Link: OU prez says Sooners, A&M got invite from SEC

[wishbonesooner]

And that's the problem, wishbone. I respect the heck out of OU's football program, but like I've said before, the public perception now is y'all are UT's lapdog. And that's gonna be hard for me to overcome.

And actually you do take a back seat to Bama.

All due respect, only on this forum do we take a back seat to Bama. When you guys were down and getting kicked around, we kicked your ex coaches a** and sang your fight song IN OUR HOUSE. That ain't the back seat brother.

 

[JPT4Bama]

All due respect, only on this forum do we take a back seat to Bama. When you guys were down and getting kicked around, we kicked your ex coaches a** and sang your fight song IN OUR HOUSE. That ain't the back seat brother.

While I don't know for sure, I would be surprised if any other fan base had the respect and love for OU that ours does. Plus we will always be grateful for that butt kicking ya'll gave franny. That was almost too good to be true.

I'm sorry some feathers are being ruffled here and it's really uncalled for on both sides. I personally got a huge kick out of all the Texas fans posting here prior to the BCSCG expressing their displeasure over all the love we were giving the Sooners! They just could not get over this fact and I believe it really added fuel to the pre-game banter. What a bunch of pompous jerks!

Anyway, we shouldn't let all this conference musical chairs stuff come between longtime friends and two of the greatest programs ever.

Boomer Sooner and good luck in 2010. Maybe we'll meet soon for all the marbles. I would guess the odds are now better than ever.

 

[OUsage]

Actually came to this board to get away from realignment chatter, but was intrigued by the title and have now read all the way through it....a lot of good points made by many good posters....


Like every other non-Tide fan here, I’m a guest on this board and I’ll try to be as respectful as possible. So to preface this...


Good luck to you all this season and beyond. RTR to you boys down South.



Here goes:

1.)Anyone who bases their outlook on the premise that OU made a fatal flaw in “allowing” the conference offices to be moved out of Kansas City knows absolutely *nothing* about the history the of the Big Eight Conference – and when I say nothing…I mean *nothing.* The leadership in Norman was ecstatic when the conference offices were moved –a move that *OU* proposed and then garnered the votes to be passed.

The Big 8 was an off-shoot of the old Missouri Valley Conference. OU wasn’t a founding member. When we permanently joined in 1920, we were looked down upon by those institutions that had access to major population centers and actually ran the conference (Mizzou, KU). The Dust Bowl in the 1930s only made things worse. We were the hayseeds…the most southern school who was always the butt of jokes from their Midwestern counterparts. We were *always* more culturally aligned with the old SWC schools (Texas, A&M, Arkansas), but because we absolutely hated them as well, we ended up in the Big 6…which became the Big 7…which later became the Big 8. They treated us like trash for 80 years….and we had little recourse other than to form an awesome football program and embarrass them on the field every fall. And that’s what we did. We beat them –embarrassed them –not just for years…or decades…for generations. We handed them their butt in a sack for a century. The card they always held over us was money. We constantly pleaded for small concessions….like rotating the basketball tournament away from Kansas City…even if just a few years. The answer: get lost, OU – go out there and make us our money with your football team on TV…and we’ll collect the check.

Why do you think we were so adamant about TV money that we eventually took the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court (along with UGA) in 1984? We were marketing the conference for them on an annual basis and they were taking the money we made and giving us a middle finger. There’s a lot –A LOT—more on this point that could be said (and the reason for Nebraska eventually leaving the Big XII also lies in this answer….) but sufficed to say….when OU had the chance to move the conference offices out of KC, we danced all the way to Dallas.



2.)Anyone who thinks Missouri football somehow carries more marketability than OU football knows absolutely nothing….about *anything* related to realignement. OU is 66-23-5 all-time vs. Missouri. We’ve won 19 of the last 20 games. Mizzou’s last win in Norman occurred during the LBJ Administration….in 1966. They do *NOT* carry the Kansas City market…or the St. Louis market. That’s fool’s gold. That’s like Colorado and the Denver market. They’re mediocre and everyone in every state in the conference has longed recognized that fact. When OU is on TV, people tune in….from LA to NYC…from the Pacific NW to South Beach. Missouri can hardly carry Springfield. And there’s a reason for that. They don’t consistently produce wins. If the SEC wants to add a weak sister, you might as well add Iowa St….they have a loyal fanbase that doesn’t whine every step of the way. Missouri is like France – they hate themselves because they know they’re such underachievers….



3.)Which brings us to A&M. If you’re looking for a quality name, a big stadium, and a dedicated fanbase that shares a Southern culture….and will never bother to beat you…..you’ve found a gold mine in Texas A&M. A&M would have been a nice get – but not by themselves...they wouldn’t have been a home run. About half their games in the last 2 years were broadcast on radio. Yes….RADIO. They weren’t on TV for a reason…their ratings aren’t that great compared to their competition. And there’s a reason for that: in the Stoops Era, OU has won 10 of 11 games vs. A&M. And during that time, we’ve defeated them by an average score of 44-19. As has been said before, OU has dominated them like we’ve dominated the rest of the conference. Check out the statlines: OU has *twice* as many conference titles as Texas…more NC’s….more Heismans…more BCS appearances….more everything. A&M? Not even in the same zip code. Maybe that’s what the SEC wants….but they want them for recruiting purposes in Texas...not for their marketability.



4.)So let’s talk about OU’s marketability and the notion that we somehow aren’t “what we once were.” We’ve been in a BCS bowl 7 out of the last 10 years (way more than anyone in the conference)….4 of those have been in the NCG. We’ve won 2 Heismans in the last 7 years. We just put 3 of the first 4 picks in the NFL Draft. We’re not just sitting around dusting off old trophies…we’re consistently adding to our resume. From coast to coast….just like Alabama…we’re a national brand. And this realignment process proved it…we had multiple options. West, down South, stay at home…whatever. Missouri? Please. There’s a reason the B10+2 didn’t want them. Again, if the SEC leadership was scared of adding another powerhouse….then go ahead and add Missouri and Clemson and roll the dice on the TV sets that come with them. Which brings us to the last point…



5.)The SEC leadership *wasn’t* afraid of adding another powerhouse. They analyzed all the numbers and they recognized the situation. They offered OU – straight up. If the SEC leadership had a choice, they’d take OU in a heartbeat. For a variety of reasons, our leadership didn’t think it was a good idea…..at least not right now. Suffice it to say –and without being too cruel – we don’t have a Texas (UT) problem….we have an OSU problem. We can’t separate from them very easily….it would take a monumental effort to do so and we simply didn’t have the time to make those sort of moves in state politics. Whether or not we’d ever go to the SEC is one thing…..if it was up to our fans, we would. Yes, we need our recruiting pipelines open in the state of Texas. But Texas needs our rivalry to maintain a major cashcow and a national game of prestige. In the end, staying in the Big XII-II was probably the smart move for us – at least for now. But the SEC didn’t think it was a bad financial deal to offer OU…and its member institutions weren’t scared to bring us in…and we weren’t scared to go. You all didn’t want OSU – and for that I can’t say I blame you – but that’s a different thread.



Sorry for the short novel….but the notion that we somehow meekly kowtowed to Texas and should have worked to preserve the Mizzou-KU status quo in the Kansas City-Big Eight is beyond laughable. It's moronic. And the notion that Mizzou and/or A&M somehow bring more to the table for the SEC in the realm of college football is illogical and factually incorrect. Those who would say otherwise are looking to maximize television sets (real or imagined), exploit new recruiting hotbeds, and avoid playing another heavyweight.


Boomer Sooner

 

[Capstone46]

Over the last few days I have read a few of the posts on this subject. I had no desire to post a reply because there was too much misinformation to address. Adding in the complete misunderstanding of some of the posters made it impossible. Finally this morning I read the entire thread and was pleased to read one poster has it correct. If you have read OUsage's post, you have a good understanding of OU's history and their current position in considering conference expansion. He also gives an accurate description of OU's other conference members and their worth to any conference.

OU will continue to be an asset to any conference that has them. Hopefully someday we will be lucky enough to have them in the SEC. Several years ago I heard one of their non-football multiple-national championship coaches make a comment before the last OU-Alabama football series. He said (speaking of OU and Bama) that "he had always considered us to be Crimson brothers separated at birth and raised in different parts of the country". Everyone at the table agreed.

 

[GrayTide]

Over the last few days I have read a few of the posts on this subject. I had no desire to post a reply because there was too much misinformation to address. Adding in the complete misunderstanding of some of the posters made it impossible. Finally this morning I read the entire thread and was pleased to read one poster has it correct. If you have read OUsage's post, you have a good understanding of OU's history and their current position in considering conference expansion. He also gives an accurate description of OU's other conference members and their worth to any conference.

OU will continue to be an asset to any conference that has them. Hopefully someday we will be lucky enough to have them in the SEC. Several years ago I heard one of their non-football multiple-national championship coaches make a comment before the last OU-Alabama football series. He said (speaking of OU and Bama) that "he had always considered us to be Crimson brothers separated at birth and raised in different parts of the country". Everyone at the table agreed.

I think you are absolutely correct Capstone 46. Historically Oklahoma, not Texas is one of the very few football programs that is on the same level with Alabama. I also agree with wishbone that " their program takes a back seat to no one". Whether the SEC offered OU is moot for now. No doubt we would have taken OU, but if OSU being offered is a caveat to getting OU then it probably will not happen.

I see no reason to criticize OU for what happened, President Boren did what he thought was best for OU, not what was best for the SEC which is what I believe Dr. Witt would do for us. I too believe that this is only a temporary fix and this whole idea of realignment will surface again in the not too distant future.

 

[Redwood Forrest]

Thanks to the Oklahoma posters for telling the other side of this situation. I have learned a few things. Two things jump out at me:

1. This was far more complicated than it seemed, due to the media speculation without hard facts.

2. This was really simple -- if we were on the inside and knew the facts, mostly concerning $$$ + politics which occured behind closed doors.

IMO, there are six, maybe seven schools (certainly less than a dozen) who would "land on their feet" and be successful filling their stadiums and drawing the national TV crowd no matter what conference they were in, Texas, Oklahoma and Alabama being three of those.

 

[CullmanTide]

Actually came to this board to get away from realignment chatter, but was intrigued by the title and have now read all the way through it....a lot of good points made by many good posters....


Like every other non-Tide fan here, I’m a guest on this board and I’ll try to be as respectful as possible. So to preface this...


Good luck to you all this season and beyond. RTR to you boys down South.



Here goes:

1.)Anyone who bases their outlook on the premise that OU made a fatal flaw in “allowing” the conference offices to be moved out of Kansas City knows absolutely *nothing* about the history the of the Big Eight Conference – and when I say nothing…I mean *nothing.* The leadership in Norman was ecstatic when the conference offices were moved –a move that *OU* proposed and then garnered the votes to be passed.

The Big 8 was an off-shoot of the old Missouri Valley Conference. OU wasn’t a founding member. When we permanently joined in 1920, we were looked down upon by those institutions that had access to major population centers and actually ran the conference (Mizzou, KU). The Dust Bowl in the 1930s only made things worse. We were the hayseeds…the most southern school who was always the butt of jokes from their Midwestern counterparts. We were *always* more culturally aligned with the old SWC schools (Texas, A&M, Arkansas), but because we absolutely hated them as well, we ended up in the Big 6…which became the Big 7…which later became the Big 8. They treated us like trash for 80 years….and we had little recourse other than to form an awesome football program and embarrass them on the field every fall. And that’s what we did. We beat them –embarrassed them –not just for years…or decades…for generations. We handed them their butt in a sack for a century. The card they always held over us was money. We constantly pleaded for small concessions….like rotating the basketball tournament away from Kansas City…even if just a few years. The answer: get lost, OU – go out there and make us our money with your football team on TV…and we’ll collect the check.

Why do you think we were so adamant about TV money that we eventually took the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court (along with UGA) in 1984? We were marketing the conference for them on an annual basis and they were taking the money we made and giving us a middle finger. There’s a lot –A LOT—more on this point that could be said (and the reason for Nebraska eventually leaving the Big XII also lies in this answer….) but sufficed to say….when OU had the chance to move the conference offices out of KC, we danced all the way to Dallas.



2.)Anyone who thinks Missouri football somehow carries more marketability than OU football knows absolutely nothing….about *anything* related to realignement. OU is 66-23-5 all-time vs. Missouri. We’ve won 19 of the last 20 games. Mizzou’s last win in Norman occurred during the LBJ Administration….in 1966. They do *NOT* carry the Kansas City market…or the St. Louis market. That’s fool’s gold. That’s like Colorado and the Denver market. They’re mediocre and everyone in every state in the conference has longed recognized that fact. When OU is on TV, people tune in….from LA to NYC…from the Pacific NW to South Beach. Missouri can hardly carry Springfield. And there’s a reason for that. They don’t consistently produce wins. If the SEC wants to add a weak sister, you might as well add Iowa St….they have a loyal fanbase that doesn’t whine every step of the way. Missouri is like France – they hate themselves because they know they’re such underachievers….



3.)Which brings us to A&M. If you’re looking for a quality name, a big stadium, and a dedicated fanbase that shares a Southern culture….and will never bother to beat you…..you’ve found a gold mine in Texas A&M. A&M would have been a nice get – but not by themselves...they wouldn’t have been a home run. About half their games in the last 2 years were broadcast on radio. Yes….RADIO. They weren’t on TV for a reason…their ratings aren’t that great compared to their competition. And there’s a reason for that: in the Stoops Era, OU has won 10 of 11 games vs. A&M. And during that time, we’ve defeated them by an average score of 44-19. As has been said before, OU has dominated them like we’ve dominated the rest of the conference. Check out the statlines: OU has *twice* as many conference titles as Texas…more NC’s….more Heismans…more BCS appearances….more everything. A&M? Not even in the same zip code. Maybe that’s what the SEC wants….but they want them for recruiting purposes in Texas...not for their marketability.



4.)So let’s talk about OU’s marketability and the notion that we somehow aren’t “what we once were.” We’ve been in a BCS bowl 7 out of the last 10 years (way more than anyone in the conference)….4 of those have been in the NCG. We’ve won 2 Heismans in the last 7 years. We just put 3 of the first 4 picks in the NFL Draft. We’re not just sitting around dusting off old trophies…we’re consistently adding to our resume. From coast to coast….just like Alabama…we’re a national brand. And this realignment process proved it…we had multiple options. West, down South, stay at home…whatever. Missouri? Please. There’s a reason the B10+2 didn’t want them. Again, if the SEC leadership was scared of adding another powerhouse….then go ahead and add Missouri and Clemson and roll the dice on the TV sets that come with them. Which brings us to the last point…



5.)The SEC leadership *wasn’t* afraid of adding another powerhouse. They analyzed all the numbers and they recognized the situation. They offered OU – straight up. If the SEC leadership had a choice, they’d take OU in a heartbeat. For a variety of reasons, our leadership didn’t think it was a good idea…..at least not right now. Suffice it to say –and without being too cruel – we don’t have a Texas (UT) problem….we have an OSU problem. We can’t separate from them very easily….it would take a monumental effort to do so and we simply didn’t have the time to make those sort of moves in state politics. Whether or not we’d ever go to the SEC is one thing…..if it was up to our fans, we would. Yes, we need our recruiting pipelines open in the state of Texas. But Texas needs our rivalry to maintain a major cashcow and a national game of prestige. In the end, staying in the Big XII-II was probably the smart move for us – at least for now. But the SEC didn’t think it was a bad financial deal to offer OU…and its member institutions weren’t scared to bring us in…and we weren’t scared to go. You all didn’t want OSU – and for that I can’t say I blame you – but that’s a different thread.



Sorry for the short novel….but the notion that we somehow meekly kowtowed to Texas and should have worked to preserve the Mizzou-KU status quo in the Kansas City-Big Eight is beyond laughable. It's moronic. And the notion that Mizzou and/or A&M somehow bring more to the table for the SEC in the realm of college football is illogical and factually incorrect. Those who would say otherwise are looking to maximize television sets (real or imagined), exploit new recruiting hotbeds, and avoid playing another heavyweight.


Boomer Sooner

OU, I wish you would post here more often. That was a very well thought out intelligent post. :smile:

 

[KrAzY3]

Thanks to OUsage, I appreciate someone taking the time to make a well thought out and comprehensive post. I've debated and researched the expansion issue at length and I value informative posts. For my part, I think some confusion on my points is that I simply can't provide full context and sources for every point I make. My posts are long enough as it is, so when I said something like "all things considered" I'm talking about a lot of factors that I simply can't spell out every time I make a post. Some consider this beating a dead horse as it is, but as long as someone is willing to engage in a informative discussion I'm willing to at least try to clarify my viewpoints.

I have never said that the OU football program isn't prestigious. I've always contended they are a top ten football program and I've specifically named them as one of the top four programs in play for the expansion scenarios. So, anyone who takes exception to my statements please keep the context in mind.

The SEC was not going to get both A&M and OU. That was not going to happen this time around, that was an impossibility. That's something else one has to keep in mind, you can call the SEC brass intelligent for this and that but to be honest none of us really know their true motives. You can't call them smart for inviting OU and then act as though it wasn't obvious that it wasn't going to happen. So, this is not a simple issue and it's all these factors that have to be weighed. Some have gone so far as to suggest that the top three football programs from the Southwest conference+the top Big 8+the top SEC program should share a division. That's insane, that's ridiculous and that also gives context to the discussion. When discussing a potential 16 team conference one can not simply discuss how a program does when they are dominating a conference, one has to consider how they would fare if they have 6 or 7 win seasons, because there will have to be losers. The best additions are programs that will still bring tremendous financial viability even if they are not winning. Merely winning is not a viable justification for your value to a conference that already does plenty of winning like the SEC, in fact I see it as a detriment.

Finally, OU can not absolve itself of the responsibility for what has happened to the Big 12. Regardless of it they were motivated by revenge, the fact is the Big 12 is in shambles and OU, as a powerful member of the Big 12 shared the blame. By being complicit with Texas in allowing for unfair and poor TV contracts (poor TV exposure for a conference is nothing to brag about) is relevant. I do think OU is tainted because they made some big mistakes and they happen to be quite vulnerable as of right now. It is their doing, they're not victims, they made their choices. I understand some feel sentimentality for OU, but the fact is there isn't much history between OU and Alabama and I for one do not feel the sentimentality I feel for a program like A&M (which housed figures like the Bear and Gene Stallings). Regardless, sentimentality does not make OU and good fit in the SEC and "all things considered" I don't think OU is a good fit in the SEC.

1.)Anyone who bases their outlook on the premise that OU made a fatal flaw in “allowing” the conference offices to be moved out of Kansas City knows absolutely *nothing* about the history the of the Big Eight Conference – and when I say nothing…I mean *nothing.* The leadership in Norman was ecstatic when the conference offices were moved –a move that *OU* proposed and then garnered the votes to be passed.

So you are definitively saying it is OU's fault right? I don't care about the motives, it was a bad move and it helped create the Big 1+11-2 you have now. That's nothing to be proud of. As I specifically said, OU could have pushed for Oklahoma City instead, a more central location that showed more deference for the Big 8 schools. They screwed up, bottom line. They let Texas run the show, if they did it out of revenge it doesn't make it any wiser.

2.)Anyone who thinks Missouri football somehow carries more marketability than OU football knows absolutely nothing….about *anything* related to realignement.

Anyone who thinks that realignment is solely about the strength of a football program doesn't know anything about realignment. I never once said Missouri football was in any way, shape or form more valuable than OU football. Having said that, do I think Missouri as a market and Missouri as a sports program is a better addition than OU+Okie St? Yes, I do. There's a reason the Big 10 gave Missouri a hard look (and is still considering them), but never gave Oklahoma a look at all. There's a reason Missouri used to house the Big 8 headquarters, and it's obviously not the prestige of the football program.

3.)Which brings us to A&M. If you’re looking for a quality name, a big stadium, and a dedicated fanbase that shares a Southern culture….and will never bother to beat you…..you’ve found a gold mine in Texas A&M. A&M would have been a nice get – but not by themselves...they wouldn’t have been a home run. About half their games in the last 2 years were broadcast on radio. Yes….RADIO.

You explain a lot of the beauty of a A&M add. They make money as is, they make money without winning and that is of utmost importance in the SEC. As I already said, there will be losers. Bringing in a team in a massive market (and in turn increasing exposure of existing SEC teams in the region) is it's own reward, the fact that A&M has nowhere to go but up is a huge plus. You already know the downside. A&M couldn't hurt the SEC, only help. As far as TV, that's a main reason for A&M to join the SEC. The Big 12's contracts suck. Someone showed Arkansas's TV games and the SEC put them on air more than A&M got on air. This isn't because Arkansas is a bigger ratings grabber, it's because the SEC has a more comprehensive TV deal. A&M+LSU+Arkansas would make for quite a regional force and we both know that. The fact that A&M is unlikely to unseat SEC elites is a bonus.

5.)The SEC leadership *wasn’t* afraid of adding another powerhouse. They analyzed all the numbers and they recognized the situation. They offered OU – straight up. If the SEC leadership had a choice, they’d take OU in a heartbeat.

Here's the reality of the situation. It wasn't going to happen! The SEC offered A&M straight up and they refused to offer Okie St. This means OU was never going to go because the Texas legislature and the Oklahoma legislature would block it from both sides. No way Texas was going to let A&M and OU slip out of their grasp! This means either the SEC leadership and their number crunching missed something obvious to myself and many others, or they had other motives. So either they're not as insightful as you think or they motivates are not fully revealed. I keep hearing this oh the smart SEC wanted us, when the way the SEC went about things was either inept or with hidden motives. You can't have it both ways.

the notion that we somehow meekly kowtowed to Texas and should have worked to preserve the Mizzou-KU status quo in the Kansas City-Big Eight is beyond laughable. It's moronic. And the notion that Mizzou and/or A&M somehow bring more to the table for the SEC in the realm of college football is illogical and factually incorrect. Those who would say otherwise are looking to maximize television sets (real or imagined), exploit new recruiting hotbeds, and avoid playing another heavyweight.

Fact 1: Oklahoma gave up it's Nebraska rivalry game years ago.
Fact 2: You guys almost got dragged out west against your will.
Fact 3: Oklahoma has 3.6 million people. Texas+Missouri has 30.6 million people.
Fact 4: The SEC doesn't need more elite football programs, they could use more TV sets and more recruiting hotbeds. Those would help SEC college football, another tough game wouldn't.

Here's the bottom line. The SEC probably didn't even need to offer Missouri, as I have repeatedly said, just express interest. Instead they talked to OU and blew up the Pac-10 deal. No wonder you're so fond of the SEC right now, we saved your bacon. However, why remains to be seen. OU+A&M was never going to happen though, A&M+Missouri could virtually have been in the bag. I hope we never find out what a down OU would look like in the SEC, but I think they'd be a lot like Arkansas (as I said they have farther to fall but it could easily happen). I think OU without the Big 8 and Texas would be tremendously vulnerable and would have severely diminished value in the SEC anyway you look at it. Bottom line though, you spelled out why A&M made sense, TV sets, recruiting hotbeds... the SEC doesn't gain anything with more prestige, they gain if they get more money and more good football players for their teams.

Ultimately though, I don't think we really disagree, we mainly have different priorities and viewpoints. In that last paragraph you basically said add Oklahoma instead of Missouri or A&M if you don't care about winning, recruiting and TV sets... it's all perspective man and I do care about those things.

 

[Chukker Veteran]

I understand some feel sentimentality for OU, but the fact is there isn't much history between OU and Alabama and I for one do not feel the sentimentality I feel for a program like A&M (which housed figures like the Bear and Gene Stallings). [/B]

Maybe you are too young to appreciate the mud Alabama was drug through leading up to and during the sanction years. It was awful, we were mocked and scorned by all the teams we had been whipping for years. The SEC teams were the worst at it.

When we played the away & home series with Oklahoma, the Oklahoma fan base was one of the very few that treated us with courtesy and yes, even respect. It was very welcome at the time.

The Aggies, on the other hand, strutted around rubbing our noses in how they hired Fran out from under us...they were as arrogant and obnoxious as can be...Bama was washed out, couldn't afford to keep Fran, etc...

Stallings was disgusted at how Fran was hired by aTm. And Bryant did, after all, leave aTm for Bama.

That's just my two cents worth, but I do think it's worthwhile to remember who our friends were when we were down.

 

[champions77]

Thanks to OUsage, I appreciate someone taking the time to make a well thought out and comprehensive post. I've debated and researched the expansion issue at length and I value informative posts. For my part, I think some confusion on my points is that I simply can't provide full context and sources for every point I make. My posts are long enough as it is, so when I said something like "all things considered" I'm talking about a lot of factors that I simply can't spell out every time I make a post. Some consider this beating a dead horse as it is, but as long as someone is willing to engage in a informative discussion I'm willing to at least try to clarify my viewpoints.

I have never said that the OU football program isn't prestigious. I've always contended they are a top ten football program and I've specifically named them as one of the top four programs in play for the expansion scenarios. So, anyone who takes exception to my statements please keep the context in mind.

The SEC was not going to get both A&M and OU. That was not going to happen this time around, that was an impossibility. That's something else one has to keep in mind, you can call the SEC brass intelligent for this and that but to be honest none of us really know their true motives. You can't call them smart for inviting OU and then act as though it wasn't obvious that it wasn't going to happen. So, this is not a simple issue and it's all these factors that have to be weighed. Some have gone so far as to suggest that the top three football programs from the Southwest conference+the top Big 8+the top SEC program should share a division. That's insane, that's ridiculous and that also gives context to the discussion. When discussing a potential 16 team conference one can not simply discuss how a program does when they are dominating a conference, one has to consider how they would fare if they have 6 or 7 win seasons, because there will have to be losers. The best additions are programs that will still bring tremendous financial viability even if they are not winning. Merely winning is not a viable justification for your value to a conference that already does plenty of winning like the SEC, in fact I see it as a detriment.

Finally, OU can not absolve itself of the responsibility for what has happened to the Big 12. Regardless of it they were motivated by revenge, the fact is the Big 12 is in shambles and OU, as a powerful member of the Big 12 shared the blame. By being complicit with Texas in allowing for unfair and poor TV contracts (poor TV exposure for a conference is nothing to brag about) is relevant. I do think OU is tainted because they made some big mistakes and they happen to be quite vulnerable as of right now. It is their doing, they're not victims, they made their choices. I understand some feel sentimentality for OU, but the fact is there isn't much history between OU and Alabama and I for one do not feel the sentimentality I feel for a program like A&M (which housed figures like the Bear and Gene Stallings). Regardless, sentimentality does not make OU and good fit in the SEC and "all things considered" I don't think OU is a good fit in the SEC.


So you are definitively saying it is OU's fault right? I don't care about the motives, it was a bad move and it helped create the Big 1+11-2 you have now. That's nothing to be proud of. As I specifically said, OU could have pushed for Oklahoma City instead, a more central location that showed more deference for the Big 8 schools. They screwed up, bottom line. They let Texas run the show, if they did it out of revenge it doesn't make it any wiser.


Anyone who thinks that realignment is solely about the strength of a football program doesn't know anything about realignment. I never once said Missouri football was in any way, shape or form more valuable than OU football. Having said that, do I think Missouri as a market and Missouri as a sports program is a better addition than OU+Okie St? Yes, I do. There's a reason the Big 10 gave Missouri a hard look (and is still considering them), but never gave Oklahoma a look at all. There's a reason Missouri used to house the Big 8 headquarters, and it's obviously not the prestige of the football program.


You explain a lot of the beauty of a A&M add. They make money as is, they make money without winning and that is of utmost importance in the SEC. As I already said, there will be losers. Bringing in a team in a massive market (and in turn increasing exposure of existing SEC teams in the region) is it's own reward, the fact that A&M has nowhere to go but up is a huge plus. You already know the downside. A&M couldn't hurt the SEC, only help. As far as TV, that's a main reason for A&M to join the SEC. The Big 12's contracts suck. Someone showed Arkansas's TV games and the SEC put them on air more than A&M got on air. This isn't because Arkansas is a bigger ratings grabber, it's because the SEC has a more comprehensive TV deal. A&M+LSU+Arkansas would make for quite a regional force and we both know that. The fact that A&M is unlikely to unseat SEC elites is a bonus.


Here's the reality of the situation. It wasn't going to happen! The SEC offered A&M straight up and they refused to offer Okie St. This means OU was never going to go because the Texas legislature and the Oklahoma legislature would block it from both sides. No way Texas was going to let A&M and OU slip out of their grasp! This means either the SEC leadership and their number crunching missed something obvious to myself and many others, or they had other motives. So either they're not as insightful as you think or they motivates are not fully revealed. I keep hearing this oh the smart SEC wanted us, when the way the SEC went about things was either inept or with hidden motives. You can't have it both ways.


Fact 1: Oklahoma gave up it's Nebraska rivalry game years ago.
Fact 2: You guys almost got dragged out west against your will.
Fact 3: Oklahoma has 3.6 million people. Texas+Missouri has 30.6 million people.
Fact 4: The SEC doesn't need more elite football programs, they could use more TV sets and more recruiting hotbeds. Those would help SEC college football, another tough game wouldn't.

Here's the bottom line. The SEC probably didn't even need to offer Missouri, as I have repeatedly said, just express interest. Instead they talked to OU and blew up the Pac-10 deal. No wonder you're so fond of the SEC right now, we saved your bacon. However, why remains to be seen. OU+A&M was never going to happen though, A&M+Missouri could virtually have been in the bag. I hope we never find out what a down OU would look like in the SEC, but I think they'd be a lot like Arkansas (as I said they have farther to fall but it could easily happen). I think OU without the Big 8 and Texas would be tremendously vulnerable and would have severely diminished value in the SEC anyway you look at it. Bottom line though, you spelled out why A&M made sense, TV sets, recruiting hotbeds... the SEC doesn't gain anything with more prestige, they gain if they get more money and more good football players for their teams.

Ultimately though, I don't think we really disagree, we mainly have different priorities and viewpoints. In that last paragraph you basically said add Oklahoma instead of Missouri or A&M if you don't care about winning, recruiting and TV sets... it's all perspective man and I do care about those things.

Krazy you just got owned by OUsage, but as my man Ronald Reagan used to say "there you go again"
I believe that you have some axe to grind with OU. I don't don't exactly where it originated, since you keep going back to Nebraska, maybe you are from there originally, but suffice to say, the SEC, the most well respected conference in America, WANTED the University of Oklahoma to join it's conference. Instead of coming on here so much, maybe you should contact the Conference Headquarters and express your views with them directly. Maybe they even might explain to you WHY OU would be a better fit than Mizzou, since you apparently don't believe OUsage.
Lastly, if you haven't noticed, you are the ONLY one that posts here that does not have a good opinion of OU. Most state that OU is their second favorite team. So maybe it's you that has a problem, and not OU.

 

[RJ YellowHammer]

Krazy you just got owned by OUsage, but as my man Ronald Reagan used to say "there you go again"
I believe that you have some axe to grind with OU. I don't don't exactly where it originated, since you keep going back to Nebraska, maybe you are from there originally, but suffice to say, the SEC, the most well respected conference in America, WANTED the University of Oklahoma to join it's conference. Instead of coming on here so much, maybe you should contact the Conference Headquarters and express your views with them directly. Maybe they even might explain to you WHY OU would be a better fit than Mizzou, since you apparently don't believe OUsage.
Lastly, if you haven't noticed, you are the ONLY one that posts here that does not have a good opinion of OU. Most state that OU is their second favorite team. So maybe it's you that has a problem, and not OU.

FWIW, I don't think Krazy's opinion is rooted in any hatred of OU. His line of thought leading up to the near implosion, and eventual saving of the Big XII-II, was that the SEC could push itself over the tipping point by adding a top 5 all time program or two. Krazy believes that adding Texas and OU to a division with Alabama, LSU, Auburn and Arkansas would be suicide. I don't necessarily agree 100% with him, but he doesn't hate OU, and this is a discussion board. We discuss things related to football -even futbol - here...

 

[champions77]

FWIW, I don't think Krazy's opinion is rooted in any hatred of OU. His line of thought leading up to the near implosion, and eventual saving of the Big XII-II, was that the SEC could push itself over the tipping point by adding a top 5 all time program or two. Krazy believes that adding Texas and OU to a division with Alabama, LSU, Auburn and Arkansas would be suicide. I don't necessarily agree 100% with him, but he doesn't hate OU, and this is a discussion board. We discuss things related to football -even futbol - here...

Maybe so RJ, maybe so. But I have never seen anyone so devoted to a particular point of view, especially after being "called out". But you're right, this is a message board, and having the right to express our opinions is what we do.
Roll Tide Roll and Boomer Sooner!

 

[JDCrimson]

Football pays the bills, agreed? I think the SEC looked at Missouri and really analyzed that market. My bet is they found a tremendous number of tv sets that tune into cardinal baseball, chiefs football, and basketball. As a general rule, a significant portion of those tv sets provide unreliable
viewership of college football. I think it is similar to the way we are about our own basketball program - only turning out when the kentuckys and floridas come to town.

Severalquestions probably come up. With that market comparing to other programs and markets:

Namely the current membership wanted to add programs that could immediately make it more profitable. The membership apparently doubted this could be down by adding Missouri. The SEC already has a good product so the immediate return on investment was most likely its main motive. Adding OU and A&M added more tv sets Nationwide than entering into the sleepy Missouri corn belt.

Final analysis:

Missouri = large tv market with limited recruiting potential that is apathetic to college football

 

[GrayTide]

All of this points, IMO, to the fact that when the next round of alignmnet comes around the SEC should focus it attention on the Carolinas and Virginia.

 

[KrAzY3]

Maybe you are too young to appreciate the mud Alabama was drug through leading up to and during the sanction years. It was awful, we were mocked and scorned by all the teams we had been whipping for years. The SEC teams were the worst at it.

I wish I was too young, I remember Bob Stoops catching Shula with his pants down on that fake kick and it was in that moment that I realized Shula would never be a good coach. I'm no old timer but I'd say my view of history does go beyond this millennium.

The making of a rival isn't all good. Hatred for Fran is another thing we now have in common, but the Bear was very proud of what he did at A&M and Gene Stallings is a regent so those ties are not to be scoffed at. Furthermore, A&M has a rivalry with Arkansas and LSU, there is much more history with A&M and the SEC, more so than any other team in the Big 12.

Oklahoma has a nice fanbase, I've never said otherwise. At no point have I tried to make any general statements in regards to their fanbase being anything but good football fans. I've always said they are prestigious as well. I contend that Oklahoma isn't a good fit and the lack of rivals and history is a factor. If it was just having good fans then Oklahoma would be a top consideration in my mind.

Krazy you just got owned by OUsage, but as my man Ronald Reagan used to say "there you go again"....

Lastly, if you haven't noticed, you are the ONLY one that posts here that does not have a good opinion of OU. Most state that OU is their second favorite team. So maybe it's you that has a problem, and not OU.

You've kept trying to make disparaging remarks, for instance claiming that my posting factual, sourced information somehow destroys my credibility. I have tried to treat you as a equal, but to be frank I get the impression you're a 13 year old kid. You're much better leaving the pro-Oklahoma argument to the likes of OUsage, you're a poor ambassador.

I don't hate OU, I never said I hated OU and a contrary impression is user error. I respect Bob Stoops, I respect what Oklahoma has accomplished and with the sole exception of you, I don't take issue with any of Oklahoma's fans either.

To try to help you with your selective reality, there are more pointedly negative remarks made about OU in this topic than anything I've said and several people that simply don't even care enough about OU to continue the discussion. Your attempts to defend the honor of OU against a sole aggressor are both misguided and poorly executed.

FWIW, I don't think Krazy's opinion is rooted in any hatred of OU. His line of thought leading up to the near implosion, and eventual saving of the Big XII-II, was that the SEC could push itself over the tipping point by adding a top 5 all time program or two. Krazy believes that adding Texas and OU to a division with Alabama, LSU, Auburn and Arkansas would be suicide.

That's a factor but it's not the only factor. OUsage really put it more eloquently than I could. Oklahoma is a awesome football program, nothing I said was ever intended to say otherwise and he spelled that out well. However, when it came down to it he put the other side into perspective as well. If you want or need prestige, no question you go with Oklahoma. If you are worried about recruits, TV sets and yes, keeping a balance then A&M and even Missouri start looking better. I want the current SEC teams to benefit from a expansion, not simply the SEC brand.

Missouri = large tv market with limited recruiting potential that is apathetic to college football

I'm not inclined to completely disagree. My point about Missouri remains they were the perfect tool to destroy the Big 12 and get A&M (and everyone here knows Texas=large TV market with amazing recruiting potential). The thing with Oklahoma is they rely heavily on recruiting outside Oklahoma and the state itself is rather small and has two football programs. They won't open up much new recruiting territory for the SEC.

On the other hand, Missouri has a much larger population and only one football program which admittedly has tepid support. This means it is a much more prime recruiting location for the SEC. I've reiterated I don't think Missouri was the perfect add, however I've said I do (all things considered again) consider Missouri to be more valuable addition to the SEC and once again A&M+Missouri opens up so many more doors than OU+Okie St ever would. We are talking about a almost tenfold larger population, almost tenfold the potential recruits and almost tenfold the potential TV sets. A&M and OU, as I said over and over and as soon as it came up, wasn't going to happen. My views have always been on the big picture and 30 million vs 3 million is a no brainer.

In either case, I have reiterated that the SEC needed to use Missouri to finish off the Big 12. I never said they had to add Missouri, just that if they actually wanted ANY (including OU) of the Big 12 teams they had to demonstrate the power and will to destroy the Big 12 first, which would start with the team most poised to leave on their own. It's simple really, OU was never going to come without Okie St., A&M wasn't going to come unless they had political cover, Missouri on the other hand was desperate for a out. If the SEC was serious about OU, A&M or anyone they would have started talking with Missouri then once things fell apart focus on who they really wanted. The SEC didn't do this, instead they scared Texas back to the Big 12, so either they never really wanted the Big 12 teams or they were just inept. Based on what's been said I'm inclined to believe the SEC was willing to stall along with everyone else, if they were committed they would have talked to Missouri, no matter how good a add they were...

All of this points, IMO, to the fact that when the next round of alignmnet comes around the SEC should focus it attention on the Carolinas and Virginia.

My "sources" say that the SEC and A&M interest remains mutual. A&M desperately needed political cover to move to the SEC and they didn't get that when Texas decided to stay. A&M needs Texas to be ready to move and then A&M can join the SEC. I think the SEC still wants A&M who ever the other team is, but clearly they didn't feel the need to be in a rush. OU, when it's all said and done will probably take Okie St. and join Texas wherever they go. I wouldn't be surprised if the SEC ends up adding A&M+ which ever North Carolina or Virginia team has the political power to make a clean break. Having said that, the SEC might still be trying to bring Texas to it's knees and force them into the SEC (I know the SEC, although I disagree, has long wanted Texas).

 

[champions77]

I wish I was too young, I remember Bob Stoops catching Shula with his pants down on that fake kick and it was in that moment that I realized Shula would never be a good coach. I'm no old timer but I'd say my view of history does go beyond this millennium.

The making of a rival isn't all good. Hatred for Fran is another thing we now have in common, but the Bear was very proud of what he did at A&M and Gene Stallings is a regent so those ties are not to be scoffed at. Furthermore, A&M has a rivalry with Arkansas and LSU, there is much more history with A&M and the SEC, more so than any other team in the Big 12.

Oklahoma has a nice fanbase, I've never said otherwise. At no point have I tried to make any general statements in regards to their fanbase being anything but good football fans. I've always said they are prestigious as well. I contend that Oklahoma isn't a good fit and the lack of rivals and history is a factor. If it was just having good fans then Oklahoma would be a top consideration in my mind.


You've kept trying to make disparaging remarks, for instance claiming that my posting factual, sourced information somehow destroys my credibility. I have tried to treat you as a equal, but to be frank I get the impression you're a 13 year old kid. You're much better leaving the pro-Oklahoma argument to the likes of OUsage, you're a poor ambassador.

I don't hate OU, I never said I hated OU and a contrary impression is user error. I respect Bob Stoops, I respect what Oklahoma has accomplished and with the sole exception of you, I don't take issue with any of Oklahoma's fans either.

To try to help you with your selective reality, there are more pointedly negative remarks made about OU in this topic than anything I've said and several people that simply don't even care enough about OU to continue the discussion. Your attempts to defend the honor of OU against a sole aggressor are both misguided and poorly executed.


That's a factor but it's not the only factor. OUsage really put it more eloquently than I could. Oklahoma is a awesome football program, nothing I said was ever intended to say otherwise and he spelled that out well. However, when it came down to it he put the other side into perspective as well. If you want or need prestige, no question you go with Oklahoma. If you are worried about recruits, TV sets and yes, keeping a balance then A&M and even Missouri start looking better. I want the current SEC teams to benefit from a expansion, not simply the SEC brand.


I'm not inclined to completely disagree. My point about Missouri remains they were the perfect tool to destroy the Big 12 and get A&M (and everyone here knows Texas=large TV market with amazing recruiting potential). The thing with Oklahoma is they rely heavily on recruiting outside Oklahoma and the state itself is rather small and has two football programs. They won't open up much new recruiting territory for the SEC.

On the other hand, Missouri has a much larger population and only one football program which admittedly has tepid support. This means it is a much more prime recruiting location for the SEC. I've reiterated I don't think Missouri was the perfect add, however I've said I do (all things considered again) consider Missouri to be more valuable addition to the SEC and once again A&M+Missouri opens up so many more doors than OU+Okie St ever would. We are talking about a almost tenfold larger population, almost tenfold the potential recruits and almost tenfold the potential TV sets. A&M and OU, as I said over and over and as soon as it came up, wasn't going to happen. My views have always been on the big picture and 30 million vs 3 million is a no brainer.

In either case, I have reiterated that the SEC needed to use Missouri to finish off the Big 12. I never said they had to add Missouri, just that if they actually wanted ANY (including OU) of the Big 12 teams they had to demonstrate the power and will to destroy the Big 12 first, which would start with the team most poised to leave on their own. It's simple really, OU was never going to come without Okie St., A&M wasn't going to come unless they had political cover, Missouri on the other hand was desperate for a out. If the SEC was serious about OU, A&M or anyone they would have started talking with Missouri then once things fell apart focus on who they really wanted. The SEC didn't do this, instead they scared Texas back to the Big 12, so either they never really wanted the Big 12 teams or they were just inept. Based on what's been said I'm inclined to believe the SEC was willing to stall along with everyone else, if they were committed they would have talked to Missouri, no matter how good a add they were...


My "sources" say that the SEC and A&M interest remains mutual. A&M desperately needed political cover to move to the SEC and they didn't get that when Texas decided to stay. A&M needs Texas to be ready to move and then A&M can join the SEC. I think the SEC still wants A&M who ever the other team is, but clearly they didn't feel the need to be in a rush. OU, when it's all said and done will probably take Okie St. and join Texas wherever they go. I wouldn't be surprised if the SEC ends up adding A&M+ which ever North Carolina or Virginia team has the political power to make a clean break. Having said that, the SEC might still be trying to bring Texas to it's knees and force them into the SEC (I know the SEC, although I disagree, has long wanted Texas).

Krazy, so what is your opinion of OU, Texas, A&M and Okie State joining the SEC in the next few years? I think we do agree that the Big XII is weakened. We know that the SEC wants A&M and....OU as much as it pains you. I really do not think Missouri is in play, at least not ahead of OU. There is a reason that the Big Ten wanted Nebraska not Missouri,(despite those fewer TV sets) and it's called tradition, some would call it "star power".
So is it really a stretch to convince Texas to come aboard, and then go ahead and take Okie State, knowing in doing so, it will avoid a fight with the Oklahoma political machine and will "lockup" OU? I believe the SEC brass has already made a statement that they were not interested in Clemson, Georgia Tech and Florida State. Do you really think North Carolina is in play? They have a huge traditional rivalry in Duke, along with other associations for 100 years with NC State, Maryland and Wake Forest. When you think ACC, most think of North Carolina. To me, that just does not seem likely.

Lastly, in the coming months, I think there will be some communications between Network execs and the SEC execs regarding this issue. And I could see them making some suggestions with respect to any SEC expansion. Adding marquee teams to your league always makes for more interesting games during the season. You mention A&M, North Carolina and Virginia as possible future SEC teams. But none of those are "Big time" names that will generate crazy wild anticipation leading up to the games. Now replace those three with Texas, Oklahoma and A&M. Two teams have a total of 11 National Championships between them and you must admit, have a lot of star power that would generate a ton of interest, the kind of interest that makes for lot of advertising dollars. Maybe the SEC folks contact the TV execs to see who they would like to see in the conference, maybe not. But if asked, I can tell you that conference match-ups with OU/Bama, or Texas/Florida, or OU/LSU or Texas/Tennessee, would be sold for a lot more per minute than N. Carolina/Ole Miss, or Virginia/Georgia would. Selling advertising for more money gets you a bigger TV contract with CBS and ESPN right? So would the conference with the most big name teams, that would generate the biggest games.... receive the most money?

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I don't intend to get deeply involved in this slow-moving summer brushfire, but I'll throw out these thoughts. First, The SEC will not take an expansion team in a state where there is already a SEC member. That is pretty much an absolute. Also, there just wasn't a great deal of interest in Missouri, mainly because of FB attendance and viewership ratings. Like it or not, they were just not seen as bringing much to the table. I know that there was an aversion also to OKSU, for much the same reasons as to MO, no matter how many Pickens' $$$ they have. They were looking for a dedicated fan base, a quality program and how much money schools could bring to the SEC table. Population density wasn't really a criterion. Missouri is situated in a much denser population area, the overwhelming majority of whom don't know if they're playing or not. If density meant anything, Rutgers would already be a Big Ten member - they're not. The SEC would have taken OU, UT or aTm. OKSU may be a deal-breaker for the foreseeable future...

 

[rizolltizide]

All due respect, only on this forum do we take a back seat to Bama. When you guys were down and getting kicked around, we kicked your ex coaches a** and sang your fight song IN OUR HOUSE. That ain't the back seat brother.

Yep, was a classy move for sure, and not forgotten. But then again, I wouldn't have expected anything less. As I've said to you, wishbone, I have tremendous respect for OU's program, and all her fans that I have come in contact with through the years. You have been no exception to this. So with that, I'm gonna back outta this one and we'll just agree to disagree on the one point. I'd prefer to talk football over politics anyway.

I do have one question though, and I know I've seen the answer but I'm too lazy to look it up. The University of Oklahoma...Why OU and not UO?

 

[champions77]

Yep, was a classy move for sure, and not forgotten. But then again, I wouldn't have expected anything less. As I've said to you, wishbone, I have tremendous respect for OU's program, and all her fans that I have come in contact with through the years. You have been no exception to this. So with that, I'm gonna back outta this one and we'll just agree to disagree on the one point. I'd prefer to talk football over politics anyway.

I do have one question though, and I know I've seen the answer but I'm too lazy to look it up. The University of Oklahoma...Why OU and not UO?

Same goes for KU, The University of Kansas. In the early years of the University, the University went by "Oklahoma University" or OU for short, at least that is what a lot of memorabilia from Estates sales stated as well as yearbooks, programs etc. Over the years, you started seeing more "University of Oklahoma" but the OU stuck. So here years later, we have folks asking this question.
Most Universities are referred to either way, except for those "State" Universities that have to go by "Kansas State University", because "University of Kansas State" would sound really silly.
Does this help?

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I've heard - in Kentucky - grads of the University of Kentucky refer to it as "KU," and, as you've said, Kansas grads always use "KU." My next door neighbors for 25 years were Kansas grads and that's what they said...