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

[jayhawk]

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.

 

Big 10 shares evenly, though. Illinois getting over twice as mu8ch money for TV has to be compelling for them. I think if we had a better TV deal that would help...

[knapplc]

No, my mind is made up that he makes a compelling point.

 

What point, exactly, does he make? He says nothing specific. He makes no points.

[NoDoubt]

Good riddance Mizzou, you won't matter in the Big Ten either. You are not a top level program and until you get a high caliber coach you never will be...but when you do get that coach he will leave for greener pastures as soon as he gets a chance. Stop whining, know your roll.

[jayhawk]

No, my mind is made up that he makes a compelling point.

 

What point, exactly, does he make? He says nothing specific. He makes no points.

 

1) That the other 2 major conferences share funds evenly

 

2) The other conferences have been more assertive in their pursuit of revenue for the conference

 

3) That our conference management system seems to have created an oligarchy and Missouri feels like they cannot improve their lot, but the feel compelled to keep up with like schools (illinois) and believe they should be able to keep up.

 

...as a result the Big 12 is behind in revenue by a lot. Missouri is behind Illinois by $21 Million to $9 Million. Mike ain't happy, and feels impotent to change it.

 

Those are points. Did you read the article?

[knapplc]

No, my mind is made up that he makes a compelling point.

 

What point, exactly, does he make? He says nothing specific. He makes no points.

 

1) That the other 2 major conferences share funds evenly

 

2) The other conferences have been more assertive in their pursuit of revenue for the conference

 

3) That our conference management system seems to have created an oligarchy and Missouri feels like they cannot improve their lot, but the feel compelled to keep up with like schools (illinois) and believe they should be able to keep up.

 

...as a result the Big 12 is behind in revenue by a lot. Missouri is behind Illinois by $21 Million to $9 Million. Mike ain't happy, and feels impotent to change it.

 

Those are points. Did you read the article?

 

Yes, I read the article. I was asking what you thought his points were.

 

The Big 12 is not behind in revenue. Some schools are, but those are schools that haven't worked hard to create opportunities to make revenue. It is not the responsibility of Nebraska to prop up the other schools in this conference for whom athletics were not a priority for so many years. Further, Missouri and the rest of the schools had an opportunity to set this conference up from scratch so that it benefited everyone. If they lacked foresight enough to do that, that is not our fault or our problem.

 

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.

 

Q: Has [changing the revenue sharing formula] ever come to a vote, or do you know where each other stands and know there’s no point in a vote?

 

A: I think from the board of directors, and those are the ones that make the decision — Dr. (Brady) Deaton and his counterparts — I don’t believe it’s come to a formal vote. From what I understand, because I’m not in those meetings, is that the sentiment of the room is that there may not be enough votes to push that forward at this time. They want to make sure that’s something that will carry the day when they go forward.

 

Hence my comment about "speculation."

 

This is from an interview of Dan Beebe by Tim Griffin:

 

Beebe said he is continuing to push ahead on the conference's next television deal that he hopes will be settled before the spring of 2011.

 

"That's something that has been a primary focus for us is whether we create a network," Beebe said. "That would go a long way to solidifying our situation."

 

And the recent talk about Big Ten expansion has provided a ready platform for supporters to vent about revenue sharing and a shared notion of revenue sharing like those in place in the Big Ten and the Southeastern conferences.

 

"Certainly, it's not a secret there are some institutions that would like us to have the Big Ten or SEC kind of revenue sharing," Beebe said. "Others feel that the model we put together was carefully developed before it was approved. There were a lot of give and takes that people agreed upon when the league was formed."

 

But Beebe added that concern about the Big 12's revenue-sharing issue is overblown.

 

"There's a lot more of an expression of concern outside our meetings than there is inside of it," Beebe said. "I can't deny there isn't some dynamics around that issue. But I think it's just a function of a new conference that is still growing."

[colosilverado]

I don't know about the whole revenue sharing thing. I wonder what the Big10's various schools "really" think about it?

If you're a successful sports school and you're sharing revenue with one that sucks wind every single year, why in the hell do you want to give them a share of the pot, equally, when they have done nothing to earn it???

 

Seriously. You have schools that are pouring money into stadium expansions and facilities to attract "better" athletes and schools that quite frankly, don't have the resources or the fan base to even warrant it and shouldn't be in the conferences.

 

The argument about academics is such a friggin crock. It is all about money in the end. What theme or mantra was the most prevalent in that interview?? TV REVENUE. Not the research part. This is all about the money and the other parts are gravy to satisfy the rest of the administration.

 

If the Big12 DOES go to revenue sharing, then they seriously need to consider punting the weak sports schools. OR, force them to invest said shared revenue into their facilities to start attracting better recruits so they can be relevant nationally....especially in FOOTBALL where the money IS.

 

I think that the Big12 probably does have it right, or closer to right than we'd like to admit and if these AD's were at all able to speak openly, they'd probably say the same thing from the sounds of Beebe's statements.

 

Should they revisit things? Sure....along with expansion and subtraction. Fact is, NU has earned what it should and UT, like it or not, has also, I'd say. We are becoming relevant again, but we haven't been and nobody knew if we would due to SPAD and company.

 

I could be waaaay off, I admit, since I don't know how these institutions are set up/funded and make their money. This is just an outsiders monkey view of it all!

 

 

Equal revenue sharing sounds to me a little like Socialism.....

[knapplc]

The argument about academics is such a friggin crock. It is all about money in the end.

Exactly. These aren't academic conferences, they're sports conferences. The academics angle is a smoke screen.

[GSG]

The argument about academics is such a friggin crock. It is all about money in the end.

Exactly. These aren't academic conferences, they're sports conferences. The academics angle is a smoke screen.

 

Could you imagine if all the conferences were aligned according to academics?

[Bradr]

Can't verify the authenticity of this, but one of the last comments on the page says:

 

(Edit: Verified according to wikipedia - good enough for me)

 

"Big 12 Conference titles by school

As of 27 Oct. 2009. List includes both regular-season and tournament titles.

 

North Division

 

Nebraska - 66

Colorado - 27

Kansas - 20

Iowa State - 11

Kansas State - 7

Missouri - 6

 

South Division

 

Texas - 99

Texas A&M - 38

Baylor - 34

Oklahoma - 34

Oklahoma State - 33

Texas Tech - 11"

 

If this is accurate, sounds like the sore losers are looking at jumping ship...

[DJR313]

If Texas, Oklahoma and Nebraska don't want to share, why haven't the other 9 schools banded together to make these changes? It doesn't make much sense to name schools when there are obviously other schools that aren't on board with what the Missouri AD is proposing. One other reason to hate Missouri. I think I hate Missouri about as much as I hate cancer.

 

How about Nebraska, OU and Texas just go independent and see what negotiating power the other 9 schools have. The block would then be gone and the Missouri AD would then have those blocking his progress out of the way.

[Ohio Pete]

I don't know about the whole revenue sharing thing. I wonder what the Big10's various schools "really" think about it?

If you're a successful sports school and you're sharing revenue with one that sucks wind every single year, why in the hell do you want to give them a share of the pot, equally, when they have done nothing to earn it???

Which begs the question (previously posed by Stewart Mandel) Why exactly would the Big 10 want another school besides Notre Dame? All of the options discussed publicly thus far are revenue drains.

[knapplc]

Which begs the question (previously posed by Stewart Mandel) Why exactly would the Big 10 want another school besides Notre Dame? All of the options discussed publicly thus far are revenue drains.

Except Nebraska, which Stewart specifically said would make a nice anchor for the Big 10 West.

 

But that's not happening.

 

 

 

 

All this talk by Missouri is wishful thinking and/or an attempt to leverage their position. They are not going to improve their lot by going to the Big 10 where they will again be a little fish in a big pond. Instead of Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas they'll be dealing with Ohio State, Penn State and Michigan. They know this and the rest of the Big 12 knows this.

[kc_husker]

If Texas, Oklahoma and Nebraska don't want to share, why haven't the other 9 schools banded together to make these changes? It doesn't make much sense to name schools when there are obviously other schools that aren't on board with what the Missouri AD is proposing. One other reason to hate Missouri. I think I hate Missouri about as much as I hate cancer.

 

How about Nebraska, OU and Texas just go independent and see what negotiating power the other 9 schools have. The block would then be gone and the Missouri AD would then have those blocking his progress out of the way.

 

 

Missouri brings nothing to this conf. let them leave.

[irafreak]

I agree it's all about leverage. It's a bluff. An empty one at that. And there's no reason another school should have to support the ones that can't keep up. The conference brings a level of respect to the schools involved. If ISU gets the same amount of revenue as we do...what incentive do they have to try to keep up? It is all about money.

[skersfan]

My guess is they are going to add another team soon, they want a championship game, they want money.

 

Of all that have been mentioned, excluding Notre Dame, Missouri makes the most sense. Two large markets in St Louis and Kansas City.

 

Missouri is more of what they want than Nebraska, we bring possibly more competition, but far less money to the conference.

 

It is about money period.

 

If they add anyone, my guess is it will be Missouri over Rutgers (absolutely no following of college football in the area, Syracuse and Big East Basketball would be hard to walk away from.

 

I certainly do not want Missouri to leave. The balance of power to Texas would increase, because the only logical addition for replacement would be TCU. In honesty it would cause major problems for the Big 12 North.