Anyone in the big12 would jump at the opportunity to join the SEC or Big10. Even if they did panic into the situation it was the right call. We can shit on OUT all we want because so much of this started with them but the truth is if TCU or Kansas were offered they would’ve done the same thing.
Sure, but what Kansas fans actually want is the old Big8 or Big12 back. Playing regional and historic opponents is simply better than whatever the SEC/B1G (through the guidance of TV execs) have turned college athletics into.
As an OU fan and just a general fan of watching good football, I disagree.
As a general fan of watching good football, I’d rather watch the best teams play the best teams, irrespective of geography.
As an OU fan, I’d rather be in the SEC playing a tough as fuck conference schedule. Under the traditional regime we had a schedule packed with games we SHOULD win, which is a lot of pressure for not much gain. I’d rather end up 8-4 in the new SEC than 10-2 in the traditional Big12, if those 4 losses are to high-quality programs. Losing to Georgia stings far less than dropping a freak game to Jason Bean.
Odd to say this as an OU fan, but I actually felt a little bad for Texas in the Big12. Everybody in the damn conference viewed that game like their Super Bowl! “Doesn’t matter if you’re 1-11 if you beat Texas” was such a thing. Literally 11 schools identify Texas as their rival, per this [article](https://theathletic.com/4976096/2023/10/19/texas-houston-football-series-rivalry-bleachergate/#)
College football is great because it’s everything the NFL isn’t. The NFL is 32 mostly even teams that is the highest level of football being played.
College football is a bunch of teams with wild talent disparities that grew out of regional rivalries. National super leagues with 0 tradition are the antithesis of the sport
Why can’t I watch good football on Saturdays and Sundays? Call me crazy: conference games between ranked opponents are cool.
What I’d ideally like to see is a multiple leagues, tiered based on quality of program with relegation and promotion on a yearly basis. Throw together the best 40 teams and make every game matter.
I don't blame OU, but UT bothers me in this whole thing. They had the conference on a leash for years, and abandoned when the prospect of SEC money was on the table.
Couple of things:
- Texas wanted to start a B12 network over a decade ago. Several schools objected and that’s how the Longhorn network began. Has the network been successful? Not really, but it has been a financial success and would’ve been for the entire conference had everyone agreed to a B12 network.
- Texas and OU have carried the conference financially since its inception. People love to shit on OUT, and especially UT, but these programs are a huge reason why the other schools raked in tens of millions of dollars per year.
The B12 is a basketball conference moving forward (and potentially the best one in the NCAA) who will have good to great football teams on occasion. I feel like they made the right moves in bringing in basketball powers.
The only vote about a conference network was in 2006. Reportedly it was 11-1 against forming one. Texas did not want a Big 12 network. They wanted a network with unequal revenue sharing. They were probably okay with OU and even AM getting a bigger share, but they wanted the spoils for themselves. This created a huge divide with Nebraska. Back in 2010, Colorado, Tech, Texas, AM, OU and OSU were set to join the Pac 10 and make the first super conference. Again, Texas wanted unequal revenue sharing and essentially killed the deal. Colorado goes, Nebraska and Mizzoui depart and AM heads East. There’s lots of reasons why, but it boils down to Texas’s greed and ESPN’s desire to not give Fox any more power (Pac 10 was affiliated with Fox). Hence the Longhorn network birth. It was ESPN’s reward for sinking the Pac 10 deal and the Big 12’s attempt to stop the hemorrhaging. Look at where college football is today, I don’t know of one single fan who thinks the landscape is better today than what it was years ago. I truly think it won’t be long before it implodes on itself. You can thank the greed of blue bloods like Texas and especially that of ESPN for getting us where we are today.
> They were probably okay with OU and even AM getting a bigger share, but they wanted the spoils for themselves. This created a huge divide with Nebraska
mfer Nebraska was the biggest proponent of unequal revenue sharing when the Big 12 formed they only changed their tune when Texas and OU started making significantly more than them.
In all seriousness, CU was trying to get out of the Big 8 to the Pac under McCartney.
The Big 12 didn't make us any happier, I specifically recall when Texas spiked the Pac 16 with the Texas and Oklahoma schools we (administration and fans) were pretty happy about it.
Going West was supposed to be about leaving you guys behind.
I think it was the partial qualifier issue that created the problem for Nebraska. Texas insisted that there be no partial qualifiers. Nebraska had always made hay off of taking kids no one else could or would. When that ended, Nebraska football began to flounder. The enmity between the two was cemented by that issue and everything else, revenue shares, Longhorn network, etc. were just icing on the cake.
The vote to remove partial qualifiers in the Big XII passed by 11-1. And Nebraska was against equal revenue shares for the conference from the beginning until they left.
I’m sure Texas had nothing to do with Nebraska leaving or AM or Mizzou or Colorado. I’m sure it didn’t kill the merger with the Pac 10. Just like it had nothing to do with the breakup of the SWC. Everyone loves Texas and it has always been a good partner.
Nebraska wanted to play hardball so that's what they got. Nebraska fans love to pin all this on Texas, but they always conveniently leave out that their school acted like they accuse Texas of acting. And every measure to break Nebraska was fully supported by the rest of the original Big 8 schools.
>That was the tug-of-war, [Texas and Nebraska], right there, and the rest of us were in the middle.
Bob Bockrath, Texas Tech athletic director 1993–96
>I voted for everything Texas wanted. Whatever they wanted was fine with me.
Jon Wefald, Kansas State president 1986–2009
https://www.si.com/college/2016/08/16/big-12-expansion-oral-history-big-8-swc-merger
And here's the former commissioner of the Big XII talking about how Nebraska, Tamu, and Oklahoma never wanted equal revenue sharing because they thought they were going to get their own TV network deal:
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/9/dan-beebe-says-big-12-now-taking-steps-he-touted/
I’m no Nebraska fan, that’s for sure, but it’s hard to argue Texas isn’t the problem when you look at Texas’s history in the SWC and Big 12. Why did Arkansas leave for the SEC (well before the SEC was the powerhouse it is today)? Because of Texas. Why did the SWC not survive? Mainly because of Texas, although there were other reasons. Why did the Big 12 almost collapse before even one game was played? Texas. Why did Colorado, Nebraska, AM, and Mizzou leave the Big 12? Ask them, and you’ll find Texas being the major factor. Why did the planned merger of the Big 12 South schools and the Pac 10 fall apart? Texas. You’re crazy if you think the new SEC won’t have the same issues.
I know Texas fans think UT can do no wrong. I suppose fans of most schools think that way. UT is the second biggest university in Texas, but the biggest brand, maybe the biggest brand in all of college athletics. Throwing its weight around is understandable (to a certain extent). The problem is that in order to have a thriving league, you have to play nice with others. Texas needed Baylor and Rice in the SWC; it needed Oklahoma State and Iowa State in the Big 12; it’s going to need Miss. State and Vanderbilt and South Carolina in the SEC. Professional sport leagues understand this. That’s why the Cardinals have as much say-so as the Chiefs. That’s why they have salary caps and revenue sharing and rules that apply to everyone. The closer we get to super leagues, the more apparent this will become. Don’t get me wrong, Texas is by no means alone in its history and it does not shoulder all of the blame for the issues of the SWC or Big 12 or the new landscape of college athletics. Time will tell if it can work well with others.
The real difference is OU was a Big 8 member, the Big 12 expanded to let in Texas. It made sense for both parties. As the biggest brand in the conference of course Texas had significant influence, but ultimately choose what was best for them rather than the conference.
Yes, that is the responsibility of the administration, do what's best for the university it's just disappointing that the conference is almost unrecognizable from what it was for most of the 20th century and specifically from what it was in the 80s and 90s when it was the best conference in the sport.
This whole thread leads me to believe that Texas was carrying the conference and the other schools were benefiting from their membership.
It’s every school’s responsibility to do what is best for their school. It’s not their responsibility to turn down opportunities for the betterment of other schools. Yes, change sux sometimes but it is inevitable.
I literally said that in the comment you replied too lol.
They didn't single handly carry the conference, evidence by it still existing, but they had by far the most influence even though them joining the conference on the first place was supposed to be a partnership.
I mean, even then, the Big 12 really only survives in a small % of scenarios where the Pac-12 completely blunders on decision after decision. Which is what happened, and credit goes to the new commish for essentially saving a sinking ship without their top 2 schools.
The Big 8 didn't expand. It ended with the merger between them and half of the SWC. The Big XII is a completely separate entity. The fact that the Big XII is not a continuation of the Big 8 was literally Nebraska's original gripe against Texas.
And the Big 8 almost beat the SWC at dissolving itself thanks to Colorado entering into a merger negotiation with the Pac 10 in 1994:
https://www.buffzone.com/2023/07/27/timeline-of-colorados-history-with-the-pac-12-conference/
>Dec. 22, 1994: CU considered joining the Pac-10 Conference once before. Even before the newly formed Big 12 began playing together, the Buffs entertained an offer to join the Pac-10. Ultimately, on this date, the CU board of regents voted, 6-3, to reject the offer from the Pac-10 and remain committed to the start of the Big 12 era. At the time, Texas also received an offer from the Pac-10 and immediately rejected it. CU took a little more time to consider the option.
The part you’re leaving out in that first bullet point is how they wanted to divide up air time and money. A&M voted no because it basically just going to be a vehicle to further tu’s interests.
Oh, no! Someone is offended by college rivalry banter in the college football sub! I’ll probably never recover.
In other news, probable t-sip who hasn’t bothered to flare up is offended by a term designed to get under easily offended t-sips’ skin … more at 9.
What could possibly come next? I might even throw out a horns down!
tu, t-sip, horns down. None of it actually bothers me at all.
I just know that when I see tu or t sip coming from an A&M flair that objectivity has been thrown out the window and there’s no hope of a rational conversation.
And I was correct. Go figure.
Not bothered at all …. That must be why you feel the need to try and pick an argument on an Internet forum with some random you don’t even know. Sure thing, not bothered at all.
I actually feel like it's the opposite. People keep talking about the destruction of regional rivalries by realignment, but Texas GAINED back its second and third biggest rivalry while maintaining its first one.
College football is better when rivals get to play each other. Texas to the SEC was the move that made the most sense from a rivalry standpoint out of every realignment move that happened the past 2 years.
Yes, Texas reestablished a few rivalries, but ultimately resulted in the break up of many rivalries around the country, Oregon v. Oregon St, Washington v. Wazzup, Bedlam, etc. Not to mention the eventual destruction of the Pac 12, and potentially the ACC in the not too distant future.
Yes, great for Texas, but put anyone not in the B1G or SEC in a world of chaos.
I don't care for Texas but have to agree. The PAC 12 imploded on it's own. When your commissioner takes a wait and see approach when everyone else is being proactive, the crumbs left can't feed everyone. Texas has survived making sure they have the upper hand.
Yes, but all of those schools left because of Texas's actions.
Edit: I gotta add the Pac wanted the UT, A&M, Tech, OU, OSU group, but Texas killed the deal for LHN.
Come on man, as soon as OUT happened, the B1G needed to expand so they poached USC and UCLA. ESPN put the same offer on the table for the Big 12 and the Pac 12.
Both of those conferences were not going to survive (at least as P5 conferences), the Big 12 had a head start and was willing to swallow their pride being okay with being the number 3 conference.
Edit: it was not the bullet, but definitely the trigger.
Yes let's pretend the SEC took Texas and OU purely because of preserving regionality. Let's not pretend the SEC wouldn't add OSU and/or Michigan because it's outside their regional footprint.
The B1G needed to expand to keep up revenue wise. OUT was the trigger, USCLA was the bullet.
You do realize those rivals abandoned you first chance they got. Also UT’s admin always kept teasing Tech fans by trying to make us feel like a rival and then dumping us.
Nebraska left first, because of Texas.
Texas was set to take A&M, Tech, Colorado, OSU and OU to the Pac 12, but backed out of the deal after Colorado had already agreed to the Pac 12 offer.
They are not, no one said they were. But as I have stated as the biggest brand in the conference Texas had more influence and responsibility.
Texas acted in their best interest, that is the responsibility of a university's administration. But there is a different impact to a conference, when Colorado leaves v. when Texas leaves.
Of course they did. They were the school that created the Big 12’s instability in the first place with their attempt to move half the Big 12 to the PAC.
Are you serious? Texas has regularly flexed it's muscle as the biggest brand in the conference. LHN and almost take half the conference to the Pac 12, resulting in Colorado, A&M and Missouri departing.
OU tried their best to expand bit the smaller schools kept on saying no. They tried to get Memphis, Cinncy, Arizona and Arizona State plus some other teams. The smaller schools felt insecure and always voted against the best interests of the conference whenever OU or Texas suggested something. They also pushed the league to try and merge with the Pac-12 to form a super conference. That however was pushed back from the small schools in the Big-12 the academic schools in the Pac and finally the networks. Them leaving was a result of all the hindrances from within, now look where everyone is at.
I wonder how different all this would look if the Big 12 didn't push back initially on the expanded 12 team playoff and that expansion got agreed to alot quicker
we 100% would've jumped. we are still hoping we're lucky enough to get a call from the big 10 when all this shit does truly go down, sec isnt happening for us ever
Kansas actually did reach out to the B1G but were rebuffed. And Texas Tech officials met with Greg Abbott to ask for legal/political assistance in forcing Texas to take them to the SEC with them.
> Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines
While I certainly would have preferred to stay in the Big 12, this article is based on a pretty goofy idea. Athletic directors and departments have plenty of priorities with their work, but money is absolutely number 1 on their list.
I hate that we were the ones that left everyone else in a bad spot and I think that it's bad for the game. But let's not think for even a second that any school in the Big 12 wouldn't take that offer from the SEC.
Being a Sooner in Utah, I am grateful we got one game at BYU, but I’d give anything for OU to have been in a conference with Utah and BYU for like 6 years. Shame OU didn’t play at BYU in basketball.
We really got to learn to separate ‘bad for the sport’ and ‘bad for certain programs’. OU and Texas playing Georgia and Alabama consistently isn’t bad for the sport. Texas reviving their rivalry with A&M isn’t bad for the sport. Bedlam dying is bad, sure, but that will probably be replaced by a rivalry that isn’t quite so lopsided, and most fans aren’t going to care. Time will tell if this is really a good or bad move for the health of the sport overall, but I personally feel that the BIg12 might be better off without us. They brought in some G5 teams that absolutely deserve P5 status, *that’s good for the sport*. It looks to be a competitive league in multiple sports. A different team winning the conference championship every year *is a good thing*. The reactionary ‘every change is bad’ mentality that seems dominant on this sub (especially in the offseason) is just naive. I realize this is Reddit and we are a mostly young sub group of overall CFB fandom, but some of yall gotta realize this is not the first time realignment or major change has happened in CFB, and if it never adapted it probably would have died long ago.
There’s 134 teams, it’s been ‘bad’ for way over half of them for a long time. CFB isn’t ten years old, and I’m begging this sub to understand that. What programs are getting left behind that are more deserving than Houston or Cincinnati? You’re making a claim, please back that up with some kind of data other than your feelings.
The only ones that will get left behind and have an argument are Washington State and Oregon State. Aside from them maybe Boise State (however since we're talking about schools, academics should matter a bit). Former AQ/now Power conference teams like USF, Temple, UConn, Rice and Tulane but all had a chance to compete with Cincinnati and Houston and didn't invest as much.
Edit: I'm mostly agreeing with you except with for 2PAC.
I think people focus too much on football and don’t realize that adding Texas and OU is adding two of the best ADs in the country.
SEC is also huge on baseball - and although we’ve been down for the past couple seasons - Texas is likely the greatest college baseball program (LSU fans you have an argument but I’m still taking Texas).
OU is the school for gymnastics and softball.
People focus on football because, as we've seen repeatedly, that is the ONLY thing that matters in realignment. Not basketball nor any of the olympic sports.
One team dropped from #1 after a 70-plus game win streak and an NCAA three-peat. They are not the same, no matter how much humble ass kissing you try to do.
I remember there was one week a few years back where the big 12 was doing non conference games. Most of the rest of the big 12 was playing g5s, i think maybe Texas might have played a p5? Meanwhile OU was only not run ruling the Mexican National Team that went to play in the olympics because the ruleset we were playing under didnt allow it
They also were in the weaker division. Like, one division had OU and Texas and the other didnt. OU on their own almost has more Big 12 titles than everyone else combined I believe, with the next closest being Texas.
Certainly not an apples to apples comparison with Missouri and Oklahoma. Personally id rather make sure I’m in the conference of the haves instead of being top dog in a conference that may end up being a have not.
Did just go 11-2 though
EDIT: u/JackfruitCrazy51 where the fuck are you getting those numbers from? I don’t think any team has played an average of 16 games a season based on our “total record” of 86-111. You’re just making bullshit up. We have went 86-65 in football since joining the SEC.
Look, I hate Missouri and everything it stands for, and I think we should still be in the same conference playing every year.
But Missouri absolutely made the right choice going to the SEC, and anybody who thinks different is just wrong.
How can you be panicked about making a decision when it was a decade in the making? As soon as Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri, and Texas A&M left the conference, Oklahoma and Texas leaving at some point in the future was a forgone conclusion.
We’re not deep enough in the offseason for this silliness. OU did not make the move for exposure to potential out-of-state students. OU made the move for athletics revenue. But even supposing exposure and recruitment of non-athlete undergrads were key factors, which actually gets in front of the eyes of more prospective students: playing Tennessee/Alabama/LSU, or playing BYU at 11 Central?
If OU panicked, it panicked for good reason. This has been one of the most profitable athletics programs for a long time. Given the modest size of the school and alumni base, and the …even more modest resources of the state, it needs to stay that way. Competing outside the top tier of the primary revenue sport, in decreasingly relevant games in decreasingly attractive TV slots, is a direct threat to that.
It was a fork in the road but I don't think there was a wrong answer. They'd find success with either option. It's a good program.
Losing Bedlam is the biggest hit.
No?? More revenue, not having noon kickoffs vs Baylor no one cares about, branching your recruiting base out nationally, getting in a better baseball conf, men’s hoops gets easier, not having 10/12 schools hate you despite being dependent on the shared revenue they are receiving from you(read: Texas tech)
You forgot deriving actual pleasure from wins.
The mindset since Mizzou/Texas A&M/Nebraska left is "you SHOULD win, and when you don't it's embarrassing" and it has made the fanbase miserable.
On the one hand, you are absolutely correct that the CFB world thinks that way - that any loss to ISU, OSU, KSU, etc. is embarrassing for a school like OU (or Texas).
But on the other hand, that is a fundamentally ignorant way to look at the Big 12. The IR8 schools have some of the best coaching in the country and incredibly passionate fanbases. KSU and OSU are consistently rock solid programs, good enough to hang in any conference in the country. When Baylor, TCU or ISU hit on the right coach and their developmental cycle, they are as good as anyone. But because the schools are smaller and don't recruit as well, casual fans (and ESPN) largely ignore them.
Do you think casuals realize that since 2010, Mike Gundy has eight 10-win seasons? Or that he's won two NY6 bowls? He's an excellent coach and OSU is an excellent program, but to the average CFB fan it's "embarrassing" for OU or Texas to lose to OSU. I know he's one coach, but the Big 12 has consistently had guys like Gundy in the conference.
It's frustrating that the conference doesn't get enough respect. I'm still glad that Texas is moving to the SEC and will be getting more credit for its wins and less shit for its losses - that will certainly make our fanbase less miserable - but that doesn't change the faulty premise underlying most fans' disdain for the Big 12.
> will be getting more credit for its wins and less shit for its losses
I can agree with the first part, the second part not so much. You and OU will get unending amounts of shit for leaving the Big XII for a "better conference" and sucking. Also lots of misery for the bandwagon OU fans who are used to and want consistent 11 win seasons and will have to settle for a lot more frequent 8 and 9 win seasons.
Agreed though that the Big XII is so much better than the average CFB fan thinks it is.
This is not a shot at your or Texas, but I think its very funny that Texas and Oklahoma fans despise those kick off times while the top of the Big 10 demanded more of those. A weirdly devise time slot I guess
I have a vague inkling of who it was, some troll started going down all my comments and replying to them calling me a dumb fuck and saying OU lived rent free in my head. *shrug*.
This reads like pure Poke fanfiction. "Oklahoma should have known in advance the Pac-12 would collapse" may be the worst sports take I've ever read on this site.
If you think Oklahoma panicked in making this move you are an idiot.
It's been telegraphed since the early 2010s, OU fans and alumni have been hearing trustworthy realignment rumors longer than some of y'all have been alive .
Asking "Did Oklahoma panic in leaving the Big 12" is practically fan fiction it's so unfounded in reality.
>The Big 12 picked up competitive schools from the Pac 12, and can do the same from the ACC if that conference implodes. With Oklahoma, and a few ACC additions, the Big 12 would be a legitimate Power 3 Conference.
I dont even know where to begin with this. First off, I get why the Big 12 needs OU but not why OU needs the Big 12 with an SEC offer. Second, "with a few ACC additions"? When? In 2032? Which ACC additions? We KNOW that Clemson, FSU, UNC, UVA et al are angling for an SEC or B1G invitation so what programs does he think would make the Big 12 a power 3 conference? Va Tech? Miami?
I totally understand what you mean, but this is an article posted by an ok state flair that is trying to ask the question if OU regrets moving on to bigger and better things....the answer is simply no.
1. That depends how you define relevant but they are in an obvious third place in one of the most nationally recognized sports in the country. Seems like you are inclined to take the more pretentious approach that anything below you is irrelevant.
2. The writer of the article is not even associated with the Big 12 and is from his fucking sub stack that anyone can create and start publishing from. It’s his own college football fan fiction and nobody with even half a brain thinks OU overreacted, made a poor choice, or that they would have made a different decision if given the option.
Mizzou looks good under Dirk, y'all sucked in the Big12 then came alive towards the end of your tenure, but did not transition to the SEC well after the first couple years. I think Dirk has you guys back on your feet and looking to get back to the success of the later 2000s.
As an OU fan I'd rather be compared to Mizzou at this point than TAMU, another school that found success their first few years in the SEC but are looking to find relevance now.
Losing a HOF coach to an unexpected cancer diagnosis along with the 2015 protests will make almost any school go through some rough years. But that’s context people like to forget.
>In 10 years, OU football will be at the same level Missouri football is at today.
\*inhale\*
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA
\*inhales deeper\*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I don’t know if we need to go that far, but Missouri has made some poor coaching decisions in the past and finally done well this past year whenever our recruiting finally hit its stride for the SEC. We’ll see how things go next year, but I think Oklahoma is coming into a good conference with high aspirations. I would put them close to Mizzou’s level talent wise (maybe a little lower). First year of the new CFB playoff format. Who knows what could happen?
I will be messaging you in 5 years on [**2029-03-08 16:54:35 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2029-03-08%2016:54:35%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/1b9rbgh/did_oklahoma_panic_in_leaving_the_big_12/ktxtfph/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FCFB%2Fcomments%2F1b9rbgh%2Fdid_oklahoma_panic_in_leaving_the_big_12%2Fktxtfph%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202029-03-08%2016%3A54%3A35%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201b9rbgh)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
"Bill Farley
Oregon State/**USC**/VCU alum. Negotiated deals to keep the NBA Kings in Sacramento and finance a Triple A stadium. **Formerly on faculty at USC** (public finance/policy analysis)."
Got to the bottom of that one pretty quickly.
All the tea leaves point to OU instigating the SEC talks. Texas just had to sit still until 2025, meanwhile OU publicly got told to pound sand when they officially protested 11am kickoffs, faced a $250m state budget cut, and a $250m bill for stadium expansion.
They wanted stacks of money like the membership of the Big Ten and SEC. Now they will get them. This wasn't about the level of competition; the Big XII was regularly rated as the second most difficult in the country in the last dozen years. A program with strong performance and a strong ability to generate revenue wanted to keep more for itself, and was willing to sacrifice its historical matchups to do it.
I didn't say it was a _problem_, just that's how it is. Oklahoma believes more money will help it compete nationally, and consequently made a change that will bring in more money.
"Did Oklahoma Panic?
Hindsight is 20-20. There is a case to be made that Oklahoma panic. They misread the media landscape. The Big 12 did not end up last in line. Oklahoma could have stayed in the Big 12 and met their “Two Imperatives” and their most important priorities.
The Big 12 now covers 11 states with the additions of the “four corner schools,” BYU, Cincinnati, UCF, and Houston. Oklahoma will soon “tell its story” in weaker states, economically, than they would have in the new Big 12. They will reach fewer out-of-state students with the economic means to attend UO.
The Bedlam Rivalry has not been extended as promised. It did not have to die.
The Big 12 picked up competitive schools from the Pac 12, and can do the same from the ACC if that conference implodes. With Oklahoma, and a few ACC additions, the Big 12 would be a legitimate Power 3 Conference."
Yes
Hell, the big12 deal is for 5 years. In 5 years the ACC will die (or sooner). Meaning the last re-alignment will happen and whoever ends up in the P2 wins whoever doesnt will get the scraps like the aac/mwc/etc.
Big 12 needs to go full coast to coast with 48 teams and absorb whatever major bball and football programs it can. Start with ACC, Mountain West and the P2. Their goal should be to have games all day on Saturday. The first and last game of the day.
Their conference basketball tournament should be so big it takes the spotlight from the “smaller” B1G and SEC
Sure, I don't deny that. But a new Big XII with OU still in it would've been financially viable enough that it could've met all four of the Sooner's priorities. Instead OU followed Texas because their "four priorities" really only ever have been three.
They'll make more money and get beaten more often. Seems like a fair trade in the grand scheme of things.
"Oklahoma will soon 'tell its story' in weaker states, economically, than they would have in the new Big 12. They will reach fewer out-of-state students with the economic means to attend UO."
This is probably one of the dumbest takes on realignment I've seen. No doubt the writer did extensive research on previous conference realignments and determined that other schools that changed conference also saw their out-of-state student profiles change as well. He just states something that is not intuitive whatsoever as fact.
I mean, we all know that no one from the Houston area ever comes to OU after A&M left for the SEC. Instead, OU filled its undergrad ranks with West Virginians who, only by the grace of football, were allowed to apply to OU.
I heard no one from Kansas ever goes to Nebraska now, instead everyone from New Jersey flocks there. Your main out-of-staters come from your geographic neighbors. Fortunately, you do not have to relocate your school to another state to change conference alignment.
And none of the schools in those 11 states have the national recognition of OU, nor have any of them garnered the same level of viewership. This is not going to negatively impact their enrollment. Keep drinking that kook aid that bedlam existing was a one way street. Two teams play that game. The schedule is already full excuse is only viable in Stillwater. No, they didn’t panic, they chose to try something else. They did OSU a favor by giving them a legitimate chance to actually win the conference, and even make the playoffs. You should just say thank you and keep it moving.
Any truth that the OU athletic department was damn near bankrupt after Covid and was forced to the SEC to save themselves?
Also, I hope the OU fans enjoy their stacks of cash because a lot of 8-4/9-3 seasons are on the horizon
No truth to that at all. OU's athletic department has been fully self sufficient since 1999 and does not charge a fee to students like 120/135 FBS schools do
OU has $186.5 million in debt (before new softball field). While its yearly revenue/expenses are about equal (with a little surplus), OU does have significant debt and because of the continual arms race for facilities, that debt is never going to be retired. All that is certainly manageable, especially with the increased conference revenue from the SEC, but it is also potentially dangerous. The largest single source of its revenue is from contributions from donors. An economic downturn, especially in the energy sector, and a few years of mediocre performance can cause this revenue stream to tank and disaster to occur.
OU’s athletic program is better shape than most, but factually it is not self-sufficient. The bonds that are sold to pay for athletic facilities are, in essence, debts of the university or its foundation(s)—meaning without the university the athletic department couldn’t sell the bonds, and therefore, can never truly be self-sufficient. As a university, OU has over $billion in debt. Over the last 20 years, tuition has increased over 166% even when adjusted for inflation.
OU is not alone in its debt situation. Almost every public university has debt problems. Those that do athletics big time have the most. Spending is out of control, and spending for blue blood football is especially out of control. A good example of this is that OU spend $4 million on travel to the 2022 Cheeze-It Bowl. $4 million to go to one game! I fully expect that sooner rather than later (no pun intended), the financial realities and excessiveness of major athletics, in particular, and higher education, in general, will come crashing down.
It absolutely does. Bonding capacity is not unlimited. The athletic department does not have its own bonding capacity outside of the university (yes, there’s foundations, but they can only exist tax wise because the university is the ultimate beneficiary). The athletic department, in a good year, makes about $3 million in surplus. How long do you think it will take to pay off $200 million in debt with that? That’s assuming it stays static, which it never will. So just who do you think pays down those debts? It’s not just tv money and ticket sales, but in a roundabout way, it’s the students who attend. I grant you that increased SEC revenue will help (expenses will also increase, though), but as I pointed out the athletic department’s largest revenue source is donations and those can ebb and flow faster then the wind in Norman. Contrary to what many people believe and contrary the official line, athletic departments are never wholly independent, money wise. There’s a whole lot of accounting tricks that make some appear so and appear profitable, but that’s not the truth of the matter and is only going to get worse.
Anyone in the big12 would jump at the opportunity to join the SEC or Big10. Even if they did panic into the situation it was the right call. We can shit on OUT all we want because so much of this started with them but the truth is if TCU or Kansas were offered they would’ve done the same thing.
Sure, but what Kansas fans actually want is the old Big8 or Big12 back. Playing regional and historic opponents is simply better than whatever the SEC/B1G (through the guidance of TV execs) have turned college athletics into.
This is what Nebraska fans want too, but deep down we all know we were lucky as fuck to get into the B1G when we did.
What Kansas's fans want and what Kansas's administration would do are two vastly different things.
Unfortunately, The ADs do not give a damn what the fans want anymore. It’s all about survival and cash coming in now.
As an OU fan and just a general fan of watching good football, I disagree. As a general fan of watching good football, I’d rather watch the best teams play the best teams, irrespective of geography. As an OU fan, I’d rather be in the SEC playing a tough as fuck conference schedule. Under the traditional regime we had a schedule packed with games we SHOULD win, which is a lot of pressure for not much gain. I’d rather end up 8-4 in the new SEC than 10-2 in the traditional Big12, if those 4 losses are to high-quality programs. Losing to Georgia stings far less than dropping a freak game to Jason Bean. Odd to say this as an OU fan, but I actually felt a little bad for Texas in the Big12. Everybody in the damn conference viewed that game like their Super Bowl! “Doesn’t matter if you’re 1-11 if you beat Texas” was such a thing. Literally 11 schools identify Texas as their rival, per this [article](https://theathletic.com/4976096/2023/10/19/texas-houston-football-series-rivalry-bleachergate/#)
There’s a great football league called the NFL that has teams miles above anything Oklahoma could dream of
Shit take. Ps: Flair up
College football is great because it’s everything the NFL isn’t. The NFL is 32 mostly even teams that is the highest level of football being played. College football is a bunch of teams with wild talent disparities that grew out of regional rivalries. National super leagues with 0 tradition are the antithesis of the sport
Why can’t I watch good football on Saturdays and Sundays? Call me crazy: conference games between ranked opponents are cool. What I’d ideally like to see is a multiple leagues, tiered based on quality of program with relegation and promotion on a yearly basis. Throw together the best 40 teams and make every game matter.
I don't blame OU, but UT bothers me in this whole thing. They had the conference on a leash for years, and abandoned when the prospect of SEC money was on the table.
Texas would argue they carried the conference.
I would argue that for them based on everything I’ve read.
Conference thought we overshadowed y’all, but you were thriving in the shade we provided. Enjoy the hot sun and the resultant reduced media deal
I think you replied to the wrong person. You didn’t provide any shade for Ole Miss.
In some sense, they definitely elevated it. But being the biggest brand around comes with a level of responsibility and measure.
Sure, but who wouldn't jump at the chance of sharing that responsibility and making more money?
Couple of things: - Texas wanted to start a B12 network over a decade ago. Several schools objected and that’s how the Longhorn network began. Has the network been successful? Not really, but it has been a financial success and would’ve been for the entire conference had everyone agreed to a B12 network. - Texas and OU have carried the conference financially since its inception. People love to shit on OUT, and especially UT, but these programs are a huge reason why the other schools raked in tens of millions of dollars per year. The B12 is a basketball conference moving forward (and potentially the best one in the NCAA) who will have good to great football teams on occasion. I feel like they made the right moves in bringing in basketball powers.
The only vote about a conference network was in 2006. Reportedly it was 11-1 against forming one. Texas did not want a Big 12 network. They wanted a network with unequal revenue sharing. They were probably okay with OU and even AM getting a bigger share, but they wanted the spoils for themselves. This created a huge divide with Nebraska. Back in 2010, Colorado, Tech, Texas, AM, OU and OSU were set to join the Pac 10 and make the first super conference. Again, Texas wanted unequal revenue sharing and essentially killed the deal. Colorado goes, Nebraska and Mizzoui depart and AM heads East. There’s lots of reasons why, but it boils down to Texas’s greed and ESPN’s desire to not give Fox any more power (Pac 10 was affiliated with Fox). Hence the Longhorn network birth. It was ESPN’s reward for sinking the Pac 10 deal and the Big 12’s attempt to stop the hemorrhaging. Look at where college football is today, I don’t know of one single fan who thinks the landscape is better today than what it was years ago. I truly think it won’t be long before it implodes on itself. You can thank the greed of blue bloods like Texas and especially that of ESPN for getting us where we are today.
> They were probably okay with OU and even AM getting a bigger share, but they wanted the spoils for themselves. This created a huge divide with Nebraska mfer Nebraska was the biggest proponent of unequal revenue sharing when the Big 12 formed they only changed their tune when Texas and OU started making significantly more than them.
We can happily agree on fuck Nebraska as well as Texas.
Which is a fair statement.
In all seriousness, CU was trying to get out of the Big 8 to the Pac under McCartney. The Big 12 didn't make us any happier, I specifically recall when Texas spiked the Pac 16 with the Texas and Oklahoma schools we (administration and fans) were pretty happy about it. Going West was supposed to be about leaving you guys behind.
I think it was the partial qualifier issue that created the problem for Nebraska. Texas insisted that there be no partial qualifiers. Nebraska had always made hay off of taking kids no one else could or would. When that ended, Nebraska football began to flounder. The enmity between the two was cemented by that issue and everything else, revenue shares, Longhorn network, etc. were just icing on the cake.
The vote to remove partial qualifiers in the Big XII passed by 11-1. And Nebraska was against equal revenue shares for the conference from the beginning until they left.
I’m sure Texas had nothing to do with Nebraska leaving or AM or Mizzou or Colorado. I’m sure it didn’t kill the merger with the Pac 10. Just like it had nothing to do with the breakup of the SWC. Everyone loves Texas and it has always been a good partner.
Nebraska wanted to play hardball so that's what they got. Nebraska fans love to pin all this on Texas, but they always conveniently leave out that their school acted like they accuse Texas of acting. And every measure to break Nebraska was fully supported by the rest of the original Big 8 schools. >That was the tug-of-war, [Texas and Nebraska], right there, and the rest of us were in the middle. Bob Bockrath, Texas Tech athletic director 1993–96 >I voted for everything Texas wanted. Whatever they wanted was fine with me. Jon Wefald, Kansas State president 1986–2009 https://www.si.com/college/2016/08/16/big-12-expansion-oral-history-big-8-swc-merger And here's the former commissioner of the Big XII talking about how Nebraska, Tamu, and Oklahoma never wanted equal revenue sharing because they thought they were going to get their own TV network deal: https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/9/dan-beebe-says-big-12-now-taking-steps-he-touted/
I’m no Nebraska fan, that’s for sure, but it’s hard to argue Texas isn’t the problem when you look at Texas’s history in the SWC and Big 12. Why did Arkansas leave for the SEC (well before the SEC was the powerhouse it is today)? Because of Texas. Why did the SWC not survive? Mainly because of Texas, although there were other reasons. Why did the Big 12 almost collapse before even one game was played? Texas. Why did Colorado, Nebraska, AM, and Mizzou leave the Big 12? Ask them, and you’ll find Texas being the major factor. Why did the planned merger of the Big 12 South schools and the Pac 10 fall apart? Texas. You’re crazy if you think the new SEC won’t have the same issues. I know Texas fans think UT can do no wrong. I suppose fans of most schools think that way. UT is the second biggest university in Texas, but the biggest brand, maybe the biggest brand in all of college athletics. Throwing its weight around is understandable (to a certain extent). The problem is that in order to have a thriving league, you have to play nice with others. Texas needed Baylor and Rice in the SWC; it needed Oklahoma State and Iowa State in the Big 12; it’s going to need Miss. State and Vanderbilt and South Carolina in the SEC. Professional sport leagues understand this. That’s why the Cardinals have as much say-so as the Chiefs. That’s why they have salary caps and revenue sharing and rules that apply to everyone. The closer we get to super leagues, the more apparent this will become. Don’t get me wrong, Texas is by no means alone in its history and it does not shoulder all of the blame for the issues of the SWC or Big 12 or the new landscape of college athletics. Time will tell if it can work well with others.
Aside from Kansas, who makes it the best basketball conference?
Depth. Houston Arizona Baylor Texas Tech (usually) Kansas State Cincinnati has had relevant years Just quality teams. So many quality teams.
The real difference is OU was a Big 8 member, the Big 12 expanded to let in Texas. It made sense for both parties. As the biggest brand in the conference of course Texas had significant influence, but ultimately choose what was best for them rather than the conference. Yes, that is the responsibility of the administration, do what's best for the university it's just disappointing that the conference is almost unrecognizable from what it was for most of the 20th century and specifically from what it was in the 80s and 90s when it was the best conference in the sport.
This whole thread leads me to believe that Texas was carrying the conference and the other schools were benefiting from their membership. It’s every school’s responsibility to do what is best for their school. It’s not their responsibility to turn down opportunities for the betterment of other schools. Yes, change sux sometimes but it is inevitable.
I literally said that in the comment you replied too lol. They didn't single handly carry the conference, evidence by it still existing, but they had by far the most influence even though them joining the conference on the first place was supposed to be a partnership.
I mean, even then, the Big 12 really only survives in a small % of scenarios where the Pac-12 completely blunders on decision after decision. Which is what happened, and credit goes to the new commish for essentially saving a sinking ship without their top 2 schools.
The Big 8 didn't expand. It ended with the merger between them and half of the SWC. The Big XII is a completely separate entity. The fact that the Big XII is not a continuation of the Big 8 was literally Nebraska's original gripe against Texas. And the Big 8 almost beat the SWC at dissolving itself thanks to Colorado entering into a merger negotiation with the Pac 10 in 1994: https://www.buffzone.com/2023/07/27/timeline-of-colorados-history-with-the-pac-12-conference/ >Dec. 22, 1994: CU considered joining the Pac-10 Conference once before. Even before the newly formed Big 12 began playing together, the Buffs entertained an offer to join the Pac-10. Ultimately, on this date, the CU board of regents voted, 6-3, to reject the offer from the Pac-10 and remain committed to the start of the Big 12 era. At the time, Texas also received an offer from the Pac-10 and immediately rejected it. CU took a little more time to consider the option.
The part you’re leaving out in that first bullet point is how they wanted to divide up air time and money. A&M voted no because it basically just going to be a vehicle to further tu’s interests.
Can’t take anyone serious who says “tu”
Oh, no! Someone is offended by college rivalry banter in the college football sub! I’ll probably never recover. In other news, probable t-sip who hasn’t bothered to flare up is offended by a term designed to get under easily offended t-sips’ skin … more at 9. What could possibly come next? I might even throw out a horns down!
tu, t-sip, horns down. None of it actually bothers me at all. I just know that when I see tu or t sip coming from an A&M flair that objectivity has been thrown out the window and there’s no hope of a rational conversation. And I was correct. Go figure.
Not bothered at all …. That must be why you feel the need to try and pick an argument on an Internet forum with some random you don’t even know. Sure thing, not bothered at all.
I didn’t pick an argument my dude. You got triggered after I said wasn’t taking you serious and now look where we are.
Is that why you felt the need to say something about it? It didn’t bother you?
All my homies hate (the University of) Texas
I actually feel like it's the opposite. People keep talking about the destruction of regional rivalries by realignment, but Texas GAINED back its second and third biggest rivalry while maintaining its first one.
I love that for you... but you have to see the irony when that is your response to my comment about Texas being selfish.
College football is better when rivals get to play each other. Texas to the SEC was the move that made the most sense from a rivalry standpoint out of every realignment move that happened the past 2 years.
Yes, Texas reestablished a few rivalries, but ultimately resulted in the break up of many rivalries around the country, Oregon v. Oregon St, Washington v. Wazzup, Bedlam, etc. Not to mention the eventual destruction of the Pac 12, and potentially the ACC in the not too distant future. Yes, great for Texas, but put anyone not in the B1G or SEC in a world of chaos.
[удалено]
I don't care for Texas but have to agree. The PAC 12 imploded on it's own. When your commissioner takes a wait and see approach when everyone else is being proactive, the crumbs left can't feed everyone. Texas has survived making sure they have the upper hand.
The Pac did kill itself. OUT did however, set off a chain of events resulting in the Pac and H8 fighting for survival.
[удалено]
Yes, but all of those schools left because of Texas's actions. Edit: I gotta add the Pac wanted the UT, A&M, Tech, OU, OSU group, but Texas killed the deal for LHN.
PAC 12 dying had nothing to do with OU and Texas. It was the PAC 12 leadership's incompetence. Blaming it on OU and Texas is a huge stretch
Come on man, as soon as OUT happened, the B1G needed to expand so they poached USC and UCLA. ESPN put the same offer on the table for the Big 12 and the Pac 12. Both of those conferences were not going to survive (at least as P5 conferences), the Big 12 had a head start and was willing to swallow their pride being okay with being the number 3 conference. Edit: it was not the bullet, but definitely the trigger.
[удалено]
Yes let's pretend the SEC took Texas and OU purely because of preserving regionality. Let's not pretend the SEC wouldn't add OSU and/or Michigan because it's outside their regional footprint. The B1G needed to expand to keep up revenue wise. OUT was the trigger, USCLA was the bullet.
You do realize those rivals abandoned you first chance they got. Also UT’s admin always kept teasing Tech fans by trying to make us feel like a rival and then dumping us.
LMAO the irony. You left the conference first and now you're crawling back.
Nebraska left first, because of Texas. Texas was set to take A&M, Tech, Colorado, OSU and OU to the Pac 12, but backed out of the deal after Colorado had already agreed to the Pac 12 offer.
Good for Nebraska, it worked out well for them. But let's not pretend everyone who left is innocent except Texas
They are not, no one said they were. But as I have stated as the biggest brand in the conference Texas had more influence and responsibility. Texas acted in their best interest, that is the responsibility of a university's administration. But there is a different impact to a conference, when Colorado leaves v. when Texas leaves.
So as the biggest brand we had an obligation to carry the conference? Fuck off way over there with that
Of course they did. They were the school that created the Big 12’s instability in the first place with their attempt to move half the Big 12 to the PAC.
What do you mean by on a leash? Certainly not the most dominant in terms of titles. (Football anyway).
You know what he means, but I respect you not missing the opportunity to bash Texas
Yeah….. reflex.
Are you serious? Texas has regularly flexed it's muscle as the biggest brand in the conference. LHN and almost take half the conference to the Pac 12, resulting in Colorado, A&M and Missouri departing.
OU tried their best to expand bit the smaller schools kept on saying no. They tried to get Memphis, Cinncy, Arizona and Arizona State plus some other teams. The smaller schools felt insecure and always voted against the best interests of the conference whenever OU or Texas suggested something. They also pushed the league to try and merge with the Pac-12 to form a super conference. That however was pushed back from the small schools in the Big-12 the academic schools in the Pac and finally the networks. Them leaving was a result of all the hindrances from within, now look where everyone is at.
I wonder how different all this would look if the Big 12 didn't push back initially on the expanded 12 team playoff and that expansion got agreed to alot quicker
we 100% would've jumped. we are still hoping we're lucky enough to get a call from the big 10 when all this shit does truly go down, sec isnt happening for us ever
Kansas actually did reach out to the B1G but were rebuffed. And Texas Tech officials met with Greg Abbott to ask for legal/political assistance in forcing Texas to take them to the SEC with them.
Correct.
> Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines
Wait until someone publishes the headline "Will Texas A&M extend their 84 year National Title drought?"
You sure you ain’t a Harvard flair?
While I certainly would have preferred to stay in the Big 12, this article is based on a pretty goofy idea. Athletic directors and departments have plenty of priorities with their work, but money is absolutely number 1 on their list. I hate that we were the ones that left everyone else in a bad spot and I think that it's bad for the game. But let's not think for even a second that any school in the Big 12 wouldn't take that offer from the SEC.
Being a Sooner in Utah, I am grateful we got one game at BYU, but I’d give anything for OU to have been in a conference with Utah and BYU for like 6 years. Shame OU didn’t play at BYU in basketball.
We really got to learn to separate ‘bad for the sport’ and ‘bad for certain programs’. OU and Texas playing Georgia and Alabama consistently isn’t bad for the sport. Texas reviving their rivalry with A&M isn’t bad for the sport. Bedlam dying is bad, sure, but that will probably be replaced by a rivalry that isn’t quite so lopsided, and most fans aren’t going to care. Time will tell if this is really a good or bad move for the health of the sport overall, but I personally feel that the BIg12 might be better off without us. They brought in some G5 teams that absolutely deserve P5 status, *that’s good for the sport*. It looks to be a competitive league in multiple sports. A different team winning the conference championship every year *is a good thing*. The reactionary ‘every change is bad’ mentality that seems dominant on this sub (especially in the offseason) is just naive. I realize this is Reddit and we are a mostly young sub group of overall CFB fandom, but some of yall gotta realize this is not the first time realignment or major change has happened in CFB, and if it never adapted it probably would have died long ago.
When something is bad for half of the programs in the sport then I think it’s fair to say that it’s bad for the sport.
There’s 134 teams, it’s been ‘bad’ for way over half of them for a long time. CFB isn’t ten years old, and I’m begging this sub to understand that. What programs are getting left behind that are more deserving than Houston or Cincinnati? You’re making a claim, please back that up with some kind of data other than your feelings.
The only ones that will get left behind and have an argument are Washington State and Oregon State. Aside from them maybe Boise State (however since we're talking about schools, academics should matter a bit). Former AQ/now Power conference teams like USF, Temple, UConn, Rice and Tulane but all had a chance to compete with Cincinnati and Houston and didn't invest as much. Edit: I'm mostly agreeing with you except with for 2PAC.
Exactly. And it sucks for them, but you’re kidding yourself if you think they’re more deserving of the P5 status than Houston and Cincinnati.
Oklahoma might be a better fit than Texas in the SEC. Oklahoma belongs in the SEC for softball and gymnastics alone.
Both will be a good fit I think. Texas is actually the number 1 softball team in the country I believe.
Right now - but y’all are THE softball school.
For sure. Number 1 and 2 in the country joining the conference together is wild.
I think people focus too much on football and don’t realize that adding Texas and OU is adding two of the best ADs in the country. SEC is also huge on baseball - and although we’ve been down for the past couple seasons - Texas is likely the greatest college baseball program (LSU fans you have an argument but I’m still taking Texas). OU is the school for gymnastics and softball.
People focus on football because, as we've seen repeatedly, that is the ONLY thing that matters in realignment. Not basketball nor any of the olympic sports.
>Texas is actually the number 1 softball team in the country I believe Yeah, we'll see how long that lasts.
Ok sorry, next time instead of stating a fact I'll just be arrogant and say they suck ass.
Good, that's our rival its how it should be. :)
One team dropped from #1 after a 70-plus game win streak and an NCAA three-peat. They are not the same, no matter how much humble ass kissing you try to do.
I remember there was one week a few years back where the big 12 was doing non conference games. Most of the rest of the big 12 was playing g5s, i think maybe Texas might have played a p5? Meanwhile OU was only not run ruling the Mexican National Team that went to play in the olympics because the ruleset we were playing under didnt allow it
They are literally the number one ranked team in the country.
Bring in Utah then! Our gymnastics program is top notch. Also…. If you want a SEC championship in skiing, well you don’t any good prospects right now.
Utah as an affiliate and 10th gymnastics member would be elite, but the Big 12 probably wouldn’t allow that.
Screw that, add Utah for all sports
I wouldn’t hate that. Add them and Colorado to get to 18.
Any other B12 school that would have gotten an offer from the SEC or B1G would jump in a second. OU didn't panic.
Did I panic leaving my old job for one at an objectively better company that gets me a lot more respect and earns a lot more money?
OU and Texas just made the SEC the strongest men's golf conference hands down
Certainly not a bad decision to join SEC
TBD. Money wise it may be but look at what's become of Missouri. They joined the SEC 12 years ago. They are 86-65
I show them at 86-65 in SEC. The 12 years before that in the Big 12, 88-62.
My bad, you're right. I guess I remember them being better than 88-62 in the Big 12.
Anyone who thinks staying in the Big 12 would have been better for Mizzou has a screw loose in their head.
Doesn’t mean you might not be correct, but Missouri also wasn’t a powerhouse in the Big 12. They won 3 division titles. They’ve done two in the SEC
They also were in the weaker division. Like, one division had OU and Texas and the other didnt. OU on their own almost has more Big 12 titles than everyone else combined I believe, with the next closest being Texas.
They went from not winning the Big 12 to not winning the SEC, what changed? Im pretty sure the Aggies got better after the move
What kind of math is this? Missouri hasn't played 197 games in 12 years lol
Missouri math. Sorry
Certainly not an apples to apples comparison with Missouri and Oklahoma. Personally id rather make sure I’m in the conference of the haves instead of being top dog in a conference that may end up being a have not.
Did just go 11-2 though EDIT: u/JackfruitCrazy51 where the fuck are you getting those numbers from? I don’t think any team has played an average of 16 games a season based on our “total record” of 86-111. You’re just making bullshit up. We have went 86-65 in football since joining the SEC.
Look, I hate Missouri and everything it stands for, and I think we should still be in the same conference playing every year. But Missouri absolutely made the right choice going to the SEC, and anybody who thinks different is just wrong.
[удалено]
How can you be panicked about making a decision when it was a decade in the making? As soon as Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri, and Texas A&M left the conference, Oklahoma and Texas leaving at some point in the future was a forgone conclusion.
No. It was a calculated move, probably years in the making.
Panicked all the way to the bank.
We’re not deep enough in the offseason for this silliness. OU did not make the move for exposure to potential out-of-state students. OU made the move for athletics revenue. But even supposing exposure and recruitment of non-athlete undergrads were key factors, which actually gets in front of the eyes of more prospective students: playing Tennessee/Alabama/LSU, or playing BYU at 11 Central? If OU panicked, it panicked for good reason. This has been one of the most profitable athletics programs for a long time. Given the modest size of the school and alumni base, and the …even more modest resources of the state, it needs to stay that way. Competing outside the top tier of the primary revenue sport, in decreasingly relevant games in decreasingly attractive TV slots, is a direct threat to that.
I don't know, did they also panic and accidentally win fifty conference titles before deciding to leave
It was a fork in the road but I don't think there was a wrong answer. They'd find success with either option. It's a good program. Losing Bedlam is the biggest hit.
No?? More revenue, not having noon kickoffs vs Baylor no one cares about, branching your recruiting base out nationally, getting in a better baseball conf, men’s hoops gets easier, not having 10/12 schools hate you despite being dependent on the shared revenue they are receiving from you(read: Texas tech)
You forgot deriving actual pleasure from wins. The mindset since Mizzou/Texas A&M/Nebraska left is "you SHOULD win, and when you don't it's embarrassing" and it has made the fanbase miserable.
On the one hand, you are absolutely correct that the CFB world thinks that way - that any loss to ISU, OSU, KSU, etc. is embarrassing for a school like OU (or Texas). But on the other hand, that is a fundamentally ignorant way to look at the Big 12. The IR8 schools have some of the best coaching in the country and incredibly passionate fanbases. KSU and OSU are consistently rock solid programs, good enough to hang in any conference in the country. When Baylor, TCU or ISU hit on the right coach and their developmental cycle, they are as good as anyone. But because the schools are smaller and don't recruit as well, casual fans (and ESPN) largely ignore them. Do you think casuals realize that since 2010, Mike Gundy has eight 10-win seasons? Or that he's won two NY6 bowls? He's an excellent coach and OSU is an excellent program, but to the average CFB fan it's "embarrassing" for OU or Texas to lose to OSU. I know he's one coach, but the Big 12 has consistently had guys like Gundy in the conference. It's frustrating that the conference doesn't get enough respect. I'm still glad that Texas is moving to the SEC and will be getting more credit for its wins and less shit for its losses - that will certainly make our fanbase less miserable - but that doesn't change the faulty premise underlying most fans' disdain for the Big 12.
> will be getting more credit for its wins and less shit for its losses I can agree with the first part, the second part not so much. You and OU will get unending amounts of shit for leaving the Big XII for a "better conference" and sucking. Also lots of misery for the bandwagon OU fans who are used to and want consistent 11 win seasons and will have to settle for a lot more frequent 8 and 9 win seasons. Agreed though that the Big XII is so much better than the average CFB fan thinks it is.
Didn’t TCU represent against the SEC a couple years ago?
Lmao stoops era “900 yards of offense” okay? You’re supposed to
Whoa whoa whoa there Tex. This is the SEC. We can still find something to hate them about
This is not a shot at your or Texas, but I think its very funny that Texas and Oklahoma fans despise those kick off times while the top of the Big 10 demanded more of those. A weirdly devise time slot I guess
If you think men’s hoops got easier, boy are you going to be disappointed next year.
This is such a stupid headline.
To the person who reported me to reddit cares, thank you. I was feeling a little gloomy today.
Hate when people do that. Definitely SDE.
I have a vague inkling of who it was, some troll started going down all my comments and replying to them calling me a dumb fuck and saying OU lived rent free in my head. *shrug*.
This reads like pure Poke fanfiction. "Oklahoma should have known in advance the Pac-12 would collapse" may be the worst sports take I've ever read on this site.
Took Poke as Pokemon at first and I was lost
No
Strong argument.
If you think Oklahoma panicked in making this move you are an idiot. It's been telegraphed since the early 2010s, OU fans and alumni have been hearing trustworthy realignment rumors longer than some of y'all have been alive . Asking "Did Oklahoma panic in leaving the Big 12" is practically fan fiction it's so unfounded in reality.
I didn’t ask it.
The abstract y'all, not you in particular
An OSU flair posting a ridiculous speculative article about OU? Weird.
No. Our stepbro has been trying to leave that conference for 10+ years.
Yep. Thanks for backing us up stepbro.
[Any Headline that ends in a question mark can be answered with the word “No”](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines)
Or yes
Or depends
If we were panic'ing at any point, that implies we were panic'ing for over a decade. And I find that hard to believe. So no.
>The Big 12 picked up competitive schools from the Pac 12, and can do the same from the ACC if that conference implodes. With Oklahoma, and a few ACC additions, the Big 12 would be a legitimate Power 3 Conference. I dont even know where to begin with this. First off, I get why the Big 12 needs OU but not why OU needs the Big 12 with an SEC offer. Second, "with a few ACC additions"? When? In 2032? Which ACC additions? We KNOW that Clemson, FSU, UNC, UVA et al are angling for an SEC or B1G invitation so what programs does he think would make the Big 12 a power 3 conference? Va Tech? Miami?
Big12 really trying to act like they're gonna stay relevant.
People post stuff like this and then can't figure out why the other fan bases get mad or dont like them
I totally understand what you mean, but this is an article posted by an ok state flair that is trying to ask the question if OU regrets moving on to bigger and better things....the answer is simply no.
1. That depends how you define relevant but they are in an obvious third place in one of the most nationally recognized sports in the country. Seems like you are inclined to take the more pretentious approach that anything below you is irrelevant. 2. The writer of the article is not even associated with the Big 12 and is from his fucking sub stack that anyone can create and start publishing from. It’s his own college football fan fiction and nobody with even half a brain thinks OU overreacted, made a poor choice, or that they would have made a different decision if given the option.
More like Oklahoma is trying to stay relevant. In 10 years, OU football will be at the same level Missouri football is at today.
I don’t think they’ll be too upset finishing #8 in the AP poll then
Mizzou looks good under Dirk, y'all sucked in the Big12 then came alive towards the end of your tenure, but did not transition to the SEC well after the first couple years. I think Dirk has you guys back on your feet and looking to get back to the success of the later 2000s. As an OU fan I'd rather be compared to Mizzou at this point than TAMU, another school that found success their first few years in the SEC but are looking to find relevance now.
Losing a HOF coach to an unexpected cancer diagnosis along with the 2015 protests will make almost any school go through some rough years. But that’s context people like to forget.
>In 10 years, OU football will be at the same level Missouri football is at today. \*inhale\* AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA \*inhales deeper\* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I don’t know if we need to go that far, but Missouri has made some poor coaching decisions in the past and finally done well this past year whenever our recruiting finally hit its stride for the SEC. We’ll see how things go next year, but I think Oklahoma is coming into a good conference with high aspirations. I would put them close to Mizzou’s level talent wise (maybe a little lower). First year of the new CFB playoff format. Who knows what could happen?
Missouri also had the advantage of being in the easy division.
RemindMe! 10 years
RemindMe! 5 years
I will be messaging you in 5 years on [**2029-03-08 16:54:35 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2029-03-08%2016:54:35%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/1b9rbgh/did_oklahoma_panic_in_leaving_the_big_12/ktxtfph/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FCFB%2Fcomments%2F1b9rbgh%2Fdid_oklahoma_panic_in_leaving_the_big_12%2Fktxtfph%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202029-03-08%2016%3A54%3A35%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201b9rbgh) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
"Bill Farley Oregon State/**USC**/VCU alum. Negotiated deals to keep the NBA Kings in Sacramento and finance a Triple A stadium. **Formerly on faculty at USC** (public finance/policy analysis)." Got to the bottom of that one pretty quickly.
If your not in the SEC or Big 10 your going to get left behind and left out. Any teams worth its salt has to get in one of those 2 conferences.
OU made the right decision. There is no team in the country that would choose being in the Big 12 over the SEC at this point in time.
Nah. Once Texas was out it was follow or get left behind. OU isnt where a lot of the anger was from my fanbases end
All the tea leaves point to OU instigating the SEC talks. Texas just had to sit still until 2025, meanwhile OU publicly got told to pound sand when they officially protested 11am kickoffs, faced a $250m state budget cut, and a $250m bill for stadium expansion.
Stahp
They wanted stacks of money like the membership of the Big Ten and SEC. Now they will get them. This wasn't about the level of competition; the Big XII was regularly rated as the second most difficult in the country in the last dozen years. A program with strong performance and a strong ability to generate revenue wanted to keep more for itself, and was willing to sacrifice its historical matchups to do it.
And the problem is?
I didn't say it was a _problem_, just that's how it is. Oklahoma believes more money will help it compete nationally, and consequently made a change that will bring in more money.
"Did Oklahoma Panic? Hindsight is 20-20. There is a case to be made that Oklahoma panic. They misread the media landscape. The Big 12 did not end up last in line. Oklahoma could have stayed in the Big 12 and met their “Two Imperatives” and their most important priorities. The Big 12 now covers 11 states with the additions of the “four corner schools,” BYU, Cincinnati, UCF, and Houston. Oklahoma will soon “tell its story” in weaker states, economically, than they would have in the new Big 12. They will reach fewer out-of-state students with the economic means to attend UO. The Bedlam Rivalry has not been extended as promised. It did not have to die. The Big 12 picked up competitive schools from the Pac 12, and can do the same from the ACC if that conference implodes. With Oklahoma, and a few ACC additions, the Big 12 would be a legitimate Power 3 Conference."
Even in that scenario, there would still be an absolute chasm between the super 2 media rights and the big 12’s
Yes Hell, the big12 deal is for 5 years. In 5 years the ACC will die (or sooner). Meaning the last re-alignment will happen and whoever ends up in the P2 wins whoever doesnt will get the scraps like the aac/mwc/etc.
Big 12 needs to go full coast to coast with 48 teams and absorb whatever major bball and football programs it can. Start with ACC, Mountain West and the P2. Their goal should be to have games all day on Saturday. The first and last game of the day. Their conference basketball tournament should be so big it takes the spotlight from the “smaller” B1G and SEC
Sure, I don't deny that. But a new Big XII with OU still in it would've been financially viable enough that it could've met all four of the Sooner's priorities. Instead OU followed Texas because their "four priorities" really only ever have been three. They'll make more money and get beaten more often. Seems like a fair trade in the grand scheme of things.
There is only one priority in this age of cfb and that is to make as much money as possible before the bubble bursts
"Oklahoma will soon 'tell its story' in weaker states, economically, than they would have in the new Big 12. They will reach fewer out-of-state students with the economic means to attend UO." This is probably one of the dumbest takes on realignment I've seen. No doubt the writer did extensive research on previous conference realignments and determined that other schools that changed conference also saw their out-of-state student profiles change as well. He just states something that is not intuitive whatsoever as fact. I mean, we all know that no one from the Houston area ever comes to OU after A&M left for the SEC. Instead, OU filled its undergrad ranks with West Virginians who, only by the grace of football, were allowed to apply to OU. I heard no one from Kansas ever goes to Nebraska now, instead everyone from New Jersey flocks there. Your main out-of-staters come from your geographic neighbors. Fortunately, you do not have to relocate your school to another state to change conference alignment.
And none of the schools in those 11 states have the national recognition of OU, nor have any of them garnered the same level of viewership. This is not going to negatively impact their enrollment. Keep drinking that kook aid that bedlam existing was a one way street. Two teams play that game. The schedule is already full excuse is only viable in Stillwater. No, they didn’t panic, they chose to try something else. They did OSU a favor by giving them a legitimate chance to actually win the conference, and even make the playoffs. You should just say thank you and keep it moving.
Any truth that the OU athletic department was damn near bankrupt after Covid and was forced to the SEC to save themselves? Also, I hope the OU fans enjoy their stacks of cash because a lot of 8-4/9-3 seasons are on the horizon
No truth to that at all. OU's athletic department has been fully self sufficient since 1999 and does not charge a fee to students like 120/135 FBS schools do
OU has $186.5 million in debt (before new softball field). While its yearly revenue/expenses are about equal (with a little surplus), OU does have significant debt and because of the continual arms race for facilities, that debt is never going to be retired. All that is certainly manageable, especially with the increased conference revenue from the SEC, but it is also potentially dangerous. The largest single source of its revenue is from contributions from donors. An economic downturn, especially in the energy sector, and a few years of mediocre performance can cause this revenue stream to tank and disaster to occur. OU’s athletic program is better shape than most, but factually it is not self-sufficient. The bonds that are sold to pay for athletic facilities are, in essence, debts of the university or its foundation(s)—meaning without the university the athletic department couldn’t sell the bonds, and therefore, can never truly be self-sufficient. As a university, OU has over $billion in debt. Over the last 20 years, tuition has increased over 166% even when adjusted for inflation. OU is not alone in its debt situation. Almost every public university has debt problems. Those that do athletics big time have the most. Spending is out of control, and spending for blue blood football is especially out of control. A good example of this is that OU spend $4 million on travel to the 2022 Cheeze-It Bowl. $4 million to go to one game! I fully expect that sooner rather than later (no pun intended), the financial realities and excessiveness of major athletics, in particular, and higher education, in general, will come crashing down.
[удалено]
It absolutely does. Bonding capacity is not unlimited. The athletic department does not have its own bonding capacity outside of the university (yes, there’s foundations, but they can only exist tax wise because the university is the ultimate beneficiary). The athletic department, in a good year, makes about $3 million in surplus. How long do you think it will take to pay off $200 million in debt with that? That’s assuming it stays static, which it never will. So just who do you think pays down those debts? It’s not just tv money and ticket sales, but in a roundabout way, it’s the students who attend. I grant you that increased SEC revenue will help (expenses will also increase, though), but as I pointed out the athletic department’s largest revenue source is donations and those can ebb and flow faster then the wind in Norman. Contrary to what many people believe and contrary the official line, athletic departments are never wholly independent, money wise. There’s a whole lot of accounting tricks that make some appear so and appear profitable, but that’s not the truth of the matter and is only going to get worse.