(07-13-2011 07:08 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  

(07-13-2011 04:55 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(07-13-2011 04:47 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(07-13-2011 03:27 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  All that has to happen is for ESPN to calm A&M's fears about the use of the network. If ESPN is as strongly against superconferences as has been reported, this can be easily accomplished and bankrolled if need be.

Its still a lot to think about.

True but the thing to think about is from ESPN's point of view. Where is A&M more valuable to them?

They own the rights to the SEC and in essence the rights to whatever the Big 12 will be called now....

ESPN would not be losing them. They would just be shifting from one ESPN entity to another.

Not exactly for 2 big reasons:
1- Superconferences: It can rip up existing contracts with the ACC, SEC, Big East, Pac12, and Big 12 that were just done or at least have a few years on them in a more competitive bidding environment. Its a losing proposition.
2- They would be trading A&M vs UT or A&M vs OU for tier2 games like A&M vs MSU and A&M vs Vandy, CBS would get the best ones in the SEC and ESPN/ABC gets the best in the Big 12.

I realize you're trying to back your point, but saying a&m would be trading oklahoma and texas for vandy and Miss st is a bit of a stretch. They would be trading texas and oklahoma for teams like auburn and alabama. iowa and kansas might be better to compare for a trade, to vandy and miss state

You misunderstand. The "they" I went back and boldfaced above is ESPN, not A&M. So ESPN would be trading the rights to UT @ ATM and OU @ ATM for Vand & MSU coming to college station.

(07-13-2011 07:14 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(07-13-2011 07:08 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  

(07-13-2011 04:55 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(07-13-2011 04:47 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(07-13-2011 03:27 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  All that has to happen is for ESPN to calm A&M's fears about the use of the network. If ESPN is as strongly against superconferences as has been reported, this can be easily accomplished and bankrolled if need be.

Its still a lot to think about.

True but the thing to think about is from ESPN's point of view. Where is A&M more valuable to them?

They own the rights to the SEC and in essence the rights to whatever the Big 12 will be called now....

ESPN would not be losing them. They would just be shifting from one ESPN entity to another.

Not exactly for 2 big reasons:
1- Superconferences: It can rip up existing contracts with the ACC, SEC, Big East, Pac12, and Big 12 that were just done or at least have a few years on them in a more competitive bidding environment. Its a losing proposition.
2- They would be trading A&M vs UT or A&M vs OU for tier2 games like A&M vs MSU and A&M vs Vandy, CBS would get the best ones in the SEC and ESPN/ABC gets the best in the Big 12.

I realize you're trying to back your point, but saying a&m would be trading oklahoma and texas for vandy and Miss st is a bit of a stretch. They would be trading texas and oklahoma for teams like auburn and alabama. iowa and kansas might be better to compare for a trade, to vandy and miss state

You misunderstand. The "they" I went back and boldfaced above is ESPN, not A&M.

ah! my bad.

You guys do realize that Texas would be the 100 pound gorilla in any conference they go to.

I say the Big East raids the Big 12 and grabs Oklahoma, OSU and aTm maybe sub in TT if needed. Wouldn't that be a sweet conference? I know it won't happen but I think it would be great for all involved.
I don't get the PAC whatever stuff. The further east you go the better options for televised games. A lot of viewers get football burnout for the day when the west coast games get started.

Well, if we're dividing up the Big XII, I'll call dibs on Iowa State and Kansas State for the MAC.

(07-13-2011 07:51 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  Well, if we're dividing up the Big XII, I'll call dibs on Iowa State and Kansas State for the MAC.

Then we would have the fight for the "real" KSU.

(07-13-2011 07:28 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  You guys do realize that Texas would be the 100 pound gorilla in any conference they go to.

That's a pretty small gorilla.

(07-13-2011 08:05 PM)moron Wrote:  

(07-13-2011 07:28 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  You guys do realize that Texas would be the 100 pound gorilla in any conference they go to.

That's a pretty small gorilla.

+1

(07-13-2011 05:30 PM)bttrcool Wrote:  

(07-13-2011 03:57 PM)moo Wrote:  Whatever other problems can be solved, there's still the question of Texas state politics. Twice now A&M has tried to break away from Texas, twice now they've been forced to shut up and do as they're told.

Yep. It looks bad enough in the Big 12 that I think if A&M could have left they would have by now.

If UT and A&M really are inseparable I wonder if UT's real grand scheme might be make life in the Big 12 so miserable for A&M that when/if the Pac 12 tries again that the promise of equality and financial parity in the Pac 16 might be too much to pass up.

No, this post is taking into account current emotions while ignoring the past year. A&M didn't think that their fan base was unhappy with staying in the Big XII until after it was known that they had balked an offer to join the SEC. Now that the Big donors are awakened to the current threats that UT brings and the fact that their constituents would have loved to be a part of the SEC, things are changing.

I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but did we not forget that all the Big 12 teams voted on and passed new penalties for leaving the Big 12. They are rumored to be triple the previous amount...

Think about that for a second. Do you think A&M can survive 3 years with TV revenue and keep the AD moving?

Sorry A&M, you missed your window. Can't go back and change it now..

(07-13-2011 09:04 PM)laxtonto Wrote:  I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but did we not forget that all the Big 12 teams voted on and passed new penalties for leaving the Big 12. They are rumored to be triple the previous amount...

Think about that for a second. Do you think A&M can survive 3 years with TV revenue and keep the AD moving?

Sorry A&M, you missed your window. Can't go back and change it now..

The article says that A&M hasn't signed any agreements to stay.

I've heard the rumors of something signed to stay together but have seen as many people say it wasn't so. So I'm not sure if there is such an agreement.

A&M nor any other Big 12 school has signed off on those agreements IIRC.

Personally, I hope this little firestorm comes true.

(07-13-2011 08:05 PM)moron Wrote:  

(07-13-2011 07:28 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  You guys do realize that Texas would be the 100 pound gorilla in any conference they go to.

That's a pretty small gorilla.

At that size I think that is actually a large monkey....

(07-13-2011 08:28 PM)UHCougar07 Wrote:  

(07-13-2011 05:30 PM)bttrcool Wrote:  

(07-13-2011 03:57 PM)moo Wrote:  Whatever other problems can be solved, there's still the question of Texas state politics. Twice now A&M has tried to break away from Texas, twice now they've been forced to shut up and do as they're told.

Yep. It looks bad enough in the Big 12 that I think if A&M could have left they would have by now.

If UT and A&M really are inseparable I wonder if UT's real grand scheme might be make life in the Big 12 so miserable for A&M that when/if the Pac 12 tries again that the promise of equality and financial parity in the Pac 16 might be too much to pass up.

No, this post is taking into account current emotions while ignoring the past year. A&M didn't think that their fan base was unhappy with staying in the Big XII until after it was known that they had balked an offer to join the SEC. Now that the Big donors are awakened to the current threats that UT brings and the fact that their constituents would have loved to be a part of the SEC, things are changing.

If the people in charge at A&M didn't know enough to see that their fan base wouldn't be happy in the slimmed down Big 12 with Texas having their own network then A&M has got bigger problems.

If this Texas A&M talk is true and they do manage to get an SEC invite than I believe the Big 12-2 will simply give BYU Texas A&M's spot. Texas has NO reason go Indy as they control the conference and will need a quality home for all other sports not named football. BYU is like Oklahoma and Texas and are of like mind when it comes to every school for themselves and would get along well. Texas Tech, Baylor, and Oklahoma St are along for the ride while Kansas, Kansas St, Missouri, and Iowa St have no where else to go.

Another possibility is that the BIG 12-2 may simply become the Big 12-3 as Texas will have A&M as a non conference opponent every year. BYU coming in is more likely to me but if ESPN and FOX want the Big 12 to stay together they may be willing to pay for it again.

As for the other conferences, Syracuse is likely still at the top of the ACC's list should the Clemson leg of the story be true, with Uconn and Pitt being other contenders. The BIG EAST would be forced to finally take a CUSA school, opening up a CUSA free for all between Sunbelt and Southwestern Wac schools.

I think a lot a more is being made of a few events than is warranted. A few points:

1. The SEC by offering Texas A&M has to be conceding that Texas could go to the PAC-12. This would raise the PAC-12/16 to the level of the SEC/Big Ten in a prestige category (money wise they are probably close with the new deal, but I'm not sure given the differing structures with 2nd/3rd tier rights between the conferences). The SEC has benefited tremendously from the current set-up. Offering A&M when the whole thing is about to blow up is one thing (last summer). Offering them to knowing it will likely go blow the current alignment is a different story all together.

2. The Longhorn Network was known about last summer. Texas stuck with the Big 12 even when the PAC-10 said it wasn't a dealbreaker. Since that time, Texas has agreed to a full round robin and a greater % of the national TV money being split. They also formed their own network, but it's largely with rights every SEC school already controls on their own (conference game is a different story, see below). Can we please stop with Texas has all of this super control and everyone hates them for it?

3. The notion of a Big 12 conference game on the Longhorn Network won't go over well I'm sure. That said, Texas A&M most certainly is not going to be the opponent in that game. This is also unlikely a long term scenario as the network has to overpay to get these games (as they are buying them from Fox Sports who already spent a lot of money on them).

(07-13-2011 07:05 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(07-13-2011 04:25 PM)Hoquista Wrote:  I don't get Clemson as #14.

Anyway, is there logic behind one team from the East and West rather than two to the western side? For example, would it be easier to split the SEC divisions?

It allows Alabama and Auburn to stay in the same division. If 2 western teams are added, the most likely team to be added to the east is one of those 2 schools...

Ahhh... yes. That's it. Thanks.

Clemson has the most SEC-like culture of any school not in the SEC. They'd be a perfect fit.

(07-13-2011 09:04 PM)laxtonto Wrote:  I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but did we not forget that all the Big 12 teams voted on and passed new penalties for leaving the Big 12. They are rumored to be triple the previous amount...

Think about that for a second. Do you think A&M can survive 3 years with TV revenue and keep the AD moving?

Sorry A&M, you missed your window. Can't go back and change it now..

What are the new penalties? If the long term $$ make sense, they will find a way to pay.

Keep in mind that the SEC itself is more likely behind any new contact than TAMU. It is suddenly behind the P12 and B1G in TV rights, and will likely fall behind the B12-2 when its Tier 1 rights are reset in 2015. TAMU is simply the SEC's target. The Longhorn Network rift provides the impetus for TAMU to entertain such discussions. However, TAMU may ultimately use it as leverage with UTA to share their Longhorn Network $$$.

(07-13-2011 03:41 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The problem is that most of the Big 12 schools are scared to death of losing their AQ BCS status.

Whatever you were smoking at the time of the post, probably best not to do it again.

While many Big 12 teams are upset about the "sweetheart" deal UT got with ESPN...rest assured, the likes of Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Kansas, etc....are not spending one second worrying about losing their "BCS AQ" status.