|
Post by gilles13 on Aug 31, 2011 16:01:33 GMT -5
Taking action to ensure increased revenues isn't greed. It is largely keeping up with the Joneses. That's a nice little double standard you've got going on there. In your mind, it's okay for the Big 10 to do what is in its best interest regardless of how that affects other conferences, but it is not okay for Texas to "take action to ensure increased revenues". Hence nitneliun's contradiction, among others.
|
|
|
Post by TexVB on Aug 31, 2011 16:36:52 GMT -5
So long Aggies!
|
|
|
Post by Keystonekid on Aug 31, 2011 17:19:27 GMT -5
You're utterly delusional. Those schools were trying to keep the conference together only because they had no place to go at the time. Colorado and Nebraska had options and they exercised them. Oklahoma, OK St, Mizzou, Kansas, Kansas ST and IA ST would bolt in a heartbeat if they had some place to go. Oklahoma is openly courting the PAC 12 while Mizzou is actively trying to get a Big Ten or SEC invitation. The Big 12 is doomed and Texas killed it. You sure do seem to like assigning blame. Blame the Big 10 for starting the entire expansion process last summer; that was the trigger, and that is a fact. I agree with you. The Big Ten holds some responsibility. They wanted to improve their league at the cost of poaching from another league. Conferences react when the think their going to lose teams, nobody wants left out. I still don't BLAME Texas, "don't hate the playa, hate the game"
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Aug 31, 2011 17:22:05 GMT -5
If handled properly, the SEC should do wonders for A&M's volleyball team. They will actually have a good chance at finishing in the top 3 and trading wins with the other good teams in that conference. And they could develop a nice natural rivalry with LSU. And as I recall, wasn't TAMU the first team to beat Florida during the year after Florida was the runner up to USC (back when TAMU was a really good team)? I think the Aggies are ready to be a big fish in a small pond for a while. Might help build their program back up, get some confidence, and some new blood in their old worn-out system.
|
|
|
Post by Keystonekid on Aug 31, 2011 17:26:56 GMT -5
Can I ask you why you think A&M left the Big 12? While Texas has the same vote, it doesnt mean they dont have more power. ISU potentially leaving doesnt jeopardize the whole conference. Texas does. When Texas was going to leave, those schools would have agreed to anything, and did. Including Texas having their own independent Network that will sell millions of subscriptions of which member shcools dont see a nickel of. Texas has more money than anyone, if you dont think that gives them more power, you need a civics lesson. As ive said a million times, im not blaming Texas for doing what anyone in their position would. I havent seen anyone in any medium who see's the conference situation your way, with the exception of Texas supporters, and I get that as well. My opinion is that A&M left because they were floored and caught off guard that ESPN awarded Texas with $300 milion for the rights to televise the majority of their athletic events. A&M knows that no TV network will ever pay them that, despite having a very good sports program (and even better than Texas in several sports). So, if A&M did move forward with some sort of TV network of its own, it would be compared to Texas' deal, and they would probably have to admit that they aren't as valued nationally as their biggest rival. A&M didn't object to conference schools having their own TV networks when the thought was that it would bring in $1-$2 million annually. They were caught with their pants down, and had no immediate plan to counter Texas' cash windfall. They are already in debt, and saw themselves falling even further behind, with no plan in hand. Think back to a few years ago when A&M was re-negotiating their contract with Nike. Texas, who was originally a Reebok school, has just signed up with Nike. A&M had been a Nike school from the get-go. A&M's AD, Bill Byrne, told Nike that he wanted the same deal that they gave Texas. Nike representative told Byrne, " You aren't Texas, and you never will be." Despite A&M having more tenure with Nike, that is what happened, and why A&M is now an Adidas school. Last summer, the Big 10 apparently approached Texas about membership. Allegedly, Texas wanted A&M and Texas Tech to come with them, or they wouldn't be interested. Big 10 said no to Tech. So, Texas was never going to leave by itself, despite what you want to believe. While Texas is a member of the Big 12 conference, we are not responsible for the other schools. Our first obligation is to ourselves, and that is the same approach Colorado and Nebraska took last summer; more power to them; good moves for them as individual institutions. Southie, I totally agree with you. Its what ive said all along. Texas hasnt done anything "wrong" the exception I took with your earlier posts, was they arent equal partners and they most certainly DO have more power. the same vote argument doesnt change that. Texas is guilty of being Texas, and taking advantage of it.
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Aug 31, 2011 17:38:49 GMT -5
Kind of surprised A&M is turning it's back on tradition, neighbors, hurting recruiting, even potentially money. The conference deal with Texas must be really haywire. Eight teams in a conference seems like a reasonable number if you're not up to 12 and conference championship matches. Ignorant!!! "Kind of surprised A&M is turning its back on tradition?" Are you kidding me? You make it sound as if its A&M's fault that they want to be treated as if they matter or as an equal?
|
|
|
Post by Keystonekid on Aug 31, 2011 17:43:36 GMT -5
Texas should do an image campaign like the old shampoo commercial. "Dont hate me because im beautiful" The ill will towards Texas is because they are who they are, and they used it to their advantage. Husker fans out there who think Nebraska wouldnt have played their hand this way, are kidding themselves.
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Aug 31, 2011 17:47:37 GMT -5
Texas should do an image campaign like the old shampoo commercial. "Dont hate me because im beautiful" The ill will towards Texas is because they are who they are, and they used it to their advantage. Husker fans out there who think Nebraska wouldnt have played their hand this way, are kidding themselves. Its called integrity and respect for others in the conference and no....I don't think NU would have done the same thing. Every conference has their kingpins but not every kingpin has to bully and muscle everything to their own advantage. To keep a conference together requires a little team work.
|
|
|
Post by upyours on Aug 31, 2011 17:54:16 GMT -5
If handled properly, the SEC should do wonders for A&M's volleyball team. They will actually have a good chance at finishing in the top 3 and trading wins with the other good teams in that conference. And they could develop a nice natural rivalry with LSU. And as I recall, wasn't TAMU the first team to beat Florida during the year after Florida was the runner up to USC (back when TAMU was a really good team)? I think the Aggies are ready to be a big fish in a small pond for a while. Might help build their program back up, get some confidence, and some new blood in their old worn-out system. They will certainly be one of the top teams in the SEC but I'm wondering will this hurt their recruiting? 95% of the roster is Texas kids. Now they will not be playing nearly as many matches in Texas being the only school in the SEC from Texas. Other schools might use that as an advantage in recruiting. What say you??
|
|
|
Post by Keystonekid on Aug 31, 2011 18:03:19 GMT -5
Texas should do an image campaign like the old shampoo commercial. "Dont hate me because im beautiful" The ill will towards Texas is because they are who they are, and they used it to their advantage. Husker fans out there who think Nebraska wouldnt have played their hand this way, are kidding themselves. Its called integrity and respect for others in the conference and no....I don't think NU would have done the same thing. Every conference has their kingpins but not every kingpin has to bully and muscle everything to their own advantage. To keep a conference together requires a little team work. Holiday, I admire, respect and I agree with you, but its a business. You are an idealist. These folks arent idealists, their capitalists. We live in a capitalist world, and college athletics is no different. Its big business, and big businesses dont turn down lucrative contracts. It isnt illegal, or even unethical. Texas is no different than Missouri who wanted to be in the Big Ten for their own gain, they didnt care if it left the conference one team less, ended rivalries etc..... In the end, this wouldnt be a decision Tom Osborne may have made, but the board of regents and president would have. Nobody leaves that kind of money on the table, sad to say.
|
|
|
Post by Keystonekid on Aug 31, 2011 18:06:09 GMT -5
If handled properly, the SEC should do wonders for A&M's volleyball team. They will actually have a good chance at finishing in the top 3 and trading wins with the other good teams in that conference. And they could develop a nice natural rivalry with LSU. And as I recall, wasn't TAMU the first team to beat Florida during the year after Florida was the runner up to USC (back when TAMU was a really good team)? I think the Aggies are ready to be a big fish in a small pond for a while. Might help build their program back up, get some confidence, and some new blood in their old worn-out system. They will certainly be one of the top teams in the SEC but I'm wondering will this hurt their recruiting? 95% of the roster is Texas kids. Now they will not be playing nearly as many matches in Texas being the only school in the SEC from Texas. Other schools might use that as an advantage in recruiting. What say you?? A&M hasnt been better than Florida, Tennesee or LSU, not even better than Kentucky probably. I think this helps A&M recruiting, they can still recruit Texas but it opens other pockets up for them. I know Nebraska is having far more success getting kids from Ohio, Indiana, Illinois interested now than they did. They are still going to dominate the plain states, but now have a bigger area to be relevant in.
|
|
|
Post by gilles13 on Aug 31, 2011 18:31:39 GMT -5
Its called integrity and respect for others in the conference and no....I don't think NU would have done the same thing. Every conference has their kingpins but not every kingpin has to bully and muscle everything to their own advantage. To keep a conference together requires a little team work. Holiday, I admire, respect and I agree with you, but its a business. You are an idealist. These folks arent idealists, their capitalists. We live in a capitalist world, and college athletics is no different. Its big business, and big businesses dont turn down lucrative contracts. It isnt illegal, or even unethical. Texas is no different than Missouri who wanted to be in the Big Ten for their own gain, they didnt care if it left the conference one team less, ended rivalries etc..... In the end, this wouldnt be a decision Tom Osborne may have made, but the board of regents and president would have. Nobody leaves that kind of money on the table, sad to say. +1 This is simple economics people. If businesses as large as the University of Nebraska exhibited social hierarchy and emotionally driven behavior mirroring that of an elementary school playground, then there's no way in hell that the United States would ever have become any sort of world superpower.
|
|
|
Post by Thrill of the 'ville on Aug 31, 2011 18:38:56 GMT -5
And as I recall, wasn't TAMU the first team to beat Florida during the year after Florida was the runner up to USC (back when TAMU was a really good team)? No, Minnesota was the first to beat them in 2004. The team you are probably thinking of though is Texas who beat them that year snapping Florida's 46 match consecutive winning streak. Florida is 6-0 against Texas A&M (4-0 when under Wise)
|
|
|
Post by snowconeguy on Aug 31, 2011 18:49:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by geddyleemarvin on Aug 31, 2011 20:02:08 GMT -5
I don't have a dog in this hunt, since I only have a mild interest in the Big XII, but a few things here:
The Big 10 didn't set off the expansion wars, the ACC did in 2005, when the conference went to 12 teams after poaching the Big East. But that's not really all that important, as the real issue is why conferences or schools have incentive to move in the first place:TV money.
In that respect, the Big 10 does assume some responsibility, in the sense that it created the cash cow that is the BTN. The success of the BTN created an arms war where success isn't measured in wins and losses, but in expanding to new media markets, increased ad revenue, cable subscription fees, multiple media platforms, and conference-owned networks. Right now, the king of the hill in that respect is the Pac-12, but who knows how long that will last, particularly as expansion continues. BTW, I'm not blaming the Big 10 for anything, the BTN was a gamble, and one that worked out beautifully for the conference.
Here's the thing, though - the three richest conferences (Pac 12, Big 10, SEC) operate as quasi-socialistic organizations. USC doesn't get any more conference TV money than Washington St. Same goes for Alabama and Vanderbilt etc. etc. Now, USC etal get to keep their own merchandise sales and so on (hence the "quasi"), but the big money from TV is shared equally. So why doesn't USC, Alabama, LSU, Ohio St., Michigan go it on their own? Because they all understand that at the end of the day, they're going to make more money as part of their conference than they are going it alone. For example, the annual payouts to Pac 12 schools from the new contract dwarf what Texas is getting from the LHN (about double in 2012).
Unfortunately for the Big 12, it's rich in talent, tradition, and fans, but poor when it comes to large media markets. The Big 12 as a whole can't command the TV contracts other power conferences can, so Texas decided on a paradigm shift, junking the type of conference "we-all-share-in-the-spoils" philosophy that other BCS schools have, and creating what will probably end up as a fatal imbalance in terms of revenue and exposure in the Big 12. Did Texas throw the rest of the conference under the bus by doing so? Yeah, pretty much. But whether or not Texas did it out of necessity or out of arrogance depends on which side of the fence you're on.
|
|