Teaxs A&M to leave Big 12

[flirt5721]

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

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

[knight_shadow]

[wareagle93]

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!

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by wareagle93

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!

No.

[AXOmom]

[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]

[ISUKappa]

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.

[AXOmom]

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.

[Kappamd]

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

[Mcr]

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.

[ISUKappa]

Originally Posted by wareagle93

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!

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.

Originally Posted by Mcr

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.

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Mcr

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.

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.

[IndianaSigKap]

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.

[AXOmom]

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.

[ISUKappa]

Originally Posted by AXOmom

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.

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.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Kappamd

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

This.