Lets assume that the Big 12 dies off soon

I troll Baylor and Texas A&M boards a lot and back a few years ago when Pac 12 "settled for Colorado and Utah" instead of four Big 12 teams it was being reported regularly that Pac 12 did not want religious schools in their conference. So, no way Baylor, TCU, BYU or SMU goes to the left coast. This was, of course, said behind closed doors but I imagine it still is the prevailing thought there.

I think Pac 12 would love to have Texas on board as a partial member, like ND and the ACC. It would boost ratings mightly for Pac 12 and let LHN survive too. Both win, like ACC and Notre Dame.

Redwood Forrest said:

I troll Baylor and Texas A&M boards a lot and back a few years ago when Pac 12 "settled for Colorado and Utah" instead of four Big 12 teams it was being reported regularly that Pac 12 did not want religious schools in their conference. So, no way Baylor, TCU, BYU or SMU goes to the left coast. This was, of course, said behind closed doors but I imagine it still is the prevailing thought there.

I think Pac 12 would love to have Texas on board as a partial member, like ND and the ACC. It would boost ratings mightly for Pac 12 and let LHN survive too. Both win, like ACC and Notre Dame.

Click to expand...

And once again where Notre Dame would be the exception. The Pac-12 would take ND so fast they would be on the schedules before we even knew they had joined.

Good thought about Texas and the Pac.

First of all, the BIGXII would not die without some further defection. Further defection may be difficult with the current contract between the members that is designed specifically to keep members from defecting going forward. Essentially, the conference would have to bankrupt or enough schools would have to be willing to defect that the conference chose to dissolve itself. There might be some big $$$ consequences to that.

To the OP's point, though:

°OU is absolutely not going to cut ties with OSU. OSU may cut ties with OU....you never know. But there will be no dealing with OU unless OSU is included in the offer.
°There is no need for the SEC to pick up more schools in Texas unless the school itself is worthy on its own merit. Baylor would be a nice addition but certainly not a coup.
°If the SEC expanded I think the primary (or some of the primary) factors would include academic integrity, financial stability, and success in a secondary sport other than football--most likely basketball. This is the appeal of a Duke or similar school.
°Texas is essentially a redneck Notre Dame. Big name, lots of money--but full of itself to the point of blind arrogance and unable to back up its boasts with success on the field.

IMHO, Texas needs OU. Texas needs a geographical rival and, around here, OU-Texas is the center of the football universe. If you concede that Texas/OU will likely want to stay together and that OU is tied to OSU then you end up with this 3 team partnership. If it was me, I'd forge a deal with KU to form a vertical line from Autin, TX to Lawrence, KS. This group of 4 would bring 2 football schools, a basketball school, and OkieSt with Boone Pickens money.

Who could take these 4? Only the PAC, right? Maybe. What if the BigX could drop PennSt and Rutgers and take these 4? This would get them out of the east coast, lose 2 schools that aren't really doing a lot for them anyways, and control the heartland of the US. Not only would the B1G now have an inroad to Texas, but old Big8 rivalries get renewed, KU fits perfectly into the basketball scene, and OU/Texas add serious name brand recognition to football. IMHO, this would be a huge gain for both the B1G and the 4 schools themselves. The B1G would immediately jump in prestige, PennSt and Rutgers would fill out the ACC (thereby eliminating the SEC from going after Duke/UNC/VA/VaTech), and leave the PAC without a lot of good options.

I know, it's far fetched....this is all hypothetical anyways....but if I was the B1G that's what I'd want to happen.

BYU got rejected from the Pac-12 because the LDS funded the anti-gay marriage vote when it was on the ballot a few years ago. California being such a homophobic state, the measure to legalize it in the state failed in a vote by the people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AgentAntiOrange said:

Who could take these 4? Only the PAC, right? Maybe. What if the BigX could drop PennSt and Rutgers and take these 4? This would get them out of the east coast, lose 2 schools that aren't really doing a lot for them anyways, and control the heartland of the US. Not only would the B1G now have an inroad to Texas, but old Big8 rivalries get renewed, KU fits perfectly into the basketball scene, and OU/Texas add serious name brand recognition to football. IMHO, this would be a huge gain for both the B1G and the 4 schools themselves. The B1G would immediately jump in prestige, PennSt and Rutgers would fill out the ACC (thereby eliminating the SEC from going after Duke/UNC/VA/VaTech), and leave the PAC without a lot of good options.

I know, it's far fetched....this is all hypothetical anyways....but if I was the B1G that's what I'd want to happen.

Click to expand...

Can you get Kansas without Kansas State?

This conversation makes one realize how good we have it in the SEC.

TideEngineer08 said:

Can you get Kansas without Kansas State?

Click to expand...

I don't know but I would think that they could still play each other pretty easily if they wanted to. And having 2 conferences recruiting in that state would likely be a plus for the state of Kansas.

Crimson1967 said:

BYU got rejected from the Pac-12 because the LDS funded the anti-gay marriage vote when it was on the ballot a few years ago. California being such a homophobic state, the measure to legalize it in the state failed in a vote by the people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Don't know about reasons, just pointing out that adding religious schools to Pac 12 won't fly. Texas has the LHN, so the only Texas team available is Texas Tech. Texas Tech and BYU won't fly. So, what then? Texas Tech and Colorado State? Maybe. Pac 12 is pretty much on an island as far as other P5 schools.

There has been a lot of conjecture about OU being tied to OSU. I do not believe we are, and the following article states why. I think a lot of people just assumed that when OU's President asked Mike Slive about an OSU invitation. At that point in time, Boren did not want to go to the SEC, and that was just a convenient way out. I think David Boren understands that his primary responsibility is acting in OU's best interest, not OSU's.

Are Oklahoma and Oklahoma State REALLY A Package Deal?[/h] By Redhawk on Aug 12, 2011, 3:42p 63

 Tweet Share on Twitter (8) Share Share on Facebook Pin Pinterest 63 Comments

(bumped. Thanks Redhawk! Great work as usual.)
So the big assumption around the world (or at least in the areas that care about College Football) is that the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University are a packaged deal. There is no way to separate the 2. Like buying a package of Twinkies…you can’t get just one…we are bound together forever, and ever, amen.
But is that REALLY true?

via 2.bp.blogspot.com
Oklahoma and Oklahoma A&M/State haven’t always been in the same conference. OU and OKA&M were once founding members of the Southwest Conference in 1915 (along with Southwestern State!). OU left the Southwest Conference in 1920, leaving OKA&M behind. OU joined the Missouri Valley Intercollegiate Athletic Association where they were joined by the Pokes in 1925.
So that’s 5 years the 2 schools were in different conferences.
But the winds of Conference Realignment were not done blowing. In 1928 the Missouri Valley split up. OU, Kansas, Kansas St., Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa State kept the name the Missouri Valley IAA and started their own conference, leaving OKA&M behind along with Drake, Washington U of St. Louis, Creighton, and Grinnell College. They also kept the name the Missouri Valley Conference.
To help with the confusion of 2 Missouri Valley’s, the media started calling one group, the Big Six. Colorado would join them in 1948, and eventually the Pokes, now Oklahoma State would join in 1958 as the final member of the Big Eight Conference.
That’s a full THIRTY YEARS that OU and OSU were not in the same conference. Add in the previous 5 and OU and OSU have been in separate conferences for 35 years of the 94 years OU has been in a conference!
So is OU really a package deal with OSU?
Well, first off, is there a LEGAL requirement? No…it is not in the Oklahoma State Constitution, which I’ve actually spent time looking at when I was arguing last year that OU and OSU HAD to stay together….Teaches me to parrot crap from WWLS radio. I would assume there is no statue if it’s not in the Constitution.
What is in the Oklahoma Constitution is how the Oklahoma Higher Education Systems are set up. Oklahoma State has its own system which has it a "Board of Regents". This system includes: All the Oklahoma State Universities and branches, Conner’s State, NE A&M, Langston, and Panhandle State.
The University of Oklahoma is in a separate system that consists of OU and its branches OU-Health Sciences and OU-Tulsa, Cameron State, and Rogers State. Each school has its own President, but with one "Board of Regents"
Both systems then report to and are governed by "The Oklahoma State Board of Regents for Higher Education" The Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education is the statewide coordinating board of control for the state's colleges and universities, nine constituent agencies and two higher education programs.(for the record there is a third system, and that is of the directional schools)
The Board of Regents for Higher Education though is only for matter of education, not athletics. They have little or no say as to what conference a University joins for Athletics. The members of this board are also members of OSU’s Regents and OU’s Regents, for the most part (though not all)
In Oklahoma, the Board of Regents are appointed by the Governor of the State of Oklahoma, and they get to serve as long as they want. Being a Regent in Oklahoma isn’t a full time job, and I don’t think they get paid. Most are wealthy and successful businessmen that love their schools.
Wow…that was boring…but the point to understand is OU and OSU are in two separate systems. What one does is not governed by the other. They are completely separate!
But, the final member, and the final authorizing authority over both boards is the Governor. It’s his/her responsibility that the schools are acting in the best interest of the people of the state, and that includes the other school’s system. Since he/she appoints the BOR he can have them replaced. The Governor has final veto.
The Educational systems do not go to or answer to the Oklahoma State Senate or State Congress. The only control the legislature has is funding and budget approvals as submitted by the Governor from the Board of Regents.
So, the only LEGAL tie the 2 schools have is through the Governor. That’s it…no more, no less. The Governor would have to decide if one school left for an athletic conference and left the other behind if that was beneficial to the state and to the citizens…that’s it. I would think it would be a hard decision for a Governor to veto something that was approved and deliberated over by a Board that he/she appointed to do that very job.
So, where is OU and OSU tied? It’s more culturally and family ties than anything else. OU’s President David Boren while Governor established OSU’s fine veterinary school, which is still named after him. OSU’s President Burns Hargis got his law degree from OU. Mrs. Molly Boren also went to school at OSU.
Those are some tight family ties….but that’s the ONLY thing that ties OU to OSU….tight family ties.

@champions77 You and I read the same newspapers and watch the same local news. Surely you know that both Stoops and Boren have made public comments to the effect that OU was not and is not going to broker a deal that separates them from OSU. You are also aware that every sportswriter within a 300 mile radius accepts this as truth. Just because some blogger has pointed out that are no legal ties between the two doesn't negate this.

AgentAntiOrange said:

@champions77 You and I read the same newspapers and watch the same local news. Surely you know that both Stoops and Boren have made public comments to the effect that OU was not and is not going to broker a deal that separates them from OSU. You are also aware that every sportswriter within a 300 mile radius accepts this as truth. Just because some blogger has pointed out that are no legal ties between the two doesn't negate this.

Click to expand...

True I have heard David Boren state that, as he has stated a lot of things in the past that probably he wished he could retract. I do not ever recall Bob stating that. The Obama endorsement in 2008 was probably one of the more incredulous things he has done, and I'm sure in a red state like Oklahoma he has had to explain himself to more than a few donors when soliciting donations to OU. He also stated some things after receiving an invitation from the PAC 12 Commish Larry Scott that he wished he could have back. That public display of bravado "We're no Wallflower" probably did more than anything to push Mizzou to the SEC. I happen to have a really good source that broke the story to me that OU was not happy with the Big XII about three weeks before Boren's statements made it into the newspaper. And I don't know exactly what crowd you hang with Anti orange, but most of my OU friends would not be bothered in the least if we got separated from OSU. With your moniker, I would think you might feel the same way.

Don't you think it is more important to focus on what the State Laws allow instead of what our Politician/University President has to say at a particular moment?

The game is about market value not on field football prowess. So I'd expect to see a NC or Virginia School, Oklahoma is mostly dirt.

I am not sure how this plays out as any of us are. But I think the economics of further conference realignment are much deeper and more complicated than just the number of TV sets in a given state. Regardless of the structure, each major conference except for the Big 12 has a conference network. Now that those networks have been formed, the business intelligence from those networks is piling up details on viewership, etc. I think the value of further realignment becomes more marginal and not pro-rata. You cant absorb UNC and except to just move 1/14 of the revenue share over to the SEC ledger. I think the value of further realignment comes in the secondary sports and I think the conferences are beginning to understand this and see the value of those sports as being undervalued. All of this business intelligence makes the SEC's negotiating position that much stronger against any Big 12 member including Texas. Once you are in a certain state its seems very obvious the SEC instantly makes that state's presence more valuable.

I understand the frustration with adding OU and OSU from a football standpoint. But I am telling you a renewed rivalry with OU-A&M-ARK would be extremely valuable for the conference. Plus both programs OU and OSU would be in the upper half of the conference in terms of basketball competitiveness not to mention some recent success in baseball and softball for both schools. Move Auburn to the East and you have solved the scheduling problem. I dont think its any coincidence that the SEC wants to improve its basketball brand with the origination of the network - they have to have something for somebody to watch during some other time of the year than football season. A conference basketball lineup featuring Kentucky, Florida, Missouri, OU, and OSU along with everybody else would be a vast improvement over what we have now.

Is all of this worth $50 million per year - I think so just with the scheduling opportunities in all sports that comes with reuniting OU-A&M-Ark in all sports. I know they wouldnt do it but if ESPN canceled the LHN network that's $25M annually they could save discontinuing to support LHN which I think has been documented as not profitable. Doing so lowers the investment by the SEC and ESPN to invite OU and OSU into the conference thereby not making it financially dilutive to admitting both schools. In fact I think the admission of OU and OSU would indirectly kill the LHN.

I think this move would be terribly devaluing for Texas but some other conference would nab them pretty quickly just to get access to the state. But I think they wont get much more than access. The local attention will be primarily dominated by A&M and OU at that point.

I dont think we can legitimately consider targeting members of another conference (the ACC) that has a fairly profitable network structure for itself as well. I think the network tie-ins are quickly making it difficult for teams to move.

CajunCrimson said:

Okla City would be one of the bigger markets we have. Plus inroads to recruiting in the area. Big backers. Ugly Orange Unis. What's not to love as a new member

Click to expand...

And they are very competitive in the men's Big 3 sports and OU/OSU will probably be a package deal.

champions77 said:

True I have heard David Boren state that, as he has stated a lot of things in the past that probably he wished he could retract. I do not ever recall Bob stating that. The Obama endorsement in 2008 was probably one of the more incredulous things he has done, and I'm sure in a red state like Oklahoma he has had to explain himself to more than a few donors when soliciting donations to OU. He also stated some things after receiving an invitation from the PAC 12 Commish Larry Scott that he wished he could have back. That public display of bravado "We're no Wallflower" probably did more than anything to push Mizzou to the SEC. I happen to have a really good source that broke the story to me that OU was not happy with the Big XII about three weeks before Boren's statements made it into the newspaper. And I don't know exactly what crowd you hang with Anti orange, but most of my OU friends would not be bothered in the least if we got separated from OSU. With your moniker, I would think you might feel the same way.

Don't you think it is more important to focus on what the State Laws allow instead of what our Politician/University President has to say at a particular moment?

Click to expand...

I hate to sound so grumpy but I have learned never to believe anything a coach or AD says. Not sure about a University President, so I won't include Boren. In 2009 someone from Texas A&M, either the AD or President said A&M would not join the SEC because the travel and time zones would be too much of a load on the student-athlete. Now fast forward one year and what do we find: Extra long travel and time zones MEAN NOTHING.

JDCrimson said:

I dont think we can legitimately consider targeting members of another conference (the ACC) that has a fairly profitable network structure for itself as well. I think the network tie-ins are quickly making it difficult for teams to move.

Click to expand...

This is likely what has Boren so upset. Despite OU's own network being quite profitable, he knows that a conference network would be much better and better for the conference as a whole. It's not going to be possible as long as Texas insists upon keeping the LHN.

True stability won't be attainable until that is addressed. IMO, that's all he was trying to say the other day.

TideEngineer08 said:

This is likely what has Boren so upset. Despite OU's own network being quite profitable, he knows that a conference network would be much better and better for the conference as a whole. It's not going to be possible as long as Texas insists upon keeping the LHN.

True stability won't be attainable until that is addressed. IMO, that's all he was trying to say the other day.

Click to expand...

Bingo

If ESPN is in fact losing money with the Longhorn Network which has been reported, is there any connection to the fact that ESPN's Colin Cowherd tweeted to Paul Finebaum that the BIG XII would be dissolved, OU would end up in the SEC and Texas would go to the PAC?

Would that scenario contractually free ESPN from their contract with Texas and save the Network millions?

Should the SEC foolishly decide to look at 2 schools from the same state, especially a smaller one, I'd think they'd first consider adding one where it already has a presence, probably the state of Texas. Either way that screams of desperation and we all know the SEC it far from that. The league holds all the cards. Any move must make financial sense before anything else.

champions77 said:

If ESPN is in fact losing money with the Longhorn Network which has been reported, is there any connection to the fact that ESPN's Colin Cowherd tweeted to Paul Finebaum that the BIG XII would be dissolved, OU would end up in the SEC and Texas would go to the PAC?

Would that scenario contractually free ESPN from their contract with Texas and save the Network millions?

Click to expand...

I think somewhere in the contract ESPN has an out. If they don't it's a mistake on their part.