I'm not going to lie... I literally had about 10 blogs written about the Big 12 fiasco, but every time i went to publish them, I ended up deleting them because the story changed so much, what I had written had become toilet paper. Right now, Tuesday night, the story has calmed down enough for me to recap what has happened.
I will also be upfront right now, I am a Nebraska guy up down left and right. People who know me know the Big Red goes through me like no one else. However, I feel that I have seen with neutral eyes, what Texas has done to the remaining schools of the Big 12 conference.
I'm going to go over what has happened. For this, I'm going to reference 2 articles. One, the site orangebloods.com, which happens to be partially owned by Chip Brown. Orangebloods is on the rivals.com network. The link to the article is at http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1094753 and this will be article A.
The second article I will refer to is a blog entry from the San Jose Mercury News. A person by the name of Jon Wilner, wrote an entry that I found off a link on twitter (i am at @btbowling). That article is here, http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2010/06/15/pac-10-expansion-the-texas-conspiracy-theory/ and I will call it article B.
Here's what I agree with out of article A:
- Colorado moved out of the Big 12 to the Pac 10 only because they thought the league would fold and they would not be on the hook for the buyout. The tab is going to be roughly $9 millon over 2 years, the same amount the school coudln't come up with to buy out Dan Hawkins. They were scared to have no conference to go to (which I don't agree with, the Mountain West would have taken them in an New York minute), so they just agreed to go west thinking they would not have anything to worry about, because the Big 12 is done for.
- Texas didn't lie when they told Nebraska, at the Big 12 meetings in KC the first week of June, that they couldn't commit to anything long term when Harvey Perlman asked. In a way, Texas let Nebraska off the hook because Osborne and Perlman, while having great relations with Dodds and Powers, were growing tired of them over all the disagreements. Both schools were going to get more money, whether the other one agreed to give it up or not. All Nebraska wanted from Texas, which Powers refused to do, is make it a 12 school dividend with everything. The network issue bothered Perlman more than anything, I do believe. If you had the network, the commitment would have fallen into place.
What I disagree with in article A:
- The thought that Nebraska made their decision Wednesday. The decision wasn't made till Friday during the regents meeting. There were a few that were not sure about how this was working till Osborne and Perlman got in front of them and talked about what had happened.
- The thought that, with 2 less teams and no title game, Dan Beebe will get this league more money in four years. Remember something about the "commitments" that was talked about today, THERE ARE NO SIGNATURES ON ANYTHING THAT WASN'T ON THERE BEFORE. There is no new TV deal until the current ones run out. Fox MAY renegotiate, however there is no feasable way that Fox can increase their deal 500% while still only showing 2 to 3 games a weekend. ABC/ESPN has only commited to the Big 12 that the deal that was current will be kept by ABC/ESPN till the contract runs out. It doesn't say there will be more money put in. Now, because there are 2 less teams to pay, the pie piece gets bigger. However, with what Baylor, Missouri, Kansas and Kansas State, and Iowa State having to surrender their buyout payments to Oklahoma, Texas, and A&M, how is that really better for them?
Now, to article B and what I first agree with:
- Dodds was the one that broke the Pac 10 story to orangebloods.com. Larry Scott and Kevin Weinberg had done such a good job keeping this story private. And, all of a sudden, Texas' Rivals site has the scoop without Scott or Weinberg at the meetings? There is only one group of people that gave that up.
- Texas knew they were not going to the Pac 10, that's why at the last minute, the extra concessions, which were things they knew the answer to, were asked and denied. Dodds and Powers knew that they couldn't get their own network with Scott. It was an out and gave them a guilt free way to say no thanks then.
- There were a lot of people knowing that Texas was in full bluff mode. Joe Castiglione didn't talk to anyone else because he trusted Texas that much? Do you really believe that? Do you honestly believe that the University of Oklahoma would be in Conference USA if they made Texas mad? Please... Joe knew that all they had to do was shut up and he got paid. Same for Stillwater.
Now, what I do not agree with in article B...
- That Nebraska panicked and bolted for the Big 10 as fast as possible. It was a mutual courtship, and Jim Delany knew that he has them in their back pocket. I wonder how well the talks with Delany and Missouri really went. Nebraska just got less connected and more dispondant with how Texas went along with their business. Both sides got what they wanted; a divorce.
- Larry Scott and Weinberg were commited to offering the five schools (UT, TAMU, TT, OU, OSU) the invites for the Pac 10. This is where it gets odd to me... don't you think that if all five schools had the same invite, and had the same offer on the table, would they have met with the Scott/Weinberg team TOGETHER? Why did Scott have to go to each team individually. That doesn't make sense to me either... if the group had a joint invite, why were they treated individually??
I probably have a better thought of Chip Brown now than I did Sunday afternoon. I still think he's a speaking puppet for Dodds and Powers (and will be WHEN, not if, this all happens again). However, he was on top of the story all the time and worked his ass off to get his story out there. And, especially when Joe Schad was contradicting him, he stood by his story and it paid off. That, Chip, I do commend you on.
This deal has ZERO chance to make it more than 2 years at the most. I personally can't see the smaller Northern schools tolerating being walked on. Nebraska gave them a little big of cover because they would want equality, more than Texas would ever give.
Ask yourself something else about this deal. If Oklahoma was totally commited to what Texas wanted to do, and was willing to go wherever they went... Why then did they receive just as much money as UT and A&M for staying? I get A&M, because I believe the SEC overture was true, and the money they are getting now is more than what the SEC currently can give them. But Oklahoma was always behind UT, and they get more than Tech or Oklahoma State? With the same commitment? No one else finds that odd?
Texas Tech may be the first school to bolt this offer. They stayed quiet just like OU or even more, and yet will not get as paid as much. Gerald Myers was played on this, but the problem is that they have no other options. I do believe, that if Utah doesn't become the 12th team in the Pac, that Larry Scott may court TT, and they may say yes. I don't have anything that will tell you this is true outside of my gut feeling.
Bottom line is this... how Dan Beebe came up with these numbers is beyond me. And, for all intensive purposes, how all these schools agreed with it is even farther past my comprehention. I do agree with the notion that all schools involved now want it to work. Primarily, because there is nowhere all of them could go that they could do better right now.
Love it or hate it, that's what I got...
.. for now...
No comments:
Post a Comment