How the hell did ESPN find all that money? The ACC is obsolete as a football conference and I hope Florida State leaves it for the SEC.

As long as teenage girls keep buying Jonas Brothers stuff and the 'tweens keeping paying $ to listen to Miley Cyrus/Hannah Montana, the pimp known as Disney will always be ESPN's sugar daddy.

For comparison sake, here are some attendance numbers from 2009:

Rank Division I FBS Teams Games Attendance Average In Avg.
1. Southeastern 12 86 6,560,738 76,288 -556
2. Big Ten 11 77 *5,526,237 71,769 1,644
3. Big 12 12 82 5,155,739 62,875 -81
4. Pacific-10 10 64 3,467,899 54,186 -3,164
5. Atlantic Coast 12 81 4,151,171 51,249 -1,488
6. Big East 8 +53 2,374,604 44,804 1,659
7. Mountain West 9 55 1,826,091 33,202 1,181
8. Conference USA 12 73 1,941,825 26,600 -518
9. Western Athletic 9 53 1,205,690 22,749 -1,726
10. Sun Belt # 9 *49 *806,687 16,463 -2,121
11. Mid-American 13 74 1,133,434 15,317 -1,410
12. Independents 3 19 923,915 48,627 -2,175

and some B12 expansion candidates:
Air Force 6 213,937 35,656
BYU 6 385,416 64,236
Colorado St. 6 141,856 23,643
Memphis 6 154,769 25,795
TCU 6 229,121 38,187

Only Washington State and Northwestern averaged less than 30K among BCS teams, so I would think teams like Memphis and Colorado State would be tough to consider.

If Utah or BYU leave, the MWC won't be able to score high enough for a BCS bid. I wonder if Boise St. will be pissed off if both leave?

Well, I think Utah will be gone, I don't think BYU will be since they are looking like the bastard child of the world that no one wants even though they have a great program....

So BYU, BSU and TCU will be the powers that be in the MWC if Utah leaves.

I also think if Utah takes off...their Rivalry with BYU will be screwed...If I am BYU I don't book it as an OOC game, even at the beginning of the season...

I'd love BYU and TCU but would they even consider the Big XII at this point?

SI

I'd love BYU and TCU but would they even consider the Big XII at this point?

SI

BYU would take it if Utah leaves if not, they sit in the MWC

BYU deserves to be in a BCS conference more than probably 40% of the current BCS teams.

How the hell did ESPN find all that money? The ACC is obsolete as a football conference and I hope Florida State leaves it for the SEC.

{shrug} Same place they found it to actually overpay the ACC in the last renegotiation (i.e. pay more than the conference was originally seeking/expecting). Something to be said for making sure Fox doesn't get it I guess.

BYU deserves to be in a BCS conference more than probably 40% of the current BCS teams.

Like I said, I'd take BYU and TCU with open arms to bring us back up to the Big XII. :D

SI

Interesting tweet by Goeff Ketchum, the other guy from Orangebloods:

Larry Scott's biggest mistake was that he didn't offer Tech or Okie State on Friday to assure that the Big 12 died.

BYU deserves to be in a BCS conference more than probably 40% of the current BCS teams.

But few conferences are willing to deal with the Sunday play issue among other things.

Louisville would make for an interesting option for the Big 12, as well. Arguably, a top 10 basketball program and all the infrastructure is in place for football (and they have obviously had a lot of success in both, recrently).

I'd hate to lose them from the Big East.

But few conferences are willing to deal with the Sunday play issue among other things.

We hear that all the time, but outside of baseball/softball, would that be a factor for most sports? It would be easy to avoid in football and relatively easy to avoid in basketball.

We hear that all the time, but outside of baseball/softball, would that be a factor for most sports? It would be easy to avoid in football and relatively easy to avoid in basketball.

Well I did say "among other things". But when you're not someone that people are chomping at the bit to acquire, every little bit adds up, y'know?

Just thinking outloud, but New Mexico wouldn't be a terrible school to take a flyer on for the Big 12, either. Albuquerque is one of the fastest growing cities in the U.S and has a top 50 media market.

We hear that all the time, but outside of baseball/softball, would that be a factor for most sports? It would be easy to avoid in football and relatively easy to avoid in basketball.

A lot of the Olympic type sports championships in most of the other conferences are played on Sunday...

BYU Womens rugby team forfeited their game quarter final game because it fell on Sunday and the USA Rugby organizers would not shift it.

I don't see it as much as a problem in the Big XII with having Baylor there as well...

Well I did say "among other things". But when you're not someone that people are chomping at the bit to acquire, every little bit adds up, y'know?

True. It just seems like BYU could be like a mini-Notre Dame (obviously with Mormons rather than Catholics) and their attendance figures are better than most of the current B12 schools already. They would be a desirable bowl team and would seemingly have large pockets of viewers in certain areas of the U.S. Plus, their programs are BCS-ready, already.

Am I the only one disappointed that we may not have Conference Armageddon now. I was all excited for the musical chairs to really start

Am I the only one disappointed that we may not have Conference Armageddon now. I was all excited for the musical chairs to really start

I'm a little disappointed because it feels like it is inevitable now. Us have-nots are still left in limbo while the big fish go back to planning.

Another rumor surfacing today about Big East commish Marinatto actually working with Delaney to destroy the Big East and force ND to the Big Ten. I assume this would only be done if the members all knew where they were going to land. Still seems a little far-fetched to me, but who knows. If the FB schools have better options, it would make sense to get it over with.

Marinatto is now busy packaging Rutgers & Syracuse to the Big Ten before the end of the month.

As soon as 2 Big East FB schools are announced to the Big Ten, per the Big East 2003 agreement (in the event that 2 football members leave the conference, the football and non-football members can split the league without any penalty), the Basketball schools will exercise their option to dissolve the Big East FB Conference and remove them from the BEBBC.

They will take the $10m ($5m x 2) from Rutgers and Syracuse and wave the 27 month notice.

The 6 remaining FB schools won't have to pay a dime, but will be IMMEDIATELY FREE to look for a new home or start a new conference for all sports.

So now you have the Big 14. Looking to get to 16.

The Big East FB conference is dissolved.
Syracuse, Rutgers, WVU, Pitt, Louisville, USF, Cincinnati, UConn, removing about 5 annual top 25 teams from the Big East BB Conference.
The BB side is still a decent BB conference, but not great with 8 schools, and adding Xavier to get to 9.

This would be ND's conference mates:

Villanova
Georgetown
Seton Hall
Providence
St Johns
Marquette
Depaul
Xavier

This is a really weak conference for most sports, isn't it?

The problem for ND is the quality of Olympic Sports in the weakened Big East. The Domers invest a ton of money and are BIG on Olympic sports and that will be a consideration for joining the Big Ten as well. Adding to that is the still changing landscape in conferences expanding and the future BCS arrangements.

So at this point the Big East as we know it, on BOTH SIDES,IS NO MORE.

Next Big Ten move is to add Missouri to get to 15.

PAUSE.

Notre Dame can then say it's PROVEN that the landscape has changed and not theory, and can then say they have NO CHOICE but to join a SOLID conference for ALL SPORTS that are on a high level, and locked in to a guaranteed tie in to the BCS for FB.

What ND will finally do is anyone's guess. But if ND says no, then I guess eventually Pitt could get ND's spot.

The speculation never stops, eh?

Interesting tweet by Goeff Ketchum, the other guy from Orangebloods:

Larry Scott's biggest mistake was that he didn't offer Tech or Okie State on Friday to assure that the Big 12 died.
Perhaps. Not sure if this passes the smell test though - would Oklahoma State have jumped without assurances Oklahoma would too? It's easy to say in hindsight that Scott should've done more to ensure that the Big-12 collapsed, but there were a lot of moving parts and some risk on his part by trying to force the proceedings.

In any event, I'm guessing we'll be back to this whole discussion again in probably 5-7 years when the Big-"12" is on the verge of imploding again...

I'm a little disappointed because it feels like it is inevitable now. Us have-nots are still left in limbo while the big fish go back to planning.

That's basically what it amounts to in the end. They'll settle on a middle ground for a couple of years until they're ready to make the bigger moves with a bit more planning. It partially depends on who the Big 12 adds as well. Louisville and Memphis are the primary candidates to add to the North. If the Big 10 raids Rutgers and Syracuse to try to destablize the Big East so they can take ND and the B12 takes Louisville, the Big East then becomes the next possible implosion and we see another set of dominoes ready to fall.

Turn out the lights, the party's over methinks.

Not an easy road game in Big 12-2 basketball. What a conference this will be for basketball!

I'm disappointed that the Pac-10 didn't get Texas and company. The Pac-16 would have challenged the SEC for dominance in football.

It looks like Texas and Oklahoma chose the easy road to the BCS each and every year.

It looks like Texas and Oklahoma chose the easy road to the BCS each and every year.

Really gonna look like the old Big 2, Little 8 Big Ten of old, but probably worse. A&M, Mizzou, OSU and Texas Tech can be solid and do some damage but Texas is literally on another level as of late with recruiting. I just don't see how UT doesn't demolish the rest of the conference save every few years when OU makes a run.

Really gonna look like the old Big 2, Little 8 Big Ten of old, but probably worse. A&M, Mizzou, OSU and Texas Tech can be solid and do some damage but Texas is literally on another level as of late with recruiting. I just don't see how UT doesn't demolish the rest of the conference save every few years when OU makes a run.

I don't understand why the OU fans aren't as pissed as they should be about this reasoning that seems to be going on everywhere about Texas and its football dominance. OU has been to 7 title games and won 6 of them. Texas has been to 5 and won 3. OU has been in 4 of the last 6 title games. Why it is UT's conference to win and not OU's?

Saw this on the Big East board:

PeteThamelNYT Source confirms that Texas asked to be able to keep own local TV and wanted "extra sweetner" financially from revenue sharing at 11th hour.

I don't understand why the OU fans aren't as pissed as they should be about this reasoning that seems to be going on everywhere about Texas and its football dominance. OU has been to 7 title games and won 6 of them. Texas has been to 5 and won 3. OU has been in 4 of the last 6 title games. Why it is UT's conference to win and not OU's?

I truly believe the last three years or so of recruiting UT has easily been the best in the Nation. They are sick, flat out sick. A lot of those kids are already contributing as well. OU just lost a ton. They will be fine but UT is truly set up to do a lot of special things.

Utah's Rivals guy is tweeting that sources are telling him Utah told the MWC it's intentions to leave the conference earlier. Not a big surprise but most likely this is the final domino for now.

Effin Fox Sports. They had to overpay otherwise they'd be stuck with the MWC next tv cycle. Larry Scott needs to make a deal with NBC/Versus next contract cycle

Utah's Rivals guy is tweeting that sources are telling him Utah told the MWC it's intentions to leave the conference earlier. Not a big surprise but most likely this is the final domino for now.
Yeah. Not sure if the Big Ten will have the stones to try to collapse the Big East and force Notre Dame's hand - seems like with the Big-"12" staying alive and the Pac-10 stopping at 12, the momentum for massive realignment has been stymied.

A few of the A&M posters on their boards have really good points. I mean, there aren't exactly compelling academic/research reasons to join the SEC, but A&M's decision vis-a-vis Texas is pretty puzzling for a school with ambitions (and a past) to compete on an equal footing.

-Losing an estimated $3M of the base TV deal to UT
-Allowing UT their own network without one of their own (recruiting and financial implications of this are difficult to overstate)
-Huge loss of image as they get viewed as followers of Texas
-Games against ISU, KSU will not be on the same plane in ticket sales to what Florida, Tennessee, LSU, etc. would bring.

I just don't understand the A&M decision. Really, where is it coming from? I can't see any long-term benefits.

DO IT! DO IT! DO IT!

Apparently, a group of ADs outside the Big XII and high ranking television execs were part of the conversation to keep the league intact. I'm not exactly sure why the ADs were involved.

Apparently, a group of ADs outside the Big XII and high ranking television execs were part of the conversation to keep the league intact. I'm not exactly sure why the ADs were involved.

Rumors I saw about that was the Big East officials

vote - TAMU

A few of the A&M posters on their boards have really good points. I mean, there aren't exactly compelling academic/research reasons to join the SEC, but A&M's decision vis-a-vis Texas is pretty puzzling for a school with ambitions (and a past) to compete on an equal footing.

-Losing an estimated $3M of the base TV deal to UT
-Allowing UT their own network without one of their own (recruiting and financial implications of this are difficult to overstate)
-Huge loss of image as they get viewed as followers of Texas
-Games against ISU, KSU will not be on the same plane in ticket sales to what Florida, Tennessee, LSU, etc. would bring.

I just don't understand the A&M decision. Really, where is it coming from? I can't see any long-term benefits.

They just coward away. They could have made a statement to UT but they decided not to.

-Games against ISU, KSU will not be on the same plane in ticket sales to what Florida, Tennessee, LSU, etc. would bring
Im sorry, but you cant compare apples to oranges...games against ISU or KSU would compare to games against Mississippi State or Vanderbilt

Im sorry, but you cant compare apples to oranges...games against ISU or KSU would compare to games against Mississippi State or Vanderbilt

Are you trying to sell me that the Big-12 - 2 = SEC?

Seriously?

Yeah. Not sure if the Big Ten will have the stones to try to collapse the Big East and force Notre Dame's hand - seems like with the Big-"12" staying alive and the Pac-10 stopping at 12, the momentum for massive realignment has been stymied.

May happen without the Big 10 making the initial move. Some fairly strong rumors circulating that WVU is trying to work a deal to get out of the conference I think it's safe to say every other football school with options is likely doing the same. If WVU ends up being the first one to make a move then I'm sure the Big 10 would go ahead and attempt to finish off the conference to see what ND plans on doing.

The writing is on the wall for the conference and it's becoming clear that now is the time to jump ship or you're going to be left on your own whenever the Big 10 or someone else decides to make a move.

Are you trying to sell me that the Big-12 - 2 = SEC?

Seriously?

No he's saying that comparing ISU and KSU to Florida, Tennessee, and LSU is stupid. (Re-read the original A&M post where this is done) The teams that are the equals of FLA, UT, & LSU in the big 12-2 are OU, Mizzou , and Nebraska (or say Texas Tech if you don't want to count Nebraska for the next two years) The equals of ISU and KSU in football would be the bottom feeders in the SEC (like Miss State)

So ok I get home and this has turned into the stupidest cluster-eff I can imagine. Nice job Texas and even worse Texas A&M for pansing out.

Holy crap what a cock-up. I'm legitimately pissed off right now.

May happen without the Big 10 making the initial move. Some fairly strong rumors circulating that WVU is trying to work a deal to get out of the conference I think it's safe to say every other football school with options is likely doing the same. If WVU ends up being the first one to make a move then I'm sure the Big 10 would go ahead and attempt to finish off the conference to see what ND plans on doing.

The writing is on the wall for the conference and it's becoming clear that now is the time to jump ship or you're going to be left on your own whenever the Big 10 or someone else decides to make a move.

What are you hearing?

I hope it is SEC related.

May happen without the Big 10 making the initial move. Some fairly strong rumors circulating that WVU is trying to work a deal to get out of the conference I think it's safe to say every other football school with options is likely doing the same. If WVU ends up being the first one to make a move then I'm sure the Big 10 would go ahead and attempt to finish off the conference to see what ND plans on doing.

The writing is on the wall for the conference and it's becoming clear that now is the time to jump ship or you're going to be left on your own whenever the Big 10 or someone else decides to make a move.

Where are you following the WVU rumors?

So if this is indeed over (or close to over), who ends up being the winners/losers here?

Winners:
Colorado - Got to go where they wanted, and did so without much sniping or controversy.
Texas - Get to be the good guys to keep Big 12 alive, get an easier path to the BCS and get more money out of it.
Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor - Get to stay in a BCS conference and don't get regulated to some second (or possibly third) tier conference.
Big-10: They didn't get the Notre Dame or Texas, but they did get a school that will add to their conference in Nebraska, plus the ability for a championship game if they so choose.

Losers:

Pac-10 - Was adding Colorado (and possibly Utah) worth it? They obviously had their eyes set big and swung and missed.
Missouri - They seemed to have a For Sale sign around their necks, would easily have jumped ship if they had a taker. They end up stuck in a conference that they don't like under the conditions from Texas who they despise. Their only saving grace may be having pretty much a cakewalk in the new Big-12 North (pending what they decide to do without a championship game now)
Texas A&M, Oklahoma - Surely this wasn't the best deal for those two schools here. They appeared to have some desire elsewhere but chose to stay where they were.


Neutral:

Nebraska - They ended up in a better situation conference wise for stability and money purposes. That probably should be enough to put them in the winners category here. I didn't care too much for how they left and burned all of their bridges on the way out however. Plus their return path to football greatness has to be more difficult now against the likes of the Big 10 than they would have had facing Colorado/Missouri for the Big 12 north every year.

I don't understand why the OU fans aren't as pissed as they should be about this reasoning that seems to be going on everywhere about Texas and its football dominance. OU has been to 7 title games and won 6 of them. Texas has been to 5 and won 3. OU has been in 4 of the last 6 title games. Why it is UT's conference to win and not OU's?

Not only that, but I don't understand how it's suddenly a much crappier football conference when Nebraska hasn't been Nebraska for nearly a decade* and Colorado hasn't been good since the 5th down play (not true, but they've had 4 straight losing seasons and haven't been a national player since 2001).

I understand how fragile the conference is at this point. But where is this crap coming from that Nebraska and Colorado singlehandedly somehow made the Big XII more of a football power conference?

SI

*I know historically, they're a much better program but that's looking like a longer and longer time ago. Since 2003, they have 63 wins. Texas Tech has 62 and Mizzou 58 and both Kansas schools have been to a BCS bowl more recently than Nebraska.

Uggh, I think I just threw up in my mouth...Utah to the PAC 10...I hate it, I hate it, I hate it....

I wonder if the MWC looks to expand now? Could see them grabbing a couple C-USA teams.

Uggh, I think I just threw up in my mouth...Utah to the PAC 10...I hate it, I hate it, I hate it....

You may have stated why before but I do not recall. So what is the reason?

You may have stated why before but I do not recall. So what is the reason?

BYU fan?

BYU fan?

I was thinking Mac was a Utah fan. If not I have probably committed the ultimate insult so I of course apologize in advance.

Not only that, but I don't understand how it's suddenly a much crappier football conference when Nebraska hasn't been Nebraska for nearly a decade* and Colorado hasn't been good since the 5th down play (not true, but they've had 4 straight losing seasons and haven't been a national player since 2001).

I understand how fragile the conference is at this point. But where is this crap coming from that Nebraska and Colorado singlehandedly somehow made the Big XII more of a football power conference?

SI

*I know historically, they're a much better program but that's looking like a longer and longer time ago. Since 2003, they have 63 wins. Texas Tech has 62 and Mizzou 58 and both Kansas schools have been to a BCS bowl more recently than Nebraska.

Yeah I think the whole national coverage of the Big 12 has been very un-educated at best. UT/OU/KU/K-State/Mizzou/OSU/TT have all had a top 5 ranking/national title hopes since the inception of this conference. (K-State may be a bit of a stretch but they were a player for a few years there)

BYU fan?

Bingo!!

Although I should feel great for Kalani Sitake their DC who was one of my best friends in HS until he moved to St. Louis for his final two years....

Really, I hate the fact they will separate from BYU as far as conference games....the Holy War which is the final game for both teams every season usually is the game that determines who the conference champ is (although TCU has thrown a wrench in it every once and a while) and have made the games that more meaningful. Now, they will suck ass and be unimportant to most fans. I honestly now could care less about the game as much as I would if they stuck around.

So if this is indeed over (or close to over), who ends up being the winners/losers here?

Winners:
Colorado - Got to go where they wanted, and did so without much sniping or controversy.
Texas - Get to be the good guys to keep Big 12 alive, get an easier path to the BCS and get more money out of it.
Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor - Get to stay in a BCS conference and don't get regulated to some second (or possibly third) tier conference.
Big-10: They didn't get the Notre Dame or Texas, but they did get a school that will add to their conference in Nebraska, plus the ability for a championship game if they so choose.

Losers:

Pac-10 - Was adding Colorado (and possibly Utah) worth it? They obviously had their eyes set big and swung and missed.
Missouri - They seemed to have a For Sale sign around their necks, would easily have jumped ship if they had a taker. They end up stuck in a conference that they don't like under the conditions from Texas who they despise. Their only saving grace may be having pretty much a cakewalk in the new Big-12 North (pending what they decide to do without a championship game now)
Texas A&M, Oklahoma - Surely this wasn't the best deal for those two schools here. They appeared to have some desire elsewhere but chose to stay where they were.


Neutral:

Nebraska - They ended up in a better situation conference wise for stability and money purposes. That probably should be enough to put them in the winners category here. I didn't care too much for how they left and burned all of their bridges on the way out however. Plus their return path to football greatness has to be more difficult now against the likes of the Big 10 than they would have had facing Colorado/Missouri for the Big 12 north every year.

I agree with all of these except for Nebraska (winner) and Pac-10 (netural).

For Nebraska, All things being equal, I'd rather be in the Big 10 than the Big XII. Things are not equal as they weaken the Big XII and make a jump before things inevitably fall apart so that's a win for them.

Also, I think Utah gets to be a winner if they get picked up by the Pac-10.

The poor WAC is also a big loser out of this. There goes their big name in football :(

The MWC is a... small loser? Neutral? I can't tell. They pick up Boise St but they'll probably lose Utah. They lose out on their possible big fish and the possibility of being elevated to the 5th major conference. But that may still be looming out on the horizon. However, by then will they be in a position to snatch up teams or will Conference USA or something like that still be out there.

I think the SEC is also a small winner. Did you really want Texas A&M and have to split the pot another way and deal with a 13 team conference?

Finally, the Pac-10 is the complicated one. I'm assuming they go out and pick up Utah. They move into two more media markets they covet but probably won't get the big fish they wanted. If, in 5 years, the Big XII implodes and they have to go with some pupu platter of BYU, Kansas, Kansas State, New Mexico, and Texas schools not named UT or A&M- they lose then. But if they hadn't made such a bold move, wouldn't they have been stuck with those options anyways? They had to kick the tires on making conference armageddon happen because that was easily their best play. Sure, they have to split the pot another 2 ways but the pot should grow with those two new markets.

SI

Also, how in the world are we going to reconcile the Big XII and Big 10 names now? Is it going to become the Big X and the Big 12 now? Or does the old Big 10 get to steal the Roman numerals motif due to their academic prowess?

SI

Also, how in the world are we going to reconcile the Big XII and Big 10 names now? Is it going to become the Big X and the Big 12 now? Or does the old Big 10 get to steal the Roman numerals motif due to their academic prowess?

SI

Big Ten is a brand at this point. I can't see any way they ever change the name, even with 16 teams. We've been at 11 for over fifteen years, what's one more team?

Count me also as one who's not happy the armageddon scenario seems to have been nipped before it truly could get going.

Frankly, I am very surprised that OU and A&M are selling themselves out to Texas considering the tradition each school prides itself on. A&M kinda-sorta fought to go its own way, but both schools have pretty much said that they're nothing without Texas now, a fact that probably incenses their fans to no end at this point. Yeah, they'll take all that money and run, but it's still going to be perceived as the TEXAS+nine Conference now.

Yeah I think the whole national coverage of the Big 12 has been very un-educated at best. UT/OU/KU/K-State/Mizzou/OSU/TT have all had a top 5 ranking/national title hopes since the inception of this conference. (K-State may be a bit of a stretch but they were a player for a few years there)

Kansas State probably has a better overall resume than Kansas, Missouri, OSU, and Tech in the Big 12. They've actually won the conference title and have had multiple top 10 finishes.

Kansas State probably has a better overall resume than Kansas, Missouri, OSU, and Tech in the Big 12. They've actually won the conference title and have had multiple top 10 finishes.

I'll say it grudgingly but the coaching job by Bill Snyder is one of the best if not the best in the history of college football. He took over an awful program (0, 0, 1, and 2 wins the 4 seasons before he got there) and had it in the conference and evern national title hunt for a long time with 11 straight bowls and a stretch of 6 out of 7 seasons with 11 wins each year.

SI

So if this is indeed over (or close to over), who ends up being the winners/losers here? .

Winners:
Arizona State & uofa - They still have a shot at a Pac-10 championship once every 8-10 years. :)

I think going in Pac-10 fans thought Scott should swing for the fences and invite Texas & TA&M and if it didn't work settle for Colorado & Utah so I'm not sure the Pac-10 is a loser in this. The aimed big and almost hit their target. If OU or TA&M would have stood up to Texas we'd have a Pac-16 now. As it is I think the Big XII house of cards will fall apart in 5 years or so anyhow as they see how far Texas pulls away from them.

The local guys were talking about how the TX TV network could get very big for them in a few years. Thinking in terms of the YES Network where they decide to purchase the airing rights to Rangers games or Stars games to help them bring in more $$

Speaking of K-State, you've gotta love Frank Martin in all this...

"As you might expect, Kansas State basketball coach Frank Martin was happy to hear his team is staying in the Big 12 Conference. What you might not expect is how excited he is to begin competing in a new 10-team format.

"The Big 12 is a great league that just got better," Martin said. "... Having a lot of teams doesn't necessarily make a power league, because you've got a huge discrepancy between the top-tier teams and the lower-tier teams. Our league right now is pretty evenly matched 1-10."

With every team potentially playing the other nine twice in a double round robin, he sees the new Big 12 being a much more competitive conference.

"Now the South can't complain that in basketball they play each other twice and us once," Martin said. "We've got to play each other twice now. It's as evenly laid out as it can possibly be."

Without two of the North Division's worst teams (Colorado and Nebraska) around for more powerful rivals to feast on four times a year, that point is hard to argue.

By the way, Martin's thoughts on Nebraska and Colorado: "I don't care about them."

What he does care about is the future of a league that will likely claim Texas Tech, Iowa State and Oklahoma as its worst teams. And all three have put together quality teams in the recent past. The other seven (K-State, Kansas, Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor, Oklahoma State and Missouri) look very strong. Things could change by the time Colorado and Nebraska leave after next season, but all of them made the NCAA Tournament last year.

"I'm proud as heck of the teams we've got in our league," Martin said. "It's a big-time league with big-time coaches. I couldn't be happier to be a part of it."

Read more: Frank Martin discusses new Big 12 | Campus Corner (http://campuscorner.kansascity.com/node/927#ixzz0qtKRn99s)"

No he's saying that comparing ISU and KSU to Florida, Tennessee, and LSU is stupid. (Re-read the original A&M post where this is done) The teams that are the equals of FLA, UT, & LSU in the big 12-2 are OU, Mizzou , and Nebraska (or say Texas Tech if you don't want to count Nebraska for the next two years) The equals of ISU and KSU in football would be the bottom feeders in the SEC (like Miss State)

In essence, he was comparing the two.

For TAMU, the biggest draws are Texas and Oklahoma as it stands. Anything else isn't nearly in the same stratosphere as the top teams in the SEC. Alabama, LSU, Florida, hell Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn. TAMU now has to play ISU, KSU, Baylor every year. Playing in the SEC would overrule meh teams in the Big-12 - 2.

The fact that you compared Missouri to LSU, Florida, and Alabama is pretty laughable and shows delusion doesn't stop at the doors of Mizzou BB Fan

The local guys were talking about how the TX TV network could get very big for them in a few years. Thinking in terms of the YES Network where they decide to purchase the airing rights to Rangers games or Stars games to help them bring in more $$

I'm not sure how that works out the same way. While the Longhorns are a huge property in Texas and given Texas's population that's a lot of viewers to pull in, it's still nothing compared to the national draw the Yankees are or even the Big 10 if we're going to make a closer comparison. I can't see a BevoNet (or whatever it's going to be called) channel ever really getting serious play outside of Texas other than maybe in Oklahoma. Adding the Rangers or the Stars isn't going to change that. Now, if the Longhorns somehow got something related to the Cowboys on their network, then the math changes a bit since the channel would have programming non-Longhorn and non-Texas-resident viewers would be interested in. Since the NFL controls the league TV contracts and keeps most of the archival stuff on their own network, it's unlikely this would happen, though.

Losers:

Pac-10 - Was adding Colorado (and possibly Utah) worth it? They obviously had their eyes set big and swung and missed.

While I agree that losing out on Texas was disappointing, they still expanded with their backup plan.

I'm not sure how that works out the same way. While the Longhorns are a huge property in Texas and given Texas's population that's a lot of viewers to pull in, it's still nothing compared to the national draw the Yankees are or even the Big 10 if we're going to make a closer comparison. I can't see a BevoNet (or whatever it's going to be called) channel ever really getting serious play outside of Texas other than maybe in Oklahoma. Adding the Rangers or the Stars isn't going to change that. Now, if the Longhorns somehow got something related to the Cowboys on their network, then the math changes a bit since the channel would have programming non-Longhorn and non-Texas-resident viewers would be interested in. Since the NFL controls the league TV contracts and keeps most of the archival stuff on their own network, it's unlikely this would happen, though.

What will it show? Highlights? Replays of old games? The less-profitable stuff? The Longhorns will likely be shown nationally on big networks when it comes to football and basketball in most cases.

In essence, he was comparing the two.

For TAMU, the biggest draws are Texas and Oklahoma as it stands. Anything else isn't nearly in the same stratosphere as the top teams in the SEC. Alabama, LSU, Florida, hell Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn. TAMU now has to play ISU, KSU, Baylor every year. Playing in the SEC would overrule meh teams in the Big-12 - 2.

The fact that you compared Missouri to LSU, Florida, and Alabama is pretty laughable and shows delusion doesn't stop at the doors of Mizzou BB Fan

Again your reading comprehension astounds me. The original post compared playing ISU and KSU with Fla, Tenn, and LSU. It didn't say Auburn or Georgia like you are trying to spin it to say nor did it mention OU or Texas like you spin it to say. It said "Games against ISU, KSU will not be on the same plane in ticket sales to what Florida, Tennessee, LSU, etc. would bring" I also said OU = FLA, Mizzou = Tenn (which is hardly the elite of the SEC), and Nebraska or Tech = LSU. It's not even worth debating you as you don't really even seem to read what the posts say. Tennessee is not Alabama. (It is fun to try and change Tenn to Alabama to make me look dumb but it isn't hard to go one page to see what I really said.)

Ugh. Boise State for Utah is an iffy trade at best.

Again your reading comprehension astounds me. The original post compared playing ISU and KSU with Fla, Tenn, and LSU. It didn't say Auburn, or Georgia like you are trying to spin it to say. I also said OU = FLA, Mizzou = Tenn (which is hardly the elite of the SEC), and Nebraska or Tech = LSU. It's not even worth debating you as you don't really even seem to read what the posts say.

Big-12 - 2 is playing everyone in their schedule now, you seem to be missing that aspect of the whole convo. You hit every team in the Big-10 - 2 right now. You can sacrifice ISU and KSU for just one of the good teams, we'll say LSU, and they would make more money in ticket sales in that one game then vs the other two.

And I wasn't strictly speaking about prestige, though you compared Tennessee to Missouri, which isnt so bad I guess. Fan travel in the SEC is unreal. The UCLA baseball region was about 75% LSU fans. The other three teams were from no more then 75 mles away. But Tennessee fans will travel, even with an average program like the one Tennesse has. And that is discounting the fact that Tennessee also has a BCS Championship, a BCS appearance that has eluded Missouri. So your 3rd best program in the Big-12 hasnt won a Conference title since 1969 yet its comparable, in your mind, to Tennessee, a team with a BCS championship?

Seriously?

Big-12 - 2 is playing everyone in their schedule now, you seem to be missing that aspect of the whole convo. You hit every team in the Big-10 - 2 right now. You can sacrifice ISU and KSU for just one of the good teams, we'll say LSU, and they would make more money in ticket sales in that one game then vs the other two.

And I wasn't strictly speaking about prestige, though you compared Tennessee to Missouri, which isnt so bad I guess. Fan travel in the SEC is unreal. The UCLA baseball region was about 75% LSU fans. The other three teams were from no more then 75 mles away. But Tennessee fans will travel, even with an average program like the one Tennesse has. And that is discounting the fact that Tennessee also has a BCS Championship, a BCS appearance that has eluded Missouri. So your 3rd best program in the Big-12 hasnt won a Conference title since 1969 yet its comparable, in your mind, to Tennessee, a team with a BCS championship?

Seriously?

Where did I say Mizzou was the 3rd best team in the conference? You are saying Tenn is the third best in the SEC which I don't agree with. I would say the Big 12 would rank Tex/OU, Neb, TT, OSU, Mizzou and the SEC: Ala, Fla,LSU, Ark/Georgia, USC, Tenn. So that puts Mizzou around where Tenn is the the SEC.

Im talking strictly about the ability to sell tickets, which was the original point that was made. SEC fans travel for the most part. A package of MSU, Auburn, and Florida is an automatic win for TAMU. ISU, Baylor, and Texas isn't a slam dunk other then Texas. The fans would come from the SEC to Texas to watch their teams play. How many Iowa State fans drive down to watch a game at TAMU?

I also don't think Tennessee is the 3rd best program, hence it not being included in my original statement.

You obvisouly aren't that familiar with the Big 12. That's fine I know that you are a Pac-10 fan and my knowledge of the Pac-10 has to be way lower than yours. But you can continue to bash Mizzou all you want and try and spin things to make me seem outragous. All because I said that comparing playing the bottom feeders of the big 12 to the elite of the SEC was a dumb point for a Texas A&M fan to make. Why wouldn't the Yankees want to leave the AL East for the NL Central? The Orioles and Blue Jays are hardly the Cubs and Cardinals. That's what he did. That's why Blade called bullshit. That's when you misinterpreted both me and Blade. That's all I am discussing. You keep trying to change the topic to something I never said or wish to debate. Go back and read every post I have made about this and you will see that is the case. I never said the Big 12 was better than the SEC, I said that Blade was correct in calling bullshit to the A&M post that said "Games against ISU, KSU will not be on the same plane in ticket sales to what Florida, Tennessee, LSU, etc. would bring"

Im talking strictly about the ability to sell tickets, which was the original point that was made. SEC fans travel for the most part. A package of MSU, Auburn, and Florida is an automatic win for TAMU. ISU, Baylor, and Texas isn't a slam dunk other then Texas. The fans would come from the SEC to Texas to watch their teams play. How many Iowa State fans drive down to watch a game at TAMU?

I also don't think Tennessee is the 3rd best program, hence it not being included in my original statement.

None of this was said by the original A&M post. So it wasn't the point they were making. You are making a better point than they did. They made a horrible point that me and Blade called bullshit on.

Ditching ISU and KSU from the schedule every year is worth chance of possibly playing Florida/LSU/Bama/Tennessee/Auburn/Georgia/Arkansas in any given year. Even losing the Oklahoma/Texas game.

Ditching ISU and KSU from the schedule every year is worth chance of possibly playing Florida/LSU/Bama/Tennessee/Auburn/Georgia/Arkansas in any given year. Even losing the Oklahoma/Texas game.

Fine. It's dumb to keep going on this. If you want to say that playing Miss State and Vandy is a little better than playing KSU and ISU than I won't disagree with you. But that isn't what was said...

"Games against ISU, KSU will not be on the same plane in ticket sales to what Florida, Tennessee, LSU, etc. would bring" Blade said that is comparing apples to oranges. Like saying why wouldn't Florida want to play OU, Mizzou, and T Tech instead of Vandy and Miss State. You said this somehow meant that Blade (and a few posts later "panerd") thought the big 12 was so much better than the SEC. That's what happened. Go re-read the posts and I hope you will understand. No reason to continue the discussion though.

Fine. It's dumb to keep going on this. If you want to say that playing Miss State and Vandy is a little better than playing KSU and ISU than I won't disagree with you. But that isn't what was said...

"Games against ISU, KSU will not be on the same plane in ticket sales to what Florida, Tennessee, LSU, etc. would bring" Blade said that is comparing apples to oranges. Like saying why wouldn't Florida want to play OU, Mizzou, and T Tech instead of Vandy and Miss State. You said this somehow meant that Blade (and a few posts later "panerd") thought the big 12 was so much better than the SEC. That's what happened. Go re-read the posts and I hope you will understand. No reason to continue the discussion though.

Bolded for emphasis. Would you have preferred "et al"? They picked three random schools but opted to leave off Alabama.

Jackie Sherrill was interviewed all over the radio today and basically said the aTm decision was about two things, ego and ticket sales. In the end ticket sales won out. Surprising as it seems, they do rely on visitors to sell out their stadium. Established rivalries with Texas, Texas Tech, OU, OSU, etc. sell tickets. LSU and Alabama would travel, and Arkansas and Tennessee may travel for a year or so, but the others don't. TV never really came into play for them.

Interesting comments from T. Boone Pickens from the Dallas Morning News article:

" Another key conference voice weighed in during the afternoon – Dallas oilman and financier T. Boone Pickens, whose $400 million in donations have transformed Oklahoma State. He was optimistic after giving a talk in Austin and said he liked the idea of a lean Big 12.

"I don't want to go off and leave Iowa State, Kansas State or Baylor," Pickens said. "The Pac-10 is not that interesting. I'd rather trim the conference. I don't care if Nebraska leaves, I have no love for them. And I'd just as soon Missouri leave, and Colorado kind of fell in the same category."

Beebe has pushed for a long-term commitment from each Big 12 school, as much as 10 years, to avoid any repeat in the near future, sources said.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/stories/061510dnsporealignment.1dbf239.html

Wow, when we can no longer debate conferences, let's get our panties in a twist about INTERNET POSTS< OMG!!!!

While I'm still a bit iffy about the football end of the Big 12, there's no question that Big 12 basketball will be fantastic. They'll play an 18 game schedule and no longer have dead weights Nebraska and Colorado dragging down what was the #1 RPI conference in the nation. Also takes two cupcakes off the schedule with two more games being in-conference.

Ditching ISU and KSU from the schedule every year is worth chance of possibly playing Florida/LSU/Bama/Tennessee/Auburn/Georgia/Arkansas in any given year. Even losing the Oklahoma/Texas game.

I don't get what's so hard to understand here. No one is saying games against Iowa State and Kansas State are completely desirable, especially not right now.* But are you guys being intentionally dense or what is so hard to understand? It's like if when talking about Texas A&M right now, Big XII fans would say: "Why would you leave the Big XII and games with Oklahoma and Texas to play Mississippi State and Vanderbilt?" Which completely misses the point. Or "Why would Nebraska leave to go play Northwestern and Indiana when they can play, again, Oklahoma and Texas" instead of using Ohio State and Michigan. I'm pretty sure that's all panerd is saying- you're cherry picking of the highest and dumbest degree and it's not really necessary. Those of us with Big XII schools know we're all just limping along and it's a matter of time but you don't really need to intentionally crap on us further- just make it fair.

*I mean, we're past the days of Marcus Fizer and Jamaal Tinsley and Iowa State's brief flirtation with being good at basketball. And, again, Kansas State was a national title contender on the football stage but that was a while ago. Everyone has really nice runs but they are not marquee programs.

SI

Here's the Op-Ed of Kirk Bohls, the main sports writer for the Austin paper:

Big 12 calls off funeral, but bad blood remains (http://www.statesman.com/sports/longhorns/big-12-calls-off-funeral-but-bad-blood-747621.html?page=2&viewAsSinglePage=true)

While I'm still a bit iffy about the football end of the Big 12, there's no question that Big 12 basketball will be fantastic. They'll play an 18 game schedule and no longer have dead weights Nebraska and Colorado dragging down what was the #1 RPI conference in the nation. Also takes two cupcakes off the schedule with two more games being in-conference.

That's one of the few good things to come about because of this renewal of the Big 12. Finally a complete schedule where everybody plays one another in the conference.

I think you said it before so if you haven't please correct me, but I'm with you in that I don't think this is a long term solution.

Some Texas fans are crying because they don't want to go to Nebraska to play this year without a return trip the following year and think the game should be moved to a neutral field.

What a fucking joke.

Some Texas fans are crying because they don't want to go to Nebraska to play this year without a return trip the following year and think the game should be moved to a neutral field.

What a fucking joke.

Eh? This is the first I've heard of it. Sounds suspiciously similar to the talk of Arkansas wanting to move to the Big 12.

I don't get what's so hard to understand here. No one is saying games against Iowa State and Kansas State are completely desirable, especially not right now.* But are you guys being intentionally dense or what is so hard to understand? It's like if when talking about Texas A&M right now, Big XII fans would say: "Why would you leave the Big XII and games with Oklahoma and Texas to play Mississippi State and Vanderbilt?" Which completely misses the point. Or "Why would Nebraska leave to go play Northwestern and Indiana when they can play, again, Oklahoma and Texas" instead of using Ohio State and Michigan. I'm pretty sure that's all panerd is saying- you're cherry picking of the highest and dumbest degree and it's not really necessary. Those of us with Big XII schools know we're all just limping along and it's a matter of time but you don't really need to intentionally crap on us further- just make it fair.

*I mean, we're past the days of Marcus Fizer and Jamaal Tinsley and Iowa State's brief flirtation with being good at basketball. And, again, Kansas State was a national title contender on the football stage but that was a while ago. Everyone has really nice runs but they are not marquee programs.

SI

None o' y'all can seem to figure out what the other is saying, so I'll translate:

Bug--the teams you're tossing out on one end don't match with the relative strength of the comparable teams in the other conference. Let's say Texas is #1 and Oklahoma is #2 in the Texas Bitch Conference, while Alabama and Florida are #1 and #2 in the SEC. You don't say missing out on Bama and Florida (the top SEC teams) to play ISU andf KSU (teams #8 & #9 in the TBC). That doesn't make sense--you have to match up the teams, positions-wise within their conference.

SI/panerd/Blade/Whoever-- Bug is saying the SEC is a better conference than the TBC. And he's right--the SEC would obliterate the TBC in virtually every head to head matchup--and the SEC travels better, too. Bug is saying TX A&M missed out on an opportunity to raise its profile with a stronger schedule and increase its ticket sales, on top of also likely making much more money in the SEC with TV money, so this move makes no sense from the A&M perspective.

But then that's why the Big 12 is now the Texas Bitch Conference, when you think about it.

There we go. Much better ;)

SI

That's one of the few good things to come about because of this renewal of the Big 12. Finally a complete schedule where everybody plays one another in the conference.

I think you said it before so if you haven't please correct me, but I'm with you in that I don't think this is a long term solution.

Yes, that's the problem. We don't know if we'll ever even see it take place. They may add 2-8 members or may still fall apart in the next year or so if other dominoes fall.

From a fan of the Big 10, I am pleased with the addition of Nebraska. It's hard to say if more schools would have been better. I suppose it depends on which schools. Adding Notre Dame and Texas would have been amazing, but I think neither was a realistic probability and it was just a pipe dream more than anything.

Nebraska may not be the Nebraska of old, but it still has a lot of tradition and is a team that still draws national interest. Behind Texas/Notre Dame, I think they were the team I wanted to join the most.

I am also excited about the prospect of a Big Ten Championship game in 2011. It's been a long time coming.

From a basketball perspective, I could give a rat's ass. I have no real interest in college basketball, so it doesn't impact me one way or another.

From a fan of the Big 10, I am pleased with the addition of Nebraska. It's hard to say if more schools would have been better. I suppose it depends on which schools. Adding Notre Dame and Texas would have been amazing, but I think neither was a realistic probability and it was just a pipe dream more than anything.

Nebraska may not be the Nebraska of old, but it still has a lot of tradition and is a team that still draws national interest. Behind Texas/Notre Dame, I think they were the team I wanted to join the most.

I am also excited about the prospect of a Big Ten Championship game in 2011. It's been a long time coming.

From a basketball perspective, I could give a rat's ass. I have no real interest in college basketball, so it doesn't impact me one way or another.

Nebraska will stick out like a sore thumb in the high tempo world of Big Ten hoops.

I don't care about Texas joining, really. To me, they don't fit in the geographic footprint of the Big Ten. I would love to see Notre Dame join, though I hate them.

I am also excited about the prospect of a Big Ten Championship game in 2011. It's been a long time coming.

You'll be excited until the Big 10 teams start getting knocked out of National Championship games due to a loss in that game. If there's anything that is nice about the new Big 12 in football, it's that we won't have to deal with the issues a championship game presents. Most coaches have been trying to get rid of that game since the conference was formed.

Here we go...

You'll be excited until the Big 10 teams start getting knocked out of National Championship games due to a loss in that game. If there's anything that is nice about the new Big 12 in football, it's that we won't have to deal with the issues a championship game presents. Most coaches have been trying to get rid of that game since the conference was formed.

Yeah you know, more money, better visibility, better recruiting...

Of course, if Mizzou hadn't been castoff like the needy kid who desperately wanted to be in the cool kid circle you'd be singing a different tune.

Here we go...

Who's "we" and where are you going?

Missouri, enjoy servicing Texas for the next few years, until they get bored and decide to move on to the next big thing.

Who's "we" and where are you going?

Reject Island?

Mizzou has beachfront property

Yeah you know, more money, better visibility, better recruiting...

Of course, if Mizzou hadn't been castoff like the needy kid who desperately wanted to be in the cool kid circle you'd be singing a different tune.

Your first statement holds little validity. It doesn't change recruiting. Exposure in key states through the conference is far more important. The money is minimal compared to the overall contract. Mizzou's visibility was actually reduced due to their conference championship loss. If the Big 12 had been set up without a championship, Mizzou would have been playing for a National Championship. Instead, MU ended up with a non-BCS invite. It was a huge blow to MU's visibility.

You're also incorrect in your second statement. I wouldn't be any more excited about a championship game if we were in another conference. I believe the regular season champ should get the bid.

Missouri, enjoy servicing Texas for the next few years, until they get bored and decide to move on to the next big thing.

This conference will be lucky to last five years. It was a disaster before and it's still a disaster now. Even people in Texas will admit that. As a sports fan, you pretty much just have to ignore the stupidity of it all and enjoy the sports side of the equation.

Your first statement holds little validity. It doesn't change recruiting. Exposure in key states through the conference is far more important. The money is minimal compared to the overall contract. Mizzou's visibility was actually reduced due to their conference championship loss. If the Big 12 had been set up without a championship, Mizzou would have been playing for a National Championship. Instead, MU ended up with a non-BCS invite. It was a huge blow to MU's visibility.

You're also incorrect in your second statement. I wouldn't be any more excited about a championship game if we were in another conference. I believe the regular season champ should get the bid.

So, you go from a couple of days ago to saying the Big 12 isn't worth saving, to today extolling the virtues of the conference. Simply put, shut the hell up. You are a joke, and it is impossible to take anything you say seriously. Your statements are so consistently and emphatically wrong it stretches the limits of believability that you are not simply trolling.

Your first statement holds little validity. It doesn't change recruiting. Exposure in key states through the conference is far more important. The money is minimal compared to the overall contract. Mizzou's visibility was actually reduced due to their conference championship loss. If the Big 12 had been set up without a championship, Mizzou would have been playing for a National Championship. Instead, MU ended up with a non-BCS invite. It was a huge blow to MU's visibility.

You're also incorrect in your second statement. I wouldn't be any more excited about a championship game if we were in another conference. I believe the regular season champ should get the bid.


So much for Missouri being a lock to Big 10, huh?

How was their visibility reduced by playing in a conference championship game? If they didn't suck they would have won and been in the championship game that way.

So yeah, you were going to go to the Big Ten for $$$ but now that you aren't wanted who cares if you make nothing in the Texas Bitch Conference! It's better to make less money YEAH!

This conference will be lucky to last five years. It was a disaster before and it's still a disaster now. Even people in Texas will admit that. As a sports fan, you pretty much just have to ignore the stupidity of it all and enjoy the sports side of the equation.

Which includes making less money that before, less visibility, being a bitch to Texas and knowing that neither the Big Ten or Pac 10 want you.

It must be tough being an inoffensive Mizzou fan on this board.

You'll be excited until the Big 10 teams start getting knocked out of National Championship games due to a loss in that game. If there's anything that is nice about the new Big 12 in football, it's that we won't have to deal with the issues a championship game presents. Most coaches have been trying to get rid of that game since the conference was formed.

Unless that Big 10 team is Michigan, I could care less if they get knocked out a National Championship game due to a loss in that game. And, if it is Michigan (not likely for a while), well, then, they should've won that game.

The lack of a championship game has hurt the Big 10. The entire conference just falls off the map from Thanksgiving until the bowls start.

Also, as a fan, I love Championship games. I think they are fantastic to watch. Who doesn't want to see two top teams in a conference play one another? Where's the downside from that perspective? Which, as far as I am concerned, since it's my perspective, that's all I really care about.

Which includes making less money that before, less visibility, being a bitch to Texas and knowing that neither the Big Ten or Pac 10 want you.

Not sure where you heard it was less money. It's nearly double. I don't think it's the right move for Missouri, but there are worse consolation prizes.

So, you go from a couple of days ago to saying the Big 12 isn't worth saving, to today extolling the virtues of the conference. Simply put, shut the hell up. You are a joke, and it is impossible to take anything you say seriously. Your statements are so consistently and emphatically wrong it stretches the limits of believability that you are not simply trolling.

While I realize that rational discussion isn't your intent, I'll try anyway. I'm not 'extolling the virtues of the conference'. My point was that the one point of improvement on the football side of the equation was that there is no more conference championship. That may change if they add new members, but right now that's not part of the deal and I'm pleased about that. That's not even close to giving a stamp of approval. The result here is the worst of the three options that Mizzou had available and that falls squarely on the shoulders of the university leaders.

Who's "we" and where are you going?

So, you go from a couple of days ago to saying the Big 12 isn't worth saving, to today extolling the virtues of the conference. Simply put, shut the hell up. You are a joke, and it is impossible to take anything you say seriously. Your statements are so consistently and emphatically wrong it stretches the limits of believability that you are not simply trolling.

There we go.

It must be tough being an inoffensive Mizzou fan on this board.


I feel bad for the Missouri fans on the board that don't provoke everyone constantly. It is like they have to stand next to this lightning rod of sports debate and even though they don't dish it out, they constantly get to see everyone else bash their team thanks to the lightning rod asking for it.

Someone re-posted this from ESPN on the UCLA boards, and I thought it was an interesting read. If it's Insider material, sorry, the poster at the UCLA board didn't specify where he got it from, except ESPN:



Source: Influential group saved Big 12
By Andy Katz ESPN.com


In an unprecedented move, a number of influential people inside and outside of college athletics mobilized over the past week to save the Big 12 Conference, stave off the Pac-10's move to expand to 16 schools and prevent a massive reorganization of college athletics.

An NCAA source with direct knowledge of what occurred told ESPN.com that the aggressiveness of the Pac-10 caused various factions of the collegiate sports world to coalesce. They then worked to slow and try to stop the pace of moves that would have left a number of schools searching for a new conference home.

The source said the people involved were business executives, conference commissioners, athletic directors, network executives with ties throughout college athletics, administrators at many levels throughout the NCAA membership and a "fair number of them without a dog in the hunt."

According to the source, this collection of interested and influential people made phone calls, visited in person and held conference calls with the Big 12 schools that were being pursued, including Texas, as well as Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe. The influential group also helped broker the new television deal between Texas (and the other schools considering leaving the conference) and Beebe, who represented the remaining Big 12 schools.

According to the source, there was a growing sense that the Pac-10 was taking an approach inconsistent with the best interests and values of the schools impacted, both positively and negatively.

Late Monday, Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott said that Texas had rebuffed the league's invitation to join the conference. Soon after, Oklahoma, Texas A&M and Oklahoma State announced they would remain in the Big 12. That meant the Big 12 wouldn't dissolve despite the fact Nebraska left for the Big Ten and Colorado left for the Pac-10. Several details remain, but Texas president William Powers Jr. told Scott "the 10 remaining schools in the Big 12 Conference intend to stay together."

Scott reportedly was promising a Pac-10 network that had to include Texas to be a formidable option for cable providers in the Southwest and West Coast. The Pac-10 will negotiate a new television contract in 2012 and now must approach the talks as an 11-team league (as currently situated) or a 12-team league (if the Pac-10 opts for another member like Utah out of the Mountain West).

The 10 remaining Big 12 schools reviewed a plan prepared by Beebe that reportedly will produce increased television rights and the chance for each school to have its own network, something Texas is interested in. Orangebloods.com reported that the new TV deal would pay Texas $20 million to $25 million annually from the league deal and its own network.

The Big 12 will have an unequal revenue plan and that means Texas, Oklahoma and Texas A&M would likely earn more revenue. And if the figures are all correct, the remaining Big 12 schools would still double their television revenue to $14 million to $17 million annually.

"The Big 12 sticking wasn't a miracle,'' said the source. "There have been a number of people who were involved -- a number of seriously key people -- unrelated to the conference who will never be known to have helped get things on track.''T

he Pac-10 was looking to invite Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech to join Colorado for a 16-team league. A&M was trying to get interest from the SEC. There was some early interest from the school, but no formal offer from the SEC.

The five schools without suitors -- Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Iowa State and Baylor -- were pushing to keep the league together. They were all advised to not dissolve the Big 12 if the others left in order to collect money due the league, including exit fees and NCAA tournament payments.

The decision by Texas to stay with the Big 12 slows down what was rumored to be widespread conference expansion. Now, the only moves finalized are Nebraska to the Big Ten (giving it 12 teams), the Pac-10 adding Colorado (going to 11 teams) and the Mountain West adding a 10th team (Boise State). Nebraska and Boise State are expected to begin play for the 2011-12 school year; Colorado's status hasn't been finalized.

Colorado, Nebraska and Boise State all have had their respective runs in football -- the driving force in the move -- but none has been a major player in men's basketball, making the move almost moot so far in the second-most financially productive sport.

Keeping the 10 schools in the Big 12 will allow the conference to keep its BCS automatic berth and its NCAA basketball tournament automatic berth. The Big 12 won't be allowed to hold a football championship game unless it adds two more members or works to change the rules, which currently require 12 teams to have a title game.

A Kansas source said that, as a 10-team league, the Big 12 would be more profitable and would be one of the top basketball conferences in the country. The source said the remaining Big 12 schools will play a true round-robin 18-game schedule, much like the Pac-10 does in its current form.

The 10-team Big 12 conference will also play nine conference football games.

Preserving the Big 12 will put the Big East at ease for the moment. The SEC is unlikely to expand into the ACC. The Big Ten, now with 12 teams, could expand, but has said it will continue to study the issue.

Pagin Fox Mulder... The Cigarette Man is concerned about the Pac Ten's ambitions!

How was their visibility reduced by playing in a conference championship game? If they didn't suck they would have won and been in the championship game that way.

So yeah, you were going to go to the Big Ten for $$$ but now that you aren't wanted who cares if you make nothing in the Texas Bitch Conference! It's better to make less money YEAH!

Our visibility was reduced by not playing in the National Championship. No excuses for the loss, but in some conferences, we would not have played that game.

The comment about money is ridiculous. The money increased by quite a bit, even if it wasn't as much as the Big Ten. Where the loss occurs is on the academic end and the research money.

Pagin Fox Mulder... The Cigarette Man is concerned about the Pac Ten's ambitions!


I wonder how much of it is concern about the Pac-10 vs concern about the bigger overall picture of college football. Obviously the move to a Pac-16 would be followed eventually by the Big 10(16), which in turn would be responded to by the SEC.. This reformatting of the top tier of college sports would likely mean a change to the overall postseason picture as well.

The conspiracy theorist part of me wonders what percentage of those who had a piece in saving the Big 12 are the same people who are constantly saving the bowl game format and resisting the playoff push.

While I realize that rational discussion isn't your intent

It obviously isn't yours either, due to the sheer volume of garbage that you post. Over 10% of the posts in this thread are yours.

That's your MO. Throw a metric assload of shit out there, hoping something sticks, then claim you are persecuted and purport to take the high road when you are finally called out on it.

The result here is the worst of the three options that Mizzou had available and that falls squarely on the shoulders of the university leaders.

What were the three options? (Honest question.)

I wonder how much of it is concern about the Pac-10 vs concern about the bigger overall picture of college football. Obviously the move to a Pac-16 would be followed eventually by the Big 10(16), which in turn would be responded to by the SEC.. This reformatting of the top tier of college sports would likely mean a change to the overall postseason picture as well.

The conspiracy theorist part of me wonders what percentage of those who had a piece in saving the Big 12 are the same people who are constantly saving the bowl game format and resisting the playoff push.

Yup, I am seeing it much the same way. I think there is a distinct possibility this was a reaction to preserving the status quo at all costs.

What were the three options? (Honest question.)

If the A&M domino fell, Mizzou would have been considered as the other team in the SEC. If the South moved to the Pac 10, the Big 10 would have gone to 16 teams and MU would have likely been in.

The status quo was obviously the third option.

Lots of ifs and buts for those to be real options, don't you think?

If the A&M domino fell, Mizzou would have been considered as the other team in the SEC. If the South moved to the Pac 10, the Big 10 would have gone to 16 teams and MU would have likely been in.

The status quo was obviously the third option.

I am beginning to believe the Big Ten is not going to 16 teams any time soon. The belief has been Delaney had three targets in mind, UT, ND and Nebraska. He got Nebraska and made a play at UT which almost assuredly would have brought ND into the fold. I truly believe that there will be no more Big Ten expansion unless ND decides to play ball.

Missouri could very well be the 14th team assuming ND is ever #13, but until the day where ND says they want in, I really think the Big Ten stands pat.

Seeing that Mizzou hasn't beaten Texas or OU since 1998 and we haven't won in Austin since 1896 or in Norman since 1966. We have made the big 12 title game twice in the last three years. We just lost two somewhat storied programs (both have national titles) that we actually have been able to beat lately. How exactly is playing everyone in football and getting rid of the two divisions going to be good for the Tigers?

Sometimes I think MBBF gets picked on unnecessarily but sometimes (like here) I think he is just delusional.

I am beginning to believe the Big Ten is not going to 16 teams any time soon. The belief has been Delaney had three targets in mind, UT, ND and Nebraska. He got Nebraska and made a play at UT which almost assuredly would have brought ND into the fold. I truly believe that there will be no more Big Ten expansion unless ND decides to play ball.

Missouri could very well be the 14th team assuming ND is ever #13, but until the day where ND says they want in, I really think the Big Ten stands pat.

After the dust settled, I was thinking this same thing, that not much now will change for the foreseeable future.

There is now considerably less pressure for Notre Dame to make a move, and the Big 10 probably doesn't expand again without Notre Dame.

With no Notre Dame issues or Big Ten expansion plans, the Big East is much safer.

With the TBC back in fold and the Pac 10 moving at best to 12 teams, they reach relative levels of stability for now as well.

And with no super conferences on the horizon, the SEC and the ACC don't have any reason to take apart the Big East or parts of the TBC. And no Big Ten expansion also helps the reformed TBC.

No, other than Utah (probably) moving to the Pac 10 to get to 12 teams, I think we have reached a new level of equilibrium which will still in place for another 4-5 years probably, or at least until the TBC North teams again start to get antsy about all the $$ Texas is making.

Unless that Big 10 team is Michigan, I could care less if they get knocked out a National Championship game due to a loss in that game. And, if it is Michigan (not likely for a while), well, then, they should've won that game.

The lack of a championship game has hurt the Big 10. The entire conference just falls off the map from Thanksgiving until the bowls start.

Also, as a fan, I love Championship games. I think they are fantastic to watch. Who doesn't want to see two top teams in a conference play one another? Where's the downside from that perspective? Which, as far as I am concerned, since it's my perspective, that's all I really care about.

Bam. Sub in Ohio State for Michigan, and you have my sentiments as well.

Seeing that Mizzou hasn't beaten Texas or OU since 1998 and we haven't won in Austin since 1896 or in Norman since 1966. We have made the big 12 title game twice in the last three years. We just lost two somewhat storied programs (both have national titles) that we actually have been able to beat lately. How exactly is playing everyone in football and getting rid of the two divisions going to be good for the Tigers?

Sometimes I think MBBF gets picked on unnecessarily but sometimes (like here) I think he is just delusional.

To be the best, you have to play (and beat) the best. Mizzou will now get that chance every year rather than every other year. Our program is at its highest point since the mid 1970s. Mizzou should welcome the challenge rather than take the defeatist attitude and shy away from competition. Mizzou was a 4th quarter collapse against NU last year from going to three straight division titles. NU and CU aren't the top dogs in the North, even with NU's better year last year.

To be the best, you have to play (and beat) the best. Mizzou will now get that chance every year rather than every other year. Our program is at its highest point since the mid 1970s. Mizzou should welcome the challenge rather than take the defeatist attitude and shy away from competition. Mizzou was a 4th quarter collapse against NU last year from going to three straight division titles. NU and CU aren't the top dogs in the North, even with NU's better year last year.
HAHAHAHA so now the TBC is the best conference in the country?

Are you talking water polo or something?

Unless the Big 12-2 teams schedule strong OOC opponents, there SOS is going to get hurt even though Colorado and Nebraska aren't powerhouses, they (particularly Nebraska) are significantly stronger than the drivel that a lot of teams schedule for their OOC games.

HAHAHAHA so now the TBC is the best conference in the country?

Are you talking water polo or something?

He's referring to playing the best teams in the conference (Texas and Oklahoma).

HAHAHAHA so now the TBC is the best conference in the country?

Are you talking water polo or something?

Like I said I balance between shaking my head at MBBF and shaking my head at people who try and start shit all the time with MBBF. How is talking about playing OU and Texas as a challenge every year a big joke to you? I don't know your team affiliation but I would put those two against the top two of any other conference in the country.

To be the best, you have to play (and beat) the best. Mizzou will now get that chance every year rather than every other year. Our program is at its highest point since the mid 1970s. Mizzou should welcome the challenge rather than take the defeatist attitude and shy away from competition. Mizzou was a 4th quarter collapse against NU last year from going to three straight division titles. NU and CU aren't the top dogs in the North, even with NU's better year last year.

I agree with this but with the latest devopments including hearing that Mizzou, KU, ISU, KSU, OSU, Baylor, and TT basically caved and let UT, OU, and A&M split Nebraska and Colorado's penalty money I can't say I am super excited about this new conference.

I agree with this but with the latest devopments including hearing that Mizzou, KU, ISU, KSU, OSU, Baylor, and TT basically caved and let UT, OU, and A&M split Nebraska and Colorado's penalty money I can't say I am super excited about this new conference.

I'm not excited about it either, but at some point you have to move on. It's still a very good conference if you ignore the stupidity behind the curtain.

And Jay Nixon (can't wait to vote his a$$ out) is opening his mouth again...........

Missouri Governor disses Colorado, Nebraska basketball programs - CBK News - FOX Sports on MSN (http://msn.foxsports.com/cbk/story/Missouri-Governor-disses-Colorado-Nebraska-hoops-programs-061510)

http://photos.newsok.com/2/showimage/978477/lead620/

Berry Tramel: Texas got strong-armed

By Berry Tramel Oklahoman 23
Published: June 15, 2010


Here's the way the story goes.

Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe went into a war room and over a weekend convinced television networks to pony up hundreds of millions of dollars more than anyone believed possible, for a weakened football conference.

And the University of Texas, which knows where every available dollar in collegiate athletics is stashed, suddenly said, "Wow”?

Sorry. Don't buy it. The Pac-10 exodus of Big 12 South schools was derailed by Texas politics.

Not network television money. Not a desire to revive a league on life support. Not even Texas' desire to squeeze even more concessions out of schools desperate to keep the Big 12 afloat.

Texas politics. Governor Rick Perry and Austin legislators flexed their muscles.

How else to explain UT's carefully-constructed plan, hatched in private months ago, launched in public two weeks ago, going ka-boom in a matter of days?

It can't be about the money. Texas knows how much money is out there.

Texas knows how much the Big 12 is worth on the open market, with or without Colorado and Nebraska. Texas knows how much a Pac-16 would have been worth.

Texas doesn't leave money on the table. Texas studied the financials on staying or going long before Beebe's masquerade of coming to the rescue.

Don't automatically believe the crazy numbers being thrown out. With Nebraska's exit, the Big 12 is less marketable now than ever before. The advertising industry still struggles. And networks are fighting over themselves to televise Texas-Kansas and Oklahoma-Iowa State?

Something smells. I think Beebe's TV contracts will be a boon to all Big 12 schools. Every school will make significantly more money.

But Texas knew that six months ago, when the Big Ten started sniffing around for expansion. Knew that in February, when UT athletic director DeLoss Dodds told me the Big 12's ship would come in on television contracts. Knew that Saturday, when Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott flew to the Southwest to issue a group invitation to the Big 12 schools.

And still Texas made the decision to head West and would be announcing it today if not for the politicians.

Baylor's omission got a few legislators worked up, but Texas' arrogance toward Texas A&M started the firestorm. UT produced this plan, then handed it over to A&M for rubber-stamping.

The Aggies don't like being told what to do by the Longhorns.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is an Aggie. Better yet, a former A&M yell-leader. When A&M revolted by courting the SEC, and the 'Horns started talking about never playing the Aggies again in any sport, why wouldn't a governor step in?

Texas legislators scheduled hearings on Wednesday to discuss the issue, and suddenly the mood changed. State appropriations are no small matter.

Now we know why this realignment went into warp speed. The ultimatum to Nebraska 11 days ago. The quick invitation to Colorado last week. The scheduled regents meetings at UT and Tech today. The Longhorns were trying to outrun their politicos.

Don't forget, politics stopped Texas' interest in joining the Pac-10 15 years ago. This time, Texas appears to have misplayed its hand. If UT wanted to go to the Pac-10, it needed A&M as an accomplice. The Aggies should have been brought into the fold earlier.

Instead, A&M gets the last laugh. The Aggies upset Texas' grand plan.

Some say Texas tried to strong-arm other schools in this affair. In the end, Texas got strong-armed itself.

Berry Tramel: Texas got strong-armed | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/berry-tramel-big-12-survives-texas-got-strong-armed/article/3468604?custom_click=lead_story_title)

http://blog.newsok.com/berrytramel/files/2010/06/big12piece-300x160.jpg


Berry Tramel: Texas got strong-armed | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/berry-tramel-big-12-survives-texas-got-strong-armed/article/3468604?custom_click=lead_story_title)

Berry Tramel hates Texas. This story is about as unbiased as me or MBBF writing about KU. Next...

http://photos.newsok.com/2/showimage/978477/lead620/


Berry Tramel: Texas got strong-armed | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/berry-tramel-big-12-survives-texas-got-strong-armed/article/3468604?custom_click=lead_story_title)
Whether or not Texas got "strong-armed", they're laughing all the way to the bank.

People on the USC board say that Texas Tech is mad about the money distribution and are still trying to push for the Big 12-2 to break-up. Anyone else hearing that or is it just a few delusional posters?

People on the USC board say that Texas Tech is mad about the money distribution and are still trying to push for the Big 12-2 to break-up. Anyone else hearing that or is it just a few delusional posters?

I actually heard it's both Texas Tech and Oklahoma State. But after poking around it was hard to tell how serious it was. In the end, what options do they really have without Texas?

People on the USC board say that Texas Tech is mad about the money distribution and are still trying to push for the Big 12-2 to break-up. Anyone else hearing that or is it just a few delusional posters?

I was just about to post that. Tech and a couple other schools are balking at the monetary breakdown. According to the Rivals TT site, the $20M exit fees for CU and NU should be split 10 ways. Beebe's offer is to give OU, UT, and A&M 5M each and split the rest between OSU and Texas Tech. The other 5 schools would get no buyout money.

In addition, UT want to change the name back to the Southwest Conference.

This isn't going to end well for awhile, if at all.

I actually heard it's both Texas Tech and Oklahoma State. But after poking around it was hard to tell how serious it was. In the end, what options do they really have without Texas?

They could reopen negotiations with the Pac 10 on their own.

I wish Mizzou had gone to the SEC. I'd love to see Arkansas and Mizzou battle it our annually. Shoot, having Tennessee come to the state every so often would be awesome...but I'd have been likely to attend other games as well.

Unbelievable. The five "leftovers" (KU, KSU, ISU, BU, Mizzou) agreed to sign over their share of CU/NU's buyout money to UT/OU/A&M...i understand given the circumstances their best move was the appease the big boys to keep therm around, but man it makes you hate this conference and its "powers" more and more

Unbelievable. The five "leftovers" (KU, KSU, ISU, BU, Mizzou) agreed to sign over their share of CU/NU's buyout money to UT/OU/A&M...i understand given the circumstances their best move was the appease the big boys to keep therm around, but man it makes you hate this conference and its "powers" more and more

Just a clarification. No contracts have been presented to the institutions at this point. All that's been done is that each institution has verbally pledged to stay with the Big 12. This isn't a signed deal yet.

Unbelievable. The five "leftovers" (KU, KSU, ISU, BU, Mizzou) agreed to sign over their share of CU/NU's buyout money to UT/OU/A&M...i understand given the circumstances their best move was the appease the big boys to keep therm around, but man it makes you hate this conference and its "powers" more and more

Don't know if this is true or not, but there are also rumors out there that Texas and Oklahoma are going to get a much greater share of all revenue than before and that teams will be broken down on 3 tiers with significant differences between the 3 tiers:

1. Texas, Oklahoma, and A&M
2. Texas Tech, Oklahoma State.
3. Everyone else.

Wasn't the payout already screwed up before?

Don't know if this is true or not, but there are also rumors out there that Texas and Oklahoma are going to get a much greater share of all revenue than before and that teams will be broken down on 3 tiers with significant differences between the 3 tiers:

1. Texas, Oklahoma, and A&M
2. Texas Tech, Oklahoma State.
3. Everyone else.

No rumor, the "tiers" have been there all along. The non-TV revenue is split equally. Half of the TV revenue is split equally. The other half of the TV revenue is split up based on the number of TV appearances the schools make.

Don't know if this is true or not, but there are also rumors out there that Texas and Oklahoma are going to get a much greater share of all revenue than before and that teams will be broken down on 3 tiers with significant differences between the 3 tiers:

1. Texas, Oklahoma, and A&M
2. Texas Tech, Oklahoma State.
3. Everyone else.

If UT wants to save the conference, they are doing everything in their power to ensure it will die a quick death. Not only did they not fix any of the issues existing previously, they have made them far worse. Every team not named UT, OU, or A&M will be actively campaigning for a spot somewhere else and will take it at first chance. All it takes is one team and the whole house comes crashing down.

Wow... that is a big league butt reaming by the Texas and Oklahoma schools.

No rumor, the "tiers" have been there all along. The non-TV revenue is split equally. Half of the TV revenue is split equally. The other half of the TV revenue is split up based on the number of TV appearances the schools make.

I know the tiers were there. The rumor (and that may be all it is) floating around is that the numbers are going to become more advantageous for the top tier.

Edit: I realize I didn't make that very clear in my 1st post on this subject.

I know the tiers were there. The rumor (and that may be all it is) floating around is that the numbers are going to become more advantageous for the top tier.

It would take 9 votes to change it, so not too likely.

Wow... that is a big league butt reaming by the Texas and Oklahoma schools.

I guess why else would they be so eager to sign

SI

It would take 9 votes to change it, so not too likely.

Well it will just be an addendum on the new TV deal, which all the schools will vote for...it wont be hard to get at all, and you know that...

I know the tiers were there. The rumor (and that may be all it is) floating around is that the numbers are going to become more advantageous for the top tier.

Edit: I realize I didn't make that very clear in my 1st post on this subject.

FYI....here's the tier revenue numbers (you're correct on which teams are in each tier)

Tier 1: $20-25M
Tier 2: $17-20M
Tier 3: $14-17M

Isn't this how Texas is supposed to play it? Either they get the most amazing deal possible with whatever you want to call their current conference, or they end up with a better deal in the Pac 10/Big 10 than what they could get (fairly) in the Big 12.

All eyes were on Texas, and they were given concessions to stay put. So we won't have Conference Armageddon this year.

The Big Ten is thinking long-term, and doesn't have to drive the creation of the super-conferences. They have always watched and waited. It was never their intent to be the first to go past 12.

The Pac Ten has a maverick new commissioner who likes the idea of taking chances. Very much the opposite of the old Pac Ten guard. The problem there is that because of geography, their options are much more limited. Sixteen doesn't make much sense for them without Texas.

Does every conference have a "Tech problem?" I'm sure the SEC secretly wishes it could dump Mississippi State. One reason the Big XII is on the brink of the abyss (and cannot survive CA) is that it has four Tech problems, and would have five if a billionaire didn't purchase Oklahoma State athletics. However, Texas/Texas A&M/Kansas/Missouri/Oklahoma is one heck of a nucleus if only they got along.

I'm guessing the Big XII will not try to expand to 12 schools. They might petition for a conference championship game, but I'm also wondering if they don't want one because it would mean moving a South team to the depleted North division. I'm struggling to find strong candidates, but if they did want to dilute this magic new source of money, Cincinnati, Louisville and New Mexico are potential additions.

Isn't this how Texas is supposed to play it? Either they get the most amazing deal possible with whatever you want to call their current conference, or they end up with a better deal in the Pac 10/Big 10 than what they could get (fairly) in the Big 12.

Absolutely. I don't blame Texas at all for doing what they are doing. They are maximizing their profit using the leverage they have.

Interesting tweets from Stewart Mandel about Bebee's conference call:

Beebe just confirmed that Texas Tech has yet to sign off on the new deal. Hoping they will do so at board of regents meeting today.

Unbelievable. The five "leftovers" (KU, KSU, ISU, BU, Mizzou) agreed to sign over their share of CU/NU's buyout money to UT/OU/A&M.

Nebraska, Colorado were very wise to get out when they could. They'll find it refreshing to have a voice.

That call gave me no reason to believe there's anything stopping that league from crumbling again a year from now.

Isn't this how Texas is supposed to play it? Either they get the most amazing deal possible with whatever you want to call their current conference, or they end up with a better deal in the Pac 10/Big 10 than what they could get (fairly) in the Big 12.
I agree completely, its just hilarious that Texas then tries to paint themselves in the light of Hero and how they are being so generous to everyone else and its the north schools like NU and MU that are being evil. UT is doing everything I would do in their shoes, its just annoying that they then try to act holier then thou about it.

And in a small dose of irony, for all the accusations of Mizzou flirting with the Big 10 and getting blamed for starting all of this, without that the Big 12 would not have gotten an improved TV deal and schools like Texas would be worse off then they are now. They should be thanking us for the things they are hating us for :lol:

Gotta say, I like the Big Ten's way of handling things better. Just because you have the power to be a douche doesn't mean you should be a douche. (Yes, I'm talking about Texas.) Just another reason to root against them going forward, I s'pose.

Mizzou has a presser at 4:00 PM CDT. Should be interesting as the media plans to hammer the administration for more info about the buyout and tier setup and whether they'll be opposing any of the suggested terms previously mentioned.

Someone other than MBBF clear something up for me....

So, with the Big 12 staying that pretty much puts a halt to the Big 10 expansion? It was Missouri and Nebraska going to the Big 10 when all of this started. How come the Big 10 doesn't expand without Missouri and just go after ND and 3 other Big East teams?

Does all of that hinge on ND?

Thanks for clarifying. I'm not deeply invested in everything that happened. I'm disappointed that things ended with a fizzle. I wanted a big boom.

Someone other than MBBF clear something up for me....

So, with the Big 12 staying that pretty much puts a halt to the Big 10 expansion? It was Missouri and Nebraska going to the Big 10 when all of this started. How come the Big 10 doesn't expand without Missouri and just go after ND and 3 other Big East teams?

Does all of that hinge on ND?

Thanks for clarifying. I'm not deeply invested in everything that happened. I'm disappointed that things ended with a fizzle. I wanted a big boom.

The Big 10 wanted UT and ND from the start, and all other teams mentioned were really secondary options that had ties to those two teams. UT turned them down, and the current belief is ND has yet to decide either way. If ND goes, expect eastern teams like Rutgers or Maryland to follow. If UT goes, expect MU and other western teams

Someone other than MBBF clear something up for me....

So, with the Big 12 staying that pretty much puts a halt to the Big 10 expansion? It was Missouri and Nebraska going to the Big 10 when all of this started. How come the Big 10 doesn't expand without Missouri and just go after ND and 3 other Big East teams?

Does all of that hinge on ND?

Thanks for clarifying. I'm not deeply invested in everything that happened. I'm disappointed that things ended with a fizzle. I wanted a big boom.

Just because you were impersonating Texas and tried to eliminate me from the discussion, I'll respond.

The Big Ten does not want to take too many teams from one conference in a large expansion. That would create a large voting block that could create groups down the line (i.e. see the clusterf### in the Big 12 for how that can go wrong).

The Big 10 wanted UT and ND from the start, and all other teams mentioned were really secondary options that had ties to those two teams. UT turned them down, and the current belief is ND has yet to decide either way. If ND goes, expect eastern teams like Rutgers or Maryland to follow. If UT goes, expect MU and other western teams

Alright. So the UT part of all of this was kept secret for a while then because they weren't part of all of the initial rumors.

Alright. So the UT part of all of this was kept secret for a while then because they weren't part of all of the initial rumors.

Yup, Texas was talking to the Big 10 and the Pac 10 from the get go, but using their own rivals site leaked information to the media that painted other teams as the troublemakers and them as the innocent victims of circumstance

Someone other than MBBF clear something up for me....

So, with the Big 12 staying that pretty much puts a halt to the Big 10 expansion? It was Missouri and Nebraska going to the Big 10 when all of this started. How come the Big 10 doesn't expand without Missouri and just go after ND and 3 other Big East teams?

Does all of that hinge on ND?

Thanks for clarifying. I'm not deeply invested in everything that happened. I'm disappointed that things ended with a fizzle. I wanted a big boom.


I don't think it stops the Big 10 from expanding more but they have always wanted ND and the only way to get ND is to blow up the Big East and I don't think the Big Ten has the stomach for that right now since they'd be the bad guy

Just because you were impersonating Texas and tried to eliminate me from the discussion, I'll respond.

The Big Ten does not want to take too many teams from one conference in a large expansion. That would create a large voting block that could create groups down the line (i.e. see the clusterf### in the Big 12 for how that can go wrong).

Umm, what?

I don't think it stops the Big 10 from expanding more but they have always wanted ND and the only way to get ND is to blow up the Big East and I don't think the Big Ten has the stomach for that right now since they'd be the bad guy

Which is why they pulled Nebraska hoping to force UT's hand and then trigger a ND move. Unfortunately for them, it didn't work out how they had planned.

Which is why they pulled Nebraska hoping to force UT's hand and then trigger a ND move. Unfortunately for them, it didn't work out how they had planned.
so you agree that the Big Ten had no desire to take Missouri at all then correct? The plan all along was to get Nebraska to get Texas to get ND. because as you said: "The Big Ten does not want to take too many teams from one conference in a large expansion. That would create a large voting block that could create groups down the line (i.e. see the clusterf### in the Big 12 for how that can go wrong)."

Umm, what?

You have to remember, he's the one pushing for honest debate.

:rolleyes:

so you agree that the Big Ten had no desire to take Missouri at all then correct? The plan all along was to get Nebraska to get Texas to get ND. because as you said: "The Big Ten does not want to take too many teams from one conference in a large expansion. That would create a large voting block that could create groups down the line (i.e. see the clusterf### in the Big 12 for how that can go wrong)."

No, I disagree there. MU and NU were both in the plans. When they saw the opportunity to let Texas make the first jump and shoulder the blame for the breakup, they jumped at that opportunity. I still firmly believe that MU will be added to that league once ND makes the jump along with two Big East teams. But that timeframe has obviously changed from weeks to months or even years now. There's no way the B12 stays together over the long term. This is at best a holding pattern for now.

No, I disagree there. MU and NU were both in the plans. When they saw the opportunity to let Texas make the first jump and shoulder the blame for the breakup, they jumped at that opportunity. I still firmly believe that MU will be added to that league once ND makes the jump along with two Big East teams. But that timeframe has obviously changed from weeks to months or even years now. There's no way the B12 stays together over the long term. This is at best a holding pattern for now.

So now the TBC sucks and is going to break up? You keep changing between "BIG 12 SUCKS BALLS WE'RE GOING TO BIG 10 BOOK IT!" to "TBC IS THE BEST WE MAKE WAY MORE MONEY NOW!!!" to "TBC NOT STAYING TOGETHER LONG TERM"

which is it? I mean, we've gotten 3 different stances today alone. Not that this surprises anyone...

Unbelievable. The five "leftovers" (KU, KSU, ISU, BU, Mizzou) agreed to sign over their share of CU/NU's buyout money to UT/OU/A&M.

Why is that unbelievable? It's still likely more money in the long term for them than they'll get from not being in a BCS conference. And none of those teams are definite BCS additions anywhere, several are even in the "unlikely to land in a BCS" situation.

Missouri is a good target, but not a great one. Remember Gee's note referred to "home run" (hr) choices, not doubles and triples. Nebraska was a home run. Notre Dame and Texas would be home runs. Georgia Tech might be a home run.

The Big Ten isn't going to act unless it can add to its value. Missouri would only preserve the status quo.

Georgia Tech?

SI

I'd think of Nebraska as a home run, and ND and Texas to be a Grand Slam (even though I personally do not want Texas in the Big Ten).

ND and Texas to be a Grand Slam

ND is a walk-off GS.

ND is a walk-off GS.

A Daniel Nava GS.

so the new Big 12-2 TV deal is for 18 years according to the Sports Business Daily. Wouldn't the other conferences each have re-upped for more $ on a 2nd or 3rd TV contract by then that will pay them more? Seems like a good deal for the Big 12-2 in the short term, but in the long term they might be the have nots in the TV $.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/140047

This is what I saw on a Tech Board

- OU, A&M, Texas all guaranteed 20 million dollars a year.

- The Rest of us get the leftovers REGARDLESS of the ACTUAL contract.

Example. Say we get 130 million a year for TV rights. (Which is what most people think we will get despite Beebe's claims

OU, A&M, UT= 20 mill

The Rest= 11.7 million a piece

I still believe that any Texas interest in the Big Ten was purely a smokescreen for negotiating edge with the Pac 10. Texas wasn't going anywhere without Oklahoma and Texas Tech, and neither of those teams were of interest to the Big Ten.

Not saying Texas, deciding just for itself, wouldn't prefer the Big Ten over the Pac 10, but it wasn't deciding just for itself.

We kinda hashed out all the reasons why it didn't make sense for Texas to accept the Big Ten over the Pac Ten late last week when those rumors were out there.

I think Big Ten fans should let go of the Texas dream and just concentrate on the Irish.

I'm so glad the Big Ten didn't add Missouri... I don't see what that would have possibly added. Big Ten seems to understand that expansion isn't the goal in and of itself, but that it has to be done strategically. Every new team is a new mouth to feed and needs to add more to the pie than the share it takes away. Nebraska is a nice addition because it does that.

I assume the Big Ten wants Texas, but isn't willing to take any freeloaders to get them because they have other options (unlike the Pac-10). Because of that, OSU and Tech had no ability to force the switch to the Pac-16. Had Tech and OSU switched on their own to try to force the Pac-16, the Big Ten would have happily taken Texas (now relieved of their baggage) and OU could have gone to the SEC with aTm.

I guess now the question for the Big Ten is, is there a Big East team other than ND they'd be willing to have even without ND (like how they were willing to take Nebraska even without UT)? If so maybe they go after that team now and hope it brings ND as well. If not, I guess they wait 12-18 months and try again for UT and ND.

I still believe that any Texas interest in the Big Ten was purely a smokescreen for negotiating edge with the Pac 10. Texas wasn't going anywhere without Oklahoma and Texas Tech, and neither of those teams were of interest to the Big Ten.
I don't know... I have to think the 14 team Big Ten + Nebraska, Texas, and ND would generate so much money that Texas would at least have to consider leaving behind Tech and Oklahoma (although maybe that was impossible politically and legally). I guess they were holding out to see if they could get the Big Ten to accept them as a package the way the Pac-10 was willing to, but that was almost certainly a non-starter for the Big Ten.

I guess now they wait and see how the Pac-10 network goes... if it takes off then moving there with the rest of the South is a no-brainer. If it doesn't take off, I guess they have a tough decision....

Interesting tweets from Stewart Mandel about Bebee's conference call:

Beebe just confirmed that Texas Tech has yet to sign off on the new deal. Hoping they will do so at board of regents meeting today.

Unbelievable. The five "leftovers" (KU, KSU, ISU, BU, Mizzou) agreed to sign over their share of CU/NU's buyout money to UT/OU/A&M.

Nebraska, Colorado were very wise to get out when they could. They'll find it refreshing to have a voice.

That call gave me no reason to believe there's anything stopping that league from crumbling again a year from now.

CU was waiting for the chance to bolt for years.

I saw a quote from the Missouri gov stating how CU and NU were letting the conference down for basketball. He's going to be depressed when CU actually makes the tourney this year.

The Big 12-2 will break up in a year or two

I don't know... I have to think the 14 team Big Ten + Nebraska, Texas, and ND would generate so much money that Texas would at least have to consider leaving behind Tech and Oklahoma (although maybe that was impossible politically and legally). I guess they were holding out to see if they could get the Big Ten to accept them as a package the way the Pac-10 was willing to, but that was almost certainly a non-starter for the Big Ten.

I guess now they wait and see how the Pac-10 network goes... if it takes off then moving there with the rest of the South is a no-brainer. If it doesn't take off, I guess they have a tough decision....

Well, that was the main point you can't get past--it was pretty much impossible politically. It was pretty obvious to me that the Big Ten-UT rumors that sprouted up last week were purely a negotiating ploy on UT's part with an eye toward the Pac 10 negotiations--they were never going to be able to go to the Big Ten. I laid out 5-6 difficult to ignore reasons for why that was so sometime around then (don't feel like digging it up but you can look for it if you want).

As you said, the Big Ten would have had to take on those other schools and they were never going to do that. Texas needed to appear to have other options, though, so they could have leverage in negotiations with the Pac 10. So they floated the Big 10 stuff.

This was before the Shadow Conspiracy swooped in and saved the TBC, of course. ;)

Why is that unbelievable? It's still likely more money in the long term for them than they'll get from not being in a BCS conference. And none of those teams are definite BCS additions anywhere, several are even in the "unlikely to land in a BCS" situation.

What's unbelievable to me is A&M. OU/Texas, okay, whatever. Where did A&M get that kind of clout? Or did Texas say "If you don't give it to them, too, we walk"?

What's unbelievable to me is A&M. OU/Texas, okay, whatever. Where did A&M get that kind of clout? Or did Texas say "If you don't give it to them, too, we walk"?

A&M had the SEC invite to hang over the heads of the dealmakers.

About the only tactical error the PAC-10 made was probably offering Colorado so quickly, but it was probably also important to make sure Baylor didn't come in the package deal. If Tech caves and heads to the PAC-10, the deal is off and we would have welcomed Texas to the PAC-10.

Next year I guess

About the only tactical error the PAC-10 made was probably offering Colorado so quickly, but it was probably also important to make sure Baylor didn't come in the package deal. If Tech caves and heads to the PAC-10, the deal is off and we would have welcomed Texas to the PAC-10.

Next year I guess

I never heard that the other schools were offered individually, outside of Colorado.

I believe the offer was made to Texas, Texas came back with the five school plan and hooked those schools into the process. And so their invites were always contingent on UT coming. So neither Tech nor Okie State nor even OK had an opportunity to receive or accept an official invite from the Pac 10. So far as I heard, anyway.

I saw a quote from the Missouri gov stating how CU and NU were letting the conference down for basketball. He's going to be depressed when CU actually makes the tourney this year.

What makes you think CU is even a top half basketball team in the Pac 10? As an ASU fan, i would put ASU, UofA, UW, Stanford, Cal, and maybe UCLA or WSU ahead of CU in terms of where I project them to finish next season. Im sorry, but i dont see CU getting a winning record in the Pac 10 either.

What makes you think CU is even a top half basketball team in the Pac 10? As an ASU fan, i would put ASU, UofA, UW, Stanford, Cal, and maybe UCLA or WSU ahead of CU in terms of where I project them to finish next season. Im sorry, but i dont see CU getting a winning record in the Pac 10 either.

UCLA will finish ahead of several of the Pac 10 teams you just named so no maybe about that (assuming your read on CU is correct).

UCLA will finish ahead of several of the Pac 10 teams you just named so no maybe about that (assuming your read on CU is correct).

This. The PAC-10 (and especially UCLA) was extremely bad last year

Nice quote from the Mizzou athletic director(from back in january) on why Mizzou was not happy with the way things were in the Big 12 with the previous TV deal, and thats about the closest i can find to a Mizzou rep complaining about wanting out(and i dont think many people can honestly argue he is wrong to be unhappy with the way things were):

"Illinois and Indiana will make $9 million more from its televisions contracts this year," Alden said. "Arkansas and Mississippi will make even more. That's our comparison. In five years, they'll have generated almost $50 million more than us without selling a ticket."

this is all I really see in this thread...

Bitch...Bitch...Moan...Moan....Texas....Bitch...Moan...Pac-10....Bitch...Moan....Mizzou Sucks...

this is all I really see in this thread anymore...

Bitch...Bitch...Moan...Moan....Texas....Bitch...Moan...Pac-10....Bitch...Moan....Mizzou Sucks...

Anymore? :D

So when you gonna break the Utah news? ;)

Anymore? :D

So when you gonna break the Utah news? ;)

BTW...Fixed...:D

The only way I break the Utah news is when Kalani personally calls me and tells me it is happening...The chances of that are slim to none....In fact, you will see me posting in the Drunk Guy thread before I post in here about Utah...:devil: :rant:

Interesting perspective from a Longhorns blog:

http://www.burntorangenation.com/2010/6/15/1519233/realignment-roundtable

I'm curious to hear from cartman and other Texas fans on their take - how much interest was there among Texas fans in joining the Pac-10 to create a 16-team super-conference?

BTW...Fixed...:D

The only way I break the school up north news is when Kalani personally calls me and tells me it is happening...The chances of that are slim to none....In fact, you will see me posting in the Drunk Guy thread before I post in here about the school up north ...:devil: :rant:

Fixed it for you....

I hate those fuckers even more now.

Apparently, this is real:

Email someone sent Bill Byrne

Hey assholes

I am a third generation aggie and class of '06. my family and I, including many extend family members have had season tickets at kyle field for up to 20 yrs.

We also tailgate spending a lot of time and money during the fall in college station. That all ended today

We are canceling our season tickets and will never again donate to the 12th man until there is all new board of regents minus Gene Stallings, a new ad, new president (that guy is a disgrace).

Dollar bill, I hope you have time to pull your tongue out of dodds butt to read this email

Sincere regards

------- -----

and here is the voicemail Bill Byrne left him: http://www.suspectclothing.com/gigem/billbyrne.m4a

anyone called the number on that voicemail yet?

This is a good thing for Arizona and ASU. In the "Pac-11" setup, they could very well swap one of USC/UCLA/CAL/Washington for a poor Colorado team each year. Saddling them in a division with OU, Texas, OSU, Tech and A&M would have made for a much tougher road for a bowl game.

Overall, I think the Arizona schools are the big winners (along with Colorado) and the Pac-10 ended up fairly neutral. The biggest losers are probably OK St and Texas Tech - who probably lost close to $5 million a year by not going to the Pac 10.

Interesting perspective from a Longhorns blog:

http://www.burntorangenation.com/2010/6/15/1519233/realignment-roundtable

I'm curious to hear from cartman and other Texas fans on their take - how much interest was there among Texas fans in joining the Pac-10 to create a 16-team super-conference?

My take was that Texas truly did want to keep the Big 12 together, and I think the last couple of days have borne that out. However, Texas wasn't going to sit there and wait for that to happen, so while the work was being done to save the conference, they also had a parallel plan going to get something done with the PAC-10. I also don't think that the PAC-10/Texas 6 were going to be the first ones to move to 16, the merger was only going to happen as a response to another conference moving to 16 first. Once the Big 10 gave notice they weren't moving to 16, and the TV deal with the remaining Big 12 was fleshed out, that took the wind out of the sails of the new PAC-16 conference.

That being said, if the Conference Armageddon did/does happen, the PAC-10 seems the likeliest spot for Texas and friends to land. Geography almost dictates it if there is a move to 4 16 team conferences. If there is a move to 5 16 team conferences, then that might change the scheme, but that hasn't been really discussed as an option.

I do wonder when the Pac 10 will invite Utah officially.

Well, that was the main point you can't get past--it was pretty much impossible politically. It was pretty obvious to me that the Big Ten-UT rumors that sprouted up last week were purely a negotiating ploy on UT's part with an eye toward the Pac 10 negotiations--they were never going to be able to go to the Big Ten. I laid out 5-6 difficult to ignore reasons for why that was so sometime around then (don't feel like digging it up but you can look for it if you want).

As you said, the Big Ten would have had to take on those other schools and they were never going to do that. Texas needed to appear to have other options, though, so they could have leverage in negotiations with the Pac 10. So they floated the Big 10 stuff.

This was before the Shadow Conspiracy swooped in and saved the TBC, of course. ;)

Its interesting though that they were willing to leave Baylor out of the deal and separate from A&M which seems to imply that everything has a price for them. In two years if the Pac-10 network money doesn't materialize and the Big Ten is once again able to offer the same deal (UT+ND to get to 14), I wonder if it will be enough money for them to do it...

I do wonder when the Pac 10 will invite Utah officially.

If I'm running the Pac Ten, I would be checking with Kansas first. Scott played his hand, might as well see it through. If he gets Kansas, frustrated with this idiotic new revenue-sharing plan, dominoes may fall again. And this time he's not saddled with the tech problem.

The reason Scott acted when he did is because in Conference Armageddon, the only really great scenario for the Pac Ten includes Texas. The SEC and the Big Ten can reach 16 without as much worry.

However, I'm still not certain 16 is manageable for a conference.

About the only tactical error the PAC-10 made was probably offering Colorado so quickly, but it was probably also important to make sure Baylor didn't come in the package deal. If Tech caves and heads to the PAC-10, the deal is off and we would have welcomed Texas to the PAC-10.

Next year I guess
If Tech caved and went to the PAC-10 on their own, separate from the package deal, that would have freed Texas to pursue whatever deal was in their best interests as an individual school which would have almost certainly been the Big Ten. I'm sure Pac-10 knows that and so there is no way they'd offer Tech or OSU (or probably even OU) admittance separate from the package deal. Tech can hold out and be the last to agree to the revamped Big-12 and pretend they have a choice in this, but they really don't.

If I'm running the Pac Ten, I would be checking with Kansas first. Scott played his hand, might as well see it through. If he gets Kansas, frustrated with this idiotic new revenue-sharing plan, dominoes may fall again. And this time he's not saddled with the tech problem.

The reason Scott acted when he did is because in Conference Armageddon, the only really great scenario for the Pac Ten includes Texas. The SEC and the Big Ten can reach 16 without as much worry.

However, I'm still not certain 16 is manageable for a conference.

Agreed. I'd like to see Scott make a run at Kansas and see if he can get the dominoes moving again.

If I'm running the Pac Ten, I would be checking with Kansas first. Scott played his hand, might as well see it through. If he gets Kansas, frustrated with this idiotic new revenue-sharing plan, dominoes may fall again. And this time he's not saddled with the tech problem.

The reason Scott acted when he did is because in Conference Armageddon, the only really great scenario for the Pac Ten includes Texas. The SEC and the Big Ten can reach 16 without as much worry.

However, I'm still not certain 16 is manageable for a conference.

I agree with this. If I'm the Pac-10, I'd offer Kansas over Utah and try to de-stabilize the Big-12 before they finalize their deal.

I agree with this. If I'm the Pac-10, I'd offer Kansas over Utah and try to de-stabilize the Big-12 before they finalize their deal.
Works for me.

If Tech caved and went to the PAC-10 on their own, separate from the package deal, that would have freed Texas to pursue whatever deal was in their best interests as an individual school which would have almost certainly been the Big Ten. I'm sure Pac-10 knows that and so there is no way they'd offer Tech or OSU (or probably even OU) admittance separate from the package deal. Tech can hold out and be the last to agree to the revamped Big-12 and pretend they have a choice in this, but they really don't.

Do we even know if Texas wants to be in the Big-10?

Do we even know if Texas wants to be in the Big-10?
They probably would've preferred the Pac-16 given the division they'd be playing in - geographically it would've worked out better for them as well as maintaining a few old rivalries. I would guess that while Texas would love to be associated with the Big Ten from an academic perspective, the Pac-16 would've worked out better logistically, and is hardly a step down (if at all) from the Big Ten academically to boot.

I don't suppose there's any scenario that works out well for KU, KSU, ISU, Mizzou, and Baylor while simultaneously really screwing Texas and to a lesser extend OU and A&M? That's how a just world would work.

Yeah, didn't think so. Oh well. :(

SI

Do we even know if Texas wants to be in the Big-10?

I assume they like money and the big ten can offer a lot more of it (especially if you assume UT also gets ND to join). They also fit the big ten profile pretty well and like the reseach/academic affiliation. Finally they tried to join when the SWC collapsed and were rebuffed so there is some precedent.

If I'm running the Pac Ten, I would be checking with Kansas first. Scott played his hand, might as well see it through. If he gets Kansas, frustrated with this idiotic new revenue-sharing plan, dominoes may fall again. And this time he's not saddled with the tech problem.

The reason Scott acted when he did is because in Conference Armageddon, the only really great scenario for the Pac Ten includes Texas. The SEC and the Big Ten can reach 16 without as much worry.

However, I'm still not certain 16 is manageable for a conference.

Good idea.

There's no way Texas ever joins the Big 10. They pretty much have to play OU each year and there's no way the Texas government would allow them to play neither Tech or A&M in football. So, in the big 10, they would have to use 2 non-conf slots on OU and either Tech/A&M. That would be in addition to facing a subset of OSU, Michigan, Penn St, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska and maybe even Notre Dame.

I don't care how good you are, playing a schedule with OU, Tech and 4-5 big 10 strong teams would be almost impossible to run the table on.

If I'm running the Pac Ten, I would be checking with Kansas first. Scott played his hand, might as well see it through. If he gets Kansas, frustrated with this idiotic new revenue-sharing plan, dominoes may fall again. And this time he's not saddled with the tech problem.
I'm still pretty convinced that no one in the Big 12 really wants to go to the Pac 10, even a school like Kansas that could get a pretty big revenue bump.

The time difference is an absolute killer for sports, especially college sports. You're pushing the envelop to start a KU basketball game at 8pm, and no way will KU at Washington start at 6pm Pacific time. Too many games would start too late, and that would be a killer for other streams of revenue. And I'm sure the Pac 10 teams would love those basketball games at KU starting at 5pm local time.

We've all talked about the East Coast bias in subjects like awards because the East Coast sees too few West Coast games. Midwest is just the same. Our local media barely covers the Royals and even the Cardinals when they play on the West Coast because the games are too late.

Unfortunately, any deal to the PAC-10 would center around football. The other sports, while vital in one way or another, wouldnt be a concern.

My brother and I were just talking about this today though. Dont know how you can be a sports fan when west coast games start at 10 pm local time back east

Unfortunately, any deal to the PAC-10 would center around football. The other sports, while vital in one way or another, wouldnt be a concern.

My brother and I were just talking about this today though. Dont know how you can be a sports fan when west coast games start at 10 pm local time back east

Imagine being a Red Wings fan during playoff runs.

Dola, on the flip side I could not watch football at 9 or 10 am.

Dola, on the flip side I could not watch football at 9 or 10 am.

No? When we tailgate out here, Im usually at the Rose Bowl at 7am and meat on the grill by 745 :)

Must be a regional thing

Dola, on the flip side I could not watch football at 9 or 10 am.

I always thought Central had the best football times: noon-3, 3-6, and then 7-10.

SI

I'm still pretty convinced that no one in the Big 12 really wants to go to the Pac 10, even a school like Kansas that could get a pretty big revenue bump.

The time difference is an absolute killer for sports, especially college sports. You're pushing the envelop to start a KU basketball game at 8pm, and no way will KU at Washington start at 6pm Pacific time. Too many games would start too late, and that would be a killer for other streams of revenue. And I'm sure the Pac 10 teams would love those basketball games at KU starting at 5pm local time.

We've all talked about the East Coast bias in subjects like awards because the East Coast sees too few West Coast games. Midwest is just the same. Our local media barely covers the Royals and even the Cardinals when they play on the West Coast because the games are too late.

Remember though that the Pac conference was offering a division format which means half the conference would play in CST/MST while the other half plays in PST. The majority of the conference games would be played in your division/time zone. It's similar to the setup had the Pac and Big 12 brokered a network alliance.

Now if Kansas were to go to the Pac on their own then you're right. It would be a struggle and probably doesn't make a lot of sense. That's where the Pac would have to really push to break the Big 12 apart.

I assume they like money and the big ten can offer a lot more of it (especially if you assume UT also gets ND to join). They also fit the big ten profile pretty well and like the reseach/academic affiliation. Finally they tried to join when the SWC collapsed and were rebuffed so there is some precedent.

Well, based on the reports that were out there for the Pac 16, it seems like the money was projected to be at least somewhat comparable actually. The Pac 10, of course, values academics and research the same way the Big 10 does, so that doesn't really make a difference between the two. And supposedly, Texas also looked to possibly join the Pac 10 back then (when the SWC was breaking up).

What the Pac 10 offers that the Big Ten could not is also bringing over Tech and OU, keeping rivals in-conference and not eating up non-conf games for those rivalries; a much more reasonable regional range with the division split for travel costs for all sports; a more powerful position in the conference structure; and stronger recruiting ties in another of three primary football recruiting hotbeds in California (along with Texas, which UT already dominates, and Florida).

The Big Ten will not expand again so long as Delaney is commissioner unless:

(1) Notre Dame is ready and willing to join; or
(2) Conference Anarchy occurs and it looks certain several other conferences will all go to 16.

Other than that, the Missouri's, Syracuse's, and Rutger's of the world are stuck in their pithy conferences. :D

Other than that, the Missouri's, Syracuse's, and Rutger's of the world are stuck in their pithy conferences. :D

I don't know if you've read this entire thread or not, but I've got it on good authority from MBBF that Missouri has a deal on the table from the Big Ten. :devil:

The Big Ten will not expand again so long as Delaney is commissioner unless:

(1) Notre Dame is ready and willing to join; or
(2) Conference Anarchy occurs and it looks certain several other conferences will all go to 16.

And this assessment is different from 3 months ago how?

This is the way it always was. They hoped to trigger that move and it didn't happen, so they sit back and wait a year or two.

Pardon my ignorance and lack of endurance going through the topic, but this will all be in effect in 2011 and not this upcoming season, right ? And it´s school changing conferences or teams changing ? (does it affect basketball as well f.e. ?)

Pardon my ignorance and lack of endurance going through the topic, but this will all be in effect in 2011 and not this upcoming season, right ? And it´s school changing conferences or teams changing ? (does it affect basketball as well f.e. ?)

The entire school is moving. The teams would like it to happen next year, but no firm agreement yet.

Here's an interesting, way outside the box, proposal for Conference Armageddon. Emulate the promotion/relegations system of soccer in Europe.

What the English Premier League Can Teach College Football - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704009804575308782794344398.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_sports)

YES PLEASE ^^^

Four frenzied days saved the Big 12 from demise - KansasCity.com (http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/15/2020675/four-days-that-saved-the-big-12.html#ixzz0r1UA5z00)

When Beebe and his crew turned out the lights in Room 516, they hadn’t just saved the Big 12 Conference. The creation of a 16-team Pac-10 would have been the first domino ushering in the era of the superconference and the end of college sports as we know it. The Big Ten and SEC would have had to expand — this is a competitive game, after all — and that would have likely left other conferences to live through the Big 12’s experience.

On Tuesday morning, the Big 12 office received 20 red and white roses. The card read “unity.” It was from the Big East Conference.

Here comes the next rumors of possible realignment, mostly centered around the Big 12's two open spots.

SEC officials worried that Hogs will be the next target for the Big 12...........

Scarbinsky: SEC insiders concerned that Big 12 may target Arkansas | al.com (http://blog.al.com/kevin-scarbinsky/2010/06/scarbinsky_sec_concerned_that.html)

Jerry Jones driving force behind possible move of Arkansas and Notre Dame to Big 12........

Notre Dame, Arkansas: Come on Down / LJWorld.com (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/jun/16/notre-dame-arkansas-come-down/)

Memphis, TCU, and Houston also possible Big 12 targets.........

Hot Corner: Might the next dominos hit C-USA? | al.com (http://blog.al.com/birmingham-news-sports/2010/06/hot_corner_might_the_next_domi.html)

Stupid. I love the Big East but I think going to a superconference system would be an improvement.

So, Notre Dame wouldn't join the Big Ten, but they'd join the Big 12?

Ok, I've heard a ton of different moves for conference realignment and that one is the only one that makes no sense whatsoever.

Here comes the next rumors of possible realignment, mostly centered around the Big 12's two open spots.

Jerry Jones driving force behind possible move of Arkansas and Notre Dame to Big 12........

Notre Dame, Arkansas: Come on Down / LJWorld.com (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/jun/16/notre-dame-arkansas-come-down/)Hahahahaha. I thought MBBF linked to some ridiculous rumors before, but this one tops them all.

Utah has scheduled a 1 PM presser for tomorrow. The assumption is that it will be to announce they are joining the Pac-12.

I figured this would happen once the PAC-16 failed.

I know a lot of people say the Pac-10 is a loser in this, but they swung for the fences and when they missed on that, they added a strong market in Denver. I know that Colorado has a lot of competition for the entertainment dollar but it is still a very good TV market. Adding Utah should help the conference's SOS in football, assuming that they can build on the last few year's of success.

Four frenzied days saved the Big 12 from demise - KansasCity.com (http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/15/2020675/four-days-that-saved-the-big-12.html#ixzz0r1UA5z00)

When Beebe and his crew turned out the lights in Room 516, they hadn’t just saved the Big 12 Conference. The creation of a 16-team Pac-10 would have been the first domino ushering in the era of the superconference and the end of college sports as we know it. The Big Ten and SEC would have had to expand — this is a competitive game, after all — and that would have likely left other conferences to live through the Big 12’s experience.

On Tuesday morning, the Big 12 office received 20 red and white roses. The card read “unity.” It was from the Big East Non-Football Schools and Notre Dame.



Fixed.

And by the way, where the hell was this gang of ADs and influential folks (who saved the Big 12) when the Big East got raided? :)
Fixed.

Hahahahaha. I thought MBBF linked to some ridiculous rumors before, but this one tops them all.

Yep. Not happening. We've been laughing at the idea since these articles started circulating. Awful idea. If our administration ever even looked like they were considering it, there would be riots.

Utah has scheduled a 1 PM presser for tomorrow. The assumption is that it will be to announce they are joining the Pac-12.

Chances are, regardless of the time...I will probably be in the drunk guy thread bitching about this...

It's hard for me to believe anyone would look at the Big XII-2 and think, "now there's a conference my school should join."

I know a lot of people say the Pac-10 is a loser in this, but they swung for the fences and when they missed on that, they added a strong market in Denver. I know that Colorado has a lot of competition for the entertainment dollar but it is still a very good TV market. Adding Utah should help the conference's SOS in football, assuming that they can build on the last few year's of success.

At least Utah can get to the Las Vegas bowl year in and year out...:p :D

It's hard for me to believe anyone would look at the Big XII-2 and think, "now there's a conference my school should join."

this

It's hard for me to believe anyone would look at the Big XII-2 and think, "now there's a conference my school should join."

Now we see what Texas's master plan has been all along :D

SI

Nebraska and Colorado now say they aren't paying the big 12 a dime since they helped the conference out when leaving, citing tv contract numbers.

haha this should be fun.

Nebraska and Colorado now say they aren't paying the big 12 a dime since they helped the conference out when leaving, citing tv contract numbers.

haha this should be fun.
That actually could be a realistic argument. The fact that the Big 12 has already stated they are losing less per team because Colorado left (low performer by revenue) and the Big 12's new TV contract makes the idea that the Big 12-2 is "worse off" without Colorado a tough sell.

Still, it sounds like it's a contract item and will be pretty tough to not pay. Either way, the Pac-10 has already said they would help with the payment. So, it's no big deal.

Yes. I think this is a brilliant development.

Great read from Chip Brown:

http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1094753

What makes you think CU is even a top half basketball team in the Pac 10? As an ASU fan, i would put ASU, UofA, UW, Stanford, Cal, and maybe UCLA or WSU ahead of CU in terms of where I project them to finish next season. Im sorry, but i dont see CU getting a winning record in the Pac 10 either.

CU is NOT a top of the line basketball program.

Next year they'll be good. . .

Why? Well, you have the freshman of the year in the Big 12 in Alec Burks coming back. Hell, you have almost everyone coming back. (they lost a 7.5 point a game scorer) What did they do last year?

15-16 with 7 losses of 6 points or less. (which included Gonzaga, Kansas and Kansas St.)

CU goes in cycles with its basketball program. A few decent years (usually with one in the tourney), a few garbage years, rinse, repeat. Next year will be one of the decent years. I'll predict now they'll go to the NCAA tourney. I'd be pretty stunned to see a downturn considering how young they were last year and with their best players all coming back. I'd guess .500 in the Big12 (4 of those wins will come vs. Iowa St. and Nebraska, they'll get four more home wins for sure) I think we are looking at a 20-10 type of year with a first round loss in the tourney.

It's written down, you can come back to it and make fun if you like.

I still don't see how the "Little 7" in the Big 12 will like the revenue-sharing plan in long-run.

Fuck....

It's official...

Pac-10 Extends Invitation to the University of Utah - PAC-10 OFFICIAL ATHLETIC SITE (http://www.pac-10.org/genrel/061610aaa.html)

To the team up north...FUCK OFF!

Fairly big news today. The club of 66 becomes 67. The Pac Ten has extended an invitation to Utah. This is the first actual BCS in-or-out change we've had through all of these discussions.

I guess that will at least shut Orrin Hatch up...

Great read from Chip Brown:

http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1094753

If he's right (and he seems to have good sources), the Pac Ten truly screwed up by thinking it could break up Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. They would have been fine with Baylor.

I think this is the right result in the long run, though (when CA does take place). If the Pac Ten extends too far to the east, the Mountain West will end up crashing the big party, which will wind up diluting the other conferences.