Big 12 prefers wantss to expand before start season Dennis Dodd
- Thread starter Mountaineer Steve
- Start date
Just a thought but think of this...from west to east...Houston to Memphis...to Cincinnati to Morgantown. Made for Olympic Sports travel. As for number four odds on it will be BYU but look out for Tulane in New Orleans as another west to east stepping stone. Just thinkin'
New Orleans beats the Hell out of BYU and the land of 3.2 alcohol beer. My youth was spent swilling that watered down hop tea. I don't plan on ever trying it again.
Root....with all due respect...when in the hell has The Green freakin Wave done anything of note over recent history?
The college presidents not the athletic folks who are making the decision. Tulane is being whispered about because of their high academic standards and stated desire to move back up the athletic food chain. Hey who knows....they were once in the SEC.
Uinta Brewing out of Salt Lake City makes some pretty good beer. I have a six of Hop Nosh IPA chilling in my fridge right now. But as far as partying with Mormons goes..... I'm with you. If this is just a money grab by the Big12, then I would expect teams like Memphis and Tulane to be exactly the sort of teams that would give up tremendous concessions and be willing to wait a long time before receiving full membership compensation. They would not make for a strong conference but if Texas and Oklahoma have their focus on the exit ramp in 7 or 8 years, they may not really care who they add as long as they can collect a big chunk of the pro-rata money.
Why is it when the other conferences expanded (with lesser teams) it was an investment in the future and a wise move?
When the Big 12 expands from 10 schools it's just a money grab, taking advantage of those poor TV networks. Amazing.
When the Big 12 expands from 10 schools it's just a money grab, taking advantage of those poor TV networks. Amazing.
How does a 'dead' conference increase the payout by 20% in one year without a conference network? I can see schools wanting to escape that!
Texas, Oklahoma, WVU and maybe one other school have no need for a conference network. It would take years to benefit them financially if ever.
Just because it's fashionable and trendy? What works for one conference is not necessarily a good idea for a different one, right PAC?
Texas, Oklahoma, WVU and maybe one other school have no need for a conference network. It would take years to benefit them financially if ever.
Just because it's fashionable and trendy? What works for one conference is not necessarily a good idea for a different one, right PAC?
Last edited:
The difference is that in every conference other than the BIG12, the flagship schools are dedicated to their conference. They do not have anything like the LHN as a thorn in their side and they do not have the President of 1 university constantly making veiled threats and acting as the defacto spokesperson for the conference. I think that 2 schools out of the 10 have way different motivations in this whole discussion than do the other 8 schools. I think that a lot of people suspect that Texas and Oklahoma are just playing the system until they can head for the exits. The other 8 teams are just trying to figure out a survival strategy. I don't think we will know the real intent of the Big2 (TX and OU) for a few years.
Michael...Actually we both are right in a way. Tulane is ranked 41st in the National University listings. That is for schools who offer a full range of undergraduate majors, plus master's and doctoral programs. These colleges also are committed to producing groundbreaking research. The closest academically ranked university in the current Big 12-2=10 is Texas which is 51st. Thus the reason that some of the academic decision makers are quietly looking at Tulane.
Navy is 9th in rankings for Liberal Arts Colleges, a much more narrow definition that includes schools like William and Mary.
My point, not my advocacy, is that when you think about a "bridge eastward" it makes sense. Minor sports could more easily travel to Houston to New Orleans to Memphis to Cincinnati and finally to Morgantown.
Given the desire to raise the academic profile of conference schools they would make sense. And they once were a much bigger player in college athletics than now.There is the SEC history. They were members from 1932-1965 finishing first twice and competing in the Rose Bowl and the Sugar Bowl along the way. Long way from that now but who knows.
They have access to the SuperDome for conference games, a nice campus and a cool market in New Orleans.
I won't pick them but I can see why some Presidents look at them differently. Just sayin'
Navy is 9th in rankings for Liberal Arts Colleges, a much more narrow definition that includes schools like William and Mary.
My point, not my advocacy, is that when you think about a "bridge eastward" it makes sense. Minor sports could more easily travel to Houston to New Orleans to Memphis to Cincinnati and finally to Morgantown.
Given the desire to raise the academic profile of conference schools they would make sense. And they once were a much bigger player in college athletics than now.There is the SEC history. They were members from 1932-1965 finishing first twice and competing in the Rose Bowl and the Sugar Bowl along the way. Long way from that now but who knows.
They have access to the SuperDome for conference games, a nice campus and a cool market in New Orleans.
I won't pick them but I can see why some Presidents look at them differently. Just sayin'
Well stated, I respect your opinion and appreciate your research. By the way, it's now Big 12-2+2 or 4= where's my damn calculator! [thumbsup]
Because the chance of a GOR extension is no better than 50/50. If the GOR is extended than Big12 expansion will go down in history as an investment. GOR extended = investment. GOR not extended = money grab. Not a tough concept to understand if you think about it. we shall see!
Last edited:
Seriously? The governor, Lt. governor and several state legislators make UT accept UH in the Big 12 for only nine years? I don't think so. For UT to eat that much crow it has to be worthwhile both ways. UT hates UH and does not even want to play them.
But they are promoting UH for the B12. Imagine that.
But she's got such a pretty eye and that red, white and blue outfit is so compelling. Sorry, but on those few occasions when I agree with her posts I will continue to hit the like button. That's what it's there for. My name is not Bub.
It's because the other conferences got new contracts, which paid extra money. As it stands right now, the Big 12 is just talking about splitting the pro rata shares. That's not really extra money.
You really don't know what you're talking about.... ....and I, like many other posters, grew tired of trying to explain easy to understand concepts/facts to you.
So instead... ....I'll just keep enjoying you making a fool of yourself with each and every post.
Tiger, that money is substantial and still spends. And if the B12 and ESPN/FoxSports decide to negotiate a new contract in exchange for whatever they agree upon, do they really need your permission?
So are you saying the B1G10 signed a new contract when the added RU and Maryland 2 years ago?
I cannot imagine what he may be saying right now, but it should be "Oh, s**t! This should be interesting but will likely be as boring and twisted as usual.
The Big 12 needs permission from Fox/ESPN. That's who gives permission. You asked why there was a disparity in the media coverage of the Big 12, in terms of how the expansion candidates are covered. Well, I'm answering your question. As it stands now, the Big 12 isn't renegotiating their contract. They are planning on redistributing the pro rata money. Well, that's not what the other conferences did. The other conferences got extra money, not just pro rata (i.e. break even) money. Well, of course the press is not going to compare that favorably with how the other conferences fared in expansion.
If the Big 12 actually does renegotiate the contract, then you will see a change in the coverage. The reason the media is framing the story in the current context is that all the inside information they are getting right now is pointing to the pro rata scenario. If either the inside information or the announced information changes, then the coverage will change accordingly.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
The non BIG 12 MEDIA is talking-rather SPECULATING-- about the BIG 12 redistributing money from expansion candidates only.
The BIG 12 and its MEDIA PARTNERS are likely talking about increasing BIG 12 revenues along with extending the contracts and GORs along with expansion. Of course new members will have a buy in period as well.
The BIG 12 and its MEDIA PARTNERS are likely talking about increasing BIG 12 revenues along with extending the contracts and GORs along with expansion. Of course new members will have a buy in period as well.
We will know soon enough. I happen to be of the opinion that Ole Buck nailed this one. We could be wrong, but probably not. A lot of back room wheeling and dealing going on right now.
You criticized the media for speculating.....and then just speculated. There isn't any indication that ESPN and Fox are interested in renegotiation the contract. Fox and ESPN put the pro rata clause into the contract for a reason.
In all honesty, you probably are wrong. You are basing your opinion on what you want to happen, rather than what will actually happen. It's clear from the discussions the Big 12 had with Fox and ESPN back in June that neither network is thrilled about giving the Big 12 more money. (As evidenced by telling them they didn't want to start a network.) They didn't put the pro rata clause into the contract for ***** and giggles. They put it in there so they wouldn't have to renegotiate the contract. It's also telling that Bowlsby is going to negotiate with the potential new schools. If you want to be realistic about it, he's trying to find out how low of a payout he can get them to take so the other schools can keep more of the pro rata money.
I actually did make it up. That's another way of saying no one(including me) knows what will happen. And remember sweetheart this is my opinion. Some opinions can not be supported with fact when there is a prediction in the equation. That's because it hasn't happened yet so there really is no foundation of facts like maybe in a research project. Get it sweetheart? We have little idea what Texas is thinking. We are giving opinions on what may occur. Not what has occurred. Do you have blonde hair by chance?
So Tiger you stated
"It's because the other conferences got new contracts, which paid extra money. As it stands right now, the Big 12 is just talking about splitting the pro rata shares. That's not really extra money."
I asked
So are you saying the B1G10 signed a new contract when the added RU and Maryland 2 years ago?
You followed up with
No, that's not what I'm saying.
Well, you can't have it both ways. Either the BIG 12 is the only conference not getting a new TV deal as it adds programs (which by the way we don't know yet), or your just flat out wrong, since the B1G10 did not sign a new TV deal when they added RU and Maryland two years ago.
"It's because the other conferences got new contracts, which paid extra money. As it stands right now, the Big 12 is just talking about splitting the pro rata shares. That's not really extra money."
I asked
So are you saying the B1G10 signed a new contract when the added RU and Maryland 2 years ago?
You followed up with
No, that's not what I'm saying.
Well, you can't have it both ways. Either the BIG 12 is the only conference not getting a new TV deal as it adds programs (which by the way we don't know yet), or your just flat out wrong, since the B1G10 did not sign a new TV deal when they added RU and Maryland two years ago.
Michael, it must have been an Oh **** moment. You noticed how he glossed over my question with a non explanation response, and burring it in with a reply to another post
Fill me man. Who's Tiger? Who's your war with? I'd like to join in and take my shots. Don't be so selfish!
Ahh the king of the TWIST.
There's no indication that FOX and ESPN are NOT interested in renegotiation of the contract either. That's because talks between the BIG 12 and their media partners are PRIVATE. We won't know anymore details about any of it until they tell us.
You however said:
Topdecktiger--As it stands now, the Big 12 isn't renegotiating their contract. They are planning on redistributing the pro rata money. Well, that's not what the other conferences did. The other conferences got extra money, not just pro rata (i.e. break even) money.
ALL of that statement is BASED ON NOTHING just like 99.9% of what you claim.
As to your other bunk--its not clear AT ALL that from discussions that----
"It's clear from the discussions the Big 12 had with Fox and ESPN back in June that neither network is thrilled about giving the Big 12 more money."
You completely fabricated that out of thin air.
You must know Topdecktiger is a Clemson troll who spends his copious free time here spewing his opinions and wild assumptions as facts. Buckaineer's last rebuttal effectively covers it.
Gotcha! Tiger you're a dick and when the future Clemson cheating scandal surfaces remember that we all hate you but are happy in your misery.