What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Big 12 (10): 10-year Commitment Only Applies to 5 Schools

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
Earlier this week, Texas president Bill Powers suggested that the continuing loyalty to the Big 12 would be sort of on the honor system, with each school pledging a long-term commitment.

Then Kansas athletic director Lew Perkins suggested a binding 10-year agreement in a story on AOL FanHouse.

OK, here's the explanation. Just got off the phone with Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe for a column that will run Sunday. In the process, I asked him about the apparent discrepancy.

Here's what Beebe said: As part of their plans for continuing the Big 12 with impending defections, Kansas, Kansas State, Baylor, Iowa State and Missouri agreed to 10-year commitments as a sign to other schools that might have considered joining or remaining in the league. The 10-year commitment now only applies to those five and may not be even applicable given the change in circumstances.

That said, Beebe acknowledged that the league might revisit its by-laws to strengthen its membership commitment.

***********

I originally saw this on the Rivals board, but it's also all over free sites including: http://collegesportsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/06/about-that-10-year-big-12-commitment.html

Have I said, "Thank all things holy and unholy that we escaped the Big 12!!!" yet today?
 
What's left of the B12 is a giant sucking clusterfudge. We are stronger - by far - to be rid of them. They can claim to be stronger for our departure all they want. The fact remains that their conference is a house of cards that can (and will) fall very easily.
 
A conference whose foundation is made up of injustice, inequality, and naked greed will not stand. It is a house of cards.
 
Sounds like a Texas problem to me. I just hope when it implodes they don't come running to the PAC. The best thing for us is that they add Houston/ARK/TCU/SMU or whoever and get some sort of solid foundation so that we dont have to deal with this crap in a few days/weeks/years.
 
Sounds like a Texas problem to me. I just hope when it implodes they don't come running to the PAC. The best thing for us is that they add Houston/ARK/TCU/SMU or whoever and get some sort of solid foundation so that we dont have to deal with this crap in a few days/weeks/years.

I think what you're going to see happen is that UT is going to try to go independent. MU will literally get on their knees and beg for an invite to the Big 10, and will probably get it. OU and A&M will go to the SEC. The remaining teams - ISU, KSU, KU, OSU, Tech and Baylor, will reconstruct a non-BCS conference and add teams from some combination of Houston, Rice, SMU, Tulsa, UTEP, NMSU. I don't see TCU in this picture for two reasons; 1) Baylor and TCU don't get along - at all - and 2) the MWC will actually be a more attractive conference than whatever crap these goofs put together. The big loser in all this is Kansas, who will slowly die on the vine, unfortunately.
 
A conference whose foundation is made up of injustice, inequality, and naked greed will not stand. It is a house of cards.

Yes. Every day I am more thrilled that we somehow escaped. Seriously, escaped is the only word I can think of. Most of the remaining teams are completely powerless.
Will be glad for some of them when this version of the "Big 12" implodes, as it must eventually.

[video=youtube;SY5NVkGtZ0Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY5NVkGtZ0Y&feature=related[/video]
 
Sounds like a Texas problem to me. I just hope when it implodes they don't come running to the PAC. The best thing for us is that they add Houston/ARK/TCU/SMU or whoever and get some sort of solid foundation so that we dont have to deal with this crap in a few days/weeks/years.


It might be wishful thinking, but I believe Tex*****'s embarrassing behavior during all the conference realignment will have made the 12-PAC's teams very wary of involving them in the future.
There was nothing gentlemanly or dignified about their "negotiating" with fellow teammembers. They acted like a bully and I don't think the PAC is going to embrace that.
 
What's left of the B12 is a giant sucking clusterfudge. We are stronger - by far - to be rid of them. They can claim to be stronger for our departure all they want. The fact remains that their conference is a house of cards that can (and will) fall very easily.

From a TV standpoint the rest of the conference is not that compelling.
From a fairness perspective there is no CCG which will make it easier on the have nots become champions.
From a revenue perspective less teams mean more money but no CCG means less revenue.
Based on what's left they will still be without a doubt a BCS conference.
 
From a TV standpoint the rest of the conference is not that compelling.
From a fairness perspective there is no CCG which will make it easier on the have nots become champions.
From a revenue perspective less teams mean more money but no CCG means less revenue.
Based on what's left they will still be without a doubt a BCS conference.

Look how Oregon St had made some serious runs in the Pac10 for the past few years and had a solid chance to win it, but failed to beat UO in their last game. Parity comes more by having 10 teams than 12, imo. UT and OU will still be the top dogs, but I expect someone to pull the conference out of their ass. The main thing helping the Pac10 was that only USC was the power school. In the Big 12 there's 2 kings of the hill (football-wise).
 
@ Alfred and Sack

I hope you guys are right about Texas. I could easily see Sack's thoughts happening as the next step for the whorns is to try the indie thing. One thing that is sure though, is winning like that comes in cycles. They had a good 10 year run and I imagine it will be slowing down here pretty soon.
 
IMO, I don't see UT and aTM backing off of the accelorator for one second. Its business as usual for them and they will continue to create more brain damage for all of the other schools in the Big Tex conferance. They rule the roost, and they know it! To apply a 10 year plan to just the "other" schools like what Perkins/Beebe is proposing, is insane. If they buy into that plan, they will get exactly what they deserve. The Perkins/Beebe 10 year plan and the possibility of revisiting the by-laws is just lip service that will only delay the enevitable collapse of the B-Tex. Hopefully over time Larry Scott will keep an eye on how things are working out in the new Big Tex conferance and be glad that it's the P-12 instead of the P-16.
 
I think that the Pac still wants to go to 16 teams at some point. I still think UT is at the top of their list for when they do expand. But, like the B10 and ND, the Pac has now been spurned twice by the whorns. There may not be a third time. The B12 is on life-support, but it might stick around long enough for a school like OU or KU to get it's academic house in order to the point where the Pac would consider adding them without the UT appendage.
 
Back
Top