(09-24-2013 05:12 PM)john01992 Wrote: (09-24-2013 04:41 PM)XLance Wrote: (09-23-2013 09:29 PM)JRsec Wrote: (09-23-2013 09:05 PM)john01992 Wrote: (09-23-2013 08:45 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: Syracuse wanted to join the ACC
Aggies wanted to join the SEC
Colorado wanted to join the PAC.
In all of the above it was the conference turning them down, not the other way around. Texas turned down the PAC.
Different situation.
not at all. those were all moves that were very real but got side tracked by politics.
theres a reason why these moves were discussed, because they were the best possible moves for that conference at the time. so of course when conf realignment heats up again they are gonna go after the same schools because the academics & markets have not changed since the last time.
i think you guys are totally insane if you think a few years later a conference is suddenly gonna decide that school X is no longer the best option for them. or do a complete 180 and go after different schools
conferences have tendencies and they will follow those tendencies
I have no doubts but what this is still the mindset of the PAC for expansion. It's just obviously no longer the mindset of Texas and Oklahoma, or Oklahoma State. None of the sites really favor this move outside of the Computer Science/Tech alums at UT who would love a connection to silicon valley. Oklahoma is a FOX leaning property.....hello Big 10 if they can get in. The only conference that could hijack Oklahoma is the only other conference that could offer both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State...the SEC. I just don't think we will offer both unless it is a 4 team deal that gains us more market share and profitability with 4 teams. That is the only way to cover Oklahoma State's entry.
JR, I still think that Missouri is the wildcard. If the B1G can flip them, then the SEC is looking for at least three teams and maybe 4 depending on what happens way to the east.
Oklahoma and Oklahoma State then become a real possibility along with say...Baylor to join the SEC.
all the b10 has to do is ask and they will leave. its not a question of "can they" but "will they"
Blah, blah, blah. I'll believe it when I see it.
John, Missouri's not going anywhere to lose 5 million a year for ten years when they are fully vested in the SEC.
And XLance, I like you, but South Carolina isn't going to give up 15 million a year to go back to the ACC which likely won't have a network and will be stuck at 21 million for a while. By 2016 the SEC payout will be between 35 - 37 million per team per year.
So far in realignment the Big 10 has had one home run and one double, Penn State and Nebraska which should have been out of the park but the North wind blew them back in. Since then they've picked up one walk and a single, Maryland and Rutgers (I think Rutgers could get upgraded to a double).
The ACC picked up a double in Syracuse, a single in Pitt, a reached on an error in B.C., what should have been a home run in Florida State, but it fell in for a triple, and a stretched double in Miami. Notre Dame is a great reliever, but doesn't come to bat.
The PAC got two singles with double potential.
The poor ole SEC got a solid double in Arkansas, a single stretched to a double in South Carolina, a home run in A&M, and another single stretched to a double in Missouri. Not bad for a bunch hicks. Our academic reputation is not as good as the PAC, and still a long shot from the Big 10 and ACC, but we are growing and improving every year.
Athletically we are unsurpassed, really, check the facts.
Academically we are 4th and climbing.
Financially we don't own the top 5 but we dominate the top 20. So across the board we are very strong.
Culturally we are bonded and strong. A&M's fine, and Missouri will learn.
The Big 10 made its moves into the Northeast in response to the ACC's growth. The ACC has been the aggressor and the Big 10 has been reactionary to this point. Maryland was a coup born out of fear of losing Penn State. I think the Big 10 is great academically and like the SEC very cohesive and their recent additions should eventually blend well. But the Big 10 is further behind the SEC in total athletics than the SEC is behind the Big 10 academically. Texas and Oklahoma will have some decisions to make. They love their athletics. Texas academics are strong anyway. Maybe they will go to the Big 10, or PAC, but I seriously doubt it. What's the upside for their fan bases? It's not like the Big 10 can take six of them. They can't. Really only Texas is academically qualified for the Big 10 (Kansas too of course) so I just don't see enough allure for them to go. And as far as the Big 10 wanting Missouri if they had wanted them they would have had them. But what's the point of feeding a pig when you have a share of the pork chops anyway? With Kansas the Big 10 solidifies its presence in St.Louis and Kansas City anyway, without having to buy the whole hog.
So a lot of what I'm hearing as your rock solid reasoning hasn't been reasoned out at all. I'm sure the Big 10 would love to have the 26 million viewers in Texas. But, do they really want Oklahoma without Texas? What would they get? A non-AAU school who like Nebraska would lose its Southern and Southwestern recruiting ties thereby lagging behind their old athletic standards in their new found Northern home, and without bringing much to the CIC table. Oh, I forgot they also bring a paltry 1.1 million viewers. I get Kansas. They are a no brainer for the Big 10. Oklahoma? No. Oklahoma with Texas yes. But I don't see what's in it for the Horns.
As far as the SEC goes they want AAU schools to boost the relevance of the SECU (SEC's version of the CIC). Even the SEC is not going to take Oklahoma State to get Oklahoma. Not unless Texas was in the deal too. But what's in it for the Horns? Not much they don't already have, except renewed games with Arkansas and A&M and a chance to stay in a division that would essentially be on their own home turf. The ACC offers them a national scheduling opportunity for the price of 5 games. That's at least something they might like to have.
Baylor doesn't fit the SEC demographic. They are a great school with good academics, better and better athletics, and would bring DFW in sufficient numbers to be worth the addition. But, that would only be if we absolutely could get no one else that we wanted who fit our profile. And given the stability and strength of the SEC we will be able to fill our slots without having to go to plan C or D.
Bitcruncher was correct in an earlier post, maybe on this thread, when he said that the Big 10 and SEC would dominate the next round of realignment. That is true. Realignment is about money and stability. The ACC was bailed out by a half committed Notre Dame. Still that stability was welcomed. If they should get a half committed Texas as well they'll be okay. The Big 12 is anything but stable. If more realignment comes the Big 10 and SEC will not be raided, even by each other, and will meet their needs without tremendous effort. Why? Because it's about money and stability and they both have both. The PAC does too, but are too far away. And those friends and neighbors are the facts. You can dispute them, cuss them, hate them, deny them, and try to cover them up with lies and damned statistics, but in the end they are what you are going to have to face.
