Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
A&M/SEC Dominate TX ratings
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,902
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #21
RE: A&M/SEC Dominate TX ratings
(12-05-2013 12:06 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(12-05-2013 12:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-05-2013 11:46 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This is a good example of why even though you may 'hate' your rival you need them in the long run.

The Big12 would easily be viable with Texas/A&M/OU, or at least as viable as it always was.

The real losers here are all the lesser programs of the old Big8.

Not that it's a scientific approach, but when you visit Texas and Oklahoma message boards you will find more than a few threads where fan posters are urging for the dissolution of the Big 12 in one form or another. And, depending upon the school those fans are urging in interestingly divided numbers moves to the PAC, SEC, and at one school Big 10. In the last week there has been one Texas blog site (Burnt Orange Nation) that has recommended a move to the SEC.

So, the as far as most posters are concerned the vast majority for those two schools want a move elsewhere. Just where to move is the matter of most contention. I'd say Oklahoma sites are slightly more for the PAC than the SEC but the Big 10 option is the very close third. For Texas it seems to be PAC, followed by SEC, with the Big 10 more distant.

Factor network associations and it becomes a real sticky wicket. That's probably the biggest reason the Big 12 is still with us.

I think many of the fans and administration, even though they would never admit it, are two parts concerned that about being left behind, and another 2 parts concerned that moving will mean the end of the glory days of calling all the shots.

Besides, what will they rename themselves when PAC is no longer applicable?

It would remain the PAC it's the divisions that would be renamed. You would have the Shake and Bake (earthquake & volcano) division, and the Border Patrol or Coyote division if there were only two.
12-05-2013 12:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #22
RE: A&M/SEC Dominate TX ratings
(12-05-2013 12:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-05-2013 12:06 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(12-05-2013 12:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-05-2013 11:46 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This is a good example of why even though you may 'hate' your rival you need them in the long run.

The Big12 would easily be viable with Texas/A&M/OU, or at least as viable as it always was.

The real losers here are all the lesser programs of the old Big8.

Not that it's a scientific approach, but when you visit Texas and Oklahoma message boards you will find more than a few threads where fan posters are urging for the dissolution of the Big 12 in one form or another. And, depending upon the school those fans are urging in interestingly divided numbers moves to the PAC, SEC, and at one school Big 10. In the last week there has been one Texas blog site (Burnt Orange Nation) that has recommended a move to the SEC.

So, the as far as most posters are concerned the vast majority for those two schools want a move elsewhere. Just where to move is the matter of most contention. I'd say Oklahoma sites are slightly more for the PAC than the SEC but the Big 10 option is the very close third. For Texas it seems to be PAC, followed by SEC, with the Big 10 more distant.

Factor network associations and it becomes a real sticky wicket. That's probably the biggest reason the Big 12 is still with us.

I think many of the fans and administration, even though they would never admit it, are two parts concerned that about being left behind, and another 2 parts concerned that moving will mean the end of the glory days of calling all the shots.

Besides, what will they rename themselves when PAC is no longer applicable?

It would remain the PAC it's the divisions that would be renamed. You would have the Shake and Bake (earthquake & volcano) division, and the Border Patrol or Coyote division if there were only two.

03-lmfao

I think they should let you name them man.
12-05-2013 12:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
10thMountain Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,358
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 357
I Root For: A&M, TCU
Location:
Post: #23
RE: A&M/SEC Dominate TX ratings
The feeling I get from my OU/UT acquaintances and family members is that the real divide is that fans favor going to the SEC or B1G but the AD/Admins are both more favorable to the PAC
(This post was last modified: 12-05-2013 01:07 PM by 10thMountain.)
12-05-2013 01:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bigblueblindness Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,073
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 53
I Root For: UK, Lipscomb
Location: Kentucky
Post: #24
RE: A&M/SEC Dominate TX ratings
(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.
12-05-2013 01:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bigblueblindness Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,073
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 53
I Root For: UK, Lipscomb
Location: Kentucky
Post: #25
RE: A&M/SEC Dominate TX ratings
(12-05-2013 01:06 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The feeling I get from my OU/UT acquaintances and family members is that the real divide is that fans favor going to the SEC or B1G but the AD/Admins are both more favorable to the PAC

JR and I were tossing things around a few months ago, and an agreement by the PAC, SEC, and B1G to dissolve the Big 12 would possibly mean a split of Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. In such a case, the B1G probably gets Kansas. All things considered, the SEC probably wants Oklahoma more than UT in that scenario to appease TAMU/Arkansas/Mizzou and to introduce a new market that squeezes DFW. With the PAC landing the top prize, surely they would accommodate the lesser's, namely TT, OSU, and KSU. If I am the PAC, I take that deal. The SEC may agree to WVU to make it happen if the ACC is going to give them the UConn treatment, and the ACC would be a great landing spot for Baylor and maybe TCU. Iowa State would likely find a home with SEC if WVU went to the ACC, or the B1G could be talked into taking them if it gets the deal done. Let's say that happens:

B1G - Kansas, Iowa State
SEC - Oklahoma, WVU
PAC - Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State
ACC - Baylor, TCU

I've seen less equitable deals before.
12-05-2013 01:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,902
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #26
RE: A&M/SEC Dominate TX ratings
(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!
12-05-2013 01:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bigblueblindness Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,073
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 53
I Root For: UK, Lipscomb
Location: Kentucky
Post: #27
RE: A&M/SEC Dominate TX ratings
(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.
(This post was last modified: 12-05-2013 01:51 PM by bigblueblindness.)
12-05-2013 01:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,902
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #28
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.
12-05-2013 02:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #29
RE: A&M/SEC Dominate TX ratings
Everybody wants to be SEC! Is that the point?

If Virginia Tech didn't like the Big Ten then why do they seem to prefer scheduling non-conference against the Big Ten?
(This post was last modified: 12-05-2013 03:20 PM by He1nousOne.)
12-05-2013 03:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,902
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #30
RE: A&M/SEC Dominate TX ratings
(12-05-2013 03:19 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Everybody wants to be SEC! Is that the point?

If Virginia Tech didn't like the Big Ten then why do they seem to prefer scheduling non-conference against the Big Ten?

Nobody said that Virginia Tech didn't like the Big 10. I said they didn't really fit any of us, but would be adaptable over time. Virginia I don't think will adapt and they certainly don't fit the Big 10 or the SEC. They are unique in many ways.
12-05-2013 03:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bigblueblindness Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,073
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 53
I Root For: UK, Lipscomb
Location: Kentucky
Post: #31
RE: A&M/SEC Dominate TX ratings
(12-05-2013 03:19 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Everybody wants to be SEC! Is that the point?

If Virginia Tech didn't like the Big Ten then why do they seem to prefer scheduling non-conference against the Big Ten?

As we've been discussing, it is apparent that Oklahoma, Texas, North Carolina, Virginia, and Duke have some level of hesitation. Otherwise, a move would have likely occurred during the last 3 years of upheaval. What you want is a situation like the Big 10 and the SEC have with their border states. Are Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio State, Illinois, and Maryland quality programs? Yes. Would any switch conference affiliation? No way. Missouri was the only one that could have been seen both ways, but they are SEC through and through, just as I'm sure they would have been B1G through and through if added in the last few years.

Clear lines of separation, in my opinion, is why the SEC and B1G enmity is so strong and great for competition. My post was that Virginia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Kansas would not abide by that clear line of separation because different parts of their "family" are drawn to more than one conference for various reasons. FSU and Clemson are no-brainer SEC schools if the ACC were to dissolve. Virginia Tech and NC State would be fully on board over time, just like it took for Arkansas. The additions like TAMU-SEC, Nebraska-B1G, and Colorado-PAC where everybody from top to bottom is happy and feels like they didn't give anything up.
12-05-2013 04:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,902
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #32
RE: A&M/SEC Dominate TX ratings
(12-05-2013 04:12 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  
(12-05-2013 03:19 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Everybody wants to be SEC! Is that the point?

If Virginia Tech didn't like the Big Ten then why do they seem to prefer scheduling non-conference against the Big Ten?

As we've been discussing, it is apparent that Oklahoma, Texas, North Carolina, Virginia, and Duke have some level of hesitation. Otherwise, a move would have likely occurred during the last 3 years of upheaval. What you want is a situation like the Big 10 and the SEC have with their border states. Are Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio State, Illinois, and Maryland quality programs? Yes. Would any switch conference affiliation? No way. Missouri was the only one that could have been seen both ways, but they are SEC through and through, just as I'm sure they would have been B1G through and through if added in the last few years.

Clear lines of separation, in my opinion, is why the SEC and B1G enmity is so strong and great for competition. My post was that Virginia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Kansas would not abide by that clear line of separation because different parts of their "family" are drawn to more than one conference for various reasons. FSU and Clemson are no-brainer SEC schools if the ACC were to dissolve. Virginia Tech and NC State would be fully on board over time, just like it took for Arkansas. The additions like TAMU-SEC, Nebraska-B1G, and Colorado-PAC where everybody from top to bottom is happy and feels like they didn't give anything up.

BBB if it was left up to you and me I'd hit 18 with those we discussed and 20 with the other two you suggested Oklahoma State and West Virginia.

But I think the problem at the conference office is that when they added Mizzou and A&M (both AAU) they began thinking truly in terms of the SECU. If we added Virginia, Virginia Tech, N.C. State, U.N.C., and Duke along with a Kansas or Texas I think Slive is looking at 20 teams that would double our AAU membership to 8.

But, I hear your concern and concur. That is an unwieldy group of egos that could easily split the conference in 20 or 30 years. Once Florida State and Clemson were on board it would be as if the ACC was ancient history. N.C. State and Virginia Tech would take some time. But Texas, Oklahoma, Duke, Virginia, and North Carolina would see themselves as a separate entity that was entitled to more than the equal share family of the SEC. Their presence I believe would bring out such tendencies in Florida more than any of our other present conference schools. I think having them would be unhealthy for the SEC long term. If not for the allure of grant money sharing I think we should let them go to the Big 10 and PAC. That way we could maintain a tight unity.
12-05-2013 04:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,902
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #33
RE: A&M/SEC Dominate TX ratings
All things said here, I still believe that we will go to 16 and that the two additions will come from the West, eventually. I don't see us taking anyone from the ACC unless it is in some kind of cooperative effort between the two conferences.

If I am an ACC guy and I see Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State moving to the PAC, then I start worrying. The Big 10 and SEC will expand if the PAC moves to 16 or even 18 or 20 and when they do there will only be once source of interest to them both, the ACC.
12-05-2013 05:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #34
RE: A&M/SEC Dominate TX ratings
(12-05-2013 05:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  All things said here, I still believe that we will go to 16 and that the two additions will come from the West, eventually. I don't see us taking anyone from the ACC unless it is in some kind of cooperative effort between the two conferences.

If I am an ACC guy and I see Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State moving to the PAC, then I start worrying. The Big 10 and SEC will expand if the PAC moves to 16 or even 18 or 20 and when they do there will only be once source of interest to them both, the ACC.

Not worried at all, but Texas should be.
Think about it.............Texas to the SEC is a sure long term success, but Texas to the PAC even with Oklahoma, OSU and TT is a crap shoot. The real winners in the Texahoma deal would be Texas Tech and Oklahoma State, not the Sooners or the Longhorns.
12-05-2013 09:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,902
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #35
RE: A&M/SEC Dominate TX ratings
(12-05-2013 09:03 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(12-05-2013 05:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  All things said here, I still believe that we will go to 16 and that the two additions will come from the West, eventually. I don't see us taking anyone from the ACC unless it is in some kind of cooperative effort between the two conferences.

If I am an ACC guy and I see Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State moving to the PAC, then I start worrying. The Big 10 and SEC will expand if the PAC moves to 16 or even 18 or 20 and when they do there will only be once source of interest to them both, the ACC.

Not worried at all, but Texas should be.
Think about it.............Texas to the SEC is a sure long term success, but Texas to the PAC even with Oklahoma, OSU and TT is a crap shoot. The real winners in the Texahoma deal would be Texas Tech and Oklahoma State, not the Sooners or the Longhorns.

I totally agree. If Texas or Oklahoma go to the PAC they're stupid. They have all the leverage and no reason to take that kind of chance at all. The SEC West is tailor made for Texas and Oklahoma. If the SEC had to go to 18 to get them then add Oklahoma State and Kansas State if you have to (but I don't think we'll have to). Besides if you did that they would stay long term, especially if Alabama moved with Auburn to the East so that they had better potential in the West. West Virginia goes to the ACC for an eventual insistence that you become 16 with the Irish eventually becoming full members and your done. If the PAC takes Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech (because that's all that's left to get them into the central time zone) then fine. They blew their chance and don't have the leverage. Kansas can go Big 10 with Connecticut. ESPN keeps the Horns, gains the Sooners, and loses the Jayhawks. I call that a good day.
12-05-2013 09:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
john01992 Offline
Former ESPNer still in recovery mode

Posts: 16,277
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: John0 out!!!!
Location: The Worst P5 Program
Post: #36
RE: A&M/SEC Dominate TX ratings
is texas really a lock to join the SEC?????

on paper they are a great add but lets look at the big picture. the SEC is by no means desperate and the status quo right now is fine for them.

mizz arky & aggie will have some issues with that move

lsu might come out against it due to proximity and fears of being thrown in a western sec division with those schools

tenn & bama might not be happy about losing their prestige of being the two best programs in the conference.

i see 6 schools right off the bat that might have an issue with this move. and considering how bad UT screwed ole miss on the LHN thing i think thats a fine example as too why some sec schools might decide to say "thanks but no thanks"
(This post was last modified: 12-05-2013 09:25 PM by john01992.)
12-05-2013 09:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #37
RE: A&M/SEC Dominate TX ratings
(12-05-2013 09:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-05-2013 09:03 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(12-05-2013 05:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  All things said here, I still believe that we will go to 16 and that the two additions will come from the West, eventually. I don't see us taking anyone from the ACC unless it is in some kind of cooperative effort between the two conferences.

If I am an ACC guy and I see Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State moving to the PAC, then I start worrying. The Big 10 and SEC will expand if the PAC moves to 16 or even 18 or 20 and when they do there will only be once source of interest to them both, the ACC.

Not worried at all, but Texas should be.
Think about it.............Texas to the SEC is a sure long term success, but Texas to the PAC even with Oklahoma, OSU and TT is a crap shoot. The real winners in the Texahoma deal would be Texas Tech and Oklahoma State, not the Sooners or the Longhorns.

I totally agree. If Texas or Oklahoma go to the PAC they're stupid. They have all the leverage and no reason to take that kind of chance at all. The SEC West is tailor made for Texas and Oklahoma. If the SEC had to go to 18 to get them then add Oklahoma State and Kansas State if you have to (but I don't think we'll have to). Besides if you did that they would stay long term, especially if Alabama moved with Auburn to the East so that they had better potential in the West. West Virginia goes to the ACC for an eventual insistence that you become 16 with the Irish eventually becoming full members and your done. If the PAC takes Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech (because that's all that's left to get them into the central time zone) then fine. They blew their chance and don't have the leverage. Kansas can go Big 10 with Connecticut. ESPN keeps the Horns, gains the Sooners, and loses the Jayhawks. I call that a good day.

Yep! a good day.
I might even start watching SEC football again. Alabama/Tennessee and Auburn/Georgia are classic series.
12-05-2013 09:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,902
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #38
RE: A&M/SEC Dominate TX ratings
(12-05-2013 09:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  is texas really a lock to join the SEC?????

on paper they are a great add but lets look at the big picture. the SEC is by no means desperate and the status quo right now is fine for them.

mizz arky & aggie will have some issues with that move

lsu might come out against it due to proximity and fears of being thrown in a western sec division with those schools

tenn & bama might not be happy about losing their prestige of being the two best programs in the conference.

i see 6 schools right off the bat that might have an issue with this move. and considering how bad UT screwed ole miss on the LHN thing i think thats a fine example as too why some sec schools might decide to say "thanks but no thanks"

It's been the plan since before 1992. Nothing's changed. In the end I doubt there would be much resistance because it is profitable. At conference meetings we are a lot like the meetings of the 5 families in the Godfather. "Gentlemen we are not Communists". Pissing contests are for fans. Dollars are what the presidents make decisions based upon and Alabama would not stand in the way of Texas and Oklahoma, and neither would L.S.U.. A&M opened Houston back up to L.S.U., Texas will open the rest of the state.

The SEC actually had a 20 team plan on the agenda in 1992. We were willing to go to 16 then and do it from the SWC and independents. Texas, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma were put on hold because of Texas politics. Arkansas came on board. Florida State's Bobby Bowden wanted the easier competition in the ACC and said as much, and South Carolina came on board. We stopped at 12 and waited. Missouri was a great get that we didn't think would be available. But rest assured if the SEC could land Texas and Oklahoma it would and nobody would blink from the original 12 and probably not Missouri.
12-05-2013 09:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
10thMountain Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,358
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 357
I Root For: A&M, TCU
Location:
Post: #39
RE: A&M/SEC Dominate TX ratings
I know you think A&M would be the only "no" vote to UT but I think that's wrong. Mizzou is as tired if their bull sh1t as we are, Ole Miss and MSU don't want to be shoved further into the cellar, LSU Bama and Auburn don't want another challenging game that could trip them up.

Besides...you saw the TV numbers. What would they actually be bringing that would be worth their conference killing cancer selves?
12-05-2013 10:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
john01992 Offline
Former ESPNer still in recovery mode

Posts: 16,277
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: John0 out!!!!
Location: The Worst P5 Program
Post: #40
RE: A&M/SEC Dominate TX ratings
(12-05-2013 09:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-05-2013 09:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  is texas really a lock to join the SEC?????

on paper they are a great add but lets look at the big picture. the SEC is by no means desperate and the status quo right now is fine for them.

mizz arky & aggie will have some issues with that move

lsu might come out against it due to proximity and fears of being thrown in a western sec division with those schools

tenn & bama might not be happy about losing their prestige of being the two best programs in the conference.

i see 6 schools right off the bat that might have an issue with this move. and considering how bad UT screwed ole miss on the LHN thing i think thats a fine example as too why some sec schools might decide to say "thanks but no thanks"

It's been the plan since before 1992. Nothing's changed. In the end I doubt there would be much resistance because it is profitable. At conference meetings we are a lot like the meetings of the 5 families in the Godfather. "Gentlemen we are not Communists". Pissing contests are for fans. Dollars are what the presidents make decisions based upon and Alabama would not stand in the way of Texas and Oklahoma, and neither would L.S.U.. A&M opened Houston back up to L.S.U., Texas will open the rest of the state.

The SEC actually had a 20 team plan on the agenda in 1992. We were willing to go to 16 then and do it from the SWC and independents. Texas, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma were put on hold because of Texas politics. Arkansas came on board. Florida State's Bobby Bowden wanted the easier competition in the ACC and said as much, and South Carolina came on board. We stopped at 12 and waited. Missouri was a great get that we didn't think would be available. But rest assured if the SEC could land Texas and Oklahoma it would and nobody would blink from the original 12 and probably not Missouri.

im just saying not everything's a given. for reasons like i stated sometimes a good school will reject a good conference.

at the end of the day "do we fit well" plays as much of a role as "lets just make some money"

if $$$$ was everything then how come every school isnt begging to join the b10?
12-05-2013 10:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.