(03-13-2020 03:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  If you had ever been around A&M fans you would understand!

I had to move to Texas to learn this, but this is true. I know more Aggies than Longhorns, and I can vouch for this.

One of my favorite OU wins of all time was in 2003. Oklahoma 77, Texas A&M 0.

(03-13-2020 07:38 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 03:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  If you had ever been around A&M fans you would understand!

I had to move to Texas to learn this, but this is true. I know more Aggies than Longhorns, and I can vouch for this.

One of my favorite OU wins of all time was in 2003. Oklahoma 77, Texas A&M 0.

That was an ABC game too (back when OTA nationally televised games meant something). OU quit scoring after the 3rd and was getting “greatest team ever” hype.

(03-13-2020 07:52 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 07:38 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 03:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  If you had ever been around A&M fans you would understand!

I had to move to Texas to learn this, but this is true. I know more Aggies than Longhorns, and I can vouch for this.

One of my favorite OU wins of all time was in 2003. Oklahoma 77, Texas A&M 0.

That was an ABC game too (back when OTA nationally televised games meant something). OU quit scoring after the 3rd and was getting “greatest team ever” hype.

Yep. OU sat on the ball on the A&M goal line in the 4th quarter so as to not go ahead 84-0. An A&M d-lineman stupidly danced after sacking the OU QB while his team was down 77-0. It was the beginning of the end of the Dennis Franchione era at A&M.

That was a great team for 11 games. OU had a bonehead 35-7 blowout loss to K-State in the B12 championship game. OU still made the BCS championship game, losing to LSU in New Orleans. The Bob Stoops era was never the same after that, especially with the next season's Orange Bowl debacle against USC. OU lost three BCS championship games in the 2000's. Many OU fans never forgave Bob Stoops for that.

Yeah, that 35-7 BXII CG might’ve been the most stunning P5 vs P5 outcome ever. Oklahoma legitimately might’ve been the greatest team in CFB history up to that point. OU had won 9/11 games by 20+ and 7/11 by 30+.

(03-13-2020 06:04 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 05:45 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 03:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  s
With Texas it is really this simple. They will do what protects their business model. They have the best business model in college sports. They aren't going to make a move that hurts that business model, or alters their branding in a significant way. That means if anyone lands Texas they are going to end up with at least 2 other Texas schools and Texas will have to into a division that keeps it's play central to Texas.

That's not the Big 10. That's not the PAC unless they take a block of schools.

Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado. Still leaves room for TCU, SMU, Rice, Baylor, UTSA, UTEP on a rotating basis.
It's the best of both worlds and would suit Texas to a T.

So you're saying Pac 12 + Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Tech.

They can do Pacific and Mountain/Central with the Pacific the original Pac-8 and the Mountain/Central being the four Big 12's, Colorado, Utah, and the two Arizona schools but you'd have two ticked offed Arizona schools.

You can do rotating quads:
Central: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas Tech
Mountain: Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State
California: UCLA. USC, California, Stanford
Northwest: Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State

9 game schedule, every team plays everyone in their division and one other division and one team from the other two divisions. Divisions rotate after a home and home, guaranteeing every conference team not in California a trip to California every other year.

Texas's Pac 12:

2024-5: vs Califormia division, Colorado, Oregon
2026-7: vs. Northwest division: USC, Arizona State
2028-9: vs. Mountain division: California, Washington

No!
Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado
USC, Arizona, Arizona State, BYU, Utah
UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Washington

The Aggies and Longhorns belong together. Reunion in the SEC time.

Your sports brand and your academic brand aren’t one in the same. Conference affiliation in sports matters very little among the egg heads. The scholar community knows who’s at the top of their field in their field and they are go to gravitate their collaboration efforts accordingly.

(03-13-2020 08:54 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The Aggies and Longhorns belong together. Reunion in the SEC time.

Your sports brand and your academic brand aren’t one in the same. Conference affiliation in sports matters very little among the egg heads. The scholar community knows who’s at the top of their field in their field and they are go to gravitate their collaboration efforts accordingly.

I don't know if UT and A&M will ever be in a conference together again, but you are correct: the academics don't care about athletic associations. They do what they do.

(03-13-2020 03:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  With Texas it is really this simple. They will do what protects their business model. They have the best business model in college sports. They aren't going to make a move that hurts that business model, or alters their branding in a significant way. That means if anyone lands Texas they are going to end up with at least 2 other Texas schools and Texas will have to into a division that keeps it's play central to Texas.

That's not the Big 10. That's not the PAC unless they take a block of schools.

That is a good way of stating my point. The Texas model works very well. If they move, that model has to continue to work.

Big 10 doesn't work because of athlete travel and spring sports. Pac 12 needs a block. I'm not sure SEC works for Texas or for the existing SEC schools. There is such a thing as having too many powers.

(03-13-2020 01:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 01:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Even the concerns over travel don't make the difference there as flying all over the West Coast was apparently seriously considered. That sort of travel is just as bad and maybe a little worse when you consider the time zone differences.

There is a difference in the impact of travel when you compare Texas joining the Pac-12 or Big Ten with 4 other central time zone schools that are in Texas or Oklahoma versus joining a relatively distant league with no other local schools where the closest conference mate would be 800 miles away and every other school would be over 1,000 miles away.

The issue with the Big Ten is that the Big Ten would never invite 3 to 5 "local buddies" of UT to join the Big Ten with them, whereas the Pac would, and the SEC doesn't need to because of the relative closeness of TAMU, LSU, and Arkansas.

You don't think the Big10 would invite Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri?

Or the SEC would invite Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State?

(03-14-2020 10:47 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 01:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 01:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Even the concerns over travel don't make the difference there as flying all over the West Coast was apparently seriously considered. That sort of travel is just as bad and maybe a little worse when you consider the time zone differences.

There is a difference in the impact of travel when you compare Texas joining the Pac-12 or Big Ten with 4 other central time zone schools that are in Texas or Oklahoma versus joining a relatively distant league with no other local schools where the closest conference mate would be 800 miles away and every other school would be over 1,000 miles away.

The issue with the Big Ten is that the Big Ten would never invite 3 to 5 "local buddies" of UT to join the Big Ten with them, whereas the Pac would, and the SEC doesn't need to because of the relative closeness of TAMU, LSU, and Arkansas.

You don't think the Big10 would invite Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri?

Or the SEC would invite Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State?

SEC would definitely invite Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and OK State...that is the minimum required by Texas and Oklahoma to move to the SEC.

A merger with the top tier universities from the PAC and B12 could be better if it were structured properly. For example:
1) A 12 team conference...TX, TT, Baylor, OK and OSU from B12 plus USC, UCLA, Stanford, Washington, Cal, Oregon and Colorado
2) A 14 team conference...same as above plus Kansas from B12 and Arizona from PAC

Texas needs fellow schools from the state of Texas and the B12 currently has the advantage. SEC is the second choice after the B12 for UT-Austin...it can offer to bring-in TT to make UT-Austin happy.

(03-14-2020 10:47 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 01:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 01:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Even the concerns over travel don't make the difference there as flying all over the West Coast was apparently seriously considered. That sort of travel is just as bad and maybe a little worse when you consider the time zone differences.

There is a difference in the impact of travel when you compare Texas joining the Pac-12 or Big Ten with 4 other central time zone schools that are in Texas or Oklahoma versus joining a relatively distant league with no other local schools where the closest conference mate would be 800 miles away and every other school would be over 1,000 miles away.

The issue with the Big Ten is that the Big Ten would never invite 3 to 5 "local buddies" of UT to join the Big Ten with them, whereas the Pac would, and the SEC doesn't need to because of the relative closeness of TAMU, LSU, and Arkansas.

You don't think the Big10 would invite Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri?

Or the SEC would invite Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State?

Realignment from out of the Big 12 would have been done the last time it was happening.

The issue with each is that the Big Ten allegedly turned down Kansas and Missouri when it was proposed, which would have opened the way to UT/OU if it had happened. Texahoma to the PAC was still a possibility so they must have thought that it was too risky to end up being stuck with two programs without the bellcows if they had accepted.

And on the SEC side, the issue was Oklahoma asked to include them and OK State but the SEC turned that down in favor of picking up A&M and then tell OU to come by themselves or they pick someone else, which turned out to be Missouri.

The point is that presidents don't think along the same lines as us realignment junkies.

(03-14-2020 12:50 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(03-14-2020 10:47 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 01:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 01:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Even the concerns over travel don't make the difference there as flying all over the West Coast was apparently seriously considered. That sort of travel is just as bad and maybe a little worse when you consider the time zone differences.

There is a difference in the impact of travel when you compare Texas joining the Pac-12 or Big Ten with 4 other central time zone schools that are in Texas or Oklahoma versus joining a relatively distant league with no other local schools where the closest conference mate would be 800 miles away and every other school would be over 1,000 miles away.

The issue with the Big Ten is that the Big Ten would never invite 3 to 5 "local buddies" of UT to join the Big Ten with them, whereas the Pac would, and the SEC doesn't need to because of the relative closeness of TAMU, LSU, and Arkansas.

You don't think the Big10 would invite Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri?

Or the SEC would invite Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State?

Realignment from out of the Big 12 would have been done the last time it was happening.

The issue with each is that the Big Ten allegedly turned down Kansas and Missouri when it was proposed, which would have opened the way to UT/OU if it had happened. Texahoma to the PAC was still a possibility so they must have thought that it was too risky to end up being stuck with two programs without the bellcows if they had accepted.

And on the SEC side, the issue was Oklahoma asked to include them and OK State but the SEC turned that down in favor of picking up A&M and then tell OU to come by themselves or they pick someone else, which turned out to be Missouri.

The point is that presidents don't think along the same lines as us realignment junkies.

If Oklahoma was actually accepted to the SEC before Missouri got invited and turned them down, they are the stupidest university in the country.

(03-14-2020 10:47 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 01:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 01:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Even the concerns over travel don't make the difference there as flying all over the West Coast was apparently seriously considered. That sort of travel is just as bad and maybe a little worse when you consider the time zone differences.

There is a difference in the impact of travel when you compare Texas joining the Pac-12 or Big Ten with 4 other central time zone schools that are in Texas or Oklahoma versus joining a relatively distant league with no other local schools where the closest conference mate would be 800 miles away and every other school would be over 1,000 miles away.

The issue with the Big Ten is that the Big Ten would never invite 3 to 5 "local buddies" of UT to join the Big Ten with them, whereas the Pac would, and the SEC doesn't need to because of the relative closeness of TAMU, LSU, and Arkansas.

You don't think the Big10 would invite Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri?

Or the SEC would invite Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State?

Missouri isn't leaving the SEC for the Big Ten, and Kansas isn't close enough to Austin to help UT much with travel issues.

The SEC doesn't have to invite Texas Tech and Oklahoma State. As I said above, the SEC has members that are already close enough and wouldn't have the same travel issues for UT at all.

Also:

(03-14-2020 12:50 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  The point is that presidents don't think along the same lines as us realignment junkies.

There have to be compelling reasons for presidents and ADs to want any of these moves. Mostly money.

But given how much money Texas makes already, they don't need the bump in TV money they might get from a move. Their self-generated revenue is higher than anyone else's -- almost $120 million/year just from ticket sales plus donations. They're only going to move if you give them non-monetary reasons that are compelling to both the UT administration and to their largest donors.

(03-14-2020 01:16 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-14-2020 12:50 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(03-14-2020 10:47 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 01:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 01:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Even the concerns over travel don't make the difference there as flying all over the West Coast was apparently seriously considered. That sort of travel is just as bad and maybe a little worse when you consider the time zone differences.

There is a difference in the impact of travel when you compare Texas joining the Pac-12 or Big Ten with 4 other central time zone schools that are in Texas or Oklahoma versus joining a relatively distant league with no other local schools where the closest conference mate would be 800 miles away and every other school would be over 1,000 miles away.

The issue with the Big Ten is that the Big Ten would never invite 3 to 5 "local buddies" of UT to join the Big Ten with them, whereas the Pac would, and the SEC doesn't need to because of the relative closeness of TAMU, LSU, and Arkansas.

You don't think the Big10 would invite Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri?

Or the SEC would invite Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State?

Realignment from out of the Big 12 would have been done the last time it was happening.

The issue with each is that the Big Ten allegedly turned down Kansas and Missouri when it was proposed, which would have opened the way to UT/OU if it had happened. Texahoma to the PAC was still a possibility so they must have thought that it was too risky to end up being stuck with two programs without the bellcows if they had accepted.

And on the SEC side, the issue was Oklahoma asked to include them and OK State but the SEC turned that down in favor of picking up A&M and then tell OU to come by themselves or they pick someone else, which turned out to be Missouri.

The point is that presidents don't think along the same lines as us realignment junkies.

If Oklahoma was actually accepted to the Big 12 before Missouri got invited and turned them down, they are the stupidest university in the country.

Huh?

(03-14-2020 01:42 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(03-14-2020 01:16 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-14-2020 12:50 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(03-14-2020 10:47 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 01:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  There is a difference in the impact of travel when you compare Texas joining the Pac-12 or Big Ten with 4 other central time zone schools that are in Texas or Oklahoma versus joining a relatively distant league with no other local schools where the closest conference mate would be 800 miles away and every other school would be over 1,000 miles away.

The issue with the Big Ten is that the Big Ten would never invite 3 to 5 "local buddies" of UT to join the Big Ten with them, whereas the Pac would, and the SEC doesn't need to because of the relative closeness of TAMU, LSU, and Arkansas.

You don't think the Big10 would invite Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri?

Or the SEC would invite Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State?

Realignment from out of the Big 12 would have been done the last time it was happening.

The issue with each is that the Big Ten allegedly turned down Kansas and Missouri when it was proposed, which would have opened the way to UT/OU if it had happened. Texahoma to the PAC was still a possibility so they must have thought that it was too risky to end up being stuck with two programs without the bellcows if they had accepted.

And on the SEC side, the issue was Oklahoma asked to include them and OK State but the SEC turned that down in favor of picking up A&M and then tell OU to come by themselves or they pick someone else, which turned out to be Missouri.

The point is that presidents don't think along the same lines as us realignment junkies.

If Oklahoma was actually accepted to the Big 12 before Missouri got invited and turned them down, they are the stupidest university in the country.

Huh?

I think he meant the SEC.

(03-14-2020 01:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-14-2020 10:47 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 01:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 01:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Even the concerns over travel don't make the difference there as flying all over the West Coast was apparently seriously considered. That sort of travel is just as bad and maybe a little worse when you consider the time zone differences.

There is a difference in the impact of travel when you compare Texas joining the Pac-12 or Big Ten with 4 other central time zone schools that are in Texas or Oklahoma versus joining a relatively distant league with no other local schools where the closest conference mate would be 800 miles away and every other school would be over 1,000 miles away.

The issue with the Big Ten is that the Big Ten would never invite 3 to 5 "local buddies" of UT to join the Big Ten with them, whereas the Pac would, and the SEC doesn't need to because of the relative closeness of TAMU, LSU, and Arkansas.

You don't think the Big10 would invite Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri?

Or the SEC would invite Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State?

Missouri isn't leaving the SEC for the Big Ten, and Kansas isn't close enough to Austin to help UT much with travel issues.

The SEC doesn't have to invite Texas Tech and Oklahoma State. As I said above, the SEC has members that are already close enough and wouldn't have the same travel issues for UT at all.

How do you know Missouri would not leave the SEC for the Big10? and Kansas does help with travel if OU and Missouri are included....and Texas would likely not go without them.

If Texas told the Big10 they would join if OU, KU, and Missouri were included, the Big 10 would most likely do it in a New York minute.

(03-14-2020 01:42 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(03-14-2020 01:16 PM)schmolik Wrote:  If Oklahoma was actually accepted to the Big 12 before Missouri got invited and turned them down, they are the stupidest university in the country.

Huh?

I think he meant the SEC instead of the Big 12.

As a lifelong OU fan, I am on board with a move to the SEC, either eight years ago or five years from now.

It's not that the university was stupid. The university president was misguided.

The politics were different then. At that time, David Boren was president of OU. He is a former governor and United States senator, the son of a former congressman, and the father of a now-former congressman. His family has connections to both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. He ended up retiring from the presidency of OU in disgrace.

Boren would not move OU to another conference without Oklahoma State. When A&M moved to the SEC, OU was offered. However, Boren would not move OU without OSU. Therefore, Missouri got the offer from the SEC. Later, after the OU/OSU/UT/Tech move to the Pac-12 fizzled, Boren tried to take OU and OSU alone to the Pac-12. The Pac-12 did not have the votes to approve it.

There was never a law that required OU and OSU to stay together. The politicians in Oklahoma would allow OU to move alone (though the current governor is both a Norman native and an OSU grad). Boren was playing politics to help both schools. He got too cute by half and alienated many OU supporters.

I expect OU to move to either the SEC or the B1G in the next round of realignment. The difference in income will be too large. The B12 will not be able to command the payouts that the SEC and B1G will get in the next round of TV contracts.

(03-14-2020 02:05 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(03-14-2020 01:42 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(03-14-2020 01:16 PM)schmolik Wrote:  If Oklahoma was actually accepted to the Big 12 before Missouri got invited and turned them down, they are the stupidest university in the country.

Huh?

I think he meant the SEC instead of the Big 12.

As a lifelong OU fan, I am on board with a move to the SEC, either eight years ago or five years from now.

It's not that the university was stupid. The university president was misguided.

The politics were different then. At that time, David Boren was president of OU. He is a former governor and United States senator, the son of a former congressman, and the father of a now-former congressman. His family has connections to both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. He ended up retiring from the presidency of OU in disgrace.

Boren would not move OU to another conference without Oklahoma State. When A&M moved to the SEC, OU was offered. However, Boren would not move OU without OSU. Therefore, Missouri got the offer from the SEC. Later, after the OU/OSU/UT/Tech move to the Pac-12 fizzled, Boren tried to take OU and OSU alone to the Pac-12. The Pac-12 did not have the votes to approve it.

There was never a law that required OU and OSU to stay together. The politicians in Oklahoma would allow OU to move alone (though the current governor is both a Norman native and an OSU grad). Boren was playing politics to help both schools. He got too cute by half and alienated many OU supporters.

I expect OU to move to either the SEC or the B1G in the next round of realignment. The difference in income will be too large. The B12 will not be able to command the payouts that the SEC and B1G will get in the next round of TV contracts.

I have a question for you...

If Oklahoma was moving to the SEC(without Texas) then who do you think they would prefer as a companion?

Also, if we narrowed it down to only 2 contenders and let's say those contenders were Kansas and TCU then which one do you think they would prefer?

I'm curious what the average OU fan might think in that situation.

(03-14-2020 02:05 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(03-14-2020 01:42 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(03-14-2020 01:16 PM)schmolik Wrote:  If Oklahoma was actually accepted to the Big 12 before Missouri got invited and turned them down, they are the stupidest university in the country.

Huh?

I think he meant the SEC instead of the Big 12.

As a lifelong OU fan, I am on board with a move to the SEC, either eight years ago or five years from now.

It's not that the university was stupid. The university president was misguided.

The politics were different then. At that time, David Boren was president of OU. He is a former governor and United States senator, the son of a former congressman, and the father of a now-former congressman. His family has connections to both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. He ended up retiring from the presidency of OU in disgrace.

Boren would not move OU to another conference without Oklahoma State. When A&M moved to the SEC, OU was offered. However, Boren would not move OU without OSU. Therefore, Missouri got the offer from the SEC. Later, after the OU/OSU/UT/Tech move to the Pac-12 fizzled, Boren tried to take OU and OSU alone to the Pac-12. The Pac-12 did not have the votes to approve it.

There was never a law that required OU and OSU to stay together. The politicians in Oklahoma would allow OU to move alone (though the current governor is both a Norman native and an OSU grad). Boren was playing politics to help both schools. He got too cute by half and alienated many OU supporters.

I expect OU to move to either the SEC or the B1G in the next round of realignment. The difference in income will be too large. The B12 will not be able to command the payouts that the SEC and B1G will get in the next round of TV contracts.

The way to get Texas to move is to get Oklahoma to move. Once a conference has Oklahoma it really has Texas by the balls and it certainly can tell Texas that Texas Tech or anyone else in the state isn't welcome. Again, if Texas had to choose between Oklahoma or Texas Tech/Baylor/TCU, who would they choose? Especially a Texas A&M/Oklahoma SEC. Let's see how much money the Big 12's going to get without Oklahoma. They can add any 10th member they want, it isn't going to make much a difference.