(07-05-2014 10:19 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Here's a couple questions....

1) Can the SEC control the Texas Longhorn attitude? They have had their way so long in the Big XII, I doubt Texas ideology will change with a new conference. If Texas could be fair and equal as an SEC member they would be an asset. No one can argue the value they bring...

2) Would UT even consider some evolution or merger with the SECN? A separate Longhorn Network in the SEC is unacceptable.

I guess the answer to question #2 will tell the SEC how much Texas is willing to change to be an honest equal member.

Medic, the answer to your questions are in SEC membership period. Everyone is equal when it comes to television money and voting strength. If Texas joined they would be held to that standard. So, if they are unwilling to share equally in voting power and revenue then the answer is no. Once they've joined they will have no recourse except to abide by SEC rules. I think that is why we aren't likely to see to them unless they really have no more dominant roles to explore. If the PAC doesn't relent on selling a percentage of its network to ESPN then Texas has really only two choices the ACC or the SEC. Personally I don't think Texas will consider the SEC if they think they can get a Notre Dame like sweetheart deal in the ACC. They won't go to the Big 10 because ESPN won't permit it.

It may not suit 10th, but that is why if we ever do go to 16 I think the SEC will get another Texas school (Baylor most likely) and an Oklahoma school (preferably OU). Those two give us DFW and a greater presence in the most populated portions of the state without having to go way out to Lubbock.

Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M then become the Western Division. Alabama and Auburn move to the East and most of the scheduling issues and travel are resolved. Even if we don't get OU and get OSU instead it still works out well for travel and balance. If we do land OU then they keep Texas as their ACC game and the RRR stays at the same time and A&M becomes their season ending ACC vs SEC game.

I'm also not so sure that the Big 10 won't take Kansas and Iowa State if for no other reason than balance:

Big 10 West:
Iowa, Iowa State, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin.

Big 10 East:
Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers.

Just like with our conference it gives them some balance and keeps traditional rivals together.

And like with us if the networks pay Baylor's way and Iowa State's way it can happen. That's a small price to pay to get it done.

Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and T.C.U. can either go to the PAC or not.

The Big Ten wont agree to Iowa State and they have the bargaining position to take a stand on that.

Gotta stop with the make believes that end up with Iowa State in the Big Ten. Sorry, not happening. Do I need to explain why? I certainly hope not.

(07-07-2014 01:31 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The Big Ten wont agree to Iowa State and they have the bargaining position to take a stand on that.

Gotta stop with the make believes that end up with Iowa State in the Big Ten. Sorry, not happening. Do I need to explain why? I certainly hope not.

Pray tell H1. I'd love to hear your explanation.

Quote:It may not suit 10th, but that is why if we ever do go to 16 I think the SEC will get another Texas school (Baylor most likely) and an Oklahoma school (preferably OU). Those two give us DFW and a greater presence in the most populated portions of the state without having to go way out to Lubbock.

Personally I hope that adding another TX and an OK school are only thought of after an exhaustive effort to actually grow the SEC and its footprint by adding the VA and NC markets which would be the equivalent of adding a second Florida to the conference.

Also, I don't see OU joining. Their admin has no interest and their fans cant handle not being entitled to 10 wins every single year. Now OSU, I could see them as a more realistic possibility.

2nd TX team? I'm sure Baylor Ferg will mysteriously appear right after I type this but I still say we're better served by the SEC physically traveling to Dallas and playing games IN the metroplex. That and no matter how they want to spin how realignment went down, A&M will simply never, ever support them because of it. That may or may not be enough but I bet Mike Slive is willing to listen to our input on which TX school gets in rather than trying to push through someone we dont want, just as he wouldn't try to shove through FSU or CU if UF or USC strongly objected to them.

(07-07-2014 04:54 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

Quote:It may not suit 10th, but that is why if we ever do go to 16 I think the SEC will get another Texas school (Baylor most likely) and an Oklahoma school (preferably OU). Those two give us DFW and a greater presence in the most populated portions of the state without having to go way out to Lubbock.

Personally I hope that adding another TX and an OK school are only thought of after an exhaustive effort to actually grow the SEC and its footprint by adding the VA and NC markets which would be the equivalent of adding a second Florida to the conference.

Also, I don't see OU joining. Their admin has no interest and their fans cant handle not being entitled to 10 wins every single year. Now OSU, I could see them as a more realistic possibility.

2nd TX team? I'm sure Baylor Ferg will mysteriously appear right after I type this but I still say we're better served by the SEC physically traveling to Dallas and playing games IN the metroplex. That and no matter how they want to spin how realignment went down, A&M will simply never, ever support them because of it. That may or may not be enough but I bet Mike Slive is willing to listen to our input on which TX school gets in rather than trying to push through someone we dont want, just as he wouldn't try to shove through FSU or CU if UF or USC strongly objected to them.

Mike Slive will suggest, and A&M will support, whoever is the most profitable. It will be as simple as that.

Thats simply not true JR

UT is THE most profitable, but if you think A&M would actually support bringing them, you dont know us very well.

(07-07-2014 06:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 06:07 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Thats simply not true JR

UT is THE most profitable, but if you think A&M would actually support bringing them, you dont know us very well.

We'll see. But, I wasn't thinking of the Horns anyway. They might be an exception to that rule. With regard to the rest, and in keeping with past realignment, they will go after the most profitable first and they won't take a school that doesn't pay their way (meaning one that ESPN and CBS aren't willing to pay for).

I don't mean to hijack the thread with Texas talk, but.....
What does Texas want?
I would imagine that Texas would love to resurrect the SWC. They could play all of their games in the State of Texas except for the trip every other year to Arkansas (Texas v. Arkansas was the best game the SWC had to offer.....my apologies to all A&M fans).

So which conference option allows Texas to play the most games in the state of Texas?

(07-07-2014 07:19 PM)XLance Wrote:  I don't mean to hijack the thread with Texas talk, but.....
What does Texas want?
I would imagine that Texas would love to resurrect the SWC. They could play all of their games in the State of Texas except for the trip every other year to Arkansas (Texas v. Arkansas was the best game the SWC had to offer.....my apologies to all A&M fans).

So which conference option allows Texas to play the most games in the state of Texas?

That's not hijacking a thread. It is a legitimate question. Texas can reunite with A&M, Arkansas, Missouri (if it matters to them) and add L.S.U. easily by joining the SEC. If Oklahoma tags along that fairly well sets their most important games. Their OOC could still include Rice and Texas Tech. The SEC offers them the most in the way of old rivals to play. The issue is which conference is willing to give them an advantage over the other members? The SEC won't do that.

If having their traditional slate to play were important I think they would already be with us, but it is not their first priority. I suspect control is. Academics are just an excuse to postpone making a move until they know what it is that they do want. If academics had been their real issue they would long ago have left the Big 12.

They want what they've always wanted:

To be the sun at the center of a system with lots of little nearby program planets that orbit around them and are completely dependent on them but are never allowed to be on anything resembling a level playing field.

If the PAC had caved on LHN and A&M had caved on joining the PAC they would have everything they want.

So are you both saying that Texas stays exactly where they are until the PAC caves in or until the networks decide to pull the plug on the subsidies.

(07-07-2014 07:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  So are you both saying that Texas stays exactly where they are until the PAC caves in?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying this:

1. Texas goes to the PAC if ESPN gets a piece of that network.

2. If ESPN doesn't get a piece of that network then Texas gets offered a N.D. like deal to the ACC and they may or may not get to bring a tag-along or two.

3. If ESPN doesn't get a piece of the PAC and Texas doesn't want to come to the ACC then and only then might they actually consider equal voting and television revenue in exchange for a schedule more desirable to their alumni by making a move to the SEC.

4. I do not foresee any scenario where Texas is stupid enough to head to the Big 10 and surrender forever their status in their home state.

^ pretty much agree with all that

(07-07-2014 08:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 07:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  So are you both saying that Texas stays exactly where they are until the PAC caves in?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying this:

1. Texas goes to the PAC if ESPN gets a piece of that network.

2. If ESPN doesn't get a piece of that network then Texas gets offered a N.D. like deal to the ACC and they may or may not get to bring a tag-along or two.

3. If ESPN doesn't get a piece of the PAC and Texas doesn't want to come to the ACC then and only then might they actually consider equal voting and television revenue in exchange for a schedule more desirable to their alumni by making a move to the SEC.

4. I do not foresee any scenario where Texas is stupid enough to head to the Big 10 and surrender forever their status in their home state.

#2
JR we have talked about Texas to the ACC as a partial and a full member. One thing that has never been addressed. Is it mutually beneficial for both Texas and the ACC?
Even if Texas (the school) was located in South Carolina or Georgia would the school be a fit for the ACC?

(07-07-2014 08:46 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 08:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 07:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  So are you both saying that Texas stays exactly where they are until the PAC caves in?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying this:

1. Texas goes to the PAC if ESPN gets a piece of that network.

2. If ESPN doesn't get a piece of that network then Texas gets offered a N.D. like deal to the ACC and they may or may not get to bring a tag-along or two.

3. If ESPN doesn't get a piece of the PAC and Texas doesn't want to come to the ACC then and only then might they actually consider equal voting and television revenue in exchange for a schedule more desirable to their alumni by making a move to the SEC.

4. I do not foresee any scenario where Texas is stupid enough to head to the Big 10 and surrender forever their status in their home state.

#2
JR we have talked about Texas to the ACC as a partial and a full member. One thing that has never been addressed. Is it mutually beneficial for both Texas and the ACC?
Even if Texas (the school) was located in South Carolina or Georgia would the school be a fit for the ACC?

XLance this is simply my opinion but, a. Texas combined with N.D. gives the ACC instant credibility in football and a big boost in pay. b. The disparity of the arrangement will eventually destroy the ACC. So the answer is No.

(07-07-2014 09:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 08:46 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 08:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 07:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  So are you both saying that Texas stays exactly where they are until the PAC caves in?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying this:

1. Texas goes to the PAC if ESPN gets a piece of that network.

2. If ESPN doesn't get a piece of that network then Texas gets offered a N.D. like deal to the ACC and they may or may not get to bring a tag-along or two.

3. If ESPN doesn't get a piece of the PAC and Texas doesn't want to come to the ACC then and only then might they actually consider equal voting and television revenue in exchange for a schedule more desirable to their alumni by making a move to the SEC.

4. I do not foresee any scenario where Texas is stupid enough to head to the Big 10 and surrender forever their status in their home state.

#2
JR we have talked about Texas to the ACC as a partial and a full member. One thing that has never been addressed. Is it mutually beneficial for both Texas and the ACC?
Even if Texas (the school) was located in South Carolina or Georgia would the school be a fit for the ACC?

XLance this is simply my opinion but, a. Texas combined with N.D. gives the ACC instant credibility in football and a big boost in pay. b. The disparity of the arrangement will eventually destroy the ACC. So the answer is No.

Regardless of whether moving Texas to the ACC would be a great benefit to ESPN, I really can't see that it would be a good long term move for either party either.

Texas made pretty clear what they want is a smaller conference, with many regional rivals, academically decent (by school president standards), and the ability to continue to control 3rd tier rights (note: unlike a lot of people I definitely don't see anything greedy about that, at least no more so than anyone else's moves).

If they had to make a choice, this is the order I think it would be.

1. Big 12 as is
(long drop)
2. Notre Dame type deal with the ACC (football independent)
3. PAC-16 along with Texas Tech (they'll want another Texas school) and Oklahoma and Oklahoma State
(long drop)
4. Big Ten and SEC

The Big Ten thought the academics and money would sway them and the SEC would like for the football strength and being in a neighboring region to matter. I think Texas won't have a part in either. Like North Carolina and Virginia with the ACC, they see the SEC as beneath them (which is silly, but how a lot of academic thinking goes) and the Big Ten as being too far away in a region they don't want to be in a conference in.

Random note from earlier: Even if the networks wanted realignment (I don't think for a second they do), they can't just throw money to get a conference to take a team it otherwise doesn't want. The conference will know full well that once that contract is up, they won't get paid again. The only way you'll ever have a scenario with Iowa State joining up with Big Ten west schools is you assume one national football league which controls all TV rights for members and then divides equally.

(07-07-2014 07:19 PM)XLance Wrote:  I don't mean to hijack the thread with Texas talk, but.....
What does Texas want?
I would imagine that Texas would love to resurrect the SWC. They could play all of their games in the State of Texas except for the trip every other year to Arkansas (Texas v. Arkansas was the best game the SWC had to offer.....my apologies to all A&M fans).

So which conference option allows Texas to play the most games in the state of Texas?

The Big 12.

(07-07-2014 08:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 07:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  So are you both saying that Texas stays exactly where they are until the PAC caves in?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying this:

1. Texas goes to the PAC if ESPN gets a piece of that network.

2. If ESPN doesn't get a piece of that network then Texas gets offered a N.D. like deal to the ACC and they may or may not get to bring a tag-along or two.

3. If ESPN doesn't get a piece of the PAC and Texas doesn't want to come to the ACC then and only then might they actually consider equal voting and television revenue in exchange for a schedule more desirable to their alumni by making a move to the SEC.

4. I do not foresee any scenario where Texas is stupid enough to head to the Big 10 and surrender forever their status in their home state.

Some of my insights on this.

1. If the networks (mostly ESPN) throw insane money at Texas to go to the PAC it has a slim chance of happening; however, I don't think that the PAC is likely going to happen for a few reasons.

A) Texas's big cigars are not big on the PAC - at all. They like talking sports (i.e. football) with their peers in the energy biz (oil and gas) in TX and OK. WV and KS are growing in these areas so fit with the demo. The SEC is almost certainly bigger with these guys because of the gulf oil reserves and the associates they would have from SEC schools in the energy field (LSU, A&M, etc.). ESPN can throw money at UT to go to the PAC, but UT alums can make this look like pocket change with their donations. They need to keep those guys happy. The current B12 is preferable for these guys to the PAC.
B) UT president Powers was a driver for the PAC (and even he was convinced by Dodds/alums to pass on the PAC in 2010). He is in the midst of getting ousted by the UT BoR either this week or, if he wins, later this year (resigns). There is not likely going to be a PAC champion at UT. The AD spent time at ASU, but he is a UT grad and is not anywhere in the same ballpark as Dodds in power or influence. He's a new, unproven guy to the alums. Dodds also indicated that Texas is looking to the east if a future move occurs.
C) The PAC is really not a step up financially from the B12 for UT since the national networks pay about the same for the B12 (if B12 gets the CCG deregulated then they might jump PAC slightly there), but the B12 splits it fewer ways. The LHN payout (and OU Fox deal) > than PACN payout almost certainly for a long time. The increase in PAC payout would have to be pretty high to make D worth it.
D) Time zone and travel issues. The PAC is for the most part 2 time zones in the wrong direction and would give them the least national exposure of any of the power conferences because of this. Travel would also be much greater. The PAC would be a really far flung conference with the addition of B12 schools east of CO.
E) Loss of control and power. This is true for any conference that doesn't give UT a ND deal, take 8 or more B12 schools (the PAC's best chance to get Texas), or is not formed from scratch (i.e. a ND/UT led ACC/B12 merged conference).

2) Most likely. They will probably have to take a couple Texas schools too, at least, even if they offer a ND deal to UT. More likely they need to add 4-6 B12 schools IMO. I think the ACC (or some B12/ACC hybrid) is by far the most likely future home if the B12 dies and the ACC survives.

3) Possible. Texas would have to swallow it's pride and follow A&M and that might be the deal breaker for them. OU would have to head to the SEC with them or I think they say no as well. Would be the best geographic and sports fit for them. But I think the ACC is way more attractive to them for a few reasons (academics, less cutthroat recruiting and competition, more power). The ACC would be fools to let them fall to the SEC. Which is why I think the SEC will not happen. The ACC will give them what they want.

I also think the SEC would be better off taking solid to mediocre football schools, but very good to great basketball schools in new markets (UNC, UVA, or Kansas would be great examples). There can be only so many top dogs in football and I think the SEC is really at that point now. Some school(s) is going to suffer Arkansas's fate (former power to also ran) if Texas and OU join the SEC IMO. BB revenue is the next gold pot for conferences once they wrestle it away from the NCAA. I would love to be in the SEC's shoes as a conference. They have so much flexibility in which direction they go. Kudos to the SEC.

4) Disagree, but think the B1G is behind the ACC and SEC mainly due to ESPN. Texas will not write off the B10 (it's academically great and financially the strongest conference), but I think they want at least one more Texas school with them (and OU as well) if they go to the B1G and that is the issue. See Gee's Tech problem comments. A&M would have been an acceptable B1G add, but they got their dream conference and are not a possibility. TTU is getting money pumped into it to reach T1, but how soon can they get their academics to a level acceptable to the B1G (if ever)? Rice is AAU and stellar academically, but it is a small private. Would Rice be good enough if it got you the trifecta of UT, OU, and KU. I would jump on that if I was the B1G. If the B1G offered to take OU, KU and Rice/TTU, I think Texas would have to think hard on that offer, if they decide the B12 can't meet their needs going forward.

Texas would love to keep the B12 together if it can. It runs it and gets what it wants there for the most part; whereas, OU is willing to move for the right offer. Poach OU and you get a leg up on landing Texas and the B12 would die the next day. This is why the PAC should have taken OU and OSU in 2011. It would have killed the B12, and even if they didn't land Texas they would have probably landed TTU (they love the PAC) and one of KU/KSU/ISU. Big blunder IMO. They really have limited options in the west without B12 schools.

The shoe will drop in August. The O'Bannon judgement comes down the end of July or beginning of August and the P5 said that some NCAA issues had to be resolved in August as well. UMD/ACC might settle out as well by then. If the NCAA gets hammered in court (fairly likely), I think major realignment will occur in the next 2 years, if not sooner. I think all these lawsuits and NCAA issues will force it. JMO.