One ‘Horn to rule them all, one ‘Horn to bind them.

Matt Hinton“Today, this is a conference held together by naked self-interest, with the Longhorns as the lucrative sun around which the rest of the league revolves.”

Yeah, he’s talking about the new Big XII, but it occurs to me that would have applied just as nicely to a new Pac-16.



Filed under Big 12 Football, Pac-12 Football

24 responses to “One ‘Horn to rule them all, one ‘Horn to bind them.

  1. heyberto

    Awesome post title. +1.


  2. Brandon

    In the common tongue it says: “Texas is skeered to join the SEC”


    • Larry Scott

      Now that our “Plan A” has not materialized as contemplated we are moving to our back-up arrangement we call “Plan B.” I am advising the fans of the University of Georgia Bulldogs athletic teams (affectionately known as “Dem Dawgs”) of the intention of the to extend an official invitation to that august institution to join our conference. We at the feel that our member institutions have a great deal in common with the University of Georgia. For example, you have a coastline in Georgia and most of our members’ states also have a coastline (except for Arizona but that doesn’t count). You at UGA have a successful coach who has won an average of 10 games per season for the last nine years. We had such a coach at USC but he recently left town just before the NCAA made an unpleasant announcement. You “Dawgs” (I just love that!) have played in 3 conference championship games for your current conference. With the addition of UGA to the PAC-(what did I call it?)-11 we also will be putting forward such a game and would love to have a team with your experience competing for a spot in that game. Here’s the offer: You guys bring with you Alabama, Auburn and Florida and we’ve got ourselves a deal. Please let me know something by tomorrow as if you are not going to accept we will be moving to “Plan C” which entails portions of the Mountain West. Thank you in advance for your favorable consideration.


      • Larry Scott

        P.S. If you can get LSU, too, we’ll give UGA the largest cut of all the new members. Of course, USC will get the biggest cut and the other original members will get shares larger than the new members (except for Arizona and ASU–after all, they’re in a desert).


  3. Mayor of Dawgtown

    What makes this so remarkable is the amount that Fox would pay to hang on to the Big-whatever. Does this mean a renegotiation is in order for the SEC? If they (on the brink of destruction) are worth $140 Million what is the SEC really worth? Better football, more engaged fans, more TVs.



    just wait till we kick that ass this year. We’re going to win another championship. I seriously doubt you sorry ass dawgs will come close to a SEC championship this year


    • Mayor of Dawgtown

      From the grammar and punctuation I would presume the above post comes from a Georgia Tech graduate, probably a with a Doctorate in Electrical Engineering and shop steward of the local union.


    • Brandon

      Bravely spoken THWG…in June.


  5. Phocion

    Have to disagree there, Sen. Texas likely did NOT move to the Pac10 precisely because they would not get that kind of treatment. There’s no way U$C would have stood for it. Texas would have been an equal to U$C and Texas’ ego couldn’t abide that. The Horns are arrogance personified. They’ll only stay is this version of the Big12 so long as it suits them. If I were Kansas, Mizzou, etc I wouldn’t be taking a breather…I’d be working the back channels evey chance I could and split on Texas before Texas gets a chance to do it to me…because they will.


    • If Texas had moved to the Pac-10/16, it would have become the most powerful member, for two reasons: it would have controlled a voting block of itself along with the schools that parachuted in with it, which would have allowed it to block moves it didn’t like and it would have held a dagger to the throat of the old guard with a threat to leave if things didn’t suit it.

      USC is just one school and it’s not exactly in a position of power for the next two or three years, anyway.


      • Tom

        Yeah, I gotta go with Pho on this one. Once the other Big12 schools got into the Pac10, Texas’ influence over them would decrease, probably pretty significantly. The reason they’re most influential in the Big12 now is because they bring in (and get) the vast majority of the money, which wouldn’t necessarily be the case in the Pac10, especially with the revenue sharing equalized. So there’d be no reason for Oklahoma, OK State, & Colorado to kotow to Texas any more. Texas Tech & maybe A&M would probably still show some deference, since they have to deal with the state legislature.

        If Texas threatened to take their money and go home, the rest of the Pac15 would still be just fine, and the other current Big12 schools know it. Even though the big one didn’t hit this go around, it’s only a matter of time – the Big12 is a dead conference walking.

        Though I must say, it’s gonna be fun as hell to watch in the upcoming seasons, with all the bad blood that was shed in the last couple of weeks.


        • Two notes in response, per Chip Brown:

          Pac-10 wanted to substitute Kansas for Oklahoma State and Texas didn’t like the Pac-16 without its entire entourage in tow.


          • Phocion

            Yes, but that was getting in. The Pac10 could except that change of agenda going in…but they wouldn’t have had to later on. Just like you point out that Texas would have had a veto later on, so would Berkeley, Wazzu, and the rest.

            This was nothing more than a discussion about a Pre-nup prior to a wedding. The language couldn’t be agreed upon so the ceremony was canceled.


            • Texas wouldn’t have a mere veto. It would control a voting bloc of five teams.

              And original Pac-10 members wouldn’t have a legitimate threat-to-leave card to play. Texas always would.


  6. The idea of unequal revenue sharing like that in the main conference tv deal is pretty disgusting.

    I used to like Texas until I learned about the way they bully and screw over all the other schools in their own conference.


    • Not trying to flame here, Muck, but why does that bother you? Isn’t there a logic to saying that the schools which get the lion’s share of TV appearances should get the lion’s share of TV revenue?

      And there are plenty of examples of unequal revenue sharing throughout present-day college football. The Pac-10 currently doesn’t distribute TV money equally. The ACC doesn’t distribute bowl revenue in equal shares (one reason why FSU chose the ACC instead of the SEC). And even though the SEC does distribute the CBS/ESPN money equally, it allows its member schools to pursue separate local media deals (the Big Ten doesn’t because of the BTN) which means that Georgia and Florida make more from broadcast rights than other conference members.

      I don’t think there’s a right or wrong here from a moral sense. There is in terms of what a conference’s membership can live with.


      • It bothers me when it is a contract negotiated by the conference.

        I don’t have a problem with the SEC setup, where some rights are left for the individual schools to negotiate.

        At least then the schools are making money from their “work.”

        But when the conference is out making deals, those deals should benefit the conference equally.


  7. BMan

    If you’re the average Oklahoma fan these days, how does it feel being hit full-on with the realization that you’re the Longhorns’ bitch? And not even the only one, but one of a stable full.