Murph and Andy are talking about nutscaping. I never knew this existed, thoughts?
Dissolution of the Big 12 teams ,Big 10 canidates.
- Thread starter PlutoDroid
- Start date
I think that response meets your criteria for showing you are losing the debate. I believe 5 is entitled to share his opinion, no support needed, you were very clear on this.
We will never know if Nebraska would have left or not if offered when Penn. St. was offered. Look what I am saying is that in every conference there are two or three teams that are running the conference. In the big 12 its OU and Texas, in the Big 10 its OSU and Mich, in the SEC Alabama and LSU, and ACC its Duke and N. Carolina. The rest of the schools are just along for the ride. The big 10 does seem to allow the others schools some say, a lot more than the big 12. Nebraska was one of the movers and shakers in the big 12, and saw that diminishing with the inclusion of Texas. So they jumped, they are making less money now than if they had been in the big 12 these past five years. They do not get a full share of the big 10 money until 17/18, now they are going to be a lot better off after that, but how many millions have they lost in the last five years getting a half share?
ISU makes a reported 3 to 4 million year off of CyTV. here is a link talking about it, but it does not say the pay out per the school, just how it works.
http://www.sportsvideo.org/2013/09/26/iowa-states-cyclones-tv-makes-the-leap-from-laptop-to-tv-set/
I didn't state it because I don't have the source but I remember it being stated on the radio ~$3 million.
3 to 4 million reported where? I've never seen it or found it. It's good exposure for ISU whether it makes money or not. The BTN did not generate enough to begin paying teams for several years.
If the term 'Partial Qualifier' is now obsolete, I believe 'Special Admits' remain alive and well at several schools - Illinois and Maryland are 2 BIG schools I have seen specifically mentioned in recent history. My understanding is that Special Admits was created to admit students with academic deficiencies, but had special talents such as mathematical genius, or concert caliber pianist. Just like the 'Graduate Transfer' rule was for the purpose of permitting a graduate with remaining eligibility to transfer without penalty in order to pursue a graduate program not offered at the departed university, Special Admits has been misused for the purpose of winning ballgames. (Never was quite clear to me what graduate degrees DeAndre Kane and Bryce DeJean-Jones were pursuing).
All that aside, including the merits which are arguable, the thing about 'Special Admits' is that there is no real database to accurately track which schools are the biggest abusers, or which athletes are on the field that didn't pass Clearing House. I think its fair to say that a whole lot of D1 athletes do not belong in an institution of higher learning. They get tutored up the ying yang and a dumbed-down curriculum that is basically worthless in the real world. While I applaud the many schools that set there own higher standards, I think there ought to be absolute minimum standards for everybody else, to keep the playing field level, as opposed to some schools having lenient 'Special Admit' policies for athletes.
All that aside, including the merits which are arguable, the thing about 'Special Admits' is that there is no real database to accurately track which schools are the biggest abusers, or which athletes are on the field that didn't pass Clearing House. I think its fair to say that a whole lot of D1 athletes do not belong in an institution of higher learning. They get tutored up the ying yang and a dumbed-down curriculum that is basically worthless in the real world. While I applaud the many schools that set there own higher standards, I think there ought to be absolute minimum standards for everybody else, to keep the playing field level, as opposed to some schools having lenient 'Special Admit' policies for athletes.
I doubt it, all across this great country of our's people are clamoring for more Cyclone coverage.
We all know how shy Pollard is, if it is even remotely successful he will put up billboards proclaiming it.
What all is included in the Cyclones 3rd tier rights that they can sell? Is it the football game, basketball games they can sell, cy tv etc.
You have now created this as a reality in your own mind. Remember delusional fantasies are a defense mechanism for underlying mental illness. Its obvious that you have a bit of fear regarding the BIG 12. Its the only topic on this board that you jump all over and compulsively reply to.
Could you please provide some official evidence that your statements have any merit? Did the ADs of the above institutions give you a phone call telling you this information or is it just another case of you completely making up complete BS and then throwing it against the wall to see if it sticks?
Don't you know? It's his opinion, it doesn't need to be supported with any facts or things to substantiate what he says. He is clear that facts and documentation are not required of him. Now he will ask for links and spend post after post repeating the same minuscule issue that he has but no facts for him.
I have yet to see any evidence that Michigan and OSO 'run the Big Ten'. None whatsoever.
Do you have any examples of Michigan and Ohio State imposing their will on the rest of the conference or getting special treatment? There is no 'Longhorn Network' type deals for OSO or Michigan. No conference deals that are set up to favor them. No examples of them holding the rest of the conference hostage to get their way.
Can you provide a single example of this? Anything at all?
Do you need that memo again? isu grads can't be expected to back up their BS. Whatever they post is fact and it can't be questioned. In fact it isn't fair at all to bring up anything contrary or what shows isu to be anything other than what they state.
Posting rules according to isu grads.
My understanding is that it's the rights to at least one football game and a few MBB games, plus all the other sports. I may be wrong on the details, but that's the basic situation. It's the leftover pickings when the big networks have chosen what they want to carry.
I don't know if it includes all the other material on Cy TV -- things like the documentary on the "Dirty Thirty" -- I tend to doubt it because I don't think there would be much of a market outside ISU fans for that, just as there isn't much of a market for the "filler" material on the LHN or BTN to anyone without a direct involvement/interest.
Money aside, retention of the third tier rights is a very nice thing. For instance, all the WBB home games are televised live; Hawkeye fans only get to see their team play when the BTN decides to carry a game. Same for volleyball, gymnastics, etc. As I've mentioned before, I could watch all the MBB games, including exhibitions, life; Hawkeye fans could not.
Don't be a jerk and ridicule the money/interest involved. Of course the minor sports and retrospectives don't amount to diddly in terms of dollars. But it's nice. And fans enjoy the filler material, as well.
I personally really enjoy Cyclones.tv, we did the cord-cutting thing years ago and we don't plan to ever go back. Therefore, I've got a station that I can pick up over my smart tv that has 24 hour coverage and classic games for the only sports team I really care about. We pick up the sling ESPN package in the winter to get all the basketball games and we're set. About the only football games I see during the season are home games, as we're season ticket holders, otherwise I find it difficult to waste 4 hours of my Saturday watching a football game. I would say I'm more of a BB fan than a FB fan because I like the 2 hour games, generally in the evening, during a time of year that there isn't other stuff I'd rather be doing with the family. I'm sure I'm in the minority of people that prefer BB to FB.
I am hurt you would expect me to be a jerk
I like the concept, my Dad has Mediacom so I have watched it when I go there. I think he should switch to Direct but that's an entire other story. I was trying to understand how the 3rd tier money works, if it all flows through that concept or if there are other items that add up to the 3-4m in 3rd tier rights. You know there will be some (southern etc.) who will deliberetly mis represent things in these discussions. So just trying to understand the process. Iowa should have something like this, it helps in recruiting and helps cultivate younger fans who may watch a feature on the Ironmen or the 50's or Final Fours and understand the history better. A good programming tool.
If the Big 12 dissolves:
Leaving out academic concerns with schools and issues I have with making the Big 10 bigger (getting beyond 12 teams is too big in my opinion so that ship sailed) the Big 10 should go after Oklahoma and Texas.
This will create a West division with: Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Texas, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern
The East division would be: Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Indiana, Penn State, Ohio State, Maryland, Rutgers
I think the West is actually stronger top to bottom than the East. Of course, this also means that teams from each division will not see each other for like 8 years at a time and essentially creates two separate conferences, but as I said earlier, that ship sailed the minute they added Maryland and Rutgers.
Leaving out academic concerns with schools and issues I have with making the Big 10 bigger (getting beyond 12 teams is too big in my opinion so that ship sailed) the Big 10 should go after Oklahoma and Texas.
This will create a West division with: Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Texas, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern
The East division would be: Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Indiana, Penn State, Ohio State, Maryland, Rutgers
I think the West is actually stronger top to bottom than the East. Of course, this also means that teams from each division will not see each other for like 8 years at a time and essentially creates two separate conferences, but as I said earlier, that ship sailed the minute they added Maryland and Rutgers.
Not going to happen. With the new TV contracts, the B1G is in the drivers seat to take anyone they want because they are swimming in cash. ANYONE outside of SEC blue bloods. Texas is a great addition on paper. They check all of the boxes, but I don't think the B1G and Texas would be able to agree on terms (LHN/BTN). OU doesn't have the academics required to join the B1G.
Like it or not the next B1G expansion will be East and/or South and probably poach from the ACC.
I see your point and I did consider those, I just think that if the Big 12 collapses all the old rules will get thrown out. Texas will be faced with the prospect of not having a conference or join the Pac-12. Either way, they will need to play ball and face the fact they will not be able to dominate the conference. Oklahoma might be trickier as joining the Pac 12 would also mean Oklahoma State could also stay in the same conference. However, maintaining a permanent rivalry out of conference is already accomplished so the cross state match-up could still exist. As for the Big 10, Texas and Oklahoma (to a far lesser extent) bring in a new part of the country for television sets and recruiting. Oklahoma brings more high profile matchups. Both things that will be the first and foremost in consideration. I think the TV ratings will be enough to overrule any academic considerations, or I could even see a split in the Academic consortium where schools have to meet certain guidelines to be included. After all, the University of Chicago is still a member despite not competing in the Big 10 athletically.
I am hesitant to participate in these threads because most of the people who start/prolong them are merely engaging in a form of self-abuse, but you're pretty reasonable (at least on this subject), so I'll pose the question to you:
The OP posits the dissolution of the Big XII, and you refer to a collapse. However, both the OP and your post talk about where the teasips and Boomers would go if this happens, and that makes no sense. If those two teams -- BOTH of them -- don't leave, the league isn't going to collapse. The whole "Big XII is doomed!!!!" celebration is predicated on Texas and Oklahoma going elsewhere. I'm assuming you don't think the collapse would occur if, for instance, some posts got their fondest wish and ISU jumped to the MAC.
So my question is: What is your scenario in which the Big XII collapses without anybody leaving?
One very possible scenario has already been identified. The big xii, sans OU and/or Texas could very easily become an outsider, so to speak. The ideal model is for a grouping of 64 teams playing into the playoff structure that first appeared two seasons ago. The placation of the big xii to now include a championship game only puts a band aid on the underlying problem. If and when a qualified 'elite' type team is omitted from one of the conferences with more than just ten teams, then you will more than likely see major unrest which could likely lead to major upheaval of the status quo so that the problem does not happen ever again.
All of the other Power 5 conferences have maintained member numbers or grown of late. Only one, the big xii has shrunk in size. The dilemma facing the big xii is to either attract two quality new members (or more) to mirror what exists in other conferences or to remain and hope to be included when the reshuffle happens (and hope in the meantime that all present programs remain satisfied enough not to seek affiliation with another league).
Conventional wisdom does not favor the big xii remaining as a ten team conference even with this new 'championship game'.
The entire discussion of the Big 12 demise is based off of OU and/or Texas leaving. As long as they both stay the league will be fine.
This whole discussion came about because of grumblings out of Norman that OU isn't happy the way the league is set up currently. If the B1G or SEC would come calling for OU, the Big 12 would be in trouble.
To answer your question directly, there is only one scenario where the Big 12 collapses without the first domino being anyone leaving. I don't know when their TV contracts expire but if their renegotiations go badly and the money doesn't compete with other conferences, teams will leave for greener pastures.
1. The Big XII could survive the departure of either Texas or Oklahoma. The crisis would come if both left.
2. The TV contracts were just negotiated. They expire after the 2024-25 academic year. Football may have been outlawed by then. At present, they are essentially equal to the BiG and SEC, when you compare apples with apples. Obviously, that will no longer be the case if the new BiG contracts are finalized in anything close to the form being used to describe them now. Don't know about the SEC.
3. David Boren shot off his mouth. He was immediately smacked down by the league office and his own board of regents, and has since recanted his remarks. Some anonymous posters on the Internet bitched about a ruling regarding the eligibility of their quarterback, which was later overturned. As far as I know, that's pretty much the extent of Oklahoma's rebellion.
4. That doesn't mean they wouldn't take a better offer. Texas and Oklahoma are exactly the same as the other 8 members in the most important respect: They are going to do what's in their own best interests. I've seen no scenario that is (a) likely to happen and (b) likely to improve their situation. That's especially true for Texas, less so for OU. It isn't impossible to imagine the SEC taking OU. The BiG is simply not an option for them because of academics, and it isn't an option for UT because even with the new contracts, Texas makes more money staying where it is and doesn't have to give up power or the LHN.
5. I'm not saying there won't be change. I will believe anything, having seen the Big Ten take in Nebraska and Rutgers and the Big XII take in West Virginia. Maybe Texas will go indy and OU will go to the SEC; maybe the Big XII will steal the Arizona schools from the Pac-12 and/or Clemson & FSU from the ACC. I dunno. My only point is that by virtually any standard, the Big XII looks as strong now as it has ever looked.
http://www.aau.edu/about/default.aspx?id=16710
Notice OU absent from the list. OU does not have the academics. They will not be invited to the Big 10 (to speak nothing of the politics involved with Okie St)
1. If OU leaves, I don't see Texas sticking around to babysit the others. If Texas goes IND, I think OU goes to the SEC. Basically if either one leaves, I don't think the other will stick around. Just my opinion.
2. As long as the Big 12 keeps pace with the SEC (a couple million behind), they will be fine. The B1G is going to be light years ahead of everyone for the next decade or so.
5. The Big 12 should be doing everything in their power to poach a couple of name schools from the ACC or Pac 12.
I think the big 12 looks as strong now as it ever had is a large stretch. IMHO this is as weak as the big 12 has ever looked. Losing 4 of the original 12 does not signify strength. This league was strong when it first formed. It may survive but it's on a shaky foundation
The Big 12 was very strong from 1996-2010. Still fairly strong in 2011 after the Colo/Neb departures. And even less strong in 2012 swapping WVU/TCU for TAM/Mizzu. So technically the Big 12 might be stronger now than it was in 2012, but it is nowhere near its 96-10 strength.
When exactly was it the weakest? I'd rank the strength of the conference from strongest to weakest:
1: 1996 to 2010. The original Big 12.
2: 2011. Lost Colo/Nebby but still quite strong. I don't think they can get above this level again.
3: 2012 post WVU/TCU to present.
4: 2012 post TAM/Mizzu departures/pre WVU/TCU additions.
Since many judge the strength of a conference based on revenue and prestige, one could argue that the Big 12 has never been stronger than right now.
There's no talk about the Big 12 breaking up and teams like Iowa State going to the Mountain West which had been the talk in the past. The Big 12's numbers from their recent meetings were very optimistic for the future and much stronger than people thought. You could argue when exactly the Big 12 was the weakest but right now is not even close to being it.
Are you comparing 1996 dollars to 2016 dollars or are you adjusting those dollars so you're comparing apples to apples? I have no idea how they would compare. You would also need to compare Big 12 revenue to other conferences. Prestige now is nowhere near it was during the original Big 12.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/15994651/five-reasons-why-big-12-panicking
Oklahoma seems relatively happy right now after the most recent meetings. You could argue it any you want but things are looking much better for the Big 12 after their recent meetings
