As much disdain the fans and new coaching staff has for 11am home games, the move will not be to go west.
I think Boren liked 11am games, meant there would be less booing the opposing team and less tailgating before the game as well.

I doubt OU would do it but i think OU and UT should go independent in football just like Notre Dame.
OU could find plenty of texas teams (A&M, Houston, Rice, SMU, UTSA, UTEP, ) to play if the old big12 members don't want to play them anymore.

According to Steve Berkowitz back in May the FY17 payouts for schools were
Power 5 conference per-school distributions for FY17:
--SEC: $42.M to $39.9M
--Big Ten: $37.2M to $37M
--Big 12: Roughly $34.3M per school except Baylor
--Pac-12: $30.9M per school
--ACC: $30.7M to $25.3M except Notre Dame

so PAC isn't that low below the Big 12. and if you had in a powerhouse team like OU that will still draw in Texas and now be shown regularly in Southern Cal, i would expect those numbers to go up a lot.


^This will be changing… very dramatically with the new contracts that are coming.

According to reports from back then the networks have been paying the Big 12 artificially high amounts just to hold the conference together. I do not want OU exposed to that long term risk.

I doubt OU would do it but i think OU and UT should go independent in football just like Notre Dame.
OU could find plenty of texas teams (A&M, Houston, Rice, SMU, UTSA, UTEP, ) to play if the old big12 members don't want to play them anymore.

i think that is the worst idea i have heard for the future of OU athletics

This link may have been provided above, and if so, sorry in advance.

https://nondoc.com/2018/10/19/fast-times-at-gallogly-u-its-a-university-not-a-business

i think that is the worst idea i have heard for the future of OU athletics

Just curious as to why?

go independent with UT and stay in the big12 for all the other sports just like Notre Dame has with the ACC.


You do realize NBC wanted OU before they signed the deal with Notre Dame in the 1980's right?

OU is taking less money right now to help prop up the little 8 in the big12

The PAC realignment deal falling through had absolutely nothing to do with Boren wanting to stay with OSU. The PAC deal included OSU and Texas. Texas backed out at the last minute to preserve the Longhorn network and the deal fell through.

Just curious as to why?

go independent with UT and stay in the big12 for all the other sports just like Notre Dame has with the ACC.


You do realize NBC wanted OU before they signed the deal with Notre Dame in the 1980's right?

OU is taking less money right now to help prop up the little 8 in the big12

first, because the big 12 is going to die once the current tv deal expires... so OU is going to have to figure out what they are going to do with regards to other sports anyways. and secondly, it's a huge gamble, and after the ESPN Fiasco with the Longhorn Network and them losing lots of money on it to UT, so most networks will be very cautious of this going forward. as well as the fact that NBC is currently able to write off it's expense on taxes to Notre Dame because the money specifically goes to fund financial aid for non-athlete students. So NBC would probably offer something similar, which means the money could not be used on athletics, because then it wouldn't be a tax write off for NBC. Lets also not forget that OU currently gets roughly 30 million a year from the Big 12... Notre Dame, according to NBC, only gets about 15 million per year from their deal.

so going independent on a Notre Dame style deal means less money and not used for athletics (Notre Dame is a private university and makes most of it's money for those programs because of that), and would only make more money if they got an ESPN Longhorn Network style deal, which ESPN isn't going to offer, and Fox Sports is going to get sold to who knows whom.

Over and over you keep making this political….That is IMO a serious mistake, a big part of our problem in society, even at OU....it’s exceptionally narrow minded and to a point where I can no longer take you or others who are so invested in politics as a serious posters.

Take seriously whoever you want. You are like the kid who picks a fight and then complains when they get punched. But make no mistake, the appointment of Regents is political. Much of the disdain for Boren was political. Much of what is happening across the country with public universities leadership affected by anti-intellectualism is political driven by dogma.

This link may have been provided above, and if so, sorry in advance.

https://nondoc.com/2018/10/19/fast-times-at-gallogly-u-its-a-university-not-a-business

I had not seen that, so I don't think so.

This Tulsa World article (https://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/the-way-this-university-runs-it-s-stunning-compared-to/article_1fc37a60-6736-59a9-8ff6-076b313e335f.html) linked in that one was interesting too.


“Here there’s this silo and that silo and another silo ... It’s all extremely convoluted and frankly unacceptable and that’s one of the reasons we have a new CFO,” Gallogly said. “It’s extremely confusing. I personally think I had to explain to the former CFO that we were losing money. I’m not sure he was aware of it. That’s a sad statement isn’t it?”

Chris Kuwitzky, the OU CFO who was let go when Gallogly took office, said “As reported in the University’s audited and publicly available financial statements, for the first time in over sixteen years OU realized a net loss during fiscal years 2016 and 2017. The losses were attributable primarily to state funding cuts, related instructional funding deficits, and non-cash pension/benefit accruals.”

Unethical might have been too strong since I had been proceeding with the assumption that incompetent wasn't on the table. Maybe I was too generous.

The PAC realignment deal falling through had absolutely nothing to do with Boren wanting to stay with OSU. The PAC deal included OSU and Texas. Texas backed out at the last minute to preserve the Longhorn network and the deal fell through.

^That is not completely true from an OU point of view … After Texas backed out Boren tried very hard to work a deal that would have sent OU to the PAC with OSU.... but the PAC did not want OSU because it was a duplication of the same small TV market and there were complains about OSU's low academic profile…They did want OU... but when Boren would not move OU alone then Utah took OU’s spot.
This was when Texas people said Boren was the…. emperor who had no clothes.

Just curious as to why?

go independent with UT and stay in the big12 for all the other sports just like Notre Dame has with the ACC.


You do realize NBC wanted OU before they signed the deal with Notre Dame in the 1980's right?

OU is taking less money right now to help prop up the little 8 in the big12
You are correct about the OU NBC deal but we must remember OU turned the deal down due to the difficulty of scheduling its other sports.

Even UT officials at one time said they could not go fully independent due to the difficulty of scheduling its other sports. ….There is a chance they could work a similar deal like ND has with the ACC. IDK…

It’s also worth noting that UT officials at one time indicated after the PAC deal failed they would never move to the PAC because of the hardships it would put on its athletes due the travel time zone issues and that if they did chance times zones in a conference move it would be to the east. The idea was reinforced to UT people about 2 or 3 years ago when they played a night football game at California and did not arrive back home until something like 6 or 7 AM the next day….Besides lower distributions in the future this is another big strike against the PAC for OU.

I would agree that OU is taking less money right now to help prop up everyone else in the Big 12 conference not named UT. The Big 12 has was to many small to tiny fan bases and low population states to be long term viable for OU.

This is not true at all. Once Texas backed out the deal was done. There was no chance of OU moving independently and it had nothing to do with a decision Boren made on his own. It had zero to do with the PAC not wanting OSU. OSU would have went to the PAC if the deal would have been made with Texas. It wasnt OU's decision to make. It was Texas decision and everyone else was going to do what Texas decided. And they did exactly that.

first, because the big 12 is going to die once the current tv deal expires... so OU is going to have to figure out what they are going to do with regards to other sports .

A lot of OU people don’t understand this^ yet.

The differences in money are going to be too great to stay in this very unstable and disadvantaged Big 12…that state of Texas officials have dictated too.

There is no telling how many thousands of hours have been wasted by OU officials over the last 8 years on conference realignment that could have been spent building a better OU

We can make zero assumptions based on current TV deals. I think all of the conference deals were set up around 2015 in anticipation of the TV sports network explosion that happened then. NBC Sports Network, CBS Sports Network and Fox Sports One all came on screen around the same year. ESPN overpaid to maintain as much programming as they could and did the same with employees, resulting in the layoffs of the last couple years. NBC, CBS and Fox all overpaid in order to get what programming they could. When all these deals expire in the 2022-25 range all the cord cutting will have leveled off, cable and streaming will have morphed into the same thing, and over the air will change to a new part of the frequency spectrum that allows stations to register what sets are watching their station when and for how long. And all local over the air stations will be streaming live as well.

We have to consider how popular college football will be then. In 2005 NASCAR was unstoppable, now it is in free fall. Will CFB follow? Will the SEC lose popularity because America is tired of their dominance and reject them as a regional draw? Who will show national popularity? Will the unique positioning of OU in the heartland of America, with their beautiful Crimson and Cream colors, with the undeniable bond between California and Oklahoma, make OU the biggest national draw on televised CFB?

This is not true at all. Once Texas backed out the deal was done. There was no chance of OU moving independently and it had nothing to do with a decision Boren made on his own. It had zero to do with the PAC not wanting OSU. OSU would have went to the PAC if the deal would have been made with Texas. It wasnt OU's decision to make. It was Texas decision and everyone else was going to do what Texas decided. And they did exactly that.
You are just wrong about parts of what you say. This article clearly states the OU/ Boren position after UT twice said they would not move to the PAC…. This shows how Boren wanted to move OU to the PAC with OSU. When this deal fell through it was extremely embarrassing for Boren & OU and it weaken OU’s hand when dealing with UT.

This talks about some of the criticism about OSU academics. Some PAC members also had concerns about OU’s academics.

http://blogs.denverpost.com/colleges/2011/09/13/pac-12-expansion-looks-inevitable-after-oklahoma-texas-standoff/20453/September 13, 2011
Texas and Oklahoma never got along so it’s no real surprise Texas’ meeting with Oklahoma’s brass Sunday failed miserably. The end result is another small step toward Pac-12 expansion.

Baylor, Iowa State and other Big 12 schools may threaten to sue the SEC over it’s acceptance of Texas A&M, but that may not stop Oklahoma and Oklahoma State from heading west. It seems inevitable after Sunday. Texas athletic directors DeLoss Dodds and Chris Plonsky met with Oklahoma officials in an attempt to pursued them to stay in the Big 12.

They refused and according to the Austin American-Statesman, Oklahoma’s board of regents has instructed school president David Boren to seek formal application to the Pac-12. Once Texas A&M becomes a member of the SEC — and that could be a year depending on the strength of the potential lawsuit — Oklahoma and Oklahoma State will make it the Pac-14.

“There’s nothing Texas could have offered Oklahoma that would have changed their mind. They were set on leaving the Big 12 before Texas got there,” a Big 12 source told the American-Statesman. “The Big 12’s done. Oklahoma wasn’t open to creating Big 12 stability.”

Scott has also said when discussing expansion that he’s fine with 14 although that makes for awkward seven-team divisions. He knows Texas and Texas Tech will eventually follow. Texas doesn’t have many choices. It could go independent, which Dodds has said repeatedly he doesn’t want to do; join the ACC which might be so desperate for football clout that it would allow Texas to bring its Longhorn Network; or join the Pac-12 which by then may have a creative way to fold in the Longhorn Network.

The next big question is how the Pac-12 presidents feel about an Oklahoma State entering the league. I’m sure it’s a fine institution, but get the Pac-12 presidents together and none will say Oklahoma State belongs in their same league — academically. I want to see the importance of having an even number of teams compared to the Pac-12’s view down its nose at Oklahoma State’s curriculum.

^^^Are you using a 7 year old blog post as the basis of your argument?
The next thing I see is “Texas and Oklahoma never got along”. How is it that Nebraska and Texas A&M have left the Big 12 while OU, OSU and UT stand together?

^^^Are you using a 7 year old blog post as the basis of your argument?
The next thing I see is “Texas and Oklahoma never got along”. How is it that Nebraska and Texas A&M have left the Big 12 while OU, OSU and UT stand together?

They were smarter than OU is. UT controls the officials, has their own network (and hijacks any attempts for a Big 12 Network), and has more money than all the other schools combined at their disposal. They alone wanted Louisville to stay out of the Big 12, and thus Louisville was left out. TAMU and Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri were much smarter than Boren and OU were then. And still are now.

Yeah, it's going great for the schools that left. Nebraska is completely irrelevant. Neither Mizzou nor A&M are in a better position or have had any addition success. The grass is always greener on the other side.

^^^Are you using a 7 year old blog post as the basis of your argument?
The next thing I see is “Texas and Oklahoma never got along”. How is it that Nebraska and Texas A&M have left the Big 12 while OU, OSU and UT stand together?
It’s from the Denver Post.... It is accurate and has as much credibility as any source.

Where in this article does it state that OU was offered in the PAC 12 but Boren declined because OSU was not let in because of academics? It isn’t in there because it never happened. The part you bold about OSUs academics is just speculation from the author on what he thinks some presidents might think about OSU.

The only true deal that was on the table was in 2010 when the PAC 12 offered Texas, Texas A&M, OU, OSU, TTU, and Colorado. When Texas decided to stay the other teams followed what Texas did. Colorado left early because they were worried they would be left out of the original list. Once the deal fell through the PAC 12 added Utah to get to 12.

The only reason OU remains in the big 12 is because Texas said so. The Longhorns run the conference and everyone else is just along for the ride.

Yeah, it's going great for the schools that left. Nebraska is completely irrelevant. Neither Mizzou nor A&M are in a better position or have had any addition success. The grass is always greener on the other side.If OU stays in the Big 12 it’s very likely the differences of the new TV contracts between the Big 12 and B1G/ SEC will over time put OU at a competitive disadvantage due to money. To stay economically competitive OU would need to move to the B1G with UT and or KU …or else the SEC…. unless something has changed I don’t really believe OU is interested in the SEC. It’s been considered OU’s last resort.

It doesn’t make any difference what those former Big 12 universities are doing or not…It’s no indication of future success or failure for OU…. which will be based on the competence of who we have hired if OU is in the SEC or B1G

Where in this article does it state that OU was offered in the PAC 12 but Boren declined because OSU was not let in because of academics? It isn’t in there because it never happened. The part you bold about OSUs academics is just speculation from the author on what he thinks some presidents might think about OSU.



There were concerns about both OU and OSU academics!

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2011/09/06/bcs-football-realignment-update-the-pac-12-doesnt-want-to-expand/
Academics would be a point of contention if the status quo unravels, however.

Sources said that at least five schools (Stanford, Cal, USC, UCLA and Washington) have serious questions about admitting the Oklahoma schools, which are not members of the Association of American Universities.

The only true deal that was on the table was in 2010 when the PAC 12 offered Texas, Texas A&M, OU, OSU, TTU, and Colorado. When Texas decided to stay the other teams followed what Texas did. Colorado left early because they were worried they would be left out of the original list. Once the deal fell through the PAC 12 added Utah to get to 12.

.
^This is just not true.
OU was trying to leave the Big 12 when UT would not make further compromises on its LHN…
Other than not showing High School content I can’t remember Boren getting anything he wanted from UT with regard to the LHN…which pissed off a lot of OU people


https://newsok.com/article/3606252/pac-12-stays-put-limiting-options-for-ou-and-osu
Pac-12 stays put, limiting options for OU and OSU

September 21, 2011

The Pac-12 Conference announced Tuesday night that it would not expand at this time, apparently ending one of the two stated options of OU and OSU.

Just after 10 p.m. Oklahoma time, the Pac-12 released a statement that in part read “In light of the widespread speculation about potential scenarios for Conference realignment, the Pac-12 presidents and chancellors have affirmed their decision to remain a 12-team conference.”

Again, where is the proof that OSUs academics kept OU out of the PAC 12?
I see an article that questions both universities academics.

You said Boren made a mistake by not leaving the big 12 because OSU was not admitted to the PAC 12. That simply did not happen.

They were smarter than OU is. UT controls the officials, has their own network (and hijacks any attempts for a Big 12 Network), and has more money than all the other schools combined at their disposal. They alone wanted Louisville to stay out of the Big 12, and thus Louisville was left out. TAMU and Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri were much smarter than Boren and OU were then. And still are now.
What I hate most about Texas is how their politicians have twice become involved in membership decisions of the Big 12…

Then along with the others who have no other choice but to appease Texas there seems to be a tendency for the Texas school to vote as a bloc on conference matters….OU needs to remove itself from this bad marriage.
There are real reasons why so many have left UT dominated conferences.

Man, this is the greatest thread ever!
Please forgive me if I emulate the United States Senate and say something like “My dear friend and colleague from XXX is a drunken adulterer who fornicates with barnyard animals”.
OU is good for UT and UT is good for OU. They have a symbiotic relationship. So while Nebraska and A&M run away, OU and OSU reap the benefit of staying close to UT. Texas has put themselves in the position of needing OU and OSU.

Again, where is the proof that OSUs academics kept OU out of the PAC 12?
I see an article that questions both universities academics.

You said Boren made a mistake by not leaving the big 12 because OSU was not admitted to the PAC 12. That simply did not happen.

It’s as simple as Boren would not leave OSU behind….nearly everyone knew this at the time…Boren kept OU attached to OSU's hip. That angle was very well covered. You can look that up yourself. I have provided you information that shows there were academic concerns coming from several sources. Even the Missouri Governor was taking shots at OSU and Tech academics.

Boren shopped the OU-OSU package deal around to the PAC, SEC and B1G and was rejected in every case but he received very positive interest should OU ever decide to dump OSU.

OU has twice turned down SEC opportunities. It 100% did happen! regardless of what you say or think!

Man, this is the greatest thread ever!
Please forgive me if I emulate the United States Senate and say something like “My dear friend and colleague from XXX is a drunken adulterer who fornicates with barnyard animals”.
OU is good for UT and UT is good for OU. They have a symbiotic relationship. So while Nebraska and A&M run away, OU and OSU reap the benefit of staying close to UT. Texas has put themselves in the position of needing OU and OSU.
UT needs OU and OU needs UT but they will both be just fine without OSU and all the other old Big 8 members and they know it.

It doesn’t make any difference what those former Big 12 universities are doing or not…It’s no indication of future success or failure for OU…. which will be based on the competence of who we have hired if OU is in the SEC or B1G

OU could stay relevant in any conference. It has enough history, brand, and success to do well. It's certainly proven that OU can succeed in the Big 12. There's no reason to think the football program would have any more success with a few more million dollars in a differeent conference. Lots of schools get good payouts from these big TV deals and see absolutely no return on the investment.

FYI, just a clarification of terms. Most of the "facts" and "truth" you proclaim in this thread are actually just opinions and speculation. Where OU should be is a matter of informed opinion, but there is no clear right/wrong answer. The conversations are more enjoyable if you approach them that way.

OU needs Texas way more than Texas needs OU.

Boren shopping OU and OSU around as a package and getting turned down is just wrong. Every article you have used has said absolutely nothing to back this up. OSU wasn’t even Borens to shop around.

I see what you are doing. You don’t like OU being in the Big 12 so you’re going to blame Boren because you don’t like his politics and you’re going to blame OSU because “little Brother!”. The truth is OU will not venture out without Texas. That is the only reason OU is in the big 12.

OU could stay relevant in any conference. It has enough history, brand, and success to do well. It's certainly proven that OU can succeed in the Big 12. There's no reason to think the football program would have any more success with a few more million dollars in a differeent conference. Lots of schools get good payouts from these big TV deals and see absolutely no return on the investment.

FYI, just a clarification of terms. Most of the "facts" and "truth" you proclaim in this thread are actually just opinions and speculation. Where OU should be is a matter of informed opinion, but there is no clear right/wrong answer. The conversations are more enjoyable if you approach them that way.

I would agree that OU could stay relevant in any conference but we are not talking about a few million in difference its more likely to be in the 10 to 30 million range of difference in a few short years according to speculation I have seen. I don’t understand how or what but the TV landscape is going to change very significantly in the next rounds of media negotiations.
Add the difference up over 5, 10, 20 and 30 years and more and it becomes a huge sum of money that OU doesn’t have to reinvest in its own programs.

OU’s third tier FOX contract will be renegotiated probably sometime next year…the rumor is it will be a short term deal so that OU will be able to leave the Big 12.

PS: The informed opinions and facts always follow the money to a large degree.

OU needs Texas way more than Texas needs OU.

Boren shopping OU and OSU around as a package and getting turned down is just wrong. Every article you have used has said absolutely nothing to back this up. OSU wasn’t even Borens to shop around.

I see what you are doing. You don’t like OU being in the Big 12 so you’re going to blame Boren because you don’t like his politics and you’re going to blame OSU because “little Brother!”. The truth is OU will not venture out without Texas. That is the only reason OU is in the big 12.
https://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/ousportsextra/boren-will-make-decision-on-conference-certainly-this-season/article_6d61e417-3e9c-5d3f-8313-139d735c1501.html
Boren said OU would remain tied with Oklahoma State no matter what.

T. Boone Pickens said OSU will be immediately ready to respond to any decisions or moves made by OU officials.

Boren also acknowledged a desire to remain affiliated with the University of Texas - UT regents held a special meeting Wednesday and granted president Bill Powers similar authority - but also said OU would act independent of whatever the Longhorns decide.

"We're not gonna cede our sovereignty to this question to anybody else, to any university in any other state," Boren said. "We're going to do what we think is best for the University of Oklahoma.

"I think we're always stronger when Texas and Oklahoma move together. Just as we're stronger when Oklahoma State and Oklahoma work together."
https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/rejection-by-pac--a-surprise-to-ou-osu/article_4ce39663-2977-5b75-92d3-571f1b317da3.html
Despite a public statement to the contrary, the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University may not have seen an apparent snub coming from the Pac-12 conference, according to published reports and records obtained through the Oklahoma Open Records Act.

OU President David Boren reportedly said that it was OU and OSU deciding not to move to the Pac-12 instead of the schools being snubbed, the World has reported.

Larry Scott, commissioner for the Pac-12 Conference, appeared to have reached a dead end with finding a way to bring Texas into the Pac-12, according to an ESPN interview.
If that's the case, OU's and OSU's chances for moving out of the Big 12 were defeated before either school voted to give Boren and Hargis authority to explore conference options.

OU needs Texas way more than Texas needs OU.

Boren shopping OU and OSU around as a package and getting turned down is just wrong. Every article you have used has said absolutely nothing to back this up. OSU wasn’t even Borens to shop around.

I see what you are doing. You don’t like OU being in the Big 12 so you’re going to blame Boren because you don’t like his politics and you’re going to blame OSU because “little Brother!”. The truth is OU will not venture out without Texas. That is the only reason OU is in the big 12.

Who needs who more is certainly up for debate, but it was widely reported that in addition to the Big 12 South group offer from the Pac 12, OU had an offer to go to the SEC with Texas A&M. Boren turned it down because he didn’t want to lose BOTH the Texas and OSU rivalries. This article at least makes it sound like Boren has a lot to do with OU’s decision to remain in the Big 12 and basically says that Boren was going to shop OSU around if the Big 12 had fallen apart completley.

“Last Friday, Oklahoma State president Burns Hargis confirmed that his school "never had an offer" from the SEC, "so it was never anything to consider." Both he and Boren expressed a strong interest in sticking together through any future conference realignment.
"Had the Pac-10 thing fallen apart, had the Big 12 minus two not been put back together, we would have probably ended up having much more serious conversations with the SEC, and [asked] would they take OSU and Texas, for example," Boren said. "It never got to that."

“Boren said the SEC extended offers only to Oklahoma and Texas A&M, both of which opted to stay in a slimmed-down Big 12 after Colorado left for the Pac-10 and Nebraska left for the Big Ten. Because the SEC offer didn't include two of the Sooners' key rivals, Oklahoma State and Texas, Boren said he didn't consider it a good option.”

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/news/story?id=5319856

so... back to that billion in debt...

Am I correct in assuming that OU is not cash flow negative? The quote in post #249 would lead me to believe the primary causes of the losses for 2016-17 are reduced state funding left the classroom overhead structure higher than current (or future) revenue, and an unfunded pension/benefit liability?

Am I correct in assuming that OU is not cash flow negative? The quote in post #249 would lead me to believe the primary causes of the losses for 2016-17 are reduced state funding left the classroom overhead structure higher than current (or future) revenue, and an unfunded pension/benefit liability?
Significant progress has been made on this front at OU but this is what was said this last summer.

https://newsok.com/article/5598772/university-of-oklahoma-president-david-boren-says-ou-debt-is-large-but-comparable-to-similar-public-universities
“Jim Gallogly, who becomes OU president July 1, said he spent months sorting out the financials of the university "and frankly I'm not pleased with what I have found.” Gallogly said expenses are outpacing income by $36 million each year and the Norman campus is nearly $1 billion in debt.”

Boren claims “The amount of debt is similar in scope to Oklahoma State University and similarly rated public universities” …..But what Boren doesn’t discuss is how under his watch OU debt rating was at one time downgraded costing OU more money to service its debt…I believe the rating has been restored? But who else has has had their debt downgraded ?


While I strongly agree the state needs to better fund OU I also strongly agree with what Gallogly says here ”OU needs to put our house in order” before asking the Legislature for more money.”

Since no responsible person likes waste I believe in the not too distant future OU will start receiving increased state appropriations along with more significant donations.

What is the current bond rating for last issued bonds vs. 10 years ago?

Credit ratings of universities at any one time are not necessarily indicative of the effectiveness of the current administration given all that goes into the ratings system. Gallogy knows that few people truly understand and therefore will accept whatever he says, because, after all... the man was a successful oil man and gave money to the university and is politically in the appropriate sphere for OK.

Included in any school's ratings is the level of funding (poor in OK), state growth rates (slow in OK), cash flow of the institution (still good), etc., etc. It is NOT merely a matter of total dollars of debt. That is like saying if you are 350 pounds you are surely an all pro offensive lineman.

Lack of public funding has led universities to cozy up to private lenders to preserve cash in endowments and cash flow. Almost historic low levels of interest rates has led to increased borrowing for long term infrastructure projects. The debt payment will be jeopardized if public funding continues to be de-emphasized and the student population doesn't grow to meet anticipated demand.

Credit ratings of universities at any one time are not necessarily indicative of the effectiveness of the current administration given all that goes into the ratings system. Gallogy knows that few people truly understand and therefore will accept whatever he says, because, after all... the man was a successful oil man and gave money to the university and is politically in the appropriate sphere for OK.

Included in any school's ratings is the level of funding (poor in OK), state growth rates (slow in OK), cash flow of the institution (still good), etc., etc. It is NOT merely a matter of total dollars of debt. That is like saying if you are 350 pounds you are surely an all pro offensive lineman.

Lack of public funding has led universities to cozy up to private lenders to preserve cash in endowments and cash flow. Almost historic low levels of interest rates has led to increased borrowing for long term infrastructure projects. The debt payment will be jeopardized if public funding continues to be de-emphasized and the student population doesn't grow to meet anticipated demand.
Gallogly has done nothing I have seen to indicate that he isn’t telling the complete truth about OU’s financial situation….and his goals.

It seems as if he is being vilified and stereo typed by some here just because he was in oil… That is extremely narrow minded and shows a strong predisposed prejudice. I have known plenty of very intelligent hornist hard working people in oil & NG.

This and the Norman Transcript are really the only places where I have seen even a trickle of criticism. Nobody I know takes the Norman Transcript anymore.

If OU is going to be made a great world class place we simply cannot afford to not have OU operated efficiently. Those who deride the efforts to improve OU’s efficacy are undermining the effort and probably fail to really understand how competitive all aspects of the world are….including higher education.

Gallogly has done nothing I have seen to indicate that he isn’t telling the complete truth about OU’s financial situation….and his goals.

It seems as if he is being vilified and stereo typed by some here just because he was in oil… That is extremely narrow minded and shows a strong predisposed prejudice. I have known plenty of very intelligent hornist hard working people in oil & NG.

This and the Norman Transcript are really the only places where I have seen even a trickle of criticism. Nobody I know takes the Norman Transcript anymore.

If OU is going to be made a great world class place we simply cannot afford to not have OU operated efficiently. Those who deride the efforts to improve OU’s efficacy are undermining the effort and probably fail to really understand how competitive all aspects of the world are….including higher education.

It’s not that he was successful in oil, but the arrogance to believe universities are like oil companies.
And he isn’t telling lies, he’s just spinning “facts” to make it seems like something it isn’t so as to vilify the outgoing administration and make himself look good. Hmmm...who does that sound like.

It’s not that he was successful in oil, but the arrogance to believe universities are like oil companies.
And he isn’t telling lies, he’s just spinning “facts” to make it seems like something it isn’t so as to vilify the outgoing administration and make himself look good. Hmmm...who does that sound like.
Gallogy doesn’t believe universities are like oil companies….That’s just so wrong and really IMHO stupid because it buys a false narrative from people that were going to hate Gallogly no matter what he did and from the very start!

Gallogly, the OU BOR and many others involved in OU VERY clearly believe that adopting common modern accounting practices and efficacies that are common in the modern business world will help OU. These things should have been done many years ago.

I don’t understand why anyone who truly likes OU could be against this unless they have some invested interest in something that has its flaws and are willing to sacrifice OU’s improvement for it.

soonerheart, you don't have to agree with other people's criticisms, but at least address them. You're throwing out these broad generalizations that posters are just vilifying and stereotyping Gallogly "no matter what." If you actually read through this thread, many critiques are very specific. I mean, how often does Pete just throw out baseless, uninformed opinions? When you participate in a conversation, you learn and as a message board we can each learn a bit from each other. When you ignore others' points, you're just here to hear your own echo. Sorry, but your posts repeatedly ignore the actual arguments others are making.

This thread is now just regurgitating over and over. Sooner clearly has a thing about Boren and for corporate type governance in education. He will not change his view and I doubt he will get some of us to change ours. I am opposed to OU Inc. And I am opposed to the tactic of trying to tear down someone to promote yourself. Maybe some see that as good leadership...I do not. But I think that it is a contemporary way to gain power...unfortunately.

soonerheart, you don't have to agree with other people's criticisms, but at least address them. You're throwing out these broad generalizations that posters are just vilifying and stereotyping Gallogly "no matter what." If you actually read through this thread, many critiques are very specific. I mean, how often does Pete just throw out baseless, uninformed opinions? When you participate in a conversation, you learn and as a message board we can each learn a bit from each other. When you ignore others' points, you're just here to hear your own echo. Sorry, but your posts repeatedly ignore the actual arguments others are making.
It’s inscrutable by anyone to believe that Gallegly is so arrogance that he would believe universities are like oil companies. It’s exceptionally naive or poorly educated.... to not understand that that OU can adopt some of the proven private sector methods that can help make OU better….

Clearly there are people who are so politically charged and invested in their extreme political way of life they were never going to give Gallegly a chance from day one…That’s a very lonely existence for those living in that type of world and very, very sad.

I want OU to become that economic engine for this state. All but a few fringe elements have already embraced this…Those who are prejudging before they even see results which will take a significant amount of time are the people who are the most intolerant of other views. They seem blind to their own prejudices.

It’s inscrutable by anyone to believe that Gallegly is so arrogance that he would believe universities are like oil companies. It’s exceptionally naive or poorly educated.... to not understand that that OU can adopt some of the proven private sector methods that can help make OU better….

Clearly there are people who are so politically charged and invested in their extreme political way of life they were never going to give Gallegly a chance from day one…That’s a very lonely existence for those living in that type of world and very, very sad.

I want OU to become that economic engine for this state. All but a few fringe elements have already embraced this…Those who are prejudging before they even see results which will take a significant amount of time are the people who are the most intolerant of other views. They seem blind to their own prejudices.
This is classic. Should be pinned. The new Trumpian argument style... if someone disagrees call them stupid, blame the old administration, try to call it political, claim no one else believes it, lots of people agree, and most importantly, use the word sad. Classic,classic, classic. LOL. But, you forgot to blame CNN and fake news.

That's productive.

I would be surprised if Gallogly stays for more than a few years. Gets sent in to clean up and then moves on. I would really hope the Board of Regents will have a transparent presidential search process.

I would be surprised if Gallogly stays for more than a few years. Gets sent in to clean up and then moves on. I would really hope the Board of Regents will have a transparent presidential search process.

i think that is the whole reason he was chosen to come in... the board of regents wanted to make some serious changes and set the university on a new path for the future. and so they brought someone in they know would do exactly what they wanted, have him here through the rough transition and then both sides move on... it happens often in businesses.

I like and respect David Boren. He was an amazing leader for the university, and accomplished a tremendous amount. Of course, after 25 years or so, I understand the idea of shaking things up and clearing out some problems. We all know that Mike Stoops was allowed to hang around way too long. It's not unreasonable to think that the academic and administrative side probably had some Mike Stoopses as well, and a new university president with no loyalties to the old way of doing things presents a good opportunity to clean up.

That said, Gallogly doesn't strike me as a long term guy at all. Pointing fingers at the old administration and burning bridges causes me to raise an eyebrow. Boren's handling of certain issues -- supporting Obama, kicking the SAEs off campus -- ruffled a lot of feathers, but they were probably political necessities. Gallogly may be able to mend fences with big money conservative donors, but the reality of higher education is that you can't run your university as "Republicantown" and get the best professors.

I love the idea of dramatically increasing OU's research budget. Even if some of it involves sucking up to large corporations, that's part of the game. Every university does that when it comes to research. It's OU's biggest weakness when it comes to AAU accreditation.

This is classic. Should be pinned. The new Trumpian argument style... if someone disagrees call them stupid, blame the old administration, try to call it political, claim no one else believes it, lots of people agree, and most importantly, use the word sad. Classic,classic, classic. LOL. But, you forgot to blame CNN and fake news.
When Boren compares OU finances to other universities it’s a red herring distraction because few things have gone up more than the cost of attending college. Those are facts that you can't see, like it or not!

It’s really a broken system with way too many misplaced priority’s coming from people who love to tell us how smart they are...and refuse to hear other opinions even when reality bites.

I love the idea of dramatically increasing OU's research budget. Even if some of it involves sucking up to large corporations, that's part of the game. Every university does that when it comes to research. It's OU's biggest weakness when it comes to AAU accreditation.
Many major research universities do this all the time and OU is already doing some of it….there is nothing wrong with using this method as a tool to help improve our state’s economy.

If we wish to make Oklahoma a better place to live and work we need to increase our wealth building opportunities for all….Among many other things OU can help with that mission.

A great president was once fond of saying a rising tide helps all ships.

Building up OU to AAU quality and eventual membership is something most OU people would be very proud of.

Because everyone else is improving too we must keep the ball moving forward and make OU a little better each and every day.

I would be surprised if Gallogly stays for more than a few years. Gets sent in to clean up and then moves on. I would really hope the Board of Regents will have a transparent presidential search process.
Just a guess but think Gallogly will be at OU until OU moved to a different conference….

Since we can expect to see people with the same business mind set appointed to the OU BOR for many years to come they will look at the CR issue with mostly the same mind set as Gallogly. They will do what is best for OU.

When OU was set to move to the PAC OU leaders were talking about how they loved the idea of rubbing shoulders with great academic / research universities ….That and great research collaboration along with a lot more money can be found in the Big Ten…which at one time according to Tramel was OU’s conference preference by a wide margin. When Boren was still at OU Tramel said that OU wanted no part of the SEC culture.

As far as conference realignment goes, absolutely everything is rumor. The story is that OU has had a silent invitation to join the SEC any time they want for a long time now. OU just doesn't want to go there. While it may be best for football, it isn't best for the university as a whole.

There are tales that Nebraska has been quietly promoting OU as an option within the Big 10. And membership there would probably be a big step up for the university. But not even the most optimistic rumors say that we've got an invite. There's a lot of "wait and see" there.

The PAC 12 has some tremendous universities, but their TV contracts are even worse than the Big 12's. They've got amazing schools like Cal, UCLA, and Stanford. And then they've got Arizona State and Oregon State. So just being in the PAC isn't necessarily an upgrade academically.

We'll have to wait and see what 2025 brings, when the Grant of Rights ends. Nobody knows what the TV contracts will look like at that stage.

When Boren compares OU finances to other universities it’s a red herring distraction because few things have gone up more than the cost of attending college. Those are facts that you can't see, like it or not!

It’s really a broken system with way too many misplaced priority’s coming from people who love to tell us how smart they are...and refuse to hear other opinions even when reality bites.
Yes, it is true, some people do refuse reality in favor of self serving spin. When we believe focusing on students and education is “misplaced priority” then it truly is sad. When we use anti-intellectualism to argue academics, it seems odd.

We all want OU to be better. The issue is whose version of better we believe in. Leadership that steps on others to elevate themselves and obfuscates reality to sell their own importance is not an ideal for students to aspire to.

I've also heard tales that Nebraska is not happy in the Big 10 and would like to return to the Big 12.

If there were an invitation for OU to join the Big 10, I would be all for it. As far as sports, it is certainly competitive with the SEC and may be better with an OU membership. My understanding is there are more stringent academic requirements to be part of the Big 10 conference that may require a significant upgrade in that area - certainly something I would support.

Yes, it is true, some people do refuse reality in favor of self serving spin. When we believe focusing on students and education is “misplaced priority” then it truly is sad. When we use anti-intellectualism to argue academics, it seems odd.

We all want OU to be better. The issue is whose version of better we believe in. Leadership that steps on others to elevate themselves and obfuscates reality to sell their own importance is not an ideal for students to aspire to.Operating OU inefficiently as was done under Boren doesn’t make OU a better place… Many millions of dollars in savings have already been found at OU…. that can be used to reduce the increased debt load.

We always will have limited resources.

When it came to making hard decisions that he knew would be unpopular and often painful Boren kicked the can down the road too many times.
Thankfully we now have leaders with enough personal courage to deal with these hard problems !

As far as conference realignment goes, absolutely everything is rumor. The story is that OU has had a silent invitation to join the SEC any time they want for a long time now. OU just doesn't want to go there. While it may be best for football, it isn't best for the university as a whole.

There are tales that Nebraska has been quietly promoting OU as an option within the Big 10. And membership there would probably be a big step up for the university. But not even the most optimistic rumors say that we've got an invite. There's a lot of "wait and see" there.

The PAC 12 has some tremendous universities, but their TV contracts are even worse than the Big 12's. They've got amazing schools like Cal, UCLA, and Stanford. And then they've got Arizona State and Oregon State. So just being in the PAC isn't necessarily an upgrade academically.

We'll have to wait and see what 2025 brings, when the Grant of Rights ends. Nobody knows what the TV contracts will look like at that stage.

A big clue to the direction OU may wish to go comes probably next year well prior to the 2025 expiration of the Big 12’s Grant of rights….It’s the length of the contract that OU signs when it renews the Sooner sports TV deal that it has with Fox. Rumor from a decent media source said it would be a short term contact and act like a bridge to a new conference.

Due to all the various factors, including the rejection that OU received from the PAC its seems it’s no longer a serious option… Several years ago under old leadership UT indicated they would not move west because of time demands.

In the 90’S UT wanted to move to the Big Ten with A&M… I could see UT following OU to the Big Ten.

I've also heard tales that Nebraska is not happy in the Big 10 and would like to return to the Big 12.

If there were an invitation for OU to join the Big 10, I would be all for it. As far as sports, it is certainly competitive with the SEC and may be better with an OU membership. My understanding is there are more stringent academic requirements to be part of the Big 10 conference that may require a significant upgrade in that area - certainly something I would support.

There maybe a few of their fans who want it but Nebraska is not coming back…After finally receiving the full conference distribution share this year they would take a huge financial hit. Nebraska sports would be helped if the Big Ten would add OU and UT.

The Big Ten has no bylaws or academic requirements that prevent it from inviting OU.

Certainly there are things they want to see …like sound financials that are not hard to understand and a path to improved academics and research. These are all items Gallogly / OU / others are trying to improve.

The B1G presidents would know OU football will add millions of dollars to the Big Ten’s distributions.

It’s inscrutable by anyone to believe that Gallegly is so arrogance that he would believe universities are like oil companies. It’s exceptionally naive or poorly educated.... to not understand that that OU can adopt some of the proven private sector methods that can help make OU better….

Clearly there are people who are so politically charged and invested in their extreme political way of life they were never going to give Gallegly a chance from day one…That’s a extreme political way of lifefor those living in that type of world and very, very sad.

I want OU to become that economic engine for this state. All but a few fringe elements have already embraced this…Those who are prejudging before they even see results which will take a significant amount of time are the people who are the most intolerant of other views. They seem blind to their own prejudices.

And your response, instead of addressing specific points, is to call those who disagree with you are "poorly educated" "fringe elements" with an "extreme political way of life" who live a "very lonely existence"... and best of all, "are the people who are the most intolerant of other views." I actually would be interested in your perspective, but your inability to participate in a conversation is disqualifying. I guess that's what the "ignore" button is for.

To everyone else, thank you for your thoughtful engagement whether we agree or not.

OU boss is a very political job. I fear Jim Gallogly is acting much like Rex Tillerson did as Secretary of State; executing a "top down" management style that does not operate outside of financial performance, or "operational efficiency". They think it does, but "enhancing the human experience" just doesn't register if it can't be financially measured.

Having said that, I find it impossible to believe that the main driver of Gallogly in his job is to make sure of the best football affiliation for OU in the next decade. And I am a 24/7 sports fiend.