(06-07-2021 10:00 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 09:37 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Someone has to make Oklahoma whole. Right now, they have a lesser position to Texas financially. I don't see them tolerating that.

Why? 29 million people live in Texas. 4 million people live in Oklahoma. I'm pretty sure the folks in the OU athletic department understand that.

We are in a post-market model though. Just because Texas has more people in it doesn’t mean that more people are watching Texas football and the accompanying commercials.

What’s more important is actual viewers, and in that regard the two are quite similar.

Here's a question to consider for future potential conference expansion. Depending on the playoff format if/when we see expansion, would there be teams that would take a paycut to move to another P5 conference (Arkansas, Missouri, or Nebraska to Big 12; Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers, or South Carolina to ACC for examples) if they think it gives a team a better opportunity at making the CFP via. Autobid or if they thought moving conferences would give their new conference along with that team making the move better chances claiming at-large bids?

(06-07-2021 10:38 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 10:00 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 09:37 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Someone has to make Oklahoma whole. Right now, they have a lesser position to Texas financially. I don't see them tolerating that.

Why? 29 million people live in Texas. 4 million people live in Oklahoma. I'm pretty sure the folks in the OU athletic department understand that.

We are in a post-market model though. Just because Texas has more people in it doesn’t mean that more people are watching Texas football and the accompanying commercials.

What’s more important is actual viewers, and in that regard the two are quite similar.

Yes Muskie.....

(06-07-2021 10:38 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 10:00 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 09:37 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Someone has to make Oklahoma whole. Right now, they have a lesser position to Texas financially. I don't see them tolerating that.

Why? 29 million people live in Texas. 4 million people live in Oklahoma. I'm pretty sure the folks in the OU athletic department understand that.

We are in a post-market model though. Just because Texas has more people in it doesn’t mean that more people are watching Texas football and the accompanying commercials.

What’s more important is actual viewers, and in that regard the two are quite similar.

I don’t get the need to “make Oklahoma whole?” A school that had $163 million in revenue and with zero subsidies, plus six consecutive conference championships in football is missing something?

OU is a proven brand in football. That is why they succeed in their small market. But markets do matter and that is why ESPN does not do an LHN type of deal with OU.

If OU were to go to the Big Ten or the SEC, they would bring in more revenue, but it is highly unlikely that they will win six consecutive conference championships in football. They could end up like Nebraska because they do need to import most of their talent. Staying in the Big 12 makes more sense, especially if the playoffs expand.

(06-07-2021 11:53 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 10:38 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 10:00 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 09:37 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Someone has to make Oklahoma whole. Right now, they have a lesser position to Texas financially. I don't see them tolerating that.

Why? 29 million people live in Texas. 4 million people live in Oklahoma. I'm pretty sure the folks in the OU athletic department understand that.

We are in a post-market model though. Just because Texas has more people in it doesn’t mean that more people are watching Texas football and the accompanying commercials.

What’s more important is actual viewers, and in that regard the two are quite similar.

I don’t get the need to “make Oklahoma whole?” A school that had $163 million in revenue and with zero subsidies, plus six consecutive conference championships in football is missing something?

OU is a proven brand in football. That is why they succeed in their small market. But markets do matter and that is why ESPN does not do an LHN type of deal with OU.

If OU were to go to the Big Ten or the SEC, they would bring in more revenue, but it is highly unlikely that they will win six consecutive conference championships in football. They could end up like Nebraska because they do need to import most of their talent. Staying in the Big 12 makes more sense, especially if the playoffs expand.

Staying in the Big 12 makes more sense but moving to the SEC makes more CENTS. If you're an AD or an academic president and you have to deal with budgets and expenses cents mean more than sense, and I'm pretty sure most of them will choose money over winning if forced to choose almost every time. Besides, there is no guarantee Oklahoma will win the next six (or even one) Big 12 titles or even if they do win the Big 12 there is a chance they get shut out of the Playoff like the Big 12 did last season. Once of these days Texas will get their act together and as long as Texas has the financial advantage in third tier rights over Oklahoma that gives them a competitive edge. They haven't been able to take advantage of it but who knows maybe they will one day? In men's basketball they hired a coach that made the championship game with Texas Tech. If Chris Beard can recruit that well to Texas Tech, imagine what talent he can get to Texas.

(06-07-2021 10:38 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 10:00 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 09:37 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Someone has to make Oklahoma whole. Right now, they have a lesser position to Texas financially. I don't see them tolerating that.

Why? 29 million people live in Texas. 4 million people live in Oklahoma. I'm pretty sure the folks in the OU athletic department understand that.

We are in a post-market model though. Just because Texas has more people in it doesn’t mean that more people are watching Texas football and the accompanying commercials.

What’s more important is actual viewers, and in that regard the two are quite similar.

This isn't a slight difference in population, it's an enormous difference. Even if OU had a larger percentage of its home audience, UT's total pool is so much larger. 10% of Texas is about a million more people than 50% of Oklahoma.

If we look at similar games, similar time slots, same channel, etc., the Horns audiences are somewhat larger even though the Sooners have had better W-L records and have been in CFP contention more consistently in the past several years. If the roles were reversed and the Horns were consistently better on the field, it would be no contest. TV networks won't assume UT will be 8-4 or 7-5 every year forever, and they won't assume OU will be 11-1 every year.

(06-07-2021 11:47 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  Here's a question to consider for future potential conference expansion. Depending on the playoff format if/when we see expansion, would there be teams that would take a paycut to move to another P5 conference (Arkansas, Missouri, or Nebraska to Big 12; Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers, or South Carolina to ACC for examples) if they think it gives a team a better opportunity at making the CFP via. Autobid or if they thought moving conferences would give their new conference along with that team making the move better chances claiming at-large bids?

See my last post. Take a paycut????

(06-07-2021 12:22 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 11:47 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  Here's a question to consider for future potential conference expansion. Depending on the playoff format if/when we see expansion, would there be teams that would take a paycut to move to another P5 conference (Arkansas, Missouri, or Nebraska to Big 12; Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers, or South Carolina to ACC for examples) if they think it gives a team a better opportunity at making the CFP via. Autobid or if they thought moving conferences would give their new conference along with that team making the move better chances claiming at-large bids?

See my last post. Take a paycut????

Paycut as in, take a drop in television revenue moving from say the SEC or Big Ten to the Big 12 to try to win more in football with an easier to the CFP. Looking at the other side of the coin in the winning vs. money you pointed out in your last post. While you're most likely right and an AD would choose money over winning, is there the chance an AD rolls the dice and focuses on winning more by moving to another conference?

(06-07-2021 12:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  TV networks won't assume UT will be 8-4 or 7-5 every year forever, and they won't assume OU will be 11-1 every year.

No more truthful statement said on CSNBBS!

(06-05-2021 07:45 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Wilner: "To make expansion worthwhile, the additions must create more media-related revenue for the continuing members than they would receive otherwise. It’s not about increasing the size of the pie; it’s about increasing the size of the slices.

Right. That's the bottom line, no matter how many people want to disregard it. Each current member has to make more money after expansion in order for expansion to make any sense at all.

(06-06-2021 09:37 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Someone has to make Oklahoma whole. Right now, they have a lesser position to Texas financially. I don't see them tolerating that.

I have a question though...

Would Texas be willing to share their network with Oklahoma?

Instead of the Longhorn Network, call it the Red River Network and split the revenue? Texas might come out of that with less than $15 million annually, but they might win the war with saving their favored conference. Would ESPN go along with it?

Whether or not "someone has to make Oklahoma whole" should determine whether there is movement amongst P5 teams by 2024. I'm not yet convinced that Oklahoma will require an identical media contract to Texas' LHN.

Oklahoma could have a more secure and equitable financial future joining the BIG or SEC. Conference payouts over the next decade would be higher in the BIG or SEC. Ohio State/Michigan/Wisconsin or Alabama/Georgia/LSU provide much more conference content that Oklahoma can help augment. Jumping to the BIG or SEC is the safer financial journey for the Sooners.

But partnering with the Longhorns might be the better financial decision longer-term for the Sooners. The B12 is built around Oklahoma, more than it's built around Texas. The Longhorns have the bad reputation partly because they are leaders in creating new college athletic revenue streams. Paradoxically, the Sooners' conference payouts may increase by going to the BIG/SEC while its valuation would actually decrease without Texas and the B12. As Missouri and Nebraska are discovering, rivalries are important in college athletics.

If the Sooners are truly desperate for maximizing revenue in the next decade, they should probably partner with the Longhorns and Jayhawks to create a windfall of "T3" revenue. Move two football games per year and a few extra basketball games...using the LHN as the vehicle. ESPN would probably increase the payments to the Longhorns (assuming UT also extends the deal for a few years beyond 2031) while generously compensating Oklahoma and Kansas. In this expanded-LHN network, the Longhorns may be getting $20M per year...while the Sooners are at $15M and the Jayhawks are at $10M. This allows the Sooners to keep media payouts near BIG/SEC levels during the next decade while maintaining the B12/Texas relationship.

THERE WILL BE A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Wilner's Pac-12 mailbag predicts no change for the Pac-12. Says the no schools move the needle for the Pac-12 except Oklahoma and Texas. He thinks they'll stay together, but if any moves it will be Oklahoma to the SEC. Texas has no financial incentive to do anything.

He went through everyone else both ways Big 12 to Pac-12 and vis versa and concluded none helps increase the size of the pie per school and that legal road blocks (California laws trying to bully other states to have the same LGBT agenda) make it impossible for UCLA to be in the same conference with Texas, and USC cannot separate from the California schools. Neither can the Arizonas (another state that went all blue, both houses, Governor and all Senators) but even so they don't move the needle.

You can read his hot takes in the San Jose Mercury News online (it's paywall).

That's pretty much my take too. We all watch to see what Oklahoma does, and that wont happen until 2024.

(06-07-2021 02:14 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 09:37 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Someone has to make Oklahoma whole. Right now, they have a lesser position to Texas financially. I don't see them tolerating that.

I have a question though...

Would Texas be willing to share their network with Oklahoma?

Instead of the Longhorn Network, call it the Red River Network and split the revenue? Texas might come out of that with less than $15 million annually, but they might win the war with saving their favored conference. Would ESPN go along with it?

Whether or not "someone has to make Oklahoma whole" should determine whether there is movement amongst P5 teams by 2024. I'm not yet convinced that Oklahoma will require an identical media contract to Texas' LHN.

Oklahoma could have a more secure and equitable financial future joining the BIG or SEC. Conference payouts over the next decade would be higher in the BIG or SEC. Ohio State/Michigan/Wisconsin or Alabama/Georgia/LSU provide much more conference content that Oklahoma can help augment. Jumping to the BIG or SEC is the safer financial journey for the Sooners.

But partnering with the Longhorns might be the better financial decision longer-term for the Sooners. The B12 is built around Oklahoma, more than it's built around Texas. The Longhorns have the bad reputation partly because they are leaders in creating new college athletic revenue streams. Paradoxically, the Sooners' conference payouts may increase by going to the BIG/SEC while its valuation would actually decrease without Texas and the B12. As Missouri and Nebraska are discovering, rivalries are important in college athletics.

If the Sooners are truly desperate for maximizing revenue in the next decade, they should probably partner with the Longhorns and Jayhawks to create a windfall of "T3" revenue. Move two football games per year and a few extra basketball games...using the LHN as the vehicle. ESPN would probably increase the payments to the Longhorns (assuming UT also extends the deal for a few years beyond 2031) while generously compensating Oklahoma and Kansas. In this expanded-LHN network, the Longhorns may be getting $20M per year...while the Sooners are at $15M and the Jayhawks are at $10M. This allows the Sooners to keep media payouts near BIG/SEC levels during the next decade while maintaining the B12/Texas relationship.

I don’t know that Oklahoma necessarily needs to see their T3 rights packaged the same way as Texas, just a similar dollar amount. Honestly, streaming is the future so putting the Sooners on ESPN+ with the other Big 12 schools is probably the way to go.

I’m honestly surprised we haven’t seen a push for the LHN, SECN, and ACCN over to the online platform. Cable is dying and if ESPN wants their college football properties to still have value in 2037, then they need to be where the young viewers are.

I don’t think Oklahoma’s future is with the Big 12. Look at the Big 12. Each week the 1st pick and the 2nd pick are typically going to be whatever games Texas and Oklahoma are in. Oklahoma’s 2 money games are Oklahoma St and Texas and if they could move to another conference and keep at least 1 of those intact and gain a gaggle of higher profile opponents.

(06-07-2021 12:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 10:38 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 10:00 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 09:37 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Someone has to make Oklahoma whole. Right now, they have a lesser position to Texas financially. I don't see them tolerating that.

Why? 29 million people live in Texas. 4 million people live in Oklahoma. I'm pretty sure the folks in the OU athletic department understand that.

We are in a post-market model though. Just because Texas has more people in it doesn’t mean that more people are watching Texas football and the accompanying commercials.

What’s more important is actual viewers, and in that regard the two are quite similar.

This isn't a slight difference in population, it's an enormous difference. Even if OU had a larger percentage of its home audience, UT's total pool is so much larger. 10% of Texas is about a million more people than 50% of Oklahoma.

If we look at similar games, similar time slots, same channel, etc., the Horns audiences are somewhat larger even though the Sooners have had better W-L records and have been in CFP contention more consistently in the past several years. If the roles were reversed and the Horns were consistently better on the field, it would be no contest. TV networks won't assume UT will be 8-4 or 7-5 every year forever, and they won't assume OU will be 11-1 every year.

Except that it's an irrelevant difference in population.

The difference in population between Alabama and Florida is quite significant. Heck, there are about twice as many people in Georgia as in Alabama. Nonetheless, all these schools make the same TV money. Their contracts are bundled and distributed evenly. It works and it creates balance.

The Texas deal is unique in college sports, but that's not the most important factor. Oklahoma is the chief rival of Texas and they have no real motivation to accept a financial difference that doesn't exist in any other P5 league.

But it's not just financial, it's branding. What if Stanford was offered a platform all their own and paid more in the process? Would UC-Berkley or USC or any of the others have an issue with that?

(06-07-2021 11:53 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 10:38 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 10:00 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 09:37 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Someone has to make Oklahoma whole. Right now, they have a lesser position to Texas financially. I don't see them tolerating that.

Why? 29 million people live in Texas. 4 million people live in Oklahoma. I'm pretty sure the folks in the OU athletic department understand that.

We are in a post-market model though. Just because Texas has more people in it doesn’t mean that more people are watching Texas football and the accompanying commercials.

What’s more important is actual viewers, and in that regard the two are quite similar.

I don’t get the need to “make Oklahoma whole?” A school that had $163 million in revenue and with zero subsidies, plus six consecutive conference championships in football is missing something?

OU is a proven brand in football. That is why they succeed in their small market. But markets do matter and that is why ESPN does not do an LHN type of deal with OU.

If OU were to go to the Big Ten or the SEC, they would bring in more revenue, but it is highly unlikely that they will win six consecutive conference championships in football. They could end up like Nebraska because they do need to import most of their talent. Staying in the Big 12 makes more sense, especially if the playoffs expand.

Yep.

If your chief rival, both competitively and structurally, has a platform all their own and more money given to them in the process then that's an issue. It's one thing for Iowa State to tolerate the situation that the LHN creates because they have no power to change it. It's another for Oklahoma to accept it.

Competitively, OU would be fine in the SEC. No, they wouldn't win as many championships, but they'll recruit just as well and play plenty of marquee matchups. They'll have as good a chance as anyone.

For one, Nebraska was already in decline when they moved to the Big Ten. They haven't been that great since Tom Osborne stepped down even though Frank Solich's teams were better than anything they've had recently. Oklahoma is a different animal and their moving leagues would be something different than what we've ever seen...a genuine blue blood changing addresses. Every other realignment move that has occurred in the last few decades has been characterized by a middle tier program moving to a new conference and little changes in terms of performance.

Two notable exceptions, Penn State to the Big Ten and Florida State to the ACC. Both were excellent for about a decade after moving, about as good as they were previously. Penn State declined because Paterno himself did. That and they've struggled to regain some of their identity in the wake of the scandal. The Big Ten didn't hurt them though. With FSU, it was a similar situation although their decline is mostly financial. They make less than other strong programs and in this case, the ACC does hurt them.

Even if OU moved to the Big Ten, they would still be highly competitive although recruiting would take a hit and their schedule wouldn't be as good. The SEC is the better move for maintaining status quo on the field.

It's true that Oklahoma would likely make more playoff appearances in the Big 12, but the league also has potential to hurt them long term. They will not catch the SEC or Big Ten in revenue there. That and to bring it full circle, they are currently disadvantaged compared to their chief rival. The Big 12 in its current form doesn't hold the best cards for OU thus the need to be made whole.

(06-08-2021 02:50 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 12:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 10:38 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 10:00 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 09:37 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Someone has to make Oklahoma whole. Right now, they have a lesser position to Texas financially. I don't see them tolerating that.

Why? 29 million people live in Texas. 4 million people live in Oklahoma. I'm pretty sure the folks in the OU athletic department understand that.

We are in a post-market model though. Just because Texas has more people in it doesn’t mean that more people are watching Texas football and the accompanying commercials.

What’s more important is actual viewers, and in that regard the two are quite similar.

This isn't a slight difference in population, it's an enormous difference. Even if OU had a larger percentage of its home audience, UT's total pool is so much larger. 10% of Texas is about a million more people than 50% of Oklahoma.

If we look at similar games, similar time slots, same channel, etc., the Horns audiences are somewhat larger even though the Sooners have had better W-L records and have been in CFP contention more consistently in the past several years. If the roles were reversed and the Horns were consistently better on the field, it would be no contest. TV networks won't assume UT will be 8-4 or 7-5 every year forever, and they won't assume OU will be 11-1 every year.

Except that it's an irrelevant difference in population.

The difference in population between Alabama and Florida is quite significant. Heck, there are about twice as many people in Georgia as in Alabama. Nonetheless, all these schools make the same TV money. Their contracts are bundled and distributed evenly. It works and it creates balance.

The Texas deal is unique in college sports, but that's not the most important factor. Oklahoma is the chief rival of Texas and they have no real motivation to accept a financial difference that doesn't exist in any other P5 league.

But it's not just financial, it's branding. What if Stanford was offered a platform all their own and paid more in the process? Would UC-Berkley or USC or any of the others have an issue with that?

Sure, if you gave Stanford a pay-per-view platform and each of their 17 super-rich fans paid $1 million each year to subscribe, that might work out for them.

But seriously: The Pac-10 already had unequal revenue distribution. USC and UCLA were paid quite a bit more than the average, Wazzu and a couple others were paid less. There wasn't much complaining.

USC and UCLA only agreed to give that up in the Pac-12 on the condition that the "new" TV contract pay them at least X dollars per year. That X was exceeded because people were, at the time, surprised by how large the ESPN/Fox contract was. So now there's equal TV money distribution.

Equal distribution of TV money is in fashion today, but there's no law of nature that requires doing it that way, as opposed to giving the largest share of TV money to the teams that provide the most value to the contract.

(06-08-2021 10:49 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 02:50 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 12:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 10:38 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 10:00 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Why? 29 million people live in Texas. 4 million people live in Oklahoma. I'm pretty sure the folks in the OU athletic department understand that.

We are in a post-market model though. Just because Texas has more people in it doesn’t mean that more people are watching Texas football and the accompanying commercials.

What’s more important is actual viewers, and in that regard the two are quite similar.

This isn't a slight difference in population, it's an enormous difference. Even if OU had a larger percentage of its home audience, UT's total pool is so much larger. 10% of Texas is about a million more people than 50% of Oklahoma.

If we look at similar games, similar time slots, same channel, etc., the Horns audiences are somewhat larger even though the Sooners have had better W-L records and have been in CFP contention more consistently in the past several years. If the roles were reversed and the Horns were consistently better on the field, it would be no contest. TV networks won't assume UT will be 8-4 or 7-5 every year forever, and they won't assume OU will be 11-1 every year.

Except that it's an irrelevant difference in population.

The difference in population between Alabama and Florida is quite significant. Heck, there are about twice as many people in Georgia as in Alabama. Nonetheless, all these schools make the same TV money. Their contracts are bundled and distributed evenly. It works and it creates balance.

The Texas deal is unique in college sports, but that's not the most important factor. Oklahoma is the chief rival of Texas and they have no real motivation to accept a financial difference that doesn't exist in any other P5 league.

But it's not just financial, it's branding. What if Stanford was offered a platform all their own and paid more in the process? Would UC-Berkley or USC or any of the others have an issue with that?

Sure, if you gave Stanford a pay-per-view platform and each of their 17 super-rich fans paid $1 million each year to subscribe, that might work out for them.

But seriously: The Pac-10 already had unequal revenue distribution. USC and UCLA were paid quite a bit more than the average, Wazzu and a couple others were paid less. There wasn't much complaining.

USC and UCLA only agreed to give that up in the Pac-12 on the condition that the "new" TV contract pay them at least X dollars per year. That X was exceeded because people were, at the time, surprised by how large the ESPN/Fox contract was. So now there's equal TV money distribution.

Equal distribution of TV money is in fashion today, but there's no law of nature that requires doing it that way, as opposed to giving the largest share of TV money to the teams that provide the most value to the contract.

I believe the unequal revenue sharing of the old Big 12 was one of the factors that drove Nebraska away and equal revenue sharing became the standard. Even the Big 12's 1st/2nd tier revenue is shared equally.

In theory conference revenue shouldn't be shared equally. Ohio State should get more of the Big 10 revenue than Rutgers does, Alabama more of the SEC revenue than Mississippi State. Equal revenue sharing is necessary to keep the Nebraska's and Colorado's around, the lowest tier members of a conference won't be going anywhere. And if the Big 10's next contract is that much more valuable it won't even matter. Let's say the B1G pleases OSU and gives them more money than everyone else so everyone else gets less, only 1/20 of the revenue (OSU gets the rest). The Pac 12 hears this and invites Illinois and Wisconsin. What if 1/20 of the Big 10 is more than 1/14 of the Pac 12/14 revenue? Sure it's a matter of principle but principles don't pay the bills. If the revenue gets large, equal revenue sharing may not even be relevant in the future. On the other hand, Ohio State's and Alabama's checks are so large right now they are happy so "if it ain't broke, why fix it"? If there's any chance for unequal revenue sharing in the upcoming decade (the ACC contract doesn't hit the open market until the 2030's), it would be the Pac-12 and Big 12. Unless the Big 10 or Big 12 considers California/West Coast schools, they probably aren't going anywhere else. But no doubt Texas and Oklahoma are "flight risks" for "better offers" so the Big 12 might have to "sweeten the pot" to keep them happy. Will the other schools be unhappy? Yes. And when someone else calls West Virginia they can do something about it.

(06-08-2021 02:50 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The Texas deal is unique in college sports, but that's not the most important factor. Oklahoma is the chief rival of Texas and they have no real motivation to accept a financial difference that doesn't exist in any other P5 league.

Your argument lost me there. Outside the second Saturday in October, UTexas' rival has always been Texas A&M, which is why the Orangebloods were caught off guard by the Aggies' escape to the SEC, and why it's the UT fans, not the A&M fans, clamoring to restart the annual rivalry.

What the Horns tacitly realize is that a strong showing in SEC West is still more powerful than winning the Big 12.

(06-08-2021 03:11 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 11:53 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 10:38 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 10:00 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 09:37 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Someone has to make Oklahoma whole. Right now, they have a lesser position to Texas financially. I don't see them tolerating that.

Why? 29 million people live in Texas. 4 million people live in Oklahoma. I'm pretty sure the folks in the OU athletic department understand that.

We are in a post-market model though. Just because Texas has more people in it doesn’t mean that more people are watching Texas football and the accompanying commercials.

What’s more important is actual viewers, and in that regard the two are quite similar.

I don’t get the need to “make Oklahoma whole?” A school that had $163 million in revenue and with zero subsidies, plus six consecutive conference championships in football is missing something?

OU is a proven brand in football. That is why they succeed in their small market. But markets do matter and that is why ESPN does not do an LHN type of deal with OU.

If OU were to go to the Big Ten or the SEC, they would bring in more revenue, but it is highly unlikely that they will win six consecutive conference championships in football. They could end up like Nebraska because they do need to import most of their talent. Staying in the Big 12 makes more sense, especially if the playoffs expand.

Yep.

If your chief rival, both competitively and structurally, has a platform all their own and more money given to them in the process then that's an issue. It's one thing for Iowa State to tolerate the situation that the LHN creates because they have no power to change it. It's another for Oklahoma to accept it.

Competitively, OU would be fine in the SEC. No, they wouldn't win as many championships, but they'll recruit just as well and play plenty of marquee matchups. They'll have as good a chance as anyone.

For one, Nebraska was already in decline when they moved to the Big Ten. They haven't been that great since Tom Osborne stepped down even though Frank Solich's teams were better than anything they've had recently. Oklahoma is a different animal and their moving leagues would be something different than what we've ever seen...a genuine blue blood changing addresses. Every other realignment move that has occurred in the last few decades has been characterized by a middle tier program moving to a new conference and little changes in terms of performance.

Two notable exceptions, Penn State to the Big Ten and Florida State to the ACC. Both were excellent for about a decade after moving, about as good as they were previously. Penn State declined because Paterno himself did. That and they've struggled to regain some of their identity in the wake of the scandal. The Big Ten didn't hurt them though. With FSU, it was a similar situation although their decline is mostly financial. They make less than other strong programs and in this case, the ACC does hurt them.

Even if OU moved to the Big Ten, they would still be highly competitive although recruiting would take a hit and their schedule wouldn't be as good. The SEC is the better move for maintaining status quo on the field.

It's true that Oklahoma would likely make more playoff appearances in the Big 12, but the league also has potential to hurt them long term. They will not catch the SEC or Big Ten in revenue there. That and to bring it full circle, they are currently disadvantaged compared to their chief rival. The Big 12 in its current form doesn't hold the best cards for OU thus the need to be made whole.

Im going to have to disagree with you on the bolded part of your statement. The reason being that FSU won a natty as recently as 2013. It was after this that the coach went into the crapper. then they have had coaches that didnt work out. FSU is still a top 10 or 15 revenue producing school and the conference payouts are a fraction of what its overall revenue is. Also, looking at Clemsons performance the last 10 years, being in the ACC has not hurt that program. Their coaching staff is as highly paid as pretty much anyone. You get a Saban or Meyer etc.. at FSU and all this kinda talk goes away, imo.