas isnt ruling them or dictating to them.

So far UT appears to be working with everyone on comprehensive improvements and theres no teason to believe that wont continue- UT will prosper from it just as everyone else will.

 

[LowFatMilk]

We keep hearing the myths about UT and how they are supposedly so dominant iver the rest of the schools.

No schools are going to go against their best interest to placate Texas. Texas is popular, but they dont own or control the conference and no one is putting their own school in jeopardy to placate the Longhorns. Everyone will look at what their choices are to best take care of their own and the conference as a while. Texas isnt ruling them or dictating to them.

So far UT appears to be working with everyone on comprehensive improvements and theres no teason to believe that wont continue- UT will prosper from it just as everyone else will.

Myths ? Yea...and ND doesn't get special treatment either.

Texas does (and should) have more 'sway' in the decision making of the Big 12. Denying it defies common sense. The slightest hint that Texas might consider another conference at some point in time is enough to get votes for whatever they want at Big 12 meetings. Maybe 1 or 2 teams in the conference have leverage too, but not like Texas. Imagine the giggles if some Big 12 teams (including WVU) threatened to shop around if the Big 12 went in a direction they didn't like....

Teams didn't leave the Big 12 because The Longhorns 'were working with everyone'. I'm sure you'll deny Texas had anything to do with teams leaving....despite the fanbases of the teams loudly declaring it to be fact.

Hopefully Texas learned that teams will walk....

 

[Buckaineer]

Myths ? Yea...and ND doesn't get special treatment either.

Texas does (and should) have more 'sway' in the decision making of the Big 12. Denying it defies common sense. The slightest hint that Texas might consider another conference at some point in time is enough to get votes for whatever they want at Big 12 meetings. Maybe 1 or 2 teams in the conference have leverage too, but not like Texas. Imagine the giggles if some Big 12 teams (including WVU) threatened to shop around if the Big 12 went in a direction they didn't like....

Teams didn't leave the Big 12 because The Longhorns 'were working with everyone'. I'm sure you'll deny Texas had anything to do with teams leaving....despite the fanbases of the teams loudly declaring it to be fact.

Hopefully Texas learned that teams will walk....

Notre Dame is Notre Dame. Texas isn't an independent and never has been at least not in the modern era.

Pretending Texas is some giant compared to the 9 dwarfs when OU certainly is a bigger program and everyone votes equally and shares in conference payouts defies common sense.

Schools in the BIG 12 aren't going to help Texas out if they imply they are leaving for another conference, it would have the exact opposite effect because the other schools representatives represent their schools and hundreds of millions or billions in commitments from their states, donors and alumni that comes with. Not one is throwing away their future to placate a school that openly threatens to go to another conference if they don't get their way at every turn. That is a huge message board fable. Every one votes equally and they are currently deciding issues as a whole, not doing what only Texas wants--that is absurd.

The BIG 12 conference decided to have tier 3 rights rather than a conference network, and Nebraska even commented publicly about that after they left. They wanted their own network too. Texas pushed for a conference network and didn't get their wish at the time--further blowing up the incessant myth. After it was formed UT and their network tried to take as much advantage of it as possible--and some were upset--but Colorado was already leaving and Missouri was trying to get into the Big Ten long before there was an LHN.

A&M, Texas, OU, OSU and Tech began flirting with the Pac and Nebraska was pushed into making a decision on the Big Ten and so left. There were many things beyond Texas involved in all of that and now Texas is working with the conference on comprehensive improvements. Fans of schools that hated Texas haven't stopped attacking Texas and everything BIG 12, but that doesn't mean they are right--just means they hate Texas and will say or do anything to show that.

Texas however, has not said they won't do anything at this point, yet people persist in pretending they have. They continue to work with the existing members on the best course of action for the conferences future.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Myths ? Yea...and ND doesn't get special treatment either.

Texas does (and should) have more 'sway' in the decision making of the Big 12. Denying it defies common sense. The slightest hint that Texas might consider another conference at some point in time is enough to get votes for whatever they want at Big 12 meetings. Maybe 1 or 2 teams in the conference have leverage too, but not like Texas. Imagine the giggles if some Big 12 teams (including WVU) threatened to shop around if the Big 12 went in a direction they didn't like....

Teams didn't leave the Big 12 because The Longhorns 'were working with everyone'. I'm sure you'll deny Texas had anything to do with teams leaving....despite the fanbases of the teams loudly declaring it to be fact
Hopefully Texas learned that teams will walk....

At one time Texas should have had more 'sway' but not anymore. I'll give one example of why: November 14, 2015 at Milan Puskar Stadium. Final score WVU 38 - 20 as Texas fell to 4 - 6 overall and 3 - 4 in the Big 12 Conference. Attendance = 56,736

"The loss dropped Texas to 0 - 4 in true road games for the first time since 1938. The Longhorns have been outscored 150 - 30 on the road this year"

These are not your father's Longhorns. I do not like Notre Dame, but the Irish and several other teams would have been a sellout. That 800 lb. gorilla in the Big 12 is losing weight. Don't get me wrong, they still have clout with the members located in the state of Texas, but not so much the rest of the conference.

 

[Buckaineer]

Actually, here is the contract for the LHN, so yeah, I do know the specifics. http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2638907-Longhorn-Network-contract.html

However, that's beside the point. Your whole premise is that Boren's plan is to convince Texas to give up the LHN by making Texas whole financially. Well, if you make Texas compensate IMG out of their own pocket, then Texas isn't whole. Even if you give Texas $15 million, if they have to pay off IMG, then Texas still ends up with less money.

You seem to be stuck on me, and stuck on creating fantasies as to why the BIG 12 can't do this or that.

The facts are the president of Oklahoma has discussed making Texas and other BIG 12 schools whole with their tier 3 deals when they roll into a BIG 12 network. He has elaborated somewhat on the details but not fully and they may never fully reveal that information. Doesn't change the fact that is the stated intention--and the conference knows what is proposed. You never will, nor should you.

Texas has a deal with IMG as I stated, and its up to Texas and IMG who Texas has a contract with to work out changes in that legally binding agreement-NOT the BIG 12 conference.

Get a life, the BIG 12 conference is looking at the details and will focus on them in their May and June meetings and then make some decisions despite your constant claims and innuendo --desire and hope really --that they won't be able to figure out things you keep creating as imaginary roadblocks.

 

[LowFatMilk]

Notre Dame is Notre Dame. Texas isn't an independent and never has been at least not in the modern era.

Pretending Texas is some giant compared to the 9 dwarfs when OU certainly is a bigger program and everyone votes equally and shares in conference payouts defies common sense.

Schools in the BIG 12 aren't going to help Texas out if they imply they are leaving for another conference, it would have the exact opposite effect because the other representatives represent their schools and hundreds of millions or billions in commitments from their states, donors and alumni that comes with. Not one is throwing away their future to placate a school that openly threatens to go to another conference if they don't get their way at every turn. That is a huge message board fable. Every one votes equally and they are currently deciding issues as a whole, not doing what only Texas wants--that is absurd.

The BIG 12 conference decided to have tier 3 rights rather than a conference network, and Nebraska even commented publicly about that after they left. They wanted their own network too. Texas pushed for a conference network and didn't get their wish at the time--further blowing up the incessant myth. After it was formed UT and their network tried to take as much advantage of it as possible--and some were upset--but Colorado was already leaving and Missouri was trying to get into the Big Ten long before there was an LHN.

A&M, Texas, OU, OSU and Tech began flirting with the Pac and Nebraska was pushed into making a decision on the Big Ten and so left. There were many things beyond Texas involved in all of that and now Texas is working with the conference on comprehensive improvements. Fans of schools that hated Texas haven't stopped attacking Texas and everything BIG 12, but that doesn't mean they are right--just means they hate Texas and will say or do anything to show that.

Texas however, has not said they won't do anything at this point, yet people persist in pretending they have. They continue to work with the existing members on the best course of action for the conferences future.

...all those words... ..yet EVERYBODY (most importantly the Longhorns) knows that the Big 12 folds without Texas.

Thus, leverage. You can say everyone has an equal vote but it's a foolish comment.

--------

Oh look...I made my point without boring you to death. A longer post isn't a more valid one.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

...all those words... ..yet EVERYBODY (most importantly the Longhorns) knows that the Big 12 folds without Texas.

Thus, leverage. You can say everyone has an equal vote but it's a foolish comment.

--------

Oh look...I made my point without boring you to death. A longer post isn't a more valid one.

The Big 12 does not need an also ran Texas anymore than they need Kansas. Only you and a few others seem to need them. When did 'EVERYBODY' appoint you as their spokesperson? How about some research my opinionated friend?

 

[topdecktiger]

You seem to be stuck on me, and stuck on creating fantasies as to why the BIG 12 can't do this or that.

The facts are the president of Oklahoma has discussed making Texas and other BIG 12 schools whole with their tier 3 deals when they roll into a BIG 12 network. He has elaborated somewhat on the details but not fully and they may never fully reveal that information. Doesn't change the fact that is the stated intention--and the conference knows what is proposed. You never will, nor should you.

Texas has a deal with IMG as I stated, and its up to Texas and IMG who Texas has a contract with to work out changes in that legally binding agreement-NOT the BIG 12 conference.

Get a life, the BIG 12 conference is looking at the details and will focus on them in their May and June meetings and then make some decisions despite your constant claims and innuendo --desire and hope really --that they won't be able to figure out things you keep creating as imaginary roadblocks.

That's the whole point. Boren said what he wants to do. He hasn't said how to do it. The problem is you think that just because Boren says something, Texas will go along with it. The thing you have to realize is that Boren's definition of making Texas "whole" is not necessarily the definition Texas has.

Regarding the IMG comment, you keep missing my point. If Boren's idea is to make Texas whole, then that means he has to come up with a way to compensate IMG for the loss of the LHN. You don't understand what I'm saying here. I'm not saying the Big 12 legally has to do that. I'm saying that in practical terms, Texas is never going to go along with that idea if they have to compensate IMG out of their own back pocket.

To your last point, it's funny that you tell me to "get a life," yet you have made Big 12 expansion your full time job.

 

[LowFatMilk]

The Big 12 does not need an also ran Texas anymore than they need Kansas. Only you and a few others seem to need them. When did 'EVERYBODY' appoint you as their spokesperson? How about some research my opinionated friend?

i'm pretty sure I appointed myself as my spokesperson.....everybody else is on their own though. The 'few others' are a majority of people who post on the forums of former Big 12 teams and I simply echoed the opinion they often express.

By the way...when did the Big 12 appoint you to advertise who it does or doesn't need ? Feel free to share your research.

 

[Buckaineer]

...all those words... ..yet EVERYBODY (most importantly the Longhorns) knows that the Big 12 folds without Texas.

Thus, leverage. You can say everyone has an equal vote but it's a foolish comment.

--------

Oh look...I made my point without boring you to death. A longer post isn't a more valid one.

All these words--but none of them are true.

The BIG 12 doesn't fold without Texas--unless the remaining schools want it to. It can go on with different schools.

That's not the issue though. The issue is your claim every other school is somehow at UT's whim and everything they do is determined by Texas. WVU's future is not handcuffed to Texas, neither is Oklahomas, TCUs, Baylor's, Oklahoma State's, Kansas', KSU, ISU or Texas Tech's. Their leaders will not protect Texas' interests at the downfall of their own athletic depts. and even schools to an extent. They've invested to much and have far more important people to answer to than UT.

To claim an equal vote isn't an equal vote is foolish--as is pretending UT is holding everyone hostage.

That's what you WANT to be true--and you and your negative myths are boring.

 

[topdecktiger]

It may not be a matter of Texas holding up expansion, a conference network and CCG. As you said Texas will do what is best for Texas. While $15 million sounds significant, it shrinks as a percentage of athletic income every year as the only revenue source that is not growing.

The LHN is limited in broadcast material and is pretty much stuck inside the Texas borders. National exposure would be enhanced by a conference network. It all depends on what the separate studies show in common. If a conference network would only be worth $5 million per team, even IMG would have to say "Well love their hearts, isn't that cute!" (They are a southern company) IMG paid WVU $6.7 million for 2015 third tier rights.

Actually, that's incorrect. The $15 million does grow every year. It's an average, just like the payouts from the conference TV contracts are just an average. If 'Conference X' gets $20 million a year, they aren't getting that figure every year. They start off lower, and end up higher. Texas starts out at $11 million or so, and it increases annually. It gets up near $20 million on the back end. Also, that's just the base payout. There are incentives that kick depending on how successful the network is, how long it takes to pay off the overhead, etc. It's all in the contract I posted earlier.

 

[Buckaineer]

That's the whole point. Boren said what he wants to do. He hasn't said how to do it. The problem is you think that just because Boren says something, Texas will go along with it. The thing you have to realize is that Boren's definition of making Texas "whole" is not necessarily the definition Texas has.

Regarding the IMG comment, you keep missing my point. If Boren's idea is to make Texas whole, then that means he has to come up with a way to compensate IMG for the loss of the LHN. You don't understand what I'm saying here. I'm not saying the Big 12 legally has to do that. I'm saying that in practical terms, Texas is never going to go along with that idea if they have to compensate IMG out of their own back pocket.

To your last point, it's funny that you tell me to "get a life," yet you have made Big 12 expansion your full time job.

That's the point--conference's don't reveal the details of how they implement these sorts of things they just give the general view of it. Doesn't mean they don't have a detailed plan because they don't tell YOU.

You don't want the BIG 12 to do something so you've created a fantasy of "just because Boren says something (doesn't mean) Texas will go along with it. You hope they don't, but there is nothing to indicate they won't do just that despite your incessant creation of fantasies to insinuate something different. Texas may be THRILLED with Boren's ideas for all you know.

Boren doesn't have to come up with a way to compensate IMG. Texas has a contract with IMG and they may already have language in their IMG agreements to alter such agreements. The BIG 12 doesn't have to do anything in practical terms or legal terms except that which the membership agrees for it to do. You have no idea what will be necessary to "make Texas whole" or even if Texas will demand that they "be made whole", or even what form of an agreement rolling the LHN into a BIG 12 network will take. Yet for some reason you persist with coming up with negative fantasies about what will be necessary? This isn't make believe--the BIG 12 has INTERNAL plans about these issues--don't worry they'll work it out without your "guidance".

About your last comment--who is on another conference's board 24/7? What's that--YOU? Thought so.

 

[Buckaineer]

Actually, that's incorrect. The $15 million does grow every year. It's an average, just like the payouts from the conference TV contracts are just an average. If 'Conference X' gets $20 million a year, they aren't getting that figure every year. They start off lower, and end up higher. Texas starts out at $11 million or so, and it increases annually. It gets up near $20 million on the back end. Also, that's just the base payout. There are incentives that kick depending on how successful the network is, how long it takes to pay off the overhead, etc. It's all in the contract I posted earlier.

The BIG 12's contracts expire in 2025. Texas isn't going to have a network beyond 2025 unless they join their conference mate's in a BIG 12 network. Otherwise their LHN profits are gone anyway as they must rid themselves of that to go elsewhere and make less money.

 

[LowFatMilk]

All these words--but none of them are true.

The BIG 12 doesn't fold without Texas--unless the remaining schools want it to. It can go on with different schools.

To claim an equal vote isn't an equal vote is foolish--as is pretending UT is holding everyone hostage.
.

Hopefully when you actually speak to people you don't feel the need to ramble on...as if more words make your point more valid (consider that advice...because my gut tells me you are...).

I never wrote about hostages...just leverage. Huge diff.

...and the Big East is perfectly fine despite the flagship football schools leaving too.

 

[Buckaineer]

Hopefully when you actually speak to people you don't feel the need to ramble on...as if more words make your point more valid (consider that advice...because my gut tells me you are...).

I never wrote about hostages...just leverage. Huge diff.

...and the Big East is perfectly fine despite the flagship football schools leaving too.

Texas has no more leverage than multiple schools in the conference. They don't run the conference they are a member of the conference.

As to your other bunk you should learn to read then you won't be bothered by other people's words. When you are discussing something with someone that throws out b.s.--however many words necessary will be used to clean it up. Unlike you other people don't just blow insults and attacks out of their @$$ they actually think before they post.

 

[LowFatMilk]

Texas has no more leverage than multiple schools in the conference. They don't run the conference they are a member of the conference.

As to your other bunk you should learn to read then you won't be bothered by other people's words. When you are discussing something with someone that throws out b.s.--however many words necessary will be used to clean it up. Unlike you other people don't just blow insults and attacks out of their @$$ they actually think before they post.

Actually it's likely many people don't reply to your posts because they don't want to be obligated to read a long-winded reply. There's good chance that's true offline too. ...again, just some advice for you to consider.

If you don't understand leverage and the influence of Texas then all the words in the world isn't going to change your mind. It's common sense... ...and I'm sure you have read that's something you just can't teach.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

i'm pretty sure I appointed myself as my spokesperson.....everybody else is on their own though. The 'few others' are a majority of people who post on the forums of former Big 12 teams and I simply echoed the opinion they often express.

By the way...when did the Big 12 appoint you to advertise who it does or doesn't need ? Feel free to share your research.

In this 'rare' case, just my opinion. I can find no evidence of Texas having more than one vote in the Big 12. The weakness of the LHN itself implies that the rest of the country knows who UT is but has no desire to watch them on TV.

Are you basing it on money as in the size of athletic budgets? If so, you are right. But all of the teams putting a smackdown on the Longhorns and those teams fans do not seem to be impressed. I like Texas and think Coach Strong may be on the right path, but their value to the conference is not quantifiably higher than any other member.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Actually, that's incorrect. The $15 million does grow every year. It's an average, just like the payouts from the conference TV contracts are just an average. If 'Conference X' gets $20 million a year, they aren't getting that figure every year. They start off lower, and end up higher. Texas starts out at $11 million or so, and it increases annually. It gets up near $20 million on the back end. Also, that's just the base payout. There are incentives that kick depending on how successful the network is, how long it takes to pay off the overhead, etc. It's all in the contract I posted earlier.

The $15 million is a guarantee, that's all and it is what they have received so far each year because so far ESPN has been losing money with the LHN. Meanwhile, other income continues to increase giving them a substantial surplus. If the LHN suddenly takes off, well good for them!

 

[Buckaineer]

Actually it's likely many people don't reply to your posts because they don't want to be obligated to read a long-winded reply. There's good chance that's true offline too. ...again, just some advice for you to consider.

If you don't understand leverage and the influence of Texas then all the words in the world isn't going to change your mind. It's common sense... ...and I'm sure you have read that's something you just can't teach.

I'm guessing not many people speak to you-don't try to push that off on me.

You don't need to create fantasies about the BIG 12 being run by Texas. Its as false today as yesterday.

as to words, I could care less if you can't read so whine about my words. I'll write however many I want to--your problem if you can't comprehend.

 

[skygusty]

Texas doesn't have more votes they have more options. They are the biggest plum in the conference and are the biggest plum in the biggest state that has more population than the rest of the represented states in the conference combined. WVU, KState, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Iowa State have no realistic options of moving to the SEC, BIG10, the PAC or the ACC. OK State probably has no realistic options unless they can tag along with OU some where. OU may have options but fewer than Texas, Kansas may be somewhat of a potential get for the BIG10 but would be an unlikely first or second choice. Texas could go anywhere they choose at this point. The BIG12 would survive without them but would no longer be a major conference and Oklahoma without Texas would not only be not enough to keep the BIG12 high profile but they would then be willing to go anywhere to leave a conference that had lost the big shuffle. The revenue stream for all those teams not named Texas and Oklahoma, would shrink dramatically. It is in the self interest of all the other schools in this conference that Texas stays committed to the BIG12, it is also important, but probably less so for Oklahoma to stay committed to the BIG12. With those two intact there is hope and perhaps even opportunity. Without one or both, the BIG12 cedes the field to the winners.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

The Big 12 does not need an also ran Texas anymore than they need Kansas. Only you and a few others seem to need them. When did 'EVERYBODY' appoint you as their spokesperson? How about some research my opinionated friend?

Come on Mike, I know you don't believe that. That are two main Cogs to the BIG12 and the Biggest is Texas. They have leverage because the other B12 programs not named OU, need them to stay put.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Come on Mike, I know you don't believe that. That are two main Cogs to the BIG12 and the Biggest is Texas. They have leverage because the other B12 programs not named OU, need them to stay put.

Leverage to do what? Take their toys and go home? No program is irreplaceable by itself. Not Texas, Oklahoma or even Alabama. Texas is not currently a big enough draw on the road to support the LHN or even sell out Puskar Stadium. If two major draws leave a ten member conference it would indeed lose it's power 5 status.

What makes Texas the 'main attraction' of the Big 12? The past? The athletic budget? Certainly not their drawing power in other stadiums. If you asked someone in the administration of ESPN if Texas was the main attraction of the Big 12 his honest answer would have to be, "Lord, I hope not!" at this point. Texas last glory days were seven years ago. I hope they come back!

I do not understand all of this worrying about what Texas may or may not do. They have it made where they are and could NOT be competitive in the SEC or B1G at this time. WVU's athletic budget will top $100 million in the next three years. Isn't it a great time to be a Mountaineer?

 

[skygusty]

Leverage to do what? Take their toys and go home? No program is irreplaceable by itself. Not Texas, Oklahoma or even Alabama. Texas is not currently a big enough draw on the road to support the LHN or even sell out Puskar Stadium. If two major draws leave a ten member conference it would indeed lose it's power 5 status.

What makes Texas the 'main attraction' of the Big 12? The past? The athletic budget? Certainly not their drawing power in other stadiums. If you asked someone in the administration of ESPN if Texas was the main attraction of the Big 12 his honest answer would have to be, "Lord, I hope not!" at this point. Texas last glory days were seven years ago. I hope they come back!

I do not understand all of this worrying about what Texas may or may not do. They have it made where they are and could NOT be competitive in the SEC or B1G at this time. WVU's athletic budget will top $100 million in the next three years. Isn't it a great time to be a Mountaineer?

There has been plenty of worry about what Oklahoma may or may not do on these threads and why it is imperative that the BIG12 do what Boren wants. You can spare a little worry about Texas, who would deliver a whopping amount of TV sets to the Big10 network, among other repurcussions in the struggle for conference dominance.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

There has been plenty of worry about what Oklahoma may or may not do on these threads and why it is imperative that the BIG12 do what Boren wants. You can spare a little worry about Texas, who would deliver a whopping amount of TV sets to the Big10 network, among other repurcussions in the struggle for conference dominance.

I agree with Boren's suggestions, but with a new administration at the helm why is Texas being labeled the bad guy that can simply choose to destroy a conference? I just don't see it. If they moved to the SEC they are just another school with losing records. Also would lose the LHN. All this worrying is not currently justified.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Leverage to do what? Take their toys and go home? No program is irreplaceable by itself. Not Texas, Oklahoma or even Alabama. Texas is not currently a big enough draw on the road to support the LHN or even sell out Puskar Stadium. If two major draws leave a ten member conference it would indeed lose it's power 5 status.

What makes Texas the 'main attraction' of the Big 12? The past? The athletic budget? Certainly not their drawing power in other stadiums. If you asked someone in the administration of ESPN if Texas was the main attraction of the Big 12 his honest answer would have to be, "Lord, I hope not!" at this point. Texas last glory days were seven years ago. I hope they come back!

I do not understand all of this worrying about what Texas may or may not do. They have it made where they are and could NOT be competitive in the SEC or B1G at this time. WVU's athletic budget will top $100 million in the next three years. Isn't it a great time to be a Mountaineer?

Mike, you can't be serious. If Texas leaves, the BIG12 will be done as a P5 conference.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Mike, you can't be serious. If Texas leaves, the BIG12 will be done as a P5 conference.

I simply disagree. If Oklahoma and any other top twenty five team leaves, I agree. But with Baylor and TCU the Big 12 does not need UT. What do they bring except a gloried past? SEC took A&M, not UT. They had their reasons.

The Big 12 needs to expand two teams in significant market areas and have a CCG or they may lose power 5 status from too small a broadcast footprint. If UT had the power everyone seems to cede to them, the LHN would be a huge success and their games would be sellouts.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

I simply disagree. If Oklahoma and any other top twenty five team leaves, I agree. But with Baylor and TCU the Big 12 does not need UT. What do they bring except a gloried past? SEC took A&M, not UT. They had their reasons.

The Big 12 needs to expand two teams in significant market areas and have a CCG or they may lose power 5 status from too small a broadcast footprint. If UT had the power everyone seems to cede to them, the LHN would be a huge success and their games would be sellouts.

I guess we can agree to disagree. If Texas goes OU has no reason to stay, if those two are gone, it is all over.

It is great to say we can add programs, but there aren't any the BIG12 can get that can replace those two programs.

The survival of the BIG12 will come down to expansion. If the money is there they will expand. If it is not, they won't expand and the conference will die.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

I guess we can agree to disagree. If Texas goes OU has no reason to stay, if those two are gone, it is all over.

It is great to say we can add programs, but there aren't any the BIG12 can get that can replace those two programs.

The survival of the BIG12 will come down to expansion. If the money is there they will expand. If it is not, they won't expand and the conference will die.

You may be right, Steve. But I can't help but wonder if similar conversations were dominating the fan boards when word came out that A&M, Nebraska and Missouri were leaving and would be replaced by two teams that at the time were considered the equivalent of non power 5 schools.

Even Texas and Oklahoma were 'gone', giving up the fractured Big 12 to join USC and UCLA in the west. Then someone did some research and said, "Not so fast, look at these numbers we're projecting by adding a couple of overachievers from lesser places."

 

[topdecktiger]

That's the point--conference's don't reveal the details of how they implement these sorts of things they just give the general view of it. Doesn't mean they don't have a detailed plan because they don't tell YOU.

You don't want the BIG 12 to do something so you've created a fantasy of "just because Boren says something (doesn't mean) Texas will go along with it. You hope they don't, but there is nothing to indicate they won't do just that despite your incessant creation of fantasies to insinuate something different. Texas may be THRILLED with Boren's ideas for all you know.

Boren doesn't have to come up with a way to compensate IMG. Texas has a contract with IMG and they may already have language in their IMG agreements to alter such agreements. The BIG 12 doesn't have to do anything in practical terms or legal terms except that which the membership agrees for it to do. You have no idea what will be necessary to "make Texas whole" or even if Texas will demand that they "be made whole", or even what form of an agreement rolling the LHN into a BIG 12 network will take. Yet for some reason you persist with coming up with negative fantasies about what will be necessary? This isn't make believe--the BIG 12 has INTERNAL plans about these issues--don't worry they'll work it out without your "guidance".

About your last comment--who is on another conference's board 24/7? What's that--YOU? Thought so.

Right, conferences don't give details. The point is, that cuts both ways. You are assuming that there is some sort of plan. Silence doesn't prove a plan. You just automatically assume that something is going on behind closed doors. It's just as possible that "behind closed doors" the Big 12 has figured out that Boren's idea isn't going to work.

On the "make Texas whole" business, you are just grasping at straws. You started out by saying that Boren's plan is to convince Texas to give up the LHN by making them whole. You said that, not me. Now, you are backtracking and saying that Texas may not even demand to be made whole. Ok, well then why did Boren bring it up in the first place? I'm not coming up with fantasies. I'm pointing out practical issues that have to be dealt with. You just stick your head in the said and ignore the issues, because you for some reason have this burning desire to see the Big 12 expand. Whether they do or don't doesn't bother me either way. I'm just pointing out that you are basing your opinion on a lot of assumptions and speculation.

Oh, and being on another "conferences" board doesn't prove anything. Plenty of people post on boards of other teams. Nothing unusual about it. You are just mad that I point out inconsistencies in your theories.

The BIG 12's contracts expire in 2025. Texas isn't going to have a network beyond 2025 unless they join their conference mate's in a BIG 12 network. Otherwise their LHN profits are gone anyway as they must rid themselves of that to go elsewhere and make less money.

Not true. The contract for the LHN runs until June 30th, 2031.

The $15 million is a guarantee, that's all and it is what they have received so far each year because so far ESPN has been losing money with the LHN. Meanwhile, other income continues to increase giving them a substantial surplus. If the LHN suddenly takes off, well good for them!

No, Texas has not been making $15 million each year. They started off at $11 million in 2011, and it gradually increases every year. By the end of the contract, they will be getting about $19 or $20 million a year. I agree that so far ESPN has been losing money, but that's not strictly due to the payout to Texas. They also have payouts to IMG, overhead for the studios, equipment, etc. that is still being paid off, and the like. In other words, the fact that ESPN loses money does not prove Texas has been getting $15 million every year. I posted the contract, and it clearly states that Texas starts off at $11 million, and increases annually.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Right, conferences don't give details. The point is, that cuts both ways. You are assuming that there is some sort of plan. Silence doesn't prove a plan. You just automatically assume that something is going on behind closed doors. It's just as possible that "behind closed doors" the Big 12 has figured out that Boren's idea isn't going to work.

On the "make Texas whole" business, you are just grasping at straws. You started out by saying that Boren's plan is to convince Texas to give up the LHN by making them whole. You said that, not me. Now, you are backtracking and saying that Texas may not even demand to be made whole. Ok, well then why did Boren bring it up in the first place? I'm not coming up with fantasies. I'm pointing out practical issues that have to be dealt with. You just stick your head in the said and ignore the issues, because you for some reason have this burning desire to see the Big 12 expand. Whether they do or don't doesn't bother me either way. I'm just pointing out that you are basing your opinion on a lot of assumptions and speculation.

Oh, and being on another "conferences" board doesn't prove anything. Plenty of people post on boards of other teams. Nothing unusual about it. You are just mad that I point out inconsistencies in your theories.



Not true. The contract for the LHN runs until June 30th, 2031.



No, Texas has not been making $15 million each year. They started off at $11 million in 2011, and it gradually increases every year. By the end of the contract, they will be getting about $19 or $20 million a year. I agree that so far ESPN has been losing money, but that's not strictly due to the payout to Texas. They also have payouts to IMG, overhead for the studios, equipment, etc. that is still being paid off, and the like. In other words, the fact that ESPN loses money does not prove Texas has been getting $15 million every year. I posted the contract, and it clearly states that Texas starts off at $11 million, and increases annually.

Get ready for a mild surprise. I agree with that. IMG payments to WVU increase annually also. But as the income from the Big 12 as well as the MAC increase, the tier 3 income for WVU also becomes a smaller part of the budget on a percentage basis. Both schools currently have a significant surplus in their athletic budgets.

 

[topdecktiger]

Get ready for a mild surprise. I agree with that. IMG payments to WVU increase annually also. But as the income from the Big 12 as well as the MAC increase, the tier 3 income for WVU also becomes a smaller part of the budget on a percentage basis. Both schools currently have a significant surplus in their athletic budgets.

The problem is, the payouts from the Big 12 don't increase as you are claiming. The only part of the payout that has a built in increase is the TV contract. The Big 12's TV contract averages $20 million vs. the LHN average of $15 million. They both increase annually, so the ratio of the disparity between the two won't change very much over time. The rest of the payouts (bowls, NCAA tournament and such) don't have built in increases, and they also vary, such as how many teams make the tournament or the playoffs. So, the percentage of the LHN to the athletic budget isn't going to shrink as much as you are making it out to be. In other words, it's not going to decrease to insignificance.