- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

How the Big XII was Saved- Rivals article
Posted on 6/15/10 at 7:54 pm
Posted on 6/15/10 at 7:54 pm
Posted on 6/15/10 at 10:07 pm to PowerTool
quote:
The TV contract, which like some other details hasn’t been formalized, promises Texas and Oklahoma an oversized share of revenue that could reach over $20 million per year
they missed a team, and if we don't get it... we're gone. Bleve dat.
This post was edited on 6/15/10 at 10:10 pm
Posted on 6/15/10 at 10:12 pm to PowerTool
quote:Powertool, this is what I was talking about in the other thread that was deleted.
As the Big 12’s impending death became increasingly apparent last week, a diverse group of leaders across college athletics decided to come to the league’s rescue. Athletic directors, business leaders and television executives all played a part in the league’s 11th-hour attempt to save itself from destruction.
“This is was a potential doomsday,” said one college administrator who offered the Big 12 assistance and sought anonymity for fear of backlash from the Pac-10. “This was moving too quickly. The collateral impact wasn’t being considered. [There was] a great deal of work to be done.”
Some were worried about the long-term stability of college athletics should an era of 16-team super conferences arrive. Others feared the potential wealth and competitive power of Scott’s league. Some just helped for the challenge of it.
Posted on 6/15/10 at 10:43 pm to SCUBABlake
quote:
Armed with a strong position in the Big 12, Texas returned to the Pac-10 and asked for a similar deal – the right to its own network (not just part of a Pac-16 channel) and an oversized revenue share, according to a source familiar with the negotiations. Larry Scott turned it down.
So the pac ten turned them down and not the other way around as was reported.
quote:
For the Longhorns and Sooners, there was little doubt that the best place in terms of actual football was the Big 12. There was never a reason to leave.
quote:
They already dominate, both in terms of on-field victories and in controlling the talent-rich local recruiting turf. The two schools have combined to reach five of the last seven BCS title games. It was almost impossible for the Pac-16 to offer greener grass than that, a point that was repeatedly lobbied to each school’s administration, according to a source.
quote:
Life is potentially even better now for Texas and Oklahoma. The loss of Big 12 North power Nebraska and an even greater revenue gap between them and the other eight league teams means their annual Red River Showdown game becomes even more of a de facto BCS semifinal. The league may even drop its conference championship game (which UT and OU never liked), eliminating a final roadblock to the BCS title bid
Posted on 6/15/10 at 10:45 pm to tuck
Yeah, I agree and I tried to reply in the other thread before it got deleted for whatever reason.
Posted on 6/15/10 at 10:51 pm to LSUintheNW
quote:If there is an undefeated Big 10 team and an undefeated SEC team (after their respective title games), I don't see how an undefeated Big 12 team would get into the BCS game. So in essence, not having a league title game is also a roadblock to getting to a BCS title game.
The league may even drop its conference championship game (which UT and OU never liked), eliminating a final roadblock to the BCS title bid
Posted on 6/15/10 at 10:56 pm to PowerTool
quote:There is a sense in which all the Big 12 teams agreeing to stay put was not to save the Big 12 teams (or UT, OU or aTm, etc.), it was to save all of college football from a major upheaval that might not have the ability to be contained without governmental involvement. Too many mid-level athletic schools would have suffered which would have caused politicians across the country to get involved. That wouldn't be good for anyone.
Yeah, I agree and I tried to reply in the other thread before it got deleted for whatever reason.
I wonder if they all just kind of said, okay, we won't take action now until we have a better plan about what will happen if all these major changes take place. I have no idea if this is true, it's just a theory that I have based on this article and the illogical nature of everyone's decision to stay in this laughable league situation. Is this just a case of cooler heads prevailing?
This post was edited on 6/15/10 at 10:58 pm
Posted on 6/15/10 at 10:59 pm to tuck
quote:
So in essence, not having a league title game is also a roadblock to getting to a BCS title game.
can work both ways
quote:
If there is an undefeated Big 10 team and an undefeated SEC team (after their respective title games), I don't see how an undefeated Big 12 team would get into the BCS game
Right now I think any bcs conference except the big east gets an udefeated winner in first.
I guarantee you those boys will be lobbying like a motherfricker. They expect their brand to be put in.
Posted on 6/16/10 at 9:30 am to tuck
quote:
If there is an undefeated Big 10 team and an undefeated SEC team (after their respective title games), I don't see how an undefeated Big 12 team would get into the BCS game. So in essence, not having a league title game is also a roadblock to getting to a BCS title game.
I agree.
Posted on 6/16/10 at 9:42 am to tuck
quote:
not having a league title game is also a roadblock to getting to a BCS title game.
It didn't hurt USC in 2004. I'm not sure it bwould hurt Texas or Oklahoma either. It should, but I'm not so sure it will.
Maybe it will hurt them unless the undefeated SEC team is Auburn.
Posted on 6/16/10 at 10:06 am to BhamTigah
I just can't see a team's BCS ranking being higher from a conference that has the strength of schedule of the Sunbelt conference AND also not having a title game. Because of who is left in their conference their SOS is going to be shite. Then to top it off, they won't have a title game to give them a little boost. I don't see how they could ever pass an SEC team or a Big 10 team, both with higher SOS and having to win a title game....even if UT had been ranked number 1 previously like what happened to Auburn. I think they would still get passed.
This post was edited on 6/16/10 at 10:07 am
Posted on 6/16/10 at 12:19 pm to LSUintheNW
quote:
If there is an undefeated Big 10 team and an undefeated SEC team (after their respective title games), I don't see how an undefeated Big 12 team would get into the BCS game
depends on teh opinion polls probably - if everything else were equal the SEC team would have an advantage
But then it looks a heckuva lot easier to run the table in the new Big 12 than the SEC
Popular
Back to top
3







