(04-09-2018 12:24 PM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 01:48 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(04-08-2018 07:16 AM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  

(04-07-2018 06:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-07-2018 06:42 PM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  Only UT and OU are truly masters of their destiny since they are the only XII schools who would be worth acquiring. UT and OU could, reasonably take along one, and only one, additional school. That means six schools will be left behind. None of these six schools would be attractive to any of the other conferences either...

(A.) Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State move to the PAC:
Every other conference stands pat. Adding additional XII schools would cost them more than they make.

(B.) Oklahoma and Kansas move to the Big 10:

(C.) Oklahoma and Oklahoma State move to the SEC:

B&C are basically the same scenario. I suspect Texas would take TTU with them to a new conference. If OU/KU go B1G, then UT could go to the SEC or the PAC. If OU goes to the SEC, then Texas would go to the PAC.

Or, Texas could just reform the SWC with the remnants of the XII plus a few G5 teams.

All of this is why I believe that 16 will not be the ending point and that if someone raids the Big 12 they will be at minimum seeking 4 schools and possibly more. The Big 10 is the only one that can't pursue more. Even if they push for Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma they would have to find a 4th elsewhere unless they took Iowa State, so I suppose it's possible for them if they go that route.

But, what if B1G strikes first and takes only OU and KU? Would any conference be interested in taking Texas and more than one other? What combination of Texas plus other schools would make financial sense? Or, to put it differently, is there a conference that would take four schools unless they get both Texas and OU?

That's an interesting question, the implication being that either one of UT/OU cannot carry three others. But what if 4 with either one includes two states instead of one? I think it's possible with UT but not OU. Oklahoma's too small for OU to carry three with them. UT can carry OU, KU or TT. OU can carry KU or OSU. If UT can carry TT then a third team may have to come from another state. That's where Okie State may come in. Yes, Okie State's academics are suspect for the Pac-12 but: a) they're a public school; b) they'll help an acquiring conference expand beyond Texas and into Oklahoma. Who might be the fourth school? My guess is Rice University. They're small but already have the academic chops, plus located in a major market. With a large endowment Rice can basically pay their way in.

The question would then become could UT and Rice carry two others to the Pac-12.

I don't think either OU or UT can carry more than one buddy. Simply this, Texas and Oklahoma are not going to move unless they get an increase in revenue, something on the order of B1G/SEC payouts, ie, ~$50M. Conference do not want unequal distributions. The PAC would have 16 teams. The total conference payout would be $800M per year.

The PAC 2017 payout is estimated to be $29.5M per school for a 12 team total of slightly less than $360M. The PAC would have to find an additional $440M to make this work. Would Texas, Rice, and two other schools (not Oklahoma) add $440M in revenue?

The killer for this strategies is the need to raise every conference member to B1G/SEC levels. The math works a lot better for the SEC or the B1G because those conferences don't have to raise their own payouts to their members. Adding four teams to the SEC/B1G only costs $200M while adding four teams to PAC costs $440M.

A few points:

1. If Texas heads to the PAC they aren't headed there for money, so I still wouldn't rule out a lateral move of about 4 schools. Now obviously Kansas and Oklahoma will move for more revenue. Texas taking Tech and T.C.U. or perhaps KState would have an entourage just happy to remain in a P5 conference So it would cost the networks involved 60 million to if everyone remained roughly at 35 million.

2. In the main Big 12 realignment thread I do discuss what I see as a power move by the SEC. It is predicated upon the math involve with what Oklahoma or Texas, or both would add to a conference. The SEC could make more money for everyone if they offered all four of Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State. Strategically and market wise it is a power move and one that the Big 10 can't make.

Now obviously the SEC would prefer to just take Texas and Oklahoma which would be a move that would make all parties concerned a lot more money. But if the Big 10 is pushing on this pair the foursome becomes the SEC's ace in the hole.

3. If the Big 10 is interested in Kansas and Oklahoma only then OU/OSU becomes the SEC's ace in the hole.

So ultimately what that means is that Oklahoma will have to decide what is best for them. The ball will still be in the Sooner's court.

The only potential risk to OU heading to the Big 10 is that the SEC might find a way to take Texas and Tech which would leave OSU high and dry and would pressure Oklahoma recruiting because of the change in venue. Now if Texas heads anywhere but the SEC Oklahoma is still in good shape with a move to the Big 10. Then the only drawback is OSU who on their own still has a hard time finding a home.

(04-09-2018 01:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 12:24 PM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 01:48 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(04-08-2018 07:16 AM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  

(04-07-2018 06:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  All of this is why I believe that 16 will not be the ending point and that if someone raids the Big 12 they will be at minimum seeking 4 schools and possibly more. The Big 10 is the only one that can't pursue more. Even if they push for Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma they would have to find a 4th elsewhere unless they took Iowa State, so I suppose it's possible for them if they go that route.

But, what if B1G strikes first and takes only OU and KU? Would any conference be interested in taking Texas and more than one other? What combination of Texas plus other schools would make financial sense? Or, to put it differently, is there a conference that would take four schools unless they get both Texas and OU?

That's an interesting question, the implication being that either one of UT/OU cannot carry three others. But what if 4 with either one includes two states instead of one? I think it's possible with UT but not OU. Oklahoma's too small for OU to carry three with them. UT can carry OU, KU or TT. OU can carry KU or OSU. If UT can carry TT then a third team may have to come from another state. That's where Okie State may come in. Yes, Okie State's academics are suspect for the Pac-12 but: a) they're a public school; b) they'll help an acquiring conference expand beyond Texas and into Oklahoma. Who might be the fourth school? My guess is Rice University. They're small but already have the academic chops, plus located in a major market. With a large endowment Rice can basically pay their way in.

The question would then become could UT and Rice carry two others to the Pac-12.

I don't think either OU or UT can carry more than one buddy. Simply this, Texas and Oklahoma are not going to move unless they get an increase in revenue, something on the order of B1G/SEC payouts, ie, ~$50M. Conference do not want unequal distributions. The PAC would have 16 teams. The total conference payout would be $800M per year.

The PAC 2017 payout is estimated to be $29.5M per school for a 12 team total of slightly less than $360M. The PAC would have to find an additional $440M to make this work. Would Texas, Rice, and two other schools (not Oklahoma) add $440M in revenue?

The killer for this strategies is the need to raise every conference member to B1G/SEC levels. The math works a lot better for the SEC or the B1G because those conferences don't have to raise their own payouts to their members. Adding four teams to the SEC/B1G only costs $200M while adding four teams to PAC costs $440M.

A few points:

1. If Texas heads to the PAC they aren't headed there for money, so I still wouldn't rule out a lateral move of about 4 schools. Now obviously Kansas and Oklahoma will move for more revenue. Texas taking Tech and T.C.U. or perhaps KState would have an entourage just happy to remain in a P5 conference So it would cost the networks involved 60 million to if everyone remained roughly at 35 million.

2. In the main Big 12 realignment thread I do discuss what I see as a power move by the SEC. It is predicated upon the math involve with what Oklahoma or Texas, or both would add to a conference. The SEC could make more money for everyone if they offered all four of Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State. Strategically and market wise it is a power move and one that the Big 10 can't make.

Now obviously the SEC would prefer to just take Texas and Oklahoma which would be a move that would make all parties concerned a lot more money. But if the Big 10 is pushing on this pair the foursome becomes the SEC's ace in the hole.

3. If the Big 10 is interested in Kansas and Oklahoma only then OU/OSU becomes the SEC's ace in the hole.

So ultimately what that means is that Oklahoma will have to decide what is best for them. The ball will still be in the Sooner's court.

The only potential risk to OU heading to the Big 10 is that the SEC might find a way to take Texas and Tech which would leave OSU high and dry and would pressure Oklahoma recruiting because of the change in venue. Now if Texas heads anywhere but the SEC Oklahoma is still in good shape with a move to the Big 10. Then the only drawback is OSU who on their own still has a hard time finding a home.

Once you include the LHN, Texas is already making B1G/SEC revenues. You really think Texas would move to the PAC if it requires taking a pay cut?

(04-09-2018 03:19 PM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 01:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 12:24 PM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 01:48 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(04-08-2018 07:16 AM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  But, what if B1G strikes first and takes only OU and KU? Would any conference be interested in taking Texas and more than one other? What combination of Texas plus other schools would make financial sense? Or, to put it differently, is there a conference that would take four schools unless they get both Texas and OU?

That's an interesting question, the implication being that either one of UT/OU cannot carry three others. But what if 4 with either one includes two states instead of one? I think it's possible with UT but not OU. Oklahoma's too small for OU to carry three with them. UT can carry OU, KU or TT. OU can carry KU or OSU. If UT can carry TT then a third team may have to come from another state. That's where Okie State may come in. Yes, Okie State's academics are suspect for the Pac-12 but: a) they're a public school; b) they'll help an acquiring conference expand beyond Texas and into Oklahoma. Who might be the fourth school? My guess is Rice University. They're small but already have the academic chops, plus located in a major market. With a large endowment Rice can basically pay their way in.

The question would then become could UT and Rice carry two others to the Pac-12.

I don't think either OU or UT can carry more than one buddy. Simply this, Texas and Oklahoma are not going to move unless they get an increase in revenue, something on the order of B1G/SEC payouts, ie, ~$50M. Conference do not want unequal distributions. The PAC would have 16 teams. The total conference payout would be $800M per year.

The PAC 2017 payout is estimated to be $29.5M per school for a 12 team total of slightly less than $360M. The PAC would have to find an additional $440M to make this work. Would Texas, Rice, and two other schools (not Oklahoma) add $440M in revenue?

The killer for this strategies is the need to raise every conference member to B1G/SEC levels. The math works a lot better for the SEC or the B1G because those conferences don't have to raise their own payouts to their members. Adding four teams to the SEC/B1G only costs $200M while adding four teams to PAC costs $440M.

A few points:

1. If Texas heads to the PAC they aren't headed there for money, so I still wouldn't rule out a lateral move of about 4 schools. Now obviously Kansas and Oklahoma will move for more revenue. Texas taking Tech and T.C.U. or perhaps KState would have an entourage just happy to remain in a P5 conference So it would cost the networks involved 60 million to if everyone remained roughly at 35 million.

2. In the main Big 12 realignment thread I do discuss what I see as a power move by the SEC. It is predicated upon the math involve with what Oklahoma or Texas, or both would add to a conference. The SEC could make more money for everyone if they offered all four of Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State. Strategically and market wise it is a power move and one that the Big 10 can't make.

Now obviously the SEC would prefer to just take Texas and Oklahoma which would be a move that would make all parties concerned a lot more money. But if the Big 10 is pushing on this pair the foursome becomes the SEC's ace in the hole.

3. If the Big 10 is interested in Kansas and Oklahoma only then OU/OSU becomes the SEC's ace in the hole.

So ultimately what that means is that Oklahoma will have to decide what is best for them. The ball will still be in the Sooner's court.

The only potential risk to OU heading to the Big 10 is that the SEC might find a way to take Texas and Tech which would leave OSU high and dry and would pressure Oklahoma recruiting because of the change in venue. Now if Texas heads anywhere but the SEC Oklahoma is still in good shape with a move to the Big 10. Then the only drawback is OSU who on their own still has a hard time finding a home.

Once you include the LHN, Texas is already making B1G/SEC revenues. You really think Texas would move to the PAC if it requires taking a pay cut?

Not at all. I think the PAC is desperate enough to let Texas keep the LHN and not participate in the PACN. So if the PAC gets bumped to 35 which is what the Big 12 makes now and UT keeps the LHN they move laterally, and quite frankly the smaller schools moving with them would essentially be moving laterally as well.

(04-09-2018 03:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 03:19 PM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 01:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 12:24 PM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 01:48 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  That's an interesting question, the implication being that either one of UT/OU cannot carry three others. But what if 4 with either one includes two states instead of one? I think it's possible with UT but not OU. Oklahoma's too small for OU to carry three with them. UT can carry OU, KU or TT. OU can carry KU or OSU. If UT can carry TT then a third team may have to come from another state. That's where Okie State may come in. Yes, Okie State's academics are suspect for the Pac-12 but: a) they're a public school; b) they'll help an acquiring conference expand beyond Texas and into Oklahoma. Who might be the fourth school? My guess is Rice University. They're small but already have the academic chops, plus located in a major market. With a large endowment Rice can basically pay their way in.

The question would then become could UT and Rice carry two others to the Pac-12.

I don't think either OU or UT can carry more than one buddy. Simply this, Texas and Oklahoma are not going to move unless they get an increase in revenue, something on the order of B1G/SEC payouts, ie, ~$50M. Conference do not want unequal distributions. The PAC would have 16 teams. The total conference payout would be $800M per year.

The PAC 2017 payout is estimated to be $29.5M per school for a 12 team total of slightly less than $360M. The PAC would have to find an additional $440M to make this work. Would Texas, Rice, and two other schools (not Oklahoma) add $440M in revenue?

The killer for this strategies is the need to raise every conference member to B1G/SEC levels. The math works a lot better for the SEC or the B1G because those conferences don't have to raise their own payouts to their members. Adding four teams to the SEC/B1G only costs $200M while adding four teams to PAC costs $440M.

A few points:

1. If Texas heads to the PAC they aren't headed there for money, so I still wouldn't rule out a lateral move of about 4 schools. Now obviously Kansas and Oklahoma will move for more revenue. Texas taking Tech and T.C.U. or perhaps KState would have an entourage just happy to remain in a P5 conference So it would cost the networks involved 60 million to if everyone remained roughly at 35 million.

2. In the main Big 12 realignment thread I do discuss what I see as a power move by the SEC. It is predicated upon the math involve with what Oklahoma or Texas, or both would add to a conference. The SEC could make more money for everyone if they offered all four of Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State. Strategically and market wise it is a power move and one that the Big 10 can't make.

Now obviously the SEC would prefer to just take Texas and Oklahoma which would be a move that would make all parties concerned a lot more money. But if the Big 10 is pushing on this pair the foursome becomes the SEC's ace in the hole.

3. If the Big 10 is interested in Kansas and Oklahoma only then OU/OSU becomes the SEC's ace in the hole.

So ultimately what that means is that Oklahoma will have to decide what is best for them. The ball will still be in the Sooner's court.

The only potential risk to OU heading to the Big 10 is that the SEC might find a way to take Texas and Tech which would leave OSU high and dry and would pressure Oklahoma recruiting because of the change in venue. Now if Texas heads anywhere but the SEC Oklahoma is still in good shape with a move to the Big 10. Then the only drawback is OSU who on their own still has a hard time finding a home.

Once you include the LHN, Texas is already making B1G/SEC revenues. You really think Texas would move to the PAC if it requires taking a pay cut?

Not at all. I think the PAC is desperate enough to let Texas keep the LHN and not participate in the PACN. So if the PAC gets bumped to 35 which is what the Big 12 makes now and UT keeps the LHN they move laterally, and quite frankly the smaller schools moving with them would essentially be moving laterally as well.

Hopefully, the PAC won't be that desperate. Once a conference begins to give special considerations to Texas, the slide down the 'slippery slope' has begun. Ask the SWC and the XII what happens to conferences that give special considerations to Texas. You might as well rename the PAC to the South West Conference (2.0)

(04-09-2018 03:34 PM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 03:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 03:19 PM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 01:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 12:24 PM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  I don't think either OU or UT can carry more than one buddy. Simply this, Texas and Oklahoma are not going to move unless they get an increase in revenue, something on the order of B1G/SEC payouts, ie, ~$50M. Conference do not want unequal distributions. The PAC would have 16 teams. The total conference payout would be $800M per year.

The PAC 2017 payout is estimated to be $29.5M per school for a 12 team total of slightly less than $360M. The PAC would have to find an additional $440M to make this work. Would Texas, Rice, and two other schools (not Oklahoma) add $440M in revenue?

The killer for this strategies is the need to raise every conference member to B1G/SEC levels. The math works a lot better for the SEC or the B1G because those conferences don't have to raise their own payouts to their members. Adding four teams to the SEC/B1G only costs $200M while adding four teams to PAC costs $440M.

A few points:

1. If Texas heads to the PAC they aren't headed there for money, so I still wouldn't rule out a lateral move of about 4 schools. Now obviously Kansas and Oklahoma will move for more revenue. Texas taking Tech and T.C.U. or perhaps KState would have an entourage just happy to remain in a P5 conference So it would cost the networks involved 60 million to if everyone remained roughly at 35 million.

2. In the main Big 12 realignment thread I do discuss what I see as a power move by the SEC. It is predicated upon the math involve with what Oklahoma or Texas, or both would add to a conference. The SEC could make more money for everyone if they offered all four of Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State. Strategically and market wise it is a power move and one that the Big 10 can't make.

Now obviously the SEC would prefer to just take Texas and Oklahoma which would be a move that would make all parties concerned a lot more money. But if the Big 10 is pushing on this pair the foursome becomes the SEC's ace in the hole.

3. If the Big 10 is interested in Kansas and Oklahoma only then OU/OSU becomes the SEC's ace in the hole.

So ultimately what that means is that Oklahoma will have to decide what is best for them. The ball will still be in the Sooner's court.

The only potential risk to OU heading to the Big 10 is that the SEC might find a way to take Texas and Tech which would leave OSU high and dry and would pressure Oklahoma recruiting because of the change in venue. Now if Texas heads anywhere but the SEC Oklahoma is still in good shape with a move to the Big 10. Then the only drawback is OSU who on their own still has a hard time finding a home.

Once you include the LHN, Texas is already making B1G/SEC revenues. You really think Texas would move to the PAC if it requires taking a pay cut?

Not at all. I think the PAC is desperate enough to let Texas keep the LHN and not participate in the PACN. So if the PAC gets bumped to 35 which is what the Big 12 makes now and UT keeps the LHN they move laterally, and quite frankly the smaller schools moving with them would essentially be moving laterally as well.

Hopefully, the PAC won't be that desperate. Once a conference begins to give special considerations to Texas, the slide down the 'slippery slope' has begun. Ask the SWC and the XII what happens to conferences that give special considerations to Texas. You might as well rename the PAC to the South West Conference (2.0)

I agree with that. I just think the level of desperation in the PAC is palpable. If they don't land Texas or Oklahoma they have no shot at remaining in contention. That's what I call desperate.

Outside of adding one of those two their best hope is a Big 10 alliance of some kind. And that has a limited upside.

(04-09-2018 03:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 03:34 PM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 03:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 03:19 PM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 01:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  A few points:

1. If Texas heads to the PAC they aren't headed there for money, so I still wouldn't rule out a lateral move of about 4 schools. Now obviously Kansas and Oklahoma will move for more revenue. Texas taking Tech and T.C.U. or perhaps KState would have an entourage just happy to remain in a P5 conference So it would cost the networks involved 60 million to if everyone remained roughly at 35 million.

2. In the main Big 12 realignment thread I do discuss what I see as a power move by the SEC. It is predicated upon the math involve with what Oklahoma or Texas, or both would add to a conference. The SEC could make more money for everyone if they offered all four of Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State. Strategically and market wise it is a power move and one that the Big 10 can't make.

Now obviously the SEC would prefer to just take Texas and Oklahoma which would be a move that would make all parties concerned a lot more money. But if the Big 10 is pushing on this pair the foursome becomes the SEC's ace in the hole.

3. If the Big 10 is interested in Kansas and Oklahoma only then OU/OSU becomes the SEC's ace in the hole.

So ultimately what that means is that Oklahoma will have to decide what is best for them. The ball will still be in the Sooner's court.

The only potential risk to OU heading to the Big 10 is that the SEC might find a way to take Texas and Tech which would leave OSU high and dry and would pressure Oklahoma recruiting because of the change in venue. Now if Texas heads anywhere but the SEC Oklahoma is still in good shape with a move to the Big 10. Then the only drawback is OSU who on their own still has a hard time finding a home.

Once you include the LHN, Texas is already making B1G/SEC revenues. You really think Texas would move to the PAC if it requires taking a pay cut?

Not at all. I think the PAC is desperate enough to let Texas keep the LHN and not participate in the PACN. So if the PAC gets bumped to 35 which is what the Big 12 makes now and UT keeps the LHN they move laterally, and quite frankly the smaller schools moving with them would essentially be moving laterally as well.

Hopefully, the PAC won't be that desperate. Once a conference begins to give special considerations to Texas, the slide down the 'slippery slope' has begun. Ask the SWC and the XII what happens to conferences that give special considerations to Texas. You might as well rename the PAC to the South West Conference (2.0)

I agree with that. I just think the level of desperation in the PAC is palpable. If they don't land Texas or Oklahoma they have no shot at remaining in contention. That's what I call desperate.

Outside of adding one of those two their best hope is a Big 10 alliance of some kind. And that has a limited upside.

The PAC may end up needing some sort of alliance/partnership or merger with an Eastern league anyway.

Their base on the West Coast is limited with regard to numbers and passion. Combine that with their lack of access to most of the largest markets in the country and they really need to start thinking outside the box. What works for most leagues has not worked for the PAC.

(04-09-2018 03:54 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 03:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 03:34 PM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 03:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 03:19 PM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  Once you include the LHN, Texas is already making B1G/SEC revenues. You really think Texas would move to the PAC if it requires taking a pay cut?

Not at all. I think the PAC is desperate enough to let Texas keep the LHN and not participate in the PACN. So if the PAC gets bumped to 35 which is what the Big 12 makes now and UT keeps the LHN they move laterally, and quite frankly the smaller schools moving with them would essentially be moving laterally as well.

Hopefully, the PAC won't be that desperate. Once a conference begins to give special considerations to Texas, the slide down the 'slippery slope' has begun. Ask the SWC and the XII what happens to conferences that give special considerations to Texas. You might as well rename the PAC to the South West Conference (2.0)

I agree with that. I just think the level of desperation in the PAC is palpable. If they don't land Texas or Oklahoma they have no shot at remaining in contention. That's what I call desperate.

Outside of adding one of those two their best hope is a Big 10 alliance of some kind. And that has a limited upside.

The PAC may end up needing some sort of alliance/partnership or merger with an Eastern league anyway.

Their base on the West Coast is limited with regard to numbers and passion. Combine that with their lack of access to most of the largest markets in the country and they really need to start thinking outside the box. What works for most leagues has not worked for the PAC.

And when you look at football participation numbers for High School the West Coast is simply not producing the talent anymore. So not only is their business model poor and inefficient, and not only are their population centers uninspired to watch, but for all of those people they aren't producing football or basketball players in sufficient numbers to keep their product viable. But I'll bet they're hell at XBox!

(04-09-2018 03:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 03:54 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 03:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 03:34 PM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 03:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Not at all. I think the PAC is desperate enough to let Texas keep the LHN and not participate in the PACN. So if the PAC gets bumped to 35 which is what the Big 12 makes now and UT keeps the LHN they move laterally, and quite frankly the smaller schools moving with them would essentially be moving laterally as well.

Hopefully, the PAC won't be that desperate. Once a conference begins to give special considerations to Texas, the slide down the 'slippery slope' has begun. Ask the SWC and the XII what happens to conferences that give special considerations to Texas. You might as well rename the PAC to the South West Conference (2.0)

I agree with that. I just think the level of desperation in the PAC is palpable. If they don't land Texas or Oklahoma they have no shot at remaining in contention. That's what I call desperate.

Outside of adding one of those two their best hope is a Big 10 alliance of some kind. And that has a limited upside.

The PAC may end up needing some sort of alliance/partnership or merger with an Eastern league anyway.

Their base on the West Coast is limited with regard to numbers and passion. Combine that with their lack of access to most of the largest markets in the country and they really need to start thinking outside the box. What works for most leagues has not worked for the PAC.

And when you look at football participation numbers for High School the West Coast is simply not producing the talent anymore. So not only is their business model poor and inefficient, and not only are their population centers uninspired to watch, but for all of those people they aren't producing football or basketball players in sufficient numbers to keep their product viable. But I'll bet they're hell at XBox!

So, why would UT or OU even consider joining/merging with the PAC?
I've read many posts about how great it would be for teams to join the PAC but almost all of the stated benefits are in terms of why it would be good for the teams in the PAC. Very few stated benefits for the teams joining the PAC.

(04-09-2018 01:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 12:24 PM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 01:48 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(04-08-2018 07:16 AM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  

(04-07-2018 06:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  All of this is why I believe that 16 will not be the ending point and that if someone raids the Big 12 they will be at minimum seeking 4 schools and possibly more. The Big 10 is the only one that can't pursue more. Even if they push for Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma they would have to find a 4th elsewhere unless they took Iowa State, so I suppose it's possible for them if they go that route.

But, what if B1G strikes first and takes only OU and KU? Would any conference be interested in taking Texas and more than one other? What combination of Texas plus other schools would make financial sense? Or, to put it differently, is there a conference that would take four schools unless they get both Texas and OU?

That's an interesting question, the implication being that either one of UT/OU cannot carry three others. But what if 4 with either one includes two states instead of one? I think it's possible with UT but not OU. Oklahoma's too small for OU to carry three with them. UT can carry OU, KU or TT. OU can carry KU or OSU. If UT can carry TT then a third team may have to come from another state. That's where Okie State may come in. Yes, Okie State's academics are suspect for the Pac-12 but: a) they're a public school; b) they'll help an acquiring conference expand beyond Texas and into Oklahoma. Who might be the fourth school? My guess is Rice University. They're small but already have the academic chops, plus located in a major market. With a large endowment Rice can basically pay their way in.

The question would then become could UT and Rice carry two others to the Pac-12.

I don't think either OU or UT can carry more than one buddy. Simply this, Texas and Oklahoma are not going to move unless they get an increase in revenue, something on the order of B1G/SEC payouts, ie, ~$50M. Conference do not want unequal distributions. The PAC would have 16 teams. The total conference payout would be $800M per year.

The PAC 2017 payout is estimated to be $29.5M per school for a 12 team total of slightly less than $360M. The PAC would have to find an additional $440M to make this work. Would Texas, Rice, and two other schools (not Oklahoma) add $440M in revenue?

The killer for this strategies is the need to raise every conference member to B1G/SEC levels. The math works a lot better for the SEC or the B1G because those conferences don't have to raise their own payouts to their members. Adding four teams to the SEC/B1G only costs $200M while adding four teams to PAC costs $440M.

A few points:

1. If Texas heads to the PAC they aren't headed there for money, so I still wouldn't rule out a lateral move of about 4 schools. Now obviously Kansas and Oklahoma will move for more revenue. Texas taking Tech and T.C.U. or perhaps KState would have an entourage just happy to remain in a P5 conference So it would cost the networks involved 60 million to if everyone remained roughly at 35 million.

2. In the main Big 12 realignment thread I do discuss what I see as a power move by the SEC. It is predicated upon the math involve with what Oklahoma or Texas, or both would add to a conference. The SEC could make more money for everyone if they offered all four of Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State. Strategically and market wise it is a power move and one that the Big 10 can't make.

Now obviously the SEC would prefer to just take Texas and Oklahoma which would be a move that would make all parties concerned a lot more money. But if the Big 10 is pushing on this pair the foursome becomes the SEC's ace in the hole.

3. If the Big 10 is interested in Kansas and Oklahoma only then OU/OSU becomes the SEC's ace in the hole.

So ultimately what that means is that Oklahoma will have to decide what is best for them. The ball will still be in the Sooner's court.

The only potential risk to OU heading to the Big 10 is that the SEC might find a way to take Texas and Tech which would leave OSU high and dry and would pressure Oklahoma recruiting because of the change in venue. Now if Texas heads anywhere but the SEC Oklahoma is still in good shape with a move to the Big 10. Then the only drawback is OSU who on their own still has a hard time finding a home.

1. If Texas does take a group of schools to the PAC to protect their P5 status I’m sure Baylor will be a part of that venture as state politicians will step in again.

2. The power move of wrapping up the southwest with Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech might be the only move where Baylor can’t force their way into a conference under the Bevo horns. Of course scheduling will be a major concern as will what the college playoffs decides to do.

3. Yep. Agreed

(04-09-2018 04:54 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 01:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 12:24 PM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 01:48 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(04-08-2018 07:16 AM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  But, what if B1G strikes first and takes only OU and KU? Would any conference be interested in taking Texas and more than one other? What combination of Texas plus other schools would make financial sense? Or, to put it differently, is there a conference that would take four schools unless they get both Texas and OU?

That's an interesting question, the implication being that either one of UT/OU cannot carry three others. But what if 4 with either one includes two states instead of one? I think it's possible with UT but not OU. Oklahoma's too small for OU to carry three with them. UT can carry OU, KU or TT. OU can carry KU or OSU. If UT can carry TT then a third team may have to come from another state. That's where Okie State may come in. Yes, Okie State's academics are suspect for the Pac-12 but: a) they're a public school; b) they'll help an acquiring conference expand beyond Texas and into Oklahoma. Who might be the fourth school? My guess is Rice University. They're small but already have the academic chops, plus located in a major market. With a large endowment Rice can basically pay their way in.

The question would then become could UT and Rice carry two others to the Pac-12.

I don't think either OU or UT can carry more than one buddy. Simply this, Texas and Oklahoma are not going to move unless they get an increase in revenue, something on the order of B1G/SEC payouts, ie, ~$50M. Conference do not want unequal distributions. The PAC would have 16 teams. The total conference payout would be $800M per year.

The PAC 2017 payout is estimated to be $29.5M per school for a 12 team total of slightly less than $360M. The PAC would have to find an additional $440M to make this work. Would Texas, Rice, and two other schools (not Oklahoma) add $440M in revenue?

The killer for this strategies is the need to raise every conference member to B1G/SEC levels. The math works a lot better for the SEC or the B1G because those conferences don't have to raise their own payouts to their members. Adding four teams to the SEC/B1G only costs $200M while adding four teams to PAC costs $440M.

A few points:

1. If Texas heads to the PAC they aren't headed there for money, so I still wouldn't rule out a lateral move of about 4 schools. Now obviously Kansas and Oklahoma will move for more revenue. Texas taking Tech and T.C.U. or perhaps KState would have an entourage just happy to remain in a P5 conference So it would cost the networks involved 60 million to if everyone remained roughly at 35 million.

2. In the main Big 12 realignment thread I do discuss what I see as a power move by the SEC. It is predicated upon the math involve with what Oklahoma or Texas, or both would add to a conference. The SEC could make more money for everyone if they offered all four of Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State. Strategically and market wise it is a power move and one that the Big 10 can't make.

Now obviously the SEC would prefer to just take Texas and Oklahoma which would be a move that would make all parties concerned a lot more money. But if the Big 10 is pushing on this pair the foursome becomes the SEC's ace in the hole.

3. If the Big 10 is interested in Kansas and Oklahoma only then OU/OSU becomes the SEC's ace in the hole.

So ultimately what that means is that Oklahoma will have to decide what is best for them. The ball will still be in the Sooner's court.

The only potential risk to OU heading to the Big 10 is that the SEC might find a way to take Texas and Tech which would leave OSU high and dry and would pressure Oklahoma recruiting because of the change in venue. Now if Texas heads anywhere but the SEC Oklahoma is still in good shape with a move to the Big 10. Then the only drawback is OSU who on their own still has a hard time finding a home.

1. If Texas does take a group of schools to the PAC to protect their P5 status I’m sure Baylor will be a part of that venture as state politicians will step in again.

2. The power move of wrapping up the southwest with Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech might be the only move where Baylor can’t force their way into a conference under the Bevo horns. Of course scheduling will be a major concern as will what the college playoffs decides to do.

3. Yep. Agreed

Texas won't take schools along with them to "protect their status". Texas simply doesn't care about other schools. Texas has a history of making decisions only on what is best for Texas regardless of how it affects other schools. You might want to read up on why so many schools have left conferences they shared with Texas.

I think you're over-estimating the power of Baylor. When the XII was formed, the governor and lieutenant governor were both Baylor alums. It's well accepted that without their influence, Baylor would not have made the XII. Lot's of things have happened since then including major scandals that diminish Baylor's attractiveness. With the current cultural climate in California, it's difficult to see how the PAC would consider a small baptist college with a football team with a serious history of sexual assault would make the cut.

Personally, I would like for OU to join the B1G or the SEC. I really don't care who comes along.

I think there is a solid chance that Oklahoma and Texas work to dissolve the Big 12 after the GOR ends. Then they will work towards rebuilding the SWC. The LHN deal with ESPN will be getting close to the end of its original agreement. So Texas might be interested in finding a replacement source of income.

(04-09-2018 06:56 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I think there is a solid chance that Oklahoma and Texas work to dissolve the Big 12 after the GOR ends. Then they will work towards rebuilding the SWC. The LHN deal with ESPN will be getting close to the end of its original agreement. So Texas might be interested in finding a replacement source of income.

Which schools would be included/excluded in the new SEC?

(04-09-2018 07:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 06:56 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I think there is a solid chance that Oklahoma and Texas work to dissolve the Big 12 after the GOR ends. Then they will work towards rebuilding the SWC. The LHN deal with ESPN will be getting close to the end of its original agreement. So Texas might be interested in finding a replacement source of income.

Which schools would be included/excluded in the new SEC?

I think you meant new SWC. But this isn't going to happen unless they pull schools from the PAC. And I have serious doubts about that as fun as it may be to speculate about.

(04-09-2018 07:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 07:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 06:56 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I think there is a solid chance that Oklahoma and Texas work to dissolve the Big 12 after the GOR ends. Then they will work towards rebuilding the SWC. The LHN deal with ESPN will be getting close to the end of its original agreement. So Texas might be interested in finding a replacement source of income.

Which schools would be included/excluded in the new SEC?

I think you meant new SWC. But this isn't going to happen unless they pull schools from the PAC. And I have serious doubts about that as fun as it may be to speculate about.

Yep! I mistyped. It must have been some kind of subconscious "slip"

(04-09-2018 07:45 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 07:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 07:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 06:56 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I think there is a solid chance that Oklahoma and Texas work to dissolve the Big 12 after the GOR ends. Then they will work towards rebuilding the SWC. The LHN deal with ESPN will be getting close to the end of its original agreement. So Texas might be interested in finding a replacement source of income.

Which schools would be included/excluded in the new SEC?

I think you meant new SWC. But this isn't going to happen unless they pull schools from the PAC. And I have serious doubts about that as fun as it may be to speculate about.

Yep! I mistyped. It must have been some kind of subconscious "slip"

Well at least there was more reality in your "slip".

A new SWC would be a bad move for Texas. What schools come to the table? They have already failed with the first SWC. If the Big XII is dissolved there are very few options better than what they have now.

(04-10-2018 12:59 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  A new SWC would be a bad move for Texas. What schools come to the table? They have already failed with the first SWC. If the Big XII is dissolved there are very few options better than what they have now.

I think everybody knows that the issues in the Big 12 began with UT.

That won't keep any league from wanting Texas, but I think each of them will want Texas to join "their" association rather than taking a chance on allowing UT to be the center of gravity again.

(04-10-2018 08:47 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 12:59 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  A new SWC would be a bad move for Texas. What schools come to the table? They have already failed with the first SWC. If the Big XII is dissolved there are very few options better than what they have now.

I think everybody knows that the issues in the Big 12 began with UT.

That won't keep any league from wanting Texas, but I think each of them will want Texas to join "their" association rather than taking a chance on allowing UT to be the center of gravity again.

In that case Texas only has two choices.....stay in the Big 12 (or the new SWC) or move to the PAC. The Horns won't have much say in the SEC or the B1G and won't have enough support to make waves if they were to move to the ACC.

(04-10-2018 08:47 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 12:59 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  A new SWC would be a bad move for Texas. What schools come to the table? They have already failed with the first SWC. If the Big XII is dissolved there are very few options better than what they have now.

I think everybody knows that the issues in the Big 12 began with UT.

That won't keep any league from wanting Texas, but I think each of them will want Texas to join "their" association rather than taking a chance on allowing UT to be the center of gravity again.

The important thing is to prevent Texas from building a solid voting block. The best way to do that is to limit the number of Texas schools allowed to join the new conference. Texas plus 1 is the maximum.

(04-10-2018 09:51 AM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 08:47 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 12:59 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  A new SWC would be a bad move for Texas. What schools come to the table? They have already failed with the first SWC. If the Big XII is dissolved there are very few options better than what they have now.

I think everybody knows that the issues in the Big 12 began with UT.

That won't keep any league from wanting Texas, but I think each of them will want Texas to join "their" association rather than taking a chance on allowing UT to be the center of gravity again.

The important thing is to prevent Texas from building a solid voting block. The best way to do that is to limit the number of Texas schools allowed to join the new conference. Texas plus 1 is the maximum.

The good news about handling Texas is that most conferences are set up with a 3/4's majority vote required to pass conference rules and regulations. So it doesn't really matter if Texas and one other join a conference together, it would be be impossible for Texas to control a conference, even passively unless they had four more allies within it.

Obviously they don't have 3 current Big 10 members that would vote with them, and Nebraska doesn't like them. In the SEC we would have to be suspicious of Arkansas, but even if the Hogs sided with Texas they would only have 3 votes. A&M surely won't be voting with them and neither will Missouri.

This is why the in my opinion that the PAC might be a choice for them. If they got to take 3 buddies with them they would always be just 1 vote away from being able to block legislation. A disgruntled Arizona school would be all it would take to be a problem in the PAC and the PAC is the only destination where the receiving conference might still compromise on the LHN.

I think the old core of the ACC has already clued in on the Texas & buddies threat because they have some willing defectors within their ranks to the Texas way. The football first ACC schools would be very susceptible to the Texas lure. I could see Texas and a Notre Dame alliance causing great discord within the ACC.

For those who say Texas would stay and form their own new conference this is why that option is not far fetched. Here are the Texas options from a negative perspective:

1. Move to the Big 10 and become the isolated product within your own state. Most Texans would tend to shift allegiances to schools who played more locally and Michigan and Ohio State would be immune to the lure of Texas's money.

2. Move to the SEC where the inferiority of your athletic department would be magnified and where the rule is already very democratic so that moving with just Tech in tow doesn't buy you any favors.

3. Move to the PAC where they will spoil you with favors out of desperation, but where you ultimately will lose money on travel and where nothing is likely to energize the viewing base. If Californians don't care enough to watch their own schools why do so many think they would give a damn about watching Texas?

4. Move to the ACC where two other prima donnas dwell (Notre Dame and North Carolina). That move would be like the Ultimate Fight Club for the Privileged.

So staying with a cast of serfs surrounding their 40 acres and the Big House is probably pretty appealing to them. Some leaders have a following because of their character. Some leaders have a following because of their cause. And then there are those who purchase a cast of followers because they want to be seen as a leader.