(07-25-2018 10:16 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 05:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 05:41 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 03:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 03:23 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Getting Notre Dame and Texas to move from their respective status quo will take profound activating events.

:That may happen, but the ACC has proven to be a big enabler. The BIG would be also to a much more constrained level. I am not so confident these two will just fall into perceived obvious places.

The interesting facet of all realignment heretofore is that it is a process where the eroding away of the smaller pieces have been building the slope down which the larger will slide, and slide in perhaps a more predictable way than they would if confronted with a decision that simply impacted them.

A move by the Big 10 to 8 conference games, with a scheduling agreement with the PAC would likely create an easier path for the gravity pulling on Notre Dame than the path the ACC has constructed for them.

The pull of gravity created by the SEC for Texas is much better defined. We've taken Arkansas, Texas A&M and Missouri in order to make their slide a slower and more comfortable and familiar one.

Could both buck this on their own power? Yes. But would the energy expended be worth the experience of a different path? Most likely not.

So you might say these potential moves have been being shaped by extraneous forces acting upon their trajectory for over 25 years.

Most schools in the SEC-East may like a scheduling agreement between the SEC & the ACC. Since some in the SEC are playing one, sometimes two, ACC games per year, it seems sort of natural. For the SEC-West, not so much.

Yes. And once the Big 12 is gone that makes a great deal of sense. But really one exists already, it's just not formalized per se. Getting Texas and or Oklahoma seals our expansion westward. It also shores up our boundaries. Nothing West of that area is going to impose upon us, and if the Big 10 stops at Kansas or even Oklahoma the only thing the SEC needs to do at that point is to assist the ACC to keep them as a buffer.

If Texas/Kansas went to the ACC instead, then the SEC west would get Missouri-Kansas and Texas-A&m/Arkansas.

If the SEC gets Texas we could lobby for OK/Kansas to go to the ACC and not the big 10 so we get OK/Texas as an ACC-SEC matchup.

Better yet, ACC gets Texas/OK State/Kansas and we get OK ourselves. That gives Ark/OK/Missouri all a matchup with the ACC. Just don't know who 16 would be for us in that scenario.

Missouri-Kansas
Ark-Texas
OK-OK State
TN-VT
Vandy-Wake
Louisville-KY
Florida-FSU
south carolina-Clemson
Georgia-GT

To clarify, I'm say Texas in the AcC is better than on the Big 10 for us. Obviously Texas in the SEC is the best (AcC takes Tech?)

I think the purpose in taking Texas and Kansas would be both are AAU and on gives us an Alabama/Auburn intensity in house rivalry and the other gives Missouri the instant kind of rivalry they need to start fitting in a bit better. And it gives Kentucky a marquee nationwide basketball game to play annually.

If we had to take Tech with Texas it would give us 3 schools that would be playing at least 2 games a week that all of Texas would want to see, and when they aren't playing each other 3 games a week they would want to see. For a state of 28 million that's strong penetration at premium advertising rates and well worth the two bids. So as a back up plan that's not bad at all.