(05-02-2017 10:34 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 08:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  ESPN would love to match the Sooners against A&M, L.S.U., Arkansas, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, Auburn, or Florida. Everyone of those games is money in the bank. And OU, even in the Big 12 had a total gross revenue of 150 million last year.

I think the PAC would take them sans OSU, but the issue is without friends they are just an outlier. The only fit for them outside of the Big 12 is the SEC. It's the only neighboring conference with more than 1 rival and against football first schools in abundance and most with brand recognition.

OU's biggest issue in wanting to leave the Big 12 is demand for home tickets. Yes they sell out but all of their donors are moaning about the quality of competition. Texas and one big OOC game are the only games on the slate that drive their interest. Not even Bedlam is a big enough deal for them.

Why does the SEC show interest in them? Dallas Ft. Worth would become an SEC enterprise. Other than Texas, A&M, Arkansas, and Oklahoma make up the largest fan representations. Check the market size there and you have your answer.

The SEC has another reason for being interested in OU. Who are Texas's biggest rivals? A&M, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. What is Texas's biggest issue with the Big 12? Their alumni and donors also hate the home schedule. If you want to peak interest in UT donations and attendance you need games they care about. Does Texas want the SEC? No. Does Texas want to play old rivals? Yes. If Oklahoma joins the SEC Texas is put at great risk if they choose not to follow. If they move to the PAC, or even the ACC, they would no longer be the Big Fish in their home state because they would no longer be playing the games the locals cared about. The Aggies would be though and there's the rub.

And another issue frequently overlooked here is the cost of travel for minor sports. If Texas, or OU for that matter, want to play non revenue sports in the PAC, Big 10, or ACC it's going to cost them a lot more than playing them against the SEC West would cost them.

It's really not just a football decision. And that's why they have held onto the Big 12 as long as they could. It's theirs. It's there. And it's cheaper on minor sports to play locally.

Meh. Texas could strike a ND-deal with the ACC, play ND, OU, A&M and BYU ever year plus 5-6 ACC schools and be fine.

Or they could lead a contingent to the Pac 12. Or lead a contingent to the Big 10.

The SEC is not their only attractive option.

The rumors are the next UT AD is coming from the West Coast. President Fenves came from Cal. Don't be surprised if the Pac 12 wins the Longhorn derby.

You missed the premise. My comments were predicated upon an OU move to the SEC. What I stated would be what Texas would then be facing.

(05-02-2017 10:44 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 10:37 AM)Huskypride Wrote:  texas could go to any conference they want.

If they will budge on SEC Network.
I don't believe Texas would ever ask the SEC for membership. FOLLOWING Texas A&M I don't believe would be acceptable in Austin.

Gee, they've only been in discussions with us 3 times since '91. We all know the verbal spew. What we don't know is what they would feel compelled to do should Oklahoma head to the SEC. There is a major difference between Academic Speak, and Athletic Department needs. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying they have to come to the SEC in those circumstances, but I am saying if the SEC held Arkansas, A&M and Oklahoma then Texas has some tough choices to make. Remember too that as conferences grow there will be fewer OOC games to be played. Even an independent will have some difficulty arranging enough open dates with other full conference members to pull off a compelling schedule. As to independent deals, let's just see how many there are out there after 2019.

I respect that viewpoint, JR. And I think it is as valid as the other viewpoint.

However, for whatever little it's worth, I hold the other viewpoint: Austin would revolt against "the south" at that point, in entirety, and either go independent or join the Big Ten or PAC, depending on the best deal, which includes the LHN circumstance at that time.

(05-02-2017 11:09 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 10:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Kansas brings high value hoops which I believe is under-valued in many peoples eyes. BTN would be a big deal for viewers who want to watch hoops.

OU is a Nebraska except twice the population.

College sports doesn't work like that.

"Ah ... a weekday evening in a non-midwest state ... think I'll watch a random college basketball game featuring two schools that I have zero affiliation with. OK, let me browse every channel showing college basketball at the moment. Wow look at that, the Big Ten Network, and featuring a game between Kansas and Northwestern. Definitely going to watch the entirety of this program, and watch every advertisement too!"

No.



0.0002 is double 0.0001. So what?

What a load of crap.

Big XII basketball tournament had a huge drop in viewership this year, because Kansas was out before the finals. Least watched Big XII final since.... Kansas last missed the final. That was on a day when ACC had their most-watched final since 1998 and Pac-12 highest in five years.

Of the 10 most watched regular season games, two involved Kansas, two more were Big 10 games.

Hoops is roughly one-third of your total television value (unless you were the pre-split Big East).

(05-02-2017 11:30 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 11:09 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 10:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Kansas brings high value hoops which I believe is under-valued in many peoples eyes. BTN would be a big deal for viewers who want to watch hoops.

OU is a Nebraska except twice the population.

College sports doesn't work like that.

"Ah ... a weekday evening in a non-midwest state ... think I'll watch a random college basketball game featuring two schools that I have zero affiliation with. OK, let me browse every channel showing college basketball at the moment. Wow look at that, the Big Ten Network, and featuring a game between Kansas and Northwestern. Definitely going to watch the entirety of this program, and watch every advertisement too!"

No.



0.0002 is double 0.0001. So what?

What a load of crap.

Big XII basketball tournament had a huge drop in viewership this year, because Kansas was out before the finals. Least watched Big XII final since.... Kansas last missed the final. That was on a day when ACC had their most-watched final since 1998 and Pac-12 highest in five years.

Of the 10 most watched regular season games, two involved Kansas, two more were Big 10 games.

Hoops is roughly one-third of your total television value (unless you were the pre-split Big East).

The Old Big East tourney was amazing, the best conference tourney ever. So many memories. I miss it. the New Big east tourney just doesn't have the same magic.

Just a fan, no inside connections. Purely my observations as a longtime fan of the Sooners and of college football, the greatest sport on earth. I'm also a fan of conference realignment, and how institutions and groups of people associate with each other.

FWIW, Landthieves is now on the 86th page of its 13th thread on conference realignment. It's a never-ending discussion. It's a subject that won't go away until the B12 GOR either ends or is settled in advance. The Big 12 is and has always been a business arrangement. It was driven by the need for a central states conference that could attract a nationally competitive TV deal. The conference, as we know it, will go away when it can no longer deliver that.

My preference is the old Big 8, followed by the original Big 12. Neither of those are coming back. Both of those trains have left the station.

* The administration and many alums would prefer the B1G. There is also a mutual relationship with Fox. The money would be really good, and the academic prestige would benefit the university. We wouldn't get to play Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State every year, but we'd be able to restore our rivalry with Nebraska. Not everyone agrees with me, but I would be fine with a move to the B1G.

* OU can move to the B1G with KU and/or UT. The B1G won't take OU alone. KU has the academic prestige that the B1G looks for, plus a top 5 basketball program that will increase the value of BTN. Their football has been horrible of late, but they can only improve. Texas is Texas.

* OU has had the opportunity to move to the SEC, and didn't take advantage of it. The current administration is leery of the SEC. I personally believe it is the best fit: football-driven flagship institutions of small to medium-sized Southern states, with good but not elite academic reputations. Oklahoma is neither fully Midwestern nor fully Southern, but is Southern enough to fit. As JR mentioned, the season ticket holders are not happy with their packages, and an SEC schedule would provide enough rivalries and attractive opponents to increase ticket value and donations. Athletically, it is the best fit.

* OU can move to the SEC alone, but would prefer to take OSU. There is no law that ties the two schools together, and the politicians would ultimately sign off on any deal that preserves OU's status as a blueblood. OU's current president is a former governor and US senator, with family ties to OSU. In all of his negotiations with other conferences, he has attempted to package OSU with OU. That is good state politics, but has hurt OU when talking to other conferences. For example, he was slapped down hard by the Pac 12 when they turned down the addition of OU and OSU without Texas.

* OU views Texas as a rival and as a business partner. OU does not see itself as permanently married to Texas, and is willing to split from them if necessary. However, the Red River Rivalry is a must for both schools, whether it is a conference game or not. It was a non-conference game until 1996, and could be again in the future. With that said, OU would prefer to have at least one of Texas or OSU as a conference mate, to avoid the necessity of using two non-conference dates every year for traditional rivals.

* I don't see Texas moving to the SEC. They don't want to be seen as following A&M, and they look down on the schools in the SEC (except Vanderbilt and perhaps Florida). As long as they have the Longhorn Network, they can afford to stay where they are. And, I think they would like to play the role of benevolent dictator in a new version of the Big 12/SWC. The B1G is an option for them, but they can't be a power broker there. Institutionally, they would fit in the Pac 12, but they would rather not fly all of their teams to the West Coast for games.

* This is great off-season banter, and perhaps someone has planted some new information in Finebaum's ear. I don't expect a decision on OU's future conference home to be made by this administration. By that time, the environment could change yet again.

Just my observations. That and $5.00 will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

A couple thing about Oklahoma that are missed.

The population of their state is not tiny, more mid range. Also Oklahoma has a lot of pull in DFW. A lot of wealthy in DFW send their kids to Oklahoma if they cant get into a top Texas school. My cousin did exactly this.

The driving distance from OU to DFW may be far but in that region everything is more spread out.

Any conference then by taking OU is getting a piece of DFW and significant publicity in the whole region. The B1G could get some pub from Oklahoma and Oklahoma is still very good because they are a defacto Texas school for recruiting. Much different than Nebraska which is more of a Midwest school.

Texas is fast becoming a ND, that is a school with a reputation so big they will never live up to it on the football field. They should try to get an ND deal with the ACC.

Oklahoma/Baylor to the SEC seems like a good combo. Baylor fits philosophically with the SEC. SEC should move on something like this and forget Texas.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

(05-02-2017 08:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  If you want to peak interest in UT donations and attendance you need games they care about.

That has to be balanced against the fact that UT donors are going to openly revolt if they don't get back to averaging 9-plus wins per year in football, and a move to the SEC would make that more difficult, even if such a move would push Bama and Auburn into the SEC east division.

With ESPN's financial woes so prominently displayed lately, I wonder if they'd be willing to "buy out" Texas' contract of the LHN. Texas says they want to join the Pac-12 and get that TV money immediately (which would obviously go up considerably for the P12 Network)...and ESPN gives them 20 million to go away. Didn't seem likely a year ago...but now?

The P12 Network would get a shot in the arm (football-crazed Texans would be far more interested in a network including TTech/OU/OkSt/Longhorns...with USC/UCLA/etc. added in as well) and I think it'd be a good long-term situation for all schools involved. The Pac-12's academic people wouldn't be too enamored with the move...but getting UT would be a favorable addition and they have already given Larry Scott the power to add.

(05-02-2017 11:37 AM)johnintx Wrote:  Just a fan, no inside connections. Purely my observations as a longtime fan of the Sooners and of college football, the greatest sport on earth. I'm also a fan of conference realignment, and how institutions and groups of people associate with each other.

FWIW, Landthieves is now on the 86th page of its 13th thread on conference realignment. It's a never-ending discussion. It's a subject that won't go away until the B12 GOR either ends or is settled in advance. The Big 12 is and has always been a business arrangement. It was driven by the need for a central states conference that could attract a nationally competitive TV deal. The conference, as we know it, will go away when it can no longer deliver that.

My preference is the old Big 8, followed by the original Big 12. Neither of those are coming back. Both of those trains have left the station.

* The administration and many alums would prefer the B1G. There is also a mutual relationship with Fox. The money would be really good, and the academic prestige would benefit the university. We wouldn't get to play Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State every year, but we'd be able to restore our rivalry with Nebraska. Not everyone agrees with me, but I would be fine with a move to the B1G.

* OU can move to the B1G with KU and/or UT. The B1G won't take OU alone. KU has the academic prestige that the B1G looks for, plus a top 5 basketball program that will increase the value of BTN. Their football has been horrible of late, but they can only improve. Texas is Texas.

* OU has had the opportunity to move to the SEC, and didn't take advantage of it. The current administration is leery of the SEC. I personally believe it is the best fit: football-driven flagship institutions of small to medium-sized Southern states, with good but not elite academic reputations. Oklahoma is neither fully Midwestern nor fully Southern, but is Southern enough to fit. As JR mentioned, the season ticket holders are not happy with their packages, and an SEC schedule would provide enough rivalries and attractive opponents to increase ticket value and donations. Athletically, it is the best fit.

* OU can move to the SEC alone, but would prefer to take OSU. There is no law that ties the two schools together, and the politicians would ultimately sign off on any deal that preserves OU's status as a blueblood. OU's current president is a former governor and US senator, with family ties to OSU. In all of his negotiations with other conferences, he has attempted to package OSU with OU. That is good state politics, but has hurt OU when talking to other conferences. For example, he was slapped down hard by the Pac 12 when they turned down the addition of OU and OSU without Texas.

* OU views Texas as a rival and as a business partner. OU does not see itself as permanently married to Texas, and is willing to split from them if necessary. However, the Red River Rivalry is a must for both schools, whether it is a conference game or not. It was a non-conference game until 1996, and could be again in the future. With that said, OU would prefer to have at least one of Texas or OSU as a conference mate, to avoid the necessity of using two non-conference dates every year for traditional rivals.

* I don't see Texas moving to the SEC. They don't want to be seen as following A&M, and they look down on the schools in the SEC (except Vanderbilt and perhaps Florida). As long as they have the Longhorn Network, they can afford to stay where they are. And, I think they would like to play the role of benevolent dictator in a new version of the Big 12/SWC. The B1G is an option for them, but they can't be a power broker there. Institutionally, they would fit in the Pac 12, but they would rather not fly all of their teams to the West Coast for games.

* This is great off-season banter, and perhaps someone has planted some new information in Finebaum's ear. I don't expect a decision on OU's future conference home to be made by this administration. By that time, the environment could change yet again.

Just my observations. That and $5.00 will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

I think that is a spot on post. And again it leaves us with what I said a few posts back. If OU came to the SEC then Texas would be confronted with some tough choices. I agree that the inclusion of OSU would likely cement an offer to OU and for scheduling reasons as much as any of the others. Since the Big 10 would not consider OSU that gives the PAC and the SEC the opportunity to gain OU for a price that might not be a desirable choice for either, but neither is it an outright objectionable choice. OSU is quite competitive. Academics and duplicated markets are the issue, but there are some workarounds there.

The only point in your post I might quibble with is that Kansas would make taking the Sooners acceptable to the Big 10. Right now Oklahoma has had no direct overtures from the Big 10. For the brand and the Big 10's needs that might be rectified. However I'm not sure that Kansas is profitable for them. They don't need better basketball like they need football brands. The Big 10 shares gate. Kansas averaged 24,000 in attendance for their home football games last year. That's 42,000 per game short of the Big 10 MEAN of 66,000. They are AAU and they are the birthplace of college basketball so that might be enough, but even the Kansas markets are already carried by the Big 10 without the Big 10 having to have them in their conference. Why buy the cow when you can steal the milk? Kansas would be a drain on Big 10 football and does not help their recruiting and I don't see Big 10 recruits headed to Kansas for football so without something to spike their product I don't see a big upside. How much content value would Kansas vs the Big 10 in Basketball create? Would it be 45 million dollars worth? I just don't think so.

I believe the only viable partner for Oklahoma to the Big 10 would be Texas. And, I just don't see Texas making a move that (a) gives up their rule, (b) causes minor sports to flyover, © leaves the Aggies at home playing games against schools that Texans care about.

(05-02-2017 11:37 AM)johnintx Wrote:  Just a fan, no inside connections. Purely my observations as a longtime fan of the Sooners and of college football, the greatest sport on earth. I'm also a fan of conference realignment, and how institutions and groups of people associate with each other.

FWIW, Landthieves is now on the 86th page of its 13th thread on conference realignment. It's a never-ending discussion. It's a subject that won't go away until the B12 GOR either ends or is settled in advance. The Big 12 is and has always been a business arrangement. It was driven by the need for a central states conference that could attract a nationally competitive TV deal. The conference, as we know it, will go away when it can no longer deliver that.

My preference is the old Big 8, followed by the original Big 12. Neither of those are coming back. Both of those trains have left the station.

* The administration and many alums would prefer the B1G. There is also a mutual relationship with Fox. The money would be really good, and the academic prestige would benefit the university. We wouldn't get to play Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State every year, but we'd be able to restore our rivalry with Nebraska. Not everyone agrees with me, but I would be fine with a move to the B1G.

* OU can move to the B1G with KU and/or UT. The B1G won't take OU alone. KU has the academic prestige that the B1G looks for, plus a top 5 basketball program that will increase the value of BTN. Their football has been horrible of late, but they can only improve. Texas is Texas.

* OU has had the opportunity to move to the SEC, and didn't take advantage of it. The current administration is leery of the SEC. I personally believe it is the best fit: football-driven flagship institutions of small to medium-sized Southern states, with good but not elite academic reputations. Oklahoma is neither fully Midwestern nor fully Southern, but is Southern enough to fit. As JR mentioned, the season ticket holders are not happy with their packages, and an SEC schedule would provide enough rivalries and attractive opponents to increase ticket value and donations. Athletically, it is the best fit.

* OU can move to the SEC alone, but would prefer to take OSU. There is no law that ties the two schools together, and the politicians would ultimately sign off on any deal that preserves OU's status as a blueblood. OU's current president is a former governor and US senator, with family ties to OSU. In all of his negotiations with other conferences, he has attempted to package OSU with OU. That is good state politics, but has hurt OU when talking to other conferences. For example, he was slapped down hard by the Pac 12 when they turned down the addition of OU and OSU without Texas.

* OU views Texas as a rival and as a business partner. OU does not see itself as permanently married to Texas, and is willing to split from them if necessary. However, the Red River Rivalry is a must for both schools, whether it is a conference game or not. It was a non-conference game until 1996, and could be again in the future. With that said, OU would prefer to have at least one of Texas or OSU as a conference mate, to avoid the necessity of using two non-conference dates every year for traditional rivals.

* I don't see Texas moving to the SEC. They don't want to be seen as following A&M, and they look down on the schools in the SEC (except Vanderbilt and perhaps Florida). As long as they have the Longhorn Network, they can afford to stay where they are. And, I think they would like to play the role of benevolent dictator in a new version of the Big 12/SWC. The B1G is an option for them, but they can't be a power broker there. Institutionally, they would fit in the Pac 12, but they would rather not fly all of their teams to the West Coast for games.

* This is great off-season banter, and perhaps someone has planted some new information in Finebaum's ear. I don't expect a decision on OU's future conference home to be made by this administration. By that time, the environment could change yet again.

Just my observations. That and $5.00 will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Great post.

(05-02-2017 11:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 11:37 AM)johnintx Wrote:  Just a fan, no inside connections. Purely my observations as a longtime fan of the Sooners and of college football, the greatest sport on earth. I'm also a fan of conference realignment, and how institutions and groups of people associate with each other.

FWIW, Landthieves is now on the 86th page of its 13th thread on conference realignment. It's a never-ending discussion. It's a subject that won't go away until the B12 GOR either ends or is settled in advance. The Big 12 is and has always been a business arrangement. It was driven by the need for a central states conference that could attract a nationally competitive TV deal. The conference, as we know it, will go away when it can no longer deliver that.

My preference is the old Big 8, followed by the original Big 12. Neither of those are coming back. Both of those trains have left the station.

* The administration and many alums would prefer the B1G. There is also a mutual relationship with Fox. The money would be really good, and the academic prestige would benefit the university. We wouldn't get to play Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State every year, but we'd be able to restore our rivalry with Nebraska. Not everyone agrees with me, but I would be fine with a move to the B1G.

* OU can move to the B1G with KU and/or UT. The B1G won't take OU alone. KU has the academic prestige that the B1G looks for, plus a top 5 basketball program that will increase the value of BTN. Their football has been horrible of late, but they can only improve. Texas is Texas.

* OU has had the opportunity to move to the SEC, and didn't take advantage of it. The current administration is leery of the SEC. I personally believe it is the best fit: football-driven flagship institutions of small to medium-sized Southern states, with good but not elite academic reputations. Oklahoma is neither fully Midwestern nor fully Southern, but is Southern enough to fit. As JR mentioned, the season ticket holders are not happy with their packages, and an SEC schedule would provide enough rivalries and attractive opponents to increase ticket value and donations. Athletically, it is the best fit.

* OU can move to the SEC alone, but would prefer to take OSU. There is no law that ties the two schools together, and the politicians would ultimately sign off on any deal that preserves OU's status as a blueblood. OU's current president is a former governor and US senator, with family ties to OSU. In all of his negotiations with other conferences, he has attempted to package OSU with OU. That is good state politics, but has hurt OU when talking to other conferences. For example, he was slapped down hard by the Pac 12 when they turned down the addition of OU and OSU without Texas.

* OU views Texas as a rival and as a business partner. OU does not see itself as permanently married to Texas, and is willing to split from them if necessary. However, the Red River Rivalry is a must for both schools, whether it is a conference game or not. It was a non-conference game until 1996, and could be again in the future. With that said, OU would prefer to have at least one of Texas or OSU as a conference mate, to avoid the necessity of using two non-conference dates every year for traditional rivals.

* I don't see Texas moving to the SEC. They don't want to be seen as following A&M, and they look down on the schools in the SEC (except Vanderbilt and perhaps Florida). As long as they have the Longhorn Network, they can afford to stay where they are. And, I think they would like to play the role of benevolent dictator in a new version of the Big 12/SWC. The B1G is an option for them, but they can't be a power broker there. Institutionally, they would fit in the Pac 12, but they would rather not fly all of their teams to the West Coast for games.

* This is great off-season banter, and perhaps someone has planted some new information in Finebaum's ear. I don't expect a decision on OU's future conference home to be made by this administration. By that time, the environment could change yet again.

Just my observations. That and $5.00 will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

I think that is a spot on post. And again it leaves us with what I said a few posts back. If OU came to the SEC then Texas would be confronted with some tough choices. I agree that the inclusion of OSU would likely cement an offer to OU and for scheduling reasons as much as any of the others. Since the Big 10 would not consider OSU that gives the PAC and the SEC the opportunity to gain OU for a price that might not be a desirable choice for either, but neither is it an outright objectionable choice. OSU is quite competitive. Academics and duplicated markets are the issue, but there are some workarounds there.

The only point in your post I might quibble with is that Kansas would make taking the Sooners acceptable to the Big 10. Right now Oklahoma has had no direct overtures from the Big 10. For the brand and the Big 10's needs that might be rectified. However I'm not sure that Kansas is profitable for them. They don't need better basketball like they need football brands. The Big 10 shares gate. Kansas averaged 24,000 in attendance for their home football games last year. They are AAU and they are the birthplace of college basketball so that might be enough, but even the Kansas markets are already carried by Kansas without the Big 10 having to have them in their conference. Why buy the cow when you can steal the milk? Kansas would be a drain on Big 10 football and does not help their recruiting. How much content value would Kansas vs the Big 10 in Basketball create? Would it be 45 million dollars worth? I just don't think so.

I believe the only viable partner for Oklahoma to the Big 10 would be Texas. And, I just don't see Texas making a move that (a) gives up their rule, (b) causes minor sports to flyover, © leaves the Aggies at home playing games against schools that Texans care about.

The shared gate isn't that much money because they cap how much is shared, otherwise agree.

(05-02-2017 11:37 AM)johnintx Wrote:  Just a fan, no inside connections. Purely my observations as a longtime fan of the Sooners and of college football, the greatest sport on earth. I'm also a fan of conference realignment, and how institutions and groups of people associate with each other.

FWIW, Landthieves is now on the 86th page of its 13th thread on conference realignment. It's a never-ending discussion. It's a subject that won't go away until the B12 GOR either ends or is settled in advance. The Big 12 is and has always been a business arrangement. It was driven by the need for a central states conference that could attract a nationally competitive TV deal. The conference, as we know it, will go away when it can no longer deliver that.

My preference is the old Big 8, followed by the original Big 12. Neither of those are coming back. Both of those trains have left the station.

* The administration and many alums would prefer the B1G. There is also a mutual relationship with Fox. The money would be really good, and the academic prestige would benefit the university. We wouldn't get to play Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State every year, but we'd be able to restore our rivalry with Nebraska. Not everyone agrees with me, but I would be fine with a move to the B1G.

* OU can move to the B1G with KU and/or UT. The B1G won't take OU alone. KU has the academic prestige that the B1G looks for, plus a top 5 basketball program that will increase the value of BTN. Their football has been horrible of late, but they can only improve. Texas is Texas.

* OU has had the opportunity to move to the SEC, and didn't take advantage of it. The current administration is leery of the SEC. I personally believe it is the best fit: football-driven flagship institutions of small to medium-sized Southern states, with good but not elite academic reputations. Oklahoma is neither fully Midwestern nor fully Southern, but is Southern enough to fit. As JR mentioned, the season ticket holders are not happy with their packages, and an SEC schedule would provide enough rivalries and attractive opponents to increase ticket value and donations. Athletically, it is the best fit.

* OU can move to the SEC alone, but would prefer to take OSU. There is no law that ties the two schools together, and the politicians would ultimately sign off on any deal that preserves OU's status as a blueblood. OU's current president is a former governor and US senator, with family ties to OSU. In all of his negotiations with other conferences, he has attempted to package OSU with OU. That is good state politics, but has hurt OU when talking to other conferences. For example, he was slapped down hard by the Pac 12 when they turned down the addition of OU and OSU without Texas.

Just my observations. That and $5.00 will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Good stuff.

The problem with OU/KU to the Big Ten is that they then have non-con games with OkSt and UT (as you mentioned)...and for Texas it leaves them out in the cold (something that most rivals wouldn't mind!) but the interested conferences wouldn't want a lone Lone Star affiliate.

Texas WITH OU to the Big Ten...makes sense. Kansas is screwed...but it works.

Texas with three others to the Pac-12...makes sense. But Texas without at least one of KU or OU is just not attractive enough to the Pac12.

(05-02-2017 11:44 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  A couple thing about Oklahoma that are missed.

The population of their state is not tiny, more mid range. Also Oklahoma has a lot of pull in DFW. A lot of wealthy in DFW send their kids to Oklahoma if they cant get into a top Texas school. My cousin did exactly this.

This. Oklahoma has 3.9 million people..not huge, not tiny. Plus, there have always been a large number of OU alums and Oklahomans in general in the DFW area. That's where the jobs are and always have been. You can't go far in that area without seeing an OU flag, sticker, or shirt.

(05-02-2017 11:44 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The driving distance from OU to DFW may be far but in that region everything is more spread out.

It's a 3 hour drive on I-35 from Norman to Dallas and Fort Worth. You can get to northern parts of the area even faster. Out here, a 3 hour drive isn't a big deal at all.

(05-02-2017 11:44 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Any conference then by taking OU is getting a piece of DFW and significant publicity in the whole region. The B1G could get some pub from Oklahoma and Oklahoma is still very good because they are a defacto Texas school for recruiting. Much different than Nebraska which is more of a Midwest school.

OU doesn't deliver the DFW market, but it is viewed as a local team. It would help any conference wanting to do business in that market to have OU. It's not in Texas, but it's close enough.

(05-02-2017 11:44 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  A couple thing about Oklahoma that are missed.

The population of their state is not tiny, more mid range. Also Oklahoma has a lot of pull in DFW. A lot of wealthy in DFW send their kids to Oklahoma if they cant get into a top Texas school. My cousin did exactly this.

The driving distance from OU to DFW may be far but in that region everything is more spread out.

Any conference then by taking OU is getting a piece of DFW and significant publicity in the whole region. The B1G could get some pub from Oklahoma and Oklahoma is still very good because they are a defacto Texas school for recruiting. Much different than Nebraska which is more of a Midwest school.

Texas is fast becoming a ND, that is a school with a reputation so big they will never live up to it on the football field. They should try to get an ND deal with the ACC.

Oklahoma/Baylor to the SEC seems like a good combo. Baylor fits philosophically with the SEC. SEC should move on something like this and forget Texas.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

What conference would touch Baylor with a ten foot pole? Besides that, what TV market do they bring, Waco-Temple???

(05-02-2017 12:08 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  Texas with three others to the Pac-12...makes sense. But Texas without at least one of KU or OU is just not attractive enough to the Pac12.

UT's media value is strong enough that the Pac-12 would take them with up to 3 other "buddies" of UT's choosing, if that's what it takes to get a yes. UT has that much leverage. No other potential member does.

Sorry, but OU alum presence in DFW isn't going to amount to a hill of beans for the Big Ten unless they are concentrated enough to force metro cable systems to add BTN to the standard tier.

Guessing only Texas is capable of that.


Sure, Oklahoma isn't tiny. It's bigger than Nebraska and Kansas. But I also think it has plenty of people who identify as southern. I don't trust getting that population to support anything having to do with the north or the Big Ten. Obviously same argument works against Texas, though (outside of sanctuary Austin).


Obviously OU fans and admin who care at all about the school's academic and research reputation want the Big Ten. But so what? You can pine all you want, do you deserve that massive bootstrap just because of your football program??? I vote no.

(05-02-2017 09:31 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 10:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  They aren't welcome in the Big Ten. We were already hoodwinked by one low population state flagship with low research, on the false promises of football greatness.

SEC is the correct cultural fit for them, if they can pull the move off.

Says you, OU would be welcome with open arms. Probably along with Kansas.

Texas goes indy.

TCU and WVU to the SEC

Texas Tech, OSU, UNLV and Houston to the Pac-12.

ISU, KSU and Baylor still owning the rights to the Big XII name invites SMU, Cincy, Memphis, Tulsa, USF, UCF, ECU, UConn and Temple.

They might do this but it would mess up their brand identity to add Oklahoma to the Big 10 and West Virginia to the SEC

Kansas and WVU to the Big 10 and Oklahoma and North Carolina to the SEC maintains the working very well brand identity and adds contiguous States. Not only that both conferences could push to reestablish some North South rivalries: Nebraska Oklahoma, Kansas-Missouri

OU has an legendary football tradition. They are really like Alabama in that regard.

Nebraska is more on the level of Tennessee. Blueblood by the football definition but not foundational to the game.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

(05-02-2017 12:51 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 09:31 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 10:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  They aren't welcome in the Big Ten. We were already hoodwinked by one low population state flagship with low research, on the false promises of football greatness.

SEC is the correct cultural fit for them, if they can pull the move off.

Says you, OU would be welcome with open arms. Probably along with Kansas.

Texas goes indy.

TCU and WVU to the SEC

Texas Tech, OSU, UNLV and Houston to the Pac-12.

ISU, KSU and Baylor still owning the rights to the Big XII name invites SMU, Cincy, Memphis, Tulsa, USF, UCF, ECU, UConn and Temple.

They might do this but it would mess up their brand identity to add Oklahoma to the Big 10 and West Virginia to the SEC

Kansas and WVU to the Big 10 and Oklahoma and North Carolina to the SEC maintains the working very well brand identity and adds contiguous States. Not only that both conferences could push to reestablish some North South rivalries: Nebraska Oklahoma, Kansas-Missouri

The B10 would never... ever... invite WVU due to academic and cultural reasons.