The following question was posed on ESPN yesterday and I thought I would put in my two cents: Was the move by Texas to stay in the Big “12” Smart or Dumb?
For The University of Texas, it was a very, very smart move, from both the business and athletic side of things. Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe convinced President Bill Powers and the Longhorn powers-that-be that they could double their yearly television revenue to over $19 million per year, plus an additional $3-5 million if they started their own network, something they wouldn’t have been able to do in the Pac-16.
The biggie: ABC/ESPN helped to solidify the deal by guaranteeing the money from the remainder of the current contract expiring in 2016. In other words, they’ll still receive the money that was originally divvied up between 12 schools plus the cash from the now defunct Big 12 Championship game. They didn’t want to see Texas and Oklahoma go to the Pac-10 where Fox held the rights to the Pac-10 TV viewership. ABC/ESPN didn’t want to lose Texas and Oklahoma so they agreed to Dan Beebe’s proposal (which on paper looks terrible business-wise for the network). Perhaps the upholding of the 2016 contract was the real key in all the chaos.
The perception of Texas as a national powerhouse school has been further solidified by this whole ordeal. Think about it: the fact that it seemed that Texas “controlled” the fates of Oklahoma (another powerhouse), Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Colorado (who remains in the Pac-10) goes to show how much clout The University of Texas carries. That the other 5 schools were willing to follow Texas anywhere and the Pac-10 was more than happy to accommodate says a lot.
And though reports from Orangebloods.com/Chip Brown (who just made a career for himself on the national stage) said that Texas A&M threatening to defect to the SEC had a hand in killing the Pac-16, it should be noted that if Dan Beebe couldn’t come up with the money (again note the ABC/ESPN deal through 2016), Texas probably would have eventually bolted for the more lucrative Pac-10 and its markets. Sure, maybe A&M would have stubbornly and naively left for the SEC, but there’s no reason the rivalry between Texas and Texas A&M couldn’t have continued. It didn’t hurt OU when they were in the Big 8 for the first 60 years or so of the Texas/OU rivalry. I think if Texas had called A&M on their bluff, they would have come to their senses and joined Texas in the Pac-16 anyway, knowing they wouldn’t be able to compete with the SEC on the field and with Pac-16 and SEC recruiting-wise. But alas, we’ll never really know.
In terms of Football recruiting, this was also a win for Texas. They already carry a lot of weight in the state of Texas and keeping things close to home (and now even closer without Colorado and Nebraska) helps immensely in recruiting Texas kids with parents who want to see their kid play at home and away, something that would have been harder on trips to Washington or Oregon.
Texas has also pretty much guaranteed themselves a shot at the BCS Championship year-in and year-out. On consistent basis with the program Texas has already established, the only game they really will have to worry about in any given year will be the OU/Texas game in Dallas. That’s it. No more worries of a Big 12 Conference Championship game (which none of the coaches, including Mack Brown and Bob Stoops liked anyway), just a 9 game round robin in conference and cupcake out-of-conference games, with the occasional high-stakes out-of-conference game like Ohio State a few years back.
However, as a college football fan, I would have to believe that we lost. Big. Now we don’t get the excitement of seeing Texas continue to play not only Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Texas A&M, but also USC, UCLA, Cal, Oregon, Oregon State and rising programs in Washington and Arizona. SEC fans will continue to call the Big 12 soft and deservedly so: just compare the two conferences. The Pac-16 would have provided for consistent exciting games throughout the season, much like the SEC.
I also think the formation of the Pac-16 would have prompted the formation of a few more super conferences. Perhaps the ACC would have poached Big East powerhouses Cincinnati and West Virgina along with improving teams like Pitt and UConn to form their own super-conferences, possibly even adding defunct-Big 12 teams or (gasp) Notre Dame. The formation of super-conferences would have prompted a hastening to something that most fans want to see: a college football playoff or at least a plus-one game. Bigger conferences with a multitude of good teams creates the greater likelihood of one or two-loss teams (see 3 of the last 4 SEC teams winning the BCS Championship). If conferences such as the Mountain West and WAC continue to push undefeated teams not making it to the championship game, how long would it be before the uproar reaches Horseshoe-like decibel levels if the BCS games features two one-loss teams from bigger conferences?
Bottom-line, Texas as a business came out on top, along with the rest of the Big 12. Utah came out a winner as well, since they’re taking up the 12th opening in the new Pac-12. The only real losers are Boise State—who are only slightly better off after joining the Mountain West now that Utah is bolting—and the fans. Who knows, though…Dan Beebe may have only been able to delay the inevitable and Pac-10 Commish Larry Scott (who, by the way, is only in his first year at the helm) looks like a genius for even being able to almost create conference chaos.
As a fan, 2016 can’t come soon enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment