(08-15-2016 02:50 PM)ECU86 Wrote:  SEC would have to add a North Carolina school. The ACC schools can't leave because of the GOR. So ECU is the logically pick. Football school, awesome fan base, SEC would own the state.

(10-18-2016 11:24 AM)JRsec Wrote:  ****************************************************************

Well after yesterday's vote it's time to revisit this thread. The Big 12 has done what I said over 4 years ago they would do, not expand.

Now that they've publicly been forced to acknowledge this position there is no reason for the networks or any conference to deal with them on more than a school by school basis.

Therefore, the Big 10 and SEC and to lesser extents the ACC and PAC are now all officially in competition for the larger brands.

IMO opinion this now favors the SEC more than the Big 10. Why? ESPN wants those brands too, and we are the ESPN conference in closest proximity to them.

The SEC could move to 16 or 18 schools out of the Big 12.

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Iowa State would give us all of Texas and three new states with a combined population of 10 million plus, 3 AAU schools bringing the SEC to 8 total, and a Western Division essentially comprised of former SWC & Big 8 schools.

Or, we could play it very frugally and simply make our biggest play for OU & Kansas.

Or, ESPN could revisit a plan from 2010 and Virginia Tech and N.C. State could head our way so that Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas could join Notre Dame as the 18 members of the ACC.

Personally I think the SEC goes for OU & KU and Texas and friends are used as leverage for the PACN. We'll see.

(10-18-2016 03:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-18-2016 11:24 AM)JRsec Wrote:  ****************************************************************

Well after yesterday's vote it's time to revisit this thread. The Big 12 has done what I said over 4 years ago they would do, not expand.

Now that they've publicly been forced to acknowledge this position there is no reason for the networks or any conference to deal with them on more than a school by school basis.

Therefore, the Big 10 and SEC and to lesser extents the ACC and PAC are now all officially in competition for the larger brands.

IMO opinion this now favors the SEC more than the Big 10. Why? ESPN wants those brands too, and we are the ESPN conference in closest proximity to them.

The SEC could move to 16 or 18 schools out of the Big 12.

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Iowa State would give us all of Texas and three new states with a combined population of 10 million plus, 3 AAU schools bringing the SEC to 8 total, and a Western Division essentially comprised of former SWC & Big 8 schools.

Or, we could play it very frugally and simply make our biggest play for OU & Kansas.

Or, ESPN could revisit a plan from 2010 and Virginia Tech and N.C. State could head our way so that Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas could join Notre Dame as the 18 members of the ACC.

Personally I think the SEC goes for OU & KU and Texas and friends are used as leverage for the PACN. We'll see.

Listened a little bit to Finebaum on Mike and Mike this morning.

He still thinks OU and OSU to the SEC is a probability. At least, that is what he implied.

(10-18-2016 03:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-18-2016 03:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-18-2016 11:24 AM)JRsec Wrote:  ****************************************************************

Well after yesterday's vote it's time to revisit this thread. The Big 12 has done what I said over 4 years ago they would do, not expand.

Now that they've publicly been forced to acknowledge this position there is no reason for the networks or any conference to deal with them on more than a school by school basis.

Therefore, the Big 10 and SEC and to lesser extents the ACC and PAC are now all officially in competition for the larger brands.

IMO opinion this now favors the SEC more than the Big 10. Why? ESPN wants those brands too, and we are the ESPN conference in closest proximity to them.

The SEC could move to 16 or 18 schools out of the Big 12.

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Iowa State would give us all of Texas and three new states with a combined population of 10 million plus, 3 AAU schools bringing the SEC to 8 total, and a Western Division essentially comprised of former SWC & Big 8 schools.

Or, we could play it very frugally and simply make our biggest play for OU & Kansas.

Or, ESPN could revisit a plan from 2010 and Virginia Tech and N.C. State could head our way so that Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas could join Notre Dame as the 18 members of the ACC.

Personally I think the SEC goes for OU & KU and Texas and friends are used as leverage for the PACN. We'll see.

Listened a little bit to Finebaum on Mike and Mike this morning.

He still thinks OU and OSU to the SEC is a probability. At least, that is what he implied.

I'm okay with that. That gives the SEC a double dip into Dallas every year. It puts A&M in the drivers seat in Texas, which satisfies the Aggie wing of the SEC family and the SEC still gets what it wants in Texas. Missouri moves West and Auburn and Alabama return to the East.

I've never had a problem with this. The only issue here for me is that we have had so many people out with this rumor for two years now that it almost takes on the feel of a false cover for something else. Usually the stories circulated early turn out to be false.

What it would be is the easiest way to end this impasse. Should the PAC open up to ESPN then Texas / T.C.U. / Texas Tech and KSU could head west. Then if the Big 10 takes Kansas you would only need ISU placed, or WVU placed to pull it off.

(11-17-2016 12:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  What if something like this could be pulled off?

Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas, Kansas State to the PAC

You could call it Kexas instead of Texahoma.

The SEC takes Oklahoma & Oklahoma State.

The ACC takes T.C.U. & Baylor.

The PAC stands at 16 and has access to 30 million more folks.

The SEC stands at 16 with another King for the West and a good all around sports program in OSU and gains the DFW market solidly.

The ACC sets up I-10 games between Waco & Tallahassee and gains a slither of the East Texas market and DFW with two more good basketball & football & baseball programs.

There are variations of how the Big 10 could play a significant part, but I'm sitting on those for the moment.

(11-18-2016 02:32 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-17-2016 12:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  What if something like this could be pulled off?

Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas, Kansas State to the PAC

You could call it Kexas instead of Texahoma.

The SEC takes Oklahoma & Oklahoma State.

The ACC takes T.C.U. & Baylor.

The PAC stands at 16 and has access to 30 million more folks.

The SEC stands at 16 with another King for the West and a good all around sports program in OSU and gains the DFW market solidly.

The ACC sets up I-10 games between Waco & Tallahassee and gains a slither of the East Texas market and DFW with two more good basketball & football & baseball programs.

There are variations of how the Big 10 could play a significant part, but I'm sitting on those for the moment.

I think if the ACC is willing to expand into TX then they need to look at a school like Houston. UH certainly has proved their potential this year and demolishing one of the ACC's best should prove that the ACC still needs some punch on the football side.

I would also offer that Louisville and Houston are very similar in terms of academic profile and athletic prowess. UH lags in revenue right now, but only recently did UL take off.

For the ACC to take UH could also serve the purposes of ESPN. If the SECN and ACCN mostly overlap the same markets then customers have reason to subscribe to both and watch both outside of simply the interchangeable content.

SEC takes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and West Virginia

ACC takes TCU, Baylor, Houston, and full membership from Notre Dame

PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas, and Iowa State

TX is well divided between 3 leagues. Everyone in the Big 12 gets placed. The B1G lags behind in numbers, but not revenue.

(11-18-2016 08:04 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(11-18-2016 02:32 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-17-2016 12:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  What if something like this could be pulled off?

Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas, Kansas State to the PAC

You could call it Kexas instead of Texahoma.

The SEC takes Oklahoma & Oklahoma State.

The ACC takes T.C.U. & Baylor.

The PAC stands at 16 and has access to 30 million more folks.

The SEC stands at 16 with another King for the West and a good all around sports program in OSU and gains the DFW market solidly.

The ACC sets up I-10 games between Waco & Tallahassee and gains a slither of the East Texas market and DFW with two more good basketball & football & baseball programs.

There are variations of how the Big 10 could play a significant part, but I'm sitting on those for the moment.

I think if the ACC is willing to expand into TX then they need to look at a school like Houston. UH certainly has proved their potential this year and demolishing one of the ACC's best should prove that the ACC still needs some punch on the football side.

I would also offer that Louisville and Houston are very similar in terms of academic profile and athletic prowess. UH lags in revenue right now, but only recently did UL take off.

For the ACC to take UH could also serve the purposes of ESPN. If the SECN and ACCN mostly overlap the same markets then customers have reason to subscribe to both and watch both outside of simply the interchangeable content.

SEC takes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and West Virginia

ACC takes TCU, Baylor, Houston, and full membership from Notre Dame

PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas, and Iowa State

TX is well divided between 3 leagues. Everyone in the Big 12 gets placed. The B1G lags behind in numbers, but not revenue.

I would love for Houston to find a way into the ACC. But after last night can we put them in the Coastal? Lol

(11-18-2016 09:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-18-2016 08:04 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(11-18-2016 02:32 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-17-2016 12:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  What if something like this could be pulled off?

Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas, Kansas State to the PAC

You could call it Kexas instead of Texahoma.

The SEC takes Oklahoma & Oklahoma State.

The ACC takes T.C.U. & Baylor.

The PAC stands at 16 and has access to 30 million more folks.

The SEC stands at 16 with another King for the West and a good all around sports program in OSU and gains the DFW market solidly.

The ACC sets up I-10 games between Waco & Tallahassee and gains a slither of the East Texas market and DFW with two more good basketball & football & baseball programs.

There are variations of how the Big 10 could play a significant part, but I'm sitting on those for the moment.

I think if the ACC is willing to expand into TX then they need to look at a school like Houston. UH certainly has proved their potential this year and demolishing one of the ACC's best should prove that the ACC still needs some punch on the football side.

I would also offer that Louisville and Houston are very similar in terms of academic profile and athletic prowess. UH lags in revenue right now, but only recently did UL take off.

For the ACC to take UH could also serve the purposes of ESPN. If the SECN and ACCN mostly overlap the same markets then customers have reason to subscribe to both and watch both outside of simply the interchangeable content.

SEC takes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and West Virginia

ACC takes TCU, Baylor, Houston, and full membership from Notre Dame

PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas, and Iowa State

TX is well divided between 3 leagues. Everyone in the Big 12 gets placed. The B1G lags behind in numbers, but not revenue.

I would love for Houston to find a way into the ACC. But after last night can we put them in the Coastal? Lol

I would love to see us expand to 4 conferences of 18 because I think it would provide balance in scheduling, divisions that actually prove something to win (as opposed to 4 or 3 divisional games), and that it would include the most deserving of the G5. But, I don't see it happening.

We'll be lucky to move to 16. If we do the PAC taking 4 accounts for most of the Big 12 schools needed to dissolve at 8. Because of that I don't see all 10 getting in, and I don't see expansion from the G5 unless the Big 10 takes 1 and UConn (which is unlikely at best).

I think we will move to 4 conferences roughly of 16 each and will have 8 school divisions with a 9 game conference schedule. You will play your 7 divisional games annually and rotate 2 each year from the other division. At first we will have another P OOC game and two patsies. Then they will bargain away the patsies with the networks until we are eventually playing all 12 regular season games with P schools.

So for me as much as I would like to see Cincinnati, Houston, Connecticut, or maybe East Carolina get into a P conference, I just don't get into those discussions as much as I once did because I simply don't think it will happen.

XLance may be right, as Vandiver stated before, the new number might be 15. We'll see.

(11-19-2016 08:30 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-18-2016 09:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-18-2016 08:04 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(11-18-2016 02:32 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-17-2016 12:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  What if something like this could be pulled off?

Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas, Kansas State to the PAC

You could call it Kexas instead of Texahoma.

The SEC takes Oklahoma & Oklahoma State.

The ACC takes T.C.U. & Baylor.

The PAC stands at 16 and has access to 30 million more folks.

The SEC stands at 16 with another King for the West and a good all around sports program in OSU and gains the DFW market solidly.

The ACC sets up I-10 games between Waco & Tallahassee and gains a slither of the East Texas market and DFW with two more good basketball & football & baseball programs.

There are variations of how the Big 10 could play a significant part, but I'm sitting on those for the moment.

I think if the ACC is willing to expand into TX then they need to look at a school like Houston. UH certainly has proved their potential this year and demolishing one of the ACC's best should prove that the ACC still needs some punch on the football side.

I would also offer that Louisville and Houston are very similar in terms of academic profile and athletic prowess. UH lags in revenue right now, but only recently did UL take off.

For the ACC to take UH could also serve the purposes of ESPN. If the SECN and ACCN mostly overlap the same markets then customers have reason to subscribe to both and watch both outside of simply the interchangeable content.

SEC takes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and West Virginia

ACC takes TCU, Baylor, Houston, and full membership from Notre Dame

PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas, and Iowa State

TX is well divided between 3 leagues. Everyone in the Big 12 gets placed. The B1G lags behind in numbers, but not revenue.

I would love for Houston to find a way into the ACC. But after last night can we put them in the Coastal? Lol

I would love to see us expand to 4 conferences of 18 because I think it would provide balance in scheduling, divisions that actually prove something to win (as opposed to 4 or 3 divisional games), and that it would include the most deserving of the G5. But, I don't see it happening.

We'll be lucky to move to 16. If we do the PAC taking 4 accounts for most of the Big 12 schools needed to dissolve at 8. Because of that I don't see all 10 getting in, and I don't see expansion from the G5 unless the Big 10 takes 1 and UConn (which is unlikely at best).

I think we will move to 4 conferences roughly of 16 each and will have 8 school divisions with a 9 game conference schedule. You will play your 7 divisional games annually and rotate 2 each year from the other division. At first we will have another P OOC game and two patsies. Then they will bargain away the patsies with the networks until we are eventually playing all 12 regular season games with P schools.

So for me as much as I would like to see Cincinnati, Houston, Connecticut, or maybe East Carolina get into a P conference, I just don't get into those discussions as much as I once did because I simply don't think it will happen.

XLance may be right, as Vandiver stated before, the new number might be 15. We'll see.

I don't see 15 due to local politics.

As for the G5s, I'm sure the networks don't really want to pay for them, but things could be so much simpler if they would bite the bullet in that regard.

Let's think of schools like Vandy or Wake or Washington State...I'm sure the networks don't like paying for them either, but the fight to force them out just wouldn't be worth the effort. The same could be true for the Big 12. Several of those schools aren't worth big money, but how much trouble do they have to go through to put them on the outside looking in?

(11-19-2016 09:41 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-19-2016 08:30 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I don't see 15 due to local politics.

As for the G5s, I'm sure the networks don't really want to pay for them, but things could be so much simpler if they would bite the bullet in that regard.

Let's think of schools like Vandy or Wake or Washington State...I'm sure the networks don't like paying for them either, but the fight to force them out just wouldn't be worth the effort. The same could be true for the Big 12. Several of those schools aren't worth big money, but how much trouble do they have to go through to put them on the outside looking in?

You've kind of made my point. There is no trouble with regards to the parsing of the Big 12 if you merely wait for the GOR to expire. Then those 10 schools become product for the free market. If another conference and their network wants them they are in. If not they are out. There really isn't a very sticky wicket legally at that point. Sure they could file some suits, but the likelihood of handling a strong legal position at that point is much much lower.

As for the Vandy's, Northwestern's, Duke's and Wake's of the world the increased spending on college athletics will eventually make them put up or leave. Vandy is currently planning to put up. Duke has made that decision as well. Wake might? Northwestern I don't know about. They seem to be competing just fine and it seems they do have the commitment. Anyway Raleigh / Durham, Nashville, and Chicago are all far more attractive markets to the networks than Winston / Salem. But we'll see.

(11-19-2016 05:40 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-19-2016 09:41 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-19-2016 08:30 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I don't see 15 due to local politics.

As for the G5s, I'm sure the networks don't really want to pay for them, but things could be so much simpler if they would bite the bullet in that regard.

Let's think of schools like Vandy or Wake or Washington State...I'm sure the networks don't like paying for them either, but the fight to force them out just wouldn't be worth the effort. The same could be true for the Big 12. Several of those schools aren't worth big money, but how much trouble do they have to go through to put them on the outside looking in?

You've kind of made my point. There is no trouble with regards to the parsing of the Big 12 if you merely wait for the GOR to expire. Then those 10 schools become product for the free market. If another conference and their network wants them they are in. If not they are out. There really isn't a very sticky wicket legally at that point. Sure they could file some suits, but the likelihood of handling a strong legal position at that point is much much lower.

As for the Vandy's, Northwestern's, Duke's and Wake's of the world the increased spending on college athletics will eventually make them put up or leave. Vandy is currently planning to put up. Duke has made that decision as well. Wake might? Northwestern I don't know about. They seem to be competing just fine and it seems they do have the commitment. Anyway Raleigh / Durham, Nashville, and Chicago are all far more attractive markets to the networks than Winston / Salem. But we'll see.

If the GOR ends first then, yeah, all bets are off, but I was predicating our scenario on some sort of agreement beforehand. Otherwise, I don't see schools like Baylor getting in.

I also look at it like this. The only members of the old Big East that aren't in a Power league right now are UConn and Cincinnati. UConn may have a decent chance at the B1G at that. Point being, even though the arrangement has changed, pretty much all the same schools have gotten in on the party. Even Rutgers, a mostly insignificant athletic brand, has gained access to one of the wealthier leagues.

Especially if local politics play a role then just parking all or at least most of the Big 12 in other leagues is the path of least resistance. The networks can get the thing over with, get fans used to a new order, and start focusing on growing the brand rather than altering the brands every few years.

(11-19-2016 09:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-19-2016 05:40 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-19-2016 09:41 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-19-2016 08:30 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I don't see 15 due to local politics.

As for the G5s, I'm sure the networks don't really want to pay for them, but things could be so much simpler if they would bite the bullet in that regard.

Let's think of schools like Vandy or Wake or Washington State...I'm sure the networks don't like paying for them either, but the fight to force them out just wouldn't be worth the effort. The same could be true for the Big 12. Several of those schools aren't worth big money, but how much trouble do they have to go through to put them on the outside looking in?

You've kind of made my point. There is no trouble with regards to the parsing of the Big 12 if you merely wait for the GOR to expire. Then those 10 schools become product for the free market. If another conference and their network wants them they are in. If not they are out. There really isn't a very sticky wicket legally at that point. Sure they could file some suits, but the likelihood of handling a strong legal position at that point is much much lower.

As for the Vandy's, Northwestern's, Duke's and Wake's of the world the increased spending on college athletics will eventually make them put up or leave. Vandy is currently planning to put up. Duke has made that decision as well. Wake might? Northwestern I don't know about. They seem to be competing just fine and it seems they do have the commitment. Anyway Raleigh / Durham, Nashville, and Chicago are all far more attractive markets to the networks than Winston / Salem. But we'll see.

If the GOR ends first then, yeah, all bets are off, but I was predicating our scenario on some sort of agreement beforehand. Otherwise, I don't see schools like Baylor getting in.

I also look at it like this. The only members of the old Big East that aren't in a Power league right now are UConn and Cincinnati. UConn may have a decent chance at the B1G at that. Point being, even though the arrangement has changed, pretty much all the same schools have gotten in on the party. Even Rutgers, a mostly insignificant athletic brand, has gained access to one of the wealthier leagues.

Especially if local politics play a role then just parking all or at least most of the Big 12 in other leagues is the path of least resistance. The networks can get the thing over with, get fans used to a new order, and start focusing on growing the brand rather than altering the brands every few years.

If the networks are going to get it over with it will happen at the end of this season. If not it will be at least 6 years before anything happens because of the GOR and its penalties and prohibitions. So we'll see. I have no problem with 15, 16, or 18. I just think if it was going to be 16 or 18 we'd already be there.

(11-19-2016 11:06 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-19-2016 09:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-19-2016 05:40 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-19-2016 09:41 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-19-2016 08:30 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I don't see 15 due to local politics.

As for the G5s, I'm sure the networks don't really want to pay for them, but things could be so much simpler if they would bite the bullet in that regard.

Let's think of schools like Vandy or Wake or Washington State...I'm sure the networks don't like paying for them either, but the fight to force them out just wouldn't be worth the effort. The same could be true for the Big 12. Several of those schools aren't worth big money, but how much trouble do they have to go through to put them on the outside looking in?

You've kind of made my point. There is no trouble with regards to the parsing of the Big 12 if you merely wait for the GOR to expire. Then those 10 schools become product for the free market. If another conference and their network wants them they are in. If not they are out. There really isn't a very sticky wicket legally at that point. Sure they could file some suits, but the likelihood of handling a strong legal position at that point is much much lower.

As for the Vandy's, Northwestern's, Duke's and Wake's of the world the increased spending on college athletics will eventually make them put up or leave. Vandy is currently planning to put up. Duke has made that decision as well. Wake might? Northwestern I don't know about. They seem to be competing just fine and it seems they do have the commitment. Anyway Raleigh / Durham, Nashville, and Chicago are all far more attractive markets to the networks than Winston / Salem. But we'll see.

If the GOR ends first then, yeah, all bets are off, but I was predicating our scenario on some sort of agreement beforehand. Otherwise, I don't see schools like Baylor getting in.

I also look at it like this. The only members of the old Big East that aren't in a Power league right now are UConn and Cincinnati. UConn may have a decent chance at the B1G at that. Point being, even though the arrangement has changed, pretty much all the same schools have gotten in on the party. Even Rutgers, a mostly insignificant athletic brand, has gained access to one of the wealthier leagues.

Especially if local politics play a role then just parking all or at least most of the Big 12 in other leagues is the path of least resistance. The networks can get the thing over with, get fans used to a new order, and start focusing on growing the brand rather than altering the brands every few years.

If the networks are going to get it over with it will happen at the end of this season. If not it will be at least 6 years before anything happens because of the GOR and its penalties and prohibitions. So we'll see. I have no problem with 15, 16, or 18. I just think if it was going to be 16 or 18 we'd already be there.

You're probably right.

My only hesitance in completely accepting that would be the idea that OU and UT might have been legitimately interested in preserving the Big 12 until recently. Don't know how likely that is, but I think it's possible.

Being that they've abandoned trying to preserve the league for the long term, maybe now we can get something done.

(11-20-2016 12:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-19-2016 11:06 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-19-2016 09:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-19-2016 05:40 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-19-2016 09:41 AM)JRsec Wrote:  You've kind of made my point. There is no trouble with regards to the parsing of the Big 12 if you merely wait for the GOR to expire. Then those 10 schools become product for the free market. If another conference and their network wants them they are in. If not they are out. There really isn't a very sticky wicket legally at that point. Sure they could file some suits, but the likelihood of handling a strong legal position at that point is much much lower.

As for the Vandy's, Northwestern's, Duke's and Wake's of the world the increased spending on college athletics will eventually make them put up or leave. Vandy is currently planning to put up. Duke has made that decision as well. Wake might? Northwestern I don't know about. They seem to be competing just fine and it seems they do have the commitment. Anyway Raleigh / Durham, Nashville, and Chicago are all far more attractive markets to the networks than Winston / Salem. But we'll see.

If the GOR ends first then, yeah, all bets are off, but I was predicating our scenario on some sort of agreement beforehand. Otherwise, I don't see schools like Baylor getting in.

I also look at it like this. The only members of the old Big East that aren't in a Power league right now are UConn and Cincinnati. UConn may have a decent chance at the B1G at that. Point being, even though the arrangement has changed, pretty much all the same schools have gotten in on the party. Even Rutgers, a mostly insignificant athletic brand, has gained access to one of the wealthier leagues.

Especially if local politics play a role then just parking all or at least most of the Big 12 in other leagues is the path of least resistance. The networks can get the thing over with, get fans used to a new order, and start focusing on growing the brand rather than altering the brands every few years.

If the networks are going to get it over with it will happen at the end of this season. If not it will be at least 6 years before anything happens because of the GOR and its penalties and prohibitions. So we'll see. I have no problem with 15, 16, or 18. I just think if it was going to be 16 or 18 we'd already be there.

You're probably right.

My only hesitance in completely accepting that would be the idea that OU and UT might have been legitimately interested in preserving the Big 12 until recently. Don't know how likely that is, but I think it's possible.

Being that they've abandoned trying to preserve the league for the long term, maybe now we can get something done.

If Texas and Oklahoma had really wanted to keep the Big 12 together they would have added Louisville with West Virginia and B.Y.U. with T.C.U. in 2012.

What Texas and Oklahoma wanted to do was stay together until the fate of the ACC was decided or until they could extort the best possible offer. They didn't want to lose control of the vote to those who were afraid of being left behind. So their plan was to stick at 10 understanding that Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma would vote against expansion and that just one of Texas Tech or Oklahoma State would be all it would take to control any future expansion vote. Actually since it requires 3/4's of the members to vote to accept just the three of them could have controlled the vote, but Texas and Oklahoma had insurance with their two fellow state schools.

So I never believed they wanted to expand and said so back in 2012. I had a rep bet with a couple of Big 12'ers over that very issue. Neither of them are here much anymore so I doubt I ever collect.

(11-20-2016 11:32 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-20-2016 12:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-19-2016 11:06 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-19-2016 09:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-19-2016 05:40 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If the GOR ends first then, yeah, all bets are off, but I was predicating our scenario on some sort of agreement beforehand. Otherwise, I don't see schools like Baylor getting in.

I also look at it like this. The only members of the old Big East that aren't in a Power league right now are UConn and Cincinnati. UConn may have a decent chance at the B1G at that. Point being, even though the arrangement has changed, pretty much all the same schools have gotten in on the party. Even Rutgers, a mostly insignificant athletic brand, has gained access to one of the wealthier leagues.

Especially if local politics play a role then just parking all or at least most of the Big 12 in other leagues is the path of least resistance. The networks can get the thing over with, get fans used to a new order, and start focusing on growing the brand rather than altering the brands every few years.

If the networks are going to get it over with it will happen at the end of this season. If not it will be at least 6 years before anything happens because of the GOR and its penalties and prohibitions. So we'll see. I have no problem with 15, 16, or 18. I just think if it was going to be 16 or 18 we'd already be there.

You're probably right.

My only hesitance in completely accepting that would be the idea that OU and UT might have been legitimately interested in preserving the Big 12 until recently. Don't know how likely that is, but I think it's possible.

Being that they've abandoned trying to preserve the league for the long term, maybe now we can get something done.

If Texas and Oklahoma had really wanted to keep the Big 12 together they would have added Louisville with West Virginia and B.Y.U. with T.C.U. in 2012.

What Texas and Oklahoma wanted to do was stay together until the fate of the ACC was decided or until they could extort the best possible offer. They didn't want to lose control of the vote to those who were afraid of being left behind. So their plan was to stick at 10 understanding that Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma would vote against expansion and that just one of Texas Tech or Oklahoma State would be all it would take to control any future expansion vote. Actually since it requires 3/4's of the members to vote to accept just the three of them could have controlled the vote, but Texas and Oklahoma had insurance with their two fellow state schools.

So I never believed they wanted to expand and said so back in 2012. I had a rep bet with a couple of Big 12'ers over that very issue. Neither of them are here much anymore so I doubt I ever collect.

Let me rephrase that.

It's not that I think UT and OU were terribly interested in saving the Big 12 as an entity, but that they were interested in maintaining their control over a Power conference. I think they would have taken Florida State and Clemson had the opportunity ultimately presented itself. When the ACC finally became stable though, there was no need to worry about pie in the sky scenarios so they gave up the ghost.

I disagree though that the additions of BYU and Louisville would have saved the league. It would have been a better and stronger league, yes, but the temptation for the likes of UT and OU to make more money elsewhere would have remained. And I don't think the networks were ever truly interested in preserving the Big 12 either. I think that's why they paid for so many prime members to leave. I think OU and UT knew that and any desire to save the Big 12 was purely a desire for the preservation of power.

I was fooled for a while into thinking the Big 12 would expand, but my belief was predicated on UT and OU's interests being in concert with the networks' interest. Perhaps I should have known better.

Anyway, I say all that to say that the networks would stand to lose a lot of content and a lot of fans by excluding more schools than they have to. If it's true that UT and OU were never really in concert with the networks then it would make sense that something's changed more recently with the very public bluff on expanding. It would seem to indicate a willingness to look past any future for a Big 12 and more towards a future crafted by networks.

It could then indicate that the primary reason we haven't seen a brokering yet was because OU and UT weren't willing to give up the ghost yet. In other words, they fought the networks as long as they could, but failed anyway. For their part, they don't really lose anything by putting up a fight so, hey...why not?

Eight years is a long time to wait, from the networks' perspective, to create the final product. Just get it done now by not losing very many schools and they can start to focus on branding and how to better monetize the streaming model rather than risking more lawsuits, more bad publicity, and greater disorganization. I think that's especially true if we move to 11 or 12 quality games. Larger conferences that also include their fair share of weak opponents will allow the networks to create the stories the fans are used to...undefeated teams, similar enough winning percentages as to keep fans of big programs happy, and more postseason games all at the same time.

I agree with your long stated premise that content rules and the best quality schools will drive the money soon enough if not already. I maintain though that one of the tenants of streaming is niche content as well. The more eyeballs buying subscriptions, the better. The more product you have at your fingertips, the more likely the average sports fan is to buy in. There are a lot of niche fans out there that don't necessarily watch the most popular schools and aren't necessarily more likely to do so.

(12-08-2016 12:43 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Well thanks to Larry Scott the PAC's interest in moving to 16 has been declared. The timeline is naturally vague. Stay tuned!

But if the PAC is announcing interest now it isn't accidental. But then neither was the Big 12's refusal to expand.

I wouldn't call it smoke, but it is a spark in a very dry environment.