[College Football] Big Ten, Texas have initial talks

Maybe, but with the bubble expanding this year and likely to again in the future, that partially offsets this issue. Moreover, while the Big 12 hasn't had a problem getting teams in persay - they're usually not a league like the Big East where even a .500 ish record is a sure thing. Ken Pomeroy said today that without NU and CU, last year's Big XII would've had the highest RPI for a conference since the 2004 ACC. That's sick good, and would somewhat offset the extra couple of losses per team.

Plus, at the end of the day, the consistently high level of competition should benefit everyone come tournament time.

 

I understand people wanting these superconfernces for playoff reasons. like max says, lets just see how it plays out

 

As a Baylor fan, I know you *hope* this works out, and everything stays peachy for decades, if not centuries, but I can tell you that from an objective standpoint, a ton of people are thinking it's pretty obvious this is a powder keg. Doesn't matter what gets "inked", as we've seen lately, those contracts seem to be are worth about as much as the paper they're printed on. I know that bugs both you and sammy, but you shouldn't take it as some kind of personal attack.

 

donny, i'm not taking it as a personal attack. :grin:

i'm letting you know what i'm hearing about the actual deal at this point. that's all. you can guess all you want as to how that will turn out and call it "realistic" or call it a "taco"....I don't care.

 

Beebe (on right now) says the 3 big schools (OU/UT/A&M) said they won't accept disproportionate share of penalty money from NU and CU.

 

LOL. Or a big ass gordita.

I'd say looking over the entirety of this thread, to scold anybody for "speculating" is kind of silly. Seems to be the entire point of the darn thing. Show me something good, Dan Beebe, and I will change my tune in a heartbeat!

That is a good first step, bravo.

 

Chip reported the TV deal is a 10 year deal...not the 18 year deal that was rumored yesterday.

 

i'm not scolding you, donny.

but a minute ago you told sammy you weren't speculating, but being realistic and pointing out the obvious. that fueled the last 3 or so posts between us. remember???

speculate all you want...just be honest enough to call it that and not lord your guess over someone else's.

 

Well if you go back to the root of it, homeboy said I was bitter.

Sounds like he wishes I was pissed off or something...?

That was a little silly, imo.

 

I could be wrong, but I believe every single Big12 team to have a +0.500 conference record or better has made it to the tournament. So when you're given 4 free wins out of a 16 team schedule (if NU and CU are that weak), then you just have to go 5-7 in conference to be guaranteed in. I'm not sure, but I think most (maybe all) 8-8 teams have gotten in too, so that would just require going 4-8 in your other games.

All in all, 4 free wins is never going to hurt you with the NCAA.

Oh yeah - I don't think it hurt much, but the idea that jettisoning those helps more B12 teams make the tournament just doesn't fly. I'm pretty sure I can say with 100% certainty that there's not a single B12 school that didn't make the tourney that, had they not beaten NU or CU, would have made it to the NCAA Tourney. Some teams might have lost to NU and CU and been eliminated, but that's their own fault for losing.

You could make the argument that if they didn't play NU/CU, they would have played some better teams that gave them more opportunities for big wins, but you can always do that in non-conference. If Mizzou or KSU or KU felt that they had 4 creampuff conference games, they can adjust their non-conference schedule to be tougher.

 

wow...here's the email sent from Beebe to the 10 remaining schools on Monday...which was obtained through an open records request from Univ of Colorado. i'm skimming it now:

http://ht.cdn.turner.com/si/images/2010/06/14/colorado.pdf


cited to in this article


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/06/15/texas.big.12/index.html?eref=sihp

 

I thought Beebe just said there is no TV deal and that it will just be negotiated in 2013/2015 when the current deals expire?

 

WHAT?! Me, upset? What gives you that idea?? :grin:

 

WHY ARE YOU SO BITTER MAJOR??

 

ok...interesting facts from that:

1. hadn't we been told the Pac 10 splits media money equally? Beebe's letter to a whole bunch of guys who would know better if he were lying says they don't...and that the impact is more disparate than in the Big 12, saying USC received 2x what Wash. St. received.

2. all of this feels like a response to Nebraska's b****ing about UT making too much money

3. second to last paragraph is biggest concern. it's the pink elephant in the room that the media hasn't lobbed on to yet....at least not fully. not sure they ever will, except in pieces that most people never read.

 

the proposed deal..from what was circulated to the universities.

Chip said that on Colin Cowherd's show this morning.

he also said the penalties for any school backing out of that 10 year deal are ENORMOUS.

 

I don't wish anything upon you. Your posts have come off in that manner. You came into this with the witty picture of the bear looking in. That was a little silly, imo.

You were the one that brought up the unequal distribution of penalties and how the other schools need to grow a pair. Now, that's not even the case either.

 

This was Chip's report:

--ABC/ESPN basically said the Big 12 could keep the money it was getting for 12 teams and a championship game for the next 7 years - through the 2016 season (even though they are now a league of 10 with no championship game).

"I think ABC/ESPN liked middle America," DeLoss Dodds said. "The Big 12 is a big part of middle America, and I don't think they wanted to lose that. If we're in the Pac-10, we're more in Fox country, and I think they read those tea leaves and didn't want to lose us."

When pressed further, Dodds said, "If we move to the Pac-10, we become more of a Fox property than an ABC property, and I think they were conscious of that."


--Fox Sports Net, the Big 12's cable partner basically agreed to re-up for four more years when their contract runs out after the 2011 season. Fox has even offered to provide some up front money on the 4-year deal (essentially a signing bonus) to help make everyone flush in green.


--So starting in 2016, both of the Big 12's TV deals will finally be in synch. They will then be up for bid at the same time going forward, which will put the Big 12 in a better financial position from a negotiation standpoint.


--The buyout penalties from Nebraska and Colorado will total between $35 million and $40 million. Because the penalties are a forfeiture of revenue for two years before you leave the conference, Nebraska will have all of its revenue for 2010 withheld by the league and the Cornhuskers will also have to write a check for a combined total of $20 million.


--Colorado is still trying to decide if it will leave the Big 12 after the 2010 season or after the 2011 season. Their penalties will be roughly $15 million because they received less revenue in the Big 12.


--Five schools - Missouri, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State and Baylor - basically told the other five members of the Big 12 (with invitations to other conferences) that they would forgo their share of the buyout penalties from CU and Nebraska and give their share to the five with invites to help keep the Big 12-Lite together. That is a fluid situation, I'm told, and could be revisited. Texas president Bill Powers basically said Tuesday he would want that money split up among all the schools.


--Texas Tech was the only school that didn't sign a commitment to go forward of the 10 schools left in the Big 12. According to sources, Tech had some regents who were upset about the left turn away from the Pac-10. Some Tech regents wanted to keep on track to the Pac-10, but I'm told by the end of the day Tuesday Tech will sign the blood oath of the Big 12.


--DeLoss Dodds basically confirmed that the reality of Texas and Texas A&M going in different directions was a huge influence on the Longhorns coming back to the table and commit to a remodeled Big 12.

"We love our relationship with Texas A&M," Dodds said. "That's a strong athletic competition. We wanted to keep those relationships together. Those relationships are important to our state, to our alumni and to our student-athlete. Our kids grow up wanting to play in that rivalry, and it's important to us that those relationships stayed."


--When I asked Dodds if A&M's serious conversations with the SEC and the very real possibility of the Aggies joining the SEC was the reason Texas gave to the Pac-10 for turning down its invitation, Dodds said:

"They (the Pac-10) knew what they were going to do without Texas A&M," Dodds said. "That was not a part of their deliberation. It was a part of our deliberation."

So when it's all said and done, Texas wasn't going anywhere without Texas A&M at the 11th hour. My sources say DeLoss Dodds was never comfortable with any plan that didn't include the Aggies and that was the reason given to the Pac-10 for Texas turning down the invite.

So Texas reached out to the Aggies, and here we go.

 

A 9-7 KSU in 2009 and a 10-6 KSU in 2007 each were left out, with one of the leading factors being an unbalanced schedule that gave them too many wins against North bottomfeeders (CU, NU, ISU) that didn't help RPI.

I understand what you're getting at, and no doubt you can balance out weaker conference teams with big name non-conference games... but I do think there's a benefit to playing bigger opponents later in the season.

 

1) The bear was funny and apropos, admit it.

2) Yes, I brought up the inequality in the Big 12 because I hate to see Baylor, and all the others, getting screwed! That's not bitterness, that's fighting for you.