NCAA Football '11-'12

[MadBurgerMaker]

OK, so what is it about the terms that have gotten your panties all bunched up like that?

Just because I'm calling you on your horseshit doesn't mean I'm mad or something.  You need to stop worrying about how I feel and just answer the question.

Is it that you don't think Texas is "bullying" anyone, and they just let Texas get more money because they like the Longhorns so much? Is there any doubt that Texas is the 800lb guerilla of the conference, and that they can (and do) get their way in general over the objections of other schools, like Missouri?

So your argument is that Texas just takes what they want, despite the objections of the rest of the conference?  If so, that actually explains a lot.

Or do you dispute that the the overall media revenue scheme results in Texas getting more than other schools, in some cases quite a bit more to begin with?

No, of course not.  No one has disputed that Texas makes more money than the rest of the conference, and in fact, every school in the country (although Bama might have moved up to #1 recently).   This doesn't mean Texas is "bullying" or stealing or whatever else you've shit out.

I am pretty sure there isn't anything I can post that is going to meet your criteria to justify my comments, since in your mind Texas SHOULD get more than, say, Baylor. So what exactly is the point of this exercise?

What is my criteria for the justification of your comments?   I'm also interested in the fact that you seem to think you can read minds. 

I certainly don't think Baylor should get anything from the LHN, unless they are one of the teams who agree to have their game televised there, in which case, they should be compensated for it, but I don't really give a shit about the $3 million or whatever it would take for them to be equal with the rest of the media rights under the new TV contract.  Texas apparently agrees with this position, as they are currently in favor of equally sharing the T1 and 2 rights.  Hands off the LHN though.  Of course the conference has to vote on that.  The Longhorns can't simply decide to do it on their own.  You knew that, right?  About the voting?

[Berkut]

My argument is that Texas doesn't want to share revenue equally, because they know that they are the dominant school in their conference, so why should they?

You can argue whether or not that is a good thing, or whether or not that is fair, and even whether or not it is good for Texas in the long run.

*I* think it is a bad thing, *I* think it hurts their conference (and that is pretty damn obvious since it is falling apart because of it), and *I* think Texas as an institution is suffering from a rather arrogant sense of their own importance. In fact, I feel that way enough that I don't want them anywhere near the Pac-1x if it means that they are coming in clearly with the attitude that they are bigger than the conference.

If they want to come in under the Pac-1x standards that each team is equal, and the sum of the teams are greater than the parts, awesome. I could even see the argument that in the Big-12, Texas is in fact enough of a gorilla when it comes to revenue and exposure that it would be silly to pretend otherwise, but in the Pac-1x they would be content to be one part of what would be the premier conference in the country.

Is this horseshit? I am sure Texas fans think so - such is the nature of fandom, your team can never do wrong, really. It is just like listening to Yankees fans argue that revenue sharing and salary caps are totally not necessary in baseball, and a system where one team spends more on their relief pitching staff than another does on their entire roster is just fine.

I certainly don't think Baylor should get anything from the LHN, unless  they are one of the teams who agree to have their game televised there,  in which case, they should be compensated for it, but I don't really  give a shit about the $3 million or whatever it would take for them to  be equal with the rest of the media rights under the new TV contract.   Texas apparently agrees with this position, as they are currently in  favor of equally sharing the T1 and 2 rights.  Hands off the LHN though.               

It is funny that now that Texas is set to rake in $300 million over 20 years from the LHN, they are suddenly a-ok with the idea of sharing revenue...not LHN revenue, of course, hands off of that! Even if it does mean that the conferences ability to create their own network is largely destroyed.

Oh yeah, we are all about equal revenue sharing of the small pot once we found this other big pot we don't intend to share! Of course you (and Texas) don't care about the $3 million NOW, it is small change, and Texas no longer needs it to dominate the rest of the conference.

The LHN is basically the fundamental issue with Texas - is Texas a individual school first and a conference member second, or the other way around? The answer to that is clear, and the answer for the Pac-1x schools is clear as well. You can't have your own network, because it dilutes the conferences ability to have their own network and make money for everyone.

Clearly Texas is too big for the Pac-12.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Berkut, you do know that a Big XII Network has come up for a vote and was shot down 11-1, right?  You also know that Texas then decided to ask Texas A&M if they wanted in on something called the Lone Star Network, and Texas A&M said no, right?  Texas ended up deciding to go it alone on the network, thinking that it would probably lose money (this is why A&M wasn't interested, they also tried to jump back in later after a lot of the expenses were taken care of), invested their own money, etc, getting the infrastructure built up, and then ESPN came along with their monster contract.  You know this, yes?

Edit:  You also know (and you would if you read posts in response to your earlier thievery accusation) that the conference revenue sharing model was voted in 11-1 too, yes?  That's not Texas with 11 votes and everyone else combining for one, in case you were wondering.

[Berkut]

Berkut, you do know that a Big XII Network has come up for a vote and was shot down 11-1, right?  You also know that Texas then decided to ask Texas A&M if they wanted in on something called the Lone Star Network, and Texas A&M said no, right?  Texas ended up deciding to go it alone on the network, thinking that it would probably lose money, invested their own money, etc, getting the infrastructure built up, and then ESPN came along with their monster contract, yes?

Nope, I did not know that. What is the story behind why it was rejected?

That is pretty funny, actually.

I don't dispute that Texas has every right to their network - just that it is going to make them a not very attractive conference partner to anyone who has any weight of their own.

However it came about, the fact remains that it is going to create a competitive nightmare for the rest of the conference. And would never work in the Pac-1x, which does in fact have their own network, and more importantly is fully invested in the idea of a fully integrated (and of course shared) conference media footprint.

[Valmy]

My argument is that Texas doesn't want to share revenue equally, because they know that they are the dominant school in their conference, so why should they?

Well that is a complicated question.  Texas is happy to share revenue when they feel like it is in their interests to do so.  In fact Texas and Oklahoma were in favor of splitting Tier 1 and 2 equally but A&M, who desperately needed the cash, wanted the original deal to go forward so the Big 12 modified.  Fortunately Texas A&M is gone so the league will probably split equally going forward which is what the league should have done in 1996 but whatever.

The Tier 3 money was always each individual schools which will probably continue.  Kansas always dominated the Tier 3 income because their Tier 3 Basketball is so lucrative so technically they always made the most TV money of any school in the Big 12.  At least until the LHN.

But as I said before Texas never made much of its money from conference revenue because that was not its model.  Giving up a few million bucks to make conference mates happy is a good investment.

But the LHN is a different animal.  Texas wanted a Big XII network but got shot down, they wanted a Lone Star Network with A&M but got turned down, so they went it alone.  And now that it worked they are hardly interested in shutting it down now.  In any case even if the AD wanted to a third of LHN revenues goes directly to the academic side of the university and it has been hit hard by State budget cuts.  President Powers is not going to turn away millions for academics for the sake of athletics.

However, I think you are basically right that while I always liked the idea of Texas in the PAC it was not going to be a good fit and even if it might have been a year ago it certainly is not now.

I am happy with the Big 12 but alot of work needs to be done, along with compromises by Texas I am sure, to recover its stability and reputation.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Nope, I did not know that. What is the story behind why it was rejected?

That is pretty funny, actually.

The conference network?  That was back before the BTN really got started and no one was sure if it was going to really work.  Texas A&M was because they didn't think the LoneStar thing would be anything but a money pit, which, to be fair, Texas was considering the same thing, although they were willing to keep going with it because they wanted the exposure for the school

I don't dispute that Texas has every right to their network - just that it is going to make them a not very attractive conference partner to anyone who has any weight of their own.

However it came about, the fact remains that it is going to create a competitive nightmare for the rest of the conference. And would never work in the Pac-1x, which does in fact have their own network, and more importantly is fully invested in the idea of a fully integrated (and of course shared) conference media footprint.

It would certainly be really awkward to have something like the LHN right there along with, say, the PAC-16 Networks, which is why some sort of deal would have to be worked out.  Because they spent so much money on it and all that though, outright saying "we're taking it," or whatever, isn't going to be the best way to bring Texas in.  Maybe something like a gradual implementation like what was rumored with the BTN would be more...palatable...to them.  Basically letting it run outside the conference network on it's own (with no BTN $$ going to Texas, and no Texas $$ going to the Big 10) until contract renegotiation time came, then folding it into the network.  I don't remember the specifics of the...I think it was that Northwestern dude's post.  I kinda disregarded it, but I don't remember it being all that bad of an idea.

[Valmy]

The conference network?  That was back before the BTN really got started and no one was sure if it was going to really work.  Texas A&M was because they didn't think the LoneStar thing would be anything but a money pit, which, to be fair, Texas was considering the same thing, although they were willing to keep going with it because they wanted the exposure for the school

Shortsighted and inept conference leadership basically. They did not think it was a good investment.  Jim Delany, on the other hand, immediately saw the value of the idea.  I will be so glad to see Dan Beebe go.  It sounds like both Texas and Oklahoma hated him so how he became and remained commissioner is a mystery.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Shortsighted and inept conference leadership basically. They did not think it was a good investment.  Jim Delany, on the other hand, immediately saw the value of the idea.  I will be so glad to see Dan Beebe go.  It sounds like both Texas and Oklahoma hated him so how he became and remained commissioner is a mystery.

The only explanation for Beebe is that gigantic mole on his face.  It has to just be scaring people off when they try to go tell him to fuck himself.

[Ed Anger]

Only bad thing about the BTN is that they show crap like Indiana-Michigan women's soccer. With the huge crowd of 50 people in the stands. Woooooooooooooooooo

[MadBurgerMaker]

Only bad thing about the BTN is that they show crap like Indiana-Michigan women's soccer. With the huge crowd of 50 people in the stands. Woooooooooooooooooo

  Yeah the LHN does the same thing.  I saw a Texas vs. Cal State Northridge women's soccer match in the middle of the day when it was like 105 degrees out there.  I'm sure you can imagine the enormous crowd that was on hand.

[Ed Anger]

Even better, some games are called by students. yeah. At least they are better than Pam Ward.

You sorta hope the 'Boom Goes the dynamite' guy shows up.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Even better, some games are called by students. yeah. At least they are better than Pam Ward.

You sorta hope the 'Boom Goes the dynamite' guy shows up.

Haha I didn't know they did that.  What sort of games do they put the students on?  Women's soccer and such, or do they even get them for things like baseball games?

[dps]

ESPN is reporting that East Carolina has formally applied to join the Big East.  Picking up ECU is what the Big East should have done this past off-season instead of putzing around waiting to see if Villanova wants to move up to 1-A.

[MadImmortalMan]

Yarrr

[Ed Anger]

Even better, some games are called by students. yeah. At least they are better than Pam Ward.

You sorta hope the 'Boom Goes the dynamite' guy shows up.

Haha I didn't know they did that.  What sort of games do they put the students on?  Women's soccer and such, or do they even get them for things like baseball games?

Softball and hockey was the ones I saw.