Jump to content

Realignment talk not going away


The Tower

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, mdmost said:

Gundy is such a little baby. I guess he can have Bedlam against Tulsa every season since they're on the schedule through 2030. 

 

So when we quit playing aggy because they left that was good, but if OK St quits playing OU because they left they're being a baby?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

So when we quit playing aggy because they left that was good, but if OK St quits playing OU because they left they're being a baby?

I never wanted to quit playing aggy but nice try on the gotcha. Plus the feeling was mutual with aggy that they didn't want to play us either. In this one, OU is still fine with playing the series and why not, they get a win 9 out of 10 times. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the new B12 Commissioner thinks that both Texas and OU sucks are within the B12 after this upcoming season, He’s high and wishing! There is No way that we’re going to play the remnants plus the new 4 teams decided. Ain’t going to happen!

Texas will be in the SEC after this season!

Hook’em!

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2022 at 4:42 PM, Gidnik said:

🤮

SMU should be about Plan D for the Big 12.  They'd deliver regional TV audiences and I think their donors would be all-in if given an opportunity.  Their AD budget is already good for a G5 program.  It just seems like the Big 12 has better options.

What I am curious about though is the constant drum beat in the Big 12, since the AAC schools were announced, for even more expansion.  Those "the Big 12 might not be done..." articles started right away.  FOX is almost certainly the media partner the Big 12 consulted with when they did expansion.  It could be that FOX wants the Big 12 to be larger, whether that's with PAC options or not.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, msucolt45 said:

If the new B12 Commissioner thinks that both Texas and OU sucks are within the B12 after this upcoming season, He’s high and wishing! There is No way that we’re going to play the remnants plus the new 4 teams decided. Ain’t going to happen!

Texas will be in the SEC after this season!

Hook’em!

I don't think Disney wants Texas or OU in the SEC until the CBS deal expires at the end of the '23 season.  The timeline on the move just feels drawn out because aggy tried to scuttle everything by making it public a year or more before it was supposed to be made public.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, camel at sea said:

I don't think Disney wants Texas or OU in the SEC until the CBS deal expires at the end of the '23 season.  The timeline on the move just feels drawn out because aggy tried to scuttle everything by making it public a year or more before it was supposed to be made public.  

Idk about officially wanting but there were rumblings they tried to backchannel some big 12 schools to the aac.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, clapclapclap said:

So when we quit playing aggy because they left that was good, but if OK St quits playing OU because they left they're being a baby?

Not the same thing. Gundy is whining about playing a hard schedule. Oklahoma State usually plays 2 high school OOC opponents and 1 weak team from the Power 5. That's actually better than the majority of the other teams in the Big 12, but still very weak. I'm hoping when all these conferences realign that we will get fair and competitive schedules.

On the other hand, Texas replaced ATM with bigger, better Blueblood programs on the schedule.

Texas has been one of the few teams in the country this past decade to play at least one really good team OOC and a second P5 opponent. And that's with a 9 game conference slate. It's way too tough compared to the competition around the country. The scheduling is a mess in college football. It's actually hurt us quite a bit. It's not just a possible loss, but Texas goes into conference with more injuries. We aren't just talking missed games, but players not at a 100%. The other teams in the Big 12 with their cupcake OOC schedules get more time to gain experience, build confidence, keep bodies fresh, etc. They can also show less tape to future opponents by keeping things simple. It makes a difference. Think about all those close conference losses the past decade? How many could we've won with fresher players by just playing the same cupcake OOC schedule that the competition played? There needs to be a rule that you can only play P5 teams OOC. Better yet, moving forward, play 11 conference games in a 16 team conference. 

The only difference in Texas during their worse run in school history and ATM during their second best run in school history is ATM's high school OOC schedule versus UT's tougher OOC schedule.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, closetohumping said:

Idk about officially wanting but there were rumblings they tried to backchannel some big 12 schools to the aac.  

No one may ever know the reality of that situation, but it never made any sense that a league which is home to East Carolina, Tulane, and Tulsa, would have a prayer of raiding even a depleted Big 12.  That always struck me as wishful thinking coming from the AAC side.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

No one may ever know the reality of that situation, but it never made any sense that a league which is home to East Carolina, Tulane, and Tulsa, would have a prayer of raiding even a depleted Big 12.  That always struck me as wishful thinking coming from the AAC side.  

I think the reality is ESPN was trying their hardest to make it happen and the idiot commissioner of the AAC fucking forgot to not forward the full list of emails to some Big 12 members and the collusion between ESPN and the AAC to try and break up the Big 12 became a known fact

people can mock Bowlsby for coming out publicly and sending ESPN a cease and desist letter, but lets look at the simple facts of that

1. there is not a chance on hell that Bob did that on his own, he did not write the letter, and even if he ask the Big 12 legal team or outside legal to write it there is not a fucking chance it got written and sent without the approval of pretty much all the Big 12 (with the exception of Texas and OU that looked at each other and said "never heard of such a thing, but do what you have to do").....and then promptly ran from the room to cuss out ESPN for fucking things up by working with a G5 commissioner idiot that can't fucking use email 

2. it was widely reported that Texas had $100 million in hand to leave the conference when the exit fees at that time would have been about $80 million or less....so what was the extra $20 million for?.......well probably to attempt to buy out of the GOR which would have been a horrible deal for the remaining Big 12 members )explained below)

after that cease and desist letter was sent suddenly "OU had a money problem".......would OU really let it go that public?......with the price of oil where it is now are there really no OU big swinging dicks that could decouple from stoop's mouth long enough to get to the bank and get some buy out cash

3. ESPN had specific language in their about 1 year old contract with the AAC that called for a large reduction in payouts if particular teams left......all of those teams are leaving.....yet ESPN allowed the AAC to keep the payouts the same for the existing members and pay something less to the teams they added (several that are steaming piles of shit, an under-performer with great academics, and a "potential" coming off a rally good season with a horrible loss to a pile of shit)

ESPN basically fucking rolled over on that shit instantly for a deal that still has about 10 years left on it.....why?

4. the media all just jumped on that story like wildfire that Big 12 members need to just jump right to the AAC (with a shitty 12 year contract averaging $7 million per year)......while ignoring the math that Big 12 members collecting even a year or two more of the current Big 12 payouts and some exit fees from Texas and OU (even if ESPN did manage to blow up the Big 12 media contract somehow with Texas and OU gone which seems HIGHLY unlikely) would have been financially better off after those couple of years than collecting 10 years or more of the AAC's shitty contract.....and again it is doubtful that the Big 12 would have lost their media contracts with ESPN and Fox, lost The Sugar Bowl, lost other bowl games, lost a football playoff payout and just had all of that stripped from them with Texas and OU gone

never mind the fact that the AAC or the MWC or anyone else would always be there waiting for any Big 12 teams they could get it is not like it was a now or never......but it seemed every fucking idiot that had ever reported on college sports or had a sports blog (even dealing with swimming) thought that Big 12 teams better just fold up the conference, fuck off hundreds of millions in payments due and jump to that of so safe landing spot in the fucking AAC

and once again they mocked Bowlsby on the cease and desist letter, but as soon as it was clear the Big 12 was going to take from the AAC (bad move jumping so early now we can all see)  well suddenly those same types were talking about how much better the Big 12 was now with "stability" and what a better financial deal it was for the new members and some even talked about how stupid the idea was that the AAC would ever get Big 12 teams

how did that mass hysteria of Big 12 teams needing the "safety and security of the AAC" RIGHT NOW!!!....come so hard and fast....well I would imagine some checks in the bank accounts of a lot of "reporters" with ESPN on them might explain that

 

5 hours ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

As stated up the page, it's best for the Big 12 to settle with Texas/OU and focus on building the new Big 12 brand. All the talk in their conference centered around two brands that will no longer be around is not good for business. With that said...

Big 12 has an incentive to kill not only the PAC but the ACC in order to stabilize its membership as the clear #3 conference. If the Big 12 settles the GOR with Texas/OU, they now set a precedent for future litigation in the ACC. It now becomes easier for the ACC powers to leave the conference for the SEC/B1G in the future. ACC dying is good for the Big 12. They can add the PAC and the very best of the leftovers in the ACC. The Big 20 Conference I mentioned several pages back is then a possible reality.

this is a horrible move for the Big 12 (or the ACC as well)....the entire premise of the GOR is the inability to leave at all.....no exit....no negotiation and even more so a massive amount of uncertainty that a member leaving a conference and breaking a contract is somehow damaged from THEIR OWN ACTIONS while the conference they have broken the contract with is just fine and dandy and has no claims to enforce the contract and no claims to large damages 

no guarantee of how long it will drag out, what it will cost to fight it, what you might get IF you "win", and what you could get fucked for if you lose

a conference that steps up and all of the sudden negotiates a way out of the GOR for any members is basically making a GOR worthless at that point and on into the future at least for that conference

there is a chance that a GOR will get taken to court one day and it may well get easily broken with some "reasonable" payout from the point of view of those wanting to leave a conference (and probably not enough from those left in the conference)....and there is every chance that a team or teams could drag it to court and get their fucking asses kicked and wind up without their media rights, stuck in a conference they do not want to be in, probably stripped of the ability to vote on conference business or worse yet out of that conference without their media rights and heading to a new conference with their dicks in their hand and not much else until the end of the GOR....or they could get hit with such a high buyout and the ability to retain media rights after that buyout that moving conferences is still a major financial loss

that is the unknown......but what would be known is that if a conference was dumb enough to negotiate an out to a GOR at least for that conference you would almost certainly be setting a legal precedent that you can now negotiate your way out of the GOR.......which makes the GOR completely worthless and nothing more than a contract with an exit fee and you leave and that is that

for the Big 12 especially with such a short period of time that is a terrible precedent to set all the more so when there is a chance to potentially see how a GOR will hold up with the ACC in the future

I think it would be laughed at in court if in the future a conference headed to court to fight for a GOR and the members leaving are saying "hey this conference has allowed others to negotiate/buy out of the GOR in the past why not us" and the conference answers with "well we NEGOTIATED that GOR exit with those teams and this is a GOR and we are not negotiating it now because GOrs are non negotiable and we only did that last time to make everyone feel good and to just move on and start fresh"

I am pretty sure the answer to that is "ok well lets start anew and make everyone happy and negotiate this just like last time and lets start with the dollar figures from last time and go from there"

negotiating out of a GOR makes a GOR pretty much worthless in the future for any conference that does that....because you have now set the precedent that there IS a price to get out of the GOR

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, JFKFC said:

No, it isn't. The end game here is not about maximizing a regular season tv rights deal.

The end game is getting control of the national title game $ and all of the money from the top bowls. To do that, the SEC and the Big 10 need to have every team that can be taken seriously in the national championship conversation. One of these 2 conference really needs to get Clemson, and since than means blowing up the ACC, you might as well grab FSU, Miami and any other number of schools so that the ACC GOR is flushed. This will convince the Big 10 to grab ND, Oregon and maybe Washington.

Let's say both the Big 10 and SEC go to 22 teams each. Nationally, no one will question it when they decide to have their 2 conference champs play and they will call it the national championship. They will also have their best teams match up in the top Bowls. The Big 10 & SEC will monopolize the $ from the top Bowls and the national title game. They will get all of the best high school recruits. That is the end game.

Bingo, and a SEC/B1G only playoff would be controversial if it didn’t have an overwhelming majority of call me back brands/royalty..

The champion of a playoff consisting of Bama, UGA, Oklahoma, LSU / Ohio St, Penn St, Wisconsin, USC would most likely be a consensus #1 by most, however what if the remaining teams scheduled their own playoff with Notre Dame, Oregon, Clemson, Oklahoma State, Florida St, West Virginia, Washington, Boise St…it would cause doubt.

Picking off the best of what left (based on brands, history, and recent success) and forming a pair of 24 team conferences would remove most of the legitimacy of any rational observer and give the SEC/B1G control over their own 4 team playoff with a 50/50 split of the +1 national title game between the conferences.  Ignoring your competitors only works if your are clearly multiple competition levels above them like Alabama ignoring UCF’s title claim for it’s undefeated season; but if you don’t have that separation you end up in a 2003 LSU/USC split title situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ButtFumble said:

I think the reality is ESPN was trying their hardest to make it happen and the idiot commissioner of the AAC fucking forgot to not forward the full list of emails to some Big 12 members and the collusion between ESPN and the AAC to try and break up the Big 12 became a known fact

people can mock Bowlsby for coming out publicly and sending ESPN a cease and desist letter, but lets look at the simple facts of that

1. there is not a chance on hell that Bob did that on his own, he did not write the letter, and even if he ask the Big 12 legal team or outside legal to write it there is not a fucking chance it got written and sent without the approval of pretty much all the Big 12 (with the exception of Texas and OU that looked at each other and said "never heard of such a thing, but do what you have to do").....and then promptly ran from the room to cuss out ESPN for fucking things up by working with a G5 commissioner idiot that can't fucking use email 

2. it was widely reported that Texas had $100 million in hand to leave the conference when the exit fees at that time would have been about $80 million or less....so what was the extra $20 million for?.......well probably to attempt to buy out of the GOR which would have been a horrible deal for the remaining Big 12 members )explained below)

after that cease and desist letter was sent suddenly "OU had a money problem".......would OU really let it go that public?......with the price of oil where it is now are there really no OU big swinging dicks that could decouple from stoop's mouth long enough to get to the bank and get some buy out cash

3. ESPN had specific language in their about 1 year old contract with the AAC that called for a large reduction in payouts if particular teams left......all of those teams are leaving.....yet ESPN allowed the AAC to keep the payouts the same for the existing members and pay something less to the teams they added (several that are steaming piles of shit, an under-performer with great academics, and a "potential" coming off a rally good season with a horrible loss to a pile of shit)

ESPN basically fucking rolled over on that shit instantly for a deal that still has about 10 years left on it.....why?

4. the media all just jumped on that story like wildfire that Big 12 members need to just jump right to the AAC (with a shitty 12 year contract averaging $7 million per year)......while ignoring the math that Big 12 members collecting even a year or two more of the current Big 12 payouts and some exit fees from Texas and OU (even if ESPN did manage to blow up the Big 12 media contract somehow with Texas and OU gone which seems HIGHLY unlikely) would have been financially better off after those couple of years than collecting 10 years or more of the AAC's shitty contract.....and again it is doubtful that the Big 12 would have lost their media contracts with ESPN and Fox, lost The Sugar Bowl, lost other bowl games, lost a football playoff payout and just had all of that stripped from them with Texas and OU gone

never mind the fact that the AAC or the MWC or anyone else would always be there waiting for any Big 12 teams they could get it is not like it was a now or never......but it seemed every fucking idiot that had ever reported on college sports or had a sports blog (even dealing with swimming) thought that Big 12 teams better just fold up the conference, fuck off hundreds of millions in payments due and jump to that of so safe landing spot in the fucking AAC

and once again they mocked Bowlsby on the cease and desist letter, but as soon as it was clear the Big 12 was going to take from the AAC (bad move jumping so early now we can all see)  well suddenly those same types were talking about how much better the Big 12 was now with "stability" and what a better financial deal it was for the new members and some even talked about how stupid the idea was that the AAC would ever get Big 12 teams

how did that mass hysteria of Big 12 teams needing the "safety and security of the AAC" RIGHT NOW!!!....come so hard and fast....well I would imagine some checks in the bank accounts of a lot of "reporters" with ESPN on them might explain that

 

this is a horrible move for the Big 12 (or the ACC as well)....the entire premise of the GOR is the inability to leave at all.....no exit....no negotiation and even more so a massive amount of uncertainty that a member leaving a conference and breaking a contract is somehow damaged from THEIR OWN ACTIONS while the conference they have broken the contract with is just fine and dandy and has no claims to enforce the contract and no claims to large damages 

no guarantee of how long it will drag out, what it will cost to fight it, what you might get IF you "win", and what you could get fucked for if you lose

a conference that steps up and all of the sudden negotiates a way out of the GOR for any members is basically making a GOR worthless at that point and on into the future at least for that conference

there is a chance that a GOR will get taken to court one day and it may well get easily broken with some "reasonable" payout from the point of view of those wanting to leave a conference (and probably not enough from those left in the conference)....and there is every chance that a team or teams could drag it to court and get their fucking asses kicked and wind up without their media rights, stuck in a conference they do not want to be in, probably stripped of the ability to vote on conference business or worse yet out of that conference without their media rights and heading to a new conference with their dicks in their hand and not much else until the end of the GOR....or they could get hit with such a high buyout and the ability to retain media rights after that buyout that moving conferences is still a major financial loss

that is the unknown......but what would be known is that if a conference was dumb enough to negotiate an out to a GOR at least for that conference you would almost certainly be setting a legal precedent that you can now negotiate your way out of the GOR.......which makes the GOR completely worthless and nothing more than a contract with an exit fee and you leave and that is that

for the Big 12 especially with such a short period of time that is a terrible precedent to set all the more so when there is a chance to potentially see how a GOR will hold up with the ACC in the future

I think it would be laughed at in court if in the future a conference headed to court to fight for a GOR and the members leaving are saying "hey this conference has allowed others to negotiate/buy out of the GOR in the past why not us" and the conference answers with "well we NEGOTIATED that GOR exit with those teams and this is a GOR and we are not negotiating it now because GOrs are non negotiable and we only did that last time to make everyone feel good and to just move on and start fresh"

I am pretty sure the answer to that is "ok well lets start anew and make everyone happy and negotiate this just like last time and lets start with the dollar figures from last time and go from there"

negotiating out of a GOR makes a GOR pretty much worthless in the future for any conference that does that....because you have now set the precedent that there IS a price to get out of the GOR

I think it's good for the Big 12 to negotiate the GOR with Texas/OU if they can land some of the PAC schools. This  sets precedent for the ACC to negotiate out of their GOR, which allows the Big 12 to raid the best leftovers. I think we've both established this much.

There will be only two conferences above the Big 12 in the pecking order. I can't see the SEC/B1G wanting to raid after all the bullets are fired, but if they do, it's not going to be anyone that will really hurt the Big 12 all that much in overall revenue. Most of the teams in the Big 12 are going to have similar value outside of an Oregon or Washington. 

Big 12 won't have to be concerned as much with realignment moving forward IF they can land most of the PAC. The dust will be close to settled for them. They may never be the lion but they become the hyena picking off the tasty leftovers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

I think it's good for the Big 12 to negotiate the GOR with Texas/OU if they can land some of the PAC schools. This  sets precedent for the ACC to negotiate out of their GOR, which allows the Big 12 to raid the best leftovers. I think we've both established this much.

There will be only two conferences above the Big 12 in the pecking order. I can't see the SEC/B1G wanting to raid after all the bullets are fired, but if they do, it's not going to be anyone that will really hurt the Big 12 all that much in overall revenue. Most of the teams in the Big 12 are going to have similar value outside of an Oregon or Washington. 

Big 12 won't have to be concerned as much with realignment moving forward IF they can land most of the PAC. The dust will be close to settled for them. They may never be the lion but they become the hyena picking off the tasty leftovers.

unfortunately at this time I think there is still way too much uncertainty

1. I am not certain that the Big 12 choosing to negotiate the GOR (with only a couple of years left) would set a precedent for the ACC......yes they are extremely similar, but I think the choice of one conference (or any parties with a contract about anything) to negotiate their way out of it does not necessarily set a precedent for other parties in a similar contract.....it COULD, but if it did not that would be a major issue for the Big 12......no ACC teams immediately available or available soon and the Big 12 as the lone conference that has fucked themselves on the worth of a GOR long into the future

2. I see it as highly unlikely that the ACC would not want to have a long drug out fight over theirs no matter what the Big 12 did......they have 14 teams not named Notre Dame and they have about 10 not named Clemson, FSU, UNC, UVA and even if a couple of more thought something would work out for them that is still 6 to 8 that are going to be looking at a possible shit sandwich including possibly 4 to 6 that might be looking to be members of the new AAC turned ACC when the Big 12 (or PAC 12) does not happen for them and clearly the SEC SEC SEC and Big 10 is never happening for them

3. the way things have gone recently I am not sure it will all be said and done in realignment even if the Big 10 and SEC SEC SEC made it clear they were done forever......with things happening so fast and with a lot of media contracts still up for renewal and with some teams still looking to yesteryear ideas of "academics" or "we cannot be associated with THEM" I do not think it is a given that one conference will immediately step up to be the clear #3 no matter how far behind the Big 10 and SEC SEC SEC they look to be

I think there still could be room for movement down the road with some of the top teams left in the Big 12, ACC, PAC 12 (if they are all left) figuring out down the road that it is about athletics only now and in 5 or 6 years they might need to make a change for the better to really firm up a place in a clear #3 conference

all the more so if nothing immediately happens with the ACC

the Big 12 with only two years left in their GOR is giving up a lot of stability if they simply turn their GOR into another contract that can be walked away from with some payments

I can agree that it looks unlikely as of now that 18 or even 20 in the Big 10 or SEC SEC SEC is a goal and the Big 12 and the others need worry less about that.....much less that if it is going to happen then it will happen and worrying about it will not stop it especially for the PAC 12 now (still really unknown for the ACC)

but I think there is concern about stability long term and making it easy for teams to jump ship in 5 or 6 years and really leave a lot of programs behind to make a clear #3 conference

I think the way things are now there could be a lot more stupid conference alignments before things shake out in a decade or more......and there is a good chance that could center around the fact that some conferences are not going to be broken up if a GOR holds and a good chance that the PAC 12 does not have a new GOR because Oregon, UW and probably Stanford and Cal refuse to sign one.....and the stupidity will happen in 5 to 6 years because 2 to 4 of those teams might realize that academics are irrelevant, listening to the blowhards at Stanford and Cal has fucked them so many times in the past, CU still sucks cocks and Oregon State and WSU are never going to have "it"  and those 2-4 teams make a move that is not desirable, but that leads to a better future jumping off point when the ACC GOR does end and another better media contract for the next 5 or 6 years while they wait for the ACC GOR to end and "big things" to happen

if the ACC GOR is holding and making them "stable" for the length of it then the Big 12 needs to make sure they have a GOR that holds up as well and they offer "stability" if only to the end of their new GOR for any teams looking to finally put sports first in conference affiliation (most likely PAC 12 teams)

if the Big 12 is equally as unstable as the PAC 12 (with no PAC 12 GOR) or worse yet the PAC 12 has a GOR, but only for 6 years of so and the Big 12 has blown theirs up negotiating Texas and OU out early.....well PAC 12 teams might just jump to the ACC for the last 6 or so of theirs and perhaps get a renegotiated ACC contract for that final 6 years before their GOR ends

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, camel at sea said:

SMU should be about Plan D for the Big 12.  They'd deliver regional TV audiences and I think their donors would be all-in if given an opportunity.  Their AD budget is already good for a G5 program.  It just seems like the Big 12 has better options.

What I am curious about though is the constant drum beat in the Big 12, since the AAC schools were announced, for even more expansion.  Those "the Big 12 might not be done..." articles started right away.  FOX is almost certainly the media partner the Big 12 consulted with when they did expansion.  It could be that FOX wants the Big 12 to be larger, whether that's with PAC options or not.  

I'd bet a lot of money the Big 12 doesn't add SMU.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I'd bet a lot of money the Big 12 doesn't add SMU.

Yeah, you want a program that will just be a leech while giving nothing back in return, it's SMU. No one in Dallas cares about them except the people that went there and they barely even care.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bobby:

 

Maybe the Big 12 made a good move by hiring Brett Yormark as its commissioner.

Why do I say that?

Because Yormark is the first person representing the Big 12 or any of its schools not to sound butthurt about Texas and Oklahoma leaving the conference.

Instead, Yormark actually spoke about moving forward and finding a “win-win” for the conference and Texas-OU when it comes time to exit.

Until his statement yesterday, it’d been nothing but one-sided finger-pointing coming from other Big 12 schools and administrators, all intended to lock Texas and OU down as long as possible. Even Mike Gundy couldn’t refrain from that stance later in the day.

But where did Gundy’s take get him? It made him and all the others sound like jilted lovers.

Hopefully, Yormark can get things moving in a positive direction without the vitriol of those left behind.

**

After checking with a couple of folks subsequent to Yormark’s remarks, I still am hearing the 2024 season is the expectation for Texas and OU to move to the SEC.

That’s the direction Texas is pulling.

So nothing actually changed in that regard, despite Yormark’s promising remarks.

**

We’ll have wall-to-wall coverage today of Steve Sarkisian’s press conference at Big 12 media days.

Justin, Joe and Ian are all there. We’ll also have interviews and comments from all the players in attendance as well.

**

Recruiting may seem like it has slowed down given the lack of any commitments in the last 10 days. But that’s far from the case.

It looks like July could close with an absolute bang.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mdmost said:

Yeah, you want a program that will just be a leech while giving nothing back in return, it's SMU. No one in Dallas cares about them except the people that went there and they barely even care.

Yeah.  They play in a small stadium and almost never fill it.  They're in a market that the new Big 12 has fully saturated.  

NDSU would make more financial sense (absolute zero sarcasm) than SMU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Dead horse I know.  But every other school that's changed conferences has been able to leave early and didn't have to pay the full buyout.  Is that correct?  Like, Idk if Pitt, WVA, or  Miami did, but feels like it.  

Dead horse response yet again. (1) they all took time to negotiate, it wasn't automatic or quick, so it's still possible if not likely here, (2) past rounds of realignment didn't have $80 or $90 million dollar media contracts at play, it was less than half of that, hence lower buyout costs and agreements which are generally easier to navigate, and (3) the grants of right became a thing after the last round to make it harder to leave which is an additional barrier that did not exist in past rounds of realignment.

Edited by 'stache
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 'stache said:

Dead horse response yet again. (1) they all took time to negotiate, it wasn't automatic or quick, so it's still possible if not likely here, and (2) the grants of right became a thing after the last round to make it harder to leave which is an additional barrier that did not exist in past rounds of realignment.

It's another layer, but still negotiable. And I'm not implying Bowlsby wasn't negotiating, but it kind of feels like we weren't.  But looking at Bobby's post up top, unless it's misdirection, I think Texas wants to stay till 24?  I don't get it and I certainly understand you and I are on opposite sides here.  I just think it's best for both sides to move on rather than "you signed the contract, we just enforcing the contract" because nobody else has done this.  It's like you want to leave?  Leave then.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flying commercial with my family this week. One flight canceled so doing the flight rescheduling, rental car & hotel shuffle. Really drives home how awful non-revenue sports not flying charter would be in some of these far flung leagues. 

Most non-revenue sports don’t have a conference schedule like the big 3. Track, cross country, tennis, golf, swimming/diving, rowing, etc., don’t have any required conference play until the conference championship meet/tournament. They can easily stay regional for their seasons and avoid unnecessary travel. Volleyball and soccer are about the only two sports that have a similar conference play schedule like the big 3.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, CleverNickname said:

Flying commercial with my family this week. One flight canceled so doing the flight rescheduling, rental car & hotel shuffle. Really drives home how awful non-revenue sports not flying charter would be in some of these far flung leagues. 

But WVA has made it work?  And they're going to be flying to Provo at some point.  So, regionalism as a reason not to expand is out the window.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

It's another layer, but still negotiable. And I'm not implying Bowlsby wasn't negotiating, but it kind of feels like we weren't.  But looking at Bobby's post up top, unless it's misdirection, I think Texas wants to stay till 24?  I don't get it and I certainly understand you and I are on opposite sides here.  I just think it's best for both sides to move on rather than "you signed the contract, we just enforcing the contract" because nobody else has done this.  It's like you want to leave?  Leave then.  

In what line of business does one side of a contract just let the other side go when facing significant monetary losses? It doesn't happen, including all of your past examples which all resulted in sizeable exit payments. Another difference I forgot to note was that the media payout differences after realignment in the past weren't super large because the Big XII and ACC still had some blueblood brands left and the networks worked through it that left everyone relatively satisfied. The PAC and XII are facing a post-realignment financial situation of being paid less than half of the SEC and BIG. That might actually be the biggest difference this time around.

But again, I think you're just being impatient. You seem to assume that because a deal hasn't yet be reached that it will never be reached and its all on the XII side of the table. You announced a year ago and the exit date is still two years away. The AAC adds were announced shortly thereafter and only a few weeks ago officially reached a deal for early exit, and the numbers there were tens of millions of dollars less than your situation and their adds left them not too far behind where they were. The USC/UCLA announcement throws yet another wrench because the networks are regrouping to determine what's next. That alone surely will delay negotiations a little longer while the networks decide how they want to handle things. Bottom line, if ESPN really wants you next year, they'll make it happen.

TL;DR: Calm your tits, it'll work itself out soon enough.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

In what line of business does one side of a contract just let the other side go when facing significant monetary losses? It doesn't happen, including all of your past examples which all resulted in sizeable exit payments. Another difference I forgot to note was that the media payout differences after realignment in the past weren't super large because the Big XII and ACC still had some blueblood brands left and the networks worked through it that left everyone relatively satisfied. The PAC and XII are facing a post-realignment financial situation of being paid less than half of the SEC and BIG. That might actually be the biggest difference this time around.

But again, I think you're just being impatient. You seem to assume that because a deal hasn't yet be reached that it will never be reached and its all on the XII side of the table. You announced a year ago and the exit date is still two years away. The AAC adds were announced shortly thereafter and only a few weeks ago officially reached a deal for early exit, and the numbers there were tens of millions of dollars less than your situation and their adds left them not too far behind where they were. The USC/UCLA announcement throws yet another wrench because the networks are regrouping to determine what's next. That alone surely will delay negotiations a little longer while the networks decide how they want to handle things. Bottom line, if ESPN really wants you next year, they'll make it happen.

TL;DR: Calm your tits, it'll work itself out soon enough.

Calm my tits? I've agreed with you?  I'm not asking for a free pass, but everything is negotiable. I'm assuming that's gonna happen now with Brett, didn't feel like it was happening with Bob, though maybe it was.  But like I also pointed out, unless Texas is lying, maybe we're just happy being here till 24?  Doesn't make sense, but stranger things can happen?

 

Still don't get your "calm your tits" comment as I'm just asking questions.  Yes, damages incurred but everything is negotiable.  Should I have a bit more compassion for the leftovers that are butthurt?  Yes.  I should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, closetohumping said:

Calm my tits? I've agreed with you?  I'm not asking for a free pass, but everything is negotiable. I'm assuming that's gonna happen now with Brett, didn't feel like it was happening with Bob, though maybe it was.  But like I also pointed out, unless Texas is lying, maybe we're just happy being here till 24?  Doesn't make sense, but stranger things can happen?

 

Still don't get your "calm your tits" comment as I'm just asking questions.  Yes, damages incurred but everything is negotiable.  Should I have a bit more compassion for the leftovers that are butthurt?  Yes.  I should.

You constantly talk about "leftovers" and "butthurt" so it's really hard to take you seriously. But we seem to agree that everything is negotiable and that the process is ongoing. I think we also agree that Bob Bowlsby sucks shit. I say "calm your tits" because you're the one who keeps bringing it up as if a deal has to happen now and if it doesn't its because of hurt feelings or something. That just doesn't make sense to me and why I'm participating in this conversation.

As for Texas wanting to stay til 2024, I'm pretty sure it's ESPN saying they don't want the move until 2024 for whatever reason, but the USC/UCLA announcement might speed things up. I think they are the key player in the negotiations tbh.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 'stache said:

You constantly talk about "leftovers" and "butthurt" so it's really hard to take you seriously. But we seem to agree that everything is negotiable and that the process is ongoing. I think we also agree that Bob Bowlsby sucks shit. I say "calm your tits" because you're the one who keeps bringing it up as if a deal has to happen now and if it doesn't its because of hurt feelings or something. That just doesn't make sense to me and why I'm participating in this conversation.

As for Texas wanting to stay til 2024, I'm pretty sure it's ESPN saying they don't want the move until 2024 for whatever reason, but the USC/UCLA announcement might speed things up. I think they are the key player in the negotiations tbh.

Haven't said that in a while...until you told me to calm your tits.  This thread has been full of Big 12 schools shitting on Texas.  My post before, about Pitt/Syracuse/Miami etc was a genuine question.  Like did they pay a full buyout.  I know the money is much bigger, there's a GOR for everyone and that the Big 12 lost it's two alpha schools. 

 

And hurt feelings/  Bowlsby, and now Gundy seem to be hurt.  And to me, rightfully so.  In the end it's just a split or divorce and they're not always amicable. You can't take me seriously but yet you respond to everyone of my posts.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

20 hours ago, 'stache said:

I thought I read that ESPN said they didn't want them earlier than 2025 for programing and contract reasons, which I think is partly true, but also partly posturing, and it was before USC/UCLA move. If we can get not only the 4 corners but UW and UO too, I think there is definitely a way to get ESPN and the other networks to the table to move some things up, make sure that the Big 12 is still strong financially, enough so that it would make it worthwhile to let OU/TX go early for much less than the contract price in a world where ESPN is ready for them earlier than 2025. Until then, there really isn't much reason for the Big XII to not ask for the contract price of early departure. It's not outrageous like the ACC numbers being thrown out there and I think far more defensible in court if it ever came to it, but I really don't think it will be necessary. 

Yeah, the Big 12 doesn't want less money the next few years and ESPN is a bit overloaded at the moment.  2024 is when they're likely giving up on the Big Ten and will have openings. 

I have a feeling this will work itself out with:

1) B12 getting an ESPN linear and digital network with ESPN promoted with SECN.   They've doubled their households with the additions, it has some untapped value, and it benefits ESPN.

2) Valuations increasing for the Big 12 for T2 with ESPN which should lure more content in markets that expand the linear channel (Phoenix, Denver, NoCal, etc) (Looking at the Big 12 sliding into the Big Ten's ESPN opening, highly doubt they'll go after the Big 12's T1)

3) Agreement made for Texas and Oklahoma to be free of the GoR a year early to join the SEC in 2024 with only the buyout remaining.

 

As for the ACC numbers, they are not that outrageous.   Grant of Rights are pretty standard in the entertainment industry.   These things can be valued in multiple billions easily.   And they're not 15 year old rock stars with no representation.   All of these schools have lawyers and signed the agreement willingly.   They're fucked by their own design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, closetohumping said:

Dead horse I know.  But every other school that's changed conferences has been able to leave early and didn't have to pay the full buyout.  Is that correct?  Like, Idk if Pitt, WVA, or  Miami did, but feels like it.  

The difference here is the Big 12 learned from the Nebraska/Colorado/TAMU/Mizzu move and bound up their bylaws a lot tighter.   Back then it was just like a year of revenue or something.   Now it is a GoR, plus 2 years of revenue, plus any future damage that can be determined.

Can they and will they still negotiate it down?   Definitely.   Will it happen quickly for $15m, a hug, and a pack of smokes?   No.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

 

Yeah, the Big 12 doesn't want less money the next few years and ESPN is a bit overloaded at the moment.  2024 is when they're likely giving up on the Big Ten and will have openings. 

I have a feeling this will work itself out with:

1) B12 getting an ESPN linear and digital network with ESPN promoted with SECN.   They've doubled their households with the additions, it has some untapped value, and it benefits ESPN.

2) Valuations increasing for the Big 12 for T2 with ESPN which should lure more content in markets that expand the linear channel (Phoenix, Denver, NoCal, etc) (Looking at the Big 12 sliding into the Big Ten's ESPN opening, highly doubt they'll go after the Big 12's T1)

3) Agreement made for Texas and Oklahoma to be free of the GoR a year early to join the SEC in 2024 with only the buyout remaining.

 

As for the ACC numbers, they are not that outrageous.   Grant of Rights are pretty standard in the entertainment industry.   These things can be valued in multiple billions easily.   And they're not 15 year old rock stars with no representation.   All of these schools have lawyers and signed the agreement willingly.   They're fucked by their own design.

And in Texas’s case I seem to remember we voluntarily have up some leverage so that the other schools would trust us.  Totally unnecessary 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

The difference here is the Big 12 learned from the Nebraska/Colorado/TAMU/Mizzu move and bound up their bylaws a lot tighter.   Back then it was just like a year of revenue or something.   Now it is a GoR, plus 2 years of revenue, plus any future damage that can be determined.

Can they and will they still negotiate it down?   Definitely.   Will it happen quickly for $15m, a hug, and a pack of smokes?   No.

Yes I know.  It’s the dollar amount and stakes.  When aggy left, the remaining schools still had us and the contract, which actually got better as ESPN agreed to pay us the same amount with four fewer schools.  The process with the aac schools is faster because you have nothing to lose

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Yeah.  They play in a small stadium and almost never fill it.  They're in a market that the new Big 12 has fully saturated.  

NDSU would make more financial sense (absolute zero sarcasm) than SMU.

The SMU argument you're making used to be the Houston argument. 

SMU's AD budget is large for a G5 school.  They're competitive and they've now been that way under multiple coaches (Jones, Morris, Dykes.)  SMU vs [Tech/TCU/Baylor/Houston] and probably OSU are a guarantee to do well on TV sets in Texas.  SMU represents a recruiting exposure trip for everyone in the league.  SMU's logo is more recognizable than most in the G5.  They also have a good academic reputation.  I'm not saying that they'll ever get in, but as long as the Big 12 is talking to G5s for expansion to 14 or more, they're going to factor heavily into the discussion.  

NDSU (just to use your example) is not guaranteed to transition to the FBS well, let alone the P5.  They have no recruiting base.  Their stadium capacity is under 20K.  They have no large local TV market.  Etc.       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
The SMU argument you're making used to be the Houston argument. 
SMU's AD budget is large for a G5 school.  They're competitive and they've now been that way under multiple coaches (Jones, Morris, Dykes.)  SMU vs [Tech/TCU/Baylor/Houston] and probably OSU are a guarantee to do well on TV sets in Texas.  SMU represents a recruiting exposure trip for everyone in the league.  SMU's logo is more recognizable than most in the G5.  They also have a good academic reputation.  I'm not saying that they'll ever get in, but as long as the Big 12 is talking to G5s for expansion to 14 or more, they're going to factor heavily into the discussion.  
NDSU (just to use your example) is not guaranteed to transition to the FBS well, let alone the P5.  They have no recruiting base.  Their stadium capacity is under 20K.  They have no large local TV market.  Etc.       

Houston is a much larger school that has potential to grow a fanbase. They’re also much better at the main sports than SMU.

Houston is also my least favorite of the new additions for the reasons you laid out.

I don’t think the Big 12 should add NDSU, but I would bet more people care about and watch their games than SMU.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Bingo, and a SEC/B1G only playoff would be controversial if it didn’t have an overwhelming majority of call me back brands/royalty..

The champion of a playoff consisting of Bama, UGA, Oklahoma, LSU / Ohio St, Penn St, Wisconsin, USC would most likely be a consensus #1 by most, however what if the remaining teams scheduled their own playoff with Notre Dame, Oregon, Clemson, Oklahoma State, Florida St, West Virginia, Washington, Boise St…it would cause doubt.

Picking off the best of what left (based on brands, history, and recent success) and forming a pair of 24 team conferences would remove most of the legitimacy of any rational observer and give the SEC/B1G control over their own 4 team playoff with a 50/50 split of the +1 national title game between the conferences.  Ignoring your competitors only works if your are clearly multiple competition levels above them like Alabama ignoring UCF’s title claim for it’s undefeated season; but if you don’t have that separation you end up in a 2003 LSU/USC split title situation.

There isn't enough value.  Big and SEC stick at 16 to 20 and leave the rest in lesser paying conferences making the Big and SEC look good by losing to them in the playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

Not the same thing. Gundy is whining about playing a hard schedule. Oklahoma State usually plays 2 high school OOC opponents and 1 weak team from the Power 5. That's actually better than the majority of the other teams in the Big 12, but still very weak. 

That would be the weakest allowed schedule in the B12. You have to play 1 P5 school every year by rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:


Houston is a much larger school that has potential to grow a fanbase. They’re also much better at the main sports than SMU.

Houston is also my least favorite of the new additions for the reasons you laid out.

I don’t think the Big 12 should add NDSU, but I would bet more people care about and watch their games than SMU.

I think the Pac should've looked at Houston and TCU hard last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The media pay disparities will increase the NIL payment disparities, driving to a structure more like English soccer divisions. You’ll see more and more player movement like the senior ISU receiver coming to Texas to be our slot. 
My guess is that at some point, the SEC and B10 will create second divisions and invite schools like those in the B12. What’s in it for them? The same media contract as before with a chance for promotion to the first division (and to be the predator and not prey in player movement). They’ll also get scheduled games against first division teams (and no such games if they decline to join). 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

 

The SMU argument you're making used to be the Houston argument. 

SMU's AD budget is large for a G5 school.  They're competitive and they've now been that way under multiple coaches (Jones, Morris, Dykes.)  SMU vs [Tech/TCU/Baylor/Houston] and probably OSU are a guarantee to do well on TV sets in Texas.  SMU represents a recruiting exposure trip for everyone in the league.  SMU's logo is more recognizable than most in the G5.  They also have a good academic reputation.  I'm not saying that they'll ever get in, but as long as the Big 12 is talking to G5s for expansion to 14 or more, they're going to factor heavily into the discussion.  

NDSU (just to use your example) is not guaranteed to transition to the FBS well, let alone the P5.  They have no recruiting base.  Their stadium capacity is under 20K.  They have no large local TV market.  Etc.       

 

Houston was a horrible add the last thing the Big 12 needed was yet another Texas team....and the reality is they were all but left out until Tilman went around sucking a lot of Texas legislative cock to put some pressure on.......which of course SHOULD have backfired with any Big 12 school not in Texas, but they were all so panicked at the time they made shitty decisions

Houston has the largest academic side subsidy in D1-A or D1-AA and that fucking sucks for long term competitiveness and they will need to keep a huge chunk of that to still remotely have a decent P5 budget

it is setting up just like the old SWC with them.....they MIGHT win a bit at first then they will start throttling back subsidies and start cashing checks and it will fall apart especially with a buffoon as a football coach and a dinosaur for a basketball coach and his son locked in to take over after him

they will probably not listen when told to shut the fuck up about the SWC days and that Texas is long fucking gone so fuck off with that shit and they will still think people in the conference give a fuck about their opinion or their opinion of what they "bring" to the conference

SMU actually would have probably been a better add specifically because they would not bring their torn up gym bag full of old SWC bullshit and "lets all vote to fuck Texas" (uh Texas is gone dumb fucks) and as a private school with money they can afford to keep tossing money at athletics and more importantly would keep doing it

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, camel at sea said:

Gundy has been the HC there for 17 years, he's unquestionably the best HC in OK State history, he's probably going to end up in the CFB HoF, and he has three wins against Oklahoma.    

Outside of a vocal minority of Okies who are die-hard Pokes, there's very little actual hatred in Bedlam.  If they go a while without playing, most of the state of Oklahoma will cheer for both schools whenever they are doing well - as was the case for most of their respective histories.  The big difference between the two places is that OU has had a lot more to cheer for.  

Correct on the first part, as a grown up I don't have much literal "hate" for ou or its alum, we interact all the time on many levels and the shit talking is usually in good humour. Wrong on the second part though, I still hope they lose, and they feel the same way. OU fans' "we cheer for OSU when they're not playing us" is and always has been meant to be completely condescending. At most, they are indifferent towards us, while many if not most hope we lose. I can assure you there won't be any state solidarity after realignment. We have our allegiances and that won't change. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

Not the same thing. Gundy is whining about playing a hard schedule. Oklahoma State usually plays 2 high school OOC opponents and 1 weak team from the Power 5. That's actually better than the majority of the other teams in the Big 12, but still very weak. I'm hoping when all these conferences realign that we will get fair and competitive schedules.

On the other hand, Texas replaced ATM with bigger, better Blueblood programs on the schedule.

Texas has been one of the few teams in the country this past decade to play at least one really good team OOC and a second P5 opponent. And that's with a 9 game conference slate. It's way too tough compared to the competition around the country. The scheduling is a mess in college football. It's actually hurt us quite a bit. It's not just a possible loss, but Texas goes into conference with more injuries. We aren't just talking missed games, but players not at a 100%. The other teams in the Big 12 with their cupcake OOC schedules get more time to gain experience, build confidence, keep bodies fresh, etc. They can also show less tape to future opponents by keeping things simple. It makes a difference. Think about all those close conference losses the past decade? How many could we've won with fresher players by just playing the same cupcake OOC schedule that the competition played? There needs to be a rule that you can only play P5 teams OOC. Better yet, moving forward, play 11 conference games in a 16 team conference. 

The only difference in Texas during their worse run in school history and ATM during their second best run in school history is ATM's high school OOC schedule versus UT's tougher OOC schedule.

I'm sure I'm saying this to the wrong crowd, but non bluebloods playing relatively weak non-con schedules isn't always about being scared, it's about depth, and Gundy has said this straight up when pressed. The "next tier" teams rarely sign 5 star athletes, and a good class might include 4 or 5 four stars. The rest are three stars with potential that need time to develop, meaning most aren't going to be difference makers as freshmen. Thus, a few injuries to mature players at key positions can completely change the course of a season. There's no real reason to risk injury playing Alabama or Ohio State in Week 1 because it could destroy any hope for the season. Alabama can lose 3 starters in Week 1 and replace them with 5 star stud freshmen without missing a beat. The rest of us don't have that luxury. We also can't afford a single early loss if we have playoff goals because we pretty much need to be undefeated to have even a sliver of a chance, whereas Alabama and Clemson can absorb losses pretty easily without losing reputational points (which to be clear I find completely reasonable considering their proven strengths).

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

Correct on the first part, as a grown up I don't have much literal "hate" for ou or its alum, we interact all the time on many levels and the shit talking is usually in good humour. Wrong on the second part though, I still hope they lose, and they feel the same way. OU fans' "we cheer for OSU when they're not playing us" is and always has been meant to be completely condescending. At most, they are indifferent towards us, while many if not most hope we lose. I can assure you there won't be any state solidarity after realignment. We have our allegiances and that won't change. 

I live in Oklahoma and have lived in Oklahoma for 40+ years.  There isn't much hate on either side and never has been.  To the extent it exists, the vast majority of it is with the OSU die-hards, not the other way around.  OU fans don't care about OSU enough to hate them.  It's truly a big brother / little brother dynamic.  The big brother gives little brother a hard time but when push comes to shove, usually is supportive.  Most Okies who identify as OU-first cheered for Oklahoma State (non-ironically) when Big Country led the Pokes into the Final Four.  Most OU fans cheered for Gary Ward's baseball teams in the CWS back in the day.  Most OU fans cheered for Barry Sanders, Thurman Thomas, etc., when the Pokes weren't playing OU.    

In the internet era, the OU die-hards condescend to the OSU die-hards online, primarily because of how the OSU die-hards react to it.  The internet dynamic isn't very reflective of reality, though.  OSU's TV rating are great in Oklahoma and that has a lot to do with the "we cheer for both schools" folks within the state.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

I live in Oklahoma and have lived in Oklahoma for 40+ years.  There isn't much hate on either side and never has been.  To the extent it exists, the vast majority of it is with the OSU die-hards, not the other way around.  OU fans don't care about OSU enough to hate them.  It's truly a big brother / little brother dynamic.  The big brother gives little brother a hard time but when push comes to shove, usually is supportive.  Most Okies who identify as OU-first cheered for Oklahoma State (non-ironically) when Big Country led the Pokes into the Final Four.  Most OU fans cheered for Gary Ward's baseball teams in the CWS back in the day.  Most OU fans cheered for Barry Sanders, Thurman Thomas, etc., when the Pokes weren't playing OU.    

In the internet era, the OU die-hards condescend to the OSU die-hards online, primarily because of how the OSU die-hards react to it.  The internet dynamic isn't very reflective of reality, though.  OSU's TV rating are great in Oklahoma and that has a lot to do with the "we cheer for both schools" folks within the state.  

It is the other way around, just in a different form, like this type of stuff. "We support little brother" blah blah blah. No you don't, you like having someone to refer to as "little brother," that's literally it. The lack of true "hatred" is generally among people who understand it as a sports rivalry and not something that should rule your entire life. Our administrations have always seemed to get along well and are supportive on one another, which is a comparison I always make to the children that run aggy and take the sports rivalry to their actual administrations. That doesn't really happen here, thankfully. Also, as an OSU grad, I can tell you with absolute certainty that there is plenty of traditional hate too from OU fans towards OSU fans. We are truly rivals despite the football record disparity. Denying it is just another form of "hatred."

Edited by 'stache
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:


Houston is a much larger school that has potential to grow a fanbase. They’re also much better at the main sports than SMU.

Houston is also my least favorite of the new additions for the reasons you laid out.

I don’t think the Big 12 should add NDSU, but I would bet more people care about and watch their games than SMU.

I laid out the reasons against Houston to make the point that the TV side and the people who count the beans in the Big 12 conference office didn't care about those reasons.  

If the Big 12 is being prodded to expand by a TV partner, and it gets down to Plan D and G5 schools, then the bean counters and the TV side are going to care 1) are you competitive, 2) how big is your AD budget (i.e. will you continue to be competitive if you get promoted), 3) will games against you do well for us on TV?  Whether people like it or not, SMU has pretty good answers for all three of those points.  Someone else might have better answers but the Ponies would be in the conversation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, 'stache said:

It is the other way around, just in a different form, like this type of stuff. "We support little brother" blah blah blah. No you don't, you like having someone to refer to as "little brother," that's literally it. The lack of true "hatred" is generally among people who understand it as a sports rivalry and not something that should rule your entire life. Our administrations have always seemed to get along well and are supportive on one another, which is a comparison I always make to the children that run aggy and take the sports rivalry to their actual administrations. That doesn't really happen here, thankfully. Also, as an OSU grad, I can tell you with absolute certainty that there is plenty of traditional hate too from OU fans towards OSU fans. We are truly rivals despite the football record disparity. Denying it is just another form of "hatred."

Ribbing OSU fans as "little brother" is not the same thing as hatred.  OU fans wouldn't do it so much if the OSU die-hard didn't react the way that they do.  The OSU die-hards seem to struggle with that (which just reinforces the whole "brothers" metaphor.  But the proof of that lack of hate is the large percentage of OU fans who watch OSU games when the Pokes are good, the fact the two admins get along, etc.  It's not a UT/A&M dynamic or a Bama/Auburn dynamic.    

Most Okies have an ingrained inferiority complex / chip on their shoulder, so they support anything happening in the state that is successful or sheds a positive light locally.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

Ribbing OSU fans as "little brother" is not the same thing as hatred.  OU fans wouldn't do it so much if the OSU die-hard didn't react the way that they do.  The OSU die-hards seem to struggle with that (which just reinforces the whole "brothers" metaphor.  But the proof of that lack of hate is the large percentage of OU fans who watch OSU games when the Pokes are good, the fact the two admins get along, etc.  It's not a UT/A&M dynamic or a Bama/Auburn dynamic.    

Most Okies have an ingrained inferiority complex / chip on their shoulder, so they support anything happening in the state that is successful or sheds a positive light locally.

I've been a part of tons of fun banter over the last 20+ years and the term "little brother" has never been part of it, not a single time. You keep mentioning how OSU die-hard's react. If the banter is good natured, it's reciprocated. If anything, you'll see us respond in some self-deprecating way, you see it on this site all the time. The "little brother" stuff has never been good natured, so yeah the response will not be good natured either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

I'm sure I'm saying this to the wrong crowd, but non bluebloods playing relatively weak non-con schedules isn't always about being scared, it's about depth, and Gundy has said this straight up when pressed. The "next tier" teams rarely sign 5 star athletes, and a good class might include 4 or 5 four stars. The rest are three stars with potential that need time to develop, meaning most aren't going to be difference makers as freshmen. Thus, a few injuries to mature players at key positions can completely change the course of a season. There's no real reason to risk injury playing Alabama or Ohio State in Week 1 because it could destroy any hope for the season. Alabama can lose 3 starters in Week 1 and replace them with 5 star stud freshmen without missing a beat. The rest of us don't have that luxury. We also can't afford a single early loss if we have playoff goals because we pretty much need to be undefeated to have even a sliver of a chance, whereas Alabama and Clemson can absorb losses pretty easily without losing reputational points (which to be clear I find completely reasonable considering their proven strengths).

 

In a hurry so this is a bunch of rambling.

This is exactly what I was getting at...

DEPTH - OOC SCHEDULING - UNFAIR ADVANTAGE - REALIGNMENT

Depth is supposed to be one of the biggest factors in the game of football. Alabama just lost the national title game because of depth issues. This isn't a valid excuse for weak schedules. It only strengthens the argument we need consolidation in college football. Everyone needs to play the same kind of schedule. Weak scheduling is one of the driving forces behind realignment IMO. The networks are fed up with it. They are losing money on these kind of games. And that includes eventually strengthening the SEC and B1G schedules.

All the factors I mentioned in my previous post negatively impacted Texas in a lot of close games. Texas walks into these conference games with way more depth issues than the other teams in the conference. Our team is banged up by the start of conference play. Injuries. Playing hurt. Lack of confidence. More game plan on tape. Etc.

Our conference opponents? They've been busy playing cupcakes.

And then we lose a hard fought, very close game. How many of those close games would Texas have won under fair conditions? If both teams had to play the same kind of schedule?

RECRUITING MYTH

There are very few actual blue-chip prospects in America. Very few teams land them. Texas hasn't been one of them the past decade. 

The 300th ranked player isn't any better than a well evaluated 900th ranked player in this current age. Five stars and top 100 type players with the measurements/speed/mental eval are the only true blue-chips. All these so-called rankings are nothing but marketing hype by journalists looking to profit. There's probably around 100 actual 4-stars in a single class.

For most of the past decade, prior to NIL, Texas landed the scraps after the cheaters picked off most of the so-called slam dunk prospects. In many cases, these leftovers lacked the overall profile to be good players. Yet, we line up and play a tougher OOC schedule than the rest of the conference. How is this fair to Texas? How is this type of arrangement fair to college football fans?

Oklahoma survived this period with offensive scheme, good offensive line evaluations and a whole lot of luck. They didn't win by out-recruiting everyone. And they lost almost every time they lined up against a team that did recruit well. Their offensive scheme advantage is fading as more staffs catch up.

TV RATINGS - LACK OF INTEGRITY - FUTURE OF NIL

I haven't been interested in watching all that many games over the past 15 to 20 years (even before Texas dropped off a cliff) because the entertainment value has steadily eroded for two reasons: (1) weak scheduling and (2) the internet amplifies the ability of cheaters to get an even larger advantage in recruiting than ever before. We now have national recruiting on a level that used to not be possible; and a way to evaluate these national prospects.

NIL should eventually level the playing field among Blueblood programs and strengthen the on-field product. But an overhaul in scheduling is still needed in order to fully maximize the product. Once upon a time, teams lined up and played each other. No excuses.

REALIGNMENT 

This is one of many reasons I favor realignment. Let's have one or two conferences of top tier teams and one conference of only the very best of the rest. Rewrite the rules to make recruiting fair and more competitive.

Top tier teams play 11-12+ conference games. Any possible OOC games, if any, can only be played against the "best of the rest" second tier conference.

The "best of the rest" conference plays 11-13+ conference games. If they play any OOC games, it's against the top 2 conferences. Keep the playoff at 4 or expand to 8.

We don't need a bunch of undefeated or one loss teams. We need more competitive games and enforceable rules.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

 

In a hurry so this is a bunch of rambling.

This is exactly what I was getting at...

DEPTH - OOC SCHEDULING - UNFAIR ADVANTAGE - REALIGNMENT

Depth is supposed to be one of the biggest factors in the game of football. Alabama just lost the national title game because of depth issues. This isn't a valid excuse for weak schedules. It only strengthens the argument we need consolidation in college football. Everyone needs to play the same kind of schedule. Weak scheduling is one of the driving forces behind realignment IMO. The networks are fed up with it. They are losing money on these kind of games. And that includes eventually strengthening the SEC and B1G schedules.

All the factors I mentioned in my previous post negatively impacted Texas in a lot of close games. Texas walks into these conference games with way more depth issues than the other teams in the conference. Our team is banged up by the start of conference play. Injuries. Playing hurt. Lack of confidence. More game plan on tape. Etc.

Our conference opponents? They've been busy playing cupcakes.

And then we lose a hard fought, very close game. How many of those close games would Texas have won under fair conditions? If both teams had to play the same kind of schedule?

RECRUITING MYTH

There are very few actual blue-chip prospects in America. Very few teams land them. Texas hasn't been one of them the past decade. 

The 300th ranked player isn't any better than a well evaluated 900th ranked player in this current age. Five stars and top 100 type players with the measurements/speed/mental eval are the only true blue-chips. All these so-called rankings are nothing but marketing hype by journalists looking to profit. There's probably around 100 actual 4-stars in a single class.

For most of the past decade, prior to NIL, Texas landed the scraps after the cheaters picked off most of the so-called slam dunk prospects. In many cases, these leftovers lacked the overall profile to be good players. Yet, we line up and play a tougher OOC schedule than the rest of the conference. How is this fair to Texas? How is this type of arrangement fair to college football fans?

Oklahoma survived this period with offensive scheme, good offensive line evaluations and a whole lot of luck. They didn't win by out-recruiting everyone. And they lost almost every time they lined up against a team that did recruit well. Their offensive scheme advantage is fading as more staffs catch up.

TV RATINGS - LACK OF INTEGRITY - FUTURE OF NIL

I haven't been interested in watching all that many games over the past 15 to 20 years (even before Texas dropped off a cliff) because the entertainment value has steadily eroded for two reasons: (1) weak scheduling and (2) the internet amplifies the ability of cheaters to get an even larger advantage in recruiting than ever before. We now have national recruiting on a level that used to not be possible; and a way to evaluate these national prospects.

NIL should eventually level the playing field among Blueblood programs and strengthen the on-field product. But an overhaul in scheduling is still needed in order to fully maximize the product. Once upon a time, teams lined up and played each other. No excuses.

REALIGNMENT 

This is one of many reasons I favor realignment. Let's have one or two conferences of top tier teams and one conference of only the very best of the rest. Rewrite the rules to make recruiting fair and more competitive.

Top tier teams play 11-12+ conference games. Any possible OOC games, if any, can only be played against the "best of the rest" second tier conference.

The "best of the rest" conference plays 11-13+ conference games. If they play any OOC games, it's against the top 2 conferences. Keep the playoff at 4 or expand to 8.

We don't need a bunch of undefeated or one loss teams. We need more competitive games and enforceable rules.

 

 

I agree with your assessment that there are fewer truly elite prospects out there than the recruiting agencies suggest, but this seems like a pretty comedic attempt to justify UT’s lack of developing players over the last 12 years or so.  C’mon man 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...