Wouldn't Gordon Gee have insight into the B1G's "ultimate plan"?

(03-25-2018 10:25 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Wouldn't Gordon Gee have insight into the B1G's "ultimate plan"?

There is no ultimate plan. There is only doing what the networks pay you to do with targets of convenience. Last time it was markets. This time it will be content. Plans made in 2010 are now moot.

(03-25-2018 08:27 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(03-25-2018 08:03 PM)canewton Wrote:  If Oklahoma and Kansas leave the Big12, I'd be very curious to see what happens to Kansas State and Oklahoma State.

I think nothing will happen to K-State and OK-State. Big-XII takes AAC members, AAC takes Big-XII members, or Big-XII and AAC merge as one conference.

Or Bix XII takes on some Pac12 members

(03-25-2018 10:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-25-2018 10:25 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Wouldn't Gordon Gee have insight into the B1G's "ultimate plan"?

There is no ultimate plan. There is only doing what the networks pay you to do with targets of convenience. Last time it was markets. This time it will be content. Plans made in 2010 are now moot.

Not necessarily content JR, but rather saleable inventory. Once all of the desirable rights are acquired, the content will be pared down during the next round in about 20 years.

(03-25-2018 09:09 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(03-25-2018 08:58 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I’m sure the big 10 would love to get OU and KU but pulling it off will be difficult if the sec or pac 12 offer a combo package. Also, can’t believe the big 10 would be able to have a 6 year buy in, full membership at the start or no deal. If the big 10 wants to go west, they should target Missouri first since they don’t have any complications

Why would Mizzou leave the SEC?

Because you'll always have faculty and regents who feel the association will be more prestigious and advance the institution. One can dismiss the faculty. Regents with opinions? I'd worry about those.

(03-25-2018 07:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-25-2018 07:40 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(03-25-2018 05:23 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

Quote:In late February 2017, during Oklahoma and Kansas Basketball game, non official reps from all 3 Universities of Oklahoma, Kansas & Nebraska met in a planned informal meeting to discuss potential steps forward in Conference Realignment. Completely unofficial meeting among non-employees of the 3 Universities, but significant.

How do we know this happened? Because notes were taken. I know there were notes taken, not because I’ve seen them, but I know the party who has seen them when he was called to help guide the person (Nebraska unofficial rep) in answering follow up questions two weeks out after said meeting occurred.

When did I find out about this meeting at Allen Fieldhouse? 4 days ago. How did I find out? Because of a what I do in my business, my job, I was curious and asked about a recent large donation to KU. The rest of info unraveled in my lap.

Let’s take a step back. Few years ago Kansas and Oklahoma opened their books for Big Ten examination. This is not a secret. Opening the books at the time was never about the last Big Ten Expansion, but about the next one. The last Big Ten Expansion was always going East. Delany was going to get Eastern population, Eastern Media to increase value of entire Conference. Delany always had 2 region conference concept for next Big Ten Expansion. Big Ten back-channeled talked with Rutgers for over 6 years. No promises, but no secrets. Same is happening now with Kansas & Oklahoma. But there is one big and extremely telling and interesting difference.

These back-channel talks (twice that we know of 1: Opened books 2013 2: Feb 2017)with Kansas & Oklahoma has been in tandem. Package deal. We do not know of any comparable examples of this long range back-channeling with a tandem before now. Kansas & Oklahoma need to know what each other are doing if they want to keep their options going forward. They can’t go into their separate 3rd Tier negotiations in 2021 & 2022 without some sort of idea of how the other one is proceeding.

As valuable as KU and OU are in brands, institutions, and economic centers in their respective states they both still need each other to gain invite to Big Ten. Both schools bring in value the other does not have. They jump every hurdle together. It’s why they had the meeting. Informal, planned meeting with non officials, non direct employees of Nebraska, Oklahoma & Kansas. The interest is mutual on all sides. It has been for quite sometime and the interest has not dissipated

None of these schools would set up a formal meeting with direct representation of each school at this time for it would endanger Kansas & Oklahoma financially because of its obvious violation of Big 12 bylaws when schools have entered Grant of Rights Discussions, the meeting notes of February of 2017, centered around maximizing options of 3rd Tier rights for OU & KU leading up to potential Big Ten invite in 2023/24 for 2025 entry.

These rights are important. They involve multiple platforms within each institution. And they also differ from each other. Questions were raised on how these next 3rd Tier negotiations OU & KU will be going through very shortly can have off ramps into Big Ten Network if possible. Discussions also included what are the options, not so much to shorten the 6 year investment into Big Ten Network, but if the off ramp from their own new 3rd Tier deals negotiated 2021/2022 can somehow be mixed into Big Ten Network on short term basis.

Oklahoma & Kansas want to keep all options open, which includes staying with reformed Big 12. So it wants to work in concert with each other and *understandings* from Big Ten when moving into next 3rd Tier negotiations with ESPN, IMG or other media. What is striking about this meeting, about this particular back-channel talks is Kansas & Oklahoma did it together. It’s no surprise it happened with Nebraska unofficial rep, but it’s meaningful Kansas & Oklahoma did it together.

When KU & OU and their Board of Regents look at their options for beyond 2025 when Big 12 Grant of Rights comes to completion, they will be looking at what they both hope is a reformed Big 12 Option & Big Ten Option. They will be doing it together. There is a growing perception in Big Ten circles Oklahoma & Kansas do not have much Pro SEC or Pro PAC factions within their Board of Regents and for Oklahoma it’s Pro SEC donors have huge uphill climb against Oklahoma BOR. But there is, and will continue to be, very strong voices at OU & KU to push reform in Big 12 and stay in Big 12 past 2025. And this is the reason for back-channel talks. This is how OU and KU work in concert with each other during their upcoming separate 3rd Tier negotiations and keep clear options open for Big Ten invite and entry, and also keep a reformed Big 12 Option.

Big Ten interest is very high on expanding with Kansas & Oklahoma. The 16 School Conference has been war gamed out for years. It’s extra content it would provide to sell in Tier 1/2 market and 3rd Tier to Big Ten Network has been discussed thoroughly. 16 school Logistics, schedules, divisions, effect on non revenue sports, discussions with 51% owner of BTN FOX Sports, travel has all been on the table for years. The number 16 itself is not an issue. The right value-add with 15 & 16 have to be nailed to keep it a sweet spot. Current ripples in Big Ten, and Media partner FOX, is in favor of targeting Kansas & Oklahoma.

The B12 added a clause to their bylaws that basically says if a school has any discussions about realignment, official or unofficial, initiated by the school or by others, they have to notify the conference. If such a discussion took place, it would take OU & KU decades of B1G money to pay off the penalty.

Like the Dude, Fluguar knows his audience. It's Big 10 guys who are fearful of SEC advances and Big 12'ers who want assurances. Everything he does plays to his audience.

All of the major conferences are likely to have had back door discussions with those schools and they would have appeared favorable to all of them. It is the way the game is played. If you want the best offer you need to know what others would offer and they all need to feel hopeful to play along with the game.

We won't know what any of these schools are really planning to do until they do it, or not, and sign an extension to their present GOR.

To be fair, the same thing could be said about guys from ANY conference.... playing to their audience. Being a homer isn't exclusive to any one fan base.

I just thought his statements would make for some fun and interesting discussion.

Seems to be working.

(03-25-2018 07:55 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(03-25-2018 07:40 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(03-25-2018 05:23 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

Quote:In late February 2017, during Oklahoma and Kansas Basketball game, non official reps from all 3 Universities ...

None of these schools would set up a formal meeting with direct representation of each school at this time for it would endanger Kansas & Oklahoma financially because of its obvious violation of Big 12 bylaws when schools have entered Grant of Rights ...

The B12 added a clause to their bylaws that basically says if a school has any discussions about realignment, official or unofficial, initiated by the school or by others, they have to notify the conference. If such a discussion took place, it would take OU & KU decades of B1G money to pay off the penalty.

You clearly missed the comment I underlined. No official reps of the schools. All proxies, just like NBA players do when scouting their next teams via proxies (agents for players and proxies for teams).

Not to mention, it would be hard to "prove" that a group of boosters, alumni, or former staff members getting together for a steak dinner and "discussing" realignment would constitute the school being involved.

I would be more bothered by the thought that boosters, non-employees yet generous benefactors of the institution, could have the kind of potential sway and influence that "a plan" would be enough to gain public schools' leadership teams' attention.

Like, all it takes to get the president or chancellor's attention is a bunch of old rich white guys meeting up for a steak dinner talking crazy and then making a phone call. This is higher ed.

(03-26-2018 08:39 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I would be more bothered by the thought that boosters, non-employees yet generous benefactors of the institution, could have the kind of potential sway and influence that "a plan" would be enough to gain public schools' leadership teams' attention.

Like, all it takes to get the president or chancellor's attention is a bunch of old rich white guys meeting up for a steak dinner talking crazy and then making a phone call. This is higher ed.

In a perfect world, you'd be right.

However, when you take into consideration the word in bold, that changes the game.

I'm sure if the president or chancellor were to dismiss those "old rich guys" and not give their wishes credence, their "donations" would dry up and said president or chancellor would suddenly find their seat rather warm. Self preservation is a powerful driving force.

Besides, we pretty much know that fans and alumni have "say" in hiring decisions so it wouldn't be a far stretch to think they might have the same in conference decisions.

(03-25-2018 10:23 PM)McKinney Wrote:  ^ That's what I thought too. I thought the rumor was that UT and OU were going to Pac-12.

there have been rumors of UT and OU going together to the B1G and SEC as well. One thing for sure though, all of these schools' (UT, OU, KU) best option financially and institutionally is the B1G.

(03-25-2018 08:27 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(03-25-2018 08:03 PM)canewton Wrote:  If Oklahoma and Kansas leave the Big12, I'd be very curious to see what happens to Kansas State and Oklahoma State.

I think nothing will happen to K-State and OK-State. Big-XII takes AAC members, AAC takes Big-XII members, or Big-XII and AAC merge as one conference.

Yea. Specific schools' fates are uncertain (like, OKst and WVU might find a landing spot or might not), but the couple of schools thay get left behind will grab the most attractive schools available out of the MW/AAC, plus maybe Rice, and the backfilling will cascade down.

(03-26-2018 08:39 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I would be more bothered by the thought that boosters, non-employees yet generous benefactors of the institution, could have the kind of potential sway and influence that "a plan" would be enough to gain public schools' leadership teams' attention.

Like, all it takes to get the president or chancellor's attention is a bunch of old rich white guys meeting up for a steak dinner talking crazy and then making a phone call. This is higher ed.

The prepare to be bothered because it happens all the time. It gives the university/conference plausible deniability.

(03-26-2018 09:26 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(03-26-2018 08:39 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I would be more bothered by the thought that boosters, non-employees yet generous benefactors of the institution, could have the kind of potential sway and influence that "a plan" would be enough to gain public schools' leadership teams' attention.

Like, all it takes to get the president or chancellor's attention is a bunch of old rich white guys meeting up for a steak dinner talking crazy and then making a phone call. This is higher ed.

In a perfect world, you'd be right.

However, when you take into consideration the word in bold, that changes the game.

I'm sure if the president or chancellor were to dismiss those "old rich guys" and not give their wishes credence, their "donations" would dry up and said president or chancellor would suddenly find their seat rather warm. Self preservation is a powerful driving force.

Besides, we pretty much know that fans and alumni have "say" in hiring decisions so it wouldn't be a far stretch to think they might have the same in conference decisions.

I don't care if this stuff happens at the private schools. How they do their business is not really any of mine. When it's the public schools, though...

I'm venting. I'm getting to that point where I think the states should be cutting the land grants and the flagships off the teat and let them run amok as private schools, and let the states run the remaining two and four-year schools. Those big flagships try to copy as much as they can off their aspirants in the private realm anyway...let them have that, then.

For those of us potentially stuck in the states where this cloak-and-dagger nonsense happens, if it does, I guess the public just has to become craftier with FoIA requests.

Fun reading but no one is sitting out there saying "we will take school A and B today then in ten years take C and D".

No they take A and B and if C and D fit their needs and are willing, they take them too. There might be a discussion where someone says C and D would be good adds if _____ but you take what fits your needs and wants.

I don't for a minute believe Big 10 has a strategy that they intend to follow if the status quo remains. I would absolutely believe they have contingency ideas of what they may do in response to perceived threats and opportunities but those aren't in stone until the league meets and determines adding is in their best interest and these are the schools they want.

(03-26-2018 10:00 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(03-26-2018 09:26 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(03-26-2018 08:39 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I would be more bothered by the thought that boosters, non-employees yet generous benefactors of the institution, could have the kind of potential sway and influence that "a plan" would be enough to gain public schools' leadership teams' attention.

Like, all it takes to get the president or chancellor's attention is a bunch of old rich white guys meeting up for a steak dinner talking crazy and then making a phone call. This is higher ed.

In a perfect world, you'd be right.

However, when you take into consideration the word in bold, that changes the game.

I'm sure if the president or chancellor were to dismiss those "old rich guys" and not give their wishes credence, their "donations" would dry up and said president or chancellor would suddenly find their seat rather warm. Self preservation is a powerful driving force.

Besides, we pretty much know that fans and alumni have "say" in hiring decisions so it wouldn't be a far stretch to think they might have the same in conference decisions.

I don't care if this stuff happens at the private schools. How they do their business is not really any of mine. When it's the public schools, though...

I'm venting. I'm getting to that point where I think the states should be cutting the land grants and the flagships off the teet and let them run amok as private schools, and let the states run the remaining two and four-year schools. Those big flagships try to copy as much as they can off their aspirants in the private realm anyway...let them have that, then.

For those of us potentially stuck in the states where this cloak-and-dagger nonsense happens, if it does, I guess the public just has to become craftier with FoIA requests.

I can get on board with that. ANY institution that gets public tax monies should be 100% transparent with their dealings, especially when it comes to budgets and financing.

When it comes to many of those flagships, their "finances" are a hide & seek game. A few years ago, Wisconsin was crying poor claiming they needed more $$$ and a tuition increase......

Until it was discovered they had a $1 BILLION slush fund. The legislature began a tuition freeze and cuts in funding to which the response was the typical doom & gloom from the "educators".

Few years later and guess what? No doom & gloom, UW is doing just fine.

OU/KU would be a solid pick up for the B10 to go to 16

My guess is that UT would then either petition for membership in the B10 themselves along with Rice and call it a day or grab a couple friends and head west to the PAC.

The B1G would look like this:

B1G West

Rice
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Northwestern

BIG East (lol)

Illinois
Purdue
Indiana
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Penn State
Rutgers
Maryland

To me that's a pretty dang solid conference

(03-26-2018 11:50 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  OU/KU would be a solid pick up for the B10 to go to 16

My guess is that UT would then either petition for membership in the B10 themselves along with Rice and call it a day or grab a couple friends and head west to the PAC.

The B1G would look like this:

B1G West

Rice
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Northwestern

BIG East (lol)

Illinois
Purdue
Indiana
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Penn State
Rutgers
Maryland

To me that's a pretty dang solid conference

I think we stop at 16. I personally believe that 16 was always the end game for the BIG and that there are only two scenarios that are viable. It's UVa & UNC from the ACC or KU & OU from the B12. I think the BIG occasionally war games several different possible moves based on current conditions, but these two have constantly been the top two moves based on a list of criteria for membership. IMHO, UT has proven itself to be a cancer in the boardroom that the other BIG schools don't want to deal with. If anything happens to the B12 once the GOR expires, UT gets itself a ND type deal from the ACC.

I could see Texas do any of these 4 if OU and KU jumped to the big 10.

Big 10 to 18 with Texas and Missouri
Pac 12 to 16 with Texas tech, Houston and TCU
SEC to 16 with Texas and Tulane (helps SEC academic standing)
ACC to 16 with Texas and ND

I would lean towards Texas going to the pac 12 with 3 instate friends. The leftover big 12 school's team up with the AAC

^ Again, why would Mizzou leave the SEC? If they're gonna be a bottom-feeder in a conference, why not be in one that "just means more"?

(03-26-2018 01:07 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I could see Texas do any of these 4 if OU and KU jumped to the big 10.

Big 10 to 18 with Texas and Missouri
Pac 12 to 16 with Texas tech, Houston and TCU
SEC to 16 with Texas and Tulane (helps SEC academic standing)
[b]ACC to 16 with Texas and ND [/b]

I would lean towards Texas going to the pac 12 with 3 instate friends. The leftover big 12 school's team up with the AAC

15 and 16