- 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
Texas A&M and SEC Expansion: Why Is the SEC Afraid of Baylor?
Posted on 9/8/11 at 9:53 pm
Posted on 9/8/11 at 9:53 pm
7
Posted on 9/8/11 at 10:04 pm to RhodeIslandRed
I wrote that.
Posted on 9/8/11 at 10:06 pm to Sao
quote:
I wrote that.
should have wrote it manifesto style on the secR, it would have more credibility that way.
Posted on 9/8/11 at 10:10 pm to RhodeIslandRed
Nothing wrong with getting all the players to show their hand before they act. I don't think Slive wants to see OU going to the PAC-12. If he slows the process down he's got the opportunity to talk OU out of it. Let's wait for this to play out before making any judgments.
Posted on 9/8/11 at 10:12 pm to RhodeIslandRed
Hits the proverbial nail on the head. If Slive lets a little threat from Baylor derail this expansion after all the Sec has been thru , he really will be the laughing stock. 
Posted on 9/8/11 at 10:24 pm to RhodeIslandRed
A&M needs/wants the SEC more than the SEC needs/wants A&M. That's really what it comes down to. It will happen eventually, so why not let Baylor show their arse and let A&M do all the work while the SEC sits back and watches?
Posted on 9/8/11 at 10:28 pm to windhammontanatigers
quote:
Hits the proverbial nail on the head.
Thanks guys, sincerely.
Posted on 9/8/11 at 10:28 pm to busey
quote:
A&M needs/wants the SEC more than the SEC needs/wants A&M.
this.
anyone saying slive is a coward or needs to grow a set is just plain fricking stupid.
if OU decides to bail on the bevo 9, then the conference will dissolve and no lawsuit.
if OU decides to stay in the bevo 9, then the conference is fine and no lawsuit.
demanding to act now = lawsuit. regardless if said lawsuit has merit. its an easy fricking decision.
Posted on 9/8/11 at 10:31 pm to jcole4lsu
Not only that, but Slive doesn't want to go all out trying to bring in A&M, and then for whatever reason, not get them. It would make the SEC look bad.
Posted on 9/8/11 at 10:39 pm to Sao
Posted on 9/8/11 at 10:44 pm to jcole4lsu
quote:
if OU decides to bail on the bevo 9, then the conference will dissolve and no lawsuit.
Please explain how that can happen without the other schools threatening legal action against OU.
Posted on 9/8/11 at 11:01 pm to busey
quote:
A&M needs/wants the SEC more than the SEC needs/wants A&M. That's really what it comes down to.
I disagree. Eventually, the Texas market will go to either the Pac 12 or Big 10 and the SEC has to be sure to at least get a piece of it. The SEC has the best product but not nearly as many eyeballs in its geographic footprint as the Pac 12 or Big 10 have. Gaining Houston/Dallas/San Antonio is crucial for the SEC.
Posted on 9/8/11 at 11:51 pm to RhodeIslandRed
quote:
Please explain how that can happen without the other schools threatening legal action against OU
If OU and 3 other teams leave (Supposedly OSU, TT, and Texas) there is no more conference. There has to be 6 teams to take a vote on anything. The conference would just cease to exist, so no exit penalties, no conference lawsuits, etc.
Baylor could still as an individual institution try to claim Tortious Interference by the Pac, but since OU can claim that they only went looking after aggy declared they were leaving it'd be hard to make a case that the Pac did anything wrong.
Posted on 9/9/11 at 12:18 am to Atari
quote:
If OU and 3 other teams leave (Supposedly OSU, TT, and Texas) there is no more conference.
Is that in the Big 12 bylaws? And if Baylor can sue to stop A&M then why can they not sue to stop the others? Just asking.
This post was edited on 9/9/11 at 12:20 am
Posted on 9/9/11 at 12:43 am to DocBugbear
quote:
Nothing wrong with getting all the players to show their hand before they act.
Winner, winner, chicken dinner.
Posted on 9/9/11 at 1:39 am to RhodeIslandRed
quote:
Is that in the Big 12 bylaws? And if Baylor can sue to stop A&M then why can they not sue to stop the others? Just asking.
From my understanding yeah that's the way the conference bylaws are written. Heard it on the radio this morning. Baylor CAN sue whoever they want, they can sue the 4 leaving if they want to, but probably wouldn't win.
I don't really think they have a case against the SEC either, but that doesn't matter, the acceptance of aggy had a stipulation. I'm still unsure why that stipulation was put on the acceptance, from my understanding when you ask someone to give up their legal right to sue you normally offer some compensation. Why ask for legal protection unless you're hiding something? Not saying the SEC did anything wrong, just seems unnecessary. Let Baylor take it to court, embarrass them in court and be done with it.
Posted on 9/9/11 at 6:46 am to RhodeIslandRed
I just think he doesnt want to be stuck in court for an extended period of time.
Posted on 9/9/11 at 7:14 am to Pedro
quote:
The great irony in all of this is that by refusing to honor their previous waiver, Baylor may have dug their own graves. No one wants to be in a conference with a school that takes a scorched earth policy when it does not get its way, much less one that does not honor its word.
This is incorrect. Baylor never once agreed to waive its rights. Beebe wrote a unilateral letter where he implied his much but he had been given no permission from the member school to make such a claim. That is why he had the email to Slive on 9/6 clarifying things.
Look, Baylor is a joke - everyone knows this. Still, this is hilarious.
Posted on 9/9/11 at 7:45 am to Dr Drunkenstein
Posted on 9/9/11 at 8:23 am to SpreadsheetAg
quote:
This is incorrect. Baylor never once agreed to waive its rights. Beebe wrote a unilateral letter where he implied his much but he had been given no permission from the member school to make such a claim. That is why he had the email to Slive on 9/6 clarifying things.
If Beebe/Starr had not been able to get in touch with Slive or someone from the SEC the night of the vote and A&M had been admitted, I think its pretty clear that the SEC's reliance on Beebe's letter would have forced the apparent authority in Beebe's letter to become binding on the individual institutions whether or not Beebe actually had the authority from the institutions. One more example of the fine leadership inside the Big 12 offices.
All a moot point now, but only because the SEC did not forge ahead relying on the letter and because they were informed that the letter was inaccurate regarding members waiving right to sue.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News