From Lincoln

**brianhos** · 06-07-2010, 10:10 AM

What about the big10 taking ISU, MU, Neb, KSU, and KU.

That gives them 16 teams, they could do east/west with Minny, Iowa, and Ill/Wisc joining the west. Would make a pretty sweet conference. Football right now might be stronger in the east, but Bball would be owned by the west.

**jdoggivjc** · 06-07-2010, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by CloneInHawkCountry

How dare they do what is best each and every member of the Big11. I'm glad we are fotunate enough to have Texas know what is best for ISU and the whole confrence. This is why Texas should get the additional money they do.

Texas isn't doing what's best for ISU and the rest of the Big 12 conference - they're doing what's best for Texas. If some or all of the remaining Big 12 schools benefit in the process, great. But Texas isn't looking out for anyone else but #1 (the only reason why they're looking out for A&M and TT at all is because of legislative pressure, but in the end they're more riding Texas' coattails).

I may hate Texas for what they're doing, but I don't blame them - they have the power to do what's in the best interest of their future, and they have practically the entire country dancing to their tune (and the tune has a lot of twangy guitar to it).

**jdoggivjc** · 06-07-2010, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by brianhos

What about the big10 taking ISU, MU, Neb, KSU, and KU.

That gives them 16 teams, they could do east/west with Minny, Iowa, and Ill/Wisc joining the west. Would make a pretty sweet conference. Football right now might be stronger in the east, but Bball would be owned by the west.

Big 10 won't take K-State - they're a non-AAU, tier 3 school. Hardly fits the conference's academic profile that they want to maintain after they are done expanding, and the Big 10 has more than enough schools that want in to where they don't have to settle for K-State.

**IowaCYcler** · 06-07-2010, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by jdoggivjc

Texas isn't doing what's best for ISU and the rest of the Big 12 conference - they're doing what's best for Texas. If some or all of the remaining Big 12 schools benefit in the process, great. But Texas isn't looking out for anyone else but #1 (the only reason why they're looking out for A&M and TT at all is because of legislative pressure, but in the end they're more riding Texas' coattails).

I may hate Texas for what they're doing, but I don't blame them - they have the power to do what's in the best interest of their future, and they have practically the entire country dancing to their tune (and the tune has a lot of twangy guitar to it).

Really? Read the post I was replying to. Sorry if the blatent SARCASM was missed.

**jbhtexas** · 06-07-2010, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by DaddyMac

What keeps Mizzou or NU from saying "oh yeah, we're committed", then in 6 months when the Big 10 calls, they go ahead and bolt? Honor? Integrity? (

)

I would guess a signed contract with a nasty buyout clause. If there is some kind of new big $$$ TV deal lined up (as has been rumored), the network(s) that are going to carry it will want assurance by way of contract that the schools are going to be around for awhile. Also, I would guess that the Pac-10 would want signed, legally binding assurances of participation before entering into any alliance/full merger with the Big 12.

The strength in the ultimatum must be the supposed offer from the Pac-10 to six Big 12 schools. If NU doesn't commit, the six teams leave and NU doesn't have a conference left (unless they do have guarantee from the Big Ten). That ultimatum would be given some strength by the rumors today that the Big Ten is really after only ND, and that ND is seriously considering.

IMO, this all hinges on NU. If MU leaves and NU stays, the "six" would probably stick around and invite another team.

**DaddyMac** · 06-07-2010, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by jbhtexas

I would guess a signed contract with a nasty buyout clause. If there is some kind of new big $$$ TV deal lined up (as has been rumored), the network(s) that are going to carry it will want assurance by way of contract that the schools are going to be around for awhile. Also, I would guess that the Pac-10 would want signed, legally binding assurances of participation before entering into any alliance/full merger with the Big 12.

The strength in the ultimatum must be the supposed offer from the Pac-10 to six Big 12 schools. If NU doesn't commit, the six teams leave and NU doesn't have a conference left (unless they do have guarantee from the Big Ten). That ultimatum would be given some strength by the rumors today that the Big Ten is really after only ND, and that ND is seriously considering.

IMO, this all hinges on NU. If MU leaves and NU stays, the "six" would probably stick around and invite another team.

Yeah - but Beebe said rather plainly last week that the new TV wouldn't even begin negiotiations until next spring (not that it couldn't be accelerated - has to be in fact).

So NU/Mizzou is supposed to commit to an unknown financial future?

Sorry - my bad. Forgot Beebe was running this show.

**UNIGuy4Cy** · 06-07-2010, 10:32 AM

How would a Longhorn Network help ISU? I may have missed that information being off CF for several days.

**jbhtexas** · 06-07-2010, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by DaddyMac

Yeah - but Beebe said rather plainly last week that the new TV wouldn't even begin negiotiations until next spring (not that it couldn't be accelerated - has to be in fact).

So NU/Mizzou is supposed to commit to an unknown financial future?

Sorry - my bad. Forgot Beebe was running this show.

Given the recent TV deal signed by the ACC, and given the strength of the Big 12 in FB, MBB, WBB, VB, baseball, etc., it seems a pretty sure bet that the Big 12 will get a nice TV deal, and it was rumored that some tentative proposals have been submitted to the Big 12. So, NU has a pretty good idea of what they are going to get by staying with the Big 12. They have to weigh that against their chances of getting a Big Ten bid.

Also, it wasn't Beebe who gave the ultimatum to MU/NU. It was the Big 12 directors. Given that, I'm guessing it has some bite behind it.

**Stormin** · 06-07-2010, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by jbhtexas

I would guess a signed contract with a nasty buyout clause. If there is some kind of new big $$$ TV deal lined up (as has been rumored), the network(s) that are going to carry it will want assurance by way of contract that the schools are going to be around for awhile. Also, I would guess that the Pac-10 would want signed, legally binding assurances of participation before entering into any alliance/full merger with the Big 12.

The strength in the ultimatum must be the supposed offer from the Pac-10 to six Big 12 schools. If NU doesn't commit, the six teams leave and NU doesn't have a conference left (unless they do have guarantee from the Big Ten). That ultimatum would be given some strength by the rumors today that the Big Ten is really after only ND, and that ND is seriously considering.

IMO, this all hinges on NU. If MU leaves and NU stays, the "six" would probably stick around and invite another team.

I think a lot of this is trying to get ND to commit as well. The Big Ten is using Nebraska and Mizzou to get ND to commit. Think about it. If all there is left are a few superconferences will ND really be as relevant as they think? They have been very mediocre lately.

If ND commits, there is no way that the Big Ten will take on Nebraska and Mizzou and split up those dollars.

I know the Pac-10 requires a unanimous vote of conference members. What is the policy of the Big Ten?

**DaddyMac** · 06-07-2010, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by jbhtexas

Given the recent TV deal signed by the ACC, and given the strength of the Big 12 in FB, MBB, WBB, VB, baseball, etc., it seems a pretty sure bet that the Big 12 will get a nice TV deal, and it was rumored that some tentative proposals have been submitted to the Big 12. So, NU has a pretty good idea of what they are going to get by staying with the Big 12. They have to weigh that against their chances of getting a Big Ten bid.

Also, it wasn't Beebe who gave the ultimatum to MU/NU. It was the Big 12 directors. Given that, I'm guessing it has some bite behind it.

My comment about Beebe was about "waiting" to redo the tv deal. IMO, it can't wait. I'm sure he's privy to this ultimatum as much as anyone. He probably needs it more.

My point being, I think NU in particular has to know what is in store for them from a Big XII tv deal. At this point we have to presume that info has been given from the Big 10 on the dollars. For them, it's just the comparision. And as I said, you can't expect them to turn down what will still most assuredly be more money from the Big 10, to hope for something decent from the Big XII.

**DaddyMac** · 06-07-2010, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by Stormin

I think a lot of this is trying to get ND to commit as well. The Big Ten is using Nebraska and Mizzou to get ND to commit. Think about it. If all there is left are a few superconferences will ND really be as relevant as they think? They have been very mediocre lately.

If ND commits, there is no way that the Big Ten will take on Nebraska and Mizzou and split up those dollars.

I know the Pac-10 requires a unanimous vote of conference members. What is the policy of the Big Ten?

"Money above all."

Sorry, that's the league motto

(I don't know. I'm thinking unanimous, but not sure)

**LutherClone** · 06-07-2010, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by brianhos

What about the big10 taking ISU, MU, Neb, KSU, and KU.

That gives them 16 teams, they could do east/west with Minny, Iowa, and Ill/Wisc joining the west. Would make a pretty sweet conference. Football right now might be stronger in the east, but Bball would be owned by the west.

Tier III, no way, no how.

**jbhtexas** · 06-07-2010, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by DaddyMac

And as I said, you can't expect them to turn down what will still most assuredly be more money from the Big 10, to hope for something decent from the Big XII.

I wouldn't expect NU to turn down assured money from the Big Ten for likely money from the Big 12. However, the fact that NU didn't declare their intentions at the Big 12 meeting last week indicates to me that they don't have assured money from the Big Ten, and they are trying to buy time to get some kind of commitment from the Big Ten.

I see NU's decision as being one between likely money from the Big 12 versus a possible invite/money from the Big Ten. Could be wrong...

**swarthmoreCY** · 06-07-2010, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by jbhtexas

I see NU's decision as being one between likely money from the Big 12 versus a possible invite/money from the Big Ten. Could be wrong...

...but 99% likely to be spot on. I am not why this is not clear to everyone.

**DaddyMac** · 06-07-2010, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by jbhtexas

I wouldn't expect NU to turn down assured money from the Big Ten for likely money from the Big 12. However, the fact that NU didn't declare their intentions at the Big 12 meeting last week indicates to me that they don't have assured money from the Big Ten, and they are trying to buy time to get some kind of commitment from the Big Ten.

I see NU's decision as being one between likely money from the Big 12 versus a possible invite/money from the Big Ten. Could be wrong...

Right, but I mean from the standpoint of a commitment this Friday.

I have to admit, last week it seemed like NU was holding all the cards. This week they seem to be a bit behind the 8 ball.

I don't think they need to have equal money coming from the Big XII that they would get from the Big 10, but certainly it has to be ballpark.

Once again, it would seem that Notre Dame is the lynch-pin in all this. ND goes to the Big 10, they stop at 12. No place for Mizzou and NU to go. They don't break up the north, Texas is apt to stay put since they run the Big XII anyway. Rest of Texas and Oklahoma stays put. Maybe something still happens in the Pac 10 (read Colorado), but to my mind you bring in potentially Utah.

Funny... this could be nuclear winter for ISU, or merely a firecracker.