Jump to content

Realignment talk not going away


The Tower

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

The okies I know have been bitching about their home schedule for years. Not surprising 0u has been pushing to make a move for over a decade. Pac, B1G, or SEC...it didn't make a shit to them.

Believe it or not, we weren't exactly thrilled to replace Nebraska, A&M, and Colorado with TCU and West Virginia. Aside from OSU, the only marquis conference game we had left was Texas, which obviously is not a home game. Playing home and homes against Ohio State, Notre Dame, Tennessee, etc. left a gaping hole in the away side of those seasons.

 

Added to the fact that being in a conference considered "lesser" was appalling. Losing recruits that simply preferred to be in the SEC year in and year out was getting old. I'm honestly surprised that it took as long as it did to make the move.

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

20 minutes ago, YouLoveMyPenises said:

Believe it or not, we weren't exactly thrilled to replace Nebraska, A&M, and Colorado with TCU and West Virginia. Aside from OSU, the only marquis conference game we had left was Texas, which obviously is not a home game. Playing home and homes against Ohio State, Notre Dame, Tennessee, etc. left a gaping hole in the away side of those seasons.

 

Added to the fact that being in a conference considered "lesser" was appalling. Losing recruits that simply preferred to be in the SEC year in and year out was getting old. I'm honestly surprised that it took as long as it did to make the move.

We are already seeing the national footprint expand in recruiting for both schools. Yes, Riley kind of fucked OUs west coast pipeline, but OU should be able to open new territories pretty effectively to the east and the north. Texas has expanded into the SEC territories with surprising speed, picking up some top tier players out of LA, MS, GA, and FL in the last two cycles. We match up very well on the recruiting front with those in state schools. 

In terms of history, replacing games with Baylor, KState, and TCU with LSU, Auburn, and Ole Miss as our "sub rivalry" tier feels so much better. We have gotten shit on repeatedly for losing to those teams when we had terrible years. If you lose to an LSU or Ole Miss, you shrug your shoulders a little more and move on instead of hearing about it for 3 years. Example: Kansas.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

We are already seeing the national footprint expand in recruiting for both schools. Yes, Riley kind of fucked OUs west coast pipeline, but OU should be able to open new territories pretty effectively to the east and the north. Texas has expanded into the SEC territories with surprising speed, picking up some top tier players out of LA, MS, GA, and FL in the last two cycles. We match up very well on the recruiting front with those in state schools. 

 

 

Riley's Big California Haul of three 5 star receivers turned out to be a wash out, an armed robber, and a guy that can't stay healthy. I much prefer going after defensive talent in SEC land over the California kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OU’s traditional problem is that it’s recruiting base (state of Oklahoma) doesn’t produce the D-1 talent to compete nationally. It traditionally solved that problem by claiming Texas as its recruiting base. 

Of course, Texas isn’t Oklahoma. OKC isn’t Dallas, Fort Worth or Houston, let alone Austin or San Antonio. Its closest comp is probably Lubbock, or maybe Arlington writ large. 

OU solved that issue, in the ‘40s, ‘50s, ‘60s, ‘70’s, and ‘80s by buying players, shamelessly. Stoops ran a relatively clean program, relative only to his predecessors. 

The PAC move would have been good for OU, opening up their recruiting to a new fallow field. The SEC move also opens up new recruiting fields, but with o e catch- they will now have a lot more competition for buying players. There will be others bidding against them. And their competitors can offer real college towns, and equal exposure. OU may have to pay a hefty premium to get a Florida kid to come to Norman (OKC) over Gainesville. 

I would never underestimate OU’s desire for a winning program. I wonder if they have figured out yet how much it will cost?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

I don't think there's any urgency from Fox, the Big 10 or the schools themselves to get USC and UCLA to the Big 10 earlier.  You need to keep in mind USC and UCLA aren't tied to the Pac 12 as long as Texas and Oklahoma are to the Big 12.  The LA schools are only in the Pac 12 through the summer of 2024, meaning fall of 2024 is the first season in the Big 10.  One more academic year, then we're gone with zero fees or penalties or buyouts.  I have no idea what the buyout would look like, but I'm guessing the people who are supposed to know that kind of thing have done the math and determined it makes the most sense to stay in the Pac 12 one more year and leave freely when the GOR expires.

Frankly, from a football perspective, I'm fine with it.  I'm happy with another year of Riley rebuilding the program and restoring our reputation in the Pac 12.  Year 3 is when you can expect big things from new hires at rebuilds and 2024 will be year 3 for Riley, so it all lines up nicely.  Also, in 2024 USC and LSU play in Las Vegas week 1 so we'll see which program made the better hire last fall and how much validity there is to the Sooner conspiracy theory that Riley is scared of the SEC.

I'm also not sure how eager the Big 10 is to add more Western schools.  If they wanted more Pac teams they would already have received invitations.  If you want Oregon and Washington why wait to invite them until after they negotiate a new TV deal and sign a new GOR with somebody else?  Stanford is the only one I can see getting an invitation in the near future and that's only if Notre Dame insists on dragging them along.  I think the Big 10 is going with either 16 or 18 teams for the next decade or so, along with the SEC staying at 16 during the same time.  They're both waiting for the ACC's GOR to expire or get overturned in court or reach a point where the buyout isn't financially devastating for the schools that leave for their next feeding frenzy.

I agree there's no real urgency from the B1G at this point, there doesn't need to be, the new deal doesn't start until 2024.

I disagree with your assessment on adding additional western schools though - the main reasons they haven't invited Oregon/Washington as of now is that they don't pay for themselves.  The math changes though (I think) if you completely kill the PAC12 (thus eliminating their media contract entirely) & add ND/Stanford.  I still think USC/UCLA being on a complete island would be a massive geographical clusterfuck for non-revenue sports, so adding a few more teams out west seems inevitable.  If USC wants to tell Oregon to fuck right off it could be Colorado/Utah instead of Oregon/Washington (as there probably isn't that much of a difference - ND/Standford would be driving the revenue on the way to 20).

I think the B1G going to 20 with ND + Stanford/Ore/UW makes a lot sense, then just sit and wait until the ACC GOR is close to over and take your pick of ACC schools to eventually get to 24 and get a presence in Florida/Georgia/North Carolina/Virginia.  Ironically, once you're at 24 you can go back to four divisions of six schools that make a lot of geographic sense (for the most part), and scheduling works really well with 11 conference games (5 in division games + 6 from an opposing division that rotates every year).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

I can't wait to see if aggy successfully lobbies to not be in our 4-team pod with 0u and Arky.

But, but...turdition

Its not final but reports say the SEC is considering 2 scheduling models when they grow to 16 (neither involve pods)

8 game conference schedule with a single rival, rotate the other 7 games every year.

9 game conference schedule with 3 rivals, rotate the other 6 games every year.

aggy has said they prefer 9 games with Texas, LSU, Arkansas as long as they can keep their annual FCS body bag game (rumor they were discussing banning those).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

Cal, Washington, Oregon and Oregon State are the 1915 founding members of the PCC, which eventually became the Pac 8/10/12.  Washington State and Stanford joined a couple years later.  That is the only reason Oregon State and Washington State are affiliated with Cal and Stanford today, they're grandfathered in from a long gone era when the criteria for conference membership looked much different than it does today.  It's also the only reason they're in a power conference even though their profiles scream midmajor.  If they were in the MWC or the WAC they would have been turned down for Pac membership every single time because of mediocre academics and also because they offer nothing in terms of market, ratings, recruiting, athletic success etc.  They're extremely lucky they were able to ride the gravy train for this long.

As for the Arizona schools they're only in the Pac because USC threw its weight around to get them in.  Cal and Stanford were pulling their usual academic snobbery and refusing to vote for them (Pac invitations have always required unanimous approval).  USC threatened to leave and go independent if the Pac 8 didn't expand to the Pac 10, which forced the Bay Area schools to get over themselves and approve Arizona and Arizona State.

Well they did get left behind in 1959 when UW and the 4 California schools seceded.  They left Oregon, Oregon St., Washington St. and Idaho behind.  But they eventually invited the first 3 to join them back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, statsman said:

OU’s traditional problem is that it’s recruiting base (state of Oklahoma) doesn’t produce the D-1 talent to compete nationally. It traditionally solved that problem by claiming Texas as its recruiting base. 

Of course, Texas isn’t Oklahoma. OKC isn’t Dallas, Fort Worth or Houston, let alone Austin or San Antonio. Its closest comp is probably Lubbock, or maybe Arlington writ large. 

OU solved that issue, in the ‘40s, ‘50s, ‘60s, ‘70’s, and ‘80s by buying players, shamelessly. Stoops ran a relatively clean program, relative only to his predecessors. 

The PAC move would have been good for OU, opening up their recruiting to a new fallow field. The SEC move also opens up new recruiting fields, but with o e catch- they will now have a lot more competition for buying players. There will be others bidding against them. And their competitors can offer real college towns, and equal exposure. OU may have to pay a hefty premium to get a Florida kid to come to Norman (OKC) over Gainesville. 

I would never underestimate OU’s desire for a winning program. I wonder if they have figured out yet how much it will cost?

It's always funny to hear anyone talk about OU (the football program at least) being too poor for something.  Oklahoma is pretty consistently Top 10 in AD revenue, has plenty of deep pocketed BMDs, always pays its coaching staff elite money, etc.  When Venables got hired, Castiglione hired him a small army of off-the-field staff (SOUL mission, analysts, etc.)  I'm not sure which SEC school they should be scared of going forward.  Outside of Texas and A&M, who is going to be outspending Oklahoma?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

It's always funny to hear anyone talk about OU (the football program at least) being too poor for something.  Oklahoma is pretty consistently Top 10 in AD revenue, has plenty of deep pocketed BMDs, always pays its coaching staff elite money, etc.  When Venables got hired, Castiglione hired him a small army of off-the-field staff (SOUL mission, analysts, etc.)  I'm not sure which SEC school they should be scared of going forward.  Outside of Texas and A&M, who is going to be outspending Oklahoma?   

everyone in the SEC?

 

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

55 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

It's always funny to hear anyone talk about OU (the football program at least) being too poor for something.  Oklahoma is pretty consistently Top 10 in AD revenue, has plenty of deep pocketed BMDs, always pays its coaching staff elite money, etc.  When Venables got hired, Castiglione hired him a small army of off-the-field staff (SOUL mission, analysts, etc.)  I'm not sure which SEC school they should be scared of going forward.  Outside of Texas and A&M, who is going to be outspending Oklahoma?   

It’s the whole value proposition. OU built a program by paying kids from the Philips 66 company town team to play in Norman (Phillips had given their dads jobs, so they could play for the company town HS team). OU continued to pay schoolboys, because they had to, because they were asking Texans to move to Oklahoma. 
 
(Seriously- ask yourself. How many of us have ever voluntarily gone into Oklahoma for reasons other than work, UT sports, weddings, funerals? I went, once, for a Big Brothers camping activity at Turner Falls. I can’t imagine any other reason why I’d go. To see Styx at an Indian casino?)

 So, sure. OU has money for NIL. That SEC country four star now has to weight OU’s program, NIL money, the value of an OU degree (😂) and four years in Norman vs. say, Georgia’s program, NIL money, the value of a Georgia degree and four years in Athens. Not the same as recruiting against TT or OSU. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

That's not a 4-team pod? Excuse me, 3 perma-rivals...whatever.

The difference is that in a pod, all four teams have the same group of rivals, whereas in the proposal, each team could have their own three rivals.  For example, Texas could have OU, A&M, Arkansas; and A&M could have Texas, LSU, Mizzou.

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

6 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

Cal, Washington, Oregon and Oregon State are the 1915 founding members of the PCC, which eventually became the Pac 8/10/12.  Washington State and Stanford joined a couple years later.  That is the only reason Oregon State and Washington State are affiliated with Cal and Stanford today, they're grandfathered in from a long gone era when the criteria for conference membership looked much different than it does today.  It's also the only reason they're in a power conference even though their profiles scream midmajor.  If they were in the MWC or the WAC they would have been turned down for Pac membership every single time because of mediocre academics and also because they offer nothing in terms of market, ratings, recruiting, athletic success etc.  They're extremely lucky they were able to ride the gravy train for this long.

As for the Arizona schools they're only in the Pac because USC threw its weight around to get them in.  Cal and Stanford were pulling their usual academic snobbery and refusing to vote for them (Pac invitations have always required unanimous approval).  USC threatened to leave and go independent if the Pac 8 didn't expand to the Pac 10, which forced the Bay Area schools to get over themselves and approve Arizona and Arizona State.

There are a couple of schools in the new B12 with more national research expenditures than AAU member Oregon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

The difference is that in a pod, all four teams have the same group of rivals, whereas in the proposal, each team could have their own three rivals.  For example, Texas could have OU, A&M, Arkansas; and A&M could have Texas, LSU, Mizzou.

Here is an article that described one of the podless schedules that has been proposed. 

SEC Podless Schedule

 

The problems with this proposal are that the quality of the permanent opponents will always be uneven. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

The difference is that in a pod, all four teams have the same group of rivals, whereas in the proposal, each team could have their own three rivals.  For example, Texas could have OU, A&M, Arkansas; and A&M could have Texas, LSU, Mizzou.

Gotcha

The ACC just announced a similar plan recently, too. Brainfart...

My apologies, @TKthunder2

Edited by DFW Horn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, wildturkey8 said:

Ole Miss and LSU will be permanent rivals.

LSU has complained about having UF as their cross-division rival for years. Tennessee should be playing UF instead. They've got history.

Edited by DFW Horn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

6+3 rivals makes the most sense to keep existing rivalries. Playing 8 conference games with 16 teams is stupid 

I can't see any way - whether it's an 8 game schedule or a 9 game schedule - that Bama won't play both Tennessee and Auburn annually, that Auburn won't play both Bama and UGA, etc.  There's too many schools with multiple rivalries for the SEC to adopt the 7+1 model (however clean the math with that might be.)

  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, statsman said:

OU’s traditional problem is that it’s recruiting base (state of Oklahoma) doesn’t produce the D-1 talent to compete nationally. It traditionally solved that problem by claiming Texas as its recruiting base. 

Of course, Texas isn’t Oklahoma. OKC isn’t Dallas, Fort Worth or Houston, let alone Austin or San Antonio. Its closest comp is probably Lubbock, or maybe Arlington writ large. 

OU solved that issue, in the ‘40s, ‘50s, ‘60s, ‘70’s, and ‘80s by buying players, shamelessly. Stoops ran a relatively clean program, relative only to his predecessors. 

The PAC move would have been good for OU, opening up their recruiting to a new fallow field. The SEC move also opens up new recruiting fields, but with o e catch- they will now have a lot more competition for buying players. There will be others bidding against them. And their competitors can offer real college towns, and equal exposure. OU may have to pay a hefty premium to get a Florida kid to come to Norman (OKC) over Gainesville. 

I would never underestimate OU’s desire for a winning program. I wonder if they have figured out yet how much it will cost?

LOL, you crack me up.  Have you been to Dallas?  It's basically OU central.  You think the hs kids think of OU as something different than UT?  Like taking some crazy cross country trip to play in the boondocks...  lulz.

Also, OU hasn't bought players in decades and I can go over all the times you got buttraped in Dallas during that timeline.  Sure, it's fun to clown on OU for their legendary failures in the playoffs (rightfully so), but don't get it twisted, they've pounded Texas into oblivion for decades.  Sure, tOSU, Bama, and Clemson can look down on OU but there's not many others.  Also, aggy and many others have tried to buy their way to winning.  It's much more than just buying players.  

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, statsman said:

It’s the whole value proposition. OU built a program by paying kids from the Philips 66 company town team to play in Norman (Phillips had given their dads jobs, so they could play for the company town HS team). OU continued to pay schoolboys, because they had to, because they were asking Texans to move to Oklahoma. 
 
(Seriously- ask yourself. How many of us have ever voluntarily gone into Oklahoma for reasons other than work, UT sports, weddings, funerals? I went, once, for a Big Brothers camping activity at Turner Falls. I can’t imagine any other reason why I’d go. To see Styx at an Indian casino?)

 So, sure. OU has money for NIL. That SEC country four star now has to weight OU’s program, NIL money, the value of an OU degree (😂) and four years in Norman vs. say, Georgia’s program, NIL money, the value of a Georgia degree and four years in Athens. Not the same as recruiting against TT or OSU. 

God damn it keeps getting better.  Have you ever left OK or TX?  They both fucking suck.  OKC is a lot more like Dallas/Houston than Midland.  Just like anywhere in buttfuck, TX is a lot more like buttfuck, OK than any metro area.  I guess Texas is hotter, yay.  But you thinking one is SO different from the other is really comical.  Fuck, I don't even know where to begin making fun of you.  

Edited by ChiTownDoc
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

God damn it keeps getting better.  Have you ever left OK or TX?  They both fucking suck.  OKC is a lot more like Dallas/Houston than Midland.  Just like anywhere in buttfuck, TX is a lot more like buttfuck, OK than any metro area.  I guess Texas is hotter, yay.  But you thinking one is SO different from the other is really comical.  Fuck, I don't even know where to begin making fun of you.  

Shut up meth head trailer trash sister fucker. Also can I drive the lambo still?

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

I can't see any way - whether it's an 8 game schedule or a 9 game schedule - that Bama won't play both Tennessee and Auburn annually, that Auburn won't play both Bama and UGA, etc.  There's too many schools with multiple rivalries for the SEC to adopt the 7+1 model (however clean the math with that might be.)

  

 

Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

LOL, you crack me up.  Have you been to Dallas?  It's basically OU central.  You think the hs kids think of OU as something different than UT?  Like taking some crazy cross country trip to play in the boondocks...  lulz.

Also, OU hasn't bought players in decades and I can go over all the times you got buttraped in Dallas during that timeline.  Sure, it's fun to clown on OU for their legendary failures in the playoffs (rightfully so), but don't get it twisted, they've pounded Texas into oblivion for decades.  Sure, tOSU, Bama, and Clemson can look down on OU but there's not many others.  Also, aggy and many others have tried to buy their way to winning.  It's much more than just buying players.  

OU has won 4 straight.  Before that the series was even since 1976.  And even since 1946.  Overall we are +12.  Its always been a series of streaks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, bullet said:

OU has won 4 straight.  Before that the series was even since 1976.  And even since 1946.  Overall we are +12.  Its always been a series of streaks.

What's this century?  Seriously don't know.  Feels like OU would be hitting 70%.  
 

edit: 16-7 70%

Prob feels more lopsided w the severe beatings and last year’s gut wrenching debacle.  

Edited by ChiTownDoc
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChiTownDoc said:

God damn it keeps getting better.  Have you ever left OK or TX?  They both fucking suck.  OKC is a lot more like Dallas/Houston than Midland.  Just like anywhere in buttfuck, TX is a lot more like buttfuck, OK than any metro area.  I guess Texas is hotter, yay.  But you thinking one is SO different from the other is really comical.  Fuck, I don't even know where to begin making fun of you.  

So, in 1920, Oklahoma had eight representatives in Congress. Now, 100 years later, it has five. That means that as the US population doubled, Oklahoma grew less. 

In 2020, Texas had 18 representatives. In 2020, it has 36. Texas’ population grew faster than the US as a whole. 
 
It’s not hard to understand why Texas is growing in population and influence while Oklahoma is decreasing. The Texas economy is like a stool supported by three legs- energy, technology and defense. (Education a nd the arts are lesser supports). 
 
Oklahoma’s economy is also like a stool. Its three legs are methamphetamine production, stealing copper wire and Indian casinos. 

You want to argue that Texas sucks. Fine. Go for it. Oklahoma sucks far more and the world has taken notice. 
 
TLDR: Texas has Willie Nelson. Oklahoma has Toby Keith. 

Edited by statsman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, statsman said:

So, in 1920, Oklahoma had eight representatives in Congress. Now, 100 years later, it has five. That means that as the US population doubled, Oklahoma grew less. 

In 2020, Texas had 18 representatives. In 2020, it has 36. Texas’ population grew faster than the US as a whole. 
 
It’s not hard to understand why Texas is growing in population and influence while Oklahoma is decreasing. The Texas economy is like a stool supported by three legs- energy, technology and defense. (Education a nd the arts are lesser supports). 
 
Oklahoma’s economy is also like a stool. Its three legs are methamphetamine production, stealing copper wire and Indian casinos. 

You want to argue that Texas sucks. Fine. Go for it. Oklahoma sucks far more and the world has taken notice. 
 
TLDR: Texas has Willie Nelson. Oklahoma has Toby Keith. 

Hey dumbshit, they both suck.  Born in Lubbock and went to OU.  I’d never live in either again.  I’ll dodge bullets here in Chicago any day over that shit.  I can escape to my place in Miami for the winter.  Winning.  

And for the 10th time rural OK is a LOT like rural TX.  Metropolitan TX is more like OKC than their rural counterparts.  You sound retarded.  If you’re slow, I apologize.  

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

11 minutes ago, statsman said:

Well, near as I can tell, both young Texas college grads and young Oklahoma college grads like to move to Dallas, so maybe you’re right that there’s no difference between OKC and Dallas 🤨

Both terrible.  Def more jobs in Dallas.  Also, one more time...buttfuck, TX is a lot more like buttfuck, OK than OKC or Dallas.  But keep going...

I'll give you Dallas is absolutely amazing one weekend a year and I'd rather be nowhere else.  Cheers

Edited by ChiTownDoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChiTownDoc said:

What's this century?  Seriously don't know.  Feels like OU would be hitting 70%.  
 

edit: 16-7 70%

Prob feels more lopsided w the severe beatings and last year’s gut wrenching debacle.  

And Texas lead 8-2-1 in the 11 years before that.  Its always been a series of streaks.  Before that OU won 4 straight.  Before that it was UT 5-2-2.  Then OU 5 straight.  Then UT 12 out of 13....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the realignment point- the Ags made a great move to jump up in recruiting juice by going to the SEC. It’s a conference where paying is not discouraged a bit, and they could also sell to recruits a better path to the NFL. That hurt Texas and OU. 

By joining theSEC, Texas and OU hope to re-establish the status quo. 
 
NIL (with no salary caps) and free player movement has changed the game. It will be interesting to see how things shake out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gidnik said:

 

These people (the UC regents) are a bunch of fucking clowns.  They're so out of touch, they have no understanding of college athletics and how the money in it works.  You can tell they're all political appointees who got where they are by donating money to the correct candidates and causes, not because they are qualified experts.  These are some of the idiots who thought Larry Scott was doing a great job and kept giving him raises and extensions while he burned the Pac 12 to the ground.  I can't wait for USC to be in a conference where the leaders understand and acknowledge the importance of football and prioritize it accordingly instead of pretending anyone gives a fuck about non-revenue sports outside of the Olympics.

Here's the nearly two hour UC regents meeting Mandel was tweeting about all day.  At the 1:04 mark they propose changing the authority to make decisions on conference affiliation from the campus level to the regent level.  It's unclear if this is strictly a policy going forward with remaining schools or if they intend to retroactively apply it to UCLA to try to force them to stay in the Pac, which would set up a huge legal battle.  You can see why UCLA had to take these people by surprise with the move to the Big 10 instead of giving them more time and preparation to push back.  I think the most likely outcome is UCLA still goes to the Big 10, but they're forced to give a percentage of their Big 10 paycheck to Cal as reparations.  If I'm UCLA I start lobbying for Cal to get a Big 10 invitation to make all these hurt feelings disappear, though selfishly from a USC fan perspective I'm just fine with the Big 10 owning LA and USC preserving the crosstown rivalry while the UC regents kneecap UCLA's budget and make it harder for them to keep up in the CFB arms race.

 

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

50 minutes ago, statsman said:

Back to the realignment point- the Ags made a great move to jump up in recruiting juice by going to the SEC. It’s a conference where paying is not discouraged a bit, and they could also sell to recruits a better path to the NFL. That hurt Texas and OU. 

By joining theSEC, Texas and OU hope to re-establish the status quo. 
 
NIL (with no salary caps) and free player movement has changed the game. It will be interesting to see how things shake out. 

aggy didn't really hurt UT and OU.  It was Alabama and Georgia and Clemson and Ohio St. who were getting the blue chips.  aggy did what they normally did with a good recruiter.  Until last year when they opened the checkbook.  And Texas and Texas A&M beat out the Alabamas, Georgias, Clemsons and Ohio St.s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Gidnik said:

i wonder how the pac 12 got into the mess its in now

A few things

-Larry Scott being a dumbass is the biggest reason (he spent so much time on stupid shit like trying to grow fanbases in Asian countries with basketball games there and he also wasted a lot of money on fancy Pac 12 offices in San Francisco), though had the Pac 16 gone through in 2010 there's your first super conference and it would be on par with what the Big 10 and SEC generate in terms of media deals and ratings and big games, Scott would be hailed as a savior for pulling that off

-The P12 Network was a huge failure, Scott insisted on going it alone which meant it never had the Fox/ESPN backing the BTN and SEC Network had so it couldn't get much carriage, but again had the Pac 16 come to fruition maybe the P16 Network is able to get the carriage it needs to be viable with a central timezone presence and a couple more bluebloods in the fold, keeping 100% ownership instead of partnering with a media giant becomes a stroke of genius in that timeline

-Most of the leaders in this conference, both ADs and university presidents, just don't "get it"; you can see the ivory tower sentiment where they ask questions anyone posting in this thread knows the answer to in the Youtube link in my last post, they gobbled up Scott's push for parity which is a big reason this conference doesn't produce many elite teams (if it was up to Scott and the Pac 12 university presidents every team would go 6-6 every year), they care too much about women's/non-revenue sports and not enough about football, that's noble in theory but in reality it gets your conference lapped in media money and eventually kills your conference

-Ultimately way too many Pac 12 programs are content to just show up and collect their media deal check rather than put in the effort and money to field a competitive team, of the left behind schools I'd say Oregon and Utah are the only ones really committed to winning at a high level, the rest feel like they view winning as a cool thing if it happens but they don't particularly care if it doesn't happen, I've heard Arizona State referred to as a sleeping giant my entire life but I'm still waiting to see what they look like when they're awake so maybe it's time we refer to them as comatose instead of sleeping

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, watch this promo and tell me how many of these teams you'd actually tune in to watch if it's not against Ohio State, Michigan, or USC. I mean good for the Big 10 but I simply do not get how they are this valuable when it's so top heavy. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • 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...