(06-17-2018 08:19 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(06-17-2018 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Strategy #2:

We ignore Oklahoma. In fact we ignore them so long that they have to take a deal to the Big 10 with Kansas. Now we don't have to take Oklahoma State. We don't need to consider a putrid Kansas football product. We don't need to think about Iowa State. But what we do is wait. We wait on a pissed off Texas who won't like their options in the PAC, who won't like the idea of forcing their fans to play in the great white North. And who likely only need a good excuse to reclaim rivalries with Arkansas and Texas A&M and who quietly may realize that having Baylor and T.C.U. in the same conference at an elevated status has not benefited the Longhorn program.

ESPN wants Texas. Slive once said that the SEC would be proud to have any or all of the 3 major Texas public schools. (He said this while speaking in Dallas at some function.) If Texas doesn't want Tech tagging along then fine. If they do then fine. If they don't want Tech we offer #16 to West Virginia. If they do want Tech we take them.

What does this do for Texas?

1. In minimizes Oklahoma's recruiting profile in Texas, specifically in Dallas / Ft. Worth. How? They at most would have 1 game a year there and 1 game a year against a Texas school (Texas). Travel for the parents of the Oklahoma recruits from Texas would be extensive. The closest away game would be Kansas. If the kids go to Texas, Texas A&M or Texas Tech they will likely have 6 or 7 games in Texas. This hurts Oklahoma and helps Texas, Texas A&M and Texas Tech.

2. Baylor and T.C.U. are not promoted to a P5 conference. Why? Baylor doesn't fit the PAC profile. T.C.U. may be a long shot to receive a PAC invitation but without OU or UT heading West I don't think it is likely the PAC will expand. This too benefits Texas. Now major recruits in the state of Texas have two fewer home choices if they want to play in a P conference. More available talent staying in Texas where they are divided among only 3 top Texas programs means all three Texas schools enhance their depth.

3. Carrying the same brand as A&M helps to re-elevate the Longhorn program. The SEC consistently gets the most players drafted by the NFL. That advantage for the Aggies is neutralized and the game once again becomes an annual event, as does Texas / Arkansas, Texas / L.S.U., Texas / Ole Miss, Texas / Missouri, and Texas / Texas Tech remains on the schedule.

4. For the reason of scheduling this move is the best Texas can make outside of staying in the Big 12 and with OU as an annual OOC game they have schedule integrity maintained for key rivals and enhanced for other divisional games.

5. This does make us all more money not only due to the Texas brand but because all P schools in Texas would be SEC properties. And the likely remaining schools in Texas would be ESPN properties through the AAC. This give Texas (And A&M and Tech) the most leverage they will have anywhere outside of the old SWC.

Now what is good for the SEC is point #5 and the fact that by landing Texas there is no way any other conference can catch our value.

If Texas didn't want to keep the OU game for some reason it could be easily replaced with an annual OOC game against Notre Dame or USC depending upon ESPN wishes.

So we don't land Oklahoma. But we land Texas who now contends with a weakened Oklahoma. For the SEC we incorporate an old OOC foe and help to neutralize the other.

IMO, this is also a win. And and as I have pointed out before if it gives ESPN (and the SEC) control over Texas game day advertising it's a win for rights holder as well.

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Would some in the SEC balk about suggesting 3 total schools from Texas? Arguments could be made that perhaps Oklahoma State or Kansas State would render as much or possibly more value than Texas Tech. TTU is a very long way from non-Texas SEC schools. Doubt if SEC-east would show enthusiasm for it. Even Iowa State would be closer to most SEC schools.

From an athletic standpoint, Oklahoma State surpasses TTU, ISU, and KSU. As to market, oSu looks the better.

This is not me stating my preferences. But it would be matters in the early discussion phase.

I don't think so. Having 3 weekly games with a regional market of 28 million would salve a lot of sore spots. The financial bonanza of Texas's brand and having all 3 P schools in the state would bring premiums. Besides, for A&M and UT Lubbock isn't that far. And the additions fit the ESPN model of acquisitions. They triple down in a mammoth state at the exclusion of double dipping in a state of 4 million. Arkansas isn't that far from Lubbock and the two Mississippi schools and L.S.U. aren't much farther away than Auburn is from Arkansas. Missouri has had to play them before.

It's not ideal but it is doable.