CSNbbs
If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: SECbbs (/forum-285.html)
+---- Forum: SEC Conference Talk (/forum-246.html)
+---- Thread: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? (/thread-639096.html)



RE:If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - BewareThePhog - 08-01-2013 04:09 PM

(07-31-2013 07:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(07-31-2013 02:19 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  
(07-31-2013 07:43 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(07-27-2013 08:13 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(07-27-2013 10:18 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  I think the window of UT-austin entertaining independence is done.

They got stuck with the kids in the divorce and now there are 3 TX schools (all with sizable followings in the legislature) that are completely and totally dependent on them and only them for their survival as P5 schools because no other P5 conference will even entertain the idea of adding any of them without UT also (and most wouldn't take them even then).

The only realistic scenario available to UT for moving at this point is to convince one of the conferences to take the politically inseparable package of UT/OU/OSU/TT...and IMO only the PAC would open to taking that group. By saving the public school parasite, UT can make the case for ditching the two smaller private school parasites.

I also think the B12 is stuck at 10 teams for similar reasons; no school in the remaining Plains States want to be in a separate division from TX and OK.

The Big 12 is standing in a relatively fragile spot within the Big 5. When they get their new division and when they have "security council" control of it, are the four conferences with more programs than the
big 12 going to vote in stipulations based on the number of conference members in regards to things like forming up divisions? If we see four divisions starting up and even possibly a conference tournament based on division winners, will the Big 12 still end up missing out on that?

It is possible that the other four conference might attempt to force their hand to either expand with programs that aren't exactly desired or to break apart the Big 12 and move into the other four conferences.

I mean, why wouldn't the SEC, ACC, B1G and PAC do that to the Big 12? The Big 12, following their current method, is absolutely the odd man out and they keep tossing wood on the fire every time they talk about how their current set up allows them to make more money individually than anyone else. Why would the other four conferences allow them a conference tournament of four team when they only have ten teams to lead up to that with?


In regards to 10th's comment, if the above happens as I am surmising, there is no way that the PAC will end up being able to cherry pick UT/OU/OSU/TTU. That is an outdated concept and when some of those schools start seeing their other options, Texas will once again show just how much it doesnt wish to go West. Just my opinion of course.
I'm not quite sure what would entice the B1G, SEC, PAC, and ACC to force expansion or a breakup on the Big 12 simply because they are structured differently or because they currently have a lucrative contract.

In terms of expansion, I suppose if there was the potential for a breakaway of the top level and a few more schools had to be let on the bus to alleviate political pressure, the other conferences could force through expansion on the Big 12 since it has the fewest schools (and thus more slots) by mandating minimum conference membership. But otherwise I don't see why they would force them to expand. For everyone who argues that it's unfair for the Big 12 champion not to be exposed to a potential upset in a CCG, there's someone who argues that the lack of a CCG will deflate the Big 12's SoS to the point that they'd be excluded.

In terms of breakup, I'd think the primary motivation there would be to grab up valuable properties. But that opportunity has been there for several years, and the Big 12 schools have been seen as either unattractive on their own merits or politically or contractually unappealing due to 3rd tier deals (e.g. LHN) or issues with partner schools (e.g. OU/OSU).

It wouldn't surprise me to see the power conferences take a wait and see approach and see how things play out over the next decade (both for the sake of seeing how business and current realignment works out, as well as getting close to the GoR expiration) before making a move, rather than trying to force anything on the Big 12 in the interim.

Hey, another quality poster coming around to our secret hide out! 04-rock

Why would those four conferences do that? I think the answer to that is because when the new Division is created, they will finally have the power to install new rules for themselves and that has always been what is necessary in order to change the rule for divisions within a conference and for adding an addition week in order to have a conference tournament instead of just a championship.

With the ability to actually do all of this, that is when a major play could be made. With verifiable evidence, thanks to the commissioners themselves, that they are all sitting in on meetings together we can then surmise all kinds of things that they are likely talking about. One subject I would assume they talk about is what they can do after they have all this new power.

For you, I will go through each individual school in order to see what you think.

Texas's major hangup is the LHN. That is not a problem in the ACC. Also, if they get a Notre Dame deal they wont be able to take part in the ACC Tournament. Is that a big deal for Texas though? They are one of those brands that with a strong season they will get into an eight team national tournament with or without being part of any conference tournament.

Oklahoma's problem as you put it is being separated from State. I differ from most people when it comes to these Big Brother/Little Brother situations. I think States will stop one school from leaving the conference in a weakened state for the other school to have to survive in. I think it is a much different situation should one school be leaving for a major conference and the other school leaves for another major conference that is seen as an equal. If Oklahoma goes Big Ten and OSU goes SEC then that is absolutely the case. Why should the State of Oklahoma care? They can still preserve the Bedlam Series as a protected OOC match up. As an Iowa fan I can assure you that an OOC rivalry can be just as meaningful.

The above would also answer the Kansas/Kansas State issue. Kansas would get in on the Big Ten Network while KSU would get in on the PAC Network. That makes them more money combined than both of them being on the same Network. When a State looks at that, that is a positive. Once again, an OOC rivalry game can be maintained.

I know JR still likes to consider a Northeastern school for the Big Ten but nothing up there is ready or worthy, especially when the combo of Kansas and Oklahoma is potentially possible. Two major brands, one for basketball and one for football. The Big Ten just scored a major win in terms of Markets with Maryland and Rutgers. They dont need another market based expansion. They need brands.

OSU and WVU fit the mold perfectly for the SEC. They both have growing rabid fanbases. They both make great money and both are actively expanding their facilities. Also they both round out two potential divisions in wonderful fashion.

A major roadblock would be Texas giving up enough concession to Texas Tech in order to get them to go along. First would be a protected rivalry game. What else they might have to give in on who knows. Texas Tech though would be well served by the PAC Network as well as would Iowa State. Texas Tech would likely be the top program in it's new four team division which gets it out from the shadow of Texas while still leveraging themselves into a permanent rivalry game with Texas out of conference. When one slips out of the fan mentality and into CEO mentality, one can see how that situation would be fantastic for Tech.


I have no idea if this is happening, but if this Division 1 thing happens then this kind of scenario may very well be the big discussion topic behind the scenes. Perhaps it would already be figured out.
Thanks (and thanks JRSec as well). It's good to see some of the more thoughtful posters (referring to you guys, not patting myself on the back) on the overall board are still congregating. 04-cheers

I wholly agree with your premise regarding the OU/OSU, KU/KSU, and perhaps UT/TT/Others in terms of minimizing political pressure by ensuring that everyone has a safe landing spot, even if they aren't together. I definitely think that is viable.

Some of the recent speculation I've seen regarding KU plus one other such as UCONN going to the B1G, without any other movement occurring from the Big 12, does not seem as viable. Setting the GoR aside, I think in that instance the Kansas legislature wouldn't be keen on the split, even if UT and OU appeared to be staying in place and keeping the Big 12 otherwise intact. It still seems to me that in order for Big 12 dissolution to occur, it'd have to be done with a fairly well coordinated set of moves, and I'm not sure Slive, Delany, and Scott are quite at that stage right now.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 08-01-2013 05:38 PM

(08-01-2013 04:09 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  
(07-31-2013 07:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(07-31-2013 02:19 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  
(07-31-2013 07:43 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(07-27-2013 08:13 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I also think the B12 is stuck at 10 teams for similar reasons; no school in the remaining Plains States want to be in a separate division from TX and OK.

The Big 12 is standing in a relatively fragile spot within the Big 5. When they get their new division and when they have "security council" control of it, are the four conferences with more programs than the
big 12 going to vote in stipulations based on the number of conference members in regards to things like forming up divisions? If we see four divisions starting up and even possibly a conference tournament based on division winners, will the Big 12 still end up missing out on that?

It is possible that the other four conference might attempt to force their hand to either expand with programs that aren't exactly desired or to break apart the Big 12 and move into the other four conferences.

I mean, why wouldn't the SEC, ACC, B1G and PAC do that to the Big 12? The Big 12, following their current method, is absolutely the odd man out and they keep tossing wood on the fire every time they talk about how their current set up allows them to make more money individually than anyone else. Why would the other four conferences allow them a conference tournament of four team when they only have ten teams to lead up to that with?


In regards to 10th's comment, if the above happens as I am surmising, there is no way that the PAC will end up being able to cherry pick UT/OU/OSU/TTU. That is an outdated concept and when some of those schools start seeing their other options, Texas will once again show just how much it doesnt wish to go West. Just my opinion of course.
I'm not quite sure what would entice the B1G, SEC, PAC, and ACC to force expansion or a breakup on the Big 12 simply because they are structured differently or because they currently have a lucrative contract.

In terms of expansion, I suppose if there was the potential for a breakaway of the top level and a few more schools had to be let on the bus to alleviate political pressure, the other conferences could force through expansion on the Big 12 since it has the fewest schools (and thus more slots) by mandating minimum conference membership. But otherwise I don't see why they would force them to expand. For everyone who argues that it's unfair for the Big 12 champion not to be exposed to a potential upset in a CCG, there's someone who argues that the lack of a CCG will deflate the Big 12's SoS to the point that they'd be excluded.

In terms of breakup, I'd think the primary motivation there would be to grab up valuable properties. But that opportunity has been there for several years, and the Big 12 schools have been seen as either unattractive on their own merits or politically or contractually unappealing due to 3rd tier deals (e.g. LHN) or issues with partner schools (e.g. OU/OSU).

It wouldn't surprise me to see the power conferences take a wait and see approach and see how things play out over the next decade (both for the sake of seeing how business and current realignment works out, as well as getting close to the GoR expiration) before making a move, rather than trying to force anything on the Big 12 in the interim.

Hey, another quality poster coming around to our secret hide out! 04-rock

Why would those four conferences do that? I think the answer to that is because when the new Division is created, they will finally have the power to install new rules for themselves and that has always been what is necessary in order to change the rule for divisions within a conference and for adding an addition week in order to have a conference tournament instead of just a championship.

With the ability to actually do all of this, that is when a major play could be made. With verifiable evidence, thanks to the commissioners themselves, that they are all sitting in on meetings together we can then surmise all kinds of things that they are likely talking about. One subject I would assume they talk about is what they can do after they have all this new power.

For you, I will go through each individual school in order to see what you think.

Texas's major hangup is the LHN. That is not a problem in the ACC. Also, if they get a Notre Dame deal they wont be able to take part in the ACC Tournament. Is that a big deal for Texas though? They are one of those brands that with a strong season they will get into an eight team national tournament with or without being part of any conference tournament.

Oklahoma's problem as you put it is being separated from State. I differ from most people when it comes to these Big Brother/Little Brother situations. I think States will stop one school from leaving the conference in a weakened state for the other school to have to survive in. I think it is a much different situation should one school be leaving for a major conference and the other school leaves for another major conference that is seen as an equal. If Oklahoma goes Big Ten and OSU goes SEC then that is absolutely the case. Why should the State of Oklahoma care? They can still preserve the Bedlam Series as a protected OOC match up. As an Iowa fan I can assure you that an OOC rivalry can be just as meaningful.

The above would also answer the Kansas/Kansas State issue. Kansas would get in on the Big Ten Network while KSU would get in on the PAC Network. That makes them more money combined than both of them being on the same Network. When a State looks at that, that is a positive. Once again, an OOC rivalry game can be maintained.

I know JR still likes to consider a Northeastern school for the Big Ten but nothing up there is ready or worthy, especially when the combo of Kansas and Oklahoma is potentially possible. Two major brands, one for basketball and one for football. The Big Ten just scored a major win in terms of Markets with Maryland and Rutgers. They dont need another market based expansion. They need brands.

OSU and WVU fit the mold perfectly for the SEC. They both have growing rabid fanbases. They both make great money and both are actively expanding their facilities. Also they both round out two potential divisions in wonderful fashion.

A major roadblock would be Texas giving up enough concession to Texas Tech in order to get them to go along. First would be a protected rivalry game. What else they might have to give in on who knows. Texas Tech though would be well served by the PAC Network as well as would Iowa State. Texas Tech would likely be the top program in it's new four team division which gets it out from the shadow of Texas while still leveraging themselves into a permanent rivalry game with Texas out of conference. When one slips out of the fan mentality and into CEO mentality, one can see how that situation would be fantastic for Tech.


I have no idea if this is happening, but if this Division 1 thing happens then this kind of scenario may very well be the big discussion topic behind the scenes. Perhaps it would already be figured out.
Thanks (and thanks JRSec as well). It's good to see some of the more thoughtful posters (referring to you guys, not patting myself on the back) on the overall board are still congregating. 04-cheers

I wholly agree with your premise regarding the OU/OSU, KU/KSU, and perhaps UT/TT/Others in terms of minimizing political pressure by ensuring that everyone has a safe landing spot, even if they aren't together. I definitely think that is viable.

Some of the recent speculation I've seen regarding KU plus one other such as UCONN going to the B1G, without any other movement occurring from the Big 12, does not seem as viable. Setting the GoR aside, I think in that instance the Kansas legislature wouldn't be keen on the split, even if UT and OU appeared to be staying in place and keeping the Big 12 otherwise intact. It still seems to me that in order for Big 12 dissolution to occur, it'd have to be done with a fairly well coordinated set of moves, and I'm not sure Slive, Delany, and Scott are quite at that stage right now.

I don't disagree with your reasoning and have considered that point of view as well. But the thing that could motivate Slive, Delany, Swofford, and Scott would be the added markets for their networks. Ultimately I think they would cooperate to finalize those and move to a setup that permitted easier scheduling for their conferences. Plus if they decide best how to do it it will only be after FOX and ESPN give it their blessing and that will be the bigger issue as I see it. Just my opinion. JR


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - He1nousOne - 08-01-2013 06:25 PM

(08-01-2013 04:09 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  
(07-31-2013 07:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(07-31-2013 02:19 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  
(07-31-2013 07:43 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(07-27-2013 08:13 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I also think the B12 is stuck at 10 teams for similar reasons; no school in the remaining Plains States want to be in a separate division from TX and OK.

The Big 12 is standing in a relatively fragile spot within the Big 5. When they get their new division and when they have "security council" control of it, are the four conferences with more programs than the
big 12 going to vote in stipulations based on the number of conference members in regards to things like forming up divisions? If we see four divisions starting up and even possibly a conference tournament based on division winners, will the Big 12 still end up missing out on that?

It is possible that the other four conference might attempt to force their hand to either expand with programs that aren't exactly desired or to break apart the Big 12 and move into the other four conferences.

I mean, why wouldn't the SEC, ACC, B1G and PAC do that to the Big 12? The Big 12, following their current method, is absolutely the odd man out and they keep tossing wood on the fire every time they talk about how their current set up allows them to make more money individually than anyone else. Why would the other four conferences allow them a conference tournament of four team when they only have ten teams to lead up to that with?


In regards to 10th's comment, if the above happens as I am surmising, there is no way that the PAC will end up being able to cherry pick UT/OU/OSU/TTU. That is an outdated concept and when some of those schools start seeing their other options, Texas will once again show just how much it doesnt wish to go West. Just my opinion of course.
I'm not quite sure what would entice the B1G, SEC, PAC, and ACC to force expansion or a breakup on the Big 12 simply because they are structured differently or because they currently have a lucrative contract.

In terms of expansion, I suppose if there was the potential for a breakaway of the top level and a few more schools had to be let on the bus to alleviate political pressure, the other conferences could force through expansion on the Big 12 since it has the fewest schools (and thus more slots) by mandating minimum conference membership. But otherwise I don't see why they would force them to expand. For everyone who argues that it's unfair for the Big 12 champion not to be exposed to a potential upset in a CCG, there's someone who argues that the lack of a CCG will deflate the Big 12's SoS to the point that they'd be excluded.

In terms of breakup, I'd think the primary motivation there would be to grab up valuable properties. But that opportunity has been there for several years, and the Big 12 schools have been seen as either unattractive on their own merits or politically or contractually unappealing due to 3rd tier deals (e.g. LHN) or issues with partner schools (e.g. OU/OSU).

It wouldn't surprise me to see the power conferences take a wait and see approach and see how things play out over the next decade (both for the sake of seeing how business and current realignment works out, as well as getting close to the GoR expiration) before making a move, rather than trying to force anything on the Big 12 in the interim.

Hey, another quality poster coming around to our secret hide out! 04-rock

Why would those four conferences do that? I think the answer to that is because when the new Division is created, they will finally have the power to install new rules for themselves and that has always been what is necessary in order to change the rule for divisions within a conference and for adding an addition week in order to have a conference tournament instead of just a championship.

With the ability to actually do all of this, that is when a major play could be made. With verifiable evidence, thanks to the commissioners themselves, that they are all sitting in on meetings together we can then surmise all kinds of things that they are likely talking about. One subject I would assume they talk about is what they can do after they have all this new power.

For you, I will go through each individual school in order to see what you think.

Texas's major hangup is the LHN. That is not a problem in the ACC. Also, if they get a Notre Dame deal they wont be able to take part in the ACC Tournament. Is that a big deal for Texas though? They are one of those brands that with a strong season they will get into an eight team national tournament with or without being part of any conference tournament.

Oklahoma's problem as you put it is being separated from State. I differ from most people when it comes to these Big Brother/Little Brother situations. I think States will stop one school from leaving the conference in a weakened state for the other school to have to survive in. I think it is a much different situation should one school be leaving for a major conference and the other school leaves for another major conference that is seen as an equal. If Oklahoma goes Big Ten and OSU goes SEC then that is absolutely the case. Why should the State of Oklahoma care? They can still preserve the Bedlam Series as a protected OOC match up. As an Iowa fan I can assure you that an OOC rivalry can be just as meaningful.

The above would also answer the Kansas/Kansas State issue. Kansas would get in on the Big Ten Network while KSU would get in on the PAC Network. That makes them more money combined than both of them being on the same Network. When a State looks at that, that is a positive. Once again, an OOC rivalry game can be maintained.

I know JR still likes to consider a Northeastern school for the Big Ten but nothing up there is ready or worthy, especially when the combo of Kansas and Oklahoma is potentially possible. Two major brands, one for basketball and one for football. The Big Ten just scored a major win in terms of Markets with Maryland and Rutgers. They dont need another market based expansion. They need brands.

OSU and WVU fit the mold perfectly for the SEC. They both have growing rabid fanbases. They both make great money and both are actively expanding their facilities. Also they both round out two potential divisions in wonderful fashion.

A major roadblock would be Texas giving up enough concession to Texas Tech in order to get them to go along. First would be a protected rivalry game. What else they might have to give in on who knows. Texas Tech though would be well served by the PAC Network as well as would Iowa State. Texas Tech would likely be the top program in it's new four team division which gets it out from the shadow of Texas while still leveraging themselves into a permanent rivalry game with Texas out of conference. When one slips out of the fan mentality and into CEO mentality, one can see how that situation would be fantastic for Tech.


I have no idea if this is happening, but if this Division 1 thing happens then this kind of scenario may very well be the big discussion topic behind the scenes. Perhaps it would already be figured out.
Thanks (and thanks JRSec as well). It's good to see some of the more thoughtful posters (referring to you guys, not patting myself on the back) on the overall board are still congregating. 04-cheers

I wholly agree with your premise regarding the OU/OSU, KU/KSU, and perhaps UT/TT/Others in terms of minimizing political pressure by ensuring that everyone has a safe landing spot, even if they aren't together. I definitely think that is viable.

Some of the recent speculation I've seen regarding KU plus one other such as UCONN going to the B1G, without any other movement occurring from the Big 12, does not seem as viable. Setting the GoR aside, I think in that instance the Kansas legislature wouldn't be keen on the split, even if UT and OU appeared to be staying in place and keeping the Big 12 otherwise intact. It still seems to me that in order for Big 12 dissolution to occur, it'd have to be done with a fairly well coordinated set of moves, and I'm not sure Slive, Delany, and Scott are quite at that stage right now.

They are at the stage of having coordinated public statements directed at taking on and pressuring the NCAA to do exactly what they wish. They have come to this point by coming together, all five commissioners, in personal meetings. They directly admit to this publicly. I dont think it is a stretch to say that they talked about more than just getting to have a new Division.

Those talks with all five commissioners present would be the Perfect time for them to hatch plans as complicated as the one I present. Maybe they have, maybe they have not. One thing is for sure though, they have come right out in public and told us that they have most definitely had the opportunity to do such already.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 08-02-2013 01:30 AM

(08-01-2013 06:25 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-01-2013 04:09 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  
(07-31-2013 07:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(07-31-2013 02:19 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  
(07-31-2013 07:43 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The Big 12 is standing in a relatively fragile spot within the Big 5. When they get their new division and when they have "security council" control of it, are the four conferences with more programs than the
big 12 going to vote in stipulations based on the number of conference members in regards to things like forming up divisions? If we see four divisions starting up and even possibly a conference tournament based on division winners, will the Big 12 still end up missing out on that?

It is possible that the other four conference might attempt to force their hand to either expand with programs that aren't exactly desired or to break apart the Big 12 and move into the other four conferences.

I mean, why wouldn't the SEC, ACC, B1G and PAC do that to the Big 12? The Big 12, following their current method, is absolutely the odd man out and they keep tossing wood on the fire every time they talk about how their current set up allows them to make more money individually than anyone else. Why would the other four conferences allow them a conference tournament of four team when they only have ten teams to lead up to that with?


In regards to 10th's comment, if the above happens as I am surmising, there is no way that the PAC will end up being able to cherry pick UT/OU/OSU/TTU. That is an outdated concept and when some of those schools start seeing their other options, Texas will once again show just how much it doesnt wish to go West. Just my opinion of course.
I'm not quite sure what would entice the B1G, SEC, PAC, and ACC to force expansion or a breakup on the Big 12 simply because they are structured differently or because they currently have a lucrative contract.

In terms of expansion, I suppose if there was the potential for a breakaway of the top level and a few more schools had to be let on the bus to alleviate political pressure, the other conferences could force through expansion on the Big 12 since it has the fewest schools (and thus more slots) by mandating minimum conference membership. But otherwise I don't see why they would force them to expand. For everyone who argues that it's unfair for the Big 12 champion not to be exposed to a potential upset in a CCG, there's someone who argues that the lack of a CCG will deflate the Big 12's SoS to the point that they'd be excluded.

In terms of breakup, I'd think the primary motivation there would be to grab up valuable properties. But that opportunity has been there for several years, and the Big 12 schools have been seen as either unattractive on their own merits or politically or contractually unappealing due to 3rd tier deals (e.g. LHN) or issues with partner schools (e.g. OU/OSU).

It wouldn't surprise me to see the power conferences take a wait and see approach and see how things play out over the next decade (both for the sake of seeing how business and current realignment works out, as well as getting close to the GoR expiration) before making a move, rather than trying to force anything on the Big 12 in the interim.

Hey, another quality poster coming around to our secret hide out! 04-rock

Why would those four conferences do that? I think the answer to that is because when the new Division is created, they will finally have the power to install new rules for themselves and that has always been what is necessary in order to change the rule for divisions within a conference and for adding an addition week in order to have a conference tournament instead of just a championship.

With the ability to actually do all of this, that is when a major play could be made. With verifiable evidence, thanks to the commissioners themselves, that they are all sitting in on meetings together we can then surmise all kinds of things that they are likely talking about. One subject I would assume they talk about is what they can do after they have all this new power.

For you, I will go through each individual school in order to see what you think.

Texas's major hangup is the LHN. That is not a problem in the ACC. Also, if they get a Notre Dame deal they wont be able to take part in the ACC Tournament. Is that a big deal for Texas though? They are one of those brands that with a strong season they will get into an eight team national tournament with or without being part of any conference tournament.

Oklahoma's problem as you put it is being separated from State. I differ from most people when it comes to these Big Brother/Little Brother situations. I think States will stop one school from leaving the conference in a weakened state for the other school to have to survive in. I think it is a much different situation should one school be leaving for a major conference and the other school leaves for another major conference that is seen as an equal. If Oklahoma goes Big Ten and OSU goes SEC then that is absolutely the case. Why should the State of Oklahoma care? They can still preserve the Bedlam Series as a protected OOC match up. As an Iowa fan I can assure you that an OOC rivalry can be just as meaningful.

The above would also answer the Kansas/Kansas State issue. Kansas would get in on the Big Ten Network while KSU would get in on the PAC Network. That makes them more money combined than both of them being on the same Network. When a State looks at that, that is a positive. Once again, an OOC rivalry game can be maintained.

I know JR still likes to consider a Northeastern school for the Big Ten but nothing up there is ready or worthy, especially when the combo of Kansas and Oklahoma is potentially possible. Two major brands, one for basketball and one for football. The Big Ten just scored a major win in terms of Markets with Maryland and Rutgers. They dont need another market based expansion. They need brands.

OSU and WVU fit the mold perfectly for the SEC. They both have growing rabid fanbases. They both make great money and both are actively expanding their facilities. Also they both round out two potential divisions in wonderful fashion.

A major roadblock would be Texas giving up enough concession to Texas Tech in order to get them to go along. First would be a protected rivalry game. What else they might have to give in on who knows. Texas Tech though would be well served by the PAC Network as well as would Iowa State. Texas Tech would likely be the top program in it's new four team division which gets it out from the shadow of Texas while still leveraging themselves into a permanent rivalry game with Texas out of conference. When one slips out of the fan mentality and into CEO mentality, one can see how that situation would be fantastic for Tech.


I have no idea if this is happening, but if this Division 1 thing happens then this kind of scenario may very well be the big discussion topic behind the scenes. Perhaps it would already be figured out.
Thanks (and thanks JRSec as well). It's good to see some of the more thoughtful posters (referring to you guys, not patting myself on the back) on the overall board are still congregating. 04-cheers

I wholly agree with your premise regarding the OU/OSU, KU/KSU, and perhaps UT/TT/Others in terms of minimizing political pressure by ensuring that everyone has a safe landing spot, even if they aren't together. I definitely think that is viable.

Some of the recent speculation I've seen regarding KU plus one other such as UCONN going to the B1G, without any other movement occurring from the Big 12, does not seem as viable. Setting the GoR aside, I think in that instance the Kansas legislature wouldn't be keen on the split, even if UT and OU appeared to be staying in place and keeping the Big 12 otherwise intact. It still seems to me that in order for Big 12 dissolution to occur, it'd have to be done with a fairly well coordinated set of moves, and I'm not sure Slive, Delany, and Scott are quite at that stage right now.

They are at the stage of having coordinated public statements directed at taking on and pressuring the NCAA to do exactly what they wish. They have come to this point by coming together, all five commissioners, in personal meetings. They directly admit to this publicly. I dont think it is a stretch to say that they talked about more than just getting to have a new Division.

Those talks with all five commissioners present would be the Perfect time for them to hatch plans as complicated as the one I present. Maybe they have, maybe they have not. One thing is for sure though, they have come right out in public and told us that they have most definitely had the opportunity to do such already.

Isn't that a Nostradamus prophecy of the end times, "and when the summits touch amid the 5 in power and their peaks are thrust up as one, great wailing and lamentations shall engulf the weaker ones, and the end of the great travail will be at hand." quatrain so forth and so on.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - bigblueblindness - 08-02-2013 10:10 AM

Ha! We are definitely in Nostradamus territory, JR. I certainly see how the coordination between the P5 commissioners is likely the cog in this wheel. No one will allow the demise of his conference, but I do see a strategy that could make sense for all parties in the long term.

The Big 12 is the most at risk for now for a variety of reasons, and I think that is generally agreed. The only entity more at risk is the NCAA itself as currently constituted. If/when Mark Emmert is replaced, it will need to be with someone who is well qualified, speaks and acts boldly, and would instantly have the seal of approval from the power conference commissioners. As luck would have it, I think the most qualified candidate is the commissioner of the most at risk power conference. I am only suggesting a strategy and certainly not saying that it has been rumored or bandied about in any way, but do you all see such a move as incredibly beneficial to the whole structure? Bowlsby would be an incredible NCAA commissioner, and the transition period would allow the Big 12 to reconfigure (or be reconfigured) without the issue of a respected, sitting commissioner getting the Dan Beebe treatment. Thoughts? As I see it, the four most valuable properties in the Big 12 are Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Bowlsby.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - BewareThePhog - 08-02-2013 11:00 AM

JR & He1nous, you're probably on to something. My perspective had been that there could be some difficulty in terms of them each trying to poach the most valuable brands for their own conference. At the same time, there are some natural fits that can benefit everyone, so even if a conference has to take some brands that aren't at the top of their list, they are likely to be level-headed enough to work together to pull it off.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 08-02-2013 11:25 AM

(08-02-2013 10:10 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Ha! We are definitely in Nostradamus territory, JR. I certainly see how the coordination between the P5 commissioners is likely the cog in this wheel. No one will allow the demise of his conference, but I do see a strategy that could make sense for all parties in the long term.

The Big 12 is the most at risk for now for a variety of reasons, and I think that is generally agreed. The only entity more at risk is the NCAA itself as currently constituted. If/when Mark Emmert is replaced, it will need to be with someone who is well qualified, speaks and acts boldly, and would instantly have the seal of approval from the power conference commissioners. As luck would have it, I think the most qualified candidate is the commissioner of the most at risk power conference. I am only suggesting a strategy and certainly not saying that it has been rumored or bandied about in any way, but do you all see such a move as incredibly beneficial to the whole structure? Bowlsby would be an incredible NCAA commissioner, and the transition period would allow the Big 12 to reconfigure (or be reconfigured) without the issue of a respected, sitting commissioner getting the Dan Beebe treatment. Thoughts? As I see it, the four most valuable properties in the Big 12 are Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Bowlsby.
What you suggest has interesting possibilities. I would certainly think that Big 12 members would be more at ease with their placement if Bowlsby had a hand in it from a leadership perspective. Remember also that Slive will be retiring once he's seen the SEC through this phase so someone like Bowlsby could possibly slide into that position as well. Swofford won't have many more years. Delany has been rumored already to be a candidate to replace Emmert. Big egos, for big money, but it will take some fairly strong qualities of leadership to clean up the mess and morass that is the NCAA.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - bigblueblindness - 08-02-2013 11:56 AM

(08-02-2013 11:25 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-02-2013 10:10 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Ha! We are definitely in Nostradamus territory, JR. I certainly see how the coordination between the P5 commissioners is likely the cog in this wheel. No one will allow the demise of his conference, but I do see a strategy that could make sense for all parties in the long term.

The Big 12 is the most at risk for now for a variety of reasons, and I think that is generally agreed. The only entity more at risk is the NCAA itself as currently constituted. If/when Mark Emmert is replaced, it will need to be with someone who is well qualified, speaks and acts boldly, and would instantly have the seal of approval from the power conference commissioners. As luck would have it, I think the most qualified candidate is the commissioner of the most at risk power conference. I am only suggesting a strategy and certainly not saying that it has been rumored or bandied about in any way, but do you all see such a move as incredibly beneficial to the whole structure? Bowlsby would be an incredible NCAA commissioner, and the transition period would allow the Big 12 to reconfigure (or be reconfigured) without the issue of a respected, sitting commissioner getting the Dan Beebe treatment. Thoughts? As I see it, the four most valuable properties in the Big 12 are Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Bowlsby.
What you suggest has interesting possibilities. I would certainly think that Big 12 members would be more at ease with their placement if Bowlsby had a hand in it from a leadership perspective. Remember also that Slive will be retiring once he's seen the SEC through this phase so someone like Bowlsby could possibly slide into that position as well. Swofford won't have many more years. Delany has been rumored already to be a candidate to replace Emmert. Big egos, for big money, but it will take some fairly strong qualities of leadership to clean up the mess and morass that is the NCAA.

Yes, I thought about Bowlsby stepping in for Slive down the road, as well. I haven't heard anything about Greg Sankey or Mark Womack being an heir apparent, which you would think would be out there by now if it was a possibility. I would be very happy with Bowlsby coming in based on what I have seen.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 08-02-2013 12:23 PM

I didn't want to start another thread that too similar to this one, but I have still been mulling over another possibility. Let's assume that the SEC doesn't take another Big 12 school (10th you'll like this one). What if Slive and Swofford worked an agreement that would permit Virginia Tech and N.C. State to move to the SEC so that the ACC could enhance their footprint by expanding with Texas as a hybrid and a Western division of 4 more Big 12 schools?

ACC North: Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, (N.D. as hybrid)
ACC Central: Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, Wake Forest
ACC South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami
ACC West: Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas (Texas as hybrid)

SEC North: Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia Tech
SEC East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
SEC South: Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State
SEC West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Texas A&M

Cross Conference Year End Rivalries:
Kentucky v Louisville
Va Tech v Virginia
N.C. State V North Carolina
Florida v Florida State
South Carolina v Clemson
Georgia v Georgia Tech
Vanderbilt v Wake Forest
Texas A&M v Texas
Missouri v Kansas

Others could be matched but don't have to be.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - USAFMEDIC - 08-02-2013 04:03 PM

(08-02-2013 11:00 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  JR & He1nous, you're probably on to something. My perspective had been that there could be some difficulty in terms of them each trying to poach the most valuable brands for their own conference. At the same time, there are some natural fits that can benefit everyone, so even if a conference has to take some brands that aren't at the top of their list, they are likely to be level-headed enough to work together to pull it off.

A lot of people may think I am crazy, but I believe Kansas is the third most desirable school in the Big XII behind UT and OU. AAU status, midwest location like Missouri. Great academics and a lethal BB national brand. Their FB will improve. Six years ago KU and Mizzou were 10-0 when they met for the last season game.04-cheers


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - BewareThePhog - 08-02-2013 04:05 PM

(08-02-2013 12:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I didn't want to start another thread that too similar to this one, but I have still been mulling over another possibility. Let's assume that the SEC doesn't take another Big 12 school (10th you'll like this one). What if Slive and Swofford worked an agreement that would permit Virginia Tech and N.C. State to move to the SEC so that the ACC could enhance their footprint by expanding with Texas as a hybrid and a Western division of 4 more Big 12 schools?

ACC North: Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, (N.D. as hybrid)
ACC Central: Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, Wake Forest
ACC South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami
ACC West: Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas (Texas as hybrid)

SEC North: Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia Tech
SEC East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
SEC South: Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State
SEC West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Texas A&M

Cross Conference Year End Rivalries:
Kentucky v Louisville
Va Tech v Virginia
N.C. State V North Carolina
Florida v Florida State
South Carolina v Clemson
Georgia v Georgia Tech
Vanderbilt v Wake Forest
Texas A&M v Texas
Missouri v Kansas

Others could be matched but don't have to be.


Interesting notion. You've accounted for 5 Big 12 teams. How if at all would this fit into a Big 12 breakup scenario?

(08-02-2013 04:03 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(08-02-2013 11:00 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  JR & He1nous, you're probably on to something. My perspective had been that there could be some difficulty in terms of them each trying to poach the most valuable brands for their own conference. At the same time, there are some natural fits that can benefit everyone, so even if a conference has to take some brands that aren't at the top of their list, they are likely to be level-headed enough to work together to pull it off.

A lot of people may think I am crazy, but I believe Kansas is the third most desirable school in the Big XII behind UT and OU. AAU status, midwest location like Missouri. Great academics and a lethal BB national brand. Their FB will improve. Six years ago KU and Mizzou were 10-0 when they met for the last season game.04-cheers
KU has strengths and weaknesses. I don't know that we're attractive enough on our own for a power conference (if we were, we could have been poached back in the last couple of rounds), but we make a very good complementary piece due to the strong hoops brand. I don't know if Charlie Weis will be the one to make a breakthrough in football, but it's no longer an afterthought in Lawrence.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - USAFMEDIC - 08-02-2013 04:21 PM

(08-02-2013 04:05 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  
(08-02-2013 12:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I didn't want to start another thread that too similar to this one, but I have still been mulling over another possibility. Let's assume that the SEC doesn't take another Big 12 school (10th you'll like this one). What if Slive and Swofford worked an agreement that would permit Virginia Tech and N.C. State to move to the SEC so that the ACC could enhance their footprint by expanding with Texas as a hybrid and a Western division of 4 more Big 12 schools?

ACC North: Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, (N.D. as hybrid)
ACC Central: Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, Wake Forest
ACC South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami
ACC West: Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas (Texas as hybrid)

SEC North: Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia Tech
SEC East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
SEC South: Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State
SEC West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Texas A&M

Cross Conference Year End Rivalries:
Kentucky v Louisville
Va Tech v Virginia
N.C. State V North Carolina
Florida v Florida State
South Carolina v Clemson
Georgia v Georgia Tech
Vanderbilt v Wake Forest
Texas A&M v Texas
Missouri v Kansas

Others could be matched but don't have to be.


Interesting notion. You've accounted for 5 Big 12 teams. How if at all would this fit into a Big 12 breakup scenario?

(08-02-2013 04:03 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(08-02-2013 11:00 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  JR & He1nous, you're probably on to something. My perspective had been that there could be some difficulty in terms of them each trying to poach the most valuable brands for their own conference. At the same time, there are some natural fits that can benefit everyone, so even if a conference has to take some brands that aren't at the top of their list, they are likely to be level-headed enough to work together to pull it off.

A lot of people may think I am crazy, but I believe Kansas is the third most desirable school in the Big XII behind UT and OU. AAU status, midwest location like Missouri. Great academics and a lethal BB national brand. Their FB will improve. Six years ago KU and Mizzou were 10-0 when they met for the last season game.04-cheers
KU has strengths and weaknesses. I don't know that we're attractive enough on our own for a power conference (if we were, we could have been poached back in the last couple of rounds), but we make a very good complementary piece due to the strong hoops brand. I don't know if Charlie Weis will be the one to make a breakthrough in football, but it's no longer an afterthought in Lawrence.
I think the GoR made realignment die down for KU for a while. If UT or OU ever pull their crap again, the B1G or PAC.....hell, maybe even even the SEC will jump all over KU. They have been talking about it down here. A lot of SEC folks think bringing Mizzou and KU back together would be a good thing for the SEC. Even if the SEC chose OSU, or WVU for the East. Can you imagine the next TV contract?


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 08-02-2013 04:34 PM

To answer your question Phog:

The five left would be West Virginia, Texas Christian, Kansas State, Texas Tech and Iowa State.

It could be handled if any 3 went to other conferences or once the SEC and ACC have agreed to 16 teams it would be easy if what need to happen to make it happen was simply to move 18 a piece with divisions of 6 (which I actually prefer anyway). The SEC could take Kansas State and West Virginia and the ACC could add Iowa State and Cincinnati, or Iowa State and another Texas school. I figure that no matter what Texas Tech's proximity to Arizona and Colorado will eventually get them a spot in the PAC. If it does maybe the PAC wants DFW too and goes for TCU. Either way the 8 minimum is met. What's more the divisions then lend themselves to more local games but due to rotating two teams from each of the other divisions every year you still play everyone within a 3 year cycle.

SEC North:
Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Va Tech, West Virginia

SEC East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt

SEC West:
Arkansas, Kansas State, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M

ACC North:
Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, Duke

ACC South:
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Wake Forest

ACC West:
Baylor, Cincinnati/another Texas school, Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

And of course the two hybrids (Texas and Notre Dame).

This lowers travel cost, increases possibilities for fan travel, and makes for a larger number of annual games for continuity in the schedule.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - He1nousOne - 08-02-2013 04:53 PM

(08-02-2013 10:10 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Ha! We are definitely in Nostradamus territory, JR. I certainly see how the coordination between the P5 commissioners is likely the cog in this wheel. No one will allow the demise of his conference, but I do see a strategy that could make sense for all parties in the long term.

The Big 12 is the most at risk for now for a variety of reasons, and I think that is generally agreed. The only entity more at risk is the NCAA itself as currently constituted. If/when Mark Emmert is replaced, it will need to be with someone who is well qualified, speaks and acts boldly, and would instantly have the seal of approval from the power conference commissioners. As luck would have it, I think the most qualified candidate is the commissioner of the most at risk power conference. I am only suggesting a strategy and certainly not saying that it has been rumored or bandied about in any way, but do you all see such a move as incredibly beneficial to the whole structure? Bowlsby would be an incredible NCAA commissioner, and the transition period would allow the Big 12 to reconfigure (or be reconfigured) without the issue of a respected, sitting commissioner getting the Dan Beebe treatment. Thoughts? As I see it, the four most valuable properties in the Big 12 are Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Bowlsby.

Ha! I didn't even see this post. In a thread in the main forum I came up with the solution for a naysayer that Bowlsby would be the perfect candidate to replace Emmert. The ultimate control of power. Controlling the Division 4 Security Council and having one of your Cartel sitting at the head seat of power. The P5 would never lose control again, ever.


You definitely get credit for being the first one here to think up the concept of Bowlsby receiving that position for going along with this.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - He1nousOne - 08-02-2013 04:55 PM

(08-02-2013 12:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I didn't want to start another thread that too similar to this one, but I have still been mulling over another possibility. Let's assume that the SEC doesn't take another Big 12 school (10th you'll like this one). What if Slive and Swofford worked an agreement that would permit Virginia Tech and N.C. State to move to the SEC so that the ACC could enhance their footprint by expanding with Texas as a hybrid and a Western division of 4 more Big 12 schools?

ACC North: Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, (N.D. as hybrid)
ACC Central: Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, Wake Forest
ACC South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami
ACC West: Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas (Texas as hybrid)

SEC North: Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia Tech
SEC East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
SEC South: Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State
SEC West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Texas A&M

Cross Conference Year End Rivalries:
Kentucky v Louisville
Va Tech v Virginia
N.C. State V North Carolina
Florida v Florida State
South Carolina v Clemson
Georgia v Georgia Tech
Vanderbilt v Wake Forest
Texas A&M v Texas
Missouri v Kansas

Others could be matched but don't have to be.

LOL! Always looking for ways to cut out the Big Ten and PAC aren't you.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - He1nousOne - 08-02-2013 04:59 PM

(08-02-2013 04:05 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  
(08-02-2013 04:03 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(08-02-2013 11:00 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  JR & He1nous, you're probably on to something. My perspective had been that there could be some difficulty in terms of them each trying to poach the most valuable brands for their own conference. At the same time, there are some natural fits that can benefit everyone, so even if a conference has to take some brands that aren't at the top of their list, they are likely to be level-headed enough to work together to pull it off.

A lot of people may think I am crazy, but I believe Kansas is the third most desirable school in the Big XII behind UT and OU. AAU status, midwest location like Missouri. Great academics and a lethal BB national brand. Their FB will improve. Six years ago KU and Mizzou were 10-0 when they met for the last season game.04-cheers
KU has strengths and weaknesses. I don't know that we're attractive enough on our own for a power conference (if we were, we could have been poached back in the last couple of rounds), but we make a very good complementary piece due to the strong hoops brand. I don't know if Charlie Weis will be the one to make a breakthrough in football, but it's no longer an afterthought in Lawrence.

KU is definitely the third most valuable brand in what is left of the Big 12. In terms of the Big Ten's perspective, they are very likely the second most valuable brand and Oklahoma comes in third due to lack of AAU status.

Don't worry about on the field performance in football. In fact if Kansas was to become a strong program that would actually throw things into disorder.

If you think of a four team division of Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa and Kansas then you see a division with a pretty solid hierarchy made from the beginning. Kansas not improving it's football would be no big deal. They serve the hierarchy that helps maintain brand recognition and they serve oppositely in Basketball where they become one of the top elite brands for the conference. They are a perfect addition for the Big Ten.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - USAFMEDIC - 08-02-2013 05:13 PM

(08-02-2013 04:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-02-2013 04:05 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  
(08-02-2013 04:03 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(08-02-2013 11:00 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  JR & He1nous, you're probably on to something. My perspective had been that there could be some difficulty in terms of them each trying to poach the most valuable brands for their own conference. At the same time, there are some natural fits that can benefit everyone, so even if a conference has to take some brands that aren't at the top of their list, they are likely to be level-headed enough to work together to pull it off.

A lot of people may think I am crazy, but I believe Kansas is the third most desirable school in the Big XII behind UT and OU. AAU status, midwest location like Missouri. Great academics and a lethal BB national brand. Their FB will improve. Six years ago KU and Mizzou were 10-0 when they met for the last season game.04-cheers
KU has strengths and weaknesses. I don't know that we're attractive enough on our own for a power conference (if we were, we could have been poached back in the last couple of rounds), but we make a very good complementary piece due to the strong hoops brand. I don't know if Charlie Weis will be the one to make a breakthrough in football, but it's no longer an afterthought in Lawrence.

KU is definitely the third most valuable brand in what is left of the Big Ten. In terms of the Big Ten's perspective, they are very likely the second most valuable brand and Oklahoma comes in third due to lack of AAU status.

Don't worry about on the field performance in football. In fact if Kansas was to become a strong program that would actually throw things into disorder.

If you think of a four team division of Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa and Kansas then you see a division with a pretty solid hierarchy made from the beginning. Kansas not improving it's football would be no big deal. They serve the hierarchy that helps maintain brand recognition and they serve oppositely in Basketball where they become one of the top elite brands for the conference. They are a perfect addition for the Big Ten.
I agree totally. They fit in every way.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - He1nousOne - 08-02-2013 06:51 PM

I had to edit my post that you quoted Medic because I typed in Big Ten initially when I meant Big 12 in regards to Kansas's perceived value in their current conference, which is the Big 12.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - USAFMEDIC - 08-03-2013 12:34 PM

(08-02-2013 06:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I had to edit my post that you quoted Medic because I typed in Big Ten initially when I meant Big 12 in regards to Kansas's perceived value in their current conference, which is the Big 12.

I caught that H but we all knew what you meant. 04-cheers


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - bigblueblindness - 08-05-2013 07:56 AM

(08-02-2013 04:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-02-2013 10:10 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Ha! We are definitely in Nostradamus territory, JR. I certainly see how the coordination between the P5 commissioners is likely the cog in this wheel. No one will allow the demise of his conference, but I do see a strategy that could make sense for all parties in the long term.

The Big 12 is the most at risk for now for a variety of reasons, and I think that is generally agreed. The only entity more at risk is the NCAA itself as currently constituted. If/when Mark Emmert is replaced, it will need to be with someone who is well qualified, speaks and acts boldly, and would instantly have the seal of approval from the power conference commissioners. As luck would have it, I think the most qualified candidate is the commissioner of the most at risk power conference. I am only suggesting a strategy and certainly not saying that it has been rumored or bandied about in any way, but do you all see such a move as incredibly beneficial to the whole structure? Bowlsby would be an incredible NCAA commissioner, and the transition period would allow the Big 12 to reconfigure (or be reconfigured) without the issue of a respected, sitting commissioner getting the Dan Beebe treatment. Thoughts? As I see it, the four most valuable properties in the Big 12 are Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Bowlsby.

Ha! I didn't even see this post. In a thread in the main forum I came up with the solution for a naysayer that Bowlsby would be the perfect candidate to replace Emmert. The ultimate control of power. Controlling the Division 4 Security Council and having one of your Cartel sitting at the head seat of power. The P5 would never lose control again, ever.


You definitely get credit for being the first one here to think up the concept of Bowlsby receiving that position for going along with this.

I had not caught your same theory on the other board, either. Great minds think alike... or something like that 04-cheers It really does make a lot of sense if the tide turns that way.