“I think the Big 12 is in trouble and I think this is something we’ve been able to detect for some time. I don’t think the Big 12 as we know it will still be in existence in five years,” Finebaum said on the air. “There are schools in the Big 12 that have looked to get out, and I think, continue to look to get out. They can deny it all they want but they don’t have the what the SEC, Big Ten, Pac-12 and what the ACC are going to have, and that’s their own network — which is critical in this world of exploding television reality. I don’t know how you can survive like that.”

After initially keeping his thoughts somewhat vague, Finebaum did name one school he believes wants to get out of the Big 12.

“I can think of one school in the Big 12 that would like out pretty desperately, and if that happened, would it have a domino effect? That school is the University of Oklahoma,” Finebaum said.

If Oklahoma did decide to leave the Big 12 in the future, it’s hard not to imagine a likely battle between the SEC, Big Ten, and Pac-12 for the right to add one of the nation’s premier schools to the roster.

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-fo...et-big-12/

https://audioboom.com/posts/5873292-paul...ce=twitter

Audio of Paul's realignment analysis starts around 4th minute ends by 6th

(05-01-2017 02:11 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  https://audioboom.com/posts/5873292-paul...ce=twitter

Audio of Paul's realignment analysis starts around 4th minute ends by 6th

He's being disingenuous on one point however, the war to get them. The Big 10 presidents are committed to research oriented schools. Oklahoma's research profile is behind that of Kentucky and Georgia neither of which are anywhere close to AAU status. Their total academic profile would fit smakc dab in the middle of the SEC. If the Big 10 were to take a non AAU research leader it would be a school like Virginia Tech. So the Big 10 won't be bidding on their services. They want us to think that so we will accept OSU but that's about it. The PAC very well might want them, but they won't have the package that the SEC offers. It will be interesting to see if the PAC offers OSU. In the end I don't think we have to take OSU to get them. We want OU, but we want them and only one other. We are too strong, and too convenient to them geographically to not be a serious consideration. If the other doesn't follow them here, then and only then will we consider an alternative companion. Should it come to that and no ACC school was available or willing, Oklahoma State or West Virginia "might" be entertained, but we also could choose to just sit at 15.

(05-01-2017 03:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 02:11 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  https://audioboom.com/posts/5873292-paul...ce=twitter

Audio of Paul's realignment analysis starts around 4th minute ends by 6th

He's being disingenuous on one point however, the war to get them. The Big 10 presidents are committed to research oriented schools. Oklahoma's research profile is behind that of Kentucky and Georgia neither of which are anywhere close to AAU status. Their total academic profile would fit smakc dab in the middle of the SEC. If the Big 10 were to take a non AAU research leader it would be a school like Virginia Tech. So the Big 10 won't be bidding on their services. They want us to think that so we will accept OSU but that's about it. The PAC very well might want them, but they won't have the package that the SEC offers. It will be interesting to see if the PAC offers OSU. In the end I don't think we have to take OSU to get them. We want OU, but we want them and only one other. We are too strong, and too convenient to them geographically to not be a serious consideration. If the other doesn't follow them here, then and only then will we consider an alternative companion. Should it come to that and no ACC school was available or willing, Oklahoma State or West Virginia "might" be entertained, but we also could choose to just sit at 15.

What's interesting to me here is:

1) Finebaum's an ESPN employee and he's saying the Big 12 won't be around in 5 years.

2) The fact that he's ramped up his earlier statements.

He has speculated before on whether or not OU might end up in the SEC. He's never gone so far as to say OU was desperately trying to get out. The timing of that statement is what stands out. All these little indicators that maybe Texas is getting ready to make a move and that FOX is lining up a buy-in for the PAC begs a question of what is OU's response?

(05-01-2017 03:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 02:11 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  https://audioboom.com/posts/5873292-paul...ce=twitter

Audio of Paul's realignment analysis starts around 4th minute ends by 6th

He's being disingenuous on one point however, the war to get them. The Big 10 presidents are committed to research oriented schools. Oklahoma's research profile is behind that of Kentucky and Georgia neither of which are anywhere close to AAU status. Their total academic profile would fit smakc dab in the middle of the SEC. If the Big 10 were to take a non AAU research leader it would be a school like Virginia Tech. So the Big 10 won't be bidding on their services. They want us to think that so we will accept OSU but that's about it. The PAC very well might want them, but they won't have the package that the SEC offers. It will be interesting to see if the PAC offers OSU. In the end I don't think we have to take OSU to get them. We want OU, but we want them and only one other. We are too strong, and too convenient to them geographically to not be a serious consideration. If the other doesn't follow them here, then and only then will we consider an alternative companion. Should it come to that and no ACC school was available or willing, Oklahoma State or West Virginia "might" be entertained, but we also could choose to just sit at 15.

Scheduling would have to be determined and eased prior to more additions. It would be fun to see who approaches the SEC about that 16th spot if OU was 15. We talked with VT at the Green Briar before adding Mizzou.

I think there would be some serious discussions at UT-A as to what direction they want to take going forward after losing OU to another conference. As a hog fan, I would love to see them join their old rivals in the SEC, but realistically, they would be better served recreating their conference or going independent.

I agree with ya JR', most likely 16th additions would be from the B12 with OSU, WVU and KU the most likely.

(05-01-2017 03:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 03:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 02:11 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  https://audioboom.com/posts/5873292-paul...ce=twitter

Audio of Paul's realignment analysis starts around 4th minute ends by 6th

He's being disingenuous on one point however, the war to get them. The Big 10 presidents are committed to research oriented schools. Oklahoma's research profile is behind that of Kentucky and Georgia neither of which are anywhere close to AAU status. Their total academic profile would fit smakc dab in the middle of the SEC. If the Big 10 were to take a non AAU research leader it would be a school like Virginia Tech. So the Big 10 won't be bidding on their services. They want us to think that so we will accept OSU but that's about it. The PAC very well might want them, but they won't have the package that the SEC offers. It will be interesting to see if the PAC offers OSU. In the end I don't think we have to take OSU to get them. We want OU, but we want them and only one other. We are too strong, and too convenient to them geographically to not be a serious consideration. If the other doesn't follow them here, then and only then will we consider an alternative companion. Should it come to that and no ACC school was available or willing, Oklahoma State or West Virginia "might" be entertained, but we also could choose to just sit at 15.

What's interesting to me here is:

1) Finebaum's an ESPN employee and he's saying the Big 12 won't be around in 5 years.

2) The fact that he's ramped up his earlier statements.

He has speculated before on whether or not OU might end up in the SEC. He's never gone so far as to say OU was desperately trying to get out. The timing of that statement is what stands out. All these little indicators that maybe Texas is getting ready to make a move and that FOX is lining up a buy-in for the PAC begs a question of what is OU's response?

Yeah, the timing of Paul's comments seemed odd. I guess Paul must have been calling contacts leading up to the draft weekend and heard something

It would have to be OU and OSU.

Let me just put it this way, Texas would have some major thinking to do if Oklahoma joins the SEC. They would know that we would no longer need them for anything. Would we still take them? Hell yes! That's way too much money to leave on the table. But stop and think about the major cities in Texas.

Houston: Covered by A&M, L.S.U.
Dallas: Covered by A&M, Arkansas, and Oklahoma
San Antonio: Covered by A&M
Austin: Penetrated by A&M

So other than Austin what does Texas offer us? A brand.

Do we need them to own Texas? Not in the least.

So does Oklahoma do it for us? Yes! Do they do it enough to include OSU? Not necessarily.

For the SEC to take OSU there would have to be another conference like the PAC willing to take both. Or, the Big 10 would have to be willing to take Oklahoma by themselves. Why? Because Texas, an ESPN owned product until 2031, isn't headed to a FOX held network. And Kansas and Oklahoma together don't add enough value to the Big 10 to be a viable pair, at least not until the Big 10 waits to see if the ACCN pans out. If it doesn't they stand to earn a lot more with options to the East.

The Big 10 owns the best markets in Kansas now. The Big 10 is suffering for football brands and Oklahoma with Texas makes sense. 24,000 attendance at Kansas football games does not. And Oklahoma does not get the Big 10 into Texas any more than Nebraska did. How did that work out for them? Only Texas plants the B1G flag in Texas. Oklahoma in the B1G without Texas does nothing good for Oklahoma and nothing good for the B1G.

So if the PAC isn't going to take OSU why should we if Texas is still thinking about it, if West Virginia is still hanging, or for that matter if the ACCN isn't a big winner.

But I believe Notre Dame and Cincinnati will be joining the ACC in concert with the debut of the ACCN. I think they stay locked down. Where does that leave Texas to go as an ESPN product? It's really worth waiting to see. If OU wants to jump now and by themselves get out the safety net and let them. Texas is worth a wait of 1 year. Then I say examine the remaining options and see who we want. But personally if I'm Texas and I'm surveying my remaining options, I call Birmingham. It's much better for my alums if their annual games are Oklahoma, A&M, Arkansas, L.S.U., and Ole Miss than anything else they could get.

(05-01-2017 02:18 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

I actually find that picture to be quite relevant!

I just don't see why any Big XII school would go west to the PAC... They're worse off then the Big XII already.

(05-01-2017 06:08 PM)Otacon Wrote:  I just don't see why any Big XII school would go west to the PAC... They're worse off then the Big XII already.

Very true.

(05-01-2017 05:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If OU wants to jump now and by themselves get out the safety net and let them. Texas is worth a wait of 1 year. Then I say examine the remaining options and see who we want. But personally if I'm Texas and I'm surveying my remaining options, I call Birmingham. It's much better for my alums if their annual games are Oklahoma, A&M, Arkansas, L.S.U., and Ole Miss than anything else they could get.

Only better outcome to that would be FSC and Clemson.

How would you feel if the SEC had to take another Texas school and Oklahoma State to land the pair of OU and UT?

(05-01-2017 05:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Let me just put it this way, Texas would have some major thinking to do if Oklahoma joins the SEC. They would know that we would no longer need them for anything. Would we still take them? Hell yes! That's way too much money to leave on the table. But stop and think about the major cities in Texas.

Houston: Covered by A&M, L.S.U.
Dallas: Covered by A&M, Arkansas, and Oklahoma
San Antonio: Covered by A&M
Austin: Penetrated by A&M

So other than Austin what does Texas offer us? A brand.

Do we need them to own Texas? Not in the least.

So does Oklahoma do it for us? Yes! Do they do it enough to include OSU? Not necessarily.

For the SEC to take OSU there would have to be another conference like the PAC willing to take both. Or, the Big 10 would have to be willing to take Oklahoma by themselves. Why? Because Texas, an ESPN owned product until 2031, isn't headed to a FOX held network. And Kansas and Oklahoma together don't add enough value to the Big 10 to be a viable pair, at least not until the Big 10 waits to see if the ACCN pans out. If it doesn't they stand to earn a lot more with options to the East.

The Big 10 owns the best markets in Kansas now. The Big 10 is suffering for football brands and Oklahoma with Texas makes sense. 24,000 attendance at Kansas football games does not. And Oklahoma does not get the Big 10 into Texas any more than Nebraska did. How did that work out for them? Only Texas plants the B1G flag in Texas. Oklahoma in the B1G without Texas does nothing good for Oklahoma and nothing good for the B1G.

So if the PAC isn't going to take OSU why should we if Texas is still thinking about it, if West Virginia is still hanging, or for that matter if the ACCN isn't a big winner.

But I believe Notre Dame and Cincinnati will be joining the ACC in concert with the debut of the ACCN. I think they stay locked down. Where does that leave Texas to go as an ESPN product? It's really worth waiting to see. If OU wants to jump now and by themselves get out the safety net and let them. Texas is worth a wait of 1 year. Then I say examine the remaining options and see who we want. But personally if I'm Texas and I'm surveying my remaining options, I call Birmingham. It's much better for my alums if their annual games are Oklahoma, A&M, Arkansas, L.S.U., and Ole Miss than anything else they could get.

I still disagree with you regarding the 24,000 in football for Kansas , but everything else makes sense.

Kansas is able to get a crowd for decent games and when it puts a good team on the field. Will they get 90-100 k, probably not but 45-55 is possible, especially with decent matchups.

That plus the fact that grabbing Kansas would help bball and academic reputation and I think they should not be overlooked as a serious contender. They may not be a cultural fit, but they do bring what the SEC may be looking for and also won't make the West more of a.murderers row.

If we are stopping at 16, they are a decent choice. If we go to 18, a school like Iowa State should be considered too.

Of course, the conference can go another way.

(05-01-2017 07:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  How would you feel if the SEC had to take another Texas school and Oklahoma State to land the pair of OU and UT?

Fine with me.

I'm cheering for resolution almost as much as anything at this point.

If we take some version of Texahoma then my only question is how does the GOR get resolved and does everyone else have a landing spot?

(05-01-2017 08:06 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 05:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Let me just put it this way, Texas would have some major thinking to do if Oklahoma joins the SEC. They would know that we would no longer need them for anything. Would we still take them? Hell yes! That's way too much money to leave on the table. But stop and think about the major cities in Texas.

Houston: Covered by A&M, L.S.U.
Dallas: Covered by A&M, Arkansas, and Oklahoma
San Antonio: Covered by A&M
Austin: Penetrated by A&M

So other than Austin what does Texas offer us? A brand.

Do we need them to own Texas? Not in the least.

So does Oklahoma do it for us? Yes! Do they do it enough to include OSU? Not necessarily.

For the SEC to take OSU there would have to be another conference like the PAC willing to take both. Or, the Big 10 would have to be willing to take Oklahoma by themselves. Why? Because Texas, an ESPN owned product until 2031, isn't headed to a FOX held network. And Kansas and Oklahoma together don't add enough value to the Big 10 to be a viable pair, at least not until the Big 10 waits to see if the ACCN pans out. If it doesn't they stand to earn a lot more with options to the East.

The Big 10 owns the best markets in Kansas now. The Big 10 is suffering for football brands and Oklahoma with Texas makes sense. 24,000 attendance at Kansas football games does not. And Oklahoma does not get the Big 10 into Texas any more than Nebraska did. How did that work out for them? Only Texas plants the B1G flag in Texas. Oklahoma in the B1G without Texas does nothing good for Oklahoma and nothing good for the B1G.

So if the PAC isn't going to take OSU why should we if Texas is still thinking about it, if West Virginia is still hanging, or for that matter if the ACCN isn't a big winner.

But I believe Notre Dame and Cincinnati will be joining the ACC in concert with the debut of the ACCN. I think they stay locked down. Where does that leave Texas to go as an ESPN product? It's really worth waiting to see. If OU wants to jump now and by themselves get out the safety net and let them. Texas is worth a wait of 1 year. Then I say examine the remaining options and see who we want. But personally if I'm Texas and I'm surveying my remaining options, I call Birmingham. It's much better for my alums if their annual games are Oklahoma, A&M, Arkansas, L.S.U., and Ole Miss than anything else they could get.

I still disagree with you regarding the 24,000 in football for Kansas , but everything else makes sense.

Kansas is able to get a crowd for decent games and when it puts a good team on the field. Will they get 90-100 k, probably not but 45-55 is possible, especially with decent matchups.

That plus the fact that grabbing Kansas would help bball and academic reputation and I think they should not be overlooked as a serious contender. They may not be a cultural fit, but they do bring what the SEC may be looking for and also won't make the West more of a.murderers row.

If we are stopping at 16, they are a decent choice. If we go to 18, a school like Iowa State should be considered too.

Of course, the conference can go another way.

24,000 was their average for the entire season last year. That's 53,500 fans lower than the SEC MEAN of 77,500 That's a whopping loss at the gate. If we got just OU and UT we wouldn't be adding anyone else. Any other addition would only take away from the bottom line. If we have to add another Texas and Oklahoma school we all still make more, just not as much and in that case Kansas or anyone else would be moot because we would be at 18. With OU and UT to the West Alabama and Auburn would move East.

(05-01-2017 08:11 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 07:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  How would you feel if the SEC had to take another Texas school and Oklahoma State to land the pair of OU and UT?

Fine with me.

I'm cheering for resolution almost as much as anything at this point.

If we take some version of Texahoma then my only question is how does the GOR get resolved and does everyone else have a landing spot?

I think that's the hold up. Nobody knows.

(05-01-2017 06:42 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 06:08 PM)Otacon Wrote:  I just don't see why any Big XII school would go west to the PAC... They're worse off then the Big XII already.

Very true.

As it stands, yes the PAC 12 isn't overly financial attractive. They do have the stability though in that due to their geographic location aren't really likely to lose schools to other conferences.

The Big 12 on the other hand (despite its pretty strong financial payouts to members recently) sits in/in between the footprint of several conferences and due to it's relative instability makes it the most likely to have members picked off.

(05-02-2017 08:25 AM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 06:42 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 06:08 PM)Otacon Wrote:  I just don't see why any Big XII school would go west to the PAC... They're worse off then the Big XII already.

Very true.

As it stands, yes the PAC 12 isn't overly financial attractive. They do have the stability though in that due to their geographic location aren't really likely to lose schools to other conferences.

The Big 12 on the other hand (despite its pretty strong financial payouts to members recently) sits in/in between the footprint of several conferences and due to it's relative instability makes it the most likely to have members picked off.

That's exactly right, but unfortunate because the Big 12 is the best bridge with which to tie the PAC to the rest of us. Somehow Minnesota just doesn't seem to be as close to Washington. I know it's a perception issue because now the Big 10 is reasonably close to Colorado, but Colorado doesn't seem to signify PAC like USC or Washington. I think the PAC will fee much more distant without the Big 12, unless of course it decides to make a play for 4 to 6 more Big 12 schools.