Richard Justice strategically picks a segment of fans and tries to tug at their heart strings. The guy should write greeting cards.
You're looking way too much into that. Our AD is worried about TAMU's ability to compete in the SEC as it is. The move is about money and potential.
Boise had to fight like hell to get a BCS game. The Big 12 has an automatic bid. World of difference. And the only reason A&M doesn't have a high probability is because they haven't been very good. If they were then they would (in the Big 12). You are basically competing with 2 teams most seasons.
Yep. I'll make sure to post the piece he will inevitably write in about 2 months praising the LHN. Just how he operates.
OU won't make money of the (non-existent Big XII Network). OU makes money by winning games. OU knows the easiest possible route to a MNC is in what remains of the Big XII. There's ONE AUTOMATIC BID given to the Big XII and ONE given to the SEC. Which do you think might be easier to get? Exactly. Win games and go to (and possibly win) BCS Bowl games = Money. OU knows this. This is irrelevant to aTm. Who says aTm shouldn't get to do what they want? I know I didn't. I'm not stepping on anything. This is a business decision.
I am assuming they are silent because: - If they feel the Big 12 can survive without A&M then there is no need to go anywhere else, as it provides the easiest path to the NC and a BCS game. - If they feel the Big 12 can't survive without A&M it's not as if they can't go to any conference they choose, including the SEC. They aren't tied to UT's hip. They just have great options either way. Their athletic department realizes how easy it is to get to a BCS game or NC through the Big 12. They seem to be doing that silly thing called "putting winning on the field first".
Don't think it was ever off ... It was just a change in strategy of how to get there. Right now the onus is on Texas A&M to prove they can get a clean break from the Big XII before the SEC will even vote on A&M. It's funny seeing headlines saying that the "SEC rejects A&M" when in reality they specifically stated that they did not even address A&M's entry to the SEC because A&M has not applied for entry. ... And on a side note, the rumors are out that A&M has sold out season tickets for the 2011 season.
Never said OU should be worried about TAMU or even the Big 12 necessarily. Its just the fact that they're not getting anything while all the other major players are. Is it because they have to lookout for OSU? OU has the clout to fight for something. I always thought the Longhorn network should have been a UT/TAMU/OU/(OSU by default) network. The Big 12 network initially promised will never materialize into what it was envisioned to be...
The media doesn't work on Sundays I guess, so not too many of the in-the-know guys reported on it. Except for ESPN which doesn't know ****. It was joke listening to the local radio on Sunday. Nobody had a clue what was going on. UT fans thought TAMU got rejected. They were mocking TAMU. Nobody knows what's going on and its annoying.
I think you are speaking directly on what the other poster was talking about, when you refer to "they're not getting anything". Their focus seems to be on the football field. In that case, they are getting plenty (the easiest path to a BCS game and the NC game). Shouldn't being in the best position to compete matter somewhat? What exactly should they be fighting for? What is anyone else getting that they aren't? Only one school, Texas, has something that OU doesn't (it's own network). A&M isn't going to be in a better position than OU by moving to the SEC. What other schools are in a better position? They are making a bunch of $$ from the Big 12 deal and have the easiest path to success on the field (as far as making it to a BCS or NC game).
Both UT and OU have pretty much stated that they are tied together. OU will go whereever UT goes because that's where the money is - it has nothing to do with focusing on the football field. In the Big12, OU and TX get to dominate the finances and the decision making, so they have no reason to leave if they can make it work. There are 115 or so Div I NCAA teams. You never see a single one of them moving to a conference to have an easier chance of winning - if anything, schools at all levels consistently try to move to more competitive conferences. There are 3 conferences that no one ever seems to want to leave - SEC, Pac10, and Big10. All the others? Teams are always trying to leave for better pastures. Those 3 are the most stable and, probably not coincidentally, have equal revenue sharing and each member has equal say. Those are the things that seem to make most schools happy - not an easy route to titles, etc. For all the crap Arkansas gets for its move to the SEC, you never hear a word about them trying to get out.
Boise moved from the terrible WAC to a MWC that had Utah, TCU, and BYU. Those three teams then bolted, which really sucks for Boise. But they tried to move up - thanks to its historical performance, the MWC would have earned an auto BCS bid in 2014 had those teams all stayed in it. Now, the MWC is basically the old WAC.
So the conference getting a BCS bid and having an easier path to the NC game, especially since there is no conference championship game, have nothing to do with it? I recall hearing mubmlings that Stoops likes the BCS/NC path that the BCS offers. How many of these 115 schools leave a conference with an auto BCS bid to go to a conference where they have a harder chance of winning? We don't hear about Arkansas trying to get out but they also aren't relevant football wise in that conference either. When it was their time to leave, I would have been saying the same thing then that I am now, which is the move doesn't make sense as far as on the field success is concerned. You may make more $$. You may be more independent or having a bigger voice. But will you win more games? No. If the fanbase and school don't care about that then so be it. But how silly does it sound to not care about on the field performance, or at least have it last on the list.
In the short history of the BCS... Miami, VT, Boston College, Colorado, Nebraska... Quite a few, actually. Just as many as have made the leap to a BCS conference from non-BCS. Louisville, TCU, Cincinatti, South Florida, Utah.
Coaches certainly like easier conferences - anything that gets them wins is a plus for a coach. That's why Mack Brown, after the Ohio State series, said he prefers the scrub schedules despite all the hype and excitement those games brought for Texas fans. But coaches aren't the decision makers here. DonnyMost listed several. You can sort of add Utah, who was in a conference that was in line to get an autobid within the next few years. And Mizzou wanted to move. A&M wants to move now. But more importantly, 100% of the moves are to upgrade their conference - no one voluntarily has gone from the SEC to the ACC or BigEast so they could have a better chance of winning. The Big12 would jump on adding Arkansas if they wanted to join - but Arkansas has no interest in it. But you're assuming fans prefer winning in a mediocre conference to trying to compete in a great conference. As a UT fan, I would LOVE playing Florida, LSU, Alabama, etc on a regular basis. The games would be a hell of a lot more exciting week-in and week-out, which means a lot more fun for me - even if we go 9-3 instead of 11-1. I think Boise would happily trade competing in the WAC (or the watered down MWC) to get a shot at competing in the Pac10. I think anyone who's really competitive is not going to run away from the challenge of playing against better teams on a regular basis. Any school administrator is going to believe their school, with the right leadership, is capable of competing at a higher level - they aren't going to run away from that for the safety of winning against scrubs.
