Yes.
No. UT actually pushed for equal revenue sharing but Nebraska wanted a bigger share. That was when Nebraska was good. Once they hit the toilet they changed their tune. Thatâs when UT acquired the LHN and didnât need any extra money from the big 12.
1 Like
Actually Dallas, i think Texasâ incentive to bolt will happen because OU bolts first. Texas will never allow the finger pointed at them as being first to jump, but once OU makes intentions known, then Texas will justify by saying, " Well, you cant blame us for jumping since OU is leaving!" I have several Longhorn friends well connected who say this. I DO agree that OU is the trigger, not TexasâŠABSOLUTELY i agree about thatâŠand i think the LHN contract is close to concluding about the time all this should take place in a few years.Its going to be a very interesting next 5 years for sure!
The LHN is a 20 year contract that started in 2011 so it expires in 2031. When all this realignment stuff starts in 2023, UT will still have about 8 more years left to collect $15M a year from ESPN. I donât think UT is going to give up that remaining easy money of $120M.
Yes ESPN is losing money on the deal but a contract is a contract.
- The ACC, B1G and SEC are not going to let UT keep the LHN.
- The PAC would not let UT join because UT would not give up the LHN.
- UT already makes $51M which is what the B1G makes.
Itâs hard for me to see UT moving to another conference to make the same amount of money and the path is harder to get to the playoffs. I donât think UT cares about the academic superiority of the B1G. Itâs all about money.
We do have a few years left of revenue reporting before 2023, but as long as the B12 can keep UTâs conference share at a respected level, I think UT stays in the B12.
Nothing has changed since the last time OU tried to find a conference on its own and was rejected.
OU will not be the first to jump because they are not the prize.
2 Likes
If either UT or OU moves, the other has to move. Neither on its own can carry the Big 12, even if OU is replaced by UH. You need at least 2 marque programs to keep the Big 12 a viable power conference. With just UT, the Big 12 will still be viable conference, but it will be not much more than the SWC, which died for very good and perfectly valid reasons.
Aldine is making serious 4-year predictions.
1 Like
The LHN contract runs until 2031.
They were rejected because the PAC specifically wanted the Texas schools as part of the deal. PAC required 4âŠBIG and SEC deals could be made with 2. OU much more attractive in that scenario. Texas may be the prize, but they wont leave first, and OU leaving forces them to go somewhere elseâŠBIG perfectly willing to work with Texas concerning the LHNâŠits also possible Texas and OU could cook up a deal and leave together at same time. Time will tell.
I could not disagree with you more. What makes, what has made college football what it is today is local rivalries.
UVA playing Virginia Tech is a huge deal. The same can be said with many other geographical rivalries.
Call me nostalgic? That is fine but it makes no sense whatsoever to have a WV play in the small10.
A utau vs. U of H makes perfect sense. An OU vs Arkansas makes perfect sense etc.
The key to success is local rivalries. The cfp and many others might think we are raking in money or making money hand over fist. You can be sure that it only multiplies the chance for market saturation. The fact that attendance is starting to be a problem is a huge yes huge problem. It will only get bigger. Quick money is not always good for the longevity of a product. It is often synonymous with product failure.
College football will have to âfixâ itself. Mark my word. Then you might see some real local realignment.
I donât know. TV ratings are doing well. As long as TV/media ratings are doing well, a return to local/regional conferences is unnecessary. You may think UT v UH makes sense, I wonder how many UT fans feel that way. I donât think many of them are chafing because UT does not play UH. How many people outside Texas would care about UT v UH? Regional conferences died for a reason. I donât think many will argue that college athletics are worse off because of that.
Established, huge fan based programs will likely do well under any circumstances, i.e., UT, Bama, Agros, ND, Ohio St, OU, etc. Doesnât hardly matter who they play. But alumni from WVa (personal friends/moderately heavy hitters) are disgruntled about having to travel to Wack-oh, Lube-ock, Stillwater, etc. to watch their players perform in any sport. I suspect we wouldnât travel well to the west coast, unless it may be for one or two games a season. Nor would their season ticket holders be interested in watching Houston.
My generation (ancient) doesnât sit in our stadium and stream games on their phones while presumably watching a live game. (I do get texts from grandchildren, but wifi just isnât a high priority at a live football game.) And I still see a lot of gray heads at our sporting events. Long-time (20+ years) season ticket holders, not boycotters.
I donât know the answer, but seems to me that regional rivalries still have a lot of attraction, especially with the need to attract more season ticket fans. But I know that TV is calling the big money decisions today. Pity.
1 Like