Where Do We Stand Now? Oklahoma State Is in a Good Position but Not Home Free

Because the question is how many viewers you bring with you. OU and Texas are going to being lots of viewers to every game whether they're playing Bama or Vandy. It's a different calculation when it's OSU. Although we're the best of what's left, our name alone won't bring enough viewers to guarantee these other conferences make more money with is than without.

RA, I really liked this piece, I do have a question, not where do you think the pokes will land but if you had to put money on when it will be announced what would your gut tell you. I think as long as it's a P4 conf the when is more important than the where.

We haven't really done much to improve our football brand over the last five years. After winning the Fiesta Bowl and finishing third nationally in 2012, we've done very little to raise our national profile since then. As a result, we have not achieved top tier status, and other Power Five conferences are not lining up to invite us to their party. As a result, all we can do is hunker down and get ready to operate with a substantially smaller budget, win as many games as we can and hope we get invited to another Power 5 conference eventually. Mike Gundy has been coasting for the last few years. Our record shows it, and we have become dependent on OU and Texas for a big chunk of our revenue. Now we have to try to dig our way out of a hole, and it won't be that easy.

Along with all the other unknowns re: realignment, recruiting to a team without a known conference is going to be even more difficult. That's just one reason why this needs to be settled now instead of later. Even if it means breaking up the B12. You go very many months without a concrete destination and you've lost a complete recruiting class.

tulsasig said:

---

We haven't really done much to improve our football brand over the last five years. After winning the Fiesta Bowl and finishing third nationally in 2012, we've done very little to raise our national profile since then. As a result, we have not achieved top tier status, and other Power Five conferences are not lining up to invite us to their party. As a result, all we can do is hunker down and get ready to operate with a substantially smaller budget, win as many games as we can and hope we get invited to another Power 5 conference eventually. Mike Gundy has been coasting for the last few years. Our record shows it, and we have become dependent on OU and Texas for a big chunk of our revenue. Now we have to try to dig our way out of a hole, and it won't be that easy.

---

Strongly disagree. We have more wins in the last 10 years than 120 of the 130 D1 programs.

If it is 11:00 am on the west coast it is 1:00 pm here, not 9:00 am.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

tulsasig said:

---

We haven't really done much to improve our football brand over the last five years. After winning the Fiesta Bowl and finishing third nationally in 2012, we've done very little to raise our national profile since then. As a result, we have not achieved top tier status, and other Power Five conferences are not lining up to invite us to their party. As a result, all we can do is hunker down and get ready to operate with a substantially smaller budget, win as many games as we can and hope we get invited to another Power 5 conference eventually. Mike Gundy has been coasting for the last few years. Our record shows it, and we have become dependent on OU and Texas for a big chunk of our revenue. Now we have to try to dig our way out of a hole, and it won't be that easy.

---

Strongly disagree. We have more wins in the last 10 years than 120 of the 130 D1 programs.

---

Both can be true. OSU FB has made great strides during Gundy's tenure. This is true. Boone's money, the OSU leadership have moved the needle considerably! Any conference will certainly come to OSU and see the great facilities that exist, the FB (and other sports) success that's been achieved.

However, in the past 7-8 years OSU has not maintained the momentum it earned during the '09-'13 seasons. No B12 FB championships, and declining wins have diminished the achievements during an earlier period. Had we maintained our level of success (and maybe commitment from the staff) we would be in a much better place today. Maybe we would have been invited along with tx/ou to the SEC (i don't really care if we are with ou, but at least we'd have stability we don't have at this time).

The advantage of the B10/SEC is that kids want to play in those conferences (SEC more so than the B10 in my opinion).
It's obvious the PAC trails those conferences in prestige and eyeballs on the product. i don't think adding oSu and or TT/TCU etc. does much to help the conference and does little to help OSU compete to try and make the step up a rung or two on the national stage.

The quality of OSUs on-field product is not and should not be a discussion point in any realignment talk. No matter how you slice it, we're at absolute worst in the top 1/3rd of programs in the P5.

Any further P5 expansion or super-conference talk should be confined to (1) our economic value, and to a lesser extent (2) our academic standing, and maybe (3) our cultural fit, and (4) our geographic fit.

Robert Allen said:

---

Also, OSU fans need to understand that there is no perfect solution. Every option is going to have some difficulty to it. You just need to make sure you are in a Power 5 super conference.

---

I think everybody is in agreement with you Robert - except there is no definition of a "Power 5 Super conference".

That very statement suggests that either 1) you're implying joining one of the remaining Power 4 conferences (sans the Big12), which is almost completely outside of our control, or 2) that the Big12 could remain a "Power 5 Super Conference" with the addition of some teams. (a scenario that does not include some Big12 teams joining the AAC - for the purposes of this discussion).

What is your opinion?

Is there a scenario in your opinion where the Big12 could continue on as a Power 5 conference, or are we at the whim of the other leagues to determine our ultimate fate?

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

Robert Allen said:

---

Also, OSU fans need to understand that there is no perfect solution. Every option is going to have some difficulty to it. You just need to make sure you are in a Power 5 super conference.

---

I think everybody is in agreement with you Robert - except there is no definition of a "Power 5 Super conference".

That very statement suggests that either 1) you're implying joining one of the remaining Power 4 conferences (sans the Big12), which is almost completely outside of our control, or 2) that the Big12 could remain a "Power 5 Super Conference" with the addition of some teams. (a scenario that does not include some Big12 teams joining the AAC - for the purposes of this discussion).

What is your opinion?

Is there a scenario in your opinion where the Big12 could continue on as a Power 5 conference, or are we at the whim of the other leagues to determine our ultimate fate?

---

I can answer part of this, and its just my opinion for sure. The B12 is dead. There is no economic value to the B12. Adding teams like Cinn, or some Florida team will get you left behind imo.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

The quality of OSUs on-field product is not and should not be a discussion point in any realignment talk. No matter how you slice it, we're at absolute worst in the top 1/3rd of programs in the P5.

Any further P5 expansion or super-conference talk should be confined to (1) our economic value, and to a lesser extent (2) our academic standing, and maybe (3) our cultural fit, and (4) our geographic fit.

---

No, it should not be confined to just your talking points. Is OSU in the top third of programs in the P5? Definitely. But for OSU to end up in a P4 it'll be a combo of all those data points. Why would the B10 (and to a much lesser degree the PAC) not be interested in all of the above? The B10 could feel that given the other potential programs they are considering the bar should be held very high to get an invite into their conference. Let's face it, none of the other programs that are being considered for B10 invite except ND really meet most of the criteria they'd want to have.

thetruth said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

The quality of OSUs on-field product is not and should not be a discussion point in any realignment talk. No matter how you slice it, we're at absolute worst in the top 1/3rd of programs in the P5.

Any further P5 expansion or super-conference talk should be confined to (1) our economic value, and to a lesser extent (2) our academic standing, and maybe (3) our cultural fit, and (4) our geographic fit.

---

No, it should not be confined to just your talking points. Is OSU in the top third of programs in the P5? Definitely. But for OSU to end up in a P4 it'll be a combo of all those data points. Why would the B10 (and to a much lesser degree the PAC) not be interested in all of the above? The B10 could feel that given the other potential programs they are considering the bar should be held very high to get an invite into their conference. Let's face it, none of the other programs that are being considered for B10 invite except ND really meet most of the criteria they'd want to have.

---

Outside of Notre Dame, name one program on the outside looking in whose on-field quality is better than OSU? Even close? If you can't name one, then on-field quality is not an issue that should distract the discussion.

Robert Allen said:

---

I wish we had a final answer, but there are a lot of factors. The Pac-12 badly needs to get into the central time zone to expand their schedule to the 11 a/noon et kickoffs. The Big Ten needs schools loacated in areas where they can host Nov. night games. All of that stufff factors and all of the conferences are in the midst of considering what and who they want. Until they finish that process and begin asking and expanding then Oklahoma State and it's future will be up in the air. The same can be sad for how long the Big 12 will hang in and continue collecting the revenue from Oklahoma and Texas being involved.

Limbo, that is where we are. Oklahoma State has a good resume' the best of the available schools in the Big 12, but not the best if leagues are into stealing from each other, namely the SEC.

As for Notre Dame, they are suffice to stay indeppendent and could remain that way depending on the playoff criteria and how available or unavailable it is made to them as an independent.

---

All of which is why my proposal contained in post #5 of this thread makes so much sense. It tackles most of the issues confronting the PAC and B10 and (most of) the B12.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Outside of Notre Dame, name one program on the outside looking in whose on-field quality is better than OSU? Even close? If you can't name one, then on-field quality is not an issue that should distract the discussion.

---

Again with the undefined terms.... what the hell does "on-field quality" mean? Wins? tackles? Offense?

over what time period? Yale kicks our butts in the 150 year scale, we don't rate well in the past 50 years either.

How does one measure this so-called "on-field quality"? Please list the formula.


Here is WINS from the past 10 years (and/or 12 years) Boise has more, TCU is "even close - very close".

From August 2019 - Sports Illustrated
1. Alabama 127-13
2. Ohio State 115-19
3. Boise State 109-24
4. Clemson 112-27
5. Oklahoma 105-28
...
12/11 (tie). TCU/Oklahoma State 94-36
https://thespun.com/college-football/college-footballs-15-winningest-programs-of-the-last-10-years

Boise went 12-2 in 2019
TCU went 5-7 in 2019
OSU went 8-5 in 2019
(so we barely edged out TCU) (I didn't include 2020 due to COVID reduced games played)
2020
osu 8-3
Boise 5-2


If it's not "wins", then what defines "on-field quality"?

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Outside of Notre Dame, name one program on the outside looking in whose on-field quality is better than OSU? Even close? If you can't name one, then on-field quality is not an issue that should distract the discussion.

---

Again with the undefined terms.... what the hell does "on-field quality" mean? Wins? tackles? Offense?

over what time period? Yale kicks our butts in the 150 year scale, we don't rate well in the past 50 years either.

How does one measure this so-called "on-field quality"? Please list the formula.


Here is WINS from the past 10 years (and/or 12 years) Boise has more, TCU is "even close - very close".

From August 2019 - Sports Illustrated
1. Alabama 127-13
2. Ohio State 115-19
3. Boise State 109-24
4. Clemson 112-27
5. Oklahoma 105-28
...
12/11 (tie). TCU/Oklahoma State 94-36
https://thespun.com/college-football/college-footballs-15-winningest-programs-of-the-last-10-years

Boise went 12-2 in 2019
TCU went 5-7 in 2019
OSU went 8-5 in 2019
(so we barely edged out TCU) (I didn't include 2020 due to COVID reduced games played)
2020
osu 8-3
Boise 5-2


If it's not "wins", then what defines "on-field quality"?

---

If you are questioning my comments about OSUs "on-field" quality, here's my response. Any P5 team with the 10th (or12th, or 15th) most wins in the last 10 years is worthy of being considered a perennial top-20 high quality on-field performer. Period. If you disagree, take the next exit for the remedial intelligence pool. And while you're at it, just stop the no-stop pointless arguments. Everyone would appreciate it.

Hmmm, remind me who Talyn Shettron is scheduled to sign with, I have forgotten!!!

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

If you are questioning my comments about OSUs "on-field" quality, here's my response. Any P5 team with the 10th (or12th, or 15th) most wins in the last 10 years is worthy of being considered a perennial top-20 high quality on-field performer. Period. If you disagree, take the next exit for the remedial intelligence pool. And while you're at it, just stop the no-stop pointless arguments. Everyone would appreciate it.

---

---

why are you so hostile and belligerent? "remedial intelligence pool? Seriously? You can't be more cordial than that to others?

Everyone would appreciate it if you would quit making up your own terms to try and prove some point that is probably not provable.

I'm simply trying to understand what it is that you are saying ... you are not using conventional terms..

I have know idea whether I agree with your statement or not, because the terms are not defined.

So I had asked if you had a source for that term, "on-field quality", but apparently you simply made it up, and in doing so, you limited it to P5 conference teams, for some reason only you and God knows. I gave you Boise, MORE wins than OSU, clearly a perennial top-20 high quality performer. I gave you TCU almost exactly identical to OSU. You asked for only one.

I am not arguing with you or anybody else, I'm having a discussion, but you keep clouding up the entire thread with your posts with undefined terms. I'm trying very hard, to understand what it is that you're saying, but you use made up terms, that are not used in any common vernacular.

Are you saying that OSU should be the first selection if any conference decides to expand? (I think everybody already said that, so I'm not sure what you're saying)

Will you try to explain it one more time using common vernacular, without the personal attacks? Thanks.

---

Thanks.... I think I got it that time. Economic value reigns, so Winning doesn't matter?

The excerpt from the USC article below, suggests one cannot easily determine "economic value". "Economic value" is what I have been questioning all along.

Are we a better economic choice than ISU, TCU, BU, TT, KU, KSU, WVU for the other leagues to consider? Likely Unknown. Would "economic value" be enough for those leagues to consider any of us? Who knows.

If we get an invite to Pac12, B1G, SEC or ACC, I don't think anybody would be disappointed.

"Economic value" cannot be easily determined, especially as it results to possibly adding additional revenue to a league. If economic value is uncertain, then what?


"The key question worth asking: Will people who watched a Texas Tech-Kansas State game or an Oklahoma State-Iowa State game watch a Texas Tech-Utah game or an Oklahoma State-Arizona game? The Big 12 fans will. What about Pac-12 and national viewers?


The key follow-up question with national TV viewers: Was Oklahoma State-Iowa State especially interesting to watch because the two teams had a chance to beat out Oklahoma for the Big 12 championship, or was the interest independent of Oklahoma's (also Texas's) presence in the Big 12?

I don't have a strong opinion on this matter, but the Pac-12 would definitely need to ask lots of questions along these lines and discern whether interest in non-Texas, non-Oklahoma Big 12 football schools exists independent of UT and OU, or BECAUSE of UT and OU."
https://trojanswire.usatoday.com/2021/07/25/big-12-on-tv-is-a-complicated-picture-for-pac-12-football-media-rights/

"Yet, what really matters here? Not what Big 12 fans think, and not what Pac-12 executives think.

What matters: What ESPN and FOX think these football programs' games are worth on TV."


If economic value is uncertain, then what?

TUSKAPOKE said:

---

Glad Dr. Shrum and AD Weiberg are Alphas in looking out for the best interests of OSU. Bowlsby has failed and continuing to follow his lead in anything is crazy. Bowlsby had the chance last year to pounce on the weakened PAC12 and form a super conference that would have probably kept the Sewerners and Shorthorns in the fold because of the projected money. Was he talked out of it by those two? His judgement, vision and passiveness has killed the B12. Can Bowlsby get USC, AZST, AZ, WA, OR, UCLA, CO and UT to leave the PAC12 to form a Super West conference? I would believe him walking on water before that happens! OSU should stay put and wrench the blood $$$$ out of the Zero U and Shothorns and then get in the SUPER PAC. Too much is being made of game times and travel distances We need TT and TCU to go with us for TX recruiting purposes and rivalries. The business has changed and we must evolve or die. Let's go west! GO POKES!!!

---

Bowlsby's ineffectual leadership has cost the nation the Big 12. Oh, sure. he's scrambling now -- scrambling to save his head from being on a spike (as it should). He should be fired immediately and have someone else step in in the interim. As far as complaining about PAC game times, I'd rather be playing UCLA late at night in a conference game than playing CSU or Memphis at 1pm in a lame conference game.

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

thetruth said:

---

Houston is a non-starter. No tv presence. This alignment is about tv contracts/revenue and eyeballs you can bring to the table.

---

If Houston was in a different conference playing OSU and USC, etc., then there would be most certainly eyeballs in Houston tunng in the game.

This is where the concept of TV market comes into play. The Houston Cougars "viewers" are a reflection of their current conference and current lack of TV deals, not lack of interest in general.

Looking only at "viewers" is a false narrative, because much of that metric is outside of the influence of the school.

---

No one watches the Houston Cougars in the Houston market.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17381740/can-university-houston-boost-big-12-ratings-houston-market

Ostateman said:

---

I'd rather be playing UCLA late at night in a conference game than playing CSU or Memphis at 1pm in a lame conference game.

---

Question: Would you feel that way if playing Memphis meant we make roughly the same money as membership in the Pac12 would pay, and if it would almost assure of making the 12-team playoff annually?

Ostateman said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

thetruth said:

---

Houston is a non-starter. No tv presence. This alignment is about tv contracts/revenue and eyeballs you can bring to the table.

---

If Houston was in a different conference playing OSU and USC, etc., then there would be most certainly eyeballs in Houston tunng in the game.

This is where the concept of TV market comes into play. The Houston Cougars "viewers" are a reflection of their current conference and current lack of TV deals, not lack of interest in general.

Looking only at "viewers" is a false narrative, because much of that metric is outside of the influence of the school.

---

No one watches the Houston Cougars in the Houston market.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17381740/can-university-houston-boost-big-12-ratings-houston-market

---

I already posted that article... and it actually says the opposite, that ADDING Houston, WOULD HELP get the Houston TV market back.

A recent developments to throw in the mix.

ESPN is not ready to start moving piecmeal from ACC to SEC. Had SEC announce Clemson/FSU don't move the needle enough to go to SEC. So SEC standing pat at current 16 for now. Named ND as only school with enough IT to get an SEC invite.


I think that pretty much cools the jets for now. I don't see any real movement until someone gets a new TV contract. The C&D letter has had its biggest effect in forcing ESPN to stand down.

If the schools are smart they'll agree to stick together and work on two fronts to find a path forward together, and to find homes for all if there is no path forward or better landing spots can be found for the majority. It's tough to tell what can happen, but I think 6 can probably find a home with Baylor and Kansas on the outside. KU just doesn't show any signs of having any desire of playing competitive football, and BU for current issues, and the religious stipulations of the school will probably find them on the outs. But this is going to be a post ou/ut exit move as they'll need and want to collect those exit fees.