First off, I know that no school is going to abandon the money from the SEC for any other conference, but I've been thinking about this for a few days and am bored and figured it wouldn't hurt to post to see what the consensus was, get some discussion going, etc.

If other conferences were actually able to pick off the SEC, what schools would go where?

My thoughts to get us started:

Vandy/Missouri to the Big 10. Missouri could easily have gone Big 10 in the last round, but the Big 10 finally admits their mistake and grabs them along with the Nashville market.

TN/KY to the ACC: There has at least been some speculation if not anything close to legitimate rumors that TN should/could go to the ACC and rebuild their football program there. The ACC also gets KY and KY-UNC/KY-Duke, etc. become huge conference bball games.

LSU/Arkansas to the Big 12: Again, another that has been posited, without much merit is Arkansas moving back to the Big 12. LSU comes along to get out from under Alabama's nose while still having big games with Texas/OK.

Any others you could think of that would be logical? What would the domino affects be?

(07-07-2020 01:18 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  First off, I know that no school is going to abandon the money from the SEC for any other conference, but I've been thinking about this for a few days and am bored and figured it wouldn't hurt to post to see what the consensus was, get some discussion going, etc.

If other conferences were actually able to pick off the SEC, what schools would go where?

My thoughts to get us started:

Vandy/Missouri to the Big 10. Missouri could easily have gone Big 10 in the last round, but the Big 10 finally admits their mistake and grabs them along with the Nashville market.

TN/KY to the ACC: There has at least been some speculation if not anything close to legitimate rumors that TN should/could go to the ACC and rebuild their football program there. The ACC also gets KY and KY-UNC/KY-Duke, etc. become huge conference bball games.

LSU/Arkansas to the Big 12: Again, another that has been posited, without much merit is Arkansas moving back to the Big 12. LSU comes along to get out from under Alabama's nose while still having big games with Texas/OK.

Any others you could think of that would be logical? What would the domino affects be?

Just a note....Arkansas was never a member of the Big 12 (or the Big 8) so it couldn't move BACK to the Big 12. Arkansas was a member of the Southwest Conference until it left for the SEC in 1991.

(07-07-2020 03:56 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(07-07-2020 01:18 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  First off, I know that no school is going to abandon the money from the SEC for any other conference, but I've been thinking about this for a few days and am bored and figured it wouldn't hurt to post to see what the consensus was, get some discussion going, etc.

If other conferences were actually able to pick off the SEC, what schools would go where?

My thoughts to get us started:

Vandy/Missouri to the Big 10. Missouri could easily have gone Big 10 in the last round, but the Big 10 finally admits their mistake and grabs them along with the Nashville market.

TN/KY to the ACC: There has at least been some speculation if not anything close to legitimate rumors that TN should/could go to the ACC and rebuild their football program there. The ACC also gets KY and KY-UNC/KY-Duke, etc. become huge conference bball games.

LSU/Arkansas to the Big 12: Again, another that has been posited, without much merit is Arkansas moving back to the Big 12. LSU comes along to get out from under Alabama's nose while still having big games with Texas/OK.

Any others you could think of that would be logical? What would the domino affects be?

Just a note....Arkansas was never a member of the Big 12 (or the Big 8) so it couldn't move BACK to the Big 12. Arkansas was a member of the Southwest Conference until it left for the SEC in 1991.

Fair, more accurate would be: moving back west to its rivals from the SWC. Good note.

(07-08-2020 09:00 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(07-07-2020 03:56 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(07-07-2020 01:18 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  First off, I know that no school is going to abandon the money from the SEC for any other conference, but I've been thinking about this for a few days and am bored and figured it wouldn't hurt to post to see what the consensus was, get some discussion going, etc.

If other conferences were actually able to pick off the SEC, what schools would go where?

My thoughts to get us started:

Vandy/Missouri to the Big 10. Missouri could easily have gone Big 10 in the last round, but the Big 10 finally admits their mistake and grabs them along with the Nashville market.

TN/KY to the ACC: There has at least been some speculation if not anything close to legitimate rumors that TN should/could go to the ACC and rebuild their football program there. The ACC also gets KY and KY-UNC/KY-Duke, etc. become huge conference bball games.

LSU/Arkansas to the Big 12: Again, another that has been posited, without much merit is Arkansas moving back to the Big 12. LSU comes along to get out from under Alabama's nose while still having big games with Texas/OK.

Any others you could think of that would be logical? What would the domino affects be?

Just a note....Arkansas was never a member of the Big 12 (or the Big 8) so it couldn't move BACK to the Big 12. Arkansas was a member of the Southwest Conference until it left for the SEC in 1991.

Fair, more accurate would be: moving back west to its rivals from the SWC. Good note.

When the Big 12 formed, that was the time to bring Arkansas into the fold—supposedly Nebraska wasn’t fond of bringing in the hogs. So the hogs found a new stable home before the SWC blew up.

Now the only SEC school not committing enough resources to compete in conference is Vanderbilt. So say they leave. Conference sits at 13. If I’m Sankey, I offer both OU and UT (assuming there’s enough votes for Texas) and then sit on that third spot in case any one of those programs requires an instate tag along. If neither target decides to leave the Big 12, round off with West Virginia and wait for the next window to pop up.

(07-08-2020 04:59 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 09:00 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(07-07-2020 03:56 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(07-07-2020 01:18 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  First off, I know that no school is going to abandon the money from the SEC for any other conference, but I've been thinking about this for a few days and am bored and figured it wouldn't hurt to post to see what the consensus was, get some discussion going, etc.

If other conferences were actually able to pick off the SEC, what schools would go where?

My thoughts to get us started:

Vandy/Missouri to the Big 10. Missouri could easily have gone Big 10 in the last round, but the Big 10 finally admits their mistake and grabs them along with the Nashville market.

TN/KY to the ACC: There has at least been some speculation if not anything close to legitimate rumors that TN should/could go to the ACC and rebuild their football program there. The ACC also gets KY and KY-UNC/KY-Duke, etc. become huge conference bball games.

LSU/Arkansas to the Big 12: Again, another that has been posited, without much merit is Arkansas moving back to the Big 12. LSU comes along to get out from under Alabama's nose while still having big games with Texas/OK.

Any others you could think of that would be logical? What would the domino affects be?

Just a note....Arkansas was never a member of the Big 12 (or the Big 8) so it couldn't move BACK to the Big 12. Arkansas was a member of the Southwest Conference until it left for the SEC in 1991.

Fair, more accurate would be: moving back west to its rivals from the SWC. Good note.

When the Big 12 formed, that was the time to bring Arkansas into the fold—supposedly Nebraska wasn’t fond of bringing in the hogs. So the hogs found a new stable home before the SWC blew up.

Now the only SEC school not committing enough resources to compete in conference is Vanderbilt. So say they leave. Conference sits at 13. If I’m Sankey, I offer both OU and UT (assuming there’s enough votes for Texas) and then sit on that third spot in case any one of those programs requires an instate tag along. If neither target decides to leave the Big 12, round off with West Virginia and wait for the next window to pop up.

Right. There are only 2 schools that could leave the SEC IMO and neither is likely to completely do so. I do think some day Vanderbilt might explore a partial membership if they don't commit further to football. Missouri might consider a Big 10 invitation if the right schools were moving with them and I do mean "might", but that's it. Nobody else is going anywhere.

If I'm the SEC I offer Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma if Vanderbilt seeks a partial membership. If either Texas or Oklahoma wants to bring a tag-along the other will insist on one too. In that case just move to 18 and 3 divisions of 6 and take Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and either Kansas or West Virginia.

I have no problems with WVU if Kansas heads North. But if Kansas heads North then possibly Missouri goes with them. At that point taking Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech takes us to 16 and we're done.

The B1G will never accept OSU or Tech just to get OU or UT. That means SEC is in just as strong a position then to say no since the other two options that would accommodate little brother political tagalongs, the PAC and ACC, are non starters for OU and UT because of geography and or not enough money.

(07-09-2020 10:15 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  The B1G will never accept OSU or Tech just to get OU or UT. That means SEC is in just as strong a position then to say no since the other two options that would accommodate little brother political tagalongs, the PAC and ACC, are non starters for OU and UT because of geography and or not enough money.

Couldn't agree more! Am sure the SEC would "like" to have OU and/or UT but the SEC does not "need" OU or UT enough to let either "dictate" terms. I think the SEC would find those "extra" slots for "tag-a-longs" being too valuable to use for OSU and/or TT and would prefer to use them differently, or simply wait for the expiration of the ACC GOR to see if those slots could be put to better use.

(07-08-2020 05:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 04:59 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 09:00 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(07-07-2020 03:56 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(07-07-2020 01:18 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  First off, I know that no school is going to abandon the money from the SEC for any other conference, but I've been thinking about this for a few days and am bored and figured it wouldn't hurt to post to see what the consensus was, get some discussion going, etc.

If other conferences were actually able to pick off the SEC, what schools would go where?

My thoughts to get us started:

Vandy/Missouri to the Big 10. Missouri could easily have gone Big 10 in the last round, but the Big 10 finally admits their mistake and grabs them along with the Nashville market.

TN/KY to the ACC: There has at least been some speculation if not anything close to legitimate rumors that TN should/could go to the ACC and rebuild their football program there. The ACC also gets KY and KY-UNC/KY-Duke, etc. become huge conference bball games.

LSU/Arkansas to the Big 12: Again, another that has been posited, without much merit is Arkansas moving back to the Big 12. LSU comes along to get out from under Alabama's nose while still having big games with Texas/OK.

Any others you could think of that would be logical? What would the domino affects be?

Just a note....Arkansas was never a member of the Big 12 (or the Big 8) so it couldn't move BACK to the Big 12. Arkansas was a member of the Southwest Conference until it left for the SEC in 1991.

Fair, more accurate would be: moving back west to its rivals from the SWC. Good note.

When the Big 12 formed, that was the time to bring Arkansas into the fold—supposedly Nebraska wasn’t fond of bringing in the hogs. So the hogs found a new stable home before the SWC blew up.

Now the only SEC school not committing enough resources to compete in conference is Vanderbilt. So say they leave. Conference sits at 13. If I’m Sankey, I offer both OU and UT (assuming there’s enough votes for Texas) and then sit on that third spot in case any one of those programs requires an instate tag along. If neither target decides to leave the Big 12, round off with West Virginia and wait for the next window to pop up.

Right. There are only 2 schools that could leave the SEC IMO and neither is likely to completely do so. I do think some day Vanderbilt might explore a partial membership if they don't commit further to football. Missouri might consider a Big 10 invitation if the right schools were moving with them and I do mean "might", but that's it. Nobody else is going anywhere.

If I'm the SEC I offer Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma if Vanderbilt seeks a partial membership. If either Texas or Oklahoma wants to bring a tag-along the other will insist on one too. In that case just move to 18 and 3 divisions of 6 and take Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and either Kansas or West Virginia.

I have no problems with WVU if Kansas heads North. But if Kansas heads North then possibly Missouri goes with them. At that point taking Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech takes us to 16 and we're done.

If Kansas/MO head north, then (especially with the status of the PAC-12 and the Big 10's potential to get Colorado) I wonder if OK might consider the Big 10 a lot more; assuming the Big 10 would consider them. That would mean that at least three of the former Big 8 schools (Nebraska, MO, Kansas and possibly CO) are already in the Big 10.

Based on the viewer data thread info (perhaps that one needs to bumped to important threads?), could we take OK St. on its own if OK went north? They would be right in the middle of the SEC in terms of viewership, and still give us all that OK gives us minus the branding, which I recognize is huge. But taking the "little brother" (no offense meant at all to A&M) has worked in the past.

(07-09-2020 01:13 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 05:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 04:59 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 09:00 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(07-07-2020 03:56 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  Just a note....Arkansas was never a member of the Big 12 (or the Big 8) so it couldn't move BACK to the Big 12. Arkansas was a member of the Southwest Conference until it left for the SEC in 1991.

Fair, more accurate would be: moving back west to its rivals from the SWC. Good note.

When the Big 12 formed, that was the time to bring Arkansas into the fold—supposedly Nebraska wasn’t fond of bringing in the hogs. So the hogs found a new stable home before the SWC blew up.

Now the only SEC school not committing enough resources to compete in conference is Vanderbilt. So say they leave. Conference sits at 13. If I’m Sankey, I offer both OU and UT (assuming there’s enough votes for Texas) and then sit on that third spot in case any one of those programs requires an instate tag along. If neither target decides to leave the Big 12, round off with West Virginia and wait for the next window to pop up.

Right. There are only 2 schools that could leave the SEC IMO and neither is likely to completely do so. I do think some day Vanderbilt might explore a partial membership if they don't commit further to football. Missouri might consider a Big 10 invitation if the right schools were moving with them and I do mean "might", but that's it. Nobody else is going anywhere.

If I'm the SEC I offer Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma if Vanderbilt seeks a partial membership. If either Texas or Oklahoma wants to bring a tag-along the other will insist on one too. In that case just move to 18 and 3 divisions of 6 and take Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and either Kansas or West Virginia.

I have no problems with WVU if Kansas heads North. But if Kansas heads North then possibly Missouri goes with them. At that point taking Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech takes us to 16 and we're done.

If Kansas/MO head north, then (especially with the status of the PAC-12 and the Big 10's potential to get Colorado) I wonder if OK might consider the Big 10 a lot more; assuming the Big 10 would consider them. That would mean that at least three of the former Big 8 schools (Nebraska, MO, Kansas and possibly CO) are already in the Big 10.

Based on the viewer data thread info (perhaps that one needs to bumped to important threads?), could we take OK St. on its own if OK went north? They would be right in the middle of the SEC in terms of viewership, and still give us all that OK gives us minus the branding, which I recognize is huge. But taking the "little brother" (no offense meant at all to A&M) has worked in the past.

I've always thought that the best way (meaning most natural) to form two leagues would be to let the PAC/Big 10 alliance absorb the old Big 8 schools and the ACC/SEC alliance absorb the old SWC schools (at least the ones who made it to the Big 12. The difficulty is that heretofore we have been dividing into 4 conferences at first from the SWC & Big East and now from the Big 12. This has led to some odd alignments to be sure.

(07-09-2020 01:13 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 05:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 04:59 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 09:00 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(07-07-2020 03:56 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  Just a note....Arkansas was never a member of the Big 12 (or the Big 8) so it couldn't move BACK to the Big 12. Arkansas was a member of the Southwest Conference until it left for the SEC in 1991.

Fair, more accurate would be: moving back west to its rivals from the SWC. Good note.

When the Big 12 formed, that was the time to bring Arkansas into the fold—supposedly Nebraska wasn’t fond of bringing in the hogs. So the hogs found a new stable home before the SWC blew up.

Now the only SEC school not committing enough resources to compete in conference is Vanderbilt. So say they leave. Conference sits at 13. If I’m Sankey, I offer both OU and UT (assuming there’s enough votes for Texas) and then sit on that third spot in case any one of those programs requires an instate tag along. If neither target decides to leave the Big 12, round off with West Virginia and wait for the next window to pop up.

Right. There are only 2 schools that could leave the SEC IMO and neither is likely to completely do so. I do think some day Vanderbilt might explore a partial membership if they don't commit further to football. Missouri might consider a Big 10 invitation if the right schools were moving with them and I do mean "might", but that's it. Nobody else is going anywhere.

If I'm the SEC I offer Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma if Vanderbilt seeks a partial membership. If either Texas or Oklahoma wants to bring a tag-along the other will insist on one too. In that case just move to 18 and 3 divisions of 6 and take Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and either Kansas or West Virginia.

I have no problems with WVU if Kansas heads North. But if Kansas heads North then possibly Missouri goes with them. At that point taking Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech takes us to 16 and we're done.

If Kansas/MO head north, then (especially with the status of the PAC-12 and the Big 10's potential to get Colorado) I wonder if OK might consider the Big 10 a lot more; assuming the Big 10 would consider them. That would mean that at least three of the former Big 8 schools (Nebraska, MO, Kansas and possibly CO) are already in the Big 10.

Based on the viewer data thread info (perhaps that one needs to bumped to important threads?), could we take OK St. on its own if OK went north? They would be right in the middle of the SEC in terms of viewership, and still give us all that OK gives us minus the branding, which I recognize is huge. But taking the "little brother" (no offense meant at all to A&M) has worked in the past.

I realize this is all hypothetical but I'm not sure about some of the assumptions. For what it's worth, here are my assumptions!! I can think of no reason why Missouri would ever willingly leave the SEC even to the B1G, without some inducement from the SEC to do so [and I can't imagine what that would be (money?) but just don't think that would happen.]. I'm also skeptical that KU could go to the B1G on its own, so if no MU then probably no KU. But, I'm also skeptical that the B1G has any great designs on KU/MU. I think OU/KU to the B1G is more likely than MU/KU though I'm not sure that's more than a "fallback" position for the B1G, at best. OU/KU to the SEC, assuming UT doesn't want to join, is to me more likely than those two to the B1G. If OU is leaving, I'm just not sure what Texas might do in the end as I think they don't really want to go to the SEC (or any other conference for that matter), but I don't think they would be happy to be "king" in a second tier conference (assuming OU & KU had left). Could Texas go independent? It would be tough but I suppose not out of the question. I don't think Colorado really has much interest in the B1G, even with the extra money that they would acquire. Almost 13% of CU undergraduates come from California! [almost four times as many as the next out-of-state group (Illinois), and there are only a few others from B1G states] and CU has large groups of alums in both Los Angeles & San Francisco. Finally as I stated in an earlier post, I don't see the SEC using slots on TT or OSU, rather than either using them with others (ie., KU with OU if UT doesn't want in), just "saving" slots for the future (Clemson, FSU???) later, or just not using them at all. I think the SEC would "like" OU and/or UT but I don't see them "needing" OU and/or UT to the extent they would take a tag-a-long second school from OK or TX. But, of course, I'm not making SEC decisions so some of my assumptions could be incorrect.

(07-09-2020 07:44 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(07-09-2020 01:13 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 05:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 04:59 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 09:00 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Fair, more accurate would be: moving back west to its rivals from the SWC. Good note.

When the Big 12 formed, that was the time to bring Arkansas into the fold—supposedly Nebraska wasn’t fond of bringing in the hogs. So the hogs found a new stable home before the SWC blew up.

Now the only SEC school not committing enough resources to compete in conference is Vanderbilt. So say they leave. Conference sits at 13. If I’m Sankey, I offer both OU and UT (assuming there’s enough votes for Texas) and then sit on that third spot in case any one of those programs requires an instate tag along. If neither target decides to leave the Big 12, round off with West Virginia and wait for the next window to pop up.

Right. There are only 2 schools that could leave the SEC IMO and neither is likely to completely do so. I do think some day Vanderbilt might explore a partial membership if they don't commit further to football. Missouri might consider a Big 10 invitation if the right schools were moving with them and I do mean "might", but that's it. Nobody else is going anywhere.

If I'm the SEC I offer Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma if Vanderbilt seeks a partial membership. If either Texas or Oklahoma wants to bring a tag-along the other will insist on one too. In that case just move to 18 and 3 divisions of 6 and take Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and either Kansas or West Virginia.

I have no problems with WVU if Kansas heads North. But if Kansas heads North then possibly Missouri goes with them. At that point taking Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech takes us to 16 and we're done.

If Kansas/MO head north, then (especially with the status of the PAC-12 and the Big 10's potential to get Colorado) I wonder if OK might consider the Big 10 a lot more; assuming the Big 10 would consider them. That would mean that at least three of the former Big 8 schools (Nebraska, MO, Kansas and possibly CO) are already in the Big 10.

Based on the viewer data thread info (perhaps that one needs to bumped to important threads?), could we take OK St. on its own if OK went north? They would be right in the middle of the SEC in terms of viewership, and still give us all that OK gives us minus the branding, which I recognize is huge. But taking the "little brother" (no offense meant at all to A&M) has worked in the past.

I realize this is all hypothetical but I'm not sure about some of the assumptions. For what it's worth, here are my assumptions!! I can think of no reason why Missouri would ever willingly leave the SEC even to the B1G, without some inducement from the SEC to do so [and I can't imagine what that would be (money?) but just don't think that would happen.]. I'm also skeptical that KU could go to the B1G on its own, so if no MU then probably no KU. But, I'm also skeptical that the B1G has any great designs on KU/MU. I think OU/KU to the B1G is more likely than MU/KU though I'm not sure that's more than a "fallback" position for the B1G, at best. OU/KU to the SEC, assuming UT doesn't want to join, is to me more likely than those two to the B1G. If OU is leaving, I'm just not sure what Texas might do in the end as I think they don't really want to go to the SEC (or any other conference for that matter), but I don't think they would be happy to be "king" in a second tier conference (assuming OU & KU had left). Could Texas go independent? It would be tough but I suppose not out of the question. I don't think Colorado really has much interest in the B1G, even with the extra money that they would acquire. Almost 13% of CU undergraduates come from California! [almost four times as many as the next out-of-state group (Illinois), and there are only a few others from B1G states] and CU has large groups of alums in both Los Angeles & San Francisco. Finally as I stated in an earlier post, I don't see the SEC using slots on TT or OSU, rather than either using them with others (ie., KU with OU if UT doesn't want in), just "saving" slots for the future (Clemson, FSU???) later, or just not using them at all. I think the SEC would "like" OU and/or UT but I don't see them "needing" OU and/or UT to the extent they would take a tag-a-long second school from OK or TX. But, of course, I'm not making SEC decisions so some of my assumptions could be incorrect.

If just the SEC was making the decision we would only move to 16 and we would do it with Texas and Oklahoma and call it quits.

The problem is the SEC isn't making the decisions alone. They are making them in conjunction with ESPN. The question then becomes what does ESPN want? If they really want full access to Texas and Texas doesn't want the ACC does ESPN want us to take Tech to get Texas and do they fully reward us for the effort? Nothing gets done without the network paying for it. Outside the network the SEC can't monetize any move effectively enough to make it on their own. The same is true for Oklahoma but since ESPN doesn't hold OU's T3 one must question whether ESPN has long term plans for the Sooners. ESPN does pay nearly what FOX pays for Oklahoma in order to hold onto Kansas.

So my guess should ESPN truly want to use the SEC in the most economical way then I'd say that the pairing would be Texas and Kansas.. ESPN gets full control of both for all three tiers. FOX gets Oklahoma and the Big 10 and FOX look for a partner to go with them.

If the SEC lands Texas and Oklahoma or Texas and Kansas there will be no Clemson and Florida State in the future unless the Big 10 breaks the ACC wide open.

(07-09-2020 08:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-09-2020 07:44 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(07-09-2020 01:13 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 05:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 04:59 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  When the Big 12 formed, that was the time to bring Arkansas into the fold—supposedly Nebraska wasn’t fond of bringing in the hogs. So the hogs found a new stable home before the SWC blew up.

Now the only SEC school not committing enough resources to compete in conference is Vanderbilt. So say they leave. Conference sits at 13. If I’m Sankey, I offer both OU and UT (assuming there’s enough votes for Texas) and then sit on that third spot in case any one of those programs requires an instate tag along. If neither target decides to leave the Big 12, round off with West Virginia and wait for the next window to pop up.

Right. There are only 2 schools that could leave the SEC IMO and neither is likely to completely do so. I do think some day Vanderbilt might explore a partial membership if they don't commit further to football. Missouri might consider a Big 10 invitation if the right schools were moving with them and I do mean "might", but that's it. Nobody else is going anywhere.

If I'm the SEC I offer Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma if Vanderbilt seeks a partial membership. If either Texas or Oklahoma wants to bring a tag-along the other will insist on one too. In that case just move to 18 and 3 divisions of 6 and take Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and either Kansas or West Virginia.

I have no problems with WVU if Kansas heads North. But if Kansas heads North then possibly Missouri goes with them. At that point taking Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech takes us to 16 and we're done.

If Kansas/MO head north, then (especially with the status of the PAC-12 and the Big 10's potential to get Colorado) I wonder if OK might consider the Big 10 a lot more; assuming the Big 10 would consider them. That would mean that at least three of the former Big 8 schools (Nebraska, MO, Kansas and possibly CO) are already in the Big 10.

Based on the viewer data thread info (perhaps that one needs to bumped to important threads?), could we take OK St. on its own if OK went north? They would be right in the middle of the SEC in terms of viewership, and still give us all that OK gives us minus the branding, which I recognize is huge. But taking the "little brother" (no offense meant at all to A&M) has worked in the past.

I realize this is all hypothetical but I'm not sure about some of the assumptions. For what it's worth, here are my assumptions!! I can think of no reason why Missouri would ever willingly leave the SEC even to the B1G, without some inducement from the SEC to do so [and I can't imagine what that would be (money?) but just don't think that would happen.]. I'm also skeptical that KU could go to the B1G on its own, so if no MU then probably no KU. But, I'm also skeptical that the B1G has any great designs on KU/MU. I think OU/KU to the B1G is more likely than MU/KU though I'm not sure that's more than a "fallback" position for the B1G, at best. OU/KU to the SEC, assuming UT doesn't want to join, is to me more likely than those two to the B1G. If OU is leaving, I'm just not sure what Texas might do in the end as I think they don't really want to go to the SEC (or any other conference for that matter), but I don't think they would be happy to be "king" in a second tier conference (assuming OU & KU had left). Could Texas go independent? It would be tough but I suppose not out of the question. I don't think Colorado really has much interest in the B1G, even with the extra money that they would acquire. Almost 13% of CU undergraduates come from California! [almost four times as many as the next out-of-state group (Illinois), and there are only a few others from B1G states] and CU has large groups of alums in both Los Angeles & San Francisco. Finally as I stated in an earlier post, I don't see the SEC using slots on TT or OSU, rather than either using them with others (ie., KU with OU if UT doesn't want in), just "saving" slots for the future (Clemson, FSU???) later, or just not using them at all. I think the SEC would "like" OU and/or UT but I don't see them "needing" OU and/or UT to the extent they would take a tag-a-long second school from OK or TX. But, of course, I'm not making SEC decisions so some of my assumptions could be incorrect.

If just the SEC was making the decision we would only move to 16 and we would do it with Texas and Oklahoma and call it quits.

The problem is the SEC isn't making the decisions alone. They are making them in conjunction with ESPN. The question then becomes what does ESPN want? If they really want full access to Texas and Texas doesn't want the ACC does ESPN want us to take Tech to get Texas and do they fully reward us for the effort? Nothing gets done without the network paying for it. Outside the network the SEC can't monetize any move effectively enough to make it on their own. The same is true for Oklahoma but since ESPN doesn't hold OU's T3 one must question whether ESPN has long term plans for the Sooners. ESPN does pay nearly what FOX pays for Oklahoma in order to hold onto Kansas.

So my guess should ESPN truly want to use the SEC in the most economical way then I'd say that the pairing would be Texas and Kansas.. ESPN gets full control of both for all three tiers. FOX gets Oklahoma and the Big 10 and FOX look for a partner to go with them.

If the SEC lands Texas and Oklahoma or Texas and Kansas there will be no Clemson and Florida State in the future unless the Big 10 breaks the ACC wide open.

Thanks for your theory here Jr. It sounds the most sensible thing to me. People here have forgotten one item in the mix. It's called "loyalty" to the conference. I know that sounds a bit old, but it makes a difference. Without that, none of it makes any difference. Schools will not be traded like stocks or baseball cards unless they are asked or treated as outcasts. I doubt anything woven into the SEC fabric would make them even consider asking a school to leave the SEC.

(07-10-2020 04:02 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(07-09-2020 08:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-09-2020 07:44 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(07-09-2020 01:13 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 05:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Right. There are only 2 schools that could leave the SEC IMO and neither is likely to completely do so. I do think some day Vanderbilt might explore a partial membership if they don't commit further to football. Missouri might consider a Big 10 invitation if the right schools were moving with them and I do mean "might", but that's it. Nobody else is going anywhere.

If I'm the SEC I offer Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma if Vanderbilt seeks a partial membership. If either Texas or Oklahoma wants to bring a tag-along the other will insist on one too. In that case just move to 18 and 3 divisions of 6 and take Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and either Kansas or West Virginia.

I have no problems with WVU if Kansas heads North. But if Kansas heads North then possibly Missouri goes with them. At that point taking Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech takes us to 16 and we're done.

If Kansas/MO head north, then (especially with the status of the PAC-12 and the Big 10's potential to get Colorado) I wonder if OK might consider the Big 10 a lot more; assuming the Big 10 would consider them. That would mean that at least three of the former Big 8 schools (Nebraska, MO, Kansas and possibly CO) are already in the Big 10.

Based on the viewer data thread info (perhaps that one needs to bumped to important threads?), could we take OK St. on its own if OK went north? They would be right in the middle of the SEC in terms of viewership, and still give us all that OK gives us minus the branding, which I recognize is huge. But taking the "little brother" (no offense meant at all to A&M) has worked in the past.

I realize this is all hypothetical but I'm not sure about some of the assumptions. For what it's worth, here are my assumptions!! I can think of no reason why Missouri would ever willingly leave the SEC even to the B1G, without some inducement from the SEC to do so [and I can't imagine what that would be (money?) but just don't think that would happen.]. I'm also skeptical that KU could go to the B1G on its own, so if no MU then probably no KU. But, I'm also skeptical that the B1G has any great designs on KU/MU. I think OU/KU to the B1G is more likely than MU/KU though I'm not sure that's more than a "fallback" position for the B1G, at best. OU/KU to the SEC, assuming UT doesn't want to join, is to me more likely than those two to the B1G. If OU is leaving, I'm just not sure what Texas might do in the end as I think they don't really want to go to the SEC (or any other conference for that matter), but I don't think they would be happy to be "king" in a second tier conference (assuming OU & KU had left). Could Texas go independent? It would be tough but I suppose not out of the question. I don't think Colorado really has much interest in the B1G, even with the extra money that they would acquire. Almost 13% of CU undergraduates come from California! [almost four times as many as the next out-of-state group (Illinois), and there are only a few others from B1G states] and CU has large groups of alums in both Los Angeles & San Francisco. Finally as I stated in an earlier post, I don't see the SEC using slots on TT or OSU, rather than either using them with others (ie., KU with OU if UT doesn't want in), just "saving" slots for the future (Clemson, FSU???) later, or just not using them at all. I think the SEC would "like" OU and/or UT but I don't see them "needing" OU and/or UT to the extent they would take a tag-a-long second school from OK or TX. But, of course, I'm not making SEC decisions so some of my assumptions could be incorrect.

If just the SEC was making the decision we would only move to 16 and we would do it with Texas and Oklahoma and call it quits.

The problem is the SEC isn't making the decisions alone. They are making them in conjunction with ESPN. The question then becomes what does ESPN want? If they really want full access to Texas and Texas doesn't want the ACC does ESPN want us to take Tech to get Texas and do they fully reward us for the effort? Nothing gets done without the network paying for it. Outside the network the SEC can't monetize any move effectively enough to make it on their own. The same is true for Oklahoma but since ESPN doesn't hold OU's T3 one must question whether ESPN has long term plans for the Sooners. ESPN does pay nearly what FOX pays for Oklahoma in order to hold onto Kansas.

So my guess should ESPN truly want to use the SEC in the most economical way then I'd say that the pairing would be Texas and Kansas.. ESPN gets full control of both for all three tiers. FOX gets Oklahoma and the Big 10 and FOX look for a partner to go with them.

If the SEC lands Texas and Oklahoma or Texas and Kansas there will be no Clemson and Florida State in the future unless the Big 10 breaks the ACC wide open.

Thanks for your theory here Jr. It sounds the most sensible thing to me. People here have forgotten one item in the mix. It's called "loyalty" to the conference. I know that sounds a bit old, but it makes a difference. Without that, none of it makes any difference. Schools will not be traded like stocks or baseball cards unless they are asked or treated as outcasts. I doubt anything woven into the SEC fabric would make them even consider asking a school to leave the SEC.

I think the only way Missouri would consider leaving would be if the Big 10 was trying to land most of the old Big 8 including Kansas.

Right now I doubt any school in a major P conference is going anywhere and they aren't planning a move. If the SEC sought to expand, or the Big 10 did, the monetary difference is great enough to be an incentive along with the stability.

IMO A&M was the wrong partner for Missouri. It would have been much healthier if we had add 4 schools and Kansas had been in the mix with Oklahoma.

Put Missouri with Kansas and Oklahoma and your fans have something familiar to look forward too that will sustain them in an SEC schedule that is mostly with schools with which they have little to no history.

I don't see much economic benefit it adding to the East.

But face it Medic if the SEC is to be a long term happy home for Missouri we need to have a couple of schools from the Old Big 8 with them to help cement all of them into the greater grouping. Right now Mizzou has nobody they have played more than a dozen time in the East except Vanderbilt and that counts the 8 seasons they've played the Eastern schedule. A&M only has history with them due to the Big 12 years. If the SEC wants to ease Missouri folks into a longtime love of all things SEC having Kansas and Oklahoma is really a necessity.

I think Kansas is an interest of ESPN, but I'm not sure about the Sooners. I know Texas is.

But right now nobody is going to do anything until the COVID thing is in the rearview mirror.

I would agree that Kansas and Oklahoma is a strong next move and that part of the reason for that is a way to integrate that region of the conference a little more.

An older idea from a while back was take 4 from the Big 12...from 4 different states. I'm still good with that honestly as it spreads out the brand a little further.

Ideally, we'd take Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa State.

There are a few reasons for this.

1. The value of Texas and Oklahoma are obvious.

2. It would be great for the overall strength of the basketball league.

3. It would integrate an entire region into the conference. The 4 schools from the old Big 8 are used to each other, and would not only enjoy competing against each other but would aid the political balance by stretching out the loyalties. Fewer in-state rivals included would lessen any potential discord of absorbing large personalities like Texas or Oklahoma.

4. It would help our academic credibility to add 3 more AAU schools.

5. It would put pressure on the Big Ten in their own backyard. What I mean is that you'll have schools neighboring Big Ten schools/states that are flush with cash and promoted by ESPN. I think this would encourage the B1G to move more of their content over to ESPN in order to balance the advantages.

(07-10-2020 05:23 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I would agree that Kansas and Oklahoma is a strong next move and that part of the reason for that is a way to integrate that region of the conference a little more.

An older idea from a while back was take 4 from the Big 12...from 4 different states. I'm still good with that honestly as it spreads out the brand a little further.

Ideally, we'd take Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa State.

There are a few reasons for this.

1. The value of Texas and Oklahoma are obvious.

2. It would be great for the overall strength of the basketball league.

3. It would integrate an entire region into the conference. The 4 schools from the old Big 8 are used to each other, and would not only enjoy competing against each other but would aid the political balance by stretching out the loyalties. Fewer in-state rivals included would lessen any potential discord of absorbing large personalities like Texas or Oklahoma.

4. It would help our academic credibility to add 3 more AAU schools.

5. It would put pressure on the Big Ten in their own backyard. What I mean is that you'll have schools neighboring Big Ten schools/states that are flush with cash and promoted by ESPN. I think this would encourage the B1G to move more of their content over to ESPN in order to balance the advantages.

I am not opposed to reasonable expansion westward. I do believe it would be a long range galvanizing move for the conference.

What I am intrigued by, and what I think the SEC should consider doing if it does expand westward, is to deliberately drop any games with the ACC. They only build their credibility by playing us and we gain little. At 18 I think the internal balance could be such that playing a 10 game SEC schedule and 2 tune up games is enough to give 4-6 conference records enough of a boost to get a bowl. It only increases the perception of the SEC and it would be essentially the two best Southern football conferences playing as one (Big 12 / SEC). It would contain the best of branding giving the SEC 6 possibly 7 of the top 10 earners and about 13 of the top 20. Quite frankly it would offend me to move to 20 and break into 4 divisions if we took the best 6.

Strategically it locks us into the top spot as a college sports product and gives us essential control of the 2 of the 3 best recruiting regions of which the ACC would share space but not control and the Big 10 would be outside of it doing what they do now, trying to poach a couple of good recruits a year. The PAC sits on the third but can't do anything with it.

Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, West Virginia. That controls the region. Iowa State is an outlier no matter how you cut it. Fine school with good folks but a long way from anyone in the SEC save Missouri.

I think it would enhance the CFP if the PAC schools played internally, the Big 10 did the same and the ACC and SEC did the same. I'm good at that point with expanding to 8 schools. Everyone's #2 goes on the road to face somebody else's #1 for the first round. Then you go to destination sites for the semis and finals and you bracket each conference so that they cannot face their #2 until the finals.

The not quite being sure who had the best conference during the regular season adds to the interest IMO like it once did for bowls.

(07-10-2020 06:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-10-2020 05:23 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I would agree that Kansas and Oklahoma is a strong next move and that part of the reason for that is a way to integrate that region of the conference a little more.

An older idea from a while back was take 4 from the Big 12...from 4 different states. I'm still good with that honestly as it spreads out the brand a little further.

Ideally, we'd take Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa State.

There are a few reasons for this.

1. The value of Texas and Oklahoma are obvious.

2. It would be great for the overall strength of the basketball league.

3. It would integrate an entire region into the conference. The 4 schools from the old Big 8 are used to each other, and would not only enjoy competing against each other but would aid the political balance by stretching out the loyalties. Fewer in-state rivals included would lessen any potential discord of absorbing large personalities like Texas or Oklahoma.

4. It would help our academic credibility to add 3 more AAU schools.

5. It would put pressure on the Big Ten in their own backyard. What I mean is that you'll have schools neighboring Big Ten schools/states that are flush with cash and promoted by ESPN. I think this would encourage the B1G to move more of their content over to ESPN in order to balance the advantages.

I am not opposed to reasonable expansion westward. I do believe it would be a long range galvanizing move for the conference.

What I am intrigued by, and what I think the SEC should consider doing if it does expand westward, is to deliberately drop any games with the ACC. They only build their credibility by playing us and we gain little. At 18 I think the internal balance could be such that playing a 10 game SEC schedule and 2 tune up games is enough to give 4-6 conference records enough of a boost to get a bowl. It only increases the perception of the SEC and it would be essentially the two best Southern football conferences playing as one (Big 12 / SEC). It would contain the best of branding giving the SEC 6 possibly 7 of the top 10 earners and about 13 of the top 20. Quite frankly it would offend me to move to 20 and break into 4 divisions if we took the best 6.

Strategically it locks us into the top spot as a college sports product and gives us essential control of the 2 of the 3 best recruiting regions of which the ACC would share space but not control and the Big 10 would be outside of it doing what they do now, trying to poach a couple of good recruits a year. The PAC sits on the third but can't do anything with it.

Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, West Virginia. That controls the region. Iowa State is an outlier no matter how you cut it. Fine school with good folks but a long way from anyone in the SEC save Missouri.

I think it would enhance the CFP if the PAC schools played internally, the Big 10 did the same and the ACC and SEC did the same. I'm good at that point with expanding to 8 schools. Everyone's #2 goes on the road to face somebody else's #1 for the first round. Then you go to destination sites for the semis and finals and you bracket each conference so that they cannot face their #2 until the finals.

The not quite being sure who had the best conference during the regular season adds to the interest IMO like it once did for bowls.

Might as well pick 6.

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, West Virginia seem like reasonable picks here.

I don't mind the idea of Texas Tech or Oklahoma State, but they don't really bring large fan bases either. That and they've more or less built their brands on large TV payments and associations with others. I think the former 4 have done a better job of standing on their own if not thriving in certain cases.

With that in mind, I think we might as well pick a couple of schools that have greater growth potential going forward...UCF and USF.

That would give us 3 schools in FL and 2 in TX, but Oklahoma might as well be in TX if we're going to consider the fan base and where they get their players from.

(07-11-2020 05:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-10-2020 06:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-10-2020 05:23 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I would agree that Kansas and Oklahoma is a strong next move and that part of the reason for that is a way to integrate that region of the conference a little more.

An older idea from a while back was take 4 from the Big 12...from 4 different states. I'm still good with that honestly as it spreads out the brand a little further.

Ideally, we'd take Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa State.

There are a few reasons for this.

1. The value of Texas and Oklahoma are obvious.

2. It would be great for the overall strength of the basketball league.

3. It would integrate an entire region into the conference. The 4 schools from the old Big 8 are used to each other, and would not only enjoy competing against each other but would aid the political balance by stretching out the loyalties. Fewer in-state rivals included would lessen any potential discord of absorbing large personalities like Texas or Oklahoma.

4. It would help our academic credibility to add 3 more AAU schools.

5. It would put pressure on the Big Ten in their own backyard. What I mean is that you'll have schools neighboring Big Ten schools/states that are flush with cash and promoted by ESPN. I think this would encourage the B1G to move more of their content over to ESPN in order to balance the advantages.

I am not opposed to reasonable expansion westward. I do believe it would be a long range galvanizing move for the conference.

What I am intrigued by, and what I think the SEC should consider doing if it does expand westward, is to deliberately drop any games with the ACC. They only build their credibility by playing us and we gain little. At 18 I think the internal balance could be such that playing a 10 game SEC schedule and 2 tune up games is enough to give 4-6 conference records enough of a boost to get a bowl. It only increases the perception of the SEC and it would be essentially the two best Southern football conferences playing as one (Big 12 / SEC). It would contain the best of branding giving the SEC 6 possibly 7 of the top 10 earners and about 13 of the top 20. Quite frankly it would offend me to move to 20 and break into 4 divisions if we took the best 6.

Strategically it locks us into the top spot as a college sports product and gives us essential control of the 2 of the 3 best recruiting regions of which the ACC would share space but not control and the Big 10 would be outside of it doing what they do now, trying to poach a couple of good recruits a year. The PAC sits on the third but can't do anything with it.

Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, West Virginia. That controls the region. Iowa State is an outlier no matter how you cut it. Fine school with good folks but a long way from anyone in the SEC save Missouri.

I think it would enhance the CFP if the PAC schools played internally, the Big 10 did the same and the ACC and SEC did the same. I'm good at that point with expanding to 8 schools. Everyone's #2 goes on the road to face somebody else's #1 for the first round. Then you go to destination sites for the semis and finals and you bracket each conference so that they cannot face their #2 until the finals.

The not quite being sure who had the best conference during the regular season adds to the interest IMO like it once did for bowls.

Might as well pick 6.

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, West Virginia seem like reasonable picks here.

I don't mind the idea of Texas Tech or Oklahoma State, but they don't really bring large fan bases either. That and they've more or less built their brands on large TV payments and associations with others. I think the former 4 have done a better job of standing on their own if not thriving in certain cases.

With that in mind, I think we might as well pick a couple of schools that have greater growth potential going forward...UCF and USF.

That would give us 3 schools in FL and 2 in TX, but Oklahoma might as well be in TX if we're going to consider the fan base and where they get their players from.

Clearly the first four are the most profitable in terms of viewers for streaming. And if those were taken it would leave in association with B.Y.U. enough schools to start a rival conference to the AAC.

I'd say stick at 18.

(07-11-2020 05:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 05:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-10-2020 06:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-10-2020 05:23 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I would agree that Kansas and Oklahoma is a strong next move and that part of the reason for that is a way to integrate that region of the conference a little more.

An older idea from a while back was take 4 from the Big 12...from 4 different states. I'm still good with that honestly as it spreads out the brand a little further.

Ideally, we'd take Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa State.

There are a few reasons for this.

1. The value of Texas and Oklahoma are obvious.

2. It would be great for the overall strength of the basketball league.

3. It would integrate an entire region into the conference. The 4 schools from the old Big 8 are used to each other, and would not only enjoy competing against each other but would aid the political balance by stretching out the loyalties. Fewer in-state rivals included would lessen any potential discord of absorbing large personalities like Texas or Oklahoma.

4. It would help our academic credibility to add 3 more AAU schools.

5. It would put pressure on the Big Ten in their own backyard. What I mean is that you'll have schools neighboring Big Ten schools/states that are flush with cash and promoted by ESPN. I think this would encourage the B1G to move more of their content over to ESPN in order to balance the advantages.

I am not opposed to reasonable expansion westward. I do believe it would be a long range galvanizing move for the conference.

What I am intrigued by, and what I think the SEC should consider doing if it does expand westward, is to deliberately drop any games with the ACC. They only build their credibility by playing us and we gain little. At 18 I think the internal balance could be such that playing a 10 game SEC schedule and 2 tune up games is enough to give 4-6 conference records enough of a boost to get a bowl. It only increases the perception of the SEC and it would be essentially the two best Southern football conferences playing as one (Big 12 / SEC). It would contain the best of branding giving the SEC 6 possibly 7 of the top 10 earners and about 13 of the top 20. Quite frankly it would offend me to move to 20 and break into 4 divisions if we took the best 6.

Strategically it locks us into the top spot as a college sports product and gives us essential control of the 2 of the 3 best recruiting regions of which the ACC would share space but not control and the Big 10 would be outside of it doing what they do now, trying to poach a couple of good recruits a year. The PAC sits on the third but can't do anything with it.

Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, West Virginia. That controls the region. Iowa State is an outlier no matter how you cut it. Fine school with good folks but a long way from anyone in the SEC save Missouri.

I think it would enhance the CFP if the PAC schools played internally, the Big 10 did the same and the ACC and SEC did the same. I'm good at that point with expanding to 8 schools. Everyone's #2 goes on the road to face somebody else's #1 for the first round. Then you go to destination sites for the semis and finals and you bracket each conference so that they cannot face their #2 until the finals.

The not quite being sure who had the best conference during the regular season adds to the interest IMO like it once did for bowls.

Might as well pick 6.

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, West Virginia seem like reasonable picks here.

I don't mind the idea of Texas Tech or Oklahoma State, but they don't really bring large fan bases either. That and they've more or less built their brands on large TV payments and associations with others. I think the former 4 have done a better job of standing on their own if not thriving in certain cases.

With that in mind, I think we might as well pick a couple of schools that have greater growth potential going forward...UCF and USF.

That would give us 3 schools in FL and 2 in TX, but Oklahoma might as well be in TX if we're going to consider the fan base and where they get their players from.

Clearly the first four are the most profitable in terms of viewers for streaming. And if those were taken it would leave in association with B.Y.U. enough schools to start a rival conference to the AAC.

I'd say stick at 18.

There needs to be a league that crosses between the Mountain and Central Time Zones. The old MWC could have been that league before the realignment of 10 years ago.

Either way...

BYU, Boise State, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and Iowa State

I think you either add San Diego State or Memphis and build a really nice 10 team league.

Because there’s truly no such thing as never, teams might choose to leave the SEC. Sure, Sewanee, Tulane, and Georgia Tech are no longer members but today’s SEC is far different than it was then. I don’t actually think anyone will leave. Even if the B1G offers Missouri membership with immediate equal shares and the chance to pick a partner, I think Missouri stays.

0.1% chance to leave: LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida
0.1% - 0.5% chance to leave: Texas A&M, Arkansas, Kentucky, South Carolina
0.5% - 1% chance to leave: Missouri, Vanderbilt

I’m going to assume, for this thread, Missouri and Vanderbilt leave and everyone else stays. Missouri would only leave for the B1G and Vanderbilt could go to either the B1G or ACC. Most likely scenario is Missouri to the B1G and Vanderbilt to the ACC. The B1G knows they need some firepower and bring in Missouri with Kansas, Oklahoma, and Iowa St. The SEC, now at 12, adds Texas, Texas Tech, Florida St, Clemson, North Carolina St, and Virginia Tech. The ACC, now at 10, adds Vanderbilt with West Virginia, Cincinnati, Memphis, Central Florida, South Florida, Temple, and Baylor. The PAC adds Houston, TCU, Oklahoma St, and Kansas St.

PAC
West: Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St, California, Stanford, USC, UCLA
East: Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, Colorado, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, TCU, Houston

B1G
South: Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, Iowa St
West: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
East: Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Maryland, Rutgers

SEC
West: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi
South: Mississippi St, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida
East: Kentucky, Virginia Tech, North Carolina St, South Carolina, Clemson, Florida St

ACC (Notre Dame remains non-football member)
East: Baylor, Cincinnati, Memphis, Vanderbilt, Central Florida, South Florida
Atlantic: Louisville, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Temple, Syracuse, Boston College
Coastal: Miami, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia

If Vanderbilt's joining the ACC then it also means that Notre Dame is joining the ACC in full and not as a partial anymore. In that case, the ACC stops at 16. The SEC would then offer Texas Tech to get Texas (and perhaps offer non-football spots to Tulane and Rice). The B1G goes to 18 with Mizzou, KU, OU and ISU and stop there as there would be no more room to expand. The PAC remains the same. Everyone's happy except for those left out of the power group.

Big 18: Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa State, Nebraska, Iowa
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Michigan State
Indiana, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland

SEC: Texas Tech, Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State
Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky, South Carolina
(Rice, Tulane)

ACC: Vanderbilt, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville
Notre Dame, Boston College, Miami, Wake Forest
Florida State, Clemson, Virginia Tech, NC State
Duke, UNC, Virginia, Georgia Tech