(12-24-2022 08:36 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-23-2022 04:45 PM)Mean Green Alum Wrote:  

(12-23-2022 09:05 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-23-2022 01:19 AM)Mean Green Alum Wrote:  

(12-22-2022 10:55 PM)esayem Wrote:  Correct, the Arizona BOR has not implemented anything yet. Most likely because there is zero danger of the schools breaking up. The Big Ten is not going to expand with the most valuable Pac schools left, why would they dip lower? This is just another Pete click bait thread from which he gains nothing except to scratch an expansion itch.

That said, I still think the BOR has a lot more control of the situation than you are acknowledging (Berkeley is getting paid after all), and I also don’t think the Texas situation was ever a realistic threat to prevent the two from splitting.

If that is their reasoning, then they are making the same mistake the UC regents made. There was zero chance that UCLA/Cal would make a separate move as well until it happened.

I never said the UC regents didn’t have any control nor specified any lack of control they had. By saying they “allowed” a move, I actually implied they had a ton of power in the situation. They didn’t exercise all the power they had, which is telling, and my point. The power they have is one of the reasons why I do not think they would want to challenge any of that power in court.

Texas legislature has always been a real threat, and the reason stated by both universities as why they didn't move sooner. And until 2010, the dialogue was the same: UC/UCLA would not split just like UT/A&M would not split. Again, it seems like the argument being made is another "it doesn't happen until it happens", and the "x university will never make this move without y university" talk is becoming less true with every realignment round.

If Arizona perceives that they risk future money by staying in the PAC, they could make a move, along with other universities who face the same issues. Unfortunately, until the PAC signs a media contract with a GoR, Arizona is a flight risk, along with other PAC universities.

Once again, UC system situation is not the same as Texas/TAMU. Stop trying to make a point with it. UCLA is vastly increasing their payday and due to that, it comes with a perceived sense of status upgrade (whether that is true is debatable).

Texas wanted to remain in the Big XII with their own network. They could have moved anytime over the last 30 years, and when the offer was too good to refuse, they moved.

Drastically different situations.

As far as the Arizona schools go, their inaction is proving my point. There is no danger of one of them moving alone.

I would disagree. There is similarity: The politics are the same, due to both the California and Arizona regent board being so closely tied to the state. You don’t live in Texas and realize how integrated college football is in the Texas political system (and the legislative branch) and how backward Texas politics are compared to any other state in the union, especially with sports. Please don’t argue with a native Texan about situations that have enough documentation to show what happened. It’s not my opinion, nor is it reading tea leaves. It has been stated by the individual who was in charge of making the move. He said that politics intervened and stopped a move. He also talked about how legislature jumped in to create formation of B12 with Texas teams, which was against UT’s will, who wanted to play more teams outside of Texas.

The Texas potential move was in 1990 where politics intervened. I did not refer to the 2010 PAC move at all. The legislature never got involved, probably because A&M was looking at the SEC and Tech was heading to the PAC as well.

If you don’t agree with me, fine, but I can have my opinion on the matter, and you can have yours. The magic of this world is that two people can read the same situation two different ways, and both can be correct in their own way. I only responded to you because you said something about Texas politics that is incorrect. UT and A&M are connected through PUF funds and through the Texas legislature. It’s not something that’s arguable for me. I have lived decades of it and have experienced a lot of drama with the Texas legislature and college sports.

FYI: I have already stated on other threads that I think Arizona stays in the PAC, and a lot of my reasoning is that they would prefer to stay with ASU, if possible. I’m just not big on absolutes, because in my lifetime, I have learned that absolutes are almost always incorrect. There is a window they could leave without the other. Other journalists close to the Arizona programs with knowledge of Arizona politics have said the same thing that I am saying: It is possible that they could move separately (there seems to be no clear legal rule stating they can’t) but it is not likely because they both would like to continue their relationship.

Texas/TAMU are NOT governed the same way as UC: FACT

That is my point. You can try to spin something similar but the FACT is Texas/TAMU are not governed by a BOR. UC and Arizona are. FACT

Oh, and I’ll argue with whomever I damn well please.

I am not spinning anything. I made a simple comment. At one time Texas/aTm were thought to be inseparable. I never claimed the regents were governed the same. I said that politics are involved in both situations and exposes both schools to the state legislatures and to the tax payers. That is a fact as well. They are all public universities. It is not an apples to apples comparison. I never meant it to be, but it doesn’t make it any less true.

If we want to get real, no schools are governed the same. Even regents are governed differently, as well as state legislatures. They all have different precedents and different constitutions. You can state facts all day long. It doesn’t change what I said to also be true. Again, we can both be right on this.

(12-24-2022 01:00 PM)Mean Green Alum Wrote:  

(12-24-2022 08:36 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-23-2022 04:45 PM)Mean Green Alum Wrote:  

(12-23-2022 09:05 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-23-2022 01:19 AM)Mean Green Alum Wrote:  If that is their reasoning, then they are making the same mistake the UC regents made. There was zero chance that UCLA/Cal would make a separate move as well until it happened.

I never said the UC regents didn’t have any control nor specified any lack of control they had. By saying they “allowed” a move, I actually implied they had a ton of power in the situation. They didn’t exercise all the power they had, which is telling, and my point. The power they have is one of the reasons why I do not think they would want to challenge any of that power in court.

Texas legislature has always been a real threat, and the reason stated by both universities as why they didn't move sooner. And until 2010, the dialogue was the same: UC/UCLA would not split just like UT/A&M would not split. Again, it seems like the argument being made is another "it doesn't happen until it happens", and the "x university will never make this move without y university" talk is becoming less true with every realignment round.

If Arizona perceives that they risk future money by staying in the PAC, they could make a move, along with other universities who face the same issues. Unfortunately, until the PAC signs a media contract with a GoR, Arizona is a flight risk, along with other PAC universities.

Once again, UC system situation is not the same as Texas/TAMU. Stop trying to make a point with it. UCLA is vastly increasing their payday and due to that, it comes with a perceived sense of status upgrade (whether that is true is debatable).

Texas wanted to remain in the Big XII with their own network. They could have moved anytime over the last 30 years, and when the offer was too good to refuse, they moved.

Drastically different situations.

As far as the Arizona schools go, their inaction is proving my point. There is no danger of one of them moving alone.

I would disagree. There is similarity: The politics are the same, due to both the California and Arizona regent board being so closely tied to the state. You don’t live in Texas and realize how integrated college football is in the Texas political system (and the legislative branch) and how backward Texas politics are compared to any other state in the union, especially with sports. Please don’t argue with a native Texan about situations that have enough documentation to show what happened. It’s not my opinion, nor is it reading tea leaves. It has been stated by the individual who was in charge of making the move. He said that politics intervened and stopped a move. He also talked about how legislature jumped in to create formation of B12 with Texas teams, which was against UT’s will, who wanted to play more teams outside of Texas.

The Texas potential move was in 1990 where politics intervened. I did not refer to the 2010 PAC move at all. The legislature never got involved, probably because A&M was looking at the SEC and Tech was heading to the PAC as well.

If you don’t agree with me, fine, but I can have my opinion on the matter, and you can have yours. The magic of this world is that two people can read the same situation two different ways, and both can be correct in their own way. I only responded to you because you said something about Texas politics that is incorrect. UT and A&M are connected through PUF funds and through the Texas legislature. It’s not something that’s arguable for me. I have lived decades of it and have experienced a lot of drama with the Texas legislature and college sports.

FYI: I have already stated on other threads that I think Arizona stays in the PAC, and a lot of my reasoning is that they would prefer to stay with ASU, if possible. I’m just not big on absolutes, because in my lifetime, I have learned that absolutes are almost always incorrect. There is a window they could leave without the other. Other journalists close to the Arizona programs with knowledge of Arizona politics have said the same thing that I am saying: It is possible that they could move separately (there seems to be no clear legal rule stating they can’t) but it is not likely because they both would like to continue their relationship.

Texas/TAMU are NOT governed the same way as UC: FACT

That is my point. You can try to spin something similar but the FACT is Texas/TAMU are not governed by a BOR. UC and Arizona are. FACT

Oh, and I’ll argue with whomever I damn well please.

I am not spinning anything. I made a simple comment. At one time Texas/aTm were thought to be inseparable. I never claimed the regents were governed the same. I said that politics are involved in both situations and exposes both schools to the state legislatures and to the tax payers. That is a fact as well. They are all public universities. It is not an apples to apples comparison. I never meant it to be, but it doesn’t make it any less true.

If we want to get real, no schools are governed the same. Even regents are governed differently, as well as state legislatures. They all have different precedents and different constitutions. You can state facts all day long. It doesn’t change what I said to also be true. Again, we can both be right on this.

I just wanted to be clear that my point was based on BOR, but yes perhaps as an outsider I didn’t get the feel that Texas and TAMU were inseparable. The UNC system is similar to UC/UA and one I feel I have to frequently clarify on this board.