http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/OU...EBIG930189

Seems the Big Ten is also causing major tension in the Big Twelve-here's an excerpt:


That's definitely the case in the Big 12, where nerves are getting frayed
Click here to find out more!
as some members continue to talk about leaving for the Big Ten.

"We're getting tired of their act," one Big 12 source said. "It's starting to tick people off."

History suggests it isn't a surprise that Missouri and Nebraska are doing the saber-rattling.

Nebraska athletic director Tom Osborne has never been an enthusiastic Big 12 fan. The school's football coach when the league was formed, Osborne was frustrated when some Big Eight academic standards were not adopted by the Big 12.

Osborne's continued uneasiness was evident when Big 12 ADs voted 11-1 in March to keep the football championship game at Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Texas, for the next three years. Osborne cast the only dissenting vote.

"I expressed some reservations," Osborne told the Lincoln Journal-Star.

Missouri has never been a totally happy conference camper. The Tigers remain frustrated over the league's football revenue-sharing plan, which they believe strongly favors Oklahoma, Texas and Nebraska.

Half the football television money is split evenly, while the other half is divided up based on TV appearances. Missouri argues that the plan strongly favors the Sooners, Longhorns and Huskers.

Those three schools counter by challenging Mizzou and other Big 12 schools to make their football programs powerful enough to attract TV attention.

It's no secret that Missouri hopes a threat to join the Big Ten will force the Big 12 to rework its revenue-sharing format.

"That isn't going to happen," said one league official.

Mizzou AD Mike Alden has been extremely vocal about his displeasure for both revenue-sharing and TV contracts.

...Is it time for Big 12 movers and shakers to tell Nebraska and Missouri to either get on board so the conference can present a united front or get the heck out?

"That feeling is starting to grow," a Big 12 source said. "We have to find a way to work towards the best interest of the conference, because we're much stronger together than individually."

Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/OU...EBIG930189

That one word keeps popping up......academics.

Nebraska has always blamed Texas for its drop off in success because Texas forced them and all the other Big 8 schools to adopt higher academic admission standards for athletes. To that I merely would direct ones attention to the University of Oklahoma. Does ANYONE really believe that those same higher ed requirements have affected OU at all? Half of their and Okie lite's athletes leave barely able to read.

And Mizzou can just stop their b!%$^&ing. They are literally the WORST athletic program in the entire Big 12, managing to win all of 6 Big 12 titles (regular season and championships in any sport) since the conference was formed 14 years ago, their fans suck, and they wonder why no one wants to put them on TV or invite them to a bowl. Here's a thought: try winning big games and showing up to them too. It helps.

Mizzou is a Tier 1 university and ranks as one of the Top 150 schools in the country. Surely their academics aren't that bad.

The thing that is interesting to me in all of the recurring expansions is unity. There used to be eastern independents. They (including ND) could have formed a major conference, and even discussed it for awhile, but all of them had their own agendas. Instead, ND went off and signed their own tv contract, PSU left and joined a midwestern conference, FSU and Miami joined different conferences. There was no unity with the big names running off and doing their own thing instead of anchoring what would have been a long term stable situation. The Southwest conference broke up for similar reasons, Arkansas broke free from the Texas based conference and the "upper echelon" Texas schools dumped the smaller ones and less academic based ones to join the Big 8. Now you have different politcal factions in that conference that might cause another split. In the Big East you had and have small bb minded shools that, even at their own peril, refuse to do anything that would possibly lessen their political power. This caused 3 major members on the football side to seek stability elsewhere, including one of the original bb league in BC.

Conferences that survived and thrived are ones like the Big Ten where even though OSU has carried the league financially and prestige wise for decades, they don't look down on the rest of their conference but are content to share equally and grow with them and let all the others feed off their success. The SEC similarly has stuck together even though some schools never contend for the upper levels or drive tv, and gradually have grown their ranks --remaining more than on par with what the big Ten has achieved.

Seems the Big Ten is using the "divide and conquer" rule to its fullest potential. They are using their lesser numbers but greater "power"-being their steadfast unity-to conquer their enemy-border schools from other leagues.

They have the Big XII ready to split apart-weakening their competitors to the west. They have Big East schools looking to dump ND, and some schools slobbering over the prospects of moving on while leaving long time historical rivals at the alter. This all deflects the successes leagues who border the Big Ten have had in recent years, hurting tv negotiations, scheduling, recruiting--everything that has made schools from other leagues --but in B10 country --successful. First, the B10 pulled numerous coaches from BE football and basketball successful programs, now they are undermining the foundation of these programs --both east and west.

(05-09-2010 12:20 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  The thing that is interesting to me in all of the recurring expansions is unity. There used to be eastern independents. They (including ND) could have formed a major conference, and even discussed it for awhile, but all of them had their own agendas. Instead, ND went off and signed their own tv contract, PSU left and joined a midwestern conference, FSU and Miami joined different conferences. There was no unity with the big names running off and doing their own thing instead of anchoring what would have been a long term stable situation. The Southwest conference broke up for similar reasons, Arkansas broke free from the Texas based conference and the "upper echelon" Texas schools dumped the smaller ones and less academic based ones to join the Big 8. Now you have different politcal factions in that conference that might cause another split. In the Big East you had and have small bb minded shools that, even at their own peril, refuse to do anything that would possibly lessen their political power. This caused 3 major members on the football side to seek stability elsewhere, including one of the original bb league in BC.

Conferences that survived and thrived are ones like the Big Ten where even though OSU has carried the league financially and prestige wise for decades, they don't look down on the rest of their conference but are content to share equally and grow with them and let all the others feed off their success. The SEC similarly has stuck together even though some schools never contend for the upper levels or drive tv, and gradually have grown their ranks --remaining more than on par with what the big Ten has achieved.

Seems the Big Ten is using the "divide and conquer" rule to its fullest potential. They are using their lesser numbers but greater "power"-being their steadfast unity-to conquer their enemy-border schools from other leagues.

They have the Big XII ready to split apart-weakening their competitors to the west. They have Big East schools looking to dump ND, and some schools slobbering over the prospects of moving on while leaving long time historical rivals at the alter. This all deflects the successes leagues who border the Big Ten have had in recent years, hurting tv negotiations, scheduling, recruiting--everything that has made schools from other leagues --but in B10 country --successful. First, the B10 pulled numerous coaches from BE football and basketball successful programs, now they are undermining the foundation of these programs --both east and west.

Great post

Divide and conquer! The oldest game in history!

One major difference I see between the Big East and the Big 12 is the Big East schools are not openly whoring themselves to the Big 10. Pitt and Rutgers have been widely reported as good as gone, yet neither AD, nor coaches, nor Presidents have made any public declaration of interest or desire for a B10 invite. In fact when Wanny was directly asked about it, he ignored the question with an answer to the effect of those decisions are made above my pay grade and moved on.

(05-09-2010 12:17 PM)BlazerOfUAB Wrote:  Mizzou is a Tier 1 university and ranks as one of the Top 150 schools in the country. Surely their academics aren't that bad.

Didn't say anything about their academics. They are Tier 1 and AAU. My point is that they cry about their "unfair treatment" in the Big 12 by not getting more TV money or better bowl invites but refuse to acknowledge that the biggest factor there is their lack of winning big games and poor fan base which doesn't sell out their stadium or travel well to away/bowl games.

Basically, they know that despite one good year in football since the beginning of the conference, in general they aren't competitive in the Big 12 (in anything) and probably never will be. So why not get a bigger check for being a loser like Indiana or Northwestern do?

What I think is interesting is that the Big XII's unbalanced revenue sharing may do it in. The SEC doesn't share equally like the Big 10 does but doesn't have the dramatic revenue gaps the Big XII has because of their formula.

Schools like Mizzou and Nebraska are obviously making more than the bottom half of the league but receive less than the ones at the top. That's going to be an issue of contention but Mizzou and Nebraska are hurt in part due to their divisional alignment. The North is less attractive to TV so they are locked in to more games against less attractive opponents, meaning fewer major appearances to gain TV exposure and in turn revenue. Those schools they play every year in turn receive less money and have fewer resources to improve.

(05-10-2010 10:16 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  What I think is interesting is that the Big XII's unbalanced revenue sharing may do it in. The SEC doesn't share equally like the Big 10 does but doesn't have the dramatic revenue gaps the Big XII has because of their formula.

Schools like Mizzou and Nebraska are obviously making more than the bottom half of the league but receive less than the ones at the top. That's going to be an issue of contention but Mizzou and Nebraska are hurt in part due to their divisional alignment. The North is less attractive to TV so they are locked in to more games against less attractive opponents, meaning fewer major appearances to gain TV exposure and in turn revenue. Those schools they play every year in turn receive less money and have fewer resources to improve.

Exactly right - it's not an accident that the Big Ten and SEC, which have equal revenue sharing, are extremely tight-knit and strong.

Also, it shows that "Godfather" offers to particular schools in hopes of luring them with unequal revenue sharing (i.e. "Let's throw $$$$ at ND/PSU/BC/Maryland and we'll lure them!!!) is a short-term fix that won't last in the long-term because you can't be a true conference with class divisions. For every person that thinks the BE would've been in a different position today if Penn State would've joined with unequal revenue concessions in favor of the Nitanny Lions, just look at the Big XII today. That conference has freakin' Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M AND Nebraska and they're on the precipice of completely falling apart. Miami left the BE because it wanted the stability of being in an equal revenue sharing league. It's a much bigger deal than people give it credit for and, if anything, throwing a ton of dollars at one particular school but not the others is a huge sign of weakness within the conference. University presidents, who have to balance budgets and want consistent revenue year-to-year, are much happier to have an even keel of revenue whether their football teams are playing good or bad instead of shooting the moon when a team peaks but falling off in revenue if a team is bad and can't get on TV in a given year.

I hope the new Metro BCS conference and commish if there is one will take note of all the mistakes and all the positives that a conference needs to setup and operate properly...

1. No hybrid
2. Revenue sharing
3. Mix of state and urban schools
4. TV Network based on manipulation of the households per market...whether they watch said school or not in that area
5. Schools with traveling fan bases outnumber schools without traveling fan bases

I can go on...

(05-10-2010 11:59 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  I hope the new Metro BCS conference and commish if there is one will take note of all the mistakes and all the positives that a conference needs to setup and operate properly...

I hope it is called the "Eastern Athletic Conference" (EAC). Sounds better than "Metro" to me.

(05-10-2010 11:59 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  1. No hybrid
4. TV Network based on manipulation of the households per market...whether they watch said school or not in that area

I can go on...

These two do not work together. You will not find any schools outside of the BCS that have enough "star power" to replace the Catholic schools. And if you cannot get a TV network now, there is no way in hell you will get one without them. Yes the Big Ten does it, but most of their schools had the forsight to name themselves after the state they are in, not their city or founder (:sarcasm:), and expand their "market" far beyond their loation. That is the difference.

(05-10-2010 12:35 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-10-2010 11:59 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  1. No hybrid
4. TV Network based on manipulation of the households per market...whether they watch said school or not in that area

I can go on...

These two do not work together. You will not find any schools outside of the BCS that have enough "star power" to replace the Catholic schools. And if you cannot get a TV network now, there is no way in hell you will get one without them. Yes the Big Ten does it, but most of their schools had the forsight to name themselves after the state they are in, not their city or founder (:sarcasm:), and expand their "market" far beyond their loation. That is the difference.

I venture to say the following
UL/UC/WVU/USF/UConn
Lou/Cincy/WV Region/Tampa/Conn Region

plus

UCF/ECU/Memphis/Temple/TCU/Houston
Orlando/NC region/Memphis/Philly/DFW/Houston

would get us a solid start to a tv network, it just won't be at the same rate per household as the Big Ten. .50-.75 cents per household and a continued ESPN tv contract provides a stable footing while new conference appeal grows.

(05-10-2010 12:50 PM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  I venture to say the following
UL/UC/WVU/USF/UConn
Lou/Cincy/WV Region/Tampa/Conn Region

plus

UCF/ECU/Memphis/Temple/TCU/Houston
Orlando/NC region/Memphis/Philly/DFW/Houston

would get us a solid start to a tv network, it just won't be at the same rate per household as the Big Ten. .50-.75 cents per household and a continued ESPN tv contract provides a stable footing while new conference appeal grows.

I'd say not. Do you honestly think that the last two of your additions, (since your scenario assumes a 3 team loss), TCU, and Houston and a(n ill advised) championship game, are worth more than Villanova, Georgetown, Notre Dame, Marquette, Seton Hall, St Johns, Depaul and Providence to a potential TV network? Are you insane?

Ten football and 18 all sports would be a much better combination for television money, especially assumign we already get more basketball money than football. And I don't even know where to begin on the assumptions that Houston, TCU, or Temple (without Villanova) get you on basic cable in their home markets. The Big East only has a chance with a TV network because it consists of huge markets. You take away the Catholic schools, and their home markets of NYC, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Milwaukee, Chicago, Providence, and the (limited) national appeal of Notre Dame anything, you no longer have the huge market advantage. You now have the smallest market of any of the BCS conferences, and the least attractive for making a TV network. Let me say again. If you split, you now have the smallest market, and the least attractive conference for a TV network. IT WILL NOT WORK!!!

It's not your fault Dgrace, becaus eyou often hear people say "we need to split," or "we shoudl form our own conference network," but the problem is you can't do both. If you want a TV network, the only way it has a chance in hell of working is because of the markets the Big East has in its footprint; split, and you lose your four largest markets, and five of your top six or seven. The prospect of a profitable TV network simply would vanish before your eyes. Maximizing the access to the large northeast markrets is the only chance the Big East has to survive. Cutting them off for some silly championship game that woudl probably lose as much money as it made, would be really, really stupid.

People had it in their head that the hybrid would not work. They thought it would not work primarily because they thought it was too big, and that was why it was though to be temporary. The problem is the thoughts that the size was the problem was somehow translated ot the hyrbid being the problem. And that the Big Ten, and maybe eventhe SEC and or Pac 10/Big XII will now look to go to 16, peopel still remember "the problem," but have misplaces the blame. now they want 16 again, but want to ditch half the conference, all of whom sit in gigantic markets valuable to the future fo th econference, to try and be like the Joneses, while the Jones are trying to be like us. The hybrid is not the ******* problem. Perception is.

The hyrbid can actually better. What have I always heard; excentuate the positives; hide the negatives. If I have an 8/8 split, or hopefully 10/8 for schedulign purposes, I look at the positives. It allows me the benefits of 16 teams for the purposes of a conference network, without the scheduling headaches of 16 football teams like creating pods. If I am a football school, I now only have to split BCS and nowl money between 8-10 schools, not 16. But, based on the weighted averages of the football/basketball paradigm, a I am getting more than 1/16 of the conference network money. I also did not have to "water down" my league by adding more teams than necessary. Any time you are taking half the teams from a "lower league," you run the risk of going down to their level. If I only pick up two, then I can bring them up to my level.

Now, ideally you would like a 10/6 or 12/4 split, but we will work with what we have. Add two (net) football teams and go to 18 (10/8). Sign up Navy and Army to play a handful of football games on your network, whether against Big East teams or not (just to replace some content lost by only having ten football teams and ESPN games), and call it a day.

(05-10-2010 01:58 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-10-2010 12:50 PM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  I venture to say the following
UL/UC/WVU/USF/UConn
Lou/Cincy/WV Region/Tampa/Conn Region

plus

UCF/ECU/Memphis/Temple/TCU/Houston
Orlando/NC region/Memphis/Philly/DFW/Houston

would get us a solid start to a tv network, it just won't be at the same rate per household as the Big Ten. .50-.75 cents per household and a continued ESPN tv contract provides a stable footing while new conference appeal grows.

I'd say not. Do you honestly think that the last two of your additions, (since your scenario assumes a 3 team loss), TCU, and Houston and a(n ill advised) championship game, are worth more than Villanova, Georgetown, Notre Dame, Marquette, Seton Hall, St Johns, Depaul and Providence to a potential TV network? Are you insane?

Ten football and 18 all sports would be a much better combination for television money, especially assumign we already get more basketball money than football. And I don't even know where to begin on the assumptions that Houston, TCU, or Temple (without Villanova) get you on basic cable in their home markets. The Big East only has a chance with a TV network because it consists of huge markets. You take away the Catholic schools, you no longer have the huge market advantage. You now have the smallest market of any of the Big Six, and the least attractive for making a TV network. Let me say again. If you split, you now have the smallest market, and the least attractive conference for a TV network. IT WILL NOT WORK!!!

If you want a TV network, the only way it has a chance in hell of working, is because of the markets. Otherwise, this conference would be the least marketable fo the six major conferences, and the prospect of a TV network simply would not work. Maximizing the access to the large northeast markrets is the only chance the Big East has to survive.

If the BE stays largely intact, and say for example that the other thread is accurate and ND, NU and Mizzou accept (leaving RU out in the cold), then there is NO WAY that the BE splits. As mentioned above, the Catholic schools bring the big markets. It means the BE likely leverages BB as much as absolutely possible to get more money for the conference, with Tags as a chief negotiator for the BE to get a better TV deal.