That schedule is a wet dream. I would love anything close to that.Originally Posted by The
|
|
That schedule is a wet dream. I would love anything close to that.
Our schedule last year was waaaay tougher than that. If we could get in with that schedule, I'm all for it.
It's a good strategy for OU/Texas. As a fan of college football and good games, I don't want it tho. Long term I think it would be used as a negative towards OU. I want change and would love for it to be adding to the current Big XII with some decent names (Clemson, VaTech, FSU, Miami, etc) and splitting East/West.
The following users like this post: lobster999
You seem to be of the idea that "toughness" somehow equates to "excitement".
It's an element, granted, but isn't the determining factor.
Notre Dame wasn't supposed to be any good this year, but I was damn excited for that game before the season started. Remember when we played Bama? They sucked ****, but I was fired the **** up for that game. You know why people tune into games for teams they don't follow? It's because the match up is exciting. No one gives a flying **** about OU-Baylor, or Michigan-Kent State or Florida State-Northern Illinois.
I agree, but I really am not that concerned with the "excitement" factor all that much. If we go to a national title (especially if we win one) it is way more exciting to me than who our opponents were during the season. I was way more pumped to play Mizzou in the 2008 big XII championship than I was playing A&M this year because of what the outcome meant for us. ND would not have been as exciting if all of those other teams in front of us hadn't lost already, or if we had lost to ut and kstate already.
I see your point. I just see the entire season as an experience, not just the end result. Hell, we've only won the whole thing 7 times in ~100 attempts.
That quote right there tells me that we couldn't be more opposite in our wishes for the Sooners and college football in general. We will just have to agree to disagree I suppose
Independence could work for Texas. They have a much larger following, and their own network. If they could get cable access for the LHN on all the networks in Texas, that just might be enough to float them.
However, OU doesn't have that large of a base. We are a National Brand, but that only goes so far.
Next issue is scheduling. Once conferences go into conference play, there's not many open dates for conference schools to play other schools. The heart of our schedule would be BYU, New Mexico St and Idaho.
Also football has no goal BESIDES a National Championship. This past year OU got a share of the Big 12 Championship....but going independent, there would be no conference championship to play for. Without a goal to play for football would become a pointless exhibition.
This is BEFORE we talk about the non-revenue sports. Would we have our non-revenue in the Missouri Valley Conference?
Times 2.
Lastly, playing average teams doesn't prepare a team to play in a national championship. Sometimes it causes a team to get beaten like a drum. Does that sound familiar?
Last edited by DelMarSooner; 01-19-2013 at 10:10 PM.
The following users like this post: OU812
I don't see why having a national following is that big of a deal. We have a T3 deal with Fox, and never have any trouble getting our T1 & 2 on TV. It's not like the conference really helps with that.
The SEC & ACC have OOC games after conference play starts, plus no one has any issues scheduling Notre Dame during the conference season. Not saying we're Notre Dame, but I really think we'd have no problem scheduling.
I disagree entirely with the no goal argument. We lost 1 conference game this year and were out of contention for the conference championship (Don't care about sharing. It's my opinion that KSU won the conference, and it's not changing.). We would be competing for the national championship and to get into the playoffs every year.
Your last point is valid. Honestly, I don't care, don't watch them because I have no time. Stick 'em in the Big East, I dunno.
Never heard that one before...
Please do a quick juxtaposition of the OU and USC schedules (the one time we got "beaten like a drum" in the title game) and point out the juggernauts hat helped forge the mighty Trojan iron.
If (I should say when) playoffs get past 4 teams, an independent OU becomes a better option I think. Be easier to get in as an independent.
The "No-Goal" argument/issue was something that many around Notre Dame were having an issue with. It's hard to get kids motiviated to go out and just play. They couldn't tell the players, ok, we beat Texas and then K-state next week, we will win the Big 12 (substitute in any conference). Also during recruiting other schools could say, "we won the Big whatever"....Notre Dame hasn't won squat in years....cause they have nothing to win. All they ended up with is "we're Notre Dame" which wouldn't empress me much.
As far as TV money is about who wants to watch. We have fans in Oklahoma and Texas, but I'm not sure that's enough to get us enough pay out. Being part of a conference we get paid on overall content inventory too. We would need to get paid about $3 million per home game we'd have to about make the same money (pull off the top of my head with out actually doing any math). I don't think Fox Sports SW will be paying that kind of scratch for OU vs Idaho.
After all that I said, you focus on the "Boise" example. My point was about adding crappy teams makes for a crappy conference. This doesn't make OU better and doesn't help us win a championship. The big 12 is weak. Moving forward, the SEC will get 2 teams in the postseason almost every yr. Wouldn't it be nice if the big 12 was working toward that goal? To be the best conference and guarantee as many spots in the postseason as possible. Right now, the ONLY way a big 12 team gets in is to be undefeated. If there's a 1 loss big12 team, it becomes much harder and it's only going to get worse if the big 12 continues to get weaker by adding more crappy teams.
Iron sharpens iron. To be the best, you have to beat the best. Nobody ever says, play a bunch of ****ty teams and that makes you better. We need a better conference for the long term interests of our program. It makes OU better. Its more exciting for the fans, players, coaches, recruits, etc. Playing in a crappy conference does not help OU at all, in any way.
This thread no longer delivers ...
The following users like this post: hOUrricane
These threads haven't delivered **** in 4 years other than Nebraska, A&M, Colorado, and Missouri bolting.
And we picked up two minor league teams.
2 users like The's post: Sooners2007, Val on the Getner
@McMurphyESPN
Maryland files countersuit vs. ACC; wants ACC's lawsuit to recoup $52.3M exit fee dropped, Bloomberg reports
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...eaving-1-.html
“Our lawsuit calls the ACC’s ‘exit fee’ what it really is -- an antitrust violation and an illegal activity,"
RT @alex_prewitt Spoke w Attorney Gen Doug Gansler.Said ACC has begun withholding revenue from Maryland as "collateral against exit fee"
The following users like this post: BMR
The plot thickens
possession is 9/10ths of the law
If we are adding new members, screw the conference, let’s first be for whatever helps OU and that’s not always going to be what generates the largest amounts of money.
We should consider our recruiting implications.
How do you figure? You thought Maryland and the ACC would just kiss and make up and agree to the exit fee without a battle?
hopefully what ends up happening does both.
(Translation: Some combo including some of these FSU, Clemson, GT, VT, Miami)
I think the point is that if the fee is litigated down enough, then it's open season on the ACC for the B1G, SEC and Big XII.
Agreed. The question becomes how does anyone; fans, administration, and media make the arguement the Big 12 is so great, and just as good as the SEC, PAC, or BIG? The Big 12 is weak, and I don't see a scenario where OU comes out stronger by staying in the Big 12?
Texas is our recruiting ground, it was in the Big 8 with no Texas teams in the league, and it can be in the future, if we would just bail out of the Big 12!
Baylor over UCLA helps. Tech over Minnesota helps. Long term tho I think recruits for all schools will be down on the conference.
Why do you figure this? You think ACC teams signed a $50 million exit fee a few weeks ago in hopes that it would go away soon?
Ugh, x97 has made its way here from shaggy.
I've been on this board a lot longer than you have.
Ugh.
On a serous note, are you that guy that wants BUY in the B12?
That would be true if the ACC were on the same fiscal level as B1G and the SEC.
Maryland and FSU voted against it. Maryland has already left. It doesn't take rocket surgeon to guess what FSU will do if the exit fee is manageable.
The Maryland lawsuit is the only major realignment news to follow. If the win over the ACC then expect the SEC, B10, and B12 to feast.
Computer rankings
The fiscal "level" is no different then when they signed the exit penalty. So, what has changed in the last 8 weeks when all the presidents signed the $50 million exit penalty and pledged allegiance to one another?
FSU is holding out for the SEC. The SEC does not want FSU. The one school that didn't sign doesn't have the only other option it wants.
Like I said, there really isn't as much to see here as people believe. When you analyze all the facts that is apparent.
Feast on what? The ACC schools didn't sign a $50 million buyout with the intention of hoping it would just disappear a few weeks later. Think about that for a minute. The only school that didn't sign really wants the SEC. The SEC doesn't want them.
Plus, if the B1G was going to "feast" on the ACC then why did the "settle" for dogs like Maryland and Rutgers? If the B1G could just start picking off schools from the ACC whenever they want they wouldn't start with those 2 dogs. Those are schools you settle for. They are not schools you take first.
If you think things overs it's pretty clear. Stop reading swaim and start thinking logically about it.
The B10 does not see them as dogs...they see them as TV markets and programs that can be cultivated. It's a sound decision considering the B10 is paid by the eyeball. I thinks it's pretty clear the lawsuit is the next tipping point and the same could be true if KU was litigating the B12 to escape the GOR. If Maryland can escape that large buyout so can the others. Then it gets simple...where do the SEC and B10 expand next? It's either into B12 territories or ACC..and currently the ACC is the easier conference to raid.
Nothing may happen..simply see this outcome as the next major tipping point.
1st day? It's about cable carriage in New York, New Jersey and Washington DC. It's about non sports watching cable subscribers in those markets paying money to the B1G network because it's on a low tier package.
Hypothetical scenario, two part question:
Let's say the current and soon to be 14 team conferences decided to make the move to 16 and:
The ACC adds West Virginia and UConn or Notre Dame moves football to the ACC.
The B1G adds two from the pool of Iowa State/Kansas/Kansas State.
The PAC adds OU, OSU, UT and TT.
1. Would the SEC add TCU and Baylor? This is provided that all ACC members are committed to staying together, which would leave the SEC with East Coast options like USF, UCF, etc.
2. If the answer to #1 is yes, than would it be wiser for OU & OSU to join the SEC, to keep the SEC's footprint in Texas at a minimum?
I would answer "yes". In that scenario the SEC makes the most sense. Don't like the PAC deal without travel partners. OU would be WV.
Wouldn't OSU, UT, and TT be considered travel partners with OU in a hypothetical PAC- 16?
My bad, mis-read the scenario. I would be good with either. In the PAC we keep the Texas footprint and gain an expanded presence in Cali. The SEC keeps Texas and grows Florida. Ultimately at this stage and that situation I like the SEC option best. OU would be joining one of the big 2 and travel options would be better.
More likely UT and the PAC can never work it out. The PAC will eventually, after BIG and SEC continue to leave them in the dust, be willing to add OU, OSU, TT, TCU. UT goes independent.
I could see the BIG getting to 16 by some combo of UVA, Mizzou, (Syracuse or BC).
Dont think the SEC will go to 16, there just aren't teams that add value
.
For all the talk about money, winning big is the biggest money maker for OU.
I see no long term advantage for OU to play an extremely tough conference schedule that makes both winning and making money more difficult.
Donations, ticket sales, and Sooner Sports Property’s combine to make a lot more money for OU than even the best 1 & 2 tier TV rights.
Why put those things at risk.
Last edited by OU48A; 01-19-2013 at 11:36 PM.
People don't want to think rationally. They think that if our conference could get Ohio St, Notre Dame, Alabama, Florida, USC, and FSU that it would be just awesome.
It would kill us in the long run.
So, what you are telling me here is that the B1G could pick off any ACC school at any time but they chose Rutgers because they seem them as more valuable to the B1G? Gotcha. Delany is one dumb sob if true. LOL
Would the SEC add TCU and Baylor? Seriously you must be joking.
Texas A&M - 1997, 1998, 2010, 2012 Big 12 Champs*
Why are you still here?
To discuss Oklahoma Football.
Texas A&M - 1997, 1998, 2010, 2012 Big 12 Champs*
Recruits are going to go elsewhere when OU's schedule remains the same or becomes softer by adding crap teams to the Big XII. Any big name Big XII adds will be on a different side of conference anyway and play them every couple years and, if fortunate enough, in champ games. College landscape is changing and recruits will take notice.
Posting Permissions
