Those are two pretty sizable things you’re removing from the equation.
1 Like
The question really is:
Would you rather be Arkansas and go 5-7, 6-6 or 7-5 and have a conference record of 2-6, 3-5 or 4-4 and go to a minor bowl but you have plenty of revenue for your Olympic sports.
Or would you rather go 8-4, 9-3, 10-2 or even 11-1 but have a chance to win a conference title. UCLA doesn’t have much of a choice because they fund 25 sports. OSU only has 16
Fair point. 
I’ll ask it like this: Based upon on-field results thus far, was it worth it for OU?
1 Like
I’m honestly not quite sure, I guess it depends on their finances. It was my understanding they were having some financial issues, and if that’s correct then chasing the money hoping that would be the solution might have made it worth it, even if it meant sacrificing on-field performance.
I think OU was a perfect fit for the SEC. They are historically one of the top 3 or 4 programs in the country. I think they will compete for SEC titles. Is Arkansas chance of winning one realistic? South Carolina? Miss St? Vanderbilt? Kentucky? But again are they content with average records but revenue that funds everything else.
Well, those are two very big factors that benefit every program throughout the University…but…Absolutely, 100%. The staff is larger. The budget is bigger, the recruiting is better. OU’s odds of winning a Conf title went down. But their odds of winning a Nat Title went up. OU won 14 Conf titles in the Big 12. But…..those aren’t what this is all about.
They haven’t won as much so far. But from a fans perspective, I love it. The home schedule has seen/will see Tennessee, LSU, Bama, Ole Miss. I went to Auburn last year. The road venues are amazing. Hey I loved Bedlam. I loved the old OU-Neb series. But this SEC schedule is as good as it gets. I LOVE it. The baseball gets Vandy, Tennessee, Arkansas, LSU & so on. It’s night & day
ABSOLUTELY. The only home Conf game that OU people really cared about towards the end was Bedlam. Now, OU fans get to see Bama, LSU, Tennessee, Ole Miss, Auburn and so on. Baseball brings Vandy, LSU, Tennessee, Arkansas and so on. I cant love it more. Of course you want em to win at the same pace as they did in the Big 12, but anyone with any sense knew that would be the case. Bedlam was great and I miss it. But now, we get that same type of setting/buzz every week. I hated the SEC bias and talk, so I get it. But man I couldnt be happier with being in this Conf (other than winning more than we currently have)
Does Arkansas have a “realistic” chance of winning the SEC? For the sake of this argument, no. But there are probably 5 programs in the Big 10 that have a “realistic” chance of winning their Conf? I mean OSU has won 1, so I dont get what point that makes? Everybody wants to win as much as they can. I dont know how that statement means that UCLA or any of the other programs I mentioned would be better off not being in either the Big 10 or SEC? UCLA hadnt won the Conf in 25 years anyway.
Eh, I think you guys are talking across each other. You’re talking about different goals, and I’m not sure which is the more cynical take, but there are really only cynical takes left in college.
You’re saying it’s better for the bottom line which, at the end of the day, is why schools have sports. They do not care about winning except for the fact that winning is even better for the bottom line. If you could give the administration of every school a lie detector test and ask if they’d rather be a rich doormat or a poor champion, they’d pick doormat, but generally, that’s a false choice.
Chris is saying it’s better to have the best chance to make a deeper postseason run and achieve the greatest on-field success which is more likely by winning a lower tier conference.
There are lots of nuances both ways. I don’t love either take because I don’t love the sport right now.
The original statement was that UCLA was a loser or is worse off now (I likely paraphrased) due to realignment. Ok, but how is UCLA making a run in any Conf? The only way in which they are in somehow worse shape is when it comes to their odds of winning a Conf title that they werent winning anyway. Arkansas won at a higher percentage before joining the toughest conf in football. But that is the case for every program that joined more competitive conf’s. That doesnt make them worse off as a result simply due to not winning as many games. You cannot say that a program is a loser in realignment if you take away what all the benefits are from the discussion. Thats similar to asking Mary Todd “yeah but…how was the Play?”
Youre not a fan of the current state of College Football. I get it.
I actually think you’re the one asking about the play because their benefits are not about winning football, so you’re like “well, if your husband is going to have his brains blown out anyway, wouldn’t you rather it be at a good play in a nice theatre than a bad one in a rundown theatre?” Which is the futility of modern college football.
“The futility of modern college football” The pool of teams that can legitimately have a shot at winning the Nat Title is deeper now than it has ever been. In Stillwater, I get that its a bad time to take a poll on college football popularity. But its at its peak in more places than its ever been. UCLA is doing the exact same thing now as they were prior. Its just being done in a far better monetary situation. Again. you cant bae your argument around being a loser by winning fewer games. If thats the case, then ■■■■ near every team in the country is a loser in realignment
I mean, you’re literally saying you can’t base being a loser on losing. You can’t base being a thief by committing theft. I get what you mean… kind of… but you’re also saying UCLA isn’t winning anything either way. They’re getting shot during a better play.
Is it? Ohio State? Michigan? Georgia? Same ol’ blue bloods. Sure, Michigan hadn’t won in a while, but they didn’t have a legendary football coach alum pass time in college until a good NFL job opened up before. BYU won in the 80s. Oklahoma State had a legit shot in 2011. Clemson rose up prior to the current situation. No one but the most moneyed schools are going to win. It’s the same dozen guys that had money before. Indiana and Texas Tech will probably be playoff teams, but what chance do they have to win 3 straight against 3 blue blood programs?
Saying UCLA was a loser in Conf realignment simply due to the fact that theyve lost more games on the field…is, in my opinion, dumb. Ive seen some of your posts on here and you are not a dumb poster. So I know you know the difference, but thats ok. Oklahoma St has yet to win a game in this Conf for two years, but I doubt that you and Chris feel like its the loser program of this Conf. Thats just a short sighted take from which you are wiser than
Is there parity in the way that you see in the NFL? Of course not. But theres more parity than at any time weve seen. The amount of teams who are truly trying to win a national title in how the landscape is nowadays is more than its ever been. “No one but the most moneyed schools are going to win”. Agree 100%. But the portal and NIL has allowed some more to enter the conversation. Indiana. Ole Miss. Texas Tech. Oregon is a constant now. Im not saying in any way that its a wide open race for everyone to participate in, because thats not the fact. NIL and the expanded playoff have all but eliminated any chance for an OSU or the like to win a Nat title. But the pool of “Haves” is deeper than its been.
Very solid, reasonable takes. The road stadiums look tremendous! The matchups are more even from a historical and resources perspective. Good convo.
1 Like
Hey dont kid yourself, id love to win more. But the schedule is unbelievably better. Im sure thatll wear off at some point.
UCLA has had 13 losing seasons in the last 30 years of the P12. I think they will have even more in the B10 in the next 30 years. My comparison is Arkansas. Arkansas went 109-49 .689 in its last 34 years in SWC conference games, with 10 titles and 5 losing seasons. The Razorbacks have gone 99-159 .383 in the last 34 years in the SEC games with no titles 16 losing seasons. Obviously, the SEC is tougher. The winning % is a .316 shift. That’s huge. The plus side is that they have more money for everything Olympic sports, coaches, facilities, NIL, recruiting etc. the downside is they have endured 11 more losing seasons per 34 years. That’s 11 seasons when their recruiting contact is zeroed out in December because their season is over. Arkansas last 10 years they are 23-59 in SEC play. That’s 15th in a 16 team league. 7 games behind Miss St and only Vanderbilt is behind them and Vandy may be gaining. Financially it was a great decision to join the SEC, but as a football program, the Razorbacks are taking their lumps. I see the same thing happening with UCLA. Financially, the Bruins should do it. They have 25 sports to fund whereas OSU has 16 and I think OU has 17.
Speaking of OU, agreed that their chances of winning conference titles has gone down but the prospect of National titles has gone up. OU enters the league with an amazing history and will settle into the top half of the league comfortably. OU can thrive in the SEC. Great decision. Texas came out of their decade slump at just the right time and can easily be in the upper half of the SEC.
The B12 teams have greater access to the CFP than Arkansas or UCLA do. Arizona St just went and gave Texas all they wanted. Fans want to win games, contend for titles and go to the playoff. Time will tell us about UCLA’s fate, but it’s going to be hard when they are not even the best program in their own city.
I understand all of that. It was well stated. Appreciate the convo. I agree that the UCLA W-L record will be effected, but thats the case with every program that jumps into these Conf’s. Everyone will lose more games than they did prior. More Conf games. More games period. Tougher schedules. Thats just common sense. Comparing Arkansas’ record in the SWC to their record in the SEC is a fools errand. We can agree that UCLA’s W-L record will suffer (as will everybodys). I dont see how they were a loser as it pertained to Conf realignment. That is something we will not agree on, which is fine.
Kudos for you being an OSU fan, but still capable of having some common sense in saying that OU will possibly do something other than fade into mediocrity or turn into the next Nebraska.
“The B12 teams have greater access to the CFP than Arkansas or UCLA do. Arizona St just went and gave Texas all they wanted. Fans want to win games, contend for titles and go to the playoff” Agree 100%. Arkansas, UCLA and teams that are similar would aboslutely have a better opportunity to get into the playoff if they were in the Big 12. No argument here. But that doesnt mean that UCLA was a loser in Conf realignment. “Time will tell us about UCLA’s fate, but it’s going to be hard when they are not even the best program in their own city” Agree. But thats been the case for them forever. Nothing on that front has changed. However, if they were not in the Big 10 and USC was…they would have zero chance. None.
Good convo. Understand your side. We just dont agree on all of it, which is fine.
\
Right, which is why I am wondering which of you is more cynical because the way in which they’re not the loser is that their athletic department is making more money. Stuff like that makes me wish college athletics would go away. I could give a rip if UCLA is making more money. It kills me how much money our “philanthropists” are wasting.
Oregon had already arrived. The other guys you mentioned have almost no chance. Maybe Ole Miss.