miklasz on the big 12

[kevinfootes]

You must not know Dan Beebe.

I believe I typed "if they're smart". The smart move would not include adding more Texas schools.

[Hawk]

I believe I typed "if they're smart". The smart move would not include adding more Texas schools.

Indeed. I was just saying this entire process has been brought on by Beebe being an idiot. He deserves to be fired. Being proactive and not reactive would involve trying to add several new schools to strengthen and insulate the conference from future poachers.

[kevinfootes]

Indeed. I was just saying this entire process has been brought on by Beebe being an idiot. He deserves to be fired. Being proactive and not reactive would involve trying to add several new schools to strengthen and insulate the conference from future poachers.

can't argue with that.

[thetorch]

In the end Beebe still has a job.

Mizzou is screwed now. Texas and Oklahoma get even more money than they did before and they can start their own networks. Mizzou will be competing for 3rd place in the conference from here on out.

[kshoe]

I had heard $3 million to $5 million for Mizzou if it had left the Big 12 for the Big 10. $10 million is ALOT more but still not a prohibitive figure. $30 million, though, probably would be a prohibitive figure. Then, again, it's really all about how they are written. Seems like the first 1 or 2 teams should bear the larger cost. For instance, as in the current situation, if 2 teams were to leave and pay the fee (whether $5 million, $10 million or $30 million), then it does not seem fair to similarly punish the remaining teams. Not just quantity of teams either. For instance, most would probably agree that there would be a difference if UT and OU were to leave (still only 2 teams) rather than if KState and Iowa State. Also, just like SLU's bargaining position (we could not demand a large buyout if RM were to leave SLU early) when we trying to hire RM, I cannot believe Commisioner Beebe and the Big XII are in any position to require OU and UT to pay much, if any, future buyout fees.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/st...51?OpenDocument

Its probably dangerous to assume that Vahe's article is right given the amount of wrong information out there these days, but if it is Mizzou will face "severe" penalties for leaving the league.

It also appears that Mizzou took it on the chops pretty good when it came to revenue sharing. Granted they are getting more money on an absolute basis but they were going to get that no matter what in a year when the t.v. deal was restructured. It looks like the deal was restructured a year early but because MU/KU, etc. had no bargaining power they are relegated to "tier 3" teams.

[Clock_Tower]

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/st...51?OpenDocument

Its probably dangerous to assume that Vahe's article is right given the amount of wrong information out there these days, but if it is Mizzou will face "severe" penalties for leaving the league.

It also appears that Mizzou took it on the chops pretty good when it came to revenue sharing. Granted they are getting more money on an absolute basis but they were going to get that no matter what in a year when the t.v. deal was restructured. It looks like the deal was restructured a year early but because MU/KU, etc. had no bargaining power they are relegated to "tier 3" teams.

Change from my post yesterday. It now appears that UT and OU have formed their own league. Call it the Big XII still, the Big X or whatever but this really seems to be the UT/OU conference. IMO, UT and others NEVER really considered the PAC10. SEC would be a much better fit and Texas A & M knew that. A & M was concerned that UT's coat tails would not include them so they had real discussions with the SEC. Instead, UT and OU simply used the PAC10 for TV contract leverage - and it worked very well for them. Now, UT and OU got rid of their problem school in the North and have similar money to the Big 10 schools and which ND currently has - and which ND hopes will continue. PAC 10 is too far, too much travel, different football climate... but really, UT would NOT have been able to dominate the conference like its has the Big XII. USC and UCLA would not let UT run over them like MU and KU do. NE stood up to UT and is now gone - to the benefit of both NE and UT. Mizzou is just thankful they are not having to call the Big East and MountainWest schools and will quietly take the millions that UT and OU give them.

As mentioned, though, contrary to yesterday's post, UT and OU have written the conference rules, are probably making edits and revisions now and will probably send Commissioner Beebe, Mizzou, KU, KState and Iowa State a copy for their records within the next few weeks. With these rules now written by UT and OU, there probably really will be a large penalty for leaving the UT and OU's conference. Mizzou, again, has no choice but to sign on the dotted line and be thankful they are still BCS. At this point, Mizzou can only hope for a call from the Big 10 and, in the meantime, beg Laurie and Kroenke for money to pay the penalty should the phone call come.

[cheeseman]

In the end Beebe still has a job.

Mizzou is screwed now. Texas and Oklahoma get even more money than they did before and they can start their own networks. Mizzou will be competing for 3rd place in the conference from here on out.

+1

[slufanskip]

No, I'm not hiding since every fr...king thing I was told turned out wrong. I could not log on yesterday, so I'm trying to play catch up today.

I think UT and OU probably were going to the Pac 10, but the new deal made it far to lucrative to leave. And seriously, how can you blame them for working to get the best deal they could for their schools.

Someone said Mizzou is now relegated to third tier, have they ever been anything other than that? Maybe 2nd tier in the recent past? Yes, they were ranked #1 once for a second, but they hadn't played UT or OU and we all know how those games turned out when they did. If Mizzou had been in the south division, I'm not sure they'd have finished any higher than 4th in any year and possibly 5th. I am surprised though that they weren't in the grouping with OSU and TT. It also looks like concessions had to be made to keep A&M as their actual results certainly don't place them any higher than TT, OSU, or Mizzou.

Well at least Mizzou fans can continue to hate the big bad Texas empire and continue to whine because they don't get bigger handouts.

[slufanskip]

Change from my post yesterday. It now appears that UT and OU have formed their own league. Call it the Big XII still, the Big X or whatever but this really seems to be the UT/OU conference. IMO, UT and others NEVER really considered the PAC10. SEC would be a much better fit and Texas A & M knew that. A & M was concerned that UT's coat tails would not include them so they had real discussions with the SEC. Instead, UT and OU simply used the PAC10 for TV contract leverage - and it worked very well for them. Now, UT and OU got rid of their problem school in the North and have similar money to the Big 10 schools and which ND currently has - and which ND hopes will continue. PAC 10 is too far, too much travel, different football climate... but really, UT would NOT have been able to dominate the conference like its has the Big XII. USC and UCLA would not let UT run over them like MU and KU do. NE stood up to UT and is now gone - to the benefit of both NE and UT. Mizzou is just thankful they are not having to call the Big East and MountainWest schools and will quietly take the millions that UT and OU give them.

As mentioned, though, contrary to yesterday's post, UT and OU have written the conference rules, are probably making edits and revisions now and will probably send Commissioner Beebe, Mizzou, KU, KState and Iowa State a copy for their records within the next few weeks. With these rules now written by UT and OU, there probably really will be a large penalty for leaving the UT and OU's conference. Mizzou, again, has no choice but to sign on the dotted line and be thankful they are still BCS. At this point, Mizzou can only hope for a call from the Big 10 and, in the meantime, beg Laurie and Kroenke for money to pay the penalty should the phone call come.

What makes you think OU and UT wouldn't compete in the Pac 10. The Big 12 has been a far superior football league to the Pac 10 and they dominated it. The only thing the Pac 10 had was USC and lets see how long they stay at that level.

The consistent 2nd best school in the Pac 10 was Oregon and have they been any better than TT, Mizzou, or OSU? They'd have struggled to come in 3rd in the Big 12 South.

The problem was money and the Big 12 North was so bad they didn't earn any. No one cared to see them on TV, they didn't go to BCS bowl games .... they didn't pull their own weight but somehow wanted an equal share of money they didn't earn. Texas and OU rightfully should get the Lions share and if you really look at it and you were the one with all the earning power would you want to share equally?

I know a social worker who helps the homeless get shelter. There is a program where they are given a free apartment for a year. Recently she had a homeless person complain because they were only given a 1 bedroom apartment and it wasn't fair as they needed a 2 bedroom so they could have a home office. This reminds me of Mizzou.

[billiken_roy]

No, I'm not hiding since every fr...king thing I was told turned out wrong. I could not log on yesterday, so I'm trying to play catch up today.

I think UT and OU probably were going to the Pac 10, but the new deal made it far to lucrative to leave. And seriously, how can you blame them for working to get the best deal they could for their schools.

i agree. big 12 did what they had to do to save the conference. for now.

i disagree with adding lesser schools like tcu or memphis. right now they would be much better off capitalizing on the rpi advantages that the smaller conference will give it. then down the road try to pick off another couple or six schools from another bcs conference.

[Clock_Tower]

What makes you think OU and UT wouldn't compete in the Pac 10. The Big 12 has been a far superior football league to the Pac 10 and they dominated it. The only thing the Pac 10 had was USC and lets see how long they stay at that level.

The consistent 2nd best school in the Pac 10 was Oregon and have they been any better than TT, Mizzou, or OSU? They'd have struggled to come in 3rd in the Big 12 South.

The problem was money and the Big 12 North was so bad they didn't earn any. No one cared to see them on TV, they didn't go to BCS bowl games .... they didn't pull their own weight but somehow wanted an equal share of money they didn't earn. Texas and OU rightfully should get the Lions share and if you really look at it and you were the one with all the earning power would you want to share equally?

I know a social worker who helps the homeless get shelter. There is a program where they are given a free apartment for a year. Recently she had a homeless person complain because they were only given a 1 bedroom apartment and it wasn't fair as they needed a 2 bedroom so they could have a home office. This reminds me of Mizzou.

Sorry. Probably a bad choice of words on my part. On the football field (and other sports as well), UT would dominate. You're absolutely correct. Like you, I'll take UT's performance over USC' performance these next 10 years.

Instead, I meant domination -- off the field. When the Southwest merged with the Big 8, league office were moved from Kasas City to Texas. Kansas City was really a neutral city (like St. Louis is to the Valley) since KU and Mizzou never figured into the football picture. Instead, KC was a short drive for OU, OSU and NE. I doubt PAC 10 league offices would have moved to Texas. The PAC 10 does not have the TV revenue of the other conferences but schools like USC, UCLA and Washington would have put up greater resistance to revenue sharing than Mizzou, KU and Nebraska. Also, the time zone would really complicate the start of games, prime-time and TV money. Issues like the location of conference tournaments (often cold, snow, rain in Texas v. perfect weather in Los Angelas/Arizona), travel (more difficult for traditional PAC 10 fans to travel to Texas) and media hubs (West Coast media centers v. Texas) would not all be in favor of Texas.

[kevinfootes]

What makes you think OU and UT wouldn't compete in the Pac 10. The Big 12 has been a far superior football league to the Pac 10 and they dominated it. The only thing the Pac 10 had was USC and lets see how long they stay at that level.

The consistent 2nd best school in the Pac 10 was Oregon and have they been any better than TT, Mizzou, or OSU? They'd have struggled to come in 3rd in the Big 12 South.

The problem was money and the Big 12 North was so bad they didn't earn any. No one cared to see them on TV, they didn't go to BCS bowl games .... they didn't pull their own weight but somehow wanted an equal share of money they didn't earn. Texas and OU rightfully should get the Lions share and if you really look at it and you were the one with all the earning power would you want to share equally?

I know a social worker who helps the homeless get shelter. There is a program where they are given a free apartment for a year. Recently she had a homeless person complain because they were only given a 1 bedroom apartment and it wasn't fair as they needed a 2 bedroom so they could have a home office. This reminds me of Mizzou.

How does the second best football conference nearly fall apart...because it has a bad business model. It looks like the business model is even worse now. Texas and Oklahoma played this well for the near future, but I'm guessing the conference won't be alive in 5 or 10 years...at least not looking like it is right now. The Big 10 is growing because they have a good business model. The SEC is healthy beacuse they have a good model. There is a funny comment that Richard Petty made one time. He was asked why his crew helped opposing racers. Petty said something to the effect of "no one will pay to watch me race around the track by myself". In a few years when the big 12 consists of 2 big names and a bunch of patsies on tv every week, the SEC and Big 10 will continue to bring in good ratings and revenue. At some point Texas and Oklahoma will bleed this conference dry and then approach a different conference about joining. At that point they'll get decent deals but will have to cede a great deal of control and won't see additioanl funding.

Just my opinions, but this has been fun speculation far the last week or so! This big disfunctional family will keep rolling along for now, but we'll all enjoy watching the next round of this in a couple of years.

[slufanskip]

Sorry. Probably a bad choice of words on my part. On the football field (and other sports as well), UT would dominate. You're absolutely correct. Like you, I'll take UT's performance over USC' performance these next 10 years.

Instead, I meant domination -- off the field. When the Southwest merged with the Big 8, league office were moved from Kasas City to Texas. Kansas City was really a neutral city (like St. Louis is to the Valley) since KU and Mizzou never figured into the football picture. Instead, KC was a short drive for OU, OSU and NE. I doubt PAC 10 league offices would have moved to Texas. The PAC 10 does not have the TV revenue of the other conferences but schools like USC, UCLA and Washington would have put up greater resistance to revenue sharing than Mizzou, KU and Nebraska. Also, the time zone would really complicate the start of games, prime-time and TV money. Issues like the location of conference tournaments (often cold, snow, rain in Texas v. perfect weather in Los Angelas/Arizona), travel (more difficult for traditional PAC 10 fans to travel to Texas) and media hubs (West Coast media centers v. Texas) would not all be in favor of Texas.

I agree with that. It seems to me the Pac 10 was a last resort for UT. I don't think anyone thought Beebe could get the TV deal for the remaining Big 12 members that he did. It seemed to me that if in fact the current Big 12 was done, what UT really wanted was the Big 10, but they wanted the Big 10 with ND. I know for a fact the schools were talking to each other (ND and UT) but obviously couldn't work anything out. Probably both see themselves as the Big dog and neither wants to make concessions.

In the end though the new Big 12 works for everyone including Mizzou and KS. They would have been stuck in probably the Mtn West or something with much, much less conference revenue and probably ticket revenue. Mizzou will now have a much better football schedule (albeit tougher) and basketball schedule. Mizzou and KS don't deserve to make what UT and OU make off football or TV. Had Mizzou made themselves an attractive school to other conferences maybe they'd have been in position to negotiate a more lucrative deal, but they didn't. So in the end, they aren't a school in a position to demand anything. I can go to the Stltoday forums and listen to Mizzou fans whine about being bullied by Texas when in fact continuing to ride UT's coattails was the best thing Mizzou had positioned themselves to do.

[slufanskip]

How does the second best football conference nearly fall apart...because it has a bad business model. It looks like the business model is even worse now. Texas and Oklahoma played this well for the near future, but I'm guessing the conference won't be alive in 5 or 10 years...at least not looking like it is right now. The Big 10 is growing because they have a good business model. The SEC is healthy beacuse they have a good model. There is a funny comment that Richard Petty made one time. He was asked why his crew helped opposing racers. Petty said something to the effect of "no one will pay to watch me race around the track by myself". In a few years when the big 12 consists of 2 big names and a bunch of patsies on tv every week, the SEC and Big 10 will continue to bring in good ratings and revenue. At some point Texas and Oklahoma will bleed this conference dry and then approach a different conference about joining. At that point they'll get decent deals but will have to cede a great deal of control and won't see additioanl funding.

Just my opinions, but this has been fun speculation far the last week or so! This big disfunctional family will keep rolling along for now, but we'll all enjoy watching the next round of this in a couple of years.

If you're UT and OU how long do you want to carry your stepchildren. UT does contribute to the rest of the conference. They contribute a lot, just not as much as the kiddies want. These schools have brought in far more revenue than they actually earned over the last 14 years of the Big 12.

I think you are right though. This is a short term fix, how long? who knows. I really want it to end up as a 4 16 team super conferences as that will force the basketball only schools to align and SLU is positioning themselves to be desireable when that happens. I'm a much bigger college basketball than football fan and as long as SLU ends up good .... I'm ok with it.

However, I did get tired of reading all the UT trashing from Mizzou fans. It's like the ugly young lady bashing her rich suger daddy. When in reality without him, she'd be out shopping for new trailor skirting this weekend instead of another platinum necklace.

[kevinfootes]

If you're UT and OU how long do you want to carry your stepchildren. UT does contribute to the rest of the conference. They contribute a lot, just not as much as the kiddies want. These schools have brought in far more revenue than they actually earned over the last 14 years of the Big 12.

I think you are right though. This is a short term fix, how long? who knows. I really want it to end up as a 4 16 team super conferences as that will force the basketball only schools to align and SLU is positioning themselves to be desireable when that happens. I'm a much bigger college basketball than football fan and as long as SLU ends up good .... I'm ok with it.

However, I did get tired of reading all the UT trashing from Mizzou fans. It's like the ugly young lady bashing her rich suger daddy. When in reality without him, she'd be out shopping for new trailor skirting this weekend instead of another platinum necklace.

I'm not trumpeting any one school here, just looking at the big picture. In a few years more people will be watching other conferences play football, IMO.

Do you think Ohio State likes sending checks to Indiana? Does Florida like sharing with Miss State? That's how the big, successful conferences operate.

[slufanskip]

I'm not trumpeting any one school here, just looking at the big picture. In a few years more people will be watching other conferences play football, IMO.

Do you think Ohio State likes sending checks to Indiana? Does Florida like sharing with Miss State? That's how the big, successful conferences operate.

The problem isn't whether UT's giving them more money or not. Even if they did, what would change except Mizzou, ISU, K State and the likes would have more money and Texas would have less. It won't help them get more TV's tuned to their games. The market sizes just aren't going to change. It wouldn't help them get a better TV deal. The Big conferences are on the coasts besides the Big 10, but they have Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania all big states that have a lot of households. The Big 12 has Texas then Oklahoma, Missouri Iowa, Kansas and the like. The TV contract the new Big 12 has is based upon getting the Texas markets, everyone else is secondary and UT giving them more money won't change that.

[kevinfootes]

The problem isn't whether UT's giving them more money or not. Even if they did, what would change except Mizzou, ISU, K State and the likes would have more money and Texas would have less. It won't help them get more TV's tuned to their games. The market sizes just aren't going to change. It wouldn't help them get a better TV deal. The Big conferences are on the coasts besides the Big 10, but they have Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania all big states that have a lot of households. The Big 12 has Texas then Oklahoma, Missouri Iowa, Kansas and the like. The TV contract the new Big 12 has is based upon getting the Texas markets, everyone else is secondary and UT giving them more money won't change that.

I'm not necessarily disputing your point, I'm just pointing out the way more successful conferences work. The SEC has some great teams but also has teams that are typically average at best. The Big 10 has teams like Iowa and Indiana which are a drag for everyone else. Would the Big 10 be more successful if Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State got more funding than Indiana, Iowa, and Purdue? The SEC has states like Florida and Georgia, but Mississippi doesn't generate much excitement and Vandy certainly plays second fiddle to the Vols.

Not every game is regional. Many go acroos most of the country, like the SEC games on CBS. As I mentioned earlier, Texas and Oklahoma vs. patsies won't get much national attention. The SEC and Big 10 are in much better position to have nationwide appeal by having more competitive teams.

Again, this is a big disfunctional family and I don't think the arrangement will last. Maybe Texas should go independent.

[slufanskip]

I'm not necessarily disputing your point, I'm just pointing out the way more successful conferences work. The SEC has some great teams but also has teams that are typically average at best. The Big 10 has teams like Iowa and Indiana which are a drag for everyone else. Would the Big 10 be more successful if Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State got more funding than Indiana, Iowa, and Purdue? The SEC has states like Florida and Georgia, but Mississippi doesn't generate much excitement and Vandy certainly plays second fiddle to the Vols.

Not every game is regional. Many go acroos most of the country, like the SEC games on CBS. As I mentioned earlier, Texas and Oklahoma vs. patsies won't get much national attention. The SEC and Big 10 are in much better position to have nationwide appeal by having more competitive teams.

Again, this is a big disfunctional family and I don't think the arrangement will last. Maybe Texas should go independent.

Those conferences weren't more competitive. Each one has it's top few teams and each one has it's patsies. How has the Big 10 been helped by giving Indiana and Northwestern more TV money? It didn't make them any better and they wouldn't be any worse had they received less money. The difference in the Big 12 and The Big 10 the Big 10 has numerous large TV markets. The Big 12 is UT and the rest. UT brings the entire state of Texas, there isn't anyone else who brings close to equal markets. If Mizzou or Iowa State had 2 million more dollars per year would they be any more or less competitive?

Personally, I think they will end up in the Big 10.

[Clock_Tower]

I'm not necessarily disputing your point, I'm just pointing out the way more successful conferences work. The SEC has some great teams but also has teams that are typically average at best. The Big 10 has teams like Iowa and Indiana which are a drag for everyone else. Would the Big 10 be more successful if Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State got more funding than Indiana, Iowa, and Purdue? The SEC has states like Florida and Georgia, but Mississippi doesn't generate much excitement and Vandy certainly plays second fiddle to the Vols.

Not every game is regional. Many go acroos most of the country, like the SEC games on CBS. As I mentioned earlier, Texas and Oklahoma vs. patsies won't get much national attention. The SEC and Big 10 are in much better position to have nationwide appeal by having more competitive teams.

Again, this is a big disfunctional family and I don't think the arrangement will last. Maybe Texas should go independent.

Footes.

Keep going list of the the bad football schools. Regarding the Big 10, why leave out Northwestern, Wisconsin, Purdue and Minnesota. Also, it's been years since the Illini were any good either. Nationally, who really cares about these schools as well. What are the national rating for a Hawkeyes v. Golden Gophers game? Note: I could have said Hoosiers v. Northwestern. Hasn't the Big 10 really come down to Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan (maybe throw in Michigan State). Certainly, the addition of Nebraska will given them a big boost and bragging rights.

As to the SEC, why leave out Kentucky and South Carolina and why not mention both Ole Miss and Mississippi State. For that matter, Georgia hasn't really contended that much since Hershel Walker. Doesn't the SEC usually come down to Tennessee, Alabama, LSU and Florida?

As to Colorado, aren't they like the Illini who were good in the 1980's but not before then or since then. In fact, they've been bad in recent years. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A & M and maybe 1 of the others (Mizzou, KU, KState) is certainly not a bad conference with 3 to 4 real contenders each year.

Probably for me, the Big 10 is probably #1 and the SEC is probably #2. But I'd still think the 10 team Big XII is every bit as good, if not better than the PAC 10 and is certainly better than the ACC, Big East and Mountain West.

[kevinfootes]

Footes.

Keep going list of the the bad football schools. Regarding the Big 10, why leave out Northwestern, Wisconsin, Purdue and Minnesota. Also, it's been years since the Illini were any good either. Nationally, who really cares about these schools as well. What are the national rating for a Hawkeyes v. Golden Gophers game? Note: I could have said Hoosiers v. Northwestern. Hasn't the Big 10 really come down to Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan (maybe throw in Michigan State). Certainly, the addition of Nebraska will given them a big boost and bragging rights.

As to the SEC, why leave out Kentucky and South Carolina and why not mention both Ole Miss and Mississippi State. For that matter, Georgia hasn't really contended that much since Hershel Walker. Doesn't the SEC usually come down to Tennessee, Alabama, LSU and Florida?

As to Colorado, aren't they like the Illini who were good in the 1980's but not before then or since then. In fact, they've been bad in recent years. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A & M and maybe 1 of the others (Mizzou, KU, KState) is certainly not a bad conference with 3 to 4 real contenders each year.

Probably for me, the Big 10 is probably #1 and the SEC is probably #2. But I'd still think the 10 team Big XII is every bit as good, if not better than the PAC 10 and is certainly better than the ACC, Big East and Mountain West.

I wasn't trying to list every possible team, but you covered the rest. I think the SEC is clearly the #1 football conference. You could debate the next 2 spots, but I'd probably put the big 12 ofthe past ahead of the big 10. The big east wound up with a pretty good conference rpi, but I think they benefit statistically by only having 8 teams.

I see your point, but Iowa and Minnesota isn't what's being shown on national tv. You listed 3-4 big 10 schools with broad national appeal. Throw Nebraska into the mix. The SEC has at least 5 teams with broad national appeal. The big 12 now has 2 teams with broad national appeal (sorry aTm). There are more big games in these conferences, and I think the revenue sharing tends to help as schools like Wisconsin, Arkansas, etc. float in and out of the mix.

Heck, the NFL has had revenue sharing for ages and is really a role model...despite what the cowboys are trying to do.

[slufanskip]

I wasn't trying to list every possible team, but you covered the rest. I think the SEC is clearly the #1 football conference. You could debate the next 2 spots, but I'd probably put the big 12 ofthe past ahead of the big 10. The big east wound up with a pretty good conference rpi, but I think they benefit statistically by only having 8 teams.

I see your point, but Iowa and Minnesota isn't what's being shown on national tv. You listed 3-4 big 10 schools with broad national appeal. Throw Nebraska into the mix. The SEC has at least 5 teams with broad national appeal. The big 12 now has 2 teams with broad national appeal (sorry aTm). There are more big games in these conferences, and I think the revenue sharing tends to help.

Heck, the NFL has had revenue sharing for ages and is really a role model...despite what the cowboys are trying to do.

Blame it on Texans again.

[Clock_Tower]

I wasn't trying to list every possible team, but you covered the rest. I think the SEC is clearly the #1 football conference. You could debate the next 2 spots, but I'd probably put the big 12 ofthe past ahead of the big 10. The big east wound up with a pretty good conference rpi, but I think they benefit statistically by only having 8 teams.

I see your point, but Iowa and Minnesota isn't what's being shown on national tv. You listed 3-4 big 10 schools with broad national appeal. Throw Nebraska into the mix. The SEC has at least 5 teams with broad national appeal. The big 12 now has 2 teams with broad national appeal (sorry aTm). There are more big games in these conferences, and I think the revenue sharing tends to help as schools like Wisconsin, Arkansas, etc. float in and out of the mix.

Heck, the NFL has had revenue sharing for ages and is really a role model...despite what the cowboys are trying to do.

Prior to Nebraska, I would have agreed with you that the SEC if better. Now, I think they are more equal.

You're also right about the Big XII have only 2 real national interest teams - but then again - they might be the best 2 teams in the country. Their dominance is also what keeps some of the other teams down. Still, there is no what to sugar coat the loss of Nebraska.

As to the dysfunctional system, I much prefer the NFL but I still avidly watch MLB and am still interested the most dysfunctional teams (Yankees and Red Sox - while hoping they lose every game they play) in the most dysfunctional league (MLB) and yet the Yankees, Red Sox and MLB appear to be doing just fine.

[kevinfootes]

Prior to Nebraska, I would have agreed with you that the SEC if better. Now, I think they are more equal.

You're also right about the Big XII have only 2 real national interest teams - but then again - they might be the best 2 teams in the country. Their dominance is also what keeps some of the other teams down. Still, there is no what to sugar coat the loss of Nebraska.

As to the dysfunctional system, I much prefer the NFL but I still avidly watch MLB and am still interested the most dysfunctional teams (Yankees and Red Sox - while hoping they lose every game they play) in the most dysfunctional league (MLB) and yet the Yankees, Red Sox and MLB appear to be doing just fine.

The Yankees and Red Sox do just fine, but teams like the Pirates have almost no chance to win without losing money. Now we're getting even more off topic for the board!

[kevinfootes]

Blame it on Texans again.

Dallas Cowboys, not Houston Texans!

[strozier]

Also, it's been years since the Illini were any good either.

They did get their a$$es handed to them by the cheating sons of Troy in the Rose Bowl a few years back. Juice'd.