(07-09-2015 07:47 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 01:10 PM)Policiious Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 01:04 PM)brista21 Wrote:  So assuming there are some legs to this Oklahoma to the Big Ten rumor. What's everyone's take?

Oklahoma adds little to the B10. Small in state population, not much talent in any sport. No

You want to know what Oklahoma adds? Just look at our two divisions right now? You cant argue that they are equal, especially now that Harbaugh is at Michigan.

When we split into four divisions after expansion, Oklahoma will make their division equivalent to the others.

Not EVERY move is about a big market. Nebraska wasn't. Oklahoma and Kansas wont be either. They are what are called "Brand Expansions". You need markets and you need Brands to present in those markets.

Talk to Rutgers fans about what schools they are most excited to see come to town. You will of course get Penn State at the top of that list. Right after that is Ohio State and Michigan. I have seen a lot of enthusiasm from Rutgers folks about Nebraska coming to town.

Why is that? Because of National Brand recognition. Oklahoma has that as well. Oklahoma brings a lot to the Big Ten.

I'd add Michigan State to that list as well. We're happy to see any Big Ten program, but the biggest excitement is for Penn State followed by Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska and Michigan State. (Wisconsin and Maryland are not far off either.)

(07-09-2015 07:58 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 01:04 PM)brista21 Wrote:  So assuming there are some legs to this Oklahoma to the Big Ten rumor. What's everyone's take?

Myopically, I think Oklahoma in the Big Ten is a major grab. I think it would be great to have a national brand added to the Big Ten which gets about as strong of a foothold in the state of Texas as possible without getting Texas or the other schools that aren't attractive for academic or athletic reasons. Oklahoma isn't a basketball power though they have recently shown signs of life.

I believe that adding Oklahoma would have a majorly positive impact on Nebraska. Nebraska would have a familiar rival that they miss, and it could be a featured rivalry that puts them in the national spotlight in addition to reforging some of the recruiting inroads they made down south.

But my excitement would greatly diminish based on who came along with Oklahoma. If Oklahoma State came with "big brother," I'd be disappointed. Same goes for pretty much any Texas school other than Texas, which I know is a VERY long shot at best. Kansas is adequate. They have a basketball program that is nearly unmatched but football... And pretty much every other Big 12 school would make me vomit as a fan. UConn does nothing for me. I see that they are an overall good school with many things to like but are unfortunately located in the northeast.

In terms of basketball I view Kansas and UConn as equal brands. Kansas culturally would probably fit better with many of the original 10 members and Nebraska. UConn would add another men's hockey squad and another women's LAX squad which are obviously important non-rev sports for the conference at the moment. UConn would also fit better with the Eastern wing of the conference. Either way both would be good additions in the long term, but Kansas does have the longer history and the benefit of long histories with Nebraska and Oklahoma.

KU and OU as a combination would bring 2 major brands to the B1G, and since they're not in the same sport it would help boost the conference profile for most of the year. It would also boost the conference profile in both major sports without adding an inordinate amount of competition (and potential brand erosion) to the existing schools.

I'm not sure I see this happening, but I do think it'd be a good add to the conference. It would also reunite us with our old friends the Bugeaters.

(07-10-2015 02:56 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  KU and OU as a combination would bring 2 major brands to the B1G, and since they're not in the same sport it would help boost the conference profile for most of the year. It would also boost the conference profile in both major sports without adding an inordinate amount of competition (and potential brand erosion) to the existing schools.

I'm not sure I see this happening, but I do think it'd be a good add to the conference. It would also reunite us with our old friends the Bugeaters.

Thoughts on a slow growing Iowa/Kansas thing? I know some Kansas grads down here. Hawkeyes and Jayhawks seem very similar as far as my limited exposure shows me.

(07-09-2015 01:04 PM)brista21 Wrote:  So assuming there are some legs to this Oklahoma to the Big Ten rumor. What's everyone's take?

I think there's a possibility of OU to the BIG, but my own theory is that more is going on behind the scene. The timing of Boren's comments about expansion are curious because he knows there are no worthy candidates for expansion. He could have made that point privately with Big 12 reps but chose to go public. Public comments stir up controversy and debate, sometimes forcing issues to be resolved.

I think the timing is related to the upcoming BIG media deal negotiations. OU is rumored to have an SEC invitation in hand. If Delany thinks the ACC is solid and expansion there is not likely, then his next candidates would be in the Big 12 and Oklahoma would be one of them. The BIG added Rutgers and MD in part to make sure Penn State had some eastern friends, and I could see Delany pushing the Presidents to give OU an invitation to assure that Nebraska is taken care of too.

I think Delany's real target is Texas and he has made overtures to Texas, OU and KU hoping to get at least 2 of the 3. If OU has an SEC offer in one hand and a sort of promise of a BIG offer in the other, going very public with his complaints about the Big 12 could be Boren's way of forcing Texas' hand. I think he could be telling Texas it's time to make a move, whether it's to the SEC, BIG, PAC or ACC, but now is the time, not 10 years from now.

OU wants to stay in the same conference as Texas for rivalry and recruiting purposes, if they can. My hope is that all three go BIG, but for now I suspect Texas is driving the decision with Boren saying if you don't decide, OU will leave you behind.

(07-10-2015 05:28 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 02:56 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  KU and OU as a combination would bring 2 major brands to the B1G, and since they're not in the same sport it would help boost the conference profile for most of the year. It would also boost the conference profile in both major sports without adding an inordinate amount of competition #and potential brand erosion# to the existing schools.

I'm not sure I see this happening, but I do think it'd be a good add to the conference. It would also reunite us with our old friends the Bugeaters.

Thoughts on a slow growing Iowa/Kansas thing? I know some Kansas grads down here. Hawkeyes and Jayhawks seem very similar as far as my limited exposure shows me.

I'm not going to lump Hawkeye and Cyclone fans together completely because I know that every school has its own unique culture, but I do think that the fact that KU and ISU have had a good relationship over the years is a sign that there's definitely potential for a KU/Iowa friendly rivalry. I know just a few Iowa grads in the area, and as the saying goes "they're good people". While I think it's smaller than the Nebraska contingent here in the KC area, I do know that there are some local watering holes that have a quite active Hawkeye clientele.

So culturally I think we'd mesh. Ultimately, I think that what would be a primary determinant of how a rivalry develops is the same as in any other - will there be some compelling and meaningful games between our teams? As an example, we're still relatively recent conference mates, but when Texas had some good years in hoops a few years back a rivalry was budding there before inconsistency hit their program.

That is Kenny Mossman, who is the OU Senior Associate Athletic Director. Thoughts on this, H1?

Nice vid. Seems he focused on finances and geography. When it comes to geography and travel, the SEC is a slightly better choice but by very little. Travel to the Eastern portions of the SEC are similar to what Oklahoma will face in travelling to the Eastern portions of The Big Ten.

The difference maker, in regards to what he focused on, is television contracts. As he states Oklahoma does not operate on subsidies for it's Athletics so in that regard they have to be keenly interested on just how much The Big Ten will be able to raise their payouts during the current renegotiations. As much as the SEC guys want to believe that the SEC will be making equivalent pay to the Big Ten, that's simply not true until their next renegotiation. That is quite awhile away, like a decade so we are talking about a significant amount of time and money.

I would say that in just taking his comments in this video into question, this is yet another statement of slightly favoring The Big Ten.

(07-09-2015 01:04 PM)brista21 Wrote:  So assuming there are some legs to this Oklahoma to the Big Ten rumor. What's everyone's take?

I'm all for it, As long as OKS and KS aren't coming along. It looks to me like the BIG has a really good plan here. Make a big play for OU/UT. Bring in the two biggest fish in the B12, grab Tx tv markets and kill off the least stable access conference. If that falls short, then the fall back plan is OU/KU. Bring in 2 national brands, still get increased exposure in Tx and kill off the least stable access conference. Frankly, I think that the second option is the more likely one. I can't see UT accepting being only on equal footing with all other BIG members. My guess is that UT gets a ND type deal from the ACC and leaves the B12 to die without it.

(07-13-2015 09:16 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 01:04 PM)brista21 Wrote:  So assuming there are some legs to this Oklahoma to the Big Ten rumor. What's everyone's take?

I'm all for it, As long as OKS and KS aren't coming along. It looks to me like the BIG has a really good plan here. Make a big play for OU/UT. Bring in the two biggest fish in the B12, grab Tx tv markets and kill off the least stable access conference. If that falls short, then the fall back plan is OU/KU. Bring in 2 national brands, still get increased exposure in Tx and kill off the least stable access conference. Frankly, I think that the second option is the more likely one. I can't see UT accepting being only on equal footing with all other BIG members. My guess is that UT gets a ND type deal from the ACC and leaves the B12 to die without it.

Personally, I want no part of Texas. The short to midterm financial gains are not worth the "diva-like" behavior of their athletic department. I'd be very satisfied staying as is since we just got here. I'd be similarly satisfied with an Oklahoma/Kansas addition or an Oklahoma/UConn addition. (If you want to go for the far out there scenarios.)

1) While KS has a national hoops brand they have massively underachieved under Self the last 5 years, They lost to Wichita State in the 2nd round this year. They seem strong in conference play but could that be simply a statement on the lack of quality competition. Secondly their football program is a disaster. The Big 10 already has enough disaster football programs with Indiana, Purdue, Illinois looking like it's headed into a dumpster and Fitz having his issues at NU. Rutgers & MD will have growing pains getting their football program acclimated to the conference and Harbaugh will have his hands full resurrecting the Wolverines.

2) Oklahoma in football like Kansas in hoops has looked strong in the B12, has only been average in bowls lately and could their perceived strength simply be a function of the lack of depth in the Big 12?
When PSU & Nebraska each arrived in the B10 they and their Football fan bases thought they would make relatively easy work of the conference and that has not be the case for either.

(07-13-2015 01:17 PM)Policiious Wrote:  1) While KS has a national hoops brand they have massively underachieved under Self the last 5 years, They lost to Wichita State in the 2nd round this year. They seem strong in conference play but could that be simply a statement on the lack of quality competition. Secondly their football program is a disaster. The Big 10 already has enough disaster football programs with Indiana, Purdue, Illinois looking like it's headed into a dumpster and Fitz having his issues at NU. Rutgers & MD will have growing pains getting their football program acclimated to the conference and Harbaugh will have his hands full resurrecting the Wolverines.

2) Oklahoma in football like Kansas in hoops has looked strong in the B12, has only been average in bowls lately and could their perceived strength simply be a function of the lack of depth in the Big 12?
When PSU & Nebraska each arrived in the B10 they and their Football fan bases thought they would make relatively easy work of the conference and that has not be the case for either.

You are thinking like a fan. Oklahoma and Kansas are great additions for the Networks. Whether or not Kansas basketball has been down, they are still looked at as an Elite program that pulls Elite talent. The same can be said of Oklahoma football.

They are Elite brands and Kansas helps balance the academics when paired with Oklahoma whom some folks think isn't good enough in that department.

Neither state adds much talent in either major sport

Kansas certainly has had more success in building hoops than Okie has in football; Kansas's football is awful and the conference already has enough teams that aren't much on the gridiron

(07-16-2015 01:49 PM)Policiious Wrote:  Kansas certainly has had more success in building hoops than Okie has in football; Kansas's football is awful and the conference already has enough teams that aren't much on the gridiron

It's all about the Hierarchy.

If we are talking about a western division of four teams then you are looking at Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas.

See the hierarchy? Kansas's weakness in football is not a bad thing. They fit in the hierarchy.

(07-13-2015 10:54 AM)brista21 Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 09:16 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 01:04 PM)brista21 Wrote:  So assuming there are some legs to this Oklahoma to the Big Ten rumor. What's everyone's take?

I'm all for it, As long as OKS and KS aren't coming along. It looks to me like the BIG has a really good plan here. Make a big play for OU/UT. Bring in the two biggest fish in the B12, grab Tx tv markets and kill off the least stable access conference. If that falls short, then the fall back plan is OU/KU. Bring in 2 national brands, still get increased exposure in Tx and kill off the least stable access conference. Frankly, I think that the second option is the more likely one. I can't see UT accepting being only on equal footing with all other BIG members. My guess is that UT gets a ND type deal from the ACC and leaves the B12 to die without it.

Personally, I want no part of Texas. The short to midterm financial gains are not worth the "diva-like" behavior of their athletic department. I'd be very satisfied staying as is since we just got here. I'd be similarly satisfied with an Oklahoma/Kansas addition or an Oklahoma/UConn addition. (If you want to go for the far out there scenarios.)

They can pull that crap in a conference like the B12 or ACC where they would be the big dog of the conference, but in one like the B1G where they are not only a newcomer but on equal grounds with Rutgers or Illinois and have opposing powerhouse schools like Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska, Wisconsin and in this hypothetical, Oklahoma - they won't be able to be such divas nor would their desire for preferential treatment mean much.

Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, Rice. That'd be a top-notch addition to the conference both athletically and academically and allow the conference to be a viable jumping spot for 2 more (ACC) schools to round out at 20.

I see Oklahoma eventually in a conference with FSU....could be the ACC, maybe, maybe not

I don't think Oklahoma adds anything to the B1G or SEC....also, they'll probably have Oklahoma State attached.

If Oklahoma was as valuable a gem as everyone makes them out, THEY WOULD ALREADY BE IN A DIFFERENT CONFERENCE....it would have happened years ago.

Neither the SEC or B1G (or the PAC 12) care two flips about Oklahoma State, and frankly there's no markets in Oklahoma. All Oklahoma adds is content. The SEC and B1G already have that covered....

(07-17-2015 04:03 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 10:54 AM)brista21 Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 09:16 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 01:04 PM)brista21 Wrote:  So assuming there are some legs to this Oklahoma to the Big Ten rumor. What's everyone's take?

I'm all for it, As long as OKS and KS aren't coming along. It looks to me like the BIG has a really good plan here. Make a big play for OU/UT. Bring in the two biggest fish in the B12, grab Tx tv markets and kill off the least stable access conference. If that falls short, then the fall back plan is OU/KU. Bring in 2 national brands, still get increased exposure in Tx and kill off the least stable access conference. Frankly, I think that the second option is the more likely one. I can't see UT accepting being only on equal footing with all other BIG members. My guess is that UT gets a ND type deal from the ACC and leaves the B12 to die without it.

Personally, I want no part of Texas. The short to midterm financial gains are not worth the "diva-like" behavior of their athletic department. I'd be very satisfied staying as is since we just got here. I'd be similarly satisfied with an Oklahoma/Kansas addition or an Oklahoma/UConn addition. (If you want to go for the far out there scenarios.)

They can pull that crap in a conference like the B12 or ACC where they would be the big dog of the conference, but in one like the B1G where they are not only a newcomer but on equal grounds with Rutgers or Illinois and have opposing powerhouse schools like Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska, Wisconsin and in this hypothetical, Oklahoma - they won't be able to be such divas nor would their desire for preferential treatment mean much.

Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, Rice. That'd be a top-notch addition to the conference both athletically and academically and allow the conference to be a viable jumping spot for 2 more (ACC) schools to round out at 20.

I think Texas would rather try and control their own fate....their TV network would really have to tank and fall apart for them to consider the PAC 12 or B1G

Interesting you mention Rice...they're one of the few schools that could flip their situation drastically

Kansas doesn't really add anything new to the B1G....neither does Oklahoma really

the content that Oklahoma brings to the table would be particularly great actually because not only do they have a historical rivalry with Nebraska that rivals OSU-UM, but they also have strong men's and women's basketball and are 7-time national wrestling champs. They dont bring great markets but the content they bring to the fold trumps the market issue.

(07-23-2015 05:47 PM)AntiG Wrote:  the content that Oklahoma brings to the table would be particularly great actually because not only do they have a historical rivalry with Nebraska that rivals OSU-UM, but they also have strong men's and women's basketball and are 7-time national wrestling champs. They dont bring great markets but the content they bring to the fold trumps the market issue.

Exactly. The content they bring makes the product more valuable in existing markets for BTN and in the national rights package(s). Same goes with Kansas basketball. We would be able to claim the Kansas City DMA as in-state for BTN purposes much as has happened in the DC and NYC/Northern NJ/Fairfield County DMAs despite only parts (albeit big parts) of the DMA being in-state.