(01-26-2016 04:50 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 03:39 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 03:12 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 02:47 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 02:26 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  You don't say why either. So why don't you prove him wrong? He posted first.

Because I've done it already, time and again.

OU, Iowa St and Mizzou are at least a half step, if not a full step, down from KU, NU+NU med and Iowa in research.

All other "metrics" typically used on this forum are nothing but popularity contests, based on perception and reputation.

Sorry, but I do not see where you have proven anything. Frank did not say anything about research. He said academically.

And thus we have the eternal, inexorable"running aground" of the discussion: what the hell does "academics" mean??

Not trying to be rude, but you are not making any sense. Like I said, I do not see where you have proven anything.

Well, what can I say? The dollars are the dollars. Oklahoma is far down the list.

Never before have I seen a person afraid of a team joining a conference.

(01-26-2016 04:58 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 04:50 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 03:39 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 03:12 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 02:47 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Because I've done it already, time and again.

OU, Iowa St and Mizzou are at least a half step, if not a full step, down from KU, NU+NU med and Iowa in research.

All other "metrics" typically used on this forum are nothing but popularity contests, based on perception and reputation.

Sorry, but I do not see where you have proven anything. Frank did not say anything about research. He said academically.

And thus we have the eternal, inexorable"running aground" of the discussion: what the hell does "academics" mean??

Not trying to be rude, but you are not making any sense. Like I said, I do not see where you have proven anything.

Well, what can I say? The dollars are the dollars. Oklahoma is far down the list.

What dollars? and what list?

(01-26-2016 05:03 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 04:58 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 04:50 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 03:39 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 03:12 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  Sorry, but I do not see where you have proven anything. Frank did not say anything about research. He said academically.

And thus we have the eternal, inexorable"running aground" of the discussion: what the hell does "academics" mean??

Not trying to be rude, but you are not making any sense. Like I said, I do not see where you have proven anything.

Well, what can I say? The dollars are the dollars. Oklahoma is far down the list.

What dollars? and what list?

The NSF compiles a yearly list of research expenditures of universities in the country. The rankings are freely available.

I've posted them on these forums more times than I can remember.

(01-26-2016 04:59 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Never before have I seen a person afraid of a team joining a conference.

You've yet to see one, then.

I however am sorry to say that I see one person, in particular, who is not only unafraid but clearly happy to disrespect the culture of the very conference that took in the school he supports.

Maybe that school would be happier leaving the conference, to restart the Big 8 that is apparently so beloved by that school's fans.

(01-26-2016 08:25 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 08:19 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 08:14 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 12:50 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 12:24 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Doesn't matter. They aren't anywhere near the academic standards of the Big Ten and Pac-12 while the SEC will wait for a bigger name or try to get the OU/KU combo before the Big Ten. This isn't anywhere close to being comparable to Texas A&M (whether you're talking about academics, TV market or fan base base size) or even a school like NC State in terms of a "#2 school".

More boring out of date discussion points. Either nothing is happening or something big is happening. It all depends upon the money that is put on the table. The SEC waiting for the OU/KU combo?

Seriously Frank? You can do better than that. The SEC doesn't need any more blue chip programs. They already had enough problems when Missouri and Texas A&M showed up. They like to play the "we love the competition" propaganda, but its just that...propaganda. The rhetoric coming from coaches changed drastically this past preseason, talking about the unfair disadvantage they have in the SEC in regards to the across the board competition there.

Don't tell me you are falling for all the fandom talk? Thought you were above that Frank?

Sorry Charilie, but Frank is spot on. There was a time when you weren't overly defensive when others expressed their ideas, beliefs and concepts.

In the last moves the SEC took the best prospects with the best academic standing. That is what they will do again and that is why many of the SEC's prospects are also Big 10 concepts.

Add to that the likelihood that the payout models will be changing someday to reflect value in content and adding more brands is a practical forward looking move for any conference.

No he is not and I am not defensive. It would behoove you MODERATOR to not try and create that strawman nor create that insult.

You are behind because you are defensive over the idea of The SEC not "winning" the "battle" for Oklahoma.

He is behind the time because he is...well...Frank the Tank and he has never been all that capable of coming up with his own theories. That is the lawyer in him.

Nobody is behind the times because nobody here is certain of anything but death and taxes. We do have past behavior and statements from those in charge to go on however. The SEC has said it would pursue academics, brand, and cultural fit. I have no reason to doubt that.

My being a moderator relates to my previous reply in only 1 way. Frank is always courteous, states what he believes to be the most rational approach, and doesn't insult those he disagrees with. Can you say the same? Therein resides the moderation issue.

And another thing. All of us here form our own theories based upon material that we find on line, hear in the news, or witness first hand. There is a paucity of the latter. Therefore the overwhelming majority of posters create their own theories based upon somebody else's comments.

Do you have eye witness support of your theories?

Frank is a thief and has never shown any evidence of "eye witness support" and yet here you are puckering up for him.

Do I have such support, we have discussed this and you know my position about giving away ANYTHING that even comes close to resembling a hint as to whom I talk to. So yes, nice try at once again trolling me. Sorry but I am going to call you out on that when you try to call me out.

(01-26-2016 03:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 10:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  However, besides that specific combo or an expansion that includes Texas and/or Notre Dame, then the single most valuable realistic expansion option for the Big Ten is Oklahoma and Kansas.

Realistic is a misnomer there. OU and KU both being able to shove their little brothers into the G5 is no more realistic than Notre Dame joining the Big Ten.

Notre Dame's administration agreed to join the Big 10 once and were pretty enthusiastic about it. I think you need a better example.

(01-26-2016 11:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 12:50 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 12:24 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 11:10 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 09:58 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think a lot of people here are really underestimating how much the Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC do NOT want Oklahoma State. Conferences might be willing to add 1 or 2 "undesirables" in order to get a school like Texas that brings *everything* to the table (huge national brand, huge market, massive recruiting area, top tier academics). Texas brings in so many factors by itself that it effectively has the value of several schools, so a package deal to get them is palatable to the powers that be. In contrast, Oklahoma has huge value on its own, but it's almost solely on being a huge national football brand. As a result, the B1G, Pac-12 or SEC would all certainly take OU on its own, but aren't willing to take Oklahoma State with them. That combo IS a non-starter for all of those leagues that look at each spot in their league as extremely valuable.

Oklahoma State is the 11th largest Athletic Department in the country now thanks to a certain someone. Seems like you are falling behind the times Frank.

Doesn't matter. They aren't anywhere near the academic standards of the Big Ten and Pac-12 while the SEC will wait for a bigger name or try to get the OU/KU combo before the Big Ten. This isn't anywhere close to being comparable to Texas A&M (whether you're talking about academics, TV market or fan base base size) or even a school like NC State in terms of a "#2 school".

More boring out of date discussion points. Either nothing is happening or something big is happening. It all depends upon the money that is put on the table. The SEC waiting for the OU/KU combo?

Seriously Frank? You can do better than that. The SEC doesn't need any more blue chip programs. They already had enough problems when Missouri and Texas A&M showed up. They like to play the "we love the competition" propaganda, but its just that...propaganda. The rhetoric coming from coaches changed drastically this past preseason, talking about the unfair disadvantage they have in the SEC in regards to the across the board competition there.

Don't tell me you are falling for all the fandom talk? Thought you were above that Frank?

If the SEC doesn't need more blue-chip football teams, then they don't need more teams period.

They're certainly not going to add OK St by itself. Not with the lack of cable subscribers in the state.

Yes they do. Four divisions of four leading to a conference tournament which adds two games that have previously been valued at somewhere around 30 million for the both of them which leads to having 50 million dollar conference tournaments. Those numbers may have actually gone up since original valuations.

Nice try, but once again...coming up short because SEC coaches complain about their schedule. The obvious rational perspective sees more blue chip programs only making the situation worse where as adding a couple lesser role players could actually ease that situation. I understand the math may be lost upon you but to make it as simple as possible...if you add a program that is stronger in perception than most of your programs then that doesn't bode well for the future in regard to difficult conference schedule. If you add a program that is perceived to be a weaker program than most of your current programs then it actually boosts the chance of success for your current programs.

Texas A&M and Missouri were propagandized by The SEC but internally there were plenty of folks that weren't too happy about them both coming in and immediately having strong success. If that happens again, then it is yet another chink in that "impenetrable" armor of The SEC in football.

(01-26-2016 02:05 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  I have a feeling that the OP's info is legit.

http://collegesports.blog.statesman.com/...to-expand/

Bob Bowlsby: Big 12 has ‘no imperative’ to expand

H1, what are your thoughts on this?

It's the same ole same ole that I told everyone here to expect. I said to expect a media blitz that would continue to degrade and devalue the perception of the big 12 so that it would appear to become inevitable that the conference would have no choice but to dissolve. They are covering their asses for that moment because when it happens, it will be huge. There will be plenty of angry people and they need their defense in order.

(01-26-2016 03:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 10:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  However, besides that specific combo or an expansion that includes Texas and/or Notre Dame, then the single most valuable realistic expansion option for the Big Ten is Oklahoma and Kansas.

Realistic is a misnomer there. OU and KU both being able to shove their little brothers into the G5 is no more realistic than Notre Dame joining the Big Ten.

They wont be shoved into a G5 despite your repeated attempts to state that such is the only possible outcome.

I am going to enjoy watching the fireworks display when folks have their minds blown by whom is going where. Your perception of your conference will be blown as well.

(01-26-2016 05:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 08:25 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 08:19 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 08:14 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 12:50 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  More boring out of date discussion points. Either nothing is happening or something big is happening. It all depends upon the money that is put on the table. The SEC waiting for the OU/KU combo?

Seriously Frank? You can do better than that. The SEC doesn't need any more blue chip programs. They already had enough problems when Missouri and Texas A&M showed up. They like to play the "we love the competition" propaganda, but its just that...propaganda. The rhetoric coming from coaches changed drastically this past preseason, talking about the unfair disadvantage they have in the SEC in regards to the across the board competition there.

Don't tell me you are falling for all the fandom talk? Thought you were above that Frank?

Sorry Charilie, but Frank is spot on. There was a time when you weren't overly defensive when others expressed their ideas, beliefs and concepts.

In the last moves the SEC took the best prospects with the best academic standing. That is what they will do again and that is why many of the SEC's prospects are also Big 10 concepts.

Add to that the likelihood that the payout models will be changing someday to reflect value in content and adding more brands is a practical forward looking move for any conference.

No he is not and I am not defensive. It would behoove you MODERATOR to not try and create that strawman nor create that insult.

You are behind because you are defensive over the idea of The SEC not "winning" the "battle" for Oklahoma.

He is behind the time because he is...well...Frank the Tank and he has never been all that capable of coming up with his own theories. That is the lawyer in him.

Nobody is behind the times because nobody here is certain of anything but death and taxes. We do have past behavior and statements from those in charge to go on however. The SEC has said it would pursue academics, brand, and cultural fit. I have no reason to doubt that.

My being a moderator relates to my previous reply in only 1 way. Frank is always courteous, states what he believes to be the most rational approach, and doesn't insult those he disagrees with. Can you say the same? Therein resides the moderation issue.

And another thing. All of us here form our own theories based upon material that we find on line, hear in the news, or witness first hand. There is a paucity of the latter. Therefore the overwhelming majority of posters create their own theories based upon somebody else's comments.

Do you have eye witness support of your theories?

Frank is a thief and has never shown any evidence of "eye witness support" and yet here you are puckering up for him.

Do I have such support, we have discussed this and you know my position about giving away ANYTHING that even comes close to resembling a hint as to whom I talk to. So yes, nice try at once again trolling me. Sorry but I am going to call you out on that when you try to call me out.

H1 the issue is board civility. As to what you are calling me out on I'm not sure? If you have insider information nobody is asking you to reveal a source. All posters, unless they themselves act otherwise, deserve the courtesy of not being harangued.

(01-26-2016 04:56 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Not a chance, guys. Sorry.

Do you know how many anti-OU subscribers will call in and threaten to cancel their subscriptions if BTN is added to their tier??

Not even close.


BTN gets on standard in Oklahoma and no where else, by adding OU.

(01-26-2016 05:42 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 05:03 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 04:58 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 04:50 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 03:39 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  And thus we have the eternal, inexorable"running aground" of the discussion: what the hell does "academics" mean??

Not trying to be rude, but you are not making any sense. Like I said, I do not see where you have proven anything.

Well, what can I say? The dollars are the dollars. Oklahoma is far down the list.

What dollars? and what list?

The NSF compiles a yearly list of research expenditures of universities in the country. The rankings are freely available.

I've posted them on these forums more times than I can remember.

Don't try to change the subject .Frank made a statement about academics. He said nothing about research dollars. You have not proven him wrong.

(01-26-2016 05:56 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 11:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 12:50 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 12:24 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 11:10 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oklahoma State is the 11th largest Athletic Department in the country now thanks to a certain someone. Seems like you are falling behind the times Frank.

Doesn't matter. They aren't anywhere near the academic standards of the Big Ten and Pac-12 while the SEC will wait for a bigger name or try to get the OU/KU combo before the Big Ten. This isn't anywhere close to being comparable to Texas A&M (whether you're talking about academics, TV market or fan base base size) or even a school like NC State in terms of a "#2 school".

More boring out of date discussion points. Either nothing is happening or something big is happening. It all depends upon the money that is put on the table. The SEC waiting for the OU/KU combo?

Seriously Frank? You can do better than that. The SEC doesn't need any more blue chip programs. They already had enough problems when Missouri and Texas A&M showed up. They like to play the "we love the competition" propaganda, but its just that...propaganda. The rhetoric coming from coaches changed drastically this past preseason, talking about the unfair disadvantage they have in the SEC in regards to the across the board competition there.

Don't tell me you are falling for all the fandom talk? Thought you were above that Frank?

If the SEC doesn't need more blue-chip football teams, then they don't need more teams period.

They're certainly not going to add OK St by itself. Not with the lack of cable subscribers in the state.

Yes they do. Four divisions of four leading to a conference tournament which adds two games that have previously been valued at somewhere around 30 million for the both of them which leads to having 50 million dollar conference tournaments. Those numbers may have actually gone up since original valuations.

Nice try, but once again...coming up short because SEC coaches complain about their schedule. The obvious rational perspective sees more blue chip programs only making the situation worse where as adding a couple lesser role players could actually ease that situation. I understand the math may be lost upon you but to make it as simple as possible...if you add a program that is stronger in perception than most of your programs then that doesn't bode well for the future in regard to difficult conference schedule. If you add a program that is perceived to be a weaker program than most of your current programs then it actually boosts the chance of success for your current programs.

Texas A&M and Missouri were propagandized by The SEC but internally there were plenty of folks that weren't too happy about them both coming in and immediately having strong success. If that happens again, then it is yet another chink in that "impenetrable" armor of The SEC in football.

SEC coaches will be pissed about OU coming on, but will welcome OK St? I doubt it.

OK St will decrease the dollars per school from TV. OU keeps it the same or increases it.


Maybe one day there will be exempt CSFG's, but that language wasn't added just now. So you're probably looking at the end of the CFP before it's revisited again. Doubt any conference is going to add any teams now just to prepare for that.

(01-26-2016 06:13 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 04:56 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Not a chance, guys. Sorry.

Do you know how many anti-OU subscribers will call in and threaten to cancel their subscriptions if BTN is added to their tier??

Not even close.


BTN gets on standard in Oklahoma and no where else, by adding OU.

(01-26-2016 05:42 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 05:03 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 04:58 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 04:50 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  Not trying to be rude, but you are not making any sense. Like I said, I do not see where you have proven anything.

Well, what can I say? The dollars are the dollars. Oklahoma is far down the list.

What dollars? and what list?

The NSF compiles a yearly list of research expenditures of universities in the country. The rankings are freely available.

I've posted them on these forums more times than I can remember.

Don't try to change the subject .Frank made a statement about academics. He said nothing about research dollars. You have not proven him wrong.

Of course O have. Research is the definition of academics.

(01-26-2016 06:18 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 06:13 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 04:56 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Not a chance, guys. Sorry.

Do you know how many anti-OU subscribers will call in and threaten to cancel their subscriptions if BTN is added to their tier??

Not even close.


BTN gets on standard in Oklahoma and no where else, by adding OU.

(01-26-2016 05:42 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 05:03 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 04:58 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Well, what can I say? The dollars are the dollars. Oklahoma is far down the list.

What dollars? and what list?

The NSF compiles a yearly list of research expenditures of universities in the country. The rankings are freely available.

I've posted them on these forums more times than I can remember.

Don't try to change the subject .Frank made a statement about academics. He said nothing about research dollars. You have not proven him wrong.

Of course O have. Research is the definition of academics.

Who is O?

Well this conversation has devolved quite nicely.