I think it's an interesting question.

Texas A&M was the first to bolt off to another league that wasn't Texas-centric. Whether anyone follows to the SEC is a question, but it would seem the future holds a time where the state's schools will be divided up. Logistically, that seems like the most likely outcome. Maybe more importantly, the networks won't want to go to a single league in order to have access to the huge and growing TX market.

Earlier today, ole Fluguar basically stated that Houston would get a Power 5 invite in the next round of realignment and the PAC was the likely suitor. He said a few other things(among them that the Big 12 got outfoxed by ESPN on negotiations for the recent CCG/ESPN+ deal), but I won't repeat the tweets here because people know where to find them if they want.

Anyway, let's presume for a moment that TCU ends up being a solid option for the SEC. I've always liked the idea and as long as Oklahoma is the other school then I think it makes a lot of sense.

Let me present that as a possibility because perhaps Texas has more leverage to drag their fellow state schools into the PAC. If they agreed to go to the PAC then they could basically take whoever they wanted. What if Texas Tech and Houston were accompanying them? I'll set aside the 4th member for a moment because there are several options, but a 16 team PAC with Texas is back in the game as far as strong revenue.

Could the networks benefit from this alignment?

I think ESPN's interest is piqued because there's a question of whether they would want the SEC to be unmatchable in revenue and content value. Would they aid the SEC at the expense of the Big Ten in helping OU into the SEC? I think that's reasonable and the SEC's interests are served by planting a flag in DFW. ESPN doesn't gain much by aiding the Big Ten with additions because a large portion of the key content will always go to FOX. Helping Texas into the SEC as well? On some level, it makes a lot of sense, but it would be out of character for ESPN to cede so much power to one of their properties. ESPN is a winner as long as they hold all the rights, but if the SEC decided to take their game elsewhere one day then ESPN has shot themselves in the foot. They'll have to pay more than they want in any open negotiation.

But is the PAC still a player?

Texas is still tied to ESPN through the LHN. This makes arranging their future a difficult thing because currently the SEC and ACC are the only leagues predominantly controlled by ESPN. I don't think the Big Ten is a legitimate option for a lot of reasons even if the money would be really good. The ACC does make some sense, but the travel would be difficult and they probably can't take any tagalongs because of the logistics. That and I think it's reasonable to conclude Notre Dame would not favor that move.

For ESPN, my feelings are that they would prefer to use Texas as a lure for the PAC. Recently, they made an offer to extend the PAC contract long term. While the deal they offered wasn't top notch, I do think it means ESPN is interested in controlling PAC content. It makes sense...they have an East Coast league, a Southern/Central Time Zone league, and it would be effective for marketing to have a West Coast league in the quiver. Whatever gives them flexibility for scheduling and excess content to put on ESPN+...I think that's what they are interested in for the foreseeable future.

Let's say a combo of Texas, Texas Tech, Houston, and Kansas was offered to the PAC along with more competitive payouts in exchange for control of the PAC Networks and a healthy share of the 1st and 2nd tier content. The PAC will still probably divide their rights...maybe they go with FOX or maybe they go with a new suitor from the tech sector. Either way, this would be a bang up deal for the PAC and would help ESPN control a greater portion of content from coast to coast.

It would effectively divide up all the core value of the Big 12 so the rest of the members could be had for a bargain price in a secondary league. The SEC would be happy. The Big Ten would no longer be in a position to steal content from ESPN-owned leagues(whether that's the PAC, the ACC, or the remnants of the Big 12) and might be thrown back into a position where they need more exposure on ESPN in the event their FOX partnership doesn't pan out as well as they hoped.

The state of TX would be divided up and so no league could monopolize that market.

There's still a lot of moving parts here, but the more I think it the more I think it makes sense.

I had theorized that myself once , and something else to keep in mind, the Mouse began out West. Don’t you think Disney would feel better having the PAC under their roof??

The only way I can see Texas going to the Big Ten is to do an end-around on ESPN, by bribing conference members to not do anything until the Longhorn Network expires , as opposed to waiting on the GOR to expire. I think this might be Texas’ preferred approach, but I could be wrong. Assuming that it is, pacifying Oklahoma is a must and the ‘Horns must quell all Big 12 members fears past the GOR.

Here is the Fluge tweets, collected by Boneyards ‘ coastAtlantic poster:

Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 2h2 hours ago
Following tweets is the info BTM gave us last night.

Sushi, Sake & Info.

Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 2h2 hours ago
BTM

“ESPN & FOX both paid Big 12 to get out of their pro-rata clause with the Conference. FOX paid for 2017 B12 CCG + 19,21 & 23. ESPN paid for 3 even years B12 CCG’s. But it turn out to be a sucker play..and Big 12 bit.”

Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 2h2 hours ago
BTM

“FOX ended up dumping their last 3 B12 CCG’s. ESPN, in turn, gave B12 an offer for those 3 odd year B12 CCG’s FOX just dumped...an offer so low Bowlsby could not say yes.”

Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 2h2 hours ago
BTM

“Bowlsby & B12 had no other bidders for their 2019, 2021, 2023 CCG’s other than ESPN’s bid. Now go ask yourself why? Where is this future new media to bid on B12 CCG’s of 2019, 21 & 23?”

Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 2h2 hours ago
BTM

“Before I answer that particular question let’s flush out what happened between B12 & ESPN. B12 couldn’t take ESPN’s initial low offer for 3 CCG’s but yet they had no other players to turn towards to see their rights.”

Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 2h2 hours ago
BTM

“ESPN offered B12 the ESPN+ deal in an attempt to close the CCG deal. B12 finally got their fig leaf to accept the deal which does not in any way include Texas nor Oklahoma.”

Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 2h2 hours ago
BTM

“Final numbers are not known yet for B12 & ESPN deal but it’s figured to be lower than 50 million for 2019, 21 & 23 CCG + 6 years of B12 (8 schools/50 events each) 3T content on ESPN+.”

Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 2h2 hours ago
BTM

“ESPN & FOX came out way ahead in their payoff to B12 to close out pro-rata clause in their contracts. This demonstrates the incredibly weak position B12 is in dealing with ESPN while having no other Big Media backers taking up the B12 cause.”

Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 2h2 hours ago
BTM

“Why no new Big Media offer for B12’s 2019,21,23 CCG’s after FOX dumped them?
Because new Big Media is not interested in B12..their sights are elsewhere. New Big Media is not knocking on the door of B12 offices to start relationship building toward 2025. Why?”

Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 2h2 hours ago
BTM

“Because if you ask all the current major media players, if you ask them over dinner...over drinks they will tell you all the same thing, Big 12 will lose value during next Media negotiations with the fear of OU taking their exit ramp.”

Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 2h2 hours ago
BTM

“ESPN offered PAC to redo their T1/2 deal and to take over their 3T distribution (ESPN+) if PAC would sign an extended deal with ESPN. ESPN attempted to low ball PAC. PAC said no."

Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 2h2 hours ago
BTM

“ESPN has also attempted informally to extend a new deal with Big 12. New T1/2 deal which would extend B12 GOR with ESPN going past 2030.
B12 would get decent bump in T1/2 pay. But Oklahoma killed the discussion at conception.”

Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 2h2 hours ago
BTM

“PAC said no to ESPN because they believe they will have options beyond ESPN after 2024. OU said no to extended B12 GOR with ESPN because they believe they will have options beyond ESPN in 2025.”

Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 2h2 hours ago
PAC, while in dire straights in terms of revenue, B10’s perception is they have had talks with Amazon, Time Warner, and others in future technology & in PAC New-CO investments. PAC, in unity, said no to ESPN offer.

Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 2h2 hours ago
BTM

“B12, in disunity, said no to ESPN informal talks with redoing T1/2 with B12 and extended GOR because of Oklahoma. I’ve said this many times since 2015 and it remains true today, OU iskeeping Exit Ramps clear for 2025.”

Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 2h2 hours ago
BTM

“The chances of no Realignment happening in 2025 among Power 5 Conferences is at about zero. No one believes there will be no movement. There are fault lines which are getting larger and OU wants to be on the correct side of fault line.”

Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 2h2 hours ago
BTM

“I don’t believe there will be any contraction from Realignment movement in 2025 within the number of P5 programs, nor number of P5 Conferences. It’s just not realistic. No matter the cost increase in maintaining P5 Athletic Program in totality.”

Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 2h2 hours ago
BTM

“But everyone I talk with is in agreement that the University of Houston is primed for a seat at P5 table. The money that is around UH is overwhelming. The sponsorships, financing, donors, the media..it’s all big in Houston.”

Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 1h1 hour ago
BTM

“The money that is being donated for more and more academic scholarships at the University of Houston is dramatic. The unique research Houston is doing at their University is substantial. This is the true story of UH beyond their investment in facilities.”

Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 1h1 hour ago
BTM

“Any movement in Realignment for 2024/25 brings UH at the forefront in filling in a slot. Any PAC expansion to help payoff any possible PAC-New Co would happen with UH because UH will pay the entry fee.”

Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 1h1 hour ago
BTM

“More and more beds at Houston. More Students living on campus. More research. Ever increasing faculty. More UH influence inside the important city of Houston. Nobody I talk with believes UH will be denied in 2025.”

(05-27-2019 02:19 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I had theorized that myself once , and something else to keep in mind, the Mouse began out West. Don’t you think Disney would feel better having the PAC under their roof??

The only way I can see Texas going to the Big Ten is to do an end-around on ESPN, by bribing conference members to not do anything until the Longhorn Network expires , as opposed to waiting on the GOR to expire. I think this might be Texas’ preferred approach, but I could be wrong. Assuming that it is, pacifying Oklahoma is a must and the ‘Horns must quell all Big 12 members fears past the GOR.

I would be shocked to see Texas in the Big Ten in any capacity . If anything is telling, I could see the ‘horns follow A&M to the SEC as those two presidents recently publicly discussed trying to renew their rivalry.

Would love to see Oklahoma in the SEC too, but if it came down to picking between the sec and the Big Ten, I think the SEC might have to offer OSU too.

(05-27-2019 06:25 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 02:19 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I had theorized that myself once , and something else to keep in mind, the Mouse began out West. Don’t you think Disney would feel better having the PAC under their roof??

The only way I can see Texas going to the Big Ten is to do an end-around on ESPN, by bribing conference members to not do anything until the Longhorn Network expires , as opposed to waiting on the GOR to expire. I think this might be Texas’ preferred approach, but I could be wrong. Assuming that it is, pacifying Oklahoma is a must and the ‘Horns must quell all Big 12 members fears past the GOR.

I would be shocked to see Texas in the Big Ten in any capacity . If anything is telling, I could see the ‘horns follow A&M to the SEC as those two presidents recently publicly discussed trying to renew their rivalry.

Would love to see Oklahoma in the SEC too, but if it came down to picking between the sec and the Big Ten, I think the SEC might have to offer OSU too.

What I don't see is the PAC taking anyone from Texas if the Horns are not included. And I don't see the Horns being included unless ESPN winds up with a significant % of the PAC's rights whether that is T1/T2/or T3.

I too don't see Texas in the Big 10. Nothing about that move fits for them and then again there is the ESPN tie until 2031.

If Texas heads to the SEC it will happen in one of two ways:
A. They come and Oklahoma comes with them for a myriad of reasons including recruiting and historical ties and geography.
B. Texas wants to increase their advantage over Oklahoma and insists upon another Texas school. With the former A.D. at TCU with the Horns I suppose that could open a Texas / T.C.U. option, or the state legislature is more likely to have a say and it could be Texas and Tech. Either way Oklahoma would head Big 10 with either Kansas or Colorado.

Let's say that there's at least a smidgen of truth in Fluguar's fiction. What would a floundering PAC do if Texas is off the board? The best markets to be had are still in Texas. At that point I suppose it is conceivable that Houston and possibly T.C.U. become the targets and the PAC considers expansion to 14 with those 2.

The biggest problems for Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State and Iowa State are their populations. 4 million roughly for Oklahoma, 3.2 million for Iowa and 2.9 million for Kansas. Kansas is a basketball prize but the Big 10 is strong there and needs football prowess. For the PAC those 3 are all very small population states.

The best path for Kansas may be to the SEC with Texas but I just can't see UT not trying to take another Texas school with them and other than the Big 12 years there is no tie to Kansas. But should that happen then perhaps Colorado and Oklahoma make sense to the Big 10. Then the PAC taking Houston, T.C.U. and Texas Tech might make sense as well.

The whole point here though is that Texas isn't likely to be able to move anywhere but the SEC or ACC because of their current ESPN contract. If they moved to the ACC then Oklahoma and Kansas would probably be ESPN's objective for the SEC. If Texas wants not part of an ACC deal then I think ESPN's priority shifts to Texas and whoever they want. I still believe the latter is the most likely and that if it occurs it is the proof positive that ESPN has been pulling these strings for the last 10 years.

(05-27-2019 10:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 06:25 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 02:19 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I had theorized that myself once , and something else to keep in mind, the Mouse began out West. Don’t you think Disney would feel better having the PAC under their roof??

The only way I can see Texas going to the Big Ten is to do an end-around on ESPN, by bribing conference members to not do anything until the Longhorn Network expires , as opposed to waiting on the GOR to expire. I think this might be Texas’ preferred approach, but I could be wrong. Assuming that it is, pacifying Oklahoma is a must and the ‘Horns must quell all Big 12 members fears past the GOR.

I would be shocked to see Texas in the Big Ten in any capacity . If anything is telling, I could see the ‘horns follow A&M to the SEC as those two presidents recently publicly discussed trying to renew their rivalry.

Would love to see Oklahoma in the SEC too, but if it came down to picking between the sec and the Big Ten, I think the SEC might have to offer OSU too.

What I don't see is the PAC taking anyone from Texas if the Horns are not included. And I don't see the Horns being included unless ESPN winds up with a significant % of the PAC's rights whether that is T1/T2/or T3.

I too don't see Texas in the Big 10. Nothing about that move fits for them and then again there is the ESPN tie until 2031.

If Texas heads to the SEC it will happen in one of two ways:
A. They come and Oklahoma comes with them for a myriad of reasons including recruiting and historical ties and geography.
B. Texas wants to increase their advantage over Oklahoma and insists upon another Texas school. With the former A.D. at TCU with the Horns I suppose that could open a Texas / T.C.U. option, or the state legislature is more likely to have a say and it could be Texas and Tech. Either way Oklahoma would head Big 10 with either Kansas or Colorado.

Let's say that there's at least a smidgen of truth in Fluguar's fiction. What would a floundering PAC do if Texas is off the board? The best markets to be had are still in Texas. At that point I suppose it is conceivable that Houston and possibly T.C.U. become the targets and the PAC considers expansion to 14 with those 2.

The biggest problems for Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State and Iowa State are their populations. 4 million roughly for Oklahoma, 3.2 million for Iowa and 2.9 million for Kansas. Kansas is a basketball prize but the Big 10 is strong there and needs football prowess. For the PAC those 3 are all very small population states.

The best path for Kansas may be to the SEC with Texas but I just can't see UT not trying to take another Texas school with them and other than the Big 12 years there is no tie to Kansas. But should that happen then perhaps Colorado and Oklahoma make sense to the Big 10. Then the PAC taking Houston, T.C.U. and Texas Tech might make sense as well.

The whole point here though is that Texas isn't likely to be able to move anywhere but the SEC or ACC because of their current ESPN contract. If they moved to the ACC then Oklahoma and Kansas would probably be ESPN's objective for the SEC. If Texas wants not part of an ACC deal then I think ESPN's priority shifts to Texas and whoever they want. I still believe the latter is the most likely and that if it occurs it is the proof positive that ESPN has been pulling these strings for the last 10 years.

I keep wondering about ND all in to the ACC with like WVU (for 16). If Texas +1 went to the ACC that would be 18, and with ND and Texas in tow, I think the money would be close enough to stabilize the ACC for a long time.

If the SEC went to 16 with OK and Kansas would they go to 18 with TCU + 1 to get a second Texas school? Is it at that point we consider OK State or Iowa State?

If both the SEC and ACC move to 18, that means the Big 10 needs 4 schools. Besides Colorado, would the Big 10 move on Arizona and the Cal schools? Or would they aim for Washington/Oregon? Would that spell the end of the PAC or would they just reload with Houston and the Big 12 leftovers?

At that point we would have 4 conferences: ACC-SEC, and Big 10-PAC. Would the Sugar Bowl/Rose Bowl become semis every year?

(05-27-2019 10:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 06:25 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 02:19 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I had theorized that myself once , and something else to keep in mind, the Mouse began out West. Don’t you think Disney would feel better having the PAC under their roof??

The only way I can see Texas going to the Big Ten is to do an end-around on ESPN, by bribing conference members to not do anything until the Longhorn Network expires , as opposed to waiting on the GOR to expire. I think this might be Texas’ preferred approach, but I could be wrong. Assuming that it is, pacifying Oklahoma is a must and the ‘Horns must quell all Big 12 members fears past the GOR.

I would be shocked to see Texas in the Big Ten in any capacity . If anything is telling, I could see the ‘horns follow A&M to the SEC as those two presidents recently publicly discussed trying to renew their rivalry.

Would love to see Oklahoma in the SEC too, but if it came down to picking between the sec and the Big Ten, I think the SEC might have to offer OSU too.

What I don't see is the PAC taking anyone from Texas if the Horns are not included. And I don't see the Horns being included unless ESPN winds up with a significant % of the PAC's rights whether that is T1/T2/or T3.

I too don't see Texas in the Big 10. Nothing about that move fits for them and then again there is the ESPN tie until 2031.

If Texas heads to the SEC it will happen in one of two ways:
A. They come and Oklahoma comes with them for a myriad of reasons including recruiting and historical ties and geography.
B. Texas wants to increase their advantage over Oklahoma and insists upon another Texas school. With the former A.D. at TCU with the Horns I suppose that could open a Texas / T.C.U. option, or the state legislature is more likely to have a say and it could be Texas and Tech. Either way Oklahoma would head Big 10 with either Kansas or Colorado.

Let's say that there's at least a smidgen of truth in Fluguar's fiction. What would a floundering PAC do if Texas is off the board? The best markets to be had are still in Texas. At that point I suppose it is conceivable that Houston and possibly T.C.U. become the targets and the PAC considers expansion to 14 with those 2.

The biggest problems for Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State and Iowa State are their populations. 4 million roughly for Oklahoma, 3.2 million for Iowa and 2.9 million for Kansas. Kansas is a basketball prize but the Big 10 is strong there and needs football prowess. For the PAC those 3 are all very small population states.

The best path for Kansas may be to the SEC with Texas but I just can't see UT not trying to take another Texas school with them and other than the Big 12 years there is no tie to Kansas. But should that happen then perhaps Colorado and Oklahoma make sense to the Big 10. Then the PAC taking Houston, T.C.U. and Texas Tech might make sense as well.

The whole point here though is that Texas isn't likely to be able to move anywhere but the SEC or ACC because of their current ESPN contract. If they moved to the ACC then Oklahoma and Kansas would probably be ESPN's objective for the SEC. If Texas wants not part of an ACC deal then I think ESPN's priority shifts to Texas and whoever they want. I still believe the latter is the most likely and that if it occurs it is the proof positive that ESPN has been pulling these strings for the last 10 years.

I think some of that depends on what the PAC is willing to do. If they're offered Texas in exchange for more control over their content by ESPN then the PAC would be foolish to reject that deal. They will continue to fall behind without a game changer and nothing Amazon can do will save them...assuming even that Amazon is interested in going that direction.

Right now, the simpler move for Texas is the SEC or the ACC, but I'm having trouble reconciling that with ESPN's M.O.

Unless, Oklahoma is pining for the Big Ten and can't be persuaded otherwise then it makes the most sense for them to go the SEC. If that's how things play out then Texas also going to the SEC presents an issue for ESPN.

The value of the league will be astronomical. At that point, it's not so much a matter of the SEC being a threat to add teams from other conferences. At that point, it's a matter of how much the league is worth on the open market. Other suitors will be competing hard for that product because it would contain so much of the value of college athletics. It could drive the price up in a significant way and threaten ESPN's hold on college sports in the event another network wins those rights.

That might be an issue ESPN is willing to deal with, but I think it most certainly is something they could not overlook.

*I would add that if ESPN has any fear whatsoever that the Big Ten might invade PAC territory then securing that league with the lure of Texas kills two birds with one stone.

They would have cut off the Big Ten on all sides. If the Big Ten ever wants to access bigger markets then they will have to do it with ESPN's blessing and cooperation.

(05-27-2019 03:24 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 10:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 06:25 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 02:19 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I had theorized that myself once , and something else to keep in mind, the Mouse began out West. Don’t you think Disney would feel better having the PAC under their roof??

The only way I can see Texas going to the Big Ten is to do an end-around on ESPN, by bribing conference members to not do anything until the Longhorn Network expires , as opposed to waiting on the GOR to expire. I think this might be Texas’ preferred approach, but I could be wrong. Assuming that it is, pacifying Oklahoma is a must and the ‘Horns must quell all Big 12 members fears past the GOR.

I would be shocked to see Texas in the Big Ten in any capacity . If anything is telling, I could see the ‘horns follow A&M to the SEC as those two presidents recently publicly discussed trying to renew their rivalry.

Would love to see Oklahoma in the SEC too, but if it came down to picking between the sec and the Big Ten, I think the SEC might have to offer OSU too.

What I don't see is the PAC taking anyone from Texas if the Horns are not included. And I don't see the Horns being included unless ESPN winds up with a significant % of the PAC's rights whether that is T1/T2/or T3.

I too don't see Texas in the Big 10. Nothing about that move fits for them and then again there is the ESPN tie until 2031.

If Texas heads to the SEC it will happen in one of two ways:
A. They come and Oklahoma comes with them for a myriad of reasons including recruiting and historical ties and geography.
B. Texas wants to increase their advantage over Oklahoma and insists upon another Texas school. With the former A.D. at TCU with the Horns I suppose that could open a Texas / T.C.U. option, or the state legislature is more likely to have a say and it could be Texas and Tech. Either way Oklahoma would head Big 10 with either Kansas or Colorado.

Let's say that there's at least a smidgen of truth in Fluguar's fiction. What would a floundering PAC do if Texas is off the board? The best markets to be had are still in Texas. At that point I suppose it is conceivable that Houston and possibly T.C.U. become the targets and the PAC considers expansion to 14 with those 2.

The biggest problems for Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State and Iowa State are their populations. 4 million roughly for Oklahoma, 3.2 million for Iowa and 2.9 million for Kansas. Kansas is a basketball prize but the Big 10 is strong there and needs football prowess. For the PAC those 3 are all very small population states.

The best path for Kansas may be to the SEC with Texas but I just can't see UT not trying to take another Texas school with them and other than the Big 12 years there is no tie to Kansas. But should that happen then perhaps Colorado and Oklahoma make sense to the Big 10. Then the PAC taking Houston, T.C.U. and Texas Tech might make sense as well.

The whole point here though is that Texas isn't likely to be able to move anywhere but the SEC or ACC because of their current ESPN contract. If they moved to the ACC then Oklahoma and Kansas would probably be ESPN's objective for the SEC. If Texas wants not part of an ACC deal then I think ESPN's priority shifts to Texas and whoever they want. I still believe the latter is the most likely and that if it occurs it is the proof positive that ESPN has been pulling these strings for the last 10 years.

I keep wondering about ND all in to the ACC with like WVU (for 16). If Texas +1 went to the ACC that would be 18, and with ND and Texas in tow, I think the money would be close enough to stabilize the ACC for a long time.

If the SEC went to 16 with OK and Kansas would they go to 18 with TCU + 1 to get a second Texas school? Is it at that point we consider OK State or Iowa State?

If both the SEC and ACC move to 18, that means the Big 10 needs 4 schools. Besides Colorado, would the Big 10 move on Arizona and the Cal schools? Or would they aim for Washington/Oregon? Would that spell the end of the PAC or would they just reload with Houston and the Big 12 leftovers?

At that point we would have 4 conferences: ACC-SEC, and Big 10-PAC. Would the Sugar Bowl/Rose Bowl become semis every year?

The best move for the ACC right now is to try to land Texas fully. Their best shot at doing that is to take Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State. If Notre Dame would then come all in they will be fine.

Boston College, Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Wake Forest
Baylor, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

That gives Texas a division of its own and two more Texas schools to play so that if they renewed with Aggie, or kept Oklahoma they would still have their 8 games in state every year.

The SEC could counter with Oklahoma, T.C.U., Kansas, and either West Virginia or Iowa State.

Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, T.C.U.

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia

Looking for a home would be Iowa State.

That's enough to dissolve the Big 12, cut the Big 10 off from adding anyone other than PAC schools, and quite frankly that should be good enough.

In response to the OP, the larger issue really was the Southern Great Plains and Texas trying to be their own regional conferences (SWC and B8) in the era of TV that required bigger audiences and footprints to generate competitive TV deals. The SWC’s profitable teams (A&M, Arkansas and UT) saw the writing on the wall as uniting with either the western or eastern population centers but politics forced the hands of A&M and UT to stay and try to make a regional Midwest/southern Great Plains conference work so that political Tagalongs TTU and Baylor could be rescued.

We’re seeing that just as predicted, the B12 is not keeping up and using lots of accounting tricks like not including a conference share of the profits in the gross and then having all the schools remit a share back to them later so their per school profits look more competitive than they are even when split among just 10 schools

TCU is a fine university, but it is not a Carnegie 1 research institution. TCU would not be a first tier choice of other P5 conferences.

Houston is in southeast Texas and geographically, makes little sense for the PAC12 unless they are part of a larger cluster moving. Travel, logistics, missing class time, lower-profile sports scheduling, etc. do matter. TTU in west Texas would fit the PAC 12 much better in footprint expansion.

Georgia and Washington could offer some great football games. That doesn't mean they belong in the same conference or Conference USA.

The SEC won't go weird. Maybe the ACC would (a bit).

(05-27-2019 08:08 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  TCU is a fine university, but it is not a Carnegie 1 research institution. TCU would not be a first tier choice of other P5 conferences.

Houston is in southeast Texas and geographically, makes little sense for the PAC12 unless they are part of a larger cluster moving. Travel, logistics, missing class time, lower-profile sports scheduling, etc. do matter. TTU in west Texas would fit the PAC 12 much better in footprint expansion.

Georgia and Washington could offer some great football games. That doesn't mean they belong in the same conference or Conference USA.

The SEC won't go weird. Maybe the ACC would (a bit).

Obviously the play is for both Texas and Oklahoma, but if we landed OU and we didn't land Texas who makes the most sense for us for the 2nd school? Does Kansas as a blue blood basketball program who only averages 16,000 at home football games? Does Oklahoma State if they aren't required for Oklahoma? Does Texas Tech since they would be an outlier? Does Iowa State another outlier? Does West Virginia which doesn't solve our alignment issues but only exacerbates them? True TCU doesn't meet research metrics but they are adding a medical school and with it most certainly will meet R1 status, they do represent a presence in DFW. They are a viable alternative whether you think they are silly or not.

The SEC was remiss not to have taken a 2nd major school in Florida. I'm not anxious to see that mistake repeated. I wrote as early as 2008 that the market model was a sham that wouldn't last and that content would rule again. It does!

The top 5 earners in the Big 12 are Texas, Oklahoma, T.C.U., Kansas, and WVU.
KState doesn't kick the tires, Iowa State doesn't light the fires, Baylor doesn't fly period. Without Texas there is no incentive to take Tech.

So spell out your reasoning.

Okay, I have to ask you guys why do you think that Texas will continue to stay with ESPN, and not wait until the contract with ESPN is over to do anything??

(05-27-2019 11:27 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Okay, I have to ask you guys why do you think that Texas will continue to stay with ESPN, and not wait until the contract with ESPN is over to do anything??

Money.

(05-27-2019 09:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 08:08 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  TCU is a fine university, but it is not a Carnegie 1 research institution. TCU would not be a first tier choice of other P5 conferences.

Houston is in southeast Texas and geographically, makes little sense for the PAC12 unless they are part of a larger cluster moving. Travel, logistics, missing class time, lower-profile sports scheduling, etc. do matter. TTU in west Texas would fit the PAC 12 much better in footprint expansion.

Georgia and Washington could offer some great football games. That doesn't mean they belong in the same conference or Conference USA.

The SEC won't go weird. Maybe the ACC would (a bit).

Obviously the play is for both Texas and Oklahoma, but if we landed OU and we didn't land Texas who makes the most sense for us for the 2nd school? Does Kansas as a blue blood basketball program who only averages 16,000 at home football games? Does Oklahoma State if they aren't required for Oklahoma? Does Texas Tech since they would be an outlier? Does Iowa State another outlier? Does West Virginia which doesn't solve our alignment issues but only exacerbates them? True TCU doesn't meet research metrics but they are adding a medical school and with it most certainly will meet R1 status, they do represent a presence in DFW. They are a viable alternative whether you think they are silly or not.

The SEC was remiss not to have taken a 2nd major school in Florida. I'm not anxious to see that mistake repeated. I wrote as early as 2008 that the market model was a sham that wouldn't last and that content would rule again. It does!

The top 5 earners in the Big 12 are Texas, Oklahoma, T.C.U., Kansas, and WVU.
KState doesn't kick the tires, Iowa State doesn't light the fires, Baylor doesn't fly period. Without Texas there is no incentive to take Tech.

So spell out your reasoning.

I did not refer or imply that TCU consideration would be silly. That was your projection.

I am aware TCU is building a medical school. It may be noted that Wake Forest is not Carnegie 1 research. The have the Bowman Gray schools of Medicine, Dentistry, and Law. They are long established and reputable.

I wish TCU well with this endeavor. It is a positive dimension, but I am not jumping to a conclusion about Carnegie 1 identity prematurely. It happens when it happens if it happens.

On adding a Florida school, I agree. You know the FSU history in entering the ACC, and the Miami consideration around '90.

Miami could be the most apt school willing to leave the ACC for the SEC. If ESPN is so powerful as some espouse, Miami could be lifted from the ACC to the SEC despite the ACC's GoR. It'll take big-time money. The SEC gets their second private school.

Texas and Miami? I like that.

(05-27-2019 11:27 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Okay, I have to ask you guys why do you think that Texas will continue to stay with ESPN, and not wait until the contract with ESPN is over to do anything??

Their contract with ESPN runs through 2031, I believe. Unless they want to flounder around in a dying Big 12 that long then they'll have to make some sort move.

The impetus here is that Oklahoma is probably gone at the first opportunity. The Big 12 GOR is up long before Texas' contract with ESPN. Once Oklahoma leaves then Texas is going to have a much bigger problem on their hands.

(05-28-2019 12:45 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 09:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 08:08 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  TCU is a fine university, but it is not a Carnegie 1 research institution. TCU would not be a first tier choice of other P5 conferences.

Houston is in southeast Texas and geographically, makes little sense for the PAC12 unless they are part of a larger cluster moving. Travel, logistics, missing class time, lower-profile sports scheduling, etc. do matter. TTU in west Texas would fit the PAC 12 much better in footprint expansion.

Georgia and Washington could offer some great football games. That doesn't mean they belong in the same conference or Conference USA.

The SEC won't go weird. Maybe the ACC would (a bit).

Obviously the play is for both Texas and Oklahoma, but if we landed OU and we didn't land Texas who makes the most sense for us for the 2nd school? Does Kansas as a blue blood basketball program who only averages 16,000 at home football games? Does Oklahoma State if they aren't required for Oklahoma? Does Texas Tech since they would be an outlier? Does Iowa State another outlier? Does West Virginia which doesn't solve our alignment issues but only exacerbates them? True TCU doesn't meet research metrics but they are adding a medical school and with it most certainly will meet R1 status, they do represent a presence in DFW. They are a viable alternative whether you think they are silly or not.

The SEC was remiss not to have taken a 2nd major school in Florida. I'm not anxious to see that mistake repeated. I wrote as early as 2008 that the market model was a sham that wouldn't last and that content would rule again. It does!

The top 5 earners in the Big 12 are Texas, Oklahoma, T.C.U., Kansas, and WVU.
KState doesn't kick the tires, Iowa State doesn't light the fires, Baylor doesn't fly period. Without Texas there is no incentive to take Tech.

So spell out your reasoning.

I did not refer or imply that TCU consideration would be silly. That was your projection.

I am aware TCU is building a medical school. It may be noted that Wake Forest is not Carnegie 1 research. The have the Bowman Gray schools of Medicine, Dentistry, and Law. They are long established and reputable.

I wish TCU well with this endeavor. It is a positive dimension, but I am not jumping to a conclusion about Carnegie 1 identity prematurely. It happens when it happens if it happens.

On adding a Florida school, I agree. You know the FSU history in entering the ACC, and the Miami consideration around '90.

Miami could be the most apt school willing to leave the ACC for the SEC. If ESPN is so powerful as some espouse, Miami could be lifted from the ACC to the SEC despite the ACC's GoR. It'll take big-time money. The SEC gets their second private school.

Texas and Miami? I like that.

Weird / silly makes little difference. Miami is way down our list and it's appeal has slipped with the demographic shift in South Florida. The SEC doesn't draw well in Miami and their students aren't all that local. But I agree it would at least give us a presence in a different part of that state. I suspect the wiser course of action there is to wait patiently and watch the development of USF over the next couple of decades. Their alumni base will be Floridian and will likely populate the state more than return to the Northeast or West Coast, or go overseas. Their research investment is intentional and the locale will prove more beneficial as it reaches all of the areas that UF doesn't control.

Texas is the most efficient addition. My question to you however was skirted. Who would you select from the Big 12 if Texas isn't among them and Oklahoma is the first choice?

(05-28-2019 12:45 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 09:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 08:08 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  TCU is a fine university, but it is not a Carnegie 1 research institution. TCU would not be a first tier choice of other P5 conferences.

Houston is in southeast Texas and geographically, makes little sense for the PAC12 unless they are part of a larger cluster moving. Travel, logistics, missing class time, lower-profile sports scheduling, etc. do matter. TTU in west Texas would fit the PAC 12 much better in footprint expansion.

Georgia and Washington could offer some great football games. That doesn't mean they belong in the same conference or Conference USA.

The SEC won't go weird. Maybe the ACC would (a bit).

Obviously the play is for both Texas and Oklahoma, but if we landed OU and we didn't land Texas who makes the most sense for us for the 2nd school? Does Kansas as a blue blood basketball program who only averages 16,000 at home football games? Does Oklahoma State if they aren't required for Oklahoma? Does Texas Tech since they would be an outlier? Does Iowa State another outlier? Does West Virginia which doesn't solve our alignment issues but only exacerbates them? True TCU doesn't meet research metrics but they are adding a medical school and with it most certainly will meet R1 status, they do represent a presence in DFW. They are a viable alternative whether you think they are silly or not.

The SEC was remiss not to have taken a 2nd major school in Florida. I'm not anxious to see that mistake repeated. I wrote as early as 2008 that the market model was a sham that wouldn't last and that content would rule again. It does!

The top 5 earners in the Big 12 are Texas, Oklahoma, T.C.U., Kansas, and WVU.
KState doesn't kick the tires, Iowa State doesn't light the fires, Baylor doesn't fly period. Without Texas there is no incentive to take Tech.

So spell out your reasoning.

I did not refer or imply that TCU consideration would be silly. That was your projection.

I am aware TCU is building a medical school. It may be noted that Wake Forest is not Carnegie 1 research. The have the Bowman Gray schools of Medicine, Dentistry, and Law. They are long established and reputable.

I wish TCU well with this endeavor. It is a positive dimension, but I am not jumping to a conclusion about Carnegie 1 identity prematurely. It happens when it happens if it happens.

On adding a Florida school, I agree. You know the FSU history in entering the ACC, and the Miami consideration around '90.

Miami could be the most apt school willing to leave the ACC for the SEC. If ESPN is so powerful as some espouse, Miami could be lifted from the ACC to the SEC despite the ACC's GoR. It'll take big-time money. The SEC gets their second private school.

Texas and Miami? I like that.

On the idea of adding Miami...I don't know what the likelihood is, but it would be intriguing.

Some semblance of a trade with the ACC as long as both conferences are picking up valuable pieces from the Big 12? I might go for it.

I don't think we'd land both Texas and Miami though. I think the ACC would have to receive the stronger brand from the Big 12 in order for them to be willing to reorganize. After all, their economic potential is already less than ours despite their market size.

Maybe something like this?

The ACC receives Texas, Houston, Texas Tech, and West Virginia

The SEC receives Oklahoma, TCU, Miami, and Kansas

Assuming Notre Dame is willing to join fully at that time then both leagues will have the same number of schools.

(05-28-2019 01:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-28-2019 12:45 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 09:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 08:08 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  TCU is a fine university, but it is not a Carnegie 1 research institution. TCU would not be a first tier choice of other P5 conferences.

Houston is in southeast Texas and geographically, makes little sense for the PAC12 unless they are part of a larger cluster moving. Travel, logistics, missing class time, lower-profile sports scheduling, etc. do matter. TTU in west Texas would fit the PAC 12 much better in footprint expansion.

Georgia and Washington could offer some great football games. That doesn't mean they belong in the same conference or Conference USA.

The SEC won't go weird. Maybe the ACC would (a bit).

Obviously the play is for both Texas and Oklahoma, but if we landed OU and we didn't land Texas who makes the most sense for us for the 2nd school? Does Kansas as a blue blood basketball program who only averages 16,000 at home football games? Does Oklahoma State if they aren't required for Oklahoma? Does Texas Tech since they would be an outlier? Does Iowa State another outlier? Does West Virginia which doesn't solve our alignment issues but only exacerbates them? True TCU doesn't meet research metrics but they are adding a medical school and with it most certainly will meet R1 status, they do represent a presence in DFW. They are a viable alternative whether you think they are silly or not.

The SEC was remiss not to have taken a 2nd major school in Florida. I'm not anxious to see that mistake repeated. I wrote as early as 2008 that the market model was a sham that wouldn't last and that content would rule again. It does!

The top 5 earners in the Big 12 are Texas, Oklahoma, T.C.U., Kansas, and WVU.
KState doesn't kick the tires, Iowa State doesn't light the fires, Baylor doesn't fly period. Without Texas there is no incentive to take Tech.

So spell out your reasoning.

I did not refer or imply that TCU consideration would be silly. That was your projection.

I am aware TCU is building a medical school. It may be noted that Wake Forest is not Carnegie 1 research. The have the Bowman Gray schools of Medicine, Dentistry, and Law. They are long established and reputable.

I wish TCU well with this endeavor. It is a positive dimension, but I am not jumping to a conclusion about Carnegie 1 identity prematurely. It happens when it happens if it happens.

On adding a Florida school, I agree. You know the FSU history in entering the ACC, and the Miami consideration around '90.

Miami could be the most apt school willing to leave the ACC for the SEC. If ESPN is so powerful as some espouse, Miami could be lifted from the ACC to the SEC despite the ACC's GoR. It'll take big-time money. The SEC gets their second private school.

Texas and Miami? I like that.

Weird / silly makes little difference. Miami is way down our list and it's appeal has slipped with the demographic shift in South Florida. The SEC doesn't draw well in Miami and their students aren't all that local. But I agree it would at least give us a presence in a different part of that state. I suspect the wiser course of action there is to wait patiently and watch the development of USF over the next couple of decades. Their alumni base will be Floridian and will likely populate the state more than return to the Northeast or West Coast, or go overseas. Their research investment is intentional and the locale will prove more beneficial as it reaches all of the areas that UF doesn't control.

Texas is the most efficient addition. My question to you however was skirted. Who would you select from the Big 12 if Texas isn't among them and Oklahoma is the first choice?

You know I'm not one for patience.

I would suggest if USF is a legitimate power in the making(and I don't disagree with that notion) then I think we'd be better served to jump on them sooner than later. No, the move wouldn't pay for itself, however, the next couple of decades could be spent building loyalty and brand strength. We could aid their rise as well as help mold them.

They are already a strong research institution so the question is more about their attractiveness to future students as well as their capacity to solicit alumni. I think the FL populous would be more interested in being a part of an SEC school than an AAC school.

Also, what I would fear is another situation like what we had with Florida State. When FSU finally came to a place where they held indisputable value then they had multiple suitors and the networks started meddling.

(05-28-2019 01:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-28-2019 12:45 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 09:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 08:08 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  TCU is a fine university, but it is not a Carnegie 1 research institution. TCU would not be a first tier choice of other P5 conferences.

Houston is in southeast Texas and geographically, makes little sense for the PAC12 unless they are part of a larger cluster moving. Travel, logistics, missing class time, lower-profile sports scheduling, etc. do matter. TTU in west Texas would fit the PAC 12 much better in footprint expansion.

Georgia and Washington could offer some great football games. That doesn't mean they belong in the same conference or Conference USA.

The SEC won't go weird. Maybe the ACC would (a bit).

Obviously the play is for both Texas and Oklahoma, but if we landed OU and we didn't land Texas who makes the most sense for us for the 2nd school? Does Kansas as a blue blood basketball program who only averages 16,000 at home football games? Does Oklahoma State if they aren't required for Oklahoma? Does Texas Tech since they would be an outlier? Does Iowa State another outlier? Does West Virginia which doesn't solve our alignment issues but only exacerbates them? True TCU doesn't meet research metrics but they are adding a medical school and with it most certainly will meet R1 status, they do represent a presence in DFW. They are a viable alternative whether you think they are silly or not.

The SEC was remiss not to have taken a 2nd major school in Florida. I'm not anxious to see that mistake repeated. I wrote as early as 2008 that the market model was a sham that wouldn't last and that content would rule again. It does!

The top 5 earners in the Big 12 are Texas, Oklahoma, T.C.U., Kansas, and WVU.
KState doesn't kick the tires, Iowa State doesn't light the fires, Baylor doesn't fly period. Without Texas there is no incentive to take Tech.

So spell out your reasoning.

I did not refer or imply that TCU consideration would be silly. That was your projection.

I am aware TCU is building a medical school. It may be noted that Wake Forest is not Carnegie 1 research. The have the Bowman Gray schools of Medicine, Dentistry, and Law. They are long established and reputable.

I wish TCU well with this endeavor. It is a positive dimension, but I am not jumping to a conclusion about Carnegie 1 identity prematurely. It happens when it happens if it happens.

On adding a Florida school, I agree. You know the FSU history in entering the ACC, and the Miami consideration around '90.

Miami could be the most apt school willing to leave the ACC for the SEC. If ESPN is so powerful as some espouse, Miami could be lifted from the ACC to the SEC despite the ACC's GoR. It'll take big-time money. The SEC gets their second private school.

Texas and Miami? I like that.

Weird / silly makes little difference. Miami is way down our list and it's appeal has slipped with the demographic shift in South Florida. The SEC doesn't draw well in Miami and their students aren't all that local. But I agree it would at least give us a presence in a different part of that state. I suspect the wiser course of action there is to wait patiently and watch the development of USF over the next couple of decades. Their alumni base will be Floridian and will likely populate the state more than return to the Northeast or West Coast, or go overseas. Their research investment is intentional and the locale will prove more beneficial as it reaches all of the areas that UF doesn't control.

Texas is the most efficient addition. My question to you however was skirted. Who would you select from the Big 12 if Texas isn't among them and Oklahoma is the first choice?

Skirted? I don't fit your mantra.
I'm good.