*****The Super, Mega, Huge Big 12 Expansion Thread*****

[Al_4_State]

When has it ever been about anything else? You've been FOLLOWING realignment, right?

Seriously...none of use know exactly where the negotiations stand, or where they broke down. But I'll tell you where you're NOT going to get the straight scoop: Orangebloods.

From the sources who follow this closely (and don't have DeLoss Dodds' hand up their ***) Mizzou wants:

1. A 13+ year rights deal (TX has fallen back to 6 yrs.)
2. Equal revenue sharing for Tiers 1-3 (TX has agreed to 1-2)
3. No HS coverage on regional networks (TX may or may not have agreed to it...we need someone other than Chip to confirm)

Are these positions outlandish? Too much to ask for? Then how come every other major conference has something like this already? (or in the case of the SEC, soon will)

If we got all of these, there's a (slim) possibility we could stay. I'd prefer we don't - because I don't trust Texas to be an honest partner in all of this, and to stay within the spirit of the rules. It's not really fear, it's distrust. I don't know how you "fix" that.

It's called a "contract". They are these legally binding documents that force you to do what you say you're going to do, or face penalty in court. Maybe they don't have them in Missouri yet.

And I think the 13 year grant of rights is unheard of. The Big 12 is breaking new ground even with the 6 year grant of rights. I don't think any league save maybe the Big 10 had those, but I'm not 100% on that.

 

[BooneCy]

When has it ever been about anything else? You've been FOLLOWING realignment, right?

Seriously...none of use know exactly where the negotiations stand, or where they broke down. But I'll tell you where you're NOT going to get the straight scoop: Orangebloods.

From the sources who follow this closely (and don't have DeLoss Dodds' hand up their ***) Mizzou wants:

1. A 13+ year rights deal (TX has fallen back to 6 yrs.)
2. Equal revenue sharing for Tiers 1-3 (TX has agreed to 1-2)
3. No HS coverage on regional networks (TX may or may not have agreed to it...we need someone other than Chip to confirm)

Are these positions outlandish? Too much to ask for? Then how come every other major conference has something like this already? (or in the case of the SEC, soon will)

If we got all of these, there's a (slim) possibility we could stay. I'd prefer we don't - because I don't trust Texas to be an honest partner in all of this, and to stay within the spirit of the rules. It's not really fear, it's distrust. I don't know how you "fix" that.

The SEC does not share T3 rights, and we don't know if they will. Florida would have to agree to it. They currently have their own channel where they air their T3 product.

 

[UNIGuy4Cy]

The SEC has nothing of the sorts like a 6 yr media rights. They have nothing to bind the schools to the conference. But no one is leaving because the conference is so strong. This 6 year deal will stabilize the conference similar to that of the SEC.

 

[cykadelic2]

When has it ever been about anything else? You've been FOLLOWING realignment, right?

Seriously...none of use know exactly where the negotiations stand, or where they broke down. But I'll tell you where you're NOT going to get the straight scoop: Orangebloods.

From the sources who follow this closely (and don't have DeLoss Dodds' hand up their ***) Mizzou wants:

1. A 13+ year rights deal (TX has fallen back to 6 yrs.)
2. Equal revenue sharing for Tiers 1-3 (TX has agreed to 1-2)
3. No HS coverage on regional networks (TX may or may not have agreed to it...we need someone other than Chip to confirm)

Are these positions outlandish? Too much to ask for? Then how come every other major conference has something like this already? (or in the case of the SEC, soon will)

If we got all of these, there's a (slim) possibility we could stay. I'd prefer we don't - because I don't trust Texas to be an honest partner in all of this, and to stay within the spirit of the rules. It's not really fear, it's distrust. I don't know how you "fix" that.

Distrust about what?

Name me one specific item or issue that Texas has been untrustworthy on.

The BS that crybaby Mizzou, NU and Aggy fans will suggest about Texas without any concrete merit get freakin old.

Also, your suggestion that the SEC will soon equally share Tier 3 revenues is also BS. They don't now and I don't see Florida giving that up.

 

[cyman05]

Mizzoulander, I wish you'd go back to the Mizzou boards. We get it: Missouri is in a good position to bargain. However, all the Missouri fans don't want to stay in the Big 12 even if Missouri got every concession they were looking for.

Why do you feel like you have to get on this board and defend Missouri against all of us?

 

[QBUMizzou]

I don't see how my ISU friends can continue to argue that Mizzou is crazy to leave the Big 12 for the SEC. They say doing so would mean the Tiger football team would be a 5-7 or 6-6 team forever. They wonder why anyone would want to be in a conference with that kind of competition.

Hasn't that been ISU's situation in the Big 12 for almost as long as anyone can remember? Let's face it, most years ISU is ecstatic to get to a bowl game. Does that mean that ISU should be playing on a lesser conference? That they don't belong in the Big 12?

Of course not, because as much as it pains MU and ISU fans to say it, there's more to conference affiliation than winning. ISU doesn't want this conference to fail because they are worried about losing the money they receive from conference affiliation. They're worried a lesser conference (like the BE or MWC) would mean less money, and less exposure. They are worried about losing tier one status.

Oddly enough, those same factors have pushed A&M, CU and NU to leave. Competitive equality (which is paid for with cold hard cash) has vanished in the Big 12, and everyone knows it. Knowing this, MU would be absolute fools to turn down an offer from the SEC.

I have no idea if Mizzou will leave, but I don't blame them if they do. And I would feel the same with if it were ISU.

 

[HandSanitizer]

Since this whole thing is stupid....Lets get 4 teams in that we could at least have a fun road trip to. Nothing else makes since.

UNLV - Vegas for Guys weekend
Central Florida - Take the family to Disney
Hawaii - Nuff said.
Tulane - Why does your wife have all those beads??

 

[Mizzoulander]

If Mizzou leaving isn't about the LHN or equal revenue sharing, than it what the **** is it about? Are you as dumb as Aggie?

I think Mizzou stays. The admins aren't as stupid as you are.

Internet Mizzou fans seem to want change for change's sake. Not because it's what is best for the University of Missouri in any way shape or form.

I haven't been here that long...I don't know who Boomer or Aggie are. I assume there aren't a lot of non-Cyclones who visit here?

I think it's pretty unlikely that Mizzou stays at this point, if they've got an SEC invite. A lot of the fan base has already checked-out emotionally from the Big 12, and it would take a hell of a sales job by the Chancellor and AD to get them to accept that outcome.

Again, I don't speak for everyone, but I welcome the challenge. We'll endure some sub-par or non-winning seasons if it means seeing some great college games against national powers. You remember how bad we were in the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations? We're very patient...we can endure quite a bit.

 

[ISUAgronomist]

Competitive equality? The new argument. :biglaugh:

 

[CrossCyed]

Again, demanding Tier 3 sharing when your purported destination does not have it, and there's no reason to think they will have it outside of an article by Clay Travis is a bit out there.

 

[cyman05]

I don't see how my ISU friends can continue to argue that Mizzou is crazy to leave the Big 12 for the SEC. They say doing so would mean the Tiger football team would be a 5-7 or 6-6 team forever. They wonder why anyone would want to be in a conference with that kind of competition.

Hasn't that been ISU's situation in the Big 12 for almost as long as anyone can remember? Let's face it, most years ISU is ecstatic to get to a bowl game. Does that mean that ISU should be playing on a lesser conference? That they don't belong in the Big 12?

Of course not, because as much as it pains MU and ISU fans to say it, there's more to conference affiliation than winning. ISU doesn't want this conference to fail because they are worried about losing the money they receive from conference affiliation. They're worried a lesser conference (like the BE or MWC) would mean less money, and less exposure. They are worried about losing tier one status.

Oddly enough, those same factors have pushed A&M, CU and NU to leave. Competitive equality (which is paid for with cold hard cash) has vanished in the Big 12, and everyone knows it. Knowing this, MU would be absolute fools to turn down an offer from the SEC.

I have no idea if Mizzou will leave, but I don't blame them if they do. And I would feel the same with if it were ISU.

Thank you for getting on here. IMO, you're a way better poster than Mizzoulander...

I think its really hard for you to compare MU and ISU. The last several years, Missouri has been a top 25 team. Missouri can either choose to remain in that situation, or get more losses in a more "glorious conference."

Do I blame Mizzou for going? NO. It is absolutely not crazy to trade in wins for money and the chance to play in the "glorious SEC." You just have to realize the price you're paying to leave the Big 12 in terms of wins.

Meanwhile ISU has not been a top 25 team. To go to another conference would not mean less wins because you can't really go down much. In fact, going to any other conference (sans SEC) would mean more wins. In the end, the fact is that ISU doesn't have choices.

Your key statement is "because as much as it pains MU and ISU fans to say it, there's more to conference affiliation than winning." You just have to realize that playing in the SEC is going to cost you wins. If you're okay with losing wins every year to get more money, then I don't call you crazy, but just another player in the money grab. That's just the way it is.

 

[InCytful]

When has it ever been about anything else? You've been FOLLOWING realignment, right?

Seriously...none of use know exactly where the negotiations stand, or where they broke down. But I'll tell you where you're NOT going to get the straight scoop: Orangebloods.

From the sources who follow this closely (and don't have DeLoss Dodds' hand up their ***) Mizzou wants:

1. A 13+ year rights deal (TX has fallen back to 6 yrs.)
2. Equal revenue sharing for Tiers 1-3 (TX has agreed to 1-2)
3. No HS coverage on regional networks (TX may or may not have agreed to it...we need someone other than Chip to confirm)

Are these positions outlandish? Too much to ask for? Then how come every other major conference has something like this already? (or in the case of the SEC, soon will)

If we got all of these, there's a (slim) possibility we could stay. I'd prefer we don't - because I don't trust Texas to be an honest partner in all of this, and to stay within the spirit of the rules. It's not really fear, it's distrust. I don't know how you "fix" that.

I would like to see where each school falls on:

1. Length of media rights commitment.
2. Number of schools to invite/include in Big 12. (9, 10, 12, 14, 16...)
3. Content of Tier 3 networks

All we have are rumors and anonymous sources. Chip says Texas is open to 6 years commitment and insinuates 6 years of no high school highlights on LHN, though ESPN had to agree before they could commit to that. I agree that his take is probably TX talking points, but where does everyone else stand.

 

[9104Griffith]

I remember watching them play at Jack Trice during the 80s. Does that help?

Went to the Tulane game in the Superdome in '89. After too many hurricanes at Pat OBs things were a little foggy but the game had a great ending with ISU winning by scoring late TD and going for 2 instead of the tie. Definitely a good road trip...

 

[Al_4_State]

I don't see how my ISU friends can continue to argue that Mizzou is crazy to leave the Big 12 for the SEC. They say doing so would mean the Tiger football team would be a 5-7 or 6-6 team forever. They wonder why anyone would want to be in a conference with that kind of competition.

Hasn't that been ISU's situation in the Big 12 for almost as long as anyone can remember? Let's face it, most years ISU is ecstatic to get to a bowl game. Does that mean that ISU should be playing on a lesser conference? That they don't belong in the Big 12?

Of course not, because as much as it pains MU and ISU fans to say it, there's more to conference affiliation than winning. ISU doesn't want this conference to fail because they are worried about losing the money they receive from conference affiliation. They're worried a lesser conference (like the BE or MWC) would mean less money, and less exposure. They are worried about losing tier one status.

Oddly enough, those same factors have pushed A&M, CU and NU to leave. Competitive equality (which is paid for with cold hard cash) has vanished in the Big 12, and everyone knows it. Knowing this, MU would be absolute fools to turn down an offer from the SEC.

I have no idea if Mizzou will leave, but I don't blame them if they do. And I would feel the same with if it were ISU.

If you guys were looking at the Big 10, I'd get it and wouldn't doubt it for a second. You get more money and more wins. I'm not blaming you for looking for a better situation, I'm blaming you for running head first into something that's unlikely to be a better situation, and leaving us on a geographical island.

You're looking at losing wins for what's likely not any more money. All so you can do some stupid chant and say "HEY! LOOK AT US! WE'RE IN THE SECSECSEC!" What is the allure of that? Why do you want that so bad? It sure hasn't helped Vanderbilt and Kentucky. Do you think you're going to make the same cash as Bama, Florida, LSU, Georgia, etc? The same imbalance you found in the Big 12 will exist in the SEC and will be skewed even more against you.

Again, the Big 10 makes total sense from every conceivable angle. The SEC makes next to no sense. Go ahead and shove the shotgun down your throat if you're hell bent on it. There are schools that would kill to have what you have.

You guys are star struck. Pure and simple. You eat ESPN's SEC jizz, and you are so damn obsessed about the idea of being in the most prestigious league, that you don't care about the program suicide you're committing. It looks like the inmates are running the asylum in Columbia. Be careful what you wish for, because you will get it.

 

[mikem]

Of course Texas is still in the conference, the conference lets them have the best sweetheart deal in all the land. If they wanted to act as true conference partners they know what they need to do to keep all these other schools from looking around and/or wanting out.

It is good to see that you have recovered enough from the *** kicking your favorite team took in Madison Saturday night to come back and continue with this nonsense.

 

[CloneAbuse]

Mizzou fan saying they need Texas and other to share T3 rights...Florida had the richest T3 deal before LHN...they might want to renegotiate for all you know Mizzou fan. It's outlandish to expect the T3 right to be given up short of having a conference network, ala the B1G. It's Unfortunate that the Big XII schools didn't see the vision of Kevin Wieberg and sent him packing to the B1G, where he revolutionized the CFB greed game...in hindsight, we could have been in the B1G's shoes...he's now out west with that other d-bag, Larry Scott.

No other conference member is asking for any other conference member to give up T3 right now...the SEC would have to go that route if they form their own network...if you read Outkickthecoverage.com that ****** Clay is claiming that's what Slive is pushing 14 members for, to get ESPN to renegotiate and form their network for them. The only reason Slive/SEC wants Mizzou is because it's a big happy greedy family...they want the TVs in a new footprint...they don't care if you ever win in their conference...and neither do we!

 

[CrossCyed]

So Texas agreeing to restrict any and all high school content for the next six years, while also granting rights for that length ended up as the compromise, sources said.

Although, a key source said late Wednesday it's still possible the agreement could end up being for 13 years once the Big 12 decides on its final number of members.


---

I'm assuming people didn't read that paragraph either.

 

[HardcoreClone]

When has it ever been about anything else? You've been FOLLOWING realignment, right?

Seriously...none of use know exactly where the negotiations stand, or where they broke down. But I'll tell you where you're NOT going to get the straight scoop: Orangebloods.

From the sources who follow this closely (and don't have DeLoss Dodds' hand up their ***) Mizzou wants:

1. A 13+ year rights deal (TX has fallen back to 6 yrs.)
2. Equal revenue sharing for Tiers 1-3 (TX has agreed to 1-2)
3. No HS coverage on regional networks (TX may or may not have agreed to it...we need someone other than Chip to confirm)

Are these positions outlandish? Too much to ask for? Then how come every other major conference has something like this already? (or in the case of the SEC, soon will)

If we got all of these, there's a (slim) possibility we could stay. I'd prefer we don't - because I don't trust Texas to be an honest partner in all of this, and to stay within the spirit of the rules. It's not really fear, it's distrust. I don't know how you "fix" that.

Without having followed much of the realignment talk or with much knowledge of how TV tier contacts work, I will say this.

1. I completely agree with this and it appears would greatly stabilize the conference. If a team decides to leave and threaten the existence of the conference, at least we know we would get a big paycheck none the less.

2. I partially agree. I think tier 1 and 2 should be shared. However, I think you're asking a bit too much. Who are we to tell Texas or any other school they have to share Tier 3 money from their own network? That just does not make sense to me. As long as they are not gaining any unfair advantages through their network (see 3. below), I don't see the problem. And it doesn't matter if it is some rinky-dink website content/generic TV or an enormous agreement with ESPN, it is the school's choice to have a network and if they are getting paid then so be it.

3. Again, I agree that no HS content should be shown on LHN, as mentioned above regarding unfair advantages. Another thing I don't like is the possibility of a conference game getting shown on LHN. If the network is conference-affiliated (ie: Big Ten Network), then by all means go ahead and show games, but Texas should not be in sole control of possibly having conference games. The only scenario is if Tier 1/2 pass up a game which Texas is home team, then I guess they would be eligible, but how often would Texas really get passed up for Tier 1/2? Pretty much if Missouri had their own network, then they would be able to show our game against them in 2 weeks since I don't believe there is any TV. Hopefully I got those TV tier rights correct.....

So I definitely agree with some of Missouri's issues, but please realize they are not the only school seeing these issues. Every other school I'm sure has these same thoughts, even powerhouse Oklahoma. So start working together as one and stand up to Texas to create changes!

 

[cyman05]

If you guys were looking at the Big 10, I'd get it and wouldn't doubt it for a second. You get more money and more wins. I'm not blaming you for looking for a better situation, I'm blaming you for running head first into something that's unlikely to be a better situation, and leaving us on a geographical island.

You're looking at losing wins for what's likely not any more money. All so you can do some stupid chant and say "HEY! LOOK AT US! WE'RE IN THE SECSECSEC!" What is the allure of that? Why do you want that so bad? It sure hasn't helped Vanderbilt and Kentucky.

Again, the Big 10 makes total sense from every conceivable angle. The SEC makes next to no sense. Go ahead and shove the shotgun down your throat if you're hell bent on it. There are schools that would kill to have what you have.

+1...It'd be like ISU considering going to the Pac16. Big 10 yes, but he PAC for ISU would be a big stretch.

I do disagree on the money thing though. I bet Mizzou could make 5-10 million/year more in the SEC. But is that worth it?

Mizzou to SEC is just not a geographical or cultural fit. Big 10 would be. They're 2 different situations.

 

[InCytful]

I haven't been here that long...I don't know who Boomer or Aggie are. I assume there aren't a lot of non-Cyclones who visit here?

I think it's pretty unlikely that Mizzou stays at this point, if they've got an SEC invite. A lot of the fan base has already checked-out emotionally from the Big 12, and it would take a hell of a sales job by the Chancellor and AD to get them to accept that outcome.

Again, I don't speak for everyone, but I welcome the challenge. We'll endure some sub-par or non-winning seasons if it means seeing some great college games against national powers. You remember how bad we were in the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations? We're very patient...we can endure quite a bit.

I remember how bad they were in Bush 41 times, just as ISU wasn't good back then either. In my time in ISU marching band, we went on one road trip per year. In 4 band road trips, we won only one game, at Missouri, and had to come back from 21 pts down at half to win that. Neither team was worth a darn then, and OU vs UNL after Thanksgiving was still one of the biggest games on TV and usually decided the conference.

I think that MU will be ok in SEC or in Big XII. I'd prefer the latter. Time will tell what they do.