Started By
Message
0
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 12:01 pm to osu125
quote:
5 Big 12 south schools and Colorado schools flirting with the PAC 10 but then changing their mind ran off Colorado.
That's a piece tu fans conveniently forget. Missouri received the majority of the blame for nearly collapsing the conference, when tu wanted out first. Lying hypocrites of the highest degree.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 12:03 pm to Byrdybyrd05
quote:
Is Texas to blame
The answer is always yes. It's kinda like the 'thanks obama' thing.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 12:47 pm to Rod Kimble
quote:
The answer is always yes. It's kinda like the 'thanks obama' thing.
But much bitchier.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 12:54 pm to Byrdybyrd05
quote:
Is Texas to blame for all this conference realignment crap?
Thanks for bringing up this topic. I'm not sure if it had been discussed before.
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
Posted on 7/6/22 at 1:19 pm to cjohn
quote:
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 backup plan for aTm backing out was KU, Baylor was never in consideration. At that time they were still terrible in pretty much any and all sports that mattered and as you mentioned the Private Baptist school would have never flown back then.
I think the PAC 10 was okay without aTm in the package, but the delay allowed time for the networks to insert their input and convince ou and Texas that they shouldn't kill the Big 12 (yet). And yes that included LHN...which could be argued allowed the Big 12 to remain a conference through all the changes because it was too difficult to roll the LHN into any other conference TV deals. So in a way the Big 12 is alive today because of the LHN.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 1:22 pm to osu125
Makes sense on the Baylor part. I would have never believe the Pac would have been interested in them.
I have always maintained the LHN money was blood money given to Texas with the intent purpose of keeping the Big XII alive. I recall that ESPN was very unhappy with A&M for going to the SEC.
I have always maintained the LHN money was blood money given to Texas with the intent purpose of keeping the Big XII alive. I recall that ESPN was very unhappy with A&M for going to the SEC.
This post was edited on 7/6/22 at 1:23 pm
Posted on 7/6/22 at 1:25 pm to truth22
no anti-truth, you’re the one lying. The only thing LonghornMM left out was anm flat out admitted they couldn’t afford your share of the Lonestar network.
anm left strictly to stir the pot, make noise and attempt to be relevant. aggy never would have left had the rest of the conference not gotten tired of your bitching and complaining about how poor you were and how you needed more money. we then in unison said “Bye.”
and it’s goodbye to anm. poor aggies
anm left strictly to stir the pot, make noise and attempt to be relevant. aggy never would have left had the rest of the conference not gotten tired of your bitching and complaining about how poor you were and how you needed more money. we then in unison said “Bye.”
and it’s goodbye to anm. poor aggies
Posted on 7/6/22 at 1:26 pm to osu125
Correct. The LHN was an appeasement to Texas by ESPN to not blow up the Big 12. Its only purpose was to satiate the horns collective ego enough to get them to stay put.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 1:31 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
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.
Also correct. It's been a while, but if I recall the major sticking point was that ESPN gave the LHN first right of refusal on any conference event that features one or more UT participant.
Meaning a track meet with 1 horn running, that didn't get picked up by a primary ESPN channel, would go to the LHN first, and could only fall to another channel (meaning another school's own channel, or a collective Big 12 Minus Texas conference network, if the LHN declined to air it.
That essentially undercut the ability of anyone else in the Big 12 to create their own network, or to band together to create a shared network.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 1:35 pm to cjohn
The LHN cost ESPN $15 million per year.
ESPN would have had to pay way, way, way more than that every single year to keep the same inventory had Texas gone to another conference.
Simple math. Yes, they lost money on LHN, but it was a great deal for ESPN.
TLDR: Yes, Texas is to blame for anything. For everything. Just keep pushing the brand please.. thank you.
ESPN would have had to pay way, way, way more than that every single year to keep the same inventory had Texas gone to another conference.
Simple math. Yes, they lost money on LHN, but it was a great deal for ESPN.
TLDR: Yes, Texas is to blame for anything. For everything. Just keep pushing the brand please.. thank you.
This post was edited on 7/6/22 at 1:39 pm
Posted on 7/6/22 at 1:45 pm to hookem2522
quote:
no anti-truth, you’re the one lying. The only thing LonghornMM left out was anm flat out admitted they couldn’t afford your share of the Lonestar network.
anm left strictly to stir the pot, make noise and attempt to be relevant. aggy never would have left had the rest of the conference not gotten tired of your bitching and complaining about how poor you were and how you needed more money. we then in unison said “Bye.”
Posted on 7/6/22 at 1:54 pm to BigBro
quote:
Simple math. Yes, they lost money on LHN, but it was a great deal for ESPN.
JFC, you can't make this shite up. Gold.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 1:59 pm to Byrdybyrd05
quote:Maybe A&M doesn't leave in 2012 without the LHN, but the Big XII was on rather shaky footing from the beginning, and that partly dates back to the break up of the Southwest Conference.
If they never started the Longhorn network that nobody watches, Aggies and Mizzou would still be in the big12.
Things started going sour for the SWC even before television became an issue in 1984. The big schools hated the fact that they split the gate for all conference games 50/50, when they would bring all the fans whether the game was at home, or at Rice, TCU, SMU, UH, or Baylor. So, they ended up going to a flat guarantee for the road teams, but then television came along and became an issue. They realized in the '80s that a league of 8 Texas schools and Arkansas wasn't attractive to TV, and began considering options. Texas wanted to go to the Pac, but was blackballed by Stanford. A&M wanted to go to the SEC, but wasn't willing to move alone. Roy Kramer approached Arkansas thinking that might torpedo the SWC in the early 90's, and it eventually did, but the politicians dictated a move for A&M and Texas to the Big XII with Tech and Baylor in tow. The Big XII fought over everything from day one and it never improved.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 2:01 pm to BigBro
quote:
TLDR: Yes, Texas is to blame for anything. For everything.
Pretty sure y'all are to blame for the current monkey pox outbreak as well. Y'all got those chimp chiggers exploding across the globe now. Thanks Texas.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 2:01 pm to cjohn
cjohn, you’re full a lot of hot air, you say so much no one can properly call BS, but I will without writing a book.
First, anm knew full well Texas was negotiating for them. Texas, anm, and Texas Tech has an agreement, NO MATTER WHAT, WE THREE STICK TOGETHER. Aggy broke that promise.
Secondly, anm’s AD didn’t independently decide the Pac was a bad fit, TexAgs did. possibly that was the problem.
poor aggies
First, anm knew full well Texas was negotiating for them. Texas, anm, and Texas Tech has an agreement, NO MATTER WHAT, WE THREE STICK TOGETHER. Aggy broke that promise.
Secondly, anm’s AD didn’t independently decide the Pac was a bad fit, TexAgs did. possibly that was the problem.
poor aggies
Posted on 7/6/22 at 2:06 pm to hookem2522
quote:Absolute BS. The school president heard rumors that Texas was negotiating with the Pac-10. He asked Bill Powers about it, and Powers condescendingly told him not worry about it, that A&M would be taken care of. I'm sure in Powers mind there was not so much an agreement as an acceptance of his overlordship, but no agreement was ever put to Loftin or the Board of Regents. When they heard about the plan, Loftin was told to look for alternatives. Gene Stallings, in particular, wanted A&M to consider the SEC.
First, anm knew full well Texas was negotiating for them. Texas, anm, and Texas Tech has an agreement, NO MATTER WHAT, WE THREE STICK TOGETHER. Aggy broke that promise.
Secondly, anm’s AD didn’t independently decide the Pac was a bad fit, TexAgs did. possibly that was the problem.
Posted on 7/6/22 at 2:12 pm to twk
The t-sips on here with their revisionist history is hilarious.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News