I had not considered the "one year only" line. I think that is false, though. The most recent article claims that Beebe said "annually," and Loftin said that the 20 million was annual. It would be odd to call something "annual" is it was for one year only.

quote:

---

and an exit penalty

---

Maybe not. If we had gone SEC, I don't think the Big 12 would have survived. The PAC 16 would have happened with some other school taking our place. I'm not sure how many schools would have had to stay in order to collect the fees.

[This message has been edited by Whistling For Flies (edited 9/22/2010 10:08a).]

The SEC ship has not sailed. The SEC did not want to expand last summer, but was prepared to do so if the other conferences started to nuke-up. The SEC still wants us, and probably wants OU too. It will happen either this summer or next; the only question now is who will be coming with us (just one more team, or 3 more to become super-conference/signal the downfall of the NCAA).

We didn't want to jump ship on the 10-team Big 12 because the blame/hatred/tab would fall on us. Supposedly the rivalries were in question as well; whether or not that's true, who knows. We would have made our move to the SEC if the castle had crumbled, but when UT propped it up, we were obligated to stick it out another year until something made it crumble for good, OR the Big 12 didn't make good on their promise. Beebe still claims we will be getting our $20M, which is either a.) a lie, b.)a ****ty lie, or c.) a good faith offer that will be paid out with CU/NU money for this year and based on "projections" into perpetuity, and which make us look like criminals, OU/UT look like angels, Tech look like a *****, and all the others look like martyrs.

To say the SEC ship has sailed is just ignorant. The SEC and their leadership is intelligent and reasonable, and they fully appreciated the situation that was going on last summer. I would bet money that they are not simply maintaining a short-list of teams to bring into the fold next summer or the one after, but actively speaking to schools and developing their plans. And when that day comes, you can rest assured the Slive/SEC will not end up with egg on their face like the Pac-10.

Now, all we have to do is figure out a way to beat FIU by 21 and the MNC's will start pouring in...

quote:

---

BTW, as what may be a minor technicality, how does the SEC add just one school?

---

It probably doesnt, until we get back to the mid-90s level. They would find somebody in the east. It would probably take a few years to go into effect. The fact is that this market is too juicy, and the rest of the teams in the conference know they dont want the SEC getting more access than what LSU and Arky have.

quote:

---

And not only will CU get out early, they are paying less than Nebraska. Which then makes you wonder, if CU had that kind of leverage from its weak corner, how the hell did A&M not exploit its own advantage?

---

Its a strange situation. Circumstances aligned to give CU a strong negotiating position. They were smart enough to take advantage of it.

1. "Sue me for What?"

Because CU is broke, it is a much smaller lawsuit target than NU. The Mac10 could sue and get a judgment, but collecting would have taken years. (Like Rocky says before he beats up the agent in Rocky V "Sue me for what?".

2.Once NU committed to being gone next year, having 11 teams would have created a badly unbalanced schedule. The rest of the conference wanted CU gone, and was willing to settle to make it happen.

This is not uncommon in creditor/debtor relations. Often, creditors will take less than what is owed, because the debtor has threatened bankruptcy. (I dont know the fine points, but Bankruptcy is a legal mess: the lawyers win and the creditors take it on the chin). The creditor is often better taking 50% in the hand, then fighting it out for years in bankruptcy.

I hate to say this but CO was smart enough to realize how good a negotiating position they lucked into. Hopefully they get stomped in the Pac 10.

Whistling For Flies,

That was yesterday. I'm talking about today. Today a move to the SEC is not so financially attractive. It could up ended up as a loss.

if we want into the sec it will happen. sec wants the tv market we will bring.
it would benefit us financially because we would have a great tv deal and would sell out most of our games.

Beebe, BOR, Byrne, tu 10, sunshine pumpers.

Whistling, the confirmation that the promise is for only 1 year is one of the most significant parts of the email. That email was not written off the cuff. It was a direct response to a request that he provide written confirmation of the earlier oral promises.

To the other poster, yes, I will give more credence to a written statement from Beebe than a quip in a newspaper blog, particularly one written by Zwerneman. Not the most objective source, he.

The email does NOT say it is only for one year. The email is ambiguous about whether or not the guarantee will be annual or not, but the the quotes from Loftin and the subsequent reports have not been ambiguous: it's annual.

Whistling, I suggest that you read this part again and tell me what part of this you are having trouble understanding.

quote:

---

The five agreed that they wanted to ensure that those three schools remain and to try to
induce them to do so by guaranteeing OU, Texas and Texas A&M at least $20 million of total revenue in 2012-
13-the first year of a new media contract. Estimates of the value of a possible new media contract appeared as
if the guarantee may not be needed. Based on that, the five agreed to use revenue from THEIR distributions
ONLY to make the guarantee, IF needed.

---

When you see references to the "guarantee" in the second and third sentences, you may want to refer back to the bolded language to help you understand what that word means.

As to the "annual" aspect, the expectation, based on non-binding, oral conversations with TV execs, is that the new contracts will provide sufficient revenue to give $20+ million in distributions to member schools. I suggest that you read Powers' statements about that subject immediately after the Big 12 was salvaged. He was very careful to point out that these television numbers were projections and that there were no guarantees. He heard the same thing that Loftin did, and I can assure you that he will be a credible witness.

Uli_Kunkel,

The SEC just signed a 15 years deal. The networks have said they will not be renegotiating the contracts if they add more teams. That means $15 million for each team. If you read the email it sounds as though the arrangement between the little 5 probably won't be necessary under the new TV deal.

There is every indication we would be making at least what we would in the SEC, perhaps a good deal more.

It would be difficult to take a $8-9 million loss just because you want to play over "there" with equal or lower payouts.

quote:

---

which make us look like criminals, OU/UT look like angels, Tech look like a *****, and all the others look like martyrs.

---

Damn that sounds exciting. I would love some of that villain branding. Worked out great for Miami in the 80's. Sure beats our current brand of being irrelevant!

quote:

---

Whistling, I suggest that you read this part again and tell me what part of this you are having trouble understanding.

---

I'm not having trouble understanding it at all. Apparently, you are. Claiming that we will be guaranteed 20 million in 2012-2013 is not the same as claiming that we will be guaranteed 20 million only in 2012-2013. The former claim does NOT entail the latter claim.

(Consider these two claims: "I am going to beat your ass tomorrow" and "I am going to beat your ass every day this week." The two claims are not contradictions. "A&M will get a guarantee of $20 million in 2012-13" is consistent with "A&M will get a guarantee from the 2012-13 season to the 2015-16 season." )


Again, the email is ambiguous about whether or not the guarantee is annual, but Loftin's quotes and the subsequent reports have not been ambiguous in that regard.



Further, if the new tv deal is sufficient to get us $20 million without siphoning any money from the little 7, that 's fine. That'd be great. But if the new tv deal is not sufficient to get us $20 million, then the little 7 have to pay up. Every year of the contract.

[This message has been edited by Whistling For Flies (edited 9/22/2010 12:26p).]

quote:

---

Damn that sounds exciting. I would love some of that villain branding. Worked out great for Miami in the 80's. Sure beats our current brand of being irrelevant!

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w_c_9oDsJg

Palooza11, I have heard that A&M was the villain at one point, and that Coach Sherrill was considered nationally to be a son-of-a-b*tch. I was too young when he was coaching to notice myself.

It is sad we got away from what works....

ESPN is the controlling agent in this deal. They are the ones who are ponying up the dollars.

They got burned by the Big 10 channel. I don't know who the genius was that marketed it across the country, but that team was brilliant. It is nationwide! $.22 /sub/ month outside of the Big 10 area, and $.88 / sub/month in the region.

They signed a 15 year deal so there would never ever be an SEC channel.

They also didn't want a Pac16 channel, nor did they want Fox Sports to take over half the country.

ESPN wants things to stay as they are and is willing to pay a bit more to meet that objective.

[This message has been edited by DE88 (edited 9/22/2010 12:25p).]

if it's any consolation I put you all in the SEC in my NCAA Football dynasty. You were ranked in the top 25 once..but mostly continue to have 7-5 or 8-4 seasons. I feel like this is good data to base future decisions on.

Whistling, I love how you try to set people straight in this thread, and yet you know nothing. The email in question was Beebe's response when asked to put the oral agreement in writing. So don't pretend that it says something it doesn't. It isn't ambiguous at all. It states the proffered deal. Nothing more, nothing less. A one-year commitment. Sorry for your troubles. .

MW_111: The email you are citing was addressed to Guy Bailey, the Presdient of Tech, who is not a party to the guarantee agreement. Beebe wrote that email to Bailey to try to smooth things over before the TTU regents voted to stay in the Big XII (they were the only board that actually met and discussed the matter). Since Tech was not part of the deal, the Bailey email really is only interesting to the extent that it confirms that there was a deal. It's not as if this email is the contract between the parties.

twk, good point. There has been some effort though to try to reduce an unenforceable oral agreement/offer to writing. This is the only written confirmation that I have seen. Are you aware of another? Without anything else to fall back on, this is of more than passing interest.

quote:

---

So don't pretend that it says something it doesn't. It isn't ambiguous at all. It states the proffered deal. Nothing more, nothing less. A one-year commitment. Sorry for your troubles. .

---

Look, it just doesn't state that the guarantee is for one year only. It just doesn't say that. It says that there will be a guarantee for 2012-13; it is silent about when will happen in 2013-14.

it says exactly what it says. that a&m is guaranteed X amount for the 2012-2013 year.

it does not mention anything else or any amounts for years beyond that. you are assuming it does, and acting like MW is wrong for assuming it doesn't. wow. and you are acting like you know something when you don't know ****.

lots of false bravado on the part of ags these days. all this "pay me or we'll leave" will look pretty funny when a&m is still in this conference in 10 years, and the money is not flowing. you know why? because the SEC isn't just going to expand to get a&m. they are not the big prize. a&m needs texas to make a move before the SEC will consider expanding. anything short of that and it isn't going to happen. a&m is stuck until then.

in a way, a&m keeping the Pac16 deal from happening kept them in this conference basically until it falls apart (and Texas will decide when that happens). rest assured Texas (the state) will not allow a&m to go to the SEC without that happening. too much political opposition.

Not going to the SEC was a big loss to the local merchants since kyle would be full of 85000 fans 1/3 being from the SEC school. The Big 12 is dead unless Arkansas and Lousiana comes over.
The 20 Million will not see the bank account of Texas A & M it is now deferred to 2012 and 2013 which probably means half od the fund in 2012 and half in 2013, Bebe in his press conferance clearly stated $12 million was to come from Colorado. What happened to the rest?

quote:

---

it says exactly what it says. that a&m is guaranteed X amount for the 2012-2013 year.

it does not mention anything else or any amounts for years beyond that. you are assuming it does, and acting like MW is wrong for assuming it doesn't

---

That's my whole point. I am not assuming that it says anything else. I said the email was ambiguous about 2013-14 and beyond, but that other Beebe and Loftin quotes have called the guarantee annual - presumably meaning for the duration of the Big 12 contract.

If I came across as rude, I apologize. My rudeness might have been stoked when MW asked me "what part of that email don't you understand?"

We might get the 20 once... but we wont get it twice... much less annually. We got sooo duped

We used to have a lot of folks on this board who claimed, "We won't ever see that $20 million! It's monopoly money! You have to be a total idiot to think that we are ever going to get that money!"

Now, the biggest critics are saying, "We might get it once, but we won't get it more than that!"

I find this shift to be telling.

Hey man! Don't use me as an example! I wasn't banging a pot saying we'll never get 20. I've just always been confused as to why a one time 20 is better than 15 or 17 or whatever every year... see the 4rd post in this thread.

I didn't shift bro... I have always felt the 20/yr wasn't sustainable

/edit How did I get to be one of the "biggest critics"? I am kind of flattered though

[This message has been edited by Rec (edited 9/22/2010 7:48p).]

I didn't mean to call you out. I have no idea what you were saying 2 months ago. I'm just point out a fact about posting patterns on this site.


I still have no idea why so many of you are willing to dismiss the explicit claims of Loftin and Beebe, both of whom have said that the $20 million is an annual guarantee. If your only reason for thinking that they are both lying is this email - that's just silly.

[This message has been edited by Whistling For Flies (edited 9/22/2010 7:50p).]

Well I'm here to lead the charge in saying there's no way 20MM "per year" is going to happen.

Beebe will get us our 20 just like he promised and the it will drop off significantly /pure conjecture based upon a couple things 1) the TV contract doesn't have that much money in it 2) one time (reduced) exit fee revenue being used to make the payout and 3) t.u. would never stand on equal ground with A&M revenue-wise, for very long

fire away! I know at least 1 of those 3 has to hold water

[This message has been edited by Rec (edited 9/22/2010 8:01p).]

Its time for superconferences by 2013 at the latest. We should have made our SEC move already and there may already be a Pac-16, Big 16 and SEC-16.

quote:

---

I don't know who the genius was that marketed it across the country, but that team was brilliant. It is nationwide! $.22 /sub/ month outside of the Big 10 area, and $.88 / sub/month in the region.

---

That would be one Kevin Weinberg...who orchestrated it while the commissioner of the Big XII. He turned the Big XII TV deal into complete **** while pumping up the Big 10 Network in secret.

Whistling, I was with you until you said Loftin lied. I honestly think you should retract that.

Bowen Loftin is an HONEST Aggie and a thoughtful, precise, and brilliant man. This deal, as you first wrote, is solid. We'll get our money. If tu and blow u want to reduce their take, fine, but Loftin has repeated we will get ours.

The rest of you are speculating wildly, with no inside knowledge, with a lot of malice in your words, and no matter what any of us thinks, the deal is done. We're in the Big 12-2, and that's the reality.

quote:

---

Whistling, I was with you until you said Loftin lied. I honestly think you should retract that.

---

I must have been unclear. i think it is very stupid to think that Loftin is lying. I don't think that at all. He said the guarantee is for $20 million annually, and I believe him.

Regarding loftin, I've seen fewer fumbles on an Aggie punt return

Great thread...I see that nothing's changed...