There’s a certain irony that the LHN was the catalyst for TAMU to jump from the Big 12, and subsequently Missouri as well.

The result, was a Big 12 that was too heavy regarding its top shelf programs, having just two. This is very top heaviness is why Texas and Oklahoma to leave.

I don’t think it was possible to keep from losing Nebraska and Colorado. Nebraska had been pining for the Big 10 for 90 yrs at that point and shifting demographics meant the Buffalos we’re looking west for probably 20 yrs or more. A&M and Mizzou weren’t so inevitable and had the Big 12 followed the Big 10’s lead and began putting together their own conference network I think the Big 12 would still be strong and still have their 2011 line up intact.

The AAC would probably look like this:
East: UConn, Temple, WVU, Cincinnati, UCF, USF
West: Memphis, TCU, Houston, SMU, Tulane, Navy*

(08-28-2021 11:31 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  There’s a certain irony that the LHN was the catalyst for TAMU to jump from the Big 12, and subsequently Missouri as well.

The result, was a Big 12 that was too heavy regarding its top shelf programs, having just two. This is very top heaviness is why Texas and Oklahoma to leave.

I don’t think it was possible to keep from losing Nebraska and Colorado. Nebraska had been pining for the Big 10 for 90 yrs at that point and shifting demographics meant the Buffalos we’re looking west for probably 20 yrs or more. A&M and Mizzou weren’t so inevitable and had the Big 12 followed the Big 10’s lead and began putting together their own conference network I think the Big 12 would still be strong and still have their 2011 line up intact.

The AAC would probably look like this:
East: UConn, Temple, WVU, Cincinnati, UCF, USF
West: Memphis, TCU, Houston, SMU, Tulane, Navy*

LHN was an excuse for A&M to leave, not a catalyst. They had already decided to go before the LHN deal was signed. It had absolutely nothing to do with the LHN, which they could have been a partner in, but they refused.

TAMU found a great way to get out of UT's shadow. It will be interesting, and perhaps unfortunate, when they are again in the same conference. TAMU can stomp UT in FB for the first few years, at least, if they play.

IMO, losing UNL and TAMU were both self-inflicted as DeLoss Dodds was seeking to maximize revenues for UT-Austin. Universities need stability and have to protect their future business models. Nebraska and A&M provided depth to the conference that couldn’t be rebuilt. Plus, these schools made the B1G and SEC that much more attractive.

(08-28-2021 12:02 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  IMO, losing UNL and TAMU were both self-inflicted as DeLoss Dodds was seeking to maximize revenues for UT-Austin. Universities need stability and have to protect their future business models. Nebraska and A&M provided depth to the conference that couldn’t be rebuilt. Plus, these schools made the B1G and SEC that much more attractive.

For the duration of the Big XII from 1996-2010 Nebraska was a top 3 program for sure. Missouri and A&M were middle of the pack programs. I dont recall if the A&M brand was as large then as it seems to be now. They have huge budgets and revenue for sure. Missouri did much better the last few years of the XII and even won a couple SEC East crowns.

I just dont know how they would have been able to add anyone to replace the 4 programs lost. Louisville and Cincinnati maybe back with WV? Im not sure how close those programs were to ever being invited. I still believe TX/OU would have left eventually.

There was a short time in 2010 era when Florida St and Clemson felt the ACC was too weak and were possibly interested in B12.

Lack of B12 leadership prevented that from happening. You could have had an eastern group of WV, FSU and Clemson.

(08-28-2021 12:37 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  There was a short time in 2010 era when Florida St and Clemson felt the ACC was too weak and were possibly interested in B12.

Lack of B12 leadership prevented that from happening. You could have had an eastern group of WV, FSU and Clemson.

Ive seen that mentioned before but dont know if theres any validity to the rumors. Sorry if I dont buy it.

While LHN definitely didn’t have any fans outside of Austin, I don’t think it had anything to do with whether or not aTm would go to the SEC. They would have jumped at that chance LHN or no LHN, and with the SEC needing a partner to accompany them Missouri was also gone. The only thing that could have prevented them from joining the SEC would have been a simultaneous Big10 invitation. Either way, the Big XII loses out.

The original Big XII did not “suck” as some posters (particularly from departed schools) have said. It was a good league with some strong brands that did suffer from two things: first, it did not have overall cultural cohesion, and second and worse, it was surrounded by strong neighbors who had just that. Smart, ambitious, patient leadership in conferences holding very strong hands were able to take advantage.

A rebuilt Big XII which adds some of the candidates that have been heavily discussed will also not be a bad conference, particularly in basketball. Those who have left will happily cash big checks and loudly trumpet conference pride even if they themselves don’t set the world on fire. It’s just a shame that so much history has to be discarded with each of these changes, but that’s simply the world in which we live.

(08-28-2021 11:38 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-28-2021 11:31 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  There’s a certain irony that the LHN was the catalyst for TAMU to jump from the Big 12, and subsequently Missouri as well.

The result, was a Big 12 that was too heavy regarding its top shelf programs, having just two. This is very top heaviness is why Texas and Oklahoma to leave.

I don’t think it was possible to keep from losing Nebraska and Colorado. Nebraska had been pining for the Big 10 for 90 yrs at that point and shifting demographics meant the Buffalos we’re looking west for probably 20 yrs or more. A&M and Mizzou weren’t so inevitable and had the Big 12 followed the Big 10’s lead and began putting together their own conference network I think the Big 12 would still be strong and still have their 2011 line up intact.

The AAC would probably look like this:
East: UConn, Temple, WVU, Cincinnati, UCF, USF
West: Memphis, TCU, Houston, SMU, Tulane, Navy*

LHN was an excuse for A&M to leave, not a catalyst. They had already decided to go before the LHN deal was signed. It had absolutely nothing to do with the LHN, which they could have been a partner in, but they refused.

As usual, UT spin that leaves out critical details such as:

-A&M was not offered any part of the LHN deal from ESPN. We were offered the independent Lone Star Network idea but UT being UT, wanted us to contribute 50% of the start up costs but only receive 1/3rd of the profits. Can’t believe we said no to such a great deal.

-LHN as it was originally conceived included such gems as stealing B12 games and putting them behind the LHN paywall and best of all, using ESPN as a booster to violate the Ncaa recruiting rules and showcase high school games featuring potential UT recruits. Yes it didn’t happen but it very well could have and the complete lack of resistance from the schools dependent on the B12 showed us exactly what a Stockholm Syndrome relationship the B12 had devolved into

All of which goes to show, we were 100% right to leave the B12

So right that UT had to leave a conference they set up to control completely in a desperate attempt to keep up with us

A true Big 12 Network, featuring Texas, TAMU, Oklahoma, and well as the other 7 members would have been great. Texas got greedy, TAMU felt slighted, and the rest is history.

(08-28-2021 06:54 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  ... -A&M was not offered any part of the LHN deal from ESPN. We were offered the independent Lone Star Network idea but UT being UT, wanted us to contribute 50% of the start up costs but only receive 1/3rd of the profits. Can’t believe we said no to such a great deal. ...

UT: "Great news, you have a chance to buy 50% of the shares in the new network!"

TAMU: "So we get 50% of the profits?"

UT: "Oh, no, the shares you are buying get half the profit per share as the shares we are buying."

TAMU: "So our shares cost half as much?"

UT: "Certainly not! A share's a share!"

TAMU:

UT: "C'mon, you want this great deal or not?"

(08-29-2021 02:09 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-28-2021 06:54 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  ... -A&M was not offered any part of the LHN deal from ESPN. We were offered the independent Lone Star Network idea but UT being UT, wanted us to contribute 50% of the start up costs but only receive 1/3rd of the profits. Can’t believe we said no to such a great deal. ...

UT: "Great news, you have a chance to buy 50% of the shares in the new network!"

TAMU: "So we get 50% of the profits?"

UT: "Oh, no, the shares you are buying get half the profit per share as the shares we are buying."

TAMU: "So our shares cost half as much?"

UT: "Certainly not! A share's a share!"

TAMU:

UT: "C'mon, you want this great deal or not?"

ROFL, BruceMcF!! ROFL!!

On the original post, if Oklahoma and Texas had left first, at the media value the SEC would be at, it's not certain that Texas A&M and Mizzou would have worked as #15 & #16, so the R8 would have been a higher average value. But the predicament they would have been in would have been a variation on the theme of the predicament they are in now.

But Texas A&M was the best fit for the SEC in the Big12, just as Arkansas was arguably the best fit for the SEC in the SWC.