Teaxs A&M to leave Big 12

[AXOmom]

Originally Posted by ISUKappa

The Aggies could have their own damn network if they wanted. Every school in the Big 12 can have their own freaking network; OU is purportedly working on one as well. Texas was just the first to do it because they have the resources and national brand to make it happen.

I don't know if aTm will be competitive in the SEC. They might and they might not. They certainly haven't done well against the SEC teams they've played recently. They weren't competitive in the Big 12 until about 3 years ago, and that's including when NU, CU, OSU, and even Texas were having down years. Iowa State has a better bowl record than aTm as members of the Big 12. aTm wants to be out of Texas' shadow, yet still play them every Thanksgiving weekend because it's "tradition." A tradition they may have to have the Texas legislature create a law to keep because, according to DeLoss, Texas has no desire to play the aggies if/when they move to the SEC. We may be seeing a Texas/ND Thanksgiving game instead.

No, every team in the Big XII could not get a $300 million television contract for their own football network through ESPN. To get a contract with a major tv network to run a network that exclusively shows your games, which is what Texas has, a team has to show they have the alum and fan base to make that commercially profitable. When you say Texas did it first because they have the resources and the national brand – that’s the ONLY reason they could do it – because they have the resources and the national brand. If you don’t then you can’t get an exclusive tv contract with ESPN or any other major network. This is why tv contracts are worked out with conferences, so that schools without those resource or national brand can still get some games on tv and things are reasonably fair. Schools that pull in big tv money split that with smaller schools that don’t pull in much. Oklahoma can look into it because they also have resources and a national brand. Who doesn’t have those kind of resources and a national brand is every other school in the Big XII (now that Nebraska is gone). Well, Oklahoma State probably has the resources, but not the brand…yet. If Oklahoma goes that route then guess who will get left out in the cold with a lousy tv conference deal – you, Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, and Texas A &M.


Texas A&M wants in the SEC which has a lucrative tv deal for the conference as a whole. Texas did what was best for them. Oklahoma may do the same thing – why wouldn’t Texas A&M do what’s best for themselves when they’re clearly in an every man for himself conference. You’re on the Titanic, and they’re grabbing a life boat.

Texas A&M’s record against SEC schools (all-time) is .426. An okay (not great, but okay record) and that doesn’t take into account that for most of that history they were an all-male military institution and only recently became a university (1988 I believe) which put them at a disadvantage. Do I think they will come in and do great against the SEC? No. But .426 is just slightly below their overall winning percentage in the Big XII, so as you said, there’s no way to tell and based on that and their current ranking – no reason to think they will do worse over the long run. Short term they’ll probably do worse. They’ve only played 3 SEC schools in the last 10 years (excluding bowl games) at any rate, so it would be hard to draw a conclusion about how they will do in that conference from past experience.


Using their 3 year record against Big XII schools is a little misleading. For two of those years they had coaching distractions to say the least. They have winning records against four current Big XII schools overall. Last year they went 6-2 in the Big XII.


Their bowl game record isn't going to get any worse if they go to the SEC, so I’m not sure why that would figure into the argument. I don’t know that bowl games say a lot about the quality of the team in the regular season anyway. You’re right – your bowl game record in the last 10 years is better; on the other hand they’ve beaten you 9 out of 10 times in roughly that same time period. Not trying to offend – just pointing out that bowl game records aren’t particularly reliable methods for judging a team’s ability level.

[shirley1929]

Originally Posted by AXOmom

Texas A&M’s record against SEC schools (all-time) is .426. An okay (not great, but okay record) and that doesn’t take into account that for most of that history they were an all-male military institution and only recently became a university (1988 I believe) which put them at a disadvantage. Do I think they will come in and do great against the SEC? No. But .426 is just slightly below their overall winning percentage in the Big XII, so as you said, there’s no way to tell and based on that and their current ranking – no reason to think they will do worse over the long run. Short term they’ll probably do worse. They’ve only played 3 SEC schools in the last 10 years (excluding bowl games) at any rate, so it would be hard to draw a conclusion about how they will do in that conference from past experience.

I actually agree with everything you said, but FTR, Texas A&M became Texas A&M University in 1963...a good 25 years before you're noting.

[ISUKappa]

Originally Posted by AXOmom

No, every team in the Big XII could not get a $300 million television contract for their own football network through ESPN. To get a contract with a major tv network to run a network that exclusively shows your games, which is what Texas has, a team has to show they have the alum and fan base to make that commercially profitable. When you say Texas did it first because they have the resources and the national brand – that’s the ONLY reason they could do it – because they have the resources and the national brand. If you don’t then you can’t get an exclusive tv contract with ESPN or any other major network. This is why tv contracts are worked out with conferences, so that schools without those resource or national brand can still get some games on tv and things are reasonably fair. Schools that pull in big tv money split that with smaller schools that don’t pull in much. Oklahoma can look into it because they also have resources and a national brand. Who doesn’t have those kind of resources and a national brand is every other school in the Big XII (now that Nebraska is gone). Well, Oklahoma State probably has the resources, but not the brand…yet. If Oklahoma goes that route then guess who will get left out in the cold with a lousy tv conference deal – you, Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, and Texas A &M.

My point was every school in the Big 12 has the opportunity to create their own network - that's not true for every conference out there. Are they all worth $300 million? No. Personally, I think ESPN was nuts to pay Texas that much, especially as they still haven't necessarily fulfilled the requirements of the contract (conference game is still up in the air). But that's what the market was, for better or worse, and Texas is now either tied to their ESPN deal if the Big 12 does implode or some other conference (Pac12/Big10) is going to have to rewrite their conference rules to allow school networks. (Unless Texas, ND and BYU create their own holy superconference in the next 5 years.) The LHN can't show any FB games that are already scheduled to air on another network, and even then both schools have to agree to it. It'll mostly be filler programming, replays and Olympic sports.

The SEC may not get to renegotiate their TV deal with the addition of aTm, so they may not be making more money, anyway, at least not for a while. They were guaranteed $20m starting next year in the Big 12, more if they sold their third tier rights for the right price (like Texas). Competition will definitely be stronger in the SEC. That doesn't mean aTm won't be able to rise to the occasion, but nothing is guaranteed. It may get them away from Texas, but it doesn't mean that they won't find there are other issues in a different conference.

It sucks being the little guy in this situation. But aTm was NOT the little guy. They (along with Nebraska) had numerous chances over the years to keep the monster that is Texas in check by voting for equal revenue, yet they didn't. They, along with Texas and OU, were the only three schools guaranteed to make at least $20m with the new tv deal. They also pledged to make a 10-team Big 12 work, but obviously that didn't mean anything as some have said the SEC deal has been in the works under the table since the whole realignment meltdown last year. So they may be "saving" themselves on that lifeboat, but they're also letting the little guy schools drown in the freezing water. Especially if the TV contract the Big 12 signed with Fox last summer is voided by aTm leaving.

[AXOmom]

Originally Posted by ISUKappa

My point was every school in the Big 12 has the opportunity to create their own network - that's not true for every conference out there. Are they all worth $300 million? No. Personally, I think ESPN was nuts to pay Texas that much, especially as they still haven't necessarily fulfilled the requirements of the contract (conference game is still up in the air). But that's what the market was, for better or worse, and Texas is now either tied to their ESPN deal if the Big 12 does implode or some other conference (Pac12/Big10) is going to have to rewrite their conference rules to allow school networks. (Unless Texas, ND and BYU create their own holy superconference in the next 5 years.) The LHN can't show any FB games that are already scheduled to air on another network, and even then both schools have to agree to it. It'll mostly be filler programming, replays and Olympic sports.

The SEC may not get to renegotiate their TV deal with the addition of aTm, so they may not be making more money, anyway, at least not for a while. They were guaranteed $20m starting next year in the Big 12, more if they sold their third tier rights for the right price (like Texas). Competition will definitely be stronger in the SEC. That doesn't mean aTm won't be able to rise to the occasion, but nothing is guaranteed. It may get them away from Texas, but it doesn't mean that they won't find there are other issues in a different conference.

It sucks being the little guy in this situation. But aTm was NOT the little guy. They (along with Nebraska) had numerous chances over the years to keep the monster that is Texas in check by voting for equal revenue, yet they didn't. They, along with Texas and OU, were the only three schools guaranteed to make at least $20m with the new tv deal. They also pledged to make a 10-team Big 12 work, but obviously that didn't mean anything as some have said the SEC deal has been in the works under the table since the whole realignment meltdown last year. So they may be "saving" themselves on that lifeboat, but they're also letting the little guy schools drown in the freezing water. Especially if the TV contract the Big 12 signed with Fox last summer is voided by aTm leaving.

What a school has the opportunity to do and what they have the ability to do are two different things. You initially said that the Longhorn network wasn’t a reason for Texas A&M to leave because they could have done the same thing as Texas. Are they allowed to try and contract out with a national network for an independent sports network? Yes. Would that be realistic? No. And that would be the only way to do it and get any kind of national exposure. No major network will agree to do this for a school unless that school has, as you put it, resources and a national brand. You may be allowed to do it, just like a 24 year old senior transfer student from New Hampshire with no recs and a 2.8 gpa may be allowed to go through rush at Old Miss. Will she get a bid – probably no. And it's unlikely you or any other school in your conference outside of Texas and maybe Oklahoma (even they think they will probably need partner schools) will actually be able to get your own sports network – no matter what your conference says you are allowed to do. Texas A&M may have the opportunity to get their own network, but they know that’s not a realistic possibility for anyone in that conference but Texas (and yes, I agree, ESPN paid too much – but that’s their cross to bear).

I doubt the SEC will be able to renegotiate their deal either, but the contract they signed in 2009 is still better than the Big XII’s (in my opinion) when you consider television exposure added to monetary pay out. Actually even ours is better now than the Big XII deal. Thank you Larry Scott. And they had to worry about how long that television contract was going to last anyway since the conference was unstable. I think their concern was that even though they may be responsible for ending it - if it wasn't them it was going to be someone else, so it better be them. Yes, every conference has its issues. That won't change, but there are issues and then there are ISSUES. Currently the Big XII has the latter.

I agree – it does suck for schools like Iowa State and Kansas State, and I didn’t mean to imply Texas A&M was the little guy (just that they were sick of dealing with the big guy – Texas). You are stuck in a bad situation, but in all honesty it is a situation the entire conference should have seen coming clearly last year – that was one heck of an iceberg. At that point every AD in that conference should have been doing exactly what Texas A&M did – looking for other options. Should they have done something to stop Texas earlier? Probably, but that’s not an option now, and bottom line – they have to look out for their school first and foremost.


Truthfully I think at some point what almost happened last year will happen and a big chunk of these schools will bolt, in a group, to another conference. I think we'll eventually become regional super conferences with 2 divisions each and a playoff system of some kind (hopefully). In the meantime what the BigXII needs to do is start looking for some replacement schools. From the Oklahoma boards it sounds like they are thinking BYU who already has their own network and that's one of the partner ideas some of their fans are bandying about. I have no idea how the Big XII as a whole would feel about that. The Pac 12 nixed that quick because they are a religously affiliated school and, my understanding is, not an AAU research university (could be wrong on that last one), but strictly from a sports perspective and given the money they pull in - it would actually be a great trade off to get them in exchange for losing Texas A&M.

Shirley1929 – Apologize for the mistake in dates.

[VandalSquirrel]

It is really hard to feel anything for other conferences when your school plays in the WAC. You think your conference has problems? Not only are we in a precarious position, we're still having to deal with Boizzze drama and they left the conference (good riddance). They won't even play an out of conference rivalry game against us unless we agreed to only play in The City of Smug, and never come to Moscow.

Please Georgia, kick their jackasses like Reno did. Also please, please, if the WAC is no longer going to have football, let us move to a conference that doesn't have an egomaniac college president who runs his mouth and tries to run football, as well as firing their AD who put them on the map just before the season starts? Thanks!


(Full disclosure, the Kibbie Dome is the smallest DI facility, and though I have mad love for it we're going to have to borrow Martin from Wazzu to play big teams who have a good traveling fan base. Those cry baby Bronco Bandwagon fans are scared to come to Moscow because we're "nasty and inebriated" and we couldn't fill Martin playing them anyway.)

[Mcr]

Agreed. I could careless about a&m although I'm not a fan of the aggies, the fact the ut has had such a monopoly on Texas football is unfair and I think it's about to come to an end. I find it sad that college football is so persuaded by money. College football means so much more than pro I think.

[shirley1929]

Changing the subject ever-so-slightly...has anyone seen this?

http://www.smu2b12.com/

Riiiiight.

[AXOmom]

I don't want this to be taken as a snarky question at all - I truthfully don't know, and I'm curious. Why would that be a bad thing or why wouldn't the Big XII consider it?

[shirley1929]

Originally Posted by AXOmom

I don't want this to be taken as a snarky question at all - I truthfully don't know, and I'm curious. Why would that be a bad thing or why wouldn't the Big XII consider it?

It wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, I just don't think it would happen. I have a ton of friends that went there & it's a fine school. IMO they're just not as strong in all the areas that I would think the Big 12 would be looking for in a partner. Maybe I'm wrong though.

[AXOmom]

As an added thought - why wouldn't the Big XII consider adding Colorado State (not a great football team currently, but they do have access to the Denver market- well kind of).

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AXOmom

As an added thought - why wouldn't the Big XII consider adding Colorado State (not a great football team currently, but they do have access to the Denver market- well kind of).

SMU averages something like 24,000 people at their football games. The Dallas market is already a B12 market anyway, and SMU's a small school - the alumni base, while fairly wealthy, just isn't big. SMU doesn't offer much to the conference, that it doesn't already have, even though it's a wonderful school with a rich heritage.

Now, CSU is in a similar boat, but without the SMU "pedigree" (and wealth) but with incredible travel issues - and the Denver market clearly isn't super important to the B12 anyway, since they allowed CU to leave without any real interaction.

The B12 is in a position where they can go big, so there really isn't any reason to "settle" for a Houston, SMU or CSU.

[shirley1929]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

SMU averages something like 24,000 people at their football games. The Dallas market is already a B12 market anyway, and SMU's a small school - the alumni base, while fairly wealthy, just isn't big. SMU doesn't offer much to the conference, that it doesn't already have, even though it's a wonderful school with a rich heritage.

Now, CSU is in a similar boat, but without the SMU "pedigree" (and wealth) but with incredible travel issues - and the Denver market clearly isn't super important to the B12 anyway, since they allowed CU to leave without any real interaction.

The B12 is in a position where they can go big, so there really isn't any reason to "settle" for a Houston, SMU or CSU.

KSig went into the specifics of it, while I generalized...thanks for putting my thoughts into words!

[AXOmom]

^^^Okay, that makes sense. Just curious.

[AXOmom]

^^^LOL. My daughter went to WSU her freshman year. The only time she ever heard it called Wazzu was by people who didn't go there. WSU students and alums always said WSU. I asked and she has no idea why they refuse to call it Wazzu. She just says they never did. I could hazard a guess, but I doubt WSU students and alums would appreciate it, and she still has friends there, so I'll keep it to myself.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by AXOmom

^^^LOL. My daughter went to WSU her freshman year. The only time she ever heard it called Wazzu was by people who didn't go there. WSU students and alums always said WSU. I asked and she has no idea why they refuse to call it Wazzu. She just says they never did. I could hazard a guess, but I doubt WSU students and alums would appreciate it, and she still has friends there, so I'll keep it to myself.

The school used to sell tees/sweatshirts with Wazzu on them. I have one, and it was given to me by my brother, a WSU alum. I never wear it, because although I did not graduate from UW, I did put down a deposit there initially and later attended summer classes, so I consider myself an honorary Husky. Plus everyone else in my family is a Husky, and I grew up cheering for no other team.