re: More Big 12 GOLD

By the way, you have your facts messed up on this quote:

quote:

---

We pushed for equal revenue sharing, but when Texas/OU/Neb refused we demanded an equal share to those schools. That's where the $20mil guarantee came from.

---

That $20 million guarantee was made after Nebraska had already decided to leave the conference.

quote:

---

Additionally, there is this link that says that A&M voted "no" on equal revenue sharing in the last vote the conference took:

---

let me guess...the article is littered with references to unnamed sources....am I right?

Well, the bar isn't set too high for us.....we could play just about any SEC school on TG and be better off.

Hell, we could play UH and be on par.

For the record, A&M did a study under Loftin and found that the most competitive leagues shared revenue equally. He took the findings to heart. Since sharing revenue equally wasn't going to happen for a multitude of reasons (LHN explicitly killing a network showing content from all the league schools, too many schools far away from population centers not able to pull their share revenue-generation wise for a multitude of reasons, not enough time slots to showcase the games that were available - reducing the payouts for everyone as a result - and politics involved with making the change impossible anyway).

It was either a decision to stay at a permanent competitive disadvantage in exposure, marketing and income in the Big 12 with "partners" you did not trust one bit, or go on to an equal footing with the SEC member institutions, where the sky was the limit with tier 1/2/3 income and marketing potential for the school and its athletic programs.

"It was strictly business, nothing personal". The fact that we will love rubbing your faces in the ashes of the dumpster-fire that is the "Big" 12 conference is purely an unintended side effect.

Read these horn and then ask any questions you might have

LINK

LINK

I will explain it one more time, since you are clearly having trouble understanding this. That article says one of two things: the media is as idiotic as you and doesn't understand the difference between granting media rights and equal revenue sharing, or the BigXII vote made equal revenue sharing contingent on granting media rights. Either way we voted against granting the conference our media rights NOT equal revenue sharing.

Case in point: the SEC employs equal revenue sharing and every member gets the same share of conference revenue as everyone else. They do not, however, require their members to grant the SEC their media rights, as their is no established penalty for leaving the SEC. There isn't even an exit fee.

Shortly after we left the BigXII, the remaining members got Texas to agree to equal sharing of Tier1 and Tier2 media rights. After that they also considered a 6 yr grant of rights to the conference, which once mizzou is replaced, they will do.

They are two completely different things, you stupid whorn idiot.

quote:

---

the BigXII vote made equal revenue sharing contingent on granting media rights. Either way we voted against granting the conference our media rights NOT equal revenue sharing

---

First you say that the vote in question was for equal revenue sharing contingent on granting media rights, then you say that your "NO" vote was against granting rights, not equal revenue.

It was one combined issue, not two separate ones.

If A&M was all for equal revenue sharing and a strong conference, then why didn't they vote "YES" on this issue? Why were they afraid to grant the conference A&M's media rights? All it took was their single vote to lock in the Big 12 to equal revenue sharing to further strengthen the conference. Was it because they were leaving their options open to bail on the conference long before the summer, when it all blew up publicly?

A&M has always been the key vote (along with Texas, Oklahoma and Nebraska) to keep uneven revenue sharing. The Aggies have had their chances to break with Texas, OU and Nebraska, but failed to ever do so, which would've tipped the balance (75 percent to change bylaws) in favor of the have-nots.

Therefore, I stand by my original statement which you disputed, which was that A&M continually voted against equal revenue sharing.

And yes, I will trust reputable journalism sources over a 27/28 year old agroid.

quote:

---

the SEC employs equal revenue sharing and every member gets the same share of conference revenue as everyone else.

---

That is not completely true. Third tier rights are still reserved by the individual schools. To form an SEC Network similar to the Big Ten and Pac-12 networks, then each SEC school will have to grant their third-tier rights to the conference. That has yet to happen.

Maybe it will, maybe it won't.

quote:

---

First you say that the vote in question was for equal revenue sharing contingent on granting media rights, then you say that your "NO" vote was against granting rights, not equal revenue.

---

Let me rephrase since you are too dense to understand. We were against granting our media rights to the conference, so because equal revenue sharing was contingent on granting our media rights to the conference we voted against it. The implication is that we voted against equal revenue sharing, when in fact we were against granting our rights to the BigXII regardless of what desired provisions were attached to it.

quote:

---

If A&M was all for equal revenue sharing and a strong conference, then why didn't they vote "YES" on this issue? Why were they afraid to grant the conference A&M's media rights? All it took was their single vote to lock in the Big 12 to equal revenue sharing to further strengthen the conference. Was it because they were leaving their options open to bail on the conference long before the summer, when it all blew up publicly?

---

We had no desire to grant our rights because it would trap us in the BigXII and our admin was not convinced that Texas would live up to their promises in regards to the LHN, # of games to be shown on it, and highschool content (which you didn't).

quote:

---

And yes, I will trust reputable journalism sources

---

The media has been FAR from reputable throughout coverage of conference realignment, reporting things without all the facts one day, and then posting another story with more correct information after the fact. The fact that you place all your faith in these "reputable sources" is why you have absolutely no fricking idea what you're talking about.

So, for the last time, A&M was against granting its media rights to the conference and not equal revenue sharing. If you still can't understand this please do the world a favor and refrain from reproducing. The world has enough stupid people as it is.

quote:

---

That is not completely true. Third tier rights are still reserved by the individual schools. To form an SEC Network similar to the Big Ten and Pac-12 networks, then each SEC school will have to grant their third-tier rights to the conference. That has yet to happen.

---

I was referring to Tier1/Tier2 rights only, as the issues regarding equal revenue sharing have only pertained to Tier1/Tier2 rights.

quote:

---

So what you're saying is, is that A&M has NEVER voted for equal revenue sharing, not one single time, in its tenure in the Big 12, even though A&M could've been the swing vote to do so.

---

Holy shite, you're retarded. That isn't even close to what I am saying. Your link referenced one vote, and only one vote. Furthermore, the vague quote in your link doesn't specify that the vote was even for equal revenue sharing. His uses the phrase "equal revenue sharing" to refer to granting of media rights.

Either Dennis Dodd doesn't understand the difference and misused the phrase, or the vote for equal revenue sharing was contingent on granting our media rights to the conference, which we absolutely weren't going to do. There isn't a conference in college football that does this for Tier1/Tier2 rights, and we had no desire to be handcuffed to a conference. Forcing members to stay in the conference is not the same thing as stability.

We also voted with the rest of the conference for equal distribution of Tier2 revenue this past June (notice how it doesn't include granting media rights to the conference):

LINK

Now, take your retarded, mongoloid self back to shaggybevo where you belong.

Wow! Second tier revenue sharing is equal revenue sharing!

(That was just a bone thrown to the other schools, and you know it.)

Try again, agroid.