As I've said before, I dont think A&M is 100% opposed to a second Texas school, just that there are certain schools (UT, TTU, BU & UH) that we will oppose.

But it turns out none of them are needed anyway because what the SEC needs and what A&M will accept dovetails nicely.

A&M brings in most of Houston and a good chunk of Austin as well. We bring a chunk of Dallas but DFW is such a no-man's land that help is needed to rest it from the Big 12. Either TCU or SMU would be fine with A&M and both bring what is needed most: fan bases and physical locations both directly in DFW.

Having A&M, Arkansas, Okie Lite and LSU coming to DFW every year + regular visits from Auburn, Bama, UGA, Florida etc will get DFW behind the SEC. You lock down Houston and Dallas, you lock down the state (minus maybe far west Texas but there's like 100 people out there maybe)

I think that is definitely the right approach, JR. Your TV data brought out something surprising to me. Do you know who had a bigger TV audience than Kansas State, Cal, Kansas, BYU, Boise State, San Diego State, Washington State, Maryland, Utah, Iowa State... on and on and on? Rice. They were only 140,000 less per week than TCU playing a Big 12 schedule. They come in at a bit over 1.2 million, which is by far the highest for a C-USA school. They are not piggy backing off of their league's other teams. If Texas were not available to the SEC, I think the addition for Rice would bring more to what the SEC needs than the other options (namely Texas Tech, Baylor, or TCU).

(05-09-2014 01:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  As I've said before, I dont think A&M is 100% opposed to a second Texas school, just that there are certain schools (UT, TTU, BU & UH) that we will oppose.

But it turns out none of them are needed anyway because what the SEC needs and what A&M will accept dovetails nicely.

A&M brings in most of Houston and a good chunk of Austin as well. We bring a chunk of Dallas but DFW is such a no-man's land that help is needed to rest it from the Big 12. Either TCU or SMU would be fine with A&M and both bring what is needed most: fan bases and physical locations both directly in DFW.

Having A&M, Arkansas, Okie Lite and LSU coming to DFW every year + regular visits from Auburn, Bama, UGA, Florida etc will get DFW behind the SEC. You lock down Houston and Dallas, you lock down the state (minus maybe far west Texas but there's like 100 people out there maybe)

What % of the DFW market do you think that Texas A&M, one of S.M.U. or T.C.U., and an Oklahoma school (either OU or OSU) would deliver?

If you aren't going to get Texas, then Baylor is the only other reasonable option for a second Texas school. As much as the Aggies protest, Baylor brings far more to the table than the other schools in the state. We have the best athletic program in the state currently, including A&M, with a now proven recent history of post season success in the major and minor sports. TCU and SMU may give you a physical location in DFW but Baylor has a large alumni base in the DFW area and has a larger alumni base in general over TCU and SMU. Baylor has a much larger fan base than either of those schools as well. A&M doesn't want Baylor because not only would A&M not be the only Texas school in the SEC, but they wouldn't even be the best Texas school in the SEC. If the SEC isn't going to get OU and UT, then clearly OSU and BU are the next best pair to completely take over Texas and Oklahoma.

(05-09-2014 01:06 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I think that is definitely the right approach, JR. Your TV data brought out something surprising to me. Do you know who had a bigger TV audience than Kansas State, Cal, Kansas, BYU, Boise State, San Diego State, Washington State, Maryland, Utah, Iowa State... on and on and on? Rice. They were only 140,000 less per week than TCU playing a Big 12 schedule. They come in at a bit over 1.2 million, which is by far the highest for a C-USA school. They are not piggy backing off of their league's other teams. If Texas were not available to the SEC, I think the addition for Rice would bring more to what the SEC needs than the other options (namely Texas Tech, Baylor, or TCU).

Yep, and academically you have a peer for Vanderbilt. The only problem is that 10th is right in that A&M delivers enough of Houston to make the market contributions of Rice more negligible. The other thing that stood out to me was Central Florida. I don't like the way Miami is trending over the last 15 years and the SEC needs a stronger foothold in South Florida which is really an entirely different culture than the panhandle or Jacksonville/St. Augustine. I like the idea of having a school in the lower half of that state and the Orlando area is prime. I would think Disney might like to have an SEC branch office nearby as well. So if the ACC schools never present themselves expanding with an Oklahoma school a second Texas school, Central Florida, and West Virginia might be an interesting plan B.

(05-09-2014 01:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 01:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  As I've said before, I dont think A&M is 100% opposed to a second Texas school, just that there are certain schools (UT, TTU, BU & UH) that we will oppose.

But it turns out none of them are needed anyway because what the SEC needs and what A&M will accept dovetails nicely.

A&M brings in most of Houston and a good chunk of Austin as well. We bring a chunk of Dallas but DFW is such a no-man's land that help is needed to rest it from the Big 12. Either TCU or SMU would be fine with A&M and both bring what is needed most: fan bases and physical locations both directly in DFW.

Having A&M, Arkansas, Okie Lite and LSU coming to DFW every year + regular visits from Auburn, Bama, UGA, Florida etc will get DFW behind the SEC. You lock down Houston and Dallas, you lock down the state (minus maybe far west Texas but there's like 100 people out there maybe)

What % of the DFW market do you think that Texas A&M, one of S.M.U. or T.C.U., and an Oklahoma school (either OU or OSU) would deliver?

A&M + Okie + TCU/SMU + Arkansas (dont forget about them, Piggy has a LOT of alums here) gives you a majority share. I'd estimate thats a 65-70% share depending on who goes where but mainly thanks to Joe Dallas wanting to see teams like Arkansas, LSU, A&M and Auburn playing in Dallas

(05-09-2014 01:39 PM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  If you aren't going to get Texas, then Baylor is the only other reasonable option for a second Texas school. As much as the Aggies protest, Baylor brings far more to the table than the other schools in the state. We have the best athletic program in the state currently, including A&M, with a now proven recent history of post season success in the major and minor sports. TCU and SMU may give you a physical location in DFW but Baylor has a large alumni base in the DFW area and has a larger alumni base in general over TCU and SMU. Baylor has a much larger fan base than either of those schools as well. A&M doesn't want Baylor because not only would A&M not be the only Texas school in the SEC, but they wouldn't even be the best Texas school in the SEC. If the SEC isn't going to get OU and UT, then clearly OSU and BU are the next best pair to completely take over Texas and Oklahoma.

Its cute that you hang around here, desperately trying to find a home for Baylor! You know whats coming and that there aren't any politicians to save your crappy school this time around!

Great football? You got your butts beat by a directional Florida School! Same Old Baylor!

But hey you still have your tiny fan base, empty stadium and complete and total lack of a TV audience!

Alumni in DFW? Then where are they at the Baylor/Tech game? Disguised as empty seats?

Best Program? You haven't beaten A&M in the directors cup ever. This year? No different! A&M is in 17th while mighty baylor is at 51 behind powerhouses like Denver and Providence.

If you're going to lie and make stuff up at least try to be better at it.

But most of all, thanks to Kenny Starr, you will NEVER be in the SEC! Payback is hell so you best hope that the UT AD doesn't decide hes had enough of the Little 10 or else Baylor is going to be trying to sell that new stadium n a schedule of Tulsa, Tulane and Connecticut!

UCF is definitely something of an anomaly. Clearly, they are the number 3 school in the state, which is a rarity at the FBS level. And while its clearly most of the students are from Florida, I don't get the indication that they remain in state. While I agree with you JR that Miami seems to be trying to employ the 'Duke Model', is UCF really a school with better long term prospects?

(05-09-2014 02:51 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  UCF is definitely something of an anomaly. Clearly, they are the number 3 school in the state, which is a rarity at the FBS level. And while its clearly most of the students are from Florida, I don't get the indication that they remain in state. While I agree with you JR that Miami seems to be trying to employ the 'Duke Model', is UCF really a school with better long term prospects?

I think that is a big and important question. They definitely generate more alumni than any school in the state of Florida and while those numbers have not tallied up over the long duration that they have at F.S.U. and U.F. they will in time. Besides as the Baby Boomers pass those kinds of things will level out some. That is why Delany is so hyped on getting into the Northeast. Big 10 schools will be leveled out by the passing of Boomers as well.

The snag on U.C.F. is that they rank in the 180's on academics, but their attendance, the number of alumni, their location, everything about them indicates future growth, including the region. So even if a significant percentage like 30% of their student body leaves the state they will likely remain somewhere in the Southeast (where the jobs are) and then they will likely watch their Knights play ball on the tube. The 70% that remain in Florida just simply help to bolster the SEC's position within the state.

Of all of the current G5 programs I like their chances the best and as a futurist would take the gamble on them, provided their academics can get into the 150 range. Oh,... and provided that F.S.U. was not available and the SEC wasn't expanding with ACC schools.

(05-09-2014 02:44 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 01:39 PM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  If you aren't going to get Texas, then Baylor is the only other reasonable option for a second Texas school. As much as the Aggies protest, Baylor brings far more to the table than the other schools in the state. We have the best athletic program in the state currently, including A&M, with a now proven recent history of post season success in the major and minor sports. TCU and SMU may give you a physical location in DFW but Baylor has a large alumni base in the DFW area and has a larger alumni base in general over TCU and SMU. Baylor has a much larger fan base than either of those schools as well. A&M doesn't want Baylor because not only would A&M not be the only Texas school in the SEC, but they wouldn't even be the best Texas school in the SEC. If the SEC isn't going to get OU and UT, then clearly OSU and BU are the next best pair to completely take over Texas and Oklahoma.

Its cute that you hang around here, desperately trying to find a home for Baylor! You know whats coming and that there aren't any politicians to save your crappy school this time around!

I'm not trying to find Baylor a home. I think most of the SEC fans on here realize that Texas and OU are probably not coming to the SEC when the Big 12 ends. A pairing of OSU and Baylor would make the SEC better. We won't need politicians this time.

Great football? You got your butts beat by a directional Florida School! Same Old Baylor!

Yes, we underestimated a small school and got beat. That's never happened to A&M (Arkansas St.)

But hey you still have your tiny fan base, empty stadium and complete and total lack of a TV audience!

A fan base that is still larger than the two Texas Schools you would be Ok with joining the SEC. Our TV audience, which is linked on the previous page, was virtually the same as Texas Tech and better than Vandy and Kentucky.

Alumni in DFW? Then where are they at the Baylor/Tech game? Disguised as empty seats?

There was almost 70,000 at that game and I would bet that about 35K were Baylor fans. When the SEC and Big 12 wanted a basketball game at Jerry world, they chose Baylor.

Best Program? You haven't beaten A&M in the directors cup ever. This year? No different! A&M is in 17th while mighty baylor is at 51 behind powerhouses like Denver and Providence.

Great your women's swimming program helped you move up. I wish Baylor had a program like that. Then maybe my 11 year old daughter wouldn't want to swim for A&M.

If you're going to lie and make stuff up at least try to be better at it.

Our football team finished ranked higher, our men's basketball team finished ranked higher, and our women's basketball team finished ranked higher. How am I lying?

But most of all, thanks to Kenny Starr, you will NEVER be in the SEC! Payback is hell so you best hope that the UT AD doesn't decide hes had enough of the Little 10 or else Baylor is going to be trying to sell that new stadium n a schedule of Tulsa, Tulane and Connecticut!

Thankfully one irrational fan on a message board doesn't determine whether Baylor gets added to the SEC or not. For a "small Baptist school" (The largest Baptist school in the world), we seem to have some weight if our President was in DC speaking at Congressional Hearings on Athlete Unions with the likes of Stanford.

I love this "non-rivalry"!

A point of levity if I might! MHVeer is reporting today that the two expansion candidates for the Big 10 in the Northeast are Connecticut and .........drum roll please............Cornell.

I pity those Yankees!

But of course I don't believe MHVeer either! But you have to admit He1nous would choke in frustration if those two were added to the Big 10.

You just don't get it...or more likely are sick to your stomach that Baylor wont make it through this next round of realignment.

As much as you want to pretend its otherwise, the SEC going to Waco does NOTHING to accomplish our objective of securing DFW.

Baylor has a tiny fan base and brings no eyeballs to a contract, sorry thats just a fact of life.

If it makes you feel any better, its not about TCU vs BU, its about having a hub in DFW for the ther SEC teams to come play in, to have SEC fans coming through DFW airport and shopping and walking around Dallas and Fort Worth. Its about front page coverage in the Star and DMN and on the local news stations. Its about having a physical PRESENCE in the metroplex. Having SEC actually play IN DFW is huge and will go a long way to securing the city for us. It more than makes up for an equally tiny fan base like TCU (who at least won the Rose Bowl recently) You are too small and too out of the way to help with that.

(05-09-2014 12:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 10:11 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Great info, JR. That does shed some new light on the state of Oklahoma. I supposed they compare favorably to the state of Alabama. In terms of footprint, what would TV rather have? A smaller population state like Oklahoma where 5,700,000 eyeballs are watching your two TV programs, or a larger population state like Virginia where 2, 400,000 eyeballs are watching your two TV programs? I guess the easy answer is that the distributors want the large population, and the advertisers want the eyeballs. Those numbers may not be enough to get both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State an invite to the SEC, but it definitely gives Oklahoma State a huge leg-up in possibly getting a standalone invitation if Oklahoma chooses elsewhere.

As usual, Florida State continues to be a no-brainer pickup if the situation is right, and Clemson is not far behind.

BBB at some point I think you have to prepare yourself for an a la carte approach. In that circumstance Florida State and Clemson distance themselves from the Carolina and Virginia schools and quite frankly I have always considered those two to be a must to solidify the SEC's footprint and brand of football. They remain the two programs that generate the butts in the seats, the eyeballs, the profitability, and the most SEC like football being played anywhere. I don't care what the corporate Mouse thinks not taking them is holding the SEC back. Plus if we landed those two a move to 18 with North Carolina and Virginia Tech becomes entirely possible if we wanted them.

I also agree that one of the Oklahoma's is a must and since neither are AAU and both deliver Dallas / Ft. Worth the only prioritization factor that is in play is the history of OU. Other than that either of them would suit the SEC's purposes just fine. I agree with 10th and with you that Texas is just a pain in the butt waiting to happen, but I also believe that the SEC needs a second Texas school the same way that having a second Florida school is needed. Two schools from each of those to large states would permit more of the other conference teams to schedule games within those states. We don't want a California problem in the SEC, where every team in the PAC wants access to the state of California and yet can't be guaranteed an annual visit there.

I know we've been all over the place with this, and I have as well, but it seems to me a 20 team SEC should have its sites set on adding Clemson and Florida State, an Oklahoma school, a second Texas school, and North Carolina and Virginia Tech. I think that would be an SEC that thrives for decades to come. How do you feel about that approach guys?

The division of the P5 into the P4 MUST have symmetry.
Keep moving teams around until you find it. You must not be afraid to move some of the SEC teams. When your group (SEC) is in the middle on not on an edge, you must be willing to give up something to attain balance.

(05-09-2014 04:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 12:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 10:11 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Great info, JR. That does shed some new light on the state of Oklahoma. I supposed they compare favorably to the state of Alabama. In terms of footprint, what would TV rather have? A smaller population state like Oklahoma where 5,700,000 eyeballs are watching your two TV programs, or a larger population state like Virginia where 2, 400,000 eyeballs are watching your two TV programs? I guess the easy answer is that the distributors want the large population, and the advertisers want the eyeballs. Those numbers may not be enough to get both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State an invite to the SEC, but it definitely gives Oklahoma State a huge leg-up in possibly getting a standalone invitation if Oklahoma chooses elsewhere.

As usual, Florida State continues to be a no-brainer pickup if the situation is right, and Clemson is not far behind.

BBB at some point I think you have to prepare yourself for an a la carte approach. In that circumstance Florida State and Clemson distance themselves from the Carolina and Virginia schools and quite frankly I have always considered those two to be a must to solidify the SEC's footprint and brand of football. They remain the two programs that generate the butts in the seats, the eyeballs, the profitability, and the most SEC like football being played anywhere. I don't care what the corporate Mouse thinks not taking them is holding the SEC back. Plus if we landed those two a move to 18 with North Carolina and Virginia Tech becomes entirely possible if we wanted them.

I also agree that one of the Oklahoma's is a must and since neither are AAU and both deliver Dallas / Ft. Worth the only prioritization factor that is in play is the history of OU. Other than that either of them would suit the SEC's purposes just fine. I agree with 10th and with you that Texas is just a pain in the butt waiting to happen, but I also believe that the SEC needs a second Texas school the same way that having a second Florida school is needed. Two schools from each of those to large states would permit more of the other conference teams to schedule games within those states. We don't want a California problem in the SEC, where every team in the PAC wants access to the state of California and yet can't be guaranteed an annual visit there.

I know we've been all over the place with this, and I have as well, but it seems to me a 20 team SEC should have its sites set on adding Clemson and Florida State, an Oklahoma school, a second Texas school, and North Carolina and Virginia Tech. I think that would be an SEC that thrives for decades to come. How do you feel about that approach guys?

The division of the P5 into the P4 MUST have symmetry.
Keep moving teams around until you find it. You must not be afraid to move some of the SEC teams. When your group (SEC) is in the middle on not on an edge, you must be willing to give up something to attain balance.

One may obtain symmetry without having to give away strength. If the SEC gains two more from the West we won't have to give anything away. If the move is to 18 then maybe some shuffling could assist the division. If we move to 20 there will only be 3 conferences.

(05-09-2014 04:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 04:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 12:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 10:11 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Great info, JR. That does shed some new light on the state of Oklahoma. I supposed they compare favorably to the state of Alabama. In terms of footprint, what would TV rather have? A smaller population state like Oklahoma where 5,700,000 eyeballs are watching your two TV programs, or a larger population state like Virginia where 2, 400,000 eyeballs are watching your two TV programs? I guess the easy answer is that the distributors want the large population, and the advertisers want the eyeballs. Those numbers may not be enough to get both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State an invite to the SEC, but it definitely gives Oklahoma State a huge leg-up in possibly getting a standalone invitation if Oklahoma chooses elsewhere.

As usual, Florida State continues to be a no-brainer pickup if the situation is right, and Clemson is not far behind.

BBB at some point I think you have to prepare yourself for an a la carte approach. In that circumstance Florida State and Clemson distance themselves from the Carolina and Virginia schools and quite frankly I have always considered those two to be a must to solidify the SEC's footprint and brand of football. They remain the two programs that generate the butts in the seats, the eyeballs, the profitability, and the most SEC like football being played anywhere. I don't care what the corporate Mouse thinks not taking them is holding the SEC back. Plus if we landed those two a move to 18 with North Carolina and Virginia Tech becomes entirely possible if we wanted them.

I also agree that one of the Oklahoma's is a must and since neither are AAU and both deliver Dallas / Ft. Worth the only prioritization factor that is in play is the history of OU. Other than that either of them would suit the SEC's purposes just fine. I agree with 10th and with you that Texas is just a pain in the butt waiting to happen, but I also believe that the SEC needs a second Texas school the same way that having a second Florida school is needed. Two schools from each of those to large states would permit more of the other conference teams to schedule games within those states. We don't want a California problem in the SEC, where every team in the PAC wants access to the state of California and yet can't be guaranteed an annual visit there.

I know we've been all over the place with this, and I have as well, but it seems to me a 20 team SEC should have its sites set on adding Clemson and Florida State, an Oklahoma school, a second Texas school, and North Carolina and Virginia Tech. I think that would be an SEC that thrives for decades to come. How do you feel about that approach guys?

The division of the P5 into the P4 MUST have symmetry.
Keep moving teams around until you find it. You must not be afraid to move some of the SEC teams. When your group (SEC) is in the middle on not on an edge, you must be willing to give up something to attain balance.

One may obtain symmetry without having to give away strength. If the SEC gains two more from the West we won't have to give anything away. If the move is to 18 then maybe some shuffling could assist the division. If we move to 20 there will only be 3 conferences.

You are still trying to make this a contest....it's not.
In the end the goal would be for everybody to have exactly the same income.

(05-09-2014 09:19 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 04:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 04:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 12:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 10:11 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Great info, JR. That does shed some new light on the state of Oklahoma. I supposed they compare favorably to the state of Alabama. In terms of footprint, what would TV rather have? A smaller population state like Oklahoma where 5,700,000 eyeballs are watching your two TV programs, or a larger population state like Virginia where 2, 400,000 eyeballs are watching your two TV programs? I guess the easy answer is that the distributors want the large population, and the advertisers want the eyeballs. Those numbers may not be enough to get both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State an invite to the SEC, but it definitely gives Oklahoma State a huge leg-up in possibly getting a standalone invitation if Oklahoma chooses elsewhere.

As usual, Florida State continues to be a no-brainer pickup if the situation is right, and Clemson is not far behind.

BBB at some point I think you have to prepare yourself for an a la carte approach. In that circumstance Florida State and Clemson distance themselves from the Carolina and Virginia schools and quite frankly I have always considered those two to be a must to solidify the SEC's footprint and brand of football. They remain the two programs that generate the butts in the seats, the eyeballs, the profitability, and the most SEC like football being played anywhere. I don't care what the corporate Mouse thinks not taking them is holding the SEC back. Plus if we landed those two a move to 18 with North Carolina and Virginia Tech becomes entirely possible if we wanted them.

I also agree that one of the Oklahoma's is a must and since neither are AAU and both deliver Dallas / Ft. Worth the only prioritization factor that is in play is the history of OU. Other than that either of them would suit the SEC's purposes just fine. I agree with 10th and with you that Texas is just a pain in the butt waiting to happen, but I also believe that the SEC needs a second Texas school the same way that having a second Florida school is needed. Two schools from each of those to large states would permit more of the other conference teams to schedule games within those states. We don't want a California problem in the SEC, where every team in the PAC wants access to the state of California and yet can't be guaranteed an annual visit there.

I know we've been all over the place with this, and I have as well, but it seems to me a 20 team SEC should have its sites set on adding Clemson and Florida State, an Oklahoma school, a second Texas school, and North Carolina and Virginia Tech. I think that would be an SEC that thrives for decades to come. How do you feel about that approach guys?

The division of the P5 into the P4 MUST have symmetry.
Keep moving teams around until you find it. You must not be afraid to move some of the SEC teams. When your group (SEC) is in the middle on not on an edge, you must be willing to give up something to attain balance.

One may obtain symmetry without having to give away strength. If the SEC gains two more from the West we won't have to give anything away. If the move is to 18 then maybe some shuffling could assist the division. If we move to 20 there will only be 3 conferences.

You are still trying to make this a contest....it's not.
In the end the goal would be for everybody to have exactly the same income.

You're not going to achieve equality in income through redistribution of schools. That is something that the networks are going to have to agree to approximate. What you can hope to do through redistribution is accomplish some semblance of geographical integrity and that accomplishes what you posted first, symmetry.

Whether we wind up with 4 conferences of 18 or 4 conferences of 16 the idea is to eliminate selection processes that rely on extraneous decisions. We simply need a setup that permits 4 champions to emerge. Why? That engages all conferences, keeps income distributions from the postseason relatively the same, and keeps the advertising people happy because all markets stay engaged through the semifinals.

The only way for income to become equal is for the ACC to get to 16 and merge with the SEC and for the PAC to get to 16 and merge with the Big 10. The disparity is too great to be made up on the Eastern Seaboard and the Western Seaboard by simply subdividing the Big 12. Texas and Oklahoma want to travel together so we wind up with two income leaders the SEC and Big 10, one close behind (the conference UT&OU choose provided it is either the ACC or PAC), and one severe laggard.

The only way to balance the income is to have 3 twenty team conferences.

Notre Dame, B.C., Syracuse, North Carolina, Virginia and Duke to the Big 10.

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Louisville, Virginia Tech to the SEC.

Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, T.C.U., and Texas Tech to the PAC. Baylor would be a better choice than T.C.U. but if the PAC won't take B.Y.U. then Baylor may have a problem there as well.

But then more folks get hurt.

The SEC and Big 10 aren't surrendering the advantages that planning and healthy growth have given them just because the PAC is isolated and the ACC is made up of multiple teams from its core footprint and contains more small privates than the other conferences.

(05-09-2014 04:11 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  You just don't get it...or more likely are sick to your stomach that Baylor wont make it through this next round of realignment.

As much as you want to pretend its otherwise, the SEC going to Waco does NOTHING to accomplish our objective of securing DFW.

Baylor has a tiny fan base and brings no eyeballs to a contract, sorry thats just a fact of life.

If it makes you feel any better, its not about TCU vs BU, its about having a hub in DFW for the ther SEC teams to come play in, to have SEC fans coming through DFW airport and shopping and walking around Dallas and Fort Worth. Its about front page coverage in the Star and DMN and on the local news stations. Its about having a physical PRESENCE in the metroplex. Having SEC actually play IN DFW is huge and will go a long way to securing the city for us. It more than makes up for an equally tiny fan base like TCU (who at least won the Rose Bowl recently) You are too small and too out of the way to help with that.

10th if it is truly about having a larger presence in DFW then how does OSU or OU count for you? Neither are physically located in DFW but are universally mentioned on here as two schools that would carry DFW for the SEC. Your hatred for Baylor is what this is truly about. Not only does Baylor currently have a larger presence in DFW than TCU or SMU, but they also have a larger presence statewide than either school. Baylor haslarge alumni groups in DFW, Houston and a place that TCU or SMU don't and that is San Antonio.

Baylor plays games at Jerry World currently against Tech. If they were to join the SEC they could still do a big game there every year with say LSU. We played a double header in Men's and Women's Basketball there with Kentucky this past year. The Front page coverage you are shooting for in DFW, Houston and San Antonio goes to winning teams. That is not TCU or SMU. Baylor is the better choice.

(05-10-2014 11:28 AM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 04:11 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  You just don't get it...or more likely are sick to your stomach that Baylor wont make it through this next round of realignment.

As much as you want to pretend its otherwise, the SEC going to Waco does NOTHING to accomplish our objective of securing DFW.

Baylor has a tiny fan base and brings no eyeballs to a contract, sorry thats just a fact of life.

If it makes you feel any better, its not about TCU vs BU, its about having a hub in DFW for the ther SEC teams to come play in, to have SEC fans coming through DFW airport and shopping and walking around Dallas and Fort Worth. Its about front page coverage in the Star and DMN and on the local news stations. Its about having a physical PRESENCE in the metroplex. Having SEC actually play IN DFW is huge and will go a long way to securing the city for us. It more than makes up for an equally tiny fan base like TCU (who at least won the Rose Bowl recently) You are too small and too out of the way to help with that.

10th if it is truly about having a larger presence in DFW then how does OSU or OU count for you? Neither are physically located in DFW but are universally mentioned on here as two schools that would carry DFW for the SEC. Your hatred for Baylor is what this is truly about. Not only does Baylor currently have a larger presence in DFW than TCU or SMU, but they also have a larger presence statewide than either school. Baylor haslarge alumni groups in DFW, Houston and a place that TCU or SMU don't and that is San Antonio.

Baylor plays games at Jerry World currently against Tech. If they were to join the SEC they could still do a big game there every year with say LSU. We played a double header in Men's and Women's Basketball there with Kentucky this past year. The Front page coverage you are shooting for in DFW, Houston and San Antonio goes to winning teams. That is not TCU or SMU. Baylor is the better choice.

There's more logic at work here as well. If you look at the attendance numbers, the profit, the athletic accomplishments, the academics, and the markets then Texas as a state shakes out basically this way: Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor/Texas Tech and the then the rest. If the SEC wants a second Texas team and Texas remains coy and aloof (and they will) then who do we take? Texas Tech is probably too remote logistically for strong consideration although they are a state school. Baylor is accessible, with the addition of an Oklahoma school would have 4 SEC schools within easy driving distance to play, has a portion of all of the qualities for which you are looking, the animus between Baylor and A&M makes for good press, and the two together deliver the state well. That is probably as good of a second school option that the SEC is going to get. They don't need Houston as A&M delivers it and Auburn has its largest single extraneous alumni base there (thanks to NASA). San Antonio is a market that really hasn't been considered and with an Oklahoma school, A&M & Baylor you do get enough of DFW to count it. And since there are Bears and Aggies in Austin that works too. Of the Texas possibilities outside of UT only Baylor and SMU add to the academic standing of the SEC. T.C.U. is a wash and Texas Tech is a drag.

I'm not sure how much wild speculation would come true but the latest rumor from our Mountaineer pundit says Delany is looking West coast for expansion. It's probably nothing but FOX, the history between the two conferences, and the Notre Dame issue all make it intriguing to me.

Let's say the Big 10, as his rumor speculates, moves to 24 teams broken into 3 eight school divisions. He's saying that the 8 teams would be enough to dissolve the PACN's GOR and that's 3/4's which is probably right. He's also saying that big money donors want the PAC California teams to move for the money that it would produce and that may have a ring of truth to it as well. The move would encompass mostly AAU schools, check. The Big 10 has been shut down on the East coast by the ACC GOR and by the SECN. Delany needs football props. So here's his theory:
Cal, Stanford, U.S.C., U.C.L.A., Washington, Oregon (non AAU), Colorado/or ASU (non AAU), Arizona are added to the Big 10. (Utah, Oregon State, Washington State, Arizona State/Colorado are out).

He says two will be added in the East and that Connecticut is one of them. I would have to assume that Notre Dame would be the other. With the California schools in tow and 3/4's of the Irish's old schedule now in the Big 10 I think they move for the money. While it's wild it is not as implausible as some speculations.

If it transpired I would look for some kind of response by ESPN utilizing what they are putting together with the SECN. I think there would be a trimming of the schools presently in the ACC and Big 12 and some kind of merger into a larger entity. If you take out N.D. there are presently 38 schools in Big 12, SEC & ACC. It takes 11 ACC schools to dissolve their GOR and 8 Big 12 schools. If the minimum was taken from each that's 33. I could see a 36 team conference extending from the Eastern Seaboard all the way to Texas.

Boston College, Kentucky, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, W.V.U.
Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia, Virginia Tech
Clemson, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Florida, Miami, South Carolina
Alabama, Auburn, Florida St, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Baylor, Arizona St/Colorado, Louisiana St, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

But that's just wild speculation as well, but still it would be a heckuva conference. 6 division champs and two at large for our internal playoff.

Our champ plays the champ of the Big 10 for the National Championship.

I've always felt SMU would be a good choice. Better academics and some of the deepest pockets in the state. They are basically the Vandy of Texas.

Baylor wants to downplay the importance of a physical presence in Dallas in hopes it makes them a better candidate but they are not in Dallas and do not hold Dallas' interest no matter what Ferg tries to say. SMU has 50k alums in greater Dallas, Baylor does not. SMU plays a few miles from downtown Dallas, Baylor does not. Bottom line: Having the SEC coming to Dallas all year long gives Joe Dallas a REASON to follow and love the SEC even if he's not a Pony fan. SEC teams playing in Waco do nothing to help the SEC move the Dallas needle because only Baylor alums care about bear athletics.

And of course there's just the inevitable that Baylor will get no support from us. SMU will. I believe that means something to Mike Slive and the presidents.

(05-10-2014 02:06 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I've always felt SMU would be a good choice. Better academics and some of the deepest pockets in the state. They are basically the Vandy of Texas.

Baylor wants to downplay the importance of a physical presence in Dallas in hopes it makes them a better candidate but they are not in Dallas and do not hold Dallas' interest no matter what Ferg tries to say. SMU has 50k alums in greater Dallas, Baylor does not. SMU plays a few miles from downtown Dallas, Baylor does not. Bottom line: Having the SEC coming to Dallas all year long gives Joe Dallas a REASON to follow and love the SEC even if he's not a Pony fan. SEC teams playing in Waco do nothing to help the SEC move the Dallas needle because only Baylor alums care about bear athletics.

And of course there's just the inevitable that Baylor will get no support from us. SMU will. I believe that means something to Mike Slive and the presidents.

10th I'm not downplaying the importance of a physical presence, your own SEC fans are saying that it isn't important. Everyone agrees that the SEC would own Dallas if one of OU, OSU, UT or Tech were to join. Some have even suggested that a combination of OU/OSU and West Virginia would give the SEC Dallas. What I am trying to say is that if those teams give you Dallas, then why settle for a mediocre TCU or SMU just to have a physical presence. If it is universally assumed that Texas won't go to the SEC and the SEC wants to lock up the state of Texas then a combination of OSU and Baylor does just that. Both teams could play games in the Dallas area and for those not familiar with Texas, DFW is just an hour and a half from Waco. If a recruit is seriously considering an SEC school they would make that drive. If an SEC program is serious about a DFW player then an hour and a half drive north to DFW is nothing.

Show me how Baylor doesn't hold DFW's interest. You claim we have no presence, yet I have listed an annual football game in Arlington, multiple basketball games at American Airlines and Cowboys Stadium, and one of our most generous Alumni owns the Texas Rangers. Joe Dallas doesn't need the SEC to be in Dallas constantly to like the SEC, Joe Dallas wants to watch great football and the SEC is putting that on the field. No one wants to watch their local team get taken to the woodshed week in and week out. Baylor is much more ready to compete with the rest of the SEC and if they were to find success early on like A&M then Joe Dallas will watch those games whether it is in person or on TV. Let's be honest it is the TV sets that matter.

As far as getting your support, I know that won't happen. But you are just one of many A&M fans and fortunately they don't all think like you. On top of that you can complain but if the other SEC members tell you that Baylor is getting invited, A&M will suck it up and shake hands in front of the press saying how great it is to renew this century old rivalry.