Big12/Pac10 Alliance a Boon for Both.

**cyowa** · 05-12-2010, 05:48 PM

If the attached link from an ATM blogger is viable, this would be an absolutely great thing for the Big 12, ISU included. I mean, "the largest media footprint for any athletic conference in the nation", is no small thing.

Sorry if this was posted previously.

Big 12/Pac-10 Alliance Could Be Boon For Both Conferences - I Am The 12th Man

**clonedude** · 05-12-2010, 06:00 PM

I would love that, however, what if NU and Mizzou bolt for the Big 10?

In that case, I guess both conferences would then have an equal number of teams, so it would work even better, correct?

So move Okie St from the South to the North division and then you have your 5 teams in each division.

**benjay** · 05-12-2010, 06:00 PM

Where did he get $30 mil per school? Is he just making crap up?

**cymonat** · 05-12-2010, 06:03 PM

$30 Mil would be huge. Isn't our entire budget somewhere in the 40s?

**Clonehomer** · 05-12-2010, 06:04 PM

I think that he overestimates the revenues from a Big12/Pac10 network. I don't see every school getting $30 mil, probably closer to $10-15. That's 22 teams that you are spreading the money around to. But still, if a network could even bring in that, it would help all programs immensely.

This week when Miller and Deace talked about this they brought up the problem of time zones. I don't understand how that's a problem. I thought that would be an advantage, especially in basketball. You can have a double header without starting games at 8:00 local by having the Big12 at 6:00 CST and the Pac10 at 6:00 PST. You can do the same with football by starting the Big12 at 11:00 CST and then have both leagues having games during the 2:30 CST/12:30 PST time slot and the Pac10 finishing with the later games. While you will still need multiple channels to get all teams on like the BTN, by staggering the schedule you can get by with no more channels than what the BTN uses.

**SCNCY** · 05-12-2010, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by cymonat

$30 Mil would be huge. Isn't our entire budget somewhere in the 40s?

The last number I saw was 38.5 mil. However, I am interested in where that number is coming from as well. I would assume the population west of the Mississippi would all be included, even in Idaho. They probably took the big 10 number, divided it by the population of their membership and used that as a base number.

**Clonehomer** · 05-12-2010, 06:13 PM

If I were Beebe, I'd be trying whatever I can to rush this through. If he can get this done by this summer and tell Mizzou and Nebraska that they will get even a portion of what the Big10 is offering it may make it more difficult to jump ship.

**HandSanitizer** · 05-12-2010, 06:29 PM

If we got 15 million per year and we get on TV every game and kept our BCS status..........Then that is literally double what we are getting now in TV revenue and TV exposure. I seriously question the 30+ million, but would be really excited if we got more than 15+ million. This needs to happen.

I would guess it could be something like 3 Billion for 10 years divided by 20 or 22. That gives you around 15Mil per year which is in line with the SEC. I really have no idea what I am talking about though

**UNIGuy4Cy** · 05-12-2010, 07:02 PM

I think this is a better idea than going to the Big 10 as money would be higher and I think viewership would double that of the Big 10.

**ajk4st8** · 05-12-2010, 07:54 PM

I keep hoping that T Boone Pickens will realize that he loves the Big 12 and pony up all the money to start a Big 12 network.

**snowcraig2.0** · 05-12-2010, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by Clonehomer

I think that he overestimates the revenues from a Big12/Pac10 network. I don't see every school getting $30 mil, probably closer to $10-15. That's 22 teams that you are spreading the money around to. But still, if a network could even bring in that, it would help all programs immensely.

This week when Miller and Deace talked about this they brought up the problem of time zones. I don't understand how that's a problem. I thought that would be an advantage, especially in basketball. You can have a double header without starting games at 8:00 local by having the Big12 at 6:00 CST and the Pac10 at 6:00 PST. You can do the same with football by starting the Big12 at 11:00 CST and then have both leagues having games during the 2:30 CST/12:30 PST time slot and the Pac10 finishing with the later games. While you will still need multiple channels to get all teams on like the BTN, by staggering the schedule you can get by with no more channels than what the BTN uses.

Miller and Deace were way off with that one. Having 3 different time zones would actually be a huge advantage, as it would allow more windows for games.

**UNIGuy4Cy** · 05-12-2010, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by snowcraig2.0

Miller and Deace were way off with that one. Having 3 different time zones would actually be a huge advantage, as it would allow more windows for games.

+1 what a fun network to watch, if this happens does Mizzou and NU leave, I doubt it.

**CycloneErik** · 05-12-2010, 08:32 PM

I think the Pac-10 Alliance idea is a no-brainer. The time slots don't conflict, everybody has new markets, and neither conference has to pay up the whole network cost. I'm guessing neither one can afford it.

If I were Texas, this would sound huge. Being on TV in California possibly even more often...

**ripvdub** · 05-12-2010, 08:36 PM

We need to get something like this done. I'm not too worried if we lose Nebby or Mizzou, as long as we get a conference network before everything falls apart. I think the 3 different time zones would help as well. Neither conference has enough to have their own network at this point and make Big Ten kinda money, but combining forces would multiply the power of the channel.

**Chipper** · 05-12-2010, 08:51 PM

Playing devil's advocate here, but I understand the urge to do something in the wake of the likely Big X move. But wouldn't this keep us at the same level on the totem pole - just with new (possibly more) names above us?