CSNbbs

Full Version: Why no love for Oklahoma U?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Forget for a moment whether it's realistic or not... I want to know why so many fans on this board think the ACC shouldn't or wouldn't add OU? In my mind OU + UT is the ultimate combo... toss in KU and ND and the ACC becomes a very formidable 18-team league.

So why no love for the Sooners?
That would work...you take it and press on.

ACC would be the overall #1 conference
I have no problem landing the Big 3. UT,OU,KU
First, I love OU! It one of my better customers. But as far as an ACC member, my objection is the same for UT Austin and any other Big 12 university. Geographic outlier, different time zone, travel distance, completely different region of the country. You will be trying to make us look like the American Athletic Conference. But a P5 version.
OU would be huge. I don't think the ACC could land them. Offering the lowest payout is a tough sell.
(05-08-2017 08:35 AM)nole Wrote: [ -> ]OU would be huge. I don't think the ACC could land them. Offering the lowest payout is a tough sell.

The ACC doesn't "offer" the lowest payout. They pay out what they are given. And with UT and OU, they would be paid a lot more than they are now because they are national brands.

That being said, I think the conference and those two schools would come to regret the choice to join forces for reasons stated by others. OU and UT are where they belong. They just haven't learned to accept that reality yet.
(05-07-2017 09:58 PM)texasorange Wrote: [ -> ]Geographic outlier, different time zone, travel distance, completely different region of the country. You will be trying to make us look like the American Athletic Conference.

[Image: th?id=OIP.nheg9BLidTYpzrKA7ZXOGgEsDm&pid=15.1]

sounds eerily similar to syracuse ...

FROZEN TUNDRA
(05-07-2017 09:12 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]So why no love for the Sooners?

texas takes precedence ...

ROOM FOR ONE MORE
(05-08-2017 10:00 AM)green Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-07-2017 09:12 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]So why no love for the Sooners?

texas takes precedence ...

ROOM FOR ONE MORE

See, I have no problem with this view, but that's NOT what people have been saying.
(05-08-2017 10:06 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-08-2017 10:00 AM)green Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-07-2017 09:12 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]So why no love for the Sooners?

texas takes precedence ...

ROOM FOR ONE MORE

See, I have no problem with this view, but that's NOT what people have been saying.

THEY KNOW NOT OF WHAT THEY SPEAK
I don't see that. The impression I get is that most fans here feel that the ACC is #4, possibly #3 on Oklahoma's list of preferred conferences. I hope they get what they want but I'm not going to promote a school that seems to have little interest in the ACC.
(05-08-2017 09:50 AM)green Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-07-2017 09:58 PM)texasorange Wrote: [ -> ]Geographic outlier, different time zone, travel distance, completely different region of the country. You will be trying to make us look like the American Athletic Conference.

[Image: th?id=OIP.nheg9BLidTYpzrKA7ZXOGgEsDm&pid=15.1]

sounds eerily similar to syracuse ...

FROZEN TUNDRA

You are right except for the different time zone thing and the different geographic outlier thing, since the ACC was already in the northeast before SU was invited, and BC and Pitt are also in the ACC.
Syracuse is actually closer to more ACC schools than Miami is.

01-wingedeagle
(05-08-2017 12:30 PM)cuseroc Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-08-2017 09:50 AM)green Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-07-2017 09:58 PM)texasorange Wrote: [ -> ]Geographic outlier, different time zone, travel distance, completely different region of the country. You will be trying to make us look like the American Athletic Conference.

[Image: th?id=OIP.nheg9BLidTYpzrKA7ZXOGgEsDm&pid=15.1]

sounds eerily similar to syracuse ...

FROZEN TUNDRA

You are right except for the different time zone thing and the different geographic outlier thing, since the ACC was already in the northeast before SU was invited, and BC and Pitt are also in the ACC.
01-wingedeagle





you're closer to french canada than the conference core ...

PARLEZ VOUX FRANCAIS
Because when everything is over and the dust settles it will become apparent that "geography" more than any other factor will have determined the winners and losers in realignment.

Oklahoma and Texas can go together with friends to really just one conference, the PAC. How many friends go with them is debatable. Nobody else can offer that.

The SEC can offer some old rivals and if it gets greedy could offer some present friends as well. But not as many as the PAC might be able to offer. Enough and the geographical issues are overcome.

The Big 10 can only offer the brands and probably only the AAU brands. I just don't see them taking Oklahoma, especially without Texas and I don't see Texas heading up the Chisholm Trail to be slaughtered in the old Chicago stockyards.

The ACC is a geographical outlier to the Big 12. That's why it will not be a long term consideration. It won't be good for either. If the addition of Texas and Oklahoma together NET a conference a boost of 5 million per ACC or PAC school in payout (and that's a generous estimate not deducting for tag alongs) the PAC will still trail the SEC and Big 10 by almost 7-8 million a year in just TV Revenue. The only lure therefore that they have for Texa-homa would be not having to go to the Big 10 or SEC and for Texas that might be enough. For Oklahoma I'm not so sure.

All I know is that if the SEC ends up by extending its footprint by one state and adding a school that gives it a better % of DFW we will have done just fine. We don't need Texas or Oklahoma to accomplish that. If we got one of them it would be huge, but it wouldn't keep us from accomplishing our goals if we didn't.

What are the ACC's goals? You want a network and you are getting it. You wanted a brand in football and you may be getting one. You wanted a buffer against the Big 10 (you don't need one against the SEC because ESPN won't pay us to raid you because what they are paying for ACC product is a bargain for them) and you will likely get one.

North Carolina and Duke will always be your basketball national brands, at least to the casual viewer. Notre Dame if ever here in full will be your historic football brand and until now you really didn't have one. Clemson and F.S.U. are fantastic, but not historical brands. Another 50 years might change that. You will bet a bump in pay from the network that will help close the gap in revenue to what should be a workable distance. Texas doesn't really do it for you at 5 games a year when their program is down. You don't do it for Texas from a fan interest standpoint. Oklahoma and Texas would be alien corn in the ACC.

Personally I believe the best thing for college football would be for the pair to join the PAC. It helps the PAC without putting the Big 10 or SEC too far ahead of everyone else. It enables us to keep four competitive conferences. Should the Big 10 or SEC land one or both of those schools then the resultant instability in income will eventually lead us to 3 or even 2 conferences.

So Mark, that's a lot said to say there isn't a lot of desire for Oklahoma in the ACC for the same reason there shouldn't be a lot of desire for Texas in the ACC, because neither fit naturally into the ACC in any particular way. It would be a lot like talking about Michigan and Ohio State in the SEC, or Alabama and Auburn in the Big 10. So geography and geography being tied to branding, it just doesn't seem natural.
(05-08-2017 12:43 PM)green Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-08-2017 12:30 PM)cuseroc Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-08-2017 09:50 AM)green Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-07-2017 09:58 PM)texasorange Wrote: [ -> ]Geographic outlier, different time zone, travel distance, completely different region of the country. You will be trying to make us look like the American Athletic Conference.

[Image: th?id=OIP.nheg9BLidTYpzrKA7ZXOGgEsDm&pid=15.1]

sounds eerily similar to syracuse ...

FROZEN TUNDRA

You are right except for the different time zone thing and the different geographic outlier thing, since the ACC was already in the northeast before SU was invited, and BC and Pitt are also in the ACC.
01-wingedeagle





you're closer to french canada than the conference core ...

PARLEZ VOUX FRANCAIS
01-wingedeagle

But still closer to the conference core than Miami is. I could say that Miami is closer to communist Cuba than the core of the conference, but that would be an equally stupid and worthless comment.
03-lmfao 03-lmfao
(05-08-2017 12:50 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Because when everything is over and the dust settles it will become apparent that "geography" more than any other factor will have determined the winners and losers in realignment.

Oklahoma and Texas can go together with friends to really just one conference, the PAC. How many friends go with them is debatable. Nobody else can offer that.

The SEC can offer some old rivals and if it gets greedy could offer some present friends as well. But not as many as the PAC might be able to offer. Enough and the geographical issues are overcome.

The Big 10 can only offer the brands and probably only the AAU brands. I just don't see them taking Oklahoma, especially without Texas and I don't see Texas heading up the Chisholm Trail to be slaughtered in the old Chicago stockyards.

The ACC is a geographical outlier to the Big 12. That's why it will not be a long term consideration. It won't be good for either. If the addition of Texas and Oklahoma together NET a conference a boost of 5 million per ACC or PAC school in payout (and that's a generous estimate not deducting for tag alongs) the PAC will still trail the SEC and Big 10 by almost 7-8 million a year in just TV Revenue. The only lure therefore that they have for Texa-homa would be not having to go to the Big 10 or SEC and for Texas that might be enough. For Oklahoma I'm not so sure.

All I know is that if the SEC ends up by extending its footprint by one state and adding a school that gives it a better % of DFW we will have done just fine. We don't need Texas or Oklahoma to accomplish that. If we got one of them it would be huge, but it wouldn't keep us from accomplishing our goals if we didn't.

What are the ACC's goals? You want a network and you are getting it. You wanted a brand in football and you may be getting one. You wanted a buffer against the Big 10 (you don't need one against the SEC because ESPN won't pay us to raid you because what they are paying for ACC product is a bargain for them) and you will likely get one.

North Carolina and Duke will always be your basketball national brands, at least to the casual viewer. Notre Dame if ever here in full will be your historic football brand and until now you really didn't have one. Clemson and F.S.U. are fantastic, but not historical brands. Another 50 years might change that. You will bet a bump in pay from the network that will help close the gap in revenue to what should be a workable distance. Texas doesn't really do it for you at 5 games a year when their program is down. You don't do it for Texas from a fan interest standpoint. Oklahoma and Texas would be alien corn in the ACC.

Personally I believe the best thing for college football would be for the pair to join the PAC. It helps the PAC without putting the Big 10 or SEC too far ahead of everyone else. It enables us to keep four competitive conferences. Should the Big 10 or SEC land one or both of those schools then the resultant instability in income will eventually lead us to 3 or even 2 conferences.

So Mark, that's a lot said to say there isn't a lot of desire for Oklahoma in the ACC for the same reason there shouldn't be a lot of desire for Texas in the ACC, because neither fit naturally into the ACC in any particular way. It would be a lot like talking about Michigan and Ohio State in the SEC, or Alabama and Auburn in the Big 10. So geography and geography being tied to branding, it just doesn't seem natural.


ACC goals should of always been the same, but it has been a game of pretend it isn't simple:

1) Revenue within 80-85% of SEC/B1G
2) Revenue within 80-85% of SEC/B1G
3) Revenue within 80-85% of SEC/B1G

4) A network that provides exposure and is an advocate (ESPN is weak on both of these for the ACC except when Duke/UNC play in bball)

5) Compete in football (basketball takes care of itself)


You are almost certainly going to see a P2 as the B1G and SEC continue to increase the revenue gap (currently near $15 million).
I would be perfectly happy with Oklahoma in the ACC, but I spend a lot of time on the OU boards, and there is no feeling for the ACC on there (not that I blame them). As much as OU fans hate the Big 12, the ACC is the one destination that they would take major blowback for leaving to. Many still believe the ACC is totally inferior to the Big 12 in football, and it's going to take more than a few years for that perception to change.

I think there is at least some small chance of Texas and the ACC, although I don't think that's likely either, but it's still more likely than OU. For a lot of reasons, but more likely because OU is very attuned to it's conference neighbors...whereas I think Texas is more "wherever we are is automatically the place to be." I think more academic/elitist leanings from Texas, plus some weird love between Texas and Notre Dame, at least makes that somewhat plausible.

I agree with JR...the best thing for college football balance as a whole is probably Texhoma to the PAC, ND+1 to the ACC, and the B1G and SEC make do with secondary choices. That is a largely dismissed scenario, but I don't think it's impossible. While you will never have perfect economic parity, that's probably about as much balance of programs and brands and firepower as you'd ever expect to get.

Remember, no matter how much you talk about what conferences want and how much money the B1G and SEC have, history shows they rarely get exactly what they want. The B1G getting Nebraska, and only Nebraska, was the last 100% win. The SEC was thrilled with A&M of course, but still Missouri was a settle. As was Utah to the PAC. Rutgers and MD, despite what the B1G would claim, were not at the top of their draft board. Realignment is still largely about who you can get, as much as who you want.
Oklahoma to the ACC would be a great move.

Why would the ACC want it? because it solidifies the ACC as one of the top 3 conferences...you'll then have the B1G, the SEC, and the ACC....and then a step down to the PAC 12

Why would Oklahoma want it?
Well, I think if they got a chance to stick with Texas, they would take it. The ACC would boost their schedule, would give them a TV network and a championship game, everything they wanted from the Big XII.

What's for Oklahoma in the Big 10? Do they really want to be back in a conference with Nebraska, playing north-midwest schools?

The SEC would be a good fit for Oklahoma, but they're not going to get the Longhorns to tag along for that ride...Texas will never be in the SEC. So then who do they get? Oklahoma State? Maybe Kansas, but I think Kansas would head to the B1G first

The PAC 12 does absolutely NOTHING for Oklahoma....it's the weakest choice

As the countdown begins, and we get closer in years to this date set for Big XII implosion, the ACC would be extremely stupid not to court Texas, and offer a Texas-Oklahoma-Kansas deal. It would solidify the ACC as a top conference

You would have the Big 3
(05-11-2017 02:17 PM)EvilVodka Wrote: [ -> ]The PAC 12 does absolutely NOTHING for Oklahoma....it's the weakest choice

By now, you know how it works: it’s all a “done deal” until it isn’t.

At the height of the conference realignment drama, all signs pointed to Oklahoma and Oklahoma State leaving — or, at the very least, wanting to leave — for the Pac-12, but in the 11th hour, the Pac-12 decided not to expand any further.
-- cft

as an aside ...
I prefer your old avatar ...

CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND
(05-09-2017 12:13 PM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ]I think there is at least some small chance of Texas and the ACC, although I don't think that's likely either, but it's still more likely than OU. For a lot of reasons, but more likely because OU is very attuned to it's conference neighbors...whereas I think Texas is more "wherever we are is automatically the place to be." I think more academic/elitist leanings from Texas, plus some weird love between Texas and Notre Dame, at least makes that somewhat plausible.

the only conference that will accept the LHN would be the ACC, with Texas all sports except football, in a Notre Dame like deal. It's literally the only place that makes sense for Texas....you would have to be insane to throw in with the PAC 12. We're talking Big XII implosion right now, but give it 20 years...the PAC 12 has hit it's celing

(05-09-2017 12:13 PM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ]Remember, no matter how much you talk about what conferences want and how much money the B1G and SEC have, history shows they rarely get exactly what they want. The B1G getting Nebraska, and only Nebraska, was the last 100% win. The SEC was thrilled with A&M of course, but still Missouri was a settle. As was Utah to the PAC. Rutgers and MD, despite what the B1G would claim, were not at the top of their draft board. Realignment is still largely about who you can get, as much as who you want.

The game keeps changing...that's the explanation of the bad choices.

Nebraska was an awful choice, and frankly so were Rutgers and Maryland.

Mizzou and Texas A&M would have been better B1G additions, but they moved too slowly.

Geography is such a small factor now...it's practically a non-factor when considering candidates. These conferences aren't really "conferences" anymore, they are little semi-pro leagues.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Reference URL's