Ask yourself

[bosco]

My guess is that Rebecacy was accurate.

The only problem, from the start, was that this would be a monstrous game of chicken between two schools with unbelievably large egos. So large, that they could allow emotion to rule at the moment when their superiority was challenged the most. To call TX's bluff, you'd better be ready to go to the mattresses. Keep in mind, that these two schools have very little at stake. So, really, their playing high stakes poker with all the little guys' money.

This instance I'm ok with it. We don't have the cards so we basically gave our bankroll to someone (OU) who does. At this point its either let's do it right or break it up and start over. Either way is better than the status quo. I don't blame OU anymore. They needed assurance that if this didn't work out that they didn't end bankrupt so P-12 offers the landing spot for them with or without UT. If it doesn't work out ISU will be in an AQ conference with whatever is left of the B12 and Big East. A league we maybe able to compete in for titles but we'll have to see where the TV revenue goes.

Let's hope UT realizes that whatever concessions that P-12 gives for the LHN is not enough to compensate for opening up Texas to West coast recruiting.

 

[00clone]

If OU wants fairness why don't they simply work toward it at home in the Big XII? I like fairness, I'm sure JP likes fairness. In fact I'm pretty sure most conference partners would like fairness.

Clearly I'm missing something because imo OU has the ability to save the conference right now by assuring the other members that they're here to stay and they intend to stand with other conference members against the bully UT.

I don't know that they're not doing that. Again, like everyone else, I don't know shiite from Muslims, but to me, a plausible scenario:

OU realized that treating some conference members better than others is what got us into the Big 12 being a dying conference despite having a VERY strong on-field product. The first move after Aggie jumps is to bring up equality in big 12 expansion discussions. Apparently it didn't work so they start talking to PAC to get away from the taint. They include Texas in this because they figure the PAC will not let it happen. Now it's almost sounding like inequality might go with to the PAC, at least in some small way. Yesterday is the first I heard OU saying that they're looking for equality as a conference member.

Again, this is just my wild arsed theory, but it's no less wild arsed than anyone elses, but I can see OU's position being:

Texas, we're going where it's equal. If you want to do that, great, but if not, we'll go where you don't.

I hope that ends up being the Big 12, and I'd have to say that if they both end up going with an 'equal shares' conference, Big 12 might be preferential. Although they wouldn't be the 'big dogs' in the board-room, they would still be on the fields of play. Plus, there wouldn't be travel to the west coast.

 

[clonestar12]

I don't know. The plan was to have OU call Texas's bluff to get us all to equity. That is the only way to stability and to be able to recruit the schools we need to get to 12, champ game, 4 non-con games, network, etc. I have no reason to believe that Boren would **** on GG. So I still trust OU as mush as possible. Could Texas bolt just becaused they got played and lost? Well they are Texas, so it is possible. But that was the play all along, betting on the come they would not go. If they do, it's every man for themselves.

Also keep in mind that if UT, TT, aTm, all end up in different conferences, the state of Texas will be opened to other major conferences for recruiting purposes. UT and OU have had their pick of most of the blue chippers in the state, and this would undoubtedly change. Neither school want this, but especially UT. UT has gotten greedy, and if they don`t agree to be equals, then they will enter the realm of uncertainty as well.

 

[jbhtexas]

I, like everyone else, still don't know if you're right, but I like this comment from David Boren:

"We’re for a level playing field. We want to see a conference in which all the members play an equal role. Whatever conference we join, or whatever conference we stay in – those are obviously the two major options – the University of Oklahoma has no ambition to dominate any conference. We simply have the ambition of being a member, an equal member, of any conference, playing by the same rules, by having a level playing field for all the members of that conference and developing a high level of trust in each other. That’s our goal. That’s what we’re after."

Question: President Boren, why has it taken OU 15 years to have this epiphany regarding "equality" in the Big 12?

Answer: Nobody will give us a network, so now we're all for socialism...

I'd guess that if OU could have lined up a network, we don't hear anything about "equality" from ex-Senator Boren. Why no equality talk last summer after NU and CU left???

 

[00clone]

Question: President Boren, why has it taken OU 15 years to have this epiphany regarding "equality" in the Big 12?

Answer: Nobody will give us a network, so now we're all for socialism...

I'd guess that if OU could have lined up a network, we don't hear anything about "equality" from ex-Senator Boren...

Other comments in the articles say that they are still looking at a network.

Honestly, from an ISU standpoint, if we end up in a strong Big 12 conference with equal revenue sharing and stability, I don't care a bit why it took so long. Couldn't care less, could care less...which ever one means I don't care at all.

:v_SPIN:

 

[CyBer]

I don't know what to think about this whole mess, and no one does. Anyone that tells you that they have "inside" information is blowing smoke out of their ***. I'd love to see the "powers" of the conference come together and work out a mutual agreement. I'd love to see a Big 12 network, and equal revenue sharing. However, it's looking more and more like OU is going to the PAC12 and UT is not. I wish they would listen to the little guy in this situation, and not make this thing all about money, but that isn't going to happen.

Pretty stupid that grown adults (most of them old) are acting like preschool girls. Oh well, I will be a 'clone supporter no matter what happens, just sad that our fate is being decided by another school.

 

[rebecacy]

Question: President Boren, why has it taken OU 15 years to have this epiphany regarding "equality" in the Big 12?

Answer: Nobody will give us a network, so now we're all for socialism...

I'd guess that if OU could have lined up a network, we don't hear anything about "equality" from ex-Senator Boren. Why no equality talk last summer after NU and CU left???

So, your angry. Good for you. I still want a stable equitable big xii and we are almost there. JP and GG may come from an also ran university when it come to athletics but they understand strategic planning and negotiations like Harvard MBAs.

 

[CyBer]

So, your angry. Good for you. I still want a stable equitable big xii and we are almost there. JP and GG may come from an also ran university when it come to athletics but they understand strategic planning and negotiations like Harvard MBAs.

How sure are you that you are right? In a percentage please.

 

[CloneSolo]

I don't know what to think about this whole mess, and no one does. Anyone that tells you that they have "inside" information is blowing smoke out of their ***. I'd love to see the "powers" of the conference come together and work out a mutual agreement. I'd love to see a Big 12 network, and equal revenue sharing. However, it's looking more and more like OU is going to the PAC12 and UT is not. I wish they would listen to the little guy in this situation, and not make this thing all about money, but that isn't going to happen.

Pretty stupid that grown adults (most of them old) are acting like preschool girls. Oh well, I will be a 'clone supporter no matter what happens, just sad that our fate is being decided by another school.

In reality, I would hope most everyone feels the same way. Am I disappointed that we may be relegated to an inferior conference? Absolutely. Am I frustrated that we seem to be powerless and at the mercy of much bigger, greedier hands? Definitely. I think most people who post on here feel like this because of the passion for this University. However, will this effect my love for ISU, absolutely not! Will I still be a member of the Cyclone Club, Gridiron Club, and attend as many home games as possible, heck yes. Because in the end, this is still my team and my University. Now I am getting off my soap box for the day.

 

[jbhtexas]

Other comments in the articles say that they are still looking at a network.

Seems like a waste of time if the only conferences OU are considering are the Pac-12 or a Big-12 with completely equal TV revenue sharing.

Honestly, from an ISU standpoint, if we end up in a strong Big 12 conference with equal revenue sharing and stability, I don't care a bit why it took so long. Couldn't care less, could care less...which ever one means I don't care at all.

Stability can only come when true motives are known. Regarding TV revenue, UT's motive is pretty obvious: make a pile of money for themselves from LHN. But what is OU's real motive? It's easy to clamor for equality when one is going to be on the receiving end. Right now OU would be on the receiving end. However, they are a school that could, in the future, command a lucrative third-tier deal on their own. How willing will OU be to share if that becomes the case?

I don't trust flip-floppers. If OU had been asking for this a year ago, that would be one thing. Regarding third-tierTV, the only thing that has changed from last year until now is that UT got LHN and OU got nothing, and now all of a sudden, OU is all for sharing.

 

[00clone]

I don't trust flip-floppers. If OU had been asking for this a year ago, that would be one thing. Regarding TV, the only thing that has changed from last year until now is that UT got LHN and OU got nothing.

One other thing that changed from last year is that everyone got together and sang kumbaya, then the inequality started eating at someone again, now they're leaving. The second thing Bored said is this:

"Very important to us, as we consider the most important step for us to take, is long-term stability, for the university within a conference framework. Obviously we do not want to continue to have these kinds of situations, where our membership in a conference is still undecided, has to be revisited every year, the stability of the conference has to be revisited every year."

I think they're seeing the idiocy of the fact that statistically, the big 12 might be the best conference in the country right now, football wise, and OU is the number 1 team in the country, and they're spending their time and money trying to figure out what conference to be in. *Maybe* they're getting the point that getting the sweetheart deal over their other conference mates isn't worth the hassle of having to deal with this every year.

ONE THING TO REMEMBER....equal conference revenue sharing IS NOT equality for revenue. OU will ALWAYS make more money than ISU. More gear sales, more ticket revenue, higher donors to get the good parking spots, etc.

Maybe I'm being overly optimistic. Last year, it felt like "ehh, we're still getting screwed, but not screwed as bad, and we're better off than we would be out in the cold." Maybe it's different...maybe not, but hearing these comments from Boren is better than hearing him say "we're the #1 team in the country, that's worth something, and we intend on getting our worth out of any conference we're in, no matter what that means to our peers."

Edit: one thing I'll add, I appreciate a good back and forth banter with different opinions, as all this is opinion based at this point. I'm glad this isn't turning into a "shut up, stupidhead" discussion. I've been in those in the past on here, regret it, and try to avoid it when I can.

 

[rebecacy]

How sure are you that you are right? In a percentage please.

When I look at all the cards on the table, it makes the most sense to me for them to give in and stay home. But it's Texas and huge egos are at play Where else would someone build a 1.1 Billion dollar stadium just to play football.. I'm sure the plan's architects gave this a lot of thought before they put it in play. I'd want a 75% chance of success and a solid back-up plan. I'll go with that.

 

[rebecacy]

One other thing that changed from last year is that everyone got together and sang kumbaya, then the inequality started eating at someone again, now they're leaving. The second thing Bored said is this:

"Very important to us, as we consider the most important step for us to take, is long-term stability, for the university within a conference framework. Obviously we do not want to continue to have these kinds of situations, where our membership in a conference is still undecided, has to be revisited every year, the stability of the conference has to be revisited every year."

I think they're seeing the idiocy of the fact that statistically, the big 12 might be the best conference in the country right now, football wise, and OU is the number 1 team in the country, and they're spending their time and money trying to figure out what conference to be in. *Maybe* they're getting the point that getting the sweetheart deal over their other conference mates isn't worth the hassle of having to deal with this every year.

ONE THING TO REMEMBER....equal conference revenue sharing IS NOT equality for revenue. OU will ALWAYS make more money than ISU. More gear sales, more ticket revenue, higher donors to get the good parking spots, etc.

Maybe I'm being overly optimistic. Last year, it felt like "ehh, we're still getting screwed, but not screwed as bad, and we're better off than we would be out in the cold." Maybe it's different...maybe not, but hearing these comments from Boren is better than hearing him say "we're the #1 team in the country, that's worth something, and we intend on getting our worth out of any conference we're in, no matter what that means to our peers."

OU is not the enemy. They started working with ISU and others and pushed for a new conference contract with large by-outs last year before NU and CU had even left. Texas said the timing was bad and it never happened. They also did not start this current crisis, they reacted to it. And quite well, in my mind. I have no respect for the Aggies, they made the biggest chickenshit move ever. How stupid can they be to run to the SEC where they won't make more money and will be less competitive in FB....... all because they're ****** off at their big brother. At least the rest of us were smart enough to corner Texas (the ratbastards) and make them, concede or leave.

 

[bosco]

Stability can only come when true motives are known. Regarding TV revenue, UT's motive is pretty obvious: make a pile of money for themselves from LHN. But what is OU's real motive?. It's easy to clamor for equality when one is going to be on the receiving end. Right now OU would be on the receiving end. However, they are a school that could, in the future, command a lucrative third-tier deal on their own. How willing will OU be to share if that becomes the case?

I don't trust flip-floppers. If OU had been asking for this a year ago, that would be one thing. Regarding TV, the only thing that has changed from last year until now is that UT got LHN and OU got nothing.

I believe the difference for OU and A&M was that they didn't envision that the LHN would be worth $15mil a year. For schools like ISU, since UT was so far ahead of us already that it the amount didn't matter. OU cannot compete with that. They can compete with Texas before even though UT's revenue is huge but the yearly windfall is the 800lb gorilla.

So maybe the real cause of the problem is ESPN?

 

[00clone]

OU is not the enemy.

I hope you're not saying this because my comments made me sound like I was saying they were. Boren's comments yesterday made me think they're might now be on board the equality wagon, and will only leave if Texas stays here with inequality remaining here.

 

[Clone83]

I believe the difference for OU and A&M was that they didn't envision that the LHN would be worth $15mil a year. For schools like ISU, since UT was so far ahead of us already that it the amount didn't matter. OU cannot compete with that. They can compete with Texas before even though UT's revenue is huge but the yearly windfall is the 800lb gorilla.

So maybe the real cause of the problem is ESPN?

This, and I think the HS game highlights on the LHN (once the HS games were nixed).

That is a pretty big recruiting advantage over a school like OU. ISU not as much, since we wouldn't be in on many of those recruits. I think Boren mentions this (in the context of equality) in the transcripts 00clone linked above. OU is in a good position to argue for the kind of equality in the Big 12 OU would get elsewhere.

 

[UNIGuy4Cy]

bobfescoe Bob Fescoe



Hearing from ou money person pac12 flirtation was originally posturing but may have gone 2 far majority ou ppl want 2 keep big12 intact

 

[Clone83]

Here is Boren's answer to that question:

(is LHN the big problem with the Big 12?)

“We’re trying to build a positive relationship with all the universities around us. I don’t think it would serve any purpose for me to throw stones. If we were to remain in the Big 12, as you know, the University of Oklahoma was making plans to start our own network. I think whether it’s conference networks or individual university networks, they need to be operated in a way that we don’t violate any of the basic rules that should apply to all universities. For example, we don’t operate networks in a way that would give a recruiting advantage, as Coach Stoops has said, to one university over another. We simply could have a situation where you don’t play whole (high school) games where you have recruits, or people you’re trying to recruit, playing on those teams. You can play highlights and your highlights just might happen to focus on some of those players who were your top recruits. Now, is that a level playing field on recruiting? I don’t think so. We’re for a level playing field. We want to see a conference in which all the members play an equal role. Whatever conference we join, or whatever conference we stay in – those are obviously the two major options – the University of Oklahoma has no ambition to dominate any conference. We simply have the ambition of being a member, an equal member, of any conference, playing by the same rules, by having a level playing field for all the members of that conference and developing a high level of trust in each other. That’s our goal. That’s what we’re after.

 

[shawn_200m]

bobfescoe Bob Fescoe



Hearing from ou money person pac12 flirtation was originally posturing but may have gone 2 far majority ou ppl want 2 keep big12 intact

This would actually fall in line with rebecacy's theory, with the obvious problem that OU is about to stab us in the back.

 

[jbhtexas]

So if OU is for equality and fair play, why not simply bring these issues up in the Big 12 boardroom and enact fairness/equality as conference policy? If the remaining 8 (and maybe 9 with A&M) are united, and UT doesn't like it, let UT take their ball (i.e. LHN) and leave. The 8/9 remaining teams would have a common core of beliefs on which to build a strong conference back to 10/12.

This public posturing/bluffing/flirtation with the Pac-12 by OU makes no sense from a standpoint of OU being everybody's friend and looking out for the good of the conference. Maybe OU does want a conference of equals, but it sure seems that they are more worried about their image than making a conference of equals. They don't want to look like the heavy should UT decide to bolt.

What Boren says in public doesn't matter. How he acts in bringing these matters before the Big 12 commisioners and how he votes when they are being acted on is what matters. Take it to the boardroom and vote it in.