Pac-10 Expansion (merged)

#79
#79
The guy that wrote the story for orangebloods was on Memphis radio late this afternoon. Based on the info that he had, he seemed to think that Texas and A&M both would not go to the PAC10.

He said that the A&M AD (whom I believe is from Oregon) was not thrilled with the possible travel schedules (a potential 2000 mile trip?). He also mentioned that he thought it was more likely for Texas to explore the independent route or seek the SEC. His was of the belief that if other schools bolted to the West, A&M would try to join the SEC, even if it hampered their rivalry with Texas.

Personally, I would not be to worried about the SEC. I think its foolish to think that Slive and several of the AD's/Presidents have not talked to several potential additions should the dominoes start to fall. I do not see a scenario where other conferences expand and the SEC does not. That said, it would be to lucrative to not bring a school in the Texas market along to tap into more viewers. As for money in regards to TV, Slive has already hinted that there is a clause in place that will allow the SEC to renegotiate or up its deal should expansion occur. This alone make me think that the SEC has had schools pinpointed in the event schools start jumping ship.
 
#80
#80
GoVols2003 said:
The guy that wrote the story for orangebloods was on Memphis radio late this afternoon. Based on the info that he had, he seemed to think that Texas and A&M both would not go to the PAC10.

He said that the A&M AD (whom I believe is from Oregon) was not thrilled with the possible travel schedules (a potential 2000 mile trip?). He also mentioned that he thought it was more likely for Texas to explore the independent route or seek the SEC. His was of the belief that if other schools bolted to the West, A&M would try to join the SEC, even if it hampered their rivalry with Texas.

Personally, I would not be to worried about the SEC. I think its foolish to think that Slive and several of the AD's/Presidents have not talked to several potential additions should the dominoes start to fall. I do not see a scenario where other conferences expand and the SEC does not. That said, it would be to lucrative to not bring a school in the Texas market along to tap into more viewers. As for money in regards to TV, Slive has already hinted that there is a clause in place that will allow the SEC to renegotiate or up its deal should expansion occur. This alone make me think that the SEC has had schools pinpointed in the event schools start jumping ship.
Click to expand...

I've been saying the first half of this for a while. As much as everyone wants Texas, I really think at this point they're getting pretty close to being gung ho about going the notre dame route.

Texas realizes just how valuable they are as a school to a conference....I'm really starting to wonder if you don't see them join anywhere unless someone goes "ok, we're willing to give you a bigger share than the other teams in this conference make"
 
#81
#81
Today's meeting focused on Big 12 - Big 12 Blog - ESPN

KANSAS CITY -- Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione addressed the media late on Thursday afternoon, insisting that any talks from today's meetings centered completely around the Big 12 and matters related to the conference. He maintained that Oklahoma was happy with its current situation in the Big 12, but elected not to say that everyone within the conference was as happy as the Sooners.

"Everyone expressed their thoughts," Castiglione said.

Asked if he had taken part in conversations with the Pac-10, Castiglione was short, but left future options open, should the Sooners' situation within the conference change.

"Not yet," he said. "Hopefully, we don't have to."
Click to expand...
 
#82
#82
Little is clear at Big 12 meetings - Big 12 Blog - ESPN

KANSAS CITY -- Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe took one route, outrunning the gaggle of cameras and microphones into a hotel elevator. Colorado athletic director Mike Bohn went another without answering a question. But reached on his cell phone by the Boulder Daily Camera's Kyle Ringo, it was Bohn's brief words that made the biggest splash at the close of the Big 12 spring meetings' third day.

"The longer that we were together in Kansas City it appeared that that rumor or speculation did have some validity to it," Bohn said, lending credence to an earlier report from Texas' Rivals.com website Orangebloods.com that said five South schools -- minus Baylor -- and Colorado were being targeted by the Pac-10 for a group invitation.

Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott swiftly issued a statement shooting down the report.

"We have not developed any definitive plans. We have not extended any invitations for expansion and we do not anticipate any such decisions in the near term," Scott said in the release.

But truth or fiction, one thing is clear: Thursday did not go as planned for the first day of meetings with university heads. Beebe emerged after 10 hours of meetings with plans to deviate from the day's schedule, canceling a post-meeting Q&A with reporters alongside University of Texas president William Powers, who is also the chairman of the conference's board of directors.

But other than the general, vague conflicts foreshadowed in earlier comments by Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione, the why is unknown.

The only thing that's clear is that nothing is clear. A unified front and clear consensus would have made answering questions a reasonably simple exercise for two men with backgrounds in law. But that front never materialized on Thursday, leading to the postponement of Powers' and Beebe's comments until late Friday morning.

And the reports about the Pac-10's shockingly proactive move -- which sounds far closer to a possibility than a probability -- obviously contributed to that delay.

The only people sleeping in Kansas City tonight with an idea of how close -- or how far -- that consensus is from forming spent the day inside the meeting room. And even they might not know.

But no one outside the room knows, and there's no promise that will change after Friday.
Click to expand...
 
#83
#83
Expansion frenzy gets even crazier - Pac-10 Blog - ESPN

It appears the Big 12 meetings were fairly hectic on Thursday, with reports that the Pac-10 is now looking to expand to 16 teams, with the new six all coming from the Big 12: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Colorado.

Golly. That would be a dramatic change in big-time college sports.

The Pac-10, according to the reports, would then split into two divisions, with Arizona and Arizona State joining the Big 12 six and the old Pac-8 forming the other division.

Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott released a statement on the matter to The Sporting News:

"We are aware of a story filed today by an Orangebloods.com columnist, speculating about possible expansion plans for the Pac-10 Conference. While many interesting scenarios have been suggested in numerous news reports, around the country, we remain focused on a thorough evaluation process that examines all of the options for increasing the value of the conference for our member institutions, our student athletes and our fans. We have not developed any definitive plans. We have not extended any invitations for expansion and we do not anticipate any such decisions in the near term."


Earlier in the day, Scott told me point blank that no major news would come out of the Pac-10 meetings this weekend. Despite this report, Scott may still prove correct. There are a lot of hoops to jump through before we'd get a "Pac-16".

Another source who will be attending the meetings this weekend in San Francisco said that Scott had presented a variety of expansion scenarios to the Pac-10 presidents, including this 16-team version. It's possible this version will lead the agenda this weekend. Colorado athletic director Mike Bohn told the Boulder (Colo.) Daily Camera that his school and the other five are expecting overtures from the Pac-10.

"The longer that we were together in Kansas City it appeared that that rumor or speculation did have some validity to it," Bohn told the newspaper.

That about sums it up. For weeks we've had lots of speculation. We may not be, in fact, that close to an endgame.

But the speculation may have some legs.
Click to expand...
 
#84
#84
Big 12 cancels news conference as realignment rumors persist - ESPN

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- After daylong discussions regarding the possible breakup of the Big 12, a scheduled news conference was abruptly canceled, fueling speculation that the 12 schools are far from agreement.

A short time earlier, Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione had indicated the member schools did not reach the unity that many had hoped these meetings would achieve.

Perhaps also complicating the process was a report out of Texas on Thursday afternoon that the Pac-10 might invite six Big 12 schools to join and form two eight-team divisions. Some Big 12 and Pac-10 officials met informally several few weeks ago to discuss a possible scheduling and television alliance between the leagues.

Speculation of a possible breakup of the 14-year-old Big 12 exploded this spring when the Big Ten said it might expand and Nebraska and Missouri indicated interest.

Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe and Texas president Bill Powers had been scheduled to brief reporters at the end of the day on Thursday, the third day of the league's spring meetings.

But after a separate meeting of the presidents ran an hour long, Beebe emerged to say -- as he was pursued by reporters into a waiting elevator -- that the news conference would be on Friday.

"The board is still in session. We won't conclude until tomorrow and we're not going to have any kind of comments about anything the board has been considering or acting upon until tomorrow."

He refused to elaborate.

In Thursday's joint meeting of athletic directors and presidents, Oklahoma's Joe Castiglione said the ADs all gave their recommendation about whether the league should stay together.

Apparently, the unanimity that many members were hoping to forge proved elusive.

"We all had a chance to express our thoughts," Castiglione said when asked if any of the athletic directors indicated they might want to leave.

So does that mean not everyone was united?

"Everybody expressed their thoughts," he said.

Castiglione and Oklahoma president David Boren have been adamant in their desire to keep the league intact.

"Each athletic director had a chance to convey their thoughts about the future of our conference, and that was great," Castiglione said. "A lot of passion about the Big 12 in that room, I can promise you that."

While the Big 12 presidents were meeting Thursday afternoon, Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott played down a report that the Pac-10 planned to invite Big 12 members Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Colorado. The report in Orangebloods.com, the Texas site on Rivals.com, said the Pac-10 would split into two eight-team divisions.

"We have not developed any definitive plans," said Scott. "We have not extended any invitations for expansion and we do not anticipate any such decisions in the near term."

The Pac-10 meetings are this weekend and Scott said the conference continues to conduct an "exhaustive and proactive" evaluation of the league and its future.

Castiglione said possible ties with the Pac-10 were discussed on Thursday.

"I think there's some potential value there," he said. "We had one meeting with some of the members of the Pac-10. It wasn't a scheduled meeting. We brainstormed some of the possibilities that may exist. Since then, both our commissioner and Larry Scott have had conversations. It leads one to believe there are some real viable opportunities for both leagues."

Colorado athletic director Mike Bohn said he and others had been led to believe the Pac-10 was on the verge of issuing invitations to six members of the Big 12.

"The longer that we were together in Kansas City it appeared that that rumor or speculation did have some validity to it," Bohn told the Boulder Daily Camera.

Asked if Oklahoma had had any conversation with the Pac-10 about some Big 12 schools joining up and leaving others behind, Castiglione said, "Not yet. Hopefully, I don't have to."

As the meetings were beginning Thursday morning, the head of the University of Missouri gave no assurances the Tigers intend to remain in the Big 12.

"We're not shutting our ears to anything," said chancellor Brady Deaton. "I'm sure every school here has a responsibility to its own institution as primary responsibility. Conference realignment is something we do for our athletic programs."
Click to expand...
 
#86
#86
That noone knows near what's actually going on and everyone in media are trying to make assumptions and guesses.
 
#87
#87
I think all you can take out is the Pac-10 commish saying no offers/plans currently to expand; CU saying something along the lines of we would like to stay w/ better revenue but the longer we stay the more likely we leave if a better offer presents itself; OU is currently upset that Texas makes more money than it and wants that changed; and Mizzou is keeping its mouth shut b/c they think a Big 10 deal is in their future and dont want to mess up their chances on that

mainly alot of fuss though b/c alot of the other teams don't like making more money than Texas


oh and i've read some now about Texas and A&M not leaving - you see noone knows whats going on
 
#88
#88
Big 12 Hoping to Stick Together -- NCAAFB FanHouse

KANSAS CITY, Mo. – Dan Beebe's talk fluctuates somewhere between brave and bold while discussing solidarity among Big 12 schools as expansion in other conferences and the potential breakup of his league looms.

Make no mistake, the Big 12 commissioner knows the threat of losing members like Missouri, Nebraska or even Texas is real after the Big Ten announced earlier this spring it would explore expanding from 11 teams to perhaps as many as 16 teams. Plus, Colorado could be interested in bolting to the Pac-10 for geographic reasons. So the Big 12 could be a conference that looks very different, or perhaps may not exist at all, should two or three of its members opt for a much more lucrative payout from the Big Ten and its network.

The future of the Big 12 and its current membership is a major discussion this week as the 15-year-old league holds its annual spring meetings here in Kansas City.

"I don't think it's that realistic," Beebe said Wednesday when asked by FanHouse how real is the threat that some members could leave the conference. "I think it's going to be intact and I think we are going to move forward and I think it's going to be the 12 institutions we have. But at the same time, I'd be foolish if I relied only on that feeling and that base of information. So I am planning on any possible contingencies that might come into play."


The reality is no one really knows what the future holds. Partly, that's because the Big Ten hasn't said exactly what it will do in terms of expansion. The league that right now is comprised of Midwest schools could expand by as few as one or as many as five.

But the Big 12, like the ACC, SEC and Big East, is trying to do what it can to keep its members on board. The Big 12 athletic directors and presidents are slated to meet here Thursday to discuss how the league should proceed. The presidents, who actually have the right to vote on membership, will meet behind closed doors Friday before adjourning.

The resounding message Wednesday, however, was "let's stay together."

"I think our league is structured well enough and has been strong enough to withstand a lot of the conjecture and speculation that's out there," said Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione, who was the AD at Missouri when the Big 12 was formed. "It doesn't mean we're overlooking it. But we're thinking more about what we have and what we can do in the future than what we don't have."

Others agreed.

"I really like the Big 12," said Texas A&M athletic director Bill Byrne, who was the AD at Nebraska when the Big 12 was formed. "We are part of the original group that put it together and from A&M's perspective we want it to stay together."

But not all institutions seem to share that sentiment. Missouri and Nebraska are both believed to be unhappy with the Big 12 for different reasons. Missouri isn't pleased with the uneven television revenue deal that has always been in place in which schools like Texas and Oklahoma get a bigger share because they make more television appearances.

Nebraska has seemingly grown weary of the center of gravity shifting more decidedly to the South where Texas and Oklahoma are. The biggest point of contention for the Cornhuskers has been a move to make the Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Tex. the permanent home for the Big 12 Championship rather than rotate the game between North and South venues. The Big 12 title game was in Jerry Jones' new stadium last year, it will be there again in December and it's likely the board of directors will vote this week to play it there which will bolster the chances of Cowboys Stadium being the permanent site.

Nebraska athletic director and the Cornhuskers legendary coach Tom Osborne has in the past voiced concern about such a move but Wednesday backed off in support of league solidarity.

"We like the Big 12," Osborne said as he answered questions about the future of the conference. "Those things will be decided hopefully tomorrow, if not tomorrow then not before too long."

Most believe Nebraska and Missouri will listen to the Big Ten and will bolt because of the chance to double their athletic department revenue. The Big 12 distributes between $7 and $12 million to its members, while the Big Ten and revenue from its own Big Ten Network pays members between $20 and $22 million in a conference that distributes television money evenly.

But Osborne said several times Wednesday that all the speculation of who may leave is premature.

"First of all, it's important to understand I don't think the Big Ten knows what it's going to do," he said. "They may add one, they may add three, they may add five. So we have no indication right now of what's going to happen."

But the Big 12 is trying to prepare itself for whatever might happen. The league is now locked into what is a below market value television deal with ABC/ESPN through 2015-16, but an additional deal with Fox Sports Net expires following the 2011-12 season and negotiations for a new contract will get under way next April.

The ACC recently inked a 12-year deal with ESPN for $1.86 billion. Beebe is hoping the Big 12 will be able to increase revenue dramatically with a new contract from Fox or perhaps another network to televise football games.

Beebe has also rolled out the possibility of partnering with the Pac-10 on a television deal, though that seems far down the line at this point.

"The television package is one that we are working on now and I think it's going to get greatly enhanced," Beebe said. "We have that staggered situation, so we will have that big jump next April that will get us to a better level. All projections that we see will be just as well compensated as just about any conference out there. The only thing is the patience needed for that."

And that, right now, seems to be the burning issue -- especially with schools like Missouri being clearly unhappy with the revenue distribution. Missouri athletic director Mike Alden said Wednesday that his school is happy in the Big 12, but his schools' complaints about the revenue sharing have been heard.

That doesn't mean it's going to change.

"Revenue distribution has been very well vetted in the conference," Beebe said. "The (board of directors) has determined our method of distribution -- which was appropriate when the conference was formed, based upon what was needed to form the conference -- is one that will continue.

"One athletic director, who has been on the side of wanting more equal distribution said, `It's not necessarily discriminatory, I've come around to a different view. If my program is elevated as it has been recently, I get more appearances and I get more money.' It's just a different way of doing it."

"There is not a conference out there that distributes all the money generated from its conference's athletic programs equally."

So what will it take for every school in the Big 12 to be happy?

Beebe's mission this week seems to be to find who is on board and who may be wavering as he prepares to make his case next April to Fox Sports Net. But that definitive answer likely will not come until the Big Ten makes its expansion official -- perhaps as soon as the end of the summer or maybe as far off as next spring.

Either way, the Big 12 is in a holding pattern.

"I think each individual institution is going to have to reach the conclusion that the case I have been advocating for the Big 12 is the most compelling case for their institution," Beebe said. "I would like for that to be a on a very tight time frame. I may be told that's not possible at some places, but that's what has to happen.

"It's like any other relationship, whether it's marriage or something else, you are going to reach the conclusion of, 'This is where my future lies.' I may not like every part of it, but I wouldn't like every part of it somewhere else.'"
Click to expand...
 
#90
#90
Pac-10 and Big 12: Will It Be a Partnership Or a Raid? -- NCAAFB FanHouse

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- With realignment seemingly on the way to major college football, there seems to be a new and intriguing alignment thrown out daily.

The latest came Thursday in the form of a report from Orangebloods.com (a Rivals.com member), which said the Pac-10 is prepared to offer membership to six Big 12 schools to form a mega 16-team conference that would cover the western half of the country and break into seven of the nation's top 20 television markets.

According to the report, the Pac-10 is all but ready to extend invitations to Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and Colorado by the conclusion of its spring meetings slated to take place this weekend in San Francisco.

New Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott denied the report Thursday.

"We are aware of a story filed today by an Orangebloods.com columnist, speculating about possible expansion plans for the Pac-10 conference," Scott said to the Cedar Rapids Gazette. "While many interesting scenarios have been suggested in numerous news reports around the country, we remain focused on a thorough evaluation process that examines all of the options for increasing the value of the conference for our member institutions, our student-athletes and our fans. We have not developed any definitive plans. We have not extended any invitations for expansion and we do not anticipate any such decisions in the near term."

Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe abruptly canceled a scheduled press conference during at the conclusion of the third day of his league's meeting Thursday, saying that he will answer questions Friday after the league's board of directors meet for the last time and the meetings wrap up.

Colorado athletic director Mike Bohn, however, told the Boulder Daily Camera on Thursday that he and other conference officials had been led to believe that Colorado and five other Big 12 schools could receive invitations from the Pac-10 as early as this weekend.



Share Bohn also told the newspaper that he has not had contact with the Pac-10 or any of its officials and he was not sure how he came to believe the invitations were coming. But there was major buzz about the possibility throughout the InterContinental Hotel on Thursday as the Big 12 athletic directors and presidents met.

"The longer that we were together in Kansas City, it appeared that that rumor or speculation did have some validity to it," Bohn said to the Daily Camera.

So now for at least another day we are left to ponder the viability of a "Big 16" or Pac-16 league. Some insiders believe that this exact scenario is possible because schools like Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech are not good fits academically with schools like Stanford and Cal in the Pac-10.

"Such an alliance just doesn't make sense," one athletic director with strong Pac-10 ties told FanHouse on Thursday. "Academically, some of these schools just don't make sense for the Pac-10. I don't see it happening that way."

What is believed is that there could be some sort of alliance between the Big 12 and Pac-10 for scheduling and television purposes. The two leagues could partner for a rich television deal or perhaps even form a network for cable that would rival the Big Ten Network.

Big 12 officials have been forthright this week that they have at least had exploratory discussions with Pac-10 officials about how the two conferences might be able to partner together.

"We have, sure. I think there is some potential value there," Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione said Thursday in between meetings. "We've had one meeting with some of the members of the Pac-10. It wasn't really a scheduled meeting per se. It was sort of a gathering, if you will."

The fact that the two conferences have entered into those types of discussions also seems to make it unlikely that the Pac-10 is ready to offer membership to some Big 12 schools. According to the Orangeblood.com report, schools like Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas and Kansas State would be left to fend for themselves, while there is plenty of speculation that Missouri and Nebraska will be absorbed by the Big Ten when that league decides to expand.

The report says that the six rumored Big 12 schools would fuse with Arizona and Arizona State to form an eight-team division. USC, UCLA, Oregon, Oregon State, Cal, Stanford, Washington and Washington State would form the other division of the "Big 16."

But Texas A&M athletic director Bill Byrne seemed to shoot down any such alliance on Wednesday before the report came out, saying the two-hour time difference and the distance between the schools would create logistical nightmares, especially for the non-revenue sports.

"I've heard a lot about the distances we'd have to have our student-athletes travel," Byrne said. "We had a really tough experience in April when we had to bring our teams from Seattle and Spokane and after ballgames and we got into College Station at I believe 6:30 in the morning. Then we expect for our kids to go to class at 8 o'clock. That's tough. We are really concerned about student-athletes on this thing."

"I think we need to have some plans and I think those are being developed right now as to ways we can keep the conference together."

And that has seemed to be the overriding theme of the week: Keeping the Big 12 together as is. But with the landscape around the league threatening to change, that may not be realistic.

Castiglione was asked Thursday if he could imagine a scenario where Oklahoma competes in the Pac-10 and he said no, but also admitted he would not be the one making that decision. Only the presidents and chancellors in the Big 12 have a vote on such moves.

"It's not a scenario I really want to imagine at this point or really think about any other types of scenarios if I didn't have to," he said. "I am just one of the leaders on the campus and I do report to a president and a board and those kinds of scenarios, possible or imaginary, would have to be vetted out with them and I couldn't speculate as to how they perceive that or not.

"We really have been focused on working through the business of the Big 12, most of which is very normal at this time."

But should a school like Missouri or Nebraska jump to the Big Ten in the next 18 months, that might force the Big 12 to do something radical like align with the Pac-10 -- because there aren't any comparable replacements just waiting to join the Big 12. Losing Missouri would mean the loss of the St. Louis television market while defection of Nebraska would translate into the loss of a program with national appeal.

One concern has been that the Big 12 has not been proactive enough with the threat of realignment looming. Partnering with the Pac-10 would certainly seem to be a preemptive strike.

"We haven't put out any kind of scenario like if one, two or multiple teams leave but I do think some people have thought through how successful we could be in a different kind of configuration," Castiglione said. "But if that configuration changes dramatically, it might take away our ability to keep the Big 12 intact and viable -- then that falls back on the institutional leaders to have contingency plans in place. Yet all of our energies have been focused on this.

"We may have to and we certainly would have options if we needed them," he continued. "But I could not be more sincere than how committed we are to the health of this league going forward and how proud we are in what has been achieved in the 14 years this league has been in existence."
Click to expand...
 
#93
#93
last one for today save breaking news, most likely

Missouri President: School Will Make Proper Turn for Conference Alignment -- NCAAFB FanHouse

Missouri president Brady Deaton might want to get a better map of the plaza area of the InterContinental Hotel.

Deaton, whose school may be a primary target of the Big Ten in its expansion efforts, got lost early Thursday afternoon as looked for the correct meeting room during the Big 12 spring meetings. Suddenly on a slow news afternoon, Deaton found himself surrounded by media members anxious to talk to anyone who looked official.

Missouri and Nebraska are believed to be viable candidates to bolt the Big 12 for the Big Ten if an invitation is extended in the near future. Each school could possibly make between $9-12 million more per year than it does in the Big 12.

That has placed Deaton and Missouri very much in the spotlight this week at the annual spring meetings.

Deaton started out Thursday by telling the throng of reporters he was late for a meeting, but he stood still long enough to answer several questions, however uncomfortable he might have been.
Q: Do you hope Missouri stays in the Big 12 conference?

A: We are going to be talking about conference alignment I am sure.

Q: What would like to see taken care of here?

A: We have a pretty open agenda here. We are just anxious to hear everyone's views on where we are going and to keep working every way we can to strengthen the Big 12. We are proud members of it and that's just where we are right now.

Q: What do you need to hear from the Big 12 conference?

A: We are entering into discussions. I'm not sure that we have expectations.

Q: Do you think the Big 12 is at a point where it has to keep you?

A: There are all kinds of speculation like conference alignment. I'm sure that will be a subject we will be talking about in some detail. I'm looking forward to that.

Q: Have you thought about the impact on Kansas City if Missouri should leave the Big 12?

A: As an institution, we are looking at all aspects of this conference alignment along with all the speculation we hear. I'm sure all of the schools in the Big 12 are doing that.

Q: Are you guys open-minded to staying in the Big 12 or are you of the mindset that the Big Ten is where we want to go?

A: We are part of the Big 12, very proud to be. We are active members trying to strengthen it in every way possible.

Q: If the commissioner asks you if you are in or out this week, where does Missouri stand?

A: We are proud members of the Big 12 and have been since its inception. That's what we are working toward.

Q: So is the speculation about you guys going into the Big Ten just talk?

A: We are not making any comments, as you know, about the speculation that's going on. We are proud members of the Big 12. We are happy, we are happy with the support the University of Missouri has. We are looking forward to this meeting.

Q: But are you willing to listen to anyone else like the Big Ten?

A: As an institution we are part of the Big 12, but we are not shutting our ears to anything. I'm sure every school here has a responsibility to its own institution as a primary responsibility and then conference alignment is something we do for the athletic program. That's what we are working on now. We are working toward that.

Q: Can you imagine a scenario where Missouri can walk away from an extra $10 million a year or whatever the figure might be?

A: Let me say, I have to run to a meeting I'm running late for here.

Q: But could you guys walk away from that type of money?

A: We are not making any comments about all the speculation about the Big 12 and answering all of the hypotheticals. That's like saying what happens if you have a $100 million handed your way, would you look at that? We are going to do what is best for the institution. We are proud members of the Big 12 and we are not making any comments about all the speculation about conferences.

Q: So what is best for Missouri?

A: What we are doing right now is best for Missouri and we will continue to look at all resources as we look to the future and all alignments as we look to the future. But we are members of the Big 12 and that's the point.
Click to expand...
 
#94
#94
sure sounds like a lot of the big-12 members have no problem switching conferences.
 
#95
#95
droski said:
sure sounds like a lot of the big-12 members have no problem switching conferences.
Click to expand...

I really see it as CU, Mizzou and maybe NEB definitely saying that

I think the rest (like OU), imo at least, seem to be using it as a threat to try to get more money in their revenue distribution, which they're currently upset about b/c Texas makes such a bigger percentage than everyone else
 
#96
#96
that's why i wonder if texas would be willing to go the pac-10. the pac-10 evenly distributes it's revenues. i doubt texas would get more money total. maybe with a new pac-10/big-16 network i guess.
 
#97
#97
droski said:
that's why i wonder if texas would be willing to go the pac-10. the pac-10 evenly distributes it's revenues. i doubt texas would get more money total. maybe with a new pac-10/big-16 network i guess.
Click to expand...

yeah, i'm curious if Texas has been trying to play (as a safeguard) around seeing if someone will bend over backwards and break equal revenue just for them (like what Big 10 would realistically have to do for ND)

was wondering. Do you have any idea what each pac10 school gets? (or at least what the conference makes and where it ranks?)
 
#99
#99
ok. That explains somewhat, but the Big 10 would have to get an 7 mil per team ($77 mil total) from somewhere since the teams make about 22 mil each

still so the pac 10 teams currently get 4.3 mil per the TV contract; with 16 teams that would be about 2.7 Mil. So most likely there would be a new TV deal if expansion did happen.

Still though with the equal revenue sharing, the new deal -plus bowl game money, plus NCAA money, plus assumed conference championships money, plus royalties and liscensing - would have to at least top the 10.2 mil Texas got in the 2008-2009 (not sure exactly what year the numbers are from, so Texas likely makes a bit more)

meaning, that the conference would need to most likely generate at least a full $163.2 mil to split up. equally at the very least, but more likely a number much higher than that,

esp. since a super conference would probably be talking trying to make Big 10 (or SEC) money, you might be looking at trying to make a total of around the $242 mil total or so that the Big 10 makes


(also I'm not sure the Big 10's television contract there includes their Big Ten Network numbers or not) I do know though that the Pac-10s total revenue in 08-09 was $80.1 mil
 
#100
#100
do you have a listing at all of the total money the conferences bring in, not just the TV deals?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top