(02-05-2014 04:22 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 03:01 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 10:08 AM)ken d Wrote:  Something about this story doesn't ring true to me. As I read it, after I had read the posts on this thread, it certainly seemed to me that the gist of the story was that DeLoss Dodds was a pompous, arrogant ass who singlehandedly ruled the B12. Then I got to a part of the story that made me scratch my head. This story was supposedly related by the TCU AD at a B12 meeting to celebrate the career of DeLoss Dodds.

What's wrong with this picture?

This sounds to me like a roast of Dodds. Even if it wasn't at a roast, a lot of times people share made-up stories at retirement parties.

This story might fit in with Dodds' character (probably an exaggerated version of his character), but I'll bet everyone who heard it live knew that this isn't how things went down for TCU.

It may have or not, but Dodds is old school, come from a generation in Texas where multi-million dollar deals were done on a handshake. Might have gone down, exactly this way; Conte kissed the ring.

Dodds is old school, but he's from Kansas.

(02-05-2014 06:09 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  What this story proves to me is realignment is not a totally rational process ( like I thought) just like everything else in life it's built on personal relationships and building those relationships. Every AD and college President should read this who has desires for their school to be in a better conference.

Otherwise Louisville would still be with their frequent conference partners, Cincinnati, Memphis and Houston (all in MVC, CUSA and AAC) and UConn would be in the ACC. But UConn burned bridges in 2005.

(02-05-2014 10:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 06:09 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  What this story proves to me is realignment is not a totally rational process ( like I thought) just like everything else in life it's built on personal relationships and building those relationships. Every AD and college President should read this who has desires for their school to be in a better conference.

Otherwise Louisville would still be with their frequent conference partners, Cincinnati, Memphis and Houston (all in MVC, CUSA and AAC) and UConn would be in the ACC. But UConn burned bridges in 2005.

So did Pittsburgh and Va. Tech. Remind me again which conference those two reside in?

(02-05-2014 11:52 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 10:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 06:09 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  What this story proves to me is realignment is not a totally rational process ( like I thought) just like everything else in life it's built on personal relationships and building those relationships. Every AD and college President should read this who has desires for their school to be in a better conference.

Otherwise Louisville would still be with their frequent conference partners, Cincinnati, Memphis and Houston (all in MVC, CUSA and AAC) and UConn would be in the ACC. But UConn burned bridges in 2005.

So did Pittsburgh and Va. Tech. Remind me again which conference those two reside in?

Big difference between being a ringleader of the lawsuits versus just going along for the ride. UConn was the ringleader. The lawsuits were filed in Connecticut. ACC officers including Swofford were named as defendants and sued individually. Connecticut's attorney general said this when filing the lawsuit:

Quote:"This lawsuit reveals a backroom conspiracy, born in secret, founded on greed, and carried out through calculated deceit. The story is a sad chapter in the history of college sports - a shameful example for students and athletes as well as academic institutions across the country," said Attorney General Blumenthal.

So now you're saying, "But... but... some guys from Pitt and VT were standing next to me when I burned those bridges down!"

(02-06-2014 12:51 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 11:52 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 10:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 06:09 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  What this story proves to me is realignment is not a totally rational process ( like I thought) just like everything else in life it's built on personal relationships and building those relationships. Every AD and college President should read this who has desires for their school to be in a better conference.

Otherwise Louisville would still be with their frequent conference partners, Cincinnati, Memphis and Houston (all in MVC, CUSA and AAC) and UConn would be in the ACC. But UConn burned bridges in 2005.

So did Pittsburgh and Va. Tech. Remind me again which conference those two reside in?

Big difference between being a ringleader of the lawsuits versus just going along for the ride. UConn was the ringleader. The lawsuits were filed in Connecticut. ACC officers including Swofford were named as defendants and sued individually. Connecticut's attorney general said this when filing the lawsuit:

Quote:"This lawsuit reveals a backroom conspiracy, born in secret, founded on greed, and carried out through calculated deceit. The story is a sad chapter in the history of college sports - a shameful example for students and athletes as well as academic institutions across the country," said Attorney General Blumenthal.

So now you're saying, "But... but... some guys from Pitt and VT were standing next to me when I burned those bridges down!"

Wrong, wrong, one thousand times wrong!!!!!!! "Tricky" Dicky may have been the face of the lawsuit, but the PITT President was the ringleader. He was also the clown who convinced the BE to turn down the TV deal that caused ESPiN to order the ACC to raid the BE. Gee, I wonder who benefitted from that glorious decision. It certainly wasn't UCONN.

So now you're saying, "But.....but.....Blumenthal was the one holding pressers, and the lawsuit was filed in CT!"

(02-06-2014 02:22 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 12:51 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 11:52 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 10:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 06:09 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  What this story proves to me is realignment is not a totally rational process ( like I thought) just like everything else in life it's built on personal relationships and building those relationships. Every AD and college President should read this who has desires for their school to be in a better conference.

Otherwise Louisville would still be with their frequent conference partners, Cincinnati, Memphis and Houston (all in MVC, CUSA and AAC) and UConn would be in the ACC. But UConn burned bridges in 2005.

So did Pittsburgh and Va. Tech. Remind me again which conference those two reside in?

Big difference between being a ringleader of the lawsuits versus just going along for the ride. UConn was the ringleader. The lawsuits were filed in Connecticut. ACC officers including Swofford were named as defendants and sued individually. Connecticut's attorney general said this when filing the lawsuit:

Quote:"This lawsuit reveals a backroom conspiracy, born in secret, founded on greed, and carried out through calculated deceit. The story is a sad chapter in the history of college sports - a shameful example for students and athletes as well as academic institutions across the country," said Attorney General Blumenthal.

So now you're saying, "But... but... some guys from Pitt and VT were standing next to me when I burned those bridges down!"

Wrong, wrong, one thousand times wrong!!!!!!! "Tricky" Dicky may have been the face of the lawsuit, but the PITT President was the ringleader. He was also the clown who convinced the BE to turn down the TV deal that caused ESPiN to order the ACC to raid the BE. Gee, I wonder who benefitted from that glorious decision. It certainly wasn't UCONN.

So now you're saying, "But.....but.....Blumenthal was the one holding pressers, and the lawsuit was filed in CT!"

Nope. DeGioia led on the TV contract, which had near universal support to take it to the open market. Not that it would have mattered one iota. Nordenberg, a trained lawyer, did lead on the 2003 legal maneuvers among BE conference leadership, along with David Hardesty. It was filed in Connecticut for strategic reasons because of the damages the state and UConn could claim due to the state paying for a large chunk of UConn's move to FBS, like the Rent, as well as the already played round of non-return games at Miami, VT, and BC as part of an entrance fee... the parts that the ACC ended up settling on, because frankly, the conspiratorial parts of the lawsuit were probably impossible to prove in court and would have been ultimately ineffective in their objective anyway. As far as being invited into the ACC, UConn was behind Pitt, Syracuse, and Louisville because it is a football neophyte that has comparatively little media pull in the fall. But if other narratives make people feel better, carry on...

(02-05-2014 03:52 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  Wow. Way to run a conference, B12. No market research. No comparing media footprints or recruiting access. No strategic thinking to block the ACC and compete for another block of schools. Just good ol' boys schmoozing.

I guess we can feel fortunate that the AD of SW Missouri St didn't have an even bigger SOB story to tell.

A friend from Tennessee likes to say, "If you're a good ole' boy yourself, the good ole' boy system works great."

(02-06-2014 06:22 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 03:52 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  Wow. Way to run a conference, B12. No market research. No comparing media footprints or recruiting access. No strategic thinking to block the ACC and compete for another block of schools. Just good ol' boys schmoozing.

I guess we can feel fortunate that the AD of SW Missouri St didn't have an even bigger SOB story to tell.

A friend from Tennessee likes to say, "If you're a good ole' boy yourself, the good ole' boy system works great."

I think we sometimes give this guys, way too much credit when it comes to thinking. Wasn't it the Maryland President who said he didn't realize the difference in money they could make with the B1G invite. Now Delany, Scott, Slive, (the brains) and and the other commissioners know, that's what there paid for, but these guys like Deloss who aren't commissioners have no idea, that's the danger of haven't one powerful school running a conference instead of letting the commissioner do it, SWC 2.0 all over again, this maybe a precurser to ultimate failure just like SWC 1.0, unless they do something to increase their footprint geographically and revenue wise. Hell, we know as a group on this board more about what makes sense when it comes to realignment then a lot of the powers that be.

(02-06-2014 02:22 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 12:51 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 11:52 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 10:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 06:09 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  What this story proves to me is realignment is not a totally rational process ( like I thought) just like everything else in life it's built on personal relationships and building those relationships. Every AD and college President should read this who has desires for their school to be in a better conference.

Otherwise Louisville would still be with their frequent conference partners, Cincinnati, Memphis and Houston (all in MVC, CUSA and AAC) and UConn would be in the ACC. But UConn burned bridges in 2005.

So did Pittsburgh and Va. Tech. Remind me again which conference those two reside in?

Big difference between being a ringleader of the lawsuits versus just going along for the ride. UConn was the ringleader. The lawsuits were filed in Connecticut. ACC officers including Swofford were named as defendants and sued individually. Connecticut's attorney general said this when filing the lawsuit:

Quote:"This lawsuit reveals a backroom conspiracy, born in secret, founded on greed, and carried out through calculated deceit. The story is a sad chapter in the history of college sports - a shameful example for students and athletes as well as academic institutions across the country," said Attorney General Blumenthal.

So now you're saying, "But... but... some guys from Pitt and VT were standing next to me when I burned those bridges down!"

Wrong, wrong, one thousand times wrong!!!!!!! "Tricky" Dicky may have been the face of the lawsuit, but the PITT President was the ringleader. He was also the clown who convinced the BE to turn down the TV deal that caused ESPiN to order the ACC to raid the BE. Gee, I wonder who benefitted from that glorious decision. It certainly wasn't UCONN.

So now you're saying, "But.....but.....Blumenthal was the one holding pressers, and the lawsuit was filed in CT!"

UConn was the face of the lawsuit. You elected the AG as governor (or Senator). It was Connecticut where all the noise was coming from. Maybe Pitt was smart enough to egg UConn on while saying nothing themselves. BC's president didn't say UConn wasn't getting in just because he was "afraid" of them. You don't sue someone and expect to join their club.

(02-06-2014 08:21 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 06:22 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 03:52 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  Wow. Way to run a conference, B12. No market research. No comparing media footprints or recruiting access. No strategic thinking to block the ACC and compete for another block of schools. Just good ol' boys schmoozing.

I guess we can feel fortunate that the AD of SW Missouri St didn't have an even bigger SOB story to tell.

A friend from Tennessee likes to say, "If you're a good ole' boy yourself, the good ole' boy system works great."

I think we sometimes give this guys, way too much credit when it comes to thinking. Wasn't it the Maryland Presdient who said he didn't realize the difference in money they could make with the B1G invite. Now Delaney, Scott Slive, (the brains) and and the other commissioners know, that's what there paid for, but these guys like Deloss who aren't commissioners have no idea, that's the danger of haven't one powerful school running a conference instead of letting the commissioner do it, SWC 2.0 all over again, this maybe a precurser to ultimate failure just like SWC 1.0, unless they do something to increase their footprint geographically and revenue wise. Hell, we know as a group on this board more about what makes sense when it comes to realignment then a lot of the powers that be.

When it comes to numbers, you will find it hard to see anyone more knowledgeable than Delo$$ Dodd$. This story sounds like Texas was vetoing TCU and Del Conte convinced them not to. As it said, support for TCU had been building. They were already looking at the numbers and had certainly talked to ESPN and Fox.

(02-06-2014 09:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 08:21 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 06:22 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 03:52 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  Wow. Way to run a conference, B12. No market research. No comparing media footprints or recruiting access. No strategic thinking to block the ACC and compete for another block of schools. Just good ol' boys schmoozing.

I guess we can feel fortunate that the AD of SW Missouri St didn't have an even bigger SOB story to tell.

A friend from Tennessee likes to say, "If you're a good ole' boy yourself, the good ole' boy system works great."

I think we sometimes give this guys, way too much credit when it comes to thinking. Wasn't it the Maryland Presdient who said he didn't realize the difference in money they could make with the B1G invite. Now Delaney, Scott Slive, (the brains) and and the other commissioners know, that's what there paid for, but these guys like Deloss who aren't commissioners have no idea, that's the danger of haven't one powerful school running a conference instead of letting the commissioner do it, SWC 2.0 all over again, this maybe a precurser to ultimate failure just like SWC 1.0, unless they do something to increase their footprint geographically and revenue wise. Hell, we know as a group on this board more about what makes sense when it comes to realignment then a lot of the powers that be.

When it comes to numbers, you will find it hard to see anyone more knowledgeable than Delo$$ Dodd$. This story sounds like Texas was vetoing TCU and Del Conte convinced them not to. As it said, support for TCU had been building. They were already looking at the numbers and had certainly talked to ESPN and Fox.

I guess that why he ran off A&M, Mizzou, Nebraska and Colorado because of his great grasp of $$ numbers? Ok. Hmmmmm

Oh but They are extremely happy at 10. Guess it does make it easier to break up the next round of PAC, B1G, or SEC invites come out.

(02-06-2014 09:57 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 09:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 08:21 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 06:22 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 03:52 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  Wow. Way to run a conference, B12. No market research. No comparing media footprints or recruiting access. No strategic thinking to block the ACC and compete for another block of schools. Just good ol' boys schmoozing.

I guess we can feel fortunate that the AD of SW Missouri St didn't have an even bigger SOB story to tell.

A friend from Tennessee likes to say, "If you're a good ole' boy yourself, the good ole' boy system works great."

I think we sometimes give this guys, way too much credit when it comes to thinking. Wasn't it the Maryland Presdient who said he didn't realize the difference in money they could make with the B1G invite. Now Delaney, Scott Slive, (the brains) and and the other commissioners know, that's what there paid for, but these guys like Deloss who aren't commissioners have no idea, that's the danger of haven't one powerful school running a conference instead of letting the commissioner do it, SWC 2.0 all over again, this maybe a precurser to ultimate failure just like SWC 1.0, unless they do something to increase their footprint geographically and revenue wise. Hell, we know as a group on this board more about what makes sense when it comes to realignment then a lot of the powers that be.

When it comes to numbers, you will find it hard to see anyone more knowledgeable than Delo$$ Dodd$. This story sounds like Texas was vetoing TCU and Del Conte convinced them not to. As it said, support for TCU had been building. They were already looking at the numbers and had certainly talked to ESPN and Fox.

I guess that why he ran off A&M, Mizzou, Nebraska and Colorado because of his great grasp of $$ numbers? Ok. Hmmmmm

He didn't run them off and he's making more now without them than he was with them. And Texas is making far more than anyone else in the country. And probably will be making more TV money than anyone else through the rest of this contract cycle.

Got anything else?

(02-06-2014 12:15 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Oh but They are extremely happy at 10. Guess it does make it easier to break up the next round of PAC, B1G, or SEC invites come out.

IMO 10 is the perfect number. With 9 conference football games, you play everyone in the conference during football season, and with 18 conference basketball games you play everyone home and home during basketball season. B12 schools are earning as much as schools from any other conference, if not more. The B12 is one of the best football conferences in the nation, and is currently the top rated RPI basketball conference in the nation. What's not to like?

(02-06-2014 09:57 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  I guess that why he ran off A&M, Mizzou, Nebraska and Colorado because of his great grasp of $$ numbers? Ok. Hmmmmm

Not defending Dodds but get your facts straight:

Colorado- When they left they assumed UT was coming too, not exactly "running them off".

Nebraska- Left primarily because of the combined instability that started with Mizzou chirping about the Big Ten, which daisy chained to CU looking at the PAC (who approached them in the mid-90's FYI and the CU AD specifically mentions the MO Gov as the reason he started moving), which in turn reached out to UT, who in turn said not without a group.

As for NU's stance? Their chancellor was pretty blunt with:

-"While some schools complained about the league's unequal distribution of revenue from network TV contracts, Nebraska wasn't among them. It joined Texas as a strong proponent of giving big-time football schools — those most appealing to the networks — a bigger slice of the pie. "

-“Nebraska was getting largely what it wanted,'' Perlman said.

-"While many have blamed Texas and its plans to start its own Longhorn TV network as the reason a Big 12 network never got off the ground, Nebraska wasn't on board with a conference network, either. Nebraska's support was conditional on the high-profile schools taking a larger cut of that revenue, too — a condition some schools strongly opposed. "

"Perlman said NU was on track to have its network running by the fall of 2011 — actually ahead of Texas' timetable. "

-"[When the B1G announced consideration of expansion] [t]here truly was no thought of going to the Big Ten.

Nebraska shared a lot of history with Big 12 schools. Plus, when you get right down to it, Perlman says, Nebraska had no major beefs with the way the Big 12 was run. "

Then it broke the other way:
"In a hallway of the Hyatt Regency on Jan. 15, Perlman ran into a good friend — someone he describes only as a well-connected “sports insider.''
...
"If things didn't break right, the friend said, even a traditional power like Nebraska could find itself on the outside looking in.

The friend said things were moving fast. Perlman decided he needed to move quickly, too.

The next day, as he was sitting in the convention's general assembly, he pulled out his BlackBerry and punched out an e-mail to Jim Delany. "


Read the article below, arguably as solid of a writeup on any move thus far.
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100830/BI...8309872/-1


Missouri- Basically they had almost been left out the year before and any thought of staying went out the window when OU's David Boren flirted with the PAC. If anyone gets the blame for that one it's the okies.

A&M- LHN concerns over HS programming is often cited but even the Texags guy Liucci quoted some of the A&M higher ups as saying they knew it wouldn't end up happening in a radio interview from the time. Fact is they looked like everyone else in 2010, fanbase had a love affair with the SEC, and over the final year in the Big 12 they moved to elevate their brand and competitive advantages.


Really the only one of the four you can pin on Dodds is maybe A&M.

(02-06-2014 09:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  When it comes to numbers, you will find it hard to see anyone more knowledgeable than Delo$$ Dodd$. This story sounds like Texas was vetoing TCU and Del Conte convinced them not to. As it said, support for TCU had been building. They were already looking at the numbers and had certainly talked to ESPN and Fox.

It sounds more likely (as someone mentioned above) that UT had taken no position on TCU and that a few other Big 12 schools (not including OU) were opposed to TCU, but that once UT and OU both said they would support TCU, there was not enough opposition to block them, and they got the invitation.

(02-06-2014 01:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 09:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  When it comes to numbers, you will find it hard to see anyone more knowledgeable than Delo$$ Dodd$. This story sounds like Texas was vetoing TCU and Del Conte convinced them not to. As it said, support for TCU had been building. They were already looking at the numbers and had certainly talked to ESPN and Fox.

It sounds more likely (as someone mentioned above) that UT had taken no position on TCU and that a few other Big 12 schools (not including OU) were opposed to TCU, but that once UT and OU both said they would support TCU, there was not enough opposition to block them, and they got the invitation.

Everything I've heard is that it was the non-Texas schools that wanted them-Kansas, Kansas St., Oklahoma St., Iowa St. Oklahoma had apparently come on board.

(02-06-2014 12:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 09:57 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 09:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 08:21 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 06:22 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  A friend from Tennessee likes to say, "If you're a good ole' boy yourself, the good ole' boy system works great."

I think we sometimes give this guys, way too much credit when it comes to thinking. Wasn't it the Maryland Presdient who said he didn't realize the difference in money they could make with the B1G invite. Now Delaney, Scott Slive, (the brains) and and the other commissioners know, that's what there paid for, but these guys like Deloss who aren't commissioners have no idea, that's the danger of haven't one powerful school running a conference instead of letting the commissioner do it, SWC 2.0 all over again, this maybe a precurser to ultimate failure just like SWC 1.0, unless they do something to increase their footprint geographically and revenue wise. Hell, we know as a group on this board more about what makes sense when it comes to realignment then a lot of the powers that be.

When it comes to numbers, you will find it hard to see anyone more knowledgeable than Delo$$ Dodd$. This story sounds like Texas was vetoing TCU and Del Conte convinced them not to. As it said, support for TCU had been building. They were already looking at the numbers and had certainly talked to ESPN and Fox.

I guess that why he ran off A&M, Mizzou, Nebraska and Colorado because of his great grasp of $$ numbers? Ok. Hmmmmm

He didn't run them off and he's making more now without them than he was with them. And Texas is making far more than anyone else in the country. And probably will be making more TV money than anyone else through the rest of this contract cycle.

Got anything else?

Whats good for Texas is not all ways what's good for everyone else. Yes, Texas is making money, but if they had the same foresight to look beyond their Texas nose, and had the vision the SEC has, they be looking at the kind of TV deal the SEC is about to pull off with their new network making 600 million to 1 billion per year (see post abouit SEC network), they sacrificed everyone for their short term thinking, as the good book said, "Where there is no vision, the people perish" in this case the conference shall perish, possibly.

(02-06-2014 12:40 PM)S11 Wrote:  Missouri- Basically they had almost been left out the year before and any thought of staying went out the window when OU's David Boren flirted with the PAC. If anyone gets the blame for that one it's the okies.

A&M- LHN concerns over HS programming is often cited but even the Texags guy Liucci quoted some of the A&M higher ups as saying they knew it wouldn't end up happening in a radio interview from the time. Fact is they looked like everyone else in 2010, fanbase had a love affair with the SEC, and over the final year in the Big 12 they moved to elevate their brand and competitive advantages.

So if there was actually some pro-active leadership going on - its likely we wouldn't have lost Colorado and could have saved Nebraska- and only losing Mizzou and A&M - then you really could have added TCU and BYU and had a decent 12 team league.

(02-06-2014 12:40 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 09:57 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  I guess that why he ran off A&M, Mizzou, Nebraska and Colorado because of his great grasp of $$ numbers? Ok. Hmmmmm

Not defending Dodds but get your facts straight:

Colorado- When they left they assumed UT was coming too, not exactly "running them off".

Nebraska- Left primarily because of the combined instability that started with Mizzou chirping about the Big Ten, which daisy chained to CU looking at the PAC (who approached them in the mid-90's FYI and the CU AD specifically mentions the MO Gov as the reason he started moving), which in turn reached out to UT, who in turn said not without a group.

As for NU's stance? Their chancellor was pretty blunt with:

-"While some schools complained about the league's unequal distribution of revenue from network TV contracts, Nebraska wasn't among them. It joined Texas as a strong proponent of giving big-time football schools — those most appealing to the networks — a bigger slice of the pie. "

-“Nebraska was getting largely what it wanted,'' Perlman said.

-"While many have blamed Texas and its plans to start its own Longhorn TV network as the reason a Big 12 network never got off the ground, Nebraska wasn't on board with a conference network, either. Nebraska's support was conditional on the high-profile schools taking a larger cut of that revenue, too — a condition some schools strongly opposed. "

"Perlman said NU was on track to have its network running by the fall of 2011 — actually ahead of Texas' timetable. "

-"[When the B1G announced consideration of expansion] [t]here truly was no thought of going to the Big Ten.

Nebraska shared a lot of history with Big 12 schools. Plus, when you get right down to it, Perlman says, Nebraska had no major beefs with the way the Big 12 was run. "

Then it broke the other way:
"In a hallway of the Hyatt Regency on Jan. 15, Perlman ran into a good friend — someone he describes only as a well-connected “sports insider.''
...
"If things didn't break right, the friend said, even a traditional power like Nebraska could find itself on the outside looking in.

The friend said things were moving fast. Perlman decided he needed to move quickly, too.

The next day, as he was sitting in the convention's general assembly, he pulled out his BlackBerry and punched out an e-mail to Jim Delany. "


Read the article below, arguably as solid of a writeup on any move thus far.
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100830/BI...8309872/-1


Missouri- Basically they had almost been left out the year before and any thought of staying went out the window when OU's David Boren flirted with the PAC. If anyone gets the blame for that one it's the okies.

A&M- LHN concerns over HS programming is often cited but even the Texags guy Liucci quoted some of the A&M higher ups as saying they knew it wouldn't end up happening in a radio interview from the time. Fact is they looked like everyone else in 2010, fanbase had a love affair with the SEC, and over the final year in the Big 12 they moved to elevate their brand and competitive advantages.


Really the only one of the four you can pin on Dodds is maybe A&M.

Read the article, it's a good read. Delany quote from the article, Delany recalls Osborne saying at one point during the culture discussion, “There are some things that are more important than money.''
In this case, Delany saw a great cultural fit. It's safe to say that Nebraska's stock had climbed considerably, he said last week.

He's right about the money thing.