no one is arguing otherwise, for the record. the question is whether they should waive those claims for money they'll never see again when they're relegated to that conference scribbled on the proverbial "writing on the wall."
no one asked the SEC to demand waivers from all 9 schools as requisite to admitting A&M. pretty telling if you ask me. bu is simply saying they're not gonna release those claims. i know for a fact that behind the scenes they're doing tons more than thinking about that waiver...they've been working phones like crazy for contingency plans. first and foremost, they're all about keeping the Big 12 together. to pretend that because they're not going to sign a waiver means that's all their doing is ridiculous.
Not all of us are constantly condescending to everyone on the BBS with a different opinion than us. Max and I have disagreed before. I wouldn't call him a jerk and I doubt he'd say that about me either. Rhad, Batman Jones and I almost never agree. I don't think either of them would call me a jerk.
What conference would knowingly walk into a potentially messy, expensive legal battle? It's CYA. I think it says absolutely nothing otherwise. I can't think of a single program worth a potential lawsuit. I don't begrudge them at all. But that claim is their safety-net. If they were viable, they wouldn't care about A&M and they wouldn't hold on to the claim. None of these schools would.
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1261679 4 PM - Baylor may not be the only one wanting to retain its right to sue the SEC over the depature of Texas A&M, a Big 12 administrator tells Orangebloods.com. Kansas State, Kansas and Iowa State also want to retain their right to sue, the administrator said. Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Missouri have apparently retained their right to sue but have vowed they won't take any action against the SEC, the aministrator said. A statement summarizing a noon conference call with Big 12 presidents should be forthcoming shortly, the source said. The Waco Tribune-Herald reported that the holdout schools would agree to sign the waiver releasing the SEC of litigation if Oklahoma committed to the Big 12.
Not sure why after 95 pages of thread, you think this point needs to be made over and over again. Of course Baylor isn't a super-marketable property in the vein of Texas A&M, just like Texas A&M isn't marketable enough to command an LHN-esque television deal or do some of the other things Texas can/may do...so what?
Dang. OU had their bags all packed up, hard to imagine them recommitting to the BIG 12 at this point.
OU seems to have no incentive here. Presumably, they only want out if A&M leaves; so saying they'll stay helps A&M to leave; not saying they'll stay keeps A&M around which leaves them all their best options. I wonder what happens if OU just says they & OSU are leaving? Is there any potential to threaten the Pac12? If not, that could leave A&M in a real mess if there's no Big12 and the SEC won't take them.
Hate to break up your pity party, but I never did such a thing. I laughed at (and still do) your Notre Dame suggestions, though.
here's what I know now: Kansas, K-St, Tx Tech, Iowa St., Missouri and Baylor were the 6 schools that vowed they will not be signing a waiver. the other schools have more complicated procedures for this, so it's still taking time to run those decisions through the proper channels...but as of now, none of the others have signed either....the 6, above, have already voted against signing the waiver. and....what Chip just reported is what I'm hearing as well; if OU reaffims a commitment to the Big 12, then all 6 will sign the waiver...without that, there's too much uncertainty for these schools and they're not willing to relinquish any rights. So i'm waiting for ya'll to be super-pissed at the 5 other than BU. :grin:
The PAC stated they do not want to expand their conference unless Texas A&M departs for the SEC therefore putting the era of super-conferences officially in motion.
i don't recall if you did or didn't...don't care and not interested in a pity party, donny. and my ND suggestions were only that i was hearing they'd try....not that it would happen and i never claimed first-hand knowledge. i said that over and over again.
same potential threat that SEC has if someone can show they've been talking for the last x months about it. same issue of who would waive claims, etc. but i get the sense the Pac12 handled their business a lot better than the SEC did. i think the SEC knows there's some fire to all that smoke, and that's why they're demanding the 9 waivers.
no, that's what i'm hearing garner. same guys who've been pretty dead on the whole way through this, i have to say.
So don't lump me into statements like that then, please. That post absolutely suggested otherwise, that, or "neener neener i told ya so". Either way, poo on that. Yep. And I suggested that you laugh at the people telling you that along with me.
1. sorry, i guess? didn't mean to offend you. 2. all they did was tell me that dodds was exploring it. he was. what's to laugh at? you can argue they will or won't...but they were just passing on information. if that's all they were passing along, it would be one thing..but it was part of a lot more information at the time.
