(10-23-2015 05:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 04:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 10:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 09:01 AM)5thTiger Wrote:  

(10-22-2015 08:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If Oklahoma State is the price for Texas and Oklahoma why give up Missouri at all? Just add either Kansas, or Kansas State, or West Virginia and call it a day. Why give up 8 million when you can add 3 million more? Why would we want to give up 8 million just so the numbers work out evenly? A new market and a brand are a new market and a brand. Besides, Kansas adds what the SEC really needs, somebody that is easier to beat than Vanderbilt.

Would be a mutual benefit type deal. SEC gets Texas, bringing along Oklahoma and their baggage. If the B1G expanded west, Mizzou and kansas would be THE pair to go after IMO. Get value added of a top rivalry (Border War), plus reignite series with Nebraska.

It would be a net positive for both, and the numbers would work perfectly. B1G gets 2 new states with growing populations, AAU schools, rivalries, extended footprints. SEC would get a new state, 2 crown jewels, a pretty decent baggage school, capture the entire state of Texas for real, and some major brands.

Longhorn network problems aside, this would be a perfect exclamation point to realignment. But I doubt it happens...as much as I think it would be awesome.

I agree with you that the bottom line for both would be improved and that it would be a satisfactory way to conclude realignment. I also agree it likely won't happen that way.

Occam's razor.

To put this behind us and let the sport heal, Occam would be welcomed!

You are absolutely right JR. Most fans just want stability. Will their rivalries be preserved? Will they know who is in their conference and why? Will they have a decent home schedule every year, or will they have to endure poor home schedules every other year?.
The average fan is tired, financially strapped, and unhappy.