- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Latest Chip Brown news: Texas willing to commit to 10 team big 12
Posted on 6/14/10 at 9:29 am to G4LSU
Posted on 6/14/10 at 9:29 am to G4LSU
Texas is like the school bully who picked a fight he wished he hadn't. A & M will come out of this in better shape than one could have imagined when it first started. They have bloodied the Longhorn’s nose and now the Whorns want to be friends.
This post was edited on 6/14/10 at 9:41 am
0
Posted on 6/14/10 at 9:29 am to xiv
Here's another Chip Brown nugget from WFAA8 interview: this new big 12 deal that texas is working on with dan beebe is so good that arkansas has made inquiries to joining.
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Posted on 6/14/10 at 9:30 am to xiv
quote:
they can pull in better football schools
Who?
Posted on 6/14/10 at 9:30 am to SaltyAg
quote:
Here's another Chip Brown nugget from WFAA8 interview: this new big 12 deal that texas is working on with dan beebe is so good that arkansas has made inquiries to joining.
that's ridiculous
Posted on 6/14/10 at 9:31 am to xiv
quote:
better football schools than Nebraska
They're a top ten all-time program with a very loyal fanbase. Very tough to replace.
Posted on 6/14/10 at 9:31 am to SaltyAg
two questions:
1. Does CU still go to the PAC-whatever if the Big 12 remains? My impression was that CU was the coordinated and mutually agreed upon 1st move by CU/UT/OU/OSU/TTech to the PAC-*.
2. Is it now a contractual obligation for this to be in any orangebloods.com article?:
"Or A&M will most likely end 100 years of tradition with rival Texas"
1. Does CU still go to the PAC-whatever if the Big 12 remains? My impression was that CU was the coordinated and mutually agreed upon 1st move by CU/UT/OU/OSU/TTech to the PAC-*.
2. Is it now a contractual obligation for this to be in any orangebloods.com article?:
"Or A&M will most likely end 100 years of tradition with rival Texas"
Posted on 6/14/10 at 9:32 am to Alahunter
quote:Nebraska has been talking to the Big Ten since way before the Pac-16 proposal. Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri are 100% to blame for this.
wake up. Texas has called the shots in the Big 12 since it's inception. They led the charge with the Pac 10 talks, forcing Nebraska to make a move.
"Blame" isn't necessarily the right word, though--that is to assume that all this is bad. It probably is, but not necessarily.
Posted on 6/14/10 at 9:33 am to clamdip
quote:CU was invited individually; they accepted. This was how the Pac-10 solved that Baylor shite.
1. Does CU still go to the PAC-whatever if the Big 12 remains? My impression was that CU was the coordinated and mutually agreed upon 1st move by CU/UT/OU/OSU/TTech to the PAC-*.
Posted on 6/14/10 at 9:34 am to Bankshot
quote:You're about the 4th person to ignore the "past 10 years, not 80" part of my post.
They're a top ten all-time program with a very loyal fanbase. Very tough to replace.
Posted on 6/14/10 at 9:34 am to 225rumpshaker
quote:
Why does he think they will be able to get 17 million per University?
I mean it just doesn't seem logical, the big 12 would have no conference title game and would be short two markets.
Essentiality all TV markets would be Oklahoma, Kansas, St Louis, and Texas. A network would have to be out of their mind to offer that much for that little viewer ship.
the plan involves robert redford sleeping with 17 women of his choice from each university
Posted on 6/14/10 at 9:35 am to xiv
Texas orchestrated everything from the beginning. They didn't expect A&M to have the balls to seriously consider anything but doing what they said to do. Colorado wouldn't have jumped had Texas not told them everyone else is going and giving the impression Baylor would take their place in the Pac 10. Like Choctaw said.. Texas thought it would bully it's way like usual and got it's nose bloodied. Right now, they're in a corner and spewing lie after lie to try and save face.
Posted on 6/14/10 at 9:35 am to molsusports
quote:
the plan involves robert redford sleeping with 17 women of his choice from each university
Posted on 6/14/10 at 9:36 am to xiv
quote:
CU was invited individually; they accepted. This was how the Pac-10 solved that Baylor shite.
you can't possibly think CU was acting in a vacuum. as you even mention Baylor, which was obvious but only in the greater context of Texas/TTech/OU/OSU moving. Absolutely no way CU goes to the PAC* without believing 100% that Texas was about to go, too.
I have to think this rumor (if true, and doubtful, btw) would make CU rethink.
Posted on 6/14/10 at 9:36 am to xiv
I thought UT started all this when it came up that the Big Ten/11 were courting UT?
Posted on 6/14/10 at 9:38 am to Independent Thinker
Am I still the only one that noticed he cited himself as a source in the article?
Does he do that often?
Does he do that often?
Posted on 6/14/10 at 9:38 am to xiv
quote:
You're about the 4th person to ignore the "past 10 years, not 80" part of my post.
Who would the Big 12 get?
Posted on 6/14/10 at 9:38 am to clamdip
quote:
1. Does CU still go to the PAC-whatever if the Big 12 remains? My impression was that CU was the coordinated and mutually agreed upon 1st move by CU/UT/OU/OSU/TTech to the PAC-*.
colorado had been coveted by the pac and interested in the pac for a while
they moved rapidly to change conferences for that reason - and because there started to be news from Texas that they'd like Baylor instead. That settled the issue obviously
Posted on 6/14/10 at 9:40 am to xiv
quote:Absolutely false. The Big Ten announced it was looking into expansion in late December. By early February, there were already independent media reports of the Big Ten meeting with Texas. Texas had more advanced negotiations with the big Ten than Mizzou ever did (or at least became public, Mizzou's closest tie was being mentioned as a possible target and their president saying maybe they'd be interested if the Big Ten offered -- but no reports of actual negotiations like Texas had).
No they didn't--Nebraska and Colorado did.
It was Texas that screwed over Nebraska in the formation of the Big 12 by gutting the OU-NU rivalry and preventing partial qualifiers (which is how the Huskers built their title teams). Texas insisted on the inequitable revenue sharing AND they publicly were researching a Longhorn TV network to further expand revenue disparity. Texas then started making goo goo eyes at the Pac-10 as well.
The Big 12 North schools, rightfully nervous by Texas' actions and already in a disadvantageous situtation in the conference, stepped up their own expansion efforts. Texas then demanded a loyalty oath. NU and Mizzou responded by demanding changing the revenue situation, which Texas flatly rejected. Texas demanded a loyalty to a system which grossly benefited them above all else. Nebraska, not being run by idiots and knowing a terrible deal when they see it, bolted to the Big Ten (actually, colorado went first).
Texas ALREADY HAD A PLAN IN PLACE to bolt to the Pac-10 with five other teams. Think about that, Texas' negotiations were so advanced, they already had a complex Pac-16 plan in place and agreed to in principle. They did some PR to look like they were fighting for Baylor when they did no such thing, even leaking that Cal opposes Baylor on religious grounds through Orangebloods. Cal never made such a public declaration, that was a smear leaked from Texas' mouthpiece (I don't doubt Cal thinks that, but they didn't make such a rejection public, Texas did). When A&M refused to go along and weigh their options, like an SEC bid, Texas has repeatedly leaked stories to embarass or cojole A&M, especially by threatening to withhold funding or playing the Aggies in any sport. The threats have entirely been from UT, despite their claim the move is in the Aggies best interest. If it is, why do they need to be threatened?
Once the SEC move gained traction, Texas has now reversed course and is now positioning themselves to "save" the Big 12, in a weakened state and horrible TV deal for all but Texas (and with all power further consolidated in Texas-- you think Kansas will ever cross Texas after finding out how little they are valued?). This means there are two outcomes. the preferred outcome is A&M bolts and UT blames the Aggies for killing the conference and UT still gets to go to their desired locale. But, as a consolation prize, they could keep A&M in line and essentially set up a weakened Big 12 that is their own fiefdom where they hold all political power in the conference. Not as big of a win, but still a win.
Texas has continually and repeatedly leaked stories and manipulated other players in order to get to the Pac-10, where they wanted to go in 1995 (and would have, alone BTW, had not Stanford blocked the move) but place the blame elsewhere. Texas is trying to get to the Pac-10 while blaming others, or at worst, stay in a conference in which they are the only legitimate political power. It would be their own conference with a bunc of subservient programs that exist to be the Generals to their Globetrotters.
That anyone is falling for it speaks to the brilliance of their PR campaign and frankly, people's extreme gullibility.
Posted on 6/14/10 at 9:42 am to xiv
quote:
Nebraska has been talking to the Big Ten since way before the Pac-16 proposal. Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri are 100% to blame for this.
"Blame" isn't necessarily the right word, though--that is to assume that all this is bad. It probably is, but not necessarily.
Doesn't matter who started it but it looks like the Aggies will finish it one way or the other.
Posted on 6/14/10 at 9:43 am to Baloo
quote:
Absolutely false. The Big Ten announced it was looking into expansion in late December. By early February, there were already independent media reports of the Big Ten meeting with Texas. Texas had more advanced negotiations with the big Ten than Mizzou ever did (or at least became public, Mizzou's closest tie was being mentioned as a possible target and their president saying maybe they'd be interested if the Big Ten offered -- but no reports of actual negotiations like Texas had).
It was Texas that screwed over Nebraska in the formation of the Big 12 by gutting the OU-NU rivalry and preventing partial qualifiers (which is how the Huskers built their title teams). Texas insisted on the inequitable revenue sharing AND they publicly were researching a Longhorn TV network to further expand revenue disparity. Texas then started making goo goo eyes at the Pac-10 as well.
The Big 12 North schools, rightfully nervous by Texas' actions and already in a disadvantageous situtation in the conference, stepped up their own expansion efforts. Texas then demanded a loyalty oath. NU and Mizzou responded by demanding changing the revenue situation, which Texas flatly rejected. Texas demanded a loyalty to a system which grossly benefited them above all else. Nebraska, not being run by idiots and knowing a terrible deal when they see it, bolted to the Big Ten (actually, colorado went first).
Texas ALREADY HAD A PLAN IN PLACE to bolt to the Pac-10 with five other teams. Think about that, Texas' negotiations were so advanced, they already had a complex Pac-16 plan in place and agreed to in principle. They did some PR to look like they were fighting for Baylor when they did no such thing, even leaking that Cal opposes Baylor on religious grounds through Orangebloods. Cal never made such a public declaration, that was a smear leaked from Texas' mouthpiece (I don't doubt Cal thinks that, but they didn't make such a rejection public, Texas did). When A&M refused to go along and weigh their options, like an SEC bid, Texas has repeatedly leaked stories to embarass or cojole A&M, especially by threatening to withhold funding or playing the Aggies in any sport. The threats have entirely been from UT, despite their claim the move is in the Aggies best interest. If it is, why do they need to be threatened?
Once the SEC move gained traction, Texas has now reversed course and is now positioning themselves to "save" the Big 12, in a weakened state and horrible TV deal for all but Texas (and with all power further consolidated in Texas-- you think Kansas will ever cross Texas after finding out how little they are valued?). This means there are two outcomes. the preferred outcome is A&M bolts and UT blames the Aggies for killing the conference and UT still gets to go to their desired locale. But, as a consolation prize, they could keep A&M in line and essentially set up a weakened Big 12 that is their own fiefdom where they hold all political power in the conference. Not as big of a win, but still a win.
Texas has continually and repeatedly leaked stories and manipulated other players in order to get to the Pac-10, where they wanted to go in 1995 (and would have, alone BTW, had not Stanford blocked the move) but place the blame elsewhere. Texas is trying to get to the Pac-10 while blaming others, or at worst, stay in a conference in which they are the only legitimate political power. It would be their own conference with a bunc of subservient programs that exist to be the Generals to their Globetrotters.
That anyone is falling for it speaks to the brilliance of their PR campaign and frankly, people's extreme gullibility.
Great recap!
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News