re: MIzzou and aTm hate

Which one would that be? We have so many.

quote:

---

They wanted the Big10 all along

---

Please don't believe everything you read. There was a lot to that whole story that most people never knew. You shouldn't believe the talking heads on that one.

TBird, from what the insiders have said, we just grew very, very frustrated with Texas and their power plays, and didn't like how things were shaping up with the LHN. We figured in an inherently unequal revenue sharing situation, we would never be able to achieve what we wanted to. So, when the Big 10 announced they were expanding, we bit. They were the only conference with expansion plans at that time, at least that we were aware of. Except the PAC, which didn't work for obvious reasons.

The behind-closed-doors stuff went far enough that our governor opened his big mouth about it, and our coaches were told they'd be coaching in the B1G in 2011. That's when the discussion of "junior membership" came up, and we balked. We realized we wouldn't be in an equal revenue sharing model for at least 5 years, and it was a lot of lost revenue we couldn't afford. Financially, where we were was better at the time. We paused to consider, and Nebraska stepped in and said they'd take that spot. They could afford the lost revenue better than we could, and they also wanted out. Put this way, they like to say we caused the instability, but when offered the chance to leave for less money, they took it and ran. They wanted to be away from Texas just as much as we did.

So, that left us with egg on our face. But, Nebraska was doing what they felt best for their future, just like we tried to. And in the meantime the Texas shenannagins continued. They postured about going to the PAC, but I fully believe it was all about getting what they wanted - a fiefdom of schools that depended on them to hold the conference together, no conference championship, an easy path to a BCS game and the ability to proceed with their LHN plans with no obstacles because their conference "partners" had no power to keep them in check. To top it off, they made our Chancellor the Chair of the Presidents Board, or whatever they called it - with responsibility to the conference, but no power. Smart move on their part - it's tough to guide your school to do what's in its best interest when you're the Chair of a body with directly competing interests.

Fast forward a year - y'all announced you were going to the SEC, and on the surface, Brady Deaton (our Chancellor) had to toe the conference line. But behind the scenes, he'd had enough of Texas and the instability they brought - and blamed others for. Eventually, he stepped down as Chair of that committee and it all unfolded for us to go to the SEC. Threats were made, and concessions were dangled to get us to stay, but we were too far gone by that point. Plus, the write-in campaign by fans and alumni was instrumental. Texas just overplayed its hand a little.

Honestly, the other members of the Big 12 should be grateful - one of the concessions Texas offered to keep us was equal sharing of Tier 1 revenue, which ended up being part of their new deal as I understand it. But the Texas PR machine is very good, and they've done their best to blame A&M and Mizzou for the problems. You know this as well as I do.

Oh, and the AP story about some unnamed Mizzou "administrator" saying the SEC was what was left? That was written by an AP stringer who lives in Columbia, and was fired from our Journalism school. He never misses a chance to write something negative about us. He happens to be neighbors with someone who I think was his unnamed source - a political type who preferred the B1G for the research endowments.

Anyway, that's what I was told by people close to the story.

quote:

---

Threats were made, and concessions were dangled to get us to stay, but we were too far gone by that point. Texas just overplayed its hand a little.

---

That's an understatement, to say the least.

quote:

---

semotruman

---

Now that's informative post. Thank you.

quote:

---

That's an understatement, to say the least.

---

True.

The thing about Mizzou is, we're good conference partners. We're team players. (Hell, we've agreed to play in College Station for 3 years in a row!) We are accommodating, friendly, and want the best for everybody. But we're fair, and when things aren't fair we get pissed. We may be slow to get there, but once we do, we're all in.

Tom Osborne always called Mizzou a sleeping giant. Texas just finally woke us up.

quote:

---

semotruman

---

Semo thanks for taking the time to post this. Every time conference realignment comes up and the "Mizzou just wants the B1G" comes up you should just save this post and repost it.

BTW this is exactly what I heard happened from one of our Curators, so I'd say it's pretty accurate to all y'all doubters out there.

On top of this, Texas making concessions to keep Mizzou was one thing Alden said helped push Mizzou out the door.

Texas and the big12 was so busy trying to keep Mizzou they were asking "what does Mizzou want" instead of "what does the big12 need to do to improve itself?" The big12 never had and never will have the mentality of what is best for the conference. Mizzou was tired of fighting for the smaller schools in the conference. They would rather ride Texas coatails instead of stand up for themselves.

quote:

---

It's always nice to hear confirmation from other schools that left that texas' shenanigans were a mitigating factor. It's easy for outsiders to dismiss A&M wanting to leave just because we were perceived as the "little brother" school or some other such nonsense, but in reality most of the same factors that drove us away were shared by the other defectors.

---

Well, the marks against Texas just kept adding up. First, they wanted to move the conferences to Dallas, and we said OK, 1/3 of the conference is now in Texas, so there's some sense to that. Then, it was the conference basketball tournament and wanting it rotated. OK, same principle. And moving the conference football championship game. Same deal. Just little things that eroded the former Big 8. But everyone played nice.

Then came the LHN. The conference commissioner before Beebe, whose name I can't recall, wanted to start a Big 12 network. That idea was quashed, and from what I understand, Texas didn't want it. So, he took that idea and went to the B1G, where the first conference network started. Beebe becomes commissioner, and we all know he was nothing more than Texas' lapdog. Fast forward 5 years, and we start hearing about this deal Texas has worked out with ESPN for the LHN.

Missouri cried foul, but played nice for the public. Until all the BS started about showing recruits highlights, and HS highlights, and wanting conference content on the LHN. Of course, kU was the first to take the paycheck and allow their football game with Texas to be LHN.

That was pretty much the last straw. Pinkel publicly spoke out against it, and he saw where it was all going.

I knew exactly why the other schools wanted out, and why the ones that remain there toe the line. It's in their financial interest to do so. The ones who could escape, have.

quote:

---

I wish we were in the Big 10. Better fit. Less retards claiming we aren't a cultural fit. The SEC isn't a cultural fit for Mizzou. Intelligence drifted north after the war. We should be with the brains instead of the drains.

---

Instead of typing all this out why didn't you just say, "I'm a fricking yankee pussy.". Short, sweet, and to the point.