(10-28-2013 04:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 03:43 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Well, Wedge alludes to a vital point.

Texas staying in the Big XII represented the collision (collusion) of four sets of interests.
1. The Texas preference to stay if all things were equal.
2&3. The interest of ESPN and Fox to see valuable programming rights dispersed across 5 valuable properties rather than 4, an interest so significant that without any mutual discussion or collusion the two networks elected to pay a premium to the Big XII (ie not reducing the rights fee) and a premium (LHN plus Fox conceding one game that would have likely been in their rights package over to LHN).
4. An interest in preserving the Big XII as a whole essentially making the decision that Baylor, KU, K-State, Iowa State, Missouri without regular games against Texas, TAMU, and OU would lose value relegated into the league contending for 5th best. The quality of that inventory was probably deemed worth saving, this followed then with movement of WVU and addition of TCU. Most likely the "elite tier" would have been reduced to 59 to 63 schools from the current 65.

Big XII's TV rights have fallen up the staircase with WVU and TCU replacing CU, NU, TAMU, MU.

I think the reality is that Texas made the decision best for Texas and was helped along that path by ESPN and Fox choosing what was best for them, preventing rights from being consolidated into four leagues.

I've argued previously that done correctly you can consolidate all the TV value into three leagues of 16 teams but requires cutting some folks.

Agree with that, except on one point: IMO there was mutual discussion and collusion between ESPN and Fox. I think they have worked together not only to slow conference consolidation, but also to keep some of the most valuable college TV rights away from other competitors (primarily NBC and CBS and their sports channels).

My guess is that when the Pac-12 approached ESPN and Fox about making a joint bid for Pac-12 TV rights to outbid Comcast/NBC, it was an easy sell because ESPN and Fox had already been having discussions about cooperating to keep some TV sports properties between themselves. They're still competing with each other, but they have found ways to support their mutual interest in keeping other competitors weaker.

As far as consolidating TV value into a 3x16 setup (or 4x16, etc.) -- that benefits the fortunate schools who get to cut the pie into fewer and larger slices, but doesn't necessarily benefit the networks unless they get more profit for the TV rights money they pay out. And ESPN would definitely be a villain if a large handful of current P5 teams are kicked to the curb. ESPN isn't going to be party to that if they have to absorb the backlash.

Sorry I was just being snarky saying Fox and ESPN didn't collude.

The NY Times series on college finances quotes an ESPN honcho as saying they didn't encourage any realignment but did honestly answer questions from conferences.

I believe that.

I don't think ESPN wanted there to be only five power leagues and would have been content for the Big East to remain a viable sixth power league but that wasn't in the best interest of the ACC (and later Big XII and B1G).

The Big East collapse was so complete that I think it set off the alarm bells for ESPN and Fox to try to keep the Big XII from following that path. And I think you are right that Fox and ESPN would be tabbed as the villians even though both would have been just as happy to have that same content spread across six leagues with less market power.

As much as ESPN doesn't want consolidation of the power teams into stronger bargaining groups, they are even more adamant about keeping players like Comcast/NBC and CBS from gaining a stronger position.

Remember the big TV deal that first caused jealous glances toward the SEC was triggered by ESPN trying sink a Comcast proposed SEC Network, now we are getting an ESPN SEC Network as ESPN tries to improve the monetization of the amended deal post-TAMU/Mizzou.

(10-28-2013 03:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:47 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  My absolutely groundless, baseless opinion.

When push came to shove, Texas blinked over the idea of going to the Pac-12 initially because they were stunned that TAMU wasn't going to play along and at that point they looked at the reality of playing in a Mountain/Pacific time zone league (even with four friends in the Central) and saw it would be bad for them with many sports starting play at 9pm Central and players arriving in the early am repeatedly.

They looked at the Big 10 and the ACC and liked the academics and and realized the geography wouldn't work for them.

The SEC is too gauche for them.

Texas elected to make the Big XII work because the other choices were worse.

Excuse me? I thought groundless, baseless opinions were a prerequisite for posting on this site! Your's are as valuable as anyone's. If we ever have a poster that deals in absolute truth he will get banned for sure just for spoiling the delusions of the rest of us. Shoot even the rep points are given out for the most entertaining speculations and detracted for boring repetition and lack of imagination (or for annoyance). I'd say your explanation is at least as plausible as my query.

Nah sometimes I actually know something.

I think it is far more plausible that Texas stayed with the Big XII not because they want there to be 5 power leagues and not because they want to control their league (I suspect Texas assumes any league they deemed peers would have the same viewpoints they do), but simply because the only option that makes sense isn't acceptable to them (SEC).

I believe in Occam's Razor.

I believe in it also. The UT President said in a news conference right after the Pac 16 deal fell through that they figured they could do the same thing in the Big 12 for similar $. The Pac 16 was going to minimize cross-divisional play. So if you can do the same thing where you are at, why change?

(10-28-2013 04:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 03:43 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Well, Wedge alludes to a vital point.

Texas staying in the Big XII represented the collision (collusion) of four sets of interests.
1. The Texas preference to stay if all things were equal.
2&3. The interest of ESPN and Fox to see valuable programming rights dispersed across 5 valuable properties rather than 4, an interest so significant that without any mutual discussion or collusion the two networks elected to pay a premium to the Big XII (ie not reducing the rights fee) and a premium (LHN plus Fox conceding one game that would have likely been in their rights package over to LHN).
4. An interest in preserving the Big XII as a whole essentially making the decision that Baylor, KU, K-State, Iowa State, Missouri without regular games against Texas, TAMU, and OU would lose value relegated into the league contending for 5th best. The quality of that inventory was probably deemed worth saving, this followed then with movement of WVU and addition of TCU. Most likely the "elite tier" would have been reduced to 59 to 63 schools from the current 65.

Big XII's TV rights have fallen up the staircase with WVU and TCU replacing CU, NU, TAMU, MU.

I think the reality is that Texas made the decision best for Texas and was helped along that path by ESPN and Fox choosing what was best for them, preventing rights from being consolidated into four leagues.

I've argued previously that done correctly you can consolidate all the TV value into three leagues of 16 teams but requires cutting some folks.

Agree with that, except on one point: IMO there was mutual discussion and collusion between ESPN and Fox. I think they have worked together not only to slow conference consolidation, but also to keep some of the most valuable college TV rights away from other competitors (primarily NBC and CBS and their sports channels).

My guess is that when the Pac-12 approached ESPN and Fox about making a joint bid for Pac-12 TV rights to outbid Comcast/NBC, it was an easy sell because ESPN and Fox had already been having discussions about cooperating to keep some TV sports properties between themselves. They're still competing with each other, but they have found ways to support their mutual interest in keeping other competitors weaker.

As far as consolidating TV value into a 3x16 setup (or 4x16, etc.) -- that benefits the fortunate schools who get to cut the pie into fewer and larger slices, but doesn't necessarily benefit the networks unless they get more profit for the TV rights money they pay out. And ESPN would definitely be a villain if a large handful of current P5 teams are kicked to the curb. ESPN isn't going to be party to that if they have to absorb the backlash.

Sorry I was just being snarky saying Fox and ESPN didn't collude.

The NY Times series on college finances quotes an ESPN honcho as saying they didn't encourage any realignment but did honestly answer questions from conferences.

I believe that.

I don't think ESPN wanted there to be only five power leagues and would have been content for the Big East to remain a viable sixth power league but that wasn't in the best interest of the ACC (and later Big XII and B1G).

The Big East collapse was so complete that I think it set off the alarm bells for ESPN and Fox to try to keep the Big XII from following that path. And I think you are right that Fox and ESPN would be tabbed as the villians even though both would have been just as happy to have that same content spread across six leagues with less market power.

As much as ESPN doesn't want consolidation of the power teams into stronger bargaining groups, they are even more adamant about keeping players like Comcast/NBC and CBS from gaining a stronger position.

Remember the big TV deal that first caused jealous glances toward the SEC was triggered by ESPN trying sink a Comcast proposed SEC Network, now we are getting an ESPN SEC Network as ESPN tries to improve the monetization of the amended deal post-TAMU/Mizzou.

(10-28-2013 03:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:47 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  When push came to shove, Texas blinked over the idea of going to the Pac-12 initially because they were stunned that TAMU wasn't going to play along

I agree that TAMU's refusal to go along with the Pac caused UT to pause, and they paused long enough for ESPN to ride in with the LHN bribe and for ESPN/Fox to promise to not cut (and then increase) the Big 12's TV money to block the move to the Pac.

Once ESPN gave UT all that money to stay put, the game was over. And that game will continue to be over until someone finds a way to give the Horns a lot more money than they're making now.

The LHN deal wasn't until after the Big 12 was saved in 2010.

(10-28-2013 04:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 03:43 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Well, Wedge alludes to a vital point.

Texas staying in the Big XII represented the collision (collusion) of four sets of interests.
1. The Texas preference to stay if all things were equal.
2&3. The interest of ESPN and Fox to see valuable programming rights dispersed across 5 valuable properties rather than 4, an interest so significant that without any mutual discussion or collusion the two networks elected to pay a premium to the Big XII (ie not reducing the rights fee) and a premium (LHN plus Fox conceding one game that would have likely been in their rights package over to LHN).
4. An interest in preserving the Big XII as a whole essentially making the decision that Baylor, KU, K-State, Iowa State, Missouri without regular games against Texas, TAMU, and OU would lose value relegated into the league contending for 5th best. The quality of that inventory was probably deemed worth saving, this followed then with movement of WVU and addition of TCU. Most likely the "elite tier" would have been reduced to 59 to 63 schools from the current 65.

Big XII's TV rights have fallen up the staircase with WVU and TCU replacing CU, NU, TAMU, MU.

I think the reality is that Texas made the decision best for Texas and was helped along that path by ESPN and Fox choosing what was best for them, preventing rights from being consolidated into four leagues.

I've argued previously that done correctly you can consolidate all the TV value into three leagues of 16 teams but requires cutting some folks.

Agree with that, except on one point: IMO there was mutual discussion and collusion between ESPN and Fox. I think they have worked together not only to slow conference consolidation, but also to keep some of the most valuable college TV rights away from other competitors (primarily NBC and CBS and their sports channels).

My guess is that when the Pac-12 approached ESPN and Fox about making a joint bid for Pac-12 TV rights to outbid Comcast/NBC, it was an easy sell because ESPN and Fox had already been having discussions about cooperating to keep some TV sports properties between themselves. They're still competing with each other, but they have found ways to support their mutual interest in keeping other competitors weaker.

As far as consolidating TV value into a 3x16 setup (or 4x16, etc.) -- that benefits the fortunate schools who get to cut the pie into fewer and larger slices, but doesn't necessarily benefit the networks unless they get more profit for the TV rights money they pay out. And ESPN would definitely be a villain if a large handful of current P5 teams are kicked to the curb. ESPN isn't going to be party to that if they have to absorb the backlash.

As I recall ESPN approached Fox on a joint bid because ESPN didn't have enough slots for all the inventory Pac 12 was selling--not the Pac 12 suggesting it.

(10-28-2013 04:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 04:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 03:43 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Well, Wedge alludes to a vital point.

Texas staying in the Big XII represented the collision (collusion) of four sets of interests.
1. The Texas preference to stay if all things were equal.
2&3. The interest of ESPN and Fox to see valuable programming rights dispersed across 5 valuable properties rather than 4, an interest so significant that without any mutual discussion or collusion the two networks elected to pay a premium to the Big XII (ie not reducing the rights fee) and a premium (LHN plus Fox conceding one game that would have likely been in their rights package over to LHN).
4. An interest in preserving the Big XII as a whole essentially making the decision that Baylor, KU, K-State, Iowa State, Missouri without regular games against Texas, TAMU, and OU would lose value relegated into the league contending for 5th best. The quality of that inventory was probably deemed worth saving, this followed then with movement of WVU and addition of TCU. Most likely the "elite tier" would have been reduced to 59 to 63 schools from the current 65.

Big XII's TV rights have fallen up the staircase with WVU and TCU replacing CU, NU, TAMU, MU.

I think the reality is that Texas made the decision best for Texas and was helped along that path by ESPN and Fox choosing what was best for them, preventing rights from being consolidated into four leagues.

I've argued previously that done correctly you can consolidate all the TV value into three leagues of 16 teams but requires cutting some folks.

Agree with that, except on one point: IMO there was mutual discussion and collusion between ESPN and Fox. I think they have worked together not only to slow conference consolidation, but also to keep some of the most valuable college TV rights away from other competitors (primarily NBC and CBS and their sports channels).

My guess is that when the Pac-12 approached ESPN and Fox about making a joint bid for Pac-12 TV rights to outbid Comcast/NBC, it was an easy sell because ESPN and Fox had already been having discussions about cooperating to keep some TV sports properties between themselves. They're still competing with each other, but they have found ways to support their mutual interest in keeping other competitors weaker.

As far as consolidating TV value into a 3x16 setup (or 4x16, etc.) -- that benefits the fortunate schools who get to cut the pie into fewer and larger slices, but doesn't necessarily benefit the networks unless they get more profit for the TV rights money they pay out. And ESPN would definitely be a villain if a large handful of current P5 teams are kicked to the curb. ESPN isn't going to be party to that if they have to absorb the backlash.

As I recall ESPN approached Fox on a joint bid because ESPN didn't have enough slots for all the inventory Pac 12 was selling--not the Pac 12 suggesting it.

The Pac suggested the joint bid to ESPN, who then approached Fox.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journ...ac-10.aspx

Quote:The Pac-10's media consultant, Evolution Media's Chris Bevilacqua, proposed an idea to [ESPN's] Skipper: What if the two media giants joined forces and combined their bid?

Initially, the concept seemed preposterous. ESPN and News Corp. partner internationally on ESPN Star Sports in Asia, for example. The two, however, are often bitter rivals in the U.S., especially in the college football space where they dominate the market.

However, Skipper, ESPN's executive vice president of content, was intrigued. Not only would a joint effort increase the bid, it would keep Comcast from picking up rights to a BCS conference. It had just bid $187 million per year to win the NHL rights and wanted to add to that with a Pac-10 acquisition. ESPN and Fox wanted to stop that momentum.

So Skipper called Freer to talk about a joint bid. Freer, Fox Sports' co-president, was interested. Other than CBS's deal with the SEC, Fox and ESPN control the football rights to every BCS conference, and a familiarity was there.

"We have historically worked with ESPN on sublicensing games and events to them and from them," Freer said. "This was done at the conference's request to see if more value could be created for the conference."

(10-28-2013 03:43 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Well, Wedge alludes to a vital point.

Texas staying in the Big XII represented the collision (collusion) of four sets of interests.
1. The Texas preference to stay if all things were equal.
2&3. The interest of ESPN and Fox to see valuable programming rights dispersed across 5 valuable properties rather than 4, an interest so significant that without any mutual discussion or collusion the two networks elected to pay a premium to the Big XII (ie not reducing the rights fee) and a premium (LHN plus Fox conceding one game that would have likely been in their rights package over to LHN).
4. An interest in preserving the Big XII as a whole essentially making the decision that Baylor, KU, K-State, Iowa State, Missouri without regular games against Texas, TAMU, and OU would lose value relegated into the league contending for 5th best. The quality of that inventory was probably deemed worth saving, this followed then with movement of WVU and addition of TCU. Most likely the "elite tier" would have been reduced to 59 to 63 schools from the current 65.

Big XII's TV rights have fallen up the staircase with WVU and TCU replacing CU, NU, TAMU, MU.

I think the reality is that Texas made the decision best for Texas and was helped along that path by ESPN and Fox choosing what was best for them, preventing rights from being consolidated into four leagues.

I've argued previously that done correctly you can consolidate all the TV value into three leagues of 16 teams but requires cutting some folks.

I think if they go that route, and it is very doable, that you would be looking at a 3 x 20 model which still only requires 9 conference games. It might even be possible to move to 2 twenty team conferences and 1 24 team conference. But before such a model is doable minus financial penalties they first must move to 4 by drafting the most desirable teams into the Big 10, SEC and PAC in a move to 16 and after contract periods have expired moving to 3 twenty team conferences all under FOX and ESPN control with NBC maintaining initial rights to N.D. and CBS still set up to telecast the SEC. 60 to 72 is still doable and relatively ideal between 64 and 68.

A three conference model would be preferred over 4 conferences because with 3 you have 3 seeded champs and one at large in a 4 team playoff model and the networks would still have their say in match ups. If the networks want more control they can always expand the playoffs to 8 (which I would not prefer).

This model actually satisfies the strongest conferences and leaves no teams in conferences that are inherently weak due to market footprint or market utilization. It gives the networks the weekly quantity of compelling games, and while the three champions are satisfied, thereby maintaining the importance of the regular season, and the fans are satisfied because their champs can not be excluded, the networks get the control they need over the at large entrants to boost their marketing endeavors. It may take a while but I think we eventually wind up with this model.

(10-28-2013 04:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 04:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 04:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 03:43 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Well, Wedge alludes to a vital point.

Texas staying in the Big XII represented the collision (collusion) of four sets of interests.
1. The Texas preference to stay if all things were equal.
2&3. The interest of ESPN and Fox to see valuable programming rights dispersed across 5 valuable properties rather than 4, an interest so significant that without any mutual discussion or collusion the two networks elected to pay a premium to the Big XII (ie not reducing the rights fee) and a premium (LHN plus Fox conceding one game that would have likely been in their rights package over to LHN).
4. An interest in preserving the Big XII as a whole essentially making the decision that Baylor, KU, K-State, Iowa State, Missouri without regular games against Texas, TAMU, and OU would lose value relegated into the league contending for 5th best. The quality of that inventory was probably deemed worth saving, this followed then with movement of WVU and addition of TCU. Most likely the "elite tier" would have been reduced to 59 to 63 schools from the current 65.

Big XII's TV rights have fallen up the staircase with WVU and TCU replacing CU, NU, TAMU, MU.

I think the reality is that Texas made the decision best for Texas and was helped along that path by ESPN and Fox choosing what was best for them, preventing rights from being consolidated into four leagues.

I've argued previously that done correctly you can consolidate all the TV value into three leagues of 16 teams but requires cutting some folks.

Agree with that, except on one point: IMO there was mutual discussion and collusion between ESPN and Fox. I think they have worked together not only to slow conference consolidation, but also to keep some of the most valuable college TV rights away from other competitors (primarily NBC and CBS and their sports channels).

My guess is that when the Pac-12 approached ESPN and Fox about making a joint bid for Pac-12 TV rights to outbid Comcast/NBC, it was an easy sell because ESPN and Fox had already been having discussions about cooperating to keep some TV sports properties between themselves. They're still competing with each other, but they have found ways to support their mutual interest in keeping other competitors weaker.

As far as consolidating TV value into a 3x16 setup (or 4x16, etc.) -- that benefits the fortunate schools who get to cut the pie into fewer and larger slices, but doesn't necessarily benefit the networks unless they get more profit for the TV rights money they pay out. And ESPN would definitely be a villain if a large handful of current P5 teams are kicked to the curb. ESPN isn't going to be party to that if they have to absorb the backlash.

As I recall ESPN approached Fox on a joint bid because ESPN didn't have enough slots for all the inventory Pac 12 was selling--not the Pac 12 suggesting it.

The Pac suggested the joint bid to ESPN, who then approached Fox.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journ...ac-10.aspx

Quote:The Pac-10's media consultant, Evolution Media's Chris Bevilacqua, proposed an idea to [ESPN's] Skipper: What if the two media giants joined forces and combined their bid?

Initially, the concept seemed preposterous. ESPN and News Corp. partner internationally on ESPN Star Sports in Asia, for example. The two, however, are often bitter rivals in the U.S., especially in the college football space where they dominate the market.

However, Skipper, ESPN's executive vice president of content, was intrigued. Not only would a joint effort increase the bid, it would keep Comcast from picking up rights to a BCS conference. It had just bid $187 million per year to win the NHL rights and wanted to add to that with a Pac-10 acquisition. ESPN and Fox wanted to stop that momentum.

So Skipper called Freer to talk about a joint bid. Freer, Fox Sports' co-president, was interested. Other than CBS's deal with the SEC, Fox and ESPN control the football rights to every BCS conference, and a familiarity was there.

"We have historically worked with ESPN on sublicensing games and events to them and from them," Freer said. "This was done at the conference's request to see if more value could be created for the conference."

OK. That's interesting that they reduced their number of bidders.

(10-28-2013 04:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 04:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 04:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 04:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 03:43 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Well, Wedge alludes to a vital point.

Texas staying in the Big XII represented the collision (collusion) of four sets of interests.
1. The Texas preference to stay if all things were equal.
2&3. The interest of ESPN and Fox to see valuable programming rights dispersed across 5 valuable properties rather than 4, an interest so significant that without any mutual discussion or collusion the two networks elected to pay a premium to the Big XII (ie not reducing the rights fee) and a premium (LHN plus Fox conceding one game that would have likely been in their rights package over to LHN).
4. An interest in preserving the Big XII as a whole essentially making the decision that Baylor, KU, K-State, Iowa State, Missouri without regular games against Texas, TAMU, and OU would lose value relegated into the league contending for 5th best. The quality of that inventory was probably deemed worth saving, this followed then with movement of WVU and addition of TCU. Most likely the "elite tier" would have been reduced to 59 to 63 schools from the current 65.

Big XII's TV rights have fallen up the staircase with WVU and TCU replacing CU, NU, TAMU, MU.

I think the reality is that Texas made the decision best for Texas and was helped along that path by ESPN and Fox choosing what was best for them, preventing rights from being consolidated into four leagues.

I've argued previously that done correctly you can consolidate all the TV value into three leagues of 16 teams but requires cutting some folks.

Agree with that, except on one point: IMO there was mutual discussion and collusion between ESPN and Fox. I think they have worked together not only to slow conference consolidation, but also to keep some of the most valuable college TV rights away from other competitors (primarily NBC and CBS and their sports channels).

My guess is that when the Pac-12 approached ESPN and Fox about making a joint bid for Pac-12 TV rights to outbid Comcast/NBC, it was an easy sell because ESPN and Fox had already been having discussions about cooperating to keep some TV sports properties between themselves. They're still competing with each other, but they have found ways to support their mutual interest in keeping other competitors weaker.

As far as consolidating TV value into a 3x16 setup (or 4x16, etc.) -- that benefits the fortunate schools who get to cut the pie into fewer and larger slices, but doesn't necessarily benefit the networks unless they get more profit for the TV rights money they pay out. And ESPN would definitely be a villain if a large handful of current P5 teams are kicked to the curb. ESPN isn't going to be party to that if they have to absorb the backlash.

As I recall ESPN approached Fox on a joint bid because ESPN didn't have enough slots for all the inventory Pac 12 was selling--not the Pac 12 suggesting it.

The Pac suggested the joint bid to ESPN, who then approached Fox.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journ...ac-10.aspx

Quote:The Pac-10's media consultant, Evolution Media's Chris Bevilacqua, proposed an idea to [ESPN's] Skipper: What if the two media giants joined forces and combined their bid?

Initially, the concept seemed preposterous. ESPN and News Corp. partner internationally on ESPN Star Sports in Asia, for example. The two, however, are often bitter rivals in the U.S., especially in the college football space where they dominate the market.

However, Skipper, ESPN's executive vice president of content, was intrigued. Not only would a joint effort increase the bid, it would keep Comcast from picking up rights to a BCS conference. It had just bid $187 million per year to win the NHL rights and wanted to add to that with a Pac-10 acquisition. ESPN and Fox wanted to stop that momentum.

So Skipper called Freer to talk about a joint bid. Freer, Fox Sports' co-president, was interested. Other than CBS's deal with the SEC, Fox and ESPN control the football rights to every BCS conference, and a familiarity was there.

"We have historically worked with ESPN on sublicensing games and events to them and from them," Freer said. "This was done at the conference's request to see if more value could be created for the conference."

OK. That's interesting that they reduced their number of bidders.

One of the other issues Texas had in moving to the PAC the second time around was the LHN. No conference wants to take them in with them having their own network It would have to be rolled into the conference networks and Texas didn't want that. The PAC didn't want the LHN on its own so that caused an issue preventing them from going.

There have been three occasions where Texas tried to go to the PAC. The first was when the SWC was dissolving. A&M didn't want to go there. Then they looked at the SEC, finally with the Big 8. It ended up as the Big 12 because Texas politics forced TTU and BU into the mix.

The second time was when it was looking like Texas, A&M, OU, OSU and Colorado would go. Texas politics tried to get it changed to Baylor. The PAC 12 prevented that by inviting Colorado on their own. A&M went back to flirting with the SEC. Sort of brought the whole move crashing down.

Finally, this last flirtation with Texas, TTU, OU and OSU.

Quote:The first was when the SWC was dissolving but Stanford used their veto vote to block it. Then they looked at the Big 10, but found the travel costs were just too much with Iowa as the closest member, finally with the Big 8. It ended up as the Big 12 because Texas politics forced TTU and BU into the mix and forced A&M to abandon its pursuit of SEC membership (which they had already secured LSU as a sponsor for) and join the Big 8 instead.

History FIY

(11-01-2013 12:20 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

Quote:The first was when the SWC was dissolving but Stanford used their veto vote to block it. Then they looked at the Big 10, but found the travel costs were just too much with Iowa as the closest member, finally with the Big 8. It ended up as the Big 12 because Texas politics forced TTU and BU into the mix and forced A&M to abandon its pursuit of SEC membership (which they had already secured LSU as a sponsor for) and join the Big 8 instead.

History FIY

1st was around 89-Stanford vetoed. Changed their mind later, but UT had already committed to staying and told the regents. A&M gave up their SEC plans and also committed.

2nd was 1994 and Texas Tech had to be taken care of. Pac wouldn't take care of Tech. UT decided on Big 8. A&M's president was on board with Big 12 plan but some of their regents weren't. Lt. Gov. Bullock took the Aggie regents to the woodshed.

(10-28-2013 03:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:47 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  When push came to shove, Texas blinked over the idea of going to the Pac-12 initially because they were stunned that TAMU wasn't going to play along

I agree that TAMU's refusal to go along with the Pac caused UT to pause, and they paused long enough for ESPN to ride in with the LHN bribe and for ESPN/Fox to promise to not cut (and then increase) the Big 12's TV money to block the move to the Pac.

Once ESPN gave UT all that money to stay put, the game was over. And that game will continue to be over until someone finds a way to give the Horns a lot more money than they're making now.

This is part of the point that JR has been making all along, if anything else happens it will be because somebody (network ESPN/FOX/etc) opens their checkbooks and pays out really big dollars. This also ties in with what Frank has been saying (it comes down to three schools: Notre Dame, Texas, and North Carolina) about movement. As long as those three are happy with the dollars they have, things will stay quiet for a while.

(11-01-2013 08:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-01-2013 12:20 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

Quote:The first was when the SWC was dissolving but Stanford used their veto vote to block it. Then they looked at the Big 10, but found the travel costs were just too much with Iowa as the closest member, finally with the Big 8. It ended up as the Big 12 because Texas politics forced TTU and BU into the mix and forced A&M to abandon its pursuit of SEC membership (which they had already secured LSU as a sponsor for) and join the Big 8 instead.

History FIY

1st was around 89-Stanford vetoed. Changed their mind later, but UT had already committed to staying and told the regents. A&M gave up their SEC plans and also committed.

2nd was 1994 and Texas Tech had to be taken care of. Pac wouldn't take care of Tech. UT decided on Big 8. A&M's president was on board with Big 12 plan but some of their regents weren't. Lt. Gov. Bullock took the Aggie regents to the woodshed.

And how the times have changed! Now we have all the power we need to do what we want, not what others want!

(11-01-2013 09:23 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 03:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:47 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  When push came to shove, Texas blinked over the idea of going to the Pac-12 initially because they were stunned that TAMU wasn't going to play along

I agree that TAMU's refusal to go along with the Pac caused UT to pause, and they paused long enough for ESPN to ride in with the LHN bribe and for ESPN/Fox to promise to not cut (and then increase) the Big 12's TV money to block the move to the Pac.

Once ESPN gave UT all that money to stay put, the game was over. And that game will continue to be over until someone finds a way to give the Horns a lot more money than they're making now.

This is part of the point that JR has been making all along, if anything else happens it will be because somebody (network ESPN/FOX/etc) opens their checkbooks and pays out really big dollars. This also ties in with what Frank has been saying (it comes down to three schools: Notre Dame, Texas, and North Carolina) about movement. As long as those three are happy with the dollars they have, things will stay quiet for a while.

If that's going to happen, it better happen soon. The bottom's going to fall out on the economy before too much longer...

(11-02-2013 09:24 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(11-01-2013 09:23 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 03:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:47 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  When push came to shove, Texas blinked over the idea of going to the Pac-12 initially because they were stunned that TAMU wasn't going to play along

I agree that TAMU's refusal to go along with the Pac caused UT to pause, and they paused long enough for ESPN to ride in with the LHN bribe and for ESPN/Fox to promise to not cut (and then increase) the Big 12's TV money to block the move to the Pac.

Once ESPN gave UT all that money to stay put, the game was over. And that game will continue to be over until someone finds a way to give the Horns a lot more money than they're making now.

This is part of the point that JR has been making all along, if anything else happens it will be because somebody (network ESPN/FOX/etc) opens their checkbooks and pays out really big dollars. This also ties in with what Frank has been saying (it comes down to three schools: Notre Dame, Texas, and North Carolina) about movement. As long as those three are happy with the dollars they have, things will stay quiet for a while.

If that's going to happen, it better happen soon. The bottom's going to fall out on the economy before too much longer...

Yeah, and I've been pointing out the fragility of the present economy since day 1. You raise an interesting point here Bit. If these schools that haven't yet moved for money wait much longer to do so, and if the schools that want more money for acquiring them wait much longer, and if the P5 waits much longer on streamlining a playoff system by moving to a P4, none of the above will reap the benefits of their plans and dreams.

Sports, as Miko has pointed out, are sitting atop a huge bubble, which has already been pricked. Attendance and ticket sales are down because sports are a luxury that fewer and fewer middle class Americans can afford. Add the ease of viewing from home on HD an the recipe for traditional means of support for these schools starts to decline and their dependence upon cable revenue increases. The power then shifts from the producer of the sports (the schools) to the distributor of the sports (the networks).

In my first post on this site I pointed out that the window for self distribution would be closing due to the lobbying efforts of the networks upon government regulations pertaining to non profit use of satellite time.
That window has just about closed and will be likely locked shut when the present overvalued contracts are paid out. The networks dangled a larger carrot just long enough to blind the greedy mules who run our schools. The whip an plow will follow and the days of fat dollars for college sports are coming to an end within 20 years.

College sports were an undervalued product that has now suffered a hostile takeover. It will be parsed down to its most valuable product and marketed accordingly. The only real threat that it could remain locally owned was the potential for self production. I now think the networks, (like all corporations in this country) have successfully taken what was not theirs through means of a short term dividend and government cooperation. When you put guys with strong corporate ties at the head of your institutions don't be surprised when the feed the hands that help them and that's not the school or its alums. Remember conference commissioners were hired because of their ties to the networks and most of those guys would never have considered self production because they've always made their living by facilitating agreements between corporations and other commercial, government, or private entities. It was never going to turn out another way because of the personnel involved.

In the end our lack of risk taking, our pursuit of short term profits, and our laziness will have killed the American dream and our birthright purchased with the vision, labor, an blood of our forefathers will have been sold cheaply back to those they abhorred the most.

(11-02-2013 09:24 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(11-01-2013 09:23 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 03:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:47 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  When push came to shove, Texas blinked over the idea of going to the Pac-12 initially because they were stunned that TAMU wasn't going to play along

I agree that TAMU's refusal to go along with the Pac caused UT to pause, and they paused long enough for ESPN to ride in with the LHN bribe and for ESPN/Fox to promise to not cut (and then increase) the Big 12's TV money to block the move to the Pac.

Once ESPN gave UT all that money to stay put, the game was over. And that game will continue to be over until someone finds a way to give the Horns a lot more money than they're making now.

This is part of the point that JR has been making all along, if anything else happens it will be because somebody (network ESPN/FOX/etc) opens their checkbooks and pays out really big dollars. This also ties in with what Frank has been saying (it comes down to three schools: Notre Dame, Texas, and North Carolina) about movement. As long as those three are happy with the dollars they have, things will stay quiet for a while.

If that's going to happen, it better happen soon. The bottom's going to fall out on the economy before too much longer...

Bit, the bottom fell out of the economy in Obama's second year of his administration.

(11-05-2013 09:24 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 09:24 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(11-01-2013 09:23 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 03:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:47 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  When push came to shove, Texas blinked over the idea of going to the Pac-12 initially because they were stunned that TAMU wasn't going to play along

I agree that TAMU's refusal to go along with the Pac caused UT to pause, and they paused long enough for ESPN to ride in with the LHN bribe and for ESPN/Fox to promise to not cut (and then increase) the Big 12's TV money to block the move to the Pac.

Once ESPN gave UT all that money to stay put, the game was over. And that game will continue to be over until someone finds a way to give the Horns a lot more money than they're making now.

This is part of the point that JR has been making all along, if anything else happens it will be because somebody (network ESPN/FOX/etc) opens their checkbooks and pays out really big dollars. This also ties in with what Frank has been saying (it comes down to three schools: Notre Dame, Texas, and North Carolina) about movement. As long as those three are happy with the dollars they have, things will stay quiet for a while.

If that's going to happen, it better happen soon. The bottom's going to fall out on the economy before too much longer...

Bit, the bottom fell out of the economy in Obama's second year of his administration.

The bottom you refer to fell out when he bailed out the banks that had put themselves in financial ruin by poor lending procedures during the previous administration. IMO he should have let them fail. The fact that those banks gave the executives that put the banks in that situation huge bonuses showed their lack of responsibility and respect for being saved from ruin.

Are we rewriting history now?

TARP - Troubled Asset Relief Program aka the "Bank Bailout" was actually passed and signed into law 2008.

Now it did happen during the election cycle of McCain-Obama, that led to Obama being elected President; but make no mistake, the bill was presented by Bush appointees, passed by both houses of congress, and signed into law by George W Bush - I remember it well, because it happened on my grandmother's birthday (October 3rd), which was four months before Obama even took office!

The economy was already in free-fall long before Obama was even the Democratic nominee for President. The housing bubble burst 3rd quarter 2007 and it was laying waste to the banking world throughout 2008 and remember how job losses of 650,000 jobs a month were a major campaign issue?

Ringing any bells? I know it was 5 years ago, and hard to remember, but considering we rehash sports statistics and championships dating back decades - suggesting we remember something as big as the Great Recession doesn't seem like a tall task. LOL

(11-05-2013 10:24 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  Are we rewriting history now?

TARP - Troubled Asset Relief Program aka the "Bank Bailout" was actually passed and signed into law 2008.

Now it did happen during the election cycle of McCain-Obama, that led to Obama being elected President; but make no mistake, the bill was presented by Bush appointees, passed by both houses of congress, and signed into law by George W Bush - I remember it well, because it happened on my grandmother's birthday (October 3rd), which was four months before Obama even took office!

The economy was already in free-fall long before Obama was even the Democratic nominee for President. The housing bubble burst 3rd quarter 2007 and it was laying waste to the banking world throughout 2008 and remember how job losses of 650,000 jobs a month were a major campaign issue?

Ringing any bells? I know it was 5 years ago, and hard to remember, but considering we rehash sports statistics and championships dating back decades - suggesting we remember something as big as the Great Recession doesn't seem like a tall task. LOL

Both parties own tarp. Obama and McCain showed up in Washington before it was passed to endorse it. There has never been a clearer moment in history to show just how singular the DEMS and REPS are. They work for corporate America and not the people. As to the "Great Recession" it is not only a misnomer it is actually a depression that has only been slowed by inflationary tactics that cannot be sustained. It will leave this country destitute and more divided than ever. It will do the same to Europe and will likely cement Asia as the new economic center of the 21st century. When our technological superiority is equaled it will be the end of us as we think of ourselves currently. And the seeds of this destruction was sown in the post war 50's. Just ask Eisenhower. He's on record with his prescience.

(11-05-2013 10:24 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  Are we rewriting history now?

TARP - Troubled Asset Relief Program aka the "Bank Bailout" was actually passed and signed into law 2008.

Now it did happen during the election cycle of McCain-Obama, that led to Obama being elected President; but make no mistake, the bill was presented by Bush appointees, passed by both houses of congress, and signed into law by George W Bush - I remember it well, because it happened on my grandmother's birthday (October 3rd), which was four months before Obama even took office!

The economy was already in free-fall long before Obama was even the Democratic nominee for President. The housing bubble burst 3rd quarter 2007 and it was laying waste to the banking world throughout 2008 and remember how job losses of 650,000 jobs a month were a major campaign issue?

Ringing any bells? I know it was 5 years ago, and hard to remember, but considering we rehash sports statistics and championships dating back decades - suggesting we remember something as big as the Great Recession doesn't seem like a tall task. LOL

The lending practices being spoken of actually began during the Clinton years, but that knowledge still won't push Texas into the Big 10.