If realignment, let’s say Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big Ten, separated the Sooners from historic rivals Texas and Oklahoma St which rivalry game would they keep as an OOC match up?

Both. 6th home game would be a buy game. 6-5-1 each season.

9 big 10 games
1 Texas in Dallas

2 home games

But this is why they don’t separate from Ok state

(01-13-2020 11:18 AM)bluesox Wrote:  9 big 10 games
1 Texas in Dallas

2 home games

But this is why they don’t separate from Ok state

Or from Texas. If they can't keep at least one, they don't leave.

The problem with the B1G is the nine game conference schedule. Oklahoma could go to the SEC with Kansas and keep both as OOC games for now, but if they are looking ahead they may think that an eventual move by the SEC to a nine game schedule is inevitable when that league expands.

(01-13-2020 01:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 11:18 AM)bluesox Wrote:  9 big 10 games
1 Texas in Dallas

2 home games

But this is why they don’t separate from Ok state

Or from Texas. If they can't keep at least one, they don't leave.

The problem with the B1G is the nine game conference schedule. Oklahoma could go to the SEC with Kansas and keep both as OOC games for now, but if they are looking ahead they may think that an eventual move by the SEC to a nine game schedule is inevitable when that league expands.

They only have to worry about what is politically expedient at the time of the move. Beyond that there is little pressure that can be brought to bear at the state level. If somebody wants them now they'll probably need to offer both. Since the Big 10 won't take OSU and the PAC doesn't pay enough that would be the SEC. Once the SEC demonstrates no interest in OSU Oklahoma is free to move anywhere.
So the real question is does the SEC want Oklahoma that badly and would ESPN be willing to pay for it.

I think ESPN's priority is having a state of 28 million locked down. So they would probably be more willing to pay for Texas and Texas Tech than Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. But should ESPN see the value of the two Oklahoma schools to locking down and dominating the 11 million population revolving around the DFW hub then all 4 might be the get. Texas, Texas Tech, and A&M would deliver DFW. OU and OSU give you 5 must see teams for those 11 million, plus the 4 million in Oklahoma and much of the rest of the state of Texas.

How many regions have 5 schools that can draw successfully from 32 million? If nothing else that's at least an average of a triple dip a week and that's huge for T2 material when the RRR isn't taking place.

The PAC really flubbed by not taking Oklahoma and Oklahoma St when they had the chance. That would’ve really given them some leverage.

(01-13-2020 02:55 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  The PAC really flubbed by not taking Oklahoma and Oklahoma St when they had the chance. That would’ve really given them some leverage.

What chance did they have? To take just those two? Or to take them with others? Just those two schools by themselves don't do much to solve any of the PAC's problems. I don't really recall any scenario in which the PAC goes to 14 with those two, or to 12 without Colorado and Utah.

(01-13-2020 03:38 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 02:55 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  The PAC really flubbed by not taking Oklahoma and Oklahoma St when they had the chance. That would’ve really given them some leverage.

What chance did they have? To take just those two? Or to take them with others? Just those two schools by themselves don't do much to solve any of the PAC's problems. I don't really recall any scenario in which the PAC goes to 14 with those two, or to 12 without Colorado and Utah.

I believe it was to go to 14 with the Oklahoma schools. I don't have an article ready to share but if someone could provide a link, I'm confident it was almost a thing. I wasn't saying the Oklahoma schools by themselves added much but it would've provided some leverage. Even if Texas was not in play, adding - perhaps - Kansas St and Texas Tech would've be tolerable with Oklahoma.

PAC
North: Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St
West: California, Stanford, USC, UCLA
South: Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, Colorado
East: Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas St

(01-13-2020 04:09 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 03:38 PM)ken d Wrote:  [quote='BePcr07' pid='16608095' dateline='1578945325']
The PAC really flubbed by not taking Oklahoma and Oklahoma St when they had the chance. That would’ve really given them some leverage.

What chance did they have? To take just those two? Or to take them with others? Just those two schools by themselves don't do much to solve any of the PAC's problems. I don't really recall any scenario in which the PAC goes to 14 with those two, or to 12 without Colorado and Utah.

I believe it was to go to 14 with the Oklahoma schools. I don't have an article ready to share but if someone could provide a link, I'm confident it was almost a thing. I wasn't saying the Oklahoma schools by themselves added much but it would've provided some leverage. Even if Texas was not in play, adding - perhaps - Kansas St and Texas Tech would've be tolerable with Oklahoma.

PAC
North: Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St
West: California, Stanford, USC, UCLA
South: Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, Colorado
East: Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas St

The Pac 12 considered and rejected adding the Oklahoma schools.

/https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/28/hotline-newsletter-in-an-alternate-universe-its-the-pac-14-future-bowl-options-hello-hollywood-park-herberts-return-and-more/

(01-13-2020 04:48 PM)Realigned Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 04:09 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 03:38 PM)ken d Wrote:  [quote='BePcr07' pid='16608095' dateline='1578945325']
The PAC really flubbed by not taking Oklahoma and Oklahoma St when they had the chance. That would’ve really given them some leverage.

What chance did they have? To take just those two? Or to take them with others? Just those two schools by themselves don't do much to solve any of the PAC's problems. I don't really recall any scenario in which the PAC goes to 14 with those two, or to 12 without Colorado and Utah.

I believe it was to go to 14 with the Oklahoma schools. I don't have an article ready to share but if someone could provide a link, I'm confident it was almost a thing. I wasn't saying the Oklahoma schools by themselves added much but it would've provided some leverage. Even if Texas was not in play, adding - perhaps - Kansas St and Texas Tech would've be tolerable with Oklahoma.

PAC
North: Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St
West: California, Stanford, USC, UCLA
South: Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, Colorado
East: Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas St

The Pac 12 considered and rejected adding the Oklahoma schools.

/https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/28/hotline-newsletter-in-an-alternate-universe-its-the-pac-14-future-bowl-options-hello-hollywood-park-herberts-return-and-more/

The way I read that article, it's little more than the kind of "what if" fantasy speculation that is pervasive on sites like this one. Somebody floated a trial balloon, and it got shot down quickly.

The PAC appears to have understood that there wasn't anything in it for them. In all likelihood, OU and OK State probably realized there was nothing in it for them, either. This would not have been a "win-win". It would have been a "lose-lose", which is why it went nowhere. To say that the PAC had a chance to get those two schools suggests that the schools would have considered it - maybe even wanted it. I doubt that was the case.

I think they'd be obligated to keep both. OU would probably insist on reducing the number of conference games if moving to the Big Ten without UT or to the Pac without both OSU and UT.

(01-13-2020 05:25 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 04:48 PM)Realigned Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 04:09 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 03:38 PM)ken d Wrote:  [quote='BePcr07' pid='16608095' dateline='1578945325']
The PAC really flubbed by not taking Oklahoma and Oklahoma St when they had the chance. That would’ve really given them some leverage.

What chance did they have? To take just those two? Or to take them with others? Just those two schools by themselves don't do much to solve any of the PAC's problems. I don't really recall any scenario in which the PAC goes to 14 with those two, or to 12 without Colorado and Utah.

I believe it was to go to 14 with the Oklahoma schools. I don't have an article ready to share but if someone could provide a link, I'm confident it was almost a thing. I wasn't saying the Oklahoma schools by themselves added much but it would've provided some leverage. Even if Texas was not in play, adding - perhaps - Kansas St and Texas Tech would've be tolerable with Oklahoma.

PAC
North: Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St
West: California, Stanford, USC, UCLA
South: Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, Colorado
East: Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas St

The Pac 12 considered and rejected adding the Oklahoma schools.

/https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/28/hotline-newsletter-in-an-alternate-universe-its-the-pac-14-future-bowl-options-hello-hollywood-park-herberts-return-and-more/

The way I read that article, it's little more than the kind of "what if" fantasy speculation that is pervasive on sites like this one. Somebody floated a trial balloon, and it got shot down quickly.

The PAC appears to have understood that there wasn't anything in it for them. In all likelihood, OU and OK State probably realized there was nothing in it for them, either. This would not have been a "win-win". It would have been a "lose-lose", which is why it went nowhere. To say that the PAC had a chance to get those two schools suggests that the schools would have considered it - maybe even wanted it. I doubt that was the case.

After Texas and the Pac 12 decided that the LHN was incompatible, the four team expansion (UT, Tech, OU, OSU) was off. Later, then-OU president David Boren tried to take OU and OSU to the Pac 12 without Texas. The Pac laughed in his face and didn't even bring it up for a vote.

https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/re...17da3.html

https://www.pacifictakes.com/2011/9/20/2...the-pac-12 (blog with plenty of links)

Boren was a former governor and senator with family ties to both OU and OSU. He was looking to take care of both schools, much to the chagrin of many connected with OU. He later retired and left in disgrace due to a totally unrelated issue.

OU is under different leadership now. Unlike in the past, OU would move without OSU. There is scuttlebutt that OU was offered a spot in the SEC with A&M in the last expansion, but Boren turned it down because OSU was not invited. That is the spot that went to Missouri.

OU is not legally connected to OSU, but would like to stay with them if possible. However, especially with the money being generated by the SEC and most likely the B1G, OU is not obligated to stay with OSU. OSU would be "nice to have" for OU, but would not be a dealbreaker for a $65-70M per year TV deal in the SEC or B1G.

To the original question: If forced to choose, OU would choose Texas every day and twice on Sunday. The identity of the football program and the entire university centers around a certain Saturday afternoon in October at the State Fair of Texas. The game is a huge fundraiser for both OU and Texas. OTOH, Texas has already lost its other historical rivals. Texas will keep a relationship and a rivalry with OU either inside or outside the conference. The two schools played each other in non-conference games for 80 years between the time OU left the SWC and the formation of the Big 12.

OU fans look down on Oklahoma State, especially in football. It is an even rivalry in the other sports, but is very lopsided in football, with OU holding a 89-18-7 edge. The rivalry would be nice (and smart, in my opinion) to keep, but the Texas game is indispensable. I'd rather play OSU than not play them, but the Texas game is essential, either in or out of conference.

(01-13-2020 02:55 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  The PAC really flubbed by not taking Oklahoma and Oklahoma St when they had the chance. That would’ve really given them some leverage.

Still confused over this.
Total short sighted thinking by the President's.
Plus, Scott granted immediate voting rights on realignment to both Colorado and Utah - that was a huge mistake.

(01-13-2020 03:38 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 02:55 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  The PAC really flubbed by not taking Oklahoma and Oklahoma St when they had the chance. That would’ve really given them some leverage.

What chance did they have? To take just those two? Or to take them with others? Just those two schools by themselves don't do much to solve any of the PAC's problems. I don't really recall any scenario in which the PAC goes to 14 with those two, or to 12 without Colorado and Utah.

The option came up to take both schools in September 2011, but Pac-12 passed. Bad move, at least Oklahoma would have brought some relevance to the conference...some.

The PAC 12 Presidents would NEVER accept TEXAS Tech ....They are Academic Powerhouses


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Doesn't the Oklahoma state legislature require them to play by law? I'm not sure how binding those things are.

My guess is that they keep the RRR. They offer terms to Oklahoma St (all future games in Norman) that are so onerous that the Cowboys flatly reject them and then the Sooners can say at least they tried and blame Okla St for not agreeing to their conditions.

From my memory so probably not all that accurate...

Around 2011 there was talk of 5 teams from the B12 moving to the PAC. That obviously didn't happen. Maybe because A&M was looking at the SEC. In 2013 Texas had wandering eyes and Oklahoma approached the P12 about an OU/OSU package. I believe they got the "no deal without Texas" response.

Oklahoma has to keep the Texas game. It brings in the most donations. They might cut some of the political pressure by offering to play OSU every other or every 3rd year.