(07-13-2018 08:54 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 10:58 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  The Texas administration has changed
Texas wasn’t allways the toxic big bully that lead to four schools leaving the b12
The vultures that have been circling over the b12 are no longer smelling death but seeing greener grass growing
The b12 is a healthy A5 conference, why would Texas and Oklahoma want to leave at this point ?
Why would Texas and Oklahoma want to stay in the b12 is the real question y’all need to ask yourselves

Big 12 devotees continually talk about the conference health (revenue) in the present tense. I suggest that they adopt the AAC practice of looking ahead to the next media deal. The current $34 million payout flows from a contract that was based on a twelve-team conference which included Nebraska, Texas A&M, Colorado and Missouri. The $34 million has been inflated by more than 15% simply by splitting the pie ten ways instead of twelve.

Apart from the two top teams how does this new roster compare? If you are ESPN/Fox will you pay P5 money for the new-look Big 12? Will Amazon, Netflicks, etc. make their move into live college football with this conference? I'm guessing "no."

Will Oklahoma, Texas and/or Kansas sign another long term Big 12 GoR? Remember, they will have the results of the next B1G media deal to use as a comparison. The question is no longer if they move, but rather where.

No matter how many times this gets repeated, its still not true. Its frustrating how many lies keep getting repeated about the Big 12.

The Big 12 had a completely new deal with Fox in 2011. ESPN renegotiated their deal and extended it to 2025 the following year. The Big 12 was paid FMV for their 10 team conference.

Texas does produce more revenue than any other school in the country. They even produce more TV revenue than anyone else and will at least through the end of the LHN deal in 2031. Oklahoma is top 5. Financially, those two are just fine where they are. If they leave, it won't be primarily driven by TV$.

(07-14-2018 09:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Posting to add:

The big driver to any realignment may actually be decided out on the West Coast this year. Lawsuit out there seeks to enable more than 'room, board, books, and small subsidy' to student athletes.

If that case goes the way it is expected, schools will be able to treat many D1 sports for what they are: farm systems complete with pay for work. The big question then will be what schools will adopt that stance, and which schools will not.

Stands to reason the 'powerhouse D1s' will all group together and compete, while the 'wont go the pay route' will drop back and compete. I think this ruling, if it goes the way that many expect, will cause huge fractures in the current P5 system. Kind of create an 'uber P2' + mini P3 to go along with the current P5 / G5 setup. There may be a huge fight to get into the slots at that uber level, since I would assume most ADs realize that the concept of 'pay to paid' will hit steroid levels with this. There wont be room for 60 organizations to do it at this economic level as it stands today, since 'the price to play' is still capped so to speak by physical improvements, not payroll concerns for players.

Some D1 coaches I have talked to or heard speak in small settings in the last couple of years have indicated that this will be the driving force in the next realignment wave, if the ruling goes as expected. Last I checked the case is in front of the trial judge who is considering the summary judgement motions at the current time.

I cant imagine what the free-for-all would mean to the B12, aside from OU and UT.

By the way—I just saw where Greg Sanke (SEC), Larry Scott (Pac12), and Mike Aresco (AAC) are all on the NCAA’s witness list.

(07-13-2018 08:54 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 08:17 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  In BYU’s eyes they are major P5, to everyone else west of the Mississippi they are G5.

That's fine, it doesn't really matter what the Pac thinks when the major east coast players recognize BYU. They would be a perfect counterpart to Texas considering they have their own network.

Does BYU replace Oklahoma on paper for a major TV contract based on the conference as a package? No, but herein lies my argument: an Oklahoma-less Big XII won't need a major TV contract to survive.

Big schools are buying equipment and hiring personnel to televise their own games. I see a future where the need for major contracts based on conference packages diminishing, while major schools begin making more money by doing things independently. Bits are cheap.

They don't recognize BYU as a legit P5 level team. They just say that so they can get a G5 opponent on their schedule and get around the P5 rule they each have that says they all have to play 1 P5 team a season in OOC. If they truly thought they were a power level team they would give them the ND deal in regards to the playoffs but they don't. They just want an easy opponent that they can say should count towards their 1 P5 team a season.

(07-13-2018 01:47 PM)esayem Wrote:  Big IX-Big East (90’)
Texas-Miami
TCU-VT
WVU-WVU
TTU-Syracuse
KU-Temple
KSU-Pitt
Baylor-Rutgers
ISU-BC
BYU/UH-UConn

Just an idea of competitive balance, the theoretical Big 9 would be better.

Pretty close analogy, except UCONN never played football in the Big East with Miami or Virginia Tech. They left for the ACC after 2003 and UCONN joined in 2004. So unfortunately we don't really have an exact benchmark for how a conference with a new guy and a kingpin would operate.

(07-13-2018 01:47 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Arkansas would be a better FB program in the BXII.
Missouri would be a better FB program in the BXII.
Nebraska would be a better FB program in the BXII.

Those 3 can enjoy their greenbacks, while a long list of programs continue to pass them by. Who would’ve thought 20 years ago TCU would be better than all 3 programs?

DOES. NOT. MATTER.

People in the eastern and southern parts of Arkansas (ie. east and south of the Little Rock metro) have always had their eyes on the SEC. So they were over-joyed by the SEC invite more than anyone. (Ditto SE Missouri).

Arkansas fans felt that they were neither respected nor appreciated as members of the SEC. The only SWC teams they hated giving up were Texas and TAMU and to a lesser degree Houston and most of the Hog fans unhappy losing Houston were Arkansans transplanted to that part of Texas.

They now have have TAMU as a conference opponent.

Dollars being equal, the Big XII without TAMU and Mizzou doesn't offer Arkansas a lot (yes OU and OK State are easy trips as are the Kansas schools) but Arkansas knows they are a full partner in the SEC, it is unlikely they would feel they are full partner in the SWC.

(07-14-2018 10:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 01:47 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Arkansas would be a better FB program in the BXII.
Missouri would be a better FB program in the BXII.
Nebraska would be a better FB program in the BXII.

Those 3 can enjoy their greenbacks, while a long list of programs continue to pass them by. Who would’ve thought 20 years ago TCU would be better than all 3 programs?

DOES. NOT. MATTER.

People in the eastern and southern parts of Arkansas (ie. east and south of the Little Rock metro) have always had their eyes on the SEC. So they were over-joyed by the SEC invite more than anyone. (Ditto SE Missouri).

Arkansas fans felt that they were neither respected nor appreciated as members of the SEC. The only SWC teams they hated giving up were Texas and TAMU and to a lesser degree Houston and most of the Hog fans unhappy losing Houston were Arkansans transplanted to that part of Texas.

They now have have TAMU as a conference opponent.

Dollars being equal, the Big XII without TAMU and Mizzou doesn't offer Arkansas a lot (yes OU and OK State are easy trips as are the Kansas schools) but Arkansas knows they are a full partner in the SEC, it is unlikely they would feel they are full partner in the SWC.

It doesn’t matter but it should.

Arkansas’ 26 years in the SEC?
5 top 25 finishes
1 top 10 finish

Arkansas’ previous 33 years in the SWC?
19 top 20 finishes (25 didn’t exist)
18 top 15 finishes
12 top 10 finishes

If Arkansas stayed committed to SWC/BXII, they would’ve never fallen off a cliff and likely be nationally relevant today.

But the Razorbacks, like the Cornhuskers, chose money.

Fayetteville, AR:
Stillwater, OK 3:01
Norman, OK 3:40
Lawrence, KS 4:03
Columbia, MO 4:51
Manhattan, KS 5:13
Fort Worth, TX 5:25
Waco, TX 6:23
Lincoln, NE 6:30
Ames, IA 6:45
College Station, TX 7:39
Austin, TX 7:54
Lubbock, TX 8:29
Boulder, CO 11:37

Oxford, MS 5:51
Starkville, MS 7:09
Nashville, TN 7:36
Tuscaloosa, AL 8:06
Baton Rouge, LA 8:39
Auburn, AL 9:53
Knoxville, TN 10:08
Lexington, KY 10:11
Athens, GA 11:11
Columbia, SC 12:54
Gainesville, FL 14:39


Arkansas made a fatal error not sticking with the SWC/BXII crowd. If Arkansas (+ NE/MO) stay committed to BXII, that’s a perfect league for the Razorbacks. Even with CU/ATM bolting, that’s a league with 6/11 opponents <5.5 hrs, 9/11 <6:45 hrs, and all 11 <8.5 hrs.

Lost the Texas pipeline.
Lost several nearby rivals by not waiting for the merger.
Cut Top 10 finishes by ~90% (from 12-in-33 to 1-in-26).
Cut Top 15 finishes by ~80% (from 18-in-33 to 3-in-26).

(07-14-2018 05:23 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 01:47 PM)esayem Wrote:  Big IX-Big East (90’)
Texas-Miami
TCU-VT
WVU-WVU
TTU-Syracuse
KU-Temple
KSU-Pitt
Baylor-Rutgers
ISU-BC
BYU/UH-UConn

Just an idea of competitive balance, the theoretical Big 9 would be better.

Pretty close analogy, except UCONN never played football in the Big East with Miami or Virginia Tech. They left for the ACC after 2003 and UCONN joined in 2004. So unfortunately we don't really have an exact benchmark for how a conference with a new guy and a kingpin would operate.

Yeah, I know that. I probably should have clarified that, but I figured I would include UConn to compare them to a hypothetical Big IX. Temple and UConn weren’t in the Big East together back then, but they’re in the AAC now!

As far as BYU goes, say what you say about them. Make your excuses. Doesn’t change the facts. Mark my words, Liberty will be there too.

(07-14-2018 10:40 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 10:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 01:47 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Arkansas would be a better FB program in the BXII.
Missouri would be a better FB program in the BXII.
Nebraska would be a better FB program in the BXII.

Those 3 can enjoy their greenbacks, while a long list of programs continue to pass them by. Who would’ve thought 20 years ago TCU would be better than all 3 programs?

DOES. NOT. MATTER.

People in the eastern and southern parts of Arkansas (ie. east and south of the Little Rock metro) have always had their eyes on the SEC. So they were over-joyed by the SEC invite more than anyone. (Ditto SE Missouri).

Arkansas fans felt that they were neither respected nor appreciated as members of the SEC. The only SWC teams they hated giving up were Texas and TAMU and to a lesser degree Houston and most of the Hog fans unhappy losing Houston were Arkansans transplanted to that part of Texas.

They now have have TAMU as a conference opponent.

Dollars being equal, the Big XII without TAMU and Mizzou doesn't offer Arkansas a lot (yes OU and OK State are easy trips as are the Kansas schools) but Arkansas knows they are a full partner in the SEC, it is unlikely they would feel they are full partner in the SWC.

It doesn’t matter but it should.

Arkansas’ 26 years in the SEC?
5 top 25 finishes
1 top 10 finish

Arkansas’ previous 33 years in the SWC?
19 top 20 finishes (25 didn’t exist)
18 top 15 finishes
12 top 10 finishes

If Arkansas stayed committed to SWC/BXII, they would’ve never fallen off a cliff and likely be nationally relevant today.

But the Razorbacks, like the Cornhuskers, chose money.

The Hogs moved when the money difference was negligible. The leagues were still in the CFA TV deal and no one knew what a championship game would be worth. The SEC was not the dominant force it is today.

If the money differential were like it is today Arkansas wouldn't have been the only one of the six that SEC approached to agree to join.

Arkansas joined the SEC to get away from a league where they felt they were treated as a junior partner.

(07-14-2018 11:11 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Fayetteville, AR:
Stillwater, OK 3:01
Norman, OK 3:40
Lawrence, KS 4:03
Columbia, MO 4:51
Manhattan, KS 5:13
Fort Worth, TX 5:25
Waco, TX 6:23
Lincoln, NE 6:30
Ames, IA 6:45
College Station, TX 7:39
Austin, TX 7:54
Lubbock, TX 8:29
Boulder, CO 11:37

Oxford, MS 5:51
Starkville, MS 7:09
Nashville, TN 7:36
Tuscaloosa, AL 8:06
Baton Rouge, LA 8:39
Auburn, AL 9:53
Knoxville, TN 10:08
Lexington, KY 10:11
Athens, GA 11:11
Columbia, SC 12:54
Gainesville, FL 14:39


Arkansas made a fatal error not sticking with the SWC/BXII crowd. If Arkansas (+ NE/MO) stay committed to BXII, that’s a perfect league for the Razorbacks. Even with CU/ATM bolting, that’s a league with 6/11 opponents <5.5 hrs, 9/11 <6:45 hrs, and all 11 <8.5 hrs.

Lost the Texas pipeline.
Lost several nearby rivals by not waiting for the merger.
Cut Top 10 finishes by ~90% (from 12-in-33 to 1-in-26).
Cut Top 15 finishes by ~80% (from 18-in-33 to 3-in-26).

You really don't understand the dynamic at play. Arkansas at the time was playing more football games in Little Rock than Fayetteville. They were fairly regularly playing basketball in Little Rock and Pine Bluff. Baseball was playing at least one series a year in Little Rock much of that time.

Their "home" metro represented less than 9% of the population of the state of Arkansas instead of nearly 18% today. I-540 was a wish at the time.

Two things you are missing about Razorback success.

Arkansas has finished top 10 five times since football integrated at Arkansas. The integration of southern football benefited other schools more than Arkansas. The state has a smaller minority population than much of the south and gained fewer high caliber players as a result.

The other boost to Hog success? Frequent NCAA probations by conference-mates. For example the last two SWC titles they won, everyone in the SWC except Arkansas and Rice was either on probation or had recently come off of probation (or was on or coming out of the death penalty).

Understand the factors at play and not refuting them. Obviously a president with a more holistic view puts more weight into those factors. It’s a sound business decision. It’s just not a sound decision for contending for national titles.

Losing the Texas pipeline and becoming a far-flung geographic outlier in the top league just isn’t good for wins, and the results since the switch overwhelmingly bear that out.

Take 2006 Arkansas. 10-3 with wins over 2/13 and losses to 4/6/9. Put that team in the BXII (2 top 25) and the Fighting McFadden’s are probably playing in 06’s version of the CFP.

It’s just historically easier with a Texas pipeline and geographic fit to go through TX/OK/TCU than Bama/UGa/Auburn/LSU/FL/Tenn (Arkansas/Mizzou) or OSU/Mich/PSU/MSU/UW (Nebraska) as a geographic outlier with little or no Texas pipeline.

(07-14-2018 03:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 09:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Posting to add:

The big driver to any realignment may actually be decided out on the West Coast this year. Lawsuit out there seeks to enable more than 'room, board, books, and small subsidy' to student athletes.

If that case goes the way it is expected, schools will be able to treat many D1 sports for what they are: farm systems complete with pay for work. The big question then will be what schools will adopt that stance, and which schools will not.

Stands to reason the 'powerhouse D1s' will all group together and compete, while the 'wont go the pay route' will drop back and compete. I think this ruling, if it goes the way that many expect, will cause huge fractures in the current P5 system. Kind of create an 'uber P2' + mini P3 to go along with the current P5 / G5 setup. There may be a huge fight to get into the slots at that uber level, since I would assume most ADs realize that the concept of 'pay to paid' will hit steroid levels with this. There wont be room for 60 organizations to do it at this economic level as it stands today, since 'the price to play' is still capped so to speak by physical improvements, not payroll concerns for players.

Some D1 coaches I have talked to or heard speak in small settings in the last couple of years have indicated that this will be the driving force in the next realignment wave, if the ruling goes as expected. Last I checked the case is in front of the trial judge who is considering the summary judgement motions at the current time.

I cant imagine what the free-for-all would mean to the B12, aside from OU and UT.

By the way—I just saw where Greg Sanke (SEC), Larry Scott (Pac12), and Mike Aresco (AAC) are all on the NCAA’s witness list.

Problem is the issue will probably never go to trial. There really are no factual disputes. It will most likely be determined by the summary judgement motions before the court at the trial court level.

(07-14-2018 11:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 10:40 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 10:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 01:47 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Arkansas would be a better FB program in the BXII.
Missouri would be a better FB program in the BXII.
Nebraska would be a better FB program in the BXII.

Those 3 can enjoy their greenbacks, while a long list of programs continue to pass them by. Who would’ve thought 20 years ago TCU would be better than all 3 programs?

DOES. NOT. MATTER.

People in the eastern and southern parts of Arkansas (ie. east and south of the Little Rock metro) have always had their eyes on the SEC. So they were over-joyed by the SEC invite more than anyone. (Ditto SE Missouri).

Arkansas fans felt that they were neither respected nor appreciated as members of the SEC. The only SWC teams they hated giving up were Texas and TAMU and to a lesser degree Houston and most of the Hog fans unhappy losing Houston were Arkansans transplanted to that part of Texas.

They now have have TAMU as a conference opponent.

Dollars being equal, the Big XII without TAMU and Mizzou doesn't offer Arkansas a lot (yes OU and OK State are easy trips as are the Kansas schools) but Arkansas knows they are a full partner in the SEC, it is unlikely they would feel they are full partner in the SWC.

It doesn’t matter but it should.

Arkansas’ 26 years in the SEC?
5 top 25 finishes
1 top 10 finish

Arkansas’ previous 33 years in the SWC?
19 top 20 finishes (25 didn’t exist)
18 top 15 finishes
12 top 10 finishes

If Arkansas stayed committed to SWC/BXII, they would’ve never fallen off a cliff and likely be nationally relevant today.

But the Razorbacks, like the Cornhuskers, chose money.

The Hogs moved when the money difference was negligible. The leagues were still in the CFA TV deal and no one knew what a championship game would be worth. The SEC was not the dominant force it is today.

If the money differential were like it is today Arkansas wouldn't have been the only one of the six that SEC approached to agree to join.

Arkansas joined the SEC to get away from a league where they felt they were treated as a junior partner.

You are correct about feeling like a junior partner, there were other factors too. As a Houston fan I totally understand the junior pain to say the least
As the OP I will say again I think the big12 is more likely to try and get two A5 schools and Texas with a new administration has the LHN to use as a ace card to roll out as the b12 network as a show of everybody’s equal like the SEC
Texas can do this, but will they?, I think there is a really good chance

(07-15-2018 10:56 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 11:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 10:40 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 10:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 01:47 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Arkansas would be a better FB program in the BXII.
Missouri would be a better FB program in the BXII.
Nebraska would be a better FB program in the BXII.

Those 3 can enjoy their greenbacks, while a long list of programs continue to pass them by. Who would’ve thought 20 years ago TCU would be better than all 3 programs?

DOES. NOT. MATTER.

People in the eastern and southern parts of Arkansas (ie. east and south of the Little Rock metro) have always had their eyes on the SEC. So they were over-joyed by the SEC invite more than anyone. (Ditto SE Missouri).

Arkansas fans felt that they were neither respected nor appreciated as members of the SEC. The only SWC teams they hated giving up were Texas and TAMU and to a lesser degree Houston and most of the Hog fans unhappy losing Houston were Arkansans transplanted to that part of Texas.

They now have have TAMU as a conference opponent.

Dollars being equal, the Big XII without TAMU and Mizzou doesn't offer Arkansas a lot (yes OU and OK State are easy trips as are the Kansas schools) but Arkansas knows they are a full partner in the SEC, it is unlikely they would feel they are full partner in the SWC.

It doesn’t matter but it should.

Arkansas’ 26 years in the SEC?
5 top 25 finishes
1 top 10 finish

Arkansas’ previous 33 years in the SWC?
19 top 20 finishes (25 didn’t exist)
18 top 15 finishes
12 top 10 finishes

If Arkansas stayed committed to SWC/BXII, they would’ve never fallen off a cliff and likely be nationally relevant today.

But the Razorbacks, like the Cornhuskers, chose money.

The Hogs moved when the money difference was negligible. The leagues were still in the CFA TV deal and no one knew what a championship game would be worth. The SEC was not the dominant force it is today.

If the money differential were like it is today Arkansas wouldn't have been the only one of the six that SEC approached to agree to join.

Arkansas joined the SEC to get away from a league where they felt they were treated as a junior partner.

You are correct about feeling like a junior partner, there were other factors too. As a Houston fan I totally understand the junior pain to say the least
As the OP I will say again I think the big12 is more likely to try and get two A5 schools and Texas with a new administration has the LHN to use as a ace card to roll out as the b12 network as a show of everybody’s equal like the SEC
Texas can do this, but will they?, I think there is a really good chance

It would take something really big to convince a current P5 that Texas is interested in being an equal partner. Since 1990 Arkansas, Nebraska, Texas A&M, and Missouri have ended their relationship with Texas primarily because they did not feel they were in a relationship of equals. Colorado may have felt that as well, but they were also clearly a cultural fit for Pac-12.

There is an article that has been linked to this board more than once, it is an in-depth interview with the major players at Mizzou about the move to the SEC. They talk about the culture shock of dealing with the SEC. Exit fee? We don't have an exit fee, if you don't want to be a member we aren't going to force you to stay.

I'm not sure there is a way for Texas to create the trust level required. They certainly can't do it by replicating the SEC, "leave if you want to" trust model because they flirted with the B1G when Arkansas left, ditched SWC for B12, flirted with Pac-10 shortly after B12 formed and then again as Colorado was leaving and was widely perceived as having been "bribed" by the rest of the league and TV to stay.

Texas saw value and wanted to go where value was, this is true, but now IMO Texas sees value staying in the b12 and trying to lure two A5 schools
I started this topic as a result of a recent fishing trip” in a boat” in port A tx with a couple of UT boys that ,hmmm seem to know about such things...so take it with a grain of salt at this point anyway

(07-14-2018 10:40 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 10:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 01:47 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Arkansas would be a better FB program in the BXII.
Missouri would be a better FB program in the BXII.
Nebraska would be a better FB program in the BXII.

Those 3 can enjoy their greenbacks, while a long list of programs continue to pass them by. Who would’ve thought 20 years ago TCU would be better than all 3 programs?

DOES. NOT. MATTER.

People in the eastern and southern parts of Arkansas (ie. east and south of the Little Rock metro) have always had their eyes on the SEC. So they were over-joyed by the SEC invite more than anyone. (Ditto SE Missouri).

Arkansas fans felt that they were neither respected nor appreciated as members of the SEC. The only SWC teams they hated giving up were Texas and TAMU and to a lesser degree Houston and most of the Hog fans unhappy losing Houston were Arkansans transplanted to that part of Texas.

They now have have TAMU as a conference opponent.

Dollars being equal, the Big XII without TAMU and Mizzou doesn't offer Arkansas a lot (yes OU and OK State are easy trips as are the Kansas schools) but Arkansas knows they are a full partner in the SEC, it is unlikely they would feel they are full partner in the SWC.

It doesn’t matter but it should.

Arkansas’ 26 years in the SEC?
5 top 25 finishes
1 top 10 finish

Arkansas’ previous 33 years in the SWC?
19 top 20 finishes (25 didn’t exist)
18 top 15 finishes
12 top 10 finishes

If Arkansas stayed committed to SWC/BXII, they would’ve never fallen off a cliff and likely be nationally relevant today.

But the Razorbacks, like the Cornhuskers, chose money.

This is more a problem of demographics than affiliation. Oklahoma has remained good but nowhere near what they were in the 50's & 60's or even the 70's. Nebraska's trajectory is the same. Missouri's trajectory the same. The midwest heartland was booming immediately following WWII. There were many reasons for this and some included the location of sensitive war industries in the middle of the country for security purposes.

Some companies like ZEBCO, the Zero Hour Bomb Company, that made arming devices for the payloads of B17's and B24's were converted into post war industries like a fishing reel company because the arming mechanisms were readily adapted to spincast mechanisms in the revolutionary 33 reel. So the die off of industry wasn't immediate.

During Jim Crow in the South Oklahoma and Nebraska of the Big 8 thrived upon Southern African American recruits. That began to change in the early 70's as well. The last 40 plus years has seen population and industry slowly returning to the port cities, or more likely heading overseas. Now these states are low population small market places. Arkansas was Old South enough not to benefit in the 60's and 70's the way OU and Nebraska did, but still rural and tough enough that with the right coaching and Texas in their backyard they could compete.

So if you looked at the trajectory of each of the Old Big 8 schools you will see that all of them had peak years between the 50's and 70's and that most have been way off those highs for the last 40 years with some anomalous years tossed in.

I don't think that Missouri, Nebraska, Arkansas, or Colorado returning to a Big 8 or SWC, or even Big 12 would have improved their fortunes a dime, or a trophy's worth.

This is why Kansas and Oklahoma are looking to leave. They need to be associated with schools from larger markets in an effort to attract students. They need to be associated with those larger markets to keep recruiting at higher levels. Oklahoma is running a 1 billion dollar debt for the academic side of the ledger.

Meanwhile Texas has the most advantageous TV deal and they have large population markets with high level recruits, but Texas supports 5 P5 schools and 2 in the AAC. They consume a high level of their states talent already. Sticking with a conference so dominated by one school doesn't get them (OU & KU) the concessions they need to address their other issues.

They won't be leaving for just more TV revenue, or even more sports revenue. They will be leaving to try to improve all of their revenue streams and do so in more equitable associations.

It is the nature of fans to want what they like. It is the nature of healthy schools to placate their fans. Anytime a major school with a strong brand association with a region looks to move there are always underlying business issues which are not discussed with the sports because they are mostly unrelated and schools stay tight lipped about fiscal issues until they have to talk about them. Neither the state of Oklahoma or Kansas are flush, in fact both are just the opposite. If there is movement it will be because of that, and Texas will receive the deflected political blame because of their more favorable deals. But the catalyst is at the state budgetary level of those schools and not in Texas.

Arkansas was in the same boat, recognized it, and got out early.

(07-14-2018 04:34 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 08:54 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 08:17 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  In BYU’s eyes they are major P5, to everyone else west of the Mississippi they are G5.

That's fine, it doesn't really matter what the Pac thinks when the major east coast players recognize BYU. They would be a perfect counterpart to Texas considering they have their own network.

Does BYU replace Oklahoma on paper for a major TV contract based on the conference as a package? No, but herein lies my argument: an Oklahoma-less Big XII won't need a major TV contract to survive.

Big schools are buying equipment and hiring personnel to televise their own games. I see a future where the need for major contracts based on conference packages diminishing, while major schools begin making more money by doing things independently. Bits are cheap.

They don't recognize BYU as a legit P5 level team. They just say that so they can get a G5 opponent on their schedule and get around the P5 rule they each have that says they all have to play 1 P5 team a season in OOC. If they truly thought they were a power level team they would give them the ND deal in regards to the playoffs but they don't. They just want an easy opponent that they can say should count towards their 1 P5 team a season.

At the time, it was agreed to apply to all Independents. Then it was ND, BYU, and Army. Army counts, though Army has no interest in playing a mass of P5 opponents beyond their usual pattern of playing a couple or so a season.

Now, with UMass playing Independent, a blanket approach with all Independents counting as OOC P5 just isn't appropriate.

(07-15-2018 12:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 10:40 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 10:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 01:47 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Arkansas would be a better FB program in the BXII.
Missouri would be a better FB program in the BXII.
Nebraska would be a better FB program in the BXII.

Those 3 can enjoy their greenbacks, while a long list of programs continue to pass them by. Who would’ve thought 20 years ago TCU would be better than all 3 programs?

DOES. NOT. MATTER.

People in the eastern and southern parts of Arkansas (ie. east and south of the Little Rock metro) have always had their eyes on the SEC. So they were over-joyed by the SEC invite more than anyone. (Ditto SE Missouri).

Arkansas fans felt that they were neither respected nor appreciated as members of the SEC. The only SWC teams they hated giving up were Texas and TAMU and to a lesser degree Houston and most of the Hog fans unhappy losing Houston were Arkansans transplanted to that part of Texas.

They now have have TAMU as a conference opponent.

Dollars being equal, the Big XII without TAMU and Mizzou doesn't offer Arkansas a lot (yes OU and OK State are easy trips as are the Kansas schools) but Arkansas knows they are a full partner in the SEC, it is unlikely they would feel they are full partner in the SWC.

It doesn’t matter but it should.

Arkansas’ 26 years in the SEC?
5 top 25 finishes
1 top 10 finish

Arkansas’ previous 33 years in the SWC?
19 top 20 finishes (25 didn’t exist)
18 top 15 finishes
12 top 10 finishes

If Arkansas stayed committed to SWC/BXII, they would’ve never fallen off a cliff and likely be nationally relevant today.

But the Razorbacks, like the Cornhuskers, chose money.

This is more a problem of demographics than affiliation. Oklahoma has remained good but nowhere near what they were in the 50's & 60's or even the 70's. Nebraska's trajectory is the same. Missouri's trajectory the same. The midwest heartland was booming immediately following WWII. There were many reasons for this and some included the location of sensitive war industries in the middle of the country for security purposes.

Some companies like ZEBCO, the Zero Hour Bomb Company, that made arming devices for the payloads of B17's and B24's were converted into post war industries like a fishing reel company because the arming mechanisms were readily adapted to spincast mechanisms in the revolutionary 33 reel. So the die off of industry wasn't immediate.

During Jim Crow in the South Oklahoma and Nebraska of the Big 8 thrived upon Southern African American recruits. That began to change in the early 70's as well. The last 40 plus years has seen population and industry slowly returning to the port cities, or more likely heading overseas. Now these states are low population small market places. Arkansas was Old South enough not to benefit in the 60's and 70's the way OU and Nebraska did, but still rural and tough enough that with the right coaching and Texas in their backyard they could compete.

So if you looked at the trajectory of each of the Old Big 8 schools you will see that all of them had peak years between the 50's and 70's and that most have been way off those highs for the last 40 years with some anomalous years tossed in.

I don't think that Missouri, Nebraska, Arkansas, or Colorado returning to a Big 8 or SWC, or even Big 12 would have improved their fortunes a dime, or a trophy's worth.

This is why Kansas and Oklahoma are looking to leave. They need to be associated with schools from larger markets in an effort to attract students. They need to be associated with those larger markets to keep recruiting at higher levels. Oklahoma is running a 1 billion dollar debt for the academic side of the ledger.

Meanwhile Texas has the most advantageous TV deal and they have large population markets with high level recruits, but Texas supports 5 P5 schools and 2 in the AAC. They consume a high level of their states talent already. Sticking with a conference so dominated by one school doesn't get them (OU & KU) the concessions they need to address their other issues.

They won't be leaving for just more TV revenue, or even more sports revenue. They will be leaving to try to improve all of their revenue streams and do so in more equitable associations.

It is the nature of fans to want what they like. It is the nature of healthy schools to placate their fans. Anytime a major school with a strong brand association with a region looks to move there are always underlying business issues which are not discussed with the sports because they are mostly unrelated and schools stay tight lipped about fiscal issues until they have to talk about them. Neither the state of Oklahoma or Kansas are flush, in fact both are just the opposite. If there is movement it will be because of that, and Texas will receive the deflected political blame because of their more favorable deals. But the catalyst is at the state budgetary level of those schools and not in Texas.

Arkansas was in the same boat, recognized it, and got out early.

Football results particularly from teams in the south prior to 1973 should be taken with a grain of salt.

1971 was the first year essentially all major teams were integrated and 1973 the first where all major schools operated under a scholarship limit instead having as many rides as they could afford or operating under a conference imposed limit.

(07-15-2018 12:56 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 04:34 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 08:54 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 08:17 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  In BYU’s eyes they are major P5, to everyone else west of the Mississippi they are G5.

That's fine, it doesn't really matter what the Pac thinks when the major east coast players recognize BYU. They would be a perfect counterpart to Texas considering they have their own network.

Does BYU replace Oklahoma on paper for a major TV contract based on the conference as a package? No, but herein lies my argument: an Oklahoma-less Big XII won't need a major TV contract to survive.

Big schools are buying equipment and hiring personnel to televise their own games. I see a future where the need for major contracts based on conference packages diminishing, while major schools begin making more money by doing things independently. Bits are cheap.

They don't recognize BYU as a legit P5 level team. They just say that so they can get a G5 opponent on their schedule and get around the P5 rule they each have that says they all have to play 1 P5 team a season in OOC. If they truly thought they were a power level team they would give them the ND deal in regards to the playoffs but they don't. They just want an easy opponent that they can say should count towards their 1 P5 team a season.

At the time, it was agreed to apply to all Independents. Then it was ND, BYU, and Army. Army counts, though Army has no interest in playing a mass of P5 opponents beyond their usual pattern of playing a couple or so a season.

Now, with UMass playing Independent, a blanket approach with all Independents counting as OOC P5 just isn't appropriate.

It's all political/branding and has essentially nothing to do with competition. Sure Army has been good these past two years, but prior to that it was season after season of football that no one in their right mind would call P5-worthy.

(07-15-2018 11:51 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  Texas saw value and wanted to go where value was, this is true, but now IMO Texas sees value staying in the b12 and trying to lure two A5 schools
I started this topic as a result of a recent fishing trip” in a boat” in port A tx with a couple of UT boys that ,hmmm seem to know about such things...so take it with a grain of salt at this point anyway

That may be the case. But as alluded to above, just within the B12 Nebraska, A&M, and Missouri all bolted because of the UT Pighorn issue.

Prior to that Arkansas bolted the SWC because of the UT Pighorn issue. (hmmm... I think a Razorback would be able to 'root' out another porcine cousin... )

And in between, when the SWC did the el-foldo, both people I know in administrations that went with them *and* from those that got jilted and couldnt join a good 'frat house/conference' pretty much describe 95 per cent of the issue to the greed of A&M and UT. And between those two about 75-25 to the Pighorns.

Considering even the Aggies left due to Pighorn greed later, and they were the biggest two at the trough to dissolve the SWC, UT has a literal sty-load of history to erase in that regard.

They may well have learned the error of pushing the biggest snout in the trough, but there is a ton of fatback that will carry on that perception even *if* they have changed their ways.