CR Part XIV: Revenge of the Wallflowers

Posted 153 day(s) ago by OU48A266496 Views 4532 Replies
Results 4,251 to 4,300 of 4533
Page 86 of 91 36 76 84 85 86 87 88
  1. #4251
    Originally Posted by NaturalStateReb View Post
    Moving Florida State to the SEC might actually make them worth less.

    Right now, part of why Florida State is valuable is that it's usually able to rack up football victories in the ACC. There are 3 or 4 games of great interest annually, but most games have FSU as a significant favorite.

    If FSU moves to the SEC, the average number of wins per year is probably going to go down. Maybe not way down, but more like an average of 9 instead of 10 or so. Over time, that's significant--it's the difference between being a factor for the playoffs every year and just going to really good bowl game every year. In the long run, that could actually make FSU less of a brand.

    BTW, I think the same thing is possible for OU in the SEC.
    It might make them worth a little less to the network, but probably not too much as far as a draw. They would still be a huge draw in SEC games, whether they were the A-side when they were rolling, or the B-side if they were struggling. But definitely in the sense that FSU is worth more to ESPN's interest in the ACC contract then they would be to their SEC product. Just throwing out numbers, but something like adding FSU might be +10% to the SEC, but -30% to the ACC.

    I do think in general, certain schools' "brand" is really defined by dominance...not just nationally, but among their own fan base. I think about Oklahoma and FSU, and somewhat USC specifically have some similarities there. The self-image of those schools is defined in large part by huge point totals, winning streaks, and being one of the sexiest girls in a room full of dogs. It's just what we do.

    The best, national title winning teams out of FSU or Oklahoma would do just fine in the SEC. They've normally shown out pretty well when facing SEC competition. But I just don't see the 8-4 shovel-fight seasons in between as being on-brand for FSU and Oklahoma. Don't get me wrong...I'm not saying that Auburn or LSU are "satisfied" with 8-4 seasons, but I don't know that it hugely influence's their programs' stature, in the minds of their fans or especially recruits. I do think it would take a chunk out of how fans of FSU and OU look at themselves.

    That doesn't mean wouldn't be a good move...the revenue and stability trumps a soft factor like "brand". For FSU, the revenue isn't really about the TV money...for a place that's extremely difficult to travel to, playing closer, better schools would be a significant boost to the bottom line. But I also don't think the brand is meaningless, and expect that's a reason they'd prefer to find revenue and stability without having to make the change if at all possible.
    3 users like Lou_C's post: KSULynchMob, NaturalStateReb, The Grassy Nole


  2. #4252
    boomhorn.'s Avatar
    Posts
    966
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Outer space & Out of place.

    Originally Posted by JRsec* View Post
    You are are so misinformed about what the SEC did in '91 that it's tough to know where to start. Miami was not a primary target in '91 and never has been. There were six targets in '91: Florida State, Clemson, Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, and a silent pal of Texas, Oklahoma, who clearly stated at the time they were only interested if Texas was part of the mix.

    The SEC offer to F.S.U. and the time of it's delivery was only know to ESPN because we had to go to them for valuations. ESPN didn't want F.S.U. in the SEC because they didn't want us controlling the top state on the Eastern Seaboard, Florida. And because ESPN was trying to build its own conference (the ACC). So the ACC showed up in Tallahassee the day before the SEC was scheduled to meet with them and delivered a better offer. Gee, I wonder how they knew to be there at that time, and to offer what they did? Part of that answer is Clemson. But even Clemson didn't know what we would offer or when, but they did know how earnest the talks were. The other other source of information that would have enabled that fortuitous offer was ESPN. Hmm??? They haven't been the source of any other conference's issues now have they? Big East (picked them apart), Big 12 (LHN and picked them apart), Big 10 (low balled an offer to Delany and then started picking off Big 10 targets and placing them in the ACC), etc.

    So when Florida State headed to the ACC the Clemson interest went with them. Texas wanted to explore other options, so Oklahoma backed out as well. Arkansas wanted in period, and South Carolina learned of our interest in the state from a Clemson trustee who told his South Carolina trustee buddy about it and South Carolina applied.

    Since then we've added A&M. So I wouldn't call it a whiff per se, but rather a work in progress because a couple of the original targets are still out there and because if the ACCN doesn't pay off then in 2033 some of the original ACC brands, plus a couple of others, could be on the market once again.

    In 2010, the SEC didn't shoot for anyone, least of all Florida State and Clemson. We were working a deal at the behest of a corporate interest who wanted to place Texas and pals in the ACC and was trying to get the ACC to let N.C.State and Virginia Tech go to build up value in the soon to be launched SECN and to make room for Texas, and what they hoped would be Oklahoma, Kansas, and Notre Dame all as full members of the ACC. That would have been the formula for building two super conferences of relative equal value which could have dominated the Big 10 (which went with FOX) and the PAC (which didn't generate enough national interest to be important). In a two carrier competition ESPN prior to a GOR seemed to be trying to scoop the best product and brands from the Big 12 and have two conference which they controlled, in which to market them.

    They had placed a stipulation in the SEC's contract that if we were to add new schools they had to be from two new markets before we could renegotiate the contract. This is where all the bullcrap about the four school blackball garbage came from. They had used Clay Travis to float the trial balloon about N.C. State and Virginia Tech because nobody in the SEC had even considered them or had heard anyone talk about them as potential members. The SEC was to add A&M, Missouri, Virginia Tech, and N.C.State to get to 16. This was to decrease the ACC's redundancy within its market footprint and to expand it with what it needed most, branding, particularly in football. It's why Deloss Dodds said Texas was looking East at the time.

    What supposedly screwed it up was North Carolina, Virginia and Duke realizing that they would lose control over voting within the ACC if two drones (N.C. State and Va Tech) were subtracted from their block of 7 votes and Notre Dame which could sway Pitt, Syracuse, and B.C. hooked up with Texas, Oklahoma, and the football first schools of the ACC. This would be especially true if Clemson which had a history of voting with Tobacco Road suddenly switched sides with the Football first schools. With only 4 controlled votes in a 16 member conference the old core couldn't push through legislation, or even block it.

    Maryland got the hell out of there when the deal fell through. Missouri drug its feet because the numbers that had been talked for the addition of the states of North Carolina and Virginia to the SEC footprint dropped. A&M was all in though. BTW: Maryland knew that UNC would be forced to settle as did Delany because North Carolina, the ACC, and ESPN would all likely deny the alleged events. In realignment where tortuous interference is a liability all failed deals are treated like they never happened. So Maryland and the Big 10 knew that none of this would ever see a court room and Maryland got away for what was withheld from their conference distribution.

    So in the confusion that ensued after the deal failed, Notre Dame saw a chance to land a sweetheart deal and took it, Maryland got away without really fearing reprisal (and they left because they needed the money they thought the deal would bring), the SEC was pissed as was ESPN and so for three days following a crawler on ESPN it was announced that Florida State and Clemson would indeed leave for the SEC. What I heard was that N.D. was going to call off the partial deal if the football first schools left so ESPN pulled the plug and guaranteed full opening carriage for the SECN to appease us. Louisville was brought in to appease Florida State and Clemson and the GOR's were slapped into place. When Missouri came on in to the SEC we had our two new markets and renegotiated our deal with ESPN. CBS which didn't gain any new inventory kept payouts status quo for the SEC's T1.

    And since that time everything has been changing. FOX is no longer the rival of ESPN but rather a major shareholder in it. What profits Disney now profits FOX. The footprint model of payout based on subscription fees is in a major transition to a content driven pay model. And because the ground rules are changing so are the prospects for what might happen in the future. As the T.C.U. A.D. recently pointed out it's anybody's guess.

    In '91 the conferences and schools still had a lot of say so over everything. F.S.U. was the first hint that ESPN might be heavy handed and self serving in these kinds of dealings moving forward. In 2010 I'd say that the conferences and schools were more or less players in the a grand scheme which was likely motivated just by the network positioning itself to protect product from what appeared to be their first real threat, FOX. Now if there is going to be another round it will likely be network driven again as they position themselves against interference from new outside competition (Amazon). Amazon has the wherewithal to take on the U.S.Postal Service and UPS apparently so you know Disney is concerned.

    Because of this it wouldn't surprise me to see ESPN make another 2010 style play. If they absorbed the Big 12 into the ACC and SEC they could renegotiate the ACC and SEC contracts, boost their profits in the ACCN which is set to launch next year, and ink the best product (excluding the 6 best brands of the Big 10) before Amazon or another such company gains traction or even has the time to make offers. This window to lock things down while they have the corporate cooperation of FOX is one I believe they will find too tempting to pass up.

    So Boomhorn to say that the SEC did this our that beyond '91 when Kramer was trying to shoot the moon is wholly irrelevant. Any failures beyond the '91 realignment are failures of the networks since it was in all probability initiated by them. And the schools which you cited as being the targets in '91 were partially in error, and those that you listed for 2010, weren't schools we necessarily wanted, other than A&M.

    And moving forward, it will be about brands because they are the only safe additions that work both for the market model which T3 cable will still keep operative, and for content for the T1 and T2 portions of the package. And I would think that whoever is added it will be programs that the networks are willing to pay us for so they will still be network selections.
    That sure is a lot of typing just to say the same thing I said that UT, OU, FSU, Miami and Clemson was all considered targets of the SEC at different times in the last 30 years, but the conference added Arkansas, South Carolina, Texas A&M and Mizzou.

  3. #4253
    This is an article depicting how the PAC & XII have at times spoken about forming everything from a partial or complete merger, to scheduling a PAC-XII Conference Challenge...



    The Big 12 and Pac-12 reportedly discussed a conference challenge in football. All in favor?
    There’s no evidence this partnership is going to happen, but let’s make the case that it’d be enjoyable.
    By Alex [email protected]_kirshner Updated Jan 4, 2017, 4:51pm EST

    While the Big 12 went through a will-it-or-won’t-it dance last summer over expanding beyond 10 teams (and ultimately didn’t), the conference discussed a “scheduling alliance” with the Pac-12, according to a report by CBS’ Dennis Dodd.

    This could look like other scheduling “challenges,” which are common in basketball.

    Think of the ACC/Big Ten Challenge, which pits nearly every team from one league against a team from the other league. That works easily enough, because the Big Ten has 14 teams and the ACC has 15 (in basketball, because of Notre Dame).

    The SEC and Big 12 are doing basically the same thing this hoops season. That doesn’t work as well as the ACC/Big Ten, because the Big 12 has 10 teams to the SEC’s 14, but it’s close enough. These arrangements do not need to have perfect symmetry. It’s not hard to make sure no team misses out on a conference challenge two years in a row.

    The Pac-12 has 12 teams, and the Big 12 has 10. That means every six years, each Pac-12 team would take a turn sitting out a theoretical Pac-12/Big 12 Football Challenge. Two teams from the Pac-12 would miss out every year, and they could each fill out their schedule with someone else. Lots of games are out there for the scheduling.
    Just another of many possibilities in a PAC-XII merger as an alternative of being split between the B1G & SEC, for all athletics to remain in a contiguous footprint within the greater region of the southwest & western regions...

  4. #4254
    OU48A's Avatar
    Posts
    30,262
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Norman

    Originally Posted by boomhorn. View Post
    Then it looks like you might be skewed in your opinion of TCU being a detriment to OU athletics if it would not matter if OU was in the same conference with a few Texas schools.
    We could both be a little right, and partially wrong at the same time, but there's still about 6 years to figure it out.

    Not so much in the last year or 2 but there have been several good football players from the DFW market pick TCU over OU and this has been noticed. The elevation of TCU was talked about by a then member of the OU BOR. TCU has been a bigger detriment to the other conference members.
    OU recruiting is not isolated like the others.

  5. #4255
    OU48A's Avatar
    Posts
    30,262
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Norman

    Originally Posted by boomhorn. View Post
    Almost 20years ago, but you want to go where recruiting is dying in the Big10, but at least the SEC is always a healthy recruiting area.

    For at least 100 years in many cases OU would be a more attractive option for many B1G area recruits and others living in that area…Why not recruit the best of the lot. OU doesn’t enjoy near as many strong advantages over many of the SEC programs and states.

    What makes you think the elite SEC area recruits would find OU or our state as a more attractive option in numbers that matter much more than they currency do.

  6. #4256
    Originally Posted by JRsec* View Post
    You are are so misinformed about what the SEC did in '91 that it's tough to know where to start. Miami was not a primary target in '91 and never has been. There were six targets in '91: Florida State, Clemson, Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, and a silent pal of Texas, Oklahoma, who clearly stated at the time they were only interested if Texas was part of the mix.

    The SEC offer to F.S.U. and the time of it's delivery was only know to ESPN because we had to go to them for valuations. ESPN didn't want F.S.U. in the SEC because they didn't want us controlling the top state on the Eastern Seaboard, Florida. And because ESPN was trying to build its own conference (the ACC). So the ACC showed up in Tallahassee the day before the SEC was scheduled to meet with them and delivered a better offer. Gee, I wonder how they knew to be there at that time, and to offer what they did? Part of that answer is Clemson. But even Clemson didn't know what we would offer or when, but they did know how earnest the talks were. The other other source of information that would have enabled that fortuitous offer was ESPN. Hmm??? They haven't been the source of any other conference's issues now have they? Big East (picked them apart), Big 12 (LHN and picked them apart), Big 10 (low balled an offer to Delany and then started picking off Big 10 targets and placing them in the ACC), etc.

    So when Florida State headed to the ACC the Clemson interest went with them. Texas wanted to explore other options, so Oklahoma backed out as well. Arkansas wanted in period, and South Carolina learned of our interest in the state from a Clemson trustee who told his South Carolina trustee buddy about it and South Carolina applied.

    Since then we've added A&M. So I wouldn't call it a whiff per se, but rather a work in progress because a couple of the original targets are still out there and because if the ACCN doesn't pay off then in 2033 some of the original ACC brands, plus a couple of others, could be on the market once again.

    In 2010, the SEC didn't shoot for anyone, least of all Florida State and Clemson. We were working a deal at the behest of a corporate interest who wanted to place Texas and pals in the ACC and was trying to get the ACC to let N.C.State and Virginia Tech go to build up value in the soon to be launched SECN and to make room for Texas, and what they hoped would be Oklahoma, Kansas, and Notre Dame all as full members of the ACC. That would have been the formula for building two super conferences of relative equal value which could have dominated the Big 10 (which went with FOX) and the PAC (which didn't generate enough national interest to be important). In a two carrier competition ESPN prior to a GOR seemed to be trying to scoop the best product and brands from the Big 12 and have two conference which they controlled, in which to market them.

    They had placed a stipulation in the SEC's contract that if we were to add new schools they had to be from two new markets before we could renegotiate the contract. This is where all the bullcrap about the four school blackball garbage came from. They had used Clay Travis to float the trial balloon about N.C. State and Virginia Tech because nobody in the SEC had even considered them or had heard anyone talk about them as potential members. The SEC was to add A&M, Missouri, Virginia Tech, and N.C.State to get to 16. This was to decrease the ACC's redundancy within its market footprint and to expand it with what it needed most, branding, particularly in football. It's why Deloss Dodds said Texas was looking East at the time.

    What supposedly screwed it up was North Carolina, Virginia and Duke realizing that they would lose control over voting within the ACC if two drones (N.C. State and Va Tech) were subtracted from their block of 7 votes and Notre Dame which could sway Pitt, Syracuse, and B.C. hooked up with Texas, Oklahoma, and the football first schools of the ACC. This would be especially true if Clemson which had a history of voting with Tobacco Road suddenly switched sides with the Football first schools. With only 4 controlled votes in a 16 member conference the old core couldn't push through legislation, or even block it.

    Maryland got the hell out of there when the deal fell through. Missouri drug its feet because the numbers that had been talked for the addition of the states of North Carolina and Virginia to the SEC footprint dropped. A&M was all in though. BTW: Maryland knew that UNC would be forced to settle as did Delany because North Carolina, the ACC, and ESPN would all likely deny the alleged events. In realignment where tortuous interference is a liability all failed deals are treated like they never happened. So Maryland and the Big 10 knew that none of this would ever see a court room and Maryland got away for what was withheld from their conference distribution.

    So in the confusion that ensued after the deal failed, Notre Dame saw a chance to land a sweetheart deal and took it, Maryland got away without really fearing reprisal (and they left because they needed the money they thought the deal would bring), the SEC was pissed as was ESPN and so for three days following a crawler on ESPN it was announced that Florida State and Clemson would indeed leave for the SEC. What I heard was that N.D. was going to call off the partial deal if the football first schools left so ESPN pulled the plug and guaranteed full opening carriage for the SECN to appease us. Louisville was brought in to appease Florida State and Clemson and the GOR's were slapped into place. When Missouri came on in to the SEC we had our two new markets and renegotiated our deal with ESPN. CBS which didn't gain any new inventory kept payouts status quo for the SEC's T1.

    And since that time everything has been changing. FOX is no longer the rival of ESPN but rather a major shareholder in it. What profits Disney now profits FOX. The footprint model of payout based on subscription fees is in a major transition to a content driven pay model. And because the ground rules are changing so are the prospects for what might happen in the future. As the T.C.U. A.D. recently pointed out it's anybody's guess.

    In '91 the conferences and schools still had a lot of say so over everything. F.S.U. was the first hint that ESPN might be heavy handed and self serving in these kinds of dealings moving forward. In 2010 I'd say that the conferences and schools were more or less players in the a grand scheme which was likely motivated just by the network positioning itself to protect product from what appeared to be their first real threat, FOX. Now if there is going to be another round it will likely be network driven again as they position themselves against interference from new outside competition (Amazon). Amazon has the wherewithal to take on the U.S.Postal Service and UPS apparently so you know Disney is concerned.

    Because of this it wouldn't surprise me to see ESPN make another 2010 style play. If they absorbed the Big 12 into the ACC and SEC they could renegotiate the ACC and SEC contracts, boost their profits in the ACCN which is set to launch next year, and ink the best product (excluding the 6 best brands of the Big 10) before Amazon or another such company gains traction or even has the time to make offers. This window to lock things down while they have the corporate cooperation of FOX is one I believe they will find too tempting to pass up.

    So Boomhorn to say that the SEC did this our that beyond '91 when Kramer was trying to shoot the moon is wholly irrelevant. Any failures beyond the '91 realignment are failures of the networks since it was in all probability initiated by them. And the schools which you cited as being the targets in '91 were partially in error, and those that you listed for 2010, weren't schools we necessarily wanted, other than A&M.

    And moving forward, it will be about brands because they are the only safe additions that work both for the market model which T3 cable will still keep operative, and for content for the T1 and T2 portions of the package. And I would think that whoever is added it will be programs that the networks are willing to pay us for so they will still be network selections.

    That ESPN story is just salve on the SEC butthurt because Florida State rejected the SEC for the ACC.

    http://nolefan.org/summary/fsu_acc.html
    Last edited by p23570; February 13th, 2018 at 08:58 AM. Reason: learn how to summarize, fuckstick

  7. #4257
    boomhorn.'s Avatar
    Posts
    966
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Outer space & Out of place.

    Originally Posted by OU48A View Post
    For at least 100 years in many cases OU would be a more attractive option for many B1G area recruits and others living in that area…Why not recruit the best of the lot. OU doesn’t enjoy near as many strong advantages over many of the SEC programs and states.

    What makes you think the elite SEC area recruits would find OU or our state as a more attractive option in numbers that matter much more than they currency do.
    So you want Oklahoma to go recruit the same athletes that are passed over in the Big10 region to bring in talent from the SEC or even the west coast PAC area footprint?
    What long-standing pipeline does Oklahoma have to New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, or Illinois, that would put them over the top in head to head recruiting against the B1G member schools, asking for a friend in Nebraska that would like an answer.

    The Big10 is a good conference, but not with OU in a Big10 west of Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, and Illinois as division opponents and a hopeful Nebraska program that just wants to win 9 games in 2 consecutive years.
    The following users like this post: Camel at Sea


  8. #4258
    Once again your viewpoint is the B.S. gloss and most of the information came from a friendly source in the Jacksonville Times Union. After the fact housecleaning sport.

    The gloss job was necessary. You can't have the heavy hand of the network verified. But it is what it was.
    Last edited by p23570; February 13th, 2018 at 08:59 AM.

  9. #4259
    Originally Posted by boomhorn. View Post
    That sure is a lot of typing just to say the same thing I said that UT, OU, FSU, Miami and Clemson was all considered targets of the SEC at different times in the last 30 years, but the conference added Arkansas, South Carolina, Texas A&M and Mizzou.
    You can't or don't read do you? Miami was never even mentioned, never! The only person to ever mention Miami was Jackie Sherrill while he was still at Mississippi State. He put out a piece about who the SEC was willing to consider should the Big 10 try to raid the ACC. They didn't so it never came up. Sherrill's was a 20 team expansion theory that included Miami. They weren't discussed, or considered in '91, or 2010. There were 6 considered in 1991, prior to our acceptance of South Carolina. There were only 4 who were ever discussed or voted on in 2010, the two we got, and the two from the ACC that were rumored and pushed by Travis.

    But hey, go on believing the usual spew. It's just that I happen to know what went on in '91. And neither you nor the gloss by the baby blue spin meister is going to change that.

  10. #4260
    boomhorn.'s Avatar
    Posts
    966
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Outer space & Out of place.

    Well, that means Miami was in fact mentioned if Jackie Sherrill had it as a backup plan in growing to 20.
    In fact I remember that Miami at one time was mulling both BigEast and ACC offers plus a potential one from the SEC.
    You, me nor anyone else on this thread are the end all be all of realignment. For that matter, your biggest and only are concern could be argued with getting Auburn moved to the SEC east. So if it means Oklahoma State and TCU you still get the same result.

  11. #4261
    OU48A's Avatar
    Posts
    30,262
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Norman

    Originally Posted by boomhorn. View Post
    So you want Oklahoma to go recruit the same athletes that are passed over in the Big10 region to bring in talent from the SEC or even the west coast PAC area footprint?
    What long-standing pipeline does Oklahoma have to New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, or Illinois, that would put them over the top in head to head recruiting against the B1G member schools, asking for a friend in Nebraska that would like an answer.

    The Big10 is a good conference, but not with OU in a Big10 west of Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, and Illinois as division opponents and a hopeful Nebraska program that just wants to win 9 games in 2 consecutive years.
    I don’t fear OU’s isolation like you and others do….

    I never said OU should recruit passed over talent from the B1G region over elite talent other areas…. if you can sign them…At best you are misrepresenting what I said...
    You never did answer my question…

    OU has signed several players in recent years with Maryland, Pennsylvania and Ohio backgrounds. It stands to reason that we could sell our advantages to even more good players with more exposure… if they became better education about what we have to offer. In most cases Oklahoma will always be an easy place to sale compared to Nebraska.

    Those advantages we have to sale are not nearly as strong when we start comparing our self’s to the PAC or SEC.

  12. #4262
    boomhorn.'s Avatar
    Posts
    966
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Outer space & Out of place.

    Originally Posted by OU48A View Post
    I don’t fear OU’s isolation like you and others do….

    I never said OU should recruit passed over talent from the B1G region over elite talent other areas…. if you can sign them…At best you are misrepresenting what I said...
    You never did answer my question…

    OU has signed several players in recent years with Maryland, Pennsylvania and Ohio backgrounds. It stands to reason that we could sell our advantages to even more good players with more exposure… if they became better education about what we have to offer. In most cases Oklahoma will always be an easy place to sale compared to Nebraska.

    Those advantages we have to sale are not nearly as strong when we start comparing our self’s to the PAC or SEC.
    Are we in grade school now......?
    Because I don't agree that OU should go to the BigTen with just KU that makes me scared?
    Is your dad bigger than my dad too? Come on man, I and many others have said that the B1G is a good conference obviously, but not in only adding Oklahoma and Kansas.
    Besides, the rivalry with inconsistently played Nebraska, what is the big selling point to this division of perennial nobody doormats, that if OU looses to it looks good for the BigTen old gaurd but bad for OU. Which would be great news for schools in Texas as A&M or OSU in the SEC, or UT and Tech in the PAC.

    It's called having common sense in the potential drawbacks of any move. Not being fooled into the old scaredie cat nanny booboo rope-a-dope stuff.

  13. #4263
    Originally Posted by OU48A View Post
    I don’t fear OU’s isolation like you and others do….

    I never said OU should recruit passed over talent from the B1G region over elite talent other areas…. if you can sign them…At best you are misrepresenting what I said...
    You never did answer my question…

    OU has signed several players in recent years with Maryland, Pennsylvania and Ohio backgrounds. It stands to reason that we could sell our advantages to even more good players with more exposure… if they became better education about what we have to offer. In most cases Oklahoma will always be an easy place to sale compared to Nebraska.

    Those advantages we have to sale are not nearly as strong when we start comparing our self’s to the PAC or SEC.
    Compare the number of OU recruits from B1G territory to the number of recruits we get from SEC territory. Edge SEC. You're the one making the argument that we would have a hard time selling Southern recruits on OU when our entire recruiting history over the last 7 decades tells a story that is opposite of your snowbird recruiting theory.
    The following users like this post: boomhorn.


  14. #4264
    Originally Posted by boomhorn. View Post
    Well, that means Miami was in fact mentioned if Jackie Sherrill had it as a backup plan in growing to 20.
    In fact I remember that Miami at one time was mulling both BigEast and ACC offers plus a potential one from the SEC.
    You, me nor anyone else on this thread are the end all be all of realignment. For that matter, your biggest and only are concern could be argued with getting Auburn moved to the SEC east. So if it means Oklahoma State and TCU you still get the same result.
    No Boomhorn, in '91 I had family in on the discussions. My preference was to expand with F.S.U. and Clemson to keep the SEC more centralized. In '91 we gave up our traditional rivals to move to the East when we only moved to 12. We were told it would be temporary. The characterization of my position is just a parrot of Rocektballz. While I would like to see Auburn in the East where it belongs I would not be willing to see that as a result of adding a couple of programs that do nothing to little for the SEC. If we make a play it will be for Oklahoma and if we don't land them there won't be any additions made unless Texas does the unthinkable and wants in. I only say that because they are the only other school from the Big 12 that could be asked. Anyone else would be a second to either one of those two and only a second.

    Miami to my knowledge has never applied to, nor ever received an inquiry from the SEC. When I've remarked about them it was only from the standpoint of Sherrill's remarks, or from the perspective of South Florida (part of the state not the school) being really a separate recruiting are from the rest of Florida.

    Under the footprint model they couldn't really add enough value. Under the content model they still might not, but it would be closer.

    Under a content model there are only 2 schools that could add significant value to the SEC: Texas and Oklahoma. The others that could: Ohio State, MIchigan, Notre Dame, don't have to be explained as to why they won't. Florida State would probably add a little brand value.

    Under the market model obviously the group would be Oklahoma, North Carolina (or State), Virginia (or Tech).

    So the pool here is rather small and it is no accident that it is roughly the same pool that the Big 10 is fishing in. With the Big 10's new contract I seriously doubt they will be looking at Miami, Georgia Tech, Pitt, Syracuse, or Boston College. Out of the Big 12 it would be Texas, and or Oklahoma, with Kansas as a traveling buddy if the first two don't come together. For the SEC it would be the same only the traveling companion could be more varied.

    From the ACC it's pretty much Virginia and North Carolina for the Big 10 and the same for the SEC but the non AAU state mates would be acceptable too. In fact Virginia Tech would probably be the better selection than Virginia.

    I preferred Clemson and F.S.U. because they were regional and the footprint business was only a transitional stage anyway, and because they were the two most SEC like schools and their fans and venues fit well with ours.

  15. #4265
    Originally Posted by Camel at Sea View Post
    Compare the number of OU recruits from B1G territory to the number of recruits we get from SEC territory. Edge SEC. You're the one making the argument that we would have a hard time selling Southern recruits on OU when our entire recruiting history over the last 7 decades tells a story that is opposite of your snowbird recruiting theory.
    I don't think it matters. Both the B1G and SEC are at least as good as Texas as a recruiting ground. If we go to the SEC, we'll give up a bit of exposure in Texas in return for more exposure in SEC. Same thing for all of these three homes.

  16. #4266
    boomhorn.'s Avatar
    Posts
    966
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Outer space & Out of place.

    Originally Posted by JRsec* View Post
    No Boomhorn, in '91 I had family in on the discussions. My preference was to expand with F.S.U. and Clemson to keep the SEC more centralized. In '91 we gave up our traditional rivals to move to the East when we only moved to 12. We were told it would be temporary. The characterization of my position is just a parrot of Rocektballz. While I would like to see Auburn in the East where it belongs I would not be willing to see that as a result of adding a couple of programs that do nothing to little for the SEC. If we make a play it will be for Oklahoma and if we don't land them there won't be any additions made unless Texas does the unthinkable and wants in. I only say that because they are the only other school from the Big 12 that could be asked. Anyone else would be a second to either one of those two and only a second.

    Miami to my knowledge has never applied to, nor ever received an inquiry from the SEC. When I've remarked about them it was only from the standpoint of Sherrill's remarks, or from the perspective of South Florida (part of the state not the school) being really a separate recruiting are from the rest of Florida.

    Under the footprint model they couldn't really add enough value. Under the content model they still might not, but it would be closer.

    Under a content model there are only 2 schools that could add significant value to the SEC: Texas and Oklahoma. The others that could: Ohio State, MIchigan, Notre Dame, don't have to be explained as to why they won't. Florida State would probably add a little brand value.

    Under the market model obviously the group would be Oklahoma, North Carolina (or State), Virginia (or Tech).

    So the pool here is rather small and it is no accident that it is roughly the same pool that the Big 10 is fishing in. With the Big 10's new contract I seriously doubt they will be looking at Miami, Georgia Tech, Pitt, Syracuse, or Boston College. Out of the Big 12 it would be Texas, and or Oklahoma, with Kansas as a traveling buddy if the first two don't come together. For the SEC it would be the same only the traveling companion could be more varied.

    From the ACC it's pretty much Virginia and North Carolina for the Big 10 and the same for the SEC but the non AAU state mates would be acceptable too. In fact Virginia Tech would probably be the better selection than Virginia.

    I preferred Clemson and F.S.U. because they were regional and the footprint business was only a transitional stage anyway, and because they were the two most SEC like schools and their fans and venues fit well with ours.
    If North Carolina State or Kansas can work out for the SEC, then I have no idea why Oklahoma State and a TCU wouldn't do just the same, since the Wolfpack and crew is not an option for 15 more years. And sure Oklahoma is a key get for the SEC, so is the case for ND for any of the BIG, PAC or ACC I would think.

    This thread should be renamed "You can't always get what you want".

    But if you try sometimes, you get what you need!
    And filling that need to reach 16 members is greater than having an add OU or nobody mentality.
    Oklahoma State and TCU could be just what you need.

  17. #4267
    Originally Posted by boomhorn. View Post
    If North Carolina State or Kansas can work out for the SEC, then I have no idea why Oklahoma State and a TCU wouldn't do just the same, since the Wolfpack and crew is not an option for 15 more years. And sure Oklahoma is a key get for the SEC, so is the case for ND for any of the BIG, PAC or ACC I would think.

    This thread should be renamed "You can't always get what you want".

    But if you try sometimes, you get what you need!
    You're making the classic mistake of thinking like a fan. You see OSU and TCU as great additions because they have strong athletics. College presidents and network executives look at the bottom line, how much more money will they bring in. The answer for OSU/TCU is not nearly enough to justify their addition unless the come with OU/UT.

  18. #4268
    boomhorn.'s Avatar
    Posts
    966
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Outer space & Out of place.

    Originally Posted by RocketCitySooner View Post
    You're making the classic mistake of thinking like a fan. You see OSU and TCU as great additions because they have strong athletics. College presidents and network executives look at the bottom line, how much more money will they bring in. The answer for OSU/TCU is not nearly enough to justify their addition unless the come with OU/UT.
    So, you are saying that you are not a fan then?
    Networks come and go, remember the WB network?
    OU should look at what is the most stable and safest long term move for the program.

  19. #4269
    Originally Posted by RocketCitySooner View Post
    I don't think it matters. Both the B1G and SEC are at least as good as Texas as a recruiting ground. If we go to the SEC, we'll give up a bit of exposure in Texas in return for more exposure in SEC. Same thing for all of these three homes.
    At least as good is not quite the same as better than...

    If Oklahoma joined the SEC, annual competition for Oklahoma for recruits within the footprint would be:
    Florida/ Georgia/ Alabama/ Auburn/ Tennessee/ LSU/ Texas A&M and sometimes Arkansas...

    If Oklahoma joined the B1G, annual competition for Oklahoma for recruits within the footprint would be:
    Penn State/ Ohio State/ Michigan/ Michigan State and sometimes Wisconsin...

    If Oklahoma joined the merged PAC-XII, annual competition for Oklahoma for recruits would be:
    Texas/ USC/ UCLA and sometimes Colorado, just from within the PAC south division that Oklahoma is already well known in recruiting circles and keeps the access to Texas without the threat of becoming isolated just as the Huskers have done...

  20. #4270
    Originally Posted by RocketCitySooner View Post
    You're making the classic mistake of thinking like a fan. You see OSU and TCU as great additions because they have strong athletics. College presidents and network executives look at the bottom line, how much more money will they bring in. The answer for OSU/TCU is not nearly enough to justify their addition unless the come with OU/UT.
    Nice to know you admit that "Oklahoma State & TCU as great additions because they have strong athletics", which sound to me that the programs are actually worthy rivals as well, just as UT & OU looked at when admitting TCU years ago...

  21. #4271
    Originally Posted by boomhorn. View Post
    So, you are saying that you are not a fan then?
    Networks come and go, remember the WB network?
    OU should look at what is the most stable and safest long term move for the program.
    Yes, I am a fan but I'm also experienced in the management of muti-million programs.
    Networks change but the dynamics of financial management seldom change.
    If OU is looking for a "stable and safe" conference, that pretty much precludes any conference where Texas is also a member.

  22. #4272
    Originally Posted by kopp0e View Post
    Nice to know you admit that "Oklahoma State & TCU as great additions because they have strong athletics", which sound to me that the programs are actually worthy rivals as well, just as UT & OU looked at when admitting TCU years ago...
    As we've discussed before, I believe "rivalries" are not nearly as important than finances.

  23. #4273
    Originally Posted by kopp0e View Post
    At least as good is not quite the same as better than...

    If Oklahoma joined the SEC, annual competition for Oklahoma for recruits within the footprint would be:
    Florida/ Georgia/ Alabama/ Auburn/ Tennessee/ LSU/ Texas A&M and sometimes Arkansas...

    If Oklahoma joined the B1G, annual competition for Oklahoma for recruits within the footprint would be:
    Penn State/ Ohio State/ Michigan/ Michigan State and sometimes Wisconsin...

    If Oklahoma joined the merged PAC-XII, annual competition for Oklahoma for recruits would be:
    Texas/ USC/ UCLA and sometimes Colorado, just from within the PAC south division that Oklahoma is already well known in recruiting circles and keeps the access to Texas without the threat of becoming isolated just as the Huskers have done...
    Trust me, Oklahoma is well known in the SEC and in the B1G.

  24. #4274
    boomhorn.'s Avatar
    Posts
    966
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Outer space & Out of place.

    Originally Posted by RocketCitySooner View Post
    Yes, I am a fan but I'm also experienced in the management of muti-million programs.
    Networks change but the dynamics of financial management seldom change.
    If OU is looking for a "stable and safe" conference, that pretty much precludes any conference where Texas is also a member.
    Originally Posted by RocketCitySooner View Post
    As we've discussed before, I believe "rivalries" are not nearly as important than finances.
    Your placing opinion over logic in this instance, as Nebraska/ Arkansas are two examples of what went wrong in looking to separate from the big bad meanie in Texas.
    And it can be argued that Nebraska needs Oklahoma in the B1G far more that of Oklahoma needing Nebraska.
    As it gives a foothold into recruiting the state of Texas in the Dallas metro area.

  25. #4275
    Originally Posted by boomhorn. View Post
    Your placing opinion over logic in this instance, as Nebraska/ Arkansas are two examples of what went wrong in looking to separate from the big bad meanie in Texas.
    And it can be argued that Nebraska needs Oklahoma in the B1G far more that of Oklahoma needing Nebraska.
    As it gives a foothold into recruiting the state of Texas in the Dallas metro area.
    Talking like a fan again. Nebraska and Arkansas are in far better shape in their new home than they were when they were in the same conference with Texas.

    Nebraska and Arkansas would be warmly welcomed should they want to come back to the XII. They've been gone for years. Why haven't the tried to come back?
    The following users like this post: Big8Fan


  26. #4276
    boomhorn.'s Avatar
    Posts
    966
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Outer space & Out of place.

    Originally Posted by RocketCitySooner View Post
    Talking like a fan again. Nebraska and Arkansas are in far better shape in their new home than they were when they were in the same conference with Texas.

    Nebraska and Arkansas would be warmly welcomed should they want to come back to the XII. They've been gone for years. Why haven't the tried to come back?
    In far better shape with current conference payouts based on an ever changing model is not the same as doing more than chanting SEC while your program is stuck at 7 or 8 wins per year.
    That is not what Oklahoma is built on I don't think.
    What about when streaming is the bigger media provider in less that a decade?

    Oklahoma is currently paid about the same as the BigTen and SEC while keeping history intact.

  27. #4277
    Originally Posted by boomhorn. View Post
    In far better shape with current conference payouts based on an ever changing model is not the same as doing more than chanting SEC while your program is stuck at 7 or 8 wins per year.
    That is not what Oklahoma is built on I don't think.
    What about when streaming is the bigger media provider in less that a decade?

    Oklahoma is currently paid about the same as the BigTen and SEC while keeping history intact.
    If Arky and Nebraska are doing so poorly, why haven't they asked to return?

    Don't bet on streaming. It could be as disruptive to the conference model as was NCAA vs. OU Board of Regents.

    I'm much more interested in the future than past history.

  28. #4278
    Originally Posted by boomhorn. View Post
    If North Carolina State or Kansas can work out for the SEC, then I have no idea why Oklahoma State and a TCU wouldn't do just the same, since the Wolfpack and crew is not an option for 15 more years. And sure Oklahoma is a key get for the SEC, so is the case for ND for any of the BIG, PAC or ACC I would think.

    This thread should be renamed "You can't always get what you want".

    But if you try sometimes, you get what you need!
    And filling that need to reach 16 members is greater than having an add OU or nobody mentality.
    Oklahoma State and TCU could be just what you need.
    I like the Stones the same as the next guy, but again you are conflating my words. I didn't say we wouldn't take Kansas, or Oklahoma State as a #2. I said we wouldn't take anyone if we didn't get one of our primary targets. With Oklahoma there are 3 or 4 possibilities for a #2, but none of them get in without OU. As long as there is any kind of a payout by virtue of markets then a North Carolina or Virginia state school will get a look. Without figuring markets into the equation there are only two candidates that add value, Texas and Oklahoma, and out of the ACC possibly only Florida State adds anything without counting on markets. So it's a really small set of primary targets.

    Next year when the Big 10 is at 51.1 million in payouts it will be an equally short list for them.

  29. #4279
    Originally Posted by JRsec* View Post
    Once again your viewpoint is the B.S. gloss and most of the information came from a friendly source in the Jacksonville Times Union. After the fact housecleaning sport.

    The gloss job was necessary. You can't have the heavy hand of the network verified. But it is what it was.
    More doublespeak JR. The fact is: Florida State rejected the SEC.

  30. #4280
    boomhorn.'s Avatar
    Posts
    966
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Outer space & Out of place.

    Originally Posted by RocketCitySooner View Post
    If Arky and Nebraska are doing so poorly, why haven't they asked to return?

    Don't bet on streaming. It could be as disruptive to the conference model as was NCAA vs. OU Board of Regents.

    I'm much more interested in the future than past history.
    You've moved to Arkansas and Nebraska won't come back out of the statement that I made that both schools athletic program has fallen on hard times in the most important revenue sport?
    I think the original argument was that OU to the BiG would cut off the team from recruiting as well in the state of Texas, if UT and Tech are in the PAC, and OSU and TCU in the SEC.

    Long term that could be a problem just as it has been for the House and Huskers, no matter if the tv executives payout 5 or 6 million more a season.

  31. #4281
    boomhorn.'s Avatar
    Posts
    966
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Outer space & Out of place.

    Originally Posted by JRsec* View Post
    I like the Stones the same as the next guy, but again you are conflating my words. I didn't say we wouldn't take Kansas, or Oklahoma State as a #2. I said we wouldn't take anyone if we didn't get one of our primary targets. With Oklahoma there are 3 or 4 possibilities for a #2, but none of them get in without OU. As long as there is any kind of a payout by virtue of markets then a North Carolina or Virginia state school will get a look. Without figuring markets into the equation there are only two candidates that add value, Texas and Oklahoma, and out of the ACC possibly only Florida State adds anything without counting on markets. So it's a really small set of primary targets.

    Next year when the Big 10 is at 51.1 million in payouts it will be an equally short list for them.
    So you don't have a backup plan, even though the ACC is locked up for a decade and a half, and if OU and UT turned you down. I see. I don't believe that, but maybe the SEC would rather wait 15 years in a 12 conference with two newbies, one in an out of whack division.

  32. #4282
    OU48A's Avatar
    Posts
    30,262
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Norman

    Originally Posted by boomhorn. View Post
    Are we in grade school now......?
    Because I don't agree that OU should go to the BigTen with just KU that makes me scared?
    Is your dad bigger than my dad too? Come on man, I and many others have said that the B1G is a good conference obviously, but not in only adding Oklahoma and Kansas.
    Besides, the rivalry with inconsistently played Nebraska, what is the big selling point to this division of perennial nobody doormats, that if OU looses to it looks good for the BigTen old gaurd but bad for OU. Which would be great news for schools in Texas as A&M or OSU in the SEC, or UT and Tech in the PAC.

    It's called having common sense in the potential drawbacks of any move. Not being fooled into the old scaredie cat nanny booboo rope-a-dope stuff.
    You still did not answer my question?

    Over the long run OU would still be able to recruit the south east just as well as we do now…With more B1G Rose bowl exposure OU might even recruit the LA market even better….but If OU ventures into an area where OU has more clear advantages to sale and a path that helps OU become a much better university… then common sense means making OU the best university it can be and that’s not going to occur in the PAC or SEC for OU.

  33. #4283
    OU48A's Avatar
    Posts
    30,262
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Norman

    Originally Posted by RocketCitySooner View Post
    Yes, I am a fan but I'm also experienced in the management of muti-million programs.
    Networks change but the dynamics of financial management seldom change.
    If OU is looking for a "stable and safe" conference, that pretty much precludes any conference where Texas is also a member.
    When it comes to these decisions you can often tell who has been in significant positions of management and who has handle money….The people with those same types of mind sets will often be those making the CR decisions at most levels.

    In free market economics usually has the last say….our society is rapidly treading toward more economic freedom and autonomy…. OU leadership changes will have OU moving to a place where it can act with far more autonomy, if desired.

  34. #4284
    boomhorn.'s Avatar
    Posts
    966
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Outer space & Out of place.

    Originally Posted by OU48A View Post
    You still did not answer my question?

    Over the long run OU would still be able to recruit the south east just as well as we do now…With more B1G Rose bowl exposure OU might even recruit the LA market even better….but If OU ventures into an area where OU has more clear advantages to sale and a path that helps OU become a much better university… then common sense means making OU the best university it can be and that’s not going to occur in the PAC or SEC for OU.
    I don't see any question that you are asking in this whole post.
    And you didn't answer what I asked you:

    A= What long-standing pipeline does Oklahoma have to New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, or Illinois, that would put them over the top in head to head recruiting against the B1G member schools?
    B= What is supposed to be gained in recruiting against the SEC and PAC if OU plays no schools in the region of Texas, and has to cut out the name brand out of conference game? Because most probable would be the BigTen going to a 10 game conference schedule as Flugar has claimed, who do you play then if UT takes 50% of your out of conference games?
    The following users like this post: kopp0e


  35. #4285
    Originally Posted by OU48A View Post
    You still did not answer my question?

    Over the long run OU would still be able to recruit the south east just as well as we do now…With more B1G Rose bowl exposure OU might even recruit the LA market even better….but If OU ventures into an area where OU has more clear advantages to sale and a path that helps OU become a much better university… then common sense means making OU the best university it can be and that’s not going to occur in the PAC or SEC for OU.
    1) It's not clear that OU would recruit the South as well as we do now if we joined the B1G. Louisiana/Missouri kids and their parents can drive to more B12 destinations than B1G venues. But let's assume that's true;
    2) OU might leverage the Rose Bowl to recruit Southern California more effectively than we do now (which is already as well as anyone outside the PAC.) Let's assume that's also true:
    3) For some reason, OU has "clear" advantages in the B1G that it doesn't have in joining either of the two conferences that would maximize our exposure/relationships in either the South or West Coast. And these advantages are substantial enough to outweigh the lesser exposure/relationships in the South or on the West Coast.

    You should figure out how to clarify your third point. What advantages are you talking about and how do they help OU? Can you point to any evidence backing up your belief in these advantages (historical or otherwise)? If not, it comes across to me that you are working backward to justify a preconceived conclusion instead of reaching out to a conclusion based on the available facts.

    Historically, OU recruits both the West Coast and the South far more effectively than the B1G. If OU had some snowbird recruiting appeal, why haven't we seen evidence of it? Why would we make a B1G footprint recruiting strategy a goal when the schools who are already there aren't relying on their own footprint.

    If your goal is economic innovation for the state of Oklahoma (instead of improvement for OU athletics specifically) how can you demonstrate tangibly that B1G membership will help with anything? Is there evidence at NU yet? Why would aligning with the B1G benefit us more than aligning with the economically booming South or West Coast?
    3 users like Camel at Sea's post: 82OU, kopp0e, The Grassy Nole


  36. #4286
    Originally Posted by boomhorn. View Post
    So you don't have a backup plan, even though the ACC is locked up for a decade and a half, and if OU and UT turned you down. I see. I don't believe that, but maybe the SEC would rather wait 15 years in a 12 conference with two newbies, one in an out of whack division.
    I'm not worried here. I don't think the conference is either. We out earn the Big 10 by 12 million a school now. Even with their TV boost next year we'll still out earn them by no less than 8 million, but much more likely 11 million. There is nothing about our numbers that say we need to add anyone. If we land a primary then fine. If not then fine too. They'll swap Auburn for Missouri if we do nothing and probably sell a 9th conference game to ESPN. Besides we are talking about moves that likely won't happen until 2024-5, so what's another 8 years to wait on the ACC?

    If Texas says no to the Big 10, which I think is likely, at 51.1 million if Oklahoma says no too, they won't be inviting Kansas. Kansas by themselves doesn't add enough value to the Big 10 to cover the 51.1 million and then add to it. They need a stellar companion to make that move viable. So if the Big 10 doesn't land OU or UT they won't be adding anyone either. Slive said we wouldn't add unless it was a great opportunity. A&M was. Missouri got to come along. We won't add anyone else from the Big 12 unless either OU or UT head our way. The Florida president said it best, we aren't looking to add more schools unless a jewel falls into our laps.
    The following users like this post: Big8Fan


  37. #4287
    Originally Posted by Camel at Sea View Post
    Compare the number of OU recruits from B1G territory to the number of recruits we get from SEC territory. Edge SEC. You're the one making the argument that we would have a hard time selling Southern recruits on OU when our entire recruiting history over the last 7 decades tells a story that is opposite of your snowbird recruiting theory.
    We can recruit any region. Some better than others. But this is not the right time to argue that OU sells better in B1G country than out west or down in the Southeast. OU has recruited CA well for 70 years, so much so our CA players over that stretch double our #4 (at present Louisiana, sometimes Kansas, I think Florida is now in the conversation) recruiting state.

    We've definitely made more of an effort lately to recruit the traditional SEC backyard. Though we've always grabbed Louisiana players occasionally and the last 20 years or so (like everyone else) have hit Florida. I'm not sure we had a single player since 1950 from Alabama before Orso a few years ago. And have had very few from Arkansas since Barry was forced out. Norwood was the 2nd guy in the Stoops era and the other was a transfer and legacy guy (Mark Bradley). We did just get 4 FL guys in this recruiting class.

    Next year's roster (scholarship players, about 80)

    Louisiana - Ealy, Ford, James, Jones, McGiness, Sylvie

    Florida - Bonitto, Radley-Hiles, Edwards, Pledger, Hollywood, Daley

    Tennessee - Taylor

    Arkansas - Norwood

    Georgia - Sermon

    That's 15. 12 of those from LA and FL.

    Also got a few from Missouri but that's a bit different.

    The Big Ten numbers do not stack up. With Abdul Adams transferring, I count 4 scholarship guys on the whole roster from B1G country. Dalton, Motley, Swenson, Seibert.

    Florida and Louisiana have the most excluding OK, TX and CA, though with a goose egg in CA this signing class, the margin (7 vs 6) is as slim as it has been in a decade for #3.
    The following users like this post: Camel at Sea


  38. #4288
    OU48A's Avatar
    Posts
    30,262
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Norman

    Originally Posted by Camel at Sea View Post
    1) It's not clear that OU would recruit the South as well as we do now if we joined the B1G. Louisiana/Missouri kids and their parents can drive to more B12 destinations than B1G venues. But let's assume that's true;
    2) OU might leverage the Rose Bowl to recruit Southern California more effectively than we do now (which is already as well as anyone outside the PAC.) Let's assume that's also true:
    3) For some reason, OU has "clear" advantages in the B1G that it doesn't have in joining either of the two conferences that would maximize our exposure/relationships in either the South or West Coast. And these advantages are substantial enough to outweigh the lesser exposure/relationships in the South or on the West Coast.

    You should figure out how to clarify your third point. What advantages are you talking about and how do they help OU? Can you point to any evidence backing up your belief in these advantages (historical or otherwise)? If not, it comes across to me that you are working backward to justify a preconceived conclusion instead of reaching out to a conclusion based on the available facts.

    Historically, OU recruits both the West Coast and the South far more effectively than the B1G. If OU had some snowbird recruiting appeal, why haven't we seen evidence of it? Why would we make a B1G footprint recruiting strategy a goal when the schools who are already there aren't relying on their own footprint.

    If your goal is economic innovation for the state of Oklahoma (instead of improvement for OU athletics specifically) how can you demonstrate tangibly that B1G membership will help with anything? Is there evidence at NU yet? Why would aligning with the B1G benefit us more than aligning with the economically booming South or West Coast?
    #3 is a fair question…
    Oklahoma and OU has strong weather and economic advantages over most every B1G state…

    When adjusted for the cost of living Oklahoma has a very significant lower tax burden. Norman / OKC also have a good and improved standard of living to offer many… We have a good growing economy that recruits can tap into after graduation for jobs.

    It’s true that OU has never really strongly recruited the B1G states…but that in part is due to a weaker name in that area…There are many misperceptions about Oklahoma that can be overcome via education and gradual exposure.

    I believe we would see more success with a higher percentage of B1G area recruits, people and business who could be shown why it makes sense to relocate to OU/ Oklahoma than we would see from the SEC or PAC.

    OU needs to become a larger economic engine.
    I have been involved in the oil & NG industry since birth….Oklahoma has about 10 to 15 years of good drilling inventory left…. then after that the depletion curves set in with declining revenue to the state and with the corresponding job losses….It’s at this point when our state’s economy will need to be diversified….that is if you love OU and still want a strong OU that has a strong fan & booster support base needed to keep OU football strong…

    Because of the economic and weather advantages we have over the B1G states this gives Oklahoma its best chance at business relocations from that part of the nation…. Our advantages also open more doors for business and academic talent from relocating from B1G states. This could help OU become a better institution.

    Most of the SEC states have a good growing economy and enjoy many of the same weather advantages. Much of the PAC weather is better than ours but there are many more misperceptions to overcome in California about Oklahoma than probably anywhere….

    OKC has a very large population from all over the nation often associated with Tinker Air force base.
    I have neighbors who are career military officers… I have met their friends …many have lived all over the world…but very few who grew up in B1G states want to move away from our area at retirement…They often say that Oklahoma feels more like home than anywhere else they have been....but without the problems.
    Most of the southern officers can wait to move back home.

    I realize that a lot of this is antidotal ....but we need to think about want we would want OU and our state to become in thirty years when many of us are dead.

    Okies need to very clearly understand what is in our economic future if we do not act with everything we have to minimize the impact of the depletion of our states oil and NG reserves. There is far more than sport involved…No other conference can help our state by as much to minimize the coming impact. It’s one of many things we should do.

  39. #4289
    boomhorn.'s Avatar
    Posts
    966
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Outer space & Out of place.

    Originally Posted by OU48A View Post
    #3 is a fair question…
    Oklahoma and OU has strong weather and economic advantages over most every B1G state…

    When adjusted for the cost of living Oklahoma has a very significant lower tax burden. Norman / OKC also have a good and improved standard of living to offer many… We have a good growing economy that recruits can tap into after graduation for jobs.

    It’s true that OU has never really strongly recruited the B1G states…but that in part is due to a weaker name in that area…There are many misperceptions about Oklahoma that can be overcome via education and gradual exposure.

    I believe we would see more success with a higher percentage of B1G area recruits, people and business who could be shown why it makes sense to relocate to OU/ Oklahoma than we would see from the SEC or PAC.

    OU needs to become a larger economic engine.
    I have been involved in the oil & NG industry since birth….Oklahoma has about 10 to 15 years of good drilling inventory left…. then after that the depletion curves set in with declining revenue to the state and with the corresponding job losses….It’s at this point when our state’s economy will need to be diversified….that is if you love OU and still want a strong OU that has a strong fan & booster support base needed to keep OU football strong…

    Because of the economic and weather advantages we have over the B1G states this gives Oklahoma its best chance at business relocations from that part of the nation…. Our advantages also open more doors for business and academic talent from relocating from B1G states. This could help OU become a better institution.

    Most of the SEC states have a good growing economy and enjoy many of the same weather advantages. Much of the PAC weather is better than ours but there are many more misperceptions to overcome in California about Oklahoma than probably anywhere….

    OKC has a very large population from all over the nation often associated with Tinker Air force base.
    I have neighbors who are career military officers… I have met their friends …many have lived all over the world…but very few who grew up in B1G states want to move away from our area at retirement…They often say that Oklahoma feels more like home than anywhere else they have been....but without the problems.
    Most of the southern officers can wait to move back home.

    I realize that a lot of this is antidotal ....but we need to think about want we would want OU and our state to become in thirty years when many of us are dead.

    Okies need to very clearly understand what is in our economic future if we do not act with everything we have to minimize the impact of the depletion of our states oil and NG reserves. There is far more than sport involved…No other conference can help our state by as much to minimize the coming impact. It’s one of many things we should do.
    I think that this is more strategic in looking at how the possible move of Oklahoma to any other league impacts the bread and butter of the schools' athletic program, it's football team, which effects it's other athletic clubs in donating and funds from the community. That all effects the long term brand of the school, unknown to many Rutgers is actually considered a former national championship power of college football, back in the 1800's or something. Nobody thinks of that anymore, just as there is a whole generation that has never seen Nebraska, Notre Dame, Arkansas or Navy as a national power.
    But they know the powers as Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Miami, Oklahoma, USC, Texas, Florida State all as winning the national championship this century.
    The shift of A&M to the SEC remains to be seen in the results of how hiring Jimbo will impact recruiting not just for UT, but OU as well. If OU is a non factor in playing relevant games in the region, while A&M host SEC foes, and UT hoist PAC banners, it puts the Sooners in the role of under represented in the region as OU host Iowa and Minnesota.

    So it's alot more to it than just wishing and hoping that moving north will pay off, when all the posters on this board are too old to see the fruits of the labor. While in either case in staying with UT in the PAC or SEC, the dividends would be apparent almost immediately.

    As NCAA creates a monster, Tom Herman set to face off with Jimbo Fisher in 2019 recruiting class
    The first cycle featuring spring visits also features some increased competition from College Station.
    By Wescott Eberts on February 12, 2018 11:31 am


    C. Morgan Engel-USA TODAY Sports
    “It better make you better or you’re in the wrong place.”

    On National Signing Day, Texas Longhorns head coach Tom Herman acknowledged the 800-pound collie in the room — the arrival of Texas A&M Aggies head coach Jimbo Fisher in College Station. Backed by a staff of strong recruiters, the new Kyle Field, and the much-touted SEC cachet, Fisher has the ability to level the in-state recruiting playing field that swung heavily towards the Longhorns in 2018.


    “Better pick our game up,” Herman said. “Trust me, we’ve had that conversation in our staff room on numerous occasions. I know how good a recruiter Jimbo Fisher is and his staff is.”

    In a subtle jab, Herman then delivered a remarkably appropriate line about the nature of college football in College Station.

    “I know that’s a great place,” he said, “for the right person.”

    The notable pause leading into the prepositional phrase said it all.

    A great place. For the right person.

    But while that is justifiably a source of amusement for partisans among the burnt orange faithful, the early returns on the 2019 class suggest that there are plenty of prospects who find the opportunity appealing. Especially at the offensive and defensive skill positions following historic success for Texas at wide receiver and defensive back.


    In recent weeks, Texas A&M has picked up pledges from Dallas Bishop Dunne safety Brian Williams, the nation’s top prospect at his position and the state’s No. 2 player, and Houston Madison cornerback Bobby Wolfe, one of the fast-rising prospects in the state.

    And the Aggies seemingly came out of nowhere to land both, sending a clear message — the crowded secondary depth chart at Texas is providing Texas A&M with an opportunity to sell early playing time. So far, Williams and Wolfe are buying, with the possibility that other top defensive backs in the class will do so as well.

    A&M is also the current leader with Humble Atascosita offensive tackle Kenyon Green, the state’s top player, and sits in a strong position with standout wide receivers like Allen’s Theo Wease Jr. and Arjei Henderson of Fort Bend Travis. A teammate of Williams, athlete Marquez Beason, is also trending towards the Aggies in recent days.


    So the challenge to Herman and his staff is real — just as they took advantage of Kevin Sumlin’s demise in College Station, Fisher is poised to leverage excitement about the Aggies to shift the recruiting landscape once again.

    Still, there’s plenty of skill position talent to go around, with lone Texas commit Roschon Johnson, a quarterback from Port Neches-Groves, already able to target local Austin prospects like Lake Travis wide receiver Garrett Wilson and Bowie wide receiver/H-back Elijah Higgins.

    “That competition is real,” Herman said. “We welcome it. It makes us better.”

    During his press conference, Herman turned around and pointed to the backdrop.

    “We’re very unique. It says ‘The University of Texas’, right? There’s very few institutions that are The University of Something. That means a lot to us. We want to make sure that the best players do stay here.”


    Accomplishing that feat for a second straight year will require some extra work for the staff during the spring — for the first time, recruits can take official visits starting on April 1.

    “I think the biggest change that you’re going to see, the biggest adaptation for us, is going to be now moving forward, these spring visits,” Herman said. “You want to talk about unchartered territory. We have April, May and June, whatever that is, 16 weekends, plus every weekend in the fall and every weekend in December and January, save for a two-week dead period. That’s a lot of people at my house on Saturday afternoons for lunch.”

    And a lot of recruits coming through who need player hosts. And breakfasts with the faculty, who are already stretched thin by the official visit schedule in the fall.


    To combat fatigue for all parties involved, Herman and his staff plan on steering recruits wishing to take spring official visits to three or four weekends. Recruits are clamoring for that opportunity in order to commit during the summer and focus exclusively on their senior seasons in the fall.

    “We’ve created a bit of a monster with these spring visits, so we’ll see how it goes,” Herman said.

    The early signing period already moved up the recruiting calendar in another significant way. With more prospects opting to sign early than initially anticipated, college staffs like Texas had fewer targets to visit in January and February. So the focus turned to the 2019 class early. Offers began flying out for juniors who normally wouldn’t receive such an increase in attention until the spring evaluation period.

    Herman made it clear to recruits and high school football coaches, particularly those in the state of Texas, that his staff doesn’t extend offers that aren’t committable.

    “We are not in the business of offering to get in it,” he said. “‘Coach, I got to throw an offer out so I can recruit him.’ No, you don’t. Not in this state you don’t. You say the word ‘offer’, we better be happy if that kid commits. More than happy, ecstatic.”

    Doing its due diligence hurt the staff at times in the 2018 class with prospects like Schertz Clemens wide receiver Tommy Bush and North Richland Hills linebacker DaShaun White. Herman doesn’t plan on compromising, however — requesting that players come to camp to earn an offer or waiting to see three games of senior film.

    With increased competition and a new recruiting calendar, Herman and his staff have more to navigate in the 2019 recruiting class. But regardless of outside factors, the sales pitch will largely remain the same.

    “I think kids know what Texas is and can be,” Herman said. “They know us most importantly now. They know our staff, they know me, they know our strength staff, they know our players, they know what kind of program we have here. You’re not selling a record in recruiting, you’re not. You’re selling potential. That’s whether we went 13-1 or 7-6. That year is over.

    “You’re selling the future, right?”

  40. #4290
    boomhorn.'s Avatar
    Posts
    966
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Outer space & Out of place.

    Here is a conference realignment history lesson on how not only Florida State, but also Miami declined moving forward on joining the SEC.

    The SEC has never got who was the primary targets in either the '90s or '10s, but still got solid adds. The same as grabbing West Virginia, TCU, Oklahoma State or Texas Tech as numbers 15 and 16.

    Miami Decides Against Joining the SEC : College football: School says it will still consider membership in Big East or ACC.
    September 26, 1990|STEVEN WINE | ASSOCIATED PRESS


    Email



    Share


    CORAL GABLES, Fla. — The University of Miami will continue to study possible affiliation with the Big East and Atlantic Coast conferences, and has eliminated the Southeastern Conference and Metro Conference from consideration, school president Edward Foote said today.

    The university has yet to receive an invitation to join a conference, and school officials have yet to make a recommendation to Miami's board of trustees, athletic director Sam Jankovich said at a news conference.

    The university will make a final decision by Oct. 16, barring unforeseen developments, Foote said.

    He said the SEC and Metro were eliminated primarily because of the makeup of the university's student body.

    "With the Big East, we have our highest concentration of students in that region, outside of Florida," Foote said. "On the other hand, the ACC has a significant impact on the Washington-Baltimore market, where we also have a lot of students."

    Jankovich said Big East officials will visit Miami's campus soon. He said it's uncertain whether ACC officials will visit.

    Officials at West Virginia are beginning to push for SEC membership, The Times-Picayune of New Orleans reported today.

    West Virginia Athletic Director Ed Pastilong has sent each SEC school information and is in the process of scheduling visits with league members.



    "He's sent all 10 schools a notebook, data, information about West Virginia," a source said. "He wants us to know what they're all about."

    Tulane and Virginia Tech also have been mentioned as possible candidates.

    On Tuesday night, the Big East voted to expand and will ask Miami to join, conference and university sources said.

    There had been opposition to Miami by some SEC presidents because of travel costs and the image that has followed the program since the football team arrived at the 1987 Fiesta Bowl wearing battle fatigues.

    Arkansas joined the SEC in August, and Florida State rejected the league two weeks ago to join the ACC. Miami and South Carolina, which joined the league on Tuesday, then became the SEC's prime candidates.

    "Prior to Florida State going to the ACC, there was not enough support for Miami to vote them into the SEC," a league source said.

  41. #4291
    Why are Texas fans so concerned about adverse impacts on OU if it were to leave the XII for another conference?
    2 users like RocketCitySooner's post: Luku, OU48A


  42. #4292
    p23570's Avatar
    Posts
    6,739
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Miyakojima-shi, Okinawa-ken

    some of you idiots need to learn how to summarize.

    post a link and a few sentences, or a paragraph at the most.
    The following users like this post: Luku


  43. #4293
    Originally Posted by boomhorn. View Post
    To paraphrase in one long sentence what the SEC did in it's expansion in the 1990's and 2010 time frame, and what a potential future addition could look like.
    1990- The SEC shot for the bigs in UT, FSU, OU, Miami, and got none but settled for small state low academic warm bodies of the Piggies and ****s.
    In the 2010's The SEC once again shot for the moving Target of FSU, NCSU, UT, ATM, OU, and Clemson, but was told no bueno on any move that hurt the value of the ACC, in other words they did what ESPN told em, was told no from OU, and UT, but got a much better backup in Mizzou to tag along with ATM who was literally begging to join where they felt their culture strongly identified with the SEC over staying in the Big12 or joining the Pac10. *Note that ESPN couldn't keep the SEC from adding NC State, Clemson, or FSU, and almost made the deal before ND wanted halfway in the ACC, but all ESPN could threaten the SEC with was no increased payouts, but the value would have adjusted once the SEC rights went to market.
    What that tells me is you are right, if in the future the SEC looks to round up division setups at a more workable 8 or even 10 for both east and west, they will spin accepting whoever ESPN and CBS, or whoever the media buddy is at the time as being a great fit. Since the SEC is directly tied to the world wide leader until about 2035 for the SECN, then let's assume the ACC is off the board unless the ACCN a complete failure, and that won't be the case if I had to bet, then the Big12 would be the best that can be hoped for, making the SEC already have to settle for brands that ain't in the states of North Carolina and Virginia, and what is available just near the area in WVU would give what many type about could be more valuable in a shifting model in content, just as would Okie State, both average arguably better football product than both previous adds in Arkansas and Missouri, and both add new states in getting to an even 16 schools.
    Now if the conference race was to shoot up to 18 or 20 the only hope unless getting either or both of Oklahoma and Texas would be in adding a combination of market-content in TCU and Texas Tech, maybe ine of Kansas State or Iowa State as they border Missouri, but I think the SEC would sit at 16 for a while and see if the ACC is breakable in about 15 years.
    So if OU and UT won't go, and the ACC is off the table, but the SEC would like to get an increased content and payout, then adding West Virginia and Oklahoma State would work, as much as some act like it would not, history shows different in the last 4 additions to the conference.

    There was a lot of angst when the Horned Frogs looked like they was gonna overthrow the almost annual conference football champ in Oklahoma, but that was at the same time that Stoops and co. chose to be satisfied with near mediocrity in recruiting, I bet the same would be said if the Big12 had added Louisville and Utah to get back to twelves schools if all three of those GroupOf5 schools came in beating OU and UT most years.
    No matter who was chosen, no school will has a unanimous agreement for picking G5 schools, but I bet none of that is a concern now that OU was able to make the playoffs in part due to playing a highly ranked TCU team in the conference championship instead of staying at home and being bumped by the same team they beat on the road earlier in the season that won it's conference title over a top 4 seed.

    Agreed.There is a lot of value for keeping the ACC intact as shown by the other two leagues looking at adding schools in the past decade had constantly mentioned ACC schools in states of Florida, N. Carolina and Virginia, while one league already took Maryland.
    But the SEC would spin adding both WVU and OSU as great cultured additions and all that as long as ESPN chose to pay accordingly, just as some prime ACC markets stayed off the table as soon as ESPN said they will not give value to what damages the value of another of the networks partners.
    I do think WVU generally gets undervalued in CR discussions. If the Big XII dissolves WVU always gets discussed in the context of the ACC, but I think they would have less value to the ACC than the SEC. Pitt, VT, and UVA already carry most of what WVU offers in terms of market (i.e., Pittsburgh and the DMV). UVA and VT aren't really gettable for the SEC. But WVU might be gettable fairly soon. Given WVU's fanbase and getting the SEC into the DMV area, I've always thought they would make more sense for the SEC than the ACC. I'm sure Rocket will be along shortly to explain the error of my ways, but I thought it would have made more sense for WVU to be the plus one than Mizzou to A&M. Mizzou just does not fit at all culturally, which has always been a big deal to the SEC. WVU would have fit like a glove.

    I would assume they took MIzzou because of some combination of hedging against the B1G, and hoping something shook loose from the ACC. But I think WVU would be a good fit for the SEC as the second in adding two. It will be interesting to see what happens. The ACC and SEC are becoming more and more of a hegemony anyway given the ESPN connection. If Fox does end up getting out of the sports biz, I expect all hell to break loose. If not, status quo, and the Big XII may even add a couple.
    The following users like this post: kopp0e


  44. #4294
    Originally Posted by boomhorn. View Post
    You've moved to Arkansas and Nebraska won't come back out of the statement that I made that both schools athletic program has fallen on hard times in the most important revenue sport?
    I think the original argument was that OU to the BiG would cut off the team from recruiting as well in the state of Texas, if UT and Tech are in the PAC, and OSU and TCU in the SEC.

    Long term that could be a problem just as it has been for the House and Huskers, no matter if the tv executives payout 5 or 6 million more a season.
    Arkansas had a good run under Petrino, Nebraska has made it to the Big Ten Championship game and was winning 9 games regularly under Pelini now Frost is the coach lets see if he gets them back on track. The loss of that Texas recruiting territory...how many national championships does Texas have with all those Texas recruits? Baylor? Texas Tech? TCU? Hell, Baylor just went 1-11 with all those Texas kids & how have all those Texas kids helped Kansas football? The Big 12 is and has been too Texas centric, the SWC died, the Big 12 is diminished with the loss of the 4 AAU members and the states of Colorado, Missouri & Nebraska. You don't need Texas recruits to win a NC.

  45. #4295
    Originally Posted by boomhorn. View Post
    You've moved to Arkansas and Nebraska won't come back out of the statement that I made that both schools athletic program has fallen on hard times in the most important revenue sport?
    I think the original argument was that OU to the BiG would cut off the team from recruiting as well in the state of Texas, if UT and Tech are in the PAC, and OSU and TCU in the SEC.

    Long term that could be a problem just as it has been for the House and Huskers, no matter if the tv executives payout 5 or 6 million more a season.
    You stated: "Your placing opinion over logic in this instance, as Nebraska/ Arkansas are two examples of what went wrong in looking to separate from the big bad meanie in Texas."

    I responded that if Arky and NU went wrong, then why haven't they asked to come back?

    BTW, many articles about the decline of NU football. Few, if any, attribute it to being unable to recruit in Texas. Most attribute it to the loss of partials and some dumb coaching/AD changes.

    BTW, NU has sold out their spring game with some tickets going for $500. Sounds like they're really in trouble.

  46. #4296
    Originally Posted by JRsec* View Post
    I'm not worried here. I don't think the conference is either. We out earn the Big 10 by 12 million a school now. Even with their TV boost next year we'll still out earn them by no less than 8 million, but much more likely 11 million. There is nothing about our numbers that say we need to add anyone. If we land a primary then fine. If not then fine too. They'll swap Auburn for Missouri if we do nothing and probably sell a 9th conference game to ESPN. Besides we are talking about moves that likely won't happen until 2024-5, so what's another 8 years to wait on the ACC?

    If Texas says no to the Big 10, which I think is likely, at 51.1 million if Oklahoma says no too, they won't be inviting Kansas. Kansas by themselves doesn't add enough value to the Big 10 to cover the 51.1 million and then add to it. They need a stellar companion to make that move viable. So if the Big 10 doesn't land OU or UT they won't be adding anyone either. Slive said we wouldn't add unless it was a great opportunity. A&M was. Missouri got to come along. We won't add anyone else from the Big 12 unless either OU or UT head our way. The Florida president said it best, we aren't looking to add more schools unless a jewel falls into our laps.
    So you have the SEC at "no less than 8 million > big Ten", which puts a per school payout of at least 59 million (51.1 + 8)? I haven't been following along closely, so perhaps I just missed the forecast numbers.

  47. #4297
    Originally Posted by Sea Blue View Post
    So you have the SEC at "no less than 8 million > big Ten", which puts a per school payout of at least 59 million (51.1 + 8)? I haven't been following along closely, so perhaps I just missed the forecast numbers.
    "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"
    The following users like this post: mmc22


  48. #4298
    OU48A's Avatar
    Posts
    30,262
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Norman

    Originally Posted by RocketCitySooner View Post
    Why are Texas fans so concerned about adverse impacts on OU if it were to leave the XII for another conference?
    That’s a really good question.
    I can understand the concerns of others but not UT…unless they are scared.

  49. #4299
    Originally Posted by boomhorn. View Post
    Here is a conference realignment history lesson on how not only Florida State, but also Miami declined moving forward on joining the SEC.

    The SEC has never got who was the primary targets in either the '90s or '10s, but still got solid adds. The same as grabbing West Virginia, TCU, Oklahoma State or Texas Tech as numbers 15 and 16.
    Again you can't read, not even what you cite. It clearly stated that MIami had not received any invitations to join a conference and their trustees had not made any recommendations. They were doing their own work ahead of any invitations to clear a path for affiliation with a conference which most closely matched their student body. Deciding against pursuing a conference is quite different from receiving and turning down an invitation. It also clearly stated that SEC presidents had reservations over Miami's image.

    The press frequently says schools are considered when they are not. This article stated that the West Virginia administration made a push for the SEC. They did. They requested an application and we sent them one. They submitted it and we tabled it. We don't vote to reject schools, we only vote to accept them. If in a straw poll a school doesn't have the support we don't formally vote and reject them. But to even get a straw poll your application has to be studied and debated. A tabled application doesn't even make it to that stage.

    When we want somebody, we send them the application. That's our way of saying if you desire to come the votes to accept you are already in hand. We don't do that very often. If you ask us for an invitation it means you have some heavy selling to do to even get noticed.

    But those days have changed somewhat, not in protocol, but in having another voice in the room, the valuation of the network.

    Alabama could say that they have decided not to join the Ivy League, but that doesn't mean that the Ivy League had any interest in Alabama.

    When George Wallace was first running for Governor in Alabama the finer people in Birmingham wanted nothing to do with him. So Wallace called a party given on behalf of one of his opponents endorsed by those folks and had himself paged so that people attending the party heard his name and thought he was invited as well.

    It's good PR if you want to join a conference of your choice to make it appear as though you had interest from others. There was no invitation from the SEC.
    Last edited by JRsec*; February 13th, 2018 at 01:33 PM.

  50. #4300
    Originally Posted by Sea Blue View Post
    So you have the SEC at "no less than 8 million > big Ten", which puts a per school payout of at least 59 million (51.1 + 8)? I haven't been following along closely, so perhaps I just missed the forecast numbers.
    Keep up Sea Blue. We are talking about the difference that the Big 10's 51.1 million in TV revenue will have upon your deficit in Gross Revenue. This past year the SEC had an average 12 million per school advantage in Gross Revenue on the Big 10 members. I'm not making the claim that the SEC will make 59 million in TV revenue. Next year with the Sugar Bowl money back in the picture (roughly 2.5 million per school) and the escalation we should be between 45-46 million while the Big 10 is at 51.1 in TV revenue. That means with most other factors remaining roughly the same (and they have in most years) that the SEC's average advantage in Gross Revenue could dip as low as 8 million per school over the Big 10, or could remain as high as 11 million over the Big 10. Year before last year (with Sugar Bowl money) our advantage was 15 million.

Similar Threads

  1. need tickets to wallflowers at jones Assembly
    By Tsou89 in forum Marketplace
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 26th, 2017, 01:53 PM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: April 1st, 2013, 05:53 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 25th, 2013, 10:10 PM
  4. Red Raider revenge?
    By Mex The Dog in forum The Press Box
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 2nd, 2012, 02:20 AM

Tags for this Thread