Osborne blames the south division, Stoops says the SEC took away four or five kids each year. A lot of lies and finger pointing. And OU has already spent the extra SEC money on increased salary for venerable and the 40 percent increase in staff. Incredible.
Big 12 Conference Realignment
- Thread starter t-noah
- Start date
Good read
Big 12 Commissioner Brett Yormark Has Plans to Shake Up College Athletics
He’s still strongly considering renaming the conference. He's seeking further expansion. And don't bet on anyone beating him to the punch on private equity in college sports. What else does the businessman have up his sleeve?www.dmagazine.com
My hope is if its done they do it like this:
The Allstate Big 12
not:
The Allstate 12
Just my personal opinion.
That's some real ******** revisionist history. Nebraska absolutely earned a good chunk of the blame for how everything went down in the B12, they were one of the primary drivers of discord. It's Osborne being Osborne, though.There's a story on ESPN.com today about OU's move to the SEC and whether it will thrive or become an afterthought, like Nebraska. The whole story is worth reading, but one quote caught my attention.
The legendary Osborne eventually led the Cornhuskers to three national titles in the 1990s before retiring in 1997. A decade later, he became Nebraska's athletic director and helped guide Nebraska's move from the Big 12 to the Big Ten.
"At the time, the South Division of the Big 12 had agreed in principle to join the Pac-12. And we hadn't known anything about it," said Osborne, now 87. "We knew Colorado was trying to leave. We knew that Missouri was trying to leave. We were looking at the fact that, well, we're going to be sitting here on an island. We felt the Big Ten represented stability and we didn't like the fragmentation of what appeared to be the Big 12. That's why we left. We had a lot of connection to Big 12 schools and didn't particularly want to leave them, but we just felt like things weren't holding together very well."
Am I wrong, or is that some real bullsht revisionist history? Nebraska was the first domino to fall in all of college athletics realignment. I thought the Big 12 South's flirtation with the Pac came after that.
Is Nebraska a cautionary tale for Oklahoma's SEC move? Why the Sooners think they're ready for a step up
The Cornhuskers were once a college football force, but have faded away since joining the Big Ten. Is the same fate in store for the Sooners?www.espn.com
Things haven't gone well for Nebraska football since he retired, and Osborne's been heavily involved in a lot of those missteps.
It has to be a formatting where if the sponsor swaps out ever 2-3 years it's not a big deal.
It's not unlike bowl game sponsorship.
Peach Bowl
Peach Bowl presented by Chic-fil-A
Chic-fil-A Peach Bowl
Chic-fil-A Bowl
The last one is just asking to eventually have absolutely no value as a brand. The third one is flirting with it the fist time there's a sponsorship change. The second one is really a no lose situation even if the sponsor changed every single year.
Many Bowls have gone all the way to that fourth one and to me it just really cheapens it if had prior history and also makes it less special if it's a new thing starting out as just "Sponsor Bowl".
That's fine with me.
I fully support exploring innovative options. But a balance is a good approach -- don't expand willy-nilly.
Agree. Of course the sponsor would want it the second way, because everyone would just call it the Big 12 otherwise.
The "Sponsor" Big 12
The Big 12 presented by "Sponsor"
Either of the above would be perfect.
Last edited:
