Yeah clearly the culture within the conference needs to change before more equality will become commonplace.
Texas needs to go
- Thread starter keokuk1
- Start date
It's you're.
Since you're obviously a genius, tell me what you think would happen to the Big XII TV if Texas was gone?
If Texas goes, so goes a lot of money. Duh.
With the exception of tm3308. He is a good contributor on this site. It is almost to the point that I question if he is actually a hawk fan. :nah:
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
I've got reservations when it comes to Texas, and I was glad that we stopped pursuing them. Yes, they're a cash cow. But bringing them in is somewhere along the line of selling your soul to the devil. Yes, you get a ton of money, but then you have to put up with the headaches. The Big Ten schools didn't really need the money, so I never saw it as a risk worth taking. In a conference with unequal revenue sharing, having that cash cow in the conference is very important for a school that doesn't make as much revenue.
But Texas also knows that they own schools like ISU, because they're (Texas) the lifeline. That's rarely a good position to be in. But, a good portion of the conference IS in that position, so until an A&M or OU actually pulls the trigger, nothing will happen. Too many schools are tethered to Texas.
I just don't trust them at all. They've already destroyed one conference (SWC), essentially sent the Big 12 into turmoil last year (They're the reason that Nebby, Mizzou, Colorado wanted out), and stoked the coals again this year. I can certainly understand why ISU wants to stick with Texas. I just don't trust them as far as I can throw them. And have you tried throwing a 423.5-acre campus? Bet you don't get it very far.
There is a lot of truth to this. ISU needs Texas in the Big XII financially. As far as the Big XII turmoil... I think Nebraska played a huge roll in that. Nebraska lost their dominant edge when Texas joined the BIG XII because the Longhorns got the rules changed so that the conference would not allow partial qualifiers anymore. That was Nebraska's bread and butter. Nebraska bailing on the Big XII served multiple purposes in that regard. Sure it was a solid move for Nebby to jump to the Big 10 but I think it was also an attempt to try to destroy the Big XII and Texas at the same time.
I'd be on board with kicking both Mizzou and aTm to the curb and going back to the Big 8 name.
Well given the emotion of all of this I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by some of the reactions. I am not a Hawk fan that hates ISU, I am an Iowa fan which means I support all of the teams in the state of Iowa, Growing up in Keokuk everyone grows up Hawkeye fans down there because you’re so close to Iowa City, if I had grown up in Altoona then maybe I would have been a Cyclone fan who knows? The point is I don’t want to see ISU fail. It makes me sick to see how everything has played out so far for ISU. If anyone doubts my sincerity just look at posts I have posted on here before. I have never hated on ISU. I root as hard for them as I do the Hawkeyes “when they don’t play each otherâ€. I just see it as Texas being the problem and the sooner they go the better off everyone else that is left will be. The only reason they stay now is because ther're in a BCS conference they have an easier path to the BCS, but lose UO, and A&M then you will lose your BCS standing and Texas along with it. If you can keep OU, and A&M you at least have a chance at maintaining your BCS standing. One thing is clear about all of this and that is A&M and Texas will not stay in the same conference for much longer, and now OU fans are starting to take up sides with A&M which to me if you’re going to save the Big 12 leaves you only one option. As for OSU, and Mich being greedy I don’t get how anyone can logically say that. Iowa is # 11 in money making schools in the country. Do you really think they would be in that position if OSU and Mich acted like Texas?
Hey eric, how long do you think it will take for the big 10 to implode......... i figure with tOSU problems they may last another year or two.....................poor iowa will be left out in the cold -- probably have to play in conference USA. I feel for them. Too bad they don't have a big power like texas to save them.
This I can certainly buy. A&M would do the same thing, if they could. But they're so strongly tethered to Texas (by politics), I don't really see it happening unless one of the other bigger players jumps ship first.
Your idea sounds good in theory, but doesn't work in reality. In reality, $ is more important that drama. Texas may be annoying and arrogant, but are essential to the conference. Also, everything is not as clear as you say it is, regarding OU and A&M leaving. The Big 12 is nowhere close to losing its BCS standing, it is a better conference than the Big 10 most years in both football and basketball.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
If only Iowa had a larger media market to attract their next conference home. It's not that I wish bad things for them. I just feel pity for a school in such an unstable conference. I pity because I care.
I will try to give you a real answer. First off, I have no problem with Texas being the big dog here in the conference. Look at them...they are in terms of TV's...revenues....footprint. It just is.
Secondly, I think you are under the misunderstanding that having Texas in our conference hurts us. They bring a boatload of money to the conference. Is it equal sharing? No, but if you go look at the actual numbers, the difference is like a million bucks or something, it's not like Texas is getting 90% while the rest of us get the scraps. Our income is going up huge. And this is important to a school like ISU that always has to do more with less. I know this is your first post but if you would read the threads, you'd see this common rebuttal....that money will do more for ISU than it will for Texas. They have already blown way past the point of diminishing returns. 5 million extra for us means something...for Texas..not so much.
In addition to just revenue, they usually field some pretty good teams making competition better....making the conference stronger. They bring face time to the conference, strengthening every member.
Name one school that could replace Texas that would:
A) Bring in the same amount of Clout
B) With said Clout...not want to do the same thing Texas is doing now.
Even the Longhorn network helps every other school in the conference. If there is a match or game against them and we do well...How nice is that as a recruitment tool..."here's some footage of us kicking the snot out of Texas...on their own network". This is could be big for Texas recruits especially...their families will be able to at least watch them play against Texas.
Also now after this year...every conference game will be Televised...I know the Big 10 has already had this but we haven't. This evens the playing field.
So while I can see where you think you are coming from, your suggestion to drop Texas would be impossible firstly, and Secondly would hurt every member of the Big 12. The answer is simply having another team that has the same clout as Texas to balance the scales if you're worried about that. Oklahoma would like to be but just doesn't have the TV's. In a wet dream...Notre Dame "could" be that team. But that's a whole other subject.
This statement gives you zero clout and shows you have no real understanding of the situation in the B12.
See ya.
Maybe Texas should go - but right now, a B12 WITH Texas is more money for everyone else.....We need to keep them in until such a time that they want out. Hopefully, ISU is in a better position by then and that we can get into another BCS conference or pull in quality teams to the B12 to shore it up.
I don't like Texas, I just don't see how to avoid them.
I don't like Texas, I just don't see how to avoid them.
I took the liberty to correct your post. I hope you don't mind too much.
