Was Texas Playing 'Chicken' With Dan Beebe All Along?

It was announced this morning that the Texas Longhorns, along with the coat tail riding contingent of Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State, have decided to accept the Big 12's proposal and stay in the Big 12.

Well, Yippee.

Here's the thing, who doesn't believe that the Longhorns were simply angling for more money and a better shot at getting their own network all along?

Think about it, not only did the money pot get bigger with the exodus of both Colorado and Nebraska, who will be forced to pay $17 million each for their transgressions, but the introduction of the league's intent to allow institutions to pursue their own separate television deal had to be the cherry on top for the Longhorns.

It's no secret that the Longhorns wanted to pursue their own network—a la the YES Network of the New York Yankees—but the Big 12 didn't seem open to that possibility. Dan Beebe skirted the issue time and again while, all the time, Texas was fuming and trying to figure out how to make it happen.

Enter the rumors of a Big Ten or Pac-10 raid of the Big 12 and VOILA!,  there's enough leverage to make the Big 12 and Dan Beebe rethink their stance on how revenue is distributed and how much liberality they will give each team in pursuing their own method of making money.

As an added bonus, both Nebraska and Colorado got scared silly enough to leave altogether. By doing so, the Big 12 North just got a lot less competitive and the money to be gained from any deals struck hence forward just got sweeter.

All of this led me to wonder, if Texas wasn’t just playing a very deceptive game of poker with Dan Beebe from the start?

In truth, most of what any of us heard about the expansion deals came from one of a few random sources, none of whom were in a position to make a decision on the fate of Texas or the Big 12.

Orangebloods.com set off this firestorm early on and by last Friday it was at a full blaze as the sports world essentially jumped on the story and ran.

Seriously, think long and hard about it, what did any of us read about Texas, the Big 12, or the Pac-10's invitation to the Longhorns that did not originate from Orangeblood's, Chip Brown? He was the primary source in just about every breaking news story regarding this situation and he is, of course, the source of the most recent news that Texas will stay in the Big 12 today.

Despite a conflicting report offered by ESPN's Joe Schad, that Texas will bolt for the Pac-10 for the academic prestige over the money, it makes sense that the Big 12 stay configured as a ten team league than go to a 16 team Pac-10 where their financial options would be somewhat restrained.

The Pac-10 is looking to expand their market share in hopes of securing more revenue from television. However, there is no deal in place yet, and any team joining the Pac-10 is doing so on good faith—nothing more.

Further, the Pac-10 is not going to allow Texas to pursue a Longhorn Network if they come over which—in my opinion—is what they truly want to do.

So, why join and split the money 16 ways, deny your program the option of netting an additional$3-5 million in television revenue through developing your own network, and risk disrupting your fanbase, just to join with the Pac-10 for academic reasons?

It just doesn’t make sense.

Now, I admit, all of this conjecture could be proved wrong a day or so from now, but for the moment, it makes more sense for the Big 12 to stay together than break apart.

Should Texas A&M Just Say: "So Long To The Orange And The White"?

The Aggie War Hymn, once considered to be the No. 1 college fight song in America, has meaning again on a national level. Here is an excerpt from the famous fight song:

Good bye to texas university
So long to the orange and the white
Good luck to dear old Texas Aggies
They are the boys who show the real old fight
"the eyes of Texas are upon you"
That is the song they sing so well
Sounds Like Hell
So good bye to texas university
We're gonna beat you all to…

The sentiment is fitting, considering the Aggies are seriously considering an offer to move to the SEC. 
Nothing has been set in stone yet but, as of this posting, the possibility was one with legs.

Here is the gist: there is an offer on the table for Texas to move to the Pac-10—assuming the last minute efforts of Dan Beebe to save the conference aren't thought to be "too little too late"–and they will, supposedly take Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State along for the ride.

The last slot, because the Pac-10 is trying to become the Pac-16—was presumed to be A&M's for the taking, if they wanted it. However, A&M is thinking of their own situation, financially, and may break from their rival school altogether. If they do, it would end a 100-year old rivalry game that, in the minds of many, has defined the Aggie program.

In response to that possibility, many alumnus, legislators, and fans of the program are hoping the Aggies will eschew the SEC's offer and stay on the coat tails of Texas.

The obvious solution would be for the Aggies and Longhorns to continue their rivalry as non-conference foes, right? The only problem there is Texas has already made it clear that, if the Aggies don't follow them then, they won't be playing any more reindeer games from now til' forever—if they can help it.

My first and only response to that is this: "To heck with Texas!"

More and more, as the days  go by and the rumors swirl, you get the feeling that the Longhorns have a bit of a god complex.  It looks unattractive, annoying, and extremely distasteful on them and I am puzzled at how long they have been able to railroad other teams—legally—without said teams exploding into a million little pieces.

Why on earth any team should feel the need to kiss the Longhorn's backside, is beyond me. Yet, at every turn of the expansion talk, you hear about the Longhorns intentions and what they want in a deal.

Even more, the Aggie fans that state their team is nothing without Texas, give even more credence to the idea—insane.

Note to all those teams: tell the Longhorns to get bent and then you (Oklahoma, A&M, Baylor, etc.) need to, sorry, grow a pair. 

I mean, seriously, despite the power, money, and prestige the Texas program brings to the college football negotiating table, shouldn't an institution want to stand on it's own two feet?

Don't get me wrong, as an SEC fan, I know the importance of rivalries and tradition—both are a staple in the SEC. However, I do not condone one team holding another hostage just because it can. Face it, folks, Texas is a bully and all they seem to do is make life difficult for every team around them—it's any wonder the Cornhuskers left for the Big 10.

In my opinion, the SEC is fine as is and expansion is not necessary. Leave well enough alone and let the Joneses' keep trying to keep pace with you. Don't react and start trying to pull rabbits out of hats. There is nothing wrong with the SEC and, to echo a common southern refrain. "if it ain't broke..."

Who knows what will happen over the next hour or two? Who knows how all of this will eventually shake out? These days, the information is nearly useless almost as soon as you have read it.

Either way, changes are happening and it's time that the programs who want to play with the big boys start playing with their own equipment because the Longhorns are clearly not playing fair.

The Pac-10 Expansion Might Make Dollars, But Does It Really Make Sense?

There has been a lot of talk about expansion lately. It's difficult to Google "college football" or "NCAA" right now and not find yet another article explaining what it is and why it's happening.

Dan Wetzel, of Yahoo sports, writes an extensive article on why the Big 12 is suddenly the goat in this situation. It's a long read, and it's obvious what side of the fence Mr. Wetzel stands on, but it also brought something to mind for me—an SEC fan—who is admittedly a tad confused by the expansion hoopla; why is this good for college football?

The Pac-10 will, allegedly, look to add six teams to their league (Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and either Baylor or Colorado). In doing so, they will hold the largest market share as far as television revenue goes—making them a very attractive conference to sell to the highest bidder for broadcast rights.

My question is, why would any true fan of college football want a 16-team league? With that many teams, you start to phase out natural rivalries and, in part, you begin to water down the true heart of why many people watch the games—the passion and the pageantry.

With that said, it's obvious that the move, if made, will be totally about money. This isn’t about anything else.

It has nothing to do with enhancing the landscape of college football or bringing about a powerful conference that rivals that of the SEC or the Big Ten—although that's precisely the angle being preached to the common fan—no, it's about dollars and sense.

Whatever conglomeration of conference team members brings in the most dollars, makes the most sense—period.

Which brings about another question, one that I haven't seen answered in any of the blogs, media rhetoric, television interviews, or Twitter talk I’ve imbibed; what if this model fails?

It's an honest question to ask, right? After all, the Pac-10 could be making a huge statement by extending an offer to Texas, but what good is all the revenue Texas would bring, if their counterparts bring little to the table.

Texas is a powerhouse and they always have been. They don’t need the Pac-10 or any other conference’s invitation to continue to hold that title—it’s Texas. However, the other five teams that ride on the coattails of Texas, including Oklahoma, benefit from this partnership more than any other.

Remember, the revenue generated by bowl appearances, BCS wins, and network revenue, is divvied up amongst the conference members—split 16 ways—no matter who is the most responsible for the generation of those funds.

It’s not as if USC, Texas, or Oklahoma will be able to negotiate a 70-30 split—whoever is the best representative for the conference that season, gets the most money. It doesn’t work that way. Teams like Baylor, Washington State, and Texas Tech, stand to make a killing if this expansion model works as planned.

However, if it doesn’t work, then you have a conference that is not unlike that of any other conference at present—all the cream rising to the top.

In my opinion, college football’s popularity has very little do with revenue for the fan. Don’t get me wrong, I understand business models and I know that at the end of the day, you have to be able to compete with the big boys if you want your university to thrive at the national level.

Most university presidents welcome the revenue stream that comes in from football, baseball, tennis, and the like because it gives them the brick and mortar money to continue building their academic programs. I get that, I do.

However, just because you make something bigger and add a pretty bow to it, doesn’t mean that it’s going to be better. Consider the Western Athletic Conference which expanded to 16-teams in 1996.
They had four divisions and were, at one time, considered to be one of the best mid-major conference teams in the land.

It wasn’t long before teams started to see that the arrangement wasn’t as beneficial as first thought. It was hard to cover the expenses of traveling and recruiting on a budget that saw minimal increase from the maximum exposure. It just didn’t make sense.

Of course, the revenue possibilities now are better than they were then but that doesn’t truly make life any better for a team like Washington State, does it?

I don’t know, maybe I a little too old school. I was fine with the way the conferences were aligned already and figured, if anything,  it was time the big boys started kicking the dead weight out—bye, bye Baylor and so long Vanderbilt—in order to add teams that are beginning to make head way in their programs. That, to me, makes the most sense—increase the quality, not the quantity.

Whatever happens in the coming weeks, it’s clear that change is on the horizon. The question remains, for me and some others I am sure, is that change really going to be for the best?

What say you?