clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

K-State Slate: 9.8.11




Just to get things out there on the record, here is the New York Post article that is titled "Big East could add Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri." Granted, it's based on "multiple sources" and not a named source at the Post, but it's as good as anything else in this conference realignment mess. It also fits with a report from Adam Zagoria and from last August that said the Big East had considered adding Kansas State, Kansas, Iowa State and Missouri during 2010 conference realignment. Yesterday, Jon Wilner of the San Jose Mercury News reported that "without question" K-State and KU would be considered as expansion targets by the Pac-12 in the event Texas and Texas Tech are not an option.

Haskin agrees with the general consensus that it was a prudent move by Baylor and others not to waive their right to sue.

Baylor was the ringleader yesterday in the charge for Big 12 schools not to waive their right to sue the SEC. Iowa State joined in. K-State, KU, Texas Tech and Missouri all eventually joined the bloc.

The Aggies are not taking it well. In fact, they're losing their perspective. Oh wait, that would imply they had any to begin with.

"We are being held hostage right now," Loftin said of being forced to stay in the Big 12. "Essentially, we're being told that you must stay here against your will and we think that really flies in the face of what makes us Americans for example and makes us free people."

OK, rant coming on...

I suppose Loftin thinks he's talking about freedom of association, which is clearly one thing that makes us Americans. There are other things that make us Americans, and one is freedom to contract. Part of that includes the requirement that you pay for contracts you don't honor. Texas A&M committed to the Big 12 last summer, and not only committed, but demanded a larger, guaranteed share of revenue, to the tune of $20 million per year. They got it. Then, they signed on when the league negotiated a billion-dollar contract for its second-tier rights. And then, all of a sudden, they decide they don't like Texas and its network, despite the fact that Texas asked them to create a joint network. They don't like the fact that they get a bunch of concessions that, based on their on-field performance over the history of the league, they're no more entitled to than K-State.

And now they're mad that schools who stand to lose a lot because of their refusal to honor their commitment are going to stand on their rights, their rights guaranteed as legal entities in the United States, and hold A&M to its commitment, or at the very least make A&M pay for not keeping its commitment? Give me a break.