Was rereading this article from last year.

Last year, when the Big 12 looked like it was about to fall apart, Kansas made a choice. They chose to have unequal sharing of departure fees from Nebraska and Colorado, and they chose to have unequal TV revenue sharing. (The fact this 2nd decision was changed this year does not change the fact that they had a choice last year).

However, Kansas had another option. Kansas, and Kansas alone, had the choice to jump to the Big East. The BE would have taken other teams in order to get Kansas, but Kansas was the prize.

If Kansas would have said "no" to unequal revenue sharing in the Big 12, it's safe to say that OU, OSU, Texas, and Tx Tech would have left for the Pac-12. A&M would have went to the SEC, and the Big East would have gained a bunch of new members: Kansas, KSU, Mizzou, and one of either Iowa State, TCU, or Baylor (and possibly all 6). Would Pitt and Syracuse have left to the ACC if this came to pass? Doubtful. The Big East would have been stable, with 12-14 BCS quality football teams and an even more formidable basketball lineup than before. Without Pitt or Syracuse in the ACC, the SEC could have taken a school they really wanted for #14 out of the ACC (probably FSU or Va Tech) , rather than being stuck with Mizzou, who they still seem to have issues with.

As we all know, Kansas chose to stick with Texas. The question I pose to you is: Do you think Kansas is regretting their choice now?

Kansas would have been in a football division with UC, UL, all of the new members. In basketball, their division would be with UC, UL, ND, Marquette, Depaul, and all the new members. So the geography would have been similar, but more midwestern-based rather than a Texas-based, with a few extra games in the big cities on the East Coast (where Jayhawk basketball is surprisingly popular).

Would they rather have their conference basketball tournament in Dallas or in Madison Square Garden? Would they rather be with Texas and OU, or with Mizzou and Big East basketball? Would they rather be considered a conference's crown jewel, or be bossed around by Texas? What do you think?

No. Kansas has equal revenue sharing now in the Big 12 for Tier 1 TV rights, which will at least put them closer to the Big Ten/SEC TV revenue tier than the ACC tier. Syracuse and Pitt would've ended up moving to the ACC, anyway, so what good would that have done for KU? Texas and OU might taketh away sometimes, but they also giveth. No one is talking about the Big 12 losing AQ status or getting shut out of top tiers bowls if there's a "removal" of AQ status. (I put "removal" in quotes because tie-ins for the power conferences will certainly still exist, which is the same thing practically as AQ status.) It's not even up for debate in the manner of the Big East's status (and I say this as someone that has been defending the Big East's AQ status with its anticipated new additions). Neither the Big 12 nor Big East are stable compared to the other conferences, but the Big 12 is slightly more stable because they have one superpower with golden handcuffs (Texas with the LHN) and another superpower with political handcuffs (Oklahoma not being able to move without Oklahoma State).

(11-21-2011 03:29 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Last year, when the Big 12 looked like it was about to fall apart, Kansas made a choice. They chose to have unequal sharing of departure fees from Nebraska and Colorado, and they chose to have unequal TV revenue sharing. (The fact this 2nd decision was changed this year does not change the fact that they had a choice last year).

IIRC, both decisions were changed. UT et al. declined the offer to take a bigger cut from the NU and CU exit fees.

(11-21-2011 03:29 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  If Kansas would have said "no" to unequal revenue sharing in the Big 12, it's safe to say that OU, OSU, Texas, and Tx Tech would have left for the Pac-12. A&M would have went to the SEC, and the Big East would have gained a bunch of new members: Kansas, KSU, Mizzou, and one of either Iowa State, TCU, or Baylor (and possibly all 6).

The move to the Pac would not have happened for the same reasons we saw both this year and last year: LHN is a deal-breaker, and UT is not giving up LHN, and Larry Scott can't get enough votes for expanding the Pac into the central time zone unless UT is one of the schools that joins.

LHN is, effectively, the glue that keeps the Big 12 together. That makes ESPN very happy because ESPN's #1 goal with the Big 12 is to prevent the formation of a Pac that has the enormous leverage that would come from combining the Pac's lock on the existing Pac-12 markets with the market power of UT.

(11-21-2011 03:29 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Would Pitt and Syracuse have left to the ACC if this came to pass? Doubtful.

We would have been gone in a heartbeat. Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, etc. would have kept the Big East safe after the raid though.

(11-21-2011 03:40 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-21-2011 03:29 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Last year, when the Big 12 looked like it was about to fall apart, Kansas made a choice. They chose to have unequal sharing of departure fees from Nebraska and Colorado, and they chose to have unequal TV revenue sharing. (The fact this 2nd decision was changed this year does not change the fact that they had a choice last year).

IIRC, both decisions were changed. UT et al. declined the offer to take a bigger cut from the NU and CU exit fees.

(11-21-2011 03:29 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  If Kansas would have said "no" to unequal revenue sharing in the Big 12, it's safe to say that OU, OSU, Texas, and Tx Tech would have left for the Pac-12. A&M would have went to the SEC, and the Big East would have gained a bunch of new members: Kansas, KSU, Mizzou, and one of either Iowa State, TCU, or Baylor (and possibly all 6).

The move to the Pac would not have happened for the same reasons we saw both this year and last year: LHN is a deal-breaker, and UT is not giving up LHN, and Larry Scott can't get enough votes for expanding the Pac into the central time zone unless UT is one of the schools that joins.

LHN is, effectively, the glue that keeps the Big 12 together. That makes ESPN very happy because ESPN's #1 goal with the Big 12 is to prevent the formation of a Pac that has the enormous leverage that would come from combining the Pac's lock on the existing Pac-12 markets with the market power of UT.

As a Kansas Alum , The Big 12 is where Kansas belongs now and forever.

The Big 12 has been great for Kansas . Over the last 16 years Kansas was 3rd, only to Texas and OU in revenue. And the recruiting benifits have been outstanding in B-Ball and Football till Gill came.(BUT HE MUST ASAP).

No regrets here

NO. They don't regret their choice. Just like VT, Miami, BC, Pitt, Cuse and WVU haven't and won't regret their choices. Anybody already in an AQ conference would be STUPID to join the BE unless they were faced with ZERO other options, similar to USF, Cincy, UL, Rutgers, and Uconn.....for now.

More $$$, exposure, geographical fit and natural rivalries. I doubt very much KU is regretting anything right now.

(11-21-2011 03:49 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(11-21-2011 03:29 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Would Pitt and Syracuse have left to the ACC if this came to pass? Doubtful.

We would have been gone in a heartbeat. Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, etc. would have kept the Big East safe after the raid though.

If Syracuse and Pitt would have been "gone in a heartbeat," then why did it take them so long to move? It's not like the offer from the ACC was brand new. They've been in discussions since 2003, yet they didn't move until WVU's AD started publicly bragging about how they were going to the SEC or ACC.

(11-21-2011 03:59 PM)bearcat29 Wrote:  More $$$, exposure, geographical fit and natural rivalries. I doubt very much KU is regretting anything right now.

Is KU-Texas a natural rivalry? Or KU-Texas Tech, or KU-Texas A&M? No. The only natural rivalries they have kept are against OU and OSU.

A Big East move would have kept them with their biggest natural rival: Mizzou. They would still have KSU and ISU. And midwestern schools such as Depaul, Marquette, UL, and UC are much more natural rivals than anyone in Texas.

(11-21-2011 04:10 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-21-2011 03:49 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(11-21-2011 03:29 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Would Pitt and Syracuse have left to the ACC if this came to pass? Doubtful.

We would have been gone in a heartbeat. Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, etc. would have kept the Big East safe after the raid though.

If Syracuse and Pitt would have been "gone in a heartbeat," then why did it take them so long to move? It's not like the offer from the ACC was brand new. They've been in discussions since 2003, yet they didn't move until WVU's AD started publicly bragging about how they were going to the SEC or ACC.

Yet another "Oliver Luck caused Syracuse and Pitt to leave" argument. People act as if this conference had been a picture of stability. Did 3 teams leaving in 2003 having anything to do with it? Did Rutgers and Pitt courting the Big 10 just one year before have anything to do with it?



That is fine if people do not like Luck. In some cases, I do not blame them. But to suggest that he is the reason for the failure of the Big East is just simply short-sighted.

This is an interesting question. I'd say that while the Big 12 is far from perfect, most KU fans prefer it to having jumped to the Big East.

First of all, I think that Frank the Tank and Wedge are right in asserting that as long as UT and OU are anchoring the conference (willingly or not) we've got a strong base. Football drives the bus, and they're among the elite football brands. LHN is (at least for now) an insurmountable stumbling block for UT making a move, and OU's tie to OSU limits their mobility. Given how few elite football prospects come from the state of Kansas, being in a league with multiple rivals in TX gives us a good recruiting opportunity. Unfortunately, UT's and aTm's and TT's leftovers are often stronger than most players from Kansas, and if we were in the BE they would be less likely to come here. We may have had some visibility in OH and PA, but I think that TX is still a richer source of players. Those players would also be closer to home, and have less of a notion of KS being a backwater than players from back east may have.

Second, I think that we do like staying linked with schools with which we have a history, and which are geographically close. KU has a lot of alumni in the Dallas area, for example, and the I-35 corridor is convenient for fans to travel to get to games. Part of our uniqueness in basketball is also the historic aspect of it (such as Naismith having coached here, and Rupp and Smith having played here), and our fans appreciate that. While we're not feeling the need to continue the Border War once MU moves on (at least, not until we've determined that it meets our needs as well), we do appreciate our history.

Third, I think a lot of our fans also perceive the Big East as being more vulnerable. For example, I doubt that KU's presence (and the presence of those who may have come with us) would have strengthened the BE to the point that Syracuse and Pitt would have stayed. Perhaps it's from not being a part of the BE's heritage, but I don't know of many KU fans who like the hybrid model, either. If we're going to be part of an unstable conference, we'd prefer the one that we're in already.

Fourth, while the BE has had outstanding basketball, it is perceived (fairly or unfairly) as being a boring, overly physical brand of basketball. Basketball shouldn't be ballet, but nor should it be football. I know that eastern city ball has a long heritage of physicality, but many here think that Georgetown under Thompson Sr set a tone for the conference that has remained in place and is not appealing to many KU fans. KU (particularly under Self) hasn't shrunk away from physical play, but it's just not an appealing style for us.

KU's primary aspiration would be to remain in and help to rebuild the Big 12. I think many of our fans would like to see UL and UC join WVU in joining the conference. If that is not to be, I think most of us would prefer to join the B1G, although I think that is extremely unlikely and would only occur if we were a part of a package deal.

If the BCS goes by the wayside, and bowls are allowed to negotiate with whatever teams they choose, the push for larger and larger conferences will go by the wayside. The elimination of the BCS could actually stabilize things for a while...

Not really. KU and UT interests are a lot more aligned with eachother and the Big 12 than most people think.

1) KU doesn't care about giving UT whatever advanatges they want in football because they don't care about football. UT could demand that all Big 12 football games are reffed by Deloss Dodds, Vince Young and Earl Campbell and KU (and BU) wouldn't bat an eyelash.

2) KU doesn't care about LHN because they never wanted a B12 network anymore than UT did. They have their own TV deal for basketball and is a big source of their revenue. Thye do not want to give that up for a smaller slice of an equally divided conference pie.

3) KU doesn't want to be in the Big East for basketball the same reason UT doesn't want to be in the SEC for football: both their fan bases demand championship contention every year which is much easier to accomplish in the Big 12 than in those other conferences which are the powerhouses of their respective sports.

(11-21-2011 06:59 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Not really. KU and UT interests are a lot more aligned with eachother and the Big 12 than most people think.

1) KU doesn't care about giving UT whatever advanatges they want in football because they don't care about football. UT could demand that all Big 12 football games are reffed by Deloss Dodds, Vince Young and Earl Campbell and KU (and BU) wouldn't bat an eyelash.

2) KU doesn't care about LHN because they never wanted a B12 network anymore than UT did. They have their own TV deal for basketball and is a big source of their revenue. Thye do not want to give that up for a smaller slice of an equally divided conference pie.

3) KU doesn't want to be in the Big East for basketball the same reason UT doesn't want to be in the SEC for football: both their fan bases demand championship contention every year which is much easier to accomplish in the Big 12 than in those other conferences which are the powerhouses of their respective sports.

Yup. Many people don't realize this, but until the Longhorn Network was formed, the school that made the most off of third tier TV rights in the Big 12 was Kansas. Even now, they make more than anyone other than UT (even more than OU) because their basketball package nets so much revenue. Outside of the Big 12 actually collapsing, which is obviously a big danger, KU's financial interests are right in line with Texas.

The SEC took Mizzou because they wanted Mizzou. Sorry, but the SEC don't take second choices. If FSU or Clemson or somebody else wanted in they would have just gone to 16 and put Mizzou in the west. Slive said he could go to 16 in 15 minutes and I believe he could. The SEC will still get two eastern teams and go to 16. It will happen. I also think Mizzou football and basketball was just as attractive to the BE as KU, and they would have been invited as a package, with KSU and one other.

No way does a more traditional school like Kansas join a hybrid conference like the Big East. If we split to form a new conference upon maybe Texas & Oklahoma leaving then we can talk buisness but I still would say the Big 12 would be where the former Big East teams would be...Really why waste time forming a new conference when Kansas would have more pull in the leauge that best suits them, which is the Big 12.

(11-21-2011 03:59 PM)bearcat29 Wrote:  More $$$, exposure, geographical fit and natural rivalries. I doubt very much KU is regretting anything right now.

This, Kansas never wanted the BE, it was simply a save their backside fall back plan. They will keep the rivals they wanted, Cash their 20 mil pay check and move on.

The Big East is at its best in fantasy scenarios and pie-in-the-sky what-ifs. Whether it be the old Eastern indies banding together or KU and company joining last year. It's understandable since in reality the Big East is a dumpster fire.

(11-21-2011 04:16 PM)EerMeNow Wrote:  

(11-21-2011 04:10 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-21-2011 03:49 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(11-21-2011 03:29 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Would Pitt and Syracuse have left to the ACC if this came to pass? Doubtful.

We would have been gone in a heartbeat. Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, etc. would have kept the Big East safe after the raid though.

If Syracuse and Pitt would have been "gone in a heartbeat," then why did it take them so long to move? It's not like the offer from the ACC was brand new. They've been in discussions since 2003, yet they didn't move until WVU's AD started publicly bragging about how they were going to the SEC or ACC.

Yet another "Oliver Luck caused Syracuse and Pitt to leave" argument. People act as if this conference had been a picture of stability. Did 3 teams leaving in 2003 having anything to do with it? Did Rutgers and Pitt courting the Big 10 just one year before have anything to do with it?



That is fine if people do not like Luck. In some cases, I do not blame them. But to suggest that he is the reason for the failure of the Big East is just simply short-sighted.

Perhaps you are correct. If that is the case, can you (or anyone else) explain why you believe that Syracuse and Pitt waited 8 years to leave? What happened in 2011 that caused them to suddenly decide that they no longer belonged in the Big East?

(11-21-2011 04:18 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  This is an interesting question. I'd say that while the Big 12 is far from perfect, most KU fans prefer it to having jumped to the Big East.

First of all, I think that Frank the Tank and Wedge are right in asserting that as long as UT and OU are anchoring the conference (willingly or not) we've got a strong base. Football drives the bus, and they're among the elite football brands. LHN is (at least for now) an insurmountable stumbling block for UT making a move, and OU's tie to OSU limits their mobility. Given how few elite football prospects come from the state of Kansas, being in a league with multiple rivals in TX gives us a good recruiting opportunity. Unfortunately, UT's and aTm's and TT's leftovers are often stronger than most players from Kansas, and if we were in the BE they would be less likely to come here. We may have had some visibility in OH and PA, but I think that TX is still a richer source of players. Those players would also be closer to home, and have less of a notion of KS being a backwater than players from back east may have.

Second, I think that we do like staying linked with schools with which we have a history, and which are geographically close. KU has a lot of alumni in the Dallas area, for example, and the I-35 corridor is convenient for fans to travel to get to games. Part of our uniqueness in basketball is also the historic aspect of it (such as Naismith having coached here, and Rupp and Smith having played here), and our fans appreciate that. While we're not feeling the need to continue the Border War once MU moves on (at least, not until we've determined that it meets our needs as well), we do appreciate our history.

Third, I think a lot of our fans also perceive the Big East as being more vulnerable. For example, I doubt that KU's presence (and the presence of those who may have come with us) would have strengthened the BE to the point that Syracuse and Pitt would have stayed. Perhaps it's from not being a part of the BE's heritage, but I don't know of many KU fans who like the hybrid model, either. If we're going to be part of an unstable conference, we'd prefer the one that we're in already.

Fourth, while the BE has had outstanding basketball, it is perceived (fairly or unfairly) as being a boring, overly physical brand of basketball. Basketball shouldn't be ballet, but nor should it be football. I know that eastern city ball has a long heritage of physicality, but many here think that Georgetown under Thompson Sr set a tone for the conference that has remained in place and is not appealing to many KU fans. KU (particularly under Self) hasn't shrunk away from physical play, but it's just not an appealing style for us.

KU's primary aspiration would be to remain in and help to rebuild the Big 12. I think many of our fans would like to see UL and UC join WVU in joining the conference. If that is not to be, I think most of us would prefer to join the B1G, although I think that is extremely unlikely and would only occur if we were a part of a package deal.

Thanks for the reply. You make some great points, especially #4. However:

I'm surprised that you think that traditional rivalries would have suffered. Baylor, Iowa State, KSU, and Mizzou would have joined with KU. This keeps traditional rivalries with everyone but the Oklahoma schools In fact, it would have kept MORE traditional rivalries, since Mizzou would still be with KU. I thought that was worth more to KU than Oklahoma.

Also, with Baylor and TCU in the same division as Kansas, KU would have a game in Texas every year, and a game in Ft. Worth every other year (which is closer to Dallas than KU ever plays now, and is the same number of Texas games as they play now). Wouldn't this have kept the Texas pipeline open? And there would be new pipelines by playing games in Florida and Ohio. If anything, KU's football recruiting would have picked up in the Big East.