Chip Brown...not a fan of Texas AD Steve Patterson

[East Coast Mustang]

But - they are a huge program, have tons of alumni, and have the money to get whatever they need. So they are attractive to other conferences and my bet is they are sitting in theP12 in 3-4 years.
They don't have to take TTU with them. TTU doesn't have enough stroke to keep Texas from leaving without them.

OU and UT will leave the B12 and SMU and UH will replace them.

Disagree- if (when) Texas leaves for the Pac-12 I think they'll have to take Tech with them, same for OU with Oklahoma State. That was the original plan back in 2011 or whenever it was before it all fell through at the last minute. I just don't think from a political standpoint Texas and OU could leave another public state school behind to lose so much money (as a Big 12 with Texas and OU would certainly command a lot less in TV contract negotiations).

Reading that article and seeing all of the ties that Patterson has to the Pac-12 and his vision to expand Texas' brand, you'd have to think he'd rather see them in the Pac-12 playing USC, Oregon, Stanford, etc than making trips to Ames, Iowa, and Manhattan, Kansas. But I don't know if Patterson will be at Texas much longer after reading that so it may not be an issue.

[WordUpBU]

Some revisionist historians in this thread drinking the burnt orange Kool-Aid.

Texas is a terrible conference partner and no one wants to be with them....WVU, KU, KSU, ISU, OU, and OSU would bolt for the Big Ten tomorrow if they got an invite. Meanwhile, not one P5 school would leave their current conference for the Big 12 today. Not one.

If being in the Big 12 with Texas and the LHN was all biscuits and gravy, then why did Nebraska, Colorado, and Mizzou also jump ship? Because, like A&M, they had a better option.

Texas destroyed the Big 12 with the LHN and the fact they're now a middle-of-the-road program in the conference they destroyed is sweet karma (although I'd still love for us to be in it with them- pipe dream).

Last I checked CU didn't run from Ut, they expected UT to come with them and got stuck with Utah when it didn't happen.

Lots of anti-UT and pro aggy revisionist koolaid here too.

UT is neither an angel or a devil here. They made sure they had a fallback but worked to keep the B12 together out of self interest but still did so nonetheless.

A&M tried to burn the league down on the way out and wasn't shy about it out of self interest. Don't expect teams affected by that to have any love for them.


I do find the anti-UT sentiment from the SWC breakup really strong here and some A&M affection despite A&M doing literally everything the same when the SWC move all went down. funny how the two standards are being applied here.

[East Coast Mustang]

Some revisionist historians in this thread drinking the burnt orange Kool-Aid.

Texas is a terrible conference partner and no one wants to be with them....WVU, KU, KSU, ISU, OU, and OSU would bolt for the Big Ten tomorrow if they got an invite. Meanwhile, not one P5 school would leave their current conference for the Big 12 today. Not one.

If being in the Big 12 with Texas and the LHN was all biscuits and gravy, then why did Nebraska, Colorado, and Mizzou also jump ship? Because, like A&M, they had a better option.

Texas destroyed the Big 12 with the LHN and the fact they're now a middle-of-the-road program in the conference they destroyed is sweet karma (although I'd still love for us to be in it with them- pipe dream).

Last I checked CU didn't run from Ut, they expected UT to come with them and got stuck with Utah when it didn't happen.

Lots of anti-UT and pro aggy revisionist koolaid here too.

UT is neither an angel or a devil here. They made sure they had a fallback but worked to keep the B12 together out of self interest but still did so nonetheless.

A&M tried to burn the league down on the way out and wasn't shy about it out of self interest. Don't expect teams affected by that to have any love for them.


I do find the anti-UT sentiment from the SWC breakup really strong here and some A&M affection despite A&M doing literally everything the same when the SWC move all went down. funny how the two standards are being applied here.

Nobody "ran" from Texas, they all had better options. Colorado would have gone to the Pac-12 with or without Texas; it's a better cultural fit for them and at the time was more lucrative than the Big 12.

A&M realized being in the same conference with Texas with the LHN was going to put them at a recruiting disadvantage, so they went and joined a more high profile conference. I don't blame them one bit. Texas was the one rocking the boat and challenging the status quo by bringing the LHN into the equation in the first place.

[gostangs]

UT is a bad partner. They are like a narcissistic spouse who thinks it all revolves around them and they can do no wrong since everyone is lucky to live in their glow.

LHN was never offered as a network of equals, it was always on UT's terms. I had friends in the middle of it all trying to broker peace and Deloss was having no part of a major dilution. He screwed it up for all.

The result was a lesser conference and a [deleted] network.

Just a bit less greed would have resulted in a conference wide second tier network like the big 10 that would have actually been worth something. The freeze up of those conversations was all Aggie needed when the SEC came calling. I don't blame them one bit for leaving. Now they are in a better conference that acts as equals rather then a domineering big brother and a bunch of runts.

If we get a P-5 life line I really hope it is ACC or PAC.

[East Coast Mustang]

"The Longhorn Network Is All Hat, No Cattle"
http://www.foxsports.com/college-footba ... tle-051115

Some excerpts:

"Indeed, the biggest irony of the Longhorn Network is this: In deciding to create its own channel, Texas made much more money for two Big 12 schools that left for the SEC -- Texas A&M and Missouri -- than it's going to make for itself. That's because both Texas A&M and Missouri stand to make much more money off the SEC Network than Texas will ever make off the Longhorn Network. Nebraska, in the Big Ten, will also be making more television money than Texas."

"The launch of the Longhorn Network was such a disaster that ESPN used it as a road map for what not to do when they launched the SEC Network. The result? The SEC Network was the most successful channel launch in cable history; the Longhorn Network remains the least successful cable launch in ESPN history."

"As if that weren't enough, the Longhorn Network also killed the Big 12's chances of following in the footsteps of the Big Ten, the Pac-12 and the SEC and forming its own network -- meaning, you guessed it, the Longhorn Network likely costs the other nine members of the Big 12 hundreds of millions of additional dollars over the life of its existence. All so Texas can reap the "benefits" of its own "national" network."

[East Coast Mustang]

I'm surprised ESPN hasn't negotiated some kind of work around with Texas to turn the LHN into a Big 12 Network. They could charge more per subscriber, have more subscriber markets to draw from, and have a hell of a lot more options when it comes to content. Right now two football games a year and about ten basketball games is pretty much the only reason anyone is tuning in at all.

[Digetydog]

Some revisionist historians in this thread drinking the burnt orange Kool-Aid.

Texas is a terrible conference partner and no one wants to be with them....WVU, KU, KSU, ISU, OU, and OSU would bolt for the Big Ten tomorrow if they got an invite. Meanwhile, not one P5 school would leave their current conference for the Big 12 today. Not one.

If being in the Big 12 with Texas and the LHN was all biscuits and gravy, then why did Nebraska, Colorado, and Mizzou also jump ship? Because, like A&M, they had a better option.

Texas destroyed the Big 12 with the LHN and the fact they're now a middle-of-the-road program in the conference they destroyed is sweet karma (although I'd still love for us to be in it with them- pipe dream).

Last I checked CU didn't run from Ut, they expected UT to come with them and got stuck with Utah when it didn't happen.

Lots of anti-UT and pro aggy revisionist koolaid here too.

UT is neither an angel or a devil here. They made sure they had a fallback but worked to keep the B12 together out of self interest but still did so nonetheless.

A&M tried to burn the league down on the way out and wasn't shy about it out of self interest. Don't expect teams affected by that to have any love for them.


I do find the anti-UT sentiment from the SWC breakup really strong here and some A&M affection despite A&M doing literally everything the same when the SWC move all went down. funny how the two standards are being applied here.

Nobody "ran" from Texas, they all had better options. Colorado would have gone to the Pac-12 with or without Texas; it's a better cultural fit for them and at the time was more lucrative than the Big 12.

A&M realized being in the same conference with Texas with the LHN was going to put them at a recruiting disadvantage, so they went and joined a more high profile conference. I don't blame them one bit. Texas was the one rocking the boat and challenging the status quo by bringing the LHN into the equation in the first place.

Ultimately, it comes down to this. TAMU burned its bridges with most, if not all, of the remaining B12 schools.

As a result, even if Tech, Baylor, and Texas fans want to see home/home series against the Aggies in football, it isn't going to happen anytime soon.

[EastStang]

If you remember, A&M, UT and OU wanted to join the Big 8, and Richards and Bullock forced Baylor and TT in the mix and the Okie legislature forced OU to take OSU. So, UT has never been a friend of anyone. Arkansas left the SWC because they were the odd non-Texas duck, but they were also tired of UT complaining about money and it ratting out its conference mates to the NCAA (UT turned in A&M, SMU and TCU in the 1980s). UT broke up the Big XII because it wanted more of the pie. It went Diva on the other schools. I would not be surprised if after the rights deal expires in the Big XII that Texas pulls a Notre Dame and goes Indy. They really don't care who they play, because they'll fill their stadium and get TV ratings whether its New Mexico State or Arkansas. After all they're Texas. OU will join the SEC to play the big dogs (and to get away from UT). The rest of the "Big XII" will then try and figure out how to stay relevant. In the end, they'll probably try and expand back to 12 and add schools which make sense, AFA, Navy, BYU, Cincinnati, SMU, UH, Memphis or UConn, or go to 14 depending on what their TV guys tell them to do. Having Kansas, Baylor, UConn, Memphis, UH, SMU, WV, ISU and Cincy would make an attractive hoops conference. Note that Georgetown made an exclusive deal with Fox Sports for hoops as BYU did with ESPN and its own network.

[RGV Pony]

OU & OSU were already in the Big 8

[smusportspage]

You do realize A&M was offered to be a part of the LHN and be an equal partner

It begs the question, why would A&M want to be part of anything called the LonghornNetwork (LHN)? Is it just a name? Really? Therein is the fallacy. Should have and could have been the Big12Network from the beginning. Greed on the part of UT end of story.

[Digetydog]

If you remember, A&M, UT and OU wanted to join the Big 8, and Richards and Bullock forced Baylor and TT in the mix and the Okie legislature forced OU to take OSU. So, UT has never been a friend of anyone. Arkansas left the SWC because they were the odd non-Texas duck, but they were also tired of UT complaining about money and it ratting out its conference mates to the NCAA (UT turned in A&M, SMU and TCU in the 1980s). UT broke up the Big XII because it wanted more of the pie. It went Diva on the other schools. I would not be surprised if after the rights deal expires in the Big XII that Texas pulls a Notre Dame and goes Indy. They really don't care who they play, because they'll fill their stadium and get TV ratings whether its New Mexico State or Arkansas. After all they're Texas. OU will join the SEC to play the big dogs (and to get away from UT). The rest of the "Big XII" will then try and figure out how to stay relevant. In the end, they'll probably try and expand back to 12 and add schools which make sense, AFA, Navy, BYU, Cincinnati, SMU, UH, Memphis or UConn, or go to 14 depending on what their TV guys tell them to do. Having Kansas, Baylor, UConn, Memphis, UH, SMU, WV, ISU and Cincy would make an attractive hoops conference. Note that Georgetown made an exclusive deal with Fox Sports for hoops as BYU did with ESPN and its own network.

(1) OSU and OU were already in the Big 8.
(2) The criticism about Texas regarding the breakup of the SWC is generally true.
(3) In the B12, there has always been a tension between the "Texas schools" and the "other schools." Texas was/is a big part of that.
(4) With the college football playoff system now in place, it is very difficult for an "Independent" to survive. Unless the world changes (it always does), they will probably stay in the B12. They make a lot of money and they have a BIG say in what happens.

But, the way TAMU left was ugly and made it a lot of enemies with remaining B12 schools.

[WordUpBU]

You do realize A&M was offered to be a part of the LHN and be an equal partner

It begs the question, why would A&M want to be part of anything called the LonghornNetwork (LHN)? Is it just a name? Really? Therein is the fallacy. Should have and could have been the Big12Network from the beginning. Greed on the part of UT end of story.

It was before they had a name or anything. It was to be a joint network and was after the Big 12 voted down a league network 11-1 where Texas was supposedly the one school in favor.

So both premises in your post aren't really accurate. UT promoted a B12 Network idea early on, then spent money to try and go their own way (also tried to include A&M) and finally after spending money didn't want to reverse course when the others came around 5-6 years later after they'd been working on it and spending money.


Also the LHN had squat to do with NU leaving. NU was further along with their own network according to their chancellor.

[smusportspage]

I see. So it had nothing to do with UT at Austin's greed. It was every other school's fault. Typical.

[stc9]

Diverting back to the original article for just a moment...

Does anyone know what the revenue distribution system that is in play within UT? From all of Patterson's actions (cost cutting & Revenue enhancement) it reeks of money problems. It is hard to believe that an athletic department with $161 million in revenue could have money problems, but that is the impression the article gives.

i know that it is more than a little schadenfreude, but they shafted us. So their current problems are another joyous occasion.

[JasonB]

You guys are making this conversation too complex.

When the big 12 was formed, some TV revenue was shared, but the rest was based on TV appearances.

UT and OU get more appearances than other schools, so they got most of the money.

Missouri, A&M, Nebraska and Colorado felt like they deserved more, and each of them know that when the current 6 year agreement for revenue sharing is up, UT and OU will go back to taking a lot of the money. So they all left for conferences that had equal distribution of money.

UT has made it very clear from the start that they are 100% focused on increasing revenue. Not the health of other schools or their alumni. Patterson is just keeping pace with that tradition.