Dan Beebe Interview in the Columbia Tribune

[knapplc]

This is one of the more in-depth interviews I've seen Beebe give on the subject of expansion. It's Missouri-centric since it came from the Columbia Tribune, but it speaks a lot about our role in this as well.

 

Tired of playing the waiting game

 

Since December, the story of Big Ten expansion, and Missouri’s role in it, has captured the imagination of the state’s sports fans.

 

While MU has reaped many benefits from its membership in the Big 12, it has grown increasingly frustrated with some aspects of the league. Specifically, Missouri has complained about the football television revenue-sharing formula, in which half the money is split evenly and the other half is awarded based on TV appearances, and a bowl contract that has consistently put the Tigers in postseason games lower on the conference’s pecking order than their record merited.

 

Missouri Athletic Director Mike Alden has noted that Big Ten schools reap about $12 million more than their Big 12 counterparts in annual TV revenue. School officials and Gov. Jay Nixon have done nothing to discourage the Big Ten about MU’s interest in defecting, but Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany has said his conference won’t rush into a decision about how many — if any — teams to invite.

 

Caught in the middle is Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe, who is trying to hold his conference together. Essentially held hostage by the Big Ten, his patience is wearing a little thin. He wants to establish which Big 12 schools are committed to staying so the league can start making decisions for the future — decisions that could include a partnership with the Pac-10.

 

On Friday, Beebe spoke with the Tribune about these issues.

 

Q: We’ve heard about the reasons it would be good for Missouri to go to the Big Ten. From your perspective, why would it make sense for Missouri to stay in the Big 12?

 

A: This is in no particular order and just as it comes to my head. First, leaving long-time rivalries in the dust that have been developed over, heck, some of them 100 years and some of them more recently is a concern.

 

Another thing is, for any of our institutions, attaching themselves to a part of the country that’s losing a lot of its population and probably tax base would have to be carefully inspected. Right now, Missouri is connected to a part of the country that’s growing, not losing population and tax base. Probably the second- or third-highest alumni and supporter base for Missouri, like a lot of our programs, is the state of Texas and west of here. I think that kind of connection should be carefully considered. To what part of the country do you want to be connected to so you have a strong future 20, 30, 40 years from now?

 

The other part of it is this combination of institutions, even though we’re just a teenager, has in a short time provided for great competition among themselves, which also has honed their ability to compete nationally in all of the sports. For such a young conference, we have certainly made our mark nationally. If you look at Missouri, if you look at the progress of their program from before the Big 12 was formed to now, they’ve certainly benefited from all that. And part of that is from recruiting young people from this part of the country — I’m talking about the I-35 corridor and the types of kids they get in their programs that are reflective of the citizens in this part of the country who are hard-working and don’t give up and keep playing hard and working hard to be successful.

 

Q: You mentioned on a radio interview that you would like to know by the Big 12 meetings in Kansas City in a few weeks who’s on the plane and who’s off. From a practical perspective, what does that mean?

 

A: First of all, that isn’t the exact characterization of what I said. I said I want to present to the board the question of how do we get to a place where we determine who’s on the plane and who’s off. I want there to be a time — on our time schedule, not any other conference or entity’s time schedule — where we say, OK, here’s who’s committed to this conference, and we’re going forward and we’re going to continue to prepare for our negotiations with television next spring, which looks like it’s going to be a highly profitable situation for us, whether we collaborate with the Pac-10 or do it on our own. We need to continue to plan and strategize for how we’re going to maintain our position as one of the pre-eminent conferences in the country. To do that, we can’t be sitting there being perceived as being unstable or having members who might have their eye on other places.

 

It’s fine, it’s an obligation of institutions to perhaps from time-to-time see if they should be associated with other institutions, but we can’t allow it to continue on, in my judgment. Now, I’m just the commissioner, I don’t have a vote. It’s my position that I’m going to take with the board that we want a frank conversation about this and we want to see what options are available to get commitments to who’s on the plane and who’s not. It may not come right at this meeting, but I want to suggest a plan that gives us a date certain when we have a full understanding and commitment.

 

Q: But if, for example, the Big Ten timeline we’ve been hearing so much about stretches to its upper reaches — 18 months as opposed to 12 months — and Missouri and Nebraska are holding on to their position that they are waiting and listening to what the Big Ten has to say, and it gets to be next spring when you’re wanting to negotiate a TV deal, what then? What is the end game if you’re still waiting and they’re not getting off the fence?

 

A: Well, I don’t want to give it that kind of time frame. That’s my point. I want to call the question soon, so we know. We have negotiations to enter into this year. We’re finalizing bowl contracts for the next go-round. We’re strategizing for how we’re going to position ourselves for the future in media rights and governance in the NCAA — all sorts of matters that aren’t going to lend themselves to holding on and waiting to see what might be offered.

 

So, in my judgment, institutions need to come to that conclusion, and if that means they have to go back to possible suitors and say, “This is our time frame, so you better let us know,” then that’s what I think should happen. Again, I’m the commissioner. The board may or may not agree with me.

 

Q: But if the schools weren’t willing or able to do that, is there a scenario where they would be kicked out?

 

A: I don’t know. That’s up to the board. The other members certainly have a right to say that for the good of all of us, we need to have this instability — perceived instability and actual instability — rectified. How that takes form, I’ll be interested to find out myself. I have some ideas, but I don’t want to share them publicly before I share them with my membership.

 

Q: Do you believe the Big Ten is interested in Missouri and Nebraska?

 

A: I can’t afford not to believe that any institution may be in play. It’s my job to make sure I consider all possibilities. I can’t afford not to believe that. I certainly think they’re two valuable institutions or they wouldn’t be in our conference.

 

Q: In the current state of affairs, is there resentment among the rest of the conference or among conference officials about Missouri and Nebraska saying they are going to listen to the Big Ten?

 

A: Certainly in the conference office that’s not how we perceive things. We have an issue here that we have to deal with. I may be arguing for taking a course of action that some institutions aren’t necessarily favoring, but I don’t hold anything against other institutions. But at some point, we need to know which members are going to be proud, ongoing members. I’m hopeful and counting on Missouri and Nebraska and Texas and Oklahoma and everybody else being in that category.

 

Q: I want to get your perspective on a couple of issues that have frustrated Missouri, No. 1 being the Big 12’s revenue-sharing formula. Missouri’s position is it’s better for the conference as a whole if revenue is divided equally — the rising-tide-lifts-all-ships theory. What is your opinion?

 

A: Well, I can see both sides of this debate. As I said in the St. Louis paper, the rising tides can be looked at both ways. A rising tide with institutions that are more marketable and that the media companies want to make sure are part of the deal rises the boats of others. On the other side, sharing money equally certainly can be perceived that way, too, but if it’s without the institutions that bring the most market value, you might be cutting your nose off to spite your face.

 

The commissioner is caught between the two extremes. I understand the viewpoint that there are institutions that had options, this matter was on the table and certainly could have been handled — and as a matter of fact was hotly debated — when the conference was formed. But the conditions on which the conference was formed are not that old. There’s institutions that believe that was the deal, we had options when the deal was made and you’re reneging on the deal by wanting to change it. So that’s another perspective.

 

My membership would be disappointed if I carried that same argument about distribution outside the Big 12 and into the greater NCAA membership. That’s a membership organization, too, and I certainly have stood strong against other conferences who are playing BCS football in the fact that we bring — the Big 12 — the most market value, along with the Big Ten, the Pac-10 and so forth to postseason football and we’re only willing to share that access and revenue to a certain point. In a lot of regards, I’m arguing the case for unequal sharing when it goes to outside the conference, and I believe in that.

 

I understand both points of view. Both points have some validity. But right now, the board has determined the conditions upon which the conference was formed remain intact and are the ones institutions relied upon to be a part of this group of schools.

 

Q: The second thing Missouri administrators and fans have been frustrated about is the bowl situations. The main one was 2007 when Missouri beats Kansas on a neutral site, is ranked No. 1 in the nation, loses in the conference championship game and falls completely out of the BCS, while Kansas goes to the Orange Bowl. In talking to Mike Alden in December I asked him about the bowl snubs and if he felt the Big 12 office could be more assertive in encouraging the bowls to pick teams based on where they finish in the league. He said yes. What’s your take?

A: You could say we want certain rules that bowls have to go by. The Pac-10 had that, and it lowered the value they were paid. The bowls want to have the right to select. Part of their deal is to select the programs and teams that are going to bring the most attention. … The Pac-10 had that, and they retreated from that.

 

Q: Do you think the issue of revenue sharing is almost a moot point in terms of whether a school would want to leave for the Big Ten? Nebraska is on the opposite side of that issue from Missouri. Would it matter, as far as keeping the conference together, if the school presidents voted to share revenue equally?

 

A: I think that’s something the institutions themselves have to answer. I don’t know if that makes a difference or not. Certainly you just identified that Missouri and Nebraska are on separate sides of that issue.

 

Q: What are some of the possibilities of a partnership with the Pac-10?

 

A: It started off as my idea of looking at the new landscape and how we might be able to increase our value. I thought, with 22 of the most prominent institutions west of the Mississippi, the possibility is we could link up and schedule games between each other. Networks are always asking for better games and kind of a challenge like we have in basketball, but with football. Then maybe even bargaining as a unit instead of two separate units to increase our leverage and considering network possibilities, branding possibilities and so forth together. That was one element.

 

As this conference realignment talk heated up, we discussed whether there would be possibilities to align in other ways — not merge but come together in terms of being a political force if we needed to on national issues.

 

Q: Is a Pac-10/Big 12 Network on the model of the Big Ten Network an idea that would fly?

 

A: Well, whether it’s a network or one media entity that buys us, the fact that we cover three time zones is very attractive for programming purposes. Then the volume of games and the breadth of the amount of the country it would cover would be highly attractive, too. That’s something we’re exploring.

 

Q: Recently Texas has talked about starting its own network. What is your reaction to that?

 

A: Well, it was debated and there is no prohibition for our institutions to do that in our media partners’ contract. So they’re exploring that option.

 

Q: What impact would that have, though, on the possibility of what you were talking about previously about a TV deal involving the Big 12 and Pac-10?

 

A: Well, it’s something we have to explore and see if there’s a way that both can fit in. We’re going to have a process of examining that fully.

 

Q: You mentioned this in your first answer and Jim Delany mentioned it this week at the Big Ten meetings — population growth in the Sun Belt. Do you foresee a time in the future where the Big 12 would be a more attractive television partner than the Big Ten? Is that what you’re pitching, that before too long the tables might turn and your conference would have a more lucrative TV media deal?

 

A: Certainly the trends are seemingly going that way. The talent that is able to be recruited is out of the Sun Belt because of the population base and just because young people can be outside all the time getting stronger, faster and better. So I certainly think that has to be carefully considered by our institutions as they look at where they want to be positioned for the future in higher education.

 

I think it can also relate to the value of the institutions going forward. There may be more Sun Belt institutions that become more prominent when citizens and the populace demand more of that, like has been the case when the Upper Midwest has been more populated.

 

Q: You’re talking about not so much athletics as academics?

 

A: Overall. Yeah. Overall. As the tax base wanes and the tax base gets bigger other places, there is going to be a higher demand and more revenue to become better all around. All of that is better explored at the institution level, where they have resources to evaluate that. But I certainly think those considerations need to be evaluated.

[rawhide]

Sounds like Beebe wants everyone to toe the party line but let Texas negotiate a TV deal for themselves and that's OK. So why is MU and Nebraska interested in going to another conference??? just stirrin' the pot

 

 

GBR

[druski_2k5]

And the speculation continues....

 

Yes it does sound like he would let Texas do what they want, but would like to keep everyone else in-tact. Beebe is losing the conference under his watch and there isn't a damn thing anyone he can do about it, these things should have been done 10 years ago.

 

I like how he talks about "rivalries" and the "potential to lose some that have been going on for almost 100 years"

 

 

Q: We’ve heard about the reasons it would be good for Missouri to go to the Big Ten. From your perspective, why would it make sense for Missouri to stay in the Big 12?

 

A: This is in no particular order and just as it comes to my head. First, leaving long-time rivalries in the dust that have been developed over, heck, some of them 100 years and some of them more recently is a concern.

 

 

Screw him and screw the Big XII with their politics.

 

I think, from what I read, Oklahoma was given a choice between us or Texas to play every year, and they chose Texas because we were so dominant when the conference started. That's all fine and dandy, but to let them decide is kind of dumb and takes out the prestige of a Rivalry Game. I guess we weren't their true Rival if they chose Texas, who they didn't like but thought they could beat more consistantly than us at the time.

 

I still say why not have a rotation set up where Nebraska would rotate between 2 south teams and still be able to play Oklahoma every year as a "Rivalry" game like they do in the SEC? I know Oklahoma chose Texas, but if they wanted to "keep the tradition in-tact of rivalries" some sort of rotation would have been built on this.

 

Oh and not to mention the fact about us being out-voted 11-1, everything centric in Texas, more revenue in the Big Ten and everything else, MAY have something to do with us wanting to leave the conference too.

[Caven]

Q: From your perspective, why would it make sense for Missouri to stay in the Big 12?

A: Why would they want to not be associated with Texas

[74Hunter]

Q: From your perspective, why would it make sense for Missouri to stay in the Big 12?

A: Why would they want to not be associated with Texas

 

They could've cut that interview down to 1 question, easily.

[In the Deed the Glory]

Q: From your perspective, why would it make sense for Missouri to stay in the Big 12?

A: Why would they want to not be associated with Texas

Big 'Ole +1 on that one

[billdozer15]

Who's Don?

[colosilverado]

Who's Don?

 

I think he used to star with Tim Conway in some movies and played a cop in a tv series with Ron Howard. The credibility and authority traits are striking anyway.

 

He doesn't have a vote. Like that matters because it would be with Texas every single time anyway....

[typ3kal]

The problems with the BigXII not having a tv network for additional revenue would be solved if Texas weren't so concerned with their own gains. If a league wide TV network were established, most reports say the Universities could haul in an extra 8-9 million a year. The problem is if Texas had their own TV network they would likely haul in 14-15 million for their University. Hence there is little incentive for Texas to allow a BigXII network since they can make nearly double the amount on their own network. Meanwhile, the rest of the league is hostage to Texas's decisions.

[Captain K]

Sounds like Beebe wants everyone to toe the party line but let Texas negotiate a TV deal for themselves and that's OK. So why is MU and Nebraska interested in going to another conference??? just stirrin' the pot

 

 

GBR

Yeah. If you thought Beebe had any credibility left at all and wasn't entirely in UT's hip pocket, he's certainly down at the bottom now, tangled in the lint and huggin' that tic tac you can never dig out.

[captain obvious]

This conference is hosed. I'm convinced now.

 

I'm not excited about the possibility of being a part of the Big Ten, because I still think it's... just awful. Boring. BORING. But somehow I'm thinking it would be even worse to stay in the Big XII.

[kansas husker]

I knew bebe was a pompas @$$ but in this article he takes it two a new level. Could somebody tell me wtf this windbag was talking about with this statement.

 

Another thing is, for any of our institutions, attaching themselves to a part of the country that’s losing a lot of its population and probably tax base would have to be carefully inspected. Right now, Missouri is connected to a part of the country that’s growing, not losing population and tax base. Probably the second- or third-highest alumni and supporter base for Missouri, like a lot of our programs, is the state of Texas and west of here. I think that kind of connection should be carefully considered. To what part of the country do you want to be connected to so you have a strong future 20, 30, 40 years from now?

 

So if Mizzou moves to the big 10 people would move out of Missouri causing less tax revenue???? I cannot be reading that right.

[Danimal]

I fully realize Texas is the big dog in the con and all but a Longhorn network is divisive and bad for the 12. Beebe being fine, or pretending to be fine with it, is just moronic. For a con to work sometimes everybody has to soldier-up, a tv-deal that helps the whole con needs to get done.

[LouisianaHuskerFan]

I am all for going to the Big Ten. Only thing that bothers me is there are only a handful of night games in the entire Big Ten conference every year and if I recall correctly there are none in November. Usually only 11:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. games.

[junior4949]

I knew bebe was a pompas @$$ but in this article he takes it two a new level. Could somebody tell me wtf this windbag was talking about with this statement.

 

Another thing is, for any of our institutions, attaching themselves to a part of the country that’s losing a lot of its population and probably tax base would have to be carefully inspected. Right now, Missouri is connected to a part of the country that’s growing, not losing population and tax base. Probably the second- or third-highest alumni and supporter base for Missouri, like a lot of our programs, is the state of Texas and west of here. I think that kind of connection should be carefully considered. To what part of the country do you want to be connected to so you have a strong future 20, 30, 40 years from now?

 

So if Mizzou moves to the big 10 people would move out of Missouri causing less tax revenue???? I cannot be reading that right.

 

What he's saying is that places within the Big 10 (ie Detroit) are losing population and tax base while places within the Big 12 (ie most of Texas) are seeing population and tax increases. The same can be said with regards to the Pac 10 considering the tax base and population decreases going on in the state of California.