Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Two Minutes Of Thunder Basketball Wins The Game

Reports: Pac 10, Texas Disagree on Longhorn Television Network

BOULDER, CO - JUNE 11: (R-L) PAC-10 Commissioner Larry Scott speaks as Colorado Athletic Director Mike Bohn and University of Colorado Chancellor Phil DiStefano listen during a press conference at Folsom Stadium on June 11, 2010 in Boulder, Colorado. The University of Colorado Board of Regents voted unanimously to accept an invitation to join the PAC-10 Conference.  (Photo by Marc Piscotty/Getty Images)

The Big 12 may continue to exist after all. What looked to be impossible this past weekend, Texas and the Big 12 officials may have a deal that will give Texas what it wants: control. The Dallas News is reporting that Texas has turned down the Pac 10's invitation to join the conference after the Longhorns wanted a better television deal than the rest of the conference. Essentially, the "better" television deal would come from the Longhorns own television network that would net the University an additional $3-$5 million annually:

Pac 10 Commissioner Larry Scott confirmed that the University of Texas has declined an invitation to join the conference. The decision will preserve the Big 12 as a 10-team conference, assuming Texas A&M elects to remain. Texas A&M officials were deliberating Monday afternoon.

Big 12 member schools and TV partners met Monday to work on a lucrative television deal that would convince the University of Texas and three other schools -- Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech -- to abandon pursuit of Pac-10 membership.

The TV dollars were also enough to convince Texas A&M to stay with the conference. The Aggies had been pursuing a bid to the Southeastern Conference.

Under Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe's plan, Texas would see a sharp increase in revenue under a new cable TV right deal with Fox Sports. Because of the Big 12's revenue sharing formula, Texas would probably make more than the $17 million average, perhaps close to $20 million. The Longhorns would also be allowed to form their own network, something that would not be allowed in the Pac-10.

A source said the network could eventually produce up to $5 million in revenue based on projections, which would likely bring Texas more money than a move to the Pac-10.


John Henderson of the Denver Post cites a Pac 10 source close the situation that Texas tried to pull a quick one and demand a better deal late in the game during final negotiations:

The battered Big 12 may be on the verge of survival after a source close to the Pac-10's expansion negotiations told The Denver Post today that Texas is insisting on better revenue sharing and its own network.

"In the 11th hour, after months of telling us they understand the TV rights, they're trying to pull a fast one on the verge of sealing the deal in the regents meeting," the source said. "They want a better revenue sharing deal and their own network. Those were points of principle. (The Pac-10) wants to treat everyone fairly. It's been that way for months of discussions."

ESPN.com is reporting that Texas could earn up to $25 million with the new proposed television deal, approximately $5.0 million more than the Oklahoma Sooners and Texas A&M Aggies, who could earn up to $20 million. The other seven schools - Texas Tech Red Raiders, Baylor Bears, Missouri Tigers, Oklahoma St. Cowboys, Kansas Jayhawks, Kansas St. Wildcats and Iowa St. Cyclones - would earn $14 - $17 million. Of course, the $14 - $17 million is almost double what those schools received last year but the gap continues to widen in favor of Texas.

All of this seems contigent on Texas A&M staying with the Big 12 conference and not bolting to the SEC.

A few things to remember if this turns true. The positives to this scenario are obvious. The Pac 10 would probably add Utah to form the Pac 12 with Colorado. That would add the Salt Lake City television market and the Denver television market to its current markets. Also, from a competitve standpoint, Colorado would not be joining the Big 12 South + the two Arizona teams. Instead, Colorado may join a grouping of the Washington Huskies, Washington St. Cougars, Oregon Ducks, Oregon St. Beavers and Utah Utes. Or it could be the USC Trojans, UCLA Bruins, Arizona Wildcats, Arizona State Sun Devils, Colorado and Utah. Either way, it looks to be an easier hill to climb than joing a conference that included Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State.

The drawbacks are the University of Texas isn't coming over which will reduce the television revenue paid out to Colorado and other members of the Pac 10. Colorado may also owe the $10 million penalty payout to the Big 12 which was something that many hoped would be a non issue if the Big 12 dissolved entirely. During the Pac 10/Colorado conference calls last week, the Colorado administration hinted at the Pac 10 loaning the University the cash to pay off the penalty. The loan would be paid back overtime from future conference revenues. Such a deal may be needed if the University cannot raise the money itself.

One thing is not debatable: Getting out of the Texas shadow continues to look like a good decision as the Big 12 continues to run through Texas and the top tier programs. The gap continues to grow between the rest of the conference and Texas. Throw in the championship games moving to Dallas Stadium and the Longhorn television network, it is difficult to see the "other seven programs" in the Big 12 closing the gap. 

Poll
What is your reaction to the news that Texas and the rest of the Big 12 South won't be joining the Buffs in the Pac-10?
Happy. From a competitive standpoint, this was the best the Buffs could have hoped for.
249 votes
Not Happy. Wondering how much this will lower the conference payout. Want to play the best.
44 votes

293 votes | Poll has closed

Comment 25 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I have mixed feelings about this

I suppose it’s better for CU to be among equals in terms of athletic department spending. But it just seems like the Pac12 will not be as nationally relevant without Texas & OU. Nobody outside the Pacific time zone really watches pac-10 games and CU and Utah are unlikely to change that (other than adding SLC/Denver markets). They better get Utah at least.

Either way CU made the right decision going to the Pac-10. That’s where they need to be. Can’t control other schools decisions. Hopefully they maintain Nebraska rivalry.

by skithebert on Jun 14, 2010 5:41 PM MDT reply actions  

This is my reaction:


I know it’ll be less money, but that new division would of sucked big time. Get Utah on board and let’s get this done.

by nebraskasux on Jun 14, 2010 5:59 PM MDT reply actions   1 recs

No kidding.

Free of the Texans.

303
魏 多福

by Gr3yStreet on Jun 14, 2010 6:15 PM MDT up reply actions  

Hey now....

Texans are passionate about their football just like all of us. Its just a part of the culture down here, just like skiing or hiking is in Colorado.

by BuffnBigD on Jun 14, 2010 6:23 PM MDT up reply actions  

Priorities of a Texan:

1. Football
2. Money for UT
3. God
4. High School Football
5. Politics with football as the focal point.
6. Family

Thanks goodness we got away from UT and their conniving/controlling/self-serving methods. If A&M and OU fans are not happy about this Big 12-2, that says pretty much all you need to know about sticking with UT.

I'm rooting for Team USA at the World Cup!

by McGeorge on Jun 14, 2010 6:42 PM MDT up reply actions  

You forgot

Thinking they are their own country

"Me fail english, that unpossible" - Ralph Wiggum
"Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem" - Duffman
"Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun" - Ash from Army of Darkness
"H.I., you're young and you got your health, what you want with a job?" - Evelle from Raising Arizona
"It happens sometimes. People just explode. Natural causes." - Agent Rogersz from Repoman

by Broncoman on Jun 14, 2010 6:53 PM MDT up reply actions  

This blows

As I’ve admitted before, I wanted to stay with the Texas schools so I could attend some games down here…. Besides that…..

1. Recruiting in Texas will now be impossible with no presence down here
2. Payout will now be less than if we had stayed in the Big 12, PLUS now have to PAY $10M!!!
3. Lost the annaul game with NE, but that was going to happen anyway.
4. Just don’t like Texas getting bigger and bigger. They WILL control this new/reduced conference.

I just feel disappointed that it looks like we got duped into bailing on the conference (they collect our $10M) when everybody else stays and gets a great deal in the process. Yes, my team will no longer make appearances down here in TX and will no longer even be thought of in Big 12 circles….

by BuffnBigD on Jun 14, 2010 6:20 PM MDT reply actions  

Who cares about Big 12-2 circle jerks. UT is going to run that conference even more now that NU and CU are gone. It’s going to be a joke, esp for the poor teams that remain in the North. I’m sure Mizz would love a Big 10 invite right about now. KU as well.

I'm rooting for Team USA at the World Cup!

by McGeorge on Jun 14, 2010 6:27 PM MDT up reply actions  

Not too concerned

1. We hardly recruited Texas errr weren’t very good at it as we only have 3 TX kids on the current roster (Crosby was the exception not the rule).
2. It will be less but I would not want to be a part of a network completely controlled by Texas and their revenue sharing will favor Texas even more than it does now. Pac 12 will be equal.
3. That game was always bigger to us than them. Hasn’t been the same in a LONG time.
4. This is true. Thank god we got out while the getting was good.

The $10M will be worked off over a few years with our increase in revenue. I’m excited to see if we can convince some of the Cali kids who were headed to USC to come join us because their penalties will set them back further than the two years they are serving.

by emalkin23 on Jun 14, 2010 6:55 PM MDT up reply actions  

We can still recruit in Texas

Remember McCartney did it well when we were still the Big 8 and had no pressence down there. I actually think it may be easier to recruit there now, there are going to be a fair amount of kids who want to play where it isn’t 100 degree and 90% humidity in the summer and get to play with a national TV contract and get exposure on the West coast. I think a good coach would be able to sell playing at places like LA, SF, Seattle, Phoenix, Eugene over places like Norman, Stillwater, Manhatten, Lubbock, and the likes.

"Me fail english, that unpossible" - Ralph Wiggum
"Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem" - Duffman
"Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun" - Ash from Army of Darkness
"H.I., you're young and you got your health, what you want with a job?" - Evelle from Raising Arizona
"It happens sometimes. People just explode. Natural causes." - Agent Rogersz from Repoman

by Broncoman on Jun 14, 2010 7:01 PM MDT up reply actions   1 recs

Absolutely

We could never really compete with UT when recruiting Texas and trying to get kids to stay in the Big 12. Now we may actually have a better shot at kids who want to get out of the state and the heat and play some games on the coast.

And more frequent games in California now with only 12 teams. Phew, that’s huge.

DAG

by DavidAGerhardt on Jun 14, 2010 8:15 PM MDT up reply actions  

Only advantage now:

Nebraska has to pay a higher penalty to the Big 12 than we do.

DAG

by DavidAGerhardt on Jun 14, 2010 6:25 PM MDT reply actions  

I’d like to get as far away from those UT money grubbing monsters as possible.

I’d rather CU have a better foothold to recruit Cali than Texas since UT, OU and the SEC take all the 4 and 5 star guys anyway. Not since Slick Rick did we poach sweet players from Texas. Add Utah and call it a day. I’m great with leaving behind OSU, OU, A&M and Texas Tech. Those guys can continue having fun being UT’s bitch. I really feel bad for the rest of the Big XII North. They are third class at this point.

I'm rooting for Team USA at the World Cup!

by McGeorge on Jun 14, 2010 6:25 PM MDT reply actions  

and.....

I get the feeling that most are happy about this (even though we would NEVER write it…) because the competition would be too much for CU. Personally I feel we would have elevated our program to the competition, but….

by BuffnBigD on Jun 14, 2010 6:25 PM MDT reply actions  

That is a good point Dallas

It would make us HAVE to elevate our programs immediately to be halfway respectable in a quasi Pac Ten/Big 12 South. Now, we’ll still need to improve, but the slope isn’t as steep as playing UT, OK, OSU, TA&M, etc every season.
And your correct in saying that we’ll miss out on many TX recruits but I still feel like getting away from UT is better long term.

by CleBUFFS on Jun 14, 2010 7:03 PM MDT via mobile up reply actions  

I am actually pretty pleased

The prospect of being stuck playing Texas, TT, A&M, OU, and OSU every year wasn’t real apealing to me. I really like the idea of playing SC, UCLA, Cal, UW, U of O, and ASU on a regular basis, and even Utah. And we can still schedule Nebraska as a non-conferemce game.

"Me fail english, that unpossible" - Ralph Wiggum
"Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem" - Duffman
"Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun" - Ash from Army of Darkness
"H.I., you're young and you got your health, what you want with a job?" - Evelle from Raising Arizona
"It happens sometimes. People just explode. Natural causes." - Agent Rogersz from Repoman

by Broncoman on Jun 14, 2010 6:56 PM MDT reply actions  

Hmmm...

Has anyone seen any rough estimates as to how much much TV revenue we will bring in now?

by BigXIITDOG on Jun 14, 2010 7:07 PM MDT reply actions  

I think the new name of the big 12

will be the Longhorns and the Longhornettes.

good riddance.

by Rainbow skyline on Jun 14, 2010 8:08 PM MDT reply actions  

Farewell BigTex Conference

While this may not be ideal financially (i still think the renogitiated football TV contract in 2012 plus a Pac10 network will bring in more than the were in 2009 in the BigTex. Not to mention get us the eff out texas’s conf. Did you see how Baylor tried to use political muscle to screw us, who is to say they wouldnt do it again or that Texas wont make another demand to change revenue sharing again in 5 years and threaten to leave. No matter what happens on the field these events means Texas now owns Oklahoma (and everyone else in the conference) forever.

by LABuff6236 on Jun 14, 2010 8:11 PM MDT reply actions  

Further proof this was the right move,

not that we needed it, and high marks to Scott/PAC 10 for sticking to their guns. CU should move by 2011 making this our last year. CU/NU will lawyer up to fight the penalty fee (funny, us and Nebraska on the same side) so it’s going to get increasingly acrimonious.

Do we really want to be part of this for two more years? It’s like living with an ex after you break-up.

by Allen Barteld on Jun 14, 2010 8:29 PM MDT reply actions  

Wouldn't moving by 2011 make more financial sense for us?

2 year scenario is 50% of our share of revenue for each year. Say our share is 10 mil. so we would lose 5mil x 2years = 10 mil

1 year scenario is 70-80% so we would lose 7-8mil. So we would have to take a bigger hit this year but would be saving 2-3mil in the long run. Plus we would get into the Pac-12 and start collecting our revenue a year sooner.

"C-O-L-O-R-A-D-O"

"No Rebounds, No Rings"

"Things turn out best for the people who make the best of the way things turn out"
-John Wooden

by ksballa11 on Jun 14, 2010 9:06 PM MDT up reply actions  

yes

and I’m betting that’s what happens

by nebraskasux on Jun 14, 2010 9:09 PM MDT up reply actions  

Not so sure

The bylaws are tough to read, but my understanding is that we leave in 2012, we owe 50% of 2010 revenue and 50% of 2011 revenue. If we leave in 2011, we own 80% of 2009 revenue and 80% of 2010 revenue. Either way, you have to pay a % of two years worth of revenues, the % and actual years change based on the notification. So, it is a much bigger penalty to leave in 2011.

That being said, I think CU will work something out with the Big 12 to leave in 2011. I don’t thing the new Big 12 wants to play with 12 teams in 2010, 11 in 2011, and 10 in 2012. Much easier to figure out scheduling by changing to 10 teams in 2011.

by Pptarmigan on Jun 15, 2010 9:16 AM MDT up reply actions  

I've missed the Big 8

but will not miss the Big 12. The conference lost it’s soul when they sold out to the SWC refugees.

As for losing out on recruiting in Texas, so be it. My impression was sharing a conference gave Texas access to Colorado recruits, rather than vice versa.

by DCJ on Jun 14, 2010 10:45 PM MDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to The Ralphie Report, an unofficial blog for fans of the Colorado Buffaloes. Established April 24th, 2008.

Winner - Best Sports Blog In Colorado - 2011 Westword Web Awards

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Socks_small
Interview With New Buffalo Forward Xavier Johnson
Small
Colorado Basketball Recruiting Chart

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SHOP THE RALPHIE REPORT STORE

Gameday Depot University Apparel

Facebook and Google+


   The Ralphie Report Google+ Page

The Ralphie Report Twitter Feed


Editor-in-Chief

R1-01151-022a_small Jon Woods

Editor

Ralphie-large_small Bob_Bell

Contributors

Small DavidAGerhardt

Small Denny Majewski

Img_0760_small Ash Jackson

Small Parker_Baruh