(06-23-2020 09:18 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 08:36 AM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 06:20 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  I concur, that post made it clear that Texas shouldn't want to be part of the ACC, ever.

Touche. However, travel costs aside, Clemson is as good if not better than Oklahoma in football and Texas could still play OU in an OOC game every year. Baylor and Virginia Tech are at least roughly equivalent for FB and Louisville, Virginia, Duke, UNC and Florida State are all better all-sports programs than West Virginia, Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas and Iowa State. The ACC's academics record (UNC notwithstanding) is still significantly better than the Big XII. That being said, it would not surprise me if Texas were to see the financial benefits in getting "Notre Dame" deal from the ACC. They could go independent in football and then park all of its other sports in the ACC, sell their T1 rights to ESPN/ABC to try and boost carriage of LHN, and then have 6-7 guaranteed games against ACC teams, with the road games going onto the ACC ESPN channel and most home games on ESPN or ABC with simulcast on LHN. Thrown in an annual game against ND as part of that deal, plus an annual game against OU, and UT would still have 3-4 openings each year to schedule intersectional matchups with schools like Ohio State, USC, UCLA, Michigan, LSU, Bama and other Lonestar state schools like Baylor, TCU, TTU, Rice or, dare to dream, A&M.

Texas will not place their other sports teams on a island where they have to travel to Syracuse, Boston, Miami etc., to play away conference games. Texas can do a lot better than that and they will.

Yes. ACC is not happening. For that matter, no matter how much money and how much Big 10 schools look like Texas, that is not happening either.

(06-24-2020 01:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:18 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 08:36 AM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 06:20 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  I concur, that post made it clear that Texas shouldn't want to be part of the ACC, ever.

Touche. However, travel costs aside, Clemson is as good if not better than Oklahoma in football and Texas could still play OU in an OOC game every year. Baylor and Virginia Tech are at least roughly equivalent for FB and Louisville, Virginia, Duke, UNC and Florida State are all better all-sports programs than West Virginia, Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas and Iowa State. The ACC's academics record (UNC notwithstanding) is still significantly better than the Big XII. That being said, it would not surprise me if Texas were to see the financial benefits in getting "Notre Dame" deal from the ACC. They could go independent in football and then park all of its other sports in the ACC, sell their T1 rights to ESPN/ABC to try and boost carriage of LHN, and then have 6-7 guaranteed games against ACC teams, with the road games going onto the ACC ESPN channel and most home games on ESPN or ABC with simulcast on LHN. Thrown in an annual game against ND as part of that deal, plus an annual game against OU, and UT would still have 3-4 openings each year to schedule intersectional matchups with schools like Ohio State, USC, UCLA, Michigan, LSU, Bama and other Lonestar state schools like Baylor, TCU, TTU, Rice or, dare to dream, A&M.

Texas will not place their other sports teams on a island where they have to travel to Syracuse, Boston, Miami etc., to play away conference games. Texas can do a lot better than that and they will.

Yes. ACC is not happening. For that matter, no matter how much money and how much Big 10 schools look like Texas, that is not happening either.

That's the value of patience.
Texas to the ACC as a partial might have happened a few years ago, but everyone (schools, conferences and media) learned a great lesson for the last flurry of expansion/realignment that saw Rutgers and Maryland going to the B1G, Pitt and Syracuse going to the ACC and A&M and Missouri going to the SEC. There were multiple stupid moves made.
Starting with the consultants ESPN hired to assist Swofford to move from 9 to 12, realignment has been botched. And if the truth was known, the entire process was probably undermined by Notre Dame and their desire to remain independent/ or what turned out to be ESPN's greed in trying to land the Irish any way possible.
The irony is that Notre Dame's TV numbers aren't that stellar. The demand to see the Irish is down in places like Chapel Hill and Winston-Salem, where empty seats were spotted on Notre Dame's last visits, especially in the visitors sections. It seems that the Catholic population of Raleigh (which outnumbers Baptists) doesn't have the same "subway alumni" feeling found in the Northeast.
Texas was smart to stay put........they will be smarter yet to stay exactly where they are in the round coming up.
Schools are going to get shuffled but the pipe dream of 4 x 16 is dead.

(06-25-2020 05:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 01:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:18 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 08:36 AM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 06:20 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  I concur, that post made it clear that Texas shouldn't want to be part of the ACC, ever.

Touche. However, travel costs aside, Clemson is as good if not better than Oklahoma in football and Texas could still play OU in an OOC game every year. Baylor and Virginia Tech are at least roughly equivalent for FB and Louisville, Virginia, Duke, UNC and Florida State are all better all-sports programs than West Virginia, Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas and Iowa State. The ACC's academics record (UNC notwithstanding) is still significantly better than the Big XII. That being said, it would not surprise me if Texas were to see the financial benefits in getting "Notre Dame" deal from the ACC. They could go independent in football and then park all of its other sports in the ACC, sell their T1 rights to ESPN/ABC to try and boost carriage of LHN, and then have 6-7 guaranteed games against ACC teams, with the road games going onto the ACC ESPN channel and most home games on ESPN or ABC with simulcast on LHN. Thrown in an annual game against ND as part of that deal, plus an annual game against OU, and UT would still have 3-4 openings each year to schedule intersectional matchups with schools like Ohio State, USC, UCLA, Michigan, LSU, Bama and other Lonestar state schools like Baylor, TCU, TTU, Rice or, dare to dream, A&M.

Texas will not place their other sports teams on a island where they have to travel to Syracuse, Boston, Miami etc., to play away conference games. Texas can do a lot better than that and they will.

Yes. ACC is not happening. For that matter, no matter how much money and how much Big 10 schools look like Texas, that is not happening either.

That's the value of patience.
Texas to the ACC as a partial might have happened a few years ago, but everyone (schools, conferences and media) learned a great lesson for the last flurry of expansion/realignment that saw Rutgers and Maryland going to the B1G, Pitt and Syracuse going to the ACC and A&M and Missouri going to the SEC. There were multiple stupid moves made.
Starting with the consultants ESPN hired to assist Swofford to move from 9 to 12, realignment has been botched. And if the truth was known, the entire process was probably undermined by Notre Dame and their desire to remain independent/ or what turned out to be ESPN's greed in trying to land the Irish any way possible.
The irony is that Notre Dame's TV numbers aren't that stellar. The demand to see the Irish is down in places like Chapel Hill and Winston-Salem, where empty seats were spotted on Notre Dame's last visits, especially in the visitors sections. It seems that the Catholic population of Raleigh (which outnumbers Baptists) doesn't have the same "subway alumni" feeling found in the Northeast.
Texas was smart to stay put........they will be smarter yet to stay exactly where they are in the round coming up.
Schools are going to get shuffled but the pipe dream of 4 x 16 is dead.

So, my dream of Tulane to the Big 12 is still alive?

(06-25-2020 05:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 01:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:18 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 08:36 AM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 06:20 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  I concur, that post made it clear that Texas shouldn't want to be part of the ACC, ever.

Touche. However, travel costs aside, Clemson is as good if not better than Oklahoma in football and Texas could still play OU in an OOC game every year. Baylor and Virginia Tech are at least roughly equivalent for FB and Louisville, Virginia, Duke, UNC and Florida State are all better all-sports programs than West Virginia, Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas and Iowa State. The ACC's academics record (UNC notwithstanding) is still significantly better than the Big XII. That being said, it would not surprise me if Texas were to see the financial benefits in getting "Notre Dame" deal from the ACC. They could go independent in football and then park all of its other sports in the ACC, sell their T1 rights to ESPN/ABC to try and boost carriage of LHN, and then have 6-7 guaranteed games against ACC teams, with the road games going onto the ACC ESPN channel and most home games on ESPN or ABC with simulcast on LHN. Thrown in an annual game against ND as part of that deal, plus an annual game against OU, and UT would still have 3-4 openings each year to schedule intersectional matchups with schools like Ohio State, USC, UCLA, Michigan, LSU, Bama and other Lonestar state schools like Baylor, TCU, TTU, Rice or, dare to dream, A&M.

Texas will not place their other sports teams on a island where they have to travel to Syracuse, Boston, Miami etc., to play away conference games. Texas can do a lot better than that and they will.

Yes. ACC is not happening. For that matter, no matter how much money and how much Big 10 schools look like Texas, that is not happening either.

That's the value of patience.
Texas to the ACC as a partial might have happened a few years ago, but everyone (schools, conferences and media) learned a great lesson for the last flurry of expansion/realignment that saw Rutgers and Maryland going to the B1G, Pitt and Syracuse going to the ACC and A&M and Missouri going to the SEC. There were multiple stupid moves made.
Starting with the consultants ESPN hired to assist Swofford to move from 9 to 12, realignment has been botched. And if the truth was known, the entire process was probably undermined by Notre Dame and their desire to remain independent/ or what turned out to be ESPN's greed in trying to land the Irish any way possible.
The irony is that Notre Dame's TV numbers aren't that stellar. The demand to see the Irish is down in places like Chapel Hill and Winston-Salem, where empty seats were spotted on Notre Dame's last visits, especially in the visitors sections. It seems that the Catholic population of Raleigh (which outnumbers Baptists) doesn't have the same "subway alumni" feeling found in the Northeast.
Texas was smart to stay put........they will be smarter yet to stay exactly where they are in the round coming up.
Schools are going to get shuffled but the pipe dream of 4 x 16 is dead.

Good, if true. That is the best realignment news that I have heard in ten years. :)

(06-23-2020 09:33 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Baylor, TCU, TTU, Kansas St, Iowa St, WVU, Kansas/Okla St

Those 7 would absolutely keep Longhorn Olympic sports and make a deal that would put the Longhorn football team in Their stadium once every 4 years.

These terms are way better than none at all if Texas leaves for another P5.

There was a time when I would have considered this to be true. The conventional wisdom is that the Big 12 remnants would benefit from continuing to to get to host the Longhorns football team, even if not as often as they now do. Presumably, that's because they would give a boost to their attendance and TV ratings. I can't speak for TV ratings because there are just too many variables to be able to say whether there is any benefit to be gained there.

But I did look harder at football attendance over the last four years. It is true that UT provided an attendance boost to Baylor, Texas Tech and TCU - all schools the Horns would likely continue to play as an independent whether or not they had a deal with the Big XII. But for Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State, their attendance when UT came to town is no better than the average of home games against all the other conference schools not named UT or OU. The boost I expected to see just didn't materialize.

(07-14-2020 09:04 AM)ken d Wrote:  There was a time when I would have considered this to be true. The conventional wisdom is that the Big 12 remnants would benefit from continuing to to get to host the Longhorns football team, even if not as often as they now do. Presumably, that's because they would give a boost to their attendance and TV ratings. I can't speak for TV ratings because there are just too many variables to be able to say whether there is any benefit to be gained there.

But I did look harder at football attendance over the last four years. It is true that UT provided an attendance boost to Baylor, Texas Tech and TCU - all schools the Horns would likely continue to play as an independent whether or not they had a deal with the Big XII. But for Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State, their attendance when UT came to town is no better than the average of home games against all the other conference schools not named UT or OU. The boost I expected to see just didn't materialize.

For any Texas school, it's a big deal when UT comes to town, no matter how good UT is. There's history and proximity. If UT is 1-10, it's still a huge event when they play Baylor in Waco. It's even bigger if they're 10-1.

For the non-Texas Big 12 schools, UT is something that came with entry to the Big 12. There's resentment due to the history of the Big 12, but there's not a rivalry. If UT is #1 in the nation with a star like Vince Young playing for them, it's a big deal when they come to town. If UT is above average, it's a not as a big of a deal when they come to Manhattan or Ames. It's similar to the example above of Notre Dame playing ACC road games in North Carolina...it's important, but it doesn't move the needle like outsiders may think.

(07-14-2020 09:04 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:33 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Baylor, TCU, TTU, Kansas St, Iowa St, WVU, Kansas/Okla St

Those 7 would absolutely keep Longhorn Olympic sports and make a deal that would put the Longhorn football team in Their stadium once every 4 years.

These terms are way better than none at all if Texas leaves for another P5.

There was a time when I would have considered this to be true. The conventional wisdom is that the Big 12 remnants would benefit from continuing to to get to host the Longhorns football team, even if not as often as they now do. Presumably, that's because they would give a boost to their attendance and TV ratings. I can't speak for TV ratings because there are just too many variables to be able to say whether there is any benefit to be gained there.

But I did look harder at football attendance over the last four years. It is true that UT provided an attendance boost to Baylor, Texas Tech and TCU - all schools the Horns would likely continue to play as an independent whether or not they had a deal with the Big XII. But for Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State, their attendance when UT came to town is no better than the average of home games against all the other conference schools not named UT or OU. The boost I expected to see just didn't materialize.

I am not sure Texas would continue to play Baylor and TCU, especially home and home every year, if they were an Independent, in fact I seriously doubt it. It would not be guaranteed.

Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and Iowa State are at or near capacity for every home game and Kansas is well Kansas. Iowa State has the best fan base I know of, they seldom win, but their 60,000 fans just keep coming for every game. So those teams don't have room for a big boost.

Did your research tell you that when Oklahoma State plays Texas at home, to get a ticket to that game you have to buy a season ticket. That is a big benefit for OSU.

The biggest benefit in having Texas as hybrid is prestige, TV money and the benefit of the non-football sports, plus recruiting.

Good point—anyone who is typically at or near capacity will not be able to realize a substantial bump in attendance. That Texas game on the home schedule is certainly going to cost a lot more than hosting South Dakota St though.

(07-14-2020 11:06 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Good point—anyone who is typically at or near capacity will not be able to realize a substantial bump in attendance. That Texas game on the home schedule is certainly going to cost a lot more than hosting South Dakota St though.

Very true. Truth be told, the people at Iowa State and Kansas State would rather see Nebraska every other year than Texas. KU would like for Nebraska to come back and fill their stadium for them. But, that's a whole other story. That horse has left the barn and isn't coming back.

As for OSU, yes, their home games with OU and Texas are limited to season ticket holders only. No individual tickets are sold, outside of the conference-required allotment to the visiting team. They started doing this when they rebuilt their stadium. This keeps visiting fans out of the stadium. It's also helped them increase donations. OU and UT fans aren't going to make a donation to OSU in order to buy season tickets just for one game every two years.

(07-14-2020 10:02 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(07-14-2020 09:04 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:33 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Baylor, TCU, TTU, Kansas St, Iowa St, WVU, Kansas/Okla St

Those 7 would absolutely keep Longhorn Olympic sports and make a deal that would put the Longhorn football team in Their stadium once every 4 years.

These terms are way better than none at all if Texas leaves for another P5.

There was a time when I would have considered this to be true. The conventional wisdom is that the Big 12 remnants would benefit from continuing to to get to host the Longhorns football team, even if not as often as they now do. Presumably, that's because they would give a boost to their attendance and TV ratings. I can't speak for TV ratings because there are just too many variables to be able to say whether there is any benefit to be gained there.

But I did look harder at football attendance over the last four years. It is true that UT provided an attendance boost to Baylor, Texas Tech and TCU - all schools the Horns would likely continue to play as an independent whether or not they had a deal with the Big XII. But for Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State, their attendance when UT came to town is no better than the average of home games against all the other conference schools not named UT or OU. The boost I expected to see just didn't materialize.

I am not sure Texas would continue to play Baylor and TCU, especially home and home every year, if they were an Independent, in fact I seriously doubt it. It would not be guaranteed.

Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and Iowa State are at or near capacity for every home game and Kansas is well Kansas. Iowa State has the best fan base I know of, they seldom win, but their 60,000 fans just keep coming for every game. So those teams don't have room for a big boost.

Did your research tell you that when Oklahoma State plays Texas at home, to get a ticket to that game you have to buy a season ticket. That is a big benefit for OSU.

The biggest benefit in having Texas as hybrid is prestige, TV money and the benefit of the non-football sports, plus recruiting.

"Research" may be too strong a word. All I did was analyze the home attendance data for four years. Except for Kansas, most Big XII schools seem to be pretty close to capacity a lot of the time, at least for conference games.

That suggests to me that attendance probably wouldn't fall off much unless a lot of fans are buying season tickets just so they can come to one game they really want. But it could help with donations.

I also noticed that the Texas Tech - Baylor game seems to have been moved to a neutral site (Arlington). It doesn't seem to help with attendance, so I wonder if they'll go back to home and home.

(07-14-2020 11:47 AM)ken d Wrote:  I also noticed that the Texas Tech - Baylor game seems to have been moved to a neutral site (Arlington). It doesn't seem to help with attendance, so I wonder if they'll go back to home and home.

They did play at Jerry World for several years. They played in Waco last year, and are scheduled to play in Lubbock this year.

Yes, the biggest alumni base for both schools is in DFW. But, they're better off playing on campus.

(07-14-2020 11:26 AM)johnintx Wrote:  

(07-14-2020 11:06 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Good point—anyone who is typically at or near capacity will not be able to realize a substantial bump in attendance. That Texas game on the home schedule is certainly going to cost a lot more than hosting South Dakota St though.

Very true. Truth be told, the people at Iowa State and Kansas State would rather see Nebraska every other year than Texas. KU would like for Nebraska to come back and fill their stadium for them. But, that's a whole other story. That horse has left the barn and isn't coming back.

As for OSU, yes, their home games with OU and Texas are limited to season ticket holders only. No individual tickets are sold, outside of the conference-required allotment to the visiting team. They started doing this when they rebuilt their stadium. This keeps visiting fans out of the stadium. It's also helped them increase donations. OU and UT fans aren't going to make a donation to OSU in order to buy season tickets just for one game every two years.

So how does that ticket thing work at Oklahoma St? If you have two season tickets are you permitted up to 4 for the Texas/Oklahoma game that season?

I for one, wish Nebraska would use their OOC schedule to play a rotation of old Big 8 schools. I think both legs would be well attended. Oklahoma, Missouri, and Colorado would all be exciting games. Even Kansas St would probably be a fun match up.

Think most of the RRS tickets in October are already taken up by Longhorn season tix holders. When I buy tickets I have to visit third party re sellers like ticket city or stub hub

(07-14-2020 01:23 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(07-14-2020 11:26 AM)johnintx Wrote:  

(07-14-2020 11:06 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Good point—anyone who is typically at or near capacity will not be able to realize a substantial bump in attendance. That Texas game on the home schedule is certainly going to cost a lot more than hosting South Dakota St though.

Very true. Truth be told, the people at Iowa State and Kansas State would rather see Nebraska every other year than Texas. KU would like for Nebraska to come back and fill their stadium for them. But, that's a whole other story. That horse has left the barn and isn't coming back.

As for OSU, yes, their home games with OU and Texas are limited to season ticket holders only. No individual tickets are sold, outside of the conference-required allotment to the visiting team. They started doing this when they rebuilt their stadium. This keeps visiting fans out of the stadium. It's also helped them increase donations. OU and UT fans aren't going to make a donation to OSU in order to buy season tickets just for one game every two years.

So how does that ticket thing work at Oklahoma St? If you have two season tickets are you permitted up to 4 for the Texas/Oklahoma game that season?

I for one, wish Nebraska would use their OOC schedule to play a rotation of old Big 8 schools. I think both legs would be well attended. Oklahoma, Missouri, and Colorado would all be exciting games. Even Kansas St would probably be a fun match up.

I don't exactly know how it works. I just know they don't sell individual tickets to their home games with OU and Texas. They'd rather have a few scattered empty seats than have people wearing crimson or burnt orange. Their stadium is pretty full when OU or Texas come to town. They still have people that sell their tickets to visiting fans, but they don't have walkup traffic from opposing fans.

(07-14-2020 01:23 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(07-14-2020 11:26 AM)johnintx Wrote:  

(07-14-2020 11:06 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Good point—anyone who is typically at or near capacity will not be able to realize a substantial bump in attendance. That Texas game on the home schedule is certainly going to cost a lot more than hosting South Dakota St though.

Very true. Truth be told, the people at Iowa State and Kansas State would rather see Nebraska every other year than Texas. KU would like for Nebraska to come back and fill their stadium for them. But, that's a whole other story. That horse has left the barn and isn't coming back.

As for OSU, yes, their home games with OU and Texas are limited to season ticket holders only. No individual tickets are sold, outside of the conference-required allotment to the visiting team. They started doing this when they rebuilt their stadium. This keeps visiting fans out of the stadium. It's also helped them increase donations. OU and UT fans aren't going to make a donation to OSU in order to buy season tickets just for one game every two years.

So how does that ticket thing work at Oklahoma St? If you have two season tickets are you permitted up to 4 for the Texas/Oklahoma game that season?

I for one, wish Nebraska would use their OOC schedule to play a rotation of old Big 8 schools. I think both legs would be well attended. Oklahoma, Missouri, and Colorado would all be exciting games. Even Kansas St would probably be a fun match up.

If you buy one OSU season ticket, one Oklahoma or Texas game ticket is included. That is it. No single game tickets are sold for those games. In other words, if you want to buy a ticket to the OU or Texas game you must buy a season ticket. That applies to OSU fans as well.

OU and Nebraska are scheduled to play in Norman in 2021 to celebrate the 50 year anniversary of the Game of the Century followed by a game at Nebraska in 2022. I believe they have also scheduled other games in future years.

(07-14-2020 05:28 PM)texoma Wrote:  If you buy one OSU season ticket, one Oklahoma or Texas game ticket is included. That is it. No single game tickets are sold for those games. In other words, if you want to buy a ticket to the OU or Texas game you must buy a season ticket. That applies to OSU fans as well.

OU and Nebraska are scheduled to play in Norman in 2021 to celebrate the 50 year anniversary of the Game of the Century followed by a game at Nebraska in 2022. I believe they have also scheduled other games in future years.

OU plays home-and-homes with Nebraska in 2021-22 and in 2029-30. 4 of the next 10 years.

(07-15-2020 09:48 AM)johnintx Wrote:  

(07-14-2020 05:28 PM)texoma Wrote:  If you buy one OSU season ticket, one Oklahoma or Texas game ticket is included. That is it. No single game tickets are sold for those games. In other words, if you want to buy a ticket to the OU or Texas game you must buy a season ticket. That applies to OSU fans as well.

OU and Nebraska are scheduled to play in Norman in 2021 to celebrate the 50 year anniversary of the Game of the Century followed by a game at Nebraska in 2022. I believe they have also scheduled other games in future years.

OU plays home-and-homes with Nebraska in 2021-22 and in 2029-30. 4 of the next 10 years.

Let me put my tin foil hat on... ou to the B16 west incoming!!

(07-15-2020 12:49 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(07-15-2020 09:48 AM)johnintx Wrote:  

(07-14-2020 05:28 PM)texoma Wrote:  If you buy one OSU season ticket, one Oklahoma or Texas game ticket is included. That is it. No single game tickets are sold for those games. In other words, if you want to buy a ticket to the OU or Texas game you must buy a season ticket. That applies to OSU fans as well.

OU and Nebraska are scheduled to play in Norman in 2021 to celebrate the 50 year anniversary of the Game of the Century followed by a game at Nebraska in 2022. I believe they have also scheduled other games in future years.

OU plays home-and-homes with Nebraska in 2021-22 and in 2029-30. 4 of the next 10 years.

Let me put my tin foil hat on... ou to the B16 west incoming!!

Totally.../sarc

OU also has a home-and-home with Michigan in 2025 and 2026.

OTOH, OU has series with Tennessee in 2020 and 2024, Georgia in 2023 and 2031, LSU in 2027-28, and Alabama in 2032-33.

(07-15-2020 05:09 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(07-15-2020 12:49 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(07-15-2020 09:48 AM)johnintx Wrote:  

(07-14-2020 05:28 PM)texoma Wrote:  If you buy one OSU season ticket, one Oklahoma or Texas game ticket is included. That is it. No single game tickets are sold for those games. In other words, if you want to buy a ticket to the OU or Texas game you must buy a season ticket. That applies to OSU fans as well.

OU and Nebraska are scheduled to play in Norman in 2021 to celebrate the 50 year anniversary of the Game of the Century followed by a game at Nebraska in 2022. I believe they have also scheduled other games in future years.

OU plays home-and-homes with Nebraska in 2021-22 and in 2029-30. 4 of the next 10 years.

Let me put my tin foil hat on... ou to the B16 west incoming!!

Totally.../sarc

OU also has a home-and-home with Michigan in 2025 and 2026.

OTOH, OU has series with Tennessee in 2020 and 2024, Georgia in 2023 and 2031, LSU in 2027-28, and Alabama in 2032-33.

oh, so we are heading to the SEC? UT also plays Bama, FL, GA this decade as well.

lol

In all seriousness the Big12 will be fine

Oklahoma and Texas have some options open to them. The question is will a media partner pay them on par with the SEC and Big Ten to stay where they are.

If the answer is no, then they start shopping around.