This is a lot of stuff that has been kicked around by CT and others, but thought I would at least share:
https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/3d8yhi/whats_going_on_with_oklahoma/
Hello everyone, /u/fifth_Down here to shoot down all of your hopes and dreams! again
If you are unfamiliar with me the TLDR is that I am a guy who spends a lot of time studying conference realignment and I occasionally make postings such as these trying to clear up misconceptions. My last post can be found here
Today I am here to set the record straight on Oklahoma because 1) They are at the center of the latest conference realignment speculation and 2) Most of the comments I come across about OU in conference realignment are way out of line with what the school is actually trying to do.
The notion that I want to crush today is a common saying that OU prefers to join the SEC while approaching B1G membership with reluctance. In actuality it’s the complete opposite of that. The thing to understand about OU is that they were the only flagship from the (old) Big 12 that did not have AAU status. They have historically lagged behind the Big 12 flagships schools in the academic rankings. This has caused OU to develop a chip on their shoulder academically over the years, which plays a big role in their decision making process.
People often downplay the role of academics in athletic affiliations and when they do I usually refer them to this comment. The role of academics is an important component to CR as it is the university presidents not the ADs which decide which conference their school gets to join. OU has been publically commenting about gaining AAU membership since 2001 and they aspire to be just like your typical B1G school…and the best way to do that is by joining the B1G.
OU has done a very good job of stating their desire to join the B1G, without shooting their mouth off. Glares at Missouri The best way to demonstrate this is with “The List” which contains the 20 schools that OU considers an academic peer. Those 20 schools are:
Big 12 Big Ten
Texas Penn State
Texas Tech Ohio State
Texas A&M Michigan
Oklahoma State Michigan State
Kansas Illinois
Kansas State Indiana
Missouri Purdue
Iowa State Iowa
Nebraska Wisconsin
Colorado Minnesota
Every single school is a pre conference realignment Big 12 or Big Ten member. Every single B1G & Big 12 school are accounted for with the exception of Baylor and Northwestern which are the only private schools in this category.
The question that you are probably thinking: Is this Normal?
Absolutely not. It is extremely rare to find a school that follows such a clear cut athletic pattern like this. The selection of peer schools is taken very seriously by college administrators, and in most cases there is no athletic rationale behind it. So for OU to do this is a very bold statement. If you want to know who your school has selected as their peers click here
Another hint from OU is this comment from their President. He stated OU in CR is looking for:
“Partners that are both outstanding athletically and academically as well because a conference that’s strong is not only stable but it’s one in which there are multiple relationships, along with sports, between the university members,”
He flat out said OU is looking for an outstanding academic conference, but I want to focus on the bold part. Boren mentioned “multiple relationships” beyond athletics. That is basically the same as calling out the B1G because no other FBS conference has “multiple relationships” that comes anywhere near what the B1G has with the CIC (a full academic branch of the conference).
It’s these types of moves where OU quietly pokes the bear that suggest where they want to be. It seems apparent that OU does not want to be compared to Ole Miss, LSU, Alabama, etc. on an academic scale. It seems more probable than not that OU quietly has a disdain for SEC membership because to join the conference would be an open admission that that is the class of schools they belong with. It is further driven by ego as Boren has 15 years of rhetoric that will be contradicted if he leads OU into the SEC.
The common saying is that OU rejected an SEC invite because they couldn’t bring OSU along. While it is true that OU looks after their little brother better than any other P5 program, to say OU would turn down their dream conference for OSU is too much of a stretch for me to believe.
In the past I have stated that administrators don’t always state the truth, but what the easiest point that they can “sell” to the public or what creates the least amount of backlash. “We can’t leave OSU behind” is much better than saying “the SEC has shit academics.” While political pressure being used in CR is nothing new, it is typically used to have the big brother help the little brother join their conference. To have political pressure used to keep the BB from leaving the LB behind, is far from common.
There’s a common saying that OU/OSU are bound together by OK law or some sort of legislative law. I’ve never seen an actual text to verify that or am aware of one that surfaced. If the B1G offered OU they would be in the B1G right now. Which means OU is Pac-12 or bust. The Pac-12 may be their second choice, but it is still a respectable academic brand, with the added bonus that they will allow OSU, Tech, and UT to come along.
However OU has a problem. During CR the Pac-12 made it very clear that OU/OSU can’t come without UT. In the meantime UT has a lot of similarities with OU. They are another school that is motivated academically in CR and has a disdain for SEC membership for academic reasons. In the 1990s the UT President publically stated they didn’t join the SEC because of academic standards. 1
There’s one key difference between OU and UT. Texas cares about academics, however they also want a traveling partner. Rice doesn’t meet the B1G’s market/athletic standards, while A&M has no interest in leaving the SEC. That left Texas Tech a notion which the B1G rejected and the phrase1 Texas has a “Tech” problem was mentioned. cough Gordon Gee This means that UT is in the same position as OU, the Pac-12 is their only option.
OU was very aggressive during CR, which suggests that they want out of the Big 12 at the earliest possible convenience. However only UT can get them into the Pac. As things stand now UT is perfectly happy with their Big 12/LHN setup. So OU needs to somehow convince UT that it’s time to leave.
Now Boren (the OU Prez) is a smart man. He has been the President of OU for longer than OU has been in the Big 12. He all of people should know that Big 12 expansion is a terrible idea. I dedicated my last post to this subject I seriously doubt Boren needs a history lesson on what happened the last time the Big 12 rapidly expanded from 8 to 12. I have stated the following points in the past:
1) Rapid expansion is kryptonite to a strong, stable, healthy conference and dynamite to an instable, unhealthy, and/or weak conference.
2) College administrators take a “tight lipped” approach towards conference realignment. The comments that they make are carefully calculated not to give away their future moves. In the past administrators have learned that publically commenting on conference realignment causes a number of problems.
The first problem is that it announces to their opponents what their next move is, giving them an opportunity to attempt to counter and/or prevent that move. The second problem occurs when the public comment demonstrates a rift between the members of a conference. This makes the conference look divided which weakens their bargaining power in negotiations. The last (and most important) problem is that it triggers those within the university network who have influence to start calling their administrators trying to encourage them to support a particular action.
This network usually includes donors, alumni, boosters, faculty, and politicians. When these people call university administrators, the administrators are forced to listen because their job security depends on maintaining strong relationships with these people. From the perspective of university administrators engaging in these sort of discussions over conference realignment is at best a waste of time, at worst it forces them to support positions that they would rather not be supporting.
To make matters worse Boren doubled down on his comments when he publically called for Big 12 expansion for a second time a few days later. It was at this point that it became clear that the Big 12 has a rouge member on their hands. So why is Boren doing this? He knows that if he can get two more members in the Big 12, it will help usher Texas out the door. Having Cincinnati on their schedule will drive the point home to the folks in Austin that the new Big 12 is only a shell of its former self. That could very well be the tipping point for UT in conference realignment.
We don’t know what Boren is thinking, or what his true intentions are. He could very well be pushing this battle because he legitimately thinks expansion is in the Big 12’s best interest. But his recent actions by publically speaking out are clearly detrimental to the conference even if his intentions are to help the Big 12. It could also be his “I told you so…you didn’t listen to me” moment that Boren is planning on saving in his back pocket for when the GOR expires. It will help setup a future exit allowing OU to look justified if they become the first school to jump ship.
What we do know is that Oklahoma is the second most powerful school in the Big 12. The power they wield gives them the safety net of knowing that if they destabilize the Big 12, they are guaranteed a landing spot in a power conference. So maybe he might just be trying to rock the boat in the hopes of destabilizing the conference to open up an invite for the Sooners from the West.
TLDR OU/UT are not interested in the SEC and their only real landing spot is with the Pac. OU desperately out of the Big 12 and they might just be trying to sabotage the Big 12 to achieve that goal.
1) It’s not surprising that UT would be arrogant enough to publically say that.
2) The irony here being that Gee is now a Big 12 president.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/3d8yhi/whats_going_on_with_oklahoma/
Hello everyone, /u/fifth_Down here to shoot down all of your hopes and dreams! again
If you are unfamiliar with me the TLDR is that I am a guy who spends a lot of time studying conference realignment and I occasionally make postings such as these trying to clear up misconceptions. My last post can be found here
Today I am here to set the record straight on Oklahoma because 1) They are at the center of the latest conference realignment speculation and 2) Most of the comments I come across about OU in conference realignment are way out of line with what the school is actually trying to do.
The notion that I want to crush today is a common saying that OU prefers to join the SEC while approaching B1G membership with reluctance. In actuality it’s the complete opposite of that. The thing to understand about OU is that they were the only flagship from the (old) Big 12 that did not have AAU status. They have historically lagged behind the Big 12 flagships schools in the academic rankings. This has caused OU to develop a chip on their shoulder academically over the years, which plays a big role in their decision making process.
People often downplay the role of academics in athletic affiliations and when they do I usually refer them to this comment. The role of academics is an important component to CR as it is the university presidents not the ADs which decide which conference their school gets to join. OU has been publically commenting about gaining AAU membership since 2001 and they aspire to be just like your typical B1G school…and the best way to do that is by joining the B1G.
OU has done a very good job of stating their desire to join the B1G, without shooting their mouth off. Glares at Missouri The best way to demonstrate this is with “The List” which contains the 20 schools that OU considers an academic peer. Those 20 schools are:
Big 12 Big Ten
Texas Penn State
Texas Tech Ohio State
Texas A&M Michigan
Oklahoma State Michigan State
Kansas Illinois
Kansas State Indiana
Missouri Purdue
Iowa State Iowa
Nebraska Wisconsin
Colorado Minnesota
Every single school is a pre conference realignment Big 12 or Big Ten member. Every single B1G & Big 12 school are accounted for with the exception of Baylor and Northwestern which are the only private schools in this category.
The question that you are probably thinking: Is this Normal?
Absolutely not. It is extremely rare to find a school that follows such a clear cut athletic pattern like this. The selection of peer schools is taken very seriously by college administrators, and in most cases there is no athletic rationale behind it. So for OU to do this is a very bold statement. If you want to know who your school has selected as their peers click here
Another hint from OU is this comment from their President. He stated OU in CR is looking for:
“Partners that are both outstanding athletically and academically as well because a conference that’s strong is not only stable but it’s one in which there are multiple relationships, along with sports, between the university members,”
He flat out said OU is looking for an outstanding academic conference, but I want to focus on the bold part. Boren mentioned “multiple relationships” beyond athletics. That is basically the same as calling out the B1G because no other FBS conference has “multiple relationships” that comes anywhere near what the B1G has with the CIC (a full academic branch of the conference).
It’s these types of moves where OU quietly pokes the bear that suggest where they want to be. It seems apparent that OU does not want to be compared to Ole Miss, LSU, Alabama, etc. on an academic scale. It seems more probable than not that OU quietly has a disdain for SEC membership because to join the conference would be an open admission that that is the class of schools they belong with. It is further driven by ego as Boren has 15 years of rhetoric that will be contradicted if he leads OU into the SEC.
The common saying is that OU rejected an SEC invite because they couldn’t bring OSU along. While it is true that OU looks after their little brother better than any other P5 program, to say OU would turn down their dream conference for OSU is too much of a stretch for me to believe.
In the past I have stated that administrators don’t always state the truth, but what the easiest point that they can “sell” to the public or what creates the least amount of backlash. “We can’t leave OSU behind” is much better than saying “the SEC has shit academics.” While political pressure being used in CR is nothing new, it is typically used to have the big brother help the little brother join their conference. To have political pressure used to keep the BB from leaving the LB behind, is far from common.
There’s a common saying that OU/OSU are bound together by OK law or some sort of legislative law. I’ve never seen an actual text to verify that or am aware of one that surfaced. If the B1G offered OU they would be in the B1G right now. Which means OU is Pac-12 or bust. The Pac-12 may be their second choice, but it is still a respectable academic brand, with the added bonus that they will allow OSU, Tech, and UT to come along.
However OU has a problem. During CR the Pac-12 made it very clear that OU/OSU can’t come without UT. In the meantime UT has a lot of similarities with OU. They are another school that is motivated academically in CR and has a disdain for SEC membership for academic reasons. In the 1990s the UT President publically stated they didn’t join the SEC because of academic standards. 1
There’s one key difference between OU and UT. Texas cares about academics, however they also want a traveling partner. Rice doesn’t meet the B1G’s market/athletic standards, while A&M has no interest in leaving the SEC. That left Texas Tech a notion which the B1G rejected and the phrase1 Texas has a “Tech” problem was mentioned. cough Gordon Gee This means that UT is in the same position as OU, the Pac-12 is their only option.
OU was very aggressive during CR, which suggests that they want out of the Big 12 at the earliest possible convenience. However only UT can get them into the Pac. As things stand now UT is perfectly happy with their Big 12/LHN setup. So OU needs to somehow convince UT that it’s time to leave.
Now Boren (the OU Prez) is a smart man. He has been the President of OU for longer than OU has been in the Big 12. He all of people should know that Big 12 expansion is a terrible idea. I dedicated my last post to this subject I seriously doubt Boren needs a history lesson on what happened the last time the Big 12 rapidly expanded from 8 to 12. I have stated the following points in the past:
1) Rapid expansion is kryptonite to a strong, stable, healthy conference and dynamite to an instable, unhealthy, and/or weak conference.
2) College administrators take a “tight lipped” approach towards conference realignment. The comments that they make are carefully calculated not to give away their future moves. In the past administrators have learned that publically commenting on conference realignment causes a number of problems.
The first problem is that it announces to their opponents what their next move is, giving them an opportunity to attempt to counter and/or prevent that move. The second problem occurs when the public comment demonstrates a rift between the members of a conference. This makes the conference look divided which weakens their bargaining power in negotiations. The last (and most important) problem is that it triggers those within the university network who have influence to start calling their administrators trying to encourage them to support a particular action.
This network usually includes donors, alumni, boosters, faculty, and politicians. When these people call university administrators, the administrators are forced to listen because their job security depends on maintaining strong relationships with these people. From the perspective of university administrators engaging in these sort of discussions over conference realignment is at best a waste of time, at worst it forces them to support positions that they would rather not be supporting.
To make matters worse Boren doubled down on his comments when he publically called for Big 12 expansion for a second time a few days later. It was at this point that it became clear that the Big 12 has a rouge member on their hands. So why is Boren doing this? He knows that if he can get two more members in the Big 12, it will help usher Texas out the door. Having Cincinnati on their schedule will drive the point home to the folks in Austin that the new Big 12 is only a shell of its former self. That could very well be the tipping point for UT in conference realignment.
We don’t know what Boren is thinking, or what his true intentions are. He could very well be pushing this battle because he legitimately thinks expansion is in the Big 12’s best interest. But his recent actions by publically speaking out are clearly detrimental to the conference even if his intentions are to help the Big 12. It could also be his “I told you so…you didn’t listen to me” moment that Boren is planning on saving in his back pocket for when the GOR expires. It will help setup a future exit allowing OU to look justified if they become the first school to jump ship.
What we do know is that Oklahoma is the second most powerful school in the Big 12. The power they wield gives them the safety net of knowing that if they destabilize the Big 12, they are guaranteed a landing spot in a power conference. So maybe he might just be trying to rock the boat in the hopes of destabilizing the conference to open up an invite for the Sooners from the West.
TLDR OU/UT are not interested in the SEC and their only real landing spot is with the Pac. OU desperately out of the Big 12 and they might just be trying to sabotage the Big 12 to achieve that goal.
1) It’s not surprising that UT would be arrogant enough to publically say that.
2) The irony here being that Gee is now a Big 12 president.
