Horns247 Board

You're hardly the only one that thinks that.

This comes down to the LHN. Texas worked hard to get the deal and wants to keep it. Nobody they're dealing with wants them to have it. Something's gotta give somewhere.

"showed some nut" = running away from a conference that at least put you in the top3 because you couldn't handle the fact that your third tier rights are worth less than a cup of coffee

One more definition for the dictionary of aggyisms

Oh please..... go independent and you will end up like notre dame.....nbc ruined a storied athletic program..... come to the SEC and turn your baseball and football programs around and keep your hated rival from having all of the fun...... if it's too much for you to stomach or your not up to the challenge then run out west or to the lame acc

Looks as if a&m is tea bagging them horns to me

I think the most logical is Oklahoma and OK St. this seems pretty likely. To get to 16 then adding Texas paired with Tech. This would be the very definition of a super conference. I think if Texas doesn't sign on then the PAC would stay at 14. If the PAC wanted to expand some where in the future and Texas wasn't an option I personally think Houston and Tx Tech might be a good pairing. Its not the sexy move that Texas is but it still establishes a solid base in Texas (better access to recruits and television markets).

I think Houston has a lot of potential, they have been competetive even without the BCS conference money. I know that they are kind of a commutter school, but they are also pretty good academically. I've heard that Houston isn't a good sports town like Miami (I doubt any city is a bad as Miami), but it is hard for me to believe that Andrew Luck or Darron Thomas coming back home and college game day coming to town wouldn't get people excited.

I think Missouri is safer and probably more likely than UH if they were available (St Louis and Kansas City markets are pretty good). Kansas would be the next option as long as they weren't paired with Kansas State.

If these options aren't available then the PAC probably won't expand unless a school establishes its self as a worthy member (Nevada, UNLV, Colorado St., etc., none of those schools are currently even close). I would also be very surprised if a school with religious affiliation is invited. BYU probably would bring more money, but they are a bad cultural fit. They also aren't a research institute. None of the other religious institutes avaliable come close to what BYU offered and most have small enrollments.

The Notre Dame comparison is the only one available to make, but it's not all that sound when you really examine it. Notre Dame has 2 fundamental problems, neither of which have to do specifically with being independant. One of them could be mitigated by joining the right conference, but it's an issue nonetheless.

First issue: Crappy football coach hires. Let's face it, they have not gotten it done here. From Bob Davies lack of HC experience, to the fiasco over O'Leary's resume, to Willingham's inability to manage the boosters, to Weiss being a smug ass who is better suited for the pro game, to Chip Kelly's experience driving a bus as large as Notre Dame. They have not made good hires. Texas went through a similar stretch. They've flirted with some big names (Meyer and Stoops being the most recent) but they have never reeled in that Big Fish.

Second issue: Lack of a recrutiing base. They aren't exactly sitting on a hot bed of D1 talent. That's no secret. And since it's been so long since they have truly been relevant on the national scene, they have had a harder time reeling in the big time fish. That being said, they have still recruited fairly well. They are still Notre Dame. This is the issue that could be mitigated if they were to join the right conference, and that's why many have suggested a possible move to the Big 12, as it opens up Texas to them.

At present, Texas faces neither of these issues. The bigger challenge for Texas is that their brand is not in the same league as Notre Dame on a national level. That is (and likely will always be) the biggest impediment to independance in football for Texas. The LHN gives Texas the platform to expand their brand beyond the south, but there is a chicken vs. egg issue at the moment. The LHN is what we need to be a national brand but there is little national interest in the channel at the moment.

If the Big 12 is able to exist long enough to get the type of distribution that Texas and ESPN want, then football independance becomes more possible, and exceedingly more profitable.

I think Dodds has overplayed his hand and underestimated the negative impact of the LHN on our PR and it became the straw that broke the camel's back with other key teams in the conference. Texas no longer has total control over its own destiny to do what it truly wants to do. It can't keep the Big 12 together, it won't be able to get the concessions it wants from the PAC or the B1G, it's losing both of its key rivals and will likely put lipstick on that pig called the ACC and say what a great situation we created. Ego's run amok. Yeah We're Texas, but I think we significantly miscalculated how tired everyone else is of hearing it (and of not being Texas).

I'm really bummed on how this is turning out. Had a great poker hand, but I think played badly. Too late to turn back now, OU and A&M are set on going their ways. We could end up like Notre Dame - so powerful years ago when they got their own Network Deal with NBC, but now a shadow of what they once were.

I hear that Texas officials had a pretty significant meeting with ACC officials in North Carolina this past Sunday and the talks were not productive. The likelihood of Texas and the ACC is very, very slim and most of the Texas to ACC chatter is originating out of Austin.

This sister-fluckin' mullet is the reason the ignore feature was created.

IGNORE

Not saying there wasn't an ACC meeting, but last Sunday, the president and both ADs were in Norman.

I have considered this scenario and I'm not quite sure. There are some details that would make it difficult. The PAC-12 kept rights to 36 games a season (ABC/ESPN and Fox/FX got 44 games split evenly), and kept the rights to all the rivalry games (The PAC-12 Network also gets first choice for 2 weeks). So, if the LHN and PAC-12 Networks were seperate how would things work if Texas played several games on the P12N, would they even play on the P12N. I think the model starts to break down, which even outside of the money would be a major sticking point and would be tough to work out without the LHN becoming part of the P12N.

The PAC schools agreed to pool their 3rd teir rights. Each school was able to get more money from these together than they could have alone. So the schools will still get all the coaches shows, highlight shows, etc. But now they will have better distribution. The none revenue sports will get more coverage than ever before.

I also think it would be tough to get most of the teams to give a new team special treatment right after they recieved equal status. I also think USC and UCLA (they were the haves in the conference for years) to let another team get special treatment when they just gave it up. The conference BBall tourny was in LA every year and had terrible attendance from fans (and it pissed everyone not in LA off).

I also think that The LHN being folded into the P12N makes the most money for everyone involved. I think if Texas does join and the LHN is folded into the P12N, they may have cost themselves and the PAC money in the long run, since the PAC owns all the rights to the P12N thus all the profits. Would the P12N help the LHN get distributed (which is the real problem now)?

I also think that the PAC members are really happy with the current set up. They have the biggest TV deal (and that isn't even counting what the P12N could make). I think the PAC is currently in a position of power and Larry Scott doesn't feel like he has to make a move.

If the Big 12 does dissolve, there are a lot of factors that go into the best fit. But for most fans it will be the quality of the conference schedule. One person's opinion: if you break down the teams from each conference into 3 categories: must see event game, medium game, who cares

SEC:
Must see: Florida, Auburn, LSU, Bama, Arkansas, A&M (last two just because of rivalries)
Medium: SC, Miss St, Tennessee
Who cares: Ole Miss, Vandy, Kentucky

Pac-12
Must see: USC, Stanford (only recently), Oregon, OU (if they go)
Medium: Cal, ASU, Arizona, Oregon St,
Who cares: Wash, Wash St, Colorado, Utah (could be medium), UCLA

ACC
Must see: FSU, Va Tech
Medium: Miami (probation), Clemson, Ga Tech, BC, NC -- last 2 are generous
Who cares: Duke, Virginia, NC St, Wake, Maryland

Big Ten
Must see: Ohio St, Nebraska, Penn St, Michigan, Wisconsin
Medium: Michigan St, Iowa
Who cares: Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Minnesota

What stands out to me is that the ACC is by far the weakest, and is really terrible if FSU leaves. The others all have their plusses and minuses, including the Big Ten that has some great teams but some real yawners too. From a pure, week-in, week-out entertainment perspective, it's hard to argue with the SEC and being in a division with A&M, LSU, Arkansas and Bama.

Of course, LHN, recruiting and a host of other factors come into play, but mostly we want to see great games.

I think this is all positioning to get the Pac 12 to accept the LHN

Texas will be Pac12 not ACC.

And Bobby you are right I think FSU or Clemson runs to the SEC if offered, not sure about VT