Teaxs A&M to leave Big 12
 

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...nference-sec/1

They will be leaving the Big 12 conference to possibly go to the SEC in June.

I'm keeping my eye out for Arkansas. They could possibly leave and go to the Big 12, according to everything I've seen/heard from guys like Reece Davis, Joe Schad and Herby on espn. We shall see!

This is all so dumb. At this point they might as well dissolve all of the conferences and start over.

There's no way a&m can compete with SEC schools unless they start recruiting players on the Alabama, Oklahoma (and I hate ou), and Boise state level. Even though they're ranked 8th in bcs this year I just don't see why they'd want to leave.

While geographically and athletically they would be a good fit (not to mention, revive the Texas rivalry from the SWC days), a lot of people have a hard time seeing them leave the SEC. It would make sense from a numbers standpoint (for the SEC at least) to not be stuck at 13 or not wait around for a #14. Though some have also thrown in Mizzou's name as the 14th school.

Not to mention that this now opens up Texas recruiting for the other SEC schools. Obviously Bama, Auburn, Georgia, etc... have done just fine with the kids they get from their own or other states, but this gives them another avenue for recruiting, fishbowl rules allowed or not.

Mizzou also kept getting thrown in with the Big 10 discussions. Having been on both SEC and Big 10 campuses, as well as Mizzou, I think they might be a better fit in the Big 10.

Oh yes, the vaunted Boise State recruiting classes .... which have ranked in the top 25 classes 0 times in the last 4 years (A&M twice), even while Boise became a solid top-10 program (and A&M's been comparatively down).

Ah, but recruiting rankings are inherently flawed, right? The Broncos find overlooked talent? Well, not really - they have 10 players drafted since 2007. Baylor has 9 (and has 3 1st-rounders to Boise's 2). So has A&M.

A&M certainly has the tools to compete in the SEC (money, recruiting availability, a willingness to "do anything" to compete, money, and a national brand, even if not as strong as it could be). A&M's been down because of coaching issues, not because they can't recruit.

A&M wants to leave because they're being bent over by Texas. Other schools in the BigXII want to stay because even though they're being bent over by Texas, they're still getting a ton of money and eating at the big kids' table in a prestigious conference.

The animosity between ATM and UT probably tipped the scales toward ATM leaving - which may or may not be a smart way to do business, but they're not jumping off a cliff into oblivion here. If anything, being in the SEC (both in terms of prestige, and general willingness to "look the other way") may actually help ATM's recruiting.

MCR - You lost me with Boise State. Boise State does an outstanding job with what they have, but they don't get big name recruits. They are nowhere near the top on any recruiting list. They weren't even ranked in the top 10 for recruiting on Scout or Rivals. Texas A & M was ranked 4th on Scout and 8th on Rivals, so they are keeping up with Alabama and Oklahoma already in recruiting and considerably ahead of Boise State.

As to the rest - I don't care about Texas A & M one way or another, but in their defense - after Texas started in with their own network - they had to expect every school in the Big XII was going to start to rethink. I can totally understand why Texas A & M wants out - they're seeing the writing on the wall. The Bix XII almost fell apart last year. They are currently the least stable of the big conferences.

And the SEC, while certainly the strongest overall football conference isn't strong top to bottom. There are plenty of teams in that conference Texas A & M can handle. They've been in a conference with Texas, Nebraska, Okalahoma, and Oklahoma State for years, so they haven't exactly been going up against pansies. There are loads of SEC teams ranked well below them.

I don't see it changing recruiting much either. Everyone recruits in Texas -shoot, we're in the NW and WE recruit in Texas. Everyone will continue to recruit in Texas (and Florida and Southern Cal). There are certain states where every division I program in the country recruits.

Edit - K Sig beat me to Boise State's recruiting.

Agreed. I could careless about a&m although I'm not a fan of the aggies, the fact the ut has had such a monopoly on Texas football is unfair and I think it's about to come to an end. I find it sad that college football is so persuaded by money. College football means so much more than pro I think.

The Aggies could have their own damn network if they wanted. Every school in the Big 12 can have their own freaking network; OU is purportedly working on one as well. Texas was just the first to do it because they have the resources and national brand to make it happen.

I don't know if aTm will be competitive in the SEC. They might and they might not. They certainly haven't done well against the SEC teams they've played recently. They weren't competitive in the Big 12 until about 3 years ago, and that's including when NU, CU, OSU, and even Texas were having down years. Iowa State has a better bowl record than aTm as members of the Big 12. aTm wants to be out of Texas' shadow, yet still play them every Thanksgiving weekend because it's "tradition." A tradition they may have to have the Texas legislature create a law to keep because, according to DeLoss, Texas has no desire to play the aggies if/when they move to the SEC. We may be seeing a Texas/ND Thanksgiving game instead.

This.

No, every team in the Big XII could not get a $300 million television contract for their own football network through ESPN. To get a contract with a major tv network to run a network that exclusively shows your games, which is what Texas has, a team has to show they have the alum and fan base to make that commercially profitable. When you say Texas did it first because they have the resources and the national brand – that’s the ONLY reason they could do it – because they have the resources and the national brand. If you don’t then you can’t get an exclusive tv contract with ESPN or any other major network. This is why tv contracts are worked out with conferences, so that schools without those resource or national brand can still get some games on tv and things are reasonably fair. Schools that pull in big tv money split that with smaller schools that don’t pull in much. Oklahoma can look into it because they also have resources and a national brand. Who doesn’t have those kind of resources and a national brand is every other school in the Big XII (now that Nebraska is gone). Well, Oklahoma State probably has the resources, but not the brand…yet. If Oklahoma goes that route then guess who will get left out in the cold with a lousy tv conference deal – you, Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, and Texas A &M.


Texas A&M wants in the SEC which has a lucrative tv deal for the conference as a whole. Texas did what was best for them. Oklahoma may do the same thing – why wouldn’t Texas A&M do what’s best for themselves when they’re clearly in an every man for himself conference. You’re on the Titanic, and they’re grabbing a life boat.

Texas A&M’s record against SEC schools (all-time) is .426. An okay (not great, but okay record) and that doesn’t take into account that for most of that history they were an all-male military institution and only recently became a university (1988 I believe) which put them at a disadvantage. Do I think they will come in and do great against the SEC? No. But .426 is just slightly below their overall winning percentage in the Big XII, so as you said, there’s no way to tell and based on that and their current ranking – no reason to think they will do worse over the long run. Short term they’ll probably do worse. They’ve only played 3 SEC schools in the last 10 years (excluding bowl games) at any rate, so it would be hard to draw a conclusion about how they will do in that conference from past experience.


Using their 3 year record against Big XII schools is a little misleading. For two of those years they had coaching distractions to say the least. They have winning records against four current Big XII schools overall. Last year they went 6-2 in the Big XII.


Their bowl game record isn't going to get any worse if they go to the SEC, so I’m not sure why that would figure into the argument. I don’t know that bowl games say a lot about the quality of the team in the regular season anyway. You’re right – your bowl game record in the last 10 years is better; on the other hand they’ve beaten you 9 out of 10 times in roughly that same time period. Not trying to offend – just pointing out that bowl game records aren’t particularly reliable methods for judging a team’s ability level.

I actually agree with everything you said, but FTR, Texas A&M became Texas A&M University in 1963...a good 25 years before you're noting.

My point was every school in the Big 12 has the opportunity to create their own network - that's not true for every conference out there. Are they all worth $300 million? No. Personally, I think ESPN was nuts to pay Texas that much, especially as they still haven't necessarily fulfilled the requirements of the contract (conference game is still up in the air). But that's what the market was, for better or worse, and Texas is now either tied to their ESPN deal if the Big 12 does implode or some other conference (Pac12/Big10) is going to have to rewrite their conference rules to allow school networks. (Unless Texas, ND and BYU create their own holy superconference in the next 5 years.) The LHN can't show any FB games that are already scheduled to air on another network, and even then both schools have to agree to it. It'll mostly be filler programming, replays and Olympic sports.

The SEC may not get to renegotiate their TV deal with the addition of aTm, so they may not be making more money, anyway, at least not for a while. They were guaranteed $20m starting next year in the Big 12, more if they sold their third tier rights for the right price (like Texas). Competition will definitely be stronger in the SEC. That doesn't mean aTm won't be able to rise to the occasion, but nothing is guaranteed. It may get them away from Texas, but it doesn't mean that they won't find there are other issues in a different conference.

It sucks being the little guy in this situation. But aTm was NOT the little guy. They (along with Nebraska) had numerous chances over the years to keep the monster that is Texas in check by voting for equal revenue, yet they didn't. They, along with Texas and OU, were the only three schools guaranteed to make at least $20m with the new tv deal. They also pledged to make a 10-team Big 12 work, but obviously that didn't mean anything as some have said the SEC deal has been in the works under the table since the whole realignment meltdown last year. So they may be "saving" themselves on that lifeboat, but they're also letting the little guy schools drown in the freezing water. Especially if the TV contract the Big 12 signed with Fox last summer is voided by aTm leaving.

What a school has the opportunity to do and what they have the ability to do are two different things. You initially said that the Longhorn network wasn’t a reason for Texas A&M to leave because they could have done the same thing as Texas. Are they allowed to try and contract out with a national network for an independent sports network? Yes. Would that be realistic? No. And that would be the only way to do it and get any kind of national exposure. No major network will agree to do this for a school unless that school has, as you put it, resources and a national brand. You may be allowed to do it, just like a 24 year old senior transfer student from New Hampshire with no recs and a 2.8 gpa may be allowed to go through rush at Old Miss. Will she get a bid – probably no. And it's unlikely you or any other school in your conference outside of Texas and maybe Oklahoma (even they think they will probably need partner schools) will actually be able to get your own sports network – no matter what your conference says you are allowed to do. Texas A&M may have the opportunity to get their own network, but they know that’s not a realistic possibility for anyone in that conference but Texas (and yes, I agree, ESPN paid too much – but that’s their cross to bear).

I doubt the SEC will be able to renegotiate their deal either, but the contract they signed in 2009 is still better than the Big XII’s (in my opinion) when you consider television exposure added to monetary pay out. Actually even ours is better now than the Big XII deal. Thank you Larry Scott. And they had to worry about how long that television contract was going to last anyway since the conference was unstable. I think their concern was that even though they may be responsible for ending it - if it wasn't them it was going to be someone else, so it better be them. Yes, every conference has its issues. That won't change, but there are issues and then there are ISSUES. Currently the Big XII has the latter.

I agree – it does suck for schools like Iowa State and Kansas State, and I didn’t mean to imply Texas A&M was the little guy (just that they were sick of dealing with the big guy – Texas). You are stuck in a bad situation, but in all honesty it is a situation the entire conference should have seen coming clearly last year – that was one heck of an iceberg. At that point every AD in that conference should have been doing exactly what Texas A&M did – looking for other options. Should they have done something to stop Texas earlier? Probably, but that’s not an option now, and bottom line – they have to look out for their school first and foremost.


Truthfully I think at some point what almost happened last year will happen and a big chunk of these schools will bolt, in a group, to another conference. I think we'll eventually become regional super conferences with 2 divisions each and a playoff system of some kind (hopefully). In the meantime what the BigXII needs to do is start looking for some replacement schools. From the Oklahoma boards it sounds like they are thinking BYU who already has their own network and that's one of the partner ideas some of their fans are bandying about. I have no idea how the Big XII as a whole would feel about that. The Pac 12 nixed that quick because they are a religously affiliated school and, my understanding is, not an AAU research university (could be wrong on that last one), but strictly from a sports perspective and given the money they pull in - it would actually be a great trade off to get them in exchange for losing Texas A&M.

Shirley1929 – Apologize for the mistake in dates.

aTm HAS said the LHN wasn't their sole reason for looking elsewhere. Is that the honest truth? Probably not. Should Texas be blamed for taking advantage of the fact that they Can build their own network? It sure sounds like that's what a lot of people are doing. If Oregon had the opportunity and ability (current conference rules notwithstanding) to do the same thing Texas did with the LHN, do you think the school would say "Oh, sorry guys, it's not fair to schools like WSU, I think we'll pass." Or Ohio State or USC. Money talks in collegiate athletics. aTm had the chance to vote for a Big 12 network with the other schools, but they chose not to. And right now it's not even guaranteed that aTm has a place in the SEC. Is it 99% most likely? Yes, but they haven't been officially accepted yet.

There is fault EVERYWHERE in this conference, from the way it was formed in 1996, to how the Haves schools continually voted for unequal revenue sharing (which then came back to bite Nebraska and aTm in the ass) to how everything was dealt with last year. College FB is no longer about the schools or the athletes or even the sport itself. It's all about Money, which was obviously shown with realignment last year and in the increasing rumors of SuperConferences.

You say the other schools should be looking out for their best interests. Well, right now, sticking with Texas and OU and hoping to Jebus we can get a 10th member, possibly even go back to 12, is what's best for us right now. WE HAVE NO OTHER OPTIONS. Look what happened to Mizzou last year. They wanted out, but got effed over by the B1G in order to get Nebraska.

You're in a relatively stable, historical conference with a commissioner who has openly said he wants to go to a 16-team conference and has no qualms about destroying other conferences and rivalries to get there. If the Pac12 could get UT/OU/OSU/TTech in a package deal, Larry Scott would do whatever it takes to make it happen.

It's easy for someone outside the conference to look at a clusterf*ck like the Big 12 and say "you guys are doomed/it's all Texas' fault/every man for himself" but when it's your school and your athletics in the middle of the crossfire, it's a little more difficult. There are 100-year-old rivalries being broken and agreements signed to "uphold the conference" being voided.

I apologize if I'm a little emotional about this (hello pregnancy hormones!) but we just went through this same crap last year and I'm sick to death of all the rumors from "reporters" who are salivating at the thought of the end of the Big 12. And the idiot Hawk and Husker fans who would like nothing more than my school (a Tier-1, AAU research institution) relegated to a second-tier conference (Sorry RC, but there's a lot of Stupid coming out of Hawk fans' mouths).

Yes, BYU is one school that's been named quite often in replacing aTm. Everything I've read on various schools' message boards seems to indicate that pretty much every school in the conference would be satisfied with that addition, at least for now. Notre Dame and Pitt are two others, although those are Extremely long shots.

You need to hang out with cooler people :p - nobody I know wishes CUSA or anything on ISU/Kansas/KState. Not that the reasons are necessarily "honorable" or whatever, but I think most understand that teams are kind of held hostage by UT (and lesser, OU) and can sympathize.

After all, everyone hates OSU.

Well, you (and I'm assuming the people you know) have a college degree. Most of the people cackling over the demise of Iowa State are barely high school grads who are Hawk fans because they don't know any different. They are the definition of TavernHawk.

The thought on the ISU boards is that if there is an eventual trend towards SuperConferences, the Big East is going to get raided, anyway, so it's no more stable than the Big 12.

Yeah, it would be nice if we didn't have to rely on Texas to keep the conference together, but that's the way it is. At this time, we are better off with them in the conference than without.

Yep, I think that's the bottom line for the rest of the B12, honestly.

No.

[QUOTE=ISUKappa;2087054]aTm HAS said the LHN wasn't their sole reason for looking elsewhere. Is that the honest truth? Probably not. Should Texas be blamed for taking advantage of the fact that they Can build their own network? It sure sounds like that's what a lot of people are doing. If Oregon had the opportunity and ability (current conference rules notwithstanding) to do the same thing Texas did with the LHN, do you think the school would say "Oh, sorry guys, it's not fair to schools like WSU, I think we'll pass." Or Ohio State or USC. Money talks in collegiate athletics.

Yes, money talks in collegiate athletics (no argument there. I completely agree with you) but if you feel that, on that basis, Texas did what any other school in their position would have done then there is no reason to get upset with Texas A&M who followed that same logic. They went with the money and did what was best for them. Just like Texas. You asked if Texas should be blamed for starting their own network because they could - that's for you and the schools in your conference to decide but if not then why should Texas A&M be blamed because the SEC was willing to take them and they jumped ship?

As to what any other school would have done. We might have done exactly the same as Texas and in that case I would have expected the schools in our conference to start looking. If USC did it I would want my school to start looking, and I wouldn't blame any other school that got out before we had a chance to do the same or if we couldn't do the same- as frustrating as it might be to me.

I have to point out that USC has discussed going independent and getting their own network and decided against it every time its come up, and we all agreed to equal revenue sharing which is good for WSU and not so much for us at the moment, so while money certainly talks in our conference too - so far we seem a little more willing to look out for the little guys. Not sure how long that will last of course.

aTm had the chance to vote for a Big 12 network with the other schools, but they chose not to. And right now it's not even guaranteed that aTm has a place in the SEC. Is it 99% most likely? Yes, but they haven't been officially accepted yet.

I don't know A&M's reasons for voting no on a Big 12 network, so I won't comment on the wisdom of the decision. I will trust that you know your conference and it was a horrible decision - apparently one of many bad decisions (as the decision to jump to the SEC may turn out to be), but because they made those decisions are they then obligated to stay with the Big XII no matter how things turned out? No, I don't think that they were. Heaven help us all if we are obligated to stick with something after it turns out our choices were poor (jobs, schools, cities, spouses). We can wake up, smell the coffee, realize our own short-sightedness, and make corrections when we have the opportunity to do so.


There is fault EVERYWHERE in this conference, from the way it was formed in 1996, to how the Haves schools continually voted for unequal revenue sharing (which then came back to bite Nebraska and aTm in the ass) to how everything was dealt with last year. College FB is no longer about the schools or the athletes or even the sport itself. It's all about Money, which was obviously shown with realignment last year and in the increasing rumors of SuperConferences.

Now I'm a bit confused. On the one hand it sounds like you were saying that of course Texas was going to take the opportunity to get their own network and that any other school would do the same because it is, after all, about the money, so why blame them for that. Then here it sounds like you're upset about the fact that your conference and college football in general makes decisions that are all about looking out for themselves and getting the most money. I agree that it is about money...I agree that you should have had revenue sharing...I agree that it isn't just about schools and sports anymore...but again, why get upset with Nebraska and A&M for accepting those facts and acting accordingly while you let Texas off the hook?

I agree that there is plenty of blame to go around, but it seems like the blame is getting isn't getting put all around - it's getting put solely on the schools that left and the school that pushed them in that direction (and if you read their boards they don't appear to give a rat's ass that they left) is getting a pass because you need them.

You say the other schools should be looking out for their best interests. Well, right now, sticking with Texas and OU and hoping to Jebus we can get a 10th member, possibly even go back to 12, is what's best for us right now. WE HAVE NO OTHER OPTIONS. Look what happened to Mizzou last year. They wanted out, but got effed over by the B1G in order to get Nebraska.

I never suggested that sticking with Texas/OU and getting a 10th member wouldn't be in your best interest. I don't know what's in your best interest. I realize that you are in the unfortunate position of not having many options at the moment. I didn't argue otherwise.

I simply said that every school has to think about what is in their best interest and if they decide, like Texas A&M, that it is leaving the conference, then they need to do that, and they shouldn't be faulted for it. You asked me what UofO would do if they got a tv network like Texas - would they refuse it on the grounds that it wouldn't be fair to WSU. Probably not. So why would you expect Texas A&M to refuse the SEC because it isn't fair to Iowa State since they don't have other options?


You're in a relatively stable, historical conference with a commissioner who has openly said he wants to go to a 16-team conference and has no qualms about destroying other conferences and rivalries to get there. If the Pac12 could get UT/OU/OSU/TTech in a package deal, Larry Scott would do whatever it takes to make it happen.

Yes, he would. That's why we hired him. That's why were are a stable conference currently. We may be more willing to look out for little fish in our pond, but it was clear the football landscape was changing, so we were going to be proactive and not let our pond get drained. We hired someone to make sure that wouldn't happen. It isn't his job to worry about other conferences or their rivalries. I'm not trying to sound harsh or unfeeling - but he was hired to make sure our conference survived. When we became the Pac-12 - we had to give up some things too to expand and yes, we want to expand further. No I don't think we're done with the Big XII in the long run. Knowing that is one of the reasons USC has backed off on the going independent/starting their own network talk. It's one of the reasons we just got a great tv deal.

It's easy for someone outside the conference to look at a clusterf*ck like the Big 12 and say "you guys are doomed/it's all Texas' fault/every man for himself" but when it's your school and your athletics in the middle of the crossfire, it's a little more difficult. There are 100-year-old rivalries being broken and agreements signed to "uphold the conference" being voided.

As I said, I understand your frustration. Everyone handles bad situations differently. I'm a person who likes to look down the road, see the worst case scenario and plan for it. I think you usually end up better off that way. For what its worth - I don't think you're doomed (okay the Titanic reference probably made it sound that way, but I don't think that ...entirely). I do think you're in a mess. Yes, I get that you're caught in a crossfire, and I don't think it is all Texas' fault, but it sounds to me like you're blaming just one side that's firing (Nebraska and Texas A&M) and while I don't think they are blameless - I don't think they are primarily at fault, and I think while their previous decisions within the conference may have been unwise, I still understand their decision to leave now and I don't fault them for that (they may be at fault for other things).

I apologize if I'm a little emotional about this (hello pregnancy hormones!) but we just went through this same crap last year and I'm sick to death of all the rumors from "reporters" who are salivating at the thought of the end of the Big 12. And the idiot Hawk and Husker fans who would like nothing more than my school (a Tier-1, AAU research institution) relegated to a second-tier conference (Sorry RC, but there's a lot of Stupid coming out of Hawk fans' mouths).

You have every right to be emotional - it's your school (I would feel the same way in your position and I'm not pregnant). I know all about reporters salivating over bad news concerning a school or conference (school in our case). I know that Iowa State has a strong academic history. I think if we go to super conferences in all likelihood you would be, as RC mentioned, picked up by the Big East. Or the Big XII could add BYU and then decide to start adding other MWC schools. Or Boise State - god help you. :D

Yes, BYU is one school that's been named quite often in replacing aTm. Everything I've read on various schools' message boards seems to indicate that pretty much every school in the conference would be satisfied with that addition, at least for now. Notre Dame and Pitt are two others, although those are Extremely long shots.

I think BYU would be a great get - already said why. I agree that Notre Dame and Pitt are long shots.
[
/QUOTE]

We're obviously coming at this from two very different perspectives. My beef with aTm was that JUST LAST YEAR they pledged that they were solid in the new Big 12; they were committed to making it work for the next 10 years. That was a bald faced lie. The SEC didn't approach aTm, they went begging to the SEC, and have been purportedly working on this deal for the entire year under the table. They only reason it's taking as long as it has, is that the Big 12 (or Fox, really) could sue the SEC for tortious interference and both aTm and the SEC want to make sure their asses are covered. Not to mention Beebe is an idiot who didn't get more stringent penalties in place for those teams breaking contract and wishing to leave the conference. The longer aTm drags is out, the less they assume have to pay in "exit fees" (where exit fees are actually withheld revenue).

I feel like everyone wants us (and the other "forgotten" schools) to be pissed at Texas for the LHN and in general being the "big bully" of the conference (and yes, some are and feel aTm is totally in the right to leave). But aTm is the one who took their ball and left despite giving every assurance they were staying. I'd be annoyed with Mizzou or OU or any other school that did the same (including Texas). It's not so much that they're leaving, but how they went about it, especially knowing it could/would void the new TV deal with Fox. When all the crap went down last year, the forgotten schools pledged to give their share of the exit fees from NU and CU to Texas, OU and aTm to guarantee them the $20m/year they wanted. Texas and OU said thanks for the gesture, but that's not necessary. aTm said, we'll take the money!

I'm not saying Texas is blameless, but at least they're is still in the conference and are at least trying to make it work with what's left. Maybe it's because they don't have any other options right now aside from Independence and who knows what will happen to the rest of their sports if they go down that route. But they're here. Like I said, it sucks to be tied to Texas that way, but that's the reality of the situation as it stands and we have to do the best with that.

I miss the old Big 8, even if it meant putting up with NU and their overlord Osborne. Or better yet, we should have joined the Big 10 way back when when we had the chance. And I really don't want to have to give back our huge ass video screen (that was financed with the increased revenue from the revamped network deal), it looks so pretty in Jack Trice.

Yes, we are coming at it from different perspectives and will have to agree to disagree on most of it I suppose. Actually, the fact that I've spent this much time defending a school not in my conference that I have zero stake in or loyalty to is a very sad commentary on my obsession with college football. Obviously I need to get out more. :)

I'm going to guess that from A&M's perspective - all of that "we are committed to making it work for 10 years/solid on the Big 12" thing went out the window when Texas signed that network deal because they felt that this was a sign Texas wasn't really all that committed to the Big 12 and making it work for 10 years. I''ll speculate that they felt Texas backed out of that commitment first and all bets were off. Regardless, college football is what it is and as you said -mostly about money these days, so from the start, I wouldn't have assumed that agreement was worth the paper it was printed on - for anyone. Again, I have to think if Iowa State thought they could get into the Big X today - what would that agreement mean to your school? I'm guessing not a lot.

Bottom line my point is, if you are going to be pissed at A&M then you need to be pissed at Texas as well. If your aren't pissed at Texas then there's no reason to be pissed at A&M. They are acting in the same way on the same basis for the same reason. If you don't like the behavior of one - you shouldn't like the behavior of the other. I don't understand getting that upset with one and letting the other off the hook.

If you or your school feels Texas is committed to making your conference work and will make an effort to look after your best interests - what can I say. I think your trust is terribly misplaced, but its your school and your conference.

Yes, joining the Big 10 would have been a good decision for ISU in retrospect, but hindsight is 20/20. It seems odd to have ISU in one conference and Iowa in another. Who knows what may work out in the future. I do hope that the BYU thing works out. If not - I hope that regardless of whatever agreement your school signed, if another conference comes sniffing around (and I know that doesn't seem likely at the moment, but things can change quickly) they take a serious look.

Changing the subject ever-so-slightly...has anyone seen this?

http://www.smu2b12.com/

Riiiiight.

I don't want this to be taken as a snarky question at all - I truthfully don't know, and I'm curious. Why would that be a bad thing or why wouldn't the Big XII consider it?

As an added thought - why wouldn't the Big XII consider adding Colorado State (not a great football team currently, but they do have access to the Denver market- well kind of).

It wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, I just don't think it would happen. I have a ton of friends that went there & it's a fine school. IMO they're just not as strong in all the areas that I would think the Big 12 would be looking for in a partner. Maybe I'm wrong though.

^^^Okay, that makes sense. Just curious.

It is really hard to feel anything for other conferences when your school plays in the WAC. You think your conference has problems? Not only are we in a precarious position, we're still having to deal with Boizzze drama and they left the conference (good riddance). They won't even play an out of conference rivalry game against us unless we agreed to only play in The City of Smug, and never come to Moscow.

Please Georgia, kick their jackasses like Reno did. Also please, please, if the WAC is no longer going to have football, let us move to a conference that doesn't have an egomaniac college president who runs his mouth and tries to run football, as well as firing their AD who put them on the map just before the season starts? Thanks!


(Full disclosure, the Kibbie Dome is the smallest DI facility, and though I have mad love for it we're going to have to borrow Martin from Wazzu to play big teams who have a good traveling fan base. Those cry baby Bronco Bandwagon fans are scared to come to Moscow because we're "nasty and inebriated" and we couldn't fill Martin playing them anyway.)

Hey, hey, didn't you get the memo? You can't call it Wazzu anymore!

^^^LOL. My daughter went to WSU her freshman year. The only time she ever heard it called Wazzu was by people who didn't go there. WSU students and alums always said WSU. I asked and she has no idea why they refuse to call it Wazzu. She just says they never did. I could hazard a guess, but I doubt WSU students and alums would appreciate it, and she still has friends there, so I'll keep it to myself.

SMU averages something like 24,000 people at their football games. The Dallas market is already a B12 market anyway, and SMU's a small school - the alumni base, while fairly wealthy, just isn't big. SMU doesn't offer much to the conference, that it doesn't already have, even though it's a wonderful school with a rich heritage.

Now, CSU is in a similar boat, but without the SMU "pedigree" (and wealth) but with incredible travel issues - and the Denver market clearly isn't super important to the B12 anyway, since they allowed CU to leave without any real interaction.

The B12 is in a position where they can go big, so there really isn't any reason to "settle" for a Houston, SMU or CSU.

^^^ Got it. Makes sense as well. Outside of BYU - who do you think they would be inclined to go big with or do you think BYU is the only bigger name that they (or at least Oklahoma fans) are considering?

Oh, I don't think ASWSU got the memo either http://www.aswsu.wsu.edu/events_wazzu_wednesday.aspx

Nor did part of athletics with the ZZU Crew http://www.wsucougars.com/ot/wast-cru-home.html

Can't forget about their new information portal, named zzusis https://siscontest.wsu.edu/

Rebranding & name change, not that successful I guess.

I think the saddest thing I've seen related to WAZZU recently is the feel good campaign about the football team losing. As a Vandal hey, I've been there, I understand what it is like to have a season where there are only two wins (05, 08) or one win (07), and they don't even have to deal with Bluorange people being butthurt and creating conspiracies about the NCAA keeping them down, while losing! But the http://undefeatedfans.com/ website and campaign on the radio is just well, kind of pathetic. The one ad with the guy talking about seeing the flag and people texting each other, then citing it is everything good about WSU football is not inspiring. They should take a cue from us and promote all the great things that go on when not winning and not dwell on it, nor draw attention to it!

So Cougs, dry yours tears with

http://images.footballfanatics.com/F...6_xl.jpg&w=600

Put on a new hat

http://images.footballfanatics.com/F...1_xl.jpg&w=600

And order every single cheese from the Cougar Creamery, that's nine in total, to go with your whine. Also make sure to use this before bed.

http://www.wazzugear.com/istarimages...TT-2194958.jpg

If the fact that Nike owns Oregon's soul and they always have the fugliest uniforms can't get you through these unfortunate times, nothing will and I suggest eating a lot of Ferdinand's while waving a flag to burn off the calories.


I'm not sure when she attended, but I'm sure it was post "Don't call it Wazzu!" campaign because I know plenty (not all though) of people who call it Wazzu and bleed Crimson & Gray. Granted this spans faculty, staff, and alumni, no current students, so perhaps her attendance was later and explains her experience. The real problem is their mascot being Cougars as there's this school in Utah who also has that mascot, and people around here have attended that school, or have family/religious ties to it, are covered band wagon fans of it so I'm sometimes not sure which school is being referenced until colors or locations come into play.

Of course we don't have that problem as there are no other VANDALS, and if people say IDAHO instead of UI we're fine. Can't really get us confused with Boizzze or Idaho State, thankfully.

She attended in 2007-2008, so that's possible. I've heard it called Wazzu, but she says it was new to her until we moved to Oregon and she heard it called that by UofO students, so I guess the campaign's been a limited success- LOL.

We lived in eastern Washington (Spokane) for 11 years with a pretty heavy Mormon contingent. At least there, confusing it with BYU's cougar was never an issue, but that is admittedly, WSU and Gonzaga territory with a little UW thrown in. When you referred to the Cougars, everyone knew who you meant, but I'm not sure how BYU refers to theirs and WSU almost always says, "Cougs or The Cougs or Butch".

She still misses Butch - the Duck freaks her out for some reason.

As to Nike - no, it doesn't own our soul, technically, Phil Knight owns our soul. Nike just helps him market us. It's working out incredibly well, so we're good with that.

Our "fugly" uniforms are unlikely to comfort them much since they just had Nike redesign them last spring with the clear intent of making them a little more "Oregon-like". No doubt the influence of Bill Moos who is a former Oregon AD.

KSig went into the specifics of it, while I generalized...thanks for putting my thoughts into words!

Looks like A&M had its chance but wasn't interested:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/...oss-dodds-says

The school used to sell tees/sweatshirts with Wazzu on them. I have one, and it was given to me by my brother, a WSU alum. I never wear it, because although I did not graduate from UW, I did put down a deposit there initially and later attended summer classes, so I consider myself an honorary Husky. Plus everyone else in my family is a Husky, and I grew up cheering for no other team.

Yes, Ol' Boy DeLoss has no reason to shade the truth here, it seems exactly like the entire plan was to have ESPN put on the Texas and Texas A&M Network and A&M shot that down.