I reallllyyyy want to comment....but I'm not gonna because I'm super careful about not creating an attorney client relationship through a BBS post!
I know you really really really hope UT ends up with the Pac-whatever. everything I hear suggests your administration sees that entirely as a backup plan. That shoring up the Big 12 is number one on their list of things to do. There's too much investment and return from LHN for them to throw in the towel and reduce it to a regional network before it even begins. OU isn't leaving without UT...ok, that's my opinion not a fact. But I don't see it happening. Did you hear Pickens talking about this last night during OSU game? He talked for a while about revenue sharing saving the Big 12; allowing UT to keep LHN but otherwise spreading money evenly throughout the conference like every other conference in the country. He said he thought the Big 12 would survive. Very different than what he said before...and timely considering what I had heard the night before that I shared here.
But I don't wanna READ!!! (stomps feet, slams door) I did read it, actually, and while my head did in fact die while reading it, I took it as "interpretation". (Again, I'm probably not articulating this well...) So you're sayin' that if the SEC can definitively prove that they did NOT engage Texas A&M, that that is ultimately, legally irrelevant, re: TI? Not from the basis of filing a suit, but on the basis of what, specifically, TI means? Ahhhhh, OK - I think I see where you're coming from. And I think this better articulates where I'm trying to make a clear separation: So there's what the law says and then how a jury *rules*, right? So I'm technically right that if the SEC did not interfere, by the letter of the law, they'd free and clear of TI. BUT, you're saying that if a jury says, "Sorry; we see interference" then the SEC is screwed - right? Right? BTW, my kitten's name is Mittens. Like on a train??? Nah, I'm just a simple communicator. All your "jurys" and "theories" scare me. Oh, you spoke to Freda? Great. Now, this is where it could get tricky - what if the SEC promised them a spot *prior* to the Fox deal last year, huh? Huh? What do I win? WHAT DO I WIN????
I saw it; and one point of clarification: TLN did not, as I recall, come up. Nor did I expect it to as ESPN wouldn't dare ask him to comment on that. He did mention revenue sharing - but I swear he didn't mention TLN. (Probably.)
It does seem like a good compromise to let UT keep their private cash cow and institute equal revenue sharing for all other parts of the conference. Of course, that would fast track OU getting their own TV deal, too.
Agreed - UT is definitely on the Big12 train, unfortunately. But OU holds all the cards here. If they leave, what does Texas do? They've stated there's no way in hell they go independent, and no other conference has shown interest in the LHN as is. I just don't see why OU would be giving up *anything* to keep the Big12 alive - all they have to do is say "we're staying" and they can do that. So why give up tons of revenues and their own future flexibility? It seems like they are in a position of total power - over both UT and the rest of the Big12 - and can extract whatever they want rather than be forced to give up stuff. This is the part I'm not so sure about. They know the OU-TX game would continue, either with Texas in the Pac16 or as an independent. They were extremely successful for a long time a conference separate from Texas - I don't think there would be a lot of fear of doing that again. But as with you, this is just purely opinion. But as I said - if you're right, they have all the ability in the world to extract concessions that benefit them. Equal revenue sharing that hurts them just doesn't seem to make sense. Agreed - that scenario seems to be the one we're hearing from numerous places. I'm just looking at it from OU's viewpoint and not understanding why they would agree to that. Before OU's comments on Friday, it was assumed the Big12 would probably stay together and BYU or WVU/UL/etc would be invited to join. Now, it would be the same scenario except OU would get less money. OU would be a worse situation in the current proposed solution than had they just not said anything last Friday in the first place. That's the part I'm not understanding. OU would really have messed this situation up if that's the end game.
Who was the first team to talk about leaving the Big 12 last year? It seemed to me like things were fairly stable with the conference and then Texas announced that it was going to the PAC and then all hell broke loose. The Big 12 was patched together and the LHN was created - so can't this all be traced back to Texas pushing the first domino over that will probably lead to the destruction of the big 12? Aggie and Baylor jokes aside, is it not true that Texas started all of this?
Why would OK leave. Why would they want to share money with a 15 other teams when they can share the money with only 9 other teams at the moment. They also get to go to the National Championship game every three years with only Texas in their way.
It was actually Missouri to Big10 that started it all - they were very public about wanting to go and become the Big10's 12th team. Then rumors about Nebraska and Texas started, both to the Big10 and the Pac10. Then the explosive TX/OU/TT/A&M/OSU/CU to Pac16 rumors took hold and all hell broke loose. Nebraska bolted, followed by Colorado. Mizzou got scared because Nebraska took their spot. And then the conference begged Texas to stay to kill the Pac16 idea.
Multiple reasons: 1. The total Pac14/16 TV money is likely to be worth more money once their Pac16 network is up and running. The Big12 may be worth less depending on if A&M gets replaced, and by who - and of course, there is no possibility of a Big12 Network thanks to LHN. 2. Their coach, who is very close to the AD and President and is potentially a lifer at OU, has openly stated that he'd love to be in the Pac16 and was a bit disappointed that they didn't go last year. I believe part of this is opening up the recruiting on the west coast like they have in Texas (which would continue thanks to TX-OU no matter what). 3. OU has never shown a fear of playing a tougher schedule - they aren't looking for the easy road to the title game. That's why they've scheduled teams like Florida State and LSU in their nonconference schedule. That said, the reasons against: 1. Their partnership with Texas has worked well for them and they've enjoyed a lot of success in the Big12. Are they willing to split from Texas if needed? 2. Do they want to be responsible for imploding the Big12? Are there any legal implications? 3. What can they extract from the Big12 to keep them here? Texas last year extracted the LHN - what can OU get now?
I'm saying who started the conversation isn't important. First the claim would have to survive the legal questions presented for the judge, alone, to determine. When you said yesterday the claim was frivilous, that's what I was thinking...frivilous claims get dismissed by judges...they don't find their way to the juries. Who are you? I'm Freida's boss. Who's Freida? My secretary. You win a free sub.
