So Todge, just to get you on record here for later: you acknowledge that UT and OU won't sign a GOR extension but also contend that their refusal to do so is NOT so that UT and OU can put themselves in a position of leverage so they can later tell the B12 "here is what we want, give it to us or else we leave" when the contract comes to a close?

IOW that they are both just too noble to take advantage of the leverage they would clearly and intentionally create for themselves by not signing a GOR extension before the last possible moment?

And for god sake no wall of text nobody will read with your copy and paste homeless dude on the subway conspiracy rantings. Just a yes or no would be fantastic.

(08-03-2016 10:45 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-03-2016 10:31 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(08-03-2016 10:30 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I think everything Carlton said is accurate except the part about the votes. I'm convinced that is farther along than anyone in the media realizes.

Why?

Because they have been talking to Memphis for almost 3 years, and have said some things to us that make me feel they are ready to add 4 teams.

Remember, all these media guys who are making predictions now are the same ones who said 2 weeks ago that expansion was dead. Right before the presser where the Big 12 said they voted unanimously for expansion.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. The Big 12 have never said they voted unanimously for expansion, or that it was certain or likely they would do so. All they unanimously agreed to do was to keep talking and listening to prospective candidates. Unspoken was that they would continue to talk with their media partners as well. At this point, that is all we know, or are likely to know, about B12 expansion before it happens.

(08-04-2016 08:34 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  So Todge, just to get you on record here for later: you acknowledge that UT and OU won't sign a GOR extension but also contend that their refusal to do so is NOT so that UT and OU can put themselves in a position of leverage so they can later tell the B12 "here is what we want, give it to us or else we leave" when the contract comes to a close?

IOW that they are both just too noble to take advantage of the leverage they would clearly and intentionally create for themselves by not signing a GOR extension before the last possible moment?

And for god sake no wall of text nobody will read with your copy and paste homeless dude on the subway conspiracy rantings. Just a yes or no would be fantastic.

You completely miss the other possibility that I pointed out.

Going to market with new media options in 2024-25 is better than locking in now in the current market. Much like the Big 10 surprisingly signed a short term deal, only 6 years. Reports have indicated they think those options will be there in that time frame and they can do better with a new contract then instead of a long term deal now.

(08-04-2016 08:34 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  So Todge, just to get you on record here for later: you acknowledge that UT and OU won't sign a GOR extension but also contend that their refusal to do so is NOT so that UT and OU can put themselves in a position of leverage so they can later tell the B12 "here is what we want, give it to us or else we leave" when the contract comes to a close?

IOW that they are both just too noble to take advantage of the leverage they would clearly and intentionally create for themselves by not signing a GOR extension before the last possible moment?

well lets see how this works

1. A&M, OU, UT, NU and most likely MU and KU were 100% in favor of unequal revenue sharing so the fact that people still consider that any of the schools that left did so because of unequal revenue sharing just shows how stupid people really are and how much they will ignore proven irrefutable fact

2. UT, OU, NU and A&M were all 100% against a conference network and it is believed that MU and KU were against one or extremely hesitant about one

so the fact that people still think that NU and A&M left because of the LHN just shows how stupid people really are in the face of irrefutable facts especially since the president of NU has admitted they were in favor of independent networks and were further along than UT was on a NU network

and OU has stated that they worked for WELL OVER 5 years before 2012 to start a sooner network and they were the "first to even think of one"

3. after NU and CU left the other teams in the Big 12 OFFERED UT, A&M and OU unequal shared of the money that CU and NU paid to leave the Big 12

OU and UT declined to take that offer and stated they would take the same shares as everyone else

not only did A&M say they WOULD take an unequal share, but they also said they were told they would be getting a $20 million annual distribution from the Big 12 and if that was not put in writing they would sue

4. UT and OU were a party to equal revenue sharing of the media contracts and it was not ONLY UT and OU that were in favor of keeping 3rd tier rights

5. at the time that the Big 12 was keeping some 3rd tier rights the SEC SEC SEC was doing the exact same thing

6. the PAC 10 had unequal revenue sharing and USC and UCLA threatened the PAC 10 for a guaranteed $20 million distribution or they wanted additional money at the expense of other members

7. UT was not the sole reason the Big 12 did not have a conference network and it was not "threats" from UT that prevented it.....in fact it was several of the teams that cried about it later that actually prevented it including NU, A&M and MU and the fact that UT was able to make a very good deal with ESPN is not the "fault" of UT nor was it because of threats against other Big 12 members by UT

it was UT going out and using the rights that MULTIPLE Big 12 members wanted to retain and that SEC SEC SEC members were also retaining at that time to get a really great deal

8. so with those FACTS KNOWN AND IRREFUTABLE facts your question is a bit silly and based on assumptions that are in fact 100% incorrect and all the more laughable coming from a fan of a team that was always against a conference network and that was always against equal revenue and a fan of a team that not only demanded an unequal share of money left by NU and CU while OU and UT declined that money, but A&M also demanded unequal distributions as well until a new media contract or they would sue

and even when A&M left the Big 12 and scurried off the be a perpetual also ran in the SEC SEC SEC WEST WEST WEST they were still joining a conference that at that time still held back some 3rd tier content for individual members to sell on their own

9. so it seems what you are asking is if I think that UT and OU will act like A&M did before A&M left the Big 12 and demand unequal revenues, be against a conference network, demand an unequal share of money from any team that might leave and in general act like giant babies and bullies before they run off to some other conference and then pretend they did not act how they are known to (and documented) to have acted in the Big 12

no I think that UT and OU are above that type of petulant behavior that is reserved for teams like A&M that would rather be cozy as a 3rd to 6th place member of their division in a conference because it offers them security and they do not have to worry about others looking at them as being a conference bully (even though they were every bit of that in the past) and instead they can just be a good little follower and offer up some "good wins" for others and some occasional "spoilers" as well

10. I think that in the future UT and OU are going to see what the Big 10 gets in 2021-22, what the PAC 12 gets in 2023-24 and what the SEC SEC SEC gets in 2023-24 from CBS and if the ESPN extension for tier 2 was real or not and how it is paying and they are going to see what actually materializes in 3 years with the ACcn Accn accn and with the supposed extension of the ACc Acc acc media deals before the Big 12 looks to see what they can get in 2024-25

they will also be looking at any streaming options, mew media, conference network possibilities and all other financial options and if those do not work for what UT and OU want no I do not think they will act like A&M or USC and UCLA and make demands for unequal revenues I think they will either accept what is offered or they will move on to where there are better offers

all your assumptions and presumptions about UT or OU or anyone else holding the other members of the Big 12 "hostage" or "demanding unequal treatments" are based on 100% pure crap and all the more so coming from A&M that was actually the one that kept that type of thing up well beyond Big 12 unequal revenue sharing or with A&M wanting unequal distributions and unequal shares of exit fees and A&M being opposed to a conference network

the LHN was not a "bribe" to UT by the other conference members that was something that was voted on time and again and many members besides UT and OU were against it including all that left the Big 12 with the possible exception of CU

so you asking that question is just more A&M ignorance and the answer is no OUT and OU will not act like A&M they will either accept what the Big 12 gets offered or they will move on they will not make petulant demands as A&M did before moving on

(08-04-2016 07:58 AM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  The worst part of this is how the B12 looks. The longer this goes on, the worse the conference perception will be. They need to look confident with the ability to make a united decision. Right now, they look like a disfunctional organization bumbling along.

They need to end this quickly. The longer it drags out in public, the more credibility they lose.

Hell, it's been dragging out in public over a year now.

The B12 is about to pull a Big East circa 08-10 and never decide on who to add.

(08-04-2016 09:09 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  The B12 is about to pull a Big East circa 08-10 and never decide on who to add.

I disagree. They have been wrestling with 13 and 14, not 11 and 12. JMO. Sooner or later, they need to decide and pull the trigger. I think they have decided, and the trigger gets pulled in the next couple of weeks.

(08-04-2016 07:58 AM)CyclonePower Wrote:  Like the Iowa State AD said, if they extend the GOR it will be after they renegotiate with the tv partners. Expanding may be able to get the TV partners to come to the table and maybe the GOR won't be extending too much(10-12 or so years). This way it isn't like they are tied down forever and they ease the nerves of schools like ISU and KSU.

As an Iowa State fan I have a question for you. In reference to the podcast link where I believe it was your AD that said the position of the Iowa State president was that without an extension of the current GOR signed by every conference member he wouldn’t vote favorably for any expansion candidate, is he the kind of person who would take a hard stand on that position?

With all the talk of expansion for so long now I’m just wondering if it’s coming down to the refusal to sign the GOR extension by one or more schools that has Big12 expansion in a holding pattern.

(08-04-2016 09:14 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 09:09 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  The B12 is about to pull a Big East circa 08-10 and never decide on who to add.

I disagree. They have been wrestling with 13 and 14, not 11 and 12. JMO. Sooner or later, they need to decide and pull the trigger. I think they have decided, and the trigger gets pulled in the next couple of weeks.

I predict that you'll repeat this in the next couple of weeks.

Knew you just couldn't help yourself little buddy!

Had to go off on your homeless guy on the subway conspiracy rant all to finally say "no, I don't believe that OU and UT will be using their position of leverage to their advantage at the end of the contract"

Bookmarked for later though! Should be a fun bump!

(08-04-2016 09:48 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Knew you just couldn't help yourself little buddy!

Had to go off on your homeless guy on the subway conspiracy rant all to finally say "no, I don't believe that OU and UT will be using their position of leverage to their advantage at the end of the contract"

Bookmarked for later though! Should be a fun bump!

yea fun bump to let everyone know that UT and OU did end up acting like A&M

won't be happening, but A&M can dream that others would embarrass themselves the same way

(08-04-2016 09:30 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 09:14 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 09:09 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  The B12 is about to pull a Big East circa 08-10 and never decide on who to add.

I disagree. They have been wrestling with 13 and 14, not 11 and 12. JMO. Sooner or later, they need to decide and pull the trigger. I think they have decided, and the trigger gets pulled in the next couple of weeks.

I predict that you'll repeat this in the next couple of weeks.

Maybe. It wouldn't be the first time the Big 12 has delayed on something. It's like a way of life with them, lol.

(08-04-2016 09:30 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 09:14 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 09:09 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  The B12 is about to pull a Big East circa 08-10 and never decide on who to add.

I disagree. They have been wrestling with 13 and 14, not 11 and 12. JMO. Sooner or later, they need to decide and pull the trigger. I think they have decided, and the trigger gets pulled in the next couple of weeks.

I predict that you'll repeat this in the next couple of weeks.

I think you mean seasons...

(08-04-2016 09:48 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Knew you just couldn't help yourself little buddy!

Had to go off on your homeless guy on the subway conspiracy rant all to finally say "no, I don't believe that OU and UT will be using their position of leverage to their advantage at the end of the contract"

Bookmarked for later though! Should be a fun bump!

I believe they will too.Why wouldn't they. They tell the other members to insure the survival of the B12 we have to have X amount of dollars, or we are gone. The other members will capitulate. For example UT/OU make 100M-150M a piece the other members make not so much maybe 30M-40m under the new contract.

(08-04-2016 10:15 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 09:48 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Knew you just couldn't help yourself little buddy!

Had to go off on your homeless guy on the subway conspiracy rant all to finally say "no, I don't believe that OU and UT will be using their position of leverage to their advantage at the end of the contract"

Bookmarked for later though! Should be a fun bump!

I believe they will too.Why wouldn't they. They tell the other members to insure the survival of the B12 we have to have X amount of dollars, or we are gone. The other members will capitulate. For example UT/OU make 100M-150M a piece the other members make not so much maybe 30M-40m under the new contract.

that is a ridiculous assumption especially with those numbers

it is sad and pathetic how desperate that A&M fans are to deflect from the fact that it was A&M that have already behaved the way they are saying that UT and OU MIGHT act in the future and calling UT and OU out for that POSSIBILITY while ignoring the fact that A&M was just as big of if not more of a destabilizing factor in the Big 12 and they were in fact the ones that made unreasonable demands even though they pretty much sucked their entire time in the Big 12

it is even more sad and pathetic that dem coogs doh fans try and call out UT UT UT over and over while at the same time begging and pleading and whining and crying to get back into a conference with UT UT UT......and even worse when they would take table scraps in a conference distribution to do so even for a full 8 years with no GOR extension in place

all the more reason for UT and the rest of the Big 12 to want nothing to do with dem coogs doh

(08-04-2016 10:30 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 10:15 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 09:48 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Knew you just couldn't help yourself little buddy!

Had to go off on your homeless guy on the subway conspiracy rant all to finally say "no, I don't believe that OU and UT will be using their position of leverage to their advantage at the end of the contract"

Bookmarked for later though! Should be a fun bump!

I believe they will too.Why wouldn't they. They tell the other members to insure the survival of the B12 we have to have X amount of dollars, or we are gone. The other members will capitulate. For example UT/OU make 100M-150M a piece the other members make not so much maybe 30M-40m under the new contract.

that is a ridiculous assumption especially with those numbers

it is sad and pathetic how desperate that A&M fans are to deflect from the fact that it was A&M that have already behaved the way they are saying that UT and OU MIGHT act in the future and calling UT and OU out for that POSSIBILITY while ignoring the fact that A&M was just as big of if not more of a destabilizing factor in the Big 12 and they were in fact the ones that made unreasonable demands even though they pretty much sucked their entire time in the Big 12

it is even more sad and pathetic that dem coogs doh fans try and call out UT UT UT over and over while at the same time begging and pleading and whining and crying to get back into a conference with UT UT UT......and even worse when they would take table scraps in a conference distribution to do so even for a full 8 years with no GOR extension in place

all the more reason for UT and the rest of the Big 12 to want nothing to do with dem coogs doh

I said for example sake, its just an example, but the point I trying too make UT/OU are going to want a bigger share of the pie, and why wouldn't they? If we get in the B12 and come time for new TV contract negotiations UH/TT will be eating the same scraps from that UT/OU table, as well, unless UH/TT or any other B12 member can find a conference who's willing to offer that particular University or Universities a better deal.

(08-04-2016 10:43 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 10:30 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 10:15 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 09:48 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Knew you just couldn't help yourself little buddy!

Had to go off on your homeless guy on the subway conspiracy rant all to finally say "no, I don't believe that OU and UT will be using their position of leverage to their advantage at the end of the contract"

Bookmarked for later though! Should be a fun bump!

I believe they will too.Why wouldn't they. They tell the other members to insure the survival of the B12 we have to have X amount of dollars, or we are gone. The other members will capitulate. For example UT/OU make 100M-150M a piece the other members make not so much maybe 30M-40m under the new contract.

that is a ridiculous assumption especially with those numbers

it is sad and pathetic how desperate that A&M fans are to deflect from the fact that it was A&M that have already behaved the way they are saying that UT and OU MIGHT act in the future and calling UT and OU out for that POSSIBILITY while ignoring the fact that A&M was just as big of if not more of a destabilizing factor in the Big 12 and they were in fact the ones that made unreasonable demands even though they pretty much sucked their entire time in the Big 12

it is even more sad and pathetic that dem coogs doh fans try and call out UT UT UT over and over while at the same time begging and pleading and whining and crying to get back into a conference with UT UT UT......and even worse when they would take table scraps in a conference distribution to do so even for a full 8 years with no GOR extension in place

all the more reason for UT and the rest of the Big 12 to want nothing to do with dem coogs doh

I said for example sake, its just an example, but the point I trying too make UT/OU are going to want a bigger share of the pie, and why wouldn't they? If we get in the B12 and come time for new TV contract negotiations UH/TT will be eating the same scraps from that UT/OU table, as well, unless UH/TT or any other B12 member can find a conference who's willing to offer that particular University or Universities a better deal.

people are pretending that the Big 12 was the only conference that ever had unequal revenue....it was not the PAC 10 did as well

people are pretending that it was UT and OU that pushed unequal revenues on the Big 12 when it is irrefutable that A&M and NU were also in favor of that and there is a possibility that MU and KU were as well

people are pretending that UT and OU ever made any threats to the Big 12 members about unequal revenues

there is ZERO evidence of this, but there is irrefutable proof that A&M made threats to the Big 12 about an unequal share of exit fees and unequal revenues including threatening a lawsuit

there is also irrefutable proof that USC and UCLA threatened the PAC 10/12 members to get $20 million per year on the new TV deal

yet for some reason the only thing we have PROOF of wit UT and OU in relation to unequal revenues is both UT and OU declining to take an unequal share of exit fees from NU and CU leaving and UT and OU having no part of and any threat of a lawsuit for future unequal revenues that A&M was threatening

yet we are somehow all suppose to listen to an A&M fan no less try and pretend as though A&M ever cared about anyone but themselves in the Big 12 or that they cared about what was best for any of the Big 12 members besides A&M

or that A&M stood up to UT and OU in the best interest of other members of the Big 12 when in fact A&M did the opposite and then broke "their word" about staying in the Big 12 and left anyway

so why should UT and OU be called out for their POSSIBLE FUTURE threats to Big 12 members when UT and OU have never done such a thing and when UT and OU are content with equal revenue distributions in the Big 12 now

and why should it not be repeatedly pointed out that A&M made the threats to the Big 12 and USC and UCLA made them to the PAC 10/12 and that A&M and NU were as responsible if not more responsible of unequal revenue sharing and no conference network as any member of the Big 12 was

why do all of these other programs that HAVE MADE threats and that were equally responsible for things get a pass while accusations are thrown at UT and OU about things they have never actually done and most likely WILL NOT do in the future

(08-04-2016 09:14 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 09:09 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  The B12 is about to pull a Big East circa 08-10 and never decide on who to add.

I disagree. They have been wrestling with 13 and 14, not 11 and 12. JMO. Sooner or later, they need to decide and pull the trigger. I think they have decided, and the trigger gets pulled in the next couple of weeks.

Ok...let's assume that's true. They have decided on who to add. Why the wait? Waiting at this point only hurts the conference. ESPN talking about a dead conference walking isn't good for the teams there not named Texas or OK.

For the sake of argument:

- let's say Texas, Tech, Baylor, TCU are a bloc. They strongly back Houston. (for political favors, to be paid at a later date by Texas state government)

- let's say the remaining Big 8 schools are a bloc: Oklahoma, OK St, K St, KU, Iowa St. Not that it would matter that much, but you can probably say WV will back whatever Iowa St wants ... since I believe it was the former WV athletic director's relationship with Iowa St AD that got WV into the B12. But anyway ...


Which team does this Big 8 bloc want ??? Assume they get one team only. Which team benefits them the most?

- Cincy, as a "travel partner" for WV ?? even though it's 5hrs away, and we know that high-major leagues don't really utilize travel partners these days
- Memphis, because ... ???
- UConn, because ... ???
- some other AAC team, because ... ???
- BYU (all sports), because best available non P5 football program ??? (note that the article is confirming that football-only is off the table)
- some MWC team, because ... ???

If BYU is off the table, for various reasons, and none of the AAC schools can get the votes for whatever reason, I could see Colorado St sneaking into the discussion.

Iowa St and Kansas could appreciate their higher research. And Colorado is a border state with Kansas, with the areas east of the front range being similar to the great plains.



I've been saying for a while BYU/Houston. But if BYU ends up being off the table, maybe CO St/Houston ain't so bad ...