Front Office Football Central
Page 53 of 172 « First < 343444546474849505152 53 54555657585960616263103153 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Front Office Football Central (http://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (http://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Big 10 Expansion Thread -Big Ten ready for a playoff .. finally? (http://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=76565)

cartman 06-15-2010 10:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2301719)
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.

Chubby 06-15-2010 10:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2301719)
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!

Chubby 06-15-2010 10:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2301725)
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.

Ronnie Dobbs2 06-15-2010 10:57 AM
It must be tough being an inoffensive Mizzou fan on this board.

Honolulu_Blue 06-15-2010 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2301704)
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.

Mizzou B-ball fan 06-15-2010 11:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubby (Post 2301731)
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.

Mizzou B-ball fan 06-15-2010 11:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cartman (Post 2301727)
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.

Logan 06-15-2010 11:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2301709)
Who's "we" and where are you going?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cartman (Post 2301727)
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.

Alan T 06-15-2010 11:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2301733)
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.

Chief Rum 06-15-2010 11:09 AM
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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Katz, 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!

Mizzou B-ball fan 06-15-2010 11:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubby (Post 2301728)
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.

Alan T 06-15-2010 11:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Rum (Post 2301747)


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.

cartman 06-15-2010 11:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2301743)
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.

digamma 06-15-2010 11:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2301743)
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.)

Chief Rum 06-15-2010 11:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan T (Post 2301751)
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.

Mizzou B-ball fan 06-15-2010 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digamma (Post 2301755)
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.

digamma 06-15-2010 11:20 AM
Lots of ifs and buts for those to be real options, don't you think?

DeToxRox 06-15-2010 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2301762)
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.

panerd 06-15-2010 11:22 AM
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.

Chief Rum 06-15-2010 11:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeToxRox (Post 2301765)
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.

Butter 06-15-2010 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue (Post 2301734)
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.

Mizzou B-ball fan 06-15-2010 11:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2301768)
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.

Chubby 06-15-2010 11:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2301775)
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?

Eaglesfan27 06-15-2010 11:33 AM
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.

Passacaglia 06-15-2010 12:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubby (Post 2301779)
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).

panerd 06-15-2010 12:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubby (Post 2301779)
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.

panerd 06-15-2010 12:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2301775)
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.

Mizzou B-ball fan 06-15-2010 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2301811)
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

SnDvls 06-15-2010 12:38 PM


Quote:
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

panerd 06-15-2010 12:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnDvls (Post 2301822)

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

dawgfan 06-15-2010 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnDvls (Post 2301822)
Whether or not Texas got "strong-armed", they're laughing all the way to the bank.

Eaglesfan27 06-15-2010 01:05 PM
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?

timmynausea 06-15-2010 01:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27 (Post 2301843)
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?

Mizzou B-ball fan 06-15-2010 01:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27 (Post 2301843)
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.

Mizzou B-ball fan 06-15-2010 01:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by timmynausea (Post 2301847)
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.

Poli 06-15-2010 01:18 PM
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.

Blade6119 06-15-2010 01:20 PM
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

Mizzou B-ball fan 06-15-2010 01:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade6119 (Post 2301852)
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.

Eaglesfan27 06-15-2010 01:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade6119 (Post 2301852)
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.

Poli 06-15-2010 01:25 PM
Wasn't the payout already screwed up before?

cartman 06-15-2010 01:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27 (Post 2301855)
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.

Blade6119 06-15-2010 01:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27 (Post 2301855)
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.

Swaggs 06-15-2010 01:27 PM
Wow... that is a big league butt reaming by the Texas and Oklahoma schools.

Eaglesfan27 06-15-2010 01:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cartman (Post 2301857)
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.

cartman 06-15-2010 01:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27 (Post 2301860)
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.

sterlingice 06-15-2010 01:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swaggs (Post 2301859)
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

Blade6119 06-15-2010 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cartman (Post 2301864)
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...

Mizzou B-ball fan 06-15-2010 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27 (Post 2301860)
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

Logan 06-15-2010 01:31 PM
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.

Solecismic 06-15-2010 01:32 PM
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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:52 PM.
Page 53 of 172 « First < 343444546474849505152 53 54555657585960616263103153 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.