What's worse than us smoooching Texas' proverbial buttocks...

[coolm]

...is the fact that we actually told them we were doing so.

geezus.

Did someone miss the forest for the trees on this deal?

This is and will be horrid.

 

[Sooner Quick]

I don't get it. Maybe something will come out that makes me get it but I highly doubt it. I am skeptical and disappointed in this whole deal.

 

[ben]

When someone is far superior in academics and money-making ability...what can you do when the name of the game is money?

 

[Sooner Quick]

When someone is far superior in academics and money-making ability...what can you do when the name of the game is money?

Go with the option that makes more money. Staying in a 9 or 10 team Big 12 is not that.

 

[Sid]

Go with the option that makes more money. Staying in a 9 or 10 team Big 12 is not that.

When you make a deal with the devil, you always get burned. Texas controls every aspect of the conference. All conference decisions will go through Austin. He who has the gold makes the rules.

 

[skyvue]

When you make a deal with the devil, you always get burned. Texas controls every aspect of the conference. All conference decisions will go through Austin. He who has the gold makes the rules.

Do you think it would be different in the Pac 10 or SEC, that we would walk in as the new kids on the block and rule the roost?

Not a chance.

 

[coolm]

Do you think it would be different in the Pac 10 or SEC, that we would walk in as the new kids on the block and rule the roost?

Not a chance.

No. But in the SEC I'd expect the "power brokeraging" to be more evenly divided and not all vested in one school.

 

[MsProudSooner]

No. But in the SEC I'd expect the "power brokeraging" to be more evenly divided and not all vested in one school.

In the SEC, everyone abides by the rules. The University of Spoiled Children is their role model.

Doug Gottleib made a good point on the radio. While it's true that there are a lot of TV's in California, not very many of them are traditionally tuned to college football.

 

[crawfish]

Look at it this way. Texas has always given us, through our annual game, access to Texas recruits and TV markets, increased exposure, and a fan base larger than 3.5M Oklahoma residents can allow. And they pay for it by watching us become the far better football program.

Texas may be the spoiled rich kid with all the toys, but we're the truly talented one who takes what they give us and outperform them. Texas may be using us, but we're using them, too.

 

[WaymanFan]

No. But in the SEC I'd expect the "power brokeraging" to be more evenly divided and not all vested in one school.

Yeah, TWO schools rule in the SEC, at least in football. The SEC officials did everything humanly possible to make sure Alabama and Florida got to play each other as undefeateds so one would go to the title game. Just ask any Arkansas fan, as sheer corruption was the only reason they didn't beat Florida. I don't think think for a second that OU would ever get the benefit of the doubt in that conference.

 

[stoops4pres]

Look at it this way. Texas has always given us, through our annual game, access to Texas recruits and TV markets, increased exposure, and a fan base larger than 3.5M Oklahoma residents can allow. And they pay for it by watching us become the far better football program.

Texas may be the spoiled rich kid with all the toys, but we're the truly talented one who takes what they give us and outperform them. Texas may be using us, but we're using them, too.

+1

 

[bocabull]

What is this nonsense? To the best of my knowledge the new agreement gives OU, TX and aTm the exact same guarantee of $20 million per season and any amount above that is based on appearances.

So Texas retains the right to start their own network, I'm sure OU could too.

It's up to us to win on the field. We did not give Texas anything. To the contrary we were treated as their equal.

 

[OU84]

Look at it this way. Texas has always given us, through our annual game, access to Texas recruits and TV markets, increased exposure, and a fan base larger than 3.5M Oklahoma residents can allow. And they pay for it by watching us become the far better football program.

Texas may be the spoiled rich kid with all the toys, but we're the truly talented one who takes what they give us and outperform them. Texas may be using us, but we're using them, too.

+2

 

[campbest]

UT already makes a $40MM more in revenue than OU, an extra $5-8MM isn't going to make any difference. Now, if this new TV deal doesn't meet projections, then I am going to be upset.

I just fail to see how Texas has some overwhelming advantage now, where is it? Appears that Joe C and Boren aligned the university with the proverbial cash cow at this point in time. In the short-run its a more than worthy solution given the projections on a new TV deal.

With that said, all of this is irrelevant if the Big 10 pushes beyoned 12 teams, every other conference will have to adjust their business model. People are just being blinded by their hatred for UT, if we were talking about A&M calling the shots, most would not being raising as much of a fuss.

We're hitched onto the gravy train right now, we're never going to be a leader in the network's eyes.

In addition, as bball fans you should love this because this almost solidifies OKC receiving a few Big XII tournaments with the lost of the football championship game.

 

[r2b1]

It's up to us to win on the field. We did not give Texas anything. To the contrary we were treated as their equal.

Agree whole-heartedly with the first sentence.

The last sentence would be utterly laughable if I wasn't so pissed off about the whole thing. What B-U-L-L, Boca!

 

[skyvue]

The last sentence would be utterly laughable if I wasn't so pissed off about the whole thing. What B-U-L-L, Boca!

What did we give up? What did texas gain that we didn't?

Be specific, please. No one else that ascribes to your school of thought is doing so.

What are you angry about?

 

[r2b1]

What did we give up? What did texas gain that we didn't?

Be specific, please. No one else that ascribes to your school of thought is doing so.

What are you angry about?

I actually have two issues:

1. Why wasn't OU's stance publicly "we will do what is in the best interest of OU" vs "we will follow Texas"? I agree, we gained a lot of $$; however, who is running our PR?

2. The loss of Nebraska - I think that was a loss for the conference. Clearly they were the best team in the North. So why did it take them leaving to somehow come up with this new deal? It couldn't have taken place prior to them leaving? (Not that they would stay anyway)

 

[boksooner]

I actually have two issues:

1. Why wasn't OU's stance publicly "we will do what is in the best interest of OU" vs "we will follow Texas"? I agree, we gained a lot of $$; however, who is running our PR?

2. The loss of Nebraska - I think that was a loss for the conference. Clearly they were the best team in the North. So why did it take them leaving to somehow come up with this new deal? It couldn't have taken place prior to them leaving? (Not that they would stay anyway)

The answer to number 2, allegedly, is that the loss of Nebraska galvanized a number of business and tv executives that wanted to stop conference expansion before it hurt their business interests.

 

[Mr.B!!!]

The answer to number 2, allegedly, is that the loss of Nebraska galvanized a number of business and tv executives that wanted to stop conference expansion before it hurt their business interests.

To me that is the really, really weird part of all this...there is some black hand trying to keep the B12 together? WTH?

Oh, and what troubles me is that we seemingly let national perception grow that we are significantly less important than UT...a school that we compete both on and off the field with [i.e. recruiting].

 

[Sid]

Go with the option that makes more money. Staying in a 9 or 10 team Big 12 is not that.

I disagree. I don't think a Pac-16 conference TV network would generate that much money for its members. I think Baylor, OSU, KU, KSU, ISU, Tech, Mizzou and OU could generate a lot more money for themselves if they had their own TV network. Beside, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

I don't get it. Maybe something will come out that makes me get it but I highly doubt it. I am skeptical and disappointed in this whole deal.

Here are some excerpts from Jake Trotter's article that might change your mind on the matter. After I finished reading his article, it made complete sense to me. IMO, Beebe ends up looking like a genius.

TV money held Big 12 together
By Jake Trotter

Instead, while no new TV deal was reached, Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe and network executives from ESPN and Fox convinced Big 12 officials their TV payouts would eventually match that of any other conference.

No new TV deal? Eventually?

The Big 12's TV deal with Fox expires in 2012, while a higher-playing deal with ESPN runs through the 2015 football season.

According to Sports Business Daily, Fox executives promised to deliver a lucrative and extended TV deal when it came time to renegotiate next year, while ESPN assured the Big 12 it wouldn't demand a lower rights fee with Colorado and Nebraska gone.

Promised? Lucrative?

Sports Business Daily suggested Fox, in fear of having to compete with a "conference TV network” that Pac-10 expansion would have created

Fear? $ Now I understand why schools like Iowa State and OSU want their own network. Does Iowa have a larger population than Oklahoma? I know Texas has approximately 4.8 million kids in its school systems.

Said OU athletic director Joe Castiglione: "The value of the remaining members is strong and compelling.

Strong and compelling? As in iron-clad commitment?

Both Beebe and Castiglione were adamant the decision to keep the conference intact was about more than money.

lol If that is true, maybe he will reconsider the way they distribute tickets to the RRR.

http://newsok.com/tv-money-held-big-12-together/article/3468892

Did someone miss the forest for the trees on this deal?

I think Trotter's article raises some interesting questions. He mentioned Fox had a fear about having to compete with a conference TV network that Pac-10 expansion would have created. I was listening to the local sports radio guys down here this morning and they said according to Chip Brown, ABC/ESPN were concerned about having to pay out more money to the ACC/SEC if they were to add additional teams in order to keep up with the Pac-10.

If that is the case, why did the Big 12 relinquish its leverage/advantage for a future promise? Why did Beebe not ask the two networks to sit down at the table and renegotiate the current contracts that are in place? If this is such a great deal for everyone, and if Beebe was willing to give Nebraska an ultimatum, why does he not have an iron-clad commitment from the remaining conference members?

To me that is the really, really weird part of all this...there is some black hand trying to keep the B12 together? WTH?

Collusion? Tampering?

Oh, and what troubles me is that we seemingly let national perception grow that we are significantly less important than UT...a school that we compete both on and off the field with [i.e. recruiting].

If I were a UT coach, I would show Joe's statement to every recruit. I can't imagine the uproar that would be created in Columbus if tOSU AD would come out publically and proudly tell the Buckeye fans they were going to follow whatever Michigan decided to do.