From an Aug 31st article in the Lubbock Avalanche Journal:
The chairman of the House Higher Education Committee, state Rep. Dan Branch, R-Dallas, said he doesn’t intend to meddle in the university’s [Texas A&M's] decision. “My sense is that this will play itself out in an orderly fashion, and there won’t be a need for a public hearing."

Branch’s counterpart in the Senate, Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, agrees with him. “I am very confident that A&M made this decision thinking that it was in the school’s best interest. I do not intend to call a hearing.” [End citation.]

Ignoring these obvious (and easily accessible) facts just sheds additional light on your inability to produce any kind of credible, persuasive argument throughout this entire thread.

I would link several articles for you that state the very same thing, but they would get deleted by the Mods b/c you can't link to other sites on this message board

so- google Texas A&M legislature SEC expansion or something to that effect, and you'll find that STEP 1 of this process was getting permission from legislature to even be allowed to explore any options

potential embarrassment wont be a factor in keeping them from trying to bring down this deal

i'm with you 100%

GO BEARS!!

wasn't this all sparked by being tired of being in Texas' shadow?

How will they take it when the SEC views them as an "outsider" compared to the schools who have been in the SEC for half a century?

They are willing to throw all rivalries and history under the bus in favor of self interest, so I have major doubts they will be a great addition to the conference in terms of stability. If things dont go how they want in a few years, do they try to bail for greener pastures again? Wouldn't surprise me a bit if they did

did A&M not have to get approval from the state legislature to even move forward with all of this?

Would OU & Okie State be joined at the hip if it were NOT for politicians in Oklahoma forcing OU to bring Okie State wherever they go so little brother doesn't get left behind?

These are State schools (mostly) and that means politics is involved, PERIOD

although trying to link this to Monica Lewinski is a bit of a stretch, but that was obviously a joke

Again, I don't like it either. But I do admit that if it were my university in Baylor's shoes, I would want them to fight too. A lot of people getting angry at Baylor falsely believe that Baylor can simply go to the MWC or C-USA. They can't. Baylor isn't going to go out there and publicly admit this, of course – at least not at this stage – but it is true.

Moving on…at this point, all A&M is trying to do is better their school by making a positive move to a very strong conference where things off the field are more on a level playing field so they can concentrate on doing their best ON THE FIELD. Period. SEC will be tough, no doubt about it, but we would rather go through the hits we'll get there then deal with anymore of the BIG 12 mess. If you read anything OTHER THAN ESPN, you will see that A&M is NOT like the other Texas schools, and understand our true reasons for leaving. But go ahead and try to lump us all in together if it makes you feel better.

–Michelle

I should have never invoked Starr's past. I should have known that die-hard Republicans and die-hard Democrats — who love their parties more than their country — would see only the name Bill Clinton and miss the entire point of our statement.

Starr was hired to look into Whitewater. When he found nothing there, he returned with a semen-stained dress. The investigation went in a totally different direction, Clinton lied about Lewinsky, and he was taken before Congress for that.

I wrote nothing in support of Clinton. Neither did I bash him. I intentionally did neither.

My point — quite obvious, I thought — was to point out that Starr would do whatever it takes to accomplish his goals.

If anyone else comes here and accuses me of being pro- or anti-Clinton, it only reveals their biases, not mine.

John

This charade will not stop A&M from going to the SEC.

its brings up the question:

WHY IN GODS NAME ARE WE GETTING INVOLVED WITH ANY OF THESE SCHOOLS?

Their overinflated self worth, arrogance, and belief that all things Texas are more important than the rest of the world makes me think all the TV Market money on the planet doesn't make getting into bed with a Texas school worth it

you think A&M joins the SEC and politely goes along with the rest of the schools on conference decisions? Or do you think they'll act like Texans and try to bully and strong arm their way out of every conflict that crosses their path b/c of the texas complex that makes you superior to everyone else (even if you are a joke to the rest of the world like A&M or Baylor)

I think they should just reconfigure the SouthWest Conference and let the Texas schools continue to live in their own bubble so the rest of us dont have to constantly worry and put up with their nonsense

I wondered what person would claim I was defending Clinton. What a shock that person is you.

I said clearly, like Clinton or not, that Starr proved that he would go as far as he had to go — even outside the realm of the initial investigation — to accomplish his goal. That sure seems to be what he's doing here, too.

And you better check your history books. Clinton lied under oath about what Starr had dug up, not the other way around. Starr was hired to investigate Whitewater, he stumbled across Lewinsky and Clinton lied under oath about it.

But my comment had nothing to do with politics and was intentionally non-committal regarding Clinton and his deeds. It was all about Starr's willingness to accomplish his goals by any means necessary. If you read something else into that… it says a lot more about you than it does me.

And I don't recall after issuing a profanity-laced tirade. (But I'd love to.)

John

The Baylor people have more things to worry about than what a bunch of people who aren't fans of the school – and likely never will be – think of them right now.

they know the next boyfriend they get wont be nearly as attractive as the one they have right now (see Conference USA or WAC)

So, put that into context when you ask "why is Baylor the only school suing." Simple: they are the only school that needs to. If the other schools were facing Baylor's plight, they'd sue also. As I stated in a comment in the post below, I don't agree with what Baylor is doing. But don't sit there for a minute and claim that other schools wouldn't do the same if they were in Baylor's situation. Iowa State, for instance, doesn't have to sue because being in the Big East may turn out to be a better deal than being in the Big 12 anyway. Kansas thinks so, which is why they were talking to the Big East before Texas A&M began talking to the SEC!

So I ask you … if the school that you led as its president was looking at dropping from the Big 12 to the Sun Belt, what would your response, your avenue of recourse, be? I am no Kenneth Starr fan either, but it is easy to be high and mighty when you don't have his responsibilities. Pretty much anyone else placed in the position to lead and represent Baylor's interests – not your interests, the SEC's interests, A&M's interests, but Baylor's interests – would do exactly the same thing, and if they wouldn't then that would be negligence, dereliction of duty, on their part.

P.S.
Congress gave Starr the permission to investigate the sexual harassment claims against Bill Clinton, and Clinton agreed to it. It was only after Starr came up with evidence that Clinton and the Democrats did not know existed that they cried foul, and then all of a sudden began to dislike the independent prosecutor law that they themselves wrote in a manner designed to be abused so they could use it to go after Nixon and later tried – and failed – to use against Reagan and Bush. Quit recycling 20 year old DNC talking points.