Fact: Beebe sends a letter saying no lawsuits.

Fact: OU President makes waves by saying OU is looking.

Implication: if OU leaves, Big 12 dissolves.

Then the small schools, who may not have a soft landing, start panicing (Baylor, K State, ISU).

OU motivates the smaller schools to take the heat by sticking their necks out and blocking the A&M move, but OU does not get the blame. Baylor does.

OU does the heavy lifting, takes the indirect blame, while UT is deemed innocent of any meddling. Very clever. Because if UT had threatened to leave causing the small schools to scurry, it would be easy to cry foul. With OU threatening, everyone buys it as legit.

All the while OU and UT, hand in hand, getting what they want.

Very clever indeed. Very clever.

meh, it sounds pretty reasonable, but I don't buy it

and we are already gone so...

except the there is no roadblock even if we get sued by Baylor.

+1...there was no reason for OU to say anything. Probably did it because Deloss asked them to.

I guarantee you there is no chance in hell we are playing in the sip 9, sip 7 or sip whatever next year!

Thought the same thing when ou announced out of the blue they were looking at their options on Friday!

Baylor can't afford our counter suit.

Hatezzzz them

Hatezzz themsss for evar!!!!

It is starting to seem like OU has played a brilliant chess move.

Nope...This is just a stall tactic that is going to backfire big time on them. If the SEC announces that they are suing over the Arkie contact from the Big 12 then this conference will be done.

The difference being that the SEC would have a real chance of winning unlike Baylor's pathetic attempt at trying to stop us.

This could get really expensive for the remaining Big 12 members and kill any chance they had of keeping the conference together.

Bill, the roadblock is the one that the SEC attached.

Baylor is not preventing A&M going to the SEC. The SEC is setting conditions for acceptance that it knows possibly will not be met.

Baylor takes the heat, UT takes the win.

Slive mentioned that the SEC unanimously approved accepting us, there for UT voted for us to join the SEC. Ohh you mean... sure-sure-sure.

And half the clowns on this board were praising those okie idiots. I knew from the moment they realeased the idiotic remarks about "bring more proactive than anyone" it was designed to insinuate they weren't little sip bythces. The fact is they are, and without this conf they are screwed. They obviously wanted to appear tough, while jamming up our exit.

[This message has been edited by chosin (edited 9/7/2011 3:14p).]

Seriously, this f'n conference cant tie their freaking shoes - how do they organizae something like that?

sounds great ... but if they could coordinate that well together, we would not be leaving the conference.

Y'all are missing something very important. OU would not burn their bridge with the PAC-? by playing along their commissioner like the sips did last year. It did not sit well with the commissioner nor the other members when t.u. did it last year. I don't see OU doing that.

Sorry...too many moving parts there. It would make a nice science fair project though.

quote:

---

"If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, forget em', cause, man, they're gone."

- Jack Handey

---

quote:

---

+1...there was no reason for OU to say anything. Probably did it because Deloss asked them to.

---

it is not just the okie ... it is okie wanna-be and the rest of this pathetic conference

everybody knows that baylro is the sip's h0ar

what has been hidden is that the rest of them are the sip's h0ars as well

quote:

---

It did not sit well with the commissioner nor the other members when t.u. did it last year. I don't see OU doing that.

---

that is why okie and the rest of this limp-wristed gaggle is hiding behind freaking baylro!



[This message has been edited by bogustrumper (edited 9/7/2011 3:17p).]

I'm not saying they sat in a dark cigar-smoke-filled room.

OU took a look at the situation and decided the Big 12 was about to dissolve, but rather than go off to the PAC, they would rather maintain their center of power in the Big 12. They know that Texas feels the same way. But UT cannot act. OU can.

OU speaks loudly to the press. President, AD, coach, little-brother OSU joins in.

What happens?

1. Big 12 expansion is KILLED. No team other than CUSA teams are interested. BYU says "no thanks."
2. Becomes obvious Big 12 is about to die.
3. Little Big 12 teams get shortness of breath and chest pain.

I don't think OU is bluffing. If A&M leaves, they may very well leave the Big 12. But they also knew their comments could disrupt the A&M to the SEC move, which is in their interest. While at the same time, taking no blame for it.

Personally, that's a lot of orchestration and I don't think OU is all that "shifty and quick." I think OU wants out as well and they haven't renounced their PAC 12 plans.

We'll see soon enough. I think Texas A&M goes to the SEC on schedule. Baylor really seems desperate or they are being a tool way beyond what they will get for their actions.

Shifty,

How do you explain Stoops' comments about not playing Texas anymore, super-conference is the way of the future, etc.? Just a bluff on top of a bluff?

Doubt it, if this was a farce OU did not need to say it doesn't need to play tu and Stoops did not need to say OU could find a replacement for the tu game, things change.

[This message has been edited by Ragnar Danneskjold (edited 9/7/2011 3:23p).]

A strong A&M program weakens OU. A&M going to the SEC and being successful in the SEC will make it much more difficult for the land thieves to pull top players from Texas, especially if they end up going to the PAC. It is in OU's best interest to keep close to the t-sips and help keep A&M down.

quote:

---

It did not sit well with the commissioner nor the other members when t.u. did it last year. I don't see OU doing that.

---

OU doesn't care about that, much as UT did not last year. The PacX would still take UT in a heartbeat, even after all that has transpired. OU is in the same situation, they can afford to string the PAcX along as long as they choose to b/c they are that high on the PacX's wish list. No other two schools whet the PacX's appetite like OU and UT.

The "we don't need to play Texas" was the threat that OU might act alone without Texas. I.e. go to the PAC by itself.

Everyone knows that UT is loathe to give up the LHN, which it would have to do if it joined the PAC.

Thus OU signals "we are willing to blow this thing up no matter what UT does."

This signals to Baylor/ISU/KSU that UT's limited options will not necessarily prevent a disaster scenario.

I'm sorry, it's not coincidence and "off the cuff" that these things were said. They were said for a reason.

We have reason to believe that the PAC members may actually be against expansion, this becoming apparent in the last couple of days (against Scott's wishes), which motivates OU and UT and the little schools EVEN MORE to keep A&M and blow up the move to the SEC.

Baylor's move is a little bit like a congressional vote. When the Dems need something controversial to pass, they first make sure they have enough votes. Then they allow some of their swing-state members to vote the other way to protect themselves for election purposes (GOP does it too). OU is happy to say "we would not sue" as long as their is at least one other school willing to carry the water in public (i.e. Baylor).

i thought the same thing shifty is proclaiming. this may have been a joint tu/ou thing. maybe just ou. ou is happy where they are. they get easy road to national championship, fertile recruiting, etc. they need the little guys to freak out and sue to blow this. conference may still fall apart but at least we don't get what we want right away.

no biggie - we go independent for a year and then re-decide.

What does UT get that they wanted? If they can't keep the Big XII together chances are they lose "their precious" the LHN, or at least have to meld it into another network and split it with Taco Tech. They lose a large portion of the 300 million, contract probably voided.
My wife and I graduated from OU in early 70's, all three children graduated from aTm. Never forget both sets of students and alumni have in common a hatred for all things orange. I can't speak for the administrations, money is a clever lover. It's what started this entire movement and will sustain it.

Independence for one year is impossible. The other sports will have no place to go.

I'm not sure even CUSA would be willing to take on A&M in non-football for just one year.

More options if willing to sign a multi-year deal for non-football (like Notre Dame and Big East) or pay some kind of penalty once leaving.

BYU knew it could go independent in football. The math worked for that. The problem was the other sports. They had a deal worked out with the WAC, but then some of the WAC members stabbed BYU in the back and blew that up (sound familiar?). The WCC is what they ended up with. Some of the other sports are very unhappy with the WCC (for example WCC has no swimming program, BYU does).

I just can't see independence working where A&M intends to join another conference (SEC) after waiting one year.