(02-27-2016 03:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 12:57 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 08:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 07:43 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Obviously we aren't going to support being essentially sent back to the Big 12 by adding half the B12 south. At best we'd support ONE Oklahoma school and MAYBE one more Texas school but probably not another public school (I can see us being OK with TCU or SMU to shore up DFW)

Well, given your Sig I wouldn't have guessed that in a million years!

True but you know from my history I've said for a long time now that IF another Texas school is considered absolutely necessary by the conference then our best move (and the one I believe A&M would throw its support behind rather than fight) would be one of the two DFW private schools to install a physical presence of the SEC there in what is otherwise largely a CFB no-man's land. Having a stake in the conference by having its members coming to your city all year long and spending money there on hotels, restaurants and entertainment is the best way to quickly get the papers and media there behind you and pumping you over another conference that only shows up to your city once a year.

Now yes, my bias leans toward TCU (though I think anyone else would consider them the better, more developed pick anyway) I also think that SMU could in fact be a viable pick. They have good academics and deep pockets...and with something to actually care about spending on again, I think they could quickly become as respectable in FB as they've made themselves in basketball.

And the only issue I would have with T.C.U. would be if Oklahoma was the other school then A&M and the Sooners give us enough of the DFW market anyway. Now if we aren't forced to take another Texas school along with the Sooners I think we could both agree that barring any possible ACC selection that West Virginia then starts to make some sense. And that could be why Gee is backing Boren here. I don't know as I haven't heard anything to that effect, but it would make some sense.

(02-29-2016 09:39 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Kansas basketball is way more valuable than a second team from a small market state

(02-29-2016 09:39 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Kansas basketball is way more valuable than a second team from a small market state

(02-29-2016 08:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-29-2016 09:39 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Kansas basketball is way more valuable than a second team from a small market state

I'm assuming though that we'll have to take OSU to get OU. That may not be right, but we'll see.

I would be fine with TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas

Hopefully then we can snag a few from the ACC to finish out our roster.

If neither survive then I would like to see Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Louisville, Virginia Tech, and NC State come aboard. That's a very strong and diverse 24.

West - Texas A&M, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Missouri
South - Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn
North - Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Louisville, Virginia Tech, NC State
East - Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Clemson

(12-21-2015 03:38 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  If I were the SEC, It would depend on what my goal was.

For 16: Kansas and Oklahoma
For 18: Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia

Kansas for basketball.
Oklahoma for football, basketball, and national appeal.
Texas because it's Texas.
West Virginia for its likeness to SEC programs along with a decent football program and a good basketball program.

I would consider Oklahoma St only if Oklahoma declined.
I would consider Baylor only if Texas declined.
I would not consider TCU or Texas Tech. TCU is football-centric while Baylor has strong football and basketball. Texas is too far away.
I would not consider Kansas St. Their football and basketball are both typically okay, but neither program are as Kansas is to basketball.
I would consider Iowa St if the goal was beyond 18.

(03-02-2016 09:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-29-2016 08:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-29-2016 09:39 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Kansas basketball is way more valuable than a second team from a small market state

I'm assuming though that we'll have to take OSU to get OU. That may not be right, but we'll see.

I would be fine with TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas

Hopefully then we can snag a few from the ACC to finish out our roster.

If neither survive then I would like to see Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Louisville, Virginia Tech, and NC State come aboard. That's a very strong and diverse 24.

West - Texas A&M, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Missouri
South - Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn
North - Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Louisville, Virginia Tech, NC State
East - Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Clemson

I think it may be necessary for two reasons. OU will insist upon it. And OU would have a difficult time scheduling both UT & OSU out of conference.

(03-03-2016 05:59 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 09:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-29-2016 08:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I'm assuming though that we'll have to take OSU to get OU. That may not be right, but we'll see.

I would be fine with TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas

Hopefully then we can snag a few from the ACC to finish out our roster.

If neither survive then I would like to see Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Louisville, Virginia Tech, and NC State come aboard. That's a very strong and diverse 24.

West - Texas A&M, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Missouri
South - Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn
North - Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Louisville, Virginia Tech, NC State
East - Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Clemson

I think it may be necessary for two reasons. OU will insist upon it. And OU would have a difficult time scheduling both UT & OSU out of conference.

If we went to 16 with OU/KU that would be execellent. A blue blood football and blue blood basketball program, two new states, two massive followings, two good academic schools with one being AAU. The Missouri/Kansas rivalry can continue. I like it.

If we need to go to 18 with B12 schools, of JR's list of OU, WVU, KU, and TCU, OU/WVU/KU would provide value to the SEC. The fourth spot could be reworked to add either the most valuable member possible, or to ease Oklahoma political issues, OSU. TCU just doesn't do much for me. I think if we had to add another Texas team that's not UT, Tech then Baylor then TCU would be my ranking. I really like Baylor's recent investments into their athletic program.

(03-04-2016 03:29 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-03-2016 05:59 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 09:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-29-2016 08:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I'm assuming though that we'll have to take OSU to get OU. That may not be right, but we'll see.

I would be fine with TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas

Hopefully then we can snag a few from the ACC to finish out our roster.

If neither survive then I would like to see Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Louisville, Virginia Tech, and NC State come aboard. That's a very strong and diverse 24.

West - Texas A&M, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Missouri
South - Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn
North - Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Louisville, Virginia Tech, NC State
East - Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Clemson

I think it may be necessary for two reasons. OU will insist upon it. And OU would have a difficult time scheduling both UT & OSU out of conference.

If we went to 16 with OU/KU that would be execellent. A blue blood football and blue blood basketball program, two new states, two massive followings, two good academic schools with one being AAU. The Missouri/Kansas rivalry can continue. I like it.

If we need to go to 18 with B12 schools, of JR's list of OU, WVU, KU, and TCU, OU/WVU/KU would provide value to the SEC. The fourth spot could be reworked to add either the most valuable member possible, or to ease Oklahoma political issues, OSU. TCU just doesn't do much for me. I think if we had to add another Texas team that's not UT, Tech then Baylor then TCU would be my ranking. I really like Baylor's recent investments into their athletic program.

How about OU, OSU, KU, and TCU?

That way we might get everything in the West we could use and leave room for possible ACC additions in the future.

I don't really mind WVU, but part of their value would be duplicated by UVA or VT.

(03-04-2016 10:26 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Best pick for most gain from the B12 is Oklahoma (and OU and only)

You get a blue blood football and pretty darn good BB program too

You expand the existing presence in DFW

You get a new (if small) state with no duplication

Now I will say that OU insisting on OSU is a deal breaker. Spot #16 in the SEC is arguably the most valuable thing in all of college sports for the time it exists. Just giving it to a school like OSU that brings nothing to the conference we aren't already getting from OU except another mouth to feed is just a complete waste, especially if that slot can go towards getting someone like Virginia Tech.

Of course all that said, the admin at OU is entirely against the SEC. They want a conference that 1) OU isn't threatened with finishing middle of the pack to even at the lower end some years and instead one filled with mostly basketball schools it can beat up on like the old Big 8 and 2) A conference that will instantly improve their academic rep

So basically they want PAC or B1G

(03-09-2016 07:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The only ways to resolve the Big 12 are as follows:

1. Wait until the GOR expires and cherry pick.

2. ESPN grows a pair and the SEC adds Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State and OSU and the ACC adds Texas, Baylor, Kansas State, and a 4th of their choosing. Or ESPN finally gets the SEC to take two and Virginia Tech and N.C. State while the ACC adds 6 for a western division.

3. FOX grows a pair and forces the Big 10 and PAC to divide them up. I just don't see FOX and ESPN amicably resolving this. One or the other is going to have to place 8 to get it done.

(03-10-2016 05:34 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(03-09-2016 07:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The only ways to resolve the Big 12 are as follows:

1. Wait until the GOR expires and cherry pick.

2. ESPN grows a pair and the SEC adds Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State and OSU and the ACC adds Texas, Baylor, Kansas State, and a 4th of their choosing. Or ESPN finally gets the SEC to take two and Virginia Tech and N.C. State while the ACC adds 6 for a western division.

3. FOX grows a pair and forces the Big 10 and PAC to divide them up. I just don't see FOX and ESPN amicably resolving this. One or the other is going to have to place 8 to get it done.

Pretty much. It will take 2 conferences, at least, to kill the B12 without drawn out courtroom drama. Scenario one is most likely to happen since it is hard to bet against the status quo backed by GoRs when dealing with university presidents, but 2 is much more likely than 3 due to the SEC and ACC being much more open to the types of schools they are willing to add and their strong partnerships with ESPN. Plus, it could convert an underachieving existing network (LHN) into a more profitable ACCN. The B1G and Stanford/Cal/UCLA might blackball enough schools from consideration, for academic standing or perceived academic freedom issues, that 8 might not be possible. Also, I think FOX is not interwoven with those conferences quite like ESPN has been with the ACC and SEC. Could be mistaken though.

(03-05-2016 04:33 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  True, but adding OSU doesn't really hurt any of the teams east of the Mississippi. From our perspective, we want ZERO Big 12 South teams coming in and diminishing our SEC recruiting advantage in Texas nor do we want to be in a division that's basically the Big 12 again (Mizzou will probably agree with that sentiment as well). So while we could tolerate ONE okie school for the purpose of conference goals, someone like KU, VT, NC State, FSU etc. is an infinitely more valuable use of #16 than OSU

(03-11-2016 05:58 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(03-05-2016 04:33 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  True, but adding OSU doesn't really hurt any of the teams east of the Mississippi. From our perspective, we want ZERO Big 12 South teams coming in and diminishing our SEC recruiting advantage in Texas nor do we want to be in a division that's basically the Big 12 again (Mizzou will probably agree with that sentiment as well). So while we could tolerate ONE okie school for the purpose of conference goals, someone like KU, VT, NC State, FSU etc. is an infinitely more valuable use of #16 than OSU

I agree with this from a litigation stand point. If the SEC lands OU at 15, if we were to grab another school from the B12, Baylor would not be the only one sueing us for any damages they would take from a smaller TV contract and other revenues by the B12 taking in replacement schools. WVU might be the exception, but we'll ignore that one for now. I would first contact VT about that 16th spot. If they are still content in the ACC, the next two options should be NC State and FSU.

FSU would bring the greatest value to the overall contract with excellent match ups, but would greatly harm and possibly begin the collapse of the ACC. If the SEC rounded off with NC State, we'd be giving up on landing UNC and just doing what is best for the conference.

(12-21-2015 03:38 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  If I were the SEC, It would depend on what my goal was.

For 16: Kansas and Oklahoma
For 18: Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia

Kansas for basketball.
Oklahoma for football, basketball, and national appeal.
Texas because it's Texas.
West Virginia for its likeness to SEC programs along with a decent football program and a good basketball program.

I would consider Oklahoma St only if Oklahoma declined.
I would consider Baylor only if Texas declined.
I would not consider TCU or Texas Tech. TCU is football-centric while Baylor has strong football and basketball. Texas is too far away.
I would not consider Kansas St. Their football and basketball are both typically okay, but neither program are as Kansas is to basketball.
I would consider Iowa St if the goal was beyond 18.

(03-11-2016 07:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-11-2016 05:58 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(03-05-2016 04:33 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  True, but adding OSU doesn't really hurt any of the teams east of the Mississippi. From our perspective, we want ZERO Big 12 South teams coming in and diminishing our SEC recruiting advantage in Texas nor do we want to be in a division that's basically the Big 12 again (Mizzou will probably agree with that sentiment as well). So while we could tolerate ONE okie school for the purpose of conference goals, someone like KU, VT, NC State, FSU etc. is an infinitely more valuable use of #16 than OSU

I agree with this from a litigation stand point. If the SEC lands OU at 15, if we were to grab another school from the B12, Baylor would not be the only one sueing us for any damages they would take from a smaller TV contract and other revenues by the B12 taking in replacement schools. WVU might be the exception, but we'll ignore that one for now. I would first contact VT about that 16th spot. If they are still content in the ACC, the next two options should be NC State and FSU.

FSU would bring the greatest value to the overall contract with excellent match ups, but would greatly harm and possibly begin the collapse of the ACC. If the SEC rounded off with NC State, we'd be giving up on landing UNC and just doing what is best for the conference.

I would absolutely love for the SEC to move to 16 with Oklahoma and Virginia Tech, or Oklahoma and Florida State. I don't think we can get N.C. State unless we did something unthinkable and took Duke, UNC and N.C. State. We'd probably also have to take both Virginia's to get it done. At that point you may as well go after Notre Dame and settle for Georgia Tech to complete it to 20. That's not my dream SEC.

If the SEC were to go to 20 the only acceptable programs to me would be Florida State, Oklahoma, Clemson, and Texas to 18. To 20 you need to go ahead and complete the footprint with a North Carolina and Virginia school. But the first four fit athletically. The latter two would struggle to be middling.

(03-11-2016 11:37 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(12-21-2015 03:38 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  If I were the SEC, It would depend on what my goal was.

For 16: Kansas and Oklahoma
For 18: Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia

Kansas for basketball.
Oklahoma for football, basketball, and national appeal.
Texas because it's Texas.
West Virginia for its likeness to SEC programs along with a decent football program and a good basketball program.

I would consider Oklahoma St only if Oklahoma declined.
I would consider Baylor only if Texas declined.
I would not consider TCU or Texas Tech. TCU is football-centric while Baylor has strong football and basketball. Texas is too far away.
I would not consider Kansas St. Their football and basketball are both typically okay, but neither program are as Kansas is to basketball.
I would consider Iowa St if the goal was beyond 18.

(03-11-2016 07:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-11-2016 05:58 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(03-05-2016 04:33 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  True, but adding OSU doesn't really hurt any of the teams east of the Mississippi. From our perspective, we want ZERO Big 12 South teams coming in and diminishing our SEC recruiting advantage in Texas nor do we want to be in a division that's basically the Big 12 again (Mizzou will probably agree with that sentiment as well). So while we could tolerate ONE okie school for the purpose of conference goals, someone like KU, VT, NC State, FSU etc. is an infinitely more valuable use of #16 than OSU

I agree with this from a litigation stand point. If the SEC lands OU at 15, if we were to grab another school from the B12, Baylor would not be the only one sueing us for any damages they would take from a smaller TV contract and other revenues by the B12 taking in replacement schools. WVU might be the exception, but we'll ignore that one for now. I would first contact VT about that 16th spot. If they are still content in the ACC, the next two options should be NC State and FSU.

FSU would bring the greatest value to the overall contract with excellent match ups, but would greatly harm and possibly begin the collapse of the ACC. If the SEC rounded off with NC State, we'd be giving up on landing UNC and just doing what is best for the conference.

I would absolutely love for the SEC to move to 16 with Oklahoma and Virginia Tech, or Oklahoma and Florida State. I don't think we can get N.C. State unless we did something unthinkable and took Duke, UNC and N.C. State. We'd probably also have to take both Virginia's to get it done. At that point you may as well go after Notre Dame and settle for Georgia Tech to complete it to 20. That's not my dream SEC.

If the SEC were to go to 20 the only acceptable programs to me would be Florida State, Oklahoma, Clemson, and Texas to 18. To 20 you need to go ahead and complete the footprint with a North Carolina and Virginia school. But the first four fit athletically. The latter two would struggle to be middling.

I still think NC State could have an A&M moment of wanting greater visibility while pulling a Mizzou with a groundswell movement out of the ACC if there was an open spot available. VT seems more willing to listen than act, but I would still give them a call again.