(08-18-2013 02:25 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 02:17 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 01:49 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 01:42 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 01:30 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  The reason I like this model is that it removes the threat of Texas dragging us out west. We can keep the RRSO while playing in the best college football conference in the land. Oklahoma just belongs in the SEC IMO.

I think the powers that be at Oklahoma have made it pretty clear.....they want no part of the SEC culture.

I don't think you or I know what the powers that be think about the SEC. David Boren is the only power that be that has made any indication of his feelings regarding the Pac 12. The SEC makes a hell of a lot more sense than the Pacific 12 imo, and the powers that be won't be in charge forever.

All I know is a while back there was a couple of articles in the Oklahoman that said that the OU powers did not want any part of the SEC culture.

I understand you would like OU in the SEC, others want them in the PAC. Everybody is entitled to their choice.

That was just media nonsense. Boren was referring to the academics at Cal Berkeley - thinking aligning OU with CAL would improve their academic standing. Nothing more. The whole mess in 2011 was about using the Pac 12 expansion as a bargaining tool against the LHN. It was a game of chicken.

I'm not agitating here, but if Boren felt that way about Cal why wouldn't he feel that way about the Big 10? Don't get me wrong if the SEC did expand with more Big 12 schools the Sooners would be choice #1 since we already have A&M. It just seems to me that when making a decision that is likely to have consequences and relationships that will extend beyond the span of our lives that the BOG or whatever it is that Oklahoma has should consider a change of administration before they permit such an important move to be colored by one who doesn't speak for the majority. I felt that way about F.S.U.'s president as well. It may just be sports, but today the school's identity, and its fans and donors all have to be taken into consideration.

(08-18-2013 02:25 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 02:17 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 01:49 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 01:42 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 01:30 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  The reason I like this model is that it removes the threat of Texas dragging us out west. We can keep the RRSO while playing in the best college football conference in the land. Oklahoma just belongs in the SEC IMO.

I think the powers that be at Oklahoma have made it pretty clear.....they want no part of the SEC culture.

I don't think you or I know what the powers that be think about the SEC. David Boren is the only power that be that has made any indication of his feelings regarding the Pac 12. The SEC makes a hell of a lot more sense than the Pacific 12 imo, and the powers that be won't be in charge forever.

All I know is a while back there was a couple of articles in the Oklahoman that said that the OU powers did not want any part of the SEC culture.

I understand you would like OU in the SEC, others want them in the PAC. Everybody is entitled to their choice.

That was just media nonsense. Boren was referring to the academics at Cal Berkeley - thinking aligning OU with CAL would improve their academic standing. Nothing more. The whole mess in 2011 was about using the Pac 12 expansion as a bargaining tool against the LHN. It was a game of chicken.

The Oklahoman is not in the habit of reporting nonsense. There is a whole lot more to the story than Boren's position and Cal-Berkley.

Look, I do not want to get in a tit for tat with you on this, because it is unfair to other members of this board. It seems apparent that you would very much like OU in the SEC and I respect that.

Personally, it does not matter, I am just trying to shed a little light on the subject and post what I have read and seen.

(08-18-2013 02:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 02:25 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 02:17 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 01:49 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 01:42 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  I think the powers that be at Oklahoma have made it pretty clear.....they want no part of the SEC culture.

I don't think you or I know what the powers that be think about the SEC. David Boren is the only power that be that has made any indication of his feelings regarding the Pac 12. The SEC makes a hell of a lot more sense than the Pacific 12 imo, and the powers that be won't be in charge forever.

All I know is a while back there was a couple of articles in the Oklahoman that said that the OU powers did not want any part of the SEC culture.

I understand you would like OU in the SEC, others want them in the PAC. Everybody is entitled to their choice.

That was just media nonsense. Boren was referring to the academics at Cal Berkeley - thinking aligning OU with CAL would improve their academic standing. Nothing more. The whole mess in 2011 was about using the Pac 12 expansion as a bargaining tool against the LHN. It was a game of chicken.

I'm not agitating here, but if Boren felt that way about Cal why wouldn't he feel that way about the Big 10? Don't get me wrong if the SEC did expand with more Big 12 schools the Sooners would be choice #1 since we already have A&M. It just seems to me that when making a decision that is likely to have consequences and relationships that will extend beyond the span of our lives that the BOG or whatever it is that Oklahoma has should consider a change of administration before they permit such an important move to be colored by one who doesn't speak for the majority. I felt that way about F.S.U.'s president as well. It may just be sports, but today the school's identity, and its fans and donors all have to be taken into consideration.

I am saying his academic feelings about CAL were not enough to move the Sooners into a conference that makes no geographical sense. FSU is a prime example of how aligning yourself with academics doesn't improve academics. It's easier for schools lacking a big brand and a big money conference like WVU to relocate. Also, Oklahoma alone makes no sense for the Big and they would also be getting Oklahoma State. They would have to land Texas and I don't think that is going to happen.

The SEC now has the academic advantage, the recruiting advantage, the money and the allure. Anyone who would rather watch Oklahoma play CAL, UCLA, USC, Arizona, Washington, Wisconsin or Illinois over Alabama, LSU, Arkansas, Georgia and Florida is high on crack.

(08-18-2013 02:54 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 02:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 02:25 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 02:17 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 01:49 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  I don't think you or I know what the powers that be think about the SEC. David Boren is the only power that be that has made any indication of his feelings regarding the Pac 12. The SEC makes a hell of a lot more sense than the Pacific 12 imo, and the powers that be won't be in charge forever.

All I know is a while back there was a couple of articles in the Oklahoman that said that the OU powers did not want any part of the SEC culture.

I understand you would like OU in the SEC, others want them in the PAC. Everybody is entitled to their choice.

That was just media nonsense. Boren was referring to the academics at Cal Berkeley - thinking aligning OU with CAL would improve their academic standing. Nothing more. The whole mess in 2011 was about using the Pac 12 expansion as a bargaining tool against the LHN. It was a game of chicken.

I'm not agitating here, but if Boren felt that way about Cal why wouldn't he feel that way about the Big 10? Don't get me wrong if the SEC did expand with more Big 12 schools the Sooners would be choice #1 since we already have A&M. It just seems to me that when making a decision that is likely to have consequences and relationships that will extend beyond the span of our lives that the BOG or whatever it is that Oklahoma has should consider a change of administration before they permit such an important move to be colored by one who doesn't speak for the majority. I felt that way about F.S.U.'s president as well. It may just be sports, but today the school's identity, and its fans and donors all have to be taken into consideration.

I am saying his academic feelings about CAL were not enough to move the Sooners into a conference that makes no geographical sense. FSU is a prime example of how aligning yourself with academics doesn't improve academics. It's easier for schools lacking a big brand and a big money conference like WVU to relocate. Also, Oklahoma alone makes no sense for the Big and they would also be getting Oklahoma State. They would have to land Texas and I don't think that is going to happen.

The SEC now has the academic advantage, the recruiting advantage, the money and the allure. Anyone who would rather watch Oklahoma play CAL, UCLA, USC, Arizona, Washington, Wisconsin or Illinois over Alabama, LSU, Arkansas, Georgia and Florida is high on crack.

The real difficulty with OU and OSU as a pair to the SEC is found in the uncertainty of where this process ends up. At 16 teams they could be included as a nice pair. OU secures the DFW market well enough to augment everything else that A&M carries and OSU is top 25 in earnings. But, should this thing move on to 20 teams the SEC would lose the opportunity to lock down its market because it would have spent 2 of the remaining 6 picks outside of the immediate Southeast. If the SEC ever does get into the ACC they would like North Carolina that means likely having to take N.C. State as well. Virginia Tech would come into play if Virginia went to the Big 10. Taking Florida State and Clemson then almost become a must. They won't take away from the earnings of the SEC but losing them to another conference is also not desirable since they are such natural fits with the SEC and conferences of 20 won't have as much room in the schedule for OOC games against rivals. Therefore political pressure would swell for their inclusion. That leaves 1 slot to 20. West Virginia, Miami, and Lousiville would all have a legitimate claim for that spot. Oklahoma would land it easily in singular competition. But if the SEC had to take OSU and the move then went to 20 we would lose the negotiating room we would need to land the targets we wanted.

So that brings us to the question of whether things end at 16. If they do then the SEC could do much much worse than offering both Oklahoma schools. If the feeling in the conference office is that expansion will continue then I don't think the SEC would go for a two for one in Oklahoma when they may need that slot for a 2 for 1 in North Carolina.

Swap Oklahoma and Oklahoma State-realignment has already killed one historic rivalry with Texas. Texas A&M doesn't have the historic connection with Oklahoma State like it does with Arkansas, so Oklahoma State works in the SEC.

Personally, I think 4x16 will never happen, and the ACC adding Notre Dame as a partial member and Louisville as a full member probably short circuits 5x14. Going to 4x18 gives everyone a soft landing:

PAC 18 adds Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, UNLV, Kansas State

Big 10 adds Kansas, Connecticut, Iowa State, Kansas State

SEC adds West Virginia, Baylor, TCU, East Carolina

ACC adds Cincinnati, Tulane, Memphis, Notre Dame football

The American, down to 6 (7 in football), gets chopped up after the other G5 conferences negotiate a raise in the cap on playoff distributions from $12 MM to $14 MM. The Mountain West adds UTEP, SMU, and Houston.

C-USA adds Temple.

The Sun Belt adds Tulsa, South Florida, and Central Florida.

The MAC adds Navy for football only.

Army and BYU remain independent.

(08-18-2013 02:54 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 02:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 02:25 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 02:17 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 01:49 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  I don't think you or I know what the powers that be think about the SEC. David Boren is the only power that be that has made any indication of his feelings regarding the Pac 12. The SEC makes a hell of a lot more sense than the Pacific 12 imo, and the powers that be won't be in charge forever.

All I know is a while back there was a couple of articles in the Oklahoman that said that the OU powers did not want any part of the SEC culture.

I understand you would like OU in the SEC, others want them in the PAC. Everybody is entitled to their choice.

That was just media nonsense. Boren was referring to the academics at Cal Berkeley - thinking aligning OU with CAL would improve their academic standing. Nothing more. The whole mess in 2011 was about using the Pac 12 expansion as a bargaining tool against the LHN. It was a game of chicken.

I'm not agitating here, but if Boren felt that way about Cal why wouldn't he feel that way about the Big 10? Don't get me wrong if the SEC did expand with more Big 12 schools the Sooners would be choice #1 since we already have A&M. It just seems to me that when making a decision that is likely to have consequences and relationships that will extend beyond the span of our lives that the BOG or whatever it is that Oklahoma has should consider a change of administration before they permit such an important move to be colored by one who doesn't speak for the majority. I felt that way about F.S.U.'s president as well. It may just be sports, but today the school's identity, and its fans and donors all have to be taken into consideration.

I am saying his academic feelings about CAL were not enough to move the Sooners into a conference that makes no geographical sense. FSU is a prime example of how aligning yourself with academics doesn't improve academics. It's easier for schools lacking a big brand and a big money conference like WVU to relocate. Also, Oklahoma alone makes no sense for the Big and they would also be getting Oklahoma State. They would have to land Texas and I don't think that is going to happen.

The SEC now has the academic advantage, the recruiting advantage, the money and the allure. Anyone who would rather watch Oklahoma play CAL, UCLA, USC, Arizona, Washington, Wisconsin or Illinois over Alabama, LSU, Arkansas, Georgia and Florida is high on crack.

I don't know about the drugs, but I do know that FSU's academic standing has improved dramatically since the school joined the ACC.

(08-18-2013 03:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 02:54 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 02:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 02:25 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 02:17 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  All I know is a while back there was a couple of articles in the Oklahoman that said that the OU powers did not want any part of the SEC culture.

I understand you would like OU in the SEC, others want them in the PAC. Everybody is entitled to their choice.

That was just media nonsense. Boren was referring to the academics at Cal Berkeley - thinking aligning OU with CAL would improve their academic standing. Nothing more. The whole mess in 2011 was about using the Pac 12 expansion as a bargaining tool against the LHN. It was a game of chicken.

I'm not agitating here, but if Boren felt that way about Cal why wouldn't he feel that way about the Big 10? Don't get me wrong if the SEC did expand with more Big 12 schools the Sooners would be choice #1 since we already have A&M. It just seems to me that when making a decision that is likely to have consequences and relationships that will extend beyond the span of our lives that the BOG or whatever it is that Oklahoma has should consider a change of administration before they permit such an important move to be colored by one who doesn't speak for the majority. I felt that way about F.S.U.'s president as well. It may just be sports, but today the school's identity, and its fans and donors all have to be taken into consideration.

I am saying his academic feelings about CAL were not enough to move the Sooners into a conference that makes no geographical sense. FSU is a prime example of how aligning yourself with academics doesn't improve academics. It's easier for schools lacking a big brand and a big money conference like WVU to relocate. Also, Oklahoma alone makes no sense for the Big and they would also be getting Oklahoma State. They would have to land Texas and I don't think that is going to happen.

The SEC now has the academic advantage, the recruiting advantage, the money and the allure. Anyone who would rather watch Oklahoma play CAL, UCLA, USC, Arizona, Washington, Wisconsin or Illinois over Alabama, LSU, Arkansas, Georgia and Florida is high on crack.

The real difficulty with OU and OSU as a pair to the SEC is found in the uncertainty of where this process ends up. At 16 teams they could be included as a nice pair. OU secures the DFW market well enough to augment everything else that A&M carries and OSU is top 25 in earnings. But, should this thing move on to 20 teams the SEC would lose the opportunity to lock down its market because it would have spent 2 of the remaining 6 picks outside of the immediate Southeast. If the SEC ever does get into the ACC they would like North Carolina that means likely having to take N.C. State as well. Virginia Tech would come into play if Virginia went to the Big 10. Taking Florida State and Clemson then almost become a must. They won't take away from the earnings of the SEC but losing them to another conference is also not desirable since they are such natural fits with the SEC and conferences of 20 won't have as much room in the schedule for OOC games against rivals. Therefore political pressure would swell for their inclusion. That leaves 1 slot to 20. West Virginia, Miami, and Lousiville would all have a legitimate claim for that spot. Oklahoma would land it easily in singular competition. But if the SEC had to take OSU and the move then went to 20 we would lose the negotiating room we would need to land the targets we wanted.

So that brings us to the question of whether things end at 16. If they do then the SEC could do much much worse than offering both Oklahoma schools. If the feeling in the conference office is that expansion will continue then I don't think the SEC would go for a two for one in Oklahoma when they may need that slot for a 2 for 1 in North Carolina.

I think people need to realize the chances of the Oklahoma schools joining the Pac are nil. There is no way the current members vote to add Oklahoma State. Colorado, the AZ schools and several others will vote to block Oklahoma. Oklahoma has no natural rivalries in the Pac 12, and it would be a huge step down for Oklahoma to do so.

The SEC is the only conference that would take a OU/OSU pair.

(08-18-2013 03:33 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 03:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 02:54 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 02:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 02:25 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  That was just media nonsense. Boren was referring to the academics at Cal Berkeley - thinking aligning OU with CAL would improve their academic standing. Nothing more. The whole mess in 2011 was about using the Pac 12 expansion as a bargaining tool against the LHN. It was a game of chicken.

I'm not agitating here, but if Boren felt that way about Cal why wouldn't he feel that way about the Big 10? Don't get me wrong if the SEC did expand with more Big 12 schools the Sooners would be choice #1 since we already have A&M. It just seems to me that when making a decision that is likely to have consequences and relationships that will extend beyond the span of our lives that the BOG or whatever it is that Oklahoma has should consider a change of administration before they permit such an important move to be colored by one who doesn't speak for the majority. I felt that way about F.S.U.'s president as well. It may just be sports, but today the school's identity, and its fans and donors all have to be taken into consideration.

I am saying his academic feelings about CAL were not enough to move the Sooners into a conference that makes no geographical sense. FSU is a prime example of how aligning yourself with academics doesn't improve academics. It's easier for schools lacking a big brand and a big money conference like WVU to relocate. Also, Oklahoma alone makes no sense for the Big and they would also be getting Oklahoma State. They would have to land Texas and I don't think that is going to happen.

The SEC now has the academic advantage, the recruiting advantage, the money and the allure. Anyone who would rather watch Oklahoma play CAL, UCLA, USC, Arizona, Washington, Wisconsin or Illinois over Alabama, LSU, Arkansas, Georgia and Florida is high on crack.

The real difficulty with OU and OSU as a pair to the SEC is found in the uncertainty of where this process ends up. At 16 teams they could be included as a nice pair. OU secures the DFW market well enough to augment everything else that A&M carries and OSU is top 25 in earnings. But, should this thing move on to 20 teams the SEC would lose the opportunity to lock down its market because it would have spent 2 of the remaining 6 picks outside of the immediate Southeast. If the SEC ever does get into the ACC they would like North Carolina that means likely having to take N.C. State as well. Virginia Tech would come into play if Virginia went to the Big 10. Taking Florida State and Clemson then almost become a must. They won't take away from the earnings of the SEC but losing them to another conference is also not desirable since they are such natural fits with the SEC and conferences of 20 won't have as much room in the schedule for OOC games against rivals. Therefore political pressure would swell for their inclusion. That leaves 1 slot to 20. West Virginia, Miami, and Lousiville would all have a legitimate claim for that spot. Oklahoma would land it easily in singular competition. But if the SEC had to take OSU and the move then went to 20 we would lose the negotiating room we would need to land the targets we wanted.

So that brings us to the question of whether things end at 16. If they do then the SEC could do much much worse than offering both Oklahoma schools. If the feeling in the conference office is that expansion will continue then I don't think the SEC would go for a two for one in Oklahoma when they may need that slot for a 2 for 1 in North Carolina.

I think people need to realize the chances of the Oklahoma schools joining the Pac are nil. There is no way the current members vote to add Oklahoma State. Colorado, the AZ schools and several others will vote to block Oklahoma. Oklahoma has no natural rivalries in the Pac 12, and it would be a huge step down for Oklahoma to do so.

The SEC is the only conference that would take a OU/OSU pair.

The SEC will not take OSU. Nothing against the Cowboys, but as JR said, as long as the ACC could splinter the SEC would not take two from the State of Oklahoma. Now if the B1G took UVA, UNC, Duke and GT, and also took UT but not OU, then maybe OSU could get an invite to come along with OU.

(08-18-2013 03:12 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Swap Oklahoma and Oklahoma State-realignment has already killed one historic rivalry with Texas. Texas A&M doesn't have the historic connection with Oklahoma State like it does with Arkansas, so Oklahoma State works in the SEC.

Personally, I think 4x16 will never happen, and the ACC adding Notre Dame as a partial member and Louisville as a full member probably short circuits 5x14. Going to 4x18 gives everyone a soft landing:

PAC 18 adds Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, UNLV, Kansas State

Big 10 adds Kansas, Connecticut, Iowa State, Kansas State

SEC adds West Virginia, Baylor, TCU, East Carolina

ACC adds Cincinnati, Tulane, Memphis, Notre Dame football

The American, down to 6 (7 in football), gets chopped up after the other G5 conferences negotiate a raise in the cap on playoff distributions from $12 MM to $14 MM. The Mountain West adds UTEP, SMU, and Houston.

C-USA adds Temple.

The Sun Belt adds Tulsa, South Florida, and Central Florida.

The MAC adds Navy for football only.

Army and BYU remain independent.

The crack pipe...put it down and back away slowly!

(08-18-2013 04:11 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 03:33 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 03:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 02:54 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 02:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm not agitating here, but if Boren felt that way about Cal why wouldn't he feel that way about the Big 10? Don't get me wrong if the SEC did expand with more Big 12 schools the Sooners would be choice #1 since we already have A&M. It just seems to me that when making a decision that is likely to have consequences and relationships that will extend beyond the span of our lives that the BOG or whatever it is that Oklahoma has should consider a change of administration before they permit such an important move to be colored by one who doesn't speak for the majority. I felt that way about F.S.U.'s president as well. It may just be sports, but today the school's identity, and its fans and donors all have to be taken into consideration.

I am saying his academic feelings about CAL were not enough to move the Sooners into a conference that makes no geographical sense. FSU is a prime example of how aligning yourself with academics doesn't improve academics. It's easier for schools lacking a big brand and a big money conference like WVU to relocate. Also, Oklahoma alone makes no sense for the Big and they would also be getting Oklahoma State. They would have to land Texas and I don't think that is going to happen.

The SEC now has the academic advantage, the recruiting advantage, the money and the allure. Anyone who would rather watch Oklahoma play CAL, UCLA, USC, Arizona, Washington, Wisconsin or Illinois over Alabama, LSU, Arkansas, Georgia and Florida is high on crack.

The real difficulty with OU and OSU as a pair to the SEC is found in the uncertainty of where this process ends up. At 16 teams they could be included as a nice pair. OU secures the DFW market well enough to augment everything else that A&M carries and OSU is top 25 in earnings. But, should this thing move on to 20 teams the SEC would lose the opportunity to lock down its market because it would have spent 2 of the remaining 6 picks outside of the immediate Southeast. If the SEC ever does get into the ACC they would like North Carolina that means likely having to take N.C. State as well. Virginia Tech would come into play if Virginia went to the Big 10. Taking Florida State and Clemson then almost become a must. They won't take away from the earnings of the SEC but losing them to another conference is also not desirable since they are such natural fits with the SEC and conferences of 20 won't have as much room in the schedule for OOC games against rivals. Therefore political pressure would swell for their inclusion. That leaves 1 slot to 20. West Virginia, Miami, and Lousiville would all have a legitimate claim for that spot. Oklahoma would land it easily in singular competition. But if the SEC had to take OSU and the move then went to 20 we would lose the negotiating room we would need to land the targets we wanted.

So that brings us to the question of whether things end at 16. If they do then the SEC could do much much worse than offering both Oklahoma schools. If the feeling in the conference office is that expansion will continue then I don't think the SEC would go for a two for one in Oklahoma when they may need that slot for a 2 for 1 in North Carolina.

I think people need to realize the chances of the Oklahoma schools joining the Pac are nil. There is no way the current members vote to add Oklahoma State. Colorado, the AZ schools and several others will vote to block Oklahoma. Oklahoma has no natural rivalries in the Pac 12, and it would be a huge step down for Oklahoma to do so.

The SEC is the only conference that would take a OU/OSU pair.

The SEC will not take OSU. Nothing against the Cowboys, but as JR said, as long as the ACC could splinter the SEC would not take two from the State of Oklahoma. Now if the B1G took UVA, UNC, Duke and GT, and also took UT but not OU, then maybe OSU could get an invite to come along with OU.

There is a better chance of an OU/OSU pairing in the SEC than either the Pac or Big.

Not necessarily.

The Pac LOVES them some U of State/State U pairings

(08-18-2013 04:20 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Not necessarily.

The Pac LOVES them some U of State/State U pairings

The Arizona schools make logical and cultural sense in the Pac 12. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State do not. Neither does Texas.

(08-18-2013 02:54 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 02:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 02:25 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 02:17 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 01:49 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  I don't think you or I know what the powers that be think about the SEC. David Boren is the only power that be that has made any indication of his feelings regarding the Pac 12. The SEC makes a hell of a lot more sense than the Pacific 12 imo, and the powers that be won't be in charge forever.

All I know is a while back there was a couple of articles in the Oklahoman that said that the OU powers did not want any part of the SEC culture.

I understand you would like OU in the SEC, others want them in the PAC. Everybody is entitled to their choice.

That was just media nonsense. Boren was referring to the academics at Cal Berkeley - thinking aligning OU with CAL would improve their academic standing. Nothing more. The whole mess in 2011 was about using the Pac 12 expansion as a bargaining tool against the LHN. It was a game of chicken.

I'm not agitating here, but if Boren felt that way about Cal why wouldn't he feel that way about the Big 10? Don't get me wrong if the SEC did expand with more Big 12 schools the Sooners would be choice #1 since we already have A&M. It just seems to me that when making a decision that is likely to have consequences and relationships that will extend beyond the span of our lives that the BOG or whatever it is that Oklahoma has should consider a change of administration before they permit such an important move to be colored by one who doesn't speak for the majority. I felt that way about F.S.U.'s president as well. It may just be sports, but today the school's identity, and its fans and donors all have to be taken into consideration.

I am saying his academic feelings about CAL were not enough to move the Sooners into a conference that makes no geographical sense. FSU is a prime example of how aligning yourself with academics doesn't improve academics. It's easier for schools lacking a big brand and a big money conference like WVU to relocate. Also, Oklahoma alone makes no sense for the Big and they would also be getting Oklahoma State. They would have to land Texas and I don't think that is going to happen.

The SEC now has the academic advantage, the recruiting advantage, the money and the allure. Anyone who would rather watch Oklahoma play CAL, UCLA, USC, Arizona, Washington, Wisconsin or Illinois over Alabama, LSU, Arkansas, Georgia and Florida is high on crack.

Ask Arkansas what it's like to play in the SEC West every year. They have won the division only once, and they've only won 5 conference games 4 times in their 21 years in the SEC. If you asked Bob Stoops about that, he'd probably say that he'd have to be high on crack to want to sign up for that.

(08-18-2013 03:12 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Swap Oklahoma and Oklahoma State-realignment has already killed one historic rivalry with Texas. Texas A&M doesn't have the historic connection with Oklahoma State like it does with Arkansas, so Oklahoma State works in the SEC.

Personally, I think 4x16 will never happen, and the ACC adding Notre Dame as a partial member and Louisville as a full member probably short circuits 5x14. Going to 4x18 gives everyone a soft landing:

PAC 18 adds Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, UNLV, Kansas State

Big 10 adds Kansas, Connecticut, Iowa State, Kansas State

SEC adds West Virginia, Baylor, TCU, East Carolina

ACC adds Cincinnati, Tulane, Memphis, Notre Dame football

The American, down to 6 (7 in football), gets chopped up after the other G5 conferences negotiate a raise in the cap on playoff distributions from $12 MM to $14 MM. The Mountain West adds UTEP, SMU, and Houston.

C-USA adds Temple.

The Sun Belt adds Tulsa, South Florida, and Central Florida.

The MAC adds Navy for football only.

Army and BYU remain independent.

Boo!

(08-18-2013 12:09 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

The ACC already has Duke and UVA. We don't need another bottom feeder like UConn.