(07-17-2018 10:58 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 08:06 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Here's my question...

If Oklahoma doesn't leave then it seems entirely possible that Texas won't either.

Well, if someone doesn't take Oklahoma State then what are the chances OU bails on their own? That doesn't seem too likely to me.

Now, if OU and UT stick together on this then the Big 12 could survive a while longer.

The primary question is this...is there a more economically efficient way to crack the nut that is the Big 12 and force UT's hand?

Ditto.
No. If you take Oklahoma State first then Oklahoma might well choose another option because they are free of their burden to take care of O.S.U.. If OU stays, as you have recognized, there is no reason for Texas to do anything since that fulfills their ideal situation. And as there are not other targets in the Big 12 that merit consideration simply on their own as a first choice then the answer is simply and emphatically, "No."

Offering both Oklahoma's may be the only way to crack them, and if somebody cracks the Big 12 for us most certainly that means that either Texas or Oklahoma, or both are headed elsewhere. But that wouldn't be the Big 10 for the reason that Texas will want to stay put unless forced out and Oklahoma does have an OSU problem and the Big 10 can't handle that.

IMO the only one who could crack them is the PAC even though the finances might not be as solid, because they have room for little brothers. They could easily take Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma by accepting Tech, OSU, and KSU. It could be any two pairs, or all three.

This is why I have often stressed the 3 conference of 20 schools option. I could even see the PAC taking 8 of the Big 12 if you add Iowa State and T.C.U. to the mix. That gives them 3 AAU schools, vastly expands the amount of PAC games that could be offered in a new time zone. Tech, KState, and a T.C.U. with a med school are all either acceptable or could more easily grow into acceptable members for the PAC, and Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas may well be worth the cost of those and OSU.

The Big 10 would rather expand into the larger markets of the Atlantic Seaboard. And the SEC's most natural expansion is also to the East.

So if we want expansion to the West (which is more what ESPN would want us to do) then our play to open it up is the 2 Oklahoma schools. If the SEC wants to resist to force different options then our play is to do nothing further to the West. Then the most likely option would be for the PAC to make a much larger move.

The risk is that Oklahoma escapes their obligation to OSU and does bolt to the Big 10 with Kansas. The Big 10's risk is that the SEC takes both OU and OSU. In either event one of the two top conferences could whiff on the next realignment if ESPN spends more to keep the ACC safe. However the big risk to the ACC is that under that scenario that ESPN in order to hold the top two conference products would divide the spoils of the ACC between the Big 10 and SEC in order to lock down both of those giants for years to come.

IMO, I prefer to see the two most destabilizing programs moving to the West Coast. I think that sets up a much better business arrangement and rivalry between the Big 10 and SEC.

Content wise OU and UT are a huge plus. But the SEC could gain a huge plus by monopolizing its territory to the East. Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State and Virginia Tech gives us two moderately large markets and an essential monopoly from South Carolina to Mississippi through Louisiana, Missouri and Arkansas and Tennessee all the way to the Florida Keys. Only the states of Texas, Kentucky, North Carolina and Virginia (the natural border states) would be split.

IMO this long term would be the best future for the SEC. If we can't have it then monopolizing Texas and Oklahoma is play #2. Either way the ad rate leverage is huge.