Baylor’s Protests Even More Sickening When Put In Historical Context

September 13th, 2011 03:51 PM║ Posted By: John Pennington ║ Permalink ║ Schools: Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Tags: BU, SEC, Southwest Conference, SWC

A few things that you know by now:

1. Texas A&M is heading to the SEC at some point.

2. That point would have been last week had Baylor not leaked threats that it would sue the SEC (and perhaps even commissioner Mike Slive) for tortious interference.

3. Legal experts don’t think the Baylor has much hope of winning such a suit.

4. We at MrSEC.com have said from the beginning that BU’s move is simply a stall tactic designed to try and keep the Big 12 alive.

If you read this site regularly, you know that we’ve also often pointed out how Baylor had no worries about the common welfare or the end of “good ol’ Texas footbawl” when it skedaddled from the SWC to the Big 12 in the mid-90s, leaving Houston, Rice, SMU and TCU to fend for themselves.

Well Texas A&M fans have dug up a story from The Houston Chronicle dated February 24th, 1994. Here’s what Thomas R. Powers — chairman of Baylor’s board of regents — had to say about BU’s own conference jump at the time:

“We are certainly saddened by the demise of the Southwest Conference. I think it was something that was going to happen sooner or later. We certainly wish those who did not receive an invitation (to join the Big 12) well. I feel sure they are fine institutions and they will find a place in some other program that will be appropriate for them.”

It should also be noted that Baylor was the first school from the SWC to vote on and accept an invitation to join the Big 12.

Yet now that Baylor is being left behind rather leaving others, school president Kenneth Starr is threatening lawsuits to the left and lawsuits to the right. What a pathetic show.

Anyone else need a vomit bag?

(And to those who’ve come here and “corrected” us for suggesting that Baylor twisted arms politically to enter the Big 12 in the first place… read the above story written on the day BU’s vote went down. And then go get your shinebox.)

« MSU A.D. Wants Fans To Behave With Their Cowbells (Especially With LSU Coming To Town)

Florida State Forms Expansion/Realignment Committee »

15 comments

Newest | Oldest

AllTideUp

Not to mention that Baylor is supposed to be a Baptist school, but they don't seem to ever do anything except give Christians a bad name as if we don't already have a tough time being taken seriously in the world. And yes I am a Baptist myself.

hangtime79

Let's not kid ourselves. This is about money. Just like this is about money for the SEC, its about Baylor's money and survival now. As for Baylor blowing up the SWC, yea they stepped over Rice, TCU, et al. Tech and Baylor had enough connections to get the invite and drove the getaway car, but the Big 8 were not going to take more then four and if had its druthers it would have only taken TAMU and UT. But if you take one thing away from this UT and TAMU took the gun in their hand and pulled the trigger on the SWC. No other schools could have killed the SWC.

Another thing to remember is the attitudes at that point in time in the article. Let's go back to 1994-1995, Baylor had just come off a bowl game, Chuck Reedy was still the head coach (and the last coach to make a bowl game prior to last year), the Grant Teaff erra was still fresh in everyone's minds and Baylor had the fifth best conference record over the last 10 years. In 1994, Baylor was having to convince a lot of alums still that the SWC was dead and this was the way forward. Just like "Save Texas Football" is a meme now, the "SWC is dead" was meme then. Just like you don't read a 1st person source from 50 years ago in today's context, don't do the same here without understanding what was happening at the time.

Finally, there are three reasons I can think Slive didn't admit TAMU directly
1. He got his hands dirty last year in meetings with TAMU and thinks its not worth taking a risk
2. He doesn't want to do the dirty work and thinks he can provoke Larry Scott into taking the two Okie schools and imploding the Big 12 for him
3. He is ultimately afraid of a nine figure lawsuit / doesn't want the courts in his business

Pick one or come up with you own. It doesn't change the score. Baylor is fighting for its survival and no has cared, cared, or will care about Baylor when this is all over so any sense of trying to shame Baylor has zero chance of working. As people say well they won't get a conference bid (Baylor is toast anyway so that won't fly), no one will schedule Baylor (only UConn, ND, and Wake Forest) were outside Texas schools of any prominence that scheduled Baylor in the last seven years (no SEC schools on that list). Baylor has literally nothing to lose at this point so its going to the mat and thus we are all sitting around waiting for OU and Pac 12 to finish their dance.

Benny T

As a proud Baylor alum, I am embarrassed by the repeated "keep the tradition" public relations blasts the Baylor administration has chosen. Such a public campaign is bound to be ignored, twisted, and criticized, and it has about I don't agree with most of the analysis I've read here and elsewhere: I don't think it's hypocritical to hope to preserve traditions primarily, while being realistic about an institution's future as a secondary matter. As a Baylor fan, I hope to stay in the Big 12 (not because it's brought the university much glamour or success--I'd rather be in TCU's position at present--but because I enjoy playing Texas, Tech, and A&M every year). Nevertheless, I support the Baylor administration's best and concurrent efforts to secure Baylor another home should the Big 12 dissolve. And if you think of it, most of us operate with these kinds of dual-motives all the time.

Anyway, the point I really want to make is as follows. Baylor's threats to sue, which are not very serious at present, are not what is keeping Texas A&M out of the SEC. Texas A&M cannot join the SEC because Baylor refuses to sign an agreement releasing its OWN legal rights. Now think about that: Baylor is being demonized for doing nothing. Baylor has not filed suit, and probably never will. Baylor has simply failed to promise A&M not to sue.

Let's say you had recently signed a new employment agreement with a longtime business partner. This business partner had some very unique skills that were a big part of the company's success. Just a little while after signing his new contract, this business partner got jealous of another employee's salary, and he decided to break his contract and join a big-name company. As a result of his departure, it looks like the company is going to fail, and without your own paycheck, you really don't know how you're going to make ends meet. One day, that old business partner calls and says, "Hey pal, I didn't realize that I had to get you to fill out this legal indemnity form so I can start my job over here. I think this is going to be a great opportunity, and I'm so excited to get started. So can you just fill out the form?"

What's your answer going to be? Unless you're a fool or a saint, it's going to be, "Heeeeeeellllllllllll no!" As a basic matter of justice, you don't owe this character anything. Sure, his success in some way supported your own, but it's not like he ever did it for you or did it alone. You don't owe the guy a cent. More importantly, as a legal matter, you should never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever sign a form of that kind unless you get something in return. Go ask a lawyer and see what his says. Never. Ever. Ever ever. So (to switch from the analogy to the thing itself), Baylor is forced to choose what it wants to get out of this deal. If Baylor thinks the Big 12 might somehow survive (eventually, of course, without A&M), Baylor should keep up the stalemate. If Baylor believes the conference is truly dead, maybe it should make a deal with A&M for several million and a promise to keep it quiet.

The point is, I agree that the public relations decisions made by my university (which I love, by the way) have been embarrassing and counter-productive. However, I find it remarkable that anyone who has thought about this process for more than a second believes Baylor should "take this one like a man," sign the form, and let A&M go. People who talk in that mode usually end up knocked out in dive-bar parking lots. When it comes to millions of dollars and big-time lawyers, Baylor is fighting this boardroom fight like any "man" worth his (or her, I must add) two cents should.

AllTideUp

Is Baylor looking out for their own best interests? Of course they are and that's what they did when the SWC broke up as well. The problem is the lying and the disingenuous nature of it all.

First the Baylor people put out this bogus Perryman Report about the economic consequences to the state of Texas. That didn't work and now they want to sue and pretend it is all about saving Texas football. That has NOTHING to do with it and never has. For anyone to say that that is even a legitimate argument on the part of Baylor is looking at it with green glasses on.

If Baylor was a national powerhouse with a large fan base and they were the ones being courted by another major conference then you don't think Baylor would leave the other schools in their dust in a heartbeat? Of course they would and then they would come up with some crap about how that is better for everyone involved and how they are actually looking out for the best interests of everyone else because that seems to be their MO.

Your analogy is completely incorrect. Texas A&M is not Baylor's employee. Texas A&M is not the Big 12's employee. The Big 12 is nothing more than an association and do not individuals, companies, or institutions have the freedom to partner and associate with whomever they wish? Of course they do and it is really none of Baylor's business if A&M wants to leave the SEC or if they want to drop their athletic program. That should be A&M's decision. Not to mention A&M's success didn't just in some way support Baylor's success. If it was not for Texas or A&M or even TT then Baylor would have ended up in CUSA or some other bottom feeder conference a long time ago. If Baylor was worried about being successful rather than just soaking up the rain provided by someone else then they would have tried to improve their standing in the world. But no, they would rather pitch a fit when their sugar daddy decides to look for a better option.

At some far flung point in the future if Bama ever becomes a bottom feeder and pulls these types of stunts because they can't compete in the marketplace and wants someone else to do it for them then I will be ashamed to have ever been a fan.

If Baylor was anything great they wouldn't even need to worry about this crap because they would know they would land somewhere just as good if not better.

JarrenBlake

Benny T I can agree with you. But is not just that they did not sign, its that they implied to the the SEC on a voicemail that they would file a lawsuit should this carry on. They did in fact sign that agreement, and then turned about and basicall said "Actually, you know what, I am not going to hold to that agreement and if this continues I will pursue legal recourse."

Now, will they actually do it? Is it a bluff on their part? Who knows, eventually the SEC is going to have to call, cause the Pac12 has no reason to do so. Oklahoma overplayed their hand and the Pac12 knows it can pick them up at anytime, if they even want to do so.

BearForce

So it’s ok for A&M to welsh on their commitment but not ok for Baylor to hold them to it and why the conditional invite SEC if you have no reason to question your actions in this matter? And why is it you focus just on Baylor even though Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, and by your own admission Missouri have not waived their rights either. Oh and finally why would Baylor be the first to vote...genius its due to it being a private school that can call its BOR together at the drop of a hat whereas the public schools must give prior notice. I just find it remarkable that you would expect Baylor to waive its right to hold A&M and possibly the SEC accountable if it engaged in conduct that intentionally contributed to the demise of the Big 12, especially since A&M made a commitment a year ago. And so might I offer a vomit bag to you for your hypocrisy

BearForce

Oh I get it, Baylor using political influence to get into a conference that the article you site is wrong but Tech doing the same thing is ok. "Montford, Junell and Laney are Texas Tech graduates who stated publicly two years ago that they would use their political clout to prevent Texas and Texas A&M from leaving the SWC for the SEC." Oh and where is the indignation for Tech, Texas and Baylor from preventing A&M to go to the SEC back then either or just the fact all four schools shut down the SWC. I know why there isn't any, it because they are big state schools and so long as they are big state schools any action by them is ok with you and the rest of the media no matter their public statements: (more)

johnmrsec

BearForce...

Question... Did anyone say that it was right Tech for do that? I don't think so. I think you're reading what you want to read.

That said, I don't see Tech threatening to file any lawsuits today. If the school was, we'd point out how remarkably wishy-washy it's behavior was. Just as we have with Baylor.

When Tech files suit, let us know. Until then, live with Baylor's actions and stop trying to spread blame over something that has nothing to do with Tech in our story.

John

BearForce

John

As soon as you can show me Baylor's threat of a lawsuit then I will agree with you. So far all is out there is rumors but where is the letter of intent, or any other documentation. Baylor has simply not waived their legal rights, same as ISU, KU, Missouri, and KSU yet all your venom is for Baylor. I also noticed that all my quotes from the A&M president about their committment to the Big 12 just a year ago have suddenly disappeared from your comments section...I can only guess that is because they don't support your point of view which is Baylor is being wishy washy but A&M certainly is not. Finally I didn't spread any blame, just pointed out your slanted view that it was Baylor alone that left SMU, TCU, Rice, and Houston on the side of the road when the SWC broke up and it was Baylor alone that used political influence to help themselves to the Big 12. I am just asking for some balance however I guess that is something that isn't possible on the site.

johnmrsec

BearForce...

We have a standard policy in the comment area... no cursing, no links. Other webheads come here and post links to their own sites... basically providing themselves with free advertising. We don't do that on other sites, so we don't let them do it here. Too keep it nice and easy, we nuke every link we see. (We choose to provide these comment boxes, after all.)

As for Baylor...

Stop changing the subject. We're not talking about Tech or A&M. We're talking about a school that is trying to hold up dozens of other schools by threatening lawsuits. And while Ken Starr hasn't made that threat to those of us here at MrSEC, we think it's pretty clear that something's frozen the realignment machine... and SEC and Big 12 sources all say it's Baylor. (Why would they claim Baylor and not Iowa State? Are they anti-Baptist?)

But for the most part, the point of the above post was to show just how duplicitous it is for BU to leave Houston, Rice, SMU and TCU for dead... only to then turn around and prevent other schools from doing just what Baylor did 15 years ago because -- in this case -- Baylor IS Houston, Rice, SMU and TCU.

If you can provide proof that that's NOT what's happening, we'll welcome it. But posting, "yeah, but another school..." doesn't cut it. It didn't cut it when I told my Mom that Timmy from down the street was throwing eggs at houses, too.... and it sure doesn't cut it when it comes to the adult world of schools trying to act in their own best interest.

You -- of course -- will take that as some pro-SEC stance, but I would say the same if Georgia found a better offer from the Big Ten and decided to move. Schools have a right to act in their own best interest. As long as that school is willing to fulfill its contracts with its last league by either staying in place or paying a pre-set exit fee -- and Texas A&M IS living up to its contract by paying the exit fee -- then a school should be allowed to move without fear of lawsuit from another school that would do -- or in Baylor's case HAS DONE -- the exact same thing.

John

Oh, and if you don't stop posting links to other sites, we'll block your IP. Our site, our rules. Live by 'em, or head back to your Baylor messageboards.

AllTideUp

Thomas Powers is the current head of the board of regents or was the head at the time? Either way, it is hypocritical, but it makes it juicier if he is still in power at Baylor.

Greg

I love the Chronicle link--Baylor used almost identical words as A&M: increase national exposure, etc.

I understand Baylor's position, and I don't blame them for feeling the way they do. I won't deny them their present course of action; however, they must understand the consequences that come from it, namely, that they lose face across the nation (just search for Jim Rome's soundbites about Baylor), their efforts won't prevent the collapse of the Big 12, and that other conferences are less likely to accept them. Baylor is digging a bigger pit for themselves, and their 'brand' will suffer because of it.

SecFan

From newest Baylor fan...Go Baylor!!! Hold that line.

HoustonVol

everyone knows that Baylor arm twisted their way into the B12. The only person not mentioned was Ann Richards, the governor at the time. Who was also a Baylor grad I believe.

eeAg91

Yes, Anne is a loyal BU graduate.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 13th, 2011 at 3:51 pm and is filed under Alabama, Homepage . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.