That was from the early 00's when that vote came up. We had different leadership then.

In 2010 and 2011 when the network deals got renegotiated is when we pushed for equal revenue sharing. By that point it was obvious that the vote to not create a Big 12 Network was a mistake, and having payouts based on tv appearances was a mistake.

I can admit we made that mistake if you can admit we tried to fix it before we left.

quote:
Want me to post a link of the Aggie athletic director talking about plans to start an Aggie Network?

Sure it will be about us trying to create a network within the bounds of what the Big 12 agreed to unlike what the LHN was.

quote:
Any one single vote from Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska or A&M would've thrown the vote the other way. Your Aggie vote was the one that put it over the top. If you'd voted with the other schools, you would've stymied Texas, Oklahoma and Nebraska.

That assumes that the programs not named Texas OU and Nebraska would have voted with us. In reality programs like Baylor and Iowa St. were quick to vote to support unequal revenue sharing because they wanted to make a Texas that almost left them in the cold happy.

The unequal deal that we eventually agreed to came AFTER Texas almost left for the PAC, AFTER those programs almost became mid majors. At that point they felt like it was smarter to do what Texas (and OU) wanted because they didn't want to have the conference (which was only being held together for money) to fall apart. To them getting $15 million while Texas got $25 million was better than getting $2 million in the Conference USA.

quote:
But you didn't. And here you are, six or eight years later claiming you were tricked into things.

We weren't tricked into crap. We advocated for equal revenue sharing, but by the time we advocated for it the conference was so fricked up that nothing could save it. So we took the extra money as a consolation prize.