Sipple: NU lucky to have Perlman in positions of power

[Nexus]

To this day, it's a bit of an awkward fit.

 

As the Big 12 Conference was being formed in the mid-1990s, Nebraska opposed the league's stricter initial-eligibility academic standards and championship game. Fifteen years later, NU athletic director Tom Osborne expresses concern that the Big 12's "center of gravity has shifted south."

 

Many Husker faithful listen to Osborne, nod in agreement, and cuss almighty Texas.

 

So, perhaps I should've anticipated that many Nebraska fans seem downright excited to make the jump to the Big Ten, if the invitation comes.

 

With such monumental decisions, you take the emotion out of it. That actually seems easy for many Nebraska fans. Unless I'm reading the temperature wrong, many folks lack a strong emotional attachment to the Big 12. Their attachment is to the old Big Eight teams. But let's face it, Missouri is a decent bet to bolt to the Big Ten. And a trusted source told me Colorado could land an invitation from the Pac-10 by the end of June.

 

During times of uncertainty, when conference realignment of some sort seems inevitable, we trust leaders to make rational decisions, even as the public flails away with all sorts of wild notions, such as the creation of five superconferences that would break from the NCAA to form their own group with its own governing system.

 

Lawyerly scholars, such as Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman, provide a dose of reason.

 

"I am very skeptical that a split from the NCAA would happen and, if those thoughts were entertained, my hunch is that rational analysis would lead to rejecting such a split," Perlman maintains. "I think such a move would seriously risk the public support for intercollegiate athletics and would lead to a significant risk of political intervention."

 

By abandoning the NCAA, superconferences would in effect deprive smaller schools the revenue stream they currently enjoy, "and one suspects they might urge Congress to consider such issues as antitrust or looking at various tax exemptions," says Perlman, a member of the Big 12 board of directors and chairman of the NCAA Division I board of directors.

 

These are interesting times for Nebraska. For everyone. Could the Huskers get left behind in a race for riches? It's daunting, exciting, bizarre. Schools' current holding patterns have spawned new phrases such as "watchful waiting" and "active listening" as wheels presumably churn behind the scenes and our imaginations run wild.

 

Meanwhile, Nebraska fans should thank their lucky stars Perlman holds sway with a variety of power brokers in college athletics.

 

Husker fans also should be thankful Bo Pelini and Osborne have whipped the football program back into shape. Flash back to 2007, when Nebraska limped to a 5-7 record and tumbled from the national radar. Would the scuffling Huskers been nearly as attractive to the Big Ten as they are now?

 

Indeed, just as Nebraska is re-asserting itself as a consistent Big 12 power, perhaps ready to overtake the South Division bullies, the Huskers could be eyeing greener pastures in the Big Ten. And you know what I mean by "greener."

 

"We have to listen to anything," Osborne told me last week.

 

Not that anybody's starving in the Big 12. It was a conference that was formed with football success in mind, and it's produced a steady stream of national powers, including national champions in 2005 (Texas), 2000 (Oklahoma) and 1997 (Nebraska).

 

"I think the Big 12 has been very successful and has been a good fit for us," Perlman insists. "I know much is made of the Texas against the rest of us issue, but the facts are that at the presidential level, there has been good collegiality and the concerns at the time of the formation have largely been resolved. If you look at the quality of our athletic performance as a conference, it has been very successful. The revenue generated by the conference affiliation is significant and has been growing steadily."

 

The Big Ten's desire to widen the reach of its television network, and in turn grow revenue, essentially drives the realignment discussion. Although many assume Nebraska would almost double its annual revenue by joining the Big Ten, Perlman cautions that it might not be that simple -- that much depends on the conditions of acceptance.

 

For example, "I would guess it's unlikely that a new team coming into the conference would immediately qualify for a 'full share,'" he notes.

 

Osborne regrets that much of the decision-making is based on economics and wishes the discussion was more about the welfare of student-athletes. What a concept.

 

Perlman says leaving the Big 12 for the Big Ten "most likely" would enhance Nebraska's prestige as an academic institution. NU already is among 64 members of the Association of American Universities research consortium — something Big Ten presidents/chancellors want in all new members — "but overall I suspect the Big Ten has the better academic reputation," Perlman says.

 

If Big Ten presidents/chancellors settle on a three-team expansion, there seems a so-so chance Nebraska would be part of the package. If the Big Ten expands by five, well, Husker fans should prepare for massive change.

 

Many seem poised and ready.

 

LINK

[kansas husker]

Awesome aricle, Nexus. ONE things I took from this(other than the authers main point, of Peralman being 100% BA.)

 

Missouri is a decent bet to bolt to the Big Ten. And a trusted source told me Colorado could land an invitation from the Pac-10 by the end of June.

 

JUNE? Everything I've heard said the Big 10 would move first. If sCUm cuts an invite that will start the domino effect with the Big 12 a lot sooner than I thought.

[huKSer]

As the Big 12 Conference was being formed in the mid-1990s, Nebraska opposed the league's stricter initial-eligibility academic standards and championship game. Fifteen years later, NU athletic director Tom Osborne expresses concern that the Big 12's "center of gravity has shifted south."

 

Seems ironic - if NU goes to Big 10 (I wonder if they keep that name even if they go to 16 teams because of "tradition") they do so so the conference can have a championship game, and I might be wrong, but higher eligibility academic standards as well?

 

I wonder how the standards compare between conferences currently? I think SEC all they have to do is sign their name, know the alphabet and count to ten.

[Caven]

I certainly hope we keep the Big 10 name. As far as recruitment - I am pretty sure that the two conferences are really close to each other now on this issue so even if the Big 10 does have slightly higher requirements it would probably not affect Nebraska's recruiting hardly at all.

[mmmtodd]

i swear shatel and popsicle read our posts on here and derive articles from them a week later.

[REDSTEEL]

THE BIGGEST problem with the Big 12 Conference from day one has been the inability of its members to unanimously agree on how it originated.

 

Some former Big Eight Conference schools have stubbornly maintained the league merely expanded when it added Baylor, Texas, Texas A&M and Texas Tech.

 

They argue the Big Eight never disbanded like the Southwest Conference, which had been the home of the four Texas schools.

 

There are, however, Big Eight officials who contend the Big 12 is a new conference. The Texas schools obviously agree with that contention.

The Big 12 was officially formed in 1994 and started competition in 1996. Yet the bickering continues over how the conference came about.

 

That difference of opinion has escalated and created growing tension recently as talk about conference expansion has swept the nation.

 

Notre Dame, the Big Ten's primary target, is aware of the angst building as leagues wait for the Irish and the Big Ten to announce their intentions.

 

The Rev. John I. Jenkins, Notre Dame's president, told The Chronicle of Higher Education that "the current (expansion) uncertainty around the number and the time creates greater tensions and greater stress."

That's definitely the case in the Big 12, where nerves are getting frayed as some

members continue to talk about leaving for the Big Ten.

 

"We're getting tired of their act," one Big 12 source said. "It's starting to tick people off."

 

History suggests it isn't a surprise that Missouri and Nebraska are doing the saber-rattling.

 

Nebraska athletic director Tom Osborne has never been an enthusiastic Big 12 fan. The school's football coach when the league was formed, Osborne was frustrated when some Big Eight academic standards were not adopted by the Big 12.

Osborne's continued uneasiness was evident when Big 12 ADs voted 11-1 in March to keep the football championship game at Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Texas, for the next three years. Osborne cast the only dissenting vote.

 

"I expressed some reservations," Osborne told the Lincoln Journal-Star.

 

Missouri has never been a totally happy conference camper. The Tigers remain frustrated over the league's football revenue-sharing plan, which they believe strongly favors Oklahoma, Texas and Nebraska.

 

Half the football television money is split evenly, while the other half is divided up based on TV appearances. Missouri argues that the plan strongly favors the Sooners, Longhorns and Huskers.

 

Those three schools counter by challenging Mizzou and other Big 12 schools to make their football programs powerful enough to attract TV attention.

 

It's no secret that Missouri hopes a threat to join the Big Ten will force the Big 12 to rework its revenue-sharing format.

 

"That isn't going to happen," said one league official.

 

Mizzou AD Mike Alden has been extremely vocal about his displeasure for both revenue-sharing and TV contracts.

 

The Big 12's TV packages are dwarfed by deals put together by the Big Ten and SEC. The huge success of The Big Ten Network has enabled that league, which shares revenue equally, to pay its members $22 million a year generated in football compared to the $7 to $11 million in the Big 12.

 

"Our hope would be that the (Big 12)," Alden told the Columbia Tribune, "would continue to push harder in those areas for a new television contract for more exposure and for equal revenue distribution."

 

The Big 12's deal with ABC/ESPN runs through 2016, and its contract with Fox lasts through 2012. The Big Ten and SEC, meanwhile, will continue to maintain a healthy revenue edge until the Big 12 can negotiate new deals.

 

So what's the Big 12 to do to keep its league intact? That question has prompted some to question what conference commissioner Dan Beebe is doing to secure the Big 12's future.

 

"He's doing a heck of a lot more than people think," one Big 12 source said. "Even though you don't hear it a lot, don't assume there aren't some really serious conversations going on behind the scenes."

 

It became obvious late last week that Beebe has indeed been quietly working hard to create new revenue streams. It was reported Friday that ADs and commissioners from the Big 12 and Pac-10 held three days of meetings in Phoenix to discuss the possibility of an alliance.

 

Both conferences have cable deals with Fox that expire in 2012. They could then join forces in forging new TV contracts and creating some blockbuster matchups.

 

"It would open up all kinds of possibilities on what we could do schedule-wise," Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott told the Los Angeles Times. "This (discussion) will progress at a brisk pace."

 

Some speculate that news of a possible Big 12-Pac-10 alliance was purposely leaked to send a strong message to both the Big Ten and schools making noise about changing conference affiliations.

 

Is it time for Big 12 movers and shakers to tell Nebraska and Missouri to either get on board so the conference can present a united front or get the heck out?

 

"That feeling is starting to grow," a Big 12 source said. "We have to find a way to work towards the best interest of the conference, because we're much stronger together than individually."

 

A good start would be changing the stubborn minds of those old Big Eight members who insist the league did the Texas schools a gigantic favor by expanding to give them a new home.

 

Good luck on that front. The Big 12 is 16 years old, but it won't make it to 20 with its original membership if attitudes don't change and tempers cool.

 

Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/article.aspx?subjectid=2&articleid=20100509_202_B1_THEBIG930189

[Silent Commit]

To this day, it's a bit of an awkward fit.

 

As the Big 12 Conference was being formed in the mid-1990s, Nebraska opposed the league's stricter initial-eligibility academic standards and championship game. Fifteen years later, NU athletic director Tom Osborne expresses concern that the Big 12's "center of gravity has shifted south."

 

Many Husker faithful listen to Osborne, nod in agreement, and cuss almighty Texas.

 

So, perhaps I should've anticipated that many Nebraska fans seem downright excited to make the jump to the Big Ten, if the invitation comes.

 

With such monumental decisions, you take the emotion out of it. That actually seems easy for many Nebraska fans. Unless I'm reading the temperature wrong, many folks lack a strong emotional attachment to the Big 12. Their attachment is to the old Big Eight teams. But let's face it, Missouri is a decent bet to bolt to the Big Ten. And a trusted source told me Colorado could land an invitation from the Pac-10 by the end of June.

 

During times of uncertainty, when conference realignment of some sort seems inevitable, we trust leaders to make rational decisions, even as the public flails away with all sorts of wild notions, such as the creation of five superconferences that would break from the NCAA to form their own group with its own governing system.

 

Lawyerly scholars, such as Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman, provide a dose of reason.

 

"I am very skeptical that a split from the NCAA would happen and, if those thoughts were entertained, my hunch is that rational analysis would lead to rejecting such a split," Perlman maintains. "I think such a move would seriously risk the public support for intercollegiate athletics and would lead to a significant risk of political intervention."

 

By abandoning the NCAA, superconferences would in effect deprive smaller schools the revenue stream they currently enjoy, "and one suspects they might urge Congress to consider such issues as antitrust or looking at various tax exemptions," says Perlman, a member of the Big 12 board of directors and chairman of the NCAA Division I board of directors.

 

These are interesting times for Nebraska. For everyone. Could the Huskers get left behind in a race for riches? It's daunting, exciting, bizarre. Schools' current holding patterns have spawned new phrases such as "watchful waiting" and "active listening" as wheels presumably churn behind the scenes and our imaginations run wild.

 

Meanwhile, Nebraska fans should thank their lucky stars Perlman holds sway with a variety of power brokers in college athletics.

 

Husker fans also should be thankful Bo Pelini and Osborne have whipped the football program back into shape. Flash back to 2007, when Nebraska limped to a 5-7 record and tumbled from the national radar. Would the scuffling Huskers been nearly as attractive to the Big Ten as they are now?

 

Indeed, just as Nebraska is re-asserting itself as a consistent Big 12 power, perhaps ready to overtake the South Division bullies, the Huskers could be eyeing greener pastures in the Big Ten. And you know what I mean by "greener."

 

"We have to listen to anything," Osborne told me last week.

 

Not that anybody's starving in the Big 12. It was a conference that was formed with football success in mind, and it's produced a steady stream of national powers, including national champions in 2005 (Texas), 2000 (Oklahoma) and 1997 (Nebraska).

 

"I think the Big 12 has been very successful and has been a good fit for us," Perlman insists. "I know much is made of the Texas against the rest of us issue, but the facts are that at the presidential level, there has been good collegiality and the concerns at the time of the formation have largely been resolved. If you look at the quality of our athletic performance as a conference, it has been very successful. The revenue generated by the conference affiliation is significant and has been growing steadily."

 

The Big Ten's desire to widen the reach of its television network, and in turn grow revenue, essentially drives the realignment discussion. Although many assume Nebraska would almost double its annual revenue by joining the Big Ten, Perlman cautions that it might not be that simple -- that much depends on the conditions of acceptance.

 

For example, "I would guess it's unlikely that a new team coming into the conference would immediately qualify for a 'full share,'" he notes.

 

Osborne regrets that much of the decision-making is based on economics and wishes the discussion was more about the welfare of student-athletes. What a concept.

 

Perlman says leaving the Big 12 for the Big Ten "most likely" would enhance Nebraska's prestige as an academic institution. NU already is among 64 members of the Association of American Universities research consortium — something Big Ten presidents/chancellors want in all new members — "but overall I suspect the Big Ten has the better academic reputation," Perlman says.

 

If Big Ten presidents/chancellors settle on a three-team expansion, there seems a so-so chance Nebraska would be part of the package. If the Big Ten expands by five, well, Husker fans should prepare for massive change.

 

Many seem poised and ready.

 

LINK

 

From the sounds of the article, it appears that, from Perlman's perspective, the creation of "super conferences" is not likely. I trust that he is in "the know" and has a good sense of what B10 administrators are discussing. I 'm starting to get the impression that the B10 is looking at expanding to 14 teams rather than 16, which worries me, because I don't know if Nebraska would make the cut. Rutgers, Pitt and Missouri seem to get mentioned frequently in B10 expansion talks.

[knapplc]

From the sounds of the article, it appears that, from Perlman's perspective, the creation of "super conferences" is not likely. I trust that he is in "the know" and has a good sense of what B10 administrators are discussing. I 'm starting to get the impression that the B10 is looking at expanding to 14 teams rather than 16, which worries me, because I don't know if Nebraska would make the cut. Rutgers, Pitt and Missouri seem to get mentioned frequently in B10 expansion talks.

 

If we want to go to the Big 10, we'll go. We are more likely to get offered than Missouri, but less likely than Rutgers, if you believe the numbers people. Rutgers, Pitt and Missouri get mentioned a lot by the press, not by anybody making the decision.