CSNbbs

OU sources have a different spin on Sunday's OU-UT summit meeting. They say it wasn't the UT-trying-to-save-the-Big-12 drama that the UT sources are spinning it to be:

http://newsok.com/sec-makes-move-to-acce...le/3603502

Quote:“More exploratory than anything else,” an OU source said of the meeting, that included presidents David Boren (OU) and William Powers (Texas). “I think the main reason for them coming up was to find out what we’re going to do. I know they didn’t come up with an agenda.”

. . .

“Texas, I don’t think they know what they’re going to do,” said the OU source. “It’s just a big card game. Obviously, the Pac-12 would like to have us and Texas. Texas has to make up their mind what to do.”

Great find Wedge, and very interesting. I think Texas wants to go to the Pac-12 but they don't want to be the aggressors so they let this story leak.

Looks like most people underestimated Larry Scott's resolve to not cut a special deal for UT and overestimated Bevo's willingness to abandon the LHN if need be.

I don't think you can overestimate UT's attachment to LHN.

It looks like they'd prefer any situation where they get to keep LHN over their dream scenario (whatever that is) without LHN.

(09-13-2011 04:21 PM)TomThumb Wrote: [ -> ]Looks like most people underestimated Larry Scott's resolve to not cut a special deal for UT and overestimated Bevo's willingness to abandon the LHN if need be.

Agree about Scott, disagree about UT's willingness to abandon the LHN. They definitely want a solution where that is intact; whether or not they can find some sort of compromise remains to be seen.

(09-13-2011 04:24 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think you can overestimate UT's attachment to LHN.

It looks like they'd prefer any situation where they get to keep LHN over their dream scenario (whatever that is) without LHN.

Well that and the fact this all came to a head (waaaaay ahead of most predictions) because of the LHN.

That would be a tough pill to swallow at this point (giving up/sharing the LHN).

Once again, both schools are trying to gain leverage over the other. It's a love/hate relationship. I truly believe they'll end up in the same conference when all is said and done.....either Big 12....or Pac 16.

(09-13-2011 04:30 PM)x97 Wrote: [ -> ]Once again, both schools are trying to gain leverage over the other. It's a love/hate relationship. I truly believe they'll end up in the same conference when all is said and done.....either Big 12....or Pac 16.

OU's decision is made (assuming the A&M standoff gets resolved). The ball is in UT's court. If they both end up in the same league it will be because UT's best option was the PAC-12/16. If not, they will be in different leagues.

(09-13-2011 04:38 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote: [ -> ]OU's decision is made (assuming the A&M standoff gets resolved). The ball is in UT's court. If they both end up in the same league it will be because UT's best option was the PAC-12/16. If not, they will be in different leagues.

I'm not so sure. It still feels like OU is trying to wrench some concessions out of Bevo, i.e., getting them to dump LHN or at least neuter it somehow.

If UT offers some concessions that OU can grudgingly accept, and ESPN bribes OU with $10 million a year for OU's Tier 3 rights, and ESPN and Fox agree to honor the Big 12 TV deals with only 9 schools in the league (so they can split the money 9 ways instead of 10 and everyone gets more), then I would not be shocked to see OU stay put for now.

(09-13-2011 04:15 PM)CatsClaw Wrote: [ -> ]Great find Wedge, and very interesting. I think Texas wants to go to the Pac-12 but they don't want to be the aggressors so they let this story leak.

I don't know. If Larry Scott is serious about chopping down the LHN much more than Texas is willing (when Texas wants to hold onto every penny), then perhaps Texas is serious about looking at the ACC.

(09-13-2011 04:29 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-13-2011 04:24 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think you can overestimate UT's attachment to LHN.

It looks like they'd prefer any situation where they get to keep LHN over their dream scenario (whatever that is) without LHN.

Well that and the fact this all came to a head (waaaaay ahead of most predictions) because of the LHN.

That would be a tough pill to swallow at this point (giving up/sharing the LHN).

And you just know that has to be a suppository.

(09-13-2011 11:13 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-13-2011 04:38 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote: [ -> ]OU's decision is made (assuming the A&M standoff gets resolved). The ball is in UT's court. If they both end up in the same league it will be because UT's best option was the PAC-12/16. If not, they will be in different leagues.

I'm not so sure. It still feels like OU is trying to wrench some concessions out of Bevo, i.e., getting them to dump LHN or at least neuter it somehow.

If UT offers some concessions that OU can grudgingly accept, and ESPN bribes OU with $10 million a year for OU's Tier 3 rights, and ESPN and Fox agree to honor the Big 12 TV deals with only 9 schools in the league (so they can split the money 9 ways instead of 10 and everyone gets more), then I would not be shocked to see OU stay put for now.

Other than staying at 9 (OU's stability concerns are their main reason for looking) I agree. I think OU is leaning west but if UT bends over backwards it can still be saved. Whether OU's terms meet with Bevo approval remains to be seen. I would expect initial expansion to 10 with plans for 12-16 in the works if OU came back.

(09-14-2011 12:06 AM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-13-2011 04:15 PM)CatsClaw Wrote: [ -> ]Great find Wedge, and very interesting. I think Texas wants to go to the Pac-12 but they don't want to be the aggressors so they let this story leak.

I don't know. If Larry Scott is serious about chopping down the LHN much more than Texas is willing (when Texas wants to hold onto every penny), then perhaps Texas is serious about looking at the ACC.

Agree. The LHN was never a money thing (although it certainly sweetened the deal) as UT committed to it before they knew it would be a significant revenue source. They even turned the P16 and it's probable lucrative network setup down for it under their "we don't know if it could even get 3m per year after a ton of rollout costs" assumptions last year. When you consider that rollout would easily exceed 15million in cost you'd be looking optimistically at a 5 year minimum before it could even begin to expect to breakeven. It was always about their brand, their exposure, and using the 24/7 basic cable coverage to help with recruiting even without HS content. It is likely to be a far bigger weapon than any of us are giving it credit for.

(09-14-2011 01:28 AM)Sammy11 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-13-2011 11:13 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-13-2011 04:38 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote: [ -> ]OU's decision is made (assuming the A&M standoff gets resolved). The ball is in UT's court. If they both end up in the same league it will be because UT's best option was the PAC-12/16. If not, they will be in different leagues.

I'm not so sure. It still feels like OU is trying to wrench some concessions out of Bevo, i.e., getting them to dump LHN or at least neuter it somehow.

If UT offers some concessions that OU can grudgingly accept, and ESPN bribes OU with $10 million a year for OU's Tier 3 rights, and ESPN and Fox agree to honor the Big 12 TV deals with only 9 schools in the league (so they can split the money 9 ways instead of 10 and everyone gets more), then I would not be shocked to see OU stay put for now.

Other than staying at 9 (OU's stability concerns are their main reason for looking) I agree. I think OU is leaning west but if UT bends over backwards it can still be saved. Whether OU's terms meet with Bevo approval remains to be seen. I would expect initial expansion to 10 with plans for 12-16 in the works if OU came back.

If the Big 12 survives with UT and OU, I don't see why UT and OU would want more teams added to the conference. Stability, in the eyes of Texas Tech, Baylor, and Iowa State, means that if the whole thing blows up, there are a lot of teams that might still be around -- safety in numbers. But stability for UT just means that OU sticks around, and vice versa.

Also, UT won't want a nine-game conference schedule after A&M leaves, because they could well have A&M on the annual schedule as a non-con game, either because they want to or because political pressure makes it happen. Having only eight conference games makes it easier to fit in A&M and still have room for two or three cupcakes each year.