Yeah. Jr is right about the ESPN/FOX T3 thing. UT is the whale and ESPN has major control with them. If they leave the B12 and the LHN goes away, ESPN controls their 3rd tier rights until the 20 year LHN deal expires. So if they go to the B1G or PAC, ESPN would have to be bought out if those conference wanted Texas's 3rd tier programming. Kansas has the unique (but much less lucrative) T3 national digital deal with ESPN. KU's deal is for a much shorter time and less likely to be a hurdle to movement. OU is with FOX and has a sweet network deal. All the other B12 schools T3 rights are owned by FOX who shows them on their regional networks. I think ESPN will get Texas if the B12 implodes either into the SEC/ACC or as an independent. OU and KU are not as tied down due to their shorter and cheaper deals. They could go anywhere.

I think KU and OU are the ones you could see move. OU really controls the fate of the B12 because they are open to moving and their loss would end the B12 as a power conference; whereas, KU would just wound it a little more (FB > BB money). If KU and OU move, you hear a lot of talk about UT going independent with a deal with the ACC similar to ND. However, I could see them going independent and just signing that deal with the rebuilt B12 (minus OU/KU plus 3-9 new current G5 schools). Politically it would be better for them, and they could still get plenty of games played in Texas (and less travel) while still allowing them the flexibility to schedule more games of national interest. The B1G is the best fit for KU; however, if MU could fit into the SEC then KU could as well. I think KU could fit anywhere. OU's best fit is SEC IMO, but again I could see them anywhere, except the ACC. Texas can pick it's conference and would fit anywhere.

UT, OU and KU are really held back by their little brothers. All the B12 flagships without a little brother - CU, NU, MU, and arguably A&M (since they fit the mold just don't have the responsibility - Texas does) have already left. Those three would love for little brother(s) to go somewhere else if it freed them up to move where they wanted to go. Any of the state schools in Kansas, Texas, and Oklahoma would jump at the SEC to get out of big brother's shadow I think. ISU would do it for stability. If the B12 goes bye bye they could be without a power conference home. The same goes for the state schools. In some scenarios, the little brothers (TTU, OSU, KSU) could be without a power conference home as well.

The discussion on this board is great. Glad I was pointed to the SEC conference board here.

Glad to have you here, jhawkmvp. Posters with thoughtful insight are always welcome here. With the right combinations among other schools, I think the SEC would be open and happy to take one school from each of the states of Kansas and Oklahoma. Considering what you point out above and what JR has laid out in various posts, the PAC adding Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and Iowa State would be the most prudent move for them. Sure, everyone would love to invite Texas, Oklahoma, and/or Kansas, but those 4 "brother" schools are each much more valuable than every other possible PAC target except possibly BYU. New Mexico has the potential to reach that level, but it will be quite a few years. Those four to the PAC, Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big 10, Texas and Baylor to the ACC, and West Virginia and TCU to the SEC would get it done and allow everyone to be at 4x16. In such a circumstance, the Big 10 would have a major I.O.U. for the SEC when/if the ACC doesn't make it long-term.

(02-04-2014 10:18 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Glad to have you here, jhawkmvp. Posters with thoughtful insight are always welcome here. With the right combinations among other schools, I think the SEC would be open and happy to take one school from each of the states of Kansas and Oklahoma. Considering what you point out above and what JR has laid out in various posts, the PAC adding Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and Iowa State would be the most prudent move for them. Sure, everyone would love to invite Texas, Oklahoma, and/or Kansas, but those 4 "brother" schools are each much more valuable than every other possible PAC target except possibly BYU. New Mexico has the potential to reach that level, but it will be quite a few years. Those four to the PAC, Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big 10, Texas and Baylor to the ACC, and West Virginia and TCU to the SEC would get it done and allow everyone to be at 4x16. In such a circumstance, the Big 10 would have a major I.O.U. for the SEC when/if the ACC doesn't make it long-term.

Broken record here, but ESPN isn't going to let a FOX controlled Big 10 have Oklahoma and Kansas if they can help it. If the SEC moves to 16 it will never be with T.C.U. and West Virginia. A city market by itself with a poor attendance school that is not well rounded in sports and a school from a state of 1 million which needs to improve facilities, add three sports, and upgrade academics aren't in the mix at 16. If those were our choices we would refuse and the GOR for the Big 12 would continue to freeze realignment.

I could see us taking Oklahoma and Kansas State, or Kansas and Oklahoma State. Why? If the Big 12 is divided out between the PAC, SEC, and Big 10 there isn't going to be any future movement from the ACC. It would be the end game and any hopes of a Big 10 "I.O.U." would be shame on us for being stupid enough to believe it. Besides we are basketball here in this thread. Does the SEC find any help in hoops from T.C.U.? Baylor maybe, but not T.C.U.. And West Virginia in basketball has already taken a knock for leaving the Big East. The kids in their recruiting area didn't want to play Texas and Oklahoma when they could play Connecticut, St.Johns, Georgetown, etc. Those are the names they know.

If 16 is the final move (and a parsing of the Big 12 means it would be) we will add two new states with the most population, unless we could add Texas and Oklahoma as a pair. Out of the Big 12 the best two new states population wise are Kansas and Iowa. Smoke that over. We pick up 6.5 million viewers by adding Kansas and Iowa State, two AAU schools, and two basketball schools. The problem with that is that both the Big 10 and SEC would then be adding cultural outliers.

The logic of the situation indicates that Texas will go to the ACC or SEC because of ESPN. Logic also indicates that Texas will want to still be able to play several games in Texas and a reasonably regional schedule. This rules out the Big 10 where only Oklahoma and/or Kansas could go with them and Oklahoma would still be a squeeze academically. This rules out the ACC unless they were willing to create a division for them. And from the ACC's perspective how do you thing F.S.U. is going to react being locked into second citizen status twice with schools extraneous to the ACC getting better deals than they get? Notre Dame gets to recruit the ACC without having to support it outright. Texas would get to stay a dominate and alien power while Florida State carries the load for ACC football. I don't think Florida State, Clemson, or Virginia Tech are going to love this arrangement. ESPN may like it for Texas, but they can't like letting NBC take the goody from N.D. deal while the minor sports get parked for an ESPN paycheck.

I think the whole sticking point of Texas to the ACC is that it must be in full and that the Irish will have to commit to fully joining in the future if that is the case. So naturally Texas says no if they can't get the same sweetheart deal and the Irish naturally say no to joining in full as long as they can. There's the other Mexican standoff. The workaround is giving Texas a Western division and keeping status quo for the Irish. Well that means enough Big 12 teams to the ACC to create a division and that means 18 to 20 schools.

ESPN isn't going to care about the Big 10's problems in all of this, especially after the Maryland case. And truth be told the PAC doesn't deliver enough of their own market to be worth buying a piece of their network and parking the most profitable product in the least profitable setting.

At 16 each parsed out of the Big 12 from an ESPN preference perspective it would be West Virginia and Connecticut to the ACC for 16 full members.

It would be Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC. And they wouldn't care about where the rest go. They would know that Kansas would be swapped with Fox for Oklahoma to make it work and that Kansas would go to the Big 10. So the Big 10 could suck it up and take Iowa State to stay all AAU (except Nebraska) or they could fend for themselves with somebody else. Anyway you cut it they come out with less than they wanted. And the PAC gets leftovers. But the key is nothing happens until the end of the GOR because the Big 10 and PAC aren't going to want to go along with it. Hence Texas's precious GOR has become a prison for the best schools of the Big 12.

This is why my reasoning has been that the SEC and ACC have to take 8 between them to end this. And it is why I've suggested the workaround that I have put forth. Six to the ACC in exchange for N.C. State and Virginia Tech and we take Oklahoma State and Kansas. That gives the ACC workaround for taking Texas as full members and permitting Notre Dame to keep their status. It adds enough football (outside of Texas) to please F.S.U. and Clemson who don't have a problem sharing status with a Full Member Bevo. The GOR is dead and the PAC will take T.C.U. and Texas Tech to get into that state regardless of what they claim.

Another facet of the above reasoning to explain, "Why would ESPN likely prefer to add Connecticut and West Virginia to the ACC and Oklahoma and Texas to the SEC?"

Under the circumstances described above where the SEC has limited options and the ACC has limited options and by limited I mean can only add two each what do you do. Two basketball schools might help the SEC, but it might hurt the two basketball schools. Two football schools might help the ACC but it might hurt the two football schools. After all Virginia Tech, Miami, and for quite sometime Florida State all slipped significantly after joining the ACC. The same might even be said for Boston College.

But as a network how would you make more money by placing Kansas against Alabama in football or by placing Texas and Oklahoma against Alabama, L.S.U., Auburn, Texas A&M, Tennessee, Florida, South Carolina, and enhancing games like Arkansas and Missouri regionally?

West Virginia basetball would be back in the ACC with Pitt and Syracuse. Throw in Connecticut and you have hoops nirvana with some of the best of the old Big East and Tobacco Road going at it with Louisville thrown in to boot. Content, content, content! The SEC would need an infusion of hoops to make a difference, not two aspirin. The ACC needs an infusion of football to make a difference, not two fading kings that need reinvigorating already. Strictly for money reasons if we only move to 16 then I look for two more hoops oriented programs to the ACC and two more football oriented programs to the SEC. If it becomes a net of 4 additions to each then we can strengthen weaknesses.

Random observation - If this were 2015, ESPN could be looking at 4 NIT games on the SEC Network. ESPN could then use ESPNEWS/ESPN 3 to show the game in non-SEC markets. That's not a bad option for a Tuesday or Wednesday in mid-March.

(01-22-2014 03:24 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I have been thinking a bit about this, and I wanted to point out something interesting...

Did you know the average attendance for SEC men's basketball is higher than the PAC, Big 12, ACC, and only 1,000 under the Big 10? Yes, Kentucky is the highest in the nation, but Tennessee, Vandy, Arkansas, and Alabama are in the top 20%, and Missouri and Florida are knocking on the door. TAMU, Georgia, Auburn, and Ole Miss are below 8,000 per game average, which really needs to be brought up for the league's sake. The SEC averages a tick over 11,000 per game, by the way.

In comparison, not a single school from the MAC, SunBelt, or CUSA even averages 8,000. The MWC and AAC are very top heavy. New Mexico, UNLV, San Diego State, Memphis, and Connecticut are excellent at 12,000 to 16,000 each. Utah State, Temple, and Cincinnati are strong at over 8,000. No one else in the G5 can even get 8,000 fans to an average basketball game. Houston may be may favorite example since they are fairly vocal about getting in with the P5's. How does a school with 23,000 undergrads in one of the most populated cities in the country draw 24,000 football fans and 3,788 basketball fans? Furthermore, you know these G5 schools offer tickets for next to nothing, if not actually nothing. It just does not inspire confidence. There is one school not in the P5 that averages at least 40,000 a game for football and 8,000 a game for basketball, which should be reasonable expectations. That school is BYU and they blow that number away (61,000 FB, 15,000 BB).

Missouri built a 77 million dollar arena. They draw very well, but were down 22% this year. Many season ticket holders live in the St Louis and KC metro areas and severe winter weather prevented travel to Columbia, which is located almost exactly between the two cities, smack in the middle of the state. It is basically a 250 mile round trip to Columbia from both. That's what the experts say, but I believe a lot had to do with the fact that they had young new team, and a less than stellar year, which Mizzou fans are not used to.

Anyone ready to accept that Baylor might just be one of the best options for the SEC if they want to raise their basketball profile? Men make their 3rd Sweet Sixteen in 5 seasons and the Women made their 6th straight Sweet Sixteen. To me an Iowa State and Baylor combo would bring two great men's and women's programs to the SEC.

(03-25-2014 07:56 AM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  Anyone ready to accept that Baylor might just be one of the best options for the SEC if they want to raise their basketball profile? Men make their 3rd Sweet Sixteen in 5 seasons and the Women made their 6th straight Sweet Sixteen. To me an Iowa State and Baylor combo would bring two great men's and women's programs to the SEC.

Make it Texas, Oklahoma, or Kansas with Baylor, and we have a deal!

(03-25-2014 08:24 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 07:56 AM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  Anyone ready to accept that Baylor might just be one of the best options for the SEC if they want to raise their basketball profile? Men make their 3rd Sweet Sixteen in 5 seasons and the Women made their 6th straight Sweet Sixteen. To me an Iowa State and Baylor combo would bring two great men's and women's programs to the SEC.

Make it Texas, Oklahoma, or Kansas with Baylor, and we have a deal!

Shoot BBB, if the ACC would take Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Kansas State we could take Baylorferg's suggestion and take Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas and Oklahoma and do just great.

(03-25-2014 11:25 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 08:24 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 07:56 AM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  Anyone ready to accept that Baylor might just be one of the best options for the SEC if they want to raise their basketball profile? Men make their 3rd Sweet Sixteen in 5 seasons and the Women made their 6th straight Sweet Sixteen. To me an Iowa State and Baylor combo would bring two great men's and women's programs to the SEC.

Make it Texas, Oklahoma, or Kansas with Baylor, and we have a deal!

Shoot BBB, if the ACC would take Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Kansas State we could take Baylorferg's suggestion and take Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas and Oklahoma and do just great.

That works for me, too. Get it done, BaylorFerg!