good discussion on longhorn network/aggies

it does matter...you're telling me you would let arkansas in on such a deal? why haven't you offered mississippi state some of your bountiful +$7M in unshared revenues to keep everyone happy? it sounds like you believe that texas should be the one school in the country, in any conference, that should share some of its third tier income with other schools.

if you would have read the originally linked blog post, you would understand that the lhn has little to nothing to do with why tamu is wandering into the sec...otherwise, the push last summer would not have been so strong and set the predicate for where we are now. loftin and slive both readily admit to beginning discussions in january, before lhn in its final form was even announced.

you believe that texas is worse off without the existence of the big 12. not sure how i feel about this as this is mike slive, larry scott, and jim delaney all fulfilling their believed destinies of superconferences. texas' actions with lhn are absolutely inconsequential compared to that. plus, a big 12 without tamu is not really that weakened...you'll soon see why. if replacements can be found within a few years, it would be fine. however, the momentum in college football may be too strong to stop the inevitable.

 

You don't seem to understand my point. I did read the article in the original link, the whole thing. It is clear to me that it is the LHN that is driving all of this. It shouldn't be, because it is inconsequential to TAMU but it makes them feel even more like a red headed step child (which they are), and that is why they are leaving the Big 12.

And I am not advocating giving TAMU any part of UT's 3rd tier money. I'm saying the network could generate more money if it was TAMU and UT. UT's share would probably be slightly less but if they gave up $2 million or so in third tier stuff to preserve the gross inequality in revenue sharing that benefits them in the Big 12, then they would still be ahead of any situation they can find anywhere else.

I guess it comes down to this. I don't think UT can duplicate the revenue they generate from being in the Big12 even if the partnership with A&M costs them 30% of their third tier revenues. If you disagree, show me a situation they can go to where they will make more money. Pac-12? Doubtful. They get no 3rd tier stuff. ACC? Doubtful. They can have 3rd tier but 1st and 2nd takes a hit. Independent? Maybe. I just don't see them being strong enough nationally.

How do they make more money than the deal they have in the Big 12? Why not forgo a couple of million to maintain that if the alternatives are even worse than forgoing the couple of million.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Yes, I firmly believe UT cannot make as much money without the Big 12 as they can with it. Slive, Scott, et al are not looking to expand right now. A&M is driving this and Slive can't say no to such a big program when the fact that they approached him shows how unstable the conference is. While I agree, that last year when everyone was pressing for 16 team conferences LHN was inconsequential, the situation has changed. Major conferences with huge new TV deals are content with their memberships. This year, LHN has embarassed TAMU and they are driving realignment which means LHN is indirectly driving realignment.

But your point is taken and conceded. If the Big 12 can survive without TAMU, then LHN is the right move for UT. I just don't think it's possible, which leads me to believe, UT must find a way for TAMU to stick with the Big 12. The most obvious way in my mind, is to offer to let them into LHN in some capacity.

Look at it this way, you make 75k at your job. Your boss comes to you and says , "you have to take a 5k pay cut to stay here". Well, if you know you can only make 50k somewhere else, what are you going to do? It sucks, but you have to make the business decision and take the cut.

It all comes down to whether or not they can get a better deal anywhere else.

 

This makes me want to throw up. I like the SEC as is.

 

i agree.

freaking baylor and mizzou? urp!

 

I couldn’t agree more, I have said the whole expansion idea blows from the get go.

However, All I hear is that change in inevitable and expansion is coming. So, IMO it makes more since geographically to bring Texas (All of Texas) into the SEC. Having said that, since Texas(UT) won’t come, grab Mizzou, huge TV market.

 

mobius,

i fully understand your point...i get that you are viewing this as a texas makes less money with tamu leaving no matter what scenario plays out. i fundamentally disagree. whether they go independent or work something out with the pac, texas is still going to get as much money from first and second tier rights as they do now (if not more) and will retain the lhn money as well.

the point of the article is that lhn ISN'T really driving all this. it's tamu's continued desire since even in the early 90's to "get away from texas" and the belief that the sec is a better fit for them. they've been sniffing y'all's feet for years, you just haven't noticed. they have been completely uncompetitive in division with oklahoma and texas over the last decade and they believe they need to shake things up. lhn just makes a convenient scapegoat.

furthermore, you have a moral hazard issue. when tamu can hold us hostage through blackmail, what happens when ou, tech, osu, etc... decide to get in on the game for their slice of the texas pie? why does tamu get a special, undeserved slice and the rest of them don't?

but i now understand your point as your underlying assumption is that texas can't make as much money outside of the status quo than they can with everything remaining. one, i don't agree with that as a pac-16 conference will demand an enormous contract for first and second tier rights with the addition of texas/ou and there is undoubtedly a compromise that can be reached on the lhn. larry scott is not that stupid.

anyway, good discussion and i appreciate the feedback. but we've really drilled down to the point where everything is conjecture at this point.

congrats tigers on the win thursday. jealous of that damn defense. good luck the rest of the season.

 

Maybe you're right. But the truth is we'll never know. TV rights are exploding right now so no matter what Texas does, they will make more in the future than they do now. We just can't know if they would have made more with the Big 12 than the Pac 16 because the Big 12 won't exist and if it does they won't be a part of it.

LHN is not "driving" this. More of the straw that broke the camel's back. My contention is that LHN could save it.

I guess I feel like TAMU would contribute content to the LHN. Not just a handout. As annoying as you and I both think they are, you have to admit, there are a lot of aggie fans out there.

I think we understand each other. I'm going to be very interested to see how this shakes out.

Thanks for the article and the insight. :thumb:

 

Where is that short horn that was trolling here?

Just in case there was any doubt who the culprit was in the dismantling of college football as we know it here is something for you to chew on.

Major reform to the short horn network and the ousting of Dan "I take it up the butt for UTerus " Bebe and they will hold the big 12 together. Of course everyone else is wrong though.

Oklahoma will consider staying in Big 12, but wants reform, according to report - ESPN

 

You guys have some very interesting takes on this deal, but I do have a question. Why is it almost a given that the Texas deal with ESPN goes in the can if the Horns go to the Pac Umpteen? ESPN isn't much known for pumping money into a losing deal, and they have a huge hook stuck into the backside of college football and hoops. Also, I think the Pac 12 has a big chip on its shoulder because of getting shafted pretty often on national tv coverage due to the Western time zones.

I think they'd love to have Texas and the Okies, Crikey they wanted that sorry bunch from Colorado. And I think that ESPN will see to it that Texas brings the Longhorn network with them when they go. Just an opinion.

All the big football factories, SEC included, are addicted to the green sugar candy that ESPN is flinging at them. Maybe it's time to realize that ESPN doesn't just cover college sports anymore, they are Full Partners with all these school Presidents trying to sort through this mess while hanging on to their electronic Sugar Daddy.

 

That brings the thing into focus, doesn't it? If there was any doubt, we now know how conference powers feel about the Longhorn Network. I'd bet that both Okie schools would love to go play in the Pac 12, and leave Texas to play the Kansas schools and Iowa State.