ChiefsPlanet
Page 16 of 138 « First 612131415 16 171819202666116 Last »
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Funny Stuff New Conference re-alignment thread (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=249847)

Mosbonian 09-23-2011 12:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by alnorth (Post 7935102)
I wouldn't, even if the SEC held a press conference to announce they are ready to accept. That is not to say Mizzou shouldn't play poker, if they have some cards to play to make sure Tier 1/2 is shared, force the Big 12 to put up rules on showing tier 3 conference games and make sure the LHN doesn't show high school, then by all means, play those cards. More power to MU if they can get those reforms.

However, if we all get that, then there's not much of a reason, other than emotion, to leave the conference for the SEC. The Big 12 TV contracts are temporarily low and will be comparable to everyone else in a few years. Tier 3 money isn't enough to complain about and the SEC also does not share Tier 3 money anyway, so you gain nothing there. "stability" is an artificial fake complaint since you can force stability if everyone really wants it, and once we get a new contract in 2015 there wont be any financial reason to leave anyway.

All you really get is long pain-in-the-ass road trips, and a smaller chance of ever making it into a BCS bowl. Its a somewhat more realistic option for Texas schools due to geography and culture.
I know you put me on ignore, but I'm answering this to the general populace, mostly because you are making assumptions that aren't necessarily true.

The Big 12 contracts are low because they need to be renegotiated and will be when they expire. But yours, and others, assumptions that they will surpass the PAC 12, SEC or Big 10 is at best, childlike.

Why would anyone pay exhorbitant money for a conference that has shown horrid instability, is weighted HEAVILY towards 2 teams at best, and has not shown it's drawing power outside the midwest?

And, you are assuming that Texas and OU will even stay around for the new contract. They aren't going to agree to lock themselves in to a contract that ties their hands....their egos are too large.

I'm betting that if UT and OU make any concessions to keep the B12 intact they will only be to the extent that they are minor.

RustShack 09-23-2011 12:11 PM
You realize they have already agreed to this six year deal.. right?

RustShack 09-23-2011 12:12 PM
Meaning Oklahoma and Texas are staying around for the new contract. You might not be very good at math, but five years does come before six years.

RustShack 09-23-2011 12:13 PM
The Big12 is also going to reach out to aTm about returning to this more stable conference before adding other schools, but aTm is expected to say no thanks.

RustShack 09-23-2011 12:18 PM
johnehoover John E. Hoover by GSwaim



Our source says Boren wanted either BYU, TCU or Air Force added to Big 12 to get 10, or all 3 for 12. That doesn't change. #Sooners

patteeu 09-23-2011 12:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosbonian (Post 7935132)
I know you put me on ignore, but I'm answering this to the general populace, mostly because you are making assumptions that aren't necessarily true.

The Big 12 contracts are low because they need to be renegotiated and will be when they expire. But yours, and others, assumptions that they will surpass the PAC 12, SEC or Big 10 is at best, childlike.

Why would anyone pay exhorbitant money for a conference that has shown horrid instability, is weighted HEAVILY towards 2 teams at best, and has not shown it's drawing power outside the midwest?

And, you are assuming that Texas and OU will even stay around for the new contract. They aren't going to agree to lock themselves in to a contract that ties their hands....their egos are too large.

I'm betting that if UT and OU make any concessions to keep the B12 intact they will only be to the extent that they are minor.
I think it's likely that a re-stabilized Big 12 would be able to get the big contract that alnorth envisions because they're still a consistently good football conference and they still have a presence in a lot of pretty good college football markets. I don't see why stability would be a concern as any risk that the conference could implode could easily be anticipated by the contract to protect the networks.

If the conference re-stabilizes like alnorth envisions, UT and OU would have no choice but to stick around. Is UT going to leave the conference if the Big 12 still controls their Tier 1 and Tier 2 rights? What conference would accept them without those rights?

kstater 09-23-2011 12:27 PM
ChuckCarltonDMN Chuck Carlton
MT @ChrisLevel: Tech's Guy Bailey tells @AaronDickens and I that MU Chancellor Deaton told him MU doesn't have SEC offer, will stay in B12.
42 minutes ago

eazyb81 09-23-2011 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by alnorth (Post 7935102)
I wouldn't, even if the SEC held a press conference to announce they are ready to accept. That is not to say Mizzou shouldn't play poker, if they have some cards to play to make sure Tier 1/2 is shared, force the Big 12 to put up rules on showing tier 3 conference games and make sure the LHN doesn't show high school, then by all means, play those cards. More power to MU if they can get those reforms.

However, if we all get that, then there's not much of a reason, other than emotion, to leave the conference for the SEC. The Big 12 TV contracts are temporarily low and will be comparable to everyone else in a few years. Tier 3 money isn't enough to complain about and the SEC also does not share Tier 3 money anyway, so you gain nothing there. "stability" is an artificial fake complaint since you can force stability if everyone really wants it, and once we get a new contract in 2015 there wont be any financial reason to leave anyway.

All you really get is long pain-in-the-ass road trips, and a smaller chance of ever making it into a BCS bowl. Its a somewhat more realistic option for Texas schools due to geography and culture.
I normally like your posts, but your takes are pretty terrible on this situation.

No one with a functioning brain would turn down an offer from SEC - or B1G or PAC for that matter if the geography made sense - to stay in this zombie conference. UT has pushed the envelope since they came in, and the leadership has not been in place to prevent it.

Your entire premise is based on ifs and maybes. If UT gives into demands. If LHN is modified. If the new first tier contract is awesome.

When you have schools like Nebraska, Colorado, and now Texas A&M leave in one year, it should be obvious that something is rotten in Denmark.

Pitt Gorilla 09-23-2011 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 7935146)
You realize they have already agreed to this six year deal.. right?
Who? MU has not signed off on a six year deal.

Garcia Bronco 09-23-2011 12:38 PM
Big 12 needs to get to 12 teams or no more championship game and a little less revenue.

DJ's left nut 09-23-2011 12:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 7935146)
You realize they have already agreed to this six year deal.. right?
No they haven't.

They've agreed on pushing for a 6 year deal, but Deaton said last night that absolutely nothing has been signed.

Boren made vague allusions to it in his presser (which was absolutely reeruned, BTW), but that's all been clarified this morning.

Anyone that is willing to talk thus far has said only that they have a philosophical agreement to move forward towards a 6 year deal but they have 'agreed' to absolutely nothing at this point.

Mosbonian 09-23-2011 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 7935151)
Meaning Oklahoma and Texas are staying around for the new contract. You might not be very good at math, but five years does come before six years.
Actually I've very good at math (Accounting/Credit person here)...but even better at understanding just how little contracts mean these days which seems to escape you. If you think that OU and UT won't find a way out of that contract they've agreed to then you are being a pollyanna.

I'm still waiting for you to answer the first question about why you think that the contract will be for more than the PAC 12? I see you've managed to dodge that one.

RustShack 09-23-2011 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla (Post 7935207)
Who? MU has not signed off on a six year deal.
OU and OSU have because they are the only two schools who don't have to vote and the Presidents can just make that decision. The other schools have agreed in principle they just have to vote to finalize it. It will happen whether you tards want it to or not. But if Mizzou has a problem with it they can just go independent I guess, since they don't have an offer from the B1G or SEC like you idiots want to think.

Mosbonian 09-23-2011 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kstater (Post 7935184)
ChuckCarltonDMN Chuck Carlton
MT @ChrisLevel: Tech's Guy Bailey tells @AaronDickens and I that MU Chancellor Deaton told him MU doesn't have SEC offer, will stay in B12.
42 minutes ago
Interesting that they didn't mention it in last nights press conference.

DJ's left nut 09-23-2011 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eazyb81 (Post 7935194)
I normally like your posts, but your takes are pretty terrible on this situation.

No one with a functioning brain would turn down an offer from SEC - or B1G or PAC for that matter if the geography made sense - to stay in this zombie conference. UT has pushed the envelope since they came in, and the leadership has not been in place to prevent it.

Your entire premise is based on ifs and maybes. If UT gives into demands. If LHN is modified. If the new first tier contract is awesome.

When you have schools like Nebraska, Colorado, and now Texas A&M leave in one year, it should be obvious that something is rotten in Denmark.
He's been clutching to the XII thing the whole time.

I have no idea what his college affiliation is, but it's becoming apparent to me that he's attached to one of the KS schools and is afraid that they'll end up with no life raft. As a consequence, he's thinking with his heart and arguing in support of that position.

'Hamas' Jenkins 09-23-2011 12:43 PM
alnorth is a Kansas guy.

DJ's left nut 09-23-2011 12:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 7935218)
OU and OSU have because they are the only two schools who don't have to vote and the Presidents can just make that decision. The other schools have agreed in principle they just have to vote to finalize it. It will happen whether you tards want it to or not. But if Mizzou has a problem with it they can just go independent I guess, since they don't have an offer from the B1G or SEC like you idiots want to think.
Hey look - another asshurt XII clinger.

Look - I understand that nobody will want your shithole of a school once the XII inevitably collapses, but you really don't have to be a prick about it.

DJ's left nut 09-23-2011 12:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 7935223)
alnorth is a Kansas guy.
Yeah - makes sense now.

He's just like Rustshack - militantly in support of a back-asswards conference out of sheer terror that the alternative is the Mountain West.

Whatever. I'd roll the dice and take my chances at this point. Maybe MU ends up in the pisswater athletic conference with the rest of the dregs for all I know - but I'm willing to take that chance.

I want this conference dead in the worst way.

Garcia Bronco 09-23-2011 12:46 PM
Kansas won't be assout. Their BB program is too good for that.

Mosbonian 09-23-2011 12:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 7935165)
I think it's likely that a re-stabilized Big 12 would be able to get the big contract that alnorth envisions because they're still a consistently good football conference and they still have a presence in a lot of pretty good college football markets. I don't see why stability would be a concern as any risk that the conference could implode could easily be anticipated by the contract to protect the networks.

If the conference re-stabilizes like alnorth envisions, UT and OU would have no choice but to stick around. Is UT going to leave the conference if the Big 12 still controls their Tier 1 and Tier 2 rights? What conference would accept them without those rights?
There's a big if you have in there and my very reason to doubt this whole scenario....if the conference re-stablizes. Two years in a row this conference has come close to folding. Tell me what guarantees we won't see this same scenario next year...or the next?

Aren't you the least bit concerned about how OU and UT have suddenly become bed partners? I am....

And how will this league be attractive if OSU, MU and Texas Tech have a couple of bad years. We already have ISU, KU, Baylor and K-State with very little horsepower when it comes to football. Since we are using "if" scenarios I will throw out this one:

If no one but OU and UT has banner years for the next 2 or 3 years, who will want to hand over a check for $300 million to a 2-Horse league?

RustShack 09-23-2011 12:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosbonian (Post 7935217)
Actually I've very good at math (Accounting/Credit person here)...but even better at understanding just how little contracts mean these days which seems to escape you. If you think that OU and UT won't find a way out of that contract they've agreed to then you are being a pollyanna.

I'm still waiting for you to answer the first question about why you think that the contract will be for more than the PAC 12? I see you've managed to dodge that one.
Football makes more and more money every year for one. Its kind of common sense that a TV deal will be worth more than one signed six years ago. Big12 is still one of the better football conferences. They will be a lot more stable in five years when this happens, among other reasons.

penguinz 09-23-2011 12:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco (Post 7935231)
Kansas won't be assout. Their BB program is too good for that.
LMAO

'Hamas' Jenkins 09-23-2011 12:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco (Post 7935231)
Kansas won't be assout. Their BB program is too good for that.
Villanova and Georgetown are but a few pretty compelling counterarguments against this idea.

Syracuse is a basketball school only, and they just downgraded leagues for FB purposes. I think that's a pretty strong statement about the importance of basketball in the grand scheme.

Bambi 09-23-2011 12:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 7935221)
He's been clutching to the XII thing the whole time.

I have no idea what his college affiliation is, but it's becoming apparent to me that he's attached to one of the KS schools and is afraid that they'll end up with no life raft. As a consequence, he's thinking with his heart and arguing in support of that position.
Not to start anything here but why do MU fans think that MU wouldn't be left with the same "no life raft" scenario?

The Big 10 has no interest in MU. The SEC has no interest in MU.

The Big 12 is the best option for MU. This is fact. Your administration knows this. They are not idiots like so many of you want to believe.

Frazod 09-23-2011 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 7935223)
alnorth is a Kansas guy.
I'll bet he's working overtime adding to his ignore list today!

Pitt Gorilla 09-23-2011 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 7935218)
OU and OSU have because they are the only two schools who don't have to vote and the Presidents can just make that decision. The other schools have agreed in principle they just have to vote to finalize it. It will happen whether you tards want it to or not. But if Mizzou has a problem with it they can just go independent I guess, since they don't have an offer from the B1G or SEC like you idiots want to think.
Getting a bit touchy, aren't we? Every school, tard or not, would be smart to NOT sign such an agreement until members are ensured equal treatment.

RustShack 09-23-2011 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosbonian (Post 7935235)
There's a big if you have in there and my very reason to doubt this whole scenario....if the conference re-stablizes. Two years in a row this conference has come close to folding. Tell me what guarantees we won't see this same scenario next year...or the next?

Aren't you the least bit concerned about how OU and UT have suddenly become bed partners? I am....

And how will this league be attractive if OSU, MU and Texas Tech have a couple of bad years. We already have ISU, KU, Baylor and K-State with very little horsepower when it comes to football. Since we are using "if" scenarios I will throw out this one:

If no one but OU and UT has banner years for the next 2 or 3 years, who will want to hand over a check for $300 million to a 2-Horse league?
You are the one playing the "if" game. If Texas and Oklahoma are the only two teams ranked over the next five years? Sorry that isn't happening.

'Hamas' Jenkins 09-23-2011 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickedson (Post 7935242)
Not to start anything here but why do MU fans think that MU wouldn't be left with the same "no life raft" scenario?

The Big 10 has no interest in MU. The SEC has no interest in MU.

The Big 12 is the best option for MU. This is fact. Your administration knows this. They are not idiots like so many of you want to believe.
TV markets for one
A far more profitable football team for another
A far better football team for yet another.

I do find it funny, however, that you want to claim that the administration that signed off on the hiring of Frank Haith is somehow wiser than the public.

What we all know is that none of us know anything about what is happening behind closed doors. But what we do know is that Missouri is a far more marketable brand as a school and program than any other team left in this conference that isn't OU or Texas.

Mosbonian 09-23-2011 12:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 7935237)
Football makes more and more money every year for one. Its kind of common sense that a TV deal will be worth more than one signed six years ago. Big12 is still one of the better football conferences. They will be a lot more stable in five years when this happens, among other reasons.
The problem is you aren't accounting for cyclical events......You are making the assumption that the teams on the rise, MU included, will continue to have good years. In the post to patteau I already outlined the case for worry should the other teams beside OU and UT start on the downward slide.

Everyone is basing their idea of how strong the conference will be on teams that haven't shown a long history of good football. The only Teams that have it in our conference are Sooners and Longhorns...the rest of us are all johnny-come-lately's.

DJ's left nut 09-23-2011 12:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco (Post 7935231)
Kansas won't be assout. Their BB program is too good for that.
I agree.

Kansas will land somewhere. Ultimately, the Texas/PAC implosion may really save them. Their best slot to land is, IMO, the PAC and had the most recent proposal gone through, KU might have been in some trouble until the B1G decided to move to 16 (I think they're basketball crazy enough to take KU).

KU will be just fine. K-State better hope that KU brings them along for the ride.

(Iowa State, on the other hand, may well be up shits creek)

duncan_idaho 09-23-2011 12:54 PM
Of course Deaton isn't going to tell the President of a different Big 12 school that Missouri has an offer from the SEC, or an agreement, or whatever under-the-table thing apparently is there. As has been posted many times, the SEC doesn't offer. Schools have to apply (after getting behind-scenes info that the offer will be well-received, but still...)

Missouri hasn't signed shit. Deaton made it pretty clear in his press conference, speaking for HIS school, that there were talks of the six-year deal, but no actual signing taking place.

Missouri is trying to strongarm UT and OU into making concessions about tier 3 rights, conference offices, etc. Of course, neither is ACTUALLY going to listen to Mizzou, so Missouri is likely out the door.

RustShack 09-23-2011 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla (Post 7935245)
Getting a bit touchy, aren't we? Every school, tard or not, would be smart to NOT sign such an agreement until members are ensured equal treatment.
Six years agreement and equal revenue sharing on first and second tier deals is pretty much a done deal. There is going to have to be a huge breakdown here soon to change that and that's likely not happening.

duncan_idaho 09-23-2011 12:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickedson (Post 7935242)
The SEC has no interest in MU.
False. Just false.

mnchiefsguy 09-23-2011 12:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 7935256)
Six years agreement and equal revenue sharing on first and second tier deals is pretty much a done deal. There is going to have to be a huge breakdown here soon to change that and that's likely not happening.
Nothing is a done deal until a contract is signed. The last two years are proof enough of that.

Mosbonian 09-23-2011 12:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 7935247)
You are the one playing the "if" game. If Texas and Oklahoma are the only two teams ranked over the next five years? Sorry that isn't happening.
No...I'm calling YOU on playing the "if" game.

How about you show me the teams you believe will be consistently in the Top 25? And remember the key word here...consistently.

And if you actually are enough of a homer to put your Cyclones on the list then that will shoot your credibility.

duncan_idaho 09-23-2011 12:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 7935256)
Six years agreement and equal revenue sharing on first and second tier deals is pretty much a done deal. There is going to have to be a huge breakdown here soon to change that and that's likely not happening.
It's not a done deal until each school signs it.

Boren was trying to sell that it was already in place (you know, when he scheduled a conference call on TOP of the commissioner's conference call), but Deaton made it absolutely clear that what they had was an agreement to explore such an option.

Missouri is not going to sign that without some concessions.

DJ's left nut 09-23-2011 12:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickedson (Post 7935242)
Not to start anything here but why do MU fans think that MU wouldn't be left with the same "no life raft" scenario?

The Big 10 has no interest in MU. The SEC has no interest in MU.

The Big 12 is the best option for MU. This is fact. Your administration knows this. They are not idiots like so many of you want to believe.
In fact the SEC has shown interest in MU. They just don't want to implode the XII to get them. It has been widely reported that the SEC actually contacted MU last season after the B1G implosion when it looked like the XII would die off. It's now been reported by several outlets in KC, STL and OKC that MU had an offer again this year if the XII implodes.

If the XII detonates on its own, MU will be just fine.

And yes, our administration is full of idiots. Those of us that actually follow the University (or, like me, live here and can speak to the day to day happenings around here) have no problem saying that.

Mosbonian 09-23-2011 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 7935256)
Six years agreement and equal revenue sharing on first and second tier deals is pretty much a done deal. There is going to have to be a huge breakdown here soon to change that and that's likely not happening.
What part of the last 2 years have you slept through? NOTHING is a done deal until the ink is dry....and we've all seen that there is erasable ink these days.

eazyb81 09-23-2011 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 7935256)
Six years agreement and equal revenue sharing on first and second tier deals is pretty much a done deal. There is going to have to be a huge breakdown here soon to change that and that's likely not happening.
You still believe in Santa Claus don't you?

|Zach| 09-23-2011 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 7935256)
Six years agreement and equal revenue sharing on first and second tier deals is pretty much a done deal. There is going to have to be a huge breakdown here soon to change that and that's likely not happening.
LMAO

DJ's left nut 09-23-2011 01:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 7935264)
It's not a done deal until each school signs it.

Boren was trying to sell that it was already in place (you know, when he scheduled a conference call on TOP of the commissioner's conference call), but Deaton made it absolutely clear that what they had was an agreement to explore such an option.

Missouri is not going to sign that without some concessions.
Borens behavior in scheduling that presser and his spin during it was pretty pathetic.

I'm not sure how you can take the kick to the balls they just took in Norman and still be so damn haughty, but Boren has managed it quite nicely.

ChiefsCountry 09-23-2011 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 7935272)
I'm not sure how you can take the kick to the balls they just took in Norman and still be so damn haughty, but Boren has managed it quite nicely.
He is a former politican, that is normal for them.

Mosbonian 09-23-2011 01:12 PM
I have a friend who is a die-hard Sooner and he is spitting nails today about Boren's presser. He feels the same way today about Boren that we do about Mike Alden.

patteeu 09-23-2011 01:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosbonian (Post 7935217)
Actually I've very good at math (Accounting/Credit person here)...but even better at understanding just how little contracts mean these days which seems to escape you. If you think that OU and UT won't find a way out of that contract they've agreed to then you are being a pollyanna.

I'm still waiting for you to answer the first question about why you think that the contract will be for more than the PAC 12? I see you've managed to dodge that one.
Why do you think UT and OU's lawyers are better than the networks' lawyers?

alnorth 09-23-2011 01:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eazyb81 (Post 7935194)
I normally like your posts, but your takes are pretty terrible on this situation.

No one with a functioning brain would turn down an offer from SEC - or B1G or PAC for that matter if the geography made sense - to stay in this zombie conference. UT has pushed the envelope since they came in, and the leadership has not been in place to prevent it.

Your entire premise is based on ifs and maybes. If UT gives into demands. If LHN is modified. If the new first tier contract is awesome.

When you have schools like Nebraska, Colorado, and now Texas A&M leave in one year, it should be obvious that something is rotten in Denmark.
You are assuming nothing changes. (that we don't share Tier 1/2 even after Texas said ok lets go ahead, and LHN shows high school games.) We don't have to take anything on faith. If the SEC tells you "you have 2 days to accept. We aren't going to give you any time to see if you can work things out, accept right now, or we'll close the door on you", then you may have a point. (I'm not even going to talk about our 2015 tier 1 contract. Our T2 contract with Fox is freaking massive relative to what they got. Our future Tier 1 contract is all but assured)

I guess its possible that nothing will happen, but that would require an assumption that everyone in power is lying. No one has to sign away anything until the above basic demands that everyone seems to be in agreement on are satisfied in black and white.

I'm saying "ok, assume we're not being lied to, and all that happens". Basically you go to Dallas, make those demands, and everyone says "ok, done", here's the contract. Now what? At that point going to the SEC is no upside and all downside. The only reason I can think of at that point is "I don't care, I'm still pissed at Texas!"

alnorth 09-23-2011 01:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 7935253)
I agree.

Kansas will land somewhere. Ultimately, the Texas/PAC implosion may really save them. Their best slot to land is, IMO, the PAC and had the most recent proposal gone through, KU might have been in some trouble until the B1G decided to move to 16 (I think they're basketball crazy enough to take KU).

KU will be just fine. K-State better hope that KU brings them along for the ride.

(Iowa State, on the other hand, may well be up shits creek)
I think many Jayhawk fans are a little too optimistic. The SEC is clearly not an option. Some people seem to think ACC, but I doubt it. The B1G is the most likely BCS destination, but that is only if they ever decide to expand to 16. Everyone else in the world could go to 16 and they could easily say "eh, we're good".

The PAC 12 is iffy at best. If Texas goes independent, then KU is good to go, but how likely is that when a lot of people are expecting UND, with a market bigger than Texas, to eventually surrender? All things being equal, KU is probably third on their list, but a couple little brothers in OK and TX probably push them to 4th or 5th. Perhaps if OU/UT are desperate enough to get in, the PAC 12 could fold their arms and decide to be a hardass by flat-out saying no to TTech/OSU.

The most likely outcome would be a cobbled-together Big 12/Big East/MWC merger. There they would be waiting, perhaps for decades, for the B1G to sleepily decide maybe they could expand.

eazyb81 09-23-2011 01:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by alnorth (Post 7935322)
You are assuming nothing changes. (that we don't share Tier 1/2 even after Texas said ok lets go ahead, and LHN shows high school games.) We don't have to take anything on faith. If the SEC tells you "you have 2 days to accept. We aren't going to give you any time to see if you can work things out, accept right now, or we'll close the door on you", then you may have a point. (I'm not even going to talk about our 2015 tier 1 contract. Our T2 contract with Fox is freaking massive relative to what they got. Our future Tier 1 contract is all but assured).

I guess its possible that nothing will happen, but that would require an assumption that everyone in power is lying. No one has to sign away anything until the above basic demands that everyone seems to be in agreement on are satisfied in black and white.

I'm saying "ok, assume we're not being lied to, and all that happens". Basically you go to Dallas, make those demands, and everyone says "ok, done", here's the contract. Now what? At that point going to the SEC is no upside and all downside. The only reason I can think of at that point is "I don't care, I'm still pissed at Texas!"
Sharing tier 1/2 and LHN not showing high school games is hardly enough to turn this into a happy marriage. The whole premise of LHN is deeply flawed, primarily due to ESPN also owning the conference's tier 1 rights. UT knows this - everyone knows this - and their unwillingness to bend was the reason the PAC said "no thanks". Also, I think you deeply overrate the value of the Big 12 to TV networks without Nebraska and Texas A&M.

I think most Mizzou fans are sick of hoping that maybe this time UT and the league will do what is best. And frankly, given UT's history, I wouldn't trust them even if they did bow down and give up everything; their track record of deception is too long to be ignored.

Pinkel said it best - this doesn't happen in any other power league. Guess how much the exit penalties are in the SEC? $0. Why? Because the conference has leadership and members do what is best for the conference, not just what is best for themselves.

patteeu 09-23-2011 01:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosbonian (Post 7935235)
There's a big if you have in there and my very reason to doubt this whole scenario....if the conference re-stablizes. Two years in a row this conference has come close to folding. Tell me what guarantees we won't see this same scenario next year...or the next?

Aren't you the least bit concerned about how OU and UT have suddenly become bed partners? I am....

And how will this league be attractive if OSU, MU and Texas Tech have a couple of bad years. We already have ISU, KU, Baylor and K-State with very little horsepower when it comes to football. Since we are using "if" scenarios I will throw out this one:

If no one but OU and UT has banner years for the next 2 or 3 years, who will want to hand over a check for $300 million to a 2-Horse league?
First of all, I don't think it has as much to do with recent success on the field as you do. This league was already primarily a 2 horse league and it had just barely avoided implosion when they landed a monster network deal last year. I don't know why the loss of A&M would make them that much less attractive. The league still owns the Texas markets. And the networks can protect themselves from any remaining instability.

I don't see any way for 7 of the remaining 9 members of the Big 12 to sink to the level of regular suckitude that you envision. MU, OSU, TT, and to some degree the others will continue to recruit Texas talent. They'll continue to play the vast majority of their games against either cupcakes or other Big 12 members. There will always be a couple of Big 12 schools that rack up good records even if they lose to both Texas and OU almost every year. Those teams will continue to be ranked in the top 25. It may not always be MU, OSU, or TT, but it will be someone.

Bambi 09-23-2011 01:34 PM
lol @ the dude calling KK right now

Garcia Bronco 09-23-2011 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 7935240)
Villanova and Georgetown are but a few pretty compelling counterarguments against this idea.

Syracuse is a basketball school only, and they just downgraded leagues for FB purposes. I think that's a pretty strong statement about the importance of basketball in the grand scheme.
ACC basketball isn't a downgrade to Big East basketball. Maybe some years, but it ain' that big of a downgrade to matter. Cuse had a great football program in the early oughts. then they hired Greg Robinson and Miami, BC, and Virginia Tech left them.

Trevo_410 09-23-2011 01:47 PM
breaking news from a source only known inside my house, Missouri to the B1G by monday, the source heard it on a radio source that is unmentionable. News suppost to be announced on monday. anybody else hear that?

KChiefs1 09-23-2011 01:49 PM
I heard it's a bidding war between the SEC & B1G for MU.

Bambi 09-23-2011 01:50 PM
That was a great MU caller from "Booneville"

eazyb81 09-23-2011 01:57 PM
LOL, three schools turned down the offer to grant TV rights to the conference last year. Any guesses?

UT, OU, and A&M. Everyone else was in favor of it to secure the stability of the conference.

Guess UT and OU feel differently now that they got turned down by the PAC. This is absolutely hilarious.

http://ht.ly/6Dgz5

alnorth 09-23-2011 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eazyb81 (Post 7935343)
Pinkel said it best - this doesn't happen in any other power league. Guess how much the exit penalties are in the SEC? $0. Why? Because the conference has leadership and members do what is best for the conference, not just what is best for themselves.
Another problem we've got is that the Big 12 brand has been damaged. Even if, theoretically, agreements are made, all issues are fixed in legalese, we have new fresh strong leadership, and we all start holding hands singing about solidarity, the Big 12 brand is going to be snickered at for a while.

Does that matter? I'm not sure, but it probably does. When it comes time to let Texas A&M go, the powers that be should think about doing it by, with cooperation from the BCS and our TV partners, dissolving the conference, and forming a new conference. New name, new brand, new offices in OKC, etc. Its not like we're an old conference and there's a lot of sentimental value to be saved.

Pants 09-23-2011 02:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickedson (Post 7935380)
That was a great MU caller from "Booneville"
KK was hurt pretty deeply by him. I knew he was a KSU cock chugger, but wow... he straight up just couldn't take it. Apparently the fact that KSU was the shittiest program in the country for 80% of their history is not something he ever wants to be confronted about.

Mosbonian 09-23-2011 02:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 7935320)
Why do you think UT and OU's lawyers are better than the networks' lawyers?
Experience teaches me that the people who want out always have the better attorney's....

Frazod 09-23-2011 02:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevo_410 (Post 7935366)
breaking news from a source only known inside my house, Missouri to the B1G by monday, the source heard it on a radio source that is unmentionable. News suppost to be announced on monday. anybody else hear that?
I'm not sure if I want you banned or killed. I'll have to think about it.

Pants 09-23-2011 02:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by frazod (Post 7935405)
I'm not sure if I want you banned or killed. I'll have to think about it.
I think he's talking about some random caller on KK's show. Not sure about that, though.

Mosbonian 09-23-2011 02:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eazyb81 (Post 7935343)
I think most Mizzou fans are sick of hoping that maybe this time UT and the league will do what is best. And frankly, given UT's history, I wouldn't trust them even if they did bow down and give up everything; their track record of deception is too long to be ignored.
This has been my biggest complaint thus far....everyone wants to trust Texas. They haven't given us any reason to thus far, or any indication that they could be trusted in the future.

Titty Meat 09-23-2011 02:07 PM
People still listen to KK?

Dayze 09-23-2011 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini (Post 7935411)
People still listen to KK?
only when we want to hear the Racin' Boys and Smoke & Fire informericals.

Pants 09-23-2011 02:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini (Post 7935411)
People still listen to KK?
You would have loved the Boonville caller. LMAO

Frazod 09-23-2011 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosbonian (Post 7935410)
This has been my biggest complaint thus far....everyone wants to trust Texas. They haven't given us any reason to thus far, or any indication that they could be trusted in the future.
Anybody who wants to trust Texas has apparently never heard the parable about the fox and the scorpion.

alnorth 09-23-2011 02:17 PM
http://www2.kusports.com/weblogs/tal...g-12-moves-on/

Quote:
Chris Level, who covers Texas Tech for Rivals.com reported earlier that Tech president Guy Bailey told him and Aaron Dickens earlier today that Mizzou's Brady Deaton told him that MU did not have an offer from the SEC and would remain in the Big 12.
Not that I'm going to automatically believe the output of a telephone game where someone reported about something that was reported by a blogger who was reporting something he was told by the Tech president who was passing on something that he was told by Deaton, without confirmation. (Is that third-hand information or 4th-hand information?)

But, if Mizzou does not have an offer and fully intends to stay in the Big 12, then what was Deaton doing last night?

Garcia Bronco 09-23-2011 02:20 PM
There is no, nor was there, an offer to have MU join the SEC.

Titty Meat 09-23-2011 02:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KChiefs1 (Post 7935374)
I heard it's a bidding war between the SEC & B1G for MU.
Yea right.

duncan_idaho 09-23-2011 02:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by alnorth (Post 7935428)
http://www2.kusports.com/weblogs/tal...g-12-moves-on/



Not that I'm going to automatically believe the output of a telephone game where someone reported about something that was reported by a blogger who was reporting something he was told by the Tech president who was passing on something that he was told by Deaton, without confirmation. (Is that third-hand information or 4th-hand information?)

But, if Mizzou does not have an offer and fully intends to stay in the Big 12, then what was Deaton doing last night?
As Gabe was just saying on PowerMizzou, three potential options:

1) Texas Tech's pres is blowing smoke and trying to put pressure on Mizzou
2) Deaton did tell him there was no offer. Basically, Deaton lied/intentionally withheld full truth from Tech pres
3) Deaton made stuff up at the press conference, which would end up costing him job.

2 is the only one that makes sense to me.

Missouri does not have an offer in that the SEC does give out offers. What it sounds like Missouri has is indications that if they applied to the SEC, they would quickly be accepted.

It's splitting hairs, but there IS a difference there.

Great Expectations 09-23-2011 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 7935459)
As Gabe was just saying on PowerMizzou, three potential options:

1) Texas Tech's pres is blowing smoke and trying to put pressure on Mizzou
2) Deaton did tell him there was no offer. Basically, Deaton lied/intentionally withheld full truth from Tech pres
3) Deaton made stuff up at the press conference, which would end up costing him job.

2 is the only one that makes sense to me.

Missouri does not have an offer in that the SEC does give out offers. What it sounds like Missouri has is indications that if they applied to the SEC, they would quickly be accepted.

It's splitting hairs, but there IS a difference there.
Deaton forgot that he can't pull the power play that Boren did to make Texas play fairly. I think he thought he could pull an OU. I also don't think trying that maneuver will cost him his job. He was doing it in MU's best interest, making GabeD look foolish isn't a fireable offense.

alnorth 09-23-2011 02:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 7935459)
Missouri does not have an offer in that the SEC does give out offers. What it sounds like Missouri has is indications that if they applied to the SEC, they would quickly be accepted.
Well, thats true with every conference, but its kind of like a Sadie Hawkins dance (no, this time YOU have to ask ME to the dance!), everyone still understands that you don't apply unless you've been given a green light.

Mosbonian 09-23-2011 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by alnorth (Post 7935478)
Well, thats true with every conference, but its kind of like a Sadie Hawkins dance (no, this time YOU have to ask ME to the dance!), everyone still understands that you don't apply unless you've been given a green light.
Evidently Al forgot about West Virginia...

Stewie 09-23-2011 03:23 PM
Who is OU's AD? Does he have a tie to MU? Is it possible that since OU lost its leverage that there were calls made to MU to take the torch? I think so.

beer bacon 09-23-2011 03:24 PM
New interim commish Chuck Neinas spoke to Tony Barnhardt today, and this is what he had to say:

Chuck Neinas on Missouri: "I believe Missouri would like to remain in the Big 12." Said UM Board of Curators "may have a different idea."

http://twitter.com/#!/MrCFB/status/117341234313433088

ChiTown 09-23-2011 03:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewie (Post 7935562)
Who is OU's AD? Does he have a tie to MU? Is it possible that since OU lost its leverage that there were calls made to MU to take the torch? I think so.
He worked for the MU Athletic Department before taking the OU job as AD

Rams Fan 09-23-2011 04:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewie (Post 7935562)
Who is OU's AD? Does he have a tie to MU? Is it possible that since OU lost its leverage that there were calls made to MU to take the torch? I think so.
Joe Castiglione is OU's AD. He was Mizzou's AD before Alden.

BillSelfsTrophycase 09-23-2011 04:24 PM
Never should have let those Texas assholes in the Big 8

It's hard to hate a team other than MU or K-State, but here I am

eazyb81 09-23-2011 04:33 PM
Paul Finebaum had Tony Barnhart from CBS Sports on his show today and he said that Missouri has always been the only 14th SEC desired team with an offer. He also said that FSU, Clemson, WVU, Virginia Tech were never under consideration.

He then mentioned that the SEC will wait and they are prepared to keep the league at 13 with TA&M if Missouri does not accept. SEC has already taken the steps to create an off balanced schedule although they prefer to balance it out with Missouri...



I have no idea if Mizzou will end up in the SEC - I actually think the odds are that they stay put in the Big 12. But I have heard enough smoke from both Mizzou and SEC insiders at this point to believe that an offer/invite/suggestion/whatever has definitely been made to let Mizzou know they have a spot in the conference if they want it.

KcMizzou 09-23-2011 04:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pants (Post 7935416)
You would have loved the Boonville caller. LMAO
That was hilarious. "I don't like playing these cupcakes like Western Illinois... or even Iowa State and K-State."

I thought KK's head was going to explode. Long live the Big 6!!

HolyHandgernade 09-23-2011 04:59 PM
I'll bet my casino cash that Missouri stays and there is no concession by Texas to share third tier rights.

Crush 09-23-2011 05:10 PM
Trusting Texas is akin to trusting Jake Roberts during his "trust me" period.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:03 PM.
Page 16 of 138 « First 612131415 16 171819202666116 Last »
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.