Quick point off of JR's mention of a rumbling in the ACC about full cost stipends. Thinking through it, this separation appears to be a football only distinction at the moment. From what I can tell, basketball and other sports will not be greatly affected by whether or not a school goes the full attendance route or not. Assuming that a good chunk of current P5 schools chose to not pursue full costs, would it really hurt their revenue or intentions for athletics? I'm thinking primarily about the private schools (sans Notre Dame, Stanford, and USC) and a handful of state schools like Kansas, UVA, Cal, and Georgia Tech. As long as they are playing each other in football and still able to compete at the highest level in all other sports (namely basketball), does it really matter to Duke if they play FSU or if Vandy plays Alabama? Nationally, those games rarely register and are not adding value to the existing TV contracts. If anything, they are limiting to the potential inventory of realigning the conferences more properly.

I say all that to say that perhaps the full cost of attendance is not as cut and dry as we may assume. It may only be favorable to 40-50 schools rather than 60-80, especially if it is ruled that allowing full cost scholarships must apply to all athletes if they want to do it with football particularly in mind.

(07-25-2013 11:29 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Quick point off of JR's mention of a rumbling in the ACC about full cost stipends. Thinking through it, this separation appears to be a football only distinction at the moment. From what I can tell, basketball and other sports will not be greatly affected by whether or not a school goes the full attendance route or not. Assuming that a good chunk of current P5 schools chose to not pursue full costs, would it really hurt their revenue or intentions for athletics? I'm thinking primarily about the private schools (sans Notre Dame, Stanford, and USC) and a handful of state schools like Kansas, UVA, Cal, and Georgia Tech. As long as they are playing each other in football and still able to compete at the highest level in all other sports (namely basketball), does it really matter to Duke if they play FSU or if Vandy plays Alabama? Nationally, those games rarely register and are not adding value to the existing TV contracts. If anything, they are limiting to the potential inventory of realigning the conferences more properly.

I say all that to say that perhaps the full cost of attendance is not as cut and dry as we may assume. It may only be favorable to 40-50 schools rather than 60-80, especially if it is ruled that allowing full cost scholarships must apply to all athletes if they want to do it with football particularly in mind.

I think this is where the issue resides. Title 9 will not permit just football to receive the stipend. It will be all scholarships or nothing. Note I said scholarships. For sports like baseball, softball, etc., which are permitted to give 1/2 or 1/4 scholarships the stipend will be payable in the same percentages as the scholarship amounts.

So, yes this will be a bigger issue than some are letting on. The rumor I heard was that Duke, B.C., and Wake were resistant, and possibly a couple of more.

"If" these issues come to fruition for these schools, and "if" Texas has eyes on independence (in a N.D. kind of way) then 3 regional conferences of 20 is still within the realm of possibility. If schools like Duke, Wake, & B.C. opt out I could see an upper division of 60 schools divided into 3 conferences. I think the Big 10, PAC & SEC would be all in. Then further growth would be out of the Big 12 (once Texas left) and the ACC (due to the split over D4).

(07-25-2013 12:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 11:29 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Quick point off of JR's mention of a rumbling in the ACC about full cost stipends. Thinking through it, this separation appears to be a football only distinction at the moment. From what I can tell, basketball and other sports will not be greatly affected by whether or not a school goes the full attendance route or not. Assuming that a good chunk of current P5 schools chose to not pursue full costs, would it really hurt their revenue or intentions for athletics? I'm thinking primarily about the private schools (sans Notre Dame, Stanford, and USC) and a handful of state schools like Kansas, UVA, Cal, and Georgia Tech. As long as they are playing each other in football and still able to compete at the highest level in all other sports (namely basketball), does it really matter to Duke if they play FSU or if Vandy plays Alabama? Nationally, those games rarely register and are not adding value to the existing TV contracts. If anything, they are limiting to the potential inventory of realigning the conferences more properly.

I say all that to say that perhaps the full cost of attendance is not as cut and dry as we may assume. It may only be favorable to 40-50 schools rather than 60-80, especially if it is ruled that allowing full cost scholarships must apply to all athletes if they want to do it with football particularly in mind.

I think this is where the issue resides. Title 9 will not permit just football to receive the stipend. It will be all scholarships or nothing. Note I said scholarships. For sports like baseball, softball, etc., which are permitted to give 1/2 or 1/4 scholarships the stipend will be payable in the same percentages as the scholarship amounts.

So, yes this will be a bigger issue than some are letting on. The rumor I heard was that Duke, B.C., and Wake were resistant, and possibly a couple of more.

"If" these issues come to fruition for these schools, and "if" Texas has eyes on independence (in a N.D. kind of way) then 3 regional conferences of 20 is still within the realm of possibility. If schools like Duke, Wake, & B.C. opt out I could see an upper division of 60 schools divided into 3 conferences. I think the Big 10, PAC & SEC would be all in. Then further growth would be out of the Big 12 (once Texas left) and the ACC (due to the split over D4).

Interesting points, and I agree. If they ever try to limit this new entitlement to football player, lawsuits will come out of the wood work, and probably from the G5 and smaller division schools' legal departments.

(07-25-2013 12:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 11:29 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Quick point off of JR's mention of a rumbling in the ACC about full cost stipends. Thinking through it, this separation appears to be a football only distinction at the moment. From what I can tell, basketball and other sports will not be greatly affected by whether or not a school goes the full attendance route or not. Assuming that a good chunk of current P5 schools chose to not pursue full costs, would it really hurt their revenue or intentions for athletics? I'm thinking primarily about the private schools (sans Notre Dame, Stanford, and USC) and a handful of state schools like Kansas, UVA, Cal, and Georgia Tech. As long as they are playing each other in football and still able to compete at the highest level in all other sports (namely basketball), does it really matter to Duke if they play FSU or if Vandy plays Alabama? Nationally, those games rarely register and are not adding value to the existing TV contracts. If anything, they are limiting to the potential inventory of realigning the conferences more properly.

I say all that to say that perhaps the full cost of attendance is not as cut and dry as we may assume. It may only be favorable to 40-50 schools rather than 60-80, especially if it is ruled that allowing full cost scholarships must apply to all athletes if they want to do it with football particularly in mind.

I think this is where the issue resides. Title 9 will not permit just football to receive the stipend. It will be all scholarships or nothing. Note I said scholarships. For sports like baseball, softball, etc., which are permitted to give 1/2 or 1/4 scholarships the stipend will be payable in the same percentages as the scholarship amounts.

So, yes this will be a bigger issue than some are letting on. The rumor I heard was that Duke, B.C., and Wake were resistant, and possibly a couple of more.

"If" these issues come to fruition for these schools, and "if" Texas has eyes on independence (in a N.D. kind of way) then 3 regional conferences of 20 is still within the realm of possibility. If schools like Duke, Wake, & B.C. opt out I could see an upper division of 60 schools divided into 3 conferences. I think the Big 10, PAC & SEC would be all in. Then further growth would be out of the Big 12 (once Texas left) and the ACC (due to the split over D4).

The power schools are going to have to be very careful about how they handle the entrance requirements for a potential D4. If they just leave it as you have to have X number of sports and pay full cost of tuition scholarships to every athlete, there will be some lower tier schools that will do whatever it takes to stay in that top division, even if they lose a ton of money every year. Apologies in advance to these schools, but I'm thinking specifically about ECU, USM, Arkansas State, Louisiana Lafayette, and maybe Houston/SMU. These are schools that so badly want to be considered top tier that they would do just about anything to get in. The only thing stopping them at this point is the one thing that may be hardest to legally adopt for the initial split to D4; an invitation from existing members. The big boys need to be very, very careful about how they handle this potential split.

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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

Hear, hear He1nous! If I could give you more rep points I would. Your assessment of the PAC's options (at this juncture of realignment) is exactly correct. Many things have become apparent since Larry Scott made the offer and the first / second Texahoma deal fell through.

Obviously networks have a high degree of control over who goes where. When the first deal was offered almost everyone was still on the table for the Big 10 and SEC as it looked as though the ACC was available to them both. Now that has changed. The ACC "might" have 1 or 2 that don't make the move to D4 but there are plenty of options for them to go to 16 anyway. Notre Dame did really help to bring the security they needed to agree to the grant of rights.

Now the emphasis will be upon marketing the new division, the structure of its playoff system, and determining how many teams it will take to make it work as well at a level the schools involved have grown accustomed to in the past. If the Big 12 went to 16 or 18 teams from the existing pool they will only fall farther behind the other conferences with each new addition. If they don't grow equally they don't fit the desired new profile that will emerge. It will be far more profitable from an advertising standpoint to have 4 conferences and to spread the remaining brands among them. While that sounds simple enough the barrier will be FOX vs ESPN deciding how to do that.

ESPN will want Texas and FOX has its hooks into Oklahoma. ESPN is trying to sew up Kansas. West Virginia is still an open issue. Beyond those plus Oklahoma State it is a crap shoot. If this is to be solved there will be serious negotiations and nobody is going to get Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State together. I think this issue has to be resolved before we get movement on Cincinnati, Connecticut, Brigham Young and some of the other deserving schools.

That is why a combination of Buffalo and Kansas, or Connecticut and Kansas would be in line for the Big 10. Oklahoma State / Kansas State and West Virginia would be possible for the SEC. Oklahoma and OK St. / KSU, Iowa State and Texas Tech could move to the PAC. And Texas, Baylor, and T.C.U. would be up for the ACC.

With a line up like that the conferences would stand at 16, 16, 16, and 18 teams (if everyone in the ACC moves up). Connecticut would likely be off the table. The SEC could look around and see if they wanted to try to develop some markets out of the remainder. The ACC would be set. The Big 10 might look at expanding too, but could just as easily stand pat. The PAC could pick up New Mexico and U.N.L.V. or Hawaii, or B.Y.U. if so inclined.

In the SEC's case they could opt for a greater presence in Florida and take South Florida, or go for a new market in North Carolina and look at E.C.U. or expand its Northern edge and look at Cincinnati. If the SEC decided to stand pat that would be a win as well. But something is going to take place that resembles this, or another form of a brokered deal, if something happens with the Big 12.

(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.

(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.

I'm glad you still check the SEC board Phog.

From what I understand the GOR has a look in in just a few years time so a decade wait may not be necessary. The problem as I see it exists because the Big 12 is at 10 schools and there are not really any schools that add significant value for them to find profit in adding. But if a new upper division were to require the addition of teams for internal playoff structures the Big 12 would be hooked upon the horns of a dilemma. At that juncture either there would have to be a re-division of teams already in the other P5 conferences or additions would have to made anyway. Since I doubt seriously that the former happens and it is not profitable for the latter to transpire the only option left is assimilation. Furthermore, if balancing as much as is possible the strengths of the conferences is an issue for the networks (and ESPN wants to hold onto Texas as a product) then I think the ACC is the one that gets the biggest boost with the distribution of former Big 12 teams. I think the Big 10 would jump to get Kansas and the SEC will settle for West Virginia and either KState or OSU. The PAC gets Oklahoma and three state schools to go with them (likely I.S.U., Texas Tech, and the remainder of O.S.U. and KState).

I believe that then those declaring themselves as independents in the new upper division will get a look to try to bring them under the structure of the 4 conferences. I still look for about 70 to 72 total schools to be included. I think the PAC could go to 18, the SEC possibly to 18, and the ACC to 18 (including Texas and N.D. as affiliates). The question would be could the Big 10 find two more AAU schools that fit their profile? I think that might be too difficult and that they may stay at 16. Anyway that's just my latest thinking.

(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!

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.

(07-31-2013 07:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  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 hope that happens.

(07-31-2013 08:15 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(07-31-2013 07:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  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 hope that happens.

Thank you jml. Nice to see a Tech fan able to recognize just how great of an opportunity that would be for Tech.

(07-31-2013 08:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-31-2013 08:15 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(07-31-2013 07:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  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 hope that happens.

Thank you jml. Nice to see a Tech fan able to recognize just how great of an opportunity that would be for Tech.

You're welcome. I think it would be a game changer for Tech.

(07-31-2013 09:06 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(07-31-2013 08:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-31-2013 08:15 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(07-31-2013 07:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  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 hope that happens.

Thank you jml. Nice to see a Tech fan able to recognize just how great of an opportunity that would be for Tech.

You're welcome. I think it would be a game changer for Tech.

Tech would be a tremendous rival for Arizona State. Like I've said before, Tech's academic profile is not dissimilar from ASU, OSU, and WSU. The PAC could do much worse than bringing on TT, Ok. State, Kansas State, and Iowa State if Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas are off the table. It will give all of those schools a chance at an identity. If I am a recruit with a choice of traveling to west coast on a regular basis or the midwest, I know my decision. The competition is pretty equal in football between the PAC and BIG, anyway. No dropoff there.

I guess the issue I have with dividing up the B12 is that I don't think you could get the 4 remaining conferences to determine equal value. The drop-off from TX and OK to the other eight schools is just too great. And if FOX and ESPN are willing to increase the revenues to the other four conferences to accept teams they really don't want, then why not just promise to keep the distribution levels the same for B12 teams if they expand the conference?

For instance, let's consider KSU-->SEC and ISU-->B1G. FOX and ESPN might give both conferences enough to where current distributions don't decrease plus a kicker for taking teams with marginal value. We're talking about $42-47 million for both schools in such arrangement. With those kind of numbers I just think it would be more cheaper if the networks just got together and told the B12 that the cost of inclusion into the new division would be to pick 4-6 more teams.

(08-01-2013 01:10 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I guess the issue I have with dividing up the B12 is that I don't think you could get the 4 remaining conferences to determine equal value. The drop-off from TX and OK to the other eight schools is just too great. And if FOX and ESPN are willing to increase the revenues to the other four conferences to accept teams they really don't want, then why not just promise to keep the distribution levels the same for B12 teams if they expand the conference?

For instance, let's consider KSU-->SEC and ISU-->B1G. FOX and ESPN might give both conferences enough to where current distributions don't decrease plus a kicker for taking teams with marginal value. We're talking about $42-47 million for both schools in such arrangement. With those kind of numbers I just think it would be more cheaper if the networks just got together and told the B12 that the cost of inclusion into the new division would be to pick 4-6 more teams.

I thought that way for a while, but then I realized, as He1nous has been saying, that Iowa State, Texas Tech, Kansas State and Oklahoma State all pay for themselves in the PAC. They don't do that as brands, they do that as 4 shots at games in the central time zone that the PAC doesn't presently have. They offer venues in a time slot the PAC hasn't been able to capitalize on. Now, sure the PAC would rather have Texahoma to do it, but without Texas or Oklahoma, 4 new states as opposed to two does offer a bit of a buffer against the loss of the national brands. If they sell 24 games in those slots during the course of the year and expand the PAC network into those states it is still a win for the PAC. Now with those four taken care of, and Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia, and Kansas you have the 8 votes necessary for dissolution.

I too think that the best brands will be divided up. At first I thought that might happen between the surviving 4 conferences with each of them taking 2, one brand & one state school (except the ACC), and the PAC taking 4, 2 brands and two state schools. Now I think the division will be between the networks (Texas and West Virginia to ESPN = Oklahoma and Kansas to FOX). How it plays out there will be up to the networks.

(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!

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.

I agree. OSU is a great school, and a chance to finally get WVU is a total winner. The SEC should have taken WVU, Missouri, and one other along with TAMU. Sweet sixteen.

(08-01-2013 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2013 01:10 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I guess the issue I have with dividing up the B12 is that I don't think you could get the 4 remaining conferences to determine equal value. The drop-off from TX and OK to the other eight schools is just too great. And if FOX and ESPN are willing to increase the revenues to the other four conferences to accept teams they really don't want, then why not just promise to keep the distribution levels the same for B12 teams if they expand the conference?

For instance, let's consider KSU-->SEC and ISU-->B1G. FOX and ESPN might give both conferences enough to where current distributions don't decrease plus a kicker for taking teams with marginal value. We're talking about $42-47 million for both schools in such arrangement. With those kind of numbers I just think it would be more cheaper if the networks just got together and told the B12 that the cost of inclusion into the new division would be to pick 4-6 more teams.

I thought that way for a while, but then I realized, as He1nous has been saying, that Iowa State, Texas Tech, Kansas State and Oklahoma State all pay for themselves in the PAC. They don't do that as brands, they do that as 4 shots at games in the central time zone that the PAC doesn't presently have. They offer venues in a time slot the PAC hasn't been able to capitalize on. Now, sure the PAC would rather have Texahoma to do it, but without Texas or Oklahoma, 4 new states as opposed to two does offer a bit of a buffer against the loss of the national brands. If they sell 24 games in those slots during the course of the year and expand the PAC network into those states it is still a win for the PAC. Now with those four taken care of, and Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia, and Kansas you have the 8 votes necessary for dissolution.

I too think that the best brands will be divided up. At first I thought that might happen between the surviving 4 conferences with each of them taking 2, one brand & one state school (except the ACC), and the PAC taking 4, 2 brands and two state schools. Now I think the division will be between the networks (Texas and West Virginia to ESPN = Oklahoma and Kansas to FOX). How it plays out there will be up to the networks.

I get the value of the slots for the PAC, but I question the vehicle to get to that point considering that the P12 is a (mostly) FOX property while the B12 is jointly owned. IMO, dissolving the B12 has to meet the following parameters:

- No network can be perceived as having an advantage over the other
- The PAC & ACC must have appear to close to gap with the SEC & B1G
- All 10 teams have to find a P4 conference home

Without meeting these three conditions, I just think the two networks would simply go with the 'no build' option and let the B12 hang around. Does the value of the CST Zone slots offset the perceived brand hit the PAC would take? A perceived hit the FOX will claim they should be compensated for via either TX and/or OK? Would ESPN go for that? (answer: no)

(08-01-2013 02:36 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-01-2013 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2013 01:10 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I guess the issue I have with dividing up the B12 is that I don't think you could get the 4 remaining conferences to determine equal value. The drop-off from TX and OK to the other eight schools is just too great. And if FOX and ESPN are willing to increase the revenues to the other four conferences to accept teams they really don't want, then why not just promise to keep the distribution levels the same for B12 teams if they expand the conference?

For instance, let's consider KSU-->SEC and ISU-->B1G. FOX and ESPN might give both conferences enough to where current distributions don't decrease plus a kicker for taking teams with marginal value. We're talking about $42-47 million for both schools in such arrangement. With those kind of numbers I just think it would be more cheaper if the networks just got together and told the B12 that the cost of inclusion into the new division would be to pick 4-6 more teams.

I thought that way for a while, but then I realized, as He1nous has been saying, that Iowa State, Texas Tech, Kansas State and Oklahoma State all pay for themselves in the PAC. They don't do that as brands, they do that as 4 shots at games in the central time zone that the PAC doesn't presently have. They offer venues in a time slot the PAC hasn't been able to capitalize on. Now, sure the PAC would rather have Texahoma to do it, but without Texas or Oklahoma, 4 new states as opposed to two does offer a bit of a buffer against the loss of the national brands. If they sell 24 games in those slots during the course of the year and expand the PAC network into those states it is still a win for the PAC. Now with those four taken care of, and Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia, and Kansas you have the 8 votes necessary for dissolution.

I too think that the best brands will be divided up. At first I thought that might happen between the surviving 4 conferences with each of them taking 2, one brand & one state school (except the ACC), and the PAC taking 4, 2 brands and two state schools. Now I think the division will be between the networks (Texas and West Virginia to ESPN = Oklahoma and Kansas to FOX). How it plays out there will be up to the networks.

I get the value of the slots for the PAC, but I question the vehicle to get to that point considering that the P12 is a (mostly) FOX property while the B12 is jointly owned. IMO, dissolving the B12 has to meet the following parameters:

- No network can be perceived as having an advantage over the other
- The PAC & ACC must have appear to close to gap with the SEC & B1G
- All 10 teams have to find a P4 conference home

Without meeting these three conditions, I just think the two networks would simply go with the 'no build' option and let the B12 hang around. Does the value of the CST Zone slots offset the perceived brand hit the PAC would take? A perceived hit the FOX will claim they should be compensated for via either TX and/or OK? Would ESPN go for that? (answer: no)

I think you miss-perceived what I wrote. I said Texas and West Virginia to ESPN and Kansas and Oklahoma to Fox. The value of those would be as close to a wash as you could probably get. In that scenario I would look for Texas to go to the ACC under a ND type arrangement and take either Texas Christian or Baylor, or perhaps both with them.

I would think Kansas would be on its way to the Big 10 and Oklahoma with Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and Kansas State to the PAC.

The SEC would likely be interested in West Virginia for the markets.

The Big 10 has been in talks with Buffalo. How serious that is remains to be seen but Buffalo and Kansas could round out their 16. If the SEC insisted on Oklahoma State as a travel partner the 10th team could be placed in the PAC in their place probably making Larry Scott happier for not having to double down on Oklahoma. Iowa State slips into the PAC.
But I think you see the thinking here. Placement of all ten is possible. If the ACC gets Texas and the PAC gets Oklahoma in the process then the strengthening your refer to takes place. Anyway it will be something like that that has to happen if we are to work our way down to four conferences and ameliorate the differences that exist now. Plus, it would be a wash for the networks.