Realignment talk not going away

[BurntOrange&White 39931]

4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Yeah, we'll see. I'll bet a pizza its unequal by 2030. What are they gonna do, threaten to leave for the Big XII? Lol.

Stick to being in a dead conference, loser.

[ChiTownDoc 21152]

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

Ah yes, the refs screwed you in 2015, ergo, OKST belongs in the AAC. I guess that's why Oregon is being left behind too, because of the onside kick against OU in 2006. Suck it ducks. 

And here I was thinking you’d never come around…

[Saint Austin 745]

1 hour ago, closetohumping said:

That means Cal, WSU and OSU are hosed.

If I were the Big 12 I would invite Cal along with the Four Corners schools.

1 hour ago, hawkfan said:

I don't see how WSU/OSU aren't going to end up in the MWC.

I also don't see the value of adding Cal+Stanford for the B1G, just not big enough fan bases to justify both IMO.

Stanford is a carrot to entire Notre Dame to join.

['stache 21813]

8 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Stick to being in a dead conference, loser.

We're not in the PAC. The XII is not dead and will not die, it'll just make significantly less than the BIG and SEC. It is what it is.

[BurntOrange&White 39931]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

We're not in the PAC. The XII is not dead and will not die, it'll just make significantly less than the BIG and SEC. It is what it is.

subpar conference. full of have nots....k bye

[Sir Ulrich 5187]

2 hours ago, closetohumping said:

  Reveal hidden contents

Chip Brown

Here’s the latest on what I’m hearing regarding realignment:

The Pac-12 is in its exclusive negotiating window with current Tier 1 and 2 media partners FOX and ESPN.

I’m hearing FOX isn't even bidding on the Pac-12 because FOX went all-in on the Big Ten (after FOX gave its blessing - wink, wink - for USC and UCLA to move to the Big Ten) and put in the winning bid for the new Big Ten media rights deal totaling $1.2 billion, from what I'm told. More on that in a second.

That leaves ESPN at the table right now for the remaining schools in the Pac-12 - at least until Aug. 4, when the Pac-12's exclusive rights negotiating window with ESPN and FOX closes, and the Pac-12's media rights deal goes to the open market.

I’m hearing ESPN has made two offers to the Pac-12: a short-term deal that averages $24.5 million per school annually as well as a 12-year deal for all three tiers of the league's broadcast rights that averages $32 million per school per year. (The SEC and Big Ten are likely to receive between $80 million and $100 million per school per year in their new media rights agreements with the SEC adding Texas and Oklahoma and the Big Ten adding USC and UCLA).

If the remaining schools in the Pac-12 take ESPN's 12-year deal, it would allow ESPN to create a combined Pac-12/ACC Network with both leagues' third-tier rights through 2036, which is the ACC's current media rights expiration, sources said.

Considering FOX and ESPN are the Big 12’s current Tier 1 and 2 media rights partners, if the Pac-12 was to agree to ESPN’s 12-year deal, it could leave the Big 12 in a position to be low-balled by FOX and/or ESPN in a year when the Big 12's exclusive negotiating window opens.

The question is if the remaining Pac-12 schools are willing to take the 12-year deal paying them $32 million per year? Or do schools start splitting off looking for something bigger and better?

There didn't figure to be enough money per school from media rights revenue to make a full-blown merger of the Pac-12 and Big 12 work, sources said.

But could, say, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah and Colorado earn more than $32 million per year for the next 12 years in the Big 12? Arizona is leading that charge, sources told 

Horns247. But it’s unclear exactly where Arizona State, Utah and Colorado stand at the moment.

The remaining schools in the Big 12 are hoping to earn roughly what they’re earning right now - about $40 million per year - in the league’s next media rights deal, which will begin negotiations in 2024. A couple industry experts have told me it’s likely to be closer to $30 million or $35 million per school annually.

You could argue adding Arizona, Arizona State, Utah and Colorado wouldn’t help increase the Big 12’s media rights value as much as adding Oregon and Washington.

Sadly, in today’s realignment world, the Big 12’s best hope to increase value would likely be if the Pac-12 fell apart. While some have floated the notion that the Pac-12 should add schools such as Boise State, San Diego State or Fresno State, those schools wouldn't bring a full share of revenue to the league and would only dilute the league's payout.

The bottom line is if the remaining schools in the Pac-12 stay together and agree to ESPN’s 12-year deal, it could mean low-ball offers to the Big 12 - possibly at or below $30 million per school per year in the league’s next media rights deal.

And very few think the SEC and Big Ten are done expanding, although those dominoes could take a while to unfold.

Everyone's trying to read each other's hands in a game of incredibly high-stakes poker. — 

I think the interesting thing is some of the have nots (Cal, UW) may end up with the halves.

UW and Oregon are in the top 20 of brand values (WSJ 2018 article) while Stanford and Cal are 34 and 40 respectively (on par with middle of the pack Big12 schools). No need for the Big 10 to get those Cali schools when they have the cream of the Cali schools already. This posturing is the equivalent of the Texas/Okie law makers trying to get OSU and Tech in the SEC last year. 

[statsman 5462]

There already is unequal revenue distribution in all of the conferences, separate from media contracts. It’s called the gate. Texas has a stadium twice as large as the ‘pokes and gets three times as much for tix (counting donations). I’m sure it’s the same in the other conferences. Unequal media money sharing only seems to come into play when a big ‘un is thinking of leaving; the little ones offer it to keep them in the fold. 
This is why I expect FBS to end up resembling English soccer leagues. Example- The Bolton Wanderers used to be a big time team, and rivals of Manchester City. Bolton doesn’t draw the same, so they have less payroll for players, so they lost and were relegated down. If they could figure out how to double their revenue, they could get back to the Premier League. Doesn’t that sound like the left behinds?

[closetohumping 17441]

3 minutes ago, Sir Ulrich said:

UW and Oregon are in the top 20 of brand values (WSJ 2018 article) while Stanford and Cal are 34 and 40 respectively (on par with middle of the pack Big12 schools). No need for the Big 10 to get those Cali schools when they have the cream of the Cali schools already. This posturing is the equivalent of the Texas/Okie law makers trying to get OSU and Tech in the SEC last year. 

I think Cal/Stan gives the B1G true west coast credibility, not just having two schools silo'd out west. 

[Gidnik 3268]

https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/07/28/the-pac-12s-survival-depends-on-the-big-ten-not-the-big-12-tracing-the-path-to-stability/

Quote

As if realignment isn’t nuanced enough, the current wave features a Shakespearian element.

It took centerstage the moment the drama began June 30, when the Pac-12’s former “alliance” partner voted to accept membership requests from USC and UCLA and steal the heart of a 107-year-old conference.

A month later, we have reached the ‘Et tu, Kevin?’ stage of the production.

On Tuesday at the Big Ten’s preseason media showcase, commissioner Kevin Warren announced, boldly and publicly,  that the conference would continue to explore expansion options.

“We will not expand just to expand,” he said. “It will be strategic, it will add additional value to our conference …”

Not long after Warren’s declaration, CBS Sports and the Action Network reported (via unnamed sources) Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal were on the short list of candidates under evaluation.

The double-whammy heaped another layer of uncertainty onto the Pac-12’s future, making commissioner George Kliavkoff’s meatball surgery efforts that much more complicated.

It also underscored a point many fans have overlooked:

The greatest threat to the Pac-12’s survival is the Big Ten, not the Big 12. The former is a dream destination; the latter is a fallback option.

But for all the smoke billowing from Indianapolis, the Hotline does not believe the situation has materially changed.

Despite Warren’s declaration and the subsequent media reports that named names, the Big Ten isn’t any closer to poaching additional Pac-12 schools than it was a week ago.

Instead, the next step in this drama hinges on Notre Dame. And NBC.

In the interest of transparency — and because realignment is as fluid as it is complex — the following should be considered informed speculation on our part.

Here we go …

The most significant news of the week came not from Warren but from Mark Silverman, the president of Fox Sports.

Fox is the majority stakeholder in the Big Ten Network, which, in turn, controls the league’s broadcast rights. (As a source noted recently of the Big Ten, “You might as well call it Fox Inc.”)

On Wednesday, Silverman told The Athletic that the Big Ten’s media rights negotiations would be completed in “the next few weeks” and likely by Labor Day.

There is no indication additional schools will be invited at this late stage, thereby leaving Oregon, Washington and Stanford with limited short-term options and giving the Pac-12 a chance for survival.

(A point we have mentioned previously that’s worth repeating: USC does not want Oregon — or Washington, for that matter — in the Big Ten. The Trojans deftly undercut Oregon’s recruiting efforts and competitive prospects by leaving the Ducks behind in a depleted conference. Why toss them a lifeline to the gilded stage?)

Additionally, fans should pay particular attention to which media companies partner with the Big Ten for the contract currently being negotiated.

The Pac-12 is rooting for ESPN to take a small stake in the Big Ten’s inventory — even better: no stake whatsoever — because the network would have more money and broadcast windows available for West Coast content.

(If ESPN takes a significant stake, that’s bad news for the Pac-12. Very bad news.)

NBC also has an important role to play. Its contract with Notre Dame expires at the conclusion of the 2025 season, and all signs indicate the network plans to retain the rights to Irish home games.

The smaller the stake NBC carves out of the Big Ten’s inventory, the more cash on hand for Notre Dame.

And if Notre Dame gets paid, the chance of further disruption to the Power Five landscape diminishes.

Why? We believe the Irish would prefer to remain Independent in their next contract cycle, so long as the revenue numbers and College Football Playoff access meet the desired threshold.

That, too, would benefit the Pac-12.

Without Notre Dame as the 17th team, the Big Ten’s strategic calculation changes, and a second wave of realignment becomes less likely (although certainly not implausible).

A single Pac-12 school, or a combination of Pac-12 schools, seemingly packs more value to the Big Ten when combined with the mighty Irish to form an 18- or 20-team super-duper conference.

Without the Irish, no combination of Pac-12 schools creates an equivalent financial windfall for the existing Big Ten members, who are likely to collect more than $75 million annually in total media rights distributions.

As we see it, if NBC and Notre Dame tie the knot for another contract cycle …

The Big Ten stands on 16, prompting the SEC to do the same …

The sport enters the era of an expanded playoff with two 16-team behemoths at the controls, just as their media partners, Fox and ESPN, prefer …

The ACC remains locked into its grant-of-rights contract into the next decade …

 

Edited July 28, 2022 by Gidnik

[thunderlounge 7825]

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

Nothing. You keep acting like we're asking something of you, we're not. We're venting about how stupid this entire thing has played out, and the responses are all about how worthless we are, and how badly we've treated lord Texas over the years. Al has been crystal clear, the league could have worked but didn't, largely because we came togeter way after the BIG and SEC, and their historical relationships have dead weight making $100 million while we're left behind. It's infuriating that this entire thing has been piecemeal, every decade it changes, and subjective metrics don't matter. That's what's most frustrating in all of this.

You would expect something different when you’re on a Texas board?

Fuck that. 
 

Fuck that right in the mouth. 

[TKthunder2 4991]

14 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

I think Cal/Stan gives the B1G true west coast credibility, not just having two schools silo'd out west. 

While this is about money, let’s not act like the snooty Big Ten attitude about academics and AAU membership has significantly changed.  Adding Cal Berkeley and Stanford to their conference would be a huge win for the presidents of the Big Ten schools. You invite Cal to force Stanford to join. This is under the guise of giving USC/UCLA regional partners, but then float the “idea” of a 10 game conference slate and that puts pressure on Notre Dame to give up their independence.  They come in at #21 and then they wait on the ACC GOR to expire to select their last 3 candidates (likely Miami, FSU, GT).

[closetohumping 17441]

8 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

While this is about money, let’s not act like the snooty Big Ten attitude about academics and AAU membership has significantly changed.  Adding Cal Berkeley and Stanford to their conference would be a huge win for the presidents of the Big Ten schools. You invite Cal to force Stanford to join. This is under the guise of giving USC/UCLA regional partners, but then float the “idea” of a 10 game conference slate and that puts pressure on Notre Dame to give up their independence.  They come in at #21 and then they wait on the ACC GOR to expire to select their last 3 candidates (likely Miami, FSU, GT).

Yep.  To me it's a win/win.  Also, you can head off anti USC/UCLA recruiting.  "your boys gonna be playin in the cold, desolate midwest."  Nope, got 5 former Pac schools as well.

 

As for academics, it is a reason why they wouldn't consider ou right?

Edited July 28, 2022 by closetohumping

[thunderlounge 7825]

Why wait for the acc gor to expire, when there won’t be anyone left to enforce it?

[Azbadlands 109]

32 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

I think Cal/Stan gives the B1G true west coast credibility, not just having two schools silo'd out west. 

I agree, I can't see how taking USC/ UCLA, and then leaving them way out on an island will work out long term.  I mean USC/ UCLA will have to take what they can get, but I doubt they will be happy with all the travel for their student athletes..  I think the BIG has to take some other schools in the PAC to get a good strong hold on recruiting in California and make it BIG territory..

[Hagbard Celine 10859]

5 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I've laid out in this thread a million times how our administration publicly fellated Texas, played on LHN, called it a good thing for the league, recognized that OU/UT were the bell cows, etc.

And your last point is crazy.  The last time politics have mattered in realignment was when Ann Richards got Baylor out of the SWC.  That was nearly 30 years ago.

Playing on LHN is a damned good point in your favor over all others which I did not consider.  I don't remember public fellatio of UT.  But that's not what would have garnered you a lot more support from UT.  Calling out the league and the other members of the league for the bullshit and lies they espoused repeatedly over the past 20 years.  It's not about fellating us, it was about calling spades spades.

Nevertheless, you did play on LHN a bunch and I hope we can cash that check for you if given the chance in the future.

[Hagbard Celine 10859]

5 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

And your last point is crazy.  The last time politics have mattered in realignment was when Ann Richards got Baylor out of the SWC.  That was nearly 30 years ago.

We will have to agree to disagree on this point.

[FartingDreamer 138]

13 hours ago, maninblack said:

This is all so stupid until the "haves" break away from the "have nots".

And how long is that going to last before that bubble bursts?

[TKthunder2 4991]

5 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

And your last point is crazy.  The last time politics have mattered in realignment was when Ann Richards got Baylor out of the SWC.  That was nearly 30 years ago.

https://www.barkingcarnival.com/2009/07/14/texas-to-pac-10-story-revisited
 

Politics and aggy blocked us from going to the SEC and the PAC10 back in 1990 because neither wanted aggy.

Due to that experience Texas attempted to play nice and bring Tech and aggy to the B1G (who said fuck no on tech) and PAC (who said yes) but then once again aggy fucked it up because they have always wanted the SEC.

When aggy left and our supporters the state house allowed it, it created the opportunity for us to also escape.

Even then, the information was not shared with aggy until after the regular legislature sessions were closed out.  If it had been leaked earlier they might have been able to stop it, but with a UT governor in the Capital he was not going to call a special session which means that the legislature could not take any action on this issue until 2023.  Just because politics were unable to stop UT’s move to the SEC doesn’t mean they didn't matter.

Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, and leftover PAC10 fans should hate aggy with the power of a thousand suns as they single-handedly relegated the leftovers to 2nd tier status.  Not saying UT/OU/USC/UCLA are blameless here however if not for aggy the PAC16 would have been a league on the same level as the Big Ten/SEC which would have allowed more schools to join the $100 million dollar club.

 

Baylor, Iowa State, and K State would have still been fucked tho…

[closetohumping 17441]

9 minutes ago, Azbadlands said:

I agree, I can't see how taking USC/ UCLA, and then leaving them way out on an island will work out long term.  I mean USC/ UCLA will have to take what they can get, but I doubt they will be happy with all the travel for their student athletes..  I think the BIG has to take some other schools in the PAC to get a good strong hold on recruiting in California and make it BIG territory..

And if they grab Miami and fsu they have as much say in Florida as the sec does

[Hagbard Celine 10859]

4 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

the Texas legislature would never let Aggy and UT split (obviously not)

uhh....  dude.  2011.

now, if you want to qualify that statement as follows, you would be correct:

1990: aggy squashes Texas to PAC without them

1991: aggy squashes Texas to the SEC without them

2007: aggy squashes Texas to the PAC *WITH* them

2008: aggy declares standing offer

2009: aggy refuses to share a network 50/50 with Texas

2010: aggy blows up a PAC move again when Colorado jumped to take Baylor's spot; corn, ralph and tigger leave

2011: aggy leaves *WITHOUT* Texas

every single one of those incidents was political and involved politicians, and the message was clear: you can't leave aggy behind but they are free to shit on us when they divorce us

oh and lest we forget

2012: aggy demands Texas continue to play aggy on T+1: we're divorcing you but we still want to have sex; the leaders of that malign fiesta?  texas legislature aggy; they actually filed bills to appease their constituents to compel us to accede to their demands

[statsman 5462]

I had an interesting experience a few years ago, watching the RRS at an OU fan’s house (why I was doing that really isn’t that interesting). The Sooners were talking about leaving for the SEC, as evidently it was a hot topic on their message boards. They believed the SEC would want them because they have a lot of success and a lot of fans. 
Similarly, they thought nobody would want Texas because: Texas is over-rated, Texas is greedy, and the LHN was a burden too big. 
I thought they were looking at the wrong things. A conference evaluating new members would care about: how many TV viewers do you bring? Are you going to try to recruit HS players from our territory? Do you have a surplus of HS players in your territory that we can recruit? How much will you cheat (preferred answer: less than us)?

These are all factors that favor Texas more than OU. The worst new entrant program is one that steals your recruits and beats you with them, and doesn’t even give you more money for that. 
I think these are the factors that hurt Oregon. 

[notre dame joe 187]

1 hour ago, Saint Austin said:

If I were the Big 12 I would invite Cal along with the Four Corners schools.

Stanford is a carrot to entire Notre Dame to join.

So we take it that no one can add the Pac NW schools because they will never sign a contract while the bright BUG dangles in the distance?

15 minutes ago, Azbadlands said:

I agree, I can't see how taking USC/ UCLA, and then leaving them way out on an island will work out long term.  I mean USC/ UCLA will have to take what they can get, but I doubt they will be happy with all the travel for their student athletes..  I think the BIG has to take some other schools in the PAC to get a good strong hold on recruiting in California and make it BIG territory..

It won't last.  either the BUG evolves into the NFC or there is another merry go round. 

[utee94 15820]

4 minutes ago, statsman said:

I think these are the factors that hurt Oregon. 

Same thing I've stated on this thread a couple of times.  Oregon is the anti-A&M.

The SEC wanted A&M because they opened access to new television markets and fertile recruiting grounds, without being a threat to the established powers of the conference.

Oregon is the exact opposite.  They don't bring any television markets or recruiting grounds of significance, and they're a definite threat to the established powers of the B1G.  In fact, they're 4-0 against the B1G over the past 5 years, including that 35-28 win over Ohio State just last season.

 

 

[Hagbard Celine 10859]

4 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Really?  They seemed like the obvious class of the Big East (with Miami) at the time it went down.

Still, we've seen people say that the Oklahoma schools had to be a package (obviously not), and that the Texas legislature would never let Aggy and UT split (obviously not) and wouldn't let Tech stay behind (obviously not).

If the Iowa legislature demanded that ISU be let in to the Big 10, Kevin Warren would respond with something to the effect of "triple your state's population and we'll think about it.  Maybe."

dude.  this is not hard.  that mentality is why you are in a shitty position.  indiana pop: 7.8m, number of b1g schools: 2 @ 3.65m residents per; iowa pop: 3.2m, number of b1g schools: 1 @ 3.2m residents per; sue the b1g to prevent them from even *TALKING* to domer unless you have already been admitted.  you don't have to have a case, you just have to get everyone in to deposition, because that enjoins fox, espn, the sec, the ncaa, everybody, subpoena all of the aggy dead dogs for the hell of it - make noise - stir the shitstorm.  GROW A PAIR.   Fuck shit up for everyone else.  You have nothing to lose, and they can't ignore you.  Interstate commerce clause yadda yadda make up some bullshit justification it doesn't fucking matter.  Why?

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

GO. TO. FUCKING. TOWN.

Get medievial on their ass, and start with Iowa City.

This isn't hard.  Squeaky wheel gets the grease.

[Zinhead 42]

1 hour ago, hawkfan said:

 

You realize that everyone in the B1G is equal equity owners of the BTN right?  I don't see them ever forfeiting that or voting themselves into less revenue.  The Detroit Lions get paid the same as the New England Patriots to promote stability.

What's created instability in college sports is the revenue gap between leagues.  The only way that could conceivably happen would be if tOSU/UM/USC/PSU/Etc. have an opportunity to leave for more money, they don't have any leverage to get a bigger share of the pie unless that is a realistic possibility.

If the SEC & B1G remain on equal revenue footing, they'll never go to unequal revenue sharing because I don't see Alabama/Georgia/Florida/Etc. wanting to go north or tOSU/UM/PSU/USC/etc. wanting to go south.

The only way to get rid of the BIG dead weight is to blow up the conference and start over. That will never happen. What many people forget is that the schools see themselves as universities first, and football programs second. 

The SEC will not expand until the ACC GOR is up. When they do, the only two schools they will definitely target are UNC and UVA. Clemson and FSU would be borderline, but none of the other ACC schools would hold any interest for the SEC. 

[Hagbard Celine 10859]

3 hours ago, Vertigo said:

In theory there is no reason the B12 should be more valuable than the PAC. But those schools look like they are playing a game of survivor right now trying to force their way into the B10. 

.... and iSu should throw a fucking spanner in the works.  TAKE THE INITIATIVE.  Merely *talking* about doing it behind closed doors will have ripple effects throughout the command centers that playing 4-d chess at present.

['stache 21813]

13 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

dude.  this is not hard.  that mentality is why you are in a shitty position.  indiana pop: 7.8m, number of b1g schools: 2 @ 3.65m residents per; iowa pop: 3.2m, number of b1g schools: 1 @ 3.2m residents per; sue the b1g to prevent them from even *TALKING* to domer unless you have already been admitted.  you don't have to have a case, you just have to get everyone in to deposition, because that enjoins fox, espn, the sec, the ncaa, everybody, subpoena all of the aggy dead dogs for the hell of it - make noise - stir the shitstorm.  GROW A PAIR.   Fuck shit up for everyone else.  You have nothing to lose, and they can't ignore you.  Interstate commerce clause yadda yadda make up some bullshit justification it doesn't fucking matter.  Why?

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

GO. TO. FUCKING. TOWN.

Get medievial on their ass, and start with Iowa City.

This isn't hard.  Squeaky wheel gets the grease.

You can't get to discovery if you don't have a case. This case would get kicked out right off the bat, it's completely non-sensical. Nothing in the law prevents this consolidation of power. One might argue it's precisely how our economic system is designed. As for politics, it's all grandstanding. The Texas Legislature held hearings so that some of the lawmakers could tell their angry Baylor or Tech grads "see, we held hearings, we have your back." Then, nothing. It's precisely what's happening in California. "See Cal, the Governor has your back!" Maybe they'll hold show hearings and ask UCLA officials questions. Then nothing. It's all for show. The Oklahoma legislature hasn't even said a word because nobody really cares. I used to constantly point out how stupid the "OU and OSU are tied together because laws," it is and always was the stupidest thing ever said in realignment.

[thunderlounge 7825]

58 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

It won't last.  either the BUG evolves into the NFC or there is another merry go round. 

Now you’re starting to get out of the cellar and look at the world a little better. 
 

 

33 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

.... and iSu should throw a fucking spanner in the works.  TAKE THE INITIATIVE.  Merely *talking* about doing it behind closed doors will have ripple effects throughout the command centers that playing 4-d chess at present.

and this thread is still mostly playing tiddlywinks. 😂

[Satchel 6938]

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

https://www.barkingcarnival.com/2009/07/14/texas-to-pac-10-story-revisited
 

Politics and aggy blocked us from going to the SEC and the PAC10 back in 1990 because neither wanted aggy.

Due to that experience Texas attempted to play nice and bring Tech and aggy to the B1G (who said fuck no on tech) and PAC (who said yes) but then once again aggy fucked it up because they have always wanted the SEC.

When aggy left and our supporters the state house allowed it, it created the opportunity for us to also escape.

Even then, the information was not shared with aggy until after the regular legislature sessions were closed out.  If it had been leaked earlier they might have been able to stop it, but with a UT governor in the Capital he was not going to call a special session which means that the legislature could not take any action on this issue until 2023.  Just because politics were unable to stop UT’s move to the SEC doesn’t mean they didn't matter.

Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, and leftover PAC10 fans should hate aggy with the power of a thousand suns as they single-handedly relegated the leftovers to 2nd tier status.  Not saying UT/OU/USC/UCLA are blameless here however if not for aggy the PAC16 would have been a league on the same level as the Big Ten/SEC which would have allowed more schools to join the $100 million dollar club.

 

Baylor, Iowa State, and K State would have still been fucked tho…

Interesting take. Why didn’t Texas take an obsequious Tech with them to the Sec rather than a school in Oklahoma?

[Trey3216 15346]

2 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

subpar conference. full of have nots....k bye

That your team hasn't won in 13 years.  And you're headed somewhere that might not be any more fun.  But hey, $$.  k bye  

[bullet 1596]

3 hours ago, closetohumping said:

That means Cal, WSU and OSU are hosed.

Remember.  Flugaur is the Dude of Minnesota.  His biggest claim to fame is that he likes to troll the Dude of WV.  Flugaur talks to this imaginary "Big Ten Man."  At least MHVer3 talks to (or reads) fan bloggers who know no more than you or I, but I'm pretty sure they aren't imaginary.

[statsman 5462]

16 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Interesting take. Why didn’t Texas take an obsequious Tech with them to the Sec rather than a school in Oklahoma?

Because we don’t play Tech every year at the State Fair in the region’s most important recruiting event. 

[bullet 1596]

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

https://www.barkingcarnival.com/2009/07/14/texas-to-pac-10-story-revisited
 

Politics and aggy blocked us from going to the SEC and the PAC10 back in 1990 because neither wanted aggy.

Due to that experience Texas attempted to play nice and bring Tech and aggy to the B1G (who said fuck no on tech) and PAC (who said yes) but then once again aggy fucked it up because they have always wanted the SEC.

When aggy left and our supporters the state house allowed it, it created the opportunity for us to also escape.

Even then, the information was not shared with aggy until after the regular legislature sessions were closed out.  If it had been leaked earlier they might have been able to stop it, but with a UT governor in the Capital he was not going to call a special session which means that the legislature could not take any action on this issue until 2023.  Just because politics were unable to stop UT’s move to the SEC doesn’t mean they didn't matter.

Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, and leftover PAC10 fans should hate aggy with the power of a thousand suns as they single-handedly relegated the leftovers to 2nd tier status.  Not saying UT/OU/USC/UCLA are blameless here however if not for aggy the PAC16 would have been a league on the same level as the Big Ten/SEC which would have allowed more schools to join the $100 million dollar club.

 

Baylor, Iowa State, and K State would have still been fucked tho…

In 1990, the SEC wanted aggy and the Pac except Stanford wanted us.  It was on the verge of happening but Stanford vetoed us.

In 1994 the SEC did still want aggy.  But the Pac and Big 10 weren't interested in Tech.  Tech was the anchor then.  They had more political power than in 1990.

We didn't want the SEC in 1990 and 1994, but they were interested.

[Gidnik 3268]

 

[Satchel 6938]

18 minutes ago, statsman said:

Because we don’t play Tech every year at the State Fair in the region’s most important recruiting event. 

So, the Texas-OU in Dallas game was the reason? An even more interesting take.

[closetohumping 17441]

1 minute ago, Satchel said:

So, the Texas-OU in Dallas game was the reason? An even more interesting take.

I think it was a semi polite way to say nobody gives a fuck about tech 

 

[closetohumping 17441]

How about a conference of like minded schools:

 

https://www.facebook.com/587410044/posts/10166325194900045/?d=n

Edited July 28, 2022 by closetohumping

[Satchel 6938]

Just now, closetohumping said:

I think it was a semi polite way to say nobody gives a fuck about tech 

 

That much is obvious. Mine was a polite way to call bullshit on such a ridiculous take.

[statsman 5462]

20 minutes ago, Satchel said:

So, the Texas-OU in Dallas game was the reason? An even more interesting take.

It’s why Texas and OU are tied together. It’s an alliance much like the US-USSR alliance in WWII. We don’t trust each other but sometimes our needs and goals are aligned. 
There is a story that in 2002, 2003, something like that, Mack Brown wanted to explore taking the series home and home. Supposedly OU said, “Fine. We’re not giving up the State Fair game. We’ll play the Ags there if you don’t want to show up”. That ended that talk, real quick. 

Edited July 28, 2022 by statsman

[Satchel 6938]

7 minutes ago, statsman said:

It’s why Texas and OU are tied together. It’s an alliance much like the US-USSR alliance in WWII. We don’t trust each other but sometimes our needs and goals are aligned. 
There is a story that in 2002, 2003, something like that, Mack Brown wanted to explore taking the series home and home. Supposedly OU said, “Fine. We’re not giving up the State Fair game. We’ll play the Ags there if you don’t want to show up”. That ended that talk, real quick. 

Again, we’re a peculiar people who will attach moral and ethical tests to everything we do except for how we make money.

[TKthunder2 4991]

43 minutes ago, bullet said:

In 1990, the SEC wanted aggy and the Pac except Stanford wanted us.  It was on the verge of happening but Stanford vetoed us.

In 1994 the SEC did still want aggy.  But the Pac and Big 10 weren't interested in Tech.  Tech was the anchor then.  They had more political power than in 1990.

We didn't want the SEC in 1990 and 1994, but they were interested.

They did not want aggy, they wanted Texas and Arkansas. https://www.tennessean.com/story/sports/college/2021/08/16/texas-longhorns-football-join-sec-expansion-southwest-conference-harvey-schiller/5515187001/

[TKthunder2 4991]

1 hour ago, Satchel said:

Interesting take. Why didn’t Texas take an obsequious Tech with them to the Sec rather than a school in Oklahoma?

Because aggy set the precedent and gave us cover to do so.  If they could leave without hangers on then we could too and their legislative supporters would be hypocrites to reverse course and block Texas from doing exactly what aggy did.  Tech was meaningless to the PAC and doesn’t help UT with travel like Baylor would have nor issue a great rivalry like OU/OSU.  Why do you think Tech was included in the PAC talks of 2010/2012 but now nobody wants them?

[Satchel 6938]

1 minute ago, TKthunder2 said:

Because aggy set the precedent and gave us cover to do so.  If they could leave without hangers on then we could too and their legislative supporters would be hypocrites to reverse course and block Texas from doing exactly what aggy did.  Tech was meaningless to the PAC and doesn’t help UT with travel like Baylor would have nor issue a great rivalry like OU/OSU.  Why do you think Tech was included in the PAC talks of 2010/2012 but now nobody wants them?

So, aggy really was the big baller shot caller in all of this?

[utee94 15820]

8 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

They did not want aggy, they wanted Texas and Arkansas. https://www.tennessean.com/story/sports/college/2021/08/16/texas-longhorns-football-join-sec-expansion-southwest-conference-harvey-schiller/5515187001/

Not only did they want Texas and Arkansas, there was interest and potential movement on the Texas side.  Enough so that Frank Broyles believed Texas was coming along with the pigs.

Edited July 28, 2022 by utee94

[burdine 522]

4 hours ago, 'stache said:

Nothing. You keep acting like we're asking something of you, we're not. We're venting about how stupid this entire thing has played out, and the responses are all about how worthless we are, and how badly we've treated lord Texas over the years. Al has been crystal clear, the league could have worked but didn't, largely because we came togeter way after the BIG and SEC, and their historical relationships have dead weight making $100 million while we're left behind. It's infuriating that this entire thing has been piecemeal, every decade it changes, and subjective metrics don't matter. That's what's most frustrating in all of this.

I don't really see anyway the league could have worked once NU and Aggy left.  Mizzou and CU were replaceable.  There just wasn't anybody to add with the support NU and Aggy have.  It really hollowed out the conference.

[closetohumping 17441]

19 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Again, we’re a peculiar people who will attach moral and ethical tests to everything we do except for how we make money.

When did any party act immorally? 

[Hagbard Celine 10859]

4 hours ago, 'stache said:

Ugh, we get it, we didn't sufficiently kiss the ring

that's not what we wanted, expected, or asked for

[oSuJeff97 3435]

Just checking in to see if everyone is still dunking on Al...

 

[Hagbard Celine 10859]

4 hours ago, 'stache said:

Ah yes, the refs screwed you in 2015, ergo, OKST belongs in the AAC.

nice post-hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy of false association

it was more than 2015.

but 2015 was the final straw.

and where you end up is not our problem nor our fault

[clapclapclap 9000]

1 hour ago, bullet said:

Remember.  Flugaur is the Dude of Minnesota.  His biggest claim to fame is that he likes to troll the Dude of WV.  Flugaur talks to this imaginary "Big Ten Man."  At least MHVer3 talks to (or reads) fan bloggers who know no more than you or I, but I'm pretty sure they aren't imaginary.

*BTM = Big Ten Mom

Same function as S. Austin's