I just find it funny and ironic that out of all the schools rumored to be invited, it's another Texas school that gets the first invite.

Boy that should make Mizzou feel secure now...

My apologies, I was going off old information and just woken up, so I hadn't read all the new details.

I never said that, so you can **** off too.

TCU is the cleanest one to invite first. They are already out the door at the MWC and haven't even been in the Big East yet. BYU would have issues with getting out of the WCC.

Just stay out of this thread. You are obviously too far away from reality to make a valuable contribution.

Suck my cock.

BYU is already out of the WCC in football, I can't imagine it would be that hard to get out of there for its remaining sports as well.

like A&M, TCU has lived in UT's shadow and will not toe their party line. I view this as a GOOD thing. Before it was always said UT would never allow another Texas school, especially a strong one like TCU. OU was the one pushing for TCU.

You are thinking of the MWC. WCC is the league where BYU just parked the rest of their sports just joined this year. Its the home of Gonzaga and St. Mary's.

If the Big East is going to be a stickler about the 27 month rule, perhaps the Big XII strategy is to invite Louisville and then bring BYU in with them, just in time for the 1st Tier contract negotiations. Adding TCU now ensures the current 10 team agreement for the 2nd Tier isn't altered until that time.

they aren't subject to the 27mo rule. Maybe you should head over to Tigerboard....

Would the exit fees be that bad though, considering no football is involved?

I'm talking about Louisville, not TCU.

The only reason TCU gets out of the rule is that there is a clause in their contract, they can get out before July 1 with only the 5 million dollar penalty. If TCU actually starts play in the Big East, then they would be subject to the 27 month penalty that the rest of schools are subject too.

Big East Commish was saying they were going to make Syracuse and Pitt play for the full 27 months. Would the Big East treat Louisville any differently?

http://cjonline.com/sports/2011-10-0...u#.To3jpfJH5yU

Here are a couple of interesting links...the first one is a football forum post, so take it for what it is worth. The second is a Mike DeArmond article for campus corner, and seems pretty solid.

http://gridironhistory.com/forums/index.php?topic=355.0

http://campuscorner.kansascity.com/node/2109

I bet old man Snyder is loving this. If he stays on for a few more years he could have KSU dominating the North again.

North:
KSU
KU
ISU
Louisville
BYU
Cincinnati/West Virginia

I understand, mikeyis4dcats., couldn't resist a cheap shot at the expense of his reading comprehension. I'm beginning to realize I have to go very slowly and be exact with all the blood in the water about me, so here it goes. And, just to reiterate, it is complete speculation on my part. Holy ****.

People were wondering why TCU was the first to be invited. My speculation is that it might be part of a larger expansion plan.

Louisville is a rumored candidate but would be subject to the 27 month rule. Perhaps that can be mitigated, but let's assume the Big East is going to be stern on this.

The 2nd Tier contract was for a 10 team conference, so to avoid any disruption to that contract, the Big XII moves on the easiest candidate to bring in, TCU. If they stall on TCU, then they have to wait 27 months if they join the Big East or possibly with the MWC if they went back there.

BYU is comfortable with their situation as a football independent, so they can hang that way until the 27 month period is over for Louisville. Extricating itself from the WCC for non football sports shouldn't be that big of a problem.

This 27 month cycle would lead right into the 1st Tier negotiations time table, so the Big XII could afford to wait while Louisville sits in the Big East.

WOULD TAKE

I like this.

Winning the Orange Bowl was in my top 5 sports moments of all time. With this setup I can see KU getting back sooner than I thought.

Agreed!

Back to basketball in the North and football in the South. I could live with that.

:rolleyes:

The issue is thought to be the divisions. Some schools reportedly want someone from the East so that no one switches out of the west to the east, and if there is no good East option available, they'd be fine with staying at 13 until one is available.

You are saying Louisville is not subject to the 27 month rule? Why not?

Divisions, and also Alabama does not want to give up their game with TN, which they would if Auburn moves to the East.

Mizzou could be in either division and it could work, so if that is their lone concern, I am sure it will get worked out.

This may have gotten buried in the TCU news, but today Texas finally gave in on the high school issue. As long as all schools are committed to the conference, the LHN will not show high school content. No games, no highlights, nothing.

Ironic thing about the LHN is Mizzou's owns its own tv station as well.

Mizzou might be fine with being in the east, but the east schools might not. You are asking everyone in the east to travel to Columbia more often than schools which are closer to Columbia.

But in return, Texas is only willing to commit its rights for six years. Others were pushing for the whole length of the Fox contract, which is 13 years. Some view Texas giving in on the highlights as merely conceding something the NCAA was going to ban a some point anyway, so they really did not give up as much as is being perceived.

Interestingly, people are now reporting that Mizzou originally asked everyone to make a 13-year commitment to the Big 12, but Texas and a couple others balked at such a long period of time, so everyone compromised at 6 instead. Kind of puts the lie to their "official" reason for looking around, which was that since the Big 12 wants a 6-year commitment they should evaluate their options first, when in reality Mizzou was probably upset at not locking everyone down for 13 years.

Kinda surprised by the Big 12 invite for TCU. It will be an interesting dynamic because our AD is not likely to kis UT's ass.

Are you guys rehiring Mangino? Is he going to eat Snyder?

It would be an accomplishment if Radio ever won more than 2 Big 12 games in a season. No way ku sniffs a North title in that setup as long as Snyder is at KSU and BYU/WVU remain relevant.

I think Old Man Snyder will miss Mizzou though. He is 14-5 against the Tigers, soon to be 15-5 after this weekend.:D

Tulane?

DaveSittler Dave Sittler
by dennisdoddcbs
Big 12 source: "BYU, West Virginia and Tulane also on list."

Petro had a decent idea, make the 6 year commitment a "rolling" 6 years, i.e. your TV rights belong to the conference for 6 years after you leave. To me, the 6 year commitment isn't enough, why not go 20 like the B10? 6 years doesn't do anything but further highlight what the real issue here is, which is distrust of UT.

hardly Petro's idea....it's been mentioned by many over the last week.

He is a damn good coach, no doubt. Wonder what would have happened if Prince wasn't so terrible.

fmp

No, it doesn't put the lie to it. Whether 6 years or 13 years, prior to making a long-term commitment is the time to evaluate whether you want to be committed for the long term.

Doesn't "put a lie" to it at all. Mizzou is looking because the Big 12 wants a six year commitment. Mizzou wanted more. You are implying that Mizzou lied because it was not willing to make a six year commitment. The reality of it is that Mizzou want a longer term commitment for TX and OU. Didn't get it, so they decided to shop around.

Since the Big XII wants such a short commitment time, Mizzou decided to look around. Nothing wrong with that.

Tulane's last two football games are a 3 TD loss to Duke and a 45-6 loss to Army.

I expect some epic battles with ku.

In that conference you'd have to win it to make it to a BCS bowl. As long as UT and OU are still in, KU isn't winning the conference.

not quite, patteu's response was more on the mark.

I'm saying that publicly Mizzou is saying "whoa there, 6 years? Thats an awful long time! We gotta think about it first" while privately they were saying "6 years? Just six stinkin years? Are you kidding, thats not enough, we don't trust you, we're looking around now"

That is a silly idea. No one can leave if their rights are owned for the next 6 years, you'd have to figure out a way to get the votes needed to dissolve the conference. So, this is basically college football's equivalent to the Scientology billion-year contract.

The B1G has an extremely long-term commitment, but even they have not asked their schools to commit forever and ever till the end of time. (or end of conference)

See, I don't think that the "whoa there, 6 years? Thats an awful long time!" line of thinking is the correct perception of what Mizzou said. That Mizzou had wanted a 13 year commitment was known around the same time as their announcement. We are debating interpretation at this point. Most Mizzou fans did not see six years as a long enough commitment.

It is not forever, it is a true six year penalty from the date of the school in question leaving. Under the current six year plan, Texas could stick around for four or five years, establish the LHN network, and then bail. Their penalty in that situation would be a drop in the bucket compared to the mass pile of money they would have accumulated in that time. So the six year commitment that is currently on the table really is not worth six years, it is more of a three or four year band aid that does not provide any real stability.

I agree. It's really about time you guys left for the SEC.

Uhhh a rolling agreement is forever, you doofus. :facepalm:

I just don't think that the perception that Mizzou was willing to commit for less than six years is a defenseable one. Mizzou wanted a longer and stronger commitment than what TX and OU were willing to give.

Until one breaks it. Would it be tough to break? Sure. But if Texas really wanted to get out, they could come up with the money. Plus they would shift some of their content to the LHN to minimize the cost.

Also, agreements like this are rarely fully enforced. They would negotiate a settlement and get out of it. With a longer agreement, that settlement gets bigger.

No, they were pretty clear about their "official story" in the press conference. Some people may have speculated what they really wanted (Big 12 network? tier 3 sharing? longer commitment? what?), but publicly they were saying that since they are being asked to commit for 6 full years, they needed to evaluate their options first. There was no implication in the PC that the "official story" is that 6 years wasn't enough.

There's a good reason for that, too. Legally, to head off Baylor lawsuits or whatever, Mizzou needs to appear like there is no pre-conceived notion that they ever wanted to leave, whether for the SEC or anyone else, and the SEC needs to appear like they are fully happy with 13. So Mizzou decides to look around at their options just to make sure they should commit to the Big 12 for 6 years, when a sudden flash of inspiration strikes. "Why Gosh, the SEC looks pretty good! It never even occurred to us to join that conference!", with the SEC responding with "why heck, we weren't looking at expanding and hadn't even given Mizzou the slightest thought, but since you asked, why sure, come on in!"

Behind the scenes Mizzou might be using the threat of leaving for leverage, and SEC may or may not be giving assurances, and everyone in the world may know whats going on, but publicly, they can't admit that in anything that would leave a paper trail. Just closed non-public un-discoverable off-the-record discussions.

It is forever because no conference will want you if they can't have your rights. This isn't some cash penalty you pay, it eliminates your value to anyone else. Maybe they could stomach you being a useless spare tire in the conference for 1 year, but not six.

Baylor lawsuits were no longer a factor once the Commissioner of the BIG XII said the league would be just fine without Mizzou. Mizzou's statement was simply that they were looking around, and that the Big XII wanted a six year commitment, and that Mizzou would do what is best for Mizzou. That's it. If anything, Mizzou wanting and willing to give a longer commitment shows that Mizzou is commited to the long term of the BIG XII.

I know you love slandering Mizzou and you are a KU guy, and that is fine. I just think saying Mizzou was "putting a lie" on at the presser was not the correct interpretation of the presser. We can agree to disagree.

Probably true. But given the vast value of what Texas athletics had become, you cannot say that there is a 100% chance of that occurring. I agree that the six year rolling agreement is as close to a true complete lockdown as you can get, I just don't think it is completely impossible to get out of. When there is that much money involved, there seems to always be a way to bend the rules in your favor.

Whu? Mizzou is a football power!!!!!

Minor correction: They said that the conference was asking members to sign on to a long term commitment of at least 6 years.

This is not slander, its pretty clear. I mean, I could pull quotes if I have to, but I shouldn't have to because everyone listening heard Deaton basically say that since the conference was asking for a 6-year commitment, which he said he understood they probably should be asking for, but since they were asking, they need to evaluate their options. The official story wasn't that the Big 12 failed to ask everyone to make a big enough commitment, it was that since they asked for any commitment at all, they needed to look first.

As for the legal implications, of course it matters. The case may or may not be weak, but why the hell would you give anyone any ammo at all if you don't have to. Just put together the kabuki dance and no one can sue (or if they sue anyway, it can be knocked out quickly and cheaply). Even if you think you could win, lawyers are still expensive and no one needs a long legal fight if they can avoid it while still getting what they want. Mizzou would be morons to publicly say that they have been talking to the SEC and are now taking them up on their offer to leave.

Which is why Mizzou said what it said. What they said is open to interpretation and we differ on that. You think they were less than honest and have made that clear. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I just disagree.

Indeed. You can hardly see the rust on their last outright Football Conference Championship Trophy from 1960.:D

Fair enough, I'm just a little surprised at your partisanship because what you think they said, in regards to whether they said they were leaving because they didn't get the 13 years they wanted vs needing to evaluate after being asked to make a commitment, simply has no basis in reality.

I could claim that it was president Carter who asked the Soviets to "tear down this wall", you respond by saying that I'm wrong because it was president Reagan, and I could then say well I disagree, and we'll just have to agree to disagree because you are anti-Carter, but that doesn't mean my opinion isn't clearly false.

Your Carter/Reagan analogy does not apply. We can play the tape and see who said it. We are not disagreeing as to WHAT Mizzou said. We are disagreeing about what Mizzou MEANT and what Mizzou INTENDED. The only ones who know the complete truth of the latter are the Missouri Curators, the chancellor, and the AD.

I choose to look at Mizzou in a favorable light. You choose not too. Don't sit there and try to say the fact you are a KU'er does not color your opinion of what Mizzou meant in its message.

We might have a fundamental misunderstanding. I could not care less what they meant or intended. I could easily believe that they were quietly upset about not getting 13 years.

Their carefully-crafted statement does not convey that message at all, and in fact conveys a very different message, not because they wanted to be deceitful or anything like that, but because their lawyers understandably ordered them to.

This is not a slam on Mizzou, at all. If this was any other team in the same situation, they would need to say basically what Mizzou said regardless of the real reasons.

Now there are reports that the BIG XII voted to approve the six year commitment, but that Mizzou abstained from that vote as well. Interesting.

Very interesting. Almost as if I have heard this before... :hmmm:

I think at this point Mizzou is going to abstain from everything to prevent a conflict of interest, until their situation is settled.

If they eventually left, the other members would obviously prefer they not vote. If the SEC says no, or if UT/OU/whoever cries uncle and Mizzou elects to stay, then they will start voting again.

one down.

Yeah, I don't think them abstaining means one thing or another, they are just staying neutral at this point.

Although I agree that having MU in the league is a good thing, what they "do" or "don't do" is getting less and less interesting to the rest of us firmly committed to the Big 12.

You are free to not post and go back to your corner kissing Texas ass at any time if this thread is boring you.....

Like you have a ****ing choice. LMAO

I don't know whats worse.

Not having a choice or your choice not mattering to anyone.

This thread is about conference realignment.

TCU is moving to the Big 12.

MU is just one of many schools either moving or pondering moves.

Clearly, since this board is on the verge of having two threads catch AIDS from too many posts, over 80% of which are from non-Mizzou fans.

Judging by the endless KUnt butthurt in this thread, I'd have to go with not having a choice.

I do. Not having a choice is clearly worse. LMAO

I think if MU leaves, we get Louisville. Then we stay at 10.

I can see this. But how is the BIG XII going to get the Big East to let Louisville go, when the Big East has already said they are making Pitt and Syracuse stay the full 27 months? That is the big dollar question.

Also, KK is ripping on Mizzou again, saying that Mizzou's decision should be easy and they should stay.

Fine with me.

MU has a better "campus feel".

Louisville has more achievement as a program.

Pretty much a wash

Cool. I wouldn't know.

My school is happy where they are and are proud.

Lets play some games.

I want the mormons.