I get your point with the Texas schools. My thought was having more guaranteed games out of state would increase the recruiting footprint for all schools. Plus splitting the Texas schools gives more teams the opportunity to visit Texas regularly.
Big 12 Conference Realignment
- Thread starter t-noah
- Start date
Before aTm left for the SEC, some of the ADs proposed giving them an unequal share to stay. It never happened and they left. Was that a good outcome, IDK? But it has been discussed before. I'm good with a bird in the hand, or in this case a duck, v. an unknown in the bushes out there.
I actually have no problem with a GOR clause that let's a school leave for the B10/SEC with minimal delay/penalty. Let's face it, nobody is going to pass that up, it's just a recognition of reality.
Yormark's first goal may be to blowup the P12. I'm guessing vulnerable P12 presidents like WSU's Schulz know that, thus the blowback.
www.union-bulletin.com
Nobody in “places of despair” on media rights, WSU president Kirk Schulz says
The Pac-12’s pursuit of a media rights contract, which began more than eight months ago in the middle of a roiling summer, is “close to being resolved,’’ according to a
Last edited:
What you keep describing in all of these threads...is a surefire way to tear a conference apart. There is a reason that there has been so many problems in the Big 12...and it is precisely because a few schools were and/or have been treated differently than the others. Those schools have made more, received more and had more power in the conference and has caused nothing but division and angst in the conference.
Almost all of the defectors from the Big 12 have listed the lack of equal distribution and power as the main reason for wanting out.
And ISU has gotten the short end of the stick since the beginning... and you want that to start over again, just when we finally get everyone on equal ground? Think about what you are talking about and what that does to a conference.
I don't see a problem with unequal distribution if it is merit-based (i.e. place in standings, viewership for games, etc.)
That is a really, really bad idea.
I just see things differently than you. And my impression is most schools left the Big12 for cultural (CU) or financial reasons. I believe a conference can be cohesive even if some schools make more money off the media rights/playoff contracts.
I am a firm believer that when the new 12 team CFB Playoff goes out to open bid and $2B starts floating around college sports, we will see the "haves" take more. Do you really think Ohio State, Alabama, Georgia, Clemson or any playoff team is going to settle for an "equal share"?
And they'll get a lot more than $5M more than their conference counterparts.
The unequal distribution thing is a bit of a red herring. Everyone shared equally except for tier three rights, which OU and Texas had their own while the rest of the league had ESPN+ and the two OUTs got their share of that as well.
Yet you keep saying that it is going to be spread equally between the 71 schools in the P5....and any G5s that any conference decides to elevate to get more.
That is just what was the case in the last few years. You need to go further back, and further into some of the issues voted on that people were angry about. Even more go back to Big 8 times.
ESPN+ has only been a part of it for a couple years.
Yes, I was addressing the post-aTm era. Texas is just awful. Jamie is quite right. Get the hell out of here, please.
You have a serious reading comprehension issue. I have said there will be an even spread the first 2 years of the 12 team playoff. That's not me on the equal split among P5 schools, you even posted a link to an article. You just didn't understand the words. Do a google search you'll find other articles.
Once the 12 team playoff goes out to open-bid and $2B is distributed, IMO all bets are off. Go back and read my post from yesterday. I think I clearly laid out scenarios. Yes, they are just my opinions.
You don't agree with me. I believe what I believe. Besides this great country of ours espousing capitalism, we also lean on free speech. It's OK to think differently!!!!
If you don't like what I post, don't read it. Or better yet, put me on your ignore list. You might live easier.
Nebraska and A&M left specifically because of Texas. Once it was clear there were tiers of power and those at the top got special rules and more money, they couldn't stand that there was someone else in the conference with more of either. Decisions weren't made for the long-term health of the conference, all four were more interested in helping themselves and slighting everyone else. Texas outmaneuvered Nebraska and A&M with the LHN, and that was really the last straw for those two.
No you started out saying it would be split 22m for every school thats why the Pac wants to add g5s and offer them less.. and take their 22m share..and made it sound like it was for a long period of time. If they add teams the 2 year deal that says it will be "MORE EQUAL" will be almost over by the time the enter the conference...yet you talk like it will be forever.
More Equal does not mean equal for all 71+ teams. Dont try to spin this on me not comprehending. Go back and start reading your posts for the last couple weeks or so. Yesterday you tried to backtrack some after I posted those links. And still have NOT POSTED a single link that says it will be an equal split of 22m per P5 team like you so adamantly say.
I think it is interesting that I asked you for links with what you say you have seen/read and yet you dont post any. You say to go out and Google....and I did, and didnt find a single one. And even posted those links. that said it was only for 2 years...and would be "MORE EQUAL" for those 2 years. Nothing said anything like you were saying. And until yesterday when I posted those links....FOR YOU...you were on the Kick that this was going to be the case for years to come.
Im not the only one that has challenged you on this, but I am the only one that has asked for some links, and I am the only one that has shown links to show what you are saying is incorrect, unless you have others.
Maybe you are the one that has a reading comprehension problem. It sure seams like it. Maybe do some research on what unequal sharing has done to conferences. And also what most people believe would happen to a conference that does it. Everyone I know says if the PAC tried Unequal revenue the conference would be doomed. Even more so than now.
I havent been on here insulting you and your "reading comprehension" But maybe I should. Because obviously you cant google this stuff yourself, and are making up the fact that you read or heard it somewhere, because all you say is google it, when someone asks for a link. Or Greg F says so. Like anyone knows who that is.
The moment you have unequal revenue share you create a conference that isn’t made up of equals. It’s one thing to have new conference members take a reduced rate for a few years. It’s another thing to have unequal revenue built into a conference. While money has a limiting effect towards on field performance, off the field it has a big one. It would also be impossible to balance. Do you rate viewership higher than standing? How do you factor in non revenue sports? It’s a giant mess that no conference should ever willingly venture into.
Also it feels weird saying all this on a Big12 board where most people complain (rightfully so) about the outsize influence of Texas.
Agree. I really don't get why people think UO & UW to the B1G is some kind of done deal.
I still think there are more attractive markets with some of the ACC schools rumored to be B1G targets.
And the ACC deal running to 2036 or whatever could be worked around.
The bottom line is if and when the B1G wants to poach some ACC schools, they will get whoever they want IMO.
If the SEC also comes for the same school it could be a toss up. Would depend a lot on what the school values.
