1. The Southeastern Conference's last round of expansion landed 2 AAU schools and two new markets.

2. The presidents of the the member schools want the SEC to intentionally improve the conference's academic standings.

3. Improving the academic standing of the conference could help it to attract some of the schools it has a stated interest in should realignment continue.

Do you believe that the SEC should pursue AAU schools in the process of continuing realignment? And if so in what order to you think we should pursue our candidates?

Factors I desire for you to list in priority are (but not excluded to): Academics, Markets, Cultural Fit, Geographical Fit, Strength of Football, Strength of Basketball, Profitability, Attendance and any other you might personally find relevant.

For me, I would prefer to see AAU schools prioritized for the sake of developing the SECU which is the SEC's version of the CIC. Why should Southern schools have to move to the Big 10 to take advantage of academic endeavor sharing? So my priorities would be: Academics, Markets, Profitability, Geographical Fit, then Cultural Fit.

So my priority target list, based upon SECU needs, would be these in this order: North Carolina, Virginia, Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma (brand & profitability), Duke, Georgia Tech, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech (markets if we don't get Virginia), N.C. State (markets if we do'nt get U.N.C.) Florida State (brand & profitability), Clemson (profitability & attendance & regional brand), Rice (if we don't get Texas), Iowa State, and Tulane (if we need to fill a spot and there is nobody else).

What are your thoughts and priorities?

Good topic, JR. My priorities in order would be: Academics, Markets, Cultural Fit (subcategory of "Team Player" when it comes to conference decisions and SEC is their first choice of which conference to join), Profitability, Geographical Fit, Strength of Football, Strength of Basketball, Attendance (Should be a given if the former items are satisfactory). As some of you have probably figured out, I put more emphasis on completing the "Southern" footprint than most, especially number crunchers, so WVU will be higher for me than it probably would be to SEC top brass. I think having a conference that includes at least the flagship of every Southern school and any "State/A&M" or private schools that fit the mold is important for reasons beyond monetary profitability or academic reasons. For this reason, I am going to exclude Kansas, Pittsburgh, Iowa State, and Duke. From what seems to be general knowledge, all of these schools would rather be in the B1G than the SEC, and understandably so for their particular reasons. So, my schools in order would be:

Absolute Yes: UNC, UVA, Oklahoma, Texas, WVU

Absolute Yes if the flagship will not join: NC State, Va. Tech, Oklahoma State

Yes only after the states of NC, VA, OK, and WV options are exhausted: FSU, Clemson, Ga. Tech, Duke, Rice, Tulane, Miami, Louisville, Baylor, TCU, Wake Forest.

(09-16-2013 04:36 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Good topic, JR. My priorities in order would be: Academics, Markets, Cultural Fit (subcategory of "Team Player" when it comes to conference decisions and SEC is their first choice of which conference to join), Profitability, Geographical Fit, Strength of Football, Strength of Basketball, Attendance (Should be a given if the former items are satisfactory). As some of you have probably figured out, I put more emphasis on completing the "Southern" footprint than most, especially number crunchers, so WVU will be higher for me than it probably would be to SEC top brass. I think having a conference that includes at least the flagship of every Southern school and any "State/A&M" or private schools that fit the mold is important for reasons beyond monetary profitability or academic reasons. For this reason, I am going to exclude Kansas, Pittsburgh, Iowa State, and Duke. From what seems to be general knowledge, all of these schools would rather be in the B1G than the SEC, and understandably so for their particular reasons. So, my schools in order would be:

Absolute Yes: UNC, UVA, Oklahoma, Texas, WVU

Absolute Yes if the flagship will not join: NC State, Va. Tech, Oklahoma State

Yes only after the states of NC, VA, OK, and WV options are exhausted: FSU, Clemson, Ga. Tech, Duke, Rice, Tulane, Miami, Louisville, Baylor, TCU, Wake Forest.

Just taking your approach if the SEC added Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Virginia we would be up to 7 AAU programs (the same number of current PAC AAU members) with two more selections to make. Personally the best next pick would be Kansas as they bring a new state of over 3 million, provide Missouri stability on their border, add to basketball without threatening existing football powers, and give us 8 AAU schools. Then you can pick up West Virginia for a sixth new state.
The SEC's footprint would essentially be along the same parallel from Kansas to the Atlantic. Or you could take the first four and the two most profitable, Clemson and Florida State.

Yeah, JR, I agree that Kansas would be great, but they have a ticket punched to the B1G when the time comes. Phog has been pretty convincing they they would be a lukewarm addition to the SEC, at best.

(09-16-2013 06:27 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Yeah, JR, I agree that Kansas would be great, but they have a ticket punched to the B1G when the time comes. Phog has been pretty convincing they they would be a lukewarm addition to the SEC, at best.

What I'm about to say probably won't happen but it is possible at some point.

The problem with expansion out west is the lack of acceptable candidates that meet the desires of the California schools. Here is a potential solution to the compatibility problems confronting realignment:

Big 10
West: Arizona, California, U.C.L.A., U.S.C., Stanford, Washington
Midwest: Colorado, Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Great Lakes: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Purdue
Northeast: Maryland, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Syracuse

SEC:
North: Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
East: Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
South: Alabama, Auburn, Florida State, Ole Miss, Miss State, Tennessee
West: Arkansas, L.S.U., Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

PanAmerican:
East: Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, N.C. State, Pitt
South: Cent. Florida, East Carolina, Miami, S.Florida, Tulane, Wake Forest
Mid West: Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U., Texas Tech
West: Arizona State, Brigham Young, Oregon, Oregon State, Wash State, Utah

That's a 3 by 24 model that groups the best schools in the Southeast together, 22 AAU schools plus N.D. & Nebraska in what has been the Big 10, and covers the best of the rest in the Pan American. All of the present P5 teams are in plus the best draws of the rest (Tulane excepted).

I don't think there really are or should be expansion plans. 14 came about because Texas A&M wanted it and were too good too pass up. That still meant a set-up where teams go 12 years between visiting fields of non-locked teams in the opposite division. I think resistance to going further would be strong even with the possibility of pods (not that you can't do pods with 14 too, they just look a bit different).

(09-16-2013 07:39 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I don't think there really are or should be expansion plans. 14 came about because Texas A&M wanted it and were too good too pass up. That still meant a set-up where teams go 12 years between visiting fields of non-locked teams in the opposite division. I think resistance to going further would be strong even with the possibility of pods (not that you can't do pods with 14 too, they just look a bit different).

This time I disagree. Networks will have to be fed and better scheduling worked out. I don't even think we stop at 16 we could, but I don't think so. There is disparity in the Big 12 that indicates that conference can't last. Oklahoma and Texas and Kansas (a bit behind those two) are tier 1, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State and Texas Tech are tier 2, Baylor and T.C.U. are tier 3 as privates, and then West Virginia is an outlier.

Oklahoma and Texas will want peer institutions to maximize fan base interest and enhance content. As state schools Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State and Texas Tech will find a landing spot somewhere. Things have to break just right for Texas Christian and Baylor. And, West Virginia will wind up in either the ACC or SEC. Kansas wants the Big 10 whether the Big 10 wants them or not, and I bet they do. Delany and Slive are thinking regionally now and they are considering the right mix for content for their networks. We are at a pause, but that will be broken soon enough.

(09-16-2013 08:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 07:39 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I don't think there really are or should be expansion plans. 14 came about because Texas A&M wanted it and were too good too pass up. That still meant a set-up where teams go 12 years between visiting fields of non-locked teams in the opposite division. I think resistance to going further would be strong even with the possibility of pods (not that you can't do pods with 14 too, they just look a bit different).

This time I disagree. Networks will have to be fed and better scheduling worked out. I don't even think we stop at 16 we could, but I don't think so. There is disparity in the Big 12 that indicates that conference can't last. Oklahoma and Texas and Kansas (a bit behind those two) are tier 1, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State and Texas Tech are tier 2, Baylor and T.C.U. are tier 3 as privates, and then West Virginia is an outlier.

Oklahoma and Texas will want peer institutions to maximize fan base interest and enhance content. As state schools Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State and Texas Tech will find a landing spot somewhere. Things have to break just right for Texas Christian and Baylor. And, West Virginia will wind up in either the ACC or SEC. Kansas wants the Big 10 whether the Big 10 wants them or not, and I bet they do. Delany and Slive are thinking regionally now and they are considering the right mix for content for their networks. We are at a pause, but that will be broken soon enough.

Long term, maybe, but I think the Big 12 is being underestimated so long as it can maintain financial equality for its members (dividing 10 ways instead of 12/14). Individually, it's big members can stand out more years in the Big 12 than in an even larger SEC/Big Ten/PAC-12 and also (aside from West Virginia) stay in a geographically friendly conference. Beyond that, I think the current set-up is actually the first choice of Texas and doesn't work out bad for Oklahoma either.

Over the long run, it might struggle to survive, but I think the grant of rights, current financial status, and needs mean we are at least a decade away from talking about that. I think the grant of rights alone means no one is leaving until it gets close to expiring, but really I'm not sure it's even necessary.

(09-16-2013 05:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 04:36 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Good topic, JR. My priorities in order would be: Academics, Markets, Cultural Fit (subcategory of "Team Player" when it comes to conference decisions and SEC is their first choice of which conference to join), Profitability, Geographical Fit, Strength of Football, Strength of Basketball, Attendance (Should be a given if the former items are satisfactory). As some of you have probably figured out, I put more emphasis on completing the "Southern" footprint than most, especially number crunchers, so WVU will be higher for me than it probably would be to SEC top brass. I think having a conference that includes at least the flagship of every Southern school and any "State/A&M" or private schools that fit the mold is important for reasons beyond monetary profitability or academic reasons. For this reason, I am going to exclude Kansas, Pittsburgh, Iowa State, and Duke. From what seems to be general knowledge, all of these schools would rather be in the B1G than the SEC, and understandably so for their particular reasons. So, my schools in order would be:

Absolute Yes: UNC, UVA, Oklahoma, Texas, WVU

Absolute Yes if the flagship will not join: NC State, Va. Tech, Oklahoma State

Yes only after the states of NC, VA, OK, and WV options are exhausted: FSU, Clemson, Ga. Tech, Duke, Rice, Tulane, Miami, Louisville, Baylor, TCU, Wake Forest.

Just taking your approach if the SEC added Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Virginia we would be up to 7 AAU programs (the same number of current PAC AAU members) with two more selection to make. Personally the best next pick would be Kansas as they bring a new state of over 3 million, provide Missouri stability on their border, add to basketball without threatening existing football powers, and give us 8 AAU schools. Then you can pick up West Virginia for a sixth new state.
The SEC's footprint would essentially be along the same parallel from Kansas to the Atlantic. Or you could take the first four and the two most profitable, Clemson and Florida State.

Oklahoma is not an AAU school right now.

(09-16-2013 09:47 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 05:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 04:36 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Good topic, JR. My priorities in order would be: Academics, Markets, Cultural Fit (subcategory of "Team Player" when it comes to conference decisions and SEC is their first choice of which conference to join), Profitability, Geographical Fit, Strength of Football, Strength of Basketball, Attendance (Should be a given if the former items are satisfactory). As some of you have probably figured out, I put more emphasis on completing the "Southern" footprint than most, especially number crunchers, so WVU will be higher for me than it probably would be to SEC top brass. I think having a conference that includes at least the flagship of every Southern school and any "State/A&M" or private schools that fit the mold is important for reasons beyond monetary profitability or academic reasons. For this reason, I am going to exclude Kansas, Pittsburgh, Iowa State, and Duke. From what seems to be general knowledge, all of these schools would rather be in the B1G than the SEC, and understandably so for their particular reasons. So, my schools in order would be:

Absolute Yes: UNC, UVA, Oklahoma, Texas, WVU

Absolute Yes if the flagship will not join: NC State, Va. Tech, Oklahoma State

Yes only after the states of NC, VA, OK, and WV options are exhausted: FSU, Clemson, Ga. Tech, Duke, Rice, Tulane, Miami, Louisville, Baylor, TCU, Wake Forest.

Just taking your approach if the SEC added Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Virginia we would be up to 7 AAU programs (the same number of current PAC AAU members) with two more selection to make. Personally the best next pick would be Kansas as they bring a new state of over 3 million, provide Missouri stability on their border, add to basketball without threatening existing football powers, and give us 8 AAU schools. Then you can pick up West Virginia for a sixth new state.
The SEC's footprint would essentially be along the same parallel from Kansas to the Atlantic. Or you could take the first four and the two most profitable, Clemson and Florida State.

Oklahoma is not an AAU school right now.

I know that, but they are the flagship school of Oklahoma, a national brand, and likely to go with Texas. And their addition makes everyone more money.

In the first post of this thread I gave parenthetical reasons to consider certain non-AAU schools. Oklahoma was one of them.

(09-16-2013 09:09 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 08:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 07:39 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I don't think there really are or should be expansion plans. 14 came about because Texas A&M wanted it and were too good too pass up. That still meant a set-up where teams go 12 years between visiting fields of non-locked teams in the opposite division. I think resistance to going further would be strong even with the possibility of pods (not that you can't do pods with 14 too, they just look a bit different).

This time I disagree. Networks will have to be fed and better scheduling worked out. I don't even think we stop at 16 we could, but I don't think so. There is disparity in the Big 12 that indicates that conference can't last. Oklahoma and Texas and Kansas (a bit behind those two) are tier 1, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State and Texas Tech are tier 2, Baylor and T.C.U. are tier 3 as privates, and then West Virginia is an outlier.

Oklahoma and Texas will want peer institutions to maximize fan base interest and enhance content. As state schools Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State and Texas Tech will find a landing spot somewhere. Things have to break just right for Texas Christian and Baylor. And, West Virginia will wind up in either the ACC or SEC. Kansas wants the Big 10 whether the Big 10 wants them or not, and I bet they do. Delany and Slive are thinking regionally now and they are considering the right mix for content for their networks. We are at a pause, but that will be broken soon enough.

Long term, maybe, but I think the Big 12 is being underestimated so long as it can maintain financial equality for its members (dividing 10 ways instead of 12/14). Individually, it's big members can stand out more years in the Big 12 than in an even larger SEC/Big Ten/PAC-12 and also (aside from West Virginia) stay in a geographically friendly conference. Beyond that, I think the current set-up is actually the first choice of Texas and doesn't work out bad for Oklahoma either.

Over the long run, it might struggle to survive, but I think the grant of rights, current financial status, and needs mean we are at least a decade away from talking about that. I think the grant of rights alone means no one is leaving until it gets close to expiring, but really I'm not sure it's even necessary.

I think there may be a strong groundswell for them (Texas and Oklahoma) to shop options. Their present content is not satisfying the alumni of either school. They like playing some of their Big 12 mates, but 9 games with only 1 peer (each other) is dragging on them big time.

Leaving the Big 12 means the end of the Longhorn Network and likely doesn't mean more revenue for either school when you factor in tier 3 revenue.

If Oklahoma had wanted in the SEC, they almost certainly could have had Missouri's spot, but for whatever reason (perceived academics, long term projections, or Oklahoma State connection), they didn't seem to want it. They did want the PAC-12 spot, but the presidents voted them down. As for the Big Ten, it released the 2016/2017 schedules about a month ago and plans on releasing the 2018/2019 fairly soon. I definitely don't get the impression it's actively looking for new members.

Bigger than any of this, the grant of rights means the TV rights for 1st and 2nd tier content remain with the conference for the next decade and no conference is practically going to expand without gaining the home TV rights. With the Big 12 owning a decades worth of games, that kind of price is too big even for the biggest schools to try to buy out of, especially given the it's up to the school instead of the conference to get the rights back (unlike with exit fees) and the conference would probably take nothing less then full market cost.

(09-16-2013 10:49 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Leaving the Big 12 means the end of the Longhorn Network and likely doesn't mean more revenue for either school when you factor in tier 3 revenue.

If Oklahoma had wanted in the SEC, they almost certainly could have had Missouri's spot, but for whatever reason (perceived academics, long term projections, or Oklahoma State connection), they didn't seem to want it. They did want the PAC-12 spot, but the presidents voted them down. As for the Big Ten, it released the 2016/2017 schedules about a month ago and plans on releasing the 2018/2019 fairly soon. I definitely don't get the impression it's actively looking for new members.

Bigger than any of this, the grant of rights means the TV rights for 1st and 2nd tier content remain with the conference for the next decade and no conference is practically going to expand without gaining the home TV rights. With the Big 12 owning a decades worth of games, that kind of price is too big even for the biggest schools to try to buy out of, especially given the it's up to the school instead of the conference to get the rights back (unlike with exit fees) and the conference would probably take nothing less then full market cost.

I understand your position and while it is logical there are also alternatives. The problem for Oklahoma's consideration with the SEC was in part Oklahoma State, and in part Oklahoma's uncertainty within their own ranks as to which direction they truly wanted to pursue. Boren and the faculty were definitely interested in the PAC option more than the SEC or other potentials. Boosters and prominent alumni wanted either to shape up the Big 12 or explore closer options from what I've heard. But, many things have changed since then.

As for all of the GOR issues, they truly do go away with 8 of the teams finding new more profitable homes. And as to the LHN if ESPN holds on to the Horns as property in either the SEC or ACC that issue can be easily settled with a buyout, or continued payout. I'm not so sold that the GOR issues are as great of a deterrent as many believe. As long as conferences may be dissolved by vote (and both the ACC and Big 12 require 75% to accomplish this) anything is possible GOR or not. Hypothetically if the PAC took 8 Big 12 schools, the Big 10 took 6 ACC schools, and the SEC took 6 ACC schools both conferences could be dissolved, both GOR's voided, and three 20 team conferences could emerge.

Personally I think both the Big 10 and SEC will expand and that the PAC also will pick up a couple and that these will most likely come from the Big 12. Then I think time passes with the ACC being in the position of not being able to realize a network and that the chasm in earning potential between the Big 10 / SEC and the ACC grows putting pressure on that conference to reconsider their positions versus the others. Perhaps a Texas move to the ACC with an ND type deal in which the LHN is morphed into an ACC network works around this weakness. If so then we will have 4 strong conferences moving forward and that will be good as well. But if that kind of arrangement can't be worked we will find ourselves with a strong Big 10, a strong SEC, a stable and solid PAC, and a weaker 4th partner in the ACC. And that will mean eventually more movement.

(09-16-2013 11:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  As for all of the GOR issues, they truly do go away with 8 of the teams finding new more profitable homes. And as to the LHN if ESPN holds on to the Horns as property in either the SEC or ACC that issue can be easily settled with a buyout, or continued payout. I'm not so sold that the GOR issues are as great of a deterrent as many believe. As long as conferences may be dissolved by vote (and both the ACC and Big 12 require 75% to accomplish this) anything is possible GOR or not. Hypothetically if the PAC took 8 Big 12 schools, the Big 10 took 6 ACC schools, and the SEC took 6 ACC schools both conferences could be dissolved, both GOR's voided, and three 20 team conferences could emerge.

If you can legitimately get 8 teams into other power conferences at the same, it's doable, but I think that's almost impossible to manage. There aren't 8 teams in the conference that the other conferences want. The Big Ten would probably be willing to bend for Oklahoma on academic grounds and would consider Kansas, but it wouldn't take Texas Tech, Oklahoma State or Kansas State. Baylor is also not going to be picked up by anyone and TCU's value isn't really great to any of the other power conferences either. West Virginia is only realistic as an ACC replacement, but a grant of rights protects them for a decade or so too. I can't see the SEC or PAC-12 expanding for any of those remaining teams either.

The only way you get expansion of the magnitude to simultaneously get 8 Big 12 schools, in my opinion, requires conferences to expand without benefit to themselves.

(09-16-2013 11:31 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 11:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  As for all of the GOR issues, they truly do go away with 8 of the teams finding new more profitable homes. And as to the LHN if ESPN holds on to the Horns as property in either the SEC or ACC that issue can be easily settled with a buyout, or continued payout. I'm not so sold that the GOR issues are as great of a deterrent as many believe. As long as conferences may be dissolved by vote (and both the ACC and Big 12 require 75% to accomplish this) anything is possible GOR or not. Hypothetically if the PAC took 8 Big 12 schools, the Big 10 took 6 ACC schools, and the SEC took 6 ACC schools both conferences could be dissolved, both GOR's voided, and three 20 team conferences could emerge.

If you can legitimately get 8 teams into other power conferences at the same, it's doable, but I think that's almost impossible to manage. There aren't 8 teams in the conference that the other conferences want. The Big Ten would probably be willing to bend for Oklahoma on academic grounds and would consider Kansas, but it wouldn't take Texas Tech, Oklahoma State or Kansas State. Baylor is also not going to be picked up by anyone and TCU's value isn't really great to any of the other power conferences either. West Virginia is only realistic as an ACC replacement, but a grant of rights protects them for a decade or so too. I can't see the SEC or PAC-12 expanding for any of those remaining teams either.

The only way you get expansion of the magnitude to simultaneously get 8 Big 12 schools, in my opinion, requires conferences to expand without benefit to themselves.

Texas Tech and T.C.U. would have value to the PAC. Texas Tech is the last state school and T.C.U. does deliver Dallas/Ft.Worth. If Texas went to the ACC as a hybrid they would likely take a couple of buddies with them (as He1nous is fond of saying). Baylor is the best fit for the ACC profile wise, throw in West Virginia to bridge the gap left by Maryland's departure and that scenario is workable too. Kansas would be free to then move to the Big 10. If the SEC takes the two Oklahoma's it's done. Who knows Iowa State and Kansas State might be a bit more valuable to the PAC down the road as a means to increase the sales of their games in the central time zone. If not 8 is still reached.

Of course the PAC will hold out for now in hopes of landing the two biggest prizes. But the PAC doesn't have a network truly working for their interest. FOX would rather have strong product in the Big 10, and ESPN would rather have it in the ACC or SEC. Baylor, West Virginia and Oklahoma State would be cheap to cover to land Texas and Oklahoma to multiply the content values of the two conferences.

If it's not this deal it will wind up being something like it. Each conference eliminated adds 1 plus million to each team of each other surviving conference. Each addition diminishes each of the other teams in the conference overhead expenses. And if the networks involved are willing to just pay for their inclusion (no addition) they can accomplish the realignment by the additional value of the team sought (Oklahoma or Texas). Personally I think both of our conferences would be better served to wait and simply divide the ACC. Let the PAC do what it wishes with the Big 12. We'll see.

(09-17-2013 12:06 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Texas Tech and T.C.U. would have value to the PAC. Texas Tech is the last state school and T.C.U. does deliver Dallas/Ft.Worth. If Texas went to the ACC as a hybrid they would likely take a couple of buddies with them (as He1nous is fond of saying). Baylor is the best fit for the ACC profile wise, throw in West Virginia to bridge the gap left by Maryland's departure and that scenario is workable too. Kansas would be free to then move to the Big 10. If the SEC takes the two Oklahoma's it's done. Who knows Iowa State and Kansas State might be a bit more valuable to the PAC down the road as a means to increase the sales of their games in the central time zone. If not 8 is still reached.

Of course the PAC will hold out for now in hopes of landing the two biggest prizes. But the PAC doesn't have a network truly working for their interest. FOX would rather have strong product in the Big 10, and ESPN would rather have it in the ACC or SEC. Baylor, West Virginia and Oklahoma State would be cheap to cover to land Texas and Oklahoma to multiply the content values of the two conferences.

If it's not this deal it will wind up being something like it. Each conference eliminated adds 1 plus million to each team of each other surviving conference. Each addition diminishes each of the other teams in the conference overhead expenses. And if the networks involved are willing to just pay for their inclusion (no addition) they can accomplish the realignment by the additional value of the team sought (Oklahoma or Texas). Personally I think both of our conferences would be better served to wait and simply divide the ACC. Let the PAC do what it wishes with the Big 12. We'll see.

It's the best senario I've seen for breaking up the Big 12, but I just don't see it, especially not all at once which it would have to be. Granted, I've been very wrong before and will be again on these things.

If Texas went to the ACC with a similar relationship as Notre Dame, I actually don't think they'd have anyone else joining them. If they did join for football (not impossible if the Big 12 someday collapsed), I could see the ACC letting in a partner of Texas Tech or TCU.

Even if the ACC went with 4 though, I have a lot of trouble seeing us get to 8 teams gone. The Big Ten would go for 2 new ones and Kansas would be the lower one on the list. I could see Oklahoma and Kansas, but not Kansas and someone like UConn. The SEC meanwhile wouldn't take Oklahoma State or Kansas State without the instate brothers.

The PAC-12 presidents voted down Oklahoma less than 2 years ago. I just can't see them abruptly changing pace and going for TCU and Texas Tech, especially not since that would allow the Big Ten/ACC/SEC to gain on them if it would open up Texas/Oklahoma for them.

I guess in the end, I'm willing to agree that anything is possible, but this would actively require the conferences to work together (too many dependent moves all at once) and I don't get the impression they ever have been on this (would be illegal anyway and grant huge lawsuit penalties to the remaining schools), especially not if it 1 or 2 conferences gain big vs. the others.

As someone has said before (probably JR), Baylor would be the perfect ACC travel partner for Texas. That would be a great add for Miami, too. If they need to build a bridge to Texas, they could do worse than Tulane, too. Louisiana is full of talent, and an ACC option for locals that are not cut out for LSU could actually be pretty decent.

(09-17-2013 09:42 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 12:06 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Texas Tech and T.C.U. would have value to the PAC. Texas Tech is the last state school and T.C.U. does deliver Dallas/Ft.Worth. If Texas went to the ACC as a hybrid they would likely take a couple of buddies with them (as He1nous is fond of saying). Baylor is the best fit for the ACC profile wise, throw in West Virginia to bridge the gap left by Maryland's departure and that scenario is workable too. Kansas would be free to then move to the Big 10. If the SEC takes the two Oklahoma's it's done. Who knows Iowa State and Kansas State might be a bit more valuable to the PAC down the road as a means to increase the sales of their games in the central time zone. If not 8 is still reached.

Of course the PAC will hold out for now in hopes of landing the two biggest prizes. But the PAC doesn't have a network truly working for their interest. FOX would rather have strong product in the Big 10, and ESPN would rather have it in the ACC or SEC. Baylor, West Virginia and Oklahoma State would be cheap to cover to land Texas and Oklahoma to multiply the content values of the two conferences.

If it's not this deal it will wind up being something like it. Each conference eliminated adds 1 plus million to each team of each other surviving conference. Each addition diminishes each of the other teams in the conference overhead expenses. And if the networks involved are willing to just pay for their inclusion (no addition) they can accomplish the realignment by the additional value of the team sought (Oklahoma or Texas). Personally I think both of our conferences would be better served to wait and simply divide the ACC. Let the PAC do what it wishes with the Big 12. We'll see.

It's the best senario I've seen for breaking up the Big 12, but I just don't see it, especially not all at once which it would have to be. Granted, I've been very wrong before and will be again on these things.

If Texas went to the ACC with a similar relationship as Notre Dame, I actually don't think they'd have anyone else joining them. If they did join for football (not impossible if the Big 12 someday collapsed), I could see the ACC letting in a partner of Texas Tech or TCU.

Even if the ACC went with 4 though, I have a lot of trouble seeing us get to 8 teams gone. The Big Ten would go for 2 new ones and Kansas would be the lower one on the list. I could see Oklahoma and Kansas, but not Kansas and someone like UConn. The SEC meanwhile wouldn't take Oklahoma State or Kansas State without the instate brothers.

The PAC-12 presidents voted down Oklahoma less than 2 years ago. I just can't see them abruptly changing pace and going for TCU and Texas Tech, especially not since that would allow the Big Ten/ACC/SEC to gain on them if it would open up Texas/Oklahoma for them.

I guess in the end, I'm willing to agree that anything is possible, but this would actively require the conferences to work together (too many dependent moves all at once) and I don't get the impression they ever have been on this (would be illegal anyway and grant huge lawsuit penalties to the remaining schools), especially not if it 1 or 2 conferences gain big vs. the others.

As one who always enjoys your posts, I don't disagree with your reasoning at all. I just don't think this phase of realignment is at all like the previous ones. Eliminating splits of that very large share of playoff money now comes into play. Network content will too. We'll just have to wait and see and I could certainly be wrong as well. Right now I just believe that the biggest three driving forces will be gaining a larger share of playoff money, feeding the conference network's content needs, and structuring for both ease of travel and ease of scheduling, while simultaneously making it streamlined for the coming playoffs. We'll see.

(09-16-2013 09:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 09:47 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 05:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 04:36 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Good topic, JR. My priorities in order would be: Academics, Markets, Cultural Fit (subcategory of "Team Player" when it comes to conference decisions and SEC is their first choice of which conference to join), Profitability, Geographical Fit, Strength of Football, Strength of Basketball, Attendance (Should be a given if the former items are satisfactory). As some of you have probably figured out, I put more emphasis on completing the "Southern" footprint than most, especially number crunchers, so WVU will be higher for me than it probably would be to SEC top brass. I think having a conference that includes at least the flagship of every Southern school and any "State/A&M" or private schools that fit the mold is important for reasons beyond monetary profitability or academic reasons. For this reason, I am going to exclude Kansas, Pittsburgh, Iowa State, and Duke. From what seems to be general knowledge, all of these schools would rather be in the B1G than the SEC, and understandably so for their particular reasons. So, my schools in order would be:

Absolute Yes: UNC, UVA, Oklahoma, Texas, WVU

Absolute Yes if the flagship will not join: NC State, Va. Tech, Oklahoma State

Yes only after the states of NC, VA, OK, and WV options are exhausted: FSU, Clemson, Ga. Tech, Duke, Rice, Tulane, Miami, Louisville, Baylor, TCU, Wake Forest.

Just taking your approach if the SEC added Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Virginia we would be up to 7 AAU programs (the same number of current PAC AAU members) with two more selection to make. Personally the best next pick would be Kansas as they bring a new state of over 3 million, provide Missouri stability on their border, add to basketball without threatening existing football powers, and give us 8 AAU schools. Then you can pick up West Virginia for a sixth new state.
The SEC's footprint would essentially be along the same parallel from Kansas to the Atlantic. Or you could take the first four and the two most profitable, Clemson and Florida State.

Oklahoma is not an AAU school right now.

I know that, but they are the flagship school of Oklahoma, a national brand, and likely to go with Texas. And their addition makes everyone more money.

In the first post of this thread I gave parenthetical reasons to consider certain non-AAU schools. Oklahoma was one of them.

OU would be an awesome add for the SEC. I was merely counting the true AAU numbers being discussed here.

I think Kansas would have to have a serious discussion internally if the SEC invite comes before a B1G invite. Do you take the guarantee or wait it out on a future B1G invite that might never come?

(09-17-2013 11:34 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 09:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 09:47 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 05:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 04:36 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Good topic, JR. My priorities in order would be: Academics, Markets, Cultural Fit (subcategory of "Team Player" when it comes to conference decisions and SEC is their first choice of which conference to join), Profitability, Geographical Fit, Strength of Football, Strength of Basketball, Attendance (Should be a given if the former items are satisfactory). As some of you have probably figured out, I put more emphasis on completing the "Southern" footprint than most, especially number crunchers, so WVU will be higher for me than it probably would be to SEC top brass. I think having a conference that includes at least the flagship of every Southern school and any "State/A&M" or private schools that fit the mold is important for reasons beyond monetary profitability or academic reasons. For this reason, I am going to exclude Kansas, Pittsburgh, Iowa State, and Duke. From what seems to be general knowledge, all of these schools would rather be in the B1G than the SEC, and understandably so for their particular reasons. So, my schools in order would be:

Absolute Yes: UNC, UVA, Oklahoma, Texas, WVU

Absolute Yes if the flagship will not join: NC State, Va. Tech, Oklahoma State

Yes only after the states of NC, VA, OK, and WV options are exhausted: FSU, Clemson, Ga. Tech, Duke, Rice, Tulane, Miami, Louisville, Baylor, TCU, Wake Forest.

Just taking your approach if the SEC added Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Virginia we would be up to 7 AAU programs (the same number of current PAC AAU members) with two more selection to make. Personally the best next pick would be Kansas as they bring a new state of over 3 million, provide Missouri stability on their border, add to basketball without threatening existing football powers, and give us 8 AAU schools. Then you can pick up West Virginia for a sixth new state.
The SEC's footprint would essentially be along the same parallel from Kansas to the Atlantic. Or you could take the first four and the two most profitable, Clemson and Florida State.

Oklahoma is not an AAU school right now.

I know that, but they are the flagship school of Oklahoma, a national brand, and likely to go with Texas. And their addition makes everyone more money.

In the first post of this thread I gave parenthetical reasons to consider certain non-AAU schools. Oklahoma was one of them.

OU would be an awesome add for the SEC. I was merely counting the true AAU numbers being discussed here.

I think Kansas would have to have a serious discussion internally if the SEC invite comes before a B1G invite. Do you take the guarantee or wait it out on a future B1G invite that might never come?

I think that given the number of AAU name brand schools out there that could be contiguous to the Big 10 footprint that Kansas would be pretty safe in betting on that Big 10 invite. The big question is whether or not tier 3 rights for Kansas being the property of ESPN would cause them to run into any entanglements?