We have a really good tv contract

[bocabull]

Every basketball game has been on national fox sports networks. In football on championship Saturday the Big 12 had 2 nationally televised game instead of the conferences with a championship game having only 1. The Big 12 has 2 teams in the BCS & only shares the $$ with 10 teams.

The level of play may be down a tad in football but that is cyclical. The $$ is flowing and when all is said & done the 10 team model of the Big 12 will benefit OU & Texas like the Big 8 benefited OU & Nebraska. It's an easier path to the title game

 

[Ham]

Football and basketball cannot be viewed the same way.

For basketball, the Big 12 fits OU very well and the TV coverage is good/sufficient.
For football, the new Big 12 is absolutely terrible and the TV is not good enough for OU.

And as far as TV contracts, getting on TV does not automatically equal a great TV deal. For instance, being on ESPN is much more desirable than being on FOX. Just simply being on TV versus being on TV that lots of people are watching are different things as well.

OU plays a very important game vs Baylor while Stanford and Oregon play and the PAC games stomps the Big 12 game in ratings. That's ESPN vs FS1 more than anything. And you can blame the TV contract for that. Hell, you can blame the TV contract for the reason OU is trapped in the Big 12, and in football terms, that is not a good thing.

Look at Big 12 football ratings relative to the other 'BCS' leagues. Awful.

 

[Sawyer]

It's an easier path to the title game

If you can go undefeated through 12 games.

One loss pretty much ends national title hopes for any Big 12 team. In the Pac 12, Big 10 or SEC, that's rarely the case.

 

[Chaser728]

If you can go undefeated through 12 games.

One loss pretty much ends national title hopes for any Big 12 team. In the Pac 12, Big 10 or SEC, that's rarely the case.

Nope. It is only the SEC that can get in the NC with 1 loss anymore... Take this year for example: all the other conferences, when their power house team went down, they never really gave them another shot at the title. However, I would say that in the Big 12 it is a pretty tough path to the title, because you play everybody. In the other power conferences you can, depending on your schedule, have a pretty easy path to the title game. See Missouri for a good example... Did not have to play Alabama, Auburn or LSU. Or MSU who did not have to play anybody until they played OSU.

 

[bocabull]

Ham, Fox/FS1 is coming after ABC/ESPN & the Big XII is the beneficiary. The ratings are a reflection of the caliber of the game. Everybody knew Stanford/Oregon was the more important game. OU had already been run over by Texas & nobody takes Baylor seriously. People all across the country were pulling for Oregon to get knocked off.

When every decent Big XII game is on national TV & the per team payouts are skyrocketing like they are we have great deals.

 

[Sawyer]

Nope. It is only the SEC that can get in the NC with 1 loss anymore... Take this year for example: all the other conferences, when their power house team went down, they never really gave them another shot at the title. However, I would say that in the Big 12 it is a pretty tough path to the title, because you play everybody. In the other power conferences you can, depending on your schedule, have a pretty easy path to the title game. See Missouri for a good example... Did not have to play Alabama, Auburn or LSU. Or MSU who did not have to play anybody until they played OSU.

Mizzou did play Auburn, unfortunately, and our schedule, despite not being as tough as it looked at the start of the season, was still respectable (31 SOS in sagarin). A better Mizzou example would be 2007 (or even better, kansas that same year; played no one and were in contention for a title late in the year).

Either Oregon or Stanford would have been at least in the discussion for the BCS championship game if they only had one loss. Both had two.

The Big 10 obviously didn't make the championship game with a one-loss team (had two, and neither was in the discussion), but in a lot of years OSU or MSU would have been in that discussion.

But in general, yeah, we're on the same page. A larger conference gives you a little more margin for error. Running the table is hard, even for great teams. If the Big 12 were to add Louisville and UCF, that wouldn't substantially increase the difficulty of anyone's schedule, would raise the profile of the Big 12, give you an extra game to build your resumes, and increase the likelihood that a one-loss team would be given a pass.

 

[tycat947]

A one loss OU will almost always be in contention for one of the four playoff spots as we schedule pretty strong overall competition during non-conference games. I don't really care about the others but whorns will probably be the same since they seem to be upgrading their non-conference schedule.

 

[Chaser728]

Mizzou did play Auburn, unfortunately, and our schedule, despite not being as tough as it looked at the start of the season, was still respectable (31 SOS in sagarin). A better Mizzou example would be 2007 (or even better, kansas that same year; played no one and were in contention for a title late in the year).

Either Oregon or Stanford would have been at least in the discussion for the BCS championship game if they only had one loss. Both had two.

The Big 10 obviously didn't make the championship game with a one-loss team (had two, and neither was in the discussion), but in a lot of years OSU or MSU would have been in that discussion.

But in general, yeah, we're on the same page. A larger conference gives you a little more margin for error. Running the table is hard, even for great teams. If the Big 12 were to add Louisville and UCF, that wouldn't substantially increase the difficulty of anyone's schedule, would raise the profile of the Big 12, give you an extra game to build your resumes, and increase the likelihood that a one-loss team would be given a pass.

You are right, my bad, but they did not have to play them until the Championship... which was my point. Wasn't picking on MU there, as much as I was the Big 12. I think us going to 10 teams made it very difficult for us to go to the NC. And I agree on adding some teams, we need them badly.

 

[bocabull]

A larger conference has nothing to do with any "margin of error". The Big XII plays a 9 game conference schedule. All a larger conference gives you is more dead weight to split revenues with.

Everybody knows who the big boys are. OU, Texas, Florida, Alabama, LSU, USC, FSU, etc get the benefit of the doubt while the Okie st, Mizzou, etc never will. Nothing has changed for Mizzou. Their miracle season in the big XII got them cotton & ditto for their miracle sec season.

 

[Sawyer]

A one loss OU will almost always be in contention for one of the four playoff spots as we schedule pretty strong overall competition during non-conference games. I don't really care about the others but whorns will probably be the same since they seem to be upgrading their non-conference schedule.

Forgot about that change for next year. That actually does help the Big 12. But 2/3 Big 12 teams to finish with one loss in the 10-team conference have still finished outside of the top four.

 

[Sawyer]

A larger conference has nothing to do with any "margin of error". The Big XII plays a 9 game conference schedule. All a larger conference gives you is more dead weight to split revenues with.

Everybody knows who the big boys are. OU, Texas, Florida, Alabama, LSU, USC, FSU, etc get the benefit of the doubt while the Okie st, Mizzou, etc never will. Nothing has changed for Mizzou. Their miracle season in the big XII got them cotton & ditto for their miracle sec season.

Twice in six years suggests it was not as much a miracle as you'd like to believe.

A one-loss Mizzou team this year would've played in the BCS title game over a one-loss Alabama. Meanwhile, no one cared about one-loss Baylor or OSU. I'll take that kind of disrespect.

By not splitting money with "dead weight," Oklahoma might get to keep an extra few million. Not worth it for the competitive disadvantage they deal with playing in a conference few respect anymore.

 

[bocabull]

Congrats on your hypothetical respect Mizzou!!

In the real world 10-2 Mizzou is matched up with 10-2 okie st. Same payout. Same respect. 10-2 OU is matched up with Bama. That's reality. Like I said everybody knows who the big boys are and they always will. Nothing has changed.

 

[Sawyer]

Has nothing to do with respect. The BCS limits conferences to two teams. Alabama has won three of the last four national titles and spent all but one week ranked No. 1 this year, and Auburn won the SEC. Those two teams deserved bids. Without the BCS' conference limits, Mizzou would be in. As it is, they set up rules to prevent a single conference from dominating the field and to allow teams with weaker seasons a chance.

OU didn't make a BCS game because they're a "big boy." They made it because the BCS forced the Sugar Bowl's hand.

The payout means next to nothing. Conferences more or less split that money evenly. The Big 12 divides all bowl money 10 ways. SEC teams keep a share depending on the bowl and split the rest. The end result is both OU and MU bringing in roughly the same for playing in a bowl. But carry on bragging about the money...

 

[MI Sooner]

Mizzou did play Auburn, unfortunately, and our schedule, despite not being as tough as it looked at the start of the season, was still respectable (31 SOS in sagarin). A better Mizzou example would be 2007 (or even better, kansas that same year; played no one and were in contention for a title late in the year).

Either Oregon or Stanford would have been at least in the discussion for the BCS championship game if they only had one loss. Both had two.

The Big 10 obviously didn't make the championship game with a one-loss team (had two, and neither was in the discussion), but in a lot of years OSU or MSU would have been in that discussion.

But in general, yeah, we're on the same page. A larger conference gives you a little more margin for error. Running the table is hard, even for great teams. If the Big 12 were to add Louisville and UCF, that wouldn't substantially increase the difficulty of anyone's schedule, would raise the profile of the Big 12, give you an extra game to build your resumes, and increase the likelihood that a one-loss team would be given a pass.

Kansas had one loss and wasn't even considered for the national title. Nice try though. There was discussion of Ohio St being jumped by a one loss Auburn. Ohio St hadn't lost in two years. Ohio St is a name program. Talk on the Big 12 getting less national respect than the Big 10 is idiotic.

 

[MI Sooner]

If the SEC is so great, why can't they negotiate for three teams in the BCS.

 

[Sawyer]

Kansas had one loss and wasn't even considered for the national title. Nice try though. There was discussion of Ohio St being jumped by a one loss Auburn. Ohio St hadn't lost in two years. Ohio St is a name program. Talk on the Big 12 getting less national respect than the Big 10 is idiotic.

Point on 2007 was how the scheduling of a 12-team conference allowed a team an easy path to a high ranking. They played no one until Mizzou. Had they won that game, they would've been ranked No. 1 and one game away from a title (same as MU, except MU had actually played some decent teams before that game). I was suggesting they were in the national title game discussion at the end. They were one win away from that, though.

I take back the Big 10. They're in the same boat as the ACC, which is actually worse than the Big 12 in a lot of ways. In a lot of years, they'll have to go 13-0 (as opposed to the Big 12's 12-0) to be considered for the championship.

 

[bocabull]

LOL @ mizzou fan thinking 10-2 mizzou would ever be selected over 10-2 OU for a BCS bid. Please give oregon a call and see how that worked to for them.

It is christmas though. Enjoy your ifs & buts & candies & nuts mizzou.

BTW, the SEC had a nice cyclical run but it's over. Mizzou winning a division is proof Stoops was right and FSU is going to demolish Auburn.

 

[Sawyer]

I'm sure a 10-2 OU would get a spot above a 10-2 Mizzou.

Mizzou wasn't 10-2.

 

[Big Old Booger]

Has nothing to do with respect. The BCS limits conferences to two teams. Alabama has won three of the last four national titles and spent all but one week ranked No. 1 this year, and Auburn won the SEC. Those two teams deserved bids. Without the BCS' conference limits, Mizzou would be in. As it is, they set up rules to prevent a single conference from dominating the field and to allow teams with weaker seasons a chance.

OU didn't make a BCS game because they're a "big boy." They made it because the BCS forced the Sugar Bowl's hand.

The payout means next to nothing. Conferences more or less split that money evenly. The Big 12 divides all bowl money 10 ways. SEC teams keep a share depending on the bowl and split the rest. The end result is both OU and MU bringing in roughly the same for playing in a bowl. But carry on bragging about the money...

Keep telling yourself that. Sugar Bowl had no interest in an all-SEC matchup especially with Mizzou who never wins anything. Sure, Mizzou made the SEC championship game but they did it by playing a very poor conference schedule. The only team worth a darn, South Carolina, beat Mizzou in Columbia. Neither of those 2 teams played Bama, Auburn, or LSU. SEC champ game should have been Auburn - Bama as Mizzou was clearly 4th best team (behind Auburn, Bama and SC). SC had a horrible matchup vs Georgia when Georgia was healthy. Mizzou played them after UGa had a number of big injuries.

 

[bocabull]

Booger, Mizzou fan lives in the world of what ifs instead of reality. This is what makes Mizzou & aTm a perfect SEC fit. In the great tradition of Ole Miss, Miss St, Vandy, Arkansas, South Carolina, etc they will never win anything. They will substitute any success from other members as their own.

Meanwhile in the real world they are in a pick em game with Okie St after a pinnacle season while OU is playing in the Sugar after a mediocre campaign.