(04-28-2018 11:15 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote: (04-28-2018 08:48 AM)XLance Wrote: (04-28-2018 04:18 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote: (04-24-2018 11:34 PM)JRsec Wrote: (04-24-2018 07:27 AM)murrdcu Wrote: I hypothesized about the ideal situation for the SEC was to bring in OU at #15 and then let the cards play out with some kind of guarantee to OU if Texas could not be secured at 16 then OSU would get that spot. Now this could happen before or after welcoming press conferences; watching how Sankey keeps a lid on things, I’m sure he’d prefer it play out behind closed doors
This time around the networks have a vested interest in getting it done in secret before new competitors can jump in. And ESPN/FOX are in a best position to work it out in secret, renegotiate deals, and extend contracts. Now how that might interfere with what the conferences may want is another matter.
A couple of years or so back, the BIG & SEC led the effort to prevent the ACC proposal to pursue self-determination in choosiing the format for a fb conference championship. Thus, the option to create 3 pods, @ 5 teams each, wasn't approved. The majority vote was to retain divisions, plus allowing even a 10 member conference (B12) to stage a CCG.
So unless the rules change, adding #15 would essentially require #16.
Murdcu's idea could happen if #15 (say OU) becomes a commitment, and #16 is still in negotiation, with a back-up available if the prime preference for #16 does not materialize. So, the window to add #16 could technically remain open until the future conference scheduling becomes required. But any school that commits to leave, wants to depart as soon as eligible and get incorporated into the scheduling of the new conference. That usually means not playing more than one additional season in the old conference. Mizzou following Texas A&M to the SEC moved fast; and they do so in these situations.
Assuming OU garners #15, and Texas is the #16 uncommitted preference, the time period for Texas to remain on the fence would be a matter of weeks, maybe several months, but not longer due to scheduling logistics.
This OU-oSu-UT pot ential dilemma is understandable, but complex. Texas holds cards, as does OU,
IF the BIG and/or the PAC12 are rendering competitive offers, with whatever network backing behind them, would be solidly on the table. On surface, the SEC would look to be in the driver's seat whe:
Texas will be intriguing. My expectation is that they will first try to hold the B12 together if improved network backing happens. Texas has all the other major conference options, but none are ideal, but certainly stacked in terms of favorabilities.
Texas holds all of the cards, and all that Oklahoma can do is wait for Texas to play their hand.
If Oklahoma could get an invitation to the B1G with Kansas.....then what?
Well for one they are in a division with Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern, and Illinois. Not bad, but for a fan base that has complained about poor home scheduling, that's not a lineup that would inspire a lot of folks in Oklahoma to rush out and buy season tickets.
The PAC? They have already been turned down by the PAC in the past, and then there is the money thing.
So in actuality there is not much that Oklahoma could do except wait to find out what Tejas will let them do.
In Texas' perfect world they would join the SEC on a Notre Dame type deal, but with fewer games that what Notre Dame plays. Maybe annual contests with A&M, Arkansas and Oklahoma and possibly one other floating game. Then they could still cherry pick the B1G (Michigan, Ohio State) the PAC (USC), and the AAC (USF, UCF) ad play the rest of their games against their Texas pals (TT, Baylor, TCU, Rice).
This deal is not really feasible in the ACC in that the ACC wants to increase Notre Dame's commitment not reduce it, Tejas wouldn't want to have to play 6 ACC schools, and the ACC couldn't get an extra game out of Notre Dame if Texas only committed to play 3 or 4.
Then the dilemma becomes would the SEC accept a partial?
JR screams NO! But look who the winner is.....ESPN.
They can use Texas and Notre Dame to access USC (the only PAC team that anyone east of the Rockies would ever watch) and access to the B1G without having to buy a huge chunk of programming.
The benefit for the SEC (and the ACC)? Adding a team (Oklahoma) or two guarantees a contract adjustment and wins an extension. Why would the SEC want an extension? Monetary security in an uncertain business environment.
So, ideally the SEC adds Oklahoma (alone) and Texas as a partial, and the ACC adds West Virginia (alone), and ESPN increases access to outside inventory without paying for it and locks up it's own inventory for the foreseeable future.
Very doubtful the SEC would give a partial membership to anyone, including Texas with monetary incentives. Texas could have some resistance even for a full-time situation, especially if there is some LHN mess involved. The BIG would respond the same per a partial, and probably the PAC12 as well. I doubt the ACC would give Texas a Notre Dame-type deal.
Agree, WVU could become a viable ACC addition.
Frankly, I think the chance of Texas going to the SEC is low. I believe OU would bite if the SEC offered an OU-oSu combo, or alone if oSu gets a near equivalent (P4 status) offer elsewhere, which doesn't seem likely unless it is part of some unforseen PAC deal.
What Texas possibly could do is arrange a scheduling agreement with a major conference as an independent without housing all their other sports; and the conference that did so would be a drop-down. I can't see Texas seriously pursuing such.
I'm a bit more demonstrable about Texas as a partial. You were kind in saying there was little chance of them receiving a partial to the SEC. I would say there is no chance of it.
I think the last few years. with little leaks from beat writers and Finebaum floating the concept, has been a mild way of preconditioning the SEC fans that the two Oklahoma schools may be our best prospect to get to 16.
If Texas wanted in it could get a little sticky, but not over the LHN. That would be fairly easy to handle between ESPN and the SECN. Where it would get sticky might well be with regards to the numbers you've mentioned as they relate to the rigidity of two divisions.
But remember, the rules are in place, but currently unused, to allow for 16 schools to split into rotating half divisions, as it was once used by the WAC. The problem would be in going to more than two divisions. And one would have to wonder if the SEC and Big 10 wanted to grow, or needed to grow, larger than 16 if there wouldn't be enough support at that time to merely change the rule. We are talking about the two most powerful conferences who when they have worked in concert have been able to accomplish a good many things.
My hunch is that if Texas wanted in after Oklahoma had agreed to move with OSU there would be some network to network involvement to try to work something out. (Which of course could be avoided if the SEC simply moved to 18.) If the Big 10 wanted Kansas, which is something I have some doubts about, then finding a travel companion for them that was acceptable to the Big 10 might take some finagling.
Even with two 9 school divisions the SEC could average 7 home games per school by playing 8 divisional games 2 crossovers for a 10 conference game schedule, and scheduling two home games against lower tier schools. The issue with that is there would be no room for OOC P games unless a school was willing to have only 6 home games. I would see such an arrangement as being a temporary one until rule changes could be agreed upon.
But this has been the issue regarding expansion out of the Big 12 since defections from that conference first began. It is also the biggest reason that 20 team conferences are at least feasible within the current rule structure. 20 schools broken into 4 rotating half divisions can play all of the other schools every three years accounting for 9 conference games and leaving 3 slots in the normal schedule for OOC. That's what is attractive about 20 that is not attractive about 18 (profitability not withstanding).
But let's assume that the two Oklahoma's round out the SEC. What do you think would happen to the rest of the Big 12 assuming that West Virginia does indeed head to the ACC?
As I see it, there isn't enough added value for Texas to want the PAC, especially without A&M or Oklahoma with them. There isn't enough value in Kansas for the Big 10 to take them without Oklahoma or Texas accompanying them. I don't see just one Big 12 school becoming an outlier in the ACC whether as a partial or not. And there isn't enough value left in the Big 12 for the Horns to hold onto their payout advantage over everyone else. Texas will have to go somewhere. They could head to the Big 10 with Kansas, but at what cost to their fans? And do they really want OU and A&M in the role of the schools where the parents can afford to watch their sons play? No. Their minor sports need for it to be somewhere within a reasonable travel radius. So what does happen if they want in with Oklahoma and Oklahoma refuses a go without State?
Unpopular as the question may be to ask publicly, would the Big 10 be interested in the combination of Missouri and Kansas? I don't think so. They fit, they are both AAU, but in a content driven market where 80% of the value is in football what would they be getting that would compel this move?
I suppose if a network bought an interest in the PACN that pushing Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and perhaps Iowa State would be workable for the PAC. But is there a network that finds value enough in the PACN to pump money into it? If there was that potential it would have already happened. I don't think Scott is so incompetent as to stick with a losing model unless there was not really any interest from another source to purchase it.
The 2010 idea could be resurrected. Perhaps the ACC could let a couple of duplicated markets head West and create a Southwest half division. Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas could join with Louisville to create such a division and if Notre Dame tossed in at that point then WVU is simply out of luck, pun intended. This would give the ACCN content value and 34 million within it's footprint. But giving up Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC would probably be as unworkable today as it proved to be 8 years ago.
So it seems to me that unless a conference is willing to move beyond 16 there is no workable solution that would satisfy the major players where the Big 12 is concerned. The only move that could happen unilaterally that really makes good business sense would be Texas and Oklahoma heading together to the SEC. It's not a popular conclusion to reach, but it fits geographically, sports branding wise, monetarily, and in terms of the preservation of rivalries.
With Texas and Oklahoma assigned. The Big 10 holds to wait upon economic disparity to run its course with the ACC. With Texas and Oklahoma in the fold the SEC would not find any other additions that would earn them more money that that duo. The PAC may have to resort to adding lesser brands than they would normally desire, but in markets that would improve their bottom line via size and time zone.
I can see W.V.U. getting into the ACC under this circumstances but I would have to think that in 2036 Notre Dame would rethink its position if it is still inclined to push its athletics. Otherwise they could contently go all in with the ACC and accept that as the best compromise between its athletics and academics. The money for the ACC, while better, would not significantly change their positioning within the upper tier and their weakest links would remain Florida State and possibly Clemson, but at that point the SEC would have lost all interest in them, they would be out of the Big 10's geographical reach and still not academically justifiable for the Big 10. And, the Big 12 option would have been removed with the moving of Oklahoma and Texas. So the football first schools of the ACC would simply have to bite their tongues and abide their situation.
There would be two conference of 16, the SEC and ACC, one conference of 14, the Big 10, and one conference of between 12 to 16, the PAC.
If the SEC takes Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to finish out at 16 it really fouls up everyone else. It would still be a good move for the SEC, but it is not a move Texas wants to have to deal with. And it really leaves no real satisfying options left to the PAC or Big 10.