The Bishin Cutter wrote:
I don't know if I'll ever understand why the PAC didn't put some faith in the process that had they taken OU and OSU when those two approached them, the likelihood of it bringing Texas back to the table was very good. Was the PAC really that stupid to believe something close to what the Irish have with the ACC would have floated in Austin, or Texas becoming an independent, or remaining one, in the impending post-BCS future? There was a history between the two sides. The PAC left it open for Texas to come aboard back in the 90's, and that network caused too many differences the last time...they weren't worlds apart.
Any future where R3 is a non-conference game for Oklahoma must assume State follows them wherever they go. The logistics for the alternative just aren't there. There aren't enough OOC slots to demand two yearly games, especially of those degrees which would annually make Oklahoma's schedule the toughest in all of FBS. Not very viable, and unlikely to help getting the Sooners to any playoff. Until we hit thirteen regular season games, nine (or more) conference games with suggested OOCs with various G5 conferences make both R3 and Bedlam in the non-conference virtually impossible to ensure. And State isn't coming off that schedule if severed.
Several of these conferences missed good opportunities to add formidable schools when windows were open. Potential good decisions can give way to pettiness, protectionism, and politics. Some of these deciders, inclusive of a number of University Presidents, know much less about the landscape of other conferences than several of the individuals that post here, for example. Even a number of ADs' are internally focused and have a narrow view of the possibilities.
That's a very good point about OU scheduling concerns if they somehow got disconnected by conference association with UT and oSu. Something similar could be said about UT if they went somewhere else, basically alone. Even now, they are singing they can't re-schedule Texas A&M anytime soon. That one is going to take more cooler settling and pressure to revive.
We see a lot of suggestions about the SEC adding this one and that one. The conference went through a considerable ordeal over scheduling following the additions of Texas A&M and Mizzou. Alabama, in particular, and Auburn resisted any idea of changing divisions or splitting divisions. Alabama was the last to agree in adding Mizzou. They wanted certain assurances, particularly with scheduling. Florida and South Carolina were not unassertive in counterpointing Alabama. LSU made a fuss about the permanent cross division games with the Gators, implying they have it tougher in scheduling. A couple of the geographic extremes of the conference, Texas A&M and So. Carolina, were booked as permanent cross-division rivals. Some of the SEC schools, such as Alabama, wanted 9 conference games, while those SEC schools with in-state ACC rivalries, opposed the idea. Mizzou, looking a bit odd in the SEC-east, actually found it a good spot to excel. In recruiting reports in the southeast region of the conference, potential signers often mention Mizzou as a consideration; where before, such was rare.
If or when the SEC does go to 16, they'll have to be delicate and diplomatic in whom they add and how divisions are impacted. In the unexpected event OU and oSu were ever added to the SEC, would Auburn move to SEC-east? Uh, maybe, welcome to the SEC-east, Mississippi State, giving up neighbor 'Bama, Auburn, and LSU! State would get Ole Miss, but OU and oSu getting Vandy and Kentucky? That would be a hard sell in another uproar about changing cross-division rivals. I can't figure that hypothetical scenario out to the liking of all involved.