The idea that we could or would veto them is tenuous at best. The idea that they would want to jump or that we could nix them is close to absurd.
Oklahoma and texas want in the SEC.
- Thread starter jeff2001
- Start date
If this happens then the divisions would probably realign. Bama and Auburn would move to the east and Missouri would move to the west joining new members TX and OK.
And, Mizzou is a member of the AAU. That was a big reason the SEC extended the invite to Mizzou.
WVU was never going to have a chance to join the SEC or ACC due to geography and academics.
Ok, I will give it a try....
1. If the reporting is true, OU contacted the SEC with interest to join.
2. Realignment could come with the SEC dropping the permanent cross divisional game. There has already been lots of talk about that.
3. You are simply fooling yourself if you don't believe the UT brand is an enormous draw in TX and a big draw nationally. You may not like the Horns, but they have huge value in the college athletics landscape.
4. Again, if the reporting is true, UT contacted the SEC with interest. Clearly if they joined the SEC, the LHN would go away thus driving up the value of the SECN.
Change is coming. The SEC can get out in front of it with potentially a powerhouse move adding Texas and OU or wait for other dominos to fall and end up having to take two more Missouri-type programs.
One thing for sure... the athletic administrators at Ok State pooped their pants yesterday.
Can you give me some specific examples that support your statement that VT has better athletic facilities than South Carolina?
That is the big news. In the past Texas balked at giving up the LHN. That was quite a deal killer. This time Texas has said the LHN going away is on the table. That is a 180 degree change and greatly facilitates any deal.
As for Oklahoma State don't underestimate their muscle in Oklahoma politics.
Sure but it's not a good cultural fit and their administration allowed a bunch of snot nosed kids to boss them around AND they really wanted the B10.
If they leave, they will leave on their own. If they were preferred over West Virginia when both were under consideration, there were solid reasons for it. I've already pointed them out. West Virginia, as a school and as a market, has even less leverage than, say, us. Can you picture that?
Who are the four no votes? A&M for sure. Missouri had been expected, but some insiders at Missouri are saying they don't care and if Bama, LSU, Florida etc want this they won't be the obstacle. I can see Arkansas not liking it, maybe Tennessee. But if the money goes up like some are saying, that may change their minds. Note that the SEC is awfully proud of being the best football conference, as it should be. But if Texas and OU go to the Big Ten with Ohio State, Wisc, Penn St, Michigan, etc it will have a challenger for that title.
Its already been reported the only no votes are A&M and Mizzou. It can pass with only two no votes.
Thats not true. It does not have to be unanimous.
Why would we be taken seriously? We haven't been relevant since choking against Missouri on college gameday in '14. If we could get hot and go on a run like the beginning of the last decade, we would be taken (somewhat) seriously again.
Teams that perpetually suck don't move the needle. Unfortunately, that's USC right now.
I wasn't proposing a question. I was stating the fact that despite being a border state we are not taken seriously.
I've mentioned this before, in my neighborhood there are alumni/fans from the SEC, ACC, BIG, MAC, Ga Southern, Davidson and even Dayton. Without fail every season sometime midway they will ask "So what's your record ?" Now that is irrelevant.
If this thing is real at all, people's temperature has already been taken, Partner. People will posture publicly one way or the other because it's expected of them, like that fellow out at A&M is doing right now. But the SEC conference leadership already knows what needs to be known or they would have flatly denied the reports when they surfaced.
Gonna spitball a few things here.
The LHN could be repurposed as SEC2.
If Oklahoma State MUST be included with Texas & Oklahoma, add East Carolina for an 18-team league. What about ECU's academics, some may say. The schools are grouped for athletics, not finding a cure for cancer. This adds a sizeable alumni/fanbase and a footprint in North Carolina.
New SEC East: Auburn, Bama, ECU, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, USC, Vandy
New SEC West: Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi State, Missouri, Ole Miss, OU, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M.
Bama/Tennessee & Georgia/Auburn rivalries are preserved. You play your eight divisional rivals and one crossover team per year for a nine-game league schedule. OR, you play a cross-divisional rival in a game that does not count as a conference game. Of course. LSU and the Mississippi schools would scream about losing a game with Bama every year.
The LHN could be repurposed as SEC2.
If Oklahoma State MUST be included with Texas & Oklahoma, add East Carolina for an 18-team league. What about ECU's academics, some may say. The schools are grouped for athletics, not finding a cure for cancer. This adds a sizeable alumni/fanbase and a footprint in North Carolina.
New SEC East: Auburn, Bama, ECU, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, USC, Vandy
New SEC West: Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi State, Missouri, Ole Miss, OU, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M.
Bama/Tennessee & Georgia/Auburn rivalries are preserved. You play your eight divisional rivals and one crossover team per year for a nine-game league schedule. OR, you play a cross-divisional rival in a game that does not count as a conference game. Of course. LSU and the Mississippi schools would scream about losing a game with Bama every year.
I agree that dropping the permanent cross division games would be a must. But that's only a drop in the bucket. We would need to go to at least a 10 game conference slate to even pretend this is still an actual conference and not just a new subdivision of D1 football (which just may be the ultimate goal here).
You mentioned OK St pooping their pants over this. Definitely a funny image, but as myself and others have pointed out, they're legally joined at the hip with Oklahoma. It would take a change in state law for them to go their separate ways. So that means we're looking at a 17 team conference -- which we know won't stand. So it would actually be 18 teams eventually. Again, that's not a conference, it's a subdivision.
As for Texas, of course they're a national brand. But there would have to be a cost/benefit analysis before adding them. While they may bring some more viewers and may agree to do away with the Longhorn Network, do we really think it'll last?
My opinion on Texas is based on their past actions. They've got a well-documented history of killing conferences. I've even seen Longhorn fans almost gleefully admit that Texas would only play nice for so long. What happens when after a few years of being entrenched in the SEC they start Saber rattling about wanting more of the revenue share or maybe wanting to restart the Longhorn Network? That's not only not out of the realm of possibility, it's very much in their wheelhouse and their history to do so.
Like I said, it's just food for thought. It'll be fascinating to see how this all plays out.
Missouri was certainly expected to be a "no" but quoting the Orangebloods moderator: "I heard from one source that believed Missouri might not be a problem." They may not want to upset the Bamas, LSUs, etc that want this to happen. So A&M may be the only certain "no". I would wonder if Arkansas might be a "no" but the answer may depend on how much this move helps revenue.
I read (sorry can't recall where) that if acquisition went through, divisions would be eliminated and 4 separate 4 team pods would replace them. How that would work is anyone's guess.
Originally Texas wanted a Big 12 network much like the SEC network, but couldn't get the other schools to go along. Then they tried to partner with OU on a network, but OU refused. So they did the LHN on their own. It wasn't easy to start a network. But there were no legal or contractual barriers. If Texas joins the SEC, certainly a part of that will be contractual provisions giving the SEC network all of that content. So I don't think restarting the LHN network, if it goes away, is at any risk of returning.
As for pushing around other schools, that might work with SC or Mississippi State, but schools like LSU, Florida, Georgia are large confident institutions that won't buckle the way TCU, Texas Tech, Kansas State, Iowa State and the like will. Texas was Andre the Giant among a bunch of midgets in the Big 12. In the SEC there are too many Hulk Hogans and other large creatures for even an Andre the Giant to rule the roost. In the Big 12, Texas dominated because their were half a dozen schools that said "whatever Texas wants" on any decision. I don't think those will exist in the SEC.
With the academic research grant money available in the B1G, I am somewhat surprised that Texas hasn't pushed harder to get into that conference. I mean they have the qualifications and could bring Kansas with them.
Some devious folk think this dalliance with the SEC is in part a strategy to put pressure on the BIg Ten to make a move for Texas. If you want Texas, get us now, otherwise we will go SEC.
I could see that and it keeps OKlahoma and OSU at bay...the only question would be would they try to bring Kansas or wrest TAMU from the SEC to go with them.
One projection was 1:UGA,UF,SC,KY. 2:Bama,AU,Tenn,Vandy. 3:LSU,A&M, Miss St, Ole Miss. 4: OU,Texas,Mizzou,Arky
Each team would play vs their pod every season and 2 from the other pods each year on a rotating basis
A&M is so proud of the SEC. They are like as new religious convert, more excited than those there a long time. Plus being seen as Texas younger brother tagging along to another conference is bad optics. I expect it would be Texas and Kansas.
As always, interesting points. We'll soon see, because this thing has legs it appears.
Meh on TX.
No one really wants the spoiled, obnoxious guy with entitlement issues to come to the party, lol.
Those types usually have to fund the party and buy the friends/guests. UT would up viewership in big games. They would probably alternate with Bama as the CBS game of the week (although I thought I saw those ratings weren’t really all that great).
So, Texas would bring something and, obviously, they are a fine academic institution. But, I can’t see them humbling themselves to being just another member and not the bully.
Texas has won like 3 Big 8/9/10, whatever number it is, conference titles in like the last 25 years. That’s more than rhey’d wn moving to the SEC. So, their interest is curious.
As for Okie, I can’t see it happening. They can want and trst the waters. But, they are a state institution. While they may carry more national sway than OK State, all politics is local. I can’t see them being allowed to screw their in-state brethern.
That would be really interesting. I would prefer the teams from the other pods be put on a permanent fixed schedule. That way, all the teams that are on the upswing don't just "happen" to show up on our schedule or vice versa for the powerhouse teams.
The schedule is the schedule. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it hurts. But it would be consistent.
Not even the spoiled guy who buys all the beer and pays for the stripper?
I agree about OU, Oklahoma State has political forces to stop them.
While Texas will never humble themselves, in the SEC Texas won't have half a dozen smaller schools trailing them like remora fish under a shark and voting for whatever Texas wants. So the opportunity to bully is really not there.
If you going to have those 16 and go to 4-team pods, then you couldn’t create a better divisional breakdown based on geography and traditional strength.
Beer and strippers? “That’s my kinda party!”, lol.
True. Texas couldn’t run things no matter how bad they wanted to.
I totally understand OK, although we both agree it doesn’t seem politically viable.
But, UT runs the show. Bags more cash annually than a Tater tecruit. Have their own network. And, to be honest, have had a hard enough time in the recnt past staying relevant on the big stage from a results standpoint.
I guess, like most, I’m surprised they initiated such discussion.
Maybe they see the seismic shift in the collegiate landscape and have a vision for how the future could be even better, for them obviously, and for the SEC.
I’m all for big thinkers. Lawd knows there are precious few at UofSC (with that change in branding being the ultimate example).
As having a little time to digest this news and mull the possibilities, am I the only one who is starting to think that in the long run this is only going to diminish our fortunes on the athletic field.
Sure there may be more money in the coffers, but that extra monies (SEC payouts) has yet to translate into better athletic teams.
Just an opinion but this just seems to me we will be forever in the 5-8 win bracket with an occasional breakout year here and there.
Sure there may be more money in the coffers, but that extra monies (SEC payouts) has yet to translate into better athletic teams.
Just an opinion but this just seems to me we will be forever in the 5-8 win bracket with an occasional breakout year here and there.
Last edited:
I can't help but think the NIL has something to do with this.
I'd only we had a better AD to keep this from happening. Yo be honest that would give them reason to pick up Clemson because I believe they still want to keep the SC market. We won't have an ear to the ground at all.
Guarantee Hyman would be on this and make sure we stay.
