(07-30-2012 11:41 AM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(07-30-2012 11:35 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(07-30-2012 11:33 AM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(07-30-2012 11:28 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(07-30-2012 11:09 AM)Sammy11 Wrote:  Keep hoping. 6 year GOR in place makes that a really big longshot.

I "see" your 6 year GOR and "Raise" you a "Why hasn't the new TV deal been signed yet."

1- That isn't a raise, it's trolling.

2- It's with the lawyers and should be done soon. Don't be like a kooky conspiracy theorist and assume the worst with any info vacuum you come across.

I have seen reports that Texas is holding this up because of the LHN.

Why is any opposite opinion Trolling?

1- The LHN might be slowing it down due to ESPN & Fox trading rights and making sure the legalese works but not through any school working to delay things themselves.

2- "Any opposite opinion" isn't trolling. Repeatedly spamming anything you can find against the Big 12 is.

To be fair there certainly have been some WVU fans doing so with the ACC and we've talked to them about it and it seems to have cooled off some. It feels like every other post of yours is anti-Big 12 and predicting doom from dubious sources.

Where as spamming anything you can find against the ACC isn't? Which seems to happen in every single thread on this board.

btw... the OP in that Pitt thread is totally trolling everyone. Look at the links he posted later in the thread.

(07-30-2012 11:41 AM)Sammy11 Wrote:  1- The LHN might be slowing it down due to ESPN & Fox trading rights and making sure the legalese works but not through any school working to delay things themselves.

It would make sense if the schools other than UT want to make sure that ESPN's acquisition of more Tier 2 rights doesn't make it possible for ESPN to put UT's Big 12 games on LHN without the consent of the Big 12 team whose game would be moved to LHN.

(07-30-2012 01:51 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-30-2012 11:41 AM)Sammy11 Wrote:  1- The LHN might be slowing it down due to ESPN & Fox trading rights and making sure the legalese works but not through any school working to delay things themselves.

It would make sense if the schools other than UT want to make sure that ESPN's acquisition of more Tier 2 rights doesn't make it possible for ESPN to put UT's Big 12 games on LHN without the consent of the Big 12 team whose game would be moved to LHN.

I think that has been dealt with already. Per league bylaws schools have to give consent to appear on it for any league games and it affects the revenue sharing formula to make things equitable financially.

The holdup would likely be with the fine print of which network has what rights at what time for several possible scenarios.

All this over-the-top blind love for the Big-12 by WVU fans is a bit creepy. It's like being that stalker chick that leaves 8 messages the morning after a first date. Yeah, we all get it. The Big-12 is the one that got you out of the abusive relationship with the Big East. But seriously, the lengths to which some of you bash any post that is not anti-ACC or in any way potentially negative for the long term future of the Big-12 is childish. You have to honestly acknowledge the Big-12 has a limited shelf-life as currently contructed, and the PAC-12 rumors are not going way anytime soon. This is nothing more than another non-credible rumor related to the Big-12.

The sharing of rumors - that's what this board is for, right?

(07-30-2012 11:16 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-30-2012 10:56 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  If the PAC12 destroys the B12 by expanding, who will the SEC turn to for their bowl game?

http://pittsburgh.rivals.com/showmsg.asp...96&style=2

Not happening unless the Longhorns are part of the package. One of the Pac-12 presidents told Scott last year when OU and Okla St wanted in, "Don't bring us any deal that doesn't include Texas."

...so Scott brings you Utah and Colorado?

Personally, I would have just taken Oklahoma and Okla St.

(07-30-2012 03:26 PM)jediwarrior Wrote:  

(07-30-2012 11:16 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-30-2012 10:56 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  If the PAC12 destroys the B12 by expanding, who will the SEC turn to for their bowl game?

http://pittsburgh.rivals.com/showmsg.asp...96&style=2

Not happening unless the Longhorns are part of the package. One of the Pac-12 presidents told Scott last year when OU and Okla St wanted in, "Don't bring us any deal that doesn't include Texas."

...so Scott brings you Utah and Colorado?

Personally, I would have just taken Oklahoma and Okla St.

Utah and CU were added the year before that quote

Dear Chip Brown:

1- SUCK IT.

2- See #1.

(07-30-2012 02:37 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  All this over-the-top blind love for the Big-12 by WVU fans is a bit creepy. It's like being that stalker chick that leaves 8 messages the morning after a first date. Yeah, we all get it. The Big-12 is the one that got you out of the abusive relationship with the Big East. But seriously, the lengths to which some of you bash any post that is not anti-ACC or in any way potentially negative for the long term future of the Big-12 is childish. You have to honestly acknowledge the Big-12 has a limited shelf-life as currently contructed, and the PAC-12 rumors are not going way anytime soon. This is nothing more than another non-credible rumor related to the Big-12.

The sharing of rumors - that's what this board is for, right?

Agree. Even though this is clearly a troll attempt by a Pitt fan it's more believeable than the rumors the Big12 was going to raid FSU and Clemson from the ACC.

Regardless, I still believe we haven't heard the last of the P12 going after the "Texahoma 4." They just don't have any other good options out West and they also need another marquee program other than USC and sometimes Oregon.

(07-30-2012 04:05 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Regardless, I still believe we haven't heard the last of the P12 going after the "Texahoma 4." They just don't have any other good options out West and they also need another marquee program other than USC and sometimes Oregon.

Which is why the only way 4 x 16 ever happens is by the B12 folding. The only way the Pac gets to 16 is by taking Texas, Oklahoma, etc .. as there is no way they ever take teams like SDSU or Nevada.

So if this latest go around stabilizes the B12 then 4 x 16 is dead for a long time. If not forever.

The rumor is crap, and anyone who understands the culture of the PAC knows it's crap.

Texas WILL NOT let its future be charted-out by the likes of Cal & Stanford, and no way in hell will said schools ever allow such a merge without retaining complete control. They honestly think they somehow have a mentally-enlightened position on such-things, and that will NEVER mesh-up with how Texas rolls.

I'll tell you what will happen, if somehow, such a deal was ever struck: within about 5 years, the Pac would dissolve, and then re-form as another flavor of itself, without Texas.

They have, in their history, already done this twice previously.

So, every time this rumor resurfaces, ask yourselves this question: is Texas really ready to put its fate into the hands of those PAC schools? I don't think they'll ever be ready for that.

(07-30-2012 04:13 PM)WNCOrange Wrote:  

(07-30-2012 04:05 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Regardless, I still believe we haven't heard the last of the P12 going after the "Texahoma 4." They just don't have any other good options out West and they also need another marquee program other than USC and sometimes Oregon.

Which is why the only way 4 x 16 ever happens is by the B12 folding. The only way the Pac gets to 16 is by taking Texas, Oklahoma, etc .. as there is no way they ever take teams like SDSU or Nevada.

So if this latest go around stabilizes the B12 then 4 x 16 is dead for a long time. If not forever.

I agree although we may end up in a 5 by 12/14 situation before the long-run. I figure the ACC and SEC stay at 14, Big Ten and Pac-12 stay 12 and the Big 12 gets back up to 12.

(07-30-2012 04:05 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(07-30-2012 02:37 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  All this over-the-top blind love for the Big-12 by WVU fans is a bit creepy. It's like being that stalker chick that leaves 8 messages the morning after a first date. Yeah, we all get it. The Big-12 is the one that got you out of the abusive relationship with the Big East. But seriously, the lengths to which some of you bash any post that is not anti-ACC or in any way potentially negative for the long term future of the Big-12 is childish. You have to honestly acknowledge the Big-12 has a limited shelf-life as currently contructed, and the PAC-12 rumors are not going way anytime soon. This is nothing more than another non-credible rumor related to the Big-12.

The sharing of rumors - that's what this board is for, right?

Agree. Even though this is clearly a troll attempt by a Pitt fan it's more believeable than the rumors the Big12 was going to raid FSU and Clemson from the ACC.

Regardless, I still believe we haven't heard the last of the P12 going after the "Texahoma 4." They just don't have any other good options out West and they also need another marquee program other than USC and sometimes Oregon.

Larry Scott doesn't think that 16 is the upper limit. He thinks more consolidation is better and would give the schools more leverage in the marketplace. But that doesn't mean he can sell the Pac-12 CEOs (or the schools that would join) on the idea of 18, 20, or 24.

And Scott's success in landing tons of money for TV rights, along with the success of other leagues in doing the same, makes expansion a lot more difficult. Any school or combination of schools that doesn't increase the per-school payout is probably not going to get the support of enough schools to issue invitations. There are enough competing interests against expansion in any league ("We like things the way they are," "We don't want to lose our annual games with _____ and _____", "We don't want our division rivalries to be affected", "We don't think _____ is a good fit with the rest of our league", etc.) that the increase in money has to be very substantial to overcome the inertia. If the sales pitch is, "Schools X and Y will increase our TV rights from $21.1 million per school per year to $21.3 million", that's not going to be enough.

(07-30-2012 04:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-30-2012 04:05 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(07-30-2012 02:37 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  All this over-the-top blind love for the Big-12 by WVU fans is a bit creepy. It's like being that stalker chick that leaves 8 messages the morning after a first date. Yeah, we all get it. The Big-12 is the one that got you out of the abusive relationship with the Big East. But seriously, the lengths to which some of you bash any post that is not anti-ACC or in any way potentially negative for the long term future of the Big-12 is childish. You have to honestly acknowledge the Big-12 has a limited shelf-life as currently contructed, and the PAC-12 rumors are not going way anytime soon. This is nothing more than another non-credible rumor related to the Big-12.

The sharing of rumors - that's what this board is for, right?

Agree. Even though this is clearly a troll attempt by a Pitt fan it's more believeable than the rumors the Big12 was going to raid FSU and Clemson from the ACC.

Regardless, I still believe we haven't heard the last of the P12 going after the "Texahoma 4." They just don't have any other good options out West and they also need another marquee program other than USC and sometimes Oregon.

Larry Scott doesn't think that 16 is the upper limit. He thinks more consolidation is better and would give the schools more leverage in the marketplace. But that doesn't mean he can sell the Pac-12 CEOs (or the schools that would join) on the idea of 18, 20, or 24.

And Scott's success in landing tons of money for TV rights, along with the success of other leagues in doing the same, makes expansion a lot more difficult. Any school or combination of schools that doesn't increase the per-school payout is probably not going to get the support of enough schools to issue invitations. There are enough competing interests against expansion in any league ("We like things the way they are," "We don't want to lose our annual games with _____ and _____", "We don't want our division rivalries to be affected", "We don't think _____ is a good fit with the rest of our league", etc.) that the increase in money has to be very substantial to overcome the inertia. If the sales pitch is, "Schools X and Y will increase our TV rights from $21.1 million per school per year to $21.3 million", that's not going to be enough.

Larry Scott wants to view the PAC as a pro-league when he thinks like that... I do not think that the Presidents/Chancellors of the Pac-8 schools are likely to agree with him on that sentiment. I see Scott in-love with the market-power Texas wields, and the dollar signs behind that, but I don't see the guys on the board who make or break the vote for adding additional schools jumping on-board Larry Scott's Train anytime soon.

...not to mention the cultural-divide. In-short, Texas represents everything in-terms of culture that Oregon, Cal, and Stanford claim to hate & wish they could change.

Additional and funeral-dirge-accompanied problem: moving to 16 (or more) means re-divisionalizing. There is only one setup that they'll vote for, and that is "Pac 8 to one division, all newcomers in the other..." That will draw 4 instant No Votes from CU, UU, UA & ASU. It's like the reverse issue of Cal, Stanford, and The NW Schools refusing to give up the 9th game, because it represents a SoCal recruiting game every other year.

I disagree BWH. "The Texahoma 4" was practically a done deal until the LHN killed it at the last minute. The Pac12 had the votes to add all 4 schools.

(07-30-2012 07:16 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  I disagree BWH. "The Texahoma 4" was practically a done deal until the LHN killed it at the last minute. The Pac12 had the votes to add all 4 schools.

Having been around several of the PAC schools a fair amount over the years... I don't think it was quite such a done-deal as we were led to believe. I will agree that Texas totally pulled the plug on the negotiations though, not the PAC.

(07-30-2012 07:18 PM)BadWillHunting Wrote:  

(07-30-2012 07:16 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  I disagree BWH. "The Texahoma 4" was practically a done deal until the LHN killed it at the last minute. The Pac12 had the votes to add all 4 schools.

Having been around several of the PAC schools a fair amount over the years... I don't think it was quite such a done-deal as we were led to believe. I will agree that Texas totally pulled the plug on the negotiations though, not the PAC.

It was done enough that Scott was on a plane headed to Austin to make the announcement, when Texas pulled the plug.

Well I haven't read the so-called rumor, but if there were any truth to it what so ever it might have more to due with the fact the LHN is not living up to ESPN's expectations and they are pulling the plug. This is the only way IMO they would look to jump in with the PAC12 with ESPN's deep pockets to pay the BIG12's GOR fee's as a condolence package to say the least in that sorry the network didn't work out, but here's what would have been payment to help you move on. Its not happening so everyone needs to get this out of their systems soon especially The Dude.

KiDs say the darnedest things.

I won't believe that any expansion rumors are true until they are confirmed by one of the esteemed quartet of expansion experts: Chip Brown, Greg Swaim, Brian Ethridge or the king himself, the Dude.

Those guys obviously have reliable contacts inside every major college athletic department and conference office and they can even predict how various personalities will react to upcoming curves in the road before they actually happen. I don't care who you are, that is IMPRESSIVE work and it goes a long way to explain how they have been consistently SPOT ON throughout this process.