(12-29-2017 10:38 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 10:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 08:52 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 03:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 12:30 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I would prefer to get all this over with as soon as possible. That's part of the reason I tend to think in terms of adding more schools as opposed to fewer.

With that said, I have no problem just waiting until all these contracts expire if that's what it takes to really get what we want. By that point, we should have enough leverage that it won't really matter what other leagues are offering.

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia

I think those 4 each offer us something valuable and worth having. Now obviously, UT and OU are really the only schools that pad our bottom line at this point, but the others give us something tangible as well.

Kansas is an elite basketball brand that will help draw attention to our schools when football season is over. They'll help sell our package to more fans across the country. They're good for TV, but also for competition. Who doesn't want Kansas rolling into your arena every season or every other season? I know I'd buy a ticket for that. It's also a new market, a regional rival for other schools, and an AAU. Underrated reason is that they're good cannon fodder in football. Our league doesn't need to add so many quality football brands that it actually makes the schedule too difficult. It's good to have a break.

West Virginia is another strong regional brand that increases our exposure in both the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. It's a good football and basketball brand that adds more to the middle. Even though the state of WV isn't large by any means, their spread out fan base should come in handy when streaming really takes hold.

16 would be a really good number, but 18 allows for more regional divisions. That and we can have a conference semi-final.

I think if we landed OU and KU that we could get Texas, especially with Arkansas, A&M and to a lesser extent Missouri already on board. The question is would we have to take OSU to get OU. If so we may not be able to take WVU. I don't think Texas has to take Tech with them, but that too could be an issue. We'll see.

If the SEC grabs OU and OSU, then the entire Big 12 is up for grabs. Texas would be under heavy fan pressure to either follow rivals OU, A&M and Arkansas into the SEC or cave under political pressure to save the Big 12 again. Who wins will determine UT’s landing spot. Also defections from the PAC could stabilize the Big 12 and possibly the Big Ten.

I believe Texas has the political clout to leave, especially if they take Tech with them. The idea is to make the additions that would be the most enticing to them.

For Texas? OU and Tech.

For OU? Definitely OSU and then preferably Texas.

Only problem: could A&M block the Texas and Tech moves?

So add Texahoma. Then wait for ACC additions in the 2030’s.

Could A&M block Texas and Tech? No. It takes 75% of voting members to approve an invitation. Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina would not vote against Oklahoma or Texas and taking their little brothers just opens the door for Clemson and F.S.U. to one day join with a Carolina and Virginia school. And both Florida and South Carolina have either already sponsored their in state rivals for membership, or wanted to (in South Carolina's case).