Pac-12 will not expand

[GreenGuy123]

I just heard on sports center that the PAC 12 will not expand. I think this can only be good for us. Thoughts?

[Green Mean]

Everything is lip service right now. Whether its this week, this summer or within the next couple of years it will all shift at some point. The Big East still has a lot of unfinished business and they may be big players as to what happens next since they only have 6 football conference members left.

[mgfan]

If this is true it is good. It will give time for UNT to start winning some games and put itself in an even better situation.

[BonfireBrian]

ESPN Edited September 21, 2011 by BonfireBrian

[Harry]

ESPN

This is good news for us in my opinion. The Big East and Big 12 could both add teams which could open up spots. East Carolina has already applied to the BE and it wouldn't shock me to see Houston be given consideration by the Big 12 given A&M's departure.

[Rudy]

This is good news for us in my opinion. The Big East and Big 12 could both add teams which could open up spots. East Carolina has already applied to the BE and it wouldn't shock me to see Houston be given consideration by the Big 12 given A&M's departure.

The Pac 12 decides to stay at 12 on the same day that OU says it is willing to keep the Big 12 intact, with a couple of conditions? Coincidence? I wonder if ATM would consider staying in the Big 12 if those conditions were met by t.u.?

Either way, this should be good news for us.

[CMJ]

The Pac 12 statement included a phrase commenting on the cherishing the equality of league members. A shot at Texas I believe.

[foutsrouts]

No one has any idea how all this will shake out, because the decision makers themselves are clueless. I suspect that the PAC has some qualms about getting their butts kicked on a regular basis by TX/OK teams, and possibly has some academic qualms in regard to TT and Okie State. There is no telling how this will shake out; for now.

[LongJim]

the PAC has some qualms...in regard to TT and Okie State. There is no telling how this will shake out; for now.

Big 12 may add 1 or more schools to keep the conference together apparently. BYU (as has been mentioned before) is a front runner.

OU president David Boren's statement on the events of last night:

“We were not surprised by the Pac 12′s decision to not expand at this time. Even though we had decided not to apply for membership this year, we have developed a positive relationship with the leadership of the conference and we have kept them informed of the progress we’ve been making to gain agreement from the Big 12 for changes which will make the conference more stable in the future. Conference stability has been our first goal and we look forward to achieving that goal through continued membership in the Big 12 Conference.”

Translation: We didn't have the votes. Now all of a sudden, the Big 12 doesn't look so bad to Dave.

Allegedly, the PAC schools voted 6-6 to expand to include OU/OSU. They needed 9-3 favorable, minimum. PAC regents notified Texas Legislature members that OU/OSU did not have the votes without Texas, and the Texas regents were notified not to leave for the PAC, as OU/OSU/Tech weren't going to get in without them, and Texas does not want to modify LHN.

Beebe has been told that he needs to step down. OU is demanding concessions from LHN--including sharing of revenue. We'll see what happens.

[kalebschumann]

So in a best case scenario...

Big 12 fills from the Big East.

Big East fills from the C-USA

C-USA fill from..... Sun Belt? And we hope that it's NT?

Are our facilities alone enough to get us into C-USA? Or do we HAVE TO win THIS YEAR to be marketable for the C-USA? Will one year of winning make a point? I doubt it.

[Comet7745]

Well it seems that this whole conference shuffling might take a few more years to actually happen. Things can still radically change next week, but perhaps the storm has passed us? If that's the case, you guys have a couple of years to prove your case once McCarney's system starts kicking in.

Oh, and why did the PAC-12 say no to the Big XII 4? Here's why: http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6998978/answering-questions-ever-changing-college-sports-landscape

Not surprised.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Comet7745

[PlummMeanGreen]

If this is true it is good. It will give time for UNT to start winning some games and put itself in an even better situation.

Absolutely...we must do as you say.

GMG!

[emmitt01]

The Pac 12 statement included a phrase commenting on the cherishing the equality of league members. A shot at Texas I believe.

You better believe it. Word I heard on the ticket this morning was that the Pac-12 didn't want to expand b/c UT wasn't willing to agree to equal revenue sharing. I then heard that an "inside big XII source" is stating that UT is willing to stay in the big XII so long as TCU is not an expansion target.

[cdizzle86]

You better believe it. Word I heard on the ticket this morning was that the Pac-12 didn't want to expand b/c UT wasn't willing to agree to equal revenue sharing. I then heard that an "inside big XII source" is stating that UT is willing to stay in the big XII so long as TCU is not an expansion target.

Interesting...

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

What was the biggest hang-up in the Pac-12's decision not to expand?

Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott couldn't get Texas to agree to equal revenue sharing with the Longhorn Network. Scott worked hard to get the Pac-12 to agree to equal shares after an era in which UCLA and USC had an advantage. The 12 remaining schools didn't want rules for 15 and another set for Texas.

Shocking.

[Eagle1855]

What was the biggest hang-up in the Pac-12's decision not to expand?

Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott couldn't get Texas to agree to equal revenue sharing with the Longhorn Network. Scott worked hard to get the Pac-12 to agree to equal shares after an era in which UCLA and USC had an advantage. The 12 remaining schools didn't want rules for 15 and another set for Texas.

Shocking.

Not really. But in any case, why should they concede? They are the only reason most of the Big 12 teams make the money they make. Everyone is celebrating A&M "doing what's best for them" but I can't see how this is much different. Texas doesn't have to care just like the rest of the teams don't have to put up with it. Again, Baylor athletics wouldn't be anything if it hadn't been aligned with Texas.

Seriously though, is there anyone on this board that would honestly advocate UNT leaving $300M on the table because we care so much about how MTSU or Troy feels about us having a lucrative TV deal, in the interest of being "fair" to our conference mates? I sure as hell wouldn't. And I think anyone that says otherwise is deluding themselves.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

You sure as hell wouldn't. But, other conferences have no problem with it. The Pac-12 won't budge on it - as was already reported. Neither will SEC or Big Ten.

Face it...no one wants to play by Texas' rules. They've got a Frankenstein situation with their network. They can scream "capitalism", "markets", and whatever else they want. If no one wants to participate in their shenanigan, they can't be forced to do so.

As this and other articles state, to keep OU on board they'll have to alter and share the profits of their network.

Other schools not named Baylor just aren't going to do it.

By the way, it's 1:41 in the afternoon. Someone remember to wake Baylor up from their nap, change their diapers, and feed them their bottle.

[Eagle1855]

You sure as hell wouldn't. But, other conferences have no problem with it. The Pac-12 won't budge on it - as was already reported. Neither will SEC or Big Ten.

Face it...no one wants to play by Texas' rules. They've got a Frankenstein situation with their network. They can scream "capitalism", "markets", and whatever else they want. If no one wants to participate in their shenanigan, they can't be forced to do so.

As this and other articles state, to keep OU on board they'll have to alter and share the profits of their network.

OU doesn't have an option in the Pac-12 without Texas, that has already been made clear.

In my opinion, neither UT nor OU has a truly "better" option than the Big 12 remaining intact. At least, geographically speaking. Sure, the ACC or the Big 10 may show some interest without the LHN or other hindrances, but neither of those conferences is going to take an OK State or a Texas Tech. So that leaves both schools traveling a ton. Texas doesn't want to play baseball in the Big 10. The SEC would love an OU involved, but that's the only move that would make any sense in this situation.

So the best bet for all schools involved is to work out a fair, equitable first and second tier deal for all teams involved in a conference that geographically makes sense. And if A&M had stayed, this easily would have been the second-best football conference in the nation this year, and probably next. Pretty strong basketball conference, too.

Again, just my opinion. I think all this realignment stuff is stupid. Baylor, too.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Eagle1855

[MeanGreenTexan]

OU doesn't have an option in the Pac-12 without Texas, that has already been made clear.

In my opinion, neither UT nor OU has a truly "better" option than the Big 12 remaining intact. At least, geographically speaking. Sure, the ACC or the Big 10 may show some interest without the LHN or other hindrances, but neither of those conferences is going to take an OK State or a Texas Tech. So that leaves both schools traveling a ton. Texas doesn't want to play baseball in the Big 10. The SEC would love an OU involved, but that's the only move that would make any sense in this situation.

So the best bet for all schools involved is to work out a fair, equitable first and second tier deal for all teams involved in a conference that geographically makes sense.

Again, just my opinion. I think all this realignment stuff is stupid. Baylor, too.

I need to put my tin foil cap on because I believe you have concocted some type device that is reading my mind.

[UNT90]

Not really. But in any case, why should they concede? They are the only reason most of the Big 12 teams make the money they make. Everyone is celebrating A&M "doing what's best for them" but I can't see how this is much different. Texas doesn't have to care just like the rest of the teams don't have to put up with it. Again, Baylor athletics wouldn't be anything if it hadn't been aligned with Texas.

Seriously though, is there anyone on this board that would honestly advocate UNT leaving $300M on the table because we care so much about how MTSU or Troy feels about us having a lucrative TV deal, in the interest of being "fair" to our conference mates? I sure as hell wouldn't. And I think anyone that says otherwise is deluding themselves.

I hope UT is happy being an Independant that goes 5-7 or 7-5 every year and is only relevant in college football the 1st or 2nd week of the season, cause that is where they are headed as long as they insist on keeping the LHN money to themselves.

Bear with me:

No other conference is going to take TU with the LHN in it's current form. Texas won't let it go. UT will be forced to stay in the Big 9, which will dissolve because members of that conference don't like the LHN and will bail as quickly as possible to another conference. Texas being Texas willl think that they don't need anyone and will go independent. When they try to put together their schedule, they are going to find that only the cream of the crop BCS schools will do home and homes with them. Why would a Clemson or T A&M play Texas when they are playing a BCS conference slate which easily takes care of their SOS? Hope Texas likes playing Alabama, OU, Ohio St., LSU all in the same year, because this is where they are heading.

If Texas fans liked last years performance, just wait until UT becomes the Notre Dame of the South and you can have that record every year.

This will end up costing the Horns much more money in the end than ESPN paid them for the LHN.

Edited September 21, 2011 by UNT90

[TheColonyEagle]

What was the biggest hang-up in the Pac-12's decision not to expand?

Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott couldn't get Texas to agree to equal revenue sharing with the Longhorn Network. Scott worked hard to get the Pac-12 to agree to equal shares after an era in which UCLA and USC had an advantage. The 12 remaining schools didn't want rules for 15 and another set for Texas.

Shocking.

So if UT wouldn't agree to equal revenue sharing in the PAC12, what makes anyone think they'll be willing to agree to OU's demands on the network to keep the Big 12 together?

They said it right on the radio this morning, OU and UT have sh!t in their bed.

Now they may just have to lay in it.

[LongJim]

Nothing shocking about it at all.

Texas will probably cut a deal on their tier 1 and 2 money to let OU save face from getting played by Scott--even though OU would make LESS with equal tier 1 and 2 revenue distribution. I'll bet Texas won't budge on tier 3, nor should they--but that's what this is really all about. That and the fact that schools said "no" to a Big 12 network when it was suggested--and "no" to a Lone Star Network when it was suggested. Now that a huge tier 3 deal was pulled off with ESPN, people are pissed. Yet it's no different than any other league.

Kansas made over $7 million in unshared revenues off third tier rights in 2009-2010 alone and nobody threw a big hissy fit over that. Texas and OU sure didn't--even though they only made about $300K each on third tier rights. The ACC had no problems with UNC making over $11M two years ago. The SEC didn't fold, and aTm is apparently all right with Florida making over $100 million from Sun on their 3rd tier, and the Big 10 isn't breaking up because tOSU sold its third tier rights in a $110M deal--you know--in that conference of "equity" and all.

Hopefully, when UNT sells their third tier rights--and I hope it's for millions--Monroe won't come groveling with their hand out. Or perhaps UNT could just pre-empt that and give Monroe some of Apogee's naming rights money. I mean, even though UNT's administration and alumni had to do all the work to deliver the goods, everybody should share the wealth, right? In the interest of "equity", and all.

To me, it's the same level of absurdity.

Edited September 21, 2011 by LongJim

[untjim1995]

Nothing shocking about it at all.

Texas will probably cut a deal on their tier 1 and 2 money to let OU save face from getting played by Scott--even though OU would make LESS with equal tier 1 and 2 revenue distribution. I'll bet Texas won't budge on tier 3, nor should they--but that's what this is really all about. That and the fact that schools said "no" to a Big 12 network when it was suggested--and "no" to a Lone Star Network when it was suggested. Now that a huge tier 3 deal was pulled off with ESPN, people are pissed. Yet it's no different than any other league.

Kansas made over $7 million in unshared revenues off third tier rights in 2009-2010 alone and nobody threw a big hissy fit over that. Texas and OU sure didn't--even though they only made about $300K each on third tier rights. The ACC had no problems with UNC making over $11M two years ago. The SEC didn't fold, and aTm is apparently all right with Florida making over $100 million from Sun on their 3rd tier, and the Big 10 isn't breaking up because tOSU sold its third tier rights in a $110M deal--you know--in that conference of "equity" and all.

Hopefully, when UNT sells their third tier rights--and I hope it's for millions--Monroe won't come groveling with their hand out. Or perhaps UNT could just pre-empt that and give Monroe some of Apogee's naming rights money. I mean, even though UNT's administration and alumni had to do all the work to deliver the goods, everybody should share the wealth, right? In the interest of "equity", and all.

To me, it's the same level of absurdity.

Long Jim,

Part of the problem is that Texas was first with their own national network. They already have more money than God and now they get more. But they could have easily avoided this mess by just saying from the start that no recruits will ever have their HS games on the LHN. It was the one thing that A&M used to finally get away from Texas' shadow into the SEC, a conference they have wanted to be in for 20 years. OU is now complaining loudly about it. This LHN will either drive Texas to independence, eventually, as no superconference will accept it, or they will just create a conference that they will control for programming.

[LongJim]

Part of the problem is that Texas was first with their own national network. They already have more money than God and now they get more.

That's the entire problem. The issue is, neither aTm nor OU want to come out and say this, because it doesn't allow them any dignity.

But it's puzzling to me why aTm would go SEC when Florida and Auburn and Bama already have 3rd tier revenue that dwarfs what the Ags currently make. Oh, but they'll at least have that extra $1.5 million tier 1/2 money so they're "equal" in that bastion of fairness in the southeast.

EDIT: One more thing--IMO, the main issue with the LHN is that it's the LHN. Not the Big 12/LHN, or the PAC 10/Texas network. The Texas "brand" is what has everyone torqued more than anything else. Oh, that and the fact that they actually pulled it off.

Edited September 21, 2011 by LongJim

[VideoEagle]

That's the entire problem. The issue is, neither aTm nor OU want to come out and say this, because it doesn't allow them any dignity.

But it's puzzling to me why aTm would go SEC when Florida and Auburn and Bama already have 3rd tier revenue that dwarfs what the Ags currently make. Oh, but they'll at least have that extra $1.5 million tier 1/2 money so they're "equal" in that bastion of fairness in the southeast.

EDIT: One more thing--IMO, the main issue with the LHN is that it's the LHN. Not the Big 12/LHN, or the PAC 10/Texas network. The Texas "brand" is what has everyone torqued more than anything else. Oh, that and the fact that they actually pulled it off.

Since A&M has been trying to pull off their own network for years, the fact Texas pulled it off when the Aggies could not is the real root of the problem!