Honest question re: WVU and A&M changing conferences

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Nov 2, 2009
281
285
613
Iowa Hill Country
#42
Jun 1, 2008
4,347
826
743
Oklahoma City, OK
#43
So A&M didn't make their move until then?


9/25/2011 was when they made it official.

9/1/2011:
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6912807/texas-aggies-tell-big-12-seek-new-conference

8/13/2011 (before season started mind you):
http://www.chron.com/sports/college...Texas-A-M-intends-to-leave-Big-12-2078166.php

8/11/2011
http://newsok.com/article/3593765

7/26/2011 (This article is in favor of A&M staying)
http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/co...most-texas-am-fans-want-to-stay-in-big-12.ece

8/31/2011
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...t/2011/08/what-next-for-big-12/1#.T0VUZXnYQsc

8/15/2011
http://www.khou.com/sports/Texas-AM-facing-lengthy-realignment-process--127783973.html

6/14/2010:
http://president.tamu.edu/2010/06/14/texas-am-will-remain-in-the-big-12-conference/

That last one is from the President of A&M. How he spoke of being in the Big 12 for years to come.

Yeah...years at A&M = 1year and 3 months!

Let me be clear: This decision was made in the best interests of Texas A&M and was not made in haste. As I mentioned to the Faculty Senate Monday afternoon, our top consideration was the demands placed on our student-athletes, in terms of academics, time away from the classroom, and the overall level of competition. There were also many other factors considered, including maintaining Texas A&M’s strong foothold in the State of Texas and preserving our natural athletic rivalries, many of which date back more than 100 years. And, ultimately, by remaining a member of the Big 12, we were able to more than double our financial return to the levels being offered by other conferences.

I understand that some Aggies are disappointed, but I am confident this decision will serve Texas A&M well in the years to come. As Athletic Director Bill Byrne and I stated numerous times throughout this process, our hope and desire was for the Big 12 to continue. And we both agree that this is an exciting, new day for our league.
So much for that idea!

A&M will be swept into obscurity (in the SEC) because of their greedy and attitude toward their overlords known as Longhorns!
 
Sep 28, 2010
1,697
736
243
#45
6/14/2010:
http://president.tamu.edu/2010/06/14/texas-am-will-remain-in-the-big-12-conference/

That last one is from the President of A&M. How he spoke of being in the Big 12 for years to come.

Yeah...years at A&M = 1year and 3 months!
Which was quite a while before it was announced that ESPN was the shirt sponsor of another team in the conference. Personal opinion will determine how valid of a reason to look outside the conference that is but I can see it either way.


Just can't stand the facts can you.

Give it up, this was driven by aTm, and everyone knows it.
Though no one seemed to really freak out until OU's prez mentioned they were looking around too.
 
Jun 1, 2008
4,347
826
743
Oklahoma City, OK
#46
Which was quite a while before it was announced that ESPN was the shirt sponsor of another team in the conference. Personal opinion will determine how valid of a reason to look outside the conference that is but I can see it either way.
And yet, Texas still offered A&M a piece of the pie before ESPN got involved...and the idiots in College Station said no! Want to talk about penis envy!


Though no one seemed to really freak out until OU's prez mentioned they were looking around too.
OU was looking around, but never asked the conference to be released from the Big 12 before knowing what conference would pick us up.

Also, maybe if you had any idea what happened, OU was not looking to move unilaterally. OU wanted OSU to come along. The conference of OU's choosing, the PAC-12, wanted Texas too. It didn't happen.

Outside of that, OU has been a very good partner to the Big 12, in fact without OU, the Big 12 probably wouldn't have these $1 billion TV contracts....since OU has been the face of the Big 12 since 2000.

I am not saying OU has carried the league. But they have been the top dawg of the conference for better than a decade. The 4 NC Games they have been too, the 7 Big 12 titles, show this.

A&M since 2000 has ZERO anything in football. And frankly, sans 2010, has been mediocre at best!
 
Jul 2, 2004
2,541
529
1,743
54
Columbia, MD
#47
Which was quite a while before it was announced that ESPN was the shirt sponsor of another team in the conference. Personal opinion will determine how valid of a reason to look outside the conference that is but I can see it either way.




Though no one seemed to really freak out until OU's prez mentioned they were looking around too.
Hey there was a lot of panic out there from the time the LHN plans came out until the deal was cut to bring in TCU. But if aTm had accepted UT's concessions on the LHN then no one would have changed conferences.

The Boren statement revved up the craziness, but there was plenty of panic across the league from the moment aTm said they were leaving. Many of us wished we could go somewhere.
 
Sep 28, 2010
1,697
736
243
#48
And yet, Texas still offered A&M a piece of the pie before ESPN got involved...and the idiots in College Station said no! Want to talk about penis envy!
A&M was offered a non-equitable share of a very differently structured deal than what the LHN ended up being.


OU was looking around, but never asked the conference to be released from the Big 12 before knowing what conference would pick us up.

Also, maybe if you had any idea what happened, OU was not looking to move unilaterally. OU wanted OSU to come along. The conference of OU's choosing, the PAC-12, wanted Texas too. It didn't happen.

Outside of that, OU has been a very good partner to the Big 12, in fact without OU, the Big 12 probably wouldn't have these $1 billion TV contracts....since OU has been the face of the Big 12 since 2000.

I am not saying OU has carried the league. But they have been the top dawg of the conference for better than a decade. The 4 NC Games they have been too, the 7 Big 12 titles, show this.

A&M since 2000 has ZERO anything in football. And frankly, sans 2010, has been mediocre at best!
You really think A&M left without knowing where they would land? I don't disagree with most of the rest of that (other than the fact that I think OU was looking to move with OSU because they had to, not because they wanted to). In any case, what's your point? A&M hasn't been great the last ten years but we were still able to make a positive conference move.

sidenote: you like the exclamation points, don't you?


Hey there was a lot of panic out there from the time the LHN plans came out until the deal was cut to bring in TCU. But if aTm had accepted UT's concessions on the LHN then no one would have changed conferences.
Honest question: what were their concessions? The only thing I saw them pull back on were things the NCAA or Big 12 flat out said they couldn't do when they were called out on it.


The Boren statement revved up the craziness, but there was plenty of panic across the league from the moment aTm said they were leaving. Many of us wished we could go somewhere.
Right...so why the massive criticism when someone does it?
 
Nov 2, 2009
281
285
613
Iowa Hill Country
#49
A&M was offered a non-equitable share of a very differently structured deal than what the LHN ended up being.




You really think A&M left without knowing where they would land? I don't disagree with most of the rest of that (other than the fact that I think OU was looking to move with OSU because they had to, not because they wanted to). In any case, what's your point? A&M hasn't been great the last ten years but we were still able to make a positive conference move.

sidenote: you like the exclamation points, don't you?




Honest question: what were their concessions? The only thing I saw them pull back on were things the NCAA or Big 12 flat out said they couldn't do when they were called out on it.




Right...so why the massive criticism when someone does it?
The league's impending doom was the reason people wanted to move.

If A&M doesn't try to leave, there would not have been any impending doom. Why is this so hard to understand?

No one is trying to rewrite history, so I don't see why you feel compelled to defend A&M so much. Just admit that they were the ones most responsible for the Big 12 near-blow up last summer, and I think we'd all quit badgering you. Its obvious to everyone but A&M fans. We don't hate you personally, or even your athletic department, but this finger pointing of "everyone else wanted it too" is ridiculous. If A&M hadn't announced they were leaving, UT and OU wouldn't have looked back into the Pac. It's pretty simple. Yes, every school except maybe Baylor investigated going elsewhere, but it was all because of A&M's initial move. If A&M had been committed to the Big 12, it wouldn't have happened.
 
Jul 2, 2004
2,541
529
1,743
54
Columbia, MD
#50
Right...so why the massive criticism when someone does it?
Well I'm not sure what massive criticism I've given. I do think the right thing was done in not fighting it as some wanted to do. I can understand the decision, I don't think it was the best one. I do think it was a reaction to anger, and believe me there are many times I wish we never had to play the zero's in anything ever again.

However, I have to say there is a difference in leaving because your mad at your rival because they always seem to weasel their way on top, and leaving because the conference your in is poorly run, has low revenue, and is falling apart (or at least quickly getting less attractive). You asked for what we thought the differences were, I gave you what I thought.
 
Sep 28, 2010
1,697
736
243
#51
The league's impending doom was the reason people wanted to move.

If A&M doesn't try to leave, there would not have been any impending doom. Why is this so hard to understand?

No one is trying to rewrite history, so I don't see why you feel compelled to defend A&M so much. Just admit that they were the ones most responsible for the Big 12 near-blow up last summer, and I think we'd all quit badgering you. Its obvious to everyone but A&M fans. We don't hate you personally, or even your athletic department, but this finger pointing of "everyone else wanted it too" is ridiculous. If A&M hadn't announced they were leaving, UT and OU wouldn't have looked back into the Pac. It's pretty simple. Yes, every school except maybe Baylor investigated going elsewhere, but it was all because of A&M's initial move. If A&M had been committed to the Big 12, it wouldn't have happened.
I actually haven't done much defending, I was more interested to hear opinions.

I've never denied that A&M's move was the reason behind a lot of potential movement, although I'd also argue that if the conference was that stable to start with one team moving wouldn't be that big of a deal. I don't know that the conference is sustainable long term, time will well.


Well I'm not sure what massive criticism I've given. I do think the right thing was done in not fighting it as some wanted to do. I can understand the decision, I don't think it was the best one. I do think it was a reaction to anger, and believe me there are many times I wish we never had to play the zero's in anything ever again.

However, I have to say there is a difference in leaving because your mad at your rival because they always seem to weasel their way on top, and leaving because the conference your in is poorly run, has low revenue, and is falling apart (or at least quickly getting less attractive). You asked for what we thought the differences were, I gave you what I thought.
Sorry, that was an overarching question and not specifically directed at you.

I can see both sides of it but I think A&M has a variety of reasons for making the move and some of them have nothing to do with Texas, the biggest one being simply stability. A&M leaving caused some major waves, and even if they had stayed if Texas or OU decided to leave the Big 12 would pretty much crater.

In any case I'm really interested to revisit this in 4 or 5 years and see how well the decision has played out in regards to on field success, recruiting, and revenue.
 
Jul 12, 2011
680
265
113
26
#52
I actually haven't done much defending, I was more interested to hear opinions.

I can see both sides of it but I think A&M has a variety of reasons for making the move and some of them have nothing to do with Texas, the biggest one being simply stability. A&M leaving caused some major waves, and even if they had stayed if Texas or OU decided to leave the Big 12 would pretty much crater.
Don't worry, youve done a lot of defending.

That's a huge IF. If OU and Texas had left. And illogical. "well if we hadn't left if someone else had things would have gone to hell." if any of the top five revenue schools leaves it causes waves. And it was you. Don't blame schools that didn't go anywhere because you did.
 
Sep 28, 2010
1,697
736
243
#53
Don't worry, youve done a lot of defending.

That's a huge IF. If OU and Texas had left. And illogical. "well if we hadn't left if someone else had things would have gone to hell." if any of the top five revenue schools leaves it causes waves. And it was you. Don't blame schools that didn't go anywhere because you did.

Three posts is a lot? Well, ok.

In any case I'm not blaming anyone and you're reading quite a bit into my comments, I was just pointing out that another team leaving could cause the conference to implode no matter what A&M did. I simply think the conference isn't particularly stable as evidenced by 4 teams leaving in two year. That in itself isn't necessarily a reason to leave but if an opportunity that's much more stable with greater visibility and potentially greater financial benefits is there, why not?

I also think the potential for Texas to go independent is there, particularly with the structuring of the LHN agreements.

In any case I really wasn't trying to argue about this and don't mean to so I'll leave it there. Many of you don't agree with me and my intent wasn't to convince you otherwise, was just curious where people are coming from.
 
Jun 1, 2008
4,347
826
743
Oklahoma City, OK
#54
A&M was offered a non-equitable share of a very differently structured deal than what the LHN ended up being.
Duh!
It was a much differently structured arrangement than what currently is because UT and A&M would have been involved. Had A&M jumped on it, then the network would likely be more than just a few subscribers right now. It would be a hot commodity in Texas more than likely.

You really think A&M left without knowing where they would land? I don't disagree with most of the rest of that (other than the fact that I think OU was looking to move with OSU because they had to, not because they wanted to). In any case, what's your point? A&M hasn't been great the last ten years but we were still able to make a positive conference move.

sidenote: you like the exclamation points, don't you?
Sidenote: I love my exclamation points!

Texas A&M asked to leave the conference before knowing they would be voted into the SEC. That is a fact. They asked to leave about 2 or 3 months before it was final...and after the first vote by the SEC schools to grant them admission. Baylor and a few others were threatening a law suit against A&M. The powers that be, came together, said no, if they do not want to be a part of this conference, let them leave (essentially). Once all that was cleared up, then the SEC voted again and this time, they were allowed by the SEC to come into their conference.

Basically, the SEC didn't want to look like a conference divider in all this, and didn't want any part of a nasty feud. Once it was seen that the Big 12 allowed A&M to move, then they allowed A&M in.

Hence, A&M left before knowing for sure whatt conference they would be going too. Having an idea and knowing for sure are two very different things!


Honest question: what were their concessions? The only thing I saw them pull back on were things the NCAA or Big 12 flat out said they couldn't do when they were called out on it.

Right...so why the massive criticism when someone does it?
Texas agreed to 100% revenue sharing of tier 1 and tier 2. It has been Texas' position well before the Big 8 gained all the Texas schools that revenue sharing was not to be 100%. In fact, Texas at first (before coming to the big 12) really did not want any sharing. They wanted all their TV revenue. The Big 8 said no. But agreed to 50%.

Texas was told they could not have high school recruits games shown on their network. They were told they could do highlights, but the highlights had to be high school in general, not of certain targeted recruits. This was basically the NCAA telling ESPN moreso than Texas since Texas was not and is not in control over programming in their current format.

Texas A&M got all butt hurt because they wanted more revenue sharing. They got it (mind you this revenue sharing was done about a month before Texas A&M asked to leave the conference). A&M didn't want the LHN to have high school recruits games televised on their network, this also goes for all the other big 12 schools, but Texas. They got it.

Texas A&M wanted to have a locked revenue sharing for 6 years. They got it.

Those are two very big concessions for Texas and all schools to give. Texas A&M got what they wanted. Yet they still wanted to leave.

Texas A&M bitched and moaned about being treated unfairly by Texas and the Big 12, that the big 12 came to the table and gave a lot to the entire conference, not just A&M...which should have been good enough.

The only thing A&M didn't get was the dismantling of the Longhorn Network.

But like spoiled little brats, or someone with a complex, Texas A&M took their ball and went home with it.

Basically one can say that Texas A&M wanted their cake and to eat it too.
 
Nov 2, 2009
281
285
613
Iowa Hill Country
#55
I actually haven't done much defending, I was more interested to hear opinions.

I've never denied that A&M's move was the reason behind a lot of potential movement, although I'd also argue that if the conference was that stable to start with one team moving wouldn't be that big of a deal. I don't know that the conference is sustainable long term, time will well.
And the conference survived that one team moving, it appears, so in the end its not that big of a deal.

What bothers me to this day was how willing A&M was to just jeopardize the entire thing and possibly destroy 4-5 other institutions' entire athletic departments, just to spite Texas, chant "SEC! SEC! SEC!", and possibly make a little more cash.