(04-24-2015 09:18 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  I agree to an extent bullet, what do you truly expect university presidents to say? Sure there was branding involved, but let's not pretend there was not a lot of bad blood that was the result of the initial Big12 shotgun wedding. The riff between NU and Texas has been long documented, and the LHN was indeed the nail in the coffin for both A&M and NU. Unless the LHN becomes a Big12 network, history will repeat itself.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college...big-12.ece

With Texas and Texas A&M’s final football game in their 100-year rivalry approaching on Thanksgiving, documents newly obtained by The Dallas Morning News show Texas A&M’s deep concern over Texas’ ESPN Longhorn Network. The issue ultimately contributed to the school scorning the Big 12, and UT, for the SEC.

Fact is CU planned to leave WITH UT so any sense of them being the impetus is pretty stupid.

NU was farther along with an NU network than UT was with LHN. Once again LHN isn't the issue. Combined weight of 7/12 of membership looking around was.

MU was instability due to 2010 and the 2011 "wallflower" OU stance.


A&M might have been the jealous little brother but at best that narrative is 1/4.

(04-25-2015 01:50 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Once again LHN isn't the issue. Combined weight of 7/12 of membership looking around was.

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry...22507022/1

The moment the news broke last week about the Pac-10's desire to take Texas and five Big 12 partners, Nebraska turned sour. Perlman, at one point, stared across a table during the Big 12 meetings at his Texas counterpart Bill Powers and asked him if he was willing to give up his media rights. In other words, start a Big 12 Network. Powers said no. At that point, Perlman knew it was over.

(04-25-2015 07:48 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 01:50 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Once again LHN isn't the issue. Combined weight of 7/12 of membership looking around was.

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry...22507022/1

The moment the news broke last week about the Pac-10's desire to take Texas and five Big 12 partners, Nebraska turned sour. Perlman, at one point, stared across a table during the Big 12 meetings at his Texas counterpart Bill Powers and asked him if he was willing to give up his media rights. In other words, start a Big 12 Network. Powers said no. At that point, Perlman knew it was over.

Read Perlman's account written a year later. He had already decided to go. Texas said they would commit to the Big 12 if 11 of the 12 agreed to stay (I think everyone knew CU was going). CU, MU and NU all said no.

Nebraska bad-mouthed Texas a lot at that point in time for 2 reasons:
1) Osborne couldn't beat Texas and he was a guy who would do anything to win (see Lawrence Phillips);
2) Perlman was making talking points to negotiate the exit fee down. Once the exit fee was settled, his tone changed. Simple fact is, the Big 10 was more prestigious academically, was making a lot more money at the time and Nebraska really didn't have any "rivals" in their division, especially with CU leaving who was only marginally a rival. Funny thing is, the Big 12 schools who stayed are making 10s of millions more than Nebraska during their Big 10 buy-in.

(04-25-2015 08:14 AM)bullet Wrote:  Read Perlman's account written a year later. He had already decided to go. Texas said they would commit to the Big 12 if 11 of the 12 agreed to stay (I think everyone knew CU was going). CU, MU and NU all said no.

So Texas issued an ultimatum and those who could so no did so. They didn't address the issue at hand in a satisfactory way (LHN), they just said they would stay.

A very Texas-centric way of thinking.

(04-25-2015 08:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  Funny thing is, the Big 12 schools who stayed are making 10s of millions more than Nebraska during their Big 10 buy-in.

Because the Big Ten did not renegotiate the contract with the addition of Nebraska. Nebraska's day will come.

Reading the various things afterward, I definitely got the impression that Texas position on things was little more than a red herring. The Longhorn Network didn't exist yet when most the teams announced they were leaving, the Big Ten was the only conference with a network or one that had been announced, the Big 12 revenue distribution wasn't any less equal than the PAC-10 (which was actually less equal), and the SEC kept tier 3 rights with the schools too. The Big 12's set-up really wasn't special at that time.

The one thing Texas was useful for at these points was to paint as a bully. It made leaving the old rivals much easier. I think all the schools that left were going regardless though. Colorado had come to identify as west coast. Nebraska wasn't going to turn the offer down and see Missouri go instead. Texas A&M a year later saw the chance to be seen nationally for what they were, a state flagship (most outside Texas before this didn't realize Texas A&M's status vs. someone like Texas Tech). Missouri was probably leaving with all this upheaval regardless.

(04-25-2015 08:32 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Reading the various things afterward, I definitely got the impression that Texas position on things was little more than a red herring. The Longhorn Network didn't exist yet when most the teams announced they were leaving, the Big Ten was the only conference with a network or one that had been announced, the Big 12 revenue distribution wasn't any less equal than the PAC-10 (which was actually less equal), and the SEC kept tier 3 rights with the schools too. The Big 12's set-up really wasn't special at that time.

The one thing Texas was useful for at these points was to paint as a bully. It made leaving the old rivals much easier. I think all the schools that left were going regardless though. Colorado had come to identify as west coast. Nebraska wasn't going to turn the offer down and see Missouri go instead. Texas A&M a year later saw the chance to be seen nationally for what they were, a state flagship (most outside Texas before this didn't realize Texas A&M's status vs. someone like Texas Tech). Missouri was probably leaving with all this upheaval regardless.

This guy gets it

Texas is fun to paint as the villain.

Nebraska didn't have rivals in their division. Well when they expanded to 12 it was proposed that there be a permanent crossover with Nebraska always playing OU. Nebraska opposed that.

The schools making the public comments about the unequal revenue sharing were schools making more than they would have if sharing had been equal. They could have forced the issue but made the decision not to do so.

I have no doubt that Texas is hard to live with but equal sharing and having OU in their division wasn't keeping Nebraska in the Big XII. AState played Nebraska before they moved and reading their message board they had an intense rivalry with Iowa fans sniping at each other and they weren't even playing each other that year. By all accounts when Arkansas left the SWC, Texas and TAMU wanted to go their own ways then. Mizzou had an eye on the Big 10 for years. Colorado was wanting out because they felt Pac-10 was a better fit.

The Big XII was always hampered by a number of schools who liked it as long as the other option wasn't available. If the Big 8 hadn't raided the SWC, the Big 8 probably would have collapsed eventually.

(04-25-2015 01:27 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Texas is fun to paint as the villain.

Nebraska didn't have rivals in their division. Well when they expanded to 12 it was proposed that there be a permanent crossover with Nebraska always playing OU. Nebraska opposed that.

The schools making the public comments about the unequal revenue sharing were schools making more than they would have if sharing had been equal. They could have forced the issue but made the decision not to do so.

I have no doubt that Texas is hard to live with but equal sharing and having OU in their division wasn't keeping Nebraska in the Big XII. AState played Nebraska before they moved and reading their message board they had an intense rivalry with Iowa fans sniping at each other and they weren't even playing each other that year. By all accounts when Arkansas left the SWC, Texas and TAMU wanted to go their own ways then. Mizzou had an eye on the Big 10 for years. Colorado was wanting out because they felt Pac-10 was a better fit.

The Big XII was always hampered by a number of schools who liked it as long as the other option wasn't available. If the Big 8 hadn't raided the SWC, the Big 8 probably would have collapsed eventually.

Texas wasn't going to commit its media rights to the conference. The other schools ostensibly would have. That's the difference, and therein lies the problem. By moving ahead with LHN they buried all hope for a conference network.

Iowa and Nebraska fans may snip at each other, but Nebraska fans like to thumb their noses at Iowa and avoid considering them a rival.

Who the hell is Greg Flugaur?

(04-25-2015 03:01 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Who the hell is Greg Flugaur?

Some ex Gopher jock who wants to be the Dude of Minnesota and acquire hits on his twitter account. Meet another iteration of the Dude of WVU and Tuxedo Yoda. If there were another, (and I'm sure there are oodles of them) you would have the 4 horsemen of the realignment apocalypse spreading death, famine, pestilence, and destruction across the message boards of the world. But, they are good for site hits when people post about them.

(04-25-2015 02:59 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 01:27 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Texas is fun to paint as the villain.

Nebraska didn't have rivals in their division. Well when they expanded to 12 it was proposed that there be a permanent crossover with Nebraska always playing OU. Nebraska opposed that.

The schools making the public comments about the unequal revenue sharing were schools making more than they would have if sharing had been equal. They could have forced the issue but made the decision not to do so.

I have no doubt that Texas is hard to live with but equal sharing and having OU in their division wasn't keeping Nebraska in the Big XII. AState played Nebraska before they moved and reading their message board they had an intense rivalry with Iowa fans sniping at each other and they weren't even playing each other that year. By all accounts when Arkansas left the SWC, Texas and TAMU wanted to go their own ways then. Mizzou had an eye on the Big 10 for years. Colorado was wanting out because they felt Pac-10 was a better fit.

The Big XII was always hampered by a number of schools who liked it as long as the other option wasn't available. If the Big 8 hadn't raided the SWC, the Big 8 probably would have collapsed eventually.

Texas wasn't going to commit its media rights to the conference. The other schools ostensibly would have. That's the difference, and therein lies the problem. By moving ahead with LHN they buried all hope for a conference network.

Iowa and Nebraska fans may snip at each other, but Nebraska fans like to thumb their noses at Iowa and avoid considering them a rival.

We snip at Nebraska fans too. They think they are still a Nationally Elite football program and that they are above the rivalry. If they were, then Oklahoma wouldn't have stopped playing them yearly. If anything, they need us more than we need them. We have our Iowa State rivalry, we have our Minnesota rivalry, we have a rivalry with Wisconsin in terms of who sends more linemen to the NFL, we even have a rivalry of hatred with Northwestern. For awhile there was even a growing tradition between Iowa and Penn State but then Ferentz's recruiting dropped drastically.

The sad truth is that Nebraska needs Iowa more than Iowa needs Nebraska and the ole cornhusker fans hate to admit it.