Interview with OU president David Boren | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Interview with OU president David Boren

Status
Not open for further replies.

Exit 4

This space for rent
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
10,484
Reaction Score
38,713
There's no scenario in which an ACC meltdown leads top schools to go to the B12 over the B1G or SEC. If B12 wants Pitt, Syracuse, BC, and Wake Forest, they might as well take Cincy, UConn, and BYU.

Also, there's no scenario in which Texas hands over its LHN income to a collection of weak B12 schools. Texas already shares B12 revenue equally which is a subsidy to the other B12 schools. They won't give a further subsidy.

I don't think its unreasonable to foresee Clemson or FSU joining the B12 if the ACCnetwork never materializes (say in the next 5 years). The move would have to be part of a massive new tv deal - one that is accretive to UT and finally deals with the LHN/B12 tv network issue. As for the LHN - I think there are scenarios where it could unravel. For instance, it may just die on its own economic malaise- tv channels are not the slam dunk they used to be. Carriage income and tv ad revenue are no longer easy.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
1,346
Reaction Score
3,875
One thing that Flugs has gotten completely right, by the looks of it, is that OU and UConn have a very good relationship. He tweeted something along the lines of the 4 year OU/UConn WBB scheduling is proof of a continued, good relationship. Reading between Boren's lines, it really seems like he likes what UConn can bring to the B12 and is going to battle for us. Unless there is tremendous political pressure on Texas to bring along deadweight Houston to the B12, I can't for the life of me figure out how UT doesn't also see the value we would bring to their middling LHN. That is, of course, until it is blown up and replaced by a B12N.
Or the LHN turns into BTN2 when Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and UConn join. That would also get them out of the grant of rights since the B12 would have less than 8 members. ;)
 

junglehusky

Molotov Cocktail of Ugliness
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
7,158
Reaction Score
15,481
Full Q&A w/ Boren here
The geography quote, on its own, sound discouraging. But put that back in its context:

So we have to really carefully decide which are the best ones, and we’ll look at the fan base, we’ll look at the size of their programs, we’ll look at the academics of the institutions. We’ll look at them comprehensively as to which is the best fit. And also we’ll consider geography to a certain degree. I think West Virginia is kind of out by itself. You know, I was for adding Louisville. I obviously did not prevail, and they have now gone into another conference and they’re not available now. But they’d have been a good fit. They’d have been close to West Virginia, and you have to think about them and their travel and the rest of it. So I think we have to consider all those factors: fan base, academics, geography. But we’re in a position to do that.

This, to me, suggests Cincy is pretty much a lock. The question will be - is having three eastern teams (WVU, Cincy, UConn) disadvantageous compared to having two eastern travel partners (WVU, Cincy), and a western team (BYU)? I also get the sense Boren is not enamored of Houston.

He said he has four schools that are allies. We need UConn to be talking to those four schools AND to Texas and whoever else is in the anti-expansion camp or on the fence. Would those schools support Houston and are they going to support Boren on folding the LHN into a B12N? Billion dollar question.
 
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Messages
4,010
Reaction Score
18,817
Biggest unknown for me is why the BIG and SEC capitulated on the championship game. Why? Doesn't add up
 

Exit 4

This space for rent
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
10,484
Reaction Score
38,713
Biggest unknown for me is why the BIG and SEC capitulated on the championship game. Why? Doesn't add up
I can only conclude that neither wanted to see UConn join the B12. :rolleyes: Each with their own selfish reasons.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
22,836
Reaction Score
9,464
Oklahoma knows how many fans went to Arizona a few years ago. They might have even been nervous a bit in the first quarter.

Can we get a rematch please? Repeatedly?
 

The Funster

What?
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
2,949
Reaction Score
8,647
Biggest unknown for me is why the BIG and SEC capitulated on the championship game. Why? Doesn't add up

There had to have been discussions between the Delany and Sankey about that. I'm curious as to what they are plotting too.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
694
Reaction Score
1,573
The geography quote, on its own, sound discouraging.

There is also this additional reference which I also read as positive:

Q: So what’s the solution you’d like to see come February?

A: “Well, I’d like to see us add two more teams, and we’ve been doing a lot of thinking about that, which teams fit, which teams are additive to our conference — and I mean schools that have very strong athletic programs as well as very strong academic programs, that fit our profile. And there are several schools potentially around the country that would be additive. You don’t want to just add schools for the sake of adding schools. So they need to be — put it this way: they need to be the right schools.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
1,108
Reaction Score
1,868
Biggest unknown for me is why the BIG and SEC capitulated on the championship game. Why? Doesn't add up
I think all that Delany wanted to know is what the championship game would "look like".

The ACC "looks like" they want to game the system.

The Big 12 just wants a game. And now that there's a definitive selection process, it's not a problem.

I could see the presidents weighing in with "whatever you do, don't blow up the Big 12".
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2014
Messages
16,992
Reaction Score
20,879
Biggest unknown for me is why the BIG and SEC capitulated on the championship game. Why? Doesn't add up
I thought your 9 point scenario was on - realignment tremors. Perhaps the B1G and SEC both know that they are granite while the Big 12 and/or ACC are loose gravel. Let them have their championship game because the situation is short term anyway. Consensus is that the Big 12 is weaker at 10 so it will hasten the inevitable.

Seems like just last week the Big 12 was absolutely not expanding...

Big 12 should add UCONN, Cincy, Temple, and one other. One travel partner for WVU is one thing. A pod of 4 programs is much better.
 
Last edited:

UConn Dan

Not HuskyFanDan; I lurk & I like
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
2,911
Reaction Score
10,571
Biggest unknown for me is why the BIG and SEC capitulated on the championship game. Why? Doesn't add up
I don't think they want the big 12 to expand. They will remain more unstable if they don't. SEC and B1G want to expand into new markets so further destabilization is in their favor.

They didn't like the orginal legislation as it read because they didn't like the idea of full deregulation and essentially giving a conference free rein to pick their "top 2" teams for a conf champ game. This was mostly pointed at the ACC. It's assumed they wanted to scrap divisions altogether and pit their top two ranked teams in the CCG regardless of conf record.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
3,768
Reaction Score
5,420
Biggest unknown for me is why the BIG and SEC capitulated on the championship game. Why? Doesn't add up
Because they have interest in some G5 teams that they want and do not want B12 to get them.
I can only conclude that neither wanted to see UConn join the B12. :rolleyes: Each with their own selfish reasons.
 

junglehusky

Molotov Cocktail of Ugliness
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
7,158
Reaction Score
15,481
I thought your 9 point scenario was on - realignment tremors. Perhaps the B1G and SEC both know that they are granite while the BIig 12 and/or ACC are loose gravel. Let them have their championship game because the situation is short term anyway. Consensus is that the Big 12 is weaker at 10 so it will hasten the inevitable.

Seems like just last week the Big 12 was absolutely not expanding...

Big 12 should add UCONN, Cincy, Temple, and one other. One travel partner for WVU is one thing. A pod of 4 programs is much better.
I would like that personally, but Boren was pretty clear about adding two.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2014
Messages
16,992
Reaction Score
20,879
Another thought occurred to me. I believe there are situations where the P5 schools (65) vote on issues, such as full cost of tuition, in which case the Big 12 is also at a disadvantage in only having 10 votes, or 15%, the least share of all P5 conferences. Jumping up to 14 programs puts it on equal footing with all other conferences and increases UCONN's odds...
 
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
771
Reaction Score
3,396
I've refrained from commenting on this board after the spring game stuff but have been following this forum closely - probably too closely (work productivity in the hopper). Here's my uninformed, not connected to anyone or anything take/ideal scenario
1. We know Delaney is strategic
2. Silence is deafening in Storrs. Herbst sent out media deflection message
3. We're working feverishly to raise our profile - almost as if we were provided a roadmap from someone
4. SEC and Big 10 do a massive 180 on Big 12 Championship game. Why? They know that will start the realignment tremors. See item 1.
5. Tremors are good for us
6. OK and UConn to Big
7. OK State and ? to SEC
8. Texas goes ND model
9. AAC schools and remaining Big 12 merge

What about Kansas?
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
8,195
Reaction Score
21,504
I thought your 9 point scenario was on - realignment tremors. Perhaps the B1G and SEC both know that they are granite while the Big 12 and/or ACC are loose gravel. Let them have their championship game because the situation is short term anyway. Consensus is that the Big 12 is weaker at 10 so it will hasten the inevitable.

Seems like just last week the Big 12 was absolutely not expanding...

Big 12 should add UCONN, Cincy, Temple, and one other. One travel partner for WVU is one thing. A pod of 4 programs is much better.

Are you thinking 3 pods of 4 for the B12? Would they be allowed to do that under the recent deregulation?

EDIT: My math skills are weak today. Adding 4 brings them to 14.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2014
Messages
16,992
Reaction Score
20,879
Are you thinking 3 pods of 4 for the B12? Would they be allowed to do that under the recent deregulation?

EDIT: My math skills are weak today. Adding 4 brings them to 14.
I'm not thinking any fixed number. I'm just saying a grouping of 4 programs near WVU makes more sense than just two. Cincy, Conn, Temple, WVU is about equivalent to Louisville, BC, SU, and Pitt.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
2,835
Reaction Score
9,191
I'm not thinking any fixed number. I'm just saying a grouping of 4 programs near WVU makes more sense than just two. Cincy, Conn, Temple, WVU is about equivalent to Louisville, BC, SU, and Pitt.


Agreed to that. I think getting to 14 would make B12 much more stable for the long term. Putting WVU in the same pot as UCONN, Cincy, and Temple might work but WVU might not like it. It will allow this pot to play each more and minimize traveling.

ACC really screwed us over twice. Not only did they not take us, they took Louisville commuter college and screwed the B12. Had they let B12 have Louisville, we would have been in the ACC right now and everyone would be better off. Instead, ACC took UL just to screw B12 and screwed us again in the process.

I believe Boren only went public because he is unable to get things done in the background regarding expansion. I believe he was very upset after losing UL last year to the ACC. He is going public because he wants public pressure from rest of the B12 schools and fans to Texas regarding LHN and other issues. All B12 schools outside OU and Texas must realize if either of those schools left, chances are B12 is done. B12 has to expand now or there won't be a B12 in the coming years.
 
Joined
Jun 11, 2014
Messages
302
Reaction Score
446
http://www.landgrantholyland.com/20...nference-expansion-rumors-oklahoma-ohio-state

Wait. So could Oklahoma really eventually join the Big Ten?
By Matt Brown@MattSBN on Jan 15, 2016, 11:48a

Normally, the offseason hasn't been going on nearly long enough for us to poke at the conference realignment ideas bag. But the fallout from the Big 12's conference championship vote actually could potentially impact Ohio State in the future, so here we are.

For those that haven't been following the story, representatives from the FBS conferences voted earlier this week to allow the Big 12 to potentially hold a championship game without dividing into divisions or expanding to 12 teams. You would think that this would probably defuse realignment talk and drama with the Big 12 for a little while. But then you'd be wrong, because Oklahoma's university president, David Boren, has been very adamant about what he wants. Boren still wants the Big 12 to expand, and he wants them to start a conference network, even if that means taking an axe to the Longhorn Network.


That may be a tall order, given that it's pretty clear that not everybody in the Big 12 wants to expand, or could even agree on who to add if they did. Texas also isn't about to let go of their money-printing TV channel unless they earned financial concessions from everybody else. Plus, who's to say ESPN would even want to start a Big 12 network right now?

So that is all interesting from a national perspective. But Ohio State fans may be most interested in what Boren said to the Tulsa World about what might happen with the Sooners if the Big 12 doesn't take those steps. Here's the full quote:

Q: I understand the Big Ten Conference essentially has a standing invitation to OU. Can you say if that's true or not?

A: "Well, I wouldn't comment on that. I don't think it would be appropriate to comment. I would say that there are no official outstanding invitations from anyone right now, but there are always, always informal conversations that we get approached (with) from time to time, and I think the strength of our program, we're always considered a Top 10 program in the country. So we're always attractive to the conferences. We have comprehensive strength. We're talking about football, we're talking about basketball, we're talking about gymnastics, other things. We have a very strong, comprehensive program. Our brand, I noticed in one of the magazines recently, they measured the worth of the top brands in the country, as they saw it, athletically, and we were in the top six, ranked in that fashion. So I think there are always opportunities for Oklahoma.

Wait. What? Let's try to unpack that for a second.

Throughout this interview, Boren is pretty clear that he would prefer to stay in the Big 12. It makes sense, after all. OU has historical ties with most of the member institutions, they're a very influential member of a power conference, they have financial flexibility; it's a good gig. But Boren has also been very clear that he is not happy with the status quo of the Big 12, or where it stands relative to other power conferences. It certainly isn't the most stable. It doesn't have a conference title game (... yet). And when this round of Grant of Rights agreements end (in the 2020s), one could easily argue they have multiple members who could be attractive to other conferences. Including, say, Oklahoma.


So being public about this sort of this can be a way of trying to influence his other presidents to fall in line. We need to do X Y and Z, or else some universities who have other options might be tempted to look elsewhere. Universities like this one.

But 'essentially a standing invitation to the Big Ten'? Is that possible? Likely? What would that mean?

Per the USA TODAY database, Oklahoma has the seventh largest athletic department in the country. It's not just a football power, but solid in basketball (Top 3 in KenPom at the moment) and a slew of other non-revenue sports, which would make it an attractive addition to any conference, from the Pac-12, SEC, to sure, the Big Ten. Given that the western flank of the conference seems to be lagging as far as football is concerned, Oklahoma could potentially be a huge upgrade.

But Oklahoma also isn't in the AAU, and lags behind the academic reputations of virtually every other member institution, something the Big Ten purports to care about. That could be mitigated a little if the conference decided to add another AAU member at the same time (say, Kansas, or hell, Texas), and it's also possible OU's athletic profile is so excellent that the conference might decide to ignore academics. If OU had to take Oklahoma State with them due to political pressures, however, it's nearly impossible to see Big Ten administrators agreeing to take them.

Big Ten expansion is not very likely in the next several years. Ohio State fans would be perfectly fine if the league never expanded again either, since any additional team means the Buckeyes would play traditional Big Ten opponents like Iowa or Wisconsin a little less often. But Oklahoma might be enough to forget all of that tradition mumbo jumbo. It would be a huge jolt for football, give Ohio State some excellent games, and make a more competitive league in virtually every sport.

You shouldn't bet on it happening. But it is a fun thought. And it'll make the Big 12 meetings next month a little more exciting for everybody to watch, including Buckeye faithful.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
2,835
Reaction Score
9,191
http://www.landgrantholyland.com/20...nference-expansion-rumors-oklahoma-ohio-state

Wait. So could Oklahoma really eventually join the Big Ten?
By Matt Brown@MattSBN on Jan 15, 2016, 11:48a

Normally, the offseason hasn't been going on nearly long enough for us to poke at the conference realignment ideas bag. But the fallout from the Big 12's conference championship vote actually could potentially impact Ohio State in the future, so here we are.

For those that haven't been following the story, representatives from the FBS conferences voted earlier this week to allow the Big 12 to potentially hold a championship game without dividing into divisions or expanding to 12 teams. You would think that this would probably defuse realignment talk and drama with the Big 12 for a little while. But then you'd be wrong, because Oklahoma's university president, David Boren, has been very adamant about what he wants. Boren still wants the Big 12 to expand, and he wants them to start a conference network, even if that means taking an axe to the Longhorn Network.


That may be a tall order, given that it's pretty clear that not everybody in the Big 12 wants to expand, or could even agree on who to add if they did. Texas also isn't about to let go of their money-printing TV channel unless they earned financial concessions from everybody else. Plus, who's to say ESPN would even want to start a Big 12 network right now?

So that is all interesting from a national perspective. But Ohio State fans may be most interested in what Boren said to the Tulsa World about what might happen with the Sooners if the Big 12 doesn't take those steps. Here's the full quote:

Q: I understand the Big Ten Conference essentially has a standing invitation to OU. Can you say if that's true or not?

A: "Well, I wouldn't comment on that. I don't think it would be appropriate to comment. I would say that there are no official outstanding invitations from anyone right now, but there are always, always informal conversations that we get approached (with) from time to time, and I think the strength of our program, we're always considered a Top 10 program in the country. So we're always attractive to the conferences. We have comprehensive strength. We're talking about football, we're talking about basketball, we're talking about gymnastics, other things. We have a very strong, comprehensive program. Our brand, I noticed in one of the magazines recently, they measured the worth of the top brands in the country, as they saw it, athletically, and we were in the top six, ranked in that fashion. So I think there are always opportunities for Oklahoma.

Wait. What? Let's try to unpack that for a second.

Throughout this interview, Boren is pretty clear that he would prefer to stay in the Big 12. It makes sense, after all. OU has historical ties with most of the member institutions, they're a very influential member of a power conference, they have financial flexibility; it's a good gig. But Boren has also been very clear that he is not happy with the status quo of the Big 12, or where it stands relative to other power conferences. It certainly isn't the most stable. It doesn't have a conference title game (... yet). And when this round of Grant of Rights agreements end (in the 2020s), one could easily argue they have multiple members who could be attractive to other conferences. Including, say, Oklahoma.


So being public about this sort of this can be a way of trying to influence his other presidents to fall in line. We need to do X Y and Z, or else some universities who have other options might be tempted to look elsewhere. Universities like this one.

But 'essentially a standing invitation to the Big Ten'? Is that possible? Likely? What would that mean?

Per the USA TODAY database, Oklahoma has the seventh largest athletic department in the country. It's not just a football power, but solid in basketball (Top 3 in KenPom at the moment) and a slew of other non-revenue sports, which would make it an attractive addition to any conference, from the Pac-12, SEC, to sure, the Big Ten. Given that the western flank of the conference seems to be lagging as far as football is concerned, Oklahoma could potentially be a huge upgrade.

But Oklahoma also isn't in the AAU, and lags behind the academic reputations of virtually every other member institution, something the Big Ten purports to care about. That could be mitigated a little if the conference decided to add another AAU member at the same time (say, Kansas, or hell, Texas), and it's also possible OU's athletic profile is so excellent that the conference might decide to ignore academics. If OU had to take Oklahoma State with them due to political pressures, however, it's nearly impossible to see Big Ten administrators agreeing to take them.

Big Ten expansion is not very likely in the next several years. Ohio State fans would be perfectly fine if the league never expanded again either, since any additional team means the Buckeyes would play traditional Big Ten opponents like Iowa or Wisconsin a little less often. But Oklahoma might be enough to forget all of that tradition mumbo jumbo. It would be a huge jolt for football, give Ohio State some excellent games, and make a more competitive league in virtually every sport.

You shouldn't bet on it happening. But it is a fun thought. And it'll make the Big 12 meetings next month a little more exciting for everybody to watch, including Buckeye faithful.

I am pretty sure B1G would take OU in a sec, as would SEC or the PAC-12. However, they do have the Okie State problem and there is no way any conference would take that team other than maybe the SEC. Based on that, OU is most likely bolt to the SEC before the B1G. Kansas and UCONN to the B1G is more realistic since Kansas is AAU and UCONN is a land grant university with strong academics.

OU basically told the rest of the B12 in public that if you guys don't listen to us this time, there will be consequences. We got options. We can go many places. If rest of you want to make the B12 stable, you better vote for expansion or you will be SOL once Texas decides there is something better elsewhere. Follow
 

BUConn10

Artist formerly known as BUHusky10
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
4,067
Reaction Score
10,556
I don't know much about what the Big 12 plans to do expansion wise, but one thing I DO KNOW is that they will absolutely not be taking Houston. The Texas schools of the Big 12 have had a dirty past with Houston and have made it clear they will not take them. Houston is in the same predicament for B12 acceptance that we were with BC during ACC expansion.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
5,799
Reaction Score
15,809
Biggest unknown for me is why the BIG and SEC capitulated on the championship game. Why? Doesn't add up
I saw the idea floated somewhere that their reasoning was allowing the Big 12 to hold a championship game at 10 furthers their destabilization. Clearly there's a faction of the conference that wants to add new members and enforcing the 12-team rule would force them to expand, thus theoretically stabilizing the conference. Allowing them the championship game at 10 throws them some bait, but ultimately doesn't solve the underlying problem of a conference that's too small, isn't located in many good TV markets, doesn't have a network, is dominated by one school's desires, and has suffered in the CFP because of their structure. If you're the B1G or SEC and you want to eventually poach a school or two from the current Big 12, this is a great way to make that happen.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
1,804
Reaction Score
4,184
I think all that Delany wanted to know is what the championship game would "look like".

The ACC "looks like" they want to game the system.

The Big 12 just wants a game. And now that there's a definitive selection process, it's not a problem.

I could see the presidents weighing in with "whatever you do, don't blow up the Big 12".

That is because the ACC consists of a bunch of members who don't want to play a significant portion of their own conference. How do you set up divisions in a conference like that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
308
Guests online
1,661
Total visitors
1,969

Forum statistics

Threads
157,870
Messages
4,124,856
Members
10,013
Latest member
so1


Top Bottom