Realignmentality

Nice, Huck. Thanks.

The echo chamber around this situation has been a bit annoying.

Nice take, Huck. Good job and interesting read. Thanks.

OU clearly never intended to leave. They love cherry picking 10 football wins/season and winning titles. They tried to leverage play the Pac 12, but that just made them look silly. They were never a threat to leave. The RRS is everything to them.

Really nice summation Huck. I do find it amusing that as of early this week it looked as if what started 16 years ago would finally unfold. Texas was looking — closely — at the Pac 10 while Texas A&M was making goo goo eyes at the SEC. The two programs were ready to go their separate ways then and I am ready for it to happen now.

Great take on all this. Really surprised you didn’t address Dan Beebe’s role in all this mess.

Re: Baylor vs. A&M. you said…

“Only the Aggies could see anything wrong with what Baylor has done.”

I, and many other Ags, are upset with Baylor because they (and all other Big 12 member institutions) agreed to release A&M to join another conference, based on Dan Beebe’s letter to the SEC; but then Baylor changed their mind at the last possible minute, just as the SEC presidents were about to vote on A&M, per comments from the Mississippi State president (or AD?).

This action appears to be deceitful/dishonest at a minimum and malicious at worst, is in no way justifiable, and gives A&M every right to be mad at Baylor. I agree that Baylor was only looking out for their best interests, but that in and of itself does not make what they did right.

The Texas to the ACC talk. In you opinion, A red herring by Texas or someone trying to flush out Texas position?

Hmm. Is it just me, or does the grant of rights to the Big 12 seem like a classic overreaction? Are things really so bad that the B12 has to collect everyone’s guns at the door for the next six years?

Baylor’s threatened lawsuit accomplished nothing. Even without that legal hang-up, the Pac-12 still turns down Texas and Oklahoma for being too big and too dumb, respectively. The B12 lives, but that has nothing to do with Baylor and everything to do with the LHN. Ironic, no?

AgPassingBy

The situation is fluid. OU announces their looking at possibly leaving and that changes everything in Baylor’s eyes. If your school were in their position Aggie would have done the same thing. They’re fighting for their lives right now. Also I believe I heard that they have facility improvements underway. This is based on money guaranteed based on a TEN team conference that the Aggies agreed to last year.

I appreciate this report, as news media all around have spent too much time breaking ‘news’ and not enough time telling what happened. Not enough investigative reporting. Some people think news is (a) what just happened, similar to noting the next grain of rice that spilled off a counter, or (b) conjecture of what might be going on. But never do they think about finding out the whole story of what has been going on — in order to make sense of (a) or (b) as just noted.

Mysterious to me is why the public has not been made aware of all this. Why you have to find out on a fan board/blog. The history of revenue sharing and 3rd tier rights/agreements in all major conferences should have been a major story run in the papers and talked about on shows like the Herd where there is national listening audience and ample time to cover the details and challenge all sides to it. Thanks for a great job here.

I think Deloss is channeling Geto Boys.

Damn it feels good to be a gangsta
A real gangsta-AD plays his cards right
A real gangsta-AD never runs his fuckin mouth
‘cause real gangsta-AD’s don’t start fights
And bitches always gotta high cap
Showin’ all his boys how he shot em
But real gangsta-AD’s don’t flex nuts
‘cause real gangsta-AD’s know they got em
And everythings cool in the mind of a gangsta
‘cause gangsta-AD’s think deep
Up three-sixty-five a year 24/7
‘cause real gangsta AD’s don’t sleep
And all I gotta say to you
Wannabe, gonnabe, superconference prankstas
when realignment dies down what the fuck you gonna do
Damn it feels good to be a gangsta

Nice job, Huckleberry.

I’ll quibble with the broad brush painted relating to the Nebraska elements, but there is certainly a lot of truth in that section.

However — and this is an often overlooked point — Nebraska’s annoyance and frustration wasn’t directed at Texas per se, but rather at the Big 12 power structure. Texas has always sought what is best for Texas, just like every other school does (and should). It’s the job of the conference and commissioner to manage and balance those individual desires and interests against the greater good. That balance was absent in the Big 12.

Although the “Nebraska hates Texas” mythology is going strong, it’s just not a widespread feeling in Nebraska. (Sure, there are meathead NU fans who have chosen hating Texas as one of their life missions, but I can’t speak for those dipshits.) Most Husker fans would like nothing more than to share a conference with Texas again. I’m certainly among them.

I wrote about this last year, but the blame for Nebraska’s departure is properly laid at the feet of Beebe. He forced NU’s hand when they weren’t necessarily ready to make a decision. Sure, Texas and others wanted answers — they wanted clarity so they could make their own decisions. But clarity wasn’t good for the conference as an entity at that stage. But Beebe blew it — he forced a decision from NU, and he got one.

But that’s all been hashed and rehashed. On the night of Beebe’s ouster I can’t help but wonder what things would look like today if there had been a strong commissioner in place all along.

David S. It’s because investigative journalism in sports, if there is such a thing, is roughly evuivalent to what our recruting philosophy in football became during 2006 and 2007. Pick up your cell phone and text or call some “source” (high school coach) at a school who will give you their slanted version of events (evauation of their own player) and then, instead of vetting it with more research (traveling to the campus), take it live to the airwaves and it becomes the gospel (make an early offer to a mediocre player who then gets two more stars on Rivals).

That way you get more and quicker 24/7 filler/updates (early committments), because actual research (getting out of your office and traveling) just takes too much time (effort).

Hope you take a couple minutes to read nebraskas perspective about their departure. Not the fans or what was perceived. This article certainly opened my eyes. I suspect the fans perception was much different than what was real. It sounds to me like NU and UT were in agreement on big issues like revenue and network.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20100830/BIGRED/708309872

Thx for letting me post the counter point. Here’s to hopping both teams have a great year and meeting in a bowl sometime, would love that intensity from the fans.

Go big red!

Thanks Huck, thoughtful write up that somehow has me in a temporary state of catharsis. Will someone please wake me up when September ends?

Honestly, I’m just looking forward to watching aggie get hammered all the time now…Texas will be just fine in whatever decisions we make. Sick and tired of being labeled the bad guy when we have honestly just taken a back seat while everyone else seems to keep stirring the pot…

portmanteau – pronounced /pɔrtˈmæntoʊ

Bravo, sir. One of the best – if not THE best – articles ever to appear on BC, especially in an age where the mainstream media does a shitty job of reporting the facts, and where lies & half-truths are perpetuated by our rivals.

I especially like the part about Tom Osborne & NU. I’ve been repeating the same things for over a year now. Osborne is a whiny, 2-faced asshole. Sadly, the Lincoln Lemmings take his word as gospel.

AgPassingBy – Have you ever heard the saying “That’s like the pot calling the kettle black”?

You need to rent the old Burt Reynolds movie Deliverance for a glimpse of what you can look forward to in the $EC. “Squeal like a pig, boy!” Aggies say “Oink, oik, oink.” Too bad Burt Reynolds won’t be there to save your sorry asses.

A few questions:

How much did aggie take from colorado and nebraska leaving to pay off their football debt? Has it all been paid?

Does the SEC have a more lenient approach to partial qualifiers?

Do you think the SEC would take ou and osu, since that looks to be ou’s only option right now?

THIS SHOULD BE REQUIRED F*CKING READING FOR ANYONE WHO WRITES ABOUT BIG 12 REALIGNMENT EVER AGAIN.

Thank you Huck. Rec’d x100.

I’ve been mulling about this stuff for days, Googling old newspaper clips and whatnot, and after all of that you captured everything I’d want to say.

Except one thing, a postscript of sorts. The Pac 16 is not necessarily dead-in-the-water for all time. The main conflict over the LHN isn’t necessarily the concept, it’s that in 2011 the negotiation window is impossible to find. No one knows what the LHN or the Pac 12 Network are actually worth. Sure, there are numbers on paper, but until distribution is achieved and the content matures no one knows whether those numbers are sustainable and no one knows the ceiling.

Texas and (perhaps more importantly) ESPN have big plans for the LHN and in any negotiation they’re going to consider any compensation short of a high estimate as opportunity cost. They’re also going to be risk-averse when considering trading the LHN for a piece of the PTN, another property of unsure value that’s also out of their control. Same is true for Larry Scott and the Pac 12 – they’re only going to consider high revenue estimates for the PTN and low ones for LHN. That’s just simple business logic and there’s no way to negotiate that impasse without someone making a stupid business decision. And neither Scott nor Dodds nor Powers are stupid.

But what happens if, in four years time, the LHN is making Texas 10 mil more a year than any Pac 12 member gets from the PTN? The Pac 12 reconsiders their model and perhaps brings in Texas to show then the way. If it’s the other way around, UT drops the LHN without a quibble. If it’s roughly the same, the Pac 12 members have no gripe if UT makes some concessions on branding and PTN content that they’ve already been rumored to accept. Scott and Dodds and Powers know this as well.

The problem isn’t greed or stubbornness. The deal simply isn’t ripe for negotiation.

Nebraska’s annoyance and frustration wasn’t directed at Texas per se,

B.S. On the day of NU’s press conference announcing it was leaving for the Big Ten, Osborne & Perlman took potshots at UT.

And as this 2nd conference soap opera played itself out, Osborne has been taking more potshots.

Beebe can’t do anything w/o the approval of the presidents/chancellors of the Big 12. Making him the scapegoat was just a pretext for leaving. Osborne knew NU could no longer be the powerhouse it once was once the effects of the restrictions on PQs became manifested. All the crap about a permanent site to host the conference championship game, the location of the conference HQ, etc. are just red herrings.

Great points, Dagga.

Jake – that comment is awesome. You should frame it and send it to Bellmont.

Farmer Ted – If Nebraska wants back into the Big 12, you should lobby the Big 10 to trade you back. We can give them Missouri; they’re an AAU school so maybe the Big 10 would go for that.

We miss you guys too. Even though we beat you 9 out of 10 times, all of the games were close, and the Cornhusker fans always treated us well.

And CBS Sports, too. I think those f*ckers call meetings every morning to figure out new ways to stick it to Texas and the anti-Viacom the Mouse.

A lot of good stuff, but this is the money paragraph for me:
 

 
If you don’t understand this, I can’t talk realignment with you.
 
Sports journalism is shockingly ahistorical, this piece is a nice antidote to that fact.

Steel Horn –
1) Pretty sure the recently-departed pay their fees over two years. But the question of who-gets-what out of the NU/CU fees was haggled desperately by A&M at the time and I’m sure it’s been accounted for by the Big 12 before they sent the letter to A&M detailing the costs of leaving. They’re paying 30 million-ish whether the fees are technically included or not.

2) The SEC allows two partial qualifiers in football per year, though the commissioner can approve more on a case-by-case basis. The B1G leaves it up to individual schools. So the Ags get a little souciant of stupid but nothing like the Cornhuskers will reap.

3) Pretty sure the OU/OSU-to-the-SEC deal is mutually undesirable. The SEC wants TV sets more than competitive football teams and OU/OSU don’t want to be in a conference where they’re 6th or 7th in total revenues. Oddly, Aggy doesn’t care about that. Yet.

maroon carrots – Are you going to drive off the only friendly non-UT commenters to come by in ages? (slap hand) Stop that.

Thanks Dagga.

Missouri, Kansas and Tech may have just as much interest as Texas in not agreeing to the 6 year grant. Do you think the presidents try to shorten it or just reject the idea outright?

Dagga Roosta – LMAO. I thought I was being nice.

maroon carrots,

yes, i have heard the statement "That’s like the pot calling the kettle black", but I’m not sure how this applies to my statement re: Baylor.

Yes, we agreed last year to stick it out in the Big 12. However, when we decided to leave, we followed the previously-agreed upon stipulations of the Big 12 contract, including providing notice and paying damages.

This is quite different from Baylor saying we can leave unconditionally and then later backing out. They had no grounds for backing out, other than a lack of character.

http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2011/09/22/realignmentality/

Every time I see a tweet from Tramel it reaffirms to me his stupidity and disillusionment.

oops, i meant to link this…

http://blog.newsok.com/berrytramel/2011/09/23/big-12-football-what-happened-with-the-pac-12/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

TDiddle,

I fully understand that Baylor is acting in their own self-interests, but that does not mean what they did was right. They tried to screw A&M over, so of course A&M is going to be mad. Any other school in our situation would be. And since you are sticking it out with them, I’m surprised they get a pass from yall.

Farmer Ted – from what I’ve gathered, I agree with you about Nebraskans in general. Unlike Aggy they seem happier about their destination and less angry about where they’ve been.

But I also gather that Tom Osborne in particular is no fan of Texas’ role in the decline of Cornhusker football. While pinning the B1G move on Texas’ behavior was a PR strategy with its own merit, sure seemed like Osborne took a bit of relish in it. For him I think it’s actually (and understandably, to some degree) a bit personal. Nebraska agreed to the Big 12 for TV dollars but then got screwed in a coup at the first set of Big 12 meetings in favor of the Texas model. Osborne was forced to either build an entirely new recruiting strategy or take an early retirement. What coach retires off of back-to-back championships, when he still has the energy and wherewithal to run for a Congressional seat and even later become an AD? A pretty frustrated one I figure.

UT07 – Barry Tramel actually isn’t all that bad. I’d trade him for Kirk Bohls if I could. It’s just that he has his sources, and he’s going to report what his sources tell him favorably, or else he’ll lose his sources.

But yeah, he should read this Huck article too.

http://longhornnetworkanddelusion.tumblr.com/

AgPassingBy – I’d say it depends on the point of view, right? Baylor’s not really a bad actor by doing what they can to stay in an AQ conference when they’ve just devoted millions to a stadium expansion. And Aggy’s got a right to be pissed about it when they’d just received a letter from the Big 12 commish saying it was OK to leave.

The X-factor in all of that mess was OU’s president opening his big fat mouth before SEC made its official invitation. That’s the critical context. Baylor’s gambit wasn’t really focused at A&M, it was to do anything they could to scare off the Pac 12 as a first option, while holding a last-ditch option to keep A&M hostage if OU left. If I’m right about that, you should be getting your waivers shortly. But until then I think everyone should be pissed at David Boren. Dude raised shit to Defcon 2 without checking his arsenal.

The whole mess drives home the point that where this much money is concerned, there is no such thing as promises, honesty, or honor.
Promises are tactical devices.
Honesty is for chumps.
Honor…Well, honor is for the winner after the checks come in.

Is this why the Ivy League plays by different rules? Because it is possible to keep one’s honor thereby?

Great tale about the Game of Realignment (definitely Thrones-esque). I enjoyed the NU story that was linked above, seemed to back up Huckleberry’s major premise that everyone is just (and rightly so) looking out for their own best interests.

I’m not the first to say it, but the best reasoning I heard about the reasons for the fear behind the LHN is hinted at above, but I’ll restate them: with ESPN controlling 1st tier rights, other’s fear ESPN will pass on some games that should have been 1st tier and deal with FOX to make them 3rd tier so the LHN can pick them up. It seems that fear has not materialized yet or at least not with agreement from the conference members, but I’m guessing it’s still a possibility. As Huckleberry alluded to, getting into bed with ESPN will always carry positives and negatives.

Steel Horn – no idea really. One issue with a six-year grant of rights is that the B1G first-tier TV contract runs out in 2015 and the BCS contract runs out in 2016. I’ve been suspecting for awhile that one of the reasons the big conferences are tempted to super-size (when the financial benefits would be modest for any pickup besides UT and ND, and competitive benefits would likely be negative) is because if the top 4-5 conferences soaked up all the good marketable teams in college football by 2015, they could band together and create a lucrative playoff once the BCS contract ends and lock small-market teams out of the running. For the B1G the timing would be fortuitous because they could also be the first super-con to start a bidding war for TV rights.

So a school like Mizzou or Kansas might want to be available before 2015 rolls around, or risk getting stranded if the Texas quartet moving to the Pac 12 in six years completes the super-con race and there’s no spots left for them to go. Is keeping schools bound to the conference through 2018 long enough to keep that from happening? Maybe, but maybe not. It’s not like the Pac 12 has any better choices; they’ll wait for 2018 if others beat them to super status. Meanwhile the other conferences have no incentive to wait that long unless they need Big 12 teams too. Not sure if any of them want or need Mizzou or Kansas.

But then again, maybe a stable Big 12 can convince everyone else that they can just finish cannibalizing the Big East, eschew 16-team leagues, and make a playoff between the five remaining AQ conferences. Or hell I could be wrong about everything. Who knows.

lurker – That, or the Ivy League chums are saving their honor’s cherry for Wall Street.

“I mean, all that squabbling over (snort) millions, Mortimer. It’s so proletarian.”

Dagga-
I agree with you for the most part, although I’m less willing to give baylor a pass than you are. I do not believe OU’s ‘game-changing’ decision gives baylor the right to do whatever they please and go back on their word to A&M.

They would have been much better served publicly directing their potential lawsuits towards OU and leaving A&M out of it. Just as you say Texas is receiving unfair criticism for holding others to their word, I and others are rightfully pissed that baylor pulled their crap.

And yes, the overall lesson in all of this is OU sucks.

AgPassing – true, threatening the Pac 12 would have been more fair, except the Pac 12 hadn’t extended an invite or more importantly put waiver conditions on anything. Baylor screwed with y’all because that was its only gambit. They didn’t actually want to sue anyone (it’s likely a losing case); they wanted to stop the bleeding via legal threats, and you don’t want to fuck with schools that you honestly want to keep as a partner.

That being said, it was a total dick move. I get the motive…plus I found it kinda funny in the way a home video of a toddler kicking Daddy in the balls is kinda funny. But you don’t need to give them the slightest pass in my opinion. Dick move.

You left out the part where Deloss only offered Byrne 30 percent of the revenue but wanted a 50/50 split of expenses. That’s why Byrne turned the deal down. You will not see an Aggie network on tv. There is not enough content for it. You will continue to see an expansion of 12th man tv which we have had on the web in some for for 8 or 9 years. KSU has joined the party too.

Baylor basically wasted 3 weeks of everyone’s time with their little stunt. If they had kept their mouth shut then BYU would be in the Big 12 right now. All they accomplished was wasting everyone’s time and probably ensuring that A&M will never play them again in any sport.

A&M is not leaving b/c of revenue from your network. A&M is leaving b/c the administration feels it cannot trust Texas and definitely cannot trust ESPN.

shorter miketag – I DENY EVERYTHING

And incidentally, unconfirmed rumors repeated ad nauseam on Aggie message boards should be left out. Link to evidence or GTFO.

Also:

“not enough content for it” – Bullsh*t. You know the LHN is up and running and Longhorn fans who get it enjoy it, right? You know that your school could offer the exact same content, right? IMO, the only reason Aggy doesn’t follow the Florida path with its third-tier content is if the administration has already screwed itself by turning its fanbase against the notion of a one-school network deal. But at least I’m self-assured enough to admit that’s opinion and not cite it as fact.

“Baylor basically wasted 3 weeks of everyone’s time” – B*llshit. They didn’t waste their time at all – they got exactly what they wanted, and then some. No one wants to fuck with them now.

“A&M is leaving b/c the administration feels it cannot trust Texas and definitely cannot trust ESPN” – Trust with what, exactly? That we won’t support the unequal revenue distributions that you’ve always supported and recently needed to meet your budget? That when the NCAA says “no high school broadcasts” and the conference says “no highlights” that we’ll just ignore them? If Aggy brass made a decision to move to a conference where they’re in the muddling middle of revenues, and spent 30 million for the privilege, all because of trust issues with one other school…then all the Aggie jokes apply. And Mays should drop by about 20 in the B-school rankings.

Why can’t it just be about joining the SEC? It’s a good conference with a stable future, and you’ll make good money in the long run. But nooooo, surely THAT had nothing to do with it. It’s better to think of it as one massive fit of penis envy instead.

I love that Aggies get worked up over third party representations made in a letter from Dan Beebe when they failed to comply with their agreement or their own representations. If I get into a car wreck and tell everyone I feel fine and a week later discover that I have a ruptured spleen I should be bound by the unsigned statement made when I was pulled from the wreck? That’s deceitful. Seriously?

Baylor not only engaged in efforts to build and relocate it’s stadium but also went forward with plans to complete a huge research collaborative to help with potential AAU admission after last years realignment debacle. At the time the Aggies certainly weren’t willing to disclose their continued daily foot fetish with the bogans of the South. That bit of info certainly influenced spending and massive projects at that private university where the blundering of academic and athletic program management is not backed by state tax dollars.

I read a sign in an Irish bar in new Zealand last week that said " don’t ever argue with a fool as spectators might confuse you". For obvious reasons I feel I have failed that wise advice.

The thing that bothers me is seeing optimism and pride transformed into entitlement. That unbridled entitlement should have stopped when THE hottest commodity in college football was declared too hot to handle because of the perception of the Longhorn Network and the idea that Texas is unwilling to be equal partners.

We can’t just say, “WE’RE TEXAS, DEAL WITH IT,” and expect quality conferences to line up for a chance to bend over. We can say it as fans on our message boards, sure, but you shouldn’t be surprised when that kind of attitude doesn’t fly with committees and boards in the real world.

As big a name as UT is, we are not national to the point that Californians/New Yorkers/Floridians perceive UT the same way Texans do. In that respect, we are still regional, albeit a strong regional.

The media at large reflects the culture’s reading of history as the last 5 minutes. Thanks, Huck, for putting the issue in its historical context. Current events make much more sense when viewed through that lens. Thanks also for the good faith attempt at an objective take.

Sports is branding for the university. OU’s brand is largely tied to their sports history, much more so than UT’s or A&M’s even. Therefore, threats to that brand can cause hysteria. I’m consistently impressed by the lack of discipline by people who should know better (Boren) in this situation.

One thing to remember is that, for institutions this size, $30m a year is really not that much. In the very long-term, universities will understand that sports, big money sports, are a loss leader relative to other activities the universities engage in. Only a few institutions break even on sports, and even at those that make money, the risk to the brand (the institution’s reputation) is too high.

We’ll end up with big league farm systems like for soccer in Europe (clubs) or minor leagues (baseball). In the interim, we’ll have a Longhorn Network, and hopefully, a college football playoff.

miketag – That revenue/expense split story is a pure fabrication by Aggies on the internet. The discussions never even got to the financials stage because Byrne had already rejected the idea.

Great read, thanks.

I definitely agree with Scipio Tex, the key take-away from the article is the disparity between Texas and everyone else with respect to the prior year’s 3rd tier revenue totals. This is the first time I have seen numbers for this tier for the other Big 12 schools.

Really surprised by the display of rampant asshattery by Boren, besides the Gaylord Family, who are the money guys at OU? They can’t be happy with how this turned out.

Glad the Big Cigar gave everyone a heads up on this in August.

Huck, great piece. Can you and Dagga explain to me why a fledgling LHN is a deal breaker for conferences now, but a stronger sustained LHN (assuming such comes to pass) will be more palatable to conferences in the next round? I’m not getting the logic behind that assertion, and it seems to be the lynchpin behind our current strategy of realignment.

It’s because the LHN’s long-term value is unknown at this point. Texas believes it’s one thing, the Pac-12 believed it was something else. And without a sufficient history to which either side could refer, it was all just a matter of opinion.

In a few years, the network will be established and its long-term value more easily defined.

I love the Ags blaming ESPN for everything then running to a conference which has contracts with the them.

Like it or not ESPN is the high bidder on all things involving college sports right now. Comcast (NBC) and FOX have not shown that they are willing to overpay for major college football. ESPN is willing to overpay to keep them out of the business short of NBC having ND for 6/7 games a year and FOX getting PAC12 tier 2 content.

Great, great post, Huck. I had not realized the Ags were talking to the SEC before June 2010.

One of the Big 12’s weaknesses (considering its competitiveness in athletics, perhaps its only weakness) is that it is no more than the sum of its individual schools. The schools look at each other as business associates, not partners. For it to survive, this must be addressed.

Here is an example. Prior to the 2009 season’s BCS CG between Bama and Texas, both NU’s coach (Pelini) and OU’s coach (Stoops) sought out Nick Saban to offer strategic advice. Each of them believed that the harm to their school coming from a Texas CG win was greater than the good from another B12 NC. That is unique to the B12. Coaches in other conferences, even (no…especially) the SEC don’t do that. The PAC actually has a sportsmanship rule on the books and has penalized coaches for offering tips to league opponents.

When things like this happen, why is anybody surprised if Texas views its conference-mates as “the schools on our schedule this year” and not partners? Until this attitude of envy is addressed (and healthy leagues have addressed it), the B12 is a dead conference walking.

Troom, the attitude is reciprocal. We routinely see Horns fans stating that they root against AM, OU, And other conference members, in ooc and bowl games. Some of us do not do so, but it appears that we are in a distinct minority. I do not advocate emulation of the SEC-SEC-SEC chanting, but…

Huckleberry,

Loved the article. Still have a question about Texas to ACC. In your opinion, who started that rumor, and for what reason?

In my mind it started the same time as Boren talked about going west.

I’m sure Texas has talked to all the conferences and even drawn up plans with them.

This leak seemed oddly timed and I could never understand why the ACC or Texas would do such a thing as leak this.

Or maybe it was just some Blog.

Nick, I think a big reason that an established LHN – as you said, assuming it gets that far – is that it creates certainty. Uncertainty kills deals, plain and simple.

I guess Huck answered that one…probably should have refreshed the page before I posted

Dodds has stated that they never discussed shares. I think he meant both costs and revenue…in fact, I think Dodds didn’t think there would be much revenue to share, which is probably why Byrne turned it down since it looked like a luxury item rather than a money maker.

I am also shocked the butthurt from Ags regarding Baylor’s moves. A&M made a commitment to the conference and then reneged, this is a huge deal whether it could kill the conference or not. Baylor may have agreed to waive their legal rights (we only have Beebe’s word on that since the Baylor BOR never officially signed off on anything) then reneged on that, and the Aggies think that is a sin beyond countenance. Baylor wouldn’t have a leg to stand on if the SEC had just offered A&M like every other team that has been poached from another conference.

In terms of magnitude, A&M is Judas and Baylor is the kid who agreed to give you his last piece of gum and then changed his mind.

But Huck, the value IS known, at least at the bottom end. I mean, we know it’s worth $15 mil a year (11 to UT after IMG gets paid). Maybe it’s worth more at the top end, but PAC regional networks would be contracted similarly, with a guaranteed low end, and an unknown top end, right? That’s how the B1G network is set up.

What we learned this week was that, at least for the PAC, any deal that wasn’t guaranteed equal revenue sharing regardless of amount was DOA. This was true even though PAC had a history of unequal revenue sharing until last year. I’m assuming this would be true for B1G as well.

To me, the issue is really branding. I don’t think Dodds cares what the actual revenue is, or would mind sharing equally with true conference partners, but the only argument I see for our position being strengthened later is the branding/logo strength.

This is the folly of OU’s position. I think the conventional wisdom that they wanted to go PAC in part to “kill LHN” is completely wrong. They want these 3rd tier networks to work, because they’ve got a contract and want one too. Their mistake was in trying to create the appearance of a rift with us to leverage their primary goal of PAC membership against our desire to save the Big XII.

The problem going forward, is that the PAC and B1G will be strengthening their 3rd tier networks, and becoming MORE invested in the equal sharing of revenue that comes from it. So why are they going to be more willing to swallow LHN (or ND’s NBC deal) at a later time?

Troom, the attitude is reciprocal. We routinely see Horns fans stating that they root against AM, OU, And other conference members, in ooc and bowl games. Some of us do not do so, but it appears that we are in a distinct minority. I do not advocate emulation of the SEC-SEC-SEC chanting, but…

Do you really not see the difference between fans of other schools rooting against someone and head coaches offering strategic and tactical advice?

I think the ACC rumor got out simply to slow things down. In fact, I think Texas’ goal the entire time has been to slow things down so people could think things through and eventually salvage the Big 12. Not out of some sort of magnanimous charity, but once again in their own best interest.

Nick, we can argue that we know the bottom end of what it is worth to UT, but we really don’t know what it is worth to ESPN or the other potential conferences. As the conferences and ESPN will have to negotiate TV deals in the future, that is really the key question: how much does each have to account for it when the next deal comes around?

I think you are right though, that the brand is what Dodds really cares about. I would predict that as we move towards fewer, larger conferences, the individual identity of any school may become more important.

Wandering Horn, that makes some sense, especially in the context of a general desire on the part of everyone to slow the monster down. I guess that takes me to another question. Why are we assuming that the college football world will wait to see what UT/ND does? I don’t think the ACC or Big East can afford to. And it only takes one or two Big XII schools with options (Mizzou and Kansas?) to realize this and start looking for a lifeboat.

So I think real and substantive moves need to be made to strengthen BXII, at least short term.

It’s not like the Stoops/Pelini advice was even that valuable. It’s just that it would have been so easy for them to be quiet (as, for example, Auburn coach Chizik was wrt Bama), and that they obviously felt there were no institutional or conference restraints to keep them from offering. This will be a much healthier conference when that is no longer the case.

Fantastic article.

A good commissioner would have reacted to ESPN Dave Brown’s comments before the Aggies and others had to do it themselves. Overall, I think the Aggies just hate Texas HS football and don’t want to see it broadcast. And I don’t think LHN was a problem for others when it was a projected $3-5 million deal with FSN crappy production.

I think there also needs to be some schools looking over there shoulder at the real possibility that if the $$ game keeps going they may find themselves kicked out of places. Schools like Vandy, MissSt, Duke,Wake,WashSt,IowaSt, and others may not make the next cut to D1.

This is more down the road 5-10 years when the schools dump the NCAA and divide the $$ up amongst themsevles from the BCS/Playoff.

Nick, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think we’re in the middle of a classic, multi-move, simultaneous prisoner’s dilemma. Everyone knows that the best thing is probably to sit tight, but no one thinks that can afford to do it based on what they think the other guys are going to do.

I posted on another thread a couple days ago that I thought the best move would be to grab AT LEAST 3 teams right now – probably BYU, Lousiville & WVU – to force ND to make a move. As for why we are assuming that everyone is waiting on us or ND to do something, I think that comes a lot from the perception that UT is pushing things hard right now and that UT is being the most active in pursuing its own interests at the expense of its conference mates. I am not sure that the actual decision makers are thinking this way – though many of the fans probably are. Also, we saw that happened to OU when they didn’t wait for UT to make a move…

The Big 8 and the SWC merger benefitted both greatly.

At the time, the Big 8 had 3 powerhouse programs in Nebraska, CU, and K-State with sleeping giant OU starting to wake up. Texas and A&M seemed mediocre through the early to mid 90’s.

The Big 8 benefitted by gaining Texas market share and jumping into the “12” team conference world.

The ol’ SWC benefitted by getting powerhouse programs to legitimize themselves in the ever-changing college football world.

Some more good information, thanks to jtk1519 on ShaggyBevo in this post:

I posted these numbers on another thread, but they show how much some Big XII schools have earned from their 3rd tier rights since 2004…

Kansas – $32.5 million
Nebraska – $25.3 million
Okie Lite – $17.2 million
Kansas State – $15.2 million
Iowa State – $12 million
Texas – $968,000

That paltry $968k is mostly PPV money. And yes, since Texas has more games picked up via the 1st and 2nd tier deals, Texas gets a bigger share of the conference TV payout, but as I pointed out in that same thread, the total take home (1st and 2nd tier rights plus conference payouts plus 3rd tier revenue… which is not shared) puts Texas at 4th place since 2004, ironically behind two cunts who bitched about revenue sharing…

1. Kansas – $91.4 million
2. Nebraska – $82.2 million
3. Mobilhoma – $79.7 million
4. Texas – $76.2 million
5. Okie Lite – $74.9 million
6. Mizzou – $73.9 million
7. Kansas State – $69.8 million
8. A&M – $69.2 million
9. Iowa State – $67.9 million
10. Tech – $57.3 million
11. Colorado – $56.7 million

The data is available via this database. Look at those numbers and realize Texas never once complained about the inequitable media revenues.

The definitive summary of conference re-alignment.

Wandering, yeah, I think we’re on the same page. OU’s problem is population. Specifically, they’re not attractive based on a small # of TV’s in state. Mizzou is arguably not as handicapped in that regard. To me, they’re the potential rogue that could blow up our timetable, and the ones we need to mollify to get them to play ball.

Huck, outstanding job. You say it was a struggle to be objective. As a former (award-winning) journalist, allow me to say you did well.

As to the comments about the SEC “poaching,” I don’t know there’s a great deal of evidence there.

A&M has wanted in for a long time. If the SEC was truly poaching, then the A&M maneuvers would have been executed in conjunction with a 14th, plain and simple.

Previous expansion? Arkansas left the SWC in 1990, we’ll give you that. South Carolina came in at the same time, but was one of the last independents.

The SEC is in a nice position now, and Mike Slive is a very smart man. (I have met him.) The SEC doesn’t have to make any moves — it can afford to wait for the opportunities that make sense.

“Poaching” is a verb that ought be reserved for the PAC-12, and especially the ACC. Everyone still acting in their self-interests, of course… but poaching all the same.

Even with Oregon and Stanford, I’d put up the Big 12 against the PAC 12.

Also, I think its dumb to say that by adding A&M, the SEC locks up the Texas media market.
Those games are watched coast to coast anyway.

Missou is the one who started this mess. I’m pretty sure if the opportunity presented itself, they would be gone ASAP.

The reason why conferences are going to wait on ND and UT is because they would be stupid not to. It would be like hiring your worst employee’s semi-retarded kid as your CEO when Steve Jobs and Bill Gates have both applied for the job but have asked you to pay them way more than you planned on spending.

Hell yes! This is the article I’ve been waiting for. I was getting a bit discouraged by all the negativity being projected on us. Well done Huck.

Hook effing them!

Really excellent post, Huck. I love the Princess Bride throwaway line. Classic.

I’ve had some realignment thoughts bubbling around since reading this, so I’ll lay ‘em out here. The historical stuff in this piece is really excellent, but it’s nothing that the Barkers haven’t seen a time or three before. I’ll focus on the recent present and the go-forward.

Regarding TEXAS, since that’s who we care the most about. Listen, it’s good to be the king. But not always. Ask Louis XVI how well that went for him. And here’s the bottom line for Texas: THEY LOST THE PR BATTLE IN THIS ROUND. Besides a partially sympathetic Dodds interview piece by Andy Staples, the common media (and, hey now, Twitter) consensus is anti-Longhorn. Oh sure, some are anti-OU, anti-A&M, anti-ACC, whoever, but I strongly feel Texas misplayed its hand badly when it came to the media market (and hey, having conflicting reports from media sounding board Chip Brown every other day didn’t really help). I think part of it was that ESPN is in perhaps the worst position it has ever been in with respect to the marketplace; no one believes they’re a legitimate sports reporting entity anymore. The ownership in LHN is just another straw in the camel’s back when it comes to that. But mostly, it’s because Texas is the king.

Omar from The Wire said it best: “you come at the king, you best not miss.” Listen, BP wasn’t the only one to blame for the Gulf oil disaster, but they took the most shots. Likewise, Texas got riddled with the most bullets in this round of realignment roulette. But they survived, and most importantly, I firmly believe TEXAS GOT WHAT THEY WANTED. I think it’s pretty common consensus on the Texas boards. Some of us may have wanted Pac-12, B10, whatever, but almost no one wanted to stay in the B12. But from Texas, Inc.‘s standpoint, that’s absolutely what they wanted. Find time to find out about the LHN. If it’s a colossal failure (seriously, ESPN, get your shit together and put it where people can see it), they wanted the Pac-12, or Big 10, or ACC, or hell, even SEC options. And guess what? As of now, they still have EVERYTHING. Well, accept playing Texas A&M.

On TEXAS A&M, we kid them and we kid them, but I think they come out as the second biggest winners from the B12 meltdown. Listen, they wanted in the SEC in the worst way. They’ll make the moneys there. I think they’ll even be competitive from time to time, though they’ll clearly still be in a shadow compared to LSU, Bama and UF. And with the B12 staying together (albeit temporarily), it doesn’t hurt the STATE of Texas to welcome in the preeminent football conference in the land.

On OKLAHOMA, I can’t help but think that Boren’s visibility in the whole mess is akin to Dan Beebe’s last year. Hopefully for Boren, he doesn’t become the fall guy at OU as quickly as Beebe was for the B12. I believe the Boren-Castiglione stuff. I believe Stoops wanted in the P12 in the worst way. I believe the P12 was at one point willing to take both OU and OSU, then reconsidered (we’ll get to that later). That said, I think that Castiglione will right the ship here, with SoonerVision or whatnot. The RRS definitely stays, the Texas pipeline definitely stays. Bob Stoops is still the coach.

Hey OKLAHOMA STATE and TEXAS TECH, thanks for playing. Not to wish ill on a man, but I can’t wait for T. Boone Pickens to exit the picture. Is he really any worse than Rick Perry? Ok, that’s all the politics I have.

BAYLOR must really have nine lives. That shizz is ridiculous. TCU/SMU = Dallas market. UH/Rice = Houston market. Baylor = Waco. Enough said. Man, if only Ann Richards had a different alma mater.

The SEC. I still find it astounding that the SEC, of all conferences, was the one to initiate this firefight. While some question why the most stable, profitable, strongest conference would want to change its position, I counter that it’s what great businesses do. They exploit the inefficiencies in the marketplace and adapt or change their strategies, even if it’s outside their comfort zone. I think we’ll look back years from now and wonder how the hell the SEC was able to break our Maginot Line into the state of Texas. They’re all the better for it, even if 13 teams sounds re-tard.

The PAC-12. I also can’t help but feel that Larry Scott misplayed this one badly, and like Dan Beebe or John Marinatto, this may end badly for him. For Scott, his options are limited. He’s now told BYU he doesn’t want them due to the LDS issue, Texas due to the LHN issue, and OU due to the sucking vortex of the state of Oklahoma and their 83 total television sets (note: estimate). Hey Mr. Scott, did you know: THERE’S NO OTHER PROGRAM LEFT OF THE MISSISSIPPI OF ANY MARGINAL VALUE. You know how I know that? Because the B12 is going poaching and there’s a big ball of suck being mentioned other than BYU. Yikes. I think the Pac-12 should have swallowed its academic and revenue-driven pride, and at least have taken OU/OSU. And then taken Texas/Tech. Make their systems mutually beneficial. The socialistic, share everything concept sounds nice in theory, but in this era of unabashed college football capitalism, it’s an archaic mindset. Unequal revenue sharing strongly looks like the future, and if the Pac-12 isn’t jumping on the bandwagon, they’re going to be left in the dust.

See the ACC and the BIG 10, going about their business in separate ways. The ACC sees the “kill or be killed”, and decides to take the former. The Big 10 will survive on its own, but wouldn’t mind doubling down with ND and Texas. Other than that, no thanks. Well played, sirs.

Finally, the LHN. The one saddest thing about this entire mess is how much of a benefit the LHN could have been to the state of Texas. I’m talking in an even broader sense: if the Aggie administration had the wherewithal to partner the two biggest flagship schools in Texas to make a media behemoth. Nowadays, try watching a Texas high school football game on TV. Or hell, even a nondescript UH or Rice or jeebus, a TCU game on TV (or, if you really want to be snarky, a Texas A&M game over the past few years). It isn’t happening. One of the great things about the now in the dustbin LSN (Lone Star Network) could have been to bring visibility and insight to the untapped markets in the state of Texas. Now, thanks to greed and political pandering, it’ll be UT-centric, all the time. Oh well. It’s not like the state of Texas would have benefited from watching the next great Johnathan Gray’s of the world. We’ll just have to catch it the one time a year they’re on ESPN.

Anyways, those are my two or more very long cents. Hope it’s worth a read.

AgPassingBy -

“Yes, we agreed last year to stick it out in the Big 12. However, when we decided to leave, we followed the previously-agreed upon stipulations of the Big 12 contract, including providing notice and paying damages.”

No, you actually didn’t. The agreed stipulations (in the bylaws) were a renewed 5-year term for membership, starting in 2011 and ending in 2016. The bylaws permit a school to exit, but only at the end of the term, and with 2 years notice. That means that you can exit, within the contract, in 2016, provided you give notice in 2014 and pay certain exit fees.

The bylaws do provide for liquidated damages in case the leaving school breaches the contract by providing less than 2 years notice. Even then, it does not permit leaving before 2016; it simply provides for liquidated damages if you give less than 2 years notice for a 2016 exit. A&M is giving one year notice for a 2012 exit, which is a breach that isn’t even contemplated by the provisions. Read them for yourself; sections 3.1 and 3.3: http://www.big12sports.com/fls/10410/pdfs/handbook/Bylaws.pdf

On top of that, A&M reportedly made a separate agreement to take a bigger share of the Nebraska and Colorado exit fees from schools like Baylor by promising to stay in the conference for the long haul.

A&M’s argument against Baylor is nothing more than “No fair, they broke their (legally unenforceable) promise not to sue us for breaking our (legally enforceable) promises.” Cry me a river.

Huck, great article. Very enlightening, but I specifically love the Princes Bride reference.

“In the previous school year to these discussions, the other 11 Big 12 schools had made $28.5M from their Tier 3 rights while Texas made less than $340K. What does that mean? IT MEANS THAT WHEN TEXAS WAS MAKING LESS THAN MOST OTHER SCHOOLS NONE OF THEM CARED ABOUT SHARING THIRD TIER MEDIA REVENUE. "

This is false. Texas was making 9.4 million a year from IMG – it’s just not listed as third tier revenue since it’s bundled. You’re adding up other schools’ funds from IMG and Learfield (ie Kansas’s IMG deal) but not Texas.

Here’s the Kansas deal: http://www.imgcollege.com/genrel/040810aab.html

“Kansas Athletics today announced it has reached an agreement with IMG College, a division of IMG Worldwide, for a 5-year extension to its current 10-year multimedia rights partnership. The new deal, worth more than $86 million in guaranteed payments to the University, is effective through the 2021-22 academic year. "

Here’s the Texas deal: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2009/03/20090330/This-Weeks-News/Ohio-State-Lands-$110M-Deal.aspx

“Texas – $94 million – 10 years – IMG College "

Great read Huck, thanks.

As I told you elsewhere, Haji, the IMG deal is not just for third tier media rights. It is an umbrella deal for all licensing. Claiming that Texas was getting $9.4M for third tier media rights is false.

Help me out here, on exactly what channel I was able to watch Texas’ third tier broadcasts over the last seven years? You are claiming they were being broadcast but I don’t remember seeing them.

So we count Kansas’s IMG deal but not Texas’s. Even though Kansas’s was for other stuff too? Seems fair.

AgPassing By wrote:

“I, and many other Ags, are upset with Baylor because they (and all other Big 12 member institutions) agreed to release A&M to join another conference, based on Dan Beebe’s letter to the SEC; but then Baylor changed their mind at the last possible minute, just as the SEC presidents were about to vote on A&M, per comments from the Mississippi State president (or AD?). This action appears to be deceitful/dishonest at a minimum and malicious at worst, is in no way justifiable, and gives A&M every right to be mad at Baylor. I agree that Baylor was only looking out for their best interests, but that in and of itself does not make what they did right.”

I don’t think this is Baylor’s fault, I think it was an example of Beebe incompetence. The Beebe letter gave A&M permission from the conference to leave, but that by no means represents Baylor’s permission. So I don’t think Baylor changed their minds, as they hadn’t said anything one way or another, yet. Then at the last possible minute, OU threw flames on the fire with their OU to PAC move, and that pushed Baylor over the edge to play the only card they had left to maintain a seat in an AQ conference. That isn’t dishonest, it’s just playing the cards you’re dealt.

If you want to be pissed at someone, be pissed at OU for the timing of their shenanigans.

“Texas’ third tier broadcasts over the last seven years? You are claiming they were being broadcast but I don’t remember seeing them.”

Because IMG can sell them to stations and you won’t even know they are third tier. ESPN, ABC and FOX only get so many games. Say basketball – ESPN gets 95 games. The rest fall to third tier. IMG, who owns the media rights, can sells those back to ESPN or Fox Sports Southwest.

“I think you are right though, that the brand is what Dodds really cares about.”

Disagree. If the primary issue is brand, you offer to put the net profit from LHN into the third-tier kitty to be shared out among the other conference schools. Et voila, you have your brand vehicle AND complete third-tier revenue sharing.

I think Dodds want both (brand and money), as Huck’s article indicates.

As I also said, it’s hard to get apples-to-apples. Kansas may have lumped them all in together in one category, I can’t say for sure. I do know that Nebraska appears to have split them between categories as their IMG contract was for over $10M/yr but neither their “Royalties…” nor their “Broadcast…” revenues reported are that high. Kansas, meanwhile, showed $7.2M for Broadcast and $2.6M for Royalties. It looks like most schools attempted to divvy that one up between categories.

A&M, on the other hand, just reported all $9.6M in the Royalties category.

Great article Huck.

Has anyone posted links to this over on Frank the Tank and the rivals site where Purple Book Cat is. I’ll cover Frank, but I don’t have access to the rivals site. There’s a lot of anti-Texas venom over there, and it’s where a lot of the realingment diehards spend time. I’d like to pour some water on the anti-Texas flames.

“it’s hard to get apples-to-apples”

Well you guys sure are quick to do so and proclaim that other schools are being hypocritical about it. Texas has been making money the entire time as have other schools.

“Texas has been making money the entire time as have other schools.”

Haji – fine, and not a ONE of them wanted to share it equally. Until Texas had more, of course.

Yeah, the point wouldn’t change, Haji. Once Texas signed a deal specifically for third tier media rights that got everyone’s attention, suddenly it was time to start talking about sharing that money equally.

“Haji – fine, and not a ONE of them wanted to share it equally. Until Texas had more, of course.”

Which schools have come out and said they want to share third tier rights? I see it on message boards maybe, but no school has asked for that, except the OU “insider” who said that if Texas AND OU shared, it might inspire goodwill. Is there something else?

jc25 said: The PAC-12. I also can’t help but feel that Larry Scott misplayed this one badly, and like Dan Beebe or John Marinatto, this may end badly for him. For Scott, his options are limited. He’s now told BYU he doesn’t want them due to the LDS issue, Texas due to the LHN issue, and OU due to the sucking vortex of the state of Oklahoma and their 83 total television sets (note: estimate). Hey Mr. Scott, did you know: THERE’S NO OTHER PROGRAM LEFT OF THE MISSISSIPPI OF ANY MARGINAL VALUE. You know how I know that? Because the B12 is going poaching and there’s a big ball of suck being mentioned other than BYU. Yikes. I think the Pac-12 should have swallowed its academic and revenue-driven pride, and at least have taken OU/OSU. And then taken Texas/Tech. Make their systems mutually beneficial. The socialistic, share everything concept sounds nice in theory, but in this era of unabashed college football capitalism, it’s an archaic mindset. Unequal revenue sharing strongly looks like the future, and if the Pac-12 isn’t jumping on the bandwagon, they’re going to be left in the dust.

jc, I’m right there with you, and enjoyed your comment immensely, well done. I don’t think Larry Scott personally gave a damn about LHN, because if he got Texas, he declares victory in the superconference race. Even B1G nabbing Notre Dame would not have been as big a get. But the problem is that he had to do a lot of arm twisting last year, particularly with USC and UCLA, to get his conference to go to an equal revenue distribution system. Having done that, he was trying to come back and sell the idea of making accomodations on LHN to a group still smarting over the arm twisting from the previous year. Kind of a non-starter.

Which leads me, curcuitously, back to my issue. I think the PAC deal is dead, subject to some serious change of heart out west. And the problem that I see is that I’m not sure it’s going to be an different in trying to negotiate with B1G, whether it’s two years, 5 years, or 10 years from now. This equal revenue sharing idea has taken hold, and it seems like it’s going to be hard to dislodge.

Now, if the emphasis from UT’s perspective is branding, then we can compromise on the revenue sharing (it’s not like UT is hurting revenue-wise) while still capitalizing on the branding, recruiting, exposure benefits that come with LHN. Does that make it an easier sell? Or do the other conferences get their backs up over the fact that if UT is to have a separate 3rd tier deal, then we don’t add anything to the value of THEIR 3rd tier package?

An excellent analysis. I wish the mainstream sports media would actually report on the situation as you have. I’m tired of everything being Texas’ fault. Sure, there were some missteps from Texas and Dodds. But, everyone needs to own up to the fact that each school looked out for their interest first (as is expected).

Haji – pay attention. 32 million /= 86 million. The Jayhawks have a 32 million dollar deal to broadcast third-tier basketball and football games in the Kansas City market and a couple others. Texas has no such deal. We used to have one with Host Communications a while back but (a) it was a paltry deal (b) they were bought out by IMG and © IMG has not sold those rights to a distributor between the Host deal and the LHN. That’s why IMG pays Kansas and Texas similar amounts despite the fact that Texas stadium ads are a lot more plentiful and expensive and the Longhorn brand is a lot more popular in merch.

Huck,

Could you explain the difference between first, second, and third tier rights? I don’t quite understand what sorts of games/events each tier represents, and how a particular game is classified within those tiers.

Haji, this entire post is about media spin and manipulation. I have no idea if any institutions really thought it was that big a deal that third tier revenues weren’t being shared equally. I do know, though, that media types made it out to be some sort of huge deal and various message board posters latched onto that.

I freely admit, and based this entire post on, the possibility that the institutions were just bullshitting the media and their supporters on that and other topics.

The tiers basically just mean the selection order for broadcasting a game.

First tier for the Big 12 is ABC because they get first choice for games.
Second tier is Fox Sports Net.
Third tier is with individual schools.

I stopped reading here:

“So after Nebraska left the Big 12 was ripe for the picking. "

That’s a pretty basic factual error: Colorado left before Nebraska did, and the South schools were in heavy flirtation with the Pac-10 before that as well. If indeed the Big 12 was ripe for the picking, it was long before Nebraska left.

TCU/SMU = Dallas market. UH/Rice = Houston market. Baylor = Waco. Enough said. Man, if only Ann Richards had a different alma mater.

1. Outside of Baylor’s case, the other 4 schools capture only a SLIVER of their respective markets.

2. Wrong answer. Correct answer: Bob Bullock.

“The Jayhawks have a 32 million dollar deal to broadcast third-tier basketball and football games in the Kansas City market and a couple others.”

Link?

“Texas has no such deal. "

No but they can individually sell games to FSSW or the like. For example, baseball games are all third tier. I’m assuming you’ve seen a Texas baseball game on TV?

And your deal with Host wasn’t “paltry”

“Texas, the defending national football champion, takes a high risk/high reward approach with its multimedia rights. It is in the second year of a 10-year, multimillion dollar deal with Host Communications that’s almost all revenue-sharing, says Chris Plonsky, director of women’s athletics. Under this arrangement, Texas takes a “huge chunk” of the $10 million a year generated by Host’s Austin-based unit, the Longhorn Sports Network, unit general manager Scott Willingham says. How much? “It’s a lot more than 50-50,” Plonsky says."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2006-11-16-cover-coaches-media_x.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2006-11-16-cover-coaches-media_x.htm

Kent -

Nebraska announced their move to the Big Ten on June 12, 2010.

Colorado announced their move to the Pac-10 on June 14, 2010.

Not sure where the factual error is. I know Colorado “announced” they were leaving previously, but there have been a lot of announcements that didn’t happen. When an official release announced an official move is when I consider a move to have been made.

“Haji, this entire post is about media spin and manipulation. I have no idea if any institutions really thought it was that big a deal that third tier revenues weren’t being shared equally. "

The institutions haven’t but yes, the media has. That’s a disservice to both Texas and the other remaining Big 12 schools. Nobody is fighting over third tier media revenues, but yes, the media is making a big deal out of it. They are making the other 8 (or 7) look greedy and Texas look evil.

So we agree on the media.

Do you think the media just made up these feelings all on their own? Somebody is manipulating them, wouldn’t you agree?

“Do you think the media just made up these feelings all on their own? Somebody is manipulating them, wouldn’t you agree?”

I don’t think the media can be manipulated to that extent. There are just too many independent writers and bloggers saying the same thing right now. I just think they pump articles out at too quickly of a rate to do real research and just wind up throwing the opinion du jour out there based on very limited knowledge. Dodds and his comments sort of make it easy to buy into the “EVIL TEXAS” mantra going on right now and they’re tapping into that.

I obviously agree with the echo chamber aspect of modern journalism, but your theory still requires that some writer somewhere completely made up the claim that the other schools were mad about third tier revenues not being shared after the Longhorn Network deal was signed.

That combined with the amazing coincidence of 7/19 where A&M to the SEC and LHN is evil stories broke on the same day shows that somebody is feeding the media with angles to attack.

“some writer somewhere completely made up the claim that the other schools were mad about third tier revenues not being shared after the Longhorn Network deal was signed.”

It’s a pretty logical step to make when you see Texas sign a $300 million deal until you consider all the facts. Like that other schools are making good money on their own third tier rights. And like that the $300 million is really exaggerated – the Texas athletic department is getting a little over $4 million after IMG and academics get their cuts.

Just seeing the supposed enormity of the deal and then other schools bristle could easily convince journalists that it’s all about the money. So then, the natural cure is to share the money to make the problems go away.

But we all know that if Texas did agree to share it (which it shouldn’t), there would STILL be issue. If Texas got half of what it did but still wanted to show high school sports and push conference games onto the networks, other schools would still be mad.

Haj – Jayhawk Television Network:

hxxp://www.kuathletics.com/multimedia/kan-tv-network.html

Before LHN we had nothing like that.

As far as the dollar amounts, it’s public sector stuff. All athletic revenues have to be reported to the government and you can pull up an Excel spreadsheet of it here:

hxxp://ope.ed.gov/athletics/

And dude, Host Communications is part of IMG now. The deal you’re mentioning IS now the IMG deal. That deal is for third-tier media rights but also advertising rights and merch/branding sales. The Longhorn Sports Network is RADIO. Ever hears a Craig Way broadcast? “Brought to you by IMG-Host Communications.” Radio = six figure annual revenue stream. You’re just Googling shit without understanding it first.

The whole splitting of “TV rights” from merch and branding rights is artificial anyway. It’s something people have done to make UT look criminal for not sharing its LHN revenue. But after the first two tiers of conference TV deals and the tourneys EVERYTHING has traditionally been the province of individual schools to do with what they like. Texas has never complained about that, and done quite well with it in the ad and merch areas as the IMG-Host deal shows. But teams like Kansas got more of their brand revenue from TV broadcasts and now we’re doing the same thing. None of your criticisms change the fact that other teams are criticizing UT from expanding in an area other schools profited from first and UT never asked for a piece of that action.

“That combined with the amazing coincidence of 7/19 where A&M to the SEC and LHN is evil stories broke on the same day shows that somebody is feeding the media with angles to attack.”

Oh, Bill Byrne has absolutely attacked the LHN in the media…but only as to high school and conference games. I think the media is jumping to conclusions on the third tier revenue though.

If schools are going to sell them separately, it doesn’t make sense to share those revenues. Now if they wanted to bundle them, like the Big Ten, that would make more sense. I just don’t see the argument for sharing third tier revenue if schools are selling them separately. And I haven’t seen schools make that argument.

Good post, Huck.

“Haj – Jayhawk Television Network:

hxxp://www.kuathletics.com/multimedia/kan-tv-network.html

Before LHN we had nothing like that."

That’s just a loose affiliation – Texas still sells its third tier games. LIke I said, baseball is third tier. A&M has coaches show’s on TV in Texas and on Dish. We don’t have a “network” either. You don’t need a network affiliation to sell games and TV shows and get money off of it.

“And dude, Host Communications is part of IMG now. The deal you’re mentioning IS now the IMG deal. "

No, the Host communications deal was a revenue-sharing deal. Host became IMG but it was a new deal signed in 2008 with only guaranteed money. $94M for ten years flat…no revenue sharing.

Haji – How many baseball games do we get aired? Like, maybe three? At ESPN’s request?

And it’s time for you to link if you want to assert that the Host Communciations deal covered something other than the IMG deal does and that was used to make lots of TV money that UT isn’t accounting for in its public reporting and the revenue was shared with other schools. I call bullsh*t. The article you linked doesn’t mention a single thing you didn’t already cut and paste, and that says literally nothing. And if that’s not what you’re asserting, I don’t get the point.

I don’t know how many you get aired but the point is, you can air games without having a dedicated channel or loose network. Just because you can’t tell its Texas’s third tier game doesn’t mean its not.

“was used to make lots of TV money that UT isn’t accounting for in its public reporting "

What? I didn’t say UT isn’t accounting for it. It’s just accounting differently. They could fall under “Royalties and licensing” or “TV, Internet, Radio rights.” Texas puts them under the former, Kansas puts them under the latter. But the accounting above only adds in “TV, Internet, Radio rights,” thereby missing a lot of money that Texas does get for its third tier rights.

This link shows that Texas’s last IMG deal was signed in 2008. It’s flat-fee revenue, unlike the previous deal with Host. It covers the same rights, but it’s a different deal.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2009/03/20090330/This-Weeks-News/Ohio-State-Lands-$110M-Deal.aspx

Huck, your displeased about how the media and non UT fans are spinning this and that a lot of their perceptions are incorrect. Yet you call Tom Osborne a hypocrite and windbag. So, I read your post and you changed my perception about a couple things, including the big 8 needed the SWC as much or more as SWC needed them.

So I posted that link to a Omaha world herald story:
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100830/BIGRED/708309872

As I changed my opinion of what Nebraska was upset about. Prior to reading it I thought it was 90 percent Texas, after I read it I thought it was 5% or less about texas , re: why NU left. I hope you read the article. It is interesting even for a non NU fan, and hope you will share your thoughts then.

OK, different deal. Not sure how that’s relevant to anything we’re discussing. Show me evidence that the Host money was shared with other schools and not just with Host, and you might have something.

And let’s assume you’re right about the accounting. That sounds fair to me. But why do you think that before LHN, UT’s third-tier money off of radio and a couple spare basketball/baseball games is anything comparable to having an ESPN-run deal with networks in every television market in the state to run half our basketball games and a third of our football games under the name “Longhorn Television Network”? Because that’s what Kansas has done for years now. And why should we share the money from our doppelganger when Kansas doesn’t? Because our network is 24/7 and theirs show The Office on Thursdays?

Huck: You’re looking at the dates the stories were updated. Read what they say.

“The Pac-10 announced Thursday that the University of Colorado has agreed to leave the Big 12 to join its conference.”

“The Big Ten’s board of presidents and chancellors unanimously welcomed Nebraska to the club on Friday, just a few hours after the school formally disclosed its interest. The move takes effect July 1, 2011.”

Last I checked, Thursday (June 10) was still before Friday (June 11). The larger point is, although Mizzou may have been the first school to “lift their skirts,” the South schools were showing plenty of leg themselves before Nebraska and Colorado left. That was the only reason for Nebraska to even consider leaving.

Haji – sorry, missed your response to another poster above, to the effect that you don’t support sharing third-tier revenue. Then what are we arguing about?

KLR – I had already read that article and it’s part of the evidence for my description of Osborne. He is still yapping about how inequities are the problem to this day when he and his school insisted on inequities in the first place.

You are right that it was a good article.

Kent -

Read KLR’s piece. Nebraska contacted the Big Ten in January 2010. You can’t honestly try to represent that Nebraska only thought about moving because Missouri and the South schools showed some leg. They were looking out for the best situation for themselves. No harm in that.

It appears you may be right on the exact timeline of the Colorado and Nebraska moves. Perhaps it was merely that I confused the first reports of Nebraska leaving (I looked it up and they starting coming fast on 6/9/10) and the official Pac-10 announcement of Colorado (6/10/10). It wasn’t that important of a detail, though. Sorry if you didn’t read any more after that.

Thx. Appreciate the response. Had not read anywhere where he was saying those things, and if he has, then I agree it certainly contradicts what NU pursued in big12.

Last thing I’ll say is if you believe that article, the big 10, nor NU was anywhere ready to join back then, but the ultimatum of a pledge to stay forced their hand. It would have been real easy for NU to make that pledge with their fingers crossed, and left the next year. Which apparently at least a couple schools did.

Outstanding effort Huck. Thx for putting that together.

Great job, Huck. I’ve been trying to explain this to friends who don’t get it. Now, I’ll just link them to this story. And Scip’s identification of the money shot was spot on. It’s only bad when Texas does it.

“ESPN-run deal with networks in every television market in the state to run half our basketball games and a third of our football games under the name "Longhorn Television Network"? Because that’s what Kansas has done for years now. "

I’m confused…Kansas has had half its basketball games and a third of its football games on its own network? Because that link you gave shows 8 non-conference basketball games (out of 33 total) and some coaches shows. No football games.

And I don’t think schools should share third tier revenue. And I haven’t seen a single school endorse that view, other than OU offering to share its own third tier revenue.

“Haji – sorry, missed your response to another poster above, to the effect that you don’t support sharing third-tier revenue. Then what are we arguing about?”

The part of the story that says other schools have been cashing in on media rights for years and Texas hasn’t. Texas has, as it should be.

OK. Sorry, that’s a fair point. I guess all the trolls have made me a little testy lately and my lack of coffee today has made me extra grumpy.

“Read KLR’s piece. Nebraska contacted the Big Ten in January 2010. You can’t honestly try to represent that Nebraska only thought about moving because Missouri and the South schools showed some leg. They were looking out for the best situation for themselves. No harm in that”

Sure they were looking at options earlier in the year … I’m sure Texas, OU, et. al. were too. But when things came to a head in the summer, it had progressed for ALL schools to a hell of a lot more than looking at options. You are correct that the exact dates of the official votes are a relatively minor detail. But with that relatively minor detail, you paint Nebraska as the one who opened the doors to all other conferences to look at all other schools, which is completely at odds with the facts. There were reasons Nebraska was concerned about the viability of the Big 12, reasons that A&M’s looming departure would seem to vindicate.

And fwiw, I have Jayhawks in the family and I’ve seen JTN football games. Maybe not this year I guess? I dunno. I admittedly reached on the numbers but my point was simply that the JTN revenue is significant and unshared and everyone was fine with that. I didn’t realize at the time that you agreed :)

Kent, try to relax your Nebraska-centrism for a moment. My post specifically calls out Missouri as starting the mess. Not once did I paint Nebraska as the one that opened the doors, merely that their leaving weakened the Big 12. Do you deny that?

And your last sentence is ridiculous. A&M’s departure, just like Nebraska’s, is about those two schools trying to find the best place for themselves. It’s my personal opinion that Nebraska did a better job of improving their situation, but that’s neither here nor there. Their moves are not about how the Big 12 is some terrible structure, if it were then those two schools could have voted to change the structure. Those two schools are part of the reason the structure was the way it was. They voted for it. They liked it.

Last last point – it seems to me all the teams that could had a wandering eye. (exclude Baylor, Iowa state, Kansas schools cuz they didn’t have opportunities not because their noble). And that none of the power schools had any trust and didn’t believe anything the others said. Mind blowing this seems more like a junior high than a multiple million dollar conference with very smart people running it. Nobody wants to look like the selfish, backstabber, thus blame the other guy. And TX is the easy target right now.

Mizzou didn’t leak anything. The first rumor of Big Ten expansion was reported on ESPN in December and ESPN speculated on likely targets, including Mizzou. The next day, Mizzou AD Mike Alden sent an email to Dan Beebe saying that Mizzou was getting media requests and that Mizzou had had no contact with the Big Ten. Beebe wanted a firm commitment to the Big XII, but Mizzou didn’t want to limit its options if an invitation did come. To this day, I’m not aware of any official correspondence between Mizzou and the Big Ten. We have such correspondence between 8 other members of the Big XII and other conferences. If you can point me to an email between someone important at Mizzou and the Big Ten, I would love to see it.

And no, Mizzou did not make public the Big XII’s problems. That happened two years previously when Nebraska threatened to leave the conference if equal revenue sharing was implemented and Kevin Weiberg fled the conference because he could make no progress on a conference network or equal revenue sharing.

Nice work, Huck. I’ve only skimmed it though as I am frantically hitting F5 in another window. I’ll try to read it this weekend.

Yep, conference realignment drama is making some money for keyboard makers.

Conference Realignment drama has been brought to you by the letter F and the number 5.

Thank you so much for a wonderful article!!
I am tired of the bitching other fans that dont know the situation and think that they can just blame everything on Texas!!
GREAT ARTICLE!!! Please post more!!

This article should be required reading in all schools and should be tattooed to Tom Osborne’s forehead.

I was thinking that a behind-the-scenes book by Bob Woodward into Realignment was need. No need, the unvarnished truth is here at barkingcarnival!

MajorTexasFan-

The link you provided does not appear to be an updated version of the bylaws, since it states….“Each Member Institution shall remain a member of the Conference
until July 1, 2006 (the "Current Term") and during any Additional Term (as defined
below).”

I am not sure if the new contract changes any of the language in the rest of the contract, but let’s assume it does not and the exit fees remain the same.

“Section 3.3 Effect of Withdrawal From Conference Other Than by Giving Proper Notice”, which you referenced, does in fact spell out the liquidated damages for leaving the conference early, so I’m not sure why you are stating that the contract does not allow a team to leave the conference before 2016. Yes, there are damages, which A&M and the remaining members of the Big 12 agreed to prior to A&M leaving the conference; but you are wrong in your position that a school is explicity not allowed to leave the conference before the end of the contract. Otherwise, Section 3.3 would not exist.

And as far as your last statement…“A&M’s argument against Baylor is nothing more than "No fair, they broke their (legally unenforceable) promise not to sue us for breaking our (legally enforceable) promises." Cry me a river.”….I’ll just chalk this up to what I assume is a healthy hatred of A&M. A&M is clearly acting within the bylaws; Baylor is a desperate, underhanded leech only concerned with self-preservation. I wish you good luck in your dealings with those parasites when you finally decide to leave this mess of a conference.

First of all great read as usual. In general I don’t think Tech fans have a problem with the LHN or Texas not wanting to share your third tier rights, as you pointed out a lot of other teams made more than Texas in regards to third tier rights. Texas Tech president Bailey even came out and said he doesn’t have any problems with the LHN either and it’s something he wishes Tech could have.

My concern is the apperace of collusion between ESPN and the LHN and I haven’t seen any horn fan address this. Since ESPN owns both the 1st and 3rd tier rights it gives them the power of collusion against Longhorn competition. For example, ESPN wanted the UT vs. Tech game on the LHN and were willing to pay $4 million+ for that, but that is historically a 1st tier matchup. ESPN colluding against Texas Tech and taking away not only national visability, marketing, but a potentially bigger paycheck for Texas Tech depending on performance and rankings that Tech could earn prior to the UT game.

In addition, the Tech vs UT basketball game was forced on the LHN against Texas Tech’s will. Does this game not belong on 1st tier? Does Tech get compensated for playing on the LHN? Compensated for lack of exposure for colluding Tech down to 3rd tier when they would earn 1st tier without the LHN? How many millions of dollars will the collusion between ESPN and Texas steal from their competition, and what legal ramifications will this eventually incur?

That is the first time I’ve read a claim that the Tech basketball game was moved to the LHN against Tech’s will. If that were what is going on, why wouldn’t the Tech football game be on the LHN?

You’re asking us to address unsubstantiated rumor and also asking about collusion when ESPN has to get conference, school, and Fox signoff on any such moves. And you’re also talking about stealing money when you realize that ESPN was trying to pay Tech millions of dollars to move the game.

AgPassing By wrote:

You said…..“I don’t think this is Baylor’s fault, I think it was an example of Beebe incompetence. The Beebe letter gave A&M permission from the conference to leave, but that by no means represents Baylor’s permission. So I don’t think Baylor changed their minds, as they hadn’t said anything one way or another, yet. Then at the last possible minute, OU threw flames on the fire with their OU to PAC move, and that pushed Baylor over the edge to play the only card they had left to maintain a seat in an AQ conference. That isn’t dishonest, it’s just playing the cards you’re dealt.”

This is not consistent with the verbage in Beebe’s letter…

“This is to confirm our discussion yesterday during which I informed you that the Big 12 Conference Board of Directors unanimously authorized me to convey to you and their colleagues in the Southeastern Conference that the Big 12 and its members will not take any legal action for any possible claims against the SEC or its members relating to the departure of Texas A&M University from the Big 12 and the admission of Texas A&M into the SEC; provided, however, that such act by the SEC to admit Texas A&M is publicly confirmed by 5:00 p.m. (CDT) on September 8, 2011.

Such admission of Texas A&M will result in the withdrawal of Texas A&M from the Big 12 Conference effective June 30, 2012. We both agreed it is in the best interests of each of our conferences and our member institutions of higher education to waive any and all legal actions by either conference and its members resulting from admission of Texas A&M into the SEC, as long as such admission is confirmed publicly by September 8, 2011."

The most simple reading of these statements indicate that Baylor’s view on the matter was represented, and that they agreed not to sue the SEC.

Your statement is also not supported by statements from Florida President Bernie Machen…

"After receiving unanimous written assurance from the Big 12 on September 2 that the Southeastern Conference was free to accept Texas A&M to join as a new member, the presidents and chancellors of the SEC met last night with the intention of accepting the application of Texas A&M to be the newest member of the SEC. We were notified yesterday afternoon that at least one Big 12 institution had withdrawn its previous consent and was considering legal action. The SEC has stated that to consider an institution for membership, there must be no contractual hindrances to its departure. The SEC voted unanimously to accept Texas A&M University as a member upon receiving acceptable reconfirmation that the Big 12 and its members have reaffirmed the letter dated September 2, 2011."

Maybe we have different definitions of “dishonest”.

“So after Nebraska left the Big 12 was ripe for the picking. It seems that at this time Larry Scott dreamed big and considered the possibility of poaching six Big 12 teams and going straight to 16 and the first superconference instead of just Utah and Colorado taking the Pac-10 to 12. "

If that was Larry Scott’s dream, it came well before Nebraska’s departure. Texas and the others were in serious talks with the Pac-10 at the same time Nebraska was in talks with the Big 10, according to the OWH article.

Texas A&M’s departure doesn’t prove the conference’s structure was unsound; it has proven how right Nebraska was to distrust the loyalty oaths administered last summer.

You mean like being involved in your conferences billion dollar, 10 year TV contract?

Great read. Thanx.

The only really dishonest thing in this whole latest round was A&M bailing on their commitment to the conference. That any Aggie would go to another school’s site and try to act like Baylor’s actions are dishonest is…well…OK, I guess nothing is too absurd for an Aggie.

“Maybe we have different definitions of ‘dishonest’.”
Welcome to the SEC!

Re:

"Maybe we have different definitions of ‘dishonest’."
Welcome to the SEC!"

Back in the day, the story was told that Bear Bryant and Paul Dietzl agreed to a “non-aggression” pact whereby neither would recruit (poach) in the other’s territory.

The last one to sign the agreement stole the pen.

Neither Beebe nor Baylor’s representation in the B12 board has the authority to waive Baylor’s rights against the wishes of its BOR, especially by oral promise absent prior authorization. Furthermore, it is absolutely Starr’s fiduciary duty to avoid any possible circumstance that would cost the institution under his direction to the tune of 8 figures or more. To suppose that the leadership at BU should have been bound more strongly by Beebe’s pledge and any antecedent oral assurances by midlevel officials than by the profound and clear distinctions in bottom-line outcomes is so fatuous I have trouble believing I’m even having to respond to it.

Ag faithful need to redirect misplaced emotions from blaming Texas or Baylor to blaming Ag leadership and the SEC. Absent any inappropriate contact between SEC and A&M, the TI issue is a nonstarter. SEC is who is demanding a get out of jail free card for its inappropriate contacts before fully inviting A&M. All Baylor is doing is declining to take the overt active step of assisting A&M in potentially depriving Baylor of national exposure and tens of millions of dollars.

Here is hoping that the screeching malcontent factions will be kept in check at the several applicable remaining B12 schools as we try to find a way to become a decent football conference with little other than five ranked teams, a history of multiple titles, massive viewership, lucrative media deals, and a 14 year running start.

Tech would have been paid to appear on the LHN just as Kansas will be. They can not be forced to play their games on the LHN.

The IMG numbers include money for the right to sell all assets. 9.4 Million dollars provides for everything from program ads, in-stadium/arena signage, PA drops, internet, radio and the like. In other words, the overwhelming majority of that money did not account for third tier tv rights.

Re: the ESPN plan to promote Texas before all others: Can they possibly promote one school to the detriment of 120 others? Doesn’t make sense and isn’t very realistic.

Great write up…here’s a sooner who thinks OU is calling all the shots…

Oklahoma Sooners demand for Big 12 stability looks to be taking place

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ycn-9169773

Kent – seriously, re-read the article. Nebraska and the B1G started talking in January. The article doesn’t mention that Texas was in talks to leave the conference until early June. And even then, Texas had been clear that it was having talks for the sake of setting up contingency plans, not to bolt from the conference first. That’s always been the case. Even last week the BoR wouldn’t give Powers the ability to negotiate leaving the conference, only to conduct talks.

Money quote, from the June 3rd meeting:

Powers made it clear that if Nebraska stayed, Texas would stay.

Other than Colorado, the other schools being courted by the Pac-10 indicated they’d stay if Texas stayed.

"What’s Nebraska going to do?‘’ became the meeting’s constant refrain, Perlman said.

g’69 for the win!

And by the way, for the Aggies on the site, if you’d like someone not to change their mind, lock them in contractually. Until you do, their free to change their minds – not unlike agreeing to a $1B conference TV deal and then a year later, after several schools have taken actions in reliance on that greement, bailing out on the conference.

Waiting for “big” xii to die so we can actually have some real big time football games in Austin. But in the mean time, bring on Iowas State, Wyoming, Baylor and Kansas.

Literally what I said out loud after reading this article: “Goddamn, Huck. You killed it.”

Seriously, this is an amazing article, and probably my favorite ever on this site.

AgPassingBy

You may be right on the Beebe memo, thanks for posting the text. What still isn’t clear to me is who exactly is on the board of the big 12? There isn’t anything on the big 12 site that I can find for this. I just wonder if it’s possible that the big 12 “board” doesn’t necessarily include a representative from each school (though it would seem odd if it didn’t), or otherwise has the right to supercede the legal rights of each school on conference matters. Regardless, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt unless other evidence comes forward that Baylor changed it’s mind at an inconvenient time for A&M.

That said, and I’m not a lawyer, I don’t know how much legal weight the big 12 memo actually carries, particularly given that circumstances changed very materially between the big 12 letter and Baylor’s refusal to waive action. Namely, the prospect of moving from Big 12-2-1 to Big 12-2-1-3, which would have killed the conference. I certainly don’t blame Baylor for changing it’s position in light of such a material change.

You may call that dishonest. I call it business in a very fluid situation. We’ll have to agree to disagree. But I’d also caution you against getting on a high-horse about honesty given the aggie’s less-than-transparent actions over the past several months. I don’t think anyone in this whole mess has acted in a manner that is above reproach.

Yeah, when we will we start playing Washington State, Oregon State, Arizona and Arizona State? Where are Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana, and Illinois on our schedule? Though I imagine Wyoming will probably be a regular for our 2 or 3 OOC games, why play tough OOC games when you have those murder’s rows listed above?

Interesting article just published by Andy Staples of SI (no link because I’m blocked from the article at work), about the continued disfunction of the Big 12.

Apparently when UM’s chancellor Brady Deaton was giving a press conference yesterday about what would be required for the Big Algebra going forward, OU president Boren launched into a simultaneous press conference that drowned out Deaton on loudspeaker. Worse, they said things that were materially different from each other.

Keystone kops kontinues.

Basically the Big 12 letter to the SEC has no legal force. Yes, a Baylor representative may have said they waived their right, but I believe only the BOR can actually waive that right. I doubt there was time for Beebe to have gotten complete assurance from each school that its BOR would sign the waiver.

AgPassingBy -

—"The link you provided does not appear to be an updated version of the bylaws, since it states…."Each Member Institution shall remain a member of the Conference
until July 1, 2006 (the "Current Term") and during any Additional Term (as defined
below)."

Nope – those are the current bylaws. ( “The Big 12 bylaws, by the way, have not changed since Nebraska and Colorado’s exit.” – http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/31608/big-12-legitimacy-reliant-on-aggies-decision).

We are currently in the second “Additional Term” mentioned in that provision (7/1/2011 – 6/30/2016). Nebraska and CU left at the end of the first Additional term (7/1/2006 – 6/30/2011).

—“I am not sure if the new contract changes any of the language in the rest of the contract, but let’s assume it does not and the exit fees remain the same.”

If you are talking about the agreement just reached yesterday, that almost certainly wouldn’t apply to A&M. A&M announced its exit before it was adopted, under the bylaws I linked.

—“"Section 3.3 Effect of Withdrawal From Conference Other Than by Giving Proper Notice", which you referenced, does in fact spell out the liquidated damages for leaving the conference early, so I’m not sure why you are stating that the contract does not allow a team to leave the conference before 2016. Yes, there are damages, which A&M and the remaining members of the Big 12 agreed to prior to A&M leaving the conference; but you are wrong in your position that a school is explicity not allowed to leave the conference before the end of the contract. Otherwise, Section 3.3 would not exist.”

You misunderstand the purpose of Section 3.3 and LD clauses in general. It simply specifies damages in case of breach to avoid litigation over damage amounts later; it doesn’t sanction a premature exit or insufficient notice. Section 3.3 even labels A&M (in this case) as the “breaching member.” By falling within that section, it means you have breached the agreement.

Section 3.1 provides that each member will remain so for the full duration of a term. It then gives notice requirements for not signing up for future terms. Section 3.3 designates any non-compliance with section 3.1 as breach. It’s that simple: A&M has breached in two ways: (1) by leaving before the expiration of the term, and (2) by providing inadequate notice.

Note also that Section 3.3 plainly doesn’t contemplate members leaving before the end of the current term. It sets the exit fees at “the amount of conference revenue that would otherwise have been distributed or distributable to the Breach Member during the two (2) years prior to the end of the Current Term or the then-current Additional Term,” to be reduced depending on how much notice is given. “At the end” means 2014-2016, which is the end of the current term. Applied literally, it would mean A&M is on the hook for 80% of what it would have gotten from the conference between 2014-2016. If the provision intended for conference members to leave early, it would have set the fees based on 2 years from the effective date of leaving the conference.

—“And as far as your last statement…"A&M’s argument against Baylor is nothing more than "No fair, they broke their (legally unenforceable) promise not to sue us for breaking our (legally enforceable) promises." Cry me a river."….I’ll just chalk this up to what I assume is a healthy hatred of A&M. A&M is clearly acting within the bylaws; Baylor is a desperate, underhanded leech only concerned with self-preservation. I wish you good luck in your dealings with those parasites when you finally decide to leave this mess of a conference.”

No; it’s a healthy understanding of how to read a contract. A&M is violating the bylaws in two ways. That the bylaws provide for liquidated damages doesn’t change that fact; in fact, it proves the point, because liquidated damages only come into play when you have breached. And Baylor is a leech I don’t mind having compared to the tapeworm that is A&M. We’re thrilled to get you guys out of our digestive track.

http://mgoblog.com/diaries/conference-realignment-timeline

Wethorn-

Since Beebe works for the Big 12 conference members, I find it highly unlikely that he did not consult with each individual member institution, especially since he explicitly states that every member institution agreed to not pursue future legal actions. If Baylor had an issue with OU leaving the Big 12, they needed to take that up with OU and not drag A&M/SEC back into it.

And I am not saying that A&M has acted in a manner that is above reproach, although I do not see how our admins have acted out of line. They agreed to a contract that includes a mechanism for exiting said contract, so I am not sure how A&M can be faulted for taking actions in accordance with that contract.

Finally, to fault A&M for being less-than-trasnparent condemns every single organization that has ever existed. I’m not sure we want to go down that road.

“Basically the Big 12 letter to the SEC has no legal force. Yes, a Baylor representative may have said they waived their right, but I believe only the BOR can actually waive that right.”

The biggest reason the Big 12 letter has no legal force is that there was nothing given in return from the other side. It wasn’t an agreement, just a bare promise. Baylor can promise to give A&M $10 million and then change its mind the next day without legal responsibility. The only issue that could come into play is if the SEC took some reasonable action based on Baylor’s promise and was injured as a result. But Baylor withdrew its supposed promise before anything happened, so no harm, no foul.

Boren has been behaving like a politician seeking the spotlight throughout this mess and Joe Castiglione wants nothing more than for him to shut the fuck up and go away so he can salvage some face for OU after Boren’s foolish misplay.
 
Other than the Bill Byrne’s of the world, most mature administrators don’t define their strategic operations by petty jealousies and rivalries. Castiglione and Dodds had the potential to do some interesting things with a united front (and both schools get along, despite whatever their fan bases believe), but Boren pissed that away. Larry Scott would have also done well to not get too precious by half in trying to influence Texas through the manipulation of the Sooners.
I guess he thought he could do with OU what the Big 10 did with Mizzou. Child, please.
 
Now we’re left with a Big 12 salvage play, developmental time for the LHN and the stability needed for carriage pick-up, and a Bellmont satisfied with an easy path to 10 wins a year.
 
I think we could have gotten something better out of the deal, but there are a lot of moving pieces that kept altering the terrain.
 
Hay isn’t in the barn yet though. Never underestimate the potential for someone to go batshit crazy when there are spotlights and delusions of grandeur to be found.
 
We’ll shake up this etch-a-sketch again in 2014.

Question for Huckleberry -

A&M needs a waiver from Baylor to join the SEC. The big cigar said that Texas was going to put pressure on Baylor to sign the waiver. Why is this Texas’s problem? We don’t owe any favors to the SEC or the aggies. Why not just leave the aggies in limbo and force the SEC to take aggy without waivers?

AgPassingBy is still completely failing to demonstrate comprehension of what Baylor’s leadership is ethically COMPELLED to do, namely act to prevent harm to Baylor, and at an absolute minimum refrain from acting in such fashion as would substantially and materially harm Baylor. If Byrne promised to rename the Aggies as “Baylor’s willing bitches” and to schedule future Aggie home games in Tech’s Jones stadium, the president and BOR would absolutely put a stop to it. It would not matter one iota that Beebe had already relayed the promise in writing to Paul McCartney, Ken Starr, and Cletus the clown. I use a farcical situation to illustrate a serious point. Anyone who thinks fiduciary duties are trumped by Aggie indignation is an idiot.

MajorTexasFan-
I am not arguing that A&M is not in breach of contract. Obviously we are, or we would not have had to settle on LDs with the rest of the conference. I’m not sure what you expect beyond that point. Contracts, while legally binding, can be broken, as long as both parties agree to the terms of the breach (which both parties did in this case). To hold A&M to any higher standard above and beyond those agreed-upon terms is unjustifiable.

However, what I am arguing is that every Big 12 member institution, including Baylor, was fine with A&M leaving for the SEC, and even went as far as to give permission to A&M to exit the conference and join the SEC free of any future litigation. Based on that, I am not sure how Baylor going back on their word and doing the exact opposite can be seen as anything less than underhanded by A&M, UT or anyone else.

And awesome insult there at the end. You really showed me! I’ll be heading out now.

The whole Aggie mad at Baylor thing reminds me of the “They took our jobs” episode of South Park.

“However, what I am arguing is that every Big 12 member institution, including Baylor, was fine with A&M leaving for the SEC, and even went as far as to give permission to A&M to exit the conference and join the SEC free of any future litigation. "

I can’t wait to see the evidence for this. Beebe’s letter means little and it doesn’t say who from Baylor approved the letter, or even if anyone from Baylor did so. If someone from Baylor did say they were fine with A&M leaving it was because OU and Texas told them they weren’t going anywhere. Oops, shit happens and the letter wasn’t legally binding. We have been told for the past year that A&M had an unconditional invitation from the SEC…what happened to that and where is the A&M butthurt there?

AgPassingBy-

You’re missing the point. Nobody’s trying to hold A&M to a higher standard. A&M fans are trying to hold Baylor to a higher standard. I don’t think A&M has done anything morally wrong in this situation in terms of exiting the conference (taking a greater share of NU and CU’s exit fees is perhaps a different story). I don’t think Baylor has either. Both are acting in their own self-interest, as they should, and letting the chips fall where they may. Most UT fans, I think, agree.

Your take, by contrast, is that Baylor’s “action appears to be deceitful/dishonest at a minimum and malicious at worst, is in no way justifiable, and gives A&M every right to be mad at Baylor. I agree that Baylor was only looking out for their best interests, but that in and of itself does not make what they did right.” You also claim that A&M has done something “quite different” by supposedly complying with a contract that it is in fact breaching.

If what Baylor did is wrong/deceitful/etc., A&M’s actions are no better, and arguably worse. But that characterization of Baylor is yours—not mine. This argument isn’t about us holding A&M to a higher standard — it’s about you holding Baylor to one. Baylor supposedly made a non-binding promise then changed its mind within days. A&M made a binding promise then changed its mind a year later. That you levy insults against Baylor from A&M’s moral high ground is a joke.

(By the way, contracts can be broken if even there are no terms for liquidated damages. That’s what contract law is for. The only difference between section 3.3 being in the bylaws and not being in the bylaws is that certain damages are calculated in advance. There is only one sanctioned way to get out of the Big 12, and that is by providing notice two years before the end of the term.).

Thank you, Huckleberry, for a very informative post. Also, thank you MajorTexasFan for the link and the background on the contract.

I totally get how Baylor’s move upset the flow of things for A&M to the SEC, so upset over the result is understandable to me. I don’t really get the A&M vitriol, however. The questions “Hey, Baylor, are you guys cool with A&M leaving for the SEC? We’re planning on replacing them with a new 10th team.” and “Hey Baylor, the conference is disintegrating and it looks like you’re Effed. You all cool with that?” are pretty different questions. To the Ags on the board (both reasonable and not) it seems like the general thrust of the post and of the comments supporting it is that, while saying “Yes” to the first question and “Uh, HELL no” to second can be called a fair number of things, duplicitous is probably not a good fit.

Speaking of, from a pure scoresheet perspective, looking at would COULD have happened versus what DID happen, is there any entity in this entire Charlie Foxtrot that comes out better than Baylor? Holy crap. In the span of roughly 5 weeks, they went from being headed towards a non-AQ conference and a $15-sh million per year pay cut to a 6 year commitment in an AQ conference with a pay RAISE. I’m sure any good Baptist would object to the analogy, but that’s a positively Clintonian turnaround.

Bullock and Richards must both be smiling from above/below.

Nebraska, Colorado, and Aggie left because they knew they couldn’y beat Oklahoma/Texas and never would…..end of story. It was never about partial qualifiers, tv or revenue sharing. Had any of those teams been contending consistently they would still be here…. period .

Oh, I didn’t say so before, but great post (and a lot of great comment)!

All the SEC has to do at this point is just admitt Aggy whether or not Baylor, ISU or KSU sign waivers. It’s really that simple!

The fact that the SEC hasn’t done so now that the Big 12 is intact for the near term speaks volumes, IMO, about (1) what they actually did behind the scenes and/or (2) whether they think Mississippi State, Jr. is worth what is at most a marginal financial/legal risk if they did nothing wrong.

To whomever asked, the reasons we would try to persuade Baylor to stand down, both of which are valid, are (1) we don’t give a fuck that Aggy is leaving, in fact we’re glad to be rid of their dysfunctional, whiny asses, and (2) getting a tenth team (or more) to join with Aggy in limbo is not impossible but understandably more difficult. There is potential value to Baylor in the second proposition, which is one of the things that they are no doubt mindful of.

paleohorn -
 
For Nebraska, qualifiers are directly related to their on-field competitiveness. Huck’s point is salient. No one gives a shit about Colorado save the loss of a fun road trip. A&M is motivated by pride, a dash of their weird psychology, and a desire to play in the best league in college football and to create their own identity outside of big brother’s shadow. No more, no less.
 
Jake -
 
We may be glad to be rid of Bill Byrne from this league, but opening up Texas to SEC recruiting and SEC football broadcasts isn’t something we’re happy about. No amount of internet fan posturing will change that.
 
Baylor’s primary issue is that without Texas and A&M to anchor their season ticket packages to, they’re a dead program. BYU can’t provide that. Losing A&M is a big blow. And if the league blows up – well, they’ll be crossing their fingers to be in Conference USA. Baylor knows no one wants them. They’re the floozy you used to live with who wants the courts to consider her a common-law wife.

maroon carrots -

I too will be interested in what Huckleberry, Dagga, Scipio and/or others have to say about your question. Purely outside looking in, I would guess at two reasons:

1. Texas’s leadership position in the conference, for whatever shots it takes, sort of is what it is. Texas may well have not been the only school working on Baylor and others, but the position we occupy in the conference means that Texas either works to block it or works to allow it, but can’t really sit it out. Which leads me to.

2. The Aggies went all-in early and emphatically. It wasn’t “Hey, we’re thinking about this,” or “Hey, we should talk about that.” It was “Screw you guys, home.” Given that, what seemed reasonable at the time and what was likely in Texas’s best interest was to have the exit be as smooth and free of drama/rancor as possible. Things clearly didn’t go that way, and I think that remains the biggest downside for Texas in all of this; but it was a reasonable target to shoot at.

Jake nailed it.

Either SEC-SEC-SEC is a lot pussier than we surmise, or some (or all) of them are not all that thrilled with having agy in their midst.

@Scipio —

…now imagine what happens when that floozy eventually signs Cam Newton.

Dagga: Yes, the Big 10 was talking to Nebraska and some other schools in January. Is it your belief that Texas was NOT exploring its options at that point? You may want to re-read the article. Here’s another money quote:

Longhorn-Husker politics aside, Perlman describes University of Texas President William Powers as a friend. And months earlier, when realignment talk was first heating up, they struck an agreement: Their first duty was to their own institutions, but to the degree they could share information, they would.

At some point, Perlman says, Powers had told him Texas and five other Big 12 schools were in serious discussions with the Pac-10 Conference. That story later would be leaked publicly midway through the Big 12 meetings.

“At some point” could be early June, I suppose, if you would have me believe that the serious discussions began June 1 and Powers told Perlman about them on June 2, before the Big 12 meetings June 3 and 4 when they were clearly an issue. But doesn’t it seem more likely the “serious discussions” Texas and others were having with the Pac-10 were at about the same time that Nebraska was having its secret meeting with the Big 10, late May, if not earlier?

And spare me the spin that Texas was only looking for a contingency plan: if it would have made sense for the Horns to bolt for the Pac-10 they would have done so, whether Nebraska stayed or not. All schools are looking out for their best interests, as they should.

Perhaps someone with some knowledge of contract and sovereign immunity law can comment on a couple of questions for me (please).

1. Does the agreement to liquidated damages by A&M in effect waive SI by virtue of the admission that A&M can be held liable for breaching this contract?

2. Section 3 of the by-laws describes the LD for leaving after a term but with inadequate notice. If the conference or members severally want to get tough, how strong a case might they (cough Baylor) make that A&M has signed its TV rights over to the conference through the end of the current term irrespective of any notice period?

and SEC football broadcasts isn’t something we’re happy about

I hear this said, but I don’t see how there could possibly be more, at least in East Texas, unless somebody starts a new network just to air them. This last weekend I could see
LSU@MissSt (Thurs)
Aub@Clem
Miss@Vandy
Tenn@Flor
Navy@SoCar
NorthTexas@Bama
through the course of the day on a combination of ABC, CBS, ESPN, FOX, and some regional crap network. Admittedly I didn’t see
CoastalCarolina@Geor
Louisville@KY
Troy@Arky
though I think some or all may have been on ESPN gameplan.

The week before I could watch
MissSt@Aub
Bama@PennSt
Cincinnati@Tenn
SoCar@Georgia
NewMexico@Arky
UAB@Florida
with the following left out or on Gameplan
CentKy@KY
SoIllinois@Miss
NorthwesterSt@LSU
UConn@Vandy

It’s beyond absurb already and I see no way they get more games on unless the networks open up new time slots for games like CBS doing doubleheaders.

That database is not correct for 3rd tier rights. Go look at it. There is either a coding error for Texas or for the other schools.

Are you seriously telling me that UT’s radio, broadcast, internet & tv rights for Football, Basketball and Baseball sold for something less than $400k? And that your pay per view of Rice is included in that #?

Look 3 lines down from the USAToday database link provided above. Royalties, licensing, advertisements, sponsorships is some $22m. Then go look at KS. That number is something like $2m, but the radio, broadcast line is $8m plus. Heck look at TOSU which is more similar. The Broadcast/tele/radio line is $2.3m which makes sense given the BTN 3rd tier comes through conference distributions. Their royalty line is $12.8m. I know UT sells a lot of Tshirts but $10m more?

Something tells me that the way your IMG contract is structured it is put into the royalty line item not the broadcast line item.

Think about it. If you only were making 360k selling rights to crappy basketball games and radio for Longhorn football and basketball then your AD isn’t nearly as smart as he seems to be.

Sometimes the facts are wrong.

Nunna -
 
Yes, and you’ll be seeing more. It opens up all of the Tier 3 games. Which will be broadcast here because it will get ratings and it’s a superior product to the Big 12’s. I’ll watch SEC football over Big 12 football 7 times out of 10.
 
College football markets exist in two realms. Theoretical (California) and practical (Alabama). The SEC has maxed their practical market. The Pac 12 has a powerful theoretical play.
 
The reason Texas is so desired as a market (aside from Florida) is that we’re arguably the only other state in the country where potential and delivery combine on a massive scale. We’re the 2nd most populous state and we’re into college football. Nebraska or Arkansas may match or exceed our fervor, but they don’t have the TV sets.
 
The SEC wants that inroad badly.

Hugh -
 
Texas is the #1 apparel and merchandising school in college sports – but I’m not sure if that’s the discrepancy.
 
Additionally, most of our broadcasts are Tier 1 or Tier 2. Thus the minimal volume in Tier 3. We found a clever way to maximize our Tier 3 profitability through the LHN – just as individual SEC schools like Florida and Georgia have done making deals with regionals, who will give them easy profit while they incur none of the risk.
 
Now that we’re going to get paid, suddenly everyone feels entitled to a slice of that pie (beyond what we’d pay you if you want to put your game on our network). We’re curious as to why, beyond the nod to Engels and notions that “we’ll have more money than we need.”

Scip, I hear and acknowledge what you mean about the effect of Aggy leaving but Texas knows they are going and we aren’t trying to keep them. Dodds’ commets about them leaving on Wednesday would seem to indicate that any posturing on it isn’t limited to internet fans like us. As far is UT is concerned, they are gone and we want to move on. Hence, my number (2) reason about our talkling to Baylor is still valid, IMO. Big 12-3 needs a tenth team to meet the requirements of one of our TV contracts (not sure which one) so finding that tenth should be priority one. I think Texas knows that and so does everyone else, Baylor included. We can probably get BYU no matter what, but cutting Aggy loose greases the wheels for it and any further expansion if it becomes feasible in a year or two.

If Baylor stance on the waiver remains static, I still stand by what I said in the first paragraph of my post, even though I didn’t see where you specifically agreed or disagreed with it and I agree fully with your take on Baylor’s mindset/motives. But with the existing armistice in the Big 12, any real legal threat to the SEC, if there ever was one, appears to have been marginalized as has their “unusual” demand for the waiver. The SEC’s action(inaction) appears to have either “chickenshit”, “uncertian” or “guilty of TI” written all over it. We will only know the real answer/outcome based on Baylor’s next move/non-move.

In addition the aTm # for that line says that school earned exactly $0 in 2009/2010. I am guessing the #’s are jumbled. Whether on purpose or screwed up is not relevant here.

Scipio – Those Tier1 and Tier2 rights are in the conference/ncaa distribution line. And if you look at that there is a discrepency. You are #1 in merchandise but tOSU from what I understand is close behind yet you are $10m?

Also your radio rights would be in that rights/ad line and so would coaches show revenue.

All I am saying is that the mantra that you guys were only taking advantage of what others schools were already getting is false. If you add your collective TV,Radio, Internet and local advertising (if you could) I bet you would find Texas is well ahead. That is your right.

Its also the right for other schools to say “see you later” like I hope the Tigers do. Not so much because of Texas more than that the B12 is now a terrible spot and your and OU’s advantages will become even greater.

Am I totally off base to keep hope up that A&M would somehow come back to the Big12? I think that really is the best option for both of us There needs to be a major conference centered in the Central Time Zone built around the Texas TV markets and the other few just East of the Great Plains.

I agree with Lonergan, that’s partially why I hold out hope, if the SEC really wanted A&M wouldn’t they be official numbers by now? Everyone says that Baylor doesn’t have a case. All they have is a threat. If that’s the case I would think the SEC would call their bluff. They haven’t which implies something isn’t as it seems on the surface.

The Legal Stuff As Explained to Me By A Corporate Lawyer -
If the Big 12 sticks together, then Baylor has no leg to stand with respect to damages or even the merits of an interference case. As of now, this is all happening with AM still officially part of the league, so whatever Baylor agrees to moving forward – knowing that AM is leaving - means any Baylor lawsuit gets tossed by a judge 5 minutes after it lands on his desk. League survives, TV contact intact, better revenue sharing – so no damages, even if they can get a judge past the first paragraph.

AM/SEC have nothing to lose by waiting this process out. They won’t need waivers once the dust settles and the Big 12 officially has a structure moving forward. People can still sue, but the hurdles get much, much higher and the outcomes much more in doubt. In other words, the risk/reward probabilities make a lawsuit logistically inadvisable. A waste of money.

Add to previous: AFTER the Big 12 settles its structure moving forward

Scipio or Jake – What’s to stop the SEC from raiding us again if we sign the waiver for A&M?

What if Texas and Baylor sign the waivers and then the SEC turns around and invites OU to join the SEC? Texas could be forced to join a conference and give up LHN, and we would have no recourse to sue the SEC for the loss of LHN, because we had already given them a pass to take A&M.

Jake -
 
Yes, we’re not trying to keep them.
 
I think you’re missing one of the primary points of Huck’s piece.
 
We’re not glad to get rid of A&M. It’s not about feelings. We’re saying that they have the right to go because every school should be able to pursue its own self-interest. Because that’s how we wish to be treated in turn.
 
UT has been the only school that’s consistent in its stance: if you don’t want to be in a conference, leave. Pay your penalties and haul ass. We’re not going to compel anyone to stay in a marriage they don’t want. That doesn’t mean we think it’s desirable. It simply means we will not act excessively to unduly impede others.
 
Texas isn’t acting to impede A&M’s departure because we don’t want a conference partner that doesn’t want to be here. Period. You may be conflating your feelings with our actual decision making.

Hugh -
 
Not so much because of Texas more than that the B12 is now a terrible spot and your and OU’s advantages will become even greater.

I think Missouri would do fine wherever. A&M hasn’t been much of a counterweight for OU or Texas over the last 15 years. A 10 team Big 12 looks to me like Missouri’s clearest path to a BCS game and you’re now the #3 team in the league from a resource standpoint (I guess OSU would argue that).

That’s the way you do it! That’s the way you debate! (Or sum it up…you get my reference)

A 10 team Big 12 looks to me like Missouri’s clearest path to a BCS game and you’re now the #3 team in the league from a resource standpoint (I guess OSU would argue that).

That’s true for A&M as well but they still think they’re getting a better deal in the SEC.

scipio – the fact that aTm wasn’t a counter-weight proves my point. The economics of football mean both you and boomer get even more control in a watered down B12.

I think the way the league was structured geographically and economically combined was the ultimate cause of it’s demise. As you note, as soon as LHN (we Tigers enviously call it belt buckle tv) proves itself Texas will set sail for bluer waters. I don’t think you can stay in this conference long term and prosper as a “brand” only playing OU and Notre Dame.

So you will leave and probably take OU and/or Tech with you in 3 years or so.As a mizzou fan I don’t want to wait and see what our options will be at that time.

I agree on B12 as an easier BCS path but still a might long shot. I will take long term stability, bowl games in Florida and roadies to the grove and Athens as a small consolation for an even longer shot BCS bid. Alas I am think our incompetent administration will punt and stay with the other step children.

What a pathetic group of so-called leaders. If they put as much time and energy into working for the committed benefit of the conference members, and not just their own self-serving needs, the Big XII would be light-years ahead of the B1G and SEC.

And those ESPN schmucks….ha!….all they’re doing is ruining FBS football as we once knew, or hoped, it could be.

“You’re asking us to address unsubstantiated rumor and also asking about collusion when ESPN has to get conference, school, and Fox signoff on any such moves. And you’re also talking about stealing money when you realize that ESPN was trying to pay Tech millions of dollars to move the game.”

No. I’m asking you if you honestly believe that Fox passed(“waived their rights to broadcast”) the Tech vs. Texas football and basketball games to appear at minimum on tier 2. If not, how do you explain those games falling to tier 3 without collusion and at the expense of millions of dollars worth of exposure on national tv for Texas Tech? Do you think this is upfront and fair to other members of the conference?

Kent – “if it would have made sense for the Horns to bolt for the Pac-10 they would have done so, whether Nebraska stayed or not”

I think that’s correct but I don’t think it means what you think it means. It has always been a stretch to think that an aggressive move by UT to the Pac 10 would make sense. For one thing, I don’t think UT ever estimated it would be easy, if even possible, to aggressively extract themselves from the Big 12 without an enormous poltical and legal struggle and a public image problem that would have eclipsed the LHN image problem. We tried it before, remember. We wanted into the Pac 10 in 1997 but we couldn’t manage it. While folks blame that on Ann Richards and Bob Bullock, the resistance was much broader than that – lots of big money men and arch lawyers behind the scenes – and a lot of that resistance is still in place. Aggy is figuring that out now.

Plus, a joining super-conference does less for us than anyone else. The status quo has been awesome for Bellmont. Any increase in conference security and prime TV revenue a super-con would bring would be roughly offset by geographical absurdity, lost rivalries, and increased competition in recruiting and on the field. All of those issues were just as real in 2010 as they are now.

Both simple game theory logic and UT’s behavior are been consistent with a position of sitting back quietly and making plans in case other teams rip apart the conference. If OU and Aggy want to jump on the grenade, so be it, but we’re not the ones who are chafing to leave and we’re not willing to pay that price.

While you can take some vague phrases in an article to justify your prior belief that UT’s wandering eye pushed Nebraska to leave, well, go at it. But it’s not the story the whole article tells. The story says CLEARLY that UT wouldn’t commit to the Big 12 in the event of a mass exodus and there wasn’t enough time to prevent a mass exodus through TV grants, so Nebraska went for the sure thing. Cut and dry, sensible on both sides, and that’s sensible to believe. It’s not sensible to think UT would voluntarily blow up its dominant position and relative autonomy just to play USC or Michigan once in awhile, unless you have some direct evidence of that.

Nice try. Small hat. no cattle. All bullshit.

Not an argument. Thanks for playing.

Tim – no, no one believes that except you. ESPN has to negotiate with Fox and the Big 12 and Texas Tech to get that game. They can’t just unilaterally run it without at the very least permission from (and likely also compensation to) all the involved parties.

“the University of Missouri started this mess by lifting their skirt for the Big Ten.”

Lifting skirt for one conference and being rejected > Lifting skirt for three conferences and being rejected

“The Big 12 was a merger”

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1994_1185849

Eff Texas

Can we all just blame Iowa State instead of figuring out if NU or UT is 51 % to blame or 49% to blame! Its not like any of their fans are paying attention. Those meetings a couple years ago would have been some great reality tv tho. But I will bet ya 6 words that were never spoken during those meetings were “what do you think Iowa State?”.

Btw im kidding. I sincerely hope the big 12 doesnt crumble and if it does hope iowa state, ku find a home. Much respect for coach rhodes.

From the chron article linked to above:

Reynolds said presidents of the Big Eight and SWC stepped up talks when the SEC pulled out of the CFA television package two weeks ago. Presidents met at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport last week to discuss all 16 institutions’ future as well as TV contracts for both conferences.
“But when it finally came down to the lick-log, we received an invitation for only four of us to make this move,” Reynolds said, noting Baylor was invited on Thursday or Friday of last week. “The Big Eight presidents got back home and began talking about it, and they voted unanimously to invite four of us to join them. The same (TV) negotiations are going on with the 12 as were with the 16. We gained the impression they would do just as well with 12 as 16.”

So, it was discussed as a merger; it could have been a merger, but the B8 powers only invited four teams in order to maintain their power base, then (of course) got their asses kicked anyway, both on and off the field.

Eff Texas? No. Eff YOU.

All hail Cheeseburger, he gets it.

Scip, I agree with your assessment of Texas’ attitude, but there is no doubt it’s the wrong one. The minute Nebraska left, the conference was in real danger. How could you let a top 10 historical program leave and have the attitude like don’t let the door hit you on the way out? The SEC and Big 10 model works and no one can deny that. We had 3 very powerful historical programs plus the aggies in the big 12. There is no reason that it should be in peril.

It’s important to note that the NCAA no longer allows partial qualifiers, period.

Could have been a merger, but it wasn’t. Should have never have invited Texas.

I love that every Aggie refers to the Big 12 penalties as a grant of authority to breach their agreement. Simple is as simple does I suppose. The agreement refers to the “breaching” party and provides liquidated damages to the Big 12 Conference. As a result the Big 12 need not calculate damages to the conference structure because those amounts are set. It does not permit a school to breach the agreement it simply calculates the damages upon leaving.

Perhaps more importantly, it does nothing to limit the rights of the member schools, an easy and common solution to the remaining issues at hand. It could have been written into the agreements that the liquidated damages are the “exclusive” remedy for a breach of the contract. It was not. Whether intentionally or through a lack of oversight the contract leaves open the issue of other damages unique to the schools in question.

Ideally we would all live in a world where verbal commitments promises or representations are binding based on the character of those making the commitment. A&M was given that trust and not only breached it but allowed multimillion dollar institutions to proceed with plans and developments based on their verbal commitments. Despite this fact and the obvious estoppel arguments, the real point is that it is the conduct of the SEC in wooing the Aggies that has become the real sticking point. For some reason no Aggie seems to recall that the only power being exercised over them is the power of the SEC making an offer with conditions they are unable to fulfill. As is wildly apparent, every school in the BCS (and out for that matter) has used every ounce of power to position themselves for the best possible resolution to realignment. The amazing issue to me is that Aggies are outraged with Baylor for controlling their departure when it was the SEC that handed us their leash.

“Tim – no, no one believes that except you. ESPN has to negotiate with Fox and the Big 12 and Texas Tech to get that game. They can’t just unilaterally run it without at the very least permission from (and likely also compensation to) all the involved parties.”

Wrong. http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/david-just/2011-09-15/longhorn-network-air-texas-tech-mens-basketball-game Texas Tech gets zero compensation for that game and despite that game being on ESPN tier 1 multiple years in the past it just happened to get “passed over” and will now be on ESPN’s tier 3 Longhorn Network and won’t be compensating Texas Tech a dime. How convenient for ESPN and UT. This is just the first of many many instances of collusion that will take place in order to take money directly out of opposing conference schools pockets and place it right in UT’s.

“Huckleberry said: September 23rd, 2011 at 11:07 am
That is the first time I’ve read a claim that the Tech basketball game was moved to the LHN against Tech’s will.”

http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/david-just/2011-09-15/longhorn-network-air-texas-tech-mens-basketball-game

"We would much prefer to be on a neutral broadcast with neutral announcers and neutral branding and advertising," Hocutt said on Aug. 1. "Red Raider fans don’t want to watch the Texas Tech-Texas football game on the Longhorn Network, so it’s that simple."

In the case of the Feb. 4 basketball game, though, Hocutt and Tech don’t have a choice.

Scip, just so you know, I agree with you and Ithough I made that clear. My bad! I took a free swing at the bloated, twisting in the wind penata that is Aggy and I’ll do it again next chance I get because it pisses them off and it pleases me to do so. But that was a very minor part of my original post.

The substantial majority of both my posts was and is about the situation A&M is in with respect to the SEC and Baylor and was in response to a poster as to why we would be talking to Baylor about standing down. I know we care that they are leaving for the potential recruiting inroad and to a lesser extent less for the TV’s which are already regularly tuned to nationally and regionally televised SEC big games unless either Texas or OU is on opposite them. But at some point the SEC may have to shit or get off the pot on the waiver thing. Baylor, although I think it would be easier on everyone if they did, really doesn’t have to. If they don’t it’ll be damned interesting as well as comical to watch because I don’t think Texas or anyone else is going to wait on that decision to get another team to replace them and move on. I think Deloss (unless he is bluffing)was sending that message on Wednesday and Aggy has clearly stated that they aren’t coming back. In fact, they aren’t psychologically capable of eating the kind of shit sandwich that would get them back into the Big 12. And Baylor hates them just enough to see if they will, IMO, if it comes down to that. Right now the ball’s in Starr’s court, so to speak. At some point, it may very well be in Mike Slive’s and that will be fun to watch.

@ carrots. Precisely! That’s why I dont think it’s a slam dunk that BU (or maybe ISU or KSU) sign a waiver. If not, then the fun begins because Aggy just doesn’t have it in them to eat enough shit to come crawling back so the SEC would have to take a risk and invite them in, potential warts and all. I think they will but it would be delicious if they didn’t.

@ Hugh. Where the fuck is it that Missouri would go? Include in your explanation exactly why they would be wanted, why it would be a good move and how it would be worked out legally and financially with the Big 12 if they leave. OU and OSU are stuck in the Big 12 and Missouri has better options? Riiiiiight!

“Charley Atkins said: September 23rd, 2011 at 9:05 pm

Could have been a merger, but it wasn’t. Should have never have invited Texas."

WTF??

"Charley Atkins said: September 23rd, 2011 at 9:05 pm

Could have been a merger, but it wasn’t. Should have never have invited Texas."

sure, it would only have cost you several millions of dollars. Plus you probably wouldn’t be a BCS conference. But other than that…

In Missouri we have a word that describes this kind of mentality. It’s called DENIAL

Son, you went a long, long way around the barn to point fingers at others and avoid assigning blame to the real culprit of distrust in the Big 12…Texas. Texas has already destroyed one conference, now they are about to destroy a second one. Good luck as an independent.

PS…Why does David S have a picture of a Missouri farmer as his avatar?

If Texas could bring the Okies along to the B1G, with Notre Dame on board, that would be the monster of monsters. But only in the LHN could stay in tact. I have never been keen on the ACC option and let’s face it, the B12 is a house of cards.

Wow. Here’s one out of left field. Some ‘all-knowing’ bloggsters are claiming that the Big Ten is making a last ditch play for A&M and that a Big Ten plane is on its way to College Station. Take this with tub of salt of course, but hey, it’s all a soap opera! Here’s the infamous ‘flight tracker’.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N525MB/history/20110924/1300Z/KOSU/KCLL

Huck outed BuckleVision Atkins as a Mizzou ’fan.

That took some doing.

The idea of a Missouri fan having strong feelings about anything college sports-related makes me giggle.

As does picturing Charles wearing Derrick Chievous face band-aids as he posts.

Tim, follow the link describing the B12 basketball television contracts.

Basically, if you’re not on CBS, the Family, or the B12 network (local syndication, by and large), the game becomes the property of the home school. That’s what happened with three Texas B12 home games, including Tech.

This is not unprecedented, but it has been a while since Texas had the rights to a B12 home game. Tech appeared on the LSN five years ago. Same thing going on here, except the game is on the LHN, not Fox Sports channels in Texas. ESPN generally found room for Longhorns games somewhere in the last four years.

Is it possible that ESPN leaned toward the LHN as opposed to the B12 network or the lower levels of the family when they had a chance? Yeah, sure.

Tech being worth two shits in basketball might have prevented it from happening, but don’t tell Tim.

Loftin telling an ESPN reporter than they decided to leave 18 months pretty much shoots down the idea that this had anything to do with the LHN.

Any Aggy still willing to use that story is openly lying.

Huck, excellent post — takes not only time and physical effort to express it in writing in such detail, but requires analytical ability, organizational skill, commonsense, fairmindedness and much more, to do what you have done in your piece… Thank you, thank you, thank you. …

Calling BS on a couple of points.

The Big 8 was nowhere near death or dying. Just look at the tv ratings (what actually matters, not simply the existance of large cities) for college football for the mid 1990s and you will see Big 8 teams like CU and NU generated beaucoop ratings along with the SEC and Big Ten schools. Nebraska at that time was generating far better ratings than any SWC school. Your point would have some merit if once the Big XII formed 1996, there would be a larger net gain per school in TV dollars, but there wasn’t, it was about the same. So if there wasn’t this massive net gain in TV dollars, then I highly doubt that the Big 8 expanded because it was cash poor. Or that somehow the Texas schools solved that problem. Now, I understand that why the Big 8 expanded for risk/stability issues. With a 12 teams league, you do amelorize the good and bad and make a conference more stable, so it made sense, but any notion that the Big 8 was somehow on its deathbed is simply not true in the slightest. I would content the SWC was is far dire straights than the Big 8. UT left the SWC, no Big 8 schools left.

Ultimately, the whole “media market” is not logical cause and effect. People watching your product is what matters, not the size of cities in the native state. Its why Neb was picked over Mizzou, people watch Neb. football, people don’t watch Mizzou football. Companies pay for ad space on content that people actually watch, not for the existance of St. Louis and Kansas City. In fact, I would content its the whole reason why UT is so reluctant to join the Pac 10/12/whatever. Yes, California has tons of people, tons of people that don’t give a shit about CF. A farm implement dealership would have a better change opening up on Telegraph ave in Berekely than Stanford selling out their small stadium.

You are wrong on the partial/non-qualifiers issue as well. If this adversely affected Nebraska, then explain the NC two years later or the 1-loss Big XII, Fiesta Bowl, 2nd place finish in 1999, 4 years after the change? Solich and Cahallan killed Nebraska football, not partial qualifiers. Which isn’t to say that changing to meet the SWC standards wasn’t stupid to begin with. Why not give the most disadvantage kids a change to start anew in college, away from that environment, and then provide standards of achievement that they have to meet while in school? That is a great idea, something that the Big 8 did and the Big Ten still does!

I do conceed that Neb. and its fans bitch too much about revenue sharing/fairness in the Big XII and it doesn’t make sense that they do. And yes, I do wish that these fans and Osborne would look at the Big Ten as something Neb. simply couldn’t pass up vs. the Big 12 was so unpalable that Neb. had to leave. Even if everything was perfect in the Big 12 for Neb, Neb would still have left, only makes sense to.

BTW, someone stated that the NCAA doesn’t allow partial qualifiers anymore. That’s not true, they don’t allow non-qualifiers, but they allow partial qualifiers. Big Ten does allow partial qualifiers. And the NCAA made a stupid decision in not allow non-qualifiers as well. Which the NCAA and “stupid decisions” go quite hand-in-hand as well.

malcolm, would you advocate reforming the Big Eight?

The fact that TV ratings were adequate then doesn’t mean things wouldn’t have changed quickly… because they have.

In general, if your wins against big-time teams are historically labeled as “upsets,” and you define yourself the magical times you “shocked” people and “spoiled” other teams’ seasons, I see no reason to listen to what you have to say.

Mizzou is still giving the SEC a look, and ESPN has a rumor that the Big XII sent Louisville an invitation Friday. This bastard ain’t over.

“You are wrong on the partial/non-qualifiers issue as well. If this adversely affected Nebraska, then explain the NC two years later”

Fail.

It affected future recruiting, Captain.

Huck, nice post. I am flattered that Mizzou is considered relevant enough to start this mess. First time we’ve gotten any respect for anything.

Young Williams: The idea of a Missouri fan having strong feelings about anything college sports-related makes me giggle.

Now, that’s more like it. Yes, Missouri fans know nothing of college sports. Totally true. I’m really just happy that a Texas fan is aware there is a state called Missouri. So cosmopolitan of you, YW, to know anything outside your Republic.

Excerpt regarding the LHN from an interview on Friday by the AAS of Interim Big 12 Commish Chuck neinas:

Neinas, like most people on the planet, hasn’t seen the Longhorn Network, but the Colorado resident cracked a joke about it.

“I applied for a play-by-play job, and (DeLoss) Dodds turned me down,” he said.

As Big Eight commissioner in 1977, Neinas hired Dodds, now the Texas men’s athletics director, as an assistant.

Neinas reiterated the Longhorns’ position that third-tier TV rights fees will remain with individual Big 12 schools. "Texas took advantage of an opportunity,’’ he said of the Longhorn Network .

Asked how he’ll deal with Texas, Neinas said: “Bringing people together is what I do.”

As for Missouri to the SEC Nick, they’re probably dumb enough to pursue it. After all, they don’t need to recruit Texas anymore when Louisiana and Mississipi would be wide open to them, right?

Jake, do you think being in the SEC would close all doors to Mizzou for Texas recruits? Hard to imagine.

That said, I’m not advocating a move to the SEC. I’d prefer the Big 10 because I like it better geographically and academically. I’m sure moving to the Big 10 would close doors to Texas, but it’s not all about football recruiting.

That said again, I’d prefer a stable Big 12. If that is deemed unlikely by the powers that be, I’m for getting out.

I know you aren’t advocating a move, Phenom and my post wasn’t really directed at you, but was in response to Texas Nick’s post. I’ve always enjoyed your contributions to this blog and over on your homesite.

Of course it won’t close all doors to Texas (football) recruiting if you leave the Big 12. But it’s not hard to imagine that, along with Aggy leaving, it won’t have a significant impact on the quality and quantity of Texas recruits you have been getting if you become completely disassociated from a conference with Texas as its home base. As it is, I suspect any inroads that may come from Aggy’s departure, and there will be some, will have the most effect on the other Big 12 Texas schools and our non-Texas conference brethren as well as on Aggy, although they’re too stupid to realize it. I believe Texas will continue to win the same number and quality of recruits as we currently do, and will be very quick to out anyone from the SEC who we even think is bending the rules.

As for a stable Big 12, Missouri seems to be the only school still publicly fanning the flames of instability. If Missouri wants a stable Big 12, then Deaton’s words need to completely reflect that and nothing else. If he’s posturing for some new deal on third tier rights, then he’s heading down the wrong path, IMO, since it isn’t going to happen,acccording to Neinas, and it would be the same in the SEC with respect to those rights. All that said, I hope you stay.

See Jake, I take the opposite track, though I think your points are valid and well argued. I want Mizzou to go, if only to end this farce of a conference. I share the belief that Texas’s interests are not in line with most of the Big XII’s. And I think Mizzou has to declare itself before additions to the Big XII can be made. Something has to happen to change the game, and I’m in favor of that happening sooner, rather than later.

From Mizzou’s standpoint, I think the positives and negatives are a wash. I think they could have more upside in the BXII, but more stability in the SEC, and a move insures survival when the Big XII folds it’s tent.

Jake, Ripley asked me to contribute here, and I agreed, but then he said “we don’t really need Mizzou articles.” My mind has been blank ever since…. Still waiting for my non-Mizzou muse.

You may be right re recruiting if Mizzou was in the SEC. We’ll still have A&M in Texas and Les Miles did say that Texas would become SEC Country if A&M joined up. He’s never been wrong, has he? Still, being in the SEC can’t hurt that bad – may lose some in TX, but gain some in La., Fl., etc.

Right now I think Mizzou is just looking for assurances that we’re not going to be doing this again in 2 to 10 years. This uncertainty is a killer. Our brethren of lesser – KU, KSU, ISU, and BU – threw forth their based-on-nothing pledges of allegiance, but come on, we’ve been down this road before. What’s changed? Mizzou is looking for substantive changes that will bring stability. I’m not sure what those changes are, but don’t think they’re revenue based since Mizzou was better off in the unequal sharing for 1 and 2 tiers than we’d be in equal sharing. It’s got to be something. We’ll see what happens. It’ll be soon. Then, and only then, can the Big 12 run out and get Louisville!! Oh, I can’t wait.

Just saying something is stable doesn’t make it so. I like it that Mizzou is running the traps on this and actually aiming for better than whatever it was that drove away two very good athletic programs.. I would think the KUs and KSUs would also like it, but all I hear is complaining from co-workers. I’m not going to talk to them anymore.

Nick, the last thing you said. Exactly. That’s why Mizzou would do it. Grab a chair now before it’s too late.

Phenom, what is it exactly that makes Missouri think it is going to happen in a couple of years? I didn’t say it was stable, and saying it don’t make it so, schools going around publically yapping about potentially certainly isn’t going to make it so.

So the question is are you in or are you out? Don’t complian about instability when you’re publically yammering every chance you get about leaving. You want to leave, do it. If not then act like you want to be here and try to put half as much effort into keeping the Big 12 together as you instead of constantling whistling at every sailor who passes by. That serves nothing other than to make fullfill the prophecy self-fulfilling, which appears to be what you really want.

Uh, a few edits didn’t take in that one, but I hope the point came across.

If not, shit or get off the pot pretty much sums it up.

Nick you and I simply disagree, all due respect, that it’s the best thing for the Big 12 to cease to exist as soon as possible. Not much more to be said about it really.

So, Nick, with whom do Texas’s interests lie? We want a regional conference that gives us complete autonomy on third tier rights including football, that has some semblance of clean recruiting, and at least half the schools having some semblance of a high-level academic mission. I don’t see any conference that gives us all of those things. The Big 12 gives us three of the four and none of the other conferences do that.

A&M wanted to stay in the B12 in 2010. there were split factions within the university.

A&M was OK with the LHN as pitched in 2010.

when the details came out in January about LHN and ESPN’s incredible involvement, A&M administration immediately knew they had no choice to get out.

ESPN’s media coverage and promotion of Texas will FOREVER tilt the branding and perception battle within the conference. ESPN best interest is a winning Texas, so you can be assured they will assist Texas in winning every battle (PR, news coverage, recruiting, tv slots, etc).

A&M will be choosing much different battles in the SEC, but they without a doubt will control their own destiny there, and not have to rely on anyone in Austin or Bristol.

Aggie has been living under the delusion that the media and everyone else is out to put UT ahead of them for decades (and probably longer), that didn’t change in any major way in January. A&M was under the same delusions during the demise of the SWC. They could never take the blame that their rampant cheating was one of the major reasons the conference collapsed.

aggy in the SEC is going to be a simple proposition…It’s going to come down to how well they can cheat.

They can’t compete head up with UT in a clean league. Everyone’s on the same page about that, including them.

But I don’t see why aggy can’t cheat as well or better than LSU, Bama, Auburn, etc.

No one will say that out loud, but I think that’s their play. They will be much more competitive, cheating, in the SEC than they will be clean in the Big Mumble.

And in at least a few ways, I can’t blame them. Nobody mentions that SEC! SEC!’s last 6 championships were bought and paid for. They were, but very few mention it.

Auburn will still be celebrating that title 20 years from now, and the fact that Cam Newton was purchased won’t even be a footnote.

Like the Johnsons in Die Hard, aggy could live with that breakage.

Ricky, its actually in the contract now that ESPN has to promote Texas.

before, it was just perception.

Nick, Mizzou will shit once it understands that the pot is going to be there in five years. If Larry Scott comes along in two years and says “we want UT, TT, OSU, and OU” and Mizzou has thrown in with this lot with no assurances, then we’re left high and dry. Just because everyone now says “go Big 12” doesn’t mean those same people won’t be leaving in two years. At this very moment, nothing Mizzou is doing is changing that. Mizzou is simply saying “SHOW ME” before saying “yeah, we’re in.” Would you expect anything else?

As of now, nothing about the conference is different aside from a few new committees and a new commissioner. That tells me nothing about the long term stability.

Oh, I said Nick, but I meant Jake.

“So, Nick, with whom do Texas’s interests lie? We want a regional conference that gives us complete autonomy on third tier rights including football, that has some semblance of clean recruiting, and at least half the schools having some semblance of a high-level academic mission. I don’t see any conference that gives us all of those things. The Big 12 gives us three of the four and none of the other conferences do that.”

Well Ricky, the model you’re espousing doesn’t really work, at least in its current incarnation. See, programs like Mizzou, OU, OSU, Kansas (in other words, programs with strong athletic programs, decent TV footprints, or both – programs that will have conference options going forward) have no incentive to continue to roll over. There will be other options for them, even if they aren’t each school’s first option. In other words, there’s a threshold beyond which Texas will not be able to continue to get their way. LHN may have inadvertantly pushed everybody to that threshold, and while I’m not saying that UT did anything wrong (other than some PR mismanagement), that’s where we are. And it doesn’t help our leverage when our insiders pontificate about our long term partnership arrangement with Notre Dame, and insinuate that Texas has NO long term interest in sustaining the Big XII, and that we’re going to jump ship just as soon as we can get LHN in front of more than 500 eyeballs.

Make no mistake: A&M is leaving because the fan base fell in love with the idea of the SEC last summer, and badgered and hammered at the administration until the school had no choice but to comply. A&M’s big cigars got involved, and laid it on Loftin and Byrne, basically saying… “You boys want anymore big checks? Time to start packing.” Mizzou is facing identical pressure right now, with the only difference being that they don’t have 100 years of hating Texas to fuel the flight right now. None of this makes it a smart move for either Aggy or Mizzou, but even smart powerful people occasionally get forced into making emotional decisions.

So Ricky, your post assumes that Texas has either the right or the power to ensure a college football world that gives Texas and only Texas everything it wants. Unless you think that the college football world is simply going to forget about the unthinkably vast amounts of money that can be made in a future superconference/playoff model, then you know that’s where we’re eventually going. So where does this leave Big XII? Options are as follows:

1. Fold the tent, let the programs go where they want (or in the case of Baylor/ISU, KU/KState, go wherever they can land).
2. Try to find a way to make the Big XII INTO a superconference.

If your plan is #2, then what you’ve got to start doing is making some moves to build this conference, and attract some programs from their current homes. The last 18 months of drama are going to make that a tough sell, so it’s going to require some real reform. Part of that reform needs to be KILLING the idea that Texas is only out for itself, and it will burn down or backstab any conference partner that gets in the way.

Begin by getting back to XII. There are not many choices, but at this point we should consider more widely.

There are good arguments both for and against almost everyone we can think of, but there are a few I like more than others: in the North, BYU and AFA; in the South, TCU.

Argue, pro and con. Feel free to offer alternatives.

Keep in mind that once the XII is reloaded, we still need IV more… who would they be?

Tex Long, that’s the idea I struggle with. I can come up with a decent plan to get to 12, but 16 basically means you have to raid another major conference. Other than picking up the dregs of the Big East (and throwing regional affiliation COMPLETELY out the window as a justification), the Big XII would have to establish itself to the point that it could make compelling arguments to programs in the ACC, B1G, SEC, PAC… I have trouble picturing how to even begin that conversation without it resulting in peals of laughter.

Phenomenal, what could the Big 12 (or even Texas) do to make Missouri feel secure enough to commit?

If they did that, would Missouri stay? Even if the Big 10 offered?

Nick, I really think the whole super-conference idea is nuts. As far as I can see, the reference is football, and the issue is money and/or access to MNC.

The Beauty Contest System is worthless for the latter, and only marginally less so for the former.

If we can divorce conference play from selection for a real playoff, we can sidestep the process and both generate more money and provide better access to an MNC.

Tex Long, I hear ya. I just can’t figure out how to file for that divorce. I mean, you’ve got 119 programs out there. You have to have SOME kind of affiliation for scheduling purposes. And strength and quality of schedule will always be a factor in either BCS or playoff selection, whether they really label it that or not. I’d be interested to hear your ideas on how you think it could work though.

“TaylorTRoom said: September 27th, 2011 at 11:50 am

Phenomenal, what could the Big 12 (or even Texas) do to make Missouri feel secure enough to commit?

If they did that, would Missouri stay? Even if the Big 10 offered?

TTR, I posed that to him way up the thread and he admitted he doesn’t have an answer. He just continues the mantra that the Big 12 is unstable while his school continues to make a major contribution to the “instability” by publicly giving bathroom blowjobs to any trick that passes by, which he completely ignores as a factor contributing to that “instability”. I’m not really sure what his point is, other than to have the “instability” platform as an advance excuse if Missouri leaves even though no one, at least presently, seems to want them. He is more inclined to imagine a scenario where Larry Scott is willing to take us with the LHN (we aren’t going any other way).

Apparently the even distribution of Tiers 1 and 2 and the pending agreement to lock in a member’s tier 1 and 2 rights for six years are irrelevant to Missouri and its fans. Like you, I have no idea what else the conference can do at this point to satisfy the Tigers wanderlust. They are who they are and they’ll do what they do. “Show me?” The question remains “show you what?”

Does anybody know where the Basketball forum went ?
This must be the anything goes forum page or did they decide that their was not enough Texas BB interest from the less concerned population to have something on Rick team this year.
Are we still trying to forget the last 3-4-5 seasons?
Anything on this years team from anybody would be appreciated! Thank you fans.

I like the helpful information you provide on your articles. I will bookmark your weblog and check once more right here regularly. I’m quite certain I will be told many new stuff proper here! Best of luck for the next!

Its like you learn my mind! You seem to know so much about this, such as you wrote the ebook in it or something. I think that you can do with a few percent to force the message house a little bit, however instead of that, this is magnificent blog. An excellent read. I’ll certainly be back.

The title of your blog: (Rumor: Nintendo 3DS Second Circle Pad Accessory | Nintendo Buzz) seemed intresting so thats how I ended up here!

Hi there very nice web site!! Guy .. Beautiful .. Amazing .. I’ll bookmark your site and take the feeds additionally?I am satisfied to search out a lot of useful information here in the submit, we need develop more techniques on this regard, thanks for sharing. . . . . .Welcome to Macau Romantic, the best dating website to find Singles from all over the World in Macau. recently posted..1