Nebraska to Join the Big 10

Home ▸ Archive ▸ College Sports ▸ Nebraska to Join the Big 10
B

bigkahuna

Senior Member

4,454 posts
Jun 11, 2010 8:39 PM
My issue is why would the Big 12 want to break up because of CO and NE? There are quite a few schools out there that they could invite and keep on going with little issues. Going to the PAC-10 makes absolutely no sense.
Jun 11, 2010 8:39pm
Scarlet_Fever's avatar

Scarlet_Fever

Senior Member

736 posts
Jun 11, 2010 9:04 PM
bigkahuna;387304 wrote:My issue is why would the Big 12 want to break up because of CO and NE? There are quite a few schools out there that they could invite and keep on going with little issues. Going to the PAC-10 makes absolutely no sense.
This is what I think. If Texas decides to stay very little will change. I would assume that the Big 12 would just add two more teams (BYU,TCU boy would that suck for Boise) Of course if no other changes happen then the Big 10 and Big 12 could just switch conference names. :D
Jun 11, 2010 9:04pm
krambman's avatar

krambman

Senior Member

3,606 posts
Jun 11, 2010 9:24 PM
bigkahuna;387304 wrote:My issue is why would the Big 12 want to break up because of CO and NE? There are quite a few schools out there that they could invite and keep on going with little issues. Going to the PAC-10 makes absolutely no sense.

Because the Big XII has a TV contract with Fox that isn't worth crap and Texas takes most of the money. Texas would love to keep the conference together because they stand to make the most by keeping it together. However, pretty much every other school stands to gain financially by joining a conference like the Big Ten, Pac-10, or SEC that have large lucrative TV contracts and equal revenue sharing. Texas is doing all they can to keep everyone together, but most of the other schools are realizing that they can make out very well financially by bailing. Far more money to be made by leaving than by staying.

Nebraska and Colorado were also the cornerstones of the North division, so even if they added two more teams some serious realignment would be needed. Also, adding TCU and BYU, while they have both won a national title in the past and while both have enjoyed success recently, neither comes close to bringing the financial benefit that Colorado and Nebraska did.
Jun 11, 2010 9:24pm
S

sjmvsfscs08

Senior Member

2,963 posts
Jun 11, 2010 9:47 PM
The problem with the Big XII is Texas. Texas owns that conference, literally; their actions over the duration of the Big XII have forced Nebraska to leave and prosper or to be relegated to second-rate status. Nebraska made the right choice. I think everyone would be best served if Texas went independent. They could have their own TV network like they want and could keep all of the money too. The remaining nine schools could then add three schools to keep the conference going. Arkansas, Texas Christian, and Utah.

Problem solved.
Jun 11, 2010 9:47pm
Azubuike24's avatar

Azubuike24

Senior Member

15,933 posts
Jun 11, 2010 9:52 PM
sjmvsfscs08;387377 wrote:The problem with the Big XII is Texas. Texas owns that conference, literally; their actions over the duration of the Big XII have forced Nebraska to leave and prosper or to be relegated to second-rate status. Nebraska made the right choice. I think everyone would be best served if Texas went independent. They could have their own TV network like they want and could keep all of the money too. The remaining nine schools could then add three schools to keep the conference going. Arkansas, Texas Christian, and Utah.

Problem solved.

Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Missouri and Baylor would be best served. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M and Texas Tech would clearly be better off if they join Texas wherever they go, and if that means they all join Colorado in the PAC 10 then that's the best move. The Big 12 is done as we know it, that's a given, so those other schools are all better off just following the Longhorns.
Jun 11, 2010 9:52pm
krambman's avatar

krambman

Senior Member

3,606 posts
Jun 11, 2010 11:17 PM
Azubuike24;387386 wrote:Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Missouri and Baylor would be best served. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M and Texas Tech would clearly be better off if they join Texas wherever they go, and if that means they all join Colorado in the PAC 10 then that's the best move. The Big 12 is done as we know it, that's a given, so those other schools are all better off just following the Longhorns.

Correct, they are all better off joining the Longhorns in a conference with equal revenue sharing. Everyone but Texas serves to benefit from the demise of the Big XII since Texas takes a considerably higher among of the economic pie in the Big XII. Everyone else in the Big XII who ends up in another current BCS conference stands to make out better financially than they do now and Texas stands to possibly make less. They still may make more but their ceiling isn't as high in another conference.
Jun 11, 2010 11:17pm
B

bigkahuna

Senior Member

4,454 posts
Jun 12, 2010 1:02 AM
I know it's dumb, but I always forget that $$$$$ talks.
Jun 12, 2010 1:02am
Red_Skin_Pride's avatar

Red_Skin_Pride

Senior Member

1,226 posts
Jun 12, 2010 2:10 PM
bigkahuna;387507 wrote:I know it's dumb, but I always forget that $$$$$ talks.

and bullshit walks, and we're about to find out whether Texas and Texas A&M are really going to the PAC10, or if they've been playing them all along. We are also going to find out what Notre Dame does with their back against the wall. If this all goes through on tuesday and the other 5 schools from the Big12 do join the PAC10 (11 now lol) all hell will break loose. Conferences are going to be scrambling with invites to match the magic numbers of 16, and get who they want into their conference. Texas and A&M are obviously the belle of the ball if you can get them into a conference with equal revenue sharing, but whichever conference doesn't get them, is going to have plenty to pick from.
Jun 12, 2010 2:10pm
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
Jun 15, 2010 10:34 PM
Boy this all fizzled out, didn't it?

The PAC 10 refused to give Texas the crown and let them be queen of the conference, so Texas used the threat of leaving as leverage to bone the old Big 12 conference even more.

Now you've got a Big 12 conference that is basically owned by Texas, and will only be as stable as Texas allows them to be. Does anyone REALLY believe Texas won't be shuffling things up again in the future to try and leverage even more goodies?

In the meantime, the PAC 10 pretty much stays the same, the Big 12 gets weaker and the Big 10 gets stronger.

Oh and through all this ESPN made themselves look like the idiots and journalism wannabes that they truly are. They were reporting everything wrong, and have been behind on this story (expansion) since it started.
Jun 15, 2010 10:34pm
T

the_system

Senior Member

465 posts
Jun 15, 2010 10:58 PM
Writerbuckeye;390946 wrote:Boy this all fizzled out, didn't it?

The PAC 10 refused to give Texas the crown and let them be queen of the conference, so Texas used the threat of leaving as leverage to bone the old Big 12 conference even more.

Now you've got a Big 12 conference that is basically owned by Texas, and will only be as stable as Texas allows them to be. Does anyone REALLY believe Texas won't be shuffling things up again in the future to try and leverage even more goodies?

In the meantime, the PAC 10 pretty much stays the same, the Big 12 gets weaker and the Big 10 gets stronger.

Oh and through all this ESPN made themselves look like the idiots and journalism wannabes that they truly are. They were reporting everything wrong, and have been behind on this story (expansion) since it started.

Texas has been playing dirty pool through this entire thing.

1. Leading the Pac-10 to believe they and the other B12 teams were coming along. They understood the TV deal with the Pac-10 and that it would be split evenly. In the final hour they demanded a bigger share AND their own network; knowing that this was never part of the deal.

2. The entire time the Pac-10 thing was going down, they were plotting with the B12 to keep it together. They knew schools like KU, KSU, Mizzou, ISU, and Baylor were scared shitless. So they took advantage of them, basically giving Texas control of anything that happens in the league now. Not to mention the millions in revenue that was to be paid by Nebraska and CU for leaving early gets split only 3 ways (UT, OU, aTm). The remaining schools won't get a penny of it.

"Kansas, Kansas State, Baylor, Iowa State and Missouri -- who were in danger of being left homeless if the conference dissolved -- agreed to give up their share in buyout penalties to be paid by Nebraska and Colorado for leaving the league, Beebe said.

The idea is to have that money go to Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma, the schools the Big 12 needed to stay to remain viable, to make up for the difference in revenue that those three might have made going elsewhere."

I read somewhere that the B12 (Texas) is forcing these other schools to sign away saying they'd have to pay a huge penalty if they leave now. I thought it was like $50 million or something like that. They're basically locked into the Texas and friends league with nowhere to go. Texas now decides when or if the league ever dissolves.

It's this level of underhandedness that destroyed the SWC. They're well on their way to getting bitten in the ass again and destroying yet another conference.
Jun 15, 2010 10:58pm
krambman's avatar

krambman

Senior Member

3,606 posts
Jun 15, 2010 11:54 PM
Writerbuckeye;390946 wrote:Boy this all fizzled out, didn't it?

The PAC 10 refused to give Texas the crown and let them be queen of the conference, so Texas used the threat of leaving as leverage to bone the old Big 12 conference even more.

Now you've got a Big 12 conference that is basically owned by Texas, and will only be as stable as Texas allows them to be. Does anyone REALLY believe Texas won't be shuffling things up again in the future to try and leverage even more goodies?

In the meantime, the PAC 10 pretty much stays the same, the Big 12 gets weaker and the Big 10 gets stronger.

Oh and through all this ESPN made themselves look like the idiots and journalism wannabes that they truly are. They were reporting everything wrong, and have been behind on this story (expansion) since it started.
I completely disagree with you on this. I think that what they were reporting was accurate (because it was the same thing that Chip Brown and everyone else was reporting too. I think initially all these schools were planning on leaving, then ABC/ESPN stepped in at the 11th hour and offered to continue to pay the conference the same money they would have if they had 12 teams and a title game (apparently ESPN realized the money they would have lost had the Pac-10 become the Pac-16 and started their own network which would have been half owned by Fox). I think that it was only ESPN guaranteeing the conference money comparable to what each SEC team that got them to stay.

Also, ESPN only reported information that they received directly or from what they believed to be reliable sources. They were not reporting every single development that every blogger or local new station was reporting because they didn't receive the information directly or from what they considered a reliable source. I'd say they did a pretty good journalistic job of only reporting information received directly from reliable sources and not just perpetuating every rumor every random person with a supposed connection was putting out there.
Jun 15, 2010 11:54pm
Sykotyk's avatar

Sykotyk

Senior Member

1,155 posts
Jun 17, 2010 12:06 AM
But couldn't anyone in the ESPN news dept. interview anyone in the ESPN television dept. to find out if anyone is talking? Seems funny that it comes out that ESPN was talking to the Big XII AFTER they agreed to stay as a Big XII because A) ESPN agreed not to shrink the amount of money going to the league and B) The minnows agreed that Texas, A&M, and Oklahoma could keep the entire penalty payouts from Nebraska and Colorado leaving.

Seems fishy that of all the rumors that made it to fruition, that not once was it rumored that ESPN was attempting to help the league or save the league? Seems someone somewhere told the actual on-air reporting staff not to leak a word of it.

It's easy for the dictator to look good in the press when he owns the press.

Sykotyk
Jun 17, 2010 12:06am
T

the_system

Senior Member

465 posts
Jun 17, 2010 7:19 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5294434

I hope Nebraska and Colorado don't pay shit. The by-law states that the fine for leaving is for damages. Nebraska, at least, notes that there can't be damages when the league is now going to be better financially than it was when they were in the league (with the new TV deal they're barking about). I'd love to see Nebraska give Texas one more F U when they leave, just because I think it's shady that only Texas, OU, and A&M split this money.
Jun 17, 2010 7:19am
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Jun 17, 2010 9:06 AM
I don't blame Texas for looking out for Texas first. Maybe they played some people, maybe they used their status as leverage to get more from the little guys, but the fact is that those involved have one top priority and that is their own school. If it ended up costing them in the long run, then you could say it was a bad decision and they got what they deserved but in the meantime, more power to them.

But I do hope Nebraska and Colorado keep their money because I see that point as completely valid. The Big XII made such a show of how much better off they're going to be now, so they can't play both sides on the damages issue (in my opinion).
Jun 17, 2010 9:06am
krambman's avatar

krambman

Senior Member

3,606 posts
Jun 17, 2010 10:13 AM
Nebraska and Colorado can't keep any money. They penalty isn't something they pay, it's money that's withheld. Next year 90% of what Nebraska should have earned from the Big XII will simply be withheld. They will just never receive that money. Same thing with Colorado, 50% of their payout from the conference will be held each of the next two years. They could appeal the penalty sighting that them leaving isn't damaging to conference but leaving it stronger financially, but they can't keep any money they never get.
Jun 17, 2010 10:13am
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Jun 17, 2010 10:16 AM
Ah...that makes sense.
Jun 17, 2010 10:16am
T

the_system

Senior Member

465 posts
Jun 17, 2010 11:18 AM
krambman;392625 wrote:Nebraska and Colorado can't keep any money. They penalty isn't something they pay, it's money that's withheld. Next year 90% of what Nebraska should have earned from the Big XII will simply be withheld. They will just never receive that money. Same thing with Colorado, 50% of their payout from the conference will be held each of the next two years. They could appeal the penalty sighting that them leaving isn't damaging to conference but leaving it stronger financially, but they can't keep any money they never get.
Nebraska's is 70% last I heard. because it is close to an 18-month notice. It's funny though...Nebraska will actually have it better than Colorado by leaving earlier. 70% (or even 90%) of 1 year is cheaper than 50% of two years. I still don't think they will have to pay (or get it withheld).

Harvey Perlman, Nebraska's chancellor, runs about 40 years deep in Law. I would expect a good legal battle to ensue pretty soon.
Jun 17, 2010 11:18am
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Jun 17, 2010 11:51 AM
the_system;392695 wrote:Nebraska's is 70% last I heard. because it is close to an 18-month notice. It's funny though...Nebraska will actually have it better than Colorado by leaving earlier. 70% (or even 90%) of 1 year is cheaper than 50% of two years.

Yeah, I wondered about that. I thought when I originally read about the penalties that it was a percentage of one year's earnings. Meaning since Colorado is giving two years notice (or whatever), they'd give up 50% of their last year. If it is 50% of both years and they're going to make more money in the other conference anyway, what is the motivation to stay the second year. Might as well pay a little more now and get on to making more right away.
Jun 17, 2010 11:51am
krambman's avatar

krambman

Senior Member

3,606 posts
Jun 17, 2010 12:00 PM
For Colorado they won't be making a ton more money right away. It won't be until a Pac-10 Network launches that the money will really start rolling in. Nebraska on the other hand will be making more than twice what they are making in the Big XII on day one.
Jun 17, 2010 12:00pm
T

the_system

Senior Member

465 posts
Jun 17, 2010 10:48 PM
One of the more often overlooked benefits of this move has also been voted on. Nebraska was included in the CIC yesterday. The academic opportunities and billions in research funds the B10 offers really dwarfs anything regarding athletics.

http://nebraska.statepaper.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2010/06/17/4c1a3e316a670
Jun 17, 2010 10:48pm
KnightRyder's avatar

KnightRyder

Senior Member

1,428 posts
Jun 18, 2010 12:34 AM
Writerbuckeye;390946 wrote:Boy this all fizzled out, didn't it?

The PAC 10 refused to give Texas the crown and let them be queen of the conference, so Texas used the threat of leaving as leverage to bone the old Big 12 conference even more.

Now you've got a Big 12 conference that is basically owned by Texas, and will only be as stable as Texas allows them to be. Does anyone REALLY believe Texas won't be shuffling things up again in the future to try and leverage even more goodies?

In the meantime, the PAC 10 pretty much stays the same, the Big 12 gets weaker and the Big 10 gets stronger.

Oh and through all this ESPN made themselves look like the idiots and journalism wannabes that they truly are. They were reporting everything wrong, and have been behind on this story (expansion) since it started.

how did the big ten get stronger? by adding big 12 also ran nebraska? well i guess that would be a improvement to that dog shit conference.
Jun 18, 2010 12:34am
GOONx19's avatar

GOONx19

An exceptional poster.

7,147 posts
Jun 18, 2010 12:53 AM
Uh, Nebraska has had two losing seasons in the past 50 years. I'm not sure that qualifies for "also ran" status.
Jun 18, 2010 12:53am
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jun 18, 2010 1:03 AM
KnightRyder;393700 wrote:how did the big ten get stronger? by adding big 12 also ran nebraska? well i guess that would be a improvement to that dog shit conference.

By bringing in the 4th most valuble and 4th highest profiting football program in college football, the 8th winningest program of all time, and as added above, 2 losing programs in the past 50 years,
Jun 18, 2010 1:03am
KnightRyder's avatar

KnightRyder

Senior Member

1,428 posts
Jun 18, 2010 10:38 AM
LJ;393726 wrote:By bringing in the 4th most valuble and 4th highest profiting football program in college football, the 8th winningest program of all time, and as added above, 2 losing programs in the past 50 years,

we all know those days are well behind them
Jun 18, 2010 10:38am
derek bomar's avatar

derek bomar

Senior Member

3,722 posts
Jun 18, 2010 10:59 AM
KnightRyder;393898 wrote:we all know those days are well behind them

really? theyll be a top 10 team this year and were a botched kick away from beatin texas for the B12 championship last year...
Jun 18, 2010 10:59am