NCAA Football '11-'12

[Berkut]

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

Every article out there states exactly that. The primary article on ESPN opens with exactly that:

The Pac-12 decided it won't expand further late Tuesday because commissioner Larry Scott failed to get assurance that Texas would back an equal revenue sharing plan if the league added the Longhorns, Oklahoma, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State, a source with direct knowledge told ESPN.com.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Valmy, did you know the Horns apparently have a junior QB named John Paul Floyd on their roster, and he is now the 3rd QB?      

Every article out there states exactly that. The primary article on ESPN opens with exactly that:

Jesus Christ, Berkut.  You are apparently completely incapable of posting a link.  Here it is:  http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6998751/pac-12-conference-decides-expand-further

Why wouldn't you post this link from the beginning?  Why did I have to continuously ask you for for it, and why did I end up finally having to google your quote and post a link for you so there would be more than one sentence to read?  And no, every article out there doesn't state that, including the one I was reading about it on CBSSports.  This is why I asked you for one that did.   (http://eye-on-collegefootball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/32148466) Hey look a link.


Also, just so you don't forget, you've said things like this a couple of times in this thread, and I'm not just letting you duck it:

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?

[Valmy]

The Pac-12 was not that keen on the idea of expansion period, and if Texas was not willing to an equal deal, there is no way USC and UCLA (at the very least) would go along since they just gave up their "first among equals" deal in the name of equality. Without the Texas schools, the financial incentive is simply not there to justify the risk of going to 14.

Texas was perfectly willing to deal when it came to media revenue.  The original deal which Texas was in favor of was about that.  But the PAC then came back and basically demanded absolute surrender which meant ESPN give up the LHN and the PAC take control and control the branding and content.  That was a deal they had to know Texas could not accept.  I understand it from a PAC perspective, the schools did not want it around, but it was not like Texas tanked a compromise.  They agreed to it but the PAC schools were not interested in having the LHN in their conference and I get that.

But why the need to rip Texas?  They worked for years to create this thing they are willing to bend on revenue but not tanking it entirely.  It was just not a good deal for all involved.

[Valmy]

Valmy, did you know the Horns apparently have a junior QB named John Paul Floyd on their roster, and he is now the 3rd QB?    

Yep.  Gilbert had season ending surgery.  I knew Connor Wood transferring was bad hoodoo for Texas.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Yep.  Gilbert had season ending surgery.  I knew Connor Wood transferring was bad hoodoo for Texas.

Where did he come from?  Is he a walk on or something that they've just had stashed somewhere?  I have seriously never, ever, heard of this person.

[Barrister]

Why wouldn't you post this link from the beginning?  Why did I have to continuously ask you for for it, and why did I end up finally having to google your quote and post a link for you so there would be more than one sentence to read?  And no, every article out there doesn't state that, including the one I was reading about it on CBSSports.  This is why I asked you for one that did.   (http://eye-on-collegefootball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/32148466) Hey look a link.

Well to be fair - all your link does is repeat the PAC-12's official statement.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Well to be fair - all your link does is repeat the PAC-12's official statement.

That is indeed true, which is why I asked for the link from him.

Edit:  And if what Valmy says is in fact true, about the PAC wanting to simply shut it down/take it over, I can absolutely see why Powers and Dodds would balk at the idea and not give any sort of assurances to Larry Scott.

[Berkut]

I guess I did not realize that finding the front page of an obscure sports site like ESPN would be so much trouble.

Literally every single article I've seen on the net about this says basically the same thing: Texas wanted a special deal, the Pac tried to come up with something where they could have the LHN but rolled into the Pac-16 network deal, Texas said it was not interested at the end of the day in something where they would not get MOAR, and the Pac-12 schools were not very gung ho about it all to begin with, so no go.

Maybe if the Pac-12 schools were not pretty much dragging their feet to begin with, Scott would have had more room to come up with something creative that Texas could have lived with, although the more I hear about this (from last year and now this year) the more I think what Texas wants is just not going to be compatible with a conference setup where there is not a clear "first among not so equals".

And to be fair, the current Pac-12 setup is not typical. The explicit goal of nearly completely equal revenue sharing throughout the conference is pretty unusual, I think. It's like the Pac-12 is being run by communists or something.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Hey Berkut:

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?

You should answer this before we get into you providing your own links to back your own arguments up, what you think happened last year, and so on.

[Eddie Teach]

the more I think what Texas wants is just not going to be compatible with a conference setup where there is not a clear "first among not so equals".

Like USC? 

[Berkut]

The Pac-12 was not that keen on the idea of expansion period, and if Texas was not willing to an equal deal, there is no way USC and UCLA (at the very least) would go along since they just gave up their "first among equals" deal in the name of equality. Without the Texas schools, the financial incentive is simply not there to justify the risk of going to 14.

Texas was perfectly willing to deal when it came to media revenue. 

I am sure they were - they always have been, even with their fellow Big-12 members. They are willing to argue all day about how much more than everyone else they should get.

The original deal which Texas was in favor of was about that. 

Did you see reports that stated there was ever actually a deal? All I ever heard was that there was a proposal that was being worked.

But the PAC then came back and basically demanded absolute surrender

Oh, bullshit. So you are saying the Pac was negotiating in bad faith to begin with? Link?

which meant ESPN give up the LHN and the PAC take control and control the branding and content.  That was a deal they had to know Texas could not accept.  I understand it from a PAC perspective, the schools did not want it around, but it was not like Texas tanked a compromise.  They agreed to it but the PAC schools were not interested in having the LHN in their conference and I get that.

No, the Pac-12 is not interested in unequal revenue sharing for media rights. Nothing more or less.

I think even if Texas was willing to ditch LHN completely, there was still only lukewarm interest in bringing on those 4 schools, and that only really because of the perception that 16 team conferences are coming one way or the other, so you might as well get Texas.

Once it became clear that the only way to get Texas was to compromise the principles of equal revenue sharing, I think Scott realized that Texas wasn't really worth it, and he likely could not get buy in for any deal where Texas was running under different rules than the other 15. UCLA and USC would be pissed because they gave up their own more lucrative position when Scott sold the conference on expansion and reform. Colorado and Utah don't want their new sugar daddy caonference to be diluted, and they joined the Pac-10,not the Pac-8/UsedToBeBig12 lame ass division. UA and ASU never liked the idea of being in a sub-dvision that does not actually include the West Coast.

But why the need to rip Texas?  They worked for years to create this thing they are willing to bend on revenue but not tanking it entirely.  It was just not a good deal for all involved.

Indeed. I am not ripping on Texas, I don't know why acknowledging that the basic problem is that Texas refuses to be an equal partner in their conference is somehow "ripping on them". It simply is the fact of the matter.

However, to the extent they deserve some ripping is that they are, IMO, simply wrong about the special unique wonderfulness of their brand. They've had a few good years, but there is nothing unique about Texas in the long run, and they should be trying to strike while the iron is hot, but instead they have drank their own kool-aid and are going to refuse to take advantage of two great opportunities because they are being short sighted, and think they are the next New York Yankees. That part is just my own opinion, of course.

[Berkut]

the more I think what Texas wants is just not going to be compatible with a conference setup where there is not a clear "first among not so equals".

Like USC? 

Don't be ignorant. USC is not getting anything like the special treatment and distorted revenues Texas gets.

[Berkut]

Hey Berkut:

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?

Why should I answer that, since I never said it to begin with?

Although I am kind of curious about your fixation on this - are you saying that the Big-12 does not have a unequal revenue sharing model, or is your rage about the term "bullying", which you brought into the discussion in the first place?

[MadBurgerMaker]

Why should I answer that, since I never said it to begin with?

wat

http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=4536.msg315071#msg315071

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

And there's also this one that you ducked earlier in the thread:

http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=4536.msg297707#msg297707

Texas gets the lions share of the revenue

You also called Texas a "thief and scoundrel" in that post, and while it would be interesting to see what you have to say about that, we should probably just stick to this current statement of yours.


Edit:  Ah an edit:

Although I am kind of curious about your fixation on this - are you saying that the Big-12 does not have a unequal revenue sharing model, or is your rage about the term "bullying", which you brought into the discussion in the first place?

Answer the question.

[Berkut]

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

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?

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?

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?