Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by CSU Husker, Jun 14, 2010.
By "us" do you mean CU, Nebraska, or CSU? Your handle confuses me.
I mean everyone reading this
So you exclude the Huskers?....
where is edhookem? :smile2:
actually, Texas is taking this opportunity to pull their pants back up from around their collective ankles. They got worked.
Hardly. While I believe UT is a conference killer, they hardly got worked. They get to keep their little kingdom, knowing only OU has a chance of beating them, they get their own TV network and/or a larger share of the general TV pie, eliminate the CCG, something they disliked, eliminate the divisions most likely, another thing they didn't like and basically pimp slap everybody else in the conference, except Mizzou, who will be pimp slapped twice. UT is getting pretty much what they wanted all along. At least, NU and CU had enoug sense to get out.
Are you serious?
All that is true enough, but it belies the truth that this conference is now irrevocably doomed to failure. The more money UT gets at the expense of it's conference bretheren, the more unstable the conference as a whole becomes. It will be much easier to poach a school away now.
No doubt. But that isn't the way Horn country thinks. Imagine Mark Mangino at an all you can eat buffet. That is horn country thinking...grab as much as you can, as fast as you can and to heck with the consequences. If yo find the Mangino eference misplaced, just sub in Goldman Sachs...
Interesting take on this from our new Pac 10 brother, Washington State -> http://www.cougcenter.com/2010/6/14/1517414/pac-10-expansion-is-texas-really
What does it matter? Why should Texas or any other school have to ensure that everyone gets a fair slice of pie? My attitude is get what you can. Texas has become Nebraska's(some fans) excuse for mediocrity this past decade. Everytime the ball has not gone their way they use the excuse of blaming Texas. If our athletic department was the #1 athletic department in revenue in the nation would we not want to grab as much as we could? Are we not saddled with a poor coach for another season becuase of money and yet people want to cry because Texas is smart enough to make sure they do not go without? Basically what people are crying about is conference welfare, they want Texas to carry the brand and bring in revenue but want an equal shair. Tough cookies....
Totally valid opinion. I guess it depends on whether you prefer the NFL model or the MLB model. I happen to like the NFL model. It's the league or conference that has the television contract. It's the league or conference that does the bowl tie-ins. Individual members should make their extra money off ticket sales, merchandising and keeping an extra chunk from bowls, national tv appearances and postseason tourneys in order to reward success.
Certain programs already have natural advantages or advantages they've built up over a long history of success. Why stack the deck even farther in their favor? I don't believe that's good for a conference or for the sport in general.
Is it me or could this be a ploy by TX to negotiate more $$$ and power from the Pac-XX
The twist on that theory is that Texas is actually helping Larry Scott negotiate an even higher value on a Pac16 contract that benefits all members.
The numbers being thrown around started with the $14M per team deal the ACC just completed. Then the Pac16 bumped it to $20M. Now Texas is thowing around $25M with a diminished Big12. It's getting easier to see what the market will bare. If UT could grab $25M with OU and the 8 neighboring dingleberries, then how much would they be worth in a national market? That tide could lift all ships.
They are. The next few days are gonna be interesting, to say the least.
It is interesting. Hopefully the Pac X is smart enough to realize that it is a bluff. No CCG revenue and loss of two major teams from the North and the Big 12(10) is going to now be twice as rich?? Yeah that math adds up.
I would agree with you in the NFL model of success however Notre Dame assured us a long time ago that college football is more about "to each his own". I am excited about going to the Pac 10 not because I am "afraid" of Texas but because I just feel like we needed a shot in the arm of something positive, something to get us out of our rut and I feel like the PAC 10 does just that. I didn't care if Texas was comming or not, in fact I am hopefull that it is just us, not because of them but because it reserves the excitement and enthusiasm for Colorado.
Exactly. I hear they are going to keep all the money if they televise one of their conference games on the longhorn network and not share it with a rival. Complete bs. What's the point of a conference then?
This hits the nail on the head. For most schools, the point of a conference is to provide scheduling and to negotiate contracts that are to the benefit of each conference member. In Texas' case, the conference is being used to further their interests at the expense of their conference bretheren. Texas doesn't give two sh*ts about equality. This BS about a rising tide raising all ships is crap when one ship gets raised a lot higher than the rest of them do.
I'm a big fan of capitalism, but college athletic conferences are not about capitalism. They're about collectivism. If we've learned anything at all from the SEC, it should be this.
My question is why does OU and A&M want to part of this fiasco? Makes little sense to me.
Exactly. I can understand why Ku, ksu, isu, etc would allow themselves to be held hostage. But not that teams that are desirable and have options. Seems strange that they bow down to tx.
sounds like OU got paid off. A&M... political pressure? Plus paid off?
I thought I read that UT was hoping for $17M off the new TV deal... plus whatever they get from the Bevo network.
This is not capitalism. If texas got so big and got all of the recruits, the slippery slope argument means that Texas starters would play Texas backups and then Baylor can really save on those travel expenses, thus increasing the net profits for the State of Texas.
If Athletics were 100% capitalism, you would have New York vs. ___________ in every sport....
Let's see...B12 loses 2 flagship Schools and now the TV package will be MORE attractive?? Even with 2 less schools to share with, there is no way the other schools reap a major windfall. Basically an all Texas Conference...yeah, that's gonna draw. Texas saves some face and comes out further ahead of the other remaining stooges.
Just another load of BS from Texas to try to convince people they didn't get completely worked.
"Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe, poleaxed by last week's departures of Colorado to the Pac-10 and Nebraska to the Big Ten, is projecting the 10 remaining conference members annual TV revenue of at least $17 million each, according to numerous media reports."
Reports I've seen/heard have indicated a maximum of $14M per year for the b12-2 schools without a boomer or beavo(r) in the moniker, who stand to make a possible $20M and $25M, respectively. The media spin is at full throttle.
RedDirt is right:
Texas: $20 million (up to $25 million in future years via network)
OU: $20 million
A&M: $20 million
The rest: SCRAPS! (OK, it's like $14-$17 million, but that only serves to widen gaps between UT/OU and the others.
You are correct. They also will split the revenue from Colorado and Nebraska between OU, aTm and Texas only. The new Big Texas Conference has been formed. :wow:
What Texas "says" and what is reality are 2 entirely different things. PAC 10 stood up to them, as did NU and CU. Their inflated projections are simply thrown out as a way to keep the ne'er do wells in the Conference around for a continued fleecing. Texas found out that they don't have the sway they thought when Delaney and Scott pretty much told them it's our Conference's way or the highway. Texas chose the latter. The remaining schools were blindsided(especially KU and MU) and really had no other immediate viable alternative. Once viable alternatives become clear, this will crash and burn and Texas will have to play nice.
Separate names with a comma.