OU Podcasters talk Conference Realignment


Gadfly, I know you did not write that. That was a good, reasonable, mature write up. This must be the second one of your split personality named Michael. :laughing::laughing::laughing:
I like reading what Michael has to say. Lol

(P5_OR_BUST) #22

Err… thus far B1G, SEC, ACC, Pac 12 have all added programs that were (and almost guaranteed to remain) no threat to the existing hierarchy of those conferences.

(Alex Whitlock) #23

As far as I know none specifically passed over a school specifically because they thought it might be too good*, which is not the same as bringing in a team for reasons other than athletic performance (every conference balances athletic performance with other factors).

    • Which I don’t believe is what happened to us. But they actually made public comments that our performance was a mark against us. That is actually rather pathetic and I would be embarrassed if our conference did that.

(Sam) #24

NM . . .

(Paul Marlow) #25

Some people have a belief UT would go to the ACC and have a similar relationship as Notre Dame with a loose affiliation AND keep the longhorn network.

(P5_OR_BUST) #26

Barry Switzer commented on UH would be a threat. He is not a Big 12 official, or even employed by OU. As a private citizen his views do not represent the views of Big 12 conference. At least thats how the Big 12 would see it.

Of course that’s not exactly true, he is intimately connected with OU, and when he speaks people listen. So while his views might be unofficial, they are no doubt not too far from the official views.


“Mr I am a Man” Gundy at Okie State said the same or similar to what Barry said and he is employed Head Coach at Okie State.


We all know why the Big 12 passed. The only thing that will get us in the Big 12 is a growing feeling that Houston will end up in the Pac 12 or the ACC.


The Big12 had the perfect opportunity to add us a few years ago when we were at our most recent football zenith. The stars could not have been aligned better in terms of our on-field performance, TV ratings, and media hype. But the Big12 passed.

The chances of the Big12 adding us when the new TV contracts are negotiated depend entirely upon whether it’s in their economic interest to do so. Last time around they didn’t think it was; it’s not clear what is going to make the difference next time. Maybe if Dana has us perennially in the Top 10, the stadium is sold out, and folks are watching on TV.


You’re a troll


You’re making my point…thank you


The guys in the podcast said pretty much the same thing, more people than Switzer and Gundy share that perception of UH.


Based simply on personal observations since 1973 I would say that as far as attendance at games goes the ratio between us and the “Big” 12 is about 9 to 1. For uTa it is about 3 to 1 and OU about 5 to 1. Houston is not any league’s “town”. But aTm is probably stronger than uTa in attendance potential
because of proximity. .

(P5_OR_BUST) #34

Exactly! I have been saying all along any P5 will
add UH or any G5 program if doing so increases the per program payout sufficiently to make it worth it. I don’t know what “sufficient” might be, but it has to be a couple of million at least, if not higher. I mean why would the Big 12 add anyone is all that does is add $1M a year more to each programs revenue?

You want in? Show them the money. Simple!


I would love the scenario when the Pac 12 invites us, the Big 12 panics and invites us, and we tell the Big 12 that they can go pound sand!


I doubt TCU added anything other than winning st the time…back in 2011.

(John m Bevil) #37

The expansion of B10 and SEC have been into new markets, and new states. B10- Nebraska, Maryland and NY, SEC-Texas, Arkansas, Missouri. Houston is not a new market for B12, it would look like a pure reach to elevate football and basketball. Tech is on a run, and Kansas may be better in football, but the Iowa St.'s and Baylors are were B12 would like to stay.


Gadfly you’re stuck in the 2010 model of tv monies. Big 10 added the only available almost decent schools in those states. SEC took what it could. It’s only a corollary that it was one per state. Other than TAMU, it’s because those states only have 1 big athletic school. And that is because they have small populations. Same with most of the SEC et cet.

Maryland has a population of 6 mill. Alabama 4 mill. Miss 3 mill. Missouri 6 mill.

Houston metro pop is 7 million. Regardless of what you or anyone here says, whoever can deliver that market best on Saturdays in the Fall will, in the end, make some cash, because there is no 1 school per state policy. There is a total number of possible subscribers policy, whether that is cable or pay per month via ESPN+ or Amazon/Hulu.


Being a New Jersey native, I can tell you that Rutgers adds nothing. There is no NY add as no one in New York even knows what a Rutgers is. Syracuse does, as they were in the same conference together. Folks in New Jersey know of Rutgers as it is the flagship, but no one cares.

Now, if they could get their kids to stay home, they would elevate immediately. But Jersey kids go to Penn State, ND, other big programs.


There is no written bylaw. But what you have, and will continue to have, is a situation where schools like TAMU, UGA, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Penn State & Iowa have exclusive flagship status for their conference in their respective states. Most notably in the SEC, schools with that status have come together as a voting block to oppose any expansion within their current footprint. That’s why you saw SEC interest in Missouri instead of Georgia Tech, Clemson, FSU Miami or Louisville. Similarly, there are enough no-votes in the Big 10 to prevent Pitt or Iowa State from being admitted by the Big 10.

Maintaining exclusive status as a conference flagship in a state has value.