(10-22-2017 08:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-22-2017 05:53 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 08:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 06:35 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 01:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Two points:

1. They haven't really invested anything in the ACCN yet. And it won't launch until 2019 so there's still plenty of time to work out other options. So would they rather pit the ACC against the SEC and further alienate the #2 product in the country for the sake of placating #5? Or is #5 the fallback option if they can't get more of #2.

2. If Texas decides to head to the PAC and takes OU with them along with 4 other Big 12 products then how is ESPN going to placate the SEC? Our T1 is up in 2024-5. It would be poor timing on their part indeed to tick us off right before that part of the contract is signed. How do you think ESPN stock would fare if the SEC cooled to the Mouse? Sure were signed until the mid 2030's but 10 years of knowing the SEC would head elsewhere would devastate their stock expectations.

So I just don't see any angle where they permit Bevo to head West and placate the SEC without reexamining their commitment to the ACC. And I wouldn't be surprised at all with the issues they have faced this past year if Skipper isn't replaced.

The smartest move ESPN could make while staring down the streaming companies that will want to bid on product the next time around would be to double their efforts to land more of the Big 10 (who knows that FOX's coverage hasn't been great for their product) and to play off of Big 10 / SEC rivalry which is deeper and stronger in every way than the SEC / ACC thing.

I'm betting they placate Texas and the SEC and if they do that somebody is going to be on the auction block.

The only way they can avoid that is to land Texas and OU into the SEC. But Texas will have a say in that.

For Texas and for the Three Musketeers of the ACC any material gain would be balanced out by the possibility of losing their fiefdoms for good, which would be stinging for their egos. So there would have to be some messaging involved.

I agree. It's what kept Texas out in 2010-1 when Dodds was talking about looking East. UNC simply didn't want it

Without some big clout in football the ACCN will be totally reliant upon subscription fees. That model will likely be dead in 5 year. Something is going to have to give.

Football as a "big time' collegiate sport is in big, big trouble. Yesterday during one of the many games I watched a commercial came on several times. It was a MOM, saying that she loved the game and wanted her sons to play the game. She downplayed the chance of injury and was encouraging other moms to let their sons play too.
The ad was sponsored by the NCAA.
As boomers die out, people that have grown up with college football being a part of their life, and are replaced by their children that either don't have the passion for the game, the money, or the tradition to follow their teams like their parents do/did football is losing their core audience. Overprotective parents who aren't letting their kids play outside without being in an organized group aren't letting them participate in violent contact sports in the same numbers they have in the past. The pool of available players is starting to shrink, and as it does, the future of football as a we now know it does too.

Basketball's popularity with those who can donate is flagging faster than football. It seems to me that baseball will have the brighter future and that's not saying a whole lot. With the people who support collegiate sports basketball doesn't provide what their looking for with regard to their kids either.

I fear we are losing our moxy at time in history when we are going to need it the most. As a nation we have now educated an entire generation to be fearful and that generation seems to me to be on a collision course with China and will have to confront more Middle Eastern terrorists. They aren't mentally, emotionally, or physically prepared for a future of conflict.

(10-22-2017 06:31 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-22-2017 08:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-22-2017 05:53 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 08:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 06:35 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  For Texas and for the Three Musketeers of the ACC any material gain would be balanced out by the possibility of losing their fiefdoms for good, which would be stinging for their egos. So there would have to be some messaging involved.

I agree. It's what kept Texas out in 2010-1 when Dodds was talking about looking East. UNC simply didn't want it

Without some big clout in football the ACCN will be totally reliant upon subscription fees. That model will likely be dead in 5 year. Something is going to have to give.

Football as a "big time' collegiate sport is in big, big trouble. Yesterday during one of the many games I watched a commercial came on several times. It was a MOM, saying that she loved the game and wanted her sons to play the game. She downplayed the chance of injury and was encouraging other moms to let their sons play too.
The ad was sponsored by the NCAA.
As boomers die out, people that have grown up with college football being a part of their life, and are replaced by their children that either don't have the passion for the game, the money, or the tradition to follow their teams like their parents do/did football is losing their core audience. Overprotective parents who aren't letting their kids play outside without being in an organized group aren't letting them participate in violent contact sports in the same numbers they have in the past. The pool of available players is starting to shrink, and as it does, the future of football as a we now know it does too.

Basketball's popularity with those who can donate is flagging faster than football. It seems to me that baseball will have the brighter future and that's not saying a whole lot. With the people who support collegiate sports basketball doesn't provide what their looking for with regard to their kids either.

I fear we are losing our moxy at time in history when we are going to need it the most. As a nation we have now educated an entire generation to be fearful and that generation seems to me to be on a collision course with China and will have to confront more Middle Eastern terrorists. They aren't mentally, emotionally, or physically prepared for a future of conflict.

Posted before:
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/college-football-expanded-playoffs-10-years-alabama-ohio-state-notre-dame-051616

After a limited number of schools still playing at a top level (fox projects less than 30).
The rest of the schools playing at a P level may have to drop back to an Ivy League approach until such time that the public demands the return of college football or advances in technology can assure the reduction of head and neck injuries.

(10-21-2017 09:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 09:36 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 01:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Two points:

1. They haven't really invested anything in the ACCN yet. And it won't launch until 2019 so there's still plenty of time to work out other options. So would they rather pit the ACC against the SEC and further alienate the #2 product in the country for the sake of placating #5? Or is #5 the fallback option if they can't get more of #2.

2. If Texas decides to head to the PAC and takes OU with them along with 4 other Big 12 products then how is ESPN going to placate the SEC? Our T1 is up in 2024-5. It would be poor timing on their part indeed to tick us off right before that part of the contract is signed. How do you think ESPN stock would fare if the SEC cooled to the Mouse? Sure were signed until the mid 2030's but 10 years of knowing the SEC would head elsewhere would devastate their stock expectations.

So I just don't see any angle where they permit Bevo to head West and placate the SEC without reexamining their commitment to the ACC. And I wouldn't be surprised at all with the issues they have faced this past year if Skipper isn't replaced.

The smartest move ESPN could make while staring down the streaming companies that will want to bid on product the next time around would be to double their efforts to land more of the Big 10 (who knows that FOX's coverage hasn't been great for their product) and to play off of Big 10 / SEC rivalry which is deeper and stronger in every way than the SEC / ACC thing.

I'm betting they placate Texas and the SEC and if they do that somebody is going to be on the auction block.

The only way they can avoid that is to land Texas and OU into the SEC. But Texas will have a say in that.

Well, I suppose there is a way that ESPN could acquire majority rights to each conference in a P3 scenario...

1. Let's say that ESPN does indeed use Texas as bait to acquire a desperate PAC 12 and their conference network.

PAC adds Texas, Texas Tech, Houston, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, and Iowa State

The PAC regional networks are dissolved along with the LHN. What emerges is one national channel(the model ESPN prefers) that stretches across the Pacific, Mountain, and Central time zones. The PAC stands pat at 20.

2. ESPN finally decides to parse out the ACC. First thing they do though is finish off the Big 12 by putting TCU in the SEC. The SEC gets a strong presence in DFW while adding a regional mate for the other Western schools.

Anyway...Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, and Virginia Tech are also added. The SEC rounds out at 20.

3. The B1G acquires Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, and Notre Dame. They also finish at 20.

ESPN could then use the SEC and PAC Networks to leverage coverage for each other while simultaneously controlling a large portion of the B1G.

Except the Big 10 would find a better market in Boston College than with Pitt and the SEC can't take T.C.U. because it only accounts for 11 ACC schools, not enough to dissolve the conference and end the GOR.

And Houston can't head to the PAC either because it takes 8 votes to dissolve the Big 12 and void the GOR.

(10-22-2017 08:28 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If we're breaking GORs then maybe this...

SEC takes Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, and TCU (24)

PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Houston, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, and Iowa State (20)

B1G takes Notre Dame, Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke (20)

(10-23-2017 08:59 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(10-22-2017 08:28 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If we're breaking GORs then maybe this...

SEC takes Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, and TCU (24)

PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Houston, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, and Iowa State (20)

B1G takes Notre Dame, Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke (20)

Who else do you have for the SEC? Those schools only make it 23. Were you thinking Louisville or Cincinnati or Wake Forest or U_F?

(10-23-2017 10:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 08:59 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(10-22-2017 08:28 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If we're breaking GORs then maybe this...

SEC takes Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, and TCU (24)

PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Houston, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, and Iowa State (20)

B1G takes Notre Dame, Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke (20)

Who else do you have for the SEC? Those schools only make it 23. Were you thinking Louisville or Cincinnati or Wake Forest or U_F?

Nobody is moving to 24. The scheduling complications get too severe. And the play between conferences, that the networks like, is too limited. I think 20 will be considered to be very very large.

This year more than any in the past we have a dearth of top quality teams. Mediocrity of play has hurt the NFL in recent years and its starting to impact the college game as well. What we need are fewer top tier schools to split fewer top tier players, not more. I question the long term viability of the numbers in Division II & III. I think the football pipeline is going to shrink from the bottom tiers up. But then demographics tell us higher education as a whole is going to shrink.

So the clustering in the G5 and P5 ranks are the moves of those seeking to survive both the coming consolidation in higher education as well as constriction of the talent drain in football.

I think 60 is more likely than any number over 64. Now I've played around with 72 and even looked at 80, but when you crunch the numbers on revenue there truly is significant drop off between 60 and the next 5 and again after 73. But then there is also a significant break in the 20's and again in the 40's. But you really can't have schools making 190 million competing fairly with those who are making less than 40.

(10-23-2017 08:59 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(10-22-2017 08:28 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If we're breaking GORs then maybe this...

SEC takes Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, and TCU (24)

PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Houston, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, and Iowa State (20)

B1G takes Notre Dame, Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke (20)

Who else do you have for the SEC? Those schools only make it 23. Were you thinking Louisville or Cincinnati or Wake Forest or U_F?

(10-23-2017 10:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 08:59 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(10-22-2017 08:28 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If we're breaking GORs then maybe this...

SEC takes Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, and TCU (24)

PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Houston, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, and Iowa State (20)

B1G takes Notre Dame, Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke (20)

Who else do you have for the SEC? Those schools only make it 23. Were you thinking Louisville or Cincinnati or Wake Forest or U_F?

Nobody is moving to 24. The scheduling complications get too severe. And the play between conferences, that the networks like, is too limited. I think 20 will be considered to be very very large.

This year more than any in the past we have a dearth of top quality teams. Mediocrity of play has hurt the NFL in recent years and its starting to impact the college game as well. What we need are fewer top tier schools to split fewer top tier players, not more. I question the long term viability of the numbers in Division II & III. I think the football pipeline is going to shrink from the bottom tiers up. But then demographics tell us higher education as a whole is going to shrink.

So the clustering in the G5 and P5 ranks are the moves of those seeking to survive both the coming consolidation in higher education as well as constriction of the talent drain in football.

I think 60 is more likely than any number over 64. Now I've played around with 72 and even looked at 80, but when you crunch the numbers on revenue there truly is significant drop off between 60 and the next 5 and again after 73. But then there is also a significant break in the 20's and again in the 40's. But you really can't have schools making 190 million competing fairly with those who are making less than 40.

(10-23-2017 03:45 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 10:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 08:59 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(10-22-2017 08:28 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If we're breaking GORs then maybe this...

SEC takes Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, and TCU (24)

PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Houston, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, and Iowa State (20)

B1G takes Notre Dame, Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke (20)

Who else do you have for the SEC? Those schools only make it 23. Were you thinking Louisville or Cincinnati or Wake Forest or U_F?

Nobody is moving to 24. The scheduling complications get too severe. And the play between conferences, that the networks like, is too limited. I think 20 will be considered to be very very large.

This year more than any in the past we have a dearth of top quality teams. Mediocrity of play has hurt the NFL in recent years and its starting to impact the college game as well. What we need are fewer top tier schools to split fewer top tier players, not more. I question the long term viability of the numbers in Division II & III. I think the football pipeline is going to shrink from the bottom tiers up. But then demographics tell us higher education as a whole is going to shrink.

So the clustering in the G5 and P5 ranks are the moves of those seeking to survive both the coming consolidation in higher education as well as constriction of the talent drain in football.

I think 60 is more likely than any number over 64. Now I've played around with 72 and even looked at 80, but when you crunch the numbers on revenue there truly is significant drop off between 60 and the next 5 and again after 73. But then there is also a significant break in the 20's and again in the 40's. But you really can't have schools making 190 million competing fairly with those who are making less than 40.

Well, it depends on how many the PAC is willing to take. If they're willing to take 8 Big 12 schools and break that GOR then the B1G and SEC are free to divide up the ACC and no one has to go beyond 20.

SEC takes Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, and Pittsburgh

B1G takes Notre Dame, Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke

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


Then you could do something like this with the American...

North: UMass, UConn, Temple, West Virginia, Louisville, Cincinnati

East: Old Dominion, Wake Forest, East Carolina, UCF, USF, Miami

South: Houston, SMU, Baylor, Tulsa, Memphis, Tulane

West: San Diego State, UNLV, BYU, Boise State, Colorado State, New Mexico

Army, Navy, and Air Force could be affiliate members so they can maintain P5 rivalries, engage in a more national schedule for recruiting purposes, and not have to worry about having their dates limited by a conference schedule.

(10-23-2017 04:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 03:45 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, it depends on how many the PAC is willing to take. If they're willing to take 8 Big 12 schools and break that GOR then the B1G and SEC are free to divide up the ACC and no one has to go beyond 20.

SEC takes Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, and Pittsburgh

B1G takes Notre Dame, Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke

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


Then you could do something like this with the American...

North: UMass, UConn, Temple, West Virginia, Louisville, Cincinnati

East: Old Dominion, Wake Forest, East Carolina, UCF, USF, Miami

South: Houston, SMU, Baylor, Tulsa, Memphis, Tulane

West: San Diego State, UNLV, BYU, Boise State, Colorado State, New Mexico

Army, Navy, and Air Force could be affiliate members so they can maintain P5 rivalries, engage in a more national schedule for recruiting purposes, and not have to worry about having their dates limited by a conference schedule.

I would rather have Miami. Pitt doesn't fit.

(10-24-2017 09:27 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 04:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 03:45 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, it depends on how many the PAC is willing to take. If they're willing to take 8 Big 12 schools and break that GOR then the B1G and SEC are free to divide up the ACC and no one has to go beyond 20.

SEC takes Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, and Pittsburgh

B1G takes Notre Dame, Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke

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




Then you could do something like this with the American...

North: UMass, UConn, Temple, West Virginia, Louisville, Cincinnati

East: Old Dominion, Wake Forest, East Carolina, UCF, USF, Miami

South: Houston, SMU, Baylor, Tulsa, Memphis, Tulane

West: San Diego State, UNLV, BYU, Boise State, Colorado State, New Mexico

Army, Navy, and Air Force could be affiliate members so they can maintain P5 rivalries, engage in a more national schedule for recruiting purposes, and not have to worry about having their dates limited by a conference schedule.

I would rather have Miami. Pitt doesn't fit.

Pittsburgh probably isn't a good fit, but they'd add an AAU school in a decent size market/new state with an okay history in basketball. Maybe not a bad option, but Miami would be a better fit.

If we went to 4 conferences of 20, with the XII and ACC being divided, then I could see something similar to the above.

PAC
North: Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St, Arizona St
West: California, Stanford, USC, UCLA, Arizona
South: Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St
East: Utah, Colorado, Kansas, Kansas St, Iowa St
*This was tough to split. Any better ideas would be welcomed. I considered a zipper model, Texas with the California schools, and other options.*

SEC
West: Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St
South: Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia Tech, Florida St, Miami
East: Auburn, Georgia, Florida, Clemson, South Carolina
North: Missouri, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech, North Carolina St

B1G
West: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois
North: Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St
East: Northwestern, Notre Dame, Syracuse, Boston College, Rutgers
South: North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Maryland, Penn St

AAC
West: San Diego St, UNLV, Boise St, BYU, Wyoming, Colorado St, New Mexico
Central: Tulsa, SMU, Baylor, Houston, Air Force, Army, Navy
South: Tulane, Memphis, Central Florida, South Florida, East Carolina, Wake Forest, Old Dominion
North: Louisville, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Temple, Connecticut, Massachusetts
*I included Wyoming to keep the Front Range schools. I had a hard time with Old Dominion and Massachusetts, but I think they have potential if they invest in their programs correctly. I also gave the AAC 28 because it would go coast-to-coast, so more schools would ease travel.*

(11-17-2017 08:32 AM)XLance Wrote:  If the SEC could pick just one school to add it would be...................Texas.
If they get Texas do they NEED Oklahoma........................NO!

This is an old plan that just might come back into play, as it works for ESPN, the SEC and the ACC.
Just like taking Oklahoma State is a big deal to land Oklahoma, inviting some of Texas' buddies could go a long way in getting the Horns into the SEC.
It's really a two conference race to land Tejas. Because of weather, Texas is forced to look only at the SEC and the PAC.
In order to land the Horns the SEC must shed a few schools to accommodate all of the old SWC. Losing Missouri to the B1G (with Iowa State....AAU you know) will not be any loss to the SEC. The next one comes hard. Kentucky, South Carolina or Vanderbilt (my choice) to the ACC (along with Notre Dame will take the ACC to 16).
The SEC engulfs the state of Texas (28 million and rising fast) to go 14-2+4=16
The PAC gets what they need....a football school (Oklahoma) and a basketball school (Kansas) in the CTZ that have the ability to draw eyeballs to enhance the rest of the league. BTW they get Oklahoma State and Kansas State as a bonus. 12+4=16.
The B1G adds Iowa State and Missouri and between the B1G and the PAC they have reassembled the Big 8. 14+2=16.
What does this do? It saves college football. More compact, less travel, interest for the fans realignment.
The PAC can now re-enter the scheduling alliance with the B1G so that the CTZ schools that are separated can play one another. The SWC is put back together (sans Rice and SMU and if you want to count Houston, too).
West Virginia joins the American and provides the link between Temple, Cincinnati and East Carolina.
Let me repeat what this does....it saves college football....it saves college football....it saves college football.

(11-17-2017 12:11 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 08:32 AM)XLance Wrote:  If the SEC could pick just one school to add it would be...................Texas.
If they get Texas do they NEED Oklahoma........................NO!

This is an old plan that just might come back into play, as it works for ESPN, the SEC and the ACC.
Just like taking Oklahoma State is a big deal to land Oklahoma, inviting some of Texas' buddies could go a long way in getting the Horns into the SEC.
It's really a two conference race to land Tejas. Because of weather, Texas is forced to look only at the SEC and the PAC.
In order to land the Horns the SEC must shed a few schools to accommodate all of the old SWC. Losing Missouri to the B1G (with Iowa State....AAU you know) will not be any loss to the SEC. The next one comes hard. Kentucky, South Carolina or Vanderbilt (my choice) to the ACC (along with Notre Dame will take the ACC to 16).
The SEC engulfs the state of Texas (28 million and rising fast) to go 14-2+4=16
The PAC gets what they need....a football school (Oklahoma) and a basketball school (Kansas) in the CTZ that have the ability to draw eyeballs to enhance the rest of the league. BTW they get Oklahoma State and Kansas State as a bonus. 12+4=16.
The B1G adds Iowa State and Missouri and between the B1G and the PAC they have reassembled the Big 8. 14+2=16.
What does this do? It saves college football. More compact, less travel, interest for the fans realignment.
The PAC can now re-enter the scheduling alliance with the B1G so that the CTZ schools that are separated can play one another. The SWC is put back together (sans Rice and SMU and if you want to count Houston, too).
West Virginia joins the American and provides the link between Temple, Cincinnati and East Carolina.
Let me repeat what this does....it saves college football....it saves college football....it saves college football.

I like seeing things spelled out.

PAC - Pods here make scheduling easier so everyone sees California schools annually.
North: Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St
West: California, Stanford, USC, UCLA
South: Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, Colorado
East: Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Kansas St

SEC - I didn't see where you said which Texas schools? I don't think Baylor gets in TBH. I'll send them to the AAC and bring in West Virginia. Vanderbilt has such a long history with the SEC that I would seriously doubt they would go.
West: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, TCU, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St
East: Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, West Virginia

ACC - I'm going to realign these divisions.
Atlantic: Boston College, Louisville, Miami, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, South Carolina, Syracuse, Virginia Tech
Coastal: Clemson, Duke, Florida St, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, North Carolina St, Virginia, Wake Forest

B1G
West: Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Iowa St, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern
East: Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Maryland, Rutgers

AAC - If the academies were in the same conference, they would need to be in the same division for scheduling.
West: Tulsa, SMU, Baylor, Houston, Navy (fb/Wichita St), Air Force (fb/Saint Louis), Army (fb/VCU), BYU (fb/Dayton)
East: Memphis, Central Florida, South Florida, East Carolina, Cincinnati, Temple, Connecticut, Tulane

(11-17-2017 12:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 12:11 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 08:32 AM)XLance Wrote:  If the SEC could pick just one school to add it would be...................Texas.
If they get Texas do they NEED Oklahoma........................NO!

This is an old plan that just might come back into play, as it works for ESPN, the SEC and the ACC.
Just like taking Oklahoma State is a big deal to land Oklahoma, inviting some of Texas' buddies could go a long way in getting the Horns into the SEC.
It's really a two conference race to land Tejas. Because of weather, Texas is forced to look only at the SEC and the PAC.
In order to land the Horns the SEC must shed a few schools to accommodate all of the old SWC. Losing Missouri to the B1G (with Iowa State....AAU you know) will not be any loss to the SEC. The next one comes hard. Kentucky, South Carolina or Vanderbilt (my choice) to the ACC (along with Notre Dame will take the ACC to 16).
The SEC engulfs the state of Texas (28 million and rising fast) to go 14-2+4=16
The PAC gets what they need....a football school (Oklahoma) and a basketball school (Kansas) in the CTZ that have the ability to draw eyeballs to enhance the rest of the league. BTW they get Oklahoma State and Kansas State as a bonus. 12+4=16.
The B1G adds Iowa State and Missouri and between the B1G and the PAC they have reassembled the Big 8. 14+2=16.
What does this do? It saves college football. More compact, less travel, interest for the fans realignment.
The PAC can now re-enter the scheduling alliance with the B1G so that the CTZ schools that are separated can play one another. The SWC is put back together (sans Rice and SMU and if you want to count Houston, too).
West Virginia joins the American and provides the link between Temple, Cincinnati and East Carolina.
Let me repeat what this does....it saves college football....it saves college football....it saves college football.

I like seeing things spelled out.

PAC - Pods here make scheduling easier so everyone sees California schools annually.
North: Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St
West: California, Stanford, USC, UCLA
South: Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, Colorado
East: Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Kansas St

SEC - I didn't see where you said which Texas schools? I don't think Baylor gets in TBH. I'll send them to the AAC and bring in West Virginia. Vanderbilt has such a long history with the SEC that I would seriously doubt they would go.
West: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, TCU, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St
East: Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, West Virginia

ACC - I'm going to realign these divisions.
Atlantic: Boston College, Louisville, Miami, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, South Carolina, Syracuse, Virginia Tech
Coastal: Clemson, Duke, Florida St, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, North Carolina St, Virginia, Wake Forest

B1G
West: Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Iowa St, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern
East: Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Maryland, Rutgers

AAC - If the academies were in the same conference, they would need to be in the same division for scheduling.
West: Tulsa, SMU, Baylor, Houston, Navy (fb/Wichita St), Air Force (fb/Saint Louis), Army (fb/VCU), BYU (fb/Dayton)
East: Memphis, Central Florida, South Florida, East Carolina, Cincinnati, Temple, Connecticut, Tulane

There will be no trading of schools, period. The moves will be simple and straight forward and they will not be extensive. If Texas moves anywhere with a group it will be to the only conference that can take a group, the PAC.

The SEC and Big 10 will push for Texas and Oklahoma. When Texas doesn't want to head to the Big 10 they will head where they can play leverage, the PAC.

Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC.

Texas, Texas Tech, & T.C.U. to the PAC. #4? I think Kansas. Why? I don't think the Big 10 will expand if their choices are Kansas and Iowa State.

West Virginia to the ACC if they go to a P4 conference. But if Texas heads West and the two Oklahoma's head to the SEC I don't think that the ACC or Big 10 add anyone.

So, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, West Virginia are all likely to the AAC.

If ESPN truly has a say in Texas's whereabouts and they insist on the SEC then the SEC will still only grow to 16 but will likely do so with Texas & Texas Tech.

If ESPN gets a piece of the PACN they it will be the two Oklahoma's to the SEC. This will be especially true if the Oklahomas move first.

(11-17-2017 02:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 12:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 12:11 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 08:32 AM)XLance Wrote:  If the SEC could pick just one school to add it would be...................Texas.
If they get Texas do they NEED Oklahoma........................NO!

This is an old plan that just might come back into play, as it works for ESPN, the SEC and the ACC.
Just like taking Oklahoma State is a big deal to land Oklahoma, inviting some of Texas' buddies could go a long way in getting the Horns into the SEC.
It's really a two conference race to land Tejas. Because of weather, Texas is forced to look only at the SEC and the PAC.
In order to land the Horns the SEC must shed a few schools to accommodate all of the old SWC. Losing Missouri to the B1G (with Iowa State....AAU you know) will not be any loss to the SEC. The next one comes hard. Kentucky, South Carolina or Vanderbilt (my choice) to the ACC (along with Notre Dame will take the ACC to 16).
The SEC engulfs the state of Texas (28 million and rising fast) to go 14-2+4=16
The PAC gets what they need....a football school (Oklahoma) and a basketball school (Kansas) in the CTZ that have the ability to draw eyeballs to enhance the rest of the league. BTW they get Oklahoma State and Kansas State as a bonus. 12+4=16.
The B1G adds Iowa State and Missouri and between the B1G and the PAC they have reassembled the Big 8. 14+2=16.
What does this do? It saves college football. More compact, less travel, interest for the fans realignment.
The PAC can now re-enter the scheduling alliance with the B1G so that the CTZ schools that are separated can play one another. The SWC is put back together (sans Rice and SMU and if you want to count Houston, too).
West Virginia joins the American and provides the link between Temple, Cincinnati and East Carolina.
Let me repeat what this does....it saves college football....it saves college football....it saves college football.

I like seeing things spelled out.

PAC - Pods here make scheduling easier so everyone sees California schools annually.
North: Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St
West: California, Stanford, USC, UCLA
South: Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, Colorado
East: Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Kansas St

SEC - I didn't see where you said which Texas schools? I don't think Baylor gets in TBH. I'll send them to the AAC and bring in West Virginia. Vanderbilt has such a long history with the SEC that I would seriously doubt they would go.
West: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, TCU, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St
East: Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, West Virginia

ACC - I'm going to realign these divisions.
Atlantic: Boston College, Louisville, Miami, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, South Carolina, Syracuse, Virginia Tech
Coastal: Clemson, Duke, Florida St, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, North Carolina St, Virginia, Wake Forest

B1G
West: Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Iowa St, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern
East: Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Maryland, Rutgers

AAC - If the academies were in the same conference, they would need to be in the same division for scheduling.
West: Tulsa, SMU, Baylor, Houston, Navy (fb/Wichita St), Air Force (fb/Saint Louis), Army (fb/VCU), BYU (fb/Dayton)
East: Memphis, Central Florida, South Florida, East Carolina, Cincinnati, Temple, Connecticut, Tulane

There will be no trading of schools, period. The moves will be simple and straight forward and they will not be extensive. If Texas moves anywhere with a group it will be to the only conference that can take a group, the PAC.

The SEC and Big 10 will push for Texas and Oklahoma. When Texas doesn't want to head to the Big 10 they will head where they can play leverage, the PAC.

Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC.

Texas, Texas Tech, & T.C.U. to the PAC. #4? I think Kansas. Why? I don't think the Big 10 will expand if their choices are Kansas and Iowa State.

West Virginia to the ACC if they go to a P4 conference. But if Texas heads West and the two Oklahoma's head to the SEC I don't think that the ACC or Big 10 add anyone.

So, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, West Virginia are all likely to the AAC.

If ESPN truly has a say in Texas's whereabouts and they insist on the SEC then the SEC will still only grow to 16 but will likely do so with Texas & Texas Tech.

If ESPN gets a piece of the PACN they it will be the two Oklahoma's to the SEC. This will be especially true if the Oklahomas move first.

Certainly a possibility, JR.
The wild card has always been Missouri and whether they would move to the B1G if they had a binding offer. I think they would if they did. Then perhaps the SEC moves with Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and West Virginia (?) or just stops at 15.
I think at that point the B1G would stop at 15 too.

Quote:The SEC and Big 10 will push for Texas and Oklahoma. When Texas doesn't want to head to the Big 10 they will head where they can play leverage, the PAC.

Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC.

Texas, Texas Tech, & T.C.U. to the PAC. #4? I think Kansas. Why? I don't think the Big 10 will expand if their choices are Kansas and Iowa State.

West Virginia to the ACC if they go to a P4 conference. But if Texas heads West and the two Oklahoma's head to the SEC I don't think that the ACC or Big 10 add anyone.

So, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, West Virginia are all likely to the AAC.

If ESPN truly has a say in Texas's whereabouts and they insist on the SEC then the SEC will still only grow to 16 but will likely do so with Texas & Texas Tech.

If ESPN gets a piece of the PACN they it will be the two Oklahoma's to the SEC. This will be especially true if the Oklahomas move first.

(11-18-2017 01:00 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

Quote:The SEC and Big 10 will push for Texas and Oklahoma. When Texas doesn't want to head to the Big 10 they will head where they can play leverage, the PAC.

Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC.

Texas, Texas Tech, & T.C.U. to the PAC. #4? I think Kansas. Why? I don't think the Big 10 will expand if their choices are Kansas and Iowa State.

West Virginia to the ACC if they go to a P4 conference. But if Texas heads West and the two Oklahoma's head to the SEC I don't think that the ACC or Big 10 add anyone.

So, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, West Virginia are all likely to the AAC.

If ESPN truly has a say in Texas's whereabouts and they insist on the SEC then the SEC will still only grow to 16 but will likely do so with Texas & Texas Tech.

If ESPN gets a piece of the PACN they it will be the two Oklahoma's to the SEC. This will be especially true if the Oklahomas move first.

I don't think Mizzou has to go anywhere. If they like being in the SEC then that's where they stay. I'm coming to the realization that without an anchor like OU or UT that KU may not pan out for the Big Ten even with Mizzou. Perhaps that's why they weren't picked up when they were last available. So if KU can't entice OU to go with them to the Big Ten then they should attach themselves to UT hoping they're part of the move West.

(11-18-2017 02:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-18-2017 01:00 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

Quote:The SEC and Big 10 will push for Texas and Oklahoma. When Texas doesn't want to head to the Big 10 they will head where they can play leverage, the PAC.

Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC.

Texas, Texas Tech, & T.C.U. to the PAC. #4? I think Kansas. Why? I don't think the Big 10 will expand if their choices are Kansas and Iowa State.

West Virginia to the ACC if they go to a P4 conference. But if Texas heads West and the two Oklahoma's head to the SEC I don't think that the ACC or Big 10 add anyone.

So, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, West Virginia are all likely to the AAC.

If ESPN truly has a say in Texas's whereabouts and they insist on the SEC then the SEC will still only grow to 16 but will likely do so with Texas & Texas Tech.

If ESPN gets a piece of the PACN they it will be the two Oklahoma's to the SEC. This will be especially true if the Oklahomas move first.

I don't think Mizzou has to go anywhere. If they like being in the SEC then that's where they stay. I'm coming to the realization that without an anchor like OU or UT that KU may not pan out for the Big Ten even with Mizzou. Perhaps that's why they weren't picked up when they were last available. So if KU can't entice OU to go with them to the Big Ten then they should attach themselves to UT hoping they're part of the move West.

As you have it figured, yes. Texas, Texas Tech, T.C.U., Kansas to the PAC.

(11-19-2017 09:37 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-18-2017 02:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-18-2017 01:00 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

Quote:The SEC and Big 10 will push for Texas and Oklahoma. When Texas doesn't want to head to the Big 10 they will head where they can play leverage, the PAC.

Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC.

Texas, Texas Tech, & T.C.U. to the PAC. #4? I think Kansas. Why? I don't think the Big 10 will expand if their choices are Kansas and Iowa State.

West Virginia to the ACC if they go to a P4 conference. But if Texas heads West and the two Oklahoma's head to the SEC I don't think that the ACC or Big 10 add anyone.

So, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, West Virginia are all likely to the AAC.

If ESPN truly has a say in Texas's whereabouts and they insist on the SEC then the SEC will still only grow to 16 but will likely do so with Texas & Texas Tech.

If ESPN gets a piece of the PACN they it will be the two Oklahoma's to the SEC. This will be especially true if the Oklahomas move first.

I don't think Mizzou has to go anywhere. If they like being in the SEC then that's where they stay. I'm coming to the realization that without an anchor like OU or UT that KU may not pan out for the Big Ten even with Mizzou. Perhaps that's why they weren't picked up when they were last available. So if KU can't entice OU to go with them to the Big Ten then they should attach themselves to UT hoping they're part of the move West.

As you have it figured, yes. Texas, Texas Tech, T.C.U., Kansas to the PAC.

I haven't had the heart to post on LT that the Notre Dame document I have that predicts that Nebraska would be the B1G's choice only lists two Big 8 schools as B1G possibilities (Nebraska and Missouri). There is no mention of Oklahoma or Kansas.
I know circumstances have changed, but I still don't see any real possibility where the B1G would have that much interest in either of those two.
The PAC is probably Kansas' only hope to remain a P5 school if the Big 12 ceases to be a P5 conference.