Big 10 Expansion Thread -Big Ten ready for a playoff .. finally?

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Logan

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.

[timmynausea]

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.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Logan

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

[Kodos]

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 B-ball fan]

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.

[spleen1015]

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.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

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

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

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).

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

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.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

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

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

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

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Chubby

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.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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)."

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Logan

Umm, what?

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

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Chubby

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.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

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.

[Solecismic]

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.

[sterlingice]

Georgia Tech?

SI

[Kodos]

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).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Kodos

ND and Texas to be a Grand Slam

ND is a walk-off GS.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

ND is a walk-off GS.

A Daniel Nava GS.

[SnDvls]

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

[MrBug708]

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

[Chief Rum]

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.

[Daimyo]

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.

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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....

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

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

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

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.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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"?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

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.

[MrBug708]

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

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

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.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by TroyF

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.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

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).

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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

[Blade6119]

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."

[MacroGuru]

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

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

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

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

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

Anymore?

So when you gonna break the Utah news?

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Anymore?

So when you gonna break the Utah news?

BTW...Fixed...

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...

[dawgfan]

Interesting perspective from a Longhorns blog:

http://www.burntorangenation.com/201...ent-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?

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

BTW...Fixed...

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 ...

Fixed it for you....

I hate those fuckers even more now.

[MJ4H]

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

[Radii]

anyone called the number on that voicemail yet?

[Arles]

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.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Interesting perspective from a Longhorns blog:

http://www.burntorangenation.com/201...ent-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.

[Galaxy]

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

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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...

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

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.