TheGhostofBud

quote:

---

There was even a lot of talk of creating an "Indian" state that would have covered a good chunk of Eastern Oklahoma and some of NW Arkansas. Put that together today and you've got Tulsa and the Ozarkopolis combined.

---

It was going to be a black and Native American state - then they found oil. That ended those thoughts pretty quickly.

quote:

---

Dirt Burglars ! Land Thieves ! Oklahoma is gonna win it all ! Not Texas !

---

How venomous would this board be if OU played TexAss in the SECCG - LMAO. Someday it will probably happen, but this soon would send the old guard into a hypertensive stroke!

quote:

---

will consistently get 6-9 wins

---

That will get you fired at OU, Bama, Florida, LSU, TexAss and Georgia. I guess some places accept mediocrity.

quote:

---

There is no "Big 3." There's football, then there's men's basketball

---

Now that's a statement that I can agree with!

A&M has always had money, by the virtue of the large number of graduates and how the money is split up in Texas. Their stadium has always been ugly and still is. Everyone called them the poor Aggies because they always lost, they were delusional, but we felt sorry for them.

Kirby is definitely #1 - #2 through #9 are all about the same and a tier below. They haven't done shite in the SEC. They all compete - and of course I am biased for BV, but he hasn't won the SEC Championship yet - or a Natty. Personal opinion says Drink is toward the very bottom with the coaches that haven't coached a down in the SEC.

Twenty-six years in any job is a accomplishment. To spend that long as a D1 coach is outstanding. It says a lot about the guy. Congratulations to him, and I hope he gets another Natty before he retires - as long as he's not playing the Sooners again.

Would like to see the formula, just to see the weighting. Looking at LSU and TexAss, they have both been to a ton of CWS - and brought home some hardware. It's hard to really argue your rankings a whole lot.

quote:

---

Got it. That’s what you are trying to accomplish. Sorry I got involved in this conversation. Have a great night.

---

Trust me conservative as all get out here but also smart enough to know that just because a young man is doing it, the sport doesn't have to be better. If the baseball players were playing softball, they would dominate (once they learned to see a rise ball). Luckily it's not that way, softball is fun to watch because it is different. I'm just saying it's number 3 now, so get over your fricking self saying Big 3 when it's not anymore.

quote:

---

What are you trying to accomplish here?

---

Nothing to accomplish here, I am simply pointing out that baseball is no longer more popular than softball and hasn't been for years. So, calling it part of the Big 3 is no longer correct. I actually like about all sports, so with the exception of football - none are any more important to me. I guess you could say Big 3 Men's Sports but why be sexist about it. If softball has surpassed baseball in viewership, and it has - you can't just continue to think it's more important. Networks will push what is doing better, and schools will as well. Baseball viewership has grown, and yet softball has surpassed it. It's simple math, you can't be #3 when you aren't.

quote:

---

Curious how you came to the “softball makes more money than baseball” for Oklahoma. Did not look much into it, but a quick google search said the softball program operates at a larger deficit.

---

Also - a quick Google search:

Here is how the softball financials compare to other Sooner programs:
Softball: Generates a strong annual profit (bringing in around $1.67 million). It remains one of the few athletic programs at OU to operate in the black.
Other Programs: By comparison, Men's Basketball operated with a $4.1 million deficit, and Women's Basketball ran a $5.6 million deficit.

The financial performance of Oklahoma softball is vastly superior to Sooner baseball, creating a rare dynamic where the women's program heavily outperforms the men's program on the balance sheet.While OU softball generates a strong annual profit, the OU baseball program historically operates at a multi-million dollar deficit.The financial gap between the two programs highlights several key differences:

Financial Comparison Breakdown

Profit vs. Deficit: In typical fiscal tracking, the University of Oklahoma baseball program brings in around $1.5 million in total revenue against over $4.2 million in operating expenses, resulting in a net deficit of roughly $2.7 million. Softball consistently operates in the black with annual profits exceeding $1.6 million.

Ticket Sales & Demand: Driven by the massive popularity of its dynasty and the opening of the 4,200-seat Love's Field stadium, softball generates between $1.6 million and $2.7 million in ticket sales alone. Softball is one of only three OU sports (alongside football and men's basketball) to cross the million-dollar ticket revenue milestone. Baseball ticket revenue tracks significantly lower.