Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[AuTX Buckeye]

Maybe, although Miami was able to rip through a weak big east schedule, augment it with a couple upper-end non-conference games, and play for national championships. Overall, I don't think SOS plays as a big a role in BCS voting as you're crediting it with. WVU used to be a perennial top 5 preseason, early season AP, and early BCS pick, largely because of, not despite, their weak schedule. Boise State will almost certainly get the same "weak schedule advantage" this year. I favor the play-a-tough-schedule-strategy, but I'm not sure this will hurt UTx's national championship prospects much, if at all.

I agree with your points. I just have a feeling UT left some bad taste in peoples mouths.

Who knows though, I can't wait for the chaos at the end of the year when UT is undefeated and is left out of the NC game for a 1 loss SEC team.

 

[southcampus]

I agree with your points. I just have a feeling UT left some bad taste in peoples mouths.

The other schools in the Big Diez are the ones with the bad tastes in their mouth after sucking Texas off to keep them. If the Big 12 does in fact become the Big Diez, I'll laugh my ass off. They have to be aware of how much national media power/coverage they have lost just with Nebraska alone. Is Texas that naive to think they can carry the Big 12 on their backs? Doubt it. Forget about the Big Ten adding Nebraska, the Big Diez losing Nebraska is enough to make the Big Ten stronger.

Aside from that, I heard the "N" on the Nebraska helmets actually stands for knowledge. Can any Cornhuskers attest to this?

 

[AuTX Buckeye]

The other schools in the Big Diez are the ones with the bad tastes in their mouth after sucking Texas off to keep them. If the Big 12 does in fact become the Big Diez, I'll laugh my ass off. They have to be aware of how much national media power/coverage they have lost just with Nebraska alone. Is Texas that naive to think they can carry the Big 12 on their backs? Doubt it. Forget about the Big Ten adding Nebraska, the Big Diez losing Nebraska is enough to make the Big Ten stronger.

Aside from that, I heard the "N" on the Nebraska helmets actually stands for knowledge. Can any Cornhuskers attest to this?

Living in Austin, I can say first hand (maybe High Lonesome can verify, but i'll stick my neck out on this one), yes Texas believes, all the way to the bank, they can carry the Big 12.

I'm sure Texas will write something into the by-laws of the Big-12 that says all the other coaches and media must vote for Texas.

A lot of people who thought hey UT aint that bad, now know who they really are and there will be backlash

 

[BrowardBuck]

And how do you know that he didn't know it? I maintain that the B10 knew shortly after the leaks of the emails that UT was not an option. Although I am sure they continued to talk and negotiate, mostly initiated by UT because they were looking for their best deal possible, I think the B10 had already decided what its course of action was. Here is our deal. It is what it is. Take it or leave it. That is when the Pac10 stuff fired up and all hell broke loose.

These guys are not two-bit hustlers making their living on the streets. They knew what was going on and what they were doing. I think everything was pretty damned calculated. I think there are two scenarios...Either UT was playing a game with everyone knowing that they intended on staying behind (not likely) or UT and the rest of the schools were gone until A&M threw the monkey wrench into it with their open flirting with the SEC (hence the anger from UT and the threat to never schedule them again). If anyone in that league played their cards right, it was A&M. They get to stay in the B12 and get top dollar instead of having to go deal with getting beat up every week by another SEC team. THEY were the smart ones in all of this.

BB

I want to be on record as never saying Delan(e)y = fail. What I have said, and will continue to say, is that it amazes me that something that involves as much as these kinds of maneuverings seems to have been done without a good deal of ground work prior to allowing intentions to be leaked. You don't plan a major realignment of your portion of college football and then let the negotiations be carried out in twits, blogs and fan boards. That's bush league. It's not Delan(e)y's fault that Texas has to pay child support, but he should have known that before he had to leak Gee e-mails. It's not his fault that texas wants to stay home and play in its own sandbox, but he should have known that five minutes after intimating an offer.

 

[sepia5]

I have huge reservations about the reported money in the new B12 deal. It's all bullcrap coming from Beebe. Let's look at the reported money and how they could get it....

1) For Texas to get $20+ million, OU and A&M to get $20 million, and the rest to get $14-$17 million (as reported) they would need to more than double their current revenue. Not all of that is tv money, some of that is bowl money. We know the bowls are not changing the payout, so somehow they expect a company (I think it was reported as Fox would do it) to shell out a contract for more than what the SEC is getting per team. Unlikely.

2) Let's say they did get that deal, and it was done by Fox. If so. If I am a News Corp stockholder, I am asking for firings at the next shareholders meeting. Some random ahole execs are throwing around my money so they can save a football conference? It's clearly not a sound financial decision. Even if profitable, there was no need to spend that much. You could have had the SEC for that money. Instead you go and get a depleted B12?

3) Let's say there is private money involved. We are talking about an extra $100 million or more per year in money. Even Bill Gates would balk at that kind of cash on a yearly basis. For what, to save a football conference with a total of 15 years of history? Not only that, those promises were pulled together in a couple of weeks. Dubious at best.

4) The Texas television network will take time to get off the ground, and even then that is not enough to double revenues. Even with the B10 Network across multiple states the B10 did not double revenue from 2006 to 2010 (a nice jump though, from 14 to 22 million per team).

None of these reports makes financial sense. It's being reported as some back door dealings for crazy amounts of money. It's just not true. Beebe threw a bunch of numbers out of his ass, and the B12 teams bought it. Even the B10 and SEC did not increase revenues as much as Beebe is promising. He is full of it, and I am shocked the B12 teams bought into it.

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but the other thing I don't get about the money purportedly involved in a new Big XII deal is how it meshes with Bevo TV. I assume that since a Bevo TV would be dedicated to only one team, it would want rights to some, if not most, Texas football games. Even if you're just talking about airing games against the out-of-conference scrubs, that's still taking rights to games played by the most powerful football team in the conference, with the largest viewership. So you're telling me that either ESPN/ABC or FOX is willing to shell out that kind of money for the rights to a depleted Big XII package and that whichever network is involved is willing to give up rights to some (if not most) Texas football games? I don't get it.

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

Aside from that, I heard the "N" on the Nebraska helmets actually stands for knowledge.

Man, that is an old joke. After what has happened, they are coming out of this as the most nowledgeable of the bunch.

 

[BrowardBuck]

I can't take credit for this, as I saw it posted by someone else (I think a UT fan) but it may very well have been ABC/ESPN. Who owns the BCS contract? ABC/ESPN. What happens if expansionpalooza goes full force and we end up with 4 or 5 16-team conferences? Playoffs. Whose contract becomes no good at that point (along with the 7 or 8 bowl games they own)? ABC/ESPN.

I think they had a LOT of incentive to make sure the Pac10 deal fell apart and the B12 stay together.

BB

You are absolutely correct that it doesn't make financial sense regarding the product.

But the question is WHO is paying for it. First off it has to be ABC/ESPN due to the fact that the current contract is with ABC/ESPN, it isn't like they would be willingly ripping up the contract to let Fox take their rights. So the rest of this is based on ABC/ESPN providing the money.

So if you are ABC/ESPN, what is your biggest fear? To lose college football. Could they have known the PAC16 had a deal set with Fox and build their own network? You saw them overpay the SEC due to the fear of the BTN and didn't want the SEC to do the same thing. But this time they couldn't buy off the Pac10/16. (Could be some interesting game theory if Fox pushed the price up for the ACC in hopes that they couldn't have money left over for the PAC10)

So you are ABC/ESPN and the Pac16/Fox is going to gobble up your marketable Big12 teams. So you get Bebee on the phone and tell him whatever it takes we need to keep the Big XII together.

Just some crazy thoughts as the expansion high is starting to turn into a hangover and I am trying to find a way to get high again.

 

[High Lonesome]

man this is funny. There are people pissed off all over the place down here.

To be honest, I'm happy with the way that it all ended. I'm sure that its just a stop gap and we will get to do it all again(sooner than later i'm sure)

I'm just glad i still get to see ou at the state fair and get some aggy with my turkey and dressing.

Have fun with Nebraska, Lincoln is a cool place to watch a game

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

You know, Colorado. I think you're gonna find--a year from now when all this [censored] is done and over with and you're kicking it in the Pac 10--I think you're gonna find yourself one smilin' mother [censored], and you're gonna say, "Jim Delany was right."

 

[Gatorubet]

83% of statistics are made up.

57% of made up stastics are false.

 

[High Lonesome]

Living in Austin, I can say first hand (maybe High Lonesome can verify, but i'll stick my neck out on this one), yes Texas believes, all the way to the bank, they can carry the Big 12.

I'm sure Texas will write something into the by-laws of the Big-12 that says all the other coaches and media must vote for Texas.

A lot of people who thought hey UT aint that bad, now know who they really are and there will be backlash

I agree that the big 12 has been weakend, but i don't understand the notion that Texas can't be the center point of a confrence. Other than nebraska, the big 12 was carried by the south and that is still in the case. Just remember, any time you have to ask, " does Texas really think they can do xxx?" the answer is almost always yes.

also, as I stated before, this will only be a stop gap. The moment that the big 10 or sec signs its next mega-deal and makes the new big 12 deal obsolete we will do this dance all over again.

It will also be very interesting to see what happens when the BCS contract is up.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

In this age of making conclusory reactions to conclusory soundbites, I have a question....

Did Texas cancel it's board of regents meeting set for today? Did any school cancel their BOR meetings?

These are very good questions.

While the official Big 12 site declares victory and every blogger is declaring conference expansion dead, the same incentives remain for all of the players in question.

It is entirely possible that expansion is going to go on hiatus for a year or so. It is also entirely possible that this is only the calm before the storm.

 

[AuTX Buckeye]

I agree that the big 12 has been weakend, but i don't understand the notion that Texas can't be the center point of a confrence. Other than nebraska, the big 12 was carried by the south and that is still in the case. Just remember, any time you have to ask, " does Texas really think they can do xxx?" the answer is almost always yes.

also, as I stated before, this will only be a stop gap. The moment that the big 10 or sec signs its next mega-deal and makes the new big 12 deal obsolete we will do this dance all over again.

It will also be very interesting to see what happens when the BCS contract is up.

I agree on all accounts, I guess the big hangup for me is, Nebraska at least had some history and name recognition, I understand they've been a disaster since Solich left.

Also I realize this is a very biased view, but a 10 team conference doesn't feel as strong, I know we only have 11 for now and our national rep took a beating for losing the bowl games. I think the loss of the conference champ game hurts more than losing 2 teams.

I do see Mack going for the throat, al la Spurrier in his prime, in every game though.. which should be interesting to watch.

 

[jlb1705]

I think the new Big XII is weaker in this respect: Regardless of what one thinks of Nebraska or Colorado's competitive contributions to the conference, there's going to be a perception hit. You just don't lose one of the top five programs of all-time and not suffer a perception hit. The new conference setup means that Texas' schedule is going to feature heavier doses of Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State. I think Texas will start to be perceived similar to Florida State was in the old ACC. They just had the one challenge (a non-conference game vs. Miami) on the path toward a national title. Texas will be tested (or bested) by Oklahoma, but the rest of the conference games will be seen as formalities. That kind of setup allowed FSU to go a long way in the pre-BCS days, but I think in today's circumstances a conference suffers by not having adequate strength and depth to test whatever teams are the best is has to offer. I think if this arrangement lasts long enough, it will begin to have a negative effect on both Texas and Oklahoma.

 

[High Lonesome]

I think the new Big XII is weaker in this respect: Regardless of what one thinks of Nebraska or Colorado's competitive contributions to the conference, there's going to be a perception hit. You just don't lose one of the top five programs of all-time and not suffer a perception hit. The new conference setup means that Texas' schedule is going to feature heavier doses of Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State. I think Texas will start to be perceived similar to Florida State was in the old ACC. They just had the one challenge (a non-conference game vs. Miami) on the path toward a national title. Texas will be tested (or bested) by Oklahoma, but the rest of the conference games will be seen as formalities. That kind of setup allowed FSU to go a long way in the pre-BCS days, but I think in today's circumstances a conference suffers by not having adequate strength and depth to test whatever teams are the best is has to offer. I think if this arrangement lasts long enough, it will begin to have a negative effect on both Texas and Oklahoma.

I agree that you cannot lose Nebraska and not take a hit in perception and reality.

I also think that it is false to say that Texas has a one game schedule. Texas Tech has been very good over the last decade. Mizzou, OSU have also had top 10 teams from time to time. Just because they aren't power houses in the class room or in TV draw, doesn't mean that they can't play ball.

Is the big 12 weaker? Without a doubt, but they seem to know it. This is perhaps my favorite quote from yesterday, "All the 10 schools were encouraged by the conference and television networks to "schedule aggressively" in non-conference games to help beef up the strength of schedule in a league that lacks a lot of wow factor"

I hope that each school takes this to heart otherwise the BCS computers won't be very kind to the league.