The BX-II is a Hot Mess right now

[BYUgrad03]

Hm. Wow. I'm gonna have to go with the graduate on this one. He makes very good points.

Here's the things Mars, I think he summed it up very well at the end. If the Big Twelve is THAT shaky, why would we want to be a part of it. I guess the only reality about anything that matters is the reality we accept (did that make sense?) as true. If I had to choose between the two "truths" you guys just presented, I'd prefer the truth of byugrad03. I would rather go into a strong Big 12 that isn't on the brink of destruction and that is basically ruled by the basic rules of capitalism rather than the alternative. But dude, don't get me wrong. You're still my favorite

Mars is still my favorite too, and I meant no disrespect towards him. He invited me on here, and now probably wishes that he hadn't. It's good to have some heated/ entertaining debates every now and then. Anyway, how sad is it that we find ourselves arguing on a message board about college football on a Friday night?

[Mars]

Here's the things Mars, I think he summed it up very well at the end. If the Big Twelve is THAT shaky, why would we want to be a part of it. I guess the only reality about anything that matters is the reality we accept (did that make sense?) as true. If I had to choose between the two "truths" you guys just presented, I'd prefer the truth of byugrad03. I would rather go into a strong Big 12 that isn't on the brink of destruction and that is basically ruled by the basic rules of capitalism rather than the alternative.

Oh, grad makes great arguments, I agree. He obviously knew more about the "Texas Buyout Share" situation than I did. He probably also knows more about Pickens and Texas than I do. I can concede those points. I also agree that capitalism is good, on theory (except when it's bad for you).

BUT... Saying that the new Big XII is very unstable, and saying in the same breath that we would sacrifice the MWC in a second to make the jump, even for the smallest fraction of their $$$, doesn't conflict in any way.

For Utah, accepting a tiny portion of the PAC-12 money for 3 years is better than not joining the PAC-10 at all. Who cares that Colorado gets a full cut and they don't? Who cares if they stabbed Samuelson and Holmoe in the back after promising to remain a package deal together? Who cares that they cut and run the last year of the MWC's BCS chase, leaving their former conference high and dry when it comes auto-qualification time? They did what they had to do for themselves and themselves only, despite the drawbacks, because it was still by far the best decision for them.

For BYU, jumping at a chance to join an extremely unstable Big XII conference, with all the infighting and bickering, for the tiniest cut of their $20MM/year TV contract... is a no-brainer.


Yes, it's easier for BYU fans to deny any weaknesses in the Big XII, seeing as we are hoping desperately to join it. That's natural; I wouldn't hold that against anyone. Everyone gets to make up their own mind on what they believe to be true. I also don't see the rosiest view of the current BX-II as being factual.

Believe it or not, but the MWC has problems as well, even though the Cougars play in it. Crazy, I know.

[taekwondave]

Okay Mars, I still award you two points for that rebuttal.

[blue42]

The university presidents, commissioners and AD's have all been upfront and completely honest with the whole realignment talk from day 1 so to say the information is coming straight from the source has to be taken with the biggest grain of salt ever!!

One thing to think about discussing the inequality with the payout for the Big 12. I agree capitalism is great and is the main factor that makes a strong company or product, but having such a big difference in what schools are receiving isn't good for the conference as a whole. If you are talking about capitalism in a business perspective then absolutely the best run and most attractive company should get what they deserve and they try to make their company stronger by taking profits and market shares, meaning constomers, away from their competitors.

This idea is different in sports and most of the other conferences understand this, but not the Big 12. Keeping it tied to a company stand point, the Big 12 is the company, not Texas, not OU, but the entire conference. The company,(the Big 12) in order to be viable needs to have all departments working together to make the company as strong as possible. Guess what, not all departments in a real company are money makers, such as, accounting, HR to name a couple, but they are an important part of the company even though those departments cost the company money, but no company would even consider being in existance without those departments.

Having a big difference in the revenue sharing only weakens the conference not make it stronger and when you have "employees" who feel they are not being treated fairly makes the situation even worse, which further weakens it.

I will have to agree with Mars here, the Big 12 is in total disarray and it has everything with the disloyalty the bigger schools have shown to the bottom half and it also absolutely has to do with the unfair revenue share. This is the prime example of the CEO's thinking they are the most important thing to the company and the "little" people are just an annoyance hoping they will just go away but knowing they can't.

[BYUgrad03]

Who left the Big 12? Nebraska, right? The point is, if they had simply won or maintained their success, they would have made as much as Texas or OU. If Baylor wins the conference and or a BCS championship game, they would have made as much, or more than Texas or OU if they don't go to a BCS game. Why is that, because they would have had more TV exposure/ more air time. Texas and OU get more money because they draw a bigger TV audience based on several factors, the main being that they're in the MNC hunt every single year. So the networks find it profitable to play their games as oppossed to a Baylor, and/ or an Iowa St. Thus creating the difference in revenue between the schools, which if you look at the Big 12 pay-out for 2007, Texas only made $3 million more than dead last Baylor.

It's simple, NU lost revenue because it wasn't on TV as much because it wasn't winning as much as Texas and OU. Despite what many think, Texas didn't earn more money than NU just because they're Texas, and they rule the league with an iron fist. Now, the fact that Texas has a huge fan base gives them a bigger draw, but if they're losing on a consistent basis, what fans are going to want to tune in to watch them lose? The fact that teams like Texas and OU are consistently in the MNC picture, creates a national interest in their games, thus equaling a greater exposure. Ultimately it depends on their relevance in the college football landscape, and their relevance depends their success. Right?

Is the Big 12 unstable? Yes. Is it Texas' fault? No. Unless one believes that they shouldn't win as much to make everyone else happy, but that doesn't work either. The success of teams like Texas and OU brings more money to the conference overall, as oppossed to every team being mediocre and out of the BCS NC picture. Ultimately, in the long-term, that would mean less money for all the teams involved, because the conference, as a whole would have less leverage in negotiating future TV contracts. Again if you want as much money as Texas and OU, then win. If OU and Texas stop winning, their revenue is going to go down. Everyone has the opportuntiy to be the biggest revenue winner, if they win on the football field first.

The Big 12 has a TV contract that pays out roughly between $130 to a $140 million per year. That money is then distributed among the schools according to each schools' TV exposure/ air time. You get what you earn, right? The more national exposure, the more money.

It's a schools own fault for not making the amount of money that they want, because they haven't fielded a winning team. It's called accountability.

[Mars]

Who left the Big 12? Nebraska, right? The point is, if they had simply won or maintained their success, they would have made as much as Texas or OU... if you want as much money as Texas and OU, then win... Everyone has the opportuntiy to be the biggest revenue winner, if they win on the football field first... You get what you earn, right? The more national exposure, the more money. It's a schools own fault for not making the amount of money that they want, because they haven't fielded a winning team. It's called accountability.

I find these comments ironic, because Nebraska will be making more money than OU and Texas in 2011. I guess Texas hasn't been accountable enough.

Anyways, here are two articles on the subject people might want to take a look at...

Changes Inevitable for New Big XII: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7000 ... ig-12.html
No Guarantees Big XII Will Remain Intact: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7000 ... ntact.html

[BYUgrad03]

Again Mars, please provide a link showing that NU will get more than Texas in 2011. How long have you gotten away with just stating something as fact without the ability to back it up? Just because someone can state something as fact, doesn't make it so.

Sorry, but I don't get your jab about Texas not being accountable enough in regards to the comments you quoted.

For someone who apparently hates Texas and thinks they are this greedy empire, you sure seem obsessed with the idea of joining their conference.

[Mars]

Again Mars, please provide a link showing that NU will get more than Texas in 2011. How long have you gotten away with just stating something as fact without the ability to back it up? Just because someone can state something as fact, doesn't make it so. Sorry, but I don't get your jab about Texas not being accountable enough in regards to the comments you quoted. For someone who apparently hates Texas and thinks they are this greedy empire, you sure seem obsessed with the idea of joining their conference.

Again, your point in all your arguing about this is escaping me...

All Big Ten schools made $22MM last year. Texas made $11MM last year, and isn't expected to break $20MM until 5 years into the Texas Sports Network, and only if their other TV deals all work out as well as they hope.

I have the feeling that you are a Texas alum, as you are defending them irrationally. I don't hate Texas, at all. But I do think they have hurt themselves by being greedy. Texas would be happier and make more money if Nebraska was still in their conference, and they aren't because of the Longhorns' greed. This was pointed out best by another poster above. It has nothing to do with who or what you are obsessed with.

[BYUgrad03]

Again Mars, please provide a link showing that NU will get more than Texas in 2011. How long have you gotten away with just stating something as fact without the ability to back it up? Just because someone can state something as fact, doesn't make it so. Sorry, but I don't get your jab about Texas not being accountable enough in regards to the comments you quoted. For someone who apparently hates Texas and thinks they are this greedy empire, you sure seem obsessed with the idea of joining their conference.

Again, your point in all your arguing about this is escaping me...

All Big Ten schools made $22MM last year. Texas made $11MM last year, and isn't expected to break $20MM until 5 years into the Texas Sports Network, and only if their other TV deals all work out as well as they hope.

I have the feeling that you are a Texas alum, as you are defending them irrationally. I don't hate Texas, at all. But I do think they have hurt themselves by being greedy. Texas would be happier and make more money if Nebraska was still in their conference, and they aren't because of the Longhorns' greed. This was pointed out best by another poster above. It has nothing to do with who or what you are obsessed with.

First of all, you know exactly what I've been arguing with you about. However, I congratulate you for actually stating a fact that I could validate on the web, i.e., the 22 million per year, although you still didn't provide a link. But I concede to that point. Good job.

As far as the five year plan, you have that confused with the network TX is starting. The projected revenue for TX and co starts immediately because its coming from the current contract, that the networks will honor until its expiration and have stated that will likely be extended. It currently pays the Big 12 $130 - 140 million in revenue. Subtract two teams from that (CU and NU), and you have a greater share distributed among its members based on TV viewership.

As for the rest of your comment above, c'mon Mars. The "Texas alum,...thats why I'm defending them irrationally", is a load of crap. Weak, weak, weak.

As far as the greedy Texas part, which seems to be your theme. Let me ask. Are you saying that if Texas wasn't so greedy, and sought to split the $130-140 million contract evenly, equaling roughly $10 -11 million per team in the Big 12, then NU would've turned down the $22 million offered by the Big 10 and stayed?

[88Coug]

I hate to get in the middle of a big spat, but I must say that Grad needs to get a clue. There is no new Big 12 deal and all the numbers being thrown around are projections. http://www.denverpost.com/colleges/ci_15301529 The source of the addition revenue is the exit fees for Nebraska and CU, which at one point were going exclusively to the Big Three (at least until Tech raised a big stink and Texas backed off, claiming it never wanted the extra money). Spend five minutes on the messages boards for schools like A&M, Baylor, and Tech and you will see how much fans of these schools despise Texas. Tech fans talk of wanting to go to the MWC, AQ or no AQ. A&M fans want to be away from Texas and get into the SEC. Baylor fans, although happy not to be in the Sun Belt, hate Texas and realize that Texas will destroy things once again, leaving Baylor without a home.

Maybe when you have been around a little longer, you will remember that greed is not good and that filthy lucre is filthy for a reason.