(03-25-2021 12:58 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Big 12 expansion far more likely than major defectors to the B1G or Pac 12.

Expand with who? The B12 can't add anyone except at a per school LOSS. Why would ESPN "promote" someone from the AAC and pay them MORE than that team is already being paid? Certainly no P5 team is moving to the B12. Who adds "value"??
BYU?....ESPN already has them. Boise? They are worth $30+M per year? I don't think ESPN would pay that!

(03-25-2021 12:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-25-2021 11:03 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-25-2021 09:54 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(03-25-2021 09:34 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-25-2021 09:25 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  SEC would gladly go to 16 if it mean Texas was coming. Like JrSEC has said many times, the SEC would have two strong divisions in not only Football but baseball and basketball too with the additions of UT and Tech.

Again, I don't understand the mythical "Power" Texas commands, when is the last time they actually did something that no other program in the Big12 wanted them to do and they did it anyway?

Now there will be hurdles to work out such as the LHN deal, but I'm sure ESPN (having both LHN/SECN rights) can work something out. Perhaps they turn LHN into the SECW channel and the SECN turns into the SECEast channel? But as far as money and regional rivalries go.. Texas into the SEC would be checkmate in realignment for awhile.

I also wonder if ou did head to the BIG, will the struggle the way NEB has? Same kids from the state of Texas that flock to Norman.. would they pause and give schools like Arkansas, Mizzu and atm harder looks knowing that there are better travel destinations for families to attend?

"would they pause and give schools like Arkansas, Mizzu and atm harder looks"

And, of course, Texas could be a recruiting beneficiary as well, since the premise of the OP is that Texas wouldn't leave the Big 12.

The main premise, though, was that OU and KS would leave. That was a "what if" question for me, not an opinion as to what they actually would do. IMO, both OU and UT are better off where they are, and neither is likely to leave the B12. And, if they don't leave, nobody leaves (because the others have no options).

I don't think OU fans would be any more keen on their team playing the likes of Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois than Texas fans would be.

Yep..that is a big reason why as a UT fan I would want nothing to do with the BIG. Sure neb could be fun to play every season but playing MN, WI, IL, NW, etc.. no thank you.

I’ll be honest: I can’t stand this argument that we see all too often in conference realignment where people just throw in the most unattractive opponents of a conference as if the other high profile opponents don’t exist. It’s a classic trope. Texas plays Iowa *State* plus Kansas and Kansas State every year today, but it really wouldn’t want to play Iowa? Does West Virginia (a school geographically farther away from Texas than every Big Ten school except for Rutgers and Maryland) somehow make more sense as an annual opponent than Minnesota? For some reason, people love bringing up all of these Midwestern Big Ten schools as supposedly unattractive opponents (all big time flagships and/or top academic schools, by the way), but if someone proposes a move to the SEC, you never hear, “Oh man - why would Texas want to play Mississippi State, Vanderbilt and Kentucky?” The reality is that you could take the four *least* valuable schools in the Big Ten and they’d actually be far more valuable than the four least valuable schools in any other conference.

I’m not saying that Texas is better off going to the Big Ten than just staying where it is in the Big 12, but this trope always drives me nuts because it’s totally disingenuous.

The bolded part is pure fantasy Frank. Rutgers, Purdue, Northwestern, and Indiana as compared to Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Missouri, and Ole Miss would be the nearer comparison, but pick any four I don't care. The SEC outdraws the Big 10 by nearly a million and a half per game and in spite of your 10 million current advantage in media revenue the SEC schools on average still out earn the Big 10. And for those not keeping up, Mississippi State over the past few years has outdraw Ole Miss. It's true Starkville is a small Southern town near a gambling casino, but it's also 90 miles from Tuscaloosa, and reasonably close to Auburn, L.S.U. Vanderbilt and of course Ole Miss.

The bottom four in the Big 10 are not worth more than the bottom four in the SEC and you will have a deuce difficult time getting actual numbers to back your claims.

Hmmm... when I say "value", I'm talking about conference realignment value. That's putting together TV value, sports value, academics, markets, and all of the factors that the university presidents would examine. It's not just the pure fan base support (albeit that's important).

Let's put it this way: would the ACC (which is the league that overlaps both the Big Ten and SEC the most) rather poach the bottom 4 of the Big Ten or the bottom 4 of the SEC?

IMHO, Ole Miss is still more valuable than Mississippi State regardless of recent attendance trends as a flagship school, but I don't think it matters that much for this analysis.

Indiana and Kentucky are both basketball blue bloods with Indiana higher in terms of academics and markets/population but Kentucky having higher current athletic value with its more consistent basketball program. They essentially cancel each other out.

Northwestern and Vanderbilt are also similar in profile as elite private institutions, but Northwestern has the slight edge on pretty much every front: higher-ranked academically, larger home market, and consistently better in football in recent years.

Missouri is actually quite a valuable school - I'd argue that it has higher conference realignment value than Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Arkansas and South Carolina in the SEC. It's a flagship school with AAU academic membership, a good fan base and has two major markets (Kansas City and St. Louis).

However, I think you're underestimating the conference realignment value of schools like Purdue and Rutgers. Once again, these are great academic schools that bring in large markets. The ACC would absolutely take both of those schools over Ole Miss and Mississippi State.

Now, I understand that your position is generally that markets and academics shouldn't matter quite as much in today's world and it's much more about intractable fan bases and support. However, I do think that they're still quite important in *filling out* a league. (We're not talking about the marquee headliners here.)

For the top of a league, I take more of your position. For instance, I don't think that the Big Ten would care much about the academics or markets if it can add Oklahoma while AAU membership is irrelevant regarding Notre Dame (whereas they were critical in adding Rutgers).

(03-25-2021 12:16 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(03-25-2021 10:38 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  IMO, Oklahoma and Kansas in the BIG would be a home run expansion. Football blue blood plus basketball blue blood. It practically guarantees that the BIG will always be the #1 or #2 conference in the two major revenue generating sports. The only hesitancy for the BIG would have been the academic profile...but the expansion with Nebraska already allowed the conference to cross that bridge with hesitant academics. Sooners and Jayhawks invest in athletics and would complement the BIG.

With regards to UT-Austin, I could see them sticking-it-out in their own B12 conference. The other members of the B12 have sufficient football and basketball competency...the conference could get good bowl commitments and a strong media contract. The B12 would remain in the power conference revenue distribution formula...academics don’t like kicking-out members of the club. Texas is the poster child of what club members aspire to achieve (brand, revenues, etc.). I really don’t see the SEC, or any power conference, trying to pressure Texas into their fold. Similar to Notre Dame, Texas can write its own rules. The Longhorns will never struggle to make a compelling schedule for their fans.

If this scenario (OU & KU to BIG; while the remaining B12 negotiates contracts as an 8 member conference) passes, these B12 schools will likely need to commit for another 10 to 12 years. That would work well for Texas’ LHN commitment. It’s also an opportunity to see what develops with streaming (whether the winners will be conferences or individual brands).

I think this is pretty much "spot on." I certainly could be wrong but I just don't see UT joining a conference with geographic problems for them (ACC/PAC) or where they can't be "king" (SEC). In this scenario, I believe UT would most likely try to make a ND type of arrangement with the B12 and try "independence." They could then be the "national" program that they "aspire" to be with flexible "national" scheduling while also scheduling some of their former SWC mates for other OCC games to keep a Texas slant. ESPN could "review" the LHN to address any necessary financial matters (after all they would probably pay the remaining Big12 less so it would all even out, or even a "plus" for ESPN). The only big problem with this scenario would occur if the playoffs become "conference champions only".
However the MAJOR question may be whether ESPN is willing to let OU (and to a lesser extent KU) "leave" the B12 for the FOX B1G, or in other words what is ESPN willing to do (financially) to keep the B12 intact.

IMO Texas will have options, regardless of what OU decides. I don’t believe that BIG/PAC/ACC are very good options, but that doesn’t mean that the SEC will be in a commanding position relative to the Longhorns. Texas can still lead a nice, smaller B12 for another decade.

To me, the toss-up issue in the OP is Oklahoma’s choice to jump to the BIG. IMO Kansas should jump immediately (if they get an offer from the BIG), but I’m not convinced about Oklahoma. Currently, the B12 is a great home for the Sooners. They can dominate in football, they can play their true rivals regularly (with the exception of Nebraska, but Huskers football has diminished during the past two decades), and they’re geographically/culturally/academically at the center of their conference. Leaving may occur via some stealth relationships amongst academics (like Penn State joining the BIG). The AD would have a much easier time creating value via the B12. Academics PTB can spin-a-yarn to the boosters...that the B12 media contract offers are not acceptable or the Longhorns are unreliable.

(03-25-2021 01:35 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-25-2021 12:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-25-2021 11:03 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-25-2021 09:54 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(03-25-2021 09:34 AM)ken d Wrote:  "would they pause and give schools like Arkansas, Mizzu and atm harder looks"

And, of course, Texas could be a recruiting beneficiary as well, since the premise of the OP is that Texas wouldn't leave the Big 12.

The main premise, though, was that OU and KS would leave. That was a "what if" question for me, not an opinion as to what they actually would do. IMO, both OU and UT are better off where they are, and neither is likely to leave the B12. And, if they don't leave, nobody leaves (because the others have no options).

I don't think OU fans would be any more keen on their team playing the likes of Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois than Texas fans would be.

Yep..that is a big reason why as a UT fan I would want nothing to do with the BIG. Sure neb could be fun to play every season but playing MN, WI, IL, NW, etc.. no thank you.

I’ll be honest: I can’t stand this argument that we see all too often in conference realignment where people just throw in the most unattractive opponents of a conference as if the other high profile opponents don’t exist. It’s a classic trope. Texas plays Iowa *State* plus Kansas and Kansas State every year today, but it really wouldn’t want to play Iowa? Does West Virginia (a school geographically farther away from Texas than every Big Ten school except for Rutgers and Maryland) somehow make more sense as an annual opponent than Minnesota? For some reason, people love bringing up all of these Midwestern Big Ten schools as supposedly unattractive opponents (all big time flagships and/or top academic schools, by the way), but if someone proposes a move to the SEC, you never hear, “Oh man - why would Texas want to play Mississippi State, Vanderbilt and Kentucky?” The reality is that you could take the four *least* valuable schools in the Big Ten and they’d actually be far more valuable than the four least valuable schools in any other conference.

I’m not saying that Texas is better off going to the Big Ten than just staying where it is in the Big 12, but this trope always drives me nuts because it’s totally disingenuous.

The bolded part is pure fantasy Frank. Rutgers, Purdue, Northwestern, and Indiana as compared to Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Missouri, and Ole Miss would be the nearer comparison, but pick any four I don't care. The SEC outdraws the Big 10 by nearly a million and a half per game and in spite of your 10 million current advantage in media revenue the SEC schools on average still out earn the Big 10. And for those not keeping up, Mississippi State over the past few years has outdraw Ole Miss. It's true Starkville is a small Southern town near a gambling casino, but it's also 90 miles from Tuscaloosa, and reasonably close to Auburn, L.S.U. Vanderbilt and of course Ole Miss.

The bottom four in the Big 10 are not worth more than the bottom four in the SEC and you will have a deuce difficult time getting actual numbers to back your claims.

Hmmm... when I say "value", I'm talking about conference realignment value. That's putting together TV value, sports value, academics, markets, and all of the factors that the university presidents would examine. It's not just the pure fan base support (albeit that's important).

Let's put it this way: would the ACC (which is the league that overlaps both the Big Ten and SEC the most) rather poach the bottom 4 of the Big Ten or the bottom 4 of the SEC?

IMHO, Ole Miss is still more valuable than Mississippi State regardless of recent attendance trends as a flagship school, but I don't think it matters that much for this analysis.

Indiana and Kentucky are both basketball blue bloods with Indiana higher in terms of academics and markets/population but Kentucky having higher current athletic value with its more consistent basketball program. They essentially cancel each other out.

Northwestern and Vanderbilt are also similar in profile as elite private institutions, but Northwestern has the slight edge on pretty much every front: higher-ranked academically, larger home market, and consistently better in football in recent years.

Missouri is actually quite a valuable school - I'd argue that it has higher conference realignment value than Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Arkansas and South Carolina in the SEC. It's a flagship school with AAU academic membership, a good fan base and has two major markets (Kansas City and St. Louis).

However, I think you're underestimating the conference realignment value of schools like Purdue and Rutgers. Once again, these are great academic schools that bring in large markets. The ACC would absolutely take both of those schools over Ole Miss and Mississippi State.

Now, I understand that your position is generally that markets and academics shouldn't matter quite as much in today's world and it's much more about intractable fan bases and support. However, I do think that they're still quite important in *filling out* a league. (We're not talking about the marquee headliners here.)

For the top of a league, I take more of your position. For instance, I don't think that the Big Ten would care much about the academics or markets if it can add Oklahoma while AAU membership is irrelevant regarding Notre Dame (whereas they were critical in adding Rutgers).

There are a variety of perspectives that go into the realignment equation. I'm sure the ACC would love to add Penn State and get Maryland back, but of the competition laggards Purdue is the only Big 10 laggard I believe they would take. But frankly most laggards in the SEC aren't ACC neighbors.

You touched on who it is that conferences value and that's fair. But in that regard Missouri lags in most SEC metrics. Old relationships with founding members in the Mississippi schools would be more valuable for the same reason Texas prefers in state and near state neighbors. They may not be major rivals but fans go to those games even when they are road games. Missouri people are nice folks and have been welcomed at all SEC venues, but their numbers drop every year mostly due to having no history with the SEC. Our fans like them but we get it. And face it Columbia is an outlier and College Station is as well. But SEC fans line up and donate for away tickets to College Station because the game day atmosphere is great. There's not much game day atmosphere in Missouri. Now Missouri is an AAU school in a state of 6 million and sure they have value, but apparently that value isn't getting synergy from or creating synergy with the SEC. Both are happy with the current arrangement and nobody is kicking anyone out, but surely you can see the issues with cultural fit. And that's why Texas isn't headed North, and might not head anywhere unless forced to. Are they a Big 10 academic fit? Sure! But really that's where the fit ends.

Now I don't want anyone to think I'm anti Missouri or would want them to leave, but there is no question they have problems marketing the SEC as well as they might be able to market games with Illinois, Iowa, Northwestern, and now Nebraska. And in the end this becomes a financial issue even if the present money is sufficient.

Frank I think we are dealing with a unique situation where fans of the various conferences would have done a better job aligning our sports conferences than the Academic Administrators and the Network executives. After all it is the fans that make it all happen and make it worthwhile.

In the end it will be regional in appeal or it won't last.

(03-25-2021 10:38 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  IMO, Oklahoma and Kansas in the BIG would be a home run expansion. Football blue blood plus basketball blue blood. It practically guarantees that the BIG will always be the #1 or #2 conference in the two major revenue generating sports. The only hesitancy for the BIG would have been the academic profile...but the expansion with Nebraska already allowed the conference to cross that bridge with hesitant academics. Sooners and Jayhawks invest in athletics and would complement the BIG.

With regards to UT-Austin, I could see them sticking-it-out in their own B12 conference. The other members of the B12 have sufficient football and basketball competency...the conference could get good bowl commitments and a strong media contract. The B12 would remain in the power conference revenue distribution formula...academics don’t like kicking-out members of the club. Texas is the poster child of what club members aspire to achieve (brand, revenues, etc.). I really don’t see the SEC, or any power conference, trying to pressure Texas into their fold. Similar to Notre Dame, Texas can write its own rules. The Longhorns will never struggle to make a compelling schedule for their fans.

If this scenario (OU & KU to BIG; while the remaining B12 negotiates contracts as an 8 member conference) passes, these B12 schools will likely need to commit for another 10 to 12 years. That would work well for Texas’ LHN commitment. It’s also an opportunity to see what develops with streaming (whether the winners will be conferences or individual brands).

Actually, the smarter thing for the Big Ten to do, Wahoowa, is wait. If the Big Ten is patient enough, they nab schools from the Big 12 and the ACC. I think that's what Delany was angling for before he decided to retire. The SEC already knows what it wants, and the SEC wouldn't have to contact Texas either. Texas would be contacting them. It is the Big Ten that really needs a good battle plan, and to me, that's waiting on the ACC GOR to expire. With more cards in the mix, the Big Ten can afford to sit back and strategize. This would force the SEC to re-examine their strategy, which could buy the Big Ten some extra time to pull a surprise move.

(03-25-2021 11:53 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Texas would get a great annual slate in the SEC:

TTU, TAMU, Arkansas, and LSU (plus Oklahoma OOC and probably a decent SEC East team)

I don’t think the Big Ten West schedule would be bad either:

Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin plus one of the big Eastern powers

OU is definitely big for Texas, but it's a game that, push come to shove, they would schedule it OOC, unlike how they did TAMU.

Nebraska is to Texas about what LSU is, maybe less. So now, you have got Iowa, Wisconsin, one of PSU/OSU/Michigan vs Arkansas (Arkansas is to Texas what Pittsburgh is to WVU, IMO), and Texas A&M (they are to Texas what Auburn is to Alabama). Two big, bitter rivalries vs slate of decent opponents, but no rivals. That's why I have been saying that the Big Ten needs to be open to the idea of inviting Texas Tech to the conference also, to blunt the SEC's advantage. TTU plus OU plus Nebraska would give the 'Horns some rivals.

(03-25-2021 11:03 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-25-2021 09:54 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(03-25-2021 09:34 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-25-2021 09:25 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(03-25-2021 08:32 AM)ken d Wrote:  ...could that be the end of realignment?

I don't think Texas wants to be in a conference (like the SEC) in which they have no real power. And, if they are also off the table, there's not much left to excite the SEC, except perhaps to poach the ACC (which ESPN might frown on).

Odd as it seems at a time when conferences are expanding, the Big 12 could choose to stand pat at 8 all sports members, and perhaps poach Wichita State for its basketball to get a 16 game double round robin. Even without Oklahoma, they would still be on a par with the SEC in top to bottom football strength, though not close at the very top. They could gamble that the CFP wouldn't strip them of their AQ status as long as they still have the Longhorns.

(03-25-2021 08:50 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  No conference is going past 14 anymore in football. You can't play your other conference mates frequently enough at 16. Also, with the 8-team playoff being an eventuality I don't see Oklahoma diluting their chance of winning a conference championship.

SEC would gladly go to 16 if it mean Texas was coming. Like JrSEC has said many times, the SEC would have two strong divisions in not only Football but baseball and basketball too with the additions of UT and Tech.

Again, I don't understand the mythical "Power" Texas commands, when is the last time they actually did something that no other program in the Big12 wanted them to do and they did it anyway?

Now there will be hurdles to work out such as the LHN deal, but I'm sure ESPN (having both LHN/SECN rights) can work something out. Perhaps they turn LHN into the SECW channel and the SECN turns into the SECEast channel? But as far as money and regional rivalries go.. Texas into the SEC would be checkmate in realignment for awhile.

I also wonder if ou did head to the BIG, will the struggle the way NEB has? Same kids from the state of Texas that flock to Norman.. would they pause and give schools like Arkansas, Mizzu and atm harder looks knowing that there are better travel destinations for families to attend?

"would they pause and give schools like Arkansas, Mizzu and atm harder looks"

And, of course, Texas could be a recruiting beneficiary as well, since the premise of the OP is that Texas wouldn't leave the Big 12.

The main premise, though, was that OU and KS would leave. That was a "what if" question for me, not an opinion as to what they actually would do. IMO, both OU and UT are better off where they are, and neither is likely to leave the B12. And, if they don't leave, nobody leaves (because the others have no options).

I don't think OU fans would be any more keen on their team playing the likes of Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois than Texas fans would be.

Yep..that is a big reason why as a UT fan I would want nothing to do with the BIG. Sure neb could be fun to play every season but playing MN, WI, IL, NW, etc.. no thank you.

I’ll be honest: I can’t stand this argument that we see all too often in conference realignment where people just throw in the most unattractive opponents of a conference as if the other high profile opponents don’t exist. It’s a classic trope. Texas plays Iowa *State* plus Kansas and Kansas State every year today, but it really wouldn’t want to play Iowa? Does West Virginia (a school geographically farther away from Texas than every Big Ten school except for Rutgers and Maryland) somehow make more sense as an annual opponent than Minnesota? For some reason, people love bringing up all of these Midwestern Big Ten schools as supposedly unattractive opponents (all big time flagships and/or top academic schools, by the way), but if someone proposes a move to the SEC, you never hear, “Oh man - why would Texas want to play Mississippi State, Vanderbilt and Kentucky?” The reality is that you could take the four *least* valuable schools in the Big Ten and they’d actually be far more valuable than the four least valuable schools in any other conference.

I’m not saying that Texas is better off going to the Big Ten than just staying where it is in the Big 12, but this trope always drives me nuts because it’s totally disingenuous.

You seem to switch gears there, from talking about how attractive an opponent is, to talking about the "value" of a school.

Purdue might be - is, in fact - more "valuable" than say Mississippi State as a university - much higher academic standing, endowment, and enrollment for example - but IMO Mississippi State is a much more attractive football opponent to Texas, simply because it is a fellow southern school. There is an athletic cultural commonality between Texas and Mississippi State that just isn't there with Purdue. If Mississippi State visits Texas, Texas fans will see them as a bird of a similar feather. Whereas Purdue is someone you would only play in a bowl game.

That would be true for Texas with regards to basically all SEC teams compared to B1G teams.

(03-25-2021 08:32 AM)ken d Wrote:  ...could that be the end of realignment?

I don't think Texas wants to be in a conference (like the SEC) in which they have no real power. And, if they are also off the table, there's not much left to excite the SEC, except perhaps to poach the ACC (which ESPN might frown on).

Odd as it seems at a time when conferences are expanding, the Big 12 could choose to stand pat at 8 all sports members, and perhaps poach Wichita State for its basketball to get a 16 game double round robin. Even without Oklahoma, they would still be on a par with the SEC in top to bottom football strength, though not close at the very top. They could gamble that the CFP wouldn't strip them of their AQ status as long as they still have the Longhorns.

OU has won six straight Big 12 football titles and has four playoff appearances. I wonder if they can keep that up in the Big Ten? I doubt it. For OU to leave the ten team Big 12 and join a 16 team Big 10, I would think there would need to be an expansion to an eight team playoff. OU has made the playoffs four times in the Big 12. They could find it very difficult in the Big 10, without a playoff expansion.

If I was Texas I would put an end to the Red River Showdown. OU lives on Texas football recruiting and it helps to play games in Texas. I would imagine that Texas Tech, Baylor and TCU would do the same. I do not know why the Big 10 would want Kansas football? Just to get Kansas basketball?

Another problem is that Kansas and Oklahoma have a combined population of 7 million people. While Kansas basketball and OU football are both proven brands, both states don't bring a lot. If the Big 10 were going to expand to 16, then they need the University of Texas. OU and Texas would be a home run, assuming that the playoffs were expanding to eight teams.

(03-25-2021 09:58 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-25-2021 08:32 AM)ken d Wrote:  ...could that be the end of realignment?

I don't think Texas wants to be in a conference (like the SEC) in which they have no real power. And, if they are also off the table, there's not much left to excite the SEC, except perhaps to poach the ACC (which ESPN might frown on).

Odd as it seems at a time when conferences are expanding, the Big 12 could choose to stand pat at 8 all sports members, and perhaps poach Wichita State for its basketball to get a 16 game double round robin. Even without Oklahoma, they would still be on a par with the SEC in top to bottom football strength, though not close at the very top. They could gamble that the CFP wouldn't strip them of their AQ status as long as they still have the Longhorns.

OU has won six straight Big 12 football titles and has four playoff appearances. I wonder if they can keep that up in the Big Ten? I doubt it. For OU to leave the ten team Big 12 and join a 16 team Big 10, I would think there would need to be an expansion to an eight team playoff. OU has made the playoffs four times in the Big 12. They could find it very difficult in the Big 10, without a playoff expansion.

If I was Texas I would put an end to the Red River Showdown. OU lives on Texas football recruiting and it helps to play games in Texas. I would imagine that Texas Tech, Baylor and TCU would do the same. I do not know why the Big 10 would want Kansas football? Just to get Kansas basketball?

Another problem is that Kansas and Oklahoma have a combined population of 7 million people. While Kansas basketball and OU football are both proven brands, both states don't bring a lot. If the Big 10 were going to expand to 16, then they need the University of Texas. OU and Texas would be a home run, assuming that the playoffs were expanding to eight teams.

Well obviously if the Big 10 could get a pair of Big 12 schools, Texas and Oklahoma is the obvious choice with Texas and Kansas the next most desirable pair. The assumption is that Texas doesn't want to give up power to be in the Big 10 and that the Big 10 grabs Oklahoma. After that, assuming Notre Dame and all of the ACC schools are off the table, the only other reasonable Big 12 choice is Kansas. Maybe if they allow no divisions the Big 10 could add just Oklahoma.

As for adding Texas Tech to get Texas, no the Big 10 has academic standards. We can't help it if the SEC doesn't and the ACC gave those up because they absolutely refuse to allow UConn in the conference. The other issue is allow Texas to bring along Texas Tech or any other undesirables and you give Texas another vote for any disputes between them and the Eastern Big Ten members as well as more travel (sure Oklahoma would vote with Texas and force more travel but they bring value to the conference and they aren't as poor academically). The Big 10 doesn't need Texas (or Oklahoma). If either come to the Big 10, it will be on our terms. Otherwise, we'll stay a 14 team conference.

(03-25-2021 10:10 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-25-2021 09:58 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-25-2021 08:32 AM)ken d Wrote:  ...could that be the end of realignment?

I don't think Texas wants to be in a conference (like the SEC) in which they have no real power. And, if they are also off the table, there's not much left to excite the SEC, except perhaps to poach the ACC (which ESPN might frown on).

Odd as it seems at a time when conferences are expanding, the Big 12 could choose to stand pat at 8 all sports members, and perhaps poach Wichita State for its basketball to get a 16 game double round robin. Even without Oklahoma, they would still be on a par with the SEC in top to bottom football strength, though not close at the very top. They could gamble that the CFP wouldn't strip them of their AQ status as long as they still have the Longhorns.

OU has won six straight Big 12 football titles and has four playoff appearances. I wonder if they can keep that up in the Big Ten? I doubt it. For OU to leave the ten team Big 12 and join a 16 team Big 10, I would think there would need to be an expansion to an eight team playoff. OU has made the playoffs four times in the Big 12. They could find it very difficult in the Big 10, without a playoff expansion.

If I was Texas I would put an end to the Red River Showdown. OU lives on Texas football recruiting and it helps to play games in Texas. I would imagine that Texas Tech, Baylor and TCU would do the same. I do not know why the Big 10 would want Kansas football? Just to get Kansas basketball?

Another problem is that Kansas and Oklahoma have a combined population of 7 million people. While Kansas basketball and OU football are both proven brands, both states don't bring a lot. If the Big 10 were going to expand to 16, then they need the University of Texas. OU and Texas would be a home run, assuming that the playoffs were expanding to eight teams.

Well obviously if the Big 10 could get a pair of Big 12 schools, Texas and Oklahoma is the obvious choice with Texas and Kansas the next most desirable pair. The assumption is that Texas doesn't want to give up power to be in the Big 10 and that the Big 10 grabs Oklahoma. After that, assuming Notre Dame and all of the ACC schools are off the table, the only other reasonable Big 12 choice is Kansas. Maybe if they allow no divisions the Big 10 could add just Oklahoma.

As for adding Texas Tech to get Texas, no the Big 10 has academic standards. We can't help it if the SEC doesn't and the ACC gave those up because they absolutely refuse to allow UConn in the conference. The other issue is allow Texas to bring along Texas Tech or any other undesirables and you give Texas another vote for any disputes between them and the Eastern Big Ten members as well as more travel (sure Oklahoma would vote with Texas and force more travel but they bring value to the conference and they aren't as poor academically). The Big 10 doesn't need Texas (or Oklahoma). If either come to the Big 10, it will be on our terms. Otherwise, we'll stay a 14 team conference.

It's that kind of thinking that dooms the Big Ten. You act like the Big Ten is the Ivy League. We both know that they are not, and Nebraska proves it. TTU might be an undesirable, but they would bring Texas to your league. Of you are willing to admit Oklahoma, it seems very hypocritical not to be willing to invite Texas Tech.

If this happened your two sub-conferences would be:

Maryland
Rutgers
Penn State
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Indiana
Purdue

Illinois
Northwestern
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Nebraska
Iowa
Kansas
Oklahoma

Not bad at all. Don’t expect much crossover fun in football. Which kind of sucks for a team like Michigan that likes a home game in Evanston more often than not.

I say keep an eye on the situation at Nebraska. The Big Ten and the old guard are completely sour on them and don't want them there anymore after the stunts they pulled. No matter what people say, the Big 12 would welcome back Nebraska with open arms as they would add value to a future TV deal.

If the goal is to get Oklahoma, the Big Ten does not have to invite Kansas as part of the deal and I will tell you why.

I believe the Big Ten and other conferences will push for the NCAA to make permanent changes to the CCG rules. After that, the Big Ten will get rid of divisions and just have its top 2 teams play in its CCG. After that, the obsession with always expanding with an even number of teams goes away.

Now I could see Texas having enough leverage that they could demand they bring along a partner to join the Big Ten, but only Texas. If Oklahoma demands a partner as part of the deal,the Big Ten can just say no deal. We will only take schools we want.

(03-26-2021 05:55 AM)goofus Wrote:  If the goal is to get Oklahoma, the Big Ten does not have to invite Kansas as part of the deal and I will tell you why.

I believe the Big Ten and other conferences will push for the NCAA to make permanent changes to the CCG rules. After that, the Big Ten will get rid of divisions and just have its top 2 teams play in its CCG. After that, the obsession with always expanding with an even number of teams goes away.

Now I could see Texas having enough leverage that they could demand they bring along a partner to join the Big Ten, but only Texas. If Oklahoma demands a partner as part of the deal, the Big Ten can just say no deal. We will only take schools we want.

If the NCAA is forced by the autonomous conferences to back down on its requirement for equal divisions, I expect there to be a push for large conferences to have a four team conference tournament instead of an eight team CFP. That would give them each two more attractive post season games for which they don't have to share the revenue with anyone else.

(03-25-2021 10:56 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  It's that kind of thinking that dooms the Big Ten. You act like the Big Ten is the Ivy League. We both know that they are not, and Nebraska proves it. TTU might be an undesirable, but they would bring Texas to your league. Of you are willing to admit Oklahoma, it seems very hypocritical not to be willing to invite Texas Tech.

Not really. Oklahoma - like Nebraska was believed to 10 years ago - compensates for low by B1G standards academics with a blue-blood football program. Texas Tech does not.

(03-26-2021 02:11 AM)Realignment Wrote:  I say keep an eye on the situation at Nebraska. The Big Ten and the old guard are completely sour on them and don't want them there anymore after the stunts they pulled. No matter what people say, the Big 12 would welcome back Nebraska with open arms as they would add value to a future TV deal.

Yes, the Big 12 would welcome back Nebraska. But there's no sign that Nebraska as an institution wants to return. Sure, a lot of fans do, but the power that be want that extra B1G money.

As for the B1G, I'm sure they are disappointed in Nebraska. But there's zero chance they would try to oust them.

If the Big invited Olk and Kansas the world would rotate on its axis and both of those states would be at the bottom of the deep new sea.

Really, I see no reason for the B1G to invite anyone. They are making money hand over fist.

Sure, if Texas or Notre Dame knocks at the door, but other than that, why bother?

(03-26-2021 08:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-25-2021 10:56 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  It's that kind of thinking that dooms the Big Ten. You act like the Big Ten is the Ivy League. We both know that they are not, and Nebraska proves it. TTU might be an undesirable, but they would bring Texas to your league. Of you are willing to admit Oklahoma, it seems very hypocritical not to be willing to invite Texas Tech.

Not really. Oklahoma - like Nebraska was believed to 10 years ago - compensates for low by B1G standards academics with a blue-blood football program. Texas Tech does not.

Not to mention ...

USN&WR

Nebraska and Oklahoma, tied for #133

Texas Tech #217

I'm not proud of Nebraska but Texas Tech makes Nebraska look like an Ivy League school.

BTW, Oklahoma State is #187.

(03-26-2021 09:41 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-26-2021 08:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-25-2021 10:56 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  It's that kind of thinking that dooms the Big Ten. You act like the Big Ten is the Ivy League. We both know that they are not, and Nebraska proves it. TTU might be an undesirable, but they would bring Texas to your league. Of you are willing to admit Oklahoma, it seems very hypocritical not to be willing to invite Texas Tech.

Not really. Oklahoma - like Nebraska was believed to 10 years ago - compensates for low by B1G standards academics with a blue-blood football program. Texas Tech does not.

Not to mention ...

USN&WR

Nebraska and Oklahoma, tied for #133

Texas Tech #217

I'm not proud of Nebraska but Texas Tech makes Nebraska look like an Ivy League school.

BTW, Oklahoma State is #187.

Wow, I didn't know the gap between OU and TT was so large. That's eye-opening. Texas Tech is bad by any standards.

No wonder Houston fans gnash their teeth at Texas Tech being in a P5 conference, LOL.