(12-14-2014 11:59 AM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2014 02:38 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote: [ -> ] (12-12-2014 08:55 AM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ] (12-12-2014 08:36 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (12-12-2014 12:15 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote: [ -> ]How soon is this $20M to $25M for the B1GN and SECN share supposed to happen? That is like 3 times more than what the B1GN last paid out (I think it was around $8M). I have not seen any realistic estimates that these networks would pay out that much anytime in the near future. Are there any links with numbers and how they were figured (nothing from Clay Travis please)? This seems extremely unlikely. However, if it is true the SEC and B1G will be able to take any team they want from the B12 and ACC, and perhaps the PAC depending on the PACN payout, because that is as much or more than those conferences are paying out as a conference for their national deals or there will be mergers between the weaker conferences to create networks and line-ups to get similar payouts.
I'm sure that Oklahoma would like to leave, even without Texas. But where can they go?
We have already seen that the PAC won't take them without Texas, and I know that the ACC won't take them even with Texas. That leaves the B1G or the SEC. Between those two, the Sooners had better be making goo-goo eyes to the southeast.
The Sooners would rather go to the Big Ten. Even Missouri wanted The Big Ten over the SEC.
I am not so sure about your last statement H1. I doubt that Missouri even thought the SEC would give them a second look. I sure didn't see it coming. I realize the academic potential of joining the B1G though. I think our on field performance would have suffered much more as a member of the B1G,than as a Big XII school... like ten times worse than Nebraska is experiencing now. Could not have recruited the South, would probably lose the Texas pipeline, and wouldn't have been able to compete for the Northern kids against the established schools. The same will happen to Oklahoma if they make a move to the B1G. OU will fare much better in the SEC. Of course everything changes if the Longhorns make a move to the B1G. Would probably even help Nebraska. JMHO.
I am not saying everyone connected to Missouri would rather have been in the Big Ten back then but it was pretty clear that your leadership wanted it pretty badly. Who do you think got your Governor all fired up about it?
I disagree about Oklahoma. Norman is two and a half hours drive time from DFW. It is a false argument that you are buying into. They will be fine wherever they go. Nebraska's recruiting was already going down hill before they ever left the Big 12 and that is why any attempt to claim that Oklahoma would lose all it's recruiting is just silly and is simply false logic. Any kind of statement like that which is based upon a false premise is therefore false as well.
Nebraska's distance from Texas is an issue for them in terms of recruiting Texas. Nebraska at it's prime recruiting the entire country, not just Texas. Oklahoma is a much different situation. I realize you guys don't like the Big Ten and that doesn't bother me one bit but do try to keep to the facts in these debates with me. The Oklahoma situation is far from being the same as the Nebraska situation was.
H1 the timeline is important here. Missouri wanted the Big 10 at the time Nebraska went to the Big 10. It was a year later before Missouri's need for security was introduced to the SEC's need for markets by the 4 letter network. Until then the idea of Missouri in the SEC was a foreign concept to both.
(12-14-2014 12:31 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2014 11:59 AM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2014 02:38 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote: [ -> ] (12-12-2014 08:55 AM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ] (12-12-2014 08:36 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sure that Oklahoma would like to leave, even without Texas. But where can they go?
We have already seen that the PAC won't take them without Texas, and I know that the ACC won't take them even with Texas. That leaves the B1G or the SEC. Between those two, the Sooners had better be making goo-goo eyes to the southeast.
The Sooners would rather go to the Big Ten. Even Missouri wanted The Big Ten over the SEC.
I am not so sure about your last statement H1. I doubt that Missouri even thought the SEC would give them a second look. I sure didn't see it coming. I realize the academic potential of joining the B1G though. I think our on field performance would have suffered much more as a member of the B1G,than as a Big XII school... like ten times worse than Nebraska is experiencing now. Could not have recruited the South, would probably lose the Texas pipeline, and wouldn't have been able to compete for the Northern kids against the established schools. The same will happen to Oklahoma if they make a move to the B1G. OU will fare much better in the SEC. Of course everything changes if the Longhorns make a move to the B1G. Would probably even help Nebraska. JMHO.
I am not saying everyone connected to Missouri would rather have been in the Big Ten back then but it was pretty clear that your leadership wanted it pretty badly. Who do you think got your Governor all fired up about it?
I disagree about Oklahoma. Norman is two and a half hours drive time from DFW. It is a false argument that you are buying into. They will be fine wherever they go. Nebraska's recruiting was already going down hill before they ever left the Big 12 and that is why any attempt to claim that Oklahoma would lose all it's recruiting is just silly and is simply false logic. Any kind of statement like that which is based upon a false premise is therefore false as well.
Nebraska's distance from Texas is an issue for them in terms of recruiting Texas. Nebraska at it's prime recruiting the entire country, not just Texas. Oklahoma is a much different situation. I realize you guys don't like the Big Ten and that doesn't bother me one bit but do try to keep to the facts in these debates with me. The Oklahoma situation is far from being the same as the Nebraska situation was.
H1 the timeline is important here. Missouri wanted the Big 10 at the time Nebraska went to the Big 10. It was a year later before Missouri's need for security was introduced to the SEC's need for markets by the 4 letter network. Until then the idea of Missouri in the SEC was a foreign concept to both.
So what? Missouri wanted The Big Ten. You are trying to create an argument out of thin air that Missouri would have wanted the SEC instead of the Big Ten.
Look, you cant prove it. Missouri wanted The Big Ten and they wanted it badly. I suppose that wont stop you guys from creating a new dogma that Missouri leadership would have wanted the SEC over The Big Ten if they had the choice of both set before them.
(12-14-2014 12:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2014 12:31 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2014 11:59 AM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2014 02:38 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote: [ -> ] (12-12-2014 08:55 AM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]The Sooners would rather go to the Big Ten. Even Missouri wanted The Big Ten over the SEC.
I am not so sure about your last statement H1. I doubt that Missouri even thought the SEC would give them a second look. I sure didn't see it coming. I realize the academic potential of joining the B1G though. I think our on field performance would have suffered much more as a member of the B1G,than as a Big XII school... like ten times worse than Nebraska is experiencing now. Could not have recruited the South, would probably lose the Texas pipeline, and wouldn't have been able to compete for the Northern kids against the established schools. The same will happen to Oklahoma if they make a move to the B1G. OU will fare much better in the SEC. Of course everything changes if the Longhorns make a move to the B1G. Would probably even help Nebraska. JMHO.
I am not saying everyone connected to Missouri would rather have been in the Big Ten back then but it was pretty clear that your leadership wanted it pretty badly. Who do you think got your Governor all fired up about it?
I disagree about Oklahoma. Norman is two and a half hours drive time from DFW. It is a false argument that you are buying into. They will be fine wherever they go. Nebraska's recruiting was already going down hill before they ever left the Big 12 and that is why any attempt to claim that Oklahoma would lose all it's recruiting is just silly and is simply false logic. Any kind of statement like that which is based upon a false premise is therefore false as well.
Nebraska's distance from Texas is an issue for them in terms of recruiting Texas. Nebraska at it's prime recruiting the entire country, not just Texas. Oklahoma is a much different situation. I realize you guys don't like the Big Ten and that doesn't bother me one bit but do try to keep to the facts in these debates with me. The Oklahoma situation is far from being the same as the Nebraska situation was.
H1 the timeline is important here. Missouri wanted the Big 10 at the time Nebraska went to the Big 10. It was a year later before Missouri's need for security was introduced to the SEC's need for markets by the 4 letter network. Until then the idea of Missouri in the SEC was a foreign concept to both.
So what? Missouri wanted The Big Ten. You are trying to create an argument out of thin air that Missouri would have wanted the SEC instead of the Big Ten.
Look, you cant prove it. Missouri wanted The Big Ten and they wanted it badly. I suppose that wont stop you guys from creating a new dogma that Missouri leadership would have wanted the SEC over The Big Ten if they had the choice of both set before them.
You're the one creating an argument out of thin air because I didn't disagree with your point. I merely pointed out that a year after Missouri expressed their desire to be part of the Big 10 the network suggested they talk to the SEC or vice versa. Please point out where I said Missouri wanted the SEC over the Big 10. You're way too hypersensitive these days. But maybe that's because even the few that supported OU to the Big 10 over at Landthieves are now coming around to the SEC concept. Not that they have any say in the matter.
(12-14-2014 12:42 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2014 12:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2014 12:31 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2014 11:59 AM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2014 02:38 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote: [ -> ]I am not so sure about your last statement H1. I doubt that Missouri even thought the SEC would give them a second look. I sure didn't see it coming. I realize the academic potential of joining the B1G though. I think our on field performance would have suffered much more as a member of the B1G,than as a Big XII school... like ten times worse than Nebraska is experiencing now. Could not have recruited the South, would probably lose the Texas pipeline, and wouldn't have been able to compete for the Northern kids against the established schools. The same will happen to Oklahoma if they make a move to the B1G. OU will fare much better in the SEC. Of course everything changes if the Longhorns make a move to the B1G. Would probably even help Nebraska. JMHO.
I am not saying everyone connected to Missouri would rather have been in the Big Ten back then but it was pretty clear that your leadership wanted it pretty badly. Who do you think got your Governor all fired up about it?
I disagree about Oklahoma. Norman is two and a half hours drive time from DFW. It is a false argument that you are buying into. They will be fine wherever they go. Nebraska's recruiting was already going down hill before they ever left the Big 12 and that is why any attempt to claim that Oklahoma would lose all it's recruiting is just silly and is simply false logic. Any kind of statement like that which is based upon a false premise is therefore false as well.
Nebraska's distance from Texas is an issue for them in terms of recruiting Texas. Nebraska at it's prime recruiting the entire country, not just Texas. Oklahoma is a much different situation. I realize you guys don't like the Big Ten and that doesn't bother me one bit but do try to keep to the facts in these debates with me. The Oklahoma situation is far from being the same as the Nebraska situation was.
H1 the timeline is important here. Missouri wanted the Big 10 at the time Nebraska went to the Big 10. It was a year later before Missouri's need for security was introduced to the SEC's need for markets by the 4 letter network. Until then the idea of Missouri in the SEC was a foreign concept to both.
So what? Missouri wanted The Big Ten. You are trying to create an argument out of thin air that Missouri would have wanted the SEC instead of the Big Ten.
Look, you cant prove it. Missouri wanted The Big Ten and they wanted it badly. I suppose that wont stop you guys from creating a new dogma that Missouri leadership would have wanted the SEC over The Big Ten if they had the choice of both set before them.
You're the one creating an argument out of thin air because I didn't disagree with your point. I merely pointed out that a year after Missouri expressed their desire to be part of the Big 10 the network suggested they talk to the SEC or vice versa. Please point out where I said Missouri wanted the SEC over the Big 10. You're way too hypersensitive these days. But maybe that's because even the few that supported OU to the Big 10 over at Landthieves are now coming around to the SEC concept. Not that they have any say in the matter.
As if I have EVER balanced my own opinions based upon the opinions of others, especially the most extremely biased. It is nice that you keep tabs on me but they are breaking down over there in quite predictable fashion, as I predicted there and here.
As you say, they have zero say in the matter, I only posted there initially to get an idea of how some folks would react to the concept.
I am not creating my own argument out of thin air. It is pretty obvious the angle you were attempting to go towards. That doesn't equal hypersensitive, that just means I have seen pretty much every tactic someone could throw at me at this point. You were angled in the direction that Missouri would never even have been interested in the Big Ten if the SEC was available to them at the time when they were trying to land Big Ten membership.
So you will have to pardon me, I will say it once again, just because a large number of people repeat the same illogical concept...that doesn't make it right. Just look at religion for the perfect example. After all, not all religions can be right.
Oklahoma moving to the Big Ten wont change the location of Norman, Oklahoma. Oklahoma moving to the Big Ten has a strong chance of dominating. Oklahoma moving to the SEC? That is much more questionable. Administrators NEVER put up a poll as to where they should move their school. Why? Because fans make dumb choices based on very simplistic notions. So if you want to take a jab at me for that, you are going to completely miss.
(12-14-2014 04:32 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2014 12:42 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2014 12:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2014 12:31 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2014 11:59 AM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]I am not saying everyone connected to Missouri would rather have been in the Big Ten back then but it was pretty clear that your leadership wanted it pretty badly. Who do you think got your Governor all fired up about it?
I disagree about Oklahoma. Norman is two and a half hours drive time from DFW. It is a false argument that you are buying into. They will be fine wherever they go. Nebraska's recruiting was already going down hill before they ever left the Big 12 and that is why any attempt to claim that Oklahoma would lose all it's recruiting is just silly and is simply false logic. Any kind of statement like that which is based upon a false premise is therefore false as well.
Nebraska's distance from Texas is an issue for them in terms of recruiting Texas. Nebraska at it's prime recruiting the entire country, not just Texas. Oklahoma is a much different situation. I realize you guys don't like the Big Ten and that doesn't bother me one bit but do try to keep to the facts in these debates with me. The Oklahoma situation is far from being the same as the Nebraska situation was.
H1 the timeline is important here. Missouri wanted the Big 10 at the time Nebraska went to the Big 10. It was a year later before Missouri's need for security was introduced to the SEC's need for markets by the 4 letter network. Until then the idea of Missouri in the SEC was a foreign concept to both.
So what? Missouri wanted The Big Ten. You are trying to create an argument out of thin air that Missouri would have wanted the SEC instead of the Big Ten.
Look, you cant prove it. Missouri wanted The Big Ten and they wanted it badly. I suppose that wont stop you guys from creating a new dogma that Missouri leadership would have wanted the SEC over The Big Ten if they had the choice of both set before them.
You're the one creating an argument out of thin air because I didn't disagree with your point. I merely pointed out that a year after Missouri expressed their desire to be part of the Big 10 the network suggested they talk to the SEC or vice versa. Please point out where I said Missouri wanted the SEC over the Big 10. You're way too hypersensitive these days. But maybe that's because even the few that supported OU to the Big 10 over at Landthieves are now coming around to the SEC concept. Not that they have any say in the matter.
As if I have EVER balanced my own opinions based upon the opinions of others, especially the most extremely biased. It is nice that you keep tabs on me but they are breaking down over there in quite predictable fashion, as I predicted there and here.
As you say, they have zero say in the matter, I only posted there initially to get an idea of how some folks would react to the concept.
I am not creating my own argument out of thin air. It is pretty obvious the angle you were attempting to go towards. That doesn't equal hypersensitive, that just means I have seen pretty much every tactic someone could throw at me at this point. You were angled in the direction that Missouri would never even have been interested in the Big Ten if the SEC was available to them at the time when they were trying to land Big Ten membership.
So you will have to pardon me, I will say it once again, just because a large number of people repeat the same illogical concept...that doesn't make it right. Just look at religion for the perfect example. After all, not all religions can be right.
Oklahoma moving to the Big Ten wont change the location of Norman, Oklahoma. Oklahoma moving to the Big Ten has a strong chance of dominating. Oklahoma moving to the SEC? That is much more questionable. Administrators NEVER put up a poll as to where they should move their school. Why? Because fans make dumb choices based on very simplistic notions. So if you want to take a jab at me for that, you are going to completely miss.
Blah, blah, blah. Oklahoma to the Big 10 isn't ever going to happen and if it does I'll rep you. As for my other post I was being sincere and your trying to guess people's motives is simply approaching paranoia at the worst, and extremely damaging to normal conversation at the best. H1 you've got some good ideas and insights, and it's fun to talk this stuff with you, but it's okay to disagree and just to take people at face value. It actually works pretty well.
(12-14-2014 04:47 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2014 04:32 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2014 12:42 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2014 12:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2014 12:31 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]H1 the timeline is important here. Missouri wanted the Big 10 at the time Nebraska went to the Big 10. It was a year later before Missouri's need for security was introduced to the SEC's need for markets by the 4 letter network. Until then the idea of Missouri in the SEC was a foreign concept to both.
So what? Missouri wanted The Big Ten. You are trying to create an argument out of thin air that Missouri would have wanted the SEC instead of the Big Ten.
Look, you cant prove it. Missouri wanted The Big Ten and they wanted it badly. I suppose that wont stop you guys from creating a new dogma that Missouri leadership would have wanted the SEC over The Big Ten if they had the choice of both set before them.
You're the one creating an argument out of thin air because I didn't disagree with your point. I merely pointed out that a year after Missouri expressed their desire to be part of the Big 10 the network suggested they talk to the SEC or vice versa. Please point out where I said Missouri wanted the SEC over the Big 10. You're way too hypersensitive these days. But maybe that's because even the few that supported OU to the Big 10 over at Landthieves are now coming around to the SEC concept. Not that they have any say in the matter.
As if I have EVER balanced my own opinions based upon the opinions of others, especially the most extremely biased. It is nice that you keep tabs on me but they are breaking down over there in quite predictable fashion, as I predicted there and here.
As you say, they have zero say in the matter, I only posted there initially to get an idea of how some folks would react to the concept.
I am not creating my own argument out of thin air. It is pretty obvious the angle you were attempting to go towards. That doesn't equal hypersensitive, that just means I have seen pretty much every tactic someone could throw at me at this point. You were angled in the direction that Missouri would never even have been interested in the Big Ten if the SEC was available to them at the time when they were trying to land Big Ten membership.
So you will have to pardon me, I will say it once again, just because a large number of people repeat the same illogical concept...that doesn't make it right. Just look at religion for the perfect example. After all, not all religions can be right.
Oklahoma moving to the Big Ten wont change the location of Norman, Oklahoma. Oklahoma moving to the Big Ten has a strong chance of dominating. Oklahoma moving to the SEC? That is much more questionable. Administrators NEVER put up a poll as to where they should move their school. Why? Because fans make dumb choices based on very simplistic notions. So if you want to take a jab at me for that, you are going to completely miss.
Blah, blah, blah. Oklahoma to the Big 10 isn't ever going to happen and if it does I'll rep you. As for my other post I was being sincere and your trying to guess people's motives is simply approaching paranoia at the worst, and extremely damaging to normal conversation at the best. H1 you've got some good ideas and insights, and it's fun to talk this stuff with you, but it's okay to disagree and just to take people at face value. It actually works pretty well.
Oklahoma to the SEC isn't ever going to happen and I am not worried at all about having to rep you for being right about that.
Don't you guys think the yellow stream is getting too deep?
(12-14-2014 07:23 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]Don't you guys think the yellow stream is getting too deep?
I guess that is a matter of perspective and intention. Since when did you start marking twain in yellow streams?
It has simply been my observation that as long as the Big 12 stays at 10 there is really no intention or commitment from either of the top two schools to either leave, or to remain. They stay at 10 to keep the options of the Longhorns and Sooners open. Therefore speculation about where they would go, or might go, has relevance until they either leave, or add to their ranks. Since they refuse the latter it remains palpable that they eventually intend the former. I asserted that when they added WVU and TCU and left Louisville, B.Y.U., and or Cincinnati out.
But until N.D. commits fully, the potential, although not the likelihood, is there for the ACC to be parsed as well. It could and would be a profitable move on the part of ESPN, unless the Irish want to throw in totally.
With autonomy will come the ability to alter structures. It simply remains to be seen whether that autonomy is used to create structures that benefit the most solid 3 of the remaining P5 conferences, is used to consolidate the remaining 4 into groupings equitable enough to keep competition viable, or whether because of the personalities involved nothing happens. Texas has a strong enough economic situation to make their own reality to an extent. North Carolina, Duke, and Virginia may be quite well endowed but the surrounding schools in the ACC are in various stages of economic dependence or independence.
Whatever grouping favors the markets will be the one that the networks seek. Their motive is simple, profit. I'm willing to bet that more consolidation will take place. There are too many inherent weaknesses in both the ACC and Big 12 for a truly competitive system to be developed that will enhance the interest of the broadest segment of the market and keep it engaged until the final week of the season. The Big 12 doesn't have a strong market to exploit, and the ACC doesn't exploit the market they have. It is really as simple as that. Either one or the other will be strengthened almost certainly at the others expense, or both could still be collapsed into 3 relatively competitive and equal structures. But I don't think that things will remain the same for either.
So a refusal to accommodate Texas could be the key to the survival or eventual demise of the ACC. If so the continued myopia of the old core of the ACC could be their undoing. It is after all essentially the same issue that has destroyed the old SWC, Big8, and now stands to destroy the union of those two. Penn State put aside ego and found security. Nebraska has done the same as have Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas,and A&M. With the Big 12 it remains Texas as the sun, Oklahoma as the moon, and 8 planets that depend upon them for light and stability. The ACC might be a safe haven for old Big East schools, or it could be that two planetary systems have collided and that their orbits are still uncertain. Since the ability to make money has been the lure to consolidation the gravitational pull upon the ACC's schools could still be to the North, or to the South and Southwest. We'll see.
"I am not saying everyone connected to Missouri would rather have been in the Big Ten back then but it was pretty clear that your leadership wanted it pretty badly. Who do you think got your Governor all fired up about it?
I disagree about Oklahoma. Norman is two and a half hours drive time from DFW. It is a false argument that you are buying into. They will be fine wherever they go. Nebraska's recruiting was already going down hill before they ever left the Big 12 and that is why any attempt to claim that Oklahoma would lose all it's recruiting is just silly and is simply false logic. Any kind of statement like that which is based upon a false premise is therefore false as well.
Nebraska's distance from Texas is an issue for them in terms of recruiting Texas. Nebraska at it's prime recruiting the entire country, not just Texas. Oklahoma is a much different situation. I realize you guys don't like the Big Ten and that doesn't bother me one bit but do try to keep to the facts in these debates with me. The Oklahoma situation is far from being the same as the Nebraska situation was."
1. I do not think any of us know what will happen.
2. I for one do not dislike the B1G. Was just angry until the SEC called.
3. You can't call a theory or opinion a falsehood. We cannot say how OU will do in any new conference, as it has not happened or been proved.
4. My OU to the B1G opinion was based upon the idea that OU goes to the B1G without Texas. I do not invision a bundle of Texas kids signing up to play for OU in the B1G. I do see Texas recruits signing up at OU to play A&M, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, and possibly Baylor. Much closer sites to their homes than any B1G school. It is not a falsehood... it is my opinion.
5. Of course DFW is close by. Question to me is, who do these kids want to compete against? Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, etc.? It is my opinion that many of the potential OU recruits might just start beefing up the Aggies, LSU, and Arkansas.
6. I was one of the first posters to back Ohio State two weeks ago. They totally deserved the spot in the playoff. I am not a hater...
7. We are arguing about events of the past. Who cares what Missouri planned or wanted years ago. Question is now, would they change the present. Let me phrase this answer carefully... I doubt it...
Medic, in the future we will no doubt we conferences expand their championships into tournaments of their own. Why? Money. That is why it is inevitable. I was one of very few that has consistently said the national tournament would expand sooner rather than later. Now that is a common belief but only because people are being told that by the media. The money will drive it as well as difficulties created by having to pick just four. I remember making that point before this season ever happened. I actually didn't think it would necessarily happen in the first year but it did.
So, to the point, the game is becoming a much more National game. With Michigan soon to land Harbaugh, the Big Ten is finally learning that it has to put all that money of theirs to work. It will rise again in prominence and not be such a bad place to play some football. Oklahoma would be in a four team division with their old rival Nebraska. They would most likely dominate their division and be in that highly visible Big Ten Tournament more often then not. That is a great route for them to receive even more National attention with berths to the National Tournament.
You know what kids from Texas want? National Attention and that is why Texas A&M has become the number one choice for Texas recruits. They aren't playing any of those teams from the Big 12, maybe one OOC game a year at most. Oklahoma would retain it's game against Texas every year. They would retain against Oklahoma State and probably more often then not they would schedule their final OOC game against some Texas team.
The Big Ten, if everyone follows the path of Ohio State and Michigan, will rise again and that is inevitable. Oklahoma in the SEC, do they get onto the National Stage all that often? I think it is a safe thing for me to say when I say that they will reach the National Stage much more often than they would in the SEC. That is what will matter most in future recruiting.
(12-19-2014 08:30 AM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]Medic, in the future we will no doubt we conferences expand their championships into tournaments of their own. Why? Money. That is why it is inevitable. I was one of very few that has consistently said the national tournament would expand sooner rather than later. Now that is a common belief but only because people are being told that by the media. The money will drive it as well as difficulties created by having to pick just four. I remember making that point before this season ever happened. I actually didn't think it would necessarily happen in the first year but it did.
So, to the point, the game is becoming a much more National game. With Michigan soon to land Harbaugh, the Big Ten is finally learning that it has to put all that money of theirs to work. It will rise again in prominence and not be such a bad place to play some football. Oklahoma would be in a four team division with their old rival Nebraska. They would most likely dominate their division and be in that highly visible Big Ten Tournament more often then not. That is a great route for them to receive even more National attention with berths to the National Tournament.
You know what kids from Texas want? National Attention and that is why Texas A&M has become the number one choice for Texas recruits. They aren't playing any of those teams from the Big 12, maybe one OOC game a year at most. Oklahoma would retain it's game against Texas every year. They would retain against Oklahoma State and probably more often then not they would schedule their final OOC game against some Texas team.
The Big Ten, if everyone follows the path of Ohio State and Michigan, will rise again and that is inevitable. Oklahoma in the SEC, do they get onto the National Stage all that often? I think it is a safe thing for me to say when I say that they will reach the National Stage much more often than they would in the SEC. That is what will matter most in future recruiting.
H1 if the Big 12 is absorbed we will simply move to a four champions model and the expansion in the playoffs will be at the conference level. 4 divisional champions will play for the conference championship and the conference champions will play for the title. That's better than expanding the national playoff anyway because the conferences keep all of their revenue for their internal playoffs.
The game is going national, but it is going to be regionalized for determining champions first. It is important to the networks to do it that way because it insures that all four regions of the nation are still involved through the national semifinals.
I agree that investing in coaching will help to close the gap, but the truth again is that most recruits stay near home. So the better coaching talent will close the gap for the Big 10 in on field play but all of the money in the world won't put you into the recruiting areas if you don't raid the ACC. And no matter what your assertions are, an Oklahoma in the Big 10 without Texas is a dead Sooner walking. Those Texas kids they depend on are going to stick with games closer to home than Wisconsin and Minnesota and Iowa and even Nebraska. Fans at OU are already very vocal about not playing teams they want to see. Arkansas, Missouri, A&M and the other Texas schools and OSU are who they care to play. And as far as rotational games go inside a conference schedule the SEC offers over 2 times the names to play as the Big 10. You have Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan outside of what would be the Sooners division. The SEC would have Auburn, Alabama, Florida, L.S.U., Tennessee, Georgia, and South Carolina. Not to mention the number of schools they would desire to play in division would be greater in the SEC.
Just some things to think about. Plus it is a lot easier for Sooner fans to get to Gainesville than it would be to travel to Rutgers or Maryland for what most football fans would call less than stellar games. Kentucky would be the longest least desirable trip in the SEC and that's really not that far by comparison to most of the Big 10. No spin, just geography.
Sorry, I disagree. Besides, your "closer to home" theory doesn't work for Oklahoma. It is two and a half hours away from DFW. If they are winning more divisional titles, conference championships and making it into more National Tournaments through the Big Ten then that is the better place for them. I know you wont admit it due to your SEC nature but you cant deny that they would have an easier route in the Big Ten currently.
Compare their likely divisions.
Big Ten: Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas
SEC: LSU, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Arkansas
They are just as likely to fade in relevance in the SEC as they are to rise in relevance. In the Big Ten they will remain a King. That really isn't all that debatable.
Now you want to talk scheduling? In a sixteen team, four division conference, the scheduling goes like this: Three games in division and two against every other division. That means only one road game against every other division. That means just three games a year into those other regions of the Big Ten. Most likely the three divisional games are all played at the end of the conference schedule, if the conference scheduling committee has any sense at all. That means you are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill in order to win this. I don't get it. Your doomsday theory is about as eye roll worthy as most doomsday theories.
(12-19-2014 07:10 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry, I disagree. Besides, your "closer to home" theory doesn't work for Oklahoma. It is two and a half hours away from DFW. If they are winning more divisional titles, conference championships and making it into more National Tournaments through the Big Ten then that is the better place for them. I know you wont admit it due to your SEC nature but you cant deny that they would have an easier route in the Big Ten currently.
Compare their likely divisions.
Big Ten: Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas
SEC: LSU, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Arkansas
They are just as likely to fade in relevance in the SEC as they are to rise in relevance. In the Big Ten they will remain a King. That really isn't all that debatable.
Now you want to talk scheduling? In a sixteen team, four division conference, the scheduling goes like this: Three games in division and two against every other division. That means only one road game against every other division. That means just three games a year into those other regions of the Big Ten. Most likely the three divisional games are all played at the end of the conference schedule, if the conference scheduling committee has any sense at all. That means you are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill in order to win this. I don't get it. Your doomsday theory is about as eye roll worthy as most doomsday theories.
The Big 10 will either expand again out of the ACC or it will be shut out of targets. I expect ESPN to ascertain two things prior to negotiating with the Big 10 in a year. First they will find out whether the ACC will agree to take Texas (and whether that indeed has the requirement of a couple of Longhorn friends as tag a longs) and second if such a move would bring N.D. all in with the ACC. If the answer is yes to both questions then there is really no reason for ESPN to pursue the Big 10's T1 because ESPN will already own New York and New England and because ESPN will have little to offer the Big 10 in the way of markets. If that is the outcome it also paves the way for Oklahoma and Kansas (and possibly a couple of tag a longs there as well) in an effort to build the markets of the SECN and to set up crossover rivalry games with the ACC's new members. These moves leave Delany, and more importantly FOX, nowhere to expand. FOX will be forced to pony up the money the Big 10 wants for their T1 and ESPN will simply chance it that they can use the content in the expanded ACC and SEC to still outdraw FOX in ratings. Notre Dame Syracuse, B.C., Pitt, West Virginia, and the core of the ACC give them all the hoops they need, New York viewers, and New England. They will have the hammer and will permit the Big 10 time to stew about it all before the next contract comes out. Without content additions the Big 10 will slowly decline in viewership and eventually in revenue.
If the ACC refuses Texas (mostly U.N.C. out of fear of losing control of the ACC) or if N.D. says no to all in, then moving ACC product to the Big 10 makes them more money. Then Delany gets into North Carolina and Virginia and picks up Syracuse and B.C. if he wants them. If Duke goes along with the other two then maybe N.D. finally casts its lot with the Big 10, or the Irish could go with the remnants of the ACC to rebuild a powerful Big 12. But in any event the Big 10's T1 then becomes important to ESPN and they will pony up product and cash to land it.
What happens with the proposal of Texas to the ACC and with N.D.'s relationship with the ACC will determine the final moves of realignment for the Big 10, the SEC, and the PAC. And, Delany, Slive, Scott, Bowlsby, or Slive's replacement will have little to do with it. Truly the ACC could have a big leg up on the rest of us with the right additions, or with backbiting and petty behavior they could be worth more in pieces everywhere else. Add Texas and N.D. to F.S.U., Clemson, Virginia Tech, Miami, and Georgia Tech and you have a conference that can stand on its own and finally deliver the tv sets in its own footprint. But if they refuse then a big piece of the Big 10's T1 for a long duration is worth more to ESPN, and increased footprint and content additions for the SEC are worth more to ESPN, and a piece of the PACN is worth more to ESPN, than the stalling and maneuvering out of Chapel Hill.
Autonomy and structure issues will make it possible for ESPN to finish the reconstruction of the new upper divisions in college football. How the ACC responds to the ESPN plan will simply determine how the plan plays out. But ultimately the network will make more, one way or the other.
Well, since the reaction to Maryland and Rutgers, I don't know if more of the Big Ten power persons are interested in more East Coast expansion or if they would rather look into a strong Midwest expansion in order to balance the additions of Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland. Those three to the East balanced by Nebraska, Oklahoma and Kansas to the West. That is a pretty strong expansion ending and it is one that Big Ten traditionals would be more amiable to than a heavy move to the East.
You are right though about how strong the ACC could become with the additions that I list for them. They might just end up with an expansion of Texas (partial), Baylor and UConn. That really isn't all that scary to the SEC. If the Big Ten lands Oklahoma then it doesn't really worry me for the Big Ten either. I see good things happening for the Big Ten if the trend continues and Michigan can actually land Harbaugh. They are coming around. Seeing Pelini get the boot at Nebraska is also good news. Chryst finally coming back to Wisconsin in order to create some stability there will help. Dantonio at Michigan State, Franklin at Penn State. The future is looking alright.
Right now, as it stands, the Big 12 puts out a better football product than the ACC so worrying about what the ACC could become in the future isn't as big of a deal as is what The Big 12 is now. I have nothing against the Big 12, I have nothing against the ACC and I really, honestly, don't have anything against the SEC. I like how much **** the Big Ten has been taking lately. They deserve it but I think they will turn things around.
I still am of the opinion that ESPN is in the business of protecting their basketball interests with the ACC. That is why I think they would like the triple addition of Texas, Baylor and UConn to ACC basketball. Now that right there is the biggest threat that the ACC would pose to either the SEC or Big Ten.
(12-21-2014 03:17 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]Well, since the reaction to Maryland and Rutgers, I don't know if more of the Big Ten power persons are interested in more East Coast expansion or if they would rather look into a strong Midwest expansion in order to balance the additions of Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland. Those three to the East balanced by Nebraska, Oklahoma and Kansas to the West. That is a pretty strong expansion ending and it is one that Big Ten traditionals would be more amiable to than a heavy move to the East.
You are right though about how strong the ACC could become with the additions that I list for them. They might just end up with an expansion of Texas (partial), Baylor and UConn. That really isn't all that scary to the SEC. If the Big Ten lands Oklahoma then it doesn't really worry me for the Big Ten either. I see good things happening for the Big Ten if the trend continues and Michigan can actually land Harbaugh. They are coming around. Seeing Pelini get the boot at Nebraska is also good news. Chryst finally coming back to Wisconsin in order to create some stability there will help. Dantonio at Michigan State, Franklin at Penn State. The future is looking alright.
Right now, as it stands, the Big 12 puts out a better football product than the ACC so worrying about what the ACC could become in the future isn't as big of a deal as is what The Big 12 is now. I have nothing against the Big 12, I have nothing against the ACC and I really, honestly, don't have anything against the SEC. I like how much **** the Big Ten has been taking lately. They deserve it but I think they will turn things around.
I still am of the opinion that ESPN is in the business of protecting their basketball interests with the ACC. That is why I think they would like the triple addition of Texas, Baylor and UConn to ACC basketball. Now that right there is the biggest threat that the ACC would pose to either the SEC or Big Ten.
H1, if indeed the triple addition to the ACC was made, it would be with Texas (partial), Baylor and Kansas. This is the only scenario in which I think the ACC would agree to take Texas as a partial member.
The B1G could then try to pry Missouri away from the SEC to pair with Oklahoma or look to UConn to try to enhance their basketball product.
(12-21-2014 03:56 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (12-21-2014 03:17 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]Well, since the reaction to Maryland and Rutgers, I don't know if more of the Big Ten power persons are interested in more East Coast expansion or if they would rather look into a strong Midwest expansion in order to balance the additions of Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland. Those three to the East balanced by Nebraska, Oklahoma and Kansas to the West. That is a pretty strong expansion ending and it is one that Big Ten traditionals would be more amiable to than a heavy move to the East.
You are right though about how strong the ACC could become with the additions that I list for them. They might just end up with an expansion of Texas (partial), Baylor and UConn. That really isn't all that scary to the SEC. If the Big Ten lands Oklahoma then it doesn't really worry me for the Big Ten either. I see good things happening for the Big Ten if the trend continues and Michigan can actually land Harbaugh. They are coming around. Seeing Pelini get the boot at Nebraska is also good news. Chryst finally coming back to Wisconsin in order to create some stability there will help. Dantonio at Michigan State, Franklin at Penn State. The future is looking alright.
Right now, as it stands, the Big 12 puts out a better football product than the ACC so worrying about what the ACC could become in the future isn't as big of a deal as is what The Big 12 is now. I have nothing against the Big 12, I have nothing against the ACC and I really, honestly, don't have anything against the SEC. I like how much **** the Big Ten has been taking lately. They deserve it but I think they will turn things around.
I still am of the opinion that ESPN is in the business of protecting their basketball interests with the ACC. That is why I think they would like the triple addition of Texas, Baylor and UConn to ACC basketball. Now that right there is the biggest threat that the ACC would pose to either the SEC or Big Ten.
H1, if indeed the triple addition to the ACC was made, it would be with Texas (partial), Baylor and Kansas. The B1G could then try to pry Missouri away from the SEC to pair with Oklahoma or look to UConn to try to enhance their basketball product.
I can virtually assure you that if Texas moves to the ACC Oklahoma will not be moving to the Big 10. I can equally assure you that Missouri is bound by the same kind of GOR that the Big 10 has with its network. If Kansas goes to the ACC with Texas then either we are moving for the Va Tech swap or the SEC lands West Virginia with Oklahoma.
(12-21-2014 04:33 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-21-2014 03:56 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (12-21-2014 03:17 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]Well, since the reaction to Maryland and Rutgers, I don't know if more of the Big Ten power persons are interested in more East Coast expansion or if they would rather look into a strong Midwest expansion in order to balance the additions of Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland. Those three to the East balanced by Nebraska, Oklahoma and Kansas to the West. That is a pretty strong expansion ending and it is one that Big Ten traditionals would be more amiable to than a heavy move to the East.
You are right though about how strong the ACC could become with the additions that I list for them. They might just end up with an expansion of Texas (partial), Baylor and UConn. That really isn't all that scary to the SEC. If the Big Ten lands Oklahoma then it doesn't really worry me for the Big Ten either. I see good things happening for the Big Ten if the trend continues and Michigan can actually land Harbaugh. They are coming around. Seeing Pelini get the boot at Nebraska is also good news. Chryst finally coming back to Wisconsin in order to create some stability there will help. Dantonio at Michigan State, Franklin at Penn State. The future is looking alright.
Right now, as it stands, the Big 12 puts out a better football product than the ACC so worrying about what the ACC could become in the future isn't as big of a deal as is what The Big 12 is now. I have nothing against the Big 12, I have nothing against the ACC and I really, honestly, don't have anything against the SEC. I like how much **** the Big Ten has been taking lately. They deserve it but I think they will turn things around.
I still am of the opinion that ESPN is in the business of protecting their basketball interests with the ACC. That is why I think they would like the triple addition of Texas, Baylor and UConn to ACC basketball. Now that right there is the biggest threat that the ACC would pose to either the SEC or Big Ten.
H1, if indeed the triple addition to the ACC was made, it would be with Texas (partial), Baylor and Kansas. The B1G could then try to pry Missouri away from the SEC to pair with Oklahoma or look to UConn to try to enhance their basketball product.
I can virtually assure you that if Texas moves to the ACC Oklahoma will not be moving to the Big 10. I can equally assure you that Missouri is bound by the same kind of GOR that the Big 10 has with its network. If Kansas goes to the ACC with Texas then either we are moving for the Va Tech swap or the SEC lands West Virginia with Oklahoma.
I would agree that West Virginia would be headed to the SEC in that scenario.
New scenario:
UT, TT, TCU, OU to the PAC12
WVU and Ok State to the SEC
KU, KSU and ISU to the ACC
VT and UCONN to the Big Ten
If TCU is good enough to be sent to the PAC w/o Texas then its value to Texas might be higher than thought (after all, they were picked to replace Mizzou). Texas wants to play at least five games in the state of Texas. Games against TT, OU (RRR) and TCU every year would go a long way towards meeting their goals. They could play two patsies plus marquee OOC games against the likes of ND, Ohio State, Miami, Penn State, etc..
The two complications are obviously the Longhorn Network and whether the likes of Stanford can accept TCU as secular enough for their comfort.
Without OU or UT the B1G could make a play for VTech to get into the 757 recruiting area and further expand East. That would be at the price of the ACC adding two more AAU schools and another good football school in the Midwest.
(12-25-2014 11:04 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote: [ -> ]New scenario:
UT, TT, TCU, OU to the PAC12
WVU and Ok State to the SEC
KU, KSU and ISU to the ACC
VT and UCONN to the Big Ten
If TCU is good enough to be sent to the PAC w/o Texas then its value to Texas might be higher than thought (after all, they were picked to replace Mizzou). Texas wants to play at least five games in the state of Texas. Games against TT, OU (RRR) and TCU every year would go a long way towards meeting their goals. They could play two patsies plus marquee OOC games against the likes of ND, Ohio State, Miami, Penn State, etc..
The two complications are obviously the Longhorn Network and whether the likes of Stanford can accept TCU as secular enough for their comfort.
Without OU or UT the B1G could make a play for VTech to get into the 757 recruiting area and further expand East. That would be at the price of the ACC adding two more AAU schools and another good football school in the Midwest.
I just don't see Va Tech to the Big 10. I think KU and UConn would still be the most likely there.
I don't think the ACC would take ISU or KSU. I do think they might make a run at Connecticut or possibly West Virginia.
If the SEC can't land Oklahoma then the Cowboys would come into play. And we might make a run at West Virginia or take a second Texas school.
It will be interesting indeed to see how it ends up.
(12-25-2014 11:04 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote: [ -> ]New scenario:
UT, TT, TCU, OU to the PAC12
WVU and Ok State to the SEC
KU, KSU and ISU to the ACC
VT and UCONN to the Big Ten
If TCU is good enough to be sent to the PAC w/o Texas then its value to Texas might be higher than thought (after all, they were picked to replace Mizzou). Texas wants to play at least five games in the state of Texas. Games against TT, OU (RRR) and TCU every year would go a long way towards meeting their goals. They could play two patsies plus marquee OOC games against the likes of ND, Ohio State, Miami, Penn State, etc..
The two complications are obviously the Longhorn Network and whether the likes of Stanford can accept TCU as secular enough for their comfort.
Without OU or UT the B1G could make a play for VTech to get into the 757 recruiting area and further expand East. That would be at the price of the ACC adding two more AAU schools and another good football school in the Midwest.
So the team that has won back-to-back Big 12 titles in football and been to 2 Elite 8's and a Sweet 16 over the past 5 seasons is left out in your scenario? During the previous round of realignment I understood Baylor not making it in. But at this point, I don't see how a conference doesn't take them, whether it is the SEC or ACC. Just curious, why did you not have Baylor going to a P5 conference?