All the talk on local (Dallas) talk radio says that UT will stay in Big 12, and the league will move forward with 10 teams - minus Nebraska and Colorado. Rumor is that ESPN has stepped up and offered BIG $$ to University of Texas/Oklahoma/Texas A&M to remain in conference. Rationale - ESPN wants to control college football, and if super conference Pac 10, others formed..ESPN would run the risk of other conference run networks (like Big 10 Network forming), and thus ESPN would lose all of the college football content...Secondary to this, have to wonder if ESPN also wanted to keep Big East together due to its stronghold on Big East basketball.
ESPN's reporting it as fact that they declined the Pac 10 (citing the Pac 10 commissioner telling the Dallas Morning News), and that they will stay in the Big 12.
Just heard a statement from UT on the Dallas ESPN affiliate announcing that Texas will stay put in a now 10 team conference. It is being reported that UT, OU, and A&M will make $20 plus million per year and the remaining seven schools will make $14-17 million per year in a new 10 year plus deal believed to be with Fox. It is also being reported by some that the deal could be with ESPN.
Press conference tomorrow at 10 AM CST.
Kansas and K-State breathe easier....for now.
Utah will likely go to the Pac Ten now, would be my guess. The music stops....for now. Notre Dame still a major lynch pin in the whole thing.
As far as the ESPN rumor, we'll see. My boys over there aren't budging at all on that rumor. Of course, if this is how it went down then ESPN just paid a lot more money for less of a product (CU and NU gone) while bolstering the properties of the BTN and Pac Ten. Of course, they could have also felt desperate about things.
If it's true, well you can guess where they are going to get that money from.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 14, 2010, 06:58:24 PM
Kansas and K-State breathe easier....for now.
Utah will likely go to the Pac Ten now, would be my guess.
And the big loser in this? The Pac Ten.
They invited Colorado as a pre-emptive move so they wouldn't get stuck with Baylor....and now they're stuck with Colorado and need to add a team to get to 12 anyway.
I mean...Utah?
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on June 14, 2010, 07:04:26 PM
And the big loser in this? The Pac Ten.
They invited Colorado as a pre-emptive move so they wouldn't get stuck with Baylor....and now they're stuck with Colorado and need to add a team to get to 12 anyway.
I mean...Utah?
I'd say the big loser (or soon to be) is going to be Mountain West.
Mountain West already got Boise State last Friday, and was positioning themselves to sweep up the carcass of the Big 12 and appeal for a BCS bid. Now, they're probably staring at losing Utah and having to replace them with another WAC team (Nevada anyone?). Between Utah, TCU, and Boise's recent BCS appearances, they may have had enough points to get an auto bid. Take Utah out, forget about it.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 14, 2010, 06:58:24 PM
Kansas and K-State breathe easier....for now.
Utah will likely go to the Pac Ten now, would be my guess. The music stops....for now. Notre Dame still a major lynch pin in the whole thing.
As far as the ESPN rumor, we'll see. My boys over there aren't budging at all on that rumor. Of course, if this is how it went down then ESPN just paid a lot more money for less of a product (CU and NU gone) while bolstering the properties of the BTN and Pac Ten. Of course, they could have also felt desperate about things.
If it's true, well you can guess where they are going to get that money from.
Is there a possibility here that the Big 12 may have one last trick up their sleeve and have 2 more schools in the waiting? And by 2 more schools, I mean BYU and Memphis?
BYU would drive some pretty huge audiences being basically Mormon Notre Dame. And Memphis...how about the Big XII Conference presented by FedEx anyone? At 5 years/$50 million, that's another $4+ million per school for the first 5 years, plus another $2 million one-time payment the remaining Big 12 schools will get from Colorado and Nebraska.
It's plausible that Texas, between their own TV network, ESPN money, and FedEx money, could be taking home $27-$30 million by year 3 of this "new" Big 12.
If they don't add 2 teams will they become big 10? If so, we may actually see a national contender come from the big 10.
Quote from: muarmy81 on June 14, 2010, 07:25:54 PM
If they don't add 2 teams will they become big 10? If so, we may actually see a national contender come from the big 10.
Brilliant move by the Big 12 - go to 10 teams and then take the BTN to court and demand THEY deserve all the TV revenue. ;D
Quote from: muarmy81 on June 14, 2010, 07:25:54 PM
If they don't add 2 teams will they become big 10? If so, we may actually see a national contender come from the big 10.
Awesome :D As far as the defacto "Championship Game" that was discussed by usually having Michigan and Ohio State playing the last game of the season, the Big 12 (10) will now be able to do the same with Texas and Oklahoma in the last game of the year, in what should be for all the marbles more often than not. It was always a pretty lame Big 12 Championship Game when the Texas-Oklahoma winner had to play the #1 team in the north division, which would have been the #5 team in the south.
So the Big 10 would have 12 teams, and the Big 12 would have 10 teams? I R confused ?-(
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on June 14, 2010, 07:04:26 PM
And the big loser in this? The Pac Ten.
They invited Colorado as a pre-emptive move so they wouldn't get stuck with Baylor....and now they're stuck with Colorado and need to add a team to get to 12 anyway.
I mean...Utah?
Not sure how they are the big loser....did they better their conference? Absolutely. Did they get what they wanted? Nope, but they certainly bettered their conference and will better their tv deal as a result. They grab the Denver market and they may add Utah....last I checked, UNDEFEATED TWO YEARS ago in football and finished 2nd in the nation. Last year, also a top 20 team. They have finished in the top 5 now two times in the past 6 years....only USC, Florida and Texas have matched that feat in that time period.
They went for a home run, and got a single. I'm just thrilled Texas didn't go to the Big Ten, though I never thought they would anyway despite all the Big Ten nutjobs saying they would.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 14, 2010, 07:42:33 PM
Not sure how they are the big loser....did they better their conference? Absolutely.
Don't think so. They added two teams, which gets them the championship game (that no one will watch), but I doubt they have increased their per school revenue.
Why does it seem based on everyone's comments like there's a rule that you have to have 12 teams to have a conference championship game in football? Why couldn't the top 2 teams in a 10 or 11 team league play a conference championship game?
Edit: Ok, so there's an NCAA rule against a championship game for a conference with less than 12 teams. New questions...
Why is that such a hard rule?
How does the NCAA have power over this and absolutely no power in the rest of the postseason?
Quote from: TJ on June 14, 2010, 08:00:02 PM
Why does it seem based on everyone's comments like there's a rule that you have to have 12 teams to have a conference championship game in football? Why couldn't the top 2 teams in a 10 or 11 team league play a conference championship game?
Edit: Ok, so there's an NCAA rule against a championship game with less than 12 teams. New questions...
Why is that such a hard rule?
How does the NCAA have power over this and absolutely no power in the rest of the postseason?
They have a rule dictating the number of games that can be played in a season. The conference championship game is an exception to that rule.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on June 14, 2010, 07:45:38 PM
Don't think so. They added two teams, which gets them the championship game (that no one will watch), but I doubt they have increased their per school revenue.
Why will no one watch it? Plenty will watch it and absolutely their per school revenue will go up, and considerably.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 14, 2010, 08:09:36 PM
Why will no one watch it? Plenty will watch it and absolutely their per school revenue will go up, and considerably.
+1
Especially since the Pac12 is up for a new television contract on top of the title game.......mucho to offer
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on June 14, 2010, 08:06:45 PM
They have a rule dictating the number of games that can be played in a season. The conference championship game is an exception to that rule.
I thank you for you answer, because I'm sure that's an accurate statement of the "reasoning" behind the rule, but that made no sense as an answer to why there's a rule against a 10 team conference holding a conference tournament. So there's a rule that each team can only play 12 games and an exception is made for a conference championship game and for a bowl game bringing many teams to 13 games and some to 14 - what does that have to do with the number of teams in the conference?
Big losers are Colorado and Nebraska, if the Big 12 stays together. They now have to pay the buyout fee.
Quote from: TJ on June 14, 2010, 08:17:14 PM
I thank you for you answer, because I'm sure that's an accurate statement of the "reasoning" behind the rule, but that made no sense as an answer to why there's a rule against a 10 team conference holding a conference tournament. So there's a rule that each team can only play 12 games and an exception is made for a conference championship game and for a bowl game bringing many teams to 13 games and some to 14 - what does that have to do with the number of teams in the conference?
There is no logic behind it. Only that the SEC talked the NCAA into it when they expanded to 12.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 14, 2010, 08:09:36 PM
Why will no one watch it? Plenty will watch it and absolutely their per school revenue will go up, and considerably.
It will be ranked a distant third in $$$ and television ratings behind the SEC and the B10.
It will be ahead of the ACC though.
Ners....your rumor is solid.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on June 14, 2010, 09:09:46 PM
It will be ranked a distant third in $$$ and television ratings behind the SEC and the B10.
It will be ahead of the ACC though.
Well of course, but that doesn't mean they still won't improve their fortunes considerably from where they were last week.
At the end of the day, they are hardly a loser in all this.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 14, 2010, 06:58:24 PM
Kansas and K-State breathe easier....for now.
Utah will likely go to the Pac Ten now, would be my guess. The music stops....for now. Notre Dame still a major lynch pin in the whole thing.
As far as the ESPN rumor, we'll see. My boys over there aren't budging at all on that rumor. Of course, if this is how it went down then ESPN just paid a lot more money for less of a product (CU and NU gone) while bolstering the properties of the BTN and Pac Ten. Of course, they could have also felt desperate about things.
If it's true, well you can guess where they are going to get that money from.
My brother is a producer at ESPN. The Big East was irrelevant to the discussion. It was all about pr-empting the PAC-10 from expanding. Fox Sports has a big Pac 10 contract. ESPN did not want the PAC-10 to expand and increase the Fox footprint.
Decades ago the ncaa had passed a rule saying a conference could hold a championship game for non-revenue sports like volleyball, only when they added it to the rule book they didn't actually stipulate which sports were eligible. In the 1970s sec president roy kramer discovered the wording of the rule, and started trying to add texas and texas a and m so that he's have enough teams to invent the first ever college football title game. The ncaa started asking why he was trying to add the teams, and went crazy about the idea of a football game. However, kramer had the rule on his side, and the ncaa couldn't muster the votes to undo their mistake. He didn't get it right away because the texas legislature stepped in to keep the 2 texas schools together and didn't allow texas to accept.
However, the wheels were in motion and kramer kept at it until he had his 12.
As for the pac 10, the didn't want a title game - they wanted to get 2 bcs qualifications with the 16 teams.
Did they get a little better deal with the denver market and likely a contender in utah?
Yes, but ... Imagine the let down of going back to the tv guys who thought they were getting texas too, and now they are selling a product with a crippled perennial contender in usc. They needed the big deal to overcome the setback of usc going down hard.
I do hope espn does truly want to keep the big east and big 12 together - I still say in new york, college basketball is not as far behind college football as in the rest of the country. They aren't going to pay any attention to rutgers and syracuse when they can watch the jets and giants in the new staduim, but many will tune into the big east before the lousy knicks.
Quote from: TJ on June 14, 2010, 08:00:02 PM
Why couldn't the top 2 teams in a 10 or 11 team league play a conference championship game?
Edit: Ok, so there's an NCAA rule against a championship game for a conference with less than 12 teams. New questions... Why is that such a hard rule? How does the NCAA have power over this and absolutely no power in the rest of the postseason?
Great questions you ask, but it should come to no surprise that due to the fact we are talking about the NCAA here..you couldn't expect for this "rule" to make sense..just as many NCAA policies are poorly constructed.
On another topic - can someone educate me on who conceptualized the BCS, and is it true that the NCAA has little jurisdiction over the BCS system?
Quote from: Ners on June 14, 2010, 10:54:34 PM
Great questions you ask, but it should come to no surprise that due to the fact we are talking about the NCAA here..you couldn't expect for this "rule" to make sense..just as many NCAA policies are poorly constructed.
On another topic - can someone educate me on who conceptualized the BCS, and is it true that the NCAA has little jurisdiction over the BCS system?
The BCS was formed for a couple of reasons. First, to provide some sort of system to attempt to determine a champion. But more importantly, it was done by the major conferences (and Notre Dame) to consolidate the four main bowls into a coordinated package deal and maximize revenue.
The NCAA has jurisdiction in that they have rules to determine who is bowl eligible, etc., but they play no part in the selection process nor do they receive any revenue from the games themselves.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on June 15, 2010, 08:05:00 AM
The BCS was formed for a couple of reasons. First, to provide some sort of system to attempt to determine a champion. But more importantly, it was done by the major conferences (and Notre Dame) to consolidate the four main bowls into a coordinated package deal and maximize revenue.
The NCAA has jurisdiction in that they have rules to determine who is bowl eligible, etc., but they play no part in the selection process nor do they receive any revenue from the games themselves.
Thanks a lot for the clarification...yet I'm dumbfounded as to how the NCAA could allow the above type of scenario to come to existence?? First off, why not just have the NCAA establish an 8 team playoff, and the remaining teams ranked 9 - bottom of bowl eligbile be slotted in other bowl games. The NCAA allowing the major conferences to form the BCS, effectively hurt all the mid major conferences. Lastly, how in the WORLD can the NCAA not get any revenue from the BCS games (which feature NCAA teams), yet the NCAA takes a huge chunk of the money for March Madness?? This is beyod oxy-moronic or paradoxal to me...is there something I'm not understanding, or failing to realize in all of this?
Quote from: Ners on June 15, 2010, 08:56:00 AM
Thanks a lot for the clarification...yet I'm dumbfounded as to how the NCAA could allow the above type of scenario to come to existence?? First off, why not just have the NCAA establish an 8 team playoff, and the remaining teams ranked 9 - bottom of bowl eligbile be slotted in other bowl games. The NCAA allowing the major conferences to form the BCS, effectively hurt all the mid major conferences. Lastly, how in the WORLD can the NCAA not get any revenue from the BCS games (which feature NCAA teams), yet the NCAA takes a huge chunk of the money for March Madness?? This is beyod oxy-moronic or paradoxal to me...is there something I'm not understanding, or failing to realize in all of this?
Yes, you are failing to understand a number of things. First, the NCAA doesn't get revenue from bowl games because it doesn't sponsor them. They are sponsored by local groups, who find a sponsor, sell TV rights, etc.
Second, the NCAA has no leverage to force the BCS conferences to do anything. If the NCAA decided to force the playoff issue, the BCS conference would probably just say "see ya!" and form their own governing body...and there goes most of the basketball revenue. The BCS schools accept that the NCAA gets basketball money with the understanding that they keep their hands off the football money.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on June 15, 2010, 09:13:30 AM
Yes, you are failing to understand a number of things. First, the NCAA doesn't get revenue from bowl games because it doesn't sponsor them. They are sponsored by local groups, who find a sponsor, sell TV rights, etc.
Second, the NCAA has no leverage to force the BCS conferences to do anything. If the NCAA decided to force the playoff issue, the BCS conference would probably just say "see ya!" and form their own governing body...and there goes most of the basketball revenue. The BCS schools accept that the NCAA gets basketball money with the understanding that they keep their hands off the football money.
I guess I didn't think the NCAA got a lot of money from the bowl games (though I thought they'd get a cut). I'm still unclear as to how the governing body of college athletics, doesn't control all things college athletics? How does the BCS (Bowl Championship Series) have the ability to dictate to the NCAA what its teams do/don't do? Why would the NCAA just not mandate that the Top 8 teams in college football go into an NCAA sanctioned single elimination tournament. The NCAA sells the rights to a network, just like they do for March Madness...and then keep all of the revenue (which would be much more) from the football championship??
The NCAA is a membership organization, and like most organizations of that type, it can only do what its members empower it to do. And the members who are the biggest and richest have the most influence. And those influential members don't want the NCAA to do touch football...otherwise they will no longer be members.
The BCS is a creature of those same members. They have empowered their conferences to create this system so they don't have to share the bulk of the revenue outside of themselves...which is unlike basketball.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on June 15, 2010, 02:36:52 PM
The NCAA is a membership organization, and like most organizations of that type, it can only do what its members empower it to do. And the members who are the biggest and richest have the most influence. And those influential members don't want the NCAA to do touch football...otherwise they will no longer be members.
The BCS is a creature of those same members. They have empowered their conferences to create this system so they don't have to share the bulk of the revenue outside of themselves...which is unlike basketball.
Thanks for the clarification - I wonder how long it will be before these same members mandate the NCAA basketball tournament become a BCS only type of invite party, with all revenue going to BCS schools? It comes as no surprise now as to why these money hungry influential NCAA members who formed the BCS are so reluctant to pay college athletes..as that would take money away from them. Sad.
Quote from: Ners on June 15, 2010, 03:13:05 PM
It comes as no surprise now as to why these money hungry influential NCAA members who formed the BCS are so reluctant to pay college athletes..as that would take money away from them. Sad.
They're getting paid a free education.
Quote from: Ners on June 15, 2010, 03:13:05 PM
Thanks for the clarification - I wonder how long it will be before these same members mandate the NCAA basketball tournament become a BCS only type of invite party, with all revenue going to BCS schools? It comes as no surprise now as to why these money hungry influential NCAA members who formed the BCS are so reluctant to pay college athletes..as that would take money away from them. Sad.
The NCAA tournament would probably make less money, if the non-BCS schools were pushed out. One of the atttractions is the potential of a non-BCS school beating one of the power houses.
Quote from: bilsu on June 15, 2010, 03:54:25 PM
The NCAA tournament would probably make less money, if the non-BCS schools were pushed out. One of the atttractions is the potential of a non-BCS school beating one of the power houses.
Probably? They would make substantially less money if the BCS schools left. It would also effectively kill a lot of the D2 and D3 championships because the NCAA uses basketball money to fund those championships.
As said so many times, the NCAA doesn't control college football at the highest level. It's the networks and the BCS as well as specific schools that control it. The bowls are independent of the NCAA as is the BCS system....for that matter, so is the Heisman Trophy and many other football related items.
Just as the NCAA can't tell a school which conference to go to, but they can put limits on minimum number of participants to form a conference.
So many people get confused on what the NCAA is and what they do. No wonder why they are blamed for so much when, in reality, there are a number of college sports related issues they have no jurisdiction over.
Quote from: Ners on June 15, 2010, 08:56:00 AM
Thanks a lot for the clarification...yet I'm dumbfounded as to how the NCAA could allow the above type of scenario to come to existence?? First off, why not just have the NCAA establish an 8 team playoff, and the remaining teams ranked 9 - bottom of bowl eligbile be slotted in other bowl games. The NCAA allowing the major conferences to form the BCS, effectively hurt all the mid major conferences. Lastly, how in the WORLD can the NCAA not get any revenue from the BCS games (which feature NCAA teams), yet the NCAA takes a huge chunk of the money for March Madness?? This is beyod oxy-moronic or paradoxal to me...is there something I'm not understanding, or failing to realize in all of this?
How has the BCS hurt mid-major conferences? Since it's inception in 1998, 6 non-BCS schools have played in BCS games. All 6 of those have come in the last 6 years. In the previous 11 years, only 1 non-BCS school played in the now-BCS bowls. That was Louisville in the Fiesta Bowl against a 7-4 Alabama team. From 1970 to 1997, there were 8 undefeated (many had ties) non-BCS schools and only 1 played in a BCS bowl. That was Arizona St in the Fiesta Bowl. Back then the Fiesta was a shell of its current self and ASU wasn't in the Pac 10. You can complain about the BCS being a crappy way to determine a champion, but it has changed the rules and become way more inclusive than the previous bowl systems.
Quote from: Husker4MU on June 15, 2010, 05:23:28 PM
How has the BCS hurt mid-major conferences? Since it's inception in 1998, 6 non-BCS schools have played in BCS games. All 6 of those have come in the last 6 years. In the previous 11 years, only 1 non-BCS school played in the now-BCS bowls. That was Louisville in the Fiesta Bowl against a 7-4 Alabama team. From 1970 to 1997, there were 8 undefeated (many had ties) non-BCS schools and only 1 played in a BCS bowl. That was Arizona St in the Fiesta Bowl. Back then the Fiesta was a shell of its current self and ASU wasn't in the Pac 10. You can complain about the BCS being a crappy way to determine a champion, but it has changed the rules and become way more inclusive than the previous bowl systems.
Good points you make. I have no good rebuttal.