The only way NU/MU should sign anything is if the same document is signed by all members of the Big12. Did everyone forget that it was TU that got caught with their hand in the cookie jar NOT NU/MU? TU is the one with emails showing direct contact with the Big10 and not to mention the talk from the Pac10 the past couple days. There has been nothing to formally link NU/MU to the Big10, if anyone should be given an ultimatum it should be TU.
All "legally binding documents" have a buyout. Our endowment is $1 billion. I think we can handle it. Missouri I am not so sure about. Trust me, if it comes down to it and it is the best thing for the university, money will not hold us back. We are not Kansas State here, this University is completely in the black. If you think the board, regents, senators and citizens of this state would stop this move because of money when it could greatly improve our national standing as an academic research institution (and quite likely enrollment) I think you are allowing the media to sway you a little.
Those types of documents do exist in marriage, but need to be based on precedent. i.e. the husband showing a history of unfaithfulness, in order for that agreement to be signed by only a fraction of the members the conference would probably need to prove to a judge, if it is fought in court, that these two member institutions have a documented history of "infidelity".
I'm on the same page as you, but there are emails linking Nebraska to the Big 10. Osborne met with Sweater Vest back in April and emailed Perlman about it, asking to discuss the landscape of conference expansion. We've been active, and there is evidence, but there is as much evidence for Texas as for us, yet we're the ones being asked to sign documents.
And that could play into the comment by the Big 10 where they may be looking at a staged growth scenario, where some schools are ready to move now, others move later.
You are welcome, and I hadn't thought of that with the "staged-growth" comment from Delany. That does seem to fit, but now we are speculating. Maybe we should post this as actual news as connecting the dots does seem to work as journalism in some circles now.
As of the 2009 report, Nebraska's Endowment was $964,928. Missouri's was $881,846. Both are down from over 1 billion each the year before
Those are in millions I would guess as I am sure of the NU figure, and I didn't realize MU's was so high. Good, then we can both play their little game. Screw the Big Texas Conference
It seems to lend credence to the rumors that Nebraska is the linchpin in all of this. Texas has probably made it known that they are willing to remain if Nebraska doesn't bolt. It is rather interesting that the discussions regarding Pac-10 expansion have been openly discussed and are moving forward in rapid fashion, while the Big 10 expansion talk has all occurred clandestinely. Almost every bit of information regarding Big 10 expansion that has been bandied about is the product of conjecture. Everything certainly seems to point towards a move to the Big 10 for Nebraska and Missouri, however, there is no concrete evidence of such. Whether the threat of exodus to the Pac-10 is real or not, the implication and deadline are going to force Nebraska to tip their hand. It is really an understandable act by Beebe. As long as these Big 10 rumors persist, the Big 12 can not move forward.
I'm okay with Texas/Big 12 trying to use the media to spin the blame on NU. The funny thing in all of this is that Perlman and Osborne have been calm and composed since April when all of this expansion hoopla included NU as a possibility. I think our leaders have done an excellent job leading by example, especially over the past week in keeping a professional demeanor through it all.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I have complete confidence in Perlman and Osborne and will support whatever decision they feel is best for our institution.
