Non-Key Tweets

[DarthGrumpy]

Christopher Lambert ‏@theDudeofWV · 2h2 hours ago
The B12 is about to lose another yes vote on expansion.

Wesley Jackson ‏@WesJacksonUSF · 34m34 minutes ago
@theDudeofWV Baylor?

Christopher Lambert‏@theDudeofWV
@WesJacksonUSF Yes.

Christopher Lambert‏@theDudeofWV
@Mountaineer_Ste If Starr is out at BU the interim will not want to vote.

Not sure I get this. If the B12 does not expand and thus allowing them to create a network, the B12 is dead in less than 10 years. Baylor has a major investigation going on that could significantly hit their marquee program (football) which could set them back years on the field and in the pocketbook (see new football stadium). So if the B12 collapses in less than 10 years, where exactly is a small, religion based private university that could be at the bottom athletically and finally go? Whoever is leading Baylor at the time a vote happens, if it happens, should be screaming 'YES' when it comes to expansion.

 

[NEforceUConn]

............. Whoever is leading Baylor at the time a vote happens, if it happens, should be screaming 'YES, praise the Lord" when it comes to expansion.

Corrected it.

 

[CoastAtlantic]

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 4h4 hours ago
Thanks to @OmegaSupreme914 for pointing me into the direction on the "Turner kicking the tires" on B10 2nd half of media rights.

Expansion_crush ‏@Expansion_Crush 4h4 hours ago
@OmegaSupreme914 @posas13 what did you think about the podcast

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 4h4 hours ago
@Expansion_Crush @OmegaSupreme914 @posas13 Turner and Big Ten Basketball is an interesting dating game...I hope they get hitched.

Expansion_crush ‏@Expansion_Crush 4h4 hours ago
@flugempire @OmegaSupreme914 @posas13 me too. I like Turner NBA broadcasts. Over the air TV for FB. Won't need ESPN for visibility.

Aaron ‏@posas13 3h3 hours ago
@Expansion_Crush @flugempire @OmegaSupreme914 especially if they bring some of their other content to the cable channel w/ b10.

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 3h3 hours ago
@Expansion_Crush @OmegaSupreme914 @posas13 Turner/TNTpaid a boat load for partial for NBA package (along with ESPN)...still are making $$$

MH ver3 ‏@MH ver3 2h2 hours ago
Gee telling some WVU board of regents that expansion vote unlikely at upcoming meetings. Too many interim presidents.

MH ver3 ‏@MH ver3 2h2 hours ago
Hearing that Bowlsby has made it known to Baylor board that he feels Briles leaving would be in the best interests of the B12

Christopher Lambert ‏@theDudeofWV 7h7 hours ago
How about we let Baylor clean their own house and make whatever decisions they feel need made. I'm sure they will have many people watching.

Bill Jones ‏@GoFrogYourself 7h7 hours ago
@theDudeofWV what's the WVA perception of Baylor and Briles? #whitetrash #reality #truthdontlie

Christopher Lambert ‏@theDudeofWV 2h2 hours ago
@GoFrogYourself WVU is not fond of Baylor.

Christopher Lambert ‏@theDudeofWV 1h1 hour ago
Here's my personal take on Baylor
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjRBSrbXEAE_OPN.jpg

Christopher Lambert ‏@theDudeofWV 35m35 minutes ago
My personal opinion regarding Baylor is based on my personal experience as a survivor of childhood abuse: physical, mental & sexual.

Christopher Lambert ‏@theDudeofWV 34m34 minutes ago
The scars on my body prove that physical wounds heal. But abuse has a lasting effect that doesn't fade.

Christopher Lambert ‏@theDudeofWV 32m32 minutes ago
In my case I told teachers. I told Sunday school teachers. Nobody helped. The abuse stopped only when I stopped it.

Christopher Lambert ‏@theDudeofWV 32m32 minutes ago
I was 12 when I was strong enough to fight back. I endured 6 years of abuse - 4 after I had asked for help.

Christopher Lambert ‏@theDudeofWV 30m30 minutes ago
I also know the power of sports. The only thing that saved me was baseball & football. The only people I respected were my coaches.

Christopher Lambert ‏@theDudeofWV 29m29 minutes ago
The anger and isolation I felt can't be described. It can only be experienced.

Christopher Lambert ‏@theDudeofWV 27m27 minutes ago
I can't help but think that Baylor valued football over those women. Is too easy to look at a victim and find a reason they deserved it.

Christopher Lambert ‏@theDudeofWV 27m27 minutes ago
It's to easy to dehumanize a victim especially when we tell ourselves it's just this one incident.

Christopher Lambert ‏@theDudeofWV 26m26 minutes ago
Football is just a game. A wonderful awe inspiring game that can either bind us together or cause us to lose our way.

Christopher Lambert ‏@theDudeofWV 24m24 minutes ago
I will not express an opinion on Baylor anymore. I just hope that the victims find peace and we all learn the truth.

Christopher Lambert ‏@theDudeofWV 24m24 minutes ago
Sorry to unload.

 

[SAMCRO]

Ya, that's my cue to take a hiatus from the non-key tweets thread for a while.

 

[Huskyforlife]

Ya, that's my cue to take a hiatus from the non-key tweets thread for a while.

Nah I need more enlightening life stories from some guy on Twitter.

 

[Charley Horse]

Not sure I get this. If the B12 does not expand and thus allowing them to create a network, the B12 is dead in less than 10 years.

Maybe. Maybe not.

That is the conventional wisdom that OU is unhappy and if OU can't be mollified, they will leave the Big 12 when the GOR runs out, and if OU leaves Texas will leave, and without OU and Texas the Big 12 will lose its relevance.

Now, I'm pro-expansion so don't take this the wrong way, but think about this:

We've been led to believe that seven Big 12 schools are pro-expansion and three are anti-expansion. But what if that's not really true?

What if Boren is really the only discontented party and everybody else is rather ambivalent?

And what if Boren really isn't so much pro-network and pro-expansion as he is anti-LHN and pissed that OU isn't prospering as well?

Might it not be cheaper and easier (and possibly even in the best interest of ESPN) to simply appease OU by giving them their own LHN-type deal, instead of trying to force Texas to give up the LHN for the greater good of the conference?

And if OU gets paid, what's to stop Texas, OU and the other eight from living happily ever after?

That's just a thought.

I'd like to believe expansion is still a possibility but it's looking like some of the stakeholders are beginning to distance themselves from Boren.

 

[SubbaBub]

CR Rule #1 established the shifting parameters of how conferences go about the business of expansion. One day, it's tradition, the next its, geography, the next it's cable boxes.

The CR playing field has shifted once again. The apparent failure of the ACC network to get off the ground has potentially stoked some interest by higher profile ACC schools in exploring other affiliations. Due diligence demands it. The B1G contract terminating after only 6 years just before the GOR expirations of the ACC and B12 indicates that the B1G has and interest in keeping it's options open to jump the to the front of the line on expansion for the next contract round.

What this means is that any conference that would add G5 schools before the next shoe drops is a fool. Such a move could doom there P5 status if their top tier moved on.

Waiting a couple months for the ACC teams to decide what to do is the smart thing. UT/OU now have two options. Poach the ACC and start a network that Texas can sign onto or join the ACC which presumably would have enough juice to then demand a network. The ACC without a network becomes prey. The B12 without a network flirts with losing OU and then UT, but at least those schools have the power in their own hands. The ACC should be nervous.

 

[junglehusky]

CR Rule #1 established the shifting parameters of how conferences go about the business of expansion. One day, it's tradition, the next its, geography, the next it's cable boxes.

The CR playing field has shifted once again. The apparent failure of the ACC network to get off the ground has potentially stoked some interest by higher profile ACC schools in exploring other affiliations. Due diligence demands it. The B1G contract terminating after only 6 years just before the GOR expirations of the ACC and B12 indicates that the B1G has and interest in keeping it's options open to jump the to the front of the line on expansion for the next contract round.

What this means is that any conference that would add G5 schools before the next shoe drops is a fool. Such a move could doom there P5 status if their top tier moved on.

Waiting a couple months for the ACC teams to decide what to do is the smart thing. UT/OU now have two options. Poach the ACC and start a network that Texas can sign onto or join the ACC which presumably would have enough juice to then demand a network. The ACC without a network becomes prey. The B12 without a network flirts with losing OU and then UT, but at least those schools have the power in their own hands. The ACC should be nervous.

The B12 can wait if they want but it's not going to be a matter of a couple months. The ACC schools doing their due diligence are looking at either the SEC or Big Ten, and probably looking at 2024-ish. If the Big 12 stays in a holding pattern it's because they couldn't figure out how to solve their own network problem. I don't think FSU/Clemson to the B12 was ever going to happen, and it certainly won't happen this summer.

 

[SubbaBub]

Don't confuse execution with decision making. Most of the due diligence has already been done in previous CR rounds. We know Clemson would follow FSU anywhere and have a pretty good idea that the B1G and SEC is not interested in either school.

Faced with the potential of the B12 filling up with G5 teams and a number of other ACC teams leaving for the B1G then the SEC. A B12 network that includes UT and OU looks pretty good for FSU.

If there is interest from the B12, the only details outside of $$$, would be how many and who could FSU take with them. If I'm FSU, I take Clemson, Miami, and GT. If I'm the B12 (UT), I'd be cool with that at 14 leaving room for potentially two more. Assuming the money works.

GT is then faced with a decision, stay in a diluted ACC and hope the B1G calls or jump. The Big East collapse showed us just how aquirmy schools get when threatened with being left behind.

BC and VT at first, then Cuse and Pitt could have easily stayed and this whole mess avoided. But none could be certain, that another school wouldn't break if they declined.

 

[NYUConn]

The B12 can wait if they want but it's not going to be a matter of a couple months. The ACC schools doing their due diligence are looking at either the SEC or Big Ten, and probably looking at 2024-ish. If the Big 12 stays in a holding pattern it's because they couldn't figure out how to solve their own network problem. I don't think FSU/Clemson to the B12 was ever going to happen, and it certainly won't happen this summer.

FSU/Clemson to the Big 12 only happens with a network in place. Those two schools aren't going to take a financial haircut and leave the stability of the ACC for the Big 12 unless there is a network in place. A network is the only thing the Big 12 can currently offer those two schools that the ACC cannot, but only because the LHN provides them with the inside track to getting it done first.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

FSU/Clemson to the Big 12 only happens with a network in place. Those two schools aren't going to take a financial haircut and leave the stability of the ACC for the Big 12 unless there is a network in place. A network is the only thing the Big 12 can currently offer those two schools that the ACC cannot, but only because the LHN provides them with the inside track to getting it done first.

FSU/Clemson to the Big 12 never happens. IF another conference vanishes, it will be the Big 12.

 

[junglehusky]

Don't confuse execution with decision making. Most of the due diligence has already been done in previous CR rounds. We know Clemson would follow FSU anywhere and have a pretty good idea that the B1G and SEC is not interested in either school.

Faced with the potential of the B12 filling up with G5 teams and a number of other ACC teams leaving for the B1G then the SEC. A B12 network that includes UT and OU looks pretty good for FSU.

If there is interest from the B12, the only details outside of $$$, would be how many and who could FSU take with them. If I'm FSU, I take Clemson, Miami, and GT. If I'm the B12 (UT), I'd be cool with that at 14 leaving room for potentially two more. Assuming the money works.

GT is then faced with a decision, stay in a diluted ACC and hope the B1G calls or jump. The Big East collapse showed us just how aquirmy schools get when threatened with being left behind.

BC and VT at first, then Cuse and Pitt could have easily stayed and this whole mess avoided. But none could be certain, that another school wouldn't break if they declined.

I don't know. I'm sure you're just having fun but that paragraph sounds like it has a hillbilly accent. I wouldn't totally rule out an ACC doomsday scenario but it won't be in the near future and it likely won't be initiated by the schools you mentioned. Maybe GT if the Big Ten decides to go there.

 

[NYUConn]

FSU/Clemson to the Big 12 never happens. IF another conference vanishes, it will be the Big 12.

Disagree. Don't think for a second that FSU and Clemson (FSU in particular since they only joined in the last 25 years) have any loyalty to the ACC. If the Big 12 can get their act together and offer a better pay day those schools will be gone in a second.

Top to bottom right now the Big 12 is head and shoulders above the ACC. Do you think FSU and Clemson would rather be playing BC, Cuse and Pitt when they could be facing TCU, Kansas State and Oklahoma State?

 

[businesslawyer]

Maybe. Maybe not.

That is the conventional wisdom that OU is unhappy and if OU can't be mollified, they will leave the Big 12 when the GOR runs out, and if OU leaves Texas will leave, and without OU and Texas the Big 12 will lose its relevance.

Now, I'm pro-expansion so don't take this the wrong way, but think about this:

We've been led to believe that seven Big 12 schools are pro-expansion and three are anti-expansion. But what if that's not really true?

What if Boren is really the only discontented party and everybody else is rather ambivalent?

And what if Boren really isn't so much pro-network and pro-expansion as he is anti-LHN and pissed that OU isn't prospering as well?

Might it not be cheaper and easier (and possibly even in the best interest of ESPN) to simply appease OU by giving them their own LHN-type deal, instead of trying to force Texas to give up the LHN for the greater good of the conference?

And if OU gets paid, what's to stop Texas, OU and the other eight from living happily ever after?

That's just a thought.

I'd like to believe expansion is still a possibility but it's looking like some of the stakeholders are beginning to distance themselves from Boren.

You have to be joking. ESPN by all reports is losing money on LHN. You think there is economic viability to create a network simply to market Tier 3 content to the State of Oklahoma?

 

[Charley Horse]

You have to be joking. ESPN by all reports is losing money on LHN. You think there is economic viability to create a network simply to market Tier 3 content to the State of Oklahoma?

I'm not talking $300 over 20 years. You're right. That will never happen again.

But I am beginning to suspect that all of this spring's Big 12 rumblings have merely been a ploy for OU to get more money.

Ten years ago OU was making 96% of what Texas was making off of television rights and 35% more than Iowa State was making off of television rights. Today OU only makes 72% of what Texas makes off of television rights and only 10% more than what Iowa State makes off of television rights.

Everybody's boat has risen in the tide - except for OU. And that's what this is all about.

Texas is fat and happy and content with the status quo. Everyone else in the Big 12, besides OU, is probably already making more money than they can hope to make anywhere else. The SEC isn't clamoring for Kansas State. Nobody's knocking on West Virginia's door.

Everybody's open to discussion and nobody would turn down the prospect of more money, but OU is the only whining dog.

I'm pro-expansion. I think it would be good for the conference and every team in it.

But I think we're already seeing signs that OU isn't even really that pro-expansion. They just want more money.

And at the end of the day, I think somebody is just going to throw some cash at OU and tell them to be quiet because upfront it would be a whole lot cheaper to do that than to figure out how to create a network that generates enough money to pay for all start up costs, gives everybody a profit, keeps Texas whole and elevates two schools from G5 salaries to P5 salaries.

I'm sorry it's an unpleasant scenario. It's not what I want either. It's just the writing I see on the wall at the moment.

 

[CL82]

I'm not talking $300 over 20 years. You're right. That will never happen again.

But I am beginning to suspect that all of this spring's Big 12 rumblings have merely been a ploy for OU to get more money.

Ten years ago OU was making 96% of what Texas was making off of television rights and 35% more than Iowa State was making off of television rights. Today OU only makes 72% of what Texas makes off of television rights and only 10% more than what Iowa State makes off of television rights.

Everybody's boat has risen in the tide - except for OU. And that's what this is all about.

Texas is fat and happy and content with the status quo. Everyone else in the Big 12, besides OU, is probably already making more money than they can hope to make anywhere else. The SEC isn't clamoring for Kansas State. Nobody's knocking on West Virginia's door.

Everybody's open to discussion and nobody would turn down the prospect of more money, but OU is the only whining dog.

I'm pro-expansion. I think it would be good for the conference and every team in it.

But I think we're already seeing signs that OU isn't even really that pro-expansion. They just want more money.

And at the end of the day, I think somebody is just going to throw some cash at OU and tell them to be quiet because upfront it would be a whole lot cheaper to do that than to figure out how to create a network that generates enough money to pay for all start up costs, gives everybody a profit, keeps Texas whole and elevates two schools from G5 salaries to P5 salaries.

I'm sorry it's an unpleasant scenario. It's not what I want either. It's just the writing I see on the wall at the moment.

I enjoy your posts Charley but I can't disagree more with the Sooner Network concept. One of the drivers of a Big 12 Network is that it would allow ESPN a way out of the absolutely miserable LHN. (I note that though the LHN is "absolutely miserable" for ESPN, it is a great deal for Texas.)
There is no way the make the same mistake twice.

Regarding whether the Big 12 should stand pat while it waits to see what happens in the ACC, it wouldn't surprise me if Texas suggests this as a way to hold off expansion without looking unreasonable. Here's the thing, the P5 isn't going to stay at 5 and in all likelihood either Big 12 or the ACC will be a part of the P4, not both. The creation of a network establishes the Big 12 as the alpha dog versus the ACC. The smart play, in my opinion, is to bring in UConn, and whomever else (and I say that because I strongly suspect that we are the only G5 that is a revenue neutral or better add), to establish a network so that Big 12 is viewed as a stable destination for ACC refugees. The Big 12's problem is that it is reactive. Now is the time to be proactive.

 

[NYUConn]

I enjoy your posts Charley but I can't disagree more with the Sooner Network concept. One of the drivers of a Big 12 Network is that it would allow ESPN a way out of the absolutely miserable LHN. (I note that though the LHN is "absolutely miserable" for ESPN, it is a great deal for Texas.)
There is no way the make the same mistake twice.

Regarding whether the Big 12 should stand pat while it waits to see what happens in the ACC, it wouldn't surprise me if Texas suggests this as a way to hold off expansion without looking unreasonable. Here's the thing, the P5 isn't going to stay at 5 and in all likelihood either Big 12 or the ACC will be a part of the P4, not both. The creation of a network establishes the Big 12 as the alpha dog versus the ACC. The smart play, in my opinion, is to bring in UConn, and whomever else (and I say that because I strongly suspect that we are the only G5 that is a revenue neutral or better add), to establish a network so that Big 12 is viewed as a stable destination for ACC refugees. The Big 12's problem is that it is reactive. Now is the time to be proactive.

The Big 12's main problem is that what is best for the league is not what's best for Texas and UT holds almost all the cards here.

The status quo is UT's best friend right now. Allows them to continue cashing in on the LHN, while the Big 12 dies on the vine. Then when the conference is dead, they move onto bigger and better things.

I'm not writing this to slam the Longhorns - if somehow we had their deal we would feel the same way - but to lay it out simply: This is Texas's world and the Big 12 is just living in it. That was the reality once the LHN was signed and once the Big 12 lost A&M and Nebraska.

The only program left in the Big 12 who can even claim to have a seat at UT's table is Oklahoma and even they are at ridiculous chip disadvantage. The only thing they have going for them is that if they bust in the Big 12, the Sooners could buy back in elsewhere (B1G or SEC).

 

[TerryD]

Not sure I get this. If the B12 does not expand and thus allowing them to create a network, the B12 is dead in less than 10 years. Baylor has a major investigation going on that could significantly hit their marquee program (football) which could set them back years on the field and in the pocketbook (see new football stadium). So if the B12 collapses in less than 10 years, where exactly is a small, religion based private university that could be at the bottom athletically and finally go? Whoever is leading Baylor at the time a vote happens, if it happens, should be screaming 'YES' when it comes to expansion.

Texas has Baylor's vote in its back pocket in return for a promise to take it with them to its next conference?

 

[TerryD]

FSU/Clemson to the Big 12 only happens with a network in place. Those two schools aren't going to take a financial haircut and leave the stability of the ACC for the Big 12 unless there is a network in place. A network is the only thing the Big 12 can currently offer those two schools that the ACC cannot, but only because the LHN provides them with the inside track to getting it done first.

How much actual profit per school would a Big 12 network net after deducting start up costs and deducting what each Big 12 school already makes for their existing individual Tier 3 deals?

 

[NYUConn]

How much actual profit per school would a Big 12 network net after deducting start up costs and deducting what each Big 12 school already makes for their existing individual Tier 3 deals?

I couldn't give you a number but considering the infrastructure is already in place via LHN, the start up costs would likely be minimal.

 

[CL82]

How much actual profit per school would a Big 12 network net after deducting start up costs and deducting what each Big 12 school already makes for their existing individual Tier 3 deals?

That's the issue isn't it? Once you deduct out $15M for UT and whatever OU's Tier 3 rights are worth, say $4M and divide by 12, what would the per school share be?

 

[TerryD]

That's the issue isn't it? Once you deduct out $15M for UT and whatever OU's Tier 3 rights are worth, say $4M and divide by 12, what would the per school share be?

Yes, but also every other Big 12 school already has a Tier 3 deal in place. The WVU bloggers were big on bragging how much everyone got, including the Mountaineers, from Tier 3 deals. We would have to deduct that amount from any estimated network profit.

 

[Charley Horse]

I enjoy your posts Charley but I can't disagree more with the Sooner Network concept. One of the drivers of a Big 12 Network is that it would allow ESPN a way out of the absolutely miserable LHN. (I note that though the LHN is "absolutely miserable" for ESPN, it is a great deal for Texas.)
There is no way the make the same mistake twice.

Regarding whether the Big 12 should stand pat while it waits to see what happens in the ACC, it wouldn't surprise me if Texas suggests this as a way to hold off expansion without looking unreasonable. Here's the thing, the P5 isn't going to stay at 5 and in all likelihood either Big 12 or the ACC will be a part of the P4, not both. The creation of a network establishes the Big 12 as the alpha dog versus the ACC. The smart play, in my opinion, is to bring in UConn, and whomever else (and I say that because I strongly suspect that we are the only G5 that is a revenue neutral or better add), to establish a network so that Big 12 is viewed as a stable destination for ACC refugees. The Big 12's problem is that it is reactive. Now is the time to be proactive.

Thank you, CL82.

You and I are in agreement when it comes to "the smart play", as you call it. That's exactly what I would love to see happen. And it would provide the Big 12 with the sense of security it's never had.

The only reason I'm playing the devil's advocate here is because I sense a cooling of the heels all around and I'm trying to talk it out and make sense of it.

Anti-expansion articles are coming from places that ought to be all-in, like Des Moines, Iowa and Kansas City, Missouri.

Even David Boren sounded very subdued when he last spoke with reporters on May 12.

It seems like the momentum has waned.

 

[Charley Horse]

Maybe I'm putting too much stock in Berry Tramel's assessment of David Boren's motivations.

In this article: Oklahoma columnist: If Sooners were to leave the Big 12, they'd prefer one conference over the SEC | SportsDay

He says, "I don't think that expansion is David Boren's ultimate goal. I don't think he thinks 12 is so much better than 10. I think he's trying to get a conference network and even more than that he's trying to eliminate the Longhorn Network..."

Later in the same interview, he says: Kevin Weiberg, almost 12 years ago, tried to put a Big 12 network together and he needed nine votes and he only got eight. The four he didn't get were the big boys -- OU, Texas, A&M, Nebraska. A&M and Nebraska have since flown the coop and now Oklahoma is here wanting to change the dynamics. But the Sooners were the ones who said, hey, we want the freedom to do our own network. What those schools didn't realize -- OU, Nebraska and A&M -- what they didn't realize the marketing power of Texas, that ESPN would give them such a bonanza.

So is it all about resentment and remorse and not about expansion? If so, it may be why others seem to be backing away from OU.

 

[SubbaBub]

Right now all options are in play for every P5 conference, but the ACC and the B12 are leaky boats and there appears to be only one network available from the marketplace and it requires more and better content from whichever league gets it first.

There will be pressure for each league to get its agreement done before the other. The first domino will create chaos whether it's the B1G, B12, UT, OU, FSU or the ACC that pushes it over. An extra $10M per year will get any of these schools to jump.