ChiefsPlanet - Other Sports Big 10 Report: Conference Realignment

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)

- Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)

- -

Big 10 Report: Conference Realignment (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=227561)

Quote:

Originally Posted by kstater (Post 6801723)

It's a bluff that could be plausible if called on.

I don't necessarily disagree, but Beebe doesn't have the balls to play hardball.

I wish to express something. While I love MU's move to the Big 10 for the sake of the university, there is something that I love much more than the University of Missouri that is going to be harmed by the dissolution of the Big XII: Kansas City. KC will lose a lot of money from hosting tournaments if the Big XII ceases to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KChiefs1 (Post 6801730)

ESPN Bottomline just reported this:

"According to reports, Nebraska and Missouri have been invited to join Big Ten, and Pac-10 is planning to invite Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Colorado."

Is it now official?

I've not seen this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saul Good (Post 6801721)

Even if they don't, Nebraska just tells the Big XII that they are staying. If the offer from the Big 10 comes...see ya.

The Big 12 is not taking a verbal promise, they will need a legally-binding agreement, which I'm sure the other schools (except Missouri) will sign on to if Nebraska says yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 6801734)

I don't necessarily disagree, but Beebe doesn't have the balls to play hardball.

Good thing Beebe aint running the show.

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/06...rm-big-12.html

Quote:

Missouri and Nebraska officials neither are confirming nor denying reports from Texas that the Tigers and Cornhuskers face a ultimatum to pledge allegiance to the Big 12 Conference or risk half the league taking a reported expected offer to join the Pac 10 Conference.

“Right now there’s nothing else we can say than what we’ve told you before,” said a University of Missouri news bureau spokesman speaking on behalf of UMC Chancellor Brady Deaton. “We’re a proud member of the Big 12 Conference.”

That didn't answer the question of whether a deadline of next Friday — or possibly as late as June 15 — had been issued, as was reported by the Austin-American Statesman late Saturday night.

“I’m sorry,” the spokesman said. “That’s all we can tell you.”

Messages left for MU athletic director Mike Alden were not immediately returned.

When contacted about the issue, Don Walsworth, former head of the MU board of curators, said he was unaware of any ultimatum but that he couldn’t say whether there was one.

According to the Lincoln Journal Star, Nebraska athletic director Tom Osborne said he was unaware of the supposed deadlines.

“I really don’t know what the final parameters are,” Osborne told the Nebraska newspaper. “I really can’t comment. The agreement when I left (the Big 12 meetings) Thursday was that (conference commissioner) Dan Beebe and (Texas president) William Powers would do the speaking.”

The Texas newspaper cited “two highly placed officials of two Big 12 schools” who said Nebraska was told at the Big 12 meetings in Kansas City that it has until 5 p.m. this Friday to disavow interest in joining the Big Ten Conference.

One official told The Statesman that deadline could be extended to June 15.

Missouri, supposedly, was given the same ultimatum.

Beebe on Friday told the media that a process to determine conference loyalty was in place but that he was not going to reveal any details.

“It’s firm,” Beebe said, “but I’m not going to engage in what that is.”

Orangebloods.com, a Rivals.com network site devoted to University of Texas athletics, is reporting that Nebraska is seen as critical to holding the Big 12 together, although it identified Nebraska, Missouri and Colorado as three schools threatening that unity in the face of speculation citing the Pac 10 and Big Ten as being interested in picking off current Big 12 members.

The sentiment being leaked to Texas media sources is that Nebraska is the trigger to whether a reported six-team bolt to the Pac 10 might occur, the teams involved being Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Colorado.

Since Colorado was named in the initial report, Baylor has been suggested in some quarters as a substitute for Colorado, heightening what many schools in the North believe is a prime concern: State of Texas control of a Big 12 Conference that was formed when the Big Eight Conference merged with Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor.

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany is scheduled to meet with Big Ten chancellors and presidents on Sunday in Park Ridge, Ill. Delany said that the Big Ten’s timeline on expansion moves, if any, had not changed from the 12 to 18 months established last December.

The supposed deadline handed Nebraska and Missouri would seem to apply no pressure to a Big Ten that seems not — if sources at Nebraska and Missouri are to be believed — to have made an expansion offer to either Big 12 school at this point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kstater (Post 6801753)

Good thing Beebe aint running the show.

Yeah, Beebe has basically been elbowed to the back of the room by a few guys with southern accents. "Move over Bozo, this is too important and complicated for you"

I like the Doomsday clock in the star...

http://media.kansascity.com/smedia/2...filiate.81.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by KChiefs1 (Post 6801730)

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach| (Post 6801751)

I've not seen this.

I'm watching ESPN News right now, and the only mention of the situation on the ticker was:

"Report: Pac-10 Commissioner to recommend 6 team, Big 12 expansion."

Followed immediately by:

Big 12 gives Nebraska, Missouri ultimatum about joining Big 10.

Both have gone by three times now with no change in wording, so I'm not sure where he's getting this.

I could see both MU and NEB pocketing invites from the Big 10 then telling the Big 12 to go ahead and throw them out.

Both schools will have to pay pretty significant buyouts to break ties with the Big 12. I'm betting that buyout goes by the wayside if they're tossed from the conference.

In either event, I want this done soon. The longer this drags out, the more nervous I get about it coming together as planned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 6801785)

I could see both MU and NEB pocketing invites from the Big 10 then telling the Big 12 to go ahead and throw them out.

That wont happen. What's going on here is the south is calling their bluff, as in "we don't believe you have invites yet, so commit or we'll destroy the conference". It's a lot easier for Missouri and Nebraska to sit back and wait for possible opportunities when they have a fallback plan in place than it would be if they had to take a leap of faith.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vailpass (Post 6800481)

Here is the view of MU joining the Big10 from one Iowa paper:

Big Ten expansion candidate: Missouri
Posted on Jun 05, 2010 by Scott Dochterman.
The fifth installment in a series looking at 12 different universities that could potentially join the Big Ten

School: Missouri
Location: Columbia, Mo.
Enrollment: 30,200
Current league: Big 12 Conference
Number of sports offered: 20
Academic profile: Member of the Association of American Universities; 102nd in the U.S. News and World Report National Universities rankings
Why it would fit: Missouri might make more sense than any other candidate. The state includes two large metro areas within its borders and adds nearly 6 million people to the Big Ten’s footprint. It’s a member of the AAU and is the primary institution in the state. Missouri is geographically contiguous and borders two current Big Ten states (Iowa and Illinois). It has competed at high levels in both football and men’s basketball within the last four years. State leaders expressed interest in the Big Ten concurrently with the league’s plans to consider expansion.
Why it wouldn’t: The athletics program has underachieved historically despite its massive reach in a populous state. It has the lowest ranking among all contenders by U.S. News and World Report.
Final verdict: It would be shocking not to see a larger Big Ten not include Missouri, especially if the league expands beyond one school. Missouri offers too much. If its athletics program ever gains consistency, watch out.
YouTube moment: Here’s an all-access look behind the scenes at a Missouri Tigers basketball game

http://gazetteonline.com/blogs/docs-...idate-missouri

Like I said - you can't cite MU's athletic program without noting that it's underachieved.

I really do think a move to the Big 10 along with the competitive forces that would entail would make MU a very dangerous national athletic power.

The ultimatum is a joke. "Sign up on the dotted line in blood, or else we'll leave this conference and join the Pac-10 to create the first superconference..."

Um, well, please, call Missouri and Nebraska. We flopped a Royal Flush, motherf******. The Big 12 and Dan Beebe (and by this I mean Texas) are drawing dead.

The only way Missouri and Nebraska don't get official invites to the Big Ten:
1) ND joins, no superconferences happen, and the Big Ten stops at 12.
2) UT and aTm join in some form of 14 or 16-team alignment
3) The Big Ten doesn't expand and the college sports landscape doesn't change.

Well, if the Pac-10 goes to 16, all three of these situations are gone. The Big Ten will have the juice to include Notre Dame in its superconference expansion to 16 (or higher). It certainly won't stay at 11 and give the SEC and ACC chances to snap up teams it would need to survive the next round of league expansion. And the landscape will change.

If Texas, aTm, Oklahoma, oSu and Tech go to the Pac-10, it will ensure the Big Ten goes to at least 16, and Missouri and Nebraska will have their tickets punched.

http://www.pigskinpunditry.com/2010/...ou-can-do.html

Quote:

I rarely use this space to beat the drums for my own school or to vent about the goings on affecting my alma mater.

But with the expansion rumors flying fast and furious over the last few days (while I've been fighting sickness, naturally), I feel that I need to take a stand.

I've yet to say anything about the spineless, feckless leadership of Dan Beebe, current commissioner of the Big 12 conference.

Well, I think it is time for that to end.

Dan Beebe took over as commissioner of the conference in 2007.

In three years, he might be overseeing its death, and he has no one to blame but himself for this.

Of course, instead of owning up to the responsibility, he is trying to force the responsibility for the demise of the league on two schools from the North division.

At least, that is how it appears to me with the rumor that Nebraska and Missouri have been given until either this coming Friday or next Friday to pledge their loyalty to the Big 12.

Excuse me?

This is all Missouri and Nebraska's fault for wanting to move to the Big Ten?

The timeline for Big Ten expansion still has about six months (minimum) before it will probably be resolved.

And having worked at a Big Ten institution, I can tell you that the glacial timeline is appropriate for that league. Tradition demands that one be deliberate, after all.

Meanwhile, the Pac-10 appears to already be set on offering the entire south division except for Baylor an invitation, and yet there is no mention of an ultimatum for those schools — who are a helluva lot closer to being given an shot at a new league.

Let's say you run a multi-million dollar corporation. You have two fellow corporations looking to steal away some of your twelve employees. You know that one company may be coming by within the next six to twelve months to poach two solid employees, and that another company is planning on trying to poach six employees tomorrow. Those six include your top two producers.

So why would be willing to let those six employees talk with the rocket fast corporation while telling the two employees who might be interested in the opportunity six to twelve months away that "We need to know your future plans now?"

It logically makes no sense to shame Missouri and Nebraska into staying, telling them, "You'd better stay or else." while letting Oklahoma and Texas et. al do whatever the hell they want.

You've already acknowledged, by refusing to discuss changes to the revenue-sharing model, that you consider the conference's bread to be buttered by Texas and Oklahoma.

If that be the case, then why let them walk with a smile and a hearty wave and instead try to lower the hammer on Missouri and Nebraska?

The perception is already out there that Missouri isn't worth the trouble; they're too busy trying to run away from the league because it's been too hard for them and hell, even if they leave, it won't matter because the league will thrive. Heck, they might even get an exemption to play a championship game because it's Division 1 football. It's the Big 12. It ain't intramurals.

Never mind if perception is reality or not in this instance, because in Dan Beebe's world, you don't try and get loyalty oaths from the schools that are bringing in the most revenue. That, apparently, is too logical.

Would a Big 12 network have been a panacea in this instance? Who knows? If the revenue from that network was distributed inequitably, it probably wouldn't have been.

But why have the talks about a Big 12 network seemingly been ongoing for three years with no movement towards actually establishing a network, while the Big Ten and the Mountain West both have television networks? (Granted, the Mountain West Network has issues of its own, but that's a conversation for another time.)

Can someone tell me what Dan Beebe's greatest accomplishment has been in three years running this league? Because as hard as I try, I can't seem to find anything that he has done that has helped move the Big 12 forward.

As far as I can tell, the death of the conference might wind up being his greatest accomplishment.

But if the conference goes down in flames next week, well, he can always say he stuck it to the Huskers and the Tigers.

Way to go, Dan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6801767)

I watched it go by three times before posting to make sure I was reading it right...they've now taken it off. I think it had to be a typo because that would be HUGE NEWS not just a developing story.