Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosbonian
I know you put me on ignore, but I'm answering this to the general populace, mostly because you are making assumptions that aren't necessarily true.
The Big 12 contracts are low because they need to be renegotiated and will be when they expire. But yours, and others, assumptions that they will surpass the PAC 12, SEC or Big 10 is at best, childlike.
Why would anyone pay exhorbitant money for a conference that has shown horrid instability, is weighted HEAVILY towards 2 teams at best, and has not shown it's drawing power outside the midwest?
And, you are assuming that Texas and OU will even stay around for the new contract. They aren't going to agree to lock themselves in to a contract that ties their hands....their egos are too large.
I'm betting that if UT and OU make any concessions to keep the B12 intact they will only be to the extent that they are minor.
|
I think it's likely that a re-stabilized Big 12 would be able to get the big contract that alnorth envisions because they're still a consistently good football conference and they still have a presence in a lot of pretty good college football markets. I don't see why stability would be a concern as any risk that the conference could implode could easily be anticipated by the contract to protect the networks.
If the conference re-stabilizes like alnorth envisions, UT and OU would have no choice but to stick around. Is UT going to leave the conference if the Big 12 still controls their Tier 1 and Tier 2 rights? What conference would accept them without those rights?