(02-03-2014 01:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 01:23 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 12:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 12:17 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  This is if I was doing it now and keeping B1G, SEC, and PAC schools in place and trying to bring the PAC and ACC closer to the SEC/B1G financially and competitively. It will never play out like this though. The B1G and SEC will get the schools they want once their new media deals are in place, if they have patience, because the money they will be making will put them far ahead of the rest (maybe the PAC can keep up if their network gains more traction due to 100% ownership). They won't have to settle for any little brothers or weaker additions if they just wait a few years. The PAC and ACC/B12 (whichever survives) will most likely will have to feed on the remains.

I think the PAC would not expand without Texas unless forced. I think Texas only goes to the ACC with a ND deal in place or 4-6 other B12 schools, if they joined in full. OU/KU would not want the ACC as a 16 school conference IMO. I think they would go to the SEC or B1G (if AAU was not a problem) in that scenario. Really the ACC is a problem because they have so much deadweight at the bottom, are weak financially compared to the PAC/SEC/B1G (and B12 even), and are so much farther east than the SEC and B1G. A B12/ACC merger with 7-8 teams from each would work, but 2-3 schools just doesn't make much sense to me; but, losers can't be choosers. Those schools who don't get their first choice of conference will just be looking for a power conference life raft at the end of realignment. You could see more schools on islands as conferences who lost out on the best schools grab whatever schools of some value remain.

Have you seen my workaround on this yet. It would have Texas, Oklahoma, Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, and West Virginia moving to the ACC. That would radically improve the ACC's football standing, the LHN could morph profitably into the ACCN, the Horns would be placed in a 6 team Western Division consisting of all of the above except WVU and including Miami which has to fly everywhere anyway and is equal distance from the mid Atlantic as they would be to Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas. That would give the Sooners and Horns access to Florida and a marquee game.

The SEC would pick up Kansas and Oklahoma State. They would also pick up N.C. State and Virginia Tech with ESPN brokering the deal. That one move would solidify the ACC add 38 million viewers to their footprint, and given them a network and revenue in line with that of the Big 10 and SEC. The loss of the two schools mentioned takes nothing away from their footprint. The SEC picks up basketball help with three of the four (Virginia Tech basketball would fit right in with half of the SEC unfortunately). Both conferences would become very stable. T.C.U. and Texas Tech both top any other prospect for the PAC other than B.Y.U. so I think ultimately they find a home there. The two deliver a considerable portion of the North ans West Texas market and puts PAC teams into the Texas recruiting grounds directly. It just an idea, but ESPN is not going to give up on Texas and Kansas as property, and they would spend what it takes to buy out Oklahoma. The rest are really cheap properties to acquire. That's 8 schools enough to end it.

It is plausible. I assume Texas/ESPN would be driving this. I agree the only way the ACC gets Texas as a full member is adding more B12 schools to help with travel and taking Baylor would go a long way as well. Baylor has huge influence politically in Texas. Much greater than their fan base size would suggest. If the PAC took TCU and TTU then Texas would have no political entanglements, from leaving schools behind, to such a move. I am assuming that the PAC would be less than thrilled with that scenario though TCU and TTU would give them a sizable presence in Texas. They would be the big loser and the B1G as well in this scenario since neither landed UT, OU, KU, UNC or UVA.

I think KU would be the wildcard. Their ESPN deal is short and not as lucrative as Texas (who is really tied down in T3 to ESPN for another 18 years or so). KU could buy it out if they wanted. They have flirted with the B1G for decades (like Missouri did though less openly). Would they give up the B1G for SEC. Tough question. I think they might if ESPN takes care of them financially, plus it would renew the MU rivalry as a conference rivalry which is really the only way I can see it working successfully (OOC is just too hard now days for FB and if KU and KSU separate that OOC rivalry will be KSU's due to politics). Kentucky would finally give them the blue blood basketball rival that they covet like UNC/Duke. The SEC would gain big-time in basketball, gain valuable content for their netowrk, and solidify the KC market so makes sense for the SEC that way. From a pure sports perspective the move to SEC is a no brainer (except football would be more competitive in the weaker B1G). Much would depend on what the SEC offered versus the B1G. KU has not really seen the SEC as a realistic option in the past. Would SEC money (with KU and the NC/VA markets added), rivalries and sports superiority trump the B1G academic prestige? That is the question.

OU would also be a wildcard. They really would prefer the SEC over the ACC, but if they could stay with Texas they might go to the ACC. The problem is that many OU fans and admins worry that OSU in the SEC might surpass OU someday down the road. OSU in the SEC is OU's worst nightmare. They worry a UT/A&M dynamic might happen. They post on their boards about it often. Another thing they seem to want is either staying in conference with UT or OSU because with the current conference slate it would be impossible to play both OOC. They need to stay in the same conference as at least one if they want to keep both on the schedule. Your proposal would allow them to continue playing both, since UT would be in the same conference, which is positive. FOX also will want to keep OU like ESPN wants to keep Texas and Kansas so that is another complication to be solved. I think FOX wants them in the B1G or PAC.

The rest of the B12 schools would love it as it would mean stability and a permanent home in a power conference.

I figured that OU and UT would like only really having F.S.U. and Clemson to contend with. It's a lot easier than Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, L.S.U. and Tennessee won't be down for long now. I think all Kansas has to do is look to Missouri's recruiting successes in just two years in the SEC. I figure the money for an SEC with Kansas, N.C. State, OSU, and Va Tech would be essentially equal to the Big 10. Kansas would have a decision to make too. Do they want a competition rich Big 10 for hoops, or would they prefer to remain a clear King in a major conference with Kentucky, Florida, Missouri, and usually Tennessee to contend with. I think a Kansas choice for the SEC would be very much like a Texas and Oklahoma choice for the ACC. OU and UT instantly become the top two ACC football programs in terms of prestige and income. F.S.U. would catch up quickly and Clemson would mount a regular challenge. It would still be their best ticket to the championship round and they would play old friends and cross over rivals. They really don't lose much by making the move in terms of scheduling and the six team division helps solve some of the travel issues. Kansas would have rivals built in with Arkansas, L.S.U., Oklahoma State, and Missouri right around them. There would be just as many contiguous states for Kansas in the SEC as there would be in the Big 10 and the ones in the SEC generally would have better basketball than Nebraska and Iowa. Thoughts?

You are right about the competition angle. Some UT and OU fans would love to be in the SEC, but one of the drawbacks that other fans mention is that the SEC is already top heavy with schools who are consistent title contenders. They know if they go there they will win fewer conference titles just because there are more top quality FB schools in the SEC than any other conference by a large margin. Winning makes a helmet program and it would be much harder in the SEC. It would also be more difficult to make the playoffs as well.

I think that OU and UT fans like the idea of a merger with the ACC (though generally it has been the view of the B12 taking in 6 ACC schools and not vice versa) due to the fact they would still battle each other for the west and play FSU/Miami/Clemson more often than not in a CCG. That really is like the old B12 dynamic where one or the other usually squared off with NU. They can see maintaining their winning standards in that situation. That is the reason the B1G gets a lot of play as well on their boards. The western division of the B1G would be similar to the B12 and they would square off versus OSU most times in a CCG.

Kansas fans also mention that same about the B1G. A lot love the B1G, but that conference is full of quality squads which makes winning at the rate KU fans are used to much more difficult, much less winning the conference (which we have on lock down most years in the B12). In the SEC they would be the best school in the west and square off with Kentucky or Florida more often than not for the conference title. A little tougher to win the conference in than the B12, but they gain that national power rival they want to help increase ratings and exposure for KU BB. I think the west in the SEC would be easier than the current B12 so they would still win at a high rate just win fewer conference titles. The PAC and SEC would both be good destinations if we did not want to add to the gauntlets of the ACC and B1G. Both have a blue blood, UCLA and Kentucky, as well as some schools who are not far behind that level in Arizona and Florida. But basketball is much easier to get into the postseason so I think it is less of a consideration for BB than FB.

Really when it comes to UT, KU, or OU they could end up anywhere as they add value to any conference. I could see them moving together as a trio (they are all pretty happy with each other as business partners and usually were 1-2-3 most years when the original B12 had unequal revenue sharing) or I could see them all going their own ways and joining separate conferences. So many variables: AAU status, little brothers, state politics, maintaining excellence, T3 contracts with ESPN or FOX, and more I am forgetting. Part of the reason those three are still in the B12 while all the flagships without a little brother (or little brother responsibilities in A&M's case) have left. There are scenarios where I could see all three schools in any of the other power conferences. I think where each ends up depends on who the primary targets of the SEC and B1G are and if they can land them and what conference size they are willing to expand too. That is why realignment is so interesting.

(02-03-2014 11:53 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 01:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 01:23 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 12:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 12:17 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  This is if I was doing it now and keeping B1G, SEC, and PAC schools in place and trying to bring the PAC and ACC closer to the SEC/B1G financially and competitively. It will never play out like this though. The B1G and SEC will get the schools they want once their new media deals are in place, if they have patience, because the money they will be making will put them far ahead of the rest (maybe the PAC can keep up if their network gains more traction due to 100% ownership). They won't have to settle for any little brothers or weaker additions if they just wait a few years. The PAC and ACC/B12 (whichever survives) will most likely will have to feed on the remains.

I think the PAC would not expand without Texas unless forced. I think Texas only goes to the ACC with a ND deal in place or 4-6 other B12 schools, if they joined in full. OU/KU would not want the ACC as a 16 school conference IMO. I think they would go to the SEC or B1G (if AAU was not a problem) in that scenario. Really the ACC is a problem because they have so much deadweight at the bottom, are weak financially compared to the PAC/SEC/B1G (and B12 even), and are so much farther east than the SEC and B1G. A B12/ACC merger with 7-8 teams from each would work, but 2-3 schools just doesn't make much sense to me; but, losers can't be choosers. Those schools who don't get their first choice of conference will just be looking for a power conference life raft at the end of realignment. You could see more schools on islands as conferences who lost out on the best schools grab whatever schools of some value remain.

Have you seen my workaround on this yet. It would have Texas, Oklahoma, Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, and West Virginia moving to the ACC. That would radically improve the ACC's football standing, the LHN could morph profitably into the ACCN, the Horns would be placed in a 6 team Western Division consisting of all of the above except WVU and including Miami which has to fly everywhere anyway and is equal distance from the mid Atlantic as they would be to Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas. That would give the Sooners and Horns access to Florida and a marquee game.

The SEC would pick up Kansas and Oklahoma State. They would also pick up N.C. State and Virginia Tech with ESPN brokering the deal. That one move would solidify the ACC add 38 million viewers to their footprint, and given them a network and revenue in line with that of the Big 10 and SEC. The loss of the two schools mentioned takes nothing away from their footprint. The SEC picks up basketball help with three of the four (Virginia Tech basketball would fit right in with half of the SEC unfortunately). Both conferences would become very stable. T.C.U. and Texas Tech both top any other prospect for the PAC other than B.Y.U. so I think ultimately they find a home there. The two deliver a considerable portion of the North ans West Texas market and puts PAC teams into the Texas recruiting grounds directly. It just an idea, but ESPN is not going to give up on Texas and Kansas as property, and they would spend what it takes to buy out Oklahoma. The rest are really cheap properties to acquire. That's 8 schools enough to end it.

It is plausible. I assume Texas/ESPN would be driving this. I agree the only way the ACC gets Texas as a full member is adding more B12 schools to help with travel and taking Baylor would go a long way as well. Baylor has huge influence politically in Texas. Much greater than their fan base size would suggest. If the PAC took TCU and TTU then Texas would have no political entanglements, from leaving schools behind, to such a move. I am assuming that the PAC would be less than thrilled with that scenario though TCU and TTU would give them a sizable presence in Texas. They would be the big loser and the B1G as well in this scenario since neither landed UT, OU, KU, UNC or UVA.

I think KU would be the wildcard. Their ESPN deal is short and not as lucrative as Texas (who is really tied down in T3 to ESPN for another 18 years or so). KU could buy it out if they wanted. They have flirted with the B1G for decades (like Missouri did though less openly). Would they give up the B1G for SEC. Tough question. I think they might if ESPN takes care of them financially, plus it would renew the MU rivalry as a conference rivalry which is really the only way I can see it working successfully (OOC is just too hard now days for FB and if KU and KSU separate that OOC rivalry will be KSU's due to politics). Kentucky would finally give them the blue blood basketball rival that they covet like UNC/Duke. The SEC would gain big-time in basketball, gain valuable content for their netowrk, and solidify the KC market so makes sense for the SEC that way. From a pure sports perspective the move to SEC is a no brainer (except football would be more competitive in the weaker B1G). Much would depend on what the SEC offered versus the B1G. KU has not really seen the SEC as a realistic option in the past. Would SEC money (with KU and the NC/VA markets added), rivalries and sports superiority trump the B1G academic prestige? That is the question.

OU would also be a wildcard. They really would prefer the SEC over the ACC, but if they could stay with Texas they might go to the ACC. The problem is that many OU fans and admins worry that OSU in the SEC might surpass OU someday down the road. OSU in the SEC is OU's worst nightmare. They worry a UT/A&M dynamic might happen. They post on their boards about it often. Another thing they seem to want is either staying in conference with UT or OSU because with the current conference slate it would be impossible to play both OOC. They need to stay in the same conference as at least one if they want to keep both on the schedule. Your proposal would allow them to continue playing both, since UT would be in the same conference, which is positive. FOX also will want to keep OU like ESPN wants to keep Texas and Kansas so that is another complication to be solved. I think FOX wants them in the B1G or PAC.

The rest of the B12 schools would love it as it would mean stability and a permanent home in a power conference.

I figured that OU and UT would like only really having F.S.U. and Clemson to contend with. It's a lot easier than Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, L.S.U. and Tennessee won't be down for long now. I think all Kansas has to do is look to Missouri's recruiting successes in just two years in the SEC. I figure the money for an SEC with Kansas, N.C. State, OSU, and Va Tech would be essentially equal to the Big 10. Kansas would have a decision to make too. Do they want a competition rich Big 10 for hoops, or would they prefer to remain a clear King in a major conference with Kentucky, Florida, Missouri, and usually Tennessee to contend with. I think a Kansas choice for the SEC would be very much like a Texas and Oklahoma choice for the ACC. OU and UT instantly become the top two ACC football programs in terms of prestige and income. F.S.U. would catch up quickly and Clemson would mount a regular challenge. It would still be their best ticket to the championship round and they would play old friends and cross over rivals. They really don't lose much by making the move in terms of scheduling and the six team division helps solve some of the travel issues. Kansas would have rivals built in with Arkansas, L.S.U., Oklahoma State, and Missouri right around them. There would be just as many contiguous states for Kansas in the SEC as there would be in the Big 10 and the ones in the SEC generally would have better basketball than Nebraska and Iowa. Thoughts?

You are right about the competition angle. Some UT and OU fans would love to be in the SEC, but one of the drawbacks that other fans mention is that the SEC is already top heavy with schools who are consistent title contenders. They know if they go there they will win fewer conference titles just because there are more top quality FB schools in the SEC than any other conference by a large margin. Winning makes a helmet program and it would be much harder in the SEC. It would also be more difficult to make the playoffs as well.

I think that OU and UT fans like the idea of a merger with the ACC (though generally it has been the view of the B12 taking in 6 ACC schools and not vice versa) due to the fact they would still battle each other for the west and play FSU/Miami/Clemson more often than not in a CCG. That really is like the old B12 dynamic where one or the other usually squared off with NU. They can see maintaining their winning standards in that situation. That is the reason the B1G gets a lot of play as well on their boards. The western division of the B1G would be similar to the B12 and they would square off versus OSU most times in a CCG.

Kansas fans also mention that same about the B1G. A lot love the B1G, but that conference is full of quality squads which makes winning at the rate KU fans are used to much more difficult, much less winning the conference (which we have on lock down most years in the B12). In the SEC they would be the best school in the west and square off with Kentucky or Florida more often than not for the conference title. A little tougher to win the conference in than the B12, but they gain that national power rival they want to help increase ratings and exposure for KU BB. I think the west in the SEC would be easier than the current B12 so they would still win at a high rate just win fewer conference titles. The PAC and SEC would both be good destinations if we did not want to add to the gauntlets of the ACC and B1G. Both have a blue blood, UCLA and Kentucky, as well as some schools who are not far behind that level in Arizona and Florida. But basketball is much easier to get into the postseason so I think it is less of a consideration for BB than FB.

Really when it comes to UT, KU, or OU they could end up anywhere as they add value to any conference. I could see them moving together as a trio (they are all pretty happy with each other as business partners and usually were 1-2-3 most years when the original B12 had unequal revenue sharing) or I could see them all going their own ways and joining separate conferences. So many variables: AAU status, little brothers, state politics, maintaining excellence, T3 contracts with ESPN or FOX, and more I am forgetting. Part of the reason those three are still in the B12 while all the flagships without a little brother (or little brother responsibilities in A&M's case) have left. There are scenarios where I could see all three schools in any of the other power conferences. I think where each ends up depends on who the primary targets of the SEC and B1G are and if they can land them and what conference size they are willing to expand too. That is why realignment is so interesting.

And that is where our perspectives differ. I see Texas specifically as ESPN property and therefore not likely to move to the PAC unless the PAC is willing to sell a significant percentage of its network to the Mouse. (which I don't see happening). ESPN would love to have Texas outright, or at least the largest part of them. Therefore I see the Horns going to the ACC or SEC. I think ESPN wants to hold onto Kansas for the same reasons. They just don't own as much of your Jayhawks as they do of Texas. I also think that they would like to claim the Sooners from FOX. The rest of the schools could be be bought or bartered out easily enough. The dual claims on those Big 12 products is why we are in a realignment stalemate. Plus the networks are waiting for NCAA rules changes to permit more than two divisions within conferences, or for a breakaway either of which gives them a green light to finish shaping the upper tier structure. In that process realignment will likely be settled. So we wait.

(02-04-2014 02:25 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 11:53 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 01:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 01:23 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 12:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Have you seen my workaround on this yet. It would have Texas, Oklahoma, Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, and West Virginia moving to the ACC. That would radically improve the ACC's football standing, the LHN could morph profitably into the ACCN, the Horns would be placed in a 6 team Western Division consisting of all of the above except WVU and including Miami which has to fly everywhere anyway and is equal distance from the mid Atlantic as they would be to Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas. That would give the Sooners and Horns access to Florida and a marquee game.

The SEC would pick up Kansas and Oklahoma State. They would also pick up N.C. State and Virginia Tech with ESPN brokering the deal. That one move would solidify the ACC add 38 million viewers to their footprint, and given them a network and revenue in line with that of the Big 10 and SEC. The loss of the two schools mentioned takes nothing away from their footprint. The SEC picks up basketball help with three of the four (Virginia Tech basketball would fit right in with half of the SEC unfortunately). Both conferences would become very stable. T.C.U. and Texas Tech both top any other prospect for the PAC other than B.Y.U. so I think ultimately they find a home there. The two deliver a considerable portion of the North ans West Texas market and puts PAC teams into the Texas recruiting grounds directly. It just an idea, but ESPN is not going to give up on Texas and Kansas as property, and they would spend what it takes to buy out Oklahoma. The rest are really cheap properties to acquire. That's 8 schools enough to end it.

It is plausible. I assume Texas/ESPN would be driving this. I agree the only way the ACC gets Texas as a full member is adding more B12 schools to help with travel and taking Baylor would go a long way as well. Baylor has huge influence politically in Texas. Much greater than their fan base size would suggest. If the PAC took TCU and TTU then Texas would have no political entanglements, from leaving schools behind, to such a move. I am assuming that the PAC would be less than thrilled with that scenario though TCU and TTU would give them a sizable presence in Texas. They would be the big loser and the B1G as well in this scenario since neither landed UT, OU, KU, UNC or UVA.

I think KU would be the wildcard. Their ESPN deal is short and not as lucrative as Texas (who is really tied down in T3 to ESPN for another 18 years or so). KU could buy it out if they wanted. They have flirted with the B1G for decades (like Missouri did though less openly). Would they give up the B1G for SEC. Tough question. I think they might if ESPN takes care of them financially, plus it would renew the MU rivalry as a conference rivalry which is really the only way I can see it working successfully (OOC is just too hard now days for FB and if KU and KSU separate that OOC rivalry will be KSU's due to politics). Kentucky would finally give them the blue blood basketball rival that they covet like UNC/Duke. The SEC would gain big-time in basketball, gain valuable content for their netowrk, and solidify the KC market so makes sense for the SEC that way. From a pure sports perspective the move to SEC is a no brainer (except football would be more competitive in the weaker B1G). Much would depend on what the SEC offered versus the B1G. KU has not really seen the SEC as a realistic option in the past. Would SEC money (with KU and the NC/VA markets added), rivalries and sports superiority trump the B1G academic prestige? That is the question.

OU would also be a wildcard. They really would prefer the SEC over the ACC, but if they could stay with Texas they might go to the ACC. The problem is that many OU fans and admins worry that OSU in the SEC might surpass OU someday down the road. OSU in the SEC is OU's worst nightmare. They worry a UT/A&M dynamic might happen. They post on their boards about it often. Another thing they seem to want is either staying in conference with UT or OSU because with the current conference slate it would be impossible to play both OOC. They need to stay in the same conference as at least one if they want to keep both on the schedule. Your proposal would allow them to continue playing both, since UT would be in the same conference, which is positive. FOX also will want to keep OU like ESPN wants to keep Texas and Kansas so that is another complication to be solved. I think FOX wants them in the B1G or PAC.

The rest of the B12 schools would love it as it would mean stability and a permanent home in a power conference.

I figured that OU and UT would like only really having F.S.U. and Clemson to contend with. It's a lot easier than Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, L.S.U. and Tennessee won't be down for long now. I think all Kansas has to do is look to Missouri's recruiting successes in just two years in the SEC. I figure the money for an SEC with Kansas, N.C. State, OSU, and Va Tech would be essentially equal to the Big 10. Kansas would have a decision to make too. Do they want a competition rich Big 10 for hoops, or would they prefer to remain a clear King in a major conference with Kentucky, Florida, Missouri, and usually Tennessee to contend with. I think a Kansas choice for the SEC would be very much like a Texas and Oklahoma choice for the ACC. OU and UT instantly become the top two ACC football programs in terms of prestige and income. F.S.U. would catch up quickly and Clemson would mount a regular challenge. It would still be their best ticket to the championship round and they would play old friends and cross over rivals. They really don't lose much by making the move in terms of scheduling and the six team division helps solve some of the travel issues. Kansas would have rivals built in with Arkansas, L.S.U., Oklahoma State, and Missouri right around them. There would be just as many contiguous states for Kansas in the SEC as there would be in the Big 10 and the ones in the SEC generally would have better basketball than Nebraska and Iowa. Thoughts?

You are right about the competition angle. Some UT and OU fans would love to be in the SEC, but one of the drawbacks that other fans mention is that the SEC is already top heavy with schools who are consistent title contenders. They know if they go there they will win fewer conference titles just because there are more top quality FB schools in the SEC than any other conference by a large margin. Winning makes a helmet program and it would be much harder in the SEC. It would also be more difficult to make the playoffs as well.

I think that OU and UT fans like the idea of a merger with the ACC (though generally it has been the view of the B12 taking in 6 ACC schools and not vice versa) due to the fact they would still battle each other for the west and play FSU/Miami/Clemson more often than not in a CCG. That really is like the old B12 dynamic where one or the other usually squared off with NU. They can see maintaining their winning standards in that situation. That is the reason the B1G gets a lot of play as well on their boards. The western division of the B1G would be similar to the B12 and they would square off versus OSU most times in a CCG.

Kansas fans also mention that same about the B1G. A lot love the B1G, but that conference is full of quality squads which makes winning at the rate KU fans are used to much more difficult, much less winning the conference (which we have on lock down most years in the B12). In the SEC they would be the best school in the west and square off with Kentucky or Florida more often than not for the conference title. A little tougher to win the conference in than the B12, but they gain that national power rival they want to help increase ratings and exposure for KU BB. I think the west in the SEC would be easier than the current B12 so they would still win at a high rate just win fewer conference titles. The PAC and SEC would both be good destinations if we did not want to add to the gauntlets of the ACC and B1G. Both have a blue blood, UCLA and Kentucky, as well as some schools who are not far behind that level in Arizona and Florida. But basketball is much easier to get into the postseason so I think it is less of a consideration for BB than FB.

Really when it comes to UT, KU, or OU they could end up anywhere as they add value to any conference. I could see them moving together as a trio (they are all pretty happy with each other as business partners and usually were 1-2-3 most years when the original B12 had unequal revenue sharing) or I could see them all going their own ways and joining separate conferences. So many variables: AAU status, little brothers, state politics, maintaining excellence, T3 contracts with ESPN or FOX, and more I am forgetting. Part of the reason those three are still in the B12 while all the flagships without a little brother (or little brother responsibilities in A&M's case) have left. There are scenarios where I could see all three schools in any of the other power conferences. I think where each ends up depends on who the primary targets of the SEC and B1G are and if they can land them and what conference size they are willing to expand too. That is why realignment is so interesting.

And that is where our perspectives differ. I see Texas specifically as ESPN property and therefore not likely to move to the PAC unless the PAC is willing to sell a significant percentage of its network to the Mouse. (which I don't see happening). ESPN would love to have Texas outright, or at least the largest part of them. Therefore I see the Horns going to the ACC or SEC. I think ESPN wants to hold onto Kansas for the same reasons. They just don't own as much of your Jayhawks as they do of Texas. I also think that they would like to claim the Sooners from FOX. The rest of the schools could be be bought or bartered out easily enough. The dual claims on those Big 12 products is why we are in a realignment stalemate. Plus the networks are waiting for NCAA rules changes to permit more than two divisions within conferences, or for a breakaway either of which gives them a green light to finish shaping the upper tier structure. In that process realignment will likely be settled. So we wait.

Actually I agree with you mostly about Texas. ESPN and FOX are battling it out and in realignment it is obvious the networks are influencing or directing the conferences about what schools to take to increase their value to the networks. ESPN has a lot of influence at UT due to the LHN. But Texas is very independent, so they could go their own way. I can see them in any conference because they will have their pick, but the probability is higher in some than others. I agree they do not want the PAC due to time zone issues and lack of exposure compared to the east. Dodds is on video about that.

If the B12 fails, I think Texas will go independent and get a ND type deal with the ACC or B12 remnants, if independence is still an option at that time. They originally became close with ND because they wanted to learn more about how ND handled being an independent. If the B12 dies and they are forced to join a conference (independence is no longer an option), I think it will be some kind of ACC/B12 merger, especially if ND is all in. ND and Texas would wield the most power in conference matters in the ACC IMO. They like having power over their conference. I just think the SEC/PAC/B1G all have a shot at them as well if things fall right or they make the right offer.

I could actually see ND and UT forming their own conference from some schools from the B12 and ACC, plus maybe a few odd schools from other P5 conference or even the G5. They would instantly be the kings and they could cut out the schools they feel have the least value (which is a problem for both the B12 and ACC - a lot of deadweight and duplicated markets). There was a rumor this was considered back around 2010 when things got dicey.