The longer this takes to play out the better ISU will be........your impatience not withstanding. Calm down.
*****The Super, Mega, Huge Big 12 Expansion Thread*****
- Thread starter CloneFan4
- Start date
- Status
Agree. All those schools saying they want to be in the B1G or the Pac-?? because of revenue sharing is complete hypocrisy. They were constantly voting against revenue sharing. Then got PO'd when it continued to flow in UT's favor. Remember that it was aTm who was insisting on taking the exit money from the Forgotten Five. Greedy bastards have always been about $$$$$. The revenue sharing argument is BS.
So somehow equal revenue sharing is "whack" in the Big 12, but it was one of the primary reasons why they joined the Big 10?
My point stands - Nebraska is nothing but a noisy hypocrite that helped create the "Texas monster" all the while hoping to be the "Nebraska monster" and bailed out and left everyone else to clean up the mess when first they didn't become the monster and second the one that became the monster grew out of control.
When did the Big 12 adapt equal revenue sharing? Thanks for making point...
What facts are you looking at? The only "facts" we have in all of this are official statements made by the conferences and the schools AD's.
Please continue to chime in your input keeps me calm through all of this.....
The lack of any official response by the forgotten five has got me thinking. RebeccaCy's thread from a few days ago implied some of this too. Conjecture of course; I have no inside knowledge. If the OU/OSU, UT/TT exit happens the forgotten five do not go to the Big East. The Big East teams interested in moving up join us in the B12. We keep the exit fees, TV contracts stay in place (or modified, at least they are not completely scrapped), Bowl Alliances and BCS remain intact. People have been throwing names of teams out there Houston, Pitt, Cinci, Louisville, and Memphis, etc. Instead of having B12 North/South we will now have a B12 with an East/West. Just a thought.
Last edited:
As much as I'd like that scenario, if the Pac goes to 16, it'll set off a chain reaction of super conferences forming. In which case certain members of the Big East & faithful five will be picked apart.
Why does a "chain reaction" of super conferences even need to start? SEC would be just fine with 14 members, if the Pac went to 16, i see no reason why anyone else would even need to move except to replace the SEC's 14th. In that respect, it would end with the big east team gone, them merging with us to form a new big 12 seems like a nice fairly respectable 5th conference. Just my thought anyway.
EDIT: Also, if every other conference held off on jumping to 16, the Pac could look kind of silly being the only superconference and all the others can watch them eat each other alive from the inside. USC, Texas and OU all pulling for "their" share.
EDIT: Also, if every other conference held off on jumping to 16, the Pac could look kind of silly being the only superconference and all the others can watch them eat each other alive from the inside. USC, Texas and OU all pulling for "their" share.
I hope you're right. Perhaps the other conferences will take a wait see approach in case managing 16 teams is an epic fail.
In other news, Dan Beebe will apparently be gracing Iowa State's campus with his presence next Tuesday. Should be interesting to see if anything comes out of this.
Kevin Haskin: Beebe makes rounds | CJOnline.com
Kevin Haskin: Beebe makes rounds | CJOnline.com
They recently voted to share Tier 2 money equally. And Texas is now publicly stating they want Tier 1 shared as well. This puts the onus on OU who is saying now that they want revenues split equally and is one of the reasons they give for going to the Pac-??.
Nebraska and aTm are on record as well saying the reasons for leaving the conference are because they want equal sharing of revenue.
Yet they have consistently voted against equal revenue sharing.
So as he said, look at their actions. Their previous actions do not back up their words they express today.
And remember that aTm was the one that took the Forgotten Five's share of Exit fees from kNu and the Buffs.
saying versus doing?
first of all, we have the fact(s) that OU, NU, TAMU, and Texas all wanted
-from the very beginning- of the Big XII unequal revenue sharing. And they
got it. AND they all -continued- to vote to keep that "revenue model"
-All- four of them had their eyes set on being the heavyweight of the
conference. Only the "plan" they all aspired to -only worked out for Texas-
Obviously the other three did pretty well, it's just that Texas succeeded
so extravagantly, where-as the other three were perceived to have been
relegated to a middle of the road power position. Something they were NOT
used to, and did not intend to put up with quietly.
As opposed to what they said? NU -especially- was hypocrital in this regard,
saying as they walked out the door... that the inequality of the revenue of
sharing was something they had trouble with?? gimme a break! Dr. Tom is
SO F.O.S. on that.
There are PLENTY of examples of actions vs hot air in all of this.
Texas is no better or worse than the other 3 in this equation. The only
difference is that they (either by luck or design) were successful in becoming
the "bully of the conference" that all four schools originally hoped to become.
Their success, -not their ambition- is what makes them fair game for criticism
in the press, -and here as well-.
m.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
first of all, we have the fact(s) that OU, NU, TAMU, and Texas all wanted
-from the very beginning- of the Big XII unequal revenue sharing. And they
got it. AND they all -continued- to vote to keep that "revenue model"
-All- four of them had their eyes set on being the heavyweight of the
conference. Only the "plan" they all aspired to -only worked out for Texas-
Obviously the other three did pretty well, it's just that Texas succeeded
so extravagantly, where-as the other three were perceived to have been
relegated to a middle of the road power position. Something they were NOT
used to, and did not intend to put up with quietly.
As opposed to what they said? NU -especially- was hypocrital in this regard,
saying as they walked out the door... that the inequality of the revenue of
sharing was something they had trouble with?? gimme a break! Dr. Tom is
SO F.O.S. on that.
There are PLENTY of examples of actions vs hot air in all of this.
Texas is no better or worse than the other 3 in this equation. The only
difference is that they (either by luck or design) were successful in becoming
the "bully of the conference" that all four schools originally hoped to become.
Their success, -not their ambition- is what makes them fair game for criticism
in the press, -and here as well-.
m.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course it's all about $. What the teams voted for or against years ago doesn't change that nowadays they see they can get more $ by moving to conferences that have revenue sharing.
When it gets down to brass tax these are businesses. Don't be shocked that they are acting like them.
Do you have a link showing that Nebraska, Colorado and aTm will be receiving more money than they would in the Big 12?? I am not sure that is the case.
FSU seems to already be looking around. If the PAC goes to 16 that's probably because they just took 4 teams from the Big 12. The SEC could go to 16 in a hurry. MU, FSU, NC State, WV, just to name a few. Then the ACC and the Big 10 grabs who they want from the Big East and the Big 12 because they don't want to be left with the leftovers. It's a scary thought but it looks like the PAC and SEC are going over 12 and why would go over 12 unless you plan on going to 16? If they do go over 12 does the Big 10 and ACC feel pressure to get who they want? A lot of stuff up in the air.
- Status