(08-12-2016 07:52 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 08:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 08:50 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 08:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 06:44 PM)XLance Wrote:  This is where you have always been wrong JR.

Don't just proclaim, explain!?

ESPN is not standing in the way, the schools are happy where they are and just don't want to join your league.

I'm sure in the case of U.N.C. & Virginia & Duke you are correct. I'm not so sure about some of the others.

Sorry, JR..........you need to stick to your own knitting.

I never knitted. But once the football team had to learn to crochet. I still don't know why but I made a circular rug. But I do know there has been some interest because of contact that was made by ACC schools. But I agree that the point is moot now.

(08-09-2016 02:08 AM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 01:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 12:56 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  SEC East:
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas

SEC West:
Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Louisiana State, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma

I have no doubts that in a perfect world the SEC would prefer Oklahoma and Kansas over Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

But in no world in the universe would the SEC prefer to move Kansas (an extremely weak sister in football) into a division with Kentucky and Vanderbilt and a division that has suffered more weakness than that of their two perennial cellar dwellers.

Oklahoma and Kansas to the West along with Missouri, and Auburn and Alabama to the East would be a much more likely outcome.

SEC West:
Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M

That division makes sense. Oklahoma and L.S.U. as the annual contenders, the two Mississippi's, Missouri and A&M as those most likely to make a run to oust the top two.

SEC East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt.

That's a lot stronger East with most key rivals reunited.

Can't we just wait it out for North Carolina and Florida State .

Seriously though, I do see why they would consider Kansas/OU.

OU would help keep the SEC Football brand at the top and Kansas would instantly make the basketball side better.

Welcome Abroad AT!

The issue with waiting IMO is that the scheduling issue still looms over the SEC's head. That is the only reason I think expansion in necessary. If we remain at 14, I think the divisions are going to have to be dissolved with the SEC champ being determined by best record alone. While OU has a great brand, I just do see taking OKST to get them. If the SEC must expand then it need only be by one school and one that we all find benefit in. I hope the folks in B'ham aren't swayed by ESPN's bribe money to assist in parting out the B12.

(08-13-2016 07:42 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 02:08 AM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 01:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 12:56 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  SEC East:
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas

SEC West:
Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Louisiana State, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma

I have no doubts that in a perfect world the SEC would prefer Oklahoma and Kansas over Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

But in no world in the universe would the SEC prefer to move Kansas (an extremely weak sister in football) into a division with Kentucky and Vanderbilt and a division that has suffered more weakness than that of their two perennial cellar dwellers.

Oklahoma and Kansas to the West along with Missouri, and Auburn and Alabama to the East would be a much more likely outcome.

SEC West:
Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M

That division makes sense. Oklahoma and L.S.U. as the annual contenders, the two Mississippi's, Missouri and A&M as those most likely to make a run to oust the top two.

SEC East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt.

That's a lot stronger East with most key rivals reunited.

Can't we just wait it out for North Carolina and Florida State .

Seriously though, I do see why they would consider Kansas/OU.

OU would help keep the SEC Football brand at the top and Kansas would instantly make the basketball side better.

Welcome Abroad AT!

The issue with waiting IMO is that the scheduling issue still looms over the SEC's head. That is the only reason I think expansion in necessary. If we remain at 14, I think the divisions are going to have to be dissolved with the SEC champ being determined by best record alone. While OU has a great brand, I just do see taking OKST to get them. If the SEC must expand then it need only be by one school and one that we all find benefit in. I hope the folks in B'ham aren't swayed by ESPN's bribe money to assist in parting out the B12.

I am going to cross thread you here Vandiver. But let's say that marriages of convenience long term don't produce happy partners. As much as we hate Texas it is not inconceivable that something like this might one day happen. Missouri and Kansas do move to the Big 10 along with Iowa State and Connecticut.

That move gives the Big 10 the very definable boundaries they once desired and had.

The SEC then takes Texas and Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State (requirement here) but we stay at 16.

West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

East: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

You would have to say that both divisions would be equally tough. IMO this is the best 16 school SEC we can have without ACC schools being involved.

The PAC takes Texas Tech and T.C.U. to get into that market. Maybe they take Houston or Rice too.

The ACC takes West Virginia and Notre Dame goes all in and they stop at 16.

The PAC then takes its time to grow some western brands like UNLV or Nevada and New Mexico, or perhaps take in San Diego State.

Anyway my point is that long term geography may be more of the determining factor than markets. Why? As you pointed out games people want to see played. When TV money peaks venue revenue will again be the only means to acquire added revenue. People will go where they can drive. Flying is hard to justify for all but the wealthiest.

(08-13-2016 11:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-13-2016 07:42 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 02:08 AM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 01:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 12:56 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  SEC East:
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas

SEC West:
Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Louisiana State, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma

I have no doubts that in a perfect world the SEC would prefer Oklahoma and Kansas over Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

But in no world in the universe would the SEC prefer to move Kansas (an extremely weak sister in football) into a division with Kentucky and Vanderbilt and a division that has suffered more weakness than that of their two perennial cellar dwellers.

Oklahoma and Kansas to the West along with Missouri, and Auburn and Alabama to the East would be a much more likely outcome.

SEC West:
Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M

That division makes sense. Oklahoma and L.S.U. as the annual contenders, the two Mississippi's, Missouri and A&M as those most likely to make a run to oust the top two.

SEC East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt.

That's a lot stronger East with most key rivals reunited.

Can't we just wait it out for North Carolina and Florida State .

Seriously though, I do see why they would consider Kansas/OU.

OU would help keep the SEC Football brand at the top and Kansas would instantly make the basketball side better.

Welcome Abroad AT!

The issue with waiting IMO is that the scheduling issue still looms over the SEC's head. That is the only reason I think expansion in necessary. If we remain at 14, I think the divisions are going to have to be dissolved with the SEC champ being determined by best record alone. While OU has a great brand, I just do see taking OKST to get them. If the SEC must expand then it need only be by one school and one that we all find benefit in. I hope the folks in B'ham aren't swayed by ESPN's bribe money to assist in parting out the B12.

I am going to cross thread you here Vandiver. But let's say that marriages of convenience long term don't produce happy partners. As much as we hate Texas it is not inconceivable that something like this might one day happen. Missouri and Kansas do move to the Big 10 along with Iowa State and Connecticut.

That move gives the Big 10 the very definable boundaries they once desired and had.

The SEC then takes Texas and Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State (requirement here) but we stay at 16.

West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

East: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

You would have to say that both divisions would be equally tough. IMO this is the best 16 school SEC we can have without ACC schools being involved.

The PAC takes Texas Tech and T.C.U. to get into that market. Maybe they take Houston or Rice too.

The ACC takes West Virginia and Notre Dame goes all in and they stop at 16.

The PAC then takes its time to grow some western brands like UNLV or Nevada and New Mexico, or perhaps take in San Diego State.

Anyway my point is that long term geography may be more of the determining factor than markets. Why? As you pointed out games people want to see played. When TV money peaks venue revenue will again be the only means to acquire added revenue. People will go where they can drive. Flying is hard to justify for all but the wealthiest.

JR, in that scenario, I think that the SEC takes Baylor too and (you guessed it) South Carolina slides into the ACC with West Virginia so that Notre Dame can remain independent. Mississippi State can then move into the east to continue to be Alabama's pal. It would also help to tie the east and west together by having teams from both divisions play in what then becomes the "middle" of the conference.
It does not make sense for conferences not to be contiguous so that the fans (yes we are important too!) can more readily identify with the teams and have the opportunity to travel and see "our" team play in an away setting.

(08-13-2016 11:38 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-13-2016 11:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-13-2016 07:42 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 02:08 AM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  

(08-04-2016 01:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I have no doubts that in a perfect world the SEC would prefer Oklahoma and Kansas over Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

But in no world in the universe would the SEC prefer to move Kansas (an extremely weak sister in football) into a division with Kentucky and Vanderbilt and a division that has suffered more weakness than that of their two perennial cellar dwellers.

Oklahoma and Kansas to the West along with Missouri, and Auburn and Alabama to the East would be a much more likely outcome.

SEC West:
Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M

That division makes sense. Oklahoma and L.S.U. as the annual contenders, the two Mississippi's, Missouri and A&M as those most likely to make a run to oust the top two.

SEC East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt.

That's a lot stronger East with most key rivals reunited.

Can't we just wait it out for North Carolina and Florida State .

Seriously though, I do see why they would consider Kansas/OU.

OU would help keep the SEC Football brand at the top and Kansas would instantly make the basketball side better.

Welcome Abroad AT!

The issue with waiting IMO is that the scheduling issue still looms over the SEC's head. That is the only reason I think expansion in necessary. If we remain at 14, I think the divisions are going to have to be dissolved with the SEC champ being determined by best record alone. While OU has a great brand, I just do see taking OKST to get them. If the SEC must expand then it need only be by one school and one that we all find benefit in. I hope the folks in B'ham aren't swayed by ESPN's bribe money to assist in parting out the B12.

I am going to cross thread you here Vandiver. But let's say that marriages of convenience long term don't produce happy partners. As much as we hate Texas it is not inconceivable that something like this might one day happen. Missouri and Kansas do move to the Big 10 along with Iowa State and Connecticut.

That move gives the Big 10 the very definable boundaries they once desired and had.

The SEC then takes Texas and Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State (requirement here) but we stay at 16.

West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

East: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

You would have to say that both divisions would be equally tough. IMO this is the best 16 school SEC we can have without ACC schools being involved.

The PAC takes Texas Tech and T.C.U. to get into that market. Maybe they take Houston or Rice too.

The ACC takes West Virginia and Notre Dame goes all in and they stop at 16.

The PAC then takes its time to grow some western brands like UNLV or Nevada and New Mexico, or perhaps take in San Diego State.

Anyway my point is that long term geography may be more of the determining factor than markets. Why? As you pointed out games people want to see played. When TV money peaks venue revenue will again be the only means to acquire added revenue. People will go where they can drive. Flying is hard to justify for all but the wealthiest.

JR, in that scenario, I think that the SEC takes Baylor too and (you guessed it) South Carolina slides into the ACC with West Virginia so that Notre Dame can remain independent. Mississippi State can then move into the east to continue to be Alabama's pal. It would also help to tie the east and west together by having teams from both divisions play in what then becomes the "middle" of the conference.
It does not make sense for conferences not to be contiguous so that the fans (yes we are important too!) can more readily identify with the teams and have the opportunity to travel and see "our" team play in an away setting.

That could work as well. It solely would depend upon USC's desires.

(08-13-2016 12:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-13-2016 11:38 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-13-2016 11:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-13-2016 07:42 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 02:08 AM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  Can't we just wait it out for North Carolina and Florida State .

Seriously though, I do see why they would consider Kansas/OU.

OU would help keep the SEC Football brand at the top and Kansas would instantly make the basketball side better.

Welcome Abroad AT!

The issue with waiting IMO is that the scheduling issue still looms over the SEC's head. That is the only reason I think expansion in necessary. If we remain at 14, I think the divisions are going to have to be dissolved with the SEC champ being determined by best record alone. While OU has a great brand, I just do see taking OKST to get them. If the SEC must expand then it need only be by one school and one that we all find benefit in. I hope the folks in B'ham aren't swayed by ESPN's bribe money to assist in parting out the B12.

I am going to cross thread you here Vandiver. But let's say that marriages of convenience long term don't produce happy partners. As much as we hate Texas it is not inconceivable that something like this might one day happen. Missouri and Kansas do move to the Big 10 along with Iowa State and Connecticut.

That move gives the Big 10 the very definable boundaries they once desired and had.

The SEC then takes Texas and Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State (requirement here) but we stay at 16.

West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

East: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

You would have to say that both divisions would be equally tough. IMO this is the best 16 school SEC we can have without ACC schools being involved.

The PAC takes Texas Tech and T.C.U. to get into that market. Maybe they take Houston or Rice too.

The ACC takes West Virginia and Notre Dame goes all in and they stop at 16.

The PAC then takes its time to grow some western brands like UNLV or Nevada and New Mexico, or perhaps take in San Diego State.

Anyway my point is that long term geography may be more of the determining factor than markets. Why? As you pointed out games people want to see played. When TV money peaks venue revenue will again be the only means to acquire added revenue. People will go where they can drive. Flying is hard to justify for all but the wealthiest.

JR, in that scenario, I think that the SEC takes Baylor too and (you guessed it) South Carolina slides into the ACC with West Virginia so that Notre Dame can remain independent. Mississippi State can then move into the east to continue to be Alabama's pal. It would also help to tie the east and west together by having teams from both divisions play in what then becomes the "middle" of the conference.
It does not make sense for conferences not to be contiguous so that the fans (yes we are important too!) can more readily identify with the teams and have the opportunity to travel and see "our" team play in an away setting.

That could work as well. It solely would depend upon USC's desires.

Well somebody from Columbia is already planting seeds.

http://www.garnetandblackattack.com/2016...ould-it-be


Quote:
...for reals, I would give up playing Mizzou, A&M, UK, and Vandy to play any of those ACC teams. Wouldn't you?
How about Miami, UNC or Louisville? Well, to be honest, I would upgrade from beer to bourbon on the tailgate. But still, I would rather play Miami and Louisville than UGA, Tennessee, Florida, Auburn, Ole Miss, Arkansas, and Mississippi State. Wouldn't you?
...I would rather play FSU and Clemson than BAMA, or LSU.

(08-13-2016 12:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-13-2016 12:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-13-2016 11:38 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-13-2016 11:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-13-2016 07:42 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Welcome Abroad AT!

The issue with waiting IMO is that the scheduling issue still looms over the SEC's head. That is the only reason I think expansion in necessary. If we remain at 14, I think the divisions are going to have to be dissolved with the SEC champ being determined by best record alone. While OU has a great brand, I just do see taking OKST to get them. If the SEC must expand then it need only be by one school and one that we all find benefit in. I hope the folks in B'ham aren't swayed by ESPN's bribe money to assist in parting out the B12.

I am going to cross thread you here Vandiver. But let's say that marriages of convenience long term don't produce happy partners. As much as we hate Texas it is not inconceivable that something like this might one day happen. Missouri and Kansas do move to the Big 10 along with Iowa State and Connecticut.

That move gives the Big 10 the very definable boundaries they once desired and had.

The SEC then takes Texas and Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State (requirement here) but we stay at 16.

West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

East: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

You would have to say that both divisions would be equally tough. IMO this is the best 16 school SEC we can have without ACC schools being involved.

The PAC takes Texas Tech and T.C.U. to get into that market. Maybe they take Houston or Rice too.

The ACC takes West Virginia and Notre Dame goes all in and they stop at 16.

The PAC then takes its time to grow some western brands like UNLV or Nevada and New Mexico, or perhaps take in San Diego State.

Anyway my point is that long term geography may be more of the determining factor than markets. Why? As you pointed out games people want to see played. When TV money peaks venue revenue will again be the only means to acquire added revenue. People will go where they can drive. Flying is hard to justify for all but the wealthiest.

JR, in that scenario, I think that the SEC takes Baylor too and (you guessed it) South Carolina slides into the ACC with West Virginia so that Notre Dame can remain independent. Mississippi State can then move into the east to continue to be Alabama's pal. It would also help to tie the east and west together by having teams from both divisions play in what then becomes the "middle" of the conference.
It does not make sense for conferences not to be contiguous so that the fans (yes we are important too!) can more readily identify with the teams and have the opportunity to travel and see "our" team play in an away setting.

That could work as well. It solely would depend upon USC's desires.

Well somebody from Columbia is already planting seeds.

http://www.garnetandblackattack.com/2016...ould-it-be


Quote:
...for reals, I would give up playing Mizzou, A&M, UK, and Vandy to play any of those ACC teams. Wouldn't you?
How about Miami, UNC or Louisville? Well, to be honest, I would upgrade from beer to bourbon on the tailgate. But still, I would rather play Miami and Louisville than UGA, Tennessee, Florida, Auburn, Ole Miss, Arkansas, and Mississippi State. Wouldn't you?
...I would rather play FSU and Clemson than BAMA, or LSU.

Well one random poster who may or may not be a South Carolina alum does not a BOT or BOG make, and can hardly be representative of the President's desires.

(08-13-2016 12:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-13-2016 12:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-13-2016 12:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-13-2016 11:38 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-13-2016 11:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I am going to cross thread you here Vandiver. But let's say that marriages of convenience long term don't produce happy partners. As much as we hate Texas it is not inconceivable that something like this might one day happen. Missouri and Kansas do move to the Big 10 along with Iowa State and Connecticut.

That move gives the Big 10 the very definable boundaries they once desired and had.

The SEC then takes Texas and Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State (requirement here) but we stay at 16.

West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

East: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

You would have to say that both divisions would be equally tough. IMO this is the best 16 school SEC we can have without ACC schools being involved.

The PAC takes Texas Tech and T.C.U. to get into that market. Maybe they take Houston or Rice too.

The ACC takes West Virginia and Notre Dame goes all in and they stop at 16.

The PAC then takes its time to grow some western brands like UNLV or Nevada and New Mexico, or perhaps take in San Diego State.

Anyway my point is that long term geography may be more of the determining factor than markets. Why? As you pointed out games people want to see played. When TV money peaks venue revenue will again be the only means to acquire added revenue. People will go where they can drive. Flying is hard to justify for all but the wealthiest.

JR, in that scenario, I think that the SEC takes Baylor too and (you guessed it) South Carolina slides into the ACC with West Virginia so that Notre Dame can remain independent. Mississippi State can then move into the east to continue to be Alabama's pal. It would also help to tie the east and west together by having teams from both divisions play in what then becomes the "middle" of the conference.
It does not make sense for conferences not to be contiguous so that the fans (yes we are important too!) can more readily identify with the teams and have the opportunity to travel and see "our" team play in an away setting.

That could work as well. It solely would depend upon USC's desires.

Well somebody from Columbia is already planting seeds.

http://www.garnetandblackattack.com/2016...ould-it-be


Quote:
...for reals, I would give up playing Mizzou, A&M, UK, and Vandy to play any of those ACC teams. Wouldn't you?
How about Miami, UNC or Louisville? Well, to be honest, I would upgrade from beer to bourbon on the tailgate. But still, I would rather play Miami and Louisville than UGA, Tennessee, Florida, Auburn, Ole Miss, Arkansas, and Mississippi State. Wouldn't you?
...I would rather play FSU and Clemson than BAMA, or LSU.

Well one random poster who may or may not be a South Carolina alum does not a BOT or BOG make, and can hardly be representative of the President's desires.

We'll see.

You have to make room for that division of:
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Baylor
A&M
Arkansas
LSU
and Ole Miss
somehow.

Pair that with:
Kentucky
Tennessee
Vandy
Georgia
Florida
Miss. State
Alabama
and Auburn.

Do you think they guys at ESPN could be happy with that? Do you think that CBS just might give you a bump the next time around with that line-up?
Whew!

(08-13-2016 11:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I am going to cross thread you here Vandiver. But let's say that marriages of convenience long term don't produce happy partners. As much as we hate Texas it is not inconceivable that something like this might one day happen. Missouri and Kansas do move to the Big 10 along with Iowa State and Connecticut.

That move gives the Big 10 the very definable boundaries they once desired and had.

The SEC then takes Texas and Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State (requirement here) but we stay at 16.

West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

East: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

You would have to say that both divisions would be equally tough. IMO this is the best 16 school SEC we can have without ACC schools being involved.

The PAC takes Texas Tech and T.C.U. to get into that market. Maybe they take Houston or Rice too.

The ACC takes West Virginia and Notre Dame goes all in and they stop at 16.

The PAC then takes its time to grow some western brands like UNLV or Nevada and New Mexico, or perhaps take in San Diego State.

Anyway my point is that long term geography may be more of the determining factor than markets. Why? As you pointed out games people want to see played. When TV money peaks venue revenue will again be the only means to acquire added revenue. People will go where they can drive. Flying is hard to justify for all but the wealthiest.

There's never any issues with the bolded JR. I agree that UT, OU and OKST would be the best sans ACC expansion available for the SEC. But other that the Pokes, I think the Sooners and Longhorns admins would regret such an existence. Their issues are beyond weak rivals as UT could play A&M again if they so desired. IMO those schools aspirations are above the SEC and that perceived superiority is something I don't think can easily be resolved.

(08-13-2016 11:38 AM)XLance Wrote:  JR, in that scenario, I think that the SEC takes Baylor too and (you guessed it) South Carolina slides into the ACC with West Virginia so that Notre Dame can remain independent. Mississippi State can then move into the east to continue to be Alabama's pal. It would also help to tie the east and west together by having teams from both divisions play in what then becomes the "middle" of the conference.
It does not make sense for conferences not to be contiguous so that the fans (yes we are important too!) can more readily identify with the teams and have the opportunity to travel and see "our" team play in an away setting.

You know how you're fairly opposed to WVU in the ACC. I feel the same way about Baylor. I'd accept ISU, ECU and TCU before that school from Waco.

(08-13-2016 12:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  Well somebody from Columbia is already planting seeds.

http://www.garnetandblackattack.com/2016...ould-it-be

That dude is cray-cray. He doesn't even explain why ACC teams are preferable to an SEC slate. GTS' suggestion of UTK to the ACC is sane and rational by comparison.

(08-13-2016 06:48 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-13-2016 11:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I am going to cross thread you here Vandiver. But let's say that marriages of convenience long term don't produce happy partners. As much as we hate Texas it is not inconceivable that something like this might one day happen. Missouri and Kansas do move to the Big 10 along with Iowa State and Connecticut.

That move gives the Big 10 the very definable boundaries they once desired and had.

The SEC then takes Texas and Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State (requirement here) but we stay at 16.

West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

East: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

You would have to say that both divisions would be equally tough. IMO this is the best 16 school SEC we can have without ACC schools being involved.

The PAC takes Texas Tech and T.C.U. to get into that market. Maybe they take Houston or Rice too.

The ACC takes West Virginia and Notre Dame goes all in and they stop at 16.

The PAC then takes its time to grow some western brands like UNLV or Nevada and New Mexico, or perhaps take in San Diego State.

Anyway my point is that long term geography may be more of the determining factor than markets. Why? As you pointed out games people want to see played. When TV money peaks venue revenue will again be the only means to acquire added revenue. People will go where they can drive. Flying is hard to justify for all but the wealthiest.

There's never any issues with the bolded JR. I agree that UT, OU and OKST would be the best sans ACC expansion available for the SEC. But other that the Pokes, I think the Sooners and Longhorns admins would regret such an existence. Their issues are beyond weak rivals as UT could play A&M again if they so desired. IMO those schools aspirations are above the SEC and that perceived superiority is something I don't think can easily be resolved.

(08-13-2016 11:38 AM)XLance Wrote:  JR, in that scenario, I think that the SEC takes Baylor too and (you guessed it) South Carolina slides into the ACC with West Virginia so that Notre Dame can remain independent. Mississippi State can then move into the east to continue to be Alabama's pal. It would also help to tie the east and west together by having teams from both divisions play in what then becomes the "middle" of the conference.
It does not make sense for conferences not to be contiguous so that the fans (yes we are important too!) can more readily identify with the teams and have the opportunity to travel and see "our" team play in an away setting.

You know how you're fairly opposed to WVU in the ACC. I feel the same way about Baylor. I'd accept ISU, ECU and TCU before that school from Waco.

(08-13-2016 12:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  Well somebody from Columbia is already planting seeds.

http://www.garnetandblackattack.com/2016...ould-it-be

That dude is cray-cray. He doesn't even explain why ACC teams are preferable to an SEC slate. GTS' suggestion of UTK to the ACC is sane and rational by comparison.

I agree about Texas, but am not so sure that Boren's attitude is the attitude of the Big Money donors at OU or of their fan base.

As to Baylor, two years ago I was open to the idea. I'm with you now. I'd much prefer Iowa State or Kansas, or even Kansas State. T.C.U. is a go to if we don't take an Oklahoma school. Texas Tech is too far for the SEC. Other than that at least I.S.U. is contiguous, and so too would be either of the Kansas schools. But truly at that juncture of decision making I like E.C.U., and what's more they would be eternally grateful and loyal to the end. Plus they would tea totally piss off the Heels! That alone would be worth the move.

Speaking for those of us who grew up in the Big 8 and lived with the Big XII for years, the SEC does not want the baggage Texas brings. Invite them at your own peril. Let past history be your guide here.

(08-14-2016 03:03 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Speaking for those of us who grew up in the Big 8 and lived with the Big XII for years, the SEC does not want the baggage Texas brings. Invite them at your own peril. Let past history be your guide here.

We get that. ESPN wants them. The question then becomes how best place Texas so that their natural toxicity is contained. An all Texas division with perhaps Arkansas might be the best way.

Besides Medic if you follow this line of thinking we may be headed for a Southern League that contains 3 conferences of 12 schools each all under a marketable banner....SEC.

If so then I look for the PAC and Big 10 to do something similar with some additions of their own.

Then each of the "conferences" in the league would produce a champion. The three champions of the league would play in a semi with the remaining school with the best overall record as a wildcard. The SEC champ plays the Big 10 champ in what is essentially the Super Bowl of college football. 7 major bowls handle the semis and finals. The remaining bowls still exist for revenue and fun.

I guess change will eventually be inevitable but this won't be the SEC vs the B1G. If this happens there will not be any conferences. It will be broken down into 2 leagues with 4 divisions each.

It would be bigger than the NFL obviously and may even break down to 2 16-20 team leagues like the the NFL has. Could be East and West or it could be something else.

It would essentially turn us into a Semi Pro league. That's where the money would be with the playoffs held at the bowl sites.

This is honestly getting out on control. We need to keep things the way they are. Enough realignment and enough of the money grabs. This is my opinion anyway.

(08-14-2016 06:41 PM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  I guess change will eventually be inevitable but this won't be the SEC vs the B1G. If this happens there will not be any conferences. It will be broken down into 2 leagues with 4 divisions each.

It would be bigger than the NFL obviously and may even break down to 2 16-20 team leagues like the the NFL has. Could be East and West could be something else.

It would essentially turn us into a Semi Pro league. That's where the money would be with the playoffs held at the bowl sites.

This is honestly getting out on control.

We need to keep things the way they are. Enough realignment and enough of the money grabs.

This is my opinion anyway.

I totally agree. My point in being here was to see just how long it would take corporate America to ruin our favorite pass time and then how much longer it would take before enough ticked off people opened their eyes to what's been going on.

I'm not for it, but I will explore where I think it's going. In business this kind of takeover and the subsequent favors purchased at the Congressional levels has led to banks essentially owning your money, getting tax assistance for rotten business practices (like the bail out), the big box stores getting favoritism for local and state taxes that have given them a 13 point advantage over most Mom & Pops before the latter ever opens their doors to do business, and now they are capitalizing on a disorganized and undervalued but much loved product, college football. They'll screw that up too!

In my lifetime we've gone from the middle class holding a significant portion of the nations wealth, mostly generated in private business, to having 97% of the wealth in the hands of 5%. When I was young those were the figures for an impoverished Mexico. Now those numbers are ours. Our jobs are overseas, wages are stagnant at best, and the solutions to the poor not having enough to spend are easy credit and easier bankruptcies (all paid for by the middle class through taxes, or simply added to the 19 Trillion we already owe). When durable goods sag we get tax credits. Everything is done to artificially stimulate purchases.

We had Obama phones 8 years ago. We are so fouled now in the auto industry I'm waiting for my Obama car. Free cars today are probably just a way to keep pace with the inflation of free phones 8 years ago!

My parents had pensions. My generation has 403b's and 401k's and that's a huge disadvantage compared to what my parents had. Now they are annuitizing 401k's for younger folks which means your children will never inherit the money and should you predecease your spouse they will only get 75% of the interest it generates. There are those in government now that want to ameliorate SSI by reducing your payout by the amount of your 401k disbursements.

All of it started with perks to conglomerates and large corporations. But if we can't get good and worked up when they screw around with our beloved football, how are we ever going to organize to beat them at the polls. What's more is that now that our sons and daughters all pretty much work for one of them, most are afraid to speak out for fear of hurting their kids careers.

So I may say look here at what ESPN is setting up, but it dang sure doesn't mean I approve of it. Most of it disgusts me. But then I'm old and old people get disgusted a lot!

WDE anyway!

(08-13-2016 07:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-13-2016 06:48 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-13-2016 11:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I am going to cross thread you here Vandiver. But let's say that marriages of convenience long term don't produce happy partners. As much as we hate Texas it is not inconceivable that something like this might one day happen. Missouri and Kansas do move to the Big 10 along with Iowa State and Connecticut.

That move gives the Big 10 the very definable boundaries they once desired and had.

The SEC then takes Texas and Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State (requirement here) but we stay at 16.

West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

East: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

You would have to say that both divisions would be equally tough. IMO this is the best 16 school SEC we can have without ACC schools being involved.

The PAC takes Texas Tech and T.C.U. to get into that market. Maybe they take Houston or Rice too.

The ACC takes West Virginia and Notre Dame goes all in and they stop at 16.

The PAC then takes its time to grow some western brands like UNLV or Nevada and New Mexico, or perhaps take in San Diego State.

Anyway my point is that long term geography may be more of the determining factor than markets. Why? As you pointed out games people want to see played. When TV money peaks venue revenue will again be the only means to acquire added revenue. People will go where they can drive. Flying is hard to justify for all but the wealthiest.

There's never any issues with the bolded JR. I agree that UT, OU and OKST would be the best sans ACC expansion available for the SEC. But other that the Pokes, I think the Sooners and Longhorns admins would regret such an existence. Their issues are beyond weak rivals as UT could play A&M again if they so desired. IMO those schools aspirations are above the SEC and that perceived superiority is something I don't think can easily be resolved.

(08-13-2016 11:38 AM)XLance Wrote:  JR, in that scenario, I think that the SEC takes Baylor too and (you guessed it) South Carolina slides into the ACC with West Virginia so that Notre Dame can remain independent. Mississippi State can then move into the east to continue to be Alabama's pal. It would also help to tie the east and west together by having teams from both divisions play in what then becomes the "middle" of the conference.
It does not make sense for conferences not to be contiguous so that the fans (yes we are important too!) can more readily identify with the teams and have the opportunity to travel and see "our" team play in an away setting.

You know how you're fairly opposed to WVU in the ACC. I feel the same way about Baylor. I'd accept ISU, ECU and TCU before that school from Waco.

(08-13-2016 12:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  Well somebody from Columbia is already planting seeds.

http://www.garnetandblackattack.com/2016...ould-it-be

That dude is cray-cray. He doesn't even explain why ACC teams are preferable to an SEC slate. GTS' suggestion of UTK to the ACC is sane and rational by comparison.

I agree about Texas, but am not so sure that Boren's attitude is the attitude of the Big Money donors at OU or of their fan base.

As to Baylor, two years ago I was open to the idea. I'm with you now. I'd much prefer Iowa State or Kansas, or even Kansas State. T.C.U. is a go to if we don't take an Oklahoma school. Texas Tech is too far for the SEC. Other than that at least I.S.U. is contiguous, and so too would be either of the Kansas schools. But truly at that juncture of decision making I like E.C.U., and what's more they would be eternally grateful and loyal to the end. Plus they would tea totally piss off the Heels! That alone would be worth the move.

What is the issue with Baylor? Is it strictly how poorly they handled Title IX?

(08-15-2016 02:46 PM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(08-13-2016 07:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-13-2016 06:48 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-13-2016 11:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I am going to cross thread you here Vandiver. But let's say that marriages of convenience long term don't produce happy partners. As much as we hate Texas it is not inconceivable that something like this might one day happen. Missouri and Kansas do move to the Big 10 along with Iowa State and Connecticut.

That move gives the Big 10 the very definable boundaries they once desired and had.

The SEC then takes Texas and Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State (requirement here) but we stay at 16.

West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

East: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

You would have to say that both divisions would be equally tough. IMO this is the best 16 school SEC we can have without ACC schools being involved.

The PAC takes Texas Tech and T.C.U. to get into that market. Maybe they take Houston or Rice too.

The ACC takes West Virginia and Notre Dame goes all in and they stop at 16.

The PAC then takes its time to grow some western brands like UNLV or Nevada and New Mexico, or perhaps take in San Diego State.

Anyway my point is that long term geography may be more of the determining factor than markets. Why? As you pointed out games people want to see played. When TV money peaks venue revenue will again be the only means to acquire added revenue. People will go where they can drive. Flying is hard to justify for all but the wealthiest.

There's never any issues with the bolded JR. I agree that UT, OU and OKST would be the best sans ACC expansion available for the SEC. But other that the Pokes, I think the Sooners and Longhorns admins would regret such an existence. Their issues are beyond weak rivals as UT could play A&M again if they so desired. IMO those schools aspirations are above the SEC and that perceived superiority is something I don't think can easily be resolved.

(08-13-2016 11:38 AM)XLance Wrote:  JR, in that scenario, I think that the SEC takes Baylor too and (you guessed it) South Carolina slides into the ACC with West Virginia so that Notre Dame can remain independent. Mississippi State can then move into the east to continue to be Alabama's pal. It would also help to tie the east and west together by having teams from both divisions play in what then becomes the "middle" of the conference.
It does not make sense for conferences not to be contiguous so that the fans (yes we are important too!) can more readily identify with the teams and have the opportunity to travel and see "our" team play in an away setting.

You know how you're fairly opposed to WVU in the ACC. I feel the same way about Baylor. I'd accept ISU, ECU and TCU before that school from Waco.

(08-13-2016 12:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  Well somebody from Columbia is already planting seeds.

http://www.garnetandblackattack.com/2016...ould-it-be

That dude is cray-cray. He doesn't even explain why ACC teams are preferable to an SEC slate. GTS' suggestion of UTK to the ACC is sane and rational by comparison.

I agree about Texas, but am not so sure that Boren's attitude is the attitude of the Big Money donors at OU or of their fan base.

As to Baylor, two years ago I was open to the idea. I'm with you now. I'd much prefer Iowa State or Kansas, or even Kansas State. T.C.U. is a go to if we don't take an Oklahoma school. Texas Tech is too far for the SEC. Other than that at least I.S.U. is contiguous, and so too would be either of the Kansas schools. But truly at that juncture of decision making I like E.C.U., and what's more they would be eternally grateful and loyal to the end. Plus they would tea totally piss off the Heels! That alone would be worth the move.

What is the issue with Baylor? Is it strictly how poorly they handled Title IX?

Nah, it's the administrative cover up of sexual assault. IMO the hiring of Grobe was a good move. But the one move that should have preceded it would have been the resignation of your president/chancellor. The failure to follow through in a change of the very leadership who totally dropped the ball on this issue is too reminiscent of Penn State. An immediate and decisive response would have gone miles in righting your ship.

(08-15-2016 05:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-15-2016 02:46 PM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  What is the issue with Baylor? Is it strictly how poorly they handled Title IX?

Nah, it's the administrative cover up of sexual assault. IMO the hiring of Grobe was a good move. But the one move that should have preceded it would have been the resignation of your president/chancellor. The failure to follow through in a change of the very leadership who totally dropped the ball on this issue is too reminiscent of Penn State. An immediate and decisive response would have gone miles in righting your ship.

Concur. The school had an unsafe environment for regular students and instead of investigating the claim seriously, they instead ignored it. Then when the issue blew up, Baylor admins acted as if it wasn't that bring of a deal. Cheating in athletics via grades or payouts isn't a big deal for me, but valuing CFB over the actual mission of the school and the safety of the students...that is unacceptable IMO.

(08-15-2016 05:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-15-2016 02:46 PM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(08-13-2016 07:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-13-2016 06:48 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-13-2016 11:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I am going to cross thread you here Vandiver. But let's say that marriages of convenience long term don't produce happy partners. As much as we hate Texas it is not inconceivable that something like this might one day happen. Missouri and Kansas do move to the Big 10 along with Iowa State and Connecticut.

That move gives the Big 10 the very definable boundaries they once desired and had.

The SEC then takes Texas and Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State (requirement here) but we stay at 16.

West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

East: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

You would have to say that both divisions would be equally tough. IMO this is the best 16 school SEC we can have without ACC schools being involved.

The PAC takes Texas Tech and T.C.U. to get into that market. Maybe they take Houston or Rice too.

The ACC takes West Virginia and Notre Dame goes all in and they stop at 16.

The PAC then takes its time to grow some western brands like UNLV or Nevada and New Mexico, or perhaps take in San Diego State.

Anyway my point is that long term geography may be more of the determining factor than markets. Why? As you pointed out games people want to see played. When TV money peaks venue revenue will again be the only means to acquire added revenue. People will go where they can drive. Flying is hard to justify for all but the wealthiest.

There's never any issues with the bolded JR. I agree that UT, OU and OKST would be the best sans ACC expansion available for the SEC. But other that the Pokes, I think the Sooners and Longhorns admins would regret such an existence. Their issues are beyond weak rivals as UT could play A&M again if they so desired. IMO those schools aspirations are above the SEC and that perceived superiority is something I don't think can easily be resolved.

(08-13-2016 11:38 AM)XLance Wrote:  JR, in that scenario, I think that the SEC takes Baylor too and (you guessed it) South Carolina slides into the ACC with West Virginia so that Notre Dame can remain independent. Mississippi State can then move into the east to continue to be Alabama's pal. It would also help to tie the east and west together by having teams from both divisions play in what then becomes the "middle" of the conference.
It does not make sense for conferences not to be contiguous so that the fans (yes we are important too!) can more readily identify with the teams and have the opportunity to travel and see "our" team play in an away setting.

You know how you're fairly opposed to WVU in the ACC. I feel the same way about Baylor. I'd accept ISU, ECU and TCU before that school from Waco.

(08-13-2016 12:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  Well somebody from Columbia is already planting seeds.

http://www.garnetandblackattack.com/2016...ould-it-be

That dude is cray-cray. He doesn't even explain why ACC teams are preferable to an SEC slate. GTS' suggestion of UTK to the ACC is sane and rational by comparison.

I agree about Texas, but am not so sure that Boren's attitude is the attitude of the Big Money donors at OU or of their fan base.

As to Baylor, two years ago I was open to the idea. I'm with you now. I'd much prefer Iowa State or Kansas, or even Kansas State. T.C.U. is a go to if we don't take an Oklahoma school. Texas Tech is too far for the SEC. Other than that at least I.S.U. is contiguous, and so too would be either of the Kansas schools. But truly at that juncture of decision making I like E.C.U., and what's more they would be eternally grateful and loyal to the end. Plus they would tea totally piss off the Heels! That alone would be worth the move.

What is the issue with Baylor? Is it strictly how poorly they handled Title IX?

Nah, it's the administrative cover up of sexual assault. IMO the hiring of Grobe was a good move. But the one move that should have preceded it would have been the resignation of your president/chancellor. The failure to follow through in a change of the very leadership who totally dropped the ball on this issue is too reminiscent of Penn State. An immediate and decisive response would have gone miles in righting your ship.

The President/Chancellor was removed as was the AD and Head Football Coach. On top of that Baylor tripled the size of the Title IX department and invested over $5 million into correcting and improving the handling of Title IX complaints.

(08-15-2016 05:40 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-15-2016 05:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-15-2016 02:46 PM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  What is the issue with Baylor? Is it strictly how poorly they handled Title IX?

Nah, it's the administrative cover up of sexual assault. IMO the hiring of Grobe was a good move. But the one move that should have preceded it would have been the resignation of your president/chancellor. The failure to follow through in a change of the very leadership who totally dropped the ball on this issue is too reminiscent of Penn State. An immediate and decisive response would have gone miles in righting your ship.

Concur. The school had an unsafe environment for regular students and instead of investigating the claim seriously, they instead ignored it. Then when the issue blew up, Baylor admins acted as if it wasn't that bring of a deal. Cheating in athletics via grades or payouts isn't a big deal for me, but valuing CFB over the actual mission of the school and the safety of the students...that is unacceptable IMO.

Baylor was no more unsafe than any other college campus. The statistics show 1 in 5 or 1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted during their time in college. The issue is that universities are not qualified or equipped to handle criminal investigations such as sexual assault. They are difficult enough for regular law enforcement to investigate.

I agree that it is unacceptable for athletes who were found responsible for assaults by a university go unpunished. Where perpetrators and their teammates actively discourage women from bringing rape charges or where retaliation against those claiming rape or assisting them takes place. While these statements fit Baylor, they also accurately describe the University of Tennessee and the $2.5 million settlement they reached with 8 women last month. It also describes the University of Kansas and the lawsuit with 7 women they are dealing with currently. According to research by the University of Kentucky in 2004 and 2007 on Violence Against Women, they found 37% of female students were victimized while enrolled.

I'm not trying to say that Baylor doesn't have some major issues to deal with, but to think they are the only campus dealing with it is doing exactly what you accuse Baylor of doing, ignoring the problem.

(08-15-2016 10:41 PM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(08-15-2016 05:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-15-2016 02:46 PM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(08-13-2016 07:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-13-2016 06:48 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  There's never any issues with the bolded JR. I agree that UT, OU and OKST would be the best sans ACC expansion available for the SEC. But other that the Pokes, I think the Sooners and Longhorns admins would regret such an existence. Their issues are beyond weak rivals as UT could play A&M again if they so desired. IMO those schools aspirations are above the SEC and that perceived superiority is something I don't think can easily be resolved.


You know how you're fairly opposed to WVU in the ACC. I feel the same way about Baylor. I'd accept ISU, ECU and TCU before that school from Waco.


That dude is cray-cray. He doesn't even explain why ACC teams are preferable to an SEC slate. GTS' suggestion of UTK to the ACC is sane and rational by comparison.

I agree about Texas, but am not so sure that Boren's attitude is the attitude of the Big Money donors at OU or of their fan base.

As to Baylor, two years ago I was open to the idea. I'm with you now. I'd much prefer Iowa State or Kansas, or even Kansas State. T.C.U. is a go to if we don't take an Oklahoma school. Texas Tech is too far for the SEC. Other than that at least I.S.U. is contiguous, and so too would be either of the Kansas schools. But truly at that juncture of decision making I like E.C.U., and what's more they would be eternally grateful and loyal to the end. Plus they would tea totally piss off the Heels! That alone would be worth the move.

What is the issue with Baylor? Is it strictly how poorly they handled Title IX?

Nah, it's the administrative cover up of sexual assault. IMO the hiring of Grobe was a good move. But the one move that should have preceded it would have been the resignation of your president/chancellor. The failure to follow through in a change of the very leadership who totally dropped the ball on this issue is too reminiscent of Penn State. An immediate and decisive response would have gone miles in righting your ship.

The President/Chancellor was removed as was the AD and Head Football Coach. On top of that Baylor tripled the size of the Title IX department and invested over $5 million into correcting and improving the handling of Title IX complaints.

Not exactly. Kenneth Starr was given a new title. But as for the rest of it your school needs to do as much as is possible to get the word out about what they have done. Your negative press has to offset by positive press that is irrefutable. Even if you have to pay to do so it is money well spent. TV appearances, adds, you name it. It's too crucial of a time to let the bad tag hang.