(05-14-2018 09:07 AM)Wichita Wrote:  Apologize if posted elsewhere, but has Wichita State's % of league revenue ever been defined? Thanks.

Everyone is going to be swimming in money.

(05-07-2018 01:00 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(05-07-2018 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-07-2018 12:14 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

https://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go&...swc-merger

Quote:Cunningham: A&M and Texas were easy, and Texas Tech had the third-best attendance. Then we came down to the fourth school, and that was Baylor versus TCU. When you really looked at the hard data, Baylor was the better choice. They had better attendance and better records. When I called the Baylor president, he was not in, and I spoke with his wife. His wife told me that he was at a prayer meeting, and I said, "I now believe in prayer more than ever."

^^^^^^^^^^
Just to be clear here directly from the man in charge of the Big 8 add ons from the SWC.

You don't have to take my word for it, it's documented.

But trust your memories and not the facts

Did you read your own artcile? Your own article says exactly what I said----


Chuck Neinas, Big Eight commissioner from 1971–80, executive director of the CFA from 1980–97: ESPN did not want all the members. They wanted eight from the Big Eight and they'd take four from the Southwest Conference. Obviously, the two they wanted most were Texas and Texas A&M. I received a call from Loren Matthews, who was a key executive with ESPN with whom I had developed a good relationship. And Loren told me, he said, "Here's my problem. We want the Big Eight, but we don't want all of the Southwest Conference." I said, "Well, just let me make some phone calls, and I'm sure they'll get back to you." So I called DeLoss Dodds at Texas, Donnie Duncan at Oklahoma and Bill Byrne at Nebraska, and the rest is history.

With that, the issue became more political. Rumors still flew that Texas was headed to the Pac-10 and Texas A&M to the SEC. David Sibley, a Baylor graduate who was a Texas state senator from 1991–2000, wanted answers, and he and Rob Junell, then the chairman of the Texas House Appropriations Committee, decided to take action. They confirmed that Texas A&M still had interest in the SEC, but Texas's preference for the Big Eight and the looming ABC/ESPN compromise dictated the future of the SWC.


STAPLES: COULD TV NETWORKS EXERCISE "NUCLEAR OPTION" TO HALT BIG 12 EXPANSION?

Sibley: We had a brief conversation, and it ended with Junell saying, "Cut loose the dogs of war." At the time, Bob Bullock was the lieutenant governor, and he was a Baylor Law graduate. The speaker of the house was from Texas Tech, and [Junell] was from Texas Tech. And then the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee was a Texas Tech person, John Montford. And then there I was, representing Waco and a Baylor graduate.

Junell and Sibley mobilized on Thursday or Friday, Sibley says, and by Sunday, a group was assembled in Bullock's office to strike a deal. The lieutenant governor, along with Sibley, Montford, Cunningham and Clayton (the former speaker of the Texas House of Representatives and an A&M graduate) agreed: in addition to Texas and Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor would make the cut.

Sibley: The interesting part of this is that if this had happened two years earlier, the lieutenant governor would have been a University of Houston person and the speaker of the house would have been a TCU person. It really was an interesting confluence of events.



By the way---if you read the article---it cant all be true because the players involved effectively do not agree on what happened. One says Houston was to be the fourth---another says it was between TCU and Baylor. What many fail to realize is it actually wasnt going to be anyone other than UT and A&M until Bullock and Richards got involved (and frankly, Bullock was actually the more significant player). I also applaud this article because its one of the few that actually goes to the very start of the talks where it was to be a complete merger with all 16 teams. At the original meeting, 15 chools voted in favor of a full merger with only Texas failing to support it. What people dont understand is that these negotiations led to a series of meetings that went on for nearly 3 years with the other schools trying to come up with a series of benchmarks that would have to be met in order for all SWC schools to be included in the merger. I know for a fact these meetings were going on as late as Dec of 1993. Thats one of the reasons that Houston, SMU, TCU, and Rice were completely shocked by the early 1994 revelation that the SWC was going to be gutted.

You can stop now. You obviously struggle with being wrong. The entire section you just quoted from says exactly what I said in the very beginning.

Texas and AnM got attached at the hip because of politics. Tech came along for the ride because they are a big state school, reliable vote, and politics. TCU was going, but Texas never wanted to be in the big xii and negotiations dragged out. ESPN set the limit at four. When the vote finally happened the politics dictated Baylor go not TCU.

That's it end of story. As far as performance, do you have any idea how bad Tech was before Leach got there?

There is no contradiction in the article, they all say the same thing. The article is written talking about the merger in chronological order, not by person. So it begins with Penn St joining the big 10 and Arkansas bailing to the sec. It finishes with Baylor getting the last spot and TCU committing to proving they belong for the next round.

The collapse of the SWC occurred over time and it had many mutations before settling. First just Texas, then UT and Texas AnM were leaving. They originally were going separate ways, then the legislature told them to move together. Than the Big 8 was in trouble. Than the talk of a full merger. ESPN nixed that idea, it could only be 4. Then it was UT, AnM, Tech, and ??? SMU was the obvious choice but the death penalty was killing them still. Houston wasn't a fit. Rice had no shot. Then it was TCU and finally with the politics having turned in the state it became Baylor with the upper hand.

Or you know exactly what I have said this entire thread. Baylor got picked over TCU.

Then you didnt read it. Its says right there what Ive been saying. They wanted Texas and A&M. They'd "Take" four to get those two---but they wanted just Texas and A&M and thats the only two they were going to take until Bullock and Richards got involved. By the way, the biggest players are dead and not quoted once in your article (despite the fact they spoke on the subject often while alive). There has been an effort since that time to smooth over the real sausage making process process because Baylor and Tech want to appear as if they were chosen on their merits when they were not--so some of the more recent stuff you find will follow the narrative you have. They dont like the idea that the only reason they aren't G5 is because of politics. If you were around when all this went down--you know what really happened. The best source is archived articles from the actual time period.

(05-14-2018 11:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-07-2018 01:00 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(05-07-2018 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-07-2018 12:14 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

https://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go&...swc-merger

Quote:Cunningham: A&M and Texas were easy, and Texas Tech had the third-best attendance. Then we came down to the fourth school, and that was Baylor versus TCU. When you really looked at the hard data, Baylor was the better choice. They had better attendance and better records. When I called the Baylor president, he was not in, and I spoke with his wife. His wife told me that he was at a prayer meeting, and I said, "I now believe in prayer more than ever."

^^^^^^^^^^
Just to be clear here directly from the man in charge of the Big 8 add ons from the SWC.

You don't have to take my word for it, it's documented.

But trust your memories and not the facts

Did you read your own artcile? Your own article says exactly what I said----


Chuck Neinas, Big Eight commissioner from 1971–80, executive director of the CFA from 1980–97: ESPN did not want all the members. They wanted eight from the Big Eight and they'd take four from the Southwest Conference. Obviously, the two they wanted most were Texas and Texas A&M. I received a call from Loren Matthews, who was a key executive with ESPN with whom I had developed a good relationship. And Loren told me, he said, "Here's my problem. We want the Big Eight, but we don't want all of the Southwest Conference." I said, "Well, just let me make some phone calls, and I'm sure they'll get back to you." So I called DeLoss Dodds at Texas, Donnie Duncan at Oklahoma and Bill Byrne at Nebraska, and the rest is history.

With that, the issue became more political. Rumors still flew that Texas was headed to the Pac-10 and Texas A&M to the SEC. David Sibley, a Baylor graduate who was a Texas state senator from 1991–2000, wanted answers, and he and Rob Junell, then the chairman of the Texas House Appropriations Committee, decided to take action. They confirmed that Texas A&M still had interest in the SEC, but Texas's preference for the Big Eight and the looming ABC/ESPN compromise dictated the future of the SWC.


STAPLES: COULD TV NETWORKS EXERCISE "NUCLEAR OPTION" TO HALT BIG 12 EXPANSION?

Sibley: We had a brief conversation, and it ended with Junell saying, "Cut loose the dogs of war." At the time, Bob Bullock was the lieutenant governor, and he was a Baylor Law graduate. The speaker of the house was from Texas Tech, and [Junell] was from Texas Tech. And then the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee was a Texas Tech person, John Montford. And then there I was, representing Waco and a Baylor graduate.

Junell and Sibley mobilized on Thursday or Friday, Sibley says, and by Sunday, a group was assembled in Bullock's office to strike a deal. The lieutenant governor, along with Sibley, Montford, Cunningham and Clayton (the former speaker of the Texas House of Representatives and an A&M graduate) agreed: in addition to Texas and Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor would make the cut.

Sibley: The interesting part of this is that if this had happened two years earlier, the lieutenant governor would have been a University of Houston person and the speaker of the house would have been a TCU person. It really was an interesting confluence of events.



By the way---if you read the article---it cant all be true because the players involved effectively do not agree on what happened. One says Houston was to be the fourth---another says it was between TCU and Baylor. What many fail to realize is it actually wasnt going to be anyone other than UT and A&M until Bullock and Richards got involved (and frankly, Bullock was actually the more significant player). I also applaud this article because its one of the few that actually goes to the very start of the talks where it was to be a complete merger with all 16 teams. At the original meeting, 15 chools voted in favor of a full merger with only Texas failing to support it. What people dont understand is that these negotiations led to a series of meetings that went on for nearly 3 years with the other schools trying to come up with a series of benchmarks that would have to be met in order for all SWC schools to be included in the merger. I know for a fact these meetings were going on as late as Dec of 1993. Thats one of the reasons that Houston, SMU, TCU, and Rice were completely shocked by the early 1994 revelation that the SWC was going to be gutted.

You can stop now. You obviously struggle with being wrong. The entire section you just quoted from says exactly what I said in the very beginning.

Texas and AnM got attached at the hip because of politics. Tech came along for the ride because they are a big state school, reliable vote, and politics. TCU was going, but Texas never wanted to be in the big xii and negotiations dragged out. ESPN set the limit at four. When the vote finally happened the politics dictated Baylor go not TCU.

That's it end of story. As far as performance, do you have any idea how bad Tech was before Leach got there?

There is no contradiction in the article, they all say the same thing. The article is written talking about the merger in chronological order, not by person. So it begins with Penn St joining the big 10 and Arkansas bailing to the sec. It finishes with Baylor getting the last spot and TCU committing to proving they belong for the next round.

The collapse of the SWC occurred over time and it had many mutations before settling. First just Texas, then UT and Texas AnM were leaving. They originally were going separate ways, then the legislature told them to move together. Than the Big 8 was in trouble. Than the talk of a full merger. ESPN nixed that idea, it could only be 4. Then it was UT, AnM, Tech, and ??? SMU was the obvious choice but the death penalty was killing them still. Houston wasn't a fit. Rice had no shot. Then it was TCU and finally with the politics having turned in the state it became Baylor with the upper hand.

Or you know exactly what I have said this entire thread. Baylor got picked over TCU.

Then you didnt read it. Its says right there what Ive been saying. They wanted Texas and A&M. They'd "Take" four to get those two---but they wanted just Texas and A&M and thats the only two they were going to take until Bullock and Richards got involved. By the way, the biggest players are dead and not quoted once in your article (despite the fact they spoke on the subject often while alive). There has been an effort since that time to smooth over the real sausage making process process because Baylor and Tech want to appear as if they were chosen on their merits when they were not--so some of the more recent stuff you find will follow the narrative you have. They dont like the idea that the only reason they aren't G5 is because of politics. If you were around when all this went down--you know what really happened. The best source is archived articles from the actual time period.

I'm done arguing with you all you have is I say this and I remember that. I doubt there is a person who better understood what was going on then the big 8 commish who made it all work.

You suffer from a misconception as well that the big 8 raided the SWC. As the article explains that isn't what happened.

This is what actually happened. The big 8 thought it was a goner and going to be picked apart. Texas wanted out of the SWC and shopped itself around. AnM said f that we are out too. They were told by the state they we're sticking together. The big 8 offered to merge with the SWC. 15/16 schools voted yes. Texas abstained because they really wanted the PAC. Durring this time ESPN decided they would only take 4 of the SWC to the big 8 for the media contract. The big 8 commish said Texas and AnM duh. Who else? Well we are stuck with Tech so who gets the last spot? It's either TCU or Baylor. The politicians said you're taking Baylor or it ain't happening.

That's exactly what the decision makers said happened. It's laid out in the article as told by those decision makers.

I'm not arguing with you anymore because your argument is with reality and history, not me.

(05-14-2018 02:33 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(05-14-2018 11:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-07-2018 01:00 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(05-07-2018 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-07-2018 12:14 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

https://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go&...swc-merger


^^^^^^^^^^
Just to be clear here directly from the man in charge of the Big 8 add ons from the SWC.

You don't have to take my word for it, it's documented.

But trust your memories and not the facts

Did you read your own artcile? Your own article says exactly what I said----


Chuck Neinas, Big Eight commissioner from 1971–80, executive director of the CFA from 1980–97: ESPN did not want all the members. They wanted eight from the Big Eight and they'd take four from the Southwest Conference. Obviously, the two they wanted most were Texas and Texas A&M. I received a call from Loren Matthews, who was a key executive with ESPN with whom I had developed a good relationship. And Loren told me, he said, "Here's my problem. We want the Big Eight, but we don't want all of the Southwest Conference." I said, "Well, just let me make some phone calls, and I'm sure they'll get back to you." So I called DeLoss Dodds at Texas, Donnie Duncan at Oklahoma and Bill Byrne at Nebraska, and the rest is history.

With that, the issue became more political. Rumors still flew that Texas was headed to the Pac-10 and Texas A&M to the SEC. David Sibley, a Baylor graduate who was a Texas state senator from 1991–2000, wanted answers, and he and Rob Junell, then the chairman of the Texas House Appropriations Committee, decided to take action. They confirmed that Texas A&M still had interest in the SEC, but Texas's preference for the Big Eight and the looming ABC/ESPN compromise dictated the future of the SWC.


STAPLES: COULD TV NETWORKS EXERCISE "NUCLEAR OPTION" TO HALT BIG 12 EXPANSION?

Sibley: We had a brief conversation, and it ended with Junell saying, "Cut loose the dogs of war." At the time, Bob Bullock was the lieutenant governor, and he was a Baylor Law graduate. The speaker of the house was from Texas Tech, and [Junell] was from Texas Tech. And then the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee was a Texas Tech person, John Montford. And then there I was, representing Waco and a Baylor graduate.

Junell and Sibley mobilized on Thursday or Friday, Sibley says, and by Sunday, a group was assembled in Bullock's office to strike a deal. The lieutenant governor, along with Sibley, Montford, Cunningham and Clayton (the former speaker of the Texas House of Representatives and an A&M graduate) agreed: in addition to Texas and Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor would make the cut.

Sibley: The interesting part of this is that if this had happened two years earlier, the lieutenant governor would have been a University of Houston person and the speaker of the house would have been a TCU person. It really was an interesting confluence of events.



By the way---if you read the article---it cant all be true because the players involved effectively do not agree on what happened. One says Houston was to be the fourth---another says it was between TCU and Baylor. What many fail to realize is it actually wasnt going to be anyone other than UT and A&M until Bullock and Richards got involved (and frankly, Bullock was actually the more significant player). I also applaud this article because its one of the few that actually goes to the very start of the talks where it was to be a complete merger with all 16 teams. At the original meeting, 15 chools voted in favor of a full merger with only Texas failing to support it. What people dont understand is that these negotiations led to a series of meetings that went on for nearly 3 years with the other schools trying to come up with a series of benchmarks that would have to be met in order for all SWC schools to be included in the merger. I know for a fact these meetings were going on as late as Dec of 1993. Thats one of the reasons that Houston, SMU, TCU, and Rice were completely shocked by the early 1994 revelation that the SWC was going to be gutted.

You can stop now. You obviously struggle with being wrong. The entire section you just quoted from says exactly what I said in the very beginning.

Texas and AnM got attached at the hip because of politics. Tech came along for the ride because they are a big state school, reliable vote, and politics. TCU was going, but Texas never wanted to be in the big xii and negotiations dragged out. ESPN set the limit at four. When the vote finally happened the politics dictated Baylor go not TCU.

That's it end of story. As far as performance, do you have any idea how bad Tech was before Leach got there?

There is no contradiction in the article, they all say the same thing. The article is written talking about the merger in chronological order, not by person. So it begins with Penn St joining the big 10 and Arkansas bailing to the sec. It finishes with Baylor getting the last spot and TCU committing to proving they belong for the next round.

The collapse of the SWC occurred over time and it had many mutations before settling. First just Texas, then UT and Texas AnM were leaving. They originally were going separate ways, then the legislature told them to move together. Than the Big 8 was in trouble. Than the talk of a full merger. ESPN nixed that idea, it could only be 4. Then it was UT, AnM, Tech, and ??? SMU was the obvious choice but the death penalty was killing them still. Houston wasn't a fit. Rice had no shot. Then it was TCU and finally with the politics having turned in the state it became Baylor with the upper hand.

Or you know exactly what I have said this entire thread. Baylor got picked over TCU.

Then you didnt read it. Its says right there what Ive been saying. They wanted Texas and A&M. They'd "Take" four to get those two---but they wanted just Texas and A&M and thats the only two they were going to take until Bullock and Richards got involved. By the way, the biggest players are dead and not quoted once in your article (despite the fact they spoke on the subject often while alive). There has been an effort since that time to smooth over the real sausage making process process because Baylor and Tech want to appear as if they were chosen on their merits when they were not--so some of the more recent stuff you find will follow the narrative you have. They dont like the idea that the only reason they aren't G5 is because of politics. If you were around when all this went down--you know what really happened. The best source is archived articles from the actual time period.

I'm done arguing with you all you have is I say this and I remember that. I doubt there is a person who better understood what was going on then the big 8 commish who made it all work.

You suffer from a misconception as well that the big 8 raided the SWC. As the article explains that isn't what happened.

This is what actually happened. The big 8 thought it was a goner and going to be picked apart. Texas wanted out of the SWC and shopped itself around. AnM said f that we are out too. They were told by the state they we're sticking together. The big 8 offered to merge with the SWC. 15/16 schools voted yes. Texas abstained because they really wanted the PAC. Durring this time ESPN decided they would only take 4 of the SWC to the big 8 for the media contract. The big 8 commish said Texas and AnM duh. Who else? Well we are stuck with Tech so who gets the last spot? It's either TCU or Baylor. The politicians said you're taking Baylor or it ain't happening.

That's exactly what the decision makers said happened. It's laid out in the article as told by those decision makers.

I'm not arguing with you anymore because your argument is with reality and history, not me.

I’d like to know the ages and locations at that time of the posters on both sides of this just to make sure there’s none of this: A kid who wasn’t there reading Wikipedia or making stuff up.
I’ll start. I was 18 and living in the Lubbock area during all of this. I’m disputing there was ever such a thing as “TCU or Baylor” to the Big 12. It’s make believe based on my recollections.

SWC Football Championships, just for info in the argument:
SMU (11, 9): 1923, 1926, 1931, 1935, 1940*, 1947, 1948, 1966, 1981, 1982, 1984* (then Death Penalty, ugh!)
TCU (9, 7): 1929, 1932, 1938, 1944, 1951, 1955, 1958, 1959*, 1994*
Baylor (7, 5): 1915*, 1916, 1922, 1924, 1974, 1980, 1994*
Rice (7, 4): 1934, 1937, 1946*, 1949, 1953*, 1957, 1994*
Houston (4, 1): 1976*, 1978, 1979*, 1984*
Texas Tech (2, 0): 1976*, 1994*
* Shared crown. I did not include UT, A$M, Ark. TCU much worse than Baylor or Houston in years preceding the demise.

(05-14-2018 02:33 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(05-14-2018 11:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-07-2018 01:00 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(05-07-2018 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-07-2018 12:14 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

https://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go&...swc-merger


^^^^^^^^^^
Just to be clear here directly from the man in charge of the Big 8 add ons from the SWC.

You don't have to take my word for it, it's documented.

But trust your memories and not the facts

Did you read your own artcile? Your own article says exactly what I said----


Chuck Neinas, Big Eight commissioner from 1971–80, executive director of the CFA from 1980–97: ESPN did not want all the members. They wanted eight from the Big Eight and they'd take four from the Southwest Conference. Obviously, the two they wanted most were Texas and Texas A&M. I received a call from Loren Matthews, who was a key executive with ESPN with whom I had developed a good relationship. And Loren told me, he said, "Here's my problem. We want the Big Eight, but we don't want all of the Southwest Conference." I said, "Well, just let me make some phone calls, and I'm sure they'll get back to you." So I called DeLoss Dodds at Texas, Donnie Duncan at Oklahoma and Bill Byrne at Nebraska, and the rest is history.

With that, the issue became more political. Rumors still flew that Texas was headed to the Pac-10 and Texas A&M to the SEC. David Sibley, a Baylor graduate who was a Texas state senator from 1991–2000, wanted answers, and he and Rob Junell, then the chairman of the Texas House Appropriations Committee, decided to take action. They confirmed that Texas A&M still had interest in the SEC, but Texas's preference for the Big Eight and the looming ABC/ESPN compromise dictated the future of the SWC.


STAPLES: COULD TV NETWORKS EXERCISE "NUCLEAR OPTION" TO HALT BIG 12 EXPANSION?

Sibley: We had a brief conversation, and it ended with Junell saying, "Cut loose the dogs of war." At the time, Bob Bullock was the lieutenant governor, and he was a Baylor Law graduate. The speaker of the house was from Texas Tech, and [Junell] was from Texas Tech. And then the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee was a Texas Tech person, John Montford. And then there I was, representing Waco and a Baylor graduate.

Junell and Sibley mobilized on Thursday or Friday, Sibley says, and by Sunday, a group was assembled in Bullock's office to strike a deal. The lieutenant governor, along with Sibley, Montford, Cunningham and Clayton (the former speaker of the Texas House of Representatives and an A&M graduate) agreed: in addition to Texas and Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor would make the cut.

Sibley: The interesting part of this is that if this had happened two years earlier, the lieutenant governor would have been a University of Houston person and the speaker of the house would have been a TCU person. It really was an interesting confluence of events.



By the way---if you read the article---it cant all be true because the players involved effectively do not agree on what happened. One says Houston was to be the fourth---another says it was between TCU and Baylor. What many fail to realize is it actually wasnt going to be anyone other than UT and A&M until Bullock and Richards got involved (and frankly, Bullock was actually the more significant player). I also applaud this article because its one of the few that actually goes to the very start of the talks where it was to be a complete merger with all 16 teams. At the original meeting, 15 chools voted in favor of a full merger with only Texas failing to support it. What people dont understand is that these negotiations led to a series of meetings that went on for nearly 3 years with the other schools trying to come up with a series of benchmarks that would have to be met in order for all SWC schools to be included in the merger. I know for a fact these meetings were going on as late as Dec of 1993. Thats one of the reasons that Houston, SMU, TCU, and Rice were completely shocked by the early 1994 revelation that the SWC was going to be gutted.

You can stop now. You obviously struggle with being wrong. The entire section you just quoted from says exactly what I said in the very beginning.

Texas and AnM got attached at the hip because of politics. Tech came along for the ride because they are a big state school, reliable vote, and politics. TCU was going, but Texas never wanted to be in the big xii and negotiations dragged out. ESPN set the limit at four. When the vote finally happened the politics dictated Baylor go not TCU.

That's it end of story. As far as performance, do you have any idea how bad Tech was before Leach got there?

There is no contradiction in the article, they all say the same thing. The article is written talking about the merger in chronological order, not by person. So it begins with Penn St joining the big 10 and Arkansas bailing to the sec. It finishes with Baylor getting the last spot and TCU committing to proving they belong for the next round.

The collapse of the SWC occurred over time and it had many mutations before settling. First just Texas, then UT and Texas AnM were leaving. They originally were going separate ways, then the legislature told them to move together. Than the Big 8 was in trouble. Than the talk of a full merger. ESPN nixed that idea, it could only be 4. Then it was UT, AnM, Tech, and ??? SMU was the obvious choice but the death penalty was killing them still. Houston wasn't a fit. Rice had no shot. Then it was TCU and finally with the politics having turned in the state it became Baylor with the upper hand.

Or you know exactly what I have said this entire thread. Baylor got picked over TCU.

Then you didnt read it. Its says right there what Ive been saying. They wanted Texas and A&M. They'd "Take" four to get those two---but they wanted just Texas and A&M and thats the only two they were going to take until Bullock and Richards got involved. By the way, the biggest players are dead and not quoted once in your article (despite the fact they spoke on the subject often while alive). There has been an effort since that time to smooth over the real sausage making process process because Baylor and Tech want to appear as if they were chosen on their merits when they were not--so some of the more recent stuff you find will follow the narrative you have. They dont like the idea that the only reason they aren't G5 is because of politics. If you were around when all this went down--you know what really happened. The best source is archived articles from the actual time period.

I'm done arguing with you all you have is I say this and I remember that. I doubt there is a person who better understood what was going on then the big 8 commish who made it all work.

You suffer from a misconception as well that the big 8 raided the SWC. As the article explains that isn't what happened.

This is what actually happened. The big 8 thought it was a goner and going to be picked apart. Texas wanted out of the SWC and shopped itself around. AnM said f that we are out too. They were told by the state they we're sticking together. The big 8 offered to merge with the SWC. 15/16 schools voted yes. Texas abstained because they really wanted the PAC. Durring this time ESPN decided they would only take 4 of the SWC to the big 8 for the media contract. The big 8 commish said Texas and AnM duh. Who else? Well we are stuck with Tech so who gets the last spot? It's either TCU or Baylor. The politicians said you're taking Baylor or it ain't happening.

That's exactly what the decision makers said happened. It's laid out in the article as told by those decision makers.

I'm not arguing with you anymore because your argument is with reality and history, not me.

Revisionsist history always occurs after the key people die. Below--in an excerpt from the book "Bob Bullock: God Bless Texas", is what Bob Bullock says happened (which is exactly how I remember it unfolding in the newspapers at that time).

Bullock, the cantankerous late lieutenant governor, wasn’t real keen on folks doing something other than what he wanted.

From the book:

Sometime in the 1990s, a transformation was taking place in the way college athletic programs were financed. Conferences, rather than central organizations (the NCAA, the College Football Association) began negotiating their own television contracts, leading the more powerful schools into a superconference mentality. The stronger the conference, the more lucrative the contract. After Arkansas bolted from the Southwest Conference for the Southeast, athletic directors from the Southwest Conference and the Big 8 began discussions about their own superconference. The talks centered on Texas and Texas A&M joining the Big 8, leaving TCU, Houston, Rice, Baylor, Texas Tech and SMU to fend for themselves in a much weakened Southwest Conference.

The athletic directors overlooked a few critical factors. Bob Bullock and Gov. Richards were Baylor grads. Bullock and Sen. John Montford, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, were Texas Tech grads, as was House Speaker Laney and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rob Junell. Stiff-arming them would not be easy.

Bullock, invigorated by the triumph and praise of the previous legislative session, summoned Bill Cunningham of UT and Herb Richardson of A&M to his office early in 1994, when the conference shuffle – converting the Big 8 to the Big 10 – was on the verge of being a done deal. Glaring at the two men he said, “You’re taking Tech and Baylor or you’re not taking anything. I’ll cut your money off and you can join privately if you want, but you won’t get another nickel of state money.”

The university representatives apparently believed the subject was open for discussion, that they had a negotiating position. When they expressed hesitation, Bullock cut them off. “If you want to try me, go ahead,” he said.

“Governor, we understand,” Cunningham said.

At that moment, for all practical purposes, the Big 8 became the Big 12.



http://www.itemonline.com/opinion/bob-bu...202de.html

(05-14-2018 07:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-14-2018 02:33 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(05-14-2018 11:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-07-2018 01:00 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(05-07-2018 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Did you read your own artcile? Your own article says exactly what I said----


Chuck Neinas, Big Eight commissioner from 1971–80, executive director of the CFA from 1980–97: ESPN did not want all the members. They wanted eight from the Big Eight and they'd take four from the Southwest Conference. Obviously, the two they wanted most were Texas and Texas A&M. I received a call from Loren Matthews, who was a key executive with ESPN with whom I had developed a good relationship. And Loren told me, he said, "Here's my problem. We want the Big Eight, but we don't want all of the Southwest Conference." I said, "Well, just let me make some phone calls, and I'm sure they'll get back to you." So I called DeLoss Dodds at Texas, Donnie Duncan at Oklahoma and Bill Byrne at Nebraska, and the rest is history.

With that, the issue became more political. Rumors still flew that Texas was headed to the Pac-10 and Texas A&M to the SEC. David Sibley, a Baylor graduate who was a Texas state senator from 1991–2000, wanted answers, and he and Rob Junell, then the chairman of the Texas House Appropriations Committee, decided to take action. They confirmed that Texas A&M still had interest in the SEC, but Texas's preference for the Big Eight and the looming ABC/ESPN compromise dictated the future of the SWC.


STAPLES: COULD TV NETWORKS EXERCISE "NUCLEAR OPTION" TO HALT BIG 12 EXPANSION?

Sibley: We had a brief conversation, and it ended with Junell saying, "Cut loose the dogs of war." At the time, Bob Bullock was the lieutenant governor, and he was a Baylor Law graduate. The speaker of the house was from Texas Tech, and [Junell] was from Texas Tech. And then the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee was a Texas Tech person, John Montford. And then there I was, representing Waco and a Baylor graduate.

Junell and Sibley mobilized on Thursday or Friday, Sibley says, and by Sunday, a group was assembled in Bullock's office to strike a deal. The lieutenant governor, along with Sibley, Montford, Cunningham and Clayton (the former speaker of the Texas House of Representatives and an A&M graduate) agreed: in addition to Texas and Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor would make the cut.

Sibley: The interesting part of this is that if this had happened two years earlier, the lieutenant governor would have been a University of Houston person and the speaker of the house would have been a TCU person. It really was an interesting confluence of events.



By the way---if you read the article---it cant all be true because the players involved effectively do not agree on what happened. One says Houston was to be the fourth---another says it was between TCU and Baylor. What many fail to realize is it actually wasnt going to be anyone other than UT and A&M until Bullock and Richards got involved (and frankly, Bullock was actually the more significant player). I also applaud this article because its one of the few that actually goes to the very start of the talks where it was to be a complete merger with all 16 teams. At the original meeting, 15 chools voted in favor of a full merger with only Texas failing to support it. What people dont understand is that these negotiations led to a series of meetings that went on for nearly 3 years with the other schools trying to come up with a series of benchmarks that would have to be met in order for all SWC schools to be included in the merger. I know for a fact these meetings were going on as late as Dec of 1993. Thats one of the reasons that Houston, SMU, TCU, and Rice were completely shocked by the early 1994 revelation that the SWC was going to be gutted.

You can stop now. You obviously struggle with being wrong. The entire section you just quoted from says exactly what I said in the very beginning.

Texas and AnM got attached at the hip because of politics. Tech came along for the ride because they are a big state school, reliable vote, and politics. TCU was going, but Texas never wanted to be in the big xii and negotiations dragged out. ESPN set the limit at four. When the vote finally happened the politics dictated Baylor go not TCU.

That's it end of story. As far as performance, do you have any idea how bad Tech was before Leach got there?

There is no contradiction in the article, they all say the same thing. The article is written talking about the merger in chronological order, not by person. So it begins with Penn St joining the big 10 and Arkansas bailing to the sec. It finishes with Baylor getting the last spot and TCU committing to proving they belong for the next round.

The collapse of the SWC occurred over time and it had many mutations before settling. First just Texas, then UT and Texas AnM were leaving. They originally were going separate ways, then the legislature told them to move together. Than the Big 8 was in trouble. Than the talk of a full merger. ESPN nixed that idea, it could only be 4. Then it was UT, AnM, Tech, and ??? SMU was the obvious choice but the death penalty was killing them still. Houston wasn't a fit. Rice had no shot. Then it was TCU and finally with the politics having turned in the state it became Baylor with the upper hand.

Or you know exactly what I have said this entire thread. Baylor got picked over TCU.

Then you didnt read it. Its says right there what Ive been saying. They wanted Texas and A&M. They'd "Take" four to get those two---but they wanted just Texas and A&M and thats the only two they were going to take until Bullock and Richards got involved. By the way, the biggest players are dead and not quoted once in your article (despite the fact they spoke on the subject often while alive). There has been an effort since that time to smooth over the real sausage making process process because Baylor and Tech want to appear as if they were chosen on their merits when they were not--so some of the more recent stuff you find will follow the narrative you have. They dont like the idea that the only reason they aren't G5 is because of politics. If you were around when all this went down--you know what really happened. The best source is archived articles from the actual time period.

I'm done arguing with you all you have is I say this and I remember that. I doubt there is a person who better understood what was going on then the big 8 commish who made it all work.

You suffer from a misconception as well that the big 8 raided the SWC. As the article explains that isn't what happened.

This is what actually happened. The big 8 thought it was a goner and going to be picked apart. Texas wanted out of the SWC and shopped itself around. AnM said f that we are out too. They were told by the state they we're sticking together. The big 8 offered to merge with the SWC. 15/16 schools voted yes. Texas abstained because they really wanted the PAC. Durring this time ESPN decided they would only take 4 of the SWC to the big 8 for the media contract. The big 8 commish said Texas and AnM duh. Who else? Well we are stuck with Tech so who gets the last spot? It's either TCU or Baylor. The politicians said you're taking Baylor or it ain't happening.

That's exactly what the decision makers said happened. It's laid out in the article as told by those decision makers.

I'm not arguing with you anymore because your argument is with reality and history, not me.

Revisionsist history always occurs after the key people die. Below--in an excerpt from the book "Bob Bullock: God Bless Texas", is what Bob Bullock himself says happened (which is exactly how I remember it unfolding in the newspapers at that time).

Bullock, the cantankerous late lieutenant governor, wasn’t real keen on folks doing something other than what he wanted.

From the book:

Sometime in the 1990s, a transformation was taking place in the way college athletic programs were financed. Conferences, rather than central organizations (the NCAA, the College Football Association) began negotiating their own television contracts, leading the more powerful schools into a superconference mentality. The stronger the conference, the more lucrative the contract. After Arkansas bolted from the Southwest Conference for the Southeast, athletic directors from the Southwest Conference and the Big 8 began discussions about their own superconference. The talks centered on Texas and Texas A&M joining the Big 8, leaving TCU, Houston, Rice, Baylor, Texas Tech and SMU to fend for themselves in a much weakened Southwest Conference.

The athletic directors overlooked a few critical factors. Bob Bullock and Gov. Richards were Baylor grads. Bullock and Sen. John Montford, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, were Texas Tech grads, as was House Speaker Laney and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rob Junell. Stiff-arming them would not be easy.

Bullock, invigorated by the triumph and praise of the previous legislative session, summoned Bill Cunningham of UT and Herb Richardson of A&M to his office early in 1994, when the conference shuffle – converting the Big 8 to the Big 10 – was on the verge of being a done deal. Glaring at the two men he said, “You’re taking Tech and Baylor or you’re not taking anything. I’ll cut your money off and you can join privately if you want, but you won’t get another nickel of state money.”

The university representatives apparently believed the subject was open for discussion, that they had a negotiating position. When they expressed hesitation, Bullock cut them off. “If you want to try me, go ahead,” he said.

“Governor, we understand,” Cunningham said.

At that moment, for all practical purposes, the Big 8 became the Big 12.



http://www.itemonline.com/opinion/bob-bu...202de.html

Tulane University is actually the University that should get the MOST credit for the formation for the Big 12 ... After their very poorly thought out withdrew from the SEC the folks in New Orleans began scrambling in search for another Home for Tulane Athletics .. They talked on and off over a couple of decades with the Southwest Conference .. However , nothing very serious occurred until Arkansas withdrew to take Tulane’s former spot in the SEC .. Then things started heating up .. and “ Official “ Party of SWC bigwigs did a “ Formal “ visit to the Tulane Campus in New Orleans ..and they were just about ready to pull the trigger .. Until , the folks at ESPN and the Big 8 began to float a very different idea .. So Tulane was never “ Officially “ invited to the SWC and Four Members of the SWC joined to Big 8 .. and the rest were left to scramble .. HAD TULANE DONE A BETTER SALES JOB HISTORY MAY HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT ..!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And now for something completely different

(05-14-2018 07:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-14-2018 02:33 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(05-14-2018 11:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-07-2018 01:00 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(05-07-2018 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Did you read your own artcile? Your own article says exactly what I said----


Chuck Neinas, Big Eight commissioner from 1971–80, executive director of the CFA from 1980–97: ESPN did not want all the members. They wanted eight from the Big Eight and they'd take four from the Southwest Conference. Obviously, the two they wanted most were Texas and Texas A&M. I received a call from Loren Matthews, who was a key executive with ESPN with whom I had developed a good relationship. And Loren told me, he said, "Here's my problem. We want the Big Eight, but we don't want all of the Southwest Conference." I said, "Well, just let me make some phone calls, and I'm sure they'll get back to you." So I called DeLoss Dodds at Texas, Donnie Duncan at Oklahoma and Bill Byrne at Nebraska, and the rest is history.

With that, the issue became more political. Rumors still flew that Texas was headed to the Pac-10 and Texas A&M to the SEC. David Sibley, a Baylor graduate who was a Texas state senator from 1991–2000, wanted answers, and he and Rob Junell, then the chairman of the Texas House Appropriations Committee, decided to take action. They confirmed that Texas A&M still had interest in the SEC, but Texas's preference for the Big Eight and the looming ABC/ESPN compromise dictated the future of the SWC.


STAPLES: COULD TV NETWORKS EXERCISE "NUCLEAR OPTION" TO HALT BIG 12 EXPANSION?

Sibley: We had a brief conversation, and it ended with Junell saying, "Cut loose the dogs of war." At the time, Bob Bullock was the lieutenant governor, and he was a Baylor Law graduate. The speaker of the house was from Texas Tech, and [Junell] was from Texas Tech. And then the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee was a Texas Tech person, John Montford. And then there I was, representing Waco and a Baylor graduate.

Junell and Sibley mobilized on Thursday or Friday, Sibley says, and by Sunday, a group was assembled in Bullock's office to strike a deal. The lieutenant governor, along with Sibley, Montford, Cunningham and Clayton (the former speaker of the Texas House of Representatives and an A&M graduate) agreed: in addition to Texas and Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor would make the cut.

Sibley: The interesting part of this is that if this had happened two years earlier, the lieutenant governor would have been a University of Houston person and the speaker of the house would have been a TCU person. It really was an interesting confluence of events.



By the way---if you read the article---it cant all be true because the players involved effectively do not agree on what happened. One says Houston was to be the fourth---another says it was between TCU and Baylor. What many fail to realize is it actually wasnt going to be anyone other than UT and A&M until Bullock and Richards got involved (and frankly, Bullock was actually the more significant player). I also applaud this article because its one of the few that actually goes to the very start of the talks where it was to be a complete merger with all 16 teams. At the original meeting, 15 chools voted in favor of a full merger with only Texas failing to support it. What people dont understand is that these negotiations led to a series of meetings that went on for nearly 3 years with the other schools trying to come up with a series of benchmarks that would have to be met in order for all SWC schools to be included in the merger. I know for a fact these meetings were going on as late as Dec of 1993. Thats one of the reasons that Houston, SMU, TCU, and Rice were completely shocked by the early 1994 revelation that the SWC was going to be gutted.

You can stop now. You obviously struggle with being wrong. The entire section you just quoted from says exactly what I said in the very beginning.

Texas and AnM got attached at the hip because of politics. Tech came along for the ride because they are a big state school, reliable vote, and politics. TCU was going, but Texas never wanted to be in the big xii and negotiations dragged out. ESPN set the limit at four. When the vote finally happened the politics dictated Baylor go not TCU.

That's it end of story. As far as performance, do you have any idea how bad Tech was before Leach got there?

There is no contradiction in the article, they all say the same thing. The article is written talking about the merger in chronological order, not by person. So it begins with Penn St joining the big 10 and Arkansas bailing to the sec. It finishes with Baylor getting the last spot and TCU committing to proving they belong for the next round.

The collapse of the SWC occurred over time and it had many mutations before settling. First just Texas, then UT and Texas AnM were leaving. They originally were going separate ways, then the legislature told them to move together. Than the Big 8 was in trouble. Than the talk of a full merger. ESPN nixed that idea, it could only be 4. Then it was UT, AnM, Tech, and ??? SMU was the obvious choice but the death penalty was killing them still. Houston wasn't a fit. Rice had no shot. Then it was TCU and finally with the politics having turned in the state it became Baylor with the upper hand.

Or you know exactly what I have said this entire thread. Baylor got picked over TCU.

Then you didnt read it. Its says right there what Ive been saying. They wanted Texas and A&M. They'd "Take" four to get those two---but they wanted just Texas and A&M and thats the only two they were going to take until Bullock and Richards got involved. By the way, the biggest players are dead and not quoted once in your article (despite the fact they spoke on the subject often while alive). There has been an effort since that time to smooth over the real sausage making process process because Baylor and Tech want to appear as if they were chosen on their merits when they were not--so some of the more recent stuff you find will follow the narrative you have. They dont like the idea that the only reason they aren't G5 is because of politics. If you were around when all this went down--you know what really happened. The best source is archived articles from the actual time period.

I'm done arguing with you all you have is I say this and I remember that. I doubt there is a person who better understood what was going on then the big 8 commish who made it all work.

You suffer from a misconception as well that the big 8 raided the SWC. As the article explains that isn't what happened.

This is what actually happened. The big 8 thought it was a goner and going to be picked apart. Texas wanted out of the SWC and shopped itself around. AnM said f that we are out too. They were told by the state they we're sticking together. The big 8 offered to merge with the SWC. 15/16 schools voted yes. Texas abstained because they really wanted the PAC. Durring this time ESPN decided they would only take 4 of the SWC to the big 8 for the media contract. The big 8 commish said Texas and AnM duh. Who else? Well we are stuck with Tech so who gets the last spot? It's either TCU or Baylor. The politicians said you're taking Baylor or it ain't happening.

That's exactly what the decision makers said happened. It's laid out in the article as told by those decision makers.

I'm not arguing with you anymore because your argument is with reality and history, not me.

Revisionsist history always occurs after the key people die. Below--in an excerpt from the book "Bob Bullock: God Bless Texas", is what Bob Bullock says happened (which is exactly how I remember it unfolding in the newspapers at that time).

Bullock, the cantankerous late lieutenant governor, wasn’t real keen on folks doing something other than what he wanted.

From the book:

Sometime in the 1990s, a transformation was taking place in the way college athletic programs were financed. Conferences, rather than central organizations (the NCAA, the College Football Association) began negotiating their own television contracts, leading the more powerful schools into a superconference mentality. The stronger the conference, the more lucrative the contract. After Arkansas bolted from the Southwest Conference for the Southeast, athletic directors from the Southwest Conference and the Big 8 began discussions about their own superconference. The talks centered on Texas and Texas A&M joining the Big 8, leaving TCU, Houston, Rice, Baylor, Texas Tech and SMU to fend for themselves in a much weakened Southwest Conference.

The athletic directors overlooked a few critical factors. Bob Bullock and Gov. Richards were Baylor grads. Bullock and Sen. John Montford, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, were Texas Tech grads, as was House Speaker Laney and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rob Junell. Stiff-arming them would not be easy.

Bullock, invigorated by the triumph and praise of the previous legislative session, summoned Bill Cunningham of UT and Herb Richardson of A&M to his office early in 1994, when the conference shuffle – converting the Big 8 to the Big 10 – was on the verge of being a done deal. Glaring at the two men he said, “You’re taking Tech and Baylor or you’re not taking anything. I’ll cut your money off and you can join privately if you want, but you won’t get another nickel of state money.”

The university representatives apparently believed the subject was open for discussion, that they had a negotiating position. When they expressed hesitation, Bullock cut them off. “If you want to try me, go ahead,” he said.

“Governor, we understand,” Cunningham said.

At that moment, for all practical purposes, the Big 8 became the Big 12.



http://www.itemonline.com/opinion/bob-bu...202de.html

Yeah, so you want me to believe a snippit from a biography about a guy, that makes it look like he was the major player.

Never mind the multiple contradictions from multiple sources who were involved in it from the start.

At no time were Texas AnM and Texas the only people invited to the big 8. It never happened. So I can take the journalist first person multiple view and sourced in-depth article about it . Or I can take a paragraph from a biography that's specifity is sometimes in the 1990s and makes put the subject of the book to be the decision maker.

Hmm which one of these is a good source?

I also remember how it happened. You can go search the Oklahoman or the TulsaWorld from then and they follow the same Sports Illustrated story. Never we're just Texas and AnM the only invites. The Big 8 wanted a full merge. It was the first vote taken about the merger. 15 yes one abstained, Texas. Texas wanted to dump the SWC the big 8 wanted them all. ESPN told them only 4.

So I'm going to need an actual sports story not a vague blurb in a non fact checked biography that makes said subject of biography the star. Especially a biography Bob's wife claimed was inaccurate. You know revisionist history when someone dies?

So should I believe the word of the texas chancellor, the big commish, the various coaches and ad's, all saying the same thing? Or the biographer who wasn't in the room and gives no other references or direct quotes and has no confirmation his version happened?

This thread is no longer on topic

(05-15-2018 12:16 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(05-14-2018 07:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-14-2018 02:33 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(05-14-2018 11:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-07-2018 01:00 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  You can stop now. You obviously struggle with being wrong. The entire section you just quoted from says exactly what I said in the very beginning.

Texas and AnM got attached at the hip because of politics. Tech came along for the ride because they are a big state school, reliable vote, and politics. TCU was going, but Texas never wanted to be in the big xii and negotiations dragged out. ESPN set the limit at four. When the vote finally happened the politics dictated Baylor go not TCU.

That's it end of story. As far as performance, do you have any idea how bad Tech was before Leach got there?

There is no contradiction in the article, they all say the same thing. The article is written talking about the merger in chronological order, not by person. So it begins with Penn St joining the big 10 and Arkansas bailing to the sec. It finishes with Baylor getting the last spot and TCU committing to proving they belong for the next round.

The collapse of the SWC occurred over time and it had many mutations before settling. First just Texas, then UT and Texas AnM were leaving. They originally were going separate ways, then the legislature told them to move together. Than the Big 8 was in trouble. Than the talk of a full merger. ESPN nixed that idea, it could only be 4. Then it was UT, AnM, Tech, and ??? SMU was the obvious choice but the death penalty was killing them still. Houston wasn't a fit. Rice had no shot. Then it was TCU and finally with the politics having turned in the state it became Baylor with the upper hand.

Or you know exactly what I have said this entire thread. Baylor got picked over TCU.

Then you didnt read it. Its says right there what Ive been saying. They wanted Texas and A&M. They'd "Take" four to get those two---but they wanted just Texas and A&M and thats the only two they were going to take until Bullock and Richards got involved. By the way, the biggest players are dead and not quoted once in your article (despite the fact they spoke on the subject often while alive). There has been an effort since that time to smooth over the real sausage making process process because Baylor and Tech want to appear as if they were chosen on their merits when they were not--so some of the more recent stuff you find will follow the narrative you have. They dont like the idea that the only reason they aren't G5 is because of politics. If you were around when all this went down--you know what really happened. The best source is archived articles from the actual time period.

I'm done arguing with you all you have is I say this and I remember that. I doubt there is a person who better understood what was going on then the big 8 commish who made it all work.

You suffer from a misconception as well that the big 8 raided the SWC. As the article explains that isn't what happened.

This is what actually happened. The big 8 thought it was a goner and going to be picked apart. Texas wanted out of the SWC and shopped itself around. AnM said f that we are out too. They were told by the state they we're sticking together. The big 8 offered to merge with the SWC. 15/16 schools voted yes. Texas abstained because they really wanted the PAC. Durring this time ESPN decided they would only take 4 of the SWC to the big 8 for the media contract. The big 8 commish said Texas and AnM duh. Who else? Well we are stuck with Tech so who gets the last spot? It's either TCU or Baylor. The politicians said you're taking Baylor or it ain't happening.

That's exactly what the decision makers said happened. It's laid out in the article as told by those decision makers.

I'm not arguing with you anymore because your argument is with reality and history, not me.

Revisionsist history always occurs after the key people die. Below--in an excerpt from the book "Bob Bullock: God Bless Texas", is what Bob Bullock says happened (which is exactly how I remember it unfolding in the newspapers at that time).

Bullock, the cantankerous late lieutenant governor, wasn’t real keen on folks doing something other than what he wanted.

From the book:

Sometime in the 1990s, a transformation was taking place in the way college athletic programs were financed. Conferences, rather than central organizations (the NCAA, the College Football Association) began negotiating their own television contracts, leading the more powerful schools into a superconference mentality. The stronger the conference, the more lucrative the contract. After Arkansas bolted from the Southwest Conference for the Southeast, athletic directors from the Southwest Conference and the Big 8 began discussions about their own superconference. The talks centered on Texas and Texas A&M joining the Big 8, leaving TCU, Houston, Rice, Baylor, Texas Tech and SMU to fend for themselves in a much weakened Southwest Conference.

The athletic directors overlooked a few critical factors. Bob Bullock and Gov. Richards were Baylor grads. Bullock and Sen. John Montford, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, were Texas Tech grads, as was House Speaker Laney and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rob Junell. Stiff-arming them would not be easy.

Bullock, invigorated by the triumph and praise of the previous legislative session, summoned Bill Cunningham of UT and Herb Richardson of A&M to his office early in 1994, when the conference shuffle – converting the Big 8 to the Big 10 – was on the verge of being a done deal. Glaring at the two men he said, “You’re taking Tech and Baylor or you’re not taking anything. I’ll cut your money off and you can join privately if you want, but you won’t get another nickel of state money.”

The university representatives apparently believed the subject was open for discussion, that they had a negotiating position. When they expressed hesitation, Bullock cut them off. “If you want to try me, go ahead,” he said.

“Governor, we understand,” Cunningham said.

At that moment, for all practical purposes, the Big 8 became the Big 12.



http://www.itemonline.com/opinion/bob-bu...202de.html

Yeah, so you want me to believe a snippit from a biography about a guy, that makes it look like he was the major player.

Never mind the multiple contradictions from multiple sources who were involved in it from the start.

At no time were Texas AnM and Texas the only people invited to the big 8. It never happened. So I can take the journalist first person multiple view and sourced in-depth article about it . Or I can take a paragraph from a biography that's specifity is sometimes in the 1990s and makes put the subject of the book to be the decision maker.

Hmm which one of these is a good source?

I also remember how it happened. You can go search the Oklahoman or the TulsaWorld from then and they follow the same Sports Illustrated story. Never we're just Texas and AnM the only invites. The Big 8 wanted a full merge. It was the first vote taken about the merger. 15 yes one abstained, Texas. Texas wanted to dump the SWC the big 8 wanted them all. ESPN told them only 4.

So I'm going to need an actual sports story not a vague blurb in a non fact checked biography that makes said subject of biography the star. Especially a biography Bob's wife claimed was inaccurate. You know revisionist history when someone dies?

So should I believe the word of the texas chancellor, the big commish, the various coaches and ad's, all saying the same thing? Or the biographer who wasn't in the room and gives no other references or direct quotes and has no confirmation his version happened?

Naw---you'd rather rely on 25 year old memories that fluff up the role they played. They are completely full of it. The prize they were all after was UT. Honestly, becasue of that, Dodd drove all the negotiations because Dodd represented the only vote that mattered---Texas. The only person Texas had to listen to at the time was Bullock and Richards--which is why things broke the way they did.


From the digital archives of the Houston Chronicle article that appeared on 02/22/1994.


State Rep. Rob Junell, D-San Angelo, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said last week the Legislature would "look very closely" at changes in SWC membership.
A source close to Monday's discussions said Texas and Texas A&M officials did not believe their schools could leave the SWC by themselves without an appropriations fight with the Legislature. "Neither A&M or Texas is strong enough to go out on its own," the source said. "We'd get raped in appropriations."
But the source said much of the legislative pressure could be alleviated because the Big Eight invitations include Texas Tech and Baylor. Both Junell and Texas House Speaker Pete Laney are Tech graduates, and Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock, who presides over the Texas Senate, and Gov. Ann Richards graduated from Baylor


That sure sounds like what one might say after the meeting referenced in my previous post.

(05-15-2018 02:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-15-2018 12:16 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(05-14-2018 07:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-14-2018 02:33 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(05-14-2018 11:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Then you didnt read it. Its says right there what Ive been saying. They wanted Texas and A&M. They'd "Take" four to get those two---but they wanted just Texas and A&M and thats the only two they were going to take until Bullock and Richards got involved. By the way, the biggest players are dead and not quoted once in your article (despite the fact they spoke on the subject often while alive). There has been an effort since that time to smooth over the real sausage making process process because Baylor and Tech want to appear as if they were chosen on their merits when they were not--so some of the more recent stuff you find will follow the narrative you have. They dont like the idea that the only reason they aren't G5 is because of politics. If you were around when all this went down--you know what really happened. The best source is archived articles from the actual time period.

I'm done arguing with you all you have is I say this and I remember that. I doubt there is a person who better understood what was going on then the big 8 commish who made it all work.

You suffer from a misconception as well that the big 8 raided the SWC. As the article explains that isn't what happened.

This is what actually happened. The big 8 thought it was a goner and going to be picked apart. Texas wanted out of the SWC and shopped itself around. AnM said f that we are out too. They were told by the state they we're sticking together. The big 8 offered to merge with the SWC. 15/16 schools voted yes. Texas abstained because they really wanted the PAC. Durring this time ESPN decided they would only take 4 of the SWC to the big 8 for the media contract. The big 8 commish said Texas and AnM duh. Who else? Well we are stuck with Tech so who gets the last spot? It's either TCU or Baylor. The politicians said you're taking Baylor or it ain't happening.

That's exactly what the decision makers said happened. It's laid out in the article as told by those decision makers.

I'm not arguing with you anymore because your argument is with reality and history, not me.

Revisionsist history always occurs after the key people die. Below--in an excerpt from the book "Bob Bullock: God Bless Texas", is what Bob Bullock says happened (which is exactly how I remember it unfolding in the newspapers at that time).

Bullock, the cantankerous late lieutenant governor, wasn’t real keen on folks doing something other than what he wanted.

From the book:

Sometime in the 1990s, a transformation was taking place in the way college athletic programs were financed. Conferences, rather than central organizations (the NCAA, the College Football Association) began negotiating their own television contracts, leading the more powerful schools into a superconference mentality. The stronger the conference, the more lucrative the contract. After Arkansas bolted from the Southwest Conference for the Southeast, athletic directors from the Southwest Conference and the Big 8 began discussions about their own superconference. The talks centered on Texas and Texas A&M joining the Big 8, leaving TCU, Houston, Rice, Baylor, Texas Tech and SMU to fend for themselves in a much weakened Southwest Conference.

The athletic directors overlooked a few critical factors. Bob Bullock and Gov. Richards were Baylor grads. Bullock and Sen. John Montford, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, were Texas Tech grads, as was House Speaker Laney and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rob Junell. Stiff-arming them would not be easy.

Bullock, invigorated by the triumph and praise of the previous legislative session, summoned Bill Cunningham of UT and Herb Richardson of A&M to his office early in 1994, when the conference shuffle – converting the Big 8 to the Big 10 – was on the verge of being a done deal. Glaring at the two men he said, “You’re taking Tech and Baylor or you’re not taking anything. I’ll cut your money off and you can join privately if you want, but you won’t get another nickel of state money.”

The university representatives apparently believed the subject was open for discussion, that they had a negotiating position. When they expressed hesitation, Bullock cut them off. “If you want to try me, go ahead,” he said.

“Governor, we understand,” Cunningham said.

At that moment, for all practical purposes, the Big 8 became the Big 12.



http://www.itemonline.com/opinion/bob-bu...202de.html

Yeah, so you want me to believe a snippit from a biography about a guy, that makes it look like he was the major player.

Never mind the multiple contradictions from multiple sources who were involved in it from the start.

At no time were Texas AnM and Texas the only people invited to the big 8. It never happened. So I can take the journalist first person multiple view and sourced in-depth article about it . Or I can take a paragraph from a biography that's specifity is sometimes in the 1990s and makes put the subject of the book to be the decision maker.

Hmm which one of these is a good source?

I also remember how it happened. You can go search the Oklahoman or the TulsaWorld from then and they follow the same Sports Illustrated story. Never we're just Texas and AnM the only invites. The Big 8 wanted a full merge. It was the first vote taken about the merger. 15 yes one abstained, Texas. Texas wanted to dump the SWC the big 8 wanted them all. ESPN told them only 4.

So I'm going to need an actual sports story not a vague blurb in a non fact checked biography that makes said subject of biography the star. Especially a biography Bob's wife claimed was inaccurate. You know revisionist history when someone dies?

So should I believe the word of the texas chancellor, the big commish, the various coaches and ad's, all saying the same thing? Or the biographer who wasn't in the room and gives no other references or direct quotes and has no confirmation his version happened?

Naw---you'd rather rely on 25 year old memories that fluff up the role they played. They are completely full of it. The prize they were all after was UT. Honestly, becasue of that, Dodd drove all the negotiations because Dodd represented the only vote that mattered---Texas. The only person Texas had to listen to at the time was Bullock and Richards--which is why things broke the way they did.


From the digital archives of the Houston Chronicle article that appeared on 02/22/1994.


State Rep. Rob Junell, D-San Angelo, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said last week the Legislature would "look very closely" at changes in SWC membership.
A source close to Monday's discussions said Texas and Texas A&M officials did not believe their schools could leave the SWC by themselves without an appropriations fight with the Legislature. "Neither A&M or Texas is strong enough to go out on its own," the source said. "We'd get raped in appropriations."
But the source said much of the legislative pressure could be alleviated because the Big Eight invitations include Texas Tech and Baylor. Both Junell and Texas House Speaker Pete Laney are Tech graduates, and Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock, who presides over the Texas Senate, and Gov. Ann Richards graduated from Baylor


That sure sounds like what one might say after the meeting referenced in my previous post.

Or exactly what was said in the article form s.i. happened in February of 1994. Right before the formation of the big xii.

As the chronicle paper you cite is from 3 days before the formation and the big 8 and swc meeting in the article with the merger vote happens months before that. You know, proving the point that Texas and AnM were never considered alone that originally it was all of the SWC till Texas threw a wrench in it and espn made a hone call saying to only take 4. At which point it came down to TCU and Baylor.

Or you know exactly what I and the indepth sports article says. The one you obviously didn't read because it tells you that had they taken the vote when all of this started the politicians in power were TCU guys. That the drawn out process by Texas who really wanted the PAC, allowed Baylor to slide in with the political change.


Junell and Sibley mobilized on Thursday or Friday, Sibley says, and by Sunday, a group was assembled in Bullock's office to strike a deal. The lieutenant governor, along with Sibley, Montford, Cunningham and Clayton (the former speaker of the Texas House of Representatives and an A&M graduate) agreed: in addition to Texas and Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor would make the cut.

Sibley: The interesting part of this is that if this had happened two years earlier, the lieutenant governor would have been a University of Houston person and the speaker of the house would have been a TCU person. It really was an interesting confluence of events.

Funny all those people tell the same story and don't have the wife's claim that it was lies like the biography you sighted. Also that biography is written 8 years before the article so 15-20 years after the events and is a secondary source as opposed to a primary source, like actual interviews with the people there.

I was alive then, watching sports and keenly interested in the merger. I lived in Oklahoma where the whole state was going crazy over OU Texas and making it into the new Florida Tenn game the sec had been showcasing.