(11-06-2013 11:04 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 10:03 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(11-05-2013 10:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  In light of the Big 12's declining a pro growth Oliver Luck and taking a house cleaning Steve Patterson who has not only Texas ties, but is coming from the PAC let's assume that a partition of the Big 12 is possible in the coming months. I have only found 1 reasonable solution to this problem and one less reasonable alternative.

The Big 10 may be interested in Kansas and possibly Connecticut.
There are some in the ACC (and it is somewhat conflicted) that might be interested in West Virginia.
If Texas went to the PAC and the SEC added Oklahoma and Kansas State it would only take Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech to make it happen.

If the ACC reneged on West Virginia the SEC might be able to make it happen by going to 18 and taking West Virginia and one other, possibly from the Big 12, or possibly not.

Indeed, I've been letting the air clear on the main board about the Texas decision for Patterson. Some of the theories probably have some validity, but it is more nuanced than they are presenting. Patterson= Texas to the PAC is too simplistic, but I think it does signal a change in approach from Texas. If there is any truth to the reports that Patterson was chosen over Luck because he is willing to be the hatchet man on Brown and Barnes, it does signal what we knew: the Texas administration knows what needs to be done but is too cowardly to do it themselves. There is a whole segment of "streamlining" consultants in this country that are in lucrative careers because corporations act the same way.

Jimmy Sexton, of course, is using this to get Saban a pay raise, and it does not hurt for the Texas Regents to have a true insider to understand the PAC and their true strategy moving forward. Larry Scott is probably disappointed in this move because Patterson knows what they have been planning to lure Texas, so UT can now up the ante.

West Virginia to the ACC is probably making more sense to them based on recent developments. The ACC lost the academic prestige card when they added Louisville, so adding an academic peer for Louisville is a secondary issue at this point. WVU is a tremendous buddy for Louisville, and they have some bad blood with Pitt and Va. Tech, which will help people give a darn about ACC northern football.

BBB, I PM'd He1nous about this. The Patterson move signals a couple of things clearly. He will clean house and has been brought aboard to do so. I wouldn't be surprised to see Dodds leaver earlier than he had hoped. The president at Texas will be under fire too. The regents just need 1 more vote to oust him. There is a Texas contingent, which contrary to prevailing wisdom on this board want the SEC considered because of geography and football status (and Aggy angst). The governor may be included in this crowd if rumors are to be believed.

Patterson has strong ties to Saban and yes Sexton will play that up for all its worth in Tuscaloosa. I just see Saban retiring before I see him taking up another challenge, especially one as harried by boosters as Texas.

The second clear thing to me about Patterson is that he won't be pro growth for the Big 12. If Saban were to be hired I don't see a PAC move in the offing. I could see a move to the Big 10 or SEC in those circumstances. If they do succeed removing the Texas president I don't see a move to the PAC in the offing at all.

It's going to be a very interesting few months, and perhaps definitive.

If Texas does move to the PAC the only thing I know is that it will take 8 others finding new homes to do it and you just can't split them up that easily. I figure the SEC won't cooperate without one of the prizes. The Big 10 the same. I really think Iowa State has a good shot at the PAC grouping with Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State and that the privates will be the two left out.

Interesting thoughts, JR. You keep up with the UT pulse as well as anyone, so if this is how to read the tea leaves, then things are definitely about to get interesting.

I know that PAC folks will disagree with me, but considering the landscape, I see value in adding Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and Iowa State if UT, Oklahoma, and Kansas have opportunities to join the B1G and/or SEC. I would not be surprised if that combination was actually worth more than a Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State combo. The B1G and SEC can sweeten that pot, too, by guaranteeing some premiere lineup times or revenue sharing for those intrastate rivalry games.

The PAC has to know that they are in the same boat as the ACC now, although their geography makes them a solid lock to stay together. However, there is a clear separation of power between the B1G/SEC and the PAC/ACC. If taking those four schools ensures that they will be one of the four power conferences for the next era and that it is the best possible additions they could make, do they pull the trigger? All I know is that no one is committing to anything until Texas commits one way or another.