ESPN is dropping a lot of money on the SEC in the next few years. We can assume certain things from that.

1. They will protect their investment.

2. They will promote their investment.

ESPN is also dropping a lot of money on ESPN+ and their streaming strategy is probably a long term division of their business. We can assume certain things from that.

1. They will protect their investment.

2. They will promote their investment.

You can probably see where I'm going with that, but the point is that Disney will spend a lot of time promoting and beefing up their streaming products in the next few years. We've already seen them bundling Hulu, Disney+, and ESPN+ for $12.99. That price will probably go up naturally, but it's a pretty good deal.

Going forward, the strength of ESPN+ will be exclusive content that's not on cable, but is also something worry of being on cable.

That's why I think we'll end up seeing at least one SEC football game per week on the platform by the time everything shakes out. I'm sure we'll see some basketball and other sports as well that would be attractive.

Now ESPN is also going to want some good quality content for their cable networks. That model is still making money although not as much, but there are still numerous time slots that need to be filled.

The question going forward will be what does Disney/ESPN do with the conference networks because that model is fading quicker than cable itself? Meanwhile, everyone knows a lot of major contracts are coming up for bid in the next few years.

When it comes to realignment, everyone that might be a candidate for SEC expansion now knows that ESPN and ABC will be the exclusive network carrying their games for many years to come. They know the streaming platform from Disney is significant and coupled with non-sports content which means it will be easier to get into a larger number of homes.

With all that in mind, what does ESPN want? And what do potential partners with the SEC want?

Let me take a moment to say that some of the answers are obvious. ESPN wants a lot of quality games with brands they can market to a national audience. Any such brands want a nice payday and exposure for their school via whatever the most widely distributed platform is available. The schools themselves will also want other considerations like reasonable travel costs and partner institutions that share certain principals and approaches.

Let me also suggest that a school like Vanderbilt no longer wants to compete at the highest levels of college athletics. They made a quick play for greater relevance last year with the hiring of the NBA G League's Malcolm Turner. That was February of 2019 and the new AD promised a robust new future. He was gone barely a year later and replaced by your standard academic bureaucrat. Does that suggest anything about the future of Vandy? I think it's possible because once February 2020 rolled around, we knew what the future held for the SEC. It was in December and January that it became clear that ESPN was going to take over the contract for the league. Interesting timing for a guy who gave us the standard "I want to spend more time with my family" line.

I think Vanderbilt will bow out of the SEC and head to the ACC. You heard it here first said the dude behind the keyboard with no actual first hand knowledge.

I say this because I don't think ESPN is going to abandon the ACC(I'm thinking in terms of the earlier reasoning based on protecting investments), but I do think a reorganization is coming. With certain new realities in play, I think the ACC is a good landing spot for Vandy. It's comfortable and reduces the pressure of competing at a high level while also not completely obliterating Vanderbilt's athletic revenues. From the network side, it simultaneously reduces ESPN's obligation to pay an exorbitant price for a school that won't carry its weight. Let's not forget that ESPN's investment in the SEC will be growing by more than $300M per year in the very near future. Vandy is already being paid too much with our current rates and CBS' contribution is about to come off the books. So that number is going to grow significantly from ESPN's side of the ledger unless a move is made.

I've long thought that ESPN wanted to move Kansas into the SEC so that they could keep that content in their fold...college basketball is important content for ESPN during the Winter months and Kansas is a guaranteed ratings generator. That and the Kansas/Missouri duality is regionally important. I still believe that and I think Texas and Oklahoma are huge targets as well for obvious reasons. I'm going to throw another wrinkle in today though and say a private school will need to be added as well in order to maintain certain legal advantages.

Basically, the Big 12 is on the chopping block here being that their contract is ending soon. If there's a landing spot for a critical mass of those schools then there's really no need to worry about trying to preserve it for the long haul because the money won't be comparable.

Oklahoma and Kansas are moved into the SEC. If we assume, however, that Vanderbilt has left for the ACC then we are at 15 and need one more. The ACC is also at 15 with one partial, but Notre Dame is probably not joining in full at this point.

The SEC's problem comes with the need for a private institution to finish up at 16. To me, the perfect candidate for that is Miami. It's a football school in a large, fresh market. They have a commitment to multiple sports. Just as important, they are a bit alien to the alignment I'm about to propose.

The ACC just needs firepower and revenue generating ability. As it stands, Clemson is the only national power while schools like Florida State and Louisville are still big money makers...the ACC just doesn't have very many of them.

Now here's where I go from plausible to kooky...

I think the Big 12 and the ACC could both be preserved in the middle of all this.

Oklahoma and Kansas have no reason to worry about it because the SEC will take them and happily pay them a ton of money. It provides great stability. Texas, on the other hand, is stubborn and primarily wants to maintain a certain level of control over their situation. ESPN is fine with giving it to them because they've done it for them all along so why stop now...

The power nexus in Texas and Tobacco Road aren't going to get along though. It's also true that UNC and Duke have voted against expansion in recent years. Adding Texas to the ACC is a problem for many reasons, but certain power players in the ACC have no reason to go elsewhere without an existential threat to their preferred conference.

So a solution could be to divide the two sets of power players and give them leagues of their own while also providing a bit more balance.

From a media perspective, the LHN still causes an issue. Texas may be worth the trouble, but the rest of the Big 12 either needs access to a conference network or simply be involved in a coalition that offers them an additional revenue stream. Meanwhile, the ACC already has their network, but the question with any conference network is long term viability.

I think a great deal of content will end up being moved to ESPN+ anyway from all of ESPN's college properties even though they'll all have conference branding. With that said, creating more quality match-ups for any platform may be as simple as grouping schools according to culture and strengths. You have too many football schools split up between the ACC and Big 12 that would be perfectly fine playing each other.

So could the Big 12 be reconstituted as something like this?

West: Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma State, Kansas State,
East: Florida State, Clemson, Louisville, Iowa State, West Virginia, Virginia Tech

The LHN can be converted to a Big 12 Network where the focus is now truly quality football across a plethora of decent markets. The 12 team alignment allows for an 8 game conference schedule and a title game between East and West basically.

And then could the ACC be rebuilt as something like this?

Syracuse, Boston College, Pittsburgh, Vanderbilt, Virginia, North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech

*Notre Dame remains a partial with this league.

I leave the ACC at 10 with a partial because the strength here is basketball. Now, you can conduct a double round robin within the league...a 20 game schedule. None of these football schools are particularly dynamic so it's very balanced on that end. They can play 9 league games and still conduct a conference title game for a little extra cash should they choose.

While the cable model is still relevant, the networks from the 3 different conferences can be bundled together. There's so much back and forth between regions that it shouldn't be too difficult.

As far as content slated for ESPN+, you've got 3 leagues now with very clear identities. That will make their content more marketable. It will create more relevant match-ups for consumption and it will create more opportunities for cross-regional games on occasion to attract new audiences.

That would create a de facto Power 4 without actually calling it. The difference would be that there is enough fiction in the set up that Notre Dame could still theoretically enter the playoffs as an at-large. Perhaps the playoffs would expand to six teams to allow conferences to potentially enter a second team.

This would not be a positive for Clemson from a travel standpoint. The nearest school would be Va Tech which is almost a 5 hour drive. Can’t imagine this would be looked at favorably by the athletic department - especially for Olympic sports. There is very little geographic cohesion. This would be even more of a Frankenstein conference then the ACC is currently.

(06-23-2020 08:07 PM)PAW79 Wrote:  This would not be a positive for Clemson from a travel standpoint. The nearest school would be Va Tech which is almost a 5 hour drive. Can’t imagine this would be looked at favorably by the athletic department - especially for Olympic sports. There is very little geographic cohesion. This would be even more of a Frankenstein conference then the ACC is currently.

Geographically speaking, it would be more spread out, but not more monstrous.

The worst thing about the current ACC is the mixture of public and private, the division of basketball and football. There's very little cohesion from a cultural standpoint.

Not that I expect the leagues to actually play out this way, but both leagues would be more in line culturally and economically. The Big 12 would be decidedly football first and it wouldn't be close.

(06-23-2020 04:04 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  ESPN is dropping a lot of money on the SEC in the next few years. We can assume certain things from that.

1. They will protect their investment.

2. They will promote their investment.

ESPN is also dropping a lot of money on ESPN+ and their streaming strategy is probably a long term division of their business. We can assume certain things from that.

1. They will protect their investment.

2. They will promote their investment.

You can probably see where I'm going with that, but the point is that Disney will spend a lot of time promoting and beefing up their streaming products in the next few years. We've already seen them bundling Hulu, Disney+, and ESPN+ for $12.99. That price will probably go up naturally, but it's a pretty good deal.

Going forward, the strength of ESPN+ will be exclusive content that's not on cable, but is also something worry of being on cable.

That's why I think we'll end up seeing at least one SEC football game per week on the platform by the time everything shakes out. I'm sure we'll see some basketball and other sports as well that would be attractive.

Now ESPN is also going to want some good quality content for their cable networks. That model is still making money although not as much, but there are still numerous time slots that need to be filled.

The question going forward will be what does Disney/ESPN do with the conference networks because that model is fading quicker than cable itself? Meanwhile, everyone knows a lot of major contracts are coming up for bid in the next few years.

When it comes to realignment, everyone that might be a candidate for SEC expansion now knows that ESPN and ABC will be the exclusive network carrying their games for many years to come. They know the streaming platform from Disney is significant and coupled with non-sports content which means it will be easier to get into a larger number of homes.

With all that in mind, what does ESPN want? And what do potential partners with the SEC want?

Let me take a moment to say that some of the answers are obvious. ESPN wants a lot of quality games with brands they can market to a national audience. Any such brands want a nice payday and exposure for their school via whatever the most widely distributed platform is available. The schools themselves will also want other considerations like reasonable travel costs and partner institutions that share certain principals and approaches.

Let me also suggest that a school like Vanderbilt no longer wants to compete at the highest levels of college athletics. They made a quick play for greater relevance last year with the hiring of the NBA G League's Malcolm Turner. That was February of 2019 and the new AD promised a robust new future. He was gone barely a year later and replaced by your standard academic bureaucrat. Does that suggest anything about the future of Vandy? I think it's possible because once February 2020 rolled around, we knew what the future held for the SEC. It was in December and January that it became clear that ESPN was going to take over the contract for the league. Interesting timing for a guy who gave us the standard "I want to spend more time with my family" line.

I think Vanderbilt will bow out of the SEC and head to the ACC. You heard it here first said the dude behind the keyboard with no actual first hand knowledge.

I say this because I don't think ESPN is going to abandon the ACC(I'm thinking in terms of the earlier reasoning based on protecting investments), but I do think a reorganization is coming. With certain new realities in play, I think the ACC is a good landing spot for Vandy. It's comfortable and reduces the pressure of competing at a high level while also not completely obliterating Vanderbilt's athletic revenues. From the network side, it simultaneously reduces ESPN's obligation to pay an exorbitant price for a school that won't carry its weight. Let's not forget that ESPN's investment in the SEC will be growing by more than $300M per year in the very near future. Vandy is already being paid too much with our current rates and CBS' contribution is about to come off the books. So that number is going to grow significantly from ESPN's side of the ledger unless a move is made.

I've long thought that ESPN wanted to move Kansas into the SEC so that they could keep that content in their fold...college basketball is important content for ESPN during the Winter months and Kansas is a guaranteed ratings generator. That and the Kansas/Missouri duality is regionally important. I still believe that and I think Texas and Oklahoma are huge targets as well for obvious reasons. I'm going to throw another wrinkle in today though and say a private school will need to be added as well in order to maintain certain legal advantages.

Basically, the Big 12 is on the chopping block here being that their contract is ending soon. If there's a landing spot for a critical mass of those schools then there's really no need to worry about trying to preserve it for the long haul because the money won't be comparable.

Oklahoma and Kansas are moved into the SEC. If we assume, however, that Vanderbilt has left for the ACC then we are at 15 and need one more. The ACC is also at 15 with one partial, but Notre Dame is probably not joining in full at this point.

The SEC's problem comes with the need for a private institution to finish up at 16. To me, the perfect candidate for that is Miami. It's a football school in a large, fresh market. They have a commitment to multiple sports. Just as important, they are a bit alien to the alignment I'm about to propose.

The ACC just needs firepower and revenue generating ability. As it stands, Clemson is the only national power while schools like Florida State and Louisville are still big money makers...the ACC just doesn't have very many of them.

Now here's where I go from plausible to kooky...

I think the Big 12 and the ACC could both be preserved in the middle of all this.

Oklahoma and Kansas have no reason to worry about it because the SEC will take them and happily pay them a ton of money. It provides great stability. Texas, on the other hand, is stubborn and primarily wants to maintain a certain level of control over their situation. ESPN is fine with giving it to them because they've done it for them all along so why stop now...

The power nexus in Texas and Tobacco Road aren't going to get along though. It's also true that UNC and Duke have voted against expansion in recent years. Adding Texas to the ACC is a problem for many reasons, but certain power players in the ACC have no reason to go elsewhere without an existential threat to their preferred conference.

So a solution could be to divide the two sets of power players and give them leagues of their own while also providing a bit more balance.

From a media perspective, the LHN still causes an issue. Texas may be worth the trouble, but the rest of the Big 12 either needs access to a conference network or simply be involved in a coalition that offers them an additional revenue stream. Meanwhile, the ACC already has their network, but the question with any conference network is long term viability.

I think a great deal of content will end up being moved to ESPN+ anyway from all of ESPN's college properties even though they'll all have conference branding. With that said, creating more quality match-ups for any platform may be as simple as grouping schools according to culture and strengths. You have too many football schools split up between the ACC and Big 12 that would be perfectly fine playing each other.

So could the Big 12 be reconstituted as something like this?

West: Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma State, Kansas State,
East: Florida State, Clemson, Louisville, Iowa State, West Virginia, Virginia Tech

The LHN can be converted to a Big 12 Network where the focus is now truly quality football across a plethora of decent markets. The 12 team alignment allows for an 8 game conference schedule and a title game between East and West basically.

And then could the ACC be rebuilt as something like this?

Syracuse, Boston College, Pittsburgh, Vanderbilt, Virginia, North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech

*Notre Dame remains a partial with this league.

I leave the ACC at 10 with a partial because the strength here is basketball. Now, you can conduct a double round robin within the league...a 20 game schedule. None of these football schools are particularly dynamic so it's very balanced on that end. They can play 9 league games and still conduct a conference title game for a little extra cash should they choose.

While the cable model is still relevant, the networks from the 3 different conferences can be bundled together. There's so much back and forth between regions that it shouldn't be too difficult.

As far as content slated for ESPN+, you've got 3 leagues now with very clear identities. That will make their content more marketable. It will create more relevant match-ups for consumption and it will create more opportunities for cross-regional games on occasion to attract new audiences.

In your scenario, Vanderbilt leaves, Oklahoma and Kansas are added, and you want to add Miami to preserve the privacy privileges a private institution can provide for a group of state funded public schools. Not sure Any ACC School can leave before 2035 and retain their TV rights. Worse case scenario, Texas is also offered. If they decline, the Oklahoma State rounds out the conference as part of a gentleman’s agreement to get OU’s conference realignment. Honestly, if the SEC adds from the ACC, Florida State is the most likely addition with Virginia Tech the most desired state school that adds new markets.

Also, the SEC Network/ESPN + does not need a SEC vs SEC game every week as all ESPN would need is enough TV rights to broadcast weekly. Now quality of the matchups are a separate, mostly individual issue.

Honestly, if Oklahoma did leave the Big 12, Texas would be the one to decide that conference’s fate. Texas could try and bring over some PAC teams as the Big 12 has a much higher payout or Texas could leave the conference as is—very small and schedule a ton of nonconference games to fill the void.

(06-24-2020 01:25 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 04:04 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  ESPN is dropping a lot of money on the SEC in the next few years. We can assume certain things from that.

1. They will protect their investment.

2. They will promote their investment.

ESPN is also dropping a lot of money on ESPN+ and their streaming strategy is probably a long term division of their business. We can assume certain things from that.

1. They will protect their investment.

2. They will promote their investment.

You can probably see where I'm going with that, but the point is that Disney will spend a lot of time promoting and beefing up their streaming products in the next few years. We've already seen them bundling Hulu, Disney+, and ESPN+ for $12.99. That price will probably go up naturally, but it's a pretty good deal.

Going forward, the strength of ESPN+ will be exclusive content that's not on cable, but is also something worry of being on cable.

That's why I think we'll end up seeing at least one SEC football game per week on the platform by the time everything shakes out. I'm sure we'll see some basketball and other sports as well that would be attractive.

Now ESPN is also going to want some good quality content for their cable networks. That model is still making money although not as much, but there are still numerous time slots that need to be filled.

The question going forward will be what does Disney/ESPN do with the conference networks because that model is fading quicker than cable itself? Meanwhile, everyone knows a lot of major contracts are coming up for bid in the next few years.

When it comes to realignment, everyone that might be a candidate for SEC expansion now knows that ESPN and ABC will be the exclusive network carrying their games for many years to come. They know the streaming platform from Disney is significant and coupled with non-sports content which means it will be easier to get into a larger number of homes.

With all that in mind, what does ESPN want? And what do potential partners with the SEC want?

Let me take a moment to say that some of the answers are obvious. ESPN wants a lot of quality games with brands they can market to a national audience. Any such brands want a nice payday and exposure for their school via whatever the most widely distributed platform is available. The schools themselves will also want other considerations like reasonable travel costs and partner institutions that share certain principals and approaches.

Let me also suggest that a school like Vanderbilt no longer wants to compete at the highest levels of college athletics. They made a quick play for greater relevance last year with the hiring of the NBA G League's Malcolm Turner. That was February of 2019 and the new AD promised a robust new future. He was gone barely a year later and replaced by your standard academic bureaucrat. Does that suggest anything about the future of Vandy? I think it's possible because once February 2020 rolled around, we knew what the future held for the SEC. It was in December and January that it became clear that ESPN was going to take over the contract for the league. Interesting timing for a guy who gave us the standard "I want to spend more time with my family" line.

I think Vanderbilt will bow out of the SEC and head to the ACC. You heard it here first said the dude behind the keyboard with no actual first hand knowledge.

I say this because I don't think ESPN is going to abandon the ACC(I'm thinking in terms of the earlier reasoning based on protecting investments), but I do think a reorganization is coming. With certain new realities in play, I think the ACC is a good landing spot for Vandy. It's comfortable and reduces the pressure of competing at a high level while also not completely obliterating Vanderbilt's athletic revenues. From the network side, it simultaneously reduces ESPN's obligation to pay an exorbitant price for a school that won't carry its weight. Let's not forget that ESPN's investment in the SEC will be growing by more than $300M per year in the very near future. Vandy is already being paid too much with our current rates and CBS' contribution is about to come off the books. So that number is going to grow significantly from ESPN's side of the ledger unless a move is made.

I've long thought that ESPN wanted to move Kansas into the SEC so that they could keep that content in their fold...college basketball is important content for ESPN during the Winter months and Kansas is a guaranteed ratings generator. That and the Kansas/Missouri duality is regionally important. I still believe that and I think Texas and Oklahoma are huge targets as well for obvious reasons. I'm going to throw another wrinkle in today though and say a private school will need to be added as well in order to maintain certain legal advantages.

Basically, the Big 12 is on the chopping block here being that their contract is ending soon. If there's a landing spot for a critical mass of those schools then there's really no need to worry about trying to preserve it for the long haul because the money won't be comparable.

Oklahoma and Kansas are moved into the SEC. If we assume, however, that Vanderbilt has left for the ACC then we are at 15 and need one more. The ACC is also at 15 with one partial, but Notre Dame is probably not joining in full at this point.

The SEC's problem comes with the need for a private institution to finish up at 16. To me, the perfect candidate for that is Miami. It's a football school in a large, fresh market. They have a commitment to multiple sports. Just as important, they are a bit alien to the alignment I'm about to propose.

The ACC just needs firepower and revenue generating ability. As it stands, Clemson is the only national power while schools like Florida State and Louisville are still big money makers...the ACC just doesn't have very many of them.

Now here's where I go from plausible to kooky...

I think the Big 12 and the ACC could both be preserved in the middle of all this.

Oklahoma and Kansas have no reason to worry about it because the SEC will take them and happily pay them a ton of money. It provides great stability. Texas, on the other hand, is stubborn and primarily wants to maintain a certain level of control over their situation. ESPN is fine with giving it to them because they've done it for them all along so why stop now...

The power nexus in Texas and Tobacco Road aren't going to get along though. It's also true that UNC and Duke have voted against expansion in recent years. Adding Texas to the ACC is a problem for many reasons, but certain power players in the ACC have no reason to go elsewhere without an existential threat to their preferred conference.

So a solution could be to divide the two sets of power players and give them leagues of their own while also providing a bit more balance.

From a media perspective, the LHN still causes an issue. Texas may be worth the trouble, but the rest of the Big 12 either needs access to a conference network or simply be involved in a coalition that offers them an additional revenue stream. Meanwhile, the ACC already has their network, but the question with any conference network is long term viability.

I think a great deal of content will end up being moved to ESPN+ anyway from all of ESPN's college properties even though they'll all have conference branding. With that said, creating more quality match-ups for any platform may be as simple as grouping schools according to culture and strengths. You have too many football schools split up between the ACC and Big 12 that would be perfectly fine playing each other.

So could the Big 12 be reconstituted as something like this?

West: Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma State, Kansas State,
East: Florida State, Clemson, Louisville, Iowa State, West Virginia, Virginia Tech

The LHN can be converted to a Big 12 Network where the focus is now truly quality football across a plethora of decent markets. The 12 team alignment allows for an 8 game conference schedule and a title game between East and West basically.

And then could the ACC be rebuilt as something like this?

Syracuse, Boston College, Pittsburgh, Vanderbilt, Virginia, North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech

*Notre Dame remains a partial with this league.

I leave the ACC at 10 with a partial because the strength here is basketball. Now, you can conduct a double round robin within the league...a 20 game schedule. None of these football schools are particularly dynamic so it's very balanced on that end. They can play 9 league games and still conduct a conference title game for a little extra cash should they choose.

While the cable model is still relevant, the networks from the 3 different conferences can be bundled together. There's so much back and forth between regions that it shouldn't be too difficult.

As far as content slated for ESPN+, you've got 3 leagues now with very clear identities. That will make their content more marketable. It will create more relevant match-ups for consumption and it will create more opportunities for cross-regional games on occasion to attract new audiences.

In your scenario, Vanderbilt leaves, Oklahoma and Kansas are added, and you want to add Miami to preserve the privacy privileges a private institution can provide for a group of state funded public schools. Not sure Any ACC School can leave before 2035 and retain their TV rights.

It won't matter as long as ESPN owns everything on the other side. The GOR agreement is with them exclusively.

(06-24-2020 01:25 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  Worse case scenario, Texas is also offered. If they decline, the Oklahoma State rounds out the conference as part of a gentleman’s agreement to get OU’s conference realignment. Honestly, if the SEC adds from the ACC, Florida State is the most likely addition with Virginia Tech the most desired state school that adds new markets.

I'm sure the SEC wants Texas, but I'm a little doubtful that UT can be forced into that position. If ESPN wants to control them fully then another arrangement may have to be made. I don't think it makes sense for them to head to the ACC, but it does make sense for some ACC schools to move to them.

(06-24-2020 01:25 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  Also, the SEC Network/ESPN + does not need a SEC vs SEC game every week as all ESPN would need is enough TV rights to broadcast weekly. Now quality of the matchups are a separate, mostly individual issue.

It doesn't necessarily have to be an SEC vs SEC match-up, but they need multiple games a week available to them. What happens on the SEC Network is less relevant. I'm not even sure it will even exist in 10 years, but ESPN+ is the future. They've invested a ton of money so far and as streaming increases in popularity and functionality, ESPN will shift a lot of content that way. For strategic purposes, that content has to be attractive because no one has to subscribe to ESPN+ in the same manner they do for a cable channel. When you buy a cable package, you pay a sub fee whether you ever watch the channel or not. A streaming service has to be much more customer oriented. Not only that, it has to be tailored to certain audiences. The best way to get the average SEC fan to buy into ESPN+ is to make sure there's something on there every week they want to see.

Personally, I think it would be best to ensure that the SEC match-up on ESPN+ in a given week is also fit into an exclusive time slot. That way, fans will have to decide whether or not they want to see that game or just ignore the SEC for one of the windows and just switch to another broadcaster.

(06-24-2020 01:25 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  Honestly, if Oklahoma did leave the Big 12, Texas would be the one to decide that conference’s fate. Texas could try and bring over some PAC teams as the Big 12 has a much higher payout or Texas could leave the conference as is—very small and schedule a ton of nonconference games to fill the void.

I don't disagree that Texas could become an independent. I do think it's possible, but I think UT would prefer something else.

Ideally, if realignment had broken the right ways initially the best solution to these problems would have been this:

ACC:
Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest
Louisville, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech
Clemson, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

SEC:
Kentucky, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee
Alabama, Auburn, Florida State, Miami
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

Big 10:
Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern
Illinois, Michigan Michigan State, Ohio State
Indiana, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Minimal moves to get 4P @ 16 each:

ACC: add WVU; keep ND PT fb; add Baylor as member with PT fb.

BIG: add Iowa State; add Kansas

SEC: add OU & TCU

P12/B12: add TTU, Texas, KSU, Okla. St.

Only move the B12. All get placed. Fair. No conference may be totally happy, but all get reasonable additions.
Baylor is odd, but gets the "Texas deal" with the ACC.