If offered both, I think KU goes Big 10. Just Texas/OK vs. Lsu/Alabama/Auburn/Georgia and a few others would be must watch games, the Big 10 creates more must watch games for KU basketball: Kansas vs. Michigan State being perhaps the best of the lot. KU vs. KY is the only matchup besides KU vs. MU that the SEC really offers.

(07-06-2018 04:26 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  If offered both, I think KU goes Big 10. Just Texas/OK vs. Lsu/Alabama/Auburn/Georgia and a few others would be must watch games, the Big 10 creates more must watch games for KU basketball: Kansas vs. Michigan State being perhaps the best of the lot. KU vs. KY is the only matchup besides KU vs. MU that the SEC really offers.

I'm not so sure about that. Texas hoops is pretty solid. A&M has been picking up steam. South Carolina is on the radar screen as are the Gators. And Since 1990 the SEC has won more hoops titles than the Big 10 and has done so with more schools. And AllTideUp talk around this without specifically stating it, but not only does the SEC provide Kansas with a better position out of which to make a hoops run, and not only would be value their hoops more, but we are still right in the heart of the two hottest recruiting beds for all sports in the nation. Kansas Baseball, Football, and Basketball could benefit from that.

(07-06-2018 04:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 04:26 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  If offered both, I think KU goes Big 10. Just Texas/OK vs. Lsu/Alabama/Auburn/Georgia and a few others would be must watch games, the Big 10 creates more must watch games for KU basketball: Kansas vs. Michigan State being perhaps the best of the lot. KU vs. KY is the only matchup besides KU vs. MU that the SEC really offers.

I'm not so sure about that. Texas hoops is pretty solid. A&M has been picking up steam. South Carolina is on the radar screen as are the Gators. And Since 1990 the SEC has won more hoops titles than the Big 10 and has done so with more schools. And AllTideUp talk around this without specifically stating it, but not only does the SEC provide Kansas with a better position out of which to make a hoops run, and not only would be value their hoops more, but we are still right in the heart of the two hottest recruiting beds for all sports in the nation. Kansas Baseball, Football, and Basketball could benefit from that.

If they're going to pay off a $300 million renovation and stabilize the football program at a competitive level then the SEC gives them the best tools to do it.

Basketball is wonderful and they make good money from it, but you can generate so much more from football that a well-rounded program has to approach this holistically.

As it stands, how often is KU football on television? I mean, they're on, but not in prime spots on prime channels. Don't get me wrong, they won't get top billing in the SEC as a football team, but they'll get a heck of a lot more exposure because there's just so many fans watching their respective teams. There's a ton of casual fans watching SEC games at any given time. At worst, every single game they play will be on the SEC Network which is a nationally distributed channel.

-They'll have more visiting fans = ticket sales.
-They'll have the opportunity to play in recruiting hotbeds all the time.

They can establish a respectable brand in the SEC. The B1G can give them TV money and that's about it.

(07-06-2018 03:55 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  BUT, KU's overall athletic department would not be as strong in the B1G. In the end, they'd make more money in the SEC. They'll be in front of more eyeballs as a whole in the SEC. Sticking with Texas and linking up with the Sun Belt states is what their school needs as a whole. And while their bball program would have more quality match-ups on a yearly basis in the B1G, the actual quality of their program would not improve. The dynamics for creating a strong basketball program are fundamentally different from building a football program. In other words, SEC basketball wouldn't hurt KU basketball one iota.

They already dominate the Big XII, which is a stronger basketball conference. So, yes, KU basketball would have much more gravitas in the SEC.

And the same thing about KU's athletic needs could also be said with respect to MU. Perhaps the Big Ten knew this all along and decided that they're worth more elsewhere.

I remember years back when the "Kickoff Classic" opened the college football season. One year, there was a match-up between highly ranked Florida State and Kansas. It was no contest, FSU dominated and had an easy win. After the game, Coach Bobby Bowden was pointed in saying, paraphrasing, that Kansas was too underdeveloped to be playing at the level FSU does. Since that time, Kansas has demonstrated little to nothing in sustained success.

I recall the days when Kansas did produce some good seasons and had appeared in the Orange Bowl. Still, they have little to show as fb success in recent times. And short periods when they did well, often came between extended droughts in having winning seasons.

I am not saying Kansas is unworthy of serious SEC consideration if it comes to that. Change in results can happen. However, the SEC would need to go into this recognizing Kansas would probably be more of a regular bottom-feeder in football, rather than a powerhouse.
Being a flag-ship school with AAU membership, and having solid and sustained basketball success at the highest level, are very desirable features. But if having football pedigree is the utmost factor for a valued selection, better choices would be out there.

(07-06-2018 07:49 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I remember years back when the "Kickoff Classic" opened the college football season. One year, there was a match-up between highly ranked Florida State and Kansas. It was no contest, FSU dominated and had an easy win. After the game, Coach Bobby Bowden was pointed in saying, paraphrasing, that Kansas was too underdeveloped to be playing at the level FSU does. Since that time, Kansas has demonstrated little to nothing in sustained success.

I recall the days when Kansas did produce some good seasons and had appeared in the Orange Bowl. Still, they have little to show as fb success in recent times. And short periods when they did well, often came between extended droughts in having winning seasons.

I am not saying Kansas is unworthy of serious SEC consideration if it comes to that. Change in results can happen. However, the SEC would need to go into this recognizing Kansas would probably be more of a regular bottom-feeder in football, rather than a powerhouse.
Being a flag-ship school with AAU membership, and having solid and sustained basketball success at the highest level, are very desirable features. But if having football pedigree is the utmost factor for a valued selection, better choices would be out there.

They would function as the Vanderbilt/Kentucky of the Western division.

But I think you have to look at this as being the perfect compliment to Texas. The Horns would want to have a chance to be the king of their division. If they could win it every now and then with their brand they are the perfect legitimizer for A&M, Arkansas, L.S.U., etc. when they make runs and have a win over the Horns. When Texas is up their S.O.S. is boosted by their division mates sans Kansas. With that line up it is the perfect platform for launching a national title run. Then the CCG being against an Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, or Florida pretty much cinches it until we go to a Champs only.

Another thing about Kansas...availability.

If we go for Oklahoma then we probably have to take Oklahoma State. Not the worst thing in the world, but there's limited upside when it comes to additional value.

Texas is the best catch out there so if we can get them then a suitable 16th is needed. It won't be OU in that scenario. Texas Tech wouldn't be horrible, but again, doesn't add much we wouldn't have otherwise. West Virginia isn't bad, but we need a Western addition for one. That and WVU still has some inherent weaknesses that the SEC can't fix.

Kansas can slide into that spot though. It's another market addition that adds to the viewership baseline. They can add extra value without any political wrangling. Really, they are a very solid department. They take in close to $100 million and it could be more in the SEC because of the multiplied value.

(07-06-2018 10:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Another thing about Kansas...availability.

If we go for Oklahoma then we probably have to take Oklahoma State. Not the worst thing in the world, but there's limited upside when it comes to additional value.

Texas is the best catch out there so if we can get them then a suitable 16th is needed. It won't be OU in that scenario. Texas Tech wouldn't be horrible, but again, doesn't add much we wouldn't have otherwise. West Virginia isn't bad, but we need a Western addition for one. That and WVU still has some inherent weaknesses that the SEC can't fix.

Kansas can slide into that spot though. It's another market addition that adds to the viewership baseline. They can add extra value without any political wrangling. Really, they are a very solid department. They take in close to $100 million and it could be more in the SEC because of the multiplied value.

The whole thing plays out more efficiently.

We keep two divisions.

West:
Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M.

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

All rivals are contained within the two divisions. We move to a 9 conference game schedule. We play our 7 divisional games and rotate 2 each from the other division every year. In 4 years we will have played everyone. In 8 years we will have played everyone home and home. No more permanent rivals.

For the Big 10 it's not bad either:

West: Illinois, Iowa, Iowa State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Oklahoma, Wisconsin

East:
Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

It even makes the ACC more efficient:

North:
Boston College, Louisville, Miami, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

South:
Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Wake Forest

Basically it becomes the OBE vs the old ACC.

And if the PAC wakes up to smell the coffee then they might have this:

West:
California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Oregon State, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington, Washington State

East:
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Utah

Or basically the old PAC 8 versus their additions.

That's your 4 X 16 fulfillment. Bye bye Baylor.

(07-06-2018 05:04 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 10:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  .......really wanted to take advantages over all of their rivals and did so by making a move like this.

Texas joins the SEC without Tech and with Kansas.

What it would do:

1. Texas gains equal brand status with A&M.

2. Texas relegates Oklahoma to the Big 10.

3. Texas relegates Oklahoma State at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

4. Texas relegtes Texas Tech at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

5. Texas definitely relegates Baylor to the G5.

6. Texas relegates T.C.U. at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

7. Texas relegates Kansas State at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

8. Texas forces the Big 10 to seriously consider Iowa State as Oklahoma's partner in moving to the Big 10 which further isolates their rival away from Texas recruiting.

9. Texas forces West Virginia at best into the ACC and at worst into the G5.

10. What this does is reestablish in spades Texas dominance over all former Big 12 members and only elevates the weakest football product, Kansas.

11. Texas regains old rivals Arkansas, and Texas A&M and keeps Oklahoma as an OOC game in DFW. They renew an annual game with Missouri and they gain new regional foes with L.S.U. Mississippi State and Mississippi, all relatively easy to travel to. And they still have 2 OOC games with which to schedule other Texas schools.

12. Texas forces us into a P4 and likely a champs only format which means Notre Dame will have to join the ACC in full to be eligible. So this arrangement profits the ACC and ESPN by doing so.


West Division:

Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M


What it does for the SEC:

1. The end of season conference divisional rivalries end like this:
Texas/Texas A&M, Ole Miss/Miss St, Missouri/Kansas, Arkansas/L.S.U. and classic annual divisional games become Texas/Arkansas, Texas/L.S.U., A&M/LS.U..

That's a huge bonanza for just the Western Division and it would contain the same quality of year end games or more than what the Eastern division already has.

How it Impacts other conferences:

Iowa State & Oklahoma to the Big 10. They get a prize and a regional AAU school with a solid following.

West Virginia to the ACC. It gives them content in all money sports and fills a whole in their footprint. There will need to be a battery ban in Morgantown and all urine tossers need to lose their ticket privileges forever but it would be a good addition for their network content value.

The PAC can play snooty or get help with distribution and carriage by selling part interest in their network. And if they do adding CTZ schools is still in their best interest. Texas Tech is a natural bride and T.C.U. in DFW is too large a market to bypass. Toss in KState and OSU and everyone except Baylor may yet come out a winner.

I've never been a fan of Kansas in the SEC but they would become the Vanderbilt of the Western Division which would be useful in its own right, but they bring Kentucky level basektball gravitas and another AAU school in a new state.

The only duplicate for the SEC is the top content school in the nation that we can get (considering that Ohio State may not wish to join the SEC).

What has sold me on this notion are the last week end series of the regular season in the Western Division. Those games are massive content games. Even Missouri/Kansas probably edges out Tennessee/Vanderbilt.

Now the Eastern Division ends this way:
Alabama/Auburn, Georgia/Georgia Tech, South Carolina/Clemson, Tennessee/Vanderbilt, Florida/Florida State, and Kentucky/Louisville.

The SEC absolutely mops up the ratings on that weekend.

So in looking at those pairings I have to say I like it better than what the pairing of Oklahoma/Oklahoma State would bring us.

Thoughts?

Congratulations! You've posted the most intriguing scenario (and you've posted out many) of realignment scenarios here so far.

What's intriguing about it is that it would test the theory from many Big Ten heads that Missouri and Kansas aren't needed to access the St. Louis and Kansas City markets as long as Nebraska and Illinois are members. To me, I always found that explanation baffling. Yes, Nebraska fans are found in many plains states, so it makes sense that the Big Ten would have the mind share of Nebraska fans in the places I've mentioned. With that said it's arrogant to assume that you could have a market by having a program in a neighboring state. Then again, this attitude isn't new to Big Ten fans. Many still internally believe that Penn State was all they needed for the New York market, until the Big Ten Conference decided that it was no longer enough, which has peeved so many traditionalist fans ever since.

My opinion is that having Kansas and Missouri both in would give the SEC effective majority of the mind share in the Kansas City market. Lawrence is nearby and Columbia is down the road. Meanwhile, Lincoln is in the middle of a corn field. UNL is already connected to Chicago, regardless. So it's not that big of a deal.

Oklahoma's situation would be interesting, though. Not only would they be separated from UT but also from most of the former Big 8 members except for UNL. No Buffaloes. No Jayhawks. No Tigers. I'm assuming the Big Ten would reshuffle the conference schedules so that OU would play the football powers more, as a way of easing them in.

End of year rivalries would be straight forward: 'Hawks-'Clones; Sooners-Huskers; Gophers-Badgers; Wildcats-Illini; Boilers-Hoosiers; Spartans-Lions; Bucks-Wolverines; Turtles-Knights

I always felt the Big Ten was quite pertinent in maintaining divisional integrity.

(07-07-2018 06:53 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 05:04 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 10:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  .......really wanted to take advantages over all of their rivals and did so by making a move like this.

Texas joins the SEC without Tech and with Kansas.

What it would do:

1. Texas gains equal brand status with A&M.

2. Texas relegates Oklahoma to the Big 10.

3. Texas relegates Oklahoma State at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

4. Texas relegtes Texas Tech at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

5. Texas definitely relegates Baylor to the G5.

6. Texas relegates T.C.U. at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

7. Texas relegates Kansas State at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

8. Texas forces the Big 10 to seriously consider Iowa State as Oklahoma's partner in moving to the Big 10 which further isolates their rival away from Texas recruiting.

9. Texas forces West Virginia at best into the ACC and at worst into the G5.

10. What this does is reestablish in spades Texas dominance over all former Big 12 members and only elevates the weakest football product, Kansas.

11. Texas regains old rivals Arkansas, and Texas A&M and keeps Oklahoma as an OOC game in DFW. They renew an annual game with Missouri and they gain new regional foes with L.S.U. Mississippi State and Mississippi, all relatively easy to travel to. And they still have 2 OOC games with which to schedule other Texas schools.

12. Texas forces us into a P4 and likely a champs only format which means Notre Dame will have to join the ACC in full to be eligible. So this arrangement profits the ACC and ESPN by doing so.


West Division:

Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M


What it does for the SEC:

1. The end of season conference divisional rivalries end like this:
Texas/Texas A&M, Ole Miss/Miss St, Missouri/Kansas, Arkansas/L.S.U. and classic annual divisional games become Texas/Arkansas, Texas/L.S.U., A&M/LS.U..

That's a huge bonanza for just the Western Division and it would contain the same quality of year end games or more than what the Eastern division already has.

How it Impacts other conferences:

Iowa State & Oklahoma to the Big 10. They get a prize and a regional AAU school with a solid following.

West Virginia to the ACC. It gives them content in all money sports and fills a whole in their footprint. There will need to be a battery ban in Morgantown and all urine tossers need to lose their ticket privileges forever but it would be a good addition for their network content value.

The PAC can play snooty or get help with distribution and carriage by selling part interest in their network. And if they do adding CTZ schools is still in their best interest. Texas Tech is a natural bride and T.C.U. in DFW is too large a market to bypass. Toss in KState and OSU and everyone except Baylor may yet come out a winner.

I've never been a fan of Kansas in the SEC but they would become the Vanderbilt of the Western Division which would be useful in its own right, but they bring Kentucky level basektball gravitas and another AAU school in a new state.

The only duplicate for the SEC is the top content school in the nation that we can get (considering that Ohio State may not wish to join the SEC).

What has sold me on this notion are the last week end series of the regular season in the Western Division. Those games are massive content games. Even Missouri/Kansas probably edges out Tennessee/Vanderbilt.

Now the Eastern Division ends this way:
Alabama/Auburn, Georgia/Georgia Tech, South Carolina/Clemson, Tennessee/Vanderbilt, Florida/Florida State, and Kentucky/Louisville.

The SEC absolutely mops up the ratings on that weekend.

So in looking at those pairings I have to say I like it better than what the pairing of Oklahoma/Oklahoma State would bring us.

Thoughts?

Congratulations! You've posted the most intriguing scenario (and you've posted out many) of realignment scenarios here so far.

What's intriguing about it is that it would test the theory from many Big Ten heads that Missouri and Kansas aren't needed to access the St. Louis and Kansas City markets as long as Nebraska and Illinois are members. To me, I always found that explanation baffling. Yes, Nebraska fans are found in many plains states, so it makes sense that the Big Ten would have the mind share of Nebraska fans in the places I've mentioned. With that said it's arrogant to assume that you could have a market by having a program in a neighboring state. Then again, this attitude isn't new to Big Ten fans. Many still internally believe that Penn State was all they needed for the New York market, until the Big Ten Conference decided that it was no longer enough, which has peeved so many traditionalist fans ever since.

My opinion is that having Kansas and Missouri both in would give the SEC effective majority of the mind share in the Kansas City market. Lawrence is nearby and Columbia is down the road. Meanwhile, Lincoln is in the middle of a corn field. UNL is already connected to Chicago, regardless. So it's not that big of a deal.

Oklahoma's situation would be interesting, though. Not only would they be separated from UT but also from most of the former Big 8 members except for UNL. No Buffaloes. No Jayhawks. No Tigers. I'm assuming the Big Ten would reshuffle the conference schedules so that OU would play the football powers more, as a way of easing them in.

End of year rivalries would be straight forward: 'Hawks-'Clones; Sooners-Huskers; Gophers-Badgers; Wildcats-Illini; Boilers-Hoosiers; Spartans-Lions; Bucks-Wolverines; Turtles-Knights

I always felt the Big Ten was quite pertinent in maintaining divisional integrity.

Pertinent? What do you mean here?

Thanks for clarifying

Texas may be the most confusing school out there in terms of which direction they may go when it comes to expansion/realignment. They probably could go anywhere they choose, given a willingness and that demands would be reasonable to the host conference. Due to geography in part, nothing looks ideal; but the SEC would offer the most practical, and perhaps lucrative, long-term arrangement. Texas has a long reputation of displaying arrogance publically, but will be more conversant and strategic in negotiating with others on a confidential level. They have had a history of chatting with the SEC regarding expansion, and often schedule to play a SEC school when good opportunities arise. There may be some strained feelings toward the SEC for accepting Texas A&M, but they also know both have been in dialogue with the SEC for decades about expanding. When UT and A&M bolted to join with the Big 8 to create the B12, and in the process bringing along TTU and Baylor, they didn't sound very sad that Rice, Houston, TCU, and SMU were being left behind.

The BIG is not a good option for Texas due to geography, having no long-term established rivalries, and being very limited in bringing tagalongs/buddies.
The PAC could offer Texas and friends a more encompassing package, but would the PAC have the will, the financial incentives and resources to do so? Maybe, if a network(s) at the time are strongly behind it with impressive and assured competitive distributions. Then there is all this "looking east" stance, and the Pacific coastline is really not all that close.
The SEC is ready-made for Texas if UT can get beyond some attitudinal and petty dynamics designed to cater to boosters, legislatures, and such. As noted, prime rivals are already in the SEC.
Texas days of having a conference whereby they are the "queen bee" in conference- disbursed revenue and managerial and political control, are numbered. If OU and one or two others leave, it becomes Texas as the big fish in a smaller pond, no matter how many G-5 additions are made.

What certain B12 schools are really going to do in 5 to 7 years is so dependant on unpredictable and perhaps surprising factors. Who is now engaged in preliminary negotiations with whom are not being leaked or confirmed from credible sources. If it has, I have not seen it...yet. Obviously, educated speculation is working within reasonable parameters, minus the ridiculous nonsense that makes its way to the Internet. Even on this larger forum, not referencing these generally thoughtful SEC-based threads, some bizzare stuff gets espoused.

To the topic, I believe Texas and Kansas to the SEC would be fine, given my personal critique about Kansas fb I mentioned earlier. If the SEC brass and schools would be satisfied with it, I won't complain. I do believe Mizzou needs to be a bit more physically/geographically bonded to the SEC, and adding Kansas would do that.
As to adding OU & oSu instead, that could be a quite pragmatic move. Both are solid when it comes to athletics and would incorporate well, I expect. Taking two from a moderate-sized state, whose academics are not pounding on the AAU's door, may not be so enticing to some in the SEC who are looking to enhance the overall academic profile of the conference.

Somehow, I believe the options matter will settle itself in due time, and the SEC will confidently know exactly which "two" to pursue.

But then again, as strange as this era has become, the SEC could end up with Kansas and Indiana. Did you know over six decades ago, Indiana almost became an SEC member? Had the Big 10 accepted Notre Dame at that time, it was planned to happen. Michigan did the dirty work for Indiana then.

(07-07-2018 12:39 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Texas may be the most confusing school out there in terms of which direction they may go when it comes to expansion/realignment. They probably could go anywhere they choose, given a willingness and that demands would be reasonable to the host conference. Due to geography in part, nothing looks ideal; but the SEC would offer the most practical, and perhaps lucrative, long-term arrangement. Texas has a long reputation of displaying arrogance publically, but will be more conversant and strategic in negotiating with others on a confidential level. They have had a history of chatting with the SEC regarding expansion, and often schedule to play a SEC school when good opportunities arise. There may be some strained feelings toward the SEC for accepting Texas A&M, but they also know both have been in dialogue with the SEC for decades about expanding. When UT and A&M bolted to join with the Big 8 to create the B12, and in the process bringing along TTU and Baylor, they didn't sound very sad that Rice, Houston, TCU, and SMU were being left behind.

The BIG is not a good option for Texas due to geography, having no long-term established rivalries, and being very limited in bringing tagalongs/buddies.
The PAC could offer Texas and friends a more encompassing package, but would the PAC have the will, the financial incentives and resources to do so? Maybe, if a network(s) at the time are strongly behind it with impressive and assured competitive distributions. Then there is all this "looking east" stance, and the Pacific coastline is really not all that close.
The SEC is ready-made for Texas if UT can get beyond some attitudinal and petty dynamics designed to cater to boosters, legislatures, and such. As noted, prime rivals are already in the SEC.
Texas days of having a conference whereby they are the "queen bee" in conference- disbursed revenue and managerial and political control, are numbered. If OU and one or two others leave, it becomes Texas as the big fish in a smaller pond, no matter how many G-5 additions are made.

What certain B12 schools are really going to do in 5 to 7 years is so dependant on unpredictable and perhaps surprising factors. Who is now engaged in preliminary negotiations with whom are not being leaked or confirmed from credible sources. If it has, I have not seen it...yet. Obviously, educated speculation is working within reasonable parameters, minus the ridiculous nonsense that makes its way to the Internet. Even on this larger forum, not referencing these generally thoughtful SEC-based threads, some bizzare stuff gets espoused.

To the topic, I believe Texas and Kansas to the SEC would be fine, given my personal critique about Kansas fb I mentioned earlier. If the SEC brass and schools would be satisfied with it, I won't complain. I do believe Mizzou needs to be a bit more physically/geographically bonded to the SEC, and adding Kansas would do that.
As to adding OU & oSu instead, that could be a quite pragmatic move. Both are solid when it comes to athletics and would incorporate well, I expect. Taking two from a moderate-sized state, whose academics are not pounding on the AAU's door, may not be so enticing to some in the SEC who are looking to enhance the overall academic profile of the conference.

Somehow, I believe the options matter will settle itself in due time, and the SEC will confidently know exactly which "two" to pursue.

But then again, as strange as this era has become, the SEC could end up with Kansas and Indiana. Did you know over six decades ago, Indiana almost became an SEC member? Had the Big 10 accepted Notre Dame at that time, it was planned to happen. Michigan did the dirty work for Indiana then.

It makes you wonder whether if Indiana had joined the SEC if Bobby Knight would have been able to retire there? Tossing a few chairs at a basketball game in the 1960's SEC, or even 70's, would have been a more appreciated act than it was in the Big 10.

(07-07-2018 12:39 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  But then again, as strange as this era has become, the SEC could end up with Kansas and Indiana. Did you know over six decades ago, Indiana almost became an SEC member? Had the Big 10 accepted Notre Dame at that time, it was planned to happen. Michigan did the dirty work for Indiana then.

Now that I have not heard before. Would have made a great rival for Kentucky.

(07-07-2018 01:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It makes you wonder whether if Indiana had joined the SEC if Bobby Knight would have been able to retire there? Tossing a few chairs at a basketball game in the 1960's SEC, or even 70's, would have been a more appreciated act than it was in the Big 10.

All of a sudden, I feel a sense of great loss over something I never possessed.

(07-07-2018 12:39 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Texas may be the most confusing school out there in terms of which direction they may go when it comes to expansion/realignment. They probably could go anywhere they choose, given a willingness and that demands would be reasonable to the host conference. Due to geography in part, nothing looks ideal; but the SEC would offer the most practical, and perhaps lucrative, long-term arrangement. Texas has a long reputation of displaying arrogance publically, but will be more conversant and strategic in negotiating with others on a confidential level. They have had a history of chatting with the SEC regarding expansion, and often schedule to play a SEC school when good opportunities arise. There may be some strained feelings toward the SEC for accepting Texas A&M, but they also know both have been in dialogue with
the SEC for decades about expanding. When UT and A&M bolted to join with the Big 8 to create the B12, and in the process bringing along TTU and Baylor, they didn't sound very sad that Rice, Houston, TCU, and SMU were being left behind.

The BIG is not a good option for Texas due to geography, having no long-term established rivalries, and being very limited in bringing tagalongs/buddies.
The PAC could offer Texas and friends a more encompassing package, but would the PAC have the will, the financial incentives and resources to do so? Maybe, if a network(s) at the time are strongly behind it with impressive and assured competitive distributions. Then there is all this "looking east" stance, and the Pacific coastline is really not all that close.
The SEC is ready-made for Texas if UT can get beyond some attitudinal and petty dynamics designed to cater to boosters, legislatures, and such. As noted, prime rivals are already in the SEC.
Texas days of having a conference whereby they are the "queen bee" in conference- disbursed revenue and managerial and political control, are numbered. If OU and one or two others leave, it becomes Texas as the big fish in a smaller pond, no matter how many G-5 additions are made.

What certain B12 schools are really going to do in 5 to 7 years is so dependant on unpredictable and perhaps surprising factors. Who is now engaged in preliminary negotiations with whom are not being leaked or confirmed from credible sources. If it has, I have not seen it...yet. Obviously, educated speculation is working within reasonable parameters, minus the ridiculous nonsense that makes its way to the Internet. Even on this larger forum, not referencing these generally thoughtful SEC-based threads, some bizzare stuff gets espoused.

To the topic, I believe Texas and Kansas to the SEC would be fine, given my personal critique about Kansas fb I mentioned earlier. If the SEC brass and schools would be satisfied with it, I won't complain. I do believe Mizzou needs to be a bit more physically/geographically bonded to the SEC, and adding Kansas would do that.
As to adding OU & oSu instead, that could be a quite pragmatic move. Both are solid when it comes to athletics and would incorporate well, I expect. Taking two from a moderate-sized state, whose academics are not pounding on the AAU's door, may not be so enticing to some in the SEC who are looking to enhance the overall academic profile of the conference.

Somehow, I believe the options matter will settle itself in due time, and the SEC will confidently know exactly which "two" to pursue.

But then again, as strange as this era has become, the SEC could end up with Kansas and Indiana. Did you know over six decades ago, Indiana almost became an SEC member? Had the Big 10 accepted Notre Dame at that time, it was planned to happen. Michigan did the dirty work for Indiana then.

If I was picking schools from the Big 10 to join the SEC, i don't know that Indiana would be my go to (limiting it to contigous states, Nebraska, Ohio State and even maybe Iowa would get calls first, I'd also check in on Maryland). But it would definitely be interesting.

If the Big 10 was going to poach the SEC, Missouri + Kentucky/Vandy would be the easy choices.

If the SEC took Kansas/OK, and the PAC got Texas/Tech/OK St./KSU, that would leave the Big 10 out right? Iowa State wouldn't be enough for a 15th member, but only as an additional 16th to make it even.

(07-07-2018 02:32 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(07-07-2018 12:39 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Texas may be the most confusing school out there in terms of which direction they may go when it comes to expansion/realignment. They probably could go anywhere they choose, given a willingness and that demands would be reasonable to the host conference. Due to geography in part, nothing looks ideal; but the SEC would offer the most practical, and perhaps lucrative, long-term arrangement. Texas has a long reputation of displaying arrogance publically, but will be more conversant and strategic in negotiating with others on a confidential level. They have had a history of chatting with the SEC regarding expansion, and often schedule to play a SEC school when good opportunities arise. There may be some strained feelings toward the SEC for accepting Texas A&M, but they also know both have been in dialogue with
the SEC for decades about expanding. When UT and A&M bolted to join with the Big 8 to create the B12, and in the process bringing along TTU and Baylor, they didn't sound very sad that Rice, Houston, TCU, and SMU were being left behind.

The BIG is not a good option for Texas due to geography, having no long-term established rivalries, and being very limited in bringing tagalongs/buddies.
The PAC could offer Texas and friends a more encompassing package, but would the PAC have the will, the financial incentives and resources to do so? Maybe, if a network(s) at the time are strongly behind it with impressive and assured competitive distributions. Then there is all this "looking east" stance, and the Pacific coastline is really not all that close.
The SEC is ready-made for Texas if UT can get beyond some attitudinal and petty dynamics designed to cater to boosters, legislatures, and such. As noted, prime rivals are already in the SEC.
Texas days of having a conference whereby they are the "queen bee" in conference- disbursed revenue and managerial and political control, are numbered. If OU and one or two others leave, it becomes Texas as the big fish in a smaller pond, no matter how many G-5 additions are made.

What certain B12 schools are really going to do in 5 to 7 years is so dependant on unpredictable and perhaps surprising factors. Who is now engaged in preliminary negotiations with whom are not being leaked or confirmed from credible sources. If it has, I have not seen it...yet. Obviously, educated speculation is working within reasonable parameters, minus the ridiculous nonsense that makes its way to the Internet. Even on this larger forum, not referencing these generally thoughtful SEC-based threads, some bizzare stuff gets espoused.

To the topic, I believe Texas and Kansas to the SEC would be fine, given my personal critique about Kansas fb I mentioned earlier. If the SEC brass and schools would be satisfied with it, I won't complain. I do believe Mizzou needs to be a bit more physically/geographically bonded to the SEC, and adding Kansas would do that.
As to adding OU & oSu instead, that could be a quite pragmatic move. Both are solid when it comes to athletics and would incorporate well, I expect. Taking two from a moderate-sized state, whose academics are not pounding on the AAU's door, may not be so enticing to some in the SEC who are looking to enhance the overall academic profile of the conference.

Somehow, I believe the options matter will settle itself in due time, and the SEC will confidently know exactly which "two" to pursue.

But then again, as strange as this era has become, the SEC could end up with Kansas and Indiana. Did you know over six decades ago, Indiana almost became an SEC member? Had the Big 10 accepted Notre Dame at that time, it was planned to happen. Michigan did the dirty work for Indiana then.

If I was picking schools from the Big 10 to join the SEC, i don't know that Indiana would be my go to (limiting it to contigous states, Nebraska, Ohio State and even maybe Iowa would get calls first, I'd also check in on Maryland). But it would definitely be interesting.

If the Big 10 was going to poach the SEC, Missouri + Kentucky/Vandy would be the easy choices.

If the SEC took Kansas/OK, and the PAC got Texas/Tech/OK St./KSU, that would leave the Big 10 out right? Iowa State wouldn't be enough for a 15th member, but only as an additional 16th to make it even.

Well OdinFrigg was referring to a time before networks drove realignment so Indiana would not have been out of the question, but it would have been a heckuva an outlier in what then was even more of the Old South's SEC. So O.F. is just having some fun. And I might add in many cultural ways Indiana would be a better fit for the SEC than Kansas.

But you are up to speed on your reasoning. Of course the most logical Big 10 school for the SEC would be Ohio State. Other than being Heart of the Union the school's approach to sports is the most SEC like of any of the Big 10 schools.

It may or may not come as a surprise to you but Maryland had been in talks with the SEC on more than a few occasions over the course of several decades. We always thought they were too remote for the move to be practical. The only time I'd say it even got warm was in 2008-10. I'm sure that's when they were in talks with the B1G as well. Then their markets and their debt were the synergy that made them slightly more serious as a prospective member, but the SEC had better prospects.

I'm not a big fan of Kansas, but I do like what the pairing of Texas and Kansas does for sewing up rivalries. And while I'm fine with the pair of Oklahoma schools they don't do the same.

(07-07-2018 03:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It may or may not come as a surprise to you but Maryland had been in talks with the SEC on more than a few occasions over the course of several decades. We always thought they were too remote for the move to be practical. The only time I'd say it even got warm was in 2008-10. I'm sure that's when they were in talks with the B1G as well. Then their markets and their debt were the synergy that made them slightly more serious as a prospective member, but the SEC had better prospects.

It does occur to me though that the ACC was put in a precarious position when Maryland left town.

Perhaps it wasn't in our best interest to be proactive in such a manner, but snagging Florida State and Maryland as a pair around that time would have made things very interesting.

Most all these top conferences missed good opportunities. Of course some are debatable.
The B12 made blunders right after defections. Decades back, the PAC rejected Texas by one vote. Their most recent mistake, I believe, was rejecting the OU-oSu combo.

(07-08-2018 10:14 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Most all these top conferences missed good opportunities. Of course some are debatable.
The B12 made blunders right after defections. Decades back, the PAC rejected Texas by one vote. Their most recent mistake, I believe, was rejecting the OU-oSu combo.

PAC’s biggest mistake is their Tier 3 channels—no distribution. Their biggest problem might just be fan support as I think it is starting to dwindle our on the left coast.

(07-07-2018 04:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-07-2018 03:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It may or may not come as a surprise to you but Maryland had been in talks with the SEC on more than a few occasions over the course of several decades. We always thought they were too remote for the move to be practical. The only time I'd say it even got warm was in 2008-10. I'm sure that's when they were in talks with the B1G as well. Then their markets and their debt were the synergy that made them slightly more serious as a prospective member, but the SEC had better prospects.

It does occur to me though that the ACC was put in a precarious position when Maryland left town.

Perhaps it wasn't in our best interest to be proactive in such a manner, but snagging Florida State and Maryland as a pair around that time would have made things very interesting.

Would love to read an article or two about Maryland’s talks with the SEC. I don’t believe I’ve run across any.

(07-07-2018 04:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-07-2018 03:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It may or may not come as a surprise to you but Maryland had been in talks with the SEC on more than a few occasions over the course of several decades. We always thought they were too remote for the move to be practical. The only time I'd say it even got warm was in 2008-10. I'm sure that's when they were in talks with the B1G as well. Then their markets and their debt were the synergy that made them slightly more serious as a prospective member, but the SEC had better prospects.

It does occur to me though that the ACC was put in a precarious position when Maryland left town.

Perhaps it wasn't in our best interest to be proactive in such a manner, but snagging Florida State and Maryland as a pair around that time would have made things very interesting.

Well we are talking circa 2010. So one impediment for the SEC would have been ESPN had we been serious. What I'm about to say is not known to me so it is conjecture. But let's say that Maryland and the SEC had some legs. If ESPN who was worried about the health of the ACC and had said no, it would explain why the Big 10 negotiations had to have been conducted in stealth and it means that they might have been Maryland's only escape.

Had the SEC taken Maryland and F.S.U. it would have killed the ACC. One core member and their best sports draw would have been gone. We would have used up two slots without gaining a Virginia or N.C. school and there was no way ESPN was going to let that happen.