07-27-2017, 05:30 PM
What might we really be looking at if we consider for a moment the moves that would augment the SEC, ACC, and Big 10. And then seriously consider the moves that would augment the SEC, ACC, Big 10, and PAC. If we are indeed trying to move toward more standardization in conference scheduling and either the expansion of the CFP or in moving to a champs only model for the P conferences.
So let's assume that the following network preferences are in place:
1. They want to maximize cross conference rivals (Texas in the SEC/Oklahoma in the Big 10 or vice versa).
2. They want to add states to existing conference footprints (perhaps Iowa to the SEC)
3. They are looking to place 9 of the Big 12 schools so that there is a symmetrical 4 x 16
4. They want to keep semblance of balance in the process
5. The schedules of each conference will be 9 conference games and 1 game OOC against each of the other P4 conferences.
6. They are going to try to avoid having two OOC rivals in the same conference. (In other words the division of Big 12 schools should not leave a school having to play 2 from the Big 10 to keep traditional rivals. So for Oklahoma their rivals Texas and Oklahoma state cannot be in the same conference.)
7. There will be no independents when these final moves are over.
Let's say that the Big 10 is truly interested in Kansas and Oklahoma. Would it not make sense then for ESPN to land the prize they want to keep and Texas would come our way. If we are looking at new markets then the largest two left would be Oklahoma with a lesser brand O.S.U. (3.9 million) or Iowa State (Iowa's population is 3.3 million). With O.S.U. you do get a slice of DFW, but with Texas it's not necessary to make that move. Iowa State is AAU and brings some larger Northern cities into play for the SEC.
If the Big 10 opts for Texas and Kansas, would the SEC entertain Oklahoma and Iowa State? I don't see that happening however for this reason. If the networks are trying to move us into a world where we might have 9 conference games and play 1 OOC game against each of the other P4 conferences that having Nebraska with Oklahoma makes sense and having Texas with A&M makes sense.
That way Oklahoma is positioned to play Texas OOC for their game against the SEC.
And if the PAC were payed enough to take Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and T.CU. then Oklahoma plays Oklahoma State as their PAC game. Kansas plays Missouri as their SEC game and plays KState as their PAC game. Iowa plays Iowa State as their SEC game. Texas plays OU as their Big 10 game and can play either Tech or T.C.U. as their PAC game. A&M could play the other as their PAC game. And nobody has to duplicate without gaining a huge national brand.
I am of course assuming that West Virginia heads to the ACC and Notre Dame because of the coming structure, scheduling, and playoff implications would have to go all in.
Anyway it is a different way of looking at it. The question I would have is given this constraint how would you see a viable division of the Big 12. (BTW Baylor is out unless for some reason they replace Wake Forest).
So let's assume that the following network preferences are in place:
1. They want to maximize cross conference rivals (Texas in the SEC/Oklahoma in the Big 10 or vice versa).
2. They want to add states to existing conference footprints (perhaps Iowa to the SEC)
3. They are looking to place 9 of the Big 12 schools so that there is a symmetrical 4 x 16
4. They want to keep semblance of balance in the process
5. The schedules of each conference will be 9 conference games and 1 game OOC against each of the other P4 conferences.
6. They are going to try to avoid having two OOC rivals in the same conference. (In other words the division of Big 12 schools should not leave a school having to play 2 from the Big 10 to keep traditional rivals. So for Oklahoma their rivals Texas and Oklahoma state cannot be in the same conference.)
7. There will be no independents when these final moves are over.
Let's say that the Big 10 is truly interested in Kansas and Oklahoma. Would it not make sense then for ESPN to land the prize they want to keep and Texas would come our way. If we are looking at new markets then the largest two left would be Oklahoma with a lesser brand O.S.U. (3.9 million) or Iowa State (Iowa's population is 3.3 million). With O.S.U. you do get a slice of DFW, but with Texas it's not necessary to make that move. Iowa State is AAU and brings some larger Northern cities into play for the SEC.
If the Big 10 opts for Texas and Kansas, would the SEC entertain Oklahoma and Iowa State? I don't see that happening however for this reason. If the networks are trying to move us into a world where we might have 9 conference games and play 1 OOC game against each of the other P4 conferences that having Nebraska with Oklahoma makes sense and having Texas with A&M makes sense.
That way Oklahoma is positioned to play Texas OOC for their game against the SEC.
And if the PAC were payed enough to take Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and T.CU. then Oklahoma plays Oklahoma State as their PAC game. Kansas plays Missouri as their SEC game and plays KState as their PAC game. Iowa plays Iowa State as their SEC game. Texas plays OU as their Big 10 game and can play either Tech or T.C.U. as their PAC game. A&M could play the other as their PAC game. And nobody has to duplicate without gaining a huge national brand.
I am of course assuming that West Virginia heads to the ACC and Notre Dame because of the coming structure, scheduling, and playoff implications would have to go all in.
Anyway it is a different way of looking at it. The question I would have is given this constraint how would you see a viable division of the Big 12. (BTW Baylor is out unless for some reason they replace Wake Forest).