[Husker] PAC-12 will not expand

Wed Sep 21 09:26:03 CDT 2011

I don't think Jim Delaney told Texas no specifically.  I don't think he had to actually say "no."

I think he told Texas how the B1G works, and that was the way it is. Period.  Non-negotiable. And thus, Texas didn't pursue it.  If Texas were to pursue it, I have no doubt in my mind that Delaney would tell them where to stick it.  I'm sure he told Texas that if the Bovines were interested, they would participate in BTN, have equal revenue sharing (once they bought into BTN), and the like. They would be treated exactly like Purdue.  If Texas didn't like that, they are welcome to go elsewhere.

If Delaney can keep Michigan and Ohio State in line, Delaney can tell Texas no.

Mike Jaixen
http://huskermike.blogspot.com
http://www.cornnation.com

________________________________
From: Rod Wellman <gobigred66 at mac.com>
To: husker at tssi.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Husker] PAC-12 will not expand

All of this is fascinating.  Texas seems to actually have dug itself into a hole (with the LHN) as far as having options for joining a different conference. I'm glad OU is finally flexing some muscle in telling them they have to change in order for the B12 to remain intact.  Don't know what Texas could do to "change" the contracts in place with ESPN, though.

Did Jim Delaney really tell Texas "no"?  Hadn't seen that anywhere.  And if the Big10 waits until only Notre Dame and Texas are left, would they invite Texas with all of its LHN baggage?  In other words, wouldn't they make the same demands as the Pac12 recently did?  And would Texas give in to them?  I sure hope Delaney wouldn't invite Texas while allowing them to keep more revenue that the other B10 members.  And how does Notre Dame get out of its NBC contract? 

If the Big12 ceases to exist, can Texas get out of their contract with ESPN and the Longhorn Network?

Finally, yes, Osborne and NU was against equal revenue sharing years ago.  But think about the TV landscape back then.  There were much fewer channels and games on TV. When NU was on, ratings were high.  How many times was Iowa State on TV back then?  Yet, they should get equal TV revenue?  As the times change and ESPN, ESPN2, Fox Sports, etc., etc. came along, yes, Iowa State began to show up on TV as well.  I believe NU was open to "change" and would have been OK with equal TV revenue sharing in the Big 12.

When all the dust settles, just think of all the bow game contracts that have to be re-negotiated....

Rod W.
Sioux City, Ia.

On Sep 21, 2011, at 8:26 AM, Mike Jaixen wrote:

> The Longhorn Network deal really tilted the economics.  When you factor the value of those third-tier rights, everybody except Texas benefits from equal revenue sharing.
> 
> That being said, since NU voted that down, it looks awfully hypocritical and wishy-washy.  (We were against it before we were for it.)
> 
> But LHN brings other baggage, and Texas has proven themselves to be a less than trustworthy partner in their dealings.  The Big XII agreed to allow each school to retain their TV rights to one football game a year.
> 
> Texas went out and signed a contract with ESPN that calls for no less than two.
> 
> That's why Jim Delaney told Texas no.  That's why the ACC told Texas no.  That's why the Pac-12 has twice told Texas no.
> 
>  
> Mike Jaixen
> http://huskermike.blogspot.com
> http://www.cornnation.com
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Jon Johnston <jon.johnston at gmail.com>
> To: Paul Dalen <quesohusker at gmail.com>
> Cc: "husker at tssi.com" <husker at tssi.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [Husker] PAC-12 will not expand
> 
> Osborne may have talked about equal revenue sharing, but while in the Big 12, Nebraska didn't support it, so I wouldn't play that card so heavily. It's not like we weren't benefiting more than most with the way revenue was set up, and why give up your advantages if you don't have to. 
> 
> There's an indication that the Pac-12 didn't expand because they really wanted Texas, but realize that with Texas around, things aren't equal. 
> 
> Perhaps a new Big 12 commissioner can change that. 
> 
> Jon Johnston
> Corn Nation
> 
> On Sep 21, 2011, at 5:17 AM, Paul Dalen wrote:
> 
>> UT is either brilliant or moronic in its refusal to consider any equal
>> revenue sharing deal. It's on the record from last year that equal
>> revenue was a large part of NUs decision to leave and now the PAC12 is
>> backing away because UT is still opposed to it.
>> 
>> Dodds isn't dumb. An asshole perhaps, but not dumb. So I can't figure
>> out why they are staying this course.
>> 
>> Is the ESPN investment messing with the decision calculus?
>> 
>> On Sep 20, 2011, at 23:24, David Strong <gobigredlist at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> This is getting pretty weird.
>>> 
>>> http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6998751/pac-12-officials-decide-expansion
>>> 
>>> Dave
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> husker site list
>>> husker at tssi.com
>>> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> husker site list
>> husker at tssi.com
>> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
> 
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker

_______________________________________________
husker site list
husker at tssi.com
http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker