(02-05-2023 03:19 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  

(02-05-2023 02:27 PM)JSUCleburneslim Wrote:  

(02-05-2023 09:36 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Almost amazing how little info on meetings was leaked.

Perhaps there is no information to leak.

...maybe, but... ...waaaaaay back on the first post/link that kicked this thread off, the title and sub-title of the article was:

"Gonzaga's candidacy, Pac-12's future, Texas and Oklahoma exit plans on deck with Big 12 brass set to meet
There are a lot of moving pieces for the Big 12 to consider at its upcoming meeting"

...now, lots of stuff may have just been 'shelved', but... I think with the 'limbo' the PAC is currently in with their media deal, if the BigXII EVER wanted to make a move (or two), it would be now...

...AND it would give any PAC institutions bailing out to the XII an 'excuse' of sorts... "well, the PAC couldn't get it together with the media deal, so we had to make a move we have been contemplating for a while anyway..." ...or words to that effect.

If truly nothing big happened (other than the OUT deal to remain until '25), you would think writers would just come back and indicate as such... but NOTHING about Gonzaga is perhaps the most perplexing, as that seemed to be the 'main theme' for the meeting... I think the OUT deal was pretty much cut and dried prior to the meeting, but they just officially noted it...

So overall, to ME, anyway, the silence is deafening...

I think most everyone involved knows that the time is now.

And regardless of whether actual offers are on the table, I'd be downright shocked if the various PAC schools are not having a LOT of conversations with various conferences right now.

(02-05-2023 02:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-05-2023 02:42 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-05-2023 02:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-05-2023 02:23 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-05-2023 01:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  If I could turn back the clock, I would like to see six 12 team conferences:
2011 Pac 12
2010 Big 10 + Rutgers
2010 Big 12 -CU + BYU (Pac 12 would never take BYU and CU fits better in Pac)
2010 SEC
2004 ACC + UCF (instead of adding BC for #12)
2005 Big East - Rutgers but keeping BC (WVU, SU, Pitt, UL, UC, USF, UConn, BC) + TCU, UH, Temple, Notre Dame

Big 10 taking Nebraska from the Big 12 was the trigger that really blew everything up.

I might argue that the Big8 becoming the B12 was the mistake.

I also think the Maryland move still would have happened.

But I agree with you concerning smaller, regional conferences.

Both of you are missing the point of larger conferences, strength in bargaining, and elimination of options for networks. As streaming takes more and more and offers less, being able to command the best brands OTA actually creates premium values, but only if the options are limited. Hence a monster SEC and a monster B1G whose brands command a premium and if loaded with more brand names can insulate themselves against the ravages of streaming. Whether it's a Super 2 plus 1, or a Super 2 (The old P5 condensed) plus P2 (The new G5) larger means less leverage for streaming services and networks to drive down our values. It also means less redundant overhead and less redundant commercial property and more money for all of the schools involved.

This ain't yesterday, not even 30 years ago, not even the last 10 years. This is now and now is why Texas, Oklahoma, Southern Cal, and UCLA got the hell out of dodge and into Ft. Apache.

Nostalgia : )

But, I do think you are right that football money combined with media demands of more content = larger conferences.

I just don't think 1 conference taking 4 schools from one state was a good idea under those past circumstances, even a state as big as Texas. We can debate causes, but that really does look like it created a lot of internal conflict, among other internal and external political pressures and issues.

Imagine if the SEC would have taken TX and TAMU, back then.

I think the Big 8 still exists.

Texas and A&M had been in discussions with the SEC since 1987 and the first six schools which the SEC targeted, before the press and deniability were involved were in 1990-1: Arkansas, Clemson, Florida State, a then silent partner of Texas: Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas A&M. Had Texas and Texas A&M joined in 1992 you are right that the Big 8 would have survived, but minus Oklahoma who would have joined with Texas, and they would have combined more amicably with some of the SWC schools for their survival. Papa Bowden would have been in with Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma and Clemson would have been the one with the hard decision to make as they only had tepid interest at the time, and may have included themselves to spy? Not sure either way. Frank Broyles and Arkansas would have been happy hogs in slop, and if Clemson says no South Carolina is still in.

The question then would have been what allure would the ACC hold without FSU? Would their top schools join the Big East, or would the two merge? Would the Big 10 go hard after Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland and Notre Dame early? At the time the SEC would have been having a nirvana moment. They would have still been interested in North Carolina and had plans for a defensive move to 20 if the Big 10 did move and those plans included Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina and Duke. At the time Virginia Tech had entered discussions and West Virginia had applied, but both were considered too far away from the SEC core.

But to wit, the SEC has now outright acquired 4 of its original 6 targets, and 2 more are strongly back on the radar. In the end Missouri and South Carolina will prove to be the ultimate beneficiaries in the delay. This my friend should demonstrate to you just how visionary Roy Kramer was in terms of who to take, and who later to take to acquire them anyway. South Carolina was rationalized as a new state market and a bridge to North Carolina.

The SEC has never taken its eye off of what it must do to become a dominant regional conference in every way. I know it's hard for those outside the region to comprehend, but the SEC saw the Southwest as its best natural fit and has never had designs or desires for the Northeast or West, or really anyone in the Plains states outside of OU. Missouri is clearly a strategic move, and does make Kansas a possible exception. But to your point I think that Pitt or Syracuse (both AAU at the time), Notre Dame, Maryland and Virginia would have been in the Big 10 by now if the original 6 of the SEC had all said yes. North Carolina and Duke would be the next two in.

This is very interesting. I think I want to start another thread on this : )

Edit:

https://csnbbs.com/thread-964654-post-18...id18763487