Nebraska back to the big12?

  Very disappointed in the big10 and the commissioner is an empty suit. The big10 has too much of a revenue payout and academic and cooperation benefits to leave. 

But Texas still runs the big12- not interested. 

 
BIG-RED-MACHINE said:
I was always a fan of the OU And BIG RED games growing up since 2nd grade. I think Nebraska still needs to be super power in football . Scott Frost needs to be back in the big 12 to return to the elite levels.

Tom Osborne always got elite talent out of Texas. Just come back to big 12 and we have a big 12 network with or without Texas. 
 

Iowa state grad 
Click to expand...
And Florida, although we didn’t play in the SEC. and California too. Winning is the best recruiting tool. Win and they will come. 

 
If those other B1G schools go for a season we should too. It’s not permanent, it’s just finding a way and adapting. Isn’t that what we’ve all been forced to do in this s#!tty a$$ lockdown anyway? Time to adapt and find a way to play games. 
people don’t go to these schools or cheer for their teams because of Warren or something other ivory tower pansy. They cheer for the players representing school and in our case, a whole Husker nation. 
 

I’d be down to go anywhere if teams are willing to align and play. 

 
The conference does still run through Austin but it isn't the same conference we left.  A year ago I thought we would be crazy if we considered it but now, it just might make sense.  If the Big 12 plays through a clean season, and the the Big 10 doesn't reverse course and play, the damage to Nebraska, and the rest of the conference, will be long lasting.  As it stands, we would lose 10 million a year by switching.  2 pay per view preseason games would make up that difference.  I actually think it is likely Nebraska makes a change of some sorts unless the Big 10 does some serious damage control.     

 
2019 Big 12 payouts were $37.7 million. That's a decrease from previous years - not the direction you want your revenue to be going. That speaks to the health of the league a little bit.

2019 Big Ten payouts were $54 million.  That $16 million difference is significant, and not something you can just make up with some pay-per-views.  

The Big 12's academic standing is vastly inferior to the Big Ten's. I'd rather be the poorest kid on the richest block than the richest kid on the poorest block. Nothing the Big 12 offers will help Nebraska increase their academic standing. The Big Ten, on the other hand, has those resources.  

 
Agreed. No reason to make a rash decision based on this decision alone.  Big10 has been a net positive even though the major athletics programs haven’t performed well consistently. 
 

It will interesting to see the 2020 payout differences in the leagues if games go forward in Big12 this year. 

 
Hilltop said:
The conference does still run through Austin but it isn't the same conference we left.  A year ago I thought we would be crazy if we considered it but now, it just might make sense.  If the Big 12 plays through a clean season, and the the Big 10 doesn't reverse course and play, the damage to Nebraska, and the rest of the conference, will be long lasting.  As it stands, we would lose 10 million a year by switching.  2 pay per view preseason games would make up that difference.  I actually think it is likely Nebraska makes a change of some sorts unless the Big 10 does some serious damage control.     
Click to expand...
I haven't continued to follow the BXII. So I ask: what makes you say this?

Because from a bystander's perspective, the percentage of the league that is Texas has only gone up. And, from the same perspective, it seems all those schools run through Austin.

 
C-4 said:
I haven't continued to follow the BXII. So I ask: what makes you say this?

Because from a bystander's perspective, the percentage of the league that is Texas has only gone up. And, from the same perspective, it seems all those schools run through Austin.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of reasons it is different but the glaring difference is the overall power of the conference is greatly diminished from the time Nebraska was there.  The Big 12 lost 4 historic programs in Nebraska, Texas A&M, Colorado and Missouri.  They have added 2 back, West Virginia and TCU.  Those 2 teams combined don't add up to the TV views that Nebraska generates by itself.  All the money in college right now is dictated by # views/ratings.  The main reason the Big 10 is generating the money they are right now is because they have so many teams generating massive numbers of views.  They have great bargaining power at the negotiating tables.  The Big 12 has lost considerably in this department so basically they are in a position of need.  Adding Nebraska back would add significantly to their financial strength, thus giving Nebraska a little more bargaining power at the table.  I don't think this would result in a vastly different percentage payout but would likely place them in a slightly better situation than they were in 10 years ago.  And they would be in a conference that wants to play football instead of politics.   

 
knapplc said:
2019 Big Ten payouts were $54 million.  That $16 million difference is significant, and not something you can just make up with some pay-per-views.   
Click to expand...
Nebraska averaged at least 100,000 PPV when they were selling them.  At $50 each, just 2 of them would generate $10 million.  I wouldn't like it, but I would pay for a couple games a year vs having no football games in this conference.  And to Nebraska, a 6 million dollar loss sure beats a 100 million dollar loss this year!    

 
teachercd said:
It will be interesting to see how bad of a deal Warren negotiates for TV money.
Click to expand...


That's a really great point. A couple years ago when the SEC and B1G renegotiated their TV contracts, the SEC locked in a massive 15-year deal through 2033. Delaney, on the other hand, opted to go for a shorter 6-year deal for the B1G, under the assumption that he could renegotiate an even better deal in a few years (after adding a couple new teams like OU, KU, UVA, etc. to the mix) that would blow the SEC's deal out of the water. Well, now that "grand plan" is in the hands of Kevin Warren. So we'll see how that works out...

 
Hilltop said:
The main reason the Big 10 is generating the money they are right now is because they have so many teams generating massive numbers of views.  They have great bargaining power at the negotiating tables.  The Big 12 has lost considerably in this department so basically they are in a position of need.  Adding Nebraska back would add significantly to their financial strength, thus giving Nebraska a little more bargaining power at the table.  I don't think this would result in a vastly different percentage payout but would likely place them in a slightly better situation than they were in 10 years ago. 
Click to expand...


The bold is absolutely correct, and why Nebraska is better off in the Big Ten (and that's not even counting the Olympic sports and academics, which are FAR superior in the Big Ten).  

The non-bold is a horrible reason to go back. Hoping that Nebraska alone would make the Big 12 a better bargaining chip for TV contracts is foolish at best. If that gamble fails, you're out hundreds of millions of dollars over the course of the next couple of rights deals. This is exceedingly short-term thinking.

Hilltop said:
And they would be in a conference that wants to play football instead of politics.
Click to expand...


If you don't think the conferences that are pushing to play despite all the medical experts saying it's a terrible idea aren't doing so partly because of politics, I've got a bridge to sell you.

 
Hilltop said:
Nebraska averaged at least 100,000 PPV when they were selling them.  At $50 each, just 2 of them would generate $10 million.  I wouldn't like it, but I would pay for a couple games a year vs having no football games in this conference.  And to Nebraska, a 6 million dollar loss sure beats a 100 million dollar loss this year!    
Click to expand...


We left the Big XII in part because people were sick and tired of having to do PPV. People don't want to go back to that.

 
knapplc said:
If you don't think the conferences that are pushing to play despite all the medical experts saying it's a terrible idea aren't doing so partly because of politics, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Click to expand...
Political influence goes both ways... 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top