(07-04-2017 07:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 12:53 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  California can mandate some new accounting, but a state can't interfere with freedom of movement because that's a constitutional right with a long precedent of enforcement.

Refusing to fund movement isn't the same as interfering with it. You have a right to travel from California to Alabama if you want, but California isn't obligated to pay for it, so refusing to do so isn't a violation of your rights.

That's why I said that they'd have to keep their private donations separate. A bowl game with a full week of travel for a full roster, marching band, etc can run up to about $3M. In reality, small sports would cost less than 100k to travel. When schools are bringing in $25M+ in annual private donations to the AD, that means they have plenty of funds for discretionary use in travel. This will effect small municipal governments. It will effect conventions that try to attract civil servants. It will effect venues for post-season play at the D2-3 level. It will have zero impact on the FBS schools.

(07-04-2017 03:31 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 06:41 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 03:10 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 02:37 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 01:05 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  The Big12 is giving a 12-team payout for 10 teams. That will be corrected in the next contract. Less money will probably exacerbate OU and/or UT's desire to jump leagues.

One big issue I see is ESPN's need to cut long-term liabilities. That could cause them to low-ball the B12, regardless of whether anyone leaves. It's too unstable of an investment. All they really care about is keeping UT under their umbrella, and OU to a lesser extent. If ESPN comes in low, Fox could bid the whole thing but it's still likely going to be less than the sweetheart deal they have now.

I think having 10 members will be an advantage in the long run. I think 14/16/18 is too many.

Depends on what business you are in.

For the G5 10-12 is the optimal for revenue distribution in the current market.

8-10 used to be the sweet spot for conferences when TV was run by the NCAA.

Right now beyond the logistical constraints, I think 20-28 could be the sweet spot for a P5 league, because of the logistical issues 12-14 seems to work well.

Could you expound on the last thoughts on the sweet spot. Just curious.

It's about leverage.

Larger geography provides greater leverage with TV. When you start a pro league in the TV area, first thing you do is find an owner for NY and LA. MLS did it, USFL, WFL, WHA, ABA. The NHL expansion from the Original Six hit LA and Philadelphia the 2nd and 4th largest markets in the country.

From a marketing and TV standpoint, merge Big 10 and Pac-12 and you have a beast. The logistics of NCAA rules regarding selecting a champion is a major road block but if that were not an obstacle that's a beast of a conference financially

The CFP round 1 (Fiesta or Rose) becomes the B1G/PAC CCG. Not much different than now. The basketball tournament (which would be awesome) adds a round.

(07-04-2017 09:00 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 07:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 12:53 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  California can mandate some new accounting, but a state can't interfere with freedom of movement because that's a constitutional right with a long precedent of enforcement.

Refusing to fund movement isn't the same as interfering with it. You have a right to travel from California to Alabama if you want, but California isn't obligated to pay for it, so refusing to do so isn't a violation of your rights.

That's why I said that they'd have to keep their private donations separate. A bowl game with a full week of travel for a full roster, marching band, etc can run up to about $3M. In reality, small sports would cost less than 100k to travel. When schools are bringing in $25M+ in annual private donations to the AD, that means they have plenty of funds for discretionary use in travel. This will effect small municipal governments. It will effect conventions that try to attract civil servants. It will effect venues for post-season play at the D2-3 level. It will have zero impact on the FBS schools.

The question is HOW you do the accounting. If an Athletic Department is subsidized by mandatory student fees and taxpayer subsidies at a 45% level or so, it becomes much harder to keep it all in order. And I suspect for some California schools, it might become impossible.

For the California schools, even those that can find the money to subsidize all travel and expenses for all of their teams, the impact of playing more Texas schools would be to starve the AD from money that could be otherwise invested in their program as they saw fit. New donations aren't likely to just appear in any significant way. So if a California team adds a Texas school to their schedule or their conference, then they can probably just forget about that new football building. Or the extra money to hire the next football coach.

And that's assuming that California doesn't just increase the bans' scope and that the donors at the schools are willing to pay millions to help their teams discriminate. And its not just Athletic donations too. A school that openly flouts the AG ban, and is using donations to do it, could lose donations from their general fund.

Either way, I think there's some ice water on a lot of conference movement, especially out West for a while.

(07-04-2017 09:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 09:00 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 07:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 12:53 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  California can mandate some new accounting, but a state can't interfere with freedom of movement because that's a constitutional right with a long precedent of enforcement.

Refusing to fund movement isn't the same as interfering with it. You have a right to travel from California to Alabama if you want, but California isn't obligated to pay for it, so refusing to do so isn't a violation of your rights.

That's why I said that they'd have to keep their private donations separate. A bowl game with a full week of travel for a full roster, marching band, etc can run up to about $3M. In reality, small sports would cost less than 100k to travel. When schools are bringing in $25M+ in annual private donations to the AD, that means they have plenty of funds for discretionary use in travel. This will effect small municipal governments. It will effect conventions that try to attract civil servants. It will effect venues for post-season play at the D2-3 level. It will have zero impact on the FBS schools.

The question is HOW you do the accounting. If an Athletic Department is subsidized by mandatory student fees and taxpayer subsidies at a 45% level or so, it becomes much harder to keep it all in order. And I suspect for some California schools, it might become impossible.

For the California schools, even those that can find the money to subsidize all travel and expenses for all of their teams, the impact of playing more Texas schools would be to starve the AD from money that could be otherwise invested in their program as they saw fit. New donations aren't likely to just appear in any significant way. So if a California team adds a Texas school to their schedule or their conference, then they can probably just forget about that new football building. Or the extra money to hire the next football coach.

And that's assuming that California doesn't just increase the bans' scope and that the donors at the schools are willing to pay millions to help their teams discriminate. And its not just Athletic donations too. A school that openly flouts the AG ban, and is using donations to do it, could lose donations from their general fund.

Either way, I think there's some ice water on a lot of conference movement, especially out West for a while.

It's not hard at all, Tom. Most schools have a separate LLC that receives private donations. That's the Crimson Club at Utah. Our state has a rule against using state funds to buy booze. So if the Athletic Department had a fundraiser and wanted to provide drinks, they'd have to get a split bill with the venue charges paid by the AD and the bar tab paid by the Crimson Club. Not until the Crimson Club transfers money to the aD does that money fall under state rules.

You can also get more money in private donations if you increase the minimum contribution for season tickets and drop the ticket price. This stuff is REALLY not hard to figure out.

It doesn't change the overall expenses just who picks up what part of the tab. There's no new costs involved.

Also, you're CRAZY if you think the state of CA wants to inflict punitive damages in its institutions. This rule is about self-righteousness/vanity first and foremost. It's about appearances, not substance.

(07-04-2017 09:28 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 09:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 09:00 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 07:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 12:53 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  California can mandate some new accounting, but a state can't interfere with freedom of movement because that's a constitutional right with a long precedent of enforcement.

Refusing to fund movement isn't the same as interfering with it. You have a right to travel from California to Alabama if you want, but California isn't obligated to pay for it, so refusing to do so isn't a violation of your rights.

That's why I said that they'd have to keep their private donations separate. A bowl game with a full week of travel for a full roster, marching band, etc can run up to about $3M. In reality, small sports would cost less than 100k to travel. When schools are bringing in $25M+ in annual private donations to the AD, that means they have plenty of funds for discretionary use in travel. This will effect small municipal governments. It will effect conventions that try to attract civil servants. It will effect venues for post-season play at the D2-3 level. It will have zero impact on the FBS schools.

The question is HOW you do the accounting. If an Athletic Department is subsidized by mandatory student fees and taxpayer subsidies at a 45% level or so, it becomes much harder to keep it all in order. And I suspect for some California schools, it might become impossible.

For the California schools, even those that can find the money to subsidize all travel and expenses for all of their teams, the impact of playing more Texas schools would be to starve the AD from money that could be otherwise invested in their program as they saw fit. New donations aren't likely to just appear in any significant way. So if a California team adds a Texas school to their schedule or their conference, then they can probably just forget about that new football building. Or the extra money to hire the next football coach.

And that's assuming that California doesn't just increase the bans' scope and that the donors at the schools are willing to pay millions to help their teams discriminate. And its not just Athletic donations too. A school that openly flouts the AG ban, and is using donations to do it, could lose donations from their general fund.

Either way, I think there's some ice water on a lot of conference movement, especially out West for a while.

It's not hard at all, Tom. Most schools have a separate LLC that receives private donations. That's the Crimson Club at Utah. Our state has a rule against using state funds to buy booze. So if the Athletic Department had a fundraiser and wanted to provide drinks, they'd have to get a split bill with the venue charges paid by the AD and the bar tab paid by the Crimson Club. Not until the Crimson Club transfers money to the aD does that money fall under state rules.

You can also get more money in private donations if you increase the minimum contribution for season tickets and drop the ticket price. This stuff is REALLY not hard to figure out.

It doesn't change the overall expenses just who picks up what part of the tab. There's no new costs involved.

Also, you're CRAZY if you think the state of CA wants to inflict punitive damages in its institutions. This rule is about self-righteousness/vanity first and foremost. It's about appearances, not substance.

Again, the question remains one of whether the AG in California is really serious about implementing it. The big advantage some people have is that many in the targeted community aren't really aware of the sausage making that can go on.

We will see if they are serious. However, I think if the Pac 12 decided to add UT as a member, there'd be some pushback. The people of California have been told 'no taxpayer travel' and 'no putting our citizens at risk with taxpayer funds or by our institutions'. If something occurs to make that obviously not true, then there might be additional scrutiny towards that rule. I think this is the bigger fear. Wink, wink, nod, nod might work unless the violation of the spirit of the ruling is egregious. Conference alignment would be very public.

Don't be surprised if some in Sacto see the high dollar athletics to be incongruent with the effective running of their institutions. I don't agree with them. But just know there are plenty who see the future of California tertiary education to be a lot more UCSD and a lot less UCLA.

Remember the ban has been sold to the people of California as 'no public travel'. That's the problem that those who want to get around it have. If the people obviously see what they consider to be public travel, then there could be a pressure to make that ban much more effective. And many of those people who have been sold that.....could care less about the impact on the UCLA or Fresno State athletic departments.

I think that alignment between California teams and Texas teams is done until this is resolved. I think it probably will be resolved by 2023 in a way that will make California's AG ruling unnecessary, but I think that we're going to be stuck with this for a while.

(07-03-2017 09:21 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I may be wrong but I believe OU and OSU might be tied together due to state politics. Some one from that area may know if there is any grains of truth to this.

I am from Oklahoma and there is none.

(07-04-2017 10:04 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 09:21 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I may be wrong but I believe OU and OSU might be tied together due to state politics. Some one from that area may know if there is any grains of truth to this.

I am from Oklahoma and there is none.

There might have been some in the past, but once TAMU left UT, all bets in the Big XII were off. OU will protect OU first, and the legislature will let them do it.

(07-04-2017 09:28 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 09:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 09:00 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 07:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 12:53 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  California can mandate some new accounting, but a state can't interfere with freedom of movement because that's a constitutional right with a long precedent of enforcement.

Refusing to fund movement isn't the same as interfering with it. You have a right to travel from California to Alabama if you want, but California isn't obligated to pay for it, so refusing to do so isn't a violation of your rights.

That's why I said that they'd have to keep their private donations separate. A bowl game with a full week of travel for a full roster, marching band, etc can run up to about $3M. In reality, small sports would cost less than 100k to travel. When schools are bringing in $25M+ in annual private donations to the AD, that means they have plenty of funds for discretionary use in travel. This will effect small municipal governments. It will effect conventions that try to attract civil servants. It will effect venues for post-season play at the D2-3 level. It will have zero impact on the FBS schools.

The question is HOW you do the accounting. If an Athletic Department is subsidized by mandatory student fees and taxpayer subsidies at a 45% level or so, it becomes much harder to keep it all in order. And I suspect for some California schools, it might become impossible.

For the California schools, even those that can find the money to subsidize all travel and expenses for all of their teams, the impact of playing more Texas schools would be to starve the AD from money that could be otherwise invested in their program as they saw fit. New donations aren't likely to just appear in any significant way. So if a California team adds a Texas school to their schedule or their conference, then they can probably just forget about that new football building. Or the extra money to hire the next football coach.

And that's assuming that California doesn't just increase the bans' scope and that the donors at the schools are willing to pay millions to help their teams discriminate. And its not just Athletic donations too. A school that openly flouts the AG ban, and is using donations to do it, could lose donations from their general fund.

Either way, I think there's some ice water on a lot of conference movement, especially out West for a while.

It's not hard at all, Tom. Most schools have a separate LLC that receives private donations. That's the Crimson Club at Utah. Our state has a rule against using state funds to buy booze. So if the Athletic Department had a fundraiser and wanted to provide drinks, they'd have to get a split bill with the venue charges paid by the AD and the bar tab paid by the Crimson Club. Not until the Crimson Club transfers money to the aD does that money fall under state rules.

You can also get more money in private donations if you increase the minimum contribution for season tickets and drop the ticket price. This stuff is REALLY not hard to figure out.

It doesn't change the overall expenses just who picks up what part of the tab. There's no new costs involved.

Also, you're CRAZY if you think the state of CA wants to inflict punitive damages in its institutions. This rule is about self-righteousness/vanity first and foremost. It's about appearances, not substance.

I believe you have nailed it correctly

(07-04-2017 09:43 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 09:28 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 09:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 09:00 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 07:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Refusing to fund movement isn't the same as interfering with it. You have a right to travel from California to Alabama if you want, but California isn't obligated to pay for it, so refusing to do so isn't a violation of your rights.

That's why I said that they'd have to keep their private donations separate. A bowl game with a full week of travel for a full roster, marching band, etc can run up to about $3M. In reality, small sports would cost less than 100k to travel. When schools are bringing in $25M+ in annual private donations to the AD, that means they have plenty of funds for discretionary use in travel. This will effect small municipal governments. It will effect conventions that try to attract civil servants. It will effect venues for post-season play at the D2-3 level. It will have zero impact on the FBS schools.

The question is HOW you do the accounting. If an Athletic Department is subsidized by mandatory student fees and taxpayer subsidies at a 45% level or so, it becomes much harder to keep it all in order. And I suspect for some California schools, it might become impossible.

For the California schools, even those that can find the money to subsidize all travel and expenses for all of their teams, the impact of playing more Texas schools would be to starve the AD from money that could be otherwise invested in their program as they saw fit. New donations aren't likely to just appear in any significant way. So if a California team adds a Texas school to their schedule or their conference, then they can probably just forget about that new football building. Or the extra money to hire the next football coach.

And that's assuming that California doesn't just increase the bans' scope and that the donors at the schools are willing to pay millions to help their teams discriminate. And its not just Athletic donations too. A school that openly flouts the AG ban, and is using donations to do it, could lose donations from their general fund.

Either way, I think there's some ice water on a lot of conference movement, especially out West for a while.

It's not hard at all, Tom. Most schools have a separate LLC that receives private donations. That's the Crimson Club at Utah. Our state has a rule against using state funds to buy booze. So if the Athletic Department had a fundraiser and wanted to provide drinks, they'd have to get a split bill with the venue charges paid by the AD and the bar tab paid by the Crimson Club. Not until the Crimson Club transfers money to the aD does that money fall under state rules.

You can also get more money in private donations if you increase the minimum contribution for season tickets and drop the ticket price. This stuff is REALLY not hard to figure out.

It doesn't change the overall expenses just who picks up what part of the tab. There's no new costs involved.

Also, you're CRAZY if you think the state of CA wants to inflict punitive damages in its institutions. This rule is about self-righteousness/vanity first and foremost. It's about appearances, not substance.

Again, the question remains one of whether the AG in California is really serious about implementing it. The big advantage some people have is that many in the targeted community aren't really aware of the sausage making that can go on.

We will see if they are serious. However, I think if the Pac 12 decided to add UT as a member, there'd be some pushback. The people of California have been told 'no taxpayer travel' and 'no putting our citizens at risk with taxpayer funds or by our institutions'. If something occurs to make that obviously not true, then there might be additional scrutiny towards that rule. I think this is the bigger fear. Wink, wink, nod, nod might work unless the violation of the spirit of the ruling is egregious. Conference alignment would be very public.

Don't be surprised if some in Sacto see the high dollar athletics to be incongruent with the effective running of their institutions. I don't agree with them. But just know there are plenty who see the future of California tertiary education to be a lot more UCSD and a lot less UCLA.

Remember the ban has been sold to the people of California as 'no public travel'. That's the problem that those who want to get around it have. If the people obviously see what they consider to be public travel, then there could be a pressure to make that ban much more effective. And many of those people who have been sold that.....could care less about the impact on the UCLA or Fresno State athletic departments.

I think that alignment between California teams and Texas teams is done until this is resolved. I think it probably will be resolved by 2023 in a way that will make California's AG ruling unnecessary, but I think that we're going to be stuck with this for a while.

That's entirely plausible in a world where elected officials are concerned primarily with elevating the morality of humanity through selfless public service.

But as anyone familiar with government knows, 90% of elected officials are amoral narcissists well-versed in manipulating and using public sentiment to further their own self interest and to enrich themselves and those who massage their egos and feed their own voracious appetites for validation.

Expanding the scope of this legislation to the degree you suggest is laughable, especially the notionthat they care about what theeasily distracted and redirected populace believes the rule means.

(06-27-2017 09:27 AM)YNot Wrote:  http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...-shuffling

2023 is when the B1G TV deal is up for renewal and one year before PAC deal and SEC's Tier 1 deal (ie, CBS Game of the Week). Two years before B12 expiration.

Discusses potential new distribution models - which would likely favor fan bases, with less focus on media markets.

Refers to several quotes from commissioners and AD's that realignment talks have quieted and will likely remain quiet until then. But, everyone is watching and concerned about the media rights deals. Lists B12 and PAC 12 as the most vulnerable, but suggest that the PAC may be the conference most susceptible to realignment come 2023.

To put this in perspective, the last wave of realignment started in 2010, and lasted until 2014 before everythig "settled down". 2010 was 7 years ago. 2014 was 3 years ago. 2023 is 6 years from now.

We really only have 3-4 years of stability left and then the rumors will start leaking out. Maybe it will start with Texas leaking they are looking around and are eady to make a move. Get ready for another wild ride.

(07-04-2017 10:10 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 10:04 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 09:21 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I may be wrong but I believe OU and OSU might be tied together due to state politics. Some one from that area may know if there is any grains of truth to this.

I am from Oklahoma and there is none.

There might have been some in the past, but once TAMU left UT, all bets in the Big XII were off. OU will protect OU first, and the legislature will let them do it.

The close relationship between OU and OSU has never been political or legally required. The relationship is best described as familial. There is huge crossover between the two school among the faculty, administration and spouses. OU will definitely try to bring OSU along if OU changes conferences. However, if OU got an invitation they felt they couldn't refuse, they would take it without OSU. But, the chances of OU getting an invitation without bringing along Texas are just about nil.

(06-27-2017 09:28 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 03:32 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 03:19 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 02:03 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 01:46 PM)micahandme Wrote:  Problem with that theory is that the Pac-12 and B1G don't WANT much of the Big 12. "Carving them up" isn't in their plans. There are 4 tiers of desirability.
UT
OU and KU
OkSt, Baylor, TTech
Iowa State, TCU, WVU

The Pac-12 and Big Ten don't want anything below tier 2. They might take 1 or 2 schools below tier 2...if it means getting 2 or 3 from tier 1 or 2. But only if they are scoring big from the top 3 (Texas, OU, Kansas).

But two crazy conferences of let's say...Pac-12 plus Texas, OU, OkSt, TTech...and then Big 10 plus Missouri and Kansas...both at 16 could work the way you described. Just don't be plotting out two 20 team conferences (unless you are going to carve up the ACC).

Just curious, the re-Alignment appears to be about football only. Why does Kansas keep being mentioned? I understand if Basketball was the money driver but it is football. I see Kansas much like UCONN, great basketball school but does it meet the football needs. I actually would say I think UCONN would be the better choice for the B10 instead of Kanss. UCONN helps with the New England Market for the B10. As I know some UCONN posters will note, I believe UCONN would be behind other states for the ACC but if it was between UCONN and Kansas, I would say the ACC takes UCONN hands down. Is there something I am not understanding about Kansas Football? I typically think KSU for football and KU for Basketball.

Kansas is a blueblood basketball program that brings in a lot of tournament money, plus they are an AAU school....UConn is not.
Kansas has had good footbali teams, ten years ago they were in the Orange bowl and they are spending $300,000,000 on their football stadium

Again, I am not a UCONN fan, but all the same can beside for UCONN except the AAU. UCONN made the Fiesta bowl in 2011.

That 2010 UConn football team finished the regular season 8-4 and lost to Oklahoma in Fiesta Bowl. So the record is 8-5. It shows how bad Big East was and not deserving a BCS bid.

You conveniently leave out WVU beating SEC Champ UGA in Atalanta in the Sugar Bowl, WVU BLOWING OUT OU in the Fiesta Bowl, both of UofL BCS wins and the fact they had a better BCS record than the ACC and some of the other BCS conferences.

(07-04-2017 01:10 PM)lew240z Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 10:10 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 10:04 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 09:21 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I may be wrong but I believe OU and OSU might be tied together due to state politics. Some one from that area may know if there is any grains of truth to this.

I am from Oklahoma and there is none.

There might have been some in the past, but once TAMU left UT, all bets in the Big XII were off. OU will protect OU first, and the legislature will let them do it.

The close relationship between OU and OSU has never been political or legally required. The relationship is best described as familial. There is huge crossover between the two school among the faculty, administration and spouses. OU will definitely try to bring OSU along if OU changes conferences. However, if OU got an invitation they felt they couldn't refuse, they would take it without OSU. But, the chances of OU getting an invitation without bringing along Texas are just about nil.

Here's a breakdown of the relationship between OU and OSU. [LINK]

(07-04-2017 07:13 PM)MAD MACGYVER Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 01:10 PM)lew240z Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 10:10 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 10:04 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 09:21 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I may be wrong but I believe OU and OSU might be tied together due to state politics. Some one from that area may know if there is any grains of truth to this.

I am from Oklahoma and there is none.

There might have been some in the past, but once TAMU left UT, all bets in the Big XII were off. OU will protect OU first, and the legislature will let them do it.

The close relationship between OU and OSU has never been political or legally required. The relationship is best described as familial. There is huge crossover between the two school among the faculty, administration and spouses. OU will definitely try to bring OSU along if OU changes conferences. However, if OU got an invitation they felt they couldn't refuse, they would take it without OSU. But, the chances of OU getting an invitation without bringing along Texas are just about nil.

Here's a breakdown of the relationship between OU and OSU. [LINK]

Thank you, basically looks like the Governor gets decide if he chooses to do just such. I imagine T. Boone also probably gets some power behind the throne.

(07-05-2017 10:49 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 07:13 PM)MAD MACGYVER Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 01:10 PM)lew240z Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 10:10 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 10:04 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  I am from Oklahoma and there is none.

There might have been some in the past, but once TAMU left UT, all bets in the Big XII were off. OU will protect OU first, and the legislature will let them do it.

The close relationship between OU and OSU has never been political or legally required. The relationship is best described as familial. There is huge crossover between the two school among the faculty, administration and spouses. OU will definitely try to bring OSU along if OU changes conferences. However, if OU got an invitation they felt they couldn't refuse, they would take it without OSU. But, the chances of OU getting an invitation without bringing along Texas are just about nil.

Here's a breakdown of the relationship between OU and OSU. [LINK]

Thank you, basically looks like the Governor gets decide if he chooses to do just such. I imagine T. Boone also probably gets some power behind the throne.

Pickens has lived in Texas since the 1950's and has very little if any clout in Oklahoma politics. BTW the Oklahoma Governor is a she and a very good one.