- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why are people ripping on Texas?
Posted on 9/15/11 at 10:59 am to Adam Banks
Posted on 9/15/11 at 10:59 am to Adam Banks
No other conference in the country has the issues of the Big 12.
No other conference in the country has members constantly running away from one school.
But, yeah, it's not a Texas problem.
It's everybody else.
No other conference in the country has members constantly running away from one school.
But, yeah, it's not a Texas problem.
It's everybody else.
0
Posted on 9/15/11 at 11:02 am to SwatMitchell
the one thing Dr D conveniently leaves out time and time again - Texas held the rest hostage, basically threatening to leave and break up the conference if everyone didnt agree to its terms of unequal revenue sharing.
he keeps coming back to the same ole defense, but what he fails to mention is that most of the other schools in fact would have preferred equal sharing. Texas made it a very black or white issue - either approve this, or we will break up the big12
this has been stated repeatedly on Austin radio, I love the way Dr D takes the "everybody just LOVED this scenario, we are soooo innocent in all this"
UT wasnt looking out for the good of the conference, it was looking out for the good of itself at the expense of others and in spite of the conference it now claims to love and want to protect.
It's all about self-preservation now and then, except this time it may come back to bite UT square in the arse. Time will tell how this all plays out.
he keeps coming back to the same ole defense, but what he fails to mention is that most of the other schools in fact would have preferred equal sharing. Texas made it a very black or white issue - either approve this, or we will break up the big12
this has been stated repeatedly on Austin radio, I love the way Dr D takes the "everybody just LOVED this scenario, we are soooo innocent in all this"
UT wasnt looking out for the good of the conference, it was looking out for the good of itself at the expense of others and in spite of the conference it now claims to love and want to protect.
It's all about self-preservation now and then, except this time it may come back to bite UT square in the arse. Time will tell how this all plays out.
Posted on 9/15/11 at 11:10 am to Uncle Stu
Good point....And doesn't the Nebraska animosity towards UT go way back to the formation of the Big 12? From an outsiders perspective it does seem that UT has a history of trying to throw it's weight around....I know Tom Osborne felt the recruiting restrictions that UT insisted upon would greatly diminish the product that Nebraska would be able to put on the field.
This post was edited on 9/15/11 at 11:18 am
Posted on 9/15/11 at 11:13 am to noladan
quote:
I know Tom Osborne felt the recruiting restrictions that UT insisted upon would greatly diminish the product that Nebraska would be able to put on the field.
Tom Osborne has a history of being a whiny little bitch about everything as well. Oh no, we're going to play the championship game in the nicest stadium in the country!
The recruiting restrictions applied to everyone and Nebraska benefited from the revenue deal.
Posted on 9/15/11 at 11:20 am to noladan
quote:
.I know Tom Osborne
Dr Tom has been opposed to UT from the beginning. He stated publicly that he was against "saving the SWC" when they joined up with the Big 8 and he resented from day one the attitude UT took at the conference table.
Love him, hate him, agree or disagree - the fact remains that UT swings its attitude around more than its cohorts - Mike Leach on the radio yesterday morning the exact same thing.
Posted on 9/15/11 at 11:32 am to Smoke Ring
quote:
Conferences, by their exact and required nature, are collectivist. It is one for all AND all for one.
Texas is all for one and one for one, acting like an independent within the framework of a conference.
Agree partially but not completely
Most of the revenue schools get from football is not from television contracts etc - it ends up being from alumni donations and ticket sales related to the success of the program.
20 million a year (or thereabouts) from a conference television deal is a nice amount of money - but it does not account from total revenues of 80 to 100 or more million dollars a year (which is what the big time schools are pulling)
IMO it would have been in Texas' best interests to share the television revenue from their conference deal equally - because overall it is a small percentage of their revenue and not sharing equally makes for a talking point about how greedy Texas is (also, the revenue from the conference deal should be considered a joint venture IMO)
The LHN is something else - although I think it will turn out to be a giant boondoggle for ESPN I don't blame Texas for being willing to get paid and don't see why they have to share that revenue. Although the money is smaller - schools like LSU and Florida do not share their income from stuff like Tigervision (last weekend's LSU game for example)
Posted on 9/15/11 at 11:43 am to Dr Drunkenstein
I love how Texas fans love to spout we were offered we were offered. I wonder though how many schools ESPN would have offered 1st had they been eligible to participate in a network set-up like the LHN (i.e., Ohio State, Florida, etc.)
Bottom line, Texas is a great historical program that makes a ton of cash but has athletic results (big 3 sports) on par at best with or worse than quite a few programs (OSU, UF, LSU and to an extent USC and OU) in the last 10 to 15 years.
Bottom line, Texas is a great historical program that makes a ton of cash but has athletic results (big 3 sports) on par at best with or worse than quite a few programs (OSU, UF, LSU and to an extent USC and OU) in the last 10 to 15 years.
Posted on 9/15/11 at 11:44 am to molsusports
quote:
IMO it would have been in Texas' best interests to share the television revenue from their conference deal equally - because overall it is a small percentage of their revenue and not sharing equally makes for a talking point about how greedy Texas is
That's actually a really good point I hadn't thought about before.
quote:
Although the money is smaller - schools like LSU and Florida do not share their income from stuff like Tigervision
If LSU was a bigger university with more alumni, they would command more money from showing a game on Tigervision. That's not bashing LSU, by any means, just a statement about revenue. But if LSU continues to have consistent success on the field, their fan base will grow and their 3rd tier tv rights will become more valuable.
Posted on 9/15/11 at 11:54 am to LSUisjustOK
quote:
If LSU was a bigger university with more alumni, they would command more money from showing a game on Tigervision. That's not bashing LSU, by any means, just a statement about revenue. But if LSU continues to have consistent success on the field, their fan base will grow and their 3rd tier tv rights will become more valuable.
Im still waiting to see proof that UTs are.....no UT fan seems to give an answer to why providers would pick it up late in the season when there wont be any football games left to be broadcast on it
Posted on 9/15/11 at 12:04 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
Im still waiting to see proof that UTs are.....no UT fan seems to give an answer to why providers would pick it up late in the season when there wont be any football games left to be broadcast on it
Well, there was never going to be more than one football game shown anyway. It was very poor planning that the network launched right before the game aired. The network will get to show multiple men's basketball and women's basketball as well.
I'm not saying the network is worth the money ESPN is giving Texas, I find it really hard to imagine it being worth that much. But cable providers will pick up the network in time if the price is right and customer demand is high enough.
No one thought it would be an instant success, it will be a few years before anyone can actually tell if it was a success are not.
Posted on 9/15/11 at 12:16 pm to LSUisjustOK
quote:
The network will get to show multiple men's basketball
No one watches mens basketball in the regular season except duke and UNC
quote:
women's basketball
I know UT has a large alumni base but I really dont get the point of why a national provider would pick up the network.
I am admittedly in the dark on how that contracts would work but it would seem at some point ESPN would want to wash their hands of it and admit the concept is a failure.
Posted on 9/15/11 at 12:18 pm to LSUisjustOK
quote:
there was never going to be more than one football game shown anyway.
Rice + Kansas = 2
quote:
It was very poor planning that the network launched right before the game aired
uh, and perhaps expected demand =/= actual demand?
or maybe the fact that reports that the LHN is asking for somewhere between .24 and .33 per subscriber from Time Warner and DirecTV? (most feel that is 3X what they should be asking)
as of this past monday, Time Warner is a soft "maybe" and DirecTV is a solid "NO"
Posted on 9/15/11 at 12:23 pm to Uncle Stu
They originally wanted .40 per set!
Posted on 9/15/11 at 12:23 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
I know UT has a large alumni base but I really dont get the point of why a national provider would pick up the network.
Yeah, I'm completely sure either. But I am sure ESPN did research before launching. An often overlooked detail is that originally it would have been a shared network between UT and A&M, but the ags said no.
quote:
I am admittedly in the dark on how that contracts would work but it would seem at some point ESPN would want to wash their hands of it and admit the concept is a failure.
That could very well happen, but Texas will still get paid quite a bit.
Posted on 9/15/11 at 1:10 pm to LSUisjustOK
quote:
An often overlooked detail is that originally it would have been a shared network between UT and A&M, but the ags said no.
From what I've heard, what Bill Byrne said no to was a joint network where the schools would have had to front the cost for facilities and on-air talent (I read somewhere today OU had spend $5 million on their facilities) and it was unknown the amount of money they would have received. Bill thought at the time that it was not a significant money maker.
I have not read anywhere that ESPN and Texas approached A&M to join in what is now the LHN. I'm sure you have some source for that...
Posted on 9/15/11 at 1:14 pm to relapse98
quote:
From what I've heard, what Bill Byrne said no to was a joint network where the schools would have had to front the cost for facilities and on-air talent (I read somewhere today OU had spend $5 million on their facilities) and it was unknown the amount of money they would have received. Bill thought at the time that it was not a significant money maker.
I have not read anywhere that ESPN and Texas approached A&M to join in what is now the LHN.
All of that is true. The fact of the matter is that once the aggies said no, ESPN and Texas moved on with their plans. Eventually details were worked out that were more in Texas' favor. The aggies quit on it before negotiations, it was their own fault.
Posted on 9/15/11 at 2:04 pm to LSUisjustOK
Texas also told A&M that they wouldn't split the revenue 50/50. Texas demanded something like 2/3 of the profit. Just thought I'd point that out since we're trying not to overlook facts and all...
Posted on 9/15/11 at 2:09 pm to deadelephant
quote:
Texas also told A&M that they wouldn't split the revenue 50/50. Texas demanded something like 2/3 of the profit
work it out instead of crying 
Posted on 9/15/11 at 2:11 pm to LSUisjustOK
quote:
work it out instead of crying
They did. Let it go.
Posted on 9/15/11 at 2:12 pm to Indiana Tiger
quote:
They did. Let it go.
Yeah, now they're whining even more about it.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News