fighting muskie wrote:
We've talked on here before about how the Big 12 will only hold together as long as Texas and Oklahoma are happy. But what would happen if Oklahoma became disenchanted and tired of Longhorn arrogance? Texas gets a much better deal from the special arrangement made last year that kept the Big 12 together. Texas got the Longhorn Network but what did the Sooners get? Sure they get more money for appearances on national television but Texas gets that too. Texas is making a fortune off of the LHN but Oklahoma can't turn their Tier 3 rights into that kind of money--the state of Oklahoma doesn't have enough households to make a Sooner Network viable and that deal made last year strictly forbade the creation of a Big 12 Network per Texas's wishes.
With the start of the new SEC Network and their equal revenue sharing plan the Sooners could make far more money in the SEC. I would have to think that the SEC would want the Sooners if the Sooners wanted in. The only hurtles to clear would be breaking free of the political baggage of Oklahoma St and nullifying the Big 12 GoR.
What would Texas do then? Would they continue to play king of the Big 12 mountain or would the rest of the league be too weak for them to stay? What would that fall out look like?
IF (and it is a REALLY BIG IF) OU actually wanted into the SEC and could separate from OSU (good luck on THAT happening) then the SEC has to come up with #16. Who would fit the bill? kU has never had strong enough football historically (only 8 conference championships and 12 all-time bowl appearances) and the Chickenhawks only really care about basketball. FSU, GA Tech and Clemson have same state issues. UNC/NC State are ACC locked (and have the same GOR problem as OU).
But the question was about UT...UT I think would make the remaining Big 12 schools try to cower at their "power" now. But that might also create a backlash like A&M had when the LHN was announced. The other schools would have to make a decision, cow tow to UT or tell the 'Horns to go to Hell and either get in line with the other league members or get booted from the league. I think by that point, ISU, kU, KSU, OSU, BU, TCU, and TTU would have the gumption to get other members like them (see Colorado State, New Mexico U, Wyoming, Houston, and/or maybe South Dakota State) and allow WVU to find a new home if they want. I know that the current members of the Old Big 8 plus some of the Old SWC members are really tired of UT "ruling the roost" and might just have it in them.
People love to demonize greedy greedy Texas, but let's look at the facts...again.
Texas and Oklahoma (and Nebraska/A&M FWIW) all made more than 20 million a year in the last TV deal which was partially unequal revenue sharing based on TV appearances. Iowa St, Baylor and K State all made less than 10 million a year while Oklahoma St, Texas Tech and Kansas (+ Mizzou/Colorado) bounced around in between those 10-20 depending on the year.
Now with the equal distribution sharing on 1st/2nd tier rights Iowa St, Baylor, and K State all make more than 20 million a year (~23 I think) which is the same as Texas and OU who should honestly be making over 30, and NTM that WVU was making less than 10 million inthe Big East and TCU was making less than 5 in the MWC and both will soon also be making 20+ too. And with Nebraska, A&M, Mizzou, and Colorado even Oklahoma St, Texas Tech and Kansas are making more money too.
For 3rd party rights sure hate Texas for getting a good deal but every other schools in the conference has now also sold their 3rd party rights for 1-3 million a year to FOX and Kansas also has a similar 2 million dollar deal setup with ESPN.
So Texas gave up over 10 million a year and all it wanted was its third party rights which the conference wasn't doing anything with since the conference network was voted down by a majority vote (i.e. not just Texas). So at the end of the day Texas is basically making the slightly more money (~5mil which goes to the University and not the Athletic Dept BTW) than they were before the equal distribution and everyone else in the conference is making more...except Oklahoma.
So if any school other than OU in the Big 12 complains about the money aspect they really have no room to talk since they all made more money (including Texas) while Oklahoma should be making ~35mil but is barely topping 25mil a year.
The 3rd party rights are in the Big12 bi-laws and require a unanimous vote to change (which was how they got Texas to sign the GOR) so nothings going to change, OU like Texas signed it too and is also stuck until 2025 when the GOR expires. Unfortunately OU is attached to OSU and noone wants them (PAC12 said no, Big Ten vetos their academics, and the SEC only want high quality schools like OU/TX/FSU/VT/UNC) so they are stuck. Even if they made a conference network the distribution from that would equal ~3 million a year per member which is the amount amount OU is getting currently, it would help the Iowa St, Baylor, K St's and only punish Texas (which I guess is everyone's goal) for doing a better job a managing their 3rd party rights like everyone agreed.
But hey let's say they turn the LHN into the Big 12 Network and split the money evenly...what's next? Should Texas also not be able to get federal more grant money than OU, or should we only be able to recruit 3 star recruits like Kansas does, withdrawl from the AAU because its not fair to Texas Tech, or fly to every conference event and circle around for hours so that everyone has the same travel time as WVU? Give me a break, people that hate Texas will always find another reason, just like there will always be some other reason why life isn't fair.
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...