NCAA Football '11-'12

[PDH]

Can a non BCS conference earn an autobid by having a top x finisher at least y times in the last z years?

Supposedly, though the BCS has not released in full their super-secret formula.  A moving target is hardest to hit.

[MadBurgerMaker]

 

No apocalypse, but chaos is still entertaining. 

So, is it okay to have the Longhorn Network now, or is Texas still somehow not allowed to sell their tier 3 rights like, say, Ohio State, Florida, and Kansas?  Yes, the Kansas that is in the Big 12.  No, no one is getting all pissed and leaving because they don't share their bigass pile of basketball money.

"UNFAI...wait what you mean there are lots of schools that sell these rights?  Well I'm just going to be mad because it's Texas!" 

[Berkut]

No apocalypse, but chaos is still entertaining. 

So, is it okay to have the Longhorn Network now, or is Texas still somehow not allowed to sell their tier 3 rights like, say, Ohio State, Florida, and Kansas?  Yes, the Kansas that is in the Big 12.  No, no one is getting all pissed and leaving because they don't share their bigass pile of basketball money.

"UNFAI...wait what you mean there are lots of schools that sell these rights?  Well I'm just going to be mad because it's Texas!" 

Climb down off that burnt orange cross already.

Has nothing to do with Texas, the Pac-12 would not take Kansas either if they insisted on getting a special deal.

If Texas can continue to bully some conference so they get the lions share of the cash, good for them.

However, comparing basketball money and football money is kind of ignorant. Nobody cares about Kansas and their basketball money, because it is small potatoes in the overall scheme of things.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Has nothing to do with Texas, the Pac-12 would not take Kansas either if they insisted on getting a special deal.

Special deal like....say.....USC and UCLA getting guaranteed a certain amount of money, even if the equal revenue sharing doesn't work out to that much?  That kind of special deal?

If Texas can continue to bully some conference so they get the lions share of the cash, good for them.

I would like you to tell me more about what, exactly, you think it is that Texas is doing for this "lions share" of the cash.  You've said this, or something similar to it before, then conveniently disappeared.  Don't leave this time.  Explain.

However, comparing basketball money and football money is kind of ignorant. Nobody cares about Kansas and their basketball money, because it is small potatoes in the overall scheme of things.

I'm not comparing the money, not that Kansas basketball is small-time when it comes to money.  I'm comparing the sale of rights.  Also, I like how you totally left out the others, who are in supposedly "equal" conferences, and that it's apparently about the amounts they sold for, not the fact that they were sold at all.  It's cool for Ohio State to sell theirs for $110 million, or Florida for $80 million.  $300 million is just going too far! 

Would it make a difference to you if a chunk of the money was earmarked for the academic side of things, instead of all of it going straight into the athletic department?  Would, say, $25 million going to academics lower the total amount the AD receives enough for you to approve, Berkut? 

Would it all be okay if Texas, and the rest of the conference, of course, agreed to equal Tier 1 and 2 revenue sharing, but kept their rights to Tier 3 stuff?

Edit:  How much (or little) do you think Kansas makes off their basketball contract?




Anyway....I wonder if the conference will get rid of Beebe like OU (supposedly) wants now that they apparently aren't able to go to the PAC.  Interesting tidbit that I read about this particular situation:  Beebe was supported by Oklahoma, while Texas supported Swarbrick for commissioner.  Beebe got the job, and Swarbrick went to Notre Dame.  If they shitcan Dan, I wonder who would replace him, and if the new guy would have such an outstanding fake twitter account.

[Berkut]

Has nothing to do with Texas, the Pac-12 would not take Kansas either if they insisted on getting a special deal.

Special deal like....say.....USC and UCLA getting guaranteed a certain amount of money, even if the equal revenue sharing doesn't work out to that much?  That kind of special deal?

If Texas was interested in THAT kind of deal (a temporary deal to entice UCLA and USC to give up their long term unequal sharing of revenue) I bet Scott would entertain the idea at least. Texas doesn't have the same kind of leverage that USC and UCLA had of course, since they were already in the conference and being asked to give something up for the greater good.

If by special deal Texas means 1 set of rules for 15 schools, and a different set of rules for them....no. Which is what they want.

If Texas can continue to bully some conference so they get the lions share of the cash, good for them.

I would like you to tell me more about what, exactly, you think it is that Texas is doing for this "lions share" of the cash.  You've said this, or something similar to it before, then conveniently disappeared.  Don't leave this time.  Explain.

Explain what? Texas wants to have their own network instead of working under the conference network like everyone else. That is fine, but why would you assume that the Pac-12 should agree to it? What are you whining about here? Are you saying that there is no demand from Texas that they get some kind of special deal, and all the news reports are lying or something?

I really don't understand your bitch - are you angry that the Pac-12 won't take Texas unless Texas agrees to the terms the Pac-12 has decided to govern themselves under? What difference does it make what deal Florida and OSU have? Neither of those teams are in the Pac-12, and don't get a vote on Texas joining.

However, comparing basketball money and football money is kind of ignorant. Nobody cares about Kansas and their basketball money, because it is small potatoes in the overall scheme of things.

I'm not comparing the money, not that Kansas basketball is small-time when it comes to money.

Compared to football they are. Arizona has one of the most profitable basketball programs in the country, top 5 in fact, and it doesn't make nearly as much as our very average BCS football program. Which is why none of this conference realignment talk centers around the finances of any sport other than football.

Your "example" is a complete red herring. But even at that, you can be certain that if Kansas wants to join the Pac-12, they would have to give up any special deals they have for basketball as well.

  I'm comparing the sale of rights.  Also, I like how you totally left out the others, who are in supposedly "equal" conferences, and that it's apparently about the amounts they sold for, not the fact that they were sold at all.

*I* left them out? Left them out of what?

  It's cool for Ohio State

Is Ohio State looking to join the Pac-12?

to sell theirs for $110 million, or Florida for $80 million.  $300 million is just going too far!  Would it make a difference to you if a chunk of the money was earmarked for the academic side of things, instead of all of it going straight into the athletic department?

Huh? WTF are you babbling about?

It is "cool with me" if Texas sells their rights for $500 million, I don't care. But if they want to join the Pac-12, they will have to do so under a long term equal revenue sharing scheme. I think Scott is VERY smart to do that, because it makes the *conference* healthy, even if it isn't quite so lucrative for Texas.

Now, I would personally argue that Texas is not seeing the forest for the trees, and their insistence on getting a larger portion of the revenue pie, while understandable (they are after all the largest audience and are generating a larger portion of the revenue) is going to hurt them in the long run, even if it nets them piles of cash in the short run. This isn't a hard argument to make - watching the Big-12 disintegrate over the issue makes the argument for me, in fact.

Edit:  How much (or little) do you think Kansas makes off their basketball contract?

A lot less than Texas makes from football. Maybe even less than Kansas makes from football. But basketball money is not significantly relevant to the conference consolidation game.

[Berkut]

The more this goes on, the less I even want Texas in the Pac-10 no matter what kind of deal they agree to - they seem to think they are the combination of the New York Yankees and the Dallas Cowboys of college football.

Too high maintenance. They are like the super model bitch girlfriend. Sure, they look hot and everything, but eventually you just get tired of their shit and wish they would just shut the fuck up already.

Of course, they really do bring a hell of a lot of money to the table, so my boredom with their histrionics is not really relevant. Poor Okies.

[MadBurgerMaker]

If Texas was interested in THAT kind of deal (a temporary deal to entice UCLA ans USC ot give up their lon term unequal sharing of revenue) I get Scott would entertain the idea at least.

If by special deal Texas means 1 set of rules for 15 schools, and a different set of rules for them....no. Which is what they want.

How do you know the specifics of what Texas and the PAC wanted?  You have a link?

Explain what? Texas wants to have their own network instead of working under the conference network like everyone else. That is fine, but why would you assume that the Pac-12 should agree to it? What are you whining about here? Are you saying that there is no demand from Texas that they get some kind of special deal, and all the news reports are lying or something?

Explain how Texas is bullying a conference to get "the lion's share" of the revenue.  It's not a difficult question.  Again, you've said something similar before, then disappeared.  Spit it out.

Anyway, I don't assume the PAC-12 should agree to it, and never said I did.  What I actually said was that the LHN would have to be reworked to fit into the PAC networks. 

Compared to football they are. Arizona has one of the most profitable basketball programs in the country, top 5 in fact, and it doesn't make nearly as much as our very average BCS football program. Which is why none of this conference realignment talk centers around the finances of any sport other than football.

Your "example" is a complete red herring.[/quote]

So my examples of Kansas, Ohio State, and Florida selling their rights are not valid comparison to Texas selling their rights.  Okay. 

Huh? WTF are you babbling about?

Read it again.  I can wait.

It is "cool with me" if Texas sells their rights for $500 million, I don't care. But if they want to join the Pac-12, they will have to do so under a long term equal revenue sharing scheme. I think Scott is VERY smart to do that, because it makes the *conference* healthy, even if it isn't quite so lucrative for Texas.

You really do seem to care though, that's the thing.  You whine about Texas "bullying" and taking the "lions share," and all that, then you seem to simply assume it all went down the way it did because Texas wanted everything and didn't want to negotiate at all. 

Why can't the conference presidents simply not have wanted to expand at this time?  Why couldn't it be that Texas didn't want to totally give the network up and was open to changing it to include more than just Texas and UTSA, but the PAC simply wanted it gone?  Without a link or something, there's no way to know what happened.

Now, I would personally argue that Texas is not seeing the forest for the trees, and their insistence on getting a larger portion of the revenue pie, while understandable (they are after all the largest audience and are generating a larger portion of the revenue) is going to hurt them in the long run, even if it nets them piles of cash in the short run. This isn't a hard argument to make - watching the Big-12 disintegrate over the issue makes the argument for me.

You seem to be combining Texas with the ten other schools who voted for this particular revenue model.  While I suppose DeLoss Dodds could have some sort of Darth Vader-like mind control powers, I'm more inclined to believe that Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas A&M, and the others voted that way for a reason and weren't somehow forced to do so by Texas.

You're not watching the Big XII dissolve because of the Longhorn Network or revenue sharing.  You're watching the Big XII dissolve because it has always been an unhappy marriage of convenience and schools are finding ways out. 

A lot less than Texas makes from football. Maybe even less than Kansas makes from football. But basketball money is not significantly relevant to the conference consolidation game.

"I have no clue" would have been fine. 

Edit: Hey look, more whining about Texas.  And ugh you've edited.

Sorry, you still don't seem to have explained your silly "lions share" comment. 

[Berkut]

Why can't the conference presidents simply not have wanted to expand at this time?

They don't want to expand at this time. The only reason the idea is being entertained is that it looks likely that other conferences are going to move to 16, and if it is going to happen it is better to be at the front of that move than the back.

Why couldn't it be that Texas didn't want to totally give the network up and was open to changing it to include more than just Texas and UTSA, but the PAC simply wanted it gone?

I think the deal the Pac offered was to fold the network into the Pac network. WHich apparently was not good enough for Texas.

  Without a link or something, there's no way to know what happened.

There are lots of links out there, I certainly don't have any special information.

What I still don't understand is what you are whining about. You are just repeating what I already said, then throwning in some kind of martyr complex about it all. Texas does not want equal revenuse sharing, and the Pac insists on it. They could not come to an agreement, so the Pac is not going to add those 4 teams.

Why is this such cause for you to get all pissed off?

Texas is, however, screwing over the other 3 schools. It must suck to be them. But I suppose Texas needs to look out for Texas first. Which is really the crux of the entire thing. The Pac is about creating an equal revenue conference, and Texas doesn't want to be equal. That is the basic foundation of why they cannot come together.

And that does not conflict with anything in your post that I quoted.

[Berkut]

"I have no clue" would have been fine. 

Not really, since it implies that your red herring question has some relevance. I don't know how much Kansas makes, and apparently neitherdo you since you haven't posted it, but I do know that it doesn't matter.

Edit: Hey look, more whining about Texas.  And ugh you've edited.

You really do have quite the well developed victim complex there.

Sorry, you still don't seem to have explained your silly "lions share" comment. 

What is there to explain? Are you saying that Texas does in fact equally share revenue with the other Big-12 schools? Or that historically Texas has gotten a larger share of the conferences media revenue?

Hell, just today Texas is again stating that they are willing to divide the pot more evenly. Doesn't that suggest that it isn't all that evenly divided now? Didn't they agree a year ago to increase the percentage of media money that was divided equally (although not to 100% by any means, of course)?

[Berkut]

....and of course, lets be clear - when we talk about "dividing the pot" we are talking strictly about media money. Even if the Big-12 divided all the media money perfectly evenly, Texas is still going to bring in a couple times as much as Baylor in total revenue.

[MadBurgerMaker]

They don't want to expand at this time. The only reason the idea is being entertained is that it looks likely that other conferences are going to move to 16, and if it is going to happen it is better to be at the front of that move than the back.

I think the deal the Pac offered was to fold the network into the Pac network. WHich apparently was not good enough for Texas.

There are lots of links out there, I certainly don't have any special information.

Well with lots of them out there, it shouldn't be a problem posting one that deals with the specifics of the negotiations.  It's fine.  I won't kill myself and a bunch of innocent bystanders or something if I happen to be wrong.  I'm not saying it isn't believable (Texas sure as hell doesn't want to give the LHN up if they don't have to, and they don't if they stay in the Big XII and it stays together), I just want you to post something backing up what you said.

What I still don't understand is what you are whining about. You are just repeating what I already said, then throwning in some kind of martyr complex about it all. Texas does not want equal revenuse sharing, and the Pac insists on it. They could not come to an agreement, so the Pac is not going to add those 4 teams.

Why is this such cause for you to get all pissed off?

I'm not pissed off.  My first post that you responded to was about everything that has been said about the LHN causing these schools to be all mad and butthurt.  The Longhorn Network is not fair.  It just shows how greedy Texas is.  Blah blah blah.   I actually didn't say a thing to you, so you talking about me being mad with whatever you've said doesn't really work. It might mean you are mad though, what with you throwing out the :words: about a post not directed toward you, your school, or the conference your school is associated with and all.   However, I don't know, and tbh, I don't particularly care about how you currently feel.  Sorry.

Texas is, however, screwing over the other 3 schools. It must suck to be them. But I suppose Texas needs to look out for Texas first. Which is really the crux of the entire thing. The Pac is about creating an equal revenue conference, and Texas doesn't want to be equal. That is the basic foundation of why they cannot come together.

And yet, you still haven't linked anything that says Texas wanted to join the PAC and take the majority of the money. 

And that does not conflict with anything in your post that I quoted.

Of course Texas needs to look out for Texas first.  Every school should be doing that.  That doesn't mean that Texas is somehow screwing anyone else over by doing so. 

Not really, since it implies that your red herring question has some relevance. I don't know how much Kansas makes, and apparently neitherdo you since you haven't posted it, but I do know that it doesn't matter.

My question was "How much (or how little) do you think Kansas makes off of their basketball contract?"  You don't know.  Just say that.  It's okay.

Kansas reportedly makes around $7,000,000 a year from the media rights they have sold.  They get really huge ratings for the stuff they show, and that doesn't include the Tier 1 and Tier 2 contracts.  The football game between Kansas and Texas this year will be on the Longhorn and Jayhawk Networks.  I believe ESPN is paying them another couple of million for that as well.

For comparison, Texas will receive something like $11,000,000 the first year, with the amount increasing by something like 2-3% every year.  Portions of it will go to...uh...I think it's a marketing company, so they don't just get all of it.  Another $5,000,000 a year will go to the university for five years.  It averages out to ~$15,000,000 a year (before those deductions) until ESPN has paid off their $298 million, which is when Texas will get bumped up to 70% of the profits and the number could possibly just go through the roof.

While Texas will certainly make more money from selling their football, basketball, baseball, and non-revenue sports rights, etc, the amount of money Kansas pulls in for just basketball (and some coaches shows and shit like that) is not some trivial, irrelevant number, and it absolutely does matter when discussing the sale of media rights, no matter how much you don't want it to.

You really do have quite the well developed victim complex there.

Well since you actually do seem to be bitching and whining about Texas, how does that make what I said incorrect?  But tell me more about my victim complex while you talk about Texas bullying a conference and I call you on it.

What is there to explain? Are you saying that Texas does in fact equally share revenue with the other Big-12 schools? Or that historically Texas has gotten a larger share of the conferences media revenue?

Stop trying to weasel out of it and answer the question:  You said Texas is bullying a conference for the lions share of the money.  How are they bullying the conference for the lions share of the money?

Hell, just today Texas is again stating that they are willing to divide the pot more evenly. Doesn't that suggest that it isn't all that evenly divided now? Didn't they agree a year ago to increase the percentage of media money that was divided equally (although not to 100% by any means, of course)?

Are these more examples of Texas bullying the conference?

....and of course, lets be clear - when we talk about "dividing the pot" we are talking strictly about media money. Even if the Big-12 divided all the media money perfectly evenly, Texas is still going to bring in a couple times as much as Baylor in total revenue.

I've been talking about the sale of media rights from the beginning.  Why?  Have you been under the impression that I was talking about something else?

[Grey Fox]

Why do the Sooners hate the LHN so much? What's wrong with showing High School games?

[MadImmortalMan]

Why do the Sooners hate the LHN so much? What's wrong with showing High School games?

Pff. They are secretly using it as a scouting tool.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Why do the Sooners hate the LHN so much? What's wrong with showing High School games?

Why you gotta call UTSA a high school team? 

Speaking of which, they lost again in their first road game.  Welp.

[derspiess]

Wow, drunken sports fans at a sporting event.  Shockink.

This was at a fairly upscale bar in Denver.  And I'm pretty sure the guy was more stupid than drunk.

And even the sober Sooners fans at the Cincinnati game last year were acting the same way.