[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. 
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]