Fair enough 2011. I'm not convinced the SEC will expand to 16 teams unless the financial model changes. If it does, the conference will look for schools that bring eyeballs rather than network subscribers. Teams like OU would be strongly considered I think but timing is everything.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Now, I've laid out reasons why I think OU could work of the SEC were to expand

---

Not completely. You have pointed out that OU brings eyeballs but that's only relevant for tier 1 value. The tier 1 contracts don't expire until 2023-2024 I believe. Unless adding OU would increase the avg. subscriber rate for the SECN, then this discussion is really a moot point for the next 7-8 yrs isn't it?

---

I've said I'm not predicting OU to the SEC anytime soon as often as the Bammer guy has said "classy", so yeah, maybe. (I kid )

But I also pointed out how successful and big OU is into some sports that the SEC and its Network cover quite a bit.

So maybe it would. I don't know what the average subscriber rate is, but I think they're at least as well positioned as much of the SEC membership to have interested viewers.

Again, as several have pointed out, the SEC isn't exactly compromised of 14 schools from their own distinct heavily populated area.

It's a conference built on rabid local fan bases that show up on campus and spend and donate money. OU has that.

It's a conference built on national interest to bring folks to the TV. OU has that.

---

I'll pull up the post later but there is substantial Nielsen data that shows that OU does not have a national brand/interest. In fact, the data actually show that OU is a net negative on ratings, hence their constant placement in 11:00 a.m. time slots. I'll find it later.

The long and short of it is that even though OU is good at sports, at the end of the day, they're a small market team and you just can't ignore the realities of demographics.

Well said.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The long and short of it is that even though OU is good at sports, at the end of the day, they're a small market team and you just can't ignore the realities of demographics.

---

---

November 28, 7pm slot

Notre Dame-Stanford: 7.3 million viewers

Oklahoma-Oklahoma State: 4.8 million viewers

Florida State-Florida: 4.3 million viewers
Ole Miss-Mississippi State: 930 thousand viewers



November 21, 7 pm slot

Baylor-Oklahoma State: 4.3 million viewers (That must be annoying )

Oklahoma-TCU: 3.9 million viewers

Mississippi State-Arkansas: 2.1 million viewers
Boston College-Notre Dame: 2.0 million viewers
Tennessee-Missouri: 1.4 million viewers
Georgia Southern-Georgia: 900 thousand viewers



November 14: 7 pm slot. (OU game had highest ratings of all games played that day.)

Oklahoma-Baylor: 5.9 million viewers

Arkansas-LSU: 3.6 million viewers
Oregon-Stanford: 2.8 million viewers
....
West Carolina-Texas A&M: 300 viewers


Small market?

quote:

---

Well said.

---

Except its wholly written from the standpoint of what hurts Oklahoma the most, not from the standpoint of what is best for the SEC.

So, no, this not being the rivalries board, it seems pretty poorly written.

The concluding question is correct, I'll say that. If it makes little sense for the SEC to add Oklahoma, the SEC will not add Oklahoma.

quote:

---

The concluding question is correct, I'll say that. If it makes little sense for the SEC to add Oklahoma, the SEC will not add Oklahoma.

---

Thanks, I think.

Perhaps you might notice the similarity of my posts on the politics board and here. It isn't the responsibiliy of the government to fix people's poor choices.

Nor is it the responsibility of an athletic conference to correct poor choices made by non-members. SEC offered a hand-up to OU before. They declined.

There will be no need for a hand-out at this late date.

TV ratings for Tennessee's games


vs Alabama (2:30 pm): 6.95 million viewers

vs Georgia (2:30 pm): 4.9 million viewers
vs Florida (2:30 pm): 4.65 million viewers

vs Oklahoma (5 pm): 4.2 million viewers


At 3 million viewers or less:

vs. Missouri, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Vanderbilt



OU is small market?

quote:

---

Thanks, I think.

Perhaps you might notice the similarity of my posts on the politics board and here. It isn't the responsibiliy of the government to fix people's poor choices.

Nor is it the responsibility of an athletic conference to correct poor choices made by non-members. SEC offered a hand-up to OU before. They declined.

There will be no need for a hand-out at this late date.

---

I read the politics board once in a blue moon, so I'll have to clarify...

Are you saying it is your position that even if OU would make the SEC financially stronger and/or make it a better, higher achieving conference, that the SEC should not add OU because its not the SEC's responsibility to help OU?

I am saying that actions have consequences. OU staying in the Big XII has actually revealed how small of player they really are. Same with the horns. If they can't transcend a crappy conference and dominate it unquestionably, perhaps the hype is just that? Hype?

Look I bear no real animus towards OU. They were quite decent to A&M when we left for the SEC. Kind of feel sorry for their fans, in fact.

But, Stoops, Castiglione and Boren wanted everything about the Big XII that exists today. The window has closed (except maybe out West in the PAC) for them to jump on another train.

If there were any good reasons for OU to join the SEC, alone, I'll reassess. Right now and until the GOR is sunsetted, there is little reason to entertain the idea.

quote:

---

I am saying that actions have consequences.

---

So, yes? To "prove" a point you'd consider denying a team even if they were of benefit to the conference and yourself?

quote:

---

OU staying in the Big XII has actually revealed how small of player they really are. Same with the horns. If they can't transcend a crappy conference and dominate it unquestionably, perhaps the hype is just that? Hype?

---

Lots of assumptions and confirmation bias built into this statement, but FWIW, Oklahoma did just win the conference with just 1 loss and 1 win by less than 14 points.

I will leave you all with this thought as it pertains to markets vs. stature: for the last seven seasons the road to the national title has come through the state of Alabama, whether won by the Tide or Tigers or by beating one of them. Not boasting here, it is just a very strange fact. That being said, does anyone really look at us as a great tv market within our own borders? Does OU have a similar national interest? I, for one, believe that they do. As I have said before, this conference isn't quite complete yet. I would not be at all surprised if OU were a major target for us in a few years, but they need to find a way to unshackle themseves from OSU, just in case.

quote:

---

So, yes? To "prove" a point you'd consider denying a team even if they were of benefit to the conference and yourself?

---

So by the same reasoning do you allow tu to join the SEC?

I think the fact that OU turned the SEC down does effect any decision moving forward. I don't know how the conversation went but the tone is important. If it were only about the money then tu should be considered first.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I am saying that actions have consequences.

---

So, yes? To "prove" a point you'd consider denying a team even if they were of benefit to the conference and yourself?

quote:

---

OU staying in the Big XII has actually revealed how small of player they really are. Same with the horns. If they can't transcend a crappy conference and dominate it unquestionably, perhaps the hype is just that? Hype?

---

Lots of assumptions and confirmation bias built into this statement, but FWIW, Oklahoma did just win the conference with just 1 loss and 1 win by less than 14 points.

---

How ignorant are you pretending to be here? Clemson made windshield bug juice out of OU for two years running. Sooners lost to an abysmal Strong coached sip team. How the hell did that happen?

Can you possibly consider that OU is no longer accustomed to good to great competition? And that's the way Stoops wanted it?

Steel sharpens steel. Butter is just a tasty grease.

OU doesn't want to be in the SEC. They are right where they spent years getting to be. So, the money isn't want they wished for. So the TV deals and time/channel aren't what they thought. They wanted to be in the Big XII.

What is so damn god-awful about them getting what they wanted??

quote:

---

quote:

---

So, yes? To "prove" a point you'd consider denying a team even if they were of benefit to the conference and yourself?

---

So by the same reasoning do you allow tu to join the SEC?

I think the fact that OU turned the SEC down does effect any decision moving forward. I don't know how the conversation went but the tone is important. If it were only about the money then tu should be considered first.

---

I don't define "benefit" solely as money, and I tried to word it to be more than money earlier. But to be clear, its not soley about $$$.

I don't know what the "tone" was, I don't know what the intra-Oklahoma politics looked like, but I'm not one to cut my nose off to spite my face.

I'm absolutely not going to get into a discussion on this board about the Longhorns, so sorry. Again, I look at what is best for the SEC and I wouldn't make a decision like this to make a point or simply to punish someone else. I'll say figuring out how to financially bring the Longhorns into the mix considering what they have going with the Longhorn Network would be difficult, and I'll leave it at that.

quote:

---

I'm absolutely not going to get into a discussion on this board about the Longhorns, so sorry. Again, I look at what is best for the SEC....

---

Okay then. Status quo. That's the best.

Have a nice evening.

quote:

---

How ignorant are you pretending to be here? Clemson made windshield bug juice out of OU for two years running. Sooners lost to an abysmal Strong coached sip team. How the hell did that happen?

Can you possibly consider that OU is no longer accustomed to good to great competition? And that's the way Stoops wanted it?

Steel sharpens steel. Butter is just a tasty grease.

OU doesn't want to be in the SEC. They are right where they spent years getting to be. So, the money isn't want they wished for. So the TV deals and time/channel aren't what they thought. They wanted to be in the Big XII.

What is so damn god-awful about them getting what they wanted??

---

If OU is afraid of competition, then there is no need to get into this hissy fit about the possibility of inviting them because there would be 0% chance they accept, right?

Look, OU told the Pac-12 they would move to the Pac-12, so I don't think it was about avoiding competition before, either. I don't think they're afraid to play anyone, anywhere. They wouldn't have been scheduling the way they did, they wouldn't want to move to the Pac-12 and leave the Big 12 North behind, they wouldn't schedule the way they do now.

But I don't really care. I never said there was anything about awful about them getting "what they wanted", but I just don't care.

This is about what is best for the SEC, not making a point, not punishing people. None of that.

We have a fundamentally different way of looking at things, I suppose, and we'll just have to agree to disagree.

What is best for the conference is not expanding further. And it won't.

quote:

---

If OU is afraid of competition, then there is no need to get into this hissy fit about the possibility of inviting them because there would be 0% chance they accept, right?

Look, OU told the Pac-12 they would move to the Pac-12, so I don't think it was about avoiding competition before, either. I don't think they're afraid to play anyone, anywhere. They wouldn't have been scheduling the way they did, they wouldn't want to move to the Pac-12 and leave the Big 12 North behind, they wouldn't schedule the way they do now.

---

LOL! You are a hoot.

Consider this for just a second. Big XII has a round robin schedule with 10 teams. Math is not on their side. Nine conference games means fewer wins against programs with winning records. Very bad for SOS. Very bad for the CFP selection committee's respect.

OU has to have some OOC games to build their resume for the committee because their conference schedule is sooooooo bad. They played that card and were rick-rolled by Clemson...again.

Now, if OU manages to beat the piss out of Ohio State, I'll revisit that asessment.

So you have an AgTag but you really just like sucking sooner cock. Good for you, sweetheart.

OU would've jumped to the Pac 12 alone or with OSU back in 2011 if Larry Scott had allowed it.

They found out how much they were worth without Texas back then.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/sports/ncaafootball/oklahoma-may-agree-to-remain-in-big-12.html?_r=0

quote:

---

So you have an AgTag but you really just like sucking sooner cock. Good for you, sweetheart.

---

Did I unwittingly steal a girl from you that you never had the balls to ask for a date?

Just ask her next time. The "no thanks" should make moving on a little quicker.

This article:

quote:

---

At which point does OU get to reap their just desserts for past choices?

They chose to be led around by the nose by Dodds.

They chose not to entertain the SEC in 2010.

They also chose not to entertain the PAC's offer (even when it included OSU) if the horns didn't leave as well.

They chose to preserve the RRR game at all costs, even ditching Nebraska at the formation of the Big XII.

They chose to ditch the CCG because they were afraid they might lose.

They chose to be in a weaker conference so they would have "an easier path" to a championship under the BCS.

They chose to have Co-champions, round robin play in a conference with ten teams.

They chose to have Soonervision with Fox for a pittance. (That's actually important because their Tier III rights are worth what someone will pay for them and it ain't a lot.)

It isn't the SEC's responsibility to bail them out of a bad situation of their own design. If adding them makes little sense, financially or otherwise, to the SEC, it will not happen.

---

Finally...someone with clear and concise closure to this irrelevant issue right now! Thanks aggiehawg.

quote:

---

TV ratings for Tennessee's games


vs Alabama (2:30 pm): 6.95 million viewers

vs Georgia (2:30 pm): 4.9 million viewers
vs Florida (2:30 pm): 4.65 million viewers

vs Oklahoma (5 pm): 4.2 million viewers


At 3 million viewers or less:

vs. Missouri, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Vanderbilt



OU is small market?

---

What was OU's ranking versus Missouri, Kentucky, Usc, and Vandy?

I want the BDF to remain in its current form for the next 100 years.

No, scratch that

I want them to add some AAC teams: UH, Cincy, Memphis, UConn, and remain THAT way for the next 100 years. That's the perfect scenario from my perspective.

quote:

---

What is best for the conference is not expanding further. And it won't.

---

Can't see A&M, LSU, Ark or Mizzou ever voting for ou or tu being admitted to the SEC.

10/14 = 71%, less than the required 75%.

Dp

quote:

---

What was OU's ranking versus Missouri, Kentucky, Usc, and Vandy?

---

OU was 19th when they played Tennessee while the other teams were not ranked.

If your preparing to say that if Oklahoma was no better, or the likes of Vanderbilt and Kentucky were as good as OU, the ratings would be more similar. Yes, I do not doubt the gap would almost surely be less.


Point 1: What are the odds of that?

That Oklahoma has more national titles, and that Bob Stoops has as many BCS bowl wins as combined conference championships South Carolina, Vanderbilt, and Kentucky speaks to that question, I believe.

That Oklahoma beat Tennessee the past two years, while Tennessee went a combined 7-1 against those 4 other teams speaks to that question, I believe.

You think an Oklahoma in the SEC would look more like those 4 teams than it would a Florida or Georgia?



Point 2: Wouldn't that argument support that ratings are driven by the quality of team, the quality of program, while weakening the argument that its about state population or some other similar standard?

Is that what you're intending to say? Doubtful, but if so, see Point 1.

I'm saying that the number in front of a team has a lot to do with TV ratings. Tennessee playing a #10 ranked USC will outdraw a Tennessee playing a #19 ranked OU. So tv ratings are a fluid metric. Markets are not and that's why they drive expansion. OU is less valuable than a Rutgers. That's the reality of 2016 and Billy Sims' heisman won't change that

quote:

---

I'm saying that the number in front of a team has a lot to do with TV ratings. Tennessee playing a #10 ranked USC will outdraw a Tennessee playing a #19 ranked OU. So tv ratings are a fluid metric. Markets are not and that's why they drive expansion. OU is less valuable than a Rutgers. That's the reality of 2016 and Billy Sims' heisman won't change that

---

Do you think the SEC should add UNC-Charlotte, then?

FBS school. 23,000 undergrads. In the largest city in the 10th largest state. (And borders SEC territory).


Let us take it a step forward.

The SEC has 2 teams in the 32nd largest state, Mississippi, which has 1 million fewer people than, say, the state of Oklahoma. Its a small state with 2 teams.

Do you believe the SEC should be looking for a reason to kick one of the Mississippi schools out of the SEC and add a team from a larger, unrepresented state?

A second team from a larger state? You want Houston in the SEC? Florida International? Texas Tech?

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'm saying that the number in front of a team has a lot to do with TV ratings. Tennessee playing a #10 ranked USC will outdraw a Tennessee playing a #19 ranked OU. So tv ratings are a fluid metric. Markets are not and that's why they drive expansion. OU is less valuable than a Rutgers. That's the reality of 2016 and Billy Sims' heisman won't change that

---

Do you think the SEC should add UNC-Charlotte, then?

FBS school. 23,000 undergrads. In the largest city in the 10th largest state. (And borders SEC territory).


Let us take it a step forward.

The SEC has 2 teams in the 32nd largest state, Mississippi, which has 1 million fewer people than, say, the state of Oklahoma. Its a small state with 2 teams.

Do you believe the SEC should be looking for a reason to kick one of the Mississippi schools out of the SEC and add a team from a larger, unrepresented state?

A second team from a larger state? You want Houston in the SEC? Florida International? Texas Tech?

---

You're not kicking anyone out. But you aren't adding teams that bring no money. I'm sorry that OU isn't on the list. An while the addition is UNC Charlotte is a stupid comparison the SEC would take NC State over OU every day of the week and twice on Saturday despite OU having more tradition. It is what it is. You're still thinking its a pre-2010 world.

Adding a FBS team in the largest city in North Carolina is stupid but you'd add a team that shares a smaller city with 2 other ACC schools and 3rd school within 30 miles?

So expansion isn't just about local/state population and "market"?

Something else matters, huh?

You gotta get your story straight.

One is an existing power 5 school and one isn't.