Mizzou to the Big 10? WHat do the Huskers think and how will it impact Nebraska

[jayhawk]

I hate to admit there can be smart people in Missouri, but this is an excellent and thought provoking article from Mike Alden, the AD at Mizzou. He actually names Nebraska as a force keeping the league from revenue sharing, and leads me to think that the Huskers are part of why we don'thave our own network or a better TV deal. I am not accusing anyone of anything, but this article does imply that, and I would be interested in all of your thoughts after you read it. The man makes some good points.

http://www.tigerextra.com/news/2009/dec/20...ptation/?sports

P.S. My opinion it is bad for Nebraska and the Big 12 if MU leaves. Sounds like if they leave, it is for good reasons, and them being gone isnt going to help fix them...

P.S.S. I still hate Mizzou with all my heart. Just making that clear.

 

[knapplc]

He actually names Nebraska as a force keeping the league from revenue sharing, and leads me to think that the Huskers are part of why we don't have our own network or a better TV deal.

Which part of the interview says that, exactly? And because this guy says it (as you think) it becomes truth?

Let me see some facts, not innuendo, before you call us to account for anything.

 

[The Snork]

One less perennial also-ran pretending to be our "rival".

 

[Husker66]

I do not want Missouri leaving for tradition or TV revenue and think it would be bad for the conference. Maybe if their fan base travelled better, they would be in better bowls.? I don't know.If I was Dan Beebe I would be very nervous. If those other leagues keep brining in that kind of cash, its just a matter of time and it won't matter who is in this league, we will not have the resources to compete at the same level as these other leagues. that kind of money eventually leads to bigger staffs, better recruiting, better facilities, stronger teams. The Big 12 seems way behind on this and we have a GREAT product. But I am not in all the meetings and do not have all the answers.

 

[jayhawk]

He actually names Nebraska as a force keeping the league from revenue sharing, and leads me to think that the Huskers are part of why we don't have our own network or a better TV deal.

Which part of the interview says that, exactly? And because this guy says it (as you think) it becomes truth?

Let me see some facts, not innuendo, before you call us to account for anything.

Alden talk about needing 9 votes in the article to change things and imply there is a block of 3 who "don't want to share" that seem sto be able to get that other vote and stop change. Here is where he names the 3...

Q: What are some of your frustrations with the Big 12 or why isn’t it working the greatest for Missouri?

 

A: I don’t know if I would approach it saying, “Not working the greatest.” I think the challenges we face as a league — and they do impact Missouri — are our television contract and our ability to have equal revenue distribution. I don’t think there’s any question that if we don’t get to that level at some point, we’re going to continue to find ourselves further and further behind the Big Ten, the SEC and probably the ACC, as well as behind Texas and Oklahoma, in particular, and maybe Nebraska in our league. Our hope would be that the league would continue to push harder in those areas, for a new television contract for more exposure and for equal revenue distribution.

Then the questioner makes it more clear Nebraska is viewed as part of th eblock who is viewed by Alden as being a causer of the issues at hand here...

Q: On the topic of revenue sharing, my understanding is you have to have a super majority of nine votes to change rules in the Big 12. Why haven’t the nine schools other than Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas gotten together as a block and decided it would be in their best interest to change the formula?

 

A: I couldn’t answer that. I know where Mizzou is on that, where our chancellor and our leadership is on equal revenue distribution. But I couldn’t answer why the other schools haven’t.

and then Alden reveals the positions of the schools. He is trying to be politely vague, but the man goes to the meetings and has for a long time. I sort of doubt he is making this up, Tom Osborne would ask for a recantation if that was not Nebraska's position...

Q: Is there some sort of concern about alienating Texas to the point it would leave the conference?

 

A: You know what, I don’t know the answer to that question. There are a couple of schools — Texas, Oklahoma, maybe Nebraska — that aren’t in favor of sharing things equally. But whether that means people are worried about alienating Texas, I don’t know.

I want to make my position clear. I am not trying to accuse, but this is not just innuendo. This is the Athletic Director of one of the Big 12 schools. He is very much playing down what he is saying, not overstating. I think you can feel secure that he would not name schools lightly, and he is clearly not saying all he could say. You can just dismiss it if you want because you don't like what he is saying. Who is saying it and the way they are saying it, , though, make it very likely to be true.

 

[knapplc]

:facepalm:

I can do a text search and see the word "Nebraska." What I'm looking for is evidence that we have somehow conspired against Missouri and the rest of the Big 12. Simply copying the interview and highlighting the word doesn't mean anything.

You can just dismiss it if you want because you don't like what he is saying. Who is saying it and the way they are saying it, , though, make it very likely to be true.

So he mentions Nebraska three times, twice with "maybe" beforehand, and this becomes "very likely to be true" to you.

Say, I've got this bridge...

 

[jayhawk]

:facepalm:

I can do a text search and see the word "Nebraska." What I'm looking for is evidence that we have somehow conspired against Missouri and the rest of the Big 12. Simply copying the interview and highlighting the word doesn't mean anything.

OK, well the Athletic director of Missouri is telling us this is what is happening. I guess you can not believe him, but he is at the meetings. I would think he would know, since he is in the meetings, who is saying what and how people are voting. Not sure why he would lie or misrepresent.

 

[knapplc]

:facepalm:

I can do a text search and see the word "Nebraska." What I'm looking for is evidence that we have somehow conspired against Missouri and the rest of the Big 12. Simply copying the interview and highlighting the word doesn't mean anything.

OK, well the Athletic director of Missouri is telling us this is what is happening. I guess you can not believe him, but he is at the meetings. I would think he would know, since he is in the meetings, who is saying what and how people are voting. Not sure why he would lie or misrepresent.

No, that's not what he's saying. He's providing conjecture. If Nebraska was conspiring against Missouri and the rest of the smaller schools and this was harming Missouri to the point where they were thinking of joining the Big 10, you think he'd be saying "maybe Nebraska?"

Sorry, this is pure speculation on his part, not fact.

 

[huskered17]

The big-12 cannot afford to have Mizzou leave. They are a rival, that some of you think we don't need or as a team you don't like, just because we have to play and beat them each year, or that they out recruit us on a few players. Mizzou leaving only helps Mizzou. I can see their point and the league needs to look at what can be done to even the playing field, as far as revenue sharing and how some teams are placed in bowl games. You can say it is not fair for a team with a better record to get a lower bowl bid, but it might take the bite out of it, if all the teams were sharing equal revenue. Texas may lose a little more of its share than they are getting now, but the Big-8 saved that program and the other 3 teams that now form the Big-12. Greed kills off a lot of things, lets hope it doesn't do the same to the Big-12. JMO

GBR!!!

 

[jayhawk]

:facepalm:

I can do a text search and see the word "Nebraska." What I'm looking for is evidence that we have somehow conspired against Missouri and the rest of the Big 12. Simply copying the interview and highlighting the word doesn't mean anything.

OK, well the Athletic director of Missouri is telling us this is what is happening. I guess you can not believe him, but he is at the meetings. I would think he would know, since he is in the meetings, who is saying what and how people are voting. Not sure why he would lie or misrepresent.

No, that's not what he's saying. He's providing conjecture. If Nebraska was conspiring against Missouri and the rest of the smaller schools and this was harming Missouri to the point where they were thinking of joining the Big 10, you think he'd be saying "maybe Nebraska?"

Sorry, this is pure speculation on his part, not fact.

Denile ain't just a river in Egypt.

Conjecture and Speculation both mean that he is guessing or putting forth an opinion based on his beliefs and not facts. He is AT the meetings, he is a first hand witness to who takes what positions. These are not his idle musings or a plot he has conceived must exist. He is therefore not guilty of conjecture or speculation. He could be lying, misrepresenting or obfuscating with his vague language, but I rather think that he is being vague so as not inflame the situation. After reading that article and knowing you need 4 votes to stop change in the Big 12, I think it is safe to say he is saying the Huskers have been for the unequal distribution of funds... So I guess you think he is lying?

 

[knapplc]

Denile ain't just a river in Egypt.
Conjecture and Speculation both mean that he is guessing or putting forth an opinion based on his beliefs and not facts. He is AT the meetings, he is a first hand witness to who takes what positions. These are not his idle musings or a plot he has conceived must exist. He is therefore not guilty of conjecture or speculation. He could be lying, misrepresenting or obfuscating with his vague language, but I rather think that he is being vague so as not inflame the situation. After reading that article and knowing you need 4 votes to stop change in the Big 12, I think it is safe to say he is saying the Huskers have been for the unequal distribution of funds... So I guess you think he is lying?

Dude, deny... what? What concrete things is he saying here? "Maybe Nebraska?" You're freaking kidding here, right?

You're missing a key point here. It's not that you need four votes to stop change, it's that you need nine votes to make change. Missouri and the rest of the Big 12 had their chance for input when the conference was created. The rules by which we are governed were put in place not just by the "big three" villains he's naming here, they were put there by all schools. That includes the nine vote supermajority you need to change something like revenue sharing. Now, after the fact, he's implying that Missouri wants to change these rules and they can't get that 75% supermajority, meaning it's not just three schools voting against them.

Being there, in those meetings, he wouldn't have to say "maybe" this team or "maybe" that team, he'd be able to say, "Nebraska, Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma are blocking revenue sharing." He'd have no reason to say "maybe Nebraska." Think about that. His caviling on this should be a pretty big red flag to you. Unfortunately your mind is already made up that Nebraska is at fault here, and you're not reasoning this out.

 

[knapplc]

The big-12 cannot afford to have Mizzou leave. They are a rival, that some of you think we don't need or as a team you don't like, just because we have to play and beat them each year, or that they out recruit us on a few players. Mizzou leaving only helps Mizzou. I can see their point and the league needs to look at what can be done to even the playing field, as far as revenue sharing and how some teams are placed in bowl games. You can say it is not fair for a team with a better record to get a lower bowl bid, but it might take the bite out of it, if all the teams were sharing equal revenue. Texas may lose a little more of its share than they are getting now, but the Big-8 saved that program and the other 3 teams that now form the Big-12. Greed kills off a lot of things, lets hope it doesn't do the same to the Big-12. JMO

GBR!!!

Of course the Big 12 can afford to have Missouri leave. It's not an automatic death knell if they go. There are other teams out there we could get. Or we could kick Baylor out and have ten schools.

No single school is bigger than the conference. If Nebraska, Texas or Oklahoma would leave, the conference would survive. This conference is beyond stupid if it lets one school, any school, dictate to it.

 

[TXHSKR]

I would say as far as generating revenue it possibly is Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and the rest of the Conference. Dr. Tom warned about Texas throwing it's weight around when they first entered the Conference making sure they got the biggest slice of the revenue pie.

Maybe Nebraska is the biggest bully in the room with the North Teams? Missouri wouldn't be doing itself any favors by going to the Big 10 as they still will have revenue bullies there as well. JoePa and the Buckeyes come to mind.

I would say Missouri trying to take this opportunity to increase their share in the Big 12, and stay put rather than go and start trying to push themselves into a dominant spot in a new conference.

 

[knapplc]

I would see Missouri trying to take this opportunity to increase their share in the Big 12, and stay put rather than go and start trying to push themselves into a dominant roll in a new conference.

The term is "leverage." Missouri may be trying to leverage its position into a better revenue deal. I can't blame them for trying, but it's unlikely to go anywhere.

 

[jayhawk]

Denile ain't just a river in Egypt.
Conjecture and Speculation both mean that he is guessing or putting forth an opinion based on his beliefs and not facts. He is AT the meetings, he is a first hand witness to who takes what positions. These are not his idle musings or a plot he has conceived must exist. He is therefore not guilty of conjecture or speculation. He could be lying, misrepresenting or obfuscating with his vague language, but I rather think that he is being vague so as not inflame the situation. After reading that article and knowing you need 4 votes to stop change in the Big 12, I think it is safe to say he is saying the Huskers have been for the unequal distribution of funds... So I guess you think he is lying?

Dude, deny... what? What concrete things is he saying here? "Maybe Nebraska?" You're freaking kidding here, right?

You're missing a key point here. It's not that you need four votes to stop change, it's that you need nine votes to make change. Missouri and the rest of the Big 12 had their chance for input when the conference was created. The rules by which we are governed were put in place not just by the "big three" villains he's naming here, they were put there by all schools. That includes the nine vote supermajority you need to change something like revenue sharing. Now, after the fact, he's implying that Missouri wants to change these rules and they can't get that 75% supermajority, meaning it's not just three schools voting against them.

Being there, in those meetings, he wouldn't have to say "maybe" this team or "maybe" that team, he'd be able to say, "Nebraska, Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma are blocking revenue sharing." He'd have no reason to say "maybe Nebraska." Think about that. His caviling on this should be a pretty big red flag to you. Unfortunately your mind is already made up that Nebraska is at fault here, and you're not reasoning this out.

No, my mind is made up that he makes a compelling point. If Tom Osborne comes out with more information, or anyof the other commisioners, I am all ears. I have a lot of respect for Tom Osborne, so I will listen with an open mind if he has something to say. I am guessing he will not contradict Mike ALden much, though, but maybe we will see.