Texas just screwed the B12

[da skers]

The issue for an Iowa State or someone going to a WAC or MAC is that their budgets wouldn't just decrease they would be destroyed. They'd have to revamp everything. Sure they aren't going to have to keep up with the big dogs in years to come with new arenas and stadiums but they're going to have to adjust big time. I was at a charity hunt with an alumn from Western Kentucky this past fall. He thanked me for Neb playing them because the payout covered such a large part of their budget. Imagine going from say an athletic budget of say $35-40 million a year (and Iowa State is a joke being that low in the Big 12) to something around $15-20 Million best case. You'd have to cut 1/2 your programs or more.

 

This same point could be made regarding the rumors of Kansas to the Big East. KU gets about 9 million currently from the Big12 versus 3.5 per Big East member.

The Big East TV has like 2-3 years left which more or less becomes null in-void with the addition of more teams.. With its current members look for it to have something in place that would be pretty similar to the B12 does now if not better. Remember what the ACC just inked out. You won't see that same type of TV deal with a MAC, WAC, MWC etc. The MWC might be the next best after the Big East.

[VectorVictor]

Posted yesterday on DMN site--Texas A&M is now trying to say the ESPN/UT deal is a NCAA recruiting violation:

 

Link

 

Byrne's comments came during a question and answer session with members of the media Tuesday night.

 

Regarding the new Texas television network televising high school events?

 

Byrne: "I can't speak for the NCAA, but I would imagine the governing body will look into the use of a collegiate television network airing games of prospective student-athletes. I understand networks such as FSN and ESPN airing high school sports, but whether or not employees under contract with a university that may have additional contact would seem to be an issue.

 

Go to the article for information, stay for the Texas-sized ignorance in the comments section. One that made me chuckle:

 

If the other Big 12 members had any guts, they'd tell'em to share or use someone else for patsies, er, opponents.

 

These are the same asshats that lambasted Colorado and Nebraska for doing just that--telling what Texas can do with their ill-gotten gains.

[VectorVictor]

One advantage for the Big 10 over the SEC is TV markets. Chicago, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Cincy, Columbus, Indy, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Philly not to mention many middle markets in Big 10 states. Add in national alumni from great academic universities.

 

I think the Big 10 will continue to look at TV market size as a strong factor in adding new teams with football presence second then Bball. You can narrow down the 2 or 4 teams that could be added. My biggest question is if the Big 10 will look to more "southern" teams as the population shifts to those states. If so, that would be real outside the box thinking for the Big 10.

 

1. ND - national following

2. Maryland - DC market; decent in FB and BB; border rival with PSU

3. Kansas - big add for BBall but are there enough TV sets to justify?

4. Missouri - St. Louis market, decent FB and BB.

5. Southern teams - clemson, Va Tech, Ga Tech - heck I have even seen mention of Arkansas but I thought they had a really bad academic rating.

 

1. True, but Nebraska generated a 4.3 during last year's Holiday bowl (Arizona). Notre Dame's best ratings were a 3.6 against USC. Nebraska trumps Notre Dame in the ratings department. The Big 10's longing for Notre Dame comes from geography and history--they got a better national draw when they invited us in.

 

2. Again, true, but NY would add more households than MD. Not sure about NJ.

 

3. See earlier posts I made for data--Kansas would bring in over 1 million households on their own, and would fracture the 2/3rds of Missouri that isn't already in the Big 10 footprint. In short--if you use households to justify Missouri, you have to justify Kansas as well, as the numbers are there, +/- 100k households. Add a basketball resume superior to Missouri's and Kansas' B-Ball program being a national draw, and you have a case (IMO) that leans towards Kansas slightly more than Missouri.

 

4. Missouri doesn't own all of Missouri--common misconception. 1/3rd of Missouri households are in the Big 10 footprint. And while the ratings articles aren't available any longer, Nebraska drew just as well as Missouri or Kansas in St. Louis. But one only needs to go to the local malls in KC and St. Louis to see what gear they're selling (read: Kansas, K-State, Nebraska, Missouri) to see that the audience is decidedly not all Missouri's--otherwise, what is the point of selling other merch?

 

5. I would be shocked to see Arkansas split--they're finally eating at the grown-up table in the SEC, and they've gone through the hell which is conference transfer before. I think they have too good of a thing going with the SEC to split.

 

As for the Southern population shift, there will be a point where certain states (Texas) won't be able to sustain their growth--there are only so many rainwater ditch lakes you can build in Texas before you have no farmland left. Since Texas' only natural lake is Caddo Lake in East Texas (good catfish place there), all it will take is another drought like what we had a few years ago for Texas to close the doors any legal way they can. That will come sooner rather than later IMO.

[da skers]

A few points about the Bohl's article (from the heart of Vermin Country, no less):

 

1) OU won't tag along with A&M to the SEC: OU mistakenly revealed that they're hitching their wagons to Texas last summer. And frankly, while the SEC publicly said they want Texas and OU, they really don't--OU has little to offer the SEC other than a football program that can beat the other 12 SEC teams. Texas is too big of a primadonna for the SEC to put up with, and Texas wants nothing to do with the SEC--Texas is using the "College Football Cheating for Dummies" book as written by the SEC en masse.

 

A&M does two things--it adds an opponent to the SEC schedule that is tough, yet consistently beatable, it opens the fertile recruiting grounds of Texas to the SEC, and it adds a major media market (Houston) to the SEC footprint--something which will help the SEC when CBS' SEC broadcast rights end in two years (read: even more money).

 

As for the other school, it likely won't be a Big XII member--the SEC will have an open door to Texas and a middle-of-the-road program to use and abuse. The SEC has no use for any of the other schools--they're the biggest conference on the block, Oklahoma takes more than it adds, and no other school (save for Texas) would benefit the SEC. Look for an ACC or Big East school to jump ship for a large payday that isn't necessarily amenable to the Big 10 footprint and has geographical relevance to the SEC (read: North Carolina, FSU, Georgia Tech).

 

2) If the SEC goes to 14, I fully expect the Big 10 to offer Notre Dame again. Yes, Notre Dame will spurn them again.

 

3) When the Big 10 gets rejected by the 'Domers, I can see either a (Syracuse/Rutgers) offer to get to 13 purely for the big bump in footprint (to counter the SEC adding south Texas to their footprint). However, when the (Syracuse/Rutgers) offer happens...

 

4) An offer to Syracuse or Rutgers may trigger Conference Armageddon 2, as it signals open season on poaching the best of the Big East. The ACC will look to offer 2 or 3 (depending on where the SEC goes). So while chaos ensues in the Big East...

 

5) The Big 10 will offer Notre Dame again, and the 'Domers will accept. No Big East--no home for Olympic teams, and Notre Dame will finally read what has been written on the walls for some time.

 

6) This leaves Kansas/Missouri stuck in the Big Tex unless someone wants to go to 16 (not likely).

 

If Syracuse or Rutgers reject a Big 10 offer (highly unlikely), then look for both Kansas and Missouri (if Kansas hasn't already signed with the Big East) to be onboarded to the Big 10, and that would make Nebraska fans happy (two more close opponents, some history added back, etc.)

 

Anyway, just some thoughts. Feel free to beat the living **** out of them via comments and criticism.

Notre Dame was very close to joining the B10 last round and if not for about 2 or 3 people would have been. I still don't think its done. Their AD even went so far as to free up their schedule cancelling the Army game for 2013. This would've/will allow them to keep important rivals like USC, Navy and be in a conference with an 8 or 9 games.

[kchusker_chris]

4. Missouri doesn't own all of Missouri--common misconception. 1/3rd of Missouri households are in the Big 10 footprint. And while the ratings articles aren't available any longer, Nebraska drew just as well as Missouri or Kansas in St. Louis. But one only needs to go to the local malls in KC and St. Louis to see what gear they're selling (read: Kansas, K-State, Nebraska, Missouri) to see that the audience is decidedly not all Missouri's--otherwise, what is the point of selling other merch?

KU is certainly HUGE in KC. KC,MO has quite a few Tiger fans...but where the money/population is (Lenexa, Overland Park, Leawood, Olathe) - it's pretty dominated by KU. As for Nebraska gear at the mall...it's actually REALLY hard to find Nebraska stuff around here. There's more options for Texas than NU. I'll blame that on Adidas as I did in another post though. Nike trumps Adidas any day of the week when it comes to providing fans with crap w/ their logo on it.

[fro daddy]

KU is certainly HUGE in KC. KC,MO has quite a few Tiger fans...but where the money/population is (Lenexa, Overland Park, Leawood, Olathe) - it's pretty dominated by KU. As for Nebraska gear at the mall...it's actually REALLY hard to find Nebraska stuff around here. There's more options for Texas than NU. I'll blame that on Adidas as I did in another post though. Nike trumps Adidas any day of the week when it comes to providing fans with crap w/ their logo on it.

 

all those cities you listed are in KS...

 

as for the clothes arguement it doesnt prove much of anything. for stores in Omaha they have a bevy of teams available and most have about 60-70% huskers. I constantly stock on MU gear in town. Does that mean that only 60-70% of Omaha follows the huskers. if so you saying that more than 25% of the state doesnt follow the huskers.....

 

And as far as the split population arguement goes, thats in effect for every team in every state. Do you think all of ks follows the squalkhawks? KSU carries alot of ks. And so does OU, TX, NE, MO and so on.....

 

The thing that matters the most is how often do you get national or major regional games if CFB and the number of people that watch those games. MBB is a nice throw in, but is in fact, a throw in. MU's numbers are great, not elite, but strong over all in both getting the games seen by a large number of people and in the numbers that watch those games. Again, not elite, but strong. Also, according to the collegiate Licensing Companys reports MU is constantly inside the top 25 in the country in merch sales every quarter of the year. Beating KS in sales in a number of quarters, finishing ahead of schools like Duke, Clemson, FSU, ATM, UCLA, Miami, Arizona and so on.

 

so, that pretty much bunks out that national following arguement against missouri. I know, and i would think that it is just an known fact that MU is not ND, or NE. However they more than hold their own against the magority of BCS schools.

[Creed]

 

1. True, but Nebraska generated a 4.3 during last year's Holiday bowl (Arizona). Notre Dame's best ratings were a 3.6 against USC. Nebraska trumps Notre Dame in the ratings department. The Big 10's longing for Notre Dame comes from geography and history--they got a better national draw when they invited us in.

 

2. Again, true, but NY would add more households than MD. Not sure about NJ.

 

3. See earlier posts I made for data--Kansas would bring in over 1 million households on their own, and would fracture the 2/3rds of Missouri that isn't already in the Big 10 footprint. In short--if you use households to justify Missouri, you have to justify Kansas as well, as the numbers are there, +/- 100k households. Add a basketball resume superior to Missouri's and Kansas' B-Ball program being a national draw, and you have a case (IMO) that leans towards Kansas slightly more than Missouri.

 

4. Missouri doesn't own all of Missouri--common misconception. 1/3rd of Missouri households are in the Big 10 footprint. And while the ratings articles aren't available any longer, Nebraska drew just as well as Missouri or Kansas in St. Louis. But one only needs to go to the local malls in KC and St. Louis to see what gear they're selling (read: Kansas, K-State, Nebraska, Missouri) to see that the audience is decidedly not all Missouri's--otherwise, what is the point of selling other merch?

 

5. I would be shocked to see Arkansas split--they're finally eating at the grown-up table in the SEC, and they've gone through the hell which is conference transfer before. I think they have too good of a thing going with the SEC to split.

 

As for the Southern population shift, there will be a point where certain states (Texas) won't be able to sustain their growth--there are only so many rainwater ditch lakes you can build in Texas before you have no farmland left. Since Texas' only natural lake is Caddo Lake in East Texas (good catfish place there), all it will take is another drought like what we had a few years ago for Texas to close the doors any legal way they can. That will come sooner rather than later IMO.

 

In reply to your comments:

1. I agree and Neb was a better "get" than ND. Neb fits perfectly into the Big 10. Call me a geopgraphy idiot but I never realized until this summer that Nebraska was a border state to Big 10 country. I just had in my mind over the years that Nebraska was down there with Ok and Missouri.

 

2. Who are you going to get in the NY market that is not going to water down the conference for FB? Rutgers, UConn? NY is all about the pros as well. I think Maryland is more attractive. You get a decent FB and BB program plus an upper tier market and other mid-atlantic markets.

 

3 & 4. You would know better than I since I am not familar with that area but the St. Louis market is appealing. I think the most interesting aspect of all this is what is going to happen to KU, Miss, Iowa St, K State in the next few years.

 

5. The Arkansas rumor suprised me a ton. Small time markets, low academic rating, and more of an SEC type school. If the Big 10 goes south, I see it grabbing Maryland if that is considered south.

 

Man, these are exciting times and nervouse times if you're KU, K-State, ISU and Missouri.

[knapplc]

Arkansas is not leaving the SEC.

[VectorVictor]

 

2. Who are you going to get in the NY market that is not going to water down the conference for FB? Rutgers, UConn? NY is all about the pros as well. I think Maryland is more attractive. You get a decent FB and BB program plus an upper tier market and other mid-atlantic markets.

 

This goes to my point (originated via Hank the Tank info) that folks should remember conferences are now in the business of cable television programming and promotion. If the Big 10 were to grab one school that plays to NY/NJ (e.g. UConn, Syracuse), that adds their homes to the Big 10 footprint, and it's a significant add. Plus, the Big 10 Network can charge higher cable subscriber rates to the cable offices in footprint states (since they're more likely to have the network by default) than they do for non-footprint states (less demand). Adding 10m homes to ones' footprint would be a boon in operating income for the Big 10 Network. Add in national draws (Nebraska, Ohio State), mix with regional fare, and you have a potion that sees the Big 10 Network sitting pretty for quite some time.

 

Look at it this way--Missouri and Kansas may be hotter dates that Rutgers, UConn, or Syracuse, but the latter bring more 'guaranteed money' to the equation via households alone. Think of it as a Big 10 safety net.

 

3 & 4. You would know better than I since I am not familar with that area but the St. Louis market is appealing. I think the most interesting aspect of all this is what is going to happen to KU, Miss, Iowa St, K State in the next few years.

 

What's funny and tragic about all of this is how Nebraska will, unfortunately, be proven right yet again, and none of these schools cared to listen. Had any of them come to Nebraska's defense, I would be genuinely concerned about their fates. Since none of them did...

 

5. The Arkansas rumor suprised me a ton. Small time markets, low academic rating, and more of an SEC type school. If the Big 10 goes south, I see it grabbing Maryland if that is considered south.

 

The Big 10 considers Maryland 'south' and Delaney said as much when he discussed their southern gaze some time ago. Plus, remember the acquisition of Kansas or Missouri puts schools like Oklahoma in the possible expansion footprint. Not saying it's even likely, but even Delaney knows the value NU vs. OU brought to the world at one point and time. If OU is twisting (unlikely, but not out of the realm of possibility), they could be picked up as well.

 

Man, these are exciting times and nervouse times if you're KU, K-State, ISU and Missouri.

More nervous than exciting, I would presume. Any of the schools listed could easily find themselves on the wrong end of a Big 12 conference implosion. Then again, had any of them stuck up for Nebraska from the beginning...

 

Arkansas is not leaving the SEC.

 

I concur.

[GrueneHorn]

"...And of course, I am thrilled for the whole state of Texas, which plans to use the $300 million to buy the state of Nebraska, then donate Nebraska to charity, just to prove that Texas doesn't need Nebraska. "

 

SI.com

 

 

I laughed.

[knapplc]

"...And of course, I am thrilled for the whole state of Texas, which plans to use the $300 million to buy the state of Nebraska, then donate Nebraska to charity, just to prove that Texas doesn't need Nebraska. "

 

I laughed.

Shouldn't you be analyzing film of your bowl game or something?

 

Oh... wait...

[da skers]

"...And of course, I am thrilled for the whole state of Texas, which plans to use the $300 million to buy the state of Nebraska, then donate Nebraska to charity, just to prove that Texas doesn't need Nebraska. "

 

I laughed.

Shouldn't you be analyzing film of your bowl game or something?

 

Oh... wait...

[VectorVictor]

"...And of course, I am thrilled for the whole state of Texas, which plans to use the $300 million to buy the state of Nebraska, then donate Nebraska to charity, just to prove that Texas doesn't need Nebraska. "

 

SI.com

 

 

I laughed.

 

Linky no work. Much like 'Whorn football.

[T_O_Bull]

What's the difference between texas and Nebraska...?

 

texass has Jerry Jones. Nebraska has Warren Buffet. Nuf said.

 

T_O_B

 

[307husker]

Shouldn't you be analyzing film of your bowl game or something?

 

Oh... wait...

 

 

I think I prefer the Texas bowl game (lack) to our "performance"...