(07-02-2015 01:17 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  JR do you work in the broadcast industry?

No, I just had a close family member in the President's office of an SEC school for close to 20 years. Not much has changed and the contacts remain the same. I just get tired of hearing message board prophets who have no clue. Believe me, 30 years ago presidents made decisions. When the money started getting big for sports the presidents took flight and hired proxies to carry out the business. The proxies were all trained by the networks or worked with them on behalf of others. So through the proxies we call commissioners they took control and the money was so welcomed and good that no president wanted to stand in the way. Here endeth the story.

(07-02-2015 08:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 01:17 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  JR do you work in the broadcast industry?

No, I just had a close family member in the President's office of an SEC school for close to 20 years. Not much has changed and the contacts remain the same. I just get tired of hearing message board prophets who have no clue. Believe me, 30 years ago presidents made decisions. When the money started getting big for sports the presidents took flight and hired proxies to carry out the business. The proxies were all trained by the networks or worked with them on behalf of others. So through the proxies we call commissioners they took control and the money was so welcomed and good that no president wanted to stand in the way. Here endeth the story.

OK thanks. BTW do you think Bowlsby is a yes man vs. a strategist like Delaney?

(07-03-2015 07:26 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 08:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 01:17 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  JR do you work in the broadcast industry?

No, I just had a close family member in the President's office of an SEC school for close to 20 years. Not much has changed and the contacts remain the same. I just get tired of hearing message board prophets who have no clue. Believe me, 30 years ago presidents made decisions. When the money started getting big for sports the presidents took flight and hired proxies to carry out the business. The proxies were all trained by the networks or worked with them on behalf of others. So through the proxies we call commissioners they took control and the money was so welcomed and good that no president wanted to stand in the way. Here endeth the story.

OK thanks. BTW do you think Bowlsby is a yes man vs. a strategist like Delaney?

Bowlsby is not a yes man (semantics I know), he is a mouthpiece for Texas and to a lesser extent Oklahoma. He will project whatever needs to be projected to protect the future options of those two schools and will do what is necessary to appease the rest, IMO.

B12 commissioners have little actual power unlike the other P5 conferences which empower their commisioners to actually lead and steer the conferences to a hopefully brighter, happier future. It's mostly a PR and administrative job. The schools make all the decisions. The only commissioner they let have much power was Neinas for a few months when he saved the conference. It's why the B12 is always so reactive and never proactive. Takes too long to get all the schools or a majority on the same page.

So who would be considered the better Commissioner, Bowlsby or Neinas?
Neinas saved the big 12 with the Sugar Bowl, Bowlsby negotiated one hell of a TV deal. Surely Bowlsby was hired for the long term was he not?
As an aside, did Neinas and his group help sign Bowlsby for the Big 12?

(07-07-2015 03:12 PM)Dasville Wrote:  So who would be considered the better Commissioner, Bowlsby or Neinas?
Neinas saved the big 12 with the Sugar Bowl, Bowlsby negotiated one hell of a TV deal. Surely Bowlsby was hired for the long term was he not?
As an aside, did Neinas and his group help sign Bowlsby for the Big 12?

Both of them were pretty good guys, but both of them were stuck in a bad job. It has been said that a conference commissioner in the Big 12 has none of the power of Slive, Scott, Delany, Swofford, or now Sankey, but they do have to referee the personalities of the A.D.'s and BMD's in the Big 12. That's a no win high stress job.

(07-07-2015 03:12 PM)Dasville Wrote:  So who would be considered the better Commissioner, Bowlsby or Neinas?
Neinas saved the big 12 with the Sugar Bowl, Bowlsby negotiated one hell of a TV deal. Surely Bowlsby was hired for the long term was he not?
As an aside, did Neinas and his group help sign Bowlsby for the Big 12?

Neinas was better just because they gave him real power while he was interim commisioner. Bowlsby has limited power like previous commissioners. Neinas helped choose Bowlsby.

(07-07-2015 07:00 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(07-07-2015 03:12 PM)Dasville Wrote:  So who would be considered the better Commissioner, Bowlsby or Neinas?
Neinas saved the big 12 with the Sugar Bowl, Bowlsby negotiated one hell of a TV deal. Surely Bowlsby was hired for the long term was he not?
As an aside, did Neinas and his group help sign Bowlsby for the Big 12?

Neinas was better just because they gave him real power while he was interim commisioner. Bowlsby has limited power like previous commissioners. Neinas helped choose Bowlsby.

Thank you for the info. I wasn't sure.
From what I have read, Neinas is adamant that the Big 12 won't expand. I'll take his word.

(06-25-2015 09:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  A. He want's something from the conference.

B. He want's to build critical mass for leaving.

C. He's doing it for Texas and at their bidding.

a. Maybe he doesn't want a conference championship game, or wants more leeway in scheduling. He makes some noise and gets some concessions.

b. He's interested in either the Big 10 or SEC and needs to build a reason to leave. No expansion equals no more security, and that's enough of a reason to move.

c. Texas has decided to leave as well but with 3 little brothers can't afford to look like the instigator of the action. Oklahoma takes the lead and gives Texas the cover they need to separate from Baylor and T.C.U.

I don't know which one is right, but does it matter? Boren is rattling chains so something is afoot. He doesn't do this for no good reason!

And to think I haven't even sent him a thank you card for shooting off his mouth and helping Mizzou to make a decision to join the SEC...

(07-09-2015 12:33 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(06-25-2015 09:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  A. He want's something from the conference.

B. He want's to build critical mass for leaving.

C. He's doing it for Texas and at their bidding.

a. Maybe he doesn't want a conference championship game, or wants more leeway in scheduling. He makes some noise and gets some concessions.

b. He's interested in either the Big 10 or SEC and needs to build a reason to leave. No expansion equals no more security, and that's enough of a reason to move.

c. Texas has decided to leave as well but with 3 little brothers can't afford to look like the instigator of the action. Oklahoma takes the lead and gives Texas the cover they need to separate from Baylor and T.C.U.

I don't know which one is right, but does it matter? Boren is rattling chains so something is afoot. He doesn't do this for no good reason!

And to think I haven't even sent him a thank you card for shooting off his mouth and helping Mizzou to make a decision to join the SEC...

I'd say there is a very real chance you might get to thank him in person during an SEC season in the near future.

(07-09-2015 07:01 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 12:33 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(06-25-2015 09:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  A. He want's something from the conference.

B. He want's to build critical mass for leaving.

C. He's doing it for Texas and at their bidding.

a. Maybe he doesn't want a conference championship game, or wants more leeway in scheduling. He makes some noise and gets some concessions.

b. He's interested in either the Big 10 or SEC and needs to build a reason to leave. No expansion equals no more security, and that's enough of a reason to move.

c. Texas has decided to leave as well but with 3 little brothers can't afford to look like the instigator of the action. Oklahoma takes the lead and gives Texas the cover they need to separate from Baylor and T.C.U.

I don't know which one is right, but does it matter? Boren is rattling chains so something is afoot. He doesn't do this for no good reason!

And to think I haven't even sent him a thank you card for shooting off his mouth and helping Mizzou to make a decision to join the SEC...

I'd say there is a very real chance you might get to thank him in person during an SEC season in the near future.

No there isn't. One look at whom Oklahoma see's as their peers and it's obvious that you wont see them with the SEC if they have a shot at The Big Ten.

(07-09-2015 07:54 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 07:01 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 12:33 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(06-25-2015 09:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  A. He want's something from the conference.

B. He want's to build critical mass for leaving.

C. He's doing it for Texas and at their bidding.

a. Maybe he doesn't want a conference championship game, or wants more leeway in scheduling. He makes some noise and gets some concessions.

b. He's interested in either the Big 10 or SEC and needs to build a reason to leave. No expansion equals no more security, and that's enough of a reason to move.

c. Texas has decided to leave as well but with 3 little brothers can't afford to look like the instigator of the action. Oklahoma takes the lead and gives Texas the cover they need to separate from Baylor and T.C.U.

I don't know which one is right, but does it matter? Boren is rattling chains so something is afoot. He doesn't do this for no good reason!

And to think I haven't even sent him a thank you card for shooting off his mouth and helping Mizzou to make a decision to join the SEC...

I'd say there is a very real chance you might get to thank him in person during an SEC season in the near future.

No there isn't. One look at whom Oklahoma see's as their peers and it's obvious that you wont see them with the SEC if they have a shot at The Big Ten.

That all depends on whether the OU fans will open their wallets wider for the SEC or the B1G. It sounds as if Boren needs lots of funding for his pet projects.

(07-09-2015 02:32 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 07:54 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 07:01 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 12:33 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(06-25-2015 09:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  A. He want's something from the conference.

B. He want's to build critical mass for leaving.

C. He's doing it for Texas and at their bidding.

a. Maybe he doesn't want a conference championship game, or wants more leeway in scheduling. He makes some noise and gets some concessions.

b. He's interested in either the Big 10 or SEC and needs to build a reason to leave. No expansion equals no more security, and that's enough of a reason to move.

c. Texas has decided to leave as well but with 3 little brothers can't afford to look like the instigator of the action. Oklahoma takes the lead and gives Texas the cover they need to separate from Baylor and T.C.U.

I don't know which one is right, but does it matter? Boren is rattling chains so something is afoot. He doesn't do this for no good reason!

And to think I haven't even sent him a thank you card for shooting off his mouth and helping Mizzou to make a decision to join the SEC...

I'd say there is a very real chance you might get to thank him in person during an SEC season in the near future.

No there isn't. One look at whom Oklahoma see's as their peers and it's obvious that you wont see them with the SEC if they have a shot at The Big Ten.

That all depends on whether the OU fans will open their wallets wider for the SEC or the B1G. It sounds as if Boren needs lots of funding for his pet projects.

That's the point of all this public masquerading by Boren. It is to make the situation seem so *** **** terrible that either solution is better than what they currently have.

Plenty of big donors have a good enough understanding of prioritizing academic issues vs athletic issues.

Oklahoma can win championships in either conference, that is undeniable and the ACC/SEC mob around here trying to say otherwise is laughable. Something does not become true simply because you get enough people to say it or believe it. Take Religion for example.

(07-09-2015 07:44 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 02:32 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 07:54 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 07:01 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 12:33 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  And to think I haven't even sent him a thank you card for shooting off his mouth and helping Mizzou to make a decision to join the SEC...

I'd say there is a very real chance you might get to thank him in person during an SEC season in the near future.

No there isn't. One look at whom Oklahoma see's as their peers and it's obvious that you wont see them with the SEC if they have a shot at The Big Ten.

That all depends on whether the OU fans will open their wallets wider for the SEC or the B1G. It sounds as if Boren needs lots of funding for his pet projects.

That's the point of all this public masquerading by Boren. It is to make the situation seem so *** **** terrible that either solution is better than what they currently have.

Plenty of big donors have a good enough understanding of prioritizing academic issues vs athletic issues.

Oklahoma can win championships in either conference, that is undeniable and the ACC/SEC mob around here trying to say otherwise is laughable. Something does not become true simply because you get enough people to say it or believe it. Take Religion for example.

Prove that either of your propositions are false or prove that they are true. You can't. That's the nature of belief. And belief is everyone's right to either choose or reject.

(07-09-2015 08:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 07:44 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 02:32 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 07:54 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 07:01 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I'd say there is a very real chance you might get to thank him in person during an SEC season in the near future.

No there isn't. One look at whom Oklahoma see's as their peers and it's obvious that you wont see them with the SEC if they have a shot at The Big Ten.

That all depends on whether the OU fans will open their wallets wider for the SEC or the B1G. It sounds as if Boren needs lots of funding for his pet projects.

That's the point of all this public masquerading by Boren. It is to make the situation seem so *** **** terrible that either solution is better than what they currently have.

Plenty of big donors have a good enough understanding of prioritizing academic issues vs athletic issues.

Oklahoma can win championships in either conference, that is undeniable and the ACC/SEC mob around here trying to say otherwise is laughable. Something does not become true simply because you get enough people to say it or believe it. Take Religion for example.

Prove that either of your propositions are false or prove that they are true. You can't. That's the nature of belief. And belief is everyone's right to either choose or reject.

You want me to prove that big money donors actually care about the academic situations at their alma mater? Seriously? You went to school, you know they do. It's about the value of the little piece of paper that they own.

As to Oklahoma winning championships? Really? Ohio State just did. Done.

(07-09-2015 09:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 08:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 07:44 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 02:32 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 07:54 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  No there isn't. One look at whom Oklahoma see's as their peers and it's obvious that you wont see them with the SEC if they have a shot at The Big Ten.

That all depends on whether the OU fans will open their wallets wider for the SEC or the B1G. It sounds as if Boren needs lots of funding for his pet projects.

That's the point of all this public masquerading by Boren. It is to make the situation seem so *** **** terrible that either solution is better than what they currently have.

Plenty of big donors have a good enough understanding of prioritizing academic issues vs athletic issues.

Oklahoma can win championships in either conference, that is undeniable and the ACC/SEC mob around here trying to say otherwise is laughable. Something does not become true simply because you get enough people to say it or believe it. Take Religion for example.

Prove that either of your propositions are false or prove that they are true. You can't. That's the nature of belief. And belief is everyone's right to either choose or reject.

You want me to prove that big money donors actually care about the academic situations at their alma mater? Seriously? You went to school, you know they do. It's about the value of the little piece of paper that they own.

As to Oklahoma winning championships? Really? Ohio State just did. Done.

BMD's don't worry about the value of their diplomas. They've already out earned any one they could have obtained. They do worry about besting their buddies. BMD's are not your argument's best point. Academicians are. But you can't prove what someone else does or doesn't care about, or what they believe or don't believe. And Ohio State has nothing to do with any of this. Oklahoma "could" win a championship anywhere they go. Ditto for all top programs.

What I can prove is that Oklahoma didn't choose any SEC teams as peers that weren't with them in the big 12 and that aren't AAU. Oklahoma chose every Big Ten University except private Northwestern.

You don't want to admit it but that signals Oklahoma's intentions in big bold Neon. Oklahoma Academia as well as Administration decides that, they also decide where Oklahoma goes. You can dismiss BMD's caring about academic affiliations, which is wrong...at least in The Big Ten but you are correct in that it isn't even up for debate whom the people that truly matter within The University of Oklahoma prefer.

I am not trying to be a jerk about it, we go around and around all the time like this JR. You talk very smoothly, I will give you that but I don't have to, the hard code aspects that affect where Oklahoma goes are enough for me. I don't feel as if I need to change the world with flowery words in order to change the tide.

I am sorry, I truly hope it doesn't bother you too much when it comes down. Personally, I think you are just having fun with all this but there is a little bit of worry that I have for what happens to some folks. There is a lot of latent hatred for The Great Northern Evil Conference.

(07-09-2015 10:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  What I can prove is that Oklahoma didn't choose any SEC teams as peers that weren't with them in the big 12 and that aren't AAU. Oklahoma chose every Big Ten University except private Northwestern.

You don't want to admit it but that signals Oklahoma's intentions in big bold Neon. Oklahoma Academia as well as Administration decides that, they also decide where Oklahoma goes. You can dismiss BMD's caring about academic affiliations, which is wrong...at least in The Big Ten but you are correct in that it isn't even up for debate whom the people that truly matter within The University of Oklahoma prefer.

I am not trying to be a jerk about it, we go around and around all the time like this JR. You talk very smoothly, I will give you that but I don't have to, the hard code aspects that affect where Oklahoma goes are enough for me. I don't feel as if I need to change the world with flowery words in order to change the tide.

I am sorry, I truly hope it doesn't bother you too much when it comes down. Personally, I think you are just having fun with all this but there is a little bit of worry that I have for what happens to some folks. There is a lot of latent hatred for The Great Northern Evil Conference.

If they come to the SEC great. If they don't so what. This is a message board. Views and posts are good for business. Controversy gets more traffic than agreement. I've never hated the North, or the West, or the South, or the East. I do love my school and want what's best for it. But the SEC isn't getting shut out of blue chip prospects for realignment. We'll get ours with or without Oklahoma. I'm just offering a counter view that things are not always as cut and dried as folks think. The networks are going to broker this. If they do nobody gets two of the Big 12 brands. If the networks go to war over it they won't be able to place enough of the schools to pull it off. They want Texas and Oklahoma in different conferences to heighten the drama of the RRR over two regions of viewers instead of 1. The only way that works is if OU and OSU are together. Then and only then can both spare an OOC game to play each other and then count on playing their other rivals or OOC opponents of interest.

So this time I'm not just offering a counter point, I'm stating an opinion. If (and that's still a big if) things go down this Summer it will be Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC. Kansas to the Big 10. Texas to either the ACC or PAC and when they move they'll take 3 with them if it is to the PAC and 4 with them and they will go as an independent to the ACC, but keep a core of home schools to play in the their region as a division of the ACC. The ACC scenario places 8. That's enough. The PAC scenario places 8 and that's enough. Because if Texas heads west with 3 WVU will go to the ACC alone. If it doesn't get brokered it doesn't get done.

(07-10-2015 12:01 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 10:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  What I can prove is that Oklahoma didn't choose any SEC teams as peers that weren't with them in the big 12 and that aren't AAU. Oklahoma chose every Big Ten University except private Northwestern.

You don't want to admit it but that signals Oklahoma's intentions in big bold Neon. Oklahoma Academia as well as Administration decides that, they also decide where Oklahoma goes. You can dismiss BMD's caring about academic affiliations, which is wrong...at least in The Big Ten but you are correct in that it isn't even up for debate whom the people that truly matter within The University of Oklahoma prefer.

I am not trying to be a jerk about it, we go around and around all the time like this JR. You talk very smoothly, I will give you that but I don't have to, the hard code aspects that affect where Oklahoma goes are enough for me. I don't feel as if I need to change the world with flowery words in order to change the tide.

I am sorry, I truly hope it doesn't bother you too much when it comes down. Personally, I think you are just having fun with all this but there is a little bit of worry that I have for what happens to some folks. There is a lot of latent hatred for The Great Northern Evil Conference.

If they come to the SEC great. If they don't so what. This is a message board. Views and posts are good for business. Controversy gets more traffic than agreement. I've never hated the North, or the West, or the South, or the East. I do love my school and want what's best for it. But the SEC isn't getting shut out of blue chip prospects for realignment. We'll get ours with or without Oklahoma. I'm just offering a counter view that things are not always as cut and dried as folks think. The networks are going to broker this. If they do nobody gets two of the Big 12 brands. If the networks go to war over it they won't be able to place enough of the schools to pull it off. They want Texas and Oklahoma in different conferences to heighten the drama of the RRR over two regions of viewers instead of 1. The only way that works is if OU and OSU are together. Then and only then can both spare an OOC game to play each other and then count on playing their other rivals or OOC opponents of interest.

So this time I'm not just offering a counter point, I'm stating an opinion. If (and that's still a big if) things go down this Summer it will be Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC. Kansas to the Big 10. Texas to either the ACC or PAC and when they move they'll take 3 with them if it is to the PAC and 4 with them and they will go as an independent to the ACC, but keep a core of home schools to play in the their region as a division of the ACC. The ACC scenario places 8. That's enough. The PAC scenario places 8 and that's enough. Because if Texas heads west with 3 WVU will go to the ACC alone. If it doesn't get brokered it doesn't get done.

The Big Ten would rather not take anyone and thus shut the whole negotiation down. The Big Ten is going to have a monetary advantage for the next decade, or at least the threat of that happening is quite considerable. They are the ones that can satisfy Fox.

(07-10-2015 12:05 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 12:01 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 10:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  What I can prove is that Oklahoma didn't choose any SEC teams as peers that weren't with them in the big 12 and that aren't AAU. Oklahoma chose every Big Ten University except private Northwestern.

You don't want to admit it but that signals Oklahoma's intentions in big bold Neon. Oklahoma Academia as well as Administration decides that, they also decide where Oklahoma goes. You can dismiss BMD's caring about academic affiliations, which is wrong...at least in The Big Ten but you are correct in that it isn't even up for debate whom the people that truly matter within The University of Oklahoma prefer.

I am not trying to be a jerk about it, we go around and around all the time like this JR. You talk very smoothly, I will give you that but I don't have to, the hard code aspects that affect where Oklahoma goes are enough for me. I don't feel as if I need to change the world with flowery words in order to change the tide.

I am sorry, I truly hope it doesn't bother you too much when it comes down. Personally, I think you are just having fun with all this but there is a little bit of worry that I have for what happens to some folks. There is a lot of latent hatred for The Great Northern Evil Conference.

If they come to the SEC great. If they don't so what. This is a message board. Views and posts are good for business. Controversy gets more traffic than agreement. I've never hated the North, or the West, or the South, or the East. I do love my school and want what's best for it. But the SEC isn't getting shut out of blue chip prospects for realignment. We'll get ours with or without Oklahoma. I'm just offering a counter view that things are not always as cut and dried as folks think. The networks are going to broker this. If they do nobody gets two of the Big 12 brands. If the networks go to war over it they won't be able to place enough of the schools to pull it off. They want Texas and Oklahoma in different conferences to heighten the drama of the RRR over two regions of viewers instead of 1. The only way that works is if OU and OSU are together. Then and only then can both spare an OOC game to play each other and then count on playing their other rivals or OOC opponents of interest.

So this time I'm not just offering a counter point, I'm stating an opinion. If (and that's still a big if) things go down this Summer it will be Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC. Kansas to the Big 10. Texas to either the ACC or PAC and when they move they'll take 3 with them if it is to the PAC and 4 with them and they will go as an independent to the ACC, but keep a core of home schools to play in the their region as a division of the ACC. The ACC scenario places 8. That's enough. The PAC scenario places 8 and that's enough. Because if Texas heads west with 3 WVU will go to the ACC alone. If it doesn't get brokered it doesn't get done.

The Big Ten would rather not take anyone and thus shut the whole negotiation down. The Big Ten is going to have a monetary advantage for the next decade, or at least the threat of that happening is quite considerable. They are the ones that can satisfy Fox.

So if they don't take Kansas then maybe the SEC picks them up too along with another school. Find another strategy.