A. He want's something from the conference.

B. He want's to build critical mass for leaving.

C. He's doing it for Texas and at their bidding.

a. Maybe he doesn't want a conference championship game, or wants more leeway in scheduling. He makes some noise and gets some concessions.

b. He's interested in either the Big 10 or SEC and needs to build a reason to leave. No expansion equals no more security, and that's enough of a reason to move.

c. Texas has decided to leave as well but with 3 little brothers can't afford to look like the instigator of the action. Oklahoma takes the lead and gives Texas the cover they need to separate from Baylor and T.C.U.

I don't know which one is right, but does it matter? Boren is rattling chains so something is afoot. He doesn't do this for no good reason!

C

I have not posted anything for awhile due to realignment burnout, but this might be the ripple that turns into a tsunami so here is my two cents:

B. Pretty sure Boren got his marching orders from the BoR to fix the B12 by expanding or get OU out since this happened right after a BoR meeting, I believe. Since there are not 2 schools that can be added and really help the B12 in a meaningful way (or they would have already have been added previously), I am pretty sure it is just creating the political cover for when they leave, so they can say they tried to stabilize the B12 through expansion, but other B12 schools did not go along and they need to move to a stable, long term home. This will be important politically, especially if they leave OSU behind. They have already tried to get a new home in the SEC, B1G, and PAC with OSU in tow and failed all three times. They can truthfully say they attempted to help OSU, but they can't find a better home for OU without abandoning OSU. OSU will have to stand on its own.

This is very damaging for the B12 as OU destabilized the B12 in 2011 with his wallflower comments and PAC flirtation and really made it clear to MU, the last B12 school of value without a little brother anchor, it was time to hit eject (A&M was gone regardless). It continues to cast the B12 as unstable and unsuitable as a long term home for top power programs something the B12 needs to be doing its best to combat. Expansion is not coming to the B12 almost certainly so it just sows dissension in the B12 ranks. I have been saying all along OU was the school that would blow things up. This is the third time they have said and/or done something publicly that is destabilizing to the B12 (see 2010 and 2011 PAC flirtations). Maybe the third time will be the charm.

They might be working with Texas or not. UT AD Patterson is hated almost universally everywhere he has been, so maybe he pissed an already unhappy OU off. I don't feel Texas is involved though. I think they would rather wait until closer to the end of the GoR before making a final decision on the B12. Texas will benefit regardless of what happens as all the other power conferences would go larger than planned to add them (from 16 to 18 or 20). They have the luxury of waiting. KU and OU don't have the same pull due to their being flagships in much lower population states. If they wait they may get stuck outside for awhile (KU) or have to settle for their least favorite option (OU or KU). I think Texas would like to know who is where before they make their final decisions and where OU and KU end up might have a large influence. If one of the conferences can land OU and KU then their chances of later adding UT go up greatly, if UT is willing to wait. Also by waiting, maybe another conference takes one of UT's little brothers to get into Texas or to help increase the conference presence in that massive state. Say OU and Baylor go to the SEC. Then Texas is down to only TTU, and perhaps TCU, as potential hangers on or schools to be left behind. Or the PAC decides UT is never coming and decides to take OU/OSU and some combo of TX and KS schools before they are left with the B12 leftovers of the B1G and SEC. Again Texas is left with fewer little brothers to protect or abandon when they make their final move. Less backlash either way. If the ACC is their preferred landing spot as speculated here often, then waiting is probably best, as the ACC is not adding anyone from the B12 unless Texas is involved, unlike the PAC, SEC, or B1G who have other possible non-Longhorn targets and perhaps one or more of those targets could be Baylor and/or TTU thus reducing or eliminating some political headaches.

The timing of it points to the B1G as the conference destination with the B1G wanting to get to 16 before it's T1 contract is awarded so it can get the value of the added schools included in that contract and do not have to rework it later. That OU and KU smoke leaked (doing their homework / talking to those schools) after the B1G added Rutgers/UMD might have become a fire. If it is soon that they are looking to move, OU must either feel the GoR is not an obstacle or they feel it will spark a feeding frenzy as the B12 is poached by the other 4 power conferences of enough schools to void the GoR. All the conferences with interest in OU (or any B12 schools) have to be hitting the back channels hard right now trying to land the fish they want.

(06-25-2015 11:52 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  I have not posted anything for awhile due to realignment burnout, but this might be the ripple that turns into a tsunami so here is my two cents:

B. Pretty sure Boren got his marching orders from the BoR to fix the B12 by expanding or get OU out since this happened right after a BoR meeting, I believe. Since there are not 2 schools that can be added and really help the B12 in a meaningful way (or they would have already have been added previously), I am pretty sure it is just creating the political cover for when they leave, so they can say they tried to stabilize the B12 through expansion, but other B12 schools did not go along and they need to move to a stable, long term home. This will be important politically, especially if they leave OSU behind. They have already tried to get a new home in the SEC, B1G, and PAC with OSU in tow and failed all three times. They can truthfully say they attempted to help OSU, but they can't find a better home for OU without abandoning OSU. OSU will have to stand on its own.

This is very damaging for the B12 as OU destabilized the B12 in 2011 with his wallflower comments and PAC flirtation and really made it clear to MU, the last B12 school of value without a little brother anchor, it was time to hit eject (A&M was gone regardless). It continues to cast the B12 as unstable and unsuitable as a long term home for top power programs something the B12 needs to be doing its best to combat. Expansion is not coming to the B12 almost certainly so it just sows dissension in the B12 ranks. I have been saying all along OU was the school that would blow things up. This is the third time they have said and/or done something publicly that is destabilizing to the B12 (see 2010 and 2011 PAC flirtations). Maybe the third time will be the charm.

They might be working with Texas or not. UT AD Patterson is hated almost universally everywhere he has been, so maybe he pissed an already unhappy OU off. I don't feel Texas is involved though. I think they would rather wait until closer to the end of the GoR before making a final decision on the B12. Texas will benefit regardless of what happens as all the other power conferences would go larger than planned to add them (from 16 to 18 or 20). They have the luxury of waiting. KU and OU don't have the same pull due to their being flagships in much lower population states. If they wait they may get stuck outside for awhile (KU) or have to settle for their least favorite option (OU or KU). I think Texas would like to know who is where before they make their final decisions and where OU and KU end up might have a large influence. If one of the conferences can land OU and KU then their chances of later adding UT go up greatly, if UT is willing to wait. Also by waiting, maybe another conference takes one of UT's little brothers to get into Texas or to help increase the conference presence in that massive state. Say OU and Baylor go to the SEC. Then Texas is down to only TTU, and perhaps TCU, as potential hangers on or schools to be left behind. Or the PAC decides UT is never coming and decides to take OU/OSU and some combo of TX and KS schools before they are left with the B12 leftovers of the B1G and SEC. Again Texas is left with fewer little brothers to protect or abandon when they make their final move. Less backlash either way. If the ACC is their preferred landing spot as speculated here often, then waiting is probably best, as the ACC is not adding anyone from the B12 unless Texas is involved, unlike the PAC, SEC, or B1G who have other possible non-Longhorn targets and perhaps one or more of those targets could be Baylor and/or TTU thus reducing or eliminating some political headaches.

The timing of it points to the B1G as the conference destination with the B1G wanting to get to 16 before it's T1 contract is awarded so it can get the value of the added schools included in that contract and do not have to rework it later. That OU and KU smoke leaked (doing their homework / talking to those schools) after the B1G added Rutgers/UMD might have become a fire. If it is soon that they are looking to move, OU must either feel the GoR is not an obstacle or they feel it will spark a feeding frenzy as the B12 is poached by the other 4 power conferences of enough schools to void the GoR. All the conferences with interest in OU (or any B12 schools) have to be hitting the back channels hard right now trying to land the fish they want.

I think the timing points to the Big 10 as well, but behind the scenes the issues with the PACN could point West as well. The SEC will surely be having back door communications but I highly doubt we initiated any. It will be interesting to watch. Even more importantly the Boren stuff broke as soon as the CWS was over which is in keeping with the new NCAA way of not interrupting one major event with breaking news. Such actions are now considered rude and out of line so the commissioners and presidents wait until major events are over to leak news. The exception would of course involve arrests of key players, deaths, etc.

It suits me to end this now and let the sport recover and traditions get reestablished through cross conference cooperation in scheduling. But if it happens an all P4 schedule is just a couple of years away IMO.

Now let me ask a provocative question, "Who else has been woofing about their conference affiliation lately?" I think when you stop and think about the pairing of Oklahoma and Florida State things could suspiciously point toward the SEC. Just follow this hypothetical for a moment. OU needs and wants out. They are more related to FOX than anyone else in the Big 12 due to T3 contractual obligations. Virginia Tech is closer to AAU status by far than OU. Virginia has many more viewers than Oklahoma. The North Carolina group would not cave on letting N.C. State out from under their thumb. No V.T. and N.C. St. to the SEC talk anymore. It had been an idea floated by ESPN. If you can't hype the value of a network (SECN) you have control over by expanding the markets in it, the only option left for driving its value is content. I doubt seriously that ESPN wants to lose Oklahoma to FOX more completely. I also doubt that the loss of F.S.U. who might bolt ESPN control if not granted a boon at some point in the future is a loss the Mouse wants to sustain either. The win win for ESPN would be to maximize the content (the surest value in commercial TV moving forward as opposed to a market model that could take a hit) of the SECN and wrap up a brand they didn't have a firm hold upon. Without two schools the ACC can then move to 16 with Texas in a Western quad and still keep N.D. as an independent. There has been talk in the past that when or if N.D. ever needs to fully associate with the ACC that Wake Forest could move to being the independent affiliated with the ACC in all sports other than football and the two could essentially switch places. The 5 game conference requirement that N.D. is presently under then becomes the same for Wake who uses it to play the only schools they want to play every year anyway (Virginia, U.N.C., Duke, and N.C. State).

The value of the SECN with Oklahoma and F.S.U. as a multipliers of content games would be extremely significant.

Have you heard any other schools woofing to move other than these two and the left behind group at the top of the G5? I haven't.

Texas, Baylor, T.C.U. and Oklahoma State to the ACC. Florida State and Oklahoma to the SEC. Virginia Tech and Kansas to the Big 10.

Virginia, Duke, U.N.C. and N.D. all keep what they want and with Miami still have access to Florida while picking up all of Texas.

Everybody gets something they want and in all cases value is added.

Boren is putting out RFP's to every G5 school and maybe he will attract a surprise P5 school for the Big 12.
When the results are in and he can prove that there are truly no reasonable choices for the Big 12 to expand it will give him carte blanche to start shopping Oklahoma (without OSU) to either the PAC or the B1G.

(06-26-2015 06:38 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-25-2015 11:52 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  I have not posted anything for awhile due to realignment burnout, but this might be the ripple that turns into a tsunami so here is my two cents:

B. Pretty sure Boren got his marching orders from the BoR to fix the B12 by expanding or get OU out since this happened right after a BoR meeting, I believe. Since there are not 2 schools that can be added and really help the B12 in a meaningful way (or they would have already have been added previously), I am pretty sure it is just creating the political cover for when they leave, so they can say they tried to stabilize the B12 through expansion, but other B12 schools did not go along and they need to move to a stable, long term home. This will be important politically, especially if they leave OSU behind. They have already tried to get a new home in the SEC, B1G, and PAC with OSU in tow and failed all three times. They can truthfully say they attempted to help OSU, but they can't find a better home for OU without abandoning OSU. OSU will have to stand on its own.

This is very damaging for the B12 as OU destabilized the B12 in 2011 with his wallflower comments and PAC flirtation and really made it clear to MU, the last B12 school of value without a little brother anchor, it was time to hit eject (A&M was gone regardless). It continues to cast the B12 as unstable and unsuitable as a long term home for top power programs something the B12 needs to be doing its best to combat. Expansion is not coming to the B12 almost certainly so it just sows dissension in the B12 ranks. I have been saying all along OU was the school that would blow things up. This is the third time they have said and/or done something publicly that is destabilizing to the B12 (see 2010 and 2011 PAC flirtations). Maybe the third time will be the charm.

They might be working with Texas or not. UT AD Patterson is hated almost universally everywhere he has been, so maybe he pissed an already unhappy OU off. I don't feel Texas is involved though. I think they would rather wait until closer to the end of the GoR before making a final decision on the B12. Texas will benefit regardless of what happens as all the other power conferences would go larger than planned to add them (from 16 to 18 or 20). They have the luxury of waiting. KU and OU don't have the same pull due to their being flagships in much lower population states. If they wait they may get stuck outside for awhile (KU) or have to settle for their least favorite option (OU or KU). I think Texas would like to know who is where before they make their final decisions and where OU and KU end up might have a large influence. If one of the conferences can land OU and KU then their chances of later adding UT go up greatly, if UT is willing to wait. Also by waiting, maybe another conference takes one of UT's little brothers to get into Texas or to help increase the conference presence in that massive state. Say OU and Baylor go to the SEC. Then Texas is down to only TTU, and perhaps TCU, as potential hangers on or schools to be left behind. Or the PAC decides UT is never coming and decides to take OU/OSU and some combo of TX and KS schools before they are left with the B12 leftovers of the B1G and SEC. Again Texas is left with fewer little brothers to protect or abandon when they make their final move. Less backlash either way. If the ACC is their preferred landing spot as speculated here often, then waiting is probably best, as the ACC is not adding anyone from the B12 unless Texas is involved, unlike the PAC, SEC, or B1G who have other possible non-Longhorn targets and perhaps one or more of those targets could be Baylor and/or TTU thus reducing or eliminating some political headaches.

The timing of it points to the B1G as the conference destination with the B1G wanting to get to 16 before it's T1 contract is awarded so it can get the value of the added schools included in that contract and do not have to rework it later. That OU and KU smoke leaked (doing their homework / talking to those schools) after the B1G added Rutgers/UMD might have become a fire. If it is soon that they are looking to move, OU must either feel the GoR is not an obstacle or they feel it will spark a feeding frenzy as the B12 is poached by the other 4 power conferences of enough schools to void the GoR. All the conferences with interest in OU (or any B12 schools) have to be hitting the back channels hard right now trying to land the fish they want.

I think the timing points to the Big 10 as well, but behind the scenes the issues with the PACN could point West as well. The SEC will surely be having back door communications but I highly doubt we initiated any. It will be interesting to watch. Even more importantly the Boren stuff broke as soon as the CWS was over which is in keeping with the new NCAA way of not interrupting one major event with breaking news. Such actions are now considered rude and out of line so the commissioners and presidents wait until major events are over to leak news. The exception would of course involve arrests of key players, deaths, etc.

It suits me to end this now and let the sport recover and traditions get reestablished through cross conference cooperation in scheduling. But if it happens an all P4 schedule is just a couple of years away IMO.

Now let me ask a provocative question, "Who else has been woofing about their conference affiliation lately?" I think when you stop and think about the pairing of Oklahoma and Florida State things could suspiciously point toward the SEC. Just follow this hypothetical for a moment. OU needs and wants out. They are more related to FOX than anyone else in the Big 12 due to T3 contractual obligations. Virginia Tech is closer to AAU status by far than OU. Virginia has many more viewers than Oklahoma. The North Carolina group would not cave on letting N.C. State out from under their thumb. No V.T. and N.C. St. to the SEC talk anymore. It had been an idea floated by ESPN. If you can't hype the value of a network (SECN) you have control over by expanding the markets in it, the only option left for driving its value is content. I doubt seriously that ESPN wants to lose Oklahoma to FOX more completely. I also doubt that the loss of F.S.U. who might bolt ESPN control if not granted a boon at some point in the future is a loss the Mouse wants to sustain either. The win win for ESPN would be to maximize the content (the surest value in commercial TV moving forward as opposed to a market model that could take a hit) of the SECN and wrap up a brand they didn't have a firm hold upon. Without two schools the ACC can then move to 16 with Texas in a Western quad and still keep N.D. as an independent. There has been talk in the past that when or if N.D. ever needs to fully associate with the ACC that Wake Forest could move to being the independent affiliated with the ACC in all sports other than football and the two could essentially switch places. The 5 game conference requirement that N.D. is presently under then becomes the same for Wake who uses it to play the only schools they want to play every year anyway (Virginia, U.N.C., Duke, and N.C. State).

The value of the SECN with Oklahoma and F.S.U. as a multipliers of content games would be extremely significant.

Have you heard any other schools woofing to move other than these two and the left behind group at the top of the G5? I haven't.

Texas, Baylor, T.C.U. and Oklahoma State to the ACC. Florida State and Oklahoma to the SEC. Virginia Tech and Kansas to the Big 10.

Virginia, Duke, U.N.C. and N.D. all keep what they want and with Miami still have access to Florida while picking up all of Texas.

Everybody gets something they want and in all cases value is added.

Everyone, but the PAC gains something they want from that. It's well thought out. Who does the PAC bring in? TTU, KSU, ISU, and Houston? The PAC has to take a couple or the SEC or ACC has to add 2 more to get to the 8 needed for dissolution. What about WVU?

I had spaced on FSU making some noise not long ago. OU and FSU would be a home run if it happened for the SEC. OU would help with north Texas and add OK to the footprint and FSU would mean that the SEC would dominate FL. I think the SEC would be looking at relegating someone(s) in the East to also ran status permanently because FSU is not going down with their home recruiting advantages. And OU with the SEC behind it would go toe to toe with A&M in TX like they used to in the B12. I just feel the SEC might be at the point of diminishing returns on adding more football powers.

I still think ESPN would prefer to keep FSU in the ACC. Replacing them with Texas results in a status quo of still being the weakest in FB of the remaining 4 power conferences. ND would also be less than happy if FSU jets. They might join in full if it helped keep FSU in the fold. I think OU makes sense for the SEC as the pod they are looking at would likely be theirs for the taking most years assuming another B12 school, not named Texas, came on board with them. I also think VT is happy in the ACC. I don't see them leaving if UVA and the NC schools stick tight.

I think the SEC will work OU hard to try to get them looking their way for a move. I think it will be a hard sell though if the B1G is offering due to Boren's academic goals for OU. If the SEC ever took OSU then they would be cooking, but really the SEC would be foolish to do that IMO. No reason to double up in that small state (even throwing in part of N. Tx) when the SEC already has so much FB cache.

I would just hope Boren is not talking out his ass again or else he will be a complete joke if OU falls on its face publicly again. I'm assuming he already has at least one sure invite in hand that they will move on if a legitimate B12 expansion can't be accomplished (very likely the case). I think OU has always had an invite alone to the SEC, and I think that the B1G has offered as well. I am sure the PAC is working to put something attractive together as well. If OU will separate from OSU they have all kinds of options available.

(06-26-2015 06:38 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-25-2015 11:52 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  I have not posted anything for awhile due to realignment burnout, but this might be the ripple that turns into a tsunami so here is my two cents:

B. Pretty sure Boren got his marching orders from the BoR to fix the B12 by expanding or get OU out since this happened right after a BoR meeting, I believe. Since there are not 2 schools that can be added and really help the B12 in a meaningful way (or they would have already have been added previously), I am pretty sure it is just creating the political cover for when they leave, so they can say they tried to stabilize the B12 through expansion, but other B12 schools did not go along and they need to move to a stable, long term home. This will be important politically, especially if they leave OSU behind. They have already tried to get a new home in the SEC, B1G, and PAC with OSU in tow and failed all three times. They can truthfully say they attempted to help OSU, but they can't find a better home for OU without abandoning OSU. OSU will have to stand on its own.

This is very damaging for the B12 as OU destabilized the B12 in 2011 with his wallflower comments and PAC flirtation and really made it clear to MU, the last B12 school of value without a little brother anchor, it was time to hit eject (A&M was gone regardless). It continues to cast the B12 as unstable and unsuitable as a long term home for top power programs something the B12 needs to be doing its best to combat. Expansion is not coming to the B12 almost certainly so it just sows dissension in the B12 ranks. I have been saying all along OU was the school that would blow things up. This is the third time they have said and/or done something publicly that is destabilizing to the B12 (see 2010 and 2011 PAC flirtations). Maybe the third time will be the charm.

They might be working with Texas or not. UT AD Patterson is hated almost universally everywhere he has been, so maybe he pissed an already unhappy OU off. I don't feel Texas is involved though. I think they would rather wait until closer to the end of the GoR before making a final decision on the B12. Texas will benefit regardless of what happens as all the other power conferences would go larger than planned to add them (from 16 to 18 or 20). They have the luxury of waiting. KU and OU don't have the same pull due to their being flagships in much lower population states. If they wait they may get stuck outside for awhile (KU) or have to settle for their least favorite option (OU or KU). I think Texas would like to know who is where before they make their final decisions and where OU and KU end up might have a large influence. If one of the conferences can land OU and KU then their chances of later adding UT go up greatly, if UT is willing to wait. Also by waiting, maybe another conference takes one of UT's little brothers to get into Texas or to help increase the conference presence in that massive state. Say OU and Baylor go to the SEC. Then Texas is down to only TTU, and perhaps TCU, as potential hangers on or schools to be left behind. Or the PAC decides UT is never coming and decides to take OU/OSU and some combo of TX and KS schools before they are left with the B12 leftovers of the B1G and SEC. Again Texas is left with fewer little brothers to protect or abandon when they make their final move. Less backlash either way. If the ACC is their preferred landing spot as speculated here often, then waiting is probably best, as the ACC is not adding anyone from the B12 unless Texas is involved, unlike the PAC, SEC, or B1G who have other possible non-Longhorn targets and perhaps one or more of those targets could be Baylor and/or TTU thus reducing or eliminating some political headaches.

The timing of it points to the B1G as the conference destination with the B1G wanting to get to 16 before it's T1 contract is awarded so it can get the value of the added schools included in that contract and do not have to rework it later. That OU and KU smoke leaked (doing their homework / talking to those schools) after the B1G added Rutgers/UMD might have become a fire. If it is soon that they are looking to move, OU must either feel the GoR is not an obstacle or they feel it will spark a feeding frenzy as the B12 is poached by the other 4 power conferences of enough schools to void the GoR. All the conferences with interest in OU (or any B12 schools) have to be hitting the back channels hard right now trying to land the fish they want.

I think the timing points to the Big 10 as well, but behind the scenes the issues with the PACN could point West as well. The SEC will surely be having back door communications but I highly doubt we initiated any. It will be interesting to watch. Even more importantly the Boren stuff broke as soon as the CWS was over which is in keeping with the new NCAA way of not interrupting one major event with breaking news. Such actions are now considered rude and out of line so the commissioners and presidents wait until major events are over to leak news. The exception would of course involve arrests of key players, deaths, etc.

It suits me to end this now and let the sport recover and traditions get reestablished through cross conference cooperation in scheduling. But if it happens an all P4 schedule is just a couple of years away IMO.

Now let me ask a provocative question, "Who else has been woofing about their conference affiliation lately?" I think when you stop and think about the pairing of Oklahoma and Florida State things could suspiciously point toward the SEC. Just follow this hypothetical for a moment. OU needs and wants out. They are more related to FOX than anyone else in the Big 12 due to T3 contractual obligations. Virginia Tech is closer to AAU status by far than OU. Virginia has many more viewers than Oklahoma. The North Carolina group would not cave on letting N.C. State out from under their thumb. No V.T. and N.C. St. to the SEC talk anymore. It had been an idea floated by ESPN. If you can't hype the value of a network (SECN) you have control over by expanding the markets in it, the only option left for driving its value is content. I doubt seriously that ESPN wants to lose Oklahoma to FOX more completely. I also doubt that the loss of F.S.U. who might bolt ESPN control if not granted a boon at some point in the future is a loss the Mouse wants to sustain either. The win win for ESPN would be to maximize the content (the surest value in commercial TV moving forward as opposed to a market model that could take a hit) of the SECN and wrap up a brand they didn't have a firm hold upon. Without two schools the ACC can then move to 16 with Texas in a Western quad and still keep N.D. as an independent. There has been talk in the past that when or if N.D. ever needs to fully associate with the ACC that Wake Forest could move to being the independent affiliated with the ACC in all sports other than football and the two could essentially switch places. The 5 game conference requirement that N.D. is presently under then becomes the same for Wake who uses it to play the only schools they want to play every year anyway (Virginia, U.N.C., Duke, and N.C. State).

The value of the SECN with Oklahoma and F.S.U. as a multipliers of content games would be extremely significant.

Have you heard any other schools woofing to move other than these two and the left behind group at the top of the G5? I haven't.

Texas, Baylor, T.C.U. and Oklahoma State to the ACC. Florida State and Oklahoma to the SEC. Virginia Tech and Kansas to the Big 10.

Virginia, Duke, U.N.C. and N.D. all keep what they want and with Miami still have access to Florida while picking up all of Texas.

Everybody gets something they want and in all cases value is added.

You have really outdone yourself!

The ACC giving up FSU would be a worse move than the B1G giving up OSU. I would prefer the status quo over switching FSU with Texas +.

(06-26-2015 10:20 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 06:38 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-25-2015 11:52 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  I have not posted anything for awhile due to realignment burnout, but this might be the ripple that turns into a tsunami so here is my two cents:

B. Pretty sure Boren got his marching orders from the BoR to fix the B12 by expanding or get OU out since this happened right after a BoR meeting, I believe. Since there are not 2 schools that can be added and really help the B12 in a meaningful way (or they would have already have been added previously), I am pretty sure it is just creating the political cover for when they leave, so they can say they tried to stabilize the B12 through expansion, but other B12 schools did not go along and they need to move to a stable, long term home. This will be important politically, especially if they leave OSU behind. They have already tried to get a new home in the SEC, B1G, and PAC with OSU in tow and failed all three times. They can truthfully say they attempted to help OSU, but they can't find a better home for OU without abandoning OSU. OSU will have to stand on its own.

This is very damaging for the B12 as OU destabilized the B12 in 2011 with his wallflower comments and PAC flirtation and really made it clear to MU, the last B12 school of value without a little brother anchor, it was time to hit eject (A&M was gone regardless). It continues to cast the B12 as unstable and unsuitable as a long term home for top power programs something the B12 needs to be doing its best to combat. Expansion is not coming to the B12 almost certainly so it just sows dissension in the B12 ranks. I have been saying all along OU was the school that would blow things up. This is the third time they have said and/or done something publicly that is destabilizing to the B12 (see 2010 and 2011 PAC flirtations). Maybe the third time will be the charm.

They might be working with Texas or not. UT AD Patterson is hated almost universally everywhere he has been, so maybe he pissed an already unhappy OU off. I don't feel Texas is involved though. I think they would rather wait until closer to the end of the GoR before making a final decision on the B12. Texas will benefit regardless of what happens as all the other power conferences would go larger than planned to add them (from 16 to 18 or 20). They have the luxury of waiting. KU and OU don't have the same pull due to their being flagships in much lower population states. If they wait they may get stuck outside for awhile (KU) or have to settle for their least favorite option (OU or KU). I think Texas would like to know who is where before they make their final decisions and where OU and KU end up might have a large influence. If one of the conferences can land OU and KU then their chances of later adding UT go up greatly, if UT is willing to wait. Also by waiting, maybe another conference takes one of UT's little brothers to get into Texas or to help increase the conference presence in that massive state. Say OU and Baylor go to the SEC. Then Texas is down to only TTU, and perhaps TCU, as potential hangers on or schools to be left behind. Or the PAC decides UT is never coming and decides to take OU/OSU and some combo of TX and KS schools before they are left with the B12 leftovers of the B1G and SEC. Again Texas is left with fewer little brothers to protect or abandon when they make their final move. Less backlash either way. If the ACC is their preferred landing spot as speculated here often, then waiting is probably best, as the ACC is not adding anyone from the B12 unless Texas is involved, unlike the PAC, SEC, or B1G who have other possible non-Longhorn targets and perhaps one or more of those targets could be Baylor and/or TTU thus reducing or eliminating some political headaches.

The timing of it points to the B1G as the conference destination with the B1G wanting to get to 16 before it's T1 contract is awarded so it can get the value of the added schools included in that contract and do not have to rework it later. That OU and KU smoke leaked (doing their homework / talking to those schools) after the B1G added Rutgers/UMD might have become a fire. If it is soon that they are looking to move, OU must either feel the GoR is not an obstacle or they feel it will spark a feeding frenzy as the B12 is poached by the other 4 power conferences of enough schools to void the GoR. All the conferences with interest in OU (or any B12 schools) have to be hitting the back channels hard right now trying to land the fish they want.

I think the timing points to the Big 10 as well, but behind the scenes the issues with the PACN could point West as well. The SEC will surely be having back door communications but I highly doubt we initiated any. It will be interesting to watch. Even more importantly the Boren stuff broke as soon as the CWS was over which is in keeping with the new NCAA way of not interrupting one major event with breaking news. Such actions are now considered rude and out of line so the commissioners and presidents wait until major events are over to leak news. The exception would of course involve arrests of key players, deaths, etc.

It suits me to end this now and let the sport recover and traditions get reestablished through cross conference cooperation in scheduling. But if it happens an all P4 schedule is just a couple of years away IMO.

Now let me ask a provocative question, "Who else has been woofing about their conference affiliation lately?" I think when you stop and think about the pairing of Oklahoma and Florida State things could suspiciously point toward the SEC. Just follow this hypothetical for a moment. OU needs and wants out. They are more related to FOX than anyone else in the Big 12 due to T3 contractual obligations. Virginia Tech is closer to AAU status by far than OU. Virginia has many more viewers than Oklahoma. The North Carolina group would not cave on letting N.C. State out from under their thumb. No V.T. and N.C. St. to the SEC talk anymore. It had been an idea floated by ESPN. If you can't hype the value of a network (SECN) you have control over by expanding the markets in it, the only option left for driving its value is content. I doubt seriously that ESPN wants to lose Oklahoma to FOX more completely. I also doubt that the loss of F.S.U. who might bolt ESPN control if not granted a boon at some point in the future is a loss the Mouse wants to sustain either. The win win for ESPN would be to maximize the content (the surest value in commercial TV moving forward as opposed to a market model that could take a hit) of the SECN and wrap up a brand they didn't have a firm hold upon. Without two schools the ACC can then move to 16 with Texas in a Western quad and still keep N.D. as an independent. There has been talk in the past that when or if N.D. ever needs to fully associate with the ACC that Wake Forest could move to being the independent affiliated with the ACC in all sports other than football and the two could essentially switch places. The 5 game conference requirement that N.D. is presently under then becomes the same for Wake who uses it to play the only schools they want to play every year anyway (Virginia, U.N.C., Duke, and N.C. State).

The value of the SECN with Oklahoma and F.S.U. as a multipliers of content games would be extremely significant.

Have you heard any other schools woofing to move other than these two and the left behind group at the top of the G5? I haven't.

Texas, Baylor, T.C.U. and Oklahoma State to the ACC. Florida State and Oklahoma to the SEC. Virginia Tech and Kansas to the Big 10.

Virginia, Duke, U.N.C. and N.D. all keep what they want and with Miami still have access to Florida while picking up all of Texas.

Everybody gets something they want and in all cases value is added.

Everyone, but the PAC gains something they want from that. It's well thought out. Who does the PAC bring in? TTU, KSU, ISU, and Houston? The PAC has to take a couple or the SEC or ACC has to add 2 more to get to the 8 needed for dissolution. What about WVU?

I had spaced on FSU making some noise not long ago. OU and FSU would be a home run if it happened for the SEC. OU would help with north Texas and add OK to the footprint and FSU would mean that the SEC would dominate FL. I think the SEC would be looking at relegating someone(s) in the East to also ran status permanently because FSU is not going down with their home recruiting advantages. And OU with the SEC behind it would go toe to toe with A&M in TX like they used to in the B12. I just feel the SEC might be at the point of diminishing returns on adding more football powers.

I still think ESPN would prefer to keep FSU in the ACC. Replacing them with Texas results in a status quo of still being the weakest in FB of the remaining 4 power conferences. ND would also be less than happy if FSU jets. They might join in full if it helped keep FSU in the fold. I think OU makes sense for the SEC as the pod they are looking at would likely be theirs for the taking most years assuming another B12 school, not named Texas, came on board with them. I also think VT is happy in the ACC. I don't see them leaving if UVA and the NC schools stick tight.

I think the SEC will work OU hard to try to get them looking their way for a move. I think it will be a hard sell though if the B1G is offering due to Boren's academic goals for OU. If the SEC ever took OSU then they would be cooking, but really the SEC would be foolish to do that IMO. No reason to double up in that small state (even throwing in part of N. Tx) when the SEC already has so much FB cache.

I would just hope Boren is not talking out his ass again or else he will be a complete joke if OU falls on its face publicly again. I'm assuming he already has at least one sure invite in hand that they will move on if a legitimate B12 expansion can't be accomplished (very likely the case). I think OU has always had an invite alone to the SEC, and I think that the B1G has offered as well. I am sure the PAC is working to put something attractive together as well. If OU will separate from OSU they have all kinds of options available.

Jayhawkmvp, the PAC is not going to gain favors until they sell part interest in their network. I don't think they will expand again until they do. Therefore they are not a factor in further realignment as is unless they take leftovers.

(06-26-2015 06:07 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  The ACC giving up FSU would be a worse move than the B1G giving up OSU. I would prefer the status quo over switching FSU with Texas +.

Lenville from a pure football perspective I understand your position. However the windfall from having Texas as a full member (the price of buddies) and Notre Dame as a partial far outweighs the loss of the Noles, or of the Hokies for that matter. Right now nothing could upgrade ACC football more than Texas, the Frogs, the Bears, and a Cowboys team that is always competitive. Right now I'd say all 4 were better than Virginia Tech and Texas's value far outweighs even the cache of Florida State.

Are you ready to stick to a single scenario yet JR? Nothing has changed.

Let me throw out one other possibility.

If you think the timing of Boren's comments are related to the BIG media negotiations, then why would the result be to build up the SECN by adding OU and FSU?

Wouldn't it make more sense that the BIG is telling ESPN that if it wants a larger share of BIG programming, it needs to help the BIG get to 16-18 teams?

The BIG would be telling ESPN that it wants to add Kansas and OU, but OU won't come without Texas. ESPN owns a chunk of the LHN, but the compromise might be adding Texas too, with the BTN buying out the LHN and saving ESPN's ass from further losses.

BIG gets what it wants, with KU, OU and UT to the BIG (with an 18th spot open for the highest bidder to the east). ESPN get what it wants - BIG media rights and an exit strategy from the LHN. Fox goes along for the ride, with a larger BTN network, and perhaps with ESPN as a junior partner in it.

(06-27-2015 02:17 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  Let me throw out one other possibility.

If you think the timing of Boren's comments are related to the BIG media negotiations, then why would the result be to build up the SECN by adding OU and FSU?

Wouldn't it make more sense that the BIG is telling ESPN that if it wants a larger share of BIG programming, it needs to help the BIG get to 16-18 teams?

The BIG would be telling ESPN that it wants to add Kansas and OU, but OU won't come without Texas. ESPN owns a chunk of the LHN, but the compromise might be adding Texas too, with the BTN buying out the LHN and saving ESPN's ass from further losses.

BIG gets what it wants, with KU, OU and UT to the BIG (with an 18th spot open for the highest bidder to the east). ESPN get what it wants - BIG media rights and an exit strategy from the LHN. Fox goes along for the ride, with a larger BTN network, and perhaps with ESPN as a junior partner in it.

Because Texas will go where they want to go and I seriously doubt they have any intentions of playing in the Big 10. For one it would alienate most of their T shirt fans and tick off a significant portion of their alumni base. Secondly, such a move would most assuredly solidify A&M's position within the state. I could see Texas in the PAC long before I could see them in the Big 10. Thirdly there isn't much in the Big 10 to multiply Oklahoma's value to ESPN and certainly not to multiply ESPN's lassoed product, Texas. They wouldn't get to play all of the top 5 Big 10 schools every year and the interest in those games would be tepid at best. And finally utilizing the timing of the Big 10's needs is just a way to strengthen OU's bargaining position with all other interested parties. Even if it were the SEC's TV negotiations as part of the timing they would still be seeking bids from the PAC & Big 10. Schools don't move in a vacuum. Finally do you think ESPN wants to give up majority of interest in college footballs top product and moneymaker to get a piece of a conference where their top product props up their competitor's profits??? Think again. Plus as long as Texas remains even remotely a possibility for the ACC then ESPN will continue to hold out hopes of eventually landing Notre Dame.

(06-27-2015 12:49 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Are you ready to stick to a single scenario yet JR? Nothing has changed.

I explore scenarios H1. Some of those get adopted by others who find logic in them. But quite frankly the only thing that I'll say with impunity is that corporate America is more behind these moves through their subsidiary properties, the networks, than Joe Average Fan wants to admit. I think we agree on that. What arrangements get worked out there could still turn out in a dozen or so ways. The cut in state tax revenues, Federal grant cuts, and the drop in stocks and real estate values (which prop up many of the endowments of these universities) created the need for cash that corporate America has taken advantage of with these schools. Now that they are driving realignment the networks are pushing for product placement that will maximize advertising rates, and a system that will eventually prove to be more fan friendly because they need to keep the viewers in the long run. Should realignment continue to drag out at decade long intervals they know the effect will be to kill a significant percentage of allegiances to the sport. That's why I've always held the position that it happens sooner now rather than later. But sooner could well be two or three more years.

If Boren's remarks are a precursor to something breaking sooner so be it. It's time to end the realignment (product placement) and to get on with letting the population settle back into their traditions and rivalries. If it were just ESPN jockeying for what they wanted we would be done. The hang ups are not so much with the schools (Texas and Notre Dame excluded) as they have been with the competing networks whose ham handed way of locking up property when the last run began has made it difficult for them to now finish it like they would want.

I could see Oklahoma in 3 conferences. I could see Texas in 3 more than the 4th. I'm still not sure that the ACC is totally off the market. I think they survive but that they get rearranged a bit in the process. That's about it.

Since the ACC has been so resistant to the kinds of changes that would profit not only them, but also the SEC and ESPN, I think the ACCN has become the leverage the Mouse is using against them to get what they want. If there is movement on that front then what you propose could well happen. If not then ESPN may choose to let a few of their properties go and Texas and Oklahoma could stand pat and wait on schools like Louisville, Clemson, F.S.U., etc. If Texas wants independence then building a profitable conference around their brand and that of N.D.'s would be easy to do. So whether the Big 10 or the SEC expands from the East or West is still to be decided. I think both of our conferences would rather have a piece of North Carolina and Virginia than to have all of Kansas and Oklahoma. That's what I think.

Now complicating that thought is the possibility of the changes in delivery of product to cause a significant switch from a market model to a content model. That's why I suggested that even though the SEC is already as strong as it needs to be in football an interesting long term strategy (and perhaps a safer one) would be to maximize and multiply the content the conference could deliver. Then for both the SEC and ESPN Florida State in the SEC makes more sense and Virginia Tech in the Big 10 makes more sense and Oklahoma in either makes sense since ESPN doesn't control them like they do Texas.

As an old purist I would still rather see the SEC expand with F.S.U. and Clemson than just about any other combination. I really don't give a rat's behind for any football team from North Carolina or Virginia. At least not one the SEC or Big 10 would look at. It's too bad we won't look at East Carolina because they at least care about the game. If forced to expand West the obvious two are Texas and Oklahoma for anybody. I do think with A&M the SEC would be fine with a second Texas school even if it wasn't Texas. Kansas is not a cultural fit so Oklahoma still makes sense for us too in that regard and as pertaining to content.

(06-26-2015 09:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Jayhawkmvp, the PAC is not going to gain favors until they sell part interest in their network. I don't think they will expand again until they do. Therefore they are not a factor in further realignment as is unless they take leftovers.

They would be foolish not to try and selling a piece of their network could be part of their pitch. They are in a weak position and have few cards to play, put they will still play the cards they can. They have too. There are some quietly unhappy schools in the PAC with the revenue they are receiving right now.

Landthieves has really swung to the SEC right now. They want out to any of the PAC, B!G, or SEC, but the SEC has really gained momentum there.

(06-27-2015 11:54 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 09:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Jayhawkmvp, the PAC is not going to gain favors until they sell part interest in their network. I don't think they will expand again until they do. Therefore they are not a factor in further realignment as is unless they take leftovers.

They would be foolish not to try and selling a piece of their network could be part of their pitch. They are in a weak position and have few cards to play, put they will still play the cards they can. They have too. There are some quietly unhappy schools in the PAC with the revenue they are receiving right now.

Landthieves has really swung to the SEC right now. They want out to any of the PAC, B!G, or SEC, but the SEC has really gained momentum there.

Well those are fans. The donors and BOR are the key. I don't think Boren can do anymore than suggest where they should go. Jerry Jones, Walmart people, Branson resort owners all had a hand in Arkansas and Missouri's moves. Things are different now in that regard. IMO Oklahoma is the piece to the West that the SEC needs most. I don't think we cave on them without a big push and it appears to me that the push may be on right now.

I do think that there must be placement for West Virginia, Baylor, and Texas Tech for this to move forward. I doubt that OU would make a bold move without numbers and Texas's silent backing.

If there is movement I strongly suspect that OU, KU, UT, and WVU all have predetermined destinations and that Tech, and O.S.U. have been taken care of. Placing one of BU and TCU along with KState is the trick. It's even possible that it would be ISU and KState with the two privates out. We'll see if it comes to pass.

OU gives the SEC essentially a second Texas school without having to take another. It's our most economical way to proceed. Depending upon what ESPN would be working out with the ACC the SEC may or may not get a second team from the West. I still wouldn't be surprised to see F.S.U. sneak into the SEC picture. It will be fun to see which way it goes. I still firmly believe that geography and alumni will trump all when the decisions are made.

(06-27-2015 12:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 11:54 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 09:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Jayhawkmvp, the PAC is not going to gain favors until they sell part interest in their network. I don't think they will expand again until they do. Therefore they are not a factor in further realignment as is unless they take leftovers.

They would be foolish not to try and selling a piece of their network could be part of their pitch. They are in a weak position and have few cards to play, put they will still play the cards they can. They have too. There are some quietly unhappy schools in the PAC with the revenue they are receiving right now.

Landthieves has really swung to the SEC right now. They want out to any of the PAC, B!G, or SEC, but the SEC has really gained momentum there.

Well those are fans. The donors and BOR are the key. I don't think Boren can do anymore than suggest where they should go. Jerry Jones, Walmart people, Branson resort owners all had a hand in Arkansas and Missouri's moves. Things are different now in that regard. IMO Oklahoma is the piece to the West that the SEC needs most. I don't think we cave on them without a big push and it appears to me that the push may be on right now.

I do think that there must be placement for West Virginia, Baylor, and Texas Tech for this to move forward. I doubt that OU would make a bold move without numbers and Texas's silent backing.

If there is movement I strongly suspect that OU, KU, UT, and WVU all have predetermined destinations and that Tech, and O.S.U. have been taken care of. Placing one of BU and TCU along with KState is the trick. It's even possible that it would be ISU and KState with the two privates out. We'll see if it comes to pass.

OU gives the SEC essentially a second Texas school without having to take another. It's our most economical way to proceed. Depending upon what ESPN would be working out with the ACC the SEC may or may not get a second team from the West. I still wouldn't be surprised to see F.S.U. sneak into the SEC picture. It will be fun to see which way it goes. I still firmly believe that geography and alumni will trump all when the decisions are made.

If ESPN is the ultimate player you seem to think they are, the worse thing they could allow to happen is FSU to another of their own almost exclusive properties reducing the value of their exclusive property and making it so weak that they likely have no shot of getting ND exclusively.

Gaining OU for the SEC is something I think they would greatly favor. It takes them out of FOX's reach entirely. OU to the B1G, as H1 has been saying for a long time, could result in FOX gaining the Sooners exclusively (dependent upon how the B1G negotiations go) or at least not much change to what OU's current status is with FOX since at worse I see the B1G contract being split between ESPN/FOX.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-27-2015 09:24 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 02:17 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  Let me throw out one other possibility.

If you think the timing of Boren's comments are related to the BIG media negotiations, then why would the result be to build up the SECN by adding OU and FSU?

Wouldn't it make more sense that the BIG is telling ESPN that if it wants a larger share of BIG programming, it needs to help the BIG get to 16-18 teams?

The BIG would be telling ESPN that it wants to add Kansas and OU, but OU won't come without Texas. ESPN owns a chunk of the LHN, but the compromise might be adding Texas too, with the BTN buying out the LHN and saving ESPN's ass from further losses.

BIG gets what it wants, with KU, OU and UT to the BIG (with an 18th spot open for the highest bidder to the east). ESPN get what it wants - BIG media rights and an exit strategy from the LHN. Fox goes along for the ride, with a larger BTN network, and perhaps with ESPN as a junior partner in it.

Because Texas will go where they want to go and I seriously doubt they have any intentions of playing in the Big 10. For one it would alienate most of their T shirt fans and tick off a significant portion of their alumni base. Secondly, such a move would most assuredly solidify A&M's position within the state. I could see Texas in the PAC long before I could see them in the Big 10. Thirdly there isn't much in the Big 10 to multiply Oklahoma's value to ESPN and certainly not to multiply ESPN's lassoed product, Texas. They wouldn't get to play all of the top 5 Big 10 schools every year and the interest in those games would be tepid at best. And finally utilizing the timing of the Big 10's needs is just a way to strengthen OU's bargaining position with all other interested parties. Even if it were the SEC's TV negotiations as part of the timing they would still be seeking bids from the PAC & Big 10. Schools don't move in a vacuum. Finally do you think ESPN wants to give up majority of interest in college footballs top product and moneymaker to get a piece of a conference where their top product props up their competitor's profits??? Think again. Plus as long as Texas remains even remotely a possibility for the ACC then ESPN will continue to hold out hopes of eventually landing Notre Dame.

I don't think it's quite the open and shut case you present.

In an 18 team BIG, Texas would play Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa and Kansas every year. With divisions or pods, Texas would probably play one or two games a year against OSU, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State or Wisconsin. Texas would still be able to schedule out of conference games with Baylor, TCU or other regional teams, all of whom would bend over backwards to keep Texas on their schedule. That should appease the Tshirt crowd. Add the benefit of academics and CIC, and the BIG may look pretty good to Texas Administration and Regents too.

A&M's position is already solid. As long as they can field competitive teams in the SEC, they will get their fair share of recruits. I just don't see Texas following A&M to the SEC. Their pride won't allow it. PAC is an option but not the best because of the time zones. But playing Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa and Kansas, plus a couple of the BIG powers each year seems to me to be at least as, if not more, attractive than playing ACC teams when only FSU is the real powerhouse. Sure, they may get on ND's schedule once every few years, and can schedule ND as an OOC game, but a BIG Texas could do that anyway.

The stumbling block, as you say, is whether ESPN can be enticed to go along. Keeping a piece of BIG media rights, getting bought out of a long term bad deal for the LHN and potentially getting a piece of the BTN might do it. But think of the consequences of TX, OK and KU moving to the BIG - that means there is nowhere else for Notre Dame to go except the ACC. The fallout might well be ND finally joins the conference as a full member, making the ACC a stable long term conference - and making ESPN very happy indeed.

(06-27-2015 12:25 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 12:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 11:54 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 09:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Jayhawkmvp, the PAC is not going to gain favors until they sell part interest in their network. I don't think they will expand again until they do. Therefore they are not a factor in further realignment as is unless they take leftovers.

They would be foolish not to try and selling a piece of their network could be part of their pitch. They are in a weak position and have few cards to play, put they will still play the cards they can. They have too. There are some quietly unhappy schools in the PAC with the revenue they are receiving right now.

Landthieves has really swung to the SEC right now. They want out to any of the PAC, B!G, or SEC, but the SEC has really gained momentum there.

Well those are fans. The donors and BOR are the key. I don't think Boren can do anymore than suggest where they should go. Jerry Jones, Walmart people, Branson resort owners all had a hand in Arkansas and Missouri's moves. Things are different now in that regard. IMO Oklahoma is the piece to the West that the SEC needs most. I don't think we cave on them without a big push and it appears to me that the push may be on right now.

I do think that there must be placement for West Virginia, Baylor, and Texas Tech for this to move forward. I doubt that OU would make a bold move without numbers and Texas's silent backing.

If there is movement I strongly suspect that OU, KU, UT, and WVU all have predetermined destinations and that Tech, and O.S.U. have been taken care of. Placing one of BU and TCU along with KState is the trick. It's even possible that it would be ISU and KState with the two privates out. We'll see if it comes to pass.

OU gives the SEC essentially a second Texas school without having to take another. It's our most economical way to proceed. Depending upon what ESPN would be working out with the ACC the SEC may or may not get a second team from the West. I still wouldn't be surprised to see F.S.U. sneak into the SEC picture. It will be fun to see which way it goes. I still firmly believe that geography and alumni will trump all when the decisions are made.

If ESPN is the ultimate player you seem to think they are, the worse thing they could allow to happen is FSU to another of their own almost exclusive properties reducing the value of their exclusive property and making it so weak that they likely have no shot of getting ND exclusively.

Gaining OU for the SEC is something I think they would greatly favor. It takes them out of FOX's reach entirely. OU to the B1G, as H1 has been saying for a long time, could result in FOX gaining the Sooners exclusively (dependent upon how the B1G negotiations go) or at least not much change to what OU's current status is with FOX since at worse I see the B1G contract being split between ESPN/FOX.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil I truly understand your line of reasoning here and I cannot deny that it has merit. But consider the moving parts and their value. Texas>Florida State. Right now T.C.U. and Baylor in football strength are both > Virginia Tech. Texas is the one with long standing relations with Notre Dame. Furthermore if T.C.U. and Baylor tag along the price to Texas would be full membership in the ACC, not some independent deal. There's your value added which exceeds value lost. You lose Florida State and you don't lose Florida. You pick up UT and at least T.C.U. and you gain virtually all of Texas. You lose Virginia Tech and you do not lose Virginia. It doesn't really matter who comes with Texas. Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Iowa State could just as easily work from an academic stand point and from a market standpoint would be better. But if football cache is to be replaced then the four I suggested would bring the biggest bang short of the ACC addding OU with Texas.

(06-27-2015 12:42 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 09:24 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 02:17 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  Let me throw out one other possibility.

If you think the timing of Boren's comments are related to the BIG media negotiations, then why would the result be to build up the SECN by adding OU and FSU?

Wouldn't it make more sense that the BIG is telling ESPN that if it wants a larger share of BIG programming, it needs to help the BIG get to 16-18 teams?

The BIG would be telling ESPN that it wants to add Kansas and OU, but OU won't come without Texas. ESPN owns a chunk of the LHN, but the compromise might be adding Texas too, with the BTN buying out the LHN and saving ESPN's ass from further losses.

BIG gets what it wants, with KU, OU and UT to the BIG (with an 18th spot open for the highest bidder to the east). ESPN get what it wants - BIG media rights and an exit strategy from the LHN. Fox goes along for the ride, with a larger BTN network, and perhaps with ESPN as a junior partner in it.

Because Texas will go where they want to go and I seriously doubt they have any intentions of playing in the Big 10. For one it would alienate most of their T shirt fans and tick off a significant portion of their alumni base. Secondly, such a move would most assuredly solidify A&M's position within the state. I could see Texas in the PAC long before I could see them in the Big 10. Thirdly there isn't much in the Big 10 to multiply Oklahoma's value to ESPN and certainly not to multiply ESPN's lassoed product, Texas. They wouldn't get to play all of the top 5 Big 10 schools every year and the interest in those games would be tepid at best. And finally utilizing the timing of the Big 10's needs is just a way to strengthen OU's bargaining position with all other interested parties. Even if it were the SEC's TV negotiations as part of the timing they would still be seeking bids from the PAC & Big 10. Schools don't move in a vacuum. Finally do you think ESPN wants to give up majority of interest in college footballs top product and moneymaker to get a piece of a conference where their top product props up their competitor's profits??? Think again. Plus as long as Texas remains even remotely a possibility for the ACC then ESPN will continue to hold out hopes of eventually landing Notre Dame.

I don't think it's quite the open and shut case you present.

In an 18 team BIG, Texas would play Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa and Kansas every year. With divisions or pods, Texas would probably play one or two games a year against OSU, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State or Wisconsin. Texas would still be able to schedule out of conference games with Baylor, TCU or other regional teams, all of whom would bend over backwards to keep Texas on their schedule. That should appease the Tshirt crowd. Add the benefit of academics and CIC, and the BIG may look pretty good to Texas Administration and Regents too.

A&M's position is already solid. As long as they can field competitive teams in the SEC, they will get their fair share of recruits. I just don't see Texas following A&M to the SEC. Their pride won't allow it. PAC is an option but not the best because of the time zones. But playing Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa and Kansas, plus a couple of the BIG powers each year seems to me to be at least as, if not more, attractive than playing ACC teams when only FSU is the real powerhouse. Sure, they may get on ND's schedule once every few years, and can schedule ND as an OOC game, but a BIG Texas could do that anyway.

The stumbling block, as you say, is whether ESPN can be enticed to go along. Keeping a piece of BIG media rights, getting bought out of a long term bad deal for the LHN and potentially getting a piece of the BTN might do it. But think of the consequences of TX, OK and KU moving to the BIG - that means there is nowhere else for Notre Dame to go except the ACC. The fallout might well be ND finally joins the conference as a full member, making the ACC a stable long term conference - and making ESPN very happy indeed.

I've been around people who had to make conference decisions all of my life. It's strictly business, all angles considered, all contingencies hopefully imagined and explored, and then a bottom line decision. At no time did "pride" ever enter into it, ever! Texas is the most successful college sports brand ever when it comes to business. They didn't get there by salving their pride. They got there by using their leverage. Don't confuse leverage with pride. Texas will do ultimately what is in their best interest and nothing else. The Big 10 is not in their self interest. It's too far. Their donors and fans aren't interested. They culturally don't identify with the Big 10. Academics would be the only selling point for the B1G. It really is cut and dried.

Oklahoma on the other hand has more reason to consider the PAC and the Big 10. That's where the sales job has to be made by any conference that wants them. Geography and familiarity with old rivals is on the side of the SEC. Nebraska is on the side of the Big 10. Their desire to improve their academic standing is on the side of the Big 10 and the PAC. Having Colorado in the PAC helps slightly. OU is the swing state here. But people have it backwards when it comes to OU and UT. OU needs Texas not the other way around. OU will be more likely to do what Texas wants to do and that is the inertia that the Big 10, SEC, or PAC will have to overcome.