You mean there are no updates in the last couple of hours? LOL

Stay tuned.

sharing tier 3 money is not a major issue outside the internet. The 2 big issues are high school on the LHN and the need to set up rules acceptable to all on conference football games on the LHN.

3rd tier rights shouldn't be an issue. I know Missouri had a PPV game this year, Nebraska had them in the past as has OU and others.

They just keep that money to themselves as well.

I agree, I just saw duncan idaho say something to that affect. Personally, I really could care less about the LHN. I don't think it adds much of a competitive advantage if any.

That said, I would argue the important issues are more about establishing the vision and cooperation of the conference, not the restriction of this or that. The Big XII ought to have some common goals instead of promoting this constant "every school for themselves" mentality.

Now, you might say the LHN is an impediment towards those goals, but I don't think so. The LHN is a big deal because everyone chooses to use it as a symbol of division. The Big XII needs to identify what to work together on, what they stand for as a conference and how they want to assist each other in that endeavor. Until people stop making a bigger deal out of the LHN than needs be, consensus building will not occur. And that's just as much a problem of the eight other members as it is Texas.

I don't even have a rooting interest in any of this, but I think some of you guys are way too trusting of Texas. They just went around the country displaying their arrogance, and people think they're going to come back and be nice to the Big XII now? Really?

I don't think their network is a big deal now because nobody is carrying it. But I think if it does start to get picked up, then it'll be a problem years down the road. Gotta be a huge recruiting advantage in all sports to say to recruits "Hey, we have our own cable channel, people can watch you play, plus we'll do feature stories and programs about you all the time!" A 24 hour network basically devoted to promotion of your school. Nobody else in the country has anything like that. If any of these other AD's in their conference are forward thinking at all, you'd think they would know better, just in case it does happen to take off.

To me this looks like a bunch of fans who watched their hot girlfriend flirt with pretty much everyone else, get bored when no one would put up with their BS, and come back for now pretending like nothing happened, and you all are just putting up with it because you don't want to be alone.

I don't think its a "trusting Texas" issue. I mean, where is Texas really going to go. To go anywhere else, Texas has to "adjust" its LHN. Only in the Big XII does Texas really get about everything it wants. And, while most don't want to admit it, Texas gives the conference just about everything it needs: competition, national exposure, recruiting grounds, TV markets.

We don't have to be "best buds", but we do need to be good allies, and good allies promote the overall good of the whole. It doesn't seem practical right now, but it doesn't make it impossible. With the right leadership, this conference could be outstanding, and that leadership has to come from all parties towards common goals, not focuses on what agitates them.

If I get this right, you're saying STFU and kiss Bevo's ass.

It's all good as long as Texas gets everything it wants.

The Jayhawk Network is worth 7.3 million a year. All going to the University of Kansas. But doesn't really have the potential to be HUGE like the LHN. Guess basketball can make some money

How come Kentucky likes the SEC so much? What do they get out of getting their brains kicked in every year in the SEC football? They are a basketball school anyway. I know they aren't going anywhere, but just dreaming about a home and away in basketball would be ridiculous, then throw in Louisville in there.

Mostly unrelated... What's with West Virginia and the couch burning?

http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2011...inia-lsu-game/

I don't really get this HUGE potential. They are not notre dame. The market for the LHN ends at the state line. Almost no one outside of Texas wants the LHN, and its not like everyone in the state is scrambling for it to the point where they can demand ESPN money out of the cable providers.

Pretty sure it's going to be hard for West Virginia to get into the Big 12 if they want to since they rely on partial qualifiers.

It's all about Texas.



http://www.holyturf.com/2011/09/time...xas-to-own-it/

$18 million reasons per year for Kentucky to stay with SEC football.

Sooooo, if Texass can't show away games or HS games, what in the hell can they show?


Am I going to have to purchase the stupid network if I want to watch anyone play at Texas? They are really going to cut down on their customer base if that is the case.


Texas: Underachieving AssClowns.

They like to burn couches.

It's a mystery.

Rank School Revenue Expenses Profit
1 University of Texas (Football) $93,942,815 $25,112,331 $68,830,484
2 Univ. of Georgia (Football) $70,838,539 $18,308,654 $52,529,885
3 Penn State Univ. (Football) $70,208,584 $19,780,939 $50,427,645
4 Univ. of Michigan (Football) $63,189,417 $18,328,233 $44,861,184
5 Univ. of Florida (Football) $68,715,750 $24,457,557 $44,258,193
6 Louisiana State Univ. (Football) $68,819,806 $25,566,520 $43,253,286
7 Univ. of Alabama (Football) $71,884,525 $31,118,134 $40,766,391
8 Univ. of Tennessee (Football) $56,593,946 $17,357,345 $39,236,601
9 Auburn Univ. (Football) $66,162,720 $27,911,713 $38,251,007
10 University of Oklahoma (Football) $58,295,888 $20,150,769 $38,145,119
11 Univ. of South Carolina (Football) $58,266,159 $22,794,211 $35,471,948
12 Notre Dame (Football) $64,163,063 $29,490,788 $34,672,275
13 University of Nebraska (Football) $49,928,228 $17,843,849 $32,084,379
14 Ohio State Univ. (Football) $63,750,000 $31,763,036 $31,986,964
15 Univ. of Iowa (Football) $45,854,764 $18,468,732 $27,386,032
16 Michigan State Univ. (Football) $44,462,659 $17,468,458 $26,994,201
17 Univ. of Arkansas (Football) $48,524,244 $22,005,104 $26,519,140
18 Texas A&M (Football) $41,915,428 $16,599,798 $25,315,630
19 Univ. of Kentucky (Football) $31,890,572 $13,905,724 $17,984,848

71 Univ. of Kentucky (Basketball) $16,781,239 $11,573,283 $5,207,956

It won't matter because they won't win. They are going to get rick rolled. And they will never come to the SEC because they aren't worthy.

No, I'm saying instead of obsessing so much on Texas, the conference as a whole should focus on goals it can work towards together. Your response exemplifies my point. You want to focus on what someone else has and use that as the excuse for all that ails you. With that mentality, its impossible for you to look at common goals and focus on those. Your misplaced focus is not the fault of someone else, yet you use that as the excuse to not have to try.

Well, duh. I realize the money and if they went to a different conference they would lose a little bit. They wouldn't be poor though if they went to the ACC or Big 12 though. Just too may traditional rivalries for them to leave and obviously the $. If they came to the Big 12 though they could start their own network and get tier 3 money.

BTW, where did you get that list? Crazy to think that Iowa's football team is virtually as profitable as Ohio States.

Let's get something strait, the PAC-12 didn't vote to "not include Texas and Oklahoma", it voted not to expand. It would very much like Texas, it just doesn't want them with their own LHN. Texas was just as not interested in joining the PAC-12 without their LHN. So, implying this was a one sided affair that Texas was actively pursuing isn't accurate. Oklahoma tried to bluff its power, and when Texas said it wasn't coming with the Sooners without its LHN, the PAC-12 wasn't interested in the Sooners (and Cowboys) any longer. Let's also not forget a big factor in all this was Texas Tech, and to a lesser extent, OSU. The PAC wanted Texas, OU, KU and MU and might have settled for Texas, OU, OSU and either KU or MU. There's much more at play here than the article's intention.

But, the reality is also that nothing about the Big XII setup indicates that a network must be a single school entity. There's absolutely no reason the remaining schools couldn't form a network. There's no reason the old Big 8 schools couldn't form a network. There's no reason ISU, MU, KU and KSU couldn't form a network. The truth is, everyone else is jealous because Texas is big enough to not have to include anyone else. Why let jealousy be the self limitation other schools could place in cooperation?

Texas doesn't view this network as a "sports only" venue for them. I know that is the aspect that gets promoted the most, but there are other reasons Texas doesn't want to part with it. Quit focusing on the stupid LHN, its the focus that is creating the acrimony, not the network itself. Even the article points out that very few households outside of Texas are actually going to get it, let alone watch it. If there is an actual competitive disadvantage regarding an aspect of it, fine, let's address that, but everything else is envy.

I think it is great Texas got rejected by the PAC.

If I were the Pac-12 and thought future expansion was the best idea, I'd probably go ahead and offer to KU and MU.

After that, I'd give UT and OU a chance to join. If they say no, I'd go to BYU and possibly Boise State.

NO OSU. No Texas Tech. No LHN. No KSU. Sorry, but if I'm the Pac-12, I'm splitting people up...

Of course you would.

Well I guess for however improbable it would be, it makes some sense. You improve PAC's basketball rep with KU and Mizzou to a lesser extent while adding a good program in Mizzou and one that can succeed in KU if they have the right Hutt -errr Mangino at HC.

Isn't it obvious through all of this that nobody gives a **** about basketball when it comes to conference alignment?

Nobody cares.

I know that. I'm saying an MU/KU add to the Pac12 wouldn't be too horrible all things considered.

It is less important, not irrelevant, and the PAC 12's options are extremely limited. If they had the guts to tell OU/UT to drop their little brothers, then they would absolutely want Texas, OU, KU, and MU

I think the 2nd part of your post is probably correct... although largely due to academics, not athletics. Kansas University fans are the only people in the entire world anywhere I've seen saying basketball has any relevance in any of this. I don't understand it, and my favorite college sports event is definitely March Madness. But it's just not realistic, I don't know why people think that. Even on ESPN the other day, Andy Katz said this is all about football, and he's their big basketball writer.

Make no mistake, the Pac 12 would be thrilled to get Texas, OU even if that meant OSU and Tech coming with. They couldn't get them to absorb the LHN and agree to terms with revenue sharing. The Pac deciding they aren't going to expand is really kind of funny, it's more or less that Texas doesn't want to come and share revenue, same with Oklahoma. If they HAVE to share revenue, even if the tier 1 and tier 2 then why not stay in the Big 12..as you have seen.

I doubt it. Kansas barely turns a profit in football. I just looked up basketball and football revenue figures and KU is third to last in division 1 football profits. Revenue isn't all that much either.

If I was Pac 10, I'd want Oklahoma State over KU. Decent at football, Top 20 program in basketball. Throughout this I never thought of Oklahoma State as being the little brother of Oklahoma the same way K-State is to KU. OSU IMO is a legitimate school with a legitimate athletic program.

You're right.

Those football powerhouses that were gobbled up by conferences last week; Syracuse and Pitt, are sure having some great showings today.

LMAO

It isn't my fault you can't see the big picture.

This list that keeps getting posted is really just ticket sales from what I can tell. The biggest stadiums are all at the top.

Not including TV deals, merchandise etc that create revenue outside of ticket sales.

That's why the bball school numbers appear so low.

It's just cherry picking, but who really cares at this point.

Why else would a school like Iowa be listed alongside Ohio State.

In reality the schools aren't even close in value.

eh, when the football powerhouse Missouri gets invited to another conference then I'll believe you.

You've been wrong from the beginning.

It's actually quite pathetic to watch at this point.

Yet Kansas has the 2nd largest endowment and the 2nd largest 3rd tier TV deal in the Big 12 behind Texas.

I wonder why that is??

Actually you were the one who thought it was silly talk that A&M was going to leave and to call you when they actually do. I've made no grand claims. Just watched you spin spin spin.

So, that doesn't include football merchandise either? Oh shit.

Pretty sure that list is total revenue including TV revenue, because if it wasn't, there is no way in hell the Big 10 basketball schools would be ahead of Kansas. But most of the Big 10 basketball revenues are actually higher than Kansas. The only thing I don't think it takes into account is the Williams Fund. A large majority of the ticket revenue is not actually on that list and is privately accounted for from what I am told. Don't know many other schools that do it that way except UNC.

You are correct about the 3rd tier network Kansas has. I'm astounded it's worth as much as it is televising shitty games against Fort Hayes State.

OSU also has T. Boone, which most schools don't have. Although I can believe some of the Pac 12 schools like Stanford do care about the academic side of it, which hurts OSU and Texas Tech. I also think all of the fans of California teams would probably rather light themselves on fire than make conference road trips to Lubbock, TX.

I searched that site for the source of their numbers.

I can't find it so who knows what those numbers actually are from.

I don't know what it includes.

It's a list created by a hot blonde girl who doesn't site any of her sources.

So who knows

False.

The data in these charts is from reports filed by each school with the U.S. Department of Education

I see that there is no new information here. oh well

Its over. Everyone is stuck together as they should be. :)

Who is everyone? OU & UT

I'm more concerned with the traditions of KU-MU-KSU

But sure. Throw the Sooners and Stacey King in there too!

Hey KSU just ran an option into the end zone. God I hope they take it to THE ****ING U

No I see that but they don't link it to any real site with data. Most meaningful being what comprises these numbers?

Tickets
Merchandise
TV Deals
Concessions
Donations (Williams Fund)
Adjust for regional inflation?

I'm just curious.

Boys, boys... Let's stay focused here. It's Saturday. Enjoy the games.

Man aTm looks good. Look out SEC

To sum up the sideline reporter, atm's inferiority complex is so inflamed that they will continue to turn their back on tradition, money, and identity, just to get out of texas' shadow.

F**k them. Glad they lost to the new Big 12.

A&M is just sad now....really sad

Yep. **** 'em.

Never heard of aTm.

Who?

Congrats you purple kittens, impressive road win against Miami!

TA&M

Never heard of ass to mouth? What a shame.

Just think, if Missouri goes to the SEC it will be like playing Oklahoma almost every week.

Good luck

I'll take it!

This silly and untrue statement aside Missouri is 4-1 against the SEC since 2000.

Me too.

Same here...it only makes us better. And quite frankly I think we would do better than most people here want to admit.

After yesterdays game I say take em. What a shit team. lol

LMAO, that shit team would curbstomp your guys. You are the most clueless troll on the board.

Seriously. A KU fan talking crap on a (as of yesterday) top-10 tean. LMAO

what?

I don't hear KU talking any shit.

They are a couple years from getting back to the BCS. Everyone knows that.

Eh, your conference is taking in a sub par football program.

3-12 in the last 20 years in bowl games...

Stellar.

A program that will get better in a stronger conference not containing UT.

I'm not convinced this is the case. We'll see how they look 6 or 7 years from now. This is all my hunch and opinion, not based on any scientific study. Anyway, my impression is:

Kids in the deep south and FL either stay in the deep south and FL or they want to go far away to CA or something. They don't often go to Texas. Kids in Texas either go to UT/OU, or they go to a Big 12 team with a chip on their shoulder to play against OU/UT. To a much lesser extent, some might grow up wanting to be Aggies, but Texas A&M wont be able to tap into that "I'll show those damned longhorns that they made a mistake" recruiting line anymore, now they play against deep south teams they never cared about, other than maybe Florida.

I wouldn't be surprised if by 2019 or so, Texas A&M sinks into an unremarkable football program. Not necessarily bad like Vandy or Kentucky, but not all that good either.

For all those issues, I do believe Texas A&M has a better chance to succeed in spite of all that than Mizzou, because at least they are in Texas and the pool may still be big enough without the UT rivalry. Missouri relies very heavily on Texas for their success. I don't see how the hell Missouri recruits in Texas if they are not in a conference with Texas, and no one worth a damn from, say Alabama and Mississippi wants to play in Missouri.

So about what they are now and what they've been? Let's not act like A&M has ever been great at football.

You guys are basically grasping at straws at this point. If they were going to the Big East, that probably would have a lot of merit. But I can't get into the arguments from the other conferences that going to the SEC is going to hurt someone's recruiting. All they have to say is "the SEC sends more players to the NFL than any other conference." Blammo. I'm sure they might lose a kid here and there that really wants to play a lot of games in Texas, but it's not like elite high school kids are going to say "Pssht, I'm too good for the SEC."

If I'm a Texas legislator representing College Station, I'd start lobbying my colleagues to pass a bill requiring UT and TA&M to play each other every year in football and basketball, just like they do in Iowa.

That line doesn't work now because the SEC doesn't recruit well in Texas.

Texas A&M isn't going to open that door for them, and to the extent that a random odd Texas kid wants to play in the SEC, I believe that Mizzou would be pretty far down the list. The Tigers probably won't ever suck for a prolonged period of time because Missouri is a very large state with only one in-state BCS school, but it will be a little more difficult.

Yes it will. They'll be able to say you can come play in the best conference, have the highest chance of getting drafted into the NFL, and now you'll have your games televised in Texas and get to play there in front of friends and family.