Trade Kentucky and South Carolina to the ACC for Florida State. Missouri flips to the Big 10 so that the SEC can take in the Texahoma 4. The ACC would prefer having Kentucky over Cincinnati or Navy. Neither Georgia Tech or Miami would be a threat to the SEC's regional dominance over the two fertile states.

Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee, Alabama, Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, LSU, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Notre Dame, Louisville, Kentucky, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia, Virginia Tech, UNC, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest, Clemson, South Carolina, Miami, Georgia Tech

Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers

(07-31-2020 03:04 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Trade Kentucky and South Carolina to the ACC for Florida State. Missouri flips to the Big 10 so that the SEC can take in the Texahoma 4. The ACC would prefer having Kentucky over Cincinnati or Navy. Neither Georgia Tech or Miami would be a threat to the SEC's regional dominance over the two fertile states.

Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee, Alabama, Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, LSU, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Notre Dame, Louisville, Kentucky, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia, Virginia Tech, UNC, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest, Clemson, South Carolina, Miami, Georgia Tech

Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers

Divisional set-up might look like:

SEC
West: Arkansas, LSU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Vanderbilt
East: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Florida St, Georgia, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Tennessee

ACC
Atlantic: Clemson, Kentucky, Louisville, North Carolina St, Pittsburgh, South Carolina, Syracuse, Wake Forest
Coastal: Boston College, Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia, Virginia Tech

B1G
West: Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin
East: Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Purdue, Rutgers

I would guess the 5 remaining XII schools would join the AAC:

West: Baylor, Houston, Iowa St, Kansas St, Navy (football-only)*, SMU, TCU, Tulsa
East: Central Florida, Cincinnati, East Carolina, Memphis, South Florida, Temple, Tulane, West Virginia
* Wichita St (non-football)

One of the things that is becoming apparent with the plandemic is that, going forward, a way has to be figured out to cut down on the number of (needed) OOC in-state games between the ACC and SEC. Economically, it's not possible to bring all in-state rivalry games under one umbrella. However, cutting it down to a more manageable two (Florida State-Miami and Georgia-Georgia Tech) can be done. It seems that SC fans truly value the Clemson game. So maybe they'll be better off reuniting with the Tigers there, long term. The ACC will still need to have Miami and Georgia Tech, in any case, so that Notre Dame can feel more comfortable playing there.

Losing Kentucky would be tougher but Kentucky has talked to the ACC in previous years, so it's not like they'd be an odd fit there and probably may be a better fit there, long term.

I am anticipating the divisional requirements going away soon and not long after the plandemic is finally over. Therefore, no need to separate programs from the same state into different divisions. That also creates new opportunities to foster or renew other OOC rivalries if the Big Ten, SEC and ACC can work together.

These could become annual or semi-annual again:

Auburn-Clemson
Notre Dame-Michigan
Auburn-Georgia Tech
Florida State-Clemson
Pitt-Penn State
Virginia-Maryland
Syracuse-Rutgers
Oklahoma-Nebraska
Clemson-Georgia

(07-31-2020 03:29 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  One of the things that is becoming apparent with the plandemic is that, going forward, a way has to be figured out to cut down on the number of (needed) OOC in-state games between the ACC and SEC. Economically, it's not possible to bring all in-state rivalry games under one umbrella. However, cutting it down to a more manageable two (Florida State-Miami and Georgia-Georgia Tech) can be done. It seems that SC fans truly value the Clemson game. So maybe they'll be better off reuniting with the Tigers there, long term. The ACC will still need to have Miami and Georgia Tech, in any case, so that Notre Dame can feel more comfortable playing there.

Losing Kentucky would be tougher but Kentucky has talked to the ACC in previous years, so it's not like they'd be an odd fit there and probably may be a better fit there, long term.

I am anticipating the divisional requirements going away soon and not long after the plandemic is finally over. Therefore, no need to separate programs from the same state into different divisions. That also creates new opportunities to foster or renew other OOC rivalries if the Big Ten, SEC and ACC can work together.

These could become annual or semi-annual again:

Auburn-Clemson
Notre Dame-Michigan
Auburn-Georgia Tech
Florida State-Clemson
Pitt-Penn State
Virginia-Maryland
Syracuse-Rutgers
Oklahoma-Nebraska
Clemson-Georgia

If South Carolina is that desperate to play Clemson then they have some thinking to do. But Kentucky won't be headed anywhere if the SEC can land Kansas. The rest of the conference is making strides in basketball. Auburn, South Carolina, Tennessee all have improved dramatically.

I still could see Vandy taking the first partial membership in the SEC for all sports but football and being guaranteed games against Ole Miss and UT and rotating 3 more. All it will take is one slot for the SEC to be able to go after Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas.

South Carolina is going nowhere when their annual media payment is set to jump to 57 million by 2024.

I expect 10 conference games to be the standard within a few years leaving precious little space for an OOC major rival. One will be very doable but 2 gets dicey.

Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Tennessee
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina
*Vanderbilt as a partial

That's about as solid as the SEC could get at 16 and a partial.

Quote:If South Carolina is that desperate to play Clemson then they have some thinking to do. But Kentucky won't be headed anywhere if the SEC can land Kansas. The rest of the conference is making strides in basketball. Auburn, South Carolina, Tennessee all have improved dramatically.

I still could see Vandy taking the first partial membership in the SEC for all sports but football and being guaranteed games against Ole Miss and UT and rotating 3 more. All it will take is one slot for the SEC to be able to go after Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas.

South Carolina is going nowhere when their annual media payment is set to jump to 57 million by 2024.

I expect 10 conference games to be the standard within a few years leaving precious little space for an OOC major rival. One will be very doable but 2 gets dicey.

Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Tennessee
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina
*Vanderbilt as a partial

That's about as solid as the SEC could get at 16 and a partial.

Keep singing that tune, JR. I'm not going to read 96 pages, but I'm sure SEC fans are aware that KU and MU renewing the Border War in football and basketball has certainly increased the speculation that an SEC move for KU, OU and UT is a possibility.

(09-06-2020 04:23 PM)CO Jayhawk Wrote:  

Quote:If South Carolina is that desperate to play Clemson then they have some thinking to do. But Kentucky won't be headed anywhere if the SEC can land Kansas. The rest of the conference is making strides in basketball. Auburn, South Carolina, Tennessee all have improved dramatically.

I still could see Vandy taking the first partial membership in the SEC for all sports but football and being guaranteed games against Ole Miss and UT and rotating 3 more. All it will take is one slot for the SEC to be able to go after Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas.

South Carolina is going nowhere when their annual media payment is set to jump to 57 million by 2024.

I expect 10 conference games to be the standard within a few years leaving precious little space for an OOC major rival. One will be very doable but 2 gets dicey.

Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Tennessee
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina
*Vanderbilt as a partial

That's about as solid as the SEC could get at 16 and a partial.

Keep singing that tune, JR. I'm not going to read 96 pages, but I'm sure SEC fans are aware that KU and MU renewing the Border War in football and basketball has certainly increased the speculation that an SEC move for KU, OU and UT is a possibility.

I would have been very concerned that the COVID quarantine had severely damaged your judgment had you read all 96 pages of this thread.

That said where we currently stand there are number of viabilities that could be considered.

With regard to the SEC expanding out of the Big 12 these are all possibilities with greater or lesser likelihoods:

To 16 with Texas & Oklahoma, Texas & Texas Tech, Texas & Kansas, Oklahoma & Kansas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

To 18 with Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and likely Texas Tech, but possibly Oklahoma State.

To 20 with Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, & Iowa State

If the Expansion originates from the SEC office logic says it would be to 16 and that Texas and Oklahoma or Texas and Kansas would be the preferred options. The office wouldn't be likely to assume the viability of more than 2 schools. Now if Vanderbilt decides not to go with the changes being wrought by the courts then we could be talking 3 additions and that would work very well with Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas.

If however ESPN is trying to take the best of the Big 12 I think they would go with the state schools because of the markets involved.

So then the question would be do they take Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to move to 18, or do they go for Kansas and Iowa State to go to 20, in which case if a Vanderbilt bowed out then perhaps K State gets that slot.

ESPN has essentially sewn up every state school of any drawing power from each of the states they possess South of Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri. If they were adding the next states over I could see that same strategy applying all the way to Texas minus the privates.

All of that said it is also very possible with the changes coming legally that ESPN recognizes these facts:
1. The PAC 12 and Big 10 need Southern recruiting ties whether to the Southwest or Southeast, particularly the Big 10. So if ESPN sews up the current Big 12 as it exists for all tiers of rights then they have the same advantage in the Southwest that they have in the Southeast.

2. There will be more than a few schools in the PAC and SEC that don't put the revenue into NIL and Pay for Play so some division is coming within the P5 conferences. Hence why I speculate about Vanderbilt. In the ACC that would be Boston College and Wake Forest and possibly even Miami or Pitt. I think Syracuse may go all in. But with those kinds of changes it makes sense to take the most committed schools of the PAC and Big 10 and assimilate them into conferences where their schools have games annually in the recruiting areas of the Southwest and Southeast. It is after all the best way to keep interest in big time college sports in all regions of the country and to level the playing field a bit more in the process.

3. In such an event the Big 12 becomes a great place to attack schools like Southern Cal, Washington, Stanford, and Oregon which are among the more affluent sports programs of the PAC. The two Arizona schools are more heavily subsidized than people realize and Utah was running in red ink before COVID hit. Missing this season is crippling them. Colorado just doesn't seem like an all in school and the politics behind Cal and UCLA could keep them from that kind of commitment but they might be in. Oregon and Washington State are two of the bottom 5 schools in the current P5 in funding. So if the Big 12 picks up 4 or even 6 PAC schools I think ESPN & Texas will jump on that to hold the conference together. If So there are 5 Big 10 schools likely all in: Ohio State, Penn State, Iowa, Nebraska, & possibly Michigan, Wisconsin or Michigan State. Splitting those among the SEC / ACC / or Big 12 would complete the moves. ESPN would essentially own all of the major college's rights and the payouts would be handled accordingly as that group may choose in a few years to re-up as one.

If this happens I think the academic alliances would be wholly divorced from athletics and the Big 10 for instance might well expand their academic membership with AAU schools from the ACC / SEC / Big 12 which would all be more clearly recognized as sports conferences.

It will be interesting to watch play out. The contracts will all be renewed by 2024 (except the ACC's) so the only thing we will be waiting upon are the court rulings on pay for play and limits set for Name Image & Likeness. Those things will dictate whether conferences stay intact or all of them suffer defections as some schools opt to play at lest costly levels for football and basketball.

So if we follow the ESPN model for absorption we might have something like this instead:

Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Arkansas, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

But if the ESPN plan is to use the Big 12 to acquire the PAC rights they want it might look like this:

Big 12
Oregon, Southern California, Stanford, Washington
Baylor, Texas, Texas Christian, Texas Tech
Iowa, Iowa State, Colorado, Nebraska,
Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

SEC:
Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina
Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Texas A&M

ACC:
Louisville, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Syracuse
Penn State, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

That's a very solid 48 schools that could negotiate contracts as one League if they wished.

(09-06-2020 06:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-06-2020 04:23 PM)CO Jayhawk Wrote:  

Quote:If South Carolina is that desperate to play Clemson then they have some thinking to do. But Kentucky won't be headed anywhere if the SEC can land Kansas. The rest of the conference is making strides in basketball. Auburn, South Carolina, Tennessee all have improved dramatically.

I still could see Vandy taking the first partial membership in the SEC for all sports but football and being guaranteed games against Ole Miss and UT and rotating 3 more. All it will take is one slot for the SEC to be able to go after Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas.

South Carolina is going nowhere when their annual media payment is set to jump to 57 million by 2024.

I expect 10 conference games to be the standard within a few years leaving precious little space for an OOC major rival. One will be very doable but 2 gets dicey.

Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Tennessee
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina
*Vanderbilt as a partial

That's about as solid as the SEC could get at 16 and a partial.

Keep singing that tune, JR. I'm not going to read 96 pages, but I'm sure SEC fans are aware that KU and MU renewing the Border War in football and basketball has certainly increased the speculation that an SEC move for KU, OU and UT is a possibility.

I would have been very concerned that the COVID quarantine had severely damaged your judgment had you read all 96 pages of this thread.

That said where we currently stand there are number of viabilities that could be considered.

With regard to the SEC expanding out of the Big 12 these are all possibilities with greater or lesser likelihoods:

To 16 with Texas & Oklahoma, Texas & Texas Tech, Texas & Kansas, Oklahoma & Kansas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

To 18 with Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and likely Texas Tech, but possibly Oklahoma State.

To 20 with Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, & Iowa State

If the Expansion originates from the SEC office logic says it would be to 16 and that Texas and Oklahoma or Texas and Kansas would be the preferred options. The office wouldn't be likely to assume the viability of more than 2 schools. Now if Vanderbilt decides not to go with the changes being wrought by the courts then we could be talking 3 additions and that would work very well with Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas.

If however ESPN is trying to take the best of the Big 12 I think they would go with the state schools because of the markets involved.

So then the question would be do they take Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to move to 18, or do they go for Kansas and Iowa State to go to 20, in which case if a Vanderbilt bowed out then perhaps K State gets that slot.

ESPN has essentially sewn up every state school of any drawing power from each of the states they possess South of Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri. If they were adding the next states over I could see that same strategy applying all the way to Texas minus the privates.

All of that said it is also very possible with the changes coming legally that ESPN recognizes these facts:
1. The PAC 12 and Big 10 need Southern recruiting ties whether to the Southwest or Southeast, particularly the Big 10. So if ESPN sews up the current Big 12 as it exists for all tiers of rights then they have the same advantage in the Southwest that they have in the Southeast.

2. There will be more than a few schools in the PAC and SEC that don't put the revenue into NIL and Pay for Play so some division is coming within the P5 conferences. Hence why I speculate about Vanderbilt. In the ACC that would be Boston College and Wake Forest and possibly even Miami or Pitt. I think Syracuse may go all in. But with those kinds of changes it makes sense to take the most committed schools of the PAC and Big 10 and assimilate them into conferences where their schools have games annually in the recruiting areas of the Southwest and Southeast. It is after all the best way to keep interest in big time college sports in all regions of the country and to level the playing field a bit more in the process.

3. In such an event the Big 12 becomes a great place to attack schools like Southern Cal, Washington, Stanford, and Oregon which are among the more affluent sports programs of the PAC. The two Arizona schools are more heavily subsidized than people realize and Utah was running in red ink before COVID hit. Missing this season is crippling them. Colorado just doesn't seem like an all in school and the politics behind Cal and UCLA could keep them from that kind of commitment but they might be in. Oregon and Washington State are two of the bottom 5 schools in the current P5 in funding. So if the Big 12 picks up 4 or even 6 PAC schools I think ESPN & Texas will jump on that to hold the conference together. If So there are 5 Big 10 schools likely all in: Ohio State, Penn State, Iowa, Nebraska, & possibly Michigan, Wisconsin or Michigan State. Splitting those among the SEC / ACC / or Big 12 would complete the moves. ESPN would essentially own all of the major college's rights and the payouts would be handled accordingly as that group may choose in a few years to re-up as one.

If this happens I think the academic alliances would be wholly divorced from athletics and the Big 10 for instance might well expand their academic membership with AAU schools from the ACC / SEC / Big 12 which would all be more clearly recognized as sports conferences.

It will be interesting to watch play out. The contracts will all be renewed by 2024 (except the ACC's) so the only thing we will be waiting upon are the court rulings on pay for play and limits set for Name Image & Likeness. Those things will dictate whether conferences stay intact or all of them suffer defections as some schools opt to play at lest costly levels for football and basketball.

So if we follow the ESPN model for absorption we might have something like this instead:

Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Arkansas, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

But if the ESPN plan is to use the Big 12 to acquire the PAC rights they want it might look like this:

Big 12
Oregon, Southern California, Stanford, Washington
Baylor, Texas, Texas Christian, Texas Tech
Iowa, Iowa State, Colorado, Nebraska,
Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

SEC:
Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina
Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Texas A&M

ACC:
Louisville, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Syracuse
Penn State, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

That's a very solid 48 schools that could negotiate contracts as one League if they wished.

ACC:
P

Your question over NILs makes me wonder if we could see the Magnolia League form as a football only conference with the schools retaining partial membership in their original leagues.

South: Tulane, Wake, Duke, Miami
West: Baylor, SMU, Rice, Tulsa
East: Boston College, Pitt, Syracuse, Temple
North: Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Stanford, USC

(Could also just be 3 divisions and not include Stanford, USC, Northwestern, and one other)

Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. They will go as a pair--the Oklahoma legislature will see to that.

The SEC probably wants Oklahoma more, but there's nothing wrong with Okie State. T Boone Pickens's money will see to it that they maintain a pretty strong program across the board.

(09-13-2020 08:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. They will go as a pair--the Oklahoma legislature will see to that.

The SEC probably wants Oklahoma more, but there's nothing wrong with Okie State. T Boone Pickens's money will see to it that they maintain a pretty strong program across the board.

What you suggest is logical. But I'm not so sure that the state of Oklahoma will insist that O.S.U. accompany OU as long as they both wind up in a P5 conference. now how that could happen is a matter for great speculation and debate, and barring that eventuality, I agree they would want both of them rescued.

Many here don't think through the changes that are coming and what they might mean. If there is some form of pay for play in the offing it is highly likely that Vanderbilt doesn't continue with football. If that's the case they certainly have the history with the SEC to possibly become the first partial member of the conference, or they might just drop athletics at the upper tier level of play and simply bow out.

Should that occur the natural additions would be Texas (A&M is already here), Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

If we just have 2 slots Oklahoma / Oklahoma State becomes both an offensive move in that the added value of Oklahoma will cement the SEC in the top pay slot for decades to come, and defensive in that it makes that much harder for Texas to head to the Big 10. If Texas is that resistant to the SEC I would suspect they would pack up Tech and head to the PAC with Kansas and KState in tow.

Should that be the outcome there is not a school remaining that adds to the Big 10's bottom line and that too works to the SEC's favor.

The monkey wrench left in the transmission is ESPN's desire to hold all of UT's rights. If ESPN doesn't acquire the PAC they have really only 2 options in regard to Texas.
1. Try to build the Big 12 up with additions from somewhere (PAC?).

2. Locate UT in a conference fully held by ESPN. In that case the talk of Texas and Texas Tech to the SEC for 16 is not as silly as some may think.

Such a move would leave OU to the SEC with them but without OSU, or OU trying to get into the Big 10 with Kansas as the Big 10 wouldn't be taking OSU or KState and frankly this may be Kansas's only ticket into the Big 10 because on their own they don't add enough value for the Big 10 but with OU the pair does.

So it will boil down to what ESPN wants most, what Texas will ask for in exchange for the move, and how flexible the SEC is willing to be. If the SEC agreed to move to 3 divisions of 6 then with a Vandy departure Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, and Texas Tech can be accommodated.

You see I believe the Texas legislature will be just as adamant about Tech's inclusion as the Oklahoma legislature will be about Oklahoma State's inclusion.

So, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech
Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee

Would be the solution that ESPN might like. It repairs Missouri / Kansas, opens up the renewal of the annual Texas / Texas A&M game, gives them full control of the RRR, and accommodates Tech and OSU avoiding legal entanglements.

But with the uncertainty in the PAC right now I'm not betting on Texas or Oklahoma moving until ESPN knows where they stand with the PAC.

Since the PAC GOR and the B12 GOR expire with a few months of one another in 2025 the ability to recraft a more brand laden conference out of the best of those two is possible, and possible to do with ESPN.

I think we exhaust that possibility before the fallback position becomes some sort of consolidation with the SEC.

Predicting the course is tough right now. We have the new contracts to deal with. We have the whole Image, Likeness, Name rights issue. We have the BLM issues to wade through. And if the courts say pay for play we enter an entirely new paradigm. And if we went the 3 divisions of 6 route that change has to be cleared with the NCAA, unless of course there is an upper tier breakaway which is also becoming more likely.

(09-13-2020 03:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-13-2020 08:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. They will go as a pair--the Oklahoma legislature will see to that.

The SEC probably wants Oklahoma more, but there's nothing wrong with Okie State. T Boone Pickens's money will see to it that they maintain a pretty strong program across the board.

What you suggest is logical. But I'm not so sure that the state of Oklahoma will insist that O.S.U. accompany OU as long as they both wind up in a P5 conference. now how that could happen is a matter for great speculation and debate, and barring that eventuality, I agree they would want both of them rescued.

Many here don't think through the changes that are coming and what they might mean. If there is some form of pay for play in the offing it is highly likely that Vanderbilt doesn't continue with football. If that's the case they certainly have the history with the SEC to possibly become the first partial member of the conference, or they might just drop athletics at the upper tier level of play and simply bow out.

Should that occur the natural additions would be Texas (A&M is already here), Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

If we just have 2 slots Oklahoma / Oklahoma State becomes both an offensive move in that the added value of Oklahoma will cement the SEC in the top pay slot for decades to come, and defensive in that it makes that much harder for Texas to head to the Big 10. If Texas is that resistant to the SEC I would suspect they would pack up Tech and head to the PAC with Kansas and KState in tow.

Should that be the outcome there is not a school remaining that adds to the Big 10's bottom line and that too works to the SEC's favor.

The monkey wrench left in the transmission is ESPN's desire to hold all of UT's rights. If ESPN doesn't acquire the PAC they have really only 2 options in regard to Texas.
1. Try to build the Big 12 up with additions from somewhere (PAC?).

2. Locate UT in a conference fully held by ESPN. In that case the talk of Texas and Texas Tech to the SEC for 16 is not as silly as some may think.

Such a move would leave OU to the SEC with them but without OSU, or OU trying to get into the Big 10 with Kansas as the Big 10 wouldn't be taking OSU or KState and frankly this may be Kansas's only ticket into the Big 10 because on their own they don't add enough value for the Big 10 but with OU the pair does.

So it will boil down to what ESPN wants most, what Texas will ask for in exchange for the move, and how flexible the SEC is willing to be. If the SEC agreed to move to 3 divisions of 6 then with a Vandy departure Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, and Texas Tech can be accommodated.

You see I believe the Texas legislature will be just as adamant about Tech's inclusion as the Oklahoma legislature will be about Oklahoma State's inclusion.

So, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech
Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee

Would be the solution that ESPN might like. It repairs Missouri / Kansas, opens up the renewal of the annual Texas / Texas A&M game, gives them full control of the RRR, and accommodates Tech and OSU avoiding legal entanglements.

But with the uncertainty in the PAC right now I'm not betting on Texas or Oklahoma moving until ESPN knows where they stand with the PAC.

Since the PAC GOR and the B12 GOR expire with a few months of one another in 2025 the ability to recraft a more brand laden conference out of the best of those two is possible, and possible to do with ESPN.

I think we exhaust that possibility before the fallback position becomes some sort of consolidation with the SEC.

Predicting the course is tough right now. We have the new contracts to deal with. We have the whole Image, Likeness, Name rights issue. We have the BLM issues to wade through. And if the courts say pay for play we enter an entirely new paradigm. And if we went the 3 divisions of 6 route that change has to be cleared with the NCAA, unless of course there is an upper tier breakaway which is also becoming more likely.

After how this summer played out in Chicago, I wouldn't be surprised to see Nebraska land in the SEC or Big 12--more likely the SEC as they left the B12 due to its structure and UT severely harmed their football and academic brands. So imagine Nebraska as the 15th member in the SEC. I think the SEC makes a sales pitch to Oklahoma (obviously) and Ohio State (as they too voted in favor of playing during the initial Big Ten vote). If neither of those schools are attainable, I'd imagine West Virginia would get looked at as all the ACC schools are tied to a GOR through the mid 2030's.

I think NU will be staying in the B1G. However, if they left the fans would prefer the B12 again if they moved due to finding out it sucks to have no rivals and it is their best shot at long term competitiveness as their name still means something there. The money and stability would be with the SEC so it would have a great shot at them if they left, but they would really struggle to compete at all in the SEC going forward. They would struggle like Arkansas. They are currently struggling the the weak B1G west. That said I doubt that happens unless things get a lot more sour. Same with tOSU. Ohio State will only leave the B1G, if the B1G decides to not pay athletes.

NU left the B12 because it was unstable and they were not part of any moves that OU/UT were talking about. I don't blame them, but the move at the time was for stability more than anything else. They also probably thought that the move to the B1G would save their AAU status. They did get a pay bump from the current B12 contract at the time, but soon after the B12 got a better deal so NU will be making up the shortfall from their reduced B1G payout for a long time.

Nobody in the B12 harmed NU's academic brand. All the B12 AAU schools, including Texas, voted for them to remain in the AAU. The B1G schools actually led the charge to boot them from the AAU and even then it was NU's fault. They were warned 10 years prior that they needed to move their Med school from Omaha's umbrella to Lincoln's or risk expulsion. They ignored it and got stung.

Their football brand got diminished because their walk-on program got marginalized and the academic non-qualifiers were eliminated in the B12 by an 11-1 vote. They used to get their lineman from the walk-on program and their skill position players from the academically questionable. Now going 1-9 versus Texas was humiliating and part of the reason they left was definitely that OU/UT was way ahead of them at that point as programs.

NU voted for the financial structure of the B12 at every turn. They just unfortunately regressed in football to the point that they were usually #4-#6 in conference revenue payouts behind OU. UT, and KU most years rather than being at the top like they were in the 90s. They also voted against a B12 network (I think UT was the only one that voted for it) and were already developing their own network before UT created their own. They dropped it, of course, when they went to the B1G who had a network.

(11-05-2020 02:52 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  I think NU will be staying in the B1G. However, if they left the fans would prefer the B12 again if they moved due to finding out it sucks to have no rivals and it is their best shot at long term competitiveness as their name still means something there. The money and stability would be with the SEC so it would have a great shot at them if they left, but they would really struggle to compete at all in the SEC going forward. They would struggle like Arkansas. They are currently struggling the the weak B1G west. That said I doubt that happens unless things get a lot more sour. Same with tOSU. Ohio State will only leave the B1G, if the B1G decides to not pay athletes.

NU left the B12 because it was unstable and they were not part of any moves that OU/UT were talking about. I don't blame them, but the move at the time was for stability more than anything else. They also probably thought that the move to the B1G would save their AAU status. They did get a pay bump from the current B12 contract at the time, but soon after the B12 got a better deal so NU will be making up the shortfall from their reduced B1G payout for a long time.

Nobody in the B12 harmed NU's academic brand. All the B12 AAU schools, including Texas, voted for them to remain in the AAU. The B1G schools actually led the charge to boot them from the AAU and even then it was NU's fault. They were warned 10 years prior that they needed to move their Med school from Omaha's umbrella to Lincoln's or risk expulsion. They ignored it and got stung.

Their football brand got diminished because their walk-on program got marginalized and the academic non-qualifiers were eliminated in the B12 by an 11-1 vote. They used to get their lineman from the walk-on program and their skill position players from the academically questionable. Now going 1-9 versus Texas was humiliating and part of the reason they left was definitely that OU/UT was way ahead of them at that point as programs.

NU voted for the financial structure of the B12 at every turn. They just unfortunately regressed in football to the point that they were usually #4-#6 in conference revenue payouts behind OU. UT, and KU most years rather than being at the top like they were in the 90s. They also voted against a B12 network (I think UT was the only one that voted for it) and were already developing their own network before UT created their own. They dropped it, of course, when they went to the B1G who had a network.

I agree.

Right now there are 3 factors that can drive further realignment:
1. Becoming part of a stronger branded conference because it increases another brand school from a weaker conference in both profile and earnings.
2. Court Decisions that do drive a pay for play initiative.
3. The freedom to do so because of expiring GOR's.

Of course a confluence of those factors is yet another motive for movement.

#1 is largely driven by network payouts as networks suffer their own shift in revenue dispersal as advertising becomes ever more closely pinned to actual viewers in an era where those numbers can be more precisely determined.

But for the purposes of this discussion it is the primary driver of potential realignment for Oklahoma, Kansas, and possibly Texas though the impact upon the three varies greatly. Oklahoma will be looking at attendance, desirability of ticket packages, but more pertinently exposure of their program and campus to potential students. Their brand is so pegged to sports they will also be considering the revenue needed to compete with the strongest and the need to access better recruiting grounds. I think that in spite of many message board discussions that this most clearly favors the SEC where you have a growing population, abundant recruits, and the best athletic branding in the nation for college programming. The SEC is also stepping up its academic side intentionally and since Oklahoma would enter the SEC in the top half academically, rather than solidly at the bottom as they would in the Big 10, they have a chance to grow their academics and their sports brand by such a move.

Kansas needs a strong home and a solid basketball rival. The Big 10 is their best cultural fit but the SEC can supply the hoops rival in Kentucky and the football rival in Missouri. In the Big 10 the Kansas academic standing would be middle of the road. In the SEC again they would enter in the top half likely placing 4th. Politically Kansas is more in line with either the Southern Big 10 schools or the SEC. But where Kansas differs from Oklahoma is in motive to move. Stability is the primary driver of the move and economics and branding would still be strong reasons but standing on shifting sands for so long makes stability #1.

Texas has enough money. Texas has a big enough brand to stand on their own. What the SEC provides Texas is a way to increase both, and to hold onto to their current business model with a favorable schedule for donors.

#2 is the only reason the Big 10 schools could or would move. If 7 or 8 Big 10 schools want to keep a stricter amateur model then Iowa, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State, and possibly Michigan, Michigan State and Wisconsin would likely look to either establish a new conference or seek a new home. In such a circumstance the nuclear options for Ohio State and Penn State could be the SEC. Indiana might wish to make this jump and would be more amenable to the SEC as well.

If going to separate conferences are in order I could see Iowa and Nebraska headed to the Big 12 possibly with Southern California and Colorado.

If Michigan and Wisconsin are in the pay for play crowd, and I'm not certain of this, then perhaps the formation of a new conference does come about.

Washington, Stanford, Oregon, Southern California
Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah
Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa, Iowa State
Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Wisconsin

Such a move would be greatly impacted by both the PAC and Big 12 GOR's expiring within a month or two of one another.

In such a case perhaps Maryland and Notre Dame rejoin and join completely the ACC.

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Louisville, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech
Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

And the SEC rounds out with Indiana and Penn State. and possibly WVU with Vandy dropping football completely or seeking a partial membership status.

Indiana, Kentucky, Penn State, West Virginia
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee
*Vanderbilt either as a partial or a drop out.

#3 The best of the Big 12 and PAC merge without the burden of carrying their second state programs with them unless it is profitable to do so. This only can happen because of the coming expiration of both of the conference's GORs.


Now all of that said #1 is the most likely scenario. #2 is the most interesting scenario, and #3 changes the least in terms of revenue, status, branding. You could call it the First Class Lifeboat Conference, all the best programs rowing together for survival.

I think in the end that this is the least likely or it would have already happened.

On the idea of Oklahoma and Kansas moving to the SEC, I tend to think that's our best bet as far as cracking the Big 12. In the long term, I think Texas would be interested, but I think they'll give independence a shot before they give up their autonomy.

The weakness in that approach would be any reliance on the LHN. These 3rd tier networks are likely going away soon, but Texas will still have a sweetheart deal with ESPN either way. An independent Texas could actually have some additional leverage with where their games are aired. A handful will invariably end up on ESPN+, but they could get prime billing on ABC or ESPN for everything else. Their reach isn't in the same arena as Notre Dame, but if they have the freedom to schedule quality opponents then it could work as long as the other schools in TX don't shut them out and I think that's unlikely.

In the aftermath of the big dogs leaving, I'm going to throw this out there...

Notre Dame isn't willing to go all in with the ACC yet so there's no extra slot for that league. West Virginia's best bet is to stick with the Big 12 for the time being, but that is not without advantages.

At the end of the GOR, the Big 12 has an opportunity to redefine itself. If I were one of the TX schools then I would band together and start a new league...

Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma State, and West Virginia should stick together. Frankly, I would allow Kansas State and Iowa State to go their own way, whatever that means for them. Their earning power is terribly low. With this new core of 5, I would try to add the best schools I could get.

BYU, Houston, UCF, USF, and Cincinnati should all be willing partners. This isn't the AAC or the Big 12. This is a new league altogether.

Secure a partnership with Texas and move forward the best you can.

(11-06-2020 05:21 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  On the idea of Oklahoma and Kansas moving to the SEC, I tend to think that's our best bet as far as cracking the Big 12. In the long term, I think Texas would be interested, but I think they'll give independence a shot before they give up their autonomy.

The weakness in that approach would be any reliance on the LHN. These 3rd tier networks are likely going away soon, but Texas will still have a sweetheart deal with ESPN either way. An independent Texas could actually have some additional leverage with where their games are aired. A handful will invariably end up on ESPN+, but they could get prime billing on ABC or ESPN for everything else. Their reach isn't in the same arena as Notre Dame, but if they have the freedom to schedule quality opponents then it could work as long as the other schools in TX don't shut them out and I think that's unlikely.

In the aftermath of the big dogs leaving, I'm going to throw this out there...

Notre Dame isn't willing to go all in with the ACC yet so there's no extra slot for that league. West Virginia's best bet is to stick with the Big 12 for the time being, but that is not without advantages.

At the end of the GOR, the Big 12 has an opportunity to redefine itself. If I were one of the TX schools then I would band together and start a new league...

Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma State, and West Virginia should stick together. Frankly, I would allow Kansas State and Iowa State to go their own way, whatever that means for them. Their earning power is terribly low. With this new core of 5, I would try to add the best schools I could get.

BYU, Houston, UCF, USF, and Cincinnati should all be willing partners. This isn't the AAC or the Big 12. This is a new league altogether.

Secure a partnership with Texas and move forward the best you can.

If the SEC took Oklahoma and Kansas to move to 16 and Texas wanted to protect Baylor, Tech and TCU, preserve the LHN for a while longer (it ends in 2031) why not just become the 4 teams that join the PAC to take them to 16?

Well because the revenue wouldn't be as good, the PACN is sill an obstacle, and ESPN sill has the Horns under contract.

And why would West Virginia be someone the Horns would care about keeping around? The travel is awful.

I could see those 4 Texas teams letting ESPN essentially take the best 8 from the PAC to form a new 12 team conference. I might see them taking 10 PAC schools to move to 14. But that's only because the PAC GOR will have expired, the schools will be free agents, as will those of the Big 12, and sculpting a new conference is entirely workable.

Take the 4 California schools, Washington, Oregon, and the two Arizona schools and you have a solid 12 team conference that can be configured independently o the current PAC mess.

If you cut Colorado and Utah loose those might become reasonable additions for the Big 10 if they are willing to move as far as Utah. Colorado I think they would snap up in a nanosecond. Iowa State is still out there as an AAU school if they don't want Utah. The ACC stays at 14 with N.D. as a partial.

Now the P4 has two 16 member conferences (the SEC and Big 10) and 14 and 12 member conference with one partial.

Contraction occurs and we stand at 59. Possibly B.Y.U. becomes a partial or the Big 12. All of the same markets are covered minus the redundant small state second schools of Oregon State, Washington State, Oklahoma State, Kansas State and Iowa State three of which would fit nicely into the AAC.

Why should the Big 10 take Colorado and eschew Utah for Iowa State? Well Denver is a huge market, they are both AAU, and Nebraska, the school that has had a hard time blending with the Big 10, has long histories with both Colorado and Iowa State and it preserves the Cy-Hawk rivalry with Iowa. Geographically it works well too. Why should the SEC take Oklahoma and Kansas? Oklahoma is obvious and Kansas not only gives Missouri their oldest rival back to them, but it gives Kentucky the brand rivalry they've lacked in hoops and provides scheduling balance for football in strong Western division that includes OU.

Texas and ESPN get what they want. The major PAC schools get to move away from the nightmare they created and start fresh. The ACC stands pat and N.D. keeps what it wants and we move to a P4 and that much closer to a champs only format or at least an 8 team playoff where the #1 and #2 schools of each of the P4 advance.

Now as to the LHN, it is not an obstacle to ESPN or Texas as long as Texas is in a predominantly ESPN based conference. It is an obstacle to the Big 10 and it is an obstacle to the PAC as it is presently constituted. In the SEC the money is simply enough to absorb the LHN and in the ACC ESPN would merely have to pay Texas the difference between the ACCN and the LHN. Bring in 8 PAC schools into a new Texas centered conference and the LHN is merely converted more profitably into the conference's network while that is still profitable. The issue has never really been the LHN. The issue has been constricting to the ESPN realm what Texas may desire to do.

Well the SEC has closed is deal with ABC for T1 rights to the tune of somewhere over 3 billion for 10 years. Neither the SEC nor ESPN will reveal the final amount and claim they want to see it kept secret for now. We know that the combined contracts will come to around 64.2 million per school per year at the minimum and could be more.

This places the SEC as of 2024 10 million ahead of the Big 10 pending their new contract. Ten to eleven million ahead of Texas with the LHN figured in. And around 17 million ahead of Oklahoma and slightly more for the rest of the Big 12. It also places the SEC about 32 million ahead of the ACC and just slightly more than that ahead of the PAC.

We also know that Vanderbilt is promising to update facilities and spend enough to be competitive. I'll believe it when I see it because I've heard this song and dance many times before, but with the new money maybe it happens.

So the SEC will be at 14. That leaves us with only 2 available targets for realignment both of which fit the SEC profile. Texas and Oklahoma. Texas likely prefers to keep things together and Oklahoma will likely want to move for the money. The Big 10 will be interested in them but they fit the SEC's sports profile a lot better than they fit that of the Big 10, they aren't AAU, aren't ranked academically as high as Nebraska, and the Big 10 has to consider that they could wind up like the Huskers and not really be worth the investment for them long term.

But the deal is if Oklahoma decides to leave it diminishes the value of the Big 12 to the extent that it could force the hand of Texas in making a move.

ESPN's profile is to want all of the key schools in a large state so what happens to Baylor, T.C.U. and Tech? Well there's always the AAC which is also controlled by ESPN. Maybe WVU gets an ACC invite, maybe not. But the fact remains that for football the majority of value of football for the Big 12 is tied up in these two schools and both add to the SEC's bottom line, both are state flagships, and Texas is AAU.

So the ballgame until 2035 will be can anyone get Oklahoma to move and is Texas then forced to weigh options.

I like where the SEC is on both of these. The gist of these 97 pages keeps coming back to the same two after we explore ancillary scenarios and after the SEC's new big deal it comes right back to them again.

2023 isn't that far away, let's put COVID behind us and see how this much money makes things shake out!

(12-11-2020 11:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well the SEC has closed is deal with ABC for T1 rights to the tune of somewhere over 3 billion for 10 years. Neither the SEC nor ESPN will reveal the final amount and claim they want to see it kept secret for now. We know that the combined contracts will come to around 64.2 million per school per year at the minimum and could be more.

This places the SEC as of 2024 10 million ahead of the Big 10 pending their new contract. Ten to eleven million ahead of Texas with the LHN figured in. And around 17 million ahead of Oklahoma and slightly more for the rest of the Big 12. It also places the SEC about 32 million ahead of the ACC and just slightly more than that ahead of the PAC.

We also know that Vanderbilt is promising to update facilities and spend enough to be competitive. I'll believe it when I see it because I've heard this song and dance many times before, but with the new money maybe it happens.

So the SEC will be at 14. That leaves us with only 2 available targets for realignment both of which fit the SEC profile. Texas and Oklahoma. Texas likely prefers to keep things together and Oklahoma will likely want to move for the money. The Big 10 will be interested in them but they fit the SEC's sports profile a lot better than they fit that of the Big 10, they aren't AAU, aren't ranked academically as high as Nebraska, and the Big 10 has to consider that they could wind up like the Huskers and not really be worth the investment for them long term.

But the deal is if Oklahoma decides to leave it diminishes the value of the Big 12 to the extent that it could force the hand of Texas in making a move.

ESPN's profile is to want all of the key schools in a large state so what happens to Baylor, T.C.U. and Tech? Well there's always the AAC which is also controlled by ESPN. Maybe WVU gets an ACC invite, maybe not. But the fact remains that for football the majority of value of football for the Big 12 is tied up in these two schools and both add to the SEC's bottom line, both are state flagships, and Texas is AAU.

So the ballgame until 2035 will be can anyone get Oklahoma to move and is Texas then forced to weigh options.

I like where the SEC is on both of these. The gist of these 97 pages keeps coming back to the same two after we explore ancillary scenarios and after the SEC's new big deal it comes right back to them again.

2023 isn't that far away, let's put COVID behind us and see how this much money makes things shake out!

The only caveat I make to this comes down to ESPN's business model.

They will focus on building content for streaming going forward, but streaming services are more susceptible to the finicky customer than the traditional cable bundle. Football quality will carry the day, but ESPN will want content that maintains subscription rates outside of football season.

Their contracts with the NBA will help with that during the Winter/Spring. In fact, their dedication to the ACC may actually strengthen given the overall content value of basketball in that region of the country.

Soccer is already a big part of their online portfolio and that will continue to grow. Baseball too plays a role.

For the SEC, while our primary role is to supply football games, our secondary role would seem to be housing content from regions that ESPN doesn't already control. Texas and Oklahoma are surely #1 and #2 on the list respectively.

I would still submit that Kansas is a priority for them. It's one of the few reliable national draws for college basketball. I think ESPN would put them in the SEC just to control the content even though the basketball value of the SEC is limited, albeit growing.

The question to me is how far will they take things? Will they attempt to turn the AAC into a hybrid of regions and quasi-power teams? Most of the Big 12 would fit nicely in that league and for a smaller, more commiserate rate. Kansas doesn't really fit into that paradigm because they'll end up with a UConn situation where KU would always be looking to leave.

I would think ESPN would want to add another flagship to the pot. Iowa State makes sense on some level, but it just wouldn't be a fit. To me, West Virginia makes the most sense. The football and basketball quality would be pretty solid.

Structurally, I would think 16 lends itself better though. There are still football games to be concerned with...the CCG specifically and it's hard to get a fair setup out of 18 schools. Actually, it's hard to get a fair setup out of 16 because 8-team divisions would cause some issues unless you go to 9 games and have rotating pods. I suppose the latter is possible though.

Another fantasy scenario, this time the SEC agrees to a Texahoma deal but Missouri flips to the Big Ten.

In that case, the money would still be so great that they could afford to take in a second private school to make up the numbers. Tulane or Rice would give them some academic prestige and would help make a better neighborhood for Texas.

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Rice/Tulane
Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn
Kentucky, Georgia, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Florida, South Carolina

Tulane and Vanderbilt would give them quality baseball programs, even with subpar football.

(12-18-2020 01:45 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Another fantasy scenario, this time the SEC agrees to a Texahoma deal but Missouri flips to the Big Ten.

In that case, the money would still be so great that they could afford to take in a second private school to make up the numbers. Tulane or Rice would give them some academic prestige and would help make a better neighborhood for Texas.

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Rice/Tulane
Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn
Kentucky, Georgia, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Florida, South Carolina

Tulane and Vanderbilt would give them quality baseball programs, even with subpar football.

It would likely be Baylor in that scenario. Tulane had their place and left. Rice doesn't have the support outside of their small alumni base, nor do they have the sports. So:

Arkansas, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Now all of those would be much more regional.

Well the thread hit a milestone today, 1,000,000 views. Thanks to all who have posted and all who have read it.

I still believe the prime targets for the SEC will be Texas and Oklahoma. I still believe that if Texas insists on a travel companion besides Oklahoma things could change.

Will the Big 12 merge with or pick up members from the PAC? I never rule anything out but the money doesn't appear to be there for it to happen, but if it did it will postpone things until 2035 or so and change the direction of interest, if any, for the Big 10 and SEC.

The athletic fit, the money at 64.2 million, which is the least the SEC will be making by 2024, and the geography all set up in the SEC's favor. I like the chances.

We'll see how things develop.

Another off-the-wall scenario but I think this one has a greater chance of happening than thought:

1) SEC gets the three best programs of the Big 12 and a +1. For argument's sake let's say that +1 is Texas Tech

2) Big Ten responds by selling its share of the Big Ten Network to Comcast. Comcast buys out Fox Corporation's share of BTN. Comcast would also buy out the PAC Networks

3) Comcast buys out the remainder of Notre Dame's contract with the ACC and starts readying its shift to the Big Ten. Then one of two things happen: either they stay at 15 until another program comes free or they take in another program in the footprint. Pitt or Iowa State would be among the possibilities

4) PAC/Big Ten renew scheduling alliance, now with Notre Dame part of the group. Peacock and NBC will be used to air games. USC and Stanford vs Notre Dame would be exclusive Comcast properties

Splitting up the SEC would be easy - just put the former Big 8/Big 12/SWC programs in one division except A&M

Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Texas, Arkansas
Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn
Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Kentucky, South Carolina


The PAC would stay the same but the scenarios on the Big Ten side would dramatically change. If they don't go beyond 15 then they could break it down like this:

Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois
Northwestern, Michigan, Notre Dame, Michigan State, Purdue
Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers

What happens if they move to 16? Well, a couple of scenarios could happen:

- shifting Pitt to Penn State's division make sense. If you can put ND with Pitt and Penn State it would be better. Then you can keep the Ohio State/Michigan/Michigan State group united

- if Pitt can't work out economically then Iowa State is the other possible choice but that presents some complications. Cincinnati won't work due to Ohio State's power in the conference

- Syracuse might get a look as well and would complement the markets in the Northeast, in case markets would still matter more. However, Pitt has the academic chops Syracuse lacks

So the ideal pick up is Notre Dame and Pitt.

Notre Dame, Pitt, Penn State, Maryland
Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers
Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern
Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota

If Notre Dame and Iowa State:

Nebraska, Iowa, Iowa State, Minnesota
Wisconsin, Northwestern, Michigan, Michigan State
Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Ohio State
Notre Dame, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers