*****The Super, Mega, Huge Big 12 Expansion Thread*****

Status
Not open for further replies.

State43

Well-Known Member
Nov 22, 2010
17,201
3,519
113
Omaha, NE
I love how sources say one thing, than 2minutes later are going in completely different direction. Wake me up when someone makes a statement.
 

alarson

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 15, 2006
59,583
74,398
113
Ankeny
Im still not convinced the PAC presidents will approve the expansion. Especially not the non-coastal schools that dont want to diminish their California exposure.
 

Al_4_State

Moderator
Staff member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 27, 2006
32,459
28,819
113
40
Driftless Region
Visit site
Equal revenue sharing on 1st and 2nd tier could allow the LHN and Big 12 to live in harmony.

I think the ability to control third tier rights is a draw. When you equalize the rest of it, you get rid of the non-sensical butthurt that was emanating from the LHN's announcement.

Well, that and getting rid of Aggie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cyfanatic

Gorm

With any luck we will be there by Tuesday.
Jul 6, 2010
5,847
2,726
113
Cedar Rapids, IA
As long as the 6 Big 12 schools stick together. (Baylor, Tech, ISU, Missouri, Kansas, Kansas State) Anyone who leaves the Big 12 is going to pay out to leave.

If Oklahoma is serious about the move, they are likely thinking the Big 12 will dissolve if they leave. I don't think this happens. Not when the other schools can see money to be made by members leaving.
 

isufbcurt

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2006
27,536
44,504
113
46
Newton
You are 100% correct. This is the sticking point for OU. Why should they earn 15 mil less a year? They could make that with the PAC network.

Because Texas is a bigger brand. It's simple and thats why Texas should earn more than Okie. If Okie wanted to they could start up a network, but they don't have the interest that Texas does so they wouldn't make as much. It's just sour grapes by everyone who is complaining about the LHN.
 

trajanJ

Well-Known Member
Sep 11, 2008
1,464
242
63
Im still not convinced the PAC presidents will approve the expansion. Especially not the non-coastal schools that dont want to diminish their California exposure.

I didn't think the PAC presidents needed to approve it. I thought they gave all authority to Scott. I think the minute after A&M gets accepted by the SEC the PAC jumps on OU & OSU and then goes after Texas. The SEC will have more than 12 teams and that will be the first sign that the Superconference might be beginning. The PAC is in a tough spot because they can only expand East and there isn't a lot out there. Their football is down and OU would be a huge gain. Actually OSU could also be better than any current team in the PAC right now. The PAC knows their back is up against the wall and if the SEC, ACC or BIG gets OU & Texas they are in trouble. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't try to become the first to get to 16 once A&M is officially gone.
 

NobodyBeatsCy

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2008
3,750
633
113
Clive, IA
If the LHN exists, the Big XII is doomed because of OU

If the LHN is banned the Big XII is doomed because of TX goes indy or somewhere else that will let them keep it.

I think our chances are pretty good
 

alarson

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 15, 2006
59,583
74,398
113
Ankeny
I didn't think the PAC presidents needed to approve it. I thought they gave all authority to Scott.
I'm pretty sure they gave authority to negotiate, but they ultimately have to vote to approve.
 

UNIGuy4Cy

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Nov 11, 2009
9,409
281
113
Because Texas is a bigger brand. It's simple and thats why Texas should earn more than Okie. If Okie wanted to they could start up a network, but they don't have the interest that Texas does so they wouldn't make as much. It's just sour grapes by everyone who is complaining about the LHN.
Maybe they are a bigger brand, but who cares? If OU has a shot to make that extra money why wouldn't they take it?
 

alarson

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 15, 2006
59,583
74,398
113
Ankeny
Maybe they are a bigger brand, but who cares? If OU has a shot to make that extra money why wouldn't they take it?

And fact is, it has nothing to do with demand. Demand would get texas the $5mil network everyone was predicting last summer. Everyone was sort of fine with that. OU (and everyone else) figured texas will get maybe 5, they'll get a few, itll be a difference, but only talking a couple million. Then ESPN came out with this way out of proportion number. And it wasnt long before you saw why... trying to get other conference teams on the network, constantly pumping up Texas in their main-line ESPN coverage, etc. Its not just a distribution network for 3rd tier product, its a business alliance between the most powerful media entity in sports and the most powerful athletic program in the country.
 

clone136

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Oct 2, 2006
1,118
718
113
Des Moines
Has the LHN even been picked up by a lot of providers? I thought they were struggling to find carriers?
 

jbhtexas

Well-Known Member
Oct 20, 2006
14,326
4,377
113
Arlington, TX
You are 100% correct. This is the sticking point for OU. Why should they earn 15 mil less a year? They could make that with the PAC network.

Where did you find that the Pac-1x network could be generating $15/million per year per school. If that's the case, then the money that ESPN is paying to UT for LHN is not out of line.

According to the link below, the entire Pac-12 TV package is generating $21 million per year per school. It doesn't seem likely that $15 million of that is coming from the levftover FB, MBB, and non-revenue sport games that would be shown on the Pac-12 network.

Breaking Down The Pac-12's New TV Deal With ESPN/Fox & Pac-12 Network - Bruins Nation
 
Status
Not open for further replies.