I think the SEC is the clear winner here

#26
#26
Another note on Colorado: They might not have the cash on hand to pay their exit fee. Heck, they didn't even have enough money to buy out Hawkins! They'll have to give the conference their TV cut to pay it off.

They jumped the gun very early. Just my opinion, but if you look at Nebraska bailing for the '11 season, they have the money for a pay off. Colorado postponed it until '12 hoping there wouldn't be a conference to have to pay off, and there wouldn't be an exit fee. Uh, oops.
 
#27
#27
MizzoufaninKnox said:
@GAVol- I guess I'm not understanding where the failure = success in this thing for the Pac-11. The Mtn West was trying to raid the B12N teams to stack their conference for a BCS bid too. Are they winners?

I mean, the Pac-10 is a good conference in all sports, and has high academic standards, so it isn't a huge surprise that the two conferences that are striving to create a CG (B10 and Pac 10) would be all over it. Scott wouldn't allow Texas to print it's own money (Bevo Network), and that cost him in the end.

Not sure if you've been to Boulder. GREAT college town, but the people of Denver couldn't care less about the Buffs or college sports. It's all Broncos, all the time. Even when the Buffs are good. I'm sure Larry Scott will sell Denver as a market, but, really, the Buffs aren't a player in town.
Click to expand...

Denver is all about it's major league sports and that's about it.
 
#28
#28
MizzoufaninKnox said:
@GAVol- I guess I'm not understanding where the failure = success in this thing for the Pac-11. The Mtn West was trying to raid the B12N teams to stack their conference for a BCS bid too. Are they winners?
Click to expand...
Come on. You don't at least on some level respect the audacity of the Pac-10 for even trying it and almost succeeding and getting Colorado as a consolation prize? I don't think anybody was even contemplating the Pac-10 as a player a week or two ago.
 
#29
#29
I think Homer Simpson said it best.

"Trying is the first step towards failure."

The Pac 11 didn't get what they wanted after throwing all it's eggs into one basket. It's like courting the best looking girl, even hanging out with her ugly friends, until You realize that girl (and even her ugly friends) left you high and dry without a plan.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#30
#30
Is Colorado a prize for the Pac-10? Would they have offered Colorado if they knew that Texas and everyone else would stay put in the Big-12? I was guessing they put out the offers thinking it was a mostly done deal between them till A&M became more interested in the SEC and stalled things a bit till the Big 12 came back with their new offer to Texas and everyone else.
 
#31
#31
I would say that by the end of the decade, we will look back on this as the beginning of the end of the NCAA. So the NCAA will be another long term loser...
 
#32
#32
Rasputin_Vol said:
I would say that by the end of the decade, we will look back on this as the beginning of the end of the NCAA. So the NCAA will be another long term loser...
Click to expand...
Why? This is hardly the first time that schools have changed conferences in an effort to make more money.
 
#33
#33
GAVol said:
Why? This is hardly the first time that schools have changed conferences in an effort to make more money.
Click to expand...
The Big 12 is damaged goods at this point and will eventually crumble in 5 or so years. That will set in motion the eventual expansion of at least one super conference with 20 teams. Whether it is the big 10 gathering up the remnants of the Big East or SEC gathering up a few ACC teams or some combination in between.

At that point, if you have 3 major conferences (Big 10, PAC 10, and SEC) with 50+ teams, why would you need the NCAA?
 
#34
#34
Rasputin_Vol said:
At that point, if you have 3 major conferences (Big 10, PAC 10, and SEC) with 50+ teams, why would you need the NCAA?
Click to expand...
I don't follow the logic. As long as the Presidents are in control, what difference does it make how many conferences there are?
 
#35
#35
GAVol said:
I don't follow the logic. As long as the Presidents are in control, what difference does it make how many conferences there are?
Click to expand...

The big three will be able to have more leverage than they already have on the other 60 or so schools. They are already essentially shutting out the small schools in these BCS bowl arrangements and regular bowl tie ins. At that point, you will really have a two tiered system. The Big 3 conferences and everybody else. Trust me, even you know this... The Texases and Floridas of the world aren't making decisions based on what is best for Boise St or Rice. And likewise, the presidents of the Floridas and Texases are not looking out for the Boise St and Rices of the world. This whole deal is about controlling the streams of revenue and concentrating them in the fewer hands.
 
#36
#36
Rasputin_Vol said:
This whole deal is about controlling the streams of revenue and concentrating them in the fewer hands.
Click to expand...
I get that. I just don't get how consolidating the same schools that are in 6 BCS conferences into 3 BCS conferences changes the dynamic you are talking about. The mid-majors are already red headed stepchildren.
 
#37
#37
Also, we've just witnessed an attempt by Texas to risk destroying a conference in an effort to get its way. What makes you believe that Texas and collection of other schools (or presidents in your example) wouldn't step over anything else in their way for financial gain?
 
#38
#38
GAVol said:
I get that. I just don't get how consolidating the same schools that are in 6 BCS conferences into 3 BCS conferences changes the dynamic you are talking about. The mid-majors are already red headed stepchildren.
Click to expand...

Well, just off the top, you have about 35 or so bowl games where sponsors are splitting bowl money between teams in the Big 3 and these lesser step children. Witj enough leverage, you could have a situation where those lesser schools are completely blocked out from bowl games all together (or blocked out from a potential playoff) and the money could be divided among those 50+ schools rather than 120. Then you have the recent $10 billion NCAA tournament agreement that is split among all/most member schools. With the Big 3 conferences, there is the opportunity to have enough leverage to divide that among just those conference schools.

No other collection of schools in the bottom 60 in football or bottom 200+ in basketball would be able to negotiate the type of deals that you could have with the Big 3.

Finally, the idea of a conference channel would allow these conferences to cherry pick schools that are in larger television markets. The larger the market, the more eyes watching your product. The one thing the SEC has an advantage over the other two is the fact that although we don't have the number of major markets, we still have a better product that has mass appeal across all regions.
 
#39
#39
MizzoufaninKnox said:
They don't have that 12th team, and maybe it was one of the thousands of reports out there, but wasn't Larry Scott trying to nix the CG idea anyway? I bet Utah or Colorado State would jump at the idea of a Pac 10 invite, but looking at what they had in mind--The Big 12 South and a fat TV deal with their own network-- Utah/CSU and Colorado aren't going to get that done.
Click to expand...

um, tcu?
 
#40
#40
ShowMeVol said:
The media in the mid-west is not portraying Texas as saving the day.
Click to expand...

Maybe I went too far. The headline is Texas Saves the Big 12. From Kansas to Chicago to NY to ESPN, that seems to be the case, which is ridiculous. Texas A&M was the first to decline the PAC invite. Only Mr. Slive knows whether there was a genuine interest in A&M, or whether he was helping to throw a monkey wrench into super expansion. Clearly the hero here is A&M.
 
#44
#44
This isn't even close to being over, it may die down for 5 to 10 years but you have just witnessed the future. Every time new tv deals are up for negotiation you are going to see power plays like the one that was just thwarted, granted this has been happening for some time in college football but it just went nuclear, what we witnessed was something akin to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
 
#45
#45
vol66 said:
The big winner here is Texas. They played everyone and got everything they wanted:

Texas TV (check)
A better cut of revenue (check)
No conference championship game (check and added bonus)
Getting rid of Nebraska (check)
***Total Control of media perception (check)

Texas caused all of this, yet they've been hailed as the savior of the Big 12
Texas said they declined the invitation to the PAC, nothing could be further from the truth. Please read the following:

Texas, OU, OSU staying in Big 12 - The Denver Post
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
#46
#46
As to why you leave the NCAA? You could stop worrying about APR etc.

I also think the time is coming in the next decade when the Supreme Court will rule that it is gender discrimination to mandate cutting some mens athletic programs to create ones for women that no one is watching and no one cares about. Equal opportunity does not equal Title 9 as carried out today. If I said "Who wants to go camping?" at a school sponsored function and then I told 46 guys that they could not go because we had 96 guys sign up and only 50 women, it would not be equal opportunity.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top