re: Did OU screw themselves

quote:

---

Still, even the most rabid Longhorn hater has to admit the comedy in all of this is beyond measure.

---

You're right. Nobody but the most desperate Big12 little brothers wants to align with UT. It's not because Texas has more money, it's because Texas thinks the world revolves around it to the exclusion of all others.

The UT aura is no longer.

quote:

---

They could obviously cobble together Missouri, OU, OSU and come to SEC and we get what we want and they get equal cut of huge money pot that is SEC and UT is flapping in the breeze.

---

Great from a money perspective, but would be weird for LSU to be playing Arky, A&M, Ole Piss, and Moo State along with three new schools.

The possibility of no Alabama, Auburn, and/or Florida on the schedule each year is a change, albeit not necessarily a bad one.

quote:

---

...we have a strong conference structure and culture of equality that we are committed to preserve.




Larry Scott with a shot over the Texas bow.

---

But UT brings so much to whomever conference they choose!

Always thought it funny that they think any conference would take them for what they bring, yet they want to be the sole beneficiary of what they bring.

While i think it would be a great grab for the SEC i think it would be funnier if OU and OSU bolted for the BIG East. WOuld be funny to see the bottom feeding BE crap on the B12. Plus TX would be left with a crap conf with little to no worth.

quote:

---

Div may look like the following:

---

1(northwest). OU, OSU, MO, Arky

2.(southwest) LSU, OM, MSU, A&M

3.(northeast) AL, AU, TN, Vandy

4.(southeast) FL, GA, SC, KT

I really hate the idea of going to 9 conference games - more than anything because:

1) it is unequal (some teams get more conference games at home, others more on the road)
2) it decreases revenue (fewer home games = less home gate revenue) and a major reason for expansion is to make more money
3) it will cut down on the number of quality out of conference games played - something I enjoy the heck out of

But whether you play 8 or 9 conference games I'm still not sure how you deal with other issues like

1) conference championships (NCAA only allows for a single extra/exempt game for a CCG - people assuming they will now allow two rounds of CCGs are making a major leap
2) rotation of games between different divisions. Let's say we have the arrangement of divisions proposed above - you now have 5 or 6 remaining conference games to play from the other divisions per year.

It seems safe to assume people will want to keep games like AU/UGA and FLA/UT - so there may be one fixed opponent. So let's say we had one fixed opponent from another division and then four rotating opponents from the other divisions (no, not five, we don't benefit from 9 conference games)

What you might do is some kind of zipper arrangement where you play different schools from the different regions in a staggered fashion. If we arrange the schools in some sort of order what you want is to see schools from the different divisions playing in each part of the conference on a regular basis. So it should not be terribly long between times that say South Carolina visits the state of Mississippi or Oklahoma or Alabama because in playing schools from each region on a somewhat regular basis you retain the sense of conference identity that will otherwise be stretched to the point of breaking.

It is pretty clear the UT power play blew up in its face and that the PAC-10 would make a move minus UT. OU & OSU are making secret overtures to the SEC to join A&M & Mizzou. This would be a huge coup for the SEC and Texas is going to be left out in the cold.

to expand on my zipper/division scheduling statement what you want (whether you are the PAC or SEC considering going to a larger number of teams) is an arrangement that allows every team to be seen and therefore considered relevant to some degree in each area of the conference.

Let's pretend the PAC expanded to 16 teams and divided up into 4 team divisions - if that was from OU/OkS/Texas/TTech then you might have:

1(hipsters): Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, WSU
2(slackers): Cal, Stanford, Colorado, Utah
3(posers): USC, UCLA, Arizona, ASU
4(malcontents): OU, Texas, Ok State, Texas Tech

so you have three games within your division and then a rotation of five more games among the other divisions (yes, PAC fans I'm saving you from yourselves - reduce to 8 conference games and make some money goddamit)

Now the scheduling of those 5 games is obviously the trick - but it really can be done and be done in such a way that gives every team in the conference exposure to all of the geographic areas of the conference. What you do is make a list of the teams like so:

1) USC
2) Oregon State
3) Cal
4) Arizona
5) Oklahoma
6) Washington
7) Utah
8) Texas
9) UCLA
10) Oregon
11) Stanford
12) ASU
13) Oklahoma State
14) Washington State
15) Colorado
16) Texas Tech

At first glance this probably looks like a random listing of the potential PAC schools - but it is not: the rotation spaces out schools from the different regions so that you will play teams in northern california, southern california, texas, etc on regular basis

So let's say you are USC and apply this schedule. You play your three division opponents every year and then do a home/away 2 game series against each opponent before rotating.

In years 1 and 2 that would mean you play:

Oregon State
Cal
Oklahoma
Washington
Utah

In years 3 and 4 you play:

Texas
Oregon
Stanford
Oklahoma State
Washington State

In years 5 and 6 you play:

Colorado
Texas Tech
Oregon State
Cal
Oklahoma

and so on

this is the kind of system that would work for a megaconference (PAC, Big 10, or SEC) IMO - assuming that is that you can settle on a rational way of deciding a single conference champion at the end of the season

Sorry for the late reply. Hopefully you see it, but it may not be relevant the way things are going.

quote:

---

I really hate the idea of going to 9 conference games - more than anything because:

1) it is unequal (some teams get more conference games at home, others more on the road)
2) it decreases revenue (fewer home games = less home gate revenue) and a major reason for expansion is to make more money
3) it will cut down on the number of quality out of conference games played - something I enjoy the heck out of

---

I have a bias for playing the full conference as quickly as possible. The 9th game allows you to finish in 4 yrs. The 8 game takes 4.8 yr which is fine, but if we have a permanent opponent it will take 5.5 which is too long imo (9 games does it in 4.5). A player should have the opportunity to see all venues within 5 years; 4 is even better.

I doh't think we need permanent rivalries with the 4 div. The way I split them up preserves all of the really key historical rivalries except GA/AU. If you get really clever with scheduling, you could set up scheduling so you could play these games every other year so this rivalry doesn't lose too much.

When it comes to balancing and assuming no permanent rivalries, I think there are tradeoffs beyond home field. While things go in cycles, there are teams that are historically good. Playing half of the rest of the conference at a time allows splitting these teams up so you don't get overloaded with these teams, or conversely, underloaded which I feel creates the bigger advantage/disadvantage.

WRT your 2 and 3, I have to say your points are somewhat condradictory. To get quality OOC games, you have to play away, either on a home and home or a neutral site game. Does this sound like a sched you might be familiar with? It's rare that an SEC team will play a shed like LSU's this year. Usually there is only one quality OOC team. I think the 9 game sched actually facilitates scheduling these since a home and away will fit in nicely.

quote:

---

1) conference championships (NCAA only allows for a single extra/exempt game for a CCG - people assuming they will now allow two rounds of CCGs are making a major leap

---

Yes they are making a leap, but just like with going to 12, the big conferences will want to see how and if it works and I think they could get it approved.

quote:

---

2) rotation of games between different divisions. Let's say we have the arrangement of divisions proposed above - you now have 5 or 6 remaining conference games to play from the other divisions per year.

---

Simple as could be if you go to 9 games without permanent rivalries.

David Boren and OU screwed up royally.

You don't start making demands unless you know that you've got the leverage to make things happen. OU may have been misled by Larry Scott, who I think probably told OU that they had a Pac 12 invite if they wanted one (with OSU in tow), but, you really can't afford to be wrong about this. The Pac 12 rejection completely pulled the rug out from Boren, and now he probably has no leverage at all.

I say "probably" because, if the rest of the Big XII had any balls, they would realize that they have all the leverage they need. All they have to do is vote on a bylaws amendment reserving all TV rights to the conference (as the Pac 12 and Big Ten do) and, voila, the LHN is no more. Of course, Texas's response would probably be to leave the conference, but, to go where would be the question. While OU lost face in the Pac 12 deal, it should now be apparent to everyone that there is little chance of any attractive conference making a deal to give the Horns special treatment. So, if preserving the LHN is an imperative for Texas, and the Big XII says no to school networks, then it would be independence or defeat for the Horns, and indendence would just be defeat in another guise.

Of course, this won't happen because the cowards at Baylor, ISU, KSU, etc., will not call the Horns bluff. They won't even go so far as to hold Texas to the one out of conference football game on LHN that they agreed to last summer (which Texas then went and turned into an agreement with ESPN for TWO games, one of them being a conference game). Those folks are absolutely 100% subservient to the Horns. I can't believe that we endured 16 years in that hellhole of a conference. Next time I'm in Austin, I think I'll stop by the state cemetery and piss on Bob Bullock's grave--but for that old bastard (Lt. Gov. who engineered the Big XII deal in '94), we would have been in the SEC in '96.