Jump to content

Welcome to HornSports

Join our community and talk about the latest in Texas Longhorns Athletics!

doc longhorn

Big 12 vs. SEC thread

Recommended Posts

I WAS a man with inner peace but that was back when we had 3 daughters.

 

Regarding the school, nothing would make my softball player happier than to be given a serious look at by Coach Connie at UT Softball. She has some crazy idea she would represent the Horns and somehow be admitted into the McCombs school......oh yeah, and then goto UT Law. There are other schools she would attend but funny enough, there are schools she'd never consider due to growing up in this house,

 

Man o man, what it is to be young and have dreams!

 

Regarding UH, they are making some changes and really striving to be more than a prep school. I'll continue rooting for them and pray they can solidify an argument to join our conf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that doesn't include 3rd tier TV rights either. 

 

I've seen 25-27 million from the Big 12 and 15 million for third tier TV rights. 

 

So Texas is pulling in 40-42 million.

 

 

I would think a diehard fan like yourself would have a bigger grip on this. Texas doesn't take a full 15 mill from the LHN contract, it is somewhere around 10 million, although I've seen different interpretations of the contract. This year may be the only year Texas takes a higher percentage than the SEC schools. This isn't to say that UT isn't in a great position financially when it comes to TV revenue from both an academic and athletic standpoint, but that contract doesn't seem near as potent once we see the numbers that teams in the Big 10, Pac 12, and SEC are getting from their networks to stack with first-tier rights. For instance, Big 10 schools like Purdue were getting a 7-8 million dollar cut from their network in 2012 and will be getting 30+ million in first tier rights revenue when the Big 10 renegotiates in 2017. Long-term financials suggest that conference networks are a more lucrative deal and also grow the brand of programs that may not normally have the capability to do it individually. Keep in mind, the SEC is profitable after less than 9 months in comparison to the Big 10 which took 5 years to make the same kind of dough. The ACC will be a player in the future with a conference network because they have been smart in negotiating with the giant in sports programming, ESPN. ESPN demands more than 4 times the carriage rate of any other network, they have pull in pushing a sellable product to cable providers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think a diehard fan like yourself would have a bigger grip on this. Texas doesn't take a full 15 mill from the LHN contract, it is somewhere around 10 million, although I've seen different interpretations of the contract. This year may be the only year Texas takes a higher percentage than the SEC schools. This isn't to say that UT isn't in a great position financially when it comes to TV revenue from both an academic and athletic standpoint, but that contract doesn't seem near as potent once we see the numbers that teams in the Big 10, Pac 12, and SEC are getting from their networks to stack with first-tier rights. For instance, Big 10 schools like Purdue were getting a 7-8 million dollar cut from their network in 2012 and will be getting 30+ million in first tier rights revenue when the Big 10 renegotiates in 2017. Long-term financials suggest that conference networks are a more lucrative deal and also grow the brand of programs that may not normally have the capability to do it individually. Keep in mind, the SEC is profitable after less than 9 months in comparison to the Big 10 which took 5 years to make the same kind of dough. The ACC will be a player in the future with a conference network because they have been smart in negotiating with the giant in sports programming, ESPN. ESPN demands more than 4 times the carriage rate of any other network, they have pull in pushing a sellable product to cable providers. 

Stopped reading after the first sentence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would think a diehard fan like yourself would have a bigger grip on this. Texas doesn't take a full 15 mill from the LHN contract, it is somewhere around 10 million, although I've seen different interpretations of the contract. This year may be the only year Texas takes a higher percentage than the SEC schools.

 

Let's call it $10MM. UT will be at $37MM this year and both the Big12 and LHN contract will pay more in the coming years. By your logic, Vanderbilt and Miss State's TV rights are worth more than UT's.

 

Long-term Short-term financials suggest that conference networks are a more lucrative deal and also grow the brand of programs that may not normally have the capability to do it individually.

 

FIFY. Long-term, ala carte SVOD programming will put the squeeze on ESPN and cable's overpriced bundling of networks. Yeah, conference deals make sense for those that "can't do it individually". LHN is in great position regardless of what happens to ESPN's business model.

 

The ACC will be a player in the future with a conference network because they have been smart in negotiating with the giant in sports programming, ESPN.

 

What motivation does ESPN have to develop an ACC Network? They already own their TV rights - Tiers 1, 2, and 3. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LHN is not likely to pay more in the future, as you surmise. Big 12 conference revenue will increase menially as much as others I would assume, although I'm not really sure what would determine the year to year metrics. The financials don't back up your argument, the SEC Network projects to make much more than 5 million per year per member if it made that much for 9 months with startup costs. UT is making 35 mill, teams like Miss. State and Vandy will likely be making that much with the numbers next year despite having a much smaller chunk of the brand.

 

In the end, Texas is the big winner out of the Big 12, although its third tier rights packaged in another conference would be far more valuable than it is in a standalone basis. Other schools are falling farther behind in the Big 12 monetarily because of the lack of a conference network, which isn't likely to happen as long as the Big 12 is there.

 

A la carte won't be a major option until the current contracts are up for the Power 5 conferences, so the next 10 years will be more lucrative under the conference network. Everyone talks about cutting the cable, but yet there is a bubble for cable providers and most of these providers also provide the means for over the air Internet capabilities.

 

As for utisdabomb12, you can't put together a comprehensive argument against the post, so it may be better for you to stay away from the discussion anyways and stick to the news about 18 year olds qualifying for schools. I'm headed off to the baseball game, I'm hoping I'll see more arguments founded in logic and not "aggy is aggy" when I'm back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have any financials, Mike, and you don't know the details of UT's LHN contract. You don't have any idea what OU's FOX/Cox Cable T3 deal is worth or other Big12 members.

 

You're more intuitive than other aggies, but most of what you say is wishful thinking. Even if A&M makes a few extra TV dollars, so what? UT will more than make it up on the back end with merchandising and other revenue streams.

 

Moving to the SEC was a good move for A&M. Athletically, your middling brand is much more valuable collectively than on it's own. If I had to sell fake army and Collie Station I'd probably want to co-brand it SEC, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Moving to the SEC was a good move for A&M. Athletically, your middling brand is much more valuable collectively than on it's own. If I had to sell fake army and Collie Station I'd probably want to co-brand it SEC, too.

 

Good summarizing sentence. Aggy performance hasn't really changed. Same records and finishes in the conference as they've always had. Bama beat them 59-0. OU beat them 77-0. What changed? Nothing.

 

The association with the SEC has helped them in terms of perception. And honestly, it seems like that was aggy goal all along. They wanted to be liked more. Win more was just a wishful icing on the cake..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LHN is not likely to pay more in the future, as you surmise. Big 12 conference revenue will increase menially as much as others I would assume, although I'm not really sure what would determine the year to year metrics. The financials don't back up your argument, the SEC Network projects to make much more than 5 million per year per member if it made that much for 9 months with startup costs. UT is making 35 mill, teams like Miss. State and Vandy will likely be making that much with the numbers next year despite having a much smaller chunk of the brand. In the end, Texas is the big winner out of the Big 12, although its third tier rights packaged in another conference would be far more valuable than it is in a standalone basis. Other schools are falling farther behind in the Big 12 monetarily because of the lack of a conference network, which isn't likely to happen as long as the Big 12 is there. A la carte won't be a major option until the current contracts are up for the Power 5 conferences, so the next 10 years will be more lucrative under the conference network. Everyone talks about cutting the cable, but yet there is a bubble for cable providers and most of these providers also provide the means for over the air Internet capabilities. As for utisdabomb12, you can't put together a comprehensive argument against the post, so it may be better for you to stay away from the discussion anyways and stick to the news about 18 year olds qualifying for schools. I'm headed off to the baseball game, I'm hoping I'll see more arguments founded in logic and not "aggy is aggy" when I'm back.

Or you could just stay away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LHN is not likely to pay more in the future, as you surmise. Big 12 conference revenue will increase menially as much as others I would assume, although I'm not really sure what would determine the year to year metrics. The financials don't back up your argument, the SEC Network projects to make much more than 5 million per year per member if it made that much for 9 months with startup costs. UT is making 35 mill, teams like Miss. State and Vandy will likely be making that much with the numbers next year despite having a much smaller chunk of the brand. In the end, Texas is the big winner out of the Big 12, although its third tier rights packaged in another conference would be far more valuable than it is in a standalone basis. Other schools are falling farther behind in the Big 12 monetarily because of the lack of a conference network, which isn't likely to happen as long as the Big 12 is there. A la carte won't be a major option until the current contracts are up for the Power 5 conferences, so the next 10 years will be more lucrative under the conference network. Everyone talks about cutting the cable, but yet there is a bubble for cable providers and most of these providers also provide the means for over the air Internet capabilities. As for utisdabomb12, you can't put together a comprehensive argument against the post, so it may be better for you to stay away from the discussion anyways and stick to the news about 18 year olds qualifying for schools. I'm headed off to the baseball game, I'm hoping I'll see more arguments founded in logic and not "aggy is aggy" when I'm back.

you'll see more arguments when you use paragraphs. This is too hard to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of aggie posters not just here but other boards... make arguments on the order of solving algebraic structures.

On and on and on. Detailed. Seriously detailed. Emphasis, gravely serious, gonna prove it, gonna prove it.

Leave no doubt.

Open to a page of Euclid Elements.... some proposition... say Elements VI, Proposition 5.

Looking at it .... reading aggie poster is about like reading that. In part it reads (hate to give this much intelligence by way of example)...

 

But, as AB is to BC, so by hypothesis is DE to EF; therefore, as DE is to EF, so is GE to EF. Therefore each of the straight lines DE, GE has the same ratio to EF; therefore DE is equal to GE. For the same reason DF is also equal to GF. Since then DE is equal to EG, and EF is common, the two sides DE, EF are equal to the two sides GE, EF; and the base DF is equal to the base FG; therefore the angle DEF is equal to the angle GEF, and the triangle DEF is equal to the triangle GEF, and the remaining angles are equal to the remaining angles, namely those which the equal sides subtend. Therefore the angle DFE is also equal to the angle GFE, and the angle EDF to the angle EGF. And, since the angle FED is equal to the angle GEF, while the angle GEF is equal to the angle ABC, therefore the angle ABC is also equal to the angle DEF. For the same reason the angle ACB is also equal to the angle DFE, and further, the angle at A to the angle at D; therefore the triangle ABC is equiangular with the triangle DEF. Therefore, SEC, SEC, SEC, SEC…. abiea abiea that's all folks

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of note... grew up in East Texas with College Station about mid-point between Austin and home.

For decades, all my life, never once thought of UT being in competition with Texas A&M.

That covers about two, going on three generations, of students and fans.

Don't recall hearing about that or much to do about it until maybe way past my 40s...maybe 50s.

The country moved through Presidents, movie eras, music styles, technology innovations, car designs, clothing, lifestyles... nowhere in all of that was it ever a matter that UT had to be or do or become anything in relation to Texas A&M.

 

Can anyone explain how or why aggie ever made it a point to make anything "to do" about The University of Texas.

Basically, who the hell came up with that, and why. Why would anyone associated with A&M give a flying rat's behind about UT?

Waste a single minute of their life over it? Why? 

 

And be proud of it. Are there graduate studies in the field of psychology (psychiatry?) covering that?

Any dissertations written on it?

Is it covered in those mysteries on half-hour cable shows at 2 am, with ShamWow, blu blocker and collapsible hose ads?

I know about the Brag Light in Harden Country. Rice University did a study on that once. Seriously they did.

Maybe that's as far as they were willing to go.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone explain how or why aggie ever made it a point to make anything "to do" about The University of Texas.

Basically, who the hell came up with that, and why. Why would anyone associated with A&M give a flying rat's behind about UT?

Waste a single minute of their life over it?

UT was established in Feb 1858, aggy in April 1871. The act that established aggy mandated it would be subject to the 1858 act that established the university, so aggy was subordinate to the university starting before they opened their doors. Art 7, Sec 10 of the Texas Constitution directs a "university of the first class" to be established and for it to be styled "The University of Texas." It also directs the university to have an agricultural and mechanical department. The word "department" had a slightly different meaning then than it has today. In the notes of the 1875 constitutional convention there are mentions of an executive department, legislative department and judicial department, so by "department" the constitution is understood to mean the agricultural and mechanical college would be separate and distinct from the university.

 

The real problem arise from Art 7, Sc 13 of the constitution when it directs the ag college to be established as a branch of the university. Jim Nicar explains that the state interests had been treated rather shabbily by the reconstructionist government and by 1875, Texans had had enough of northern crap. Nicar explains the legislature made the ag college a branch of the university as a snub because the ag college was not "of and by Texans" but rather endowed by the federal government through the Morrill Act grant. It was founded with yankee money and was not the equal of the university.

 

The state's finances were a mess following the civil war. In 1850 the state had settled its western border with the federal government and for giving up claims to Worth County (present day New Mexico), the state was given $10 million. Of that sum, $100,000 was set aside as the PUF (along with land along the railroads being built in the state) for the university. When the Civil War came around, the legislature borrowed all the money in the PUF for military spending (the cash in the PUF at the end of the Civil War was $0.57). By the 1870s, the money the state owed the university was still not settled, partly because the state was forced by the federal government to repudiate all confederate war debt and the money taken from the PUF was exchanged for some of the confederate war debt issued by the state. Because the federal government funded the endowment for the ag college, it had the money to open its doors earlier than the university. Plus, the Morrill Act mandated time restrictions on the state to open the doors of the ag college.

 

In opening the ag college, there was no set curriculum, no course schedule, no list of degrees to be conferred. Nothing. because the state did not have a classical public university the ag college decided to start teaching languages, math, physics, literature and the like. By 1880, people who sent their kids to the ag college were pissed because they were learning anything but agriculture. When the university opened its doors in 1881, the university started teaching math, physics, literature and there were calls to shut down the ag college and move its operations to the site of the main university. That caused some friction between the board of directors of the ag college and the Board of Regents of the university. By 1886, the Regents were sick and tired of the ag branch college begging for money from the PUF. As a branch they were nominally entitled to participate in PUF income, but since they had a separate endowment of their own, the Regents were "frugal"with their allocations to the ag branch college. In 1886, the ag college was forced to (for the now second time) reform its curriculum and the Regents called for a constitutional amendment to end the ag branch college's status as a branch of the university. The ag branch college directors fought this because it would mean they would be shut off from any future PUF funding. This is when Sul Ross left the Governor's Mansion and took over administration of the ag college. They lowered their entrance age from 16 to 15. Actually, one had to only "show the attributes of a 15 year old", so 13 and 14 year old farm boys were what the culture of the branch ag college was designed to appeal to. Because not all of the state's rural high schools were academically rigorous, many of the 13-15 year old old showing up to attend the farm school were prepared for higher education. Also, there were sever discipline issues as adolescent middle school aged boys from farm towns tend to be a bit incorrigible. In essence, the ag branch college was a reform school for adolescent farm buys wanting to learn to fix farm machinery. The stated goal of the branch ag college was to teach without the use of books. The model school of the university was the University of Virginia (Fefferson's university). The model for the ag college was Michigan State. The university has always been wealthier, more elite, more prestigious and more academically rigorous than the ag school, the ag school has always felt the need to try to be the equal of the university. The aggy 'burnt orange yardstick" they measure themselves against started from the first days of the school.

 

The Regents running the university saw their mission having nothing to do with that of the ag branch college and wanted nothing to do with them. They repeatedly called for the ag school to be shut down and tried twice (1915, 1919) to get a constitutional amendment to end the ag college's status as a branch of the university. Voters rejected the proposed amendments, in no small part because to fund the ag college, the state wanted to impose a new ad valorem tax on the people. The directors of the ag college fought the regents at every turn because they wanted access to the PUF. From the 1890s to the 1920s, the farm interests in the legislature were strong and protected the ag college. When Santa Rita 1 hit in 1923, there was more than enough money in the PUF for both institutions. In 1931, the legislature mandated the Regents give 1/3 pf the PUF income (the AUF) to the ag college. With the Regents ignoring the ag college and money not an issue, things settled down.

 

While things settled down on the political side, the ag college directors had a lot of ill will toward the university Regents due to the Regents' past efforts to close the school down and the refusal of the Regents to offer the ag college sufficient funding. The ag college directors (and alumni) felt they were looked down on by the university regents (they were) and at every opportunity, they wanted to "stick it" to the university. Combine that with the adolescent, all boys culture of the ag school and you have the beginnings of the aggy hatred for the university. The ag college never was intended to be the equal of the university and that is the reason it isn't today the equal of the university. Its isn't by accident the annual operating budget of UT Austin is roughly twice the budget of TAMU College Station (The UT System operating budget is more than four times that of the TAMU System) and why Regents Rule 80303 mandates UT Austin by itself receives AUF funding equal to that of what is allocated to the entire TAMU system.

 

In 1947, in response to a hazing scandal, the ag college directors felt the school was getting too complex for one person to oversee by himself, so they created the A&M System to relieve the college president from worrying about anything but the College Station campus. The voters still had not approved a constitutional amendment to end the ag college's status as a branch of the university. In 1950, the UT System was created and in dedicating the various operating units of the university as components of the UT System (med school, etc), they failed to mention the status of the ag college as a branch of the university. In 1963, the legislature changed the name of the ag college to "Texas A&M University." In 1967, The University of Texas changed its name to "The University of Texas at Austin." Technically, The entire TAMU System (yes, including TAMU College Station) is a branch of The University of Texas at Austin. There is only one university fund (the PUF) because there is technically only one university. In 1975 the ag college directors changed their name from Board of Directors to Board of Regents, to match the structure of the university. Today, the TAMU Regents are scared to death of the possibility of another proposed amendment to and TAMU's status as a branch of the university because it would be humiliating for them to have to admit they still are "little brother" and a branch of their great rival.

 

Does that explain aggy's obsession with UT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for utisdabomb12, you can't put together a comprehensive argument against the post, so it may be better for you to stay away from the discussion anyways and stick to the news about 18 year olds qualifying for schools. I'm headed off to the baseball game, I'm hoping I'll see more arguments founded in logic and not "aggy is aggy" when I'm back.

No, I just don't argue with aggies on this subject matter because you are so butt hurt over LHN. The fact that you are writing a novel on the subject matter pretty much proves my point. You have no clue the financials behind UT's LHN contract to begin with and trying to argue with aggies on this subject matter is a lost cause. Aggies have nothing to show for in terms of actual results so this is what they dig in on. You like to make fun of randolph duke on here when you are more butt hurt over the possibility of Texas making money off LHN than he is on any subject matter. This is what makes you aggies so pathetic, you probably got all excited over those Clay Travis articles didn't you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UT was established in Feb 1858, aggy in April 1871. The act that established aggy....

 

The real problem arise from Art 7, Sc 13 of the constitution when it directs....

 

The state's finances were a mess following the civil war. In 1850....

 

In opening the ag college, there was no set curriculum, no....

 

The Regents running the university saw their mission....

 

While things settled down on the political side....

 

In 1947, in response to a hazing scandal....

 

Does that explain aggy's obsession with UT?

 

Dang, great post. Was that originally your dissertation, Dr. Duke?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...


×
×
  • Create New...