[College Football] Big Ten, Texas have initial talks

betcha it lasts at least 10 years.

 

The original Big 12 lasted only ~15 years and the pace of change has only accelerated since then, I'd gladly take that bet.

 

awesome. if we're both around in 10 years, we'll hold each other to it. i'll buy you a beer if i'm wrong.

i was talking about this before from what i was hearing independtly from my source who sent me an email that said: "Married for ten years and the penalty would choke a horse."

and then Chip at orangebloods confirmed that later

essentially, the penalties for this deal aren't just to the conference universities (the way it is for CU and NU now). they're to ESPN.

look...as long as the money is like this, no one is goiing anywhere. According to that last wrapup i posted from orangebloods, A&M will actually be making more money than they would have had the moved to the SEC. The dynamics of all this are very different than what was assumed through about 90% of this thread.

http://espnaustin.com/audiovault/

2nd link tells the media dollars story through Chip...his interview with Cowherd


"this is set. this is locked. if they sign on the dotted line on this deal, they can't go anywhere without being fined into oblivion by ABC/ESPN"

says ABC/ESPN put all this together....and that it's a 10 year deal. "puts off conference realignment for at least 10 years."

 

Yeah, I know that the gospel of chip brown is sacrosanct but the numbers are already being questioned and, while it's ludicrous for you and I to speculate about hte terms of a contract neither of us will ever read, finally even if it WAS ironclad, the hard facts of geography and demography may dictate ABC WANTING to rip it up at some point.

 

absolutely. entirely possible. that's why it's a bet.

 

so do you agree with the article that TX shouldn't have moved?

 

There's a bunch of different ways to look at it.

As a football fan? I think a move would've been great (caveat; provided it didn't start the 4x16 super conference arms race that would've eventually destroyed the NCAA and every athletic department not included in those 64)

Was it in the best interest of UT? Depends. Seems like the article Sam posted hit it dead on. UT Inc would've lost a little, but UT the school would've gained. So, it's a trade off.

 

This is where I get lost. Not trying to be a jackass, I'm being sincere....I do NOT understand the notion that a university that already has the stature and reputation of the University of Texas will become a better school because they're in a different athletic conference.

I can understand it being important for smaller schools...or for schools that aren't in major conferences, already. But if you're already THE University of Texas, I can not see how the school improves simply because you're playing Wash St/Az St/Az/Stanford/Oregon/Oregon St/Wash/Stanford/USC in football/hoops/womens' basketweaving

 

I wish these writers would just come out and say they would like to see these conferences and rivalries get broken up so it would lead to a playoff system. that's what they really want.

i find it hilarious that they complain so much about the money in college athletics but now they are criticizing these colleges for not going after the biggest money possible.

but the hypocricy of the media is a whole nother topic

 

There is as much evidence suggesting that the conference-apocalypse would usher in an era of non-competitive, anti-playoff bulls*** (64 teams, 4 champs, essentially creating a +1 "national championship") as there is suggesting that it would kill the BCS and create a playoff.

My money is on the former, even.

 

FWIW, those smart people making the decisions for UT apparently were convinced of it. In the end, money won out, but according to these insiders like Chip Brown, Powers had convinced the regents that it was a good move academically.

 

From reading various message boards, the only people that seem genuinely happy about this are Baylor fans. Of the others, some have no opinion, some mildly upset, some massively upset but the majorities from every other school were hoping for some other outcome. OU, Aggie, and UT alums and students seem fairly staunchly unhappy as a whole.

I think SF's article stated it best: Longhorn, Inc was a winner, but UT the school and UT the fans were not. I think the same probably could be said of A&M and OU.

 

I hear ya. I'm not saying there's nothing to it. I'm saying I'd like to understand why.

Because I don't think any of you think Tech is some fantastic institution because they've had the good fortune of being in a football conference with The University of Texas for 100 years.

 

I'll admit to being happy about it.

Revenues more than double.

Talk of a new on-campus football stadium at BU.

This whole experience has made me MORE of a Big 12 fan than I was before. You know I grew up burnt orange and followed a girl to BU. So I've rooted for those teams and rooted against OU and A&M at every turn.....but no longer. I'll be rooting for these teams to succeed more than I ever have.

 

explain this to me like I'm a five year old

 

you know, i've actually said that in court before! i love that movie.

 

Definitely not, but I kinda doubt they'd be better off as a school away from UT, OR more accurately, in a much crappier place.

 

absolutely...no question!!!!

but that analysis does not apply to THE University of Texas. I said earlier, i could understand for other schools and for schools in smaller conferences.

But I don't understand it for Texas.

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/13493/clarifying-the-distribution-of-withdrawal-fees

Clarifying the distribution of withdrawal fees
June, 16, 2010 Jun 1610:00AM ET
By David Ubben

The Big 12 will evenly distribute any revenue withdrawn from Colorado and Nebraska as part of the bylaws for leaving the conference.

Commissioner Dan Beebe referenced an offer by the five schools (Missouri, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State and Baylor) not drawing interest from other BCS conferences to give Texas, Oklahoma and Texas A&M all of the Buffaloes' and Huskers' exit fees.

That spawned reports that the offer was agreed upon, which would contradict statements by Missouri AD Mike Alden and Texas AD DeLoss Dodds' on Tuesday afternoon.

Dodds, who spoke before Beebe on Tuesday, said this about any changes to the Big 12's current distribution, including the money from exit fees:

"We do not have any guarantees from the league or our northern partners. There have been reports that there's going to be a special deal for some of us using penalty money or other money," [Texas president Bill] Powers said. "We were not part of that. We have heard about that. … It was not part of our consideration and we oppose that kind of deal."

Later Tuesday, Alden added his own denial:

During Missouri’s news conference, Alden said, “There is no accuracy to that whatsoever.” Later, he continued by saying, “I haven’t heard that, and none of us in our league would believe that.”

But Big 12 spokesman Bob Burda confirmed to The Associated Press that all schools will share the withdrawal fees, and the discussion was simply a "good-faith offer."

There may be a dispute looming over Nebraska's withdrawal fee, however. During last Friday's news conference, Nebraska AD Tom Osborne said he didn't feel it was "appropriate" to impose the penalties spelled out in the conference bylaws on the Huskers for leaving.

Later Friday, Beebe said he was "curious" to hear Nebraska's case for the fees being lifted.

 

ha!


On Tuesday morning, the Big 12 office received 20 red and white roses. The card read “unity.” It was from the Big East Conference.

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/15/2020675/four-days-that-saved-the-big-12.html#ixzz0r21ucgb6