Amazing how stupid some administrators can be

[HUT-Frog]

Some college presidents/officials are some of the craziest people in this country.

Missouri openly declared it was awaiting with bags packed an invitation from the Big Ten. And the invitation never came.

The Pac 10/12 commissioner thought he would show the Texas Legislature the day they started mentioning Baylor -- immediately extending a formal invitation to Colorado. Instead of just letting them talk, he jumped the gun. When the other five that he really wanted backed out, he had no choice but invite Utah to get some balance.

Texas A&M did them all one better, -- packing its bags, telling everybody bye, and going down to the bus station. Even though there was no 14th school, the Aggies thought they could publicly pressure the SEC into taking them right away.

That bus didn't come either, and now the Aggies are walking back home. A&M will evenutally get in the SEC, but in the meantime there is a helluva lot of laughter at its expense.

How stupid can these people be?!!!

TCU gets a lot of flack from outside about jumping conferences. However, it is a proven fact that TCU did not contact the MWC -- the MWC recruited TCU. And, I know for a personal fact that TCU sat on the official invitation for almost a month in secret before making a final decision. And it was the Big East that sent a Jamie Dixon as a liason to gauge TCU's interest in possibly joining that conference.

We may be little, we may be underdogs, we may never be in the ultimate place . . . but at least we're not walking home with our tails between our legs with everybody pointing and laughing at us.

 

[JimSwinkLives!]

Welcome to the world of intercollegiate athletics.

 

[AggieFrog]

You're a bit premature about A&M to the SEC. Let's see how the week plays out.

 

[Mike Brooks]

Throw Dodds in there for his statement of "last year aTm was in the top three of the Big 12. They would have been in the bottom three of the S E C". What a dumbazzz. The top dog in the conference basically, unintentionally, saying the Big 12 is a joke compared to the S E C. Hey Deloss, where would that put UT over there.

No conference gets more over rated pre season media/polster love than the Big 12. Sounds like Dodds has confirmed it. Big 12 = overrated.

 

[jstrat]

I don't think this is really that stupid at all. Texas A&M and the SEC are getting incredible exposure because of this. Everyone is talking about it.

 

[Coach Pattersons Dog]

Streakers also have incredible exposure but it doesn't help them either.

 

[geefrogs]

yet, you ate it up.

 

[Merch Frog]

Disagree with you on Larry Scott (PAC-12). They knew going in that they at least were going to come away with Utah and Colorado. And they knew when the big conferences go to 16, they would still be in a good position to get Tech, Texas, OU and OSU.

By getting Utah now, they kept the Texas Legislature from pulling an SWC/Big 12 and force them to take Baylor. They never wanted Baylor. They knew Utah was on their radar for further expansion, but Utah eventually became the tool that shut up the Texas Legislature - and guaranteed they won't end up with Baylor.

It was a smart move.

 

[toadallytexan]

Some college presidents/officials are some of the craziest people in this country.
...
Texas A&M did them all one better, -- packing its bags, telling everybody bye, and going down to the bus station. Even though there was no 14th school, the Aggies thought they could publicly pressure the SEC into taking them right away.

That bus didn't come either, and now the Aggies are walking back home. A&M will eventually get in the SEC, but in the meantime there is a helluva lot of laughter at its expense.
...
TCU gets a lot of flack from outside about jumping conferences. However, it is a proven fact that TCU did not contact the MWC -- the MWC recruited TCU. And, I know for a personal fact that TCU sat on the official invitation for almost a month in secret before making a final decision. And it was the Big East that sent a Jamie Dixon as a liason to gauge TCU's interest in possibly joining that conference.
...

Why limit the point to the MWC only. TCU only moved conferences after the organizations they joined (and in which they won championships each time)were later murdered outright, or else raided to a diluted semblance of the original group.

Not once --ever -- did we initiate the change. This pattern has occurred with sad regularity: SWC, to WAC, to CUSA, to MWC, and now to the BE. It's bad enough that we had to endure this sickening process into our 5th conference, without being falsely accused of lack of loyalty. After being abandoned twice in a row by key conference mates, TCU vowed that, if this happened again, the program would merit a conference upgrade of TCU's choosing. And when this next occurred the Horned Frogs had the infrastructure, the fans, the coaching staff, the team, and the national respect to upgrade their position.

Believe me, we'd gladly rather still be in our 72-year relationship with the SWC today, had the outright greed of the big state schools not murdered it. If it were up to TCU, these Frogs would have had zero conference "jumps".

 

[jack the frog]

Disagree with you on Larry Scott (PAC-12). They knew going in that they at least were going to come away with Utah and Colorado. And they knew when the big conferences go to 16, they would still be in a good position to get Tech, Texas, OU and OSU.

By getting Utah now, they kept the Texas Legislature from pulling an SWC/Big 12 and force them to take Baylor. They never wanted Baylor. They knew Utah was on their radar for further expansion, but Utah eventually became the tool that shut up the Texas Legislature - and guaranteed they won't end up with Baylor.

It was a smart move.

Have to disagree on the Baylor argument. Something did kill the deal, exactly what no one know for sure. May have been the horns refusal to de-commit LHN or the OU OK St package play. Perhaps a combination of those factors including some talk that the P-12 did not want Tech in the mix, however everything I heard from some pretty reliable people said it was not a baylor play. A few baylor reps were clucking around like chickens to be sure but held very little sway. A few limited baylor proponents killing the first mega-conference and squashing a billion dollar multi-year deal in the face of aggie, texas, tech and ou political interests just does not pass the smell test imo.

Overall I think you are right though. Whatever killed the thing (LHN Network imo), positioned Utah perfectly as the default play.

 

[HUT-Frog]

Disagree with you on Larry Scott (PAC-12). They knew going in that they at least were going to come away with Utah and Colorado. And they knew when the big conferences go to 16, they would still be in a good position to get Tech, Texas, OU and OSU.

By getting Utah now, they kept the Texas Legislature from pulling an SWC/Big 12 and force them to take Baylor. They never wanted Baylor. They knew Utah was on their radar for further expansion, but Utah eventually became the tool that shut up the Texas Legislature - and guaranteed they won't end up with Baylor.

It was a smart move.

The Pac 10 could have had CU/UU any day of the previous 15 years with a phone call. They never wanted that.

They were set on the three Texas schools, the Okie schools and CU. When A&M started wavering, Scott even wanted KU over UU.

No way in Hades what they got was a "good move."

 

[Merch Frog]

Have to disagree on the Baylor argument. Something did kill the deal, exactly what no one know for sure. May have been the horns refusal to de-commit LHN or the OU OK St package play. Perhaps a combination of those factors including some talk that the P-12 did not want Tech in the mix, however everything I heard from some pretty reliable people said it was not a baylor play. A few baylor reps were clucking around like chickens to be sure but held very little sway. A few limited baylor proponents killing the first mega-conference and squashing a billion dollar multi-year deal in the face of aggie, texas, tech and ou political interests just does not pass the smell test imo.

Overall I think you are right though. Whatever killed the thing (LHN Network imo), positioned Utah perfectly as the default play.

1) LHN wasn't a done deal yet. Texas talked about their desire to have their own network, but when the Pac-10 came flirting, there was no such thing as a LHN at the time. That became reality after the Big 12 survived.

2) Not sure what you mean about OU and Okie State possibly killing the deal. Pac-10 was fine with that. They wanted: Colorado, Tech, Texas, OU, Okie State, Utah to make a 16 team conference.

3) Baylor had more to do with it than you think. Just like Baylor is getting the legislature involved now, they got the legislature involved in the Pac-10 move. Once the Texas legislature got involved, Larry said "we're not going to play those games now, we'll take Utah and Colorado and come back when the dust settles." I know you have "pretty reliable people", but I work in a Pac-12 athletics department...I have reliable people too.

 

[jack the frog]

1) LHN wasn't a done deal yet. Texas talked about their desire to have their own network, but when the Pac-10 came flirting, there was no such thing as a LHN at the time. That became reality after the Big 12 survived.

2) Not sure what you mean about OU and Okie State possibly killing the deal. Pac-10 was fine with that. They wanted: Colorado, Tech, Texas, OU, Okie State, Utah to make a 16 team conference.

3) Baylor had more to do with it than you think. Just like Baylor is getting the legislature involved now, they got the legislature involved in the Pac-10 move. Once the Texas legislature got involved, Larry said "we're not going to play those games now, we'll take Utah and Colorado and come back when the dust settles." I know you have "pretty reliable people", but I work in a Pac-12 athletics department...I have reliable people too.

I will leave it here but I would suggest the baylor deal may have been overblown in some circles out west. The reliable folks I know in all this are some pretty deep seated Texas politicos who were closely involved in the deal and have some pretty good reasons to be straight about it with our clan. Baylor may have been some scapegoat as this thing fell apart but I can fairly promise from the Texas political end that baylor did not have the horses to kill this mega-deal. Of course I would discount nothing completely in this cluster but the baylor angle does not make sense in the context of Texas politics these days. Perhaps the PAC got a nasty taste of baylor, combined with other factors, like an already well-positioned LNH plan.
Anyway, Sounds like you might have an interesting job.

 

[Cougar/Frog]

Scott was willing to put up with Tech and Okie St to get OU, A&M, and UT. But with A&M looking instead East and Texas starting to pull its BS, Scott decided to pull the plug on the Pac-16 and get what he could. The LHN was a dealbreaker for the Pac-12 last season.

Of course, Scott then about getting the biggest pile of money ever for adding two crappy teams and two average markets. CU/Utah do give the Pac-12 a claim on the Mountain timezone and two solid research institutions.

Of course, the Pac-12 largely rests it wealth on USC and the LA market. WAZU, Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon State, CAL, CU, and Utah add only marginal value to the Pac-12 contract.

Scott said the LHN was a dealbreaker for the Pac-12. Texas will never be in the Pac-12 as long as the LHN exists.

 

[Merch Frog]

I will leave it here but I would suggest the baylor deal may have been overblown in some circles out west. The reliable folks I know in all this are some pretty deep seated Texas politicos who were closely involved in the deal and have some pretty good reasons to be straight about it with our clan. Baylor may have been some scapegoat as this thing fell apart but I can fairly promise from the Texas political end that baylor did not have the horses to kill this mega-deal. Of course I would discount nothing completely in this cluster but the baylor angle does not make sense in the context of Texas politics these days. Perhaps the PAC got a nasty taste of baylor, combined with other factors, like an already well-positioned LNH plan.
Anyway, Sounds like you might have an interesting job.

Very well could be the case. I just think Larry got fed up when it got to that level. Colorado and Utah didn't take it to their legislature and tie it up - so why would Texas? I think that was his angle.

If LHN was a deal breaker, it was a deal breaker from Texas' perspective. I think the PAC-12 will allow LHN - as a regional or online network. But they won't allow a national network. If Texas insists on a national network, perhaps that's why they pulled out. I've seen some reports explain it that way.

 

[jack the frog]

If LHN was a deal breaker, it was a deal breaker from Texas' perspective. I think the PAC-12 will allow LHN - as a regional or online network. But they won't allow a national network. If Texas insists on a national network, perhaps that's why they pulled out. I've seen some reports explain it that way.

I wouldn't argue with that. I can't see any scenario where Texas would thrown in the towel on that network. That is their golden ticket and why they will eventually be independent.