Boren wants to kill the LHN

[Fishy]

Well, duh.

I kind of figured as much when he lumped a championship game, expansion and a B12 network as items to deal with pronto.

From an Oklahoma newspaper, it's basically confirmed.

Some niceties:

Boren’s declaration that fixing everything at once — expand, ideally to 12, which would give the league a title game, while also implementing a conference network — would get the Big 12 back on the road to equal footing with the leagues it considers its peers.

Form a Big 12 Network, and suddenly different schools look much better. Connecticut, for example. An entire state of 3.5 million is gaga over UConn basketball. A Big 12 Network would sell in New England, while providing exposure for the other schools.

Brigham Young would be an interesting case. BYU TV is a major force — it was on my cable system at the Camelback Inn in Scottsdale — and the Cougars would have to move their athletic content from BYU TV to a Big 12 Network. I have no idea if that appeals to BYU; the current Big 12 system is perfect for the Cougars. But if BYU athletics moved into a Big 12 Network, that would open markets everywhere for the enterprise. BYU has a national following.

The other expansion candidates — Cincinnati, Boise State, Houston, Central Florida, East Carolina, whoever you think of — don’t really register much on the conference-network train.

But Connecticut and Brigham Young would be major additions.

Okay. We accept.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The good news about Boren's open war with Texas is that he is making it clear to the rest of the Big 12 that if they do not expand, Oklahoma is gone in 9 years. If you are Iowa State or one of the other schools that will not find a soft-landing in another round of realignment, your choice is pretty easy.

 

[businesslawyer]

The problem with Iowa State (beyond being in Iowa) is that the Big XII really needs both Texas and Oklahoma to stay if it's going to stay at the level of the Big Ten and SEC. So it's not as simple as picking sides, because picking OU's side, inviting UConn and BYU, say, and losing Texas leaves you far weaker. As does picking Texas's side, losing OU and filling with Cincy, say. You need to just sit back, cross your fingers and hope that the two gorillas can figure out a way to stay together. Because if that doesn't happened, there is no scenario that doesn't leave you screwed.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

It is a good move by Boren to lessen the control Texas over the B12. OU is telling rest of the B12 Texas is only for itself and could leave anytime. Rest of the B12 would be screwed. Boren is also stating that OU is willing to work with rest of the B12 for a CONFERENCE network, something Texas does not agree with. LHN is a complete disaster and timing is good for Boren to call for a B12 network. The best case scenario is for LHN to be converted to a B12 network but Fox will have something to say about that. Only way I see for it to work is if LHN is co-owned by ESPN and FOX.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

The problem with Iowa State (beyond being in Iowa) is that the Big XII really needs both Texas and Oklahoma to stay if it's going to stay at the level of the Big Ten and SEC. So it's not as simple as picking sides, because picking OU's side, inviting UConn and BYU, say, and losing Texas leaves you far weaker. As does picking Texas's side, losing OU and filling with Cincy, say. You need to just sit back, cross your fingers and hope that the two gorillas can figure out a way to stay together. Because if that doesn't happened, there is no scenario that doesn't leave you screwed.

Maybe so but there is strength in numbers. Staying at 10 and risk losing schools like UCONN to other conferences won't work for them either. They can go with Texas' route but at 10 they are not at the same footing as the B1G (14), SEC (14), ACC (14), and the PAC-12 (12).

 

[businesslawyer]

At 12, without Texas, their population footprint is too small to even compete with the Pac and ACC long term.

Losing Texas is no more an option than losing Oklahoma. Frankly, it is less of one from an economic standpoint.

 

[FDNY99]

Tramel has had a 180 degree turn on UConn and where we fit as a fan base into the view Boren has of the B-12. Mark my words...Boren has basically fired a warning shot at all the B-12 schools NOT named University of Texas...ESPECIALLY the other Texas based B-12 schools. No expansion and B-12 network and OU is gone...IMHO they are gone to the SEC where they can preserve their Texas recruiting presence and not have to worry about being in the AAU....make just as much $$ as they would in the B1G. It will be funny to see those other B-12 schools cry when they find out what their true reality is when OU leaves and the B-12 ceases to exist!

 

[WestHartHusk]

Just so we are clear. The President of OU is saying the conference needs a network, and the same day an Oklahoma paper is saying that there are only two options: UConn and BYU? This is really excellent for us from a publicity standpoint!

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The problem with Iowa State (beyond being in Iowa) is that the Big XII really needs both Texas and Oklahoma to stay if it's going to stay at the level of the Big Ten and SEC. So it's not as simple as picking sides, because picking OU's side, inviting UConn and BYU, say, and losing Texas leaves you far weaker. As does picking Texas's side, losing OU and filling with Cincy, say. You need to just sit back, cross your fingers and hope that the two gorillas can figure out a way to stay together. Because if that doesn't happened, there is no scenario that doesn't leave you screwed.

That isn't the right way to look at it. Texas wants to keep the league week, and one doesn't need to guess too hard at their motivations for doing so. Oklahoma, on the other hand, wants to keep the league strong. If you are Iowa State, your choice is easy. Make the league strong as it can be and if Texas bolts in 9 years, so be it.

Time is the enemy of all the Big 12 programs. If they want to add 2 or 4 programs and develop them, they need to do that now. If Texas can drag this out even 2-3 years, it is over, Oklahoma is gone in 2025, and the Big 12 is toast.

 

[TerryD]

Well, duh.

I kind of figured as much when he lumped a championship game, expansion and a B12 network as items to deal with pronto.

From an Oklahoma newspaper, it's basically confirmed.

Some niceties:

Boren’s declaration that fixing everything at once — expand, ideally to 12, which would give the league a title game, while also implementing a conference network — would get the Big 12 back on the road to equal footing with the leagues it considers its peers.

Form a Big 12 Network, and suddenly different schools look much better. Connecticut, for example. An entire state of 3.5 million is gaga over UConn basketball. A Big 12 Network would sell in New England, while providing exposure for the other schools.

Brigham Young would be an interesting case. BYU TV is a major force — it was on my cable system at the Camelback Inn in Scottsdale — and the Cougars would have to move their athletic content from BYU TV to a Big 12 Network. I have no idea if that appeals to BYU; the current Big 12 system is perfect for the Cougars. But if BYU athletics moved into a Big 12 Network, that would open markets everywhere for the enterprise. BYU has a national following.

The other expansion candidates — Cincinnati, Boise State, Houston, Central Florida, East Carolina, whoever you think of — don’t really register much on the conference-network train.

But Connecticut and Brigham Young would be major additions.

Okay. We accept.

But, someone would have to convince Texas that such a network would make the Longhorns more than fifteen million a year to give up the LHN in order for a Big 12 network to happen.

I seem to recall the Big 12 folks talking about how their T3 deals were a much better way to go than a conference network.

Did I get that wrong or have they changed their minds?

Does ESPN/Fox want to fund a new conference network at this time?

Those are the issues that I see standing in the way of a Big 12 network and , hence, standing in the way of Big 12 expansion by the addition of BYU and UConn, or anyone else.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

But, someone would have to convince Texas that such a network would make the Longhorns more than fifteen million a year to give up the LHN in order for a Big 12 network to happen.

I seem to recall the Big 12 folks talking about how their T3 deals were a much better way to go than a conference network.

Did I get that wrong or have they changed their minds?

Does ESPN/Fox want to fund a new conference network at this time?

Those are the issues that I see standing in the way of a Big 12 network and , hence, standing in the way of Big 12 expansion by the addition of BYU and UConn, or anyone else.

From stability point of view, it is much less risk for rest of the B12 schools just to band together and form the B12 network vs. going separately on their own. When Texas or OU leave the B12, those individual T3 rights will evaporate with either's departure.

 

[jostar1]

Also note that Boren talks about not having AT LEAST 12 members, so is he thinking of expansion with four?

“The Big 12 is disadvantaged when compared to the other conferences in three ways. We do not have at least 12 members, we do not have a conference network and we do not have a championship game. I think that all three of these disadvantages need to be addressed at the same time. Addressing only one without addressing all three will not be adequate to improve the strength of the conference.”

 

[WestCoastHusky]

Just so we are clear. The President of OU is saying the conference needs a network, and the same day an Oklahoma paper is saying that there are only two options: UConn and BYU? This is really excellent for us from a publicity standpoint!

If B12 is part of the plan, it would be very dumb of B12 to skip UCONN. Then again, B12 has done things wrong over and over up to now just like the old BE. We all know where old BE ended up.

 

[Kolumbo]

Side with Texas and the money train - Chances are Texas makes a move down the road in its best interest and everyone else is screwed.
Side with Oklahoma and expansion and more stability - Texas may bolt eventually but a 12 or 14 team conference may be able to survive.

"As time went on, "Sooner" came to be a synonym of Progressivism. The Sooner was an "energetic individual who travels ahead of the human procession." He was prosperous, ambitious, competent, a "can-do" individual. And Oklahoma was the Sooner State, the land of opportunity, enterprise and economic expansion, very much in the Progressive spirit that engulfed the old South in the 1920s."
http://www.soonersports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=208806115

 

[businesslawyer]

That isn't the right way to look at it. Texas wants to keep the league week, and one doesn't need to guess too hard at their motivations for doing so. Oklahoma, on the other hand, wants to keep the league strong. If you are Iowa State, your choice is easy. Make the league strong as it can be and if Texas bolts in 9 years, so be it.

Time is the enemy of all the Big 12 programs. If they want to add 2 or 4 programs and develop them, they need to do that now. If Texas can drag this out even 2-3 years, it is over, Oklahoma is gone in 2025, and the Big 12 is toast.

Saying if Texas bolts "so be it" is the equivalent to Steve Martin's routine when he says he can teach you how to be a millionaire and not pay taxes. "First, get a million bucks."

 

[amory]

Isn't the LHN the only reason Texas stays in the Big 12?

Everyone in that conference is their bitch. The entire concept of Texas having their own network at the expense of everyone else is absurd, but they get away with it in the Big 12 and that's why they're sticking around.

 

[NYUConn]

Saying if Texas bolts "so be it" is the equivalent to Steve Martin's routine when he says he can teach you how to be a millionaire and not pay taxes. "First, get a million bucks."

There is no Big 12 without UT. If they leave you have a bunch of pretty good football schools and pretty good basketball schools in second to third tier media markets.

They can stay together and be a pretty good conference on the field and court, but they will take a serious haircut next time their TV deal is up.

 

[HuskyHawk]

But, someone would have to convince Texas that such a network would make the Longhorns more than fifteen million a year to give up the LHN in order for a Big 12 network to happen.

I seem to recall the Big 12 folks talking about how their T3 deals were a much better way to go than a conference network.

Did I get that wrong or have they changed their minds?

Does ESPN/Fox want to fund a new conference network at this time?

Those are the issues that I see standing in the way of a Big 12 network and , hence, standing in the way of Big 12 expansion by the addition of BYU and UConn, or anyone else.

As presently constituted, a Big XII Network makes no sense. It has essentially three markets. TX, OK and KS + KC MO. That's it. ISU doesn't have enough juice for even a local Iowa network. WVU would dominate WV, but there is nobody there. So the tier 3 rights are more valuable.

Boren wants OU to become more like U North Carolina or Michigan. He wants broad exposure beyond that TX/OK/KS footprint. Not just for sports, but to recruit kids from elsewhere as students and bump the school's reputation. For that to happen he needs a network, and he needs a bigger footprint (expansion). A network with the current members doesn't help him. He's not bluffing here.

 

[businesslawyer]

Maybe so but there is strength in numbers. Staying at 10 and risk losing schools like UCONN to other conferences won't work for them either. They can go with Texas' route but at 10 they are not at the same footing as the B1G (14), SEC (14), ACC (14), and the PAC-12 (12).

The AAC has 12. How much strength is in that number?

 

[politics]

Saying if Texas bolts "so be it" is the equivalent to Steve Martin's routine when he says he can teach you how to be a millionaire and not pay taxes. "First, get a million bucks."

Boren is obviously standing up to Texas. He wouldn't be doing his due diligence if he didn't consider that doing so could result in Texas seeking another home. I get the feeling he's thought it through and doesn't think Texas will really leave when the rubber hits the road on expansion.

 

[tzznandrew]

There is no Big 12 without UT. If they leave you have a bunch of pretty good football schools and pretty good basketball schools in second to third tier media markets.

They can stay together and be a pretty good conference on the field and court, but they will take a serious haircut next time their TV deal is up.

I mean, Oklahoma is one of the premier football schools. Maybe even moreso than Texas. They have 3 more titles.

And Kansas is one of the premier basketball schools.

Their problem the quality of their teams, its more the latter half of what you mention: without UT their market is terrible.

 

[businesslawyer]

Boren is obviously standing up to Texas. He wouldn't be doing his due diligence if he didn't consider that doing so could result in Texas seeking another home. I get the feeling he's thought it through and doesn't think Texas will really leave when the rubber hits the road on expansion.

If you're Iowa State, that's what you are counting on. But I the XII blows up because of OU, OU will end up fine.

 

[tzznandrew]

If you're Iowa State, that's what you are counting on. But I the XII blows up because of OU, OU will end up fine.

Right. That's the problem with this. Texas and OU can pretty much pick wherever they want to go. Any of the other 4 would take them unencumbered.

Kansas would be in good shape for the B1G or the ACC.

WVU would be ahead of their other conference mates in terms of backfill, potentially, but are probably f---ed.

The others really have nowhere else to turn, and so have absolutely no power, only prayers.

 

[pj]

The problem with Iowa State (beyond being in Iowa) is that the Big XII really needs both Texas and Oklahoma to stay if it's going to stay at the level of the Big Ten and SEC. So it's not as simple as picking sides, because picking OU's side, inviting UConn and BYU, say, and losing Texas leaves you far weaker. As does picking Texas's side, losing OU and filling with Cincy, say. You need to just sit back, cross your fingers and hope that the two gorillas can figure out a way to stay together. Because if that doesn't happened, there is no scenario that doesn't leave you screwed.

If Texas has a deal on the table to keep the Longhorn network and go to the ACC, if it chooses, with a Notre Dame type deal, then it has no need to consider a B12 network. It would be better off with 6 ACC games and scheduling a national slate of marquee games as Notre Dame does, than with a schedule including weaker B12 teams; and such a move would separate Texas from its Texas competitors (TCU, Baylor, TTech are now in some sense on par with Texas, all have B12 prestige; Texas and A&M would dominate Texas recruiting if TCU, Baylor, etc were pushed back to lower status).

I would assume that ESPN has the clout to make such a deal happen and keep Texas to itself.

That means Oklahoma is pushing against a brick wall and will have to move to B1G or SEC to get a conference network.

I think we have irreconcilable differences here.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I mean, Oklahoma is one of the premier football schools. Maybe even moreso than Texas. They have 3 more titles.

And Kansas is one of the premier basketball schools.

Their problem the quality of their teams, its more the latter half of what you mention: without UT their market is terrible.

Yes, and K State has had good football and basketball, OK State has had good football and at times, very good basketball, Baylor is solid at both currently and TCU at football. ISU basketball has been good. WVU is good at both sports.

Had the Big XII not been a bunch of wusses, and stood up to Texas as A&M and Mizzou wanted, they'd likely still have those schools too. Then they wouldn't really lose the TX market, even without UT.