They wouldn't lose 33% of their TV sets. Those same sets would still get the Big 12 programming because of A&M, Tech and Baylor. A&M has the seventh-largest enrollment in the US. Which means their fans are in Houston and Dallas.

The Big XII's problem would be that the national networks wouldn't give them as much money without the draw of UT. No Red River shootout. No Texas-Texas A&M game. No Texas-Kansas in hoops. That's going to hurt the TV deal significantly.

Which is why the Pac 10 would offer Texas in the first place. Texas could probably make more money in the Pac-12. Their TV deal is up and they could use Texas to get a much bigger pay day than what the Pac 10 and Big 12 are currently getting. They could form their own network with the ACC for the non-national games and make more money there, too. (and having 12 in each conference would help negotiations between the ACC/Pac10 to make it happen).

Texas, financially and academically, could easily be better off in the Pac-12 than Big XII... unless the politicians step in. To me, it's not really a question of "would they go?" but "can they go?"

Of course, it would take vision and planning on the Pac-10's part, which might be the biggest problem.

The more fascinating thing would be the Big XII's response.


Also, brief tangent... imagine if the Pac 10/ACC TV Network idea came up now and the ACC was still at nine schools. Their footprint would be quite small. Pacific coast, southern atlantic coast, that's it. But they'd have room to add five teams... Texas, Colorado to the Pac 10, and the ACC goes after Notre Dame, Syracuse and UConn?!??

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942

Which is why I put the A&M comment in the last statement (if TA&M is invited over Colorado). JMO, if the Pac 10 would create a network, having UT and UTA&M would get their network on the state of Texas. I don't know if Texas - by itself - could get a Pac 10 network in the state of Texas at the same rate if they had BOTH Texas AND TA&M. That's the key.

Another point: The state of Texas has ~ 3X more TV households (TVHHs) than Colorado and Utah (6.8 million versus 2.4 million) for conference network TV purposes. So the key is Texas. The Pac 10 *could* still expand with Colorado and Utah, but the big money is in the state of Texas where lots of TV households are there for a newly created conference network.

Suppose with only Texas, the Pac 10 can get $0.35 per customer for a Pac 10 network * 12 months per year * 6.8 million TVHHs = 28.6 million. Add Colorado and they can charge the 'normal' $0.70 per month * 12 months * 1.6 million (Colorado) = 13.44 million

Total for UTexas and UColorado ~ $42 million

Now, add TA&M over Colorado and by doing that, a Pac10 network can charge $0.70 per customer in Texas = 57.1 million! If you assume 50% of that goes to the conference (like the Big 10), then you have ~ $28 million for the conference just from the state of Texas. Even if you bump it up from $0.35 to $0.60 per customer, you still get ~ $49 million rather than the $42 for Colorado and Texas.

As you can see, it depends on how much they can get in Texas with and without the Aggies for their Pac 10 network. TA&M also has the advantage of being a travel partner too which the Pac 10 seems to like.

Texas' ability to "bring the entire state" isn't the issue at all. They can because the games will have to be on TV in Austin, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Waco and points in between. There's about 16 million people in those cities. That's going to mean more TV dollars. If only one quarter of those people are UT fans, that's still way more TV sets than Utah can bring.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942

JPSchmack and Panther,please explain how TEXAS can make MORE overall athletic revenue in the PAC-10 as opposed to the Big 12? I do not understand how that can happen as long as Texas keeps it's current lucrative FB rivalries and sweetheart Big 12 tv deal.Will the PAC-10 also give Texas a sweetheart TV deal?


Thanks
Freaked

JP,

We're pretty close to being both on the same page here I think. I'm not arguing for Utah. Certainly adding Texas to the Pac 10 would get the Pac 10 games in Texas for National TV games. This would also increase the value of the ABC/ESPN TV contracts in FB and BB. There we agree for sure.

My only argument is for the creation of a Pac 10 network - much like the Big 10 network - would be one of the jewels for inviting Texas and to get that network in Texas. This is where new money is being made and can be new revenue streams for conferences that they control and will only increase in value. Whether the Pac 10 decides to try for a BTN is something interesting - especially if it's in the same mode as the BTN (secondary games in FB, BB, olympic sports, etc). I mean think about how much the Big 10 is getting for their ABC/ESPN contract versus the BTN. IMO, this has to be taken into account for future revenue streams.

The concern for the Pac 10 is if they can get the network in Texas for the same rate if they have only Texas. For example, would it be similar situation with the Big 10 and Pennsylvania? I'm sure the beancounters will have worked out the financial projections though.

Ultimately, you may be correct in your assumption that the revenue from UTexas + Colorado > UTexas/TA&M. It's fun to speculate sometimes.

I understand your point. At the end of the day, it might be a wash or not signficant enough or even a net loser.

Certainly, I would expect Texas to prefer to stay in the Big 12 than move and they won't move unless there is a *significant* revenue increase. I'm sure any proposals would have to satisfy the athletic department. From a travel and TV revenue standpoint, a move to the SEC would probably be better than the Pac 10 but you get into issues of 12 versus 14. By my estimates, though, a fully functional Pac 12 TV network (with the state of Texas) would make $4-$5 million more per school versus a fully funded Big 12 network. Whether that significantly increases their bottom line to get them to move, is something I can't say for sure unless I had more info about projected national TV contracts and TV appearence, travel, bowl revenues, NCAA tourney credits, donations, attendance, etc.

The SEC explored Tex/A&M when it last expanded. The SEC essentially had A&M committed, but A&M was pressured by Texas interests and legislative elements to stay with Texas who preferred an option other than the SEC.
SEC would have been fine with A&M and not Texas.

Panther,thanks for the response.
I am looking for an ACC announcement regarding a new TV deal by the end of next summer and announcements regarding new TV deals for the PAC -10 and Big 12 on or before Labor Day 2011.
These may or may not include conference networks.
I would be very surprised if there was any realignment by these three conferences PRIOR to their next tv deal announcements.

Also,Texas reportedly makes about $138 million per year in athletic department revenue.They generate about $33.4 million per year in FB ticket sales and student fees.I doubt that they would change conferences for a few million more per year especially if they had increased travel expenses and would jeopardize decades of rivalry building.

However,if after these upcoming tv announcements,it turned out that the PAC -10 made a lot more in tv dough,maybe the PAC-10 could entice one of the Big 12 "have -nots" to jump leagues.But at this time I do not believe that will happen for various reasons.

Thanks
Freaked

Freaked,

The Big XII deal is locked in thru 2016. The SEC and Big Ten have bigger deals. The Big XII deal on average, is on par with the average take of the ACC and Pac 10 deals, with Texas getting probably the biggest payout of each individual school.

The Pac 10 and ACC deals are up after 2011, so they'll most likely surpass the Big XII deal.

The Pac 10, with Texas, could team with the ACC for a national TV network (which has been discussed) and get revenues similar to the Big Ten network. Especially when you consider that (a) the Big Ten has 11 schools games to offer and the Pac12/ACC would have 24; and (b) The additions of Texas/Colorado would make it virtually a national network.

And yes, the Pac 10 could give Texas a pretty sweetheart deal because they would add 15 million people to a viewing area that's around 35 million now (for just the Pac 10).

Especially, if their ideal situation comes to fruition, which would be ESPN launching ESPN West (while totally fabricated on my part, they added a LA studio and run LA SportsCenter, and it doesn't really seem far fetched, does it?). That network would basically be ESPN on the West coast and Texas, and ESPN 3 on the East/Central.




As for rivalries between Texas and Oklahoma, A&M, Tech and Baylor...

(a) It's Texas. 101,096 people came to see Texas vs UL Monroe. They won't lose money playing USC, Oregon and the rest of the Pac 10.

(b) Why do they have to stop playing them?

For basketball, Texas can play A&M, Oklahoma, Tech and Baylor every year and still pummel 10 cupcakes.

In football, they've played the Red River Shootout 104 times. And 90 times the game was a non-conference game.

Play Oklahoma every year in Dallas, A&M in a home and home. Baylor/Tech can be mixed in with the non-conference schedule.

Yeah, they can't play all four every year and still wax a FCS team, but Texas would be just fine ditching Baylor and Tech. It's Baylor and Tech who care about that rivalry.

In the 1990s, Texas TRIED to ditch Baylor and Texas Only the SEC turning down A&M and government intervention kept A&M, Texas, Baylor and Tech from being in THREE different conferences.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942

JPSchmack,thanks for the post.

Your Texas to the PAC-10 scenario seems to be based on your notion that the Big 12 tv deals are "locked in" thru 2016 so that the PAC-10 could/would just "swoop in" and "scoop up" Texas and other Big 12 schools because the Pac-10 would presumably have a conference tv network and the Big 12 would not and that league would be powerless to do anything about it.

However,the basic premise of your PAC-10 raiding scheme is flawed.
The current Big 12 tv deals consist of the FSN portion which ends after the 2011-2012 school year and the ABC/ESPN portion which "could" run thru 2016 if the Big 12 does not trigger it's "opt out" clause and start a conference tv network.This info has been public for awhile and was previously covered in the "Conference Television Money" section in this board.

Here is previously posted USAToday reprint article indicating that "the Big 12 and Pacific-10 are eying the expiration of media contracts in 2011-12."Link at http://www.freep.com/article/20091112/S ... o-TV-deals

Here is SBJ article regarding possible Big 12,Pac-10, and ACC conference tv networks indicating that "the Big 12"s cable deal with FSN expires after the 2011-12 season,but its ESPN deal goes thru 2016-UNLESS THE BIG 12 DECIDES TO CREATE A CHANNEL,WHICH GIVES THE LEAGUE AN OUT".Link at http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/63036

As I previously posted,I am expecting the ACC to announce their next TV deal package by next summer and the PAC-10 AND the Big 12 to announce tv deals on or before Labor Day 2011.

It appears that your PAC-10 raid scenario is deeply flawed.
However,If you have information to the contrary please post it here or in the "Conference Television Money" section.

Thanks
Freaked

JPS, the SEC turned down A&M in the 90s??? That's a prior unknown revelation 20 yrs. late.

Freaked,

Thanks. I probably should have looked there instead of just googling stuff.
It's far-fetched, yeah, but interesting discussion.



Is that sarcasm? I can't tell.

Here's a great link on How the Texas Four ended up in the Big 12:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/MYSA ... l8528.html

Here's another decent one on Arkansas starting it all:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/MYSA ... l8522.html

The cliff notes of both:
Arkansas AD Frank Broyles played golf in 1987 with SEC commish and Tenn AD. He told them "Hey, if you ever want to expand, just ask us. There won't be any hedging. We're going to come."

UT, A&M knew they couldn't leave first, and told Broyles he had to be the first to leave.

Arkansas was concerned those two would leave without them.

The Longhorns considered joining the Pac-10 or Big Ten (nothing serious).

A&M wanted to go to the SEC, with LSU sponsoring. The SEC wouldn't expand for anyone but A&M and Texas together.

UT didn't want to go to the SEC, the SEC opted not to expand.

Texas politics forced UT/A&M to negotiate for Baylor and Tech to go with them to the Big 8.

It was all driven by TV. The NCAA lost control of TV rights in 1984 when Georgia and Oklahoma sued and won. The College Football Association was created and managed TV contracts for 66 schools, but Notre Dame opened the door by leaving in 1991 for the NBC contract. Soon, the SEC left too for their own CBS deal and other conference followed suit. The CFA was dead by 1995.

Ever since, it's been survival of the fittest with TV money the #1 factor for conference affiliation.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942

JPS, it's more confusion by what you said earlier than sarcasm. My intend was not to discomfort. I have seen those articles, or similar from AP posted years back. They appear on this website, somewhere back. Thanks for the clarity offered with your remarks, and taking the time to refresh postings.
While it is understood, the SEC did want Tex/A&M together, it was for that particular moment, and implied, at the time, as leverage to court both. With Texas quickly taking itself out the picture for the SEC, and with A&M having advanced further with interest in and dialouge with the SEC, the dynamics were changing, almost daily.
The SEC plan was still determined to expand by two teams, with the securing of Arkansas as one of them. This was the catalyst that forced the breakup of the SWC which had rumblings of schools leaving prior to the Arkansas exit. Arkansas had the means to jump solo while the Texas schools were more bound by politics.
The SEC spoke to the two Florida schools before turning to South Carolina as #12. Rumor had it that there was another backup (perhaps West Virginia) if South Carolina did not get approved/join. The Alabama schools were not so keen on South Carolina, while Georgia was enthusiastically sponsoring them.
From the SEC perspective, the intent was to get the best "available and acceptable" schools contiguous or perhaps within their existing footprint. Unlike the PAC 10, the SEC did not have a necessary preference for schools "in pairs". Obviously UT would have have been a plum, but to imply A&M would have lacked merits on its own, does not appear to have been the case. Things get stated in early negotiations as bargainning chips, and to have sought one of the top Texas schools minus the other could minimize the possibility of even getting the "one". That happened.
Nevertheless, there was never a formal application by A&M to join the SEC and the SEC did not reject A&M by vote. If one looks at the ACC 2003 maneuvering per expansion, shifts in sentiment happened quickly that summer, and what is valid among "he said--she said" was often contradictory, and press versions were not always consistent. About the Syracuse tango alone, opinions still vary on their commitment level to leave the BE during the Presidents' negotiations on a potential bid never ultimately granted. OK, talking too much here, not getting into Virgina politics and related.