Mizzou, you know what to do... GTFO.

Word.

And this, too.

i apologize if this is a stupid question because i don't listen to sports radio that much but, it seems the only kc radio host, even the majority of the media, are percieved kU/kstate(fescoe/KK) homers or in between(wright, who is my usual favorite when i do listen). Is there any radio host that "favors" mizzou at all in kc?

Steven St. John is a Mizzou guy. He hosts the "Border Patrol" with Nate Bukaty (KU guy) on 810 for the morning drive.

But yeah, that's it.

This is why seeing you MU fans leave is good thing.

What a weirdo you are.

Tommy Tubberville recommends......

Drumroll please........................




Tulane and San Diego State.

http://www.nola.com/tulane/index.ssf...oach_tomm.html

LMAO

Seriously, someone should shoulder tap this fool and tell him to keep his ****ing mouth shut. Right now, it's imperative for the Big XII to work to reaffirm its brand name, and West-Texas dipshit is talking Tulane and San Diego State? If the current commissioner weren't 98, he should be looking to put a foot in Tommy's ass.

ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

God I can't wait to leave this conference.

Texas wants WV, OU wants Louisville. Nobody else's opinion matters.

Texas wants their own tv network. OU wants their own tv network. Nobody else's opinion matters.

Just sit down and play the Washington Generals like you are supposed to...

This is why Missouri is leaving NOW rather than waiting. Waiting for this mess to finally blow up for the last time opens up the option that Texas or OU will go somewhere while bringing little brother along with them.

Petty infighting doesn't happen in any other conference. See Missouri to the East.

Yes, because the SEC made a statement about a key topic that was then publicly contradicted by the athletic director of one of the schools, who said the statement probably was just intended to create some buzz.

SEC athletic directors schedule press conferences OVER the press conference of the chairman of the SEC, and contradict what the chairman is saying.

SEC presidents get involved with state senators about who is coming to the SEC, and then GO ON RECORD about those conversations.

Yeah, totally the same thing.

Fantastic comparison other than the fact that Mizzou will be approved unanimously and without a Senatorial investigation.

That's not really petty though. That's more practical infighting.

These must be the ones Wickedson feels really sad for...

Mellinger talks to some Missouri fans while he is in STL.

Just for kicks, and because rain gave us another day to appreciate what’s been a fantastic baseball postseason, I asked three people here what they thought of Missouri and the SEC.

None of them cared.

The strongest opinion came from Dave, who works at the hotel where I’m staying.

“Why would anyone want to stay in that league (the Big 12)?”


Read more: http://mellinger.kansascity.com/entr...#ixzz1bzZANYFA

McMurphyCBS Brett McMurphy
Because of messy, awkward situation, Big 12 will let WVU in Big 12 in odd years & UL in even years. Or something like that

On Tuesday, the Big 12 Board of Directors met on a conference call, and the expected result was to approve West Virginia’s invitation into the conference.

The Big 12 was prepared to send a delegation, led by interim commissioner Chuck Neinas, to Morgantown, W.Va., for a ceremony.

But during the call, some sentiment was expressed for Louisville — like West Virginia, a member of the Big East.

A source familiar with the call told The Star that Oklahoma supported Louisville, while most others, including Texas, favored West Virginia. And the board went into the meeting with the idea of inviting only one.

Also on the table, according to a source, was grant-of-rights. Texas favors six years, Oklahoma at least 10. Boren was willing to give in on the reduced grant-of-rights in exchange for support for Louisville.

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/26...#ixzz1bzeDYpRX

Pitino actually makes a good point here. It is stupid to try and save the football image of the Big East. Why not embrace what the conference truly is and push for great basketball programs?

All along I've though ku would be a very good fit for such a conference. Would ku fans be interested?

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bask...rs-temple-owls

So Pitino's idea is to make the Big East a powerful basketball conference with lousy football? Isn't that what the Big East has been for years?

I think the point is to mail in football and focus on adding basketball kings to help add league value.

It took a day and got resolved.

Near as I can tell, it didn't involve the United States Senate or contradicting public statements by key members of the respective Universities.

You fellas really should just bow out right now - the XII is a ****ing mess. Maybe you can come back in 2 years and show how awesome it is and how great things are without us, but you folks are trying to prop up a 2-legged stool at this very moment.

Exactly so now they won't have to act like they have a football conference at all.

Why Connecticut, Cincinnati & WVU have made BCS bowls.

I'm assured by every beaker in Kansas that this makes these teams TRULY GREAT POWERHOUSES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!1111

No, you're not. We just laugh at you because you never got into one, much less won one. :thumb:

WVU was the one who "IT'S PATTERSON!'D" themselves. The Big 12 didn't announce a press conference...

No, they just decided to let cronyism **** up an agreement the XII had reached when Mitch McConnell called his old Senate buddy and tried to leverage his school into the conference.

It's screwed up any way you stack it.

Good luck convincing a KU fan that shady backroom deals are a bad thing.

And we laugh right back at you knowing your "crowning achievement" *snicker* was an overblown joke. :thumb:

What shady backroom deal is taking place now? Are you talking about two Senators trying to speak up on behalf of the schools they're connected to?

That's fine. You can laugh in your bitterness all you want, it doesn't change the fact that we have that trophy. Just don't go around saying that you've been assured by all these beaker fans that winning a BCS bowl game once makes you a truly great powerhouse.

What? You mean backing into a BCS game because you didn't beat anybody worth a shit all year long isn't a mark of greatness? It's so confusing following beaker logic.

The WV senator is calling for an investigation. He seems to think something underhanded is happening.

You mean the one where one Senator called the President of a major university who he just happened to be old Senate buddies with and tried to get him to essentially extort the XII into changing a previously agreed upon position?

That one?

It's not like McConnel issued a press-release here touting the advantages of Louisville. He called his old Senate pal, went under the radard and tried to get him to strongarm the conference into ****ing over an entire state.

Yeah, I'd say that qualifies as a shady backroom deal.

Then again, Saul makes a valid point. I guess it doesn't count if someone doesn't end up with some stolen workout equipment in the deal - ammirite?

You are all putting an awful lot of trust in the media. None of us were in the room or on the phone.

In a few years, you can show that trophy to your non-AQ conferencemates. It will serve as a reminder of how you got there and why its your own fault.

Yet you're certain that MU signed a commitment to the XII last season after Nebraska and Colorado left, eh? I suppose you were in the room that time, right?

Oh wait, that was Bowen Loftin, and he actually expressly stated that Missouri refused to commit to anything.

You're not very good at this.

Why are you all suddenly believing the media knows the whole story and reports the truth? If that was the case MU left for B1G last year and BYU is in the Big 12. And Jay Nixon singlehandedly pushed MU into the SEC.....sounds a lot like a certain senator.

But don't let your agenda steer your perception....

Because there are actual Senators that are calling for hearings to corroborate said reports. There were actual scheduled press-conferences cancelled that further corroborate same.

As opposed to KK, who pretty much just makes shit up as he goes and changes it day to day.

The old school media rules were you try to get 3 sources on a story. Those have gone out the window for the media, but it's still a pretty sound rule. We have a widely reported story, a cancelled press conference and a US Senator calling for an investigation; yeah, I'd say that qualifies as 3 solid sources.

But hey, don't let your idiocy steer your argument.

MU has publicly and REPEATEDLY said since CU and NU left that they were proud and happy members of the Big 12.

And I haven't seen ANYTHING that explicitly stated MU refused anything, just that 3 schools had reservations.

What DJ is saying is being borne out right in front of us. What you've claimed has been systematically refuted by everyone involved.

If Missouri signed something, where are the new bylaws? Holy shit, there's no way you possibly believe that Mizzou signed onto some new contract. Nobody is that stupid.

LMAO

Well if you can read you did read something that said they refused to sign a commitment.

Sounds like quite a lot of action by non action.

Those senators are just butthurt. :p

And if you REALLY think that qualifies as 3 solid sources you're a moron.

Tons of widely reported stories have proven false.
No one has any clue what the news conference was for....it could have been to announce a Big 12 move, but that could have been premature on WVUs part - in fact I'd say that since the final vote had obviously not been taken, it WAS premature.
And of course WVU's senator is raising a stink. He gets touted as the hero and "man of the people" through all of this. And eventually the story will peter out and he'll spend less on his re-election campaign.


I've lived through "It's Patterson!". I know the real story behind it, and it's not good. But I also know the media jumped the gun and ruined the deal - and that's probably the same thing that happened here.

Then you haven't read much.

Loftin expressly stated that MU was one of the 3 schools that refused to commit to the conference.

Where did I say they signed anything?

I said they were in the meetings in 2010, and they have continued to state publicly until October 2011 that they were proud and happy members of the Big 12.

You're right - your scenario is far more likely.

I was foolish to think that the schools that have been at each others throats off and on for months and have been looking for ways to better-deal their conference for over a year were engaged in underhanded conduct that could undermine conference unity.

source?


The only public statement I've read from Loftin is this

I never said it DIDN'T happen, just that you are in an awful big hurry to condemn the Big 12 for it. I think WVU is largely at fault for jumping the gun.

And as evidenced by his statements, the Senator has no clue what REALLY happened, only that it was reported that McCallan had a hand in it. It's also being reported that the runway at Morgantown is too short, and that's the reason for the holdup.....you believe that too?

He makes a good point - he doesn't appear to be stupid enough to suggest that Mizzou signed anything.

He's just stupid enough to ignore every tenant of contract law and try to argue that some oral statements which don't even begin to constitute the necessary elements of a contract are in some way binding on a University. And that's not even addressing the agency law issues whereby an individual who had no authority to actually bind the university made said statements.

He's pretty stupid, but lets go ahead and accurately identify why he's stupid.

Like I said - some of you folks really need to work on reading posts you didn't actually write. It would help your arguments a great deal if you could educate yourselves a little more.

"I said, 'Texas A&M is committed to the Big 12 as it is today.' That was a very important thing for me to say, because I didn't want to commit to something I had no idea what it was going to be."

Especially after three schools, Colorado, Nebraska and Missouri, didn't give commitments, he said."


Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colle...#ixzz1bxOB4RKY

We beat pretty good OSU and ATM teams and then VT of course. It was great. I hope you experience watching MU in a BCS bowl sometime. Beaker logic is very simple: we played in the Orange Bowl and won and have a trophy to show for it. Your sour grapes about how we "backed into it" just makes it that much sweeter.

where am I arguing that anything is binding? My argument has simply been that YOU want to let MU off the hook because NU and CU left. My argument is simply that MU has repeatedly publicy stated they are happy members of the conference, including after NU and CU left. That takes a lot of wind out of their sails that they are damaged and owe less buyout.

Uh...McConnell. Mitch McConnell. He's only the Senate Minority leader and I believe Caucus chair. He's kindof a big deal.

You really do a lot to undermine your credibility in these things when you can't even get the man's name straight. I'm sure the position you're taking here is one crafted from a great deal of research and insight on the matter.

Go ahead and keep defending the conduct of the home conference here if you'd like, but you may want to actually learn a little bit about what it is you're defending first.

It doesn't.

You know who else were happy members of the Big 12? Nebraska and Colorado.

Until they weren't.

butthurt

No, it really doesn't impact their legal standing even a tiny little bit.

It means precisely dick.

Yeah, that's not really a shady deal, bro. That's just a friend calling a friend for a favor. McConnel wants UoL in the Big12, he calls his friend to make a case for the school. Not sure how that translates to all you said, but then again, you guys are and have been huge ****ing drama queens about all of this.

As a fan, I want both UoL and WVU in the conference. I realize that might not be financially wise for the league, though, so I trust they will do what's best.

Fair enough, that is a new article to me.

But obviously that lack of commitment was BEFORE NU and CU left. We don't have any knowledge of the position of MU afterwards except the repeated public statements that they were happy and proud members of the Big 12. They may well have not committed, but to my knowledge we don't have any proof.

At any rate, this whole argument has just been about the exit fees. There is no doubt a deal will be cut. I don't think CU and NU's fees matter - the situation is different. When NU and CU left there were 10 teams (required by the tv contract), so there was less damage if they left. Now, if the Big 12 wants to play hardball they can argue that MU leaving breaches the tv contract and that incurs more damage to the remaining conference.

:rolleyes: pardon me for just having read a post about McCallan scotch. How dare I have a brain fart.

What?!?!?

A friend calling a friend for a favor? That's what I do when I ask my buddy to feed my dog when I'm late from work.

This was a United States Senator calling a former United States Senator and President of a major land-grant (state subsidized) University and asking him to leverage his position as President of said University to adversely impact a state of millions of people.

Did he have to ask to have someone killed in order for it to constitute a shady deal? What the hell is shady in your world?

http://outkickthecoverage.com/big-12...n-leaving-.php

As Texas A&M's official notice of departure from the Big 12 grows closer talk has shifted to what exactly the exit fees may be for the Aggies. And the answer to that question is a Facebook-centric -- it's complicated. That's because the lawyers who drafted the exit provisions of the Big 12 bylaws should be summarily executed. It's incredibly difficult to figure out what is and is not owed under this framework and the payouts aren't very substantial. That's what OKTC has learned from a close examination of the Big 12 bylaws.

That's the reason that Nebraska and Colorado were able to escape the conference by paying pennies on the dollar.

It's possible these bylaw terms were drafted in such a way to be intentionally vague. That is, everyone who read this language recognized that it was impossible to know exactly what was expected of them in the event of dissolution. Hence every school entered into this agreement with the understanding that what they were agreeing to wasn't entirely certain. It's also possible that these bylaws once made sense and then when 12 schools pored over the document and inserted their own language that was supposed to clarify things it actually made it more complex.

Finally, it's possible that no one ever expected for a school to want to leave the Big 12. What isn't in dispute is that these bylaws are a mess.

Texas A&M President R. Bowen Loftin already referred to this bylaws as "confusing," and he wasn't lying. Read the language for yourself and then we'll discuss that language in greater detail after you're finished. But be prepared to read these provisions a dozen or more times to really understand what the heck is going on.

Here are the Big 12 bylaws in full.


Below is the provision that deals with dissolution. (Where it exists, I've added the bold. )

SECTION 3


DURATION


3.1 Membership.

Each Member Institution shall remain a member of the Conference until July 1, 2006 (the “Current Term”) and during any Additional Term (as defined below). Unless a Member Institution gives written notice that it will withdraw from the Conference at the end of the Current Term or the then-current Additional Term to all other Member Institutions and the Conference (a “Notice”) not less than two (2) years before the end of the Current Term or the then-current Additional Term, as the case may be, each Member Institution shall remain a member of the Conference for an additional five-year period after the end of the Current Term or the then-current Additional Term, as the case may be (each, an “Additional Term”) unless such member is a Breaching Member. Each Member Institution agrees that in the event such Member desires to withdraw from the Conference, that it will in good faith give Notice not less than two (2) years before the end of the Current Term or any Additional Term, as the case may be. No Member Institution shall be entitled to distribution of the then-current revenues from the Conference after the effective date of its withdrawal, resignation, or the cessation of its participation in the Conference (the “Effective Date”).


3.2 Effect of Giving Notice.

If a Member Institution gives proper Notice pursuant to Section 3.1 (a “Withdrawing Member”), then the Members agree that such withdrawal would cause financial hardship to the remaining Member Institutions of the Conference, and that the financial consequences cannot be measured or estimated with certainty at this time. Therefore, in recognition of the obligations and responsibilities of each Member Institution to all other Member Institutions of the Conference, each Member Institution agrees that the amount of revenue that would have been otherwise distributable to a Withdrawing Member pursuant to Section 2 herein for the final two (2) years of the Current Term or the then current Additional Term, as the case may be, shall be reduced by fifty percent (50%), with the remainder to be distributed to the other Member Institutions who are not Withdrawing Members or Breaching Members (as defined below) as additional Conference revenues in accordance with Section 2 herein. The Member Institutions agree that such reduction in the amount of revenues distributed to a Withdrawing Member is reasonable and shall be in the form of liquidated damages and not be construed as a penalty.


3.3 Effect of Withdrawal From Conference Other Than by Giving Proper Notice.

If, other than by giving a proper Notice pursuant to Section 3.1, a Member Institution (a “Breaching Member”) withdraws, resigns, or otherwise ceases to participate as a full Member Institution in full compliance with these Rules, or gives notice or otherwise states its intent to so withdraw, resign, or cease to participate in the future (a “Breach”), then the Member Institutions agree that such Breach would cause financial hardship to the remaining Member Institutions of the Conference, and that the financial consequences cannot be measured or estimated with certainty at this time. Therefore, in recognition of the obligations and responsibilities of each Member Institution to all other Member Institutions of the Conference, each Member Institution agrees that after such Breach, the amount of Conference revenue that would otherwise have been distributed or distributable to the Breaching Member during the two (2) years prior to the end of the Current Term or the then-current Additional Term, as the case may be, shall be reduced by an amount that equals the sum of the aggregate of such revenues times the following percentages (such sum being the “Aggregate Reduction”); if Notice is received less than two years but on or before eighteen months prior to the Effective Date, 70%; if Notice is received less than eighteen months but on or before twelve months prior to the Effective Date, 80%; if Notice is received less than twelve months but on or before six months prior to the Effective Date, 90%; or if Notice is received less than six months prior to the Effective Date, 100%.


After such Breach, none of the revenues that otherwise would be distributable to a Breaching Member shall be paid to the Breaching Member until the aggregate amount so withheld (the “Withheld Amounts”) equals the Aggregate Reduction; thereafter, all revenues that would otherwise have been distributable to the Breaching Member shall be so distributed. If the Withheld Amounts are less than the Aggregate Reduction, then the Member Institutions acknowledge and agree that the Conference shall assess such Breaching Member an amount that equals the difference of the Aggregate Reduction less the Withheld Amounts, and the Breaching Member agrees that on or prior to the Effective Date it shall repay to the Conference such amount from revenue that previously had been distributed to such Breaching Member. The Withheld Amounts and any such repayment of the difference of the Aggregate Reduction less the Withheld Amounts shall be distributed to the other Member Institutions who are not Withdrawing Members or Breaching Members as additional Conference revenues in accordance with Section 2 herein. The Member Institutions agree that such reduction in the distribution of revenues to a Breaching Member is reasonable.

...

Okay, what do we know?

1. You're supposed to give two years notice on withdrawal.

Clearly that isn't happening with Texas A&M. It also didn't happen with Nebraska and Colorado. My guess is that one reason Nebraska and Colorado got out cheaply was because they provided notice they were leaving prior to July 1, 2011 when a new five-year window opened. Could there be an argument that no payment is owed at all because of the requirement of a new five-year contract beginning in conjunction with the fact that the contract language in the additional term is predicated on the final two years when a team wouldn't be there to receive any money? (Read on to the end for why that legal theory could apply). I think so. So, in fact, did Nebraska's chancellor who said this upon settling his school's claim with the Big 12:

"Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman said he still believes he had a strong argument against giving up any money.

'I'm also cognizant of the risks associated with litigation. What I think is the law may not turn out to be the law,' he said. 'I'm disappointed, as an academic, that my curiosity about the legal claims won't be resolved. But when you look at everything, I think it made sense in this setting to get this behind us and avoid the risks of litigation.'"

Certainly the Big 12 believes that as well, it's why the league ultimately settled with Nebraska for $9.25 million and with Colorado for $6.86 million.

2. For some reason the Big 12 bylaws require a rolling five-year committment instead of a consistent committment to the league.

It would be interesting to know why this was decided. As is, the five-year additions make a clunky deal that much clunkier. Why? Because why do you need a five-year contract to begin anew each five years unless you also have the ability to choose against entering a new five-year agreement? That's what Nebraska and Colorado both argued.

Again, what's the benefit of five-year extensions as opposed to an existing term? The only reason I can think of is that some of these schools aren't allowed to bind themselves contractually for longer than five years. That seems incredibly stupid, but that's the only reason I can see for the added complexity of the bylaws.

If that was the only issue, you'd have a bad section of the deal, but you could live with it. The bigger issue comes when the payouts are spelled out.

3. No school is paying the full penalties for leaving because these bylaws are worded so poorly.

Again, maybe this was the intention. Maybe all 12 schools looked at this language and said, "Hell, we really won't pay much of a penalty to leave so we're not binding ourselves that much, anyway. Let's sign."

Or maybe no one actually did the math and realized the ticking time bomb in this deal that is explained in number five.

I'm far from an expert in math, but this year the Big 12 distributed $145 million to its member institutions. That's around $14.5 million per school. So the way I'm reading this contract the most the Big 12 could withhold from a member institution is around $14.5 million a year. (This number will grow, but not excessively).

But here's the rub, look at how this penalty provision is drafted, it requires a payment for a period when the school's are going to be gone already. (Again if I'm wrong in this let me know, but I don't think I am).

"if a member gives proper notice of two years, 50% of two year revenue" = $14.5 million (that's 50% of two year revenues)

"if Notice is received less than two years but on or before eighteen months prior to the Effective Date, 70%;" = $20.3 million

"if Notice is received less than eighteen months but on or before twelve months prior to the Effective Date, 80%;" = $23.2 million

"if Notice is received less than twelve months but on or before six months prior to the Effective Date, 90%"; = $26.1 million

"or if Notice is received less than six months prior to the Effective Date, 100%" = $29 million

Are you starting to see why Nebraska and Colorado got out of the Big 12 a year in advance of when most initially expected? The reality is that under the Big 12's bylaws the penalty for leaving doesn't really change very much based on when you provide notice once you miss the two-year window.

And it's never enough money to prevent someone from leaving.

This should be ominous indeed for whoever comes into the Big 12 next.

4. What will Texas A&M pay then?

Given that A&M has yet to provide notice and doubtless would like to be a part of the SEC for the 2012 season, it's clear that A&M would fall under this provision of the agreement: "if Notice is received less than twelve months but on or before six months prior to the Effective Date, 90%;"

So A&M is facing a penalty in the neighborhood of $26.1 million. Given that Nebraska and Colorado ultimately settled for much less than they would have been expected to pay, A&M could negotiate its way down even further. Trust me, there are even more aggressive negotiating positions A&M could take under these bylaws. I think they'll settle for something in the neighborhood of $12 million.

How do I get to this number? Nebraska and Colorado paid 47.6% of their contractual payout. If A&M did the same with its projected $26.1 million that would come to $12.4 million.

5. But if A&M really wanted to play legal hardball, it could argue that it owes nothing, not one dime.

How?

Look back at the liquidated damages provision of the bylaw for the true ticking time bomb: "each Member Institution agrees that the amount of revenue that would have been otherwise distributable to a Withdrawing Member pursuant to Section 2 herein for the final two (2) years of the Current Term or the then current Additional Term, as the case may be, shall be reduced by fifty percent (50%)."

Okay, that means the payment amount is actually going to come from 2015 and 2016, the final two years of the "Additional Term."

Only, you guessed it, A&M will be gone by then so it won't receive a dime of revenue from the Big 12 in 2015 or 2016.

So if you apply the above language, 90% x 0 = 0.

Uh oh.

Now, I don't think the legal argument would win -- most judges would probably apply the intended liquidated damages clause holding that the purpose of a liquidated damages clause is actually to have a liquidated damages clause -- but it's definitely yet another flaw in a tremendously flawed Big 12 agreement. And could a judge not be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a huge entity that made this drafting mistake? Of course. That's a massive flaw in drafting.

A flaw that's so gigantic the Big 12 might not want to sue under the contract for fear of losing and providing notice to all members that the exit fee for the next couple of years is $0.

Regardless of the legal position adopted by A&M the money is not going to be very significant to the long range future of the Aggie program.

While these figures may not be exactly correct -- again, I'm far from an expert in math and already had to correct them once -- they're illustrative of a larger problem in the bylaws, namely, there isn't very much that keeps any Big 12 school in the conference.

If Texas or Oklahoma wants out, there's absolutely nothing that can keep either school in place. The buyout is a pittance. And if either school wanted to follow the Nebraska/Colorado argument come 2016, they could opt out of the agreement completely and argue they didn't owe any penalty at all. If you're a potential tenth school coming into the conference, that's worth knowing, no by law is currently in place that restricts anyone's movement.

So in summation, the Big 12 is still a dead conference walking. Only this dead conference can't even extract much of a penalty when the next member decides to follow Texas A&M and bolt for greener pastures.

I still believe OU is simply leveraging this to get to 12.

You're a such a drama queen, dude, it's hilarious. He's not doing it to adversely impact a state of millions of people, it's not some sinister ****ing plot. Dude wants his school to be considered instead of WVU, which, I believe, is something we all wanted people in power who are connected to our schools to do during the conference armageddon.

Mikey making a strong late push in the conference realignment doucheoff.

By "pretty good" I guess you mean "almost ranked"? LMAO

We beat KU. It was great. I wouldn't trade that for any overblown ESPN fruit basket.

So are Pants and I.

SCOREBOARD!
ORANGES!

This shit never gets old. :D

I'm sure you'll be singing the same tune when Harry Reid bends over backwards to keep KU out of the PAC, especially if he just calls some former Senate pal who's now the President at USC or something.

Your rationalization couldn't sound any more obvious here.

So. The Big 12 was ready to take in WVU. They were about to travel to Morgantown and make the announcement.

We are talking about a huge decision of a large school moving to a power conference.

But then one golf buddy simply makes a call to his friend and is like. Hey, you should consider L'ville as well.

AND THE WHOLE TRAIN RUNS OF THE TRACKS.

But it wasn't shady.

Of course I'd be mad if that happened. I'm also aware that any school's fanbase wants their powerful people to do everything they can to make sure said schools don't find themselves on the outside when the dust settles.

Do you think schools secretly talking to other conferences is shady? LOL, don't be a child, Zach.

Latest article from Clay Travis. He actually makes a pretty interesting proposal on how to solve the current Mizzou-WVU logjam (#3)

http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/th...to-hook-up.php

I wonder if the Big East would waive the 27 month waiting period for Louisville if it meant WVU stayed.

That would give them 2 years to get their houses in order. Meanwhile the XII can re-visit WVU as an expansion candidate in 2014 when the current TV deal runs out.

Ugh....please Mizzou - just run. Run FAST. Get out of there before this whole thing goes nuts and you can't anymore.

I wonder if the Big East would waive the 27 month waiting period for Louisville if it meant WVU stayed.

That would give them 2 years to get their houses in order. Meanwhile the XII can re-visit WVU as an expansion candidate in 2014 when the current TV deal runs out.

Ugh....please Mizzou - just run. Run FAST. Get out of there before this whole thing goes nuts and you can't anymore.

Alabama and LSU said so.

B-B-B-Ballsack!