PDA

View Full Version : Why is the Big 12 breaking up or in trouble?


pirbroke
09-03-2011, 02:55 PM
Been reading a lot of articles about this and that team leaving or trying to leave. Sometimes at the bottom of the story it seems a lot of people are pointing fingers at Austin but not really giving consitent explanations. The articles themselves don't dive into the cause either, bad journalist in my opinion. So I ask what is going on with the Big 12.

FirstTexansFan
09-03-2011, 03:07 PM
I'd say the key factor is Greed... now who is the greediest? I'll leave that to those who profess to be experts... which seems to differ according to what team they support :)

Playoffs
09-03-2011, 03:07 PM
Think Texas got such a bigger piece of the pie that others are hurt by it.

Heard an ESPN table jockey say Texas & Texas A&M will not compete in any sports for a very long time.

Tradition = http://www.boardoo.com/free-smilies/smilies/boardoo-toilet-smiley-3006.gif

Dutchrudder
09-03-2011, 03:55 PM
If the conference had started a Big 12 network a couple years ago, the Big 12 would be fine. But they didn't do that and instead let the third tier rights go to waste, thus other conferences looked more attractive monetary wise. I think that's the basic premise of the issue, but after Texas made the LHN, that killed any hopes of a conference network in which all member schools benefit. That's why I think people blame UT in this mess, because the LHN was more important than the Big 12.

Ckw
09-03-2011, 04:03 PM
Tradition = http://www.boardoo.com/free-smilies/smilies/boardoo-toilet-smiley-3006.gif

Very very sad it had to come to this. I have tried to be as objective as possible about this subject and have tried to do more reading than talking about it, and I am with Dutch. Texas cared more about themselves than they cared about the Big 12. They are perfectly content going the way of Notre Dame and becoming an independent.

So yes, I blame Texas for this mess, but I also don't think there are many schools that would have turned down the deal Texas was given. Are they the culprits? Yes. But is it hypocritical to "hate" on them all the while knowing most schools would have done the same thing? Yes.

pirbroke
09-03-2011, 05:21 PM
If the conference had started a Big 12 network a couple years ago, the Big 12 would be fine. But they didn't do that and instead let the third tier rights go to waste, thus other conferences looked more attractive monetary wise. I think that's the basic premise of the issue, but after Texas made the LHN, that killed any hopes of a conference network in which all member schools benefit. That's why I think people blame UT in this mess, because the LHN was more important than the Big 12.

Thanks Dutch, that makes a lot of sense. I never thought of the big 12 network angle.

ATXtexanfan
09-03-2011, 06:16 PM
heard the big 12 referred to as texas +8. dont have a link but heard that OU and OSU have had conversations with pac 12. either the big 12 or big east will be blown up within the next few years.

Doppelganger
09-03-2011, 06:42 PM
Everyone has some blame in this. The problem is nobody wants to man up and take responsibility. Texas deserves some blame with the TV deal. A&M deserves some blame for not taking the TV deal that Texas offered a few years ago. The Big XII commish deserves blame for not putting in a Conference TV deal 2 years ago.

At the end of the day, the Big XII has no real history as a conference like the SEC or Pac 10.

I predict Oklahoma, Texas, OSU, and Tech head to the Pac 16, Mizzou joins A&M in the SEC and the rest are SOL.

Ckw
09-03-2011, 07:28 PM
Everyone has some blame in this. The problem is nobody wants to man up and take responsibility. Texas deserves some blame with the TV deal. A&M deserves some blame for not taking the TV deal that Texas offered a few years ago. The Big XII commish deserves blame for not putting in a Conference TV deal 2 years ago.

At the end of the day, the Big XII has no real history as a conference like the SEC or Pac 10.

I predict Oklahoma, Texas, OSU, and Tech head to the Pac 16, Mizzou joins A&M in the SEC and the rest are SOL.

The TV "deal" Texas offered A&M a few years ago was crap and was nothing like what the Longhorn Network has turned out to be. Everyone acts like A&M got offered this amazing deal and like the fools Aggies are they turned it down. Untrue. The deal was crap and required far too much money up front for A&M to bite.

If Texas had come to A&M, or better yet the entire Big XII, when ESPN got involved, then the conference could have been saved. But Texas did what Texas, and most other schools, does best and that was look out for themselves. So A&M did the same thing and looked out for themselves.

Dutchrudder
09-03-2011, 08:15 PM
The TV "deal" Texas offered A&M a few years ago was crap and was nothing like what the Longhorn Network has turned out to be. Everyone acts like A&M got offered this amazing deal and like the fools Aggies are they turned it down. Untrue. The deal was crap and required far too much money up front for A&M to bite.

If Texas had come to A&M, or better yet the entire Big XII, when ESPN got involved, then the conference could have been saved. But Texas did what Texas, and most other schools, does best and that was look out for themselves. So A&M did the same thing and looked out for themselves.

In all Fairness, we have no idea what the details of the offer was. We know they approached A&M to discuss it, but that's about it. In any case, whats the incentive of a Texas network? All it does is tie up
The schools tier 3 rights for X years. If A&M had taken that deal they wouldn't be allowed to enter the SEC, and they would be joined at the hip with UT. F that. They prefer money over a stable conference, and OU and Neb aren't going to stand for that. A conference network means all members get the revenue, not just the big dogs, which is what happened here. OU could start their own network, but I think they would rather join the PAC or SEC.

BattleRedToro
09-04-2011, 01:28 AM
The Big XII commish deserves blame for not putting in a Conference TV deal 2 years ago.

Dan Beebe deserves most of the blame and the rest of the blame is shared by all the schools except Nebraska. Nebraska got tired of everyone voting with Texas. For instance, when they voted on permanently moving the championship game to Dallas, Nebraska was the lone dissenting vote. So when Kansas State, Iowa State, and Baylor are left out of the super conferences they can blame themselves for not voting with Nebraska more often.

Stemp
09-04-2011, 01:51 AM
Dan Beebe deserves most of the blame and the rest of the blame is shared by all the schools except Nebraska. Nebraska got tired of everyone voting with Texas. For instance, when they voted on permanently moving the championship game to Dallas, Nebraska was the lone dissenting vote. So when Kansas State, Iowa State, and Baylor are left out of the super conferences they can blame themselves for not voting with Nebraska more often.

Nebraska voted FOR the unequal revenue distribution though. So they aren't entirely blameless.

Dutchrudder
09-04-2011, 02:07 AM
Everyone has some blame in this. The problem is nobody wants to man up and take responsibility. Texas deserves some blame with the TV deal. A&M deserves some blame for not taking the TV deal that Texas offered a few years ago. The Big XII commish deserves blame for not putting in a Conference TV deal 2 years ago.

At the end of the day, the Big XII has no real history as a conference like the SEC or Pac 10.

I predict Oklahoma, Texas, OSU, and Tech head to the Pac 16, Mizzou joins A&M in the SEC and the rest are SOL.

Wtf? How does that give any blame to A&M for not taking a deal to create a network? That has absolutely nothing to do with the demise of the conference, maybe it could have kept the rivalry from dying but that's it.

Once UT decided to take its third tier rights and broadcast it by themselves, they set UT apart from the rest of the conference. There's no way for the other schools to go out and negotiate a 9 school partial conference TV deal when the biggest dog isn't included. Look at how much revenue the Big 10, SEC and PAC get with their contracts including their networks. It's a ridiculous amount of money compared to the Big 12 and they all share it.

Obviously Auburn, Bama and LSU could have made their own networks and left the smaller schools out, but they didn't and unquestionably made the conference stronger and more profitable doing so. Now they are all in it together, whereas the Big 12 hasn't had that sort of comradery since they set up unequal revenue sharing. The schools always have been in it for themselves, and once a better offer comes along, they are willing to jump ship. That's why Nebraska and CU left, they got better deals, and that's why A&M is leaving too, because they know the SEC will be much more profitable than the Big 12 ever could be.

texanhead08
09-04-2011, 11:18 AM
1. No revenue sharing
2. The split of tv revenue where UT, A$M, OU got the biggest chunk of the pie.
3. LHN instead of a Big XII network.

c10x
09-04-2011, 01:42 PM
A&M, Nebraska, and OU complaining about unequal revenue sharing is hilarious. ALL the big schools voted for it, because they ALL were looking out for themselves over the likes of Iowa State and Baylor.

Last summer, when the realignment talk was happening, and Nebraska and Colorado left, OU and Texas relinquished their share of the exit fees for both schools. You know who demanded ALL of it to stay in the conference? A&M. So I don't want to hear about how Texas is greedy and that's why the conference is breaking up. Texas and OU were actually both willing to share that money, but A&M tried to force a power play (because their athletic department was in the red, lol). Ofcourse all of the small schools just said ok because it was better to lose the money and stay in a conference with Texas, OU and A&M than to go join the MWC or WAC.

Nebraska left because it got tired of being pushed around by Texas. That is actually a decade old complaint because Texas required raising academic requirements of student athletes, and all of a sudden Nebraska couldn't recruit dumb juco mercenaries to come in, dominate football, and not go to class. Nebraska becoming a nobody right when the formation of the big12 happened is not a fluke. It took them over a decade to compete, and the entire time they did nothing but hate Texas because of it. Combine that with a horrible record vs Texas, and crazy jealousy regarding the big 12 championship game a couple years back, and Tom Osborne decided to run scared.

Colorado decided that it didn't fit the culture of the big 12, and acted pre-eminently regarding realignment. The fans may think otherwise, but the school chancellors weren't just trying to escape Texas. They just saw realignment coming, and didn't want to be in the position that Kansas and Kansas State are now in; not having a seat at the table.

Now, for A&M leaving. This is where the spin starts getting really good. A&M, their homers, and joe schmoe who hears their friend say it, or hears that hack Richard Justice write about it- they would have you believe that "Texas chose money, over the stability of the conference" or something to that effect. That is spin, pure and simple. Yes, A&M is pissed about the LHN. But what are they actually pissed about- it's certainly not unequal income. They voted for that and worked the system in their favor only a year ago. What they are actually mad about is that they are a lesser program than Texas and everyone knows it. Their inferiority complex is so strong that they couldn't stand all of the attention Texas was getting, so they are going to a conference that gets more national exposure. The LHN is only the straw that broke the camels back because that's where it really sunk in that nobody cares about A&M nationally. They come off as a weird, wanna be military cult full of awkward traditions like nut holding and prancing around with swords- and the entire country knows it. Lucky for them they have their best team in 15 years and have fooled the CFB pundits that they can be a national power. Nevermind that A&M hasn't had a convincingly strong winning era in the last 30 years that wasn't immediately followed by ncaa infractions and probation. So they are riding 1 good season to an SEC invite (and don't tell them that the SEC is really just offering them to try and lure the real prize, Texas in; that one really stings). The funny part in all this is that this is precisely when A&M should stay in the big12, create some momentum, and build a brand. But instead, they are letting their inferiority get the best of them, run from Texas, join the SEC, where even their best team in 15 years is still a 4-5 loss team in the SEC. Congratulations aggies, you are getting what you want. Another 30 years of football irrelevance. It's not like history has shown what happens when this is done (*cough*, Arkansas, *cough*).

So yeah, Texas is completely to blame for this. It's all their fault that they are the #2 most valuable University in the country, and #1 within a conference. It's all their fault that Texas got an offer that no school in the country would pass up, and then accepted it (because it was within the rules of what member institutions of their own conference voted on and agreed upon). If you really want to place blame- place blame at the feet of those who didn't have the foresight to see that Texas is/was simply in better position to reap the benefits of unequal revenue sharing.

Ckw
09-04-2011, 02:02 PM
A&M, Nebraska, and OU complaining about unequal revenue sharing is hilarious. ALL the big schools voted for it, because they ALL were looking out for themselves over the likes of Iowa State and Baylor.

Last summer, when the realignment talk was happening, and Nebraska and Colorado left, OU and Texas relinquished their share of the exit fees for both schools. You know who demanded ALL of it to stay in the conference? A&M. So I don't want to hear about how Texas is greedy and that's why the conference is breaking up. Texas and OU were actually both willing to share that money, but A&M tried to force a power play (because their athletic department was in the red, lol). Ofcourse all of the small schools just said ok because it was better to lose the money and stay in a conference with Texas, OU and A&M than to go join the MWC or WAC.

Nebraska left because it got tired of being pushed around by Texas. That is actually a decade old complaint because Texas required raising academic requirements of student athletes, and all of a sudden Nebraska couldn't recruit dumb juco mercenaries to come in, dominate football, and not go to class. Nebraska becoming a nobody right when the formation of the big12 happened is not a fluke. It took them over a decade to compete, and the entire time they did nothing but hate Texas because of it. Combine that with a horrible record vs Texas, and crazy jealousy regarding the big 12 championship game a couple years back, and Tom Osborne decided to run scared.

Colorado decided that it didn't fit the culture of the big 12, and acted pre-eminently regarding realignment. The fans may think otherwise, but the school chancellors weren't just trying to escape Texas. They just saw realignment coming, and didn't want to be in the position that Kansas and Kansas State are now in; not having a seat at the table.

Now, for A&M leaving. This is where the spin starts getting really good. A&M, their homers, and joe schmoe who hears their friend say it, or hears that hack Richard Justice write about it- they would have you believe that "Texas chose money, over the stability of the conference" or something to that effect. That is spin, pure and simple. Yes, A&M is pissed about the LHN. But what are they actually pissed about- it's certainly not unequal income. They voted for that and worked the system in their favor only a year ago. What they are actually mad about is that they are a lesser program than Texas and everyone knows it. Their inferiority complex is so strong that they couldn't stand all of the attention Texas was getting, so they are going to a conference that gets more national exposure. The LHN is only the straw that broke the camels back because that's where it really sunk in that nobody cares about A&M nationally. They come off as a weird, wanna be military cult full of awkward traditions like nut holding and prancing around with swords- and the entire country knows it. Lucky for them they have their best team in 15 years and have fooled the CFB pundits that they can be a national power. Nevermind that A&M hasn't had a convincingly strong winning era in the last 30 years that wasn't immediately followed by ncaa infractions and probation. So they are riding 1 good season to an SEC invite (and don't tell them that the SEC is really just offering them to try and lure the real prize, Texas in; that one really stings). The funny part in all this is that this is precisely when A&M should stay in the big12, create some momentum, and build a brand. But instead, they are letting their inferiority get the best of them, run from Texas, join the SEC, where even their best team in 15 years is still a 4-5 loss team in the SEC. Congratulations aggies, you are getting what you want. Another 30 years of football irrelevance. It's not like history has shown what happens when this is done (*cough*, Arkansas, *cough*).

So yeah, Texas is completely to blame for this. It's all their fault that they are the #2 most valuable University in the country, and #1 within a conference. It's all their fault that Texas got an offer that no school in the country would pass up, and then accepted it (because it was within the rules of what member institutions of their own conference voted on and agreed upon). If you really want to place blame- place blame at the feet of those who didn't have the foresight to see that Texas is/was simply in better position to reap the benefits of unequal revenue sharing.

Thanks for the dumb post. It was only a matter of time before arrogant t-sip brought up inferior Aggie. The only thing good about your posts is your avatar.

c10x
09-04-2011, 03:01 PM
Thanks for the dumb post. It was only a matter of time before arrogant t-sip brought up inferior Aggie. The only thing good about your posts is your avatar.

My post is more factual and accurate than all other information on the topic on this entire message board combined, but because you can't admit your own inferiority complex, its "dumb". Hilarious.

Dutchrudder
09-04-2011, 03:05 PM
A&M, Nebraska, and OU complaining about unequal revenue sharing is hilarious. ALL the big schools voted for it, because they ALL were looking out for themselves over the likes of Iowa State and Baylor.

That was decided long ago when the Big 12 was formed, and really has little to do with the current breakup. CU certainly wasn't getting anything out of that deal though, and given that they will make about ~18-20 mill a year in the Pac 12, there's no way they turn down that offer. Nebraska on the other hand was only getting ~14 mill a year most recently, but will be making 20-25 mill a year in the Big 10. So again, an upgrade in income because the Big 12 wasn't doing enough to generate revenue. But that's really nothing new, it has been like that since the conference was formed, so I don't think that was the deciding factor.



Last summer, when the realignment talk was happening, and Nebraska and Colorado left, OU and Texas relinquished their share of the exit fees for both schools. You know who demanded ALL of it to stay in the conference? A&M. So I don't want to hear about how Texas is greedy and that's why the conference is breaking up. Texas and OU were actually both willing to share that money, but A&M tried to force a power play (because their athletic department was in the red, lol). Ofcourse all of the small schools just said ok because it was better to lose the money and stay in a conference with Texas, OU and A&M than to go join the MWC or WAC.

I agree the demand for exit fees is greedy, no debating that. The problem with what you're saying is that you seem to claim that has something to do with the conference breakup. Please tell me what school this exit fee demand has driven away from the conference? If nothing else, it seems as though A&M demanded that money to offset their exit fees, which they knew they would be paying in the future.

On a side note, do you have a citation for the exit fee cash being paid in 2010? (I thought it was to be paid in 2011) If not, your assertion that they are losing money that year is incorrect:

The Numbers:

2010 A&M Athletic Department Budget
Revenues $66,839,400
Expenses $60,337,063
Income $6,502.337
Operating Income less Debt $33,890

http://www.kbtx.com/sports/headlines/50904862.html


Nebraska left because it got tired of being pushed around by Texas. That is actually a decade old complaint because Texas required raising academic requirements of student athletes, and all of a sudden Nebraska couldn't recruit dumb juco mercenaries to come in, dominate football, and not go to class. Nebraska becoming a nobody right when the formation of the big12 happened is not a fluke. It took them over a decade to compete, and the entire time they did nothing but hate Texas because of it. Combine that with a horrible record vs Texas, and crazy jealousy regarding the big 12 championship game a couple years back, and Tom Osborne decided to run scared.

Again, citation needed. I can only assume this is a common red herring going around the UT messageboards, but if your assertion is that the Big 12 raised academic standards too high for Nebraska to compete, then it would only be the biggest blunder in the history of NU to join the Big 10, which is regarded as the best conference academically speaking. Then again, that's just a logical assumption...

The conference championship being moved to Dallas is an interesting issue. It only makes sense for each conference to have a specific place for their championship games. Choosing the largest city with the greatest stadium around the conference only makes sense to me, if NU thought there was a better venue in the Big 12, then they are fooling themselves. I really think this is a specious argument at best, as the Big 10 championship will be in Indiana for the next 5 years. It's not really that much further from Omaha than Dallas is.


Colorado decided that it didn't fit the culture of the big 12, and acted pre-eminently regarding realignment. The fans may think otherwise, but the school chancellors weren't just trying to escape Texas. They just saw realignment coming, and didn't want to be in the position that Kansas and Kansas State are now in; not having a seat at the table.

Totally agree with this. I don't blame CU at all, as I think they were scared UT, A&M, Tech, OU and OKST could take up the 5 spots in the Pac last year. Either way, they are still in a better position than that would be in the Big 12, which is good for them.


Now, for A&M leaving. This is where the spin starts getting really good. A&M, their homers, and joe schmoe who hears their friend say it, or hears that hack Richard Justice write about it- they would have you believe that "Texas chose money, over the stability of the conference" or something to that effect. That is spin, pure and simple. Yes, A&M is pissed about the LHN. But what are they actually pissed about- it's certainly not unequal income. They voted for that and worked the system in their favor only a year ago. What they are actually mad about is that they are a lesser program than Texas and everyone knows it. Their inferiority complex is so strong that they couldn't stand all of the attention Texas was getting, so they are going to a conference that gets more national exposure. The LHN is only the straw that broke the camels back because that's where it really sunk in that nobody cares about A&M nationally. They come off as a weird, wanna be military cult full of awkward traditions like nut holding and prancing around with swords- and the entire country knows it. Lucky for them they have their best team in 15 years and have fooled the CFB pundits that they can be a national power. Nevermind that A&M hasn't had a convincingly strong winning era in the last 30 years that wasn't immediately followed by ncaa infractions and probation. So they are riding 1 good season to an SEC invite (and don't tell them that the SEC is really just offering them to try and lure the real prize, Texas in; that one really stings). The funny part in all this is that this is precisely when A&M should stay in the big12, create some momentum, and build a brand. But instead, they are letting their inferiority get the best of them, run from Texas, join the SEC, where even their best team in 15 years is still a 4-5 loss team in the SEC. Congratulations aggies, you are getting what you want. Another 30 years of football irrelevance. It's not like history has shown what happens when this is done (*cough*, Arkansas, *cough*).

Blah blah blah, Texas got a great deal. We know that. But here's something interesting to consider:

Last year, schools received roughly $9 million each from the conference's deal with ABC/ESPN and another $7 million to $8 million from the BTN. Add revenue from bowl games, the NCAA basketball tournament and licensing, and you arrive at the estimated $22 million-a-year distribution figure that's the envy of every Division I school outside the Southeastern Conference.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-05-13/sports/chi-100514-big-ten-expansion-greenstein_1_btn-big-ten-network-tv-executive

So the Big 10, without Nebraska, got 7-8 million a year for all its schools. That's a great deal, and I can only imagine that a Big 12 network deal would do just as well, if not better. Get 8 million more a year in a Big 12 network deal, and every school is making 18+ million a year, 22ish for the big schools. That's enough to keep CU from leaving, and probably Nebraska too. But nooooooo, Texas wanted its own network, and has for years, which is why B12 TV never happened. So don't try to sell me on this "Texas did what's best for them" crap, Dodds has been planning this for years, which is why the Big 12 never made it against the rules for schools to make their own networks (Unlike the Big10, PAC, SEC and ACC).


Also, you really don't give the SEC enough credit if you think they are talking with A&M in hopes of Texas joining too. If Texas wanted to join the SEC, they could do it, no question. But they don't, they want to stay in the Big 12, join the Pac 16 or go independent. I think that much is clear, and is likely in that order. The SEC sees what's coming, they know 16 team conferences are just around the corner, so they want to strike first with a Texas team, and probably grab Mizzou, UNC, Maryland, Florida State, or whoever else to expand their TV markets. They want money for their schools, because that makes them all a stronger conference.



So yeah, Texas is completely to blame for this. It's all their fault that they are the #2 most valuable University in the country, and #1 within a conference. It's all their fault that Texas got an offer that no school in the country would pass up, and then accepted it (because it was within the rules of what member institutions of their own conference voted on and agreed upon). If you really want to place blame- place blame at the feet of those who didn't have the foresight to see that Texas is/was simply in better position to reap the benefits of unequal revenue sharing.

Funny how they put themselves in that position, it's almost as if Dan Beebe is on their side...

Dan B.
09-04-2011, 04:37 PM
Wtf? How does that give any blame to A&M for not taking a deal to create a network? That has absolutely nothing to do with the demise of the conference, maybe it could have kept the rivalry from dying but that's it.

Once UT decided to take its third tier rights and broadcast it by themselves, they set UT apart from the rest of the conference. There's no way for the other schools to go out and negotiate a 9 school partial conference TV deal when the biggest dog isn't included. Look at how much revenue the Big 10, SEC and PAC get with their contracts including their networks. It's a ridiculous amount of money compared to the Big 12 and they all share it.

Obviously Auburn, Bama and LSU could have made their own networks and left the smaller schools out, but they didn't and unquestionably made the conference stronger and more profitable doing so. Now they are all in it together, whereas the Big 12 hasn't had that sort of comradery since they set up unequal revenue sharing. The schools always have been in it for themselves, and once a better offer comes along, they are willing to jump ship. That's why Nebraska and CU left, they got better deals, and that's why A&M is leaving too, because they know the SEC will be much more profitable than the Big 12 ever could be.

The SEC allows schools to sell third tier tv rights. Florida for instance has a deal with the Sunshine Network.

pirbroke
09-04-2011, 04:38 PM
Just found this on truth and rumors.

Pickens blames Texas for Big 12 chaos

08:22 AM ET 09.04 | While Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds professed his love for the Big 12, Oklahoma State billionaire booster Boone Pickens says the league won't last much longer. Pickens believes the Cowboys will end up in the Pac-12, with Oklahoma. He largely blames Texas' insistence on creating the Longhorn Network. "The network could have been the straw that broke the camel's back," Pickens said. Dodds "is a friend of mine," Pickens said. "But DeLoss had too many cards and he played every damn one of them. I think that's too bad. You get tired of saying 'aaah' while you get something shoved down your throat."

Austin American-Statesman
..

Read more: http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/ncaa#ixzz1X1C5t4dB

Ckw
09-04-2011, 04:51 PM
My post is more factual and accurate than all other information on the topic on this entire message board combined, but because you can't admit your own inferiority complex, its "dumb". Hilarious.

Once again, typical arrogance. You call your post "more factual and accurate than all other information on the topic"? Pure arrogance given the fact that I didn't see any sources listed in your post or any information (you know the thing we use to support our "facts") to support your claims. Just sounded like a bunch of subjective nonsense from a complete tool.

ArlingtonTexan
09-04-2011, 05:07 PM
Just found this on truth and rumors.

Pickens blames Texas for Big 12 chaos

08:22 AM ET 09.04 | While Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds professed his love for the Big 12, Oklahoma State billionaire booster Boone Pickens says the league won't last much longer. Pickens believes the Cowboys will end up in the Pac-12, with Oklahoma. He largely blames Texas' insistence on creating the Longhorn Network. "The network could have been the straw that broke the camel's back," Pickens said. Dodds "is a friend of mine," Pickens said. "But DeLoss had too many cards and he played every damn one of them. I think that's too bad. You get tired of saying 'aaah' while you get something shoved down your throat."

Austin American-Statesman
..

Read more: http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/ncaa#ixzz1X1C5t4dB

I think this is at the center of the issue. The league was formed with unequal relationships. Overtime, the guys with more power will exercise it and the other person(s) will just get tired of putting up with it, especially if they are used to having power and have other options. There are details and last straws, but from the outside plenty have seen this conference as disfunctional with a lack of real trust/history to overcome rough matches long ago.

Ckw
09-04-2011, 05:47 PM
I think this is at the center of the issue. The league was formed with unequal relationships. Overtime, the guys with more power will exercise it and the other person(s) will just get tired of putting up with it, especially if they are used to having power and have other options. There are details and last straws, but from the outside plenty have seen this conference as disfunctional with a lack of real trust/history to overcome rough matches long ago.

Great post. Most of the teams in the Big XII are at fault, and the reality is the Big XII has never had a strong leadership that truly looked out for the interests of the entire Big XII. Everything always revolved around only a few schools and Texas was undoubtedly at the top of that list. As I said in my earlier post, I don't blame Texas for what happened. I think their move was selfish and lacked foresight, but I also don't think any other team in the Big XII would have done differently had they been given a similar deal. It has just had piss poor leadership up top. The reason the SEC, Pac 12, & Big 10 have been so successful is they have had great collective leadership that has looked out for the interests of the entire conference. It really is a shame a good rivalry like A&M-Texas has to die this way. Hell, Texas-OU may only happen every few years if Texas goes Independent and OU goes to the Pac 12.

Sad it happened this way. I can still remember only a few years back when the Big XII was arguably the best conference in college football. My how the mighty have fallen!

b0ng
09-05-2011, 11:41 AM
When you have one team in a Conference that makes more money than all the other teams stuff like this happens. This whole conference apocalypse doesn't really affect the school I'm most attached to but as an observer I find it difficult to blame tamu for going to the SEC. More exposure, and on a weekly basis you're going to see a better team as the opposition. Texas fans and alumni will spin it a myriad of different ways but in the end they will be left by the halfway decent programs in the big12 and will have to go independent (which would probably not work out that great) or join a much more stable conference where they probably won't be the top dog. All for a cable network that isn't carried by many providers.

Too bad the cougars can't benefit from this.

Stemp
09-05-2011, 11:43 AM
My post is more factual and accurate than all other information on the topic on this entire message board combined, but because you can't admit your own inferiority complex, its "dumb". Hilarious.

You drink too much orange kool-aid and get too much info from Chip "Oops, I was wrong again" Brown

c10x
09-05-2011, 03:20 PM
You drink too much orange kool-aid and get too much info from Chip "Oops, I was wrong again" Brown

Chip Brown is as connected as any reporter in the country. He absolutely owned the whole realignment story last year, won the award for best sports journalist from Yahoo last year, and is right in the thick of things again.

I'm sure you can figure out that details in this type of story are fluid, and things change hour to hour.

c10x
09-05-2011, 03:29 PM
Once again, typical arrogance. You call your post "more factual and accurate than all other information on the topic"? Pure arrogance given the fact that I didn't see any sources listed in your post or any information (you know the thing we use to support our "facts") to support your claims. Just sounded like a bunch of subjective nonsense from a complete tool.

Ha. You must have missed the part where I'm not writing a paper for school or work. I'm not a sports writer. I don't owe you references or citations. It doesn't matter to me whether or not you believe what I wrote. It wouldn't matter if I cited everything I said as thoroughly as a wikipedia page; the way you type (ex. tsip, typical arrogance, etc) makes it clear that you have no interest in making your mind up for yourself. Group think - the aggie way.

Stemp
09-05-2011, 04:45 PM
Chip Brown is as connected as any reporter in the country. He absolutely owned the whole realignment story last year, won the award for best sports journalist from Yahoo last year, and is right in the thick of things again.

I'm sure you can figure out that details in this type of story are fluid, and things change hour to hour.

Yeah... he "owned" it... because he was the defacto mouthpiece for the tu AD. He did and does take marching orders from Dodds office , much the way Luicci takes his orders from Byrne's office.

This year, he's been wrong on almost everything, to the point he was blaming his A&M "source" for giving him bad info because they were loyal to Billy Luicci. But do you know who Chip Brown's A&M source is? That's right... Billy Luicci and TexAgs. And he's Luicci's Texas source. Its been confirmed that no one in A&M AD's office will accept Browns calls because of all the crap he spewed last year. Luicci's problem is that A&M AD isn't hardly involved in realignment this year, it's all going through Loftin, so he was saying A&M wasn't going to make a move because that's what Bryne's position was. Then when Bryne's changed, Luicci's changed.

pbat488
09-05-2011, 04:55 PM
Chip Brown is as connected as any reporter in the country. He absolutely owned the whole realignment story last year, won the award for best sports journalist from Yahoo last year, and is right in the thick of things again.

I'm sure you can figure out that details in this type of story are fluid, and things change hour to hour.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

his "sources" are literally whatever dodds wants him to say, or what he reads on message boards/thinks on his own that he then posts under the guise of coming from an actual source. dude is a freakin' mouthpiece.

here's a recent article from the nyt basically calling chip out for making things up..

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/sports/ncaafootball/texas-is-key-player-in-pac-12s-expansion-outlook.html?_r=3

With the inner workings of Texas politics in the background, there is always a chance that Texas’ plans could be forced to change. The Web site Orangebloods.com reported Sunday night that the university was being told to slow things down by local lawmakers.

But State Senator Judith Zaffirini, the chairwoman of the Senate Higher Education Committee, said in a telephone interview Sunday that the Senate had no plans to get involved in conference expansion. A hearing before the Texas legislature’s House Committee on Higher Education about Texas A&M’s potential move to the SEC was canceled. Zaffirini said she saw no potential political roadblocks for a Texas move to the Pac-12.

“I don’t see that happening at all at this point,” she said. “I have absolutely no intent of calling a hearing at this time.”

it's actually astounding how wrong he's been on so many things yet still gets reported/retweeted so heavily.

here's another link showing how bad a journalist he is... put's something out there then a few hours later pretty much negates everything he said... comments are pretty funny under the post too..

http://my.journalstar.com/post/Husker_Extra_Group/Husker_Extra/blog/am_to_sec_no_way_but_wait_.html

A&M to SEC? No way, but wait ...
Posted by: Steve Sipple on August 10, 2011 at 2:34PM CST

Media nowadays is fascinating. Great fun to follow.

For example, note the progression of Chip Brown's tweets on Tuesday. Brown, of Orangebloods.com, was prominent in coverage of last year's Big 12 shakeup. I'm sure many of you remember him fondly.

At any rate, this was his first tweet Tuesday regarding the possibility of Texas A&M jumping to the Southeastern Conference:

There is no truth to reports that Texas A&M will join the SEC in the spring of 2012. None.

OK, so much for that. Nothing to see here. But wait a minute. A couple hours later ...
Another top A&M source says nothing is definite with the SEC. But he adds things could heat up fast if A&M remains dismayed by Texas' LHN.
Oh, that dreaded Longhorn Network. So, Chip now says there is a chance Texas A&M could jump ship. It's gone from no chance to a chance pretty quickly. And then ...
There's nothing definite about A&M to SEC. But I was told A&M's lawyers are "looking at everything." A&M regents mtg Aug. 22 will be big.

There you have it. In a span of 11 hours, Brown reported there was no chance in the world that A&M would bolt from the Big 12, according to his high-level sources, but to stay tuned for a mega-regents meeting Aug. 22 in which A&M's possible departure will be discussed in very serious tones.

No matter what happens, Chip can (and will) say, "I told you so."

Pure genius.




as for the real reason the big 12 is on the verge of breaking up again, it's mainly due to dan beebe being an incompetent lapdog

Ckw
09-05-2011, 05:01 PM
Ha. You must have missed the part where I'm not writing a paper for school or work. I'm not a sports writer. I don't owe you references or citations. It doesn't matter to me whether or not you believe what I wrote. It wouldn't matter if I cited everything I said as thoroughly as a wikipedia page; the way you type (ex. tsip, typical arrogance, etc) makes it clear that you have no interest in making your mind up for yourself. Group think - the aggie way.

Why even engage in the topic if you are just going to pull stuff out of your ass, then be unwilling to defend the shit you spewed all over the thread. You claimed to have made the most accurate post in the entire thread, yet you don't think references are necessary? With that, my discourse with you ends. You can reply if you want, but I don't care to participate in a discussion with someone so ignorant/arrogant that they don't even care to backup what they claim as fact.

:mariopalm:

Ckw
09-05-2011, 05:05 PM
as for the real reason the big 12 is on the verge of breaking up again, it's mainly due to dan beebe being an incompetent lapdog

Exactly. The Big XII has had no leadership, and that is the sole reason the conference is folding.

Dutchrudder
09-05-2011, 07:31 PM
The SEC allows schools to sell third tier tv rights. Florida for instance has a deal with the Sunshine Network.

The Sunshine Network airs its college games on a 24 hour delay. If they aired them live, you might have a point, but as it stands now, only the BYU network is comparable to the LHN.

Dan B.
09-05-2011, 09:31 PM
The Sunshine Network airs its college games on a 24 hour delay. No they don't.

If they aired them live, you might have a point, but as it stands now, only the BYU network is comparable to the LHN.
Then I have a point because they do air games live. As part of the Fox Sports Network family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Sports) they air several live games each week from the ACC and SEC. Last week it was (http://www.foxsportsflorida.com/pages/tvlisting_sun?showdate=1315022400) James Madison vs North Carolina followed by East Carolina vs South Carolina.

Florida just sold their third tier rights to a network that already had the second tier rights. UT held out for a better deal. Don't kid yourself. If ESPN had offered Florida what they offered Texas, UF would have taken it -- and there's nothing preventing them (or any other SEC team) from doing so now that the precedent has been set.

pbat488
09-05-2011, 10:48 PM
not much to do with previous posts but I thought i'd add so others could see how freaking pathetic baylor is hahahaha...

http://www.baylor.edu/nation/index.php?id=84714

first the perryman report that got ripped to shreds. then the op-ed's by kenneth starr. now this. I can't believe they haven't begged the longhorns to put their game on lhn yet to entice them to stay

more baylor hate from me because I can't get over how pathetic they've been hahaha

http://i52.tinypic.com/2a9ruk1.gif

all credit to cuppycup

keyser
09-05-2011, 10:58 PM
I don't think that there's any question that the Longhorn Network is a key issue in everything going on with the Big 12, now. But, I really wonder why ESPN chose to set it up the way they did. It seems that the tight tie-in with UT is limiting the network from ESPN's standpoint, more than it's likely to be helping.

As an alternative, imagine that ESPN had set up an "independent" network, ESPN Texas or something. They could still pay UT for the same broadcast rights, and I would think that UT would still be happy with the arrangement. They could negotiate separately for high school broadcast rights, highlights, whatever, and not run into NCAA problems. They'd have an easier time filling out their lineup if they could negotiate with a wider range of universities that are not otherwise going to agree to broadcast content under a UT heading. I would think they would have a far easier sell to the cable/satellite companies if they are positioning it as a Texas sports channel, rather than just a UT channel. So, I really don't understand why they set it up the way they did, unless it was a necessary incentive to get UT to agree (which I personally doubt had to be the case).

I don't know that it would have prevented a Big 12 breakup, especially since other schools probably still wouldn't be able to negotiate a deal worth as much as UT's. But, it seems like it would have still give UT and ESPN basically everything they have now, while not necessarily antagonizing the rest of the conference as much.

gwallaia
09-05-2011, 11:30 PM
not much to do with previous posts but I thought i'd add so others could see how freaking pathetic baylor is hahahaha...

http://www.baylor.edu/nation/index.php?id=84714

first the perryman report that got ripped to shreds. then the op-ed's by kenneth starr. now this. I can't believe they haven't begged the longhorns to put their game on lhn yet to entice them to stay

more baylor hate from me because I can't get over how pathetic they've been hahaha

http://i52.tinypic.com/2a9ruk1.gif

all credit to cuppycup

No one at Baylor gave a damn about Texas traditions when the SWC broke up.

Dutchrudder
09-06-2011, 12:15 AM
No they don't.


Then I have a point because they do air games live. As part of the Fox Sports Network family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Sports) they air several live games each week from the ACC and SEC. Last week it was (http://www.foxsportsflorida.com/pages/tvlisting_sun?showdate=1315022400) James Madison vs North Carolina followed by East Carolina vs South Carolina.

Florida just sold their third tier rights to a network that already had the second tier rights. UT held out for a better deal. Don't kid yourself. If ESPN had offered Florida what they offered Texas, UF would have taken it -- and there's nothing preventing them (or any other SEC team) from doing so now that the precedent has been set.

Well then one of us is confused. According to this article on the deal:

The deal will give Sun Sports, a regional sports network that reaches 6 million homes in Florida, a bundle of multimedia rights that includes everything from local TV, broadband and radio to on-site signage and corporate partnerships.

The rights include tape-delayed football, men's and women's basketball, baseball and Olympic sports. One of Sun Sports' most profitable shows is "Breakfast with the Gators," a Sunday morning replay of the previous day's football game.

http://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/stories/2008/07/14/daily4.html


The UF deal was a marketing deal for the university, something that's not uncommon for big universities to sign. I'm not finding any news source that declares Florida sold its game rights for any number of years, but if you do please post it. The games shown on the Sun Sports network (which is really just a regional Fox channel), seem to be given out in deals from the conferences, not individual schools.

Blake
09-06-2011, 09:07 AM
I cant believe yall are still fighting with each-other over this nonsense. I hope both sides realize that we all know about 2% of the actual facts in what goes on and will never know exactly who did what. You can blame whoever you'd like, but that accomplishes exactly nothing.

The question in the OP is like asking what came first, the chicken or the egg, and you guys are beating each-other to death over it.

HuttoKarl
09-06-2011, 02:56 PM
Chip Brown has sources all over the country for whatever school you wanna know about. To think he's just a UT mouthpiece is completely ridiculous. Billy Lucci is a great source of info at A&M and he shows up on Austin radio all the time. You know what? Chip Brown is Billy's UT source. See how that works?

The Big 12 is dissolving for a variety of reasons.

1. The quality of schools in the conference was weak to begin with. After Oklahoma and Texas, the quality of programs dropped off significantly and the bottom of the barrel teams in the Big 12 would have a hard time competing in Conf-USA, WAC or some of the lesser conferences.

2. Texas A&M DOES have a major inferiority complex when it comes to UT. Your fight song is about UT. You come up with little nicknames for UT fans. Your whole existence is pretty much whining about UT. It's pathetic. I hope an add to the SEC helps you cultists change that. Anything good for UT is bad for A&M as far as any Aggie is concerned.

3. Okay...so really..number 2 isn't a reason it's dissolving...but it is the truth. Reason #1 is it. If you don't have quality games, nobody's going to watch.

Now...I'm not a Longhorn fan. I find that most Longhorn fans never even went to UT Austin. A large number of the most annoying UT fans never even set foot on campus. I can't stand UT Austin. I'm a Texas State Bobcat and I think that the Cats could probably compete against K-States or Kansas or Baylor and that's a reason why nobody wants to watch OU trounce some weak team. You'll never get anyone to want to watch Baylor give up a zillion points to Texas (unless that person went to Baylor or UT...or didn't go to UT as many of their fans didn't). People want to see competitive football. That's what makes $$$.

Stemp
09-06-2011, 03:17 PM
1. The quality of schools in the conference was weak to begin with. After Oklahoma and Texas, the quality of programs dropped off significantly and the bottom of the barrel teams in the Big 12 would have a hard time competing in Conf-USA, WAC or some of the lesser conferences.

One of those weak teams is about join the best football conference in the land without anyone else. It also had 3 national championships last year and the football team tied for the Big 12 South and only lost out on going to the championship game based on tie-breakers.

pbat488
09-06-2011, 04:23 PM
just an fyi, sec presidents are meeting in atlanta today. if a&m has the votes necessary, expect an announcement tomorrow

Ole Miss Texan
09-06-2011, 05:07 PM
just an fyi, sec presidents are meeting in atlanta today. if a&m has the votes necessary, expect an announcement tomorrow
Do you have a link for this? This would be exciting... can't find any talk on the web about it. Thanks!

pbat488
09-06-2011, 05:08 PM
Do you have a link for this? This would be exciting... can't find any talk on the web about it. Thanks!

best I can do, but looch has been spot on and patient about this whole process. he hasn't been throwing shit out there to see if it sticks on walls.

http://texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?topic_id=1908439&forum_id=5

XI CMURDER IX
09-06-2011, 06:23 PM
http://ragebot.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/sec.gif

Saw this on TexAgs, preview of the Loftin presser tomorrow!

HuttoKarl
09-06-2011, 09:50 PM
One of those weak teams is about join the best football conference in the land without anyone else. It also had 3 national championships last year and the football team tied for the Big 12 South and only lost out on going to the championship game based on tie-breakers.


Baylor? Kansas? K State? Colorado? Nebraska? Missouri?

OK State has recently improved, but for a long time has stunk it up. A&M is a perennial also-ran. They're middle of the pack teams. A&M's about to go from 3rd prettiest girl in the class to the 8th or 9th prettiest girl in the class when they go to their new school. They'll compete with South Carolina maybe.

Baseball, basketball, volleyball, etc aren't driving conferences. It's football and when it comes to football, there was never a lot happening in the Big 12.

b0ng
09-07-2011, 11:32 AM
Chip Brown has sources all over the country for whatever school you wanna know about. To think he's just a UT mouthpiece is completely ridiculous. Billy Lucci is a great source of info at A&M and he shows up on Austin radio all the time. You know what? Chip Brown is Billy's UT source. See how that works?



Chip Brown stated that UT was going to the ACC as if it were fact. Chip Brown is a terrible terrible "journalist".

Blake
09-07-2011, 11:47 AM
:popcorn:

this is getting good!

@slmandel
Stewart Mandel
The SEC makes it official: Voted unanimously to accept Texas A&M.

ChipBrownOB
Orangebloods.com: SEC wants B12 schools to sign waivers...B12 schools saying no...A&M postpones SEC celebration.

@slmandel
Stewart Mandel
SEC was notified yesterday that one Big 12 school (take a guess) had "withdrawn its previous consent and was considering legal action."

@ChipBrownOB
Chip Brown
Read this statement on Baylor's website ... http://www.baylor.edu/nation/texasfootball.htm ... and ask yourself if the Bears are going to waive right to sue SEC.

Blake
09-07-2011, 11:49 AM
http://www.baylor.edu/nation/texasfootball.htm

Don't Mess With Texas Football


Nothing is more beloved in Texas than Texas football. Entire towns travel to neighboring communities on Friday nights as rivals meet under the Friday night lights; Saturday mornings find families rushing out to pee wee football games and spending their afternoons with friends tailgating or watching some of the most historic and storied football rivalries in the nation; Sunday afternoons see families gathered in living rooms across the state to cheer on the Cowboys or the Texans.

Football in Texas is more than a passing interest, it is a part of the fabric of this great state.

Will Texans stand by and watch hundred-year-old rivalries be cast aside as the state's largest universities align themselves with other states across the country?
Will Texans sit and watch as Texas' flagship universities pledge their loyalties to other states?
Will Texans stand by as our most promising student athletes are lured out of Texas by new rivals?
Will Texans watch as our most precious resources—the great minds of the next generation—are exported to new conference institutions?
Texans must stand up and call the leadership of the University of Texas, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech to clear-headed thinking about the state's future. Texas' flagship institutions of higher learning are the guardians of the state's future—their loyalties must first be to Texas and to her citizens. Ask these leaders to take a stand for Texas and to stop this madness that will lead to the dissolution of the Big 12 and the end of an era for Texas.

gwallaia
09-07-2011, 11:51 AM
Cry me a river Baylor.

Ranger Tom
09-07-2011, 11:54 AM
http://www.baylor.edu/nation/texasfootball.htm

Translation: "Please, PLEASE don't make us play in Conference USA." That's not to say I don't have any sympathy for Baylor, mind you. This really sucks for them.

Errant Hothy
09-07-2011, 11:57 AM
Translation: "Please, PLEASE don't make us play in Conference USA." That's not to say I don't have any sympathy for Baylor, mind you. This really sucks for them.

It's not so much "Please don't make us play in C-USA"; it's more "Please don't take our Big-XII money away from us".

Blake
09-07-2011, 12:02 PM
I still think its a crime how school officials are destroying a conference and ending traditions that have been around for almost a decade. Mostly for what I consider their own personal gain.

gwallaia
09-07-2011, 12:07 PM
It's not so much "Please don't make us play in C-USA"; it's more "Please don't take out Big-XII money away from us".

That's it a nutshell. The free ride and subsequent gravy train of money Baylor has been enjoying the past 15 years could very well be snuffed out.

Tradition my ass. No one at Baylor gave a rat's ass about tradition when the SWC broke up.

Ken Starr will have to save them this time, if not, Baylor will have to break out the Ouija boards and summon the spirit of Ann Richards.

Errant Hothy
09-07-2011, 12:07 PM
I still think its a crime how school officials are destroying a conference and ending traditions that have been around for almost a decade. Mostly for what I consider their own personal gain.

This arguement died with the SWC, since then all of the schools in the state have become mecenary.

And can traditions really be formed in a decade?

b0ng
09-07-2011, 12:11 PM
http://www.baylor.edu/nation/texasfootball.htm

http://i56.tinypic.com/2l5174.gif

Blake
09-07-2011, 12:18 PM
This arguement died with the SWC, since then all of the schools in the state have become mecenary.

And can traditions really be formed in a decade?

My bad. I meant century and was refering more to Texas & aTm, and SWC schools.

b0ng
09-07-2011, 12:22 PM
Twitter is saying that Baylor is going to back down from the lawsuits.

Blake
09-07-2011, 12:24 PM
Twitter is saying that Baylor is going to back down from the lawsuits.

Twitter is a smart dude. Knows a-lot!

b0ng
09-07-2011, 12:29 PM
Twitter is a smart dude. Knows a-lot!

He's got lots of "unnamed sources" and hears many a "rumbling".

GlassHalfFull
09-07-2011, 12:35 PM
Twitter is a smart dude. Knows a-lot!

I find him to be a major jump to conclusions type. Spreads rumors and all.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_0UGwvYTvq9c/S4KL683FIoI/AAAAAAAAAYg/gTHa9njeoLw/s400/Jump_to_conclusions_mat.jpg

MightyTExan
09-07-2011, 01:48 PM
http://i54.tinypic.com/15roc39.gif

Dutchrudder
09-07-2011, 04:16 PM
http://i465.photobucket.com/albums/rr14/themishkin/GIFs/busux1.gif

jtexas
09-07-2011, 10:26 PM
Can anyone really blame baylor? They were just assured of a 13 year multi-million dollar deal that someone else is ripping up for them. Everything from their coach's salary to the athletic facility is riding on this. Not only will they be stuck in conference usa, but the whole school will have to be restructured. If they can keep A&M here an extra season it could buy time to keep Oklahoma and get BYU/TCU in. I can see Baylor pulling every legal stop they can not to end up like UH.

Doppelganger
09-07-2011, 10:30 PM
http://i465.photobucket.com/albums/rr14/themishkin/GIFs/busux1.gif

Oh man. THAT is hilarious!

pbat488
09-08-2011, 12:40 AM
****ing baylor..

http://outkickthecoverage.com/why-baylors-claims-against-the-sec-have-no-merit.php

Why Baylor's Claims Against the SEC Have No Merit

Baylor University is threatening to sue the Southeastern Conference and Mike Slive personally over Texas A&M's move to the SEC. Last night the SEC formally accepted A&M's bids contingent on the release of outstanding legal claims. The Big 12 has waived all rights to sue the SEC over Texas A&M's addition and so had all member institutions. Until Baylor reversed course and now says it may sue. Why has Baylor's tune changed so quickly? For the same reason it trotted out the, "Don't Mess With Texas Football" campaign.

Naked self interest.

See, a week ago, when the Big 12's letter was written to the SEC, Baylor believed the Big 12 was going to survive. That was before Oklahoma's public flirtations with the Pac 12 became known. Now, suddenly, Baylor is aware that if Oklahoma and its crew bolt -- potentially including Oklahoma State, Texas, and Texas Tech -- then the Big 12 is no more. That means Baylor would fall all the way down to Conference USA. And that's unacceptable to Baylor and Ken Starr.


edit: to be honest, I don't blame baylor for doing this, I would expect a&m to put up a fight if the tables were flipped.. but the way the leadership of baylor has bitched and moaned about centuries old rivalries and the sanctimony of texas football, all the while trying to wage some retarded guerrilla warfare by having starr send out emails to the president of UGA and others, it's just ****ing sad and annoying.

Dutchrudder
09-08-2011, 12:51 AM
Eh, everybody is in it for themselves right now. The difference being that for some reason Baylor has a stick up its ass over A&M leaving. The Big East has had 8 schools for some time now, and they kept their AQ and even have their own network now. It's not like the conference will fall apart when A&M leaves, it will fall apart when OU or UT leave. A&M should pay quite a bit of exit fees for breaching the TV deal contract, but I'm not sure it's enough to warrant staying in the Big 12. I've heard it could be as high as $40 million, but probably closer to 20.

In any case, Baylor is again pulling out all the stops to make sure it gets that conference money, cause they don't want to be orphaned. Conference USA isn't going to scoop them up as I would expect SMU, Rice and UoH to do their best to block them from joining. Baylor probably ends up in the Big East, WAC or MWC.

Hookem Horns
09-08-2011, 01:38 AM
Baylor should have been in C-USA to start off with. UH should have been in the Big XII IMO.

That being said I don't blame them one bit for what they are doing because they are screwed once the Big XII dissolves. A&M leaving is only going to speed up that process. Of course OU talking about leaving really spooked Baylor.

Personally as a UT fan I want the whole thing to blow up. I have never liked the Big XII because there are too many boring teams on the schedule (practically the whole north division).

This season's home schedule is pretty boring and bad. Next season's is outright pathetic. If I were a season ticket holder I would be fed up with the lame scheduling.

All that being said is why I always have been and always will be more of a NFL fan.

texanhead08
09-08-2011, 09:42 PM
If they would have known things were going to blow up and these 16 team leagues would be the norm they should have just combined the Big 8 and SWC back in 94 and this mess could have been avoided.

XI CMURDER IX
09-13-2011, 09:27 AM
Why is Baylor so bent on trying to either stay or get into a AQ conference? They do know that they have to actually win more than 7 games in a season right?

(please don't sue me for that Baylor)

pbat488
09-13-2011, 09:48 AM
they got this going for them at least...

http://i52.tinypic.com/8xlv20.gif

c10x
09-13-2011, 09:52 AM
Why is Baylor so bent on trying to either stay or get into a AQ conference? They do know that they have to actually win more than 7 games in a season right?

(please don't sue me for that Baylor)

It's 6 games, and they will this year, barring injury to RG3. Don't be bitter that your team lost to them.

c10x
09-13-2011, 09:52 AM
they got this going for them at least...

http://i52.tinypic.com/8xlv20.gif

The same could be said about a&m regarding the longhorn network.

GlassHalfFull
09-13-2011, 10:25 AM
Justice goes off on Ken Starr

If I’m Ken Starr, I’m screaming and threatening and doing anything I could to defend my school. Why can’t he just be honest? Why talk about traditions and all that stuff? This is about money and status. Not UH’s status. Not SMU’s status. It’s about Baylor’s status. Just tell the truth, Ken. How many people do you think you’re fooling?

When Ken Starr talks about the fabric of the state being changed, about a hundred years of rivalries being lost, about the whole thing not being as interesting or as good as it once was, he’s absolutely right. But he’s off by 16 years, and when we think back to the really important day, his school saved itself and threw TCU, UH, Rice and SMU onto the side of the road. Does Ken Starr not know the history of what happened when the Southwest Conference broke up?

Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor joined the Big 8. SMU, TCU, UH and Rice were tossed aside. Texas, Texas A&M and Texas Tech were easy picks. As for the other, there was no easy choice. Baylor was chosen because it had more friends in high places.

Plenty of history and tradition were lost when that happened, but because Baylor survived the cut, Baylor was fine with throwing away plenty of history and tradition. Now there’s another wave of consolidation coming, and Baylor is in a bad place.

Has no one mentioned this to Ken Starr? Doesn’t he see the hypocrisy of pleading for something his school was part of helping tear apart? Why doesn’t he just admit it’s all about his school and its money, and he doesn’t give a damn about history or rivalries or any of that? That would be the truth.

So, Ken Starr, sit down and let’s have a big boy talk. The truth is, Ken, your little school is going to be thrown off the bus because it hasn’t grown its own product. That’s on you and yours, buddy boy. You’ve been last in the Big 12 in football attendance every single year. You’ve won 18 conference games in 15 seasons. Your stadium is a dump.

Plenty more at the link (http://blog.chron.com/sportsjustice/2011/09/baylor-keeps-pleading-for-tradition-and-rivalries-has-baylor-forgotten-how-it-dumped-smu-tcu-and-uh/)

Not a Justice fan normally, but enjoyed this read.

GlassHalfFull
09-13-2011, 10:28 AM
Consider costs of ending Big 12 - Ken Starr (http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Consider-costs-of-ending-Big-12-Ken-Starr-2167252.php)

The eagerly anticipated college football season opened two weekends ago. Millions of Americans flocked to stadiums or gathered around television sets with family and friends to cheer on their favorite teams. A win over a nationally ranked TCU team at our own Baylor University brought scores of fans racing onto the field. But the excitement of a weekend that saw Big 12 teams go 10-0 - the best record of any conference nationally - was tempered by reports of the supposed imminent demise of the conference.

According to our friends in the sports media, the football programs of our beloved Texas institutions are about to become exported commodities, competing in different national athletic conferences. If this proves to be true, we will be tearing something very special from the celebrated fabric of our Texas history.

The nation knows that there is something unique about Texas football. It's the stuff of song and cinema. Historic, annual rivalries among our Texas institutions date back more than 100 years.

The bolded represents their entire fan base.

Blake
09-13-2011, 10:33 AM
[/URL]

Not a Justice fan normally, but enjoyed this read.

Now I know you are a delusional aTm homer. Enjoying a Justice article because he is backing you?

When Justice is backing you, you need to rethink your stance.

GlassHalfFull
09-13-2011, 10:40 AM
Now I know you are a delusional aTm homer. Enjoying a Justice article because he is backing you?

When Justice is backing you, you need to rethink your stance.

I know, I know. LOL. I just pulled out some old photoshops I did of Justice to remind myself.

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc138/kdcoughlen/turtlecopy-1.jpg

But, for a Longhorn homer, he has been pretty reasonable over the Big 12-2-1 breakup.

GlassHalfFull
09-13-2011, 10:43 AM
Here is a blast from the past


Baylor regents give OK to Big Eight move (http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1994_1185849)

WACO -- Baylor University's 34-member Board of Regents voted unanimously Wednesday to join the Big Eight conference, showing their excitement about the move while also expressing sorrow over the expected demise of the Southwest Conference.
Before the vote, a regent gave Baylor president Herbert Reynolds a T-shirt that said, "If you are going to run with the big dogs, you have to get off the porch."
School officials said they think the Bears can be one of the big dogs in NCAA Division I athletics, thanks to the expected move of four SWC schools to the Big Eight in the fall of 1996.
"We are proud and pleased to be offered an invitation to join the Big Eight conference," said Thomas R. Powers of Houston, chairman of the Board of Regents and chief executive officer of TransAmerica Fund Management Co. "We feel it will offer us an opportunity to increase exposure on a national basis and provide our alumni and students an opportunity to be a part of one of the major national conferences.
"We will endeavor to take every action we need to take to be competitive, and we will be competitive."
Reynolds said the national exposure will increase Baylor's prestige and help in its calling as a Baptist school.
"We'd be very surprised if our applicant pool did not go up for enrollment," Reynolds said. "If we can compete against the very large, secular institutions in a very meaningful and satisfactory way, from our standpoint, that is a great witness to our church-relatedness."
Texas, Texas A&M and Texas Tech are expected to join Baylor in the proposed 12-member Big Eight, leaving behind SWC members Rice, Houston, TCU and SMU.
Baylor was the first school whose regents voted on the matter. Regents at A&M, Tech and Texas will discuss the issue today or Friday.
"We are certainly saddened by the demise of the Southwest Conference," Powers said. "I think it was something that was going to happen sooner or later.
"We certainly wish those who did not receive an invitation well. I feel sure they are fine institutions and they will find a place in some other program that will be appropriate for them."

steelbtexan
09-13-2011, 12:47 PM
I'm a Longhorn backer

But UT's greed is the answer.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. LOL

disaacks3
09-13-2011, 12:49 PM
That's it a nutshell. The free ride and subsequent gravy train of money Baylor has been enjoying the past 15 years could very well be snuffed out.

Tradition my ass. No one at Baylor gave a rat's ass about tradition when the SWC broke up.
Ken Starr will have to save them this time, if not, Baylor will have to break out the Ouija boards and summon the spirit of Ann Richards. Yep.

This arguement died with the SWC, since then all of the schools in the state have become mecenary.

And can traditions really be formed in a decade? Ask Texans fans. :hides:

All kidding aside, Baylor is plaing both sides of the street here (albeit a few years apart).

bah007
09-13-2011, 01:04 PM
I have no problem with what Baylor is trying to do. They stand to lose a lot if the conference goes down.

But the way they are going about it makes them look stupid.

Hervoyel
09-13-2011, 01:34 PM
I despise Baylor and have since the SWC broke up. I think that whatever happens to them as a result of this they have it coming.

Couldn't happen to a more appropriate pack of hypocrites. I particularly enjoy the thought that after Briles bailed out on his kids here the way he did for a chance to coach in a BCS conference he's now in danger of landing right back in C-USA where Kevin Sumlin and the Cougars can kick the crap out of him yearly.

XI CMURDER IX
09-13-2011, 01:45 PM
It's 6 games, and they will this year, barring injury to RG3. Don't be bitter that your team lost to them.

It is 6 games for a bowl bid, but 6 games won't get you a BCS bowl bid. That is what I am trying to say.

Texan_Bill
09-13-2011, 02:50 PM
Justice goes off on Ken Starr



Plenty more at the link (http://blog.chron.com/sportsjustice/2011/09/baylor-keeps-pleading-for-tradition-and-rivalries-has-baylor-forgotten-how-it-dumped-smu-tcu-and-uh/)

Not a Justice fan normally, but enjoyed this read.

You enjoyed it because he spoke the truth. Thats what happened.

Playoffs
09-13-2011, 02:54 PM
ESPN report just made it sound like OU is going to the PAC and the decision will be made in weeks.

Texan_Bill
09-13-2011, 02:54 PM
I have no problem with what Baylor is trying to do. They stand to lose a lot if the conference goes down.

But the way they are going about it makes them look stupid.

It doesn't make them look stupid, it makes them look toxic. What Conference will want a school that goes about their business in that manner?

GlassHalfFull
09-13-2011, 02:57 PM
I despise Baylor and have since the SWC broke up. I think that whatever happens to them as a result of this they have it coming.

Couldn't happen to a more appropriate pack of hypocrites. I particularly enjoy the thought that after Briles bailed out on his kids here the way he did for a chance to coach in a BCS conference he's now in danger of landing right back in C-USA where Kevin Sumlin and the Cougars can kick the crap out of him yearly.

Yeppers. UH has lots of reasons to dislike Baylor.

Mr. White
09-13-2011, 03:25 PM
I wasn't paying all that close attention back then, so I've got an honest question....

What did Baylor do to screw over UH, TCU, SMU, and Rice when the SWC broke up?

GlassHalfFull
09-13-2011, 03:38 PM
I wasn't paying all that close attention back then, so I've got an honest question....

What did Baylor do to screw over UH, TCU, SMU, and Rice when the SWC broke up?

I posted this article earlier

http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1774343&postcount=77http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1774343&postcount=77

It discusses what happened back then. Baylor was the least well suited to go to the new Big 12 out of TCU, SMU, UH and Rice. It had some serious political pull and got in anyway.

Ole Miss Texan
09-13-2011, 04:13 PM
I found this quote very fitting:"We certainly wish those who did not receive an invitation well. I feel sure they are fine institutions and they will find a place in some other program that will be appropriate for them."

I hope Bill Byrne says something to this effect when A&M is finally allowed to go to the SEC. 'We're excited about our move to the SEC. We certainly wish Baylor the best. I feel sure thay are a fine institution and they will find a place in some other program that will be appropriate for them.'

Blake
09-13-2011, 04:32 PM
Actually, I dont see how Baylor joining the big 8 and leaving the other teams behind is the same as Texas aTm agreeing to stay & save the big 12, then less than a year later jumping ship.

If you can provide any historical data that suggests Baylor did the same BS move then show us.

Mr teX
09-13-2011, 04:34 PM
I posted this article earlier

http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1774343&postcount=77http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1774343&postcount=77

It discusses what happened back then. Baylor was the least well suited to go to the new Big 12 out of TCU, SMU, UH and Rice. It had some serious political pull and got in anyway.

it's been long overdue....Baylor Bitches.

Blake
09-13-2011, 04:39 PM
http://president.tamu.edu/2010/06/14/texas-am-will-remain-in-the-big-12-conference/

Texas A&M will remain in the Big 12 Conference134 comments
June 14, 2010

To The Aggie Family:

The past two weeks have been a whirlwind of speculation as Texas A&M University and several other institutions in the Big 12 Conference evaluated our athletic affiliations. At the end of the day, 10 of the 12 schools in the Big 12 – including Texas A&M – have determined that the conference was definitely worth saving due to our collective strengths in academics, national competitiveness, geographic fit and overall financial value.

Throughout the conference evaluation process, I was encouraged by something that I already knew –Texas A&M is incredibly strong and the passion of our current and former students, as well as our faculty and staff, is unmatched anywhere. As evidence, I have been overwhelmed by thousands of emails, phone calls and Facebook posts from Aggies in support of any of the three options we were considering – remaining in the Big 12, or joining the Southeastern Conference or Pac-10 Conference.

Let me be clear: This decision was made in the best interests of Texas A&M and was not made in haste. As I mentioned to the Faculty Senate Monday afternoon, our top consideration was the demands placed on our student-athletes, in terms of academics, time away from the classroom, and the overall level of competition. There were also many other factors considered, including maintaining Texas A&M’s strong foothold in the State of Texas and preserving our natural athletic rivalries, many of which date back more than 100 years. And, ultimately, by remaining a member of the Big 12, we were able to more than double our financial return to the levels being offered by other conferences.

I understand that some Aggies are disappointed, but I am confident this decision will serve Texas A&M well in the years to come. As Athletic Director Bill Byrne and I stated numerous times throughout this process, our hope and desire was for the Big 12 to continue. And we both agree that this is an exciting, new day for our league.

I appreciate all of your feedback and thoughts on this important issue. As Aggies, I know that you will rally around our Texas A&M student-athletes as they train over the summer and begin Big 12 competition this fall.

Thanks again, and Gig ’Em!

Dr. R. Bowen Loftin ’71
President

You cant argue with facts. They negotiate a bigger pay rate for themselves to stay in the conference, shake everyone's hand, stare the other presidents in the eye and straight up lie.

GlassHalfFull
09-13-2011, 04:40 PM
Actually, I dont see how Baylor joining the big 8 and leaving the other teams behind is the same as Texas aTm agreeing to stay & save the big 12, then less than a year later jumping ship.

If you can provide any historical data that suggests Baylor did the same BS move then show us.

I actually need to get some work done today (hard to believe, I know) so I really can't get into that whole can of worms right now. I am not claiming that Baylor left after one year, I am claiming that Baylor was very happy to throw TCU, SMU, UH and Rice under the bus on the way out of the SWC. So they appear fairly hypocritical by trying to sue other universities into staying in the Big 12-2-1.

A&M is doing what they feel is in their best interests by leaving and joining the SEC. I understand that some do not like it or understand why A&M feels the need to leave. And that is what I just don't have the time to debate right now.

Ole Miss Texan
09-13-2011, 04:46 PM
Actually, I dont see how Baylor joining the big 8 and leaving the other teams behind is the same as Texas aTm agreeing to stay & save the big 12, then less than a year later jumping ship.

If you can provide any historical data that suggests Baylor did the same BS move then show us.
I don't think it is the same. Texas and Texas A&M were the big programs that helped form the Big 8/12 into a legitimate conference. Baylor piggy backed their way in through political ways, not because they were going to make that conference better... but because they didn't want to be left out like UH, TCU, Rice, etc. A&M knows the Big 12 is done and they've been wanting to join the SEC for a while. They're joining a superior conference because of a mutual decision between their univesity and the southeastern conference.

I think most people realized last year that it was just a matter of time for the Big 12 to completely unravel. Nebraska and Colorado said peace out. A&M stayed in but I don't really think it was to "save" the Big 12... I think they got a little more money than they otherwise would have and they knew they'd just be trying to go to the SEC sometime in the next 1,2,3 years.

Blake
09-13-2011, 04:53 PM
I actually need to get some work done today (hard to believe, I know) so I really can't get into that whole can of worms right now. I am not claiming that Baylor left after one year, I am claiming that Baylor was very happy to throw TCU, SMU, UH and Rice under the bus on the way out of the SWC. So they appear fairly hypocritical by trying to sue other universities into staying in the Big 12-2-1.

A&M is doing what they feel is in their best interests by leaving and joining the SEC. I understand that some do not like it or understand why A&M feels the need to leave. And that is what I just don't have the time to debate right now.

You are still missing my argument that the difference is that aTm just agreed to stay and save the Big 12. aTm just agreed to a new television payout deal which all members agreed to. That is why Baylor and others are mad. They dont like being lied to. Also they have other money deals depending on the current Big12 members.

Why doesnt aTm man up and just leave? Call Baylor's bluff and GTFO.

gwallaia
09-13-2011, 04:57 PM
Old story from San Antonio Express News. Sorry I do not have a working link.

Power brokers: How tag along Baylor, Tech crashed the revolt

Mark Wangrin
Express-News Staff Writer

It's hard to keep a secret around the state Capitol, especially when legislative talk turns from taxes to football.

So, in early 1994, when the buzz began that Texas and Texas A&M were preparing to leave the Southwest Conference, David Sibley went straight to a man he knew wouldn't deceive him.

Sibley, then a Republican state senator from Waco, buttonholed William Cunningham, the University of Texas chancellor, at a reception. He asked him point blank if the rumors that the Longhorns and Aggies were planning to desert the SWC were true.

Cunningham asked Sibley where he had heard that. He questioned the sources of the rumors. He tried to change the subject.

What he didn't do was deny it.

To Sibley, that was proof enough that something was up — something that wasn't going to sit well with state politicos with allegiances to either the six soon-to-be snubbed SWC universities or the communities served by those schools. Or, as was the case with Baylor graduate Sibley, to both.

It was time, as one state politician with a vested interest in the matter later recalled, "to turn loose the dogs of war."

The pack included Dobermans, a veritable who's who of Baylor and Texas Tech alumni. Ann Richards, then governor, and Bob Bullock, then lieutenant governor, were Baylor grads. Sibley held a high-ranking position on the powerful Senate Finance Committee.

Tech unleashed its own influential alums: John Montford, president pro tempore of the Senate; Robert Junell, destined to become chairman of the House Appropriations Committee; and Speaker of the House Pete Laney.

Sibley threatened a cut in funding for UT and A&M if they bolted on their own. Junell collared UT president Robert Berdahl and spelled out what was at stake.

"As I recall, it wasn't a very veiled threat to cut budgets if Tech was left behind," Berdahl recalls.

Laney doesn't recall any hints of reprisal.

"We'd be a whole lot easier to get along with if our teams were in there, but I don't think there were any threats," Laney said. "We (the legislators) are temporary. We'll be replaced sooner or later."

Bullock, who died in 1999, took the lead in galvanizing the Tech and Baylor factions. He called Bernard Rappaport, a Waco businessman then serving on the UT Board of Regents. Rappaport confirmed that UT's absorption into the Big Eight was imminent.

Bullock went to work.

It was Monday, Feb. 20, 1994 — Presidents' Day, a state holiday. Bullock began rounding up his troops. He called Cunningham and requested an immediate meeting. William Mobley, A&M's chancellor, and Dean Gage, A&M's interim president, were in Temple on a facilities tour when Bullock reached them by phone. Bullock wanted to talk — now. Mobley and Gage replied that they couldn't fit it into their schedules.

Bullock bristled.

"I would think that if the Lieutenant Governor requested a meeting you would show him the courtesy," Bullock said angrily. Then he slammed down the phone. Minutes later, the phone rang.

Mobley and Gage had suddenly found time to talk.

(continued on next page)

gwallaia
09-13-2011, 04:59 PM
The plot revealed
The group convened in Bullock's office in a state building next to the Capitol. On hand were Bullock, Cunningham, Sibley, Montford, Mobley, Gage and Bill Clayton, a former house speaker who now sat on A&M's board of regents.

Cunningham told Bullock that, indeed, UT was on the verge of joining the Big Eight. By then, Bullock and the others were prepared to act — prepared to wield the monolithic clout that stems from rural politics and lengthy tenure — to buy Baylor and Tech passage out of the doomed SWC.

The four other SWC schools — SMU, TCU, Rice and Houston, all based in metropolitan communities — found few advocates for their interests.

The fate of the three private schools in the group — SMU, TCU and Rice — was of little concern to the decision-makers in Austin.

Even among the four breakaway schools, unity was difficult to attain. One sticking point for a four-way exodus from the SWC was A&M, which still clung to aspirations of joining recently departed SWC member Arkansas in the Southeastern Conference.

According to witnesses — and also Clayton's testimony in the 1996 misappropriation of funds trial of former A&M regents chairman Ross Margraves — Clayton balked at the idea of the Aggies joining the Big Eight.

"No, you're wrong about that" Bullock told him. "You need to come with us to the Big Eight."

It so happened that A&M needed two votes from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, which governs construction projects at state colleges, to proceed with the construction of its $33.4 million basketball and convocation facility, which became Reed Arena.

"Don't worry about it," Bullock told Clayton. "I'll get them for you tomorrow."

On Feb. 24 — just four days after Bullock's round of emergency phone calls — the Big Eight officially absorbed UT, A&M, Baylor and Tech, and a new league was formed, using a name the Big Eight had curiously trademarked years earlier: The Big 12.

That Capitol intrigue ended a revolt that had been in the works since the late 1980s, when UT and A&M officials first considered leaving the SWC.

First, the Longhorns looked west, to the Pac-10. Berdahl found it appealing that seven of the 10 schools in the Pac-10 were members of the American Association of Universities, a group comprised of the nation's top 62 research universities.

Distance was the main drawback. The University of Arizona, located in Tucson, was the nearest Pac-10 school to Austin — and still 788 miles away. Eight of the 10 schools were in the Pacific Time Zone, meaning a two-hour time gap with most of Texas.

"Texas wanted desperately the academic patina that the Pac 10 yielded," recalls Berdahl, who went on to serve as chancellor at Pac-10 member California-Berkeley. "To be associated with UCLA, Stanford and Cal in academics was very desirable."

Still, expansion in the Pac-10 depended on unanimous approval of the member schools. And Stanford, which had long battled UT in athletics as well as academics, objected. For UT, the way west never materialized.

Course correction
The Longhorns next turned to the Big Ten.

Having added Penn State in 1990, the Big Ten was now made of universities that, in the view of UT officials, matched UT's profile — large state schools with strong academic reputations. Berdahl liked the fact that 10 conference members belonged to the American Association of Universities.

Yet, distance remained a disadvantage. Iowa, the closest Big Ten school to Austin, was 856 miles away — but the appeal of having 10 of 12 schools in the same time zone was seen as a plus.

But after adding Penn State in 1990, Big Ten officials had put a four-year moratorium on expansion. Although admitting interest, Big Ten bosses ultimately rejected UT's overtures.

That left the SEC as a possible relocation target for the Longhorns — until Berdahl let it be known that UT wasn't interested because of the league's undistinguished academic profile. Only two of 12 schools in the SEC were American Association of Universities members and UT officials saw admissions standards to SEC schools as too lenient.

"We were quite interested in raising academic standards," Berdahl says. "And the Southeastern Conference had absolutely no interest in that."

A&M, meanwhile, had no qualms about flirting with the SEC. From the late 1980s on, administrators from A&M and LSU had several informal conversations about the Aggies joining the SEC. After talks with Miami broke down in 1990, the SEC's courtship with A&M grew more serious.

LSU athletic director Joe Dean telephoned his A&M counterpart John David Crow to discuss A&M's candidacy.

"Joe was going to sponsor us, do what was needed to be done," Crow said. "They would have liked to have had us."

At the NCAA Convention in Dallas in January 1993, Dean reportedly met with Dodds and Crow to discuss a possible two-school move. Dean later told reporters that he believed UT was "headed north" — to the Big Eight or Big Ten — while A&M was the "most logical addition to the SEC."

In response to reports of the meeting, a representative of A&M president William Mobley told reporters there had been no offer and "Dr. Mobley is firmly committed to the Southwest Conference."

But in August 1993, A&M regents chairman Margraves flew to LSU for his son's graduation, taking time to meet with LSU chancellor William Davis to discuss the possible migration of A&M — and Houston — into the SEC. Margraves later said he came away from the trip favoring a move.

The right fit
Despite the repeated wooing from both sides, however, the relationship was never consummated. A&M administrators, apparently fearful of a backlash if the school made the first move solo, held back. UT wasn't interested and a suitable partner from the SWC couldn't be found. The SEC, meanwhile, backed off on expansion.

"I don't think the powers that be wanted us to move alone, leave the Southwest Conference and its tradition," Crow said.

Mobley, now a professor of management at the China Europe International Business School in Shanghai, says A&M's actions resulted from a strategic analysis of the SWC's future commissioned by the league's presidents after Arkansas departed.

"It was a complex decision, a matrix of academic, economic and political factors for all schools and conferences," Mobley said.

He added that those factors included academics and compliance, television money, scheduling and travel, existing natural rivalries and "support and political implications among various stakeholders including the Board of Regents, the Texas Legislature, Former Students, the Athletic Department, faculty, students, media, etc."

Almost by default the attentions of UT and A&M turned to the one major football conference that was geographically nearest and competitively dearest — the Big Eight.

It helped that UT athletic director DeLoss Dodds and Oklahoma athletic director Donnie Duncan were old friends. Dodds had once served as AD at Kansas State. And, of course, the Longhorns and Sooners were longtime rivals from annual October football showdowns in Dallas.

Acutely aware of how the fast-moving world of television negotiations was changing the face of conference affiliations, Dodds and Duncan had, since the late 1980s, chatted informally about the possibility of UT joining the Big Eight.

For a multitude of reasons, that move made the most sense. All of the Big Eight schools were in the Central Time Zone. The most distant school from Austin was Iowa State, 840 miles away. Like the SWC, the Big Eight was looking to improve revenues and in need of additional markets to increase its bargaining power for TV rights.

Still, the Big Eight wanted to expand to 10 teams, not nine, so each school could play a round-robin schedule in football and still have two non-conference games. UT needed an expansion partner and the obvious choice was A&M.

Both schools offered large alumni bases, rich tradition and solid academic reputations. Both excelled in a variety of sports other than football and basketball.

Within a week of the meeting of political heavyweights, the expansion twins became quadruplets with the forced acceptance of Baylor and Tech into what amounted to a merger deal. Almost immediately, the deal paid off.

On March 10, the Big 12 signed a five-year, $100 million deal with ABC and Liberty Sports to carry the league's football games.

Denial, then denied
Even as the fortunate four were cashing in, the forgotten four were reaching for their wallets — and having that chill-bump sensation of finding nothing.

"It was a bomb," then TCU AD Frank Windegger said, "dropped square on top of us."

Even when the administrators at TCU, SMU, Rice and Houston received advance confirmation from those involved, some still refused to believe it.

In February 1994, days before the league dissolved, SMU AD Forrest Gregg privately asked Dodds if the move was imminent. Dodds said yes.

Gregg told SMU president A. Kenneth Pye of the conversation. Pye responded that it couldn't be happening, because the other league presidents hadn't said anything about it. Two days later, it came true.

"We were in Dallas, with a long and illustrious tradition, and we thought that would work," Gregg said.

SMU wasn't alone in discovering that what it offered in positives was set off by what it promised in negatives.

SMU, TCU and Rice were private schools, and big conferences desire schools backed by state coffers. Houston, TCU and SMU still bore the stain of NCAA probation.

All thought they could deliver big television markets to a league in search of the same, but the Big 12 members felt that UT and A&M could deliver Dallas and Houston.

There were brief discussions about keeping the Southwest Conference alive, but nobody could agree on whom to invite. And the TV money was quickly drying up.

"There was a lot of indecision," said Steve Hatchell, who served as the last SWC commissioner then assumed the same duties with the Big 12. "Those four were not in the habit of looking around to find a place for themselves. The picture changed totally."

SMU, TCU and Rice headed to the Western Athletic Conference, a geographically widespread league that boasted one football national champion (BYU, in 1984) but modest accomplishments elsewhere.

Houston, believing its future was to the east — the school had once coveted an invitation to the SEC — cast its lot with a new league formed from the nucleus of the old Metro Conference, called Conference USA.

Baylor and Tech — one a private school, one a school that had to pull out the stops just to be admitted into the SWC 26 years earlier and neither in major television markets — were simply happy to be included in the Big 12.

"As luck and fate would have it, Texas Tech had some very powerful members of the legislature," said former Tech AD Bob Bockrath. "Candidly, if not for the influence, it'd be the Big 10 — that's taken, so some other name. I don't think Texas and A&M saw Tech and Baylor as equal partners."

Former Baylor AD Dick Ellis said: "It was a battle of the haves and have-nots. Baylor, we kind of snuck in. I'm sure there's resentment from SMU, TCU and Rice."

Short honeymoon
While the forgotten four stewed about being jilted, the honeymoon that followed the marriage of the fortunate four and the Big Eight was short.

Officials of the new league were quickly saddled with two contentious issues: initial eligibility for athletes and arrangements for a football championship game.

The SWC expatriates wanted entrance requirements that were stiffer than those mandated by the NCAA. Nebraska, sustained through the years by more lenient standards, objected.

Suddenly, the process of forming the Big 12 became a clash of priorities and a dispute over how priorities shape integrity.

Cornhuskers fans howled about UT arrogance. UT supporters saw Nebraska's reluctance as a cynical, self-serving way to keep the Cornhuskers on top.

"Nebraska and Texas were jockeying for position," said Bill Byrne, the A&M AD who then held that position at Nebraska. "Nebraska was the 800-pound gorilla in the Big Eight. Texas was the 800-pound gorilla in the Southwest Conference."

In December of 1995, 10 months before the first Big 12 football game, the league's school presidents agreed to allow each Big 12 school to admit two male and two female partial qualifiers each season. Still, Nebraska officials wanted to delay implementation. League presidents voted 11-1 to put the rules into immediate effect.

That was the second major defeat for Nebraska.

The Cornhuskers had dominated Big Eight football — they won back-to-back national titles in that league's final two seasons — and they opposed the idea of a title game, fearing one upset could ruin a season.

In the summer of 1995, league presidents, warmed by the prospect of a title game providing another $10 million in revenue, voted 11-1 to put in a championship game.

Nebraska officials also blamed UT for the league's choice of Dallas as the site for league headquarters, a decision that dislodged the conference from its old Big Eight base in Kansas City. Adding to the early acrimony was the league's choice of Hatchell as the Big 12's first commissioner, another decision driven by Texas schools, Nebraska officials charged.

It was fitting that the first Big 12 championship game, held in St. Louis on Dec. 7, 1996, matched No. 3 Nebraska against 20-point underdog UT.

Even the ticket offices got into it.

In a conference call to set up the will-call ticket windows, a Big 12 official asked Nebraska's representatives what they needed. "Two tables and three chairs," came the reply.

He posed the same question to UT officials.

"Two tables and four chairs," said UT's ticket manager, earning a round of high-fives from his staff.

The underdog Longhorns, using a bold pass play on fourth and inches at their own 28-yard line in the final minutes, had the final say on the field, too, winning 37-27.

Nearly a decade later, Berdahl, an academician not normally given to moods of vengeance, can't contain himself when he recalls those early growing pains of the Big 12.

GlassHalfFull
09-13-2011, 05:03 PM
You are going to make me work late today!!!

Let me try this article Link (http://www.theeagle.com/am/SEC-is-ready-for-A-amp-amp-M)

But A&M President R. Bowen Loftin disputed that argument Monday during a meeting of the A&M Faculty Senate. In response to a question from a professor who said that leaving the Big 12 would require A&M to break a contract it signed just last year, Loftin stressed that the Aggies have no contracts binding them to the Big 12.

"There is no contract provision that requires us to be a member of the conference," he said in the firmest public explanation he had given to date.

The only contract relevant to the situation, he said, are the Big 12's TV contracts, but those were signed by the conference, not A&M.

"There is no contract provision that requires us to be a member of the conference," Loftin said.

A&M is tied to the Big 12 by bylaws written in the 1990s, he said. Those, however, provide specific provisions for how the Aggies can leave. Loftin has indicated that A&M is trying to follow those as it tries to join the SEC.

Loftin did acknowledge that he publicly expressed his commitment to the Big 12 in June 2010 with the following statement: "Texas A&M University is committed to the Big 12 Conference as it is today."

On Monday, Loftin stressed the importance of the phrase "as it is today."

"At that day, [the Big 12] had 12 members," he said. "It does not have 12 members today."

Neither Slive nor Loftin explained what needs to happen to make the move official. Many have speculated that both sides are waiting to see whether Big 12 member Oklahoma leaves for the Pac-12.

But both sides made it very clear Monday that the move will happen.

"Texas A&M is an outstanding academic institution with an exceptional athletic program, passionate fans and wonderful traditions," Slive said. "While the SEC wasn't thinking about expansion, it was impossible not to be interested in Texas A&M."

And I grant you that A&M talked the good talk last summer about staying. I do think the LHN and the reality of what the conference was looking like without Nebraska and Colorado changed A&M's minds over the last year.

XI CMURDER IX
09-13-2011, 05:12 PM
‎2-4-6-8 whose the school that litigates? Baylor! Baylor!

Hervoyel
09-13-2011, 05:58 PM
http://president.tamu.edu/2010/06/14/texas-am-will-remain-in-the-big-12-conference/



You cant argue with facts. They negotiate a bigger pay rate for themselves to stay in the conference, shake everyone's hand, stare the other presidents in the eye and straight up lie.

They lied? Really? You know they had no intention of staying at the time?

I think you do not know that.

Are we all agreed that College football is "business"? Does anyone here in this discussion think for a moment that any of this centers around anything other than dollars and cents? I didn't think so.

In a business arrangement things change. Business doesn't always work out the way we want it to. Sometimes you look at a deal and think "That's simply not in my best interest. I've got to do something about that" and you do something about it.

Did A&M change their minds and decide to do what's best for them? Of course. Is OU in the process of doing the very same thing right now? Is OSU hanging on for dear life and prepared to follow OU anywhere they go? Of course they are. Texas has done what's best for them and Baylor & Tech did what was in their best interest when they shoehorned themselves into a bed of roses following the breakup of the SWC. Nobody likes landing in a bucket of shit. Even I get that.

UH did in fact land in said bucket and at times it looked like they were never going to get out. When they finally started to get respectable again along came their old SWC pal Baylor looking for a head coach. Just business.

I think A&M would have already "manned up" if the SEC hadn't been spooked by Ken Starr's attempt at avoiding the inevitable. If the SEC stops dead in their tracks and tells A&M that they don't want to risk any legal problems from this BUT... OU and OSU decide to go ahead and bolt anyway will Starr and Baylor sue them? Will they try and pull some strings again? I don't think the people in charge in Oklahoma give a fancy frickasseed flying fart who went to Baylor or what they think. The simple fact is Baylor's bag of tricks is empty and I'm going to enjoy the show.

I've got nothing against A&M so I don't care if they head for the SEC. I think that's where UH should eventually go. Keep winning, build your stadium, build your brand, and eventually they'll call. Baylor can go to hell though. They need to get their butts down to playing Sam Houston St. & Stephen F. Austin. You know, in a fine conference that suits them.

Dutchrudder
09-13-2011, 06:18 PM
They lied? Really? You know they had no intention of staying at the time?

I think you do not know that.

Are we all agreed that College football is "business"? Does anyone here in this discussion think for a moment that any of this centers around anything other than dollars and cents? I didn't think so.

In a business arrangement things change. Business doesn't always work out the way we want it to. Sometimes you look at a deal and think "That's simply not in my best interest. I've got to do something about that" and you do something about it.

Did A&M change their minds and decide to do what's best for them? Of course. Is OU in the process of doing the very same thing right now? Is OSU hanging on for dear life and prepared to follow OU anywhere they go? Of course they are. Texas has done what's best for them and Baylor & Tech did what was in their best interest when they shoehorned themselves into a bed of roses following the breakup of the SWC. Nobody likes landing in a bucket of shit. Even I get that.

UH did in fact land in said bucket and at times it looked like they were never going to get out. When they finally started to get respectable again along came their old SWC pal Baylor looking for a head coach. Just business.

I think A&M would have already "manned up" if the SEC hadn't been spooked by Ken Starr's attempt at avoiding the inevitable. If the SEC stops dead in their tracks and tells A&M that they don't want to risk any legal problems from this BUT... OU and OSU decide to go ahead and bolt anyway will Starr and Baylor sue them? Will they try and pull some strings again? I don't think the people in charge in Oklahoma give a fancy frickasseed flying fart who went to Baylor or what they think. The simple fact is Baylor's bag of tricks is empty and I'm going to enjoy the show.

I've got nothing against A&M so I don't care if they head for the SEC. I think that's where UH should eventually go. Keep winning, build your stadium, build your brand, and eventually they'll call. Baylor can go to hell though. They need to get their butts down to playing Sam Houston St. & Stephen F. Austin. You know, in a fine conference that suits them.

And if it really is all about money, then you know A&M just can't wait to see OU and OSU bolt for the Pac12. If they leave, the conference will be dead and all three will avoid paying exit fees which could go as high as 30 million. That would be a big win for A&M.

GlassHalfFull
09-13-2011, 06:28 PM
I would also like to point out that UH, TCU, and SMU have all built their programs and facilities during the period they were in a lesser conference. What has Baylor done from a facility standpoint? Not to mention the huge crowds they draw and the high demand for their tickets.

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r248/ianaggie/tickets.jpg

GlassHalfFull
09-13-2011, 06:58 PM
One last link that does a pretty good job of answering the OP's question in the thread title.

TEXAS A&M AND OKLAHOMA DECLARE INDEPENDENCE FROM TEXAS (http://outkickthecoverage.com/texas-am-and-oklahoma-declare-independence-from-texas.php)


Slowly but surely Texas's arrogance, me-first attitude, and bullying nature has isolated it from other schools in college football. The Longhorns desperately want all the benefits of independence without the hindrance of actually being independent. For years Oklahoma and Texas A&M, the two rivals that helped to make Texas the program that it is, took the incessant provocation from Texas's insistent ambition without response. Other strong schools sick of being held under Texas's boot left. Arkansas leapt to the SEC, Nebraska and Colorado joined the Big Ten and the Pac 12, all of these schools recognized an immutable truth -- Texas would bully them forever.

This left Texas with two major program allies: Texas A&M and Oklahoma.

See, the NFL realized long ago that a league was only as strong as its weakest link. In order to be good, all the teams have to be competitive; there has to be the possibility of anything happening in any given week.

Texas doesn't believe that to be true.

The Longhorns believe that they are the lone star in a sky devoid of other celestial bodies. The heliocentric theory meets football, Texas as the sun, the moon, and the stars.

Finally, Texas A&M had enough.

What was the final impetus, the straw that broke the Longhorn's back?

Texas had the gall to sign a deal with the ESPN to create the Longhorn Network, a nakedly self-serving attempt to brand itself as a stand-alone superpower. The very contract itself prevented the other Big 12 schools from banding together to form any network that included Texas. The Longhorn Network, the TV deal that launched a thousand ships, wasn't just about Texas having its own network, it was about the scope and ambition of the intent. ESPN ponied up $15 million a year over twenty years to carry Texas athletic events, but anyone who read the contract -- and lots of y'all did here -- knew that ultimately Texas wasn't going to be content with showing just one or two football games on the network.

No, in order for this network to make long-range sense it had to include the ultimate prize -- Longhorn football games.

And it had to include more than one of those games, and it had to include high school games, and it had to be clear that Texas wasn't just the Lone Star state's preeminent program, this was about annexation of the nation, Pax Texana. The Longhorn Network had to have something that people actually wanted to watch to make up the 8,760 hours of yearly programming. Cooking with Vince Young and Boating with Cedric Benson is only good for 500 hours a year.

Otherwise, how much shilling for Texas could ESPN really do? (That's a sarcastic question. The answer is, of course, infinity).

Anyone with half a brain could see that the Longhorn Network gave Texas the long-range goal of being independent. Only, you guessed it, in the meantime the Longhorns could have their cake and eat it too. The money of independence with the cushy creature comforts of a conference it dominated. Texas was the baron, the other schools were the serfs. It was separate but equal football, he with the biggest boots wins.

And Texas had the biggest boots around.

But then Texas A&M, the perpetual little brother, finally had enough. The Aggies realized that Texas was committed to going it alone in the future and just using A&M until that day came. So A&M did what Texas believed it would never have the guts to do, A&M joined the SEC.

Then Oklahoma, long used to playing second fiddle to Texas -- even as it waxed the Longhorns on the field -- realized that Texas wasn't interested in anyone but Texas. So Oklahoma looked west to the Pac 12, "The Grapes of Wrath" without the Joads, loaded up its program and decided to head west. (Hopefully going west ends better for the Oklahoma schools than it did for the Joads). Taking Oklahoma State along for the ride an emboldended Oklahoma coach Bob Stoops even said its rivalry game with Texas wasn't necessary anymore.

The rivalry game, by the way, that was already the only major game that garnered the Big 12 national attention.

Suddenly Texas, the school that was going to own the nation, is riding second saddle, clinging to A&M and Oklahoma for dear life.

Only most Longhorn fans haven't realized it yet.

That's because Oklahoma and Texas A&M finally stared down Texas, tumbleweeds blowing past, with both schools poised to fire. Texas blinked first.

Yes, the Big 12 may well survive thanks to the television contracts. And Texas may well make even more money.

But money without good games is a dangerous place to find yourself in a country that is soon to be over run with mega-conferences with mega-weekly contests.

If Texas stays in the Big 12 and plays Texas Tech, Missouri -- assuming it resists SEC overtures --, Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, TCU, SMU and Houston (or two or three other schools that jump to join the Big 12) is that a schedule that is going to make the Longhorns a national power? Throw in a couple of challenging games out of conference and the Longhorns stride across the nation's stage but rarely. Meanwhile Texas A&M, the little brother, will be playing massive national games every week.

After all this does Texas need Texas A&M and Oklahoma as much or more than either school needs Texas?

The answer is yes.

Only those schools have finally messed with Texas and won.

The Longhorns are too scared to join the Aggies in the SEC and won't be able to keep their precious Longhorn Network in the Pac 12. So Texas may have to capitulate to join the Pac12, follow Oklahoma's lead.

What then for Texas, the school that attempted to take over the nation and ended up losing its dominant grip on a region?

Already Texas is frittering away its past rivalries: Arkansas, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma are gone, and schools that should have become major national rivals have left as well, Nebraska and Colorado. The final kicker? All of those schools find themselves in better positions than Texas.

Texas's own naked ambition has isolated the Longhorns. Pax Texana, the era that was supposed to begin with the Longhorn Network, is looking a lot more like Pox Texana, the Longhorns have cursed themselves.

The Longhorn Network may have won Texas the battle, but in the process Texas A&M and Oklahoma have won the war.

pbat488
09-13-2011, 07:27 PM
You are still missing my argument that the difference is that aTm just agreed to stay and save the Big 12. aTm just agreed to a new television payout deal which all members agreed to. That is why Baylor and others are mad. They dont like being lied to. Also they have other money deals depending on the current Big12 members.

I don't think you're fully understanding of the sequence of events; but a&m was supposedly guaranteed via handshake/gentleman's agreement about certain things and then the longhorn network comes pushing extra conference games and high school highlights and all the other drama and our leadership realized that it would never stop so we decided to take actions to leave. there was no binding contract, and baylor is mad because they are being left out in the cold.



Why doesnt aTm man up and just leave? Call Baylor's bluff and GTFO.

really? why don't we man up? wtf has been going on for the past month? yeah, I suppose staying in the big 12 - 2 is a lot more manly than running scared off into the SEC west... as for the second part, you really think we like sitting here exposed like this? I guarantee you if push came to shove we would say eff it and just go, because the grounds for baylor's lawsuit are absolutely laughable and everyone knows it; it just hasn't come to that point yet and mike slive and the a&m leadership know they can move forward methodically as long as they cover all their bases

Blake
09-14-2011, 09:01 AM
One thing I want to say; while we all dont agree here, and are very passionate about the subject, I think its nice that we can keep it civil around here! Much better than that "No Spin Zone."

Kudos!

Hervoyel
09-14-2011, 09:32 AM
One thing I want to say; while we all dont agree here, and are very passionate about the subject, I think its nice that we can keep it civil around here! Much better than that "No Spin Zone."

Kudos!


Indeed. Well said.

GlassHalfFull
09-14-2011, 11:03 AM
One thing I want to say; while we all dont agree here, and are very passionate about the subject, I think its nice that we can keep it civil around here! Much better than that "No Spin Zone."

Kudos!


This thread has gone amazingly smoothly, given the fanbases involved. The mods were probably gearing up for some bans when they saw the threads on this started.

Kudos back at ya!

disaacks3
09-14-2011, 11:12 AM
Actually, I dont see how Baylor joining the big 8 and leaving the other teams behind is the same as Texas aTm agreeing to stay & save the big 12, then less than a year later jumping ship.

If you can provide any historical data that suggests Baylor did the same BS move then show us. As GHF mentioned earlier, the point the rest of us are making is that Baylor had no issues leaving old SWC ties behind when THEY jumped to the Big-12. Given that their recent hue and cry has been the loss of "old school rivalries", it's more than a little hypocritical of them.

You are still missing my argument that the difference is that aTm just agreed to stay and save the Big 12. aTm just agreed to a new television payout deal which all members agreed to. That is why Baylor and others are mad. They dont like being lied to. Also they have other money deals depending on the current Big12 members.

Why doesnt aTm man up and just leave? Call Baylor's bluff and GTFO. Actually, they ARE manning up and leaving, so what's your issue here? Baylor cares only about the $$, they haven't re-invested in their program like Texas, A&M, Oklahoma have, but they've been happy to ride the coattails and cash the checks that the conference generates. Show me where they've made great strides with that TV $$ to upgrade their facilities & their program and then we'll talk.

"Texas A&M University is committed to the Big 12 Conference as it is today." That's right, he said TODAY. As in before the Big-12 decided that "The Longhorn Network" was all hunky-dorey. In case nobody can see the writing on the wall, that's a HUGE precursor to UT becoming an independent. Quite simply, A&M has far more to LOSE than Baylor in this equation by staying in the Big-12.

Hervoyel
09-14-2011, 11:37 AM
....That's right, he said TODAY. As in before the Big-12 decided that "The Longhorn Network" was all hunky-dorey. In case nobody can see the writing on the wall, that's a HUGE precursor to UT becoming an independent. Quite simply, A&M has far more to LOSE than Baylor in this equation by staying in the Big-12.


That's very true. Right now you are looking at a conference that almost everyone agrees will live or die by UT's choices. Setting up their own immensely profitable TV network puts UT in perfect position to decide later that upgrading the quality and variety of opponents is in their best interest.

Right now it's Baylor crying that A&M's actions will bust up the conference and leave them out in the cold. in my eyes A&M is preemptively moving before they find themselves in that exact same situation alongside the rest of the "minor" Big 12 schools when UT goes.

It's not like UT and A&M haven't previously broken up a conference in the past. They each know what the other is capable of. A&M just has options, whereas Baylor and the rest of them are kind of stuck in that bucket I mentioned in one of my previous posts. If Baylor had the same options as A&M they might very well already be gone.

Dutchrudder
09-14-2011, 11:42 AM
That's right, he said TODAY. As in before the Big-12 decided that "The Longhorn Network" was all hunky-dorey. In case nobody can see the writing on the wall, that's a HUGE precursor to UT becoming an independent. Quite simply, A&M has far more to LOSE than Baylor in this equation by staying in the Big-12.

Well, I don't know about that. In absolute numbers, A&M will be missing out on about 10+ million a year by staying in the Big 12, but if the conference dissolves and Baylor ends up in the WAC or something, they will lose a much larger percentage of their program's income and prestige. It's all relative, but everyone has a dog in the fight. I think at this point though, the superconferences are coming, and A&M wants a seat at the biggest and most lucrative table.

Blake
09-14-2011, 12:04 PM
"Texas A&M University is committed to the Big 12 Conference as it is today."
That's right, he said TODAY. As in before the Big-12 decided that "The Longhorn Network" was all hunky-dorey.

Committed to the Big 12 as it is today? What a crock statement. He might as well said, "Would I ever leave this conference? Look, I'm all about loyalty. In fact, I feel like part of what we are being paid for here is our loyalty. But if there were some other conference that valued loyalty more highly, we're going wherever they value loyalty the most.

In case nobody can see the writing on the wall, that's a HUGE precursor to UT becoming an independent.

The same LHN that A&M was offered to be partners in 4 years ago and declined? Looks to me like A&M's leadership lacked the foresight to be apart of the network, rather than threatened by it.

Quite simply, A&M has far more to LOSE than Baylor in this equation by staying in the Big-12.

I would like to hear your reasoning behind this statement.

Hervoyel
09-14-2011, 12:05 PM
I have a question about this process and what will result that maybe someone here might be able to answer. I keep reading that anything left of the Big 12, whether it includes Texas or not might lose it's automatic qualifying BCS spot. Now, I don't keep up with a lot of this the way I do NFL stuff so forgive me if this sounds ignorant BUT..... aren't there exactly "x" number of bowl games that need "y" number of teams? If the Big 12 champion no longer automatically gets a spot then why wouldn't that go to the next best remaining conference that doesn't automatically qualify? If that's the case then who would that be?

I've thought that what might not be a bad idea in a worse-case-scenario situation for the Big 12 leftovers would be to join C-USA and re-org that into an even bigger multi-division conference. Give them that automatic bid and you've shut up a lot of the have-not teams.

Blake
09-14-2011, 12:16 PM
I have a question about this process and what will result that maybe someone here might be able to answer. I keep reading that anything left of the Big 12, whether it includes Texas or not might lose it's automatic qualifying BCS spot. Now, I don't keep up with a lot of this the way I do NFL stuff so forgive me if this sounds ignorant BUT..... aren't there exactly "x" number of bowl games that need "y" number of teams? If the Big 12 champion no longer automatically gets a spot then why wouldn't that go to the next best remaining conference that doesn't automatically qualify? If that's the case then who would that be?

I've thought that what might not be a bad idea in a worse-case-scenario situation for the Big 12 leftovers would be to join C-USA and re-org that into an even bigger multi-division conference. Give them that automatic bid and you've shut up a lot of the have-not teams.

Good question. But I dont think the BCS wants to have anymore clunker (new CUSA conference) teams in their big money games than they already get in the current format. You can tell that the BCS games with the Cincinnati's and Utah's just dont have the money power that a Alabama/Ohio State does.

disaacks3
09-14-2011, 01:13 PM
Committed to the Big 12 as it is today? What a crock statement. He might as well said, "Would I ever leave this conference? Look, I'm all about loyalty. In fact, I feel like part of what we are being paid for here is our loyalty. But if there were some other conference that valued loyalty more highly, we're going wherever they value loyalty the most. So, if all the other teams left, they'd be obligated to stay? If the other teams de-funded their football programs, they'd be obligated to stay? They are leaving within the guidelines of the Big-12 contract they signed...prove otherwise or deal with it.


The same LHN that A&M was offered to be partners in 4 years ago and declined? Looks to me like A&M's leadership lacked the foresight to be apart of the network, rather than threatened by it. A&M part of the Longhorn network? Does that even sound logical to you? Byrne also says that Texas A&M was not offered the chance to join the Longhorns in the venture.link (http://www.ketknbc.com/news/aggie-ad-blames-longhorn-network)
Of course they're threatened by it, and so is every other powerhouse in the conference. OU wants to leave as well because they're OK with everything? (Hell, even McClain the Baylor grad sees this move as a threat to OU) The Big-12 either needed to have a Big-12 network and be done with it, or prohibit individual schools from striking their own deals.


I would like to hear your reasoning behind this statement. Simply put, Baylor was the economic weak-sister since the move from the SWC. Baylor is putting fans in the seats and you can be certain that the TV networks aren't eargerly signing contracts just to get those high-rated Baylor games. Baylor falling off the map of collegiate football altogether wouldn't be a big deal. A&M has much more to lose by staying aboard a sinking ship (and thereby to gain) by going to the strongest football conference in existence. Somehow, I don't see the SEC beating down Baylor's door to gain their nationwide following.


I'm sorry you perceive this as nothing but an "A&M is running away" scenario. They've chose to leave for underlying reasons taht have to do with the long-term viability of the Big-12. Baylor is jsut upset that they aren't the prettiest girl at the dance.

bah007
09-14-2011, 01:44 PM
As GHF mentioned earlier, the point the rest of us are making is that Baylor had no issues leaving old SWC ties behind when THEY jumped to the Big-12. Given that their recent hue and cry has been the loss of "old school rivalries", it's more than a little hypocritical of them.

Actually, they ARE manning up and leaving, so what's your issue here? Baylor cares only about the $$, they haven't re-invested in their program like Texas, A&M, Oklahoma have, but they've been happy to ride the coattails and cash the checks that the conference generates. Show me where they've made great strides with that TV $$ to upgrade their facilities & their program and then we'll talk.

That's right, he said TODAY. As in before the Big-12 decided that "The Longhorn Network" was all hunky-dorey. In case nobody can see the writing on the wall, that's a HUGE precursor to UT becoming an independent. Quite simply, A&M has far more to LOSE than Baylor in this equation by staying in the Big-12.

I agree with everything you say here (and I'm a UT fan) except for the last sentence. And it's really only a small thing.

I wouldn't say that A&M has more to lose than Baylor by staying. The way I see the situation, I would just word it a little differently. They just stand to gain more by leaving. No matter how this shakes out Baylor stands to lose more than A&M, because they really have nothing to offer anybody.

A&M loses nothing by staying in the Big XII. But why stay pat when they could gain more from a move to the SEC?

I have no problem with A&M leaving. I just hope we can keep the Thanksgiving game.

bah007
09-14-2011, 01:55 PM
I have a question about this process and what will result that maybe someone here might be able to answer. I keep reading that anything left of the Big 12, whether it includes Texas or not might lose it's automatic qualifying BCS spot. Now, I don't keep up with a lot of this the way I do NFL stuff so forgive me if this sounds ignorant BUT..... aren't there exactly "x" number of bowl games that need "y" number of teams? If the Big 12 champion no longer automatically gets a spot then why wouldn't that go to the next best remaining conference that doesn't automatically qualify? If that's the case then who would that be?

I've thought that what might not be a bad idea in a worse-case-scenario situation for the Big 12 leftovers would be to join C-USA and re-org that into an even bigger multi-division conference. Give them that automatic bid and you've shut up a lot of the have-not teams.

I think I may have an answer for you. First off, the BCS has some sort of process or formula which they use to determine which conferences are worthy of "AQ" status. When a conference gets below the acceptable level (like the Big East would have if they had not added TCU), they lose their bid. If a conference gets above the acceptable level (as the Moutain West likely would have if TCU had stayed), they gain a bid.

Even if teams left, the Big XII would keep their automatic bid for however many years until the conferences were re-examined by the BCS (I don't know when or how often this happens).

When that finally did happen, if the Big XII lost their AQ bid, it would likely go to nobody. That spot would just become an "at large" bid for the highest ranked BCS team that wasn't already invited to a BCS game.

I'm not exactly sure of all the intricacies of the system, but I think I hit close to the mark. Anyone who knows more about it should feel free to step in and correct me.

disaacks3
09-14-2011, 02:21 PM
I agree with everything you say here (and I'm a UT fan) except for the last sentence. And it's really only a small thing.

I wouldn't say that A&M has more to lose than Baylor by staying. The way I see the situation, I would just word it a little differently. They just stand to gain more by leaving. No matter how this shakes out Baylor stands to lose more than A&M, because they really have nothing to offer anybody.

A&M loses nothing by staying in the Big XII. But why stay pat when they could gain more from a move to the SEC?

I have no problem with A&M leaving. I just hope we can keep the Thanksgiving game. Fair enough interpretation.

Ole Miss Texan
09-14-2011, 02:29 PM
Committed to the Big 12 as it is today? What a crock statement.
Loftin's a smart dude and new exactly what he was saying. A&M was committed to the Big 12 "as it was that day" - a 12 team conference. Nebraska and Colorado moved which left only 10 teams. This isn't the Big 12 anymore. I think that was a really well thought out and smart response.... not a crock statement at all.

Loftin did acknowledge that he publicly expressed his commitment to the Big 12 in June 2010 with the following statement: "Texas A&M University is committed to the Big 12 Conference as it is today."

On Monday, Loftin stressed the importance of the phrase "as it is today."

"At that day, [the Big 12] had 12 members," he said. "It does not have 12 members today."
http://www.theeagle.com/am/SEC-is-ready-for-A-amp-amp-M

Blake
09-14-2011, 02:35 PM
A&M part of the Longhorn network? Does that even sound logical to you?

Obviously it wouldnt have been called the LHN, dissacks3.

Byrne also says that Texas A&M was not offered the chance to join the Longhorns in the venture.

Texas AD says it was offered. And aTm AD acknowledged it happened.

When Texas was merely pondering an idea for its own sports network, Dodds called Texas A&M counterpart Bill Byrne with an offer

“Three or four years ago we talked about doing a joint flagship channel,” Byrne said.

Asked if different response from A&M four years ago could have changed Big 12 history, Dodds said: “I think we would be in a different place than what we are.”

LINK. (http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/texas-longhorns/20110901-texas-ad-texas-am-turned-down-network-offer-with-longhorns.ece)

Who do we believe?

Personally I am ready for the Aggies to pay their exit fees and move on. OU and OSU will join the PAC14. Texas will go Independent, and us fans can get on with our lives. Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech, and Missouri will have to beg to get other conference membership.

disaacks3
09-14-2011, 02:57 PM
Texas AD says it was offered. And aTm AD acknowledged it happened.

“Three or four years ago we talked about doing a joint flagship channel,” Byrne said.

Wow, Cherry-pick much? How about including the next sentence in YOUR linked article?

“I liked the idea, but our fans should know me better than to think I would pass on a $150 million deal for Texas A&M. That never happened.”

Sure sounds like the was never much of an offer.

Blake
09-14-2011, 03:00 PM
Wow, Cherry-pick much? How about including the next sentence in YOUR linked article?

Cherry pick? You already stated that Byrne denied it. Why do I need to quote the exact same thing?

Sure sounds like the was never much of an offer.

That is one opinion.



Moving on. My last post in this thread. Thanks for a great discussion folks!

JCTexan
09-14-2011, 03:03 PM
Obviously it wouldnt have been called the LHN, dissacks3.



Texas AD says it was offered. And aTm AD acknowledged it happened.







LINK. (http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/texas-longhorns/20110901-texas-ad-texas-am-turned-down-network-offer-with-longhorns.ece)

Who do we believe?

Personally I am ready for the Aggies to pay their exit fees and move on. OU and OSU will join the PAC14. Texas will go Independent, and us fans can get on with our lives. Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech, and Missouri will have to beg to get other conference membership.

As a Texas fan I would hate this. Which independent school is actually relevant year-in & year-out in college football? I would prefer Texas to join the Pac-14 if Oklahoma & OSU decide to take that route.

Mr teX
09-14-2011, 03:06 PM
I think I may have an answer for you. First off, the BCS has some sort of process or formula which they use to determine which conferences are worthy of "AQ" status. When a conference gets below the acceptable level (like the Big East would have if they had not added TCU), they lose their bid. If a conference gets above the acceptable level (as the Moutain West likely would have if TCU had stayed), they gain a bid.

Even if teams left, the Big XII would keep their automatic bid for however many years until the conferences were re-examined by the BCS (I don't know when or how often this happens).

When that finally did happen, if the Big XII lost their AQ bid, it would likely go to nobody. That spot would just become an "at large" bid for the highest ranked BCS team that wasn't already invited to a BCS game.

I'm not exactly sure of all the intricacies of the system, but I think I hit close to the mark. Anyone who knows more about it should feel free to step in and correct me.

Which is why this BCS shit has to go all together b/c that would be a deliberate snub directed at the smaller schools/conferences. As for this Big 12 crap, i'm all for it desolving & don't have any problem whatsoever with A&M leaving as i think it's a great move. Texas finally pushed too damn hard & all the other peons finally are getting tired of it. Anyone who looks at this whole fiasco objectively can see it plain as day, UT is angling to be an independent b/c it just doesn't make sense from a competitive standpoint why they would sign that deal.

-for 1, CP spoke on this yesterday, no other conference permits schools to have their own network so if the big 12 folds, UT will have to drop the LHN to get into these other conferences or stay independent...check that, maybe the ACC lets them get away with it, but all the other major conferences aren't having it.

-2, I mean they had to know that by signing that deal, this was something that was likely to happen with all the uneveness in the conference already. They had too. I say this b/c u just had 2 of your upper tier programs leave the conference basically b/c they were fed up with you & rumors also circulated about 2 others upper tier programs leaving in the same time just last year.

Furthermore, if you're as interested in keeping the conference together as Dodds claims, you don't make self-serving moves like that or try to tip the scales in you & your other big school counterparts favor at every turn. Instead you use your influence to build up the conference...Obviously, a conference network where the money is split evenly amongst conference schools would've been the best way in achieving that.

Ole Miss Texan
09-14-2011, 03:06 PM
As a Texas fan I would hate this. Which independent school is actually relevant year-in & year-out in college football? I would prefer Texas to join the Pac-14 if Oklahoma & OSU decide to take that route.

What about Texas to the Big Ten? Texas in that conference with the likes of Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio St., Penn St., Wisonsin, etc just feels like a good fit to me.

Dutchrudder
09-14-2011, 03:09 PM
Obviously it wouldnt have been called the LHN, dissacks3.

I believe "The Lone Star Network" was the working title.


Texas AD says it was offered. And aTm AD acknowledged it happened.

LINK. (http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/texas-longhorns/20110901-texas-ad-texas-am-turned-down-network-offer-with-longhorns.ece)

Who do we believe?

Byrne has confirmed that he had been approached about it years ago. The problem is that neither side has been clear on the details of the offer. Some rumors say it would have been 50/50, other say Texas wanted 70/30 of the profits. I don't know who to believe on that, but I don't blame A&M for turning it down. They don't need to hitch their wagon to UT, they apparently are attractive enough for the SEC to fire the first shot in the superconference war.


Personally I am ready for the Aggies to pay their exit fees and move on. OU and OSU will join the PAC14. Texas will go Independent, and us fans can get on with our lives. Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech, and Missouri will have to beg to get other conference membership.

Exit fees are kind of the hitch in all of this right now. I think A&M is hoping (quitely) that the Big 12 implodes on the news of their SEC invite. They want OU, OSU and Tech/Kansas to be forced into jumping to the Pac 12 to dissolve the Big 12 and avoid any exit fees, but still reap the rewards of the NU/CU exit fees. That's the best case scenario for A&M in all of this monetarily speaking. However, if they end up paying 15-30 mill in exit fees to jump to the SEC, then no big deal. 15 of that is covered by the NU/CU payout, the rest will likely be covered by boosters, but the increase in conference revenue from the SEC over their current payouts will be worth it in the longrun. Let the chips fall where they may and move on.

JCTexan
09-14-2011, 03:16 PM
What about Texas to the Big Ten? Texas in that conference with the likes of Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio St., Penn St., Wisonsin, etc just feels like a good fit to me.

I just question the traveling predicament that would come with Texas joining the Big Ten. The closest team to Texas would be Nebraska? Joining the Pac-14+ would put them in a division of Tech-Oklahoma-OSU-Arizona-Arizona State, etc.. Not much traveling problems there IMO.

Ole Miss Texan
09-14-2011, 03:26 PM
I just question the traveling predicament that would come with Texas joining the Big Ten. The closest team to Texas would be Nebraska? Joining the Pac-14+ would put them in a division of Tech-Oklahoma-OSU-Arizona-Arizona State, etc.. Not much traveling problems there IMO.

That would create a pretty good division but Arizona is still over 1,000 miles away. Away games to places like Washington, Oregon and even Stanford would be brutal. Particularly with the majority of all the Pac 12/14 games being in that time zone.

Big Ten-wise, you wouldn't get the OU/OSU which would be really good for Texas but the rest of the games really aren't any further for flying than Pac12/14. Plus you'd be in a much better time zone than playing at different hours for players or even fans.

Either way, I'd like to see Texas in a conference and not independent.

disaacks3
09-14-2011, 03:27 PM
Cherry pick? You already stated that Byrne denied it. Why do I need to quote the exact same thing?
He didn't say they never spoke.

Here's the quote again: "Byrne also says that Texas A&M was not offered the chance to join the Longhorns in the venture."

Having discussions and "being offered" are quite different beasts. I've had discussion with lots of companies about joining their staff, but I've only had an offer from a smaller subset of that group.

In the end we'll agree to disagree over this. I'll take the A&M AD at his word.

JCTexan
09-14-2011, 03:39 PM
That would create a pretty good division but Arizona is still over 1,000 miles away. Away games to places like Washington, Oregon and even Stanford would be brutal. Particularly with the majority of all the Pac 12/14 games being in that time zone.

Big Ten-wise, you wouldn't get the OU/OSU which would be really good for Texas but the rest of the games really aren't any further for flying than Pac12/14. Plus you'd be in a much better time zone than playing at different hours for players or even fans.

Either way, I'd like to see Texas in a conference and not independent.

Same. If Texas joined the Big Ten I would enjoy the Wisconsin, Michigan & Ohio State games each year. Hopefully they will join one of the major three conferences (SEC, Big10, PAC) if they decide to leave the Big 12-3.

GlassHalfFull
09-16-2011, 05:58 PM
Now you can choose your own conference realignment.

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/09/15/conference-realignment-choose-your-own-adventure-style/


fun game

NC State shocks its fans, the ACC and the college football world by ditching the ACC for the SEC. A charter member of the Atlantic Coast Conference, no one saw this coming.

The SEC covets entry into the North Carolina television markets of Charlotte and Raleigh/Durham, while the Wolfpack reaps the financial windfall of joining the SEC.

Outraged by State's betrayal, UNC, Duke, and Wake Forest vow never to play the Wolfpack again.

Raiding the ACC for the Wolfpack creates enormous acrimony between the ACC and the SEC. This hostility affects many partnerships the two conferences have, including bowl games.

The ACC is shocked by the SEC's raid and needs time to assess its future. It has decided to hold at an uneven number until all members can agree on how to proceed.

Conference realignment is finished...for now.

Hervoyel
09-18-2011, 11:38 AM
What's needed here is for some powerful men at various "significant" universities to step forward, get the NCAA off its collective asses and create a national realignment. This haves/have-nots bullshit and constant shaking up of the various conferences isn't good for anybody. All of the Division I schools need to get together and create some set number of divisions that distributes the powerhouses among the weak sisters and gives everyone a chance to play in for a championship if they can beat everyone in front of them.

Seriously, I wouldn't even allow "independents" in this scenario. You want to play NCAA football with the other schools then you get in the conference you're assigned and play the schedule you draw. The NCAA (for lack of a better candidate) needs to take the bull by the horns and fix this. A national realignment that brought everyone back into the fold and distributed the best teams evenly could actually serve as a precursor to a playoff if they could ever get that on the table.

ArlingtonTexan
09-18-2011, 11:48 AM
Now you can choose your own conference realignment.

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/09/15/conference-realignment-choose-your-own-adventure-style/


fun game

Pittsburg and syracuse thought this was for real