Nebraska & Mizzou have until Friday (6/11) to decide if they're in or out

[billdozer15]

Just to clarify, a lot of people have suggested that Nebraska should just tell Beebe that they are committed to the Big 12, but then just leave whenever an actual better offer from the Big 10 comes along. Beebe has said that he would require a signed legal document from the schools in question that would legally bind them to the Big 12. So it's not realistic to think Nebraska could just tell Beebe they're committed with their fingers crossed behind their back.

 

Of course, the problem with Beebe requiring Nebraska and Mizzou to sign a legally binding document promising not to leave the Big 12 is that the Huskers and Tigers would then be putting themselves in a VERY precarious spot sitting on the sidelines hoping that the Big 12 South doesn't bolt for the Pac-10. Unless, of course, the document is written in such a way that would allow NU and MU to leave if Texas left, or 2 or more schools left, or something to that effect.

 

But I agree with those on here who have said that singling Nebraska and Mizzou out in this ultimatum is just another example of the Big 12 treating Nebraska and the rest of the North unfairly by trying to set it up to look like it was Nebraska and Mizzou that caused the demise of the Big 12. If I was TO and Perlman, I would be honored that Beebe gave me the shotgun to put down this lame horse.

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.

[knapplc]

What are the legalities of requiring one or two member institutions to sign a legal document committing themselves to the conference, but not requiring this of all members? This seems odd to me that only two members would be required to make this commitment - like having the husband sign a legally binding document stating that he will be faithful in the marriage and attaching penalties to unfaithfulness, yet not requiring the same of the wife. I don't see how something like that could hold up in a court.

[In the Deed the Glory]

Just to clarify, a lot of people have suggested that Nebraska should just tell Beebe that they are committed to the Big 12, but then just leave whenever an actual better offer from the Big 10 comes along. Beebe has said that he would require a signed legal document from the schools in question that would legally bind them to the Big 12. So it's not realistic to think Nebraska could just tell Beebe they're committed with their fingers crossed behind their back.

 

Of course, the problem with Beebe requiring Nebraska and Mizzou to sign a legally binding document promising not to leave the Big 12 is that the Huskers and Tigers would then be putting themselves in a VERY precarious spot sitting on the sidelines hoping that the Big 12 South doesn't bolt for the Pac-10. Unless, of course, the document is written in such a way that would allow NU and MU to leave if Texas left, or 2 or more schools left, or something to that effect.

 

But I agree with those on here who have said that singling Nebraska and Mizzou out in this ultimatum is just another example of the Big 12 treating Nebraska and the rest of the North unfairly by trying to set it up to look like it was Nebraska and Mizzou that caused the demise of the Big 12. If I was TO and Perlman, I would be honored that Beebe gave me the shotgun to put down this lame horse.

 

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.

 

I am quite convinced that we may have to "pledge loyalty" in the short term to get what is best for this university in the long run, whatever that may be.

[In the Deed the Glory]

What are the legalities of requiring one or two member institutions to sign a legal document committing themselves to the conference, but not requiring this of all members? This seems odd to me that only two members would be required to make this commitment - like having the husband sign a legally binding document stating that he will be faithful in the marriage and attaching penalties to unfaithfulness, yet not requiring the same of the wife. I don't see how something like that could hold up in a court.

 

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".

 

It would be far easier, and much more likely, that the conference would require all of the members to sign. I wonder if they already did, and CU, MU, and NU did not. The agreement probably reads that if ANY of the current 12 members leave none of the remaining are bound. This would allow the South schools to head to the Pac 10 if we bolt to the Big 10.

Edited June 7, 2010 by In the Deed the Glory

[knapplc]

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.

 

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.

[knapplc]

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.

 

I am quite convinced that we may have to "pledge loyalty" in the short term to get what is best for this university in the long run, whatever that may be.

 

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.

 

And thanks for the reply on the marriage contract. I'm woefully ignorant about such things. Good info.

[In the Deed the Glory]

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.

 

I am quite convinced that we may have to "pledge loyalty" in the short term to get what is best for this university in the long run, whatever that may be.

 

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.

 

And thanks for the reply on the marriage contract. I'm woefully ignorant about such things. Good info.

 

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.

[krc1995]

I would like take a break from the drama for a moment and give thanks to the God above for starting the chain of events that allowed Dr. Tom to be the AD and the captain of the NU ship that is guiding us threw this mess. This is probably the most important decision NU has faced since, well I don't know, but in a very long time.

[knapplc]

How does this make sense? Texas and aTm host officials from the Big 10 two weeks ago, yet we're the ones required to prove our loyalty?

 

• Representatives from the Pac-10 made exploratory visits to the campuses at Texas and Texas A&M two weeks ago, a source at a Big 12 school told The World-Herald.

 

• Two Big 12 sources confirmed to The World-Herald that last week Nebraska and Missouri were given a drop-dead date — this Friday afternoon — to commit to the Big 12. Nebraska, with a Board of Regents meeting this weekend, asked for a delay into the week of June 14-18.

 

LINK

[huKSer]

I would like take a break from the drama for a moment and give thanks to the God above for starting the chain of events that allowed Dr. Tom to be the AD and the captain of the NU ship that is guiding us threw this mess. This is probably the most important decision NU has faced since, well I don't know, but in a very long time.

Oh, the HORROR!

 

What would Peddy do?

[fro daddy]

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.

 

I am quite convinced that we may have to "pledge loyalty" in the short term to get what is best for this university in the long run, whatever that may be.

 

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.

 

And thanks for the reply on the marriage contract. I'm woefully ignorant about such things. Good info.

 

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

[In the Deed the Glory]

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.

 

I am quite convinced that we may have to "pledge loyalty" in the short term to get what is best for this university in the long run, whatever that may be.

 

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.

 

And thanks for the reply on the marriage contract. I'm woefully ignorant about such things. Good info.

 

As of the 2009 report, Nebraska's Endowment was $964,928. Missouri's was $881,846.

 

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

[ticks]

How does this make sense? Texas and aTm host officials from the Big 10 two weeks ago, yet we're the ones required to prove our loyalty?

 

• Representatives from the Pac-10 made exploratory visits to the campuses at Texas and Texas A&M two weeks ago, a source at a Big 12 school told The World-Herald.

 

• Two Big 12 sources confirmed to The World-Herald that last week Nebraska and Missouri were given a drop-dead date — this Friday afternoon — to commit to the Big 12. Nebraska, with a Board of Regents meeting this weekend, asked for a delay into the week of June 14-18.

 

LINK

 

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.

[Nexus]

How does this make sense? Texas and aTm host officials from the Big 10 two weeks ago, yet we're the ones required to prove our loyalty?

 

• Representatives from the Pac-10 made exploratory visits to the campuses at Texas and Texas A&M two weeks ago, a source at a Big 12 school told The World-Herald.

 

• Two Big 12 sources confirmed to The World-Herald that last week Nebraska and Missouri were given a drop-dead date — this Friday afternoon — to commit to the Big 12. Nebraska, with a Board of Regents meeting this weekend, asked for a delay into the week of June 14-18.

 

LINK

 

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.

 

Some of the boards I've visited over the weekend I've noticed that certain Big Ten fans were originally thrilled about the idea of having Texas in their conference, but now they've quickly changed their tone about them. They're seeing what kind of strong-arm tactics are being used against NU as well as the whole Baylor over CU to the Pac-10 business. They're convinced that NU is the good guy in all of this and they'd also love to have us in the Big Ten.

 

Also, in the latest OWH article that was posted elsewhere, this quote from a Nebraska Regents member says it all.

 

 

Phares said he has faith in Perlman and Nebraska Athletic Director Tom Osborne to protect the Huskers' interests.

 

"They are deeply in the middle of the pros and cons of the whole scenario,'' Phares said. "They have great experience in how conferences come together and function, so we are well-represented at the table.''

 

LINK

 

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.

[Ponderosa]

UT appears quite willing to jump to the PAC-10 if Nebraska and/or Mizzou leave.

How the h*ll does that prove they have "committed" to the Big XII?

 

If they were truly committed - they would stick around and just add replacement teams.