Houston Chronicle: This Aggie joke is on the Longhorns

[weR138]

You both defend texas by saying NU and A&M did it too!

How does that work. Do two wrongs make a right now?

UT is keeping the conference together.

In a perfect world ISU would still be in the Big 8. The next best thing would be the Big Ten. Neither of these things are possible. SO we have to accept the next best thing which is being in the Big XII. The Big XII is still our best option and the the Big East may or may not currently be an option at all.

I'm not sure what the UT haters would have ISU do, quit the Big XII? Lobby the Big East and increase travel expenses while getting less conference money?

 

[Al_4_State]

Seriously? They threatened to bail last summer before they got a multi million dollar bribe from ESPN.

But they didn't bail. Nebraska did and Aggie is.

Moves Texas made since then:
-Not taking Nebraska and CU exit money from the Forgotten 5. A&M did.
-Voting to increase revenue sharing.
-Taking HS games off the LHN
-Not leaving the Big 12 and actively helping expansion process while A&M bails.

Meanwhile, A&M has been talking with the SEC the entire time, looking to bail, all after pledging commitment to the Big 12.

Seriously, how do you keep defending A&M? This isn't Stockholm Syndrome. This is logic.

 

[3GenClone]

Texas is hurting ISU by the instability they create. Actually I am amazed that folks see CU, NU, and now aTm leave all for the same reasons, but somehow UT has no culpability here. Will it take OU, Mizzou, and OSU to leave before UT has to shoulder any blame for the instability? I am afraid that ISU sees this massive payday coming in 2015, and that day never comes. I hope I am wrong, but there will need to be come changes for the B12 to survive long term, IMO.

What's to stop the conference members from re-addressing and adjusting the current revenue sharing structure? When the new tier-1 contract negotiations begin in 2015, the absence of A&M and NU's votes leaves only UT and maybe OU to vote for un-equal sharing, which insn't enough to dissent. I think the instability of the short-term are putting people in panic mode, when the future actually looks brighter for the "Forgotten 5." I think Texas can see the power instability taking place, which is why there is so much emphasis on finding programming for the LHN while "aggressively pursuing" Notre Dame to maintain that un-equal sharing formula ("Haves" vs. "Have-Nots").

 

[alarson]

But they didn't bail. Nebraska did and Aggie is. texas got a nice paycheck for that. Im sure for a 15+mil/yr ESPN check TAMU might stick around too

Moves Texas made since then:
-Not taking Nebraska and CU exit money from the Forgotten 5. A&M did. because its not about money, but power
-Voting to increase revenue sharing. wasnt that just on the second tier, ie the tier UT wont be on as much? Sure, get an equal share of something they wouldve had a smaller share of before, and an unequal share of the first tier.
-Taking HS games off the LHN because the NCAA wouldve made them anyways
-Not leaving the Big 12 and actively helping expansion process while A&M bails. yeah, running an expansion process run out of the UT offices. not the big 12, UT

 

[cykadelic2]

Not to mention, ask yourself which schools are causing the most instability - Texas, or the schools butt-hurt about Texas.

1. Remember a few years back when it was agreed that the Big 12 football championship would be played in the JerryDome in Dallas for a number of years in exchange for the Basketball championships being played in KC concurrently, which would have netted the Big 12 members significantly more money? It passed with an 11-1 vote. Guess who the dissenter was - that's right, Nebraska. In fact, it was one of the driving reasons why Nebraska left - it showed them they no longer held sway over the original Big 8 members. Perhaps if they had a history of doing what was best for the original Big 8 members instead of doing what was best for them for more than a decade, perhaps the old Big 8 would have had more interest in what Nebraska had to say. Unfortunately for Nebraska, decisions have been solely about money for a long time - they insisted upon it for more than a decade, and it came back to bite them in the arse.

2. Last year, when everyone was sure Texas, A&M, TT, OU, and OSU were going to join Colorado in the Pac 16 and ISU, KU, K-State, KU, and Baylor approached Texas, OU, and A&M with a plan to keep the Big 12 together, which included those three schools keeping Nebraska's and Colorado's exit money, only one of those three schools said that keeping the money was necessary to keeping the conference together - A&M. Funny how now they're the ones trying to get out they're the ones seeking every avenue possible to not pay the exit fees...

Actually, A&M will not pay exit fees. The B12 will withhold payment of A&M's TV revenue share for the upcoming academic/fiscal year amounting to around $20M. A&M will have to sue to get it. The $20M will likely be the extent of A&M's penalty.

Nebraska's issues with the B12 dated back to its formation when the new B12 voted against partial qualifiers. The B8 permitted them, but schools like ISU and CU still did not allow them. It's no coincidence that the downturn of NU football started when partial qualifiers were completely eliminated from NU's program.

 

[weR138]

So what should ISU do to get out of a UT run conference?

 

[Palmer]

So what should ISU do to get out of a UT run conference?

win a national title in fb.

 

[Al_4_State]

quoted stuff

How does Texas's power negatively effect any of us?

You also keep brushing past A&M's voting to create this situation, and they straight up lied to the Big 12.

Texas, while being far from perfect, has been far more loyal and helpful in keeping the Big 12 together than A&M. I don't care what the motivations are, I care about the result. A&M has no loyalty to anyone outside of themselves, but insists on making hypocritical charges at Texas.

 

[jdoggivjc]

Actually, A&M will not pay exit fees. The B12 will withhold payment of A&M's TV revenue share for the upcoming academic/fiscal year amounting to around $20M. A&M will have to sue to get it. The $20M will likely be the extent of A&M's penalty.

Nebraska's issues with the B12 dated back to its formation when the new B12 voted against partial qualifiers. The B8 permitted them, but schools like ISU and CU still did not allow them. It's no coincidence that the downturn of NU football started when partial qualifiers were completely eliminated from NU's program.

So that's anybody but Nebraska's fault that Nebraska doesn't have the ability to recruit fully-qualified athletes to play for their football team?

 

[weR138]

win a national title in fb.

Exactly, everyone can stop crying about UT now.

How does Texas's power negatively effect any of us?

You also keep brushing past A&M's voting to create this situation, and they straight up lied to the Big 12.

Texas, while being far from perfect, has been far more loyal and helpful in keeping the Big 12 together than A&M. I don't care what the motivations are, I care about the result. A&M has no loyalty to anyone outside of themselves, but insists on making hypocritical charges at Texas.

I care about what's best for ISU abd being in the Big XII is it. If anyone has an alternative that gets us more money and stability I'd love to hear it.

 

[Clonefan94]

It's not THAT they're leaving, it's HOW they're leaving. Just like it's not THAT Nebraska left, it's HOW they left.

A&M is one of the 4 schools (along with Nebraska) that for more than a decade voted for revenue inequity in an attempt not only to separate the haves from the have nots, but to become revenue king of the conference, therefore becoming the one holding all the power. Just like Nebraska, they didn't count on sucking in football for the better part of a decade, which eroded at their money and power. Meanwhile, Texas became revenue and power king of the conference, and instead of looking in the mirror to see what they did wrong, they found it easier to point the blame finger at Texas for their failure at becoming the school in conference to have the most money and power. And instead of trying to stick it to Texas by voting with the rest of the conference to share revenue equally, they decide to try to stick it to Texas by destroying the conference, be damned whether the smaller schools in the conference get hurt in the process - because it's not truly about how Texas is treating everyone in the conference unfairly, it's that A&M isn't the one that gets to treat the conference unfairly.

You want to know why it's not just about THAT A&M is leaving? Ask yourself how many fans are truly upset that Colorado is gone - not very many, and if so not to the extent of Nebraska and A&M. Colorado, while wanting to go to the Pac 10 since the old Big 8 days, wasn't one of the ****s when it came to revenue sharing and power, and left because they thought they saw the writing on the wall, not to mention they got the offer not only could they not refuse, but have wanted for decades.

Nebraska and A&M, on the other hand, have been power hungry since day 0, and when they realized they lost the arms race to Texas they decided to try to stick it to Texas by destroying the conference around them, regardless of how many ADs they destroy in the process. That's why they don't get sympathy.

And yes, if ISU were to get a Big 10 invite, ISU would probably be gone the next day - assuming the Big 12 fails in landing ND/BYU/Pitt...

Great post. I just have to add though. I really don't thnk ISU would just accept an invite to the Big 10, had none of this blown up. If we were still really the Big XII And no one had left, I'd rather ISU be in the Big XII. A&M would land on their feet no matter what happened. As you said, it's the fact they are jumping ship besides the fact of everyone else trying to hold it together. It's as much about spite for Texas as it is doing good for themselves. It's been proven time and time again that monetarily, they are better of in the Big XII. And that schedule they'll have, they definitely jumped to a harder road to the BCS. Their move was for Spite, spite they created.

 

[Al_4_State]

Exactly, everyone can stop crying about UT now.



I care about what's best for ISU abd being in the Big XII is it. If anyone has an alternative that gets us more money and stability I'd love to hear it.

Exactly. Being in a conference with Texas is lucrative as hell. Texas's power grabbing does nothing to hurt ISU.

I will gladly be "Texas's lackey". This whole thing about schools having power in a league is so superficial anyways. What does this power get them? It's all about ego. I just want ISU to have BCS access and make the most money possible. We can take care of ourselves. A school having a lot of power is only a negative if you want it to be. Texas's power is so illusory. Yes, they control things, but we can still do whatever the hell we want. Texas isn't keeping ISU down, period.

 

[twistedredbird]

It's not THAT they're leaving, it's HOW they're leaving. Just like it's not THAT Nebraska left, it's HOW they left.

A&M is one of the 4 schools (along with Nebraska) that for more than a decade voted for revenue inequity in an attempt not only to separate the haves from the have nots, but to become revenue king of the conference, therefore becoming the one holding all the power. Just like Nebraska, they didn't count on sucking in football for the better part of a decade, which eroded at their money and power. Meanwhile, Texas became revenue and power king of the conference, and instead of looking in the mirror to see what they did wrong, they found it easier to point the blame finger at Texas for their failure at becoming the school in conference to have the most money and power. And instead of trying to stick it to Texas by voting with the rest of the conference to share revenue equally, they decide to try to stick it to Texas by destroying the conference, be damned whether the smaller schools in the conference get hurt in the process - because it's not truly about how Texas is treating everyone in the conference unfairly, it's that A&M isn't the one that gets to treat the conference unfairly.

You want to know why it's not just about THAT A&M is leaving? Ask yourself how many fans are truly upset that Colorado is gone - not very many, and if so not to the extent of Nebraska and A&M. Colorado, while wanting to go to the Pac 10 since the old Big 8 days, wasn't one of the ****s when it came to revenue sharing and power, and left because they thought they saw the writing on the wall, not to mention they got the offer not only could they not refuse, but have wanted for decades.

Nebraska and A&M, on the other hand, have been power hungry since day 0, and when they realized they lost the arms race to Texas they decided to try to stick it to Texas by destroying the conference around them, regardless of how many ADs they destroy in the process. That's why they don't get sympathy.

And yes, if ISU were to get a Big 10 invite, ISU would probably be gone the next day - assuming the Big 12 fails in landing ND/BYU/Pitt...

Nice post. Thanks for the breath of fresh air.

 

[weR138]

Great post. I just have to add though. I really don't thnk ISU would just accept an invite to the Big 10, had none of this blown up. If we were still really the Big XII And no one had left, I'd rather ISU be in the Big XII. A&M would land on their feet no matter what happened. As you said, it's the fact they are jumping ship besides the fact of everyone else trying to hold it together. It's as much about spite for Texas as it is doing good for themselves. It's been proven time and time again that monetarily, they are better of in the Big XII. And that schedule they'll have, they definitely jumped to a harder road to the BCS. Their move was for Spite, spite they created.

ISU would accept an invitation to the CIC in a heartbeat.

And every alumnus should support that.

 

[Tre4ISU]

You both defend texas by saying NU and A&M did it too!

How does that work. Do two wrongs make a right now?

I didn't defend Texas. I said aTm and Nebraska made this bed and then when Texas was able to take advantage of the rules they helped create, they got ******. Yeah, Texas was a part in making those rules but they have simply taken advantage of them like Nebraska and aTm allowed. If they had wanted to at the time, those two schools could have stopped what ultimately drove them away.

 

[Clonefan94]

ISU would accept an invitation to the CIC in a heartbeat.

And every alumnus should support that.

CIC?

 

[weR138]

CIC?

CIC Member Universities

Huge, huge money.

 

[jaretac]

UT`s desire for $$$$, power, and control has eroded the relationship with the other universities in Texas. When Texas decided that it was no longer a priority to place the needs of the conference collective near the top, the Aggies decided that they were going to secure their future because THEY STILL COULD. Keep in mind that aTm is all about honor and tradition, so making a bold move like this is a culmination of a very long painful decision process that has been boiling for years, possibly decades. UT has become so brazen in their approach to athletic superiority, that aTm has to leave before they become irrelevent in a UT run conference. If UT does not change and allow the conference to be run by comittee, their is little chance this conference can survive long term. It will take another strong conference member to dilute UT`s power, but I am not sure that anyone will bite.

I think what you are failing to comprehend is that A&M was right there with Texas for 15 years voting in the same way as Texas so that A&M could collect all the $$$$, power and control. That's the thing, A&M can only point the finger to themselves for the problems in the conference.

It has been Texas, A&M, Oklahoma and Nebraska voting against the other schools for a long time. I think the difference is that last year Texas and Oklahoma decided to stay. A&M stayed because they had to. The incident last year brought the other 9 members together closer than they have ever been while A&M chose to stew about being made to stay.

My personal opinion, super conferences will never stay, even if they are created it won't remain that way. I think that we are going to see over the next ten year, division show up in the Big 10 and Pac 12 schools. The North South division was too much, it was always us against them and the feeling that we should restart the old big 8. I really see this in the Pac 12 sooner than the Big10, but it will happen in both.

 

[clonestar12]

I think what you are failing to comprehend is that A&M was right there with Texas for 15 years voting in the same way as Texas so that A&M could collect all the $$$$, power and control. That's the thing, A&M can only point the finger to themselves for the problems in the conference.

It has been Texas, A&M, Oklahoma and Nebraska voting against the other schools for a long time. I think the difference is that last year Texas and Oklahoma decided to stay. A&M stayed because they had to. The incident last year brought the other 9 members together closer than they have ever been while A&M chose to stew about being made to stay.

My personal opinion, super conferences will never stay, even if they are created it won't remain that way. I think that we are going to see over the next ten year, division show up in the Big 10 and Pac 12 schools. The North South division was too much, it was always us against them and the feeling that we should restart the old big 8. I really see this in the Pac 12 sooner than the Big10, but it will happen in both.

I comprehend perfectly. aTm has been working with UT on conference items since the conference beginning. UT has decided that working collectively with conference brethren is detrimental to the rapid developement of their brand. I assume that aTm & UT(and OU) had made some agreements behind the scenes so votes would go their way. UT didn`t follow the agreed upon plan, and aTm is left behind. OU is being quiet, but they are not in the same state so the impact is less on them because they have focused on football over the last 15 years and are strong. They also need UT for recruiting, aTm does not. I am guessing the same thing happened to Neb to some extent. UT has been in control for some time, but their partners in crime don`t trust them anymore. Good luck to aTm!

 

[jdoggivjc]

I comprehend perfectly. aTm has been working with UT on conference items since the conference beginning. UT has decided that working collectively with conference brethren is detrimental to the rapid developement of their brand. I assume that aTm & UT(and OU) had made some agreements behind the scenes so votes would go their way. UT didn`t follow the agreed upon plan, and aTm is left behind. OU is being quiet, but they are not in the same state so the impact is less on them because they have focused on football over the last 15 years and are strong. They also need UT for recruiting, aTm does not. I am guessing the same thing happened to Neb to some extent. UT has been in control for some time, but their partners in crime don`t trust them anymore. Good luck to aTm!

Really? Because IIRC it was Texas working with the "Forgotten 5" last spring that saved the Big 12 Conference in the first place (exactly what A&M DIDN'T want to happen).

But by all means, continue to be misinformed about what's really going on in this conference...