Ok, so the headline is a bit of "well...duh" moment right now, but I'm putting this up here for a few reasons...
- I didn't see it already posted elsewhere on RMN (though I could have missed it, apologies if this is the case)
- It comes from Mike DeArmond, a Mizzou beat reporter with a good reputation (at least, to me, he has a good reputation)
- It has a couple of key points that I haven't seen elsewhere.
Feel free to peruse the whole article on your own here, but here's what jumped out to me...
The same source said that a new television contract being touted by Commissioner Dan Beebe could produce "significantly more" than $17 million for each of the remaining 10 Big 12 schools. Perhaps upwards of $20 million per school.
This could be posturing...it's probably postering...but $20 million per school is a lot of scratch, and if they can get that for each school, it's a heck of a recovery by Dan Beebe and company - enough so that I wonder if that deal would also include bringing another school in. No idea which school that would be, but I find it hard to believe that a conference that has just lost two members (and one of those being a historical national powerhouse) could generate the necessary leverage to negotiate a deal like that...unless something changed.
A source close to the realignment negotiations suggested that Texas - the key to league survival in its present form - would likely gain concessions for "getting to play the hero."
It was concessions to Texas - for example in the form of uneven revenue distribution - on which an unstable foundation was laid when the Southwest Conference and the Big Eight Conference merged.
"There is a price," the source said. "But the price is worth it, or its a price we have to pay."
This is probably the last thing Mizzou fans want to hear, but it's also probably not surprising. Texas knows it has the conference by the throat, and there's no reason to think Texas would stick around unless it was getting something in return. What could these concessions mean? I'm guessing the right to start its own network, which would probably make creating a Big 12 Network impossible - but outside that, I'm not sure what else Texas could be after.
Chad Moller, media relations director for Missouri, confirmed a Big 12 official had informed Missouri, late Sunday afternoon, that Texas A&M had turned down an offer to join the Pac 10.
At about the same time, the Rivals.com site Aggieyell.com - devoted to Texas A&M athletics - reported the Aggies had turned down the Pac 10 and that they "will be the newest member of the Southeastern Conference."
Barely had those statements been made than officials at Texas A&M denied the Aggies’ had commimtted to the SEC or spurned the Pac 10.
In my mind, this is as close to real facts we've gotten out of the University of Missouri, and it happens to contradict what another university said. So, who is lying? It's not the first time Mizzou has been on the opposite end of a conference-mate's story (Mike Alden said there never was any ultimatum, while Nebraska said there was), but the question here is: Who do you trust? And if Texas A&M is lying, what does it gain by lying?