You haven't really thought this out very well.
If Texas doesn't agree to revenue sharing in the Big 12, they're going to be driven to the Pac, where they will have to agree to revenue sharing.
Why not just agree to revenue sharing in the Big 12 when they're going to have to do it anyways upon moving to the Pac?
Travel costs will be much lower, and revenue potential will be about the same.
Originally Posted by isuno1fan
bobfescoe Bob FescoeQuick, check where the planes are flying.
No lock for MU and KU to stay if OU remains in big 12 hearing ACC intrigues KU AND SEC intrigues MU. stay tuned it changes by the minute
I agree with this, however, equal revenue sharing does at least give off the perception of equality. What the current Big 12 agreement does is show blatantly who is in charge.
More important than the equal revenue sharing is perhaps the fact that Texas will now be joining a conference where there is a state LARGER than Texas - quite a bit larger actually.
The significance of that is HUGE. Right now UT feels it is owed something in the Big 12 because if it left the conference would crumble. That wouldn't be the case in the PAC.
In fact, California has more TV households than the state of Texas does, so now all of a sudden UT goes from having a clear demographic edge in the Big 12 to having more demographic equality in the PAC - that is ultimately what I think OU wants....for the state of Texas to have a demographic equal in whatever conference it ends up in - which makes the PAC the only conference that makes any sense.
Enjoy your last national title run in 2011!You cant lose Nebraska,A&M & Colorado & be a relevant league
If things hold together now, Missouri will bounce whenever The Big Ten felt like offering
Texas was NEVER going to agree to a iron clad contract with severe penalities & OU wasn't going to agree if Texas wouldn't
BYU demanded to much
OU was not interested in expanding Eastward, into the rustbelt (Pitt),
Texas loses the LHN though.This is the key - if UT agrees to it now, they admit defeat. The UT ego is wayyyy too big to admit defeat, and the OU ego is too big to sit and be UT's ***** for the rest of time.
It's pretty much a Mexican stand off and the only way "out" for all parties involved is splitting for the PAC.
This is not his invention. See link.
Pac-12 expansion: The latest on Texas, revenue sharing and 16-team division alignment | College Hotline
This is the key - if UT agrees to it now, they admit defeat. The UT ego is wayyyy too big to admit defeat, and the OU ego is too big to sit and be UT's ***** for the rest of time.
It's pretty much a Mexican stand off and the only way "out" for all parties involved is splitting for the PAC.
Um, we're still one of the best leagues (athletic wise).You cant lose Nebraska,A&M & Colorado & be a relevant league
If things hold together now, Missouri will bounce whenever The Big Ten felt like offering
Texas was NEVER going to agree to a iron clad contract with severe penalities & OU wasn't going to agree if Texas wouldn't
BYU demanded to much
OU was not interested in expanding Eastward, into the rustbelt (Pitt),
You cant lose Nebraska,A&M & Colorado & be a relevant league
If a giant 16 team leftover league is made like Heartland Conference, we need to come up with some good names:Maybe I'm crazy...but I don't see 4 16 team superconferences either. I think we'll have 5 conferences that are BCS-level. I think with the changing landscape in college athletics and the inevitable Congressional interference, existing BCS schools will not be left without a home and more teams will be added to the BCS level to avoid the *** storm that would happen if teams are left out.
How is UT giving equal share in the Big 12 any more of a defeat than going to the Pac under their terms?
You cant lose Nebraska,A&M & Colorado & be a relevant league
If things hold together now, Missouri will bounce whenever The Big Ten felt like offering
Texas was NEVER going to agree to a iron clad contract with severe penalities & OU wasn't going to agree if Texas wouldn't
BYU demanded to much
OU was not interested in expanding Eastward, into the rustbelt (Pitt),
No one has claimed Little 12 yet as a name for the Twest Proposal.Well, we could win the West. It still makes me sick though. That's a huge step down academically for Iowa State. Would that conference be an auto qualifier?
Again, there are perceived equals in the PAC - that isn't defeat - it's a compromise. Giving up money from the LHN to the Iowa States, Kansas States, & Missouris of the world is defeat. Texas has already told those schools they aren't worthy.
OU is leaving the Big 12 either way. The PAC has given them an unconditional invite because Larry Scott knows that if OU/OSU leave the Big 12 - it is done.
At that point, UT has to make a choice - keep some rivals and maintain a home for Tech in the PAC or go independent and try to find a home for the non revenue sports.
Scott is playing a game of poker. He knows that as long as OU/OSU are intent on going to the PAC, UT is probably coming along. He isn't bluffing with his offer to OU/OSU, but he is simply playing his hand to put the pressure on Texas.
Fake Dan beebe could do a better job at this point.Dan Beebe problem is that he is too comfortable with the way things are, and too much into Texas. The Big 12 conference is too big into Texas. This has got to quit being about the halves and the thoughts and wishes of the halves-not need the same amount of attention.
We also need to get away from the idea that if we lose Texas we are screwed. They are the big money winner for the conference, but bringing in BYU, South Florida, etc wouldn't be a bad conference. I think we could even pouch some schools from other conferences if we weren't so unstable.