Pollard speaks for Big 12 ADs, others quiet

**ketelmeister** · 09-27-2011, 09:54 PM

Check out this ESPN article. JP is the spokesperson and I get the feeling the meetings are very productive.

Big 12 athletic directors meet, are committed to future stability of conference - ESPN

**illinoiscyclone** · 09-27-2011, 10:12 PM

nice to see a positive article for once.

I dont like how the other committee mentioned only had 4 schools involved though.

**Sloup** · 09-27-2011, 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by illinoiscyclone

nice to see a positive article for once.

I dont like how the other committee mentioned only had 4 schools involved though.

It includes us. Pollard isn't going to let us down. If it didn't include us, I'd be more suspicious.

**BCClone** · 09-27-2011, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by illinoiscyclone

nice to see a positive article for once.

I dont like how the other committee mentioned only had 4 schools involved though.

If you had all the schools, it wouldn't be a committee. A committee is supposed to be a smaller group so it can move faster and make recs to the whole group.

My biggest concern is that mizzou is no longer leading this group. Are they telling us something by taking a step back?

**rbrook** · 09-27-2011, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by illinoiscyclone

nice to see a positive article for once.

I dont like how the other committee mentioned only had 4 schools involved though.

I think it's perfect. Two of the haves and two of the have-nots. Good perspective.

**Topshelf** · 09-27-2011, 10:22 PM

I think 9, 10, 12, and 16 is to show the best size of conferences.... 9, 10 (where we are currently (with A & M) and where we will be next year (without A & M). I think 12 because we used to be prior to the mess and 16 for the super conferences. I think he is also giving a little slap to the SEC and PAC-12 on wanting to be a 13 or 14 team conference... This way, if we take one or none, it looks like part of the plan. Same is said if we go for 12. If the conferences become a race to 16, they can say they were planning for that too. I don't think this will move very fast, again that's why 9 is an ok number.

I really have no idea, just wanted to put something out there.

**ketelmeister** · 09-27-2011, 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by Topshelf

I think 9, 10, 12, and 16 is to show the best size of conferences.... 9, 10 (where we are currently (with A & M) and where we will be next year (without A & M). I think 12 because we used to be prior to the mess and 16 for the super conferences. I think he is also giving a little slap to the SEC and PAC-12 on wanting to be a 13 or 14 team conference... This way, if we take one or none, it looks like part of the plan. Same is said if we go for 12. If the conferences become a race to 16, they can say they were planning for that too. I don't think this will move very fast, again that's why 9 is an ok number.

I really have no idea, just wanted to put something out there.

He put it out there because there are lots of choices when this is all done. With the Big East, MWC teams, the Big 12 could easily have 16 great markets for the future.

**Cycsk** · 09-27-2011, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by ketelmeister

Check out this ESPN article. JP is the spokesperson and I get the feeling the meetings are very productive.

Big 12 athletic directors meet, are committed to future stability of conference - ESPN

It was brilliant to negotiate for a 6 year yielding of TV revenue rights to the Big 12 so that the Big 12 keeps the revenue even if a team leaves. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. I can't believe they all agreed to that. It would suggest that Missouri and Oklahoma have given up plans to leave in the near future (or that their plans are going to be very expensive).

**alarson** · 09-27-2011, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by Cycsk

It was brilliant to negotiate for a 6 year yielding of TV revenue rights to the Big 12 so that the Big 12 keeps the revenue even if a team leaves. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. I can't believe they all agreed to that. It would suggest that Missouri and Oklahoma have given up plans to leave in the near future (or that their plans are going to be very expensive).

Im not sure about that. It ties the hands of 'the rest' a lot more than it does the main instigators remaining, OU and TX. Plus, it only really has much of an effect for 4 years. At that point it wouldnt be inconceivable to see someone say 'we intend to leave in 2017, at the end of the 6 year commitment'

**isukendall** · 09-27-2011, 11:51 PM

I think it says alot that JP was chosen (or volunteered) as the spokesman or chairman in this situation. While we haven't heard a lot from him previously, this is the first news he has really been involved in, and is great news. Makes me feel way better about ISU's place in all of this.

I also like the idea of two haves and two have nots. I think we're on track for good things here.

**dahliaclone** · 09-28-2011, 12:14 AM

Originally Posted by illinoiscyclone

nice to see a positive article for once.

I dont like how the other committee mentioned only had 4 schools involved though.

I find it interesting that the Big 12 consists of five states: Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and Missouri. Anyone else notice that the only state not on that committee is Missouri? Probably means nothing but it caught my attention nonetheless.

**Trice** · 09-28-2011, 06:23 AM

Originally Posted by Cycsk

It was brilliant to negotiate for a 6 year yielding of TV revenue rights to the Big 12 so that the Big 12 keeps the revenue even if a team leaves. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. I can't believe they all agreed to that. It would suggest that Missouri and Oklahoma have given up plans to leave in the near future (or that their plans are going to be very expensive).

Except Missouri hasn't fully committed to this (refer to the dueling press conferences last week). And nobody's actually signed anything to this effect yet, at least that I've read. So it's great in theory but hasn't yet happened...meaning Mizzou could still bolt.

**SCarolinaCy** · 09-28-2011, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by ketelmeister

Check out this ESPN article. JP is the spokesperson and I get the feeling the meetings are very productive.

Big 12 athletic directors meet, are committed to future stability of conference - ESPN

I am afraid this/these meetings are the "media day" practises-like when the president is shown smiling, shaking hands and joking with White House visitors.

**Die4Cy** · 09-28-2011, 07:31 AM

I think the AD's realized they had a media problem--so many reporters invested in the notion of the Big 12's imminent demise that they were taking anything and everything out of context to push the idea--and they ultimately decided to allow one person to speak for the group to keep that stuff at a minimum. Pretty hard to play one person's words off of another person when there is only one person speaking at all.

**Cyclophile1** · 09-28-2011, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by Die4Cy

I think the AD's realized they had a media problem--so many reporters invested in the notion of the Big 12's imminent demise that they were taking anything and everything out of context to push the idea--and they ultimately decided to allow one person to speak for the group to keep that stuff at a minimum. Pretty hard to play one person's words off of another person when there is only one person speaking at all.

And it is clear that the sole voice could NOT be Deloss Dodds. That was nice to see.