Billy Tubbs on conference shakeup

[bocabull]

"no one ever wants to leave a conference when they are winning, it is only those who lose who want out."

So I guess that means bye bye Missouri. We will have to find somebody else to not beat us since 1966 in Norman. lol lol

Missouri would be just like Arkie. Their Texas recruiting pipeline would collapse and they would revert back to the mean ... decades of nothing. OR as Sawyer calls it, "The Harvard of the Plains". ha ha

 

[thebigabd]

A&M, Colorado, and Nebraska were never going to win anything in this league.

Tech, Baylor, ISU, etc probably wont either, but they dont really have that expectation to like the 3 schools that left.

 

[Sawyer]

Nebraska was within a last second field goal of winning the conference just a couple years ago... And OU has explored options in multiple other conferences. If you weren't stuck with OSU you might actually find a conference willing to take you.

I'm pretty sure my only reference to Mizzou as a Midwest ivy was to criticize the people who mistakenly held that belief and destroyed MU football for three decades by holding MU athletics to a higher standard. I don't know that I've ever championed Mizzou's academics on here (other than the school of journalism), and my only real comments in regards to academics and conference affiliation have been to the effect of it doesn't matter, with the exception of the Big 10/CIC.

 

[stoops4pres]

"no one ever wants to leave a conference when they are winning, it is only those who lose who want out."

So I guess that means bye bye Missouri. We will have to find somebody else to not beat us since 1966 in Norman. lol lol

Missouri would be just like Arkie. Their Texas recruiting pipeline would collapse and they would revert back to the mean ... decades of nothing. OR as Sawyer calls it, "The Harvard of the Plains". ha ha

Completely agree with Tubbs. I'm willing to bet Nebraska and A&M wouldn't have been trying to bolt had they not gone over a decade without winning the conference.

 

[stoops4pres]

Nebraska was within a last second field goal of winning the conference just a couple years ago...

...but they didn't win.

And OU has explored options in multiple other conferences. If you weren't stuck with OSU you might actually find a conference willing to take you.

Very misleading post for two reasons: 1) There are conferences willing to take OU. Last year was the Pac-12 and SEC. This year the SEC has still been after OU.

And OU hasn't been whoring themselves around like your school (especially), Nebraska, and A&M. Heard more often than not that the only time OU seriously looked at a conference was with the Pac-10 this year. And that was only because of the instability surrounding the conference thanks to, again, you guys, Nebraska, A&M, etc.

 

[Sawyer]

Right. OU's been completely virtuous in all this...

The PAC doesn't want the Oklahoma duo. The Big 10 won't even humor the idea. The SEC's interest hinges on going to 16 trams, which they aren't doing now. OU is obviously a desirable program, but you've got an anchor that's dragging you down (and UT has two in TT and the LHN). Acting as if OU hasn't been looking just as much as everyone else is completely disingenuous.

Nebraska didn't win a title. But they've been winning games. Tubs didn't say championships specifically. Nebraska wasn't in a position where they ran off because they couldn't compete. Colorado left for the hippy academic culire of the PAC. A&M and possibly Mizzou will be in a conference that is no easier, and arguably much tougher, so the running away from competition argument still doesn't fit.

 

[stoops4pres]

Right. OU's been completely virtuous in all this...

The PAC doesn't want the Oklahoma duo. The Big 10 won't even humor the idea. The SEC's interest hinges on going to 16 trams, which they aren't doing now. OU is obviously a desirable program, but you've got an anchor that's dragging you down (and UT has two in TT and the LHN).

LOL, way to try to twist my post. It's obvious you misconstrued my point. I never said, nor implied, that OU was "completely virtuous" in all this. I just said they weren't whoring themselves around like Missouri, or inquiring offers near to the extent like A&M and Nebraska.

In fact, the only time where it became obvious that OU was looking around was when schools in the Big 12 were turning on each other willing to sue one another. When OU realized that the conference was completely unstable, they were the ones looking at the Pac-12, not the other way around like last year.

As for the SEC, you can thank OU for the SEC moving on to Missouri. Slive has been coveting OU two years in a row now, and Boren has told them no thanks. I don't know if Ok. State would've ultimately held OU back, but they were willing to look at OU and A&M way before they entertained the Missouri notion.

Acting as if OU hasn't been looking just as much as everyone else is completely disingenuous.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are joking.

Nebraska didn't win a title. But they've been winning games. Tubs didn't say championships specifically. Nebraska wasn't in a position where they ran off because they couldn't compete. Colorado left for the hippy academic culire of the PAC. A&M and possibly Mizzou will be in a conference that is no easier, and arguably much tougher, so the running away from competition argument still doesn't fit.

I don't think Nebraska and A&M were "running away from competition" (well, maybe Nebraska to the Big 10). But I do think they wouldn't have been near as bitter and willing to bolt had they won the conference shorter than a decade's span. That's how I interpreted Tubbs' point, that he was talking about winning championships. I assume Tubbs keeps up with football enough to know they were winning games.

 

[Sawyer]

Neither Nebraska nor A&M are more likely (both probably less likely) to win championships in their new conferences. Tubbs' suggestion is ridiculous.

Mizzou administrators have had their eye on the Big 10 for decades because of the huge academic benefits being a member of that conference brings. Any institution that cares about research would be absolutely stupid to not want to be part of that. The Big 10 announced publicly they were looking to expand and MU was a logical option. It's not whoring for a university to pursue the best possible academic situation. Athletics had nothing to do with it (and most people at MU involved in athletics were against the move).

MU was then happy to be part of the Big 12... until Texas tried to use the LHN to broadcast high school games (I know that really pissed off Pinkel) and A&M left. At that point, everything was thrown into chaos again. MU is one of the few schools in the Big 12 with legitimate options. Almost every other school is either undesirable or tied to someone who is. MU is not. As a university with both solid athletics and academics in a populated state with multiple major media markets and no political obstacles, it makes sense for other conferences to look. When other conferences are interested and the one you're in is unstable, you don't turn them away. MU didn't go looking for the SEC. They and the situation forced our hand.

I don't doubt the SEC would take OU before MU if that was their choice. But it's not. Their choice is two Oklahoma schools in a small state or Mizzou. Adding OSU gives the SEC very little. I've seen no scenario that suggests separating the two of you is a possibility.

 

[WaymanFan]

It's not whoring for a university to pursue the best possible academic situation.

Actually, it is when everyone on the planet knows about it. I wish you would take your Big 10 man-crush over to that conference if you don't want to be in the Big XII. Although Missouri is certainly "competitive" in both football and basketball, you haven't won anything in either sport...doubt you'll be missed as much as you seem to think you would be.

Billy Tubbs was right. You disagreeing with him doesn't change that. Tubbs went right for the bottom line. Teams that are switching conferences aren't winning titles in the ones they left. He's simply pointing out the obvious.

 

[Sawyer]

Actually, it is when everyone on the planet knows about it. I wish you would take your Big 10 man-crush over to that conference if you don't want to be in the Big XII. Although Missouri is certainly "competitive" in both football and basketball, you haven't won anything in either sport...doubt you'll be missed as much as you seem to think you would be.

Billy Tubbs was right. You disagreeing with him doesn't change that. Tubbs went right for the bottom line. Teams that are switching conferences aren't winning titles in the ones they left. He's simply pointing out the obvious.

One man's whoring is another's university fulfilling its duty to the people of its state (just ask Penn State what Big 10/CIC affiliation can do for a school). Agree to disagree I guess.

I'm genuinely hurt that you won't miss Missouri if we leave the Big 12. I will point out, though, that Mizzou's not winning anything in basketball does include a conference tournament championship in the past few years, which is more than Oklahoma can say. Of course, I never said MU won anything meaningful or that we would be missed. Not sure where you got that.

Tubbs is an idiot. Pitt won the Big East in football and basketball last year, and Syracuse won the Big East in basketball the season before that. Texas A&M has nine conference regular season titles in various sports in the past two years alone. The teams that have switched conferences haven't been running away from competition. They've been moving in favor of more money and increased stability. Texas and Oklahoma both explored their options and stayed in the Big 12... not because they chose to buck up and face the amazing competition. They stayed because it's currently the best situation for them (because no other conference wants OSU, Texas Tech or the Longhorn Network, and all were non-negotiable). UT and OU are no different than anyone else. They want to maximize revenue and find a stable home.

 

[bocabull]

Tubbs nailed it. The irrelevant losers who can't compete are leaving and the big dogs are staying. OU-Texas football & Kansas basketball are the Big XII. Has been Nebraska, little brother A&M, and never been wanna be Missouri won't be missed. They will easily be replaced with other teams the 3 big dogs will stomp just the same.

 

[WaymanFan]

I'm genuinely hurt that you won't miss Missouri if we leave the Big 12.

Tubbs is an idiot.

Pitt won the Big East in football and basketball last year, and Syracuse won the Big East in basketball the season before that. Texas A&M has nine conference regular season titles in various sports in the past two years alone. The teams that have switched conferences haven't been running away from competition. They've been moving in favor of more money and increased stability. Texas and Oklahoma both explored their options and stayed in the Big 12... not because they chose to buck up and face the amazing competition. They stayed because it's currently the best situation for them (because no other conference wants OSU, Texas Tech or the Longhorn Network, and all were non-negotiable). UT and OU are no different than anyone else. They want to maximize revenue and find a stable home.

Sawyer, personally, I will miss Missouri. I'm pushing 50 years old, so I remember when they were the dominant Big 8 basketball team in the late '70s thru early '80s. I was too young to remember the '60s in regards to sports, but know they had a heckuva football team that decade. I just think that for all the posturing and pimping they're doing to leave the Big XII, they don't have the athletic credentials to support their arrogance. Therefore, they won't be missed by the Big XII as much as they think they'll be. Hopefully, that clarifies what I was implying.

You made a lot of good points in your last paragraph, but I'm quite sure Billy Tubbs was taking shots at three or four schools in particular (Nebraska, Colorado, aTm and maybe Missouri)...and the guy is anything but an idiot.

 

[bocabull]

UT and OU are no different than anyone else. They want to maximize revenue and find a stable home.

LOL @ this idiotic statement. Just like everybody else except they win the conference title 90% of the time.

OU,Texas and Kansas OWN the Big XII. They dominate everybody else. They could give a crap about maximizing revenue and "finding" a stable home. They are big enough programs to plant a flag and lead a conference.

The little programs that aren't big enough to lead are running away.

 

[stoops4pres]

Neither Nebraska nor A&M are more likely (both probably less likely) to win championships in their new conferences. Tubbs' suggestion is ridiculous.

Where did Tubbs suggest that? He didn't say they were likely to win more at their other places, he said they left because they were bitter they weren't winning like they wanted to (i.e. championships). Which I think there's a lot of truth to it.

Oh, and if the past decade is any indication, Nebraska won't be less likely to win the Big 10 than the Big 12. Their chances of winning will be greater now.

It's not whoring for a university to pursue the best possible academic situation. Athletics had nothing to do with it (and most people at MU involved in athletics were against the move).

Fair enough. I guess I just took it that way because of the way Missouri handled this possibility in the public, including their narcissistic attitude towards other schools within the conference (towards Texas Tech, etc).

MU was then happy to be part of the Big 12... until Texas tried to use the LHN to broadcast high school games (I know that really pissed off Pinkel) and A&M left.

Are you sure it wasn't until then? Like I said, I seem to remember Missouri implying their displeasure with the conference back in the spring of 2010 when their administration was criticizing other schools within the conference.

At that point, everything was thrown into chaos again. MU is one of the few schools in the Big 12 with legitimate options. Almost every other school is either undesirable or tied to someone who is. MU is not. As a university with both solid athletics and academics in a populated state with multiple major media markets and no political obstacles, it makes sense for other conferences to look. When other conferences are interested and the one you're in is unstable, you don't turn them away. MU didn't go looking for the SEC. They and the situation forced our hand.

I see what you're saying, and I'll agree that Mizzou wasn't proffering with the SEC. I just don't see how OU is linked with teams trying to bolt as much as A&M, Missouri, and Nebraska did... That is entirely incorrect. Sure OU started searching instead of listening to the offers, but that was only after it was clear that A&M was leaving and the Big 12 was only a few steps away from implosion. Being linked to the same extent as those 3 aforementioned schools is the part that's being disingenuous.

 

[DenverSooner]

Right. OU's been completely virtuous in all this...

The PAC doesn't want the Oklahoma duo. The Big 10 won't even humor the idea. The SEC's interest hinges on going to 16 trams, which they aren't doing now. OU is obviously a desirable program, but you've got an anchor that's dragging you down (and UT has two in TT and the LHN). Acting as if OU hasn't been looking just as much as everyone else is completely disingenuous.

Nebraska didn't win a title. But they've been winning games. Tubs didn't say championships specifically. Nebraska wasn't in a position where they ran off because they couldn't compete. Colorado left for the hippy academic culire of the PAC. A&M and possibly Mizzou will be in a conference that is no easier, and arguably much tougher, so the running away from competition argument still doesn't fit.

You do realize that OSU has a better AD than Missouri? OSU has won a lot of conference and national championships. Granted most are in secondary sports but OSU is competitive in sports. Missouri is a freaking joke.

 

[sybarite]

Tubbs was a great basketball coach. He knows absolutely nothing about this issue.

When Miami, Florida State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and Virginia Tech joined the ACC, it wasn't because they were losing where they were. When Penn State joined the Big Ten, it wasn't because they were losing as an Independent. When Arizona and Arizona State went to the Pacific Ten, it wasn't because they were losing in the WAC. Teams move to better themselves and their future.

Nebraska was a winning program that would have rebuilt into a national football power, just as they had in the sixties. A&M has always been solid, just not great. They did just win a national title in women's basketball, and they have been national champions in other sports. They just weren't about to give Texas such a distinct advantage in the state of Texas.

There is no evidence that OU has been seriously approached by other conferences. I think that if the SEC had really approached Boren, he would have taken the offer as soon as we were rejected by the Pacific Twelve. We made a mistake by not leaving when we had the opportunity. Now, when we do leave, which we will, will it be because we can't compete in the Big Twelve? Perhaps, it is because, as Pinkel stated, what other conference has so many schools leaving or wanting to leave?

Why do you think that is?

 

[Sooner04]

Sawyer is right on one thing, we'd be LONG gone if we weren't attached to the boat anchor that is the Aggies of Oklahoma A&M.

But you can spit in a fountain and cuss Bud Wilkinson for that.

 

[stoops4pres]

Tubbs was a great basketball coach. He knows absolutely nothing about this issue.

When Miami, Florida State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and Virginia Tech joined the ACC, it wasn't because they were losing where they were. When Penn State joined the Big Ten, it wasn't because they were losing as an Independent. When Arizona and Arizona State went to the Pacific Ten, it wasn't because they were losing in the WAC. Teams move to better themselves and their future.

To me, I don't think Tubbs was referring to every program that has ever relocated conferences. I don't know, but I was presuming he was talking about A&M and Nebraska. If he was referring to them both, I think there was a lot of truth to his statement. If he was talking about any team that has ever relocated, then yes I believe he is incorrect. Not every program bolts in large part because they are disgruntled and bitter with their current situation. I just think that arguably applies to Nebraska and A&M.

Nebraska was a winning program that would have rebuilt into a national football power, just as they had in the sixties. A&M has always been solid, just not great. They did just win a national title in women's basketball, and they have been national champions in other sports. They just weren't about to give Texas such a distinct advantage in the state of Texas.

I'm not near as confident that Nebraska will rise back to dominance like you are. The landscape from now to the 60's--even the 90's--is different. It's not a foregone conclusion that they will return to dominance; a lot is going to have to change for that to happen.

As for A&M, Darren Rovell (Emmy winning business reporter for CNBC) has made a valid point that A&M could be making a mistake because Texas' network isn't a certainty that it will succeed. Kudos to a mediocre program like A&M for having the guts to relocate to a harder conference (although I believe their rationale for leaving was misguided), but it could come back to haunt them should the LHN not succeed.

There is no evidence that OU has been seriously approached by other conferences. I think that if the SEC had really approached Boren, he would have taken the offer as soon as we were rejected by the Pacific Twelve. We made a mistake by not leaving when we had the opportunity. Now, when we do leave, which we will, will it be because we can't compete in the Big Twelve? Perhaps, it is because, as Pinkel stated, what other conference has so many schools leaving or wanting to leave?

You are right that there is no conclusive evidence pointing to other conferences, but at the same time you don't really have conclusive evidence to predict that Boren "would've taken" the SEC offer. No one knows for certain, but plenty of rumors and common knowledge believe that Boren does not want to be associated with the academic stigma that surrounds the SEC. And I think Boren's reasoning makes sense; institutions with more academic clout can afford to make the move (i.e. A&M), but for an institution trying to become Tier 2 status and an AAU member, I think the move could possibly be counterproductive.