(05-11-2017 12:02 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 11:23 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 09:54 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Miko, I tend to believe that the players in this game aren't thinking three or four moves ahead. I really think it comes down to can I make more money, does this school fit our club, and can we do this without creating reputation damaging turmoil.

Hey guys, Texas and Oklahoma have been objectives since '91 (and probably before that). The Arkansas move was spoken of in the meetings as a bridge, and Frank Broyles was helpful in the strategy. A&M was also an objective in '91. We have been working that plan for 26 years. So you may believe what you wish, the strategy is the same. The Eastern strategy was abandoned when ESPN found itself owning rights to both the ACC and SEC. Now for that Western strategy to work it must have an opportunity. Waiting on the opportunity is the only part of the plan that introduces a random variable. The objectives have remained the same because the values that were determined 26 years ago have been little altered and any difference has remained proportional. But hey, if you're bored post what you like.

Now how do the networks play into this? Our Western strategy coincided with ESPN's desires so it has been funded. Our Eastern strategy did not. Figure it out for yourselves.

If that is the SEC's strategy, what would happen to it if the B1G were to launch a preemptive strike and invite Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Iowa State? Seems like that would take out of play anybody the SEC might covet. For that matter, anybody the rest of the P5 would covet as well.

But such a move would kill any chance there might be for any agreement by the Autonomy 5 to change the rules about divisions and CCGs. The same would be true if the SEC were the one to make that preemptive strike (though they might substitute WVU for ISU).

At such a point, would either the B1G or the SEC be strong enough to unilaterally impose such a rule change, and dare anybody to stop them?

If both of them were to go to 18, they might be strong enough together to impose their will on the rest of the NCAA, but I have a really hard time seeing any scenario in which they would both be happy with the four schools they could add.

Some schools would ultimately be unhappy with the consequences of making the league that big or bigger. Sooner or later, some schools would end up on the wrong side of a split.

Using the example you gave, that might end up as two separate conferences, effectively or actually:

Big Ten: Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Wisconsin.

Big 12 v. 4.0: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa State, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Illinois

At some point, the people running Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, and Northwestern are going to see this eventuality and say, "We can't vote for this because we'll end up in a place we don't want to be."