My first Re-alignement thread

**snowcraig2.0** · 05-13-2010, 04:18 PM

A simple question: Which of the following two scenarios would you rather have?

1. Go to the Big 10.

2. Be a part of the Big 12 / Pac 10 Alliance, with all of the original members of the Big 12, and a Pac 10 that includes Utah and BYU, where all of the members share revenue equally , maybe to the tune of 15-20 million a piece.

Personally, I am more leaning towards option 2.

**Mr Janny** · 05-13-2010, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by snowcraig2.0

A simple question which of the following two scenarios would you rather have?

1. Go to the Big 10.

2. Be a part of the Big 12 / Pac 10 Alliance, with all of the original members of the Big 12, and a Pac 10 that includes Utah and BYU, where all of the members share revenue equally , maybe to the tune of 15-20 million a piece.

Personally, I am more leaning towards option 2.

Do you want to add a poll?

**snowcraig2.0** · 05-13-2010, 04:19 PM

Yeah, could you do that?

**The_Architect** · 05-13-2010, 04:21 PM

I say #2 because with recruiting although we basically get table scraps from Texas anyways, IMO if we joined the Big 10 we lose what (little) recruiting influence we have there.

**SCNCY** · 05-13-2010, 04:23 PM

Given that there are no specifics on the big 12 pac 10 deal. But there is no guarantee that there will be equal revenue sharing. This new network could be split 50/50 between the big 12 and pac 10. After that initial cut, it's up to the conferences to decide how to divide the money up to the conference. Just something to think about.

**CyFever** · 05-13-2010, 04:24 PM

Ideal situation: Nebby/Mizzou stay in the Big XII. Big XII partners with Pac 10 in a TV deal with equal revenue sharing. BTN folds costing each school $59M.

Next best: Nebby/Mizzou/ISU/Pitt(?) join Big 11.

Most likely at this point: Nebby/Mizzou join Big 11. Big XII adds two MAC/WAC schools. Beebe screws up the Pac 10 alliance.