http://newsok.com/texas-network-a-blow-t...e/3536730#

Quote:The Sooners are more stable, and athletic director Joe Castiglione stands firmly with the Big 12. But others in power on campus are less committed; many still regret that OU and others did not jump to the Pac-10 last summer. No one in authority at OU wants any part of the SEC culture, but the Pac-10 remains a popular idea among people that matter in Norman.

The Texas Network muddles the Longhorns' Pac-10 interest. UT athletic director DeLoss Dodds has said the possibility of starting his own network helped keep the 'Horns in the Big 12, and the Pac-10 has since voted to market its “third-tier rights” (the new phrase for the kind of events headed for the Texas Network) collectively.

But a Big 12 source told me last summer that the Pac-10 was willing to let Texas establish its own network. And some have said the proposed Pac-10 Network will be a tough sell. So who knows?

OU powers that be prefer the Pac-10 to the SEC..and the implication that the Pac-12 would still take Texas even with its longhorn network with open arms.

As Sammy11 says...Texoma 4.

(02-01-2011 03:37 PM)superdeluxe Wrote:  http://newsok.com/texas-network-a-blow-t...e/3536730#

Quote:The Sooners are more stable, and athletic director Joe Castiglione stands firmly with the Big 12. But others in power on campus are less committed; many still regret that OU and others did not jump to the Pac-10 last summer. No one in authority at OU wants any part of the SEC culture, but the Pac-10 remains a popular idea among people that matter in Norman.

The Texas Network muddles the Longhorns' Pac-10 interest. UT athletic director DeLoss Dodds has said the possibility of starting his own network helped keep the 'Horns in the Big 12, and the Pac-10 has since voted to market its “third-tier rights” (the new phrase for the kind of events headed for the Texas Network) collectively.

But a Big 12 source told me last summer that the Pac-10 was willing to let Texas establish its own network. And some have said the proposed Pac-10 Network will be a tough sell. So who knows?

OU powers that be prefer the Pac-10 to the SEC..and the implication that the Pac-12 would still take Texas even with its longhorn network with open arms.

As Sammy11 says...Texoma 4.

If the PAC 12 still wants to get to 16, might they start by taking Oklahoma and Okla St to get to 14? That might put some pressure on Texas and ?? to make the move. Obviously Texas won't go without their network and one of their albatrosses.

(02-01-2011 03:42 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 03:37 PM)superdeluxe Wrote:  http://newsok.com/texas-network-a-blow-t...e/3536730#

Quote:The Sooners are more stable, and athletic director Joe Castiglione stands firmly with the Big 12. But others in power on campus are less committed; many still regret that OU and others did not jump to the Pac-10 last summer. No one in authority at OU wants any part of the SEC culture, but the Pac-10 remains a popular idea among people that matter in Norman.

The Texas Network muddles the Longhorns' Pac-10 interest. UT athletic director DeLoss Dodds has said the possibility of starting his own network helped keep the 'Horns in the Big 12, and the Pac-10 has since voted to market its “third-tier rights” (the new phrase for the kind of events headed for the Texas Network) collectively.

But a Big 12 source told me last summer that the Pac-10 was willing to let Texas establish its own network. And some have said the proposed Pac-10 Network will be a tough sell. So who knows?

OU powers that be prefer the Pac-10 to the SEC..and the implication that the Pac-12 would still take Texas even with its longhorn network with open arms.

As Sammy11 says...Texoma 4.

If the PAC 12 still wants to get to 16, might they start by taking Oklahoma and Okla St to get to 14? That might put some pressure on Texas and ?? to make the move. Obviously Texas won't go without their network and one of their albatrosses.

We tried that once and kind of got burnt with Colorado. If going to 14 makes sense then I say go for it...if you are doing it to pressure UT into the pac-12 then forget..UT could just say screw you..and we would be stuck at a 14 team league. It should either be 12 or 16. If it goes to 16..you have 2 geographic divisions a west and a east.

(02-01-2011 03:42 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  If the PAC 12 still wants to get to 16, might they start by taking Oklahoma and Okla St to get to 14? That might put some pressure on Texas and ?? to make the move. Obviously Texas won't go without their network and one of their albatrosses.

No, conferences simply don't act that way. People argued the same thing about the Big Ten possibly "forcing" ND to join by taking several BE schools, which obviously didn't happen. If anything was proven over the past year, schools such as UT and ND aren't ever "forced" to do anything. The Pac-10 wanted UT - that's who they were willing to bend over for. OU is a great football addition, but the Pac-10 culturally and academically had no use for them without UT coming along.

Texoma 4 are beholden to the mutual interest of UT & OU. They work together in a good cop/ bad cop way with the media and realize that they can carry far more power united in a league than pushing it solo.

OU & OSU were clear over, and over, and over, and over that both wanted to stay with UT. Even if the B12 could not be saved they would lock arms with Bevo. UT has legislative handcuffs with regards to TT so that group of 4 is pretty solid.

You think UT would be agreeable to a pac-12 if they are able to keep its network in some form.

The big thing I think keeps being missed is that all of this was known last summer. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State already knew that Texas was working to make it's own network. That in no way pushed them to the PAC-10. Why would it now?

There's no use arguing ohio people are going to believe what they want to believe even if it's not true.

(02-01-2011 04:11 PM)superdeluxe Wrote:  You think UT would be agreeable to a pac-12 if they are able to keep its network in some form.

Its probably plan B if the current setup fails. Pac16 was projected to get anywhere from 18 million to 20 million depending on the bias of the person projecting it with all rights in. UT is assured 20 million AND gets their network so it would be 2-3 million lost most likely when you consider UT could possibly get 24 million due to the appearances on tv dividing up half the B12 money.

I would have to think the 18 million is closer to reality if the Pac allowed the bevo network. Right now politics + ATM not being non-conference + 2 to 3 million + travel + getting outvoted 12 to 4 = stay. Money and exposure was the hook and ESPN removed it. If things change again it could happen but ESPN seems more than happy to bankroll a way for that not to happen.

(02-01-2011 05:29 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The big thing I think keeps being missed is that all of this was known last summer. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State already knew that Texas was working to make it's own network. That in no way pushed them to the PAC-10. Why would it now?

If I'm not mistaken, this whole rumor has circled around aTm. I don't think OU/OSU has said one word about UT's TV deal. The rest of the conversation has progressed to "what if aTm leaves the Big12, for the SEC?" Everyone, (wishfully so) has started drawing org charts to show where the leftovers of the Big12 would fit into their conference.

In truth, I think IF aTm leaves the Big12 for the SEC. The core four (UT,OU,OSU,TT) will keep the Big12 together and patch in maybe Houston, in place of aTm, and carry on. Then they can take their time to expand to 12, and the championship game that comes with it. And yes, I am fully aware of the disparity in the Big12 payouts. Even with the uneven payouts in the Big12, I guarantee it's better money than any of these other conferences can provide, if any Big12 school should decide to leave.

I just don't buy the "fire sale of the Big12" mentality some of these other conferences wish would happen. For what it's worth, I think aTm in the SEC makes sense.

My $0.02 worth

I dont think the pac12 will force them by taking OU and OSU and those two wont go without Texas. What could happen eventually is Texas,Texas Tech, OU and OSU moving to Pac12 if the current deal with Big12 fails. Texas still the linchpin and they wont budge unless the Big12 money is not enough.

(02-01-2011 05:52 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 05:29 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The big thing I think keeps being missed is that all of this was known last summer. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State already knew that Texas was working to make it's own network. That in no way pushed them to the PAC-10. Why would it now?

If I'm not mistaken, this whole rumor has circled around aTm. I don't think OU/OSU has said one word about UT's TV deal. The rest of the conversation has progressed to "what if aTm leaves the Big12, for the SEC?" Everyone, (wishfully so) has started drawing org charts to show where the leftovers of the Big12 would fit into their conference.

In truth, I think IF aTm leaves the Big12 for the SEC. The core four (UT,OU,OSU,TT) will keep the Big12 together and patch in maybe Houston, in place of aTm, and carry on. Then they can take their time to expand to 12, and the championship game that comes with it. And yes, I am fully aware of the disparity in the Big12 payouts. Even with the uneven payouts in the Big12, I guarantee it's better money than any of these other conferences can provide, if any Big12 school should decide to leave.

I just don't buy the "fire sale of the Big12" mentality some of these other conferences wish would happen. For what it's worth, I think aTm in the SEC makes sense.

My $0.02 worth

If we only lost A&M you would see us likely offer BYU. Its become pretty obvious there is an open dialogue with them.

If aTm left for the SEC, who else would the SEC pick up to stay even? And why would the Texas legislature allow aTm to do this?

(02-01-2011 06:07 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  If aTm left for the SEC, who else would the SEC pick up to stay even? And why would the Texas legislature allow aTm to do this?

I don't know that answer. Would be an interesting conversation.

(02-01-2011 06:02 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 05:52 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 05:29 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The big thing I think keeps being missed is that all of this was known last summer. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State already knew that Texas was working to make it's own network. That in no way pushed them to the PAC-10. Why would it now?

If I'm not mistaken, this whole rumor has circled around aTm. I don't think OU/OSU has said one word about UT's TV deal. The rest of the conversation has progressed to "what if aTm leaves the Big12, for the SEC?" Everyone, (wishfully so) has started drawing org charts to show where the leftovers of the Big12 would fit into their conference.

In truth, I think IF aTm leaves the Big12 for the SEC. The core four (UT,OU,OSU,TT) will keep the Big12 together and patch in maybe Houston, in place of aTm, and carry on. Then they can take their time to expand to 12, and the championship game that comes with it. And yes, I am fully aware of the disparity in the Big12 payouts. Even with the uneven payouts in the Big12, I guarantee it's better money than any of these other conferences can provide, if any Big12 school should decide to leave.

I just don't buy the "fire sale of the Big12" mentality some of these other conferences wish would happen. For what it's worth, I think aTm in the SEC makes sense.

My $0.02 worth

If we only lost A&M you would see us likely offer BYU. Its become pretty obvious there is an open dialogue with them.

BYU is a good choice.

This article was meant to stir the pot. I'm not buying. There is enough to keep the Texas schools in the Big XII together. Tech and Baylor will keep their mouths shut so long as the check keep coming in, and A&M already said no to the SEC once. One has to think that when you are being courted and you say no thanks, that the door is shut in your face. I don't care about this article or any that follows in its footsteps. It's all crap.

(02-01-2011 06:07 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  If aTm left for the SEC, who else would the SEC pick up to stay even? And why would the Texas legislature allow aTm to do this?

Assuming ATM the wish list likely is:
1- UNC (NOPE)
2- VT (Depends on politics)
3- WVU or Mizzou

(02-01-2011 06:19 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 06:07 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  If aTm left for the SEC, who else would the SEC pick up to stay even? And why would the Texas legislature allow aTm to do this?

Assuming ATM the wish list likely is:
1- UNC (NOPE)
2- VT (Depends on politics)
3- WVU or Mizzou

I'm not sure I agree with this. If the SEC really were interested in pushing for a second member to add with Texas A&M, I would have to think the wish list would start with:

1 - Texas
2 - Oklahoma

(Note - I'm not saying these schools would jump at it, but I think the $$$ the SEC would offer would at least make them seriously enter the conversation.)

If neither would budge, I think the SEC makes a run at Florida State before they go after a North Carolina. And I also don't think North Carolina would seriously consider the SEC. North Carolina and Virginia consider themselves vastly above the bulk of the schools in the SEC academically, and I don't see North Carolina splitting from Duke in the future.

USFFan

(02-01-2011 06:36 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 06:19 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 06:07 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  If aTm left for the SEC, who else would the SEC pick up to stay even? And why would the Texas legislature allow aTm to do this?

Assuming ATM the wish list likely is:
1- UNC (NOPE)
2- VT (Depends on politics)
3- WVU or Mizzou

I'm not sure I agree with this. If the SEC really were interested in pushing for a second member to add with Texas A&M, I would have to think the wish list would start with:

1 - Texas
2 - Oklahoma

(Note - I'm not saying these schools would jump at it, but I think the $$$ the SEC would offer would at least make them seriously enter the conversation.)

If neither would budge, I think the SEC makes a run at Florida State before they go after a North Carolina. And I also don't think North Carolina would seriously consider the SEC. North Carolina and Virginia consider themselves vastly above the bulk of the schools in the SEC academically, and I don't see North Carolina splitting from Duke in the future.

USFFan

Hence the NOPE on UNC but you are right on UT & OU. SEC would go after UNC first as it adds tv and academics and boosts hoops, UNC also would tell them to get lost.

Target states:
Texas
North Carolina
Virginia
West Va/ Missouri

(02-01-2011 06:07 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  If aTm left for the SEC, who else would the SEC pick up to stay even? And why would the Texas legislature allow aTm to do this?

Question #1 is backwards: the SEC has to WANT A&M and believe that they're worth it without an OU-caliber school coming along. A&M can't just choose to leave, which is what a lot of people are missing. As I've said, it takes two to tango. Considering that the SEC only sent out invites to A&M and OU as a last resort when it appeared UT was forming the Pac-16 and Nebraska and Notre Dame were heading to a 16-team Big Ten, it was completely a reactionary measure as opposed to a proactive measure. The SEC likes the status quo and would only move if a UT move threatens the conference's dominance.

Question #2: No reason at all. Not a single person has articulated why the political environment has changed from last summer. The Texas legislature has proven over and over again that it will intervene HEAVILY. There are some that blame A&M for screwing up the Pac-16 deal (as they were the ones that had the most reservations with an SEC counter-offer) that would have protected Texas Tech, so there's NFW that the legislature is going to let Tech lose a single penny in conference money by A&M moving to the SEC or anywhere else. None. Nada. Zilch. A&M has to find Texas Tech at the very least (and probably Baylor, too) a deal just as good or better than the Pac-16 deal if it ever wants to move. Leaving behind a Big 12 that would make less money isn't good enough at all - that's NOT what the Texas legislature considers to be "taking care of Tech and Baylor".

That needs to be beaten into people's heads: the Pac-16 deal is the bare minimum for the Texas and Oklahoma schools now. Neither of those states' legislatures are going to let the little brothers get left behind now when there was a deal on the table that would've protected them that the big brothers passed up on.