(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.