(05-11-2017 01:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(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.

They might have to wait until the contract with ESPN is up but the SEC does have other objectives. And even to the West there are some schools that, while not being the brand that Texas and Oklahoma happen to be, would still help us acquire the % of DFW that we would like.

And if the Big 10 and SEC both had a primary coverage contract with a network other than ESPN they both could expand to 18 with better targets and do so in a more coordinated way. The targets would of course come from the same conference, just different ends of it.

But what you have said of the "preemptive strike" concept is true prima facia. But, not so much in practice. OU and OSU does not negate UT & KU to the Big 10. It would put pressure on Texas to try to stay more within their region, but we are talking about Texas. Both can expand profitably but probably not to 18 although it would not be impossible, just unlikely.

If all that comes out of this is UT & KU to the Big 10 and OU & OSU to the SEC then I'd say that both the Big 10 and SEC would be quite content with the results. The Big 10 and SEC would be essentially equal in revenue production, both extremely stable, and the Big 10 would even be better aligned academically. Add Rice and Iowa State to that and they have 18. If the SEC still wanted to get to 18 then W.V.U. might come into play with perhaps a second Texas school. But we'd probably stop at 16 and I imagine the Big 10 would as well. Moving to 18 is only viable with a 17th like Texas.

Consider this from Texas' perspective. If they go to the B1G along with Kansas, and OU and OSU go to the SEC, this is what their schedule would look like:

Division opponents:

Kansas
Minnesota
Nebraska
Iowa
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Illinois

B1G X-over opponents

One home and one away from B1G East

Out of Conference

Oklahoma, (Red River Rivalry in Dallas)
G5 buy game *
G5 or FCS buy game

*unless they are willing to give up a home date to schedule another P5.

In other words, they would play most of their home games against schools their fans and potential recruits don't give a dam about. They wouldn't be special within their conference, and they would be less special within their own state. I don't think their ego lets them do this. And frankly, any other P5 conference they might move to would cause them the same problems, as all of them either already play 9 league games or would move to 9 because of the expansion.

Every alternative, IMO, other than staying in the Big 12, is worse for Texas.