(05-02-2018 05:01 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 04:13 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 03:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 01:05 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If Texas was going to bother with AAC schools then the simplest thing to do would be to add a few to the existing Big 12 framework for the purpose of filling out a league. There's no reason to "join" the American.

Texas takes in about as much T3 money as the entire AAC makes in aggregate.

I don't think it's that likely even if they took that route. Some other league will take the aforementioned TX schools and both the brand power and money will be better.

If Oklahoma is going to leave, which is the assumption, why oh why would Tejas want to keep Iowa State, and Kansas State on it's schedule? Kansas, Oklahoma State, Give me a break.
The old Big 8 schools (minus Oklahoma) hold nothing for Tejas. It's also not necessary to recreate a conference when there is already one taylor made for the Horns, that would accommodate them and their pals for less money expended by ESPN, plus they could keep the LHN. Your lucky that Tejas would condescend to play Missouri if they joined the SEC as a partial.

Yeah, that doesn't make a lick of sense.

Why would Texas look to throw in with the AAC? Outside of maybe 3 or 4 schools, who in that conference would they ever remotely care about playing? Who would sell tickets?

I could see Texas interested in playing Houston, but you don't need to join the AAC to make that happen. Just ask UH to join you and it's a slam dunk. UCF or USF? That's a maybe and UT could get some recruiting value out of playing in FL regularly, but again, just ask them to join you.

I'll be generous and say SMU might have some sentimental value, but why join a league with them? That's wholly unnecessary to play a school like that. As it stands, UT could have SMU play in Austin every single season if they wanted. Texas already left them behind once to join the very Big 8 schools that you say they have no interest in playing.

The old Big 8 schools are not high on Texas' priority, granted, but at least those schools have some decent sized fan bases. Adding the current TX schools to the AAC wouldn't be a motivating factor. They'll stick with Texas no matter where they go.

While it's true that ESPN would love to spend less money, that's not exactly going to be a selling point for Texas.

ESPN: "Hey Horns, how about you go over here so we can pay you less money and still get all your content."

Texas: "Um...no."

Not all partial relationships are the same. Notre Dame plays 5 games a year in the ACC, this includes playing every school in the conference at least once every three years. Before they agreed to this plan, the ACC offered them a package where the Irish would play six games a year including permanent yearly contests with Pitt and Boston College while rotating the other 4.
The point is this; if Tejas enters into a partial relationship (or if you prefer to call it a scheduling agreement), I believe it will be with selected teams (just like the deal Notre Dame was offered). So whether it is the PAC, SEC or American the bulk of "conference" games will be against teams of Tejas choosing. So in the American Tejas could play every year Houston, SMU, Baylor, Texas Tech, and TCU, plus attach their non-revenue sports to the American west where they will have familiar foes and minimal travel.
The American with Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU and West Virginia with Texas as a partial would have at least as much of a claim of being a "P" conference as the PAC based on recent performance.
Tejas has enough clout and can generate enough income to pull this off. And who does it help? ESPN. And just who has the marketing muscle to make the country believe the American has graduated into a "P" conference? ESPN.
It would cross pollinate the ACC, SEC and American in the majority of the country that cares about watching college football (and baseball). And all of this is regardless of what Oklahoma and Kansas do.
Get out of the box you are trying to put realignment in and think of strategies that ESPN might employ to solidify their markets and inventory for another 20 years. Even a brand like Oklahoma will fade in a market like Dallas over time without exposure. How many fans in Indiana, North Carolina or Kentucky would pay to stream Kansas basketball?
You guys can pooh-pooh all you like, but the next phase of realignment is not about the schools, it's about the networks (ESPN/FOX) and how they can secure and solidify their positions for the foreseeable future.

The next realignment will be about rights and it will be centered around the networks and I'm among the first to say so, if not the first, going all the way back to 2012. Since then I've carefully laid out exactly how that has transpired. The why is what has shifted over the past 6 years. But it will be within the contexts of what the conferences are willing to do. The networks call the shots, but their guidelines for operation are within the parameters established by the conferences they represent.

The SEC won't offer a partial membership because it is against our core organizing principles and our internal pay model. We won't grow unless a school meets our metrics loosely, or grows the bottom line. And right now we would prefer a "jewel" as Machen once said, but one that is contiguous and as Mike Slive promised, culturally fits the identity and brand of the SEC.

The Big 10 would prefer large state land grant schools who are members of the AAU. Those schools have to add to their bottom line and they prefer contiguity the same as the SEC.

The PAC's criteria are a hybrid of the those of the Big 10 and SEC but they are more constrained on the geographical fit.

So far only the ACC has been willing to compromise and cut deals on their membership. Louisville was the compromise and Notre Dame got a deal.

That won't be how the Big 10 or SEC operates.

So yeah, the networks will be working the butts off to wrap up the product they want and I'm sure they hope to be able to do it before the Amazons of the world drive overhead costs up. But the work the networks will be doing is trying to come up with a plan that would get the SEC and Big 10 (the two biggest profit drivers) on board and which adds value to the PAC and ACC lineup.

So if you want to play the "Guess what the networks will do" game then those are the parameters you have to fit.

The ACC is probably the closest to being completed. 1 more addition and Notre Dame all in because of a champs only playoff model is the end game for the ACC.

For the SEC it will be whatever key additions are needed to add value to what through last year was the leader in earning power and two additions that allow the East and West divisions to be tweaked and balanced out a bit better.

For the Big 10 they need essentially the same thing as the SEC. They need two solid additions that add value and help them to balance their divisions.

In as much as Texas and Oklahoma are common targets of the SEC and Big 10 and in as much as neither Texas nor Oklahoma really want to abandon the Big 12 we have a mess in the West.

There is a solution that nobody wants to talk about which could happen in 2025.

But what if the Big 10 and SEC are simply done at 14 each? What if Wake Forest becomes the partial for the ACC and Notre Dame goes all in? And what if the PAC only takes Texas and Oklahoma?

Wake would be guaranteed 5 games a year against traditional AAC schools and would remain a member for all other sports. Notre Dame goes all in because we move to a champs only model for football. And essentially we wind up with 56 football schools in the upper tier.

In 2025 Texas and OU are free to move.

Kansas might be encouraged to drop football and join a basketball conference. The rest join up with the best of the AAC and form their own conference.

If you are the networks you can't satisfy both the Big 10 and SEC easily, so satisfy neither but keep both happy by not advantaging either.

Pump up the ACC by minimizing its weakest team and growing it with what adds the most value.

Pump up the PAC without bloating it.

PAC North: Colorado, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State, Utah

PAC South: Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Oklahoma, Southern Cal, Texas

If there are only two P4 schools in Texas and the SEC has one that satisfies us. If the Big 10 loses no advantage it satisfies them. If the ACC is bolstered it satisfies them. If the PAC gets the added branding and markets it satisfies them.

The problem of expanding out of the Big 12 has always been the 8 schools not named Texas and Oklahoma, or trying to send either Texas and/or Oklahoma to either the Big 10 or SEC without ticking off everyone.

This gets it done.