lol.

You are completely clueless in this whole thing.

uh, no....never...ever...as in not ever....ever

Tough to say. I would have a better clue I suppose if I were able to watch the Longhorn Network when its launched in August.

But my cable provider doesn't carry it. No one in the country does.

I just don't think it'll end well. You can't have one school completely dominating and calling the shots for 9 other schools... especially when many of them are more than viable in either football or basketball. Surely all these other schools aren't going to lay down for Texas forever?

If the SEC wants Mizzou, they should take it and run. I think it's going to suck when you separate all these rivalries in the middle of the country as they straggle on to conferences on the coasts though.

Certain schools will always have more than others. Texas will always have the advantage over pretty much anyone else when it comes to resources and "pull" when it comes to the NCAA. They are worth a great deal of $$. Them having their own station with ESPN sucks, I agree. But it's not like this is some big change from how its always been.

The fun thing with these situations is when an organization like Texas has so much and goes out and wins 5 games.

It is.

It absolutely is a big change from how it always has been.

I am not bitching about it...not being the victim but I am calling it for what it is. I am surprised you can see 5 feet in front of you on this issue.

The old saying “good fences make good neighbors” applies to conference as well as neighborhoods. Though we all work together, we still have to respect each other’s autonomy. What Texas is doing with the LHN is establishing a one-way fence that keeps everyone else out but allows them to leave at will.

Texas isn't going to go indepedent. This is just silly message board fodder. They have an excellent overall athletic department and won't sacrifice all of the other sports for football.

It's going to be awesome seeing Missouri play in Bryant-Denney Stadium in three years.

They won't have to, they'll play non football sports in the ACC or Big East just like Notre Dame does.

Texas has more people than Australia, Saudi Arabia, Greece, the Netherlands, and Taiwan. All of those places have a multitude of channels just for their country. Why, again, isn't a Longhorn independence viable?

It will take a bit to get off the ground but ESPN has made a 300 million dollar investment in it. They are going to get the whole thing warmed up and bolt.

You're missing the point, Scott covets the central time zone not because he wants to bring central fans to the west coast time zones, but because he wants more exposure in the central time zones. There will only be a handful of games that actually have a late start time involving the Inland Division. Most of the west coast trips will be afternoon games that become prime time in the central to eastern time zones.

I used to think the Big XII was going to be fine as well. I don't hold that opinion any longer. Just look at the timeline:

Texas and ESPN want to do things with LHN that pisses other Big XII members off

A&M starts clamoring again about SEC if Texas doesn't temper its plans

OU voices the same concern as A&M but doesn't mention a new conference partner

Larry Scott makes public statements that Texas, because of their network, is no longer a candidate for possible expansion AND that they are still actively seeking to expand.

Texas and ESPN disregard the Big XII and start inking high schools to LHN productions

To me, this says the PAC and OU are already in discussions which is probably centering around OSU. The PAC wants a wider audience in the midwest, so taking two Oklahoma schools doesn't make any sense to them. They can get the same bang for their buck with one Texas school, one Oklahoma school, Missouri with its media centers and close proximity to the other conferences and Kansas as a connector state with a basketball upside.

The first time around, Texas had the weight to dictate who could go to the PAC because most of the prime national interest games involved them: Red River; Texas-A&M. But with them out of the picture and A&M wanting to head east, tag-alongs won't be tolerated by the PAC. They need market shares and central time zone states. OSU loses out, unless OU decides to go SEC and the PAC feels they can get enough with OSU.

Missouri isn't going to the PAC.

If the Big 12 breaks apart then that will open up the need for other conferences to keep up with the super conference threat. The Tigers will go B10 or SEC.

I think you're wrong and here's why:

The PAC is the aggressor here, they'll make the first pitch before the conference officially goes belly up. He'll try to secure a deal before the actual movement starts so he doesn't have to compete against the SEC and Big 10. He'll do it by making this sales pitch:

He'll point out the fact that if the Big XII breaks up before 2012, it will dissolve the FOX/ESPN contract for second tier rights that amounted to 1.1 billion dollars, plus the unspecified prediction of the first tier contract due in 2016. If A&M goes SEC, that an exclusively ESPN contract. If Texas goes independent, that's an exclusively ESPN contract. The PAC contract was set up as a FOX/ESPN deal and it will be easier to negotiate new terms within that framework with that available money. Money that in all likelyhood will no longer go towards KSU, ISU or Baylor and only a small portion towards SEC re-negotiations, if any at all. This could give the PAC the richest contract in conference sports, between 25 and 30 million per school, most likely.

In addition, the PAC will provide you with a regional network that you don't have to front all the money on that you can show regional high school games on among other things. This in addition to the exposure on the national PAC Network.

Your competition won't be as severe as it is in either the Big 10 or SEC which means you will position yourself better for bowls/playoffs.

Unlike the Big 10 which snubbed you, we really want and value you. In fact, we think your location is so important to our increased exposure towards the east, we want to put our Inland Division headquarters in St. Louis.

As a member of the PAC you will now have a presence in the two states that produce the most high school talent in the country: Texas and California

You don't have to try and establish new recruiting territory already dominated by the SEC and Big 10 and you get to preserve a great number of your traditional rivals in KU, CU, OU and Tech.

You will be part of a conference that will dominate the market west of the Mississippi across three time zones with one of the most innovative thinkers in marketing at your lead. We look at you as a founding partner, so you will get a full share of the new contract as opposed to the graduated entry Nebraska must do in the Big 10.

My guess is Mizzou will jump at the chance to be a big fish in a rich new pond rather than a small fish in an rich but old one. OU will agree to go to the PAC as well because they will retain their position as the do now as the traditional football power, unlike in the SEC where they be "one of" the great powers. Tech already wants to go, and as much as I hate to say it, Kansas will just be thrilled to be included. Last time Texas was the prize, but this time Missouri is. Sure, they want OU, but they could probably get by with OSU. Mizzou is the deal breaker. If they can't convince them, everyone will probably stand pat until the Big XII attempts to negotiate their first tier for 2016.