An Oklahoma and Texas SEC

More fun games while murdering the Big 12

On April 18, Real Madrid president Florentino Perez announced that 12 of the most valuable soccer teams in Europe would be joining what is known as the European Super League. I would say 12 of the best teams, but Tottenham was included, so that would be a lie. This is something I say as a Tottenham fan myself.

The purpose of this league was, in Perez’s words, to "provide higher-quality matches and additional financial resources for the overall football pyramid."

Everyone hated it. It was canceled within the week.

While this recent college football news is not nearly at the same scope, the idea of providing higher-quality matches is again the center of it. That news was first reported by the Houston Chronicle, which states that Oklahoma and Texas – two Big 12 teams – have reached out to the SEC about joining the conference. The conference is set to vote on the additions in the coming weeks.

I am not qualified to tell you if this is going to happen or not. On one end, surely there are teams in the SEC – Texas A&M, the only current SEC team in the state, at the least – that would not want this inclusion. The Big 12 is also likely not enthused by this. But if money talks – and boy does it yap in the NCAA – I certainly think it is a possibility.

What I am more interested in is what the competition would look like in this Super-SEC, and what would the ashes of the Big 12 look like.

Immediately, two thoughts came to my mind: 1.) Don’t Oklahoma and Texas struggle in the SEC? and 2.) With the likely incoming College Football Playoff expansion to 12 teams, which includes automatic bids for six conference champions, why do this now?

It turns out, at least for the first question, that I am a dumb guy. Both the Sooners and the Longhorns easily have winning records against the SEC this century, with Oklahoma boasting a very impressive 25-9 record, good for a 73.5% win rate.

Texas is not all that far behind with a 21-10 record (67.7%). If those were to hold up every season, the Sooners would have the best in-conference win percentage in SEC history. The Longhorns would be third, with just Alabama (72.2%) in-between them.

Now, this comes with a huge, huge caveat: Of Oklahoma’s 25 wins, 17 come against two teams: Missouri and Texas A&M. A whopping 16 of Texas’ 21 wins come from the same pair of programs. That is because both the Tigers and Aggies were a part of the Big 12 until 2012, when they both departed along with Colorado (now in the Pac-12) and Nebraska (Big Ten).

Still, I would call Missouri and Texas A&M bottom-feeders of the SEC, either. The Tigers are just under .500 with a 35-39 conference record since joining. The Aggies are well above .500 at 42-31, but, it’s worth mentioning.

How good are Oklahoma and Texas against the rest of the SEC? Not terrible! The Longhorns are below .500, but just barely at 5-6. The Sooners still do reasonably well at 8-5, but are records like that, for programs as big as this, worth it?

That brings me to the second question. Yeah, the money for playing Alabama, Florida, Georgia and LSU on a yearly basis has to be good. But I imagine making the playoff, or at least competing for it, is too? This is a question I especially ask of Oklahoma, who have dominated its current conference in recent memory.

Here is your list of the past six Big 12 champions: Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma and Oklahoma. For Texas, maybe going to the SEC, geting the bag, potentially bolstering your recruiting and, down the line, getting back to mid-2000s Texas, is worth it. But the current Sooners are doing what Clemson and Ohio State are doing in their respective conferences, and with expansion on the way, that seems awfully valuable.

From a competitive perspective, I think Oklahoma’s argument could come with what currently happens once it does get to the playoff: lose. The Sooners are 0-4 in the playoff, with three of those losses coming against SEC teams. They’ve never even lost to the same team twice (Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, LSU), but just can not find a way to get it done.

Moving to the SEC could help change that in the long run with increased competition, so from that perspective, I can see it. Again, I have no idea if this is going to happen, but if it does, I will certainly love to watch what comes from the Super-SEC, and if Oklahoma and Texas can display the impressive records against the conference once they play in it eight times a year.

Now, what will the Big 12 look like? Well, it certainly wouldn’t look good as is. That would leave eight programs in the conference. Only three of those programs have a winning conference record – Kansas State, TCU and Oklahoma State – and the remaining eight teams have just six of the 27 overall conference titles.

Surely, the conference would try to add teams, maybe from the AAC, which has been producing as many good teams as the Big 12 anyway in recent years.

Again, I will just leave it by saying I would be incredibly curious at what the ruins of the Big 12 turns into if – or maybe, when – this move happens. It won’t be in the near, near future likely, so it is hard to know what teams like Iowa State, who look awesome under Matt Campbell, could turn into by then once Campbell leaves.

It is also impossible to tell what the ripple effect of a move like this could be for other Power Five conferences, especially for the Big Ten, which at one point felt like it could really compete with the talent level of the SEC. I don’t think that argument could be made now, and it certainly wouldn’t be made if the conference ultimately votes to let the Red River Rivalry enter the fray.

This is the first Thursday random post for Hoopla. On Monday, I will talk Big Ten women’s basketball, specifically about why it is a conference and sport that should be of interest to anyone. If you are interested in that or like off-shoot topics like this, you can subscribe with the button at the top of the post, or share it with the button below. Thanks!