(03-18-2013 10:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:51 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:36 AM)buffdog Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 08:15 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 08:05 AM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  I think Texas is more concerned about their power being taken away than the money. Lets be honest here, Texas has a lot of power over the other Texas schools in the conference.

If Texas has so much "power", why did it get screwed out of a national title shot during the weird 3 team tie-breaker in 2008? How was Texas Tech able to stay off of the LHN?

This whole talk about Texas and controlling the Big 12 is silly. Texas has 1 vote.

The real question is this.....who are the 2 teams most likely to be invited by the Big 12 if all of the ACC teams are a no-go?

Go after California market and invite Fresno State and SDSU. It is silly to leave the biggest tv market to the PAC12 by the contract conferences. The SEC/ACC is in the Florida market. The B12/SEC is in the Texas market. Even if the ACC is a go, then the B12 would have teams coast to coast for tv sets.

The entire theory behind markets is dumb and illogical. Conferences should make a list of like-minded schools in their regions. They should then refine the list to schools that are located in recruiting hot beds. Then finally, conferences should determine the number of people that are interested in watching those schools play, and how passionate their fans are, and the schools on the list with the most fans, and the most passionate fans should be added (taking growth trends into account).

Hey, I wish they would do that. I would have loved to have seen Clemson and Florida State in the SEC. But the carrots being dangled by the networks will preclude reason.

It's not exactly like they didn't TA&M isn't exactly a nobody when it comes to football*, and Texas isn't exactly way outside SEC territory.

*Not only did they win the Heisman this year, but they are "the home of the 12th man."

MIzzou isn't as great of a fit, but they aren't a random add either.

(03-18-2013 10:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:48 AM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  First, I dont know where the Lafayette Louisiana paper is getting their info from. They could be right, but I'm not convinced this story is accurate.

If it is accurate, and the Big 12 needs more teams, one would think UConn and Cincinnati are next on the board. A Big 12 network would be on cable in New York and in metro Cincinnati. West Virginia would have some rivals reasonably close by.

What you say is valid. But I think the Texas crowd would ask, "One long trip North is bad enough, why would we want to have to make it 3 times every few years?"

Any trip past Oklahoma is a long one in the Big 12 for Texas schools.

(03-18-2013 10:43 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 08:26 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 08:17 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The thing to me, if that is the case about the money, where they would get the same per team payout at 12 as they do 10- and the tv money remains the same- there is no downfall or reason for them NOT to expand. Could be bad news for some conferences. it'll be interesting to see if Fox tries to inject some more tv money to sweeten the pot even more to get 2 teams to move.

Interest'n point...puts the folks in Bristol in a situation that they "might have to pay true market value" on products they have control over...

They are paying true market value. That value can change (a lot in recent years), but as long as their is competition going for the sports and they are signing with the best offer, it's market value.

+1

(03-18-2013 08:48 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 08:43 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  It seems to me that the primary focus is an equitable distribution of BCS monies among BCS conferences. And this distribution is a PER BCS School determination. That is, divide total BCS money by the number of BCS schools, and that is the payout per BCS school.

If B1G has 14 or 16 teams, then B12, with 10 teams, should not receive as much BCS money as B1G.

That is correct...it only makes sense, you have three conferences at 14 teams and 1 at 12, 1 at 10. They aren't going to give out the same money to all 5 with those disparities in numbers, it will be doled out on a per team basis or on a flat basis based on at least 12 members.

(03-18-2013 08:57 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 08:48 AM)bearcat29 Wrote:  w/o WVU I would say USF/UCF, but now I would guess UC & USF.

As a OU, OSU, and B12 fan, let me say this: Never underestimate B12's arrogance. Cincy, UCF, and USF will never be in B12. Too much pride at stake here.

Agree .....that will never happen and you can add Memphis to that list.

(03-18-2013 10:55 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:43 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:40 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:26 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  The ACC doesn't want WVU and neither does the SEC. WVU wouldn't leave. Anyway, WVU makes $$$$, so it doesn't make sense to cut them loose and then take a school in WVU's timezone that doesn't make very much money.

Whether they can continue to make money for the Big 12 is a question that has yet to be answered over a longer span of time. The travel problems have already been noted. I think even some of the West Virginia fans would rather play closer to home and those numbers will only grow. Plus if the ACC holds firm, as I expect them to do, then the SEC would have an interest in getting into the area they had hoped to acquire through Virginia Tech, and West Virginia gives them part of that. Travel to Kentucky, Tennessee, and South Carolina are a heckuva lot closer for the Mountaineers than what they do now.

I can assure you that WVU would jump from the Big XII if they had options. I can also assure you that the B1G, ACC, and SEC JUST turned them down, which means they don't have options. They wouldn't go anywhere.

And I can assure you that if neither the ACC or Big 12 is raided and groupings look like they are going to be fixed for a while, and the SEC has a chance to get off of the #14 they would give them a look again. The biggest question would be at 16 who else?

What's changed that would make WVU suddenly valuable to the SEC? My money is on the SEC looking at FSU, Vtech, UNC, Texas, OU, and OSU first. I think that Texas and OU would be targets #1 and #2, because the SEC + Texas + OU = far and away the most profitable conference, B1G included.

Did you not read my premise? I said if the ACC and Big 12 are not raided that West Virginia would get a look again if it appeared that conference numbers would be fixed for a while. I'm sure the SEC would love to have Texas and Oklahoma, but it's not happening. If the ACC sticks together there will be no Virginia Tech, or North Carolina school with which to capture those markets, so therefore a piece of them is better than none at all. I'm sure that Kansas and Florida State would be higher priorities than the Eers, but we are likely not getting those either.

West Virginia is not high on the SEC wish list, but they may be high on the list of obtainable objectives.

Nobody down here is happy with scheduling 14. Both the Big 10 and SEC have made the same tactical blunder. They both should have moved straight to 16. Then the period in which they had to wait for the targets they really desire would be easier to endure. I'll be interested to see how the ACC handles 14 plus a partial.

(03-18-2013 10:34 AM)buffdog Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 08:15 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 08:05 AM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  I think Texas is more concerned about their power being taken away than the money. Lets be honest here, Texas has a lot of power over the other Texas schools in the conference.

If Texas has so much "power", why did it get screwed out of a national title shot during the weird 3 team tie-breaker in 2008? How was Texas Tech able to stay off of the LHN?

This whole talk about Texas and controlling the Big 12 is silly. Texas has 1 vote.

The real question is this.....who are the 2 teams most likely to be invited by the Big 12 if all of the ACC teams are a no-go?

Go after California market and invite Fresno State and SDSU. It is silly to leave the biggest tv market to the PAC12 by the contract conferences. The SEC/ACC is in the Florida market. The B12/SEC is in the Texas market.

Spoken like a true Fresno State fan..........I don't blame you for hoping

(03-18-2013 10:58 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:51 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:36 AM)buffdog Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 08:15 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  If Texas has so much "power", why did it get screwed out of a national title shot during the weird 3 team tie-breaker in 2008? How was Texas Tech able to stay off of the LHN?

This whole talk about Texas and controlling the Big 12 is silly. Texas has 1 vote.

The real question is this.....who are the 2 teams most likely to be invited by the Big 12 if all of the ACC teams are a no-go?

Go after California market and invite Fresno State and SDSU. It is silly to leave the biggest tv market to the PAC12 by the contract conferences. The SEC/ACC is in the Florida market. The B12/SEC is in the Texas market. Even if the ACC is a go, then the B12 would have teams coast to coast for tv sets.

The entire theory behind markets is dumb and illogical. Conferences should make a list of like-minded schools in their regions. They should then refine the list to schools that are located in recruiting hot beds. Then finally, conferences should determine the number of people that are interested in watching those schools play, and how passionate their fans are, and the schools on the list with the most fans, and the most passionate fans should be added (taking growth trends into account).

Hey, I wish they would do that. I would have loved to have seen Clemson and Florida State in the SEC. But the carrots being dangled by the networks will preclude reason.

It's not exactly like they didn't TA&M isn't exactly a nobody when it comes to football*, and Texas isn't exactly way outside SEC territory.

*Not only did they win the Heisman this year, but they are "the home of the 12th man."

MIzzou isn't as great of a fit, but they aren't a random add either.

Actually I had zero problems with either of those additions. My problem is that we didn't go ahead and add two more so that the divisions could have some reasonableness and balance to them. Having Kentucky, Vanderbilt, and Missouri in the East makes that division way too weak and having Texas A&M, Alabama, L.S.U. and most years Auburn and Arkansas in the West makes that division way too strong. Last year was an anomaly. With Ole Miss showing signs of a pulse it could even be more imbalanced next year.

(03-18-2013 08:09 AM)94panther Wrote:  That does not mean they have to add more, it just means that they might only get the same per team as a conference with 12 members for the playoffs.

And the SEC might not be happy splitting $40m 14 ways, while the B12 splits the same money 10 ways for the Sugar Bowl.

Should be based on a per conference basis equally. Whether the SEC or B1G chose to expand to 14 is thier problem and shouldn't get more money just because they have a larger amount of teams. They expanded for TV reasons and they'll get their due in that way, but to care about the Big 12 or Pac-12 getting more per team because they have less teams shouldn't be an issue.

Same goes for the non-contract conferences. Even though its TBD on split, there will be an even split for part of the money regardless of the # of teams. CUSA should get more than the Sunbelt or MW just because it has more teams. Its not the fault of the other conferences that CUSA expanded quickly with no thought of the future process.

(03-18-2013 10:55 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:43 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:40 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:26 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  The ACC doesn't want WVU and neither does the SEC. WVU wouldn't leave. Anyway, WVU makes $$$$, so it doesn't make sense to cut them loose and then take a school in WVU's timezone that doesn't make very much money.

Whether they can continue to make money for the Big 12 is a question that has yet to be answered over a longer span of time. The travel problems have already been noted. I think even some of the West Virginia fans would rather play closer to home and those numbers will only grow. Plus if the ACC holds firm, as I expect them to do, then the SEC would have an interest in getting into the area they had hoped to acquire through Virginia Tech, and West Virginia gives them part of that. Travel to Kentucky, Tennessee, and South Carolina are a heckuva lot closer for the Mountaineers than what they do now.

I can assure you that WVU would jump from the Big XII if they had options. I can also assure you that the B1G, ACC, and SEC JUST turned them down, which means they don't have options. They wouldn't go anywhere.

And I can assure you that if neither the ACC or Big 12 is raided and groupings look like they are going to be fixed for a while, and the SEC has a chance to get off of the #14 they would give them a look again. The biggest question would be at 16 who else?

What's changed that would make WVU suddenly valuable to the SEC? My money is on the SEC looking at FSU, Vtech, UNC, Texas, OU, and OSU first. I think that Texas and OU would be targets #1 and #2, because the SEC + Texas + OU = far and away the most profitable conference, B1G included.

One of the few things in all of this that seems certain..............is that OU and Texas will not be joining the SEC.

(03-18-2013 10:59 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:48 AM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  First, I dont know where the Lafayette Louisiana paper is getting their info from. They could be right, but I'm not convinced this story is accurate.

If it is accurate, and the Big 12 needs more teams, one would think UConn and Cincinnati are next on the board. A Big 12 network would be on cable in New York and in metro Cincinnati. West Virginia would have some rivals reasonably close by.

What you say is valid. But I think the Texas crowd would ask, "One long trip North is bad enough, why would we want to have to make it 3 times every few years?"

Any trip past Oklahoma is a long one in the Big 12 for Texas schools.

TCU is only about a five-six hour drive to Kansas and Kansas State.

(03-18-2013 10:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 09:43 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  Here is an idea......what about Florida State all sports and BYU FB only?

BYU would accept a FB only situation. It would save the B12 on travel costs while adding another name school.

Louis, if we are headed to a finale then perhaps the best thing for the Big 12 to do is to cut West Virginia free of the GOR and exit fees and let them pay what they were loaned plus interest so they can move to either the SEC or ACC. That would free the Big 12 to expand more into the Southeast with both Central and South Florida and accommodate B.Y.U. That way the split is never more than 12 ways, they have their championship game and don't have to worry about getting a smaller share of the playoff money. Plus it cuts everyone's travel a bit.

UCF has the second largest enrollment in the country at 60,000, per a school official on Fox News this morning. Sounds big enough for the Big XII to me.

(03-18-2013 11:03 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:55 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:43 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:40 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Whether they can continue to make money for the Big 12 is a question that has yet to be answered over a longer span of time. The travel problems have already been noted. I think even some of the West Virginia fans would rather play closer to home and those numbers will only grow. Plus if the ACC holds firm, as I expect them to do, then the SEC would have an interest in getting into the area they had hoped to acquire through Virginia Tech, and West Virginia gives them part of that. Travel to Kentucky, Tennessee, and South Carolina are a heckuva lot closer for the Mountaineers than what they do now.

I can assure you that WVU would jump from the Big XII if they had options. I can also assure you that the B1G, ACC, and SEC JUST turned them down, which means they don't have options. They wouldn't go anywhere.

And I can assure you that if neither the ACC or Big 12 is raided and groupings look like they are going to be fixed for a while, and the SEC has a chance to get off of the #14 they would give them a look again. The biggest question would be at 16 who else?

What's changed that would make WVU suddenly valuable to the SEC? My money is on the SEC looking at FSU, Vtech, UNC, Texas, OU, and OSU first. I think that Texas and OU would be targets #1 and #2, because the SEC + Texas + OU = far and away the most profitable conference, B1G included.

Did you not read my premise? I said if the ACC and Big 12 are not raided that West Virginia would get a look again if it appeared that conference numbers would be fixed for a while. I'm sure the SEC would love to have Texas and Oklahoma, but it's not happening. If the ACC sticks together there will be no Virginia Tech, or North Carolina school with which to capture those markets, so therefore a piece of them is better than none at all. I'm sure that Kansas and Florida State would be higher priorities than the Eers, but we are likely not getting those either.

West Virginia is not high on the SEC wish list, but they may be high on the list of obtainable objectives.

Nobody down here is happy with scheduling 14. Both the Big 10 and SEC have made the same tactical blunder. They both should have moved straight to 16. Then the period in which they had to wait for the targets they really desire would be easier to endure. I'll be interested to see how the ACC handles 14 plus a partial.

To be fair, your premise contradicts. WVU is in the Big XII, so for WVU to join the SEC, the SEC would have to either raid the Big XII, or WVU would have to go indy, which won't happen. None the less, point taken. If all the ACC schools stay and all the big fish in the Big XII stay, then the SEC might look at WVU. We agree about that. However, I don't think that the SEC would add them, because I think that the SEC would want to keep two spots open for Texas and OU, unless they were 100% sure that Texas and OU would never consider jumping. If TA&M begins overshadowing Texas, then the odds of Texas jumping jump (sorry I couldn't resist the double jump)

(03-18-2013 11:09 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:58 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:51 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:36 AM)buffdog Wrote:  Go after California market and invite Fresno State and SDSU. It is silly to leave the biggest tv market to the PAC12 by the contract conferences. The SEC/ACC is in the Florida market. The B12/SEC is in the Texas market. Even if the ACC is a go, then the B12 would have teams coast to coast for tv sets.

The entire theory behind markets is dumb and illogical. Conferences should make a list of like-minded schools in their regions. They should then refine the list to schools that are located in recruiting hot beds. Then finally, conferences should determine the number of people that are interested in watching those schools play, and how passionate their fans are, and the schools on the list with the most fans, and the most passionate fans should be added (taking growth trends into account).

Hey, I wish they would do that. I would have loved to have seen Clemson and Florida State in the SEC. But the carrots being dangled by the networks will preclude reason.

It's not exactly like they didn't TA&M isn't exactly a nobody when it comes to football*, and Texas isn't exactly way outside SEC territory.

*Not only did they win the Heisman this year, but they are "the home of the 12th man."

MIzzou isn't as great of a fit, but they aren't a random add either.

Actually I had zero problems with either of those additions. My problem is that we didn't go ahead and add two more so that the divisions could have some reasonableness and balance to them. Having Kentucky, Vanderbilt, and Missouri in the East makes that division way too weak and having Texas A&M, Alabama, L.S.U. and most years Auburn and Arkansas in the West makes that division way too strong. Last year was an anomaly. With Ole Miss showing signs of a pulse it could even be more imbalanced next year.

I'll agree with that. SEC west is sick. Tennessee being down is throwing everything off.

(03-18-2013 11:11 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:55 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:43 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:40 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Whether they can continue to make money for the Big 12 is a question that has yet to be answered over a longer span of time. The travel problems have already been noted. I think even some of the West Virginia fans would rather play closer to home and those numbers will only grow. Plus if the ACC holds firm, as I expect them to do, then the SEC would have an interest in getting into the area they had hoped to acquire through Virginia Tech, and West Virginia gives them part of that. Travel to Kentucky, Tennessee, and South Carolina are a heckuva lot closer for the Mountaineers than what they do now.

I can assure you that WVU would jump from the Big XII if they had options. I can also assure you that the B1G, ACC, and SEC JUST turned them down, which means they don't have options. They wouldn't go anywhere.

And I can assure you that if neither the ACC or Big 12 is raided and groupings look like they are going to be fixed for a while, and the SEC has a chance to get off of the #14 they would give them a look again. The biggest question would be at 16 who else?

What's changed that would make WVU suddenly valuable to the SEC? My money is on the SEC looking at FSU, Vtech, UNC, Texas, OU, and OSU first. I think that Texas and OU would be targets #1 and #2, because the SEC + Texas + OU = far and away the most profitable conference, B1G included.

One of the few things in all of this that seems certain..............is that OU and Texas will not be joining the SEC.

...until Vandy starts making more in TV than either Texas or OU, or until Texas A&M becomes the #1 school in Texas.

How long do you think Texas will be happy being #2?

(03-18-2013 11:26 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:03 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:55 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:43 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:40 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I can assure you that WVU would jump from the Big XII if they had options. I can also assure you that the B1G, ACC, and SEC JUST turned them down, which means they don't have options. They wouldn't go anywhere.

And I can assure you that if neither the ACC or Big 12 is raided and groupings look like they are going to be fixed for a while, and the SEC has a chance to get off of the #14 they would give them a look again. The biggest question would be at 16 who else?

What's changed that would make WVU suddenly valuable to the SEC? My money is on the SEC looking at FSU, Vtech, UNC, Texas, OU, and OSU first. I think that Texas and OU would be targets #1 and #2, because the SEC + Texas + OU = far and away the most profitable conference, B1G included.

Did you not read my premise? I said if the ACC and Big 12 are not raided that West Virginia would get a look again if it appeared that conference numbers would be fixed for a while. I'm sure the SEC would love to have Texas and Oklahoma, but it's not happening. If the ACC sticks together there will be no Virginia Tech, or North Carolina school with which to capture those markets, so therefore a piece of them is better than none at all. I'm sure that Kansas and Florida State would be higher priorities than the Eers, but we are likely not getting those either.

West Virginia is not high on the SEC wish list, but they may be high on the list of obtainable objectives.

Nobody down here is happy with scheduling 14. Both the Big 10 and SEC have made the same tactical blunder. They both should have moved straight to 16. Then the period in which they had to wait for the targets they really desire would be easier to endure. I'll be interested to see how the ACC handles 14 plus a partial.

To be fair, your premise contradicts. WVU is in the Big XII, so for WVU to join the SEC, the SEC would have to either raid the Big XII, or WVU would have to go indy, which won't happen. None the less, point taken. If all the ACC schools stay and all the big fish in the Big XII stay, then the SEC might look at WVU. We agree about that. However, I don't think that the SEC would add them, because I think that the SEC would want to keep two spots open for Texas and OU, unless they were 100% sure that Texas and OU would never consider jumping. If TA&M begins overshadowing Texas, then the odds of Texas jumping jump (sorry I couldn't resist the double jump)

Well, the premise started by suggesting how the Big 12 could add three to consolidate and cut West Virginia loose. But the real difficulty in the SEC taking West Virginia is who the heck do we find to go with them? Under those circumstances the options would be only South Florida, Cincinnati, and Connecticut. I wouldn't have big problems with South Florida, but many down here might since their name isn't big enough yet, Cincinnati is not a cultural fit but would add markets, and Connecticut just doesn't fit at all.

(03-18-2013 11:26 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:03 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:55 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:43 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:40 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I can assure you that WVU would jump from the Big XII if they had options. I can also assure you that the B1G, ACC, and SEC JUST turned them down, which means they don't have options. They wouldn't go anywhere.

And I can assure you that if neither the ACC or Big 12 is raided and groupings look like they are going to be fixed for a while, and the SEC has a chance to get off of the #14 they would give them a look again. The biggest question would be at 16 who else?

That's okay it would indeed take a game of hop scotch for the Longhorns to make such a leap.

What's changed that would make WVU suddenly valuable to the SEC? My money is on the SEC looking at FSU, Vtech, UNC, Texas, OU, and OSU first. I think that Texas and OU would be targets #1 and #2, because the SEC + Texas + OU = far and away the most profitable conference, B1G included.

Did you not read my premise? I said if the ACC and Big 12 are not raided that West Virginia would get a look again if it appeared that conference numbers would be fixed for a while. I'm sure the SEC would love to have Texas and Oklahoma, but it's not happening. If the ACC sticks together there will be no Virginia Tech, or North Carolina school with which to capture those markets, so therefore a piece of them is better than none at all. I'm sure that Kansas and Florida State would be higher priorities than the Eers, but we are likely not getting those either.

West Virginia is not high on the SEC wish list, but they may be high on the list of obtainable objectives.

Nobody down here is happy with scheduling 14. Both the Big 10 and SEC have made the same tactical blunder. They both should have moved straight to 16. Then the period in which they had to wait for the targets they really desire would be easier to endure. I'll be interested to see how the ACC handles 14 plus a partial.

To be fair, your premise contradicts. WVU is in the Big XII, so for WVU to join the SEC, the SEC would have to either raid the Big XII, or WVU would have to go indy, which won't happen. None the less, point taken. If all the ACC schools stay and all the big fish in the Big XII stay, then the SEC might look at WVU. We agree about that. However, I don't think that the SEC would add them, because I think that the SEC would want to keep two spots open for Texas and OU, unless they were 100% sure that Texas and OU would never consider jumping. If TA&M begins overshadowing Texas, then the odds of Texas jumping jump (sorry I couldn't resist the double jump)

That's okay it would take a game of Hop Scotch for the Longhorns to make such a leap anyway.

(03-18-2013 11:34 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:26 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:03 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:55 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:43 AM)JRsec Wrote:  And I can assure you that if neither the ACC or Big 12 is raided and groupings look like they are going to be fixed for a while, and the SEC has a chance to get off of the #14 they would give them a look again. The biggest question would be at 16 who else?

What's changed that would make WVU suddenly valuable to the SEC? My money is on the SEC looking at FSU, Vtech, UNC, Texas, OU, and OSU first. I think that Texas and OU would be targets #1 and #2, because the SEC + Texas + OU = far and away the most profitable conference, B1G included.

Did you not read my premise? I said if the ACC and Big 12 are not raided that West Virginia would get a look again if it appeared that conference numbers would be fixed for a while. I'm sure the SEC would love to have Texas and Oklahoma, but it's not happening. If the ACC sticks together there will be no Virginia Tech, or North Carolina school with which to capture those markets, so therefore a piece of them is better than none at all. I'm sure that Kansas and Florida State would be higher priorities than the Eers, but we are likely not getting those either.

West Virginia is not high on the SEC wish list, but they may be high on the list of obtainable objectives.

Nobody down here is happy with scheduling 14. Both the Big 10 and SEC have made the same tactical blunder. They both should have moved straight to 16. Then the period in which they had to wait for the targets they really desire would be easier to endure. I'll be interested to see how the ACC handles 14 plus a partial.

To be fair, your premise contradicts. WVU is in the Big XII, so for WVU to join the SEC, the SEC would have to either raid the Big XII, or WVU would have to go indy, which won't happen. None the less, point taken. If all the ACC schools stay and all the big fish in the Big XII stay, then the SEC might look at WVU. We agree about that. However, I don't think that the SEC would add them, because I think that the SEC would want to keep two spots open for Texas and OU, unless they were 100% sure that Texas and OU would never consider jumping. If TA&M begins overshadowing Texas, then the odds of Texas jumping jump (sorry I couldn't resist the double jump)

Well, the premise started by suggesting how the Big 12 could add three to consolidate and cut West Virginia loose. But the real difficulty in the SEC taking West Virginia is who the heck do we find to go with them? Under those circumstances the options would be only South Florida, Cincinnati, and Connecticut. I wouldn't have big problems with South Florida, but many down here might since their name isn't big enough yet, Cincinnati is not a cultural fit but would add markets, and Connecticut just doesn't fit at all.

Yeah, but I don't think WVU would leave without an offer. Anyway, I agree about not having a partner. UC isn't going to happen, because they don't make enought money and they are too far, UCONN to the SEC is a joke, and U_F won't happen, because UF doesn't want to elevate either program. I think that the best bet would be to add Houston, but Texas A&M wouldn't be too enthused with the idea of elevating a Texas program. Tulane might be on the table, because they have a history with the SEC (founding member) and are in a talent-rich area, but they are private and small-time. Also, LSU would be less than completely enthused with elevating a LA program. However, I do think that Louisianna has the talent, and LSU is the only BCS school in LA, so they could handle it (FL has 3 BCS schools, TN has 2, SC has 2, KY has 2, GA has 2, AL has 2, MS has 2, and TX has 3)

(03-18-2013 11:30 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:11 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:55 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:43 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:40 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I can assure you that WVU would jump from the Big XII if they had options. I can also assure you that the B1G, ACC, and SEC JUST turned them down, which means they don't have options. They wouldn't go anywhere.

And I can assure you that if neither the ACC or Big 12 is raided and groupings look like they are going to be fixed for a while, and the SEC has a chance to get off of the #14 they would give them a look again. The biggest question would be at 16 who else?

What's changed that would make WVU suddenly valuable to the SEC? My money is on the SEC looking at FSU, Vtech, UNC, Texas, OU, and OSU first. I think that Texas and OU would be targets #1 and #2, because the SEC + Texas + OU = far and away the most profitable conference, B1G included.

One of the few things in all of this that seems certain..............is that OU and Texas will not be joining the SEC.

...until Vandy starts making more in TV than either Texas or OU, or until Texas A&M becomes the #1 school in Texas.

How long do you think Texas will be happy being #2?

That's very unlikely to ever happen. I don't like UT any better than you do, but it would take at least 10 years of the Horns being down and the Aggies being great for UT to become the second most popular program in Texas. And even then it would only last until they righted the ship in Austin.

(03-18-2013 11:42 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:34 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:26 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:03 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 10:55 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  What's changed that would make WVU suddenly valuable to the SEC? My money is on the SEC looking at FSU, Vtech, UNC, Texas, OU, and OSU first. I think that Texas and OU would be targets #1 and #2, because the SEC + Texas + OU = far and away the most profitable conference, B1G included.

Did you not read my premise? I said if the ACC and Big 12 are not raided that West Virginia would get a look again if it appeared that conference numbers would be fixed for a while. I'm sure the SEC would love to have Texas and Oklahoma, but it's not happening. If the ACC sticks together there will be no Virginia Tech, or North Carolina school with which to capture those markets, so therefore a piece of them is better than none at all. I'm sure that Kansas and Florida State would be higher priorities than the Eers, but we are likely not getting those either.

West Virginia is not high on the SEC wish list, but they may be high on the list of obtainable objectives.

Nobody down here is happy with scheduling 14. Both the Big 10 and SEC have made the same tactical blunder. They both should have moved straight to 16. Then the period in which they had to wait for the targets they really desire would be easier to endure. I'll be interested to see how the ACC handles 14 plus a partial.

To be fair, your premise contradicts. WVU is in the Big XII, so for WVU to join the SEC, the SEC would have to either raid the Big XII, or WVU would have to go indy, which won't happen. None the less, point taken. If all the ACC schools stay and all the big fish in the Big XII stay, then the SEC might look at WVU. We agree about that. However, I don't think that the SEC would add them, because I think that the SEC would want to keep two spots open for Texas and OU, unless they were 100% sure that Texas and OU would never consider jumping. If TA&M begins overshadowing Texas, then the odds of Texas jumping jump (sorry I couldn't resist the double jump)

Well, the premise started by suggesting how the Big 12 could add three to consolidate and cut West Virginia loose. But the real difficulty in the SEC taking West Virginia is who the heck do we find to go with them? Under those circumstances the options would be only South Florida, Cincinnati, and Connecticut. I wouldn't have big problems with South Florida, but many down here might since their name isn't big enough yet, Cincinnati is not a cultural fit but would add markets, and Connecticut just doesn't fit at all.

Yeah, but I don't think WVU would leave without an offer. Anyway, I agree about not having a partner. UC isn't going to happen, because they don't make enought money and they are too far, UCONN to the SEC is a joke, and U_F won't happen, because UF doesn't want to elevate either program. I think that the best bet would be to add Houston, but Texas A&M wouldn't be too enthused with the idea of elevating a Texas program. Tulane might be on the table, because they have a history with the SEC (founding member) and are in a talent-rich area, but they are private and small-time. Also, LSU would be less than completely enthused with elevating a LA program. However, I do think that Louisianna has the talent, and LSU is the only BCS school in LA, so they could handle it (FL has 3 BCS schools, TN has 2, SC has 2, KY has 2, GA has 2, AL has 2, MS has 2, and TX has 3)

I had considered S.M.U. as well. I'm not sure the Aggies would object as much to a team from Texas not named Texas or Baylor. The Ponies have a billion dollar war chest and it wouldn't take them long to get up to speed in the SEC. Recruiting would suddenly get a lot easier. If they didn't revert back to 1980's tactics.

The USF/UCF combo is the best combo on the board right now.

#4 combined markets with like 100K combined students. Huge schools in major metros.

This combo will be gone within 3 years to either ACC or B12.

Most likely scenario is to ACC if/when B10 starts poaching and/or B12 to an ACC/BE hybrid league.

Less likely is B12, if they can't convince ACC schools to join and must add teams.