Big East. Their fans weren't thrilled at all with this, the same reasons brought on this board about Pitt possibility of going to the Big 12 if the ACC blows up - no history with the schools, far away, no brands.
Going to potentially see the actual ACC contract Aug 1.
- Thread starter ratking17
- Start date
At that time, it was a package deal. The public Texas schools and the public OK schools. The Pac 10 had 11 with Colorado so this would give them 15. I'd assume they still would have added Utah later to give them 16.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
I'm not giving any explanation for my opinion? Dude, that's the joke and it's on you because all you're doing is spouting useless opinions about Kansas joining a conference that WVU was busy trying to leave to get into a conference with....Kansas!
You've moved the goalposts so far that you don't even remember what the heck we were even talking about.
We are talking about you saying those 4 schools were wrong for conceding to Texas. I said they were right because had they not done so, they'd be in a weaker less stable conference right now without TT, OK St, Colorado, Arizona, ASU, and Utah. You somehow feel they would be in the exact same conference but offer no rationale for that thinking. So, again, I win.
What's the difference between these two statements when you consider nobody knows what the hell would have happened? Because well, it didn't happen. So, they'd be in the same conference, because that's what did happen. You lose again.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
It's hilarious that he can't see that, or the fact that I've been mocking him, for a couple of days now.
The "rationale" is common sense. You make more money and end up screwed or you make less money and end up screwed. You seem to think the latter option is somehow better and common sense will always make you wrong in that regard.
You dont understand. He said if Kansas, KSt, ISU, and Baylor didnt concede to Texas and Texas, TT, OK St, and OU left for the P10, then somehow TT, OK St, Arizona, ASU, and Colorado would have eventually left the P10 to join them in the Big 12. This would have NEVER happened!
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Based on what ?
Not the Pac10 .
They just took Colorado after Texas and Oklahoma said no .
Buddy , stop listening to internet rumors and join us in the real world .
Colorado only returned because the Pac 10 imploded . And they rejoined a far weaker conference as a result .
Brilliant .
You are partially right. Let's focus on Texas who was the lynchpin.
2010: The 5 potential leftovers didn't concede anything because they weren't asked. It was either Texas was going to the Pac or they weren't. 5 leftovers were sitting around drinking Jim Beam with their thumb up their ass waiting for the news if Texas was leaving.
2011: The 4 leftover schools conceded to Texas on the Longhorn Network. $15 million/year extra for them with their own station to show Olympic sports and do specials. Also, this concession allowed a couple football and basketball games to be shown on this channel including Kansas and Iowa State. As a result, Texas conceded to all conference members to revenue sharing.
Last edited:
Timeline is wrong. See above. The P10 took Colorado and B10 took Nebraska at roughly the same time. This was BEFORE the TX and OU quartet to P10 rumors started. At the time, with Colorado and Nebraska gone, the B12's days seemed numbered and the P10 was ready to end them. However this gave Texas and Oklahoma leverage to get what they wanted from KU, KSt, ISU, and Baylor and that was individual ownership of 3rd tier rights, which Texas used to sign a $15 million/year deal for LHN.
The 10 B12 schools (eventually plus WVU and TCU) shared ESPN/Fox revenue equally. However, the 3rd tier revenue (ie 1 football game and 5 basketball games) was owned by the individual schools. Texas didn't share the $15 million/year they got for LHN. WVU didnt share the $19 they got from Root Sports.
This is all meaningless. I assume you are trying to show an example (in this case the Big 12) of a conference conceding to their brands to stay relevant as to compare to the current ACC situation?
Scenario #1: Play hardball tying up everything in court forcing FSU and Clemson to stay to 2036.
Scenario #2: The concession strategy, a la Big 12. Unequal revenue sharing. This allows FSU and Clemson more money and buys time for something, anything to change in the future.
You are advocating Scenario #2 thinking FSU and Clemson are going to find some cracks in the ACC contract / GOR or how Phillips handled the extension situation to force the ACC/ESPN to let them out. I can't say you are wrong. The concession FSU and Clemson would take would have to be pretty drastic to make up the revenue difference of the Big 10 and SEC. You came up with a class plan a few months ago. Not a bad out of the box thinking but not sure it would work out where some are in the lowest class, some just above, and so forth.
Agreed. It was the main television revenue from Fox/ESPN that was shared. It wasn't like that prior to 2010 where 4 schools got more money (Nebraska, Oklahoma, A&M, Texas) from tv.
Similar threads
