Straight from the horse's mouth, no way to spin it. OU wanted to join with or without Texas, but the PAC will only take them if they get Texas. As we expected
Scott is a somewhat odd fellow. It wasn't just the Texas media trumpeting an impending deal. Just about every football broadcast on ESPN was commenting on how Texas and PAC-12 officials were working out the details in California last weekend.
Part of the A&M agreement with the SEC is no other Texas schools unless A&M approves. They have a gentleman's agreement with Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and Kentucky that all those schools stand together against adding other instate schools hat is why FSU, GT, Clemson, and Louisville are nonstarters though Florida may be lifting it for FSU. They also have no interest in OU, not enough TV sets or academics and OSU is herpes.
something tells me a "gentlemens agreement" in the SEC carries as much weight as aggy sticking to a 10 year conference pact. If we want in, KY, SCar et all will tell aggy "I don't recall that pahticuhlah convuhsation, sir".
Boren says: we reached the decision at the same time as the Pac 12. Uh, yeah, you reached the decision when they told you to get lost and the decision was made for you. In other news, the geek at the high school dance reached the decision not to dance with the hot girl at the same time as she told him no and threw her coke on him. Bin Laden reached the decision to quit hiding at the same time as the seals bust in his house.
You have to remember, however bad this is for OU in terms of their position in the pecking order, it's not exactly a resounding victory for Texas. Larry Scott / the PAC-12 didn't want OU (and OSU) without Texas, so clearly OU's place in the world is a bit limited. It's unclear whether they would've wanted OU without OSU, but they're joined at the hip currently. However, the PAC-12 also did not want Texas, even if getting Texas got them OU (and OSU and Tech) in the bundle. So at best Texas comes out looking exactly like OU -- unwanted. But it's a little worse; all OU was bringing with them was OSU .Texas had OU going along with. So it looks right now like Texas can join any conference it wants, as long as that conference isn't the PAC-12, B1G, ACC, or SEC. It's pretty clear none of them want any part of Texas the way things stand now. A year ago, any of the four would've taken Texas; now, Texas is in the position of having to patch together a Big 12 that's clearly diminished and looks plenty unstable (the rumor mill has already cranked right back up with rumors of Mizzou looking to leave, and there's good reason to believe the rumors based on the announced results of tonight's voting).
How much would we be making in the PAC??? If it is considerably more than the Big12, why dont we re-work the LHN and go west? Sometimes you have to just give a little.
I say we go to the SEC, ask if we can join, let them say yes, watch the Aggies move to the Big East!!! Then back out of the SEC deal.
foolish aggy - Texas was given the required terms for joining the Pac 12 and we CHOSE not to accept. The LHN was not on the table. Now, whether that was a good move is yet to be determined. Some here would prefer to make concessions to it and go ahead and move west. Perhaps that is best, but the Pac 12 isn't going anywhere. The ACC was a pawn from the beginning. We now have 6 years or less to see how successful the LHN will be. It is clearly a game changer, evidenced by aggy choosing not to play with us anymore.
88, Do you really believe what you just wrote, or is this just what you are supposed/wanting to believe?
I hate to speak up for ou, but the issue isn't any mouthbreathing, knucledragging, or poor on field performance. It's simply that there are not as many TV sets out there in casino country. The answer to the LHN problem is to become the conference where you keep your 3rd tier revenue, and big bro Texas shows you how to maximize your use of them to generate income for your school. The B12 needs to become the conference where good athletics departments go to become money making athletic departments. Somebody, please, look at the conference as though it were a product we need to sell, because it is a product we need to sell.
I really believe it. So does pretty much any serious sports journalist outside the immediate Texas-dominated area. I know Texas fans think they're right and everyone else in the country is wrong on this one, and it's entirely possible that in fact you're right and we're all wrong. But this isn't just Aggie spin; it's been in newspapers, blogs, etc coast-to-coast. B1G bloggers, PAC-12 bloggers, SEC bloggers, people with no axe to grind in the state of Texas -- people who a year ago were writing that Texas could write its own ticket -- are now writing about how badly damaged the Texas brand is. It could work out the way y'all hope; money and recruits rolling in like water, love and adoration from the nation, everyone following your model. However, we've seen the other major conferences all close the door to LHN-style networks for their own members. We've seen the other major conferences close the door to Texas as long as it's bringing the LHN with it. We've seen every other Big 12 school able to make a case for itself make a run at leaving; one is apparently still doing so. Those are facts, they're not Aggie-biased opinions. You can spin it as jealousy, cowardice, however you want to spin it. However, if it's jealousy, why are none of the other power programs trying to develop an LHN-model network of their own? Why are they putting up with their conferences taking such networks off the table? And if it's cowardice, why is the program theoretically closest to you trying to jump to a harder league, with at least one more looking like it's trying to go there too? Maybe everyone else is a bunch of idiots, but it's at least worth considering the idea that when 99% of the world thinks you're doing the wrong thing, maybe they're the ones that are right.
While you never say "never," it does look like the PAC is out of the conversation for Texas. We're not rolling over on the LHN. Funny stuff about OU, though.
I'll admit the LHN is a first. But you do know aggy is in the process of establishing their own network (as is OU) as we speak. Now, in the SEC you cant have your network, but you can sell your tier 3 rights to whomever you want, whoever will buy them. Alabama made over 8mil last year, Kansas made over 7mil, and Okla St made 6mil. They didnt share a dime. Texas made a little less that $340,000.00. We dindt ask for a dime nor did we throw a fit. We have always stated that tier 3 rights be retained by the school. That means you too. If the other conferences say no, thats up to them and the members. That doesnt mean we are being difficult or greedy. What if the SEC said that for everyone to be the same, there will be no boy cheerleaders. What then? But atleast admit, if aggy was offered the 300mil, you would have jumped on it wouldnt you!!!!! This is something that has never been done before and I can see why others may be a little apprehensive. That does not translate to being difficult, greedy, conference killers.
I am here for the debate, of course; I have no power to change anyone's mind, and my opinions won't matter to how things go. But I care about the debate because the issues matter and because I do think Texas has made enormous mistakes that hurt everyone; that they hurt Texas more than anyone else, in the long run, doesn't mean they're not hurting the rest of us too. 1) I agree, you still have options, just fewer and more limited ones than you did a year ago. And by and large those options are gone until the LHN is gone or significantly modified -- but then you always have the option to do THAT. Texas is never going to be out of options; it's an enormous school with an enormous fanbase in a good media market with a good athletic department. That Texas has chosen to trash some of its options and make others much harder to exercise doesn't mean it doesn't have plenty. 2) I honestly don't think so. No other conference is interested in the LHN model; they're running away from it quickly. From the outside, it's a horrible model. Monetizing your T3 rights as much as possible is NOT a horrible model, don't get me wrong; everyone's going to do that. Doing it by attaching the T3 rights to a NATIONAL network that happens to be run by the same network that also carries your T1 rights is a recipe for massive conflict of interest. You don't think that everyone else around the country is going to think every word out of ESPN related to Texas is self-serving PR? You don't think every move the LHN makes will be under a microscope to see if ESPN is doing something unethical? You don't that the slightest hint of impropriety (and there have already been several) will tar Texas, not just ESPN, even if Texas itself is innocent? Not only that, but it's a giant gamble. If ESPN can't get enough subscribers, the plug is pulled. If the content is weak (and that has very little to do with football success; football won't decide the LHN's fate in the end), the plug is pulled. If ratings don't hold up, the plug is pulled. If the plug is pulled, that $300 million evaporates, and you've got ESPN telling you that it's your fault, that Texas failed to provide compelling sports, so not only is your revenue stream gone but you also have egg on your face. It's a huge gamble. It may pay off -- no one's saying it won't. But it's costing a lot now and could cost a WHOLE lot later. 3) It does come down to winning, and I'm not saying you won't keep winning. Most likely you will; last season was probably just a hiccup. However, if the Big 12 can't be fixed, the perception is going to be increasingly that you're winning against nobodies. I've heard quite a lot of chatter about the already-happening precipitous decline of actual ticket revenue from DKR. Yes, it's technically "sold out", but most of those tickets were sold under-value. Donations are off sharply, because no one needs to donate to get decent seats. Stubhub is setting tickets at DKR for well under face value for many games. The Big 12 solidifying is not enough; none of the schools being proposed as replacements is up to the caliber of Nebraska or A&M. Some of them are much worse than that. If Mizzou defects it just gets harder. Yes, the Big 12 ranks highly this year, but does anyone really believe Baylor is going to become a staple in the Top 25? Take out Baylor's good year, take A&M out (whether this is an aberration or not we'll see), and you're left with Texas and OU and occasionally Tech and OSU as the standard-bearers. Maybe BYU helps; they're erratic though. If you get TCU that helps, if they haven't peaked. UH, SMU, etc don't help. 4) Your brand is not in the hands of Mack Brown. Your brand is in the hands of ESPN. If Mack produces, and produces very well, ESPN will take care of you. If Mack stumbles even one more year, you know as well as I do that the big cigars won't be appeased by another housecleaning in the assistant coaching rank. If the other sports can't pick it back up, Mack doing well won't appease ESPN, because the LHN is going to fill a lot more programming time with non-football sports than it will with football. Football gets them eyeballs for 4 months, plus a bit in rebroadcasts and spring-training and recruiting specials. If anything at all slips, ESPN will trash your brand as fast and hard as they can, because that's how they get out of $15M/year with no penalties. And they have a lot bigger soapbox than you do to get their side of it out. As I said earlier -- you may be completely right. Texas may have done the right things for itself, and you may be vastly rewarded. But virtually everyone else who looks at this doesn't think so, and most of those people aren't Aggies and don't care about us at all. There's a real possibility to be considered that the other major conferences and all the other sports journalists and bloggers and pundits and universities just might be right.
1.So then we agree, except for the fact that we have not trashed any options, except for the option to give up on the LHN. Remember, this is a long term process – that is why Texas is so bent on preserving the Big 12. It buys time for LHN to succeed or fail on its own. Failure is a possibility, but what truly great accomplishment ever came without real risk? 2.Who said anything about conferences? I’m talking about individual teams. Secondly, we are not in control of who gets our 1st Tier rights, which will change in 5 years (Could be NBC or CBS or Fox). There is a “potential” for impropriety via conflict of interest, but if everyone is watching as closely as you say they will, how in the world is ESPN gonna pull it off? 3.Winning. We agree. SOS will be addressed. Remember, this is a long term process. 4.The allusion to Mack Brown regarding our Brand was in reference to #3 above. ESPN has little ability to affect our product on the field. Our brand is driven by on the field success; if we have it, then ESPN will gladly carry the torch. If we don’t; brand declines. Regarding your opening remarks, i'm curious, how are other schools "hurt" in this process?
88 you might want to rethink #2. The SEC does not share Tier 3 - see the Sunshine Network. In addition they do not share bowl revenue equally like the Big 12. You are the delusional one, but then you are an aggy. $Bill and Barney Fife have sold you a pint of snake oil which will degrade your athletic programs rather than bolster them. You cannot compete with your new natural rival (LSU) on any level so any East Texas 4 or 5 Star football kid who in the past would have looked at you will now focus on LSU. You should have researched the pig people. They were clearly superior to you before they left and are struggling to be competitive on a consistent basis. No one in the Big 12 is shedding any tears over your departure - which is the problem for your ego.
