With the 12th game option and some people suggesting we reinitiate the A&M series, I thought I would ask if anyone here know the real truth about the A&M cancellation? The whole LSU A&M cancellation mess seems filled with mystery and intrigue to me. I get the feeling that to get to the truth, one would have to have access to the contracts and other documents and take testimonies under the penalty of perjury. Below is the A&M AD's (Grof was the AD who published this) side of the story that I found sometime ago on the internet. I don't know exactly when this was published, but it is during the early part of Bertman's reign. I'm not sure if it is completely true and I'll explain why afterwards."We had a contract with LSU dated Sept. 19, 1985, covering 10 years beginning with the 1988 football season. On my first day as Athletics Director (Sept. 1, 1993), I received a phone call from LSU requesting to cancel the last four years of the contract (1994-97). Texas A&M had no interest in doing so, and I indicated that to the LSU Athletics Director at the time. As a result LSU and Texas A&M played in 1994 and 1995; however, LSU refused to play us in 1996 and 1997. According to the contract, LSU should have paid Texas A&M a sum of $100,000 for each game. They offered to pay the penalty for one of the games but not both. As the federal court with jurisdiction would have been in New Orleans, our University lawyers recommended that we accept their offer of half the rightful amount. I begrudgingly agreed to do so. As a result, I have never since felt comfortable rescheduling the series."
"However, in the last six months, both an Associate AD and the new Athletics Director at LSU have contacted me about possibly renewing the series, and we have indicated that we do have some interest in a home-and-home situation. Reviewing our future schedules and keeping with our scheduling philosophy of one marquee, one name and one buy game, the earliest we would be able to accomplish this would be somewhere in the 2009 to 2012 seasons. We play Wyoming, Clemson and Utah in ’04; Clemson, Florida State and Southwest Texas State in ’05; Florida State and Troy State in ’06; Miami in ’07; and Arkansas State, Miami and Air Force in ’08. In 2009 we have Air Force on the schedule, and in 2010 and 2011 we have Michigan State. We have no intention of entering into a long-term agreement with anyone at this point, as scheduling has become a situation of gaining national exposure for recruiting purposes. Currently, we are looking at placing some west coast teams on the schedule, as that is one area that we currently do not have covered at the present time."
Without a doubt LSU initiated the cancellation of this contract. What's in question is whether or not we owe them the fees that they claim. A few years ago there was quite a bit of discussion on the Lair (before they went private) about this. One of the guys was quite knowledgeable, had some documentation, and may have been in LSU's AD. I didn't document it, but I'll share what I remember. I'm a little fuzzy on some of it, so my memory may be creating some truth here, but I believe the gist of this is correct.
When the SEC expanded to 12 teams, LSU needed to cancel the A&M due to the expanded SEC schedule of 8 games and the financial need to have 7 home games year in and year out. I think (I don't know) that LSU probably initiated cancellation with Grof's predecessor. It's my understanding that this put A&M in a bind and they asked LSU to help them out for a couple of years. LSU agreed, but A&M kept dragging their feet, so LSU ended it in 1995. I asked why didn't we owe the cancellation fee that A&M claimed and the Lair poster had an answer that satisfied me at the time.
I don't remember the details, but I think it had something to do with how the contract came to be 10 years. At this point, I may be fantasizing this, but I seem to remember that the original contract was extended a couple of years and that these years could be canceled at minimal cost with sufficient advance notice. We paid them the penalty for the end of the original contract, but not the extension since we had notified them of our intent years before. I remember the poster posting the contract clause about notification (this is why I thought he may have been in the AD). I may be wrong on the details, but the gist is that he convinced me that we acted correctly in accordance to the contract.
Does this make sense? When you look into some of the available details, it does. Note that Grof stated "We had a contract with LSU dated Sept. 19, 1985, covering 10 years beginning with the 1988 football season." But the A&M series actually started in 1986. Were these under two different contracts, or was this a modification of the existing contract? I don't know, but the latter would be consistent with what I wrote above. I've never seen anything about an original home and away deal; it's always been that we had a 10 yr deal. Since these contracts, particularly back then, were worked out so far in advance, I can easily see adding an extension to maintain a ten-year schedule.
Another thing that doesn't sound quite right is Grof's suggestion that the first time this came up was in 93, a year after the expansion, and on his first day as AD no less. This may be true, but I'm guessing that there was earlier contact. The SEC decided to expand and have a 8 game conference schedule in 1990. Now I can imagine that in the really good ole boy days that formalities were not necessarily followed to a "T," but I have difficulty seeing how our intentions would not have been known.
Finally this claim, "As the federal court with jurisdiction would have been in New Orleans, our University lawyers recommended that we accept their offer of half the rightful amount," has a specious feel to it. Maybe one of the lawyers out there would care to comment. Are the Federal Courts really that prejudicial geographically? I wouldn't think so.
So, why would A&M distort this? I don't know, but I would speculate that they had some internal political issues going on. When the SEC expanded, LSU advocated that A&M join the SEC. Meetings were held in Baton Rouge with A&M officials to discuss this possibility. The powers that be back in Texas did not like this at all. In fact, I believe it was the President/Chancellor that was indicted for misappropriation of State funds when he attended one of these meetings, and imo, in retaliation. I think they used a state plane to attend this meeting and then he continued on to New Orleans to attend to some personal business (he had family along). I don't think he sufficiently, if at all, reimbursed the state for this and was charged. Dean had to testify to the nature of the meeting in BR. If the trials weren't being held during this time, they were either just over or being prepared for. Maybe the A&M people didn't think we offered adequate support, or that more important powers felt that LSU was interfering in Texas' business by recruiting A&M for the SEC, or some other related reason. Who knows, but I wouldn't discount something like it.
A lot of this is just rank speculation, because I really don't know the truth. But I am curious and there has been a lot of obvious BS on this topic spewed over the years. Does anybody out there really know the truth?
