I thought it was about television money?

[thebigabd]

Texas stands to earn between $20 million and $25 million annually in television revenue in the reworked deal, including money from its own network, according to Orangebloods.com. Because the Big 12 has unequal revenue sharing, the deal will mean more money for Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma, who all would receive at least $20 million annually from the new deal.

The other seven schools in the Big 12 would make between $14 million and $17 million, doubling what they currently receive in TV revenue.

The reports indicate everyone in the Big 12 is going to be making the money they want....

For some reason it has turned into "we want to join the pac-10 for tv money" to "we dont like Texas taking the lead" and "we dont like Texas being in control"...

You know that OU wouldn't be taking the lead or be in control in the Pac-10 deal, right? You know that OU would be behind USC, UT, and possibly UCLA in that deal, right? We would be less significant in the Pac-16 than we are now.

 

[Mr.B!!!]

The reports indicate everyone in the Big 12 is going to be making the money they want....

For some reason it has turned into "we want to join the pac-10 for tv money" to "we dont like Texas taking the lead" and "we dont like Texas being in control"...

You know that OU wouldn't be taking the lead or be in control in the Pac-10 deal, right? You know that OU would be behind USC, UT, and possibly UCLA in that deal, right? We would be less significant in the Pac-16 than we are now.

I can't speak for anybody else, but while we lost a traditional rival in NU, we had the opportunity to replace them with USC.

We had a chance to play Arizona and Arizona State instead of KState every year. We had a chance to play Oregon and Washington every few years instead of playing Iowa State and Baylor every year.

We (might) have lost KU in hoops, but we gained Arizona and UCLA. We kept our biggest rivals in UT and oSu for the foreseeable future.

Sorry, but compared to what could have been, this "new" Big 12 is garbage.

 

[thebigabd]

I can't speak for anybody else, but while we lost a traditional rival in NU, we had the opportunity to replace them with USC.

We had a chance to play Arizona and Arizona State instead of KState every year. We had a chance to play Oregon and Washington every few years instead of playing Iowa State and Baylor every year.

We (might) have lost KU in hoops, but we gained Arizona and UCLA. We kept our biggest rivals in UT and oSu for the foreseeable future.

Sorry, but compared to what could have been, this "new" Big 12 is garbage.

You are forgetting (I mean, excluding them to make your argument look better) about Missouri and A&M...

There is a reason why OU didn't want this Pac-10 deal from the beginning. Having USC, UCLA, Washington, and Oregon to all the best teams in this conference is not a good deal for OU.

 

[Hecubus]

I can't help but feel like Texas told the conference to squeal like a pig and everyone started oinking. This is massively disappointing.

 

[coolm]

It's not so much the TV money as what the TV money is based on.

The PAC-10 + a few offered this HUGE market and the accompanying TV coverage plus more national exposure ...the SEC offered a bigger market, some increased exposure in a couple of key areas, and a few excellent rivals...this league offers crap by compare and the everything seems dictated by Texas' marketability and whims vice markets and rivals.

 

[Mr.B!!!]

You are forgetting (I mean, excluding them to make your argument look better) about Missouri and A&M...

There is a reason why OU didn't want this Pac-10 deal from the beginning. Having USC, UCLA, Washington, and Oregon to all the best teams in this conference is not a good deal for OU.

I'm ambivalent about Missouri and aTm. In fact, I expect that one of those two schools will be the catalyst when we are all dealing with this garbage again in a year or two.

For various reasons, it appears that about 80-85% of the "OU fans" out there are disappointed about not making the move. They may all have different reasons, but the disappointment is resounding.

 

[MsProudSooner]

I'm ambivalent about Missouri and aTm. In fact, I expect that one of those two schools will be the catalyst when we are all dealing with this garbage again in a year or two.

For various reasons, it appears that about 80-85% of the "OU fans" out there are disappointed about not making the move. They may all have different reasons, but the disappointment is resounding.

Is the disappointment resounding or do disappointed people make more noise?

I really don't care one way or another. I can see advantages to both and I know that my knowledge of the in depth details is nil. I trust Joe C & Boren to make a decision based on what's best for the university and not to cut off their nose to spite their face simply because they want to one-up Texas.

 

[Mr.B!!!]

Is the disappointment resounding or do disappointed people make more noise?

I really don't care one way or another. I can see advantages to both and I know that my knowledge of the in depth details is nil. I trust Joe C & Boren to make a decision based on what's best for the university and not to cut off their nose to spite their face simply because they want to one-up Texas.

Not sure, but what I am seeing and hearing is not positive, and it is not solely from hardcore fans and message board types. I don't care to one-up UT, I just don't want to be stuck with them. Fortunately, OU has been aggressive in the non-conference football scheduling, basketball this conference will be pretty good [definitely got rid of some dead weight there]. Just really had my hopes up for the potential of this new conference...seemed to sync up with the NBA being in OKC, more exposure on the west coast....now just the same old crap without NU and CU.

 

[Cheno]

Not sure, but what I am seeing and hearing is not positive, and it is not solely from hardcore fans and message board types. I don't care to one-up UT, I just don't want to be stuck with them. Fortunately, OU has been aggressive in the non-conference football scheduling, basketball this conference will be pretty good [definitely got rid of some dead weight there]. Just really had my hopes up for the potential of this new conference...seemed to sync up with the NBA being in OKC, more exposure on the west coast....now just the same old crap without NU and CU.

So basically you just wanted a new wife because you were tired of the old one not because she was any better.

Sorry, but compared to what could have been, this "new" Big 12 is garbage.

The new Big 12 is still a better hoops conference than the Pac-10.
The Pac-10 has been pathetic as of late. UCLA and Arizona will be weak again next year. Who is good.....just Washington.
In Andy Katz's preseason top 25 their are 4 Big 12 teams (KU, KSU, Baylor & Mizzou) and 1 Pac-10 team (Washington). Interestingly enough the 4 Big 12 teams were schools that people here were making fun of being left out.
Heck the Mountain West, Conference USA, the Horizon League and the West Coast Conference have the same amount of preseason Top 25ers as the Pac-12. Heck, when San Diego State is the best team in California is the Pac-12 really that good? A bunch of overblown hype is all it was.

 

[Max Power]

The new Big 12 is still a better hoops conference than the Pac-10. The Pac-10 has been pathetic as of late. UCLA and Arizona will be weak again next year. Who is good.....just Washington.
In Andy Katz's preseason top 25 their are 4 Big 12 teams (KU, KSU, Baylor & Mizzou) and 1 Pac-10 team (Washington). Interestingly enough the 4 Big 12 teams were schools that people here were making fun of being left out.
Heck the Mountain West, Conference USA, the Horizon League and the West Coast Conference have the same amount of preseason Top 25ers as the Pac-12. Heck, when San Diego State is the best team in California is the Pac-12 really that good? A bunch of overblown hype is all it was.

Are we really talking about preseason rankings on an OU board after last season. Preseason rankings don't mean anything. Now on that note, I was excited for leaving the Big 12, but that was due to revenues we would receive in a new conference. If the Big X really pays out like they say they will then we will be just fine until expansion happens again. then we get spend another 3 months doing this all over again

 

[coolm]

I agree that the Pac-10+ wouldn't have been stronger immediately...but UCLA and Az won't be down long. Now it IS true the New Big-10(2) is going to be a pretty strong bball confernce top to bottom. It's just, IMO we could have benefitted from the increased exposure.

 

[Cheno]

Are we really talking about preseason rankings on an OU board after last season. Preseason rankings don't mean anything. Now on that note, I was excited for leaving the Big 12, but that was due to revenues we would receive in a new conference. If the Big X really pays out like they say they will then we will be just fine until expansion happens again. then we get spend another 3 months doing this all over again

Okay, let's talk postseason rankings. The final rankings last year had 4 Big 12 teams and 1 Pac-10 team. The Pac-10 had the same number in the top 25 as the Missouri Valley, the Ivy League and the Horizon League.
And the crappy Mountain West conference that people were making fun of had 2 and the West Coast Conference had 2.
So basically the Pac-10 sucked last year and will suck again next year.

 

[coolm]

give it a rest.

is there anyone who honestly believes UCLA and Az will be down that long? The PAC-10 historically does well in the NCAA"s even aside from UCLA's prior dominance and I seriously doubt those 2 programs + UW + Oregon + Stanford will spend much time on the mediocre or below side. I wouldn't even be surprised to see Oregon State pick back up again as the ghost of Ralph Miller haunts his court.

 

[sooner333]

I'm sure we'll all love the TV deal we're getting in SIXTEEN YEARS when we still have one more season to go and everyone else is on their third-generation contract. (If the rumors are true).

 

[Cheno]

is there anyone who honestly believes UCLA and Az will be down that long? The PAC-10 historically does well in the NCAA"s even aside from UCLA's prior dominance and I seriously doubt those 2 programs + UW + Oregon + Stanford will spend much time on the mediocre or below side. I wouldn't even be surprised to see Oregon State pick back up again as the ghost of Ralph Miller haunts his court.

I truly believe the Pac-12 won't consistently have more teams in the top 25 and in the big dance every year than the new Big 12.
We're stronger at the top with KU & Texas compared to UCLA & Arizona.
We're stronger in the middle with the likes of OU, KSU, Baylor, Mizzou, A&M & OSU than Washington, Oregon, Stanford, etc.
Really, it's been that way for the past decade or even since the formation of the Big 12.
If last year someone would came on here and said the Pac-10 conference was better than the Big 12 all of you would be saying they are crazy. The Big 12 got stronger by dumping the two worst programs in the conference. The Pac-12 got weaker by adding Colorado and probably Utah.

 

[thebigabd]

The Big 12 got stronger by dumping the two worst programs in the conference. The Pac-12 got weaker by adding Colorado and probably Utah.

An excellent point. Colorado is absolutely worthless. They have trash facilities, no recruiting ground, they are bankrupt, etc.

Colorado and the Pac-10 were banking on taking Colorado and hoping everyone would follow, and it nearly worked. However, it just blew up in their face and they got no better by causing all this trash.

To the contrary, the Big 12 became a better basketball conference and gave itself options to add more teams if it see's fit. Colorado and the Pac-10 just got f'd by this deal today.

 

[NickZepp]

The volatility of the conference right now isn't meant to keep the conference together. The pay scale thing will lead to a lot of this and others have pointed that out. But Mizzou was the one that started everything remember? And Texas A&M nearly went to the SEC. Who is to say 2 or 3 years from now when they aren't getting quite the money they thought, because of how sketchy the contract seems, and they aren't getting any respect compared to Texas. A&M may leave for anything also. And Texas is liable to leave this conference in a second for anything.

 

[TINY]

The volatility of the conference right now isn't meant to keep the conference together. The pay scale thing will lead to a lot of this and others have pointed that out. But Mizzou was the one that started everything remember? And Texas A&M nearly went to the SEC. Who is to say 2 or 3 years from now when they aren't getting quite the money they thought, because of how sketchy the contract seems, and they aren't getting any respect compared to Texas. A&M may leave for anything also. And Texas is liable to leave this conference in a second for anything.

I am sure the new contract will have some kind of buyout so teams who do not want to fulfill their word are punished monetarily.

 

[Cleavon Little]

Just like the buyouts we are going to get from CU and NU by not dissolving.

And the rivalry upgrade thing doesn't fly with me, since this is all based on football. Whoever posted that was right: whodathunk a year ago we'd be preaching the virtues of the Pac-10 over the Big 12. You'd get laughed out of any bar in Oklahoma or Texas for making some of these arguments a year ago.

Not sure on better exposure either. OU and TX are two of the best teams of the past decade, or we would have had no choice but to join another conference. People know who we are.

 

[stoops4pres]

And the rivalry upgrade thing doesn't fly with me, since this is all based on football. Whoever posted that was right: whodathunk a year ago we'd be preaching the virtues of the Pac-10 over the Big 12. You'd get laughed out of any bar in Oklahoma or Texas for making some of these arguments a year ago.

Not sure on better exposure either. OU and TX are two of the best teams of the past decade, or we would have had no choice but to join another conference. People know who we are.

What worries me is that while Nebraska and Colorado had their troubles since the early 2000's, they have the tradition (especially Nebraska) that gives them the potential to always be very good programs. The Big 12 lost both of those programs. So while the conference has been very good without those two over the past few seasons, I fear that these microwave programs (Missouri, Kansas, Texas Tech) may not be so viable later down the road. And presumably without a title game (while Pac-10, Big 10, SEC, and ACC have them), and perhaps a diluted conference, I worry that should OU be neck-in-neck with another team for a shot at the title, they may not get the benefit of the doubt and get the nod. I guess we will see.

But while football got weaker overall losing Nebraska and Colorado, they've definitely gotten stronger in basketball given the fact that Neb. and Colorado were perpetual doormats. Will be tough having to play KU and K-State (now that Martin has that program thriving) twice a year.