(01-28-2020 01:11 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 05:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 04:50 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(01-26-2020 10:14 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-26-2020 07:01 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  From October:

https://247sports.com/college/iowa-state...137397555/

Basically, what Pollard said is that he's uninterested in his program scheduling games against programs like Florida. Not only does he deflect from the topic at hand, but he pokes the bear as if Stricklin is foolish for seeking out additional P5 teams out of conference.

It's a bizarre response on his part.

Anyway, I think most of the negative sentiment you see towards the SEC is low quality heckling from the audience. It's meant to be nothing more than self-gratifying. If any of these schools received an invite from the SEC then they would take it and they know it.

There were Kansas officials opening looking for an SEC invite 10 years ago when all the craziness was happening. Not that something like Pollard's statements came from anyone at KU, but the point is they know this is a quality conference and would not snub it. Those overtures are one of the reasons I won't be shocked at all if Kansas ends up in the SEC.

I don't disagree. Eight of ten B12 schools, when the opportunity arises, would accept a SEC invitation unconditionally. If a Big 10 invitation was extended to one or two of those simultaneously, that would be another factor in the process.

OU may still ask for the Cowboys to come along, or look at other options on the table. Texas will have some kind of condition(s), financial or otherwise, while weighing their other options.

The BI2 got what they wanted operating at ten members. Part of their scattered gripes is to justify their own set-up by making selective comparisons.

I am not suggesting pandering if a B12 school sees themselves as a prospective SEC member. On the other hand, unnecessary negativity about scheduling makes building relationships more difficult.

There are some schools in the Big 12 that know they have very little chance of getting an invitation to the SEC and Iowa State is one of them.

Texas will not get anything but equal revenue sharing if the come to the SEC. They will get no special consideration on the LHN other than a possible buyout from ESPN. What they might get is the ability to bring a buddy but I'm not sure they would or wouldn't.

Oklahoma and Kansas would be fine additions. But Texas would give us a firm hold on a state of 28 million. That's 22 million more than Kansas and Oklahoma together bring.

ON other news L.S.U. has hired a new DC and its Bo Pelini.

As to schools with a shot for an SEC invitation:

Texas/OK - no brainers
Kansas - As a tag-along is a no brainer if we don't get both Texas and OK on their own.
Kansas St - I have actually been surprised at the numbers for KSU, and don't think they would be a bad get as a tag-along, hurt by being the second team in a small state. However, it does not seem like KSU would be the choice tag-a-long given the option.
ISU - Hurt by being the second team in a small state, but really good fan base, and a new population to reach. Also AAU. I could see us taking OK/ISU if Texas/Kansas goes to the Big 10.
OSU/TT - Acceptable as second teams with Texas/OK. OSU could also be considered on their own if OK goes to the Big 10, though as a second team in a small state, it would be a tough sell.
TCU - Possible only if we swing and miss on Texas/Tech and want to expand our presence there - OK/TCU if Texas/Kansas go to Big 10.
Baylor - Probably not a consideration.
WVU - a potential cultural fit with the SEC, but a small state, likely not an ACC target later?

I admit that KSU/ISU/OSU/TT and TCU would all be below the numbers needed to be profitable on their own, but they might could bring in something of merit if they came with one of the big 2.

I guess I am just not understanding why ISU in particular as a new state and an AAU school would not be a decent option along with one of the Big 2? They bring alot of what Kansas brings, though admittedly they are not quite as blue blood.

To me, the biggest problem with Iowa State is the distance. It's a significant trip from the core of the SEC up to that region. I think it would be more considered if ISU was a big time brand, but they don't really occupy that role.

Even Missouri is a pretty good trip from most places, but it's also a larger state with two pretty decent sized metro areas in Kansas City and St. Louis. It's also the only Power school in the state. ISU is #2 and it's a smaller state at that.

I wouldn't be opposed to ISU under certain circumstances, but I don't think we need to go out of our way.

Kansas, to me, is a school we need to be more careful about. If the Power leagues ever do split from the NCAA then basketball is going to get a lot more valuable and KU would be a big time content multiplier there. Personally, I think ESPN wants them under their control so I won't be shocked if they end up in the SEC.

(01-28-2020 02:03 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 01:11 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 05:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 04:50 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(01-26-2020 10:14 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Basically, what Pollard said is that he's uninterested in his program scheduling games against programs like Florida. Not only does he deflect from the topic at hand, but he pokes the bear as if Stricklin is foolish for seeking out additional P5 teams out of conference.

It's a bizarre response on his part.

Anyway, I think most of the negative sentiment you see towards the SEC is low quality heckling from the audience. It's meant to be nothing more than self-gratifying. If any of these schools received an invite from the SEC then they would take it and they know it.

There were Kansas officials opening looking for an SEC invite 10 years ago when all the craziness was happening. Not that something like Pollard's statements came from anyone at KU, but the point is they know this is a quality conference and would not snub it. Those overtures are one of the reasons I won't be shocked at all if Kansas ends up in the SEC.

I don't disagree. Eight of ten B12 schools, when the opportunity arises, would accept a SEC invitation unconditionally. If a Big 10 invitation was extended to one or two of those simultaneously, that would be another factor in the process.

OU may still ask for the Cowboys to come along, or look at other options on the table. Texas will have some kind of condition(s), financial or otherwise, while weighing their other options.

The BI2 got what they wanted operating at ten members. Part of their scattered gripes is to justify their own set-up by making selective comparisons.

I am not suggesting pandering if a B12 school sees themselves as a prospective SEC member. On the other hand, unnecessary negativity about scheduling makes building relationships more difficult.

There are some schools in the Big 12 that know they have very little chance of getting an invitation to the SEC and Iowa State is one of them.

Texas will not get anything but equal revenue sharing if the come to the SEC. They will get no special consideration on the LHN other than a possible buyout from ESPN. What they might get is the ability to bring a buddy but I'm not sure they would or wouldn't.

Oklahoma and Kansas would be fine additions. But Texas would give us a firm hold on a state of 28 million. That's 22 million more than Kansas and Oklahoma together bring.

ON other news L.S.U. has hired a new DC and its Bo Pelini.

As to schools with a shot for an SEC invitation:

Texas/OK - no brainers
Kansas - As a tag-along is a no brainer if we don't get both Texas and OK on their own.
Kansas St - I have actually been surprised at the numbers for KSU, and don't think they would be a bad get as a tag-along, hurt by being the second team in a small state. However, it does not seem like KSU would be the choice tag-a-long given the option.
ISU - Hurt by being the second team in a small state, but really good fan base, and a new population to reach. Also AAU. I could see us taking OK/ISU if Texas/Kansas goes to the Big 10.
OSU/TT - Acceptable as second teams with Texas/OK. OSU could also be considered on their own if OK goes to the Big 10, though as a second team in a small state, it would be a tough sell.
TCU - Possible only if we swing and miss on Texas/Tech and want to expand our presence there - OK/TCU if Texas/Kansas go to Big 10.
Baylor - Probably not a consideration.
WVU - a potential cultural fit with the SEC, but a small state, likely not an ACC target later?

I admit that KSU/ISU/OSU/TT and TCU would all be below the numbers needed to be profitable on their own, but they might could bring in something of merit if they came with one of the big 2.

I guess I am just not understanding why ISU in particular as a new state and an AAU school would not be a decent option along with one of the Big 2? They bring alot of what Kansas brings, though admittedly they are not quite as blue blood.

To me, the biggest problem with Iowa State is the distance. It's a significant trip from the core of the SEC up to that region. I think it would be more considered if ISU was a big time brand, but they don't really occupy that role.

Even Missouri is a pretty good trip from most places, but it's also a larger state with two pretty decent sized metro areas in Kansas City and St. Louis. It's also the only Power school in the state. ISU is #2 and it's a smaller state at that.

I wouldn't be opposed to ISU under certain circumstances, but I don't think we need to go out of our way.

Kansas, to me, is a school we need to be more careful about. If the Power leagues ever do split from the NCAA then basketball is going to get a lot more valuable and KU would be a big time content multiplier there. Personally, I think ESPN wants them under their control so I won't be shocked if they end up in the SEC.

It's a conundrum to try to figure out what is important to ESPN. We know Texas is, and we have reason to assume that Kansas is. We have no reason to assume that Oklahoma is. Then there's the other key property being accommodated, Notre Dame.

I can see ESPN trying to work a Texas / Kansas deal to the SEC. But what if they were willing to back Oklahoma and Notre Dame to the Big 10 in an effort of once again securing 50% of their rights? That set of moves cements the SEC and Big 10 as the top conferences. It might also pave the way for ESPN to land another conference with which to replace the ACC by then encouraging the SEC to expand to 18 and the Big 10 to expand to 18 out of the ACC so that the key programs got the big money and so that their rights content would be enhanced.

North Carolina and Duke will want top recognition at some point as will Virginia and Syracuse. None of those 4 is particularly valuable as football schools and they inhibit the growth of value for schools like Florida State and Clemson and to a lesser extent Miami, Louisville, and Virginia Tech.

So if they were bought off with much handsomer rewards in the SEC and Big 10 would that not free ESPN to build a conference out of the Big 12 and ACC?

Cincinnati, Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Virginia Tech
Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami, N.C. State, Wake Forest
Baylor, Brigham Young, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech

Is that not a better football conference? Could that not replace the ACC and become more valuable at the same time?

They own 100% of the SEC which eclipses the value of the ACC by more than double if it looks like this:
Duke, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi St., Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Kansas, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M


Would not the Big 10 be better laid out this way?

Maryland, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers, Syracuse, Virginia
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Oklahoma, Wisconsin


The Big 10 gets propped up to the East and West for balance but doesn't encroach into the Deep South.

The SEC gets major help with hoops and gets more brand strength for football with Texas.

The New Conference is a competitive vehicle for sports that would impact football, baseball, and basketball. Those schools would have more visibility outside of the shadows of their state flagships.

What the PAC does is their business. They can look at New Mexico, UNLV, Nevada, Wyoming, San Diego State, Boise State and Hawaii if they wish to expand.

(01-28-2020 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 01:11 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 05:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 04:50 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(01-26-2020 10:14 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Basically, what Pollard said is that he's uninterested in his program scheduling games against programs like Florida. Not only does he deflect from the topic at hand, but he pokes the bear as if Stricklin is foolish for seeking out additional P5 teams out of conference.

It's a bizarre response on his part.

Anyway, I think most of the negative sentiment you see towards the SEC is low quality heckling from the audience. It's meant to be nothing more than self-gratifying. If any of these schools received an invite from the SEC then they would take it and they know it.

There were Kansas officials opening looking for an SEC invite 10 years ago when all the craziness was happening. Not that something like Pollard's statements came from anyone at KU, but the point is they know this is a quality conference and would not snub it. Those overtures are one of the reasons I won't be shocked at all if Kansas ends up in the SEC.

I don't disagree. Eight of ten B12 schools, when the opportunity arises, would accept a SEC invitation unconditionally. If a Big 10 invitation was extended to one or two of those simultaneously, that would be another factor in the process.

OU may still ask for the Cowboys to come along, or look at other options on the table. Texas will have some kind of condition(s), financial or otherwise, while weighing their other options.

The BI2 got what they wanted operating at ten members. Part of their scattered gripes is to justify their own set-up by making selective comparisons.

I am not suggesting pandering if a B12 school sees themselves as a prospective SEC member. On the other hand, unnecessary negativity about scheduling makes building relationships more difficult.

There are some schools in the Big 12 that know they have very little chance of getting an invitation to the SEC and Iowa State is one of them.

Texas will not get anything but equal revenue sharing if the come to the SEC. They will get no special consideration on the LHN other than a possible buyout from ESPN. What they might get is the ability to bring a buddy but I'm not sure they would or wouldn't.

Oklahoma and Kansas would be fine additions. But Texas would give us a firm hold on a state of 28 million. That's 22 million more than Kansas and Oklahoma together bring.

ON other news L.S.U. has hired a new DC and its Bo Pelini.

As to schools with a shot for an SEC invitation:

Texas/OK - no brainers
Kansas - As a tag-along is a no brainer if we don't get both Texas and OK on their own.
Kansas St - I have actually been surprised at the numbers for KSU, and don't think they would be a bad get as a tag-along, hurt by being the second team in a small state. However, it does not seem like KSU would be the choice tag-a-long given the option.
ISU - Hurt by being the second team in a small state, but really good fan base, and a new population to reach. Also AAU. I could see us taking OK/ISU if Texas/Kansas goes to the Big 10.
OSU/TT - Acceptable as second teams with Texas/OK. OSU could also be considered on their own if OK goes to the Big 10, though as a second team in a small state, it would be a tough sell.
TCU - Possible only if we swing and miss on Texas/Tech and want to expand our presence there - OK/TCU if Texas/Kansas go to Big 10.
Baylor - Probably not a consideration.
WVU - a potential cultural fit with the SEC, but a small state, likely not an ACC target later?

I admit that KSU/ISU/OSU/TT and TCU would all be below the numbers needed to be profitable on their own, but they might could bring in something of merit if they came with one of the big 2.

I guess I am just not understanding why ISU in particular as a new state and an AAU school would not be a decent option along with one of the Big 2? They bring alot of what Kansas brings, though admittedly they are not quite as blue blood.

Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State are all definitely out of the South in every way, geographically and culturally. Slive had established parameters stating that expansion would culturally fit the SEC and that included regionality.

So in 2010 Kansas would not have been an option. If Oklahoma was added a case can be made for Kansas geographically if you look at the globe. Virginia to Kentucky to Missouri through Kansas is all around the same parallel. Iowa is definitely not part of line. It is decidedly North. I think that's why they won't be considered.

Missouri was a border state leaning south. Oklahoma was a territory with part of it leaning South. Texas was part of the Confederacy. Now we aren't living the Civil War over, but the geography, culture and history share touchstones.

So if you look at the globe trace that line across that I laid out and if Oklahoma is added a case for Kansas can be made. But so too would cases for Virginia and North Carolina schools.

Then we get into profitability. That's where schools to the East have issues and Oklahoma and Texas of course shine. So due to the ACC GOR and the main objectives being West it is reasonable to assume if a tag-along was needed it would come from the West.

ISU is north of Missouri. KU is to the immediate west of Missouri, though KU is fairly close to Kansas City. Oklahoma, though often viewed as a plains state, is to the south of Kansas and would blend with SEC western geography. Going into the plains states would be a new endeavor. Honestly, I am not particularly keen about it outside OU.

Agree, there's nothing to pursue to the east that's desirable AND soon available. That said, Texas would be the best, top option overall. OU with UT would be the slam dunk.
Otherwise, I wouldn't want to see two second tier picks. In such case, best to wait.

(01-28-2020 03:31 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 01:11 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 05:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 04:50 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I don't disagree. Eight of ten B12 schools, when the opportunity arises, would accept a SEC invitation unconditionally. If a Big 10 invitation was extended to one or two of those simultaneously, that would be another factor in the process.

OU may still ask for the Cowboys to come along, or look at other options on the table. Texas will have some kind of condition(s), financial or otherwise, while weighing their other options.

The BI2 got what they wanted operating at ten members. Part of their scattered gripes is to justify their own set-up by making selective comparisons.

I am not suggesting pandering if a B12 school sees themselves as a prospective SEC member. On the other hand, unnecessary negativity about scheduling makes building relationships more difficult.

There are some schools in the Big 12 that know they have very little chance of getting an invitation to the SEC and Iowa State is one of them.

Texas will not get anything but equal revenue sharing if the come to the SEC. They will get no special consideration on the LHN other than a possible buyout from ESPN. What they might get is the ability to bring a buddy but I'm not sure they would or wouldn't.

Oklahoma and Kansas would be fine additions. But Texas would give us a firm hold on a state of 28 million. That's 22 million more than Kansas and Oklahoma together bring.

ON other news L.S.U. has hired a new DC and its Bo Pelini.

As to schools with a shot for an SEC invitation:

Texas/OK - no brainers
Kansas - As a tag-along is a no brainer if we don't get both Texas and OK on their own.
Kansas St - I have actually been surprised at the numbers for KSU, and don't think they would be a bad get as a tag-along, hurt by being the second team in a small state. However, it does not seem like KSU would be the choice tag-a-long given the option.
ISU - Hurt by being the second team in a small state, but really good fan base, and a new population to reach. Also AAU. I could see us taking OK/ISU if Texas/Kansas goes to the Big 10.
OSU/TT - Acceptable as second teams with Texas/OK. OSU could also be considered on their own if OK goes to the Big 10, though as a second team in a small state, it would be a tough sell.
TCU - Possible only if we swing and miss on Texas/Tech and want to expand our presence there - OK/TCU if Texas/Kansas go to Big 10.
Baylor - Probably not a consideration.
WVU - a potential cultural fit with the SEC, but a small state, likely not an ACC target later?

I admit that KSU/ISU/OSU/TT and TCU would all be below the numbers needed to be profitable on their own, but they might could bring in something of merit if they came with one of the big 2.

I guess I am just not understanding why ISU in particular as a new state and an AAU school would not be a decent option along with one of the Big 2? They bring alot of what Kansas brings, though admittedly they are not quite as blue blood.

Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State are all definitely out of the South in every way, geographically and culturally. Slive had established parameters stating that expansion would culturally fit the SEC and that included regionality.

So in 2010 Kansas would not have been an option. If Oklahoma was added a case can be made for Kansas geographically if you look at the globe. Virginia to Kentucky to Missouri through Kansas is all around the same parallel. Iowa is definitely not part of line. It is decidedly North. I think that's why they won't be considered.

Missouri was a border state leaning south. Oklahoma was a territory with part of it leaning South. Texas was part of the Confederacy. Now we aren't living the Civil War over, but the geography, culture and history share touchstones.

So if you look at the globe trace that line across that I laid out and if Oklahoma is added a case for Kansas can be made. But so too would cases for Virginia and North Carolina schools.

Then we get into profitability. That's where schools to the East have issues and Oklahoma and Texas of course shine. So due to the ACC GOR and the main objectives being West it is reasonable to assume if a tag-along was needed it would come from the West.

ISU is north of Missouri. KU is to the immediate west of Missouri, though KU is fairly close to Kansas City. Oklahoma, though often viewed as a plains state, is to the south of Kansas and would blend with SEC western geography. Going into the plains states would be a new endeavor. Honestly, I am not particularly keen about it outside OU.

Agree, there's nothing to pursue to the east that's desirable AND soon available. That said, Texas would be the best, top option overall. OU with UT would be the slam dunk.
Otherwise, I wouldn't want to see two second tier picks. In such case, best to wait.

Assuming that OK/Texas are the only "first tier picks" and that Kansas falls into the second tier:

The SEC I think can spin one of OK/Texas with a second tier pick, especially if it is Kansas, as a win.

While I prefer OK I recognize the $ reasons to take Texas if they are available. So let's say the SEC gets Texas/Kansas.

If ND is not available for an OK/ND grab that would keep their picks "even" with ours, can they spin it into a win? Would they be able to take OK on their own, or would they be "forced" (not politically but by logistics) to take ISU for its AAU status?

If the SEC got OK/Kansas, could the Big 10 swallow taking Tech to get Texas? Or would their pride hinder that enough to keep Texas in a rebuilt Big 12?

For that matter could they spin a ND/Kansas grab as a win if we got Texas/OK?

(01-28-2020 05:36 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 03:31 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 01:11 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 05:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There are some schools in the Big 12 that know they have very little chance of getting an invitation to the SEC and Iowa State is one of them.

Texas will not get anything but equal revenue sharing if the come to the SEC. They will get no special consideration on the LHN other than a possible buyout from ESPN. What they might get is the ability to bring a buddy but I'm not sure they would or wouldn't.

Oklahoma and Kansas would be fine additions. But Texas would give us a firm hold on a state of 28 million. That's 22 million more than Kansas and Oklahoma together bring.

ON other news L.S.U. has hired a new DC and its Bo Pelini.

As to schools with a shot for an SEC invitation:

Texas/OK - no brainers
Kansas - As a tag-along is a no brainer if we don't get both Texas and OK on their own.
Kansas St - I have actually been surprised at the numbers for KSU, and don't think they would be a bad get as a tag-along, hurt by being the second team in a small state. However, it does not seem like KSU would be the choice tag-a-long given the option.
ISU - Hurt by being the second team in a small state, but really good fan base, and a new population to reach. Also AAU. I could see us taking OK/ISU if Texas/Kansas goes to the Big 10.
OSU/TT - Acceptable as second teams with Texas/OK. OSU could also be considered on their own if OK goes to the Big 10, though as a second team in a small state, it would be a tough sell.
TCU - Possible only if we swing and miss on Texas/Tech and want to expand our presence there - OK/TCU if Texas/Kansas go to Big 10.
Baylor - Probably not a consideration.
WVU - a potential cultural fit with the SEC, but a small state, likely not an ACC target later?

I admit that KSU/ISU/OSU/TT and TCU would all be below the numbers needed to be profitable on their own, but they might could bring in something of merit if they came with one of the big 2.

I guess I am just not understanding why ISU in particular as a new state and an AAU school would not be a decent option along with one of the Big 2? They bring alot of what Kansas brings, though admittedly they are not quite as blue blood.

Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State are all definitely out of the South in every way, geographically and culturally. Slive had established parameters stating that expansion would culturally fit the SEC and that included regionality.

So in 2010 Kansas would not have been an option. If Oklahoma was added a case can be made for Kansas geographically if you look at the globe. Virginia to Kentucky to Missouri through Kansas is all around the same parallel. Iowa is definitely not part of line. It is decidedly North. I think that's why they won't be considered.

Missouri was a border state leaning south. Oklahoma was a territory with part of it leaning South. Texas was part of the Confederacy. Now we aren't living the Civil War over, but the geography, culture and history share touchstones.

So if you look at the globe trace that line across that I laid out and if Oklahoma is added a case for Kansas can be made. But so too would cases for Virginia and North Carolina schools.

Then we get into profitability. That's where schools to the East have issues and Oklahoma and Texas of course shine. So due to the ACC GOR and the main objectives being West it is reasonable to assume if a tag-along was needed it would come from the West.

ISU is north of Missouri. KU is to the immediate west of Missouri, though KU is fairly close to Kansas City. Oklahoma, though often viewed as a plains state, is to the south of Kansas and would blend with SEC western geography. Going into the plains states would be a new endeavor. Honestly, I am not particularly keen about it outside OU.

Agree, there's nothing to pursue to the east that's desirable AND soon available. That said, Texas would be the best, top option overall. OU with UT would be the slam dunk.
Otherwise, I wouldn't want to see two second tier picks. In such case, best to wait.

Assuming that OK/Texas are the only "first tier picks" and that Kansas falls into the second tier:

The SEC I think can spin one of OK/Texas with a second tier pick, especially if it is Kansas, as a win.

While I prefer OK I recognize the $ reasons to take Texas if they are available. So let's say the SEC gets Texas/Kansas.

If ND is not available for an OK/ND grab that would keep their picks "even" with ours, can they spin it into a win? Would they be able to take OK on their own, or would they be "forced" (not politically but by logistics) to take ISU for its AAU status?

If the SEC got OK/Kansas, could the Big 10 swallow taking Tech to get Texas? Or would their pride hinder that enough to keep Texas in a rebuilt Big 12?

For that matter could they spin a ND/Kansas grab as a win if we got Texas/OK?

Well let's look at a Realignment score card:
1989-92
Big 10: Penn State and Nebraska
SEC: Arkansas and South Carolina Big win for the Big 10.

2010-2:
Big 10: Rutgers and Maryland
SEC: Texas A&M and Missouri Win for the SEC as Maryland / Missouri is a wash and Texas A&M is the best addition for that whole realignment and Rutgers may be the worst.

So in 2024-5 as along as the SEC gets just 1 of Texas / Oklahoma we can afford for the Big 10 to get a slightly better pairing and we still come out slightly ahead, especially if the addition is Texas giving us total penetration into a state of 28 million.

So to answer you question as long as the SEC lands 1 of Texas or Oklahoma we are fine. The better pairing (not including Kansas) would be Texas and Tech. If the SEC lands Texas and Oklahoma that stomps the Big 10's additions of Penn State and Nebraska, A&M still takes the prize for 2010, and if the Big 10 gets Notre Dame and Kansas we still win big. So yes any of the pairings you've listed would allow both conferences to appear as winners, but the value would be ours for all of the realignment additions taken as a whole.

(01-28-2020 05:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 05:36 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 03:31 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 01:11 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  As to schools with a shot for an SEC invitation:

Texas/OK - no brainers
Kansas - As a tag-along is a no brainer if we don't get both Texas and OK on their own.
Kansas St - I have actually been surprised at the numbers for KSU, and don't think they would be a bad get as a tag-along, hurt by being the second team in a small state. However, it does not seem like KSU would be the choice tag-a-long given the option.
ISU - Hurt by being the second team in a small state, but really good fan base, and a new population to reach. Also AAU. I could see us taking OK/ISU if Texas/Kansas goes to the Big 10.
OSU/TT - Acceptable as second teams with Texas/OK. OSU could also be considered on their own if OK goes to the Big 10, though as a second team in a small state, it would be a tough sell.
TCU - Possible only if we swing and miss on Texas/Tech and want to expand our presence there - OK/TCU if Texas/Kansas go to Big 10.
Baylor - Probably not a consideration.
WVU - a potential cultural fit with the SEC, but a small state, likely not an ACC target later?

I admit that KSU/ISU/OSU/TT and TCU would all be below the numbers needed to be profitable on their own, but they might could bring in something of merit if they came with one of the big 2.

I guess I am just not understanding why ISU in particular as a new state and an AAU school would not be a decent option along with one of the Big 2? They bring alot of what Kansas brings, though admittedly they are not quite as blue blood.

Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State are all definitely out of the South in every way, geographically and culturally. Slive had established parameters stating that expansion would culturally fit the SEC and that included regionality.

So in 2010 Kansas would not have been an option. If Oklahoma was added a case can be made for Kansas geographically if you look at the globe. Virginia to Kentucky to Missouri through Kansas is all around the same parallel. Iowa is definitely not part of line. It is decidedly North. I think that's why they won't be considered.

Missouri was a border state leaning south. Oklahoma was a territory with part of it leaning South. Texas was part of the Confederacy. Now we aren't living the Civil War over, but the geography, culture and history share touchstones.

So if you look at the globe trace that line across that I laid out and if Oklahoma is added a case for Kansas can be made. But so too would cases for Virginia and North Carolina schools.

Then we get into profitability. That's where schools to the East have issues and Oklahoma and Texas of course shine. So due to the ACC GOR and the main objectives being West it is reasonable to assume if a tag-along was needed it would come from the West.

ISU is north of Missouri. KU is to the immediate west of Missouri, though KU is fairly close to Kansas City. Oklahoma, though often viewed as a plains state, is to the south of Kansas and would blend with SEC western geography. Going into the plains states would be a new endeavor. Honestly, I am not particularly keen about it outside OU.

Agree, there's nothing to pursue to the east that's desirable AND soon available. That said, Texas would be the best, top option overall. OU with UT would be the slam dunk.
Otherwise, I wouldn't want to see two second tier picks. In such case, best to wait.

Assuming that OK/Texas are the only "first tier picks" and that Kansas falls into the second tier:

The SEC I think can spin one of OK/Texas with a second tier pick, especially if it is Kansas, as a win.

While I prefer OK I recognize the $ reasons to take Texas if they are available. So let's say the SEC gets Texas/Kansas.

If ND is not available for an OK/ND grab that would keep their picks "even" with ours, can they spin it into a win? Would they be able to take OK on their own, or would they be "forced" (not politically but by logistics) to take ISU for its AAU status?

If the SEC got OK/Kansas, could the Big 10 swallow taking Tech to get Texas? Or would their pride hinder that enough to keep Texas in a rebuilt Big 12?

For that matter could they spin a ND/Kansas grab as a win if we got Texas/OK?

Well let's look at a Realignment score card:
1989-92
Big 10: Penn State and Nebraska
SEC: Arkansas and South Carolina Big win for the Big 10.

2010-2:
Big 10: Rutgers and Maryland
SEC: Texas A&M and Missouri Win for the SEC as Maryland / Missouri is a wash and Texas A&M is the best addition for that whole realignment and Rutgers may be the worst.

So in 2024-5 as along as the SEC gets just 1 of Texas / Oklahoma we can afford for the Big 10 to get a slightly better pairing and we still come out slightly ahead, especially if the addition is Texas giving us total penetration into a state of 28 million.

So to answer you question as long as the SEC lands 1 of Texas or Oklahoma we are fine. The better pairing (not including Kansas) would be Texas and Tech. If the SEC lands Texas and Oklahoma that stomps the Big 10's additions of Penn State and Nebraska, A&M still takes the prize for 2010, and if the Big 10 gets Notre Dame and Kansas we still win big. So yes any of the pairings you've listed would allow both conferences to appear as winners, but the value would be ours for all of the realignment additions taken as a whole.

Agree. Well put.

(01-28-2020 05:50 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 05:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 05:36 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 03:31 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State are all definitely out of the South in every way, geographically and culturally. Slive had established parameters stating that expansion would culturally fit the SEC and that included regionality.

So in 2010 Kansas would not have been an option. If Oklahoma was added a case can be made for Kansas geographically if you look at the globe. Virginia to Kentucky to Missouri through Kansas is all around the same parallel. Iowa is definitely not part of line. It is decidedly North. I think that's why they won't be considered.

Missouri was a border state leaning south. Oklahoma was a territory with part of it leaning South. Texas was part of the Confederacy. Now we aren't living the Civil War over, but the geography, culture and history share touchstones.

So if you look at the globe trace that line across that I laid out and if Oklahoma is added a case for Kansas can be made. But so too would cases for Virginia and North Carolina schools.

Then we get into profitability. That's where schools to the East have issues and Oklahoma and Texas of course shine. So due to the ACC GOR and the main objectives being West it is reasonable to assume if a tag-along was needed it would come from the West.

ISU is north of Missouri. KU is to the immediate west of Missouri, though KU is fairly close to Kansas City. Oklahoma, though often viewed as a plains state, is to the south of Kansas and would blend with SEC western geography. Going into the plains states would be a new endeavor. Honestly, I am not particularly keen about it outside OU.

Agree, there's nothing to pursue to the east that's desirable AND soon available. That said, Texas would be the best, top option overall. OU with UT would be the slam dunk.
Otherwise, I wouldn't want to see two second tier picks. In such case, best to wait.

Assuming that OK/Texas are the only "first tier picks" and that Kansas falls into the second tier:

The SEC I think can spin one of OK/Texas with a second tier pick, especially if it is Kansas, as a win.

While I prefer OK I recognize the $ reasons to take Texas if they are available. So let's say the SEC gets Texas/Kansas.

If ND is not available for an OK/ND grab that would keep their picks "even" with ours, can they spin it into a win? Would they be able to take OK on their own, or would they be "forced" (not politically but by logistics) to take ISU for its AAU status?

If the SEC got OK/Kansas, could the Big 10 swallow taking Tech to get Texas? Or would their pride hinder that enough to keep Texas in a rebuilt Big 12?

For that matter could they spin a ND/Kansas grab as a win if we got Texas/OK?

Well let's look at a Realignment score card:
1989-92
Big 10: Penn State and Nebraska
SEC: Arkansas and South Carolina Big win for the Big 10.

2010-2:
Big 10: Rutgers and Maryland
SEC: Texas A&M and Missouri Win for the SEC as Maryland / Missouri is a wash and Texas A&M is the best addition for that whole realignment and Rutgers may be the worst.

So in 2024-5 as along as the SEC gets just 1 of Texas / Oklahoma we can afford for the Big 10 to get a slightly better pairing and we still come out slightly ahead, especially if the addition is Texas giving us total penetration into a state of 28 million.

So to answer you question as long as the SEC lands 1 of Texas or Oklahoma we are fine. The better pairing (not including Kansas) would be Texas and Tech. If the SEC lands Texas and Oklahoma that stomps the Big 10's additions of Penn State and Nebraska, A&M still takes the prize for 2010, and if the Big 10 gets Notre Dame and Kansas we still win big. So yes any of the pairings you've listed would allow both conferences to appear as winners, but the value would be ours for all of the realignment additions taken as a whole.

Agree. Well put.

Keep in mind, Notre Dame is a party to the ACC's GoR. ND signed that if they do opt for conference football, it will be with the ACC. ND's penalty for leaving the ACC early may be with a modified clause since they are only partial fb. Still, the terms are basically along the lines of other ACC members. Of course, any ACC team can leave and battle it out in court and pay the hefty fees and legal costs.
.

(01-28-2020 05:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 05:36 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 03:31 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 01:11 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  As to schools with a shot for an SEC invitation:

Texas/OK - no brainers
Kansas - As a tag-along is a no brainer if we don't get both Texas and OK on their own.
Kansas St - I have actually been surprised at the numbers for KSU, and don't think they would be a bad get as a tag-along, hurt by being the second team in a small state. However, it does not seem like KSU would be the choice tag-a-long given the option.
ISU - Hurt by being the second team in a small state, but really good fan base, and a new population to reach. Also AAU. I could see us taking OK/ISU if Texas/Kansas goes to the Big 10.
OSU/TT - Acceptable as second teams with Texas/OK. OSU could also be considered on their own if OK goes to the Big 10, though as a second team in a small state, it would be a tough sell.
TCU - Possible only if we swing and miss on Texas/Tech and want to expand our presence there - OK/TCU if Texas/Kansas go to Big 10.
Baylor - Probably not a consideration.
WVU - a potential cultural fit with the SEC, but a small state, likely not an ACC target later?

I admit that KSU/ISU/OSU/TT and TCU would all be below the numbers needed to be profitable on their own, but they might could bring in something of merit if they came with one of the big 2.

I guess I am just not understanding why ISU in particular as a new state and an AAU school would not be a decent option along with one of the Big 2? They bring alot of what Kansas brings, though admittedly they are not quite as blue blood.

Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State are all definitely out of the South in every way, geographically and culturally. Slive had established parameters stating that expansion would culturally fit the SEC and that included regionality.

So in 2010 Kansas would not have been an option. If Oklahoma was added a case can be made for Kansas geographically if you look at the globe. Virginia to Kentucky to Missouri through Kansas is all around the same parallel. Iowa is definitely not part of line. It is decidedly North. I think that's why they won't be considered.

Missouri was a border state leaning south. Oklahoma was a territory with part of it leaning South. Texas was part of the Confederacy. Now we aren't living the Civil War over, but the geography, culture and history share touchstones.

So if you look at the globe trace that line across that I laid out and if Oklahoma is added a case for Kansas can be made. But so too would cases for Virginia and North Carolina schools.

Then we get into profitability. That's where schools to the East have issues and Oklahoma and Texas of course shine. So due to the ACC GOR and the main objectives being West it is reasonable to assume if a tag-along was needed it would come from the West.

ISU is north of Missouri. KU is to the immediate west of Missouri, though KU is fairly close to Kansas City. Oklahoma, though often viewed as a plains state, is to the south of Kansas and would blend with SEC western geography. Going into the plains states would be a new endeavor. Honestly, I am not particularly keen about it outside OU.

Agree, there's nothing to pursue to the east that's desirable AND soon available. That said, Texas would be the best, top option overall. OU with UT would be the slam dunk.
Otherwise, I wouldn't want to see two second tier picks. In such case, best to wait.

Assuming that OK/Texas are the only "first tier picks" and that Kansas falls into the second tier:

The SEC I think can spin one of OK/Texas with a second tier pick, especially if it is Kansas, as a win.

While I prefer OK I recognize the $ reasons to take Texas if they are available. So let's say the SEC gets Texas/Kansas.

If ND is not available for an OK/ND grab that would keep their picks "even" with ours, can they spin it into a win? Would they be able to take OK on their own, or would they be "forced" (not politically but by logistics) to take ISU for its AAU status?

If the SEC got OK/Kansas, could the Big 10 swallow taking Tech to get Texas? Or would their pride hinder that enough to keep Texas in a rebuilt Big 12?

For that matter could they spin a ND/Kansas grab as a win if we got Texas/OK?

Well let's look at a Realignment score card:
1989-92
Big 10: Penn State and Nebraska
SEC: Arkansas and South Carolina Big win for the Big 10.

2010-2:
Big 10: Rutgers and Maryland
SEC: Texas A&M and Missouri Win for the SEC as Maryland / Missouri is a wash and Texas A&M is the best addition for that whole realignment and Rutgers may be the worst.

So in 2024-5 as along as the SEC gets just 1 of Texas / Oklahoma we can afford for the Big 10 to get a slightly better pairing and we still come out slightly ahead, especially if the addition is Texas giving us total penetration into a state of 28 million.

So to answer you question as long as the SEC lands 1 of Texas or Oklahoma we are fine. The better pairing (not including Kansas) would be Texas and Tech. If the SEC lands Texas and Oklahoma that stomps the Big 10's additions of Penn State and Nebraska, A&M still takes the prize for 2010, and if the Big 10 gets Notre Dame and Kansas we still win big. So yes any of the pairings you've listed would allow both conferences to appear as winners, but the value would be ours for all of the realignment additions taken as a whole.

You answered my general question, i.e, can both conferences spin it as a victory. However, the Big 10 did not take Nebraska in 1989-1992. They took Nebraska much later to go from 11 to 12.

(01-28-2020 07:41 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 05:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 05:36 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 03:31 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State are all definitely out of the South in every way, geographically and culturally. Slive had established parameters stating that expansion would culturally fit the SEC and that included regionality.

So in 2010 Kansas would not have been an option. If Oklahoma was added a case can be made for Kansas geographically if you look at the globe. Virginia to Kentucky to Missouri through Kansas is all around the same parallel. Iowa is definitely not part of line. It is decidedly North. I think that's why they won't be considered.

Missouri was a border state leaning south. Oklahoma was a territory with part of it leaning South. Texas was part of the Confederacy. Now we aren't living the Civil War over, but the geography, culture and history share touchstones.

So if you look at the globe trace that line across that I laid out and if Oklahoma is added a case for Kansas can be made. But so too would cases for Virginia and North Carolina schools.

Then we get into profitability. That's where schools to the East have issues and Oklahoma and Texas of course shine. So due to the ACC GOR and the main objectives being West it is reasonable to assume if a tag-along was needed it would come from the West.

ISU is north of Missouri. KU is to the immediate west of Missouri, though KU is fairly close to Kansas City. Oklahoma, though often viewed as a plains state, is to the south of Kansas and would blend with SEC western geography. Going into the plains states would be a new endeavor. Honestly, I am not particularly keen about it outside OU.

Agree, there's nothing to pursue to the east that's desirable AND soon available. That said, Texas would be the best, top option overall. OU with UT would be the slam dunk.
Otherwise, I wouldn't want to see two second tier picks. In such case, best to wait.

Assuming that OK/Texas are the only "first tier picks" and that Kansas falls into the second tier:

The SEC I think can spin one of OK/Texas with a second tier pick, especially if it is Kansas, as a win.

While I prefer OK I recognize the $ reasons to take Texas if they are available. So let's say the SEC gets Texas/Kansas.

If ND is not available for an OK/ND grab that would keep their picks "even" with ours, can they spin it into a win? Would they be able to take OK on their own, or would they be "forced" (not politically but by logistics) to take ISU for its AAU status?

If the SEC got OK/Kansas, could the Big 10 swallow taking Tech to get Texas? Or would their pride hinder that enough to keep Texas in a rebuilt Big 12?

For that matter could they spin a ND/Kansas grab as a win if we got Texas/OK?

Well let's look at a Realignment score card:
1989-92
Big 10: Penn State and Nebraska
SEC: Arkansas and South Carolina Big win for the Big 10.

2010-2:
Big 10: Rutgers and Maryland
SEC: Texas A&M and Missouri Win for the SEC as Maryland / Missouri is a wash and Texas A&M is the best addition for that whole realignment and Rutgers may be the worst.

So in 2024-5 as along as the SEC gets just 1 of Texas / Oklahoma we can afford for the Big 10 to get a slightly better pairing and we still come out slightly ahead, especially if the addition is Texas giving us total penetration into a state of 28 million.

So to answer you question as long as the SEC lands 1 of Texas or Oklahoma we are fine. The better pairing (not including Kansas) would be Texas and Tech. If the SEC lands Texas and Oklahoma that stomps the Big 10's additions of Penn State and Nebraska, A&M still takes the prize for 2010, and if the Big 10 gets Notre Dame and Kansas we still win big. So yes any of the pairings you've listed would allow both conferences to appear as winners, but the value would be ours for all of the realignment additions taken as a whole.

You answered my general question, i.e, can both conferences spin it as a victory. However, the Big 10 did not take Nebraska in 1989-1992. They took Nebraska much later to go from 11 to 12.

That's true but I was pairing the adds in sequence to make the comparison.

(01-28-2020 08:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 07:41 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 05:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 05:36 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 03:31 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  ISU is north of Missouri. KU is to the immediate west of Missouri, though KU is fairly close to Kansas City. Oklahoma, though often viewed as a plains state, is to the south of Kansas and would blend with SEC western geography. Going into the plains states would be a new endeavor. Honestly, I am not particularly keen about it outside OU.

Agree, there's nothing to pursue to the east that's desirable AND soon available. That said, Texas would be the best, top option overall. OU with UT would be the slam dunk.
Otherwise, I wouldn't want to see two second tier picks. In such case, best to wait.

Assuming that OK/Texas are the only "first tier picks" and that Kansas falls into the second tier:

The SEC I think can spin one of OK/Texas with a second tier pick, especially if it is Kansas, as a win.

While I prefer OK I recognize the $ reasons to take Texas if they are available. So let's say the SEC gets Texas/Kansas.

If ND is not available for an OK/ND grab that would keep their picks "even" with ours, can they spin it into a win? Would they be able to take OK on their own, or would they be "forced" (not politically but by logistics) to take ISU for its AAU status?

If the SEC got OK/Kansas, could the Big 10 swallow taking Tech to get Texas? Or would their pride hinder that enough to keep Texas in a rebuilt Big 12?

For that matter could they spin a ND/Kansas grab as a win if we got Texas/OK?

Well let's look at a Realignment score card:
1989-92
Big 10: Penn State and Nebraska
SEC: Arkansas and South Carolina Big win for the Big 10.

2010-2:
Big 10: Rutgers and Maryland
SEC: Texas A&M and Missouri Win for the SEC as Maryland / Missouri is a wash and Texas A&M is the best addition for that whole realignment and Rutgers may be the worst.

So in 2024-5 as along as the SEC gets just 1 of Texas / Oklahoma we can afford for the Big 10 to get a slightly better pairing and we still come out slightly ahead, especially if the addition is Texas giving us total penetration into a state of 28 million.

So to answer you question as long as the SEC lands 1 of Texas or Oklahoma we are fine. The better pairing (not including Kansas) would be Texas and Tech. If the SEC lands Texas and Oklahoma that stomps the Big 10's additions of Penn State and Nebraska, A&M still takes the prize for 2010, and if the Big 10 gets Notre Dame and Kansas we still win big. So yes any of the pairings you've listed would allow both conferences to appear as winners, but the value would be ours for all of the realignment additions taken as a whole.

You answered my general question, i.e, can both conferences spin it as a victory. However, the Big 10 did not take Nebraska in 1989-1992. They took Nebraska much later to go from 11 to 12.

That's true but I was pairing the adds in sequence to make the comparison.

Fair enough. Thanks for your insight.