CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

The BX-II is a Hot Mess right now

by Mars · 6/19/2010

Advertisement
M
Mars


-The SEC, ACC, Big T1e1n, and the PAC-12 all have 12 schools and a championship game, leaving out just the Big east and the Big X-II... soon to be commonly viewed as the two weakest "power" conferences.



-An SEC coach mocked the BX-II on Twitter this week, laughing that "real conferences don't lose schools to their neighbors".



-Everyone hates Missouri. Oklahoma State and Texas' biggest booster (Boone Pickens) called them out publicly this week, cuss words included. Not only is Missouri hated, but they're also gone if the B10 ever comes calling again.



-Kansas State knows Kansas would have left them behind. Baylor knows that Texas would have left them behind. Oklahoma State knows that Oklahoma almost left them behind. And that's aside and on top of Kansas, Missouri, and Iowa State knowing that they were almost left to rot if the money was a few million sweeter.



-Texas now knows that Texas A&M hates them enough to leave them far behind the next time they get the chance. A&M almost went to the SEC just to spite the Longhorns. And the fans and boosters are now pissed that they didn't. The vote was 6-3 last time. Next time, it could be closer to unanimous, judging by the angry reactions over the non-move.



-Texas Tech officials were so pissed that the PAC-16 deal was taken off of the table by Texas, that they waited a full 24 hours after it was dead before admitting "Fine!" and coming back to the BX-II table. If the Red Raiders were offered a chance to join the PAC-13 tomorrow, I think they would seriously consider it. Same with every BX-II school not named Texas, Oklahoma, or A&M.



-The bottom 7 teams in the conference were getting screwed out of money by Texas before. It's even worse now. $13MM for Kansas, $25MM for Texas? Not a good way to treat a long-term business partner.



-Speaking of working relationships, did Texas really need to screw Baylor and Co. out of Colorado and Nebraska's departing cash? Yes, money is good and more money is better. But not making the one you're with loathe you and want to smother you with a pillow in your sleep is also nice.



-Not to mention officials from these schools have later come out and said "Nuh uh, we didn't agree to that!" After Beebe announced it as part of the reconciliation deal. That's a bad way to get a fresh start on a rocky relationship.



-And if they're already fighting over the money, how big a warning sign is it that Nebraska is going to sue to keep ALL of theirs? They claim the departing cash was for damages, and that since the BX-II is making MORE money without the Huskers than they made with them, there ARE no damages, and thus they aren't paying. If the blood money disappears, how do those fighting over it react? There goes the peace offering...



-Even if both of the departing schools pay, the possible financial range is huge. Texas may want 90% of two years worth of the new TV money, while Colorado may expect to pay 50% of one year of the old TV money. I've seen both figures. I mean, there's a big difference in between a $3MM goodbye and one that costs over $20MM.



-On top of all that, Jerry World will sit empty just a year after signing a Championship game contract. Ol' Jerry ain't gotta be too happy with that.



-Some sources say that the BX-II has sent out feelers towards Arkansas. Since then, Arkansas has denied interest publicly not once, but twice. Ouch.



-At the same time, Houston politicians are trying to make problems for the conference if the red Cougars aren't invited. And that school adds nothing to the TV deal, while taking away one more cut. It's a headache for everyone involved.



-Finally, for now, the conference is talking about Notre Dame as a possibility. Really? I guess desperation has set in.





The Big X-II is simply a HOT MESS right now.



And yes, I would absolutely LOVE if BYU got an invite to join that mess!! Add in the Mormons and the government military. Why not? Things over there can't get much worse...
B
BigCougsFan
I love hearing all this commotion going on! I love hearing how upset everyone is, and what it could possibly mean.
B
BYUgrad03
Mars Said:
-The bottom 7 teams in the conference were getting screwed out of money by Texas before. It's even worse now. $13MM for Kansas, $25MM for Texas? Not a good way to treat a long-term business partner.



-Speaking of working relationships, did Texas really need to screw Baylor and Co. out of Colorado and Nebraska's departing cash? Yes, money is good and more money is better. But not making the one you're with loathe you and want to smother you with a pillow in your sleep is also nice.


-Even if both of the departing schools pay, the possible financial range is huge. Texas may want 90% of two years worth of the new TV money, while Colorado may expect to pay 50% of one year of the old TV money. I've seen both figures. I mean, there's a big difference in between a $3MM goodbye and one that costs over $20MM.




Texas is screwing Baylor and Co out of NU and CU departing cash and taking a huge chunk of it from the others? Not according to the Texas AD and President.


University presidents of the reconfigured Big 12 came to no resolution Thursday about distribution of the substantial revenue that could result from financial penalties against Nebraska and Colorado for leaving the conference.



Texas A&M, one of the three schools that stands to gain more money under a proposal presented by Iowa State, has not decided whether to accept a greater share, a spokesman said.



Texas has said it will decline a larger share, while Oklahoma officials have not made their position clear .

Texas President William Powers Jr. reiterated Thursday morning his previous stance that his university has no interest in accepting the offer.



"We're for the normal, original formula for the distribution of Big 12 revenue," Powers said Thursday. "It's very nice of them. We want no special deal for Texas."



DeLoss Dodds, Texas' men's athletic director, confirmed UT had "absolutely not" backed off its position that it would decline penalty money.http://www.statesman.com/sports/no-resolution-on-revenue-from-big-12-exits-754668.html


Mars Said:
-Some sources say that the BX-II has sent out feelers towards Arkansas. Since then, Arkansas has denied interest publicly not once, but twice. Ouch.


Are you sure about that? I've read that it's the other way around.
Just when it looked like realignment in college athletics might be winding down, multiple sources in the Big 12 told Orangebloods.com Arkansas has put out feelers about a possible move to the Big 12 to reconnect with former Southwest Conference rivals like Texas and Texas A&M.http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1095242


Mars Said:
-The bottom 7 teams in the conference were getting screwed out of money by Texas before. It's even worse now. $13MM for Kansas, $25MM for Texas? Not a good way to treat a long-term business partner.


Please explain to me how the bottom seven were getting screwed out of TV money by Texas before, and now. According to the link below, Texas only received 3 million more than dead last Baylor in 2007.



http://www.blackshoediaries.com/2010/5/20/1477727/big-xii-rev-share-will-not-ruin



Also, the $25 million figure for Texas, is if they generate the $3-5 million in revenue they're hoping to get by launching their own network. Their figure from the Big 12 alone is roughly between $17 and $20 million. $13 million for Kansas is pretty good considering they're mainly a basketball school. Again, they're benefiting from being in the same conference w/ Texas and OU. Sounds arrogant, but its the truth. If Texas and OU didn't win, then they wouldn't get the exposure they get, which equals large national audiences, which in turn equals lots of money. Why should teams like Baylor and Iowa St. get just as much as Texas and OU, if TX and OU are the ones who are doing all the work by simply winning?



Finally, would teams like Baylor or Iowa St. get as much money if they weren't in the same conference with Texas, OU, Tech, and A&M? Why do Baylor and Iowa St. even get the money that they've gotten and will get?



The revenue sharing is based on viewership. The more viewers, the more exposure, the more money. How do you get more exposure/ air time? By winning. How often does Baylor and Iowa St. win a conference game, let alone a bowl game?



The bottom dwellers in the Big 12 are also referred to as the "Bottom Feeders". Why? They don't win, and they hardly ever get exposure unless they're playing a Texas, and/or an OU. How many times have you sat down to watch Baylor v. CU or Iowa St. v. a North Texas? Probably never, because for one, they wouldn't be on TV, and if they were, no one would freaking watch them, because who in NY or CA or Utah, for that matter, would want to sit down to watch two teams play with losing records and nothing on the line.



If you ever have watched Baylor, or Iowa St. on national programming, then it's likely a result of who they were playing, such as a Texas or an OU. Teams like Baylor and Iowa St make much more money getting beat up in the Big 12 than they would playing in C-USA, the WAC or MWC. This is why they are referred to as "bottom feeders" because the success of everyone else, creates a bigger piece of the pie for them and much more so than they would receive anywhere else. In essence, they're getting paid big bucks just for fielding the resemblence of a football team. Therefore, do they deserve to receive as much as the teams who actually win, and play for national championships?



Mars Said:
-Everyone hates Missouri. Oklahoma State and Texas' biggest booster (Boone Pickens) called them out publicly this week, cuss words included. Not only is Missouri hated, but they're also gone if the B10 ever comes calling again.


Please provide a link, or reference that shows T. Boone Pickens as Texas' biggest booster, if at all.



Call me a capitalist pig, but this isn't the first time I've posted my opinion on here regarding this. I believe no one is "entitled" to the fruits of someone elses labors. If you think otherwise, then feel free to send me part of your paycheck every week.
M
Mars


There are links to everything I've said above if you want to google them.



I was talking about conference stability, not economical politics. Just tell me which conference is the least stable, the Big Ten (even conference share), the SEC (even conference share), or the Big XII (unequal division)?



And yes, Oklahoma State's biggest booster has spent untold millions on Texas. Just ask their hospital.
B
BYUgrad03
Mars wrote:


There are links to everything I've said above if you want to google them.



I was talking about conference stability, not economical politics. Just tell me which conference is the least stable, the Big Ten (even conference share), the SEC (even conference share), or the Big XII (unequal division)?



And yes, Oklahoma State's biggest booster has spent untold millions on Texas. Just ask their hospital.


As far as conference instability, I think that's unquestioned. But based soley on unequal revenue sharing? That's not the only reason, and I don't believe that it's soley Texas' fault as you've implied. If NU had had the amount of success that Texas has over the past decade, they could've brought in the at least the same TV revenue as has Texas, based on TV exposure and distribution. They signed, and agreed to the contract when the conference was formed, believing that they would benefit from it more so than they did. They ruled the Big 8 when it expanded into the Big 12, and then fell behind TX and OU as the decade progressed. If they're angry that they didn't get more money, then they did it to themselves by making some bad coaching hires, and by not winning. Again, I stand behind my belief that teams who aren't as successful, should not receive as much as the teams who are. You should get what you earn.



I think your take on Pickens being Texas' biggest donor is a bit misleading. Okie State's stadium is named after him because he basically funded its construction/ renovation. He's given hundreds (265) of millions to its athletic program alone, and over 400 million to the school, according to wikipedia (not my first choice for a source, but it'll due). He hasn't, as far as I can find, given a cent to Texas' athletic programs, and if he has, it's pailed in comparison to Okie State's.



You're right, he's given $100 million to Texas medical institutions, but those institutions are apart from the UT-Austin Campus. There are several UT campuses, all of which have their own athletic programs apart from UT-Austin (UT-Dallas, UTSA, UT-Arlington, UTEP, etc.). It's the same as the UC or Cal State school systems. Therefore, to say he has given The Texas - Austin program money, is a big stretch, and would give him very little, if any leverage to speak on behalf of that specific program, as a donor/ booster as you implied.



Finally, how do you explain all of the links that I posted countering your statements w/ supposed links of their own? It adds more credibility to an argument when you can provide links/ references to the positions you take. So in response to yours, I did look up your statements, and the above links that I posted are what I came up with.
Advertisement
M
Mars
BYUgrad03 wrote:
As far as conference instability, I think that's unquestioned. But based soley on unequal revenue sharing? That's not the only reason, and I don't believe that it's soley Texas' fault as you've implied. If NU had had the amount of success that Texas has over the past decade, they could've brought in the at least the same TV revenue as has Texas, based on TV exposure and distribution... Again, I stand behind my belief that teams who aren't as successful, should not receive as much as the teams who are. You should get what you earn.



I think your take on Pickens being Texas' biggest donor is a bit misleading... You're right, he's given $100 million to Texas medical institutions, but those institutions are apart from the UT-Austin Campus...



Finally, how do you explain all of the links that I posted countering your statements w/ supposed links of their own? It adds more credibility to an argument when you can provide links/ references to the positions you take. So in response to yours, I did look up your statements, and the above links that I posted are what I came up with.

1- Florida brings in more money than Vanderbilt. Ohio State brings in more money than Northwestern. But I think that they understand that sharing conference money equal helps THEMSELF in the long term. Texas wishes they still had Nebraska, and it's their own greedy fault that they don't. Besides, Colorado individually is worth less than BYU. I do wish the Cougars got what we earn- we don't.



2- Pickens might not be Texas' largest donor, but he's the largest I know of. $100 million as a booster ain't chump change, and has to matter. And yes, Texas is located in Austin.



3- I'll help you out if you're still looking unsuccessfully:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5294434



http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/jun/16/notre-dame-arkansas-come-down/

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/06/16/report-jerry-jones-wants-irish-arkansas-in-big-12/

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/06/16/in-case-youre-wondering-arkansas-hearts-the-sec/

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/05/11/arkansas-ad-overwhelming-reasons-to-remain-in-the-sec/
C
chaksk
Very entertaining "spat" going on. So far the score is BYU Grad 1 Mars 0.
B
BYUgrad03
Mars wrote:
As far as conference instability, I think that's unquestioned. But based soley on unequal revenue sharing? That's not the only reason, and I don't believe that it's soley Texas' fault as you've implied. If NU had had the amount of success that Texas has over the past decade, they could've brought in the at least the same TV revenue as has Texas, based on TV exposure and distribution... Again, I stand behind my belief that teams who aren't as successful, should not receive as much as the teams who are. You should get what you earn.



I think your take on Pickens being Texas' biggest donor is a bit misleading... You're right, he's given $100 million to Texas medical institutions, but those institutions are apart from the UT-Austin Campus...



Finally, how do you explain all of the links that I posted countering your statements w/ supposed links of their own? It adds more credibility to an argument when you can provide links/ references to the positions you take. So in response to yours, I did look up your statements, and the above links that I posted are what I came up with.

1- Florida brings in more money than Vanderbilt. Ohio State brings in more money than Northwestern. But I think that they understand that sharing conference money equal helps THEMSELF in the long term. Texas wishes they still had Nebraska, and it's their own greedy fault that they don't. Besides, Colorado individually is worth less than BYU. I do wish the Cougars got what we earn- we don't.



2- Pickens might not be Texas' largest donor, but he's the largest I know of. $100 million as a booster ain't chump change, and has to matter.And yes, Texas is located in Austin.



3- I'll help you out if you're still looking unsuccessfully:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5294434



http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/jun/16/notre-dame-arkansas-come-down/

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/06/16/report-jerry-jones-wants-irish-arkansas-in-big-12/

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/06/16/in-case-youre-wondering-arkansas-hearts-the-sec/

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/05/11/arkansas-ad-overwhelming-reasons-to-remain-in-the-sec/


Is this all you got?



Did you read anything I said? Do you understand how Pickens isn't even a donor to UT-Austin?


And yes, Texas is located in Austin.
Huh? If that was your stab at being funny, you failed.


Texas wishes they still had Nebraska, and it's their own greedy fault that they don't. Besides, Colorado individually is worth less than BYU. I do wish the Cougars got what we earn- we don't.




Woe is me, Mars. You obviously feel that Nebraska is the victim. You forget that they signed the contract, they agreed to the terms because they thought it would benefit them. And surprise, it would have had they won, and maintained their success. Which it did for the first few seasons of the Big 12's existence. They knew exactly what they were getting into, and they welcomed it until it backfired on them because they couldn't win, and Texas could. It's a pretty easy formula to grasp.



Winning = more air time. More air time = more money.



Unlike yourself, I believe that's pretty fair.



I wonder if NU being 1-8 against Texas, since joining the league, has anything to do with their animosity towards Texas? I wonder if them no longer being the big dog in the league made them envious and jealous? Just a thought.



Ultimately, NU choose what was best for them. Does this make them greedy as well? Maybe they just revised and followed the old saying, "If you can't beat 'em, leave 'em."



http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5294434 - I'd say the statesman article directly quoting Texas' AD and President trumps what you're referrring to in this one. Why? Because it's coming directly from the source.



http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/jun/1 ... come-down/ - Jerry Jones' sinister desires doesn't equal the Big 12 "putting it's feelers out about Arkansas.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.co ... in-big-12/ - See Above

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.co ... s-the-sec/ - See Above

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.co ... n-the-sec/ - See Above



I realize what you were trying to say, and I'd say that in the end, we would agree that BYU deserves a shot at becoming the newest Big 12 member. But according to your spin, why would you want to, if Texas is still in the league, and they're this evil empire as you envision? They've done nothing but win, and as a result they should be branded as an evil greedy empire? Like I've said before in another topic, your rationale sounds a bit socialistic to me.
M
Mars


Grad, I've humored you by responding to your questions, but at this point I'm not even sure what you're attempting to argue with me anymore, or why.



My whole point in creating this thread is discuss what an unstable mess the 10-team Big XII currently is. And on that point, you seem to have agreed with me. Arguing about the semantics of a couple of the dozen-plus reasons why doesn't seem to be accomplishing anything (besides bringing over yet 1 more troll from CougarBlue).



~Mars
T
taekwondave
Hm. Wow. I'm gonna have to go with the graduate on this one. He makes very good points.



Here's the things Mars, I think he summed it up very well at the end. If the Big Twelve is THAT shaky, why would we want to be a part of it. I guess the only reality about anything that matters is the reality we accept (did that make sense?) as true. If I had to choose between the two "truths" you guys just presented, I'd prefer the truth of byugrad03. I would rather go into a strong Big 12 that isn't on the brink of destruction and that is basically ruled by the basic rules of capitalism rather than the alternative. But dude, don't get me wrong. You're still my favorite ;)
Advertisement
B
BYUgrad03
taekwondave wrote:
Hm. Wow. I'm gonna have to go with the graduate on this one. He makes very good points.



Here's the things Mars, I think he summed it up very well at the end. If the Big Twelve is THAT shaky, why would we want to be a part of it. I guess the only reality about anything that matters is the reality we accept (did that make sense?) as true. If I had to choose between the two "truths" you guys just presented, I'd prefer the truth of byugrad03. I would rather go into a strong Big 12 that isn't on the brink of destruction and that is basically ruled by the basic rules of capitalism rather than the alternative. But dude, don't get me wrong. You're still my favorite ;)


Mars is still my favorite too, and I meant no disrespect towards him. He invited me on here, and now probably wishes that he hadn't. It's good to have some heated/ entertaining debates every now and then. Anyway, how sad is it that we find ourselves arguing on a message board about college football on a Friday night?
M
Mars
taekwondave wrote:
Here's the things Mars, I think he summed it up very well at the end. If the Big Twelve is THAT shaky, why would we want to be a part of it. I guess the only reality about anything that matters is the reality we accept (did that make sense?) as true. If I had to choose between the two "truths" you guys just presented, I'd prefer the truth of byugrad03. I would rather go into a strong Big 12 that isn't on the brink of destruction and that is basically ruled by the basic rules of capitalism rather than the alternative.

Oh, grad makes great arguments, I agree. He obviously knew more about the "Texas Buyout Share" situation than I did. He probably also knows more about Pickens and Texas than I do. I can concede those points. I also agree that capitalism is good, on theory (except when it's bad for you).



BUT... Saying that the new Big XII is very unstable, and saying in the same breath that we would sacrifice the MWC in a second to make the jump, even for the smallest fraction of their $$$, doesn't conflict in any way.



For Utah, accepting a tiny portion of the PAC-12 money for 3 years is better than not joining the PAC-10 at all. Who cares that Colorado gets a full cut and they don't? Who cares if they stabbed Samuelson and Holmoe in the back after promising to remain a package deal together? Who cares that they cut and run the last year of the MWC's BCS chase, leaving their former conference high and dry when it comes auto-qualification time? They did what they had to do for themselves and themselves only, despite the drawbacks, because it was still by far the best decision for them.



For BYU, jumping at a chance to join an extremely unstable Big XII conference, with all the infighting and bickering, for the tiniest cut of their $20MM/year TV contract... is a no-brainer.





Yes, it's easier for BYU fans to deny any weaknesses in the Big XII, seeing as we are hoping desperately to join it. That's natural; I wouldn't hold that against anyone. Everyone gets to make up their own mind on what they believe to be true. I also don't see the rosiest view of the current BX-II as being factual.



Believe it or not, but the MWC has problems as well, even though the Cougars play in it. Crazy, I know. :whistle:
T
taekwondave
Okay Mars, I still award you two points for that rebuttal.
B
blue42
The university presidents, commissioners and AD's have all been upfront and completely honest with the whole realignment talk from day 1 so to say the information is coming straight from the source has to be taken with the biggest grain of salt ever!!



One thing to think about discussing the inequality with the payout for the Big 12. I agree capitalism is great and is the main factor that makes a strong company or product, but having such a big difference in what schools are receiving isn't good for the conference as a whole. If you are talking about capitalism in a business perspective then absolutely the best run and most attractive company should get what they deserve and they try to make their company stronger by taking profits and market shares, meaning constomers, away from their competitors.



This idea is different in sports and most of the other conferences understand this, but not the Big 12. Keeping it tied to a company stand point, the Big 12 is the company, not Texas, not OU, but the entire conference. The company,(the Big 12) in order to be viable needs to have all departments working together to make the company as strong as possible. Guess what, not all departments in a real company are money makers, such as, accounting, HR to name a couple, but they are an important part of the company even though those departments cost the company money, but no company would even consider being in existance without those departments.



Having a big difference in the revenue sharing only weakens the conference not make it stronger and when you have "employees" who feel they are not being treated fairly makes the situation even worse, which further weakens it.



I will have to agree with Mars here, the Big 12 is in total disarray and it has everything with the disloyalty the bigger schools have shown to the bottom half and it also absolutely has to do with the unfair revenue share. This is the prime example of the CEO's thinking they are the most important thing to the company and the "little" people are just an annoyance hoping they will just go away but knowing they can't.
B
BYUgrad03
Who left the Big 12? Nebraska, right? The point is, if they had simply won or maintained their success, they would have made as much as Texas or OU. If Baylor wins the conference and or a BCS championship game, they would have made as much, or more than Texas or OU if they don't go to a BCS game. Why is that, because they would have had more TV exposure/ more air time. Texas and OU get more money because they draw a bigger TV audience based on several factors, the main being that they're in the MNC hunt every single year. So the networks find it profitable to play their games as oppossed to a Baylor, and/ or an Iowa St. Thus creating the difference in revenue between the schools, which if you look at the Big 12 pay-out for 2007, Texas only made $3 million more than dead last Baylor.



It's simple, NU lost revenue because it wasn't on TV as much because it wasn't winning as much as Texas and OU. Despite what many think, Texas didn't earn more money than NU just because they're Texas, and they rule the league with an iron fist. Now, the fact that Texas has a huge fan base gives them a bigger draw, but if they're losing on a consistent basis, what fans are going to want to tune in to watch them lose? The fact that teams like Texas and OU are consistently in the MNC picture, creates a national interest in their games, thus equaling a greater exposure. Ultimately it depends on their relevance in the college football landscape, and their relevance depends their success. Right?



Is the Big 12 unstable? Yes. Is it Texas' fault? No. Unless one believes that they shouldn't win as much to make everyone else happy, but that doesn't work either. The success of teams like Texas and OU brings more money to the conference overall, as oppossed to every team being mediocre and out of the BCS NC picture. Ultimately, in the long-term, that would mean less money for all the teams involved, because the conference, as a whole would have less leverage in negotiating future TV contracts. Again if you want as much money as Texas and OU, then win. If OU and Texas stop winning, their revenue is going to go down. Everyone has the opportuntiy to be the biggest revenue winner, if they win on the football field first.



The Big 12 has a TV contract that pays out roughly between $130 to a $140 million per year. That money is then distributed among the schools according to each schools' TV exposure/ air time. You get what you earn, right? The more national exposure, the more money.



It's a schools own fault for not making the amount of money that they want, because they haven't fielded a winning team. It's called accountability.
Advertisement
M
Mars
BYUgrad03 wrote:
Who left the Big 12? Nebraska, right? The point is, if they had simply won or maintained their success, they would have made as much as Texas or OU... if you want as much money as Texas and OU, then win... Everyone has the opportuntiy to be the biggest revenue winner, if they win on the football field first... You get what you earn, right? The more national exposure, the more money. It's a schools own fault for not making the amount of money that they want, because they haven't fielded a winning team. It's called accountability.

I find these comments ironic, because Nebraska will be making more money than OU and Texas in 2011. I guess Texas hasn't been accountable enough. ;)



Anyways, here are two articles on the subject people might want to take a look at...



Changes Inevitable for New Big XII: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700041717/Changes-inevitable-for-new-Big-12.html

No Guarantees Big XII Will Remain Intact: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700041681/Still-no-guarantees-Big-12-will-remain-intact.html
B
BYUgrad03
Again Mars, please provide a link showing that NU will get more than Texas in 2011. How long have you gotten away with just stating something as fact without the ability to back it up? Just because someone can state something as fact, doesn't make it so.



Sorry, but I don't get your jab about Texas not being accountable enough in regards to the comments you quoted.



For someone who apparently hates Texas and thinks they are this greedy empire, you sure seem obsessed with the idea of joining their conference.
M
Mars
BYUgrad03 wrote:
Again Mars, please provide a link showing that NU will get more than Texas in 2011. How long have you gotten away with just stating something as fact without the ability to back it up? Just because someone can state something as fact, doesn't make it so. Sorry, but I don't get your jab about Texas not being accountable enough in regards to the comments you quoted. For someone who apparently hates Texas and thinks they are this greedy empire, you sure seem obsessed with the idea of joining their conference.

Again, your point in all your arguing about this is escaping me...



All Big Ten schools made $22MM last year. Texas made $11MM last year, and isn't expected to break $20MM until 5 years into the Texas Sports Network, and only if their other TV deals all work out as well as they hope.



I have the feeling that you are a Texas alum, as you are defending them irrationally. I don't hate Texas, at all. But I do think they have hurt themselves by being greedy. Texas would be happier and make more money if Nebraska was still in their conference, and they aren't because of the Longhorns' greed. This was pointed out best by another poster above. It has nothing to do with who or what you are obsessed with.
B
BYUgrad03
Mars wrote:
Again Mars, please provide a link showing that NU will get more than Texas in 2011. How long have you gotten away with just stating something as fact without the ability to back it up? Just because someone can state something as fact, doesn't make it so. Sorry, but I don't get your jab about Texas not being accountable enough in regards to the comments you quoted. For someone who apparently hates Texas and thinks they are this greedy empire, you sure seem obsessed with the idea of joining their conference.

Again, your point in all your arguing about this is escaping me...



All Big Ten schools made $22MM last year. Texas made $11MM last year, and isn't expected to break $20MM until 5 years into the Texas Sports Network, and only if their other TV deals all work out as well as they hope.



I have the feeling that you are a Texas alum, as you are defending them irrationally. I don't hate Texas, at all. But I do think they have hurt themselves by being greedy. Texas would be happier and make more money if Nebraska was still in their conference, and they aren't because of the Longhorns' greed. This was pointed out best by another poster above. It has nothing to do with who or what you are obsessed with.


First of all, you know exactly what I've been arguing with you about. However, I congratulate you for actually stating a fact that I could validate on the web, i.e., the 22 million per year, although you still didn't provide a link. But I concede to that point. Good job.



As far as the five year plan, you have that confused with the network TX is starting. The projected revenue for TX and co starts immediately because its coming from the current contract, that the networks will honor until its expiration and have stated that will likely be extended. It currently pays the Big 12 $130 - 140 million in revenue. Subtract two teams from that (CU and NU), and you have a greater share distributed among its members based on TV viewership.



As for the rest of your comment above, c'mon Mars. The "Texas alum,...thats why I'm defending them irrationally", is a load of crap. Weak, weak, weak.



As far as the greedy Texas part, which seems to be your theme. Let me ask. Are you saying that if Texas wasn't so greedy, and sought to split the $130-140 million contract evenly, equaling roughly $10 -11 million per team in the Big 12, then NU would've turned down the $22 million offered by the Big 10 and stayed?
8
88Coug
I hate to get in the middle of a big spat, but I must say that Grad needs to get a clue. There is no new Big 12 deal and all the numbers being thrown around are projections. http://www.denverpost.com/colleges/ci_15301529 The source of the addition revenue is the exit fees for Nebraska and CU, which at one point were going exclusively to the Big Three (at least until Tech raised a big stink and Texas backed off, claiming it never wanted the extra money). Spend five minutes on the messages boards for schools like A&M, Baylor, and Tech and you will see how much fans of these schools despise Texas. Tech fans talk of wanting to go to the MWC, AQ or no AQ. A&M fans want to be away from Texas and get into the SEC. Baylor fans, although happy not to be in the Sun Belt, hate Texas and realize that Texas will destroy things once again, leaving Baylor without a home.



Maybe when you have been around a little longer, you will remember that greed is not good and that filthy lucre is filthy for a reason.
Page 1 of 2
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.