(08-30-2016 02:51 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  

(08-30-2016 02:26 PM)HuskyHawk Wrote:  Exactly. Put ISU in a G5 with G5 resources and a G5 schedule and you'd have a drastically different school. That stadium would be smaller and half full. Hoops bounced up with Freddy but he's in Chicago and mediocrity will return. It's AAU and that's a plus, but it's also second fiddle in its own tiny state. It has zero market appeal to anyone, and no national brand in any sport to trade on.

I'm not hating on ISU, KState is in similar shape. OK State probably better with recent football success. Texas Tech is another that wouldn't move the needle for anyone, no real market, no real success at anything. Those schools don't know how lucky they are and how massive their advantages are over schools in the G5. There are several G5 schools who would outperform many legacy P5 if they had access to the money and schedules that those schools have.

I'm not one to argue for the Cyclones, but they have had great success in wrestling. There is no denying that.

I think the real question is whether the fans would keep supporting Iowa State if they were dropped to a G5. I would imagine basketball attendance would still be maintained, and there is plenty of history for high attendance G5 basketball programs. But I would bet their football attendance drops off big time. Big 10 would gobble up the state.

The larger point is that the stronger G5 schools tend to be underrated, because playing in a weaker league, with less exposure on TV, less compelling scheduling and less money becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. They are swimming upstream and some G5 schools are merely floating downstream. Basketball can survive, but even it is more difficult. Iowa State would probably be viewed a lot more like Colorado State is my guess.

(08-30-2016 03:00 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  ISU fans have supported Cyclone football through years and years of losing to teams like Nebraska, Missouri, K St, and OU. Then some more years losing to Texas schools.

Why stop because they start winning vs G5 teams in a G5 league??

But why would a G5 Iowa State win big against other G5 schools?

After accounting for the $20 million difference between the AAC and Big 12, Cincinnati would have the same athletic revenue as Iowa State. Also ISU's endowment is 65% the size of Cincinnati's.

ISU is in a state that produces almost no top-notch high school football or basketball players, so their recruiting would drop off quite a bit without the P5 moniker.

ISU is about 3/4 the size of Cincinnati (# of alumni, student body, etc).

ISU has the same problem of being 2nd fiddle in their state as Cincinnati, but ISU is in a much smaller state.

Even in academics, about half of academic rankings rank Cincinnati ahead of Iowa State (I have a list of 14 rankings & UC is ahead of ISU in 7 of them). AAU is great, but that's more about what you used to be than what you are now.

Look, ISU is a great school and they'd be near the top of the G5. But don't pretend that they're head-and-shoulders above every G5 school.

Should the Big 12 give Chuck Nienas a call as some sort of a sounding board?

B12: You want to add schools?
ESPN: We want a contract and GoR extension so we can be sure we have certain schools for X years to help recover the cost.

ESPN and/or FOX may be willing to pay the extra $20 million per year for Arkansas State (just an example) if they know they are getting Texas and Oklahoma for an additional 10 years.

(08-30-2016 08:38 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  B12: You want to add schools?
ESPN: We want a contract and GoR extension so we can be sure we have certain schools for X years to help recover the cost.

ESPN and/or FOX may be willing to pay the extra $20 million per year for Arkansas State (just an example) if they know they are getting Texas and Oklahoma for an additional 10 years.

True, though not once have I gotten the impression that UT/OU are looking to sign a GOR.

(08-30-2016 09:06 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(08-30-2016 08:38 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  B12: You want to add schools?
ESPN: We want a contract and GoR extension so we can be sure we have certain schools for X years to help recover the cost.

ESPN and/or FOX may be willing to pay the extra $20 million per year for Arkansas State (just an example) if they know they are getting Texas and Oklahoma for an additional 10 years.

True, though not once have I gotten the impression that UT/OU are looking to sign a GOR.

If they get enough of what they want, just maybe...

Gotta imagine something will happen with the LHN though, that CANNOT stay around if that conference is to succeed... it needs to become a B12 network. Maybe pro-rate it so UT gets a bigger share than the others just to shut them up?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

USF
UCF
BYU
Cincy

(08-30-2016 01:06 PM)HuskyHawk Wrote:  

(08-30-2016 12:42 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-30-2016 12:27 PM)HuskyHawk Wrote:  Iowa State is shooting themselves in the foot if they take that position. They are probably the school with the most to lose and the least chance to land in a P5 if the B12 dissolves. I know they want an extended GOR to prevent it, but the reality is what they need is at least 2 more schools so that the B12 lives if UT and OU bail on it when this GOR ends.

Iowa State seriously has nothing on most of the schools being considered in expansion and offers less than several of them. I think they will become convinced of this reality soon, and will vote to expand. If the B12 thrives post expansion, there's a fair chance UT or OU will choose to stay anyway, but they aren't signing an extension now.

Most of your post is spot-on - ISU's only priority should be to keep Texas in the Big 12. But I disagree with the bolded part. If Texas eventually leaves, adding 2 schools now does nothing to help ISU post-Texas.

If there's still a rump Big 12, they'll invite the best AAC/MWC schools. And those schools will come running. Remember, the Big East only had 3 schools left and they ended up choosing all of their new conference mates.

Even if Iowa State is the only B12 school not invited to a P4, the AAC and MWC will compete to invite ISU as team #13.

So either way, ISU will end up in the 5th best conference.

That's true except that several years in the Big 12 would help BYU, Houston, Cinci or UConn dramatically. They'd have a much stronger case to the networks when the deal expires than they would if they waited. It's very likely that those schools would be fully perceived as P5 and the league would either have a better chance of holding OU and or UT, or of getting a deal without them.

the idea that these "project schools" will somehow take off and help keep the Big 12 as a power conference if UT and OU leave is highly unrealistic

first Cincy and UConn were in a BCS conference and what did they do with that....they got left behind

second if 2 or more schools join the Big 12 and immediately become extremely competitive that just means that the remaining members were even worse than everyone thought

that is the whole ridiculous aspect of "must expand the big 12 to save the Big 12 for the terrible teams in the Big 12"

some people think that you will add teams and then Kansas and Iowa State and others will start to get easy wins so they will look better and the Big 12 will look better.....the stupidity of that of course is not you just have more bad teams in the conference why would you simply play fewer conference games and allow your bad conference members to beat teams for easy win FROM OTHER CONFERENCES

the flip side is "well you add these teams and boom they DoMiNAtE in the Big 12" and now the Big 12 has more "power teams" to counter act UT and OU being the big names

that of course ignores the fact that those teams even with a bit more resources will still have some of the lowest budgets in all of the P5 and the lowest budgets in the Big 12 and if they start to lose all of their recruiting will go down the toilet even with a bigger budget because more TV money does not buy you more wins

and then there is the factor that if all of your "meh" to crappy teams start losing to those new teams you just have a conference that looks even worse

and when UT and OU leave you have a conference with "top programs" that come nowhere close to UT and OU in terms of media power and you have a lot more schools that look even crappier than when they were losing to UT and OU

if the president or AD of any program currently in the Big 12 is looking for new members to come into the Big 12 and immediately move to the top of the conference then those presidents and ADs should go ahead and prepare their programs to be in the AAC or the MWC or a Big 12 that looks like and gets paid like the MWC or the AAC because that is where their program is headed

(08-30-2016 09:12 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(08-30-2016 09:06 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(08-30-2016 08:38 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  B12: You want to add schools?
ESPN: We want a contract and GoR extension so we can be sure we have certain schools for X years to help recover the cost.

ESPN and/or FOX may be willing to pay the extra $20 million per year for Arkansas State (just an example) if they know they are getting Texas and Oklahoma for an additional 10 years.

True, though not once have I gotten the impression that UT/OU are looking to sign a GOR.

If they get enough of what they want, just maybe...

Gotta imagine something will happen with the LHN though, that CANNOT stay around if that conference is to succeed... it needs to become a B12 network. Maybe pro-rate it so UT gets a bigger share than the others just to shut them up?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

I was actually thinking the opposite might get UT to sign. If the LHN were to get extended, it might be enough to get Texas to commit longer term.

(08-30-2016 09:14 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(08-30-2016 09:12 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(08-30-2016 09:06 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(08-30-2016 08:38 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  B12: You want to add schools?
ESPN: We want a contract and GoR extension so we can be sure we have certain schools for X years to help recover the cost.

ESPN and/or FOX may be willing to pay the extra $20 million per year for Arkansas State (just an example) if they know they are getting Texas and Oklahoma for an additional 10 years.

True, though not once have I gotten the impression that UT/OU are looking to sign a GOR.

If they get enough of what they want, just maybe...

Gotta imagine something will happen with the LHN though, that CANNOT stay around if that conference is to succeed... it needs to become a B12 network. Maybe pro-rate it so UT gets a bigger share than the others just to shut them up?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

I was actually thinking the opposite might get UT to sign. If the LHN were to get extended, it might be enough to get Texas to commit longer term.

Personally, i think an extension of the LHN signals the end of the B12. That thing is toxic to the rest of the B12 because they cannot operate a B12 network without it and without a B12 network they fall behind the rest of the power conferences. That needs to be rectified ASAP to preserve any chance of not dissolving

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

the Big 12 is not getting a network they have already realized that which is why they were not excited about expansion back when they decided to have a CCG

even the idiot boren came out and said a network is dead with or without expansion

(08-30-2016 09:32 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the Big 12 is not getting a network they have already realized that which is why they were not excited about expansion back when they decided to have a CCG

even the idiot boren came out and said a network is dead with or without expansion

They also claimed expansion itself was deas a while back... so much for that

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

(08-30-2016 09:33 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(08-30-2016 09:32 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the Big 12 is not getting a network they have already realized that which is why they were not excited about expansion back when they decided to have a CCG

even the idiot boren came out and said a network is dead with or without expansion

They also claimed expansion itself was deas a while back... so much for that

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Things change - both markets, networks, and conference expansion (or lack thereof). With 12 teams (or 14 teams) it becomes much more likely to have a conference network, because the "critical mass" of content is there. BYU competes in every sport the Big 12 sponsors except wrestling (which will hopefully change with or without all sports membership) rowing, and equestrian. That adds a pretty good chunk of content needed to fill up the airwaves.

It may be that a conference network without Texas becomes realistic due to market changes. But, it may be a digitally delivered network, and not a traditional network. Makes sense for teams to pool their 3rd tier content - even if all of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas stay out and cut their own deals.

Go Cougs!!!!!!!!!!!!

I continue to be amused by the suggestions that ESPN/Fox can dictate or even influence who & how many schools the B12 adds. There is a signed contract in place that enables the B12 to add 4 schools & receive a pro rata addition in revenues from ESPN/Fox. And make no mistake, adding schools is only motivated by putting more $$ in the pockets of the current B12 members - especially OU (the current big lose under current arrangement). Further when ESPN/Fox declined to provide a network agreement for the B12 on top of ESPN having already provided UT the LHN contract, and then to have the ACC announce an ACC network with ESPN, it essentially eliminated any "partner" relationship between the B12 & ESPN beyond the current contract. The B12 has no reason to consult & ESPN/Fox have no leverage to dictate anything regarding the addition of schools. UT & OU have no motivation to extend GOR, especially OU, who is currently the big loser in the B12. So IMO, it will play out that the B12, in order to increase revenues to keep up with the other power conferences, will add 4 schools if that brings the biggest payout. And those schools will be selected based upon the lowest risk & cost to the current B12 members over the remaining years of the current TV agreements.

(08-31-2016 10:16 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  I continue to be amused by the suggestions that ESPN/Fox can dictate or even influence who & how many schools the B12 adds. There is a signed contract in place that enables the B12 to add 4 schools & receive a pro rata addition in revenues from ESPN/Fox. And make no mistake, adding schools is only motivated by putting more $$ in the pockets of the current B12 members - especially OU (the current big lose under current arrangement). Further when ESPN/Fox declined to provide a network agreement for the B12 on top of ESPN having already provided UT the LHN contract, and then to have the ACC announce an ACC network with ESPN, it essentially eliminated any "partner" relationship between the B12 & ESPN beyond the current contract. The B12 has no reason to consult & ESPN/Fox have no leverage to dictate anything regarding the addition of schools. UT & OU have no motivation to extend GOR, especially OU, who is currently the big loser in the B12. So IMO, it will play out that the B12, in order to increase revenues to keep up with the other power conferences, will add 4 schools if that brings the biggest payout. And those schools will be selected based upon the lowest risk & cost to the current B12 members over the remaining years of the current TV agreements.

OU has no claim to being a "loser" in the Big 12 financially

OU has stated they were the first team to even THINK OF an independent network and they worked for well over 5 years prior to 2012 to get the sooner sports network up and running

at the time they announced it they stated they did not do it in response to any other university or network they did it because it was "the best of all possible worlds for OU, OU fans and OU athletics"

OU was every bit if not more responsible for the Big 12 not having a conference network just like A&M and Nebraska were as well

the only difference is OU claimed to be the first to even THINK OF an independent network and Nebraska has stated they were further along than Texas is starting their own network.....but Texas simply made theirs pay much better than OU

if OU is upset with the LHN now or is OU wishes there was a conference network now well they should have worked for that from 2006 or 2007 instead of working towards the sooner sports network and doing what was best for "OU, OU fans and OU athletics" instead of doing what they thought would be best for the Big 12

(08-31-2016 10:16 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  I continue to be amused by the suggestions that ESPN/Fox can dictate or even influence who & how many schools the B12 adds. There is a signed contract in place that enables the B12 to add 4 schools & receive a pro rata addition in revenues from ESPN/Fox.

However, either or both can refuse to pay and sue, raising at least the risk that they will win the suit and not have to pay. Reporting is that ESPN, at least, has threatened to do so.

Having the networks sign off on the expansion takes that risk off the table, so it's worth something. How much, of course, depends on the Big12's assessment of the risk of losing and the cost to their brand equity of the public fight.

That makes expansion by two an easier choice on that front, as the networks would be likely to agree to signing off on that expansion in return for amending the contract to cut off the pro-rata increase at 12 schools. Expansion by two including BYU would be even easier, as it reduces the increased cost faced by ESPN, due to the BYU FB contract being closed out.

And expansion by two including BYU FB-only is the two-school expansion with the greatest revenue benefit to the existing schools, since BYU would only ever be up for a partial share (say, 70%) of a conference distribution.

(08-31-2016 12:58 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-31-2016 10:16 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  I continue to be amused by the suggestions that ESPN/Fox can dictate or even influence who & how many schools the B12 adds. There is a signed contract in place that enables the B12 to add 4 schools & receive a pro rata addition in revenues from ESPN/Fox.

However, either or both can refuse to pay and sue, raising at least the risk that they will win the suit and not have to pay. Reporting is that ESPN, at least, has threatened to do so.

Having the networks sign off on the expansion takes that risk off the table, so it's worth something. How much, of course, depends on the Big12's assessment of the risk of losing and the cost to their brand equity of the public fight.

That makes expansion by two an easier choice on that front, as the networks would be likely to agree to signing off on that expansion in return for amending the contract to cut off the pro-rata increase at 12 schools. Expansion by two including BYU would be even easier, as it reduces the increased cost faced by ESPN, due to the BYU FB contract being closed out.

And expansion by two including BYU FB-only is the two-school expansion with the greatest revenue benefit to the existing schools, since BYU would only ever be up for a partial share (say, 70%) of a conference distribution.

Football only would mean there would be a strong argument that the conference should not get a full pro rata for the new member.

(08-31-2016 12:37 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-31-2016 10:16 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  I continue to be amused by the suggestions that ESPN/Fox can dictate or even influence who & how many schools the B12 adds. There is a signed contract in place that enables the B12 to add 4 schools & receive a pro rata addition in revenues from ESPN/Fox. And make no mistake, adding schools is only motivated by putting more $$ in the pockets of the current B12 members - especially OU (the current big lose under current arrangement). Further when ESPN/Fox declined to provide a network agreement for the B12 on top of ESPN having already provided UT the LHN contract, and then to have the ACC announce an ACC network with ESPN, it essentially eliminated any "partner" relationship between the B12 & ESPN beyond the current contract. The B12 has no reason to consult & ESPN/Fox have no leverage to dictate anything regarding the addition of schools. UT & OU have no motivation to extend GOR, especially OU, who is currently the big loser in the B12. So IMO, it will play out that the B12, in order to increase revenues to keep up with the other power conferences, will add 4 schools if that brings the biggest payout. And those schools will be selected based upon the lowest risk & cost to the current B12 members over the remaining years of the current TV agreements.

OU has no claim to being a "loser" in the Big 12 financially

OU has stated they were the first team to even THINK OF an independent network and they worked for well over 5 years prior to 2012 to get the sooner sports network up and running

at the time they announced it they stated they did not do it in response to any other university or network they did it because it was "the best of all possible worlds for OU, OU fans and OU athletics"

OU was every bit if not more responsible for the Big 12 not having a conference network just like A&M and Nebraska were as well

the only difference is OU claimed to be the first to even THINK OF an independent network and Nebraska has stated they were further along than Texas is starting their own network.....but Texas simply made theirs pay much better than OU

if OU is upset with the LHN now or is OU wishes there was a conference network now well they should have worked for that from 2006 or 2007 instead of working towards the sooner sports network and doing what was best for "OU, OU fans and OU athletics" instead of doing what they thought would be best for the Big 12

What did or didn't happen in 2004-2005 doesn't matter today. The reality today is that UT has the LHN, the SEC & B1G are paying substantially more than the B12 & now the ACC is getting a network contract - all of these things make OU the loser. How OU got to that position is nothing more than - should have, could have , would have - but didn't.....OU is still the current big loser in this equation today given their unrealized potential to increase revenues.

(08-31-2016 01:23 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(08-31-2016 12:37 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-31-2016 10:16 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  I continue to be amused by the suggestions that ESPN/Fox can dictate or even influence who & how many schools the B12 adds. There is a signed contract in place that enables the B12 to add 4 schools & receive a pro rata addition in revenues from ESPN/Fox. And make no mistake, adding schools is only motivated by putting more $$ in the pockets of the current B12 members - especially OU (the current big lose under current arrangement). Further when ESPN/Fox declined to provide a network agreement for the B12 on top of ESPN having already provided UT the LHN contract, and then to have the ACC announce an ACC network with ESPN, it essentially eliminated any "partner" relationship between the B12 & ESPN beyond the current contract. The B12 has no reason to consult & ESPN/Fox have no leverage to dictate anything regarding the addition of schools. UT & OU have no motivation to extend GOR, especially OU, who is currently the big loser in the B12. So IMO, it will play out that the B12, in order to increase revenues to keep up with the other power conferences, will add 4 schools if that brings the biggest payout. And those schools will be selected based upon the lowest risk & cost to the current B12 members over the remaining years of the current TV agreements.

OU has no claim to being a "loser" in the Big 12 financially

OU has stated they were the first team to even THINK OF an independent network and they worked for well over 5 years prior to 2012 to get the sooner sports network up and running

at the time they announced it they stated they did not do it in response to any other university or network they did it because it was "the best of all possible worlds for OU, OU fans and OU athletics"

OU was every bit if not more responsible for the Big 12 not having a conference network just like A&M and Nebraska were as well

the only difference is OU claimed to be the first to even THINK OF an independent network and Nebraska has stated they were further along than Texas is starting their own network.....but Texas simply made theirs pay much better than OU

if OU is upset with the LHN now or is OU wishes there was a conference network now well they should have worked for that from 2006 or 2007 instead of working towards the sooner sports network and doing what was best for "OU, OU fans and OU athletics" instead of doing what they thought would be best for the Big 12

What did or didn't happen in 2004-2005 doesn't matter today. The reality today is that UT has the LHN, the SEC & B1G are paying substantially more than the B12 & now the ACC is getting a network contract - all of these things make OU the loser. How OU got to that position is nothing more than - should have, could have , would have - but didn't.....OU is still the current big loser in this equation today given their unrealized potential to increase revenues.

but the hand picked consultants for david boren and the Big 12 have informed boren and the Big 12 that a conference network is a no go with or without expansion

and even if the Big 12 did get a conference network there is little to no guarantee that it would pay enough money to cover the buy out for the remaining 6 years of the sooner sports network and pay enough money to turn a profit to OU over and above what the sooner sports network currently pays them which was reported to be up to $7 million per year

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journ...ahoma.aspx

there is the link they get $5.8 million per year from Fox and then their deal with Learfield was changed to include the TV rights and in exchange for that new easy income Learfield kicked some of that back to OU to the tune of $1 to $2 million per year

so OU would have to buy out of that deal with both Fox and Learfield and then OU would need to get revenue from any conference network that covers that buyout and that covers the money they are making now and then you would think they would want to make a bit more than break even for the trouble

so you are looking at needing to make $10+ million a year if you assume that Learfield and Fox would take $1 million each per year to end the deal and then the $7 million OU gets now and then $1 million more

even if you think that Fox and Learfield would take $250,000 each per year to end the deal because it does not turn a big profit for each that is still $500,000 and then if you believe the lies of boren that the sooner sports network really does not pay OU a lot.......boren lies a lot and has trouble remembering what he bragged about in the past and he is a politician so he has trouble with money and accounting anyway and hence the lying and telling you what you want to hear now the past statements be damned

you are still looking at $500,000 to Learfield and Fox per year and $3 or $4 million to cover what boren says the sooner sports network might generate now and then $1 million for the trouble so you are looking at $5+ million per year that a conference network would need to generate and that is coming close to what the SEC SEC SEC network makes

then there is the fact that ESPN cannot ATTEMPT to cram more content onto cable MSOs until their contract negotiations in 2019 which is part of why the ACc Acc acc network will not be attempted until then

so how does OU cover that between now and then....they don't

and three years from now is a long ways away in terms of cable subscribers when ESPN has lost 10 million subscribers since 2013 and when ESPN lost 1.5 million subscribers from Feb to May of this year alone

so there is no certainty that the Big 12 would come close to earning even what some lower tier teams are earning from their deals much less what OU or KU makes and even more so if they offer to make UT whole in the LHN

(08-31-2016 01:49 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-31-2016 01:23 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(08-31-2016 12:37 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-31-2016 10:16 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  I continue to be amused by the suggestions that ESPN/Fox can dictate or even influence who & how many schools the B12 adds. There is a signed contract in place that enables the B12 to add 4 schools & receive a pro rata addition in revenues from ESPN/Fox. And make no mistake, adding schools is only motivated by putting more $$ in the pockets of the current B12 members - especially OU (the current big lose under current arrangement). Further when ESPN/Fox declined to provide a network agreement for the B12 on top of ESPN having already provided UT the LHN contract, and then to have the ACC announce an ACC network with ESPN, it essentially eliminated any "partner" relationship between the B12 & ESPN beyond the current contract. The B12 has no reason to consult & ESPN/Fox have no leverage to dictate anything regarding the addition of schools. UT & OU have no motivation to extend GOR, especially OU, who is currently the big loser in the B12. So IMO, it will play out that the B12, in order to increase revenues to keep up with the other power conferences, will add 4 schools if that brings the biggest payout. And those schools will be selected based upon the lowest risk & cost to the current B12 members over the remaining years of the current TV agreements.

OU has no claim to being a "loser" in the Big 12 financially

OU has stated they were the first team to even THINK OF an independent network and they worked for well over 5 years prior to 2012 to get the sooner sports network up and running

at the time they announced it they stated they did not do it in response to any other university or network they did it because it was "the best of all possible worlds for OU, OU fans and OU athletics"

OU was every bit if not more responsible for the Big 12 not having a conference network just like A&M and Nebraska were as well

the only difference is OU claimed to be the first to even THINK OF an independent network and Nebraska has stated they were further along than Texas is starting their own network.....but Texas simply made theirs pay much better than OU

if OU is upset with the LHN now or is OU wishes there was a conference network now well they should have worked for that from 2006 or 2007 instead of working towards the sooner sports network and doing what was best for "OU, OU fans and OU athletics" instead of doing what they thought would be best for the Big 12

What did or didn't happen in 2004-2005 doesn't matter today. The reality today is that UT has the LHN, the SEC & B1G are paying substantially more than the B12 & now the ACC is getting a network contract - all of these things make OU the loser. How OU got to that position is nothing more than - should have, could have , would have - but didn't.....OU is still the current big loser in this equation today given their unrealized potential to increase revenues.

but the hand picked consultants for david boren and the Big 12 have informed boren and the Big 12 that a conference network is a no go with or without expansion

and even if the Big 12 did get a conference network there is little to no guarantee that it would pay enough money to cover the buy out for the remaining 6 years of the sooner sports network and pay enough money to turn a profit to OU over and above what the sooner sports network currently pays them which was reported to be up to $7 million per year

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journ...ahoma.aspx

there is the link they get $5.8 million per year from Fox and then their deal with Learfield was changed to include the TV rights and in exchange for that new easy income Learfield kicked some of that back to OU to the tune of $1 to $2 million per year

so OU would have to buy out of that deal with both Fox and Learfield and then OU would need to get revenue from any conference network that covers that buyout and that covers the money they are making now and then you would think they would want to make a bit more than break even for the trouble

so you are looking at needing to make $10+ million a year if you assume that Learfield and Fox would take $1 million each per year to end the deal and then the $7 million OU gets now and then $1 million more

even if you think that Fox and Learfield would take $250,000 each per year to end the deal because it does not turn a big profit for each that is still $500,000 and then if you believe the lies of boren that the sooner sports network really does not pay OU a lot.......boren lies a lot and has trouble remembering what he bragged about in the past and he is a politician so he has trouble with money and accounting anyway and hence the lying and telling you what you want to hear now the past statements be damned

you are still looking at $500,000 to Learfield and Fox per year and $3 or $4 million to cover what boren says the sooner sports network might generate now and then $1 million for the trouble so you are looking at $5+ million per year that a conference network would need to generate and that is coming close to what the SEC SEC SEC network makes

then there is the fact that ESPN cannot ATTEMPT to cram more content onto cable MSOs until their contract negotiations in 2019 which is part of why the ACc Acc acc network will not be attempted until then

so how does OU cover that between now and then....they don't

and three years from now is a long ways away in terms of cable subscribers when ESPN has lost 10 million subscribers since 2013 and when ESPN lost 1.5 million subscribers from Feb to May of this year alone

so there is no certainty that the Big 12 would come close to earning even what some lower tier teams are earning from their deals much less what OU or KU makes and even more so if they offer to make UT whole in the LHN

You're looking in the wrong place & using a wrong analysis - and BTW I'm not arguing with your analysis other than to say it's not the issue that makes OU the loser. It is not what OU now gets vs what it may or may not have received if other decisions had been made in the past in the B12. It is what OU is missing out on by not be a member of the SEC or the B1G the loser - and can't get under the B12 because they cannot leverage the conference for a better network contract. So the alternative for OU & the B12 is to maximize the existing TV contract by adding members until the contract is up for renewal & GoR has run its course.