Jump to content

Big12 is NOT dead

joeycovers

By joeycovers
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

utee94

utee94 16091

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

 

Subjective bullshit thrown out there as though there's some sense of propriety in the positions. I'd much rather play and travel to Oregon State, Cal, Arizona, Utah, and Colorado than the middling schools in the northern part of our conference. You don't prefer that? Great. My view is unchanged. And the premise that playing and traveling to UCLA and ASU cause indifference is sadly comical, but it's your life, utee94.

Regarding the carve outs you just highlighted, formermav43, I realize you see yourself as quite clever, but I was typing about the macro state of joining a conference, not picking micro-issues with one. Any conference will have some shit opponents. Most won't have majority of shit opponents on the schedule. But hey man, you keep digging Kansas State and the cockroaches if that gets you wet. I'll take a pass, as will most folks if given the option.

Your complete inability to discuss anything without being an antagonistic prick about it is certainly sad, but not at all comical.  Why are you so defensive that someone disagrees with your opinion?  

No, I don't have any desire to travel to Arizona, Utah, or Colorado for a football game.  Perhaps for other things, but not for a football game.  And the only Bay Area school I'd like to play is Stanford, it certainly isn't Berkeley.

But I'm not going to accuse you of leading a miserable life simply because I disagree with you, because I'm not an antagonistic prick like you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UT Lawnghorn

UT Lawnghorn 758

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, utee94 said:

I think it's more likely the PAC would realign to Eastern and Wstern Divisions.  So in a PAC16 you'd hypothetically have Texas, Tech, OU, oSu, Arizona State, Arizona,  Colorado, and Utah.  We'd only occasionally play games against USC, which is the only team in the PAC I give a crap about.  Maybe Stanford, I guess.

So overall I agree with your point-- not only would we end up playing just as many crap teams in any other conference, but we'd rarely get to play the marquee teams in those conferences.  Because  divisional alignment would prevent it, because16 teams is simply too big.

True. I was discussing it as if only UT joined, but if it's a group of 4 teams, then divisions will be completely changed. Either way, UT and OU will probably be considered the big boys in the division and we'll get mixed with lesser schools. It would be great if we could join the Pac and keep USC in division. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
closetojumping

closetojumping 65528

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Your complete inability to discuss anything without being an antagonistic prick about it is certainly sad, but not at all comical.  Why are you so defensive that someone disagrees with your opinion?  

No, I don't have any desire to travel to Arizona, Utah, or Colorado for a football game.  Perhaps for other things, but not for a football game.  And the only Bay Area school I'd like to play is Stanford, it certainly isn't Berkeley.

But I'm not going to accuse you of leading a miserable life simply because I disagree with you, because I'm not an antagonistic prick like you are.

Meh, I was a dick. Sue me, I guess. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rickyspub

rickyspub 801

Posted
Posted

Some people like good football, others use football as an excuse to take a vacation. Pac is meh on sports, but great if you like the West Coast. If travel were my main bag, I'd push the ACC, but I don't want to make the rest of fan base suffer with meh football and ridiculous travel just so I can hit the places I like on the East Coast. I'll go to my favorite vacation spots when I can actually spend a most of the time actually enjoying the location.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hurtlocker

Hurtlocker 2219

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, rickyspub said:

Lloyd is about the perceived quality of the name on the jersey rather than the play on the field. More "exciting" to beat an unranked UCLA than to beat a top 25 KSU or losing to Top 20 Oregon looks less embarrassing than losing to a Top 20 TCU. (Probably why the ACC doesn't make his cut of 'viable' conferences, too many "basketball" schools.) 

Or losing to Iowa State at home.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kopp0e

kopp0e 1135

Posted
Posted
On 6/4/2018 at 4:14 PM, Al_4_ISU said:

Alabama has Nick Saban.  That explains 75% of what's going on with the SEC.

And not having to win a conference championship (much less a division title), to compete in the CFP, certainly helps the cause...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kopp0e

kopp0e 1135

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Valmy77 said:

Playing all of our games at 1AM? Screw that. BIg 12 now and Big 12 forever.

I have a post that shows that as most likely an overreach... Why would the PAC (or XII) look to place marquee brands to play that late night slot when traveling out west..?

And similar to the creation of the XII from the SWC & Big8, the XII could remain in name while adding PAC schools; as the XII is the 3rd highest paid league in market values...

The schools would look to optimize branding for the league by highlighting games where the most east coast fans can still watch, thus 8pm kickoffs would be the latest games I would expect to see for either UT or OU, likewise USC or UCLA wouldn't be on for 11am kickoffs as the west coast would still get better ratings in the 2:30 slot...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
On 6/5/2018 at 3:24 PM, rickyspub said:

Some people like good football, others use football as an excuse to take a vacation. Pac is meh on sports, but great if you like the West Coast. If travel were my main bag, I'd push the ACC, but I don't want to make the rest of fan base suffer with meh football and ridiculous travel just so I can hit the places I like on the East Coast. I'll go to my favorite vacation spots when I can actually spend a most of the time actually enjoying the location.

Back on the first round of "We almost joined the Pac12"  the travel for football is what appealed to me the most.

 

Road games are awesome.  Road games to the west coast would be pretty damned fun.

 

Baseball trips would appeal to me as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jody Highroller

Jody Highroller 9

Posted
Posted
On 6/1/2018 at 7:37 PM, R2D2 said:

Texas would meld perfectly with the PAC schools. The Texas athlete is exactly like the Stanford and USC athlete, and the alums and students are also very similar - successful, attractive and over confident, as well as elitist. Which our rival schools deem to be arrogance and snobbery. USC is rich and arrogant as well as classically beautiful, Stanford is over educated and privileged for the most part, and just as rich and arrogant. This is both sides of UT, the party element and the plan 2 top 10% studyholic population which resembles Rice. Think Matthew McConnaughey and Wes Anderson. 

It's why we dominate Hollywood and we are just as adept at high tech. Mike Judge is able to aptly mirror Silicon Valley because Office Space already personified the tech experience, as a stripped down bureaucratic version, sans absurd wealth and perks. However, the main Office Space characters inevitably took the same creative risks. 

And this is why UT faces the west coast, while AtM does not. Austin. Fandango. Bottle Rocket.

Austin Stories was hipster LA before LA was. The Central Austin music bar scene has been Portlandia since Slacker.

The point is, we swim and dive, we golf, we play tennis, and we play a hella good game of Olympic volleyball. We win Oscars. We read. We microbrew. We make a shit ton of money. We have too many resources. We're ironic. We have a famous marching band. And we underachieve at sports.

Nobody else in the Big 12 fits this bill. So that is why a merger doesn't happen. They don't want Baylor, Kansas sucks at football, OU will almost assuredly entertain SEC offers, Oklahoma State is the same thing as Oregon State, Tech is too stupid, Iowa State is less desirable than Colorado State, W Virginia is ridiculous and TCU = Kansas State.

I'd take just Texas and OU. Or Texas and Kansas. Or Texas and OK State. If 4, and one or all of those 3 schools say no, I'd take Kansas St, TCU and Boise State.

Honestly, they'd just want Texas. It's a fit. And all of that money the Big 12 is making is because of The University of Texas. They are the Dallas Cowboys and LA Raiders of the NFL. The NFL doesn't need those teams to win, but they need them to be relevant. 

If and when UT plays in the final 4, Fox's ratings will double. Not even USC can produce that. Not even Notre Dame. OU is basically Oregon. Nobody really wants to see them.

A USC, Texas, Michigan and Florida school final 4 is the ideal. 

That's all the TVs. Michigan is going global because they see what I see. It's improving their sports broadly. Miami is making their move to be THE Florida school. Jimbo Fischer saw their ambition and bailed. The SEC still revels in Bama. However, beating Bama is what the general public wants. Auburn can almost do it, Florida can't do it anymore, Georgia could be the next Clemson and switch off with them, but frankly, the teams which could beat them would be Tennessee and LSU. All LSU needs is an Austin area QB or a RG3, and a spread offense. All Tennessee needs is to wake up. AtM can also do it, but they are like OU. No defense.

Texas can build a defense. USC can build an offense as fast and powerful as any defense and find enough play makers on defense to beat you in the clutch, Michigan can be what Ohio State cannot, which is well liked, however Ohio State can cheat, and therefore they can be the same thing as Alabama, whereas Michigan has to be slightly more finesse, more professional, more ethical. Harbough is battling to harden Michigan. But of all the teams Bama would fear, there are really only two programs they do. Texas and Penn State. 

Texas has a Vince Young or an Earl Campbell in its high school system at all times. Imagine Adrian Peterson and Vince Young on the same team, with Sam Bradford and Colt McCoy as backups. With Cedric Benson and Jamaal Charles as backups. With RG3, Johnny Manzeil and Andrew Luck committed in up coming classes. With Nick Foles as a walk on. The state can give you an instant pro franchise. 3 deep in Heisman candidates and all americans at every position. Ladanlian Tomlinson was an after thought. Drew Brees was a nobody. Only Penn State seemed to beat these kinds of teams. Why? East coast steel worker brawn.

So what i am saying is this. 

Texas would win every year if it operated like an SEC team. It would be unfair. Alabama is an SEC Team with brawn. Manzeil and Missouri taught them they needed speed. Clemson and Auburn beat them with Vince Young play-alikes. The spread wins. 

If you can run the spread with 5 star athletes and you have a defense like the one Florida used to beat OU, like the one Texas is building, like the one Alabama and LSU has, you are at a maximum.

The University of Texas 83 defense with the 2005 offense would beat Jimmy Johnson's Miami teams.

The big 12 has hamstrung Texas in games, really they've  exploited them as a given, because promoting TCU, Baylor and Oklahoma State was more important. It created a deeper conference and this was necessary, for SOS would undermine the champion and weekly games wouldnt have relevance. The conference would be doomed if Texas dominated it. This has benefitted OU. They get a weakened Texas and nothing else to truly fear.

The thinking is really this. Have somebody run the table against multiple top 10 teams or lose only once and rebound because the PAC (with a down USC) is so weak and off the publicity radar, final four likelihood is in your favor. However they've learned that TCU, Baylor and OK St aren't preferable to a Washington or a second SEC team, so they will be skipped. OU won't be skipped, however, they won't win a NC nor reach the final, because they're competing with soft spread teams in a scoring fest, which means their defense isn't a priority. They've built a bend but not break defense which breaks at championship levels.

Texas is building a defense which cuts teams in half, especially their scoring output. And an offense which apparently desires to bully teams, rather than race with them. It reminds me of Penn State. It actually works. The USC, OU, Kstate and Missouri games show it does. They lost close games to the better teams, but athlete for athlete, they may have been better, they were certianly more physical and more intimidating. Will they go spread? When they have the ideal QB (and game breaking RB), yes. They already have the WRs. 

Texas is on the verge. It's not wait till next year, it's wait till Texas decides it wants it badly enough to simply take it. Vince Young thought this way. Do it now. Major Applewhite thinks this way. I'm certain Tom Herman thinks that way. There is oil underfoot, so strike it. If the Big 12 holds them back, Texas should leave it behind. This conference from here on out should be all about Texas. Do you want to dethrone the SEC? You'll need Texas then. Don't manipulate for them, just get out of Texas' way. They've lost enough for you. And been abused by refs for the T Boone Pickens' of the world. So That Dallas will stick with the conference, in the form of TCU, Baylor and OU. Aggy and LSU stole Houston they figured. The conference hasn't thrived with this ethos but it has survived, more solidly than expected. 

Houston is your jackpot though. And Texas is stealing Houston back for the Big 12. Thank them. The NFL is leaving money on the table to ensure a safe profit by ignoring classic teams and big markets to uplift lessers. It's why LA was a dormant market, it's why the Raiders were dangled there to upgrade two weaker franchises. The Riaders were used, but Las Vegas saw the money the NFL abandoned on the table. And took it. Texas is made of money, like LA and the Las Vegas casinos. Texas is a commodity state with a multiplier effect built in. The multiplier is power. Texas is pure unadulterated ambition, which manifests itself in exponential profit. It's why everybody hates Texas. It's why OU sure does. It's why the east coast does. Hollywood however doesn't. Hollywood is what happens when New York art combines with gold mine greed. Texas is Hollywood's favorite character as well as its target audience. Normal enough to sell to, weird enough to buy from. Texas sells itself. Literally. It sells its dirty goop. It sells its soil. It sells its soul. However it does not sell out. You do.

The 2005 Rose Bowl was the greatest college football game ever played. It equaled the hype. And why? The teams were mirror images, with not even the slightest difference, except one or two. Texas was the better story. California was the better venue.

OU isn't Texas. OU lost badly the year before to the same team Texas matched and beat. The 2008 National Championship saw OU lose again. In 2009 a lesser Texas team than its 2008 team almost beat Alabama with its backup QB. Texas beat Ohio State and Michigan in its other BCS years.

Texas at its peak was better than the all time great powers of the west and the Midwest, and it was really denied a full shot at the east. The beasts of the east vs Texas at their best. This is why the Dallas Cowboys vs The NFC East is the highest realm of NFL football. And Cowboys vs Steelers is the ideal Super Bowl.

Texas "is" the wild west. They belong vying for king of the hill. Win some lose some, but make some money, they do, always. 

What starts here, changes the world. Start Major. Start VY. Start Sam Ehlinger. The University of Texas shoulds start (winning big). They should start kicking ass and taking names of those too stupid to see the bigger picture. Everything is big in Texas, the Last Picture Show is Texas'. The Eyes of Texas Are Upon You, because you have the cameras and you have the stage coach full of money. And Texas has the a better idea than you do of what to do with it. You film the STAR, on the biggest stage. That's what you do with it.

Texas is a sleeping GIANT. The boots are slumbering by the bedside, and the souls who wear them are covered in oil.

shocked-whoa-what-the-fuck.gif?w=685

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jody Highroller

Jody Highroller 9

Posted
Posted
On 6/1/2018 at 7:37 PM, R2D2 said:

Texas would meld perfectly with the PAC schools. The Texas athlete is exactly like the Stanford and USC athlete, and the alums and students are also very similar - successful, attractive and over confident, as well as elitist. Which our rival schools deem to be arrogance and snobbery. USC is rich and arrogant as well as classically beautiful, Stanford is over educated and privileged for the most part, and just as rich and arrogant. This is both sides of UT, the party element and the plan 2 top 10% studyholic population which resembles Rice. Think Matthew McConnaughey and Wes Anderson. 

It's why we dominate Hollywood and we are just as adept at high tech. Mike Judge is able to aptly mirror Silicon Valley because Office Space already personified the tech experience, as a stripped down bureaucratic version, sans absurd wealth and perks. However, the main Office Space characters inevitably took the same creative risks. 

And this is why UT faces the west coast, while AtM does not. Austin. Fandango. Bottle Rocket.

Austin Stories was hipster LA before LA was. The Central Austin music bar scene has been Portlandia since Slacker.

The point is, we swim and dive, we golf, we play tennis, and we play a hella good game of Olympic volleyball. We win Oscars. We read. We microbrew. We make a shit ton of money. We have too many resources. We're ironic. We have a famous marching band. And we underachieve at sports.

Nobody else in the Big 12 fits this bill. So that is why a merger doesn't happen. They don't want Baylor, Kansas sucks at football, OU will almost assuredly entertain SEC offers, Oklahoma State is the same thing as Oregon State, Tech is too stupid, Iowa State is less desirable than Colorado State, W Virginia is ridiculous and TCU = Kansas State.

I'd take just Texas and OU. Or Texas and Kansas. Or Texas and OK State. If 4, and one or all of those 3 schools say no, I'd take Kansas St, TCU and Boise State.

Honestly, they'd just want Texas. It's a fit. And all of that money the Big 12 is making is because of The University of Texas. They are the Dallas Cowboys and LA Raiders of the NFL. The NFL doesn't need those teams to win, but they need them to be relevant. 

If and when UT plays in the final 4, Fox's ratings will double. Not even USC can produce that. Not even Notre Dame. OU is basically Oregon. Nobody really wants to see them.

A USC, Texas, Michigan and Florida school final 4 is the ideal. 

That's all the TVs. Michigan is going global because they see what I see. It's improving their sports broadly. Miami is making their move to be THE Florida school. Jimbo Fischer saw their ambition and bailed. The SEC still revels in Bama. However, beating Bama is what the general public wants. Auburn can almost do it, Florida can't do it anymore, Georgia could be the next Clemson and switch off with them, but frankly, the teams which could beat them would be Tennessee and LSU. All LSU needs is an Austin area QB or a RG3, and a spread offense. All Tennessee needs is to wake up. AtM can also do it, but they are like OU. No defense.

Texas can build a defense. USC can build an offense as fast and powerful as any defense and find enough play makers on defense to beat you in the clutch, Michigan can be what Ohio State cannot, which is well liked, however Ohio State can cheat, and therefore they can be the same thing as Alabama, whereas Michigan has to be slightly more finesse, more professional, more ethical. Harbough is battling to harden Michigan. But of all the teams Bama would fear, there are really only two programs they do. Texas and Penn State. 

Texas has a Vince Young or an Earl Campbell in its high school system at all times. Imagine Adrian Peterson and Vince Young on the same team, with Sam Bradford and Colt McCoy as backups. With Cedric Benson and Jamaal Charles as backups. With RG3, Johnny Manzeil and Andrew Luck committed in up coming classes. With Nick Foles as a walk on. The state can give you an instant pro franchise. 3 deep in Heisman candidates and all americans at every position. Ladanlian Tomlinson was an after thought. Drew Brees was a nobody. Only Penn State seemed to beat these kinds of teams. Why? East coast steel worker brawn.

So what i am saying is this. 

Texas would win every year if it operated like an SEC team. It would be unfair. Alabama is an SEC Team with brawn. Manzeil and Missouri taught them they needed speed. Clemson and Auburn beat them with Vince Young play-alikes. The spread wins. 

If you can run the spread with 5 star athletes and you have a defense like the one Florida used to beat OU, like the one Texas is building, like the one Alabama and LSU has, you are at a maximum.

The University of Texas 83 defense with the 2005 offense would beat Jimmy Johnson's Miami teams.

The big 12 has hamstrung Texas in games, really they've  exploited them as a given, because promoting TCU, Baylor and Oklahoma State was more important. It created a deeper conference and this was necessary, for SOS would undermine the champion and weekly games wouldnt have relevance. The conference would be doomed if Texas dominated it. This has benefitted OU. They get a weakened Texas and nothing else to truly fear.

The thinking is really this. Have somebody run the table against multiple top 10 teams or lose only once and rebound because the PAC (with a down USC) is so weak and off the publicity radar, final four likelihood is in your favor. However they've learned that TCU, Baylor and OK St aren't preferable to a Washington or a second SEC team, so they will be skipped. OU won't be skipped, however, they won't win a NC nor reach the final, because they're competing with soft spread teams in a scoring fest, which means their defense isn't a priority. They've built a bend but not break defense which breaks at championship levels.

Texas is building a defense which cuts teams in half, especially their scoring output. And an offense which apparently desires to bully teams, rather than race with them. It reminds me of Penn State. It actually works. The USC, OU, Kstate and Missouri games show it does. They lost close games to the better teams, but athlete for athlete, they may have been better, they were certianly more physical and more intimidating. Will they go spread? When they have the ideal QB (and game breaking RB), yes. They already have the WRs. 

Texas is on the verge. It's not wait till next year, it's wait till Texas decides it wants it badly enough to simply take it. Vince Young thought this way. Do it now. Major Applewhite thinks this way. I'm certain Tom Herman thinks that way. There is oil underfoot, so strike it. If the Big 12 holds them back, Texas should leave it behind. This conference from here on out should be all about Texas. Do you want to dethrone the SEC? You'll need Texas then. Don't manipulate for them, just get out of Texas' way. They've lost enough for you. And been abused by refs for the T Boone Pickens' of the world. So That Dallas will stick with the conference, in the form of TCU, Baylor and OU. Aggy and LSU stole Houston they figured. The conference hasn't thrived with this ethos but it has survived, more solidly than expected. 

Houston is your jackpot though. And Texas is stealing Houston back for the Big 12. Thank them. The NFL is leaving money on the table to ensure a safe profit by ignoring classic teams and big markets to uplift lessers. It's why LA was a dormant market, it's why the Raiders were dangled there to upgrade two weaker franchises. The Riaders were used, but Las Vegas saw the money the NFL abandoned on the table. And took it. Texas is made of money, like LA and the Las Vegas casinos. Texas is a commodity state with a multiplier effect built in. The multiplier is power. Texas is pure unadulterated ambition, which manifests itself in exponential profit. It's why everybody hates Texas. It's why OU sure does. It's why the east coast does. Hollywood however doesn't. Hollywood is what happens when New York art combines with gold mine greed. Texas is Hollywood's favorite character as well as its target audience. Normal enough to sell to, weird enough to buy from. Texas sells itself. Literally. It sells its dirty goop. It sells its soil. It sells its soul. However it does not sell out. You do.

The 2005 Rose Bowl was the greatest college football game ever played. It equaled the hype. And why? The teams were mirror images, with not even the slightest difference, except one or two. Texas was the better story. California was the better venue.

OU isn't Texas. OU lost badly the year before to the same team Texas matched and beat. The 2008 National Championship saw OU lose again. In 2009 a lesser Texas team than its 2008 team almost beat Alabama with its backup QB. Texas beat Ohio State and Michigan in its other BCS years.

Texas at its peak was better than the all time great powers of the west and the Midwest, and it was really denied a full shot at the east. The beasts of the east vs Texas at their best. This is why the Dallas Cowboys vs The NFC East is the highest realm of NFL football. And Cowboys vs Steelers is the ideal Super Bowl.

Texas "is" the wild west. They belong vying for king of the hill. Win some lose some, but make some money, they do, always. 

What starts here, changes the world. Start Major. Start VY. Start Sam Ehlinger. The University of Texas shoulds start (winning big). They should start kicking ass and taking names of those too stupid to see the bigger picture. Everything is big in Texas, the Last Picture Show is Texas'. The Eyes of Texas Are Upon You, because you have the cameras and you have the stage coach full of money. And Texas has the a better idea than you do of what to do with it. You film the STAR, on the biggest stage. That's what you do with it.

Texas is a sleeping GIANT. The boots are slumbering by the bedside, and the souls who wear them are covered in oil.

shocked-whoa-what-the-fuck.gif?w=685

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jody Highroller

Jody Highroller 9

Posted
Posted
On 6/1/2018 at 7:37 PM, R2D2 said:

Texas would meld perfectly with the PAC schools. The Texas athlete is exactly like the Stanford and USC athlete, and the alums and students are also very similar - successful, attractive and over confident, as well as elitist. Which our rival schools deem to be arrogance and snobbery. USC is rich and arrogant as well as classically beautiful, Stanford is over educated and privileged for the most part, and just as rich and arrogant. This is both sides of UT, the party element and the plan 2 top 10% studyholic population which resembles Rice. Think Matthew McConnaughey and Wes Anderson. 

It's why we dominate Hollywood and we are just as adept at high tech. Mike Judge is able to aptly mirror Silicon Valley because Office Space already personified the tech experience, as a stripped down bureaucratic version, sans absurd wealth and perks. However, the main Office Space characters inevitably took the same creative risks. 

And this is why UT faces the west coast, while AtM does not. Austin. Fandango. Bottle Rocket.

Austin Stories was hipster LA before LA was. The Central Austin music bar scene has been Portlandia since Slacker.

The point is, we swim and dive, we golf, we play tennis, and we play a hella good game of Olympic volleyball. We win Oscars. We read. We microbrew. We make a shit ton of money. We have too many resources. We're ironic. We have a famous marching band. And we underachieve at sports.

Nobody else in the Big 12 fits this bill. So that is why a merger doesn't happen. They don't want Baylor, Kansas sucks at football, OU will almost assuredly entertain SEC offers, Oklahoma State is the same thing as Oregon State, Tech is too stupid, Iowa State is less desirable than Colorado State, W Virginia is ridiculous and TCU = Kansas State.

I'd take just Texas and OU. Or Texas and Kansas. Or Texas and OK State. If 4, and one or all of those 3 schools say no, I'd take Kansas St, TCU and Boise State.

Honestly, they'd just want Texas. It's a fit. And all of that money the Big 12 is making is because of The University of Texas. They are the Dallas Cowboys and LA Raiders of the NFL. The NFL doesn't need those teams to win, but they need them to be relevant. 

If and when UT plays in the final 4, Fox's ratings will double. Not even USC can produce that. Not even Notre Dame. OU is basically Oregon. Nobody really wants to see them.

A USC, Texas, Michigan and Florida school final 4 is the ideal. 

That's all the TVs. Michigan is going global because they see what I see. It's improving their sports broadly. Miami is making their move to be THE Florida school. Jimbo Fischer saw their ambition and bailed. The SEC still revels in Bama. However, beating Bama is what the general public wants. Auburn can almost do it, Florida can't do it anymore, Georgia could be the next Clemson and switch off with them, but frankly, the teams which could beat them would be Tennessee and LSU. All LSU needs is an Austin area QB or a RG3, and a spread offense. All Tennessee needs is to wake up. AtM can also do it, but they are like OU. No defense.

Texas can build a defense. USC can build an offense as fast and powerful as any defense and find enough play makers on defense to beat you in the clutch, Michigan can be what Ohio State cannot, which is well liked, however Ohio State can cheat, and therefore they can be the same thing as Alabama, whereas Michigan has to be slightly more finesse, more professional, more ethical. Harbough is battling to harden Michigan. But of all the teams Bama would fear, there are really only two programs they do. Texas and Penn State. 

Texas has a Vince Young or an Earl Campbell in its high school system at all times. Imagine Adrian Peterson and Vince Young on the same team, with Sam Bradford and Colt McCoy as backups. With Cedric Benson and Jamaal Charles as backups. With RG3, Johnny Manzeil and Andrew Luck committed in up coming classes. With Nick Foles as a walk on. The state can give you an instant pro franchise. 3 deep in Heisman candidates and all americans at every position. Ladanlian Tomlinson was an after thought. Drew Brees was a nobody. Only Penn State seemed to beat these kinds of teams. Why? East coast steel worker brawn.

So what i am saying is this. 

Texas would win every year if it operated like an SEC team. It would be unfair. Alabama is an SEC Team with brawn. Manzeil and Missouri taught them they needed speed. Clemson and Auburn beat them with Vince Young play-alikes. The spread wins. 

If you can run the spread with 5 star athletes and you have a defense like the one Florida used to beat OU, like the one Texas is building, like the one Alabama and LSU has, you are at a maximum.

The University of Texas 83 defense with the 2005 offense would beat Jimmy Johnson's Miami teams.

The big 12 has hamstrung Texas in games, really they've  exploited them as a given, because promoting TCU, Baylor and Oklahoma State was more important. It created a deeper conference and this was necessary, for SOS would undermine the champion and weekly games wouldnt have relevance. The conference would be doomed if Texas dominated it. This has benefitted OU. They get a weakened Texas and nothing else to truly fear.

The thinking is really this. Have somebody run the table against multiple top 10 teams or lose only once and rebound because the PAC (with a down USC) is so weak and off the publicity radar, final four likelihood is in your favor. However they've learned that TCU, Baylor and OK St aren't preferable to a Washington or a second SEC team, so they will be skipped. OU won't be skipped, however, they won't win a NC nor reach the final, because they're competing with soft spread teams in a scoring fest, which means their defense isn't a priority. They've built a bend but not break defense which breaks at championship levels.

Texas is building a defense which cuts teams in half, especially their scoring output. And an offense which apparently desires to bully teams, rather than race with them. It reminds me of Penn State. It actually works. The USC, OU, Kstate and Missouri games show it does. They lost close games to the better teams, but athlete for athlete, they may have been better, they were certianly more physical and more intimidating. Will they go spread? When they have the ideal QB (and game breaking RB), yes. They already have the WRs. 

Texas is on the verge. It's not wait till next year, it's wait till Texas decides it wants it badly enough to simply take it. Vince Young thought this way. Do it now. Major Applewhite thinks this way. I'm certain Tom Herman thinks that way. There is oil underfoot, so strike it. If the Big 12 holds them back, Texas should leave it behind. This conference from here on out should be all about Texas. Do you want to dethrone the SEC? You'll need Texas then. Don't manipulate for them, just get out of Texas' way. They've lost enough for you. And been abused by refs for the T Boone Pickens' of the world. So That Dallas will stick with the conference, in the form of TCU, Baylor and OU. Aggy and LSU stole Houston they figured. The conference hasn't thrived with this ethos but it has survived, more solidly than expected. 

Houston is your jackpot though. And Texas is stealing Houston back for the Big 12. Thank them. The NFL is leaving money on the table to ensure a safe profit by ignoring classic teams and big markets to uplift lessers. It's why LA was a dormant market, it's why the Raiders were dangled there to upgrade two weaker franchises. The Riaders were used, but Las Vegas saw the money the NFL abandoned on the table. And took it. Texas is made of money, like LA and the Las Vegas casinos. Texas is a commodity state with a multiplier effect built in. The multiplier is power. Texas is pure unadulterated ambition, which manifests itself in exponential profit. It's why everybody hates Texas. It's why OU sure does. It's why the east coast does. Hollywood however doesn't. Hollywood is what happens when New York art combines with gold mine greed. Texas is Hollywood's favorite character as well as its target audience. Normal enough to sell to, weird enough to buy from. Texas sells itself. Literally. It sells its dirty goop. It sells its soil. It sells its soul. However it does not sell out. You do.

The 2005 Rose Bowl was the greatest college football game ever played. It equaled the hype. And why? The teams were mirror images, with not even the slightest difference, except one or two. Texas was the better story. California was the better venue.

OU isn't Texas. OU lost badly the year before to the same team Texas matched and beat. The 2008 National Championship saw OU lose again. In 2009 a lesser Texas team than its 2008 team almost beat Alabama with its backup QB. Texas beat Ohio State and Michigan in its other BCS years.

Texas at its peak was better than the all time great powers of the west and the Midwest, and it was really denied a full shot at the east. The beasts of the east vs Texas at their best. This is why the Dallas Cowboys vs The NFC East is the highest realm of NFL football. And Cowboys vs Steelers is the ideal Super Bowl.

Texas "is" the wild west. They belong vying for king of the hill. Win some lose some, but make some money, they do, always. 

What starts here, changes the world. Start Major. Start VY. Start Sam Ehlinger. The University of Texas shoulds start (winning big). They should start kicking ass and taking names of those too stupid to see the bigger picture. Everything is big in Texas, the Last Picture Show is Texas'. The Eyes of Texas Are Upon You, because you have the cameras and you have the stage coach full of money. And Texas has the a better idea than you do of what to do with it. You film the STAR, on the biggest stage. That's what you do with it.

Texas is a sleeping GIANT. The boots are slumbering by the bedside, and the souls who wear them are covered in oil.

shocked-whoa-what-the-fuck.gif?w=685

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21347

Posted
Posted
On 8/5/2018 at 9:56 AM, Thiefery said:

Big 12 is fine, and I actually enjoy the early kickoffs since I live on the east coast.   I'm pretty confident that a Texas Tech/TCU game at noon gets better ratings than a VT/NC game here in VA at the same time.

The early games save me money.  I’m so tanked by the time im unloading on Pac late games, I might as well just venmo my bookie directly.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kopp0e

kopp0e 1135

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

By devaluing the conference network model that drove the previous round of realignment.

True, even as now the B1G is having issues with programming distribution even within it's own footprint with it's largest provider in Comcast...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hawkfan

hawkfan 60

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Cord cutters saved the Big 12.  Footprint means dick when no one cares, as the Pac 12 is learning.

9 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

By devaluing the conference network model that drove the previous round of realignment.

The PAC 12 made a really stupid decision by deciding to start their own network - they have no partners and no leverage.  That's the main reason their network is failing miserably.

The B1G only has 49% ownership of the BTN, but Fox has 51% ownership and has just as much incentive as the B1G to see the network succeed.  The deal with Comcast will get done because Fox has the ability to blackout B1G games on FS1 if a carrier doesn't carry the BTN.  I believe the B1G has already been lining up some key games on FS1 to setup problems for Comcast if they do hold out past 8/31 (I think Michigan/Nebraska might have been announced as a FS1 game with this dispute in mind).  The fact that Fox can blackout high demand games on FS1 gives them a lot of leverage.  This was another major reason Fox paid a premium for the B1G Tier 1/2 rights, because they knew it gave them more leverage w/ the BTN (by controlling games on FS1).

"Cord cutters" won't have much of an impact on the model once streaming TV sorts itself out.  The fact is, every channel, and consumers, benefit from bundling to some degree.  The internet is going to make it so you can have a lot more choice in what bundles you want to pay for (like pairing Youtube TV w/ Philo, for instance).  The problem is that the cost for TV got to a point where people weren't wiling to pay for it anymore, and the internet has provided a great solution.  A lot of people have a problem paying $120 a month for TV, no one probably complains at $40-$50 a month, which is what I'm spending on Youtube TV now, and I'm still paying the BTN, just like I was w/ DirecTV.  I'm just not paying DirecTV for their equipment and overhead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al_4_ISU

Al_4_ISU 12661

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, hawkfan said:

The PAC 12 made a really stupid decision by deciding to start their own network - they have no partners and no leverage.  That's the main reason their network is failing miserably.

The B1G only has 49% ownership of the BTN, but Fox has 51% ownership and has just as much incentive as the B1G to see the network succeed.  The deal with Comcast will get done because Fox has the ability to blackout B1G games on FS1 if a carrier doesn't carry the BTN.  I believe the B1G has already been lining up some key games on FS1 to setup problems for Comcast if they do hold out past 8/31 (I think Michigan/Nebraska might have been announced as a FS1 game with this dispute in mind).  The fact that Fox can blackout high demand games on FS1 gives them a lot of leverage.  This was another major reason Fox paid a premium for the B1G Tier 1/2 rights, because they knew it gave them more leverage w/ the BTN (by controlling games on FS1).

"Cord cutters" won't have much of an impact on the model once streaming TV sorts itself out.  The fact is, every channel, and consumers, benefit from bundling to some degree.  The internet is going to make it so you can have a lot more choice in what bundles you want to pay for (like pairing Youtube TV w/ Philo, for instance).  The problem is that the cost for TV got to a point where people weren't wiling to pay for it anymore, and the internet has provided a great solution.  A lot of people have a problem paying $120 a month for TV, no one probably complains at $40-$50 a month, which is what I'm spending on Youtube TV now, and I'm still paying the BTN, just like I was w/ DirecTV.  I'm just not paying DirecTV for their equipment and overhead.

If the Big 10 were expanding today, would they add Rutgers and Maryland?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hawkfan

hawkfan 60

Posted
Posted
On 6/5/2018 at 12:48 PM, utee94 said:

So as "boring" as the B12 is, neither the PAC nor the B1G excite me any more than that.

Right, you're always going to have "boring" games, no matter what conference you're in.  And you need some of them to pile up wins.

For UT/OU, the question comes down to what would tangible benefits would they get from moving?  Unless it was the right circumstances, I'm not sure they'd gain much as of now.  It would require 4+ schools coming with them to maintain some degree of regional identity, which means the PAC would need to go to 16, and the other three would probably have to be willing to go to 20 to accommodate that type of move.

As long as ESPN is willing to renew the LHN deal, UT might as well stay put.  If ESPN is losing money on the LHN and decides to dramatically reduce the terms or scrap it altogether, then things could get interesting.  The B1G is expected to pull down close to $52M for each school next year (less Rutgers/Maryland until they're fully vested):

http://footballscoop.com/news/big-tens-revenue-distributions-will-top-52-million-per-school-next-year/

If there is a significant revenue gap between UT/OU and the B1G revenue keeps going up, that could become a reason OU tries to make a jump when the GOR gets close to expiring, or at least uses that threat to leverage the best terms they can out of the Big 12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hawkfan

hawkfan 60

Posted
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

If the Big 10 were expanding today, would they add Rutgers and Maryland?

I assume they probably would, none of us can answer that question.  I think they're operating under the assumption that it's a lot easier to cultivate a fan base than it is to grow a city out of nowhere.  Those schools fit the academic profile, have large alumni bases, and are located in huge metro areas - they check every box except "football prestige".  I think their inclusions probably require that any further additions have some kind of national prestige (football most likely, or at least basketball).

Just two years ago the B1G renegotiated their TV deal and opted to go with only a six year deal rather than lock in their fat contract for a longer term (prior deal was a 10 year deal) - what does that tell you about what Fox/BTN think about "cord cutting"?  They obviously aren't worried about it or they would have opted for a longer term agreement.

I'm not going to operate under the assumption that I know more about the future of TV rights than Fox.

Edited by hawkfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al_4_ISU

Al_4_ISU 12661

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, hawkfan said:

I assume they probably would, none of us can answer that question.  I think they're operating under the assumption that it's a lot easier to cultivate a fan base than it is to grow a city out of nowhere.  Those schools fit the academic profile, have large alumni bases, and are located in huge metro areas - they check every box except "football prestige".  I think their inclusions probably require that any further additions have some kind of national prestige (football most likely, or at least basketball).

Just two years ago the B1G renegotiated their TV deal and opted to go with only a six year deal rather than lock in their fat contract for a longer term (prior deal was a 10 year deal) - what does that tell you about what Fox/BTN think about "cord cutting"?  They obviously aren't worried about it or they would have opted for a longer term agreement.

I'm not going to operate under the assumption that I know more about the future of TV rights than Fox.

When those schools were added, the main incentive was getting Big 10 Network carriage in those states.  At the time, the Big 10 Network was able to get itself on any cable package in states that housed it's schools.  The SEC Network was set up the same way.  With the exception of Nebraska (who would always make sense in a "football interest" standpoint), the schools selected were selected primarily for their ability to get the networks on as many paid cable subscriptions as possible.

Now that people are ditching cable, there's less value in this model.  Adding schools in largely populated areas only makes sense if they have a lot of fans willing to pay to keep watching them.  Rutgers and Maryland don't meet this test.  

There will always be a large interest, and therefore money, in college sports.  That's why Fox isn't worried about cord cutting.  But the idea that conference networks will be as lucrative as they once were, or that poaching schools from large population states is the way to maximize value for a conference that carries one seems to be dead.  The Big 10 Network isn't going anywhere, but the incentive to gobble up new states isn't what it was, which has made it easier for the Big 12 to compete financially, and as we've seen it's clearly in the middle of the P5 conferences.  Behind the SEC and B1G, but clearly ahead of the Pac 12 and ACC.  It does not have the same level of vulnerability that it did 8 years ago, and the change in the TV landscape is a big factor.

Edited by Al_4_ISU
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thiefery

Thiefery 5110

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, hawkfan said:

The PAC 12 made a really stupid decision by deciding to start their own network - they have no partners and no leverage.  That's the main reason their network is failing miserably.

The B1G only has 49% ownership of the BTN, but Fox has 51% ownership and has just as much incentive as the B1G to see the network succeed.  The deal with Comcast will get done because Fox has the ability to blackout B1G games on FS1 if a carrier doesn't carry the BTN.  I believe the B1G has already been lining up some key games on FS1 to setup problems for Comcast if they do hold out past 8/31 (I think Michigan/Nebraska might have been announced as a FS1 game with this dispute in mind).  The fact that Fox can blackout high demand games on FS1 gives them a lot of leverage.  This was another major reason Fox paid a premium for the B1G Tier 1/2 rights, because they knew it gave them more leverage w/ the BTN (by controlling games on FS1).

"Cord cutters" won't have much of an impact on the model once streaming TV sorts itself out.  The fact is, every channel, and consumers, benefit from bundling to some degree.  The internet is going to make it so you can have a lot more choice in what bundles you want to pay for (like pairing Youtube TV w/ Philo, for instance).  The problem is that the cost for TV got to a point where people weren't wiling to pay for it anymore, and the internet has provided a great solution.  A lot of people have a problem paying $120 a month for TV, no one probably complains at $40-$50 a month, which is what I'm spending on Youtube TV now, and I'm still paying the BTN, just like I was w/ DirecTV.  I'm just not paying DirecTV for their equipment and overhead.

I pay $210 a month to Verizon Fios for the ultimate package (which includes the sporting, premium channels and yes the LHN) and quantum internet.  I just signed up for another two year contract because I was about to pay more with bundling and internet.  This a la cart shit can get out of hand .. doesn't help that I'm a boxing fan and have to keep showtime just for that plus the annual ppv or two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thiefery

Thiefery 5110

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

When those schools were added, the main incentive was getting Big 10 Network carriage in those states.  At the time, the Big 10 Network was able to get itself on any cable package in states that housed it's schools.  The SEC Network was set up the same way.  With the exception of Nebraska (who would always make sense in a "football interest" standpoint), the schools selected were selected primarily for their ability to get the networks on as many paid cable subscriptions as possible.

Now that people are ditching cable, there's less value in this model.  Adding schools in largely populated areas only makes sense if they have a lot of fans willing to pay to keep watching them.  Rutgers and Maryland don't meet this test.  

There will always be a large interest, and therefore money, in college sports.  That's why Fox isn't worried about cord cutting.  But the idea that conference networks will be as lucrative as they once were, or that poaching schools from large population states is the way to maximize value for a conference that carries one seems to be dead.  The Big 10 Network isn't going anywhere, but the incentive to gobble up new states isn't what it was, which has made it easier for the Big 12 to compete financially, and as we've seen it's clearly in the middle of the P5 conferences.  Behind the SEC and B1G, but clearly ahead of the Pac 12 and ACC.  It does not have the same level of vulnerability that it did 8 years ago, and the change in the TV landscape is a big factor.

MD shouldn't have left, but when the money they were being flashed in front of them, hard to say no.  This last round of Realignment sucked.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al_4_ISU

Al_4_ISU 12661

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Thiefery said:

MD shouldn't have left, but when the money they were being flashed in front of them, hard to say no.  This last round of Realignment sucked.

All the former Big East and MWC schools had no choice.  The schools that left the Big 12 and ACC are a different story.

I think Aggy got what they wanted - deep down they knew they'd be the same 7 win program.  They just wanted to make a public display against Texas.  The others are hard pressed to say they've really improved anything by changing conferences (other than a few million more dollars), and Aggy certainly hasn't improved on the field.  Colorado has actually lost money by switching conferences, and they continue to occupy the same level of interest in Denver as a Pac 12 school that they did while part of the Big 12.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thiefery

Thiefery 5110

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

All the former Big East and MWC schools had no choice.  The schools that left the Big 12 and ACC are a different story.

I think Aggy got what they wanted - deep down they knew they'd be the same 7 win program.  They just wanted to make a public display against Texas.  The others are hard pressed to say they've really improved anything by changing conferences (other than a few million more dollars), and Aggy certainly hasn't improved on the field.  Colorado has actually lost money by switching conferences, and they continue to occupy the same level of interest in Denver as a Pac 12 school that they did while part of the Big 12.

Which is the reason why I chuckle when I see realignment scenarios of the Big 12 adding CU back in. If they did expand west, I'd rather them court Utah than CU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3830

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, hawkfan said:

If there is a significant revenue gap between UT/OU and the B1G revenue keeps going up, that could become a reason OU tries to make a jump when the GOR gets close to expiring, or at least uses that threat to leverage the best terms they can out of the Big 12.

OU just hit the $1BB brand valuation mark - passing up Alabama (Texas and tOSU are the other two above $1BB).  They aren't going anywhere.

Edited by JBJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...