- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: More Big 12 GOLD
Posted on 10/27/11 at 11:26 pm to StrickAggie06
Posted on 10/27/11 at 11:26 pm to StrickAggie06
Once we get to insults and pop culture references, it's all over, folks. 
1
Posted on 10/27/11 at 11:33 pm to texashorn
Well since you are incapable of either supporting your claims or refuting ours, it's pretty much all that's left.
Posted on 10/27/11 at 11:36 pm to StrickAggie06
My claim was that A&M has never voted for equal revenue sharing of first- and second-tier revenues, and that point still stands.
Posted on 10/28/11 at 12:00 am to texashorn
Actually, your claim was...
...and I showed that this wasn't the case. We voted for the policy to share Tier2 rights equally and to increase Tier1 equal sharing from 57% to 76%. It's not our fault that particular vote didn't extend to full Tier1 rights as well. Feel free to ask Dan Beebe and your own administration why this wasn't the case.
Your attempt to infer that A&M is anti-equal revenue sharing because we refused to vote for granting media rights to the conference is asinine, especially since no conference in college football currently does this for Tier1/Tier2 rights. So until you can produce some sort of evidence that we voted against equal revenue sharing WITHOUT IT BEING CONTINGENT on granting our Tier1/Tier2 media rights, your point does not stand.
quote:
Of course, A&M continually voted for unequal revenue sharing, too
...and I showed that this wasn't the case. We voted for the policy to share Tier2 rights equally and to increase Tier1 equal sharing from 57% to 76%. It's not our fault that particular vote didn't extend to full Tier1 rights as well. Feel free to ask Dan Beebe and your own administration why this wasn't the case.
Your attempt to infer that A&M is anti-equal revenue sharing because we refused to vote for granting media rights to the conference is asinine, especially since no conference in college football currently does this for Tier1/Tier2 rights. So until you can produce some sort of evidence that we voted against equal revenue sharing WITHOUT IT BEING CONTINGENT on granting our Tier1/Tier2 media rights, your point does not stand.
Posted on 10/28/11 at 12:23 am to StrickAggie06
quote:
We voted for the policy to share Tier2 rights equally and to increase Tier1 equal sharing from 57% to 76%
That is NOT equal revenue sharing by any definition.
quote:
It's not our fault that particular vote didn't extend to full Tier1 rights as well.
Woe is agroid. Woe is thee.
quote:
granting media rights to the conference is asinine, especially since no conference in college football currently does this for Tier1/Tier2 rights.
bullshite.
quote:
The Big Ten and Pac-12 members have signed grants of rights, which basically give all of the television rights from each university’s sports to the conference for a specified number of years.
NY Times
quote:
So until you can produce some sort of evidence that we voted against equal revenue sharing WITHOUT IT BEING CONTINGENT on granting our Tier1/Tier2 media rights, your point does not stand.
quote:
The A&M official said Wednesday it wasn’t the school’s “concern” how the Big 12 got its money together for the revenue distribution — just that it lived up to its promise of $20 million annually, starting in 2012-13. The league’s pledge is oral, and the A&M official said the school’s lawyers are working to get the commitment in writing.
Houston Chronicle
Posted on 10/28/11 at 12:35 am to texashorn
The scoreboard says that 4 teams have left the Big 12,and that you've replaced them with a MWC team and (likely) 1-3 Big East teams.
If you can sleep at night feeling that the Big 12 is truly better off, and that it is 0% Texas' fault, then more power to you.
If you can sleep at night feeling that the Big 12 is truly better off, and that it is 0% Texas' fault, then more power to you.
Posted on 10/28/11 at 12:39 am to texasaggie08
Is that response the equivalent of "na na na boo boo, stick your head in doo doo?"
Posted on 10/28/11 at 12:47 am to texashorn
Actually, yes....You're taking this whole new-Big 12 thing better than we thought.
Posted on 10/28/11 at 1:00 am to texashorn
quote:
"Just get the same contract for everybody. Everybody's equal," Pickens said. "If you'd have had that, you wouldn't have lost the [Texas A&M] Aggies, you wouldn't have lost Nebraska and Colorado and it looks like Missouri's going. But it's because things are not equal is what it is."
I'm guessing you know better than Boone Pickens and Dr Loftin. Youre so butthurt you can't stand it.
Agsessed
Posted on 10/28/11 at 1:09 am to texasaggie08
Yeah, I'm not too worried. Texas will always be Texas. (Cue the Mad magazine character, Alfred whateverhisface, the "what, me worry?" guy).
As for Boone Pickens, that was part of my original point: Nebraska held onto unequal revenue sharing like a child does a doll, but Pickens said that equal revenue sharing would've kept them in the fold. That's pretty ignorant.
Loftin is nothing but a mouthpiece.
As for Boone Pickens, that was part of my original point: Nebraska held onto unequal revenue sharing like a child does a doll, but Pickens said that equal revenue sharing would've kept them in the fold. That's pretty ignorant.
Loftin is nothing but a mouthpiece.
Posted on 10/28/11 at 1:17 am to texashorn
Tell us about Texas being Texas in the 80's to mid 90's. I'd love to hear it.
And Nebraska as you pointed out was near the bottom of the league in revenue. Of course they wanted equal revenue sharing. Texas being dicks was just a lagniappe.
Gates and now Loftin are far from mouthpieces. They are very smart, powerful, influential men. You haven't followed A&M closely if you think Loftin is a mouthpiece
And Nebraska as you pointed out was near the bottom of the league in revenue. Of course they wanted equal revenue sharing. Texas being dicks was just a lagniappe.
Gates and now Loftin are far from mouthpieces. They are very smart, powerful, influential men. You haven't followed A&M closely if you think Loftin is a mouthpiece
Posted on 10/28/11 at 1:28 am to Big Kat
quote:
Tell us about Texas being Texas in the 80's to mid 90's.
Sure, no problem.
Texas finished No. 2 in the country in 1981. The Longhorns finished No. 5 in 1983, but were could've won the national title that year if they hadn't lost to Georgia in the '84 Cotton Bowl.
The Longhorns were also ranked No. 1 at various points of the season in 1981 and 1984, and were No. 2 virtually the entire 1983 season.
'85 finished unranked, but 8-4. '86 was the first losing season in 30 years, and it cost a good man (Fred Akers) his job.
The '87 team finished ranked and won its bowl game, then '88 and '89 were pitiful. But '90 was pretty good, finished 10-2. '91 -- bad. 92 and 93-- mediocre. '94 finished 8-4. 1995 -- final Southwest Conference champions.
Now... us about Texas A&M from the 40's up to the mid-70's
Posted on 10/28/11 at 1:29 am to texashorn
"Tell" us, rather.
Posted on 10/28/11 at 1:39 am to texashorn
I never claimed A&M will always be A&M implying there were never down periods.
It's like you don't even remember going 1-10 against A&M during that stretch with the only win being by 1 point at home
It's like you don't even remember going 1-10 against A&M during that stretch with the only win being by 1 point at home
Posted on 10/28/11 at 1:44 am to Big Kat
That's not what I implied at all. Everyone has down periods, it's just that some get up off the mat, and others stay down.
I wouldn't be so proud of that 10/11 stretch during Texas' worst stretch in its history, and one that brought two major probations, with the second almost invoking the death penalty for the Aggies.
I wouldn't be so proud of that 10/11 stretch during Texas' worst stretch in its history, and one that brought two major probations, with the second almost invoking the death penalty for the Aggies.
Posted on 10/28/11 at 3:31 am to texashorn
quote:
just that it lived up to its promise of $20 million annually
That statement was simple: Dan Beebe could not be trusted to do anything for anyone not named Dodds. We knew there was no way we'd ever see that money so we made a demand based on something we knew he couldn't produce. It's called playing the game.
Posted on 10/28/11 at 2:01 pm to texashorn
quote:
The A&M official said Wednesday it wasn’t the school’s “concern” how the Big 12 got its money together for the revenue distribution —just that it lived up to its promise of $20 million annually, starting in 2012-13. The league’s pledge is oral, and the A&M official said the school’s lawyers are working to get the commitment in writing.
We demanded the $20ml after Texas refused to agree to equal revenue sharing. If we were going to stay in the BigXII, there was either going to be equal revenue sharing, or we were going to receive the same revenue Texas and OU did. So no, that isn't evidence of us voting against equal revenue sharing. Care to try again?
Posted on 10/28/11 at 3:26 pm to StrickAggie06
Where's the link that A&M voted FOR equal revenue sharing of first and second tier monies?
Big 12 rules state that bylaws must be changed by vote of 75 percent. When it was 12, that meant that Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska and A&M (the haves) voted down the have-nots. With it at 10, it took three: Texas, Oklahoma and A&M (as indicated by the media sources I provided).
Bylaws:
LINK
However... other sources have indicated that it took a unanimous vote to change revenue sharing formulas, which is even more damning that the Aggies continually voted FOR unequal revenue sharing of first and second tier revenues.
Pick your poison.
Big 12 rules state that bylaws must be changed by vote of 75 percent. When it was 12, that meant that Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska and A&M (the haves) voted down the have-nots. With it at 10, it took three: Texas, Oklahoma and A&M (as indicated by the media sources I provided).
Bylaws:
LINK
However... other sources have indicated that it took a unanimous vote to change revenue sharing formulas, which is even more damning that the Aggies continually voted FOR unequal revenue sharing of first and second tier revenues.
Pick your poison.
Posted on 10/28/11 at 3:51 pm to texashorn
And yet you have failed to produce any evidence of us either voting for unequal revenue sharing or against equal revenue sharing without it being attached to granting media rights. You claimed that we have continually voted for unequal revenue sharing, and have produced nothing to support such a claim.
I have, however, shown you an instance where we voted for the BigXII fricked up idea of equal revenue sharing since Texas continually refuses to agree to full Tier1/Tier2 sharing. You continue to ignore this because it runs contrary to your claim, and sharing of Tier1 rights was only increased instead of being completely equal distribution at Texas demand.
You act like it was A&M's job to try and strong arm the conf into equal revenue sharing when it isn't. We have repeatedly favored it, while Texas has continually shot it down. Thats the problem with the whole conference: Texas continually gets what it wants at the expense of everyone else. The fact that you are too arrogant and ignorant to understand this simply highlights the attitude and situation everyone in the conference with options is trying to get away from.
And yes, Texas destroyed the SWC just like it is destroying the BigXII. Your school and its arrogance are a cancer on collegiate athletics. On that note, I'm done arguing with you because you are too stupid to understand simple concepts, and I have better things to do with my time.
I have, however, shown you an instance where we voted for the BigXII fricked up idea of equal revenue sharing since Texas continually refuses to agree to full Tier1/Tier2 sharing. You continue to ignore this because it runs contrary to your claim, and sharing of Tier1 rights was only increased instead of being completely equal distribution at Texas demand.
You act like it was A&M's job to try and strong arm the conf into equal revenue sharing when it isn't. We have repeatedly favored it, while Texas has continually shot it down. Thats the problem with the whole conference: Texas continually gets what it wants at the expense of everyone else. The fact that you are too arrogant and ignorant to understand this simply highlights the attitude and situation everyone in the conference with options is trying to get away from.
And yes, Texas destroyed the SWC just like it is destroying the BigXII. Your school and its arrogance are a cancer on collegiate athletics. On that note, I'm done arguing with you because you are too stupid to understand simple concepts, and I have better things to do with my time.
Posted on 10/28/11 at 4:00 pm to StrickAggie06
I love a good sip smackdown
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News