(09-17-2021 03:08 PM)Gamecock Wrote: (09-16-2021 10:09 AM)JRsec Wrote: (09-16-2021 08:56 AM)Gamecock Wrote: I sort of agree OP, I don't really see the positives either. They have plenty of money and the Big 12 was a much easier path to the playoffs. But perhaps that is now moot with the proposed expanded models.
The positives for Texas are enumerated in the "What if Texas..." thread. The positives for Oklahoma are similar.
The positives for the SEC are mostly economic and partially academic.
The question should be "Why is it necessary?" The whole nature of college sports realignment should be a big red flag to the public. It signals an economic seed change in the nation away from the middle class and toward corporatization of almost everything including government. And as our schools see those changes on the horizon fear is driving these moves, not greed. And when even a Texas, the wealthiest of college programs, gives up control of its own conference to move anywhere else, it is about positioning itself to ride out that change that's coming.
Agree on that last point.
It's sort of like the equivalent of leaving your small town, low stress law firm where you make 200k/year to move to a big city and do corporate law for 300k. Sure you're making more and have more prestige, but at what cost? It just seems so unnecessary.
You miss the main issue. Texas saw it as necessary. They needed to separate their brand from the other Texas programs which they elevated by association because competition for students will be fierce within 10 years. We have a sagging birth rate coupled with a cost of higher education which is not a solid ROI for most not interested in STEM fields and even some of those are losing viability to increased automation. Add the death of Boomers as the last vested generation in the nation and it becomes clear that private donations, outside of CEO's, are likely to take a major hit. Then you have strapped State budgets and a Federal Government 32 soon to be 36 Trillion in debt which impacts likely grants.
Schools are positioning themselves to radically expand undergraduate in an effort to use increased tuition revenue (with possibly lowering tuition to enhance volume) to fund research.
Look around at all of the construction at old state flagship schools. They are building at seemingly the wrong time (baby decline of the middle class the last 20 years), but in actuality it is preparation for a massive downsizing coming in higher ed.
Some smaller state schools will be retasked to teaching, to vo tech, or closed. Large State schools will likely become the umbrella as administration.
Texas and Oklahoma are gaining separation not for athletics sake, but for branding which attracts they eyeballs of young applicants who want a full college experience.
This is less about football for Texas and more about elevating themselves above Baylor, TCU, and Tech in a visible way. For OU it's about revenue and greater sports recognition and distinguishing themselves from OSU.
My point in all or this is that when you see giants move major, possibly life altering, change is coming. And it will impact all of us.
So "unnecessary" couldn't be further from reality. If it was about sports I'd agree with you. And Texas wouldn't be moving.
Think of it this way. If you are at the beach and suddenly all of the animals start running inland hell is coming from the sea, tidal wave. When you see top brands moving it's essential to be on alert as they never move unless it's a matter of survival.