Has Texas Really Destroyed the Big XII?

[Sawyer]

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.

I could see ESPN and the Big 12 potentially working together to create a "network" for each school. Maybe I'm wrong, but my main point is that Beebe didn't even try. There was no apparent attempt to lead. He just left it open for schools to do whatever they want, when he should've known full well that it would lead to issues.

 

[DenverSooner]

I could see ESPN and the Big 12 potentially working together to create a "network" for each school. Maybe I'm wrong, but my main point is that Beebe didn't even try. There was no apparent attempt to lead. He just left it open for schools to do whatever they want, when he should've known full well that it would lead to issues.

He should have gotten a Big XII network. Give the big boys a better revenue share but share revenue. Split 30% based simply on participation in the league. Split 20% based on size of the schools. Split the final 50% on performance with 85% based on football and 15% based on basketball. If you don't like this one, come up with a different plan but come up with a plan. It could have been done and it could have worked for everyone.

 

[Sawyer]

He should have gotten a Big XII network. Give the big boys a better revenue share but share revenue. Split 30% based simply on participation in the league. Split 20% based on size of the schools. Split the final 50% on performance with 85% based on football and 15% based on basketball. If you don't like this one, come up with a different plan but come up with a plan. It could have been done and it could have worked for everyone.

Disagree pretty strongly with your % distributions (and MU has benefitted from uneven sharing).

Revenue should've been shared evenly. It is in every other conference. The big problem with the Big 12 wasn't the size of the piece of the pie schools were getting... it was the size of the pie. That was fixed with the most recent TV deal, but the damage was already done.

I think the 1st and 2nd tier football rights should be sold to networks and the revenue distributed evenly among all teams, then for 3rd tier rights (plus a significant number of basketball games and all other sports) are up to the schools to market themselves, if they so choose (with support/guidance through the Big 12 and with aid from ESPN).

Texas could have their Longhorn network and market/sell it however they want. If they want to take a $300million risk with it, they're free to do so. Missouri could have its own online network, and Iowa State could do whatever it is they do.

The key is (or was... we're well past the "is" stage) to create a system in which all teams feel they have a chance while also giving schools a certain level of autonomy if they want that. It's fair, but still gives teams some control over marketing their brand on TV, something no other conference does.

 

[coolm]

I agree with Denver. Tuck Fexas.

 

[sybarite]

Nebraska had been a member of the Big Six, Big Seven, Big Eight, or Big Twelve since 1907, except for three years around 1919. That's the year that Oklahoma became a state. Nebraska had been associated with OU for the entire lives of your grandparents.

Yet, after destroying the SWC, it took only 14 years for UT to end relationships that had been there for a hundred years. Colorado had joined in the late forties.

Let's see. The conference headquarters had been moved to Dallas from Kansas City where it had been since the days of Aunt Eller. Texas seemed to control every discussion. So, schools that had been loyal to each other since Oklahoma was a state ended their relationships.

A hundred years is a long time. That's a solid relationship. Texas ended it.

 

[sys]

if the big 12 ends, and if you want to blame any one school more than others, the school most responsible for the conference's death will have been ou.

 

[bocabull]

Hate the game not the player. This is business. Every conference is working to get stronger by adding marquee programs. Every program is trying to get included in that "marquee" category.

There are only so many top recruits and so many broadcast time slots. The world is built on haves and have nots. The haves are joining forces and leaving the have nots behind. You either qualify as a marquee asset or you don't. Every school in contention has had decades to cement their status. If they get left out they have nobody to blame but themselves.

 

[NickZepp]

if the big 12 ends, and if you want to blame any one school more than others, the school most responsible for the conference's death will have been ou.

Really the end of the Big 12 was not keeping the rivalries. OU/Neb should have been saved as a rivalry game every year and the conference may still be around today. I don't really like Barry Trammel but he had a great blog about a week ago. The Big 12 when teams like CU, Nebraska, A&M that are in this region start to leave there's not much the Big 12 could do. There aren't many teams you can add to make the conference better.

 

[sys]

OU/Neb should have been saved as a rivalry game every year and the conference may still be around today.

hindsight is 20/20, but i agree.

on the other hand, i doubt if ou would have been excited to have to play ut, a&m and nu every year. they would have had what would have appeared to be the hardest schedule in the conference year in and year out.

 

[NickZepp]

Nebraska wasn't that good from about 03-09, and A&M has never been any good till last year.

 

[DenverSooner]

if the big 12 ends, and if you want to blame any one school more than others, the school most responsible for the conference's death will have been ou.

Why?

 

[Salt City Sooner]

Nebraska wasn't that good from about 03-09, and A&M has never been any good till last year.

A&M has averaged 24 wins per year over the last 7 seasons. They haven't been all that flashy by any means, but they've been pretty danged efficient.

 

[Sawyer]

A&M has averaged 24 wins per year over the last 7 seasons. They haven't been all that flashy by any means, but they've been pretty danged efficient.

Talking about football, I believe, which is what matters most in expansion talks.

 

[sys]

Why?

because the big 12 is/was viable as long as it contains ut and ou.

 

[MsProudSooner]

because the big 12 is/was viable as long as it contains ut and ou.

The Big XII was only viable after A&M left IF it could have added another program of Texas A&M's stature or better. It couldn't, so the conference wasn't viable any more. You need more than 2 flagship programs for a conference.

 

[WTSooner]

because the big 12 is/was viable as long as it contains ut and ou.

Agree and disagree.

Technically, yeah, you are probably right. But if the SEC expanded with quality teams. And the PAC-10 expanded with quality teams. And the ACC expanded with quality teams. Where exactly would that leave a 9-10 team Big 12? Pitt turned us down. Can't remember what other Big East team there were reports of us wooing, but they weren't interested, I guess. BYU never seemed, publically, overly interested.

If things stayed as they were, no expansion for the ACC and SEC, I'd have no problems trying to keep the Big 12 alive by adding a Houston or something. With everybody else getting better, OU and UT are "too good" to wait around.