Quote:
Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy
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.
|
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.