(12-30-2019 11:02 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(12-29-2019 08:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-29-2019 08:32 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(12-29-2019 06:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-29-2019 01:18 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I understand the reservations about Texas, i.e. attitude, excessively self-serving, lust for organizational control, and it's vindictive behavior with Texas A&M, etc.
That noted, I view them as the #1 preferred prospect for SEC expansion if/when such happens. They check all the prime boxes and their value is fundamentally unmatched.
However, I am not in favor of pandering to them in extraordinary ways. Bringing along a bunch of coattail schools could divisively impact the SEC, not, perhaps, so distinctive from the results generated by the formation of the Big 12.
If added, let the LHN run its course until it expires. Financial accomodations can be negotiated.

Oklahoma is the other high value target. Here too, no coattail unless clearly desired by the SEC.

Even with ESPN media rights engaged, it is very doubtful any NC or VA ACC school will be in play or want to leave the ACC. I'd add Clemson to that. Their GoR would take a lot of votes to make any exceptions. To me personally, this is unrealistic and frustrating because I'd like to see NCSU or UNC (even Duke) in the SEC.

Again, I'd go for Texas first, and Oklahoma. . If one or the other isn't available, I suppose Kansas would offer some asset if reaching 16 is a 'must' immediately.
I'd take Texas-Oklahoma State if OU-Kansas were heading to the BIG.
Actually, the BIG12 and PAC12 could do something together and innovative, but either showing flexibility and profound willingness for major change doesn't appear to be a formidable option right now.
Heck, maybe nobody leaves the BIG12 in three or four years.

Hey I would still rather expand out of the ACC but that's not going to happen now. The $ in this new contract are just to high to merit inclusion of anyone from the ACC other than their partial N.D. which simply isn't going to happen. That leaves only the Big 12 and it has only 2 primary possibilities and of course if we landed them both it effectively ends realignment for the SEC at 16. I'd say if we landed one it will do the same, but picking up with that one another school that adds to our overall profile would be welcome. I do think from the Big 12 Kansas is the leader for that position. It doesn't matter to me if they are with Texas or Oklahoma. At this point the only other candidate that isn't just a tag along would be Iowa State, but they really are an outlier to the SEC.

Concur. If it was Texas & Kansas, there would be that big geographic gap across Oklahoma for the SEC. I may be hung up on symmetry, but it is all contiguous. Adding Kansas would certainly help Mizzou look more
geographically integrated with the SEC and reunite old rivals.

There's a retired college head coach (not USC) that I see sometimes at the breakfast counter nearby. We'll chat occasionally. I recall him saying months ago (maybe nearly a year) that Texas did have private discussions with the ACC. I thought that was more about posturing and expanding options if needed. It was a Notre Dame-type arrangement being explored, or perhaps Texas and a couple of 'friends' being considered as ACC expansion candidates. Both thoughts sound weird to me. FSU and Georgia Tech are the closest ACC schools to Texas, and that's jumping three states. There is little history between Texas and the ACC. This speculation was not a secret; but it was interesting to hear it from this guy who remains connected to chatter among his old cohorts.
It doesn't make sense to me by creating such an awkward affiliation.

For Texas, the SEC would be the cleanest and most lucrative and fitting option. Because that makes sense, it getting embraced will have challenges.

Fear of Oklahoma and Kansas to the SEC is what will make them embrace it. Oklahoma would grow too powerful for Texas in the SEC. So if OU is a good candidate to join Texas will either join with them or negotiate in secret with us to take their place. That is after all the Longhorn way. They've been in discussions with us since the late 80's. They bad mouth us in public, act high and mighty, although Vandy has them whipped academically, but they remain concerned about their sports and have never aligned with others for academic reasons. They are the most conflicted institution out there. And when they decide it will be for the same old reasons. How best to maintain their business model, and how to play the most games in Texas or as near to Texas as they can. It's laughable really. They think nobody else sees them for what they are but they are more transparent in their duplicity than most are who are pragmatic and know themselves well.

Look at it this way. If they did join they will make the rabid Tide followers seem impeccably reasonable and the L.S.U. fans seem sane.

If Texas/OK/Kansas leaves the Big 12, does that spell the demise of the Sugar Bowl and the money that comes from the Sugar Bowl? Or do we try to lure the ACC away from the Orange (which nearly has an unranked team with 24 Virginia in it - not to say they did not deserve the spot, they won it fair and square)? Do we move our championship to the Orange? Is there any value in strategic expansion so as to keep the Sugar Bowl between the Big 12 and SEC? (By value I do mean money here, there are other factors at play of course).

I think it would become the ACC vs SEC. It makes sense. Both groups would have an easier access to that bowl. New Orleans is a great location for a bowl game, but you wouldn't want to live there. I makes no sense to tie it in with the PAC and the Big 10 matches up with us at least 3 times every bowl season, although Big 10 folks love going to New Orleans as well.