(03-03-2020 05:37 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 06:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 04:42 PM)XLance Wrote:  Things have changed.
When ESPN completed the purchase of the SEC, things changed.
I now think that it is possible for Texas actually consider membership in the SEC.
I was re-reading an article from a little over a year ago and the thing that struck me was that the SEC, now has the same relationship with ESPN as does the ACC, which because of geography, would make a compelling argument for ESPN in trying to convince the Longhorns to move to the SEC.

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2018/12/03/In-Depth/College-sports.aspx

If Texas ultimately decides to stray from the Big 12, that’s where things get interesting, and a bit chaotic.

"The most compelling scenario has the Longhorns becoming an independent in football, a la Notre Dame. By being in business with ESPN, which is paying the school $300 million over 20 years for the Longhorn Network rights through 2030, the Longhorns have a ready-made media partner that would ensure maximum exposure.
Texas is probably the only other school in the nation, along with Notre Dame, that could thrive as an independent because it has a blue-chip brand, a national following and a built-in media partner.

Some administrators in the college space argue that the Longhorns already enjoy quasi-independent status in the Big 12, based on their freedom to have their own network, while also enjoying the scheduling benefits of being in a conference.

If Texas looked for another conference, the ACC and Big Ten loom as the most likely landing spots. Remember, Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany and ACC Commissioner John Swofford were the first movers during the last round of realignment, both making surprise moves that put Nebraska in the Big Ten and Notre Dame in the ACC.

But what would happen to the Longhorn Network? Texas’ contract stipulates that the network must live on, even if UT leaves the Big 12.

The ACC’s alliance with ESPN makes the ACC a potential destination if the Longhorns go looking. ESPN owns all of the ACC’s media rights, which would make it easier to either absorb the ESPN-owned Longhorn Network or develop another option."

They are Texas. They will want some concessions. The only concession we will likely give them is their preference of a travel mate. It is the only reason I discuss Tech.

After all of this time, looking at a real opportunity to land the White Whale, you are concerned about concessions?
Your insecurities are starting to peek through your arrogant facade.

(03-03-2020 03:05 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Unlike Notre Dame, Texas does not have a significant history with playing ACC schools in football, basketball, and baseball, other than rare bowl matchups, tournament encounters, and random scheduling by individual schools over long periods of time. The travel distances and the geography doesn't lend itself to a natural fit.

Frankly, Texas is fretting and projecting being coy. Their attitude always gets in the way.

As to the ACC, a situation of housing two prominent schools that refuse to give their all to the conference in football, is not a characterization of strength. The BIG, SEC, and PAC12 would not accommodate a hybrid situation unless it is for one olympic-style team sport whereby the conference doesn't have the full contingent of conference members sponsoring the sport.

Notre Dame doesn't want to be in the BIG; and Texas in the past has rejected the SEC. Fine, but don't contribute to the enabling.

(03-11-2020 02:33 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  I wonder if the foursome would be Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Florida State would that be better than any other combo. Kansas would be a better upgrade to Texas Tech, assuming that UT can leave TT behind. It would come down to between Kansas and Clemson. Clemson is more regional to the original SEC schools but Kansas has that brand power that the SEC would love to boost its basketball acumen and would have to leave K-State and I-State behind, whereas Clemson would double up in a small state.

Not to mention side stepping the second-school issues in Texas and Oklahoma as well.

Also, Florida State has steadily improved their basketball since joining the ACC, so they can slide right into it and compete for titles straight away.

Division-wise, this makes a whole lot of sense:

Kansas, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Arkansas
LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Florida State
Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, South Carolina

All the "newbies" would stay in the West and not have to intrude on the original members until the conference playoffs, basically a truncated Big8/SWC division and regional rivals put together.

Whatever is left of the ACC would look at USF or UCF for potential replacements.

(03-11-2020 02:27 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-11-2020 02:33 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  I wonder if the foursome would be Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Florida State would that be better than any other combo. Kansas would be a better upgrade to Texas Tech, assuming that UT can leave TT behind. It would come down to between Kansas and Clemson. Clemson is more regional to the original SEC schools but Kansas has that brand power that the SEC would love to boost its basketball acumen and would have to leave K-State and I-State behind, whereas Clemson would double up in a small state.

Not to mention side stepping the second-school issues in Texas and Oklahoma as well.

Also, Florida State has steadily improved their basketball since joining the ACC, so they can slide right into it and compete for titles straight away.

Division-wise, this makes a whole lot of sense:

Kansas, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Arkansas
LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Florida State
Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, South Carolina

All the "newbies" would stay in the West and not have to intrude on the original members until the conference playoffs, basically a truncated Big8/SWC division and regional rivals put together.

Whatever is left of the ACC would look at USF or UCF for potential replacements.

That would be a great combo, but I don't see us cracking both leagues at the same time. That is, unless ESPN is really doing some wheeling and dealing behind the scenes.

I'll throw this out there...

I think we can reasonably assume that Texas will be interested in bringing Texas Tech with them because of political and economic factors. Hopefully, Oklahoma is still an option and Kansas makes a fine traveling partner at that point.

We in the SEC have to consider though what we want from the ACC and whether or not we have a reasonable shot at getting it in the next decade. What if it's a matter that it simply won't happen because ESPN has eyes on maintaining the ACC long term? What do we do then? Do we let it go and just count our money or make a move that would alter our future with regard to economics and politics again?

What if we took South Florida and Central Florida?

We'd have 3 schools in the state of FL, but we'd also have the vast majority of their research-based college enrollment. As the decades pass, these schools might end up becoming more significant than Florida State anyway so should we groom them in the SEC? Or just wait for the ACC to crumble...because by that point those old ACC properties might not be so hot anyway.

(03-03-2020 03:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 03:05 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Unlike Notre Dame, Texas does not have a significant history with playing ACC schools in football, basketball, and baseball, other than rare bowl matchups, tournament encounters, and random scheduling by individual schools over long periods of time. The travel distances and the geography doesn't lend itself to a natural fit.

Frankly, Texas is fretting and projecting being coy. Their attitude always gets in the way.

As to the ACC, a situation of housing two prominent schools that refuse to give their all to the conference in football, is not a characterization of strength. The BIG, SEC, and PAC12 would not accommodate a hybrid situation unless it is for one olympic-style team sport whereby the conference doesn't have the full contingent of conference members sponsoring the sport.

Notre Dame doesn't want to be in the BIG; and Texas in the past has rejected the SEC. Fine, but don't contribute to the enabling.

I simply don't see any enabling on the part of the SEC and haven't ever seen it in realignment. If a pair of Texas schools adds significantly to our bottom line and that is the best we can do it still profits. If we can do better we will.

(03-11-2020 02:27 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-11-2020 02:33 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  I wonder if the foursome would be Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Florida State would that be better than any other combo. Kansas would be a better upgrade to Texas Tech, assuming that UT can leave TT behind. It would come down to between Kansas and Clemson. Clemson is more regional to the original SEC schools but Kansas has that brand power that the SEC would love to boost its basketball acumen and would have to leave K-State and I-State behind, whereas Clemson would double up in a small state.

Not to mention side stepping the second-school issues in Texas and Oklahoma as well.

Also, Florida State has steadily improved their basketball since joining the ACC, so they can slide right into it and compete for titles straight away.

Division-wise, this makes a whole lot of sense:

Kansas, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Arkansas
LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Florida State
Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, South Carolina

All the "newbies" would stay in the West and not have to intrude on the original members until the conference playoffs, basically a truncated Big8/SWC division and regional rivals put together.

Whatever is left of the ACC would look at USF or UCF for potential replacements.

That would be a great combo, but I don't see us cracking both leagues at the same time. That is, unless ESPN is really doing some wheeling and dealing behind the scenes.

I'll throw this out there...

I think we can reasonably assume that Texas will be interested in bringing Texas Tech with them because of political and economic factors. Hopefully, Oklahoma is still an option and Kansas makes a fine traveling partner at that point.

We in the SEC have to consider though what we want from the ACC and whether or not we have a reasonable shot at getting it in the next decade. What if it's a matter that it simply won't happen because ESPN has eyes on maintaining the ACC long term? What do we do then? Do we let it go and just count our money or make a move that would alter our future with regard to economics and politics again?

What if we took South Florida and Central Florida?

We'd have 3 schools in the state of FL, but we'd also have the vast majority of their research-based college enrollment. As the decades pass, these schools might end up becoming more significant than Florida State anyway so should we groom them in the SEC? Or just wait for the ACC to crumble...because by that point those old ACC properties might not be so hot anyway.

(03-14-2020 05:38 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(03-11-2020 02:27 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-11-2020 02:33 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  I wonder if the foursome would be Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Florida State would that be better than any other combo. Kansas would be a better upgrade to Texas Tech, assuming that UT can leave TT behind. It would come down to between Kansas and Clemson. Clemson is more regional to the original SEC schools but Kansas has that brand power that the SEC would love to boost its basketball acumen and would have to leave K-State and I-State behind, whereas Clemson would double up in a small state.

Not to mention side stepping the second-school issues in Texas and Oklahoma as well.

Also, Florida State has steadily improved their basketball since joining the ACC, so they can slide right into it and compete for titles straight away.

Division-wise, this makes a whole lot of sense:

Kansas, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Arkansas
LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Florida State
Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, South Carolina

All the "newbies" would stay in the West and not have to intrude on the original members until the conference playoffs, basically a truncated Big8/SWC division and regional rivals put together.

Whatever is left of the ACC would look at USF or UCF for potential replacements.

That would be a great combo, but I don't see us cracking both leagues at the same time. That is, unless ESPN is really doing some wheeling and dealing behind the scenes.

I'll throw this out there...

I think we can reasonably assume that Texas will be interested in bringing Texas Tech with them because of political and economic factors. Hopefully, Oklahoma is still an option and Kansas makes a fine traveling partner at that point.

We in the SEC have to consider though what we want from the ACC and whether or not we have a reasonable shot at getting it in the next decade. What if it's a matter that it simply won't happen because ESPN has eyes on maintaining the ACC long term? What do we do then? Do we let it go and just count our money or make a move that would alter our future with regard to economics and politics again?

What if we took South Florida and Central Florida?

We'd have 3 schools in the state of FL, but we'd also have the vast majority of their research-based college enrollment. As the decades pass, these schools might end up becoming more significant than Florida State anyway so should we groom them in the SEC? Or just wait for the ACC to crumble...because by that point those old ACC properties might not be so hot anyway.

This is working on the theory expounded by JRsec that both the Big 12 and ACC would eventually be opened up by the SEC and Big 10, respectively. So if they're going to be opened up and quality programs are leaving then it's possible that the SEC would get something in the East. But if you're right and Disney intends to protect the ACC then you win realignment by the fact that all other options for the Big 10 to add are unavailable.

(06-29-2020 10:07 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  If Disney wants to save the Big 12 there are two moves that they could make that not only secures the Big 12 footprint but also the Western footprint in general.

First, pay the ACC enough money to take in West Virginia. In the new media world, WVU shoots up in value. So bring them in and put them in to play Louisville, Miami, Syracuse and Pitt every season. XLance gets his 15 team conference.

West Virginia, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, Miami
Clemson, Virginia Tech, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina State
Boston College, Wake Forest, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia

With an extra slot open, the Big 12 goes to kill off the PAC 12, taking in all the critical public schools from that conference. Washington, Oregon, California, UCLA, Arizona State, Utah and Colorado move over.

Washington, Oregon, California, UCLA, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado, Texas Tech
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, Texas, TCU, Baylor

I could see Stanford and USC going the independence route, perhaps taking a football deal with the ACC for exposure in the Eastern markets, to leave them with enough weeks to play their public school counterparts. Their Olympic sports can stay local.

(06-29-2020 10:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:07 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  If Disney wants to save the Big 12 there are two moves that they could make that not only secures the Big 12 footprint but also the Western footprint in general.

First, pay the ACC enough money to take in West Virginia. In the new media world, WVU shoots up in value. So bring them in and put them in to play Louisville, Miami, Syracuse and Pitt every season. XLance gets his 15 team conference.

West Virginia, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, Miami
Clemson, Virginia Tech, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina State
Boston College, Wake Forest, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia

With an extra slot open, the Big 12 goes to kill off the PAC 12, taking in all the critical public schools from that conference. Washington, Oregon, California, UCLA, Arizona State, Utah and Colorado move over.

Washington, Oregon, California, UCLA, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado, Texas Tech
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, Texas, TCU, Baylor

I could see Stanford and USC going the independence route, perhaps taking a football deal with the ACC for exposure in the Eastern markets, to leave them with enough weeks to play their public school counterparts. Their Olympic sports can stay local.

Why not surrender T.C.U. to the SEC as a second Texas school and surrender West Virginia to the ACC.

Then they could add 8 from the PAC:
Arizona, Arizona State, California, California Los Angeles, Colorado, Oregon, Utah, Washington
Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

That leaves Baylor as the private necessary to cover freedom of information issues.

And Southern Cal and Stanford join this conference as partials.

So the ACC is at 15 plus a partial, the SEC is at 15, Big12/PAC is at 16 and 2 partials, and the Big 10 is at 14.

(07-21-2020 10:01 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I am curious in knowing which B12 schools are making overtures to the SEC and/or other power conferences, recognizing the B12's GoR will have a window in a few years

I expect some of the schools that perceive they could be vulnerable are doing so.

Texas and Oklahoma may feel they can be coy, but really, their real options are quite limited.
.
Oklahoma will want to keep the Bedlam game (and other sports competition with oSu) and the RRR. Doing both as OOC games doesn't look acceptable, even with the enhancement of new conference revenue distribution.

Texas' issue with the SEC is not logistical or athletic compatibility, but largely attitudinal and a diminished ability in exercising control. Doing something with the BIG, the Pac12, or even the ACC or being partially independent, will be complicated, lack enthusiasm, have geographic oddity, and incorporate fewer to none traditional rivals.

(07-22-2020 12:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 10:01 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I am curious in knowing which B12 schools are making overtures to the SEC and/or other power conferences, recognizing the B12's GoR will have a window in a few years

I expect some of the schools that perceive they could be vulnerable are doing so.

Texas and Oklahoma may feel they can be coy, but really, their real options are quite limited.
.
Oklahoma will want to keep the Bedlam game (and other sports competition with oSu) and the RRR. Doing both as OOC games doesn't look acceptable, even with the enhancement of new conference revenue distribution.

Texas' issue with the SEC is not logistical or athletic compatibility, but largely attitudinal and a diminished ability in exercising control. Doing something with the BIG, the Pac12, or even the ACC or being partially independent, will be complicated, lack enthusiasm, have geographic oddity, and incorporate fewer to none traditional rivals.

That's why some form of Texa-homa offer to the SEC would be forthcoming. And Texas will say that they only did it to preserve rivalries and protect Tech. It's simply not logical or practical for there to be another outcome unless that outcome is status quo in the Big 12.

The SEC will initially say they can only handle Texas and Oklahoma leaving them an OOC game for Tech or OSU. But ultimately ESPN will make or break the deal by what they offer us to take the foursome.

The question is whether ESPN would rather pay for Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia (or another) to move to the SEC or pay for Texa-homa to make the same move. If ESPN calls their bluff by refusing to pay for OSU or TTU then we'll have our answer. If Texas and Oklahoma refuse to move without them and calls ESPN's bluff we'll have our answer as well.

(07-22-2020 10:25 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 12:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 10:01 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I am curious in knowing which B12 schools are making overtures to the SEC and/or other power conferences, recognizing the B12's GoR will have a window in a few years

I expect some of the schools that perceive they could be vulnerable are doing so.

Texas and Oklahoma may feel they can be coy, but really, their real options are quite limited.
.
Oklahoma will want to keep the Bedlam game (and other sports competition with oSu) and the RRR. Doing both as OOC games doesn't look acceptable, even with the enhancement of new conference revenue distribution.

Texas' issue with the SEC is not logistical or athletic compatibility, but largely attitudinal and a diminished ability in exercising control. Doing something with the BIG, the Pac12, or even the ACC or being partially independent, will be complicated, lack enthusiasm, have geographic oddity, and incorporate fewer to none traditional rivals.

That's why some form of Texa-homa offer to the SEC would be forthcoming. And Texas will say that they only did it to preserve rivalries and protect Tech. It's simply not logical or practical for there to be another outcome unless that outcome is status quo in the Big 12.

The SEC will initially say they can only handle Texas and Oklahoma leaving them an OOC game for Tech or OSU. But ultimately ESPN will make or break the deal by what they offer us to take the foursome.

The question is whether ESPN would rather pay for Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia (or another) to move to the SEC or pay for Texa-homa to make the same move. If ESPN calls their bluff by refusing to pay for OSU or TTU then we'll have our answer. If Texas and Oklahoma refuse to move without them and calls ESPN's bluff we'll have our answer as well.

What if:
Texas refuses to come. Oklahoma decides to come.

Assuming the SEC doesn't want to stay at 15, would the additional team be chosen by Oklahoma, ESPN, or Oklahoma/ESPN? In those scenarios, which team would be #16?

(07-22-2020 10:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 10:25 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 12:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 10:01 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I am curious in knowing which B12 schools are making overtures to the SEC and/or other power conferences, recognizing the B12's GoR will have a window in a few years

I expect some of the schools that perceive they could be vulnerable are doing so.

Texas and Oklahoma may feel they can be coy, but really, their real options are quite limited.
.
Oklahoma will want to keep the Bedlam game (and other sports competition with oSu) and the RRR. Doing both as OOC games doesn't look acceptable, even with the enhancement of new conference revenue distribution.

Texas' issue with the SEC is not logistical or athletic compatibility, but largely attitudinal and a diminished ability in exercising control. Doing something with the BIG, the Pac12, or even the ACC or being partially independent, will be complicated, lack enthusiasm, have geographic oddity, and incorporate fewer to none traditional rivals.

That's why some form of Texa-homa offer to the SEC would be forthcoming. And Texas will say that they only did it to preserve rivalries and protect Tech. It's simply not logical or practical for there to be another outcome unless that outcome is status quo in the Big 12.

The SEC will initially say they can only handle Texas and Oklahoma leaving them an OOC game for Tech or OSU. But ultimately ESPN will make or break the deal by what they offer us to take the foursome.

The question is whether ESPN would rather pay for Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia (or another) to move to the SEC or pay for Texa-homa to make the same move. If ESPN calls their bluff by refusing to pay for OSU or TTU then we'll have our answer. If Texas and Oklahoma refuse to move without them and calls ESPN's bluff we'll have our answer as well.

What if:
Texas refuses to come. Oklahoma decides to come.

Assuming the SEC doesn't want to stay at 15, would the additional team be chosen by Oklahoma, ESPN, or Oklahoma/ESPN? In those scenarios, which team would be #16?

They'd all have their preferences. Maybe OU wants O.S.U. which was Boren's demand in 2011. Maybe ESPN wants Kansas. Maybe the SEC wants T.C.U. to lock down a presence in DFW with Oklahoma providing strong support with A&M.

The numbers would be crunched and ESPN would give their valuation and you go from there. The rub is Oklahoma cannot afford to be in different conferences than both Texas and Oklahoma State. And without the Sooners none of Kansas, Oklahoma State, or T.C.U. are even considered.

(07-23-2020 12:32 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 10:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 10:25 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 12:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-21-2020 10:01 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I am curious in knowing which B12 schools are making overtures to the SEC and/or other power conferences, recognizing the B12's GoR will have a window in a few years

I expect some of the schools that perceive they could be vulnerable are doing so.

Texas and Oklahoma may feel they can be coy, but really, their real options are quite limited.
.
Oklahoma will want to keep the Bedlam game (and other sports competition with oSu) and the RRR. Doing both as OOC games doesn't look acceptable, even with the enhancement of new conference revenue distribution.

Texas' issue with the SEC is not logistical or athletic compatibility, but largely attitudinal and a diminished ability in exercising control. Doing something with the BIG, the Pac12, or even the ACC or being partially independent, will be complicated, lack enthusiasm, have geographic oddity, and incorporate fewer to none traditional rivals.

That's why some form of Texa-homa offer to the SEC would be forthcoming. And Texas will say that they only did it to preserve rivalries and protect Tech. It's simply not logical or practical for there to be another outcome unless that outcome is status quo in the Big 12.

The SEC will initially say they can only handle Texas and Oklahoma leaving them an OOC game for Tech or OSU. But ultimately ESPN will make or break the deal by what they offer us to take the foursome.

The question is whether ESPN would rather pay for Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia (or another) to move to the SEC or pay for Texa-homa to make the same move. If ESPN calls their bluff by refusing to pay for OSU or TTU then we'll have our answer. If Texas and Oklahoma refuse to move without them and calls ESPN's bluff we'll have our answer as well.

What if:
Texas refuses to come. Oklahoma decides to come.

Assuming the SEC doesn't want to stay at 15, would the additional team be chosen by Oklahoma, ESPN, or Oklahoma/ESPN? In those scenarios, which team would be #16?

They'd all have their preferences. Maybe OU wants O.S.U. which was Boren's demand in 2011. Maybe ESPN wants Kansas. Maybe the SEC wants T.C.U. to lock down a presence in DFW with Oklahoma providing strong support with A&M.

The numbers would be crunched and ESPN would give their valuation and you go from there. The rub is Oklahoma cannot afford to be in different conferences than both Texas and Oklahoma State. And without the Sooners none of Kansas, Oklahoma State, or T.C.U. are even considered.

The Only way Oklahoma comes to the SEC is either with a Texas or an Oklahoma State. The only other possible way would be if the fans at Oklahoma are fine with eliminating the Bedlam game in order to preserve the RRR in OOC scheduling.

If the latter is the case, #16 would probably best West Virginia, Kansas or, if no one else is interested, Oklahoma State.