|
Post by Keystonekid on Aug 31, 2011 13:00:48 GMT -5
Can I ask you why you think A&M left the Big 12? While Texas has the same vote, it doesnt mean they dont have more power. ISU potentially leaving doesnt jeopardize the whole conference. Texas does. When Texas was going to leave, those schools would have agreed to anything, and did. Including Texas having their own independent Network that will sell millions of subscriptions of which member shcools dont see a nickel of. Texas has more money than anyone, if you dont think that gives them more power, you need a civics lesson. As ive said a million times, im not blaming Texas for doing what anyone in their position would. I havent seen anyone in any medium who see's the conference situation your way, with the exception of Texas supporters, and I get that as well. you would have to understand A&M's little brother mentality to even attempt to understand them. They are driven to being equal or greater than Texas. Listen to an aggie and all they talk about is Texas, Texas, Texas. After years in the football wilderness, they finally have their football program nearing elite status in the Big 12. But now they are headed for obscurity in the SEC. That's Aggie. I lived there, and my wife was a Longhorn VB player, I get that. Why now then? What has occured that would make A&M feel they are at a competitive disadvantage or our tired of having to deal with this? Again, its not Aggie fans saying this, its everyone who isnt a longhorn.
|
|
|
Post by southie on Aug 31, 2011 13:10:58 GMT -5
Isn't that how the "other" Big 8 schools felt when Nebraska and Oklahoma were king in that conference back in the day? There isn't a single conference which is made of just "bigs". Some schools which don't bring as much to the table are part of every conference. The conference members, who each have one vote, decide collectively how that conference is run. You keep posting over and over again that Texas has so much power in the Big 12 and runs the show, but you haven't provided any facts to support that, IIRC. Can I ask you why you think A&M left the Big 12? While Texas has the same vote, it doesnt mean they dont have more power. ISU potentially leaving doesnt jeopardize the whole conference. Texas does. When Texas was going to leave, those schools would have agreed to anything, and did. Including Texas having their own independent Network that will sell millions of subscriptions of which member shcools dont see a nickel of. Texas has more money than anyone, if you dont think that gives them more power, you need a civics lesson. As ive said a million times, im not blaming Texas for doing what anyone in their position would. I havent seen anyone in any medium who see's the conference situation your way, with the exception of Texas supporters, and I get that as well. My opinion is that A&M left because they were floored and caught off guard that ESPN awarded Texas with $300 milion for the rights to televise the majority of their athletic events. A&M knows that no TV network will ever pay them that, despite having a very good sports program (and even better than Texas in several sports). So, if A&M did move forward with some sort of TV network of its own, it would be compared to Texas' deal, and they would probably have to admit that they aren't as valued nationally as their biggest rival. A&M didn't object to conference schools having their own TV networks when the thought was that it would bring in $1-$2 million annually. They were caught with their pants down, and had no immediate plan to counter Texas' cash windfall. They are already in debt, and saw themselves falling even further behind, with no plan in hand. Think back to a few years ago when A&M was re-negotiating their contract with Nike. Texas, who was originally a Reebok school, has just signed up with Nike. A&M had been a Nike school from the get-go. A&M's AD, Bill Byrne, told Nike that he wanted the same deal that they gave Texas. Nike representative told Byrne, " You aren't Texas, and you never will be." Despite A&M having more tenure with Nike, that is what happened, and why A&M is now an Adidas school. Last summer, the Big 10 apparently approached Texas about membership. Allegedly, Texas wanted A&M and Texas Tech to come with them, or they wouldn't be interested. Big 10 said no to Tech. So, Texas was never going to leave by itself, despite what you want to believe. While Texas is a member of the Big 12 conference, we are not responsible for the other schools. Our first obligation is to ourselves, and that is the same approach Colorado and Nebraska took last summer; more power to them; good moves for them as individual institutions.
|
|
|
Post by Keystonekid on Aug 31, 2011 13:13:27 GMT -5
This may be the best way to look at it. When UNL and CU left last year, Texas wasnt losing sleep at night wondering what Baylor, ISU, KSU etc were going to do. The league (OU being possible exception) sat around waithing what Texas would do, because it dictated their future. That is power. So you cant say they dont have more power because they have the same vote. They hold the power, because of who they are.
|
|
|
Post by nitneliun on Aug 31, 2011 13:33:40 GMT -5
The only school that really wants to keep the Big 12 together is Texas. Every other school would like to bolt and quite a few of them are actively exploring ways to do just that. What an ignorant statement. The other schools are the ones who worked to keep the conference together last summer. They did this because they wanted to leave??!! The Big 12 is an elite conference with big BCS money and TV contracts. Most schools would die to be in the Big 12. I think this is a huge mistake for A&M. Huge. I would not be surprised to see them crawling back after 3-4 years in the SEC. You're utterly delusional. Those schools were trying to keep the conference together only because they had no place to go at the time. Colorado and Nebraska had options and they exercised them. Oklahoma, OK St, Mizzou, Kansas, Kansas ST and IA ST would bolt in a heartbeat if they had some place to go. Oklahoma is openly courting the PAC 12 while Mizzou is actively trying to get a Big Ten or SEC invitation. The Big 12 is doomed and Texas killed it.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Aug 31, 2011 13:38:52 GMT -5
The other schools are the ones who worked to keep the conference together last summer. They did this because they wanted to leave??!! They did it because they had nowhere else to go. Other than Texas and Oklahoma, every team that could have got out has got out. Most of the remaining schools (Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, Missouri, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech) would have been looking at joining a non-BCS conference. While there is only one Snow White (Texas), there is no shortage of dwarfs. The minute Texas A&M steps out of the door, Houston will be stepping in.
|
|
|
Post by southie on Aug 31, 2011 13:52:42 GMT -5
What an ignorant statement. The other schools are the ones who worked to keep the conference together last summer. They did this because they wanted to leave??!! The Big 12 is an elite conference with big BCS money and TV contracts. Most schools would die to be in the Big 12. I think this is a huge mistake for A&M. Huge. I would not be surprised to see them crawling back after 3-4 years in the SEC. You're utterly delusional. Those schools were trying to keep the conference together only because they had no place to go at the time. Colorado and Nebraska had options and they exercised them. Oklahoma, OK St, Mizzou, Kansas, Kansas ST and IA ST would bolt in a heartbeat if they had some place to go. Oklahoma is openly courting the PAC 12 while Mizzou is actively trying to get a Big Ten or SEC invitation. The Big 12 is doomed and Texas killed it. You sure do seem to like assigning blame. Blame the Big 10 for starting the entire expansion process last summer; that was the trigger, and that is a fact.
|
|
|
Post by nitneliun on Aug 31, 2011 13:57:22 GMT -5
Blame the Big Ten? Are you serious? The ACC, Big East and PAC-10 have been expanding or trying to expand for years. The Big 12 itself is an expansion of the Big 8. Conferences expand, contract and realign all the time. The Big Ten is no different. The difference between the Big 12 and Big Ten is that there is no single school in the Big Ten that is capable of killing the conference. Clearly, that isn't true of the Big 12.
|
|
|
Post by nitneliun on Aug 31, 2011 13:59:10 GMT -5
The other schools are the ones who worked to keep the conference together last summer. They did this because they wanted to leave??!! They did it because they had nowhere else to go. Other than Texas and Oklahoma, every team that could have got out has got out. Most of the remaining schools (Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, Missouri, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech) would have been looking at joining a non-BCS conference. While there is only one Snow White (Texas), there is no shortage of dwarfs. The minute Texas A&M steps out of the door, Houston will be stepping in. Oklahoma would leave for the Pac 12 in a heartbeat, but they want to take OK ST along with them and the Pac 12 doesn't really have any interest in the cowpokes.
|
|
|
Post by tempesthorn on Aug 31, 2011 14:13:23 GMT -5
There is a conference hierarchy the same way there is a hierarchy to the schools within a conference. The power players are the Pac-12, SEC and Big 10. The Big 12 is no longer in that group. But they are ahead of all the other conferences. In the Big 12 today, you have 5 schools that realize they are not candidates for membership to any of the power conferences. A&M is a candidate so they are headed to the SEC, best wishes. Missouri thought they were but got a cold hard slap across the face.
I am sick of the sentiment that the other schools in the Big 12 are stuck with Texas and the question of "why would anyone want to be in a conference with Texas?' These 5 schools threw millions of dollars in Husker and CU exit fees at OU, Texas & A&M to stay in a conference with Texas. They did that because they had to? Grow up! They did it to ensure that while they weren't going to be in the SEC, Pac-12 or Big 10 they could at least stay in the Big 12 where the money would be better than Conference USA, the Big East, etc. You twits on here make it seem like Texas is holding these schools over a barrel and raping them. They are making money hand over fist by being aligned with Texas. Anyone who doesn't believe this should take a good hard look at the Baylor program. They aren't achieving much in football but they have built several winning programs in other sports off the money they are making in the Big 12.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Aug 31, 2011 14:14:04 GMT -5
They did it because they had nowhere else to go. Other than Texas and Oklahoma, every team that could have got out has got out. Most of the remaining schools (Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, Missouri, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech) would have been looking at joining a non-BCS conference. While there is only one Snow White (Texas), there is no shortage of dwarfs. The minute Texas A&M steps out of the door, Houston will be stepping in. Oklahoma would leave for the Pac 12 in a heartbeat, but they want to take OK ST along with them and the Pac 12 doesn't really have any interest in the cowpokes. Other than Colorado, getting Texas was the only reason the Pac-10 was interested in any of the other Big-12 schools. With their big media contract in hand, I doubt they'd be interested even with Texas.
|
|
|
Post by southie on Aug 31, 2011 14:15:41 GMT -5
Blame the Big Ten? Are you serious? The ACC, Big East and PAC-10 have been expanding or trying to expand for years. The Big 12 itself is an expansion of the Big 8. Conferences expand, contract and realign all the time. The Big Ten is no different. The difference between the Big 12 and Big Ten is that there is no single school in the Big Ten that is capable of killing the conference. Clearly, that isn't true of the Big 12. Yes, I am. The Big 10, for all its supposed football tradition in not playing any football games in December, saw the cash windfall that the SEC, Big 12, and ACC were making by having a football conference championship game. You can only have such a game if you have 12 or more members. The Big 10 wanted more money. Greed drove them to decide to find a 12th member. Any questions?
|
|
|
Post by nitneliun on Aug 31, 2011 14:32:45 GMT -5
Taking action to ensure increased revenues isn't greed. It is largely keeping up with the Joneses. Anyway, it was Paterno who led the charge for expansion and a conference championship game. The Big Ten commish resisted that idea for years until it became clear he had no other choice.
Any revenues that are gained are shared equally by all members of the conference. No single school is raping the others. You don't see any other school trying to bail out of the Big Ten, like you do in the Big 12. Do you really think Oklahoma would stay in the Big 12 if they had an offer from the Pac 12 or Missouri would stay if they had an offer from the SEC or Big 10? No.
|
|
|
Post by austintatious on Aug 31, 2011 14:37:54 GMT -5
The only school that really wants to keep the Big 12 together is Texas. Every other school would like to bolt and quite a few of them are actively exploring ways to do just that. Ok, please stick to something you know a little about. You have a track record of being an insider at Penn State, please do not all of a sudden start being a know it all about the Big XII. Can you please tell me exactly how you got your information that "every other school would like to bolt", or are you perceiving that is what you believe? IMO, I think most of the schools would love to keep the conference together if A. funds were shared equitably B. Texas left the conference. Do you know how hard it is for 9 schools to leave a conference and find a home. Please do all of us a favor and stay out of the Big XII, there is enough mis-information out there as it is.
|
|
|
Post by gilles13 on Aug 31, 2011 15:45:51 GMT -5
Taking action to ensure increased revenues isn't greed. It is largely keeping up with the Joneses. Anyway, it was Paterno who led the charge for expansion and a conference championship game. The Big Ten commish resisted that idea for years until it became clear he had no other choice. Any revenues that are gained are shared equally by all members of the conference. No single school is raping the others. You don't see any other school trying to bail out of the Big Ten, like you do in the Big 12. Do you really think Oklahoma would stay in the Big 12 if they had an offer from the Pac 12 or Missouri would stay if they had an offer from the SEC or Big 10? No. This post contradicts 100% of everything else you've said regarding this topic and therefore disqualifies all opinions you carry on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by southie on Aug 31, 2011 15:51:00 GMT -5
Taking action to ensure increased revenues isn't greed. It is largely keeping up with the Joneses. That's a nice little double standard you've got going on there. In your mind, it's okay for the Big 10 to do what is in its best interest regardless of how that affects other conferences, but it is not okay for Texas to "take action to ensure increased revenues".
|
|