(02-19-2018 07:18 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 06:38 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 05:32 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 01:53 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  How plausible is this?
Oklahoma + Oklahoma State to the SEC
Texas + TCU to the ACC
leaves the Big Ten to decide if they want Kansas + Iowa State

BTW, I prefer if the ACC could get WVU + Texas + TCU + maybe Iowa State, Houston or even Memphis as a bridge.
Then, if the SEC takes OU + OSU + Texas Tech + Kansas, that pretty much kills the Big XII (leaving only Baylor and Kansas State behind).

What you might see would be Texas and TCU to the ACC,

Missouri and Kansas to the B1G,

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and West Virginia to the SEC,

No conference will move beyond 16 at this time.

You just gave the SEC 3 more teams. 14+3=17

Missouri to the B1G.......... 14-1+3+16.

So you expect me to read AND comprehend your posts - in addition to counting? That's post-graduate work at UNC!

(02-19-2018 01:48 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 07:18 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 06:38 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 05:32 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 01:53 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  How plausible is this?
Oklahoma + Oklahoma State to the SEC
Texas + TCU to the ACC
leaves the Big Ten to decide if they want Kansas + Iowa State

BTW, I prefer if the ACC could get WVU + Texas + TCU + maybe Iowa State, Houston or even Memphis as a bridge.
Then, if the SEC takes OU + OSU + Texas Tech + Kansas, that pretty much kills the Big XII (leaving only Baylor and Kansas State behind).

What you might see would be Texas and TCU to the ACC,

Missouri and Kansas to the B1G,

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and West Virginia to the SEC,

No conference will move beyond 16 at this time.

You just gave the SEC 3 more teams. 14+3=17

Missouri to the B1G.......... 14-1+3+16.

So you expect me to read AND comprehend your posts - in addition to counting? That's post-graduate work at UNC!

(02-18-2018 08:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 08:49 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 08:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 08:09 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(02-13-2018 10:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  They make some flawed assumptions here.

1. FOX going all out for NFL games could just be their deliberately taking a different and less competitive stance with ESPN since now if ESPN makes money they make money. So assuming that FOX is going all in on sports broadcasting is erroneous. NBC, ABC, and CBS have not gone all in on college ball when they they had the NFL.

2. 2020 may be about right for the backdoor talks to begin for 2022-3 movement. The buyout of the last two years of the GOR won't amount to much for Texas and Oklahoma.

3. However, if ESPN gets concerned about new entrants into their world the incentive will be there for them to place all 10 of the Big 12 schools and renegotiate contracts, extending their deadlines, before things open up for all parties to get involved. That and that alone could make this pop before 2020. This would be especially true if ESPN tries to land some Texas product for the opening of the ACCN in 2019. A move to 20 schools in the SEC and ACC could absorb the Big 12 easily.

Texas, Baylor, T.C.U. and Kansas State to the ACC with Notre Dame all in and you are at 20.

Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and West Virginia to the SEC and you can make the move at the end of the coming season.

4. If ESPN opts not to go that route then the bidding for OU and UT will be all out in 2020 for 2023.

5. ESPN goes all out for the rest of the Big 10 contract and then divides the Big 12 property 3 ways. This still works for them when the B1G contract comes up for renewal in 2022.

6. ESPN goes for the PACN and that makes a Texas move with friends possible to the PAC.

Somehow in these I don't see a big FOX push for college product being a factor. They could just get a wink from ESPN and hold their own. They could give ESPN a wink and let them take a little bit more. Or they could sell out to an ESPN competitor and let whatever ESPN makes in the market be their stake in the profits. This is why some have speculated that Murdoch may sell out to Amazon for large number of shares of Amazon stock. Disney and Amazon are two stocks to hold onto.

So it's going to get interesting. But remember this, outside of the PAC which right now can't offer the financial package necessary to attract Oklahoma or Texas, the SEC is the only conference than can take OSU to get OU. No matter what happens that is still our ace in a whole to get OU and OU is our ace in the hole to get UT.

Texas will make $$$ no matter which conference it decides to join. Consequently, I think the key to landing Texas is taking as many little brothers as possible. I honestly see OU and OSU going to the SEC. If the PAC is willing to take TT, TCU, and possibly Houston, then I could see Texas going to the PAC. ESPN converts the LHN into the PAC 16 Lone Star Network for a % of the PACN. The Longhorns would be the highest grossing school in the PAC 16—which further boosts its ego….

This could be especially true if ESPN buys a controlling share of the PACN. Then if they rolled the LHN into that it becomes very doable. But remember they already have a controlling interest in the ACCN and will need a bigger draw to gain the carriage needed for the launch. So the ACC taking Texas and little brothers is also possible, and even more so if the PAC doesn't sell a controlling interest in their network.

I see you point my friend.... However, the ACC already has north/south/football/baskeball identity issues in my opinion. I think adding Texas would be detrimental to the ACC long term.

The FrankenCoast Conference already has two grafted body parts why not three? You have a head from the dying Big East, a torso from the old core, legs from Southern Independents and Miami, so why not booted feet from a dying Big 12? With Notre Dame you have a voting block of 4 against a voting block of 6 maybe 7 core schools, against the football first independents & Miami add to maybe 3 from Texas. They will have to govern by coalition or consensus. But with the Irish, Heels and Horns representing three of those groups the ego competition alone might be worth ratings. It might be the only conference in history whose conference meetings if televised might out draw their football.

Voting blocks?
Really JR?
I'll have to hand it to you because you are very consistent in trying to manufacture conflicts within the ACC where none exist.
We'll be seeing you soon in our rear view mirror.

(02-20-2018 05:45 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 08:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 08:49 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 08:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 08:09 PM)Underdog Wrote:  Texas will make $$$ no matter which conference it decides to join. Consequently, I think the key to landing Texas is taking as many little brothers as possible. I honestly see OU and OSU going to the SEC. If the PAC is willing to take TT, TCU, and possibly Houston, then I could see Texas going to the PAC. ESPN converts the LHN into the PAC 16 Lone Star Network for a % of the PACN. The Longhorns would be the highest grossing school in the PAC 16—which further boosts its ego….

This could be especially true if ESPN buys a controlling share of the PACN. Then if they rolled the LHN into that it becomes very doable. But remember they already have a controlling interest in the ACCN and will need a bigger draw to gain the carriage needed for the launch. So the ACC taking Texas and little brothers is also possible, and even more so if the PAC doesn't sell a controlling interest in their network.

I see you point my friend.... However, the ACC already has north/south/football/baskeball identity issues in my opinion. I think adding Texas would be detrimental to the ACC long term.

The FrankenCoast Conference already has two grafted body parts why not three? You have a head from the dying Big East, a torso from the old core, legs from Southern Independents and Miami, so why not booted feet from a dying Big 12? With Notre Dame you have a voting block of 4 against a voting block of 6 maybe 7 core schools, against the football first independents & Miami add to maybe 3 from Texas. They will have to govern by coalition or consensus. But with the Irish, Heels and Horns representing three of those groups the ego competition alone might be worth ratings. It might be the only conference in history whose conference meetings if televised might out draw their football.

Voting blocks?
Really JR?
I'll have to hand it to you because you are very consistent in trying to manufacture conflicts within the ACC where none exist.
We'll be seeing you soon in our rear view mirror.

Only in your dreams.

(02-18-2018 08:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 08:49 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 08:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 08:09 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(02-13-2018 10:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  They make some flawed assumptions here.

1. FOX going all out for NFL games could just be their deliberately taking a different and less competitive stance with ESPN since now if ESPN makes money they make money. So assuming that FOX is going all in on sports broadcasting is erroneous. NBC, ABC, and CBS have not gone all in on college ball when they they had the NFL.

2. 2020 may be about right for the backdoor talks to begin for 2022-3 movement. The buyout of the last two years of the GOR won't amount to much for Texas and Oklahoma.

3. However, if ESPN gets concerned about new entrants into their world the incentive will be there for them to place all 10 of the Big 12 schools and renegotiate contracts, extending their deadlines, before things open up for all parties to get involved. That and that alone could make this pop before 2020. This would be especially true if ESPN tries to land some Texas product for the opening of the ACCN in 2019. A move to 20 schools in the SEC and ACC could absorb the Big 12 easily.

Texas, Baylor, T.C.U. and Kansas State to the ACC with Notre Dame all in and you are at 20.

Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and West Virginia to the SEC and you can make the move at the end of the coming season.

4. If ESPN opts not to go that route then the bidding for OU and UT will be all out in 2020 for 2023.

5. ESPN goes all out for the rest of the Big 10 contract and then divides the Big 12 property 3 ways. This still works for them when the B1G contract comes up for renewal in 2022.

6. ESPN goes for the PACN and that makes a Texas move with friends possible to the PAC.

Somehow in these I don't see a big FOX push for college product being a factor. They could just get a wink from ESPN and hold their own. They could give ESPN a wink and let them take a little bit more. Or they could sell out to an ESPN competitor and let whatever ESPN makes in the market be their stake in the profits. This is why some have speculated that Murdoch may sell out to Amazon for large number of shares of Amazon stock. Disney and Amazon are two stocks to hold onto.

So it's going to get interesting. But remember this, outside of the PAC which right now can't offer the financial package necessary to attract Oklahoma or Texas, the SEC is the only conference than can take OSU to get OU. No matter what happens that is still our ace in a whole to get OU and OU is our ace in the hole to get UT.

Texas will make $$$ no matter which conference it decides to join. Consequently, I think the key to landing Texas is taking as many little brothers as possible. I honestly see OU and OSU going to the SEC. If the PAC is willing to take TT, TCU, and possibly Houston, then I could see Texas going to the PAC. ESPN converts the LHN into the PAC 16 Lone Star Network for a % of the PACN. The Longhorns would be the highest grossing school in the PAC 16—which further boosts its ego….

This could be especially true if ESPN buys a controlling share of the PACN. Then if they rolled the LHN into that it becomes very doable. But remember they already have a controlling interest in the ACCN and will need a bigger draw to gain the carriage needed for the launch. So the ACC taking Texas and little brothers is also possible, and even more so if the PAC doesn't sell a controlling interest in their network.

I see you point my friend.... However, the ACC already has north/south/football/baskeball identity issues in my opinion. I think adding Texas would be detrimental to the ACC long term.

The FrankenCoast Conference already has two grafted body parts why not three? You have a head from the dying Big East, a torso from the old core, legs from Southern Independents and Miami, so why not booted feet from a dying Big 12? With Notre Dame you have a voting block of 4 against a voting block of 6 maybe 7 core schools, against the football first independents & Miami add to maybe 3 from Texas. They will have to govern by coalition or consensus. But with the Irish, Heels and Horns representing three of those groups the ego competition alone might be worth ratings. It might be the only conference in history whose conference meetings if televised might out draw their football.

The dying feet would ultimately cripple the conference; thus, causing it to fall and break apart. I’m sure the SEC and B1G would love to harvest a few organs….

(02-19-2018 07:18 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 06:38 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 05:32 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 01:53 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  How plausible is this?
Oklahoma + Oklahoma State to the SEC
Texas + TCU to the ACC
leaves the Big Ten to decide if they want Kansas + Iowa State

BTW, I prefer if the ACC could get WVU + Texas + TCU + maybe Iowa State, Houston or even Memphis as a bridge.
Then, if the SEC takes OU + OSU + Texas Tech + Kansas, that pretty much kills the Big XII (leaving only Baylor and Kansas State behind).

What you might see would be Texas and TCU to the ACC,

Missouri and Kansas to the B1G,

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and West Virginia to the SEC,

No conference will move beyond 16 at this time.

You just gave the SEC 3 more teams. 14+3=17

Missouri to the B1G.......... 14-1+3+16.

No way in hell Missouri would leave the SEC and buy its way into the BTN—that would be absolutely asinine. The B1G blew that opportunity B1G Time! It should have added Missouri and KU in my opinion….

(02-21-2018 03:23 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 07:18 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 06:38 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 05:32 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 01:53 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  How plausible is this?
Oklahoma + Oklahoma State to the SEC
Texas + TCU to the ACC
leaves the Big Ten to decide if they want Kansas + Iowa State

BTW, I prefer if the ACC could get WVU + Texas + TCU + maybe Iowa State, Houston or even Memphis as a bridge.
Then, if the SEC takes OU + OSU + Texas Tech + Kansas, that pretty much kills the Big XII (leaving only Baylor and Kansas State behind).

What you might see would be Texas and TCU to the ACC,

Missouri and Kansas to the B1G,

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and West Virginia to the SEC,

No conference will move beyond 16 at this time.

You just gave the SEC 3 more teams. 14+3=17

Missouri to the B1G.......... 14-1+3+16.

No way in hell Missouri would leave the SEC and buy its way into the BTN—that would be absolutely asinine. The B1G blew that opportunity B1G Time! It should have added Missouri and KU in my opinion….

There is only 1 program in the Big 12 that is a slam dunk addition for the Big 10, Texas. They might take Oklahoma but the academics of the Sooners is nowhere near that of Nebraska which they oft opine.

So yeah, one day the B1G might well cooperate with the SEC over raiding the ACC. However, no matter how cobbled together they are, an ACC with Texas and Notre Dame agreeing to stay, would be deuce difficult to pick apart. I think it is a "confederation" that could exist for decades, it's just that the cost of it is UNC's control over the conference so the real question is "Would that price of control be too high for U.N.C. to accept?"

(02-21-2018 05:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-21-2018 03:23 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 07:18 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 06:38 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 05:32 AM)XLance Wrote:  What you might see would be Texas and TCU to the ACC,

Missouri and Kansas to the B1G,

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and West Virginia to the SEC,

No conference will move beyond 16 at this time.

You just gave the SEC 3 more teams. 14+3=17

Missouri to the B1G.......... 14-1+3+16.

No way in hell Missouri would leave the SEC and buy its way into the BTN—that would be absolutely asinine. The B1G blew that opportunity B1G Time! It should have added Missouri and KU in my opinion….

There is only 1 program in the Big 12 that is a slam dunk addition for the Big 10, Texas. They might take Oklahoma but the academics of the Sooners is nowhere near that of Nebraska which they oft opine.

So yeah, one day the B1G might well cooperate with the SEC over raiding the ACC. However, no matter how cobbled together they are, an ACC with Texas and Notre Dame agreeing to stay, would be deuce difficult to pick apart. I think it is a "confederation" that could exist for decades, it's just that the cost of it is UNC's control over the conference so the real question is "Would that price of control be too high for U.N.C. to accept?"

We are team players.

(02-21-2018 03:23 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 07:18 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 06:38 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 05:32 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 01:53 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  How plausible is this?
Oklahoma + Oklahoma State to the SEC
Texas + TCU to the ACC
leaves the Big Ten to decide if they want Kansas + Iowa State

BTW, I prefer if the ACC could get WVU + Texas + TCU + maybe Iowa State, Houston or even Memphis as a bridge.
Then, if the SEC takes OU + OSU + Texas Tech + Kansas, that pretty much kills the Big XII (leaving only Baylor and Kansas State behind).

What you might see would be Texas and TCU to the ACC,

Missouri and Kansas to the B1G,

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and West Virginia to the SEC,

No conference will move beyond 16 at this time.

You just gave the SEC 3 more teams. 14+3=17

Missouri to the B1G.......... 14-1+3+16.

No way in hell Missouri would leave the SEC and buy its way into the BTN—that would be absolutely asinine. The B1G blew that opportunity B1G Time! It should have added Missouri and KU in my opinion….

Amazing how it worked out for the best. The B1G should have taken Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas for expansion. They would have locked down the Midwest. Zero insight. It is a bunch more fun in the SEC.

(02-22-2018 02:05 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(02-21-2018 03:23 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 07:18 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 06:38 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 05:32 AM)XLance Wrote:  What you might see would be Texas and TCU to the ACC,

Missouri and Kansas to the B1G,

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and West Virginia to the SEC,

No conference will move beyond 16 at this time.

You just gave the SEC 3 more teams. 14+3=17

Missouri to the B1G.......... 14-1+3+16.

No way in hell Missouri would leave the SEC and buy its way into the BTN—that would be absolutely asinine. The B1G blew that opportunity B1G Time! It should have added Missouri and KU in my opinion….

Amazing how it worked out for the best. The B1G should have taken Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas for expansion. They would have locked down the Midwest. Zero insight. It is a bunch more fun in the SEC.

It's still possible Medic. The B1G still needs two to get to 16.
JR mentions above the addition of Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State to get to 16.
Texas/Notre Dame could come in as a pair, as partials (current Notre Dame status), or both join as full members, (then Texas becomes the Dallas Cowboys of the NCAA).
As a partial Texas could keep the LHN if ESPN wants and the ACC could bring in TCU and Baylor for 16 full plus the two partials.
The B1G gets the midwest and ESPN gets the Southwest and locks the B1G and PAC out of Texas.

(02-22-2018 02:05 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Amazing how it worked out for the best. The B1G should have taken Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas for expansion. They would have locked down the Midwest. Zero insight. It is a bunch more fun in the SEC.

Didn't Gordon Gee essentially say that he regretted not doing just that?

The SEC cut off the B1G in that part of the country and I think it was a good maneuver.

(02-22-2018 05:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  It's still possible Medic. The B1G still needs two to get to 16.
JR mentions above the addition of Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State to get to 16.
Texas/Notre Dame could come in as a pair, as partials (current Notre Dame status), or both join as full members, (then Texas becomes the Dallas Cowboys of the NCAA).
As a partial Texas could keep the LHN if ESPN wants and the ACC could bring in TCU and Baylor for 16 full plus the two partials.
The B1G gets the midwest and ESPN gets the Southwest and locks the B1G and PAC out of Texas.

Assuming leagues traded pieces, I don't see why we would trade Missouri for Texas Tech. If we were stopping at 16 then OU and OSU would be the better move.

At that, there's no reason for us to help the B1G out.

(02-22-2018 01:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 02:05 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Amazing how it worked out for the best. The B1G should have taken Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas for expansion. They would have locked down the Midwest. Zero insight. It is a bunch more fun in the SEC.

Didn't Gordon Gee essentially say that he regretted not doing just that?

The SEC cut off the B1G in that part of the country and I think it was a good maneuver.

(02-22-2018 05:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  It's still possible Medic. The B1G still needs two to get to 16.
JR mentions above the addition of Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State to get to 16.
Texas/Notre Dame could come in as a pair, as partials (current Notre Dame status), or both join as full members, (then Texas becomes the Dallas Cowboys of the NCAA).
As a partial Texas could keep the LHN if ESPN wants and the ACC could bring in TCU and Baylor for 16 full plus the two partials.
The B1G gets the midwest and ESPN gets the Southwest and locks the B1G and PAC out of Texas.

Assuming leagues traded pieces, I don't see why we would trade Missouri for Texas Tech. If we were stopping at 16 then OU and OSU would be the better move.

At that, there's no reason for us to help the B1G out.

1-because Missouri does not fit well into the SEC (no offense to you Medic).
2-the SEC needs another school in Texas even with the addition of Oklahoma.
3-Texas Tech and Oklahoma State in effect seal off the southwest from the north (Kansas/K-State), northwest (Colorado) and west.
4-45 game history between Oklahoma State and Texas Tech
5-You help out the B1G because you don't want to appear greedy, and you may need something from them one day. It's actually the right thing to do for college football to help get all of the pieces into the right position to move forward (you are giving up very little and receiving the same for better positioning).

(02-22-2018 04:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 01:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 02:05 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Amazing how it worked out for the best. The B1G should have taken Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas for expansion. They would have locked down the Midwest. Zero insight. It is a bunch more fun in the SEC.

Didn't Gordon Gee essentially say that he regretted not doing just that?

The SEC cut off the B1G in that part of the country and I think it was a good maneuver.

(02-22-2018 05:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  It's still possible Medic. The B1G still needs two to get to 16.
JR mentions above the addition of Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State to get to 16.
Texas/Notre Dame could come in as a pair, as partials (current Notre Dame status), or both join as full members, (then Texas becomes the Dallas Cowboys of the NCAA).
As a partial Texas could keep the LHN if ESPN wants and the ACC could bring in TCU and Baylor for 16 full plus the two partials.
The B1G gets the midwest and ESPN gets the Southwest and locks the B1G and PAC out of Texas.

Assuming leagues traded pieces, I don't see why we would trade Missouri for Texas Tech. If we were stopping at 16 then OU and OSU would be the better move.

At that, there's no reason for us to help the B1G out.

1-because Missouri does not fit well into the SEC (no offense to you Medic).
2-the SEC needs another school in Texas even with the addition of Oklahoma.
3-Texas Tech and Oklahoma State in effect seal off the southwest from the north (Kansas/K-State), northwest (Colorado) and west.
4-45 game history between Oklahoma State and Texas Tech
5-You help out the B1G because you don't want to appear greedy, and you may need something from them one day. It's actually the right thing to do for college football to help get all of the pieces into the right position to move forward (you are giving up very little and receiving the same for better positioning).

I see the logic, but it would be much easier to accomplish by keeping Missouri and simply adding Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech to the SEC. You guys could pick up Baylor, T.C.U., Kansas and Iowa State and keep N.D. indy.

(02-22-2018 04:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 01:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 02:05 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Amazing how it worked out for the best. The B1G should have taken Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas for expansion. They would have locked down the Midwest. Zero insight. It is a bunch more fun in the SEC.

Didn't Gordon Gee essentially say that he regretted not doing just that?

The SEC cut off the B1G in that part of the country and I think it was a good maneuver.

(02-22-2018 05:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  It's still possible Medic. The B1G still needs two to get to 16.
JR mentions above the addition of Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State to get to 16.
Texas/Notre Dame could come in as a pair, as partials (current Notre Dame status), or both join as full members, (then Texas becomes the Dallas Cowboys of the NCAA).
As a partial Texas could keep the LHN if ESPN wants and the ACC could bring in TCU and Baylor for 16 full plus the two partials.
The B1G gets the midwest and ESPN gets the Southwest and locks the B1G and PAC out of Texas.

Assuming leagues traded pieces, I don't see why we would trade Missouri for Texas Tech. If we were stopping at 16 then OU and OSU would be the better move.

At that, there's no reason for us to help the B1G out.

1-because Missouri does not fit well into the SEC (no offense to you Medic).
2-the SEC needs another school in Texas even with the addition of Oklahoma.
3-Texas Tech and Oklahoma State in effect seal off the southwest from the north (Kansas/K-State), northwest (Colorado) and west.
4-45 game history between Oklahoma State and Texas Tech
5-You help out the B1G because you don't want to appear greedy, and you may need something from them one day. It's actually the right thing to do for college football to help get all of the pieces into the right position to move forward (you are giving up very little and receiving the same for better positioning).

Your Tarheels are a perfect fit for the SEC. You do realize Texas Tech is in Lubbock, right? I was stationed out there in the Air Force. Trust me, it's a long way to Birmingham. Yep... they would fit right in with the SEC.

(02-22-2018 04:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 04:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 01:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 02:05 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Amazing how it worked out for the best. The B1G should have taken Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas for expansion. They would have locked down the Midwest. Zero insight. It is a bunch more fun in the SEC.

Didn't Gordon Gee essentially say that he regretted not doing just that?

The SEC cut off the B1G in that part of the country and I think it was a good maneuver.

(02-22-2018 05:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  It's still possible Medic. The B1G still needs two to get to 16.
JR mentions above the addition of Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State to get to 16.
Texas/Notre Dame could come in as a pair, as partials (current Notre Dame status), or both join as full members, (then Texas becomes the Dallas Cowboys of the NCAA).
As a partial Texas could keep the LHN if ESPN wants and the ACC could bring in TCU and Baylor for 16 full plus the two partials.
The B1G gets the midwest and ESPN gets the Southwest and locks the B1G and PAC out of Texas.

Assuming leagues traded pieces, I don't see why we would trade Missouri for Texas Tech. If we were stopping at 16 then OU and OSU would be the better move.

At that, there's no reason for us to help the B1G out.

1-because Missouri does not fit well into the SEC (no offense to you Medic).
2-the SEC needs another school in Texas even with the addition of Oklahoma.
3-Texas Tech and Oklahoma State in effect seal off the southwest from the north (Kansas/K-State), northwest (Colorado) and west.
4-45 game history between Oklahoma State and Texas Tech
5-You help out the B1G because you don't want to appear greedy, and you may need something from them one day. It's actually the right thing to do for college football to help get all of the pieces into the right position to move forward (you are giving up very little and receiving the same for better positioning).

I see the logic, but it would be much easier to accomplish by keeping Missouri and simply adding Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech to the SEC. You guys could pick up Baylor, T.C.U., Kansas and Iowa State and keep N.D. indy.

But, JR, you know as well as I, that Texas isn't going to join the SEC.

(02-22-2018 06:01 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 04:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 01:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 02:05 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Amazing how it worked out for the best. The B1G should have taken Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas for expansion. They would have locked down the Midwest. Zero insight. It is a bunch more fun in the SEC.

Didn't Gordon Gee essentially say that he regretted not doing just that?

The SEC cut off the B1G in that part of the country and I think it was a good maneuver.

(02-22-2018 05:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  It's still possible Medic. The B1G still needs two to get to 16.
JR mentions above the addition of Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State to get to 16.
Texas/Notre Dame could come in as a pair, as partials (current Notre Dame status), or both join as full members, (then Texas becomes the Dallas Cowboys of the NCAA).
As a partial Texas could keep the LHN if ESPN wants and the ACC could bring in TCU and Baylor for 16 full plus the two partials.
The B1G gets the midwest and ESPN gets the Southwest and locks the B1G and PAC out of Texas.

Assuming leagues traded pieces, I don't see why we would trade Missouri for Texas Tech. If we were stopping at 16 then OU and OSU would be the better move.

At that, there's no reason for us to help the B1G out.

1-because Missouri does not fit well into the SEC (no offense to you Medic).
2-the SEC needs another school in Texas even with the addition of Oklahoma.
3-Texas Tech and Oklahoma State in effect seal off the southwest from the north (Kansas/K-State), northwest (Colorado) and west.
4-45 game history between Oklahoma State and Texas Tech
5-You help out the B1G because you don't want to appear greedy, and you may need something from them one day. It's actually the right thing to do for college football to help get all of the pieces into the right position to move forward (you are giving up very little and receiving the same for better positioning).

Your Tarheels are a perfect fit for the SEC. You do realize Texas Tech is in Lubbock, right? I was stationed out there in the Air Force. Trust me, it's a long way to Birmingham. Yep... they would fit right in with the SEC.

Medic, that's Tar Heels.

(02-22-2018 08:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 04:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 04:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 01:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 02:05 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Amazing how it worked out for the best. The B1G should have taken Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas for expansion. They would have locked down the Midwest. Zero insight. It is a bunch more fun in the SEC.

Didn't Gordon Gee essentially say that he regretted not doing just that?

The SEC cut off the B1G in that part of the country and I think it was a good maneuver.

(02-22-2018 05:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  It's still possible Medic. The B1G still needs two to get to 16.
JR mentions above the addition of Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State to get to 16.
Texas/Notre Dame could come in as a pair, as partials (current Notre Dame status), or both join as full members, (then Texas becomes the Dallas Cowboys of the NCAA).
As a partial Texas could keep the LHN if ESPN wants and the ACC could bring in TCU and Baylor for 16 full plus the two partials.
The B1G gets the midwest and ESPN gets the Southwest and locks the B1G and PAC out of Texas.

Assuming leagues traded pieces, I don't see why we would trade Missouri for Texas Tech. If we were stopping at 16 then OU and OSU would be the better move.

At that, there's no reason for us to help the B1G out.

1-because Missouri does not fit well into the SEC (no offense to you Medic).
2-the SEC needs another school in Texas even with the addition of Oklahoma.
3-Texas Tech and Oklahoma State in effect seal off the southwest from the north (Kansas/K-State), northwest (Colorado) and west.
4-45 game history between Oklahoma State and Texas Tech
5-You help out the B1G because you don't want to appear greedy, and you may need something from them one day. It's actually the right thing to do for college football to help get all of the pieces into the right position to move forward (you are giving up very little and receiving the same for better positioning).

I see the logic, but it would be much easier to accomplish by keeping Missouri and simply adding Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech to the SEC. You guys could pick up Baylor, T.C.U., Kansas and Iowa State and keep N.D. indy.

But, JR, you know as well as I, that Texas isn't going to join the SEC.

Sure they will. They will find an excuse to do so and that excuse will be Texas Tech. It's really the only move that makes sense for them. The renew old rivalries with Arkansas and Texas A&M thereby pleasing alums, they keep the two Okies on the schedule and still have Missouri.

The move truly fits their minor sports and their key #2 &#3 money makers, hoops and baseball. And the travel is better and it is one place where their joining would give them more revenue overall.

It's just that it whizzes in the cornflakes of other hopefuls like the PAC, B1G, and ACC.

If the SEC lands the four Texa-homa schools well have no more additions. We'll have all the money we need, within a well defined geographical region, and outside of F.S.U.and Clemson will have the best overall fit from our additions. All the SEC need do is to provide UT with an out from there having said never and being a martyr to save Tech could be that out.

And the academic stuff is just so much smoke. They've dwelt with worse for some years now and academic standing isn't the purview of athletic conferences anyway. They'll be able to partner research with anyone they choose no matter conferene affiliation.

(02-22-2018 08:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 08:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 04:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 04:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 01:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Didn't Gordon Gee essentially say that he regretted not doing just that?

The SEC cut off the B1G in that part of the country and I think it was a good maneuver.


Assuming leagues traded pieces, I don't see why we would trade Missouri for Texas Tech. If we were stopping at 16 then OU and OSU would be the better move.

At that, there's no reason for us to help the B1G out.

1-because Missouri does not fit well into the SEC (no offense to you Medic).
2-the SEC needs another school in Texas even with the addition of Oklahoma.
3-Texas Tech and Oklahoma State in effect seal off the southwest from the north (Kansas/K-State), northwest (Colorado) and west.
4-45 game history between Oklahoma State and Texas Tech
5-You help out the B1G because you don't want to appear greedy, and you may need something from them one day. It's actually the right thing to do for college football to help get all of the pieces into the right position to move forward (you are giving up very little and receiving the same for better positioning).

I see the logic, but it would be much easier to accomplish by keeping Missouri and simply adding Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech to the SEC. You guys could pick up Baylor, T.C.U., Kansas and Iowa State and keep N.D. indy.

But, JR, you know as well as I, that Texas isn't going to join the SEC.

Sure they will. They will find an excuse to do so and that excuse will be Texas Tech. It's really the only move that makes sense for them. The renew old rivalries with Arkansas and Texas A&M thereby pleasing alums, they keep the two Okies on the schedule and still have Missouri.

The move truly fits their minor sports and their key #2 &#3 money makers, hoops and baseball. And the travel is better and it is one place where their joining would give them more revenue overall.

It's just that it whizzes in the cornflakes of other hopefuls like the PAC, B1G, and ACC.

If the SEC lands the four Texa-homa schools well have no more additions. We'll have all the money we need, within a well defined geographical region, and outside of F.S.U.and Clemson will have the best overall fit from our additions. All the SEC need do is to provide UT with an out from there having said never and being a martyr to save Tech could be that out.

And the academic stuff is just so much smoke. They've dwelt with worse for some years now and academic standing isn't the purview of athletic conferences anyway. They'll be able to partner research with anyone they choose no matter conferene affiliation.

My one argument against this is the resulting "no further moves."

If the ACC is unpoachable, great. Grab Iowa State and Kansas too
But if there is a chance to grab ACC schools later, the SEC won't box itself in.

Honest question: given either a content or market model, which is worth more:

Texas/Tech and OK/State
Or
Just OK/State now/ 2-4 ACC schools later (my "pet" schools: UNC/Clemson)

(02-22-2018 08:42 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 06:01 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 04:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 01:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 02:05 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Amazing how it worked out for the best. The B1G should have taken Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas for expansion. They would have locked down the Midwest. Zero insight. It is a bunch more fun in the SEC.

Didn't Gordon Gee essentially say that he regretted not doing just that?

The SEC cut off the B1G in that part of the country and I think it was a good maneuver.

(02-22-2018 05:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  It's still possible Medic. The B1G still needs two to get to 16.
JR mentions above the addition of Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State to get to 16.
Texas/Notre Dame could come in as a pair, as partials (current Notre Dame status), or both join as full members, (then Texas becomes the Dallas Cowboys of the NCAA).
As a partial Texas could keep the LHN if ESPN wants and the ACC could bring in TCU and Baylor for 16 full plus the two partials.
The B1G gets the midwest and ESPN gets the Southwest and locks the B1G and PAC out of Texas.

Assuming leagues traded pieces, I don't see why we would trade Missouri for Texas Tech. If we were stopping at 16 then OU and OSU would be the better move.

At that, there's no reason for us to help the B1G out.

1-because Missouri does not fit well into the SEC (no offense to you Medic).
2-the SEC needs another school in Texas even with the addition of Oklahoma.
3-Texas Tech and Oklahoma State in effect seal off the southwest from the north (Kansas/K-State), northwest (Colorado) and west.
4-45 game history between Oklahoma State and Texas Tech
5-You help out the B1G because you don't want to appear greedy, and you may need something from them one day. It's actually the right thing to do for college football to help get all of the pieces into the right position to move forward (you are giving up very little and receiving the same for better positioning).

Your Tarheels are a perfect fit for the SEC. You do realize Texas Tech is in Lubbock, right? I was stationed out there in the Air Force. Trust me, it's a long way to Birmingham. Yep... they would fit right in with the SEC.

Medic, that's Tar Heels.

Why don't you have UNC and another ACC school put an application to join the SEC. Your app will be carefully reviewed for necessary qualifications. We have to make sure UNC can handle all the extra profits.

(02-22-2018 09:50 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 08:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 08:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 04:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 04:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  1-because Missouri does not fit well into the SEC (no offense to you Medic).
2-the SEC needs another school in Texas even with the addition of Oklahoma.
3-Texas Tech and Oklahoma State in effect seal off the southwest from the north (Kansas/K-State), northwest (Colorado) and west.
4-45 game history between Oklahoma State and Texas Tech
5-You help out the B1G because you don't want to appear greedy, and you may need something from them one day. It's actually the right thing to do for college football to help get all of the pieces into the right position to move forward (you are giving up very little and receiving the same for better positioning).

I see the logic, but it would be much easier to accomplish by keeping Missouri and simply adding Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech to the SEC. You guys could pick up Baylor, T.C.U., Kansas and Iowa State and keep N.D. indy.

But, JR, you know as well as I, that Texas isn't going to join the SEC.

Sure they will. They will find an excuse to do so and that excuse will be Texas Tech. It's really the only move that makes sense for them. The renew old rivalries with Arkansas and Texas A&M thereby pleasing alums, they keep the two Okies on the schedule and still have Missouri.

The move truly fits their minor sports and their key #2 &#3 money makers, hoops and baseball. And the travel is better and it is one place where their joining would give them more revenue overall.

It's just that it whizzes in the cornflakes of other hopefuls like the PAC, B1G, and ACC.

If the SEC lands the four Texa-homa schools well have no more additions. We'll have all the money we need, within a well defined geographical region, and outside of F.S.U.and Clemson will have the best overall fit from our additions. All the SEC need do is to provide UT with an out from there having said never and being a martyr to save Tech could be that out.

And the academic stuff is just so much smoke. They've dwelt with worse for some years now and academic standing isn't the purview of athletic conferences anyway. They'll be able to partner research with anyone they choose no matter conferene affiliation.

My one argument against this is the resulting "no further moves."

If the ACC is unpoachable, great. Grab Iowa State and Kansas too
But if there is a chance to grab ACC schools later, the SEC won't box itself in.

Honest question: given either a content or market model, which is worth more:

Texas/Tech and OK/State
Or
Just OK/State now/ 2-4 ACC schools later (my "pet" schools: UNC/Clemson)

Honestly the averages of the two are almost identical, so either pair to 16, but both pairs puts the SEC in an unreachable position. That's why I said we would never have to expand again. By saying that I didn't mean that we would exclude a chance to land Virginia Tech, a North Carolina school, Clemson or Florida State if they ever became available, but rather to say those 4 would put us in a position where no other conference could equal or exceed our earnings. And that's a nice place to be.

From a scheduling point of view 24 is about as many as a conference can have and still play everyone within a 4 year span. So if we are sitting at 18 and wanted to add a fourth division of 6 from the ACC it's still workable.