74Hunter
Well-Known Member
You underestimate the arrogance that is texa$$. They think that their crap doesn't stink and that they can do whatever they want.
Big 12 Death Clock Ticking....
- Thread starter JonDMiller
- Start date
raspberrytea
Well-Known Member
Effing Cyclown fans! Dey took er jerbs!
Going 0-fer on NYD gains respect then, I guess? The Big 10 definitely wins the hubris award for most overinflated athletics ego, thats for sure.
74Hunter
Well-Known Member
You underestimate how much being a member of the Big 12/CIC is worth academically. It makes the athletic money look small.
A bit of a history? Nebraska was in the Big 6/7/8/12 for something like 80 or 90 years. We only left because we got tired of texa$$ running the show while the rest of the little 12 suckled at their teats.
texa$$ style corruption and greed ruined the SWC and probably will ruin the Big 12. That is on the current members. Don't hate because NU and CU jumped off the sinking ship.
tiberius
Well-Known Member
Is that the same Nebraska that always voted with Texas to keep the unequal revenue sharing?
raspberrytea
Well-Known Member
Nebraska has never corrupted a conference, they have 46 conference titles to prove it. Once Texas stepped in they corrupted things something awful to the tune of 0 additional conference titles for Nebraska. That's how you know Texas is corrupt... If they weren't, Nebraska would still be winning conference championships.
ISU fans who think the Big Ten will break apart and/or have schools like Ohio State, Michigan or PSU leave, you need to justify why a school would do that when a) the academic side heavily outweighs the athletic side in money and prestige and b) the University Presidents run the show. The Big Ten is not controlled by the Athletic Directors. Until you can bring in numbers and facts to support why a school would want to leave the safety of a network like the Big Ten and CIC, then your argument that if Texas leaves the Big 12 that would cause a Big Ten power to leave the conference has little to no basis in reality.
74Hunter
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiberius
Is that the same Nebraska that always voted with Texas to keep the unequal revenue sharing?
Yes. Many did not like it, but I personally had no problem with it, and it wasn't corrupt. Was it "unfair?" Some would say yes.
First, Nebraska has won 2 Big 12 championships and played for 3 more. Second, the SWC folded because the member schools violated NCAA regulations. Third, when the Big 12 was first formed, the 4 former SWC schools agreed to use the rules set by the Big 8. Later on, after everything had been agreed upon and schedules were made for the 1996 season, texa$$ threatened to go to the Pac 10 or the SEC if their demands weren't met. Things like partial and non academic qualifiers and a conf. championship game just to name a couple. After the conference had been running for a while, they moved the offices to Dallas from Kansas City, moved championship tourneys/games from St Louis, KC and OKC to Texas locations just to give a couple more examples.
There is a reason why the Pac-12 and Big 10 were very leery and hesitant to allow texa$$ to join. You shouldn't talk about that which you don't know about.
Originally Posted by tiberius
Is that the same Nebraska that always voted with Texas to keep the unequal revenue sharing?
Yes. Many did not like it, but I personally had no problem with it, and it wasn't corrupt. Was it "unfair?" Some would say yes.
Do your research before blindly spouting off. Nebraska has been part of a major conference in the entire modern history of college football, and none have folded while they were still a part of it. Would the Big 10 really take a Nebraska if it felt that it was damaged goods or would bring down the conference?
First, Nebraska has won 2 Big 12 championships and played for 3 more. Second, the SWC folded because the member schools violated NCAA regulations. Third, when the Big 12 was first formed, the 4 former SWC schools agreed to use the rules set by the Big 8. Later on, after everything had been agreed upon and schedules were made for the 1996 season, texa$$ threatened to go to the Pac 10 or the SEC if their demands weren't met. Things like partial and non academic qualifiers and a conf. championship game just to name a couple. After the conference had been running for a while, they moved the offices to Dallas from Kansas City, moved championship tourneys/games from St Louis, KC and OKC to Texas locations just to give a couple more examples.
There is a reason why the Pac-12 and Big 10 were very leery and hesitant to allow texa$$ to join. You shouldn't talk about that which you don't know about.
Last edited:
homes
Well-Known Member
Allowing Texas to assume so much control while Nebraska was still around is what the little 5 will end up ruing the most. If they'd sided with Nebraska more, and let Texas walk, none of this would have occurred. If that had occurred, Nebraska never would have left, and they could have collectively told Texas to eff off. A classic case of a bird in the hand . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiberius
Is that the same Nebraska that always voted with Texas to keep the unequal revenue sharing?
Yes. Many did not like it, but I personally had no problem with it, and it wasn't corrupt. Was it "unfair?" Some would say yes.
Do your research before blindly spouting off. Nebraska has been part of a major conference in the entire modern history of college football, and none have folded while they were still a part of it. Would the Big 10 really take a Nebraska if it felt that it was damaged goods or would bring down the conference?
First, Nebraska has won 2 Big 12 championships and played for 3 more. Second, the SWC folded because the member schools violated NCAA regulations. Third, when the Big 12 was first formed, the 4 former SWC schools agreed to use the rules set by the Big 8. Later on, after everything had been agreed upon and schedules were made for the 1996 season, texa$$ threatened to go to the Pac 10 or the SEC if their demands weren't met. Things like partial and non academic qualifiers and a conf. championship game just to name a couple. After the conference had been running for a while, they moved the offices to Dallas from Kansas City, moved championship tourneys/games from St Louis, KC and OKC to Texas locations just to give a couple more examples.
There is a reason why the Pac-12 and Big 10 were very leery and hesitant to allow texa$$ to join. You shouldn't talk about that which you don't know about.
Leery? The Pac 10 had been all over Texas for two years. They were basically allowing Texas who to pick and choose from on who they wanted to bring with them. Hell the Commissioner from the Pac10 even came out and said the P10/B12 Hardwood Challenge was put together solely to get in contact with Texas.
And yes, it is true that Nebraska ran away when the revenue sharing model that they fought for was no longer in their favor. Their athletic department has been trying to push the blame on Texas, but anyone that still has skin on their knuckles (from the lack of dragging them for our Nebraska friends) realizes this.
Nebraska complained when they could no longer benefit from as many partial qualifiers (see: Osbourne), Nebraska complained that no one was on their side about minute issues and Nebraska complained when schools to the south properly used the revenue sharing model that Nebraska fought for. As an entity, Nebraska is like a whining, crying child that doesn't get his/her way and much like this instance, they are like a child in the way they attempt to pass the blame to anyone dumb enough to listen.
Why the hell would they do that? Sticking with Nebraska over Texas is like having a dollar burger from the McDonalds drive thru when you could be having a choice cut of prime rib.
Relax guys, the Big 12 is here to stay. Texas has its cake and is going to eat it too...and has no reason to take the risky path of Independence. The Texas legislature is not going to let a conference with Baylor, Tech and A&M break apart...leaving those schools adrift. Nor would one game a year against Texas meet their needs in comparison to being in a conference. So, the other Texas schools and the state legislators are going to require Texas to stay in the Big 12...and Texas has no serious incentive to push that. This deal, if anything, locks Texas in place. Its in a prestige football conference (AQ conference), arguably in the nation's best basketball conference, and it gets its own TV deal to go with the conference deal...a conference that Texas has great control over.
So Texas is set...locked in place with a sweetheart deal. And while that deal greatly benefits Texas, it is even more beneficial to its fellow Texas schools and to the rest of the Big 12 schools. So its a win-win-win situation for everyone involved.
So Texas is set...locked in place with a sweetheart deal. And while that deal greatly benefits Texas, it is even more beneficial to its fellow Texas schools and to the rest of the Big 12 schools. So its a win-win-win situation for everyone involved.
tiberius, it wasn't an inference that Texas isn't a major research player. Texas just has inherent advantages over Big Ten schools with regards to "going it alone." Texas has twice the population as any Big Ten school state and I would guess well more than twice the fan base. Also, if it isn't apparent, Texas's AD DeLoss Dodds has much more institutional control over conference alignment decision than any Big Ten AD. In the Big Ten all decisions are made by the President/Chancellors since the Big Ten Conference was actually started as an intellectual consortium before it became an athletic conference.
homes
Well-Known Member
I'd rather be eating burgers for a long time than 1 meal of prime rib. Poor long ranging planning, that's all.
Let me start this by saying that as an ISU fan, I am am worried sick about this. I wish we would have taken Mizzou, KU, and KSU and went to the Big East.
That being said, you guys, and Jon in particular, seem to be contradicting yourselves, allot, especially based on what I heard here last summer.
I have heard the argument that tOSU and Michigan will stay in the Big 10 because of the equal revenue sharing. Really? You think tOSU and Michigan want to pay for the University of Iowa's TV deal? Texas' $300 million dollar deal was the first of it's kind, the next one could very well be bigger. This is the hard and fast truth, Iowa means NOTHING to tOSU or Michigan. NOTHING. You have your heads in the sand if you don't think Gene Smith is looking long and hard at the deal Texas just got.
Then I heard the academic argument. The same argument that ISU fans were using to make a claim for ISU in the Big 10. If academics are the glue, then ISU would have been in the Big 10, not Nebraska. Besides, the Big 10 athletically is not the same thing as the CIC. You don't have to be in the Big 10 athletically to be in the CIC.
Let's be clear here, ISU is on really, really shaky ground right now. However, this move by Texas could directly affect the U of I as well. No one should be happy about this.
That being said, you guys, and Jon in particular, seem to be contradicting yourselves, allot, especially based on what I heard here last summer.
I have heard the argument that tOSU and Michigan will stay in the Big 10 because of the equal revenue sharing. Really? You think tOSU and Michigan want to pay for the University of Iowa's TV deal? Texas' $300 million dollar deal was the first of it's kind, the next one could very well be bigger. This is the hard and fast truth, Iowa means NOTHING to tOSU or Michigan. NOTHING. You have your heads in the sand if you don't think Gene Smith is looking long and hard at the deal Texas just got.
Then I heard the academic argument. The same argument that ISU fans were using to make a claim for ISU in the Big 10. If academics are the glue, then ISU would have been in the Big 10, not Nebraska. Besides, the Big 10 athletically is not the same thing as the CIC. You don't have to be in the Big 10 athletically to be in the CIC.
Let's be clear here, ISU is on really, really shaky ground right now. However, this move by Texas could directly affect the U of I as well. No one should be happy about this.
74Hunter
Well-Known Member
True, but the Bevo Network and TV rights were an issue even with the Pac 10. And we know that texa$$ doesn't play well with others, they would not be able to throw their weight around in the Pac 10 with 12 other schools checking them. They didn't want that.
No one is denying that NU favored this system, but to say that they "ran away" from it is a lie. We just got more $$ from going to the Big 10, no matter how it is divided.
Not sure what you are trying to get at here, other than childish name calling. But texa$$ is to blame for the potential downfall of the Big 12. They were playing dirty, and Nebraska decided to not play by their rules anymore.
(Learn to spell, btw.) Well, Osborne and Nebraska said that if texa$$ got its way, it would be detrimental to the conference, and it has. All of these issues, whether minute or tremendous went texa$$' way, and the conference hangs in the balance.
Again, revisit history and my previous post. The only whining child has been texa$$: they came from the SWC after it imploded, they agreed to follow the bylaws of the Big 8, they cried like the little ******* they are after the fact, they went back on this agreement and threatened to take their ball and go home. In an attempt to dethrone Nebraska, the little 10 followed in lockstep behind texa$$ and voted against Nebraska at every oppportunity.
Hilarious analogy. The funny thing is, a McDonalds almost never goes belly up, while your "high end" steak joints do.
Oh, and that "prime rib" you speak of has only won 1 National Championship since 1969, while the dollar burger has 5.
Last edited:
Snowcraig. The deal solidifies Texas in the conference. It has all that wanted PLUS the conference affiliation benefits...and given the political pressure involved, and the inherent risk of going it alone...they would be utterly insane to attempt Independence.
A poster over at Cyfanatic had a great statement on this topic, and made some important points.:
This is good for ISU for several reasons.
1. Texas is going nowhere. The Big 12 will be stable for a long time.
2. This is for third tier games. Big 12 contracts will still have first pick of games. This will not devalue Big 12 contract at all.
3. This additional money is not going to make Texas relatively more competitive in football and men's basketball. They already have great facilities and pay their coaches top salaries.
A poster over at Cyfanatic had a great statement on this topic, and made some important points.:
This is good for ISU for several reasons.
1. Texas is going nowhere. The Big 12 will be stable for a long time.
2. This is for third tier games. Big 12 contracts will still have first pick of games. This will not devalue Big 12 contract at all.
3. This additional money is not going to make Texas relatively more competitive in football and men's basketball. They already have great facilities and pay their coaches top salaries.
Snowcraig, once again AD Gene Smith does not make the decisions about contracts and obligations to the Big Ten. Your citation of him shows you have not researched the subject well enough. OSU President Gordon Gee makes the decisions and luckily that means he considers the academic side even more than the athletic side.
Can you cite any statement or fact that backs up your assertion that OSU or Michigan doesn't care about the Big Ten? You have to remember that the Big Ten is a consortia and an entrenched brotherhood and not just an athletic conference like the Big 12. I've never once heard an AD or President/Chancellor at a Big Ten school complain about revenue sharing. In fact often there has been talk about how it helps all schools (rising tides raise all ships). Also, while CIC membership is not solely Big Ten members, the only member not currently in the Big Ten is the University of Chicago, which at one point was in the Big Ten. The CIC doesn't have an ever changing membership and is in fact tied to the Big Ten. If you took a minute to read their webpage you would see it states "the CIC is a consortium of the Big Ten universities plus the University of Chicago."
With Nebraska, academics was obviously not the sole reason and athletics played a huge role in their acceptance into the Big Ten. Your statement that if it was about academics the Big Ten would have gone for Iowa State over Nebraska is misguided. Under what metric do you find Iowa State well superior to Nebraska in academics? US News and World Reports Undergrad Rankings (ISU - 94 v NEB - 104)? Research Dollars Spent (ISU - $224 mil v NEB - $229 mil)? I don't think there are any University-wide metrics that place ISU definitively over Nebraska in academics. That being said, I would not be surprised to see their academic prowess and research dollars increase substantially from their move.
Your proposition that individual universities in the Big Ten would have better negotiating capacity than the Big Ten as a whole is also a bit flawed in my opinion. While Michigan and OSU have large, loyal fan bases, the disparity in their bargaining power for broadcasting rights over other schools in the conference is much, much less than the disparity between Texas and the other members of the Big 12. Also, the Big Ten is a brand that greatly dwarfs the individual entities. In my opinion, OSU and Michigan are much better off using the leverage of the Big Ten Network and FOX over ESPN/ABC to demand significantly higher contracts each time their existing contract come up.
So while there exists the tiny potential that the Texas deal could have an impact in the Big Ten, the way the current contract is negotiated and the positive opinions of revenue sharing shared by the universities within the Big Ten there really isn't any reason for Iowa or the rest of the Big Ten to worry.
hawkforlife9
Well-Known Member
IT IS better talking about the B12 conference than Iowa BBall. We looked like crap again tonight. September can't get here soon enough. Was there even a game thread tonight? I can blame the fan base for having no interest in their team.
