(06-19-2018 06:18 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 12:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 10:29 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  All this centers around former associates (conference mates) of Missouri and Texas A&M. Are there other B12 schools the two would like to see in the SEC? Neither may not be fond of that happening, particularly with the old arch-rivals. Yet, it appears Mizzou could use a better geographic partner in the SEC. Texas A&M is enjoying the perceptual, if not practical, elevation in being separated from the UT. OU may be the only one in that region that both would not put much energy into opposing.

Yep, this angle doesn't get explored enough. Oklahoma adds tremendous value. I think the rest of the conference could work with A&M's possible objection to Texas as long as Oklahoma is certain. But the conference presidents won't object to a school, any school, that can make us more money, and enhance our academic standing. So as long as we land one of those two they will be much more likely to acquiesce to the inclinations of A&M or Missouri.

I wouldn't be so sure that Missouri would object to Kansas. They might because they essentially recruit the same area and as long as they can play them OOC they might prefer the brand edge in recruitment. But, like Florida and South Carolina they too may realize that rivalries may one day be permanently lost to further expansion which has been the reason that those two have backed their in state rivals in the past.

I can't stress enough, however, that no conference will be turning down Texas if they want in. As long as they come on the conference's terms, seeking no special advantage over the other members they will be accepted. The Big 10, SEC, and perhaps the PAC would turn them down if they wanted advantages. I'm not sure the ACC would since they essentially took N.D. with special privileges. So that may yet be their destination.

Personally I can't see why Missouri would object to either Oklahoma or Kansas since both, along with Arkansas give the Tigers much more manageable travel distances.

A&M's issues I understand, but most Aggies want to object to Oklahoma as well. But then we are talking fans and not the administration. The administrations will be thinking in terms of how much interest in their school playing the other one will bring. They will be thinking about the associations or prestige that the other school might bring to theirs. And their A.D.'s will be thinking about which schools will generate the most donor money for priority tickets. I just don't see how Oklahoma or Texas miss on any of these administrative priorities. It's the SEC's responsibility to level the playing field for all members. It's the presidents' responsibility to build the associations and add to the bottom line.

What can be said for Oklahoma is that they give us what we want in Texas without taking away A&M's exclusivity and they give it to us while adding branding, content value, and a new state of 4 million people.

The problem with the expansion out of the Big 12 is once you have added Oklahoma or Texas but not both, there are no home run second selections. From an athletic standpoint Kansas has more basketball cachet than just about anyone. But the paucity of football acumen is overwhelming. West Virginia is a well rounded sports program but it is an outlier to everyone but Kentucky, and brings in a very very small state. T.C.U. gives us a presence actually in DFW, but doesn't bring any intangibles, and has a small alumni base. Baylor is currently a leper. Kansas State brings a relatively small state but is middle of the pack athletically for the Big 3 sports. Oklahoma State does all of that just as well as any of them but brings no new market. So if landing them lands OU I have no objections.

But, I see no circumstance where Texas gets turned down if they want in on our terms.

There was talk in 2010 that ESPN liked the pairing of Oklahoma and Kansas for the SEC. Texas A&M was however the main objective and OU would have been #2 if they had not been insistent on OSU. Missouri was the market addition substitute for #2. Missouri was also favored by ESPN. I say this to point out that ideally for ESPN they would probably love to see Texas as a partial to the ACC for a 5 game slate like the Irish have. Then if Oklahoma and Kansas joined the SEC that would give them the best three properties from the Big 12 with no baggage. I just doubt that OU would make the move without OSU.

I have a difficulty seeing Texas as FT or partial in the ACC. Partial fb could work in fb. The ACC does have solid Olympic-style sports. Basketball is great, baseball is good. Yet Texas would be a big outlier. There are so many more quality programs much closer.

Notre Dame has a history with NE ACC schools such as Pitt and BC, and sometimes played others such as GT and Miami. By comparison, Texas would be more of an oddity.
Nevertheless, Texas chatted with the ACC before about this. How serious that was is unclear.
If Texas doesn't want to play Texas A&M, and gets angry if OU leaves also for the SEC, then they may as well do ACC FT instead of partial fb.
There is Texas Tech, Baylor, SMU, Rice, etc. available as OOCs, but nailing down available dates is often a struggle.

Texas as a partial would be quite different than N.D. as a partial. I think they might park their non football sports in another conference. I see them more as a partial football member only. They could put their other sports in the AAC for that matter, which if Texas leaves along with Oklahoma is likely where Baylor and T.C.U. could wind up along with Kansas State or even Iowa State. And Houston and SMU are there already.

But, this is all why I don't rule out a Texas decision to pursue the SEC. It simply makes too much sense for their entire sports package.

However for the sake of argument if they chose to be that recalcitrant then agreeing to play 5 conference games in the ACC boosts the ACC football profile, and leaves the Horns 7 games to schedule as an independent. Those would likely include Tech, a rotation of Baylor/TCU, perhaps an Aggie renewal, or Arkansas, and Oklahoma. Add two G5 schools for the season opener and Homecoming and you've got a schedule.

For their ACC schedule I could see them playing 2 each from each division on a rotational basis and insisting on the 5th being against a rotation of Notre Dame, Clemson, Florida State, and Miami (possibly Georgia Tech & North Carolina).

It really just depends on how hard Texas wants to make things on themselves.

Well having done the math with the available tools such as valuations issued by the WSJ, Gross Total Revenue figures, and with a look at attendance and academics I can now safely say that Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State as a foursome adds to our bottom line. Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State would add more. But if Tech is a sticking point for Texas then SEC would make out just fine with either 4 school scenario.

The most profitable duo would be Texas and Oklahoma of course. But the most valuable duo outside of that one would be Texas and Kansas, followed by Texas and Iowa State, followed by Texas and Kansas State, followed by Texas and Texas Tech. The 7th most valuable duo is that of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. But all of them outside of the first one are close enough in overall value that any of them would do, including Oklahoma and Kansas.

(07-11-2018 10:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well having done the math with the available tools such as valuations issued by the WSJ, Gross Total Revenue figures, and with a look at attendance and academics I can now safely say that Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State as a foursome adds to our bottom line. Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State would add more. But if Tech is a sticking point for Texas then SEC would make out just fine with either 4 school scenario.

The most profitable duo would be Texas and Oklahoma of course. But the most valuable duo outside of that one would be Texas and Kansas, followed by Texas and Iowa State, followed by Texas and Kansas State, followed by Texas and Texas Tech. The 7th most valuable duo is that of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. But all of them outside of the first one are close enough in overall value that any of them would do, including Oklahoma and Kansas.

Let's say we get OK and Texas but have to take Kansas as well. With Texas in conference, OK no longer has to bring OSU as long they land in the PAC. The SEC needs a fourth to make it all even. Since we get the top three who would you want next? Not just financially, but culturally, etc? Could we stick at 17 until the a FSU/Clemson school was available? (8 games would mean rotating through every 4 years in a divisionless setting).

(07-12-2018 02:27 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 10:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well having done the math with the available tools such as valuations issued by the WSJ, Gross Total Revenue figures, and with a look at attendance and academics I can now safely say that Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State as a foursome adds to our bottom line. Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State would add more. But if Tech is a sticking point for Texas then SEC would make out just fine with either 4 school scenario.

The most profitable duo would be Texas and Oklahoma of course. But the most valuable duo outside of that one would be Texas and Kansas, followed by Texas and Iowa State, followed by Texas and Kansas State, followed by Texas and Texas Tech. The 7th most valuable duo is that of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. But all of them outside of the first one are close enough in overall value that any of them would do, including Oklahoma and Kansas.

Let's say we get OK and Texas but have to take Kansas as well. With Texas in conference, OK no longer has to bring OSU as long they land in the PAC. The SEC needs a fourth to make it all even. Since we get the top three who would you want next? Not just financially, but culturally, etc? Could we stick at 17 until the a FSU/Clemson school was available? (8 games would mean rotating through every 4 years in a divisionless setting).

The Big 10 proved you could stay at an odd number for years when they took Penn State. I think conference administrators as well as fans just like symmetry because it's easier to work with while scheduling and it just seems to make more sense.

The only fallacy in your premise is that while Oklahoma could move if OSU had a P5 home, they won't move until that is certain. I strongly suspect that state politics are the issue there.

I appreciate your desire to wait until we go yet another prize school, but if you look at the numbers there isn't much difference between Oklahoma State and Florida State when it comes to valuation. F.S.U. has better metrics but not by much.

I would think that Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State would be close enough in total value that whoever the 4th was wouldn't be that big of a sticking point whether it was Iowa State, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, or Kansas State.

If Oklahoma could truly come without OSU then maybe the presidents want that extra AAU school and Iowa State which is contiguous with Missouri gets a look. Maybe it's Texas that balks without another Texas school so Tech gets taken care of. I really think taking two from Kansas would be bizarre so I kind of rule that one out but the numbers work.

With Texas and OU there is absolutely no point in taking T.C.U.. Baylor isn't happening by the numbers, let alone by the reputation. And the impact numbers for West Virginia are off the charts low. And if the ACC GOR doesn't expire until 2037 then we would be waiting 13 years with odd numbers so I think prudence, if not political pressure from one of the 3 would likely suggest we simply take a 4th from the Big 12.

So who would you want if the choice was truly the SEC's to make and not that of Oklahoma or Texas? I'd lean toward Iowa State but could live just fine with either Texas Tech or Oklahoma State.

(07-12-2018 02:27 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 10:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well having done the math with the available tools such as valuations issued by the WSJ, Gross Total Revenue figures, and with a look at attendance and academics I can now safely say that Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State as a foursome adds to our bottom line. Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State would add more. But if Tech is a sticking point for Texas then SEC would make out just fine with either 4 school scenario.

The most profitable duo would be Texas and Oklahoma of course. But the most valuable duo outside of that one would be Texas and Kansas, followed by Texas and Iowa State, followed by Texas and Kansas State, followed by Texas and Texas Tech. The 7th most valuable duo is that of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. But all of them outside of the first one are close enough in overall value that any of them would do, including Oklahoma and Kansas.

Let's say we get OK and Texas but have to take Kansas as well. With Texas in conference, OK no longer has to bring OSU as long they land in the PAC. The SEC needs a fourth to make it all even. Since we get the top three who would you want next? Not just financially, but culturally, etc? Could we stick at 17 until the a FSU/Clemson school was available? (8 games would mean rotating through every 4 years in a divisionless setting).

I would assume West Virginia as they seem like the third or fourth most valuable brand in that conference.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

Here WVU ranks third in Big 12 total athletic revenues and 27th nationally. I know WVU is on a big 12 island, or mountain to be more accurate, so some of those WSJ numbers apparently reflected that on their evaluations.

A good argument could be made that Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa State is the best overall move we could make assuming it was an option.

Increasing the AAU block would make a lot of people happy. KU and ISU wouldn't add as much economic value, but it would be nice to have more friends in the Midwest politically speaking.

(07-12-2018 03:05 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  A good argument could be made that Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa State is the best overall move we could make assuming it was an option.

Increasing the AAU block would make a lot of people happy. KU and ISU wouldn't add as much economic value, but it would be nice to have more friends in the Midwest politically speaking.

Truly either of:
A. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, or
B. Iowa State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech
would be fine. "A." gives us a monopoly of the state schools in the Texas/Oklahoma region of 32 million rabid college football fans and "B." gives us almost the same only with a new state and 3 AAU schools.

Either option means we couldn't be caught on content value and moving forward that's the ticket we want punched.

(07-15-2018 09:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 03:05 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  A good argument could be made that Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa State is the best overall move we could make assuming it was an option.

Increasing the AAU block would make a lot of people happy. KU and ISU wouldn't add as much economic value, but it would be nice to have more friends in the Midwest politically speaking.

Truly either of:
A. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, or
B. Iowa State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech
would be fine. "A." gives us a monopoly of the state schools in the Texas/Oklahoma region of 32 million rabid college football fans and "B." gives us almost the same only with a new state and 3 AAU schools.

Either option means we couldn't be caught on content value and moving forward that's the ticket we want punched.

Not sure I understand your response JRsec*. Texas, Kansas & Iowa State are the only AAU schools left in the B12. Therefore, I'm not sure who the "3 AAU schools" to which you refer in your "B" option are (other than Iowa State, of course). The SEC presently has 3 AAU members (TAMU, UF & UM) so adding ISU would make a total of 4. Was that just a typo? Also, in the "B" option, if that doesn't include Texas, I'm not sure Texas Texas Tech + TAMU actually would give the SEC a "monopoly" on Texas schools, though it would of course increase influence.

(07-15-2018 10:02 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 09:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 03:05 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  A good argument could be made that Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa State is the best overall move we could make assuming it was an option.

Increasing the AAU block would make a lot of people happy. KU and ISU wouldn't add as much economic value, but it would be nice to have more friends in the Midwest politically speaking.

Truly either of:
A. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, or
B. Iowa State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech
would be fine. "A." gives us a monopoly of the state schools in the Texas/Oklahoma region of 32 million rabid college football fans and "B." gives us almost the same only with a new state and 3 AAU schools.

Either option means we couldn't be caught on content value and moving forward that's the ticket we want punched.

Not sure I understand your response JRsec*. Texas, Kansas & Iowa State are the only AAU schools left in the B12. Therefore, I'm not sure who the "3 AAU schools" to which you refer in your "B" option are (other than Iowa State, of course). The SEC presently has 3 AAU members (TAMU, UF & UM) so adding ISU would make a total of 4. Was that just a typo? Also, in the "B" option, if that doesn't include Texas, I'm not sure Texas Texas Tech + TAMU actually would give the SEC a "monopoly" on Texas schools, though it would of course increase influence.

That would be because I miscounted. But it would just be 2. But you've made an error as well. Presently the SEC has 4 AAU members (A&M, Mizzou, Florida, Vandy).

As to the monopoly I said it gives us almost the same (4 of the 5). The best approach monetarily would be to add option (A.) because that "monopoly" means that the SEC would get top ad rates for all regional broadcasts in that area. That would be a bigger boon than what we have presently in the East or West divisions.

Offer Oklahoma and Oklahoma State first...

At that point, we have Texas in an interesting dilemma. They would have to give us a hard 'no' and risk losing access to most of their rivals or give in.

I think the question is who would be #4 if UT decides to come aboard. Would they really go to bat for Texas Tech?

If the Utah/PAC article from the other day is remotely accurate then Texas Tech wasn't under consideration. Perhaps, that's part of the reason it broke down, but I imagine the LHN had more to do with it along with the fact that A&M wanted to be in the SEC.

So what if slot #4 is really more open than we might have thought?

Kansas has a broader fan base than anyone left, but Iowa State might actually be the better pick. Their economic impact is greater. Their football is decent with good attendance. IA is a bigger market than KS; and considering we already have a slice of Kansas City, upside of KU is somewhat limited.

Measuring from Birmingham, the flight time to Ames is only slightly longer than that of Lubbock. And in a slight upset, Ames is actually a shorter drive.

This way, we can snag 2 AAU schools. The Big Ten can add Kansas and Colorado.

(07-15-2018 10:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 10:02 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 09:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 03:05 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  A good argument could be made that Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa State is the best overall move we could make assuming it was an option.

Increasing the AAU block would make a lot of people happy. KU and ISU wouldn't add as much economic value, but it would be nice to have more friends in the Midwest politically speaking.

Truly either of:
A. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, or
B. Iowa State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech
would be fine. "A." gives us a monopoly of the state schools in the Texas/Oklahoma region of 32 million rabid college football fans and "B." gives us almost the same only with a new state and 3 AAU schools.

Either option means we couldn't be caught on content value and moving forward that's the ticket we want punched.

Not sure I understand your response JRsec*. Texas, Kansas & Iowa State are the only AAU schools left in the B12. Therefore, I'm not sure who the "3 AAU schools" to which you refer in your "B" option are (other than Iowa State, of course). The SEC presently has 3 AAU members (TAMU, UF & UM) so adding ISU would make a total of 4. Was that just a typo? Also, in the "B" option, if that doesn't include Texas, I'm not sure Texas Texas Tech + TAMU actually would give the SEC a "monopoly" on Texas schools, though it would of course increase influence.

That would be because I miscounted. But it would just be 2. But you've made an error as well. Presently the SEC has 4 AAU members (A&M, Mizzou, Florida, Vandy).

As to the monopoly I said it gives us almost the same (4 of the 5). The best approach monetarily would be to add option (A.) because that "monopoly" means that the SEC would get top ad rates for all regional broadcasts in that area. That would be a bigger boon than what we have presently in the East or West divisions.

(goes back to math class to relearn counting)

P.S. Thanks for the clarification :)

(07-16-2018 04:25 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 10:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 10:02 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 09:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 03:05 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  A good argument could be made that Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa State is the best overall move we could make assuming it was an option.

Increasing the AAU block would make a lot of people happy. KU and ISU wouldn't add as much economic value, but it would be nice to have more friends in the Midwest politically speaking.

Truly either of:
A. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, or
B. Iowa State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech
would be fine. "A." gives us a monopoly of the state schools in the Texas/Oklahoma region of 32 million rabid college football fans and "B." gives us almost the same only with a new state and 3 AAU schools.

Either option means we couldn't be caught on content value and moving forward that's the ticket we want punched.

Not sure I understand your response JRsec*. Texas, Kansas & Iowa State are the only AAU schools left in the B12. Therefore, I'm not sure who the "3 AAU schools" to which you refer in your "B" option are (other than Iowa State, of course). The SEC presently has 3 AAU members (TAMU, UF & UM) so adding ISU would make a total of 4. Was that just a typo? Also, in the "B" option, if that doesn't include Texas, I'm not sure Texas Texas Tech + TAMU actually would give the SEC a "monopoly" on Texas schools, though it would of course increase influence.

That would be because I miscounted. But it would just be 2. But you've made an error as well. Presently the SEC has 4 AAU members (A&M, Mizzou, Florida, Vandy).

As to the monopoly I said it gives us almost the same (4 of the 5). The best approach monetarily would be to add option (A.) because that "monopoly" means that the SEC would get top ad rates for all regional broadcasts in that area. That would be a bigger boon than what we have presently in the East or West divisions.

(goes back to math class to relearn counting)

P.S. Thanks for the clarification :)

A side note if I may. The Texas/Oklahoma monopoly for advertising rights has an application to the Big 10. It is why Notre Dame is so key to Big 10 revenue enhancement. Their brand is strong enough that advertisers can pay less for rates to reach Chicago, Indianapolis, Detroit, Cincinnati, and other cities in the heart of Big 10 country. Add them and everyone has to go through the Big 10 to reach those cities on a Saturday in the Fall. That's a substantial chunk of change gained to close to that back door into advertising in your digs. Virginia or North Carolina would expand your markets, but Notre Dame would give you total control over most of them. And think about Philadelphia, Boston, New York City, and likely Pittsburgh as cities where N.D. gives the Big 10 added penetration.

So if the SEC was able to pull off this kind of move, acquiring N.D. would counter it to a large degree.

Too much is up in the air. If there was one school from the B12 that is an absolute target by the SEC, AND that school has the SEC at the top of their near future options, then I would have considerably more confidence in asserting a prediction. We all know Oklahoma and Texas are in a preferential category above all the others. However, I have not heard anything (beyond message board chats, an occasional article from a sportswriter advocating or speculating, and some blogger out of any credible loop, perhaps espousing ignorance) of substance where any of these schools may go. Of course school and conference officials doing "feelers" or are engaged in preliminary negotiations, would not be yapping about it to the public.
Still, no solid leaks appear to be happening. Too soon?
If there were good vibes as to #1 preference #15, then #16 options become a bit more focused as well.
Personally, I like the AAU angle. It would help counter the stigma that the SEC is not academic enough compared to the BIG, the ACC, and the PAC12. That stereotyping can get exaggerated and distorted, but it would be good for the SEC to increase it's academic portfolio. Texas and Kansas do. Iowa State would be an outlier, though Mizzou's northern neighbor. Doubtful Ames, Iowa would be an exciting travel spot usually. Rice may be more practical by comparison, but differing issues there too. Tulane? Well, they are in New Orleans but little else is going for them. But matched with a new biggie such as Texas, maybe it is worth considering. On the other hand, oSu, KSU, and TTU, would offer better competitive sports, generally. Also, i am not sure adding bottom-feeders, even if highly academic, is a right move. It compromises the overall athletic reputation of a conference. This bother me when it comes to Kansas fb. Yeah, I get their bb is blueblood. A lot of factors to weigh when it comes to expansion.

(07-16-2018 10:17 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Too much is up in the air. If there was one school from the B12 that is an absolute target by the SEC, AND that school has the SEC at the top of their near future options, then I would have considerably more confidence in asserting a prediction. We all know Oklahoma and Texas are in a preferential category above all the others. However, I have not heard anything (beyond message board chats, an occasional article from a sportswriter advocating or speculating, and some blogger out of any credible loop, perhaps espousing ignorance) of substance where any of these schools may go. Of course school and conference officials doing "feelers" or are engage in preliminary negotiations, would not be yapping about it to the public.
Still, no solid leaks appear to be happening. Too soon?
If there were good vibes as to #1 preference #15, then #16 options become a bit more focused as well.
Personally, I like the AAU angle. It would help counter the stigma that the SEC is not academic enough compared to the BIG, the ACC, and the PAC12. That stereotyping can get exaggerated and distorted, but it would be good for the SEC to increase it's academic portfolio. Texas and Kansas do. Iowa State would be an outlier, though Mizzou's northern neighbor. Doubtful Ames, Iowa would be an exciting travel spot usually. Rice may be more practical by comparison, but differing issues there too. Tulane? Well, they are in New Orleans but little else is going for them. But matched with a new biggie such as Texas, maybe it is worth considering. On the other hand, oSu, KSU, and TTU, would offer better competitive sports, generally. Also, i am not sure adding bottom-feeders, even if highly academic, is a right move. It compromises the overall academic reputation of a conference. This bother me when it comes to Kansas fb. Yeah, I get their bb is blueblood. A lot of factors to weigh when it comes to expansion.

There's a solid reason you won't hear anything of substance prior to 2023. The Big 12 Grant of Rights has penalties for schools even talking about moving. The stipulation says that to talk openly about moving with another conference is the same as leaving early with regard to penalties.

Really the only way anyone could move sooner would be if ESPN and preferably ESPN & FOX brokered the move.

So until 2023 there will be nothing but some beat writer conjecture, a few hack bloggers and message board guys and between the three there isn't much difference at all. Beat writers and message board guys may or may not know how to spell. And while bloggers tend to write more in a unified well developed and coherent fashion it doesn't mean they know any more than the message board guys or beat writers. I do know that two beat writers and Finebaum have pushed the two Oklahomas angle as a possibility.

But it doesn't take a lot of insight to make some good guesses. The SEC according to Slive will look for schools that add revenue to ours, fit the SEC profile (which could quite simply mean they are Southern, or Southernish), and that it would take (according to Bernie Machen) a jewel falling in our lap to get it started.

So that tells me it will have to be either Texas or Oklahoma to get things started and if they don't move with each other (prime stuff there) then it would likely be with one of their buddies.

Texas and Kansas adds the most value (outside of UT & OU), adds two AAU schools, fills in our missing rivals, and would make sense. But nothing screams, "ain't Southern" like "Jayhawk". I'd say Oklahoma and Iowa State would have some merit but Iowa isn't Southern either. And so far folks we haven't crossed the Mason - Dixon line in realignment.

So Texas or Oklahoma as the primary doesn't leave many solid seconds if Kansas and Iowa State aren't in play for us. So the short list would have to be OSU, TTU, TCU, or possibly WVU. Of those WVU has the greatest total gross revenue, OSU has the greatest economic impact value, and T.C.U. and WVU the worst. KSU would be out if KU is. Baylor is the cheese that stands alone

So what's your angle then Odin Frigg?

(07-16-2018 10:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So what's your angle then Odin Frigg?

My top personal preferences would not be reality, so it is fruitless to list them. I'm more of an "east side" proponent and P5 extraction options there are not fluid.


That said, and just dealing with "two" from the B12 (not more than that please; and just one would be more to my liking if a current ACC school could be pulled from NC). Texas & NC State? I'd say that's near a grand slam. I'd be OK with any one ACC school, some better than others of course, from UVA all the way down to Miami. Sankey is not enough of a wheeler-dealer for this.


So, I agree on Texas. Oklahoma too? I am less sure it will happen that way. OU with oSu? Not bad. Not my personal ideal.

If it comes down to a #16 pick among oSu, TTU, KU, KSU, ISU, or WVU, I'd say fine if coupled with Texas. I am less keen about TCU on several factors; and Baylor and their mess is a no-go. That said, Kansas and ISU have the better "academic" credentials to show. My prime issue with ISU are the location and travel involved.
They try hard, and give them credit for that. As to the others from the B12, each also have attributes and certain negatives. When the time comes those ADs and Presidents will need to decide who they want to play and bring into the fold, weighing all the variables. I am really suspicious of ESPN dictates on this; if that is really what they do. Consult, negotiate, and get figures, yes.

(07-19-2018 12:57 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(07-16-2018 10:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So what's your angle then Odin Frigg?

My top personal preferences would not be reality, so it is fruitless to list them. I'm more of an "east side" proponent and P5 extraction options there are not fluid.


That said, and just dealing with "two" from the B12 (not more than that please; and just one would be more to my liking if a current ACC school could be pulled from NC). Texas & NC State? I'd say that's near a grand slam. I'd be OK with any one ACC school, some better than others of course, from UVA all the way down to Miami. Sankey is not enough of a wheeler-dealer for this.


So, I agree on Texas. Oklahoma too? I am less sure it will happen that way. OU with oSu? Not bad. Not my personal ideal.

If it comes down to a #16 pick among oSu, TTU, KU, KSU, ISU, or WVU, I'd say fine if coupled with Texas. I am less keen about TCU on several factors; and Baylor and their mess is a no-go. That said, Kansas and ISU have the better "academic" credentials to show. My prime issue with ISU are the location and travel involved.
They try hard, and give them credit for that. As to the others from the B12, each also have attributes and certain negatives. When the time comes those ADs and Presidents will need to decide who they want to play and bring into the fold, weighing all the variables. I am really suspicious of ESPN dictates on this; if that is really what they do. Consult, negotiate, and get figures, yes.

Whether you pick the ACC or SEC if you really study the moves, and plot the rights on a map, there is little doubt as to whether ESPN is heavily involved. This isn't the thread for it, but their heavy hand IMO is not even debatable.

As to Eastern expansion ESPN simply refusing to pay the SEC to take those schools is why it hasn't happened. No doubt Duke and North Carolina are only potential acquisitions if the ACC were to collapse. I don't see N.C. State in the new pay model for sports rights being as valuable to us as they were in 2010. Virginia Tech might be as valuable as they would have been in 2010, but really we are talking outlier status there too when it comes to travel for most of the conference.

I agree we need a second Florida school and that Miami fills a geographical gap, while providing a strong academic add. I have my doubts about the composition of Miami the city moving forward. I don't know if football will continue to be an asset there beyond my time. Culture, and the die off of the Northeastern snowbirds aren't going to help it moving forward. I've had my eye on South Florida for an add 20 years out.

Oklahoma and Texas together anywhere represents a major destabilizing force between the conferences and the networks may not want to introduce such a destabilizing component into it. Splitting Texas and Oklahoma between the SEC and Big 10 might be more to their liking, although still not ideal from a stability standpoint. So I also agree that there is no clear cut solution to the current configurations.

If balance is what we want a 20 school PAC that absorbs the Big 12, and a Big 10 and SEC that both move to 20 out of the ACC is about as balanced as it gets. But we won't see that much movement because it's too much for fans to absorb and too risky because of it. This is why some of the ACC guys were speculating on simply moving to conferences of 15.

It will be moot likely past my lifetime if the Big 12 renews their GOR and status quo is maintained.

There are multiple catalysts for change at work here though and that is what clouds the picture.

There is the sports rights accretion that drives the A.D.'s and commissioners who are looking for bigger paychecks. There is the academic partnering that is being driven by demographic changes, restrictions on Federal and State funding, and their marketing agendas for students. And there is the commercial interest of the networks.

If you try to gain a grasp of what the concerted impact of these may yield and you try to find schools that fit all three agendas then your clear cut candidates are essentially 1, Texas. So if you need sports branding and value impact you add Oklahoma. If you wan't academic props you do look East. Kansas and Iowa State are AAU but in the bottom third of it. If you are a network you want another great draw. Outside of Texas there are no other schools in the Big 12 or ACC that check all three boxes. There is only the best of the rest.

But we are nearing the completion of this consolidation, so it is to be expected that the pickings are getting slimmer.

I like Oklahoma if we can't get Texas. I don't see us getting an ACC school. Their GOR expires in 2037 which will be past peak football. And quite frankly may well be past peak higher education and into a period of consolidation within state systems of higher education which will see smaller privates closing and directional state schools either being assimilated, retooled for vocational accreditation, or closed.

I believe travel will only get more costly and will curtail athletic associations.

So if Texas and Oklahoma renew their GOR and if the ACC is ever to be a target, then I could see movement in 2037 but it wouldn't be as much of a raid by the SEC as a consolidation back into regional flagships. Then North Carolina, Virginia, Duke and Miami, in a new redistricted South might see the wisdom of combining political influence to lobby for what they need and want. Texas and Oklahoma could easily be part of it. It is after all the only reason I see the Big 10 needing and wanting to move its sphere of influence Southeast or Southwest.

(07-15-2018 09:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So if Texas and Oklahoma renew their GOR and if the ACC is ever to be a target, then I could see movement in 2037 but it wouldn't be as much of a raid by the SEC as a consolidation back into regional flagships. Then North Carolina, Virginia, Duke and Miami, in a new redistricted South might see the wisdom of combining political influence to lobby for what they need and want. Texas and Oklahoma could easily be part of it. It is after all the only reason I see the Big 10 needing and wanting to move its sphere of influence Southeast or Southwest.

I could see FSU as the most likely team to move from the ACC as they’ve explored their options a couple of times publicly during the last set of realignment years. I don’t think UNC is going to abandon the ACC if they only lose a few schools. Virginia Tech might be hard to pry away too although they did listen to our offer years ago. Realistically I see us landing FSU and West Virginia to round things out in that round.

(07-20-2018 06:04 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 09:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So if Texas and Oklahoma renew their GOR and if the ACC is ever to be a target, then I could see movement in 2037 but it wouldn't be as much of a raid by the SEC as a consolidation back into regional flagships. Then North Carolina, Virginia, Duke and Miami, in a new redistricted South might see the wisdom of combining political influence to lobby for what they need and want. Texas and Oklahoma could easily be part of it. It is after all the only reason I see the Big 10 needing and wanting to move its sphere of influence Southeast or Southwest.

I could see FSU as the most likely team to move from the ACC as they’ve explored their options a couple of times publicly during the last set of realignment years. I don’t think UNC is going to abandon the ACC if they only lose a few schools. Virginia Tech might be hard to pry away too although they did listen to our offer years ago. Realistically I see us landing FSU and West Virginia to round things out in that round.

FSU brings more.value to the Big 10 than to the SEC. An out of the box expansion would look like FSU and Washington. If they could get past academics, FSU/Louisville to the Big 10 actually makes sense for them.

The ACC's proposed non-division pods they were proposed several years ago, was shot down by the SEC and BIG, while giving the B12 what they wanted.
The ACC intended to incorporate Notre Dame into their new proposed system for determining the conference champion.
The three pod model could work in the SEC. Conferences @ 15 members with three pods @ 5 members would be workable. So if just Texas was added to the SEC, that could work if minds were changed about divisions.
Such could be good for the remnants of the B12. Maybe the BIG is really just willing to go after one school the next time. It would fit a basketball format, as well as baseball.

SEC:. adds Texas (15)
PAC: adds OU, oSu, and TTU (15)
BIG: adds Kansas (15)
ACC:. Add ND fb FT (15)

Big 12 north:. KSU, ISU, WVU, Cincy, UConn
BIG 12 SW:. TCU, Baylor, Houston, SMU, Tulane
BIG 12 East:. Memphis, UCF, USF, ECU, Temple

OK, the ultra-expansion advocates won't like it. But it is doable. Who loses?

(07-20-2018 12:54 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  The ACC's proposed non-division pods they were proposed several years ago, was shot down by the SEC and BIG, while giving the B12 what they wanted.
The ACC intended to incorporate Notre Dame into their new proposed system for determining the conference champion.
The three pod model could work in the SEC. Conferences @ 15 members with three pods @ 5 members would be workable. So if just Texas was added to the SEC, that could work if minds were changed about divisions.
Such could be good for the remnants of the B12. Maybe the BIG is really just willing to go after one school the next time. It would fit a basketball format, as well as baseball.

SEC:. adds Texas (15)
PAC: adds OU, oSu, and TTU (15)
BIG: adds Kansas (15)
ACC:. Add ND fb FT (15)

Big 12 north:. KSU, ISU, WVU, Cincy, UConn
BIG 12 SW:. TCU, Baylor, Houston, SMU, Tulane
BIG 12 East:. Memphis, UCF, USF, ECU, Temple

OK, the ultra-expansion advocates won't like it. But it is doable. Who loses?

It's the same reason I supported 18 in 3 divisions of 6 for so long. But yes the format works and yes it may be the more economical way to move. But no, I don't see the Big 10 taking Kansas in that format. They are a natural fit but they don't increase the pie.

If each conference could only take 1 school to get to 15 then that school is going to have to deliver a lot.

So you are absolutely correct that if we had only 1 slot left then Texas checks more boxes for the SEC than any other school.

So who does that for the Big 10? Notre Dame They may not be able to land them but that's who they would go all out to get if 15 was going to be it. And if there was only going to be 1 more for the ACC and Notre Dame only has a one foot in now then they have to think about the total revenue moving forward. The ACC only has an upside in a 15 school model of 1/2 of Notre Dame. So let's say the Irish go all in and that the ACCN pays out 7 million a year (a healthy estimate for 3 years from the launch date). That puts the ACC in the 40 million range, or roughly where the SEC is today. If the SEC adds just Texas then at that time we along with the Big 10 would be North of 50 million. But Notre Dame could make as much as 15 million a year more than their potential ACC payout with a move to the Big 10. That's a 150 million a decade.

So if Texas goes SEC there will be great pressure for N.D. to go for much greater revenue.

So as I see it the SEC / ESPN would go for Texas.
The Big 10 would go for N.D. and settle for OU.
The PAC would add Kansas, Texas Tech, and possibly I.S.U.
The ACC would either retain N.D. fully, or would get stuck trying to find a replacement. Things at that point could get really interesting.

But if Kansas was acceptable to the Big 10 then you might have nailed down the moves.

So for the sake of discussion let's say the Big 10 doesn't take Kansas. How would it play out then?