(12-29-2019 01:18 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I understand the reservations about Texas, i.e. attitude, excessively self-serving, lust for organizational control, and it's vindictive behavior with Texas A&M, etc.
That noted, I view them as the #1 preferred prospect for SEC expansion if/when such happens. They check all the prime boxes and their value is fundamentally unmatched.
However, I am not in favor of pandering to them in extraordinary ways. Bringing along a bunch of coattail schools could divisively impact the SEC, not, perhaps, so distinctive from the results generated by the formation of the Big 12.
If added, let the LHN run its course until it expires. Financial accomodations can be negotiated.

Oklahoma is the other high value target. Here too, no coattail unless clearly desired by the SEC.

Even with ESPN media rights engaged, it is very doubtful any NC or VA ACC school will be in play or want to leave the ACC. I'd add Clemson to that. Their GoR would take a lot of votes to make any exceptions. To me personally, this is unrealistic and frustrating because I'd like to see NCSU or UNC (even Duke) in the SEC.

Again, I'd go for Texas first, and Oklahoma. . If one or the other isn't available, I suppose Kansas would offer some asset if reaching 16 is a 'must' immediately.
I'd take Texas-Oklahoma State if OU-Kansas were heading to the BIG.
Actually, the BIG12 and PAC12 could do something together and innovative, but either showing flexibility and profound willingness for major change doesn't appear to be a formidable option right now.
Heck, maybe nobody leaves the BIG12 in three or four years.

(12-29-2019 06:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-29-2019 01:18 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I understand the reservations about Texas, i.e. attitude, excessively self-serving, lust for organizational control, and it's vindictive behavior with Texas A&M, etc.
That noted, I view them as the #1 preferred prospect for SEC expansion if/when such happens. They check all the prime boxes and their value is fundamentally unmatched.
However, I am not in favor of pandering to them in extraordinary ways. Bringing along a bunch of coattail schools could divisively impact the SEC, not, perhaps, so distinctive from the results generated by the formation of the Big 12.
If added, let the LHN run its course until it expires. Financial accomodations can be negotiated.

Oklahoma is the other high value target. Here too, no coattail unless clearly desired by the SEC.

Even with ESPN media rights engaged, it is very doubtful any NC or VA ACC school will be in play or want to leave the ACC. I'd add Clemson to that. Their GoR would take a lot of votes to make any exceptions. To me personally, this is unrealistic and frustrating because I'd like to see NCSU or UNC (even Duke) in the SEC.

Again, I'd go for Texas first, and Oklahoma. . If one or the other isn't available, I suppose Kansas would offer some asset if reaching 16 is a 'must' immediately.
I'd take Texas-Oklahoma State if OU-Kansas were heading to the BIG.
Actually, the BIG12 and PAC12 could do something together and innovative, but either showing flexibility and profound willingness for major change doesn't appear to be a formidable option right now.
Heck, maybe nobody leaves the BIG12 in three or four years.

Hey I would still rather expand out of the ACC but that's not going to happen now. The $ in this new contract are just to high to merit inclusion of anyone from the ACC other than their partial N.D. which simply isn't going to happen. That leaves only the Big 12 and it has only 2 primary possibilities and of course if we landed them both it effectively ends realignment for the SEC at 16. I'd say if we landed one it will do the same, but picking up with that one another school that adds to our overall profile would be welcome. I do think from the Big 12 Kansas is the leader for that position. It doesn't matter to me if they are with Texas or Oklahoma. At this point the only other candidate that isn't just a tag along would be Iowa State, but they really are an outlier to the SEC.

(12-29-2019 08:32 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(12-29-2019 06:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-29-2019 01:18 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I understand the reservations about Texas, i.e. attitude, excessively self-serving, lust for organizational control, and it's vindictive behavior with Texas A&M, etc.
That noted, I view them as the #1 preferred prospect for SEC expansion if/when such happens. They check all the prime boxes and their value is fundamentally unmatched.
However, I am not in favor of pandering to them in extraordinary ways. Bringing along a bunch of coattail schools could divisively impact the SEC, not, perhaps, so distinctive from the results generated by the formation of the Big 12.
If added, let the LHN run its course until it expires. Financial accomodations can be negotiated.

Oklahoma is the other high value target. Here too, no coattail unless clearly desired by the SEC.

Even with ESPN media rights engaged, it is very doubtful any NC or VA ACC school will be in play or want to leave the ACC. I'd add Clemson to that. Their GoR would take a lot of votes to make any exceptions. To me personally, this is unrealistic and frustrating because I'd like to see NCSU or UNC (even Duke) in the SEC.

Again, I'd go for Texas first, and Oklahoma. . If one or the other isn't available, I suppose Kansas would offer some asset if reaching 16 is a 'must' immediately.
I'd take Texas-Oklahoma State if OU-Kansas were heading to the BIG.
Actually, the BIG12 and PAC12 could do something together and innovative, but either showing flexibility and profound willingness for major change doesn't appear to be a formidable option right now.
Heck, maybe nobody leaves the BIG12 in three or four years.

Hey I would still rather expand out of the ACC but that's not going to happen now. The $ in this new contract are just to high to merit inclusion of anyone from the ACC other than their partial N.D. which simply isn't going to happen. That leaves only the Big 12 and it has only 2 primary possibilities and of course if we landed them both it effectively ends realignment for the SEC at 16. I'd say if we landed one it will do the same, but picking up with that one another school that adds to our overall profile would be welcome. I do think from the Big 12 Kansas is the leader for that position. It doesn't matter to me if they are with Texas or Oklahoma. At this point the only other candidate that isn't just a tag along would be Iowa State, but they really are an outlier to the SEC.

Concur. If it was Texas & Kansas, there would be that big geographic gap across Oklahoma for the SEC. I may be hung up on symmetry, but it is all contiguous. Adding Kansas would certainly help Mizzou look more
geographically integrated with the SEC and reunite old rivals.

There's a retired college head coach (not USC) that I see sometimes at the breakfast counter nearby. We'll chat occasionally. I recall him saying months ago (maybe nearly a year) that Texas did have private discussions with the ACC. I thought that was more about posturing and expanding options if needed. It was a Notre Dame-type arrangement being explored, or perhaps Texas and a couple of 'friends' being considered as ACC expansion candidates. Both thoughts sound weird to me. FSU and Georgia Tech are the closest ACC schools to Texas, and that's jumping three states. There is little history between Texas and the ACC. This speculation was not a secret; but it was interesting to hear it from this guy who remains connected to chatter among his old cohorts.
It doesn't make sense to me by creating such an awkward affiliation.

For Texas, the SEC would be the cleanest and most lucrative and fitting option. Because that makes sense, it getting embraced will have challenges.

(12-29-2019 08:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-29-2019 08:32 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(12-29-2019 06:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-29-2019 01:18 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I understand the reservations about Texas, i.e. attitude, excessively self-serving, lust for organizational control, and it's vindictive behavior with Texas A&M, etc.
That noted, I view them as the #1 preferred prospect for SEC expansion if/when such happens. They check all the prime boxes and their value is fundamentally unmatched.
However, I am not in favor of pandering to them in extraordinary ways. Bringing along a bunch of coattail schools could divisively impact the SEC, not, perhaps, so distinctive from the results generated by the formation of the Big 12.
If added, let the LHN run its course until it expires. Financial accomodations can be negotiated.

Oklahoma is the other high value target. Here too, no coattail unless clearly desired by the SEC.

Even with ESPN media rights engaged, it is very doubtful any NC or VA ACC school will be in play or want to leave the ACC. I'd add Clemson to that. Their GoR would take a lot of votes to make any exceptions. To me personally, this is unrealistic and frustrating because I'd like to see NCSU or UNC (even Duke) in the SEC.

Again, I'd go for Texas first, and Oklahoma. . If one or the other isn't available, I suppose Kansas would offer some asset if reaching 16 is a 'must' immediately.
I'd take Texas-Oklahoma State if OU-Kansas were heading to the BIG.
Actually, the BIG12 and PAC12 could do something together and innovative, but either showing flexibility and profound willingness for major change doesn't appear to be a formidable option right now.
Heck, maybe nobody leaves the BIG12 in three or four years.

Hey I would still rather expand out of the ACC but that's not going to happen now. The $ in this new contract are just to high to merit inclusion of anyone from the ACC other than their partial N.D. which simply isn't going to happen. That leaves only the Big 12 and it has only 2 primary possibilities and of course if we landed them both it effectively ends realignment for the SEC at 16. I'd say if we landed one it will do the same, but picking up with that one another school that adds to our overall profile would be welcome. I do think from the Big 12 Kansas is the leader for that position. It doesn't matter to me if they are with Texas or Oklahoma. At this point the only other candidate that isn't just a tag along would be Iowa State, but they really are an outlier to the SEC.

Concur. If it was Texas & Kansas, there would be that big geographic gap across Oklahoma for the SEC. I may be hung up on symmetry, but it is all contiguous. Adding Kansas would certainly help Mizzou look more
geographically integrated with the SEC and reunite old rivals.

There's a retired college head coach (not USC) that I see sometimes at the breakfast counter nearby. We'll chat occasionally. I recall him saying months ago (maybe nearly a year) that Texas did have private discussions with the ACC. I thought that was more about posturing and expanding options if needed. It was a Notre Dame-type arrangement being explored, or perhaps Texas and a couple of 'friends' being considered as ACC expansion candidates. Both thoughts sound weird to me. FSU and Georgia Tech are the closest ACC schools to Texas, and that's jumping three states. There is little history between Texas and the ACC. This speculation was not a secret; but it was interesting to hear it from this guy who remains connected to chatter among his old cohorts.
It doesn't make sense to me by creating such an awkward affiliation.

For Texas, the SEC would be the cleanest and most lucrative and fitting option. Because that makes sense, it getting embraced will have challenges.

Fear of Oklahoma and Kansas to the SEC is what will make them embrace it. Oklahoma would grow too powerful for Texas in the SEC. So if OU is a good candidate to join Texas will either join with them or negotiate in secret with us to take their place. That is after all the Longhorn way. They've been in discussions with us since the late 80's. They bad mouth us in public, act high and mighty, although Vandy has them whipped academically, but they remain concerned about their sports and have never aligned with others for academic reasons. They are the most conflicted institution out there. And when they decide it will be for the same old reasons. How best to maintain their business model, and how to play the most games in Texas or as near to Texas as they can. It's laughable really. They think nobody else sees them for what they are but they are more transparent in their duplicity than most are who are pragmatic and know themselves well.

Look at it this way. If they did join they will make the rabid Tide followers seem impeccably reasonable and the L.S.U. fans seem sane.

(12-30-2019 11:02 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(12-29-2019 08:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-29-2019 08:32 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(12-29-2019 06:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-29-2019 01:18 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I understand the reservations about Texas, i.e. attitude, excessively self-serving, lust for organizational control, and it's vindictive behavior with Texas A&M, etc.
That noted, I view them as the #1 preferred prospect for SEC expansion if/when such happens. They check all the prime boxes and their value is fundamentally unmatched.
However, I am not in favor of pandering to them in extraordinary ways. Bringing along a bunch of coattail schools could divisively impact the SEC, not, perhaps, so distinctive from the results generated by the formation of the Big 12.
If added, let the LHN run its course until it expires. Financial accomodations can be negotiated.

Oklahoma is the other high value target. Here too, no coattail unless clearly desired by the SEC.

Even with ESPN media rights engaged, it is very doubtful any NC or VA ACC school will be in play or want to leave the ACC. I'd add Clemson to that. Their GoR would take a lot of votes to make any exceptions. To me personally, this is unrealistic and frustrating because I'd like to see NCSU or UNC (even Duke) in the SEC.

Again, I'd go for Texas first, and Oklahoma. . If one or the other isn't available, I suppose Kansas would offer some asset if reaching 16 is a 'must' immediately.
I'd take Texas-Oklahoma State if OU-Kansas were heading to the BIG.
Actually, the BIG12 and PAC12 could do something together and innovative, but either showing flexibility and profound willingness for major change doesn't appear to be a formidable option right now.
Heck, maybe nobody leaves the BIG12 in three or four years.

Hey I would still rather expand out of the ACC but that's not going to happen now. The $ in this new contract are just to high to merit inclusion of anyone from the ACC other than their partial N.D. which simply isn't going to happen. That leaves only the Big 12 and it has only 2 primary possibilities and of course if we landed them both it effectively ends realignment for the SEC at 16. I'd say if we landed one it will do the same, but picking up with that one another school that adds to our overall profile would be welcome. I do think from the Big 12 Kansas is the leader for that position. It doesn't matter to me if they are with Texas or Oklahoma. At this point the only other candidate that isn't just a tag along would be Iowa State, but they really are an outlier to the SEC.

Concur. If it was Texas & Kansas, there would be that big geographic gap across Oklahoma for the SEC. I may be hung up on symmetry, but it is all contiguous. Adding Kansas would certainly help Mizzou look more
geographically integrated with the SEC and reunite old rivals.

There's a retired college head coach (not USC) that I see sometimes at the breakfast counter nearby. We'll chat occasionally. I recall him saying months ago (maybe nearly a year) that Texas did have private discussions with the ACC. I thought that was more about posturing and expanding options if needed. It was a Notre Dame-type arrangement being explored, or perhaps Texas and a couple of 'friends' being considered as ACC expansion candidates. Both thoughts sound weird to me. FSU and Georgia Tech are the closest ACC schools to Texas, and that's jumping three states. There is little history between Texas and the ACC. This speculation was not a secret; but it was interesting to hear it from this guy who remains connected to chatter among his old cohorts.
It doesn't make sense to me by creating such an awkward affiliation.

For Texas, the SEC would be the cleanest and most lucrative and fitting option. Because that makes sense, it getting embraced will have challenges.

Fear of Oklahoma and Kansas to the SEC is what will make them embrace it. Oklahoma would grow too powerful for Texas in the SEC. So if OU is a good candidate to join Texas will either join with them or negotiate in secret with us to take their place. That is after all the Longhorn way. They've been in discussions with us since the late 80's. They bad mouth us in public, act high and mighty, although Vandy has them whipped academically, but they remain concerned about their sports and have never aligned with others for academic reasons. They are the most conflicted institution out there. And when they decide it will be for the same old reasons. How best to maintain their business model, and how to play the most games in Texas or as near to Texas as they can. It's laughable really. They think nobody else sees them for what they are but they are more transparent in their duplicity than most are who are pragmatic and know themselves well.

Look at it this way. If they did join they will make the rabid Tide followers seem impeccably reasonable and the L.S.U. fans seem sane.

If Texas/OK/Kansas leaves the Big 12, does that spell the demise of the Sugar Bowl and the money that comes from the Sugar Bowl? Or do we try to lure the ACC away from the Orange (which nearly has an unranked team with 24 Virginia in it - not to say they did not deserve the spot, they won it fair and square)? Do we move our championship to the Orange? Is there any value in strategic expansion so as to keep the Sugar Bowl between the Big 12 and SEC? (By value I do mean money here, there are other factors at play of course).

(12-30-2019 11:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 11:02 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(12-29-2019 08:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-29-2019 08:32 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(12-29-2019 06:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Hey I would still rather expand out of the ACC but that's not going to happen now. The $ in this new contract are just to high to merit inclusion of anyone from the ACC other than their partial N.D. which simply isn't going to happen. That leaves only the Big 12 and it has only 2 primary possibilities and of course if we landed them both it effectively ends realignment for the SEC at 16. I'd say if we landed one it will do the same, but picking up with that one another school that adds to our overall profile would be welcome. I do think from the Big 12 Kansas is the leader for that position. It doesn't matter to me if they are with Texas or Oklahoma. At this point the only other candidate that isn't just a tag along would be Iowa State, but they really are an outlier to the SEC.

Concur. If it was Texas & Kansas, there would be that big geographic gap across Oklahoma for the SEC. I may be hung up on symmetry, but it is all contiguous. Adding Kansas would certainly help Mizzou look more
geographically integrated with the SEC and reunite old rivals.

There's a retired college head coach (not USC) that I see sometimes at the breakfast counter nearby. We'll chat occasionally. I recall him saying months ago (maybe nearly a year) that Texas did have private discussions with the ACC. I thought that was more about posturing and expanding options if needed. It was a Notre Dame-type arrangement being explored, or perhaps Texas and a couple of 'friends' being considered as ACC expansion candidates. Both thoughts sound weird to me. FSU and Georgia Tech are the closest ACC schools to Texas, and that's jumping three states. There is little history between Texas and the ACC. This speculation was not a secret; but it was interesting to hear it from this guy who remains connected to chatter among his old cohorts.
It doesn't make sense to me by creating such an awkward affiliation.

For Texas, the SEC would be the cleanest and most lucrative and fitting option. Because that makes sense, it getting embraced will have challenges.

Fear of Oklahoma and Kansas to the SEC is what will make them embrace it. Oklahoma would grow too powerful for Texas in the SEC. So if OU is a good candidate to join Texas will either join with them or negotiate in secret with us to take their place. That is after all the Longhorn way. They've been in discussions with us since the late 80's. They bad mouth us in public, act high and mighty, although Vandy has them whipped academically, but they remain concerned about their sports and have never aligned with others for academic reasons. They are the most conflicted institution out there. And when they decide it will be for the same old reasons. How best to maintain their business model, and how to play the most games in Texas or as near to Texas as they can. It's laughable really. They think nobody else sees them for what they are but they are more transparent in their duplicity than most are who are pragmatic and know themselves well.

Look at it this way. If they did join they will make the rabid Tide followers seem impeccably reasonable and the L.S.U. fans seem sane.

If Texas/OK/Kansas leaves the Big 12, does that spell the demise of the Sugar Bowl and the money that comes from the Sugar Bowl? Or do we try to lure the ACC away from the Orange (which nearly has an unranked team with 24 Virginia in it - not to say they did not deserve the spot, they won it fair and square)? Do we move our championship to the Orange? Is there any value in strategic expansion so as to keep the Sugar Bowl between the Big 12 and SEC? (By value I do mean money here, there are other factors at play of course).

I think it would become the ACC vs SEC. It makes sense. Both groups would have an easier access to that bowl. New Orleans is a great location for a bowl game, but you wouldn't want to live there. I makes no sense to tie it in with the PAC and the Big 10 matches up with us at least 3 times every bowl season, although Big 10 folks love going to New Orleans as well.

(12-30-2019 02:12 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 11:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 11:02 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(12-29-2019 08:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-29-2019 08:32 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Concur. If it was Texas & Kansas, there would be that big geographic gap across Oklahoma for the SEC. I may be hung up on symmetry, but it is all contiguous. Adding Kansas would certainly help Mizzou look more
geographically integrated with the SEC and reunite old rivals.

There's a retired college head coach (not USC) that I see sometimes at the breakfast counter nearby. We'll chat occasionally. I recall him saying months ago (maybe nearly a year) that Texas did have private discussions with the ACC. I thought that was more about posturing and expanding options if needed. It was a Notre Dame-type arrangement being explored, or perhaps Texas and a couple of 'friends' being considered as ACC expansion candidates. Both thoughts sound weird to me. FSU and Georgia Tech are the closest ACC schools to Texas, and that's jumping three states. There is little history between Texas and the ACC. This speculation was not a secret; but it was interesting to hear it from this guy who remains connected to chatter among his old cohorts.
It doesn't make sense to me by creating such an awkward affiliation.

For Texas, the SEC would be the cleanest and most lucrative and fitting option. Because that makes sense, it getting embraced will have challenges.

Fear of Oklahoma and Kansas to the SEC is what will make them embrace it. Oklahoma would grow too powerful for Texas in the SEC. So if OU is a good candidate to join Texas will either join with them or negotiate in secret with us to take their place. That is after all the Longhorn way. They've been in discussions with us since the late 80's. They bad mouth us in public, act high and mighty, although Vandy has them whipped academically, but they remain concerned about their sports and have never aligned with others for academic reasons. They are the most conflicted institution out there. And when they decide it will be for the same old reasons. How best to maintain their business model, and how to play the most games in Texas or as near to Texas as they can. It's laughable really. They think nobody else sees them for what they are but they are more transparent in their duplicity than most are who are pragmatic and know themselves well.

Look at it this way. If they did join they will make the rabid Tide followers seem impeccably reasonable and the L.S.U. fans seem sane.

If Texas/OK/Kansas leaves the Big 12, does that spell the demise of the Sugar Bowl and the money that comes from the Sugar Bowl? Or do we try to lure the ACC away from the Orange (which nearly has an unranked team with 24 Virginia in it - not to say they did not deserve the spot, they won it fair and square)? Do we move our championship to the Orange? Is there any value in strategic expansion so as to keep the Sugar Bowl between the Big 12 and SEC? (By value I do mean money here, there are other factors at play of course).

I think it would become the ACC vs SEC. It makes sense. Both groups would have an easier access to that bowl. New Orleans is a great location for a bowl game, but you wouldn't want to live there. I makes no sense to tie it in with the PAC and the Big 10 matches up with us at least 3 times every bowl season, although Big 10 folks love going to New Orleans as well.

In that scenario:
Rose: Big 10 (1) vs. PAC (1) (where the number in parenthesis is the selection number after the playoffs, though if one conference goes away I would assume most years each conference gets one in, though the PAC may still be at a disadvantage)
Sugar: SEC (1) vs. ACC (1)
Orange: SEC (2)/Big 10 (2)/Notre Dame vs. ACC (2) ?
Fiesta: at-large vs. at-large
Cotton: at-large vs. at-large
Peach: at-large vs. at-large

Would it behoove the SEC to try to make the Cotton/Peach another contract bowl? Because in this set-up, the ACC is guaranteed 2 spots in the NY6 and the Big 10/SEC are only getting 1.5. Perhaps a SEC (2/3) vs. Big 10 (2/3) or PAC (2) in the Cotton?

(12-31-2019 08:35 AM)Guardian Wrote:  Bump Texas. Take Oklahoma and North Carolina.

(12-31-2019 12:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-31-2019 08:35 AM)Guardian Wrote:  Bump Texas. Take Oklahoma and North Carolina.

North Carolina is a worse bad actor than Texas, and far more arrogant. No Thanks! Let them rot in an ACC falling farther behind every contract period. And if you check the numbers you will find that they don't have enough value to add to our bottom line at 66 million per year.

(12-31-2019 08:35 AM)Guardian Wrote:  Bump Texas. Take Oklahoma and North Carolina.

(01-06-2020 09:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I was going to withhold this bit of information, but what the heck! This afternoon I tuned into to Finebaum because of the guests and one of them Vince Thompson (Class of '84 Auburn) had some interesting things to say about a great many things. He's an Atlanta based CEO who handles some interesting accounts ESPN Game Day, 19 Final Fours, Coca-Cola, etc (Google him). He said when all of the contract is finalized between the SEC and ABC/ESPN that each conference member school may well be making 40 million more than under their old contract with CBS. He suggested the final total may go beyond 500 million.

Well forty million more than 2018's reported amount would 83.1 Million. Forty million more than what is anticipated for this year might well be in the 86 million dollar range.

At that kind of payout I would think it likely that the whole ESPN contract was renewed along with the ABC bid, and who knows but it's high enough that it might even have a little expansion baked into it.

We'll see. But if Thompson is correct the SEC is going to well fixed moving forward and hard to catch.

This should spur a little more healthy speculation for sure!

(01-07-2020 11:48 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(01-06-2020 09:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I was going to withhold this bit of information, but what the heck! This afternoon I tuned into to Finebaum because of the guests and one of them Vince Thompson (Class of '84 Auburn) had some interesting things to say about a great many things. He's an Atlanta based CEO who handles some interesting accounts ESPN Game Day, 19 Final Fours, Coca-Cola, etc (Google him). He said when all of the contract is finalized between the SEC and ABC/ESPN that each conference member school may well be making 40 million more than under their old contract with CBS. He suggested the final total may go beyond 500 million.

Well forty million more than 2018's reported amount would 83.1 Million. Forty million more than what is anticipated for this year might well be in the 86 million dollar range.

At that kind of payout I would think it likely that the whole ESPN contract was renewed along with the ABC bid, and who knows but it's high enough that it might even have a little expansion baked into it.

We'll see. But if Thompson is correct the SEC is going to well fixed moving forward and hard to catch.

This should spur a little more healthy speculation for sure!

That number seems high to me in the streaming era. But also, "baking in expansion" seems like a bad move. One of the reason CBS lost us is because the didn't add value when we got A&M/Missouri. If the cost was baked in, then the SEC could start complaining that we should be going to $90+ with an addition like OK/Texas. It would seem smarter to me to have language guaranteeing at least pro-rated money for any expansion, preferably additional money for each school after expansion.

Then again, you'd have to have further clauses to clarify that, i.e, say which schools were valuable enough to trigger that raise, which would be a major no-no. Otherwise the SEC would grab any two schools and force the raise.

(02-10-2020 04:43 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Consider this scenario: Both UT and OU agree that the Big 12 can no longer be viable long term. So at the end of the grant of Rights they agree to split up "assets" from the conference. Both agree that OU can not take the second school from their state with them to their conference of choice. So UT agree to take that school in. Same happens in the state of Kansas. Therefore, KU and OU join together and join the SEC. UT and "friends" head to the Pac12.

1. Does the Big 10 still hold out for ND and agree to pair them with, say, Iowa State?

2. Would the Pac12 still take UT with the "detritus" from the Big 12?

(02-10-2020 05:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If Oklahoma and Kansas join the SEC the SEC would feel like they were done. They would however have gained a leg up on content over the Big 10. I don't see how the Big 10 can stand by in that regard.

So yes I think they make overtures to Notre Dame. But I don't see them pairing Iowa State with them. Colorado would be free to move if they haven't signed a new GOR. With the Denver market available and the media revenue twice as much in the Big 10 I would think that a play for Colorado and Notre Dame would trump a play for Iowa State paired with the same.

That makes things interesting for Texas to the PAC. Theoretically that means 5 Big 12 schools could make the move, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech make the move to the PAC which moves to 16 schools.

West Virginia and T.C.U. move to the ACC.

The PAC picks up 2 AAU schools with goliath Texas and Iowa State. Texas Tech is not a bad add. Kansas State's academics aren't bad. Only Oklahoma State would draw a raised brow.

Tech slips into Colorado's slot and Texas, Iowa State, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State become part of a quad.

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, Arizona State, Texas Tech, Utah
California, California Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford
Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas

They play the 3 in their division and 2 each from the other 3 divisions for a total of 9 conference games. They rotate through the conference every 2 years.

That solves the 2nd school issue for the Big 10 should Colorado go for the stability and money. It satisfies the SEC And it builds up the PAC. If the ACC adds T.C.U. and West Virginia to 16 should either B.C. or Wake opt out with pay for play Baylor is waiting in the wings.

But if Colorado isn't interested then the Big 10 will likely go after Virginia with Notre Dame. If Va Tech stays in the ACC at that point maybe that stabilizes things. If North Carolina wants out too for enhanced revenue then we are off to races as the SEC would start thinking of adding schools to defend its footprint. I think that's where the danger of moving to 2 leagues comes into play.

BTW: If the PAC was able to secure a major brand and 2 schools from a state of 28 million to help their sagging market penetration, and add 3 more states also in a different time zone in which to market their games, I think they would take other schools and really Iowa State and KState aren't detritus. They stand to gain a lot by taking OSU.

(02-10-2020 09:15 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 05:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If Oklahoma and Kansas join the SEC the SEC would feel like they were done. They would however have gained a leg up on content over the Big 10. I don't see how the Big 10 can stand by in that regard.

So yes I think they make overtures to Notre Dame. But I don't see them pairing Iowa State with them. Colorado would be free to move if they haven't signed a new GOR. With the Denver market available and the media revenue twice as much in the Big 10 I would think that a play for Colorado and Notre Dame would trump a play for Iowa State paired with the same.

That makes things interesting for Texas to the PAC. Theoretically that means 5 Big 12 schools could make the move, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech make the move to the PAC which moves to 16 schools.

West Virginia and T.C.U. move to the ACC.

The PAC picks up 2 AAU schools with goliath Texas and Iowa State. Texas Tech is not a bad add. Kansas State's academics aren't bad. Only Oklahoma State would draw a raised brow.

Tech slips into Colorado's slot and Texas, Iowa State, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State become part of a quad.

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, Arizona State, Texas Tech, Utah
California, California Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford
Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas

They play the 3 in their division and 2 each from the other 3 divisions for a total of 9 conference games. They rotate through the conference every 2 years.

That solves the 2nd school issue for the Big 10 should Colorado go for the stability and money. It satisfies the SEC And it builds up the PAC. If the ACC adds T.C.U. and West Virginia to 16 should either B.C. or Wake opt out with pay for play Baylor is waiting in the wings.

But if Colorado isn't interested then the Big 10 will likely go after Virginia with Notre Dame. If Va Tech stays in the ACC at that point maybe that stabilizes things. If North Carolina wants out too for enhanced revenue then we are off to races as the SEC would start thinking of adding schools to defend its footprint. I think that's where the danger of moving to 2 leagues comes into play.

BTW: If the PAC was able to secure a major brand and 2 schools from a state of 28 million to help their sagging market penetration, and add 3 more states also in a different time zone in which to market their games, I think they would take other schools and really Iowa State and KState aren't detritus. They stand to gain a lot by taking OSU.

We might as well take Colorado and stick at 15 until the white whale says yes. Of course, the risk is that they'll say no to us again. However, the upside is we get a near optimal national exposure without risking academic standing too much.

KU and OU are programs that, especially if they stick together, can stand on their own and have a pick of two major conferences to go to.

What I see is an opportunity for both the PAC and Texas to satisfy their respective interests. Neither the Big 10, the SEC and probably not the ACC would agree to take an entourage with Texas. So the "Texas & Friends to PAC" scenario may be more viable than thought. Texas wants a group of programs in their immediate circle that are, more or less, amenable to their opinions. They don't want a situation where they'd feel isolated by the northern schools in the Big 10 or the big time football schools in the South. The PAC has enough programs out West that they wouldn't be easily bullied by UT and UT really likes an association with Stanford, UCLA, etc., anyway. UT may look into independence but then the rump Big 12 would have to bring in G programs to replace OU and KU, and the other power conferences don't want to elevate more programs to begin with. Therefore, I think the incentive is there for both sides to compromise.

I'd be fine with just taking Colorado and wait.