This thread by our rival is endlessly entertaining...

[bws]

http://forums.hornfans.com/php/wwwthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=football&Number=5031268&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=1&vc=1

[ds43fan]

i love how they're leaving us out of teams to keep in the conference but colorado is still in 

[kstate16]

i about peed my pants.

[yosh]

LOL  what a fantastic thread!  Great find!  2 best things about that thread.

1.  UT fans bitching and wanting to go to other conferences that already have the TV revenue sharing.  In other words, joining conference that already have in place what they are wanting the leave the Big 12 to avoid.  Hilarious!

2.  Thinking they could actually be independent, and that the BIG XII needs them, more than they need the BIG XII.  No doubt the Big 12 would take a hit without UT, but even without them, they'd be a top 6 conference.  UT as an independent would be a joke.  Notre Dame even had to join a conference in every sport outside of football...and Notre Dame football has suffered greatly in the era of the superconference.  

It's great to listen to UT fans just be themselves.  Entertainment for all!

[RonLongshaft]

thats funny stuff. i love how they dont talk about us like if we're not mentioned then we will go away. only one time was our name brought up and it was a Nubb fan  man i forgot how much i hate texas and how big headed all those SOBs are. i hope they go indy and fall flat on there face

[ChicagoCat]

I know I'm banging the same drum but didn't we give them about all the in-conference competition they could handle this year?  They are idiots who are taking the whole thing out of proportion.  They always use a Baylor-ISU football game as an example.  Under no contract, under the current conditions of those programs, would that game be on TV.  A few crappier ones would but I think uTIceberg is right.  If you complain about the level of competition, you have to let the revenue sharing happen.  If you want the money, then don't complain about the level of competition.  And no team would make a go as an Independent after leaving a conference.  The other NCAA teams have to let them, and once that starts it would be a free for all.

[Pike]

I think they hate us more than OU sometimes...

[Pett]

They have to beat us atleast once for it to be a rivalry....

[treysolid]

the arrogance and the selfishness that thread embodies is the reason why i will NEVER live in TX.  mexico can have that &@#%er, as far as i am concerned.  but really, do UT people even know how much money they would be foregoing in the short-term if revenue sharing for TV was adopted?  it'd be like 2 million a year.  they act as if the north teams would be stealing half their AD budget away from them.

[Iceberg]

As history shows...

Texas left Mexico because things were crapty. Thought they could be independent, but couldn't survive and had to run to the US.

Texans always think they can be independent, but in all reality they crumble with support.

[Iceberg]

Texas is scared to play us now that our football program gonna make a come back and that our basketball team is going to final four

[FHSU92]

It's funny how no one is answering the how-would-we-lose-by-revenue-sharing question.

If they left would we still be the Big12 or we would be "The New Big10"

[doom]

"7. CU - good all around sports, pretty big name nationally
9. Texas Tech - don't bring that much but football is rising
10. Mizzou - don't bring much cept hoops "


Colorado???  What the &@#%?  Colorado was at the bottom of the big 12 last year only to be beaten for the bottom spot in FB by ISU. 
Texas Tech doesn't bring that much.  His name is Bobby &@#%ing Knight.  He is the winningest hoops coach of all time.
When was Mizzou good at hoops?  It's not even still relevant!  How drunk are these &@#%ers!?!  We won the Big 12 Title in FB, VB, and WBB in 2003.  We beat them in both sports last year.  What is wrong with you people.  They act like they had no idea that there were other teams in the Big 12.  And they know nothing about the teams they've actually heard of.

Colorado State?  http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/6913018  good idea jackasses. 
tcu?  Drunks!

[bigdeal]

I agree with alot of your analysis kusucks but I have to say, I think tcu would be a nice addition to the conference if we could kick out Baylor.  That team is the biggest drain.  Of course, Arkansas would be a nice addition but I don't see why they'd leave where they are. 

[Pike]

Not even ku fans are this stupid. So, you know what this means right? We officially have a rival now  (because ku won't be it)

[Dan Rydell]

Colorado State would have to make some major upgrades to be Big XII-quality.  Their stadium holds about 25,000, and their facilities pale even compared to ku.  Today's arms-race Big XII probably isn't the ideal locale for them.

[TDTexas!]

Look guys - im here to make a point, no flame. you dont have to agree with it, but certainly not to flame you. I posted a very simple & direct point on our homesite- HornFans -  about the whole debate on revenue sharing that has come up since the resignation of the ex-Big12 commish Kevin Weiberg -

I suggest that all Big12 members follow the model of Oklahoma State. They are not a big player but they have alumni that want to change that and significant resources have been put into their program from within. Please dont tell me that  KSU or other schools dont have a "Pickens". Every school has both substantially AND relatively sucessful alumni. Thats how Texas got where we are. Anyone can do it. It is a matter of committment to long term programdevelopment.

By the way - Even though Kevin Weiberg has done some very profound things, he has preached the Big10 revenue sharing model since he came here from the Big10. He was tired of the struggle and frankly the powers that be were tired of hearing his rhetoric.

Part of the birth of the Big12 was the inception of its constitution called 'by laws'. These by laws were established to prevent radical change coming from some wind of opinion from here or there. There had/has to be 9 out of 12 institutions that were agreeable to the change. Obviously, 9 are not going to agree on a change in the by laws to include revenue sharing. This is not new. It was anticipated when the by-laws were established at the beginning of the Big12.

Some have suggested that roughly 2 million dollars per institution represents negligible investment. I tend to agree with that but I also know that THAT 2 million is not going to have a profound impact on smaller schools to compete. IMPACT will have to come from alumni. Also of note - The Big12 is not the Big10. There is much more reason to invest in revenue sharing in the Big10 due to their collective academic standing. That is a fact.

BTW - we werent aware that we are rivals, but thanks anyway.

Have a nice day.

[FBWillie]

BTW - we werent aware that we are rivals, but thanks anyway.

Have a nice day.

We're not rivals... you guys need to win one every now and then for that to be true. 

[willie83]

Pickens is the exception, not the rule. How many normal alumni would it take to donate $250,000,000 strictly for athletics at ANY school.

Texan's arrogance knows no boundaries, even when they think they are being diplomatic.

"I'm not flaming here, we are just that much better than you."

[doom]

Look guys - im here to make a point, no flame. you dont have to agree with it, but certainly not to flame you. I posted a very simple & direct point on our homesite- HornFans -  about the whole debate on revenue sharing that has come up since the resignation of the ex-Big12 commish Kevin Weiberg -

I suggest that all Big12 members follow the model of Oklahoma State. They are not a big player but they have alumni that want to change that and significant resources have been put into their program from within. Please dont tell me that  KSU or other schools dont have a "Pickens". Every school has both substantially AND relatively sucessful alumni. Thats how Texas got where we are. Anyone can do it. It is a matter of committment to long term programdevelopment.

By the way - Even though Kevin Weiberg has done some very profound things, he has preached the Big10 revenue sharing model since he came here from the Big10. He was tired of the struggle and frankly the powers that be were tired of hearing his rhetoric.

Part of the birth of the Big12 was the inception of its constitution called 'by laws'. These by laws were established to prevent radical change coming from some wind of opinion from here or there. There had/has to be 9 out of 12 institutions that were agreeable to the change. Obviously, 9 are not going to agree on a change in the by laws to include revenue sharing. This is not new. It was anticipated when the by-laws were established at the beginning of the Big12.

Some have suggested that roughly 2 million dollars per institution represents negligible investment. I tend to agree with that but I also know that THAT 2 million is not going to have a profound impact on smaller schools to compete. IMPACT will have to come from alumni. Also of note - The Big12 is not the Big10. There is much more reason to invest in revenue sharing in the Big10 due to their collective academic standing. That is a fact.

BTW - we werent aware that we are rivals, but thanks anyway.

Have a nice day.

The only ones flaming in the Big 12 is Kansas.
 

[sonofdaxjones]

Look guys - im here to make a point, no flame. you dont have to agree with it, but certainly not to flame you. I posted a very simple & direct point on our homesite- HornFans -  about the whole debate on revenue sharing that has come up since the resignation of the ex-Big12 commish Kevin Weiberg -

I suggest that all Big12 members follow the model of Oklahoma State. They are not a big player but they have alumni that want to change that and significant resources have been put into their program from within. Please dont tell me that  KSU or other schools dont have a "Pickens". Every school has both substantially AND relatively sucessful alumni. Thats how Texas got where we are. Anyone can do it. It is a matter of committment to long term programdevelopment.

By the way - Even though Kevin Weiberg has done some very profound things, he has preached the Big10 revenue sharing model since he came here from the Big10. He was tired of the struggle and frankly the powers that be were tired of hearing his rhetoric.

Part of the birth of the Big12 was the inception of its constitution called 'by laws'. These by laws were established to prevent radical change coming from some wind of opinion from here or there. There had/has to be 9 out of 12 institutions that were agreeable to the change. Obviously, 9 are not going to agree on a change in the by laws to include revenue sharing. This is not new. It was anticipated when the by-laws were established at the beginning of the Big12.

Some have suggested that roughly 2 million dollars per institution represents negligible investment. I tend to agree with that but I also know that THAT 2 million is not going to have a profound impact on smaller schools to compete. IMPACT will have to come from alumni. Also of note - The Big12 is not the Big10. There is much more reason to invest in revenue sharing in the Big10 due to their collective academic standing. That is a fact.

BTW - we werent aware that we are rivals, but thanks anyway.

Have a nice day.

 

[S. Parker]

Every school has both substantially AND relatively sucessful alumni. Thats how Texas got where we are. Anyone can do it. It is a matter of committment to long term program development.

Good lord, this has to be the one of the dumbest statements I have ever seen on a sports board. Anyone can do it? Texas has more people than the rest of the Big 12 states combined. And since they are also the most popular school in that state by far, they have more money than any other school in the conference. That's not even mentioning the advantages that gives you recruiting.

Furthermore, thanks to the way you guys set up the Big 12, you get to play at least 9 games in Texas every year. Last year you played 11 out of your 13 games in Texas. The only time you had to leave your state was to play in Lincoln and Manhattan. That would be like Nebraska playing some of it's "road" games in Omaha, Kearney, and Chadron.

And have you forgotten what a mess your football program was before you joined the Big 12?

Like you said though, there's nothing to be concerned about. Any school can do what Texas does, right? 

[WildCatzPhreak]

He does make a good point though.

Is it really going to hurt Texas to lose 2 mil in revenue each year?  No.
Is it really going to help K-state to gain 1 mil in revenue each year?  No.

While I do firmly believe in revenue sharing, it's not nearly as big of a deal as a lot of people are making it.  To really compete in the arms races(and therefore bolster recruiting, and therefore win more games) we need to increase our other sources of income - donations, ticket prices, etc.  (I'm kind of a devils advocate here, because I don't want ticket prices to go up either, but when comparing ticket prices at our games to UT, UNL, OU, etc we're actually pretty fortunate.) 

You're crazy if you don't think OSU is going to be one of the better teams in the Big XII in the future after all the money Pickens has donated to their athletic department.


Something I am very interested in though..

Somehow K-state was on TV 7 times(middle of the pack in the Big XII) but received the least payout.  How the hell does that work?

[FBWillie]

He does make a good point though.

Is it really going to hurt Texas to lose 2 mil in revenue each year?  No.
Is it really going to help K-state to gain 1 mil in revenue each year?  No.
....

I dont think this is supposed to help teams like us... this is more for your ISU's and Baylors.

[TDTexas!]

wildkatsphreak - kudos for the cognitive expression.


willie - [[[[[[[very-deep-breath]]]]]] uh, please explain how a [potential] equal distribution of a sum benefit ISU & Baylor more than KSU?

[WildCatzPhreak]

wildkatsphreak - kudos for the cognitive expression.


willie - [[[[[[[very-deep-breath]]]]]] uh, please explain how a [potential] equal distribution of a sum benefit ISU & Baylor more than KSU?

K-state is on a lot more than Baylor and ISU, even with our recent decline.  I don't have numbers, but I'd be willing to bet we were on TV a lot more 97-03 than we are now.

In theory, we should be one of the "middle of the pack" teams.  But somehow we're not getting crap for money, despite our TV appearances.  I'm still trying to figure out how that happened.

[TDTexas!]

phreak - I hear your frustration, but that does not answer the question I asked willie. maybe you SHOULD be the one to answer it though as you strike a reasonable tone without flames.

[WildCatzPhreak]

Equal distribution of revenue would theoretically help ISU and Baylor more because they're on TV less than we are, so the difference between what they would get and what they're getting now would be larger than K-state's.

Of course, the numbers are &@#%ed up somewhere if the Omaha World Herald is right and K-state gets the least out of the TV contracts.

[QuinnMac]

Every school has both substantially AND relatively sucessful alumni. Thats how Texas got where we are. Anyone can do it. It is a matter of committment to long term program development.

Hard to find bandwagon K-State fans, unlike those to the east who have a great(in numbers only) following of people who haven't even been to Lawrence.  Those who root for K-state also represent the university

[TDTexas!]

phreak - your cognitive statement has turned to supposition. Can you link to the Omaha rag where you quote?

Most interested fans and alumni are unaware of the terms of the by-laws of the Big12 conference. Obviously the leadership as well as legal representation - ie: president, athletic director & general counsel of each institution are acutely aware, but due to the images, profiles, and assets which are different in each Big12 institution, do you see the logic why the decision makers intentionally have not and will not publicize the specifics of agreed revenue terms and other factors that impact every Big12 institution? Its comparable to why, for example, government officials do not discuss classified information. It is, as they say, on a need to know basis for the benefit of the country, in this case, for the benefit of the conference as a whole. There may be revenue agreements or other terms that benefit other Big12 institutions that "I" might find objectionable as it in some relative way effects The University of Texas.