(09-10-2018 12:22 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(09-07-2018 08:09 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-06-2018 05:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 01:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, we could look at it like this.

If the SEC is willing to take Oklahoma and Oklahoma State then the decision becomes much simpler for Texas. If that's the prospect they're dealing with then it's much easier to say "wait a minute, just take us and Texas Tech."

Texas would have to be pretty stubborn to allow themselves to be forced into a corner where they end up making the same move under less favorable terms.

I've reread your post several times thinking about nuance. Could it be that Finebaum and other's have pushed the OU / OSU to the SEC thing in order to force Texas to think about what their world might be like if that indeed happened? Maybe so.

The approach here would be effective. So since that happened a couple of years ago when that hype was high, then where we are today it could be that Texas has quietly sent their signals and now they are waiting for Oklahoma and Kansas to make the first move, while giving OU time to separate from OSU and that they will make their move afterward so that they can claim they are saving Texas Tech and were forced to make a solid move to keep pace with OU and that is why they chose the SEC.

When you put the different considerations we are exploring here into a timeline then a whole different strategy could be seen if it comes to pass.

I keep coming back to Kansas.

In the past, I've thought ESPN might try to move Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas into the SEC. Assuming they don't mind making the SEC the unquestioned leader in the clubhouse then that's the easiest way to keep the best content in-house.

If Texas Tech is to be protected in the SEC then I suppose there's more than way to do it, but I can't shake the feeling that Kansas will play a role in ESPN's plans.

ESPN already has KU’s third Teir basketball rights. Their football program makes nothing. KU might be a better option in a basketball focused league if the Big 12 does fall apart—or in the Big Ten if they are ready to add more subpar football AAU programs.

Either way, the SEC needs to secure a major football brand to add more money in next round of realignment. OU or Texas.

1. I think Texas politics will demand that Tech have a home in a P5 conference. So I think to get Texas we'll have to take Tech.

2. Oklahoma will face the same issue. So it's OSU to get OU.

3. Kansas is a nice get for basketball. They are as close to a buy game in football that a conference member ever could be.

4. If the PAC truly wants to improve their prospects then the best solution to the Big 12 would be for Texas / Texas Tech / Kansas / and Kansas State to head to the PAC while Oklahoma and Oklahoma State head to the SEC. West Virginia would do well in the ACC.

If the Big 10 wanted to expand then it would virtually have to be Iowa State and Connecticut. They might sit at 14.

5. That's always been the problem. Texas loses money heading to the PAC. The Big 10 isn't going to take just Iowa State. So what are the workarounds?

a. The Missouri and Kansas to the Big 10 swap that allows the SEC to take Texas and Oklahoma with Oklahoma State? That doesn't solve the problem of Texas Tech.

b. Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State and T.C.U. to the PAC won't fly.

c. Going to 18? That may not be popular with the networks. We'll have to see about it if the opportunity is right.

What if the networks want to try to create some balance between conferences? Could we see Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, and Kansas State headed to the PAC, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC, Iowa State and Kansas to the Big 10, and West Virginia to the ACC? That would improve the PAC and if the Irish could be brought into ACC with WVU that would add value to the ACC. Oklahoma would suit the SEC and Oklahoma State would be an acceptable sacrifice for the move. But would the Big 10 be satisfied with just Kansas paired with ISU? Probably not.

So I submit that the Big 12 GOR will expire and the best schools will be cherry picked. ESPN will want Texas so I like our chances for the Horns. FOX will want Oklahoma and the Big 10 is in dire need of a football brand for the Western division and they are a natural rival for Nebraska. I think that the presidents of the Big 10 would consider Iowa State as an AAU to offset OU and that might be a good compromise. ESPN has dibs on Kansas and Missouri is waiting for them.

It just seems to me to make a great deal of sense for the SEC to add Texas and Kansas while the Big 10 gets Oklahoma and I.S.U. Why I.S.U. and not Kansas for the Big 10? Does the Big 10 really want the SECN in Chicago? No. And that's what would happen with the SEC in Iowa. So the Big 10 will take Oklahoma and make a play for Notre Dame as their traveling companion. The SEC will take Texas and Kansas and when N.D. refuses the Big 10 again the Big 10 will finish out with ISU. If for any reason Kansas heads North then Tech makes sense and ISU is out of luck.

So WVU still heads to the ACC where N.D. will remain an independent a while longer.

If the PAC wants larger markets they'll have to look at Texas Tech and T.C.U. If not that's where things will stay.

The SEC at 16, the Big 10 at 16, the ACC at 15 plus N.D., and the PAC at 12.

The P4 essentially shrinks the total number of P schools from 65 to 60.

Baylor, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Kansas State and Oklahoma State are left out. If the PAC can be convinced to take 4 for the sake of athletic revenue then maybe we sit at 64.

If the Irish head to the Big 10 with the Sooners or Texas then Texas or Oklahoma and Kansas to the SEC is a good possibility. With a slot open then West Virginia, T.C.U. and Baylor could head to the ACC.

Right now that's about as well as I have it figured. That is if there is any movement at all in 2023-4.