Sporting News: OU and A&M may look at SEC

[GMan]

Big East basketball is 16 teams and that conference seems to do fine. Conferences are about alliances anyway, not about the fairest way to determine a champion.

 

[hawkfan]

Not really sure. It's been tried once before, and failed.

What's the point of a 16 team conference? It's pretty much two separate conferences.

I think at some point they might try it, but I think instability that would result after a couple years would make the Big 12 look harmonious.

It was tried once, by a league who had no schools anybody wanted to watch. I don't think a 16 team WAC is comparable to a 16 team Big Ten or 16 team SEC...not even close.

The law of supply & demand suggest that it would work really well as long as it was executed correctly. Think for a second why ESPN wants to prevent 16 team leagues. It ain't because they are kind hearted souls looking to protect the historic rivalries of college football.

They want to avoid 16 teams in a BCS conference because it would cost them money....and a monopoly. Say you had four BCS conferences of 16 teams that left the NCAA and left all the mid majors in the dust. There would essentially be four TV contracts rather than 10 or so that there are now. Right now, if ESPN goes to the Big Ten in 2016 and the Big Ten demands too much, they'll say, screw it, we'll buy up the SEC, MWC, Big East, & Big 12 to compensate. Imagine if three of those four were gone. ESPN would be in a bad position.

Further, four 16 team conferences would create a scenario where there would be a TV footprint large enough (in all likelihood) to support a conference network for each conference. Do you know where ESPN feasts? It's tier 2 games that it broadcasts on ESPN, ESPN2, & ESPNU (and ESPN Gameday as well). Imagine four super conferences, each having its own network for all tier 2 games. ESPN would lose a butt load of money in that scenario.

Essentially, my point is, ESPN knows it would be profitable for the schools if there were 4 16 team leagues, which is exactly why they want to do everything possible to prevent that from happening. ESPN ain't some patron saint....they are greedy a-holes that are trying to prevent consolidation in CFB to protect the influence/monopoly they damn near currently have on the sport.

 

[enisthemenace]

Well, UT can do whatever they want. Losing A&M wouldn't be a big deal, OU on the other hand would be.

Most people, even Texas fans don't think they're actually going to go Independent. They're actions recently don't suggest it either.

A&M is mad and raising a stink. They're irrational as hell and mostly jealous. They could do exactly what Texas is doing, but they'd rather ***** and moan and leave in a huff than actually do something about it.

If the Big 12 doesn't blow up, A&M will be at the top of my hatred list. This is their doing, IMO.

You're usually pretty spot on, so I just want to clarify something. You say A&M can do exactly the same thing Texas is doing, by starting their own network. Philisophically, you're right, they can, but can they financially? Who is going to invest in an "Aggie Network" like ESPN did for LHN?

 

[CycloneErik]

It was tried once, by a league who had no schools anybody wanted to watch. I don't think a 16 team WAC is comparable to a 16 team Big Ten or 16 team SEC...not even close.

The law of supply & demand suggest that it would work really well as long as it was executed correctly. Think for a second why ESPN wants to prevent 16 team leagues. It ain't because they are kind hearted souls looking to protect the historic rivalries of college football.

They want to avoid 16 teams in a BCS conference because it would cost them money....and a monopoly. Say you had four BCS conferences of 16 teams that left the NCAA and left all the mid majors in the dust. There would essentially be four TV contracts rather than 10 or so that there are now. Right now, if ESPN goes to the Big Ten in 2016 and the Big Ten demands too much, they'll say, screw it, we'll buy up the SEC, MWC, Big East, & Big 12 to compensate. Imagine if three of those four were gone. ESPN would be in a bad position.

Further, four 16 team conferences would create a scenario where there would be a TV footprint large enough (in all likelihood) to support a conference network for each conference. Do you know where ESPN feasts? It's tier 2 games that it broadcasts on ESPN, ESPN2, & ESPNU (and ESPN Gameday as well). Imagine four super conferences, each having its own network for all tier 2 games. ESPN would lose a butt load of money in that scenario.

Essentially, my point is, ESPN knows it would be profitable for the schools if there were 4 16 team leagues, which is exactly why they want to do everything possible to prevent that from happening. ESPN ain't some patron saint....they are greedy a-holes that are trying to prevent consolidation in CFB to protect the influence/monopoly they damn near currently have on the sport.

At the same time, if ESPN's partners don't make money, they find other options. That's a pretty closed-minded tinfoil scenario you're painting.

 

[CycloneErik]

You're usually pretty spot on, so I just want to clarify something. You say A&M can do exactly the same thing Texas is doing, by starting their own network. Philisophically, you're right, they can, but can they financially? Who is going to invest in an "Aggie Network" like ESPN did for LHN?

I think that's the little brother facet of the problem here. The Aggies just might be starting to realize that they aren't really on the level of Texas, and that stings the pride.

 

[hawkfan]

At the same time, if ESPN's partners don't make money, they find other options. That's a pretty closed-minded tinfoil scenario you're painting.

What's your explanation then.....why would ESPN desperately want to avoid the advent of the super conference? Supply and demand is a pretty proven economic theory....but I guess arguing with a soundly proven economic theory seems like a conspiracy to you?

 

[Al_4_State]

You're usually pretty spot on, so I just want to clarify something. You say A&M can do exactly the same thing Texas is doing, by starting their own network. Philisophically, you're right, they can, but can they financially? Who is going to invest in an "Aggie Network" like ESPN did for LHN?

To make it work financially, they join with the rest of the Big 12.

That Network would garner wider viewership than the LHN. That Network could show HS games.

 

[CycloneErik]

To make it work financially, they join with the rest of the Big 12.

That Network would garner wider viewership than the LHN. That Network could show HS games.

Texas fans would say they already did once it showed the first Aggie game.

 

[Clonefan94]

Could this just be a power play to get what aTm wants? Will anyone call their bluff?

I have a feeling bad things are about to happen though.

 

[enisthemenace]

To make it work financially, they join with the rest of the Big 12.

That Network would garner wider viewership than the LHN. That Network could show HS games.

In the immortal words of Tom Hanks..."I still don't get it."

 

[Al_4_State]

It was tried once, by a league who had no schools anybody wanted to watch. I don't think a 16 team WAC is comparable to a 16 team Big Ten or 16 team SEC...not even close.

The law of supply & demand suggest that it would work really well as long as it was executed correctly. Think for a second why ESPN wants to prevent 16 team leagues. It ain't because they are kind hearted souls looking to protect the historic rivalries of college football.

They want to avoid 16 teams in a BCS conference because it would cost them money....and a monopoly. Say you had four BCS conferences of 16 teams that left the NCAA and left all the mid majors in the dust. There would essentially be four TV contracts rather than 10 or so that there are now. Right now, if ESPN goes to the Big Ten in 2016 and the Big Ten demands too much, they'll say, screw it, we'll buy up the SEC, MWC, Big East, & Big 12 to compensate. Imagine if three of those four were gone. ESPN would be in a bad position.

Further, four 16 team conferences would create a scenario where there would be a TV footprint large enough (in all likelihood) to support a conference network for each conference. Do you know where ESPN feasts? It's tier 2 games that it broadcasts on ESPN, ESPN2, & ESPNU (and ESPN Gameday as well). Imagine four super conferences, each having its own network for all tier 2 games. ESPN would lose a butt load of money in that scenario.

Essentially, my point is, ESPN knows it would be profitable for the schools if there were 4 16 team leagues, which is exactly why they want to do everything possible to prevent that from happening. ESPN ain't some patron saint....they are greedy a-holes that are trying to prevent consolidation in CFB to protect the influence/monopoly they damn near currently have on the sport.

I don't give a damn what ESPN's motives are, because their actions are resulting in a scenario that's beneficial for ISU and a lot of other schools (including Iowa).

 

[Al_4_State]

In the immortal words of Tom Hanks..."I still don't get it."

A Big 12 minus Texas Network could do all these horrible things that Aggie is accusing the LHN and Texas of doing. Instead of whining about what Texas is doing, A&M could join with the rest of us and fight fire with fire. But they aren't. They're making a fuss and trying to run away to a new overlord that they find far less benevolent (especially on the field).

 

[enisthemenace]

A Big 12 minus Texas Network could do all these horrible things that Aggie is accusing the LHN and Texas of doing. Instead of whining about what Texas is doing, A&M could join with the rest of us and fight fire with fire. But they aren't. They're making a fuss and trying to run away to a new overlord that they find far less benevolent (especially on the field).

Okay, so the rest of the league starts a new network which excludes Texas?

1) Again, who's going to buy that?

2) If an investor can be found, you do "fight fire with fire"...I suppose. Very dilluted fire.

Maybe I still don't understand.

 

[RackEm]

A Big 12 minus Texas Network could do all these horrible things that Aggie is accusing the LHN and Texas of doing. Instead of whining about what Texas is doing, A&M could join with the rest of us and fight fire with fire. But they aren't. They're making a fuss and trying to run away to a new overlord that they find far less benevolent (especially on the field).

Basically, you are saying that TAMU and OU should bend over and take it like ISU is doing. ISU has very limited options, TAMU and OU have no limits. You can't say they should try to keep the B12 together when they could easily walk to the SEC, get a better payday, and be treated as equals knowing that there won't be a Texas in that conference who would try to slant everything to benefit them.

 

[CyCrazy]

You're usually pretty spot on, so I just want to clarify something. You say A&M can do exactly the same thing Texas is doing, by starting their own network. Philisophically, you're right, they can, but can they financially? Who is going to invest in an "Aggie Network" like ESPN did for LHN?

They probably could and someone would but it wouldn't be UT type deal. The little brother syndrome is immense in College Station. At this point I say to hell with Aggie go to the SEC and be relegated to nothing. I would welcome them being ******* slapped by Alabama LSU FLorida Georgia and Tennessee on a regular basis. If A&M thinks they can walk into the SEC and compete they are clueless.

 

[jbhtexas]

Basically, you are saying that TAMU and OU should bend over and take it like ISU is doing. ISU has very limited options, TAMU and OU have no limits.

And the delusion continues. TAMU and OU have limits, one very large one being that no cable network wants to distribute their third tier networks...

 

[Al_4_State]

Basically, you are saying that TAMU and OU should bend over and take it like ISU is doing. ISU has very limited options, TAMU and OU have no limits. You can't say they should try to keep the B12 together when they could easily walk to the SEC, get a better payday, and be treated as equals knowing that there won't be a Texas in that conference who would try to slant everything to benefit them.

All that "equality" is going to get them is a lot more notches in the "loss" column.

Okay, so the rest of the league starts a new network which excludes Texas?

1) Again, who's going to buy that?

2) If an investor can be found, you do "fight fire with fire"...I suppose. Very dilluted fire.

Maybe I still don't understand.

A Big 12 Network has more appeal to anyone outside of ESPN than the LHN.

 

[RackEm]

All that "equality" is going to get them is a lot more notches in the "loss" column.

And would put ISU in C-USA in the process. Which is the only reason ISU fans are willing to put up with this crap.

 

[Al_4_State]

All that "equality" is going to get them is a lot more notches in the "loss" column.

And would put ISU in C-USA in the process. Which is the only reason ISU fans are willing to put up with this crap.

Well that and the fact that "this crap" is making EVERYONE MORE MONEY. A&M and OU just had their egos bruised. They aren't losing out on anything. The LHN isn't creating any disadvantages, it's just exposing the ones that already exist (and will always exist) and they can't handle it. What's more illogical? ISU fans who are OK with Texas having power because it helps ISU or A&M/OU fans that are flat out willing to guarantee more losses just because they hate Texas? Texas isn't holding anyone back.

They're (A&M/OU) willing to nuke half the conference back to the stone age because Texas hurt their feelings. FWIW, I'm pretty confident that ISU will end somewhere AQ. Not sure where, might be an all new league, but it will be a home.

Go back to HuskerBoard.

 

[CyCrazy]

All that "equality" is going to get them is a lot more notches in the "loss" column.

And would put ISU in C-USA in the process. Which is the only reason ISU fans are willing to put up with this crap.

Where have you ever read that it would put ISU in C-USA?