We're going to need a beer summit on this beeyatch. Everyone needs to chill the flip out. Ask yourself this: Will what happens to ISU athletics affect your life irreparably? If you are not in the athletic department and answer yes, you are taking things too seriously.
Ask yourself
- Thread starter rebecacy
- Start date
We're going to need a beer summit on this beeyatch. Everyone needs to chill the flip out. Ask yourself this: Will what happens to ISU athletics affect your life irreparably? If you are not in the athletic department and answer yes, you are taking things too seriously.
Think of it as a "chicken and egg" situation: Did these teams decide to leave the conference and THEN scramble around to find a home for themselves? Or did they make plans to insure their landing in a good conference and THEN come back and vote to dissolve the conference?
In the first case, their vote to dissolve the conference has no possible conflict of interest. In the second one, their vote is conflicted because they already have made arrangements to find a new home, and the vote is just their attempt to avoid any penalties the conference has already agreed to.
I'm not talking about any newly enacted "Exit Taxes" that the remainder of the conference would want to levy on the former members: I'm talking about long-standing agreements that were entered into freely by all members of the conference. I think those are different. You can make a case that by placing these penalties into the original contract, all the "lower tier" schools in the conference were being assured that in the case of a breakup, they would have financial damages paid to them that will help cushion the fall.
In the first case, their vote to dissolve the conference has no possible conflict of interest. In the second one, their vote is conflicted because they already have made arrangements to find a new home, and the vote is just their attempt to avoid any penalties the conference has already agreed to.
I'm not talking about any newly enacted "Exit Taxes" that the remainder of the conference would want to levy on the former members: I'm talking about long-standing agreements that were entered into freely by all members of the conference. I think those are different. You can make a case that by placing these penalties into the original contract, all the "lower tier" schools in the conference were being assured that in the case of a breakup, they would have financial damages paid to them that will help cushion the fall.
I'll bite, if it is - it would be the most awesome, stealth kick in the face of a bully I have ever seen and it would go down in the history of the best coups ever - but it doesn't seem that way. fun to think its possible, but it seems that the powers are in cooperation and the end game is to get some of the money out of the hands of those that don't contribute enough, so no I don't think this is what is happening
I think that's the fifth time you've said you're done commenting. Stop already.
Also, Cyclone fans don't want the program to fail. However, a person can only be kicked in the stones so many times before it becomes an expectation. You haven't given any real evidence that what you say will come to fruition. It is just your theory. It is based on rational, logical, concepts, but it completely lacks any tangible facts or sources. This thing could go many different ways and the fundamentals root cause could be several different things. Until you name names regarding who you received your information from, then your posts will be considered "theories" and "opinions" just like everyone else.
Pretty sure that was OU & MU asking TAMU if anything could be done to change their mind. A&M would look really foolish to come back now as would the SEC given all the statements made by both.
No matter what happens, you'll claim you were right on and had the scoop all along. NO.....MATTER.....WHAT.
We could just make this easy by asking one question.....
Rebecacy, is the Big XII with both OU and ISU going to exist going forward?
This would be an ideal time to disappear from this post I'm sure but I would love an answer.
Rebecacy, is the Big XII with both OU and ISU going to exist going forward?
This would be an ideal time to disappear from this post I'm sure but I would love an answer.
Even if there was, things change. Now that it looks like the Big East is on the verge of blowing up, I could see some Big 12 schools that were originally in the camp to stay getting an itchy trigger finger and bailing out now that things are getting real. This has gotten a lot bigger than just the Big 12 in the last couple weeks.
Just to make it clear: I don't think that OU is looking out for our best interests here, unless doing so is in line with THEIR OWN interests.
Expecting OU to stick up for us in conference realignment would be like expecting UT to share some of their LHN money with us. It would be like expecting Auburn boosters to not pay for the best recruits available with suitcases full of used, non-sequential $20 bills. It would be like Iowa fans admitting "Yeah, ISU beat us fair and square in a head to head matchup. No super bowl, just a good game."
I just disagree that we have no recourse in the matter when it comes to exit penalties and enforcing contracts that already exist with networks.
Expecting OU to stick up for us in conference realignment would be like expecting UT to share some of their LHN money with us. It would be like expecting Auburn boosters to not pay for the best recruits available with suitcases full of used, non-sequential $20 bills. It would be like Iowa fans admitting "Yeah, ISU beat us fair and square in a head to head matchup. No super bowl, just a good game."
I just disagree that we have no recourse in the matter when it comes to exit penalties and enforcing contracts that already exist with networks.
Good point. Of course, you COULD say that the demise of the Big East might give Big 12 members the motivation to stick together and pick up some of the pieces of the old Big East. I would say that the exit of Pitt and Syracuse from the Big East is worse for that conference than the exit of ATM was for the Big 12. It could go either way, and it all depends on what the remainder of the conference thinks.
yes we will both be here ,,, GG and Boren are close (google it); texas could leave but unlikely now as their bluff was called and they lost; A&M could stay but unlikely (ego) -- conference will move to 12 teams asap as a conference championship game and 4 non-conference games are highly desirable -- conference will work hard to get BYU and 2 teams from out east to expand the TV footprint. Oh and the threat of legal and legislative action is and will remain the driving force in changes being minimal.
Last edited:
He's AAC from another site and that should be all I have to say.
Hope it works out this way. If Texas is going to give concessions on their network to the Pac-12 then they just as well do it for the Big 12.
Just when I thought I was out, you sucked me back in. Please be correct about this.
I am living off Rebecacy right now. I want ISU to be all right, but I believe the world is full of greedy a-holes who don't give two craps about anything except dollar bills. There are more dollars on the coasts than in the middle. Prove me wrong OU.
A Post from the OU board tonight:
...Despite Orangebloods reporting OU's board will vote to (leave) the Big 12, I don't believe that is what OU wants to do. If they can settle down the instability, OU stays.
The instability appears to be about to be addressed. Suspect OU will sit down with UT and work out structural and revenue sharing changes. UT appears much more willing on both fronts than in the past.
The only other real outstanding issue is expansion. UT wants to replace A&M and remain a ten-school league. President Boren said that if the Big-12 survived he thought it needed to go back to being a 12-school league.
The real issue is who comes in. Texas only wants one school to avoid adding any schools in Texas (SMU, Houston, perhaps TCU) which can grow and compete against Texas on and off the field. See BYU. Suspect Boren wants to go back to 12 teams in part to dilute the inter-conference power of Texas. Smart idea.
BTW doesn't mean Big-12 doesn't lose another team. Still a chance Missouri decides to go the SEC. Big-12 can survive that if OU and UT negotiate the changes that need to be made.
OU the only school left in the conference that can do this. If and when it's done (likely between now and the OU-UT game in Dallas) Baylor will announce it believes its concerns have been addressed and no longer expects to have the need to litigate any issues with any current Big-12 school. That lets A&M off the hook to head east.
One other thing: It's entirely possible that the SEC making A&M entry contingent on liability waivers was done to assist OU in its efforts to save the Big-12. Just as the SEC helped Texas A&M save the conference 15 months ago (and possibly OU as well which may have been working with A&M behind the scenes) it's possible SEC is willing to help OU now as long as it is committed to stabilizing the conference long term. Would have been simpler and smarter, last week, for the SEC to tell A&M "get your exit from the Big-12 hassle free and then come see us." Didn't do that.
The liability waiver requirement of the SEC effectively created a log jam and added pressure to force Big-12 to deal with issues it's never been willing to deal with before. And as this has gone on, the options available to Texas have shrunk. Big Ten now says it's not adding teams as a result of current events. Texas has been telling everybody the SEC only wants A&M in order to get Texas into the league. Clearly that is not correct. Pac-12 appears firm in requiring Texas to make major changes in the Longhorn Network (share on-air programming with another school and share profits equally will all conference teams) which UT doesn't want to do. And last week an unnamed UT official said Texas did not want to go independent.
No Big Ten, no SEC, no Pac-12, no going independent. There's only one thing left. Suspect President Boren has been waiting for this. OU is now the key school in the Big-12. It has more power and influence than UT and both OU and UT know it. Good time to negotiate if you want to force the changes necessary to allow the Big-12 to survive long term.
RebecaCy's theories are being discussed openly elsewhere...
...Despite Orangebloods reporting OU's board will vote to (leave) the Big 12, I don't believe that is what OU wants to do. If they can settle down the instability, OU stays.
The instability appears to be about to be addressed. Suspect OU will sit down with UT and work out structural and revenue sharing changes. UT appears much more willing on both fronts than in the past.
The only other real outstanding issue is expansion. UT wants to replace A&M and remain a ten-school league. President Boren said that if the Big-12 survived he thought it needed to go back to being a 12-school league.
The real issue is who comes in. Texas only wants one school to avoid adding any schools in Texas (SMU, Houston, perhaps TCU) which can grow and compete against Texas on and off the field. See BYU. Suspect Boren wants to go back to 12 teams in part to dilute the inter-conference power of Texas. Smart idea.
BTW doesn't mean Big-12 doesn't lose another team. Still a chance Missouri decides to go the SEC. Big-12 can survive that if OU and UT negotiate the changes that need to be made.
OU the only school left in the conference that can do this. If and when it's done (likely between now and the OU-UT game in Dallas) Baylor will announce it believes its concerns have been addressed and no longer expects to have the need to litigate any issues with any current Big-12 school. That lets A&M off the hook to head east.
One other thing: It's entirely possible that the SEC making A&M entry contingent on liability waivers was done to assist OU in its efforts to save the Big-12. Just as the SEC helped Texas A&M save the conference 15 months ago (and possibly OU as well which may have been working with A&M behind the scenes) it's possible SEC is willing to help OU now as long as it is committed to stabilizing the conference long term. Would have been simpler and smarter, last week, for the SEC to tell A&M "get your exit from the Big-12 hassle free and then come see us." Didn't do that.
The liability waiver requirement of the SEC effectively created a log jam and added pressure to force Big-12 to deal with issues it's never been willing to deal with before. And as this has gone on, the options available to Texas have shrunk. Big Ten now says it's not adding teams as a result of current events. Texas has been telling everybody the SEC only wants A&M in order to get Texas into the league. Clearly that is not correct. Pac-12 appears firm in requiring Texas to make major changes in the Longhorn Network (share on-air programming with another school and share profits equally will all conference teams) which UT doesn't want to do. And last week an unnamed UT official said Texas did not want to go independent.
No Big Ten, no SEC, no Pac-12, no going independent. There's only one thing left. Suspect President Boren has been waiting for this. OU is now the key school in the Big-12. It has more power and influence than UT and both OU and UT know it. Good time to negotiate if you want to force the changes necessary to allow the Big-12 to survive long term.
RebecaCy's theories are being discussed openly elsewhere...
