2011 College Football Thread

[AXOmom]

Pearlbubbles - Well, I'm sure the tv viewership he thinks they will bring in is attractive, but based on the choices they've made since the Big 12 broke up - he has to know that Texas would be unlikely to ever agree with the revenue sharing system we currently have set up, and I doubt our AD's would go along with anything else, so I just don't see it working. I know the majority of Pac-12 fans don't want them, but that, of course, has very little to do with decisions Pac-12 officials will make.

Wareagle93-I'm not qualified to make a comment on Mizzou, but since Wisconsin is ranked in the preseason top 10 in most polls (10th generally), I'm not sure you can say they are flying under the radar. Usually any team ranked in the top 10 is considered a potential national championship contender (flying under the radar would be a team that isn't ranked in the top 10 preseason and wins a national championship anyway - unusual, but I think a team did that last year. Sound like any team you know? LOL).

[pearlbubbles]

Originally Posted by AXOmom

Pearlbubbles - Well, I'm sure the tv viewership he thinks they will bring in is attractive, but based on the choices they've made since the Big 12 broke up - he has to know that Texas would be unlikely to ever agree with the revenue sharing system we currently have set up, and I doubt our AD's would go along with anything else, so I just don't see it working. I know the majority of Pac-12 fans don't want them, but that, of course, has very little to do with decisions Pac-12 officials will make.

I do agree that the regional networks are different from what Texas wants to do with the Longhorn Network.

And in any case, I think Texas would be a bit sorely disappointed anyway if the Pac-12 model was similar to the one the Big 12 had (still has?) since an unequal revenue wouldn't necessarily be in their favor over here (if that ever was a viable choice for the lower market schools anyway; clearly a big "if'"). Hopefully the Big 12 can right itself enough to stall the superconferences.

[AXOmom]

Originally Posted by pearlbubbles

I do agree that the regional networks are different from what Texas wants to do with the Longhorn Network.

And in any case, I think Texas would be a bit sorely disappointed anyway if the Pac-12 model was similar to the one the Big 12 had (still has?) since an unequal revenue wouldn't necessarily be in their favor over here (if that ever was a viable choice for the lower market schools anyway; clearly a big "if'"). Hopefully the Big 12 can right itself enough to stall the superconferences.

Well, interestingly, right after the Pac-12 changed its revenue-sharing policy, the Big 12 changed theirs, so it used to be somewhat shared but based on tv appearances, but now all revenues are shared equally. If our tv deals went under $170 million (which they won't since Scott just inked a pretty sweet deal for us), then UCLA and USC would have gotten $2 million additional.

I think Texas would balk at losing that LHN which wouldn't fly in the Pac-12. I mean, if USC couldn't make that happen (though they'd probably love to), Texas isn't going to make it happen in this conference. I doubt they would give up the LHN to join our conference at this point and I can't see USC specifically being willing to let Texas rule the roost in the Pac-12 the way they have in the Big 12. The phrase, "this town ain't big enough for the two of us" comes to mind. .

I'm not against the 4 super conference really - I think that would lead to a play off system which I would LOVE.