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

[knapplc]

Just to be very clear, I don't want Missouri to leave, either. I'm speaking very frankly in this thread, but if I had my choice I would keep Missouri.

 

I don't specifically advocate keeping programs like Missouri under the thumb of Nebraska, Texas or Oklahoma, but at the same time I do recognize that these three programs didn't get where they are today by accident. I would like to see every school in this conference put as much effort into their programs as the "big three" have.

 

The revenue sharing issue is a thorn for some schools, but again, this should have been addressed at the formation of the conference. Renegotiating now, especially while holding the conference hostage by a threatened pullout, isn't the way to go.

[knapplc]

6 Million people, over twice the size of Nebraska...

 

True. And on any given Saturday, 0.016% of them are likely to pay attention to Missouri football, whereas about 100% of the population of Nebraska is likely to pay attention to Nebraska football.

 

It's not the size of the population that's important - it's the amount of eyeballs in use.

[dergibog]

While we're speculating about Mizzou, we may be missing a less obvious team: Texas to the Big Ten

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/309140-...expansion-texas

[jayhawk]

Just to be very clear, I don't want Missouri to leave, either. I'm speaking very frankly in this thread, but if I had my choice I would keep Missouri.

 

I don't specifically advocate keeping programs like Missouri under the thumb of Nebraska, Texas or Oklahoma, but at the same time I do recognize that these three programs didn't get where they are today by accident. I would like to see every school in this conference put as much effort into their programs as the "big three" have.

 

The revenue sharing issue is a thorn for some schools, but again, this should have been addressed at the formation of the conference. Renegotiating now, especially while holding the conference hostage by a threatened pullout, isn't the way to go.

 

KU has put as much energy as anyone....

 

Of course, I am not sure if we are one of the other schools stopping change... Our issue is that beig a basketball power is worth a litle less $$$ than being a football one.

[jayhawk]

6 Million people, over twice the size of Nebraska...

 

True. And on any given Saturday, 0.016% of them are likely to pay attention to Missouri football, whereas about 100% of the population of Nebraska is likely to pay attention to Nebraska football.

 

It's not the size of the population that's important - it's the amount of eyeballs in use.

 

While I do agree, and passion in addition to viewership sells more too, that would elimate NY, NJ and most of New England. This is not college sports country up here (cept in my house a few others)...

[DJR313]

Just to be very clear, I don't want Missouri to leave, either. I'm speaking very frankly in this thread, but if I had my choice I would keep Missouri.

 

I don't specifically advocate keeping programs like Missouri under the thumb of Nebraska, Texas or Oklahoma, but at the same time I do recognize that these three programs didn't get where they are today by accident. I would like to see every school in this conference put as much effort into their programs as the "big three" have.

 

The revenue sharing issue is a thorn for some schools, but again, this should have been addressed at the formation of the conference. Renegotiating now, especially while holding the conference hostage by a threatened pullout, isn't the way to go.

 

I completely agree. My original point wasn't that Missouri should pack up and go, but the point of the OP, or his posting that he was referring to, falls flat. Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas are the big hitters in this conference. They get a bigger slice of the pie because they bring a bigger paycheck home. If these so-called hurdles to an evening of the payouts left, the Big 12 would become the Big 9, and hold about as much prestige as the Mountain West or Big East. We need Missouri as much as they need Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas to add the prestige to this conference.

 

Like I have been reading that if Missouri or Texas leaves, what happens to this conference? Does the Big 12 add another? Do they disband? Would OU or NU be able to survive as an independent? Things like this are interesting to discuss a potential change to the landscape of college football as we know it.

[sioux city husker fan]

Just my opinion, but if mizzou goes to the little 11 there are a lot of other teams that would love to join the big 12, for recruiting, national exposure etc. I dont forsee the conference going under if mizzou leaves.

[5thSF RET]

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.

 

From what I have been reading, The big coup would be for the huskers to get in. I myself woudnt mind it. I know they would be competative right away and would gather a larger audience than N.D. They would make the Big 10 just a worthy as the SEC. PSU wants Rutgers, Syracuse so they can get an easy win, and Misou would leave so they can get have a easier time being relevant than in the big 12.

[5thSF RET]

Just to be very clear, I don't want Missouri to leave, either. I'm speaking very frankly in this thread, but if I had my choice I would keep Missouri.

 

I don't specifically advocate keeping programs like Missouri under the thumb of Nebraska, Texas or Oklahoma, but at the same time I do recognize that these three programs didn't get where they are today by accident. I would like to see every school in this conference put as much effort into their programs as the "big three" have.

 

The revenue sharing issue is a thorn for some schools, but again, this should have been addressed at the formation of the conference. Renegotiating now, especially while holding the conference hostage by a threatened pullout, isn't the way to go.

 

I completely agree. My original point wasn't that Missouri should pack up and go, but the point of the OP, or his posting that he was referring to, falls flat. Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas are the big hitters in this conference. They get a bigger slice of the pie because they bring a bigger paycheck home. If these so-called hurdles to an evening of the payouts left, the Big 12 would become the Big 9, and hold about as much prestige as the Mountain West or Big East. We need Missouri as much as they need Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas to add the prestige to this conference.

 

Like I have been reading that if Missouri or Texas leaves, what happens to this conference? Does the Big 12 add another? Do they disband? Would OU or NU be able to survive as an independent? Things like this are interesting to discuss a potential change to the landscape of college football as we know it.

 

 

If Texas, OU or NEB leave, the conference is done. You might bring in a BSU,TCU, or BYU but if they dont stay consistant then the big 12 gets a beat down in the media. Bottom line is whats best for the huskers........ I would dig seeing them beat up on Michigan, THE OSU and the rest of the big ten clowns. I agree with the fact that if one of the three leave that can have a HUGE impact on the landscape of both the BIG 12 and college football in general. I do see NU being discussed almost as much as Missou as a possible mover.

[sarge87]

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.

When I bring this argument up in the Politics forum, I'm an evil Republican hate monger.

[cornhuskers4ever]

What's weird is the Big 10 is really the Big 11, and if they add missouri they'd be the Big Twelve and we'd be the big 11. I wonder who we'd get to fill the spot? Probably somebody in the central region. My hopes would be Colorado State or TCU.

[sarge87]

I'll add some more fuel to this fire......

 

Forbes report says Texas No. 1

 

Associated Press

ESPN.com

 

The Texas Longhorns are the most valuable team in college sports.

 

Forbes magazine says Texas has a team value of $119 million, easily topping Notre Dame, last year's leader, by $11 million.

 

The magazine based its rankings on "dividend money," or what's left for academics (including football scholarships) and non-revenue sports after the cost of running the football program. Bowl game revenue also is factored in.

 

According to Forbes, Texas had a $59 million profit. Notre Dame's team value was $108 million, with a $38 million profit.

 

Rounding out the first 10 in Forbes' Top 20 list are Penn State, Nebraska, Alabama, Florida, LSU, Ohio State, Georgia and Oklahoma.

 

Michigan had the biggest drop from last year to No. 11 from No. 4. Nebraska made the biggest improvement to No. 4 from No. 18.

Forbes Top 20 College Programs

1. Texas $119M
   
2. Notre Dame $108M
   
3. Penn St. $99M
   
4. Nebraska $93M
   
5. Alabama $92M
   
6. Florida $88M
   
7. LSU $86M
   
8. Ohio St. $85M
   
9. Georgia $84M
   
10. Oklahoma $83M
    
11. Michigan $81M
    
12. S. Carolina $80M
    
13. Tennessee $78M
    
14. Auburn $70M
    
15. USC $68M
    
16. Michigan St. $57M
    
17. Arkansas $56M
    
18. Texas A&M $52M
    
19. Wisconsin $48M
    
20. Oklahoma St. $47M
    

[NoKoolAidForME]

Forbes magazine says Texas has a team value of $119 million, easily topping Notre Dame, last year's leader, by $11 million.

 

According to Forbes, Texas had a $59 million profit. Notre Dame's team value was $108 million, with a $38 million profit.

School Value in millions (Previous rank)

 

1. Texas $119 (2)

2. Notre Dame $108 (1)

3. Penn State $99 (13)

4. Nebraska $93 (18)

5. Alabama $92 (9)

6. Florida $88 (5)

7. LSU $86 (6)

8. Ohio State $85 (10)

9. Georgia $84 (3)

10. Oklahoma $83 (11)

11. Michigan $81 (4)

12. South Carolina $80 (12)

13. Tennessee $78 (7)

14. Auburn $70 (8)

15. Southern California $68 (14)

16. Michigan State $57 (19)

17. Arkansas $56 (15)

18. Texas A&M $52 (16)

19. Wisconsin $48 (20)

20. Oklahoma State $47 (NR)

This is the reason Notre Dame will not join the Big 10. Number 1 and 2 in the past two years with a record of 13 - 12.

[fro daddy]

I think there is some confusion when it comes to sharing money. The sharing that is being talked about is the sharing of the TV money. Not they money that your program makes. The other conferences have TV deals that are worth 100 million more dollars a year more than the BIG12 deal. Think about that. The SEC ESPN TV deal and the BIG10 Network both make more than 100 million more than the BIG12 TV Deal per year. All because the Big 12 was scared and pu**y footed around when they could have went big.

 

That is the issue. And just so you are aware. MU is a profitable football program. They are in a group of only a handful of D-1 schools that turn a profit from their Athletic. Dept. Do they make as much as NEB of TEX. Hell no they dont. But they are profitable. MU doesnt want NE's ticket take, or part of the paper view money. They want equal revenue sharing from the TV deal. Also keep in mind that MU's cut of the TV deal was the 4th best out of the 12 teams. They have it much better than others in the big12.

 

The academics do come into effect with the CIC and the research money and grants given to the school. They are in play but not the whole deal obviously. However an extra $10-12 million a year from just the TV deal does a lot for both the A.D. and the Academics.

 

Losing MU would take money from the other big 12 schools. TV deals are based on households and proposed ad revenue. Losing the second largest state and the 2nd largest market, and partial of the 3rd will take money away. On house holds along MU brings more TV's to the game than all of NE and KS combined. There is no doubt that will impact dramatically the bargaining power of the BIG12 in 3-4 years when the current deal is up. The big 12 already has fewer top 100 markets than the SEC and BIG10, losing 2 of those, and 2 of the biggest, will be a huge hit.

 

Regardless, I think this is a leverage move to get the conference to share TV money evenly and to get the current members to demand a high profile TV deal. Also a little FYI, MU had looked at leaving to the BIG10 when the BIG 12 was formed. They were not in favor of just giving the old SWC schools control. But in what turned out to be a mistake they went along with their peers not wanting to disrupt the old big 8 alliances. Hind sight is always 20-20

[colosilverado]

I think there is some confusion when it comes to sharing money. The sharing that is being talked about is the sharing of the TV money. Not they money that your program makes. The other conferences have TV deals that are worth 100 million more dollars a year more than the BIG12 deal. Think about that. The SEC ESPN TV deal and the BIG10 Network both make more than 100 million more than the BIG12 TV Deal per year. All because the Big 12 was scared and pu**y footed around when they could have went big.

 

That is the issue. And just so you are aware. MU is a profitable football program. They are in a group of only a handful of D-1 schools that turn a profit from their Athletic. Dept. Do they make as much as NEB of TEX. Hell no they dont. But they are profitable. MU doesnt want NE's ticket take, or part of the paper view money. They want equal revenue sharing from the TV deal. Also keep in mind that MU's cut of the TV deal was the 4th best out of the 12 teams. They have it much better than others in the big12.

 

The academics do come into effect with the CIC and the research money and grants given to the school. They are in play but not the whole deal obviously. However an extra $10-12 million a year from just the TV deal does a lot for both the A.D. and the Academics.

 

Losing MU would take money from the other big 12 schools. TV deals are based on households and proposed ad revenue. Losing the second largest state and the 2nd largest market, and partial of the 3rd will take money away. On house holds along MU brings more TV's to the game than all of NE and KS combined. There is no doubt that will impact dramatically the bargaining power of the BIG12 in 3-4 years when the current deal is up. The big 12 already has fewer top 100 markets than the SEC and BIG10, losing 2 of those, and 2 of the biggest, will be a huge hit.

 

Regardless, I think this is a leverage move to get the conference to share TV money evenly and to get the current members to demand a high profile TV deal. Also a little FYI, MU had looked at leaving to the BIG10 when the BIG 12 was formed. They were not in favor of just giving the old SWC schools control. But in what turned out to be a mistake they went along with their peers not wanting to disrupt the old big 8 alliances. Hind sight is always 20-20

 

 

 

From what I've read, I don't think anyone here is confused. Do you think that Husker fans wouldn't want to have their school earning more revenue? I don't know that anyone is saying that the TV contract situation is where it should be as far as what the other conferences have.

 

I don't think many here advocate MU leaving either. I do think schools need to EARN their share. Yes, MU has some earning power- POTENTIALLY- in the sheer number of potential viewers. I agree with the posters who say that those sets are likely to not be turned on when MU is playing and MU certainly doesn't have the prestige or following of many other Big 12 schools. Much like the televisions in Colorado aren't typically on for Buffs games. Why do you think CU isn't being aggressively pursued? You've got the Denver market for televisions supposedly but they aren't tuned into the Buffs. CU fans aren't die hard.

 

If a school like CU were to earn the same TV money as NU, they had sure as heck be pumping money into their facilities and their athletic departments and staffs so that they can be relevant in the conference because some of these schools aren't relevant....regardless of sport.

 

I'm sure UT feels somewhat the same about NU.

 

 

Texans for Colorado, Texans for Missouri...how many people do those groups have as members and what do they actually do? Do they exist? Do they get their teams' games broadcast locally on the radio? Do they go to watch parties in their respective state and bring money to the local economy with those watch parties?

 

I agree, the potential of the MU TV market is a nice piece of pie. Potentially. I'd really have to see it proven though.

 

I also agree that I'd rather have MU in the conference 10 times over CU, Baylor, Iowa State, KSU, Okie St. and maybe Texas Tech. KU might be a tossup.