Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

In a bombshell development that could bring a halt to seismic changes in college realignment, sources tell Orangebloods.com Texas has been convinced by a plan presented by commissioner Dan Beebe to stay in a 10-member Big 12.

UT officials are expected to announce their decision to remain in the Big 12 as early as Monday.

Such a move would appear to end a courtship between Texas and the Pac-10, which all but seemed solidified as of Friday when Nebraska announced it was heading to the Big Ten and Colorado had a press conference with its new commissioner - Larry Scott of the Pac-10.

But as it became clear over the weekend that Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State appeared ready join the Pac-10 and Texas A&M appeared ready to join the SEC, Beebe was able to obtain assurances that a TV deal could be reached paying each of the 10 remaining members of the Big 12 between $14 million and $17 million.

Under Beebe's plan, schools would also be able to explore their own distribution platforms, including networks.

Texas would not be able to pursue those options in the Pac-10, which is planning to launch a conference network in 2012 and would require schools to turn over all of their inventory

http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1094038" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think they are just bluffing!

bandl wrote:I think they are just bluffing!

They are. Now they are blaming Texas A&M for the possible demise of the Big XII. They are blaming everyone but who should be blamed.... LOOK IN THE DAMN MIRROR TEXAS

Per ESPN: The departure of Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the Pac-10 is imminent, four sources within the Big 12 said Monday.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5284375

One interesting point made is that Texas and the schools in Texas would prefer a Texas-centric conference. By joining the Pac-10 they are joining a West Coast centric conference and everything wont go through Texas and Oklahoma. If the new Big 12 can find a way to increase revenue through a TV network or better contrcats than I think the Texas teams would like to stay in a conference where they are the main attracation.

Franks Tanks wrote:One interesting point made is that Texas and the schools in Texas would prefer a Texas-centric conference. By joining the Pac-10 they are joining a West Coast centric conference and everything wont go through Texas and Oklahoma. If the new Big 12 can find a way to increase revenue through a TV network or better contrcats than I think the Texas teams would like to stay in a conference where they are the main attracation.

The problem is, the Big 12 was already titled towards Texas in the first place, that being one of the reasons why Nebraska left. If they couldn't make it financially doable to boost revenue with a TV network or better contracts with Nebraska and Colorado in the fold, why would they be able to do that now with a diminished league in their absence (to say nothing about the now increased competition they'll get from stronger Big Ten's and Pac-10's)? Being the captain of a ship taking on water (the previous Big 12) was still better than being the captain of a ship that's really full of water (the current Big 12 minus 2). Either way, it's going to sink no matter who is captain.

GannonFan wrote:

Franks Tanks wrote:One interesting point made is that Texas and the schools in Texas would prefer a Texas-centric conference. By joining the Pac-10 they are joining a West Coast centric conference and everything wont go through Texas and Oklahoma. If the new Big 12 can find a way to increase revenue through a TV network or better contrcats than I think the Texas teams would like to stay in a conference where they are the main attracation.

The problem is, the Big 12 was already titled towards Texas in the first place, that being one of the reasons why Nebraska left. If they couldn't make it financially doable to boost revenue with a TV network or better contracts with Nebraska and Colorado in the fold, why would they be able to do that now with a diminished league in their absence (to say nothing about the now increased competition they'll get from stronger Big Ten's and Pac-10's)? Being the captain of a ship taking on water (the previous Big 12) was still better than being the captain of a ship that's really full of water (the current Big 12 minus 2). Either way, it's going to sink no matter who is captain.

Yes that is why NEBRASKA left. Others may dislike Texas as well, but their desire to keep the league together will trump that. Read up on the Big 12 tv contrcat. Many analysts believe it is severly undervalued and they would hav got a lot more revenue going forward. Also the Big 10 gets a ton of revenue from the Big 10 network. The Big 12 can also create a newwork and cash in. I am not sttaing my opinion, I have read folks state that they feel the Big 12, eveb in its current form, can generate some significant revenue.

Franks Tanks wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
The problem is, the Big 12 was already titled towards Texas in the first place, that being one of the reasons why Nebraska left. If they couldn't make it financially doable to boost revenue with a TV network or better contracts with Nebraska and Colorado in the fold, why would they be able to do that now with a diminished league in their absence (to say nothing about the now increased competition they'll get from stronger Big Ten's and Pac-10's)? Being the captain of a ship taking on water (the previous Big 12) was still better than being the captain of a ship that's really full of water (the current Big 12 minus 2). Either way, it's going to sink no matter who is captain.

Yes that is why NEBRASKA left. Others may dislike Texas as well, but their desire to keep the league together will trump that. Read up on the Big 12 tv contrcat. Many analysts believe it is severly undervalued and they would hav got a lot more revenue going forward. Also the Big 10 gets a ton of revenue from the Big 10 network. The Big 12 can also create a newwork and cash in. I am not sttaing my opinion, I have read folks state that they feel the Big 12, eveb in its current form, can generate some significant revenue.

Well, analysts these days aren't all that much different than you or me so our opinions are plenty valid.

If the Big 12 minus 2 does stay together, what markets would a tv network really do well in? There's all of Texas, to be sure, but after that, maybe just the St Louis area market? The Big 10 network succeeded because the Big 10 had a great geographical footprint with real healthy TV markets to exploit. Without Nebraska and Colorado, a lot of the allure from the Big 12 minus 2 goes away. Sure Texas and Oklahoma are great football programs, but everything is crammed together and the Big 12 minus 2 offering isn't as attractive everywhere else as the Big 10 network is and, if the SEC decides to create their own, like that conference would be. And those other conferences are all getting stronger while the Big 12 minus 2 is getting weaker.

The Big 12, though it was undervalued, was always a marriage of convenience rather than the strongest pairings. But the SWC and the Big 8 weren't going to survive on their own for the same reasons then that the Big 12 minus 2 isn't going to survive now - it puts the major programs (Texas and Oklahoma) at major disadvantages revenue-wise versus the enlarging super conferences. The Pac 10 or the SEC present far better options in terms of money than the current situation.

It comes down to tv money. Texas was convinced to stay with the emergence of the Big XII TV networkl

GannonFan wrote:

Franks Tanks wrote:
Yes that is why NEBRASKA left. Others may dislike Texas as well, but their desire to keep the league together will trump that. Read up on the Big 12 tv contrcat. Many analysts believe it is severly undervalued and they would hav got a lot more revenue going forward. Also the Big 10 gets a ton of revenue from the Big 10 network. The Big 12 can also create a newwork and cash in. I am not sttaing my opinion, I have read folks state that they feel the Big 12, eveb in its current form, can generate some significant revenue.

Well, analysts these days aren't all that much different than you or me so our opinions are plenty valid.

If the Big 12 minus 2 does stay together, what markets would a tv network really do well in? There's all of Texas, to be sure, but after that, maybe just the St Louis area market? The Big 10 network succeeded because the Big 10 had a great geographical footprint with real healthy TV markets to exploit. Without Nebraska and Colorado, a lot of the allure from the Big 12 minus 2 goes away. Sure Texas and Oklahoma are great football programs, but everything is crammed together and the Big 12 minus 2 offering isn't as attractive everywhere else as the Big 10 network is and, if the SEC decides to create their own, like that conference would be. And those other conferences are all getting stronger while the Big 12 minus 2 is getting weaker.

The Big 12, though it was undervalued, was always a marriage of convenience rather than the strongest pairings. But the SWC and the Big 8 weren't going to survive on their own for the same reasons then that the Big 12 minus 2 isn't going to survive now - it puts the major programs (Texas and Oklahoma) at major disadvantages revenue-wise versus the enlarging super conferences. The Pac 10 or the SEC present far better options in terms of money than the current situation.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5285680" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This article gives some reasons why standing pat may make financial sense for Texas.

Lets say Texas decides to stay. Does that ensure A&M stays or could they still be swayed by the SEC? Will the PAC 10 turn its focus on Kansas and maybe Missouri? Kansas and Missouri have less reason to stay then Oklahoma and Texas because the proposed new tv contract still favors the current south team and they would still receive more from the deal then the other schools.

UNHWildCats wrote:Lets say Texas decides to stay. Does that ensure A&M stays or could they still be swayed by the SEC? Will the PAC 10 turn its focus on Kansas and maybe Missouri? Kansas and Missouri have less reason to stay then Oklahoma and Texas because the proposed new tv contract still favors the current south team and they would still receive more from the deal then the other schools.

Kansas has said all along that they prefer to stay in the Big 12. A&M would get crucified if they pull the rug on this deal and bolt to the SEC after Texas pledges its allegiance to the Big 12. Interresting questions however...

UNHWildCats wrote:

bandl wrote:I think they are just bluffing!

They are. Now they are blaming Texas A&M for the possible demise of the Big XII. They are blaming everyone but who should be blamed.... LOOK IN THE DAMN MIRROR TEXAS

no one wants to be the school to take down the big 12.

Franks Tanks wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Well, analysts these days aren't all that much different than you or me so our opinions are plenty valid.

If the Big 12 minus 2 does stay together, what markets would a tv network really do well in? There's all of Texas, to be sure, but after that, maybe just the St Louis area market? The Big 10 network succeeded because the Big 10 had a great geographical footprint with real healthy TV markets to exploit. Without Nebraska and Colorado, a lot of the allure from the Big 12 minus 2 goes away. Sure Texas and Oklahoma are great football programs, but everything is crammed together and the Big 12 minus 2 offering isn't as attractive everywhere else as the Big 10 network is and, if the SEC decides to create their own, like that conference would be. And those other conferences are all getting stronger while the Big 12 minus 2 is getting weaker.

The Big 12, though it was undervalued, was always a marriage of convenience rather than the strongest pairings. But the SWC and the Big 8 weren't going to survive on their own for the same reasons then that the Big 12 minus 2 isn't going to survive now - it puts the major programs (Texas and Oklahoma) at major disadvantages revenue-wise versus the enlarging super conferences. The Pac 10 or the SEC present far better options in terms of money than the current situation.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5285680" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This article gives some reasons why standing pat may make financial sense for Texas.

Oh, I think it could make sense for Texas, but the question is whether what's good for Texas is both good for the conference and good for the other teams in that conference. That was why the conference is where it is right now - things were good for Texas and not many other schools. Basically doubling down on the same model, but now Texas gets even more money, doesn't sound like a long-term solution.

GannonFan wrote:

Franks Tanks wrote:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5285680" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This article gives some reasons why standing pat may make financial sense for Texas.

Oh, I think it could make sense for Texas, but the question is whether what's good for Texas is both good for the conference and good for the other teams in that conference. That was why the conference is where it is right now - things were good for Texas and not many other schools. Basically doubling down on the same model, but now Texas gets even more money, doesn't sound like a long-term solution.

the new proposed deal is good for the texas schools... though I doubt Baylor is amongst them in terms of the higher payout and Oklahoma... that leaves Oklahoma state and the 4 remaining North teams still being second class conference members

So the Big 10 has 12 teams and the Big 12 has 10 teams. Makes sense.

Texas turns down Pac-10; Big 12 schools have framework of deal

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 75b0c.html
It's all about the money

Under Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe's plan, Texas would see a sharp increase in revenue under a new cable TV right deal with Fox Sports. Because of the Big 12's revenue sharing formula, Texas would probably make more than the $17 million average, perhaps close to $20 million. The Longhorns would also be allowed to form their own network, something that would not be allowed in the Pac-10.

CatMom wrote:Texas turns down Pac-10; Big 12 schools have framework of deal

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 75b0c.html
It's all about the money

Under Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe's plan, Texas would see a sharp increase in revenue under a new cable TV right deal with Fox Sports. Because of the Big 12's revenue sharing formula, Texas would probably make more than the $17 million average, perhaps close to $20 million. The Longhorns would also be allowed to form their own network, something that would not be allowed in the Pac-10.

Sounds like Texas made out like a bandit. With more power going to Texas, I'm surprised the other schools bought on. How will this affect the Pac 11? Will they still make a bid to go to 12 and invite Utah?

You have to think then that this just puts the pause button on conference shakeups. The Big 12, under this scenario, is even weaker and more imbalanced than ever, and it was that imbalance that help lead to the tremors originally. It's an absolute great deal for Texas, who played it for all its worth and made themselves even more set up in the conference than they were originally. But if the Pac 10 gets their 12th team (perhaps Utah?) then the SEC, Big 10, and Pac 10 would all command revenues much more than what every school other than Texas would get in the Big 12. How long does that hold if that's the case, and what if the Big 10 pushes the envelope again and goes to 16 teams and brings in even more revenue? And all of this is contingent on the Big 12 network being very successful. Who's to say that it will be? Just because the Big 10 did it does not mean that it's a sure thing to be able to replicate what they did. And frankly, the Big 12 doesn't have the markets and the pull that the Big 10 did/does so it's not very likely that they match that success.

I think we see all of this come back around in a couple of years as the Big 12, as configured, is not built for long term stability.

BlueHen86 wrote:So the Big 10 has 12 teams and the Big 12 has 10 teams. Makes sense.

Alright, seriously. It's time for some name changes... another thread.

GannonFan wrote:You have to think then that this just puts the pause button on conference shakeups. The Big 12, under this scenario, is even weaker and more imbalanced than ever, and it was that imbalance that help lead to the tremors originally. It's an absolute great deal for Texas, who played it for all its worth and made themselves even more set up in the conference than they were originally. But if the Pac 10 gets their 12th team (perhaps Utah?) then the SEC, Big 10, and Pac 10 would all command revenues much more than what every school other than Texas would get in the Big 12. How long does that hold if that's the case, and what if the Big 10 pushes the envelope again and goes to 16 teams and brings in even more revenue? And all of this is contingent on the Big 12 network being very successful. Who's to say that it will be? Just because the Big 10 did it does not mean that it's a sure thing to be able to replicate what they did. And frankly, the Big 12 doesn't have the markets and the pull that the Big 10 did/does so it's not very likely that they match that success.

I think we see all of this come back around in a couple of years as the Big 12, as configured, is not built for long term stability.

Agree completely. Nebraska hasn't been happy with the Big 12's preferential treatment of Texas for a long time and jumped at the opportunity to go to a conference with more stability and equal and greater revenue sharing. The northern Big 12 schools weren't and aren't happy with the revenue sharing and couldn't have been happy to have been left twisting in the wind while Texas made up it's mind. But at this point in time they had little choice but to make concessions to try and keep the conference together. If a better opportunity presents itself to Missouri or another school in the future, who thinks they wouldn't jump at it? They would be crazy not to.

football is king. Kansas and Mizzou almost got screwed, Texas Austin FTW