Will the networks drive the next round of realignment?

[MiamiBuffs]

The presumption that 4 or 5 conferences and 64-80 school presidents would agree to this is somewhat laughable. Hell, we unanimously voted against the DirecTV offer. What makes you think our presidents would vote for this? The answer is, of course, MONEY. The TV people have not been signaling that there is another tidal wave of money coming. There is not another doubling of contracts on the horizon like there were in the last wave. If anything, TV is signaling that they have some issues of their own and the status quo is what they plan to maintain thru the next round of contracts.

 

[ahoelsken]

We don't, but there are lots and lots of other programs to point and laugh at until the team with the least-funny fans in the pac 12 get here.

Anyway, just teasing. We all have our kicks. Yours just happens to be expansion, which is something we all miss as we age I guess.

Starting with the one in Fort Collins. I move that we lock "Goatnation is hilarious" after the Northern Colorado game.

 

[Buffnik]

Ya, the additions of Texas and OU completely transform the league.

Definitely "risks" with Texas, but I fear them less over here in the PAC, because this is one place where UT might finally feel like they have some near equals in Stanford, USC, UW, and Cal.

Texas' reputation for "destroying leagues" is also a bit exaggerated, IMO. When the Big XII started falling apart, Missouri really got the ball rolling by flirting with the B1G. Then the PAC made their huge push to get 6 Big XII teams.

I don't actually blame UT for taking the LHN deal. They had pushed to get a Big XII network going years earlier but nobody bought in. They then tried to get A&M to partner on a Texas sports channel but still no-go. If ESPN wants to throw money at them, why wouldn't they take it.

But those are all just, like, opinions, man.

The "Texas problem" in the Big 12 was mostly them and Nebraska fighting over leadership. Things like UT pushing academic enhancement rules like limiting Prop 48/42 players. fwiw, CU was very much aligned with UT during the entire history of the conference and never had a problem with the working relationship. At the end, UT went off the rails at the end of DeLoss Dodd's tenure when he bought into a vision of UT as Notre Dame on steroids and the financial maneuvering made them stop behaving like a partner. But my impression of most UT folks is that they see that era as a mistake that bit them.

And regarding the SWC falling apart, it wasn't UT that was cheating and causing all the issues that broke that conference up. It was actually UT that saved some of the members while even getting them a merger with the Big 8 instead of them all having to find homes as newbies where they could.

I don't have the same animosity toward UT as many of our fans. I think it's mostly undeserved.

 

[sackman]

Oh, good Lord.

We've moved to the "Texas isn't as bad as all that" phase.

Yes they are. They most certainly are.

 

[BerkeleyBuff]

The "Texas problem" in the Big 12 was mostly them and Nebraska fighting over leadership. Things like UT pushing academic enhancement rules like limiting Prop 48/42 players. fwiw, CU was very much aligned with UT during the entire history of the conference and never had a problem with the working relationship. At the end, UT went off the rails at the end of DeLoss Dodd's tenure when he bought into a vision of UT as Notre Dame on steroids and the financial maneuvering made them stop behaving like a partner. But my impression of most UT folks is that they see that era as a mistake that bit them.

And regarding the SWC falling apart, it wasn't UT that was cheating and causing all the issues that broke that conference up. It was actually UT that saved some of the members while even getting them a merger with the Big 8 instead of them all having to find homes as newbies where they could.

I don't have the same animosity toward UT as many of our fans. I think it's mostly undeserved.

Pretty much agreed.

 

[Darth Snow]

Buffnik is a good man, but **** Texas.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

Oh, good Lord.

We've moved to the "Texas isn't as bad as all that" phase.

Yes they are. They most certainly are.

It's oh so refreshing too!

 

[Deleted member 807]

The DeLoss Dodd era?!? Hahahahaha.

DeLoss was a lapdog for the likes of billionaire donors Red McCombs and Joe Jamal.

As long as the UT big cigars believe in Longhorn exceptionalism, there will be Longhorn exceptionalism.

Nik might speak to rank and file UT folks to get the pulse of their contrition and newfound humility.

But that's merely a mirage. UT has, does, and always will believe that they are more equal than everyone else with whom they associate.

 

[Buffnik]

The DeLoss Dodd era?!? Hahahahaha.

DeLoss was a lapdog for the likes of billionaire donors Red McCombs and Joe Jamal.

As long as the UT big cigars believe in Longhorn exceptionalism, there will be Longhorn exceptionalism.

Nik might speak to rank and file UT folks to get the pulse of their contrition and newfound humility.

But that's merely a mirage. UT has, does, and always will believe that they are more equal than everyone else with whom they associate.

Remember who those billionaire boosters are competing with: other billionaires in Texas who are boosters of other programs in the state (plus some in OK & AR) that they see at the country club or Jerry Jones' box. They want bragging rights against them. So as long as the Pac-12 is able to offer something that makes them feel that they're getting over on all of them, we're good. And their emphasis on winning & making bank wouldn't be a bad influence on the current Pac-12 presidents who, if put to the question, would rather broadcast more field hockey than make an extra $5M per program a year.

 

[Deleted member 807]

Things UT want are: To fill all 105K seats at Darryl Royal Memorial Stadium 6 or 7 times per season. An annual trip to the State Fair of Texas for the Red River rivalry game. A few nearby matchups close enough to pull the smoker with the pickup truck and a pleasant bowl location.

The longhorns don't want a 9 game conference schedule that has them flying 1500 miles to square off against Oregon State or Wazzou during an after-dark network slot.

A Pac 12 invite does not bring Longhorns fans closer to the Longhorns. A Pac 12 invite is more of a monied siren song for those Pac-12 fans feeling financially inadequate to the B1G or SEC.

Don't tell me why Texas is good for the Pac12. Tell me what the Pac-12 can offer Texas.

You gotta figure that any good faith offer that Larry Scott extends to UT will merely be leverage for the Longhorns to use to get a better deal from the B1G

 

[Buffnik]

Things UT want are: To fill all 105K seats at Darryl Royal Memorial Stadium 6 or 7 times per season. An annual trip to the State Fair of Texas for the Red River rivalry game. A few nearby matchups close enough to pull the smoker with the pickup truck and a pleasant bowl location.

The longhorns don't want a 9 game conference schedule that has them flying 1500 miles to square off against Oregon State or Wazzou during an after-dark network slot.

A Pac 12 invite does not bring Longhorns fans closer to the Longhorns. A Pac 12 invite is more of a monied siren song for those Pac-12 fans feeling financially inadequate to the B1G or SEC.

Don't tell me why Texas is good for the Pac12. Tell me what the Pac-12 can offer Texas.

You gotta figure that any good faith offer that Larry Scott extends to UT will merely be leverage for the Longhorns to use to get a better deal from the B1G

I thought I pretty clearly talk about the Pac-12 needing to offer benefit to Texas when I said, "So as long as the Pac-12 is able to offer something that makes them feel that they're getting over on all of them, we're good."

 

[BerkeleyBuff]

Many higher-ups at UT have long looked to the PAC as their potential home should a SW-based conference ever completely fail. The PAC's money problems certainly may have changed that now though.

 

[onealcd]

I think it's pretty clear the PAC-12 has plenty to offer Texas and Oklahoma. Definitely doesn't stack up to what the big 10 could offer but I definitely think it's superior to what the SEC could offer. Adding OU and Texas would solve a lot of the money/distribution issues the conference is facing.

 

[AeroBuff99]

Many higher-ups at UT have long looked to the PAC as their potential home should a SW-based conference ever completely fail. The PAC's money problems certainly may have changed that now though.

UT (with OU) would change the PAC-12's money problems.

 

[Always BUFF]

Remember who those billionaire boosters are competing with: other billionaires in Texas who are boosters of other programs in the state (plus some in OK & AR) that they see at the country club or Jerry Jones' box. They want bragging rights against them. So as long as the Pac-12 is able to offer something that makes them feel that they're getting over on all of them, we're good. And their emphasis on winning & making bank wouldn't be a bad influence on the current Pac-12 presidents who, if put to the question, would rather broadcast more field hockey than make an extra $5M per program a year.

Nik has brought to light several points that after 6 yrs has brought a new reality. At the time of realignment my wife was working in the UT Dean's office and was instructed to keep her projects confidential. Regarding UT then and now, as most know the main campus has become much more diverse culturally which makes it lean more towards a West Coast atmosphere. Can't believe I wrote that but that's the feel you get when you're on campus. There still exists the big donor egos and that will never ever change. Nik's assessment that UT and knu were locked in a power grab pretty much sums it up. UT's mentality wouldn't allow them to ever regardless of sports accomplishments view knu as an equal and definitely not academically. Nik's assessment of the relationship between CU & UT is spot on and was unlike any other that existed in the old B12, it was a strong one due to academics.

 

[Always BUFF]

I think it's pretty clear the PAC-12 has plenty to offer Texas and Oklahoma. Definitely doesn't stack up to what the big 10 could offer but I definitely think it's superior to what the SEC could offer. Adding OU and Texas would solve a lot of the money/distribution issues the conference is facing.

99% agree only differ in how it would stack up with the b10. By adding OU, UT, KU & OSU the TV footprint would contain nearly all of the metro markets West of the Mississippi, appx 10-11 million additional viewers.

 

[MtnBuff]

You forgot to mention Texas working to get virtually all conference championships in revenue sports played in Texas.

You forgot to mention Texas pushed for and got the most uneven distribution of Tier 1 and 2 media revenue of any P5 conference in the B12 along with keeping their own Tier 3 rights.

The B1G could offer them more financially than the PAC12 and less travel.

It wouldn't shock me though if given the choice Texas decided to go with the PAC. The B1G has an excellent academic reputation but Texas wants to see themselves as better than excellent. In the PAC they could count themselves in with Stanford and Cal and the other PAC schools that are elite academically among football playing universities. Texas isn't at the level of a Cal or Stanford but in typical Texas fashion they want to think they are and giving up $5-10 million a year when they are already the richest program in the country may be worth it to them.

 

[Deleted member 807]

A west coast feel within Belmont does not equate to some kind of gravitational pull of UT towards Pac-12.

UT would want:
The majority of its games played in the Central TZ.
This means bringing in OU and at least two dingleberries.

To play UCLA & USC a disproportionate number of times during prime Saturday broadcasting windows. This means limiting trips to the Northwest, Desert and Mountain schools.

An 8 game conference schedule that allows 4 non-con games of which 3 could be played in Austin if so desired.

The conference championship game rotates thru Texas every other or every third year.

The P12 network and corresponding media rights would have to guarantee a 20% increase over their current LHN agreement.

Even with all that, the P12 can't guarantee exposure to densely populated areas that the ACC or B1G could offer.

The birth of the Big12 and the relationship between CU and UT is a historical fact. But the late 90's is irrelevant to the current negotiating environment. TV is a different animal and ESPN has spoiled the horns.

 

[Buffnik]

You forgot to mention Texas working to get virtually all conference championships in revenue sports played in Texas.

So? It was either play in Dallas or Houston (Top 10 US metros) or frikin Kansas City. That was good for the conference.

You forgot to mention Texas pushed for and got the most uneven distribution of Tier 1 and 2 media revenue of any P5 conference in the B12 along with keeping their own Tier 3 rights.

What they pushed for is that after a base of equal distribution, programs earned more if they were picked up for national broadcast, earned the bowl game appearance revenue, or earned the NCAA tourney revenue. They also pushed for a Big 12 Network for Tier 3 and got shot down before they shifted gears to their LHN deal.

The B1G could offer them more financially than the PAC12 and less travel.

Not true because the Pac-12 is able to offer TTU, UH and TCU for 3 other Texas programs if we went to 16 (or go with a combination of TX & OK). Other conferences can't offer that many programs in UT's region with the possible exception of the SEC since it already has aTm and Arkansas.

It wouldn't shock me though if given the choice Texas decided to go with the PAC. The B1G has an excellent academic reputation but Texas wants to see themselves as better than excellent. In the PAC they could count themselves in with Stanford and Cal and the other PAC schools that are elite academically among football playing universities. Texas isn't at the level of a Cal or Stanford but in typical Texas fashion they want to think they are and giving up $5-10 million a year when they are already the richest program in the country may be worth it to them.

That's where you hit it. It will come down to money. Pac-12 can position itself as the best match on academics and culture (especially if we take additional TX and/or OK programs). Pac-12 can position itself to offer UT fans the best travel options. Where we have to get creative, possibly by orchestrating something with ESPN on LHN, is on the revenue. UT will not move unless it results in them being at the top of the media revenue pyramid. So let's look at that and say that the Pac-12 becomes the Pac-16 by going UT and 3 other TX/OK schools.

That would give the Pac-16 the following top North America media markets:
2. Los Angeles
5. Dallas-Fort Worth
6. San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose
8. Houston
12. Phoenix-Prescott
14. Seattle-Tacoma
17. Denver
20. Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto
25. Portland
31. San Antonio
34. Salt Lake City
39. Austin
40. Las Vegas
41. Oklahoma City

That's basically 1/3 of the top markets (14/41) with UT bringing 5 into play - including two Top 10s. Plus add in the increase in national interest along with adding Central Time Zone tv slots. This is a move that cuts the PAC pie 4 more ways (33%) but easily raises total revenue by more than that to close the gap with B1G and SEC.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

The UT circle jerk continues...

 

[BuffLuke80]

I've heard some chatter about Texas going to the SEC. I call bull**** on that, they want no part of it.