Dr Tom saw the writing on the wall, knew he couldn't compete with the South, and took his balls up north so he could compete with fellow slow-plodders in the rust belt.

That sounds bad, but not compared to 2-26 over that same period of time.

lol

Ouch.. that is shitty.

Heh just think Nebraska's worst decade of football has been better than anything KU has ever done.

BTW they've finished ranked in the top 25 the last 4 years and have produced top 25 recruiting classes.


I see someone is still salty they didn't get invited to another conference ROFL

Hey atleast Kansas fans can brag about having a fueling station for the Pac 12 plane.

Dr Tom knows the truth, even if his fanbase is too prideful to see it. I would venture to say TCU and Baylor and Okie LIght would've lit up Nebraska like a pinball machine the past few seasons. With ease.

Isn't this between KU and Neb? Your comment, like your football program, is of no significance whatsoever.

No legitimate programs have moved conferences. Let's review the list

An invite means nothing to these conferences except tv sets and fodder for their real teams. I love the fact that people on this board actually think their school was invited to another conference because the teams already in that conference believed they had a chance to win. LMAO

Utah
Colorado
Missouri
Maryland
Syracuse
Nebraska
Houston
SMU
Texas A&M
UCF
Memphis
Tulane
ECU
Navy
Rutgers

If that isn't a list of "has-been's" and "never were's" then I'd love to see one.

Well Billay isn't going to look up the facts, so I'll do it for him. This discussion isn't about the football program I follow so I don't know why you are bringing it up. Of course you bring up all the time that college football isn't a real sport so I'm not sure why you are even discussing this sport at all.

This thread. Woof.

This post here even proves how much of an idiot you are on this subject and pretty much every other subject else besides maybe interior decorating and fashion design. UTAH has 2 recent undefeated seasons where they won BCS Bowls. Nebraska has 3 National Titles and has been to bowl games 41 of the last 42 seasons. A&M will probably be the #2 team in the country next year behind Alabama and has 3 national titles. Even CU has one.

Well, one Mizzou fan above said they weren't invited for football prowess so they don't all think that.

I don't recall a single Mizzou fan on this board ever claiming that Mizzou was invited based on their football prowess. Just because Mizzou fans can rightly claim that their football program is miles ahead of the abomination that KU calls football is no reason to make up lies. In fact, most, if not all, of the Tiger fans on this board viewed the SEC move as a huge challenge for the football program, and fans felt it was worth the work and struggle to make the move. Mizzou was invited to the SEC for a variety of reasons. Good programs in both football and basketball, great academics, and some excellent television markets are among a variety of reasons that Mizzou was invited.

Perhaps if you ****ing read some posts on here instead of being a ****ing stupid noob, you would know what in the hell you were posting about.

Never mind, you are just a ****ing troll, an honor's graduate from the Hypocritson school of dumbassery.

I'm not going to go back and look for quotes, but I recall more than a few Mizzou fans who thought the East Division "could be had".

Well, if you're going to just compare football programs, I guess so. But, that wasn't really what I was getting at. Nebraska used to be to football what KU is to basketball, and while NU seems to have lost its stamina with the sport it is most associated with, KU has not.

Just saying I would rather have at least one of the major sports where I get to compete and win at the highest levels as opposed good but pedestrian teams at the one I'm supposed to dominate in while the other one still blows major donkey dicks.

But, that's just me.

And remember, you're the one that decided it was time to stick his thumb in this again. Maybe you should wait until the sport you're supposedly known for does something more than remind you of a by gone time.

So? Whether the East was weak this past season or not has no bearing on the reasons why Mizzou was invited to SEC. Those are two separate discussions.

Nebraska was to football what KU was is basketball if KU won titles more than once a generation.

So now it's come to a single Nebraska fan defending Missouri & a few Missouri fans defending Nebraska.

Well done everyone!

:clap:

This post makes my head hurt.

But Mizzou isn't "light years ahead" of KU in football. You won 1/2 your games against us over 100 years, and accomplished nothing in your history that we didn't also accomplish. (Outside a few more trips to Shreveport LA). Congrats on going 5-4 against us in your last 9, and 10-11 vs us since 1990. Epic domination!




I don't think you'd find even one SEC fan who'd call you a "good program" in football right now. As for academics, you're the same caliber school KU and Iowa State are. Academics mean nothing in this.

True, Mizzou was invited to even out the division and add TV sets.

Obviously, you mean, National Titles?

I remember when the joke was:

"Do you know why Tom Osborne doesn't eat cereal?"

"He keeps losing the bowls".

Jealousy and envy make people stupid LMAO

Thinking is hard for you.

Doesnt Maryland have the same number of titles as KU the last decade?

Doesn't KU have the same number of titles as Nebraska in football in the last decade?

Ku fans jealousy is hilarious.

KU has not won a conference football game in two years, and Mizzou won more games last year in a bad year....5, than KU has won in the past two years....3.

So yeah, Mizzou is light years ahead of KU in football. Shut the **** up, noob.

Jealous of zero?

Zero conference invites or zero conference wins? Take your pick.

Maybe I'm being too harsh. How bout BCS Bowl wins in the past decade?

KU, I know, only has one.

Big bad NU has, wait a minute... oh, sorry... zero.

You were mentioning something about jealousy?

Is that why no conference wanted KU?

There you go, I guess every school has to find something to hang their hat on. Now you and Missouri can both scream:

"They like me! They really, really like me!"

I'm sure its just like winning in a big venue.

I for one wish KU had gone to the SEC with MU.

Nubs never used to argue with ku fans about football. This shows you how irrelevant they've become. They started the slide in 2000 and will never be a top program again and they know it.

KU has never been a top program, so I guess you have that.

Neither has Mizzou. Same deal.

Beating bruce webber has never been a big deal either.

What about Ohio State?

#big10pridez

Beating a ranked team twice would be a big deal to Neb football. Last ten years they are 6-16 vs ranked teams.

So any word on new conference alignment?

KU is like Lori in Walking Dead at this point. Constantly obsessed.....will never have.

Bill Self will never lose to Webber.

Question here: Let's say that the B1G expands to add Georgia Tech and Virginia as has been speculated. Let's also say that the SEC adds UNC and either Duke or Virginia Tech.

Suddenly, the Big 12 is in a position to add Miami, Clemson, Florida State, Duke/VT, and one other (Louisville/Cincy/Pitt/Syracuse...) to get to 16 and establish itself as the final super conference. However, that 13 year GOR could loom problematic.

Do you think the conference would restructure the GOR in order to add those schools? It doesn't seem like those schools would have a ton of leverage, but FSU, Clemson, Duke, and ND could maybe do something completely unforseen like working with the PAC 12 to become an eastern pod.

The conference could put Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, and Washington State into one pod, the for California schools in one pod, ASU, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah into one, and the eastern schools into the fourth.

If the ACC were to basically be picked apart to the point where there are no viable football programs (as you seem to be speculating here) then the Big 12 would definitely restructure their GOR to add 4-6 more schools.

The travel for some of these schools has already become an issue so I would think the PAC 12 reaching all the way to the east coast for teams, regardless of how often they may play each other, seems far fetched.

It's important to remember that the only reason the Big 12 got $20M/yr is because they offer 9 conference games. Conference games are paid a huge premium by networks due to the ratings differential they bring. By being the only league at 9 games, the Big 12 gets 12% more dollars than they would with an 8 game slate. Therefore any adds (FSU, GT, whoever) must allow the league to remain at 9 league games.


FSU won't want to join a league that hamstrings them with that. Because they want to keep the Fla-Mia games if they do go anywhere.

How do you think they would restructure the GOR? (The assumption here is that the new schools are unwilling to sign away their rights for 12 years.)

I don't think its completely up to the B12 or those ACC schools. They'll do whatever secures the best contract from ESPN/FOX. If those networks say we'll guarantee "X" as long as you join and sign the GoR, then that is what the terms will be. The GoR is as much for their protection as it is for the conference.

As long as Miami goes with them and they play every year, I don't see why they would care about the ninth conference game. Nothing really changed.

Besides, in a 16 team pod scenario, you wouldn't have to have nine conference games. To me, the perfect structure would be (I came up with this, but I'm sure others have as well):

Four pods of four teams. Each team has a primary rival in a different pod and a secondary rival in a third pod. Each team plays their own pod every year. They play other pods on a rotating basis. They also play their rival every year. This gets you to eight conference games except when your rival comes from the pod you are playing. In those years, you play your secondary rival for the eighth game.

You end up playing your pod and rival every year, your secondary rival two out of every three years, and other schools every third year while still only playing 8 conference games.

Of course it's up to those schools. If Fox stipulates that all Big 12 schools have to do "x", and "x" is a deal-breaker for those schools, they can choose not to join the Big 12.

Plus with expansion a conference championship game would be added, that would help offset any perceived revenue loss as well. If the 9th conference game is worth around 2-3 million, and you replace the 9th game with a championship game worth between 25-30 million, then there is no loss of revenue. Plus, with more teams, there are a greater number of conference games over all, which would increase revenue.

I'm not sure. I would assume that they would wait and see what a new negotiation with ESPN/FOX would bring them with the added value of those schools (assuming they bring value).

The media contracts so far for the Big 12 have not been diminished from schools leaving. I'm not saying this is a long term solution but the Big 12 did televise pretty much every single football game last year between ABC/FOX/ESPN... Additional schools to conferences don't necessarily jumpstart your television deal being that there are only a set amount time slots to show games.

I'm not sure the "new schools" will be in the position to be unwilling to sign their rights away. I'm not sure they would be against it in the first place. Either way if they have no where else to go to play competitive football they will come anyway. The Big 12 has to be given value from them though. Splitting a huge pot of $$ 10 ways is tough to move away from.

You're correct.

You're not understanding my point. Financially, the Big 12 gets a huge benefit from Fox by agreeing to that 9th conference game. If they lose that, in your scenario, their contract value declines. Since the Big 12 does not get the viewership that the SEC or Big 10 does, they have to compensate for that by offering Fox that extra game.


FSU & Miami and GT won't offset that by bringing in more viewers. If anything they are a net-neutral to Fox. We simply must retain the 9th conf game. If you were Fox would you pay the same for 8 SEC games as Big 12 games? Hell no. You will pay closer to it though if the SEC only offers 8 games plus an extra non-con vs. bum***** state.

I get what you're saying, but no other conference has had their teams agree to such a granting of rights.

If the Big 12 can survive at 10 for a while, I don't see why FSU, Clemson, Miami, Louisville, Duke/Va Tech, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, Cincy, NC State, Boston College, and Wake Forest couldn't keep it together for a while. They wouldn't have to last forever, just long enough for the GOR in the Big 12 to expire. At that time, Texas and Oklahoma would be free agents again, and TLN would be expiring.

If Texas were to jump ship, you would have a lot of schools in the Big 12 looking for seats, and they would be competing with more desirable schools from that Big East/ACC hybrid. I don't think Iowa State and Texas Tech want to compete for spots against Florida State and Duke.

Nice to see you guys still haven't figured what's going on yet...

I understand your point, but I think you're taking a shortsighted approach. You would be trading long-term stability for a bigger piece of pie in the short term. By the time you factor in a CCG, the gap in the short term gets even smaller.

As it sits, you can look at the conference schedule for the next decade, and there is literally only one game per year that you can expect with any degree of certainty to have national appeal. That is OU/Texas. (Frankly, that game has been a turd most years.) Just adding Florida State would immediately triple the number of games with national appeal.

The Big 12, in my scenario, could be fat and happy for 12 years, or they can be simply full and secure for decades.

All I'm saying is, Fox is going to determine what we do either way. There's a myth out there that "Bevo" controls the conference. Untrue. Fox does.

Partially true. There is more inventory out there but there is also incremental mouths to feed on the margin. If the adds don't generate more revenue (or the worst situation: they actually take).....then there's no point. The Big 12 - Fox actually - determined Louisville was a net taker. They determined WVU was net neutral. So imagine the surprise when the Big 12 schools wanted Louisville but got WVU. Miraclulous, I tell ya!

Correct, but that really wasn't your scenario. In your scenario, the ACC is basically falling apart, it would not be unreasonable to assume ESPN would revisit the value of that contract if the schools you mentioned left. Those schools that have value NEED a new partner to ensure competitive strength. One thing doesn't happen in a vacuum.

FOX is the main force behind this. They are the ones not in the SE market, so the value is there for them. If they are willing to pony up more cash and alter the deal, that's what drives everything, otherwise the incentive for the B12 to expand is not there.

The GoR is not going to be the deal breaker in this scenario. Three of the four major conferences have GoRs, its not like it is some unknown entity. The B12 negotiates with prospective new members, but the B12 itself is guided by the networks as to what maximizes their potential contract. Its not rocket science.

True. And there's also confusion as to what the GOR is. It's not something Kansas and TCU "forced" on Texas to handcuff them from leaving. It's what Fox forced on Texas to handcuff them from leaving.

Nobody has a GOR like the Big 12.

Of course not, all the conferences are structured differently. But, they are all geared towards securing the highest contract they can make with the various networks. We don't have a B12 Network, so our GoR is going to function differently than the B1G or PAC. It doesn't mean they don't accomplish the same thing.

It does, and it doesn't. I mean, no other conference's teams have their hands tied the way the Big 12 members do. What might have been an easy sell to Iowa State, Baylor, Texas Tech (leaving out local teams to avoid derailing the topic), etc. isn't going to be so easy when it comes to Florida State, Duke, etc.

Your mistake is that they are not "selling" anything to those schools. The B12 has a certain business model. You either want to participate or you don't. We're not recruiting. The extra payout isn't that much more by expanding. We make more than the ACC. You get to keep your 3rd Tier rights to sell as you please. You either find that attractive or you don't. Its not like we're competing against the other conferences. They are in a position to offer a more for a variety of factors, but financially, there's not much difference.

You don't look to join a country club but then demand they change their benefits before you do. They are the potential applicants, not the other way around.

That's the entire premise of the question; do you re-evaluate the GOR in order to attract new members.

Your country club analogy isn't really accurate. If other, more exclusive country clubs are expanding and driving lesser clubs out of business while yours has been bleeding members, you might drop the initial membership fee in order to attract potential members.

It comes down to the fact that the Big 12 is strong today, but they are very vulnerable when the GOR expires because they haven't done anything to make themselves more attractive to the anchor members.

The Longhorn Network contract expires shortly before the GOR. At the moment, it doesn't look like ESPN would have any reason to renew that money pit. Suddenly, nothing is keeping Texas from bolting to the PAC.

I have a tough time believing Texas remains in the conference long term unless some big programs join the fold. Right now, the only team in the conference Texas cares about having on the schedule is Oklahoma, and Oklahoma would probably move with Texas, anyway.

The Big 12 is in a pretty good spot if the ACC gets raided, but time is on the side of the "orphans" in that scenario. If they can wait out the Big 12 GOR, all bets are off.

Texas doesn't want to leave. That's the biggest flaw. They want to remain "Texas centric". They don't want to go to some far off coast to play, they don't need to. As long as Texas makes equivalent money, they aren't looking to go somewhere else.

I know everyone thinks Texas wants to leave, but they really gain very little by doing so. The PAC 10 is now the PAC 12, and there is a strong voting bloc AGAINST expansion. CU, Utah, and the Arizona schools don't want their access to California diminished, which under most expansion scenarios, happens. The PAC would have to do something really radical, like got to 20, in order to break up that voting bloc.

Other schools are not going to dictate the terms, at least not on their own. They might go through the networks and say we'll come if these are the terms. Then it would be up to the networks to put the necessary pressure on the conference, if they felt like it was beneficial. My point it, its not up to the schools, and there is nothing inherently dissatisfying about the GoR issue.

What most potential schools have hesitancy about is being on the far end of a Texas based conference. They're concerned about scheduling. They're concerned about "who comes with". The GoR is not a major factor here. Their desire to remain a eastern centric conference is.

If Texas and Oklahoma want into the PAC (sans LHN) it's a fait accompli.

Texas would have a ton to gain in the PAC versus the Big 12 in it's current form. Being in a conference with UCLA, USC, Oregon, etc. is much more appealing than the current marriage of convenience both athletically and academically.

From the WVU Board (Atomic Noodle):

I'm still waiting for the Big 12 to collapse and for Kansas to be relegated to the Mountain West. Surely this is coming. Any day now, Mizzou fan told me so. It must be true.

How many Texas fans have you talked to? I have yet to meet one that wants to goto the PAC and/or has heard information that leads them to believe UT does either.

Also this from MHver3:

UNC? Awesome well never make the tournament now.

It's their imagination. In their minds, the Big 12 is going to collapse any day now, KU will be screwed playing half empty home games vs. Colorado State and Wyoming. Mizzou will win 9 football games in the SEC and contend for the League in basketball. This will happen. (Any day now)

Go ahead and produce a quote.

About 1000 of them on their message board. The realignment thread has a couple million views. Most of them want the SEC if they move. Virtually none of them give a shit about the Big 12. It's not that they have anything against the Big 12, but there is zero loyalty.

A lot of them want to go independent.

Their home football schedule for next year is terrible, and they're pretty pissed about it. Their best game is Oklahoma State.

Funny, I don't get that vibe, and its not what the UT administration has said either. They like that they're fans can drive to most of their games. They like keeping Texas football in Texas. They like being the king of their own conference. Funny what (or who) each reads into these posts, but most of the fans I see don't want to go somewhere else unless forced to. If forced to, they prefer the SEC, then the B1G, then the PAC. But, most do not want to go somewhere else. When Dodds was interviewed, he said most of the alumni he converses with did not want to leave either and that they like the locality of the conference.

I'll trust what the actual fans say over the words of a commissioner who just signed a GOR if I want to find what the fans are actually thinking.

As an aside, DeLoss is currently the second most hated man in Texas behind Mack.