The Badass Big 12

[Mountaineer Steve]

What do you mean when you say I was "wrong about expansion"?

I haven't ever said something specific would happen with expansion, I discussed what the conference was considering and why they were considering it . I agreed with what they were trying to accomplish because those steps would guarantee the long term viability of the conference.

Now UT has blocked all of that- but wants the money from a championship game so pushed the members to give them that even though many of the coaches have not wanted that.

You claim that will be a benefit. It might be better statistically according to the analysts than remaining at ten without one- because the other conferences have one. BUT, that doesn't address if the team that won the first matchup loses the second time around.

In the five years the BIg 12 had rematches previously, 40% of the time the team beaten in the first matchup won the CCG rematch.

40% of the time between 2017 and 2025 will mean that more than 3 of those 8 years the BIG 12 is left out.

The problem with people like you is you can't think past today.

Expansion for "expansions sake" never had anything to do with why the BIG 12 wanted to expand. That was what those opposed to expansion tried to make it into in order to keep the conference from acting in its best interests.
And unfortunately they have succeeded. Expansion was about bringing BIG 12 revenues up to par with their peers long term, and eliminating any competitive disadvantages, as well as setting up a conference network and setting the conference up to have a larger footprint , more inventory and more viewers for the next contract negotiations.

3-5 years from now the BIg 12 will be 3-5 years further behind the Big Ten and SEC in revenues which will make keeping up with them impossible except for- you guessed it, Texas. The BIg 12 will have three- five more years of mediocre viewing and three- five more years of steady negative press. They will have been left out of the playoffs more.

If the BIG 12, after realizing yet again they made a colossal mistake-looks at schools many have been duped into thinking are " worthless commuter schools" 3-5 years down the line? Those schools are going to be 3-5 years removed from revenues, good tv deals, everything that would have allowed them to remain competitive. If they aren't attractive now, what will they be when they haven't been on tv or had competitive revenues or recruiting for another five years?

You as usual bring up the ACC pipe dream that isn't ever going to happen. The ACC isn't going anywhere and in fact WVU fans better hope it doesn't because it's going to have one of the two possible slots left for WVU to remain relevant once UT and OU walk Out with a couple of others. The ACC once again has a grant of rights that doesn't end until 2027. None of their schools are jumping out of that binding legal agreement or coming up with the 50 million buyout costs either.

Doesn't matter anyway because the BIg 12s deal is up in 2025- 2 yrs before the ACC can be even considered for poaching. The Big Tens deal renews in 2023 and the Pacs in 2024- perfect timing for a double raid on the BIG 12 to ensure the Big and PAC continue their partnership and competition is eliminated. The BIg 12 will not get to that next contract because OU and UT won't be a part.

If you think UT or OU are ok with being 3rd in revenue to anyone you need to wake yourself up because you are dreaming.

The Big 12 like you is short sighted. Texas is myopic. The other schools are surely realizing that things may not be rosy down the road, but as usual they are being strung along with "oh we are happy to be third" and " we may still consider expansion" so that they themselves don't mess up the plan of the powers that be by being proactive for themselves. They'll all be searching for a new home relatively soon.

You have been wrong and you are still wrong. The BIG12 is just fine.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/15994651/five-reasons-why-big-12-panicking

1. The league's leaders actually get along
"I don't think there's ever been a better spirit of cooperation," said Boren, OU's president since 1994. "The individuals serving in these various positions in the conference, they're very determined. ... They feel very invested in the Big 12."

The Big 12 has tried to demonstrate its solidarity before, but rarely sounded convincing. This time, there seems to be a genuine desire to work as partners, and not just until the grant of rights expires.

3. A realistic outlook on revenue

Bowlsby's ominous statements about how dithering would damage the Big 12's future financial position might have obscured a general belief within the league: We're not catching the SEC or Big Ten in revenue, and we're OK with it.

Big 12 officials, both publicly and privately are pragmatic about revenue. If the league can be a solid third among Power 5 leagues, and not a distant fifth, the plusses of staying together could outweigh the potential benefits of expanding or, in the cases Texas and Oklahoma, moving to deeper-pocketed conferences.

The return of the title game -- projected to bring in $27 million to $30 million -- was a revenue slam dunk. Friday's financial release also boosted confidence. The Big 12 reported distributing $30.4 million to its members for fiscal year 2015-16 -- a 20 percent increase from the previous year -- putting it third among Power 5 leagues.

The ACC and Pac-12 have more members, but is their long-term outlook much better than the Big 12's?

The ACC Network still isn't off the ground, and commissioner John Swofford's vague comments about the negotiations last month, combined with the market changes, doesn't inspire excitement. Remember, if the Big Ten expands again, its desired choices likely would be ACC schools, not Big 12 schools.

The Pac-12's distribution difficulties with its network haven't led to the revenue windfall members had expected. There has been grumbling about commissioner Larry Scott, who recently went all Big 12 on longtime UCLA athletic director Dan Guerrero for botching the satellite camp vote. After nearly winning the realignment sweepstakes with Texas, Oklahoma and four other Big 12 schools, the Pac-12 has lost pizzazz.

The return of the title game -- projected to bring in $27 million to $30 million -- was a revenue slam dunk. Friday's financial release also boosted confidence. The Big 12 reported distributing $30.4 million to its members for fiscal year 2015-16 -- a 20 percent increase from the previous year -- putting it third among Power 5 leagues.
The Big 12's revenue model creates internal inequalities, but if the baseline distribution continues to rise and members capitalize on their third-tier freedom, everyone could be satisfied.

"It's something we actually like. We are all able to go out and find deals or contracts to help fit each other best," Kansas AD Sheahon Zenger said. "At Kansas, our contract with Time Warner allows us to have an additional 70 productions a year. Our coaches and our student-athletes love the fact that they're on TV all the time. If you're on a conference network, volleyball might only be on once or twice."

"That can be very substantial," Boren added. "That helps close the gap, the differential, between the Big 12 and some of the other conferences because our schools have been very creative."

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Yep, not crazy at all.

They haven't pointed out anything, and the only thing I was wrong about was that the conference would adopt a ridiculously bad idea10 team CCG that will put them at a huge disadvantage to the other P5s than what they feared previously. A few of those other posters have helped to ensure a struggle for WVU in the near future -with the help of some like you. They've helped ensure the conferences they root for will be better positioned and better able to pick off WVUs conference mates, and you helped them.

WOW, It is delusional to think what you and I say on these messages boards has any real impact on the future of the BIG12 and WVU?

Now if we were a MAJOR booster at say WVU, Texas, or OU, our opinions might matter. Since we are not our opinions are not relevant.

In BTW, your entire opinion is wrong.

 

[skygusty]

You have been wrong and you are still wrong. The BIG12 is just fine.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/15994651/five-reasons-why-big-12-panicking

1. The league's leaders actually get along
"I don't think there's ever been a better spirit of cooperation," said Boren, OU's president since 1994. "The individuals serving in these various positions in the conference, they're very determined. ... They feel very invested in the Big 12."

The Big 12 has tried to demonstrate its solidarity before, but rarely sounded convincing. This time, there seems to be a genuine desire to work as partners, and not just until the grant of rights expires.

3. A realistic outlook on revenue

Bowlsby's ominous statements about how dithering would damage the Big 12's future financial position might have obscured a general belief within the league: We're not catching the SEC or Big Ten in revenue, and we're OK with it.

Big 12 officials, both publicly and privately are pragmatic about revenue. If the league can be a solid third among Power 5 leagues, and not a distant fifth, the plusses of staying together could outweigh the potential benefits of expanding or, in the cases Texas and Oklahoma, moving to deeper-pocketed conferences.

The return of the title game -- projected to bring in $27 million to $30 million -- was a revenue slam dunk. Friday's financial release also boosted confidence. The Big 12 reported distributing $30.4 million to its members for fiscal year 2015-16 -- a 20 percent increase from the previous year -- putting it third among Power 5 leagues.

The ACC and Pac-12 have more members, but is their long-term outlook much better than the Big 12's?

The ACC Network still isn't off the ground, and commissioner John Swofford's vague comments about the negotiations last month, combined with the market changes, doesn't inspire excitement. Remember, if the Big Ten expands again, its desired choices likely would be ACC schools, not Big 12 schools.

The Pac-12's distribution difficulties with its network haven't led to the revenue windfall members had expected. There has been grumbling about commissioner Larry Scott, who recently went all Big 12 on longtime UCLA athletic director Dan Guerrero for botching the satellite camp vote. After nearly winning the realignment sweepstakes with Texas, Oklahoma and four other Big 12 schools, the Pac-12 has lost pizzazz.

The return of the title game -- projected to bring in $27 million to $30 million -- was a revenue slam dunk. Friday's financial release also boosted confidence. The Big 12 reported distributing $30.4 million to its members for fiscal year 2015-16 -- a 20 percent increase from the previous year -- putting it third among Power 5 leagues.
The Big 12's revenue model creates internal inequalities, but if the baseline distribution continues to rise and members capitalize on their third-tier freedom, everyone could be satisfied.

"It's something we actually like. We are all able to go out and find deals or contracts to help fit each other best," Kansas AD Sheahon Zenger said. "At Kansas, our contract with Time Warner allows us to have an additional 70 productions a year. Our coaches and our student-athletes love the fact that they're on TV all the time. If you're on a conference network, volleyball might only be on once or twice."

"That can be very substantial," Boren added. "That helps close the gap, the differential, between the Big 12 and some of the other conferences because our schools have been very creative."

There is also the fact that last year Texas was #2 and Oklahoma was #8 in sports revenue. Those numbers will probably only go up after this years increase and the CCG. Lets be honest, Texas and Oklahoma don't REALLY care that the Big12 is third in revenue (except maybe for some prestige issues) as long as THEIR revenue puts them near the top of the heap, and it does. They have a golden goose in the Big12 and it sounds like they know it. It sounds like they also realize that the financial benefits of expansion are marginal and the damage to prestige is not only perceived but real.

If the BIG10 could make an offer today, I'm thinking they would rather add the population rich states of Virginia and North Carolina, which would not only balloon revenue for the BIG10 network, but would bring in two more teams that don't really threaten Michigan and OSU on the field. Oklahoma brings a pretty small population, relatively speaking, but also a team capable of competing for the title. The fact that they are not AAU also makes them less desirable. This doesn't mean the Big10 would not consider Kansas-Oklahoma, but I bet they would prefer to continue to expand on the east coast.

The idea that people on a WVU message board were influential in getting Texas to follow their predictable and anticipated self-interest and oppose expansion is beyond absurd.

 

[Buckaineer]

Texas is at the top of the heap.of everyone. But that won't last if nothing changes.

OU makes about five million profit from sooner sports.

That isn't enough to keep up with the Big Ten or SEC.

These schools are not ok with being third fiddle.

They publicly say everything is ok because they don't want others in their conference doing anything.
The conference could vote to expand without UT and OU which would complicate their exit plans.

So they string people along. Everything is great! Best ever. Meanwhile behind closed doors they talk with others and make plans.

It is too bad people try to pretend social media has no influence on people when in reality it has a huge impact.

 

[Buckaineer]

There is also the fact that last year Texas was #2 and Oklahoma was #8 in sports revenue. Those numbers will probably only go up after this years increase and the CCG. Lets be honest, Texas and Oklahoma don't REALLY care that the Big12 is third in revenue (except maybe for some prestige issues) as long as THEIR revenue puts them near the top of the heap, and it does. They have a golden goose in the Big12 and it sounds like they know it. It sounds like they also realize that the financial benefits of expansion are marginal and the damage to prestige is not only perceived but real.

If the BIG10 could make an offer today, I'm thinking they would rather add the population rich states of Virginia and North Carolina, which would not only balloon revenue for the BIG10 network, but would bring in two more teams that don't really threaten Michigan and OSU on the field. Oklahoma brings a pretty small population, relatively speaking, but also a team capable of competing for the title. The fact that they are not AAU also makes them less desirable. This doesn't mean the Big10 would not consider Kansas-Oklahoma, but I bet they would prefer to continue to expand on the east coast.

The idea that people on a WVU message board were influential in getting Texas to follow their predictable and anticipated self-interest and oppose expansion is beyond absurd.

And people say I'm crazy.

I'll put it in bold so you get it through your thick head:

THE ACC HAS A GRANT OF RIGHTS THROUGH 2027. IT DOESNT MATTER WHO WANTS THEIR SCHOOLS OR NOT- THEY RENT GOING ANYWHERE.

The big 12 s media rights expire in 2025. There are two years in between 20205 and 2027. The BIg 12 can't accomplish anything two years after their contracts are up--- they have to expand BEFORE their contracts are up

 

[skygusty]

And people say I'm crazy.

I'll put it in bold so you get it through your thick head:

THE ACC HAS A GRANT OF RIGHTS THROUGH 2027. IT DOESNT MATTER WHO WANTS THEIR SCHOOLS OR NOT- THEY RENT GOING ANYWHERE.

The big 12 s media rights expire in 2025. There are two years in between 20205 and 2027. The BIg 12 can't accomplish anything two years after their contracts are up--- they have to expand BEFORE their contracts are up

Adding two G5 teams would not stop Texas from leaving. If anything, it would give them another reason to leave for a more prestigious conference that hasn't compromised their standards. Can't you get it through YOUR thick head that Texas does not want to expand with G5 teams and that nothing you say would ever convince them that they should? If Texas leaves, Oklahoma is definitely out the door because it is Texas that brings the money and Texas that brings the biggest rival that OU has. No school in their right mind wants Texas to leave so they can bring in Cincy and UCONN and maybe lose OU anyway. The data presented was clearly not convincing to anybody that adding G5 teams was worth it in terms of either money or prestige. Boren has the brains to see this but you don't. The BIG10 is in no hurry, they can afford to wait for their best opportunity even if that is 15 or 20 years. If they don't add Kansas or OU or Virginia or UNC or anybody, they will still be fine. Neither the Big10 or the SEC is going to be adding teams like Cincy, UCONN, Memphis or UCF to the BIG10. Not even the ACC is interested in those teams. Talk about taking a psychological back seat...

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Texas is at the top of the heap.of everyone. But that won't last if nothing changes.

OU makes about five million profit from sooner sports.

That isn't enough to keep up with the Big Ten or SEC.

These schools are not ok with being third fiddle.

They publicly say everything is ok because they don't want others in their conference doing anything.
The conference could vote to expand without UT and OU which would complicate their exit plans.

So they string people along. Everything is great! Best ever. Meanwhile behind closed doors they talk with others and make plans.

It is too bad people try to pretend social media has no influence on people when in reality it has a huge impact.

Oh so wait, when Boren says something that meets your agenda it is gospel, but when it is something that does not meet it, it is a lie. You are so delusional it isn't funny

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Adding two G5 teams would not stop Texas from leaving. If anything, it would give them another reason to leave for a more prestigious conference that hasn't compromised their standards. Can't you get it through YOUR thick head that Texas does not want to expand with G5 teams and that nothing you say would ever convince them that they should? If Texas leaves, Oklahoma is definitely out the door because it is Texas that brings the money and Texas that brings the biggest rival that OU has. No school in their right mind wants Texas to leave so they can bring in Cincy and UCONN and maybe lose OU anyway. The data presented was clearly not convincing to anybody that adding G5 teams was worth it in terms of either money or prestige. Boren has the brains to see this but you don't. The BIG10 is in no hurry, they can afford to wait for their best opportunity even if that is 15 or 20 years. If they don't add Kansas or OU or Virginia or UNC or anybody, they will still be fine. The Big10 is definitely not going to be adding teams like Cincy, UCONN, Memphis or UCF to the BIG10.

Also the numbers I heard being bated around for expansion is 500m for 2 teams for the length of the contract. That sounds like a lot, but when you look deeper it really isn't. We know there is a Pro Rata share clause in BIG12 contract. Current TV money is about 25m per team. Two teams 10 years at 25m a piece comes out to be 500m. So where is the extra money for the BIG12N? Did the research come back that the money isn't there and that is the reason Boren has taken an about face? Boren isn't one to let Texas role over him, so something must have been shared that does not make expansion look so rosy.

 

[skygusty]

Also the numbers I heard being bated around for expansion is 500m for 2 teams for the length of the contract. That sounds like a lot, but when you look deeper it really isn't. We know there is a Pro Rata share clause in BIG12 contract. Current TV money is about 25m per team. Two teams 10 years at 25m a piece comes out to be 500m. So where is the extra money for the BIG12N? Did the research come back that the money isn't there and that is the reason Boren has taken an about face? Boren isn't one to let Texas role over him, so something must have been shared that does not make expansion look so rosy.

They would make some money by bringing new teams in at a partial share for a few years, but long term, it isn't there. The CCG will add more to the current 10 team members long term than adding two more teams at pro rata. Two more teams sharing the CCG windfall would actually be dilutive because the 30 million would be shared 12 ways instead of 10. Neither Texas or Oklahoma want to be seen as desperate enough to add new schools that no one else wants, that don't fit their academic profile, ESPECIALLY if there is no money in it.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

What do you mean when you say I was "wrong about expansion"?

I haven't ever said something specific would happen with expansion, I discussed what the conference was considering and why they were considering it . I agreed with what they were trying to accomplish because those steps would guarantee the long term viability of the conference.

Now UT has blocked all of that- but wants the money from a championship game so pushed the members to give them that even though many of the coaches have not wanted that.

Another Boren comment proving you have been wrong about the network

Oklahoma president David Boren publicly drove a stake through the idea of a conference network. "That boat has sailed," Boren said, adding that the changing TV marketplace has decided for the Big 12.

 

[Buckaineer]

Another Boren comment proving you have been wrong about the network

Oklahoma president David Boren publicly drove a stake through the idea of a conference network. "That boat has sailed," Boren said, adding that the changing TV marketplace has decided for the Big 12.

I've been wrong? I said Boren and others were pushing a network because it would increase revenues.

What stopped it? The LHN and UTs refusal to merge it.

 

[Buckaineer]

Oh so wait, when Boren says something that meets your agenda it is gospel, but when it is something that does not meet it, it is a lie. You are so delusional it isn't funny

Boren has been saying the Sooners make $5 million from their network, and he said that if the league doesn't make improvements then he'll have to look at their future position (which most construed as their conference affiliation in the future). He isn't going to harm his school, so saying they failed to achieve those things isn't coming out of his mouth since he has to remain in the conference through 2025 no matter what.

Still, when someone with more stability and money comes around, what will stop them from going?

Nothing.

OUs fanbase-pushed by those from other conferences that want the sooners- has raised hell about remaining in the BIG 12 (you know, the one that doesn't influence anything via social media) and it has been heard at the top.

Meanwhile you keep on dreaming about the ACC falling apart and keep making personal attacks towards me--its alot easier than dealing with reality I"m sure.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

I've been wrong? I said Boren and others were pushing a network because it would increase revenues.

What stopped it? The LHN and UTs refusal to merge it.

I suggest you reread Boren's comments.

"That boat has sailed," Boren said,adding that the changing TV marketplace has decided for the Big 12.

I repeat to you Buck, It is the marketplace that has decided Meaning the money is not there.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Boren has been saying the Sooners make $5 million from their network, and he said that if the league doesn't make improvements then he'll have to look at their future position (which most construed as their conference affiliation in the future). He isn't going to harm his school, so saying they failed to achieve those things isn't coming out of his mouth since he has to remain in the conference through 2025 no matter what.

Still, when someone with more stability and money comes around, what will stop them from going?

Nothing.

OUs fanbase-pushed by those from other conferences that want the sooners- has raised hell about remaining in the BIG 12 (you know, the one that doesn't influence anything via social media) and it has been heard at the top.

Meanwhile you keep on dreaming about the ACC falling apart and keep making personal attacks towards me--its alot easier than dealing with reality I"m sure.

You are a hypocrite. When Boren says something you agree with it, it is the gospal according to Buck. When he now says something totally different you do disagree with it is a lie.

 

[Buckaineer]

Also the numbers I heard being bated around for expansion is 500m for 2 teams for the length of the contract. That sounds like a lot, but when you look deeper it really isn't. We know there is a Pro Rata share clause in BIG12 contract. Current TV money is about 25m per team. Two teams 10 years at 25m a piece comes out to be 500m. So where is the extra money for the BIG12N? Did the research come back that the money isn't there and that is the reason Boren has taken an about face? Boren isn't one to let Texas role over him, so something must have been shared that does not make expansion look so rosy.

$500 million "isn't alot". OK

Everyone knows that if teams were added, they would have a "buy in" of at least four years. Where does the rest of that money go during that time? The existing members.

Boren hasn't changed what he has said. If there were a conference network--schools could make much more in revenue. With just expansion alone but no network, they can make slight increases.

Texas doesn't want any of it but the money from the CCG through 2025 and nothing keeping them from ruling the conference through then (such as more members with a vote they can't control). So, they must string along everyone else to keep them from voting for their best interest between now and 2025. Then UT can do whatever it wants.

Boren has to go on through 2025 so has to keep his cards close to the vest and smile until then.

 

[Buckaineer]

You are a hypocrite. When Boren says something you agree with it, it is the gospal according to Buck. When he now says something totally different you do disagree with it is a lie.

Lie, personal attack and lie.

 

[Buckaineer]

I suggest you reread Boren's comments.

"That boat has sailed," Boren said,adding that the changing TV marketplace has decided for the Big 12.

I repeat to you Buck, It is the marketplace that has decided Meaning the money is not there.

And I suggest you reread this from UT's AD the day before:

excerpt:
IRVING, Texas -- Texas athletic director Mike Perrin said Wednesday that he would oppose Big 12 expansion and added "it would take a lot" for the school to give up the Longhorn Network.

"I think the prudent thing for us to do as a conference is stay where we are," Perrin said.

and as to the LHN

"My position is that we shouldn't disturb it."

http://www.espn.co.uk/college-football/story/_/id/15887892/mike-perrin-texas-longhorns-athletic-director-says-big-12-expansion

prior to that the conference was moving forward with the idea of a conference network and Boren had reported that consultants had told them each school was losing 4-6 mil per year without the network--which you conveniently ignore because it doesn't fit your mistaken agenda.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

And people say I'm crazy.

I'll put it in bold so you get it through your thick head:

THE ACC HAS A GRANT OF RIGHTS THROUGH 2027. IT DOESNT MATTER WHO WANTS THEIR SCHOOLS OR NOT- THEY RENT GOING ANYWHERE.

The big 12 s media rights expire in 2025. There are two years in between 20205 and 2027. The BIg 12 can't accomplish anything two years after their contracts are up--- they have to expand BEFORE their contracts are up

It has been reported that Swofford promised FSU presidents and Board, that an ACCN by 2017 in order to get FSU to sign GOR. If that is true FSU has a legal loop whole to break this through the courts.

In 2015 Edward Burr, a FSU Trustee had the following to say about the GOR and ACCN
The goals mentioned by conference athletic directors and presidents have been 2016 or 2017 - but Burr said he would like to see signs of tangible progress. He reminded the other trustees that the channel's viability was one of the reasons FSU agreed to the Grant of Rights. Before that agreement was approved, Swofford traveled to Tallahassee and met individually with each trustee to offer them assurances about the conference's future.
There was "a big commitment from the conference to this university a few years ago on that issue. I'm sure no one's forgotten,

 

[Buckaineer]

They would make some money by bringing new teams in at a partial share for a few years, but long term, it isn't there. The CCG will add more to the current 10 team members long term than adding two more teams at pro rata. Two more teams sharing the CCG windfall would actually be dilutive because the 30 million would be shared 12 ways instead of 10. Neither Texas or Oklahoma want to be seen as desperate enough to add new schools that no one else wants, that don't fit their academic profile, ESPECIALLY if there is no money in it.

Adding schools would increase each existing schools revenues by a million or two per year (at least) not including extra revenue from the buy in period.

Texas doesn't want more schools because they want to continue controlling the conference and more schools means more votes they can't control.

OU tried to make improvements, but if you can't get a network-dependent on the merging of the LHN and expansion, then there's no way to boost revenues to the point where you are on par with your peer conferences.

Now its just surviving until 2025 when they can do what they wanted in UTs case, and what they must in OUs.

 

[Buckaineer]

It has been reported that Swofford promised FSU presidents and Board, that an ACCN by 2017 in order to get FSU to sign GOR. If that is true FSU has a legal loop whole to break this through the courts.

In 2015 Edward Burr, a FSU Trustee had the following to say about the GOR and ACCN
The goals mentioned by conference athletic directors and presidents have been 2016 or 2017 - but Burr said he would like to see signs of tangible progress. He reminded the other trustees that the channel's viability was one of the reasons FSU agreed to the Grant of Rights. Before that agreement was approved, Swofford traveled to Tallahassee and met individually with each trustee to offer them assurances about the conference's future.
There was "a big commitment from the conference to this university a few years ago on that issue. I'm sure no one's forgotten,

Brings a remembrance of that famous Everly bros. song:

Dream -dream dream dream
Dream -dream dream dream
When I want you in my arms (conference)
When I want you and all your charms
Whenever I want you all I have to do is
Dream -dream dream dream

Once again, the ACC has a grant of rights through 2027 and a $50 million plus buyout. Those are legally binding things that don't dissapear because you want them to. Not sure why some just can't comprehend this.
In 2027, the ACC schools there now, will still be in that conference.

Two or three years prior the BIG 12 will have had to renegotiate its contracts. The two do not correlate.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Lie, personal attack and lie.

It isn't a lie. You repeated over and over the two quotes from Bowlsby and Boren when they were both saying BIG12 had to expand, and they were leaving a pile of money on the table without expansion and Network.

But according to you, Boren is lying when he says

The Big12 is as strong as ever, everyone is getting along are on the same page, and further more regarding expansion quote "That boat has sailed," Boren said,adding that the changing TV marketplace has decided for the Big 12.

 

[GetYaNumbersUp]

Now that the expansion ship has sailed, Buck can actually do something constructive with his time. Find a different hobby, get a job, meet a girlfriend, etc.

I'll never understand why you were so hellbent on adding Uconn and Cinci.

 

[Buckaineer]

Adding two G5 teams would not stop Texas from leaving. If anything, it would give them another reason to leave for a more prestigious conference that hasn't compromised their standards. Can't you get it through YOUR thick head that Texas does not want to expand with G5 teams and that nothing you say would ever convince them that they should? If Texas leaves, Oklahoma is definitely out the door because it is Texas that brings the money and Texas that brings the biggest rival that OU has. No school in their right mind wants Texas to leave so they can bring in Cincy and UCONN and maybe lose OU anyway. The data presented was clearly not convincing to anybody that adding G5 teams was worth it in terms of either money or prestige. Boren has the brains to see this but you don't. The BIG10 is in no hurry, they can afford to wait for their best opportunity even if that is 15 or 20 years. If they don't add Kansas or OU or Virginia or UNC or anybody, they will still be fine. Neither the Big10 or the SEC is going to be adding teams like Cincy, UCONN, Memphis or UCF to the BIG10. Not even the ACC is interested in those teams. Talk about taking a psychological back seat...

Adding two G5 schools would increase Texas' revenue and reach beyond what they are today and also give them a stronger and more stable conference as other members achieved more equitable revenues as they do in all the other conferences. It would also set them up for a lucrative future tv contract.

Texas didn't want to expand WITH ANYONE--but you can't get that through your thick head. They want control.
In a ten team conference requiring 8 votes to get things passed, they have it. Add two more schools and they lose control.

You continue to whine and moan and lie about schools like Cincinnati and UConn and forget that OKLAHOMA was at the forefront of pushing for positive changes with these schools. You also ignore that when OU leaves because the conference has many members millions behind other schools and even OU also has lost position from where they are today and the conference has remained at a competitive disadvantage and been left out of the playoff as a result several times-and theres been negative exposure for years and little chance of a better tv network--WVU isn't going to have to worry about schools like OU and UT because they will never play them again after theyve moved on.

Its been UTs plan all along--keep the conference as is until they decide which way to go. As long as they are top dog financially they are great. As soon as it changes (and it will before 2025) then suddenly, letting go of the LHN will be ok (as long as its in another conference). OU tried, but couldn't get past UT's control of other schools.

When WVU's schedule is FILLED with the Cincinnati's, UConn's , Temple's, SMU's etc. perhaps you'll understand, but I doubt it.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

And I suggest you reread this from UT's AD the day before:

excerpt:
IRVING, Texas -- Texas athletic director Mike Perrin said Wednesday that he would oppose Big 12 expansion and added "it would take a lot" for the school to give up the Longhorn Network.

"I think the prudent thing for us to do as a conference is stay where we are," Perrin said.

and as to the LHN

"My position is that we shouldn't disturb it."

http://www.espn.co.uk/college-football/story/_/id/15887892/mike-perrin-texas-longhorns-athletic-director-says-big-12-expansion

prior to that the conference was moving forward with the idea of a conference network and Boren had reported that consultants had told them each school was losing 4-6 mil per year without the network--which you conveniently ignore because it doesn't fit your mistaken agenda.

Since the meeting last week and ALL the data was presented to the BIG12, (Data I might add the Conference paid 10's of thousands if not more 100's of thousands), said how much revenue is being lost without a network?

In addition and from the post meetings Bowlsby said.


"We certainly consider there to be an array of options," Bowlsby said as the league wrapped up three days of meetings. "We saw compelling data and had good discussions about the championship game. I think it's fair to say, I think, there were still some questions raised about whether adding members was going to be the right thing or if in the end it was going to be dilutive

 

[Buckaineer]

Since the meeting last week and ALL the data was presented to the BIG12, (Data I might add the Conference paid 10's of thousands if not more 100's of thousands), said how much revenue is being lost without a network?

In addition and from the post meetings Bowlsby said.


"We certainly consider there to be an array of options," Bowlsby said as the league wrapped up three days of meetings. "We saw compelling data and had good discussions about the championship game. I think it's fair to say, I think, there were still some questions raised about whether adding members was going to be the right thing or if in the end it was going to be dilutive

questions raised by WHO--Texas of course. And people in social media pushing an agenda that affected the decision making process.

Note that Bowlsby didn't say the data showed that adding members was going to be the right thing or not--just that some raised questions.

 

[skygusty]

Adding two G5 schools would increase Texas' revenue and reach beyond what they are today and also give them a stronger and more stable conference as other members achieved more equitable revenues as they do in all the other conferences. It would also set them up for a lucrative future tv contract.

Texas didn't want to expand WITH ANYONE--but you can't get that through your thick head. They want control.
In a ten team conference requiring 8 votes to get things passed, they have it. Add two more schools and they lose control.

You continue to whine and moan and lie about schools like Cincinnati and UConn and forget that OKLAHOMA was at the forefront of pushing for positive changes with these schools. You also ignore that when OU leaves because the conference has many members millions behind other schools and even OU also has lost position from where they are today and the conference has remained at a competitive disadvantage and been left out of the playoff as a result several times-and theres been negative exposure for years and little chance of a better tv network--WVU isn't going to have to worry about schools like OU and UT because they will never play them again after theyve moved on.

Its been UTs plan all along--keep the conference as is until they decide which way to go. As long as they are top dog financially they are great. As soon as it changes (and it will before 2025) then suddenly, letting go of the LHN will be ok (as long as its in another conference). OU tried, but couldn't get past UT's control of other schools.

When WVU's schedule is FILLED with the Cincinnati's, UConn's , Temple's, SMU's etc. perhaps you'll understand, but I doubt it.

Funny how you know more about Texas' interest than they do. I would be fine with Cinci and UCONN or Memphis and Colorado State if the conference was fine with it. Apparently you don't understand that the conference wasn't OK with it, Texas wasn't OK with it, and apparently enough other schools weren't OK with it. Too bad you couldn't figure out how to get Texas to act against their own self interest and listen to you, another anonymous message board poster with OCD. Instead of pissing and moaning to a bunch of message board time wasters I guess you should have worked harder somewhere that it mattered. You can't get it through your thick head that if Texas has a plan to leave without expansion then they have a plan to leave with expansion. There isn't anything you can do about it. There is nothing Boren can do about it. I understand that there is a possible future for WVU that looks a lot like the AAC if Texas and Oklahoma pursue their own self interests elsewhere. If they don't agree with you about what is in their own self interest you should take it up with them. But no, since you could never get anyone in an official capacity to give you the time of day, you would rather delude yourself that you have some influence over a process that doesn't even know you exist. Seek help.

 

[Buckaineer]

It isn't a lie. You repeated over and over the two quotes from Bowlsby and Boren when they were both saying BIG12 had to expand, and they were leaving a pile of money on the table without expansion and Network.

But according to you, Boren is lying when he says

The Big12 is as strong as ever, everyone is getting along are on the same page, and further more regarding expansion quote "That boat has sailed," Boren said,adding that the changing TV marketplace has decided for the Big 12.

I didn't say Boren is lying. The boat has sailed. Texas wasn't going to give up the LHN so there's no chance of a full conference network. Before Texas said that wasn't likely to happen, Boren's position was that not only was it a good idea, consultants had told him that a conference network would add $4 to $6 million per school. Are you still denying that he said that? If so YOU are lying.

What, did you think Boren would come out, call UT on the carpet and say "Texas isn't going to give up the LHN so there's no chance for us to have a network"? Of course not, he made an ambiguous statement without providing any facts to placate UT.

Now Boren will play politics as long as he must--until about 2023-around 7 years from now.

 

[Buckaineer]

Funny how you know more about Texas' interest than they do. I would be fine with Cinci and UCONN or Memphis and Colorado State if the conference was fine with it. Apparently you don't understand that the conference wasn't OK with it, Texas wasn't OK with it, and apparently enough other schools weren't OK with it. Too bad you couldn't figure out how to get Texas to act against their own self interest and listen to you, another anonymous message board poster with OCD. Instead of pissing and moaning to a bunch of message board time wasters I guess you should have worked harder somewhere that it mattered. You can't get it through your thick head that if Texas has a plan to leave without expansion then they have a plan to leave with expansion. There isn't anything you can do about it. There is nothing Boren can do about it. I understand that there is a possible future for WVU that looks a lot like the AAC if Texas and Oklahoma pursue their own self interests elsewhere. If they don't agree with you about what is in their own self interest you should take it up with them. But no, since you could never get anyone in an official capacity to give you the time of day, you would rather delude yourself that you have some influence over a process that doesn't even know you exist. Seek help.

The conference never got to the point of voting on expansion--they told us that is still something they are looking at through the summer. The issue at hand was a conference network which generates the levels of revenue necessary to expand and give everyone a boost to make them competitive with their peers.

As Boren said a week or two ago--if there's no network, there's no reason to expand.

UT stopped the expansion--said themselves they didn't think it was necessary and didn't see the LHN being adjusted in any way.

The next day the conference voted (as UT had requested and suggested the previous day) to have only a CCG with 10 members--because that benefits Texas while expansion helps the entire conference.

Only fools like you said I had "influence". I simply discussed a situation which morons like yourself will obviously never comprehend. You were more than happy to help out anyone trying to wreck the BIG 12 so you should be celebrating the success of your efforts instead of attacking me though. I was for the efforts that would have kept UT and OU happy and in the conference long term while you were playing make believe that the ACC was crumbling and that thousands of fans being stirred up to hate the BIG 12 on social media complaining about schools being in the BIG 12 wouldn't have any affect on the leaders of the schools-- as though they operate in a vacuum.

Your goal is achieved. UT and OU will leave, everyone else will be scrambling unless taken along for the ride and the schools you ridiculed and berated will likely get their turn to turn the tables in a short while.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

I didn't say Boren is lying. The boat has sailed. Texas wasn't going to give up the LHN so there's no chance of a full conference network. Before Texas said that wasn't likely to happen, Boren's position was that not only was it a good idea, consultants had told him that a conference network would add $4 to $6 million per school. Are you still denying that he said that? If so YOU are lying.

What, did you think Boren would come out, call UT on the carpet and say "Texas isn't going to give up the LHN so there's no chance for us to have a network"? Of course not, he made an amiguous statement without providing any facts to placate UT.

Now Boren will play politics as long as he must--until about 2023-around 7 years from now.

Boren said "That boat has sailed," Boren said,adding that the changing TV marketplace has decided for the Big 12. Meaning, Texas did not stop expansion, the marketplace decided.

 

[Charleston Mountie]

Boren said "That boat has sailed," Boren said,adding that the changing TV marketplace has decided for the Big 12. Meaning, Texas did not stop expansion, the marketplace decided.

Steve,

I really like what you have to say all the time but on this one, I think you have stepped into muddy water.

Two themes are being meshed here that are not tied together as they once were and that is a critical development. Boren was originally going for a trifecta - Network + CCG + Expansion.

The market was and is there for all of that, provided everyone in the conference wants the same thing and they don't. The BIg12N has a potential market value if there is no LHN. The CCG obviously has market value because we have been told it is worth at least 30 million and we are going to get one in 2017. Expansion was also a net gain, again because we were told so at roughly 250 million per addition. It was then implied that by adding to our stock of in conference games that a contract renegotiation would be in order. Read that as, an increase in payout and an extension of the time frame.

The market is there - under set circumstances. One thing stood in the way. Texas. Texas has pressured TCU and Texas Tech to mimic their vote stalemating the process so that the LHN remains in tact, the CCG is somewhat dubious because it now makes getting out of the Big12 and into the CFP all that much harder and the expansion question has been pushed back AGAIN.

Texas is all about Texas and never anyone else - ever. This is not news. Arkansas, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska and Texas A&M all now the words to that song and the rest have to be happy to be in the chorus.

The LHN is not about money for Texas, it is about branding which is about EGO. They can't give it up after making such a fuss over it or they lose face. This is the same egocentric mindset that keeps Notre Dame out of a conference. This is a mix of arrogance, egocentrism and a decent dose of schizophrenia on both their administrations. These are the type of people that do not realize the house is on fire until their tie is burning.

No conference is going to be good enough for Texas because no conference is going to see them for how they see themselves. Texas, like Notre Dame is best suited as an independent and think for all involved that is the best outcome for the Big12. Texas needs to go.

So, Steve, as much as you want to bash Buck and my God there are times he deserves it, this is a time to be clear on the topic. Many debates on this board are more about some poster supporting their stance and the expense of being accurate and you have not been one of those, but in this thread you look like one. Buck is always going to be Buck first and damn the facts. He sees things his way and no one else does - usually.

Don't let these debates get personal and you will find that you can get more from the conversation.

 

[BobbyBoucheer]

let me help y'all out

 

[Charleston Mountie]

let me help y'all out

Right now I am more in the mood for bacon, maybe some beer. I find young women take too much energy these days.

 

[Buckaineer]

The facts are all I discuss actually, while others......not so much so you should be concerned about yourselves, not me.

 

[skygusty]

The conference never got to the point of voting on expansion--they told us that is still something they are looking at through the summer. The issue at hand was a conference network which generates the levels of revenue necessary to expand and give everyone a boost to make them competitive with their peers.

As Boren said a week or two ago--if there's no network, there's no reason to expand.

UT stopped the expansion--said themselves they didn't think it was necessary and didn't see the LHN being adjusted in any way.

The next day the conference voted (as UT had requested and suggested the previous day) to have only a CCG with 10 members--because that benefits Texas while expansion helps the entire conference.

Only fools like you said I had "influence". I simply discussed a situation which morons like yourself will obviously never comprehend. You were more than happy to help out anyone trying to wreck the BIG 12 so you should be celebrating the success of your efforts instead of attacking me though. I was for the efforts that would have kept UT and OU happy and in the conference long term while you were playing make believe that the ACC was crumbling and that thousands of fans being stirred up to hate the BIG 12 on social media complaining about schools being in the BIG 12 wouldn't have any affect on the leaders of the schools-- as though they operate in a vacuum.

Your goal is achieved. UT and OU will leave, everyone else will be scrambling unless taken along for the ride and the schools you ridiculed and berated will likely get their turn to turn the tables in a short while.

I have never been fool enough to say you have either influence or basic reading comprehension. You barely understand your own opinions let alone anyone elses. You stopped making sense a long time ago. Sorry you have to resort to name calling but that won't be any more effective than any of your other arguments.

 

[Buckaineer]

I have never been fool enough to say you have either influence or basic reading comprehension. You barely understand your own opinions let alone anyone elses. You stopped making sense a long time ago. Sorry you have to resort to name calling but that won't be any more effective than any of your other arguments.

More childish personal attacks because, lets face it, you have nothing of substance to say and obviously are pissed off that I do.

Your problem, not mine.

 

[skygusty]

What would I have to be pissed off about? I'm enjoying your convoluted logic. Face it. You say you want the Big12 to stay competitive with the Big10 and the SEC but you want them to do so by adding teams that no one else wants. This is apparently not acceptable to either Texas or Oklahoma, maybe not to anyone else in the Big12. The money isn't sufficient, the votes aren't there, the prestige of the league would take a big hit and you aren't getting your way. There is obviously no way to make either Texas or Oklahoma happy by expanding with the teams that are available. You may well be correct that Texas does not want to expand even if Clemson or FSU were available, frankly I'm not sure I do either because I have always said that 10 is the perfect number. This is a moot point because they are not available or interested. Texas and Oklahoma will either stay in the Big12 and reap the benefits as it is or they will act as willful and as stubborn as you believe them to be and leave for the hope of greener pastures as soon as they can. The decision belongs to those two schools. You believe that you see the future clearly when it is obvious that the future always has unforeseen twists. If you can show me a post of yours from 10 years ago that has Louisville, Pitt and Syracuse in the ACC, WVU in the Big12, Maryland and Rutgers in the BIG10 and Texas AM and Mizzou in the SEC then maybe I'll give some weight to your prognosticating powers. Whatever the future is it will be unexpected. Even if your worst fears come true there was never any thing you could have said or done to change Texas or their influence within the conference. Boren tried to force the issue but he couldn't bring it about either. Boren is either telling the truth now or he isn't. Either the conference stands together like they say they will, or they make back room deals to get out. So what? If WVU could make a back door deal to join the SEC or the BIG10 we would do it in a heartbeat and celebrate. You continue to act surprised and offended that Texas wields the power that they hold and serves their selfish interests as they see fit. Duh. You continue with the foolish proposition that if more WVU message board members would have agreed with you, then Texas would have somehow magically voted to expand. You continue with the foolish propostion that those of us who have been skeptical, but willing to wait for the decision from the BIG12 and actually see the data have somehow influenced the outcome in a way you don't like. It is not a personal attack to make the observation that this is delusional thinking. I could care less whether you call me names, make a thousand more posts on the subject or no more posts on the subject. I am only interested in what the BIG12 actually does. That is the only substance that means anything.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

let me help y'all out

Bobby, that's not a badass. As you well know there is what is called noassatall and this surely does not depict that expression either. Instead I would call that niceassandall which is much better. BTW, thank you!

 

[TexasforevEER]

let me help y'all out

 

[TexasforevEER]

Listen fellers.......................I have dated the bikini girl for the last two years. Yes, she looks good but ole Warez is selfish when it comes to his women. Forget about it!

 

[Buckaineer]

What would I have to be pissed off about? I'm enjoying your convoluted logic. Face it. You say you want the Big12 to stay competitive with the Big10 and the SEC but you want them to do so by adding teams that no one else wants. This is apparently not acceptable to either Texas or Oklahoma, maybe not to anyone else in the Big12. The money isn't sufficient, the votes aren't there, the prestige of the league would take a big hit and you aren't getting your way. There is obviously no way to make either Texas or Oklahoma happy by expanding with the teams that are available. You may well be correct that Texas does not want to expand even if Clemson or FSU were available, frankly I'm not sure I do either because I have always said that 10 is the perfect number. This is a moot point because they are not available or interested. Texas and Oklahoma will either stay in the Big12 and reap the benefits as it is or they will act as willful and as stubborn as you believe them to be and leave for the hope of greener pastures as soon as they can. The decision belongs to those two schools. You believe that you see the future clearly when it is obvious that the future always has unforeseen twists. If you can show me a post of yours from 10 years ago that has Louisville, Pitt and Syracuse in the ACC, WVU in the Big12, Maryland and Rutgers in the BIG10 and Texas AM and Mizzou in the SEC then maybe I'll give some weight to your prognosticating powers. Whatever the future is it will be unexpected. Even if your worst fears come true there was never any thing you could have said or done to change Texas or their influence within the conference. Boren tried to force the issue but he couldn't bring it about either. Boren is either telling the truth now or he isn't. Either the conference stands together like they say they will, or they make back room deals to get out. So what? If WVU could make a back door deal to join the SEC or the BIG10 we would do it in a heartbeat and celebrate. You continue to act surprised and offended that Texas wields the power that they hold and serves their selfish interests as they see fit. Duh. You continue with the foolish proposition that if more WVU message board members would have agreed with you, then Texas would have somehow magically voted to expand. You continue with the foolish propostion that those of us who have been skeptical, but willing to wait for the decision from the BIG12 and actually see the data have somehow influenced the outcome in a way you don't like. It is not a personal attack to make the observation that this is delusional thinking. I could care less whether you call me names, make a thousand more posts on the subject or no more posts on the subject. I am only interested in what the BIG12 actually does. That is the only substance that means anything.

Everything you've posted is either an outright lie, total misrepresentation of what has been going on or idiocy at its finest.

You seem to be detached from reality.

In reality the president of OKLAHOMA, seeing a need for the BIG 12 to address its disadvantages competitively ( less able to make playoff than others) and financially ( falling behind the Big Ten and SEC in per member revenues by an ever increasing amount) and from a psychological standpoint with not much positive exposure or influence compared to others- proposed that rather than doing things piece by piece - the league ( not buckaineer) should address all of these issues at the same time. Expansion which makes it possible to have a network and made a CCG make sense to add. These things would greatly increase revenues for everyone, give everyone more exposure, and eliminate any competitive disadvantages.

Some could only look at the issue emotionally ( should ring a bell with you) so the conference hired consultants to study the issue, report back to everyone in the spring and summer meeting and then decisions could be made.

In the meantime, not wanting the Big 12 to do anything proactive, many launched a groundswell campaign on social media to paint a very negative picture of everything the conference was trying to do. Actual fans of the conference were quickly duped into the full buy in of " no one available", "no money", " can't do this or that in only the BIg 12", "just wait" etc.

With UT and OU social media targeted along with other schools in the conference, the fans as expected raised hell and soon that went up the food chain. Some misguided and mislead fans joined in to harm their own programs down the road --all the while claiming social media has no influence, but viciously attacking anyone that agreed with positive improvements for the conference and trying to silence any such voices. Ask yourself why it's so important to you to silence anyone with a positive view of comprehensive improvements on a message board if social media has no impact?

With all the noise coming from the fanbases, getting anything done became extremely difficult at the leadership level.

When the meetings came about UT went into action with board members communicating with OU board members to stop any expansion and UTs social media outlets declaring everything dead before the meetings even began. Then prior to the full distribution and examination of the data at the meetings, UT virtually declared they liked things as they are, thought expansion should just be an ongoing conversation, and didn't intend to do anything with the LHN. They informed everyone that having a 10 team CCG would be "intriguing" but nothing else should happen to keep them happy.

Thus, the very next day, suddenly no network, more "study" on expansion indefinitely, and magically a ten team CCG happened. OUs president smiled, did the politically correct thing of declaring the conference strong, adding a CCG good, and expansion an ongoing study.

Internally the fanbase of OU now hates the BIG 12 and you can be sure their wishes have made it up the foodchain. UT obviously only has the intention of keeping their options open, which is bad for everyone else. They have duped others into taking no action for themselves until UT walks away, knowing they won't have to worry about the sheepish fanbases of the other schools pushing their schools to do anything but bow to UT.

Seeing your reactions- you are already trying to deflect any blame -while you did everything you could do to wreck WVUs conference future. It may not have been much, a negative post here, a bash of that school there on social media, but it was enough. Every bit adds up.

So stop attacking me, I have no influence according to you, I'm just talking about all this on a message board.