Letter from GG and JP

[doolittledog]

If Texas really doesn't want to give up control and being the big dog in the conference it would almost be a nice thing to see Nebby and Mizzou leave. Go down to a 10 team conference without divisions. Play the other 9 teams and still have 3 non-con games to schedule. Iowa for the rivalry game. UNI or some other FCS team for a supposedly easy game, and then whoever else can be scheduled.

Or...let Nebby and Mizzou leave and then add Arkansas and some other mystery school.

 

[trajanJ]

NU needs to stay, we can replace MU somewhat. It's time to stop ******** about the revenue sharing. It's only about a 2 mill. difference from top to bottom. The schools left out will lose a ton more than 2 mill.

 

[everyyard]

NU needs to stay, we can replace MU somewhat. It's time to stop ******** about the revenue sharing. It's only about a 2 mill. difference from top to bottom. The schools left out will lose a ton more than 2 mill.

yep

 

[jbhtexas]

OU has always been able to recruit Texas...even prior to the Big 12. Ever heard of Billy Sims?

You must be talking to too many UT fans that want you to believe that UT being in the Big 12 is why OU is even relevant in FB.

I've heard of Billy Sims. Certainly OU has recruited Texas prior to Stoops, and has gotten some good players. And if college FB rosters were made up of 1 player, you might have point. But they aren't. Winning college FB rosters are 3-4 deep of good players.

Lets look at the makeup of the OU rosters prior to Stoops:
(stats from SoonerStats.com - Oklahoma Sooners Football, Basketball, and Baseball Scores, Records, and Stats)
year--players from OK or TX--coach--OK players/TX players
1998--OK 64, TX 31--Blake--2.06
1997--OK 63, TX 31--Blake--2.03
1996--OK 56, TX 35--Blake--1.60
1995--OK 50, TX 43--Schnell--1.16
1994--TX 53, OK 40--Gibbs--0.75
1993--TX 42, OK 37--Gibbs--0.88
1992--TX 49, OK 35--Gibbs--0.71
1991--TX 55, OK 35--Gibbs--0.64
1990--TX 45, OK 40--Gibbs--0.89
1989--OK 42, TX 39--Gibbs--1.08
1988--OK 46, TX 44--Switzer--1.05
1987--OK 43, TX 37--Switzer--1.16
1986--OK 50, TX 29--Switzer--1.72
1985--OK 49, TX 29--Switzer--1.69
1984--OK 51, TX 34--Switzer--1.50
1983--OK 49, TX 31--Switzer--1.58
1982--OK 44, TX 32--Switzer--1.38
1981--OK 51, TX 33--Switzer--1.55
1980--OK 60, TX 34--Switzer--1.76
1979--OK 68, TX 37--Switzer--1.84

Prior to Stoops, and spanning back 30 years, Gibbs was the only coach who had more TX players than OU players, and Gibbs was not particulalry successful by OU standards (Walden beat him in Norman). Other than Gibbs, the last two years of Switzer, and the HS year, the OU roster was heavily comprised of OK players relative to TX players.

Now, let look at the last 6 years of Stoops
year--players from OK or TX--coach--OK players/TX players
2010--TX 57, OK 29--Stoops--0.50
2009--TX 45, OK 33--Stoops--0.73
2008--TX 38, OK 33--Stoops--0.86
2007--TX 44, OK 29--Stoops--0.65
2006--TX 50, OK 30--Stoops--0.60
2005--TX 48, OK 30--Stoops--0.62

Stoops is recruiting TX more heavily than his recent predecessors, and his rosters are dominated with TX players moreso than any OU rosters in recent history. And Stoops is winning, which means he is getting good Texas players, and not scraps left over from UT and A&M. Obviously, Stoops has seen something that is causing him to stack his roster with TX players relative to OK players. Apparently he believes he needs a roster dominated by TX players to be successful. If Stoops wanted to, I'm sure, he could stack his roster with OK players just like Blake did.

The bottom line is that as far as the Big 12 goes, OU FB wasn't winning until Stoops came in and started heavily recruiting TX, and landing good TX players. Baring a miracle of Biblical proportions, OU is going where UT goes, or somewhere where Stoops' heavy TX ties will not be disrupted. If you are one of those who thinks that OU is going to dump UT for ISU,KU,KSU,CO,and NU to resurrect the old Big 8, you best start praying now for that Biblical miracle.

 

[everyyard]

The bottom line is that as far as the Big 12 goes, OU FB wasn't winning until Stoops came in and started heavily recruiting TX, and landing good TX players. Baring a miracle of Biblical proportions, OU is going where UT goes, or somewhere where Stoops heavy TX ties will not be disrupted. If you are one of those who thinks that OU is going to dump UT and for ISU,KU,KSU,CO,and NU to resurrect the old Big 8, you best start praying now for that Biblical miracle.

are there people that actually think this could happen? that is just crazy and if true shows that some people really don't understand all the elements in play.

 

[alarson]

I dont think we could survive just as the old big 8. HOWEVER, i dont think texas is going to leave alone if the rest of the big 12, most importantly OU and TAMU, decided to stick it out here. And honestly, while i dont think we could survive as the old big 8, i do think we could survive if we only lost texas. We'd still have access to texas for cable subscribership purposes, especially if we added another TX team to replace UT. Itd be a big loss not having them for texas ratings, but between tech, aggies, baylor, and another texas school, i think thats still enough to get your b12 network (or b12+pac10 network) off the ground and on cable in texas.

 

[simply1]

Texas wants to hang onto their whipping boys, bohica baby.

 

[LutherClone]

You know, I think the BEST case for us is if Texas heads to the Big Television with its army of *****s. That would allow the SEC to raid the Big East (USF and Louisville?) to make it to 14 and allow the ACC to do the same (West Virginia/Pitt/Rutgers?). The Big Twelve could back fill the South with Cincy/TCU/Memphis/Houston/Notre Dame(? hey, OU's still around) etc and realign to make even divisions of 12 or 14 (I'm not convinced everyone wants to move to 14-16... sounds like the Big 12 currently doesn't want to). Then the PAC-10 could take Utah/ BYU/ Boise/ etc.

I know we're all tired of hypotheticals and this is just another. But it does help ease my mind. I'm a little worried and this looks like a way we could survive. It would suck for Syracuse, UCONN, and Pitt/Rutgers/or WV, but it's better for us. I really think it's telling that the letters from JP/GG, Lew, and KState when the rumors from the west came. THAT, would be the deathknell. And that, would be trouble

For I! For S! Forever! (No matter the conference.)

 

[cyclonenum1]

I've heard of Billy Sims. Certainly OU has recruited Texas prior to Stoops, and has gotten some good players. And if college FB rosters were made up of 1 player, you might have point. But they aren't. Winning college FB rosters are 3-4 deep of good players.

Lets look at the makeup of the OU rosters prior to Stoops:
(stats from SoonerStats.com - Oklahoma Sooners Football, Basketball, and Baseball Scores, Records, and Stats)
year--players from OK or TX--coach--OK players/TX players
1998--OK 64, TX 31--Blake--2.06
1997--OK 63, TX 31--Blake--2.03
1996--OK 56, TX 35--Blake--1.60
1995--OK 50, TX 43--Schnell--1.16
1994--TX 53, OK 40--Gibbs--0.75
1993--TX 42, OK 37--Gibbs--0.88
1992--TX 49, OK 35--Gibbs--0.71
1991--TX 55, OK 35--Gibbs--0.64
1990--TX 45, OK 40--Gibbs--0.89
1989--OK 42, TX 39--Gibbs--1.08
1988--OK 46, TX 44--Switzer--1.05
1987--OK 43, TX 37--Switzer--1.16
1986--OK 50, TX 29--Switzer--1.72
1985--OK 49, TX 29--Switzer--1.69
1984--OK 51, TX 34--Switzer--1.50
1983--OK 49, TX 31--Switzer--1.58
1982--OK 44, TX 32--Switzer--1.38
1981--OK 51, TX 33--Switzer--1.55
1980--OK 60, TX 34--Switzer--1.76
1979--OK 68, TX 37--Switzer--1.84

Prior to Stoops, and spanning back 30 years, Gibbs was the only coach who had more TX players than OU players, and Gibbs was not particulalry successful by OU standards (Walden beat him in Norman). Other than Gibbs, the last two years of Switzer, and the HS year, the OU roster was heavily comprised of OK players relative to TX players.

Now, let look at the last 6 years of Stoops
year--players from OK or TX--coach--OK players/TX players
2010--TX 57, OK 29--Stoops--0.50
2009--TX 45, OK 33--Stoops--0.73
2008--TX 38, OK 33--Stoops--0.86
2007--TX 44, OK 29--Stoops--0.65
2006--TX 50, OK 30--Stoops--0.60
2005--TX 48, OK 30--Stoops--0.62

Stoops is recruiting TX more heavily than his recent predecessors, and his rosters are dominated with TX players moreso than any OU rosters in recent history. And Stoops is winning, which means he is getting good Texas players, and not scraps left over from UT and A&M. Obviously, Stoops has seen something that is causing him to stack his roster with TX players relative to OK players. Apparently he believes he needs a roster dominated by TX players to be successful. If Stoops wanted to, I'm sure, he could stack his roster with OK players just like Blake did.

The bottom line is that as far as the Big 12 goes, OU FB wasn't winning until Stoops came in and started heavily recruiting TX, and landing good TX players. Baring a miracle of Biblical proportions, OU is going where UT goes, or somewhere where Stoops' heavy TX ties will not be disrupted. If you are one of those who thinks that OU is going to dump UT for ISU,KU,KSU,CO,and NU to resurrect the old Big 8, you best start praying now for that Biblical miracle.

All nice info...with the bottom line being the OU has ALWAYS recruited the crap out of Texas. The variance from year to year is not that great and you probably need to take into account the increase in population (which I'm sure is increasing at a faster pace in Texas than it is in Oklahoma over the time period you show) as a reason why there is a slight increase in the percentage of OU players hailing from Texas.

 

[jbhtexas]

All nice info...with the bottom line being the OU has ALWAYS recruited the crap out of Texas. The variance from year to year is not that great and you probably need to take into account the increase in population (which I'm sure is increasing at a faster pace in Texas than it is in Oklahoma over the time period you show) as a reason why there is a slight increase in the percentage of OU players hailing from Texas.

Let's see...the average OK/TX player ratio for the 20 years prior to Stoops was 1.35 (take out the Gibbs years and it's 1.58). The ratio under the last six years of Stoops is 0.67. That's about a 50% change, which most people would consider more than "slight". The ratio for the six Gibbs years was 0.83, and Stoops is 19% below that. Do you seriously believe that the variance in the number of TX and OK kids on the roster from the Blake years to the Stoops years is "not that great"?

Yes, the population in TX is increasing faster than it is in OK, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. If you look at the size of the OU roster over the course of the years I presented, the roster sizes have been decreasing (139 in 1979 to just over 100 for the last couple of years). The OK population has been increasing at about 9% from 2000 to 2009 according to the census website, so the pool of OK players is larger for fewer available spots. For reference, the TX population has been increasing at 18%.

For whatever reasons, Stoops has based his recent rosters heavily on TX players relative to OK players, something that only happened 5 times in the 20 years prior to his arrival in Norman.

Oklahoma QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau
Texas QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

 

[Tornado man]

OU has always been able to recruit Texas...even prior to the Big 12. Ever heard of Billy Sims?

You must be talking to too many UT fans that want you to believe that UT being in the Big 12 is why OU is even relevant in FB.

Agree, as even the 1970 OU roster contains more players form Texas (30) than players from Oklahoma (29).

1970 OU Football Roster - SoonerStats.com - Oklahoma Sooners Football, Basketball, and Baseball Scores, Records, and Stats


Again, Oklahoma has ALWAYS recruited Texas very effectively. They sure didn't need a common conference with the Longhorns to make any inroads...

 

[CYEATHAWK]

I've heard of Billy Sims. Certainly OU has recruited Texas prior to Stoops, and has gotten some good players. And if college FB rosters were made up of 1 player, you might have point. But they aren't. Winning college FB rosters are 3-4 deep of good players.

Lets look at the makeup of the OU rosters prior to Stoops:
(stats from SoonerStats.com - Oklahoma Sooners Football, Basketball, and Baseball Scores, Records, and Stats)
year--players from OK or TX--coach--OK players/TX players
1998--OK 64, TX 31--Blake--2.06
1997--OK 63, TX 31--Blake--2.03
1996--OK 56, TX 35--Blake--1.60
1995--OK 50, TX 43--Schnell--1.16
1994--TX 53, OK 40--Gibbs--0.75
1993--TX 42, OK 37--Gibbs--0.88
1992--TX 49, OK 35--Gibbs--0.71
1991--TX 55, OK 35--Gibbs--0.64
1990--TX 45, OK 40--Gibbs--0.89
1989--OK 42, TX 39--Gibbs--1.08
1988--OK 46, TX 44--Switzer--1.05
1987--OK 43, TX 37--Switzer--1.16
1986--OK 50, TX 29--Switzer--1.72
1985--OK 49, TX 29--Switzer--1.69
1984--OK 51, TX 34--Switzer--1.50
1983--OK 49, TX 31--Switzer--1.58
1982--OK 44, TX 32--Switzer--1.38
1981--OK 51, TX 33--Switzer--1.55
1980--OK 60, TX 34--Switzer--1.76
1979--OK 68, TX 37--Switzer--1.84

Prior to Stoops, and spanning back 30 years, Gibbs was the only coach who had more TX players than OU players, and Gibbs was not particulalry successful by OU standards (Walden beat him in Norman). Other than Gibbs, the last two years of Switzer, and the HS year, the OU roster was heavily comprised of OK players relative to TX players.

Now, let look at the last 6 years of Stoops
year--players from OK or TX--coach--OK players/TX players
2010--TX 57, OK 29--Stoops--0.50
2009--TX 45, OK 33--Stoops--0.73
2008--TX 38, OK 33--Stoops--0.86
2007--TX 44, OK 29--Stoops--0.65
2006--TX 50, OK 30--Stoops--0.60
2005--TX 48, OK 30--Stoops--0.62

Stoops is recruiting TX more heavily than his recent predecessors, and his rosters are dominated with TX players moreso than any OU rosters in recent history. And Stoops is winning, which means he is getting good Texas players, and not scraps left over from UT and A&M. Obviously, Stoops has seen something that is causing him to stack his roster with TX players relative to OK players. Apparently he believes he needs a roster dominated by TX players to be successful. If Stoops wanted to, I'm sure, he could stack his roster with OK players just like Blake did.

The bottom line is that as far as the Big 12 goes, OU FB wasn't winning until Stoops came in and started heavily recruiting TX, and landing good TX players. Baring a miracle of Biblical proportions, OU is going where UT goes, or somewhere where Stoops' heavy TX ties will not be disrupted. If you are one of those who thinks that OU is going to dump UT for ISU,KU,KSU,CO,and NU to resurrect the old Big 8, you best start praying now for that Biblical miracle.

After the departure of Switzer...OU wasn't winning period! An argument could be made that Stoops is just that much better a coach than the others since Switzer. Because Stoops most productive year for recruits in Texas(57) is only slightly better than Gibbs(55 and 53)....and you see how that turned out for Gibbs. Having nothing but Texas players doesn't put success on auto pilot.

 

[thatguy]

to me all that sounded like was a letter of defeat.

 

[jbhtexas]

Having nothing but Texas players doesn't put success on auto pilot.

I never said that it does. But Stoops aparently thinks having a TX-heavy roster is important.

 

[LutherClone]

Interesting read from ESPN:

Pac-10 commish lays out expansion scenarios; Big 12 in focus. - ESPN Los Angeles

SAN FRANCISCO -- Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott laid out a host of expansion scenarios to athletic directors on Friday, the first day of conference meetings here. They range from a full merger with the Big 12; to merging with six current Big 12 schools, including Texas; to adding Colorado and Utah; to the status quo, according to one athletic director.
On Sunday morning, Scott will brief the school presidents and chancellors.
Nobody here expects the conference to expand any time soon, certainly not by Sunday, the final day of the meetings. Still, the possibility of adding schools -- which could lead to a financial windfall for the conference, as well as ratchet up competition -- has several attendees excited by the possibilities.
"Larry and the Pac-10 are being very proactive. That's what I like," said Washington athletic director Scott Woodward. "We're not the bug on the windshield. We're kind of driving the bus."

The latest scenario, first reported by Orangebloods.com, a Rivals affiliate, on Thursday, is that Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Colorado and Oklahoma State would be invited to join the Pac-10. Such a mega-conference likely would be divided into two leagues, one comprised of the eight original conference teams and the other made up of the newcomers plus the two Arizona schools.
Some people see that scenario as a smokescreen to a more modest expansion.
UCLA athletic director Dan Guerrero, who chairs the men's basketball committee, compared the conference's discussions here to his committee's shortly before it expanded March Madness to 68 teams. At one point, the idea of a 96-team field was floated before the more modest change was adopted. That could be what happens in the Pac-10 -- with the latest whopper just a bombshell that spurs talks.
"We went through an exercise of due diligence and really decided to look at all the possible scenarios and all the options to see what might be in the best interest of the association long term," Guerrero said. "We're doing the exact same thing here. We're in a due-diligence process."
USC athletic director Mike Garrett, whose football and basketball programs are under investigation for NCAA rules violations, declined comment.
The future look of the Pac-10 could depend on what happens with the Big Ten. If Notre Dame elects to join that conference, the likelihood is that any Pac-10 expansion would be modest. But if the Big Ten pulls in Nebraska and Missouri instead, the Big 12 could be in danger of crumbling. The Pac-10 wants to be position to scoop up some of those schools, particularly Texas, which brings with it a large, lucrative TV audience.
The heart of the issue is money. According to the Sports Business Journal, the SEC TV contracts with ESPN and CBS are worth $205 million annually.
The Pac-10's contracts with ABC/ESPN and Fox are worth $45 million. Scott hired Creative Artists Agency, a global marketing and entertainment firm whose clients include the New York Yankees, to help find new sources of revenue.
Scott is scheduled to discuss the expansion talks with the media on Sunday at noon, after the conclusion of the meetings. It's unlikely any decisions will be made so soon, but things clearly are in the works.
"I don't see any way our conference will be diminished in terms of competitive excellence," Guerrero said. "It can only be enhanced if things progress to the point where we do make decisions, but at this point in time there's nothing imminent."
Mark Saxon covers USC football of ESPNLosAngeles.com

And from bleacher report (it's really long, but well worth the read):

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/342268-rumor-utah-and-colorado-to-the-pac-12

 

[cyclonenum1]

Let's see...the average OK/TX player ratio for the 20 years prior to Stoops was 1.35 (take out the Gibbs years and it's 1.58). The ratio under the last six years of Stoops is 0.67. That's about a 50% change, which most people would consider more than "slight". The ratio for the six Gibbs years was 0.83, and Stoops is 19% below that. Do you seriously believe that the variance in the number of TX and OK kids on the roster from the Blake years to the Stoops years is "not that great"?

Yes, the population in TX is increasing faster than it is in OK, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. If you look at the size of the OU roster over the course of the years I presented, the roster sizes have been decreasing (139 in 1979 to just over 100 for the last couple of years). The OK population has been increasing at about 9% from 2000 to 2009 according to the census website, so the pool of OK players is larger for fewer available spots. For reference, the TX population has been increasing at 18%.

For whatever reasons, Stoops has based his recent rosters heavily on TX players relative to OK players, something that only happened 5 times in the 20 years prior to his arrival in Norman.

Oklahoma QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau
Texas QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

The population is critical...more people equal more players equal more potential recruits. Why do you think Florida has so many pretty good teams these days...UF, FSU, The U, USF, UCF? None of those schools were top tier programs back in the 50s...what's the difference? Go look at population trends and the growth of population in a state like Florida (or Texas, or California).

Every team has a smaller roster of players now because of the 85 scholarship limit.

The clear fact remains that OU has ALWAYS focused on Texas in recruiting. And guess what...so do a whole lot of other teams (including ISU).

 

[cyclonenum1]

Interesting read from ESPN:

Pac-10 commish lays out expansion scenarios; Big 12 in focus. - ESPN Los Angeles

SAN FRANCISCO -- Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott laid out a host of expansion scenarios to athletic directors on Friday, the first day of conference meetings here. They range from a full merger with the Big 12; to merging with six current Big 12 schools, including Texas; to adding Colorado and Utah; to the status quo, according to one athletic director.
On Sunday morning, Scott will brief the school presidents and chancellors.
Nobody here expects the conference to expand any time soon, certainly not by Sunday, the final day of the meetings. Still, the possibility of adding schools -- which could lead to a financial windfall for the conference, as well as ratchet up competition -- has several attendees excited by the possibilities.
"Larry and the Pac-10 are being very proactive. That's what I like," said Washington athletic director Scott Woodward. "We're not the bug on the windshield. We're kind of driving the bus."

The latest scenario, first reported by Orangebloods.com, a Rivals affiliate, on Thursday, is that Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Colorado and Oklahoma State would be invited to join the Pac-10. Such a mega-conference likely would be divided into two leagues, one comprised of the eight original conference teams and the other made up of the newcomers plus the two Arizona schools.
Some people see that scenario as a smokescreen to a more modest expansion.
UCLA athletic director Dan Guerrero, who chairs the men's basketball committee, compared the conference's discussions here to his committee's shortly before it expanded March Madness to 68 teams. At one point, the idea of a 96-team field was floated before the more modest change was adopted. That could be what happens in the Pac-10 -- with the latest whopper just a bombshell that spurs talks.
"We went through an exercise of due diligence and really decided to look at all the possible scenarios and all the options to see what might be in the best interest of the association long term," Guerrero said. "We're doing the exact same thing here. We're in a due-diligence process."
USC athletic director Mike Garrett, whose football and basketball programs are under investigation for NCAA rules violations, declined comment.
The future look of the Pac-10 could depend on what happens with the Big Ten. If Notre Dame elects to join that conference, the likelihood is that any Pac-10 expansion would be modest. But if the Big Ten pulls in Nebraska and Missouri instead, the Big 12 could be in danger of crumbling. The Pac-10 wants to be position to scoop up some of those schools, particularly Texas, which brings with it a large, lucrative TV audience.
The heart of the issue is money. According to the Sports Business Journal, the SEC TV contracts with ESPN and CBS are worth $205 million annually.
The Pac-10's contracts with ABC/ESPN and Fox are worth $45 million. Scott hired Creative Artists Agency, a global marketing and entertainment firm whose clients include the New York Yankees, to help find new sources of revenue.
Scott is scheduled to discuss the expansion talks with the media on Sunday at noon, after the conclusion of the meetings. It's unlikely any decisions will be made so soon, but things clearly are in the works.
"I don't see any way our conference will be diminished in terms of competitive excellence," Guerrero said. "It can only be enhanced if things progress to the point where we do make decisions, but at this point in time there's nothing imminent."
Mark Saxon covers USC football of ESPNLosAngeles.com

And from bleacher report (it's really long, but well worth the read):

Rumor: Utah and Colorado To the Pac-10 | Bleacher Report

This is all a smokescreen...it is not about TV revenue and marketing exposure...we all know it is about academics and research dollars.

 

[LutherClone]

I think the best thing I read was the end of the bleacher report article, where it talked about taking the pieces of the MWC and using those to repopulate the conferences (Utah and sCUm to PAC-10, BYU to Big XII, Pitt to Big Television, and TCU to Big East). I like that idea.

 

[khess83]

Not going to read the whole thread but have most people come back from the edge of that cliff yet?

 

[alarson]

Not going to read the whole thread but have most people come back from the edge of that cliff yet?

no reason not to be at the edge of the cliff yet... but no reason to jump yet either.