(07-11-2018 11:03 PM)ICThawk Wrote: (07-11-2018 09:03 PM)JRsec Wrote: (07-11-2018 08:52 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote: SEC takes Texas and Kansas (16)
ACC takes WVU, UConn (or Cincy) (16)
PAC12 takes TTU, UNM (or TCU), OU, oSu (16)
BIG takes ISU, ND (ft). (16).
OK, won't happen this way. But......
I don't think that's too out of line. I've quietly contemplated something very similar.
Big 10 takes Oklahoma and Notre Dame
SEC takes Texas and Kansas
ACC takes T.C.U. and W.V.U.
PAC takes Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Kansas State and Texas Tech.
That way the Big 10 and SEC are placated and both in ways that enhance the advertising value of their existing footprint and add a brand that enhances the weaknesses of both.
The ACC fills in their gap and the demographic of T.C.U. meets their need for market enhancement while providing them a good sports fit which is something WVU does as well.
The PAC who is presently in the weakest position gains 4 central time zone states. They don't like OSU but take them to set up a scheduling alliance with the Big 10 to enhance their market value along with the all of the footprint of the former Big 12 minus West Virginia. Iowa vs Iowa State & Oklahoma vs OSU, and of course now USC vs ND.
End the end if it looks like we are moving toward a champs only format the Irish will go for the money, especially if a scheduling alliance with the PAC gives them the largess to keep U.S.C as an annual.
But, I decided to pull for:
SEC: Texas & Kansas
B1G: Oklahoma & ISU
ACC: West Virginia and N.D.
PAC: Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech & T.C.U. (I think the PAC would like to have a bigger piece of Texas than Tech could give them alone).
This scenario ensures that all rivalries are restored.
I understand the above list is what you pull for, but how realistic do you really think it is? What reason would Texas have to leave the Big12 at the expiration of the GOR? I not sure Texas would have any reason to leave the B12 except OU leaving, and maybe not even then if UT decided to put together Big12 2.0. So, I think that probably means this all depends on OU to get things started. If OU doesn't move, possibly there is no expansion anywhere. My guess is if OU is approached by the B1G it will be with KU as its "partner" (I just don't see the B1G making much of a run at UT due to distance and "demeanor", though I could of course be wrong). If the SEC approaches OU, not sure who the SEC proposes as OU's partner (if not Texas of course). If OU "specifies" OSU, is that enough? If OU says "we don't care" or says "not OSU" (thinking that will give them an additional recruiting advantage), then who would it likely be, if not Texas? Or, do you think OU choosing the SEC would force Texas' hand and prompt Texas to go with OU right then? I certainly don't have the answers to these questions but I would be curious on your (and other posters) thoughts about them.
1. Check the previous page in this thread where I posted the valuations of the potential members and it will help you a bit I think.
2. I think the Big 10 is very interested in Texas, we all are.
3. Oklahoma has consistently had an OSU problem no matter what message boards say. They prevented OU to the PAC. OSU is not acceptable to the Big 10 either. And when OU approached the SEC about the 14th slot with A&M in 2010-2 they insisted that we take OSU. The only reason we didn't consider it was because we were mandated by our contract with ESPN that we would need 2 new markets added to our conference if we were to receive the privilege of renegotiating our contract.
Well we weren't going to turn down A&M for any reason, ever! That left 1 slot. ESPN wasn't going to pay us for 3 or 4 schools and if OU insisted on OSU well we would have to pass. Missouri, an ESPN suggestion, allegedly, became #14. But if you look at the valuations you will see that the duo of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would add profit to the SEC. So next time around don't bet against it.
Texas had 3 historic rivals for most of their football lifetime: Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas A&M. If Oklahoma joins the SEC, even with OSU, Texas could very well decide for the sake of their business model, and ticket priority that playing all three again would be preferable to any other move, or rebuilding the SWC 2.0 with lesser brands which their alums don't want as the staples of their season ticket books.
So playing the Oklahoma card (even if that means taking OSU) is a viable lure for Texas.
So Oklahoma State, poor research standing and everything, has a higher sports valuation by the WSJ than North Carolina and that's for the combined football and basketball estimated economic impact worth.
If Texas needed a partner then Kansas, Texas Tech, or even Kansas State or Iowa State would still be profitable.
Our former commissioner Mike Slive was once asked what the limit on the number of new schools that could be added to the conference would be. Slive gave a very interesting and specific answer. He said that the limit was the number of schools that could add value to the conference. Right now it looks like that number could go as high as 18 total members.