NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2014 3:05 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3193 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 ... 213  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 12:25 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 724
Location: Columbus, OH
tkalmus--you made some very good points about the give-and-take compromise that occurred within the Big 12 in order to keep the league intact, and, as a Big Ten midwesterner, I wasn't completely aware of. It's hard to tell how history will look back upon the conference realignments that have occurred this decade and who will be painted as the heroes and who will be the villains. There is certainly a school of thought out there that says the Big 12 lost 4 of its best members as a result of Texas greed. And as you pointed out, there is an incredibly strong case that says that Nebraska, Colorado, and A&M were all chasing dollar signs and that Missouri had said so many unflattering things about the Big 12 when they were campaigning for the Big Ten that the felt they had no choice but to leave and the SEC gave them that opportunity. Unfortunately, the history of this realignment is going to ultimately going to be written by the winners and Delany and Slive have tipped the balance in their favor and ultimately they will try to justify their consolidation of power by making the argument that they made things "better" for student athletes by giving them stipends.

Do I agree with this idea? No. I'm really dissatisfied with the asymmetry among the elite conferences that has resulted. I wish the Big 12 still had all their old members and that the SEC, Big Ten, and ACC would have just worked together to "rescue" the last of the Big East schools and that the Big 12 and Pac 12 would have grown to include standout MWC institutions like TCU, Utah, and BYU.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 12:48 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1124
I thought Texas "was forced to compromise" because they got caught having discussions with other conferences and weren't able to cloak their whereabouts effectively and by unsuccessfully negotiating their lofty terms with any suitors.

It's kind of hard to come back to the table and demand your perceived worth when you put yourself out on the market and can't fetch what you think you deserve. That's not to say Texas A&M and Nebraska weren't without fault, but the hubris of self-importance has every bit to do with why things went the way they did.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 3:12 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1460
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
I thought Texas "was forced to compromise" because they got caught having discussions with other conferences and weren't able to cloak their whereabouts effectively and by unsuccessfully negotiating their lofty terms with any suitors.

It's kind of hard to come back to the table and demand your perceived worth when you put yourself out on the market and can't fetch what you think you deserve. That's not to say Texas A&M and Nebraska weren't without fault, but the hubris of self-importance has every bit to do with why things went the way they did.

Texas was never "forced to compromise" Texas had the ESPN deal before they agreed to equal revenue sharing and that paid out more money than if they had moved to any other conference. So their perceived worth was pretty accurate at the time (many would disagree with ESPN's payout now but at the time the market demanded they be paid the most even w/ equal revenue sharing at over $35 mil/yr BTW w/o equal reveneue sharing it would be closer to 50mil).

I've never claimed Texas was completely innocent but when you have 4 of the 7 power members running away screaming how bad Texas is/was its a farce since those same 4 agreed and voted with Texas on every issue related to TV rights/money. Hubris is true, but those 4 ran to other conferences looking out for their self interest abandoning rivalrys (TX/A&M, KU/MU, NU/OU) for their own security while blaming Texas for doing exactly what they did only being more successful at it, claim we want a conference network and equal sharing while voting against those things just a year or two early...it was all for show.

The only conference you can say Texas wanted to go to the orginal version PAC16 w/ Colorado, OU, OkSU, TT, and A&M after it was clear the Big Ten and PAC12 were coming after the Big 12, but A&M basically said we want to either stay put or go to the SEC (thanks to Stalling) so Texas stayed put because there was a lot of political/fan pressure from both Longhorns and Aggies to stay together (the SEC was never an option for UT/OU because beleve it or not both of our schools don't like the recruiting tactics that go on over there).

However A&M was pretty sneaky/disshonest about round 1 (when Nebraska/Colorado left) because clearly their goal was from the getgo was to be in the SEC but they had to basically whine about UT and show their ass (for a lack of a better term) to get their fan base to leave behind our 100 years of history to do so. After basically being in the center of conference realignment for 2-3 years, UTs powers that be and fans were even ready to call it quits and most still think it was the right call (I personally disagree but I see their point). And muskie pretty much nailed Mizzou's situation above so that's not even worth going into.

Look, Texas could go to any conference it wanted and for the most part OU could too (Big Ten might be iffy since they aren't AAU but neither is Nebraska so...) durring round 1 (before NU/CU split), round 2 (A&M/Mizzou split) or round 3 (OU/OSU to PAC14 before the GOR) they had already struck a very lucrative deal with ESPN that all the other conferences basically wanted to void so they could add them to their networks which all but the Big Ten was theoretical at the time. So Texas was supposed to walk away from 15 million a year guaranteed money for a chance at what? The SEC still hasn't annouced its network payout and the PAC12's is still really low. Only the Big Ten could have made Texas drop the network but they only wanted Texas/OU and not TXTech or OkSU (aka the "Tech problem") so it was pretty much a political non starter. So yeah, keeping their deal until something better was in place is the only logical buisness deal, I can't imagine anyone wanting to change jobs and take less money out of the goodness of their heart. But once again it frames Texas it a harsh negative light.

Still at the end of the day Texas looks like the bad guy while being one of the three major powers (UT/OU/KU) in the conference to keep the gang together allowing Iowa St and Baylor to stay in an AQ conference AND make well over twice the amount of money that they had, while promoting TCU/WVU to AQ and giving them over 3-4 times the amount of money that they had. Like I said, the only school I feel for is OU (who agreed to this deal because they didn't want to be demonized like Texas) but they suck so it not that big of an issue with me and that's why I think they had that last push in round 3 to try to move because they realized it was a crap deal for them.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 9:28 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1124
I don't disagree that Texas singly could go anywhere they want. I just disagree that Texas as they are (other Texas school attachments, LHN/revenue demands) can. And it's the latter that has them earning what they're really worth. Actually, as they've lost some of those better football games over the years (Arkansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri, Texas A&M), I think they're making more than they should. Great program, and no disrespect meant, but part of what makes Texas the program they are perceived was their place among a rich cast.

I don't think Oklahoma has a right to complain about their situation, either. They hitched their wagon to one school that wasn't even in their conference for so many years rather than three who were. And I think that will come back to hurt their chances anywhere, especially if they expect to get that "and State" favor.

I think both schools got to think they could and should act like Notre Dame, and fail to realize that Notre Dame is not a program worth emulating.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 1:14 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1568
The old Southwest Conference breaking up is still a bit sad. No need to repeat here all that happened at the time. Some of the old Big Eight resentment toward the southern additions never ceased. In hindsight, maybe Texas & Texas Tech alone should have joined with the Big 8 at the time. Even then, Texas A&M was showing SEC interest, and pressured not to go there. There was an SEC offer then on the table for Texas & Texas A&M around '90. Texas rebuked it, A&M thought otherwise, but did not or could not break alone. And that political deal involving Baylor, really left more than a few offended. Houston, Rice, SMU, and TCU got the shaft at the time. Loyalties are not deep when it comes to this stuff.

If it had just been Texas & Texas Tech joining with the Big Eight, certainly future expansion would have taken a different and more settling direction for the B12. These two could have ended up in the now PAC12, had PAC 10 sentiments been more inviting at the time. Remember Stanford, then, balking about considering Texas?

Texas, with its short, flagship name, in the huge, populated state, with a great sports tradition and academic strength, would be a most-desired prize for any top conference.

It's up to Texas to figure out what's in their best interest. As with many other schools, they have made decisions based on immediate gratifications, while not always focused on the outcomes of the dilemma that can be created.

As to Oklahoma, I am not so sure they are deliberately 'tied at the hip' as to what Texas does. They did explore 'on their own--with OSU in tow' as to joining certain other conferences. But in this current climate, taking a sister team certainly limits the options.

As to others in the B12, they are experienced with Texas carried demands; but they want to be tied to the name and the benefits, real and perceived, therein. They either have to embrace it, have the courage to force the rules to change and risk Texas leaving, or escape themselves if they can find a better option.

Nevertheless, the B12 is the best place for Texas itself, if they are in no mood to compromise on economic factors. They lost some old-time conference rivalries, but must figure it's not enough to relinquish certain institutional monetary pursuits and rewards. What University figures and politicians make major blunders and show a willingness to acknowledge it? The Boise State leadership didn't.


Last edited by sec03 on Fri Jul 26, 2013 1:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 1:25 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:14 pm
Posts: 1034
Location: Ciales-Manatí-Bayamón, Puerto Rico
I assume that within or after this upcoming 2013-14 season, the Big 12 should start checking out possibilities to find 2 extra members to have 12 in total and for reviving its CCG. They can't stay at 10 forever. Otherwise, they should have stayed in 8 with TCU going and West Virginia staying to the old Big East, now known as the American. TCU would eventually join the Big 12 with another school that's not WVU; while WVU could join the ACC or the the Big 10

_________________
Florida State Seminoles fan for life (mostly on football, basketball and baseball)! 2013 ACC football Atlantic Division champions; 2013 ACC football regular season champions; 2013 ACC football conference bowl tournament champions; 2014 NCAA D-I FBS BCS national champions!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 3:38 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1124
The Big Ten would never touch WVU. And, supposedly, WVU pissed off some of the ACC schools back in the day, which may have been why it was Pitt and WVU who got the call to join with Syracuse. I'm not convinced Pitt was chosen simply because it was the better program, football or hoops. I believe that more now than ever, considering how the severing of WVU and Pitt still puts B12 WVU into local/regional coverage in eastern PA. That is, it wasn't a market thing for the ACC, either.

I think OU could find reprieve in the SEC should something happen to break the Big XII. The issue is getting OSU into the SEC without it pissing off people in Tallahassee, Clemson, Louisville, and Memphis, who might go running to their state legislators screaming for intervention. I think OU-OSU is a great combo...better than Texas and Tech.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:10 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1568
The Bishin Cutter wrote:

I think OU could find reprieve in the SEC should something happen to break the Big XII. The issue is getting OSU into the SEC without it pissing off people in Tallahassee, Clemson, Louisville, and Memphis, who might go running to their state legislators screaming for intervention. I think OU-OSU is a great combo...better than Texas and Tech.


That's the kicker, trying to take two state schools from the same state as newbes. Indeed, schools and state politicians from schools already in the footprint would complain. (I'd delete Memphis for Atlanta though -- GT). Nobody in the SEC would seek the Univ. of Memphis.

UNC & Duke would be somewhat different, since Duke is private. But NCSU with UNC, would generate complaints in the interests of FSU, Clemson, etc. Duke would be criticized as lesser due to the lack of long-term football success, and a modest stadium with fewer fans. Selling the basketball angle can go only so far, I suppose. All 'what if' speculation though.

OSU is not a bad school on their own. They are the pre-season pick to win the B12. The OU name and long tradition just over-shaddows them. In Kansas, same issue on a bit of different levels as it relates to fb & bb.

Maybe it would actually be good for OSU & OU to branch apart--separate--, into other major conferences if the B12 becomes subject to new defections.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 7:34 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 724
Location: Columbus, OH
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Pac 12 offer a plan in 2011 where Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, and Texas Tech (essentially the 2010 plan only with Utah instead of A&M) could all join if they gave up their tier 3 rights and agreed to be part of the national Pac 12 Network and a regional network whose coverage would be focused on all 4 of those schools?

Weren't the only things preventing that from happening were that Texas wanted to keep the LHN and Baylor was threatening a lawsuit?

To me that seems like it would have been an excellent deal and they should have taken it. Texas has always liked the academics of the Pac 12 and the Pac 12 is the only real super-conference with room to accommodate the political baggage the Sooners and 'Horns would have brought with them--Tech and OSU.

Something else I don't get about the last realignment and Texas politics is that A&M was free to leave for SEC dollars and to escape Texas but somehow it's not okay for Texas to abandon Tech, Baylor, and now TCU. Why is Austin obliged to run the orphanage for lone star state football programs while College Station gets to do as they please?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 7:39 am 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:56 pm
Posts: 115
Muskie,
I am outside of Austin and here is the way that I heard this situation develop. First, A&M wanted into the SEC and the straw that broke their back and allowed them the excuse to leave was that Texas wanted to show High School football on the LHN and to use it as a recruiting tool. This really upset the folks at A&M, who felt that Texas was already getting too much of a lead in that area. Therefore A&M left for the SEC. The PAC12 was open to bringing in Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State IF Texas agreed to equal profit share of T3 rights like everyone else in the PAC12. (IE - share the spoils of the LHN) Texas said no, and the PAC12 said no to the addition of the 4 schools. Now, should the PAC12 have attempted to grab the Oklahoma schools, and leave the Texas schools alone? That probably would have tipped the scales for UT and forced them to give up the LHN, but I heard that there were some schools that did not want just the Oklahoma schools because of academics. If you do grab them and the Texas schools do not come in, you are stuck with some schools that were not liked academically and that would be a no go. Texas was actually talking to the ACC from what I heard, but that broke down and they stayed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:55 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1568
NorwichCat11 wrote:
. Texas was actually talking to the ACC from what I heard, but that broke down and they stayed.


They did. They probably had some serious conversations with every top conference outside the SEC. All the specifics Texas was actually proposing to the ACC are not so clear. but certainly it involved retaining the LHN and the tier rights stuff.
Unlike Notre Dame, Texas doesn't seem to have a problem playing conference fb; it's about having certain designated monetary autonomy and retaining that extra revenue. Really though, the ACC would have been an odd place for Texas, with everything else, then, near the Atlantic seaboard.
Texas needs some southwest rivalries, and such a move would have diminished that significantly. Distance wise, if Texas was going alone, it could have been less an overall stretch than heading to the PAC12. However, the PAC12 may offer a better distribution of the types of schools Texas would seek to regularly play.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 2:03 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1568
Bowlsby, Swofford, etc. are all onboard with this super-division idea. The question of player stipends will serve as the catalyst for the latest push. It is going to happen, sooner than later. A lot of questions to resolve, particularly as it relates to basketball, and other olympic sports whereby the 5 power conferences don't have such a product monopoly.

The AAU, Sunbelt, MAC, CUSA, and MWC are going to feel more pain. Particularly the AAC and MWC shall be feeders to the 5 major ones if further expansion with the top conferences occurs. Assuming each of the 5 power conferences could try to reach 16 or so (hypothetically, of course), there would a near maximum, at best, of 15 schools that could be candidates for transition into the upper group. Doubt the elite shall be much open to upward mobility though. It could be more about getting the minimum needed to continue hanging well among the elite.

If the top 5 want to exclude more dipping, and shift among themselves more, then they will have to break the GoRs. Try to solve a mess, and create a new one. And any of the 5 lower conferences trying to rise as a group to the upper chamber, would seem to be an unrealistic endeavor, particular if a few of their better schools escape.
Those 5 lower FBS conferences shall end up being more like the current FCS, if lucky, with the less money.

The B12 may ultimately be the most prone to pick into the AAC and MWC because of being only ten members right now, and having a CCG may end up being a near must in the new set-up.


Last edited by sec03 on Sat Jul 27, 2013 2:48 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 2:42 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:26 pm
Posts: 403
Its the AAC not the AAU.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 2:57 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:14 pm
Posts: 1034
Location: Ciales-Manatí-Bayamón, Puerto Rico
ctx48c wrote:
Its the AAC not the AAU.


sec should had written "The American" instead of AAC, to avoid confusion with the other conference that shares the same abbreviation from the NAIA.

_________________
Florida State Seminoles fan for life (mostly on football, basketball and baseball)! 2013 ACC football Atlantic Division champions; 2013 ACC football regular season champions; 2013 ACC football conference bowl tournament champions; 2014 NCAA D-I FBS BCS national champions!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 11:44 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1568
ncaanopaawaa2000 wrote:
ctx48c wrote:
Its the AAC not the AAU.


sec should had written "The American" instead of AAC, to avoid confusion with the other conference that shares the same abbreviation from the NAIA.


Appreciate that, ncaanopaawaa, you're a positive poster. It's such a broadly used word/term, even just in sports, it can be easy for someone at times to make typos on acronyms when concentration/proofing is not at a peak level. While the conference (AAC) wanted to generate an encompassing name, the prime term is way too common. I suppose they could not find something a bit more unique.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3193 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 ... 213  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 

cron




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group