No Preseason Prospectus Today: I'm sure that you're all devastated, but I just couldn't finish the Colorado Preseason Prospectus this week. I'll have the opportunity to write quite a bit over the long weekend and we'll get caught back up.
Leach vs. Texas Tech: As expected, Texas Tech has given notice to the court that they also intend on appealing the judge's decisions. LAJ's Matthew McGowan has the story and to refresh your memory, Leach's attorneys followed the same procedure a week or so ago. Leach attorney Ted Liggett had this to say about both parties withdrawing from the appeals process (I think I had missed this previously):
Liggett said his original offer remains: If Tech withdraws its appeal and agrees to take the case straight to a jury, he and his team will do the same.
This actually sounds like a pretty reasonable idea. There would only be one cause of action to litigate, which is the wrongful termination and this thing could be over sooner rather than later.
Chillin: FWST's Dwain Price talked with former Texas Tech head coach Mike Leach who sounds like he's got it pretty tough in Key West. And in case you were wondering, no Leach hasn't changed a bit:
"Since I've been at Tech, we've had three chancellors and five presidents," Leach said. "So the [political] ground has shifted a lot.
"Of the five presidents, four of them were great. And of the three chancellors, two of them were great."
A Little Late to the Story, But There's a New Email: This confuses me. I had a story come out today in my news reader where DMN's Kate Hairopoulos has acquired emails and documents from Texas Tech which "show inner dealings to keep Big 12 alive". The part that confuses me is that SI's Andy Staples had the goods on this memorandum two weeks ago and was discussed extensively on DTN.
This isn't news.
What is news is that Texas Tech President Guy Bailey and Athletic Director Gerald Myers apparently received an email (I couldn't find it linked in the story) on June 15, 2010, which was the same day that the University of Texas and Big 12, in that order, announced that the Big 12-2 would survive.
On June 15, the day after the Big 12 officially survived, Beebe wrote Texas Tech president Guy Bailey, at athletic director Gerald Myers' request, and detailed an agreement by five of the remaining universities to guarantee Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma at least $20 million in revenue for 2012-13, the first year of a new media agreement, in order to retain the schools in the league. Tech – which was wooed by the Pac-10 – was not included in the special status agreed to by Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Missouri and Baylor, or "The five universities," Beebe wrote, "that likely would have had to rebuild the conference." Beebe said estimates of a new media contract meant the guarantee may not be needed. The money would come out of the revenue distributions the five schools received. "These were difficult times with desperation being felt by many – perfect decisions and perfect consideration may not have been possible," Beebe wrote of the proposed guarantee, "but the result, in my opinion, is best for all in keeping the Big 12 as a viable conference. I know I represent the nine committed institutions in hoping that Texas Tech provides the unequivocal, unconditional commitment that the Board of Directors requested at their recent meeting."
There's been a ton of questions that I have about this, but this might mean that the reason why Texas Tech was so slow to continue in the current path of the Big 12-2 was that they were completely cut out of any negotiations. Again, I realize that Texas Tech wasn't dealing from a position of power, but to be completely removed from any negotiations can only lead one to believe that there were only two parties at the negotiating table: Beebe and UT.
I find Beebe's language in the last quoted paragraph humorous and I would imagine that this alone would have completely hacked anyone off in Texas Tech administration.
Squeaky Wheels: OB.com's Chip Brown has an article that seems to repeat quite a few of the same thoughts that I mentioned yesterday (and I think that a lot of you have expressed this sentiment and my thoughts aren't necessarily original) about how Texas Tech head coach Tommy Tommy Tuberville and Chancellor Kent Hance are being vocal about their displeasure in regards the university's treatment from Beebe and the Big 12-2. Here's Brown:
So what is Tuberville really up to here? Has he gotten word from his chancellor - Kent Hance - that Tech will not go quietly unless the Red Raiders end up with the same guarantee/offer made to Texas A&M of $20 million as incentive to stay in the Big 12?
Is Tuberville simply making his boss proud by serving as the squeaky wheel? Lord knows the Big 12 could almost open a Squeaky Wheel Hall of Fame with founding members Nebraska, Missouri and Colorado in the main lobby. (Although, Missouri, as long as its governor, Jay Nixon, isn’t doing the talking, appears to be a reforming squeaky wheel.)
I said this two days ago:
I don't know of any other university or administration that is banging this drum about the unequal revenue distribution and I find that odd, perhaps because those other universities feel lucky to be where they're at. In any event, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to think that Hance, despite his open criticism wasn't enough, that to ask the head football coach to speak up about the fact that he doesn't think the Big 12 will last and that the revenue doesn't help the conference as a whole.
Tuberville's railing on Beebe, the Big 12-2, the unequal distribution of revenue and the fact that Texas controls the entire situation isn't anything new, at least from a Texas Tech perspective. And what's the worst thing that could happen to Tuberville? Is Beebe going to tell Tubs and Hance that they need to be quiet and fall in line? I'd love to see Beebe do that. I'd love to see Beebe address Hance's and Tuberville's concerns about the health of the conference and the unequal revenue distribution. I'd imagine that you'd be waiting a pretty long time for Beebe to do anything without the express written consent and permission from the University of Texas.
There's quite a bit of, "sources said this," and, "sources said that," in Brown's article, including this tidbit, which makes me think that no one has an effing clue as to what's going on:
Sources also tell Orangebloods.com that everyone - all 10 schools in the Big 12 - could reach the threshold of $20 million "in the next five years" if things play out a certain way.
And then Brown attempts to seduce you:
So Tuberville’s comments could be the early saber rattling from Texas Tech indicating that the Red Raiders aren’t going to be company-line guys in the Big 12 until they are paid on par with Texas A&M.
And everyone gets why Texas Tech should be mad. Tech has outperformed A&M in football (the revenue-producing sport that matters in this equation) for a decade. And then, after having its bags packed for the Pac-16 with visions of a $20 million payday and playing in an elite football conference, it wakes up to find itineraries to Ames, Manhattan and Columbia still in its travel file with a payday less than A&M’s.
From reading some of your comments, I don't know whether to believe Brown and his thoughts about Texas Tech, especially for those of you who listen to his radio show, but whatever. Brown's offhand comment about having itineraries to Ames, Manhattan and Columbia is an unnecessary shot at those locales and those universities so I'm not sure what he's implying there.
If everyone in the conference is treated in the same manner as those schools in the Big Ten or SEC, then I think the conference survives and there would be some competitive balance.
Miscellaneous: ESPN's David Ubben ranks the best three-headed monster of the Big 12 . . . College Gridiron 365 says that the Texas Tech vs. SMU game is a must-watch for the opening weekend . . .