(02-20-2017 12:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-20-2017 08:15 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 08:12 AM)XLance Wrote:  Realignment had come down to this:
Texas is not going to budge.
The only way to entice Oklahoma to break up the Big 12 is to also agree to take Oklahoma State.
It does not appear like the PAC or B1G are willing to do so and if the SEC takes both will they lose out on their opportunity to secure Texas, their dream.
The double switch, where the SEC was to take Texas, TT, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State was predicated on the B1G getting Missouri and the ACC taking South Carolina no longer seems to be an option.
And so we sit.....like a Mexican standoff

The question still remains.......would the SEC invite Oklahoma State in conjunction with an invitation to Oklahoma?
Is keeping the Sooners out of the B1G that important to ESPN?
The PAC has shown no indication that they are willing to bend over for either Texas or Oklahoma. So if Oklahoma and Oklahoma State move to the SEC.....what happens to Texas?

It doesn't matter at that point, at least not to the SEC. With A&M and Oklahoma we have Texas. We have all of Texas's key rivals. We don't need the Horns. We have their markets and over time we will have many of the Texas T-shirt fans via the Aggies and Sooners as they convert to watch Arkansas, Oklahoma and A&M play it out annually. In fact X it doesn't matter at that point whether the Horns go independent, rebuild the old SWC, head to the Big 10 / PAC / or ACC.

What happens to Texas at that point is only an ESPN concern. Maybe Oklahoma State is a small price to pay for not having to put up with Texas.

So I take it your answer is "yes".
I actually agree that taking Oklahoma State to get Oklahoma would alter realignment. It would give the SEC/ESPN great access to the southwest AND capture a large segment of the old Big 8 territory/fan base.
From that standpoint it would be a homerun for ESPN.

(02-20-2017 12:36 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-20-2017 12:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-20-2017 08:15 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 08:12 AM)XLance Wrote:  Realignment had come down to this:
Texas is not going to budge.
The only way to entice Oklahoma to break up the Big 12 is to also agree to take Oklahoma State.
It does not appear like the PAC or B1G are willing to do so and if the SEC takes both will they lose out on their opportunity to secure Texas, their dream.
The double switch, where the SEC was to take Texas, TT, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State was predicated on the B1G getting Missouri and the ACC taking South Carolina no longer seems to be an option.
And so we sit.....like a Mexican standoff

The question still remains.......would the SEC invite Oklahoma State in conjunction with an invitation to Oklahoma?
Is keeping the Sooners out of the B1G that important to ESPN?
The PAC has shown no indication that they are willing to bend over for either Texas or Oklahoma. So if Oklahoma and Oklahoma State move to the SEC.....what happens to Texas?

It doesn't matter at that point, at least not to the SEC. With A&M and Oklahoma we have Texas. We have all of Texas's key rivals. We don't need the Horns. We have their markets and over time we will have many of the Texas T-shirt fans via the Aggies and Sooners as they convert to watch Arkansas, Oklahoma and A&M play it out annually. In fact X it doesn't matter at that point whether the Horns go independent, rebuild the old SWC, head to the Big 10 / PAC / or ACC.

What happens to Texas at that point is only an ESPN concern. Maybe Oklahoma State is a small price to pay for not having to put up with Texas.

So I take it your answer is "yes".
I actually agree that taking Oklahoma State to get Oklahoma would alter realignment. It would give the SEC/ESPN great access to the southwest AND capture a large segment of the old Big 8 territory/fan base.
From that standpoint it would be a homerun for ESPN.

X the only thing that matters here is how much would ESPN pay the SEC for the pair of Oklahoma's. If the money is right it can be done. If not then you will hear about OSU's academics, taking two schools from a small market, etc.

Ideally all the SEC needs is OU. Once we have the Sooners, as I've stated, Texas becomes superfluous. If 16 is necessary to land the Sooners then the only thing remaining to be done is to make sure that OSU doesn't reduce anyone's revenue. Guarantee that, especially along with another long contract if that is our desire and I think it would be a go.

The only concern for the SEC would be how long would the Cowboys be guaranteed not to hurt future revenue? Once they are in the SEC I don't think it would take a lot to get them up to speed so that their content value made it worth taking them. That's the biggest risk I see and it doesn't concern me that much.

Next year we are projected at 43 million in revenue. If OU with OSU takes us to 50 I think it gets done, provided of course OU and OSU are willing.
********

Now the real question in my mind is whether OSU would really be required. Here's why I ask it. Kansas by itself doesn't really give the Big 10 much that they didn't already have. OU is a question mark for the Big 10. They aren't AAU and aren't really that close to getting it. Would they take a marginally acceptable addition just for football? And if so would taking them with a school that didn't really give them much more than they already have do it for them? I've never been totally sold on OU & KU to the Big 10 as being something the Big 10 would want.

If that's the case then maybe OU & KU is the better pair for the SEC. But since OU gives us everything we want in Texas I do think OU / OSU will never be off the table. Do we hold out for a non Oklahoma second school and risk losing OU? I think not, but you never know.

(02-20-2017 01:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now the real question in my mind is whether OSU would really be required. Here's why I ask it. Kansas by itself doesn't really give the Big 10 much that they didn't already have. OU is a question mark for the Big 10. They aren't AAU and aren't really that close to getting it. Would they take a marginally acceptable addition just for football? And if so would taking them with a school that didn't really give them much more than they already have do it for them? I've never been totally sold on OU & KU to the Big 10 as being something the Big 10 would want.

If that's the case then maybe OU & KU is the better pair for the SEC. But since OU gives us everything we want in Texas I do think OU / OSU will never be off the table. Do we hold out for a non Oklahoma second school and risk losing OU? I think not, but you never know.

I also think we would take OSU to ensure we get OU. OSU already generates pretty good revenue so I don't think it would take them long to get up to steam. But to the point about Kansas...

I think ESPN wants them and will try to protect them in one of their leagues. They've already lost so much of the B1G that I don't see them being particularly on board with the idea of paying the B1G to take KU especially if OU is not a part of the deal. Now FOX would probably love to have KU in the fold, but who are they going to get to be #16. Iowa State? I don't think they'd be interested. UConn? Maybe, but not sure that move is going to pay for itself considering the weight of the new B1G contract. Kansas works great as #16, not so much as #15.

Enter the SEC that just so happens to need basketball content and ESPN just so happens to own the SECN which is the primary vehicle of SEC basketball coverage. Between CBS and the BTN, ESPN would lose a ton of KU games. As it is, KU is one of the tentpoles of ESPN basketball coverage along with the ACC schedule.

Now, the SEC doesn't really need the KS market as it's somewhat small and we already have Kansas City, BUT another regional rival for Mizzou and OU would be nice. We'd go from having a presence in the region to dominating it. Add to it that they are an AAU school and Sankey has already said we'd be interested in border states with AAU schools. VA and NC are out so that leaves us with Western AAUs.

I'm not convinced we're going to 18, but I think Kansas is worth the risk. I'd go with West Virginia as the 4th to get a slice of the Mid-Atlantic region. I don't think the ACC wants them and at that, I think WVU would be more valuable to the SEC as we don't already have a presence in that region. WVU does fit in the ACC to some degree, but the ACC already owns that region. They don't need them. If the ACC was going to sacrifice academics, I think they would have to do it for a more monetarily beneficial school like they did with Louisville. That's one of the reasons I've suggested Houston for them although I know that's highly unlikely.

We could do Iowa State, but there are problems there. They aren't the big brother in their state. They don't have baseball, and they are located awfully far from the core of the conference. I wouldn't object to Texas Tech or TCU, but I think WVU fits better in this scenario.

(02-20-2017 04:10 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-20-2017 01:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now the real question in my mind is whether OSU would really be required. Here's why I ask it. Kansas by itself doesn't really give the Big 10 much that they didn't already have. OU is a question mark for the Big 10. They aren't AAU and aren't really that close to getting it. Would they take a marginally acceptable addition just for football? And if so would taking them with a school that didn't really give them much more than they already have do it for them? I've never been totally sold on OU & KU to the Big 10 as being something the Big 10 would want.

If that's the case then maybe OU & KU is the better pair for the SEC. But since OU gives us everything we want in Texas I do think OU / OSU will never be off the table. Do we hold out for a non Oklahoma second school and risk losing OU? I think not, but you never know.

I also think we would take OSU to ensure we get OU. OSU already generates pretty good revenue so I don't think it would take them long to get up to steam. But to the point about Kansas...

I think ESPN wants them and will try to protect them in one of their leagues. They've already lost so much of the B1G that I don't see them being particularly on board with the idea of paying the B1G to take KU especially if OU is not a part of the deal. Now FOX would probably love to have KU in the fold, but who are they going to get to be #16. Iowa State? I don't think they'd be interested. UConn? Maybe, but not sure that move is going to pay for itself considering the weight of the new B1G contract. Kansas works great as #16, not so much as #15.

Enter the SEC that just so happens to need basketball content and ESPN just so happens to own the SECN which is the primary vehicle of SEC basketball coverage. Between CBS and the BTN, ESPN would lose a ton of KU games. As it is, KU is one of the tentpoles of ESPN basketball coverage along with the ACC schedule.

Now, the SEC doesn't really need the KS market as it's somewhat small and we already have Kansas City, BUT another regional rival for Mizzou and OU would be nice. We'd go from having a presence in the region to dominating it. Add to it that they are an AAU school and Sankey has already said we'd be interested in border states with AAU schools. VA and NC are out so that leaves us with Western AAUs.

I'm not convinced we're going to 18, but I think Kansas is worth the risk. I'd go with West Virginia as the 4th to get a slice of the Mid-Atlantic region. I don't think the ACC wants them and at that, I think WVU would be more valuable to the SEC as we don't already have a presence in that region. WVU does fit in the ACC to some degree, but the ACC already owns that region. They don't need them. If the ACC was going to sacrifice academics, I think they would have to do it for a more monetarily beneficial school like they did with Louisville. That's one of the reasons I've suggested Houston for them although I know that's highly unlikely.

We could do Iowa State, but there are problems there. They aren't the big brother in their state. They don't have baseball, and they are located awfully far from the core of the conference. I wouldn't object to Texas Tech or TCU, but I think WVU fits better in this scenario.

Cincy. Good geographic fit and great recruiting grounds. Football will rebound under Fickell, basketball is already good, has baseball, and it's a lot closer to AAU than OU. Great facilities, too, if on the small side for football, but Paul Brown Stadium is just a hop, skip, and jump away.

(02-20-2017 05:43 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(02-20-2017 04:10 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-20-2017 01:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now the real question in my mind is whether OSU would really be required. Here's why I ask it. Kansas by itself doesn't really give the Big 10 much that they didn't already have. OU is a question mark for the Big 10. They aren't AAU and aren't really that close to getting it. Would they take a marginally acceptable addition just for football? And if so would taking them with a school that didn't really give them much more than they already have do it for them? I've never been totally sold on OU & KU to the Big 10 as being something the Big 10 would want.

If that's the case then maybe OU & KU is the better pair for the SEC. But since OU gives us everything we want in Texas I do think OU / OSU will never be off the table. Do we hold out for a non Oklahoma second school and risk losing OU? I think not, but you never know.

I also think we would take OSU to ensure we get OU. OSU already generates pretty good revenue so I don't think it would take them long to get up to steam. But to the point about Kansas...

I think ESPN wants them and will try to protect them in one of their leagues. They've already lost so much of the B1G that I don't see them being particularly on board with the idea of paying the B1G to take KU especially if OU is not a part of the deal. Now FOX would probably love to have KU in the fold, but who are they going to get to be #16. Iowa State? I don't think they'd be interested. UConn? Maybe, but not sure that move is going to pay for itself considering the weight of the new B1G contract. Kansas works great as #16, not so much as #15.

Enter the SEC that just so happens to need basketball content and ESPN just so happens to own the SECN which is the primary vehicle of SEC basketball coverage. Between CBS and the BTN, ESPN would lose a ton of KU games. As it is, KU is one of the tentpoles of ESPN basketball coverage along with the ACC schedule.

Now, the SEC doesn't really need the KS market as it's somewhat small and we already have Kansas City, BUT another regional rival for Mizzou and OU would be nice. We'd go from having a presence in the region to dominating it. Add to it that they are an AAU school and Sankey has already said we'd be interested in border states with AAU schools. VA and NC are out so that leaves us with Western AAUs.

I'm not convinced we're going to 18, but I think Kansas is worth the risk. I'd go with West Virginia as the 4th to get a slice of the Mid-Atlantic region. I don't think the ACC wants them and at that, I think WVU would be more valuable to the SEC as we don't already have a presence in that region. WVU does fit in the ACC to some degree, but the ACC already owns that region. They don't need them. If the ACC was going to sacrifice academics, I think they would have to do it for a more monetarily beneficial school like they did with Louisville. That's one of the reasons I've suggested Houston for them although I know that's highly unlikely.

We could do Iowa State, but there are problems there. They aren't the big brother in their state. They don't have baseball, and they are located awfully far from the core of the conference. I wouldn't object to Texas Tech or TCU, but I think WVU fits better in this scenario.

Cincy. Good geographic fit and great recruiting grounds. Football will rebound under Fickell, basketball is already good, has baseball, and it's a lot closer to AAU than OU. Great facilities, too, if on the small side for football, but Paul Brown Stadium is just a hop, skip, and jump away.

I actually don't mind the idea of Cincinnati, but the fan base isn't that big right now. It will certainly grow if they move to a P4 league, but I think UC is probably a better fit for the ACC.

(02-20-2017 07:32 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-20-2017 05:43 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(02-20-2017 04:10 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-20-2017 01:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now the real question in my mind is whether OSU would really be required. Here's why I ask it. Kansas by itself doesn't really give the Big 10 much that they didn't already have. OU is a question mark for the Big 10. They aren't AAU and aren't really that close to getting it. Would they take a marginally acceptable addition just for football? And if so would taking them with a school that didn't really give them much more than they already have do it for them? I've never been totally sold on OU & KU to the Big 10 as being something the Big 10 would want.

If that's the case then maybe OU & KU is the better pair for the SEC. But since OU gives us everything we want in Texas I do think OU / OSU will never be off the table. Do we hold out for a non Oklahoma second school and risk losing OU? I think not, but you never know.

I also think we would take OSU to ensure we get OU. OSU already generates pretty good revenue so I don't think it would take them long to get up to steam. But to the point about Kansas...

I think ESPN wants them and will try to protect them in one of their leagues. They've already lost so much of the B1G that I don't see them being particularly on board with the idea of paying the B1G to take KU especially if OU is not a part of the deal. Now FOX would probably love to have KU in the fold, but who are they going to get to be #16. Iowa State? I don't think they'd be interested. UConn? Maybe, but not sure that move is going to pay for itself considering the weight of the new B1G contract. Kansas works great as #16, not so much as #15.

Enter the SEC that just so happens to need basketball content and ESPN just so happens to own the SECN which is the primary vehicle of SEC basketball coverage. Between CBS and the BTN, ESPN would lose a ton of KU games. As it is, KU is one of the tentpoles of ESPN basketball coverage along with the ACC schedule.

Now, the SEC doesn't really need the KS market as it's somewhat small and we already have Kansas City, BUT another regional rival for Mizzou and OU would be nice. We'd go from having a presence in the region to dominating it. Add to it that they are an AAU school and Sankey has already said we'd be interested in border states with AAU schools. VA and NC are out so that leaves us with Western AAUs.

I'm not convinced we're going to 18, but I think Kansas is worth the risk. I'd go with West Virginia as the 4th to get a slice of the Mid-Atlantic region. I don't think the ACC wants them and at that, I think WVU would be more valuable to the SEC as we don't already have a presence in that region. WVU does fit in the ACC to some degree, but the ACC already owns that region. They don't need them. If the ACC was going to sacrifice academics, I think they would have to do it for a more monetarily beneficial school like they did with Louisville. That's one of the reasons I've suggested Houston for them although I know that's highly unlikely.

We could do Iowa State, but there are problems there. They aren't the big brother in their state. They don't have baseball, and they are located awfully far from the core of the conference. I wouldn't object to Texas Tech or TCU, but I think WVU fits better in this scenario.

Cincy. Good geographic fit and great recruiting grounds. Football will rebound under Fickell, basketball is already good, has baseball, and it's a lot closer to AAU than OU. Great facilities, too, if on the small side for football, but Paul Brown Stadium is just a hop, skip, and jump away.

I actually don't mind the idea of Cincinnati, but the fan base isn't that big right now. It will certainly grow if they move to a P4 league, but I think UC is probably a better fit for the ACC.

Cincinnati would make the ACC contiguous again and free up West Virginia to move to the SEC (where there are a much better fit).

(01-22-2017 04:23 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 08:12 AM)XLance Wrote:  Realignment had come down to this:
Texas is not going to budge.
no need or desire to budge. UT-A would also have to change their view of the SEC too.

The only way to entice Oklahoma to break up the Big 12 is to also agree to take Oklahoma State.
FIFY

It does not appear like the PAC or B1G are willing to do so and if the SEC takes both will they lose out on their opportunity to secure Texas, their dream.
taking OU &OSU might begin the process to land UT-A in the SEC if the B12 is no longer a good home after those departures

The double switch, where the SEC was to take Texas, TT, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State was predicated on the B1G getting Missouri and the ACC taking South Carolina no longer seems to be an option.
too much machevellian conspiracy strings to pull. The simple moves are most likely. The only time big break ups happen is when a conference no longer suits the needs of a vast majority like in the old SWC when TV deals became conference properties and the small footprint and poor support of some members made the bigger programs look for better homes.

And so we sit.....like a Mexican standoff

Comments made in italics.

There is the likelihood that Texas reconsiders its position with the SEC should OU and OSU head to the SEC. At that point Texas if they did head our way could do so with Kansas, or another Texas school. If they are smart (and there is no guarantee of that) they will ask for Kansas and limit top brand exposure to just themselves and A&M.

But Murrdcu if that were to happen it is the prelude for a possible move to 20 or even 24 on down the road. Moving to 18 with UT, OU, OSU, & KU would surely bolt the SEC to well over 50 million in annual payout. With the addition of two more AAU schools the variance could eventually be a lure (probably well beyond my lifetime) for a Virginia and North Carolina school, or perhaps as many as 6 brands from the ACC should the Big 10's revenue prove irresistible as well.

The only way I see this end with 16 is if N.D. joins all in with the ACC. Kansas does head to the Big 10 with another, and Texas balks at the SEC and takes Tech & T.C.U. with them to the PAC. (Of course ESPN would have to get a % of the PACN for this to happen).

But in that set of circumstances we should balance out closely enough that, even though the SEC & Big 10 maintain their lead financially, the PAC & ACC are able to stabilize.

Whether we eventually have 3 conferences of 20 - 24, or 4 conferences of roughly 16 each (give or take a couple) is dependent on how the balance shifts with this next set of moves.

(02-21-2017 12:25 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 04:23 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 08:12 AM)XLance Wrote:  Realignment had come down to this:
Texas is not going to budge.
no need or desire to budge. UT-A would also have to change their view of the SEC too.

The only way to entice Oklahoma to break up the Big 12 is to also agree to take Oklahoma State.
FIFY

It does not appear like the PAC or B1G are willing to do so and if the SEC takes both will they lose out on their opportunity to secure Texas, their dream.
taking OU &OSU might begin the process to land UT-A in the SEC if the B12 is no longer a good home after those departures

The double switch, where the SEC was to take Texas, TT, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State was predicated on the B1G getting Missouri and the ACC taking South Carolina no longer seems to be an option.
too much machevellian conspiracy strings to pull. The simple moves are most likely. The only time big break ups happen is when a conference no longer suits the needs of a vast majority like in the old SWC when TV deals became conference properties and the small footprint and poor support of some members made the bigger programs look for better homes.

And so we sit.....like a Mexican standoff

Comments made in italics.

There is the likelihood that Texas reconsiders its position with the SEC should OU and OSU head to the SEC. At that point Texas if they did head our way could do so with Kansas, or another Texas school. If they are smart (and there is no guarantee of that) they will ask for Kansas and limit top brand exposure to just themselves and A&M.

But Murrdcu if that were to happen it is the prelude for a possible move to 20 or even 24 on down the road. Moving to 18 with UT, OU, OSU, & KU would surely bolt the SEC to well over 50 million in annual payout. With the addition of two more AAU schools the variance could eventually be a lure (probably well beyond my lifetime) for a Virginia and North Carolina school, or perhaps as many as 6 brands from the ACC should the Big 10's revenue prove irresistible as well.

The only way I see this end with 16 is if N.D. joins all in with the ACC. Kansas does head to the Big 10 with another, and Texas balks at the SEC and takes Tech & T.C.U. with them to the PAC. (Of course ESPN would have to get a % of the PACN for this to happen).

But in that set of circumstances we should balance out closely enough that, even though the SEC & Big 10 maintain their lead financially, the PAC & ACC are able to stabilize.

Whether we eventually have 3 conferences of 20 - 24, or 4 conferences of roughly 16 each (give or take a couple) is dependent on how the balance shifts with this next set of moves.

Who is the best chess player among conference commissioners? I ask this because commissioners will have to think two and three moves ahead: i.e, if the SEC takes OK/OK State does that lure Texas? What if we get OK/Kansas? Does one of those two help us in the 2030s to grab a VA/NC school? If we wind up with OK/State/Texas/Tech does how does that impact our ACC options later on? Would it limit us to Clemson/FSU as heavy football brands, or could we still go after academic and basketball powerhouses?

(Also, I know conference commissioners have network overlords now, but I think conferences themselves still have to want the schools that the networks want.)

My guess: Just like last time around, everyone will hint at bigger moves, but then settle for schools that help them and can be considered strong and positive adds but not necessarily home runs. Simple moves are the ones that happen/path of least resistance.

(02-21-2017 12:25 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 04:23 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 08:12 AM)XLance Wrote:  Realignment had come down to this:
Texas is not going to budge.
no need or desire to budge. UT-A would also have to change their view of the SEC too.

The only way to entice Oklahoma to break up the Big 12 is to also agree to take Oklahoma State.
FIFY

It does not appear like the PAC or B1G are willing to do so and if the SEC takes both will they lose out on their opportunity to secure Texas, their dream.
taking OU &OSU might begin the process to land UT-A in the SEC if the B12 is no longer a good home after those departures

The double switch, where the SEC was to take Texas, TT, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State was predicated on the B1G getting Missouri and the ACC taking South Carolina no longer seems to be an option.
too much machevellian conspiracy strings to pull. The simple moves are most likely. The only time big break ups happen is when a conference no longer suits the needs of a vast majority like in the old SWC when TV deals became conference properties and the small footprint and poor support of some members made the bigger programs look for better homes.

And so we sit.....like a Mexican standoff

Comments made in italics.

There is the likelihood that Texas reconsiders its position with the SEC should OU and OSU head to the SEC. At that point Texas if they did head our way could do so with Kansas, or another Texas school. If they are smart (and there is no guarantee of that) they will ask for Kansas and limit top brand exposure to just themselves and A&M.

But Murrdcu if that were to happen it is the prelude for a possible move to 20 or even 24 on down the road. Moving to 18 with UT, OU, OSU, & KU would surely bolt the SEC to well over 50 million in annual payout. With the addition of two more AAU schools the variance could eventually be a lure (probably well beyond my lifetime) for a Virginia and North Carolina school, or perhaps as many as 6 brands from the ACC should the Big 10's revenue prove irresistible as well.

The only way I see this end with 16 is if N.D. joins all in with the ACC. Kansas does head to the Big 10 with another, and Texas balks at the SEC and takes Tech & T.C.U. with them to the PAC. (Of course ESPN would have to get a % of the PACN for this to happen).

But in that set of circumstances we should balance out closely enough that, even though the SEC & Big 10 maintain their lead financially, the PAC & ACC are able to stabilize.

Whether we eventually have 3 conferences of 20 - 24, or 4 conferences of roughly 16 each (give or take a couple) is dependent on how the balance shifts with this next set of moves.

JR, you know as well as I that Texas is not going to the SEC. Their game with Oklahoma has already been protected by agreement and they have no real history with OSU.
Besides those Texans are stubborn and the ain't gonna ever play A&M again.
The most likely thing at this point is that Texas will be able to cobble a conference together and continue to be the King of the Southwest or they will succumb to academic pride and join the ACC with Notre Dame.
They aren't going west.

(02-21-2017 11:46 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 12:25 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 04:23 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 08:12 AM)XLance Wrote:  Realignment had come down to this:
Texas is not going to budge.
no need or desire to budge. UT-A would also have to change their view of the SEC too.

The only way to entice Oklahoma to break up the Big 12 is to also agree to take Oklahoma State.
FIFY

It does not appear like the PAC or B1G are willing to do so and if the SEC takes both will they lose out on their opportunity to secure Texas, their dream.
taking OU &OSU might begin the process to land UT-A in the SEC if the B12 is no longer a good home after those departures

The double switch, where the SEC was to take Texas, TT, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State was predicated on the B1G getting Missouri and the ACC taking South Carolina no longer seems to be an option.
too much machevellian conspiracy strings to pull. The simple moves are most likely. The only time big break ups happen is when a conference no longer suits the needs of a vast majority like in the old SWC when TV deals became conference properties and the small footprint and poor support of some members made the bigger programs look for better homes.

And so we sit.....like a Mexican standoff

Comments made in italics.

There is the likelihood that Texas reconsiders its position with the SEC should OU and OSU head to the SEC. At that point Texas if they did head our way could do so with Kansas, or another Texas school. If they are smart (and there is no guarantee of that) they will ask for Kansas and limit top brand exposure to just themselves and A&M.

But Murrdcu if that were to happen it is the prelude for a possible move to 20 or even 24 on down the road. Moving to 18 with UT, OU, OSU, & KU would surely bolt the SEC to well over 50 million in annual payout. With the addition of two more AAU schools the variance could eventually be a lure (probably well beyond my lifetime) for a Virginia and North Carolina school, or perhaps as many as 6 brands from the ACC should the Big 10's revenue prove irresistible as well.

The only way I see this end with 16 is if N.D. joins all in with the ACC. Kansas does head to the Big 10 with another, and Texas balks at the SEC and takes Tech & T.C.U. with them to the PAC. (Of course ESPN would have to get a % of the PACN for this to happen).

But in that set of circumstances we should balance out closely enough that, even though the SEC & Big 10 maintain their lead financially, the PAC & ACC are able to stabilize.

Whether we eventually have 3 conferences of 20 - 24, or 4 conferences of roughly 16 each (give or take a couple) is dependent on how the balance shifts with this next set of moves.

Who is the best chess player among conference commissioners? I ask this because commissioners will have to think two and three moves ahead: i.e, if the SEC takes OK/OK State does that lure Texas? What if we get OK/Kansas? Does one of those two help us in the 2030s to grab a VA/NC school? If we wind up with OK/State/Texas/Tech does how does that impact our ACC options later on? Would it limit us to Clemson/FSU as heavy football brands, or could we still go after academic and basketball powerhouses?

(Also, I know conference commissioners have network overlords now, but I think conferences themselves still have to want the schools that the networks want.)

My guess: Just like last time around, everyone will hint at bigger moves, but then settle for schools that help them and can be considered strong and positive adds but not necessarily home runs. Simple moves are the ones that happen/path of least resistance.

Normally I would totally agree with the logic of your post. This won't be a normal set of moves however. There are two schools who are game changers in the mix. Should Texas and Oklahoma move together it will create a major destabilizing of the present order. And as far as a couple of simple moves there aren't many. T.C.U. to gain the DFW presence is about it.

Kansas State is a nice school with a terrific coach. But the coach is old and battling cancer, the attendance is bottom tier for the SEC, their history athletically is extremely poor so there is no legacy standing to fall back upon, and their markets are limited.

West Virginia is a reasonable regional brand, but has a miniscule population base, doesn't offer the requisite sports the SEC requires and would be a major drag on the academic standing.

Oklahoma State is good for a piece of DFW, but T.C.U. gives you more. They are solid in athletics all the way around, but not solid academically. And they won't attract a future candidate of note should it ever come to that.

Iowa State is exactly the kind of school we could add to be a role player in the SEC. Solid academics, solid fan support, their disciplines would blend with many of our schools, but they are located in Iowa, and not in mainstream Iowa, in Ames, Iowa. They are the definition of outlier for the SEC.

We don't need Texas Tech because A&M gives everything that they could give us and the only way they could get in is if Texas insisted upon it.

Baylor is currently persona non grata.

So you see there are only 3 brands and a couple of possible sidekicks in play here and two of those brands are in the top 7 nationally in athletic revenue production, both are historical national brands with ample titles between them, and both have a large following and name recognition. Texas alone will be worth 5 million more a year per school to either the Big 10 or SEC. They are worth more than that to the PAC or ACC, not in money, but in credibility lent to their overall inventory by adding them to their lineup.

Oklahoma is probably worth 3.5-4 million per conference member, and they are worth even more to the SEC because they give us not only Oklahoma, a national brand, content multiplying qualities, but they gives us DFW and with that we don't have to have Texas to fully capture the Texas market.

So this next set of moves will have a massive impact upon CFB for decades to come. It will be not only a chess game, but all out war. The Big 10 offers academics. The SEC offers geography and old rivals. The PAC offers Texas a way to take other Texas schools with them. The ACC might offer them independence, but I don't think that means that much to Texas. So it will be interesting before you ever even consider the FOX/ESPN/OtherNetwork implications.

This move will either be the final one for quite some time, or the catalyst that takes us to leagues.

(02-21-2017 12:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 11:46 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 12:25 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 04:23 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 08:12 AM)XLance Wrote:  Realignment had come down to this:
Texas is not going to budge.
no need or desire to budge. UT-A would also have to change their view of the SEC too.

The only way to entice Oklahoma to break up the Big 12 is to also agree to take Oklahoma State.
FIFY

It does not appear like the PAC or B1G are willing to do so and if the SEC takes both will they lose out on their opportunity to secure Texas, their dream.
taking OU &OSU might begin the process to land UT-A in the SEC if the B12 is no longer a good home after those departures

The double switch, where the SEC was to take Texas, TT, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State was predicated on the B1G getting Missouri and the ACC taking South Carolina no longer seems to be an option.
too much machevellian conspiracy strings to pull. The simple moves are most likely. The only time big break ups happen is when a conference no longer suits the needs of a vast majority like in the old SWC when TV deals became conference properties and the small footprint and poor support of some members made the bigger programs look for better homes.

And so we sit.....like a Mexican standoff

Comments made in italics.

There is the likelihood that Texas reconsiders its position with the SEC should OU and OSU head to the SEC. At that point Texas if they did head our way could do so with Kansas, or another Texas school. If they are smart (and there is no guarantee of that) they will ask for Kansas and limit top brand exposure to just themselves and A&M.

But Murrdcu if that were to happen it is the prelude for a possible move to 20 or even 24 on down the road. Moving to 18 with UT, OU, OSU, & KU would surely bolt the SEC to well over 50 million in annual payout. With the addition of two more AAU schools the variance could eventually be a lure (probably well beyond my lifetime) for a Virginia and North Carolina school, or perhaps as many as 6 brands from the ACC should the Big 10's revenue prove irresistible as well.

The only way I see this end with 16 is if N.D. joins all in with the ACC. Kansas does head to the Big 10 with another, and Texas balks at the SEC and takes Tech & T.C.U. with them to the PAC. (Of course ESPN would have to get a % of the PACN for this to happen).

But in that set of circumstances we should balance out closely enough that, even though the SEC & Big 10 maintain their lead financially, the PAC & ACC are able to stabilize.

Whether we eventually have 3 conferences of 20 - 24, or 4 conferences of roughly 16 each (give or take a couple) is dependent on how the balance shifts with this next set of moves.

Who is the best chess player among conference commissioners? I ask this because commissioners will have to think two and three moves ahead: i.e, if the SEC takes OK/OK State does that lure Texas? What if we get OK/Kansas? Does one of those two help us in the 2030s to grab a VA/NC school? If we wind up with OK/State/Texas/Tech does how does that impact our ACC options later on? Would it limit us to Clemson/FSU as heavy football brands, or could we still go after academic and basketball powerhouses?

(Also, I know conference commissioners have network overlords now, but I think conferences themselves still have to want the schools that the networks want.)

My guess: Just like last time around, everyone will hint at bigger moves, but then settle for schools that help them and can be considered strong and positive adds but not necessarily home runs. Simple moves are the ones that happen/path of least resistance.

Normally I would totally agree with the logic of your post. This won't be a normal set of moves however. There are two schools who are game changers in the mix. Should Texas and Oklahoma move together it will create a major destabilizing of the present order. And as far as a couple of simple moves there aren't many. T.C.U. to gain the DFW presence is about it.

Kansas State is a nice school with a terrific coach. But the coach is old and battling cancer, the attendance is bottom tier for the SEC, their history athletically is extremely poor so there is no legacy standing to fall back upon, and their markets are limited.

West Virginia is a reasonable regional brand, but has a miniscule population base, doesn't offer the requisite sports the SEC requires and would be a major drag on the academic standing.

Oklahoma State is good for a piece of DFW, but T.C.U. gives you more. They are solid in athletics all the way around, but not solid academically. And they won't attract a future candidate of note should it ever come to that.

Iowa State is exactly the kind of school we could add to be a role player in the SEC. Solid academics, solid fan support, their disciplines would blend with many of our schools, but they are located in Iowa, and not in mainstream Iowa, in Ames, Iowa. They are the definition of outlier for the SEC.

We don't need Texas Tech because A&M gives everything that they could give us and the only way they could get in is if Texas insisted upon it.

Baylor is currently persona non grata.

So you see there are only 3 brands and a couple of possible sidekicks in play here and two of those brands are in the top 7 nationally in athletic revenue production, both are historical national brands with ample titles between them, and both have a large following and name recognition. Texas alone will be worth 5 million more a year per school to either the Big 10 or SEC. They are worth more than that to the PAC or ACC, not in money, but in credibility lent to their overall inventory by adding them to their lineup.

Oklahoma is probably worth 3.5-4 million per conference member, and they are worth even more to the SEC because they give us not only Oklahoma, a national brand, content multiplying qualities, but they gives us DFW and with that we don't have to have Texas to fully capture the Texas market.

So this next set of moves will have a massive impact upon CFB for decades to come. It will be not only a chess game, but all out war. The Big 10 offers academics. The SEC offers geography and old rivals. The PAC offers Texas a way to take other Texas schools with them. The ACC might offer them independence, but I don't think that means that much to Texas. So it will be interesting before you ever even consider the FOX/ESPN/OtherNetwork implications.

This move will either be the final one for quite some time, or the catalyst that takes us to leagues.

I would agree on adding Oklahoma and the impact in the Texas market; certainly major job markets like DFW and Houston have large alumni populations from lots and lots of schools but the combination of OU, A&M, and LSU gives you a huge Texas exposure.

(02-21-2017 01:09 PM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 12:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 11:46 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 12:25 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 04:23 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Comments made in italics.

There is the likelihood that Texas reconsiders its position with the SEC should OU and OSU head to the SEC. At that point Texas if they did head our way could do so with Kansas, or another Texas school. If they are smart (and there is no guarantee of that) they will ask for Kansas and limit top brand exposure to just themselves and A&M.

But Murrdcu if that were to happen it is the prelude for a possible move to 20 or even 24 on down the road. Moving to 18 with UT, OU, OSU, & KU would surely bolt the SEC to well over 50 million in annual payout. With the addition of two more AAU schools the variance could eventually be a lure (probably well beyond my lifetime) for a Virginia and North Carolina school, or perhaps as many as 6 brands from the ACC should the Big 10's revenue prove irresistible as well.

The only way I see this end with 16 is if N.D. joins all in with the ACC. Kansas does head to the Big 10 with another, and Texas balks at the SEC and takes Tech & T.C.U. with them to the PAC. (Of course ESPN would have to get a % of the PACN for this to happen).

But in that set of circumstances we should balance out closely enough that, even though the SEC & Big 10 maintain their lead financially, the PAC & ACC are able to stabilize.

Whether we eventually have 3 conferences of 20 - 24, or 4 conferences of roughly 16 each (give or take a couple) is dependent on how the balance shifts with this next set of moves.

Who is the best chess player among conference commissioners? I ask this because commissioners will have to think two and three moves ahead: i.e, if the SEC takes OK/OK State does that lure Texas? What if we get OK/Kansas? Does one of those two help us in the 2030s to grab a VA/NC school? If we wind up with OK/State/Texas/Tech does how does that impact our ACC options later on? Would it limit us to Clemson/FSU as heavy football brands, or could we still go after academic and basketball powerhouses?

(Also, I know conference commissioners have network overlords now, but I think conferences themselves still have to want the schools that the networks want.)

My guess: Just like last time around, everyone will hint at bigger moves, but then settle for schools that help them and can be considered strong and positive adds but not necessarily home runs. Simple moves are the ones that happen/path of least resistance.

Normally I would totally agree with the logic of your post. This won't be a normal set of moves however. There are two schools who are game changers in the mix. Should Texas and Oklahoma move together it will create a major destabilizing of the present order. And as far as a couple of simple moves there aren't many. T.C.U. to gain the DFW presence is about it.

Kansas State is a nice school with a terrific coach. But the coach is old and battling cancer, the attendance is bottom tier for the SEC, their history athletically is extremely poor so there is no legacy standing to fall back upon, and their markets are limited.

West Virginia is a reasonable regional brand, but has a miniscule population base, doesn't offer the requisite sports the SEC requires and would be a major drag on the academic standing.

Oklahoma State is good for a piece of DFW, but T.C.U. gives you more. They are solid in athletics all the way around, but not solid academically. And they won't attract a future candidate of note should it ever come to that.

Iowa State is exactly the kind of school we could add to be a role player in the SEC. Solid academics, solid fan support, their disciplines would blend with many of our schools, but they are located in Iowa, and not in mainstream Iowa, in Ames, Iowa. They are the definition of outlier for the SEC.

We don't need Texas Tech because A&M gives everything that they could give us and the only way they could get in is if Texas insisted upon it.

Baylor is currently persona non grata.

So you see there are only 3 brands and a couple of possible sidekicks in play here and two of those brands are in the top 7 nationally in athletic revenue production, both are historical national brands with ample titles between them, and both have a large following and name recognition. Texas alone will be worth 5 million more a year per school to either the Big 10 or SEC. They are worth more than that to the PAC or ACC, not in money, but in credibility lent to their overall inventory by adding them to their lineup.

Oklahoma is probably worth 3.5-4 million per conference member, and they are worth even more to the SEC because they give us not only Oklahoma, a national brand, content multiplying qualities, but they gives us DFW and with that we don't have to have Texas to fully capture the Texas market.

So this next set of moves will have a massive impact upon CFB for decades to come. It will be not only a chess game, but all out war. The Big 10 offers academics. The SEC offers geography and old rivals. The PAC offers Texas a way to take other Texas schools with them. The ACC might offer them independence, but I don't think that means that much to Texas. So it will be interesting before you ever even consider the FOX/ESPN/OtherNetwork implications.

This move will either be the final one for quite some time, or the catalyst that takes us to leagues.

I would agree on adding Oklahoma and the impact in the Texas market; certainly major job markets like DFW and Houston have large alumni populations from lots and lots of schools but the combination of OU, A&M, and LSU gives you a huge Texas exposure.

It is why if we don't land either Texas or Oklahoma, I would not be surprised at all to the see the SEC offer T.C.U.. It would at least help shore up our presence in the major metropolitan areas of North and East Texas.

(02-21-2017 01:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 01:09 PM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 12:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 11:46 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 12:25 AM)JRsec Wrote:  There is the likelihood that Texas reconsiders its position with the SEC should OU and OSU head to the SEC. At that point Texas if they did head our way could do so with Kansas, or another Texas school. If they are smart (and there is no guarantee of that) they will ask for Kansas and limit top brand exposure to just themselves and A&M.

But Murrdcu if that were to happen it is the prelude for a possible move to 20 or even 24 on down the road. Moving to 18 with UT, OU, OSU, & KU would surely bolt the SEC to well over 50 million in annual payout. With the addition of two more AAU schools the variance could eventually be a lure (probably well beyond my lifetime) for a Virginia and North Carolina school, or perhaps as many as 6 brands from the ACC should the Big 10's revenue prove irresistible as well.

The only way I see this end with 16 is if N.D. joins all in with the ACC. Kansas does head to the Big 10 with another, and Texas balks at the SEC and takes Tech & T.C.U. with them to the PAC. (Of course ESPN would have to get a % of the PACN for this to happen).

But in that set of circumstances we should balance out closely enough that, even though the SEC & Big 10 maintain their lead financially, the PAC & ACC are able to stabilize.

Whether we eventually have 3 conferences of 20 - 24, or 4 conferences of roughly 16 each (give or take a couple) is dependent on how the balance shifts with this next set of moves.

Who is the best chess player among conference commissioners? I ask this because commissioners will have to think two and three moves ahead: i.e, if the SEC takes OK/OK State does that lure Texas? What if we get OK/Kansas? Does one of those two help us in the 2030s to grab a VA/NC school? If we wind up with OK/State/Texas/Tech does how does that impact our ACC options later on? Would it limit us to Clemson/FSU as heavy football brands, or could we still go after academic and basketball powerhouses?

(Also, I know conference commissioners have network overlords now, but I think conferences themselves still have to want the schools that the networks want.)

My guess: Just like last time around, everyone will hint at bigger moves, but then settle for schools that help them and can be considered strong and positive adds but not necessarily home runs. Simple moves are the ones that happen/path of least resistance.

Normally I would totally agree with the logic of your post. This won't be a normal set of moves however. There are two schools who are game changers in the mix. Should Texas and Oklahoma move together it will create a major destabilizing of the present order. And as far as a couple of simple moves there aren't many. T.C.U. to gain the DFW presence is about it.

Kansas State is a nice school with a terrific coach. But the coach is old and battling cancer, the attendance is bottom tier for the SEC, their history athletically is extremely poor so there is no legacy standing to fall back upon, and their markets are limited.

West Virginia is a reasonable regional brand, but has a miniscule population base, doesn't offer the requisite sports the SEC requires and would be a major drag on the academic standing.

Oklahoma State is good for a piece of DFW, but T.C.U. gives you more. They are solid in athletics all the way around, but not solid academically. And they won't attract a future candidate of note should it ever come to that.

Iowa State is exactly the kind of school we could add to be a role player in the SEC. Solid academics, solid fan support, their disciplines would blend with many of our schools, but they are located in Iowa, and not in mainstream Iowa, in Ames, Iowa. They are the definition of outlier for the SEC.

We don't need Texas Tech because A&M gives everything that they could give us and the only way they could get in is if Texas insisted upon it.

Baylor is currently persona non grata.

So you see there are only 3 brands and a couple of possible sidekicks in play here and two of those brands are in the top 7 nationally in athletic revenue production, both are historical national brands with ample titles between them, and both have a large following and name recognition. Texas alone will be worth 5 million more a year per school to either the Big 10 or SEC. They are worth more than that to the PAC or ACC, not in money, but in credibility lent to their overall inventory by adding them to their lineup.

Oklahoma is probably worth 3.5-4 million per conference member, and they are worth even more to the SEC because they give us not only Oklahoma, a national brand, content multiplying qualities, but they gives us DFW and with that we don't have to have Texas to fully capture the Texas market.

So this next set of moves will have a massive impact upon CFB for decades to come. It will be not only a chess game, but all out war. The Big 10 offers academics. The SEC offers geography and old rivals. The PAC offers Texas a way to take other Texas schools with them. The ACC might offer them independence, but I don't think that means that much to Texas. So it will be interesting before you ever even consider the FOX/ESPN/OtherNetwork implications.

This move will either be the final one for quite some time, or the catalyst that takes us to leagues.

I would agree on adding Oklahoma and the impact in the Texas market; certainly major job markets like DFW and Houston have large alumni populations from lots and lots of schools but the combination of OU, A&M, and LSU gives you a huge Texas exposure.

It is why if we don't land either Texas or Oklahoma, I would not be surprised at all to the see the SEC offer T.C.U.. It would at least help shore up our presence in the major metropolitan areas of North and East Texas.

A small private with a student body of only 10k? I still don't understand that one.
The SEC is already getting those top Texas recruits. Seems hard to get service providers to pay more for SECN if we only add 40k TCU fans. We would be better off adding Oklahoma State and East Carolina or West Virginia if you want slightly higher subscription fees and new markets/recruiting grounds.

(02-21-2017 03:05 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 01:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 01:09 PM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 12:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 11:46 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Who is the best chess player among conference commissioners? I ask this because commissioners will have to think two and three moves ahead: i.e, if the SEC takes OK/OK State does that lure Texas? What if we get OK/Kansas? Does one of those two help us in the 2030s to grab a VA/NC school? If we wind up with OK/State/Texas/Tech does how does that impact our ACC options later on? Would it limit us to Clemson/FSU as heavy football brands, or could we still go after academic and basketball powerhouses?

(Also, I know conference commissioners have network overlords now, but I think conferences themselves still have to want the schools that the networks want.)

My guess: Just like last time around, everyone will hint at bigger moves, but then settle for schools that help them and can be considered strong and positive adds but not necessarily home runs. Simple moves are the ones that happen/path of least resistance.

Normally I would totally agree with the logic of your post. This won't be a normal set of moves however. There are two schools who are game changers in the mix. Should Texas and Oklahoma move together it will create a major destabilizing of the present order. And as far as a couple of simple moves there aren't many. T.C.U. to gain the DFW presence is about it.

Kansas State is a nice school with a terrific coach. But the coach is old and battling cancer, the attendance is bottom tier for the SEC, their history athletically is extremely poor so there is no legacy standing to fall back upon, and their markets are limited.

West Virginia is a reasonable regional brand, but has a miniscule population base, doesn't offer the requisite sports the SEC requires and would be a major drag on the academic standing.

Oklahoma State is good for a piece of DFW, but T.C.U. gives you more. They are solid in athletics all the way around, but not solid academically. And they won't attract a future candidate of note should it ever come to that.

Iowa State is exactly the kind of school we could add to be a role player in the SEC. Solid academics, solid fan support, their disciplines would blend with many of our schools, but they are located in Iowa, and not in mainstream Iowa, in Ames, Iowa. They are the definition of outlier for the SEC.

We don't need Texas Tech because A&M gives everything that they could give us and the only way they could get in is if Texas insisted upon it.

Baylor is currently persona non grata.

So you see there are only 3 brands and a couple of possible sidekicks in play here and two of those brands are in the top 7 nationally in athletic revenue production, both are historical national brands with ample titles between them, and both have a large following and name recognition. Texas alone will be worth 5 million more a year per school to either the Big 10 or SEC. They are worth more than that to the PAC or ACC, not in money, but in credibility lent to their overall inventory by adding them to their lineup.

Oklahoma is probably worth 3.5-4 million per conference member, and they are worth even more to the SEC because they give us not only Oklahoma, a national brand, content multiplying qualities, but they gives us DFW and with that we don't have to have Texas to fully capture the Texas market.

So this next set of moves will have a massive impact upon CFB for decades to come. It will be not only a chess game, but all out war. The Big 10 offers academics. The SEC offers geography and old rivals. The PAC offers Texas a way to take other Texas schools with them. The ACC might offer them independence, but I don't think that means that much to Texas. So it will be interesting before you ever even consider the FOX/ESPN/OtherNetwork implications.

This move will either be the final one for quite some time, or the catalyst that takes us to leagues.

I would agree on adding Oklahoma and the impact in the Texas market; certainly major job markets like DFW and Houston have large alumni populations from lots and lots of schools but the combination of OU, A&M, and LSU gives you a huge Texas exposure.

It is why if we don't land either Texas or Oklahoma, I would not be surprised at all to the see the SEC offer T.C.U.. It would at least help shore up our presence in the major metropolitan areas of North and East Texas.

A small private with a student body of only 10k? I still don't understand that one.
The SEC is already getting those top Texas recruits. Seems hard to get service providers to pay more for SECN if we only add 40k TCU fans. We would be better off adding Oklahoma State and East Carolina or West Virginia if you want slightly higher subscription fees and new markets/recruiting grounds.

Explain your reasoning here. Playing in DFW would be huge for the SEC. Admittedly OSU would bring a greater presence in the area, but not actual games. I don't get WVU unless it is paired with a really good first choice. East Carolina is an interesting project, and if we were to ever undertake a project that would be the one I would want. The only other one I would consider is Central or South Florida.

Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas are the 4 most valuable members of the Big 12 when it comes to generating revenue. It would make sense that ESPN would be interested in that combo for the SEC.

Would Texas allow all the rest of their TX compatriots to be relegated? That is the question.

We should keep in mind a few things...

1. Certain rivalries need to be played...UT/A&M, KU/Mizzou, OU/OSU, etc...

I think ultimately the networks are interested in that and the fans will be as well. It's better for college athletics.

2. The other TX schools aren't getting a cushy landing spot if UT doesn't go to the PAC. Not only that, but Baylor is likely left out in the cold. Perhaps the best way to protect them is to leave enough of them behind to form a profitable secondary league.


West: Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri

Central: Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn

East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky

It's pretty congruent and balanced. Play 5 division games, 1 permanent rivalry from each of the other 2 divisions, 1 rotating game from each of the other 2 divisions. That's 9 games with plenty of room to play decent non-conference competition if wished. You play everyone at least once every 5 years that way.

Instead of trying to divide the Big 12 in a hopelessly disappointing process for someone, just create a stronger secondary league.

How about this?

If the SEC gets the 4 from my above post...Kansatexahoma...then...

A new American forms:

West: BYU, Colorado State, Texas Tech, TCU, Tulsa

Central: SMU, Baylor, Memphis, Kansas State, Iowa State,

South: UCF, USF, Houston, Tulane, Navy

East: East Carolina, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Temple, UConn

The PAC, B1G, and ACC stand pat.

The American becomes more relevant and valuable(but not too valuable) while the leftover schools aren't shoehorned into leagues where they really don't fit. The exception here may be WVU. I could see the ACC taking them if Notre Dame goes all in.

(02-21-2017 09:28 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Instead of trying to divide the Big 12 in a hopelessly disappointing process for someone, just create a stronger secondary league.

How about this?

If the SEC gets the 4 from my above post...Kansatexahoma...then...

A new American forms:

West: BYU, Colorado State, Texas Tech, TCU, Tulsa

Central: SMU, Baylor, Memphis, Kansas State, Iowa State,

South: UCF, USF, Houston, Tulane, Navy

East: East Carolina, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Temple, UConn

The PAC, B1G, and ACC stand pat.

The American becomes more relevant and valuable(but not too valuable) while the leftover schools aren't shoehorned into leagues where they really don't fit. The exception here may be WVU. I could see the ACC taking them if Notre Dame goes all in.

If SEC/Big 10 gets even just Kansas/OK, then that limits the others options, especially because the Big 10 might not want Texas Tech or TCU.

If Texas wants, then, it might choose to stay in Big 12 and rebuild conference in its own image. Perhaps bringing in BYU/Houston or something like that.

Since simple moves are the likeliest to happen, a rebuilt Texas led conference may be more likely than dividing up the Big 12, and depending on the picks might not even be a "secondary league"

(02-21-2017 03:05 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 01:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 01:09 PM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 12:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 11:46 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Who is the best chess player among conference commissioners? I ask this because commissioners will have to think two and three moves ahead: i.e, if the SEC takes OK/OK State does that lure Texas? What if we get OK/Kansas? Does one of those two help us in the 2030s to grab a VA/NC school? If we wind up with OK/State/Texas/Tech does how does that impact our ACC options later on? Would it limit us to Clemson/FSU as heavy football brands, or could we still go after academic and basketball powerhouses?

(Also, I know conference commissioners have network overlords now, but I think conferences themselves still have to want the schools that the networks want.)

My guess: Just like last time around, everyone will hint at bigger moves, but then settle for schools that help them and can be considered strong and positive adds but not necessarily home runs. Simple moves are the ones that happen/path of least resistance.

Normally I would totally agree with the logic of your post. This won't be a normal set of moves however. There are two schools who are game changers in the mix. Should Texas and Oklahoma move together it will create a major destabilizing of the present order. And as far as a couple of simple moves there aren't many. T.C.U. to gain the DFW presence is about it.

Kansas State is a nice school with a terrific coach. But the coach is old and battling cancer, the attendance is bottom tier for the SEC, their history athletically is extremely poor so there is no legacy standing to fall back upon, and their markets are limited.

West Virginia is a reasonable regional brand, but has a miniscule population base, doesn't offer the requisite sports the SEC requires and would be a major drag on the academic standing.

Oklahoma State is good for a piece of DFW, but T.C.U. gives you more. They are solid in athletics all the way around, but not solid academically. And they won't attract a future candidate of note should it ever come to that.

Iowa State is exactly the kind of school we could add to be a role player in the SEC. Solid academics, solid fan support, their disciplines would blend with many of our schools, but they are located in Iowa, and not in mainstream Iowa, in Ames, Iowa. They are the definition of outlier for the SEC.

We don't need Texas Tech because A&M gives everything that they could give us and the only way they could get in is if Texas insisted upon it.

Baylor is currently persona non grata.

So you see there are only 3 brands and a couple of possible sidekicks in play here and two of those brands are in the top 7 nationally in athletic revenue production, both are historical national brands with ample titles between them, and both have a large following and name recognition. Texas alone will be worth 5 million more a year per school to either the Big 10 or SEC. They are worth more than that to the PAC or ACC, not in money, but in credibility lent to their overall inventory by adding them to their lineup.

Oklahoma is probably worth 3.5-4 million per conference member, and they are worth even more to the SEC because they give us not only Oklahoma, a national brand, content multiplying qualities, but they gives us DFW and with that we don't have to have Texas to fully capture the Texas market.

So this next set of moves will have a massive impact upon CFB for decades to come. It will be not only a chess game, but all out war. The Big 10 offers academics. The SEC offers geography and old rivals. The PAC offers Texas a way to take other Texas schools with them. The ACC might offer them independence, but I don't think that means that much to Texas. So it will be interesting before you ever even consider the FOX/ESPN/OtherNetwork implications.

This move will either be the final one for quite some time, or the catalyst that takes us to leagues.

I would agree on adding Oklahoma and the impact in the Texas market; certainly major job markets like DFW and Houston have large alumni populations from lots and lots of schools but the combination of OU, A&M, and LSU gives you a huge Texas exposure.

It is why if we don't land either Texas or Oklahoma, I would not be surprised at all to the see the SEC offer T.C.U.. It would at least help shore up our presence in the major metropolitan areas of North and East Texas.

A small private with a student body of only 10k? I still don't understand that one.
The SEC is already getting those top Texas recruits. Seems hard to get service providers to pay more for SECN if we only add 40k TCU fans. We would be better off adding Oklahoma State and East Carolina or West Virginia if you want slightly higher subscription fees and new markets/recruiting grounds.

(02-22-2017 09:00 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 09:28 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Instead of trying to divide the Big 12 in a hopelessly disappointing process for someone, just create a stronger secondary league.

How about this?

If the SEC gets the 4 from my above post...Kansatexahoma...then...

A new American forms:

West: BYU, Colorado State, Texas Tech, TCU, Tulsa

Central: SMU, Baylor, Memphis, Kansas State, Iowa State,

South: UCF, USF, Houston, Tulane, Navy

East: East Carolina, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Temple, UConn

The PAC, B1G, and ACC stand pat.

The American becomes more relevant and valuable(but not too valuable) while the leftover schools aren't shoehorned into leagues where they really don't fit. The exception here may be WVU. I could see the ACC taking them if Notre Dame goes all in.

If SEC/Big 10 gets even just Kansas/OK, then that limits the others options, especially because the Big 10 might not want Texas Tech or TCU.

If Texas wants, then, it might choose to stay in Big 12 and rebuild conference in its own image. Perhaps bringing in BYU/Houston or something like that.

Since simple moves are the likeliest to happen, a rebuilt Texas led conference may be more likely than dividing up the Big 12, and depending on the picks might not even be a "secondary league"

Tech or TCU have zero chance at the Big 10, neither school has the academic profile (TCU heavily undergraduate and Tech just being an average research institution) that the Big 10 aligns itself with.

Nebraska is the only Big 10 member not part of the AAU and even they were a AAU member at time of Big 10 invite. I believe Kansas, Texas, and Iowa State are the only AAU members in the Big 12.

(02-21-2017 03:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 03:05 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 01:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 01:09 PM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 12:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Normally I would totally agree with the logic of your post. This won't be a normal set of moves however. There are two schools who are game changers in the mix. Should Texas and Oklahoma move together it will create a major destabilizing of the present order. And as far as a couple of simple moves there aren't many. T.C.U. to gain the DFW presence is about it.

Kansas State is a nice school with a terrific coach. But the coach is old and battling cancer, the attendance is bottom tier for the SEC, their history athletically is extremely poor so there is no legacy standing to fall back upon, and their markets are limited.

West Virginia is a reasonable regional brand, but has a miniscule population base, doesn't offer the requisite sports the SEC requires and would be a major drag on the academic standing.

Oklahoma State is good for a piece of DFW, but T.C.U. gives you more. They are solid in athletics all the way around, but not solid academically. And they won't attract a future candidate of note should it ever come to that.

Iowa State is exactly the kind of school we could add to be a role player in the SEC. Solid academics, solid fan support, their disciplines would blend with many of our schools, but they are located in Iowa, and not in mainstream Iowa, in Ames, Iowa. They are the definition of outlier for the SEC.

We don't need Texas Tech because A&M gives everything that they could give us and the only way they could get in is if Texas insisted upon it.

Baylor is currently persona non grata.

So you see there are only 3 brands and a couple of possible sidekicks in play here and two of those brands are in the top 7 nationally in athletic revenue production, both are historical national brands with ample titles between them, and both have a large following and name recognition. Texas alone will be worth 5 million more a year per school to either the Big 10 or SEC. They are worth more than that to the PAC or ACC, not in money, but in credibility lent to their overall inventory by adding them to their lineup.

Oklahoma is probably worth 3.5-4 million per conference member, and they are worth even more to the SEC because they give us not only Oklahoma, a national brand, content multiplying qualities, but they gives us DFW and with that we don't have to have Texas to fully capture the Texas market.

So this next set of moves will have a massive impact upon CFB for decades to come. It will be not only a chess game, but all out war. The Big 10 offers academics. The SEC offers geography and old rivals. The PAC offers Texas a way to take other Texas schools with them. The ACC might offer them independence, but I don't think that means that much to Texas. So it will be interesting before you ever even consider the FOX/ESPN/OtherNetwork implications.

This move will either be the final one for quite some time, or the catalyst that takes us to leagues.

I would agree on adding Oklahoma and the impact in the Texas market; certainly major job markets like DFW and Houston have large alumni populations from lots and lots of schools but the combination of OU, A&M, and LSU gives you a huge Texas exposure.

It is why if we don't land either Texas or Oklahoma, I would not be surprised at all to the see the SEC offer T.C.U.. It would at least help shore up our presence in the major metropolitan areas of North and East Texas.

A small private with a student body of only 10k? I still don't understand that one.
The SEC is already getting those top Texas recruits. Seems hard to get service providers to pay more for SECN if we only add 40k TCU fans. We would be better off adding Oklahoma State and East Carolina or West Virginia if you want slightly higher subscription fees and new markets/recruiting grounds.

Explain your reasoning here. Playing in DFW would be huge for the SEC. Admittedly OSU would bring a greater presence in the area, but not actual games. I don't get WVU unless it is paired with a really good first choice. East Carolina is an interesting project, and if we were to ever undertake a project that would be the one I would want. The only other one I would consider is Central or South Florida.

Hogs have been playing 1-2 football games a year in Dallas and the north Texas area for years. Our recruiting in Texas has actually diminished despite playing A&M yearly there. If we are going to reach with two new additions, they will have to be brand new markets we not already in. That is why I mentioned market based additions outside the current SEC footprint.

(02-22-2017 07:25 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 03:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 03:05 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 01:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 01:09 PM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  I would agree on adding Oklahoma and the impact in the Texas market; certainly major job markets like DFW and Houston have large alumni populations from lots and lots of schools but the combination of OU, A&M, and LSU gives you a huge Texas exposure.

It is why if we don't land either Texas or Oklahoma, I would not be surprised at all to the see the SEC offer T.C.U.. It would at least help shore up our presence in the major metropolitan areas of North and East Texas.

A small private with a student body of only 10k? I still don't understand that one.
The SEC is already getting those top Texas recruits. Seems hard to get service providers to pay more for SECN if we only add 40k TCU fans. We would be better off adding Oklahoma State and East Carolina or West Virginia if you want slightly higher subscription fees and new markets/recruiting grounds.

Explain your reasoning here. Playing in DFW would be huge for the SEC. Admittedly OSU would bring a greater presence in the area, but not actual games. I don't get WVU unless it is paired with a really good first choice. East Carolina is an interesting project, and if we were to ever undertake a project that would be the one I would want. The only other one I would consider is Central or South Florida.

Hogs have been playing 1-2 football games a year in Dallas and the north Texas area for years. Our recruiting in Texas has actually diminished despite playing A&M yearly there. If we are going to reach with two new additions, they will have to be brand new markets we not already in. That is why I mentioned market based additions outside the current SEC footprint.

The only problem with that line of reasoning (which I understand) is that presently the only available product is from the Big 12. Of that product clearly Texas and Oklahoma add the most value. I would be okay with OU/KU and they do add some new market although combined they deliver essentially what Missouri did by itself.

What I'm looking at is the further boosting of revenue due to content, and content multipliers. Clearly both Texas and OU add content, but what they also add are a number of new must see games between brands in the SEC. That value takes us north of 50 million and possibly as much as 5 million north of it.

If the Big 10 and SEC both outdistance the PAC and ACC then other lucrative possibilities may yet head our way. I think we have to land at least OU, if not OU and UT, to gain the lure we will need later on for the others.

I agree with you that for the harmony of the conference the best two possible additions are OU and KU. We'll see.