<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[Get The Picture]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[https://blutarsky.wordpress.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Senator Blutarsky]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://blutarsky.wordpress.com/author/blutarsky/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Mike Slive moves in mysterious ways&nbsp;sometimes.]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>Looks like I owe Mike Slive <a href="http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/05/mike_slive_sec_probably_would.html" target="_blank">something of an apology</a>.</p>
<blockquote><p>Why now for the SEC? In part because the SEC got passed financially by other conference TV deals since 2008. <strong>The SEC had a &#8220;look-in&#8221;</strong> &#8212; a review of the agreement &#8212; written into the contract after the first five years, although in this case it happened sooner.  <em>[Emphasis added.]</em></p></blockquote>
<p>Given the typically conservative nature of SEC business &#8211; note that the <em>Wall Street Journal</em> is reporting that <a href="http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2013/5/2/4295498/report-espn-owns-all-of-the-sec-network" target="_blank">the conference isn&#8217;t taking an ownership stake</a> in the new network &#8211; I can&#8217;t say I&#8217;m surprised that Slive exercised that level of prudence in negotiating the prior deal.  But I <em>am</em> surprised we&#8217;re just now hearing about it.</p>
<p>Which is why I say something of an apology.  Because what I thought all along was the compelling reason for the SEC&#8217;s expansion to 14 schools &#8211; to back out of a dated set of broadcast deals &#8211; turns out not to be relevant at all.  So where was the fire, Commissioner?</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t ask that question as a knock against either Missouri or Texas A&amp;M.  But the rush to expand has left the conference struggling for two years trying to figure out how to schedule its two marquee sports and it&#8217;s clear to this point that the results have been less than great.  Why couldn&#8217;t a little more time have been taken to get everyone&#8217;s ducks in a row?</p>
<p>All I can figure is that, never mind the serene talk about how the SEC would have been fine staying at twelve,  Slive was a lot more worried about being cut out of new dance partners than he&#8217;s ever let on.  I&#8217;ll let you decide what that might mean about further conference expansion.</p>
]]></html></oembed>