(06-12-2015 05:15 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-12-2015 05:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-12-2015 12:44 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Had Nebraska stayed, would A&M have stayed? If those two stay, Missouri is still in. Is the old Big 12 minus Colorado plus West Virginia a better home for Nebraska than the current Big Ten when you consider everything?

1) No. A&M was gone for the SEC as soon as the political window of opportunity opened for them, not because Nebraska left.

2) If Nebraska said no to the Big Ten, then the Big Ten would have invited Missouri.

3) For Nebraska, the stability of the Big Ten is huge. It's a low-population state, and their program's value is entirely dependent on football, whose success might not last forever. The Big Ten's stability is much better for Nebraska than staying in the Big 12, whose stability will last only as long as the Longhorns decide to stay there.

To be sure, I am not saying if Nebraska stayed A&M would have definitely stayed. But I do think that had the Big Ten not invited Nebraska AND made it seem they were ready to jump to 14 or 16, the forces may not have as easily aligned to make the SEC consider expanding past 12. Remember the perceived weakness of the Big 12 due to Nebraska and Colorado's departure and the questions surrounding the TV deal, and the promises that had to be made to Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas A&M for $20 million guaranteed really opened the dialogue that lead to A&M and Mizzou leaving. I am not saying they for sure stayed, that event is likely the biggest difference between A&M actually leaving, and the many times they flirted with the SEC before.

I am not sure that Missouri was really as deep in play for the Big Ten as originally thought. Seemed more like a smokescreen (and leverage), just based on actions afterward (remember Missouri was still relentlessly working on the Big Ten after Nebraska was invited).
. Yes Missouri would have jumped on an invite, but I am not sure they ultimately would get it.

The Big Ten was going to add a 12th school at that point. If not Nebraska or Missouri, who? Notre Dame would always say no. The Maryland window of opportunity was not yet open because the Big Ten guy wasn't yet in charge at Maryland. And I've never seen anything that would lead to the conclusion that they would have invited Rutgers at that point in time. It would have been Nebraska or Missouri. (The Ohio State AD said that at the time the Big Ten actually considered adding both, plus Kansas.)

If you want to construct a hypothetical here, it has to start with, "Suppose the Big Ten had been uninterested in adding a 12th school." And if you start there, then the next question is, what happens when the Pac-10 makes its play for half a dozen Big 12 schools? I think it's fair to assume that Texas still decides in the end to take the deal they ended up with. So does the Pac-12 still end up with Colorado and Utah? If they have Colorado in hand, and Texas says no, then they'd try to get Nebraska.

(06-12-2015 05:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-12-2015 05:15 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-12-2015 05:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-12-2015 12:44 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Had Nebraska stayed, would A&M have stayed? If those two stay, Missouri is still in. Is the old Big 12 minus Colorado plus West Virginia a better home for Nebraska than the current Big Ten when you consider everything?

1) No. A&M was gone for the SEC as soon as the political window of opportunity opened for them, not because Nebraska left.

2) If Nebraska said no to the Big Ten, then the Big Ten would have invited Missouri.

3) For Nebraska, the stability of the Big Ten is huge. It's a low-population state, and their program's value is entirely dependent on football, whose success might not last forever. The Big Ten's stability is much better for Nebraska than staying in the Big 12, whose stability will last only as long as the Longhorns decide to stay there.

To be sure, I am not saying if Nebraska stayed A&M would have definitely stayed. But I do think that had the Big Ten not invited Nebraska AND made it seem they were ready to jump to 14 or 16, the forces may not have as easily aligned to make the SEC consider expanding past 12. Remember the perceived weakness of the Big 12 due to Nebraska and Colorado's departure and the questions surrounding the TV deal, and the promises that had to be made to Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas A&M for $20 million guaranteed really opened the dialogue that lead to A&M and Mizzou leaving. I am not saying they for sure stayed, that event is likely the biggest difference between A&M actually leaving, and the many times they flirted with the SEC before.

I am not sure that Missouri was really as deep in play for the Big Ten as originally thought. Seemed more like a smokescreen (and leverage), just based on actions afterward (remember Missouri was still relentlessly working on the Big Ten after Nebraska was invited).
. Yes Missouri would have jumped on an invite, but I am not sure they ultimately would get it.

The Big Ten was going to add a 12th school at that point. If not Nebraska or Missouri, who? Notre Dame would always say no. The Maryland window of opportunity was not yet open because the Big Ten guy wasn't yet in charge at Maryland. And I've never seen anything that would lead to the conclusion that they would have invited Rutgers at that point in time. It would have been Nebraska or Missouri. (The Ohio State AD said that at the time the Big Ten actually considered adding both, plus Kansas.)

If you want to construct a hypothetical here, it has to start with, "Suppose the Big Ten had been uninterested in adding a 12th school." And if you start there, then the next question is, what happens when the Pac-10 makes its play for half a dozen Big 12 schools? I think it's fair to assume that Texas still decides in the end to take the deal they ended up with. So does the Pac-12 still end up with Colorado and Utah? If they have Colorado in hand, and Texas says no, then they'd try to get Nebraska.

The Big 10 was constantly talking about their demographic problem. Missouri's growth is like most of the Big 10. New Jersey is above the national average. New Jersey has more people. Noone watches Rutgers but no one watches Missouri either.

In the 90s after Notre Dame accepted and then couldn't get board approval, they talked about Rutgers, Missouri and Kansas.

Call me crazy but the conspiracy theorist in me thinks that Texas threatening to go to P12 was in part a ruse to get rid of the schools most likely to stand up to them (nebraska, a&m and colorado) and keep the others in line in fear of where they may have ended up (kansas,kstate,baylor and iowa st)

(06-12-2015 05:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If you want to construct a hypothetical here, it has to start with, "Suppose the Big Ten had been uninterested in adding a 12th school." And if you start there, then the next question is, what happens when the Pac-10 makes its play for half a dozen Big 12 schools? I think it's fair to assume that Texas still decides in the end to take the deal they ended up with. So does the Pac-12 still end up with Colorado and Utah? If they have Colorado in hand, and Texas says no, then they'd try to get Nebraska.

That actually helps prove my point. Had they said no, they may have had other better opportunities, including the status quo. To be clear I said it was a maybe, I was constructing the only hypothetical in which a current P5 school was a "loser." Not saying they were one, or ended up worse off.

(06-12-2015 08:00 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  Call me crazy but the conspiracy theorist in me thinks that Texas threatening to go to P12 was in part a ruse to get rid of the schools most likely to stand up to them (nebraska, a&m and colorado) and keep the others in line in fear of where they may have ended up (kansas,kstate,baylor and iowa st)

Yes, you're seriously crazy. On all important matters ($) there was a block of 7-Nebraska, Texas A&M, Colorado, Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas. 4 of those 7 left.

On academics only Nebraska wanted weaker standards.

(06-12-2015 08:04 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-12-2015 05:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If you want to construct a hypothetical here, it has to start with, "Suppose the Big Ten had been uninterested in adding a 12th school." And if you start there, then the next question is, what happens when the Pac-10 makes its play for half a dozen Big 12 schools? I think it's fair to assume that Texas still decides in the end to take the deal they ended up with. So does the Pac-12 still end up with Colorado and Utah? If they have Colorado in hand, and Texas says no, then they'd try to get Nebraska.

That actually helps prove my point. Had they said no, they may have had other better opportunities, including the status quo. To be clear I said it was a maybe, I was constructing the only hypothetical in which a current P5 school was a "loser." Not saying they were one, or ended up worse off.

The Big Ten is the best place for Nebraska. They couldn't have had better opportunities. The only thing they could have done better was to get a better financial deal out of the Big Ten. I think it would have been great to have Nebraska in the Pac-12, but not great for them. They'd have a lot of nice football matchups, but they'd be the only central time zone school in the conference and 1,000 miles from everyone in the league except CU. That's why the Pac-16 idea arose. It's much more workable to have central time zone schools in the Pac if there is a group and not just one.

(06-12-2015 09:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The Big Ten is the best place for Nebraska. They couldn't have had better opportunities. The only thing they could have done better was to get a better financial deal out of the Big Ten.

I've always wondered why their financial deal was so bad? I mean, Nebraska is a top-rung, blue-chip football brand, and yet I think they are still waiting to get a full cut of B1G revenue. They should have had that from Day One. Terrible negotiating.

(06-12-2015 08:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-12-2015 08:00 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  Call me crazy but the conspiracy theorist in me thinks that Texas threatening to go to P12 was in part a ruse to get rid of the schools most likely to stand up to them (nebraska, a&m and colorado) and keep the others in line in fear of where they may have ended up (kansas,kstate,baylor and iowa st)

Yes, you're seriously crazy. On all important matters ($) there was a block of 7-Nebraska, Texas A&M, Colorado, Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas. 4 of those 7 left.

On academics only Nebraska wanted weaker standards.

I have to ask this . If what you say is true then why leave . That block of schools would have been a much stronger conference and would in most years be considered better than the B1G. I give A&M all the respect in the world but to be in the west of the SEC is an up hill battle. Missouri has had some success but they are about to start playing in a much tougher east division. Colorado pretty much sold their athletic program. There had to be a good damn reason to do what they did . I don't know if Texas was trying to get rid of them so much as take more controll of the conference. The one thing for sure is some bad ish went down to cause the Big 12 to implode like it did.

(06-13-2015 08:14 AM)FUB Wrote:  

(06-12-2015 08:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-12-2015 08:00 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  Call me crazy but the conspiracy theorist in me thinks that Texas threatening to go to P12 was in part a ruse to get rid of the schools most likely to stand up to them (nebraska, a&m and colorado) and keep the others in line in fear of where they may have ended up (kansas,kstate,baylor and iowa st)

Yes, you're seriously crazy. On all important matters ($) there was a block of 7-Nebraska, Texas A&M, Colorado, Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas. 4 of those 7 left.

On academics only Nebraska wanted weaker standards.

I have to ask this . If what you say is true then why leave . That block of schools would have been a much stronger conference and would in most years be considered better than the B1G. I give A&M all the respect in the world but to be in the west of the SEC is an up hill battle. Missouri has had some success but they are about to start playing in a much tougher east division. Colorado pretty much sold their athletic program. There had to be a good damn reason to do what they did . I don't know if Texas was trying to get rid of them so much as take more controll of the conference. The one thing for sure is some bad ish went down to cause the Big 12 to implode like it did.

Colorado voted with Texas on every issue. Nebraska voted with Texas, except for moving the conference headquarters to Dallas, moving the championship game to Dallas, and the elimination of partial qualifiers and non-qualifiers. Nebraska relied heavily on recruiting partial and non-qualifiers.

A little history. In 1990, the PAC stated publicly that Texas, Colorado and Utah were potential expansion candidates. In 1992, the PAC extended invitations to Texas and Colorado. Texas immediately declined. Subsequently, the Colorado Board of Regents voted 5 to 4 to decline the invitation. The 5 regents who voted to decline the invitation expressed a desire to be in the same conference as Texas. By 1996, at least two and possibly three of the regents expressed regretting their votes, but it was too late to change. Colorado had been looking for a way to get into the PAC ever since. When the opportunity came in 2010, they took it. Colorado also fully expected to go to the PAC with Texas this time.

(06-13-2015 08:14 AM)FUB Wrote:  

(06-12-2015 08:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-12-2015 08:00 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  Call me crazy but the conspiracy theorist in me thinks that Texas threatening to go to P12 was in part a ruse to get rid of the schools most likely to stand up to them (nebraska, a&m and colorado) and keep the others in line in fear of where they may have ended up (kansas,kstate,baylor and iowa st)

Yes, you're seriously crazy. On all important matters ($) there was a block of 7-Nebraska, Texas A&M, Colorado, Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas. 4 of those 7 left.

On academics only Nebraska wanted weaker standards.

I have to ask this . If what you say is true then why leave . That block of schools would have been a much stronger conference and would in most years be considered better than the B1G. I give A&M all the respect in the world but to be in the west of the SEC is an up hill battle. Missouri has had some success but they are about to start playing in a much tougher east division. Colorado pretty much sold their athletic program. There had to be a good damn reason to do what they did . I don't know if Texas was trying to get rid of them so much as take more controll of the conference. The one thing for sure is some bad ish went down to cause the Big 12 to implode like it did.

Missouri was obvious. A year earlier they were scrambling for a home if the Pac 16 happened. They wanted stability, especially while OU starting flirting with the Pac again (OU's president's ploy may be what drove them off). Plus, they don't have the power in their state that Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas have, so their Tier III wouldn't have been nearly as lucrative as what the SEC was projecting.

The presidents of A&M, Nebraska and Colorado have all stated their reasons. The Nebraska article has been linked many times and the article linked earlier this week explains it also. A&M wanted to differentiate themselves. Colorado wanted to connect better to their alumni, of which California has by far the most and Arizona is 3rd with more than all the Big 12 states combined except for Texas (#2).

As for Nebraska's deal, they panicked. They liked the prestige and what was then a big advantage in revenue of the Big 10. They got a guarantee to not get less than they were currently getting in the Big 12. Had they waited, they would have seen that the gap would be closed. And they were somewhat worried about the Pac 16 leaving the Big 12 nonviable. Colorado had a buy-in to the Pac, but it was less than Utah. A&M and Missouri got nearly full shares immediately in the SEC. So there's a good chance Nebraska left tens of millions on the table. Then again, maybe the Big 10 would have just said no and picked up Rutgers.

(06-13-2015 08:39 AM)lew240z Wrote:  

(06-13-2015 08:14 AM)FUB Wrote:  

(06-12-2015 08:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-12-2015 08:00 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  Call me crazy but the conspiracy theorist in me thinks that Texas threatening to go to P12 was in part a ruse to get rid of the schools most likely to stand up to them (nebraska, a&m and colorado) and keep the others in line in fear of where they may have ended up (kansas,kstate,baylor and iowa st)

Yes, you're seriously crazy. On all important matters ($) there was a block of 7-Nebraska, Texas A&M, Colorado, Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas. 4 of those 7 left.

On academics only Nebraska wanted weaker standards.

I have to ask this . If what you say is true then why leave . That block of schools would have been a much stronger conference and would in most years be considered better than the B1G. I give A&M all the respect in the world but to be in the west of the SEC is an up hill battle. Missouri has had some success but they are about to start playing in a much tougher east division. Colorado pretty much sold their athletic program. There had to be a good damn reason to do what they did . I don't know if Texas was trying to get rid of them so much as take more controll of the conference. The one thing for sure is some bad ish went down to cause the Big 12 to implode like it did.

Colorado voted with Texas on every issue. Nebraska voted with Texas, except for moving the conference headquarters to Dallas, moving the championship game to Dallas, and the elimination of partial qualifiers and non-qualifiers. Nebraska relied heavily on recruiting partial and non-qualifiers.

A little history. In 1990, the PAC stated publicly that Texas, Colorado and Utah were potential expansion candidates. In 1992, the PAC extended invitations to Texas and Colorado. Texas immediately declined. Subsequently, the Colorado Board of Regents voted 5 to 4 to decline the invitation. The 5 regents who voted to decline the invitation expressed a desire to be in the same conference as Texas. By 1996, at least two and possibly three of the regents expressed regretting their votes, but it was too late to change. Colorado had been looking for a way to get into the PAC ever since. When the opportunity came in 2010, they took it. Colorado also fully expected to go to the PAC with Texas this time.

I used to communicate on a Big 12 sports board with a guy pretty well connected at Colorado. In the late 90s he said CU wanted to go to the Pac, but needed Texas to go along to get an invite. At the time, none of the MWC schools were viable #12s.

As I understand it, when UT was looking to leave the SWC and talking to the PAC and B1G, CU was floated as a potential partner for UT if the PAC had decided to expand.

(06-12-2015 05:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-12-2015 05:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-12-2015 12:44 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Had Nebraska stayed, would A&M have stayed? If those two stay, Missouri is still in. Is the old Big 12 minus Colorado plus West Virginia a better home for Nebraska than the current Big Ten when you consider everything?

1) No. A&M was gone for the SEC as soon as the political window of opportunity opened for them, not because Nebraska left.

2) If Nebraska said no to the Big Ten, then the Big Ten would have invited Missouri.

3) For Nebraska, the stability of the Big Ten is huge. It's a low-population state, and their program's value is entirely dependent on football, whose success might not last forever. The Big Ten's stability is much better for Nebraska than staying in the Big 12, whose stability will last only as long as the Longhorns decide to stay there.

I think they would have invited Rutgers over Missouri.

Agreed.

Both Nebraska and Rutgers were played like fiddles by the Big Ten.

(06-12-2015 05:22 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(06-12-2015 02:29 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-12-2015 02:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  just amazing 15 years ago, the top dogs were getting barely 8 million dollars. Now some are getting 4 times that.

In 1958 my parents bought a house on 2 1/2 acres for $8000. After a couple of small additions and some landscaping I did over 30 years ago, it's worth half a million now.

My parents bought a house in NY for $16,000 back in 1965. Today's assessment: $1,000,000. But they sold the house long ago.

Not surprising. Real Estate prices in New York and West Virginia are in 2 completely different ballparks.

(06-13-2015 09:11 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  As I understand it, when UT was looking to leave the SWC and talking to the PAC and B1G, CU was floated as a potential partner for UT if the PAC had decided to expand.

That's also true from 1989.

(06-11-2015 02:49 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Barry Tramel from OK also celebrates the 5 year anniversary of Nebraska leaving with his own rankings:

http://newsok.com/tcu-biggest-winner-in-...le/5426845

1. TCU
2. Louisville
3. A&M
4. UTah
5. Pitt
6. Rutgers
7. WVU
8. Mizzou
9. Maryland
10. Nebraska
11. Colorado
12. Syracuse
13. BYU
14. USF
15. Cinci
16. UConn

Genuinely curious:

Of the schools on this list, how many NCAA championships have been won between them over the past five years?...

Quote:Genuinely curious:

Of the schools on this list, how many NCAA championships have been won between them over the past five years?...

Don't know about everyone but A&M has won 7

Women's Basketball -2011

Equestrian - 2012

Men's Outdoor Track - 2010, 2011, 2013

Women's Outdoor Track - 2010, 2011

And if you go back one more year from your 5 year cutoff to 2009 then you can throw in 3 more from M & W Outdoor track and M Golf.

(06-13-2015 08:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  Colorado had a buy-in to the Pac, but it was less than Utah.

I don't think CU paid a buy-in or had reduced shares of conference revenue at first like Utah did. They did have money taken out of their Pac-12 conference distributions because the Pac loaned CU money upfront to compensate for the revenue that the Big 12 withheld for CU's departure.

(06-16-2015 06:40 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-13-2015 08:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  Colorado had a buy-in to the Pac, but it was less than Utah.

I don't think CU paid a buy-in or had reduced shares of conference revenue at first like Utah did. They did have money taken out of their Pac-12 conference distributions because the Pac loaned CU money upfront to compensate for the revenue that the Big 12 withheld for CU's departure.

Same point, Colorado got a better deal than Utah because they were starting from a better place.

(06-16-2015 06:03 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

Quote:Genuinely curious:

Of the schools on this list, how many NCAA championships have been won between them over the past five years?...

Don't know about everyone but A&M has won 7

Women's Basketball -2011

Equestrian - 2012

Men's Outdoor Track - 2010, 2011, 2013

Women's Outdoor Track - 2010, 2011

And if you go back one more year from your 5 year cutoff to 2009 then you can throw in 3 more from M & W Outdoor track and M Golf.

WVU has 17 national championships. All of them in rifle. Last year's title was the 3rd straight for WVU.

If the Mountaineers win 2 more, to make it 5 straight, the Mountaineers will have exactly half of all national championships in NCAA rifle history.