(03-14-2020 02:21 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(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.

If we move without Texas (and I don't see Texas moving to the SEC unless it's the last option available)...

First choice would be OSU. Taking OSU along is not a requirement. OU fans look down on OSU, and the football rivalry is one-sided. It's a pretty even rivalry in other sports. But, bringing OSU along would make the move better politically and less painful.

Second choice would be KU. OU has shared a conference with KU since 1919. Not necessarily a blood rival, as they own us in hoops (though we're decent) and we own them in football (they've been awful). Texas and OSU are our rivals. But, KU is a longtime partner. OU has the closest connection to them out of the remaining Big 8 schools. Neither school likes losing to the other.

TCU is relevant to OU fans due to its location. There is no rivalry there, but the largest concentration of OU alumni and Oklahoma natives outside the state is in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex.

So, OSU > KU > TCU.

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

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 agree, that OU will be forced to make a move. I think you previously posted that there is a difference in what academia wants and athletics want. I am convinced the OU Administration and big donors want the Big10. The majority of the fans would prefer the SEC. The former will make the decision.

However, I am not sure the Big10 will take OU without Texas and I am not convinced Texas will join the Big10. If Texas says yes, then I believe Texas will insist on including OU, KU and probably Missouri. Otherwise, if the Big10 offers OU and KU I believe they would accept.

If the Big10 does not work out for OU, then I believe OU would accept an invite from the SEC with no strings attached. The SEC would of course want Texas. However, I am definitely convinced that Texas will not join the SEC. My opinions are based on the following:

1 - Right or wrong, UT does not have a positive opinion of their academics.
2 - They do not like the perceived win at all cost culture.
3 - They will not follow "little brother" (A&M) anywhere. (You have to live in Texas to understand the UT-A&M culture)

Finally, If OU leaves without Texas, then as I have said before, IMO Texas will go independent in football and work out an arrangement with the remaining Big12 teams similar to what Notre Dame has with the ACC.

(03-14-2020 03:10 PM)texoma Wrote:  I agree, that OU will be forced to make a move. I think you previously posted that there is a difference in what academia wants and athletics want. I am convinced the OU Administration and big donors want the Big10. The fans would prefer the SEC. The former will make the decision.

However, I am not sure the Big10 will take OU without Texas and I am not convinced Texas will join the Big10. If Texas says yes, then I believe Texas will insist on including OU, KU and probably Missouri. Otherwise, if the Big10 offers OU and KU I believe they would accept.

If the Big10 does not work out for OU, then I believe OU would accept an invite from the SEC with no strings attached. The SEC would of course want Texas. However, I am definitely convinced that Texas will not join the SEC. My opinions are based on:

1 - Right or wrong, UT does not have a positive opinion of their academics.
2 - They do not like the perceived win at all cost culture.
3 - They will not follow "little brother" (A&M) anywhere.

Finally, If OU leaves without Texas, then as I have said before, IMO UT will go independent in football and work out an arrangement with the remaining Big12 teams similar to what Notre Dame has with the ACC.

I agree that the powers that be at OU would give their right arms to join the B1G. They would love to be associated with the large, highly-rated flagship schools of the Midwest. That would be a big deal for the university and state. And, the OU/KU combination is there for the taking by the B1G.

Texas has money, and will continue to have money. What is important to Texas is power and status. Texas can't be king of the hill in the B1G or SEC as they were in the SWC and are in the B12. They would be equal to Ohio State or Michigan in the B1G, or Florida or Alabama in the SEC. Texas would merely be one vote. Plus, I agree with you, in that most of all, they can't be seen as following A&M to the SEC.

So, a question is: would Texas go to the B1G? And, would the B1G allow Texas to dictate terms, such as expansion partners? That remains to be seen.

And, another question is: does the SEC make an offer to OU before the B1G makes one to OU and/or Texas?

OU has a long-term interim president until the end of 2020. If he is not made the permanent president, someone else will be making this decision for OU.

(03-14-2020 02:02 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(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.

If any UT president or athletic director has ever said that they value Kansas and Missouri so much that they would want them to tag along wherever they go, please link to that. Don't think you'll find that anywhere. They don't love Mizzou; when Mizzou left the Big 12 they said West Virginia was an upgrade.

Also, every school in the SEC West is as close or closer to Austin as it is to Mizzou.

It's more realistic that UT, if they are concerned about athletic travel, would want at least a few conference mates who are significantly closer.

(03-14-2020 03:35 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(03-14-2020 03:10 PM)texoma Wrote:  I agree, that OU will be forced to make a move. I think you previously posted that there is a difference in what academia wants and athletics want. I am convinced the OU Administration and big donors want the Big10. The fans would prefer the SEC. The former will make the decision.

However, I am not sure the Big10 will take OU without Texas and I am not convinced Texas will join the Big10. If Texas says yes, then I believe Texas will insist on including OU, KU and probably Missouri. Otherwise, if the Big10 offers OU and KU I believe they would accept.

If the Big10 does not work out for OU, then I believe OU would accept an invite from the SEC with no strings attached. The SEC would of course want Texas. However, I am definitely convinced that Texas will not join the SEC. My opinions are based on:

1 - Right or wrong, UT does not have a positive opinion of their academics.
2 - They do not like the perceived win at all cost culture.
3 - They will not follow "little brother" (A&M) anywhere.

Finally, If OU leaves without Texas, then as I have said before, IMO UT will go independent in football and work out an arrangement with the remaining Big12 teams similar to what Notre Dame has with the ACC.

I agree that the powers that be at OU would give their right arms to join the B1G. They would love to be associated with the large, highly-rated flagship schools of the Midwest. That would be a big deal for the university and state. And, the OU/KU combination is there for the taking by the B1G.

Texas has money, and will continue to have money. What is important to Texas is power and status. Texas can't be king of the hill in the B1G or SEC as they were in the SWC and are in the B12. They would be equal to Ohio State or Michigan in the B1G, or Florida or Alabama in the SEC. Texas would merely be one vote. Plus, I agree with you, in that most of all, they can't be seen as following A&M to the SEC.

So, a question is: would Texas go to the B1G? And, would the B1G allow Texas to dictate terms, such as expansion partners? That remains to be seen.

And, another question is: does the SEC make an offer to OU before the B1G makes one to OU and/or Texas?

OU has a long-term interim president until the end of 2020. If he is not made the permanent president, someone else will be making this decision for OU.

While I do admit the Big Ten would love to have Texas, I don't think they would go very far out of their way to get them.

For one, I think the Big Ten is more interested in the schools in the East...North Carolina, Virginia, and probably even Georgia Tech. The Big Ten needs a demographic upgrade and these Southern/Eastern states provide that along with co-opting greater influence in Washington DC. Texas would provide the same type of benefit, but would be much more troublesome to partner with and more expensive to acquire because UT wouldn't come by themselves.

I've come to think Texas' current plan A is to see if they can crack the PAC 12. I don't think a merger works or waiting until the respective GORs expire and agreeing to remove dross from both leagues. It's more expedient to try and add a few key properties that might be disgruntled. That way they keep most of what they value and maybe even convince Oklahoma to stick around.

It's not the most profitable option, but it's more profitable than their current situation and they don't have to make any sacrifices other than a little extra travel here and there. Of course, they'd have to do that in any league they moved to so it's really a negligible difference.

(03-14-2020 04:02 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I've come to think Texas' current plan A is to see if they can crack the PAC 12. I don't think a merger works or waiting until the respective GORs expire and agreeing to remove dross from both leagues. It's more expedient to try and add a few key properties that might be disgruntled. That way they keep most of what they value and maybe even convince Oklahoma to stick around.

It's not the most profitable option, but it's more profitable than their current situation and they don't have to make any sacrifices other than a little extra travel here and there. Of course, they'd have to do that in any league they moved to so it's really a negligible difference.

You're assuming the Pac-12 has any incentive to remove any "dross" (I'll admit I've never heard of that word until you said it). If ESPN and/or FOX pays them enough maybe "they" will give Oregon State and Wazzu the boot (meaning they will disband and restart the conference like the Catholic 7 did). The other issue is what Texas considers is dross and what isn't dross and what most other people do. I'm sure my ideal Pac-12/Big 12 isn't Texas's and probably isn't anyone else in the Pac 12's either.

What people simply refuse to acknowledge is what ESPN has been doing to attract Texas to the SEC.

The SEC added long time Texas rival, Arkansas, back in '92. Now they've added A&M and Missouri, although the latter is not prominent in the life of Texas they are in area so to speak. The idea here is that if we move to conferences of 16 or larger then essentially divisions become old conferences.

Move Alabama and Auburn to the East and the West is fairly natural. L.S.U. was once, before any of you were alive, a rival of A&M and is a natural neighbor to Texas. Ole Miss is L.S.U.'s rival.

If Texas and Oklahoma move to the SEC then all of Texas's past and present key rivals are in the same division. That is the lure. And if the division is a better more competitive rendition of the natural foes for Texas then they are still the kingpin in terms of prominence.

If we move to 18 and Texas Tech and Kansas, or Oklahoma State fill those last 2 slots then it is even more like the best of the SWC and Big12 for Texas in one division. And their business model is the main concern. Texas knows who their peers are academically and yet in the SWC and Big 12 academic relationships were never the focus.

The SEC makes the most sense for Texas geographically and financially, but I continue to think that Texas will pass on the SEC for the same reason that Bobby Bowden did.

(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 SEC before Missouri got invited and turned them down, they are the stupidest university in the country.

#7 in revenue. 4 trips to the college football playoffs since then. How is that stupid?

(03-14-2020 04:12 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-14-2020 04:02 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I've come to think Texas' current plan A is to see if they can crack the PAC 12. I don't think a merger works or waiting until the respective GORs expire and agreeing to remove dross from both leagues. It's more expedient to try and add a few key properties that might be disgruntled. That way they keep most of what they value and maybe even convince Oklahoma to stick around.

It's not the most profitable option, but it's more profitable than their current situation and they don't have to make any sacrifices other than a little extra travel here and there. Of course, they'd have to do that in any league they moved to so it's really a negligible difference.

You're assuming the Pac-12 has any incentive to remove any "dross" (I'll admit I've never heard of that word until you said it). If ESPN and/or FOX pays them enough maybe "they" will give Oregon State and Wazzu the boot (meaning they will disband and restart the conference like the Catholic 7 did). The other issue is what Texas considers is dross and what isn't dross and what most other people do. I'm sure my ideal Pac-12/Big 12 isn't Texas's and probably isn't anyone else in the Pac 12's either.

I don't think you understood what I said.

There is an idea that members of the PAC 12 and the Big 12 could simply wait until their respective end of their GORs and subsequently merge. At that point, they could negotiate on the most economical combination of the two leagues. In other words, a few members from each current league would be left out in the final product.

Each league possesses "dross" in the sense that some members really don't add to the bottom line. People can debate on who specifically those members are in a given scenario, but the point is some schools would be unnecessary if the PAC 12 and Big 12 were to merge.

I don't think this is a workable scenario no matter who the lineup is because there are too many moving parts and probably a fair bit of disagreement(among the actual leaders who make the decisions, not commentators) on who should be included in this hypothetical version of the merged leagues. So I don't think it would work.

Also, I'm not saying the PAC 12 will break up. I'm just saying there are probably parties that would be interested in breaking it up. I think Texas would be chief among them because they could invite maybe 4-6 PAC schools into the Big 12 and maintain their privileged position while also upping their TV revenues.

I can see ESPN being interested in that as well because they could acquire the best parts of the PAC 12 and maintain influence over the Big 12 powers simultaneously. In this hypothetical scenario of mine, ESPN would have virtual control over 3 Power leagues...the SEC, the ACC, and a Big 12 that contains some big hitters from the current PAC 12. They could probably do this and maintain a lower overhead when it comes to payments as well.

In times past, I would not have really considered that a possibility, but we have the athletic director of USC saying publicly that leaving the conference is on the table. I don't think anyone in the PAC 12 really wants to break that league up, but if USC and a few others don't get a more favorable scenario then they may very well benefit from joining Texas.

(03-14-2020 02:26 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(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.

Nobody would have Texas "by the balls." Texas could do what it wanted in that scenario. All 4 of the other conferences would want them.

(03-14-2020 04:34 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The SEC makes the most sense for Texas geographically and financially, but I continue to think that Texas will pass on the SEC for the same reason that Bobby Bowden did.

Shopping for an easier conference to win in has gone by the wayside. If we get a CFP expansion to 8 then I see the 4 division winners of a P4 making up that playoff. You might see a pairing of the conference #1 seeds against the #2's of other conferences. If so the CCG will go away and the conferences will be handsomely paid for that to happen.

But that aside, content is where the value is. Therefore seeking the easiest path will take a back burner to maintaining rivalries and a sense of regional identity.

As to the seeding for the 8 school CFP it would be an incentive for both the Big 10 and SEC since frequently our #2's might be strong enough to make it in but the loss in the CCG hurts them.

(03-14-2020 03:45 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-14-2020 02:02 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(03-14-2020 01:28 PM)Wedge 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?

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.

If any UT president or athletic director has ever said that they value Kansas and Missouri so much that they would want them to tag along wherever they go, please link to that. Don't think you'll find that anywhere. They don't love Mizzou; when Mizzou left the Big 12 they said West Virginia was an upgrade.

Also, every school in the SEC West is as close or closer to Austin as it is to Mizzou.

It's more realistic that UT, if they are concerned about athletic travel, would want at least a few conference mates who are significantly closer.

They do not have to love Missouri. It is called reducing travel for other sports. Please read my other post and johnin tx post also, on why Texas will not be going to the SEC.

(03-14-2020 03:10 PM)texoma Wrote:  

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

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 agree, that OU will be forced to make a move. I think you previously posted that there is a difference in what academia wants and athletics want. I am convinced the OU Administration and big donors want the Big10. The majority of the fans would prefer the SEC. The former will make the decision.

However, I am not sure the Big10 will take OU without Texas and I am not convinced Texas will join the Big10. If Texas says yes, then I believe Texas will insist on including OU, KU and probably Missouri. Otherwise, if the Big10 offers OU and KU I believe they would accept.

If the Big10 does not work out for OU, then I believe OU would accept an invite from the SEC with no strings attached. The SEC would of course want Texas. However, I am definitely convinced that Texas will not join the SEC. My opinions are based on the following:

1 - Right or wrong, UT does not have a positive opinion of their academics.
2 - They do not like the perceived win at all cost culture.
3 - They will not follow "little brother" (A&M) anywhere. (You have to live in Texas to understand the UT-A&M culture)

Finally, If OU leaves without Texas, then as I have said before, IMO Texas will go independent in football and work out an arrangement with the remaining Big12 teams similar to what Notre Dame has with the ACC.

Well, JRsec did say that it's possible that whoever first breaks open the Big 12 between the SEC and the Big 10 then the other would then likely break open the ACC due to the monetary disparities. So, going by that theory, should the Big 10 and Texas agree to the conditions on UT joining, then the SEC may not mind all that much, as they can then turn eastwards, plus they'd have an extra spot open due to Missouri leaving.

(03-14-2020 05:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-14-2020 02:26 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(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.

Nobody would have Texas "by the balls." Texas could do what it wanted in that scenario. All 4 of the other conferences would want them.

That's what drives some internet sports fans nuts about Texas and Notre Dame. Can't force them to do anything.

Lots of great discourse here. My take is this: Oklahoma is the school that is going to feel the most pressure to move to keep up in the revenue race.

Oklahoma officials are going to have to weigh their options and determine if Oklahoma St is a necessary companion for political reasons.

If the answer is yes, then the SEC is the only conference they can negotiate with.

The SEC would probably be open to having Oklahoma but internally the SEC has determine where their max is. If it’s 16 then it’s probably Oklahoma and Texas or bust. If they are willing to go to 18 or bigger then they can probably go ahead and take the OK schools knowing that they can add Texas later.

Personally, I think the Oklahoma administrators prefer the Big Ten. I can’t speak for the Big Ten brass but I think Oklahoma is an athletic blue blood worth breaking the AAU only “rule” for. The Big Ten can kick the tires to see if Texas is interested but I think Kansas is an acceptable 16th.

As it has been pointed out already, ESPN should be motivated to move Texas to the SEC and whether it’s with OU for 16, OU, osu, and TTU, for 18, or with TTU for 16 I think that the horns will head that direction.

(03-14-2020 06:50 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Lots of great discourse here. My take is this: Oklahoma is the school that is going to feel the most pressure to move to keep up in the revenue race.

Oklahoma officials are going to have to weigh their options and determine if Oklahoma St is a necessary companion for political reasons.

If the answer is yes, then the SEC is the only conference they can negotiate with.

The SEC would probably be open to having Oklahoma but internally the SEC has determine where their max is. If it’s 16 then it’s probably Oklahoma and Texas or bust. If they are willing to go to 18 or bigger then they can probably go ahead and take the OK schools knowing that they can add Texas later.

Personally, I think the Oklahoma administrators prefer the Big Ten. I can’t speak for the Big Ten brass but I think Oklahoma is an athletic blue blood worth breaking the AAU only “rule” for. The Big Ten can kick the tires to see if Texas is interested but I think Kansas is an acceptable 16th.

As it has been pointed out already, ESPN should be motivated to move Texas to the SEC and whether it’s with OU for 16, OU, osu, and TTU, for 18, or with TTU for 16 I think that the horns will head that direction.

There is absolutely no political pressure for Oklahoma to keep OSU as a companion and I agree the Oklahoma Administrators prefer the Big10.

(03-14-2020 07:09 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(03-14-2020 06:50 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Lots of great discourse here. My take is this: Oklahoma is the school that is going to feel the most pressure to move to keep up in the revenue race.

Oklahoma officials are going to have to weigh their options and determine if Oklahoma St is a necessary companion for political reasons.

If the answer is yes, then the SEC is the only conference they can negotiate with.

The SEC would probably be open to having Oklahoma but internally the SEC has determine where their max is. If it’s 16 then it’s probably Oklahoma and Texas or bust. If they are willing to go to 18 or bigger then they can probably go ahead and take the OK schools knowing that they can add Texas later.

Personally, I think the Oklahoma administrators prefer the Big Ten. I can’t speak for the Big Ten brass but I think Oklahoma is an athletic blue blood worth breaking the AAU only “rule” for. The Big Ten can kick the tires to see if Texas is interested but I think Kansas is an acceptable 16th.

As it has been pointed out already, ESPN should be motivated to move Texas to the SEC and whether it’s with OU for 16, OU, osu, and TTU, for 18, or with TTU for 16 I think that the horns will head that direction.

There is absolutely no political pressure for Oklahoma to keep OSU as a companion and I agree the Oklahoma Administrators prefer the Big10.

Ah, but the issue here is sports fit. There's too much money in Oklahoma Sports to risk becoming the next Nebraska. And that's not a risk if Texas goes along, but it is a huge risk of Oklahoma and Kansas decide to head to the Big 10 and Texas and Tech head to the SEC.

Softball, Baseball, Women's, Gymnastics are 3 such sports that would suffer in the Big 10. And all of them are popular with Oklahoma fans.

Texas will consider sports fit. I'm pretty sure Oklahoma will as well.

Then there is the 100 year aspect of all of this. Where will the demographics be the strongest moving forward. There isn't much to indicate that the Northern Midwest is a growth area as compared to the Eastern Seaboard and the Southwest and parts of the Southeast.

And where are the athletes? Clearly the Southeast has the strongest recruiting grounds in the nation.

Texas already rubs elbows on research projects with other schools of their choice. Oklahoma is the one whose academics are more concerned with enhancing their position.

So the conundrum will remain. Can Oklahoma afford to move first without Texas, especially if the move is to the Big 10? That's risky business when you might wind up getting caught dancing around in your shorts!

(03-14-2020 05:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-14-2020 02:26 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(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.

Nobody would have Texas "by the balls." Texas could do what it wanted in that scenario. All 4 of the other conferences would want them.

Every conference wants Texas. No other conference wants Texas Tech, Baylor, or TCU if it has Texas. The Big Ten and SEC won't accept them. Maybe the Pac-12 will take them or just Texas Tech or Texas Tech/TCU. The SEC and Big Ten have more $, especially if the SEC has Oklahoma. The networks aren't paying big bucks for Texas and the Little 8 or Little 9. Texas wants its dross but the SEC and Big Ten don't want it. So stay in the Big 12 and take less $ or take more money and leave the dross behind. It's that simple.

(03-14-2020 06:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  That's what drives some internet sports fans nuts about Texas and Notre Dame. Can't force them to do anything.

Texas will do what Texas will do. They're Texas.