BREAKING Sec additions–Texas, Oklahoma inquire about joining SEC per report

[TideEngineer08]

Well let them. We are killing the LHN and we don’t have bad partners.

Also The B1G won’t take Oklahoma but they will take Texas. AAU stipulation.

That’s not a hard rule. I do think they would allow them in in order to get Texas. I could be wrong though.

 

[BamaInBham]

Maybe, but you have to look at other sports at sometime. We already have the best football, baseball, and softball conference. Basketball is where the SEC is weakest. It’s the second biggest sport in college athletics and March madness is biggest money maker in college athletics.

But at this point what does it really matter. I would prefer the SEC to give these two the “ sorry we don’t need ya” and let their conference burn with bad tv deals. Both deserve it. But Sankey is about the worst SEC commissioner since Roy Kramer and it looks like he is ready to allow the burnt orange cow into the pen.

I can understand why someone might think I'm an advocate of this move. I'm not. I'm just trying to address things as I think they are and trying to look at the positives of a move over which I have no influence and which appears will likely happen.

You are certainly right that other sports matter to us fans, but to the SEC and individual schools the primary mover as we all know is money, and football's profit so dwarfs everything else that it is almost the only consideration in these types of matters at the command or decision level.

 

[crimsonaudio]

That’s not a hard rule. I do think they would allow them in in order to get Texas. I could be wrong though.

And I don't think Texas thinks they need OU. It's the other way around, regardless of recent on-the-field performance.

Texas is similar to Alabama in its ability to forge its own future. OU is not.

 

[BamaInBham]

You are assuming that is the way it happens. If they keep divisions With 8 teams per division then it could be every 6-7 years before we would play Oklahoma or Texas.

I'm assuming a 9 game SEC schedule, two 8 team divisions with no permanent cross-division rival (which is likely since Bama-UT and UGA-AU will be in the same division. The only thing of value lost will be the LSU game vs UF, Bama and AU and they will play one of those 3 out of every 4 years.). If these assumptions hold each team would play every team in the other division once every 4 years.

 

[81usaf92]

That’s not a hard rule. I do think they would allow them in in order to get Texas. I could be wrong though.

The B1G is huge on academics and research even more so than the PAC12. They added Rutgers and Maryland. They understand Penn St, Michigan, and Ohio St are more than enough to survive athletically. The AAU at the time of invitation is a requirement.

I still see them more interested in Kansas and Iowa St.

 

[TideEngineer08]

And I don't think Texas thinks they need OU. It's the other way around, regardless of recent on-the-field performance.

Texas is similar to Alabama in its ability to forge its own future. OU is not.

No they don’t I’m sure. I think they value the game with them though. They have certainly been better “teammates” with them than A&M over the years.

Of course they don’t need to be in the same conference to play the game.

 

[TideEngineer08]

The B1G is huge on academics and research even more so than the PAC12. They added Rutgers and Maryland. They understand Penn St, Michigan, and Ohio St are more than enough to survive athletically. The AAU at the time of invitation is a requirement.

I still see them more interested in Kansas and Iowa St.

True. I’m just saying money tends to change a lot of requirements. In this case maybe not. I just don’t think Texas would be interested in traveling north without OU. And in that case, the Big Ten would probably say thanks but no thanks.

 

[Al A Bama]

Hmmmmmmm. Now, WHY would Oklahoma's and Texas' Big Wigs be missing from that Big 12-2 Conference call tonight? Will it be the Big 12 - 4?

Is Texas mad because Alabama, LSU and A & M win many recruits from the Horns in the Texas recruiting market since recruits want to play on the Big Stage (i.e. the SEC)?

How would adding Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC affect Alabama's recruiting in Texas?

 

[Power Eye]

Yeah Texas vs Mississippi St, Arkansas, Missouri, and Ole Miss are real marquee games. The only addition to this is the OU-TX game and TX vs aTm.

So Texas or Oklahoma playing us, LSU, A&M, Auburn, UGA, or Florida are being ignored as examples of marquee games? Because depending on how the scheduling and division structure works out, there would be probably 6 - 8 of just those potential games a year added to what we already have.

 

[81usaf92]

So Texas or Oklahoma playing us, LSU, A&M, Auburn, UGA, or Florida are being ignored as examples of marquee games? Because depending on how the scheduling and division structure works out, there would be probably 6 - 8 of just those potential games a year added to what we already have.

Under the current 8 game format we wouldn’t play them for 6-7 years.

But again who really wants to watch a squash match who isn’t a fan of the team doing the squashing. I remember when Nebraska was a bug deal before they went to a real conference. Now they aren’t as good of a program as Mississippi St.

 

[Power Eye]

Under the current 8 game format we wouldn’t play them for 6-7 years.

The frequency of us playing them is not the point I’m trying to make. The point I’m making is that they aren’t just going to be scheduled Miss St, Ole Miss, Arkansas and Missouri every week. However, if they are, then you’re right and it’s a bad deal.

 

[81usaf92]

Texas in a nutshell in regards to being a team player

 

[Ole Man Dan]

If you do not like the horns now, wait until they are your conference "partner". I grew up with it and they are an insufferable bunch of self serving jerks. I have watched them destroy 2 conferences already, the SWC and the Big 12. Letting them into the SEC is akin to begging for an STD.

I agree in principal, but letting them in would allow me to make fun of the big hats, little heads, guys every week.

 

[JDCrimson]

The economics behind TV and subscriptions have changed over the last 10 years. In state subscribers don't matter as much because more people are streaming their TV. It doesn't matter where you are or where you live as long as you subscribe and watch. It's all about viewership today and live programming. They must believe that OU and UT have a larger viewer base than a UNC or UVA in football.

 

[dWarriors88]

I just hate how much this limits the SEC and how much this opens things up for the Big 10. The SEC did so well last time by letting everyone else scurry around, while they waited to make the right move. So the Big 10 adds Nebraska, the Pac-12 adds mighty Utah and Colorado, and then the SEC blows everyone's moves away by adding Texas A&M and Missouri.

Now the SEC is going to go all in (exceeding 16 teams seems unlikely in the foreseeable future) on Texas and Oklahoma? They are going to play their ace in the hole (9th conference game) and basically stand pat having gained the mighty territory of Oklahoma? That's their final move? They do understand that having half the football powers doesn't actually give them half the votes with the committee right?

Texas/Oklahoma/Alabama/Georgia and so on are actually going to see a net loss in their influence over things like the playoff (since the Big 12 won't be advocating for Oklahoma or Texas). They are not making the right moves to gain true nationwide power.

Meanwhile the Big 10 is sitting there going hmm... do we go for Southern Cal and UCLA? North Carolina or Virginia? Notre Dame and Stanford? They will have all the options and the SEC will be sitting and watching. Heck they might decide they want to add Texas A&M who the SEC is kind of screwing over right now.

If the SEC really wanted to just take over college football like some have said, wouldn't it be actually be bigger moves? Wouldn't you go for Southern Cal and Notre Dame or something?

Also, I'm done with hearing about who won't join the SEC. I heard that about Missouri. I also heard that about Texas and Oklahoma and now they're begging to join. The SEC is making so much money that they, with enough patience, could have their pick of a lot of schools in a lot of states. California, North Carolina, Virginia... no idea why they're choosing Oklahoma.

I really don't like what distasteful and terribly subjective disrespect you have for our newest two SEC members.

We play so many games in Texas every year anyway what's it matter? I can't wait to go watch the Tide in Norman. So exciting.

 

[dWarriors88]

You can make points w/out being a tool about it...Not sure if your "OK boomer" was a realignment joke, but it sets a really snarky and hugely unnecessary tone...Lighten up Francis...

it was a realignment joke, i thought it witty. My apologies

 

[81usaf92]

I can't wait to go watch the Tide in Norman. So exciting.

Well you must love annoying traditions. Out of the two (if we a strictly talking about the field) I am more excited about playing Texas. Boomer Sooner is probably the MOST annoying fight song next to Rocky Top. I guess it’s more annoying since Tennessee only gets to play Rocky Top less than 5 times per game.

Also constantly fearing that we have to stop a game for 30 minutes because someone takes a sharp turn on the Schooner.

 

[81usaf92]

From a TCU insider

 

[KrAzY3]

Here's the thing about Texas and Oklahoma. In this scenario, someone's beauty is going to fade.

I get it, right now Texas is the hot high maintenance gold digging chick that you tolerate because she's so freaking hot you don't care that she ruined the lives of her last two husbands.

I also get that Oklahoma is the hot chick missing a few teeth but as long as she doesn't smile you think she look pretty darn good.

The problem is what are they going to look like after a few years of literally getting beat up? When this is all said and done, the SEC won't have a bunch of beauty queens, someone is going to look like they've been doing meth. So who is it? LSU? Oklahoma? Texas? Georgia?

Someone's going to end up looking a lot less attractive, and that's why you can't make additions based on primarily one attribute.

 

[81usaf92]

Here's the thing about Texas and Oklahoma. In this scenario, someone's beauty is going to fade.

I get it, right now Texas is the hot high maintenance gold digging chick that you tolerate because she's so freaking hot you don't care that she ruined the lives of her last two husbands.

I also get that Oklahoma is the hot chick missing a few teeth but as long as she doesn't smile you think she look pretty darn good.

The problem is what are they going to look like after a few years of literally getting beat up? When this is all said and done, the SEC won't have a bunch of beauty queens, someone is going to look like they've been doing meth. So who is it? LSU? Oklahoma? Texas? Georgia?

Someone's going to end up looking a lot less attractive, and that's why you can't make additions based on primarily one attribute.

The line of thinking is that it’s aTm and Miss St. but I’m not so sure. Texas and Oklahoma fans are really confident coming into this possibility, but keep in mind that aTm still has the best venue in the SEC in terms of modern ascetics, capacity, and crowd interaction. aTm isn’t kicking Texas’s teeth in just because of that SEC patch. aTm has actually improved their standing in college football in the last 10 years and has gutted out some low years. Missouri is also slowly coming along and probably will have a better program in a few years. My point is that the Oklahoma and Texas high flying offense may not be as an advantage as they seem to think. Alabama, LSU, aTm, and Ole Miss have video game offenses tailored to SEC defenses. The growing pains of finally having to face competition may be worse than many think.

FTR I don’t think either will be Nebraska but I do think they aren’t going to find many Kansas like football teams out there.