The Dominoes Are About To Fall. Where Will K-State End Up?
by TB on Jun 6, 2010 10:39 PM CDT
in Commentary
Email
PrintLast week, our collective jaws hit the floor when Chip Brown of Orangebloods reported that the Pac-10 was considering extending invitations to six Big 12 schools to join what would apparently become the Pac-16. This report followed months of speculation that Missouri and Nebraska were candidates to be invited to apply for Big 10 membership, and much commentary from Mizzou and Nebraska administrators that they would be interested in such an invitation.
Today, the Armageddon scenario inched closer to reality as the Pac-10 has apparently green-lighted a six-team expansion, so long as one of those teams is Texas. Also, the Big 12 presidents have apparently told Nebraska (and maybe Missouri) to meet them at high noon on Friday with the following decision: in or out*. In one of Brown's excellent reports on this issue, he notes that nine of the 12 Big 12 schools emerged from last week's conference meetings committed to the conference. The three that would not commit are Nebraska, Missouri and Colorado. Interestingly, Texas is one of the schools that appears fully committed to the conference, both because of last week's vote and because they've said all along that this is where they want to be.
Therefore, the implications are clear. If Missouri and Nebraska are confident that they will actually be invited to join the Big 10, they are free to pursue that option, and if they do, the Big 12 as we know it will cease to exist, as Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and either Colorado or Baylor -- depending on how the political situation in the Texas Legislature plays out -- will be on their way west to the Pac-16.
Conspicuously absent in any of this discussion is any mention of K-State, KU or Iowa State. Quite clearly, none of these schools are being considered by any of the other major conferences as possible additions, although some KU fans are clinging to a belief that has no basis in reality that someone will take them because, you know, they're freaking KU! Anyway, it's time to consider the scenarios for K-State, and any of the other schools that may be left.
Scenario 1: Nothing Happens
With all the news lately, it may seem hard to believe that nothing will happen, but that's still a distinct possibility, especially after today's events. Big 10 commissioner Jim Delaney indicated today that their expansion timetable "could be" affected by the Pac-10's actions and the Big 12's ultimatum, which almost certainly means the Big 10 will accelerate from "molasses in winter" to "sloth on sedatives" speed in expansion. If the Big 10 really does have interest in adding Missouri and Nebraska -- and I believe they do based on information I've informally acquired -- they are going to have to move more quickly than they had planned. Nebraska, and maybe Missouri, have to decide, in or out, by Friday, and there's no way any administrator from either school can vote "out" in good conscience unless they are assured beyond any reasonable doubt that they will be invited to apply to join the Big 10. Thus, if the Big 10 decides it can accomplish what is still probably its primary goal -- adding Notre Dame -- without Missouri and Nebraska, it can probably bide its time. Meanwhile, Mizzou and Nebraska will have to reaffirm their commitment to the Big 12. If that happens, then short of Texas yelling "just kidding" and selling everyone else in the conference down the river by taking its six-team contingent to the Pac-10, the Big 12 will remain as is.
Scenario 2: Nebraska reaffirms, but Missouri bolts
In this case, it's hard to say what Texas and the six-team contingent will do. Brown has seemed to indicate that Nebraska is the key player in this, so what Missouri decides is largely irrelevant. My gut feeling is that if Nebraska stays, Texas and the others will stay, too, and the Big 12 will continue on, slightly altered.
Scenario 3: Armageddon
Nebraska and Missouri leave, Texas and the rest go west, and K-State, KU, Iowa State and either Baylor or Colorado are left in the cold. What happens at this point?
The best option in this situation would be to work out something with the Mountain West. It appears the Mountain West, with its recent surge of success in BCS bowl games, is on the verge of moving into automatic-qualifier status. Indications are that Boise State will be invited to the MWC soon, pushing the conference to 10 teams, and giving it yet another boost toward AQ status.
Assuming the MWC is interested in working with at least some of the schools remaining when the Big 12 dust settles, the question becomes: do some/most/all of the MWC schools join the Big 12's remainders in a reconsituted Big 12, or do some/most/all of the Big 12's remainders join the existing MWC? This is where some assumptions are required. If ESPN/ABC can't cancel its contract with the Big 12, and the Big 12 wouldn't automatically lose its AQ status so long as it were able to continue on as an 8-12 team conference, then it would seem the best move would be for the remaining Big 12 schools to invite some combination of MWC and C-USA teams to join up. The conference could get on its feet for a few years, sustained by the TV contract that continues through 2015. At that point, we hope, the conference would have demonstrated its ability to compete on the BCS stage, and would contine on as a BCS AQ conference (assuming, of course, that the BCS still exists after conference realignment).
Or, if ESPN/ABC can get out of its TV contract and we lose BCS AQ status automatically, which I doubt, then K-State and the rest would be in a bidding war to get into the MWC. If we assume the leftovers are K-State, KU, Iowa State and Baylor, then the Sunflower State schools would seem to be in pretty good shape if the MWC is interested in expanding (and I would have to think the prospect of adding two current major-conference schools, with a solid TV market in Kansas City and, in KU's case, a recent BCS bowl win), then K-State and KU would likely win the sweepstakes. Such a move would get the MWC a conference title game, too.
Now, if Colorado gets screwed by the Texas legislators who apparently are trying to force Baylor on the Pac-10, then it gets a little dicier. Just from a geographic and TV standpoint, the Buffs would probably trump both K-State and KU as a candidate for the MWC. At that point, would the MWC be interested in going beyond 12 schools by adding K-State, KU and someone else? Who would that/those someone else(s) be? Houston? SMU? UTEP?
104 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Let's just hope we hit something soft
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
by TB on Jun 6, 2010 11:14 PM CDT up reply actions
Oklahoma State's defense?
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Jun 7, 2010 4:05 AM CDT up reply actions
A couple thoughts...
First I have a lot of respect for the Republic of Texas. But are they seriously going to lay claim to destroying two respectful conferences? What a great claim to fame.
Now here comes the pie in the sky thought that ran through my head this weekend. What if the Big 12 South did join the Pac-10? There seems to be a conference out there looking for exactly five teams to make a nice round 16. Is it unreasonable to think that the Big 10 could not have its cake and eat it too? They already have overtures towards Mizzou and Nebraska so why not just ask ISU, KU, and K-State to join as well? What a hell of a basketball/football conference that would make. True Rutgers or Pitt might not be selected but do they offer more than KU and K-State for instance? Probably not.
Now before anyone goes off about the AAU requirement, I believe these things could be worked out over time. Certainly KU would qualify and I think ISU is ahead of K-State but the Kansas Board of Regents recently stated that one of its immediate goals was to have KSU improve to qualify for First Tier status as its sister school KU. So certainly a conference deal could be struck that would allow for an athletic conference to proceed with a probationary academic period granted to those schools that may not yet qualify in the academic sense. Although I have to think that both state schools (ISU, KSU) offer a great deal of research opportunities especially in agriculture. agronomy, vet med, etc.
Now of course that still leaves CU and Baylor on the fence and at this point Colorado may actually be the biggest loser due to the Texas legislature news this weekend.
Truly how we arrived at this debacle is ludicrous. It all comes down to greed and sloth. Both of which I think I read somewhere were deadly sins.
So is this really so far-fetched?
I feel for you, I really do,
but in no scenario are Kansas State or Kansas (because they are presumably tied to their in-state brother) getting a call from the Big Ten. If you’re a man (or woman) of faith, pray, because your salvation does not lie to the East of you.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Jun 7, 2010 4:09 AM CDT up reply actions
The Big 10's eyes...
…are on Notre Dame, first and foremost. They need to destroy the Big East — or at least have the threat of destroying it — to get Notre Dame. Taking the entire Big 12 North doesn’t do that.
As for the academic angle, I’m happy that the Kansas Legislature is finally getting around to doing some things to improve K-State’s academic standing (so long as they don’t destroy the land-grant mission and affordability that have always been the school’s hallmark), and I think with NBAF coming in, we have a real chance to improve our research standing. Also of note, Iowa State is an AAU school, so academically, they’re a far better fit in the Big 10.
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
by TB on Jun 7, 2010 7:28 AM CDT up reply actions
I don't think so
I just know that it was one of the top goals for our new president.
Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.
I was going to say, I thought ISU actually had a pretty good academic rep.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball...Rock Chalk Talk
They're a very good school
but add nothing of value to any conference. The popularity splint in Iowa is about 70/30 in favor of the University of Iowa and it’s a small state to begin with. The real shame for Iowa State is that, not only are their academics strong, but they run an excellent athletic department overall (top-25 Director’s Cup). Their greatest weakness is being located in Iowa.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Jun 7, 2010 11:37 AM CDT up reply actions
yeah please don't bring up the director's cup
I have a hard time taking a “cup” seriously when Penn State receives the same amount as Duke when we’re talking about FENCING compared to BASKETBALL. All sports are NOT created equal.
Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.
As a gauge of overal excellence
for an athletic department, yes, they are. Maybe you should have a child or sibling participate at a high level in crew or gymnastics and them tell them that. They are student athletes and deserve respect for what they do. In fact, since many football and basketball players are not held to the same standards of having to balance the rigors of competitive athletics with serious academics, they should probably get more respect.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Jun 7, 2010 12:03 PM CDT up reply actions
The directors cup isn't about academics, so DON'T bring that as an argument.
It’s a bunch of standings on how a bunch of SPORTS teams finish – and nothing to do with academics. If it included GPAs, graduation rates, etc – then I could see it “as a gauge of overall excellence.”
My argument, and it’s really against the only basis behind the director’s cup, is that a team playing college basketball has to compete with over 340 teams to get that 100 points whereas a team who claims a fencing championship has done it against the “like” 4 schools that compete in fencing. NOT equal. In a system where only results are being quantified, you can’t treat every sport equal because society doesn’t play those sports equal. I dont mean to dog on fencing, but how many kids dream or grow up fencing? I’d say it’s a pretty small percentage compared to those who play basketball. THAT is why the director’s cup is bullshit. THAT is why the director’s cup doesn’t matter.
This is not a shot against true student athletes. If you were a regular on this site you would have noticed my stance regarding student-athletes and what a joke some sports have made it. Don’t come on here and say I have no compassion for these students.
Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.
by mystman995 on Jun 7, 2010 1:20 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I've been reading this site daily since January.
Don’t come on here and say I have no compassion for these students.
And don’t you put weird parameters on my comments by telling me not to bring up the Director’s Cup. I was simply using it as a device to show that Iowa State (a school I have no love for) isn’t as worthless as some like to portray it and that it’s sad that schools like ISU (and K-State and KU [you know, with their more deserving sports]) could just be cast aside in this whole process.
Your anger and arrogance are misdirected; I’ve done nothing to detract from your team or school.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Jun 7, 2010 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions
I said not to bring up the director's cup because it is basically worthless and has some serious flaws.
Not because it supports Iowa State. I’m not really sure that’s what you were trying to do with this comment:
but add nothing of value to any conference
You’re the one who started the personal attack with my so-called lack of respect towards student athletes. My “anger and arrogance” were directed 100% towards that. Not once did I mention a specific school (outside of the points that Penn State and Duke recieved) nor did I accuse you of doing so.
That’s all I have to say about that.
Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.
you might look in another direction
In my opinion the Big 12 problem lies not to the south in Texas, but across Kansas’ eastern border. UT was approached by the Big 10 and made it clear they had no interest in leaving the Big 12. No, this whole house of cards started to wobble when Missouri started expressing interest in moving to the Big 10. Then Nebraska jumped on board the exit train because they can’t be the big dog they were in the Big 8. There the issue is definitely UT. But the Big 12 South schools wouldn’t even be in this conversation if Missouri hadn’t started the pullout talk. The Pac-10’s “invitation” would never have happened otherwise.
Thoughts
Colorado fan: Personally if anything is going to go down, I hope that CU does get screwed and joins the MWC with some more natural rivals. We don’t have any in the Big 12. Boise State is going to be asked to join the MWC and I hope KU, Kstate, and CU join them. Iowa State as well with some other team to offset. It would be a large conference unfortunately without the community aspect the Big 8 had, but I would rather have this and some pride. If this scenario happened it would elevate the conference in basketball and help out academically. I will miss NU, Oklahoma, OSU and Missouri, but not the Texas teams. They force everything into a money thing. CU can’t compete against them financially. Who can? Can Iowa State, KU, or Kstate? I would rather stay with some of the schools we have relationships with rather than go be bottom feeders in a huge conference with no allegiance. I know this is a K-state board, but this whole situation isn’t good. I miss the old days of the big 8. This whole region is intertwined with family and friends from state to state, and although we root against one another in sports, we are neighbors.
A 4th Scenario
You should at least consider the possibility that NU receives an invite but not Missouri I’m hearing a lot of talk that things have cooled a bit toward MU.
This.
I have felt all along that (as distasteful as it may be) the Big Ten has used Mizzou all along because of their over-eagerness to leave. Missouri, the very first piece mentioned, could end up being left out in the cold with the schools it helped to isolate.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Jun 7, 2010 4:12 AM CDT up reply actions
Let's not forget the aim of expansion
conquering markets- which NU doesn’t quite do.
NU has a great football history, fits nicely geographically, and are quite profitable, but that does not mean they will up subscription fees like MU will do (as per projections at the chicago tribune).
People talk about NU like they are the linchpin, but really they are a pawn like everyone else not named TEXAS. This isn’t 1995.
That's true too.
But Nebraska is one of the few truly national teams available. Advertising rates matter. Ratings matter. NU does bring those, making the overall financial question a lot closer.
Recently released BTN income figures
revealed that advertising accounted for a far greater percentage of income than many had first suspected. Nebraska would command far greater rates from advertisers than would Missouri. Add to this the fact that the BTN is already on basic tier in St. Louis, and Missouri isn’t nearly the catch they’re purported to be.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Jun 7, 2010 11:32 AM CDT up reply actions
But isn't St. Louis paying the $0.10 for the BTN like everybody else not in the Big 10 footprint?
And if MU is added, wouldn’t the entire state of Missouri jump to $0.70? That’s a much bigger add than Nebraska could produce based on numbers alone.
Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.
When talking strictly population/households, yes . . .
But the appeal of Nebraska-Ohio St. or Nebraska-Michigan or Nebraska-Penn St. matchups generate much more interest than Missouri against those teams. You have several games a year that advertisers would very much like to be a part of (assuming Nebraska is strong).
Also, I may be wrong on this, but I don’t believe the BTN is carried at all in Nebraska. At the very least that’s 1.6M sets at whatever the rate is. And you know it will be on the basic tier. Combined with the advertising increases due to national prestige, that really does narrow the gap substantially.
by Chris Wilson on Jun 7, 2010 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions
This.
A Missouri addition impacts Missouri alone. A Nebraska addition ups the value of the entire league.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Jun 7, 2010 11:58 AM CDT up reply actions
I still don't understand this Nebraska following thing.
I mean, are people not-offliated with the University of Nebraska getting that more pumped up to watch them play? I think anytime you have two BCS level teams from different conferences, it is going to spark a lot of interest.
Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.
What are you not getting?
It’s not about a Nebraska following, it’s about a brand. It’s the same reason Kansas basketball is such a valuable commodity; someone in Seattle is just as likely to tune in to Kansas-Texas basketball game than one between Pac-10 schools outside of their market because of the “name” factor. Nebraska-Ohio State, Nebraska-Michigan, Nebraska-Penn State are far sexier match-ups to the casual viewer than if you were to place Missouri in that first slot.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Jun 7, 2010 12:07 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't watch Nebraska and they're in my own damn conference, is that a "brand" fail?
I’ve lived in Chicago, Kansas, and Texas in my life and not once have I ever heard, “Hey Nebraska is playing tonight, want to go watch the game to see a team that was nationally relevant 15 years ago?”
I understand the “name” thing. I don’t understand how Nebraska still has this brand. People tell me about it, but I’ve never seen it.
Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.
It's not "Hey, Nebraska is playing tonight"
it’s “hey, Nebraska is playing Ohio State tonight.” This opposed to, “Missouri vs. Ohio State is on but Nebraska is playing Penn State in Happy Valley right now.” This is hardly a foreign concept and I’m far from the only one making the argument.
Your insistence seems to be that Nebraska has come and gone. My position is that Penn State, USC, Oklahoma, Texas and Alabama have all gone through prolonged periods of mediocrity in recent history only to have come back to reclaim their traditional positions of prestige. Looking at the Huskers’ preseason ranking (and yes, it’s only a ranking) would seem to indicate that they haven’t fallen quite as far as you believe.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Jun 7, 2010 1:46 PM CDT up reply actions
Well, I don't know what to say . . .
They rank fourth all time in wins, behind Michigan, Notre Dame and Texas. By most accounts, their revenue figures for the last two years are behind only Notre Dame, Texas and Ohio St. (and roughly equal to Michigan) among schools that don’t get a piece of the SEC TV contract.
Nebraska broadcasts their games live on local radio in places like Denver, Seattle, Phoenix and Dallas. I’ve been to Husker Watch Sites in places like Memphis and Minneapolis where over 200 people have showed up. I lived in Jersey and there was a group of about 150 that met fairly regularly.
The national brand is real, even if their on-field success hasn’t been as good lately. That is why Texas started shouting when the rumors of NU leaving for the Big10 started to have substance. No disrespect meant for Mizzou, K-State or the other schools, but NU is the only true national football school in the Big12 North, just as KU is probably the only true national basketball school in the Big12 North.
so 500 people in a city make it a 'national brand' ?
I won’t argue the passion that Nebraska has for football (heck, I joke about it fairly often), but I just can’t imagine the numbers are all there.
Take the entire state population of Nebraska and add all the alumni outside the state. Does that even come close to the number of people in Missouri? I highly doubt it. Missouri may lack the passion that Nebraska has, but they have a whole lot more numbers.
Maybe just call me a little ignorant with Nebraska. I didn’t start really following college football the way I do now until after Nebraska won their national championships. I don’t know what type of following they had then, I just know I’ve only met like 3 people in my life who went to Nebraska living in three different states. I can’t really take it seriously when people say how popular they are when I’ve never seen it. Just put me in the “I’ll believe it when I see it category.”
Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.
Everything you say makes sense . . .
. . . in some ways. Households are important, and that is one of the reasons Missouri is being considered at all. Don’t misinterpret that at all because you are right.
But understand the market . . . the viewership of college football games is aging. People my age (near 40) remember two decades of NU dominance, just as I remember when schools like Clemson were dominant. Those memories don’t fade.
Nebraska is a big-time football school whose fans and administration has made a commitment to the program in a way no other Big12 North team can claim. It puts them on par with Michigan, Ohio St. and the others.
TV ratings tell part of the story. NU-Arizona in the Holiday Bowl pulled in a 3.7 in a midweek game that started at 9pm EST. Missouri and Navy garnered a 2.1 in the Texas Bowl.
Go back a year: NU and Clemson pulled in a 4.1 share in the Capital One bowl, a 58% increase over the bowl rankings year before. The game started at 10 a.m.
Nebraska draws viewers, and its name and football prestige certainly enhance the brand. Behind Texas and Notre Dame, NU is probably the third biggest prize available.
It'd be interesting to see the different ratings for other teams as well
do you have a link? I’ve been wanting to find on for some time, but haven’t actually looked.
(and just to nit-pick, I wouldn’t usually compare ratings that feature a game on ESPN to a game on the NFL Network (the Texas Bowl is still on that channel right?). Logic alone will tell you that game will have a higher rating)
Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.
I found one...
Here’s a link to the picture
Here’s the link to the story
Nebraska-Arizona with a 3.7 rating…lower than what one would expect. Down 5% from the previous year.
Texas Bowl on ESPN..answers that question. Up 2000% from last year. I suspect that was due to the change in carrier, but funny how stats can be used to say what you want right?
Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.
I'm not trying to manipulate stats....
I don’t have an axe to grind with anyone. But historically it has been true: NU pulls in higher ratings in its games.
Really, I have no intention of making this an argument. It really is a matter of brand recognition. When you think of the state of Nebraska, you think football. And that’s been true everywhere I’ve been. You are welcome to disagree.
I think of Corn :)
Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.
Umm...K-State comes to mind.
Nebraska is a big-time football school whose fans and administration has made a commitment to the program in a way no other Big12 North team can claim.
I think K-State has a pretty good case to say its made at least as valuable commitment as NU. I mean they only went from worst in the nation to the doorstep of the national title game in 1998. I could list the accomplishments and its overall winning percentage in the Big 12 but I think one can get the point.
Absolutely true.
You’ve made tremendous progress under Bill Snyder, and I hope you do so again. I fear that Ron Prince and the actions of the previous AD regime set you back a bit, and that’s unfortunate. Some of my best memories as a ticket holder were KSU games (1986 blizzard in Lincoln, 1991 when Paul Watson drove the Cats inside the NU 10 in the final seconds of a 38-31 game; countless games from 1995 on)
But from a business perspective the facilities at Manhattan don’t compare to those at NU. The large scoreboard. The seat expansion to 85,000. The new athletic offices. The skyboxes. The new locker rooms. I think only Texas and maybe A&M have matched the scope of the projects.
One more thing: People talk about NU being down over the last ten years, and it’s true. There have been some bad years. But they still averaged about 8.5 wins/year over the last decade, and they’ve still won the division two of the last four years.
Not close to good enough by Nebraska standards, but it does show the perspective by which their program is judged.
by Chris Wilson on Jun 8, 2010 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions
Facilities?
Perhaps you are just not aware of the expansion that has happened and continues to this day since the arrival of Snyder. Indoor practice facility, new press box with skyboxes, jumbotron (I believe this is the 3rd and largest), new field (replaced twice), completely new deck above the student section with more boxes (now 55,000 capacity), new learning center, new locker rooms and yet another multi-million dollar combined sports facility is on the boards (the economy has put it on hold temporarily…not to mention the Prince fiasco). So we have kept pace relatively to the schools you mentioned. Remember that we split the state revenue between two schools KU and K-State whereas Nebraska enjoys ultimate state school favor.
No, I'm aware . . .
And I think it is outstanding. Seriously, if NU doesn’t get a bid I have no problem going to Manhattan for a game. But from a business perspective, 30,000 additional seats that are virtually guaranteed to be filled are meaningful.
Your point about splitting funds with KU is excellent and not brought up enough. NU is in a situation unlike any other major school I can think of. No pro teams to compete for their interest. No D1 collegiate football rival (though there’s Creighton for basketball). Discretionary spending within the state centers around the Cornhuskers. State funding centers around the university.
We are learning how useful being the only college in a state can be when opportunities such as the Big10 arise. Texas politics are guaranteed to slow anything down. OU and OSU are perceived as linked. KU and KSU have vowed to work together through this. Absolutely right, NU is in a very good position in that way.
At times it can be a double edged sword, though. When the team does badly and revenues dip, the entire state economy is affected. Though the games are sold out, fewer people go to sports bars, buy merchandise, etc. That’s one reason why the research funds from the Big10’s CIC would be so important… it protects the university in case of a downturn.
by Chris Wilson on Jun 8, 2010 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions
I'll also say . . .
. . . that I think the overall arms race we are seeing in college sports isn’t good for anyone. Skyrocketing coaching salaries, stadium upgrades, recruiting costs – it’s just out of control. Because NU is at the center of virtually everything going in the state, we’ve been able to avoid state or student subsidies to support athletics. But it isn’t like that in most schools.
I think in someways the priorities have gotten a little out of whack due to incredible amounts of money received from television contracts.
by Chris Wilson on Jun 8, 2010 11:36 AM CDT up reply actions
85K and 55K
Nebraska’s stadium would be the 4th largest in a 12 team B10.
K-State’s would be the 4th smallest in a 12 team B10.
I’m not quite sure with its present student enrollment that K-State could support any further stadium expansion. You could build it, but would they come?
That's fine.
I posted a link below that outlines some of the thinking. It’s not just me, understand, and I’m not belittling Mizzou.
by Chris Wilson on Jun 7, 2010 10:38 PM CDT up reply actions
RE: viewing parties
all those going to the viewing parties will appear in statistics like a very small number of TV sets at a bar… I have been to Wildcat Watch Parties here in Las Vegas that drew over 50 people – unranked KSU football teams on TV (coached by Ron Prince even). I wager no one considers Kansas State a national brand – perhaps 200 people in a millions+ metro area showing up to watch a game or two isn’t such a good indicator to use for that…
(I am not necessarily trying to imply NU is not a national brand, but more aimed at saying college football [sports?] has no true national brand.)
--VegasCat07
BTW . . .
Just to be clear: I’m a Nebraska fan, but if NU leaves I’d like Mizzou to come along as well.
Honestly, I’d like all the Big12 North to come along but that could never happen.
So you're in favor of keeping the Big 12?
Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.
Not in the current arrangement, no.
And I never thought I’d say that.
But I don’t think the conference structure is ever going to work without some form of revenue sharing or equality among members. NU likes the idea of sharing TV revenue equally while preserving the broadcast rights for web transmission, network, etc. I think that addresses some of the concerns of the small markets.
But the bigger issue in my mind is that some schools – including Nebraska – view the conference entity as something more than a business arrangement maximizing profits. Other schools – including Texas – feel the structure should be much looser and they shouldn’t have to subsidize the whole damn conference. Not saying there is a right or wrong, just that these two philosophies are not compatible.
Also, passing up the research money offered by the Big10 would be foolish to whoever receives an invitation. That’s added prestige, hundreds of millions of dollars, and a tremendous opportunity for faculty and students of the school.
There's a difference between . . .
. . . two BCS level teams playing, and two historic championship teams playing. The atmosphere, the history, the dedicated fan bases, the pageantry, the storylines . . . these are all things TV execs drool over.
Speaking of fan bases, I think that is something that concerns the Big10 regarding Mizzou. While NU has sold out every home game since before Kennedy was assassinated, Mizzou was (wrongly) snubbed from a BCS bowl because of fears their fans wouldn’t travel.
by Chris Wilson on Jun 7, 2010 12:12 PM CDT up reply actions
Nope.
I’m comparing the passion (and spending habits) of Nebraska’s fan base with Missouri’s. NU drew 80,000 to their spring game. Mizzou drew 15,000. If you want to say “Well, that’s all there is to do in Nebraska” you are probably right. Columbia has St. Louis to the east and KC to the west and is a pretty cool town in its own right.
But you can’t honestly compare the two schools fans financial and emotional dedication to their football team and expect MU to come out on top. Nebraska has nothing else.
Except corn. :-)
by Chris Wilson on Jun 7, 2010 10:37 PM CDT up reply actions
If you’re gonna make ridiculous value judgments, please back it up.
Somethings to think about…
Adding any one team will bring value to the conference in that the Big 10 can host a championship game.
Missouri’s Subscriber’s fees for 5 million households compared to Nebraska’s 1.6 million households stands to bring value.
Does Nebraska’s “national brand” have the recognition to draw the advertising dollars that would make up for the limited subscriber base?
Secondly, what capacity for growth does Nebraska have in terms of subscribers compared to D.C, New Jersey, New York or even St. Louis or Kansas City markets?
Might not MU AND NU (heaven forfend) be pawns in the great chess game for Notre Dame? (By the way, a program that has a “real” national brand that has commanded it’s own t.V. deal
IF
you’re gonna make ridiculous value judgments, please back it up.
Somethings to think about…
Adding any one team will bring value to the conference in that the Big 10 can host a championship game.
Missouri’s Subscriber’s fees for 5 million households compared to Nebraska’s 1.6 million households stands to bring value.
Does Nebraska’s "national brand" have the recognition to draw the advertising dollars that would make up for the limited subscriber base?
Secondly, what capacity for growth does Nebraska have in terms of subscribers compared to D.C, New Jersey, New York or even St. Louis or Kansas City markets?
Might not MU AND NU (heaven forfend) be pawns in the great chess game for Notre Dame? (By the way, a program that has a "real" national brand that has commanded it’s own t.V. deal
I don't want this to be NU vs. MU . . .
Again, I’m not trying to pick a fight. I like MU and if we leave I hope it is together. But here is one link that discusses what I was talking about. Perhaps you’ve already read it and dismissed it… if so I’m sorry to have wasted your time.
by Chris Wilson on Jun 7, 2010 10:33 PM CDT up reply actions
And here is a chart of 2009 TV ratings
NU average rating: 3.57 (9 games)
MU average rating: 2.04 (7 games)
http://media.pennlive.com/davidjones/photo/bigten-1gif-cafc3a6ce509bd0a.gif
by Chris Wilson on Jun 7, 2010 10:49 PM CDT up reply actions
And one more note to put the 3.57 rating in perspective
From the comments thread of the first link:
A 3.57 national rating over 9 games equates to a reach of around 50,000,000 households.
Around $50,000 per 30 second commercial. That’s VERY attractive to the Big Ten Network!
by Chris Wilson on Jun 7, 2010 11:45 PM CDT up reply actions
I think the BTN is available anywhere - just not on a basic tier
I had a sports package to include FCS (so I could watch the few K-State games) here in Dallas and it included the BTN. I never turned it on, but I directly paid the total 10 cents a month directly to the BTN. Damn me.
Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.
IMO, there is one thing that has happened for sure....
Strained relationships.If the Big 12 ends up not changing, how will the schools act going forward? Big 12 meetings will be a lot more interesting.
So how would the schools align?
If everyone stays, are NU, Mizzou and CU the bad guys? Or do they join schools that were going to be left behind to provide a more united front against Texas?
The more I think about this...
…the more I think that Scenario 1 is the most likely. It’s what Texas wants (seriously, we think they own us now…wait till the Big 12 allows them to start their own network), and I’m not sure Missouri is confident enough in the Big Ten’s interest not to “commit” to the Big 12 via blood oath or whatever.
Rock M Nation
I'm on Twitter! http://www.twitter.com/billconnelly1
Maybe, but . . .
I expect the Big10 to accelerate their process as it applies to the Big12 schools under consideration. There had been some real talk that an invitation for NU might be coming as soon as this week, even before the ultimatum.
Yes, but the "real talk"...
…came from nobody of any importance. It’s the same “real talk” that led us to believe that Pitt was nearing an invite, then Rutgers, then Missouri. All we know with absolute certainty is that a) Gordon Gee and Jim Delany discussed Texas a month and a half ago, and b) Tom Osborne and Jim Tressel had a short conversation. Everything else is third-degree hearsay and/or imagination.
Rock M Nation
I'm on Twitter! http://www.twitter.com/billconnelly1
True as far as it goes . . .
You are right that the real talk about NU receiving a particular invite is speculation. But my main point that the Big10 will accelerate their process to consider B12 schools stands. And I think we do know more than what you have mentioned
We know that the Big10 wants to expand. We “know” that Big 12 schools are under consideration. There was too much noise surrounding the Big12 meetings and their aftermath to not believe this is true.
We don’t officially know of an ultimatum against NU and Mizzou, but neither the Big12 nor anybody else is denying it. (Interesting that Colorado wasn’t reported as part of that ultimatum, but I digress),
We know from the Gee/Delaney email exchange in April that contrary to their public comments they were looking at an accelerated timetable for expansion. The possibility of an accelerated timetable (due to current events) was publicly acknowledged yesterday at the Big10 presidents press conference. We also know from yesterday’s press conference that the Big10 will consider expanding in stages, as some schools may be ready to join while others aren’t.
Now for what I feel is reasonable speculation as to who may need an accelerated timetable
Assuming the Big12 ultimatum is true, do we know that the public announcement of an accelerated timetable was put in place because of it? Not officially. But of all the teams in the expansion rumors, only Mizzou and Nebraska appear be generating any kind discord within their conferences (perhaps because of the need to negotiate the upcoming TV contract?)
The ACC just completed their new TV contract, so potential expansion candidates like Maryland wouldn’t seem to require a deadline for deciding whether to stay or go. As an independent ND certainly needs no accelerated timetable. The Big East? Possibly, but I haven’t heard anything to that effect.
I believe yesterday’s public acknowledgment of a potential accelerated timetable, and of the Big10’s willingness to expand in stages is directly due to the events in the Big12.
This will only happen if the Big10 doesn't give invites
If they do, I believe NU and MU are gone. Alternately, if they get invited but decide to stay UT will have to make some major concessions.
Either way the Longhorn Network is a non-starter. OU and A&M are against it too.
A few thoughts...
- Looks like some of the KU fans are being more realistic. I was going to post over their at RCT, but KGRC made the points I wanted to. It’s not that people don’t think KU is a good fit for other conferences, we’ve just never heard that spoken out loud.
- I feel bad for the Baylor fans. No SB Nation blog (or commentors for that matter) to defend themselves. It’s a total Baylor bash and it’s all one-sided.
- Here is what is getting me: Has anybody been to a football game at either Austin or College Station? They scream and yell about their tradition. Where’s the tradition if they keep jumping conferences every 20 years or so?
- I think this is all a giant conspriracy theory to get Notre Dame to finally join a conferece. Jim Delany knows he just can’t ask Notre Dame, yet again, to join. That hasn’t worked. So why not get the other conferences to play along with the threat of a huge armaggedon just to force Notre Dame’s hand? I’m only mildy joking here…
Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.
No need to feel bad for Baylor fans -
They have plenty of politicians picking up the slack. Buddy Jones should start his own blog.
by Chris Wilson on Jun 7, 2010 11:11 PM CDT up reply actions
"Where’s the tradition if they keep jumping conferences every 20 years or so?"
That is why Texas wants to keep things the way they are. The Southwestern conference, on the other hand, is a completely different story.
Texas Wahoo
Do you think there’s any situation where Texas stays in the Big12 without the Longhorn Network?
I can't answer for TW, but
The Longhorns aren’t looking to leave. If Missouri and Nebraska commit to the Big 12, then nothing is going to happened and all this realignment/conference blow up talk will have been utterly useless.
Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.
Though in that scenario...
We may see the Big XII go on the offensive within the next 4 years and go after the MWC or Conf USA for 4 more teams. Right now it appears nothing is out of the realm of possibility. So have we decided that Mizzou might be the reason the conference goes down in flames? I suppose the whole thing would just die down if ND would finally join the Big 10 as they should have long ago. Then the Pac-10 could grab Utah and (CU)? It sure has all the feeling of a giant game of chicken right now. Guess we will wait and see who blinks first.
Far be it from me to criticize anyone for playing the blame game...
…I’ve certainly engaged in my fair share ( I blame Texas, btw). But the fact is that these tensions have been brewing for a long time and the conference leadership was content to just sweep it all under the rug. Now that Uncle Jim has pointed out that his sister-in-law is actually kind of hot, all the dirty laundry is coming out. The Big XII never developed the sense of community that the SEC or Big Ten or Pac-10 has. The elite schools wanted a system that primarily benefited them and then complained that the smaller schools weren’t “living up to their end of the bargain”. Nebraska fumed for years because they weren’t dominating the conference anymore. The SWC schools never respected the Big 8 schools and vice versa. The conference was too timid when it came to network deals. This blowup was inevitable. If the ultimatum works and Nub and Mizzou stay, it won’t solve the fundamental problems in the conference. The old resentments will still be there and positions will likely be hardened after this blowup, which means we’ll go through this mess again in 10-20 years. Until the conference can develop that sense of brand loyalty, until all of the members can commit to making the conference stronger even if it requires a short term sacrifice by the individual institutions, the Big XII will never work.
And poor leadership
The B12 turned down the offer to create its own network before it was pitched to the Big 11. Then Beebe opposed the ‘Plus one’ playoff plan that would have netted some huge bucks for every team in the B12..
I have a lot of empathy for both Kansas schools. There, but for our first name, goes us.
"I’ve established a reputation for integrity. I have maintained those high standards" - Craig James
I'm finding it hard to blame the Big XII . . .
. . . for not creating the TV network. At the time the conventional wisdom was the BTN was doomed to fail. Also, I’ve never seen exactly how the Big XII’s broadcast rights were to be divided or how revenue would be shared. What about classic content from before 1996? Who owns those rights? One of the programming successes of the BTN is their classic game series. That wouldn’t account for too much in a Big XII network.
Finally, under the Big Ten’s bylaws each school gets equal revenue from the TV contract. So we are talking about more money, but also a wider disparity among schools. We might very well have ended up in the same situation as we are now.
1998 Big XII Title Game, as one that might qualify
for your theoretical Big XII classic games series. :-)
Actually, the Big XII though around only a brief period in comparison to other conferences has a pretty solid portfolio of classic games. Classic in my opinion anyways.
--VegasCat07
I have no idea. I'm guessing that everything is on the table right now. The Longhorn Network will probably not work in the Pac Ten (and certainly not in the Big Ten).
Perhaps there is a compromise that could be reached? I don’t know enough about the logistics of it all.
Oh I know
It was just a lingering thought in my head. Unfortunetely the media has focused more on the conference hopping rather than the universities’ statements to keep the conference intack.
Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.
I don't think your Notre Dame comments are too far off track. . .
But if ND declines I don’t think the B10 stops their expansion search. They still need another team for a championship game.
by Chris Wilson on Jun 7, 2010 10:50 AM CDT up reply actions
Right
but for my sanity with K-State not being screwed – I’ll just assume they go after a Big East school and everyone remains happy…
Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.
If that happens...
… I fear we will be right back in the same spot in four years. There seem to be some fundamental disagreements about the responsibilities of being in a conference. Those divides may be too great.
by Chris Wilson on Jun 7, 2010 11:05 AM CDT up reply actions
It looks like the MWC is holding off from inviting Boise State.
They want to see if there are scraps to pick at from the Big 12 first.
I'd think that might work the other way around.
Even if the Big12 splits as discussed, they wouldn’t automatically lose their BCS slot, would they?
by Chris Wilson on Jun 7, 2010 11:21 AM CDT up reply actions
I think it would cause them to reevaluate the BCS structure
and that may not be good for us..
Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.
I was envisioning
the MWC to Boise State invite as the trigger for others to decide inviting schools/leaving conferences time was now. Guess the MWC is wanting to wait-and-see a bit too. This whole thing kind of reminds me now of the final scene in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly with Eastwood, Wallach, and Van Cleef in the stare-down…
I’ll allow others to draw connections between what entities relate to Good, Bad, and Ugly if so desired.
--VegasCat07
Definitely not the trigger
since that move does nothing to effect the current BCS conferences. It may help them achieve a BCS AQ, but nothing more. I believe that move is for the better of the MWC.
Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.
I guess 'trigger' was not the word I really meant...
more like a sort of ice breaker to someone being the first to invite a school…
--VegasCat07
Maybe, but probably not
since it doesn’t include any BCS teams.
Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.
Sources?
I want to see some “unnamed sources close to the universities” before I feel safe that we have a back-plan worst case scenario plan!
Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.
Maybe we should
Try and mess the whole thing up by declaring that K-State would be open to joining the ACC along with KU, UMKC, Wichita State, and Manhattan Christian College.
That would show ’em!
+ Pittsburg State
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Jun 7, 2010 12:51 PM CDT up reply actions
The dark horse bet
The one thing hardly anyone is talking about but is extremely relevant is NBAF. All this talk about research capability and the biggest outlay in decades of federal dollars into animal and food research is being pumped into Manhattan. There will be 300-500 phd’s climbing over one another to work in the facility and MOST of them will have faculty privileges at KSU.
Name the school that can top that?
If any conference is really looking at long term investment in academics it is a no brainer. Yes, KSU needs to up their standards for admittence. I’ve always thought it was rediculous how easy it is to get in and land grant isn’t an excuse, see Michigan State.
Unfortunately, this is really about tv revenue so we’re screwed. I believe a case could be made that KSU is a much more attractive school for research, but cows can’t vote or buy whatever is advertised during a football game so Kansas, as always will be a flyover state.
The Biodefense Lab isn't going to change things overnight
It’ll help – and could be used as a great stepping stone to achieve tier 1 status, but it’s not going to vault the university by itself.
Admission standards aren’t going to change. The mission statement of the school is to provide quality education to the people of Kansas – and it does that. If you look at the admission standards compared to a tier 1 school like KU, they are virtually the same. it’s pretty easy to get into most, if not all, the Big 12 schools.
Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.
Forget football . . .
This is pretty freakin’ cool for the university.
by Chris Wilson on Jun 7, 2010 11:20 PM CDT up reply actions
This ultimatum.
As a husker fan, I would hate to see out games end with our fellow north teams. The Big 10 has a lot of plus-side potential, but I don’t want to see the Big XII north schools get hosed over without a place to go.
I hope Nebraska waits until the last moment with this ultimatum BS, gives Texas the middle finger and invites any old Big 8 schools to rebuild the Big 8 without any schools south of the Red River. If they still need a conference championship game, pick up a few teams in the mountain time zone.
I know, I know. It will never happen due to $$$, but it seems like the right thing to do. I don’t want to abandon the Big 8 even for the glitz and glamor of the Big 10. Texas football was in a tailspin until the Big XII and they’ve thrived in this conference. Now they can take their baggage to the Pac-10 and let that conference deal with them.
Posted this at RCT too-
Colin Cowherd (I know…) was speculating that the Pac10 started looking to expand because the word was USC was going to be hit hard and Texas was the only school that could keep their revenues up.
Considering the source, I have little faith in that as truth. However, the USC findings keep getting pushed back .
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball...Rock Chalk Talk
There's a conception going around
that I think is incorrect, and it relates to the continued existence of a BCS berth for the Big 12 in the event of armageddon.
Simply put, I think that if MU and NU bolt Friday and the South bolts for the Pac 10, not only will the “Final Four” be stuck in the shell of a conference with no BCS berth… they’ll be stuck in the shell of a conference which has lost its automatic bids to every other NCAA Division I tournament.
The BCS bid is still questionable, but the NCAA AQ is not; there’s a hard-and-fast rule that in order to maintain an AQ, at least six members of the conference must have competed together for a period of time.
Luckily, I think that “period of time” in the case of an existing conference is merely one year (there was one year when the TAAC, which is now the Atlantic Sun, lost its NCAA AQ for one year due to membership turnover). That would mean that there actually is a way out of this even if all hell breaks loose, so long as the Texas schools are willing to delay their departure for one year, and that’s to immediately invite six schools to join the Big 12 if MU and NU bail. (Boise, BYU, Utah, New Mexico, TCU, and Houston… maybe Colorado State or Air Force instead of Houston if Colorado’s gone rather than Baylor.) ONLY six, because an 18-team conference would be absolutely ridiculous.
Then, after a year competing as a 16-team conference, the Texas schools could “safely” take their ball and head off to the Pac-10, while the Big 12 would cleanly preserve its (legal) status as a BCS conference and retain its AQs. Note that the South schools could announce their intention to leave immediately; what matters is the actual year of joint competition prior to their departure, even though it’s clearly gaming the system. It’s happened before on numerous occasions with smaller conferences fighting to keep an AQ; a couple of teams announce they’re leaving in two years, and the conference immediately invites a couple of independents who’ve already qualified for D-I post-season play to join up for that last year before the other teams leave. The NCAA doesn’t object.
The Big 12 could then add two more teams to get back to 12, although at that stage the pickings would be sort of slim. Whoever was left out of the Houston/CSU/AFA mix, and Memphis… beyond that you’re getting into either moving WAY west for UNLV or Nevada, or bringing in Tulsa or UTEP or Wyoming or NM State. Why bother?
Of course, being the pessimist I am, I am awaiting the day when the four Dakota Schools announce their intention to upgrade from FCS to FBS, and we have the Dust Bowl Conference: UND, NDSU, USD, SDSU, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, and heck, let’s poach Tulsa, Houston, UTEP, SMU and UTSA! Won’t that be jolly? (I’m assuming that a Colorado left out of the Pac-10 would join the MWC; if Baylor’s the lone wolf instead, who knows?)
(Actually, sarcastic bitterness aside, I do kinda wonder what sort of success the Dakota schools would have as FBS programs. Their fan bases are… well, they’re almost as nuts as Husker Nation, and I don’t mean “nuts” as an insult. I mean they’ll fork over cash in buckets, they’re rabid supporters, and their athletic programs are very, very solid. Those four schools moving to FBS… it just wouldn’t even be on the same level as Western Kentucky or Idaho doing it. I’d bet real money that at least one of those Dakota schools would win the hypothetical Dust Bowl football title within six years, although K-State would be the “Nebraska” of the conference.)
I am now channeling Will McDonald's optimism.
I forgot to mention
A conference composed of Boise, BYU, Utah, New Mexico, TCU, Houston, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and Baylor… really wouldn’t be anything to sneeze at, I don’t think. You’d have five teams which have in fact made BCS appearances and had top-five seasons in recent memory, as well as another school which has a national championship in my lifetime. And it would be a damned fine basketball conference too, ISU’s recent pratfalls notwithstanding.
I am now channeling Will McDonald's optimism.
Doesn't snagging 6 MWC teams accomplish this?
at least six members of the conference must have competed together for a period of time
Or does the rule say in the specific conference?
Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.
I'm not sure
but I think it’s a moot question. May as well just join the MWC if you’re doing that. There aren’t six current MWC schools I’d want to take in order to build a strong conference. I’d prefer Houston to CSU or Air Force both for television sets and athletic accomplishment, but I recognize that replacing Lost Denver with one of those two schools may be necessary. And Boise’s almost a requirement here.
I am now channeling Will McDonald's optimism.
Well we'd be in control since we are the bigger schools.
And it’ll still be OUR conference.
I don’t want to map out scenarios of which teams to steal from the mid-major bin. This is just wrong. This will end up destroying the teams that don’t get picked and this is exactly what is going on with us right now.
Before trying to recreate our own conference, I think waiting on invitations to conferences that don’t have 16 would be the smartest bet. It may be far-fetched, but it sure beats the alternative.
Surgeon General's Warning: K-State-Mizzou basketball may increase the risk of high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor prior to watching any of these games.
I think (and paralleling mystman below - singling out MWC teams we DON'T want is not so kind)
that there is a combination of MWC and WAC teams combined with the ‘projected’ remaining 4 Big XII teams (should any conference armageddon even happen) that totals 12 institutions that I would have no problem with getting into as the new Big 12. Now of course I am in preference of the Big 12’s current state, but the best thing from lemons is of course lemonade…
--VegasCat07
Don't look now but ND wants to get involved...
Well maybe the Big 10 is getting what it really wants and we can all go back to our regularly scheduled programming. Of course it is just another peg in this whole scene.
Way to go Nebraska....Ohhhh Yeah
Sorry big-12 nation, not a fan. Im glad to see the big-12 dispersing or soon-to-be dispersing as they will in the next few weeks of even days. I welcome Nebraska to the Big 10 with open arms. Now we patiently wait for Missouri and id love to see Kansas, Kansas State or even Iowa State, Im not picky.Have fun Big012 Nation. Go Bucks!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
