(05-09-2017 12:29 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  If both UT and OU were to come into the SEC West, where does that put Missouri? Does the SEC just move Auburn and Alabama to the east? That preserves the annual rivalry with Tennessee as well as the Iron Bowl. I really like Mizzou in the east, and we promise to take it easy on the Tide (lol). We have spent five years trying to blend. I think both divisions would be well balanced if we stick with two. Thoughts?

Actually Medic, it would be up to Missouri's administration. The frustrating part, and yet the comforting part, about the SEC is that we don't make any internal moves unilaterally. All parties involved must agree. Naturally Texas and OU would move into the West. Missouri or Vanderbilt could move West but if either of them did it would only be with their consent.

But it is one reason I favor a move to 18. 3 very regional divisions of 6 is actually much easier to achieve and would keep lasting harmony much longer than two divisions of 9.

(05-09-2017 12:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 12:29 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  If both UT and OU were to come into the SEC West, where does that put Missouri? Does the SEC just move Auburn and Alabama to the east? That preserves the annual rivalry with Tennessee as well as the Iron Bowl. I really like Mizzou in the east, and we promise to take it easy on the Tide (lol). We have spent five years trying to blend. I think both divisions would be well balanced if we stick with two. Thoughts?

Actually Medic, it would be up to Missouri's administration. The frustrating part, and yet the comforting part, about the SEC is that we don't make any internal moves unilaterally. All parties involved must agree. Naturally Texas and OU would move into the West. Missouri or Vanderbilt could move West but if either of them did it would only be with their consent.

But it is one reason I favor a move to 18. 3 very regional divisions of 6 is actually much easier to achieve and would keep lasting harmony much longer than two divisions of 9.

I agree with your 18 scenario. With two divisions, we would almost certainly have to add another conference game. It would be fun watching UT have to play by someone else's rules.

(05-09-2017 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 11:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 08:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 07:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  The real money is in the playoffs.
In a P4 scenario the conferences get to keep a great deal of the playoff money. It would benefit the SEC and the ACC to have a solid playoff structure, which is why it's a good deal for Texas and Oklahoma to head to the PAC. The SEC does not need two more "air time hogs" in it's own conference, but really close disliked opponents for heated playoff rivalries.

Not really. Is there a more heated rivalry than A&M / Texas. Is there a more needed rivalry renewal than that one? And what about Arkansas / Texas? There is a reason for pursuing Texas. Rivalry within the conference has proven to be huge for the SEC. Oklahoma is a nice, and perhaps more attainable way to get into DFW without duplication, provided OSU isn't part of the deal in which case Texas would be more valuable alone.

But if the SEC is to structure its divisions more naturally we need brand anchors added in the West. And, since content will drive all payouts moving forward we need strong brands with which to do that. It is the thinking that we need more role players that curtails upside and is in part why, until Notre Dame, the ACC lagged. Pitt, Syracuse, and B.C. aren't national brands. Syracuse is a strong regional brand but people across the country don't think of them for football. They are a national basketball brand. With N.D. & FSU football brands are where the money is. For that reason only WVU may be the best option still on the table for you.

But saying to any conference you don't need more brands is old thinking and not the course for the future.

Nobody outside of Texas cares about Texas/A&m anymore. That game will no longer get a national audience. Why? Because we are all too busy watching our regional teams (the one's that play the teams in our conference). I had much rather watch State play or Notre Dame get beat than watch Texas vs. Arkansas (and I loved that game when it was Akers vs Holtz). Look at the numbers of Texas/Oklahoma.....people don't watch like they used to, because now they have choices. The only games that large amounts of people will pay attention to are playoffs.
If you are already getting state wide coverage in Texas with the SECN, Texas adds zero to your bottom line other than getting better local add rates.
B1G folks will watch the B1GN, we're going to watch the ACCN, because we would rather watch our own.......just like you would.
Why is it that the NBA plays into June, MLB plays into October and the NFL into February.........because they have all added multiple rounds of playoff games, because that is where the money is!

The worst the A&M & Texas or Arkansas and Texas games would draw is a smaller national audience. Most top notch SEC games have a national audience. These would have a huge saturation from Texas and their neighboring states, and that would only add to a national audience. Texas / OU didn't draw because it was on FS1.

I'm not sure if you are dreaming, hopeful, or just challenged. Times have changed. There are more than just one or two offerings on a Saturday and people will watch the games that involve the teams in their area.
I could tell you that most ACC basketball games have a national audience and when the Heels play every basketball fan in America watches, but...........

(05-09-2017 03:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 11:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 08:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 07:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  The real money is in the playoffs.
In a P4 scenario the conferences get to keep a great deal of the playoff money. It would benefit the SEC and the ACC to have a solid playoff structure, which is why it's a good deal for Texas and Oklahoma to head to the PAC. The SEC does not need two more "air time hogs" in it's own conference, but really close disliked opponents for heated playoff rivalries.

Not really. Is there a more heated rivalry than A&M / Texas. Is there a more needed rivalry renewal than that one? And what about Arkansas / Texas? There is a reason for pursuing Texas. Rivalry within the conference has proven to be huge for the SEC. Oklahoma is a nice, and perhaps more attainable way to get into DFW without duplication, provided OSU isn't part of the deal in which case Texas would be more valuable alone.

But if the SEC is to structure its divisions more naturally we need brand anchors added in the West. And, since content will drive all payouts moving forward we need strong brands with which to do that. It is the thinking that we need more role players that curtails upside and is in part why, until Notre Dame, the ACC lagged. Pitt, Syracuse, and B.C. aren't national brands. Syracuse is a strong regional brand but people across the country don't think of them for football. They are a national basketball brand. With N.D. & FSU football brands are where the money is. For that reason only WVU may be the best option still on the table for you.

But saying to any conference you don't need more brands is old thinking and not the course for the future.

Nobody outside of Texas cares about Texas/A&m anymore. That game will no longer get a national audience. Why? Because we are all too busy watching our regional teams (the one's that play the teams in our conference). I had much rather watch State play or Notre Dame get beat than watch Texas vs. Arkansas (and I loved that game when it was Akers vs Holtz). Look at the numbers of Texas/Oklahoma.....people don't watch like they used to, because now they have choices. The only games that large amounts of people will pay attention to are playoffs.
If you are already getting state wide coverage in Texas with the SECN, Texas adds zero to your bottom line other than getting better local add rates.
B1G folks will watch the B1GN, we're going to watch the ACCN, because we would rather watch our own.......just like you would.
Why is it that the NBA plays into June, MLB plays into October and the NFL into February.........because they have all added multiple rounds of playoff games, because that is where the money is!

The worst the A&M & Texas or Arkansas and Texas games would draw is a smaller national audience. Most top notch SEC games have a national audience. These would have a huge saturation from Texas and their neighboring states, and that would only add to a national audience. Texas / OU didn't draw because it was on FS1.

I'm not sure if you are dreaming, hopeful, or just challenged. Times have changed. There are more than just one or two offerings on a Saturday and people will watch the games that involve the teams in their area.
I could tell you that most ACC basketball games have a national audience and when the Heels play every basketball fan in America watches, but...........

And those other offerings lag behind the SEC most weeks until F.S.U. plays Clemson or Penn State plays Ohio State. We generally have a solid offering plus one or two others every week. When we finally kill off G5 games it will be even better.

(05-09-2017 04:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 03:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 11:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 08:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Not really. Is there a more heated rivalry than A&M / Texas. Is there a more needed rivalry renewal than that one? And what about Arkansas / Texas? There is a reason for pursuing Texas. Rivalry within the conference has proven to be huge for the SEC. Oklahoma is a nice, and perhaps more attainable way to get into DFW without duplication, provided OSU isn't part of the deal in which case Texas would be more valuable alone.

But if the SEC is to structure its divisions more naturally we need brand anchors added in the West. And, since content will drive all payouts moving forward we need strong brands with which to do that. It is the thinking that we need more role players that curtails upside and is in part why, until Notre Dame, the ACC lagged. Pitt, Syracuse, and B.C. aren't national brands. Syracuse is a strong regional brand but people across the country don't think of them for football. They are a national basketball brand. With N.D. & FSU football brands are where the money is. For that reason only WVU may be the best option still on the table for you.

But saying to any conference you don't need more brands is old thinking and not the course for the future.

Nobody outside of Texas cares about Texas/A&m anymore. That game will no longer get a national audience. Why? Because we are all too busy watching our regional teams (the one's that play the teams in our conference). I had much rather watch State play or Notre Dame get beat than watch Texas vs. Arkansas (and I loved that game when it was Akers vs Holtz). Look at the numbers of Texas/Oklahoma.....people don't watch like they used to, because now they have choices. The only games that large amounts of people will pay attention to are playoffs.
If you are already getting state wide coverage in Texas with the SECN, Texas adds zero to your bottom line other than getting better local add rates.
B1G folks will watch the B1GN, we're going to watch the ACCN, because we would rather watch our own.......just like you would.
Why is it that the NBA plays into June, MLB plays into October and the NFL into February.........because they have all added multiple rounds of playoff games, because that is where the money is!

The worst the A&M & Texas or Arkansas and Texas games would draw is a smaller national audience. Most top notch SEC games have a national audience. These would have a huge saturation from Texas and their neighboring states, and that would only add to a national audience. Texas / OU didn't draw because it was on FS1.

I'm not sure if you are dreaming, hopeful, or just challenged. Times have changed. There are more than just one or two offerings on a Saturday and people will watch the games that involve the teams in their area.
I could tell you that most ACC basketball games have a national audience and when the Heels play every basketball fan in America watches, but...........

And those other offerings lag behind the SEC most weeks until F.S.U. plays Clemson or Penn State plays Ohio State. We generally have a solid offering plus one or two others every week. When we finally kill off G5 games it will be even better.
you

Jr challenged? You are kidding me, right?

(05-09-2017 11:26 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 04:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 03:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 11:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  Nobody outside of Texas cares about Texas/A&m anymore. That game will no longer get a national audience. Why? Because we are all too busy watching our regional teams (the one's that play the teams in our conference). I had much rather watch State play or Notre Dame get beat than watch Texas vs. Arkansas (and I loved that game when it was Akers vs Holtz). Look at the numbers of Texas/Oklahoma.....people don't watch like they used to, because now they have choices. The only games that large amounts of people will pay attention to are playoffs.
If you are already getting state wide coverage in Texas with the SECN, Texas adds zero to your bottom line other than getting better local add rates.
B1G folks will watch the B1GN, we're going to watch the ACCN, because we would rather watch our own.......just like you would.
Why is it that the NBA plays into June, MLB plays into October and the NFL into February.........because they have all added multiple rounds of playoff games, because that is where the money is!

The worst the A&M & Texas or Arkansas and Texas games would draw is a smaller national audience. Most top notch SEC games have a national audience. These would have a huge saturation from Texas and their neighboring states, and that would only add to a national audience. Texas / OU didn't draw because it was on FS1.

I'm not sure if you are dreaming, hopeful, or just challenged. Times have changed. There are more than just one or two offerings on a Saturday and people will watch the games that involve the teams in their area.
I could tell you that most ACC basketball games have a national audience and when the Heels play every basketball fan in America watches, but...........

And those other offerings lag behind the SEC most weeks until F.S.U. plays Clemson or Penn State plays Ohio State. We generally have a solid offering plus one or two others every week. When we finally kill off G5 games it will be even better.
you

Jr challenged? You are kidding me, right?

Bless his Heart.

I think we are approaching this the wrong way with regards to the SEC and ACC and who we should take.

The ACC needs Notre Dame plus 3 to get to 18, or 4 to get to 18 while N.D. keeps its special arrangement.

The SEC needs 4 to get to 18.

If Baylor is sanctioned and lose their vote, or worse get kicked out, the Big 12 would stand at 9. They would, by NCAA precedent, have two years to get back up to 10 before they lose rights given at the membership level of 10 (right now that is a potential CCG). Two years would be all they would need to set up moves.

So our question should be how should the SEC divide the 7 required schools so that dissolution would be possible without Baylor's vote or presence and if Baylor still has full membership should we look to take 8 and leave N.D. as a partial?

I'd say Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State, and Oklahoma State to the SEC.

Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech and West Virginia to the ACC at 4. Drop West Virginia at 3.

But this might make for a fun debate.

I can live with those 4 teams to the SEC. it would definitely improve basketball and baseball in the conference. I think challenge would be figuring out the composition of the 3 divisions. You might left with using the H1 scenario if creating an SEC North with UTK, Mizzou, IAST, Vandy, UK and KU. Not something I would for for my Vols, but it would solve a lot of other inter conference desires.

(05-12-2017 09:04 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I can live with those 4 teams to the SEC. it would definitely improve basketball and baseball in the conference. I think challenge would be figuring out the composition of the 3 divisions. You might left with using the H1 scenario if creating an SEC North with UTK, Mizzou, IAST, Vandy, UK and KU. Not something I would for for my Vols, but it would solve a lot of other inter conference desires.

2 Divisions:

West: Iowa St, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Arkansas, Texas A&M, LSU, Kentucky
East: Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina

3 Divisions:

West: Iowa St, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas A&M
Central: Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Alabama, Auburn
East: Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina

I like 3 divisions above better - essentially the 12-team SEC plus a new Western wing.

(05-12-2017 11:55 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 09:04 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I can live with those 4 teams to the SEC. it would definitely improve basketball and baseball in the conference. I think challenge would be figuring out the composition of the 3 divisions. You might left with using the H1 scenario if creating an SEC North with UTK, Mizzou, IAST, Vandy, UK and KU. Not something I would for for my Vols, but it would solve a lot of other inter conference desires.

2 Divisions:

West: Iowa St, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Arkansas, Texas A&M, LSU, Kentucky
East: Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina

3 Divisions:

West: Iowa St, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas A&M
Central: Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Alabama, Auburn
East: Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina

I like 3 divisions above better - essentially the 12-team SEC plus a new Western wing.

It is a pretty nice set up isnt' it.

(05-11-2017 10:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think we are approaching this the wrong way with regards to the SEC and ACC and who we should take.

The ACC needs Notre Dame plus 3 to get to 18, or 4 to get to 18 while N.D. keeps its special arrangement.

The SEC needs 4 to get to 18.

If Baylor is sanctioned and lose their vote, or worse get kicked out, the Big 12 would stand at 9. They would, by NCAA precedent, have two years to get back up to 10 before they lose rights given at the membership level of 10 (right now that is a potential CCG). Two years would be all they would need to set up moves.

So our question should be how should the SEC divide the 7 required schools so that dissolution would be possible without Baylor's vote or presence and if Baylor still has full membership should we look to take 8 and leave N.D. as a partial?

I'd say Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State, and Oklahoma State to the SEC.

Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech and West Virginia to the ACC at 4. Drop West Virginia at 3.

But this might make for a fun debate.

I like it. I think both conferences would be satisfied and could call it a win. SEC gets OK for football, Kansas for basketball, and 2 AAUs. AAC gets Texas and partners and helps bridge to Louisville with West VA or gets ND.

But at that point, I'm guessing the Big 10 would get involved. Also, this would be a huge coup by ESPN vs. Fox, so Fox would get involved too. If everything happened in a vacuum the message board posters wouldn't have anything to talk about because it would be done already!

Big 10 options:
counter offer to OK/Kansas
counter offer to Texas (would they take Tech at that point?)
counter offer to Iowa St/Kansas?
offer PAC 10 schools in mass?

It would certainly be great for the SEC/ACC to move from 28 schools to 36 schools while keeping the PAC/Big 10 at 26 total schools. Balance of power would shift dramatically.

(05-12-2017 12:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 11:55 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 09:04 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I can live with those 4 teams to the SEC. it would definitely improve basketball and baseball in the conference. I think challenge would be figuring out the composition of the 3 divisions. You might left with using the H1 scenario if creating an SEC North with UTK, Mizzou, IAST, Vandy, UK and KU. Not something I would for for my Vols, but it would solve a lot of other inter conference desires.

2 Divisions:

West: Iowa St, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Arkansas, Texas A&M, LSU, Kentucky
East: Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina

3 Divisions:

West: Iowa St, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas A&M
Central: Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Alabama, Auburn
East: Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina

I like 3 divisions above better - essentially the 12-team SEC plus a new Western wing.

It is a pretty nice set up isnt' it.

I like that as well but I have this feeling that if the SEC went to 18 that Bama would play the trump card they are holding and get them and Auburn aligned with UGA, UFL, SCAR.

ECU to the SEC

(05-12-2017 03:06 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  ECU to the SEC

Deep down in my heart, in a place that is free of "brand envy" and the need to bolster phony academic numbers, since most of our revenue athletes really couldn't get into our schools if not for sports, there is this voice that says "East Carolina". Why? They would be eternally grateful and loyal to the conference until the day they died! And because deep in the recesses of my brain where my desire to express hostility resides there is a voice that says "East Carolina". Why? Because nothing would piss North Carolina and Duke off more!

(05-12-2017 03:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 03:06 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  ECU to the SEC

Deep down in my heart, in a place that is free of "brand envy" and the need to bolster phony academic numbers, since most of our revenue athletes really couldn't get into our schools if not for sports, there is this voice that says "East Carolina". Why? They would be eternally grateful and loyal to the conference until the day they died! And because deep in the recesses of my brain where my desire to express hostility resides there is a voice that says "East Carolina". Why? Because nothing would piss North Carolina and Duke off more!

We wouldn't care........anything east of I-95 is like the Bermuda Triangle....stuff goes in and is never heard from again.
Just for the record, my daughter attended East Carolina.

(05-12-2017 02:23 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 12:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 11:55 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 09:04 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I can live with those 4 teams to the SEC. it would definitely improve basketball and baseball in the conference. I think challenge would be figuring out the composition of the 3 divisions. You might left with using the H1 scenario if creating an SEC North with UTK, Mizzou, IAST, Vandy, UK and KU. Not something I would for for my Vols, but it would solve a lot of other inter conference desires.

2 Divisions:

West: Iowa St, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Arkansas, Texas A&M, LSU, Kentucky
East: Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina

3 Divisions:

West: Iowa St, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas A&M
Central: Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Alabama, Auburn
East: Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina

I like 3 divisions above better - essentially the 12-team SEC plus a new Western wing.

It is a pretty nice set up isnt' it.

I like that as well but I have this feeling that if the SEC went to 18 that Bama would play the trump card they are holding and get them and Auburn aligned with UGA, UFL, SCAR.

Let's see that then!

West: Iowa St, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas A&M
Central: Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Kentucky, Vanderbilt
East: Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina

(05-12-2017 03:47 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 03:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 03:06 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  ECU to the SEC

Deep down in my heart, in a place that is free of "brand envy" and the need to bolster phony academic numbers, since most of our revenue athletes really couldn't get into our schools if not for sports, there is this voice that says "East Carolina". Why? They would be eternally grateful and loyal to the conference until the day they died! And because deep in the recesses of my brain where my desire to express hostility resides there is a voice that says "East Carolina". Why? Because nothing would piss North Carolina and Duke off more!

We wouldn't care........anything east of I-95 is like the Bermuda Triangle....stuff goes in and is never heard from again.
Just for the record, my daughter attended East Carolina.

My God X! How long has she been missing?

(05-12-2017 05:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 03:47 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 03:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 03:06 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  ECU to the SEC

Deep down in my heart, in a place that is free of "brand envy" and the need to bolster phony academic numbers, since most of our revenue athletes really couldn't get into our schools if not for sports, there is this voice that says "East Carolina". Why? They would be eternally grateful and loyal to the conference until the day they died! And because deep in the recesses of my brain where my desire to express hostility resides there is a voice that says "East Carolina". Why? Because nothing would piss North Carolina and Duke off more!

We wouldn't care........anything east of I-95 is like the Bermuda Triangle....stuff goes in and is never heard from again.
Just for the record, my daughter attended East Carolina.

My God X! How long has she been missing?

Actually JR she is alive an well, living in Fuquay-Varina with her husband and MY grandchildren.

(05-11-2017 10:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think we are approaching this the wrong way with regards to the SEC and ACC and who we should take.

The ACC needs Notre Dame plus 3 to get to 18, or 4 to get to 18 while N.D. keeps its special arrangement.

The SEC needs 4 to get to 18.

If Baylor is sanctioned and lose their vote, or worse get kicked out, the Big 12 would stand at 9. They would, by NCAA precedent, have two years to get back up to 10 before they lose rights given at the membership level of 10 (right now that is a potential CCG). Two years would be all they would need to set up moves.

So our question should be how should the SEC divide the 7 required schools so that dissolution would be possible without Baylor's vote or presence and if Baylor still has full membership should we look to take 8 and leave N.D. as a partial?

I'd say Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State, and Oklahoma State to the SEC.

Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech and West Virginia to the ACC at 4. Drop West Virginia at 3.

But this might make for a fun debate.

I think Baylor is still going to be in the mix though. The NCAA got burned in the sphere of public opinion when they went after Penn State. Many people felt they overstepped their bounds. In fact, the NCAA walked back a lot of the sanctions over time.

I'm not sure what authority the Feds have to bring the hammer down on Baylor. Perhaps they have more leeway to do something, not sure.

Anyway, I think the linchpin may have to be something else.

(05-12-2017 10:27 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 10:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think we are approaching this the wrong way with regards to the SEC and ACC and who we should take.

The ACC needs Notre Dame plus 3 to get to 18, or 4 to get to 18 while N.D. keeps its special arrangement.

The SEC needs 4 to get to 18.

If Baylor is sanctioned and lose their vote, or worse get kicked out, the Big 12 would stand at 9. They would, by NCAA precedent, have two years to get back up to 10 before they lose rights given at the membership level of 10 (right now that is a potential CCG). Two years would be all they would need to set up moves.

So our question should be how should the SEC divide the 7 required schools so that dissolution would be possible without Baylor's vote or presence and if Baylor still has full membership should we look to take 8 and leave N.D. as a partial?

I'd say Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State, and Oklahoma State to the SEC.

Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech and West Virginia to the ACC at 4. Drop West Virginia at 3.

But this might make for a fun debate.

I think Baylor is still going to be in the mix though. The NCAA got burned in the sphere of public opinion when they went after Penn State. Many people felt they overstepped their bounds. In fact, the NCAA walked back a lot of the sanctions over time.

I'm not sure what authority the Feds have to bring the hammer down on Baylor. Perhaps they have more leeway to do something, not sure.

Anyway, I think the linchpin may have to be something else.

They are going to get hit for violations of Title IX and violations of the Clery Act by the Feds. The cover up goes clearly to the presidents office. The NCAA will have access to the Fed's investigations. If they follow up with severe sanctions I doubt Baylor will have much recourse in disputing the findings of a Federal Court. S.M.U. and Penn State didn't face that. S.M.U. because it was just corrupt athletic practices and Penn State because the State government made pursuing the case difficult. Baylor will have no such cover, and they have the righteous indignation of a boat load of Texas Baptist's to contend with if they do anything less than confess and take their punishment.