(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.

Tejas to the ACC would generate more revenue for our league than for yours, and if you added a full time Notre Dame with the Longhorns, we might be looking at the SEC and the B1G in our rear view mirrors by the middle of the next decade.

(02-23-2017 12:52 PM)XLance 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.

Tejas to the ACC would generate more revenue for our league than for yours, and if you added a full time Notre Dame with the Longhorns, we might be looking at the SEC and the B1G in our rear view mirrors by the middle of the next decade.

I agree that Texas has more value to the ACC than to the SEC. The question is which is more valuable to Texas? As far as rear view mirrors I have never seen an ACC vehicle that needed them. The road and the competition seems to always be ahead of you. I do think however you are about to pass the PAC and Big 12 in revenue.

(02-23-2017 01:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-23-2017 12:52 PM)XLance 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.

Tejas to the ACC would generate more revenue for our league than for yours, and if you added a full time Notre Dame with the Longhorns, we might be looking at the SEC and the B1G in our rear view mirrors by the middle of the next decade.

I agree that Texas has more value to the ACC than to the SEC. The question is which is more valuable to Texas? As far as rear view mirrors I have never seen an ACC vehicle that needed them. The road and the competition seems to always be ahead of you. I do think however you are about to pass the PAC and Big 12 in revenue.

It seems that on this board Texas to the ACC is often overlooked (more mention of ND/WVU to ACC after SEC/Big 10/PAC-12 take their pieces), but I think it could certainly be argued that Texas gains more in the ACC. Academic schools, access to Florida, North Carolina, Virginia as recruiting grounds and at least presence in the Northeast. Especially in this scenario, Texas would be the ACC Texas school like A&M is the SEC Texas school right now, which boosts its brand by differentiating from the other schools.

It seems to me the ACC is moving forward in gaining money, and the better quality coaches are following too. I have often thought that Houston would fit in the ACC in terms of basketball history, so even if the ACC doesn't want to bring along Tech or TCU, then their are options. Or the ACC could take Texas/Tech/OK/St/ND/Kansas and get a whole bunch of brands and honestly have the potential to move past the SEC (who at least recently has been down).

Again, it is in the networks best interest to keep things balanced, so I doubt they get all four brands. But the implications are that it could very well be the ACC/SEC/Big 10 left standing and not the SEC/Big 10/PAC 12. If the ACC gets Texas and/or ND all in, it will be that much harder for the SEC/Big 10 to steal teams later on down the road.

The proposals I have made on here (OK/State to the SEC, Texas et al to the PAC, and Kansas/Iowa State to the Big 10) may not be considering the power of the ACC like we should. ND all in and West VA might not be enough for them.

As I have posted before, I am very content not to go after Texas if we get OK or OK/Kansas, which would set up a war for Texas between ACC/PAC/Big 10. Since Big 10 would have a much harder time taking Tech/Houston, I'm guessing it does come down to PAC/ACC for Texas. The loser may wind up being the next Big 12 - lower on the totem poll in terms of $ and with schools looking for ways to get more.

Thus: if PAC loses out to a solidified ACC, PAC+Big 10 merger/Big 10 expanding with the AAU schools looks more likely.

OR if the PAC wins, then perhaps the ACC is at risk from the SEC/Big 10 after the GOR, or perhaps ND and WVU (or UConn/Cincy/etc) is enough and things will settle down.

(02-23-2017 01:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-23-2017 12:52 PM)XLance 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.

Tejas to the ACC would generate more revenue for our league than for yours, and if you added a full time Notre Dame with the Longhorns, we might be looking at the SEC and the B1G in our rear view mirrors by the middle of the next decade.

I agree that Texas has more value to the ACC than to the SEC. The question is which is more valuable to Texas? As far as rear view mirrors I have never seen an ACC vehicle that needed them. The road and the competition seems to always be ahead of you. I do think however you are about to pass the PAC and Big 12 in revenue.

We have never needed rear view mirrors before, but all of our new models have them as standard equipment.....maybe that is an indication of the future.

The question is not really is it more valuable to Texas, but does it provide more value to ESPN.

The Oklahoma & Kansas move could actually be a good thing for ESPN/SEC. It finally gives some relevance to Missouri, helps form a western division and maybe actually gives the SEC a presence in the basketball world (other than Kentucky).

With an 8 game conference schedule it means that Texas could play Oklahoma every year and a rotation of Texas Tech, TCU, SMU, Baylor, and Rice for their OOC games and never have to leave the state of Texas. Texas then will become the "America's Team" of the NCAA and ESPN will liken their exposure on the east coast to the Dallas Cowboys.

I think we get 1 more game per year out of Notre Dame for several years before they finally commit to full time. We will pick up a G5 school to fill in and get us to 16. It will be a market play. I think we are looking at Navy to get back to DC/Baltimore (and placate Notre Dame)/academics/sports offerings match ACC, Cincinnati (Ohio market/gets Louisville off of an island/heavily Catholic/physical location to Notre Dame) or Tulane (Catholic area....there is a theme here/physical location toward Florida State/Atlanta from Texas/helps with Houston without being in Houston/History with multiple ACC teams/academics/plus everybody wants to visit NOLA.

I don't see Texas going to the ACC because their other sports would have some serious travel budgets, but I suppose it's possible.

If the ACC took Texas, Notre Dame, Tulane, and Cincinnati then that's certainly a good round of additions. They aren't going to pass the SEC, but these are nice bricks for the foundation.

If that's the way it breaks then I'd like to see Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State, and another TX school.

The next round of realignment has to be about making money for our sponsor. For the ACC and SEC our sponsor is ESPN.
The next moves will be made for the benefit of TV/cable or as JR likes to say content multipliers, because without someone (ESPN) paying those huge dollars we would all have to shrink back to being 8-10 team regional tribes.

I for one think Notre Dame has more value to the ACC/ESPN as a partial member than they do as a full time participant and believe the will stay semi-independent at least till the end of the current contract. It will help to keep the "subway alumni" engaged in the us against the world mentality.

Texas and one of the three mentioned above (Tulane/Cincinnati/Navy, with Cincinnati being the most likely and Tulane the least likely) to the ACC. Cincinnati is more valuable to the ACC than West Virginia.
Oklahoma and one other former Big 8 school to the SEC OR

I still think there is a strong possibility that we may see Missouri move to the B1G with Kansas. Then the SEC expands with Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and most likely Texas Tech (over West Virginia).
If Missouri does not move to the B1G, the SEC and B1G will have to duke it out for the Oklahoma/Kansas pair in a winner take all death match. The fear of that permanent loss on both sides is what will trigger the Missouri move as a compromise. Neither win big but both avoid a devastating loss.

(02-24-2017 08:29 AM)XLance Wrote:  The next round of realignment has to be about making money for our sponsor. For the ACC and SEC our sponsor is ESPN.
The next moves will be made for the benefit of TV/cable or as JR likes to say content multipliers, because without someone (ESPN) paying those huge dollars we would all have to shrink back to being 8-10 team regional tribes.

I for one think Notre Dame has more value to the ACC/ESPN as a partial member than they do as a full time participant and believe the will stay semi-independent at least till the end of the current contract. It will help to keep the "subway alumni" engaged in the us against the world mentality.

Texas and one of the three mentioned above (Tulane/Cincinnati/Navy, with Cincinnati being the most likely and Tulane the least likely) to the ACC. Cincinnati is more valuable to the ACC than West Virginia.
Oklahoma and one other former Big 8 school to the SEC OR

I still think there is a strong possibility that we may see Missouri move to the B1G with Kansas. Then the SEC expands with Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and most likely Texas Tech (over West Virginia).
If Missouri does not move to the B1G, the SEC and B1G will have to duke it out for the Oklahoma/Kansas pair in a winner take all death match. The fear of that permanent loss on both sides is what will trigger the Missouri move as a compromise. Neither win big but both avoid a devastating loss.

The Missouri Compromise has been tried once before and it didn't work out well for either Kansas or Missouri. So just wait one John Brown minute on that idea!

The big issue now is, do we place most, if not all, of the Big 12 and end this garbage so the sport can recover and the public can move on, or do we continue the slow motion train wreck for another 5 to 6 years?

Obviously I think the sooner it ends the more bounce back in interest we will receive.

(02-24-2017 10:34 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 08:29 AM)XLance Wrote:  The next round of realignment has to be about making money for our sponsor. For the ACC and SEC our sponsor is ESPN.
The next moves will be made for the benefit of TV/cable or as JR likes to say content multipliers, because without someone (ESPN) paying those huge dollars we would all have to shrink back to being 8-10 team regional tribes.

I for one think Notre Dame has more value to the ACC/ESPN as a partial member than they do as a full time participant and believe the will stay semi-independent at least till the end of the current contract. It will help to keep the "subway alumni" engaged in the us against the world mentality.

Texas and one of the three mentioned above (Tulane/Cincinnati/Navy, with Cincinnati being the most likely and Tulane the least likely) to the ACC. Cincinnati is more valuable to the ACC than West Virginia.
Oklahoma and one other former Big 8 school to the SEC OR

I still think there is a strong possibility that we may see Missouri move to the B1G with Kansas. Then the SEC expands with Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and most likely Texas Tech (over West Virginia).
If Missouri does not move to the B1G, the SEC and B1G will have to duke it out for the Oklahoma/Kansas pair in a winner take all death match. The fear of that permanent loss on both sides is what will trigger the Missouri move as a compromise. Neither win big but both avoid a devastating loss.

The Missouri Compromise has been tried once before and it didn't work out well for either Kansas or Missouri. So just wait one John Brown minute on that idea!

The big issue now is, do we place most, if not all, of the Big 12 and end this garbage so the sport can recover and the public can move on, or do we continue the slow motion train wreck for another 5 to 6 years?

Obviously I think the sooner it ends the more bounce back in interest we will receive.

John Brown was a terrorist and deserved to be hanged.

That's the problem JR, nobody has bee able to place all of the Big 12 schools, heck nobody can figure how to place enough Big 12 schools so that they can vote to dissolve their conference.
At best it looks like homes can be found for 5 schools, but that's about it (even with the Missouri compromise). ESPN's (and FOX's)outlay is so great that they aren't going to spend a penny that the don't have to in a shrinking marketplace. There is no incentive for the 5 that will be left out to rock the boat as it would cost them over $100 million each over the life of the current contract.
So unless somebody makes a stupid decision like the SEC deciding to expand with Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor and West Virginia, we're going to sit here, argue and wait out this next 5-6 years in purgatory.

(02-24-2017 04:36 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 10:34 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 08:29 AM)XLance Wrote:  The next round of realignment has to be about making money for our sponsor. For the ACC and SEC our sponsor is ESPN.
The next moves will be made for the benefit of TV/cable or as JR likes to say content multipliers, because without someone (ESPN) paying those huge dollars we would all have to shrink back to being 8-10 team regional tribes.

I for one think Notre Dame has more value to the ACC/ESPN as a partial member than they do as a full time participant and believe the will stay semi-independent at least till the end of the current contract. It will help to keep the "subway alumni" engaged in the us against the world mentality.

Texas and one of the three mentioned above (Tulane/Cincinnati/Navy, with Cincinnati being the most likely and Tulane the least likely) to the ACC. Cincinnati is more valuable to the ACC than West Virginia.
Oklahoma and one other former Big 8 school to the SEC OR

I still think there is a strong possibility that we may see Missouri move to the B1G with Kansas. Then the SEC expands with Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and most likely Texas Tech (over West Virginia).
If Missouri does not move to the B1G, the SEC and B1G will have to duke it out for the Oklahoma/Kansas pair in a winner take all death match. The fear of that permanent loss on both sides is what will trigger the Missouri move as a compromise. Neither win big but both avoid a devastating loss.

The Missouri Compromise has been tried once before and it didn't work out well for either Kansas or Missouri. So just wait one John Brown minute on that idea!

The big issue now is, do we place most, if not all, of the Big 12 and end this garbage so the sport can recover and the public can move on, or do we continue the slow motion train wreck for another 5 to 6 years?

Obviously I think the sooner it ends the more bounce back in interest we will receive.

John Brown was a terrorist and deserved to be hanged.

That's the problem JR, nobody has bee able to place all of the Big 12 schools, heck nobody can figure how to place enough Big 12 schools so that they can vote to dissolve their conference.
At best it looks like homes can be found for 5 schools, but that's about it (even with the Missouri compromise). ESPN's (and FOX's)outlay is so great that they aren't going to spend a penny that the don't have to in a shrinking marketplace. There is no incentive for the 5 that will be left out to rock the boat as it would cost them over $100 million each over the life of the current contract.
So unless somebody makes a stupid decision like the SEC deciding to expand with Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor and West Virginia, we're going to sit here, argue and wait out this next 5-6 years in purgatory.

With regards to J.B. he was, and did.

I'm not so sure that we can't place 7. If Baylor loses their vote via conference sanctions then you could place 7. I do believe the PAC would ultimately take Texas Tech and T.C.U. to gain entrance into the Texas market. Who knows they might even take Rice.

Oklahoma State and Oklahoma to the SEC, Texas and Kansas to the Big 10, and Cincinnati and West Virginia or Iowa State to the ACC gets it done. N.D. stays indy.

(02-24-2017 06:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 04:36 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 10:34 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 08:29 AM)XLance Wrote:  The next round of realignment has to be about making money for our sponsor. For the ACC and SEC our sponsor is ESPN.
The next moves will be made for the benefit of TV/cable or as JR likes to say content multipliers, because without someone (ESPN) paying those huge dollars we would all have to shrink back to being 8-10 team regional tribes.

I for one think Notre Dame has more value to the ACC/ESPN as a partial member than they do as a full time participant and believe the will stay semi-independent at least till the end of the current contract. It will help to keep the "subway alumni" engaged in the us against the world mentality.

Texas and one of the three mentioned above (Tulane/Cincinnati/Navy, with Cincinnati being the most likely and Tulane the least likely) to the ACC. Cincinnati is more valuable to the ACC than West Virginia.
Oklahoma and one other former Big 8 school to the SEC OR

I still think there is a strong possibility that we may see Missouri move to the B1G with Kansas. Then the SEC expands with Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and most likely Texas Tech (over West Virginia).
If Missouri does not move to the B1G, the SEC and B1G will have to duke it out for the Oklahoma/Kansas pair in a winner take all death match. The fear of that permanent loss on both sides is what will trigger the Missouri move as a compromise. Neither win big but both avoid a devastating loss.

The Missouri Compromise has been tried once before and it didn't work out well for either Kansas or Missouri. So just wait one John Brown minute on that idea!

The big issue now is, do we place most, if not all, of the Big 12 and end this garbage so the sport can recover and the public can move on, or do we continue the slow motion train wreck for another 5 to 6 years?

Obviously I think the sooner it ends the more bounce back in interest we will receive.

John Brown was a terrorist and deserved to be hanged.

That's the problem JR, nobody has bee able to place all of the Big 12 schools, heck nobody can figure how to place enough Big 12 schools so that they can vote to dissolve their conference.
At best it looks like homes can be found for 5 schools, but that's about it (even with the Missouri compromise). ESPN's (and FOX's)outlay is so great that they aren't going to spend a penny that the don't have to in a shrinking marketplace. There is no incentive for the 5 that will be left out to rock the boat as it would cost them over $100 million each over the life of the current contract.
So unless somebody makes a stupid decision like the SEC deciding to expand with Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor and West Virginia, we're going to sit here, argue and wait out this next 5-6 years in purgatory.

With regards to J.B. he was, and did.

I'm not so sure that we can't place 7. If Baylor loses their vote via conference sanctions then you could place 7. I do believe the PAC would ultimately take Texas Tech and T.C.U. to gain entrance into the Texas market. Who knows they might even take Rice.

Oklahoma State and Oklahoma to the SEC, Texas and Kansas to the Big 10, and Cincinnati and West Virginia or Iowa State to the ACC gets it done. N.D. stays indy.

ESPN did't build out a complete production facility in Texas to have the Longhorns move to the B1G....ain't gonna happen
At the end of the day, if the Big 12 does not survive, Texas will be in the ACC.........take it to the bank!

(02-24-2017 09:40 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 06:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 04:36 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 10:34 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 08:29 AM)XLance Wrote:  The next round of realignment has to be about making money for our sponsor. For the ACC and SEC our sponsor is ESPN.
The next moves will be made for the benefit of TV/cable or as JR likes to say content multipliers, because without someone (ESPN) paying those huge dollars we would all have to shrink back to being 8-10 team regional tribes.

I for one think Notre Dame has more value to the ACC/ESPN as a partial member than they do as a full time participant and believe the will stay semi-independent at least till the end of the current contract. It will help to keep the "subway alumni" engaged in the us against the world mentality.

Texas and one of the three mentioned above (Tulane/Cincinnati/Navy, with Cincinnati being the most likely and Tulane the least likely) to the ACC. Cincinnati is more valuable to the ACC than West Virginia.
Oklahoma and one other former Big 8 school to the SEC OR

I still think there is a strong possibility that we may see Missouri move to the B1G with Kansas. Then the SEC expands with Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and most likely Texas Tech (over West Virginia).
If Missouri does not move to the B1G, the SEC and B1G will have to duke it out for the Oklahoma/Kansas pair in a winner take all death match. The fear of that permanent loss on both sides is what will trigger the Missouri move as a compromise. Neither win big but both avoid a devastating loss.

The Missouri Compromise has been tried once before and it didn't work out well for either Kansas or Missouri. So just wait one John Brown minute on that idea!

The big issue now is, do we place most, if not all, of the Big 12 and end this garbage so the sport can recover and the public can move on, or do we continue the slow motion train wreck for another 5 to 6 years?

Obviously I think the sooner it ends the more bounce back in interest we will receive.

John Brown was a terrorist and deserved to be hanged.

That's the problem JR, nobody has bee able to place all of the Big 12 schools, heck nobody can figure how to place enough Big 12 schools so that they can vote to dissolve their conference.
At best it looks like homes can be found for 5 schools, but that's about it (even with the Missouri compromise). ESPN's (and FOX's)outlay is so great that they aren't going to spend a penny that the don't have to in a shrinking marketplace. There is no incentive for the 5 that will be left out to rock the boat as it would cost them over $100 million each over the life of the current contract.
So unless somebody makes a stupid decision like the SEC deciding to expand with Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor and West Virginia, we're going to sit here, argue and wait out this next 5-6 years in purgatory.

With regards to J.B. he was, and did.

I'm not so sure that we can't place 7. If Baylor loses their vote via conference sanctions then you could place 7. I do believe the PAC would ultimately take Texas Tech and T.C.U. to gain entrance into the Texas market. Who knows they might even take Rice.

Oklahoma State and Oklahoma to the SEC, Texas and Kansas to the Big 10, and Cincinnati and West Virginia or Iowa State to the ACC gets it done. N.D. stays indy.

ESPN did't build out a complete production facility in Texas to have the Longhorns move to the B1G....ain't gonna happen
At the end of the day, if the Big 12 does not survive, Texas will be in the ACC.........take it to the bank!

As long as OU is in the SEC and it ends this mess, I can live with that.

(02-24-2017 10:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  As long as OU is in the SEC and it ends this mess, I can live with that.

After reading a story about Loftin's The Hundred Year Decision book and how much the Baylor lawsuit complicated things, I could see the SEC securing only OU and OSU while sitting to make sure the Big 12 doesn't collapse thus making the SEC liable for damages.

Unless Texas blows the whole thing up, I think the Big 1/ would have to add the two most valuable football schools they could find. My guess would be BYU and Houston or BYU Cincinnati if votes aren't there for another Texas school.

If Texas gets pressured to join another conference, the days of the old B12 would be over soon.

(02-24-2017 10:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 09:40 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 06:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 04:36 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 10:34 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The Missouri Compromise has been tried once before and it didn't work out well for either Kansas or Missouri. So just wait one John Brown minute on that idea!

The big issue now is, do we place most, if not all, of the Big 12 and end this garbage so the sport can recover and the public can move on, or do we continue the slow motion train wreck for another 5 to 6 years?

Obviously I think the sooner it ends the more bounce back in interest we will receive.

John Brown was a terrorist and deserved to be hanged.

That's the problem JR, nobody has bee able to place all of the Big 12 schools, heck nobody can figure how to place enough Big 12 schools so that they can vote to dissolve their conference.
At best it looks like homes can be found for 5 schools, but that's about it (even with the Missouri compromise). ESPN's (and FOX's)outlay is so great that they aren't going to spend a penny that the don't have to in a shrinking marketplace. There is no incentive for the 5 that will be left out to rock the boat as it would cost them over $100 million each over the life of the current contract.
So unless somebody makes a stupid decision like the SEC deciding to expand with Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor and West Virginia, we're going to sit here, argue and wait out this next 5-6 years in purgatory.

With regards to J.B. he was, and did.

I'm not so sure that we can't place 7. If Baylor loses their vote via conference sanctions then you could place 7. I do believe the PAC would ultimately take Texas Tech and T.C.U. to gain entrance into the Texas market. Who knows they might even take Rice.

Oklahoma State and Oklahoma to the SEC, Texas and Kansas to the Big 10, and Cincinnati and West Virginia or Iowa State to the ACC gets it done. N.D. stays indy.

ESPN did't build out a complete production facility in Texas to have the Longhorns move to the B1G....ain't gonna happen
At the end of the day, if the Big 12 does not survive, Texas will be in the ACC.........take it to the bank!

As long as OU is in the SEC and it ends this mess, I can live with that.

We may have to take Baylor instead of Cincinnati/Tulane/Navy. Baylor has 3-4 years to get their messes cleaned up.
In order for the SEC to be guaranteed Oklahoma............ESPN had the SEC take Missouri for a reason(and realistically other than population what is it that Missouri does for the SEC)?

(02-25-2017 11:13 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 10:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 09:40 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 06:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 04:36 PM)XLance Wrote:  John Brown was a terrorist and deserved to be hanged.

That's the problem JR, nobody has bee able to place all of the Big 12 schools, heck nobody can figure how to place enough Big 12 schools so that they can vote to dissolve their conference.
At best it looks like homes can be found for 5 schools, but that's about it (even with the Missouri compromise). ESPN's (and FOX's)outlay is so great that they aren't going to spend a penny that the don't have to in a shrinking marketplace. There is no incentive for the 5 that will be left out to rock the boat as it would cost them over $100 million each over the life of the current contract.
So unless somebody makes a stupid decision like the SEC deciding to expand with Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor and West Virginia, we're going to sit here, argue and wait out this next 5-6 years in purgatory.

With regards to J.B. he was, and did.

I'm not so sure that we can't place 7. If Baylor loses their vote via conference sanctions then you could place 7. I do believe the PAC would ultimately take Texas Tech and T.C.U. to gain entrance into the Texas market. Who knows they might even take Rice.

Oklahoma State and Oklahoma to the SEC, Texas and Kansas to the Big 10, and Cincinnati and West Virginia or Iowa State to the ACC gets it done. N.D. stays indy.

ESPN did't build out a complete production facility in Texas to have the Longhorns move to the B1G....ain't gonna happen
At the end of the day, if the Big 12 does not survive, Texas will be in the ACC.........take it to the bank!

As long as OU is in the SEC and it ends this mess, I can live with that.

We may have to take Baylor instead of Cincinnati/Tulane/Navy. Baylor has 3-4 years to get their messes cleaned up.
In order for the SEC to be guaranteed Oklahoma............ESPN had the SEC take Missouri for a reason(and realistically other than population what is it that Missouri does for the SEC)?

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.

(02-25-2017 11:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 11:13 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 10:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 09:40 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 06:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  With regards to J.B. he was, and did.

I'm not so sure that we can't place 7. If Baylor loses their vote via conference sanctions then you could place 7. I do believe the PAC would ultimately take Texas Tech and T.C.U. to gain entrance into the Texas market. Who knows they might even take Rice.

Oklahoma State and Oklahoma to the SEC, Texas and Kansas to the Big 10, and Cincinnati and West Virginia or Iowa State to the ACC gets it done. N.D. stays indy.

ESPN did't build out a complete production facility in Texas to have the Longhorns move to the B1G....ain't gonna happen
At the end of the day, if the Big 12 does not survive, Texas will be in the ACC.........take it to the bank!

As long as OU is in the SEC and it ends this mess, I can live with that.

We may have to take Baylor instead of Cincinnati/Tulane/Navy. Baylor has 3-4 years to get their messes cleaned up.
In order for the SEC to be guaranteed Oklahoma............ESPN had the SEC take Missouri for a reason(and realistically other than population what is it that Missouri does for the SEC)?

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.

(02-25-2017 01:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 11:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 11:13 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 10:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 09:40 PM)XLance Wrote:  ESPN did't build out a complete production facility in Texas to have the Longhorns move to the B1G....ain't gonna happen
At the end of the day, if the Big 12 does not survive, Texas will be in the ACC.........take it to the bank!

As long as OU is in the SEC and it ends this mess, I can live with that.

We may have to take Baylor instead of Cincinnati/Tulane/Navy. Baylor has 3-4 years to get their messes cleaned up.
In order for the SEC to be guaranteed Oklahoma............ESPN had the SEC take Missouri for a reason(and realistically other than population what is it that Missouri does for the SEC)?

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!

(02-25-2017 01:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 01:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 11:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 11:13 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 10:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  As long as OU is in the SEC and it ends this mess, I can live with that.

We may have to take Baylor instead of Cincinnati/Tulane/Navy. Baylor has 3-4 years to get their messes cleaned up.
In order for the SEC to be guaranteed Oklahoma............ESPN had the SEC take Missouri for a reason(and realistically other than population what is it that Missouri does for the SEC)?

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.

(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:  

(02-25-2017 11:13 AM)XLance Wrote:  We may have to take Baylor instead of Cincinnati/Tulane/Navy. Baylor has 3-4 years to get their messes cleaned up.
In order for the SEC to be guaranteed Oklahoma............ESPN had the SEC take Missouri for a reason(and realistically other than population what is it that Missouri does for the SEC)?

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.

Let's say that ESPN wants Texas in the ACC. I'm not sure I buy it, but for sake of argument let's set up the scenario.

ESPN's probably not abandoning their facilities in TX, so what to do with the LHN? Well, I proposed a while back the idea of using the LHN as a crossover channel for SEC/ACC match-ups. There might not be enough content for that to work though. I don't think simply folding the LHN into the ACCN, or the SECN for that matter, is the solution. Alternate channels are easy to create and require nothing more than the same production infrastructure. The backbone of a linear network is not easy to build, however. The backbone of the LHN has already been created and it took a significant investment.

ESPNU is based in Charlotte along with the SEC Network. It makes sense that the ACC Network will also be based in Charlotte. So what about the TX facilities?

How about this?

After doing a little googling on the matter, I discovered that last year ESPN built a brand new state of the art production facility in Mexico City for ESPN Deportes. It accompanies studios in Bristol and Los Angeles that are used for ESPN Deportes content. Now, to us English speakers, a Spanish language network might not seem like that big of a deal, but to a large number of Spanish speaking people in the US plus people in Mexico and Central America, it's a key source for content.

So why not use the LHN facilities to broadcast a Spanish language version of the SEC Network and the ACC Network. Obviously, it would be carried in the US and convenient for Spanish speakers here, but it would also be a way to extend our brands internationally. TX is conveniently home to a large number of Latinos and Spanish speakers so it's kind of appropriate actually. It's ambitious, but if we want to tap new markets and create new content then extending our brands into Latin America seems like a winner. I literally can't think of a better way to take advantage of existing infrastructure and possibly significantly increase our revenues than simply broadcasting our same content in another language. Very little work needed to make it happen, no need to take schools that don't add value in other US markets...all we have to do is expand Spanish language coverage.

Thoughts?

(02-25-2017 05:40 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Let's say that ESPN wants Texas in the ACC. I'm not sure I buy it, but for sake of argument let's set up the scenario.

ESPN's probably not abandoning their facilities in TX, so what to do with the LHN? Well, I proposed a while back the idea of using the LHN as a crossover channel for SEC/ACC match-ups. There might not be enough content for that to work though. I don't think simply folding the LHN into the ACCN, or the SECN for that matter, is the solution. Alternate channels are easy to create and require nothing more than the same production infrastructure. The backbone of a linear network is not easy to build, however. The backbone of the LHN has already been created and it took a significant investment.

ESPNU is based in Charlotte along with the SEC Network. It makes sense that the ACC Network will also be based in Charlotte. So what about the TX facilities?

How about this?

After doing a little googling on the matter, I discovered that last year ESPN built a brand new state of the art production facility in Mexico City for ESPN Deportes. It accompanies studios in Bristol and Los Angeles that are used for ESPN Deportes content. Now, to us English speakers, a Spanish language network might not seem like that big of a deal, but to a large number of Spanish speaking people in the US plus people in Mexico and Central America, it's a key source for content.

So why not use the LHN facilities to broadcast a Spanish language version of the SEC Network and the ACC Network. Obviously, it would be carried in the US and convenient for Spanish speakers here, but it would also be a way to extend our brands internationally. TX is conveniently home to a large number of Latinos and Spanish speakers so it's kind of appropriate actually. It's ambitious, but if we want to tap new markets and create new content then extending our brands into Latin America seems like a winner. I literally can't think of a better way to take advantage of existing infrastructure and possibly significantly increase our revenues than simply broadcasting our same content in another language. Very little work needed to make it happen, no need to take schools that don't add value in other US markets...all we have to do is expand Spanish language coverage.

Thoughts?

Repost this as a separate thread. It a good topic, but not necessarily a fit with this topic.