Has Texas Really Destroyed the Big XII?

DenverSooner

New member
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
11,099
Reaction score
0
It seems pretty clear to me that Texas has destroyed the Big XII. My only concern is that conference realignment could impact my television coverage. I will not like it if OU is not always on TV in Texas like they currently are.

Honestly, I don't really care if OU ends the Texas series.
 
Just about all the Sooner fans I know want to stay in the BIG 12 - 3, or at the very least keep the RRS a viable option for a non-conference, at least in Football. That is one of the oldest Rivalries in the country. We lose regional rivalries once we join a SEC or the PAC. Texas for sure is one of the culprits but I'd have to say Beebe should shoulder most of the blame. Don't let DeLoss push you around! Your the commissioner of one of the top 2 conferences in the country! Don't be gutless!
 
I want to retain the series but out of conference is fine with me. The confict of interest between ESPN and UT is too big. If the talk of ESPN giving Kansas $4 million to move a conference game to the LHN so they will have some programing is true that would be the last straw for me. I do not mind being in a conference with Texas but I would not want to be in Texas's conference if you know what I mean. We did fine playing them during the Big-8/SWC days and we can again.
 
I don't see how any "fan" of OU or UT could make that comment. :facepalm

Well, I'm an OU fan and I feel the same way. Let me explain why. Firstly, last season when OU was thinking about going west. The plan was for each team to play 2 games against teams of the other division plus their div. games. If the Pac goes to 16 teams, that could very easily be 3 games for a total of 10 conference games.

With 10 conference games and only 2 non-conference games. Would it be wise to play a perenial nation power every year in one of them. A couple of marginal tune-ups seem more prudent.

And secondly. If Texas goes independent or holds some patchwork Big 12 together for the purpose of preserving their good deals, then, the game would benifit Texas much more than Oklahoma. And I for one, have no interest in helping Texas.

I understand people like tradition and hate change. But, change is coming and at this late date,Oklahoma does not need that game to recruit Texas.
 
With 10 conference games and only 2 non-conference games. Would it be wise to play a perenial nation power every year in one of them. A couple of marginal tune-ups seem more prudent..

I say bring them on. As long as we split their pile of money for the game 50/50. No reason not to play them in basketball. Plenty of Non-conf games to go around.


And secondly. If Texas goes independent or holds some patchwork Big 12 together for the purpose of preserving their good deals, then, the game would benifit Texas much more than Oklahoma. And I for one, have no interest in helping Texas

I agree...no interest in helping them. There have been reports that the trip to Norman by the UT people is to try and get us to not look at leaving. PURE self interest for the horns

I understand people like tradition and hate change. But, change is coming and at this late date,Oklahoma does not need that game to recruit Texas.
Sad but true. This is like a wave building up. Should be interesting to see when it finally breaks.
 
I don't see how any "fan" of OU or UT could make that comment. :facepalm

When I was in undergard the Nebraska game was a more important game in the sense that Nebraska was the better team. Additionally, I am sick of Texas. If they want to push everyone around, let them push around Rice, Utep, Texas State, Norht Texas State and Houston. The UT alumni can win all their games against second teir Texas schools and claim to be National Champs while the rest of us know they are chumps.
 
I think not going after 2 teams to fill the void and keep the conference game ended the Big 12 but yeah you can argue that Texas' ego got Nebraska and Colorado to leave therefore ending the Big 12. But the Big 12 was very unstable the last few years with Missouri threatening to leave for the longest time. Colorado thinking about the PAC 10 for the last couple decades. With 10 teams left the Big 12 wasn't going to last long.
 
Texas for sure is one of the culprits but I'd have to say Beebe should shoulder most of the blame. Don't let DeLoss push you around! Your the commissioner of one of the top 2 conferences in the country! Don't be gutless!

This.

Texas is responsible for some of it, but mostly because Beebe allowed it. Beebe also did an incredibly poor job of keeping the original 12 together. Colorado seemed like they were ready to leave regardless, but they would've been easy to replace. No way he should've let Nebraska get away so easily. Retain them, add a school like BYU to replace Colorado and the conference is stronger than it was and everyone's more or less happy.
 
This.

Texas is responsible for some of it, but mostly because Beebe allowed it. Beebe also did an incredibly poor job of keeping the original 12 together. Colorado seemed like they were ready to leave regardless, but they would've been easy to replace. No way he should've let Nebraska get away so easily. Retain them, add a school like BYU to replace Colorado and the conference is stronger than it was and everyone's more or less happy.



Doesn't really matter who's to blame because the damage has already been done. Beebe caved in and let Texas get this network, and that can't be undone. There is absolutely no reason to stay in a conference where you have two powerhouses a couple so so schools and a bunch of atrocious schools.
 
This.

Texas is responsible for some of it, but mostly because Beebe allowed it. Beebe also did an incredibly poor job of keeping the original 12 together. Colorado seemed like they were ready to leave regardless, but they would've been easy to replace. No way he should've let Nebraska get away so easily. Retain them, add a school like BYU to replace Colorado and the conference is stronger than it was and everyone's more or less happy.

Pretty much every commissioner since the conference's inception has been poor and were the whorns puppet. You could change commissioners every day and long as the whorns were running the conference, as they have been, you'd have the same results.
 
When I was in undergard the Nebraska game was a more important game in the sense that Nebraska was the better team. Additionally, I am sick of Texas. If they want to push everyone around, let them push around Rice, Utep, Texas State, Norht Texas State and Houston. The UT alumni can win all their games against second teir Texas schools and claim to be National Champs while the rest of us know they are chumps.

Guess I don't see it that way. I think Arkansas, Nebraska, and aTm are a bunch of BABIES. They couldn't beat UT, so they took their ball(s) and went home. UT doesn't push OU around. Heck, I'm not even afraid of UT had they gotten the LHN up and running exactly how they wanted to.

I think it's pathetic to run from UT. And if OU does that, I'll call it pathetic then too.
 
If we end up in the PAC, I'm for renewing our annual rivalry with Nebraska......PAC vs. Big 10.
 
Doesn't really matter who's to blame because the damage has already been done. Beebe caved in and let Texas get this network, and that can't be undone. There is absolutely no reason to stay in a conference where you have two powerhouses a couple so so schools and a bunch of atrocious schools.

I don't really have a problem with Texas having its own network (as long as they're not broadcasting high school games).

I think it could've worked had the Big 12 and Beebe provided the leadership to help each school start its own network. Allowing each school control over a certain amount of their content wouldn't be a bad thing IMO (let's say 1st and 2nd tier rights go to the major networks and are divided evenly, then everything else is up to the schools to decide). With a little leadership and perhaps aiding in the start-up costs to an extent, I think the Big 12 could've been innovative in how they approached individual networks.

But instead they just let Texas have theirs and left everyone else to figure it out on their own.
 
I don't really have a problem with Texas having its own network (as long as they're not broadcasting high school games).

Yep, that was the only thing that bothered me, and it was shot down pretty early.

Besides, I don't know about other schools, but OU has it's own network. Sooner Sports Network (SSN). I watch countless basketball games on it every year. Why should UT be frowned upon for trying to include football in theirs, and for making it "bigger"? They shouldn't. All schools have that option.
 
I don't really have a problem with Texas having its own network (as long as they're not broadcasting high school games).

I think it could've worked had the Big 12 and Beebe provided the leadership to help each school start its own network. Allowing each school control over a certain amount of their content wouldn't be a bad thing IMO (let's say 1st and 2nd tier rights go to the major networks and are divided evenly, then everything else is up to the schools to decide). With a little leadership and perhaps aiding in the start-up costs to an extent, I think the Big 12 could've been innovative in how they approached individual networks.

But instead they just let Texas have theirs and left everyone else to figure it out on their own.

ESPN put up $300,000,000 plus all of the production to help Texas out alittle bit with the startup cost. That is not small change and well beyong the means of most everyone. And added to the reality that it would take years of growth to become profitable. Even if OU could have pulled it off on their own, it would be a risky undertaking. And still years in the making starting from scratch. When the conference agreed to the network deal. It wasn't anticipated that ESPN would start picking winners and losers.

And it wasn't just the high school games. ESPN offered Kansas $4,000,000 to put their game with Texas on the Longhorn network. Another bad deal for everyone but Texas,ESPN, and Kansas. An individual school just doesn't have the money to compete with that kind of stuff. OU knows that. And that is why they are getting out while the getting is good. ESPN is the real villian here. Remember, ESPN does not have the Big 12 broadcast rights. Apparently they did not like it. And Texas is greedy enough to go along.
 
I don't really have a problem with Texas having its own network (as long as they're not broadcasting high school games).

I think it could've worked had the Big 12 and Beebe provided the leadership to help each school start its own network. Allowing each school control over a certain amount of their content wouldn't be a bad thing IMO (let's say 1st and 2nd tier rights go to the major networks and are divided evenly, then everything else is up to the schools to decide). With a little leadership and perhaps aiding in the start-up costs to an extent, I think the Big 12 could've been innovative in how they approached individual networks.

But instead they just let Texas have theirs and left everyone else to figure it out on their own.


A network by itself wasn't the worst thing ever. The big problem started when the only heavyweight in sports media launched the network, and now has a vested interest in the success of Texas football.


Also, I don't think any other school in the XII can have a successful television network, even Oklahoma. We simply don't have the population to make it a profitable endeavor. It's even more of a problem for other schools.
 
Guess I don't see it that way. I think Arkansas, Nebraska, and aTm are a bunch of BABIES. They couldn't beat UT, so they took their ball(s) and went home. UT doesn't push OU around. Heck, I'm not even afraid of UT had they gotten the LHN up and running exactly how they wanted to.

I think it's pathetic to run from UT. And if OU does that, I'll call it pathetic then too.

I am not saying run from UT. Honestly, in the 25+ years since I first went to OU, UT really hasn't won the OU v. Texas game more than a handful of times when it mattered to OU and have lost many times when it mattered to both teams. When Vince Young was quarterback OU had already lost a couple of games. McCoy beat OU in 2008 when it mattered but OU still went to the BCS Championship game. In 2006 and 2009 OU had already lost games (2006 mattered because the only loss was Oregon and everyone knows OU won that game). Outside of those wins you have to go back to the 1980s to find an OU Texas game where OU had a season that really mattered and lost to Texas. Honestly, I would say it goes all the way back to 1980 and 1979. The Gibbs years didn't really matter because we all knew he would lose to Colorado and Nebraska (I wanted OU to win). Blake and Schnellinburger were jokes (Captain Kangaroo tied Texas).

All I am saying is that if realignment happens and OU can't play Texas every year it is not the end of the world. I am much more interested in winning conference and national championships than playing the self proclaimed greatest program in the history of college football.
 
The problem is that without enough what I'll call "Top 25" conference members, the conference simply isn't viable any more.

I think everyone despises the way Texas tries to throw their weight around. It's just easier to ignore their antics when your team wins their share of games against them, as we have. However, when it reaches the point where their attitude has run off 2 quality conference members in Nebraska and Texas A&M, you can't ignore them any longer. Being a member of a conference as weak as the Big XII is becoming simply isn't an option.
 
Back
Top