My conference tidbit
- Thread starter rebecacy
- Start date
I was joking -- but seriously:
My additional 2 cents on what I think will happen. Texas wants a Big xii and if OU leaves there will be no Big xii -- OU says we might leave and Texas knows that is the end of the Big xii. OU and the rest of the non-Texas Big xii court BYU with A&M dollars and a newly drafted set of equality rules and they all come back to Texas and say, let's talk but you listen to us first Texas, as a few things have to change. And if Texas says no, which I doubt, there is a bunch of very good schools willing to join a new equal revenue sharing Big xii that operates under a stable Big 10 model/contract.
The Big 10 model is the right model -- stable, under control, money making machine. There is a reason that everyone wants to be in the BIG 10 (see ISU). The Big xii staying together under that model is the ideal thing to do. We could even lose "almighty Texas" and be just fine. If they stay they play under the rules that Michigan and Ohio State play under out east. It's brilliant and GG and David Boren (with input from JP and a few others) were likely the strategic and tactical design team. You do not have to change the players to create stability, just the model under which they operate. Why do we need or want to break up the conference if we can fix what is broken. Heck......I still miss the old big 8.
My additional 2 cents on what I think will happen. Texas wants a Big xii and if OU leaves there will be no Big xii -- OU says we might leave and Texas knows that is the end of the Big xii. OU and the rest of the non-Texas Big xii court BYU with A&M dollars and a newly drafted set of equality rules and they all come back to Texas and say, let's talk but you listen to us first Texas, as a few things have to change. And if Texas says no, which I doubt, there is a bunch of very good schools willing to join a new equal revenue sharing Big xii that operates under a stable Big 10 model/contract.
The Big 10 model is the right model -- stable, under control, money making machine. There is a reason that everyone wants to be in the BIG 10 (see ISU). The Big xii staying together under that model is the ideal thing to do. We could even lose "almighty Texas" and be just fine. If they stay they play under the rules that Michigan and Ohio State play under out east. It's brilliant and GG and David Boren (with input from JP and a few others) were likely the strategic and tactical design team. You do not have to change the players to create stability, just the model under which they operate. Why do we need or want to break up the conference if we can fix what is broken. Heck......I still miss the old big 8.
I think he is saying that Texas or not, Oklahoma wants a stable conference with equal revenue sharing. If Texas wants to be a part of that, they can. If not, we'll go on without em
I don't believe this is true. Not at all. "Things Change" As Stoops was coached to say.
There is no incentive for OU to stay without Texas. No Texas = HUGE hit to the TV contract. Smaller TV contract = better chance your conference gets picked apart. Think if Missouri takes a revenue cut they're going to be thrilled with the conference? They'll jump at the first chance they get.
In the end there is no real equal revenue sharing. That is not completely true even in the big 10. Oklahoma is smart enough to realize this and consistently fields teams that take advantage of this.
This I'll agree with. No conference has real equal revenue sharing or you wouldn't see a discrepancy in athletics budgets.
I just said we go to the big 10 model........including any tier you try to nit-pic.
You'd have to have a conference-wide network for that to happen, and nothing from OU or UT has indicated theyre wanting to go that direction.
Right now we are totally unequal. Equalizing first and second tier would go a long ways to cleaning things up. Things we never be perfect, but this and higher exit fees would help to make the conference more stable.
Plus some sort of conference network or networks (I know this is third tier) to carry the smaller schools.
Last edited:
The bully is Texas and David Spade is the rest of the B12.
Big Bully Scene from Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star Movie (2003) | MOVIECLIPS
This is not true either, pick schools like BYU and maybe 2 more (AZ maybe and someone out east) and broaden the footprint and you can grow the TV contract.........a lot. We still have texas TV, add the mormons and a new geography or two and we are golden. We don't need Texas (the university I mean). I'm not the only one to have figured this out. Relax, it's already been sold to the schools and the plan is in motion. Boren and Stoops fired the first shots. Texas knows we called their bluff and are trying to decide to play or run. Might be a hiccup or two but blowing up the big XII is stupid and won't happen. I know a very smart guy at ISU that has dubbed it the "Alamo Plan". Hilarious.
As said before....
IF we can get 12 teams, (add BYU. X, X)
We already are splitting evenly next year Tier 2 ($90 / 12) = 7.5 Million each
Tier 1 will be up in a couple years and should be the same or better than ACC ($155 / 12) = 13 Million each
That would mean $20 million at minimum to each school for Tier1 /2. (which is more than the SEC)
Tier 3 would tack on money to each school regardless of how its done.
The main thing here is it becomes EQUAL like the rest of the conferences and EVERYONE is on TV. There would be no weirdness of 4 teams games not televised etc...
The bad part is our TV contracts expire a couple years after some of the other conferences. So they seem to cash in some mega deal making ours look like crap. Then we have to sit around for a couple years until we get ours brought in line.
And I think Dan Beebe stepping down would do alot for the conference. Bring in a New Leader, New Teams, New Website, New TV Contract, New Network? You get the point.... Its kind of like a Do Over.
IF we can get 12 teams, (add BYU. X, X)
We already are splitting evenly next year Tier 2 ($90 / 12) = 7.5 Million each
Tier 1 will be up in a couple years and should be the same or better than ACC ($155 / 12) = 13 Million each
That would mean $20 million at minimum to each school for Tier1 /2. (which is more than the SEC)
Tier 3 would tack on money to each school regardless of how its done.
The main thing here is it becomes EQUAL like the rest of the conferences and EVERYONE is on TV. There would be no weirdness of 4 teams games not televised etc...
The bad part is our TV contracts expire a couple years after some of the other conferences. So they seem to cash in some mega deal making ours look like crap. Then we have to sit around for a couple years until we get ours brought in line.
And I think Dan Beebe stepping down would do alot for the conference. Bring in a New Leader, New Teams, New Website, New TV Contract, New Network? You get the point.... Its kind of like a Do Over.
Last edited:
This makes total sense in terms of a conference network like the B1G where footprint and tv sets are the key. But Mark Cuban's blog on this issue touches on an issue for superconferences that would also be an issue here. The mega-dollar first tier contracts are where the biggest money is at. And teams 8 through 16 mean nothing there, and neither does conference population footprint. Those big first tier contracts are tied to the rights for the marque games that get televised to a national audience. You need a couple big fish in the conference in order to do that. Texas and Oklahoma provide that for us. I don't think any of the other schools reasonably being discussed for addition to the Big 12 do that.
For that reason, I don't think we can pull this off without Texas. OU, equal revenue sharing, and a Big 12 network doesn't provide the inventory of top tier matchups we need for the big tier 1 payday in a couple years. This leaves a money gap between a future Big 12 and the Pac/SEC/B1G and eventually those with other options will start getting greedy again. If UT calls our bluff and walks on this one, we may hold the Big 12 together for a couple more years, but we will be right back here again soon enough.
