That's what I was wondering. Assuming MU has the invite, I see no reason for them to stick around 1 year.

Neinas has zero say in the matter. This is between MU, the SEC, and the lawyers. I don't think some 80 year old guy who just took over as commissioner is going to call the shots here.

Which is why I was asking.

Neinas is just doing his job, trying to make the Big XII look as stable and strong as possible. I don't think his statements mean all that much.

I think a lot of it is ESPN's spin with the headline. They have a vested interest in Texas and the LHN.

IIRC CU planned on staying a year later than NU, but the Big 12 said no thanks. That's why they paid less in exit fees.

I would think MU would do something similar.

I don't know what the conference can say about MU leaving after they negotiated reduced exit fees with Nebraska and Colorado. The conference didn't fight to keep the league together, so Mizzou should be able to walk.

As far as I'm concerned, the conference is in violation of the contract.

no way are the numbers real. The SEC tv deal is worth about $15mil/school. No way are Tier 3 rights worth and additional $12mil/school.

I want you to know that I trust your analysis based on nothing more than I trust this exhaustively researched piece.

and I'll take your word for it on contract law, dipshit.

I never knew MU fans were such conceited, self-assured, douchebags as many here and on Tigerboard have revealed. Thanks for that....

You don't have to. You are welcome to look at the history of what has happened:

1. Nebraska breaks their contract and pays around 6 million.

2. Colorado breaks their contract and pays around 6 million.

and conclude that:

If Missouri breaks their contract (with a 12 team league that is now at 9 teams), they will be on the hook for 25 million.

Have fun.

He's probably referring to the renegotiation of tier 1 and 2. It may be that with a new contract the SEC could get a pretty good raise, but this analysis ignores the fact that the Big 12 is stuck with a way under-market tier 1 deal which comes up in 2015. In the end, the potential difference would probably be more like 5 or 6 million instead of 12.

Its not like a court ruled in favor of NU and CU. The Big 12 decided it was in their best interests to let them go with a small penalty. However, since then the Big 12 has significantly altered their rules on leaving the conference, and the commissioner appears to be signalling that the Big 12 is in no mood at all to let MU off cheap. It could cost them 25 million to leave in 2012, which is why he's suggesting Mizzou will opt for the longer notice and the lower penalty.

1. The league established a precedent. The contract does not establish a set amount of penalty. Its based on "damages". If the damages have been set at $6 million in a 12 team league, it's not going to be higher now that the league is down to 9 teams.

2. The league hasn't changed anything regarding Missouri. They can't unilaterally change the contract.

3. The contract may have been undervalued with Nebraska, Colorado, and aTm. I doubt it gets revised upward with whatever teams replace them plus the existence of LHN.

My guess is that the conference decides that they need to move forward and can't afford to play a prolonged game of chicken with MU, especially if they are battling the Big East for teams. I think, if MU leaves, they settle for 3-6 million. If those numbers are off, they are more likely to be an over-estimate than under.

http://www.big12sports.com/fls/10410...ook/Bylaws.pdf

The bylaws are the bylaws, you can't wave your hands at them and claim they no longer mean anything, and they most certainly DO specify the penalty for leaving without adequate notice. The Big 12 merely made a business decision that it was better to waive part of the penalty in the past. I don't know for sure that they wouldn't do that with MU too, obviously, but the Big 12 commissioner is talking like, in a sharp contrast to the past 3 schools, that Mizzou will be held to the full penalty.