quote:

---

quidam65

According to the SEC Bylaws a 3/4 vote is required. TAMU can most likely get enough NO votes to keep t.u. out but getting that many against OU is not so certain.

---

From this link in 2010 comes this paragraph :

Boren said the SEC extended offers only to Oklahoma and Texas A&M, both of which opted to stay in a slimmed-down Big 12 after Colorado left for the Pac-10 and Nebraska left for the Big Ten. Because the SEC offer didn't include two of the Sooners' key rivals, Oklahoma State and Texas, Boren said he didn't consider it a good option.

Four key issues come to mind

#1 The 12 SEC schools had a unanimous vote to accept OU and A&M in 2010
#2 At that time OU thought they were headed to the PAC and had a backup
#3 Later A&M joined the SEC and OU + OSU were REJECTED by the PAC
#4 OU watched MU (an inferior sports school) take their spot in the SEC because they would not leave OSU

With all that has gone on since do you think OU will say no the second time around?

quote:

---

leftcoastaggie

How quick would Deloss' depends fill up if during the Cotton Bowl the camera panned to the owner's box only to show Castiglione and Slive yucking it up?

Not saying it's going to happen, but would be pretty funny.

---

Funny or not, Slive and Loftin yucking it up in a previous Cotton Bowl lead to a friendship that moved A&M to the SEC. They say that history repeats.

There are exactly 9 people in the whole state of Virginia that follow UVA athletics. Nobody here cares; even the UVA grads follow another school's sports teams

Well said tango

Also, why in the hell would we want OU? We steal their recruits based off of being in the SEC and dominating. If we take them, we lose that recruiting advantage which is HUGE. If they can beat us in recruiting in the big 12" they can beat us in the sec

quote:

---

Ag4coal

Also, why in the hell would we want OU?

---

There are 8 - 10 real brands in all of college football and OU is one of them. Brands get you national eyeballs instead of just local or regional ones.



OU in sports :
football = 7 national championships (recognized) and 9 more not recognized
M basketball = 2 Runner Ups, 4 Final Fours, 8 Elite Eights
W basketball = 3 Final Fours, 6 Sweet Sixteens
baseball = 2 CWS, 10 CWS appearances
softball = WCWS title in 2000
gymnastics = 8 NCAA titles

That is a lot of year round content for "project X"

The fact they had an invite in 2010 when A&M did means they have already been vetted by the SEC.

Boren claiming the SEC offered OU a spot doesn't make it so. When A&M made the move in 2011, Missouri was acceptable because they could play in the East without it being too awful of a geographic strecth--that wasn't possible for OU. Boren's credibility in his public statements is pretty dang low, so I'm not buying his story.

Absolutely correct. Just one example - Boren now claims that OU DECIDED NOT TO GO TO THE PAC 12!

There is NO mention of the PAC 12 REJECTING ou and osu now in soonerland. None. Boren has spoken - the PAC 12 rejection never happened.



[This message has been edited by NormanAg (edited 12/17/2012 7:53p).]

Kentucky- exactly. Why would we want to recruit against that again? Bringing in a university who is known to take recruits from us isn't a very wise move

Ag4coal,

Look at all the SEC schools that recruit against each other. Is the conference better or worse for it? How many different SEC schools have BCS MNC's?

Tennessee = 1
Auburn = 1
LSU = 2
Florida = 2
Alabama = 2 or 3

Competition raises the overall product. Embrace it and do not fear it.

KM once again telling Ags that we just don't understand - this time about recruiting in Texas. LMAO.

NormanAg,

here is the link to the OK media article

timeline :

Sept. 19: OU regents give President David Boren authority to explore moving the Sooners to another conference.

Sept. 20: Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott says the conference will not be adding any more teams.



Based on previous movements by other schools in realignment "authority to explore" is the precursor to "we are gone" and was very quick with Nebraska. Boren can spin it any way but it seemed pretty clear the PAC wanted OU and tu but not the lesser children. Message seemed pretty clear that OU was okay for the SEC and PAC but not OSU. Scott saying they would not expand after already saying they would add (6) B12 schools indicates a pecking order if it remained unspoken.

quote:

---

NormanAg

KM once again telling Ags that we just don't understand - this time about recruiting in Texas. LMAO.

---

No, you do not understand. I was discussing recruiting of the SEC as a whole. You viewed it as a single school in the SEC (A&M) and I viewed it as the conference as a whole (14 schools) on how the entire group views it. The more markets they enter, the more exposure they get as a group.

http://blog.newsok.com/ou/2011/09/20/ou-speaks-boren-says-school-not-surprised-by-pac-12/

quote:

---

CAMPUS CORNER ¡ª OU just released a statement about the Pac-12¡äs decision.

Here it is, from president David Boren ¡­

¡°We were not surprised by the Pac 12¡äs decision to not expand at this time. Even though we had decided not to apply for membership this year...

---

ou never applied, Mac never offered. Get it now, KM?

PAC 12 decided not to expand, but ou never applied, so there was no rejection!

YOU posted that the PAC 12 rejected ou on this very thread.

Everyone knows that the PAC 12 rejeced ou.

I was responding to a post that Boren's statements can't be trusted - including the one that the SEC invited ou.

This proves my point.






[This message has been edited by NormanAg (edited 12/17/2012 8:37p).]

KM - our SEC brethren constantly tell us that SC won't abide Clemson in the SEC and FL won't abide Fl State in the SEC.

I have never once doubted that that is true. But why would that be? Recruiting, maybe?

When it comes to recruiting stud Texas FB players, ou might as well be located in TX. The Ags know that, apparently you don't.

If SC wants to block Clemson in the SEC and FL wants to block Fl State in the SEC, then we can sure as hell want to block ou in the SEC!

quote:

---

There are exactly 9 people in the whole state of Virginia that follow UVA athletics. Nobody here cares; even the UVA grads follow another school's sports teams

---

UVA pulled in $81.3 mil in revenue into their AD during the 2011-2012 year which was 3rd in the ACC (and only $.1 mil behind FSU), and even more than aTm ($79 mil). VT only pulled in $64.8 mil. UVA actually has enough revenue going into their AD to be able to spend the type of money that would be needed to compete in the SEC.

Here is a link to an article that shows the schools revenue (you have to scroll down the page to see the chart of schools): http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/12/alabama_and_auburn_stay_among.html

[This message has been edited by Bamatab (edited 12/17/2012 8:42p).]

any opportunity to move Bama and Auburn from the SEC west and add Mizzou and VAndy would make the SEC east the single toughest CONFERENCE...let alone division and simply wont happen

SEC should find a way to get mizzou into B1G then add Va Tech.

quote:

---

With all that has gone on since do you think OU will say no the second time around?

---

The question originally posed by someone else was whether A&M had enough pull to keep OU out of the SEC, based on the (wrong) belief that a unanimous vote was needed to admit a new member.

The 3/4 vote rule would most certainly keep t.u. out (not that they want in), as A&M would team with the eastern division bloc (in exchange for A&M's vote to keep out Florida State, Clemson, and Georgia Tech), plus Arkansas and Mizzou have prior (bad) history with t.u.

OU is a different matter. Arkansas left the SWC five years before the SWC disbanded, so it has no conference history with OU. And the eastern division bloc works to keep out schools in the same state as existing members, not those in different states.

If OU wants in to the SEC, by itself (not tied with t.u. or Okie Lite), I think that they would get in, though A&M probably votes against admission.

Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as gods. Cats have never forgotten this. -- Anonymous

Would not mind seeing unc and Kentucky go at it every year

quote:

---

NormanAg

KM - our SEC brethren constantly tell us that SC won't abide Clemson in the SEC and FL won't abide Fl State in the SEC.

I have never once doubted that that is true. But why would that be? Recruiting, maybe?

---

No, it is not recruiting.

Modern realignment is about carriage rates!

If Florida is in the SEC the FL carriage rates are already at their highest point. Adding a second school in the same state just cannibalizes the same market. Missouri is no recruiting hotbed yet the SEC added them. Could it be that MU not in the SEC meant carriage rates of 10 - 15 cents and MU in the SEC meant carriage rates of 75 - 95 cents?

Of the schools moved in realignment only Nebraska was a brand and you cant tell me the PAC (with all of CA) had to add CO and UT for recruiting! Please say you are trolling over actually thinking this is all about recruiting.

quote:

---

... you cant tell me the PAC (with all of CA) had to add CO and UT for recruiting!

---

Missed my point entirely. No, I wasn't telling you that. What the hell do CO and UT have to do with recruiting?

And what "carriage rates" does ou bring to the table? National brand? Not for long.

They are slipping badly and will continue to go downhill. Even the local media (print, radio, TV) are starting to talk about it.

quote:

---

NormanAg

quote:
... you cant tell me the PAC (with all of CA) had to add CO and UT (UT as in Utah not Tennessee) for recruiting!


Missed my point entirely. No, I wasn't telling you that. What the hell do CO and UT have to do with recruiting?

---

You implied FSU was not getting an SEC invite because the Gators were afraid of recruiting. I countered with recruiting had nothing to do with it and it was all about carriage rates. You made your point, I just offered a counterpoint that was more correct.

quote:

---

And what "carriage rates" does ou bring to the table? National brand? Not for long.

They are slipping badly and will continue to go downhill. Even the local media (print, radio, TV) are starting to talk about it.

---

Notre Dame was down for 25 years and they are still a top media property. That is the beauty of real brands and why there are so few of them. Sooners could be down for a decade or 2 before it really hurt their national perception. The Irish are the poster child for this. Michigan has what 1 NC since WWII and they are still one of the most powerful brands in college football. That game in JerryWorld to start the season was about the drawing power of both schools and not just Alabama.

quote:

---

And what "carriage rates" does ou bring to the table?

---

While most seem to agree that aTm can deliver the Houston market, there are some that question whether or not aTm can fully deliver the DFW market. The goal in expanding into new markets is to get the upcoming SEC Network onto the basic cable packages in those markets, and not having to be regulated into the sports package.

We know that OU can bring the Oklahoma City market. The questions are does aTm deliver basic coverage in the DFW market, and if not, would the combo of OU & aTm deliver it?

Now with all of that said, as I posted earlier, until someone proves to me they could get their tv rights back from the Big 12 GORs, I wouldn't count on any Big 12 team leaving for the next 13 years.

[This message has been edited by Bamatab (edited 12/17/2012 9:36p).]

quote:

---

Bamatab

We know that OU can bring the Oklahoma City market. The questions are does aTm deliver basic coverage in the DFW market, and if not, would the combo of OU & aTm deliver it?

---

Pretty much spot on

It is part of the logic of Nebraska and Kansas in the B1G to pull not only their home states but to piggyback into say the Denver market to get better carriage there by offering complimentary teams for more year round demand. Nebraska football in the fall and Kansas basketball in the winter / early spring.

ps, adding the combination of A&M + OU + UAF could put a serious dent in DFW.


[This message has been edited by Kentucky Mustangs (edited 12/17/2012 9:47p).]

I think most here agree that it is the ACC that is most at risk ... that is until the rumour of Kansas to the B1G was intoduced as a possibility in the original post.

Where are you hearing this rumour, KM? Is there any truth to it?

My thoughts had been that the B1G and SEC were eyeing ACC teams ... and the Big XII option was to form a Big XII East with FlState, Clemson, NCState, perhaps GaTech, VaTech (maybe others) ... all being joined with West Virginia to create two divisions in the Big XII?

Mainly I am wanting to know the source of your post on Kansas to the B1G? Need some clarity here.
Great thread!

I'm sorry (edit here), it was a few posts in before KM raised the possibility of Kansas to the B1G.

[This message has been edited by ccatag (edited 12/17/2012 9:54p).]

VT and UNC make the most sense to me, provided Virginia goes to the Big 10.

I cannot imagine the meltdown in Austin if Oklahoma left the Big 12 for the SEC; personally do not see it happening. If there is any hint of that development, I think a 4 team deal to the PAC 12 with texas, Tech, oklahoma, and okstate happens first. Absolutely do not want oklahoma in SEC.

Bamatab- your post on revenue at UVA in no way refutes what tango said about fanbase.

quote:

---

ccatag

Where are you hearing this rumour, KM? Is there any truth to it?

---

I do not generally like rumors but this specific one was similar to a conversation I had with some old farts in the summer of 2008 or 2009 before the Blair report came out. Indiana was down and Michigan State is still just a near brand. Ohio State is like Florida in that they have teams going deep in the tourney but they are still football schools. Elite brands in basketball are more rare than brands in football and I got the impression having a second brand to compliment Indiana was a desired point among these guys.

Not saying these specific folks had the power to affect policy but they were old guys and had more in common with the way old guys actually making these decisions may think. The discussion then centered on 6 teams to the PAC (tu, TT, OU, OSU, KU, and CU) and look at how close that was to what actually came to pass a few years later in 2010. The basic point was if we could figure this out then the folks in charge with budgets and staff could probably figure it out as well. Not exactly rocket science.

Basically if Larry Scott figured out what these guys did how long would it take for someone to figure out KU to the B1G?

In simple terms you just had to figure out the issues and solve them.

#1 Separating Kansas from Kansas State
#2 How to sell Kansas on trading a valuable Tier 3 deal for BTN value

I think when the PAC 6 deal and the A&M to the SEC deal happened the KU folks figured they were not as bankable in a football world and maybe trading that Tier 3 for the safety of the B1G was not out of the realm.

It makes sense if you think about it because it locks the 4 biggest brands into just 2 conferences, both of which are the most stable in the country. A balance of power between the 2 conferences and the 2 networks

B1G with Indiana and Kansas as FOX
SEC with Kentucky and North Carolina as ESPN

It also gives you crossovers with good story lines. UK and IU have a historic rivalry already and UNC and KU have been intertwined for generations in coaching trees. The more interesting question is how the GoR works in the B12? KU has little Tier 1 or Tier 2 football value. They have a very valuable Tier 3 basketball value. If the GoR is only top Tier it raises the question if the KU folks can pass their Tier 3 straight to the BTN and never raise a GoR issue.

In essence did tu's protection of the LHN allow KU a loophole to escape with. That would be funny indeed!

Just to be clear this is only speculation and I still think a PAC 16 with tu, TT, OU, OSU, and KU (pick 4) is the more probable outcome. I still think SEC slots #15 and $16 are for UNC and UVA and a combination of say OU and UNC is down the list of possible outcomes. All this only happens if MD wins their suit and the ACC becomes vulnerable.

quote:

---

Bamatab- your post on revenue at UVA in no way refutes what tango said about fanbase.

---

Someone obviously cares about UVA's athletics, or their sports teams would wouldn't be pulling in that kind of revenue. Now their football following might not be as big as most SEC teams, but stick them in the SEC and I'd bet interest would grow. And if they were ever able to have any kind of success, interest would really grow.

Thanks KM. Talk and gossip is all it is (as far as we know). That's ok as long as we know where it is coming from.
Everybody seems to know something may happen, and maybe very soon. Because it interests us so much, we like to talk about it and discuss. Nothing wrong with that.

I'd like to think that the next members of the SEC will be UNC and either VaTech or Virginia. I can understand the acedemic argument of joining the Big 10, but as you pointed out (in an earlier thread) the SEC is much more appealing when you consider womens and other sports (spring sports) and their relation to UNC and the ACC candidates athletic programs. Plus, there is a real focus within the SEC on improving thier acedemics and how their acedemics are perceived. Another important aspect is growth and migration which favors the SEC. If and when it breaks, I hope we get our targets.

I'm with the other Aggies (most all of them) regarding OU. Hell no! I'd be happy if they someday reach the status of Minnisota - a once relavant program but decades and decades ago. I look forward to recruiting into their state and cherry picking their very best to come to Texas A&M (and the SEC - the best conference in the country) to win National Championships. The Oklahoma Territories should be part of the Aggie SEC recruiting grounds


[This message has been edited by ccatag (edited 12/18/2012 1:00a).]

quote:

---

i tend to think it will be NCSt. and virginia tech.

---

quote:

---

Someone obviously cares about UVA's athletics, or their sports teams would wouldn't be pulling in that kind of revenue.

---

False. UVA charges an athletics fee on all students so their numbers are inflated. You obviously never attended a UVA home game. Only time they get 45,000+ is when VT comes to town and 3/4 of the stadium wears maroon. When the SEC expands UNC and VT are the obvious choices. Adding Mizzou was the big mistake.

Here is a link of the Big XII Grant of Rights
Maybe some of the lawyerly types can explain what it all means for OU and KU?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/116756116/Grant-of-Rights-pdf

I pick Oregon and ND

quote:

---

Someone obviously cares about UVA's athletics, or their sports teams would wouldn't be pulling in that kind of revenue. Now their football following might not be as big as most SEC teams, but stick them in the SEC and I'd bet interest would grow. And if they were ever able to have any kind of success, interest would really grow.

---

The only sport anyone in this state equates with UVA is lacrosse, which the SEC doesn't even offer.

As NorthernVirginia said, UVA counts their student fees in their revenues. The only games in any sport (besides lacrosse) they ever sell out are against VT. The only lacrosse games they sell out are against Hopkins, etc. UVA is in the middle of nowhere with no fans no recruiting area. I've lived in Virginia for around 3 years and I've never seen a UVA sporting even on TV that wasn't against VT or UNC.