(02-25-2017 04:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 03:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 01:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 01:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 11:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  If you had to take Baylor to get Texas there are a lot worse combinations. And if Baylor can rehab its reputation anywhere the ACC would be about the best place for them. But if you had to take Baylor then why not just move to 18. In that case Tulane makes even more sense as an I-10 connector to Waco & Austin. Or, more to the point just add T.C.U. as well for Dallas. Then we could just about end this mess if the SEC took 4.

Realignment has moved in segments. For the SEC from 10 to 12 to 14. The ACC went from 9 to 12 to 14. It's doubtful that a move to 18 would be forthcoming. It takes a few years to digest a couple of teams without upsetting the culture too much.

X, we upset the culture every time there is a move. Why upset it, and prolong it when you can just upset it and end it. These are the final moves. Let's make them with finality!

These last moves are big dollar events for ESPN. Is Tulane worth $40-$50 Million per year?
I'm looking for ESPN to add one school per conference (SEC & ACC) that adds value (Oklahoma & Texas) and one tag along to justify the move. Even Texas would have a hard time bringing enough income in to justify two additional tag along schools. I believe we are maxed out at 16.
Face it, I'm not sure that Kansas or West Virginia are worth $40-50 million.

To quit spitballing here I think that 2 is correct. So if the SEC gets Oklahoma and the ACC gets Texas who is the second for each? Let's assume for a moment that Oklahoma State and a second Texas school are not a requirement.

In that case Kansas might well be a nice second for the SEC's total value. They may not add 40 million but they are not a duplicate addition. West Virginia might not make us 40 million but again they add some content and are not a duplicate.

So if that is the case Kansas makes a lot of sense for the SEC monetarily and West Virginia does for the ACC. If you don't add Cincinnati Iowa State is just way too remote.

On the other hand Kansas could pair with Texas to the ACC and either West Virginia or Iowa State could pair with Oklahoma to the SEC. With the year end crossover rivalry play Missouri / Kansas works, Texas / A&M works and West Virginia / Pitt works.

Now if little brothers are required Baylor makes the most sense. Why? Because I do believe the PAC would eventually offer Texas Tech and T.C.U. for the markets. So if the other two could find a P home Baylor would be Texas's partner. OSU goes without saying for OU.

OK, if in the unlikely scenario that Missouri does not move to the B1G, I still think that Kansas does.
So which school moves to the SEC with Oklahoma..Yep! Iowa State.
That is of course if you are correct that Texas tech and TCU eventually go to the PAC.

(02-25-2017 09:48 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 04:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 03:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 01:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 01:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  Realignment has moved in segments. For the SEC from 10 to 12 to 14. The ACC went from 9 to 12 to 14. It's doubtful that a move to 18 would be forthcoming. It takes a few years to digest a couple of teams without upsetting the culture too much.

X, we upset the culture every time there is a move. Why upset it, and prolong it when you can just upset it and end it. These are the final moves. Let's make them with finality!

These last moves are big dollar events for ESPN. Is Tulane worth $40-$50 Million per year?
I'm looking for ESPN to add one school per conference (SEC & ACC) that adds value (Oklahoma & Texas) and one tag along to justify the move. Even Texas would have a hard time bringing enough income in to justify two additional tag along schools. I believe we are maxed out at 16.
Face it, I'm not sure that Kansas or West Virginia are worth $40-50 million.

To quit spitballing here I think that 2 is correct. So if the SEC gets Oklahoma and the ACC gets Texas who is the second for each? Let's assume for a moment that Oklahoma State and a second Texas school are not a requirement.

In that case Kansas might well be a nice second for the SEC's total value. They may not add 40 million but they are not a duplicate addition. West Virginia might not make us 40 million but again they add some content and are not a duplicate.

So if that is the case Kansas makes a lot of sense for the SEC monetarily and West Virginia does for the ACC. If you don't add Cincinnati Iowa State is just way too remote.

On the other hand Kansas could pair with Texas to the ACC and either West Virginia or Iowa State could pair with Oklahoma to the SEC. With the year end crossover rivalry play Missouri / Kansas works, Texas / A&M works and West Virginia / Pitt works.

Now if little brothers are required Baylor makes the most sense. Why? Because I do believe the PAC would eventually offer Texas Tech and T.C.U. for the markets. So if the other two could find a P home Baylor would be Texas's partner. OSU goes without saying for OU.

OK, if in the unlikely scenario that Missouri does not move to the B1G, I still think that Kansas does.
So which school moves to the SEC with Oklahoma..Yep! Iowa State.
That is of course if you are correct that Texas tech and TCU eventually go to the PAC.

So who moves with Kansas to the Big 10? Iowa State is the only one who can meet their criteria. Who moves with Oklahoma to the SEC? Between Oklahoma State and West Virginia it's a tough call. A small new market or a double dip into DFW? Maybe Boone would be the difference.

But in this scenario we place 8 and dissolve the conference.

Big 10: Kansas and Iowa State Why? It placates those in the Big 10 West who feared an unbalanced expansion to the East.

SEC: Oklahoma and Oklahoma State Why? It enables the moves of Alabama and Auburn back to the East which then helps the SEC achieve balance once again between its divisions.

ACC: Texas and Baylor Why? Along with the two Florida schools the travel is not difficult across the Gulf. Georgia Tech is a major hub away. Clemson is the once every two year hump. And because Baylor is the only Texas school that could not find a home otherwise.

PAC: Texas Tech & TCU Why? Markets

Kansas State and West Virginia look elsewhere.

(02-25-2017 10:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 09:48 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 04:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 03:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 01:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  X, we upset the culture every time there is a move. Why upset it, and prolong it when you can just upset it and end it. These are the final moves. Let's make them with finality!

These last moves are big dollar events for ESPN. Is Tulane worth $40-$50 Million per year?
I'm looking for ESPN to add one school per conference (SEC & ACC) that adds value (Oklahoma & Texas) and one tag along to justify the move. Even Texas would have a hard time bringing enough income in to justify two additional tag along schools. I believe we are maxed out at 16.
Face it, I'm not sure that Kansas or West Virginia are worth $40-50 million.

To quit spitballing here I think that 2 is correct. So if the SEC gets Oklahoma and the ACC gets Texas who is the second for each? Let's assume for a moment that Oklahoma State and a second Texas school are not a requirement.

In that case Kansas might well be a nice second for the SEC's total value. They may not add 40 million but they are not a duplicate addition. West Virginia might not make us 40 million but again they add some content and are not a duplicate.

So if that is the case Kansas makes a lot of sense for the SEC monetarily and West Virginia does for the ACC. If you don't add Cincinnati Iowa State is just way too remote.

On the other hand Kansas could pair with Texas to the ACC and either West Virginia or Iowa State could pair with Oklahoma to the SEC. With the year end crossover rivalry play Missouri / Kansas works, Texas / A&M works and West Virginia / Pitt works.

Now if little brothers are required Baylor makes the most sense. Why? Because I do believe the PAC would eventually offer Texas Tech and T.C.U. for the markets. So if the other two could find a P home Baylor would be Texas's partner. OSU goes without saying for OU.

OK, if in the unlikely scenario that Missouri does not move to the B1G, I still think that Kansas does.
So which school moves to the SEC with Oklahoma..Yep! Iowa State.
That is of course if you are correct that Texas tech and TCU eventually go to the PAC.

So who moves with Kansas to the Big 10? Iowa State is the only one who can meet their criteria. Who moves with Oklahoma to the SEC? Between Oklahoma State and West Virginia it's a tough call. A small new market or a double dip into DFW? Maybe Boone would be the difference.

But in this scenario we place 8 and dissolve the conference.

Big 10: Kansas and Iowa State Why? It placates those in the Big 10 West who feared an unbalanced expansion to the East.

SEC: Oklahoma and Oklahoma State Why? It enables the moves of Alabama and Auburn back to the East which then helps the SEC achieve balance once again between its divisions.

ACC: Texas and Baylor Why? Along with the two Florida schools the travel is not difficult across the Gulf. Georgia Tech is a major hub away. Clemson is the once every two year hump. And because Baylor is the only Texas school that could not find a home otherwise.

PAC: Texas Tech & TCU Why? Markets

Kansas State and West Virginia look elsewhere.

I can't imagine the B1G taking Iowa State. Yes, ISU is AAU, a Land Grant school, and has enthusiastic fans, but there's no benefit in adding a second member institution in a relatively low-population, small-market state.

(02-26-2017 12:05 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 10:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 09:48 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 04:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 03:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  These last moves are big dollar events for ESPN. Is Tulane worth $40-$50 Million per year?
I'm looking for ESPN to add one school per conference (SEC & ACC) that adds value (Oklahoma & Texas) and one tag along to justify the move. Even Texas would have a hard time bringing enough income in to justify two additional tag along schools. I believe we are maxed out at 16.
Face it, I'm not sure that Kansas or West Virginia are worth $40-50 million.

To quit spitballing here I think that 2 is correct. So if the SEC gets Oklahoma and the ACC gets Texas who is the second for each? Let's assume for a moment that Oklahoma State and a second Texas school are not a requirement.

In that case Kansas might well be a nice second for the SEC's total value. They may not add 40 million but they are not a duplicate addition. West Virginia might not make us 40 million but again they add some content and are not a duplicate.

So if that is the case Kansas makes a lot of sense for the SEC monetarily and West Virginia does for the ACC. If you don't add Cincinnati Iowa State is just way too remote.

On the other hand Kansas could pair with Texas to the ACC and either West Virginia or Iowa State could pair with Oklahoma to the SEC. With the year end crossover rivalry play Missouri / Kansas works, Texas / A&M works and West Virginia / Pitt works.

Now if little brothers are required Baylor makes the most sense. Why? Because I do believe the PAC would eventually offer Texas Tech and T.C.U. for the markets. So if the other two could find a P home Baylor would be Texas's partner. OSU goes without saying for OU.

OK, if in the unlikely scenario that Missouri does not move to the B1G, I still think that Kansas does.
So which school moves to the SEC with Oklahoma..Yep! Iowa State.
That is of course if you are correct that Texas tech and TCU eventually go to the PAC.

So who moves with Kansas to the Big 10? Iowa State is the only one who can meet their criteria. Who moves with Oklahoma to the SEC? Between Oklahoma State and West Virginia it's a tough call. A small new market or a double dip into DFW? Maybe Boone would be the difference.

But in this scenario we place 8 and dissolve the conference.

Big 10: Kansas and Iowa State Why? It placates those in the Big 10 West who feared an unbalanced expansion to the East.

SEC: Oklahoma and Oklahoma State Why? It enables the moves of Alabama and Auburn back to the East which then helps the SEC achieve balance once again between its divisions.

ACC: Texas and Baylor Why? Along with the two Florida schools the travel is not difficult across the Gulf. Georgia Tech is a major hub away. Clemson is the once every two year hump. And because Baylor is the only Texas school that could not find a home otherwise.

PAC: Texas Tech & TCU Why? Markets

Kansas State and West Virginia look elsewhere.

I can't imagine the B1G taking Iowa State. Yes, ISU is AAU, a Land Grant school, and has enthusiastic fans, but there's no benefit in adding a second member institution in a relatively low-population, small-market state.

That's exactly why we may be waiting until the end of the GOR and might possibly see the SEC and Big 10 simply move to 15.

But, if the networks want to restructure to a P4 (something they cannot publicly admit to doing) and are willing to pay the SEC to take OSU and are willing to pay the Big 10 to take ISU that overcomes the initial issue. The subsequent issue is how long are they willing to continue to pay us for those schools? If they are willing to commit to paying us for them moving forward then fine. If not, we wait. So ultimately if the networks see it as being less costly to pay for the placement of a few of the lesser programs of the Big 12 in order to be able to match the larger brands against the larger brands of their new conference homes, and if they see a way to monetize the playoff structure further by eliminating the 5th conference (as they could by guaranteeing the entrance of at least 1 school per remaining conference region) then they might pay the Big 10 to take I.S.U. with Kansas, or pay the SEC to take O.S.U. with OU, etc.

(02-25-2017 10:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 09:48 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 04:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 03:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 01:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  X, we upset the culture every time there is a move. Why upset it, and prolong it when you can just upset it and end it. These are the final moves. Let's make them with finality!

These last moves are big dollar events for ESPN. Is Tulane worth $40-$50 Million per year?
I'm looking for ESPN to add one school per conference (SEC & ACC) that adds value (Oklahoma & Texas) and one tag along to justify the move. Even Texas would have a hard time bringing enough income in to justify two additional tag along schools. I believe we are maxed out at 16.
Face it, I'm not sure that Kansas or West Virginia are worth $40-50 million.

To quit spitballing here I think that 2 is correct. So if the SEC gets Oklahoma and the ACC gets Texas who is the second for each? Let's assume for a moment that Oklahoma State and a second Texas school are not a requirement.

In that case Kansas might well be a nice second for the SEC's total value. They may not add 40 million but they are not a duplicate addition. West Virginia might not make us 40 million but again they add some content and are not a duplicate.

So if that is the case Kansas makes a lot of sense for the SEC monetarily and West Virginia does for the ACC. If you don't add Cincinnati Iowa State is just way too remote.

On the other hand Kansas could pair with Texas to the ACC and either West Virginia or Iowa State could pair with Oklahoma to the SEC. With the year end crossover rivalry play Missouri / Kansas works, Texas / A&M works and West Virginia / Pitt works.

Now if little brothers are required Baylor makes the most sense. Why? Because I do believe the PAC would eventually offer Texas Tech and T.C.U. for the markets. So if the other two could find a P home Baylor would be Texas's partner. OSU goes without saying for OU.

OK, if in the unlikely scenario that Missouri does not move to the B1G, I still think that Kansas does.
So which school moves to the SEC with Oklahoma..Yep! Iowa State.
That is of course if you are correct that Texas tech and TCU eventually go to the PAC.

So who moves with Kansas to the Big 10? Iowa State is the only one who can meet their criteria. Who moves with Oklahoma to the SEC? Between Oklahoma State and West Virginia it's a tough call. A small new market or a double dip into DFW? Maybe Boone would be the difference.

But in this scenario we place 8 and dissolve the conference.

Big 10: Kansas and Iowa State Why? It placates those in the Big 10 West who feared an unbalanced expansion to the East.

SEC: Oklahoma and Oklahoma State Why? It enables the moves of Alabama and Auburn back to the East which then helps the SEC achieve balance once again between its divisions.

ACC: Texas and Baylor Why? Along with the two Florida schools the travel is not difficult across the Gulf. Georgia Tech is a major hub away. Clemson is the once every two year hump. And because Baylor is the only Texas school that could not find a home otherwise.

PAC: Texas Tech & TCU Why? Markets

Kansas State and West Virginia look elsewhere.

JR you're starting to go H1esque on us. Texas Tech and TCU are going provide an $80 Million market for the PAC? The folks in Texas are going to watch Washington State and Oregon because.........
Phew! I think that call is a little bit of a stretch.

(02-26-2017 02:09 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 10:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 09:48 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 04:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 03:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  These last moves are big dollar events for ESPN. Is Tulane worth $40-$50 Million per year?
I'm looking for ESPN to add one school per conference (SEC & ACC) that adds value (Oklahoma & Texas) and one tag along to justify the move. Even Texas would have a hard time bringing enough income in to justify two additional tag along schools. I believe we are maxed out at 16.
Face it, I'm not sure that Kansas or West Virginia are worth $40-50 million.

To quit spitballing here I think that 2 is correct. So if the SEC gets Oklahoma and the ACC gets Texas who is the second for each? Let's assume for a moment that Oklahoma State and a second Texas school are not a requirement.

In that case Kansas might well be a nice second for the SEC's total value. They may not add 40 million but they are not a duplicate addition. West Virginia might not make us 40 million but again they add some content and are not a duplicate.

So if that is the case Kansas makes a lot of sense for the SEC monetarily and West Virginia does for the ACC. If you don't add Cincinnati Iowa State is just way too remote.

On the other hand Kansas could pair with Texas to the ACC and either West Virginia or Iowa State could pair with Oklahoma to the SEC. With the year end crossover rivalry play Missouri / Kansas works, Texas / A&M works and West Virginia / Pitt works.

Now if little brothers are required Baylor makes the most sense. Why? Because I do believe the PAC would eventually offer Texas Tech and T.C.U. for the markets. So if the other two could find a P home Baylor would be Texas's partner. OSU goes without saying for OU.

OK, if in the unlikely scenario that Missouri does not move to the B1G, I still think that Kansas does.
So which school moves to the SEC with Oklahoma..Yep! Iowa State.
That is of course if you are correct that Texas tech and TCU eventually go to the PAC.

So who moves with Kansas to the Big 10? Iowa State is the only one who can meet their criteria. Who moves with Oklahoma to the SEC? Between Oklahoma State and West Virginia it's a tough call. A small new market or a double dip into DFW? Maybe Boone would be the difference.

But in this scenario we place 8 and dissolve the conference.

Big 10: Kansas and Iowa State Why? It placates those in the Big 10 West who feared an unbalanced expansion to the East.

SEC: Oklahoma and Oklahoma State Why? It enables the moves of Alabama and Auburn back to the East which then helps the SEC achieve balance once again between its divisions.

ACC: Texas and Baylor Why? Along with the two Florida schools the travel is not difficult across the Gulf. Georgia Tech is a major hub away. Clemson is the once every two year hump. And because Baylor is the only Texas school that could not find a home otherwise.

PAC: Texas Tech & TCU Why? Markets

Kansas State and West Virginia look elsewhere.

JR you're starting to go H1esque on us. Texas Tech and TCU are going provide an $80 Million market for the PAC? The folks in Texas are going to watch Washington State and Oregon because.........
Phew! I think that call is a little bit of a stretch.

They don't have to add 80 million and I never said that they would. They only have to add 42 million to be at parity with the PAC and then everyone gets a little bump for the added markets. You see X the PAC only paid out 21 million last year. Think about that for a moment before you start throwing H1 references around. Would the networks permit that move? Heck yeah! It would cost them 15 million less than what they are paying for TTU & TCU now. In fact it wouldn't really cost them that much since the PACN is self owned and FOX and ESPN only have to lease the product. But the Texas market might help the PACN gain Direct TV and perhaps a few other modes of carriage. Each one they add NETs them a little bit more. If they are going to keep ownership of the PACN they are going to have to chip away at the gap.

So H1 wasn't wrong in running with the idea. It's just that 4 schools may have been stretching it way to thin even at the cut rate.

Even with the projections of 27 million to possibly 30 million per school in PAC revenue it still works. ESPN & FOX actually lose an outright obligation.

I think the networks would love Texas Tech and TCU in the PAC. I don't think, however, that the PAC would be willing to do it unless they're getting Texas in the deal. The PAC seems to like their club too much.

From what I've read, they barely agreed to take Utah and they're a state flagship. That's not to say TT and TCU have poor academics, they don't, but the PAC is extra snobby.

My theory at this point is still that ESPN will try to place UT, OU, OSU, and KU in the SEC. Of course, I could be wrong. If UT heads to the ACC then I could see that being the only move they make along with shoring up Notre Dame.

All in all, I just don't see enough value in the Big 12 for everyone to get something they want.

(02-26-2017 03:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-26-2017 02:09 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 10:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 09:48 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 04:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  To quit spitballing here I think that 2 is correct. So if the SEC gets Oklahoma and the ACC gets Texas who is the second for each? Let's assume for a moment that Oklahoma State and a second Texas school are not a requirement.

In that case Kansas might well be a nice second for the SEC's total value. They may not add 40 million but they are not a duplicate addition. West Virginia might not make us 40 million but again they add some content and are not a duplicate.

So if that is the case Kansas makes a lot of sense for the SEC monetarily and West Virginia does for the ACC. If you don't add Cincinnati Iowa State is just way too remote.

On the other hand Kansas could pair with Texas to the ACC and either West Virginia or Iowa State could pair with Oklahoma to the SEC. With the year end crossover rivalry play Missouri / Kansas works, Texas / A&M works and West Virginia / Pitt works.

Now if little brothers are required Baylor makes the most sense. Why? Because I do believe the PAC would eventually offer Texas Tech and T.C.U. for the markets. So if the other two could find a P home Baylor would be Texas's partner. OSU goes without saying for OU.

OK, if in the unlikely scenario that Missouri does not move to the B1G, I still think that Kansas does.
So which school moves to the SEC with Oklahoma..Yep! Iowa State.
That is of course if you are correct that Texas tech and TCU eventually go to the PAC.

So who moves with Kansas to the Big 10? Iowa State is the only one who can meet their criteria. Who moves with Oklahoma to the SEC? Between Oklahoma State and West Virginia it's a tough call. A small new market or a double dip into DFW? Maybe Boone would be the difference.

But in this scenario we place 8 and dissolve the conference.

Big 10: Kansas and Iowa State Why? It placates those in the Big 10 West who feared an unbalanced expansion to the East.

SEC: Oklahoma and Oklahoma State Why? It enables the moves of Alabama and Auburn back to the East which then helps the SEC achieve balance once again between its divisions.

ACC: Texas and Baylor Why? Along with the two Florida schools the travel is not difficult across the Gulf. Georgia Tech is a major hub away. Clemson is the once every two year hump. And because Baylor is the only Texas school that could not find a home otherwise.

PAC: Texas Tech & TCU Why? Markets

Kansas State and West Virginia look elsewhere.

JR you're starting to go H1esque on us. Texas Tech and TCU are going provide an $80 Million market for the PAC? The folks in Texas are going to watch Washington State and Oregon because.........
Phew! I think that call is a little bit of a stretch.

They don't have to add 80 million and I never said that they would. They only have to add 42 million to be at parity with the PAC and then everyone gets a little bump for the added markets. You see X the PAC only paid out 21 million last year. Think about that for a moment before you start throwing H1 references around. Would the networks permit that move? Heck yeah! It would cost them 15 million less than what they are paying for TTU & TCU now. In fact it wouldn't really cost them that much since the PACN is self owned and FOX and ESPN only have to lease the product. But the Texas market might help the PACN gain Direct TV and perhaps a few other modes of carriage. Each one they add NETs them a little bit more. If they are going to keep ownership of the PACN they are going to have to chip away at the gap.

So H1 wasn't wrong in running with the idea. It's just that 4 schools may have been stretching it way to thin even at the cut rate.

Even with the projections of 27 million to possibly 30 million per school in PAC revenue it still works. ESPN & FOX actually lose an outright obligation.

TCU has much better academics than the majority of the PAC. You missed the ball on that one. TTU is behind in that category so you are right about that.