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

[MrBug708]

Pac-10 expansion: On Thursday, it becomes the Pac-11 | College Hotline

According to this

* Colorado “is likely to formally accept” an invitation to join the Pac-10 on Thursday.

Repeat: Colorado to the Pac-10 on Thursday.

At that moment, it will become the Pac-11.

[Solecismic]

Back to Utah, then? It makes the most sense, but does that mean they're willing to take on the Tech problem?

So the Big XII ends up losing Nebraska and Colorado, snaps up (if you believe the report) BYU and Air Force. And we continue relatively unscathed for a while, with the five majors all with 12 schools?

Or does the Big XII disband, Texas, A&M and the Oklahomas moving westward, with the Big Ten then choosing four amongst Notre Dame, Maryland, Kansas, Missouri, Rutgers and Pittsburgh?

[MrBug708]

It seems that most of the scuttlebutt was that if Nebraska leaves, the Big-12 will inevitably dissolve. If for some reason they stick together, yes, Utah would be welcomed into the PAC-10

[IMetTrentGreen]

Hello.

If NU (or MU) leave, the Big 12 is done. There simply aren't enough televisions anywhere else to fill what either of those schools bring, sadly enough. CU, mediocre as they've been at everything, also fall into that category.

Expect the Big 12 to fall apart, and most of it to move out west. Now that I live in Silicon Valley, I am pretty pumped to have a Texas game out here once in awhile.

They play UCLA this year and next, so I do wonder if we'll get, in 2011, a scenario in which they play a nonconference and a conference game. NU and Texas did that in basketball in 1996 or 1997 or something. They'll probably just cancel it, though.

[MrBug708]

The original mizzou bb fan returns like a prodigal son!

[IMetTrentGreen]

Hey MrBug. I'm a college football coach now, and the other day most of the staff sat around talking about, among other things, why UCLA won't ever be good.

I'm not sure what it says about me that you were the first thing I thought of. And when I read about the USC penalties, I came scurrying here to see what EagleFan had to say about it.

For whatever reason, y'alls homer-rivalry was always sublimely fascinating to me, so much so that this place remains a viable opinion outlet in my mind years after losing anything that made it interesting.

Funny, huh? Well, see you in 18 months.

[MrBug708]

Im glad UCLA gave you something to worry about

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Couple of interesting developments ...

Nebraska is now downplaying all the reports. Sounds like a formality, with one of their regents explaining there isn't an invitation process in the Big Ten but rather an application process -- the Big Ten doesn't invite you, you have to apply and they act on your application. Could be -- who knows?

Interestingly, reports from the Missouri camp are strangely calm. While the fan base is in meltdown mode, the main beat writer in Columbia says no one in the athletic department seems overly concerned about today's developments. Mike Alden was in KC today and did some interviews with the talking point "we're a proud member of the Big 12." When pushed about today's developments, the radio reporter says Alden was "unaffected" by all the buzz.

I know some people think Missouri has been actively campaigning for the Big Ten but the reality has been the opposite -- the university has been very tight lipped about the process and no one has strayed from the talking points. That's very rare for Missouri, which usually leaks like a sieve.

An hour ago I was pretty depressed and really questioned where we go from here. Reading that the athletic department doesn't seem fazed, I feel better. The principal beat writer who covers the football team said the sense is that Mike Alden has an ace up his sleeve.

Dave Matter, the mizzou beat writer for the Columbia Tribune who most within the Mizzou community consider to be the best and most credible source on all Mizzou matters, posted some interesting things last night over on his newspaper's blog(and he has not been posting all these wild rumors, like sites like rivals and scout have been):

- What about the Big 12? I learned through a league source that last Friday, two top executives from Fox made what was described as an impressive presentation to the league presidents in Kansas City, a multi-network TV deal that would involve Fox, Fox Sports Net and F/X. The deal was described as competitive with the Southeastern Conference’s current deal with ESPN, worth "nine-figures" with a lifespan of more than 10 years. The proposed deal was essentially Commissioner Dan Beebe’s last resort to salvaging the conference, and after the meeting, I’m told there was a sense that the league would be preserved, depending primarily on Nebraska’s decision to stay or go. As of Wednesday morning there was still a shred of hope within the league that Nebraska Chancellor Harvey Perlman and Athletic Director Tom Osborne would favor a return to the Big 12 contingent on the new Fox deal, rather than accept an offer from the Big Ten.

Remember, Fox was reportedly in line to offer a large sum to the Atlantic Coast Conference for its new TV agreement but finished runner-up to ESPN at the bargaining table. Also, there's some thought that Comcast is working on a deal to secure rights for the Houston Rockets and Houston Astros, which could threaten Fox Sports Houston and free up a pile of cash for Fox to throw at the Big 12. If the conference dissolves, though, that deal would obviously die on the table.

- The first domino might have been tipped. Some outlets are reporting, in one fashion or another, that Nebraska has been invited to the Big Ten Conference.

Or not. The Lincoln Journal Star indicates those reports might be premature. Bob Phares, chairman of Nebraska’s Board of Regents, told the newspaper: "First of all, there are several factual errors. No. 1, there’s been no vote by the board at all. No. 2, as I understand it, there are no invitations that are extended. You decide if you wish to make an application and then they react to your application."

On the heels of that comment, Nebraska issued a release taking some teeth out of the other reports.

"A report being circulated this afternoon among sports media stating that the University of Nebraska Board of Regents 'met informally' today and have 'agreed to move to the Big Ten' is not accurate. Members of the Board's executive committee met via conference call to discuss the agenda for Friday's meeting. Such meetings routinely take place prior to Board meetings. At its meeting on Friday, the Board will be briefed on UNL athletic conference alignment and consider a resolution. No action was taken during today's conference call, and none will be taken prior to Friday's meeting."

- I’m told Missouri Athletic Director Mike Alden has been calm during this potential storm. Some folks close to the athletic department are convinced he has an ace up his sleeve … even though all the Big Ten attention has been centered on Nebraska the last 48 hours. I’m told that the major players in Missouri athletics — starting at the top with Alden and football Coach Gary Pinkel — have taken a serious oath not to leak a single word of the school’s plans and any communications with the Big Ten. "Not to their family, their lawyers, friends. Nobody," one prominent booster told me. Frankly, the tight seal around this topic is rare for Missouri. Someone at the highest level of the state government made the comment to me on Wednesday that, "Is it just me, or is Missouri exercising rare discipline in keeping quiet on this topic?" I absolutely agreed. And as Joe Walljasper pointed out in his column on Wednesday, often the school talking the least is the one that generates the least media buzz. "Reporters tend to champion the causes of those who call them back," Joe wrote. "Journalism abhors a vacuum."

Just some points that i found interesting coming from a guy who self-admittedly isnt a diehard mizzou fan, so he usually doesnt get too caught up in things and keeps his feet on the ground and reports things that are usually quite correct. He still has had no say either way about Big 10 offers or anything

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

- I’m told Missouri Athletic Director Mike Alden has been calm during this potential storm. Some folks close to the athletic department are convinced he has an ace up his sleeve … even though all the Big Ten attention has been centered on Nebraska the last 48 hours. I’m told that the major players in Missouri athletics — starting at the top with Alden and football Coach Gary Pinkel — have taken a serious oath not to leak a single word of the school’s plans and any communications with the Big Ten. "Not to their family, their lawyers, friends. Nobody," one prominent booster told me. Frankly, the tight seal around this topic is rare for Missouri. Someone at the highest level of the state government made the comment to me on Wednesday that, "Is it just me, or is Missouri exercising rare discipline in keeping quiet on this topic?" I absolutely agreed. And as Joe Walljasper pointed out in his column on Wednesday, often the school talking the least is the one that generates the least media buzz. "Reporters tend to champion the causes of those who call them back," Joe wrote. "Journalism abhors a vacuum."

Just some points that i found interesting coming from a guy who self-admittedly isnt a diehard mizzou fan, so he usually doesnt get too caught up in things and keeps his feet on the ground and reports things that are usually quite correct. He still has had no say either way about Big 10 offers or anything

Truth is far stranger than fiction. Yesterday's situation was a well-orchestrated PR media hit directed by other schools to attempt to plant seeds of distrust and derail negotiations between various schools and conference leaders. It created quite a rise amongst fans (look at the last few pages of this thread), but not a whole lot has changed within the athletic departments. We're still roughly where we were before the media blitz started.

I agree with Matter concerning Mizzou's handling of this whole situation. It's amazing how much more polished they are in handling these kinds of situations than they were a few years ago with the Ricky Clemons fiasco. Much of the credit should go to Gary Forsee. He brought in a lot of knowledge from his years in business on how to keep things even-keeled from a PR perspective. As long as Mizzou remains quiet, it's generally good news for the University.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by cartman

Here was an op-ed piece from one of the local sports writers:

Longhorns are not the villain in expansion scenarios

Like I said, Mizzou has been far from perfect during this whole process, and they may crash and burn for it, but i just dont get how south schools(especially Texas) dont get that they have been just as guilty in killing this conference and what not. Now everybody has had their roles, i recognize that, my team played its cards in its own interest, but so did Texas and the others. Its that failure to recognize this was a result of the entire Big 12 failing to work together and exploring other options, not just one or two "sour grapes", that annoys me. Everyone involved had options, and we all chose to look after ourselves at various stages of the process instead of trying to find some acceptable middle ground for everyone involved.

Bring On the Cats, the SBnation blog for Kansas State, discussed Chip Browns tweets about Texas doing all it could to save the Big 12 (http://twitter.com/ChipBrownOB/status/15804322156):

That last mention turns my attention to Texas. We really appreciate that you "did everything you could to save the Big 12" recently. Because it's obvious you were willing to go to any lengths necessary to save this conference, other than actually, you know, doing something. Texas was willing to do anything, as long as it still got a disproportionate share of the revenue. Texas was willing to do anything, as long as the conference changed an obscure tiebreaker rule that probably never would have affected it again. Texas was willing to do anything, so long as it was permitted to start up its own TV network, with no interference from a conference-wide network that would benefit all schools, or a new deal from FOX this week that might have saved the conference.

We shouldn't have been surprised. In the past 20 years, two major conferences have been relegated to the dustbins of history, and Texas was a member of both of them. It was tired of the cheating that went on in the SWC, and its perception that all the member schools were out to get the big, bad Longhorns. Despite running the show in the Big 12, getting more money from the conference than any other school, and bullying the conference into letting it explore its own network, Texas wasn't interested in going to the table with Nebraska to work this out. Instead, it backed a short-term ultimatum (along with the other schools, there's blame to share) and, when Nebraska unsurprisingly bolted for greener pastures when the offer arrived, threw up its hands and said "well, we tried!" as it sprinted off to the west coast for the promise of a new conference network, which will preclude it having its own network, and the promise of riches from a conference that currently hands out less money to its member institutions than does the Big 12. You were committed to the Big 12 from the beginning, you said. And it was true, except that your commitment was only valid so long as it didn't affect $0.01 of your bottom line. God forbid a conference work together to improve the standing of each of its schools.

[Blade6119]

Also, the new rumor making the rounds this morning is that the Big 10 will expand to 14 teams, taking Missouri, Nebraska, and Notre Dame. And according to completely unreliable sources who are sharing this(Chip Brown, guys on internet forums, etc.), Notre Dame told the Big 10 it wanted Rutgers to come along and not Missouri, but the Big 10 declined based on two reasons. First, Mizzou already had a conditional offer saying if ND was in Mizzou was in. Secondly, again according to completely unreliable sources, the report claimed the Big 10 has an agreement with the Big East that if it takes ND it wont take any other schools.

Now i dont know how much sense that second part makes, but it makes sense that ND would prefer a Rutgers to Mizzou. This would also be a logical step if the Pac 16 reports are true and Texas turned down the Big 10. Again, this is all hearsay, but thats the new rumor this morning.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Like I said, Mizzou has been far from perfect during this whole process, and they may crash and burn for it, but i just dont get how south schools(especially Texas) dont get that they have been just as guilty in killing this conference and what not. Now everybody has had their roles, i recognize that, my team played its cards in its own interest, but so did Texas and the others. Its that failure to recognize this was a result of the entire Big 12 failing to work together and exploring other options, not just one or two "sour grapes", that annoys me. Everyone involved had options, and we all chose to look after ourselves at various stages of the process instead of trying to find some acceptable middle ground for everyone involved.

Bring On the Cats, the SBnation blog for Kansas State, discussed Chip Browns tweets about Texas doing all it could to save the Big 12 (http://twitter.com/ChipBrownOB/status/15804322156):

That last mention turns my attention to Texas. We really appreciate that you "did everything you could to save the Big 12" recently. Because it's obvious you were willing to go to any lengths necessary to save this conference, other than actually, you know, doing something. Texas was willing to do anything, as long as it still got a disproportionate share of the revenue. Texas was willing to do anything, as long as the conference changed an obscure tiebreaker rule that probably never would have affected it again. Texas was willing to do anything, so long as it was permitted to start up its own TV network, with no interference from a conference-wide network that would benefit all schools, or a new deal from FOX this week that might have saved the conference.

We shouldn't have been surprised. In the past 20 years, two major conferences have been relegated to the dustbins of history, and Texas was a member of both of them. It was tired of the cheating that went on in the SWC, and its perception that all the member schools were out to get the big, bad Longhorns. Despite running the show in the Big 12, getting more money from the conference than any other school, and bullying the conference into letting it explore its own network, Texas wasn't interested in going to the table with Nebraska to work this out. Instead, it backed a short-term ultimatum (along with the other schools, there's blame to share) and, when Nebraska unsurprisingly bolted for greener pastures when the offer arrived, threw up its hands and said "well, we tried!" as it sprinted off to the west coast for the promise of a new conference network, which will preclude it having its own network, and the promise of riches from a conference that currently hands out less money to its member institutions than does the Big 12. You were committed to the Big 12 from the beginning, you said. And it was true, except that your commitment was only valid so long as it didn't affect $0.01 of your bottom line. God forbid a conference work together to improve the standing of each of its schools.

The revenue sharing bitching is just a tad overblown. There was a $3 million difference between top and bottom. That is hardly an insurmountable issue, and if that is what you are saying tore the conference apart, there really wasn't much hope regardless. And, has been mentioned, all of the conference members went into the Big 12 agreeing on this revenue sharing plan. It wasn't something that was forced on them by Texas, as you seem to infer.

As for the SWC, much of the same drivers that pushed the Big 8 and the SWC together are pushing the Pac 10 and the Big 12 six together. TV money is the biggest driver. After Arkansas left, the old SWC consisted of only Texas schools. The formation of the Big 12 expanded the geographic reach of the member schools. The same dynamics are at play with the proposed Big 16. This will move the Pac 10 out of strictly the Pacific time zone, and greatly increase the geographic reach of the member schools.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by cartman

The revenue sharing bitching is just a tad overblown. There was a $3 million difference between top and bottom. That is hardly an insurmountable issue, and if that is what you are saying tore the conference apart, there really wasn't much hope regardless. And, has been mentioned, all of the conference members went into the Big 12 agreeing on this revenue sharing plan. It wasn't something that was forced on them by Texas, as you seem to infer.

As for the SWC, much of the same drivers that pushed the Big 8 and the SWC together are pushing the Pac 10 and the Big 12 six together. TV money is the biggest driver. After Arkansas left, the old SWC consisted of only Texas schools. The formation of the Big 12 expanded the geographic reach of the member schools. The same dynamics are at play with the proposed Big 16. This will move the Pac 10 out of strictly the Pacific time zone, and greatly increase the geographic reach of the member schools.

No doubt its not the biggest issue in the world, so Texas being unwilling to budge one bit its amusing and frustrating at the same time. And the argument that since it the best option 15 years ago it must still be the best option today is comical, you cant really believe that to be the case? If it is a 2-3 million difference, why fight so hard to keep it in place when its becoming obvious as things fall apart the entire big 12 north is opposed to the idea(i guess was in about a day).

And i understand the dynamics of conference expansion and geography well, no one is doubting that, and as an Arizona State fan as well its a great move for the Pac 10. Im just discussing the reasons why the Big 12 is the conference being torn to pieces and not other way around, why the Big 12 is not stealing the key players of the Pac 10 away. At this point i believe most of the dominoes are already in place, or will be shorty, so all thats left is an analysis of what went wrong. And i think there is a fair amount of blame to go around to everyone, not just MU or NU as Texas and the southern schools are claiming. Thats all im trying to say, because a lot of the media and board members from Texas and Oklahoma are saying that all of this is because MU and NU couldnt be happy with that they had, when in reality this is all happening because the two divisions could not work together to take the necessary steps to not only survive but thrive together. And from what we have heared, there were options to do just that. Im not trying to say Texas is the only bad guy here, we all let each other down here. Im just arguing the claims that are most certainly out there that this is all at MU and NUs feet, when that is neither accurate or fair

[SnDvls]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

For reference...

Total BCS At-Large Selections, 1998-2009:

Big Ten 9, SEC 7, Big XII 5, Notre Dame 3, Pac Ten 2, ACC 0, Big East 0, Others 6 (WAC 3, MW 3).

Something tells me the Pac-16's request isn't going to receive all that much consideration.

how many of those at-large selections were from Oklahoma, Texas & Texas A&M...because for the bowl games it's about $$$ not who is the best team or best game. Also weren't the years that ND and the others got in they were AQs at that time due to ranking and record yes? Can't really call them at-large "selections" as they became must picks by someone not really selections.

I'm not saying the Super 16 conference gets 2 auto bids at all, but if you bring in the big $ teams with big $ fans. I don't care who you are as a bowl game you are taking them. Your bottom line is selling out the game and making $ and the bowls have stated this for a long time.

[cartman]

I never said it was the best option, but again, the conference members agreed to it, and also knew that if they wanted to change it in the future it would take 9 votes.

[DeToxRox]

Rumor has it cartman is taking this thread to a new forum and only a few of his friends will be joining him.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Rumor has it cartman is taking this thread to a new forum and only a few of his friends will be joining him.

Sportsdigs broke this news a couple of weeks ago.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Rumor has it cartman is taking this thread to a new forum and only a few of his friends will be joining him.

MBBF is sure he'll be invited, but my sources say that is looking less and less likely.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by cartman

I never said it was the best option, but again, the conference members agreed to it, and also knew that if they wanted to change it in the future it would take 9 votes.

Now i can honestly say i dont know the inner-workings of the original agreement, so ill defer to your judgement on the matter. But im guessing schools like Mizzou, Kansas, and Iowa State were not giddy about it then either. It was likely forced upon them by the bigger more popular schools that now make up the south. Most likely, they north schools made concessions to make the conference work...and then when that was required of the south schools recently, they didnt budge. Maybe im wrong, maybe the North schools were ecstatic to be getting disproportionately less money then their counterparts. But i really dont believe it would have taken too much to keep NU or CU around, especially not if the Fox TV offer was as good as speculated. Offer up equal revenue sharing, talk about expansion, get a TV deal on par with those of the other power conferences, and im betting the Big 12 wouldnt be facing these current problems. But that was too much for everyone to agree on sadly.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

MBBF is sure he'll be invited, but my sources say that is looking less and less likely.

All Mizzou fans are currently over at the masturbation board, moderated by I.J Reilly.

[Butter]

Wouldn't it be funny if Nebraska left for the Big 10, and the Big 12 just got a single replacement for them, and that was it?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Wouldn't it be funny if Nebraska left for the Big 10, and the Big 12 just got a single replacement for them, and that was it?

I think that'd be a beautiful thing frankly, and I could say that from just a how-funny-it-would-be standpoint, never mind what I think of any of the moves.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Now i can honestly say i dont know the inner-workings of the original agreement, so ill defer to your judgement on the matter. But im guessing schools like Mizzou, Kansas, and Iowa State were not giddy about it then either. It was likely forced upon them by the bigger more popular schools that now make up the south. Most likely, they north schools made concessions to make the conference work...and then when that was required of the south schools recently, they didnt budge. Maybe im wrong, maybe the North schools were ecstatic to be getting disproportionately less money then their counterparts. But i really dont believe it would have taken too much to keep NU or CU around, especially not if the Fox TV offer was as good as speculated. Offer up equal revenue sharing, talk about expansion, get a TV deal on par with those of the other power conferences, and im betting the Big 12 wouldnt be facing these current problems. But that was too much for everyone to agree on sadly.

Nebraska was one of those schools who voted against revenue sharing. Nebraska's problems with the Big 12 were the moving of the headquarters to Dallas (MU and CU both voted for this) and the hiring of Hatchell as commissioner (again MU and CU both voted for this).

I'll be the first to say that if Texas and Texas A&M wanted to save the Big 12 conference they could easily do so. They are probably asking themselves the same question we are though...is the Big 12 worth saving? I think it's only worth saving if they broker an alliance with the Pac 10. If that's not possible then we'll have the same problems we've always had in the Big 12; too much of the power (TV) is in Texas.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Wouldn't it be funny if Nebraska left for the Big 10, and the Big 12 just got a single replacement for them, and that was it?

Two weeks ago, that could have happened. After the past few days, there's absolutely no way that the Big 12 can remain a viable conference. Way too much backstabbing between conference members.

[Butter]

All I'm saying is, I hear TCU is ready to move to the Big 12. Problem solved!

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Now i can honestly say i dont know the inner-workings of the original agreement, so ill defer to your judgement on the matter. But im guessing schools like Mizzou, Kansas, and Iowa State were not giddy about it then either. It was likely forced upon them by the bigger more popular schools that now make up the south. Most likely, they north schools made concessions to make the conference work...and then when that was required of the south schools recently, they didnt budge. Maybe im wrong, maybe the North schools were ecstatic to be getting disproportionately less money then their counterparts. But i really dont believe it would have taken too much to keep NU or CU around, especially not if the Fox TV offer was as good as speculated. Offer up equal revenue sharing, talk about expansion, get a TV deal on par with those of the other power conferences, and im betting the Big 12 wouldnt be facing these current problems. But that was too much for everyone to agree on sadly.

Again, the revenue sharing isn't what broke the league apart. The only conference that shares ALL revenues equally is the Big 10. The Big 12 shares all non-TV revenue equally. Of the TV revenue, half of the total is shared equally, and the other half is put into a TV appearances pool, which is divvied up based on broadcasts of football and non-conference basketball games, including the NCAA tournament.

Here's the list, and how much the variance would be if they adopted the Big 10 'total sharing' method:

1. Texas: $10.2 million (+$1.6 mil) (South)
2. Oklahoma: $9.8 million (+$1.2 mil) (South)
3. Kansas: $9.24 million (+$600K) (North)
4. Texas A&M: $9.22 million (+$600K) (South)
5. Nebraska: $9.1 million (+$500K) (North)
6. Missouri: $8.4 million (-$200K) (North)
7. Texas Tech: $8.23 million (-$400K) (South)
8. Kansas State: $8.21 million (-$400K) (North)
9. Oklahoma State: $8.1 million (-$500K) (South)
10. Colorado: $8.0 million (-$600K) (North)
11. Iowa State: $7.4 million (-$1.2 mil) (North)
12. Baylor: $7.1 million (-$1.6 mil) (South)

So basically a little more than $1 million extra total went to schools from the Big 12 South. Hardly a massive imbalance.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Looks like we're going to finally get the ball rolling. Colorado to announce today that they are leaving for the Pac-10.

http://www.sportingnews.com/college-...ce-move-pac-10

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by the_meanstrosity

Nebraska was one of those schools who voted against revenue sharing. Nebraska's problems with the Big 12 were the moving of the headquarters to Dallas (MU and CU both voted for this) and the hiring of Hatchell as commissioner (again MU and CU both voted for this).

I'll be the first to say that if Texas and Texas A&M wanted to save the Big 12 conference they could easily do so. They are probably asking themselves the same question we are though...is the Big 12 worth saving? I think it's only worth saving if they broker an alliance with the Pac 10. If that's not possible then we'll have the same problems we've always had in the Big 12; too much of the power (TV) is in Texas.

Well to be fair at the time Nebraska was one of those mega popular powerful teams...while they still have a big following, they no longer have the same clout they did when this was negotiated, during their 3 national title run

[Kodos]

I guess we can thank Joe Pa for giving Delany the idea back in May 2009.

Jim Delany poo-poos Big Ten expansion in football - Front Office Football Central

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by cartman

Again, the revenue sharing isn't what broke the league apart. The only conference that shares ALL revenues equally is the Big 10. The Big 12 shares all non-TV revenue equally. Of the TV revenue, half of the total is shared equally, and the other half is put into a TV appearances pool, which is divvied up based on broadcasts of football and non-conference basketball games, including the NCAA tournament.

Here's the list, and how much the variance would be if they adopted the Big 10 'total sharing' method:

1. Texas: $10.2 million (+$1.6 mil) (South)
2. Oklahoma: $9.8 million (+$1.2 mil) (South)
3. Kansas: $9.24 million (+$600K) (North)
4. Texas A&M: $9.22 million (+$600K) (South)
5. Nebraska: $9.1 million (+$500K) (North)
6. Missouri: $8.4 million (-$200K) (North)
7. Texas Tech: $8.23 million (-$400K) (South)
8. Kansas State: $8.21 million (-$400K) (North)
9. Oklahoma State: $8.1 million (-$500K) (South)
10. Colorado: $8.0 million (-$600K) (North)
11. Iowa State: $7.4 million (-$1.2 mil) (North)
12. Baylor: $7.1 million (-$1.6 mil) (South)

So basically a little more than $1 million extra total went to schools from the Big 12 South. Hardly a massive imbalance.

Exactly, which is why it still amazes me that the powers refused to make minor concessions here that could have gone a big way towards mending relationships, by showing smaller schools that they gave crap about them as well...the conference was not a collection of 12 equal members in the terms of the deals, and why that pisses off some teams is for whatever a reason a mystery to other teams.

[vex]

Rest in pieces, Big 12: OU, OSU move west seems imminent | NewsOK.com

Super 16, anyone? The move of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, along with four fellow Big 12 schools, to the Pac-10 Conference seems imminent after several media outlets reported that Nebraska will accept an invitation to join the Big Ten.








One high-placed OU source indicated to The Oklahoman that the Sooners were headed West.

"Load up on your sunscreen,” the source said, referring to the sunny climates of Pac-10 cities.

According to orangebloods.com, Texas athletic director Deloss Dodds met with university coaches Wednesday to tell them efforts made to save the Big 12 were unsuccessful.

Officials from Texas and Texas A&M are expected to meet Thursday to make sure they are on the same page about the next step, which is believed to be a relocation to the Pac-10. Oklahoma State athletic director Mike Holder declined comment on the Pac-10. Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione did not return phone calls to The Oklahoman.

Multiple sources told The Oklahoman last week that if Nebraska didn't declare its allegiance to the Big 12, OU, OSU, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Colorado would jump to the Pac-10. A source Wednesday said the schools could announce next week that they have agreed in principle to join the Pac-10.

Several outlets, including the Los Angeles Times, reported the Pac-16 (or whatever it ends up being called) would begin competition in 2012.
The new Pac-16 would divide into divisions, with the original Pac-8 schools aligned in one division, and Arizona and Arizona State joining the six Big 12 schools in the other.

College football's first super conference likely would generate a TV contract package that would pay each member school at least $20 million a year.

That would more than double the TV revenue earned by OU and OSU last season and put Pac-16 schools on par financially with the Big Ten and SEC.

Some reports have said Baylor is politicking to replace Colorado as the sixth school.

But Colorado's board of regents met Tuesday to discuss joining the Pac-10, and some reports have said the Pac-10 might invite Colorado independent of the other five, to give CU a jump ahead of Baylor.
The Big 12 schools apparently would have to pay a $10 million buyout to leave the conference, unless nine schools vote to dissolve the league.
Getting the votes could be tough, though, with Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State and Baylor all expected to vote against dissolution. Missouri, which might not get an invite to the Big Ten, could join them as well.
Nebraska regents informally met Wednesday and agreed to leave for the Big Ten, according to orangebloods.com. An unnamed source close to the Nebraska program confirmed that to ESPN, which also reported athletic director Tom Osborne informed staff members the Cornhuskers were Big Ten-bound.
Fox Sports Ohio reported the Cornhuskers now have an official invitation to join the Big Ten, and a formal announcement from Nebraska is expected to be made Friday, at the latest.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Well to be fair at the time Nebraska was one of those mega popular powerful teams...while they still have a big following, they no longer have the same clout they did when this was negotiated, during their 3 national title run

Nebraska isn't leaving because of a problem with the way revenue is shared. Look at the numbers and you'll see Nebraska still rakes in the revenue.

Look at the schools meeting today to discuss "saving the Big 12". There's two schools meeting while nine are sitting on their hands. That is your answer as to why Nebraska is leaving. Nebraska is moving to a conference where the power is balanced throughout the league.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Exactly, which is why it still amazes me that the powers refused to make minor concessions here that could have gone a big way towards mending relationships, by showing smaller schools that they gave crap about them as well...the conference was not a collection of 12 equal members in the terms of the deals, and why that pisses off some teams is for whatever a reason a mystery to other teams.

I'm not sure why they would, given the current scenario. I mean, of the top 6 schools in revenue on the list posted, at least 4 of the 6 (TX, A&M, OU, NU) are going to end up with more money after leaving the B12.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

All Mizzou fans are currently over at the masturbation board, moderated by I.J Reilly.

And anyway, that board pretty much moderates itself.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Back to Utah, then? It makes the most sense, but does that mean they're willing to take on the Tech problem?

So the Big XII ends up losing Nebraska and Colorado, snaps up (if you believe the report) BYU and Air Force. And we continue relatively unscathed for a while, with the five majors all with 12 schools?

Or does the Big XII disband, Texas, A&M and the Oklahomas moving westward, with the Big Ten then choosing four amongst Notre Dame, Maryland, Kansas, Missouri, Rutgers and Pittsburgh?

As Air Force Alum I can not see The Academy going to the Big 12. Sure they may get more money but for what going 5-7/4-8 every year?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Noticed that there's some discussion over on a KU board that the university is talking with the SEC about joining their west division. That would make sense.

[ISiddiqui]

All I have to say is Holy Crap! Pac 16 looking like more and more a reality and who knows how much further the Big 10 is going to go.

[SnDvls]

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

But i really dont believe it would have taken too much to keep NU or CU around

CU is not the lynch pin in all of this, but I can tell you there is pretty much NOTHING the Big12 could do to keep CU if the Pac10 ever offered. CU isn't a powerhouse in anything at this point, so your not making revenue concessions for them.

If CU had an invite from the Pac10 in 2000 with a simple promise of equal revenue to what they had in the Big 12, they'd have flown the coop.

It would have been ironic (and kind of funny, even for us CU fans) if Texas had been able to drag Baylor along and dump CU. (that could still happen, but it's looking less and less likely) CU's been waiting for this move for a long, long time. If they truly have an official offer in hand, they will be taking it and there is nothing the Big 12 could have ever done about it.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by the_meanstrosity

Nebraska isn't leaving because of a problem with the way revenue is shared. Look at the numbers and you'll see Nebraska still rakes in the revenue.

Look at the schools meeting today to discuss "saving the Big 12". There's two schools meeting while nine are sitting on their hands. That is your answer as to why Nebraska is leaving. Nebraska is moving to a conference where the power is balanced throughout the league.

Have you been reading my posts? Ive been saying that non-stop...even in my revenue sharing point my argument was about conference equality and power distribution

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

For reference...

Total BCS At-Large Selections, 1998-2009:

Big Ten 9, SEC 7, Big XII 5, Notre Dame 3, Pac Ten 2, ACC 0, Big East 0, Others 6 (WAC 3, MW 3).

Something tells me the Pac-16's request isn't going to receive all that much consideration.

The Pac-10 in its current makeup hasn't been the strongest football conference of late, but it's very difficult to get an at-large bid with a round-robin schedule - all but one team has to have a conference loss. There are years where Wisconsin hasn't had to play Ohio State or Nebraska hasn't played Texas. Heck, the year Kansas went 11-1 - they didn't play Oklahoma or Texas. If an Oregon or Cal wouldn't have to play USC some years, I'm sure the Pac-10 would have gotten multiple bids more often.

[MJ4H]

Texas A&M is getting a lot of talk on our boards about joining. Apparently they have been talking for months with the SEC. Some talk about how they could still play Texas annually and don't have to be in the same conference. That would be interesting.

I would love to have Texas A&M in the SEC, personally.

edit: rumors that they were officially invited last night

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm not sure why they would, given the current scenario. I mean, of the top 6 schools in revenue on the list posted, at least 4 of the 6 (TX, A&M, OU, NU) are going to end up with more money after leaving the B12.

While i agree with the NU example, the Pac 10 is currently sharing less revenue per team then the Big 12 and it has 2 less members to cut the pie up with. So if the Big 12 handled itself with intelligence, they might have tried to pry USC, UCLA, etc. away from the Pac 10 and not have to go through these problems. The only reason they will make more money in the Pac is because the Pac 10 was smart enough to make the move first. So yes they will make more money, but if the Big 12 is currently making more money then the Pac 10 per team, i dont see why that wouldnt still apply if they cherry picked the cream of the Pac 10 crop and brought in the Phoenix, LA, and Seattle markets for example. I understand the logistics would be difficult with politics and all, but that hasnt stopped the Pac 10.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

More fire around Colorado..........

Done deal: Buffs to announce Pac-10 membership Friday - Boulder Daily Camera

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Arles

The Pac-10 in its current makeup hasn't been the strongest football conference of late, but it's very difficult to get an at-large bid with a round-robin schedule - all but one team has to have a conference loss. There are years where Wisconsin hasn't had to play Ohio State or Nebraska hasn't played Texas. Heck, the year Kansas went 11-1 - they didn't play Oklahoma or Texas. If an Oregon or Cal wouldn't have to play USC some years, I'm sure the Pac-10 would have gotten multiple bids more often.

Super smart - you get a gold star!

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

We're still roughly where we were before the media blitz started.

Which, if I remember correctly from your Monday/Tuesday posts, was that it was a done deal and Alden had called the Big XII to resign and join the Big Ten.

Got it.

[Arles]

Adding Texas, Colorado and Oklahoma to a division with the two Arizona schools has less of a logistics issue than adding Seattle and California to a conference with teams mostly in the midwest. Having USC travel to Missouri, Iowa and Nebraska consistently as a conference game doesn't make a lot of sense for them.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Arles

Adding Texas, Colorado and Oklahoma to a division with the two Arizona schools has less of a logistics issue than adding Seattle and California to a conference with teams mostly in the midwest. Having USC travel to Missouri, Iowa and Nebraska consistently as a conference game doesn't make a lot of sense for them.

I live in phoenix with you Arles, so I understand this, and as a Pac 10 and Big 12 North fan i find myself on both sides of this discussion, so im just discussing what could or could not have happened, as what has happened is pretty cut and dry right now

[MJ4H]

Now SEC has apparently contacted FSU and Clemson.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by digamma

Which, if I remember correctly from your Monday/Tuesday posts, was that it was a done deal and Alden had called the Big XII to resign and join the Big Ten.

Got it.

While noting that things didn't play out as quickly as Mizzou had hoped, I certainly haven't changed my opinion that Mizzou will get a bid. Most of that delay has happened due to Notre Dame strongly considering the move. They were all lined up to make the move with NU, MU, and Rutgers and add ND at 16 teams later on. But Notre Dame decided at the last minute maybe they should reconsider. So once again, we're waiting on Notre Dame.