Started By
Message
re: A&M wants it's $$$ or it's bolting for the SEC
Posted on 7/29/10 at 1:34 pm to molsusports
Posted on 7/29/10 at 1:34 pm to molsusports
quote:
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)
Yep and that is why Texas is not pushing the issue of collecting the buyouts too much.
Nebraska might have a case in nullifying the buyout clause, but I would have to know more about the contract and what went on. They would probably need to show bad faith dealings by Texas AND several of the other Big 12 schools. And like you say, there would be a lot of dirty laundry getting aired in a court dispute like this. The testimony revealed in a trial like that could cause the conference to break up (for instance if aTm were to find out that Texas was talking to the Pac 10 3 years ago and planned to leave aTm in the dust, etc.).
0
Posted on 7/29/10 at 1:58 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
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.
Not necessarily. There is an implied obligation of good faith in every contract. Let's say, hypothetically, that Nebraska could show that Texas had been having secretive yet legitimate discussions with other conferences and other members of the Big 12 about quickly leaving the conference, not inviting Nebraska to come along, and ultimately destroying the Big 12 conference, which would cause huge financial loss to Nebraska if it could not find a new home.
Depending on the terms of the Big 12 contract with Nebraska, this would be a case that Nebraska might win by arguing that several of the other parties to the contract were acting in bad faith and never had any intention of holding up their end of the deal. Therefore Nebraska was justified in no longer performing its end of the deal out self preservation.
Just think of the amazing testimony that would come from that trial.
Posted on 7/29/10 at 2:04 pm to Monticello
Anticipatory repudiation might be another argument Nebraska could use. They could argue they had legitimate reason to anticipate that the conference was dissolving beyond their control and that the contract was therefore repudiated.
Sorry to go all nerd style on you guys.
Sorry to go all nerd style on you guys.
Posted on 7/29/10 at 2:15 pm to molsusports
I don't like the argument that the SEC would take TTU and Baylor for more TV markets in Texas. Honestly, if the SEC could get aTm, Texas or OU we would lock up a lot of TVs in Texas. Who really watches TTU football (now that Leach is gone) or Baylor football?
UT, aTm, and OU dominate the Texas college football market. Baylor and TTU are irrelevant.
UT, aTm, and OU dominate the Texas college football market. Baylor and TTU are irrelevant.
Posted on 7/29/10 at 2:21 pm to Monticello
quote:
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
???
That is unfair and untrue. Texas just wants a fair amount of TV revenue. It didn't seem possible in the Big 12. Now it has been promised to them in the Big 12 so Texas says they are staying put. That is destroying the Big 12?
quote:
We still talking about A&M? They're not that valuable.
Tier 1, AAU university, prestigious research university, top 15 all time in wins, delivers 2 top 10 tv markets.......that is pretty valuable.
quote:
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.
Very true......go to CycloneFanatic, they know they live and die with Texas.
quote:
Yep and that is why Texas is not pushing the issue of collecting the buyouts too much.
#1 Texas doesn't collect anyting
#2 The Big 12 won't collect anything from Neb or Col, their penalty for leaving in just 1 year will be deducted from their TV revenue payout.
quote:
Let's say, hypothetically, that Nebraska could show that Texas had been having secretive yet legitimate discussions with other conferences and other members of the Big 12 about quickly leaving the conference, not inviting Nebraska to come along, and ultimately destroying the Big 12 conference, which would cause huge financial loss to Nebraska if it could not find a new home.
Texas had those discussion and they weren't secret. Nebraska has no remedy for this though in the courts. Texas would have been subject to the same financial penalty that Neb & Col will have deducted from their TV revenue payout if Texas had chosen to leave. Schools have a right to talk with other conferences but, per the contract, there is only a penalty if you leave....which Neb and Col did and Texas didn't do.
quote:
Anticipatory repudiation might be another argument Nebraska could use.
Wouldn't Neb have to still be part of the Big 12 to pursue this Since they decided to leave, this is no longer an option for them.
Posted on 7/29/10 at 2:26 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
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.
Is this true? I had not heard this. If so, I will soften my stance against Texas some and
at Nebraska, aTm and KU.
Posted on 7/29/10 at 2:29 pm to Uncle Stu
Let's open up the Conference Expansion Board.
Posted on 7/29/10 at 2:30 pm to Boobie Miles
Realistically there are only two schools which have enough drawing power to lock up the major
Texas media markets--UT and A&M.
UT has made it clear that it has NO interest in the SEC. When they finally do blow up the Big 12, they will either 1) go independent (unlikely), 2) join the PAC-10 (most likely since UT's President is a Cal alum) or 3) join the Big 10 (possible).
This leaves A&M as the only realistic shot for the SEC to gain the Texas media markets. A&M knows good and well that UT has no interest in the SEC, that OU is going to follow UT, and that Tech and OK State were going to follow UT and OU in any PAC-10 raid.
The PAC-10 wanted A&M in a package deal to avoid any competition for the Texas media markets. The SEC knew this so it was willing to take A&M as a standalone deal if needed (it may have had another school in mind for a 14th member, but then again the Mid-American Conference has 13 members in two unbalanced divisions so it can work).
Bottom line: The Big 12-2 has two members (UT and OU) willing to bully around the smaller members, two members (Tech and OK State) willing to be bullied, one member (Mizzou) wanting to go to the Big 10, one member (A&M) seriously thinking about telling UT to go f*** itself and join the SEC, one member (Baylor) deathly afraid of being relegated to FCS status since even the Sun Belt may not be interested in them, and three members (Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State) hanging on for dear life.
Texas media markets--UT and A&M.
UT has made it clear that it has NO interest in the SEC. When they finally do blow up the Big 12, they will either 1) go independent (unlikely), 2) join the PAC-10 (most likely since UT's President is a Cal alum) or 3) join the Big 10 (possible).
This leaves A&M as the only realistic shot for the SEC to gain the Texas media markets. A&M knows good and well that UT has no interest in the SEC, that OU is going to follow UT, and that Tech and OK State were going to follow UT and OU in any PAC-10 raid.
The PAC-10 wanted A&M in a package deal to avoid any competition for the Texas media markets. The SEC knew this so it was willing to take A&M as a standalone deal if needed (it may have had another school in mind for a 14th member, but then again the Mid-American Conference has 13 members in two unbalanced divisions so it can work).
Bottom line: The Big 12-2 has two members (UT and OU) willing to bully around the smaller members, two members (Tech and OK State) willing to be bullied, one member (Mizzou) wanting to go to the Big 10, one member (A&M) seriously thinking about telling UT to go f*** itself and join the SEC, one member (Baylor) deathly afraid of being relegated to FCS status since even the Sun Belt may not be interested in them, and three members (Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State) hanging on for dear life.
Posted on 7/29/10 at 2:33 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
quote:
Anticipatory repudiation might be another argument Nebraska could use.
Wouldn't Neb have to still be part of the Big 12 to pursue this Since they decided to leave, this is no longer an option for them.
Yea I understand that there is not a technical "buyout" but if Nebraska does not collect its share of the tv money, then the other schools get it and that is still a cash penalty.
Using anticipatory repudiation, Nebraska could basically void its end of the contract and find a new conference without penalty by saying it had reason to believe the other teams were all leaving also. Whether the court would buy the argument is another matter, but it is an available legal argument.
Posted on 7/29/10 at 2:50 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
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
???
That is unfair and untrue. Texas just wants a fair amount of TV revenue. It didn't seem possible in the Big 12. Now it has been promised to them in the Big 12 so Texas says they are staying put. That is destroying the Big 12?
Texas already does (and did do before) as well as it could do RE: television money in the Big 12. There just isn't as much money from a conference television deal for a conference that is essentially Texas
The makeup of the Big 12 was close to doomed from the start IMO because the power was too unequally split between the north and south divisions
If Nebraska had maintained it's 90s status as elite they were fine... but every program has down periods and there was no second powerhouse team there to pick up the slack when they faded (esp when Snider's KSU teams dropped off)
Posted on 7/29/10 at 2:56 pm to Quidam65
quote:
five remaining members
would have nothing, especially not a BCS berth.
The Big East should have lost theirs when BC, VT and Miami left.
If UT,OU, A&M, Nebraska, OSU, TT & Colorado all had left the Big XII, the remaining teams would offer nothing in the way of football teams.
KU would help boost a conference with there basketball program and Baylor is currently a good basketball team but KSU, Missouri and Iowa State don't offer much.
They might end up in the Mountain West or WAC but adding them or joining them should not warrent a BCS bid.
If anything the SEC and the Pac 16 should have gotten two automatic bids.
This post was edited on 7/29/10 at 3:04 pm
Posted on 7/29/10 at 3:29 pm to chinese58
Its TAMU and GTFO as far as Texas schools for the SEC.
The Texas legislature is in for a rude awakening. And I hope it comes sooner than later.
The Texas legislature is in for a rude awakening. And I hope it comes sooner than later.
Posted on 7/29/10 at 3:41 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
I have 2 aggie brothers-in-law so we have these conversation often. Those 2 guys, and most Aggies I talk with, are convinced that they would relatively quickly become a power in the SEC. How do they expect this to happen since they haven't set the world on fire in a weaker Big 12 and haven't won a national title since 1939? I can't make sense of their responses but they are passionate about their stance.
18% of Texan Republicans say that they "believe" that Obama is not a US citizen.
Posted on 7/29/10 at 3:59 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
I would love for aTm, OK, and two schools from the east coast area to join the SEC and leave Texass to suck hind tit.
Posted on 7/29/10 at 4:30 pm to ljhog
I'm an Aggie. I agree with what most of Drunklonghorn has said except for the idea that the Texas legislature is completly behind A&M's decsion to stay in the Big 12. We gave in to Texas like we always do, they knew that if we bolted for the SEC the big 12 would have been dead. Texas does not want to go to any other conference because they have it perfect in the big 12 now and its even better for them now that Nebraska and Colorado are gone. With the big 12's current setup they have a good shot at winning the conference every year, make the most money in the conference and have a good shot at a BCS bowl, and control the Texas recruting market. Why would they want to go anywhere else? they don't. So they "saved the big 12" and now are trying to make A&M look bad by saying they no longer want the 20 million. We were stupid for not bolting for the SEC when we had the chance.
This is not over, I expect A&M in the SEC without Texas within 3 years. We learned our lesson.
This is not over, I expect A&M in the SEC without Texas within 3 years. We learned our lesson.
Posted on 7/29/10 at 5:57 pm to Monticello
quote:
Anticipatory repudiation might be another argument Nebraska could use. They could argue they had legitimate reason to anticipate that the conference was dissolving beyond their control and that the contract was therefore repudiated.
A&M may be laying the foundation for a similar defense should it bolt for the SEC.
If things keep up, A&M can argue (probably successfully) that:
1) A&M had a firm offer (the PAC-10 invitation) to leave the Big XII (and probably two with the SEC being the other),
2) as an enticement to decline either or both offers, the Big XII offered its three largest members (UT, OU, and A&M) a future guaranteed payout of at least $20M/year,
3) A&M, after reviewing all its options, accepted the Big XII's offer over the PAC-10 (and possibly the SEC's) invitation(s),
4) The Big XII intended to provide a portion of the payout by convincing (strong-arming) five member schools to concede a portion of the "termination fees" due to them as a result of Nebraska's and Colorado's decisions to voluntarily leave the Big XII for other conferences,
5) Because of difficulties encountered in obtaining the requisite funds (Colorado's budgetary problems which may hinder its ability to pay its fee, Nebraska's seeming unwillingness to pay its fee on grounds of bad faith dealing, and possibly Mizzou's unwillingness to concede its portion of the fee(s) due to it), the Big XII has re-negotiated its deals with both UT and OU for them to forego their share of the termination fees due to it,
6) The Big XII now is attempting to force or shame A&M to enter into a similar re-negotiation, which A&M is neither required nor desires to do.
A&M can then argue that, absent those fees and for other reasons, it appears that the Big XII will not be able to provide A&M the payouts promised to entice it to remain a conference member. As a result, A&M can further argue that the Big XII Conference has engaged in an anticipatory breach of its contract by attempting to force A&M to renegotiate the terms of the offer which enticed it to remain a member. Because of the anticipatory breach, A&M is free to leave the Big XII Conference without being required to pay any termination fee as a result.
This post was edited on 7/29/10 at 6:01 pm
Posted on 7/29/10 at 6:28 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
There are politicians with Texas Tech and Baylor connections who know that if the Big 12 implodes, Tech and Baylor run the risk of being marginalized and demoted to a non-BCS conference. They will not let this happen. Throw in all of the good old boy politicians with A&M and Texas ties who don't want to see a 116 year rivalry come to an end on their watch and it makes it even more difficult. This isn't some BS conjecture, this is what just happened to save the Big 12-2. This is why, when a public records request made public emails between the President of Texas and the President of Ohio State, the Texas president said Texas would be interested in the Big 10 in theory but really couldn't consider an offer because of its "Tech Problem".
It's going to come down to Slive making a speech before the Texas Legislature stating that he will take the Texas Big 4 (A&M, t.u., Baylor, and Texas Tceh) in the SEC's expansion plans, thereby bringing the SEC to 16. How many of you out there think he will actually do this?
Posted on 7/29/10 at 6:33 pm to Corch Urban Myers
quote:
It's going to come down to Slive making a speech before the Texas Legislature stating that he will take the Texas Big 4 (A&M, t.u., Baylor, and Texas Tceh) in the SEC's expansion plans, thereby bringing the SEC to 16. How many of you out there think he will actually do this?
Put me in the "Hell, no!" category. I think all the SEC wants out of Texas is Texas A&M. That's all the footprint we need.
I think the next most desirable target would be Oklahoma IMO, if we can somehow surgically separate them from Texas. Or if the Sooners grow a pair on their own.
Posted on 7/29/10 at 6:40 pm to Quidam65
quote:
As a result, A&M can further argue that the Big XII Conference has engaged in an anticipatory breach of its contract by attempting to force A&M to renegotiate the terms of the offer which enticed it to remain a member. Because of the anticipatory breach, A&M is free to leave the Big XII Conference without being required to pay any termination fee as a result.
Sounds more like fraudulent inducement in that scenario haha. I like where you are going with that one though.
Posted on 7/29/10 at 6:41 pm to Corch Urban Myers
quote:
How many of you out there think he will actually do this?
Put me down in the OH HELL NO category.
Vandy may want Baylor (so it can have someone to beat up on during football season) but I'm not even sure the Sun Belt Conference wants Baylor.
Can't see what Tech brings to the table.
UT won't even think about joining the SEC absent provisions that the conference HQ moves to Austin, that Mack Brown is named SEC Commissioner for Life, that the other members of the SEC agree to castration (in a UT-dominated SEC they would be unnecessary appendages anyway), and that all revenue from every source whatever is automatically transferred to UT's athletic department. And maybe not even then.
Only A&M would go.
Page 5 of 7
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News