CSNbbs

Thought this was an interesting read.

http://www.foxsportssouthwest.com/10/12/...eedID=3742

If this speculative article has any merit, Mizzou either has balls of steel or they are extremely ignorant of their own stupidity.

(10-13-2011 11:55 AM)jam2112 Wrote: [ -> ]Thought this was an interesting read.

http://www.foxsportssouthwest.com/10/12/...eedID=3742

If the SEC is interested in Missouri, surely they are giving them a deadline to decide. I do not believe the SEC will give an invitation to any school until the school asks for an invitation to the conference. However, if Missouri has not asked for an invitation there should be some time limit for them to procrastinate.

I suppose this could be true but I honestly believe that it is much more likely that Mizzou is just trying to do whatever it can at this point to leverage the votes needed for admission into the SEC. This is a very political deal and politics is as much about public relations as it is policy and too many people miss that point and it comes back to bite them in the arse.

What if Mizzou gets that 13 year grant in rights but at the end of that deal, OU and OSU head off to the SEC and UT goes indie? Then what happens? We are too far down the road at this point for this to be a Mizzou bluff. If they come back to the B12 it will be because the SEC just couldn't get enough votes to allow them in that league. However if that does happen this is a perfect way to sell that rejection to their fans - that they were just bluffing all along to get some sort of nebulous thing that only they know.

Was there something to read there..?

I had a problem getting past the beauty on the right side of that web page.

(10-13-2011 01:43 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote: [ -> ]I suppose this could be true but I honestly believe that it is much more likely that Mizzou is just trying to do whatever it can at this point to leverage the votes needed for admission into the SEC. This is a very political deal and politics is as much about public relations as it is policy and too many people miss that point and it comes back to bite them in the arse.

What if Mizzou gets that 13 year grant in rights but at the end of that deal, OU and OSU head off to the SEC and UT goes indie? Then what happens? We are too far down the road at this point for this to be a Mizzou bluff. If they come back to the B12 it will be because the SEC just couldn't get enough votes to allow them in that league. However if that does happen this is a perfect way to sell that rejection to their fans - that they were just bluffing all along to get some sort of nebulous thing that only they know.

Totally agree. This is a wishful thinking piece. Both Missouri and the SEC are dead quiet and as long as that's true I think negotiations are proceeding and making headway. It seems more often the case that insider leaks appear when things are breaking down and one side or the other is trying to create additional leverage.

I actually think it IS leverage but not all aimed at the B12.

I believe Mizzou still wants the Big Ten. They don't really want the SEC (well, a chunk of fans maybe), but will take it over a somewhat shaky Big 12. The fact that all of this has been coming out has allowed them to shop themselves and use the potential SEC invite as leverage to get one of the following:

1. Make the B12 less shaky by encouraging equal revenue sharing, encouraging UT to add members (TCU), and by signing over media rights for X years
2. Make themselves appear more desirable to the B1G by letting them know that they are available and may not be in the future (if the B12 mess is solved or if they go SEC)

I don't think they are bluffing...

Also, this writer is an idiot. Did he forget that OU didn't try to make the Big 12 work, they tried to run away to the PAC along with OSU just a few weeks ago but the PAC said no?

And of course Texas has to be more reasonable now (and it has nothing to do with A&M) because all the other conferences they wanted to be part of (PAC/B1G/ACC) have made it clear: You can join us as soon as you give up LHN. But since they won't do that, they are now just as trapped in the B12 as everyone else. That has taken away their number one tool of control and subversion: the threat of "If you don't give us everything we want then we'll just leave and decide who we save by taking with us and who gets left behind to perish!"

I still get a kick out of A&M and Oklahoma throwing a fit over the LHN and how unfair it is, when this time last year they were singing the praises of the ability to launch their own networks, and talking about how much money they would make with networks of their own, and not caring about the other 7 members, who had to sign over their own money to keep them. Oklahoma and Texas A&M have no moral ground to stand on, juct because they publiclly found out they were not as popular as Texas is.

(10-13-2011 02:51 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]I still get a kick out of A&M and Oklahoma throwing a fit over the LHN and how unfair it is, when this time last year they were singing the praises of the ability to launch their own networks, and talking about how much money they would make with networks of their own, and not caring about the other 7 members, who had to sign over their own money to keep them. Oklahoma and Texas A&M have no moral ground to stand on, just because they publicly found out they were not as popular as Texas is.

Adcorbett, the objections to LHN were not over the money. Texas conned ESPN out of 15 mil a year for a network no one wants. Good for them.

The objections to LHN comes from the version of it that was sold to the Big 12 when it was voted on was and approved was NOTHING like what Texas and ESPN actually agreed to and then tried to pull behind everyone else's back.

Yes, everything has NOW been addressed but originally, ESPN tried to launch a version of LHN that would allow UT to do such things as:

-take conference games they wanted from Tier 1 inventory and move it to their exclusive network without that school's permission

-show high school games of their prospective athletes in any sport in clear violation of NCAA rules by trying to argue that its OK because really ESPN owns the network

-take Big 12 content such as the basketball tournament, baseball tournament and other conference events for LHN without the permission of the other participating schools.

Mizzou, A&M and OU were more pizzed at the conference and the smaller schools who were all saying "we know it isn't good for the B12 as a whole, but we can't stand up to them and publicly call BS on this because if we do then Texas will leave and our future is then very uncertain!" In particular was Dan Bebe who knew the details of LHN but remained silent and refused to address anything until OU, A&M and Mizzou finally pressured him into a meeting to address LHN.

(10-13-2011 03:26 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, everything has NOW been addressed but originally, ESPN tried to launch a version of LHN that would allow UT to do such things as:

This is the part that is incorrect. UT was not trying to do any of this: they do not own or operate any part of the network. ESPN was trying to do it, as they felt that the LHN is no different to them as ESPNU is. And truth be told, they are correct.

(10-13-2011 03:29 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-13-2011 03:26 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, everything has NOW been addressed but originally, ESPN tried to launch a version of LHN that would allow UT to do such things as:

This is the part that is incorrect. UT was not trying to do any of this: they do not own or operate any part of the network. ESPN was trying to do it, as they felt that the LHN is no different to them as ESPNU is. And truth be told, they are correct.

Smoke and mirrors. UT is definitely smart enough to have it so that on paper, they have nothing to do with the running of it, after all, that would ruin the premise that would have let them circumvent the NCAA recruiting rules.

But when you have a bunch of former horns running it (even though they technically work for ESPN) you're fooling no one. I mean, were we really supposed to believe that an independent, unbiased ESPN was going to just randomly choose Jonathon Gray's game for their first HS game and that all subsequent featured teams with highly prized UT recruits? Of course not. They have "contacts" everywhere to whisper to ESPN about what they want to happen.

Even if it were entirely ESPN and Texas had absolutely nothing to do with any of the shady side of LHN, there is no way the conference would have approved it if they knew ahead of time that a partnership with ESPN was what they were planning. Because instead, Texas sold it to the conference as a local, in house network that they would own and operate when clearly they knew that was not the intention and that ESPN had expressed interest.

Just the inherent conflict of interest that comes from having the same people who own your conference's TV rights (and everyone else's in a near monopoly on CFB) also having a vested interest in the success of one member over all the others in the conference would have been enough for 9 "no" votes.

A conference that's held together by threats and bullying will not make for a strong conference...no matter who's doing it. These administrations have elephant memories, and some time down the road they will get a chance to "stick" it to whomever they feel has wronged them.

the Big xii is a house of straw.

This is a stupid theory. Why use Gold to buy Copper? And the SEC is the motherload...

(10-13-2011 02:05 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote: [ -> ]Was there something to read there..?

I had a problem getting past the beauty on the right side of that web page.

Didn't make it down to the Big12 Cheerleader spread? Yeah, they have a very interesting marketing department.

Alabama is against Mizzou, and the Tide has a good bit of political pull in the conference...

(10-13-2011 06:57 PM)bitcruncher Wrote: [ -> ]Alabama is against Mizzou, and the Tide has a good bit of political pull in the conference...

I thought Alabama was just against Missouri joining and being part of the West Division?

(10-13-2011 07:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-13-2011 06:57 PM)bitcruncher Wrote: [ -> ]Alabama is against Mizzou, and the Tide has a good bit of political pull in the conference...

I thought Alabama was just against Missouri joining and being part of the West Division?

That is the correct answer. Alabama is just leveraging to make sure they play Tennessee and Auburn every year. They do have a lot of clout I guess, but this conference is based upon equality... remember?
And you know know what? They are right. We are the new guys on the block. No current SEC member should have to give up anything. I think this is the reason Mr Slive will pull that "5 minute" trigger he has his finger on and go straight to 16. I think Mizzou is waiting for the SEC to finish the details, then Kaboom. Mizzou, Clemson, and WVU.
Two East teams and two West teams....All good...

Is Mizzou "using" the SEC?


Just damn. X Files ain't got sh*t on the conspiracy theories here.

(10-13-2011 07:36 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-13-2011 07:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-13-2011 06:57 PM)bitcruncher Wrote: [ -> ]Alabama is against Mizzou, and the Tide has a good bit of political pull in the conference...

I thought Alabama was just against Missouri joining and being part of the West Division?

That is the correct answer. Alabama is just leveraging to make sure they play Tennessee and Auburn every year. They do have a lot of clout I guess, but this conference is based upon equality... remember?
And you know know what? They are right. We are the new guys on the block. No current SEC member should have to give up anything. I think this is the reason Mr Slive will pull that "5 minute" trigger he has his finger on and go straight to 16. I think Mizzou is waiting for the SEC to finish the details, then Kaboom. Mizzou, Clemson, and WVU.
Two East teams and two West teams....All good...

I'm curious how you think the Florida, South Carolina and Georgia alliance gets outvoted on the inclusion of Clemson? Do you think everyone else would vote against them in order to get the 75% required? These are "gentlemen" who have to regularly work together, if those three gentlemen are adamantly against the inclusion of Florida State, Clemson or Georgia Tech then I don't see the other Presidents acting so "rudely" as to shove such a decision down their throats.

Missouri in the East seems like a necessity unless some surprise can come from the states of Virginia or North Carolina.