JJHardy7

And yet for everyone I know (Cubs, Cards, Tigers, Twins, and Brewer fans) MLB Network has already passed them in terms of baseball coverage in under a year. I hope ESPN it taking notes on how easy it is to put together good sports programming. I don't disagree at all. ESPN though doesn't stand for MLB, Baseball Network, etc. I just don't see the need to bash on ESPN over and over and over and over. They're not going to be a solution for every team. Again, why in the world would they show a ton of Brewers stuff? Relatively speaking nobody cares about the Brewers on a national level. It does sucks, but it looks like ESPN is slowly changing this with the ESPN Chicago, ESPN Los Angeles, etc. Milwaukee just doesn't have the population to cover what ESPN delivers. I'm not saying it is the best product for every market. I will say they know what they are doing though. That combined with their ridiculous product placement and Disney tie ins has made ESPN an easy target. They have been completely ruined by their parent conglomerate and I will continue ripping on them as I feel they have more than earned it every time they have a Bud Light 6-pack of questions or try to tell me who is more "NOW," The Rock (who just happens to be in Disney's The Tooth Fairy) or one of the Williams sisters. Again, it is a business. ESPN isn't some PBS type channel. If you don't like it, don't watch. You can keep ripping on it, but it has worked for decades. I enjoy the MLB network and the NFL network, but those programs are still in their infancy compared to ESPN. I don't sit and watch ESPN all day, but I'll turn it on before I go to bed or when I wake up to catch up on the major stories. I still think ESPN is ran very, very well in many ways. Who is their main competitor? Is there one? It is easy to rip on ESPN for their lack of coverage in certain areas...but how are they going to cover everything?

I can't believe no one mentioned how good Rickie looks. He looks to be in fantastic shape. I'm excited! That is a really good point. I know it has been mentioned here and elsewhere that he was 'thick' in the past. I haven't been the biggest Weeks supporter, but he really looks to be in fantastic shape. I'm still rooting for the guy...it is time he breaks out for a full season and it looks like he's taken that challenge seriously.

I don't understand why the constant ripping on ESPN is occuring here all the time. I know they may not present the information that is specifically Brewers realted or what not. I've stated before it'd be kind of dumb on their part to focus on smaller market teams. And with this sexual harassment issue...a book came out a few years back indicating that there was a lot shady action going on at ESPN. Just search for a ESPN book and you'll find what I am talking about. I've heard rumors/stories about the specifics on some radio stations/blogs and it seems like things were very shady. I'm not saying that what TK did was right or wrong, but ESPN has taken a stance that they will not tolerate anything that might be considered wrong. I don't blame them for that at all. I also think people fail to realize that ESPN is a business. They rely on the NFL, MLB, NBA, etc. to provide them with great coverage, interviews, behind the scenes access, etc. If you rip on a commissioner, you are going to get in trouble. I think another ESPN personality (maybe SVP?) was suspended for ripping Selig. It makes complete sense to me. I don't like the fact that they can't speak their minds, but obviously ESPN is able to get guys on camera and on the radio for interviews...that doesn't mean they have the rights to do that. I will admit it does make ESPN a bit cheesy at times. I just think the constant ripping on ESPN is over the top IMO. Milwaukee just isn't the epicenter of baseball.

It might sound funny, but athletic success is really not that great of an indicator of the strength of a conference in the grand scheme of things. I was just pointing to the fact that Oklahoma was mentioned without even considering academics...like I've said multiple times...Texas has a strong academic program.

So now the Big 10 could/should get Texas and Oklahoma? Why not just shoot for USC too? I really think athletics wise some people might be overstating the Big 10 just a bit...I'm not knocking on the Big 10...I'm just saying the Big 12 athletics wise has done pretty well the past few years.

I really hope the Bucks don't trade for Murphy. IMO that would be a bad deal. Dude makes a lot more money than a much younger guy like Ersan. I've defended Hammond for a bit, but if he gives up an expiring contract and a player that essentially is a much younger and cheaper Murphy (Ersan) for a player that is due $11 million next year...I'm switching sides. That move makes little sense IMO.

About Texas leaving the Big 12...that conference is on rocky ground. Colorado has been interested in joining the Pac-10 for years. Mizzou would likely jump at the chance to join the Big Ten. Once a team jumps, the conference faces collapse which would leave Texas and other schools scrambling. They may just be interested in choosing their destiny while they still have a choice. I disagree on it being a huge recruiting edge, but I guess we'll see if it happens. You do bring up a good point about the state of the Big 12. I don't think it would be a huge blow if Missouri would leave. If Texas left, that would be a major blow. Oklahoma and Texas are two elite football programs and the Big 12 needs to keep those teams in their conference. I say that Missouri wouldn't be a huge blow because they might be able to find a capable replacement (maybe TCU?). That's not a knock on Missouri. I also have no clue if TCU would be a good fit in the Big 12, but as of late they've shown to be a pretty good football program.

It makes sports sense because they can double or more their TV revenues without lowering competition and without comprimising academic standards. It really is that simple. The athletic department doesn't give a hoot how big the endowment is, that money is totally seperate from their budget. If the size of the endowment mattered one bit to the athletic department then NW wouldn't play in a high school gym. Texas athletics make a lot of money now but if switching to the Big 10 gives them an additional $10-$15MM per year why wouldn't they look at it? Rarely does any shcool, business or person, turn down more money no matter how much they already make. I'm not discussing the revenue side in my point. From a sports sense (specifically football), Texas has made a BCS bowl 4 out of 6 years. Why change? Again, I'm not discussing the revenue...from a pure revenue aspect Texas is ranked high (number 1 according to some sources). They just had (depending on which publications you look at) a top 2 recruiting class. Clearly things are working well for them in the Big 12. And like I said...they already bring in a lot of revenue and making a BCS game no doubt brings the school additional revenue and national attention. And from a team perspective in the Big 10...why would you want to add Texas to football? I understand that maybe you take in a few more million dollars and such, but IMO that is going to change the competitive landscape. A team like Wisconsin would have a much more difficult time competing with a team like Texas. I know things go in cycles, but the fact that Texas will be recruiting from an entirely different pool of athletes than most of the Big 10 is really going to make it difficult for some teams to get to a major bowl/BCS bowl.

As for a lack of long term thinking, by all accounts, Blair is only going to play 3-4 years, tops in the NBA, if that. He has huge questions about whether his tendonless knees can hold up. At the same time, 2nd round picks aren't guaranteed. There were a ton of 2nd round picks this year that look like they were solid moves...not to take your point off-topic, but I think it was clear in this year's past draft what teams were willing to take on roster spots. I would've taken Blair if there and I also would've made moves to get more 2nd round picks.

Which should be viewed as a strong strong reason why both parties would be attracted to Texas joining the Big Ten. That doesn't at all diminish the appeal of joining the Big Ten. If Texas aims to improve it's standing as an elite research university, joining the CIC would be very appealing. What are the benefits of joining the Big 10 though? Again, I'm not saying I have the answers...that has been my question from the start of the rumor. Not what the Big 10 offers...but specifically what does the Big 10 offer Texas? I really don't know if we have the answers on this thread, but there are some advantages, but it's not like Texas is a mediocre program...I'm sure if it makes sense on Texas' side...they'll consider it. From a sports view...it doesn't make a lot of sense IMO. This has a more academic fit than sports...I guess we'll see.

Texas isn't a bad school or anything of that nature...that has been one of my points. http://colleges.usnews.ra...eges/national-top-public I know rankings are obviously debatable, but Texas is a pretty well respected public institution.

I believe the University of Texas @ Austin has roughly half of the endowment. How much more money are we talking about with the CIC? That is the thing I'm clearly missing.

I have a simple question...why are former Brewers booed?

The fact that Texas is a big-time academic and research university would only make Big Ten more appealing to them. Joining the CIC would open doors to HUGE amounts of funding and research opportunity. I'm not sure if you read it, but if you didn't, take a look at the link I posted in my previous post. It is very informative. I read pieces of it...I might have missed something. What are HUGE amounts though? I'm not saying you are wrong. I probably missed something. Like I said...I agree if they move and they get a lot more $$$ that makes sense. I guess from just glancing at that article I didn't see that...I may have missed it. And again...Texas has so much $$$ it won't be a money play. If it leads to the school being better and such sure...it is clear though (IMO at least) it is not about $$$. I think it would have to be a significant amount of $$$ or a way to gain additional respect as an institution (which I think it would if they moved). I guess what I'm saying is that Texas is doing very well where they are today. And I do apologize for not reading the entire article you posted...I might have missed something very obvious. I still can't get over the fact that Texas doubles any other public university's endowment....that is crazy. That is one of the major reasons I'm not sold on the CIC (not saying at all it is a bad program...it obviously is a great and prestigious program). I just don't know enough on Texas' end where they stand. Clearly they have $$$. I guess what I am saying is when you have $12 - $15 billion...what else do you need? And like I've said...I don't know the answer...but how does moving to the Big 10 help Texas considering they are a premier public university? We can talk all day about how great the Big 10 academics are (and they are), but it's not like Texas is some mediocre institution... EDIT - I just want to be clear Texas has an endowment of $12 billion (in 2009) or double the next public university...I know the CIC is awesome and what it can do. I just don't know how the change to the Big 10 would help a university that at least looks like it is in a class of its own in terms of endowment funds.

I think it really makes it clear how important academics (and the rest of the $) will be to this. Very interesting read. The TV revenue really isn't that huge of a deal considering Texas' endowment is twice the size of the next public university. I know academics and such are important to the Big 10...but if Texas is already ranked as an elite school per that article...what is the benefit to moving to the Big 10? To further move themselves up the ladder? I guess I could buy that, but it's not as if Texas isn't a fine academic institution. I do agree with the point brought up about the long-term future of the Big 12, but I think that could go for a few other conferences as well. I guess from the Big 10's view...Texas would be the haul. I just don't know if I'm a UW fan or OSU fan I'm real thrilled about Texas coming to the Big 10. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Good information MJLiverock. The population is a factor. I just wonder what big-time Texas fans would feel about the move? I only know a few people who went there and they enjoy being in the Big 12. As it is structured now, the Big 12 is receiving less money than the Big 10 via the BCS Championship Series. I agree the BCS money is hit or miss. And the Texas fans I know like the Big 12 and they like winning. Mack Brown has it going on there now and I still would be surprised (if the non-athletic money isn't a major swing) if Texas left the Big 12. They've been to a BCS game four of the past six years and like I mentioned before just had a number 2 recruiting class. That's impressive. I'm not a huge Badger fan, but what would Badger fans think about Texas going to the Big 10? I don't think I'd be a huge fan of that...I know these things go in cycles, but Texas has a major advantage in recruiting compared to almost any other school in the nation...

You are vastly underestimating the importance of academics and research to the Big Ten. Remember that each of the Big Ten schools plus the University of Chicago make up the CIC. These schools co-op on billions of dollars of research and pool many resources that are beyond the reach of other public research universities. Joining the Big Ten would provide Texas with millions of dollars based on athletics alone, but it would allow it to jump into the truly elite of public university research. I might be, but where would the dollars come from? I guess that is my point. If the pure switch to the Big 10 brings in a ton more money compared to their current situation...that would make sense. I know I'm just looking at the football team right now, but they're one of the highest revenue generating teams in the game. I guess it depends on where Texas is now (and some of the information isn't readily available) and where it would be with the switch. If there's a lot of money involved, sure it makes sense. And I guess we will see how much sense it does or doesn't make based on if they leave the conference. I think in terms of pure sports...I don't think the revenue generated would significantly change for Texas. Texas does fine there and adding a team to the Big 10 may reduce the football revenue. In terms of the research, I don't exactly know how that works. If it is a lot more money, than it would make sense. I just don't know where Texas is at now with that and where it would be.

I read somewhere that the Big10 teams (which split TV money equallly) each rake in somewhere between $20 Million and $24 Million in TV revenues. I'm not accusing you of making something up, but do you have a link or anything? If that is true, that would obviously be why Texas would want to make the switch. EDIT: I found this link that states $20 million a year: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-spt-0212-big-ten-expansion--20100211,0,4739233.column I haven't been able to find a solid number for what Texas receives each year for its television revenue (it does look like the Big 12 receives substantially less than the Big 10), but it looks like they don't have any problems generating revenue: http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2009/06/15/texas-is-tops-in-sports-revenue/ Again, I still don't know if it makes complete sense from Texas' view, but there could be additional revenue from the television deal and also BCS appearances. I 'd also wonder how the figures will change based on who (if anyone) joins the Big 10.

I'd like to think athletics isn't the only reason that being accepted as a UW-Madison freshman has become akin to winning the lottery, but it's surely one of the reasons. Oh I do agree. I just think that exposure from athletics can help the amount of applicants and potentially increase the admission standards. Steering back toward the topic, I'd rather see Pitt join the Big Ten than Texas. Badger volleyball doesn't need two studs in the conference; Penn State is more than enough. I also agree with this. I think it makes a lot of sense given the region the Big 10 is located in. I don't know as much about Pitt, but would there be a reason why they wouldn't want to do it? Would they see it as a step up? I'm sure for football they would.

I don't think that is necessarily true. Those two have definitely been up the last few years, but things tend to cycle a bit. Penn St is always good and could easily give those two schools a loss. Michigan is on its way up (hopefully) and Wisconsin and Iowa are solid programs. Northwestern has even been surprisingly competitive. Beside, the competitive balance thing hasn't hurt the SEC. The last few years its been all Florida and Alabama. LSU was vastly overrated last year (they played four good teams and lost to all of them), as was Ole Miss. I think adding a good program like Texas can only help. The SEC though isn't adding another team. I know it won't be a popular opinion here, but scouts have said the past few years players have tended to go to schools in the south. That includes the SEC and some of the Big 12. You are dead on that the SEC is very competitive. I just don't think there are too many schools in the Big 10 that would year in and year out compete with Texas. And again...I just don't see why Texas would make this move. The past few years the Big 12 has been one of the better conferences and Texas has been in the national championship game 2 of the past 5 years and I believe they won the Rose Bowl last year. They also just had a top 2 recruiting class. Academics. Texas wants to be taken seriously as an academic institution and it's easier to have that happen when you're in a conference with Michigan, Northwestern and Wisconsin than it is when you're in one with Kansas State, Texas Tech and Oklahoma. That doesn't mean they'd move if the Big Ten offered, but I think it does mean they would consider it. This might be true about some schools, but it's not like every Big 10 school is an Ivy league school. I think if anything it would come down to $$$. I have a question for maybe some people older than I am. I've been told that before UW was consistently a good football team UW was just as easy to get into as other UW schools. I honestly don't know if that's true, but if it is that would kind of tell me that academics and athletics are somewhat related. I went to UW-M and I know on a much smaller scale there seemed to be more applications after we went to the Sweet 16. In other words, if Texas is receiving more applications they will be able to set the bar higher for admissions. Again, just a guess.

Sarcasm just doesn't work the same over the internet If you were being sarcastic, no worries. I know some people that constantly complain about arbitration and the costs associated with it. I have to remind them that execs of baseball teams fly all the time, rent cars, and have paid meals. It's one of the perks. I'm surprised Hart won. I thought I misread it a few times before finally believing it.

But what about the cost of the plane tickets to Florida, the hotel rooms, the rental car, food and drink? Maybe they make Gord, the lawyers, and the Brewer's negotiator shack up in 1 room with a twin bed. Ketchup sandwiches for lunch and dinner should also help. I bet they had to road trip down there in an '80s Geo Metro. I just don't think it'd be all that expensive. I mean this is a normal course of business for the Brewers. Same thing as DM going to Huntsville or Nashville on a scouting trip or going to a road game. Even if it's a total of $50k for everything...that's obviously less than the $650k. And I also think the Brewers are sending a message to their current players. They'll be fair, but they're not going to pay more than what they think is fair. I'm also going to guess (I have no idea, but just a guess) that the Brewers essentially prepared their argument, but are having the law firm present the case. This is probably just to give Hart the feeling that the Brewers aren't ripping on him.

I really don't think this has all that much to do about the BCS...if you lose late in the season you likely aren't going to the championship game. I mean look at this year...Big 10 had two teams in the BCS without a conference championship game. The way that rankings and such are structured Ohio State and Michigan playing their game the last game of the regular season will be bad no matter what. I'm going to guess that if they do have 12 teams Michigan and OSU would be in the same division...so again whoever loses the last game of the season is likely going to drop in the BCS rankings. And to be honest, the way Michigan has been the past few years that point is moot. Texas to the Big 10 is bad for the competitive balance IMO. Texas and OSU would dominate year in and year out. The chances of the Badgers winning the conference would become much smaller. I still think a team like Pittsburgh makes sense. You would have a natural rivalry with Penn State and it seems to be more 'Big 10 style' of football. I don't see why Texas would even think about leaving the Big 12. I also don't get why Notre Dame would be the cream of the Big East...they've struggled a bit lately...

The main problem for basketball is that too many bad teams will be in the top conferences. This year, Wisconsin had to play OSU, Purdue, and MSU twice and will probably play one or two of them a third time. A giant basketball league like the Big East no longer brings competition like that. Instead, the top teams get additional games against DePaul and South Florida (yes, I know South Florida beat Georgetown, but when will that ever happen again?). Conference USA was a great basketball league that got wiped off the map--leaving poor Memphis in the dust. I do not see any benefit for the bottom Big East teams either--unless they like to consistently lose 10 conference games per year. It would be better to move DePaul and South Florida back to CUSA and let them battle with teams that have similar recruiting abilities. I don't know if playing DePaul and South Florida makes up for the rest of the Big East. I know that it changes year to year, but the Big East was a dominate conference last year. I'd rather play in the Big 10 recently than the Big East. Anyways...like most know in order to have a conference football championship you need to have 12 teams in the conference. The Big Ten I'm sure would like to have some spotlight/revenue between the end of the regular season and the bowl games. The SEC Championship is a big deal every year and I'm sure the Big 10 wants to get in on some of that revenue. To me, it makes a lot of sense to add a 12th team. I'd be shocked it was Texas though...

I find this funny. So if the Brewers lose the case and pay for lawyers it's a waste. If they win and pay for lawyers it's probably the same total cost it would have been to just give Hart what he wanted. I'm going to guess it cost a lot less than $650k to hire a law firm for a few hours...