omnicarrier Wrote:

aTxTIGER Wrote:KU cant go anywhere without KState.

I understand that you are writing this from some research you have done, but at a certain point common sense has to reign. If the Big 12 imploded, and KU got the invite to a smaller more compact version of the Big 12 and K State didn't - do you really think the Kansas state government is going to let KU flounder and die in a much inferior league just because K State was left out in the cold???

Isn't that like cutting your nose off to spite your face?

Fans love to point to the Virginia/VT situation in the ACC. But it is an entirely different scenario. Virginia actually had a 'vote' on who got accepted into the ACC, and their vote was 1 of 9. It was an entirely meaningless vote if the other 8 had stuck with the plan. The only reason Virginia's vote became significant was because both Duke and UNC decided to vote 'No' on expansion entirely.

In the unlikely scenarios being tossed about in this thread, Kansas doesn't get a vote and therefore has no real power other than their national name basketball program. The instinct for self-survival as an athletics university would force them to accept, begrudgingly, even though Kansas State wasn't invited.

It doesn't mean that they wouldn't attempt to leverage that to get Kansas State an invite, just as Miami used its national name program in football to get BC and SU an invite to the ACC. But once the ACC said no in June 2003, Miami still, reluctantly , went without its two preferred partners.

Cheers,
Neil

i dont know much about the uva/va tech situation, but i think those schools are completely different institutions..i.e., separate govt oversight. so the only power the legislature had was to "threaten" UVA. kansas is different in all six kansas universities are controlled by one entity...the kansas board of regents. KState has just as much power on that board as KU does and a vote on the hypothetical conference we are talking about comes down to the votes of the wichita state, emporia state, fort hays state, and pittsburg state representatives. the board of regents would have the final say in any conference shuffling by KU or KState and i just dont see the smaller 4 colleges being drawn to KU in that situation.

Some of you guys suggesting a potential Big 12 break up may be on to something:

http://forums.hornfans.com/php/wwwthread...&fpart=all

If you thought Ohio State, Kentucky and Notre Dame fans are arrogant you ain't seen nothing yet. Texas fans have them beat by a mile!

One ugly thread! Texas fans have some really swollen heads!

omnicarrier Wrote:As a result, the Big 8 didn't really care which of the other 2 Texas schools went because they were interested in mainly getting the Texas markets and Texas and Texas A&M. The rest of the Texas schools were basically interchangeable....The Texas state government would have had no real influence if the above hadn't been decided.

Here's the story on what really happened.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/...22e33.html

omnicarrier Wrote:

CatsClaw Wrote:

omnicarrier Wrote:

aTxTIGER Wrote:KU cant go anywhere without KState.

I understand that you are writing this from some research you have done, but at a certain point common sense has to reign. If the Big 12 imploded, and KU got the invite to a smaller more compact version of the Big 12 and K State didn't - do you really think the Kansas state government is going to let KU flounder and die in a much inferior league just because K State was left out in the cold???

Isn't that like cutting your nose off to spite your face?

Fans love to point to the Virginia/VT situation in the ACC. But it is an entirely different scenario. Virginia actually had a 'vote' on who got accepted into the ACC, and their vote was 1 of 9. It was an entirely meaningless vote if the other 8 had stuck with the plan. The only reason Virginia's vote became significant was because both Duke and UNC decided to vote 'No' on expansion entirely.

In the unlikely scenarios being tossed about in this thread, Kansas doesn't get a vote and therefore has no real power other than their national name basketball program. The instinct for self-survival as an athletics university would force them to accept, begrudgingly, even though Kansas State wasn't invited.

It doesn't mean that they wouldn't attempt to leverage that to get Kansas State an invite, just as Miami used its national name program in football to get BC and SU an invite to the ACC. But once the ACC said no in June 2003, Miami still, reluctantly , went without its two preferred partners.

Cheers,
Neil

I didn't just use the Virginia/Virginia Tech example, that just happens to be the latest. The situation that more closely resembles a potential KSU/KU conflict is when the Texas schools bolted for the Big 8 and were pressured to take Baylor with them. I would think that in a situation like that Kansas would be heavily pressured to bring Kansas State along with them. Another relatively similar situation is when C-USA and the Great Midwest merged and Dayton was left out. Since Cincinnati couldn't get Dayton into C-USA we had to play them for the next 10 years as compensation.

And in that scenario, the Big 8 schools had already decided it was going to merge with 4 schools remaining in the SWC which was imploding. As a result, the Big 8 didn't really care which of the other 2 Texas schools went because they were interested in mainly getting the Texas markets and Texas and Texas A&M. The rest of the Texas schools were basically interchangeable.

Had the Big 8 felt strongly about Utah and BYU and let the two Texas schools know they weren't interested in any other Texas schools being part of the new Big 12 and had the strength to stick to their guns as the ACC did when it invited VT over Miami's objections and told Miami they could decline the invite if they wanted to, then there wouldn't have been a thing Texas and Texas A&M or the Texas state government could do about it except say, sorry, we will struggle along the best we can with a conference that was dying.

And the SWC was in 10 times worse shape at that time, even if Texas and Texas A&M had stuck around, then the Big East would have been had Miami stuck around.

But, the above scenario did not play out simply because the Big 8 didn't care strongly enough about Utah and BYU.. It was more important for them to secure the Texas markets and the two premiere Texas schools. For them, two more schools from Texas was just as good as Utah; the 'issues' BYU would bring; and the geography issues both would bring - so it led to the Texas state government having considerable influence over the other 2 Texas schools AFTER the decision was made to expand to 12 and merge with 4 Texas schools from the SWC.

The Texas state government would have had no real influence if the above hadn't been decided.

Cheers,
Neil

Interesting info omni, good stuff!

Thanks for the link Hoya!

the biggest influence the texas government has was in regards to the 2 last schools.....not necessarily whether there would be two more schools. having ann richards(baylor grad) and bob bullock(baylor and texas tech grad) as the two most powerful people in the texas government didnt hurt one bit. TCU and Houston were the real losers in that exchange.

Wilkie01 Wrote:One ugly thread! Texas fans have some really swollen heads!

you cant even imagine

Wilkie01 Wrote:One ugly thread! Texas fans have some really swollen heads!

I especially like the parts where some fans say things like:

"No time like the present to ditch the Big XII and jump to the Big X or Pac X."

"I could get behind the independent idea. Or jumping ship to the Pac 10."

"All things considered, I think the CIC makes the Big Ten our obvious first choice if we leave the Big 12. "

So, you're against moving the Big 12 into an equal revenue sharing position, so much so that to prove your point you'll jump ship to another conference... that holds equal revenue sharing at it's core!

After reading all this I spoke with my friends in Corpus Christi and San Antonio. (Aggie and TTU fans, respectively) It appears those middling schools are wavering in their desire to challenge UT right now for fear of falling into a worse situation. Otherwise, Colorado, OSU, TTU and A&M aren't overly thrilled with the arrangements either. Part of what's holding them back is the BCS as established. Something that guarantees more access to all (both titles and $) would obviously dilute the fear of what would become of a conference of mostly Big XII north schools. One guy made it sound like some of those schools are already circling their wagons in preparation for a fall out. Keeping Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, ISU and Mizzou together would be considered key as that conference would certainly maintain a national presence, if not payout as much money. Their ace in this deal would be the threat to Texas that if the conferences split, the castoffs would still be able to tap into the State of Texas by pulling the likes of a TCU or UTEP up to their table. Something Texas, while not afraid of, wouldn't really want either. Especially if their resulting conference was unsuccessful in luring such big names as Arkansas or LSU.

I'd be shocked if the big 12 broke up, i mean texas to the big 10 or pac 12??? that makes the BC to the acc move look very rational. Really if texas left for the big 10/pac 12 they would have no rivals, travel would be a pain, they sure as heck wouldn't call the shots or be the big dog in the league and they would never ever host any conf tournament, ie the civic leaders of dallas would be po'd losing the big 12 football championship, ditto other cities + the hoops and baseball tourney that would be lost. As for the big 10/pac 12 extending an invite, it sorta reminds of those pictures of snakes that eat some huge animal and it ends up killing them, sure the texas market looks nice but its so out of place for the big 10 or pac 10 to even sniff around. Now just for fun,if i were gonna devise a plan for texas to get out of the big 12, the only option that makes any sense would be for them to go to the SEC along with Tex A&M, OU, Ok. State. Thus, you would have:

SEC
E -----------W
UK-----------Ole Miss
UT-----------Miss St
VANDY-------LSU
S.CAR--------ARK
UGA----------Texas
UF-----------Tex A&M
AlA----------Okla
AUB----------Ok.St

Well, it would be better to drop Ok.State and add Missouri but i'd let the big 12 leftovers have something. Yet, everybody would be better with the current big 12 + i'm not even sure the SEC would be better off, they would lose some great games, ie LSU-bama

aTxTIGER Wrote:

omnicarrier Wrote:

aTxTIGER Wrote:KU cant go anywhere without KState.

I understand that you are writing this from some research you have done, but at a certain point common sense has to reign. If the Big 12 imploded, and KU got the invite to a smaller more compact version of the Big 12 and K State didn't - do you really think the Kansas state government is going to let KU flounder and die in a much inferior league just because K State was left out in the cold???

Isn't that like cutting your nose off to spite your face?

Fans love to point to the Virginia/VT situation in the ACC. But it is an entirely different scenario. Virginia actually had a 'vote' on who got accepted into the ACC, and their vote was 1 of 9. It was an entirely meaningless vote if the other 8 had stuck with the plan. The only reason Virginia's vote became significant was because both Duke and UNC decided to vote 'No' on expansion entirely.

In the unlikely scenarios being tossed about in this thread, Kansas doesn't get a vote and therefore has no real power other than their national name basketball program. The instinct for self-survival as an athletics university would force them to accept, begrudgingly, even though Kansas State wasn't invited.

It doesn't mean that they wouldn't attempt to leverage that to get Kansas State an invite, just as Miami used its national name program in football to get BC and SU an invite to the ACC. But once the ACC said no in June 2003, Miami still, reluctantly , went without its two preferred partners.

Cheers,
Neil

i dont know much about the uva/va tech situation, but i think those schools are completely different institutions..i.e., separate govt oversight. so the only power the legislature had was to "threaten" UVA. kansas is different in all six kansas universities are controlled by one entity...the kansas board of regents. KState has just as much power on that board as KU does and a vote on the hypothetical conference we are talking about comes down to the votes of the wichita state, emporia state, fort hays state, and pittsburg state representatives. the board of regents would have the final say in any conference shuffling by KU or KState and i just dont see the smaller 4 colleges being drawn to KU in that situation.

Interesting. But like most Boards of Regents are the members political appointees? If so, then they owe their votes and allegiance to the state government, most likely the Governor. And if so, do you really think the state of Kansas and its Governor would allow KU to flounder along with K-State in an inferior conference, especially if said conference was unsure of a BCS bid and television exposure?

If the Board of Regents can act independently of state politics with impunity, then I retract my statements in regard to KU-KState. But if not, again common sense has to reign.

Of course, this is all moot anyway. I don't see the Big 12 imploding just yet.

Cheers,
Neil

GunnerFan Wrote:

Wilkie01 Wrote:One ugly thread! Texas fans have some really swollen heads!

I especially like the parts where some fans say things like:

"No time like the present to ditch the Big XII and jump to the Big X or Pac X."

"I could get behind the independent idea. Or jumping ship to the Pac 10."

"All things considered, I think the CIC makes the Big Ten our obvious first choice if we leave the Big 12. "

So, you're against moving the Big 12 into an equal revenue sharing position, so much so that to prove your point you'll jump ship to another conference... that holds equal revenue sharing at it's core!

After reading all this I spoke with my friends in Corpus Christi and San Antonio. (Aggie and TTU fans, respectively) It appears those middling schools are wavering in their desire to challenge UT right now for fear of falling into a worse situation. Otherwise, Colorado, OSU, TTU and A&M aren't overly thrilled with the arrangements either. Part of what's holding them back is the BCS as established. Something that guarantees more access to all (both titles and $) would obviously dilute the fear of what would become of a conference of mostly Big XII north schools. One guy made it sound like some of those schools are already circling their wagons in preparation for a fall out. Keeping Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, ISU and Mizzou together would be considered key as that conference would certainly maintain a national presence, if not payout as much money. Their ace in this deal would be the threat to Texas that if the conferences split, the castoffs would still be able to tap into the State of Texas by pulling the likes of a TCU or UTEP up to their table. Something Texas, while not afraid of, wouldn't really want either. Especially if their resulting conference was unsuccessful in luring such big names as Arkansas or LSU.

I thought one of the most insightful remarks on the topic:

If you complain about the level of competition, you have to let the revenue sharing happen. If you want the money, then don't complain about the level of competition.

Equal sharing is the way to go. The only valid reason for not equal sharing in a conference are the travel expenses incurred to Bowl games and to the NCAA tournament - since those expenses are earning revenues for the entire conference.

Outside those expenses, the rest of the pot should be shared equally - regardless of standings, regardless of number of TV appearances.

However, having said the above, I firmly believe that every conference should also have minima criteria in terms of athletic budgets (amount spent), facilities, etc.

Is it any wonder that the Big East and the Big 12 are the two conferences most likely to implode?

Cheers,
Neil

omnicarrier Wrote:

aTxTIGER Wrote:

omnicarrier Wrote:

aTxTIGER Wrote:KU cant go anywhere without KState.

I understand that you are writing this from some research you have done, but at a certain point common sense has to reign. If the Big 12 imploded, and KU got the invite to a smaller more compact version of the Big 12 and K State didn't - do you really think the Kansas state government is going to let KU flounder and die in a much inferior league just because K State was left out in the cold???

Isn't that like cutting your nose off to spite your face?

Fans love to point to the Virginia/VT situation in the ACC. But it is an entirely different scenario. Virginia actually had a 'vote' on who got accepted into the ACC, and their vote was 1 of 9. It was an entirely meaningless vote if the other 8 had stuck with the plan. The only reason Virginia's vote became significant was because both Duke and UNC decided to vote 'No' on expansion entirely.

In the unlikely scenarios being tossed about in this thread, Kansas doesn't get a vote and therefore has no real power other than their national name basketball program. The instinct for self-survival as an athletics university would force them to accept, begrudgingly, even though Kansas State wasn't invited.

It doesn't mean that they wouldn't attempt to leverage that to get Kansas State an invite, just as Miami used its national name program in football to get BC and SU an invite to the ACC. But once the ACC said no in June 2003, Miami still, reluctantly , went without its two preferred partners.

Cheers,
Neil

i dont know much about the uva/va tech situation, but i think those schools are completely different institutions..i.e., separate govt oversight. so the only power the legislature had was to "threaten" UVA. kansas is different in all six kansas universities are controlled by one entity...the kansas board of regents. KState has just as much power on that board as KU does and a vote on the hypothetical conference we are talking about comes down to the votes of the wichita state, emporia state, fort hays state, and pittsburg state representatives. the board of regents would have the final say in any conference shuffling by KU or KState and i just dont see the smaller 4 colleges being drawn to KU in that situation.

Interesting. But like most Boards of Regents are the members political appointees? If so, then they owe their votes and allegiance to the state government, most likely the Governor. And if so, do you really think the state of Kansas and its Governor would allow KU to flounder along with K-State in an inferior conference, especially if said conference was unsure of a BCS bid and television exposure?

If the Board of Regents can act independently of state politics with impunity, then I retract my statements in regard to KU-KState. But if not, again common sense has to reign.

Of course, this is all moot anyway. I don't see the Big 12 imploding just yet.

Cheers,
Neil

they are appointed by the governor and approved by the state senate. the state senate is controlled by more non-KU graduates and friends than KU grads. i agree with you in the common sense should prevail, but that doesnt necessarily happen in this instance. governor sebelius would prefer to remain neutral im sure.

If the B-12 No. really wanted. I'd call BE FB schools.
Neb-Rutgers
Missouri-WV
Kansas-Conn
KSU-Pitt
ISU-Louv
Colo-SYC
How would you like that conf

hahahaha, that colorado trip would be hell for some teams.

I noticed early where some fans have Colorado in with MU/KU/Nebraska I really dont think that is the case. Basically when the Big 12 happened Colorado was the swing vote in getting everything in favor of Texas. Maybe it has changed since things might not be the best right now in the Big 12 as it seems.

Also if Texas wanted to make a conference just like Big Ten, in their region it would have to look like this:
Colorado
Iowa State
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Rice
Texas
Texas A&M
Tulane

All of the above are AAU schools like the Big Ten save Oklahoma, which is probably the closest to getting membership in that club.