Jim Thorpe's Ghost

That's unfortunate. The vast majority of OU fans I know - including myself - miss the Oklahoma vs. Nebraska rivalry, the tradition, the mutual respect. All the best. Regards, -JTG

You're right: that would be comedy gold. For all sorts of reasons.

What's most unfortunate is that it's common knowledge down here that had Nebraska stayed, it would likely have been OU, OSU, Nebraska, and Texas Tech that headed together to a realigned Pac 16, leaving Texas to stew in its own arrogant juices. What coulda been...

Well you can always leave. A lot of us still in the Big 12 wish Nebraska had never left. Ohio State fans must be to the Big 10 what Texas fans are to the Big 12 (that's not very complimentary, BTW).

LOL - goodbye, Texas Light. Funny stuff. See you next year - and we can't wait.

This is what will happen.

I agree with you that we will be gone, and hopefully sooner rather than later, but most of Okieville figured out what Texas was trying to pull from Day One: it was two men, unaccountable to anyone, more or less, who made this dreadful decision for Oklahoma. The vast majority of Sooner fans either wanted to go to the SEC, or to the PAC 12.

I'm confused by this. Why is it improper for the decision of a school's athletic conference affiliation to be left in the hands of its Athletic Director and President? Where would oversight come from? Or do you mean there's no board of regents involved either. It just seemed like you are saying there used to be state gov oversight, am I misreading? You are right to be confused, because I worded it confusingly. Let me try to clarify: The state's universities used to have to get approval from the state legislature before they could impose tuition hikes in future academic years. To get that approval, university officials and their respective Board of Regents - specifically, the Chancellors of Higher Education - had to come before committees in the state legislature (House & Senate, respectively), and make their case for both tuition hikes & other revenue-related issues the schools might be facing. Naturally, this made the leadership of those institutions at least somewhat sensitive to the pulse of public opinion, since things they might have wanted (tuition hikes; better funding; etc., etc.) were contingent upon the actions of the publicly elected representatives of the state of Oklahoma. At some point many years back, the state legislature decided to remove themselves entirely from any kind of substantive oversight of the state universities in this regard whatsoever, by statue. So, whenever the matter of funding the state's university system comes up, the legislature as a body basically - and by their own action years ago - have one of two choices: they can either vote the budget as presented, and keep the state's higher education schools open, or they can vote it down, and shutter the University of Oklahoma and all other public colleges. They are never going to do the latter, for obvious reasons. I'm simplifying things a bit for brevity - it's more complicated than that, though not by much. The bottom line is that there absolutely nothing our state legislature could have done, by their past tying of their own ability to control the purse-strings, to influence the leadership of University of Oklahoma to do what the vast, vast, vast majority of Oklahoman's wanted them to do: abandon the Big 12. No serious person would suggest simply voting down any appropriations for the states universities, and having them close up shop, even over so egregious a thumbing-of-the-nose over the people of Oklahoma's wishes as this. So, the University of Oklahoma - and all the other state colleges - are simply the oyster, more or less, of whoever happens to be president of same: he/she pretty much gets to call whatever shots they want on "their" campus. Now, I understand the principle in theory: much of this sort of thing was pushed through after both Watergate and the massive Oklahoma county commissioner scandal locally of the late seventies/early eighties, and was implemented as part of a "clean government" reform. In practice, however, it has left OU in the shattered remnants of the now ridiculous "Big 12"; an unseemly desire on the part of OU's management to follow Texas around like puppy dogs and do whatever the powers-that-be in Austin want; and a smarmy, supercilious dismissal of the vast majority of Oklahoman's concerns from the University's powers-that-be with a wave of the hand, and the public-relations equivalent of "yeah, well, we know better. Get over it." Sorry for the imprecision of my earlier explanation; hope I was able to clear things up.

The Big Eight.... ....in all seriousness, I was rooting for OU to join the PAC conference when all this was going on, but as many other posters have pointed out here the SEC would probably have been a better fit for us. I have a feeling that, before this decade is out, there is about a 50-50 likelihood that Oklahoma will be an SEC team. Regardless, we won't be in the left over remnants of the Big 12. Just IMHO.

This is exactly right. There were very few Sooner fans happy with the decision to stay with the Big Two (as both Sooner and UT fans call it now that the Huskers are departing), and the statewide consensus was that we should have gone to the Pac 10 or the SEC. But here's the deal (and most folks outside of Oklahoma are unaware of it): the decision to stay in the "Big 12" was made in open defiance of the vast majority of Oklahoman's wishes by OU President David Boren, and OU athletic director Joe Castiglione. For whatever reason - there is much speculation down here about this, by the way - they both thumbed their noses at those wishes, and then basically told the rest of the state to "get over it." And how, exactly, were two public servants - whose salaries are paid with Oklahoma taxpayer's dollars - able to get away with such unmitigated arrogance and effrontery? It turns out that decades ago the OK state legislature "delegated" such decisions, without the slightest chance of review or oversight, to those two officials, no questions asked. Indeed, after this colossal blunder of a decision, a law repealing that awesome power left in the hands of just two people without the slightest chance of review or oversight passed the OK legislature, and specifically in reaction to their (Boren & Castiglione's) arrogant decision. It passed the legislature, but then was vetoed by the Governor - a longtime friend, supporter, & dedicated political fellator of David Boren. All of that aside, the truth is that the "Big 12" is unlikely to last in any configuration for even five years, let alone through the end of the decade. There is much, much, much disgruntlement about that decision down here because of it, and the weight of democracy cannot be denied forever: this time next year, with a new governor, that bill will pass, and when the remnants of the "Big 12" eventually falls apart we will be gone, just like you guys already are. I only wish our Universities leadership had had your vision in 2010, and we'd be gone now. Of course, there are ugly rumors that OU's failure to depart with Nebraska and CU to other conferences had nothing to do with vision, but with other motivations.... Regardless, I can't wait till we follow NU & Colorado's lead, and abandon this useless conference like we should have when you guys did. Period.

Edmond. I wouldnt worry about OU. There fans are just like thier program. Riddled with cheating. Never understood NU fans pulling for OU in football. They have been on probation more times than one can count, and then they name buildings after cheaters (Switzer Center) as if, oh well, we know he cheated, but who cares, we are OU. So, the real motivation for your post comes out: you don't know or likely care what the real consensus is among most OU fans, but simply don't like OU, consider them "cheaters," etc., etc., and decided to take a cheap shot. That is a concession to my points above, of a backhanded sort. My discussion with you is concluded. To all the rest of the Husker fans: it's going to be a great game, and I look forward to watching it with you in Jerryworld. Our two schools have some of the greatest tradition, and best fans anywhere.

Nahh, they don't - outside of Soonerfans.com and other such assorted centers of passion and zealousness. You really should stop posting sources that prove my point: it hurts credibility.

You're free to doubt it all you wish, but you continue to cite "sources" that could well be expected to be non-stop rah-rahing with the "we're going to smoke NU" business all week long and twice on Sunday. The Sports Animal? The Sports Animal? Are you serious? The same one dominated by hosts that have OU alum ties, including one that used to be an OU quarterback during the late 1970s? You think you're going to get an unbiased analysis there? Your perception is flawed: I live in the real Oklahoma outside of the heated bubble of campus corner in Norman; the actual Oklahoma not online day& night at soonerfans.com; the Oklahoma not cramped up in the studio with Al Eschbach ranting & Dean Blevins on the line pontificating like the tool he is. In that Oklahoma, there simply is no consensus about a "smoking" of NU, but an eagerness to get to the game leavened with the sober reality that Nebraska may well beat our team, especially given our road woes and the fact that you beat MO, and we didn't. It's going to be a great game; but, contra your OP, 95% of Sooner fans are not taking anything for granted, period.

No, we don't. Put aside the reports from campus corner in Norman and the internet bravado displayed at soonerfans.com: what else would one expect from those sources? You'd as well walk through downtown Lincoln and poll the crowds on the exact opposite proposition, and then post "They Think They Are gonna smoke OU" on the soonerfans.com board. It doesn't compute, as a rational test of the actual perceptions out there. The truth of the matter is, outside of the Quad in Norman & the largest internet site on the web dedicated to catering to the most passionate Sooner fans, there is a good deal of anxiety about this game - though in a good way. There is no consensus that we're going to "smoke" Nebraska in the slightest - indeed, the general feeling is that it's going to be a close-run thing - and beyond that, there is a kind of consensus that there is absolutely no better way to close out the Big 12 conference (and trust me; in a few years it's going away, and we'll be gone, too): Oklahoma vs. Nebraska. There is a feeling that God has indeed proven His existence with this denouement of the in-conference rivalry between our two storied programs - and shown He has a love of college football tradition & history, to boot. It's going to be a great game: and there could simply not be a better, or more respected, opposite number for us all to go our separate conference ways on. Period. These are the things that are on 95% of OU fan's minds.

As a life-long Sooner fan, I can only tell you this: anyone who says OU fans do not want to continue the historic rivalry with Nebraska, or have "moved on," or don't care about it any more, either doesn't know the first thing about what most Oklahoma fans think, or they live in Stillwater. The rivalry with Texas was/is because we despise them; the rivalry with Nebraska was because we respected them. Here's hoping the two schools can work it out so that it eventually returns as a staple game for us every year, regardless of the fact that it'll be non-conference. (P.S. - You heard it here first: Oklahoma will not be in the pitiful shell of what's left of the "Big 12" by the end of this decade. There is already much, much grumbling at levels high & low throughout Sooner Nation about the idiotic decision to keep us in the Big 1-, err, I mean, the Longhorn Conference in the first place.)