Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosbonian
There's a big if you have in there and my very reason to doubt this whole scenario....if the conference re-stablizes. Two years in a row this conference has come close to folding. Tell me what guarantees we won't see this same scenario next year...or the next?
Aren't you the least bit concerned about how OU and UT have suddenly become bed partners? I am....
And how will this league be attractive if OSU, MU and Texas Tech have a couple of bad years. We already have ISU, KU, Baylor and K-State with very little horsepower when it comes to football. Since we are using "if" scenarios I will throw out this one:
If no one but OU and UT has banner years for the next 2 or 3 years, who will want to hand over a check for $300 million to a 2-Horse league?
|
First of all, I don't think it has as much to do with recent success on the field as you do. This league was already primarily a 2 horse league and it had just barely avoided implosion when they landed a monster network deal last year. I don't know why the loss of A&M would make them that much less attractive. The league still owns the Texas markets. And the networks can protect themselves from any remaining instability.
I don't see any way for 7 of the remaining 9 members of the Big 12 to sink to the level of regular suckitude that you envision. MU, OSU, TT, and to some degree the others will continue to recruit Texas talent. They'll continue to play the vast majority of their games against either cupcakes or other Big 12 members. There will always be a couple of Big 12 schools that rack up good records even if they lose to both Texas and OU almost every year. Those teams will continue to be ranked in the top 25. It may not always be MU, OSU, or TT, but it will be someone.