Jump to content

Power 5 Breakaway?


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Sark said:

Nebraska and, to a greater extent, Texas A&M, would beg to differ. Both went elsewhere so they wouldn’t have to put up with it, and Mizzou ran for the hills, too. The situations are comparable.

What would they beg to differ about? They left the big 12 because the big 10 and the SEC are better conferences. No one has left the big 10 or the SEC. That's why Texas could get special treatment in a way that no SEC or big 10 team ever could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Sark said:

IU would be on the short end of an equitable television revenue division. 

So would the majority of the Big Ten outside of a few schools.  Ohio State and Michigan have to play someone other than Penn State.  The other teams are kind of hit or miss depending on the year they are having.  Nebraska is not the draw it used to be.  Michigan State and Wisconsin have been more recently, but they both have some long periods of suck in their history too.  Iowa moves the dial every now and then.  Northwestern does too, but they are one of the smallest alumni groups in the BIG.  Maryland does okay, but if you are going to blow up the BIG, they are a more natural fit in the south or east coast.  Everyone else is basically an afterthought.  Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue, Rutgers, Illinois are clubs that show promise from time to time.

The revenue split getting torn up would cause Ohio State and the Big Ten the same issues that the Big 12 had, teams looking for greener pastures elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have to side with Sark here.  Nebraska, Missouri, TAMU an Colorado all bailed because of the uneven distribution of funds and and control once the Big 8 took on the 4 TX schools.  The balance of power quickly shifted to TX (read UT) with the merger.  The conference FB playoff went from KC to Jerry World and the league office moved from KC to TX.

TAMU was tired of playing 2nd string to TX in the state and the control of UT in the new conference just accentuated this, thus the quick move to the SEC.  UN/L was quickly demoted from top power (with UOK) in the Big 8 to an also ran; they hated UT and the imbalance of power.  Missouri and Colorado were demoted from 2nd tier powers in the Big 8 to 3r/4th tier powers in the Big 12 (behind UT, the TX schools and UN/L and UOK).  UT had gathered all of the power, but was despised by all.  Living in Omaha at the time, I never understood the Big 8 ceding all the conference power  to UT as they should have held the guiding hand in the process.  They certainly lived to regret it.

UN/L, playing in the B10 West will never get that big Black Friday afternoon game (UOK) back ... UIA will never replace it ... Huskers took the money, but have suffered for it ... it remains to be seen if they recover their FB prowess and regather fan support.  Missouri (wanted a B10 seat really bad) and Colorado made the jump to gather more equal footing.  Missouri will probably never have the power in the SEC it garnished occasionally in the Big 8.  Colorado was lateral or it may even have improved it's stock.  TAMU made a good move.

Go Hoosiers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, snowling said:

Have to side with Sark here.  Nebraska, Missouri, TAMU an Colorado all bailed because of the uneven distribution of funds and and control once the Big 8 took on the 4 TX schools.  The balance of power quickly shifted to TX (read UT) with the merger.  The conference FB playoff went from KC to Jerry World and the league office moved from KC to TX.

TAMU was tired of playing 2nd string to TX in the state and the control of UT in the new conference just accentuated this, thus the quick move to the SEC.  UN/L was quickly demoted from top power (with UOK) in the Big 8 to an also ran; they hated UT and the imbalance of power.  Missouri and Colorado were demoted from 2nd tier powers in the Big 8 to 3r/4th tier powers in the Big 12 (behind UT, the TX schools and UN/L and UOK).  UT had gathered all of the power, but was despised by all.  Living in Omaha at the time, I never understood the Big 8 ceding all the conference power  to UT as they should have held the guiding hand in the process.  They certainly lived to regret it.

UN/L, playing in the B10 West will never get that big Black Friday afternoon game (UOK) back ... UIA will never replace it ... Huskers took the money, but have suffered for it ... it remains to be seen if they recover their FB prowess and regather fan support.  Missouri (wanted a B10 seat really bad) and Colorado made the jump to gather more equal footing.  Missouri will probably never have the power in the SEC it garnished occasionally in the Big 8.  Colorado was lateral or it may even have improved it's stock.  TAMU made a good move.

Go Hoosiers!

Damn, couldn't have said it better.  Great assessment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, snowling said:

Have to side with Sark here.  Nebraska, Missouri, TAMU an Colorado all bailed because of the uneven distribution of funds and and control once the Big 8 took on the 4 TX schools.  The balance of power quickly shifted to TX (read UT) with the merger.  The conference FB playoff went from KC to Jerry World and the league office moved from KC to TX.

TAMU was tired of playing 2nd string to TX in the state and the control of UT in the new conference just accentuated this, thus the quick move to the SEC.  UN/L was quickly demoted from top power (with UOK) in the Big 8 to an also ran; they hated UT and the imbalance of power.  Missouri and Colorado were demoted from 2nd tier powers in the Big 8 to 3r/4th tier powers in the Big 12 (behind UT, the TX schools and UN/L and UOK).  UT had gathered all of the power, but was despised by all.  Living in Omaha at the time, I never understood the Big 8 ceding all the conference power  to UT as they should have held the guiding hand in the process.  They certainly lived to regret it.

UN/L, playing in the B10 West will never get that big Black Friday afternoon game (UOK) back ... UIA will never replace it ... Huskers took the money, but have suffered for it ... it remains to be seen if they recover their FB prowess and regather fan support.  Missouri (wanted a B10 seat really bad) and Colorado made the jump to gather more equal footing.  Missouri will probably never have the power in the SEC it garnished occasionally in the Big 8.  Colorado was lateral or it may even have improved it's stock.  TAMU made a good move.

Go Hoosiers!

The thing you forgot in all that was the SWC crumbling...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sark said:

Been a few years, but didn’t the SWC and the Big 8 basically merge, with TCU, SMU and Rice not being invited? Later, TCU was brought in and, more recently, WVU was invited in, but UNL, A&M, Mizzou, and CU all scattered. Arkansas left the SWC several years earlier for the SEC. The B12 put several schools thru a beauty contest a few years ago (UCF, USF, Memphis, UC, SMU) and then Bob Bowlsby and David Boren pulled the plug on it. The common thread among current and former member schools is they all hate UT.

You forgot about Houston...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Sark said:

You’re right. Both Houston schools were booted when the SWC and the B8 came together, and UH was one of the other schools that tried to get into the B12 a year or two ago.

Houston is the one that really surprised me...the Cougars were dang good at bball, but they were also a fine football school.  They got left on the outside looking in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, snowling said:

Have to side with Sark here.  Nebraska, Missouri, TAMU an Colorado all bailed because of the uneven distribution of funds and and control once the Big 8 took on the 4 TX schools.  The balance of power quickly shifted to TX (read UT) with the merger.  The conference FB playoff went from KC to Jerry World and the league office moved from KC to TX.

TAMU was tired of playing 2nd string to TX in the state and the control of UT in the new conference just accentuated this, thus the quick move to the SEC.  UN/L was quickly demoted from top power (with UOK) in the Big 8 to an also ran; they hated UT and the imbalance of power.  Missouri and Colorado were demoted from 2nd tier powers in the Big 8 to 3r/4th tier powers in the Big 12 (behind UT, the TX schools and UN/L and UOK).  UT had gathered all of the power, but was despised by all.  Living in Omaha at the time, I never understood the Big 8 ceding all the conference power  to UT as they should have held the guiding hand in the process.  They certainly lived to regret it.

UN/L, playing in the B10 West will never get that big Black Friday afternoon game (UOK) back ... UIA will never replace it ... Huskers took the money, but have suffered for it ... it remains to be seen if they recover their FB prowess and regather fan support.  Missouri (wanted a B10 seat really bad) and Colorado made the jump to gather more equal footing.  Missouri will probably never have the power in the SEC it garnished occasionally in the Big 8.  Colorado was lateral or it may even have improved it's stock.  TAMU made a good move.

Go Hoosiers!

That kind of makes my point too though.  Texas acting the way it did diluted the Big 12.  They are now clearly a second tier conference.  The BIG, SEC, and ACC tend to be the big dogs.  Ohio State and whatever is left of the BIG would have to poach good teams from the other conferences to just maintain.  I do not see what happened to the Big 12 as a blueprint, I see it as a warning.  Texas has not been as good of a program since their competition left town either.

Nebraska's playing issues lately are not because they left the Big 12, they were having trouble before they left that conference.  They have the same issues as Indiana has had in basketball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sark said:

But it strengthened UT’s revenue, which was their goal. They didn’t like getting less than they felt they deserved, and the OSU’s of the world may end up feeling the same way someday. That would be bad news for IU.

This is all an academic exercise, but would they have had even stronger revenue if they were willing to share enough to keep their league stacked with (or attract) other teams that people wanted to watch?  That's the real question.

They got some more money and not much else from where I sit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sark said:

But it strengthened UT’s revenue, which was their goal. They didn’t like getting less than they felt they deserved, and the OSU’s of the world may end up feeling the same way someday. That would be bad news for IU.

None of these arguments support the idea that the Big 10 might do down this path. I don't know the politics of why UT was able to pull it off, but those dynamics do not exist within the Big 10.

It was unquestionably bad for the Big 12, so it stands to reason that the Big 10 will not go down that road. You could argue that it was good for UT, though time will tell if that will be true in the long run, but either way, I don't see any reason why a Big 10 school would try to do the same thing. My understanding of the situation (and I admittedly did not follow all that closely) is that Texas used the possibility of switching conferences to strengthen their hand with the rest of the Big 12. They were willing to leave the conference if they didn't get special treatment, and I don't think it was a bluff. If a Big 10 team tried to do that, the rest of the Big 10 would just let them walk - which would be a losing proposition for the school trying to pull a UT. I guess OSU could go to the SEC, though, again, they would just get a regular cut of the SEC pie, so why would that be more appealing to them than staying in the Big 10? I strongly suspect it would be less appealing. No way Michigan goes to the SEC, they are way too proud to associate with those people. I guess PSU could, but I don't see that ending well for them either. There's no one else that you can even pretend makes sense. So, who is that is going to pull a UT? The answer is that the Big 10 will not change - the lesser schools won't let it and the football powers don't have the hand to force it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I, as a clear power poster, go to the powers that be at HSN and demand that I be paid according to my posting ability, what would be the argument against?There is none! But, unfortunately for me, I don't have any power in the negotiations. What am I going to do if they decide to ignore my well reasoned and equitable argument? We all know no other site can offer me a better deal than I'm getting here, so why would HSN agree? 

My point is not that IU is worth the same as OSU, merely that OSU has no power to make IU vote for anything else. If I'm not mistaken (and I acknowledge, I might be mistaken) they would have to take a vote for such things, I don't know if it requires more than a mere majority, but where does even that come from? What schools are going to benefit from voting for anything other than equal money for all. I respect the argument that it's unjust - I'm not sure I agree, but it's a coherent argument - but, where does the power to do anything about it come from? OSU can't force us to vote against our interests. They aren't going to leave, so an ultimatum won't work. So the reality on the ground is that they can't change it. I wouldn't be so sure they even want to, but that's a whole other argument I don't care to dive into. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sark said:

If the B10 haves came together and demanded a larger cut of the conference revenues, based on an equitable formula of what each school generated, what would the argument be against that? That OSU, UM, PSU, UW, etc. are obligated to subsidize the other schools? That IU, PU, NU, UI, etc. are “owed” more than they generate? That might work to a point, but I wouldn’t count on their generosity. It’s the same argument that athletes have made about others profiting on their image, but they don’t. The big guys , just like star players on pro teams, could easily demand more. Reform may end their altruistic ways.

You seem to have forgotten about the Longhorn Network.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Sark said:

If the four or five most revenue laden schools push for a more equitable division of funds, the little guys are the ones who lack the leverage. For all of the “it will never happen” group, many of the same things were said before conferences aligned and then realigned. If the P5 schools can do it, four or five B10 schools could, and the smaller guys without the leverage would probably have to just take less. 
 

Good discussion.

What leverage do they have? What will they do if the rest say no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...