Big 12 Death Clock Ticking....

[Snowcraig]

Snowcraig, once again AD Gene Smith does not make the decisions about contracts and obligations to the Big Ten. Your citation of him shows you have not researched the subject well enough. OSU President Gordon Gee makes the decisions and luckily that means he considers the academic side even more than the athletic side.

Can you cite any statement or fact that backs up your assertion that OSU or Michigan doesn't care about the Big Ten? You have to remember that the Big Ten is a consortia and an entrenched brotherhood and not just an athletic conference like the Big 12. I've never once heard an AD or President/Chancellor at a Big Ten school complain about revenue sharing. In fact often there has been talk about how it helps all schools (rising tides raise all ships). Also, while CIC membership is not solely Big Ten members, the only member not currently in the Big Ten is the University of Chicago, which at one point was in the Big Ten. The CIC doesn't have an ever changing membership and is in fact tied to the Big Ten. If you took a minute to read their webpage you would see it states "the CIC is a consortium of the Big Ten universities plus the University of Chicago."

With Nebraska, academics was obviously not the sole reason and athletics played a huge role in their acceptance into the Big Ten. Your statement that if it was about academics the Big Ten would have gone for Iowa State over Nebraska is misguided. Under what metric do you find Iowa State well superior to Nebraska in academics? US News and World Reports Undergrad Rankings (ISU - 94 v NEB - 104)? Research Dollars Spent (ISU - $224 mil v NEB - $229 mil)? I don't think there are any University-wide metrics that place ISU definitively over Nebraska in academics. That being said, I would not be surprised to see their academic prowess and research dollars increase substantially from their move.

Your proposition that individual universities in the Big Ten would have better negotiating capacity than the Big Ten as a whole is also a bit flawed in my opinion. While Michigan and OSU have large, loyal fan bases, the disparity in their bargaining power for broadcasting rights over other schools in the conference is much, much less than the disparity between Texas and the other members of the Big 12. Also, the Big Ten is a brand that greatly dwarfs the individual entities. In my opinion, OSU and Michigan are much better off using the leverage of the Big Ten Network and FOX over ESPN/ABC to demand significantly higher contracts each time their existing contract come up.

So while there exists the tiny potential that the Texas deal could have an impact in the Big Ten, the way the current contract is negotiated and the positive opinions of revenue sharing shared by the universities within the Big Ten there really isn't any reason for Iowa or the rest of the Big Ten to worry.

Pretty solid argument. It's refreshing to read something like this over here.

I do have a couple counter points. I never said Gene Smith would be the decision maker, but I don't think it unlikely that he would take the idea to the University president if he saw fit.

I don't know that tOSU would sever their ties with with Big 10. Just like no one here knows if Texas would sever their ties with TAMU, TTU, OU, or BU.


The academic counter you make is solid. My point is that if academics are that important, why was ISU not even on anyone here's radar as a potential addition to the Big 10?


I think you underestimate the impact this will have on other big schools like Florida, USC, etc etc. I really think Texas is the first of many of the power schools that will go this way. Will it lead to conferences breaking up? Who knows, but I think it is a possibility.

 

[bhawk326]

Snowcraig, thank you for the honest remarks and the thoughtful discussion.

You didn't say Gene Smith would have the decision, but I felt like you kind of implied it.

I agree that we don't know if Texas would sever its ties, but I do have to say the language and tone coming from Austin has given the impression they are really only interested in what is best for UT. It appears that the state legislature has been more of the check to keep UT with TAMU, TTU and Baylor.

I think ISU wasn't on the radar because while they had a decent academic standing, the athletics argument was pretty poor. ISU couldn't deliver more households (covered by the University of Iowa), a national following (which Nebraska has) or a highly competitive product (which Nebraska has) in football, the dominant revenue sport. I think to see this as an academic or athletic issue alone would be shortsighted. It was only a school that provided both that would get considered for admission to the conference. I think there are schools where their academics are poor enough where even academic prowess wouldn't be enough to get them in the conference.

I still feel Texas's situation is unique, but agree with you that there could be some ramifications in some other conferences down the road. I actually think if Miami (FL) was still in the Big East that they would be one school that could be looking for a Texas deal. Florida has a little potential, but I still think the SEC brand name and other schools in that conference (Alabama, LSU, Georgia, etc.) keep them from trying to create a rogue deal. USC is probably the best suited for a similar deal, but the current negotiated deal in the PAC 12 has equal revenue sharing (provided the conference makes more than $170 mil in contracts) so there would have to be a change in the contract structure (to something similar to what the Big 12 has now) for this to become a real possibility.

 

[NewMexHawk]

If all of this is so, why would the rest of these teams allows themselves to be pawns to Texas? Why wouldn't these teams just let Texas hang in the wind and not schedule Texas...THAT would benefit these other teams more.

 

[INTIMIDATORHawk]

Off the cuff thoughts on this whole situation after reading the stories and message boards and listening to the radio shows:

Every other team in Big 12 has just become a whore for Texas. Sold their souls to the devil last summer when the conference was "saved".

Well done. There's no sugar-coating it.

 

[74Hunter]

Off the cuff thoughts on this whole situation after reading the stories and message boards and listening to the radio shows:

Every other team in Big 12 has just become a whore for Texas. Sold their souls to the devil last summer when the conference was "saved".

Well done. There's no sugar-coating it.

Pretty much sums it up perfectly.

Whether the Big 12 is around in 5 years is still unclear. It really is up to texa$$. If they can get a better deal for all of their football and basketball games, they will leave the little 9 dangling in the breeze. Will it happen? Only time will tell. Many people think that they will bolt in a few years, and just reading what some have said, I think that this ESPN deal might be the first step to them going independent. Why else would ESPN throw $15 mil. per year one or two bad football games, 10 or so basketball games, non-revenue sports, and musicals and propaganda. I can't imagine that it would make that much money for ESPN, and this is a step to bigger things, but I could be wrong.

If the little 9 keep bending over for texa$$ and give them what they want, it may appease the gluttons for the long haul. The only way that this can can be rectified is if OU, OSU, and A&M tell texa$$ to shove it just like NU and CU did.

 

[BSpringsteen]

I'm sorry Jon but Texas is not setting themselves up to go independent.

Relevancy in CFB is based on BCS. They have a conference right now where they basically compete against one team to go to Tempe. ONE TEAM.

And you want them to play: Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Rice, Baylor, TCU, Boise State, BYU, Notre Dame every year. But then, Oklahoma is going to want to play them too. So will Okie State. Let's say they finish it off with some patsy's. Which path looks easier to the BCS, the independent path, or playing in the Big 12?

And what is your financial incentive for leaving the Big 12. You still have your own TV contract, and you don't have to share revenue. So what's remaining is go to the BCS. The Big 12 is a joke of a conference now, and Texas has the ability to own it.

 

[BSpringsteen]

ONe other thing on the Big 10 schools ought to be worried point up thread.

What does Texas have that no other Big 10 school does?

POPULATION.

Michigan isn't getting it's own TV network, Michigan is the apocalypse.
Ohio does have a good population base, but nothing compared to Texas.

Texas has 4 MM more people than Michigan and Ohio COMBINED.

The reason why the Big 10 network works is because the Big 10 footprint includes the following cities of over 225,000 people: Chicago, Minneapolis, Madison, Milwaukee, Lincoln, Omaha, Indianapolis, Detroit, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia. That doesn't even include cities like Des Moines, Akron, Toledo, Fort Wayne, Lansing, Grand Rapids. Those are a lot of TV sets.

 

[Mesaclone]

ESPNUT | Campus Corner

These guys have it surrounded.

 

[hawkfaninTX]

I don't get this reasoning for leaving the conference at all. So they're going to go play a murderer's row of opponents as an Independent? I doubt that, the easy way to the title game is to just go undefeated. A 10-2 team with wins over seven top 25 teams still wounldn't get in to the title game over an SEC or B10 team that is 13-0 with three or four top 25 wins.

it's not like Notre Dame has to play "murder's row?" but yet if they go undefeated they would almost assuredly get the nod to the NCG.

 

[HawkeyeMike23]

it's not like Notre Dame has to play "murder's row?" but yet if they go undefeated they would almost assuredly get the nod to the NCG.

Yeah that was my point. Texas already has a fairly easy road to get to the BCS title game, without Nebraska they will only face one really elite opponent most years and won't have to deal with a conference title game. Why go independent when you already have an easy route?

 

[hawkfaninTX]

Yeah that was my point. Texas already has a fairly easy road to get to the BCS title game, without Nebraska they will only face one really elite opponent most years and won't have to deal with a conference title game. Why go independent when you already have an easy route?

well I can see how that could be the case, almost a lose/lose situation every game except Oklahoma, no? The real point I was trying to make was that they could still schedule "easy" games. I'm sure they could get middle of the row teams from the SEC/Big East/Big Ten/the conference formerly known as the Big 12/Pac 10/ACC. Pick from this pool and you will still have a quality schedule year in year out:

UCLA - Arizona - Arizona St - A&M - Baylor - Mississippi St - Minnesota - Rutgers - Virginia - Colorado - Cal - Oregon St - Iowa - Illinois - Michigan - Miami - Tennessee - Georgia - Washington - Cincinnati - Utah - TCU - BYU - Texas Tech - Mississippi - FILL IN THE BLANK _________

EDIT: besides the more obvious fact that you could play in one of many BEAUTIFUL facilities (Reliant/Cowboys/etc) outside of Austin in "neutral" site games which would like to seasons like this year for Notre Dame only 4 true road games. THAT MAY be one reason that is very obvious that has not been mentioned yet.

 

[HawkeyeMike23]

well I can see how that could be the case, almost a lose/lose situation every game except Oklahoma, no? The real point I was trying to make was that they could still schedule "easy" games. I'm sure they could get middle of the row teams from the SEC/Big East/Big Ten/the conference formerly known as the Big 12/Pac 10/ACC. Pick from this pool and you will still have a quality schedule year in year out:

UCLA - Arizona - Arizona St - A&M - Baylor - Mississippi St - Minnesota - Rutgers - Virginia - Colorado - Cal - Oregon St - Iowa - Illinois - Michigan - Miami - Tennessee - Georgia - Washington - Cincinnati - Utah - TCU - BYU - Texas Tech - Mississippi - FILL IN THE BLANK _________

EDIT: besides the more obvious fact that you could play in one of many BEAUTIFUL facilities (Reliant/Cowboys/etc) outside of Austin in "neutral" site games which would like to seasons like this year for Notre Dame only 4 true road games. THAT MAY be one reason that is very obvious that has not been mentioned yet.

I don't know how many quality games they would be able to get after September. Conferences are moving towards nine game schedules with the B12 and Pac 12 already having them and the B10 talking about going to it in the future. This means half the teams in those conferences will have five away games each year, you're going to see less and less big nonconference match ups as teams want guaranteed home games instead. Plus with the BCS, being undefeated is more important than quality wins, any team that thinks they have a shot at the title isn't going to want a late season non conference game with Texas on their schedule.

 

[hawkfaninTX]

I don't know how many quality games they would be able to get after September. Conferences are moving towards nine game schedules with the B12 and Pac 12 already having them and the B10 talking about going to it in the future. This means half the teams in those conferences will have five away games each year, you're going to see less and less big nonconference match ups as teams want guaranteed home games instead. Plus with the BCS, being undefeated is more important than quality wins, any team that thinks they have a shot at the title isn't going to want a late season non conference game with Texas on their schedule.

just like Iowa and the rest of the Big Ten will have if 9 games is implemented, a scheduled Bye week is within the conference games. now that does not mean that some will schedule a patsy to be a "filler" - but some schools wanting to make a "splash" would still be able to slide Texas in that Bye - remember not major contending teams, but the midlevel teams in every conference would have Bye's in the second half of the conference schedule.

Plus, with short time to fill a schedule after a canceled series (a la missouri), instead of adding UNI we could have the option to add a quality team like Texas. They would have that as an option with EVERY team in the country.

My rebuttal does not mean i disagree with your point, I was simply saying they would have options to go with.

 

[sportstalkmatt]

I've read a lot of these posts and links to stories that defend each side ...

All you have to ask yourself is - would you spend $15 million per year for 1 football game nobody cares about?

No, you wouldn't.

But you would spend $15 million for 1 game if that guarantees you the right to 11 more games just 5 seasons away of your 20 year deal. The Big 12 better get ready for this threat from Texas:

Give us the ability to carry all our football games on our network or we're going independent. How much farther bent over the Big 12 wants to get will dictate the future of the conference in 2016.

 

[tiberius]

I've read a lot of these posts and links to stories that defend each side ...

All you have to ask yourself is - would you spend $15 million per year for 1 football game nobody cares about?

No, you wouldn't.

But you would spend $15 million for 1 game if that guarantees you the right to 11 more games just 5 seasons away of your 20 year deal. The Big 12 better get ready for this threat from Texas:

Give us the ability to carry all our football games on our network or we're going independent. How much farther bent over the Big 12 wants to get will dictate the future of the conference in 2016.

I realize you and Jon get all excited about the big 12 failing, but why would Texas turn down 20 mil+ from the big 12 with fsn/espn in addition to 15 mil from their own network?

 

[sportstalkmatt]

I realize you and Jon get all excited about the big 12 failing, but why would Texas turn down 20 mil+ from the big 12 with fsn/espn in addition to 15 mil from their own network?

Because if they can get $15 million for the worst game of the year - imagine what ESPN would pay them for the chance to carry their BEST games of the year.

$18 million from Fox Sports is a joke compared to owning their entire schedule. Plus, they wouldn't have to share Bowl revenue. They could stay in the Big 12 for basketball and get the share of money from the conference or move into another DI basketball league.

This move is a power-play, a chess move by Texas. Oklahoma has quickly issued a release about their "network" and how much cash they might get for it but the fact is - Texas will have every football game on their network someday... the question is only - when?

BYU and Texas are the only two networks so far dedicated to one school. BYU is independent and will carry all their football games on their own network. If BYU can do that - you don't think UT is loving the idea of doing so in 2016?

 

[INTIMIDATORHawk]

So......do we know if this Bevo network is going to be a regional thing or something bigger?

How could Texas have all their games on their own network if it isn't nationally offered by the major providers?

As a Dish Network customer, I'm certainly not going to pay extra to see the Bevo network.

 

[tiberius]

Because if they can get $15 million for the worst game of the year - imagine what ESPN would pay them for the chance to carry their BEST games of the year.

$18 million from Fox Sports is a joke compared to owning their entire schedule. Plus, they wouldn't have to share Bowl revenue. They could stay in the Big 12 for basketball and get the share of money from the conference or move into another DI basketball league.

This move is a power-play, a chess move by Texas. Oklahoma has quickly issued a release about their "network" and how much cash they might get for it but the fact is - Texas will have every football game on their network someday... the question is only - when?

BYU and Texas are the only two networks so far dedicated to one school. BYU is independent and will carry all their football games on their own network. If BYU can do that - you don't think UT is loving the idea of doing so in 2016?

I really don't know, but this new Texas network is only going to be relevent in texas. Look at the big 10, there are 11 schools and the programming is pretty pathetic. The BTN model is to strong arm providers into paying a high monthly rate, because the programming is so bad advertising will never cover the costs. Is it really sustainable to pay $1/month to watch 3-4 hours of decent tv a year? At this rate cable/sat bills are going to be 100+/month and who is going to pay this besides proles?

 

[74Hunter]

I really don't know, but this new Texas network is only going to be relevent in texas. Look at the big 10, there are 11 schools and the programming is pretty pathetic. The BTN model is to strong arm providers into paying a high monthly rate, because the programming is so bad advertising will never cover the costs.

texa$$ has a huge following, and they are a national program. whorns fans all across the nation will pay for this.

Much the same as Nebraska. Do you think that the Big 10 wanted us for our 1.7 or 1.8 million people in state? Hell no. We have a national presence, our footprint is nationwide.

I have a feeling that "sportstalkmatt" is that Perrault guy, the guy I don't care for. But his statements have merrit in regards to tu and the bevo network.

The sad (and stupid) thing is that it is all about cash. texa$$ already has more cash than anyone, if they were to forsake the Big 12-2 and go indy for more cash, it may hurt their chances at BCS bowls and MNCs. But since they have only won 1 MNC in the past 40 years, they may not be overly concerned about that.

 

[20eyes]

I've read a lot of these posts and links to stories that defend each side ...

All you have to ask yourself is - would you spend $15 million per year for 1 football game nobody cares about?

No, you wouldn't.

But you would spend $15 million for 1 game if that guarantees you the right to 11 more games just 5 seasons away of your 20 year deal. The Big 12 better get ready for this threat from Texas:

Give us the ability to carry all our football games on our network or we're going independent. How much farther bent over the Big 12 wants to get will dictate the future of the conference in 2016.

So when this happens and UT leaves, the B12 conference ceases to exist? I'm trying to understand the linkage between UT greed and a B12 death clock.