(10-30-2016 01:58 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]1) The Big 12 process was not a wasted exercise in that it did show everyone the schools that have value in expansion.
2) Oklahoma the school is not ready to be the lead dog in any conference.
3) The SEC is all about content.
4) The B1G and now the ACC are all about market.
5) The PAC needs both and is holding out for Texas (the school).
6) The networks want this stuff cleaned up ASAP and are not willing to let this carry on for even another 8 years.
7) The Big 12 is toast.
The solution:
(Do not shoot the messenger)
PAC
Southern Cal, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona State, Cal, Stanford, Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Colorado, Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, BYU (football only)
B1G
Maryland, Rutgers, Ohio State, Michigan, MSU, Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, Wisc., Minn., Northwestern, Iowa, Nebraska, Penn State, Kansas, Missouri
SEC
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Auburn, Alabama, Kentucky, Tenn., Vandy, Ole Miss, Miss. State, A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Baylor.
ACC
Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Virginia, VT, Carolina, Dook, Wake Forest, NC State, Clemson, FSU, Miami, Louisville, Georgia Tech, Notre Dame, Cincinnati.
Out:
Kansas State, Iowa State, and West Virginia.
Bankable.
While I think your assessment of the situation is pretty much on target, I don't believe for a moment that the SEC would take Baylor in this arrangement. West Virginia (though not viable as an individual candidate) makes much more sense for the SEC in terms of brand, content, and value than does Baylor.
I also don't see Missouri leaving unless it was their desire to do so.
I do think that Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are the key to finally parsing the Big 12. And I do think Oklahoma is best suited for the SEC and that the Cowboys will fit in.
I also think that in the end, provided ESPN gets something out of it, that the PAC is the best place for Texas, Texas Tech, and T.C.U. and that B.Y.U. makes sense for the PAC as well under the conditions you lay out.
But here's what I think will likely happen if we go that route, which remains to be seen:
At 16
OU & OSU to the SEC. (Only if ESPN gets more of the Big 10 and therefore permits Texas to go there.)
Texas & Kansas to the Big 10.
Texas Tech and T.C.U. to the PAC.
West Virginia and Notre Dame to the ACC.
The networks thinking is to optimize markets by dividing Texas.
But what if ESPN insists upon keeping Texas?
Then Texas and Kansas head to the SEC.
Oklahoma and Connecticut head to the Big 10.
T.C.U. and Texas Tech head to the PAC with a third if the PAC sells ESPN a % of their network. If not they may not add anyone.
ACC?
**************************************************************
However it might behoove us to consider what it would look like if the Big 10 / SEC and ACC moved to 18 each:
It's an odd thing I haven't thrown into the mix so far (although I talked about the merits of 18 four years ago) but going to 18 makes this much more likely.
For instance the Big 10 if it landed Texas, Kansas, and Iowa State and could expand more to the East with Connecticut could solve some divisional problems:
Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Texas
Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, Purdue, Ohio State, Wisconsin
Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State Rutgers
18 gives the PAC better penetration into Texas (if they wanted to do it):
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Houston, T.C.U., Texas Tech
B.Y.U., California, Cal Los Angeles, Hawaii or New Mexico, San Diego State (or a Nevada school), Southern Cal
Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Utah, Washington, Washington State
18 works for the ACC as well:
Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Notre Dame, Virginia, Virginia Tech
Baylor or Tulane, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Wake Forest
Then the SEC could address some issues the by doing something like the following:
Arkansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt
East Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee
Why Baylor or Tulane for the ACC? New Orleans is a solid market add for the network.
The ACC is the only conference that could accommodate Baylor, and New Orleans makes for a nice connection to Northeast Texas.
Why East Carolina for the SEC? It's our only entry into that market and they are a growing University with a Medical school. With our brand they could easily be the 2nd best draw for football in the state of North Carolina. I figure it's either them or a second Florida school and therein lies a healthy but good debate as to which might be more productive.
Kansas State? They share a lot of disciplines with our land grants and it is another state.
Other reasons for all of this: Kansas State and East Carolina would broaden our lower middle giving the SEC's murderer's row a little bit of a break and they help keep the divisions more regional.
For the ACC it truly allows them to land more television sets without killing the academics.
For the Big 10 it solves many of their current divisional issues.
It sets up the semi finals for each conference and that in itself would be a nice chunk of change in tightening times.
It also sets up a P4 champs only model, while accommodating the playoff expansion internally via the conference championship format. That's a win win for the networks and conferences.
It provides for a 4th entrant to the conference series that would be the best remaining at large school. This keeps many more fan bases energized late into the season which is great for TV ratings and great for ticket sales.
It includes the next 8 in the deserving G5 applicants which cuts out those who would be best positioned to demand inclusion and sue if they didn't get it.
I think in the long run it is what would be best for the game.