Reply With Quote
Hey now, when Tech and Mizzou play, you can throw the records out!!
Yeah...I don't buy it either.
Folks, our conference is asleep at the wheel. Our commissioner does not have any vision for the future and thinks innovation is a disease.
He seems to think Mizzou will hang around because they have such great rivalries with schools like Texas Tech (yes, he actually said this).
He has no understanding that a maintenance of the status quo will be death for the league long term.
Hey now, when Tech and Mizzou play, you can throw the records out!!
Yeah...I don't buy it either.
what do you propose the conference should do for the future that it's not already doing?
Big 12 TV Network, redo current television deals (no exclusive rights windows) , greater revenue sharing in line with the other BCS conferences, anchor conference championship sites (Dallas for football, KC for basketball, OKC for baseball) and market around that, adjust scheduling so that it does not destroy rivalries across north south/lines, make the bowl slots tie in more closely with conference standings, change the voting system to a simple majority instead of 9 required for any deviations, etc.
Most importantly - be thinking ahead. Right now, this guy is all about the status quo and is just a puppet for UT, OU, and Nebraska.
Last edited by K-State Spur; 01-05-2010 at 02:39 PM.
A network would be nice. But I have no idea how they should go about doing it. Just that it's worked out pretty nice monetarily for other conferences (Big 10, SEC).
seeing the Big 10's network, that would be nice.
Of course, it won't be long before UT and a couple of others have their own networks. I've notices on ATT Uverse that even BYU has their own network already.
this appears to be the biggest issue that Beebe is making out as a non-issue.greater revenue sharing in line with the other BCS conferences
It's one reason that Mizzou is seriously considering moving to the Big 10.
eh. I'm ok with it moving around. I also think it's a worthless game to begin with.anchor conference championship sites (Dallas for football, KC for basketball, OKC for baseball) and market around that
I miss the OU/Nebraska annual rivalry, but I don't know how you do that without scheduling fewer out of conference games.adjust scheduling so that it does not destroy rivalries across north south/lines
another reason Mizzou is pissed. They got screwed this year in the bowl selection.make the bowl slots tie in more closely with conference standings
yeah, 9 does seem to be a bit high. 7 seems more fair.change the voting system to a simple majority instead of 9 required for any deviations, etc.
Beebe does appear to be rather laid back when it comes to change.Most importantly - be thinking ahead. Right now, this guy is all about the status quo and is just a puppet for UT, OU, and Nebraska.
It would be nice to get a guy in there with just half of Jerry Jones marketing skills and vision.
the SEC, Big 10, and Pac 10 all maintain rivalries without adding extra games to the schedule.
with regards to mizzou, the issue boils down to one thing and there is absolutely no way around this question if the big 10 comes calling:
does mizzou want an equal share of a big pie? or are they happy with an unequal lesser share of a smaller pie?
i believe mike alden when he says that he wants to stay in this conference. i also believe him when he says that this conference needs to change the way it goes about business.
if we all just continue to bend over for the 4 power athletic departments in this conference, the league is just going to stagnate and then they'll leave for other conferences anyways. depending on how much state legislatures get involved, baylor, isu, ksu, tech, okie state, and possibly colorado could all end up with the end of a very short stick.
The problem with the rivalries you are referring to is that they existed before the merger with OU playing everyone in the Big 8.
It's impossible to play all 11 other teams in a given year so someone has to to give up something.
i don't quite get what your saying?
despite the fact that the teams rotate their schedules due to less than ideal conference sizes - USC & UCLA play in the PAC 10 every single year. Michigan and Ohio State play ever single year.
In the SEC, which is set up East/West just like the Big 12 is North/South - Auburn and Georgia play EVERY year, Tennessee & Bama play EVERY year, maintaining those rivalries even though the teams are in opposite divisions.
It doesn't make the scheduling ideal, but it's not that hard to maintain. Apparently, the Big 12 refuses to do anything that a 2nd grader couldn't handle.
The Big XII has all kinds of programming besides just games on FSN.
then they don't play everyone in their own division every year. If OU were to keep Nebraska every year, even if they rotate, someone in the Big XII south (other than Texas) misses out on playing OU.
You wanting to keep the rivalries like this seems to go against the revenue sharing that you also want.
OU coming to town is a big ticket and you are punishing the other schools financially because you want to keep a north/south rivalry in tact.
If Mizzou feels they got screwed so bad and went to a lesser bowl against a much lesser opponent, maybe they shouldn't have gotten their asses handed to them by that much lesser opponent.
I'm tired of this whole Mizzou thing; seriously B12 loses nothing if they go. Seeya. Go be the last B10 academic school instead of 10th of 12 B12 schools.
All of this is about TV dollars and ratings. You can't underestimate Mizzou and it's tv market leaving. They will take about half of the largest market outside of Texas in the big 12 with them. All of St. Louis is gone if it isn't already and half of KC is gone. They have to stay in this conference. Dan Beebe is a jackass though.
that's a ridiculous opinion. we lose a founding big 8 member, we lose the most populous state in the conference north of texas, we lose 1/2 the KC and STL markets, we lose a school that has a rich basketball history and the resources to be a football power if they ever get their act together, and we are publicly shown that we are a second rate conference to the big 10.
mizzou leaving could very well be the beginning of the end of the big 12.
The Big 10 does not want Missouri, they add virtually nothing to the Big 10 other than 1/2 the KC market, which the Big 10 is looking for.
All the Big 12 people are worried about Missouri leaving. The Big 10 wants nothing to do with Missouri, Kansas, Kansas St, Iowa St.
If the Big 10 is going to expand it has to add something of value to the conference not pick up some other conferences trash to have a championship game.
Missouri is a populated state, offers NEW markets, fits the Big 10 academic profile (it's a member of the Association of American Universities), has a successful athletic department across the board, and does not have to worry about any state legislatures that would require a tandem jump.
If ND remains unwilling, Mizzou makes more sense than anybody else. Nebraska is probably the only way the Big 10 would do better, but the Huskers currently benefit from the Big 12 inequities, so they might be less willing to make a move.
I agree that KSU and ISU are not options for the Big 10. KU probably is not either - although their basketball tradition makes them attractive if they were looking to jump.
yeah, I'm indifferent about Mizzou, but at the end of the day, them leaving would hurt the conference.
Who would the conference get to replace them? TCU? Houston? Colorado State? BYU? At best those are lateral acquisitions but none are step ups.
ALL of those are huge step downs. TCU might fit in some ways - but the Big 12 already owns the Dallas market. And I think you'll have a hard time getting any of the North schools to agree to shift the balance of power even further to the state of Texas.
We'd probably look more at a Memphis, Cincinnati, or Louisville type.
I posted a link to an article in the "Big Ten pushing for 12" thread on the second page that discusses the pros and cons to each team the Big 10 might consider and the artilce narrows it from pretenders, to contenders to the favorites. The 2 favorites are ND and Texas. ND fits the best even though it is not a member of the AAU although its faculty wants to be, but the leadership at ND wants to remain independent, thus the other option is Texas. Texas did ask to join the Big 10 in the early 90s and they still might be interested. I guess time will tell.
I think Houston would be as a nice fit in the Big XII as Mizzou...but not any better....
but you are most likely right about having too many teams in Texas.
Memphis, Cincy or Lousiville being added would all suck.
Notre Dame makes all kinds of sense across the board, but it seems like they are going to stick with independent tradition in the face of reason.
Texas makes less sense than Mizzou for 3 reasons:
1) Travel costs - not a big deal for the revenue sports, but still a major expense and consideration for every sport other than football/men's basketball.
2) Texas receives the biggest benefits and inequities from the Big 12 that it won't get from any other conference.
3) Texas' athletic department has so much clout that Ohio State, Penn St., and Michigan may be less than receptive to adding another giant to the table.
I think they actually are. Texas has always wanted to join the Big X or Pac X.
Have you read this article. A guy talks about the expansion in the Big 10 and talks about the pretenders, contenders, and the only real choices ( only two schools are named. Guess which ones). Here is the link. It's long but very interesting.
http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/20...ade-of-orange/
He raises some good points, but I stand by my statement. Forgive me if I don't hold Frank the Tank and his own formula as the end-all-be-all authority on the expansion.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
