Blog Entry

Dan Beebe responds to Texas A&M statement

Posted on: August 26, 2011 2:27 am
Edited on: August 26, 2011 10:12 am
 

Posted by Adam Jacobi

In the latest chapter in the ongoing flirtations between Texas A&M and the SEC, Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe (pictured at right) has responded to Texas A&M's Thursday announcement that the Aggies were exploring a switch in conferences.

First, the statement in full, from the conference offices:

The letter received today from Texas A&M president R. Bowen Loftin will be addressed by the Big 12 Conference Board of Directors. It remains our strong desire for Texas A&M to continue as a member of the Big 12 and we are working toward that end. However, if it is decided otherwise, the Conference is poised to move aggressively with options.

Beebe should be careful here, as the only high-level unaffiliated football programs out there are Notre Dame and BYU (no offense, Army or Navy), and saying the conference is "poised to move aggressively" implies that there's a willing candidate already in Beebe's mind. Yes, that almost certainly could mean SMU, who's practically begging for a BCS invite, but if the Big 12 adds Houston (as has allegedly been mentioned by the conference as a possibility before), the Conference USA brass might have the grounds to suggest that the Big 12 was admitting to interfering with Conference USA business, and that could mean the threat of legal action.

That said, it could also mean something much less litigious, like adding BYU and/or Notre Dame in football only, and either gently phasing in the other sports (as both schools have full pre-existing conference affiliations outside of football) or leaving it a football-only arrangement entirely. 

Not only that, there are probably plenty of expansion candidates off the metaphorical radar with which the Big 12 has had some sort of contact, and maybe Beebe has the sense that they're privately amenable to a conference change. Again, we're talking about off the radar, so it would be reckless to speculate (see: flat-out guess) on possible schools, but Beebe would be derelict in his duty as a conference commissioner if he didn't have a contingency plan for any type of expansion -- especially one based on how willing the other schools would be to move to the Big 12.

We'll say this, though: Texas A&M is still not even an applicant (much less a member or invitee) of the SEC yet. That's likely to change, but it hasn't yet. So if Dan Beebe can wrangle four of his conference members away from a potential Pac-16 in 2010, then somehow brink Texas A&M back from the bring of "SECession," he's got to be the biggest miracle worker among conference commissioners. Alas for Beebe, miracles are miracles for a reason, and this one's probably not going to happen.


Comments

Since: Aug 25, 2011
Posted on: August 26, 2011 1:26 pm
 

Dan Beebe responds to Texas A&M statement

Congratulations Texas m&a, you went from being Texas' little brother to the SEC-Wests' little b$&ch. Soon you will realize you've lived off an embarrassing inferiority complex and an irrational superiority complex. How'd that work out for you Arkansas?



Since: Oct 10, 2008
Posted on: August 26, 2011 1:10 pm
 

Dan Beebe responds to Texas A&M statement

I agree with most of what you are saying, but I disagree with Texas Tech to the SEC... I think the SEC would court Florida State before Texas Tech. Tech could end up in either the Pac-10 or the Mountain West.



Since: Sep 28, 2008
Posted on: August 26, 2011 1:06 pm
 

Dan Beebe responds to Texas A&M statement

Greed, Money, and Media Hype will kill the game as we know it today.  ESPN and all of the other "gossip-sports" proponents just fuel the fire and unfortunately, there is no escaping it for fans who just like football.  I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm tired of this stuff and ready to see the Teams play the game.



Since: Aug 12, 2011
Posted on: August 26, 2011 12:47 pm
 

Dan Beebe responds to Texas A&M statement

Here's what I don't understand.  From the article:
if the Big 12 adds Houston (as has allegedly been mentioned by the conference as a possibility before), the Conference USA brass might have the grounds to suggest that the Big 12 was admitting to interfering with Conference USA business, and that could mean the threat of legal action.
I keep hearing this about the Texas A&M and the SEC.  Texas A&M is being slow and deliberate in order to prevent any "interference" lawsuit by the Big XII against the SEC.  Now this article is saying that CUSA might be able to do that against the Big XII.

I don't understand this!  Larry Scott went on a not-so-subtle airplane tour of the Big XII South, handing out invitations last year!  When Colorado and Nebraska left, nobody ever mentioned legal action against the PAC-10 or Big Ten for interference!  Why is this being brought up now?  What has changed?  How can these other conferences be at fault?  The PAC-10/12, Big Ten, and SEC don't have any legal agreements between them and the Big XII that they are violating.  How is this any different from a business trying to lure a client away from a competitor?  This happens all the time.

Also, isn't this the point of an exit fee?  By paying an exit fee that was agreed to years ago, Nebraska and Colorado entered a legally binding agreement that said that if they broke their commitment, then they would causing financial harm to the Big XII conference.  They and the Big XII agreed in advance on the compensation needed to offset the damage upon departure.  Just pay the exit fee, and walk out the door... what does this have to do with another conference?

Similarly, I have a lease break fee at my apartment.  If I break the lease early, then we already have an agreement on what damages I need to pay to walk out the door.  My old apartment doesn't have the right to also collect damages from my new apartment for "interference".

I would love to hear a legal expert's opinion on this!



Since: Aug 15, 2006
Posted on: August 26, 2011 11:49 am
 

Dan Beebe responds to Texas A&M statement

Seriously, if they lose another school, that's IT.  There is nobody out there that you can add right now that would give the league any advancement in credibility.  I doubt seriously that any BEast schools want to leave, especially if they are basketball members, that's a gold mine.  WAC, Conf-Usa, Sun Belt -- nobody in those leagues is a football program that you can hang your hat on, and half of them are not good geographic fits, in the first place.

A&M goes, Missouri goes, the rest of the teams are twisting in the wind.  No one wants to go independent and become Boise State's more attractive cousin.  How do you get invited to the BCS if your no longer a part of a solid AQ conference?



Since: Aug 15, 2006
Posted on: August 26, 2011 11:40 am
 

Dan Beebe responds to Texas A&M statement

then somehow brink Texas A&M back from the bring of "SECession,"
Wow...this was almost cute.

Almost.

Be wary, MountainWAC...The XII is coming after Denver and UT Pan-American!!



Since: Aug 11, 2011
Posted on: August 26, 2011 11:17 am
 

Dan Beebe responds to Texas A&M statement

This guy Beebe seems to live in a world where he thinks everyone is happy. Here is what I'm wondering.......if he steps down and someone else was brought in that TAMU likes, would he do the right thing and step down to salvage this situation? That is the real question that needs to be asked that no one is asking right now. And here is the reality of expansion. SMU?....I cannot believe this school is even being mentioned. A team moving to the big 12 already needs to have facilities, 90% sold games, and a record on the field. Bottom line for SMU, RICE, and Houston....They have no chance at all. Not to mention SMU with that tainted death penalty still. ND and BYU bring the opposite. National titles!!! Nice try SMU!!!! However I do not see BYU leaving their current system which is reportedly oging to get them at least 14 mil a season and higher from what espn reported last week of 16-18 are the realistic numbers and not counting bowl game money they do not have to share Which could land them anoth 1-2 mil. Notre Dame has a nice deal from NBC that gets them a % of the advertising revenue that has been averaging 15-17 mil a season. However to help them with scheduling and the conference, we should invite ND and BYU as football only and let them keep their TV deals and the financials be kept separate from the rest of the conference until their deals run out. But make them share their bowl money. And if the conference was smart, they would look to BYU in broadcasting a network for the conference. I hear they have their own facility on campus. Now we need one more team. Arkansas?!?!....Yeah right!!! That is just like SMU coming here. Now TCU.....that one fits well!!



Since: Jan 7, 2010
Posted on: August 26, 2011 9:43 am
 

Dan Beebe responds to Texas A&M statement

We knew this was coming, and more expansion is right behind it.   Starting with the SEC presidents saying "We're not expaniding" = Texas A&M get your legal priorities together.

The BIG10 saying they're "not going to expand unless the landscape of college football changes" = SEC please make the first move, so legally we can grab the teams we want at no penalty.  

The BIG QUESTION/ENCHILADA = SEC isn't moving to just 13 teams...there has to be either a 14 or 15th and 16th addition.   Who will it be?

If the SEC offers Missouri... I believe they call the BIG10, just like Nebraska last year....and then the dominoes begin to fall.

BIG 10 = Missouri, Syracuse, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State.

SEC = Texas A&M, Virginia Tech, Clemson, and Texas Tech

BigEast = Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and Baylor

Independent = Texas



Since: Jan 3, 2010
Posted on: August 26, 2011 9:42 am
 

Dan Beebe responds to Texas A&M statement

Can't believe Beebe hasn't been canned yet. 



Since: Oct 30, 2008
Posted on: August 26, 2011 9:37 am
 

Dan Beebe responds to Texas A&M statement

LOL!  Good one.  Although I'm not sure Beebe is the commissioner at this point.  I think the commissioner of the Big 9 is Deloss Dodds.


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com