(03-20-2018 10:16 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 10:10 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:39 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 10:30 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Also, the other major risk with the Big 12 (which also likely won't ever change) is that any money advantage that it might currently have over the Pac-12 is almost entirely based on the presence of the University of Texas, which is arguably the single most valuable school in all of college sports from a conference realignment perspective.

Don't sleep on Oklahoma. Oklahoma is extremely valuable as well. E.g., last year when Forbes ranked the value of college football programs, Texas was #2 at $1.24 Billion, but Oklahoma was right behind at #3, at $1 Billion. That puts them ahead of Alabama, Notre Dame, USC, etc.

Yes, these valuations aren't very scientific, but still, they do provide a general rule of thumb. And yes, Texas is the #1 program in the Big 12, and as you say, maybe nationally.

But Oklahoma is undoubtedly very valuable, top 10 at least, arguably top 5.

The Big 12 is much more like a dynamic duo, Jordan and Pippen or Magic and Kareem, than Lebron and "whoever".

If Oklahoma decided to leave the Big 12, that would be a grave threat to its existence. Remember that it was Oklahoma's Boren rattling his sabre about the need for expansion that caused the Big 12 to go through that expansion evaluation process last year. And that didn't get put to rest until Boren and others at OU were satisfied that the available candidates didn't make financial sense.

No way does Texas let that process happen if any of the other Big 12 schools had made that noise, but Oklahoma had to be listened to.

I agree that Oklahoma is very valuable, but here's the thing: if Texas goes, then Oklahoma is gone right after them. There really isn't any realistic circumstance that I can think of where OU would stay in a depleted Big 12 if UT were to leave. On the flip side, it would be virtually impossible for OU to leave on its own and politically separate from Oklahoma State unless the Big 12 were about to collapse... which pretty much would only occur if UT decided to leave. As a result, OU's realignment power is more limited because its "little brother" of Oklahoma State has a lot of political clout and OU itself isn't big enough to force a league like the Big Ten, SEC or Pac-12 to take Oklahoma State in a package deal. (To the extent that Texas has a little brother such as Texas Tech, that market is so large and valuable that at least the Pac-12 was very open to a package deal in that scenario.)

OU's realignment options still come down to what Texas wants to do. The Sooners can't really do anything unless (a) it takes Oklahoma State with them (which in turn, effectively eliminates the other P5 leagues as options since they all only want OU *without* OK State) or (b) Texas decides to leave, in which case OU probably then has the flexibility to move elsewhere on its own but still inherently means that OU can only be reactive in that situation. I see OU as a valuable school, but they don't really control their own realignment destiny (whereas UT has essentially ultimate power over its realignment choices).

Frank, I respect your posts, but you keep posting over and over that OU is tied to OSU.... which is just not the case. I have given you the reasons for this multiple times, but you obviously do not believe anything I say. So please do some research, or visit Oklahoma and find out for your self why OU is not tied to OSU.

Or... you could just have different opinions on the subject...

It is not just my opinion.

(03-20-2018 08:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 09:16 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  SEC is not taking Okla & OSU, Why wouldn't they just wait out Tex.
SEC #1 priority is Va & NC
then work on Tex & Okla
SEC is not taking OSU before them 4 are lost

SEC would take OU and OSU in a heartbeat, the reason they aren't is because OU hasn't said they want to come.

SEC wish lists starts with Texas and UNC just like everyone else's, but they aren't coming either right now.

SEC would take OSU if OU insisted as a condition. OU is very valuable and all conferences would love to have them, SEC included, and OSU would be a small price to pay to get them.

Quo you need to do some background work on the valuations. North Carolina doesn't yield 1/3rd of the value that Oklahoma or Texas yields. It's even less for the two Virginia schools, but not by much for Virginia Tech and a about $100,000,000 for UVa.

North Carolina and Virginia were only extremely attractive under the market footprint model. They are still attractive, but nowhere nearly as much as they were in 2010. The priorities are as I listed them.

Right now Oklahoma actually gives us a little bit more than Texas, but only because we already have A&M.

The state of Virginia is slightly larger than that of North Carolina but they encompass a larger surrounding area due to geography and their position within the Beltway. And college allegiances aren't divided 4 ways there among the P schools. Strategically securing Virginia would assist in securing North Carolina. Securing Virginia Tech, maybe not but it would be the better sports value of the two schools and we are talking about athletic revenue.

(03-20-2018 10:32 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 10:16 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 10:10 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:39 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Don't sleep on Oklahoma. Oklahoma is extremely valuable as well. E.g., last year when Forbes ranked the value of college football programs, Texas was #2 at $1.24 Billion, but Oklahoma was right behind at #3, at $1 Billion. That puts them ahead of Alabama, Notre Dame, USC, etc.

Yes, these valuations aren't very scientific, but still, they do provide a general rule of thumb. And yes, Texas is the #1 program in the Big 12, and as you say, maybe nationally.

But Oklahoma is undoubtedly very valuable, top 10 at least, arguably top 5.

The Big 12 is much more like a dynamic duo, Jordan and Pippen or Magic and Kareem, than Lebron and "whoever".

If Oklahoma decided to leave the Big 12, that would be a grave threat to its existence. Remember that it was Oklahoma's Boren rattling his sabre about the need for expansion that caused the Big 12 to go through that expansion evaluation process last year. And that didn't get put to rest until Boren and others at OU were satisfied that the available candidates didn't make financial sense.

No way does Texas let that process happen if any of the other Big 12 schools had made that noise, but Oklahoma had to be listened to.

I agree that Oklahoma is very valuable, but here's the thing: if Texas goes, then Oklahoma is gone right after them. There really isn't any realistic circumstance that I can think of where OU would stay in a depleted Big 12 if UT were to leave. On the flip side, it would be virtually impossible for OU to leave on its own and politically separate from Oklahoma State unless the Big 12 were about to collapse... which pretty much would only occur if UT decided to leave. As a result, OU's realignment power is more limited because its "little brother" of Oklahoma State has a lot of political clout and OU itself isn't big enough to force a league like the Big Ten, SEC or Pac-12 to take Oklahoma State in a package deal. (To the extent that Texas has a little brother such as Texas Tech, that market is so large and valuable that at least the Pac-12 was very open to a package deal in that scenario.)

OU's realignment options still come down to what Texas wants to do. The Sooners can't really do anything unless (a) it takes Oklahoma State with them (which in turn, effectively eliminates the other P5 leagues as options since they all only want OU *without* OK State) or (b) Texas decides to leave, in which case OU probably then has the flexibility to move elsewhere on its own but still inherently means that OU can only be reactive in that situation. I see OU as a valuable school, but they don't really control their own realignment destiny (whereas UT has essentially ultimate power over its realignment choices).

Frank, I respect your posts, but you keep posting over and over that OU is tied to OSU.... which is just not the case. I have given you the reasons for this multiple times, but you obviously do not believe anything I say. So please do some research, or visit Oklahoma and find out for your self why OU is not tied to OSU.

Or... you could just have different opinions on the subject...

It is not just my opinion.

I'm sure there are others that have his opinion, too.

(03-20-2018 11:51 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 10:32 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 10:16 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 10:10 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:39 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I agree that Oklahoma is very valuable, but here's the thing: if Texas goes, then Oklahoma is gone right after them. There really isn't any realistic circumstance that I can think of where OU would stay in a depleted Big 12 if UT were to leave. On the flip side, it would be virtually impossible for OU to leave on its own and politically separate from Oklahoma State unless the Big 12 were about to collapse... which pretty much would only occur if UT decided to leave. As a result, OU's realignment power is more limited because its "little brother" of Oklahoma State has a lot of political clout and OU itself isn't big enough to force a league like the Big Ten, SEC or Pac-12 to take Oklahoma State in a package deal. (To the extent that Texas has a little brother such as Texas Tech, that market is so large and valuable that at least the Pac-12 was very open to a package deal in that scenario.)

OU's realignment options still come down to what Texas wants to do. The Sooners can't really do anything unless (a) it takes Oklahoma State with them (which in turn, effectively eliminates the other P5 leagues as options since they all only want OU *without* OK State) or (b) Texas decides to leave, in which case OU probably then has the flexibility to move elsewhere on its own but still inherently means that OU can only be reactive in that situation. I see OU as a valuable school, but they don't really control their own realignment destiny (whereas UT has essentially ultimate power over its realignment choices).

Frank, I respect your posts, but you keep posting over and over that OU is tied to OSU.... which is just not the case. I have given you the reasons for this multiple times, but you obviously do not believe anything I say. So please do some research, or visit Oklahoma and find out for your self why OU is not tied to OSU.

Or... you could just have different opinions on the subject...

It is not just my opinion.

I'm sure there are others that have his opinion, too.

It's probably one of those issues that nobody will know for sure until OU either moves with OSU or without them. In politics in particular, public assertions seldom resemble private motives. In OU's case asserting public independence strengthens their bargaining position. But whether that is the political reality or not we will never know until action happens.

OU fans don't want to believe that they're tied to Oklahoma State in the same way that any "big brother" school doesn't want to believe that their choices are inhibited by the "little brother" school. Of course they want to believe that they have complete control of their own destiny as a marquee national power brand name, yet we have seen that even the most powerful schools of them all (such as Texas) can't shake state politicians in matters of life and death (which is essentially the case in the difference between being in a power conference versus a non-power conference).

There has been quite a bit of scuttlebutt that the Pac-12 and Big Ten "rejected" OU back when the Big 12 truly was looking like it was falling apart when Texas A&M and Missouri bolted for the SEC. However, the problem was never about OU itself. Instead, it was that OU indeed did insist upon taking Oklahoma State with them. Whether one wants to believe that OU was forced to do so or was simply trying to be nice is a matter of semantics. The point is that this is NOT a situation like most "little brother" schools - Oklahoma State has a lot more political clout compared to the average "little brother" in this scenario.

To discount state political clout is very naive in conference realignment. Texas Tech and Baylor are in the Big 12 because of state politicians forcing the "big brothers" of UT and A&M, Virginia Tech is in the ACC because of state politicians forcing the "big brother" of UVA, and the Big 12 expansion discussions back in 2016 had Houston wedged in high in the conversations despite market duplicities because of state politicians pressuring "big brothers". On a relative basis within the state of Oklahoma, the clout of Oklahoma State is even more powerful than any of those schools that I just listed - it has more power brokers within the state plus a massive political force benefactor with T. Boone Pickens.

So, history shows that OU has attempted to take Oklahoma State with them in every realignment scenario over the past decade even though there have been opportunities for OU to go it alone in a much stronger fashion (e.g. I recall it being reported that the SEC offered Texas A&M and OU to come in response to the Pac-16 proposal). Maybe OU legitimately wants to stay with Oklahoma State in the way that Texas seems to want to stay with other in-state plebeians. Maybe it's the political forces that I've mentioned already. Maybe it's a combination of both. Whatever it is, all signs indicate that OU can't just leave Oklahoma State behind unless the Big 12 is truly dying (and such dying can't be the result of OU itself proactively leaving).

(03-20-2018 12:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  OU fans don't want to believe that they're tied to Oklahoma State in the same way that any "big brother" school doesn't want to believe that their choices are inhibited by the "little brother" school. Of course they want to believe that they have complete control of their own destiny as a marquee national power brand name, yet we have seen that even the most powerful schools of them all (such as Texas) can't shake state politicians in matters of life and death (which is essentially the case in the difference between being in a power conference versus a non-power conference).

There has been quite a bit of scuttlebutt that the Pac-12 and Big Ten "rejected" OU back when the Big 12 truly was looking like it was falling apart when Texas A&M and Missouri bolted for the SEC. However, the problem was never about OU itself. Instead, it was that OU indeed did insist upon taking Oklahoma State with them. Whether one wants to believe that OU was forced to do so or was simply trying to be nice is a matter of semantics. The point is that this is NOT a situation like most "little brother" schools - Oklahoma State has a lot more political clout compared to the average "little brother" in this scenario.

To discount state political clout is very naive in conference realignment. Texas Tech and Baylor are in the Big 12 because of state politicians forcing the "big brothers" of UT and A&M, Virginia Tech is in the ACC because of state politicians forcing the "big brother" of UVA, and the Big 12 expansion discussions back in 2016 had Houston wedged in high in the conversations despite market duplicities because of state politicians pressuring "big brothers". On a relative basis within the state of Oklahoma, the clout of Oklahoma State is even more powerful than any of those schools that I just listed - it has more power brokers within the state plus a massive political force benefactor with T. Boone Pickens.

So, history shows that OU has attempted to take Oklahoma State with them in every realignment scenario over the past decade even though there have been opportunities for OU to go it alone in a much stronger fashion (e.g. I recall it being reported that the SEC offered Texas A&M and OU to come in response to the Pac-16 proposal). Maybe OU legitimately wants to stay with Oklahoma State in the way that Texas seems to want to stay with other in-state plebeians. Maybe it's the political forces that I've mentioned already. Maybe it's a combination of both. Whatever it is, all signs indicate that OU can't just leave Oklahoma State behind unless the Big 12 is truly dying (and such dying can't be the result of OU itself proactively leaving).

The SEC did try to take A&M and OU. It's the moment Boren referred to as the offer in hand. What Boren didn't state was that OU insisted upon OSU and there was no way the SEC was giving up on A&M to accommodate the Pokes. We were not expanding beyond 14 at the time because the renegotiation clause only called for two new markets and most conferences don't like assimilating more than two at the time anyway.

I think that the Big 12 (meaning Texas mostly) will wait to see how much of a difference the ACCN makes in closing the increasing revenue gap between the ACC and the Big 10/SEC before making any decisions. If 2033-5 looks like it could be a pivotal point in the future of the ACC I think Texas urges a 10 year extension on the Big 12 GOR and everything is on hold. If the ACCN hasn't made headway against the gap by 2024 the Big 12 waits. If the ACCN has made headway against the gap we might see movement.

If movement is forced by either a network or a conference it will be because the SEC offered both Oklahoma schools and it was too good of a political bargain for the Sooners & Pokes to turn down. This of course would require a reversal of our position 8 years ago. Since A&M is now in hand maybe that's possible. We'll see. But if we don't alter our previous stance I think things remain as they are until 2033-5.

(03-20-2018 01:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 12:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  OU fans don't want to believe that they're tied to Oklahoma State in the same way that any "big brother" school doesn't want to believe that their choices are inhibited by the "little brother" school. Of course they want to believe that they have complete control of their own destiny as a marquee national power brand name, yet we have seen that even the most powerful schools of them all (such as Texas) can't shake state politicians in matters of life and death (which is essentially the case in the difference between being in a power conference versus a non-power conference).

There has been quite a bit of scuttlebutt that the Pac-12 and Big Ten "rejected" OU back when the Big 12 truly was looking like it was falling apart when Texas A&M and Missouri bolted for the SEC. However, the problem was never about OU itself. Instead, it was that OU indeed did insist upon taking Oklahoma State with them. Whether one wants to believe that OU was forced to do so or was simply trying to be nice is a matter of semantics. The point is that this is NOT a situation like most "little brother" schools - Oklahoma State has a lot more political clout compared to the average "little brother" in this scenario.

To discount state political clout is very naive in conference realignment. Texas Tech and Baylor are in the Big 12 because of state politicians forcing the "big brothers" of UT and A&M, Virginia Tech is in the ACC because of state politicians forcing the "big brother" of UVA, and the Big 12 expansion discussions back in 2016 had Houston wedged in high in the conversations despite market duplicities because of state politicians pressuring "big brothers". On a relative basis within the state of Oklahoma, the clout of Oklahoma State is even more powerful than any of those schools that I just listed - it has more power brokers within the state plus a massive political force benefactor with T. Boone Pickens.

So, history shows that OU has attempted to take Oklahoma State with them in every realignment scenario over the past decade even though there have been opportunities for OU to go it alone in a much stronger fashion (e.g. I recall it being reported that the SEC offered Texas A&M and OU to come in response to the Pac-16 proposal). Maybe OU legitimately wants to stay with Oklahoma State in the way that Texas seems to want to stay with other in-state plebeians. Maybe it's the political forces that I've mentioned already. Maybe it's a combination of both. Whatever it is, all signs indicate that OU can't just leave Oklahoma State behind unless the Big 12 is truly dying (and such dying can't be the result of OU itself proactively leaving).

The SEC did try to take A&M and OU. It's the moment Boren referred to as the offer in hand. What Boren didn't state was that OU insisted upon OSU and there was no way the SEC was giving up on A&M to accommodate the Pokes. We were not expanding beyond 14 at the time because the renegotiation clause only called for two new markets and most conferences don't like assimilating more than two at the time anyway.

I think that the Big 12 (meaning Texas mostly) will wait to see how much of a difference the ACCN makes in closing the increasing revenue gap between the ACC and the Big 10/SEC before making any decisions. If 2033-5 looks like it could be a pivotal point in the future of the ACC I think Texas urges a 10 year extension on the Big 12 GOR and everything is on hold. If the ACCN hasn't made headway against the gap by 2024 the Big 12 waits. If the ACCN has made headway against the gap we might see movement.

If movement is forced by either a network or a conference it will be because the SEC offered both Oklahoma schools and it was too good of a political bargain for the Sooners & Pokes to turn down. This of course would require a reversal of our position 8 years ago. Since A&M is now in hand maybe that's possible. We'll see. But if we don't alter our previous stance I think things remain as they are until 2033-5.

And it would have put the SEC precisely in the problematic situation they had. Still needing to add one more to balance the numbers.

(03-20-2018 12:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  OU fans don't want to believe that they're tied to Oklahoma State in the same way that any "big brother" school doesn't want to believe that their choices are inhibited by the "little brother" school. Of course they want to believe that they have complete control of their own destiny as a marquee national power brand name, yet we have seen that even the most powerful schools of them all (such as Texas) can't shake state politicians in matters of life and death (which is essentially the case in the difference between being in a power conference versus a non-power conference).

There has been quite a bit of scuttlebutt that the Pac-12 and Big Ten "rejected" OU back when the Big 12 truly was looking like it was falling apart when Texas A&M and Missouri bolted for the SEC. However, the problem was never about OU itself. Instead, it was that OU indeed did insist upon taking Oklahoma State with them. Whether one wants to believe that OU was forced to do so or was simply trying to be nice is a matter of semantics. The point is that this is NOT a situation like most "little brother" schools - Oklahoma State has a lot more political clout compared to the average "little brother" in this scenario.

To discount state political clout is very naive in conference realignment. Texas Tech and Baylor are in the Big 12 because of state politicians forcing the "big brothers" of UT and A&M, Virginia Tech is in the ACC because of state politicians forcing the "big brother" of UVA, and the Big 12 expansion discussions back in 2016 had Houston wedged in high in the conversations despite market duplicities because of state politicians pressuring "big brothers". On a relative basis within the state of Oklahoma, the clout of Oklahoma State is even more powerful than any of those schools that I just listed - it has more power brokers within the state plus a massive political force benefactor with T. Boone Pickens.

So, history shows that OU has attempted to take Oklahoma State with them in every realignment scenario over the past decade even though there have been opportunities for OU to go it alone in a much stronger fashion (e.g. I recall it being reported that the SEC offered Texas A&M and OU to come in response to the Pac-16 proposal). Maybe OU legitimately wants to stay with Oklahoma State in the way that Texas seems to want to stay with other in-state plebeians. Maybe it's the political forces that I've mentioned already. Maybe it's a combination of both. Whatever it is, all signs indicate that OU can't just leave Oklahoma State behind unless the Big 12 is truly dying (and such dying can't be the result of OU itself proactively leaving).

I agree that OU has turned down offers that did not include OSU, but not because of political pressure.. As I have often pointed out, OU and OSU very much desire to stay together for several reasons, but not because of politics.

I completely disagree with your statement that Oklahoma State has a lot more political clout than the average "little brother" and that OSU has more power brokers than Texas Tech and Baylor had "at he time" when they were admitted to the Big12. FYI a meddling Baylor grad was the Governor of Texas and a Texas Tech grad was in control of State funding for the colleges.

Also, I disagree with your statement that OSU has a massive force political benefactor in Boone Pickens. Pickens has lived almost his entire adult life in Texas and has very little, if any, political clout in Oklahoma. He is 89 years old and his health is failing after a series of strokes. He has sold his business enterprises and his ranch in Texas is for sale.

You said OU fans do not want to believe they are tied to OSU. I don't know if you were referring to me or not, but if you were....numerous members of of my family have attended OSU. My son is a graduate of OSU, so is my sister. So I am more sympathetic toward OSU than I am OU.

I think the Big 12 is doing pretty good right now much to the chagrin of some of you doomsdayers.

(03-20-2018 06:05 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  I think the Big 12 is doing pretty good right now much to the chagrin of some of you doomsdayers.

WTH is a doomsdayer? The term is doomsayer.

(03-20-2018 12:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  To discount state political clout is very naive in conference realignment. Texas Tech and Baylor are in the Big 12 because of state politicians forcing the "big brothers" of UT and A&M, Virginia Tech is in the ACC because of state politicians forcing the "big brother" of UVA, and the Big 12 expansion discussions back in 2016 had Houston wedged in high in the conversations despite market duplicities because of state politicians pressuring "big brothers".

Yes, the reason for the misconception is that the little brother often has a lot more local clout, in their state capital, than they have national status. So their friends in the capital are able to wield influence that seems strange or unlikely from an outsider point of view.

E.g., in the Virginia case, VT has churned out a LOT of graduates, many of whom have settled in the growing and wealthy DC suburb counties that increasingly control Virginia politics (just ask Republicans, who still sweep about 80% of VA counties in elections, but lose anyway because the 3-4 DC suburb counties have huge populations and are overwhelmingly liberal).

They pack a mean political punch in Richmond and were able to hold UVA and via them, the ACC hostage until they voted VT in.

The same situation holds sway in other places, like Oklahoma. I'm convinced that OU won't go any place without OSU, unless it is clear to everyone involved that it is a case of either OSU sinking and OU being saved, or else both sinking.

I don't doupt Okla has to keep OSU in mind when making a dicision.
nobody taking OSU
that means Tex & Okla are not going anywhere
lets see if conf network saves ACC

(03-20-2018 06:40 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  I don't doupt Okla has to keep OSU in mind when making a dicision.
nobody taking OSU
that means Tex & Okla are not going anywhere
lets see if conf network saves ACC

Saves ACC from what? They have a grant of rights and ESPN contract through 2037. The ACC is not going anywhere anytime soon.

(03-20-2018 08:52 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 06:40 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  I don't doupt Okla has to keep OSU in mind when making a dicision.
nobody taking OSU
that means Tex & Okla are not going anywhere
lets see if conf network saves ACC

Saves ACC from what? They have a grant of rights and ESPN contract through 2037. The ACC is not going anywhere anytime soon.

Let's face it: Every legal bond can probably be broken, GOR included. It's just a matter of what the settlement will be.

I do NOT think this will happen, but if the ACCN is a big flop, and schools like FSU and Clemson see the ACC falling $10m + in annual revenue behind not just the SEC and B1G, which they have come to live with, but the Big 12 too, then the restlessness will set in, big time.

(03-20-2018 06:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 06:05 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  I think the Big 12 is doing pretty good right now much to the chagrin of some of you doomsdayers.

WTH is a doomsdayer? The term is doomsayer.

Well Mr. Webster, a doomsdayer is someone who prophesies doom.

(03-20-2018 09:51 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 06:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 06:05 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  I think the Big 12 is doing pretty good right now much to the chagrin of some of you doomsdayers.

WTH is a doomsdayer? The term is doomsayer.

Well Mr. Webster, a doomsdayer is someone who prophesies doom.

It must be Webster's unabridged millennial version. I see the web pulls it up but not this spellchecker. It is eerily reminiscent of many mispronounced and misspoken idioms that I hear today. But here doomsayer is more apt. Nobody is predicting the apocalypse, which is the nuance of Websters acceptance of doomsdayer, just positing the demise of a conference. But if scrabble allows it, and they use the unabridged dictionary, so will I.

(03-20-2018 05:19 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 12:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  OU fans don't want to believe that they're tied to Oklahoma State in the same way that any "big brother" school doesn't want to believe that their choices are inhibited by the "little brother" school. Of course they want to believe that they have complete control of their own destiny as a marquee national power brand name, yet we have seen that even the most powerful schools of them all (such as Texas) can't shake state politicians in matters of life and death (which is essentially the case in the difference between being in a power conference versus a non-power conference).

There has been quite a bit of scuttlebutt that the Pac-12 and Big Ten "rejected" OU back when the Big 12 truly was looking like it was falling apart when Texas A&M and Missouri bolted for the SEC. However, the problem was never about OU itself. Instead, it was that OU indeed did insist upon taking Oklahoma State with them. Whether one wants to believe that OU was forced to do so or was simply trying to be nice is a matter of semantics. The point is that this is NOT a situation like most "little brother" schools - Oklahoma State has a lot more political clout compared to the average "little brother" in this scenario.

To discount state political clout is very naive in conference realignment. Texas Tech and Baylor are in the Big 12 because of state politicians forcing the "big brothers" of UT and A&M, Virginia Tech is in the ACC because of state politicians forcing the "big brother" of UVA, and the Big 12 expansion discussions back in 2016 had Houston wedged in high in the conversations despite market duplicities because of state politicians pressuring "big brothers". On a relative basis within the state of Oklahoma, the clout of Oklahoma State is even more powerful than any of those schools that I just listed - it has more power brokers within the state plus a massive political force benefactor with T. Boone Pickens.

So, history shows that OU has attempted to take Oklahoma State with them in every realignment scenario over the past decade even though there have been opportunities for OU to go it alone in a much stronger fashion (e.g. I recall it being reported that the SEC offered Texas A&M and OU to come in response to the Pac-16 proposal). Maybe OU legitimately wants to stay with Oklahoma State in the way that Texas seems to want to stay with other in-state plebeians. Maybe it's the political forces that I've mentioned already. Maybe it's a combination of both. Whatever it is, all signs indicate that OU can't just leave Oklahoma State behind unless the Big 12 is truly dying (and such dying can't be the result of OU itself proactively leaving).

I agree that OU has turned down offers that did not include OSU, but not because of political pressure.. As I have often pointed out, OU and OSU very much desire to stay together for several reasons, but not because of politics.

I completely disagree with your statement that Oklahoma State has more power brokers than Texas Tech and Baylor had "at he time" when they were admitted to the Big12. A meddling Baylor grad was the Governor of Texas and a Texas Tech grad was in control of State funding for the colleges.

I also disagree with your statement that OSU has a massive force political benefactor in Boone Pickens. Pickens has lived almost his entire adult life in Texas and has very little, if any, political clout in Oklahoma. He is 89 years old and his health is failing after a series of strokes. He has sold his business enterprises and his ranch in Texas is for sale.

You said OU fans do not want to believe they are tied to OSU. I don't know if you were referring to me or not, but if you were....numerous members of of my family have attended OSU. My son is a graduate of OSU, so is my sister. So I am more sympathetic toward OSU than I am OU.

I was under the idea that UT and Oklahoma were the power brokers that kept UH replacing TT or Baylor because of recruiting. Thanks for that info.

That's part of the story.

(03-20-2018 10:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 09:51 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 06:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 06:05 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  I think the Big 12 is doing pretty good right now much to the chagrin of some of you doomsdayers.

WTH is a doomsdayer? The term is doomsayer.

Well Mr. Webster, a doomsdayer is someone who prophesies doom.

It must be Webster's unabridged millennial version. I see the web pulls it up but not this spellchecker. It is eerily reminiscent of many mispronounced and misspoken idioms that I hear today. But here doomsayer is more apt. Nobody is predicting the apocalypse, which is the nuance of Websters acceptance of doomsdayer, just positing the demise of a conference. But if scrabble allows it, and they use the unabridged dictionary, so will I.

I have to say I have heard the term used before as a descriptor and as a synonym for some survivalist types---but it was spoken every time (never seen it written I dont think). I assumed it was just a way of lumping all the folks together who buy into various doomsday scenarios. That said, Id say its probably qualifies as a slang term.....You'll probably have trouble defending its use in a high stakes game of Scrabble.

(03-21-2018 01:08 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  That's part of the story.

Which had more influence, or was it equal