Big XII Rev Share Will Not Ruin Your Marriage Unless You Want It To
by KevinHD on May 20, 2010 8:00 AM EDT
in B1G / BigTen
Email
PrintWe've been lead to believe that one of the main motivators driving the disgruntled members of the Big XII throwing themselves at Jim Delany — Missouri and Nebraska, in particular — is the damn capitalistic process in which they distribute TV revenue. If you're on TV, you get more of the loot.
The big problem with this pay your own way system is that schools aren't really in control of how often they are on TV, and even a mediocre Big Name like Oklahoma is going to get more air time than, say, a trending Baylor team.
But there are different levels of unfairness, and this seems to be pretty low-level stuff:
Here's a look at the money provided for each Big 12 team in 2007.
→1. Texas: $10.2 million
→2. Oklahoma: $9.8 million
→3. Kansas: $9.24 million
→4. Texas A&M: $9.22 million
→5. Nebraska: $9.1 million
→6. Missouri: $8.4 million
→7. Texas Tech: $8.23 million
→8. Kansas State: $8.21 million
→9. Oklahoma State: $8.1 million
→10. Colorado: $8.0 million
→11. Iowa State: $7.4 million
→12. Baylor: $7.1 million
So—and I'm guilty here of propagating this without knowing the facts—the "revenue disparity" and "uneven sharing" has probably been largely exaggerated. So yeah, Texas is pulling in more than any other school, but around $1 million more than the middle of the pack, and only $3 million more than the absolute pits of the conference, who don't really have any business in a BCS league anyway.
And besides, if the Big XII took on the mantra that we're all equals in this family—like the Big Ten does it—you know what Missouri and Nebraska would be earning from the TV deal?
| School | 2007 | Change if Equal |
| 1. Texas: | 10.2 | -1.61 |
| 2. Oklahoma: | 9.8 | -1.21 |
| 3. Kansas: | 9.24 | -0.65 |
| 4. Texas A&M: | 9.22 | -0.63 |
| 5. Nebraska: | 9.1 | -0.51 |
| 6. Missouri: | 8.4 | 0.18 |
| 7. Texas Tech: | 8.23 | 0.35 |
| 8. Kansas State: | 8.21 | 0.37 |
| 9. Oklahoma State: | 8.1 | 0.48 |
| 10. Colorado: | 8 | 0.58 |
| 11. Iowa State: | 7.4 | 1.18 |
| 12. Baylor: | 7.1 | 1.48 |
That's right, Nebraska would actually be taking home less money if Texas would "play fair," Missouri just $180,000 more in 2007 dollars.
But there's another side to this: is it really worth it for Texas and Oklahoma to alienate the middle-folk for a measly million and a half dollars? Texas probably makes three times that in each of their home games...and the cost of those dollars is a resentful Missouri and Nebraska threatening to ruin the entire league (if if they are unfairly resentful).
But to continue this line of thinking: why does Texas care? Well, they probably don't. This whole expansion exercise has left us with one solid piece of information: the best revenue brand in college sports is not any team in it's most profitable league (the Big Ten), nor the rich kids in South Bend, it's Texas. Not only are they currently #1, but they have an entire mountain of untapped cash via a TV network that could be in many (most?) of the state's homes in 3-5 years if details are worked out. That's when things really will get unfair, to the point where it might actually have an impact on competitiveness that the current +/- $1 million probably does not.
The real reason probably has less to do with this revenue distribution structure and more to do with the fact that the grass is simply greener in the Midwest; four of the top six programs in the above-linked revenue list are Big Ten schools. The BTN was successful despite overwhelming (idiotic) predictions that the launch and deal with Comcast cannot "in any way -- represent a win for the Big 10 Network." So lols all around for the army of people that were echoing that stuff in 2008.
It's not only successful, it's the single biggest piece of the engine driving expansion, and one that could screw viable candidates that score high in every other category except "well will it increase BTN households and viewers?" (The answers for Pitt: nope and not by much).
Enemy Fist Jab: Pitt Blather
100 comments
|
Do you like this story?
Comments
from a Nebraska perspective
I’m pretty sure most Husker fans are aware that the revenue sharing benefits us more than most of the conference, but that’s not what Nebraska is worried about.
Nebraska is worried about being stuck with nothing should the Big 12 collapse, and there are plenty of reasons for the Big 12 to collapse, the inequity in revenue sharing being one of them.
And as you point out, Texas wouldn’t help start a Big 12 network, they’d start their own, and when the biggest member of your conference doesn’t give a shit about any of the other members (and believe me, Texas doesn’t), then it’s time for the conference to either seriously alter itself, or die.
Go Big Red Nebraska!
Our Cobs Are Bigger Than Yours!
Corn Nation!
Twitter!
cornnation@gmail.com
Goooooo Biiiiiiiiiiig Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed.
"When it’s third-and-10, you can take the milk drinkers and I’ll take the whiskey drinkers every time" - Max McGee
by Run Up The Score on May 20, 2010 9:02 AM EDT up reply actions
Thanks for the input.
I have to say, with memories of the games and travel for the 02-03 series fresh on my mind, I hope we get Nebraska. As a real northeasterner, these “east” teams being thrown around just don’t feel right. Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt? Meh, meh, and double meh. I could not get excited for those games. Nebraska just feels like a team you circle on the calender.
by PSUinBOSSton on May 20, 2010 9:24 AM EDT up reply actions
To echo that, I went to my first college football game this year because VT played Nebraska. I’m not a fan of Nebraska at all and wanted to see them lose (which almost didn’t happen). But because it was NU, I ran around trying to get a ticket at the last minute. Would I have done that for Syracuse or Rutgers? Hell no. Pitt? Maybe, but I wouldn’t be willing to spend as much. Nebraska joining the Big Ten would be exciting.
Pirates, Vikings, Hokies. I'm used to heartbreak. At least I have the Penguins....
"When I put on my uniform, I feel I am the proudest man on earth."
-The Great One
by blackjackfishtaco on May 20, 2010 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions
Nebraska
Indeed. It doesn’t get mentioned much, but when the Big 12 was considering changing the rules to share revenues equally, Nebraska was one of the teams voting against doing so, thus keeping the inequity. Point being, they know they benefit from the inequitible distribution and they want to keep it that way.
No, that’s not why Nebraska is interested in the Big Ten. From what I’ve read/surmised, it seems to be a combination of factors but probably the biggest is simply academics: Nebraska knows that an association with the Big Ten schools and the CIC will help to improve their academic and research profile.
I think the way that the Big Ten tends to be more unified and looks out for the collective benefit of their members also appeals to Nebraska. The Big 12 is more of a “fend for yourself” type setup — as illustrated by Texas’ lack of willingness to allow for a Big 12 network — and Nebraska might think that long term they’d be better in a setup of “a rising tide lifts all ships”.
I do think that the recent decision to host the football championship in Dallas for a few eyars in a row (previously, it tended to alternate regularly between Texas and Missouri) also creates the idea — valid or not — that the league is becoming dominated by the southern teams.
I concur with one thought in particular...
“Nebraska is worried about being stuck with nothing should the Big 12 collapse, and there are plenty of reasons for the Big 12 to collapse.” When people talk about Mizzou’s desire to join the conference, much is made of the revenue sharing and the bowl snubs, but that completely ignores Mizzou’s three major (and 100% justifiable) reasons for wanting the move: 1) Money (we would like to keep up on our facilities and still be able to pay our basketball coach when the next big team comes calling), 2) Academics (there would be a faculty riot if we were offered and didn’t accept), 3) the extreme, all-consuming desire to not get left behind.
Revenue sharing is maybe a distant #4, bowl snubs about #8. Those things are annoying (and you do have to wonder why Texas cares when the extra money they get from the unequal plan accounts for about 0.004% of their athletics budget), but they’re not deal breakers.
Rock M Nation
I'm on Twitter! http://www.twitter.com/billconnelly1
+1 to the two visitors
I don’t see how rev share can have anything to do with stability, though. It’s simply a non issue, although it does say a lot about Texas that they aren’t willing to give up .0004% or whatever was quoted above to at least give off the appearance that they’ll play nice from time to time.
All of this makes me want to have nothing to do with Texas in the Big Ten, especially if it comes with even a drop of concessions.
I know about your diabolical plan.
What you have to understand about Texas is...
…that they don’t care what anyone else thinks. $2 million is trivial when you look at their athletic budget, yet they repeatedly refuse to even allow the issue to come to the table. Their entire history in the Big XII has been about consolidating power in Texas, no matter how trivial it might seem to outsiders. This Texas Network is just the latest example of that. My worry is that at some point in the future, they’ll just suck the conference dry and then go independent. I’d rather Mizzou bolt now than to see that happen.
The key to UT is academics
tens of millions in research moneys via the CIC makes more than athletic directors turn their heads.
Very informative Kevin...
We all know it’s about an equal sharing of $$$$ and the amount, but this post brings it to a new light.
Will Kansas drop down on that list this season?
I am guessing they are higher than logical because people enjoy watching a grotesquely fat coach.
My theory would be totally proven if Maryland was in the top three in the ACC
UK is Kentucky.
Kansas is KU. No one with ties to the Jayhawks wants to be even remotely associated with the scumbag coaching in Lexington.
He wasn't confused
it’s just one of those quirks in college sports used to eliminate potential confusion between schools (or when your school sucks as badly as South Carolina, to create it); Nebraska and Indiana fans will also correct you if you switch the letters around.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 21, 2010 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions
Excuse me?
But I happen to be a Gamecocks fan as well as a PSU fan, and that argument always pisses me off. The Trojans are not the original USC. South Carolina was founded in 1801, while Southern Cal was founded in 1880.
When in doubt, punt!
- John Heisman
by carolinaeasy on May 21, 2010 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions
So I guess that makes S. Carolina a lot like
While they’re busy enjoying their NC’s you revel in your naming primacy. It’s little wonder both school’s mascots instantly remind me of dicks (that was overly harsh, but I liked the line: sorry)…
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 21, 2010 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
No we revel in our...
uhm….we are good at baseball.
When in doubt, punt!
- John Heisman
by carolinaeasy on May 21, 2010 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Clearly
you have a sense of humor (unlike your ACC brethren, Georgia Tech); how’s your smelley cock?
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 21, 2010 11:27 PM EDT up reply actions
I am still a proud cocks supporter!
When in doubt, punt!
- John Heisman
by carolinaeasy on May 22, 2010 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions
There's nothing particularly "proud" looking about that strap.
It just looks tired.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 22, 2010 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions
all the pictures from google image search that I'd classify as "proud"
wouldn’t fit with the family friendly theme here on BSD
by The JuggerNitt on May 23, 2010 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions
The big question is how successful will a UT broadcasting network really be.
Can it really get into all the homes in Texas? What will they be permitted to show? all the UT games, including national broadcasts. UT doesn’t understand the conference mentality if they are actually persuing this.
Something as simple as a 12 team adult baseball league is only as strong as its weakest member. I have seen it happen where a league catered to its top 3 teams and it now has 4 members and I’m not really sure how they enjoy playing each other 10 times a season. I coached a team that left that league and joined another that seems to get the idea that not everyone has cash flow. Paying 120 bucks for umpires for 15 home games is difficult. If college leagues are not careful a lot of low revenue schools are going to have to drop out of the BCS and this will really cause an upheaval in the athletic arena.
I think that is a valid point.
What exactly would be on a UT channel? Unless they make themselves independent, I imagine most of their football games are already tied up contractually. If that is the case, they would have a maximum of probably 2 live football games a season, three if you include the spring game. Then you throw in a bunch of basketball and baseball games. Is that enough to get the channel into every household in the state?
by VVeRPennState on May 20, 2010 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions
Texas
has a whole host of very good sports – volleyball, swimming, track, and who knows what else.
The other thing they’re incredible at is having this feeling of community that’s born out of the idea that everyone else hates them, is jealous and envious of them, which makes them more special to themselves, and in fact, validates the fact that they’re widely despised by just about everyone who has to deal with them.
To put it simply – there are a lot of schools that foster a bunker mentality. Texas does bunker mentality better (by a factor) than anyone I’m aware of, including Notre Dame.
You should do well if they would merely acknowledge your shallow existence. Hey, let’s wait and see if anyone from Texas shows up in this set of comments.
Go Big Red Nebraska!
Our Cobs Are Bigger Than Yours!
Corn Nation!
Twitter!
cornnation@gmail.com
by Jon Johnston on May 20, 2010 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Put does that mean anything in terms of a network?
Will people in Texas watch the network simply to spite the rest of the Big 12?
And when it comes to other sports, they are time fillers. You can’t make very much money from a network if you are only showing swimming, volleyball, and track. The real TV money would be made from football and basketball and I think in the case of Texas, baseball.
by VVeRPennState on May 20, 2010 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions
BTN doesn't exist without football games. Baskeball helps but football is the grumpy when it comes to making money in broadcasting and getting the channel into homes.
by BMAN13 on May 20, 2010 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
given the schedule
that everyone plays…. I mean, look at Nebraska’s non-conf schedule this year.
Western Kentucky
Idaho
South Dakota State
who the hell outside of Husker fans wants to watch those games? They’ll be on PPV and Husker fans will spend $30 on them (well, at least the first two just to see who’s playing. the third, not so much)
Texas has taken to playing Rice and teams around Texas, maybe UTEP. This year they have Florida Atlantic.
Fans will watch those games if they’re broadcast. I realize they may not mean much for advertisers on a big level, but they’ll still bring in a target market.
And then you have the games that the networks won’t pick up – that Fox won’t pick up – say, Texas-Baylor or Texas – Iowa State or Texas – Oklahoma State (maybe)
Go Big Red Nebraska!
Our Cobs Are Bigger Than Yours!
Corn Nation!
Twitter!
cornnation@gmail.com
by Jon Johnston on May 20, 2010 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions
shhh
didn’t you know, only Penn State schedules garbage teams in the non-con schedule?
by The JuggerNitt on May 20, 2010 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions
I hope you're not trying to say your cobs are bigger than Iowa's cobs.
"I want your money, but I don't want your two cents." - JVP
by ReadingRambler on May 20, 2010 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Because they're delicate?
Oh, you meant figuratively.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 21, 2010 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
and just like PSU there are only 2 or three games a year UT isn't covered on some sort of regional
an entire netword dedicated to only UT doesn’t make $$$ on 3 games a year. The BTN covers games that other conference fans watch. A UT network will only cover UT. Just don’t think it will work that way and to get rights to cover other teams will cost $$.
Re: and I'm guilty here of propagating this without knowing the facts
+1 for that admission, but at least you’re taking a stab at it (finding the facts, that is). That 2007 data sheet is a good find, and the search for it an important one.
Keep up the good fight, KHD!
Associate Dean
Blackshoe Diaries University
More weird hotness on expansion.
http://spartannation.com/?p=12002
and
Talk of Delany blowing up after some details were leaked regarding the addition (and special treatment of) Texas and Notre Dame, along with bringing in Nebraska.
"When it’s third-and-10, you can take the milk drinkers and I’ll take the whiskey drinkers every time" - Max McGee
by Run Up The Score on May 20, 2010 11:22 AM EDT reply actions
oooh boy
If we get into a deal with ND and Texas, you’re talking about knocking this thing out of the park. Even if we have to cater to them and tell them how special and important they are and they can have a 7 game conference schedule, it’s totally worth it. I love the idea of having the top 6 winningest programs in the history of NCAAF all in the same conference mixing it up.
Those links are very interesting.
Do you want the mustache on, or off?
Too bad.
I don't know.
I think I might take Nebraska, Missouri, and Rutgers rather than bend of backwards for Notre Dame and Texas. Its a bad precedent to start giving specific schools extra perks. How long before Ohio State and Michigan want to start playing a 7 game conference schedule as well? In my opinion you join the conference as an equal member and play by same rules as everyone else or you simply don’t join.
by VVeRPennState on May 20, 2010 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions
I respect that opinion
but how funny will it be when ND is screwed out of a B10 championship b/c they only played 7 games and someone else played 8. the whining will be epic.
Do you want the mustache on, or off?
Too bad.
They get screwed out of the
conference championship, but are given the auto BCS bid. I guess the championship means more.
If the Big Ten does go to 14 or 16 will the conference still be limited to 2 BCS Bids. As power is concentrated into fewer conferences something at the BCS will have to break.
One man doing the work of 100's for the good of 1000's
That's where the levees break
B/c once they give a super conference extra bids, they’ll have to either make more BCS games, or more likely they’ll have to stop giving TCU and Boise St. bids so they have enough for the big major conferences. Then those big time mid-majors will have to join a super conference to get BCS bids; and the small schools in small conferences will be hung out to dry. Then you’ll have 4 16 team conferences, — the new D-1A NCAAF — and the 2nd tier will be relegated to some new division of college football.
The irony is, that new division of college football may very well get a playoff before this new system I’m hypothesizing.
Do you want the mustache on, or off?
Too bad.
Well, I imagine if the Big Ten goes to 16
and assuming they get 3 Big XII schools, and the Pac-10 gets 1 or 2, then the Big XII will probably lose their auto-bid status. If the SEC also went to 14 or 16 teams, and the Pac 10 further increased their size, and the Big East and ACC merged (and pruned some teams off) and you have 4 super conferences, then I could see 2 autobids per conference to the BCS, with 2 at large, but allowing any one conf to have 3 bids. Or just 1 autobid, with up to 3 bids. Or a playoff happens.
by The JuggerNitt on May 20, 2010 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions
or the super conferences just freakin leave the BCS crap, the NCAA and start a college football championship association.
they have their own playoffs, set their own rules, run themselves. The NCAA is sweating bullets over this expansion. GUARENTEED. oh, just my opinion.
The NCAA makes its money from March Madness not football.
The NCAA has nothing to do with the BCS, bowls games, or really anything related to DI-A football revenue. They probably couldn’t care less about a “college football championship association” as long as it doesn’t hurt basketball.
by VVeRPennState on May 20, 2010 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions
this doesn't make sense
“we are going to add more teams, but not add a playoff” (I’m assuming they mean championship game). It then goes on to talk about the special treatment of Texas and Notre Dame, and how all the teams will be asked to add another non-con game. This would then bring the total games for all the teams up to 13, which from my understanding is not legal by NCAA rules (unless they found some loophole in the wording of the rule that allows this, which if that’s the case, it would be stupid NOT to do, as 14 teams playing a 13th game is much more lucrative than 2 teams playing a 13th game).
by The JuggerNitt on May 20, 2010 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions
also, the post about Delaney getting all in a huff doesn't really make sense, either
as this would just seem to lend credence to the original “leaked” post, instead of the ubiquitous “no comment” type reaction. And it amuses me that he is already in a huff about a leak, and then the outrage over the leak gets leaked. Delaney and the Big Ten seem to be too smart and calculating to have something like this happen.
And then there’s the part of the “special arrangement” between the Big Ten and the Big East, where the Big East will “allow” us to take ND so long as we don’t take any other Big East teams. The Big Ten will take any and all Big East it damn well pleases, with or without the Big East’s blessing. And why would the Big East willingly push ND away? Sure they don’t get to share in the football revenue (yet), but there is still some value in ND for them.
by The JuggerNitt on May 20, 2010 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with all of this skepticism
except maybe the ND thing. The Big East can maybe safe itself if it pushes away ND and is able to keep the mehs that the Big Ten may or may not accept. They could then add one more football and ball memeber, which brings them to the 9 football memebers they’ve wanted since the original raid (9 teams means 4 home, 4 away every year). Not really sure who is out there still, but it’s at least an open slot in what was a all-seats-taken basketball league.
I know about your diabolical plan.
I see what you are saying about ND and the Big East
but I don’t think the Big Ten will be like, “oh, you are giving us ND, we’ll stay away from Rutgers and Pitt and Syracuse”. If the Big Ten wants Rutgers and Pitt and Syracuse, then there’s not really anything the Big East can do or say to stop that.
by The JuggerNitt on May 20, 2010 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Agree.
I think getting ND does more for our eastern presence than any school out east. We’d probably agree that it’s not that we’d play fair, it’s that we wouldn’t care anymore.
Of course if expansion is really about “looking towards the sun belt,” well then that means we’d spend the space on Big XII teams instead.
I know about your diabolical plan.
I wonder
about giving Texas, ND, NU a BCS slot even though they LOSE the conference championship game. So many things wrong with that.
by Mr. Rosewater on May 20, 2010 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Eh
Random Big Ten employees are not telling all at bars, at least that would be my take.
Also, wouldn’t setting up a conference of non-equals be asking for the same sort of instability that is causing the inevitably decline of the Big XII? The Big Ten isn’t in a sink or swim position, I don’t know why they need to make concessions to anyone at this point in the game.
The ND thing makes sense, although I don’t think you need a source to know that. The Big East can tell ND to get in or get lost, sending them to the Big Ten and saving their conference.
I know about your diabolical plan.
A random Apple engineer
left a prototype iPhone at a bar. I’m willing to believe anything now.
by Mr. Rosewater on May 20, 2010 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions
when the time is right
i’m going to think up some just-so-crazy-it-might-work expansion idea, attribute it to unnamed sources on the inside, and drive so much traffic to BSD that RUTS is able to build a grotto of his own. You can thank me later.
I wouldn't trust old rooster me neither.
A simple inground pool would be enough to make my wife happy, thanks.
"When it’s third-and-10, you can take the milk drinkers and I’ll take the whiskey drinkers every time" - Max McGee
by Run Up The Score on May 21, 2010 10:03 AM EDT up reply actions
Why do we want expansion again???
I understand why the Big Ten wants expansion, but why would PSU want expansion? We already have enough trouble making a BCS bowl game and the NCAA tourney now. Why would we want Texas and/or other quality athletic programs to join? If it’s all about the $$$, why don’t we call ourselves tO$U East?
what's good for the conference is good for all the individual teams
especially in recent years, the Big Ten has been looked at as an inferior conference to the SEC, and sometimes the Big XII. Bringing in bigger teams raises the conference profile. Also, having a championship game raises the conference profile further, and gives one more week of exposure so the pollsters don’t forget about us. If we could just get rid of the subjectivity of the polls, then we wouldn’t have to worry about appearances so much, and could just focus on winning games, but currently the polls matter.
Additionally, it gives the Big Ten conference champ one more feather in its cap, since it will likely have beaten another quality program in the conf champ game, so when it comes to say undefeated Florida, undefeated Oklahoma, and undefeated Penn State, Penn State won’t be automatically discarded because they were only 12-0 and not 13-0 with a conf champ game win.
by The JuggerNitt on May 20, 2010 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions
because
Texas raised Mack Brown’s salary to $5.1M and USC decided to pay the Kiffins around $6M between father and son. The arms race won’t stop anytime soon, at least until congress gets involved, and that’s probably a ways off yet.
More teams means more leverage against more advertising and television executives. A some point, those that can’t compete in the arms race have to become non-BCS schools (i.e., Iowa State).
Go Big Red Nebraska!
Our Cobs Are Bigger Than Yours!
Corn Nation!
Twitter!
cornnation@gmail.com
by Jon Johnston on May 20, 2010 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm not sure what I'm more surprised about
that Iowa State is a BCS school, or that Iowa State even exists.
by The JuggerNitt on May 20, 2010 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions
I have to wonder if, if this is true, there isn't some kind of term for the special treatment.
For example, the Big East (for shit sake, the poorest BCS conference) can tie it’s members down with a 27 month requirement for heads-up, or the Big XII can have the metric shit-ton buyout clause it has (something like full 2 years of AD income, I think I saw), why can’t we give incoming gold mines a temporary special treatment?
UT/ND – you want our money? We want you. Hows about for 5 years, you guys have to play fewer of us, but you also don’t have as good a chance at the BCS. After that 5 years, you’re just like the rest of us, except you can keep Texas’s automatic win against ND as your protected rivalry.
Bingo, sign here ………….
"Every player we have, someone-maybe a parent, a grandparent, someone-poured their soul into that young man. They are handing that young man off to us. They are giving us their treasure, and it's our job to make sure we give them back that young man intact and ready to face the world."
-J.V.Pa.
I like it...
and think Delaney should draft it up just as you state it.
One man doing the work of 100's for the good of 1000's
Well
Bingo, sign here ………….
That’s straight from a form contract I have.
"Every player we have, someone-maybe a parent, a grandparent, someone-poured their soul into that young man. They are handing that young man off to us. They are giving us their treasure, and it's our job to make sure we give them back that young man intact and ready to face the world."
-J.V.Pa.
The thing about this
ND and Texas made up message board post rumor is that it doesn’t come with A&M, which I think we’ve discussed ad nauseum is part of the deal.
I also don’t think the Big Ten members would approve some kind of leveraged situation where we aren’t all playing fair. If anything they want the opposite—Alverez has even given quotes about how new teams should not only play by our rules but also have to somehow buy in.
I know about your diabolical plan.
I could see them leaving TAMU if there was some kinda of SEC guarantee.
Again, I’ll believe it when I see it, but this kinda thing makes sense – Texas DID want into the Big Ten not long ago, please don’t forget, and ND might give up it’s independence for guaranteed rivalry games against Texas and Michigan. As someone stated here (or in the post itself), this locks down the 6 winningest programs in history. If that’s not “national” enough for ND, then nothing is.
And if the reports of Delany flipping out are true (maybe?), then you’d have to believe this is something he’s looking at (obviously, it’s something he WANTS to look at).
"Every player we have, someone-maybe a parent, a grandparent, someone-poured their soul into that young man. They are handing that young man off to us. They are giving us their treasure, and it's our job to make sure we give them back that young man intact and ready to face the world."
-J.V.Pa.
Another whole in this "rumor"
is the idea that ND wants a guarantee with Texas? What about their real rivalries with USC, Michigan, MSU and Boston College?
I know about your diabolical plan.
I think that is a red herring.
The USC rivalry would likely continue out of conference. Michigan already plays OSU the last week of the season, but they still could have a secondary protected rivalry. MSU can’t break the sanctity of the Land Grant Trophy by playing someone else the last week of the season. I don’t think the BC game is always an annual rivalry. Its more like our game with Temple, we usually play, but it does occasionally fall of the schedule. No reason why it couldn’t continue in that fashion.
by VVeRPennState on May 20, 2010 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions
"Its more like our game with Temple"
Except for one major difference: Notre Dame always loses:
I know about your diabolical plan.
by KevinHD on May 20, 2010 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
seeing as the table is green
I see a need for the rest of the post to turn green as well
by The JuggerNitt on May 20, 2010 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the corporate ND line on their "rivalry" with BC
is that its only a rivalry for BC because everyone who went to Boston College applied to ND and didn’t get in. THey look at BC as a bunch of wannabes, and don’t really care about the rivalry. Its a big brother/little brother thing.
I wouldn't trust old rooster me neither.
Really, I thought people went to BC over ND
because they wanted to have a college experience in a fun town instead of in a field.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 21, 2010 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions
Whatever the reality is
I’ve had some friends who were ND grads and that’s exactly how they see it.
I know about your diabolical plan.
6 winningest programs
aren’t we actually #7 behind Alabama right now?
http://collegefootball.about.com/od/schools/a/schools-wins.htm
by The JuggerNitt on May 20, 2010 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions
hmm, though Stassen (which I usually refer to)
has us #6, then Oklahoma, then Alabama.
Maybe Stassen doesn’t include forfeits, while about.com did?
by The JuggerNitt on May 20, 2010 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I have said this before, but taking A & M is a plus not a burden.
They have a higher annual revenue then Missouri or Rutgers. They have a better football tradition than Missouri or Rutgers. They have better academics then Missouri or Nebraska. And if A & M gets the BTN on state-wide, then they are financially speaking the clear 1B option behind Texas. If give the chance, the only schools I take over A & M or Texas, ND, and Nebraska.
by VVeRPennState on May 20, 2010 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions
A&M
I rate A&M individually as the third best expansion option, behind Texas and Notre Dame, but above Nebraska. Texas A&M is more or less an ideal candidate (excellent academics and research, large fan base, good athletics, large market) but it just looks less ideal due to a comparison to Texas. But if Texas were to say no outright, I’d love to see the Big Ten simply turn their attention to the Aggies.
And taking A&M along with Texas is IMHO a no brainer.
agree to this as well.
"Every player we have, someone-maybe a parent, a grandparent, someone-poured their soul into that young man. They are handing that young man off to us. They are giving us their treasure, and it's our job to make sure we give them back that young man intact and ready to face the world."
-J.V.Pa.
Well, I'd rank the Aggies as #1
because they would only be coming if Texas were as well.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 21, 2010 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions
agree
"Every player we have, someone-maybe a parent, a grandparent, someone-poured their soul into that young man. They are handing that young man off to us. They are giving us their treasure, and it's our job to make sure we give them back that young man intact and ready to face the world."
-J.V.Pa.
I would take A&M but not without Texas
I agree that they’re probably around 4th or 5th on the options (Texas, ND, Nebraska I’d take before A&M), but I think they’re too far away and don’t bring quite enough to the table to justify it. Texas AND A&M though would be good, esp with a school like Nebraska and/or Oklahoma to bridge the gap (though Oklahoma struggles academically)
by The JuggerNitt on May 20, 2010 8:44 PM EDT up reply actions
No way OU comes.
That’s an academic black hole waiting to happen. If we HAVE to, we bridge the gap with the Jayhawks (ratings during the football off season). Certainly not OU.
"Every player we have, someone-maybe a parent, a grandparent, someone-poured their soul into that young man. They are handing that young man off to us. They are giving us their treasure, and it's our job to make sure we give them back that young man intact and ready to face the world."
-J.V.Pa.
Okie is in no way an option.
I promise you they haven’t even been mentioned jokingly at Big Ten meetings.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 21, 2010 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions
Letting a Nebraska fan define Texas
May not be the best idea…
While there is no disputing that Texas is aware of its position of strength and is active in trying to profit from it, any suggestion that if the conference folds it’s Texas’s fault is a ridiculous one. Nebraska, in particular, has been so utterly adolescent about this conference, and it’s because, from the get-go their Supreme Leader (Tom Osborne) whined that things weren’t fair. And there are some who are so juvenile about it that they still refuse to admit the Big 12 created a new conference — instead petulantly insisting that the Big 8 never folded, but rather added four new teams.
The Big 12 has a lot of problems and a less than ideal cooperative atmosphere among its members, but a huge part of the problem is, and has always been, that Nebraska has been half-assed about this thing since the beginning — like a kid who isn’t happy about the team he was picked to play on and, though he doesn’t storm out and run home, only half-plays and half-tries, while muttering the entire time about how unfair the teams are.
Also, Jon’s wrong about the bunker mentality. Texas fans don’t feel like the world is against them, and we don’t have trouble getting along with other fans, with a few exceptions, and it’s always those who are constantly complaining about us, like TCU or, lately, Nebraska.
You ain't hurt...
I dunno about everyone else
but I’ve also sorta been of the opinion that the Big 8 “expanded” to the Big XII. Maybe technically/officially it is a new conference, but outside of the former SWC members I doubt too many people would make the distinction
by The JuggerNitt on May 21, 2010 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Owing the Big 10
Remember who owns the Big 10. The current members. Giving all these concessions to TX-ND, you might as well just give them the keys to the house.
If any teams in the Big 10 (or future Big 10) deserve concessions it’s the current members. They built the conference and shouldn’t give any handouts to anyone. They’ve earned everything they have.
On another note, as a Nebraska fan I will put in my 2 cents as to why the Big 10 interests me. Our home was the Big 8. We had a nice close group of friends and we took our queen (Oklahoma) to the prom every day after thanksgiving. When the Big XII formed, our group of friends got bigger and one of them took our girl away from us. The Big XII has never been home and rich tradition that the Big 10 (still) has entices this Nebraska fan that has seen so much of its tradition lost in the past 15 years.
Don’t surrender that tradition to ND, Texas or any other school that joins by conceding anything to them.
If they give concessions to some schools and not to others, my guess is that a school like Texas would have their “buy-in” for BTN equity waived while a school like Rutgers would have to pay $x amount per year for a certain number of years to gain their ownership part in the network — and this would be perfectly fair since Texas being admitted would increase the value and earnings potential of the network far more than Rutgers.
I don’t see any problem with treating different new schools differently from each other based on their value, in terms of their entry requirements and details.. But I don’t see any way that the Big Ten would give some favorable preference to Texas or Notre Dame that isn’t enjoyed by Michigan or Ohio State or Penn State.
agree completely
Because guess who would vote against giving ANYTHING over the regular deal. Bet PSU, OSU and UM would all vote against and that would probably stop expansion.
Those 3 aren't enough
As you only need 8/11 to carry a vote.
"Every player we have, someone-maybe a parent, a grandparent, someone-poured their soul into that young man. They are handing that young man off to us. They are giving us their treasure, and it's our job to make sure we give them back that young man intact and ready to face the world."
-J.V.Pa.
You think Indiana wants to have someone get a better deal than they have/
Purdue, MSU, Iowa, everyone already in the Big Ten will not want to give concessions to anyone new. This is not only athletics. I think any concession talk is being made up by people not related to the Big Ten.
And if any of the “concession” talk is real, I’m sure it’s a initial negotiating position by Notre Dame and/or Texas which is something they’ll “give up” in return for something else. I really don’t see the conference allowing them to have a different number of conference games than everyone else, for example.
The Big Ten is in the position they are currently enjoying
because they have always done everything together. They split revenue, share resources and share an overall mission together. There is no way that, even if it means landing a UT or ND, they would bend even a little on the group equality. Jim Delany is a shrewd dealer and it is not lost on him that the Big XII is a target precisely because they’ve allowed this sort of skewed treatment of certain members. You want in the Big Ten? You’ll do it the Big Ten way; over 100 years of tradition isn’t by accident.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 22, 2010 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions
you can see the cracks forming
listening to the big 12 fans slug it out! I don’t care too much who joins… except no pitt. Screw them!
I just want a championship game. The conference is inferior without one. Plain and simple. And to hear the osu people talk about how they’ve won what, 6 conference “titles” in a row? BS.
I would go nuts to see Penn State play in a special post season game… it would be so exciting. And winning conference titles really propels a team in the BCS. I know this is common knowledge but it is so huge and is the main reason I’m excited about the speculation.
By the way, to everyone here, you people are totally rocking on the reporting and speculating about the incentives and rationale behind the moves that might be made. There have been some awesome expansion discussions around here lately.
"It was an attrition football game and you know we like that."
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SHOP THE BLACK SHOE DIARIES STORE
