I believe that ultimately UF and USCe will support FSU and Clemson to SEC…
State politics will require it. Here’s a great article on how UF was forced to play FSU in the 50s. The Governor got involved and the rest is history. Don’t see it much different today.
Link:
FSU “Crackers” lol
73 Replies
M
Marooned
2y
state lines. Nor do they poach each other’s teams. Taking F$U and Clemson may not make much sense to the SEC on face value, but may be viewed as preserving the status quo. That is the only argument I can think of. It makes sense in that there are no expansion targets for the SEC to compensate for such a move.
(In response to this post by CrystalCoveHokie)
2y
Florida State has invested heavily to gain AAU membership and feel it will happen soon. Some seem to think, depending on result of legal proceedings, the B1G is a done deal. Otherwise why would the Noles risk losing many millions of dollars if the reward was not a certainty.
I live in Central Florida and am surrounded by FSU grads. Even my pastor is a Nole.
(In response to this post by CrystalCoveHokie)
FSU and Clemson to B1G makes more sense than those two to the SEC
(In response to this post by CrystalCoveHokie)
V
VTCALS72
2y
Clemson and FSU are in the footprint of the SEC. Do you remember that while we were in the BE and better any other team in the VA/NC area but it was still an uphill fight because the heart of VA/NC belonged to the ACC?
I had a post back and forth with Big 12 Guy who said USCe was the flagship school with more followers/fans than Clemson and Clemson's current position was only because they were winning at a high level. Well, IMHO both Clemson and FSU will have fewer avid fans in the seats simply be being in a Chicago based conference, playing teams from everywhere but the southeast.
(In response to this post by UpstateSCHokie)
Clemson is certainly the #1 brand in the upstate (where I live) but if you
travel to the low country you see more USCe stuff. Its kind of hard to tell which school is really the "#1" here. For sure both fan bases love their school, but the USCe fan base love their school even when they have a losing record. I'm not sure I can say the same for Clemson fans.
** Edited by UpstateSCHokie at 5/4/2024, 9:37:41 AM
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2
2hhoop3
2y
regarding brand solely confined to the state? If so, that would at least be a closer call but, it is really no call at all once beyond state lines. When people outside the state hear South Carolina Gamecocks the first, and likely only, thing that comes to mind is women's hoops.
(In response to this post by UpstateSCHokie)
2y
in the playoffs. That faded pretty quickly, and unless a team stays in the top 10 for decades, like OU, Alabama, or Nebraska as examples, they are not national brands.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
you were wrong last night and not anymore correct in the current light of day. You have a flawed understanding of the state of South Carolina football history and its landscape and an even more flawed understanding of what constitutes a brand.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
V
VPI_1998
2y
Their expansion strategy has been generally regional and adding markets they don't already have. FSU and Clemson really don't add anything for them. Unless they find a way to kick out Vandy and one of the Mississippi schools (which won't happen) and they replace with Clemson and FSU, the SEC has absolutely no reason to add them that I can see - just 2 more mouths to feed in markets they already have. Now - adding schools in NC and VA markets would seem to align with their strategy.
Maybe they would consider adding FSU because Florida is a huge state population-wise (like Texas) but Clemson - I don't really see it.
(In response to this post by CrystalCoveHokie)
M
Marooned
2y
Wealthiest program in the country. National championship winner.
Elite academics (not that the SEC puts much stock in that, but it helps their reputation certainly)
(In response to this post by VPI_1998)
S
Stech
2y
(In response to this post by Marooned)
2y
(In response to this post by VPI_1998)
V
VPI_1998
2y
others have said - maybe the SEC takes Clemson and FSU just to keep the B1G from getting them, but I don't see the SEC doing that - they are just fine without FSU and Clemson, and B1G just seems to be expanding everywhere whether it makes sense geographically or not.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
but they do not own the South Carolina market like USC does. I mean sure, when they are in the playoffs, but historically, USC is the flagship. 15 years ago, no one outside of the Atlantic Coast or the South had ever heard of them. 15 years from now? Dabos will be long gone, and there is no guarantee that even he can duplicate those teams today in an NIL era. (No offence Clemson, as my view is from a different part of the country).
Does FSU even need a travel partner? I'm just not convinced Clemson vs Wisconsin, or even tOSU brings the eyeballs to warrant $80M - $100M a year. maybe, as I only have a layman's fans perspective, but Clemson brings value to an ACC or a B12 - not the SEC or Big 10.
Now if it makes a difference in the playoff money look in, then they might bring value with their National Championships, but as a nation wide brand like USC/UCLA? I'm not sure that happens.
If the goal is to break away from the NCAA - all bets are off - but I still believe this was all about the media contacts and the playoff money - NOT to form a break away league. Does a school up the media payouts for the conference, or not?
(In response to this post by VPI_1998)
V
VPI 1924
2y
Within 3 years Clemson will sink to the current VaTech low. We lose to ODU and Liberty. Clemson will lose to Furman and Coastal Carolina.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
beat yourself up too much. i understand, that to compete for championships, they should be automatics, but even G5's can field some pretty good teams.
What separates the power conferences has been their depth. One or two injuries to G5 squads to any key player, and they don't have a back up to take their place. That is why G5 teams tend to win early against the power teams, but don't do as well in the bowls.
(In response to this post by VPI 1924)
V
VTCALS72
2y
of the land in South Carolina. Way too much emphasis and supposed status to the older state U that they really don't have. Same in VA and NC. USCe has their fanbase and CU has theirs and neither will support the other especially in football. The SEC has about half of the state. And, Clemson will take a slice of the state of NC as well. What the SEC does not need for football is either UNC or UVA.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
back then, no one wore orange and purple. Columbia is a hell of a place to watch a game, especially for a team that has never accomplished much.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2
2hhoop3
2y
Danny Ford, Homer Jordan, Perry Tuttle? People have known about Clemson for far longer than 15 years. The #1 brand in South Carolina pretty much begins and ends with football, apologies to Dawn Staley, and for all but a few years(mostly Spurrier and Holtz) it has been Clemson.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
rearview mirror.
Clemson has had a good run, but they still do not bring the eyeballs nationally, and maybe I didn't type it right, but neither does South Carolina.
If you ever find yourself knocking back a few beers in South Carolina, I assure you, it's the gamecocks hands down.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
your ten years in Charlotte notwithstanding and I say that with over 50 years of watching sports in Columbia and Clemson, family in the state and several friends playing at South Carolina and Clemson. It appears your time in another part of the country has clouded your memory.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2
2hhoop3
2y
but, I am familiar with his time as AD.
(In response to this post by VPI 1924)
V
VPI 1924
2y
I was a Duke fan back in the mid 1950’s . Saw that USC duo play in Durham twice. Hawkins went on to star with the Colts. Wray Carlton was the Duke great back then as well as Jim Baktiar at UVA
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
V
VPI 1924
2y
UVA recruited internationally back in those days.
(In response to this post by VPI 1924)
R
RJHokie
2y
He was a great player on a bad team and a great person as well.
(In response to this post by VPI 1924)
2
2hhoop3
2y
even in your time(89-97) there SC was not the brand. They have a rabid fan base that packed Williams Brice even in winless seasons but, aside from the Spurrier and Holtz years and the days of George Rodgers they were middling to terrible. Clemson was the fifth winningest program overall in the 1980s, maintained solid results in to the 90s, fell off in later 90s and 2000s and the recent years are close enough for you to remember.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
seasons is what separates the gamecocks. You are right, except for a few years, they have been perennially awful. Yet, that stadium is packed, they follow the recruiting, they actually think they have a top football program, even though they always lose. the fans are some of the worst welcoming fans I have ever witnessed, they don't think their stuff stinks, and I truly hope they lose every single game they play for the rest of time. i passionately dislike that school, and most that are associated with them.
The fact that they are so awful, and are still that passionate about their team, is what separates them from Clemson. Clemson gets excited when they win, USC remains excited when they lose.
God help us all if the gamecocks ever do put together a year that gives them a national championship. The entire country would suffer for decades.
I hope those words at least convey that I don't have a blinded fans perspective. The Clemson experience was much different than the USC experience, and if I was the network, Id take USC in a heartbeat, and keep Clemson in the ACC.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
M
Marooned
2y
They certainly invested in the program and went after name coaches. Given that the SEC competes in fewer sports; it must’ve made the job easier. VT used to play them as independents and in the metro. I don’t remember them being a juggernaut of fan support back then.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
(In response to this post by Marooned)
2
2hhoop3
2y
but, filling a stadium as a loser or middle of the road team does not make a program the brand, it only says they have enough loyalty to put fannies in the seats. The debate was the #1 brand and Clemson's 3 championships, 2 more playoff appearances and multiple major bowls makes them the top brand in the minds of the general public the loyal gamecock fan base notwithstanding. Your words do not convey you have a blinded fan's perspective just not a correct one as far as what constitutes the top brand.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
inclination to look up the viewer numbers over the years, but I'd be willing to bet that USC gets better numbers than Clemson. You are talking brand, and I'm talking viewership numbers, sellouts, and who is king in that state. The nano second that Clemson goes back to 6-6 seasons, their time in the sun is over with, and USC will still have their fans whether they win or not.
The State is a USC state, and I would take them over Clemson any day of the week if it was up to me.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
(In response to this post by CrystalCoveHokie)
S
Stech
2y
the politicians will be happy if they end up in a P2 period. JMHO I give a longer version with 7 reasons why the money is them going to the B1G below. Follow the money!
(In response to this post by CrystalCoveHokie)
C
CoolJCPA
2y
The idea that this was about fans, regionalism, etc. is long gone. This is about the $. This deal makes more financial sense for the BIG to take FSU and Clemson. Then grab Miami and UNC, and then possibly GT and UVA. Both Miami and GT are in easy cities to travel to for a large national conference. Their academics are very good, etc. There is no package of teams the SEC could put together that would match that group. As VT fans we can just hope at that time, VT and NC State get a seat at the SEC table because they would definitely be the prettiest girls left at the dance. Also, I see no scenario where FSU leaves the ACC to go into the Big 12 for a temporary fix. That would not go over well with their fanbase.
(In response to this post by Stech)
O
obguthr
2y
what's the reasoning behind B1G ballooning to 24? UVA and GT don't add $$$, I'm not sure Miami or UNC do either. Washington and Oregon barely got in. B1G wants in Florida and that would be the only reason to expand unless ND or aTm are available.
(In response to this post by CoolJCPA)
C
CoolJCPA
2y
GT gives them Atlanta and more of a footprint in the southeast. UNC is clearly the biggest get because of name and academics behind FSU and Clemson. UVA is more akin to UNC and a natural match and it colors in the map of contiguous states. Miami is just bonus to round it out unless ND joins.
(In response to this post by obguthr)
H
hokieZ71
2y
That’s like how Rutgers “gets NYC” and Maryland “gets DC.”
(In response to this post by CoolJCPA)
2y
As long as the media partners ensure that a particular expansion will be financially supported, they will keep extending their borders. They would love to settle down in VA and NC, but for now it looks like Florida, not a bad get. I think GT is pretty far down the list, but that is too big a population to disregard. They should get long consideration. We should not place much importance on "the number" when thinking about expansion. We are already beyond the number that allows easy management. Getting bigger is something that The B1G, and maybe others are willing to deal with.
(In response to this post by obguthr)
V
VTCALS72
2y
The ACC saw all that Boston population and thought that they could use BC as a gateway to sell Miami and FSU in football and UNC and Duke in MBB. But Boston didn't love college football, didn't love BC and didn't love the idea of a conference in the south/southern teams/culture and said nope, that is not us.
In Atlanta, GT is more than BC is in Boston, but not that much. And Atlanta is in love with college football but 90% of that love is for UGA and the SEC. So IMHO the Big will finds that trying to get in the southeast will be about like the ACC trying to take Boston. If FSU goes to the BIG, they will be mildly disappointed with each other as FSU has a net loss of fan base.
Remember us in the BE with a better product and a large and bought in fan base but still swimming upstream against the conference (ACC) our home area loved.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
M
Marooned
2y
and all I could afford was the side item sampler. Greedy Yankees!
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2y
overtake the Bulldogs to fulfill their role in The B1G. If advertisers, with precision data, think they can reach a particular large audience, they will buy-in. I made a point yesterday about the increase in viewership that UNC will undergo if they move to The SEC. They will have more popular opponents week in and week out. The same would apply to GT in The B1G, when coupled with those huge markets. Markets still matter. Folks in Tuscaloosa or Fayetteville only prove that there is more than one formula for success. Every realignment case requires its own calculation; brand, market, academics, etc.
I'm not predicting that The B1G will invite GT, but I think they could make money with her.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
to the DMV market? Sadly, the advertisers don't work that hard to see what is under the surface, they want the low hanging fruit. Boston College was not it to enter the Boston market which did matter nor is GT it for the Atlanta market.
The Big casting eyes at Atlanta and thinking all they need is a parking place, well remember the Boston market.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
2y
member schools. It was the brainchild of the conference office, stimulated by J. Swofford's beloved son, who was working up there at the time.
I do not suggest that GT is a preferred target of The B1G. I'm saying I wouldn't rule it out. You and I are not inside the heads of the decision makers.
As far as the advertisers not looking under the surface, I don't agree. The viewership numbers are like advanced rocket science. They know who watches, at what time, for how long, how old we are, our income, family situation, and who we vote for.
The Nielsen ratings indicate that Blacksburg TV does not penetrate the DMV market. But that's a very general, day by day, rating. If you are Nielsen's client you would know that on Saturdays in the Fall, DMV viewers are actually tuned in on VT. But you have to pay them for that info.
Swofford should have consulted Nielsen before he married-up with the lady on Chestnut Hill.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2
2hhoop3
2y
the brainchild of the conference office or little Swofford. It was Miami driven but, it did have the added benefit of having TV sets that were valuable in the linear market at the time.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
V
VTCALS72
2y
Time to ditch that idea that the ACC was completely run by idiots and crooks. The ACC is, today in a better position than the 2/3rds of the former P5. If the ACC leadership was as bad as you just said, they would have been the easiest flower to pick rather than the PAC and b12 being the easiest.
Yeah, Neilson is great, for 2023 they said UVA was more watched than VT by a mile. The reason, UVA played Tennessee in front of over 100,000 fans and rated UVA as if they were all there to see UVA. That is how much attention that should be paid to Neilson.
As far as Blacksburg goes, anyone who limits VT as if there reach was only in Blacksburg and not deeply into NOVA in alums, employees and campuses, is providing laughable statistics.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
2y
because of the GOR, and that is currently being litigated in court. Once the GOR is done, so is the ACC. Now, 2027, or 2036. To pretend otherwise is a kin to having your head in the sand.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
In 2016 the entire ACC was white hot to get the ACCN and that took the GOR. I agree that is the good decision by the ACC in light of losing MD to protect the league. So yes, all of the XII name teams are gone and the PAC is gone temporily and whereas we dont know for how much longer, as of today the ACC has done better than the PAC or XII.
This XII bunch is the most head in the sand bunch I believe I ever saw. They have been stripped of their national teams, been ESPN's lackey (like the ACC) to the temporary placing teams until they can bring them back to the PAC and the new XII has not played one game yet. Yet so many think they are primed to be a successful national challenge the P2. Laughable. In 2036 none of the existing leagues my exist. But clearly as far as being a solid mid level conference, just like the XII, the ACC is nowhere as near dead as you are hoping for.
What the XII does have that gives it a real strength is being in a region that is a P2 desert. They fit perfectly to be a regional mid level power and make the Big media some dollars in their region.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
suppose that is the reason that the ACC didn't expand with any of the schools in the B12 - when you guys could have had any of them.
What is that view getting the ACC today? Maybe you should take a step back, and look at the bigger picture. The ACC ship came in, and you didn't get on board. Now it's sailing away, and you continue with your outdated view.
The viewership numbers are out there. VT sells out their stadium, but does VT sell out BC, Wake, Duke, or even NC States stadium?
Kansas goes on the road, and they play in sold out stadiums, when they have just stunk up the place with football - but they play in stadiums that are sold out, week, after week. Except for 3 stadiums in the ACC (VT, FSU, and Clemson), where does Duke play in front of a sell out crowd? ND doesn't count.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
Outside of WVU, UCF and maybe Cincy, no other teams in the XII would move the needle in the ACC area. That will be especially true if there are P2 teams in every state that the ACC will have to compete against.
Honestly don't you think you ought to wait until KU has a few years and at least a coaching change before you place them in such a high place. Do you really think KU would draw fans in the ACC area? Especially if 4 or more ACC teams go to the 2 P2 conferences? I don't.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
I was trying to illustrate that the B12 as a whole, fills up their stadiums, and have solid viewership numbers when they are on TV. If you were to take OU and Texas out of those numbers, they remain strong. If you take FSU and Clemson out of the ACC viewership numbers, they do not hold up as well.
K-State would move the needle in ACC country about as much as VT would move the needle out here. Not a whole lot unless they were actually playing for something, like a playoff appearance. Other than that, I'm with you that ACC teams have no business playing in Texas as an example. Nor does Oklahoma State have any business playing in NC as an example.
There is a new world order though, if you haven't noticed. ACC teams will now be playing in Texas and California - so to have a hoity Hokie view probably doesn't help your conference too much. If you had Oklahoma State, K-State, TCU, and Texas Tech in the ACC, your conference wouldn't be in the position it's in.
The idea that the ACC minus FSU and Clemson, is worth as much as the current B12 is wishful thinking, and an old school bubble mentality. Play a regular season game on the road in any of the leftover B12 stadiums, and i think you might change your opinion on putting your G5 status on those schools.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
In fact, you are closer to putting P2 status on the XII than I am putting G5 status on them. As far as the 6 PAC schools we both adding, you know I think that was and is a temporary arrangement until Big media has all the teams in wants in the P2. Then step 2 is to create a mid tier which IMHO will include XII and ACC. The purpose, to fill in regional slots and to be what triple A is to the Major. then I believe Part 3 will be to pare down the P2 from whatever max number they reach back down to somewhere in the 30s. Maybe even as low as 32.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
Do I think the B12 will ever be at the same level as the P2? My answer to that is Not a chance. The further this goes in time, the more difficult it will be to compete. For now, they can absolutely be competitive, and steal a National championship from time to time. If they go to paying players as employees, and there is no cap, then the B12 and the ACC will never compete. When you are talking 30 and 40 million a year, it won't take long for there to be a break away league. Can we now agree that I don't think the B12 is a P2 conference? What else do I have to say?
Some, think the ACC is a P2 conference, and they are getting their hat handed to them. Comparing the B12 and ACC minus the top 2 or 3 schools, I don't think you il like how the ACC lines up. The PAC sure didn't.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
I do think the XII is paying paid a premium right now due to the hurry up and wait nature of the time it is going to take to get the ACC schools they want in the P2. After that I am sold on the 3 regional conferences for the purposes I have said.
And your last paragraph is the one that I would disagree with way more. It is way more the XI fans who think they are closer to being a P3 than the ACC does.
And just as the cherry on top, the NCAA did a study over a 4 year period based not just on attendance but also % of stadium filled and some other things. In it Kansas was like 70 something. This was not a Neilson type where they only count some games or national TV etc. The point, right now the XII does have some coaches who will soon be gone to the P2 and when that happens KU and others have as much chance to drop as they do hold where Leapoild has them. Conversely, the new coach at Cuse may soon have them where Kansas is now. For that matter BC may find their next Ryan, Hasselback or Flutie and be back in the top 10. After all Kansas did and they are a much football weaker place than either of Cuse or BC.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
money on coaches in football, and just can't seem to get over the hump. Unlike eUSC, KU has a LOT of fair weather fans when it comes to their football program. Part of that is the stadium and tailgate experience. In a word, it sucks when compared to just about any other program in the B12. A new and improved stadium that is being built as we speak will help the fan experience, but win or lose, KU has had difficulty filling their stadium.
That has changed the last two years, but you are correct - will they be able to keep their coach if he continues to build a program, or will the P2 just have too much money to throw around?
Keep in mind, it's not just the head coaching position. It will be increasingly difficult for any program to retain a competent staff when a strength and conditioning coach at Alabama is commanding an over $900,000 salary.
In our other posts, I was comparing the B12/ACC attendance/viewership in general, top to bottom.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
S
Stech
2y
areas, because their model is to build up Sunday through eyeballs on Saturday. Why do you take Rutgers, Maryland, LA and Seattle schools? Because you can promote your prized possession, the NFL on Sunday. That means schools like Miami and Georgia Tech are in play for them. If BC put more money in College Football, they would be too. The problem with Georgia Tech is they are more like BC, and just don’t want to put the money into football. Miami has been killing themselves because it’s an hour drive to get to their stadium, but they could still make the P2 IMHO.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2y
those teams added be accretive to viewers, or are we talking diminishing returns? I'm not smart enough to know where that line is, but $80M - $100M per school is a LOT of money. It all comes down to the ROI - nothing else.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
S
Stech
2y
They would probably take FSU and Clemson, but too many schools don’t want them. Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky, and even Auburn & Tennessee. They also want to recruit in North Carolina and Virginia more, which are almost double in size, to South Carolina and will help when the basketball tournament expands and brings in more money at the Sweet 16 and later rounds.
PS Fox/B1G is about eyeballs on Saturday to help promote their crown jewel on Sunday, the NFL.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
more beneficial as streaming gains in popularity.
(In response to this post by Stech)
2y
bigger picture, it's the Florida, Virginia, and NC schools that bring the value, not South Carolina. Using your metric, GT jumps to the front of the line as well. Clemson and FSU have not developed that fierce rivalry game the country is salivating to watch. The Clemson USC rivalry is like the Egg bowl - only diehards like me find them compelling, mostly because there usually isn't anything on the line but bragging rights -but those games have history, and make for excellent television, but they have to be playing for something.
The back yard brawl recently got a prime time slot, but it was the history and rarity that made that a compelling game.
I can certainly see why those schools you mentioned don't want them in the conference, so the driving metric would have to be money. Does Clemson and FSU help the SEC get more money? There is an argument that FSU does, but they do not bring the intangibles that the SEC doesn't already have (recruiting and new markets for their network). If your the Big 10, what does Clemson bring to the table? Good football for sure, but a market and recruiting hot bed? Not so much. They are more like an Oregon - a decent football program, but it falls off a cliff after that. Oregon has Nike, and they, like Clemson, have had some success on the field. I think they are more a travel partner for Washington, where those two together were worth more together than they would have been individually. Maybe I'm off the reservation here, but if you step out of your geography, does FSU and Clemson bring the same value? More importantly, does FSU need a travel partner?
If it's just football brands - then my argument falls apart. When you look at markets, eyeballs, and recruiting, it's the State of Florida that jumps off the page, not Clemson. Also, look at where all of those people that have migrated South from Big 10 country over the decades. They have moved to Virginia, NC, Georgia, and Florida. Those donors, and potential donors are very important, not only for the football eyeballs, but the academic side. Atlanta an Charlotte would be the places for the University President to connect with wealthy alumni, not Columbia or Greenville.
I think Clemson brings tremendous value to the ACC, but it just isn't something the University Presidents in the Big 10 are falling over themselves to include in their club. I also think that a VT brings more value to the SEC than Clemson, and VT's proximity to DC, combined with their academics, would be a better fit in the Big 10 then Clemson. The competition for you guys, is Virginia.
(In response to this post by Stech)
M
Marooned
2y
against the backdrop of the Texas State Fair, coupled with greater long term FB success, makes Oklahoma a layup when adding UT. Now, looking ahead, can Oklahoma keep up in the arms race against the league’s heavy hitters, or do they suffer the same fate as Nebraska?
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
W
WarHog38
2y
Bud Wilkerson coached there. That Red River Rivalry Game and that long Red River border are the keys. Oklahoma was a football powerhouse in the Big 8 many decades before the Big 12 was formed. Texas was in the SWC back then but that RRR game was a big game for both schools even while in different conferences. Oklahoma & Texas together in the SEC will just strengthen that Texas recruiting for Oklahoma.
Texas A&M was whipping both Texas & Oklahoma on Texas recruits after the Aggies joined the SEC. Arkansas had benefited being SEC on Texas recruiting before the Aggies joined the SEC. The Aggies joining hurt Arkansas in Texas. The Longhorns joining the SEC will hurt the Aggies. Things are going back to the old SWC hierarchy. Texas & Oklahoma get the top Texas recruits & the Aggies & Hogs get what's left. However a lot left in a state the size of Texas.
The SEC presence of two schools in Texas will further open the door to all the SEC schools to have some success in recruiting Texas. I know Alabama now gets Texas recruits and LSU always did great recruiting Houston.
(In response to this post by Marooned)
V
VPI 1924
2y
There are oil wells on the front lawn of the capital and they will soon have Josh Heupel as their coach. Nebraska joined the most boring conference in football. Look at the fall of PSU. USC and UCLA add nothing to the BIG. No one in LA County speaks English and Celina is no longer with us.
(In response to this post by Marooned)
V
VPI_1998
2y
It looks good right now but will they become Nebraska-ized once in the SEC? I personally don't think so but it will be interesting to watch them to see how they manage.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)