(07-09-2013 09:43 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  If Cincy is in the top3 of the AAC in Bball and Fball over the next two years, the B12 will plug their nose and take them in (like the ACC did with Louisville). Cinci is just that much better than the other options and they can rationalize the southwest corner of Ohio location wise. SMU is totally screwed, but Houston and either UCF/USF will be in the mix if they can separate themselves from the AAC group. If the B12 really does not want to lose their southern esque branding, then I will call Houston and USF to the B12.
Shockingly TU actually presents perhaps the most competitive advantages (academics, recruiting in roads, endowment, ratings potential, marque NCAA FBall city, destination city for away fans) but I can't see the school getting their act together fast enough, especially the Bball program and FBall stadium size.

Do you really think that the Big XII will solve West Virginia's isolation problem by adding Cincy and then turn around and create the same problem all over again by adding a Florida school out on an island?

Very unlikely.

(07-09-2013 09:45 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  The real insight in my view is figuring out what the Big XII and Texas will do next. Right now that conference seems like a marriage of convenience more than a stable group. I keeping wondering if Texas bails sometime down the line or if that conference will expand. Without Oklahoma or Texas that conference is a mirror image of the American Athletic Conference with smaller markets.

Unless Texas bails on the idea of the Longhorn Network I don't see them going anywhere. They make money hand over fist, so whatever league possibly offering them a little more money isn't going to be worth them giving up power and control. Neither the PAC or B1G are going to let them come in, keep the Longhorn Network, and call all the shots like they get to do right now. The only option I could ever see them actually doing is something like ND has with the ACC. Maybe an indy scheduling and bowl alliance with the ACC and ACC all other sports. That would actually make some sense, but I still think they would rather rule the B12 than go with that option. As for what the B12 will do that's pretty simple, whatever Texas wants them to do.

(07-09-2013 09:18 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(07-09-2013 09:09 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(07-09-2013 08:30 AM)Cardinals Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 08:14 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  For those unfamiliar, "Frank the Tank" is a BE homer and AAC hater. I wouldn't expect anything complimentary about the AAC's position or future from Frank...

He was anything but a BE homer. He tends toward being a B1G homer, and claims (only in retrospect, from what I could tell) to have said all along that the ACC was more cohesive than anybody was giving it credit for.

I saw nothing in the article that hadn't been said a million times previously, though, and nothing that portrayed him as an enemy of the American.

No question that he has bias as we all do, but I'll give credit where it is due. He was claiming ACC solidarity long before it looked likely. He looks dead right on that one as of today. He also does a really good job researching the details behind a lot of realignment.

No matter what we all think of the C7 product, it has proven to be true that a basketball only conference actually has high value in the TV market.

You just have to take B10 stuff with a grain of salt. His blog definitely gave the impression that the B10 would be running the show with respect to realignment. Instead, they struggled to convince big fish to join and wound up with Maryland and Rutgers after who knows how many NOs from others. Now, it seems like all the B10 people are trying to change the entire story line to justify those additions. It's all spin really, but it's hardly specific to Frank.

I still think it remains to be seen if a basketball only product has TV value. This was a very special circumstance that led to Fox paying a nice sum of money to that league. First you had a new sports network that needed winter content, second that network needed to pay enough money so the C7 could leave the exit fees and tournament credits on the table plus the necessary money needed to get conference off the ground.

Due to the settlement I believe the legacy schools in the American are making more money than the C7 who I imagine are getting a bigger cut initially than the three new members.

Is this a trick question?

It's already been demonstrated that it does have value. You claim that's only because of circumstances. There are always circumstances. Fact is that it had value in the 1980's (circumstances then too) when the Big East started and it still has value today.

No truth to the idea that legacy schools in the AAC are making more money than the Big east schools.

(07-09-2013 09:43 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  If Cincy is in the top3 of the AAC in Bball and Fball over the next two years, the B12 will plug their nose and take them in (like the ACC did with Louisville). Cinci is just that much better than the other options and they can rationalize the southwest corner of Ohio location wise. SMU is totally screwed, but Houston and either UCF/USF will be in the mix if they can separate themselves from the AAC group. If the B12 really does not want to lose their southern esque branding, then I will call Houston and USF to the B12.
Shockingly TU actually presents perhaps the most competitive advantages (academics, recruiting in roads, endowment, ratings potential, marque NCAA FBall city, destination city for away fans) but I can't see the school getting their act together fast enough, especially the Bball program and FBall stadium size.

Tulane if they get back to there 1990's level would be a very interesting expansion candidate. Cincinnati, Tulane, Memphis, Houston, USF, and UCF should all be on the expansion radar for the Big XII. Right now I agree that Cincinnati looks like the best candidate but the other schools could bring more to the table than the Big XII realizes.

If I had to pick four to get to 14 I would grab Cincinnati, Memphis, USF, and Houston.

East: USF, WVU, Cincinnati, Memphis, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State
West: Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Houston, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Yes, the east doesn't have a great football anchor but Kansas State, WVU, and Cincinnati have proven they can field top levels teams. USF would probably take off in this setup as well.

(07-09-2013 08:35 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Frank lives in the Chicago-land area and has been a BE-C7 apologist, trumpeting the C7 (which is what I mean by BE) and especially DePaul and Marquette...

The BE is the "new" Big East...the non-football entity that broke away.

Apologist???

Strong word.

(07-09-2013 09:52 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(07-09-2013 09:43 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  If Cincy is in the top3 of the AAC in Bball and Fball over the next two years, the B12 will plug their nose and take them in (like the ACC did with Louisville). Cinci is just that much better than the other options and they can rationalize the southwest corner of Ohio location wise. SMU is totally screwed, but Houston and either UCF/USF will be in the mix if they can separate themselves from the AAC group. If the B12 really does not want to lose their southern esque branding, then I will call Houston and USF to the B12.
Shockingly TU actually presents perhaps the most competitive advantages (academics, recruiting in roads, endowment, ratings potential, marque NCAA FBall city, destination city for away fans) but I can't see the school getting their act together fast enough, especially the Bball program and FBall stadium size.

Tulane if they get back to there 1990's level would be a very interesting expansion candidate. Cincinnati, Tulane, Memphis, Houston, USF, and UCF should all be on the expansion radar for the Big XII. Right now I agree that Cincinnati looks like the best candidate but the other schools could bring more to the table than the Big XII realizes.

If I had to pick four to get to 14 I would grab Cincinnati, Memphis, USF, and Houston.

East: USF, WVU, Cincinnati, Memphis, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State
West: Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Houston, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Yes, the east doesn't have a great football anchor but Kansas State, WVU, and Cincinnati have proven they can field top levels teams. USF would probably take off in this setup as well.

Not going to happen. If they expand and create divisions, Oklahoma and Texas will be in different divisions.

(07-09-2013 09:51 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-09-2013 09:18 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(07-09-2013 09:09 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(07-09-2013 08:30 AM)Cardinals Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 08:14 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  For those unfamiliar, "Frank the Tank" is a BE homer and AAC hater. I wouldn't expect anything complimentary about the AAC's position or future from Frank...

He was anything but a BE homer. He tends toward being a B1G homer, and claims (only in retrospect, from what I could tell) to have said all along that the ACC was more cohesive than anybody was giving it credit for.

I saw nothing in the article that hadn't been said a million times previously, though, and nothing that portrayed him as an enemy of the American.

No question that he has bias as we all do, but I'll give credit where it is due. He was claiming ACC solidarity long before it looked likely. He looks dead right on that one as of today. He also does a really good job researching the details behind a lot of realignment.

No matter what we all think of the C7 product, it has proven to be true that a basketball only conference actually has high value in the TV market.

You just have to take B10 stuff with a grain of salt. His blog definitely gave the impression that the B10 would be running the show with respect to realignment. Instead, they struggled to convince big fish to join and wound up with Maryland and Rutgers after who knows how many NOs from others. Now, it seems like all the B10 people are trying to change the entire story line to justify those additions. It's all spin really, but it's hardly specific to Frank.

I still think it remains to be seen if a basketball only product has TV value. This was a very special circumstance that led to Fox paying a nice sum of money to that league. First you had a new sports network that needed winter content, second that network needed to pay enough money so the C7 could leave the exit fees and tournament credits on the table plus the necessary money needed to get conference off the ground.

Due to the settlement I believe the legacy schools in the American are making more money than the C7 who I imagine are getting a bigger cut initially than the three new members.

Is this a trick question?

It's already been demonstrated that it does have value. You claim that's only because of circumstances. There are always circumstances. Fact is that it had value in the 1980's (circumstances then too) when the Big East started and it still has value today.

No truth to the idea that legacy schools in the AAC are making more money than the Big east schools.

Fox had to pay enough money to get those schools to leave behind the money they would have received if the stuck around.

Lets say those school would have received 4 million dollars in exit fees, tournament credits, and TV revenue if they stuck around. Fox had to pay at least that much to the C7 to leave. The American legacy's schools TV deal was going to be range in 2 to 5 million dollar range regardless of the circumstances; however, once the opportunity was there to take the entirety of the settlement fund the short term TV deal was acceptable. The settlement and current TV deal will support these schools for six year. If the league is still together I would be shocked if there is not an increase that puts every schools on par with what Cincinnati, USF, and UConn are making when you combine the settlement with the TV deal.

(07-09-2013 08:35 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Frank lives in the Chicago-land area and has been a BE-C7 apologist, trumpeting the C7 (which is what I mean by BE) and especially DePaul and Marquette...

The BE is the "new" Big East...the non-football entity that broke away.

He also has a degree from DePaul.

Lets wait to see how this shakes out. The realignment we're talking about is likely 10 years down the road. 10 years ago, I would have had a way different list of expansion candidates for you than we have today. A lot depends on who emerges from the g5 group to start making runs in the BCS bowls.

(07-09-2013 08:30 AM)Cardinals Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 08:14 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  For those unfamiliar, "Frank the Tank" is a BE homer and AAC hater. I wouldn't expect anything complimentary about the AAC's position or future from Frank...

He was anything but a BE homer. He tends toward being a B1G homer, and claims (only in retrospect, from what I could tell) to have said all along that the ACC was more cohesive than anybody was giving it credit for.

Frank has been proven correct on both the ACC and the C7. He said the ACC was cohesive well before that proved to be true, and he said that those who thought C7 basketball was low-value were wrong. Those are probably the two biggest things he has been correct about. Pretty big things, too.

(07-09-2013 10:01 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(07-09-2013 09:51 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-09-2013 09:18 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(07-09-2013 09:09 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(07-09-2013 08:30 AM)Cardinals Wrote:  He was anything but a BE homer. He tends toward being a B1G homer, and claims (only in retrospect, from what I could tell) to have said all along that the ACC was more cohesive than anybody was giving it credit for.

I saw nothing in the article that hadn't been said a million times previously, though, and nothing that portrayed him as an enemy of the American.

No question that he has bias as we all do, but I'll give credit where it is due. He was claiming ACC solidarity long before it looked likely. He looks dead right on that one as of today. He also does a really good job researching the details behind a lot of realignment.

No matter what we all think of the C7 product, it has proven to be true that a basketball only conference actually has high value in the TV market.

You just have to take B10 stuff with a grain of salt. His blog definitely gave the impression that the B10 would be running the show with respect to realignment. Instead, they struggled to convince big fish to join and wound up with Maryland and Rutgers after who knows how many NOs from others. Now, it seems like all the B10 people are trying to change the entire story line to justify those additions. It's all spin really, but it's hardly specific to Frank.

I still think it remains to be seen if a basketball only product has TV value. This was a very special circumstance that led to Fox paying a nice sum of money to that league. First you had a new sports network that needed winter content, second that network needed to pay enough money so the C7 could leave the exit fees and tournament credits on the table plus the necessary money needed to get conference off the ground.

Due to the settlement I believe the legacy schools in the American are making more money than the C7 who I imagine are getting a bigger cut initially than the three new members.

Is this a trick question?

It's already been demonstrated that it does have value. You claim that's only because of circumstances. There are always circumstances. Fact is that it had value in the 1980's (circumstances then too) when the Big East started and it still has value today.

No truth to the idea that legacy schools in the AAC are making more money than the Big east schools.

Fox had to pay enough money to get those schools to leave behind the money they would have received if the stuck around.

Lets say those school would have received 4 million dollars in exit fees, tournament credits, and TV revenue if they stuck around. Fox had to pay at least that much to the C7 to leave. The American legacy's schools TV deal was going to be range in 2 to 5 million dollar range regardless of the circumstances; however, once the opportunity was there to take the entirety of the settlement fund the short term TV deal was acceptable. The settlement and current TV deal will support these schools for six year. If the league is still together I would be shocked if there is not an increase that puts every schools on par with what Cincinnati, USF, and UConn are making when you combine the settlement with the TV deal.

I understand all that. It's called supply and demand. That's what determines value.

The legacy schools of the AAC had no leverage. It's not like they were going somewhere else if they didn't get what they wanted. It's not that the settlement fund made the TV deal acceptable. They had no choice. Their public desire to flee the conference removed whatever value they may have brought to the package.

I am not optimistic about the future TV value of this conference at all unless they become a power house and are beating P5 teams. It's basically CUSA 3.0 without the brand appeal of Louisville. They have made a number of strategic errors.

1. They have built too heavily in the South where they play in the shadow of the top leagues in the country. The redundancy of their markets means they bring nothing to the table that the networks don't already command with their other contracts.

2. They ignored the Northeast where their actually are markets available that can be developed.

3. They overemphasized football, believing that only football and football of any kind attracts TV money. They failed to invest in the basketball side of their brand where they have a few name brands that they actually could capitalize on. Basketball is where they have a shot to immediately compete nationally and enhance their brand, but they have blown that opportunity.

(07-09-2013 09:19 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I don't think it took some grand insight to know that the ACC was more stable than it appeared. Basically anyone with working knowledge of the state of NC and UNC specifically would have known that. The ACC is fine as long as UNC is happy running the league. They are essentially the Texas of the ACC.

I don't think it is or was that clear-cut. Yes, there are parallels between Texas and UNC, but there is also one big difference that made ACC survival far from certain: Texas is powerful enough as a football and general athletic powerhouse that ANY league they are in is ispo-fatso an AQ-P5 level league.

For example, if Power Conference status was still being negotiated right now, and Texas were to join the AAC, the current AAC with Rutgers, UofL, etc. already gone to other conferences, and with no other additions, the AAC would nevertheless surely be included in any Power grouping in the new playoffs system. Texas carries that kind of weight. In contrast, North Carolina simply does not. Its football is too weak and does not have the national resonance to mandate that status. If UNC had joined the current AAC and nobody else came on their coattails, the AAC would be G5, not P5. North Carolina is surely a crown-jewel addition for any existing P5 conference, but they can't make such a conference by themselves.

IOW's, unlike Texas, which could watch even big names like Nebraska and Texas A/M walk away and still be secure that it was in a Power conference that it could run, North Carolina did not have that luxury. Had other ACC big names like FSU and Miami bailed, the ACC ran a real risk of being relegated to G5 status. For Texas, a GoR was a convenience, for UNC it was a matter of the survival of the ACC and avoiding having to choose membership in the SEC or B1G.

(07-09-2013 10:19 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-09-2013 10:01 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(07-09-2013 09:51 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-09-2013 09:18 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(07-09-2013 09:09 AM)uccheese Wrote:  No question that he has bias as we all do, but I'll give credit where it is due. He was claiming ACC solidarity long before it looked likely. He looks dead right on that one as of today. He also does a really good job researching the details behind a lot of realignment.

No matter what we all think of the C7 product, it has proven to be true that a basketball only conference actually has high value in the TV market.

You just have to take B10 stuff with a grain of salt. His blog definitely gave the impression that the B10 would be running the show with respect to realignment. Instead, they struggled to convince big fish to join and wound up with Maryland and Rutgers after who knows how many NOs from others. Now, it seems like all the B10 people are trying to change the entire story line to justify those additions. It's all spin really, but it's hardly specific to Frank.

I still think it remains to be seen if a basketball only product has TV value. This was a very special circumstance that led to Fox paying a nice sum of money to that league. First you had a new sports network that needed winter content, second that network needed to pay enough money so the C7 could leave the exit fees and tournament credits on the table plus the necessary money needed to get conference off the ground.

Due to the settlement I believe the legacy schools in the American are making more money than the C7 who I imagine are getting a bigger cut initially than the three new members.

Is this a trick question?

It's already been demonstrated that it does have value. You claim that's only because of circumstances. There are always circumstances. Fact is that it had value in the 1980's (circumstances then too) when the Big East started and it still has value today.

No truth to the idea that legacy schools in the AAC are making more money than the Big east schools.

Fox had to pay enough money to get those schools to leave behind the money they would have received if the stuck around.

Lets say those school would have received 4 million dollars in exit fees, tournament credits, and TV revenue if they stuck around. Fox had to pay at least that much to the C7 to leave. The American legacy's schools TV deal was going to be range in 2 to 5 million dollar range regardless of the circumstances; however, once the opportunity was there to take the entirety of the settlement fund the short term TV deal was acceptable. The settlement and current TV deal will support these schools for six year. If the league is still together I would be shocked if there is not an increase that puts every schools on par with what Cincinnati, USF, and UConn are making when you combine the settlement with the TV deal.

I understand all that. It's called supply and demand. That's what determines value.

The legacy schools of the AAC had no leverage. It's not like they were going somewhere else if they didn't get what they wanted. It's not that the settlement fund made the TV deal acceptable. They had no choice. Their public desire to flee the conference removed whatever value they may have brought to the package.

I am not optimistic about the future TV value of this conference at all unless they become a power house and are beating P5 teams. It's basically CUSA 3.0 without the brand appeal of Louisville. They have made a number of strategic errors.

1. They have built too heavily in the South where they play in the shadow of the top leagues in the country. The redundancy of their markets means they bring nothing to the table that the networks don't already command with their other contracts.

2. They ignored the Northeast where their actually are markets available that can be developed.

3. They overemphasized football, believing that only football and football of any kind attracts TV money. They failed to invest in the basketball side of their brand where they have a few name brands that they actually could capitalize on. Basketball is where they have a shot to immediately compete nationally and enhance their brand, but they have blown that opportunity.

I'm on your side here, but you might want to clarify here. I hope you're not trying to say that Depaul, Providence, Seton Hall, etc invested in basketball more than Cincy and UConn.

I appreciate Frank's insights, but at the end of the day it is just an OpEd - an opinion of one person with a blog.

And the Tulane fan was right - SMU is screwed as far as B12 membership since the Dallas Market is already covered. Tulane, BYU. Cincy, ECU and Fla schools all get in to B12 convo before SMU does. Which is likely the reason our Prez is the head of the AAC - we know we are here to stay.

(07-09-2013 09:45 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  The real insight in my view is figuring out what the Big XII and Texas will do next. Right now that conference seems like a marriage of convenience more than a stable group. I keeping wondering if Texas bails sometime down the line or if that conference will expand. Without Oklahoma or Texas that conference is a mirror image of the American Athletic Conference with smaller markets.

Yes, but that's like saying "without his $40 billion, Bill Gates is just another nerdy looking older white dude walking down the street". While Texas could go anywhere it wants, it won't go anywhere, because what it wants is to be the KingPin of any conference it is in, and that is not possible anywhere but in the Big 12. Texas LIKES that the rest of the Big 12 (save for Oklahoma) isn't worth much because then they are the KingPin.

The only possibility I can envision for Texas leaving the Big 12 is if Notre Dame agreed to join them in forming a new conference. From what I can tell, Notre Dame is the only school in the country that Texas would ever have interest in sharing real power with.

No school in the AAC is out of discussion for future shifts and musical chair games. Again, this is projected 10 years + down the road. A lot will change in both the athletic landscape as well as the TV/viewing structure between now and then. By 2023, the TV bubble will have burst and there will be new metrics to gauge school's worth.

(07-09-2013 10:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-09-2013 08:30 AM)Cardinals Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 08:14 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  For those unfamiliar, "Frank the Tank" is a BE homer and AAC hater. I wouldn't expect anything complimentary about the AAC's position or future from Frank...

He was anything but a BE homer. He tends toward being a B1G homer, and claims (only in retrospect, from what I could tell) to have said all along that the ACC was more cohesive than anybody was giving it credit for.

Frank has been proven correct on both the ACC and the C7. He said the ACC was cohesive well before that proved to be true, and he said that those who thought C7 basketball was low-value were wrong. Those are probably the two biggest things he has been correct about. Pretty big things, too.

Agreed. Frank is a pretty good guy and was a regular on the old Big East board here.

He was correct in predicting those two things.

He also has had pretty good insight (since 2010) on the fervor that ND alumni have about independence over more TV money, reduced travel costs and the Michigan series.

He was an early, vocal proponent of ND to the Big Ten and thought that the increased TV money from the BTN was the difference maker in 2010 when it looked to him (and others) that ND might join the Big Ten.

But, he quickly realized that the most TV money was not the driving force in ND's decision making process and changed his mind on his prediction that ND would join the Big Ten.

Yes, he is a DePaul and an Illinois grad. He is mostly pro-Big Ten, but for once I won't hold it against someone. :)

Don't we all have our biases?

(07-09-2013 08:30 AM)Cardinals Wrote:  He was anything but a BE homer. He tends toward being a B1G homer, and claims (only in retrospect, from what I could tell) to have said all along that the ACC was more cohesive than anybody was giving it credit for.

No, that was a claim he has made for the last three years. If there was an insight or idea that he himself proposed that no one else believe, it was that. Frank's blog was how I found this site, so I have nothing against him at all. In fact I find myself agreeing with him far more than I ever disagree with him. He was the only one who seemingly agreed with me when I kept saying over and over, that there was far more value in basketball than many realized. Well that and that the football schools of the Big East would never leave the basketball schools because it would destroy their value (loss of market and basketball depth). Two things that were proven to be pretty damn accurate.

(07-09-2013 09:19 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I don't think it took some grand insight to know that the ACC was more stable than it appeared. Basically anyone with working knowledge of the state of NC and UNC specifically would have known that.

Consdidering the last couple of years of realignment have been centered on the ACC or the Big XII falling apart, there is no way anyone can say that saying the ACC was stable was not going out on a limb. This right here is the revisionist history.

(07-09-2013 07:50 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-09-2013 06:28 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 08:22 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  He's not that knowledgeable or impartial, IMO. All of his posts have an "extreme" "p5" bias.

This. I have never seen anything that leads me to think he knows much more than anyone else. I don't think he is all that bias, he just follows the power.

Personally, I like Frank, b/c he seems to be bright, and he is unfailingly polite. However, he doesn't generally have inside info, and he is absolutely biased toward the B10. JMO. But he is often an interesting read, simply b/c he spends so much time studying realignment, so he often has good insight.

I agree with you 100% Triple A, Frank is a good writer, but he is also a Big 10 homer.

(07-09-2013 10:33 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  No school in the AAC is out of discussion for future shifts and musical chair games. Again, this is projected 10 years + down the road. A lot will change in both the athletic landscape as well as the TV/viewing structure between now and then. By 2023, the TV bubble will have burst and there will be new metrics to gauge school's worth.

The budgets are so tight right now and I cannot see the presidents continuing every year to deal with the loss of about $1mm per school via a championship game. Not to mention the additional BCS championship slots removes some of the risk of your best team losing in the league championship game and not getting a title shot. Every year as they confront the athletic budget they will think to themselves, my the entry fees for two new schools and the league championship game revenue would sure look good to our bottom line. At this point I truly believe that it is the lack of a perfect AAC/MWC candidate that has slowed B12 expansion and NOT the desires of the current B12 schools.

As for Texas, I can't see them going anywhere cause the SEC doesn't want another huge school to battle against and Texas doesn't want to battle the SEC schedule, not to mention the grant of rights for the B12. If UT does look to the P12 that would just be goofy.