Started By
Message
re: Is Texas to blame for all this conference realignment crap?
Posted on 7/6/22 at 11:27 am to LonghornMM
Posted on 7/6/22 at 11:27 am to LonghornMM
quote:
Wrong. a&m was already in discussion about leaving the Big 12 before the LHN. Texas approached a&m and AD Bill Byrne about forming the Lone Star Network, with equal shares going to both Texas and a&m, and Byrne turned it down. He said that it would never work. After that, Texas began discussion with ESPN and the LHN was formed. a&m lied and blamed Texas and LHN for the reason why they left the Big 12, when the reality is they already had one foot out the door.
Longhorn speaks the truth about the Lone Star Network, but let's fill in a few details he left out.
The "buy in" for A&M was to be $6M to $7M and the payout was to be between $2M and $3M per year. Oh, and the network offices and all production was to be in Austin.
They sure as hell didn't run back to A&M to talk network after ESPN basically offered them conference money to keep the Big 12 in existence.
But the reason A&M left angry was due to being directly deceived to by Texas about the LHN. An email thread between ESPN and the Texas athletic department was leaked to A&M about using LHN to highlight Texas targets essentially using the network as a recruiting tool. The LHN contract was leaked to A&M as well complete with terms on how UIL rights would become property of LHN allowing UIL events to be broadcast on the LHN.
For those that do not know, the UIL is governing body for high school sports in Texas and is operated via the University of Texas in the same way as A&M operates other state entities like the Texas Transportation Institute. There is no controversy over the UIL per se, but Texas and ESPN were trying to sneak it in as a "UT property" for the LHN. Quite frankly, it probably would have made the network more interesting and given it more viewership, but the additional recruiting advantage would have been ridiculous.
At any rate, upon confronting Texas over said plans, Texas flat out denied both the UIL being on the LHN as well as using it as a recruiting tool. Once A&M let them know they had all the leaked information, Texas and ESPN backed off any UIL plans, but the water was already under the bridge.
It was an interesting time. When the SEC first came calling in 2010 the fan base was split about 50-50 and A&M made the decision to not pursue the SEC. In 2011 after the events above, well, the rest is history. The fanbase was not only onboard, they were ready to go now.
SEC guys will learn about Texas in the years to come. The best way I can describe them is the rich kid that lives on the cul de sac with the large lot. They have their own tennis court and they invite you down to play with them. They hand you the $30 racket and they break out their $600 racket for themselves then crow to anyone that will listen that they spanked you. Hopefully the SEC can keep that in check.
I do have to admit though I always admired their business savviness when it came to sports. For basically my entire life they always seemed to make the right decision at the right time and enjoyed a ton of success. However, after A&M left, they seem to have gone down the path of making the exact wrong decision at just about every turn since that point.
Personally, I think Texas is a better fit culturally in the B1G vs the SEC. Texas fans are very fair weather meaning they are rowdy when they are good but completely disappear when things are bad. Academically, A&M, Texas and believe it or not, Rice all cooperate together on a myriad of research and other projects. That will be the case (and has been the case) with or without common athletic conference affiliation.
Apologies in advance for writing War and Peace. I didnt intend it to be so long.
3
Posted on 7/6/22 at 11:37 am to cjohn
damn
aTm fans have the worst lil bro complex in America!
aTm fans have the worst lil bro complex in America!
This post was edited on 7/6/22 at 11:39 am
Posted on 7/6/22 at 11:49 am to cjohn
PS to my war and peace post above...
After reading the posts that came out while I was doing my reply specifically about the Pac 10, I have some scoop there too.
Texas negotiating the Big 12 South to the Pac without A&Ms knowledge had no bearing on A&M's decision to leave.
Bill Byrne at the time was the Athletic Director and I had access to an annual update from him (of which I will not go into).
At any rate, when rumors of a conference change happened his remarks were "if there is a change we are going west and not east". Those are words I heard directly from his mouth. He was not more specific than that, but that were his exact words.
So what changed?
Well two things changed the equation.
1) He had hired in Pat Henry from LSU and all of a sudden, A&M was sending a large contingent of track kids to the national championships in Oregon, and this proved to be problematic academically because of flight schedules. Additionally the department started scheduling west coast teams for minor sports to get a feel for how it would be. The athletes were losing an extra day per event for travel due to the fact they could not fly home the same day as the events. or if they did they were arriving home so early in the morning that they might as well have just stayed the extra night.
2) A&M sent the basketball team out to Washington for a game. A serious injury happened to one of the players. I cannot recall his name, but he had a compound fracture of his leg. A&M could not get him back to Houston due to the extent of the injury, and it was a very painful process for A&M to get the NCAA to clear A&M to pay for the players parents to fly out to Seattle to be with their son. This left a very bad taste in Byrne's mouth.
So at the end of the day, the practicality of it became untenable in the mind of our AD and it was decided the PAC was not a fit.
Also it was not the first time A&M and Texas had considered the Pac. In the early 90s, it was all but a done deal that Texas and A&M would go to the Pac after Arkansas announced they were leaving. The Pac rules dictate a unanimous decision is required to admit new members. Texas was unanimous and Stanford voted no on A&M so the schools decided to begin talks with the Big 8. In a way, Stanford's no vote may be the actual nail in the coffin for the Pac 30 years later.
So back to the point.
A&M had decided independently that the Pac was not a good fit for the reasons above. A&M had also approached Texas prior to 2010 about potentially going to the SEC and Texas flatly refused purely on academic grounds. So, A&M kept the door open with the SEC independently.
Texas then went on to negotiate the entire Big 12 south to the Pac without working with anyone else. Upon springing it on A&M, A&M basically said no, we have other options we would pursue.
Now, the real question is why did A&M not wanting to go to the Pac kill the Big 12 South deal. In the meantime, the Pac had accepted Colorado but Utah was not in the picture yet. So adding 5 from the Big 12 South and Colorado would have still been ideal.
(Now this is the part where it goes from first hand actual knowledge above and in the war and peace post to more conspiracy)
No way would the Pac have gone to 17, so if the entire Big 12 South was to be included, someone was getting left out. In theory A&M going a different direction would have immediately fixed the problem and increased the likelihood of the move, but why didn't it?
Well, let's look at who gets left out... There are really only two viable options.
Option 1: Baylor. Most likely the candidate that would have been left out in the cold. The Pac already has a private school and Baylor really does not fit their profile.
Option 2: (The cynical side of me thinks) Texas. Texas may have already been down the plan of the LHN thinking they could dump the Big 12 South and Colorado in the Pac and then they could go independent or maybe have gone to the B1G. This solution guarantees the Texas group has a home and Texas gets what it wants anyway, so they could have seen it as a win-win. It would also explain why the plan fell apart when A&M threw a wrench in it.
The reality is either Baylor was so unwanted by the Pac that they would not ever be accepted or Texas had an alterior motive. I would say the odds are 90/10 Baylor/Texas.
Looked up the injury it was Derrick Roland in 2009 at Washington.
After reading the posts that came out while I was doing my reply specifically about the Pac 10, I have some scoop there too.
Texas negotiating the Big 12 South to the Pac without A&Ms knowledge had no bearing on A&M's decision to leave.
Bill Byrne at the time was the Athletic Director and I had access to an annual update from him (of which I will not go into).
At any rate, when rumors of a conference change happened his remarks were "if there is a change we are going west and not east". Those are words I heard directly from his mouth. He was not more specific than that, but that were his exact words.
So what changed?
Well two things changed the equation.
1) He had hired in Pat Henry from LSU and all of a sudden, A&M was sending a large contingent of track kids to the national championships in Oregon, and this proved to be problematic academically because of flight schedules. Additionally the department started scheduling west coast teams for minor sports to get a feel for how it would be. The athletes were losing an extra day per event for travel due to the fact they could not fly home the same day as the events. or if they did they were arriving home so early in the morning that they might as well have just stayed the extra night.
2) A&M sent the basketball team out to Washington for a game. A serious injury happened to one of the players. I cannot recall his name, but he had a compound fracture of his leg. A&M could not get him back to Houston due to the extent of the injury, and it was a very painful process for A&M to get the NCAA to clear A&M to pay for the players parents to fly out to Seattle to be with their son. This left a very bad taste in Byrne's mouth.
So at the end of the day, the practicality of it became untenable in the mind of our AD and it was decided the PAC was not a fit.
Also it was not the first time A&M and Texas had considered the Pac. In the early 90s, it was all but a done deal that Texas and A&M would go to the Pac after Arkansas announced they were leaving. The Pac rules dictate a unanimous decision is required to admit new members. Texas was unanimous and Stanford voted no on A&M so the schools decided to begin talks with the Big 8. In a way, Stanford's no vote may be the actual nail in the coffin for the Pac 30 years later.
So back to the point.
A&M had decided independently that the Pac was not a good fit for the reasons above. A&M had also approached Texas prior to 2010 about potentially going to the SEC and Texas flatly refused purely on academic grounds. So, A&M kept the door open with the SEC independently.
Texas then went on to negotiate the entire Big 12 south to the Pac without working with anyone else. Upon springing it on A&M, A&M basically said no, we have other options we would pursue.
Now, the real question is why did A&M not wanting to go to the Pac kill the Big 12 South deal. In the meantime, the Pac had accepted Colorado but Utah was not in the picture yet. So adding 5 from the Big 12 South and Colorado would have still been ideal.
(Now this is the part where it goes from first hand actual knowledge above and in the war and peace post to more conspiracy)
No way would the Pac have gone to 17, so if the entire Big 12 South was to be included, someone was getting left out. In theory A&M going a different direction would have immediately fixed the problem and increased the likelihood of the move, but why didn't it?
Well, let's look at who gets left out... There are really only two viable options.
Option 1: Baylor. Most likely the candidate that would have been left out in the cold. The Pac already has a private school and Baylor really does not fit their profile.
Option 2: (The cynical side of me thinks) Texas. Texas may have already been down the plan of the LHN thinking they could dump the Big 12 South and Colorado in the Pac and then they could go independent or maybe have gone to the B1G. This solution guarantees the Texas group has a home and Texas gets what it wants anyway, so they could have seen it as a win-win. It would also explain why the plan fell apart when A&M threw a wrench in it.
The reality is either Baylor was so unwanted by the Pac that they would not ever be accepted or Texas had an alterior motive. I would say the odds are 90/10 Baylor/Texas.
Looked up the injury it was Derrick Roland in 2009 at Washington.
This post was edited on 7/6/22 at 12:00 pm
Posted on 7/6/22 at 1:03 pm to cjohn
This is the correct answer. It was about the LHN and specifically the contract. Texas sold more Big 12 inventory to ESPN than the conference had agreed on for tier 3 (including the UIL thing too), and when Deloss told us oh fricking well when a FOIA request from an Aggie put the contract in public we were done.
This post was edited on 7/6/22 at 1:04 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News