As most of you all know by now, THE BIG 12 WON’T DIE. Let’s get right to it:
(1) Pac-12 grants a stay of execution to Big 12 – Last year, I wrote the following about the Big 12: “While the Big 12 isn’t safe in a warm and fuzzy family way, it looks like it’s safe in a maximum security prison way. No one’s getting out of there even if they want to very badly.”
Texas A&M looks like it’s pulled off an Andy Dufresne escape (although they’re not quite out of the sewer yet as a result of Ken Starr), but Oklahoma is still stuck in Shawshank. I’m not surprised that the Pac-12 ultimately didn’t agree to taking on the Longhorn Network with Texas, but for Oklahoma to not end up moving west is a shocker and an instructive note on how there’s still a fair bit of inertia in college sports (despite all of us here going through scenarios of how everything is supposed to blow up).
Back in January, I noted that the Longhorn Network was actually going to save the Big 12. That looked like that was going to be a very wrong prediction for the last month (and A&M is obviously out the door), but what we’ve seen is that Texas now has golden handcuffs to the Big 12 as a result of the LHN, thereby giving it prison-like stability. No other conference that could conceivably be attractive to Texas (Pac-12, ACC and Big Ten) was willing to budge on the LHN and equal revenue sharing issues, which meant that saving the Big 12 was always the end goal for the Longhorns.
One Oklahoma source claims that the school was simply using the Pac-12 to obtain more leverage in the Big 12. If that’s the case, it failed spectacularly. The latest developments have effectively provided Texas even more of a hammer than it did previously. The Oklahoma demand to fire Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe looks like it will be fulfilled, but that was probably going to happen no matter what considering the breakdown of the league over the past year. (All that I ask is that the @DanBeebe Twitter account continue to live on. It’s my favorite fake Twitter feed outside of the now-dormant @MayorEmanuel.) Other schools such as BYU, Louisville, West Virginia, Air Force and/or even TCU (which was the school that the Big 12 seemed to avoid as if it were though Patient Zero for the past 20 years) may be added to provide some more stability.
(2) My Partial Revenue Sharing Plan for the Big 12 – Now, let’s say that Texas actually decides that it wants to work in good faith to keep the rest of the Big 12 relatively happy (as it certainly has a large self-interest in keeping the league alive). Equal revenue sharing for the national first and second tier TV rights is certainly a nice start to get some goodwill in the league, but that’s obviously ignoring the real source of contention of the LHN. That being said, it has to acknowledged that the thought of Texas sharing all of its LHN revenue with the rest of the Big 12 is completely unrealistic.
So, what I’d propose is a local TV revenue sharing system based upon what Major League Baseball does today. In MLB, all teams pay 31% of their local revenue into a pot that is then split up equally among all franchises. As a result, the Yankees keep the lion’s share of their YES Network revenue (which is really where the team gets its financial power over the rest of baseball), but the Devil Rays get at least a little bit of benefit from the YES cash. Just as the Yankees will always have an advantage in TV revenue in MLB due to its location in the New York City market, Texas has the same advantage within the Big 12. No one can fault either the Yankees or Longhorns for maximizing that advantage, yet they also have to acknowledge that the fact that no one else can do the same (even successful programs like Oklahoma) is going to engender a ton of acrimony. That might be fine for a school like Texas to say, “So what?!” in a pure free market business setting, but in a sports league (whether pro or college), the wealthy teams still need the plebeians to be competitive or else such wealthy teams aren’t going to be able to offer a very compelling product (interesting games) in the long run, which ultimately hurts revenue down the line.
Once again, it’s unrealistic to think that Texas is going to submit to equal revenue sharing for the LHN and third tier TV rights in the Big 12. However, a partial revenue sharing plan for those third tier rights where all Big 12 members put in 31% (or some other agreed upon figure) of their local TV revenue which would then be split equally could go a long way in creating stability in the league and may actually make the league attractive to expansion candidates (outside of those that would take an AQ invite anywhere at anytime). Regardless, the Big 12 lives, whether it deserves to or not. BYU could logically be plugged in and the league could move along merrily, except…
(3) Remember the SEC: Realignment chaos isn’t over – Much of the media would have you believe that conference realignment has halted as result of the Pac-12 announcement, but there are the small matters of the SEC standing at an uneven 13 schools along with a possible collapse of the Big East that could put Notre Dame into play (which I’ll get to later on).
With respect to the SEC, Missouri was reportedly given an invite on Tuesday that was conditional upon the breakup of the Big 12. What’s unclear is whether the SEC will still try to get Missouri into the league now that the Big 12 has survived or if the Baylor lawsuit brigade has given Mike Slive a reason to keep it on the down-low for awhile. My impression over the past year is that the Missouri fan base had the most vitriolic collective anger toward the Big 12 besides Texas A&M, so if Mizzou effectively turned down an invite to the stable and wealthy SEC in favor of staying in the Big 12 prison (which I would personally characterize as the dumbest business decision in the history of college sports if that’s the case), I’d expect a whole lot of pitchforks in Columbia. Missouri alums may very well push the school over the coming months to approach the SEC again just like the Aggies just did and we’ll go through realignment chaos all over again.
As long as the SEC is at 13 schools, there’s inherent instability in the same manner that the Big Ten having 11 schools always had other conferences on edge. I thought the ACC was safe long before it added Syracuse and Pitt, but I’ve stated previously that Florida State is the one school from that league that I could see taking an SEC invite. (Forget about Virginia Tech and NC State for political reasons.) West Virginia from the Big East may also end up being a target again after being supposedly rejected by both the SEC and ACC (which happened before the Big 12 got its reprieve, meaning that Mizzou might not move). Speaking of the Big East…
(4) Service academies in the Big East? – A list of targets for the Big East to replace Syracuse and Pitt is reportedly topped by Navy and Air Force as football-only members with the hope that Army could be convinced to join, as well.
With football-only members being the primary targets, this means that the Big East football members (at least for now) want to maintain the hybrid format with non-football playing Catholic schools. The Big East would be looking for all-sports members if the schools really wanted to split. In turn, this makes Notre Dame extremely happy as it looks like the Big East will continue to be a viable home for its basketball and other non-football programs and allow the Irish to maintain football independence.
I’ve seen a number of comments on Twitter and elsewhere openly wondering whether the Big East ought to keep its BCS AQ status if it ends up adding some combo of Navy, Air Force and/or Army. What those commenters need to do is look at the big picture (AKA the entire BCS system). The Big East is going to have its AQ status through 2013 as long as it still exists. The published “AQ criteria” for ranking conferences does NOT apply to the 6 AQ leagues, who all have their status due to a combination of bowl and TV contracts. Thus, that criteria is SOLELY a mechanism to see if there could be a 7th AQ conference and NOT to kick out any current AQ league. This means the Big East can’t be yanked of its AQ status prior to 2013 unless it actually dissolves.
What’s important is what happens to that AQ status after 2013. Let’s assume that the Big East has added all 3 service academies as football-only members. Considering all of the constant political scrutiny with respect to the BCS, if you were a BCS commissioner, would you feel very comfortable going into a Congressional hearing and trying to explain why you just screwed over a league that has Navy, Air Force and Army? I certainly wouldn’t want to be in that position. See where I’m going here? Adding all of the service academies would provide a ton of political protection for the Big East when its AQ status is reviewed in 2013. That’s worth more than any other expansion candidates the Big East could possibly consider. The other BCS leagues are likely going to end up continuing granting the Big East an AQ auto-bid as the cost of doing business to keep massive political heat of them. It’s chump change compared to putting the entire tiered BCS system at risk.
So, don’t worry if you’re hooked on realignment crack. There’s still plenty to come over the next few weeks.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
(Image from Alexander Palace)
Geaux Fightin’ Tigers!
Beat the couch burners.
LikeLike
BAM
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Big Zombie Conference. I won’t compromise.
LikeLike
hey….it beats the “F’ U, We’re Texas Conference” all to hell.
LikeLike
Well, that’s implied.
LikeLike
So as a practical matter, how quickly could a wanna-be expansionist conference like we think the Big Zombie could be (in terms of poaching one or more Big East schools) if, in between the time I write this comment at 1 am Central and by the time most of you wake up and read this, Beebe is fired and a new commissioner is installed. How quickly could a conference go poaching with that sort of administrative turnover? Doesn’t that slow the process down just a little bit?
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn – I’m sure your AD would be happy to provide some expansion input!
Now, from what I’ve seen, Chuck Neinas, who was commissioner of the Big 8, would serve on an interim basis until a permanent replacement came in. You’re right that it might slow down the process a little bit, although the Big 12 also wouldn’t want to have a lame duck out there running point on expansion.
LikeLike
I guess my question/point (hell, it’s late) is whether the inherent delays the administrative issues the BZC has to go through might provide the Big East enough of a window to get its ducks in order first before the BZC can act.
Except, of course, if Dodds really has been in charge all along, in which case nothing has changed. 🙂
LikeLike
Not really sure that would matter in all honesty.
A conference with Texas and Oklahoma will never be denied AQ in any form of the BCS.
The Big East is too much of a risk for losing its AQ the next time around, even if they get all the service academies.
I think if you’re WVU or Louisville or whoever, you have to jump to the Big 12. It’s a do-or-die situation.
I’d like to see the Big 12 back to at least 12 by the end of all of this…
LikeLike
The other thing is money, the Big 12 will pay out at least 75% higher than the Big East in all honesty. And with equal sharing of T1, T2; who’s going to turn that down?
Could be looking at 17-20M per year in the Big 12 versus 11-13M per year for the Big East. That and the certainty of AQ for the Big 12 with Texas/OU; it’s a no brainer…
LikeLike
Sounds like the BE may invite all the service academies this week, but the service academies may want to let things settle down. So Marinatto thinks he can keep AQ with the service academies and Villanova. Navy apparently is convinced they need a conference from what I have been reading.
LikeLike
Frank – if the Big East is interested in football only schools, how about Boise St.? Sure, they’d have to quit the MWC and join the WCC or some other non-football conference for other sports, but it would be worth joining an AQ football conference. We could also stop the annual “Is Boise worthy/” debate if they joined an AQ conference. Also, the Big East needs some football cred and Boise brings it.
LikeLike
@Alan – It’s kind of what I had proposed with the “Big Country Conference” as football-only league:
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/a-modest-proposal-for-the-big-east-tcu-boise-state-and-others-the-big-country-conference/
Essentially, just cherry-pick the best of the non-AQ ranks no matter where they’re located for just football. The Big East could then continue to survive for all other sports.
LikeLike
Would BSU need a travel partner (BYU if not picked off by the BZC?) to make it work better or could they be a stand-alone thousands of miles away from the next-nearest member?
I’m not seeing why this couldn’t work.
LikeLike
I’m always confused by the details of what a “travel partner” actually means for college sports. But in any case, if Boise joins the BE for football only, then there’s only 4 conference road games a year to handle. Seems easy enough. I’d have to think Boise would at least consider such a move, if only for revenue purposes (I’m not sure the AQ part of the equation matters to Boise seeing as they get to BCS bowls easily enough as it is).
LikeLike
multiply
LikeLike
Go BLUE!
LikeLike
Go Orange
LikeLike
GBR
LikeLike
Here’s the view from Michigan: http://mgoblog.com/diaries/conference-realignment-timeline
LikeLike
I have to say that I’ve been completely fascinated by all of the conference realignment discussions. Before I start my rant, I have to provide full disclosure. I grew up about an hour west of South Bend and have always been a Notre Dame fan as it was the “home” team growing up. Even as a Purdue alum, I’ve found that childhood loyalties die hard. It is with this Midwestern bias that I have followed all of the discussions on FranktheTank, MrSec, & Purple Book Cat as well as the usual SI & ESPN. To add to that, there is a second disclosure: I’ve been living in Dallas for over five years and and have also grown partial to the Longhorns over time; however, I will always favor the blue & gold.
With that said, my primary interest in all of this realignment has always been seeing the domers join the Big Ten and trying to think of the different scenarios in which Notre Dame might join the B1G. I realize that this scenario would really be the option of last resort for ND, especially now that the PAC-16 appears to be dead in the water…for now, anyway. The PAC-16 is really the primary avenue in which I see a hammer being taken to the conference realignment scenarios and forcing ND to choose a conference. It wasn’t even two days ago that I was thinking about how Delaney must be squirming in his pants having to watch the ACC attempt to creep up and steal ND from under his feet. I agree with most sentiments in that ND will never join the Big Ten or any other conference for reasons solely related to football. They would only join a conference (as a football participant) in the event they didn’t have any other choice in finding a suitable home for their other sports. Anyway, that’s neither nor there.
What I found myself thinking about today is I that still have no idea WTF is going through the minds of those folks down in Austin. The Big 12 was put on life support last summer after the Colorado and Nebraska defections. ESPN dropped a godfather offer into Beebe’s lap and, voila, the Big 12 suddenly pulled through. At that time, all of the member institutions agreed to the method of revenue sharing while also allowing UT to keep the option of the LHN on the table. What they didn’t realize at the time was the kind of Franken-monster that the LHN would become.
Fast forward to this year and the firestorm started by UT’s plans to showcase prep talent on their network to go along with the extra $15 million annually in undivided revenue. A&M finally decides to step away from the table and give UT the finger. After A&M speaks up, OU decides to man-up and second that motion. Crisis in full effect. All sorts of options were then discussed…first Arkansas (or ND or BYU or Pittsburgh or whatever flavor of the day it was) to the Big 12…then UT, TT, OU, OkSt to the PAC-12…then UT to the ACC…oops, UT to ACC no longer on the table…double oops, PAC-16 no longer on the table. Evidently, the PAC-12 would take OU and OkSt, but only if UT came along for the ride; however, PAC-12 didn’t want any part of the LHN with its UT-only content or without any revenue sharing of the LHN proceeds. UT didn’t want any part of divesting the LHN or having to split the associated proceeds. The PAC-12 basically tells UT to piss up a rope, thereby eliminating any chance for OU and OkSt to receive PAC-12 invites on their own accord. At what point will UT realize that the LHN has been the main source of consternation during this latest round realignment talk? It was the primary catalyst in the latest episode of Big 12 instability and it was likely the primary factor in the PAC-12 deciding to not expand. I mean, who wouldn’t want the prestige of the University of Texas in their conference? The PAC-12 appeared to be willing to deal with the extra baggage of UT (Texas Tech) in the trunk, but when UT stated that they weren’t going to pitch in for gas money, the PAC-12 said (in Rick Perry fashion) “adios mofo” and left them on the side of the road. When it comes down to it, you can’t really fault UT for wanting to create the LHN. They’re simply trying to maximize their brand and do what’s best for the students, athletes, faculty, & university as a whole. But just because you can do something doesn’t necessarily mean you should. At this point, it seems like it’s more of a headache than it’s worth. Yet, according to the latest scuttlebutt pertaining to the hopes of saving the Big 12, they still insist on not sharing any of the LHN proceeds with other universities. Unbelievable. The Iowa States and Kansas States of the world might be fine with UT being the 800 pound gorilla because they don’t have any other choice, but OU and A&M are a different story. Seriously…UT is fine academic institution. Surely, there must be *somebody* with some brains down there. Big picture guys…big picture. Money can’t be everything in this case.
I would find it downright hilarious if OU was to suddenly turn their attention to the SEC. Up until now, they’ve turned their nose up at those folks down south. However, with the PAC-16 no longer a viable option, what else are they going to do? Stick with the Big 12? Ha! With UT still wanting to throw its weight around? Who would want that deal? The Big Ten or ACC aren’t an option for OU, so the SEC is the only viable alternative left. Anything has got to be better than the Big 12 (or Big Least), right? A&M is basically in the SEC already. So, suppose that OU decides that the SEC doesn’t look so bad after all. The SEC would love a brand like OU and would be willing to let OkSt tag along to get a piece of that action. That puts the SEC at 15 schools. From there, it’s either Missouri or WV with Mizzou being the better option. Think about it…the SEC gains access to the fertile recruiting grounds and TV markets in the state of Texas (not to mention the solid academics of A&M), a national football brand with OU, and additional TV markets in St. Louis & KC (the SEC needs all of the markets it can get). A&M and OU are solid and Mizzou, while not quite stout enough to justify a conference expansion on their own, isn’t exactly chopped liver. So yea…they have to swallow OkSt…big deal…the good still dramatically outweighs the bad in this scenario.
What does UT do in that scenario? They would find themselves on an island having only bad options or worse options. One option is that they would become a football independent and stick all other sports in a conference like the Mountain West. Yeah right…UT in the Mountain West? Then, of course, there is the Big Least (if they continue to exist). But first, maybe we should ask the Big Least how having ND as a non-football member has worked out for them. I’m willing to bet that if ND had joined as a football member back in ’95 when they joined for all other sports, the conference would likely still count Miami, VaTech, and BC among its members and schools wouldn’t be jumping ship today like they were on the Titanic. In fact, they’d probably have to be beating schools off with a stick just to keep them out. Imagine that…major universities that are actually in the eastern timezone wanting to join the Big East.
The alternative option for UT would be that they would have to check their ego at the door, divest the LHN as we know it, and crawl on their knees to the PAC-12, Big Ten, or ACC. Of course, if they had done that to begin with, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. This show isn’t over until the fat lady sings.
LikeLike
There seems to be some strong belief by the administration that TLN (NOT the current money from TLN) is somehow going to become more valuable, directly or indirectly, to the university.
There are a number on the UT boards asking the same question as you.
I don’t think any of it has to do with sharing the money. If you read Chip Brown’s leak regarding Pac 16, basically the money would be shared once Pac networks generated the same $. If UT joined the B1G, $ would be no issue as BTN is starting to generate a lot of money. The problem with the Big 12 is that UT would be giving assets away in sharing TLN revenues because the other schools don’t bring as much to the table as the B1G and Pac schools. They have a fiduciary duty to protect the school’s assets. Personally, I think its kind of offensive that Big 12 schools, who refused to start a conference network, refused to spend money studying it (UT and UNL did it on their own), refused to spend time, effort and money setting it up, would now want to share in the results.
Again, I think its unknown and unknowable future revenues or branding that they value. Its not clear what they wanted from the Pac. From Scott’s comments you can’t tell if he was asking for UT to take a cut in revenue on the promise that the Pac networks would generate more money. The Pac could be that arrogant to refuse a temporary deal when they just did the same thing for USC and UCLA, but I doubt it. I suspect the hangup was that UT valued control over the regional network and that didn’t fit in the Pac model. It might fit into a future B1G model and the ACC model isn’t well defined. But obviously, it fits just fine into the Big 12 model (and would in the SEC as well).
I think the HS stuff is all driven by ESPN to get better carriage for the network. That seems to be a real source of friction.
LikeLike
Um, the B12 schools who refused to start a conference network were Texas and Nebraska.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
My goodness…Oklahoma has been spectacularly emasculated in all of this…major egg on their face.
LikeLike
With the Pac 12 -> 14/16 blowing up, the Big East is where the action likely happens next…
I think the Big East would like to keep it somewhat of an eastern league, doubt you’ll see many mountain/pacific time zone programs added (Nevada, Hawaii, Idaho, New Mexico, etc) unless its Air Force. Boise State might be needed to bring the Big East’s ‘football’ brand back up enough to keep BCS status, especially if the SEC starts flirting with the Mountaineers…
From there I think they’d look at the usual suspects: Navy, UCF, ECU, Houston, Memphis, Villanova, etc. Ten teams is probably ideal for TV inventory purposes. Even with Boise as a football only member, I have a tough time seeing the Big East keep BCS automatic qualifier status.
LikeLike
Read yesterday that BE is looking at 3 service academies, Villanova/Temple and UCF. ECU, Memphis and UH were ruled out in the Presidents’ meeting the other day. http://www.nj.com/rutgers/football/index.ssf/2011/09/big_east_will_look_to_add_navy.html
LikeLike
Note to everyone-my link is the same as Frank’s above.
LikeLike
Just wondering what those fans of Baylor, Kansas, KSU, Iowa State, Missouri, etc feel about four of there fellow members preferring to be in a competing conference? Two off-seasons in a row, they’ve endured lengthy negotiations of potential and at one time likely doom for the Big XII…
This isn’t a healthy conference and I can’t see it working much longer.
LikeLike
I don’t know about the other schools, but based on forum posts (for what that’s worth), I think many Missouri fans are angry and fed up with the conference. They just want out.
LikeLike
A fair and growing number of OU posters seem to think likewise. I doubt Boren or the regents post often so I don’t think what the fans post matters much.
LikeLike
I’ve never thought of “pro-active” moves by the new Big 12…but I suppose they need to do SOMETHING instead of just waiting for riga mortis (sp?) to set in. Some kind of an equitable sharing system needs to be established if they are to survive. No one will join them if they don’t create a stable and fair system for the “serf” schools they want to keep on board.
If Texas actually WANTS to keep the league together, i expect to hear news of this sort soon. If we hear NOTHING, I think Texas still has eyes for another conference (Big Ten, ACC). Texas has got to move with this thing.
My personal opinion? The Pac-12 wants to avoid litigation from the Big 12 remnants. All the legal shotgun blast will be aimed at the SEC right now. Once that all passes (weeks, months, years), then the Big 12 borders will be open for poaching again.
LikeLike
PBC strikes again:
http://northwestern.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=57&tid=163241898&mid=163241898&sid=901&style=2
LikeLike
Not sure his scenario can work, Both the Big Ten and Texas don’t want to see the lawyers from the Big XII members. Yet the Big XII programs are holding Texas tight and won’t let go. There is little threat for most of the Big XII programs leaving other than maybe Oklahoma to Pac 12 and Missouri to the SEC…
The once common scenario here of Oklahoma in the SEC has no basis when Oklahoma desires to be an ‘academic’ conference to improve its academic reputation.
LikeLike
If academics is the deciding factor then maybe they should consider the SEC. The SEC is adding A&M, a very good university and a very good research institution while the B12 has lost Colorado, UNL and A&M. If OU would wait and let Mizzou take an SEC bid the B12 would be down to UT, ISU and Kansas as AAU members while the SEC would then have AAU members UF, A&M and Mizzou. Even now the SEC’s average rank in the USN/WR rankings is 50 and the B12’s is 51.
LikeLike
And with A&M in the SEC, Oklahoma would still have ties to Texas for recruiting purposes.
Of course, the fly in the ointment is that South Carolina, Vanderbilt and Florida have little desire to send their athletic teams to Stillwater, Okla., a Starkville on the plains. As long as Okie State is attached to OU, there’s the problem, and the probable reason the Bedlam series will never be held under SEC auspices.
LikeLike
I agree 100%. This has me thinking that OU may finally consider joining another conference without OSU. They have tried working things out as a tandem but how far will they be willing to be pushed by UT? The politicians have made grumbling noises when the idea of the schools splitting has come up but do they have the political will to mess with OU when the majority of their voters are OU fans?
LikeLike
@joe4psu
This has me thinking that OU may finally consider joining another conference without OSU.
Do we know whether they’d been denied by the B1G, or had they only ever inquired about joining with others? I realize we’re only working with hearsay, but has there been talk regarding the B1G CoP/C vetoing Oklahoma period, or just if they were to join with others?
LikeLike
Other Mike,
This is the problem. I’ve read different things about OU inquiries but have no reason to believe any of them. This is all mental masturbation and anyone that says they KNOW what will happen is probably full of crap.
What I read first was that OU inquired about membership with 2 or 3 others and were told no. Later I read that they were turned down again and that may have been after a request to come aboard alone. That is hard to believe since they have continued, up to this point, to make it clear that they and OSU will stay together. There are people who post here that are convinced, without any proof that I know of, that OU has no chance regardless. When I see the proof I’ll believe them.
For now I’ll need some cold hard proof to convince me that OU cannot become one piece of the B1G puzzle if that is what it is necessary for Delany to get UT. My rambling in the other post was just a thought that OU may come to realize they cannot stay in the B12 with UT as it is and will have to make a hard decision about OSU. Any chance at joining the B1G would almost definitely require that. And as much as they may want out of the B12 situation as it stands, they may feel that they can live with UT in the B1G as apparently they did about the Pac.
LikeLike
I find this PBC post harder to believe than all the rest. I don’t think I am a believer in him anymore. Texas has to approve any B1G expansion even though they aren’t a member? Eh…
LikeLike
I don’t find that hard to believe, the B10 likely has already had enough talks with Texas to say its only priorities for expansion are Texas and Notre Dame.
LikeLike
“Texas, we really want to invite Rutgers since the BE just imploded…do you mind?”
“Actually, we do.”
Two weeks later they could bolt for the PAC. Makes no sense.
LikeLike
But you’re assuming that the Big Ten would do something that would NOT make them (and therefore Texas) a boatload of money. It’s a basic thing for Texas to ask…hey, we’d like to know what decisions you guys make to cover our bases.
Let me rephrase your question more realistically…
“Texas, we really want to invite Rutgers along with Notre Dame to corner the NYC market and add 9 million New Jersey viewers. We’ll probably make another 5 million dollars per school every single year going forward. Do you mind?”
“Actually, we don’t.”
LikeLike
I think it was a matter of offering them a chance to get out of the terms of the LOI if they didn’t like the pick.
LikeLike
Sigh. I really just want Texas to go away.
First Powers talking about Texas and Notre Dame being in the same coference someday, and now this.
LikeLike
If ND ever does join a conference, I bet Texas will be there with them, because only a new conference with UT/ND would be special enough for ND/UT. (In other words, getting ND into the B1G would give Texas more rea$on to jump ship and getting Texas into the ACC would give ND more reason to join up.)
LikeLike
I enjoy his posts because not only do they have enough “insider credibility” in them to be somewhat believable, but they also stir the pot enough to have a conversation around.
At this point, I’m hard pressed to imagine any scenario in the near future that includes Texas as a member of the Big Ten. UT has been consistent in its insistence on keeping the Longhorn Network in its present form, although that’s also the basis you want to start with in any negotiation (which will be happening starting today with the Big XII leadership and members). But if Larry Scott and the Pac 12 twice couldn’t get DeLoss Dodds to step awya from the LHN, I’m thinking it probably won’t work with Jim Delany and the Big Ten either.
Missouri is certainly in the catbird’s seat. They would definitely be a prime candidate for the SEC and the Big XII would want to have them in any ten- or twelve-team conference they can reconstitute once Texas A&M leaves. They’d also be a candidate if the Big Ten does opt to expand in the future, irregardless of their conference affiliation at the time.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens when the Big XII does meet today. The revenue sharing plan for the Longhorn Network Frank puts out certainly makes sense, but will Texas make concessions to the other teams in the conference on it or will they just say “nyet”. They’d also have to accept restrictions on the conference’s content regarding high school football, the number of football/basketball games televised, etc. I don’t really see Dodds making those sorts of concessions on the matter.
LikeLike
In response to Purple Book Cat’s newest post…
Mere mortals like you and I look at today and can’t fathom the landscape three years from now…but what if…
The long-rumored BTN2 channels are actually school specific. Certain schools may end up sharing, but most will have their own content. Thus, PSU, the only Big Ten school in Pennsylvania, will have one offering of BTN2 that features 80% Penn State content. Nebraksa…same deal. Michigan/Michigan State will choose to partner up or fly solo. Same with Indiana/Purdue and Northwestern/Illinois and Wiscy/Minny/Iowa. Guess what? In 2014, TEXAS WALKS IN and GETS THE SAME DEAL! It will be called LHN from 2011-2014; then, it will change to BTN2. Each school keeps any revenue off of their “third tier” rights, while the Tier 1 and Tier 2 rights belong to the league. Ultimately, the revenue stream from BTN and contracts with ABC/ESPN will be 90-95% of what the Big Ten schools makes. However, there will be some discrepancy between what, let’s say, Texas or Nebraska or Penn State makes and what Indiana makes.
Of course, there is no reason that the Pac-12, which is also looking at regional networks, couldn’t engineer the same proposal. But their geography is a little different. The USC/UCLA channel would make tens of millions of dollars more than the Utah/Colorado channel…or the UW/WSU channel. When you do the math, USC/UCLA might make 80% off of Pac-12 conference income and 20% off of the PACLoco channel…whereas OU/OrSt might be a 95/5 split b/c their cable channel would be so, so much smaller. Even Stanford/Cal would trump Arizona/ASU.
But the Big Ten population balance is better. Again, here’s the rough population breakdowns.
PA 12mil.
OH 12mil.
MI 10mil (two schools…)
Indiana 6 mil. (two schools)
Illinois 13 mil (two schools)
WI/MN/IA 13 mil. (three schools)
Nebraska 2 mil. (not proportionate but those fans are rabid)
Texas 25mil. (but a smaller number would be interested in a “Big Ten Texas”)
LikeLike
Another scenario…
The channels aren’t only school specific, but they cover larger population bases (thus asking for a higher fee). (Numbers in millions of people)
Rutgers/PSU channel…(PA 12+NJ 9)
OSU/UM/MSU channel…(OH 12+ MI 10)
ND channel…(available everywhere)
Indiana/Purdue/Illinois/Northwestern…(IN 6+ IL 13)
Wiscy/MN/Iowa/Neb channel…(WI 5+MN 5+ IA 3+NE 2)
Texas channel… (TX 25)
LikeLike
I think you are on to something here. This sort of arrangement rewards the geographic outliers a bit more, which is only fair since they incur more direct travel costs and indirectly because they have fewer natural rivals nearby.
I’ll see your regional BTN2 concept and raise you another expansion candidate that makes a ton of sense in this scenario: Florida.
B1G would go to B16 with UT, UF, and two of ND/Rutgers/Maryland
LikeLike
First “Florida to the Big Ten” sighting!
LikeLike
I think B1G will continue to equally share Tier 3 rights $. But they may have school specific sub-channels. I think everyone is going to at least try to do some variation of the Pac model.
LikeLike
This would make the B10 TV arrangement somewhat like the SEC (where third-tier rights are controlled by each school).
What I find interesting is this section: “the requirement that any final arrangement be designed to increased revenues among all Big Ten conference schools, with no discrepancies in distributions unrelated to television network distributions among conference institutions”.
Does this include internet distributions? We know that the B10 schools have decided to pool all their web rights together to create the “Big Ten Digital Network” (currently without UNL, but presumably with the Huskers joining after whatever current deal they have runs out). Delany and company may be betting that distribution over the internet would eventually be more important than TV, making the whole LTN kertuffle little more than a historic curiosity.
I certainly hope that’s the case.
LikeLike
What exactly did they pool? I remember CBS was managing their portals, but don’t remember if the article specified what assets were shared.
LikeLike
And I think that is part of what UT’s issue with the Pac model was. I suspect they see TLN as the first part of a change in how revenues are generated.
LikeLike
Speaking as someone who has the BTDN I can say the Big Ten treats it as a red headed step child.
Replay of football and men’s bball is ONLY available via BTN streaming. NOT BTDN.
Not all sports are televised on the internet. This is completely mind boggling since if they have the tv infrastructure to put one men’s soccer game on, why not all? And why not women’s soccer to boot?
The BTDN is trumped by the BTN…I could not watch the PSU v Nebraska women’s volleyball match on the BTDN (like I paid to be able to do) last night because it was on the BTN.
I already canceled by subscription for next year in the hope my nasty email and cancellation will get them to change prior to next year so I can re-up. In the end though they need to just start charging a flat fee for people to access the BTN online in areas where its not on expanded basic cable, if for no other reason than for leverage to use against the local cable companies.
LikeLike
PSUGuy:
I think that the problem is that the BTN and BTDN are owned by separated entities. Fox owns 51% of the BTN (with the B10 schools owning the rest). Don’t know what the ownership structure of the BTDN is like, but as their partnered with CBSSports, I don’t think Fox owns any of it.
Figuring out how the BTDN profits are divided by be useful.
LikeLike
After what’s happened every time the subject has come up, I can’t see Texas agreeing to the pooled media rights and pooled revenue that are the cornerstone of the B1G. Granted the B1G has nowhere near as much dead weight as the Big 12, but still, Indiana is Indiana.
The other non-negotiable from the B1G’s perspective is Texas Tech. The answer is no and will always be no unless Texas Tech turns itself into Texas A&M.
LikeLike
Just in case the post gets pulled down at Rivals, here is the PBC post. I found the last para the most interesting. I think the ACC’s move to add Syracuse and Pitt really spooked the Big Ten, fearing that Texas and ND could be next (“a similar unexpected move following the Texas BOR meeting”):
“Tonight, the University of Texas president Bill Powers co-authored a letter of intent with the Big Ten conference.
The key terms include:
– the University of Texas will in good faith conduct discussions with the Big Ten conference and no other conference related to its post-2012 conference affiliation
– the Big Ten will not invite any other institution to join the conference without the prior approval of Texas
– before joining the Big Ten, Texas will have assurances that it can schedule four non-Big Ten conference football games per season
– the requirement that any final arrangement be designed to increased revenues among all Big Ten conference schools, with no discrepancies in distributions unrelated to television network distributions among conference institutions
– Texas will become a full CIC member
– Texas and the Big Ten will jointly approve any third party media arrangements related to Texas athletics moving forward
– the goal that Texas participates as a full member of the conference beginning in the fall of 2014
Texas’ intentions with regard to the Big Ten will remain without official announcements until a specific group of universities, including the current Texas’ Big XII schools, solidify their own conference affiliation status. Neither the Big Ten nor Texas wishes to be seen as the primary driving force in conference realignment.
The decision of Syracuse and Pittsburg to join the ACC came unexpectedly to the Big Ten. Certain leaders of the conference remained uncertain that a similar unexpected action could take place on the heels of the meeting of the Texas Board of Regents, particularly given the lack of uniform communications between Texas stakeholders and the conference. These individuals no longer have such uncertainties.”
LikeLike
In a related story USC, Florida and Notre Dame will also be joining the Big Ten while Harvard Stanford and Oxford all become members of the CIC. The Big Ten will then use it’s extra revenue to purchase a medical school for Notre Dame so they can become AAU members.
Oh and, PBC will be awarded a Pulitzer for his investigative reporting on the matter.
LikeLike
Interesting Big East strategy — “If you try to take our BCS bid that just means you hate America”
LikeLike
@Frank – FYI the Devil Rays changed their name to the Rays eight years ago. “Devil” sounded too negative they said.
LikeLike
I meant 3 years ago…changed in 2008 (not eight years ago). Haven’t had my coffee yet.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Go Hawks.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Late in the previous entry, I considered a possible expanded Big 12 with Cincinnati and Louisville joining Brigham Young. Soon after posting it (but after going to bed), it became obvious to me that West Virginia would bump Cincy in that scenario; not only is it a bigger, more established “brand,” but it’s one that’s desperate for a home and as such would probably be amenable from any proposals from its new Texas overlords.
While obviously football rules the roost, several members such as Kansas, Missouri, Kansas State, Iowa State and Baylor, which have had relatively better success in basketball since the Big 12 began, would get a boost from adding Louisville, WVU and BYU; UL’s hoops profitablility gives it value far beyond its middling football program. (If Missouri and the SEC finally summoned the courage to consummate their relationship, I suppose Cincinnati would be as good a replacement candidate for #12 as any, assuming Dodds has ruled Texas Christian verboten.)
Here’s the conference as it could be + BYU/UL/WVU:
East: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Louisville, Missouri, West Virginia
West: Baylor, Brigham Young, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech
Finally, while the scrambling Big East may be able to get Navy as a football-only member (and possibly Army down the line), I have my doubts about Air Force. Its philosophy, unlike West Point and Annapolis, is to participate in an all-sports conference — something I doubt the Big East would agree to — and that, plus geography and little need to become a BCS member (which also applies to the other service academies), likely takes it out of the picture.
LikeLike
They’re only at 15 basketball schools? You take Navy/Army football only and Air Force in all sports and you get back to 16.
LikeLike
It would look rather absurd to have the two eastern service academies as football-only members and one in Colorado Springs as an all-sports member, though I suppose it would give Texas Christian a travel partner…
LikeLike
Well it is the Big East. You never know what they’re going to do next.
LikeLike
@vp19 – I think it’s reasonable. To name them East/West is silly, why not Legends and Leaders or vice versa.
LikeLike
Or, a la the ACC, “Big” and “12”?
LikeLike
I’m not quite sure about the the BTN2 concept. Is the B10 watering down their product and is there really this much demand for 2 channels dedicated to the B10 teams? If the BTN2 is designed to be more team specific, then being a Ohio State fan, that’s pretty much the only channel I’m going to watch. There is a misconception about B10 member schools. Just because we give the appearance of “one for all, all for one” doesn’t mean we really care enough about all the schools to watch them. When I look at the BTN schedule now, if Ohio State isn’t on, I don’t watch. I just don’t care about Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, etc.
LikeLike
I’m agree. I rarely watch anything that doesn’t involve PSU.
LikeLike
i’m surprised. i like watching the other schools’ stuff. I wish there was more non-sports programming about what the schools are up to. I think a one-school channel would be boring as hell.
LikeLike
Agree JJ. The BTN documentary on Purdue astronauts is one of teh best shows I have ever seen on TV.
BTW: does your last name start with “D”
LikeLike
oddly enough it does. and its not delany. have i given myself away?
LikeLike
Totally agree. I know what I want to know about Michigan (my team), but I love learning about the other schools.
LikeLike
I also don’t watch much non-Iowa stuff on BTN. I probably watched more general B10 stuff in the past, since it was harder to get. Now that there are a bunch of BTN studio shows, I DVR them and fast forward through looking for Iowa stuff. Lame, I know.
LikeLike
I think the point is to cover a lot of the events that don’t get covered by the BTN because you don’t care about watching such a localized event. The BTN will still cover the events of importance to the entire footprint (or presumably would be watched by people outside the schools’ footprints themselves).
i.e. like the Pac-12 Networks. National network + 6 regional networks for pairs of schools (i.e. North Cali, South Cali, Utah/Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Arizona).
It will cover a lot of the events that aren’t covered by the national network; i.e. olympic sports or whatever. Obviously, we’re not talking about activities that are worth a ton, but you might as well monetize them for the schools and show them on some form of TV.
For the Big Ten, could just have 3 networks for 4 schools each. (BTN2-West of Wisc/Minn/Neb/Iowa, BTN2-Central of Michigan/Illinois/MSU/Northwestern, BTN2-East of OSU/PSU/Indiana).
I think the point is to fit with what you’re saying about certain things only having regional interest.
LikeLike
I could see the BTN1/BTN2 channel concept working. I assume both would share the same “conference wide” content the BTN currently produces, but would include more broadcasts specific to the schools belonging to one of those two channels.
For me right now, the BTN is where I go to watch live Michigan sports coverage when it’s on the network–like last week’s football game against Eastern Michigan and next Saturday’s game with San Diego State. But outside that, it really doesn’t have a lot of much see programming for me at this point.
While I like the football shows with Revsine, Dinardo, etc., I usually find myself going away from the program until the coverage about Michigan comes up. I should put those programs on the DVR, but frankly, I haven’t done it yet.
LikeLike
I wonder about quantity of content.
Right now, the programming is high quality, but there is not enough of it. The same programs/games et al are repeated many times.
If that issue can be mangaed I’d watch more BTN in totla than at present….but obviously if I’m watching the second and not the first it hurts ratings for the first….
LikeLike
Dodds has said that tier 3 are off the table, but sharing some of the LHN especially if it is a limited window (say until 2014) might be cheaper than trying to entice conference teams with $5million per game. Once the LHN is has had 2-3 years to mature it may be a completely different scenario.
P.S. if you haven’t seen it check out YouTube Texas Football Practice 9.20.2011 – the production is great and probably most hornfans could spend hours watching the content they have now.
LikeLike
Those few who do have the Longhorn Network say ESPN has done a great job on it.
LikeLike
Personally, I’d watch BTN2 that had PSU as its only focus or one of maybe two or three teams. If I knew I could flip there and watch my “home school” or could root against (or scout :)) our closest conference rivals, I’d find myself gravitating there more frequently than I would with the BTN1. BTN1, as it gains more and more viewers, will become like an ESPN2 type channel that frequently carries intriguing events.
And if BTN2 and tier 3 stuff goes digital, well then it can become even more specialized.
To answer an earlier question, no, PA people would not get Michigan’s BTN2. They wouldn’t give a crap about it. (Nor would Michigan care to receive BTN2 for PSU!) Each region would carry BTN1 and BTN2 for that region only. Maybe the mondo-sports carriers would have all of them available (doesn’t DirectTV already carry “empty” channels for the spill-over BTN games on busy weekends? Those might turn into BTN2 Nebraska or BTN2 Illinois if people want to pay for them…). But I could see BTN2 sneaking into basic cable in home markets.
LikeLike
My problem with the BTN now is its heavy preference for taped football games over live (or much more recently taped) non-football/men’s bball sports. I mean a women’s volleyball or wrestling match has to be a big draw for it to make the BTN. If the BTN2 channel(s) would alleviate that problem I’d be all in favor.
LikeLike
That’s a production issue, not a channel issue. There’s no limiting reason why they couldn’t put more non-revenue sports on other than the cost of production.
LikeLike
Again, the current BTN is not suffering from a surplus of content. I would like to see BTN actually have stuff other than “Greatest Running Backs of the ’90s” rather than spread out the same content even further.
LikeLike
If there actually are documents between the Big Ten and the University of Texas, they would be subject to a FOI request no?
LikeLike
Not on the conference side; it’s an independent organization.
LikeLike
Sure, but UT isn’t. This is how we learned of the Tech problem last year, so I’m guessing they’ve learned to circumvent this.
LikeLike
Circumventing public records requirements is a tad bit illegal.
LikeLike
Public records requests only apply to stuff paid for with public money. If Powers uses his personal phone or checks his gmail account from outside the Texas network, it doesn’t apply.
LikeLike
It isn’t against the law if you don’t get caught.
LikeLike
there aren’t; he’s making 95% of that crap up. It’s the 5% that have the naive hooked…….
LikeLike
I am thinking this is all just bs right now, but I am keeping my mind open. Everything so far has fit within PBC’s posts, so they aren’t disproved yet. They are fun to speculate about however.
LikeLike
Yes. Regardless of PBC’s accuracy, he sure knows how to stir up some fun hypotheticals.
LikeLike
If PBC didn’t exist, we’d have to invent him.
LikeLike
@Frank
You said: “the thought of Texas sharing all of its LHN revenue with the rest of the Big 12 is completely unrealistic.”
A question on this statement: Would the PAC or more to you, the BI6 be willing to invite Texas with some sort of your MLB rev sharing plan? Seems to me that from everything we heard the PAC’s answer would be NO. If no other conference would accept the thought of Texas NOT sharing 100% of LHN rev, then this is the rub as to why the Big XII has no chance to survive.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s the “golden handcuffs” that Frank has referred to in the past month or two.
The ACC, Big Ten, and Pac-12 view revenue sharing as sacrosanct.
In the Big Ten, the big schools accepted revenue sharing as a principle even before Penn State was admitted. With partial gate sharing (and the fact that the Big Ten goes beyond everyone else in that fact), I’d say the Big Ten is maybe more unlikely to cut an unequal deal for anyone else.
The ACC has already said that they won’t cut special deals for anyone and that equality is a rule for them.
The Pac-12 made that clear in this round of alignment that they view equal revenue sharing in a similar way to the Big Ten and ACC.
Only choice is really the Big 12 since Texas doesn’t want anything to do with the SEC. In a sense, Texas’ “greed” (not sure that’s the right word, maybe self-interest) is the reason the Big 12 could survive for a long time.
LikeLike
I think this is much more realistic than the PBC post of Texas putting out a LOI to the B1G after the Pac-12 blew the idea of expansion out of the water. The Pac-12 was always the biggest question mark as to how far they would go to accommodate new members. Now it seems that the answer is “we won’t.”
The B1G was always the longest-of-long shots to get to actually break from its principles because they are both the first and by far the most serious. They also can afford to be. They have a huge research incentive that no other conference has, and they have previously integrated two football kings with no issues.
LikeLike
This is about to be a test of the “special friendship” between Texas and Notre Dame.
The Daily Oklahoman today has an article identifying eight possible expansion candidates: Brigham Young, Texas Christian, West Virginia, Louisville, Cincinnati, Air Force, Boise State and Houston. Note that four of those possibilities are in the Big East.
http://newsok.com/big-12-expansion-targets-byu-tcu-west-virginia-likely-at-top-of-list/article/3606336?custom_click=headlines_widget
If Texas is watching Notre Dame’s back, then Dodds will advocate adding one team behind closed doors (BYU?) and publicly extolling the virtues of a ten-team conference to everyone who will listen. If the conference were to go to 12 (and UT is directing the shots), I wouldn’t be shocked to see it be something like BYU, AFA and Houston with no BE programs being poached. Whatever happens, Texas’ main goal is to keep the Big XII together in some form and to make as few concessions as possible to see it happen.
If the Big XII were to one or two of those Big East teams listed above, then the BE would be going thru another freefall episode with the individual schools scrambling for the lifeboats. It’s pretty clear that Rutgers, Connecticut and West Virginia would probably jump at the chance to join the ACC (RU, UConn) and the SEC (WVU).
Additonally, of course, if the Big XII does reconsititute itself, it takes the option of a Big East/Big XII merger off the table. Without that possibility, the Big East’s options going forward are rather limited. We’re reading about the BE inviting the service academies and there might be C-USA programs who would be willing to go to what is currently an AQ conference. Conversely, the reamining members of the BE (which would be USF and perhaps Lousville/Cincinnati) might opt to just go back to C-USA unless a major conference (like the SEC for Louisville) were to add them as a 15th or 16th team.
This board has discussed Notre Dame’s possibilities ad infitum if the Big East no longer provided ND a conference setting to put its non-football sports–we’ll see if that possibility does emerge in the coming weeks.
LikeLike
Of course, there’s also the possibility that picking off a few Big East members might spur Notre Dame to join the Big 12 for non-football competition. The 12-member Big 12 I previously envisioned, with Brigham Young, Louisville and West Virginia added, could certainly benefit from ND as basketball #13.
LikeLike
Why would all the members (and not just Texas) of the Big XII agree to that sort of set-up? Texas and Oklahoma already have football games scheduled with Notre Dame, so it’s not a necessity on the football side. With twelve teams and eight or nine conference games, the Big XII wouldn’t need ND for football scheduling. Notre Dame hasn’t helped the Big East in its non-BCS bowl lineup, so I don’t think there’d be much benefit for the Big XII in that department either.
Would the Big XII need to add Notre Dame for its non-football sports? That’s a mixed bag–perhaps ND’s men’s and women’s basketball teams (WBB was in Final Four last season), but are there any others? If you add Louisville and West Virginia in MBB, that would be two quality adds right there.
You could make the case this would be a strategic move–get ND into the Big XII as an associate member in anticipation of further expansion to 14 or 16 teams. Notre Dame talks about not being regionalized, but most any conference they join full time would regionalize them in some manner. Would it make sense for ND to join the Big XII based largely in the Plains states, the ACC that spans from Boston to Miami or the Big Ten that currently goes from eastern Pennsylvania to Nebraska? It’s pick your poison at that point, but I doubt it’d matter much if ND went in as an associate/non-football member with any of those three.
One other thing to mention is Missouri. Even if the Big XII might get onto a path of getting everything together, it’s also been on the brink of death two years in a row. If the SEC wants Missouri, I think the Tigers make the leap–and that’s yet another team that the Big XII would have to replace as well. Maybe that’s a good thing then–the other team comes from the Big East and Notre Dame would be in a “less regional” conference.
We’ll see what happens. First off, the Big XII figures out if it’s going forward and what it’s final form will be. In the meantime, the SEC works out its 14th team and the ACC looks at its options as well. Finally, of course, is what happens to the Big East.
LikeLike
@cutter
It could also be a strategic move to keep Notre Dame from joining the B1G which would require the B1G to take someone else. Even if it wasn’t a Big 12 school, it would likely trigger the SEC and Pac to start looking at expansion again.
LikeLike
I doubt the B12 would turn down a Notre Dame non-football application; after all of the instability, adding ND would be a PR coup.
One of the major subplots emerging from the latest round of expansion is the strain put on Notre Dame — if the BE goes away, there’s not an obvious place to park the non-football sports.
LikeLike
There was also an article somewhere saying Oklahoma had wanted 1 or all 3 of Air Force, TCU, and/or BYU. I’m beginning to think that’s more likely.
LikeLike
I suspect $ are really a non-issue with the Pac and B1G. The BTN and, eventually, the Pac networks will make more than TLN. Texas has no problem sharing if its a win-win. I suspect the issue with the Pac was school control over the regional network. The B1G doesn’t have regional networks yet and so hasn’t decided how that would work, or even if, they will do it.
LikeLike
That’s a fair point re: school networks in the Big Ten.
With the Noah’s Ark in place in the Pac-12, I’d tend to agree that it’s going to be a total non-starter in the future.
Most of us have seen it as unlikely that Texas would be willing to put its content up equally with Texas Tech.
LikeLike
Good points. If they’d make more equal revenue sharing than not, I’m sure they’d be willing to shift to that model. They liked the exposure the LHN gives to the school in a lot of ways though and didn’t want to lose that which seems like a necessity if it was integrated into a PAC-16 Network.
LikeLike
My impression is that the Texas administration is interested in the LHN for its value to the University (content) more than it does the revenue it generates. It seems that if a conference opportunity presented itself that involved an equitable revenue sharing of tier 3 Texas would be interested. Asking conference mates with little national appeal to join in a cooperative network, have them decline and let you do all the work and then want a piece of the pie is NOT equitable.
LikeLike
This is correct. Texas wants the LHN for its ability to show Every Last Bit of Tier 3 material… women’s soccer, golf, track, swimming… They don’t want to share that.
They like the money, too, for sure. But they want the outlet.
LikeLike
Disagree. If the Big 12 goes to first and second tier equal sharing and 3rd tier staying with the schools (LHN, etc), that’s exactly the model the SEC has that no one has ever voiced any problems with to my knowledge.
Long term, I’m willing to bet completely equal revenue sharing will create instability even in some of the conferences that appear stable now (maybe even the Big Ten). Economic times will get tougher than they are now and schools will look for ways to make whatever money they can. For the big schools, that’s going to mean either a) pairing together with other big schools or b) less equal money sharing arrangements. I’m not saying any particular conference is going to fall apart or be stable, but the logic that unequal revenue sharing of some rights creates more instability than equal revenue sharing of those same rights is very very questionable long term in my opinion.
LikeLike
Again, I don’t think the issue is revenue sharing. The issue is giving away revenue. With the B1G, it would be a win-win. The B1G has a valuable network and UT could add additional value to that network. Everyone gets more money. With the Big 12, Texas would be giving away school assets. Noone else has much right now as far as networks.
It isn’t clear what happened with the Pac, but from Chip Brown’s post, revenue sharing seemed to simply be an issue of transition. I suspect the issue was control over the portal. That was what I believe was the sticking point with the Pac. UT control over the portal didn’t mesh with the Pac model.
LikeLike
Well, as one poster said a month ago:
“No way in hell is Texas going to split a network (content/control) with Texas Tech.”
LikeLike
Does anyone else think about that scene from Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail when they think about the Big East or the Big 12?
Lose Pitt and Syracuse… “Oh, come on and fight!”
Lose Nebraska, Colorado, and Texas A&M… “Tis but a flesh wound!”
Those leagues just won’t die!
LikeLike
Posted that same thing a few days ago on the Donkey Kong board.
LikeLike
Really? Not being a copycat… I guess that’s just the impression the leagues are giving people.
LikeLike
What about the B1G? Are they going to stand pat for awhile?
Still have a hard time believing that the Irish would choose the ACC over B1G if they give up their independence.
LikeLike
B1G is not predatory, not threatened, and already has a lucrative TV setup and very high per-institution value and so will not expand without either Texas or ND.
Everyone else doesn’t add enough value and/or is academically unacceptable and/or involves raiding a conference. Put another way – if they wanted Missouri & Rutgers to go to 14, it would have happened last year.
In terms of who is angling for the B1G & might realistically get in – Maryland all but stated they wanted to be able to do it at some point. That’s the only reason why they would join FSU in resisting implementing an exit fee that would actually stop someone.
LikeLike
Many have commented along the lines of “if BIG wanted X and Y they would have done it last year.” This reasoning is fallacious, of course. The game has progressed. If one believes the big goal is to get TX and/or ND, then why move on smaller but desirable pieces unless they play a role in achieving the main goal. MU, RU, MD (if gettable) are still strong possibilities and the noise about RU to the ACC or MU to the SEC is a new dynamic.
Any game is played from the current situation.
LikeLike
What you are saying is more “they don’t want these but would take them to round out Texas/ND at an even number of schools.” That’s exactly where everyone thinks the B1G is at. The B1G doesn’t expand for the sake of expanding or because other conferences are doing so, for a bunch of reasons:
— They’re a destination brand with an ironclad traditional core & the oldest bloodlines of any now living conference in the NCAA baring the Ivy.
— They don’t have to do it financially (BTN was making trucks of money at 11 schools)
— They are unpoachable due to the CIC & pooled media rights.
— Their CEO’s strongly object to football-only moves and outright reject/will not even consider poor academic schools.
— Any new addition needs to be above-average for the B1G in revenue to not be dilution and there are very few schools that meet that and the above academic mark .
— They don’t seem to believe in poaching. You come to them.
The BIG isn’t going to be forced to go to 16 by any other conference’s move. They’ll sit at 12 if there isn’t anyone who makes sense for them. Look at how long they sat at 11 despite the obvious incentive to get a CCG. It’s a whole other dynamic from conferences that are playing defense (ACC, Big East) or who have lousy media deals (Big XII, old Pac).
LikeLike
All that’s well and good, but the common perception, that I see on ALL of the fan forums from at least some % of the crowd, is that the BIG is a rust belt conference that plays boring football and is becoming less relevant…..I don’t see how being stubborn and staying at 12 addresses the demographic issue that JD talked about….and how staying at 12 in the face of everyone else getting bigger doesn’t make us the Smaller 10…
If everyone will recall, Delaney said changing demographics did not necessartily mean that the BIG had to take soutern or western schools…..but rather that larger schools within the current footprint or cintiguous thereto could be taken……BIG should add Rutgers and Missouri , and ND in the olympic sports and CIC only, with no interest in the BTN, no Rose Bowl etc….and be done with expansion.
LikeLike
mushroomgod, the Big Ten’s unwillingness to do the things you’re recommending are precisely what makes it a destination brand.
LikeLike
Nothing says non-boring football like Rutgers and Missouri.
Of course, at least Missouri has played a football king in the past 10 years. When is the last time Rutgers played a football King? Miami as a Big East game? Meanwhile.. Pitt has played Notre Dame, WVU plays SEC schools, UConn played Michigan, Syracuse played Penn State and USC, South Florida has played the Florida kings, Louisville has played Miami, CIncy played Oklahoma, and so on. Rutgers is the only one that lacks the stones to play anyone. And despite the cupcakes they STILL aren’t exciting.
LikeLike
“the BIG is a rust belt conference that plays boring football and is becoming less relevant”
Sorry, but the conference that sports more viewing alumni than any other cannot become less relevant. Those fans aren’t going to stop watching.
LikeLike
Look on the bright side. This past 15 months has given us all a very clear picture of the character of Deloss, Inc. They couldnt get an invite to quite literally any conference at this point. B1G said “nein”. ACC said “nyet”. Pac-12 said ‘hells no’. SEC said don’t even bother calling.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s exactly what the SEC said to Texas. Excellent insight.
LikeLike
Actually the SEC is the really odd one in the bunch. It’s probably the only other major conference that wouldn’t have had a problem with the LHN (those rights are already controlled by the schools in the SEC), but UT wasn’t interested. Heck, ESPN may have even liked that as it would have made creating an SEC Network down the line more difficult.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Big 12 had a problem with the LHN…as long as it stayed within the limits that had been suggested from the start, or the limits that the SEC has. The problem is ESPN has an investiment in it requiring considerably more. Will ESPN be happy with 6 BB games and UT/Rice as the max? Doesn’t seem like that is worth the half to one billion estimated cost to them over the life of the contract.
LikeLike
Texas never looked at the SEC.
The SEC though is the most lenient towards treatment of 3rd tier rights. Florida has its own huge deal for 3rd tier rights, etc.
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
“That might be fine for a school like Texas to say, “So what?!” in a pure free market business setting, but in a sports league (whether pro or college), the wealthy teams still need the plebeians to be competitive or else such wealthy teams aren’t going to be able to offer a very compelling product (interesting games) in the long run, which ultimately hurts revenue down the line.”
You’re not thinking like a Texan. DeLoss would probably respond “Sure the games might be less competitive, but they would be less competitive in our favor. I don’t see what you’re point is.”
LikeLike
Obviously, DeLoss doesn’t even know what the word “your” means.
LikeLike
Unless it’s “your” money.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t the Big XII’s best play be to go to 14 or 16 teams? If you are Iowa St. and you know that have the conference members have eyes on another conference… wouldn’t you want the confidence that you could lose a few teams and still be viable.
Kansas, KSU, Iowa St., and Baylor should all be advocating for 5-7 more teams. Picture this:
South: Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU
West: Oklahoma, OSU, BYU, Boise St.
North: Missouri, Kansas, Kansas St., Iowa St.
East: WVU, Lville, Cincy, and USF
The South and West would alternate joinder with the North and East.
The Pac -16 potentials get the cover if they ever decide they have to leave. They leave behind a Big XII that can keep its seat at the table for quite a while. If Boise St. and TCU have staying power, they can be perennial ranked teams to cushion the blow.
I am not sure that this conference wouldn’t match up favorably with all other conferences anyway.
Texas, Oklahoma as anchors. WVU, TCU, Oklahoma St, and Boise St. in the next tier. A Baylor, USF, Missouri, BYU or Kansas always able to make a run.
Compare:
Texas (#19 AP) – Ohio St (unranked) – Florida (#15 AP)
Oklahoma (#1 AP) – Nebraska (#9 AP) – LSU (#2 AP)
Okie St (#7 AP) – Penn St (unranked) – Alabama (#3 AP)
WVU (#16 AP) – Michigan (#22) – A&M (#8 AP)
Boise St. (#4 AP) – Wisconsin (#6) – Auburn (unranked)
TCU (#20 AP) – Iowa (unranked) – Georgia (unranked)
Baylor (#17 AP) – Illinois (#22 AP) – South Carolina (#12 AP)
USF (#18 AP) – MSU (unranked) – Arkansas (#14 AP)
Obviously, most years will have Auburn, Georgia, Tennessee (in theory), Iowa, MSU, PSU, Ohio State somewhere between “ranked” and “top 5.” But if you can put 8 ranked teams together ANY year, that’s a pretty good start.
LikeLike
At the very least, this BVI would have to leapfrog the Pac-12 and ACC in football.
LikeLike
I don’t think they will go beyond 12 because they want to maximize revenue. Personally, I think 14 might be a more stable number and worthwhile because of that. 16 is too many mouths to feed as well as too hard to treat as 1 conference.
LikeLike
Agreed, I’d throw out 16 on face value.
12 or 14 is where this is going to go.
10 is too small right now in a world with multiple 14 team conferences (assuming the SEC ever figures out A&M…). It just doesn’t feel safe.
12 is probably the closest to revenue maximizing with safety in numbers. 12 might make slightly less per team than 10, but the appearance of safety and the CCG are important.
14 might be more stable than 12 but the question is whether that stability is worth enough to give up a bit of money.
LikeLike
Coincidentally, IIRC at the formation of the Big XII they copyrighted both Big 12 and Big 14 in case of future expansion. I do not know if Big 16 is held by any conference.
LikeLike
Hmmm… sounds like an investment opportunity.
LikeLike
So let me break down the logical of the typical national college football writer:
(1) Realigning towards mega-conferences is bad.
(2) It’s best for all involved to slow the process down. Don’t let it spin out of control.
(3) Texas stays in its smaller, geographically-concise conference.
(4) Ergo, Texas is evil.
LikeLike
You’ve got it backwards, HH. Start with the fact that Texas is evil and the rest falls out logically. 😉
LikeLike
Actually its;
1) I’m lazy so I constantly put out false information without realizing it;
2) I like to generate controversy so I take extreme positions;
3) Texas is big and successful so they make a good target;
4) Texas is evil is my theme;
5) Superconferences are bad since it makes it harder for me to be lazy-I have to learn new things; and
6) I don’t care that its inconsistent to say Texas greed is causing superconferences to form when Texas doesn’t want superconferences, since I’m too lazy to be logical.
LikeLike
As I posted on the last thread, its just amazing how often I read flat out false info related to Texas by sportswriters. Its easy to understand why Texas is viewed as evil on bulletin boards everywhere. Several falsehoods that I constantly see:
1) Texas demanded and got the leftover 5 exit fees. In fact, Texas and OU (but not brave, self-less A&M) refused guarantees offered by the others and inequitable distribution of exit fees.
2) Texas demanded guarantees and concessions last year to stay in Big 12. In fact, the only things that changed are that Tier 2 rights were split equally instead of 50% equal, 50% earned and in a Texas proposal, ADs approved a proposal to equally share Tier 1 rights as well (which hasn’t been approved by the Presidents-and its not Texas, TT, OSU, ISU, KSU or Baylor holding it up). There have never been guarantees in the Big 12. It was based half on what you “earned” by TV appearances. While that favors the “brands” and big market teams, UNL learned last year that’s no guarantee as they were slightly below the average for the conference for probably the 1st time. Oklahoma led in $ last year.
3) UNL left because Texas would not equitably shared revenue. Reality is that UNL and Texas were the most tightly tied on revenue proposals.
4) Everyone but the Big 12 shares revenue equally. In fact, the Big 12 used to be somewhat in the middle. The Pac 10 (which has changed their model) was the most unequal and the Big East was next. The SEC doesn’t share Tier 3 rights and Florida made $8 million on that last year while MS St. made about $300k. And while the ACC says they are equal, UNC led the nation last year with $11 million in Tier 3 rights per Dosh’s article. The Big 10 was the only conference that was essentially equal (but they have been joined by Pac 12).
LikeLike
1. Full disclosure: I am both a Northwestern (undergrad) and Texas (grad) alum. My objectivity should therefore be taken with an appropriate grain of salt.
2. Despite the amazing recent ups and downs of the conference realignment carousel, I still believe that a compelling case can be made for a University of Texas move to the Big 10. Here’s why.
3. Although there is much discussion of geography on message boards obsessing (as am I) about realignment, I believe geography is consistently underestimated as a factor in conference stability and an outcome determinative factor in conference alignment.
4. All the major athletic conferences were exclusively defined geographically, based on familiarity and the need to minimize travel distance and expense.
5. This initially produced some (what now seem) unlikely conference bedfellows (e.g., Sewanee in the SEC, Idaho in the PAC-8). Over time, some of these academic, cultural and/or scale “misfits” have moved on (e.g., Georgia Tech left the SEC, University of Chicago departed the Big Ten), but many have stayed (e.g., Vanderbilt in the SEC, Northwestern in the Big Ten, Cornell in the Ivy League).
6. Three of the most successful major conferences have over the years maintained geographically-defined cores: the Midwest for the Big Ten, the old Cotton South for the SEC and the Pacific Coast for the PAC-whatever and the Middle Atlantic for the ACC. In recent years, a relatively few geographical outlier programs have been added to these geographical cores (e.g., the Arizona schools in the Pacific-10, Miami and Boston College in the Middle Atlantic, Penn State in the Big Ten), but not many.
7. If there is one lesson to be derived from the long history of conference affiliation, it is that conferences work best when geographically rational and when the constituent colleges share compatible academic profiles, cultural values and scale. Schools which are outliers for one reason or another generally don’t last as members.
8. The Big 10, SEC and PAC-whatever until recently ignored the one-third of the country situated between Iowa City (Big 10’s Iowa) and Tucson (PAC-12’s Arizona), east to west, and Canada and Mexico, north to south. Although it’s relatively sparsely-settled, this “Heartland” (or “Great Plains”) region was the home to not one, but two, major conferences: the geographically- and culturally-well defined Big 8 and the geographically concise, but academically/culturally quite diverse, former Southwest Conference.
9. The real issue for the two Heartland conferences (other than the fact the old SW Conference contained as mismatched a set of colleges as likely ever shared a football field) was that despite its size, the Heartland has over the decades supported only three schools which have been consistent winners in football: Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas.
10. Although there have been other reasons cited, these three universities, which have either left (Nebraska) or have publicly considering leaving (Texas and Oklahoma), have departed (have considered departing) the Big 12 for the simple reason that there aren’t enough successful, major football programs in the Heartland to put together an economically viable conference.
11. The three Big 12 schools which have already departed, Colorado (leaving, in fact, because of culturally affinity for the west coast and their inability to compete), Nebraska (leaving, in fact, because of their inability to beat Texas and Oklahoma) and Texas A&M (leaving, in fact, because of their inability to beat anyone good consistently and their desire to leave the house of more successful big brother Texas), have been able to exit relatively easily because they are located on or near peripheries of the Heartland/Great Plains.
12. Colorado, Nebraska and A&M are located close enough, respectively, to the PAC-12, Big Ten and SEC conferences’ traditional geographical cores to be readily assimilated as relatively modest geographical outliers. It is no coincidence that Colorado was the furthest west, Nebraska was the most northeastern and Texas A&M is (was) the most southeastern of the Big 12 teams.
13. Geography, however, presents a more much significant obstacle to any effort by Oklahoma and Texas to realign into another conference. Texas is located almost exactly equidistant from either coast and further south than any other major football program outside the State of Florida. OU is located smack dab in the middle of the country, distant from any major conference core area. Thus, the simple geography of both Texas and Oklahoma, located distant from even the periphery of the major conference cores, make them problematic potential conference mates.
14. But there are other ways of thinking about geography and one of them is chronological– travel can be measured not only in miles, but also in time. Oklahoma and Texas are situated in the Central Time Zone. So are six of the current Big Ten teams (Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern and Wisconsin). Although the mileage between Texas/Oklahoma and these six Big Ten schools is significant, team travel in an expanded Big Ten including Texas and Oklahoma as measured in time would be reduced considerably by the fact eight schools would be located in the same time zone.
15. The same cannot be said of a combination of Oklahoma/Texas and any of the schools the current PAC-12 or the current ACC. (Although a critical mass of SEC schools are located in the Central Time Zone, the academic/cultural differences seem insurmountable between, on the one hand, where Texas is now and where Oklahoma aspires to be, and the SEC schools, on the other.)
16. Realigning Texas and Oklahoma with the Central Time Zone schools in an expanded 14-team Big Ten would, of course, require that conference to abandon its current Legends and Leaders divisions. Substituting geographically-defined Central/Eastern [Time Zone] Divisions for Leaders/Legends Divisions seemingly designed in part to enshrine a current (but ephemeral or, worse yet, actually nostalgic) competitive balance makes a great deal of sense.
17. However, given how unsatisfying the similarly geographically-asymmetrical (and similarly, lamely-named) divisions in the ACC have proven, as well as the persistent criticism of the new (equally asymmetrical and equally lamely-named) Big Ten Divisions, realignment of the Divisions might not prove a major hurdle. A realignment which results in Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas competing in the Central Division and Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State competing in the Eastern Division would be an almost-too-metaphysically-perfect allocation of those traditional, football power programs.
18. An expanded 14-team Big Ten into Eastern/Central [Time Zone] Divisions would, of course, leave eight teams in the Central and only six in the Eastern Division. Surely one team in the proposed Central Division could be induced to switch. Perhaps Northwestern would be a good candidate, since it is located near the eastern edge of the Central Time Zone and has easy access to one of the world’s most convenient and busiest airports.
19. So there it is. Texas and Oklahoma should move to a geographically-rational Big Ten Conference with the potential for long term stability. No one can quarrel with the quality of Texas’ and Oklahoma’s athletic programs or Texas’ academic programs. Those in the Big Ten who sniff at Oklahoma’s academic programs might profit from another look. OU is making great strides in an ongoing academic upgrade. Does any major football power other than Oklahoma currently offer free rides to any National Merit Scholar no matter where they hail from? Not coincidentally, Oklahoma is reported to have more National Merit Scholars enrolled than any other university. They’re not where they ultimately want to be, but they are making significant progress. If the Big Ten was willing to take Nebraska, which promptly lost its prestigious Association of American Universities (AAU) membership, it should be able to welcome OU.
20. I went to undergraduate school in the Big Ten and have visited a majority of the conference campuses. My advice to fellow Longhorns (and any Sooners willing to listen) is that you have a lot more in common with the Big Ten schools than you probably think. In terms of athletic tradition, academics and scale, in fact, everything but weather, Texas would fit in extraordinarily well. I have also attended an ACC university and lived for years in both ACC and PAC-12 country, and while I believe that Texas could comfortably be part of either of those conferences, I submit that the Big Ten is the far better cultural/academic fit.
21. The best realignment strategy for the University Texas? Forget the Longhorn Network if need be, and join an expanded Big Ten conference which offers: (a) long term stability because it would be both geographically rational and composed of 14 schools remarkably consistent in terms of institutional cultures and scale; (b) academic affiliations with which your faculty and administrators would feel comfortable; (c) excellent major and Olympic sports competition; and (d) if Oklahoma accompanies us (we’ll even let OU through the door first since that seems to matter so much to them), continuation of the Red River Rivalry.
22. Even without the LHN, Texas will still be the richest kid on the block, and, if the current level of play continues in the Big Ten, all we’ll have to do to reach an annual BCS bowl game will be to beat Oklahoma.
LikeLike
Instead of moving over two Eastern teams, then Notre Dame likely is added to the East, leaving a 16th to join the fun.
Rutgers?
Florida?
Florida State?
Maryland?
LikeLike
That’s fine.
But what about Texas Tech and Oklahoma St.?
LikeLike
Future conference mates wiith kansas St & Baylor in the lesser Heartland Confernce of land grants and wealthy Southwestern privates…
LikeLike
I’m waiting for the movie………
LikeLike
The movie would only be shown in back alley theaters, NC-17 type stuff. Cause it seems like most of the people in this film are getting screwed.
LikeLike
Texcat,
This is an excelllent post. Posts like yours are one of the reasons I love this blog. I am a big ten alum (undergrad), attended an ACC grad school, lived in the bay area for five years and lived in Houston for 7. I completely agree with you on how similar Texas and Oklahoma are to BIG institutions. I also agree with you on the importance of geography. Much like the cost of living factor, it is sorely underrated and its importance is never fully realized until after the fact.
Thanks for sharing…
LikeLike
Perfect. Someone call Delany.
I think Texas is extremely interested in the B1G currently (despite travel and LHN). The addition of OU and ND would make it impossible to pass-up. Throw the LHN revenue into the pot – equal sharing all tiers. Re-establish the Neb/OU rivalry. I would vote for Mizzou over Rutgers. You have a contiguous conference that would be the premier academic and athletic conference locked-up regardless of further realignment. The B1G supporters talk about the B1G having a 50 and 100 year plan. Put OU in that situation and they’ll make AAU in 10-15 years.
LikeLike
So do you want Mizzou over RU because it’s a better academic school or because as a more populous state it will generate more money for the BTN and has better recruiting grounds?
Oh wait. That would be RU.
LikeLike
I didn’t read where you had the solution to the “Tech” problem or the Oklahoma State problem. Both of these schools are politically chained around Texas and Oklahoma. In addition, the LHN is a channel Deloss Dodds has already said there will no negotiation. If the BTN2 is a legitimate option for TLN, then fine. But until or if the BTN2 gets up and running, those are 3 poison pills that will prevent expansion to the B10
LikeLike
So instead of adding full members from worthwhile schools, the Big East is going to drape itself with the American flag and DARE the other conferences to light them on fire?
Why not add the service academies AND a good team or two? Oh, that’s right, they’d still rather have Villanova move up. *puke*
Maybe you’re over-estimating the leadership of the Big East, Frank. Maybe they’re just idiots.
LikeLike
You cannot serve two masters. In the Big XII, the problem is serving the interests of Texas and the interests of everyone else. In the Big East, the problem is serving the interests of football and the non-football schools AND Notre Dame. It’s hard enough to lead a group of people who all generally want the same thing. I cannot image doing it when people have entirely different motivations altogether.
The Big East leadership is idiotic though. In trying to satisfy everyone, they satisfy nobody. You have to at least figure out your alpha leadership. Oklahoma’s best play would have been to give Texas one more chance LAST WEEK. Before the Pac-12 Presidents made their thoughts known.
LikeLike
Like the SWC as mentioned by Texcat, the Big East is too much of a mish-mash to be stable. Providence, Louisville, USF, Notre Dame and Rutgers are 5 very different schools.
The SWC had the largest school in the nation in Texas (40k undergrad and 50k total) and the smallest I-A in undergrads, Rice, the “Harvard of the South” (2500 undergrads and 4k total at the time). It had 1 out of state school, 2 good but not great metro mostly upper income religiously founded schools, 1 small town middle class religious school, 1 commuter school, 1 large Ag school with a military tradition and previous all male history and 1 mid-size outlying state school. TCU and SMU were really the only schools with much similarity to each other at all.
LikeLike
Well, I would say Texas and aTm were similar enough to be indistinguishable. But neither will admit that.
LikeLike
Culture was pretty different. They were becoming more alike in the 90s. But they were very different schools prior to A&M’s rapid growth in the 80s.
LikeLike
Oh no you didn’t…
LikeLike
Huge schools. Wealthy. Good teams. Fine academics. Incredibly arrogant. I can’t really tell them apart…
LikeLike
Look for the sheep, loki. It’s not really that hard.
LikeLike
Aggies are the ones who sound like they have Tourette’s anytime somebody says “Texas A&M”. Longhorns are the ones who get teary-eyed when they hear “I’ve Been Workin’ on the Railroad”.
LikeLike
No, Mike, those songs are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!!! There’s an entire extra note at the beginning of “Eyes.”
LikeLike
Hopkins, that reminds me of how Vanilla Ice used to explain the differences between “Ice, Ice, Baby” and Queen’s “Under Pressure.”
LikeLike
@HH – LOL. Went to a UT game in Austin with my wife in the Mackovic era. When they were playing “Eyes”, she commented, why are all these people so invested in “I’ve been workin’ on the railroad”? Fortunately, she didn’t say it too loud, and I explained.
LikeLike
Still better than SMU. If I ever hear “She’ll Be Comin’ Round the Mountain” again it’ll be too soon.
LikeLike
N.C. State’s fight song is derived from “The Caissons Keep Rolling Along.” A Kate Smith version of the latter was part of a movie showing World War II-era propaganda at the University of Maryland in the ’70s, and at one point in the song, I yelled “Go State!” and the crowd cheered.
LikeLike
There is also a parody of the NCSU fight song called “And The Tractors Keep Rolling Along.” Lyrics I recall include “Through the woods, through the sticks, N.C. State’s a bunch of hicks, and the tractors keep rolling along…Through the fields, through the herds, N.C. State’s a bunch of nerds, and the tractors keep rolling along…For it’s pitch that hay, the ‘necks are on their way…”
LikeLike
While I’ve always thought Navy leadership would reject the notion of joining a conference for football, the fact that its even under consideration and that our admission would be essentially a shield to protect AQ status, disgusts me. I was at USNA when our football sucked, let me tell you, nothing is worse than going to a game you KNOW you have no chance of winning. (BTW, its mandatory for the Brigade to attend ALL home games.) Its a thoughrly depressing experience.
I knowe some might look at the current BEast and believe thats a league Navy might have a chance to compete in, but I doubt it. Not because of familiarity of our offense, (though that will happen) nor due to the height/weight and service commitments (but that will also be a factor) but mostly due to that fact that Navy has a mission diametrically opposed to the other 117 FBS schools in the country. We aren’t trying to compete for a MNC. While Navy is independent, we don’t have a special exception like ND does with regard to the BCS. We’d have to be ranked in the top for top even get consideration and Navy will never put together a schedule that would merit such a ranking.
Navy football serves one purpose, to generate enough money to ensure our athletic department doesn’t cost to the taxpayers any extra money. Our success in the past 8 years has ensured the AD is fairly revenue positive, to the point that we can upgrade to our sailing and rowing facilities. Moving to the BEast will not further that goal. The fear of somehow being ‘locked out’ is irrational when you were never ‘in’ to begin with. Unless schools move to a 10 game conference schedule, there will always be teams available for Navy to play.
LikeLike
And all this time I thought the one purpose of Navy football was to beat Army. (I’m kidding, I’m kidding. Kind of.)
LikeLike
When I was there we couldn’t even do that.
LikeLike
How awesome is it that this board has gotten a graduate from the US Naval Academy to post here! Yet another reason why this is the most intelligent sports blog out there.
LikeLike
Add Green and Gold
LikeLike
Aside from the issue of whether or not the Big East can remain a viable home for its non-revenue sports, Notre Dame could be facing an additional problem with future scheduling. The Pac-12 will be moving their OOC games to the beginning of the season. The B1G will be reducing their OOC games from 4 to 3. The Big 12 have reduced their OOC games from 4 to 3 (and will remain that way if they find a replacement for A&M). Now BYU, Army, and Navy are all being discussed as future conference members. If the remaining independents all join conferences, scheduling in October and November will become increasingly difficult. Notre Dame will never have problems finding schools willing to play them. But they may have problems finding schools able to play them in late season games. Notre Dame fans may find themselves watching more non-AQ schools show up in South Bend.
LikeLike
USC and Stanford were both given permanent exceptions to the rule so that they can continue to play Notre Dame in October and November. Navy takes up another spot. That leaves 5 games in October/November/December (if Notre Dame decides to start playing on the first week of December) and I think they can find them. The Big 12 seems like will be acomidating and the ACC is probably going to remain open to some late season games. If they offered, I’d bet the Big 12 and Texas would work for a 1st week of December game between Texas and Notre Dame.
LikeLike
wasn’t aware that Stanford and USC had been granted permanent exceptions. I thought the exceptions were just through the length of the existing contracts.
LikeLike
Those two games were grandfathered in ad infinitum. The conference also has a clause allowing the no OOCs during conference play to be waived by (I believe) a 3/4 vote.
LikeLike
I am sure that ND could get an exemption from the Big 12 for OOC games anytime of the year with any of the members. Or join aas a non-ffotball member. Or even as a full member (see – Domer Law).
LikeLike
Frank,
I just leave you with a thought…do you think if then PAC-10 could do it all over again they would have told Colorado to get lost and taken Baylor which then would have meant they would have had the whole Big 12 South (Texas, A&M, OU, OSU, Tech, & Baylor). I think per capita that would have been of way more value than what they have now and remember at that point the LHN was still just an idea that could have been squashed
LikeLike
I’m not sure they would have taken Baylor (as the voting was still unanimous at that point and Cal or Stanford may have sadly said (not bad because Baylor is deserving, but because of their reasons for voting no)).
That said, I bet they wish they had been a little more open with 3rd tier rights. The schools still controlled them last year and coming up with a model that would have given Texas a little more control of its own rights (along with the rest of the members) would have been a small price to pay then to get them in. This year it would have been much harder with all of those rights already assigned (especially when that was a major concession from USC and UCLA).
LikeLike
Creationism research could have blossomed at Cal and Stanford…
LikeLike
If Scott could do it again, yes he’d have completed the Pac-16 the first time around…
LikeLike
He could have. But at the cost of adopting the Big 12 framework and stability, he (and the CEO’s) chose not to. We have not suddenly reached an ending point. If the Pac expands it will be on their terms, if not…well, they sat at an equalibrium for over 30 years before 2010.
LikeLike
As one of the conditions for granting Scott unilateral authority to pursue expansion, they gave him a no religious school order. There was no way the PAC would have accepted Baylor.
LikeLike
I can’t imagine the non-football sports at ND are too pleased with what’s likely left of the Big East. I would have to imagine there is some internal politicking going on to move ND into full conference membership.
LikeLike
yes, but the football tail wags the dog….the advocates of the olympic sports don’t have a lot of ammo…
LikeLike
Pingback: Texas A&M Leaving Big 12 - Page 947 - CycloneFanatic
Frank, I think you actually read my blog! I am truly honored. While my discussion of the service academies did not involve the Big East so much as the theory of the “4 SuperConferences,” the point is still valid. Anyone trying to leave the service academies behind (whether it’s from a BCS arrangement or a new tier of Division I) will face seriously bad PR and a lot of Congressional hearings. Imagine the “Tech problem” multiplies by the full weight of the federal government.
http://singlewhitealcoholicseekssame.wordpress.com/2011/09/08/my-best-frank-the-tank-impression/
LikeLike
I think the Tech problem is misunderstood.
To me the Tech problem is more complex than just bringing along Texas Tech. I think it’s become a problem of how to handle 3rd tier rights in a future where more conferences will look at television networks to distribute those rights.
It’s easy enough to say that for the Big Ten or ACC, the Tech problem is one of academic heft. That might be a copout but it’s probably true for those two.
However, for the Pac-12, the problem isn’t academic in nature (Texas Tech and OSU are indistinguishable from the other OSU, WSU, ASU, etc.).
The problem is Texas is going to want control over content in a regional network situation. As a poster said in one of the previous threads, “no way in hell is Texas going to share a regional network with Texas Tech.”
So that is part 2 of the Tech problem in some sense… even if you get past the academics issues, the Noah’s Ark model is going to be incompatible with Texas’ aims.
LikeLike
I think it’s more simple than that. The “Tech” problem is that Texas Tech and Baylor need a soft landing in an AQ conference when Texas finally leaves (and make no mistake, they will eventually leave) the Big 12.
LikeLike
Here’s a solution. Texas pledges the profits from the LHN to the Big East if they take TT, Baylor, …
LikeLike
OSU, WSU, ASU, etc. probably feel a bit slighted…
LikeLike
Here is some firepower to go by. While not perfect if anyone asked me how I would list each school that is about right:
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/?src=twrhp
LikeLike
I am puzzled by why so many posters are willing to assume that The University of Texas and Texas Tech are necessary or desirable partners in any realignment to the PAC-whatever. Now don’t get me wrong, TT is a wonderful school full of even lovelier people. In many ways, Tech’s the true Texas state university, not the pretender in San Marcos nor the defector in College Station. But why does UT need/want to move to the PAC-16 with TT in tow? Perhaps I’m missing the reason(s) in the answers to one or more of the following (largely rhetorical) questions:
1. Is it because Texas politics is forcing it? Not likely. Neither the current Governor, nor Lt. Governor, nor Speaker of the House is a TT alum. This isn’t the breakup of the old Texas-centric Southwest Conference and TT surely doesn’t have the clout that Baylor (then, momentarily,) did. Interestingly, nobody influential in Texas politics seems to be demanding that A&M take TT (or anyone else for that matter) in tow to the SEC.
2. Is it because something in UT’s makeup actually requires a “little brother”? If so, I’m really, really sad for us. I would also owe an awful lot of apologies to an awful lot of Aggies.
3. Is it because UT somehow would needs to demonstrate/maintain its “Texan-ness” by playing an in-state conference rival every year? I hope not, but if so, couldn’t we just schedule TT, or (God forbid) A&M, every year OOC?
4. Is it because of TT’s football prowess? Sad to say, the quality of Tech’s football will likely prove a passing artifact of the Mike Leach era. (The TT fans, if not the Regents, probably already regret the sacking of Leach largely because he wasn’t interested in kowtowing to wealthy alums).
5. Is it because Texas or the PAC-whatever need to lock in the crucial Lubbock/West Texas television market? Please.
6. Is it because UT would require/want three Central Time Zone opponents in some likely PAC-whatever divisional or pod structure? If so, I get Oklahoma — they’re essential. I also get OSU — Oklahoma politics apparently would demand it. But TT? Surely the University of Kansas would be an infinitely better choice for UT and an infinitely more acceptable option to the old PAC-8 schools. KU is significantly better in basketball than TT is in football. TT and KU are roughly comparable in enrollment and presumably have roughly equivalent fan bases. KU would bring the Kansas (and presumably part of the Kansas City) TV markets, while TT brings however many televisions there are in West Texas. As a member (since 1909) of the Association of American Universities (the “other” AAU), KU would be an academically palatable conference mate to the PAC-whatever Presidents.
Near the onset of the First World War, officials of the German Empire, referring to its ally, the decadent, ill-prepared, militarily-inept Austro-Hungarian Empire, are said to have lamented: “We are fettered to a corpse.”
Are the Longhorns handcuffed to TT? Do we need or want to be?
LikeLike
Texas’s mindset is what’s important.
Texas is a big dog. They don’t want to enter a conference and be without allies.
I think a big part of the appeal of a Pac-16 is having OU/OSU/Tech in Texas’ corner. The geography also really helps regardless of whether it’s a pod situation or Pac-8/SWC divisional approach.
Those are important reasons for wanting the little brothers to come along…
In a sense, the reason why the Big 12 is optimal is that Texas practically runs the conference, has the LHN, and is in a “prestigious” conference (always going to be a respected conference as long as it has Texas and OU; as bullet says, competitiveness has never been the Big 12’s problem).
LikeLike
Zeek:
If, in fact, as you convincingly suggest, UT actually wants “little brother(s),” why wouldn’t KU serve the purpose far better than TT, especially given that the PAC-whatever Chancellors/Presidents couldn’t colorably complain about adding an AAU member school on academic grounds?
LikeLike
One factor I do think people are overstating is the ND-TX connection….
ND and TX are buddies now because, as independents, they have similiar interests.
If both decide to join a conference, whether together or not, that bond is broken. What difference would it make to ND that they were in a conference with TX v. Michigan, FSU, USC, OK et al….? Obviously if they join a conference together, that’s adding a lot of firepower to that particular conference….otherwise, the decision to join a conference with TX in it isn’t much different than joining one with other top programs………
LikeLike
“ND and TX are buddies now because, as independents, they have similiar interests”
—When did TX go independent?
LikeLike
I think there is some politics involved. They may not be forced to keep them, but they need all the allies down the street at the Capitol that they can get.
I also think UT believes it is in its interest for TT to get to be a stronger academic school for two reasons (and that being in an AQ conference helps them achieve that):
1) Another area research partner and
2) Pressure valve to relieve enrollment demands, possibly allowing UT to be more flexible on who it enrolls. Before they changed the law requiring UT to take everyone in the top 10% of their class to 8%, 73% of the freshman class was enrolled by that law. With politics requiring UT to take JC transfers, the school is really handicapped. Even if Texas Tech doesn’t give UT that flexibility, it relieves pressure to expand beyond the 50,000 students UT thinks is the most it can reasonably serve.
I also think the state is very interested in Tech’s rise in academic stature beyond the additional research. A lot of good students at good schools can’t get into Texas or A&M because there are too many good students at their school for them to be in the top 10%. As a result, a lot of kids are going out of state to Oklahoma, LSU, Alabama, Georgia and others. Many will stay out of state after they graduate. My friends with HS kids are all now including out of state schools on their list. Tech rarely gets considered. And of course, Houston is a commuter school, so it doesn’t get a lot of attention either, even though it has significantly improved.
LikeLike
OU doesn’t NEED oSu, but T Boone Pickens can make a lot of trouble for OU if he isn’t happy. Now Texas Tech doesn’t have a T Boone, but they do have Ed Whitacre (former Chairman of AT&T and former Chairman of Government, er I mean General Motors), so they do have clout.
And BTW, what does the Southwest Texas Teacher’s College have to do with realignment?
LikeLike
Nothing, really — only that (the “other”) LBJ’s alma mater is now officially known as Texas State University
LikeLike
It’s actually a combination of things in mind. For the a PAC-16 specifically, twin nature of the conference (every team has a partner nearby) makes 2 Texas schools slide in nicely while just UT would have a little more awkward arrangement. Also if you are losing access in California, it makes sense to gain it in California and with 2 Texas teams, you could guarantee everyone a game in either California or Texas every year.
For Texas itself, it’s mostly politics. A&M was allowed to go because the rest of them were thought to be OK at that time. Texas leaving the Big 12 would leave the same impression and they would be under considerable pressure to bring on at least 1 member.
LikeLike
Let Texas in with Oklahoma – and if the Irish are coming bring Mizzou too.
ND/PSU/Indiana/Purdue
Texas/Oklahoma/Nebraska/Iowa
Mizzou/Illinois/Wisconsin/Minnesota
M/MSU/NW/OSU
Talk about a Super Conference!
LikeLike
What part of “needs AAU-level academics and must shake off Okie State” don’t you understand?
LikeLike
I believe that’s Ohio State not Oklahoma State.
Regardless, why have so many kings in one conference.
That’s an awful lot of losses piling up in games between kings…
LikeLike
Notre Dame is a king in name only….KINO. Don’t need to worry about too many losses there. Also, you wouldn’t play all of the kings in any one season.
LikeLike
Nebraska and Oklahoma are tied at 101 in the US News College Rankings and neither is an AAU member. I know that has been important, but I think the stars are aligned to overlook the requirement. OU and NU are, in fact, academically equivalent. The Irish are not members and have indicated they have no interest in joining AAU.
I think at this point it’s every man for himself. I can see the Sooners being forgiven for heading to the B1G with Texas and leaving the Cowboys behind. It’s rather obvious that OU’s position has been weakened.
LikeLike
won’t happen
LikeLike
Can you imagine the size of the shit-storm that will erupt if the Big East tries to partner with the United Stated Government… Maybe next, Google will partner with the IRS and perhaps HUD and Exxon can get together…
It’s an impossible scenario
LikeLike
That’d be more like if altavista.com partnered with the IRS or if HUD and Phillips 66 got together.
LikeLike
Good work. I like what you’ve done there.
LikeLike
Perhaps Dr. van Nostrand’s Belgian clinic should be an expansion target?
LikeLike
After OU’s recent humiliation, would they have the stones to stick it to Texas and walk out of the Big XII with the other five remaining former Big 8 members and start a new confenece along with TCU, BYU, Air Force, and (just to make it exciting) Boise State? I know it wouldn’t be sexy to the TV networks as the current Big XII (no UT), but it would be more stable as it would be a conference of relative equals with better revenue sharing and it would still have a “King” in OU. Yeah, total fantasy scenario, but I thought I should still throw it out there.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/colleges/oklahoma/football/story/_/id/7004850/oklahoma-sooners-staying-big-12-conference-caught-guard-pac-12-decision-not-expand
Another story from Sooner side on why there is no Pac 14. Leans towards Scott’s version and clearly contradicts the “bluff” theory, but source clearly doesn’t know definitively what happened at the end.
LikeLike
Mr SEC on Missouri
http://www.mrsec.com/2011/09/mizzou-curators-take-no-action-for-the-moment-the-sec-looks-to-be-a-13-school-league/
It seems the folks who’d come to believe chancellor Brady Deaton might get the ax and that MU would rush headlong toward the SEC have probably just watched one too many episodes of “The X-Files.” No conspiracies were afoot.
[snip]
UPDATE – Hmmm. Maybe we need to start watching “The X-Files” ourselves. The folks at PowerMizzou.com — the Rivals site that covers Missouri — claims a source has told them that this morning’s meeting was set up to discuss Deaton’s future at the school. Deaton will “provide an update to the media on the Big 12 Conference and Mizzou Athletics” at 7:45 ET tonight, according to a school release.
So really, really stay tuned, I guess.
For the record, it still seems rather doubtful that the SEC would yank Mizzou just as the Big 12 is about to save itself. Especially considering how the league slammed on the breaks with Texas A&M due to Baylor’s previous threat to sue. Not saying it couldn’t happen, but it would require a surprising change in attitude for Slive and his league. After all, Starr could claim that the SEC damaged the Big 12 in August, then sat back and allowed the league to pull itself together, only to come back a month later for the final kill.
If we had to put a little money on Deaton’s presser, we’d bet that he’s going to announce Beebe’s resignation. As you know, Deaton is also the chairman of the Big 12′s board of directors in addition to his duties in Columbia.
Our SEC sources have gone stone silent on this one, by the way.
LikeLike
Look up “dysfunctional” in a dictionary, and it says, “See University of Missouri athletics.”
LikeLike
Navy to the SEC
http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/2011/navy-sec-14th-team/
Guess that USC game made somebody think
Would this mean Army to the B1G, and Air Force to the PAC?
LikeLike
Coast Guard to the Big XII and Merchant Marines to the Big East?
LikeLike
I guess that means Marine Corps University at Quantico is getting back into football. (Hey, Villanova once played a game there — someone call Marinatto!)
LikeLike
As a matter of fact, we asked former Navy basketball coach Don DeVoe — who spent 12 years in the SEC before coaching the Midshipmen for 12 years — if he thought Navy would be a good fit for the win-at-all-costs SEC. His take:
“There’s no chance in Hell the brass at Navy would ever go for that. They just couldn’t compete at that level. They couldn’t compete for SEC-caliber recruits (due to government-mandated height/weight and academic restrictions). And there’s also the military commitment. No kid who could play at Florida or Tennessee is going to sign up with Navy. You don’t see many pro-caliber kids go that route. (Navy) would have a hard time keeping pace with Vanderbilt.”
http://www.mrsec.com/2011/09/ex-navy-hoops-coach-no-chance-in-hell-navy-enters-the-sec/
LikeLike
So we’ll leave Navy as a “maybe”.
LikeLike
Since there is actually still football going on this weekend:
WEEK 3 summary – Top 25 and conference alignment – teams with loss in bold
SEC 7/25 = 28% : Alabama, LSU, South Carolina, Arkansas, MSU, Florida, Auburn
7 wins vs 5 losses = 58% : losses to SEC schools = 3 : OOC losses = 2
B1G 5/25 = 20% : Wisconsin, Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan State, Penn State
9 wins vs 3 losses = 75% : losses to B1G schools = 0 : OOC losses = 3
B12 5/25 = 20% : Oklahoma, oSu, TAMU, Missouri, Texas
9 wins vs 1 losses = 90% : losses to B12 schools = 0 : OOC losses = 1
PAC 3/25 = 12% : Stanford, Oregon, Arizona State
6 wins vs 5 losses = 55% : losses to PAC schools = 1 : OOC losses = 4
ACC 2/25 = 8% : Florida State, Virginia Tech
8 wins vs 4 losses = 67% : losses to ACC schools = 2 : OOC losses = 2
MWC 2/25 = 8% : Boise State, TCU
5 wins vs 2 losses = 71% : losses to MWC schools = 0 : OOC losses = 2
BE 1/25 = 4% : West Virginia
4 wins vs 3 losses = 57% : losses to BE schools = 0 : OOC losses = 3
.
.
.
.
WEEK 4 beginning – Top 25 and conference alignment – Conference games in bold
SEC 5/25 = 20% : Alabama, LSU, South Carolina, Arkansas, Florida
11 teams : 4 SEC : 0 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 0 ACC : 0 MWC : 1 BE : 0 IND : 2 OTR
B12 5/25 = 20% : Oklahoma, oSu, TAMU, Texas, Baylor
7 teams : 0 SEC : 2 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 1 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 0 IND : 2 OTR
ACC 5/25 = 20% : Virginia Tech, *Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, UNC
11 teams : 0 SEC : 1 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 2 ACC : 0 MWC : 1 BE : 0 IND : 5 OTR
B1G 4/25 = 16% : Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan, *Michigan State
10 teams : 0 SEC : 0 B12 : 0 B1G : 1 PAC : 0 ACC : 2 MWC : 0 BE : 0 IND : 7 OTR
PAC 2/25 = 8% : Stanford, Oregon
9 teams : 0 SEC : 0 B12 : 1 B1G : 4 PAC : 0 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 0 IND : 0 OTR
MWC 2/25 = 8% : Boise State, TCU
8 teams : 0 SEC : 0 B12 : 2 B1G : 0 PAC : 0 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 0 IND : 6 OTR
BE 2/25 = 8% : West Virginia, USF
7 teams : 1 SEC : 0 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 1 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 1 IND : 4 OTR
moved in : Clemson, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Michigan
dropped out : Auburn, Mississippi State, Ohio State, Arizona State
* teams losing in previous week in bold
Notes:
+ Oklahoma wins on the road, Ohio State does not
+ 3 ACC teams move into the Top 25, 2 SEC fall out
Undefeated teams left:
B12 = Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TAMU, Texas, Baylor, ISU, KSU, TT
SEC = LSU, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
B1G = Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan, Illinois
ACC = Virginia Tech, Clemson, Georgia Tech, North Carolina
PAC = Stanford, Cal, USC
MWC = SDSU, Wyoming, Boise State
BE = USF, West Virginia
CUSA = Houston
MAC = Ohio
SB = Florida International
So what are your 3 must see games for WEEK 4?
LikeLike
Duff – All of the AQ conferences have games of consequence this weekend, except the B1G.
Games featuring 2 ranked teams include:
#2 LSU at #16 West Virginia – prime-time ABC game and host to ESPN’s College Game-day, as well as your truly.
#14 Arkansas at #3 Alabama – 2:30pm CDT kick-off on CBS.
#7 Oklahoma State at #8 Texas A&M – 2:30pm CDT kick-off on ABC.
#11 Florida State at #21 Clemson
Other games featuring ranked teams against AQ opponents include:
Mizzou at #1 Oklahoma
#10 Oregon at Arizona
Undefeated Vandy at #12 South Carolina
#15 Florida at Kentucky
#23 USC at Arizona State
North Carolina at #25 Georgia Tech
LikeLike
Alan,
As we start entering conference games, the number of undefeated teams will start to drop quickly, as 1 team must lose. The oSu vs TAMU game is a perfect example, but I think Missouri playing at OU will not go well for the Tigers.
LikeLike
If the Big 12 really wants to survive and be stable (and who knows if OU and Texas really do) then they must make a bold move in expanding the conference and must get to 12 teams. Kicking around potential candidates I thought of this:
Louisville
Kentucky
Arkansas
Thought would be Kentucky could move into a very basketball-centric Big12 North with Louisville, KU, K-State, Mizzou and Iowa State while actually having a chance at competing in football.
Arkansas goes Big12 South in a very good football division.
I know for most discussion purposes the SEC is off limits in regards to a school leaving but if there’s any school that might look at leaving, I would think it would be Kentucky. If Arkansas were to see one conference mate jump, maybe they would jump too and be in a more geographically sensible conference.
Please shoot this down quickly.
LikeLike
Duly shot. Louisville is a genuine possibility; Kentucky, in a safe, wealthy conference, wouldn’t dream of leaving, and likely Arkansas wouldn’t, either.
It looks as if Brigham Young is a certainty, and Louisville and West Virginia could tag along. That’s not a bad trio to add.
LikeLike
You sure the Mormons will prostitute themselves for material gain? They have their needs met through independence. ESPN exposure, rights for BYUtv, ability to stand above the unseemly scramble. Remember, for them its about positioning the LDS church, not about college sports affiliation.
Then again, I’ve been way wrong on so many things. Another wouldn’t be a big surprise.
LikeLike
No. They crave AQ status like Smeagol craves the One Ring.
LikeLike
Arkansas already said no.
LikeLike
Read The D,
We had this discussion back in 2010 about Kentucky. Their stadium (and ability to maintain Top 20 – Top 25 in national attendance numbers) fits only in the B1G or SEC in their passion for football and size. According to Dosh they are #3 in the county in Tier 3 money and have been pushing hard to upgrade their academic standing. It would be slim for them to switch to the B1G, but going to the B12 is impossible. IU is UK’s historic rival not UL.
Arkansas wanted to get away from UT and the Texcentric SWC, so it is highly doubtful they would go back. Frank made a comment about the B12 being a prison, and I tend to agree with him on this. On the basketball end, the rivalry brewing with UK was quite intense, and folks in Fayetteville would like to see it return. Broyles is still alive, and I think he would reach from beyond the grave if Arkansas ever thought about going back to the SWC crowd. If TAMU gets in the SEC, I think that is all Arkansas wants of the old SWC.
LikeLike
Duffman,
I’m from Texas, the state not the school, and have some family in Kentucky. I went to the Louisville – Kentucky game at U of L last year. (The game was terrible, U of L especially but it was Charlie Strong’s first game and I noticed they improved as the season went on.) There is an in-state rivalriy there, and from talking to family while in Kentucky the football rivalry is definitely more recent; the basketball rivalry is older.
My train of thought for those 3 into the big 12 was this: if B12 can get Louisville, which seems to be a decent possibility, maybe UK would consider if approached. Like I said the basketball in the B12 would be an upgrade, which is what UK is all about. Then if 1 SEC member came on board, maybe Arkansas would re-think their “no” and consider a more geographically aligned conference and one with traditional rivals. Even Broyles admitted at one point that it was a mistake to get cut out of Texas recruiting.
I admit this is a stretch but if Big Zombie wants to do it right they have to make a splash and not just pick up leftovers.
LikeLike
The Big 10 should add Oklahoma, and strike while the iron is hot.
I really like the idea of an Oklahoma / Rutgers combination.
Big 10 East
Michigan
Ohio State
Penn State
Michigan State
Indiana
Purdue
Rutgers
Big 10 West
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Northwestern
Illinois
I just don’t see Texas or Notre Dame ever joining the Big 10. You add Oklahoma and its hard to see the Big 10 ever slipping below the SEC as the #2 power conference, and if its big five ever get going at the same time, it would arguably be as powerful as teh SEC.
LikeLike
No schools other than ND or TX are accretive to conference coffers. Any other teams take more from the pie than they add. So – other schools may make sense as package with ND or TX, but not otherwise. OK would add a ton on the field, but not so much for TV$, which is the primary concern. I think I am parroting FTT a little here…
LikeLike
I think financially Oklahoma could work. However, it just has to leave OSU behind which it seems unwilling to do. The academics of Oklahoma are near the line for acceptability. Is it over the line? I don’t know.
LikeLike
Oklahoma has been as clear as they possibly can be that OSU comes with them. It’s nonnegotiable, probably moreso than the LHN is for Texas.
LikeLike
Just to be clear, television households matter – but only about the same weight as Women’s Basketball anymore. For the Big Ten Network now, it is much more about ratings increases and viewership then the old argument about adding tier 1 subscribers. The Big Ten Network views themselves as a national entity – like ESPN or CNN now, not like a regional entity like CLTV or NECN. As a national entity they are looking for programs that have a large following, and I believe a rabid following – the kind of fans that are re-watching classic games, coaches shows and other sports (because of their love for football). Oklahoma fills all of those easily. When I looked at tv dollars 18 months ago, I analyzed everything as a regional cable network when in reality the BTN was already going toward a national entity. Even looking at the numbers as a regional network – Oklahoma would have been a huge get, a little behind Notre Dame. Saying that the BTN is trying to be accretive, well, I just don’t see the BTN looking at it like that. The BTN could be accretive with Northern Illinois. They only see a few possible spots left and they want to MAXIMIZE those spots by adding the most cash they can, while getting a school that is like the Big Ten Schools.
My 2 cents.
LikeLike
@Justin – This is really the only setup that I could see that would be somewhat possible and would work financially without Texas and/or Notre Dame. The question is whether Oklahoma is academically acceptable to the Big Ten (I think they’re at least in the discussion and not automatically disqualified) and if they can move without Oklahoma State (which is the biggest issue).
LikeLike
@Frank – now that @danbeebe is out of the way, maybe @mayoremmanuel can convince his old boss to order a drone strike against T Boone. That’s the only way I see OU ever getting loose from oSu.
LikeLike
Justin,
I recently came to the conclusion that the OU and RU scenario is the best shot the B1G has to successfully expand without UT and ND. I believe that it would successfully raise everyone’s income, atleast if done in conjunction with the next network negotiations. It would add a homerun in OU that is especially important for the national stage and a state in NJ that is populous enough, and talent rich enough, to support RU’s admission.
I agree with what Patrick and Frank had to say about this scenario. I’ll add that I think OU could be key to finally getting UT to join the conference as well. Who knows for certain what it will take to get ND to join the B1G, or any conference, but there has been alot of speculation that reaching an agreement with UT will help do that.
LikeLike
Agree if the Big 10 adds OU, it would be hard to envision Texas leaving the Big 12 for any conference other then the Big 10.
LikeLike
Exactly. And Rutgers to the B1G destroys what’s left of the Big East, which leaves ND looking for a place to be.
LikeLike
Ah, Lenn Robbins and the New York Post...
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/college/football/big_east_could_face_tv_trouble_78itnUARcTmR1z4JUkyMEL
In a story dated at 2:10 a.m. and last updated at 9:08 a.m. today, he writes:
Sources said the league also is evaluating the benefits of inviting Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State and Missouri. The quality of the basketball programs at Kansas and Missouri would offset the loss of Pitt and Syracuse from a competitive standpoint but will never fill the void created by the loss of rivalries.
Guess the Post’s sports wire must have been down for a while. And here’s his previous paragraph:
The Big East has already begun moving to add Navy and Air Force, which because of their presence worldwide contain significant value. As technological advances of delivering content and platforms continue to emerge, the academy’s presence on ships and on military bases is a huge potential market.
If that isn’t grasping at straws, what is?
LikeLike
That last statement is totally clueless.
LikeLike
Your statement is clueless.
There is no way the United States Government can be legally bound and partnered up with a Football Conference… Not only is it totally stupid (What will the Department of Defense do with all of it’s ESPN dollars… ridiclous)… I’m sure it’s illegal. Imagine all the Top-Secret Navy Grants that could get funneled to Rutgers… Jesus, there would be congressional inquiries within 6 months.
Think People
LikeLike
I was referring to “The Big East has already begun moving to add Navy and Air Force, which because of their presence worldwide contain significant value. As technological advances of delivering content and platforms continue to emerge, the academy’s presence on ships and on military bases is a huge potential market.”
See every post I’ve written the past 2 days…, I wasn’t really for Syracuse/Pitt going to the ACC until I heard about this nonsense out of the Big East.
LikeLike
Got it… Sorry
LikeLike
Naw, should have been more clear what I was referencing.
LikeLike
Ummm….. They already are. Air Force is currently in the MWC and Army and Navy their non-football sports in the Patriot League.
LikeLike
I haven’t been one to say that I “know things” at all on this board, so bear that in mind when I say I’ve just heard something offline that will have me paying a helluva lot more attention to Mizzou’s press conference than I had been planning on.
That is all.
LikeLike
I’ll speculate:
1. Frank may be wrong about who Big 10 would add.
2. Mr. SEC may be wrong about who SEC would add.
3. Larry Scott was wrong about who Pac 12 would add or not add.
4. All Aggies everywhere were wrong about where A&M will play next year.
5. Domer Law.
LikeLike
You’re forgetting the Big East. And the WAC.
LikeLike
Purple Book Cat plans on streaking at the press conference.
LikeLike
How about a hint: is the press conference being shown on BTN?
LikeLike
Well, no hint because I don’t want to burn where this came from. But probably not. 🙂
Of course, I’m sure this is all made up as well too. So nothing exciting will really happen.
(I’m still watching, though.)
LikeLike
Good news or bad news for Texas?
LikeLike
I think “bad” but of course I’m seeing absolutely nothing else to confirm what I heard.
And if there’s anything we’ve learned from all this (other than “Texas is evil,” of course), it’s that Mizzou is leakier than a Vancouver goalie in a Stanley Cup-deciding game.
LikeLike
Karl Benson replaces Marinatto, goes east and merges the Big east and Sun Belt and creates Frank’s fearsome SunBeast with offices in Columbia, Missouri.
LikeLike
Texas to the Wac seems dead today. Let’s not encourage him.
LikeLike
What is date and time of press conference?
LikeLike
The Big 12 announces it’s replacing Dan Beebe with @DanBeebe? Because I would order pay-per-view for that. #ibeebelieve
LikeLike
Oh God yes, let that happen. He is on a roll at this very second.
LikeLike
Dan Beebe going out in style:
http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2011/9/22/2443289/fake-dan-beebe-twitter-rant-transcript
LikeLike
What if fake Dan is really Jimmy D?
That would be really funny.
LikeLike
http://cuppygifs.com/beebeneinas-transition/
LikeLike
Hopkins, I just read through and died…he can’t go…he just can’t. That was spectacular.
LikeLike
fake Danny Dan Juice ftw
LikeLike
Chip seems to be off the wall with his latest. TCU in the lead for the Big 12. That seemed to be the most likely thing he said. It went down in credibility from there. Mentioned Boren is having a press conference to present his side of Pac 12 story at 6:30 upstaging Missouri’s at 6:45.
LikeLike
Wait, so now we have dueling press conferences this afternoon? A certain conference still doesn’t seem in harmony. Interesting…
LikeLike
OU’s attempts to save face have just been sad.
Boren’s got as much political experience running a university as anyone and yet he’s coming off like a buffoon in all of this.
LikeLike
I’d respected them throughout this whole process. They were about the last school I would have expected to wind up so embarrassed.
LikeLike
Not that I mind, of course.
LikeLike
If TCU were really in the lead, could one infer that BYU has said thanks but no thanks?
LikeLike
That’s probably the best interpretation of this news.
BYU may not be interested in all of the shenanigans going down in the Big 12.
What’s even more funny is that OU’s “power play” (they claim anyways) could have scared off the one school that’d be a solid replacement for Texas A&M…
LikeLike
Chip’s article says they are hesitant.
That was one of the things I found not very credible. From indy non-AQ to AQ and make an extra $10-$15 million in the process and upgrade your schedule when you can always go indy again.
LikeLike
you can always go indy again
But there is no guarantee they can get the same deal from the WCC. If I’m BYU I’m not joining the Big XII unless I get guarantees in writing from both the WCC and ESPN that I can return to our current agreement if the Big XII folds within 5 years.
LikeLike
Would they have to sign rights away for 6 years too? That would be a bit of a problem for “you can always go indy again”.
LikeLike
With Boren and OU jumping into the fray, I’ll take dibs on Big Ten adds OU and Missouri tomorrow.
LikeLike
@zeek – That definitely crossed my mind when I saw how close the press conferences were together.
LikeLike
I love it. Add ND and Texas (or Toronto or Maryland) later and were set.
LikeLike
HH,
Where can I see the presser online?
LR
LikeLike
Link for the Mizzou press conf at 6:45- http://www.komu.com/streaming-newscast/
LikeLike
Anon,
Thank you…
LR
LikeLike
Yeah, I’m thinking I can go ahead and put in a big ol’ “never mind” right about now…
LikeLike
Dammit Hopkins, I was all excited.
LikeLike
@HH – I think you spoke too soon. Missouri’s clearly not “all in” with the Big 12:
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/09/22/3161236/sec-still-in-missouris-sights.html
LikeLike
“Texas kicked out of Big XII?”
http://cardsandcats.com/2011/09/22/texas-kicked-out-of-big-xii/
—I probably wouldn’t put any money on that one happening.
LikeLike
Yeah, the Sooner board (hi, Redhawk!) was aflame with similar speculation yesterday.
Um, good luck with that.
LikeLike
Yeah, let’s just recreate the Big 8 without Nebraska, I’m sure the networks are dying to give rights fees to that amalgamation.
LikeLike
It was a bit touchy over there yesterday when I ever so politely pointed that out.
LikeLike
I mean what year is this, 1975?
The Big 8 was obsolete 17 years ago with Nebraska when only the SEC was at 12 teams.
Now it’s going to be feasible with Texas Tech in the place of Nebraska when 4 conferences are at 12-14 teams?
Have these people been paying no attention to anything that’s happened over the past 2 decades?
LikeLike
They should have done that before A&M, Colorado and Nebraska left. LOL
LikeLike
How many people have suggested Texas wants to recreate the SWC?
LikeLike
You’ve got it all wrong. It’s the Big 8 plus Baylor . It’s a whole different world.
LikeLike
That’s some serious Starr power right there.
LikeLike
Not sure if Jake will be excited to read this or not.
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1269088
TCU may be rising up the list of candidates to become No. 10, two key sources said Thursday.
Expanding outside the current geographic footprint of the Big 12 has always been seen as a priority of the league (it was verbalized by Dan Beebe last year) to draw more television sets. But it appears the TV partners of the Big 12 (ABC/ESPN and Fox) would be comfortable enough with TCU replacing A&M to continue paying out the money in their current contracts with the league, sources said.
LikeLike
Horn, bullet, any other Texas Exes & Jake – what’s the Longhorns’ beef with TCU?
LikeLike
It’s not different than Delany’s “beef” with Pitt.
There’s no beef, it’s just that TCU is squarely in Dallas which is 100% delivered by Texas.
LikeLike
Best I can tell, there’s no specific beef with TCU. I think there’s just a reluctance to bring yet another in-state school to the big boy table, with the potential to muck up recruiting, etc. In other words, if TCU had taken the fourth spot in 94 instead of TCU, you’d probably be asking the same question about what our problem with Baylor was.
LikeLike
I still say that taking TCU would be a nice “F__ You” to A&M. Instead of Texas playing A&M, they can just play TCU. Make A&M irrelevant in their own state.
I have no skin in this game either.
LikeLike
I don’t think it has anything to do with recruiting. Its just that they add no value (they do to the Big East with no Texas schools). Also in the SWC they were at the bottom of the pack and had a half empty stadium. Texas didn’t like its Houston and DFW fans skipping season tickets because they could see the Horns at their opponents stadiums and get better seats.
LikeLike
TCU has a small fan base, small stadium and don’t deliver tvs like the RRR (sorry Jake, personally I like TCU and had them on my list for college applications). I would worry more about UH as the SEC might see thm as a way to try lock things up in the east (Texas).
LikeLike
I have the PERFECT move for the B1G…
Since we all believe it’s possible for the Big East to partner with Army or Navy (Part of the US government). I think the B1G should call dibs on the Federal Reserve and the House Budget Committee. I’m sure they have at least a flag football team. They may not be competitive on the field, but imagine the perks!!! 🙂
LikeLike
I know we’ve said that TCU doesn’t bring new markets to the Big 12. But other than BYU, is it necessarily a bad addition?
The question is, which schools do bring markets? Cincinnati won’t (come close) to carrying Ohio. WVU is 3rd in Pittsburgh. Louisville is second in Kentucky, although it has pretty good fan support.
UConn and Rutgers are so far away that travel costs have to be a consideration (for both sides even though I think UConn or Rutgers would take it in a heartbeat).
So if BYU says, no, is it such a bad thing to take TCU to get an extra game in Texas for recruiting (for the rest of the non-Texas based schools)?
Of course, TCU would probably get a significant bump in recruiting, so that’s a concern, but it’d be a relevant team nationally, that’d help the Big 12 more than it’d hurt. You’d save a lot of money on travel as well, etc.
Just rationalizing here…
LikeLike
As much as I’d like to believe it could really happen, UT, Tech and Baylor have compelling reasons to oppose TCU’s membership in the Big 12. Basically, they don’t want to put TCU on the same level as themselves. That’s less of a concern for UT, but a big concern for Tech and Baylor, who don’t have (m)any other recruiting advantages over TCU. And TCU would take (so we’re told) an even share of Tier 1 and Tier 2 TV revenues without bringing in a new market. Why would UT agree to that? Because Deloss Dodds felt a sudden longing for the Southwest Conference?
I would think that, aside from BYU, Louisville or West Virginia would both more attractive to the Big 12. Maybe Air Force or CSU to get the conference back into Colorado.
LikeLike
The various rumours say Texas doesn’t want TCU but many of the rest do, which is odd. TCU would be a threat to everyone except UT and OU in recruiting. Maybe with their success they have already become one, but it doesn’t seem that way. Jake-is TCU pulling people away from schools like Missouri and Okie St.?
LikeLike
Texas will never let another Texas based school into the Big12, TCU UH, SMU are all out. Those schools bring nothing in terms of TV sets.
BYU brings the LDS market which is big in Utah and in pockets elsewhere in the country, but they’re not really the Notre Dame of the West and they make a terrible stand in for Texas A&M, both in academic clout, football brand and viewers. Big12 is still unstable and will continue to be so long as ESPN continues to pay Texas 15 million a year.
LikeLike
TCU isn’t even 2nd in DFW. Probably 5th or 6th (although probably 3rd in Tarrant County). Big 12 doesn’t want to compete with the pros.
LikeLike
Mr. SEC thinks its just to announce that Beebe is getting whacked.
http://www.mrsec.com/2011/09/mizzou-curators-take-no-action-for-the-moment-the-sec-looks-to-be-a-13-school-league/#comments
LikeLike
The MO and OU pressers are just gonna be a reaffirmation of their dedication to the survival of the Big 12 imo.
LikeLike
I agree something along those line. It’s too quick for them to be handing out invitations.
LikeLike
Sounds like OU is just jumping in front of this to get credit for the firing the Beebe…
That’s kind of just sad…
LikeLike
What’s worse… having to invite Navy or Navy saying “not yet”?
LikeLike
Frank, you need a message board.
There are too many topics to keep track off and discussions lost when a new post is made.
LikeLike
The moral of this chapter in the story is that conference realignment will have to occur slowly. The apples will have to be picked off in small enough numbers so as not to disrupt too many carts.
Losing only Texas A&M for now enables the Big-12 to stay cobbled together until somebody makes Missouri an offer it can’t refuse or until the economics of the Pac-12 become compelling enough that Texas wants to move there. For those who have ascribed high value to Oklahoma, I say “wake up and smell the coffee”. Oklahoma is a mediocre school in a small market that has the worst bowl game viewership relative to bowl game averages. In other words, it ain’t no national brand. I mean really, where did this idea come from anyways? How many Oklahoma alums are in your neighborhood? This ain’t no Notre Dame, Penn State, or even Colorado. There are A LOT of CU alums in the Bay Area and L.A. People here talk about Mizzou being okay paired with somebody more attractive. Well that applies to Oklahoma in spades too. Oklahoma makes sense paired with UT. Period. UT is valuable enough to the Pac-12 that it can support 3 piggy-backers to come along – on the right terms. But for the ACC & Big-10 , it appears only valuable enough to support one piggy-backer.
Speaking of the ACC, boy are they looking a bit hasty now. My take-away from their shock additions of Syracuse and Pitt now is that Florida St. will be #14 for the SEC. Otherwise, i just don’t understand the logic of their move at this juncture. Yeah, I know, better to do unto than be done unto, but still, why now?
LikeLike
“that has the worst bowl game viewership relative to bowl game averages.”
In fairness, you need to consider Oklahoma’s opponents before saying, “Oklahoma drags down bowl viewership.” OU makes bowl games’ ratings BETTER, considering the opponents they’ve been facing of late.
2010 Season: Orange Bowl vs. 8-4 UConn. UConn
2009 Season: Sun Bowl vs. 8-4 Stanford. (Not last year’s 11-1 Stanford.)
2008 Season: National Championship game vs. Florida. I’d be shocked if the ratings were enormous for that one.
2007 Season: Fiesta Bowl vs. 10-2 West Virginia. WVU isn’t exactly a blue blood.
2006 Season: Fiesta Bowl vs. 12-0 Boise State, before Boise State was making covers of Sports Illustrated.
2005 Season: Holiday Bowl vs. Oregon, before Oregon’s recent breakout seasons.
2004 Season: Orange Bowl vs. USC. Ratings were bad because the game was lopsided.
Let’s get real. When you put Oklahoma on national TV against a top 20 team that isn’t a no-name (like Boise was back in ’07), and if the game isn’t lopsided, their ratings are huge. FSU vs. OU = Monster ratings. OU vs. Ok. State last year = Huge ratings. OU vs. Missouri last year = Huge ratings. OU vs. Texas any year = Monster ratings.
I’ll go on to say that, living in North Carolina and having lived in Indiana, I’ve known more OU alums than Penn State, Colorado, or Notre Dame alumni. They’re a very popular program. Maybe they aren’t as massively popular as the biggest SEC or Big Ten programs, but they draw casual fans’ interest as well as anyone does. I’m not a fan of any of the teams I’ve named above except for FSU, yet I watched almost all those games because, hey, it’s Oklahoma, and you don’t get much more relevant in college football than Oklahoma.
LikeLike
Re: ACC (Redwood)
“Speaking of the ACC, boy are they looking a bit hasty now. My take-away from their shock additions of Syracuse and Pitt now is that Florida St. will be #14 for the SEC.”
—————-
If FSU wants to enter the SEC, sees itself as an SEC school, if Florida says ok, then they will join SEC.
Who was the ACC going to add: consistant with their academics, geography: please don’t say PSU, UT, ND; please don’t say UL, WVU; please don’t say Georgia, Florida; please don’t say OSU, Michigan.
LikeLike
ACC got the 2 most sensible additions that were available.
And the Big 12 would have surely gone after Pitt at least if ACC left them on the table…
LikeLike
Redwood,
I certainly believe that OU’s value is being psired with its rival Texas. That being said they do have a national brand, strong athletic program, one of the premiere football teams and they are THE team in the state of Oklahoma (similar to Alabama or LSU). They also have a fantastic car sales program.
LikeLike
[Trying this again]
Very well-made interactive conference map if you haven’t seen it. Apologies if it has already been linked.
usdirect.com/college-football
LikeLike
First time I’ve seen it. Thanks!
LikeLike
Neat. Thanks
LikeLike
Concise Larry Scott: We didn’t want OU without Texas.
“Scott also said that adding only the Oklahoma schools by themselves wouldn’t have been as attractive, as Texas was the market the Pac-12 was really interested in adding to the fray.”
LikeLike
If you listen to the full Scott interview, you learn that Scott was thinking pods if the Pac-12 went to Pac-16. Interesting.
Also, Scott cannot give special deals to any potential new members. He needs to make 1/16th of Pac-12 revenues + Texas, OU, OSU, and ?? compelling to Texas. I think that is going to take a long time – if it is ever achieved.
Scott also kind of dissed the ACC, relative to the Bigger 10 and SEC, stating it is not as stable or attractive.
LikeLike
That part about the Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC was amusing for how it blatantly left out the ACC.
LikeLike
Pods…you mean we missed out on pods?
LikeLike
I’ve been critical of Scott over the past couple of days.
But, I have to say that the Pac-12 has the best long-term solution to commissioner if he’s willing to stay there for 20-25 years.
LikeLike
Not sure why you have been critical of Scott. Pac-14 was a non-starter, but he could not say so publicly without destroying chances of achieving Pac-16. If anyone behaved irresponsibly, it was OU President Boren. Why did Boren go public about “considering all options” 3 weeks ago? Why was OU leaking its interest in the Pac-12? I believe it was an attempt to pressure Texas into moving with them. If not, Boren should have been discreet about his options-exploring.
LikeLike
Oh without question Boren is the biggest goat in all of this.
But Scott’s sources were leaking to Wilner and other Pac-12 sources that the Pac-14 was basically a done deal. Maybe that was aimed at Texas. But those same sources indicated that Texas was nowhere near a deal to join…
He had a little egg on his face from all of this backtracking the past two days.
But by far Boren and co. look like they were left at the altar by the Pac-12. And then this press conference to take political credit for getting rid of Beebe. And making those demands of Texas and losing leverage within hours of making the demands.
Boren and co. played extremely small time on a big stage.
LikeLike
Not to mention that OU’s antics may have scared off the best expansion choice in BYU…
LikeLike
You are probably right about Wilner’s sources being from the Pac-12, since he had the scoop on last year’s TV contract negotiations, but we don’t know that for sure. As a Stanford alum and fan, I can tell you that Wilner is NOT a respected reporter in the Bay Area.
LikeLike
Only sources saying “nearly done deal” were citing Texas sources, including Wilner.
LikeLike
I meant on the Pac-14 not the Pac-16.
LikeLike
And OU’s delay lost any chance at Pitt. The ACC acted while everyone in the Big 12 waited on Boren’s act. PItt was supposedly OU’s 1st choice. If they don’t act quickly, WVU may be gone to SEC.
LikeLike
Wilner was very anti-Texas. I guarantee he didn’t have any Texas sources. The majority of his sources were clearly from the Pac office or Pac schools. He may have had an OU source, but it was clear he had never ever talked to anyone from Texas. He didn’t understand the school at all.
LikeLike
bullet:
Pitt would have placed a call first to the ACC before accepting an invite to the B12.
LikeLike
Maybe Pitt would have called ACC. But ACC might not have been ready at that point in time.
LikeLike
In any event, it was a great round of poker. The Big XII-2 is now the Big IX. A&M will be free to go to the SEC without a legal threat from Baylor. Yet, everyone now knows that Missouri, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State are there for the picking – especially whenever we get close to the next Big XII contract negotiations. We also know that Texas will only move if all of its worthy conference -mates desert them (namely Oklahoma at this point) AND it is not forced to make many sacrifices. Meanwhile, the ACC appears to have panicked. This once again emasculates Big East football, and may have undesirable football repercussions for the ACC down the road.
LikeLike
Gotta figure that there were football repercussions coming down the road no matter what. Who could the ACC land to placate Florida State? If the SEC is such a raise, then they were jumping anyway.
LikeLike
Rather than pairing Texas-Oklahoma, perhaps we should be considering Oklahoma-Nebraska? This used to be one of the premier rivalries in college football (before the Longhorns undermined it). I think it would make a lot of sense for the B1G to restore this rivalry and anchor its western flank with Oklahoma-Nebraska, much like the eastern flank is anchored by OSU-Michigan.
However, there is a problem: Oklahoma is substandard academically. The B1G presidents have already swallowed a toad (Nebraska). It is too much to ask them to swallow a second (Oklahoma) so soon after the first. I imagine the presidents are thinking that after a few years in the CIC, Nebraska academics will improve to the point where they are no longer an embarrassment. But if they had Oklahoma (or, god forbid, Oklahoma State) at the same time, it would lower the standing of the whole conference.
In my opinion, the only way to get the B1G presidents to swallow Oklahoma is to pair it with an academic institution of the highest standing. Delany should get on the phone immediately to Vanderbilt. The B1G presidents would love to get Vanderbilt, Vanderbilt would love to be in a conference with academic equals, and Mike Slive would be thrilled to see his #14 problem disappear. Everybody wins.
If Vanderbilt declines to join the B1G (which I think is unlikely), then Delany should get Maryland, another top notch academic institution. By bringing one of these institutions to the B1G presidents, Oklahoma could sneek in under the radar.
With a fifth king (Oklahoma) joining the conference, the B1G can go to a straight geographical split (at the Illinois-Indiana border). This will be nicely balanced with two kings in the west (plus Wisc and Iowa) and three kings in the east. All major rivalries would be played within the divisions, so fixed crossovers would not be necessary (thereby allowing faster cycling of crossover games).
LikeLike
I almost forgot. PSU would be especially happy to see Maryland join the B1G. It has lobbied hard for an eastern partner and would be a strong supporter of this addition. Similarly, Nebraska would be a strong supporter of the Oklahoma addition.
LikeLike
It’s not fair to blame the OU/NU split on Texas; it was entirely Oklahoma’s idea from what I hear.
LikeLike
Oklahoma wanted to be in the South with Texas. Nebraska wanted either a protected rivalry or to continue it non-conference.
Oklahoma said no to both because they already had to play Texas and A&M annually…
LikeLike
Meant to add, so yea it was all on Oklahoma that it wasn’t continued. Didn’t really have anything to do with Texas or anyone else…
LikeLike
I don’t blame Oklahoma for the collapse of the Nebraska rivalry. It was seduced by the Longhorns. Texas has big assets and Oklahoma was weak, but hopefully it has learned its lesson and will return home to Nebraska..
LikeLike
No no meta, if something goes wrong, it’s alwaysTexas’ fault.
LikeLike
It’s always Texas’ fault?
My philosophy is that of South Park: When something goes wrong, BLAME CANADA!
LikeLike
That’s because it usually is! 😛
LikeLike
Granted, Nebraska is the least impressive academic institution in the B1G, but I don’t think that any of them would call it a “toad,” or claim that Oklahoma is on par with Nebraska. Nebraska hangs around the bottom end of the top 100 universities in the U.S. and so it’s not shabby at all. I think Oklahoma is a much tougher sell to the conference, especially considering their history.
LikeLike
Beebe out.. Neinans interim commissioner
http://www.timesunion.com/sports/article/Big-12-Commissioner-Beebe-out-2184363.php#photo-1611243
LikeLike
Polish up the resume frank.
LikeLike
I just died laughing…if you haven’t read Fake Dan Beebe’s send-off go read it…
http://twitter.com/#!/DanBeebe
LikeLike
Brilliant. Really, what will we do when the Big12 goes away.
LikeLike
RT @PeteThamelNYT: This is biggie. 6-yr grant of TV rights agreed by all schools.
Forget about Boren calling these handcuffs (can we get that guy a teleprompter?).
To me, the most funny thing about this is that the Big Ten will have a new deal in place for its first and second tier rights and the CCG right as the handcuffs are coming off…
2014-2015 negotiations for contracts that start in 2017…
LikeLike
Gee, ya’ think Mizzou negotiated that point? LOL
LikeLike
Or Texas and OU?
To 2022 would be more inspiring. 2017 could get messy with 5 years left on the contract, but its not a surpise.
I was thinking B1G was up in 5 while committment was for 6, but if its 2017, its the same time.
Same time, not next year or the next or the next, but the next after that.
LikeLike
I was watching the talking heads this past week saying that the ACC needs to show the country they can be viable for the 4th “super conference” slot. Right now the opposite is happening as UC is already up 3 TD’s and we are not even at halftime yet. If FSU beats Clemson this weekend, the water will get even muddier.
LikeLike
Frank, you should make your next blog about the #14 for the SEC.
No way they’re going to wait for 6 years at 13 teams (grant of rights of Big 12), so it’s got to be an ACC team or WVU…
Things just got interesting in the East.
LikeLike
That’s why the ACC took Syracuse and Pitt. They figure the SEC will take Florida State, at least.
They’re at 14, if they lose two they’re at 12 and do nothing.
If they lose one, they add WVU, UConn, and Rutgers (or Louisville if WVU is taken).
If they lose none, they take UConn and Rutgers.
It was a very shrewd move.
LikeLike
Or ND ;p
LikeLike
True, that was certainly on their minds as well.
I just don’t ever see it happening for a variety of reasons.
LikeLike
@zeek – Recall what I wrote a couple of weeks ago about the SEC:
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/how-far-north-will-the-dirty-south-go/
If West Virginia and Missouri are out, then Florida State is really the main ACC target. I don’t find either Virginia Tech (state politics with UVA) or Clemson (doesn’t have national name to overcome overlapping market like FSU) to be realistic.
LikeLike
What’s the ACC going to do since they practically know that such is the case? I mean raising the penalty to $20M inspired confidence as well as adding Pitt/Syracuse.
But when you find out FSU, Maryland, and another school brought the proposed fee down from $34M to just $20M (and only a raise of $4M from the original $16M), all of a sudden that’s not such a confidence inspiring outcome.
I’d still take the ACC to remain whole, but if the SEC is really that focused on FSU, something has to give. I can’t see the SEC staying at 13 for longer than 2-3 years…
LikeLike
Frank,
vincent and I were discussing the ACC 3 based on who limited the fee to 20 Million, which was just 4 Million over the current number.
#1 was FSU
#2 was MD
#3 was “not identified”, so the big question is who this was – If it was VT, I would not dismiss them so quickly. The TAMU boards like VT, and the VT boards like TAMU. I still think a 3rd ACC school is considering leaving, or why worry what the higher exit fee would be?
LikeLike
I’m guessing it’s either Virginia Tech or Clemson; the latter may be closest in pure culture to its SEC brethren, and would probably be a cinch if it was located in the other Carolina. Not that I think Clemson has a chance of an invitation…
LikeLike
@duffman – I’d guess Miami. Even though they might be hammered with NCAA penalties for a few years, it’s still a top tier football brand with solid academics that has options.
LikeLike
Frank,
If that is the case then 2 of the 3 are B1G jumps! The last is an SEC jump, which means 2 of the 3 football jewels in the ACC are gone, so how long till VT pulls out and leaves the ACC with no football values?
LikeLike
BC?
LikeLike
Frank, I think you’ve misinterpreted what happened in the 2003 ACC expansion. VaTech is not tied to the hip to UVA due to VA politics.
Warner stepped in and forced UVA to vote FOR ACC expansion, but only if VA Tech was one of the invitees. He did that b/c VA Tech did not wished to be left in a (as they say on the MD boards) a BoD (bag of d***ks) conference (which is what the BE was looking like after Miami, BC and VaTech left but before the BE raided C-USA).
In other words – VaTech created the political pressure.
So, if VaTech, came to the conclusion it was in its own best interest to move to the SEC, there would no political backlash, nor anything to stop it. There is no UVA : Tech dynamic in Virginia, similar to want you see in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, or even NC between UNC and NcState.
LikeLike
You are assuming UVA wouldn’t create their own political pressure. I mean, if UVA thought that Tech’s departure would do serious damage to the ACC, and by extension UVA itself, then they could lean on the state pols. to keep Hokies from leaving.
LikeLike
Many Missouri fans seem to be irate about the possibility of being stuck in the Big 12. Oklahoma fans seem resigned. The Missouri reaction reminds me of the A&M reaction last year when Loftin initially dashed their dreams of the SEC. Given the lack of a firm commitment to the Big 12 by Missouri’s chancellor in today’s press conference, I think there’s a chance that Missouri may still be in play. See also: http://twitter.com/#!/Dave_Matter
LikeLike
If any conference actually wants them…
LikeLike
OU fan on Rivals:
“And now, judging from the fact that Castiglione is now out front for OU, it seems OU’s President has gone from crafty political genius to a guy who escaped his bed restraints at the nursing home long enough to make a few prank calls to the Pac 12.”
LikeLike
Re: OU fan on Rivals (Zeek)
Some of these posts and developments are hilarious.
Wish Frank had a “like” button on this board.
LikeLike
That’s very funny, and dead on.
LikeLike
bullet, you bring up a good point. If the Big 12’s 9 schools have all agreed on the 6 year grant of rights, then it is imperative that they move quickly on WVU if they want them. No reason to leave them for the SEC to change their mind on…
All of the Big 12 schools have a right to be pissed with OU’s antics (Missouri’s President/AD seemed miffed) because of how it’s really harmed their expansion options.
Losing A&M is one thing, but OU’s harmed their already narrow chances for long term survival.
LikeLike
I never heard WVU mentioned 3 weeks ago when the Big 12 was looking at replacing A&M, but I saw other discussions not related to the Big 12 saying Pitt and WVU were being viewed as a pair. I could have seen BYU, Pitt and WVU in the Big 12.
LikeLike
Back when the SWC was breaking up, there was discussion of SWC expansion. In addition to the Oklahoma schools, Tulane, Memphis and Louisville were mentioned. And Louisville is stronger now in football than they were back then.
LikeLike
Louisville is much stronger all around than they were back then. Their basketball program is by far one of the strongest. And they’ve put huge money behind their football program since then. They’d be a legit addition.
LikeLike
If Missouri somehow manages to escape the burnt orange work camp known as the Big 12, and the conference is down to eight, who becomes #12 if Brigham Young, Louisville and West Virginia join? Is it Texas Christian, hardly UT’s first choice? Houston, perhaps, as a way to assuage state officials seeking to elevate UH to higher status? Or does it go out of state, to Cincinnati or South Florida?
LikeLike
I’d say Cincinnati would be the first choice, since they’d pair well with Louisville and West Virginia. But TCU would be a good way to get an extra game in Texas for the rest. But Dodds may veto that.
Doubtful on USF because of distance.
LikeLike
Can we just not take Texas? Please?
Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, Notre Dame.
How can anyone not like this?
LikeLike
Texas won’t join a conference for the foreseeable future. They have no reason to…
They wanted a “fake” independence the entire time. Now they have it in a Big 12 in which everyone is a vassal, including even OU which has backed itself into that kind of status even though they keep trying to puff out their chests.
Notre Dame won’t join a conference as long as Texas is in the Big 12. No reason to…
That leaves you with Missouri and Kansas. They’ll be vassals of Texas for a long time to come…
We may be at a stable endgame kind of scenario right now…
LikeLike
Stable west of the Mississippi, perhaps. If FSU leaves the ACC, Miami (+ much of the rest of the ACC) would be in play. I’m actually much more in favor of adding FSU & Miami, schools who want to be equal partners, than Texas & ND under special terms. The B10 could stop at 14 at that point and wait and see if ND and/or Texas is willing to join as an equal partner some time in the future.
LikeLike
Awful, awful. Academics are awful. Even if we are going to 16 without taking Texas, I’d much prefer ND along with Miami, FSU, & one of GTech/BC/Rutgers/Maryland. I consider them to be more peer institutions than any of OU/MU/KU. Plus, while OU is as much of a brand name as FSU, I’m much more excited about playing Miami and either Mizzou or KU, and I currently reside in MO.
LikeLike
That should be “than either”, not “and either”
LikeLike
Oh, and FL has more people than MO, KS, and OK (none of which are growing states) combined. Adding in one of NJ/MD/GA would be a cherry on top.
LikeLike
Not this again.
We have nothing in common with those schools or their fanbases. It’s the Big XII all over again.
LikeLike
Speak for yourself. Miami’s student body is closer to Michigan’s than KU’s. GTech is closer to Purdue than Mizzou is.
Note that the death blow to the B12 was nearly delivered by TAMU, who’s as Texan as UT, and OU, who’s just across the river from Texas, so I’m not sure why you think being in the same geographic area (rather than sharing similar views and ideals) is what makes a conference strong & cohesive.
LikeLike
I think we need to be careful about characterizing the academics of a given school. What metrics are we talking about? A US News ranking that is mostly based on irrelevant measures? I’m not aware of any reliable measures of educational outcomes, which is the real test of a school’s educational quality. Research productivity? Total or per capita? Texas has a lot more faculty members than Missouri, but per faculty member, the most recent statistics that I’ve seen indicate that Missouri outperforms Texas in both research spending and academic journal publications (and Nebraska outperforms Texas in per faculty research funding and is nearly equal in per faculty publications).
LikeLike
ARWU rankings, which give a good indication of how universities are perceived by university presidents.
LikeLike
Perception is not necessarily reality. And while the ARWU rankings include some real metrics of research productivity, there’s no way (that I know of) to see the per capita productivity. Size causes major distortions. For example, Texas is ranked much higher than Rice. Is Texas really a higher quality university?
LikeLike
Perhaps not in undergrad, but in research, I wouldn’t doubt it. I also know that Texas’s b-school is higher-acclaimed.
BTW, in engineering (which should be Rice’s forte), USNWR ranks Texas 8th and Rice 34th.
Incidentally, the B10 has a quarter of the top 20 in engineering (PSU is 25th), which is more than any other conference, including the Ivy League.
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-engineering-schools/eng-rankings
LikeLike
You have to be careful with ARWU. Quality schools with missions outside the research track do not score well. Examples would be Notre Dame and Boston College. When you use ARWU, it’s a good idea to take a look at endowment, as well.
LikeLike
OK, I wasn’t able to find rankings for all research (or even all engineering), but the following site has both Mizzou and UNL trailing Texas substantially in research expenditures per faculty member in EE. I’ll see if I can find more comprehensive data. BTW, where did you read statistics that Mizzou had greater funding per faculty than Texas, if I may ask?
http://www.uscollegeranking.org/engineering/electrical-engineering-graduate-school-rankings.html
LikeLike
@Richard
Of course you may; I should have posted a link to evidence when I made the claim. It is from a 2009 report from the research office at Oklahoma:
Click to access 2009%20Annual%20Report%20Web%20View.pdf
I was looking for comprehensive data on per faculty research productivity (all universities), not just data on Big 12 universities, but this is all I was able to find in a quick search. The data are in figures that compare Oklahoma to other Big 12 universities. Note that this is a one year snapshot, and data from other years might show different patterns.
Full disclosure: I received my undergraduate degree from Cal, graduate degree from Texas, and I’m currently at Nebraska. I’m not biased for or against Missouri, but I have other biases.
LikeLike
Thanks for the link. Without knowing what makes up the denominator, it’s hard to compare. Ideally, we’d have department by department per capita comparisons, but I don’t know where we’d get that information.
LikeLike
How do you see Boston College & Miami as ‘more peer’ than Missouri & Kansas?
Is it the private status, small enrollment, fickle of fan support or small research budgets?
LikeLike
Granted, BC would be as much of an outlier as ND. Miami, despite its small size, is already knocking on the doors of the AAU (and are higher in the research ranking than MU or KU, both of which may very well lose their AAU designation as UNL did in the next few years) and have better undergraduate academics.
LikeLike
What is the evidence for this? I’m not trying to harass you, just point out that these sorts of statements are rarely based on anything other than someone’s perception. The reason for this is that “educational quality” and “undergraduate academics” are hard to define and even harder to measure in a meaningful way.
LikeLike
Sorry, I should say “better undergraduate student body” using SAT scores and acceptance rates.
LikeLike
BTW, while it may be elitist, it does matter in the B10 more than other conference because both graduate students and undergrads can take courses in other member schools through the CIC.
LikeLike
“conferences”
I need to sleep.
LikeLike
Adding Miami would be a disaster. There fan base is terrible, there facilities are below average for a “name” school, and the NCAA is about to set back its football team at least a decade.
LikeLike
I think Miami would be a better add than the “non-name” schools, though. I agree that Miami shouldn’t rank ahead of ND, Texas, OU, & FSU in desirability (though ND & Texas have their oen issues; actually, all 4 do), but certainly Mizzou, KU, etc.
LikeLike
Geography alone makes Miami a TERRIBLE addition. That’s not even counting the fickle fans, small school, mediocre facilities, and the repeated history of NCAA trouble. I’d advocate Youngstown St. before Miami.
LikeLike
The problem is it’s not clear if my Miami is going to remain a name. It’s quite possible that the NCAA sanctions will be so devastating that by the time the football program recovers, which could very well take a decade, that they will just be another school.
LikeLike
frug:
Well, Miami will always have an amazingly rich local football talent pool (probably the richest, per capita, in the country) So long as they manage to remain in a BCS conference, I think they’ll do well enough to be a draw. Plus, I don’t think you can discount the fact that they won multiple national championships. The only school that’s won multiple championships in the past half-century who wouldn’t be considered a king today would be MSU (and they won their back-to-back MNC’s in the mid-60’s).
So unless the dynamics of football somehow shift again (MSU benefited from there being segregation in the south and the gameplans emphasizing brawn more than now; I doubt we’ll see resegregation and it’s hard to envision football where speed is less important than now), I think the U will continue to be a top TV draw.
LikeLike
frug,
Expansion decisions are being made for the next 50-100 years. As painful and damaging as NCAA sanctions could be, Miami will be back.
LikeLike
It’s easy. Mizzou? Kansas? Why in the world would I have any interest in these schools? And for B1G academic purists, RU and UMD are WAY ahead of those two.
LikeLike
This. If we’re going to add geographically proximate non-kings just because they’re geographically proximate, at least they should fit the B10 academic/research profile.
LikeLike
so total Big12 reforms done today:
1) Dan “Sacrificial Lamb” Beebe fired
And that’s it…nothing about LHN, nothing about signed over media rights, nothing about anything and Mizzou is still on the hunt…great…
LikeLike
I think that’s about right. Pretty typical for the Big 12: all hat, no cattle.
LikeLike
I never tire of that saying. It fits the Big 12 ‘central’ leadership very well.
LikeLike
From what I can tell they thought they had killed Rasputin at least 6 times. Does that mean the conference has at least 4 more lives? This is kind of fun, but we’ve had enough drama with this conference for this year. Rasputin, in that picture does look kind of like a Big Zombie. Frank do you and Hopkins need a mediator on the conference name? There’s a guy currently living in Dallas….
LikeLike
You mean me? Or Beebe? Hey, maybe I can grab a bite with him for lunch tomorrow. Let me send him a tweet and set this up…
(BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE!)
LikeLike
Hopkins and I had a discussion about this in the last thread. I recommended the Rasputin Conference (I knew I should have trademarked that idea before Frank had time to steal it!) and I actually noted that Rasputin looked like a zombie. I even linked to the same picture Frank posted above!
LikeLike
@frug – With so many comments over the last few days, I didn’t even see that! Great Illini think alike.
LikeLike
I’ll let it slide… This time.
Dun-dun-duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun!
LikeLike
Hmmm. Thamel tweet:
After a confusing night, this much is clear. Missouri hasn’t signed their rights away, and the door remains ajar for them to go to the SEC.
http://twitter.com/#!/PeteThamelNYT/status/117075647561601025
LikeLike
Interesting development to say the least…
LikeLike
Since it looks like the Big 12 will stay intact in the absence of SEC action, would it really be worth it at the end of the day to poach A&M and Mizzou if the end result was the creation of a three-time-zone, 16-team monster with Texas, OU and USC on your western flank?
It’s not guaranteed that a Mizzou departure would be the tipping point that would force Texas’ hand, but why take the chance?
So I think this means less than I originally read into it.
LikeLike
I tend to agree. Hard to see the SEC forcing the action at this point. The Big 12 is still in a teetering stage.
LikeLike
I just don’t see the B12 imploding if Mizzou leaves. The P12 won’t take Oklahoma without Texas, so the question is whether Texas would head west if Mizzou leaves. I don’t see why the Horns would do that.
LikeLike
If you’re the SEC you don’t care what the Pac or Texas does, you know you have the best brand as a conference and you play the best football. It’s unacceptable for you to be 3rd in revenue (behind Pac, behind B1G). Taking Mizzou opens up KC and StL, taking A&M opens up DFW and Hou. Thats four top 50 markets added to the SEC’s ATL media market, I would say it’s worth it. I doubt Slive wants to kill a conference but after all this ridiculousness it’s time for the gloves to come off. They need a 14, Texas isn’t coming, ND isn’t coming, FSU probably won’t be coming (depending on how ACC media renegotiation go). This is Mizzou’s time to to go to the promised land and they had better take it, or else they will be like OU this year (wishing they had gone to a different conference a year ago).
LikeLike
Yea, we’re going to be here not just next year but inside three months. If Baylor had any other alternative we should take it, but we don’t so therefore we are stuck here. We should be able to sue for emotional distress.
Some of the Tweets from Pete Thamel tonight below.
Deaton asked, if Big 12 issues can’t be fixed, could MU leave: “That’s a hypothetical that could occur.”
So the latest from the Big 12 on grant of rights is “an agreement in principle.” Another told me its in a “position philosophically.”
I’ve gotten three different stories from four different schools.
Now I really don’t know what to believe. Two Big 12 schools says yes on grant, and two others say just talking and need approval.
LikeLike
I mean man what a turd blossom this night has been. Boren should have shut his trap and let Deaton speak. The fact that nobody has agreed to anything and then go announce. That’s just stupid. This conference truly made up of misfits, morons, and arrogant SOBs.
LikeLike
BTW, if you are Mike Slive do you want anything to do with TAMU? This conference is going down next year at this time. Without any stability and no waiver, he will be staring down the barrel of big time lawsuit come next year. I wouldn’t touch anyone or anything in this conference with a ten-foot pole.
LikeLike
From a PR standpoint, OU’s implosion the past 3 days has been nothing short of spectacular. The level of embarrassment everyone associated with OU must be feeling should be staggering.
There was absolutely no reason for OU to step all over Deaton’s press conference. The total lack of respect was obvious with OU rushing to break the news on Beebe as if to take all of the credit for their bumbling actions of the past week that’s only made them seem weak. To top it all off, Beebe was never the problem. He was merely a symptom of the problems of how dysfunctional that set of schools has been for the past 15 years.
The Big 12 had a chance to come out of this decently when it all started with A&M leaving, but instead of sticking together and pursuing BYU or Pitt and other schools that they might have had a legitimate chance to get, they wasted 4 weeks on an OU powerplay that went absolutely nowhere. OU has no more power than they did 4 weeks ago and the Big 12 is in a much more precarious spot now that the ACC has raided the Big East and Missouri may be squarely in the SEC’s focus. Good schools that would have considered the Big 12 have to be afraid of what an imbroglio that might turn into if they turn over their rights for any period of time. What a mess.
LikeLike
Boren knew that Mizzou had not completely signed on yet, so he jumped ahead with his press conference to make it look like everyone is together and everything has been finalized. And now MU will look bad if they show interest in the SEC.
LikeLike
Not to its fan base or anyone with familiarity about this mess.
LikeLike
Gotta agree with VP. Nobody in Mizzou is happy at this point. This just built another TAMU.
LikeLike
I absolutely agree with you zeek. I cannot tell you how much respect I have lost for David Boren over the last few weeks especially since I grew up just outside of OKC and remember him as a governor and a US senator. He has definitely lost his fastball and quite possibly his mind given all this. I cannot imagine how much worse this could have come out for OU and I have no idea what they were trying to accomplish. Instead of Pitt or BYU; we’re probably stuck at 9 or maybe we get ECU or Memphis. This truly was the nail in the coffin of this conference. Tonight just curb-stomped this conference. If I am a Mizzou alum, I am totally ticked at my administration and I know they will end up just like TAMU did this year if not in the next three months inside a year. What a cluster. My only hope is Baylor is starting to plan. I just do not see how this is going to last three months let alone six years.
LikeLike
The good thing for Baylor is that you have a capable president (not like most of the saps running these institutions who have no clue how to play hardball with anyone, and I’m no fan of Starr, but you could do far worse in this situation), and that your football team is playing well at such a crucial point in the Big 12’s history. Just 4-5 years ago, you guys probably would have had no chance in an event like this. But because those two things have come to pass, you guys won’t end up in the worst possible outcome; you’ll have a much better chance at ending up packaged with Kansas/Kansas State/Iowa State, etc. It obviously sounds hollow to say this right now, but at least you have those things going for you right now when it’s so important to have those things.
LikeLike
Regarding Beebe: He wasn’t the cause, but he could have done better. He was in the background on a lot of this instead of getting people to work together.
Boren said losing the 3 schools wasn’t inevitable. I don’t agree with Boren. A&M might have been saved. They needed some serious ego stroking. But CU has been inevitable for 15 years, just whenever the Pac called. Nebraska was inevitable once OU/UT et al started flirting with the Pac and Nebraska realized they were vulnerable and the B1G took their call. There was no way they would turn down more $, academic prestige and stability. And realistically, they only had CU has an every year rival in football so they weren’t leaving a lot behind. They had dominated the other north schools with decades long win streaks. In the B1G they’ve got at least Iowa and Michigan.
LikeLike
Agreed… mostly. As I understand it, when the Big 12 formed, CU had offers to join the Big 12 and the Pac. I believe the vote was close, but they chose the B12 (a decision that I believe they regretted, shortly after making it). When the B12 South were thought to be going to the Pac, what was anyone in the B12 North supposed to do, wait around to see what happens? No, I’m sure they were all looking for an out, but only UNL received & took one. Idk that I agree on TAMU, though. I believe that like CU 15ish years earlier, they regretted their decision to remain in the B12 almost immediately.
LikeLike
“I will bring my experience as a conference leader … in taking the Big 12 to the next level of success as from a competitive and financial standpoint”
— Dan Beebe, Sept 5, 2007, at the press conference announcing his appointment as Big XII commissioner
LikeLike
Hard to pin this on Beebe.
Weiberg, one of the most talented guys in the field, couldn’t get it done as Big 12 commissioner for the better part of a decade.
The schools run that conference because they’re all looking at self-interest and don’t see themselves as a set of equals.
But the problem is the grouping themselves. Texas controls most of the TV sets. OU sees themselves as an equal to Texas on the field but never had the same power as Texas in the conference offices. Colorado always yearned for the West Coast. Nebraska got out because they were the same as Oklahoma except they actually tried to resist the rest of the conference more. Missouri’s tried to sell themselves to every conference. The Aggies are the Aggies; always bristled under Texas’ reign and wanted a way to build their own brand.
OSU and Texas Tech are just along for the ride.
Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State were always at the whims of the rest.
LikeLike
They need to disband the B12, and reform it as the Big 16. Either UT comes along or it does not, but at least it starts on an equal footing.
LikeLike
Again, good luck with that.
LikeLike
That sounds like a Big 8 but with 16 mouths to feed and without Nebraska.
You seriously want to try to feed 15 other mouths off of just Oklahoma when Nebraska + Oklahoma couldn’t even feed 6 others?
LikeLike
zeek,
The Big 8 was OK, KS, NE, MO, IA, and CO
right now they are OK, KS, MO, and IA
adding UL + UC + WVU adds 3 new states
adding TT + BYU + AF adds 3 more
that leaves 4 more slots (1 reserved for UT)
will it be at the level of B1G / PAC / SEC, no, but neither was the B12 in the first place
you could build a solid conference just below the Big 3 and probably upgrade most of the schools from their current values (ie, making more than they are now). UT could keep the LHN, with limits on broadcasting (such as HS games, and taking tier 1 or tier 2 games from the conference deal), and OU could have OUN. KU already has a nice Tier 3 deal with IMG, and the others could bundle theirs to increase value)
If the other option is CSUA or Sun Belt, I think the deal could get done. Boise State or TCU would get a better deal than they have now.
LikeLike
So let me look at this a little differently:
If the Big 12 (with perhaps an assist from the SEC) doesn’t step up to the plate and kill the Big East as a viable football conference by poaching multiple teams, is the most likely consequence that the Big East will seek to replenish its ranks by adding a number of schools currently non-BCS (service academies? Nova?) to its ranks? If so, does that lead to an even greater difficulty in getting to an eventual 4×16 model if there are that many more schools which would have to be demoted in such an evolution? And if so, is that a good thing or a bad thing?
LikeLike
Texas keeping the Big 12 alive as a fifth conference in itself probably killed the 4 x 16 concept, which frankly didn’t have much of a chance to begin with.
LikeLike
I don’t think it would lead to greater difficulty in getting to the 4×16, but it depends on whether you believe that it’d be politically feasible to leave those schools behind. There’s 4 scenarios:
Scenario 1: Big East expands with service academies and non-AQs; Big 12 goes to 10.
In all honesty, I think it’d be easier to get to the 4×16 later if the Big 12 stays at 10 as Dodds prefers. None of the service academies’ brass views them as football factories in need of a route to the national championship or the BCS. If they did, we already would have had this outroar, so I think they’d be willing to just let it go. I think the Big East could legitimately be left behind in the next BCS contract or the one thereafter. As others pointed out, it’s mostly a group of promoted non-AQs from the past years at this point.
But if you believed that it would make it harder to shake off the Big East, then yes you’d be adding more BCS schools to the picture, and you’d still have 6 AQ leagues with around 70-75 teams.
Scenario 2: Big 12 raids Big East to go to 12 or 14. Big East adds service academies or whoever they can find.
In this scenario it’s much easier to see the Big East getting left behind. They’d probably lose Louisville and WVU or Cincinnati or TCU or USF, so it’s hard to see why they’d be kept AQ in the next one.
I think this round showed how far away we are from 4×16 if anything. Texas and ND are nowhere close to joining the 4 presumed leagues of the 4×16 (ACC, Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC). You need them in those conferences to get close to it. Texas may in fact be moving away from the 4×16 endgame due to the LHN, and if that’s the case, then ND is not moving closer to joining a conference.
You could in fact see stable 12-14 team leagues for the long haul after this.
In the scenario 2 case, that means you end up with 5 stable leagues and a playoff. 5×12-14 is a more plausible endgame instead of 4×16 at this point.
LikeLike
Actually, change my first sentence to Vincent’s and you have what I think is going to happen.
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn – That was the crux of my argument for the past year of why I didn’t think the SEC would go after Texas A&M… and yet they did so anyway. If Oklahoma is locked into the Big 12 with Texas, then losing Missouri (while bad) still won’t kill that conference. It appears that Texas is perfectly fine with a Big 12 as long as there’s OU and the LHN – everyone else seems to be replaceable filler. The fact that the Big 12 still isn’t dead is a medical marvel.
LikeLike
@Frank the Tank
I still think the SEC did not go after aTm. aTm forced their hand.
LikeLike
That’s a very fair point.
The SEC may have been trying to work on FSU or Va Tech (boosters/pres or others) because they’ve known of the A&M interest for a long time and almost admitted them last year.
My guess is the groundwork on the ACC raid has been weakened significantly and now they’re in plan B mode.
LikeLike
loki,
I agree 100%
I think when the administration said no in june 2010 is set off a s**tstorm in College Station that continued to grow over the whole year. In june 2010 the administration thought only 20% of the fan base wanted the SEC. Over the next year they have come to understand that the fan base is more like 80% in favor of the SEC. Point being, it still took over a year for the administration to make their move to the SEC.
LikeLike
@Frank – It isn’t Texas that keeps Oklahoma locked in the Big 12, it’s the big orange turd called Oklahoma State.
LikeLike
If the Big 12 doesn’t effectively kill of the Big East there will be more AQ schools and it will be determined totally by the whims of Providence College alumni. It will also make the MWC closer to AQ status since they may be better than the BE. That has to make the Pac, B1G, SEC and ACC unhappy.
Does that encourage the B1G to move? Does that encourage the ACC to be the 1st to 16?
LikeLike
KC Star: SEC still in sights for Missouri as Big 12 tries to unify
Quotes:
“We either stick in the Big 12 because everything came about the way it needs to, the right way, with all the differences being settled in Missouri’s favor,” a university administrator who asked not to be identified told The Star on Thursday night. “But what are the odds of that happening?
“The other option is to join another conference and I believe that is something that we’re very open to.”
Asked if the SEC was still in play, the administrator, who contacted The Star, said: “You will not look stupid by insinuating that.”
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/09/22/3161027/sec-still-in-sights-for-missouri.html
LikeLike
I’m getting the hunch that Mizzou is seeming intent on out-OUing OU.
LikeLike
Ding Ding Ding.
After Missouri’s attempt to try to sell itself last year, we’re now getting Missouri’s attempt at a powerplay after OU just ended up with pie on their faces.
You seriously can’t script this…
LikeLike
Is this the zombie’s 3rd life?
LikeLike
Could be its 5th or 6th if you count back to the SWC days.
LikeLike
What a freaking nightmare. I think Baylor, ISU, KU, and KSU just need to package themselves up for the Big East and damn the financial consequences cause this thing can’t go 24 hours without erupting. This is madness now.
LikeLike
Looks like Mizzou is headed to the SEC:
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/09/22/3161027/sec-still-in-sights-for-missouri.html#ixzz1YkJ6bxVd
LikeLike
@Andy – If they have the opportunity to do so, they need to pull the trigger. The SEC is certainly taking its sweet time, though. If they’re still waiting for those waivers, they’re never going to get them.
LikeLike
A lot of sources at Mizzou are saying it’s looking increasingly likely. I would put the chances at above 50% right now.
I agree that it’s the right move at this point. Most of us wanted Big Ten, but we can’t sign on for another 6 years of this mess. We need to get out, and if it has to be SEC, so be it.
LikeLike
Andy,
Your comment sums up why the SEC will not invite MU! Arkansas, South Carolina, and TAMU all wanted to go to the SEC. MU does not, and Slive will want a school like VT or FSU first because of the sports culture. I really feel like listening to Alan and Bamatab on here that the SEC does not want to be anybody’s second choice or “last resort”.
LikeLike
SEC already has invited Mizzou, and are currently trying to persuade them to join. Plenty of Mizzou fans are thrilled. I attended the University of Michigan so naturally I’m more of a Big Ten fan, but the fanbase is split on this.
LikeLike
Andy,
I have not seen one official word out of Birmingham. All the chatter is sources inside MU about this “invitation” and so far I have not found 1 credible source from the folks actually issuing the invitation. I call BS until I see proof from the other side. My gut feeling is that MU was bluffing an SEC invite to see if they could get one from the B1G the same way OU did with the PAC. Look how that just blew up in their face when Scott issued his public statement. I feel MU’s bluff is about to be called and they will be stuck for forever like OU is now. The big winner in all this is UT knowing they own the conference now. They got rid of TAMU – who was a real threat to them long term – and UNL, who would have fought them in the future. The rest just showed how weak they are instead of standing up to UT and making their demands. Deloss Dodds and Powers must be laughing at all this, and knowing the LHN is safe.
LikeLike
re: Duffman below. For some reason the blog is not letting me reply to his post.
You won’t see anyone on the SEC end officially say anything about an invite to MU unless we accept it. They have no motive to announce it as long as MU might turn them down.
But it definitely exists, and it is the main focus of decision makers in Columbia this week.
LikeLike
Andy,
When was the last time Slive was in Columbia?
Who is the MU to SEC connection?
answer both of those questions, and I have more faith. Missouri is the “show me” state, so show me.
LikeLike
All the SECers on Fbaum want WVU. They are hot hot hot for SEC, calling in and pleading their case for admission. Does that mean Slive will listen?
LikeLike
@duffman,
I think that Mizzou does offer the SEC one thing that they desire, and that is a large tv market. There was a rumor going around that Slive was not a happy camper with the Mizzou folks because of the leak about their offer. According to the rumor, Slive yanked the offer because they leaked it. I’m not sure how true that is, but Slive would prefer to act stealthly from here on out. I’m betting that even if that rumor has and amount of truth to it, if Mizzou comes back and expresses an earnest desire to come to the SEC, then Slive will accept them based on the markets they provide. After reading there message boards, there is no doubt in my mind which conference their fans want to be in. So if they were to join, I don’t think there would be a big risk of them leaving the SEC for any other conference.
LikeLike
If/when the SEC goes to 16, then I believe MU is the frontrunner for #16. I think that #14 # 15 will be from the east. Pick two of FSU, VT, NCSU or WVU. That keeps the E/W divisions the where they are. Unless, of course, they go to pods/sub-divisions…
LikeLike
Some common sense in the realignment drama
George Downes: Michael’s chasing Kimmy?
Julianne Potter: Yes!
George Downes: You’re chasing Michael?
Julianne Potter: YES!
George Downes: Who’s chasing you… nobody, get it? There’s your answer. It’s Kimmy.
I could care less what anybody from a “chasing” school says. The only question to answer is what are Delany, Scott, or Slive saying?
Scott: “we are staying at 12”
Slive: “we are only adding TAMU”
Delany: “I have been playing golf”
All the chatter filling the media is from schools looking for homes, bloggers with “sources”, or media folks who can’t find snow in a snowstorm. OU was bluffing, WVU was bluffing, and I am willing to bet MU is bluffing their a$$ off. I could be made to be a liar tomorrow, but for right now I think the Big 3 are done unless ND says yes to Delany, UT says yes to Scott, or VT / FSU say yes to Slive. Outside of any of that happening, the only realignment going on will be lesser schools in lesser conferences, which will mean very little to the big media companies.
UT has won, ESPN has won, UNL has won, PAC has won, B1G has won, TAMU should win, and the SEC has won. What else could drive a major movement?
LikeLike
@duffman – Did you just bust out a scene from “My Best Friend’s Wedding”? And do I lose my man card for recognizing that right away?
(To be clear, my wife is a massive Julia Roberts fan.)
LikeLike
No, you do not lose your man card, once you are married sometimes you have to do stuff to keep peace in the barnyard. Braveheart is a chick flick disguised as a flick for guys. If you get no man cave in your house, or she nixes poker night, then it may be time to turn in you card.
LikeLike
My wife also is a big Julia fan.
I do think Mizzou is being pursued, simply because the SEC has discovered they are Julia Roberts.
Also the WVU getting turned down means someone else is in the lead. But I don’t know how long the SEC will pursue Mizzou when they are George