JRsec
Super Moderator
Posts: 37,902
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
|
RE: A&M/SEC Dominate TX ratings
(12-05-2013 01:49 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote: (12-05-2013 01:41 PM)JRsec Wrote: (12-05-2013 01:32 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote: (12-05-2013 10:34 AM)john01992 Wrote: (12-04-2013 05:12 PM)10thMountain Wrote: Take it for what its worth, but I work with a guy who seems to know people with connections at OU.
According to him, the PAC chatter is starting back up in Austin and Norman. Both UT and OU are EXTREMELY concerned about the future of the B12 but cant get around the reality that at a very minimum, little brothers OSU and TT have to be taken care of in order to leave the B12. That rules out the SEC and B1G who simply aren't willing to take the two albatrosses in as well. ACC is too far for travel and not any interest in those teams.
UT apparently envisions not a western but a SOUTHERN PAC division that would include USC/UCLA/UAZ/ASU/OU/OSU/UT/TTU instead of 4 x 4 team divisions.
Now, how right is this guy? Cant say but he did know about TCU before they were officially extended an invite since OU strongly supported their inclusion.
Things could get very interesting this off season.
im not saying that your source is legit but its not something thats wrong. the one thing that a lot of message board posters who are fans of a texahoma school dont understand is that over the dead bodies of zona, ASU, cu & utah would they be placed in an eastern division with the texahoma. the very fact that your source accounts for that does make it appear that he knows what hes talking about.
these two groups tried to make a deal and obviously things didnt work out and both sides walked away feeling that the other side burned them.
since the last time they have met (that we know of) both sides have seen major developments
the viewership & attendance stats are now starting to show that the pac simply is not in the same league as the b10/sec. while they have the public perception that they are on equal footing with those two conference. the reality is that on paper they are not. the sec/b10 with their 2 extra teams (and massive new tv revenue projections) are going to start distancing themselves even further from the pac and thats what keeps larry scott up at night. the p12 being a western based conference has a major demographic disadvantage when it comes to viewership numbers. thats why they were so aggressive in the first round of conf. realignment.
meanwhile at texahoma they finally started to realize just how big of a problem the "texas ego" has become and its really starting to hurt them a lot more than help them. meanwhile the two schools that took big gambles (mizz & aggie) are seeing unprecedented success. they reinvented themselves and won big doing that. you can bet your a.ss that norman & austin are looking at that and thinking "crap.....how did we let this happen" and "why the hell are we not doing something like this." that thinking fueled with the obvious assessments that no one in austin
wants to publicly admit ==> 1) the the LHN is a failure and cant survive longterm 2) the new look b12 is not sustainable as a power conference longterm.
i think the writing is on the wall for both sides that they need each other. the only question really is willing to swallow their pride first and admit this.
i think the regret factor is indeed something that does exist & plays a role in conference realignment and within 15 years texahoma will be in the p12 (p16)
If Texhoma were to move to the PAC, everybody new and old will want the same thing; a game in Texas/Oklahoma and California each season for recruiting purposes. If it is insisted that they have two divisions of 8 schools, it would make sense to break up all of the intrastate/city rivals and guarantee them an out of conference game each year. Lump the flagships together, and lump the State/Private schools together. The only decision would be between Utah and Colorado. Considering their academic and cultural standing, I think Utah is better with the State schools and put Colorado with the flagships.
Everybody plays in Texoma and California each year, their main rivals are intact, and their is a clean break of divisions that eliminates politics and backdoor deals as much as possible. 7 divisions games, one permanant crossover, and either one or two games out of division. It could work. A similar approach, by the way, would work for the SEC if they ever went with FSU and Clemson to get to 16. It's not happening, but it would be clean and a way to make sure everyone is in Florida at least every other year.
Early on in the realignment stuff I wrote some articles for a blog site. My contention all along was that in spite of what the networks wanted and the footprint issue the SEC needed Florida State to help all of its schools have access to Florida recruiting. Your point BBB is very well taken. In those days I wanted us to add Virginia Tech and F.S.U. or a North Carolina school and F.S.U. for just the very reasons you are talking about.
It is also why I believed 18 was optimum for the SEC. That way we could add two new markets in North Carolina and Virginia while strengthening our brand with F.S.U. and Clemson. I believed then as I do now that the best way to crack the ACC was to take Clemson and F.S.U. first. Their football cache would take such a hit that Virginia Tech would be looking around. Then a North Carolina school becomes possible. But oh well!
I agree about 18, JR, and at this point in the game, taking Virginia Tech, Clemson, Florida State, and I would think North Carolina State in such a lineup would be exceptional. I am becoming more and more uncomfortable with Oklahoma, UNC, or UVA to the SEC because it is obvious that they have eyes for others and would have a hard time truly embracing the SEC at all levels (fan, alumni, faculty, administration). South Carolina and Arkansas are all in. Texas A&M is all in. Missouri has experienced unrequited love from the B1G, and their is no better mate than one that knows how the other side feels. Our next members should value the conference affiliation in the same way that existing PAC, B1G, and SEC schools all feel; none would rather be anywhere else. I think Virginia Tech, North Carolina State, Clemson, and Florida State would all feel that way as soon as they knew it was going to be a reality (VT's current president notwithstanding). West Virginia and Oklahoma State would feel the same. I cannot say the same thing for Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, or Georgia Tech.
I agree about Virginia, Oklahoma, and Texas. I don't think they would be happy in any of the conferences though. They will always be looking around no matter which conference they join. Texas and Oklahoma because they are habituated to being only about themselves and Virginia because they are truly unique in many good ways. Clemson and Florida State would be like finding lost family members. Virginia Tech like Arkansas would have to grow into SEC life. They aren't Big East really, they aren't Big 10 either, and they are not really SEC. But they would not look around once in. I hold out hope for North Carolina, but I agree they too are a mixed bag. I think that's true because they don't really know who they are. They want to be Southern, enjoy being cosmopolitan, and are by no means Big 10. They might choose us, and never look around, but they will never be like us. And they come with Duke.
|
|