Surprise, surprise - Longhorn Network taking more football than advertised

[sackman]

You lost me there. Washington State pays their head football coach $600,000. OU pays it's head football coach $4 million. Bob Stoops made $750,000 his first season at OU.

Texas has the largest athletic department budget in NCAA sports, and already spends more than OU by approximately $50 million. LB hit it on the head. As long as OU beats Texas on the field, (which they have done pretty well over the past decade) OU will be perfectly content to let Texas bring in their millions. From 2000 to 2010 - OU won 7 Big 12 Championships. Texas won 2. OU is 7-4 against Texas over that same span.

It will be interesting to see what happens at OU in 10 years. I do not think Bob Stoops will still be head coach in a decade; this is already his 14th season at OU. (By comparison, Barry Switzer coached at OU for 16 seasons, Bud Wilkinson coached at OU for 17 seasons) Stoops' replacement will have big shoes to fill. At the same time, I do not think Mack Brown will be the head coach at Texas in a decade. (Mack Brown will be 60 in a month, Bob Stoops will be 51 this fall) If Texas drops off a couple more seasons like last season, Mack Brown might be gone before he even gets to spend the ESPN money.

It's not about what they're paying now, it's about what they'll be able to afford in another 10 years. Washington State will be able to afford to pay it's coaches better than OU in another 10 years. If the Big 12 doesn't fold, the natural evolution will have UT squeezing more and more out of the conference. OU and A&M are the favored children - for now. There's nothing preventing UT from squeezing them down to the level of all the rest of the poor schmucks in the conference. And you're kidding yourself if you don't think that will happen - it will. Meanwhile, in Pullman, WA, they just hit the freaking jackpot. $4MM for a football coach? Sure, why not? They're getting $21MM/Year from the TV contract alone. That's just the tip of the proverbial iceburg. Chances are that by the time Larry Scott is done, each team in the Pac 12 will be pulling in excess of $30MM/Year before they play a single game or sell a single ticket. You think OU will be able to compete with that so long as UT is pulling the strings? Forget competing with USC, Florida, Ohio State, LSU, Alabama... OU won't be able to compete with Oregon State.

 

[Darth Snow]

disagree with sacky. OU will always be competitive against texas, with the inevitable cyclical downturns. There are just to many high level recruits being produced in their back yard.

 

[Del]

disagree completely with sackman. OU has plenty of options and will never be an Iowa State, KSU or even a Mizzou.. If they don't like what UT is doing in a few years they'll take their ball and either go to the SEC or Pac-12. Have you seen the size of their athletic budget? Its around 90 million or almost twice ours. They already have great facilities so there is not a lot of upgrading that needs to go on there.

 

[Buffnik]

OU's the top program in the history of college football. They'll be just fine.

 

[GregInArlington]

When OU loses Stoops they could be in trouble for a while, especially if they remain in the Big 12. The national spotlight has grown very dim on them with the recent conference shuffle.

 

[sackman]

Let's see what happens after Stoops is gone, and the OU athletic budget is smaller than Northwestern's. I totally agree that so long as Stoops is there, they'll continue to kick UT's ass on the field. It's a whole different ballgame once he's gone. Paying a coach $4MM isn't a big deal when that same coach can get $4MM to coach at Arizona State, Cal, Washington State, etc. The game has changed. The playing field at the very top is evening out. In another 10 years, every school in the SEC, ACC, B10 and Pac 12 will have athletic budgets larger than OU. Every school.

 

[Dark Bohner]

Yeah Sacky I think you didn't get this one right. OU has enormous resources outside of TV dollars to draw on, and history shows they have been damn good pretty much most of the time. OU isn't going anywhere competition-wise for a long time.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

OU's athletic department budget- as of 2010 (most recent info I could locate with a quick search) - was approaching $80 million.

OU's athletic department revenue - as of the 2009/2010 season (again the most recent info I could quickly find) - was approaching $100 million. That's INCLUDING the then-paltry Big 12 television package of $15 million.


I am sorry, sacky, but I think it is YOU who is completely kidding yourself if you truly think Washington State is EVER going to pay a football coach on the same level as what OU pays its head football coach. Even John Blake got paid more than Washington State's current head football coach.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

When OU loses Stoops they could be in trouble for a while, especially if they remain in the Big 12. The national spotlight has grown very dim on them with the recent conference shuffle.

That's why most pre-season publications have them picked in the top 5, if not #1 overall? Doesn't sound to dim to me.

I will certainly admit that future success will be questionable when the Stoops reign ends. They could very well end up with another Gary Gibbs (not such a bad coach, in retrospect), Howard Schnellenberger, or John Blake.

 

[Del]

Ou does NOT have a smaller budget than Northwestern. If you are thinking about TV dollars than yes but look at the whole allocation. OU is pushing close to 90 million, have great alumni support, and upgraded facilities. They can afford another 4 million dollar coach because they are not in debt like we are, their program is self sustaining and they don't need to spend a bunch on upgrading everything. OU will be a top 5 program in 30 years just like it is now. Will there be a dip every once in a while for a few years? Sure but not more than a few seasons. They are not as dependent on TV dollars as our program is or programs like the forgotten 5 in the Big XII. And I'm not sure how the national spotlight has suddenly dimmed on them when they are consistantly ranked #1 at the beginning of the season and have won 7 Big XII championships. I think some of you guys are letting your dislike for all things OU and Texas cloud your objectivity.

 

[sackman]

You guys are all still thinking in the here and now. I'm talking 10 years down the road. I see a few things as distinct possibilities:

1) UT continues to squeeze their conference bretheren. Why wouldn't they? They want to go independent anyway, so why do they care about revenues to OU? They needed OU and A&M to keep the conference alive when CU and NU bolted. Pretty soon, they won't give a damn what those two schools do. Once that time comes - and it's not very far off, IMO - OU and A&M will be relying almost exclusively on booster support to fund their athletic departments.
2) The big conferences will continue to get bigger and bigger paydays. The gap between what OU receives from their conference and what CU (for instance) receives from it's conference will get bigger and bigger and bigger.
3) eventually, there won't be any difference between CU's athletic budget and OU's. They'll be identical, but CU won't be depending on ticket sales and booster support to fund much of it's operations, OU will.
4) Bob Stoops retires, goes to the NFL, has a stroke, whatever. OU then has to replace him. There are probably 5 other schools with coaching vacancies, all of which can pay the exact same amount as OU can. OU hires somebody who they really, really hope will be just as good as Stoops.

If the guy they hire is as good or better than Stoops, they're fine. If not, their performance starts to slide. They don't beat UT every year. They don't beat A&M or even OSU every year. Recruits start looking at other schools, like LSU, Arkansas, and even TCU. Players that used to go to OU are now looking at alternatives. All of the sudden, they're just another school and they don't have the resources to buy their way back to the top of the heap. It all hinges on who replaces Stoops. If the guy they get is good, all this can be avoided. Is this really such a far-fetched scenario?

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

You guys are all still thinking in the here and now. I'm talking 10 years down the road. I see a few things as distinct possibilities:

1) UT continues to squeeze their conference bretheren. Why wouldn't they? They want to go independent anyway, so why do they care about revenues to OU? They needed OU and A&M to keep the conference alive when CU and NU bolted. Pretty soon, they won't give a damn what those two schools do. Once that time comes - and it's not very far off, IMO - OU and A&M will be relying almost exclusively on booster support to fund their athletic departments.
2) The big conferences will continue to get bigger and bigger paydays. The gap between what OU receives from their conference and what CU (for instance) receives from it's conference will get bigger and bigger and bigger.
3) eventually, there won't be any difference between CU's athletic budget and OU's. They'll be identical, but CU won't be depending on ticket sales and booster support to fund much of it's operations, OU will.
4) Bob Stoops retires, goes to the NFL, has a stroke, whatever. OU then has to replace him. There are probably 5 other schools with coaching vacancies, all of which can pay the exact same amount as OU can. OU hires somebody who they really, really hope will be just as good as Stoops.

If the guy they hire is as good or better than Stoops, they're fine. If not, their performance starts to slide. They don't beat UT every year. They don't beat A&M or even OSU every year. Recruits start looking at other schools, like LSU, Arkansas, and even TCU. Players that used to go to OU are now looking at alternatives. All of the sudden, they're just another school and they don't have the resources to buy their way back to the top of the heap. It all hinges on who replaces Stoops. If the guy they get is good, all this can be avoided. Is this really such a far-fetched scenario?

To put it mildly, YES.

OU wasn't in the same conference with Texas until 1995. In the time before OU and Texas became conference partners, OU won 30+ conference championships and 6 national championships, and competed for a few more.

I am going to go out on a limb (not a very big one) and make the following predictions:


1) Ten years from now, OU will have a bigger athletic department budget than Washington State will.
2) Ten years from now, OU will have more football revenue than Washington State will.
3) Ten years from now, OU will pay their head football coach more than Washington State will.
4) In the period or time from today to 10 years from today, OU will play in more BCS bowl games than Washington State will.


I will also predict that in the event that the Big 12 ceases to exist, Oklahoma will quickly find their way into another BCS conference. There is just too much history, tradition, and money out there for them not to.

 

[CarolinaBuff]

To put it mildly, YES.

OU wasn't in the same conference with Texas until 1995. In the time before OU and Texas became conference partners, OU won 30+ conference championships and 6 national championships, and competed for a few more.

I am going to go out on a limb (not a very big one) and make the following predictions:


1) Ten years from now, OU will have a bigger athletic department budget than Washington State will.
2) Ten years from now, OU will have more football revenue than Washington State will.
3) Ten years from now, OU will pay their head football coach more than Washington State will.
4) In the period or time from today to 10 years from today, OU will play in more BCS bowl games than Washington State will.


I will also predict that in the event that the Big 12 ceases to exist, Oklahoma will quickly find their way into another BCS conference. There is just too much history, tradition, and money out there for them not to.

You're only going out on a limb if you think that any 1 of those 4 won't be the case. And regardless of how much money the Big 10 or Pac 12 ends up getting from TV revenue, neither WSU's or Northwestern's athletic budgets will ever be larger than OU's. I can't believe this is even a discussion.

 

[Mick Ronson]

I will also predict that in the event that the Big 12 ceases to exist, Oklahoma will quickly find their way into another BCS conference. There is just too much history, tradition, and money out there for them not to.

you think? last "shuffle" they had their current spot in the Big XII along with Pac and SEC offers. to say they aren't valuable as has been posted on this board many times by many posters because they don't have "a media market" is a stretch. They are (were) on more in Denver than CU every year i can remember (at least since the KMGH (UHF, early local cable?) games with Les Shapiro in the Mac era).

the Pac may have the state-of-the-art, screaming TV deal right now....but those numbers and $$$ will equalize over time as the Big Ten, SEC etc...get their ducks in a row. to say that Wazzou will be at a competitive money advantage to a school like OU seems iffy. the new PAC, no matter how much money, will still have bottom feeder teams. not every team can win every game.

 

[sackman]

I think you're all underestimating the seismic shift that just took place in college athletics. OU got left off the bus. They can't go independent. They may or may not be able to join the SEC. The Big 12 is only going to survive so long as UT wants it to, at which point it will collapse. To assume that UT will want to keep the Big 12 around forever ignores their history.

 

[Mick Ronson]

i've never seen anyone suggest that OU would go indie...so, i don't see how that makes a premise that supports the "seismic" change argument. saying it's seismic is one thing, whether that's true remains to be seen. people said the information economy was the cure to all economic woes in the late 90's too. that "paradigmatic" shift didn't really pan out that way, did it?

 

[sackman]

i've never seen anyone suggest that OU would go indie...so, i don't see how that makes a premise that supports the "seismic" change argument. saying it's seismic is one thing, whether that's true remains to be seen. people said the information economy was the cure to all economic woes in the late 90's too. that "paradigmatic" shift didn't really pan out that way, did it?

I never said OU was going independent. The seismic shift is coming from the power conferences. There will likely be four (maybe five) conferences when this is all said and done. OU won't be in the Pac, the Big 10, or the ACC. They *might* be in the SEC if they're fortunate. If not, they're fully and completely screwed. UT will kick them to the curb when they feel it's in their interest to do so. Really, is this so utterly unbelievable?

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

I never said OU was going independent. The seismic shift is coming from the power conferences. There will likely be four (maybe five) conferences when this is all said and done. OU won't be in the Pac, the Big 10, or the ACC. They *might* be in the SEC if they're fortunate. If not, they're fully and completely screwed. UT will kick them to the curb when they feel it's in their interest to do so. Really, is this so utterly unbelievable?

It's utterly unbelievable that you think OU, one of the winningest football programs of all time, and certainly one of the top five teams of the past decade, and in all likelihood the NEXT decade, is somehow going to be left out in the cold should college football have another conference shift in the not-so-distant future. OU is not going to be left out of anything. The Big 10, the PAC 12, the SEC, the Big East, even the ACC would be thrilled to add OU to the mix.

 

[Unleash Hell]

The big 12 sucks, all those ****** ass teams can eat a dick!

 

[Unleash Hell]

It's utterly unbelievable that you think OU, one of the winningest football programs of all time, and certainly one of the top five teams of the past decade, and in all likelihood the NEXT decade, is somehow going to be left out in the cold should college football have another conference shift in the not-so-distant future. OU is not going to be left out of anything. The Big 10, the PAC 12, the SEC, the Big East, even the ACC would be thrilled to add OU to the mix.

I see SEC for OU, thats about it. They don't fit anywhere else. Oh and OU will suck again like they did in the 90's when Stoops is gone, probably when he gets fired for the NCAA finding some cheating BS going on down there and they are put on probation again.

 

[sackman]

It's utterly unbelievable that you think OU, one of the winningest football programs of all time, and certainly one of the top five teams of the past decade, and in all likelihood the NEXT decade, is somehow going to be left out in the cold should college football have another conference shift in the not-so-distant future.

All that you say here is true, and completly meaningless. Army has a ton of MNC's too. Look where they are. History means nothing. All that wonderful stuff isn't going to help them once UT decides to kick them to the curb. OU is now completely at the mercy of the whims of Deloss Dodds.

OU is not going to be left out of anything. The Big 10, the PAC 12, the SEC, the Big East, even the ACC would be thrilled to add OU to the mix.

Of this, you may be right. I hope for OUs sake you are. But the only one of those conferences that is even a remote possibility is the SEC. That wouldn't be a bad spot to land, either.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

All that you say here is true, and completly meaningless. Army has a ton of MNC's too. Look where they are.

If army had 80,000+ fans coming to every home game and nearly $100 million in annual revenue they would probably still be pretty decent. (actually they are halfway decent now - but not nearly on OU's level over the past 60 years.

 

[Unleash Hell]

If army had 80,000+ fans coming to every home game and nearly $100 million in annual revenue they would probably still be pretty decent. (actually they are halfway decent now - but not nearly on OU's level over the past 60 years.

If Army paid recruits and had dealerships buy players cars, I'm sure they would be a lot better too.

OU is at the top of my list for fishy programs

 

[sackman]

If army had 80,000+ fans coming to every home game and nearly $100 million in annual revenue they would probably still be pretty decent. (actually they are halfway decent now - but not nearly on OU's level over the past 60 years.

50 years ago, it was inconceivable that Army would ever have a crappy football team. It just couldn't happen. Then there was a change in the way college athletics was run. Ever since then, Army can't compete. They aren't on the same level as everybody else. If OU isn't lucky, the same exact thing will happen to them. You can ignore the facts all you want, but OU now belongs to UT. UT can do with them as they please. You're trying to justify the fact that OU can never become Army based on the fact that OU gets 80,000 people in the stands every week. Yale had an 80,000 seat stadium that they used to fill regularly. Things change. College athletics is changing right before our eyes. OU is in a very precarious position. You can either believe me or keep arguing the point. I really don't care which.

 

[Dark Bohner]

Sacky, I think your argument could apply to almost any school. Even Texas was in a complete down cycle in the 90's with the department having budget problems and a half empty stadium.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

50 years ago, it was inconceivable that Army would ever have a crappy football team. It just couldn't happen. Then there was a change in the way college athletics was run. Ever since then, Army can't compete. They aren't on the same level as everybody else. If OU isn't lucky, the same exact thing will happen to them. You can ignore the facts all you want, but OU now belongs to UT. UT can do with them as they please. You're trying to justify the fact that OU can never become Army based on the fact that OU gets 80,000 people in the stands every week. Yale had an 80,000 seat stadium that they used to fill regularly. Things change. College athletics is changing right before our eyes. OU is in a very precarious position. You can either believe me or keep arguing the point. I really don't care which.

Filled regularly = 20 times in the past 100 years? The largest crowd in that stadium occurred in the 1920's. Yale hasn't even played division I football in almost 30 years. And this is who you are comparing OU to? Come on.


You are very right, things do change. Things also stay the same. Hopefully we're both around in 20 or 30 years to see just which of us was wrong, and which of us was right. If you consider a team bringing in nearly $100 million in revenue every year to be in a "very precarious position" I shudder to think what you must think of CU's current situation.

 

[Unleash Hell]

Filled regularly = 20 times in the past 100 years? The largest crowd in that stadium occurred in the 1920's. Yale hasn't even played division I football in almost 30 years. And this is who you are comparing OU to? Come on.


You are very right, things do change. Things also stay the same. Hopefully we're both around in 20 or 30 years to see just which of us was wrong, and which of us was right. If you consider a team bringing in nearly $100 million in revenue every year to be in a "very precarious position" I shudder to think what you must think of CU's current situation.

CU is in EXCELLENT position. Sacky does have a good point at OU being Texass' bitch, until the sooners realize this, CU is actually iin better position RIGHT NOW than Oklahoma.

 

[Mick Ronson]

CU is in EXCELLENT position. Sacky does have a good point at OU being Texass' bitch, until the sooners realize this, CU is actually iin better position RIGHT NOW than Oklahoma.

coming out of the dismal Hawk era....this is the perfect distillation of what CU fans want desperately to believe in July 2011. we are in direct competition with programs that have the same new $$$$ we are going to have. the new conference will have bottom feeders, too. it's JE's job to make sure we ain't one of them.

I've spent a lot of time in Norman, my step-dad has done legal work for OU and Billy Tubbs for 30 years. this "bitch" idea that is so popular here....is in no way represented by the things my step-dad says goes on in the AD or at OU in general with respect to Texas. sounds great from here to make sweeping assertions about seismic shifts and being a Horn lackey (since it suits our popular XII departure narrative), unlike CU....OU has had excellent leadership from David Boren (prez) and AD Castiglione for more than a decade. CU would be very lucky to have the kind of leadership and "vision" that OU has had from Boren. This is a guy, longtime US Senator, Rhodes Scholar, Yale grad, who chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee for longer than anyone in history. knowing this, and having some fairly direct insight into OU's admin....I find it difficult to buy the sweeping but apparently tasty assertion that he's getting played.

both the SEC and Pac seemed to think OU was viable for expansion...that says a lot more to me than a bunch of if i say it, it's true type stuff.

if it was Judy Albino or Dick Tharp or Buffalo Betsy, maybe....but i don't think a semi-spook like Boren is getting tuned up by Deloss.

 

[dply]

OU has had excellent leadership from David Boren (prez) and AD Castiglione for more than a decade. CU would be very lucky to have the kind of leadership and "vision" that OU has had from Boren. This is a guy, longtime US Senator, Rhodes Scholar, Yale grad, who chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee for longer than anyone in history. knowing this, and having some fairly direct insight into OU's admin....I find it difficult to buy the sweeping but apparently tasty assertion that he's getting played.

If he was so smart he'd be living in Boulder.

 

[BlackNGold]

coming out of the dismal Hawk era....this is the perfect distillation of what CU fans want desperately to believe in July 2011. we are in direct competition with programs that have the same new $$$$ we are going to have. the new conference will have bottom feeders, too. it's JE's job to make sure we ain't one of them.

I've spent a lot of time in Norman, my step-dad has done legal work for OU and Billy Tubbs for 30 years. this "bitch" idea that is so popular here....is in no way represented by the things my step-dad says goes on in the AD or at OU in general with respect to Texas. sounds great from here to make sweeping assertions about seismic shifts and being a Horn lackey (since it suits our popular XII departure narrative), unlike CU....OU has had excellent leadership from David Boren (prez) and AD Castiglione for more than a decade. CU would be very lucky to have the kind of leadership and "vision" that OU has had from Boren. This is a guy, longtime US Senator, Rhodes Scholar, Yale grad, who chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee for longer than anyone in history. knowing this, and having some fairly direct insight into OU's admin....I find it difficult to buy the sweeping but apparently tasty assertion that he's getting played.

both the SEC and Pac seemed to think OU was viable for expansion...that says a lot more to me than a bunch of if i say it, it's true type stuff.

if it was Judy Albino or Dick Tharp or Buffalo Betsy, maybe....but i don't think a semi-spook like Boren is getting tuned up by Deloss.

Well put. I do think that Texas may end up killing the rest of the Big 12. As fan bases get tired of UT they will put pressure on the schools...I do believe that Missouri, KU, KSU, TT, would all have their eyes open for a better and more stable opportunity.