(04-22-2015 10:51 PM)RaiderRed Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 04:11 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Scott from PAC 12 said the backup plan for number 13 and 14 are Boise State and San Diego State. It was a hint from the PAC 12 that they are done trying to work to get the Tex-Homa schools. Academics seems to be in the back burner now, and looking at the tv draw of schools. If the next 4 schools that the PAC 12 will go to would be Boise State (football product), San Diego State, Hawaii and Colorado State. Scott did say Boise State have improved on their academics and growing fast that way. I think Idaho state educators are moving Boise State in the direction as a research institution than with Idaho. Boise State can draw students to the state and all that than Idaho. Plus with their last bowl appearance? The ratings was very high.

Please provide a link that backs that up?

I'm pretty sure he's talking about this statement:

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/nov/...-12-futur/

My take is that Scott was just being politically correct when he was asked about Boise State and SDSU and replied that those schools would be "on the list" for consideration if the Pac-12 ever decided to expand. But note that Scott also made a point of saying there are "a lot of criteria that we looked at last time, that I’m sure we’d look at again." Translation: It's not just about football success, it's also about a lot of other things, including academics.

(04-22-2015 11:03 PM)RaiderRed Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 06:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You guys must be talking about 10 years from now because there is no way that four schools are left behind. I guess you folks just don't understand the voting issues to dissolve the conference. That alone keeps your little "four left out scenario" from EVER happening before the GoR runs out. If they try to leave out two, because of the eight vote scenario, then those two are going to rake the other eight over the coals and it is quite possible that FOX jumps in with them on that litigation.

This isn't picking teams for kickball people.

You are correct. The Big 12 has 6 valuable Universities---- Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, West Virginia and a Kansas school.

TV will make this happen and the left behind 4 will be forgotten.

Such is life in the make believe realignment world.

I was under the impression that the Big 12 had only FOUR schools that had any real marketing value.

I don't know this all sounds like fishing with a led weight for bait. You seem to want to look at this solely from a financial point of view. To have conferences this large would only mean a longer duration between what most teams would deem a successful season. You can only pack so many clowns in a car before someone has to ride on top. This is the reason the Jags ,Rams,Raiders, and Chargers are all looking for new homes.

There were no numbers for Duke (as a private) in the OP, and also no numbers for something like ECU. I think Duke might be a great fit (as long as Cutcliffe is there at least) but ECU is probably a no go no matter what.

I do think that the most logical expansion at this point is from the west, shifting Alabama and Auburn to the East, which solves all sorts of scheduling issues and possibly allows for no permanent extra-division rivals.

If I were A&M I would push hard against Texas, but maybe make a go for Oklahoma and Baylor. Definitely room for a second Texas team and no matter how much Baylor gets maligned, I would rather have them than Tech or TCU.

That leaves Texas and Kansas to the Big 10 or a Texas/Texas Tech/OK State/Kansas St to the PAC when the Big 10 grabs Kansas/UConn.

If the Big 10 is able to get Mizzou, I think that is when the SEC thinks about Virginia Tech. The ACC could easily replace with Cincy. And YES I KNOW about GORs, etc.

(04-22-2015 04:04 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Would the SEC settle for Oklahoma and either TCU or Houston?

The SEC would gladly take OK by itself, it will never have any interest in TCU or Houston.

(04-23-2015 09:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 04:04 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Would the SEC settle for Oklahoma and either TCU or Houston?

The SEC would gladly take OK by itself, it will never have any interest in TCU or Houston.

Adding both Oklahoma and West Virginia makes some sense to me, though Oklahoma and Baylor would allow them to move Missouri to the west and shift Alabama and Auburn to the east. That helps to balance the divisions competitively, while largely removing any need to assign permanent cross division opponents. Either one would seriously damage the Big 12, and could even be a fatal blow.

Oklahoma/Baylor joining A&M in the SEC would also be a hard blow to Texas. They would become Snow White to the Seven Dwarfs, and their recruiting could suffer tremendously. They would either have to go Indy, or go hat in hand to the ACC or Big Ten asking to be taken in.

(04-23-2015 09:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 04:04 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Would the SEC settle for Oklahoma and either TCU or Houston?

The SEC would gladly take OK by itself, it will never have any interest in TCU or Houston.

Adding both Oklahoma and West Virginia makes some sense to me, though Oklahoma and Baylor would allow them to move Missouri to the west and shift Alabama and Auburn to the east. That helps to balance the divisions competitively, while largely removing any need to assign permanent cross division opponents. Either one would seriously damage the Big 12, and could even be a fatal blow.

If you look at the SEC or B1G, what does one see? Flagships. These conferences want flagships, nothing else, unless it's a super-power private, read Notre Dame*, or in the case of TAMU, a school so big and powerful it would be a flagship if it was in just about any other state. The SEC never wants to settle for the second, much less third, banana school in any state. Baylor and TCU don't come close to being flagships so I can't see the SEC ever being interested in either. WVU, as flawed as it is, could possibly be on the SEC radar because it is a flagship. I doubt it, as WVU doesn't really bring any eyeballs and the SEC has passed on them before, but it is possible.

Beyond that, I don't see why the SEC has any real desire to damage the Big 12. The Big 12 is a good partner: Close enough for fans to care a lot about games vs Big 12 teams, lots of history between the southern Big 12 teams and SEC West teams, a sharing with the Texas schools and Oklahoma schools in that deep-south football culture, but not really a threat in terms of market overlap and the like. I think that's why the SEC chose to partner with the Big 12, not the ACC, in the Sugar Bowl.

Would the SEC love to acquire Texas or Oklahoma? Of course, who wouldn't? But I don't see the SEC plotting to bust up the Big 12 by taking lesser schools.


* ... and likely Duke.

(04-23-2015 09:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 04:04 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Would the SEC settle for Oklahoma and either TCU or Houston?

The SEC would gladly take OK by itself, it will never have any interest in TCU or Houston.

Adding both Oklahoma and West Virginia makes some sense to me, though Oklahoma and Baylor would allow them to move Missouri to the west and shift Alabama and Auburn to the east. That helps to balance the divisions competitively, while largely removing any need to assign permanent cross division opponents. Either one would seriously damage the Big 12, and could even be a fatal blow.

If you look at the SEC or B1G, what does one see? Flagships. These conferences want flagships, nothing else, unless it's a super-power private, read Notre Dame*, or in the case of TAMU, a school so big and powerful it would be a flagship if it was in just about any other state. The SEC never wants to settle for the second, much less third, banana school in any state. Baylor and TCU don't come close to being flagships so I can't see the SEC ever being interested in either. WVU, as flawed as it is, could possibly be on the SEC radar because it is a flagship. I doubt it, as WVU doesn't really bring any eyeballs and the SEC has passed on them before, but it is possible.

Beyond that, I don't see why the SEC has any real desire to damage the Big 12. The Big 12 is a good partner: Close enough for fans to care a lot about games vs Big 12 teams, lots of history between the southern Big 12 teams and SEC West teams, a sharing with the Texas schools and Oklahoma schools in that deep-south football culture, but not really a threat in terms of market overlap and the like. I think that's why the SEC chose to partner with the Big 12, not the ACC, in the Sugar Bowl.

Would the SEC love to acquire Texas or Oklahoma? Of course, who wouldn't? But I don't see the SEC plotting to bust up the Big 12 by taking lesser schools.


* ... and likely Duke.

I agree with you that the SEC has no desire to damage the Big 12. In fact, I think they want to see it remain strong and viable. Personally, I think their desire to have the Big 12 as a friendly rival outweighs their desire to add individual schools like Oklahoma and Texas. Fact is, the SEC doesn't really need much of anything that it cares about that it doesn't already have.

That being said, ESPN may want a few things that they don't already have, and may try to persuade the SEC to be the vehicle for adding those pieces. But we may be past the point where ESPN can just throw some more dollars at the SEC and get what it wants. There just aren't many more amenities SEC schools can add with these extra dollars to gain or maintain a competitive advantage.

For all these reasons, I have felt that further P5 realignment is a longshot.

(04-23-2015 11:01 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 04:04 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Would the SEC settle for Oklahoma and either TCU or Houston?

The SEC would gladly take OK by itself, it will never have any interest in TCU or Houston.

Adding both Oklahoma and West Virginia makes some sense to me, though Oklahoma and Baylor would allow them to move Missouri to the west and shift Alabama and Auburn to the east. That helps to balance the divisions competitively, while largely removing any need to assign permanent cross division opponents. Either one would seriously damage the Big 12, and could even be a fatal blow.

If you look at the SEC or B1G, what does one see? Flagships. These conferences want flagships, nothing else, unless it's a super-power private, read Notre Dame*, or in the case of TAMU, a school so big and powerful it would be a flagship if it was in just about any other state. The SEC never wants to settle for the second, much less third, banana school in any state. Baylor and TCU don't come close to being flagships so I can't see the SEC ever being interested in either. WVU, as flawed as it is, could possibly be on the SEC radar because it is a flagship. I doubt it, as WVU doesn't really bring any eyeballs and the SEC has passed on them before, but it is possible.

Beyond that, I don't see why the SEC has any real desire to damage the Big 12. The Big 12 is a good partner: Close enough for fans to care a lot about games vs Big 12 teams, lots of history between the southern Big 12 teams and SEC West teams, a sharing with the Texas schools and Oklahoma schools in that deep-south football culture, but not really a threat in terms of market overlap and the like. I think that's why the SEC chose to partner with the Big 12, not the ACC, in the Sugar Bowl.

Would the SEC love to acquire Texas or Oklahoma? Of course, who wouldn't? But I don't see the SEC plotting to bust up the Big 12 by taking lesser schools.


* ... and likely Duke.

I agree with you that the SEC has no desire to damage the Big 12. In fact, I think they want to see it remain strong and viable. Personally, I think their desire to have the Big 12 as a friendly rival outweighs their desire to add individual schools like Oklahoma and Texas. Fact is, the SEC doesn't really need much of anything that it cares about that it doesn't already have.

That being said, ESPN may want a few things that they don't already have, and may try to persuade the SEC to be the vehicle for adding those pieces. But we may be past the point where ESPN can just throw some more dollars at the SEC and get what it wants. There just aren't many more amenities SEC schools can add with these extra dollars to gain or maintain a competitive advantage.

For all these reasons, I have felt that further P5 realignment is a longshot.

The biggest reason I do think we will see more movement is because huge brands like Texas and Oklahoma don't want to be locked long term into a position of income disparity, especially now that A&M is in the SEC. Texas will always have plenty of money, it's just that they don't want to lose ground they have already gained and they don't want their brand to suffer by comparison. I think that is enough of a reason right there that something is still likely to bust loose.

As far as the ACC goes really Clemson and Florida State would be the only ones that could become dissatisfied enough to look around. Clemson a little less so, FSU a little more than people might realize. The rest of them I believe would simply be happy with the status quo.

As to the SEC's eyes on the Big 12, we know who we would like and who we would take, but we aren't going to initiate a raid. We'll respond to one, but we won't start it. BTW, I think Oklahoma and Baylor would be great additions. I'm not worried about Baylor's private status. They are Southern Baptist and that is the majority in every SEC state except possibly Louisiana. They will have a lot of secondary followers. West Virginia is a viable candidate but logistically is only close to Kentucky, unless we were to raid the ACC for the Virginia Tech. Knoxville is close enough to count, but having a second Texas school (and the one I deem to be the state's #3 University) would be more productive for us in the long run. Oklahoma gives you everything you want if you are the SEC. They deliver DFW, the state of Oklahoma, and are a national brand.

And then there is that old question that nobody really seems to have the answer to: Would Oklahoma be able to separate from Oklahoma State? Whether it's legal, political or maybe just not publicly popular there has always been the notion that those schools could not be divided. Does anyone really know the truth?

(04-23-2015 11:01 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 04:04 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Would the SEC settle for Oklahoma and either TCU or Houston?

The SEC would gladly take OK by itself, it will never have any interest in TCU or Houston.

Adding both Oklahoma and West Virginia makes some sense to me, though Oklahoma and Baylor would allow them to move Missouri to the west and shift Alabama and Auburn to the east. That helps to balance the divisions competitively, while largely removing any need to assign permanent cross division opponents. Either one would seriously damage the Big 12, and could even be a fatal blow.

If you look at the SEC or B1G, what does one see? Flagships. These conferences want flagships, nothing else, unless it's a super-power private, read Notre Dame*, or in the case of TAMU, a school so big and powerful it would be a flagship if it was in just about any other state. The SEC never wants to settle for the second, much less third, banana school in any state. Baylor and TCU don't come close to being flagships so I can't see the SEC ever being interested in either. WVU, as flawed as it is, could possibly be on the SEC radar because it is a flagship. I doubt it, as WVU doesn't really bring any eyeballs and the SEC has passed on them before, but it is possible.

Beyond that, I don't see why the SEC has any real desire to damage the Big 12. The Big 12 is a good partner: Close enough for fans to care a lot about games vs Big 12 teams, lots of history between the southern Big 12 teams and SEC West teams, a sharing with the Texas schools and Oklahoma schools in that deep-south football culture, but not really a threat in terms of market overlap and the like. I think that's why the SEC chose to partner with the Big 12, not the ACC, in the Sugar Bowl.

Would the SEC love to acquire Texas or Oklahoma? Of course, who wouldn't? But I don't see the SEC plotting to bust up the Big 12 by taking lesser schools.


* ... and likely Duke.

I agree with you that the SEC has no desire to damage the Big 12. In fact, I think they want to see it remain strong and viable. Personally, I think their desire to have the Big 12 as a friendly rival outweighs their desire to add individual schools like Oklahoma and Texas. Fact is, the SEC doesn't really need much of anything that it cares about that it doesn't already have.

That being said, ESPN may want a few things that they don't already have, and may try to persuade the SEC to be the vehicle for adding those pieces. But we may be past the point where ESPN can just throw some more dollars at the SEC and get what it wants. There just aren't many more amenities SEC schools can add with these extra dollars to gain or maintain a competitive advantage.

For all these reasons, I have felt that further P5 realignment is a longshot.

I basically agree with all of this, save for the notion that any conference or school ever feels it has enough money. Universities essentially have unlimited missions, so their desire for more $$$ is never-ending.

Still, even with that said, I agree that further P5 realignment is a real longshot. Oklahoma and Texas will stay in the Big 12, and so that removes the moving parts.

(04-23-2015 11:01 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 04:04 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Would the SEC settle for Oklahoma and either TCU or Houston?

The SEC would gladly take OK by itself, it will never have any interest in TCU or Houston.

Adding both Oklahoma and West Virginia makes some sense to me, though Oklahoma and Baylor would allow them to move Missouri to the west and shift Alabama and Auburn to the east. That helps to balance the divisions competitively, while largely removing any need to assign permanent cross division opponents. Either one would seriously damage the Big 12, and could even be a fatal blow.

If you look at the SEC or B1G, what does one see? Flagships. These conferences want flagships, nothing else, unless it's a super-power private, read Notre Dame*, or in the case of TAMU, a school so big and powerful it would be a flagship if it was in just about any other state. The SEC never wants to settle for the second, much less third, banana school in any state. Baylor and TCU don't come close to being flagships so I can't see the SEC ever being interested in either. WVU, as flawed as it is, could possibly be on the SEC radar because it is a flagship. I doubt it, as WVU doesn't really bring any eyeballs and the SEC has passed on them before, but it is possible.

Beyond that, I don't see why the SEC has any real desire to damage the Big 12. The Big 12 is a good partner: Close enough for fans to care a lot about games vs Big 12 teams, lots of history between the southern Big 12 teams and SEC West teams, a sharing with the Texas schools and Oklahoma schools in that deep-south football culture, but not really a threat in terms of market overlap and the like. I think that's why the SEC chose to partner with the Big 12, not the ACC, in the Sugar Bowl.

Would the SEC love to acquire Texas or Oklahoma? Of course, who wouldn't? But I don't see the SEC plotting to bust up the Big 12 by taking lesser schools.


* ... and likely Duke.

I agree with you that the SEC has no desire to damage the Big 12. In fact, I think they want to see it remain strong and viable. Personally, I think their desire to have the Big 12 as a friendly rival outweighs their desire to add individual schools like Oklahoma and Texas. Fact is, the SEC doesn't really need much of anything that it cares about that it doesn't already have.

The SEC needs to improve its basketball content....

(04-23-2015 02:03 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 11:01 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The SEC would gladly take OK by itself, it will never have any interest in TCU or Houston.

Adding both Oklahoma and West Virginia makes some sense to me, though Oklahoma and Baylor would allow them to move Missouri to the west and shift Alabama and Auburn to the east. That helps to balance the divisions competitively, while largely removing any need to assign permanent cross division opponents. Either one would seriously damage the Big 12, and could even be a fatal blow.

If you look at the SEC or B1G, what does one see? Flagships. These conferences want flagships, nothing else, unless it's a super-power private, read Notre Dame*, or in the case of TAMU, a school so big and powerful it would be a flagship if it was in just about any other state. The SEC never wants to settle for the second, much less third, banana school in any state. Baylor and TCU don't come close to being flagships so I can't see the SEC ever being interested in either. WVU, as flawed as it is, could possibly be on the SEC radar because it is a flagship. I doubt it, as WVU doesn't really bring any eyeballs and the SEC has passed on them before, but it is possible.

Beyond that, I don't see why the SEC has any real desire to damage the Big 12. The Big 12 is a good partner: Close enough for fans to care a lot about games vs Big 12 teams, lots of history between the southern Big 12 teams and SEC West teams, a sharing with the Texas schools and Oklahoma schools in that deep-south football culture, but not really a threat in terms of market overlap and the like. I think that's why the SEC chose to partner with the Big 12, not the ACC, in the Sugar Bowl.

Would the SEC love to acquire Texas or Oklahoma? Of course, who wouldn't? But I don't see the SEC plotting to bust up the Big 12 by taking lesser schools.


* ... and likely Duke.

I agree with you that the SEC has no desire to damage the Big 12. In fact, I think they want to see it remain strong and viable. Personally, I think their desire to have the Big 12 as a friendly rival outweighs their desire to add individual schools like Oklahoma and Texas. Fact is, the SEC doesn't really need much of anything that it cares about that it doesn't already have.

The SEC needs to improve its basketball content....

That's why I included the phrase "that it cares about" in my statement.

(04-23-2015 02:58 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 02:03 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 11:01 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  Adding both Oklahoma and West Virginia makes some sense to me, though Oklahoma and Baylor would allow them to move Missouri to the west and shift Alabama and Auburn to the east. That helps to balance the divisions competitively, while largely removing any need to assign permanent cross division opponents. Either one would seriously damage the Big 12, and could even be a fatal blow.

If you look at the SEC or B1G, what does one see? Flagships. These conferences want flagships, nothing else, unless it's a super-power private, read Notre Dame*, or in the case of TAMU, a school so big and powerful it would be a flagship if it was in just about any other state. The SEC never wants to settle for the second, much less third, banana school in any state. Baylor and TCU don't come close to being flagships so I can't see the SEC ever being interested in either. WVU, as flawed as it is, could possibly be on the SEC radar because it is a flagship. I doubt it, as WVU doesn't really bring any eyeballs and the SEC has passed on them before, but it is possible.

Beyond that, I don't see why the SEC has any real desire to damage the Big 12. The Big 12 is a good partner: Close enough for fans to care a lot about games vs Big 12 teams, lots of history between the southern Big 12 teams and SEC West teams, a sharing with the Texas schools and Oklahoma schools in that deep-south football culture, but not really a threat in terms of market overlap and the like. I think that's why the SEC chose to partner with the Big 12, not the ACC, in the Sugar Bowl.

Would the SEC love to acquire Texas or Oklahoma? Of course, who wouldn't? But I don't see the SEC plotting to bust up the Big 12 by taking lesser schools.


* ... and likely Duke.

I agree with you that the SEC has no desire to damage the Big 12. In fact, I think they want to see it remain strong and viable. Personally, I think their desire to have the Big 12 as a friendly rival outweighs their desire to add individual schools like Oklahoma and Texas. Fact is, the SEC doesn't really need much of anything that it cares about that it doesn't already have.

The SEC needs to improve its basketball content....

That's why I included the phrase "that it cares about" in my statement.

The SEC might be aggressive about a new market it really wants, but mostly I think we will be defensive about our core identity. For instance if something threatened the ACC the SEC would be proactive in acquiring the properties that would either put a rival in the heart of our area, or schools that would be the most SEC like so that our brand was preserved. There aren't many but Florida State and Clemson would be the two that are most brand like. North Carolina and Virginia schools would be the markets. If a partnership with the Big 12 remained the focus and the ACC was threatened then I'm not sure that we would protect Clemson and Florida State. If on the other hand the Big 10 made an offer to F.S.U. then I think you would see an SEC offer on the table. If the ACC remains stable and trouble befalls the Big 12 then we would likely protect our interests from Oklahoma to Texas.

So in short guys we don't have a problem with Tobacco Road being Tobacco Road, or Texas and Oklahoma being Texas and Oklahoma. But we would have a hard time letting the Big 10 pretend that they too were Tobacco Road, or pretend that they too were Texas an Oklahoma.

You are absolutely ridiculous, do you know that JR? Do you actually believe this bs that you type. You are sounding more and more like nothing more than a t shirt fan.

That is why Memphis should be in the Big 12. They have rivalry games against Tennessee and Vanderbilt every year. They used to play against the 2 SEC teams every year which drew lots of fans to watch the games. If there is an agreement between Big 12 and SEC to play each other in the regular seasons and not in bowl games. You could have a Memphis Vs Tennessee in the last game of the season like you have with Florida/Florida State, Georgia/Georgia Tech, Clemson/South Carolina. It would reunite the old football rivalries between Memphis and Tennessee.

(04-23-2015 01:16 PM)XLance Wrote:  And then there is that old question that nobody really seems to have the answer to: Would Oklahoma be able to separate from Oklahoma State? Whether it's legal, political or maybe just not publicly popular there has always been the notion that those schools could not be divided. Does anyone really know the truth?

I'm still looking for one of you to jump in and at least venture an educated guess.
The future of realignment could hinge on the answer.

(04-24-2015 07:20 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 01:16 PM)XLance Wrote:  And then there is that old question that nobody really seems to have the answer to: Would Oklahoma be able to separate from Oklahoma State? Whether it's legal, political or maybe just not publicly popular there has always been the notion that those schools could not be divided. Does anyone really know the truth?

I'm still looking for one of you to jump in and at least venture an educated guess.
The future of realignment could hinge on the answer.

XLance there is no state requirement of which I am aware. Boren is the one who has made the statement in the past that both schools would have to be taken care of, but then he has been affiliated with both. I would hazard the guess that as long as the Cowboys land in another P conference that the two could be separated as long as Bedlam was played annually. What has driven this so far is that any move in which Oklahoma has been considered (PAC & SEC and maybe others) Oklahoma has insisted on the inclusion of O.S.U. but this is not because of the state. It is because both times OU's discussions were somewhat secret and because of that the easiest way to take care of the Cowboys was to ask that they be a part of the deal.

The issue seems to be that OSU is simply a small market school. They draw okay on regional games, they have a very profitable athletic department, and they have Boone Pickens, which is where politics come into this. The only conference for which Oklahoma State could have any market appeal would be the SEC for a larger slice of DFW. The problem there is Oklahoma does a better job of delivering that market, and Baylor, Texas Tech, or T.C.U. could do about as well as O.S.U. in doing so. O.S.U. is out for the Big 10. That's why OU has tried the "you must take O.S.U. approach with both the SEC and PAC. I would think that if both landed separate P conference invites that the issue would be resolved under the condition I have already stated.

(04-24-2015 07:20 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 01:16 PM)XLance Wrote:  And then there is that old question that nobody really seems to have the answer to: Would Oklahoma be able to separate from Oklahoma State? Whether it's legal, political or maybe just not publicly popular there has always been the notion that those schools could not be divided. Does anyone really know the truth?

I'm still looking for one of you to jump in and at least venture an educated guess.
The future of realignment could hinge on the answer.

I wouldn't call this an educated guess - just a guess. I believe they would be able to separate, just as I believe Texas could move without Texas Tech. IMO, it would be harder for Texas to move without Baylor. It wasn't that long ago that most people believed that UT and A&M had to be connected at the hip, and we have seen how that worked out.

(04-24-2015 07:34 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 07:20 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 01:16 PM)XLance Wrote:  And then there is that old question that nobody really seems to have the answer to: Would Oklahoma be able to separate from Oklahoma State? Whether it's legal, political or maybe just not publicly popular there has always been the notion that those schools could not be divided. Does anyone really know the truth?

I'm still looking for one of you to jump in and at least venture an educated guess.
The future of realignment could hinge on the answer.

I wouldn't call this an educated guess - just a guess. I believe they would be able to separate, just as I believe Texas could move without Texas Tech. IMO, it would be harder for Texas to move without Baylor. It wasn't that long ago that most people believed that UT and A&M had to be connected at the hip, and we have seen how that worked out.

There is another complication that is overlooked. Texas and Oklahoma State cannot reasonably be in the same conference because it provides scheduling difficulties for Oklahoma (which I believe is the biggest reason that Boren wants the Cowboys with the Sooners). If OU and UT wind up in separate conferences then OU would have to have 2 of it's likely 3 OOC games annually held against those two schools. If just one of them is in the same conference as OU then the dilemma is avoided. Since OU has no control over UT they wrongly assume that OSU must be the one to stay with them. But that assumption is only wrong if OSU doesn't make a P conference. The SEC won't take OSU first as long as they hope to land both OU and UT. The PAC won't take OSU because of academics, but mostly because they think as the SEC does. The Big 10 simply won't take OSU.

So as long as the SEC and PAC hold out hopes for OU and UT they won't cave on OSU and neither of them would take the Cowboys if they think that frees OU and Texas to the Big 10.

The workaround would be OU and KU to the Big 10 and UT and OSU to the SEC only OU realizes that letting the Cowboys move with Texas to the SEC would essentially kill their recruiting because the Cowboys would then be seen as the best place for recruits to go to be able to play regionally where parents could easily attend.

So the issue isn't really so much a political requirement as a scheduling and power
conundrum for the Sooners.