Realignment talk not going away

[thunderlounge 7817]

Hey, this thing has legs. 

[Zeus 6021]

3 hours ago, bullet said:

We bring back bigger history with aggy and pig than we lose with the Big 8 schools or Tech and Baylor.

Bingo.

I'd also rather keep OU v. Lite ooc rivalry.

Texas should rotate Ohio State, Michigan, USC, and Notre Dame ooc.

[TKthunder2 4990]

2 hours ago, bullet said:

We bring back bigger history with aggy and pig than we lose with the Big 8 schools or Tech and Baylor.

Removing Texas/Oklahoma matchups since that will continue:

Below is the number of total matchups for Texas

History of current SEC matchups: 293

History of current Big 12-OU matchups: 382

The majority (72%) of our history with the Big 12-OU is with Baylor (111), TCU (92), and Tech (71).  Okie St (36) is the next most as an honorable mention.

We’ve been trying to ditch the rape loving, cat killing Baptists of the brown water for 30 years and we did ditch the cockroaches so no shits given about that “history”.  Slight (very slight) remorse about Tech (and Okie St) but the PAC leadership failure killed that. Even after a decade of having annual games against Iowa St, Kansas, and K State shoved down our throat our most played Big 12 North opponent to date is still Missouri.  That last decade of 9 (8 w/o OU) conference games boosted the Big 12 numbers by 80 over the SEC which then only gives them a small advantage total and most of us here don’t give a shit about the last 10 years.

Texas moving to the SEC is losing some minor history but reconnecting with 2 former top rivals, using a tradition/history argument on UT is idiotic. The best case scenario for Texas was annual conference games against Oklahoma, aggy, and Arkansas and that is about to become a reality, spinning this as Texas losing traditional matchups is insane.

OU on the other hand is:

History of current SEC matchups: 167 (mostly Mizzou)

History of current Big 12-UT matchups: 513

But here’s the deal, yes that’s a lot of history however not all history is valued the same. Of the Big 8 Oklahoma had a winning record against everyone but the teams that did best against OU were (in order): Nebraska (.546 win%), Colorado (.695), Missouri (.724), Kansas (.732), K State (.775), Okie St (.806), and finally Iowa St (.900). This is similar to Texas and aggy leaving the SWC after Arkansas left, no real good way to sugar coat how much little they cared about tech/uh and the private schools and how much that “history” was an anchor around the neck.

After that (and again excluding UT) Oklahoma has played Baylor the most (32 times) and Tech (29) which is barely more than they’ve played Tulsa (28).

So Oklahoma lost its 3 most competitive games that sold season tickets and basically got more random filler from TX/WV as replacement on their schedule along with 2 long played games of programs that have been trending down for a decade now, one former doormat trending up, and an instate rival.

The best situation for Oklahoma would be annual conference matchups with Texas, Nebraska, and Okie St And since the Big Ten wasn’t willing to play ball the Nebraska window has closed. So honestly the only thing they lost was Okie State and if they are lobbying for them to have a spot if/when the SEC goes beyond 20 teams then good for them because then this would turn this from a good move, to a great move as they have 3 of their 5 most played games and 2 of their top 3 all time rivals (and there’s a small chance Kansas could get an invite too which would also give them 4/5).Annual conference games with Texas, Okie St, and Mizzou at least make sense historically speaking rather than just elbowing in another random SEC team like South Carolina or Mississippi State.

[Hagbard Celine 10854]

23 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Will anything happen? I’m sure some new bill will pop up trying to force tech or cougar high into the PUF but as long as aggy doesn’t fuck it up those will fail like usual.

if there is one thing talkie bird and crew will make sure they never fuck up is any bid by tceh or cougar high to get in on their 1/3rd of the AUF because if anyone dares to touch our 2/3rds the constitutional amendment to finally and formally separate The University and the agricultural college branch WILL make it out of committee

[Hagbard Celine 10854]

8 hours ago, 'stache said:

That's not how snobbery works. To even have their names anywhere near Texas Tech or Oklahoma State on a permanent basis is just unpalatable to them entirely. 

Cal is a public ivy that has had it's name next to Washington State, Oregon State, and Arizona State for decades.  Tceh and okielite are academic equals to that group.

[hawkfan 60]

SBJ reporting ND is probably looking at $60M per year and a push from NBC to fill it's schedule with more B1G opponents should it remain independent (scroll towards the middle of the article):

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/SB-Blogs/Newsletter-Media/2022/08/15.aspx

[DFW Horn 6123]

5 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

Cal is a public ivy that has had it's name next to Washington State, Oregon State, and Arizona State for decades.  Tceh and okielite are academic equals to that group.

Yeah, but they's red states in flyover country not left-coast sophisticates. 

[DFW Horn 6123]

Quote

Texas moving to the SEC is losing some minor history but reconnecting with 2 former top rivals, using a tradition/history argument on UT is idiotic. The best case scenario for Texas was annual conference games against Oklahoma, aggy, and Arkansas and that is about to become a reality, spinning this as Texas losing traditional matchups is insane.

I can't wait to see if aggy successfully lobbies to not be in our 4-team pod with 0u and Arky.

But, but...turdition

Quote

So Oklahoma lost its 3 most competitive games that sold season tickets and basically got more random filler from TX/WV as replacement on their schedule along with 2 long played games of programs that have been trending down for a decade now, one former doormat trending up, and an instate rival.

The okies I know have been bitching about their home schedule for years. Not surprising 0u has been pushing to make a move for over a decade. Pac, B1G, or SEC...it didn't make a shit to them.

Edited August 17, 2022 by DFW Horn

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

I can't wait to see if aggy successfully lobbies to not be in our 4-team pod with 0u and Arky.

But, but...turdition

That would be little bitchass aggy just adding to their legacy, for sure.  "Hey don't put us with the obvious fit, we should get our ass kicked by LSU every year..."

[DFW Horn 6123]

10 minutes ago, slorch said:

That would be little bitchass aggy just adding to their legacy, for sure.  "Hey don't put us with the obvious fit, we should get our ass kicked by LSU every year..."

Mizzou will be more than happy to take their spot.

[closetohumping 17440]

36 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

I can't wait to see if aggy successfully lobbies to not be in our 4-team pod with 0u and Arky.

But, but...turdition

The okies I know have been bitching about their home schedule for years. Not surprising 0u has been pushing to make a move for over a decade. Pac, B1G, or SEC...it didn't make a shit to them.

Unfortunately I align with the okies

[Trojan Man 429]

7 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

Cal is a public ivy that has had it's name next to Washington State, Oregon State, and Arizona State for decades.  Tceh and okielite are academic equals to that group.

Cal, Washington, Oregon and Oregon State are the 1915 founding members of the PCC, which eventually became the Pac 8/10/12.  Washington State and Stanford joined a couple years later.  That is the only reason Oregon State and Washington State are affiliated with Cal and Stanford today, they're grandfathered in from a long gone era when the criteria for conference membership looked much different than it does today.  It's also the only reason they're in a power conference even though their profiles scream midmajor.  If they were in the MWC or the WAC they would have been turned down for Pac membership every single time because of mediocre academics and also because they offer nothing in terms of market, ratings, recruiting, athletic success etc.  They're extremely lucky they were able to ride the gravy train for this long.

As for the Arizona schools they're only in the Pac because USC threw its weight around to get them in.  Cal and Stanford were pulling their usual academic snobbery and refusing to vote for them (Pac invitations have always required unanimous approval).  USC threatened to leave and go independent if the Pac 8 didn't expand to the Pac 10, which forced the Bay Area schools to get over themselves and approve Arizona and Arizona State.

[YouLoveMyPenises 79]

3 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

The okies I know have been bitching about their home schedule for years. Not surprising 0u has been pushing to make a move for over a decade. Pac, B1G, or SEC...it didn't make a shit to them.

Believe it or not, we weren't exactly thrilled to replace Nebraska, A&M, and Colorado with TCU and West Virginia. Aside from OSU, the only marquis conference game we had left was Texas, which obviously is not a home game. Playing home and homes against Ohio State, Notre Dame, Tennessee, etc. left a gaping hole in the away side of those seasons.

 

Added to the fact that being in a conference considered "lesser" was appalling. Losing recruits that simply preferred to be in the SEC year in and year out was getting old. I'm honestly surprised that it took as long as it did to make the move.

[Vertigo 20276]

20 minutes ago, YouLoveMyPenises said:

Believe it or not, we weren't exactly thrilled to replace Nebraska, A&M, and Colorado with TCU and West Virginia. Aside from OSU, the only marquis conference game we had left was Texas, which obviously is not a home game. Playing home and homes against Ohio State, Notre Dame, Tennessee, etc. left a gaping hole in the away side of those seasons.

 

Added to the fact that being in a conference considered "lesser" was appalling. Losing recruits that simply preferred to be in the SEC year in and year out was getting old. I'm honestly surprised that it took as long as it did to make the move.

We are already seeing the national footprint expand in recruiting for both schools. Yes, Riley kind of fucked OUs west coast pipeline, but OU should be able to open new territories pretty effectively to the east and the north. Texas has expanded into the SEC territories with surprising speed, picking up some top tier players out of LA, MS, GA, and FL in the last two cycles. We match up very well on the recruiting front with those in state schools. 

In terms of history, replacing games with Baylor, KState, and TCU with LSU, Auburn, and Ole Miss as our "sub rivalry" tier feels so much better. We have gotten shit on repeatedly for losing to those teams when we had terrible years. If you lose to an LSU or Ole Miss, you shrug your shoulders a little more and move on instead of hearing about it for 3 years. Example: Kansas.  

[YouLoveMyPenises 79]

27 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

We are already seeing the national footprint expand in recruiting for both schools. Yes, Riley kind of fucked OUs west coast pipeline, but OU should be able to open new territories pretty effectively to the east and the north. Texas has expanded into the SEC territories with surprising speed, picking up some top tier players out of LA, MS, GA, and FL in the last two cycles. We match up very well on the recruiting front with those in state schools. 

 

 

Riley's Big California Haul of three 5 star receivers turned out to be a wash out, an armed robber, and a guy that can't stay healthy. I much prefer going after defensive talent in SEC land over the California kids.

[statsman 5457]

OU’s traditional problem is that it’s recruiting base (state of Oklahoma) doesn’t produce the D-1 talent to compete nationally. It traditionally solved that problem by claiming Texas as its recruiting base. 

Of course, Texas isn’t Oklahoma. OKC isn’t Dallas, Fort Worth or Houston, let alone Austin or San Antonio. Its closest comp is probably Lubbock, or maybe Arlington writ large. 

OU solved that issue, in the ‘40s, ‘50s, ‘60s, ‘70’s, and ‘80s by buying players, shamelessly. Stoops ran a relatively clean program, relative only to his predecessors. 

The PAC move would have been good for OU, opening up their recruiting to a new fallow field. The SEC move also opens up new recruiting fields, but with o e catch- they will now have a lot more competition for buying players. There will be others bidding against them. And their competitors can offer real college towns, and equal exposure. OU may have to pay a hefty premium to get a Florida kid to come to Norman (OKC) over Gainesville. 

I would never underestimate OU’s desire for a winning program. I wonder if they have figured out yet how much it will cost?

[thunderlounge 7817]

5 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

Mizzou will be more than happy to take their spot.

I hope they do. 

[hawkfan 60]

23 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

I don't think there's any urgency from Fox, the Big 10 or the schools themselves to get USC and UCLA to the Big 10 earlier.  You need to keep in mind USC and UCLA aren't tied to the Pac 12 as long as Texas and Oklahoma are to the Big 12.  The LA schools are only in the Pac 12 through the summer of 2024, meaning fall of 2024 is the first season in the Big 10.  One more academic year, then we're gone with zero fees or penalties or buyouts.  I have no idea what the buyout would look like, but I'm guessing the people who are supposed to know that kind of thing have done the math and determined it makes the most sense to stay in the Pac 12 one more year and leave freely when the GOR expires.

Frankly, from a football perspective, I'm fine with it.  I'm happy with another year of Riley rebuilding the program and restoring our reputation in the Pac 12.  Year 3 is when you can expect big things from new hires at rebuilds and 2024 will be year 3 for Riley, so it all lines up nicely.  Also, in 2024 USC and LSU play in Las Vegas week 1 so we'll see which program made the better hire last fall and how much validity there is to the Sooner conspiracy theory that Riley is scared of the SEC.

I'm also not sure how eager the Big 10 is to add more Western schools.  If they wanted more Pac teams they would already have received invitations.  If you want Oregon and Washington why wait to invite them until after they negotiate a new TV deal and sign a new GOR with somebody else?  Stanford is the only one I can see getting an invitation in the near future and that's only if Notre Dame insists on dragging them along.  I think the Big 10 is going with either 16 or 18 teams for the next decade or so, along with the SEC staying at 16 during the same time.  They're both waiting for the ACC's GOR to expire or get overturned in court or reach a point where the buyout isn't financially devastating for the schools that leave for their next feeding frenzy.

I agree there's no real urgency from the B1G at this point, there doesn't need to be, the new deal doesn't start until 2024.

I disagree with your assessment on adding additional western schools though - the main reasons they haven't invited Oregon/Washington as of now is that they don't pay for themselves.  The math changes though (I think) if you completely kill the PAC12 (thus eliminating their media contract entirely) & add ND/Stanford.  I still think USC/UCLA being on a complete island would be a massive geographical clusterfuck for non-revenue sports, so adding a few more teams out west seems inevitable.  If USC wants to tell Oregon to fuck right off it could be Colorado/Utah instead of Oregon/Washington (as there probably isn't that much of a difference - ND/Standford would be driving the revenue on the way to 20).

I think the B1G going to 20 with ND + Stanford/Ore/UW makes a lot sense, then just sit and wait until the ACC GOR is close to over and take your pick of ACC schools to eventually get to 24 and get a presence in Florida/Georgia/North Carolina/Virginia.  Ironically, once you're at 24 you can go back to four divisions of six schools that make a lot of geographic sense (for the most part), and scheduling works really well with 11 conference games (5 in division games + 6 from an opposing division that rotates every year).

[TKthunder2 4990]

6 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

I can't wait to see if aggy successfully lobbies to not be in our 4-team pod with 0u and Arky.

But, but...turdition

Its not final but reports say the SEC is considering 2 scheduling models when they grow to 16 (neither involve pods)

8 game conference schedule with a single rival, rotate the other 7 games every year.

9 game conference schedule with 3 rivals, rotate the other 6 games every year.

aggy has said they prefer 9 games with Texas, LSU, Arkansas as long as they can keep their annual FCS body bag game (rumor they were discussing banning those).

[bullet 1596]

4 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

Cal, Washington, Oregon and Oregon State are the 1915 founding members of the PCC, which eventually became the Pac 8/10/12.  Washington State and Stanford joined a couple years later.  That is the only reason Oregon State and Washington State are affiliated with Cal and Stanford today, they're grandfathered in from a long gone era when the criteria for conference membership looked much different than it does today.  It's also the only reason they're in a power conference even though their profiles scream midmajor.  If they were in the MWC or the WAC they would have been turned down for Pac membership every single time because of mediocre academics and also because they offer nothing in terms of market, ratings, recruiting, athletic success etc.  They're extremely lucky they were able to ride the gravy train for this long.

As for the Arizona schools they're only in the Pac because USC threw its weight around to get them in.  Cal and Stanford were pulling their usual academic snobbery and refusing to vote for them (Pac invitations have always required unanimous approval).  USC threatened to leave and go independent if the Pac 8 didn't expand to the Pac 10, which forced the Bay Area schools to get over themselves and approve Arizona and Arizona State.

Well they did get left behind in 1959 when UW and the 4 California schools seceded.  They left Oregon, Oregon St., Washington St. and Idaho behind.  But they eventually invited the first 3 to join them back.

[camel at sea 589]

1 hour ago, statsman said:

OU’s traditional problem is that it’s recruiting base (state of Oklahoma) doesn’t produce the D-1 talent to compete nationally. It traditionally solved that problem by claiming Texas as its recruiting base. 

Of course, Texas isn’t Oklahoma. OKC isn’t Dallas, Fort Worth or Houston, let alone Austin or San Antonio. Its closest comp is probably Lubbock, or maybe Arlington writ large. 

OU solved that issue, in the ‘40s, ‘50s, ‘60s, ‘70’s, and ‘80s by buying players, shamelessly. Stoops ran a relatively clean program, relative only to his predecessors. 

The PAC move would have been good for OU, opening up their recruiting to a new fallow field. The SEC move also opens up new recruiting fields, but with o e catch- they will now have a lot more competition for buying players. There will be others bidding against them. And their competitors can offer real college towns, and equal exposure. OU may have to pay a hefty premium to get a Florida kid to come to Norman (OKC) over Gainesville. 

I would never underestimate OU’s desire for a winning program. I wonder if they have figured out yet how much it will cost?

It's always funny to hear anyone talk about OU (the football program at least) being too poor for something.  Oklahoma is pretty consistently Top 10 in AD revenue, has plenty of deep pocketed BMDs, always pays its coaching staff elite money, etc.  When Venables got hired, Castiglione hired him a small army of off-the-field staff (SOUL mission, analysts, etc.)  I'm not sure which SEC school they should be scared of going forward.  Outside of Texas and A&M, who is going to be outspending Oklahoma?   

[Thiefery 4995]

12 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

It's always funny to hear anyone talk about OU (the football program at least) being too poor for something.  Oklahoma is pretty consistently Top 10 in AD revenue, has plenty of deep pocketed BMDs, always pays its coaching staff elite money, etc.  When Venables got hired, Castiglione hired him a small army of off-the-field staff (SOUL mission, analysts, etc.)  I'm not sure which SEC school they should be scared of going forward.  Outside of Texas and A&M, who is going to be outspending Oklahoma?   

everyone in the SEC?

 

[statsman 5457]

55 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

It's always funny to hear anyone talk about OU (the football program at least) being too poor for something.  Oklahoma is pretty consistently Top 10 in AD revenue, has plenty of deep pocketed BMDs, always pays its coaching staff elite money, etc.  When Venables got hired, Castiglione hired him a small army of off-the-field staff (SOUL mission, analysts, etc.)  I'm not sure which SEC school they should be scared of going forward.  Outside of Texas and A&M, who is going to be outspending Oklahoma?   

It’s the whole value proposition. OU built a program by paying kids from the Philips 66 company town team to play in Norman (Phillips had given their dads jobs, so they could play for the company town HS team). OU continued to pay schoolboys, because they had to, because they were asking Texans to move to Oklahoma. 
 
(Seriously- ask yourself. How many of us have ever voluntarily gone into Oklahoma for reasons other than work, UT sports, weddings, funerals? I went, once, for a Big Brothers camping activity at Turner Falls. I can’t imagine any other reason why I’d go. To see Styx at an Indian casino?)

 So, sure. OU has money for NIL. That SEC country four star now has to weight OU’s program, NIL money, the value of an OU degree (😂) and four years in Norman vs. say, Georgia’s program, NIL money, the value of a Georgia degree and four years in Athens. Not the same as recruiting against TT or OSU. 

[DFW Horn 6123]

2 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

9 game conference schedule with 3 rivals, rotate the other 6 games every year.

That's not a 4-team pod? Excuse me, 3 perma-rivals...whatever.

[Texas Wahoo 3394]

8 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

That's not a 4-team pod? Excuse me, 3 perma-rivals...whatever.

The difference is that in a pod, all four teams have the same group of rivals, whereas in the proposal, each team could have their own three rivals.  For example, Texas could have OU, A&M, Arkansas; and A&M could have Texas, LSU, Mizzou.

[Satchel 6938]

6 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

Cal, Washington, Oregon and Oregon State are the 1915 founding members of the PCC, which eventually became the Pac 8/10/12.  Washington State and Stanford joined a couple years later.  That is the only reason Oregon State and Washington State are affiliated with Cal and Stanford today, they're grandfathered in from a long gone era when the criteria for conference membership looked much different than it does today.  It's also the only reason they're in a power conference even though their profiles scream midmajor.  If they were in the MWC or the WAC they would have been turned down for Pac membership every single time because of mediocre academics and also because they offer nothing in terms of market, ratings, recruiting, athletic success etc.  They're extremely lucky they were able to ride the gravy train for this long.

As for the Arizona schools they're only in the Pac because USC threw its weight around to get them in.  Cal and Stanford were pulling their usual academic snobbery and refusing to vote for them (Pac invitations have always required unanimous approval).  USC threatened to leave and go independent if the Pac 8 didn't expand to the Pac 10, which forced the Bay Area schools to get over themselves and approve Arizona and Arizona State.

There are a couple of schools in the new B12 with more national research expenditures than AAU member Oregon.

[BurntOrange&White 39931]

6+3 rivals makes the most sense to keep existing rivalries. Playing 8 conference games with 16 teams is stupid 

[Zinhead 42]

16 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

The difference is that in a pod, all four teams have the same group of rivals, whereas in the proposal, each team could have their own three rivals.  For example, Texas could have OU, A&M, Arkansas; and A&M could have Texas, LSU, Mizzou.

Here is an article that described one of the podless schedules that has been proposed. 

SEC Podless Schedule

 

The problems with this proposal are that the quality of the permanent opponents will always be uneven. 

[DFW Horn 6123]

32 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

The difference is that in a pod, all four teams have the same group of rivals, whereas in the proposal, each team could have their own three rivals.  For example, Texas could have OU, A&M, Arkansas; and A&M could have Texas, LSU, Mizzou.

Gotcha

The ACC just announced a similar plan recently, too. Brainfart...

My apologies, @TKthunder2

Edited August 17, 2022 by DFW Horn

[wildturkey8 24]

5 minutes ago, Zinhead said:

Here is an article that described one of the podless schedules that has been proposed. 

SEC Podless Schedule

 

The problems with this proposal are that the quality of the permanent opponents will always be uneven. 

Ole Miss and LSU will be permanent rivals.

[DFW Horn 6123]

3 minutes ago, wildturkey8 said:

Ole Miss and LSU will be permanent rivals.

LSU has complained about having UF as their cross-division rival for years. Tennessee should be playing UF instead. They've got history.

Edited August 17, 2022 by DFW Horn

[camel at sea 589]

20 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

6+3 rivals makes the most sense to keep existing rivalries. Playing 8 conference games with 16 teams is stupid 

I can't see any way - whether it's an 8 game schedule or a 9 game schedule - that Bama won't play both Tennessee and Auburn annually, that Auburn won't play both Bama and UGA, etc.  There's too many schools with multiple rivalries for the SEC to adopt the 7+1 model (however clean the math with that might be.)

  

 

[ChiTownDoc 21152]

3 hours ago, statsman said:

OU’s traditional problem is that it’s recruiting base (state of Oklahoma) doesn’t produce the D-1 talent to compete nationally. It traditionally solved that problem by claiming Texas as its recruiting base. 

Of course, Texas isn’t Oklahoma. OKC isn’t Dallas, Fort Worth or Houston, let alone Austin or San Antonio. Its closest comp is probably Lubbock, or maybe Arlington writ large. 

OU solved that issue, in the ‘40s, ‘50s, ‘60s, ‘70’s, and ‘80s by buying players, shamelessly. Stoops ran a relatively clean program, relative only to his predecessors. 

The PAC move would have been good for OU, opening up their recruiting to a new fallow field. The SEC move also opens up new recruiting fields, but with o e catch- they will now have a lot more competition for buying players. There will be others bidding against them. And their competitors can offer real college towns, and equal exposure. OU may have to pay a hefty premium to get a Florida kid to come to Norman (OKC) over Gainesville. 

I would never underestimate OU’s desire for a winning program. I wonder if they have figured out yet how much it will cost?

LOL, you crack me up.  Have you been to Dallas?  It's basically OU central.  You think the hs kids think of OU as something different than UT?  Like taking some crazy cross country trip to play in the boondocks...  lulz.

Also, OU hasn't bought players in decades and I can go over all the times you got buttraped in Dallas during that timeline.  Sure, it's fun to clown on OU for their legendary failures in the playoffs (rightfully so), but don't get it twisted, they've pounded Texas into oblivion for decades.  Sure, tOSU, Bama, and Clemson can look down on OU but there's not many others.  Also, aggy and many others have tried to buy their way to winning.  It's much more than just buying players.  

[mdmost 43001]

 

[ChiTownDoc 21152]

1 hour ago, statsman said:

It’s the whole value proposition. OU built a program by paying kids from the Philips 66 company town team to play in Norman (Phillips had given their dads jobs, so they could play for the company town HS team). OU continued to pay schoolboys, because they had to, because they were asking Texans to move to Oklahoma. 
 
(Seriously- ask yourself. How many of us have ever voluntarily gone into Oklahoma for reasons other than work, UT sports, weddings, funerals? I went, once, for a Big Brothers camping activity at Turner Falls. I can’t imagine any other reason why I’d go. To see Styx at an Indian casino?)

 So, sure. OU has money for NIL. That SEC country four star now has to weight OU’s program, NIL money, the value of an OU degree (😂) and four years in Norman vs. say, Georgia’s program, NIL money, the value of a Georgia degree and four years in Athens. Not the same as recruiting against TT or OSU. 

God damn it keeps getting better.  Have you ever left OK or TX?  They both fucking suck.  OKC is a lot more like Dallas/Houston than Midland.  Just like anywhere in buttfuck, TX is a lot more like buttfuck, OK than any metro area.  I guess Texas is hotter, yay.  But you thinking one is SO different from the other is really comical.  Fuck, I don't even know where to begin making fun of you.  

Edited August 17, 2022 by ChiTownDoc

[BurntOrange&White 39931]

4 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

God damn it keeps getting better.  Have you ever left OK or TX?  They both fucking suck.  OKC is a lot more like Dallas/Houston than Midland.  Just like anywhere in buttfuck, TX is a lot more like buttfuck, OK than any metro area.  I guess Texas is hotter, yay.  But you thinking one is SO different from the other is really comical.  Fuck, I don't even know where to begin making fun of you.  

Shut up meth head trailer trash sister fucker. Also can I drive the lambo still?

[ChiTownDoc 21152]

Just now, BurntOrange&White said:

Shut up meth head trailer trash sister fucker. Also can I drive the lambo still?

Lol, you'll have to go to Miami where it's collecting dust.  

[Gidnik 3268]

 

[Gidnik 3268]

 

[billfromlaketravis 11465]

24 minutes ago, Gidnik said:

 

Reagan was governor of California in 1975. Think about that. 

[bullet 1596]

58 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

I can't see any way - whether it's an 8 game schedule or a 9 game schedule - that Bama won't play both Tennessee and Auburn annually, that Auburn won't play both Bama and UGA, etc.  There's too many schools with multiple rivalries for the SEC to adopt the 7+1 model (however clean the math with that might be.)

  

 

Exactly.

[bullet 1596]

56 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

LOL, you crack me up.  Have you been to Dallas?  It's basically OU central.  You think the hs kids think of OU as something different than UT?  Like taking some crazy cross country trip to play in the boondocks...  lulz.

Also, OU hasn't bought players in decades and I can go over all the times you got buttraped in Dallas during that timeline.  Sure, it's fun to clown on OU for their legendary failures in the playoffs (rightfully so), but don't get it twisted, they've pounded Texas into oblivion for decades.  Sure, tOSU, Bama, and Clemson can look down on OU but there's not many others.  Also, aggy and many others have tried to buy their way to winning.  It's much more than just buying players.  

OU has won 4 straight.  Before that the series was even since 1976.  And even since 1946.  Overall we are +12.  Its always been a series of streaks.

[bullet 1596]

29 minutes ago, Gidnik said:

 

Note they also finally realized the egotistical conference commissioners had left too much money on the table and they want to evaluate expanding the playoff 2 years early.

[ChiTownDoc 21152]

29 minutes ago, bullet said:

OU has won 4 straight.  Before that the series was even since 1976.  And even since 1946.  Overall we are +12.  Its always been a series of streaks.

What's this century?  Seriously don't know.  Feels like OU would be hitting 70%.  
 

edit: 16-7 70%

Prob feels more lopsided w the severe beatings and last year’s gut wrenching debacle.  

Edited August 17, 2022 by ChiTownDoc

[statsman 5457]

1 hour ago, ChiTownDoc said:

God damn it keeps getting better.  Have you ever left OK or TX?  They both fucking suck.  OKC is a lot more like Dallas/Houston than Midland.  Just like anywhere in buttfuck, TX is a lot more like buttfuck, OK than any metro area.  I guess Texas is hotter, yay.  But you thinking one is SO different from the other is really comical.  Fuck, I don't even know where to begin making fun of you.  

So, in 1920, Oklahoma had eight representatives in Congress. Now, 100 years later, it has five. That means that as the US population doubled, Oklahoma grew less. 

In 2020, Texas had 18 representatives. In 2020, it has 36. Texas’ population grew faster than the US as a whole. 
 
It’s not hard to understand why Texas is growing in population and influence while Oklahoma is decreasing. The Texas economy is like a stool supported by three legs- energy, technology and defense. (Education a nd the arts are lesser supports). 
 
Oklahoma’s economy is also like a stool. Its three legs are methamphetamine production, stealing copper wire and Indian casinos. 

You want to argue that Texas sucks. Fine. Go for it. Oklahoma sucks far more and the world has taken notice. 
 
TLDR: Texas has Willie Nelson. Oklahoma has Toby Keith. 

Edited August 17, 2022 by statsman

[ChiTownDoc 21152]

4 minutes ago, statsman said:

So, in 1920, Oklahoma had eight representatives in Congress. Now, 100 years later, it has five. That means that as the US population doubled, Oklahoma grew less. 

In 2020, Texas had 18 representatives. In 2020, it has 36. Texas’ population grew faster than the US as a whole. 
 
It’s not hard to understand why Texas is growing in population and influence while Oklahoma is decreasing. The Texas economy is like a stool supported by three legs- energy, technology and defense. (Education a nd the arts are lesser supports). 
 
Oklahoma’s economy is also like a stool. Its three legs are methamphetamine production, stealing copper wire and Indian casinos. 

You want to argue that Texas sucks. Fine. Go for it. Oklahoma sucks far more and the world has taken notice. 
 
TLDR: Texas has Willie Nelson. Oklahoma has Toby Keith. 

Hey dumbshit, they both suck.  Born in Lubbock and went to OU.  I’d never live in either again.  I’ll dodge bullets here in Chicago any day over that shit.  I can escape to my place in Miami for the winter.  Winning.  

And for the 10th time rural OK is a LOT like rural TX.  Metropolitan TX is more like OKC than their rural counterparts.  You sound retarded.  If you’re slow, I apologize.  

[statsman 5457]

Well, near as I can tell, both young Texas college grads and young Oklahoma college grads like to move to Dallas, so maybe you’re right that there’s no difference between OKC and Dallas 🤨

[DFW Horn 6123]

 

[ChiTownDoc 21152]

11 minutes ago, statsman said:

Well, near as I can tell, both young Texas college grads and young Oklahoma college grads like to move to Dallas, so maybe you’re right that there’s no difference between OKC and Dallas 🤨

Both terrible.  Def more jobs in Dallas.  Also, one more time...buttfuck, TX is a lot more like buttfuck, OK than OKC or Dallas.  But keep going...

I'll give you Dallas is absolutely amazing one weekend a year and I'd rather be nowhere else.  Cheers

Edited August 17, 2022 by ChiTownDoc

[bullet 1596]

1 hour ago, ChiTownDoc said:

What's this century?  Seriously don't know.  Feels like OU would be hitting 70%.  
 

edit: 16-7 70%

Prob feels more lopsided w the severe beatings and last year’s gut wrenching debacle.  

And Texas lead 8-2-1 in the 11 years before that.  Its always been a series of streaks.  Before that OU won 4 straight.  Before that it was UT 5-2-2.  Then OU 5 straight.  Then UT 12 out of 13....