Reply With Quote
they should add a championship game to be legit, unless the other legit conferences remove theirs.
you are correct on the Buffs. Still calling BS that Mizzou has had a recent big 10 offer.
they should add a championship game to be legit, unless the other legit conferences remove theirs.
I disagree, that would mess with the perfect setup in place. However, originally, I was referring to academics and athletics.
If the Big 10 picks Mizzou, it's a no-brainer that they jump.
For Mizzou, it basically boils down to this:
Do you want an equal cut of a $250 million television contract? Or continue to take the backseat to Texas & Oklahoma for an uneven cut of a $70 million contract?
Ok, so what about the question on the other side.... does the B12 really lose anything if Mizzou goes?
Absolutely - the St. Louis market and 1/2 the Kansas City Market.
Plus the embarrassment of losing a charter big 6 member and the knowledge that the Big 10, SEC, et al can grab anybody they want from our league.
Would you consider Mizzou to be the most attractive option for the Big 10? If it's as easy as that then why not go for a Texas or Oklahoma?
I have no opinion on whether or not Mizzou is their best option, only that Mizzou will jump if offered.
4 reasons that Texas and Oklahoma don't make as much sense:
1) Geography - larger travel costs for every current big 10 team. This is not a big deal for football, but non-revenue sports do care about traveling expenses.
2) The Big 10 is looking for 1 team, Texas and OU are likely a tandem deal moving forward.
3) Might be tougher to get Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State to sign off on adding another athletic department that is as big (if not bigger) than their own. The Big 10 is pretty equitable with its revenue sharing, but it still has a few schools that throw their weight around more than others - do they really want another gorilla at the table?
Most important:
4) Mizzou would be willing to leave because they would get an equal share of a much larger deal as opposed to the current lesser share that they receive of a much smaller deal.
Texas and OU receive the lion's share of that smaller deal. They don't gain as much by jumping. No other conference will allow them the special treatment that they receive from the Big 12. ALL other BCS conferences feature equitable revenue sharing deals that the Big 12 does not have.
Last edited by K-State Spur; 12-22-2009 at 10:37 AM.
K-state makes sense. What is the consensus opinion of Mizzou fans?????
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_...-sharing-funds
How the Big 12 teams rank in revenue-sharing funds
May, 26, 2009
May 26
10:46
AM ET
Email Print Share
By Tim Griffin
Posted by ESPN.com's Tim Griffin
A hot-button issue in recent years has been the revenue disparity between Big 12 teams. Several athletic directors of some of the conference's bottom feeders have mentioned how difficult it is to compete with the conference's biggest powers.
The Omaha World-Herald recently provided the breakdown for each school in the conference's 2007-08 revenue sharing numbers from those provided to the Internal Revenue Service.
The total of $103.1 million places the conference fourth among the "Big Six" conferences that make up the Bowl Championship Series automatic qualifiers. The Big 12 ranks behind the Big Ten ($154.2 million), the Atlantic Coast ($137.6 million) and the Southeastern ($135 million) conferences in revenue generated to share with members.
The World-Herald's findings indicate that $57 million come for television contracts, along with $32.2 million from bowl games, $27.3 million from the NCAA, $11.1 million from conference championships and $434,623 from royalties and licensing. The conference keeps some of the revenue to pay its bills, which is why those figures add up to more than the $103.1 million distributed to member ins utions.
The Big Ten is the only conference that shares revenue equally among its schools. It provided $14 million to each school during the 2006-07 fiscal year.
The Big 12 schools divvy up all money equally except that which is generated from television.
Half of the TV money is divided evenly. The other half goes into an appearance pool. The schools that earn the most money are the ones who appear for football TV games and basketball nonconference games. Credits also are issued for NCAA tournament appearances.
Here's a look at the money provided for each Big 12 team.
1. Texas: $10.2 million
2. Oklahoma: $9.8 million
3. Kansas: $9.24 million
4. Texas A&M: $9.22 million
5. Nebraska: $9.1 million
6. Missouri: $8.4 million
7. Texas Tech: $8.23 million
8. Kansas State: $8.21 million
9. Oklahoma State: $8.1 million
10. Colorado: $8.0 million
11. Iowa State: $7.4 million
12. Baylor: $7.1 million
Source: Omaha World-Herald
And here's how the BCS-affiliated conferences rank:
1. Big Ten: $154.2 million
2. ACC: $137.6 million
3. SEC: $135 million
4. Big 12: $103.1 million
5. Pac-10: $80.1 million
6. Big East: $77.6 million
Source: Omaha World-Herald
I'm not sure the Big 10 wants Mizzou. As others have siad Mizzou would likely jump if the offer was made, which I tend to agree with. But as an Ohio State fane I would not want Mizzou. They really don't bring that much to the table.
I think the Big 10 should go after Texas. I mean Texas did ask in the mid 90s to join the Big, in which Texas was turned down. However I think to get Texas you have to expand to 14 teams so Texas does not have to jaunt up to Happy Valley and Minnesota every year. I think adding Texas, Nebraska and Mizzou would make the most sense.
I don't think Oklahoma is a tandem deal as someone else mentioned, mainly because the Red River Rivalry was an out of confernce game anyway until 1996.
Who knows what will happen. A lot of people in Big Ten country are speculating that the Big 10 will try and hold out for Notre Dame, which is possible if Notre Dame doesn't improve in the next 4 seasons and the BCS gets rid of the ND rule and makes ND the same as all other non-AQ teams. But I guess we will just have to wait and see.
i can't see t.u. leaving the big 12, but i don't know as much about this stuff as others. it just doesn't make sense to me. I also don't think A&M and t.u. will ever leave each other.
I really can't see Mizzou bringing much of anything to the B10. Sure you can say the StL and part of KC tv, but they are, like SA, considered 'small' markets. KC will always be B12 country (or at least the KC, KS side). Mizzou has something like 2 nationalchampionships... ever? Baseball in '54 and Track in '65. That is sports tradition?
Then you talk academics? Mizzou didn't finish in the Top 50. In fact, Mizzou was behind UT, CU, atm, Baylor, ISU, KU, and Neb. Therefore, the academics arguement is completely laughable.
I notice that once again facts silence a poor arguement.
As an Ohio State fan I agree with your feelings on Missouri.
They bring nothing to the table for the Big Ten. The Bog Ten is not looking to expand for freaking Missouri. If they are going to expand they want to hit a home run and there are only two teams that would do that. Notre Dame and Texas.
Texas To the Big 10
Pac 10 is legit because everyone ACTUALLY plays each other unlike some conferences where one division is sub par to the other or in the Big 11 errr 10 some times miss each other
Last edited by misterx91578; 12-30-2009 at 05:53 PM.
Big Ten making overtures to ...... Texas
Discusses how there has been contact between the Big Ten and Texas.
Big Ten, big plans, big gains
Big Ten expansion: A closer look at Texas
Articles talk about the benefits of Texas joining the Big 10.
Osborne stays cool as expansion talk heats up
Discusses Nebraska as possible listening to the Big 10 if they called.
keegan has been passing off his own speculation and whims as 'fact' and 'sources' for years.
that's funny right there.
I think the notion of adding Pitt would probably be the option the Big 11 should go after, no? I mean, it is close to proximity of the majority of Big 11 teams and it will add a natural rival in Penn St. Don't know if the Big East would be happy losing the Panthers, but it seems the easiest to poach. Which, will then in itself have its own ramifications...
UT loves the attention but any move to the Big 10 where everyone gets an equal share would be a backwards movement, when they get the lion's share. To UT, the B12's way ensures the BUs and ISUs and so forth stay down, whereas if they were in the B10 they would get the same money as UT. UT already has the #1 grossing AD in the nation, why would they go be equal with someone when they can be above ther rest?
Additionally, you think there was an outcry in the Tejas Congress when the B12 was forming, wait for there to be one now with atm alongside ttek and BU against UT instead of with them.
I don't think the Big 10 would add Pitt. Penn St already gets all the PA TVs, adding Pitt would not bring in anymore television revenue, which means the current Big Ten schools would have to take less money to add Pitt, which I don't see happening if the Big 10 were to only add one team. Now if the Big Ten were to add three teams then Pitt may be back into the equation.
I disagree with that. While Texas gets the lion's share of the revenues in the Big 12, taking in about 12 mil in revenue each year. Each Big 10 team took in a reported around 20-22 mil in TV revenue this year. If Texas did join the Big Ten the Big Ten network would have the entire state of Texas to expand their network too, which is a huge market and would likely increase that share of 20-22 per school even with Texas in the mix. Yes Texas would share the revenue but it stand to make at least 10 mil more a year in TV revenue.
True. There was an agreement made to bring Baylor into the B12 with the other three.....the Texas Legislature would have to get involved for the Horns to move.
It was also made known early in the process that Texas & A&M were NOT to be split up under any and all cir stances.
Texas won't be able to jump anywhere unless that conference takes A&M as well.
In fact, since the formation of the Big 12, state legislatures have not allowed any 2 schools in the same BCS conference to go their separate ways. When the ACC expanded, Virginia's legislature held UVA's vote hostage against any expansion unless VPI was included in the plan. The Hokies were not one of the ACC's top 5 choices for inclusion, let alone top 3.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
