|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Aug 31, 2011 21:20:12 GMT -5
I could see UT and ND forming a sort of national conference. A little east, west, midwest. with just themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by nitneliun on Aug 31, 2011 21:26:25 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. Youre correct ACC was the first to do it. Big Ten had been sniffing around for years however. It was however the Big Ten that came after Big 12 schools, that was my point. This aint over either, and Oklahoma is a big player. They cant wait around to see if Texas jumps, leaving them in a weak Big 12. I dont think any of the schools in the rumor mill, BYU, PITT (thats a joke) may do it. I think youre gonna see Oklahoma and Texas in different conferences, why would OU care where they were, it doesnt affect them. Texas would like to stay where they are, its their market and demographic. I can tell you Nebraska is looking at this and saying "whew" we are right where we wanna be. The Big Ten did not go after Big 12 schools. The Big Ten merely announced that it was going to consider expansion within a window of years, not months. As soon as the Big Ten made the announcement, it was approached by Missouri and shortly thereafter, Nebraska. Missouri was rejected and Nebraska was admitted. Had the Big Ten actually tried to poach schools from the Big 12, it would have opened itself up to very expensive litigation. |
|
|
|
Post by geddyleemarvin on Aug 31, 2011 21:32:10 GMT -5
I 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. Are you aware that when the Big 12 conference was formed, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, and Texas were in favor of unequal revenue sharing? Texas didn't make that decision by themselves. As for other conferences, Florida gains exposure and revenue from the Sunshine Sports network. Do you think they are going to share any of that "advantage" with Texas A&M when they don't share it with other current SEC members? Notre Dame is the one school who has a special deal in football with regards to qualifying for the BCS bowl bids. Do you think that's fair to all the other schools across the country? Bottom line is that life isn't fair. Things aren't "equal" in the world of high-dollar athletics. Sun Sports isn't owned by the University of Florida, pardner, it's Fox Sports. Florida gets as much of an advantage from that network as every other school in the country gets from being on a Fox sports channel. Where did I say life is supposed to be fair? I simply pointed out why Texas decided to do it's own thing. I was neither agreeing with or condemning it. |
|
|
|
Post by Keystonekid on Aug 31, 2011 21:36:41 GMT -5
Youre correct ACC was the first to do it. Big Ten had been sniffing around for years however. It was however the Big Ten that came after Big 12 schools, that was my point. This aint over either, and Oklahoma is a big player. They cant wait around to see if Texas jumps, leaving them in a weak Big 12. I dont think any of the schools in the rumor mill, BYU, PITT (thats a joke) may do it. I think youre gonna see Oklahoma and Texas in different conferences, why would OU care where they were, it doesnt affect them. Texas would like to stay where they are, its their market and demographic. I can tell you Nebraska is looking at this and saying "whew" we are right where we wanna be. The Big Ten did not go after Big 12 schools. The Big Ten merely announced that it was going to consider expansion within a window of years, not months. As soon as the Big Ten made the announcement, it was approached by Missouri and shortly thereafter, Nebraska. Missouri was rejected and Nebraska was admitted. Had the Big Ten actually tried to poach schools from the Big 12, it would have opened itself up to very expensive litigation. If that helps you sleep at night, you go right on believing that. The Big Ten was proactive, if you dont think they were having conversations, putting out feelers......... |
|
|
|
Post by southie on Aug 31, 2011 21:53:29 GMT -5
Are you aware that when the Big 12 conference was formed, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, and Texas were in favor of unequal revenue sharing? Texas didn't make that decision by themselves. As for other conferences, Florida gains exposure and revenue from the Sunshine Sports network. Do you think they are going to share any of that "advantage" with Texas A&M when they don't share it with other current SEC members? Notre Dame is the one school who has a special deal in football with regards to qualifying for the BCS bowl bids. Do you think that's fair to all the other schools across the country? Bottom line is that life isn't fair. Things aren't "equal" in the world of high-dollar athletics. Sun Sports isn't owned by the University of Florida, pardner, it's Fox Sports. Florida gets as much of an advantage from that network as every other school in the country gets from being on a Fox sports channel. Where did I say life is supposed to be fair? I simply pointed out why Texas decided to do it's own thing. I was neither agreeing with or condemning it. You seemed to have avoided my main point, which was how the Big 12 decided on unequal revenue sharing from the onset. Florida might not own Sun Sports, but that entity airs Florida and FSU events, not the rest of the SEC; which entity is the equivalent of Sun Sports for Vanderbilt and Ole Miss? |
|
|
|
Post by nothingbutcorn on Aug 31, 2011 21:54:26 GMT -5
I think I remember reading someplace that it was in December or Jan of 2010 that Deleney met with Pearlman and TO. It was more of a comparing notes type of meeting. It could have been OWH or the LJS. It was from there that Deleney knew NU would be a serious possibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by southie on Aug 31, 2011 22:00:53 GMT -5
The Big 10 even met with Texas last summer; it was reported that Texas wanted Texas Tech to be considered, as well, and the Big 10 said no thanks, as it was only interested in Texas and Texas A&M.
|
|
|
|
Post by Babar on Aug 31, 2011 22:49:24 GMT -5
IMO the teams left in the Big 12 other than Texas are being reduced to sharecropper status. The Big 10 and the Pac 10 have "strong comissoners and revenue sharing." This is also true with the NFL which is why it is so competetive. The University of Texas (and to some degree Texas sport and politics) is based not only on winning but doing whatever it takes to create an unlevel playing field. (See Karl Rove, George W. Busch, Tom Delay etc.) Exhibit B would be the ESPN 30 on 30 program on the cheating at SMU and the Southwest Conference in the 1980s. Texas, because of its financial and political resources does not need to hand players money in unmarked enevelopes. The conference commissioner is in their pocket and everyone else in the conference knows it. Expect Kansas, Kansas State and Missouri to be the next teams to depart. Oklahoma and Okie State have relinquished their futures to whatever is best for Texas is best for them. A&M is not leaving the Big 12 for more money, it is leaving because with Texas broadcasting high school sports and controling Texas High School tournaments, they felt they could no longer be competetive.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 1, 2011 2:01:30 GMT -5
Texas could be in any league they want, with one phone call. Not the PAC12, unless that one phone call included the words "revenue sharing." |
|
|
|
Post by Keystonekid on Sept 1, 2011 7:41:06 GMT -5
Texas could be in any league they want, with one phone call. Not the PAC12, unless that one phone call included the words "revenue sharing." That was my point, to have their current situation they will need to add to their current conference, but the other BCS conferences will jump at the chance to add Texas. At this point Texas has to know that the only schools that will agree to their umm "deal" are those who dont have any other options. (ISU, KSU, KU, etc.... |
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Sept 1, 2011 8:10:08 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?? I think it might provide a very small boost for Baylor's recruiting, in that maybe one or two potential state of Texas recruits every year might partially factor Baylor's BigXII membership into their considerations. But for the overwhelming majority of Aggies, it is their school of choice, not just the place they go when they can't get in elsewhere. Those gals raised by "Old Army" parents who grow up bleeding maroon are still going to want to be part of all the hullabaloo at A&M regardless of conference. If anything, it will expand their ability to recruit across the greater SEC region. In the former BigXII, they were not going to get the top recruits away from UNebraska or UTexas, so they depended on the enormous depth of club ball in the state to provide DivI/BCS level talent. In the SEC they should be able to compete well enough with everyone (except Mary) for recruits. The school has excellent academics, amazing (if quirky) tradition, electrifying fan support for their teams, and a hugely loyal network of former students when it comes time to find a job. |
|
|
|
Post by vbbeginner on Sept 1, 2011 9:15:55 GMT -5
So at what point does the Big XII lose it's BCS status if at all? When A&M leaves and if OU leaves they will basically be an upper level mid-major with 1 powerhouse school. Does that warrant a BCS status?
|
|
|
|
Post by upyours on Sept 1, 2011 10:04:10 GMT -5
I read A&M will be getting $20 million from the Big XII in revenue this year compared to SEC schools getting around $17 million. So it's not about the money and all about the politics at the top between A&M and UT. With that said I would think many schools will be hitting up the Big XII for that kind of money. It said BYU and Louisville are in talks behind doors with the Big XII.
|
|
|
|
Post by southie on Sept 1, 2011 10:10:35 GMT -5
Texas could be in any league they want, with one phone call. Not the PAC12, unless that one phone call included the words "revenue sharing." Here is some information from a Longhorn board (writer) last night: I also reached out to Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott for a comment on his league's potential interest in resuming conversations from last summer with any number of schools in the Big 12 (OU, Ok St, Texas, Texas Tech). And Scott sent me a comment in the form of a statement: "Our sole focus has been on developing the tremendous opportunities we have as a new, 12-team Conference and we have no current plans to expand the Pac-12.
However, I have made clear my vision that the health, stability and future of college athletics will likely include further consolidation and re-alignment. While I can not predict if and when this might make sense for us, we will listen to and evaluate any scenario that would benefit our member institutions, our student-athletes and our fans.
In the meantime, we are pleased to be in a strong leadership position in academics and college athletics, with both a rich heritage of success and recent moves that have greatly strengthened our Conference and positioned us well for the future." |
|
|
|
Post by Keystonekid on Sept 1, 2011 10:30:11 GMT -5
So at what point does the Big XII lose it's BCS status if at all? When A&M leaves and if OU leaves they will basically be an upper level mid-major with 1 powerhouse school. Does that warrant a BCS status? The Big east has zero powerhouse schools so....... |
|
