The Big 12 may be doomed

[Birds of B'more]

Winners - USC , with all the problems they have right now the last thing they needed was texas getting a bigger shot at recruiting California as a pac 10 member.

And Notre Dame a winner because maybe this will take some of the pressure off and they can remain independent.

ND is a winner, as it does take the pressure off of them. For now at least. Expect their name to come up again in another 6 or so months if the Big 10 talks of expanding some more.

I don't know that USC is helped or hurt by any of this. Their bowl ban would have ended by the time Texas would have joined, and they would only have 1 year of scholarship reductions left. Even if they were in the Pac 10, I think Texas would stay in-state for 90% of its recruits. Not like that strategy hasn't worked out for them already.

[CrimsonTribe]

This was just dirty.

Unbelievable. The five "leftovers" (KU, KSU, ISU, BU, Mizzou) agreed to sign over their share of CU/NU's buyout money to UT/OU/A&M.

http://twitter.com/slmandel/statuses/16237204302

[Birds of B'more]

I'm hearing that Texas Tech and Ok State are not on board with that at all either. Makes sense, as they held invites from the Pac 10 too and somehow are being left out of the enticements to stay. In fact, neither school has publicly committed to the new Big 12. This may not be over yet.

[Birds of B'more]

According to Orangebloods, TT and OSU have now pledged their loyalty to the Big Longhorn Conference.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Got to love Texas taking advantage of the desperation of the Kansas, etc. schools to rob them and force them into a bad situation.

Stewart Mandel has pointed out since this "saving" of the conference came out that between the poor foundation the Big "12" is now built on and the new-found power of the Pac-11/12 and Big Ten, this could very easily happen again next year, or even within the next year.

[Birds of B'more]

Got to love Texas taking advantage of the desperation of the Kansas, etc. schools to rob them and force them into a bad situation.

Stewart Mandel has pointed out since this "saving" of the conference came out that between the poor foundation the Big "12" is now built on and the new-found power of the Pac-11/12 and Big Ten, this could very easily happen again next year, or even within the next year.

It might be a conspiracy theory, but some are saying Texas went into this knowing full well the acrimony would still be there and the conference could easily break apart again in a year or two. At the last minute, when Texas was receiving its invitation to the Pac-10, they wanted some "concessions" before joining. One of them was to be able to start their own cable network, which wouldn't work since the proposed Pac 16 was to have it's own conference network. Larry Scott wisely refused, and Texas began to help Dan Beebe broker some deals. Consider though, that if Texas can get their network up within the next 2 years, and the Big 12 falls apart again (which I would think is a good bet considering the uneven revenue distribution) then Texas waits for the offers to come in again...only this time since they already have their own network up and running the inviting conference has accept that as a "pre-existing condition."

[Greg Pappas]

I'd be ashamed to be a Texas Longhorns fan. And if the allegations that those five "leftover" schools had to turn over their share of the buyout money from NU and CU to A&M, Texas and Oklahoma, then that's simply bull. That conference deserves each other. We'll see how long it lasts.

[Birds of B'more]

I'd be ashamed to be a Texas Longhorns fan. And if the allegations that those five "leftover" schools had to turn over their share of the buyout money from NU and CU to A&M, Texas and Oklahoma, then that's simply bull. That conference deserves each other. We'll see how long it lasts.

That's not an allegation. It's real. Here's the quote from Beebe. Source.

"The five institutions [Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Iowa State and Baylor] that weren't being pursued as dramatically as, at least, Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma, those five institutions were looking at a possibility of very difficult future, even if they repopulated the Big 12 -- in terms of their future media value looking at significantly less revenue," Beebe said. "They came together ... [the future] didn't look very good without Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma.

"Those five decided as they looked at their future media value and were willing, if necessary, to use some of the distribution [money] that they get from the departing members to make sure Texas A&M, Texas and Oklahoma were induced to stay with them and stay in the conference."

[CrimsonTribe]

I'd be ashamed to be a Texas Longhorns fan. And if the allegations that those five "leftover" schools had to turn over their share of the buyout money from NU and CU to A&M, Texas and Oklahoma, then that's simply bull. That conference deserves each other. We'll see how long it lasts.

Pretty sure it's not just the buyouts either, but also NU and CU's shares of the TV distributions too. Don't have a link for it right now though.

[RShack]

Pretty sure it's not just the buyouts either, but also NU and CU's shares of the TV distributions too. Don't have a link for it right now though.

Do we ever find out? Or is it a secret and we have to depend on nothing but rumors?

[KansasO'sFan]

I'd be ashamed to be a Texas Longhorns fan. And if the allegations that those five "leftover" schools had to turn over their share of the buyout money from NU and CU to A&M, Texas and Oklahoma, then that's simply bull. That conference deserves each other. We'll see how long it lasts.

Just wondering, but what did you want the other schools to do? Pretty sure we'll still be getting more money than we were, and I'm guessing the other schools will too. Texas owns the conference, they know it, and everyone else knows it too. Staying was easily our best option, even if these schools sold their souls to the devil. Texas was already getting more money than anyone else, the revenues have always been unequally distributed. And yes, this whole situation could and most likely will happen again, and probably in the next couple of years. I figure, K-State's best option, and the other four schools as well, was to stay together for now, and hope the situation would be better when it happens again.

Just my two cents.

[carolinaoriole]

It might be a conspiracy theory' date=' but some are saying Texas went into this knowing full well the acrimony would still be there and the conference could easily break apart again in a year or two. At the last minute, when Texas was receiving its invitation to the Pac-10, they wanted some "concessions" before joining. One of them was to be able to start their own cable network, which wouldn't work since the proposed Pac 16 was to have it's own conference network. Larry Scott wisely refused, and Texas began to help Dan Beebe broker some deals. Consider though, that if Texas can get their network up within the next 2 years, and the Big 12 falls apart again (which I would think is a good bet considering the uneven revenue distribution) then Texas waits for the offers to come in again...only this time since they already have their own network up and running the inviting conference has accept that as a "pre-existing condition."[/quote']

Or they go independant.

They could make it on there own as well.

[Birds of B'more]

Just wondering' date=' but what did you want the other schools to do? Pretty sure we'll still be getting more money than we were, and I'm guessing the other schools will too. Texas owns the conference, they know it, and everyone else knows it too. Staying was easily our best option, even if these schools sold their souls to the devil. Texas was already getting more money than anyone else, the revenues have always been unequally distributed. And yes, this whole situation could and most likely will happen again, and probably in the next couple of years. I figure, K-State's best option, and the other four schools as well, was to stay together for now, and hope the situation would be better when it happens again.

Just my two cents.[/quote']

Well, like the saying goes, you're only as strong as your weakest link. The big time SEC programs like Florida get the same amount of money as Vanderbilt, USC gets the same amount of money from the Pac 10 as Washington State, and Ohio State doesn't get a penny more from the Big 10 than Northwestern. It seems to be working OK for those conferences....no word on any defections there. I said before that I understand that Texas being as strong as they are does bring value to the other schools in the conference. But these schools shouldn't have to be so dependent on Texas. Because most of us agree that in a couple years this is going to happen again...and just because a lot of different parties came together to pacify Texas this time doesn't mean it will happen again and they won't just take the money and run. If I'm the AD at a Big 12 school not named Texas, Oklahoma or Texas A&M, I'm already thinking of contingency plans for when Texas or one of the other marquee schools bolts for greener pastures.

[Birds of B'more]

Or they go independant.

They could make it on there own as well.

They might be one of only 2 or 3 schools in the country that could pull it off....and by independent I'm talking about the entire athletic department, not just one or two sports. And honestly everyone left in the Big 12 might have been better off if Texas had just gone ahead and done it. Although I do think UT would be facing a lot of political pressure within the state if they tried to.

[KansasO'sFan]

Well' date=' like the saying goes, you're only as strong as your weakest link. The big time SEC programs like Florida get the same amount of money as Vanderbilt, USC gets the same amount of money from the Pac 10 as Washington State, and Ohio State doesn't get a penny more from the Big 10 than Northwestern. It seems to be working OK for those conferences....no word on any defections there. I said before that I understand that Texas being as strong as they are does bring value to the other schools in the conference. But these schools shouldn't have to be so dependent on Texas. Because most of us agree that in a couple years this is going to happen again...and just because a lot of different parties came together to pacify Texas this time doesn't mean it will happen again and they won't just take the money and run. If I'm the AD at a Big 12 school not named Texas, Oklahoma or Texas A&M, I'm already thinking of contingency plans for when Texas or one of the other marquee schools bolts for greener pastures.[/quote']

Don't get me wrong, I definitely agree with that. But Texas was used to being top dog and getting what they want. The mistake was made years ago, but everyone has to deal with that now. There's no going back from that. Their ego is way too big to concede any money to the rest of the schools. The last part of your post is what I was trying to get at. My guess is (or I sincerely hope) that the AD's are looking into contingency plans, and giving in to Texas just bought them another couple of years. Staying together was the best option, even though it wasn't that great of an option.

Or they go independant.

They could make it on there own as well.

I highly doubt any of these schools could succeed at anywhere near their current levels if they go independent. Just not enough brand recognition for these schools.