Corporations don't think that far ahead JR. But at least your comment makes more sense than Muskie's which is obviously false from the timeline. Fox and ESPN promised more before ESPN offered the money on the LHN.

Fact is that ESPN is now breaking even on the LHN even without Texas HS football and with Texas having its worst spell in 80 years. They overestimated what they would get from the network. They didn't deliberately overpay. They wanted to get it badly and outbid Fox who was going to offer around $3 million.

(03-30-2020 09:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  Corporations don't think that far ahead JR. But at least your comment makes more sense than Muskie's which is obviously false from the timeline. Fox and ESPN promised more before ESPN offered the money on the LHN.

Fact is that ESPN is now breaking even on the LHN even without Texas HS football and with Texas having its worst spell in 80 years. They overestimated what they would get from the network. They didn't deliberately overpay. They wanted to get it badly and outbid Fox who was going to offer around $3 million.

Corporations have 5 year and 10 year plans. They go for quarterly reports but they do have long range planning. But more pertinent here is the fact that Texas A&M maintained contact of informal and sometimes formal natures since '92. Institutions have l-o-n-g range goals and as long as the networks are involved for valuations and time is bided for the sake of political advantage it is not only possible but quite probable.

Texas and A&M are two mules that haven't gee-hawed for quite a long time. And those kind of institutional memories are long ones. The nice thing is you don't have to have a reconciliation, just a mutual truce while savoring all of that lovely money making hate!

CBS could offer B-12, 250m for 16 FB & 16 BB plus tourn.
Virious will help with TV. We live in a new world now.
Crowds will stay down for awile

(03-30-2020 03:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 03:07 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 02:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 02:41 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  Not sure how ou wouldn't be happy right now. They are getting paid very well right now and so is the rest of the conference. People mention the next round of negotiations, I think that the Big 12 if it remains in tact, will command a good price tag for it's tier 1 and 2 packages.

I think the Big 12 will get a nice T1/T2 package in 2024 as well.

The issue is though, it's probably not going to be SEC/B1G money, so if a school like OU just cannot abide not getting SEC/B1G money, then it stands to reason they will do what they can to get invited to the SEC or B1G.

I am not 100% convinced that getting SEC/B1G money is the do-or-die thing for OU that some around here seem to think it is.

Curious.. But what makes everyone think that the Big and SEC tv money is going to sky rocket? They both get really good payouts now and with cable, satellite subscribers falling..is the jump going to be that big? Isn't the reason the Big schools get so much because of MD and Rutgers forfeiting a portion of money as a tax to the Big? Or do I have that wrong?

The SEC is going to get a nice deal when the CBS rights come up in 2023. The B1G is already out-pacing everyone in money.

The Big 12 is going to lag because of fundamentals - the Big 12 has two blue-chip brand names, Texas and Oklahoma. The B1G has at least four, and the SEC arguably has five or six.

The Big 12 has stayed close to the SEC and B1G because of (a) great work by its commissioner, Bowlsby, and (b) having 10 schools has allowed it to capitalize on a smaller per-school divisor in an era of rising rights fees. But, the Big 12, like the PAC and ACC, just doesn't have the same number of blue-chip brands as the SEC and B1G, so it is almost inevitable that it will get paid less.

They are also substantially under populated compared to the SEC and BiG which is a fundamental driver of ratings.

(03-31-2020 12:07 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 03:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 03:07 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 02:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 02:41 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  Not sure how ou wouldn't be happy right now. They are getting paid very well right now and so is the rest of the conference. People mention the next round of negotiations, I think that the Big 12 if it remains in tact, will command a good price tag for it's tier 1 and 2 packages.

I think the Big 12 will get a nice T1/T2 package in 2024 as well.

The issue is though, it's probably not going to be SEC/B1G money, so if a school like OU just cannot abide not getting SEC/B1G money, then it stands to reason they will do what they can to get invited to the SEC or B1G.

I am not 100% convinced that getting SEC/B1G money is the do-or-die thing for OU that some around here seem to think it is.

Curious.. But what makes everyone think that the Big and SEC tv money is going to sky rocket? They both get really good payouts now and with cable, satellite subscribers falling..is the jump going to be that big? Isn't the reason the Big schools get so much because of MD and Rutgers forfeiting a portion of money as a tax to the Big? Or do I have that wrong?

The SEC is going to get a nice deal when the CBS rights come up in 2023. The B1G is already out-pacing everyone in money.

The Big 12 is going to lag because of fundamentals - the Big 12 has two blue-chip brand names, Texas and Oklahoma. The B1G has at least four, and the SEC arguably has five or six.

The Big 12 has stayed close to the SEC and B1G because of (a) great work by its commissioner, Bowlsby, and (b) having 10 schools has allowed it to capitalize on a smaller per-school divisor in an era of rising rights fees. But, the Big 12, like the PAC and ACC, just doesn't have the same number of blue-chip brands as the SEC and B1G, so it is almost inevitable that it will get paid less.

They are also substantially under populated compared to the SEC and BiG which is a fundamental driver of ratings.

Both Quo's comment and yours are truthful.

1. Small footprint (5 States).
2. Only 2 Football content schools.
3. Surrounded by stronger conferences to the North and East and a Geographically strong conference to the West. So no real potential growth opportunities.
4. The 2 High Value schools are worth much more in either the SEC or Big 10 as opposed to the PAC and ACC. This will tend to make the networks want to position them where the networks can make the most off of them.
5. The only true strength of the Big 12 is not their 10 way split, but the fact that in 3 of their states they draw viewers in the same % as the Big 10 does throughout its footprint (Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia) and draws a higher % of viewers vs their potential viewers than does the ACC or PAC 12.

So in short 70% of their value can be placed with 3 schools. So if you are the networks its much more efficient to place those 3 and pay the other 7 less. Texas is worth enough to take a buddy. Kansas and Oklahoma not so much.

(03-31-2020 12:19 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-31-2020 12:07 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 03:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 03:07 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 02:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think the Big 12 will get a nice T1/T2 package in 2024 as well.

The issue is though, it's probably not going to be SEC/B1G money, so if a school like OU just cannot abide not getting SEC/B1G money, then it stands to reason they will do what they can to get invited to the SEC or B1G.

I am not 100% convinced that getting SEC/B1G money is the do-or-die thing for OU that some around here seem to think it is.

Curious.. But what makes everyone think that the Big and SEC tv money is going to sky rocket? They both get really good payouts now and with cable, satellite subscribers falling..is the jump going to be that big? Isn't the reason the Big schools get so much because of MD and Rutgers forfeiting a portion of money as a tax to the Big? Or do I have that wrong?

The SEC is going to get a nice deal when the CBS rights come up in 2023. The B1G is already out-pacing everyone in money.

The Big 12 is going to lag because of fundamentals - the Big 12 has two blue-chip brand names, Texas and Oklahoma. The B1G has at least four, and the SEC arguably has five or six.

The Big 12 has stayed close to the SEC and B1G because of (a) great work by its commissioner, Bowlsby, and (b) having 10 schools has allowed it to capitalize on a smaller per-school divisor in an era of rising rights fees. But, the Big 12, like the PAC and ACC, just doesn't have the same number of blue-chip brands as the SEC and B1G, so it is almost inevitable that it will get paid less.

They are also substantially under populated compared to the SEC and BiG which is a fundamental driver of ratings.

Both Quo's comment and yours are truthful.

1. Small footprint (5 States).
2. Only 2 Football content schools.
3. Surrounded by stronger conferences to the North and East and a Geographically strong conference to the West. So no real potential growth opportunities.
4. The 2 High Value schools are worth much more in either the SEC or Big 10 as opposed to the PAC and ACC. This will tend to make the networks want to position them where the networks can make the most off of them.
5. The only true strength of the Big 12 is not their 10 way split, but the fact that in 3 of their states they draw viewers in the same % as the Big 10 does throughout its footprint (Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia) and draws a higher % of viewers vs their potential viewers than does the ACC or PAC 12.

So in short 70% of their value can be placed with 3 schools. So if you are the networks its much more efficient to place those 3 and pay the other 7 less. Texas is worth enough to take a buddy. Kansas and Oklahoma not so much.

Everybody knows that the correct play for the SEC is Oklahoma. Texas in the SEC carries too much risk. If the SEC takes Kansas along with the Sooners, the B1G poaching an ACC (or SEC) school becomes a reality. ESPN doesn't want to give up Texas to a FOX network conference as they already have invested huge sums that are just now starting to turn a profit.
So what does ESPN do with Texas? Send them west (PAC) or east (ACC) just to get them out of the way, but for ESPN to still hold on to them.
Oklahoma still needs a Texas school to partner with for the SEC with no good option that can be agreed on by A&M and Oklahoma and approved by Texas.
So here we sit in a Mexican stand-off waiting.......in the midst of falling revenue and athletic uncertainty..... decisions will be made to protect inventory without a hefty price tag.

(03-31-2020 05:42 AM)XLance Wrote:  Everybody knows that the correct play for the SEC is Oklahoma. Texas in the SEC carries too much risk.

What is the risk for Texas in the SEC? Why can't the SEC add both Texas and Oklahoma? Assume that Texas can't demand Texas Tech come with them. The SEC invites Oklahoma and Oklahoma accepts. The SEC goes to Texas and says you can come but Texas can't. Nobody gives the new Big 12 anything near what they would get with Oklahoma. Texas can play hard ball all they want but they'll be poorer.

(03-31-2020 06:17 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-31-2020 05:42 AM)XLance Wrote:  Everybody knows that the correct play for the SEC is Oklahoma. Texas in the SEC carries too much risk.

What is the risk for Texas in the SEC? Why can't the SEC add both Texas and Oklahoma? Assume that Texas can't demand Texas Tech come with them. The SEC invites Oklahoma and Oklahoma accepts. The SEC goes to Texas and says you can come but Texas can't. Nobody gives the new Big 12 anything near what they would get with Oklahoma. Texas can play hard ball all they want but they'll be poorer.

Think maybe the risk is the history/myths of Texas power of politics dictating conferences. Texas being who they are could very well join the sec conference but keep it's LHN network til the deal expires. Would the sec allow something like that to happen? I think the acc and the Pac could as well.

(03-31-2020 05:42 AM)XLance Wrote:  Everybody knows that the correct play for the SEC is Oklahoma. Texas in the SEC carries too much risk.

Texas is not a "risk" for any conference, they are a crown jewel. Any conference that can get Texas should get Texas, the SEC included.

I suspect you are speaking from the POV of an ACC fan who desperately wants Texas in the ACC if it goes anywhere.

(03-31-2020 12:07 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  They are also substantially under populated compared to the SEC and BiG which is a fundamental driver of ratings.

Maybe, but we know population isn't always correlated with brand or anything else. E.g., Temple is in Philadelphia, Cincinnati is in Cincinnati, UCF is in Orlando, USF is in Tampa, Tulane is in New Orleans, Memphis is in Memphis, SMU is in Dallas, and Houston is in Houston, but that doesn't mean the AAC gets paid like an A5 conference.

(03-31-2020 09:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-31-2020 05:42 AM)XLance Wrote:  Everybody knows that the correct play for the SEC is Oklahoma. Texas in the SEC carries too much risk.

Texas is not a "risk" for any conference, they are a crown jewel. Any conference that can get Texas should get Texas, the SEC included.

I suspect you are speaking from the POV of an ACC fan who desperately wants Texas in the ACC if it goes anywhere.

Personally I think Texas & friends need to join the PAC.

(03-30-2020 09:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 09:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  Corporations don't think that far ahead JR. But at least your comment makes more sense than Muskie's which is obviously false from the timeline. Fox and ESPN promised more before ESPN offered the money on the LHN.

Fact is that ESPN is now breaking even on the LHN even without Texas HS football and with Texas having its worst spell in 80 years. They overestimated what they would get from the network. They didn't deliberately overpay. They wanted to get it badly and outbid Fox who was going to offer around $3 million.

Corporations have 5 year and 10 year plans. They go for quarterly reports but they do have long range planning. But more pertinent here is the fact that Texas A&M maintained contact of informal and sometimes formal natures since '92. Institutions have l-o-n-g range goals and as long as the networks are involved for valuations and time is bided for the sake of political advantage it is not only possible but quite probable.

Texas and A&M are two mules that haven't gee-hawed for quite a long time. And those kind of institutional memories are long ones. The nice thing is you don't have to have a reconciliation, just a mutual truce while savoring all of that lovely money making hate!

The presidents actually had a good relationship and there was a lot of cooperation between the institutions until that 60s Aggie Loftin became A&M president. Both shared in the Permanent University Fund. They split up the South Texas institutions when there was a lawsuit over higher education in heavily Latino South Texas. They made a deal in 1989 for UT to go to the Pac and A&M to the SEC while still playing on Thanksgiving until Stanford blew that up. Loftin is the guy who became chancellor of Missouri and presided over the fiasco there.

(03-25-2020 10:19 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(03-25-2020 09:09 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(03-25-2020 06:15 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I would expect to see two things happen before the Big 12 can be saved as is....

1. Texas and Oklahoma will explore joining The SEC or The Big Ten.

2. Texas will explore a “Notre Dame“ type agreement with The ACC. If that happens Oklahoma and Kansas will explore joining The Big 10.

These things could happen and the Big 12 would continue along by adding Cincinnati, Memphis, Houston, Central Florida, South Florida, BYU and Colorado State. The Big 12 already owns The Big 14 name....

Missouri might veto Texas joining the SEC. Bad blood, I believe. Besides, it seems the SEC is very content with their current situation, and they know Texas can be a headache to deal with.

It might be a surprise if the Big-10 expands - again - because the administrator who oversaw the expansion to 14 has left, and there are rumblings of discontent about adding Rutgers & Maryland. Kansas fits their academic/AAU status and midwestern culture pretty well, but Oklahoma doesn't. Besides, Big-10 FB is already too competitive for most schools as it is. A school like Michigan that already has a tough time making the NY6 or championship series could pretty well kiss that idea goodbye if Oklahoma were to join the Big 10.

I would agree but no conference is going to turn down Texas, especially at the objection of Missouri. That would be the equivalent of the ACC turning down Texas because Louisville objected. The ACC would pat Louisville on the head and say sit down and shut up.

Actually, Texas A&M would object to Texas more than Mizzou would. The bad blood between Mizzou and Texas is very minor compared to the bad blood between Texas and Texas A&M. But if the SEC really wanted Texas, they could just ask Texas A&M's president to abstain, and give him about $8 million reasons for doing so.

Here's an odd fact about the SEC: they have never booted anyone. Georgia Tech and Tulane both left of their own free will. The University of the South (Sewanee) also left of its own free will. If Missouri objected to Texas, they can do what A&M will likely do, and abstain. I don't particularly care for Texas being in the SEC, but A&M and Mizzou are not the power players in this conference-still, their opinions/positions would be respected.

(04-01-2020 12:41 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Actually, Texas A&M would object to Texas more than Mizzou would. The bad blood between Mizzou and Texas is very minor compared to the bad blood between Texas and Texas A&M. But if the SEC really wanted Texas, they could just ask Texas A&M's president to abstain, and give him about $8 million reasons for doing so.

Here's an odd fact about the SEC: they have never booted anyone. Georgia Tech and Tulane both left of their own free will. The University of the South (Sewanee) also left of its own free will. If Missouri objected to Texas, they can do what A&M will likely do, and abstain. I don't particularly care for Texas being in the SEC, but A&M and Mizzou are not the power players in this conference-still, their opinions/positions would be respected.

I think you would find that it is very odd for any conference to "boot" a member out.
The website MR. SEC did mount a campaign that tried to question Vanderbilt's "fit" in the SEC. I believe it was their goal to make Vanderbilt uncomfortable enough to leave.

(03-30-2020 07:43 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 02:51 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 02:38 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 02:08 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Disclaimer: I don’t care what OU does and frankly TCU is better off if they decide to stay put

That said, OUs two primary concerns seem to be:

1) Keeping up financially with the SEC and B1G who will be making around 70 million a school within a few years

2) At least as far as being in the B1G, improving their academic status

Texas won't admit it but 1) should be their primary concern as well. If Oklahoma leaves the Big 12, the Big 12's value plummets. If UT wants to stay in the Big 12, they better convince UO to stay as well. They also have to convince ESPN and/or FOX to continue to subsidize the Little Eight. It only takes one network to nudge Oklahoma to the SEC (ESPN) or Big Ten (FOX and/or ESPN). If Oklahoma leaves, that debate about the LHN? A&M will have won.

I agree that for the Big 12 to continue to work it, Texas and ou have to stay together. Reason I feel the big and ou wouldn't mix as well as some think, is ou for the past 20 plus years have been playing not just Texas in Dallas but in FTW, Waco, Lubbock, and CS (Houston area). In it's early hey days in the Big 12 they recruited Texas very heavily. In the early part of the 2010s they started recruiting heavily outside Texas, especially California. However the past few seasons, it's really doing work once again in the Dallas area.

Oklahoma, in my opinion, for it to really succeed in the Rust Belt would need 2 Texas schools to come along.. which Texas would have to be one and the other could be a mix of tech, TCU or baylor (boo). More games played "close" to home the better.

OU's best recruiting days in Texas for about 50 years, were when they only played ONE team from Texas each year. So... no... they do not need 2 Texas schools to go with them to the Big10. The RRR is suffficient. I would think a Texas fan would know this.

Plus, from reading this board you should be aware that the Big10 will not consider Tech, TCU or Baylor.

Those recruiting days of the 70's and 80's were marred in suspensions.. it was a much different time in recruiting as well. ou really started to pick up in recruiting once the Big 12 conference was formed, which began playing 3 Texas schools regularly. The classes they were getting from 97-2004 were SALTY.

(04-02-2020 07:42 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 07:43 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 02:51 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 02:38 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 02:08 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Disclaimer: I don’t care what OU does and frankly TCU is better off if they decide to stay put

That said, OUs two primary concerns seem to be:

1) Keeping up financially with the SEC and B1G who will be making around 70 million a school within a few years

2) At least as far as being in the B1G, improving their academic status

Texas won't admit it but 1) should be their primary concern as well. If Oklahoma leaves the Big 12, the Big 12's value plummets. If UT wants to stay in the Big 12, they better convince UO to stay as well. They also have to convince ESPN and/or FOX to continue to subsidize the Little Eight. It only takes one network to nudge Oklahoma to the SEC (ESPN) or Big Ten (FOX and/or ESPN). If Oklahoma leaves, that debate about the LHN? A&M will have won.

I agree that for the Big 12 to continue to work it, Texas and ou have to stay together. Reason I feel the big and ou wouldn't mix as well as some think, is ou for the past 20 plus years have been playing not just Texas in Dallas but in FTW, Waco, Lubbock, and CS (Houston area). In it's early hey days in the Big 12 they recruited Texas very heavily. In the early part of the 2010s they started recruiting heavily outside Texas, especially California. However the past few seasons, it's really doing work once again in the Dallas area.

Oklahoma, in my opinion, for it to really succeed in the Rust Belt would need 2 Texas schools to come along.. which Texas would have to be one and the other could be a mix of tech, TCU or baylor (boo). More games played "close" to home the better.

OU's best recruiting days in Texas for about 50 years, were when they only played ONE team from Texas each year. So... no... they do not need 2 Texas schools to go with them to the Big10. The RRR is suffficient. I would think a Texas fan would know this.

Plus, from reading this board you should be aware that the Big10 will not consider Tech, TCU or Baylor.

Those recruiting days of the 70's and 80's were marred in suspensions.. it was a much different time in recruiting as well. ou really started to pick up in recruiting once the Big 12 conference was formed, which began playing 3 Texas schools regularly. The classes they were getting from 97-2004 were SALTY.

Remember we are talking only about OU recruiting in Texas, not recruiting in general. You must be relatively young. OU's successful recruiting of Texas began in the late 40's and 50's when Bud Wilkinson arrived at OU.

Their recruiting of Texas did NOT pickup when the Big 12 was formed in 1994.

You do admit that the Big10 will not consider inviting Tech, TCU and Baylor?

(04-02-2020 01:30 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(04-02-2020 07:42 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 07:43 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 02:51 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 02:38 PM)schmolik Wrote:  Texas won't admit it but 1) should be their primary concern as well. If Oklahoma leaves the Big 12, the Big 12's value plummets. If UT wants to stay in the Big 12, they better convince UO to stay as well. They also have to convince ESPN and/or FOX to continue to subsidize the Little Eight. It only takes one network to nudge Oklahoma to the SEC (ESPN) or Big Ten (FOX and/or ESPN). If Oklahoma leaves, that debate about the LHN? A&M will have won.

I agree that for the Big 12 to continue to work it, Texas and ou have to stay together. Reason I feel the big and ou wouldn't mix as well as some think, is ou for the past 20 plus years have been playing not just Texas in Dallas but in FTW, Waco, Lubbock, and CS (Houston area). In it's early hey days in the Big 12 they recruited Texas very heavily. In the early part of the 2010s they started recruiting heavily outside Texas, especially California. However the past few seasons, it's really doing work once again in the Dallas area.

Oklahoma, in my opinion, for it to really succeed in the Rust Belt would need 2 Texas schools to come along.. which Texas would have to be one and the other could be a mix of tech, TCU or baylor (boo). More games played "close" to home the better.

OU's best recruiting days in Texas for about 50 years, were when they only played ONE team from Texas each year. So... no... they do not need 2 Texas schools to go with them to the Big10. The RRR is suffficient. I would think a Texas fan would know this.

Plus, from reading this board you should be aware that the Big10 will not consider Tech, TCU or Baylor.

Those recruiting days of the 70's and 80's were marred in suspensions.. it was a much different time in recruiting as well. ou really started to pick up in recruiting once the Big 12 conference was formed, which began playing 3 Texas schools regularly. The classes they were getting from 97-2004 were SALTY.

Remember we are talking only about OU recruiting in Texas, not recruiting in general. You must be relatively young. OU's successful recruiting of Texas began in the late 40's and 50's when Bud Wilkinson arrived at OU.

Their recruiting of Texas did NOT pickup when the Big 12 was formed in 1994.

You do admit that the Big10 will not consider inviting Tech, TCU and Baylor?

Bud Wilkinson built the program on the backs of Texas high school players. Barry Switzer sustained it in the same fashion. In the 70's, Switzer was able to use a trip to the Orange Bowl as a recruiting tool, as the Big 8 champion went to the Orange Bowl, while the SWC champion stayed local and went to the Cotton Bowl.

In football, OU functions as basically a Texas school. Norman is only 3 hours from DFW, the 5th largest metro area in the US and one of the top hotbeds of HS talent.

The current OU roster has 101 players on it. Only 44 are from Texas. This is a decrease from past years, when 60-70% of OU rosters were made up of Texas high school players. OU has started to recruit more nationally under Bob Stoops and now Lincoln Riley. It's paid off at the conference level, but not yet at the national level.

As long as the RRR continues, OU does not need to be in a conference with other Texas schools. Others would be nice, but are not a necessity. OU can play home-and-homes or 2-for-1s with any number of Texas schools in non-conference play, just as OU did before it joined the Big 12, and as Texas currently does. Plus, if OU moves to the SEC, there will most likely be a game in College Station every other year.

Arkansas lost their recruiting base when they totally pulled out of the state of Texas upon joining the SEC. OU will make sure it does not have that problem.

(04-02-2020 01:30 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(04-02-2020 07:42 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 07:43 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 02:51 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 02:38 PM)schmolik Wrote:  Texas won't admit it but 1) should be their primary concern as well. If Oklahoma leaves the Big 12, the Big 12's value plummets. If UT wants to stay in the Big 12, they better convince UO to stay as well. They also have to convince ESPN and/or FOX to continue to subsidize the Little Eight. It only takes one network to nudge Oklahoma to the SEC (ESPN) or Big Ten (FOX and/or ESPN). If Oklahoma leaves, that debate about the LHN? A&M will have won.

I agree that for the Big 12 to continue to work it, Texas and ou have to stay together. Reason I feel the big and ou wouldn't mix as well as some think, is ou for the past 20 plus years have been playing not just Texas in Dallas but in FTW, Waco, Lubbock, and CS (Houston area). In it's early hey days in the Big 12 they recruited Texas very heavily. In the early part of the 2010s they started recruiting heavily outside Texas, especially California. However the past few seasons, it's really doing work once again in the Dallas area.

Oklahoma, in my opinion, for it to really succeed in the Rust Belt would need 2 Texas schools to come along.. which Texas would have to be one and the other could be a mix of tech, TCU or baylor (boo). More games played "close" to home the better.

OU's best recruiting days in Texas for about 50 years, were when they only played ONE team from Texas each year. So... no... they do not need 2 Texas schools to go with them to the Big10. The RRR is suffficient. I would think a Texas fan would know this.

Plus, from reading this board you should be aware that the Big10 will not consider Tech, TCU or Baylor.

Those recruiting days of the 70's and 80's were marred in suspensions.. it was a much different time in recruiting as well. ou really started to pick up in recruiting once the Big 12 conference was formed, which began playing 3 Texas schools regularly. The classes they were getting from 97-2004 were SALTY.

Remember we are talking only about OU recruiting in Texas, not recruiting in general. You must be relatively young. OU's successful recruiting of Texas began in the late 40's and 50's when Bud Wilkinson arrived at OU.

Their recruiting of Texas did NOT pickup when the Big 12 was formed in 1994.

You do admit that the Big10 will not consider inviting Tech, TCU and Baylor?

Yeah I wasn't watching football in the 70's (was born in December of 1979). I just remember seeing ou struggling in the 90's vs Texas (SWC era). Big 12 was formed in 94, but didn't kick off til 1996. The '97 class was the first Big 12 class for ou.. and guess what happened 3 seasons later?
I said the Big would take baylor, tech and tcu? Don't recall that, in fact I wouldn't want any part of that conference. Play more games in MN, Wisconsin, and IL (especially in November), no thank you. Big doesn't make sense for Texas, it does with ou more but not Texas. For Texas it's either the Big 12 plus adding CA, AZ schools or getting in bed with the SEC.
I'll concede that the Big 12 at 10 can't last another decade if the revenue continues to widen between them and the SEC. They need to expand by 4 to make it work and it has to be the right schools.

(04-03-2020 08:28 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(04-02-2020 01:30 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(04-02-2020 07:42 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 07:43 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 02:51 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  I agree that for the Big 12 to continue to work it, Texas and ou have to stay together. Reason I feel the big and ou wouldn't mix as well as some think, is ou for the past 20 plus years have been playing not just Texas in Dallas but in FTW, Waco, Lubbock, and CS (Houston area). In it's early hey days in the Big 12 they recruited Texas very heavily. In the early part of the 2010s they started recruiting heavily outside Texas, especially California. However the past few seasons, it's really doing work once again in the Dallas area.

Oklahoma, in my opinion, for it to really succeed in the Rust Belt would need 2 Texas schools to come along.. which Texas would have to be one and the other could be a mix of tech, TCU or baylor (boo). More games played "close" to home the better.

OU's best recruiting days in Texas for about 50 years, were when they only played ONE team from Texas each year. So... no... they do not need 2 Texas schools to go with them to the Big10. The RRR is suffficient. I would think a Texas fan would know this.

Plus, from reading this board you should be aware that the Big10 will not consider Tech, TCU or Baylor.

Those recruiting days of the 70's and 80's were marred in suspensions.. it was a much different time in recruiting as well. ou really started to pick up in recruiting once the Big 12 conference was formed, which began playing 3 Texas schools regularly. The classes they were getting from 97-2004 were SALTY.

Remember we are talking only about OU recruiting in Texas, not recruiting in general. You must be relatively young. OU's successful recruiting of Texas began in the late 40's and 50's when Bud Wilkinson arrived at OU.

Their recruiting of Texas did NOT pickup when the Big 12 was formed in 1994.

You do admit that the Big10 will not consider inviting Tech, TCU and Baylor?

Yeah I wasn't watching football in the 70's (was born in December of 1979). I just remember seeing ou struggling in the 90's vs Texas (SWC era). Big 12 was formed in 94, but didn't kick off til 1996. The '97 class was the first Big 12 class for ou.. and guess what happened 3 seasons later?
I said the Big would take baylor, tech and tcu? Don't recall that, in fact I wouldn't want any part of that conference. Play more games in MN, Wisconsin, and IL (especially in November), no thank you. Big doesn't make sense for Texas, it does with ou more but not Texas. For Texas it's either the Big 12 plus adding CA, AZ schools or getting in bed with the SEC.
I'll concede that the Big 12 at 10 can't last another decade if the revenue continues to widen between them and the SEC. They need to expand by 4 to make it work and it has to be the right schools.

Born in December 1979! So you were just an impressionable teenager when the Big12 was formed and have no first hand knowledge of OU's recruiting prior to the Big12 being formed.

OU struggled against EVERYBODY in the 1990's, because of the after effect of Switzer being fired and the hiring of bad coaches. John Blake and Howard Schnellenberger almost destroyed the program.

What happened in 2000 was because OU hired a great coach named Bob Stoops in 1999. The best players on that 2000 team were not from Texas anyway. So playing teams from Texas had nothing to do with their recruiting.

As johnintx posted, OU's recruiting in Texas is currently down from what it was before the Big12. if you were a little older you might remember how successful OU was in recruiting Texas, before the Big12 was formed.

(04-03-2020 10:33 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(04-03-2020 08:28 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(04-02-2020 01:30 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(04-02-2020 07:42 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 07:43 PM)texoma Wrote:  OU's best recruiting days in Texas for about 50 years, were when they only played ONE team from Texas each year. So... no... they do not need 2 Texas schools to go with them to the Big10. The RRR is suffficient. I would think a Texas fan would know this.

Plus, from reading this board you should be aware that the Big10 will not consider Tech, TCU or Baylor.

Those recruiting days of the 70's and 80's were marred in suspensions.. it was a much different time in recruiting as well. ou really started to pick up in recruiting once the Big 12 conference was formed, which began playing 3 Texas schools regularly. The classes they were getting from 97-2004 were SALTY.

Remember we are talking only about OU recruiting in Texas, not recruiting in general. You must be relatively young. OU's successful recruiting of Texas began in the late 40's and 50's when Bud Wilkinson arrived at OU.

Their recruiting of Texas did NOT pickup when the Big 12 was formed in 1994.

You do admit that the Big10 will not consider inviting Tech, TCU and Baylor?

Yeah I wasn't watching football in the 70's (was born in December of 1979). I just remember seeing ou struggling in the 90's vs Texas (SWC era). Big 12 was formed in 94, but didn't kick off til 1996. The '97 class was the first Big 12 class for ou.. and guess what happened 3 seasons later?
I said the Big would take baylor, tech and tcu? Don't recall that, in fact I wouldn't want any part of that conference. Play more games in MN, Wisconsin, and IL (especially in November), no thank you. Big doesn't make sense for Texas, it does with ou more but not Texas. For Texas it's either the Big 12 plus adding CA, AZ schools or getting in bed with the SEC.
I'll concede that the Big 12 at 10 can't last another decade if the revenue continues to widen between them and the SEC. They need to expand by 4 to make it work and it has to be the right schools.

Born in December 1979! So you were just an impressionable teenager when the Big12 was formed and have no first hand knowledge of OU's recruiting prior to the Big12 being formed.

OU struggled against EVERYBODY in the 1990's, because of the after effect of Switzer being fired and the hiring of bad coaches. John Blake and Howard Schnellenberger almost destroyed the program.

What happened in 2000 was because OU hired a great coach named Bob Stoops in 1999. The best players on that 2000 team were not from Texas anyway. So playing teams from Texas had nothing to do with their recruiting.

As johnintx posted, OU's recruiting in Texas is currently down from what it was before the Big12. if you were a little older you might remember how successful OU was in recruiting Texas, before the Big12 was formed.

who knew it's leading rusher that season wasn't that good anyways, since he was from Houston? I can't remember recruiting classes of the 80's but I'm sure that ou playing 3 Texas schools year in, year out helped out tremendously in 97 and beyond. You can point to recent classes showing that they have gone out of Texas for a lot of it's players. Seems to me that the best players it has, still were from the state. I'm not saying if they only played Texas they would suffer, but I am saying it makes a huge difference when they play TCU, baylor, and Tech every season for those targets. DFW kids get 2 guaranteed games at home every other season if they go to ou.. and not just cake walk games..but big games. It makes a difference since these kids are saying the exact same thing.