Ut,ou,ku,mu

[dio]

Well, ua, asu uu, and cu do have votes in this and the divisional alignment, so i doubt it isn't settled as easily as "sucks for cu". Those schools wont quietly get booted from cali.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

 

[Maxer]

It's not about what deal Scott makes. It's about what kind of deal gets struck after Scott is gone. UT played nice in the first years of the Big 12, too. I trust Larry Scott, but I don't trust UT. UT, if allowed into the Pac, will do whatever they are told to do, but will continue to try to get the rules changed in their favor. Eventually, there will be a weaker personality in charge and then the floodgates will be opened. We are better served having absolutely nothing to do with them.

That would be maybe be true if there was not an 800lb gorilla counterbalance to UT. But I can tell that there is no way that USC, and to a lesser extent the rest of the CA schools, AND Phil Knight, will allow themselves to be pushed around by UT.

There is also some poetic justice in you guys welcoming Texas to the PAC as true equals in every way after all the crap you had to put up with over the life of the Big 12.

 

[The Guest]

That would be maybe be true if there was not an 800lb gorilla counterbalance to UT. But I can tell that there is no way that nebraska, and to a lesser extent the rest of the Texas schools, AND Bebe, will allow themselves to be pushed around by UT.

There is also some poetic justice in you guys welcoming Texas to the PAC as true equals in every way after all the crap you had to put up with over the life of the Big 12.

FiFY

 

[Maxer]

FiFY

Uh huh. The PAC is not the Big-12. JUST LA is bigger than "the Metroplex". Texas in the PAC is not Texas in the Big 12 with a bunch of mediocre media markets. (If Texas joins). It's all about the networks now, and the networks are all about basic tier subscribers.

 

[The Guest]

Uh huh. The PAC is not the Big-12. JUST LA is bigger than "the Metroplex". Texas in the PAC is not Texas in the Big 12 with a bunch of mediocre media markets. (If Texas joins). It's all about the networks now, and the networks are all about basic tier subscribers.

I'd argue that fertile recruiting grounds would be more relevant to your argument here.

As much as it pains me to say, nebraska was dominant at the end of the Big 8 era, finishing the final season of 1995 with what is widely regarded as one of the greatest football teams (and dooshiest, for the record) of all time. Also, CU, KU and KSU (I know, right?) were right there with them in the top final top ten that season.

But all of those teams were dependant on out-of-state recruiting (and yes I acknowledge that they sat in lackluster TV markets), and Texas supplied a chunk of that. As Texas emerged in their new BCS conference role, and earned the lion's share of local recruiting, things seemed to dry up in the North.

With shared TV exposure, it's not clear to me how the strength of the TV market relates to relative power within the conference, after that school is accepted. Yes, I understand that TV sets bring dollars and concentrated viewing markets relate to the attractiveness of a football candidate. But ultimately Texas would enter the conference with a superior brand, wide viewer appeal, superior recruiting opportunities and a willingness to crush, rather than cooperate with conference-mates, and not just on the field. Only USC brings all of that in the Pac, and they may, or may not be a sufficient balance.

My only point, is that after a member is accepted, the relative power of that school is related to a lot more than TV sets.

 

[Maxer]

I'd argue that fertile recruiting grounds would be more relevant to your argument here.

As much as it pains me to say, nebraska was dominant at the end of the Big 8 era, finishing the final season of 1995 with what is widely regarded as one of the greatest football teams (and dooshiest, for the record) of all time. Also, CU, KU and KSU (I know, right?) were right there with them in the top final top ten that season.

But all of those teams were dependant on out-of-state recruiting (and yes I acknowledge that they sat in lackluster TV markets), and Texas supplied a chunk of that. As Texas emerged in their new BCS conference role, and earned the lion's share of local recruiting, things seemed to dry up in the North.

With shared TV exposure, it's not clear to me how the strength of the TV market relates to relative power within the conference, after that school is accepted. Yes, I understand that TV sets bring dollars and concentrated viewing markets relate to the attractiveness of a football candidate. But ultimately Texas would enter the conference with a superior brand, wide viewer appeal, superior recruiting opportunities and a willingness to crush, rather than cooperate with conference-mates, and not just on the field. Only USC brings all of that in the Pac, and they may, or may not be a sufficient balance.

My only point, is that after a member is accepted, the relative power of that school is related to a lot more than TV sets.

You make a good point when you say that media markets are more impactful when it comes to conference invites, and become less important once schools are in a conference.

The most 3,4, and 5 star recruits come from South Florida, Texas, and CALIFORNIA. Accepting your point that Texas built their power in the Big-12 based on recruiting advantages, there is a natural counter-balance with the California schools. I don't see a scenario where they let Texas walk all over them for the simple fact that they don't NEED Texas (and their recruiting grounds) as badly as the current and former Big-12 schools did/do.

 

[The Guest]

You make a good point when you say that media markets are more impactful when it comes to conference invites, and become less important once schools are in a conference.

The most 3,4, and 5 star recruits come from South Florida, Texas, and CALIFORNIA. Accepting your point that Texas built their power in the Big-12 based on recruiting advantages, there is a natural counter-balance with the California schools. I don't see a scenario where they let Texas walk all over them for the simple fact that they don't NEED Texas (and their recruiting grounds) as badly as the current and former Big-12 schools did/do.

Hmmmmmmm.

Do you know any Texans? Have you ever lived in Texas? Do you spend any time on Shaggybevo?

I don't think I'm being disrespectful to Texans (because they'd be the first to agree) when I say that there are cultural tendencies that make Texans unique. Part of that is a "Texas first" mentality, that seems to be pretty strongly ingrained.

Whatever tendencies make Texans Texans sharing isn't one of them. Self interest will certainly factor into any school's conference interactions. But you are viewing a model in which schools look after their self interest to a point, and then reasonably balance that interest with the needs of all conference members in a cooperative process. That model is irrelevant when dealing with Texas.

What you don't understand--because you have really experienced it first hand-- is how destructive it becomes when one powerful member doesn't balance their self-interest with the needs of conference mates. It becomes a constant drone of "me, me, me" which drowns out a functional process.

You'll understand when Cal is paying royalties to Texas for the right to stay in their conference and all CCGs are played in Jerryworld...

EDIT: I acknowledge that I've drifted from my main point on fertile grounds and migrated to an argument about the nature of Texans. Your previous point regarding recruiting in Cali is noted...

 

[OKCBuff]

Walrus is right. UT might come in hat and hand and ready to play nice. But one day, 10 or 15 years from now, they'll get antsy, jaded, angry, hungry and ready for a change and they'll destroy the Pac just because its tired of flying over mountains for games. Just watch.

Be careful going for 16 teams just to keep up - you have to think about what UT will do to the league in the long run.

 

[sackman]

The argument that we'd be letting them in as an equal member is all fine and dandy until they start to try to tilt the scales in their favor. They don't view themselves as anybody's "equal". They're Texas. They honestly think that they have the right to be in charge. They may come in as an equal, but they won't accept that for long. Once Larry Scott leaves, they'll push for THEIR guy to be the replacement. Once that happens, forget it. It's over.

Trying to describe the cancer that is UT to somebody from outside the conference is nearly impossible. They always come up with reasons why "this time will be different". I'm telling you - it won't be different. I don't care if there's a "counter-balance". Whatever counter balance you THINK you have is an illusion. UT will pick and dig away at that balance until it tips in their favor. It's what they do. They've done it for 100 years. They're not going to stop just because we ask them to. A leopard doesn't change his spots. UT is a conference killing sucubus. Whatever money we think we're going to get isn't enough. Believe me. I can't make this argument any stronger.

 

[Deleted member 807]

Trying to describe the cancer that is UT to somebody from outside the conference is nearly impossible. They always come up with reasons why "this time will be different". I'm telling you - it won't be different. I don't care if there's a "counter-balance". Whatever counter balance you THINK you have is an illusion. UT will pick and dig away at that balance until it tips in their favor. It's what they do. They've done it for 100 years. They're not going to stop just because we ask them to. A leopard doesn't change his spots. UT is a conference killing succubus. Whatever money we think we're going to get isn't enough. Believe me. I can't make this argument any stronger.

For Sacky...

 

[Buffsoldier]

For Sacky...

Well, ****, give 'em about tree fiddy and send them on their way.

 

[Ralphandler1]

So the news on TAMU is changing and now it doesn't look like expansion is imminent. I have not had a chance to read the whole forum yet so i hope I am not covering old stuff here.... But my concern with potential expansion would be the money situation. The PAC12 just signed a new TV contract with is stellar for all schools. If we add 4 more teams I doubt the TV contract will be renegotiated anytime soon. (Why would ESPN or ABC want to pay more when they have us locked up for a few years). So my concern is we would be taking the money and splitting it an extra 4 ways. I suppose if UT comes along and rolls the LHN into the league that would provide extra revenue.... but who the hell wants to deal UT again? If PAC-12 was serious about expansion it needed to be done BEFORE the TV stuff was done- by my calculations all of the existing schools are gonna take a 4-5 million dollar hit per year if they expand the conference without being able to renegotiate the TV deal.

 

[Buffnik]

So the news on TAMU is changing and now it doesn't look like expansion is imminent. I have not had a chance to read the whole forum yet so i hope I am not covering old stuff here.... But my concern with potential expansion would be the money situation. The PAC12 just signed a new TV contract with is stellar for all schools. If we add 4 more teams I doubt the TV contract will be renegotiated anytime soon. (Why would ESPN or ABC want to pay more when they have us locked up for a few years). So my concern is we would be taking the money and splitting it an extra 4 ways. I suppose if UT comes along and rolls the LHN into the league that would provide extra revenue.... but who the hell wants to deal UT again? If PAC-12 was serious about expansion it needed to be done BEFORE the TV stuff was done- by my calculations all of the existing schools are gonna take a 4-5 million dollar hit per year if they expand the conference without being able to renegotiate the TV deal.

It's a good point. But it assumes that Larry Scott failed to negotiate an "if/then" clause into our deals that anticipated the potential for superconference expansion. I would be surprised if he and his team had a brain fart on that.

 

[Ralphandler1]

Well I would certainly hope that would be the case. I personally have not been able to find any details on this anywhere. So was kinda curious if anyone had any insight into it at all.

It's a good point. But it assumes that Larry Scott failed to negotiate an "if/then" clause into our deals that anticipated the potential for superconference expansion. I would be surprised if he and his team had a brain fart on that.

 

[Darth Snow]

Well I would certainly hope that would be the case. I personally have not been able to find any details on this anywhere. So was kinda curious if anyone had any insight into it at all.

If my memory serves, Scott has confirmed that if expansion happens we get to renegotiate.

 

[Junction]

The good news about this situation is that the Pac-12 has all the leverage in these negotiations. What are UT's options? 1) Independent, 2) Expand/Hold on to the Big 12, 3) Pac-12. If they choose door #3, I don't think they have a lot of say in the terms. Non-negotiable term #1 = equal money distribution on tv money. PERIOD. The LHN can be tweaked to be the Texas regional network (with OU/OSU and Tech) but you are sharing all of that money with the Pac-16. If that's a dealbreaker, then so be it. Have a nice time finding suckers for your Big 12 conference or conference homes for all your non-rev teams...

The bolded part sounds logical, but I have to wonder what the corporate powers behind the Bevo Network are going to think about it. I seriously doubt they're paying hundreds of millions of dollars just to become one of the regional Pac-16 networks. I would be very curious to know just what kind of out clauses there are for both sides in that deal..