Big Ten Expansion

[Socnorb11]

Texas basically made the decision yesterday (or the day before) to allow the Big 12 to continue to exist. The decision of Missouri, Colorado, etc. weren't going to dictate the existence of the conference. Texas is the one calling the shots. In that regard, I can understand why JL would say that the rest of the conference is "under their thumb".

[thrill]

You're damn right. Texas has the rest of the Big XII grabbing their ankles. They always have, now people are just being forced to deal with it. Not only are they by far the most profitable and successful on the field, but they are better academically and politically off of it.

They also know that if another major shake down happens, they'll always have their pick of the suitors if they want to jump ship.

[cardsfansince82]

JL- I sort of knew what you meant by under their thumb. A better question would be: is that necessarily a bad thing?

Texas, IMO, is the premier athletic program in the country and it's not even really close. They should be able to call the shots. And what is best for Texas isn't necessarily bad for Mizzou. Mizzou has benefited from its relationship with Texas and will receive a jump in pay with the new deal. Mizzou isn't exactly a big player in college sports, more of a second tier program. If the South teams had jumped to the Pac-10, Mizzou could easily have been stuck out in the cold. Does ESPN allow the Big XII to keep the same TV deal with two less teams if anyone but Texas is asking? I say no. Yeah, everyone is Texas' [expletive], but no one ever said things had to be equal or fair. Mizzou gets direct, measurable benefits from their association and the alternative could be really bad. It's not like we're the Orioles in the AL East.

[Radio_Bugtussle]

You're damn right. Texas has the rest of the Big XII grabbing their ankles. They always have, now people are just being forced to deal with it. Not only are they by far the most profitable and successful on the field, but they are better academically and politically off of it.

They also know that if another major shake down happens, they'll always have their pick of the suitors if they want to jump ship.

I'm not sure that much has changed in the grand scheme of things around the Big (approximately) 12 other than the TV money to member schools apparently going up to more reasonable levels.

Colorado is no big loss. Their athletic department reminds me of the confusion in Columbia during most of the '80s. I'll miss Nebraska football. About all the Nebraska and Colorado basketball programs were good for were easy road wins for anyone who was halfway decent in the Big 8/Big XII.

It will be kinda fun to listen to the howling when Cal, USC or UCLA gets scheduled in Boulder on some November afternoon when the high is 20 degrees.

[JL21]

JL- I sort of knew what you meant by under their thumb. A better question would be: is that necessarily a bad thing?

Texas, IMO, is the premier athletic program in the country and it's not even really close. They should be able to call the shots. And what is best for Texas isn't necessarily bad for Mizzou. Mizzou has benefited from its relationship with Texas and will receive a jump in pay with the new deal. Mizzou isn't exactly a big player in college sports, more of a second tier program. If the South teams had jumped to the Pac-10, Mizzou could easily have been stuck out in the cold. Does ESPN allow the Big XII to keep the same TV deal with two less teams if anyone but Texas is asking? I say no. Yeah, everyone is Texas' [expletive], but no one ever said things had to be equal or fair. Mizzou gets direct, measurable benefits from their association and the alternative could be really bad. It's not like we're the Orioles in the AL East.

I don't necessarily disagree that they don't reap some benefits, or even that UT isn't obviously a premium athletics program. And obviously ESPN or any other media outlet wouldn't look twice at the conference if Texas wasn't there. It's just annoying to be a second class citizen. I'd grown quite used to the idea of being on equal footing with the rest of the conference, like in the Big Ten. Or the SEC. Or the Pac 10. In short, no other conference has this type of revenue disparity (that I'm aware of... I could definitely be wrong because this is all stuff I've learned about in the last month or so), or is dominated by one entity, the way the Big XII is.

Think of it this way... Mizzou isn't exactly a big player, but Nebraska certainly was because of their football program. And they were just as irked by the disparity.

[thrill]

So the big winner in all of this (other than Texas) is Utah, which is amusing.

[cardsfansince82]

JL- I sort of knew what you meant by under their thumb. A better question would be: is that necessarily a bad thing?

Texas, IMO, is the premier athletic program in the country and it's not even really close. They should be able to call the shots. And what is best for Texas isn't necessarily bad for Mizzou. Mizzou has benefited from its relationship with Texas and will receive a jump in pay with the new deal. Mizzou isn't exactly a big player in college sports, more of a second tier program. If the South teams had jumped to the Pac-10, Mizzou could easily have been stuck out in the cold. Does ESPN allow the Big XII to keep the same TV deal with two less teams if anyone but Texas is asking? I say no. Yeah, everyone is Texas' [expletive], but no one ever said things had to be equal or fair. Mizzou gets direct, measurable benefits from their association and the alternative could be really bad. It's not like we're the Orioles in the AL East.

I don't necessarily disagree that they don't reap some benefits, or even that UT isn't obviously a premium athletics program. And obviously ESPN or any other media outlet wouldn't look twice at the conference if Texas wasn't there. It's just annoying to be a second class citizen. I'd grown quite used to the idea of being on equal footing with the rest of the conference, like in the Big Ten. Or the SEC. Or the Pac 10. In short, no other conference has this type of revenue disparity (that I'm aware of... I could definitely be wrong because this is all stuff I've learned about in the last month or so), or is dominated by one entity, the way the Big XII is.

Think of it this way... Mizzou isn't exactly a big player, but Nebraska certainly was because of their football program. And they were just as irked by the disparity.

I think the disparity in revenue sharing is oversold. Oklahoma actually made the most money last year and the gap between the top and bottom wasn't a whole lot. Mizzou made the 4th most in the conference. Mizzou made more than all of the Pac-10 equal shares including USC. Mizzou's money is only a half mill or so less than an equal SEC share. Basically every conference except the Big 10 is stuck in unfavorable TV deals and once those expire they will be able to be close to on par with the Big 10. If anything, the disparity between Texas/OU and the bottom will grow, but the pie will be bigger and everyone makes more money. Maybe we're the only conference that divides the money unequally, but every other conference has a program or two whose opinion counts more as well. Other than a loyal fanbase that travels well, Nebraska hasn't been important in a decade.

Side note: the SEC barely out earned Mizzou thanks in large part to a double BCS share. The Big 10 also got a double share. Ironically, the Big XII now has traded places with the Big 10 where the Big 10 will likely have a championship game and the Big XII won't. This gives the Big XII the inside track to an "easy" berth in the NC game or a double BCS selection that Ohio State used to enjoy seemingly every year.

[Popeye_Card]

Um, the Big 12 have put 2 teams in the BCS on a bunch of occasions. And OU knows a few things about earning bids to the championship game just to get their asses handed to them. Not to mention the year Nebraska lost the Big 12 championship, yet still made the title game.

I think a championship game may actually help the Big Ten place more teams in the championship game. That's one more quality opponent in the last game that can catapult you into one of the top two spots if it is close. Better than finishing with a win over Northwestern, then waiting two weeks while voters forget how good you looked against a good opponent over a month earlier. I mean, in the seasons where OSU made the title game, there wasn't a great chance that they'd lose a championship game, except for maybe the year when Michigan was #2 at the time they beat them.

[The Third Man]

On the bright side for us hoops fans, the Big 12 just lost two complete albatross basketball programs. Ken Pomeroy said that last year's Big 12, minus CU and NU, would have been the strongest conference in basketball since the ACC in 2004 (which is the first year he has ratings for). I love the chance to play Texas twice a year.

[Socnorb11]

Um, the Big 12 have put 2 teams in the BCS on a bunch of occasions. And OU knows a few things about earning bids to the championship game just to get their asses handed to them. Not to mention the year Nebraska lost the Big 12 championship, yet still made the title game.

I think a championship game may actually help the Big Ten place more teams in the championship game. That's one more quality opponent in the last game that can catapult you into one of the top two spots if it is close. Better than finishing with a win over Northwestern, then waiting two weeks while voters forget how good you looked against a good opponent over a month earlier. I mean, in the seasons where OSU made the title game, there wasn't a great chance that they'd lose a championship game, except for maybe the year when Michigan was #2 at the time they beat them.

++