Just wondering what everyone out there is thinking as far as what the SEC would rank expansion candidates based on an overall value scale. You can come up with your own metrics.

In this exercise, I'm listing the overall value from top to bottom additions to the league and creating a line at which schools above the line are schools worth expanding for immediately, like say #15, similar to Texas A&M was at #13, and then schools worth rounding out with.

1. Texas*
2. North Carolina
3. Oklahoma
4. Virginia Tech
5. Virginia
---------------------
6. North Carolina State
7. Florida State*
8. Duke
9. Kansas
10. West Virginia
11. Clemson*

*While school has the value to be added, it could get blocked or denied a vote by a SEC member in the same state.

(08-01-2015 08:46 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Just wondering what everyone out there is thinking as far as what the SEC would rank expansion candidates based on an overall value scale. You can come up with your own metrics.

In this exercise, I'm listing the overall value from top to bottom additions to the league and creating a line at which schools above the line are schools worth expanding for immediately, like say #15, similar to Texas A&M was at #13, and then schools worth rounding out with.

1. Texas*
2. North Carolina
3. Oklahoma
4. Virginia Tech
5. Virginia
---------------------
6. North Carolina State
7. Florida State*
8. Duke
9. Kansas
10. West Virginia
11. Clemson*

*While school has the value to be added, it could get blocked or denied a vote by a SEC member in the same state.

I think that's about right.

My list is a little different.

1, Oklahoma
2, Texas
3, Kansas
4, Iowa state
5, Kansas State
6, TCU
7, East Carolina
8, Cincinnati
9, Okie state
10, West Virginia

(08-01-2015 10:34 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  My list is a little different.

1, Oklahoma
2, Texas
3, Kansas
4, Iowa state
5, Kansas State
6, TCU
7, East Carolina
8, Cincinnati
9, Okie state
10, West Virginia

I can't argue with one or two or three, but four through 9 just don't seem to carry enough of their home markets to get me excited about adding them. I would put WVU up a lot higher.

Not exactly scientific, but interesting:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/...14,-91.285

Higgs, what would your list look like with some ACC schools thrown in it?

(08-02-2015 02:58 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 10:34 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  My list is a little different.

1, Oklahoma
2, Texas
3, Kansas
4, Iowa state
5, Kansas State
6, TCU
7, East Carolina
8, Cincinnati
9, Okie state
10, West Virginia

I can't argue with one or two or three, but four through 9 just don't seem to carry enough of their home markets to get me excited about adding them. I would put WVU up a lot higher.

Not exactly scientific, but interesting:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/...14,-91.285

Higgs, what would your list look like with some ACC schools thrown in it?

I never throw ACC schools in due to the fact that I just don't believe the SEC would ever poach the ACC. The ACC and the SEC have had a long standing relationship and it has been extremely beneficial for both. Now currently with the unstable nature of the Big 12. A lot of those programs can quickly come into play.

Based on simple values to the conference from markets, as content multipliers, or both.

1. North Carolina
2. Virginia Tech
3. Oklahoma
4. N. C. State
5. Virginia
6. Texas
7. Florida State
8. Kansas
______________

9. Duke
10. Any Second Texas school if we don't land Texas
11. Clemson

A few facts:
1. Florida sponsored Florida State for membership in '91. They were willing to sponsor membership for them in 2010.

2. South Carolina was willing to sponsor membership for Clemson in 2010.

3. Georgia had no opposition to the inclusion of Georgia Tech in 2010.

4. Because these schools wanted their in state rivals included in the conference out of the fear that the expansion of conferences and the eventual move to 9 or 10 conference games would threaten their in state rival games should other conferences do the same and because these games are for Florida and U.S.C. the main reason their donors give they didn't want the games to be threatened.

5. This prompted Slive to ask for a "gentlemen's agreement" that in state rivals not be nominated for membership until the escalator clause permitting a renegotiation of the TV contract to occur was activated by the addition of two new markets. In other words Slive promised those presidents that after A&M and Missouri were added that the conference would no longer place restrictions on adding from within the existing footprint.

It was never about the internet B.S. that has been repeated so many times that a twisted version of what happened is now believed to be the truth.

6. It is ESPN that refuses to pay for additions to the SEC out of the ACC. They have on one occasion offered us a kind of packaged deal. In 2010 it was to be Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and an unnamed school which was at the time likely Notre Dame that was to go to the ACC and the SEC was to acquire Virginia Tech and N.C. State. That prompted the Clay Travis blog, Mr. SEC to push the market concept, all to test the SEC fan response and sell the move. It is even why at A&M's announcement they had T-shirts printed up showing the states of Virginia and North Carolina already in the SEC footprint. Heck Virginia Tech had already met with the SEC in preparation at the Greenbriar in W.V. It was U.N.C. that pulled the plug on the deal.

7. I think Hawghiggs is correct however in that future expansion is likely to come out of the Big 12. In that case the priority list changes quite a bit.

1. Oklahoma: They add a new state, content, and deliver the DFW area.
2. Texas: Huge content.
3. Kansas: Basketball content, but a very distant third choice because of weak football.

4. A second Texas school if Texas doesn't come and Kansas goes elsewhere.
5. Oklahoma State: They are the 11th most valuable athletic department in the nation.
6. West Virginia: However I expect them to move to the ACC if the Big 12 implodes.

All of this said I do not really expect us to land Kansas, and I certainly do no believe we would add Iowa State, Cincinnati, or Kansas State. Why? Slive promised, and Sankey just reaffirmed, that future SEC moves would remain culturally tied to our region. I would say this excludes absolutely all but Kansas and very likely them as well. The temptation to bring in the founder of American basketball, Mizzou's chief rival, and an AAU school that would actually make us a little money might be hard to resist.

Just throwing this out their JRsec. But Iowa state is also an AAU member.

(08-02-2015 12:28 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Just throwing this out their JRsec. But Iowa state is also an AAU member.

Hawghiggs they make more sense to me than Kansas State, Cincinnati, or West Virginia and as much sense as Oklahoma State.

They are primarily like many SEC schools in disciplines taught. They have a loyal fan base through thick or thin, are usually very decent in hoops, they are AAU, and they are due North of Missouri.

Oklahoma State is a highly profitable athletic program.

I don't disagree with you on this. It just isn't what the conference has said.

If we add Oklahoma then Kansas gives the footprint some geographical symmetry. But, the same can be said of Iowa State.

(08-02-2015 12:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 12:28 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Just throwing this out their JRsec. But Iowa state is also an AAU member.

Hawghiggs they make more sense to me than Kansas State, Cincinnati, or West Virginia and as much sense as Oklahoma State.

They are primarily like many SEC schools in disciplines taught. They have a loyal fan base through thick or thin, are usually very decent in hoops, they are AAU, and they are due North of Missouri.

Oklahoma State is a highly profitable athletic program.

I don't disagree with you on this. It just isn't what the conference has said.

If we add Oklahoma then Kansas gives the footprint some geographical symmetry. But, the same can be said of Iowa State.

What would your thoughts be on OU, KU, ISU, and Baylor to the SEC?

Texas and WVU to the ACC?

(08-02-2015 02:06 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 12:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 12:28 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Just throwing this out their JRsec. But Iowa state is also an AAU member.

Hawghiggs they make more sense to me than Kansas State, Cincinnati, or West Virginia and as much sense as Oklahoma State.

They are primarily like many SEC schools in disciplines taught. They have a loyal fan base through thick or thin, are usually very decent in hoops, they are AAU, and they are due North of Missouri.

Oklahoma State is a highly profitable athletic program.

I don't disagree with you on this. It just isn't what the conference has said.

If we add Oklahoma then Kansas gives the footprint some geographical symmetry. But, the same can be said of Iowa State.

What would your thoughts be on OU, KU, ISU, and Baylor to the SEC?

Texas and WVU to the ACC?

I think OU and KSU would be enough. But let's say that the ESPN needed to place enough to effectively dissolve the Big 12 and that cooperation with FOX was nil. Then adding Texas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and West Virginia to the ACC and the four you suggested above to the SEC would make some sense. The fact that the PAC could well want a piece of the Texas market and might take T.C.U. and Texas Tech could mean that a way was found to place all 10.

Iowa State adds three million plus viewers, some basketball value, a solid fan base and an AAU school. Baylor gives everyone a second trip to the state of Texas.

(08-02-2015 02:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 02:06 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  What would your thoughts be on OU, KU, ISU, and Baylor to the SEC?

Texas and WVU to the ACC?

I think OU and KSU would be enough. But let's say that the ESPN needed to place enough to effectively dissolve the Big 12 and that cooperation with FOX was nil. Then adding Texas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and West Virginia to the ACC and the four you suggested above to the SEC would make some sense. The fact that the PAC could well want a piece of the Texas market and might take T.C.U. and Texas Tech could mean that a way was found to place all 10.

Iowa State adds three million plus viewers, some basketball value, a solid fan base and an AAU school. Baylor gives everyone a second trip to the state of Texas.

Iowa State isn't a big revenue producer, but in fairness they've been stuck on the backseat of the bus for a long time in that league. Iowa has a lot of advantages in-state, but like many SEC states there are no major pro sports. I feel like ISU is a decent brand in slumber mode. My only real concern is the travel. If the AAU schools from the ACC are off the table though then ISU could be a very good option.

Another alignment that I think makes sense:

OU, KU, ISU, and WVU to the SEC.

TCU and Houston to the PAC

Texas, Baylor, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma St to the ACC.

(08-01-2015 08:46 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Just wondering what everyone out there is thinking as far as what the SEC would rank expansion candidates based on an overall value scale. You can come up with your own metrics.

In this exercise, I'm listing the overall value from top to bottom additions to the league and creating a line at which schools above the line are schools worth expanding for immediately, like say #15, similar to Texas A&M was at #13, and then schools worth rounding out with.

1. Texas*
2. North Carolina
3. Oklahoma
4. Virginia Tech
5. Virginia
---------------------
6. North Carolina State
7. Florida State*
8. Duke
9. Kansas
10. West Virginia
11. Clemson*

*While school has the value to be added, it could get blocked or denied a vote by a SEC member in the same state.

It may not be #1 on the list, but the SEC's #1 target had better be Oklahoma paired with Baylor.

I would not be surprised, if FOX and ESPN are involved heavily, that OU and KU end up on one network and Texas the other. The value of Texas is ridiculously huge, probably about equal to OU plus KU, especially to a conference with no Texas presence, where it might even be greater than OU plus KU. Both networks would be happy, but neither gets the whole enchilada. Texas would maximize it's value in the B1G, PAC (not unless they sell a piece of the PACN), or ACC; whereas, OU+KU would be worth more in the SEC (but be of the same value to pretty much any conference) since they already have Texas A&M and OU would bring in northern TX viewers down to DFW in big numbers. Doesn't mean that is where they will end up since admin and fans will have their influence, but from a value standpoint neither network could have all 3 that makes a lot of sense to get maximum value.

(08-03-2015 12:03 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  I would not be surprised, if FOX and ESPN are involved heavily, that OU and KU end up on one network and Texas the other. The value of Texas is ridiculously huge, probably about equal to OU plus KU, especially to a conference with no Texas presence, where it might even be greater than OU plus KU. Both networks would be happy, but neither gets the whole enchilada. Texas would maximize it's value in the B1G, PAC (not unless they sell a piece of the PACN), or ACC; whereas, OU+KU would be worth more in the SEC (but be of the same value to pretty much any conference) since they already have Texas A&M and OU would bring in northern TX viewers down to DFW in big numbers. Doesn't mean that is where they will end up since admin and fans will have their influence, but from a value standpoint neither network could have all 3 that makes a lot of sense to get maximum value.

I still think if they are antsy to get this done (meaning the networks) and they have reason to be antsy (college football is a huge cable driver and as the more of the 1/3 of Americans invested in college sports get pissed off with this constant product shuffling the more folks are going to cut the cord because sports is one of the things that keeps bundling going). This is why I believe that they need to broker 8 of these schools and end the Big 12 and with it realignment. Providing a 4 champs model would be the wisest and quickest stabilizing force in College football and for their present delivery model.

Because of that Kansas to the Big 10, Oklahoma to the SEC and Texas to the PAC where FOX and ESPN are truly 50/50 with one another is the best cultural and monetary split of this property. The ACC is still the snag on any kind of deal to include Texas and Notre Dame. The Irish want independence and the Tar Heels don't want to give up power. Let them hang themselves. That's the most enjoyable consequence of arrogance anyway. Give the ACC West Virginia. Let the SEC take Baylor and the Big 10 Iowa State. Then pack up the Horns with Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and their choice of T.C.U. and Texas Tech and send them west. Game over. Let's get ready for football.

(08-03-2015 06:50 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 12:03 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  I would not be surprised, if FOX and ESPN are involved heavily, that OU and KU end up on one network and Texas the other. The value of Texas is ridiculously huge, probably about equal to OU plus KU, especially to a conference with no Texas presence, where it might even be greater than OU plus KU. Both networks would be happy, but neither gets the whole enchilada. Texas would maximize it's value in the B1G, PAC (not unless they sell a piece of the PACN), or ACC; whereas, OU+KU would be worth more in the SEC (but be of the same value to pretty much any conference) since they already have Texas A&M and OU would bring in northern TX viewers down to DFW in big numbers. Doesn't mean that is where they will end up since admin and fans will have their influence, but from a value standpoint neither network could have all 3 that makes a lot of sense to get maximum value.

I still think if they are antsy to get this done (meaning the networks) and they have reason to be antsy (college football is a huge cable driver and as the more of the 1/3 of Americans invested in college sports get pissed off with this constant product shuffling the more folks are going to cut the cord because sports is one of the things that keeps bundling going). This is why I believe that they need to broker 8 of these schools and end the Big 12 and with it realignment. Providing a 4 champs model would be the wisest and quickest stabilizing force in College football and for their present delivery model.

Because of that Kansas to the Big 10, Oklahoma to the SEC and Texas to the PAC where FOX and ESPN are truly 50/50 with one another is the best cultural and monetary split of this property. The ACC is still the snag on any kind of deal to include Texas and Notre Dame. The Irish want independence and the Tar Heels don't want to give up power. Let them hang themselves. That's the most enjoyable consequence of arrogance anyway. Give the ACC West Virginia. Let the SEC take Baylor and the Big 10 Iowa State. Then pack up the Horns with Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and their choice of T.C.U. and Texas Tech and send them west. Game over. Let's get ready for football.

Oliver Luck talks about WVU's realignment

Not so sure that the ACC would be so amenable to taking WVU after reading this. I have a feeling that academics are only one aspect of why they don't want the Mountaineers. They did take Louisville after all.

Didn't sound like the SEC was too thrilled about the prospect either although I could see us adding them if we're going to 18 or 20.

If the ACC is truly off-limits at this point then what are the odds of us taking 6 from the Big 12 to move things along?

OU, OSU, KU, ISU, WVU, and Baylor?

That frees up UT and either Tech or TCU to go to the PAC.

(08-03-2015 11:15 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 06:50 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 12:03 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  I would not be surprised, if FOX and ESPN are involved heavily, that OU and KU end up on one network and Texas the other. The value of Texas is ridiculously huge, probably about equal to OU plus KU, especially to a conference with no Texas presence, where it might even be greater than OU plus KU. Both networks would be happy, but neither gets the whole enchilada. Texas would maximize it's value in the B1G, PAC (not unless they sell a piece of the PACN), or ACC; whereas, OU+KU would be worth more in the SEC (but be of the same value to pretty much any conference) since they already have Texas A&M and OU would bring in northern TX viewers down to DFW in big numbers. Doesn't mean that is where they will end up since admin and fans will have their influence, but from a value standpoint neither network could have all 3 that makes a lot of sense to get maximum value.

I still think if they are antsy to get this done (meaning the networks) and they have reason to be antsy (college football is a huge cable driver and as the more of the 1/3 of Americans invested in college sports get pissed off with this constant product shuffling the more folks are going to cut the cord because sports is one of the things that keeps bundling going). This is why I believe that they need to broker 8 of these schools and end the Big 12 and with it realignment. Providing a 4 champs model would be the wisest and quickest stabilizing force in College football and for their present delivery model.

Because of that Kansas to the Big 10, Oklahoma to the SEC and Texas to the PAC where FOX and ESPN are truly 50/50 with one another is the best cultural and monetary split of this property. The ACC is still the snag on any kind of deal to include Texas and Notre Dame. The Irish want independence and the Tar Heels don't want to give up power. Let them hang themselves. That's the most enjoyable consequence of arrogance anyway. Give the ACC West Virginia. Let the SEC take Baylor and the Big 10 Iowa State. Then pack up the Horns with Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and their choice of T.C.U. and Texas Tech and send them west. Game over. Let's get ready for football.

Oliver Luck talks about WVU's realignment

Not so sure that the ACC would be so amenable to taking WVU after reading this. I have a feeling that academics are only one aspect of why they don't want the Mountaineers. They did take Louisville after all.

Didn't sound like the SEC was too thrilled about the prospect either although I could see us adding them if we're going to 18 or 20.

If the ACC is truly off-limits at this point then what are the odds of us taking 6 from the Big 12 to move things along?

OU, OSU, KU, ISU, WVU, and Baylor?

That frees up UT and either Tech or TCU to go to the PAC.

I think the SEC would round off with West Virginia if we couldn't find a better candidate. Luck did say that if Missouri had turned down the SEC invite, WVU might have been next.

Here's and interesting opinion piece that would break up the Big 12 and is more plausible than trying to find homes for all those Big 12 orphans: Independence.

http://www.stakingtheplains.com/2015/08/...he-big-12/

The only problem with UT going the independent route, would be finding a home for all of its olympic sports. As a razorback fan, I would love the move as it gives Arkansas a realistic shot to add the Longhorns to our OOC schedule yearly and probably means we'll add Oklahoma to the league too. Annual games against Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, LSU and Mizzou? Sign me up.

(08-03-2015 05:25 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 11:15 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 06:50 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 12:03 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  I would not be surprised, if FOX and ESPN are involved heavily, that OU and KU end up on one network and Texas the other. The value of Texas is ridiculously huge, probably about equal to OU plus KU, especially to a conference with no Texas presence, where it might even be greater than OU plus KU. Both networks would be happy, but neither gets the whole enchilada. Texas would maximize it's value in the B1G, PAC (not unless they sell a piece of the PACN), or ACC; whereas, OU+KU would be worth more in the SEC (but be of the same value to pretty much any conference) since they already have Texas A&M and OU would bring in northern TX viewers down to DFW in big numbers. Doesn't mean that is where they will end up since admin and fans will have their influence, but from a value standpoint neither network could have all 3 that makes a lot of sense to get maximum value.

I still think if they are antsy to get this done (meaning the networks) and they have reason to be antsy (college football is a huge cable driver and as the more of the 1/3 of Americans invested in college sports get pissed off with this constant product shuffling the more folks are going to cut the cord because sports is one of the things that keeps bundling going). This is why I believe that they need to broker 8 of these schools and end the Big 12 and with it realignment. Providing a 4 champs model would be the wisest and quickest stabilizing force in College football and for their present delivery model.

Because of that Kansas to the Big 10, Oklahoma to the SEC and Texas to the PAC where FOX and ESPN are truly 50/50 with one another is the best cultural and monetary split of this property. The ACC is still the snag on any kind of deal to include Texas and Notre Dame. The Irish want independence and the Tar Heels don't want to give up power. Let them hang themselves. That's the most enjoyable consequence of arrogance anyway. Give the ACC West Virginia. Let the SEC take Baylor and the Big 10 Iowa State. Then pack up the Horns with Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and their choice of T.C.U. and Texas Tech and send them west. Game over. Let's get ready for football.

Oliver Luck talks about WVU's realignment

Not so sure that the ACC would be so amenable to taking WVU after reading this. I have a feeling that academics are only one aspect of why they don't want the Mountaineers. They did take Louisville after all.

Didn't sound like the SEC was too thrilled about the prospect either although I could see us adding them if we're going to 18 or 20.

If the ACC is truly off-limits at this point then what are the odds of us taking 6 from the Big 12 to move things along?

OU, OSU, KU, ISU, WVU, and Baylor?

That frees up UT and either Tech or TCU to go to the PAC.

I think the SEC would round off with West Virginia if we couldn't find a better candidate. Luck did say that if Missouri had turned down the SEC invite, WVU might have been next.

Here's and interesting opinion piece that would break up the Big 12 and is more plausible than trying to find homes for all those Big 12 orphans: Independence.

http://www.stakingtheplains.com/2015/08/...he-big-12/

The only problem with UT going the independent route, would be finding a home for all of its olympic sports. As a razorback fan, I would love the move as it gives Arkansas a realistic shot to add the Longhorns to our OOC schedule yearly and probably means we'll add Oklahoma to the league too. Annual games against Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, LSU and Mizzou? Sign me up.

I would love to play more OOC games against the Longhorns every season. As far as West Virginia goes, Can we at least try and add anyone else.

(08-03-2015 07:13 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 05:25 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 11:15 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 06:50 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 12:03 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  I would not be surprised, if FOX and ESPN are involved heavily, that OU and KU end up on one network and Texas the other. The value of Texas is ridiculously huge, probably about equal to OU plus KU, especially to a conference with no Texas presence, where it might even be greater than OU plus KU. Both networks would be happy, but neither gets the whole enchilada. Texas would maximize it's value in the B1G, PAC (not unless they sell a piece of the PACN), or ACC; whereas, OU+KU would be worth more in the SEC (but be of the same value to pretty much any conference) since they already have Texas A&M and OU would bring in northern TX viewers down to DFW in big numbers. Doesn't mean that is where they will end up since admin and fans will have their influence, but from a value standpoint neither network could have all 3 that makes a lot of sense to get maximum value.

I still think if they are antsy to get this done (meaning the networks) and they have reason to be antsy (college football is a huge cable driver and as the more of the 1/3 of Americans invested in college sports get pissed off with this constant product shuffling the more folks are going to cut the cord because sports is one of the things that keeps bundling going). This is why I believe that they need to broker 8 of these schools and end the Big 12 and with it realignment. Providing a 4 champs model would be the wisest and quickest stabilizing force in College football and for their present delivery model.

Because of that Kansas to the Big 10, Oklahoma to the SEC and Texas to the PAC where FOX and ESPN are truly 50/50 with one another is the best cultural and monetary split of this property. The ACC is still the snag on any kind of deal to include Texas and Notre Dame. The Irish want independence and the Tar Heels don't want to give up power. Let them hang themselves. That's the most enjoyable consequence of arrogance anyway. Give the ACC West Virginia. Let the SEC take Baylor and the Big 10 Iowa State. Then pack up the Horns with Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and their choice of T.C.U. and Texas Tech and send them west. Game over. Let's get ready for football.

Oliver Luck talks about WVU's realignment

Not so sure that the ACC would be so amenable to taking WVU after reading this. I have a feeling that academics are only one aspect of why they don't want the Mountaineers. They did take Louisville after all.

Didn't sound like the SEC was too thrilled about the prospect either although I could see us adding them if we're going to 18 or 20.

If the ACC is truly off-limits at this point then what are the odds of us taking 6 from the Big 12 to move things along?

OU, OSU, KU, ISU, WVU, and Baylor?

That frees up UT and either Tech or TCU to go to the PAC.

I think the SEC would round off with West Virginia if we couldn't find a better candidate. Luck did say that if Missouri had turned down the SEC invite, WVU might have been next.

Here's and interesting opinion piece that would break up the Big 12 and is more plausible than trying to find homes for all those Big 12 orphans: Independence.

http://www.stakingtheplains.com/2015/08/...he-big-12/

The only problem with UT going the independent route, would be finding a home for all of its olympic sports. As a razorback fan, I would love the move as it gives Arkansas a realistic shot to add the Longhorns to our OOC schedule yearly and probably means we'll add Oklahoma to the league too. Annual games against Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, LSU and Mizzou? Sign me up.

I would love to play more OOC games against the Longhorns every season. As far as West Virginia goes, Can we at least try and add anyone else.

Staying at 15 is also an option

I really think if OU joins then OSU or KU will be joining as well. Scheduling with 16 would be very fluid if for no other reason.

(08-03-2015 07:27 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I really think if OU joins then OSU or KU will be joining as well. Scheduling with 16 would be very fluid if for no other reason.

OSU might be in play if Redhawk's comments are in fact true:

Quote:Yes, I heard from a person that is connected to an OU Regent, that OU + OSU to the SEC was indeed in the works/talking/negotiation stage. The SEC didn't dismiss OSU out of hand apparently and were also apparently open to adding OSU.

It hasn't happened yet.....so who knows where we are at this point.

I have not heard anything in a few weeks. That means I have not heard anything regarding the B1G, nor anything about the SEC...or the Sunbelt for that matter. The empty set is empty.

Adding OSU with OU would make sense if and only if the SEC didn't think they could find another program to pair with OU in the near future.