Tony Barnhart: 'If Mo isn't the 14th team, the SEC is prepared to stay at 13 for the immediate future.'
Sounds as if Mizzou is actually still in play then. Although Neinas says "Missouri probably gonna stay." more Neinas: -League is viable w/ or w/o Mizzou -"Sounds like the Big 12 wants 10 teams" -Neinas will talk to Bill (Byrne) and try to talk to A&M back; doesn't know what the answer will be -on LHN: Texas took advantage of an opportunity -on A&M staying: "I'd say the odds might be against it, but sometimes a 100-1 shot comes home." - Plans to visit College Station. "Sure. They're a member, arent they? -"looking for best candidates" for Big 12 even if it might damage or eliminate another conference -"It will not be done behind anyone's back," if MWC or CUSA team is taken by Big 12. -What's the problem with the Big 12? Neinas: trust (or lack thereof). -Pitch to Byrne: "They belong in the Big 12." "That's where they belong. I'm a history major. Where their history belongs...born and bred. That's where they should stay." -"They(A&M) belong in the Big 12, that's where they belong. Their history belongs in the Big 12, from the SW conf, where they were born and bred."
Yup. The phone and email campaigns are through the roof. I've believed the Big 12 would survive almost throughout, and I always thought Mizzou would be a part of it. But this is the first time (since late last night) that I really think Mizzou is leaving. We'll see, but I know and read a lot of connected folks at MU, and the vibe in the last 24 hours is quite different. My guess is they go.
Mizzou has destroyed Arkansas and Ole Miss each time they've played them (3-0) since 2006, including the Cotton Bowl. Just saying.
Understood. I just don't agree with the almost accepted belief in college football that the SEC is a gauntlet. It's top-heavy. LSU, Alabama and Florida are almost annual contenders these days. I get that. But Georgia, Auburn, Arkansas... with the exception of one Cam Newton year, these schools are essentially the SEC equivalent of the Big 12's (formerly) Texas A&M and Nebraska. That is, big names with passionate fanbases, but with an inconsistent on-field product over the past decade. The Big 12 had its top tier (Texas and OU), and Mizzou has been right with or better than every other program over the past five years. It's the same in the SEC. Maybe there's three teams in that top tier, but beyond that, we'll see if the likes of the three schools I mentioned are appreciably better than A&M, Nebraska and even OSU/Texas Tech in the Big 12. I have my doubts. I don't see it as all that different from the Big XII, pre-defections.
I do too. I just have a hard time trusting it, at this point. My main beef is with A&M and OU, for the record - not UT. The motivations of Texas are clear, and it's easy to understand what they want and where they're going. It's the Ags and Sooners that have been all over the map. And even if it's six years later (new media rights proposal), I have a hard time seeing the Big 12 in OU's long-term interest after this. Seems like it's just biding time until they bolt. And if the Big 12 isn't going to work out, the SEC is by far the best option for Mizzou. I'm not a fan of the Big Ten, regardless of whether they want us or not. I love the Big 12, too, and I want to be an idealist... but if it's going to break up, the SEC is by far our best alternative. I'm torn.
For anyone that has any doubt about ESPN having any clue what they are doing ... Yesterday they had a stat on the bottom of the screen saying (paraphrased) "A&M has forced only one 3 and out all season (last in the NCAA)" and this stat was actually used on one of their shows by the commentator as backup for his opinion. Well after being bombarded by emails, finally the next day they change the stat to what it really is ... "A&M has only had one 3 and out on offense all season (tied for Best in the NCAA)" ... Could they have been any further off?
How has A&M been all over the map? They were going to go to the SEC last year when Texas and all were going PAC. When Texas decided to stay, they stayed with given assurances. When those promises were not fulfilled, they called up the SEC and have not looked back even once. That's about as direct a route as you are going to get.
What assurances weren't fulfilled? It's my understanding that A&M's primary basis for leaving involved Longhorn Network issues and the lack of equal revenue sharing. These are the same issues they knew full well in June 2010 before opting to spurn the SEC and remain in the Big 12. I'm not disrespecting A&M's reasons for leaving. They're perfectly valid, and I wish y'all well. I hope we join you shortly. It just strikes me as inconsistent.
No they were told the LHN would only have 1 non-conf game and never told it would prevent them from being part of Big XII network. Those things combined with the Horns/ESPN pushing the HS games/highlights issue were "new" things that caused A&M to look elsewhere. Don't see any inconsistencies at all and don't see them as being "all over the map" or at fault for anything.
Come on now....they aren't at fault for anything? They aren't at fault for deciding not to go in with UT on the network in the first place (that was a huge blunder and I'm still surprised Aggies completely overlook this)? They aren't at fault for delaying moving a year and costing the school millions of dollars in exit fees? They aren't at fault for signing on with a TV deal and putting themselves in a position to not move freely (hello Baylor) or be completely accepted with no restrictions by the SEC, when they could have left scott free last year? You don't see any inconsistency in any of that?
If they literally assign away media rights for 6 years, I don't see them falling apart. 6 years is a very long time; over half the life of the Big 12 to date. 6 years ago, who would have thought we would have viewed the Big 12 as being so fragile? Too much can change. But at this point OU is joined at UT's hip, and it's hard for me to imagine that changing. When freaking half your roster comes from Texas, you don't give that up so easily. OU has greatly benefited from the Big 12. As the AP writer from Cali said, "they're co-dependent." The assignment of media rights is HUGE. It's one thing to agree to share...it's quite another to literally make yourself worthless to other conferences because you no longer own your own media rights. That makes the Big 12 extremely stable; moreso than any increased exit fee could provide for. OU's interest in this thing the entire time has been getting UT to budge. They used the notion of a Pac bid to create urgency and leverage. It worked. In the aftermath, Larry Scott says it was never even close and you have OU officials (including Stoops) during and after referring to it all as "playing cards." Throughout all the "Pac 12 is imminent talk" my guy kept saying, "don't buy it because no one here does...it's a smokescreen. UT and OU are playing chess, and everyone else is just playing checkers." If Mizzou goes, they'll be replaced by someone else. But UT & OU aren't going anywhere without one another. And there are a ton of impediments for that to happen, including if the LHN takes off and becomes what UT wants it to become. That doesn't even begin to address academic issues with those schools' little brothers and time zone/travel issues. As for Mizzou...my understanding is everyone who occupies a paid position at Mizzou in the athletic department and key administration wants to stay in the Big 12...their regents/curators may be interested in SEC. This reminds me of Dodds' comments the other day where he talked about too much being decided by volunteers with internet rumors. "What the chancellor told me is that he has some curators who are new and interested in talking about things,'' Neinas said. "But in the end, I believe it will be resolved.'' http://www.stltoday.com/sports/coll...0f5-5d51-9acd-9a9f4b8f3d4c.html#ixzz1Yrfz9ET5 Has anyone thought through what the Big 12's reaction would be if the SEC tried to poach yet another school away? My guess is if it's another qualified offer, there will be even more schools refusing to release the SEC. They're not going to make it easy on them. And it's going to affect whether the SEC gets their relase with respect to A&M, as well.
As I understand it, the original deal for the UT/A&M network was inequitable for A&M. And then you have the whole deal with conferences games, tier 2 games, and high school games ending up on the network, which was not part of the deal last year. The circumstances surrounding revenue sharing and the LHN which kept A&M in the Big 12 last year were not upheld. So, they left.
I think you're off on the athletic part. Both Gary Pinkel and Mike Alden (AD) are understood by almost everyone connected to Mizzou (folks that have deep, deep contacts in the university) to be strongly pushing for the SEC. Pinkel went on the radio Wednesday - the day after OU and UT re-committed to the league - and called the Big 12 "an embarrassment", among numerous other insults. The disconnect is between the athletics department and the academics and key administration, many of which would prefer the Big 12 or Big Ten for academic reasons. Neinas is putting a happy face on the situation, as he's paid to do. But there's a deep divide in Columbia, with at least four of the seven curators known to prefer the SEC. I don't think they'd go to the SEC on a 4-3 vote - they want a consensus, either way - but it's very much up in the air.
