Could the Big12 and PAC10 Combine?

[joseephuss]

Hey, UT played their advantages for all it was worth. No denyin that.

I'm just amazed that a "major" athletic conference actually agrees to a formal, structured, caste system and that the big schools are able to openly bully small market teams out of their earned money that they're contractually obligated to the way a bully shakes down smaller kids on the playground for their school money. It's pretty much unheard of, and seems in pretty poor taste given the amount of acrimony and disharmony this conference has gone through in the last month. Then again, maybe the Big XII doesn't qualify for the title of a "major" athletic conference anymore.

The smaller schools realize this and also realize that without the Big 12 they would be cast out into a minor conference somewhere. They are getting more as a lower class school in the Big 12 than they would anywhere else. It is a weird situation that I don't think is going to happen too often, but it is what it is.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

http://gazetteonline.com/blogs/docs...agree-to-cede-exit-money-to-texas-oklahoma-am

Basically Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas and K-State have "agreed" to give their share of the penalty money over to the Big 3, the way the scrawny kid at the school yard "agrees" to give his milk money over to the kid who has been held back 3 grades.

I understand your point of view. However, I think you also have to look at it from the perspective of Texas, TAMU and OU. BTW, it's odd that you don't hold the same feelings towards TAMU or OU. If those schools leave, it's done for the Big 12. I don't know exactly what the offers were from the Pac 10 or the SEC for TAMU or OU and the Big 10 for Texas but I would guess that it was done as a sort of wash to make each whole on what they might have gotten. I don't know this to be a fact but I don't know that you can say Texas strong armed these schools either. It sounds like a calculated business decision on behalf of Kansas, KStm IS and Baylor. Each of those schools stood to lose much more in revenue had they been forced to change to a conference such as the MWC. It was certainly in the best interests of those schools to make this offer.

 

[DFWJC]

Hey, UT played their advantages for all it was worth. No denyin that.

I'm just amazed that a "major" athletic conference actually agrees to a formal, structured, caste system and that the big schools are able to openly bully small market teams out of their earned money that they're contractually obligated to the way a bully shakes down smaller kids on the playground for their school money. It's pretty much unheard of, and seems in pretty poor taste given the amount of acrimony and disharmony this conference has gone through in the last month. Then again, maybe the Big XII doesn't qualify for the title of a "major" athletic conference anymore.

I think you may be exaggerating the "bully shake-down" but the writing is colorful enough that I'll go along with your general point regarding inequites.

 

[Concord]

Nebraska vs Ohio St.

Man that sounds weird.

 

[joseephuss]

Nebraska vs Ohio St.

Man that sounds weird.

It is because they have only played each other twice(1955 and 1956) in their histories. It always amazes me how few times some of the big boys of college football have faced some of the other big boys of football. And if it weren't for bowl games a lot of those match ups would not happen. For example, Texas has played Michigan only once in their long histories and that was in a bowl game.

 

[InmanRoshi]

I think you may be exaggerating the "bully shake-down" but the writing is colorful enough that I'll go along with your general point regarding inequites.

So those schools handed them their contractually money out of charity and goodwill?

Like I said ... I understand pure greed. I may not respect it or appreciate it, but I understand it. This is an extra $3-4 million to the Big 3, which basically has already been given a license to print their own money by the new deal, and it reeks of school yard bully behavour. It's vindictive, childish and petty. It doesn't even qualify as greed.

 

[InmanRoshi]

It sounds like a calculated business decision on behalf of Kansas, KStm IS and Baylor.

Like I said, just like it's a "calculuated business decision" for the scrawny kid on the play yard to give away his lunch money to the bully. Or the way a prostitute makes a "business decision" to give her money to her pimp. It's exploitation, pure and simple.

The Big 3 already got a caste system implemented where they make more money than everyone else in the conference. That wasn't good enough for them? They had to take money out of the pockets of the other programs as well? What a classy move for a conference that desperately needed to build some solidarity and unity. I don't have a problem with playing hardball to get as much money as possible through TV deals and whatnot. But to bully away the other teams money from the penalty money contractually obligated to them is classless.

 

[DFWJC]

So those schools handed them their contractually money out of charity and goodwill?

Like I said ... I understand pure greed. I may not respect it or appreciate it, but I understand it. This is an extra $3-4 million to the Big 3, which basically has already been given a license to print their own money by the new deal, and it reeks of school yard bully behavour. It's vindictive, childish and petty. It doesn't even qualify as greed.

I guess they could have refused the money. I wish they would have (and still stayed in the Big 12).

The article made it sound like things were looking grim and the teams that were going to be homeless made the offer to forfeit the extra exit funds knowing full well that would gain much more than they were givng up with a new deal in place. Again, it would have been nice if the Big 3 did not accept the offer and still stayed in the Big 12 out of the kindness of their hearts. That would have been much cleaner.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Like I said, just like it's a "calculuated business decision" for the scrawny kid on the play yard to give away his lunch money to the bully. Or the way a prostitute makes a "business decision" to give her money to her pimp. It's exploitation, pure and simple.

The Big 3 already got a caste system implemented where they make more money than everyone else in the conference. That wasn't good enough for them? They had to take money out of the pockets of the other programs as well? What a classy move for a conference that desperately needed to build some solidarity and unity. I don't have a problem with playing hardball to get as much money as possible through TV deals and whatnot. But to bully away the other teams money from the penalty money contractually obligated to them is classless.

I guess I just don't understand. This is business. All parties involved made good business decisions.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Nebraska vs Ohio St.

Man that sounds weird.

It might sound weird but losing to them will feel worse.

 

[jterrell]

No, they really weren't. It's not believed A&M had a firm offer from the SEC, and OU's offer to the Pac 16 was contingent with Texas coming over and delivering the Dallas/San Antonio/Houston markets with them.

Basically Beebe bribed A&M and OU with a fat payday to play nice, quit making waves and put on a solid front so they could go to the television networks as a big happy family and see what they could potentially get if the Big XII holds. They couldn't get any firm estimates unless everyone was in.

You were misinformed.

The SEC commish was in College Station when the deal was announced.
OU was his next stop.

Texas was the key for the Pac10 deal period.

I have heard the SEC commish, Gene Stallings and various others speak about this on local radio almost daily for 2 weeks.

TAMU considered the Pac10 a bunch of hippie sissies and weren't even close to accepting that deal. OU preferred the SEC but only if it could keep it's annual game against Texas which is a huge revenue game and their biggest game historically after losing Nebraska as a rival.

Baylor and the other schools left out of the Pac 10 deal were going to be looking at non-BCS conferences and no more than 5 mil annually in conference revenue whereas now they are going to be guaranteed at least 14 million.

They weren't bullied, they begged for that deal.

 

[StanleySpadowski]

What most people don't realize about this whole league expansion is that each conference has a set of by-laws.

The Big 10's by-laws state that any school invited to join must either be in a state or share a border of the state with an existing Big 10 school. The Big 10 couldn't have invited a lot of the teams rumored to be on the short list.

The Big 12 almost has to get back up to 12 teams just so they aren't sitting at 8-9 after the next grab.

 

[jterrell]

What most people don't realize about this whole league expansion is that each conference has a set of by-laws.

The Big 10's by-laws state that any school invited to join must either be in a state or share a border of the state with an existing Big 10 school. The Big 10 couldn't have invited a lot of the teams rumored to be on the short list.

The Big 12 almost has to get back up to 12 teams just so they aren't sitting at 8-9 after the next grab.

They are at 10 which is really what they want.

The Big 12 Championship game will be back but right now they aren't losing any money without it. I'd guess it is 2 years before they bring in the additional 2 teams if they ever do. Right now they split the same cash by 2 less teams.

The Big 12 South teams have always wanted to face the Big 12 North teams regularly. As much as Nebraska cried they got to walk through the Big 12 North each year and be handed a shot in a big 12 Championship game in which to win a BCS birth.

The Big 10 can change its bylaws fairly easily and would have done so in a heartbeat to have Texas included. UT draws in a huge TV market with Houston, DFW and San Antonio as well as Austin all tuning in for them with good numbers.

 

[StanleySpadowski]

They are at 10 which is really what they want.

The Big 12 Championship game will be back but right now they aren't losing any money without it. I'd guess it is 2 years before they bring in the additional 2 teams if they ever do. Right now they split the same cash by 2 less teams.

The Big 12 South teams have always wanted to face the Big 12 North teams regularly. As much as Nebraska cried they got to walk through the Big 12 North each year and be handed a shot in a big 12 Championship game in which to win a BCS birth.

The Big 10 can change its bylaws fairly easily and would have done so in a heartbeat to have Texas included. UT draws in a huge TV market with Houston, DFW and San Antonio as well as Austin all tuning in for them with good numbers.

Changing the Big 10's bylaws isn't an easy or short process. The only way to go about it quickly would be to disband then reform by unanimous consent and some team would vote against it for fear of being left out.

The Big 12 can say they'd like 10 teams all they'd like (does anyone really believe that they don't want the $$ a football championship game brings?) but if the Big 10 offered any of the eligible teams (Mizzou and Iowa State currently, Kansas and Kansas State starting in 2011), they'd bolt for the money in a heartbeat. They had better be prepared for that. A school can't treat others like a red-headed stepchild and expect them to keep coming back for more.

 

[ABQcowboyJR]

haha man you guys and this share the money equally. Thats the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. These schools are not in this for charity. The Big 12 is run as a fair conference. You win and play well and you get your payday. Sounds pretty American to me, I like it.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Not sure if it was answered before, but do the changes take effect next year? I know schedules are already set and it would be too late to change them now.

 

[Concord]

It might sound weird but losing to them will feel worse.

I'm sure you speak from experience but I'm not worried in the least.

 

[DFWJC]

You were misinformed.

The SEC commish was in College Station when the deal was announced.
OU was his next stop.

Texas was the key for the Pac10 deal period.

I have heard the SEC commish, Gene Stallings and various others speak about this on local radio almost daily for 2 weeks.

.

I had heard that there had NOT been an official offer from the SEC, but they were contimplating making a offer that would consider allowing TAMU into the SEC at a lessor share than the current members and only if other circumstances were met. Everyone is just assuming there was an equal offer in place and the SEC does not really care because nothing has gone forward.

The 15 year TV deal was already in place and the 12 team SEC is already set up as football nirvana--so absolutely no need for them to add anyone. The shares would have diluted and the SEC champ game is already in place. IF they did add TAMU, they would have wanted OU or UT to join as well to balance things out. That conference is in great shape...no need to add at all.
You here alumni and even talk radio going on (and fuming) as if TAMU turned down an offer from the SEC to be an equal member. There is proof of that at all from what I can tell.

I think A&M ended up stronger than they were ths time last year, so they should be happy. The Pac 16 would have sucked for them, so all is good right now.

 

[jterrell]

Changing the Big 10's bylaws isn't an easy or short process. The only way to go about it quickly would be to disband then reform by unanimous consent and some team would vote against it for fear of being left out.

The Big 12 can say they'd like 10 teams all they'd like (does anyone really believe that they don't want the $$ a football championship game brings?) but if the Big 10 offered any of the eligible teams (Mizzou and Iowa State currently, Kansas and Kansas State starting in 2011), they'd bolt for the money in a heartbeat. They had better be prepared for that. A school can't treat others like a red-headed stepchild and expect them to keep coming back for more.

You really must not be following this very closely.

The Big 10 could and would accept Texas with little thought. They have made overtures long before now.

The championship game revenue isn't an issue right now.. Fox already said they wouldn't ask for any money back with it gone the next two seasons and would guarantee no less in renegotiation than it pays now. Like I stated in the very first thread on this topic the Big 12 had plenty of tv draw in the next round of negotiations to make money. The big 12 likely expands back to 12 teams for future revenue purposes but doesn't need to do so right now.

Nebraska, Texas, Notre Dame are the only schools the Big 10 wants because they are the only ones who would up revenue. Everyone else just divides the revenue further.

If another major conference wants to offer Kansas and Kansas State more than the 14 mil they are guaranteed, please do. The Big 12 would be stronger without them.

 

[jterrell]

I had heard that there had NOT been an official offer from the SEC, but they were contimplating making a offer that would consider allowing TAMU into the SEC at a lessor share than the current members and only if other circumstances were met. Everyone is just assuming there was an equal offer in place and the SEC does not really care because nothing has gone forward.

The 15 year TV deal was already in place and the 12 team SEC is already set up as football nirvana--so absolutely no need for them to add anyone. The shares would have diluted and the SEC champ game is already in place. IF they did add TAMU, they would have wanted OU or UT to join as well to balance things out. That conference is in great shape...no need to add at all.
You here alumni and even talk radio going on (and fuming) as if TAMU turned down an offer from the SEC to be an equal member. There is proof of that at all from what I can tell.

I think A&M ended up stronger than they were ths time last year, so they should be happy. The Pac 16 would have sucked for them, so all is good right now.

TAMU was negotiating the offer, when the big 12 deal was revived. It was official enough that the SEC commish had the authority to get the deal done and was in town.

Like the Pac-10 did with Utah nothing was going to be official until it was actually agreed to but it certainly existed.

Most Aggies are really upset because they wanted to get away from Texas and go to the SEC but I agree with you that they came out better by far.

Selfishly I'd have liked to see Tech go to the Pac-16 and become part of the first super conference. I think they'd recruit West of Lubbock very well and end up better overall as they are used to working with lesser recruits.

At the same time I didn't want to see both SEC and Pac-10 schools playing games in Texas every season because of the recruiting impact for all the Texas majors.