1. I consider what you wrote to be nonsense mainly because it is coming from you that pretends like all you have to do when you are not happy with a contract is go to court and start litigation and walk out better than you would have been under the contract

2. I have never stated that the Big 12 absolutely would not lose teams the Big 12 may well lose teams in the future

3. what I have stated is that the teams that leave the Big 12 are not going to walk away paying a small amount of money of little consequence to the decision to stay or leave

the last time a contract for conference membership was tested was the ACC and Maryland and the ACc had just recently changed their penalty to leave from $25 to $50 million and Maryland was against that and Maryland still paid $32.5 million to leave which was an amount over and above the conference distribution their last year in the ACC

and the Big 12 contract will have been in force for a much longer period of time by the time any team MIGHT look to leave so they will not have the claim that "this penalty was put in place specifically to stop us attempting to leave even though it was clear teams were already looking around"

it was not as hard for Maryland to make the claim the ACC contract was punitive when it was raised specifically because teams were looking around and talking about leaving

the Big 12 contract signed in 2012 was put in place with ALL the teams that are a party to it not looking to leave

4. more importantly the Big 12 is not going to have 8 members get together and collude to leave the conference AND get that done within 12 days and they are not going to get 8 teams to agree to collude to ignore that 12 day requirement

so no matter what happens with the GOR the Big 12 is not going to have 8 teams find a way to vote to dissolve the conference especially if the goal is to leave two teams out in the cold AND pay them nothing under the contract for conference membership

5. businesses and all types of legal entities sign 99 year contracts all the time that is a very standard number of years for a long term contract there is nothing unreasonable about it especially when it spells out a CLEAR method to leave the conference AND the associated cost to do so

what is unreasonable is that one would think they can just go around signing very clear contracts when it is convenient for them and then when they decide it is no longer convenient they can just walk away from it and call it unreasonable and try and claim they should pay a great deal less than the contracts states they should

6. even if the Big 12 loses teams those teams are going to pay a significant amount of money to do so and that amount of money and the left over NCAA credits are going to be high enough that any team or teams leaving will have to look at the long term consequences of that cost when they make the decision.....AND if they choose to leave before the SEPARATE GOR is over they will have to consider the cost of trying to claim they should not be held to that contract and the associated cost of being held to that contract if it is enforced

but that would not change the fact that contracts for conference membership like the one the big 12 has for 99 years are consistently enforced with ever increasing cost to the teams that leave a conference and the big 12 specifically and 8 of the 10 members of the Big 12 have been a party to enforcing and collecting damages under such a contract and TCU and WVU have been a party to paying under such a contract so there is no reasonable argument for them to make that suddenly any of them should no longer have to follow that type of contract

and again there is ZERO chance that 8 members will get together and agree to violate that contract in an attempt to collapse the contract and avoid those exit fees and there is zero chance they will get enough members to vote to agree to chance the 12 notification and DECLINE policy in that contract

and there is no reasonable person that would think that requiring notification of the intent to break a contract or to exit a contract is unreasonable nor would any reasonable person think that a party to a contract that has informed other parties of their intent to leave the contract should then still be allowed to have a decision on matters related to that contract

so no one of logic or reason would think that somehow members that want to leave the Big 12 should still be allowed to vote on conference membership and especially membership contract changes because if you let people that are intent on exiting a contract continue to have a decision in the language of that contract then that contract is essentially worthless

so no reasoned person would think that the members that might want to leave the Big 12 are going to do so without paying significant money to do so all the more so there are not going to be 8 members that get together to collapse the conference to specifically avoid those cost

and as of now the ACC and PAC 12 pay less than the Big 12 does especially in relation to Texas and even OU and the FACTS are the Big 10 has NEVER show interest in OU no matter what boren or any similar idiot wants to pretend and in fact it was made pretty clear in the past that the Big 10 was specifically NOT interested in OU and a great deal of that probably had to do with the fact that boren can't shut up and can't keep from airing conference business in public to try and feel important

and the facts are Texas has ZERO interest in going to the PAC 12 and all that comes with that while A&M resides in an eastern based conference and Texas has stated very publicly they do not want to be in the SEC SEC SEC

so what that means is the Big 10 is highly unlikely to take OU and OU is highly unlikely to go to the PAC 12 because Texas is not wanting to go there and views that as a next to last resort especially for less money

and the ACC is less money as well and Texas does not want in the SEC SEC SEC.....so that leaves OU and one other going to the SEC SEC SEC and I think it is highly unlikely OU will want that for a number of reasons