Started By
Message
re: A&M wants it's $$$ or it's bolting for the SEC
Posted on 7/29/10 at 11:54 am to rangers911
Posted on 7/29/10 at 11:54 am to rangers911
Tech has been struggling with accreditation, both for undergraduate general education and for specific programs, for the better part of this decade.
1
Posted on 7/29/10 at 12:15 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
The additional money from the shortfall (everyone knew the $20 mil was a bullshite number pulled out of their arse with nothing to back it up, but used because that is roughly what SEC schools get, slighty more) is supposed to come from $30-$40 million in fees paid by Nebraska and Colorado for leaving. (Yeah, good luck with that).
There was a story a while back that Nebraska and Colorado were planning to appeal the fees legally
The gist of their argument was they were forced to leave out of self-preservation because Texas was negotiating with multiple conferences - placing the futures of Neb etc in jeopardy
It's kinda a convincing argument to me... and the big problem for the Big 12 is if it goes to court they would open up the private discussions between Texas representatives and other conferences (SEC, Big 10, and PAC 10 were probably all involved)
So I'd guess Colorado and Nebraska will end up paying less or maybe even nothing to the Big 12 on the way out
Posted on 7/29/10 at 12:18 pm to PowerTool
quote:
I don't mean this in a dickhead way, but I've never paid too much attention to your posts. Where do you want Texas in 5 years?
I want Texas in the Big 10.
The University President wants Texas in the Pac 10/12/16 because he is a Cal alum and has a hard-on for being with Cal & Stanford.
If football is the only issue, Texas should go to the SEC.
With all that being said, the Texas legislature will screw everything up.
quote:
Agree to disagree. Besides, if UT ever did get an invite, would they demand unequal revenue sharing?
Of course not. The Big 12's revenue sharing system, which rewards teams for having more national TV games, was crafted by Nebraska, Texas A&M and KSU who were all doing well in the mid 90s when the Big 12 was formed. Those teams went in the tank after the conference formed and started screaming bloody murder.
Posted on 7/29/10 at 12:22 pm to molsusports
quote:
There was a story a while back that Nebraska and Colorado were planning to appeal the fees legally The gist of their argument was they were forced to leave out of self-preservation because Texas was negotiating with multiple conferences - placing the futures of Neb etc in jeopardy It's kinda a convincing argument to me... and the big problem for the Big 12 is if it goes to court they would open up the private discussions between Texas representatives and other conferences (SEC, Big 10, and PAC 10 were probably all involved) So I'd guess Colorado and Nebraska will end up paying less or maybe even nothing to the Big 12 on the way out
The money Nebraska & CU will owe as fines for leaving in only 1 year will be deducted from their TV revenue. CU's athletic deprtment is practically broke......they are so poor, they can't afford the buyout to fire their current crap coach. Nebraska will not have a full revenue share in the Big 10 for a while and will not have most of their TV revenue $ from the Big 12 so they won't exactly be rolling in cash to hold them through a lawsuit either. Ultimately, Nebraska bailed and Texas didn't. They can cry in front of a judge but being scared is not justification enough to invalidate a contract. Texas broke no agreement with Nebraska or the conference by having discussions with other conferences. Texas would have been subject to the same penalties if they had left early.
Posted on 7/29/10 at 12:27 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
Texas would have been subject to the same penalties if they had left early.
Functionally I don't think so
As soon as Texas leaves the remnants of the conference scatter to the best available landing spot and there's no Big 12 to pay
Posted on 7/29/10 at 12:32 pm to Uncle Stu
I don't remember Slive offering anything to aTm. Do they think they can just invite themselves to the SEC?
Posted on 7/29/10 at 12:34 pm to molsusports
quote:
Functionally I don't think so As soon as Texas leaves the remnants of the conference scatter to the best available landing spot and there's no Big 12 to pay
I remember reading once what the threshold was to keep the conference as a legal entity.....it was something like 7 or 8 teams (but I'm not sure). My point was, if Texas flew off solo like Nebraska did, they would be subject to the same hit Nebraska is about to take. Nebraska has no chance to win this one.
Posted on 7/29/10 at 12:35 pm to Slut Hog
I think conventional wisdom is Slive made a play for at least A&M and OU when Texas was thinking about leading 6 teams from the Big 12 to the PAC 10
Posted on 7/29/10 at 12:37 pm to Slut Hog
quote:
I don't remember Slive offering anything to aTm. Do they think they can just invite themselves to the SEC?
Let's say the Big12-2 blows up and the political shackles are dissolved and each school can really do what it wants (Texas solo to the Big 10, etc.) If A&M called Slive and said they wanted to join the SEC, they would have an offer faxed over in a heartbeat. To only have to bring in 1 school and to get a hunk of the massive media markets in Texas would be a dream scenario for the SEC.
Posted on 7/29/10 at 12:39 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
I remember reading once what the threshold was to keep the conference as a legal entity.....it was something like 7 or 8 teams (but I'm not sure). My point was, if Texas flew off solo like Nebraska did, they would be subject to the same hit Nebraska is about to take. Nebraska has no chance to win this one.
Well, we'll see - I don't feel certain enough to debate the "who has to pay how much" issue
The Texas leaves alone hypothetical seems irrelevant tho... the only remote possibility for this would be Texas goes independent... but they'd only do that IMO if they could saddle the blame for breaking up the conference on someone else
The whole blaming Nebraska, or Colorado, or Missouri, or A&M for threatening the stability of the Big 12 seems like a load of crap to me. Texas has been very interested in looking around and that (as well as their conference design and resulting bad television deals) is what will ultimately destroy the Big 12
Posted on 7/29/10 at 12:40 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
To only have to bring in 1 school and to get a hunk of the massive media markets in Texas would be a dream scenario for the SEC.
We still talking about A&M? They're not that valuable.
Posted on 7/29/10 at 12:42 pm to Slut Hog
quote:
We still talking about A&M? They're not that valuable.
A&M is the hot wealthy girl with low self esteem
She'll give you her money, let you PIIHB and you get to walk around with her on your arm
Posted on 7/29/10 at 12:43 pm to TenTex
quote:
A&M is trying hard to drive their own future. This is pissing Texas off with all other Big 12 schools loving it.
I promise you that Iowa State, Mizzou, Kansas, Kansas State are not loving it. They don't want to see their conference implode. They are pleading for Texas and A&M to get along and for Beebe's fuzzy math to somehow work out.
Posted on 7/29/10 at 12:47 pm to molsusports
quote:
As soon as Texas leaves the remnants of the conference scatter to the best available landing spot and there's no Big 12 to pay
Not necessarily. If the PAC-10 raid would have happened (either with A&M going there or to the SEC), the severely weakened five remaining members still had one valuable asset -- the Willy Wonka Golden Ticket that is a guaranteed BCS berth, something that C-USA, WAC, or MWC would love to have.
The five remaining members could simply have gone to any of those conferences and made the following deal: take all of us as a package, and our BCS berth comes along. It may had to been structured as the Big 12 "absorbing" the other conference (for legal purposes), and probably the conference HQ moves to Colorado (both WAC and MWC are based in the Denver area), but in the end you still have a BCS-eligible conference.
And if the powers that be tried to strip the Big 12's berth afterwards, we end up with Congressional hearings out the ear.
Posted on 7/29/10 at 12:50 pm to molsusports
In my best Allen Iverson voice:
We talkin bout Aggies. Not Longhorns, not Sooners. Aggies
We talkin bout Aggies. Not Longhorns, not Sooners. Aggies
Posted on 7/29/10 at 12:57 pm to Quidam65
quote:
Not necessarily. If the PAC-10 raid would have happened (either with A&M going there or to the SEC), the severely weakened five remaining members still had one valuable asset -- the Willy Wonka Golden Ticket that is a guaranteed BCS berth, something that C-USA, WAC, or MWC would love to have.
The five remaining members could simply have gone to any of those conferences and made the following deal: take all of us as a package, and our BCS berth comes along. It may had to been structured as the Big 12 "absorbing" the other conference (for legal purposes), and probably the conference HQ moves to Colorado (both WAC and MWC are based in the Denver area), but in the end you still have a BCS-eligible conference.
And if the powers that be tried to strip the Big 12's berth afterwards, we end up with Congressional hearings out the ear.
Good post and provocative idea but a couple things
1) As I understand it once they dropped below 6 member schools they would lose their conference/BCS stature
2) IMO as Fresno fan you probably see this as a BCS money/competitive issue... when it's actually a larger revenue issue. The bigger money is not from a BCS bowl payout split 8-16 ways... it's from a large television contract and from having huge home gates in a giant stadium
Posted on 7/29/10 at 1:08 pm to molsusports
To molsusports, my responses:
1. What may not be clear is whether or not the conference stature would be automatically terminated when falling below the number of schools. Think of it as a breach of contract -- often the offending party has a period to cure the breach or face consequences.
2. Although Fresno State is among my favorite teams, my thinking was from a legal standpoint. (I have no specific favorite SEC team, and my alma mater does not play football.) If the conference standing was still valid upon departure of the five schools to the PAC-10 (or the SEC, in A&M's case), they would still have the BCS berth to offer to one of the conferences without one, thus allowing more eligible schools (and keeping Congress out of the way for the time being, unless again the BCS powers tried to strip it away).
Also something to consider--since teams don't immediately change conferences (none of the teams currently moving around are doing so for at least a year), if the remaining conference schools made the offer before the others departed, would the Big 12 ever fall below the minimum number of members required to remain legally valid?
1. What may not be clear is whether or not the conference stature would be automatically terminated when falling below the number of schools. Think of it as a breach of contract -- often the offending party has a period to cure the breach or face consequences.
2. Although Fresno State is among my favorite teams, my thinking was from a legal standpoint. (I have no specific favorite SEC team, and my alma mater does not play football.) If the conference standing was still valid upon departure of the five schools to the PAC-10 (or the SEC, in A&M's case), they would still have the BCS berth to offer to one of the conferences without one, thus allowing more eligible schools (and keeping Congress out of the way for the time being, unless again the BCS powers tried to strip it away).
Also something to consider--since teams don't immediately change conferences (none of the teams currently moving around are doing so for at least a year), if the remaining conference schools made the offer before the others departed, would the Big 12 ever fall below the minimum number of members required to remain legally valid?
Posted on 7/29/10 at 1:10 pm to Slut Hog
quote:
We talkin bout Aggies. Not Longhorns, not Sooners. Aggies
They do have a huge fanbase and are a large school with loads of $. I think most SEC fans would agree that they would rather A&M than Texas at this point.
Posted on 7/29/10 at 1:13 pm to spslayto
I recently was on a plane and sat next to a lady who has two kids, one an A&M graduate (now at Okla State in grad school) and the other attending A&M. She agreed with me that A&M would, from a cultural standpoint, be a better fit in the SEC than in the PAC-10.
Posted on 7/29/10 at 1:16 pm to Quidam65
quote:
1. What may not be clear is whether or not the conference stature would be automatically terminated when falling below the number of schools. Think of it as a breach of contract -- often the offending party has a period to cure the breach or face consequences.
Hmm, my understanding was they would be disqualified immediately... if someone has a link one way or the other I bow to their proof
quote:
since teams don't immediately change conferences (none of the teams currently moving around are doing so for at least a year), if the remaining conference schools made the offer before the others departed, would the Big 12 ever fall below the minimum number of members required to remain legally valid?
Thinking a little more about it I wonder if you might not have a case... any of the schools with options (MU, A&M might go to the Big 10 and SEC respectively) would be gone in the meantime... but assuming the BCS deal is a football season only consideration... I'd think the remaining Baylor, ISU, KU, KSU schools could invite whoever they wanted to a new Big 12 - so long as they never entered a season with less than 6 member schools?
But again, I'm sure there's a better answer than me saying "that seems possible"
Page 4 of 7
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News