that is making its rounds. Author may be on to something.
<font color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2">I believe that the Big Ten
and Pac-10 conferences have jointly planned a major upheaval in college
athletics, primarily over football and are working very closely
together in order to bring it about. Although uncertain, I believe that
it?s likely being done with the active complicity of the University of
Texas. The goals are simple: both the Big Ten and Pac-10 seek to
significantly enlarge their power and influence over college athletics
and do so in a way that isolates the Southeastern Conference, in recent
years the best athletic conference in the America. The Big Ten/Pac-10
have, in my view, consciously decided and have engaged in a course of
conduct to destroy the Big 12 Conference, largely because it?s in the
way. Thus far only there is only one thing which has prevented this
plan from being successfully executed.
Texas A&M University.
A&M?s
current indecision over whether to join UT in the Pac-10 or join the
SEC, assuming the Big 12 can?t be saved, has forced both conferences to
make changes in the original plan. There?s tremendous pressure being
put on A&M to join the Pac-10 because the entire Big Ten/Pac-10
plan will fail to achieve its full goal if it doesn?t join the Pac-10:
increased power to both conferences while at the same time isolating
and minimizing the SEC.
When the Big 10 first announced
expansion plans months ago interest focused on Notre Dame which rather
quickly stated its desire to remain a football independent. Beyond that
the initial media coverage focused on one (1) Big 12 school, the
University of Missouri and several schools in the Big East. The
interest in the latter was, ostensibly, to gain the Big Ten access to
the New York City TV market. It all made sense. It was all a farce. The
Big 12 school targeted by the Big Ten was Nebraska. The Pac 10 was also
initiating expansion plans, though far more quietly. Its goal: expand
to sixteen (16) teams all from the Big 12. The goal of both conferences
was to destroy the Big 12 and gain power as a result. They are very
close to succeeding.
As things moved on there was almost
simultaneous disclosure of the Big Ten?s interest in Nebraska and the
Pac-10?s interest in Colorado, schools in Texas and Oklahoma. During
Big 12?s recent administrative meetings two significant (2) things
occurred: First, the ?rest? of the Big 12 imposed a deadline on
Colorado, Missouri and Nebraska by which time each was required to
state whether it intended to remain a Big 12 member (the deadline was
originally thought to be Friday, June 11th, though some suggested it
could be as late as Tuesday, June 15th; Second, word started spreading
that while the Big 12 could survive the loss of Colorado or Missouri or
both, it could not survive if Nebraska decided to go elsewhere.
Both the deadline and the ?we must keep Nebraska or we die? ideas were lead by one (1) school: Texas.
1.
Why Nebraska? Yes, it has a rich tradition, especially in football, but
if the Big 12 could survive Colorado or Missouri or both, why couldn?t
it survive if just Nebraska left? ANSWER: Because it creates a
self-fulfilling prophecy. If you?re going to publicly destroy something
like the Big 12, it helps if you can justify it in advance. It also
helps to create the illusion that Texas wanted to keep the Big 12 alive.
When
Nebraska?s Chancellor addressed the university?s Board of Regents
meeting on Friday, June 11th, he related a discussion he?d had at the
Big 12 meeting in which he essentially asked three (3) questions: What
happens if Missouri leaves? Big 12 schools thought the conference would
survive. What happens if Colorado leaves? The Big 12 survives. What
happens if Nebraska leaves? Oh, that?s different, if Nebraska leaves
the Big 12 collapses.
At the same Board of Regents meeting Athletic
Director (and former football coach) Tom Osborne stated that when
Nebraska officials grilled other Big 12 schools some admitted (I?d be
shocked if Texas wasn?t one of them) talking to as many as three (3)
other conferences while Nebraska had only talked to one (1), the Big
Ten. As a result Nebraska officials thought they had no choice but to
find a new place to land. That is exactly what one (1) of those schools
wanted Nebraska to think, so the Huskers? leaving the Big 12 would
cover the tracks of other schools when they deserted the Big 12. That
school is Texas. If you?re going to destroy something in which you
belong, it helps if you can blame someone else.
2. When Texas
and Texas A&M officials met on Monday, June 8th, to discuss saving
the Big 12, was that the real goal of the meeting? ANSWER: No, the real
goal, at least from UT?s view, was to convince Texas A&M to join
UT, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Colorado in the new
mega-conference Pac-10. Problems arose because A&M officials
weren?t sold on the idea and wanted to look at other options.
Texas
(the Big Ten & Pac-10) assumed that A&M officials could be
cajoled into following UT?s lead because in many matters A&M has
done so in the past. Of course by now the cat is out of the bag on the
Pac-10?s plans with other Big 12 schools. Baylor University is going to
be left out (because the Pac 10 doesn?t want Baylor) and efforts begin
in Austin to see if Baylor can be substituted for Colorado in the new
Pac-10 mega-conference.
3. Why does it matter to UT if Texas
A&M joins the Pac-10? There?s the historical relationship of the
two schools, as institutions of higher learning in Texas and the
athletic rivalry. However, neither has anything to do with it. ANSWER:
Texas needs to get Texas A&M on board to prevent the SEC from
gaining any foothold in Texas. The Big Ten/Pac-10 plan calls for the
Big Ten to extend is domination from the Midwest into major TV markets
of the East while the Pac-10 becomes the preeminent conference west of
the Mississippi River. To accomplish that, the Pac-10 must add the
entire state of Texas to prevent the SEC from expanding its territory
and its influence.
Saving Baylor University actually played into
the Big Ten/Pac-10 cover story which became even more important when
Texas A&M insisted on looking at alternatives to Pac-10 membership.
4.
Why was Colorado, surprisingly invited to the Pac-10 earlier than
expected and prior to Nebraska? Why was Colorado taken out of turn?
ANSWER: To put pressure on Texas A&M. Although never conceded as
such, almost everybody in the media and elsewhere assumed the Pac-10?s
invitation to Colorado last Thursday was to stop any pro-Baylor efforts
in Texas, AND any pressure on UT to make a Pac-10 invitation to Baylor
a condition of its willingness to go to the Pac-10. It was the perfect
cover story.
The Pac-10 doesn?t want Baylor and never has, but
adding Colorado just prior to the Big Ten-Nebraska engagement did two
things: First, if anybody tried to blame either the Big Ten or the
Pac-10, each can claim that initially they took only one (1) Big 12
team; Second, when Nebraska did leave the following day, Texas can say
that, despite its best efforts, the Big 12?s days are over and that
Texas A&M better get on board with its fellow flagship university
partner and join the Pac-10. Why? To stop the SEC from entering Texas
by adding a major school from Texas to its conference lineup. The
Pac-10 and Big Ten don?t want the SEC in Texas. One of their common
goals is to reduce the SEC?s power by denying it expansion that helps
the SEC grow.
5. Why, after wooing Missouri for months, did the
Big Ten?s Commissioner tell his Big 12 counterpart after confirming
Nebraska?s invitation to join his conference that the Big Ten didn?t
anticipate adding any other Big 12 schools to his conference? ANSWER:
Because Texas A&M?s interest in options beside the Pac-10 has
created instability the Big Ten/Pac-10 can?t control. Adding to that
instability only creates more chances that it gets worse. And,
remember, because of Texas A&M, things aren?t going according to
the original plan.
Nebraska?s exit from the Big 12 confirms UT?s
self-fulfilling prophecy that the Big 12 is dead. It?s not that the Big
Ten isn?t still interested in Missouri. However, because of Texas
A&M?s position, it now makes more sense for the Big Ten & Pac
10 to split any responsibility for the Big 12?s demise; allow Texas to
lead Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the Pac-10 under the
ruse that the Big 12 is no longer viable; then when the Big 12
collapses the Big Ten can still invite Missouri which, technically
won?t be a Big 12 school because the Big 12 is either already gone or
officially on the road to self-extinction.
6. Why has ABC-TV
been so quiet in all of this? The network has television rights to the
Big 12 and stands to lose a lot, correct? ANSWER: Wrong, it does not
because it?s also the primary TV partner of both the Pac-10 and Big
Ten. If this goes according to plan, money that would have gone to the
Big 12 for distribution will now mostly go to the Pac-10 with some to
the Big Ten. Chances are ABC (and its subsidiary, ESPN) will lose
little or nothing in this massive upheaval. Instead ABC will just be
shuffling off roughly the same amount of money into different
conferences. There is also a major gain for ABC in that it?s prior
relationships with both the Big Ten and Pac-10 are more significant
because both conferences become far more powerful.
ESPN puts
major investigative reporters on Barry Bonds and other significant
sports issues. College football is undergoing the most massive change
in its history and ESPN is doing nothing but covering the basics of
who?s going where. Why? Because any serious outside investigation of
the realignment of college athletics might expose the possibility that
ESPN?s parent company, ABC, is involved in this plan. The Big
Ten/Pac-10 want to beat back the SEC. ABC wants to beat back CBS which
is the SEC?s television partner.
7. Why has the Pac-10 imposed a
72-hour deadline on Texas A&M while its commissioner personally
hands out invitations this weekend to Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and
Oklahoma State? ANSWER: Because time is of the essence regarding the
overall plan, but especially the Big Ten?s portion of the plan.
In
order for the Big Ten to pressure Notre Dame into accepting a Big Ten
invitation, the conference must destabilize ND?s comfort zone. To do
that it must seek new members from the Big East conference which houses
most of Notre Dame?s non-football athletic teams. Pittsburgh, Syracuse
and Rutgers are the schools most often mentioned by the media. However,
if that happens, the Big East becomes unstable and, likely seeks some
sort of merger with the Atlantic Coast Conference. Two (2) Texas
newspapers, citing SEC sources, indicated that the SEC?s dream
expansion scenario involves Texas, Texas A&M, North Carolina-Chapel
Hill and Duke. Media reports confirm that the SEC has talked with UNC
and that it didn?t say ?no.? Neither has it said yes.
8. Why is
the SEC?s dream scenario important in all this? ANSWER: Because a major
goal of the Big Ten/Pac-10 plan is to prevent any significant SEC
expansion into any non-SEC states.
Because of Texas A&M?s
unwillingness to blindly follow UT?s lead in the western portion of the
Big Ten/Pac-10 plan, everything has bogged down. That must be
controlled in a way that forces A&M to follow UT into the Pac-10.
If not, the SEC makes inroads into Texas and Texas TV markets.
Destabilizing the Big East by the Big Ten could lead ACC schools to do
what Nebraska did and seek other options. If SEC adds Texas A&M as
a conference school, that is bad for both the Big Ten and Pac-10.
However, if the SEC adds A&M, North Carolina and Duke (a 4th school
would need to be added as well), a major goal of the plan is a total
failure. Adding those three (3) schools to the SEC not only makes it
the best football conference in the U.S., but also the best men?s
basketball conference. Further, Notre Dame probably correctly reads the
long term consequences of such events and, again, decides to stay an
independent, thus ruining another basic goal of the Big Ten portion of
the plan. There are six (6) major college athletic conferences in the
United States: the Big East, Atlantic Coast, Southeastern, Big Ten, Big
12 and Pac-10. The plan by the Big Ten/Pac-10 calls for one (1) of
those conferences (Big 12) to be destroyed, two (2) others (Big East
and ACC) to be destabilized towards a merger, and one (1) more (SEC) to
be isolated so it can?t adequately respond to the two (2) new power
conferences in America (the Big Ten and Pac-10). Hell, it?s almost like
the old days when the Rose Bowl was the premier New Year?s Day game and
was controlled by the same two (2) conferences.
9. Is there any
more pressure that can be put on Texas A&M to join the Pac-10?
ANSWER: Yes and it?s already happening. Without saying so publically
(who knows what?s been said behind the scenes directly to Texas
A&M), Texas is threatening to end its rivalry with the Aggies.
Major newspapers in both Dallas and Houston, Sunday, are reporting that
and other consequences if A&M doesn?t play ball. One paper suggests
other Texas schools will blackball A&M if it doesn?t join the
Pac-10. In other words play ball with us or pay.
Once again,
Texas is setting up another self-fulfilling prophecy. 1: If Nebraska
goes to the Big Ten, the Big 12 is dead and its Nebraska?s fault. 2: We
did everything we could to save the Big 12, but now that it?s gone, we
have no choice but to join the Pac-10. 3: We really want to maintain
our rivalry with Texas A&M. However, if the Aggies don?t follow us
to the Pac-10, the rivalry is no longer viable and it?s Texas A&M?s
fault.
10. What?s going to happen next? ANSWER: I don?t know
unless Texas A&M bows to UT?s pressure. If that happens, the second
phase of the plan will begin to destabilize the Big East in order to
force Notre Dame to join the Big Ten. At that point every other
conference in America will be directly threatened by the Big Ten/Pac-10
reconfiguration of college athletics.
My purpose here isn?t to
influence any Texas A&M decision. To me A&M going to the Pac-10
makes little sense and -at best- is the worst of three (3) options. The
other two are joining the SEC or making a real effort to save the Big
12 in a reconfigured form by attacking and exposing UT?s apparent
complicity in the Big Ten/Pac-10 plan.
In conclusion, let me
reiterate that I?m not a conspiracy freak. However, in this instance
too many things have happened too quickly not to believe they are being
orchestrated by someone or some group of people. I know the Big 12?s
money distribution system of revenues was flawed. It contributed both
to internal conference strife and to its apparent demise. However, the
Big 12 could be salvaged and re-configured if people so wanted. I
believe Texas A&M sincerely has tried to do so. I also believe the
University of Texas has been complicit in the Big 12?s destruction in
order to advance its own interests and that of two (2) athletic
conferences. One of those goals is the continued subjugation of Texas
A&M.
Texas A&M must find the best long term answer to
the situation it now faces. It should understand fully the
circumstances in which it finds itself and how they came about. I
sincerely wish A&M the best because whatever decision A&M makes
will likely change for decades the makeup of college athletics. It
ought to know why it is presently under siege and who is responsible
for doing so. And it should realize that by simply doing what is every
American?s right ? the right to question and seek alternatives, Texas
A&M finds itself in its current position at the very center of the
future of college athletics and under the watchful, threatening eyes of
others who care nothing about the university, but only what it can do
for them.
Good luck and God speed.</font>
<font color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2">I believe that the Big Ten
and Pac-10 conferences have jointly planned a major upheaval in college
athletics, primarily over football and are working very closely
together in order to bring it about. Although uncertain, I believe that
it?s likely being done with the active complicity of the University of
Texas. The goals are simple: both the Big Ten and Pac-10 seek to
significantly enlarge their power and influence over college athletics
and do so in a way that isolates the Southeastern Conference, in recent
years the best athletic conference in the America. The Big Ten/Pac-10
have, in my view, consciously decided and have engaged in a course of
conduct to destroy the Big 12 Conference, largely because it?s in the
way. Thus far only there is only one thing which has prevented this
plan from being successfully executed.
Texas A&M University.
A&M?s
current indecision over whether to join UT in the Pac-10 or join the
SEC, assuming the Big 12 can?t be saved, has forced both conferences to
make changes in the original plan. There?s tremendous pressure being
put on A&M to join the Pac-10 because the entire Big Ten/Pac-10
plan will fail to achieve its full goal if it doesn?t join the Pac-10:
increased power to both conferences while at the same time isolating
and minimizing the SEC.
When the Big 10 first announced
expansion plans months ago interest focused on Notre Dame which rather
quickly stated its desire to remain a football independent. Beyond that
the initial media coverage focused on one (1) Big 12 school, the
University of Missouri and several schools in the Big East. The
interest in the latter was, ostensibly, to gain the Big Ten access to
the New York City TV market. It all made sense. It was all a farce. The
Big 12 school targeted by the Big Ten was Nebraska. The Pac 10 was also
initiating expansion plans, though far more quietly. Its goal: expand
to sixteen (16) teams all from the Big 12. The goal of both conferences
was to destroy the Big 12 and gain power as a result. They are very
close to succeeding.
As things moved on there was almost
simultaneous disclosure of the Big Ten?s interest in Nebraska and the
Pac-10?s interest in Colorado, schools in Texas and Oklahoma. During
Big 12?s recent administrative meetings two significant (2) things
occurred: First, the ?rest? of the Big 12 imposed a deadline on
Colorado, Missouri and Nebraska by which time each was required to
state whether it intended to remain a Big 12 member (the deadline was
originally thought to be Friday, June 11th, though some suggested it
could be as late as Tuesday, June 15th; Second, word started spreading
that while the Big 12 could survive the loss of Colorado or Missouri or
both, it could not survive if Nebraska decided to go elsewhere.
Both the deadline and the ?we must keep Nebraska or we die? ideas were lead by one (1) school: Texas.
1.
Why Nebraska? Yes, it has a rich tradition, especially in football, but
if the Big 12 could survive Colorado or Missouri or both, why couldn?t
it survive if just Nebraska left? ANSWER: Because it creates a
self-fulfilling prophecy. If you?re going to publicly destroy something
like the Big 12, it helps if you can justify it in advance. It also
helps to create the illusion that Texas wanted to keep the Big 12 alive.
When
Nebraska?s Chancellor addressed the university?s Board of Regents
meeting on Friday, June 11th, he related a discussion he?d had at the
Big 12 meeting in which he essentially asked three (3) questions: What
happens if Missouri leaves? Big 12 schools thought the conference would
survive. What happens if Colorado leaves? The Big 12 survives. What
happens if Nebraska leaves? Oh, that?s different, if Nebraska leaves
the Big 12 collapses.
At the same Board of Regents meeting Athletic
Director (and former football coach) Tom Osborne stated that when
Nebraska officials grilled other Big 12 schools some admitted (I?d be
shocked if Texas wasn?t one of them) talking to as many as three (3)
other conferences while Nebraska had only talked to one (1), the Big
Ten. As a result Nebraska officials thought they had no choice but to
find a new place to land. That is exactly what one (1) of those schools
wanted Nebraska to think, so the Huskers? leaving the Big 12 would
cover the tracks of other schools when they deserted the Big 12. That
school is Texas. If you?re going to destroy something in which you
belong, it helps if you can blame someone else.
2. When Texas
and Texas A&M officials met on Monday, June 8th, to discuss saving
the Big 12, was that the real goal of the meeting? ANSWER: No, the real
goal, at least from UT?s view, was to convince Texas A&M to join
UT, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Colorado in the new
mega-conference Pac-10. Problems arose because A&M officials
weren?t sold on the idea and wanted to look at other options.
Texas
(the Big Ten & Pac-10) assumed that A&M officials could be
cajoled into following UT?s lead because in many matters A&M has
done so in the past. Of course by now the cat is out of the bag on the
Pac-10?s plans with other Big 12 schools. Baylor University is going to
be left out (because the Pac 10 doesn?t want Baylor) and efforts begin
in Austin to see if Baylor can be substituted for Colorado in the new
Pac-10 mega-conference.
3. Why does it matter to UT if Texas
A&M joins the Pac-10? There?s the historical relationship of the
two schools, as institutions of higher learning in Texas and the
athletic rivalry. However, neither has anything to do with it. ANSWER:
Texas needs to get Texas A&M on board to prevent the SEC from
gaining any foothold in Texas. The Big Ten/Pac-10 plan calls for the
Big Ten to extend is domination from the Midwest into major TV markets
of the East while the Pac-10 becomes the preeminent conference west of
the Mississippi River. To accomplish that, the Pac-10 must add the
entire state of Texas to prevent the SEC from expanding its territory
and its influence.
Saving Baylor University actually played into
the Big Ten/Pac-10 cover story which became even more important when
Texas A&M insisted on looking at alternatives to Pac-10 membership.
4.
Why was Colorado, surprisingly invited to the Pac-10 earlier than
expected and prior to Nebraska? Why was Colorado taken out of turn?
ANSWER: To put pressure on Texas A&M. Although never conceded as
such, almost everybody in the media and elsewhere assumed the Pac-10?s
invitation to Colorado last Thursday was to stop any pro-Baylor efforts
in Texas, AND any pressure on UT to make a Pac-10 invitation to Baylor
a condition of its willingness to go to the Pac-10. It was the perfect
cover story.
The Pac-10 doesn?t want Baylor and never has, but
adding Colorado just prior to the Big Ten-Nebraska engagement did two
things: First, if anybody tried to blame either the Big Ten or the
Pac-10, each can claim that initially they took only one (1) Big 12
team; Second, when Nebraska did leave the following day, Texas can say
that, despite its best efforts, the Big 12?s days are over and that
Texas A&M better get on board with its fellow flagship university
partner and join the Pac-10. Why? To stop the SEC from entering Texas
by adding a major school from Texas to its conference lineup. The
Pac-10 and Big Ten don?t want the SEC in Texas. One of their common
goals is to reduce the SEC?s power by denying it expansion that helps
the SEC grow.
5. Why, after wooing Missouri for months, did the
Big Ten?s Commissioner tell his Big 12 counterpart after confirming
Nebraska?s invitation to join his conference that the Big Ten didn?t
anticipate adding any other Big 12 schools to his conference? ANSWER:
Because Texas A&M?s interest in options beside the Pac-10 has
created instability the Big Ten/Pac-10 can?t control. Adding to that
instability only creates more chances that it gets worse. And,
remember, because of Texas A&M, things aren?t going according to
the original plan.
Nebraska?s exit from the Big 12 confirms UT?s
self-fulfilling prophecy that the Big 12 is dead. It?s not that the Big
Ten isn?t still interested in Missouri. However, because of Texas
A&M?s position, it now makes more sense for the Big Ten & Pac
10 to split any responsibility for the Big 12?s demise; allow Texas to
lead Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the Pac-10 under the
ruse that the Big 12 is no longer viable; then when the Big 12
collapses the Big Ten can still invite Missouri which, technically
won?t be a Big 12 school because the Big 12 is either already gone or
officially on the road to self-extinction.
6. Why has ABC-TV
been so quiet in all of this? The network has television rights to the
Big 12 and stands to lose a lot, correct? ANSWER: Wrong, it does not
because it?s also the primary TV partner of both the Pac-10 and Big
Ten. If this goes according to plan, money that would have gone to the
Big 12 for distribution will now mostly go to the Pac-10 with some to
the Big Ten. Chances are ABC (and its subsidiary, ESPN) will lose
little or nothing in this massive upheaval. Instead ABC will just be
shuffling off roughly the same amount of money into different
conferences. There is also a major gain for ABC in that it?s prior
relationships with both the Big Ten and Pac-10 are more significant
because both conferences become far more powerful.
ESPN puts
major investigative reporters on Barry Bonds and other significant
sports issues. College football is undergoing the most massive change
in its history and ESPN is doing nothing but covering the basics of
who?s going where. Why? Because any serious outside investigation of
the realignment of college athletics might expose the possibility that
ESPN?s parent company, ABC, is involved in this plan. The Big
Ten/Pac-10 want to beat back the SEC. ABC wants to beat back CBS which
is the SEC?s television partner.
7. Why has the Pac-10 imposed a
72-hour deadline on Texas A&M while its commissioner personally
hands out invitations this weekend to Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and
Oklahoma State? ANSWER: Because time is of the essence regarding the
overall plan, but especially the Big Ten?s portion of the plan.
In
order for the Big Ten to pressure Notre Dame into accepting a Big Ten
invitation, the conference must destabilize ND?s comfort zone. To do
that it must seek new members from the Big East conference which houses
most of Notre Dame?s non-football athletic teams. Pittsburgh, Syracuse
and Rutgers are the schools most often mentioned by the media. However,
if that happens, the Big East becomes unstable and, likely seeks some
sort of merger with the Atlantic Coast Conference. Two (2) Texas
newspapers, citing SEC sources, indicated that the SEC?s dream
expansion scenario involves Texas, Texas A&M, North Carolina-Chapel
Hill and Duke. Media reports confirm that the SEC has talked with UNC
and that it didn?t say ?no.? Neither has it said yes.
8. Why is
the SEC?s dream scenario important in all this? ANSWER: Because a major
goal of the Big Ten/Pac-10 plan is to prevent any significant SEC
expansion into any non-SEC states.
Because of Texas A&M?s
unwillingness to blindly follow UT?s lead in the western portion of the
Big Ten/Pac-10 plan, everything has bogged down. That must be
controlled in a way that forces A&M to follow UT into the Pac-10.
If not, the SEC makes inroads into Texas and Texas TV markets.
Destabilizing the Big East by the Big Ten could lead ACC schools to do
what Nebraska did and seek other options. If SEC adds Texas A&M as
a conference school, that is bad for both the Big Ten and Pac-10.
However, if the SEC adds A&M, North Carolina and Duke (a 4th school
would need to be added as well), a major goal of the plan is a total
failure. Adding those three (3) schools to the SEC not only makes it
the best football conference in the U.S., but also the best men?s
basketball conference. Further, Notre Dame probably correctly reads the
long term consequences of such events and, again, decides to stay an
independent, thus ruining another basic goal of the Big Ten portion of
the plan. There are six (6) major college athletic conferences in the
United States: the Big East, Atlantic Coast, Southeastern, Big Ten, Big
12 and Pac-10. The plan by the Big Ten/Pac-10 calls for one (1) of
those conferences (Big 12) to be destroyed, two (2) others (Big East
and ACC) to be destabilized towards a merger, and one (1) more (SEC) to
be isolated so it can?t adequately respond to the two (2) new power
conferences in America (the Big Ten and Pac-10). Hell, it?s almost like
the old days when the Rose Bowl was the premier New Year?s Day game and
was controlled by the same two (2) conferences.
9. Is there any
more pressure that can be put on Texas A&M to join the Pac-10?
ANSWER: Yes and it?s already happening. Without saying so publically
(who knows what?s been said behind the scenes directly to Texas
A&M), Texas is threatening to end its rivalry with the Aggies.
Major newspapers in both Dallas and Houston, Sunday, are reporting that
and other consequences if A&M doesn?t play ball. One paper suggests
other Texas schools will blackball A&M if it doesn?t join the
Pac-10. In other words play ball with us or pay.
Once again,
Texas is setting up another self-fulfilling prophecy. 1: If Nebraska
goes to the Big Ten, the Big 12 is dead and its Nebraska?s fault. 2: We
did everything we could to save the Big 12, but now that it?s gone, we
have no choice but to join the Pac-10. 3: We really want to maintain
our rivalry with Texas A&M. However, if the Aggies don?t follow us
to the Pac-10, the rivalry is no longer viable and it?s Texas A&M?s
fault.
10. What?s going to happen next? ANSWER: I don?t know
unless Texas A&M bows to UT?s pressure. If that happens, the second
phase of the plan will begin to destabilize the Big East in order to
force Notre Dame to join the Big Ten. At that point every other
conference in America will be directly threatened by the Big Ten/Pac-10
reconfiguration of college athletics.
My purpose here isn?t to
influence any Texas A&M decision. To me A&M going to the Pac-10
makes little sense and -at best- is the worst of three (3) options. The
other two are joining the SEC or making a real effort to save the Big
12 in a reconfigured form by attacking and exposing UT?s apparent
complicity in the Big Ten/Pac-10 plan.
In conclusion, let me
reiterate that I?m not a conspiracy freak. However, in this instance
too many things have happened too quickly not to believe they are being
orchestrated by someone or some group of people. I know the Big 12?s
money distribution system of revenues was flawed. It contributed both
to internal conference strife and to its apparent demise. However, the
Big 12 could be salvaged and re-configured if people so wanted. I
believe Texas A&M sincerely has tried to do so. I also believe the
University of Texas has been complicit in the Big 12?s destruction in
order to advance its own interests and that of two (2) athletic
conferences. One of those goals is the continued subjugation of Texas
A&M.
Texas A&M must find the best long term answer to
the situation it now faces. It should understand fully the
circumstances in which it finds itself and how they came about. I
sincerely wish A&M the best because whatever decision A&M makes
will likely change for decades the makeup of college athletics. It
ought to know why it is presently under siege and who is responsible
for doing so. And it should realize that by simply doing what is every
American?s right ? the right to question and seek alternatives, Texas
A&M finds itself in its current position at the very center of the
future of college athletics and under the watchful, threatening eyes of
others who care nothing about the university, but only what it can do
for them.
Good luck and God speed.</font>
