I like texas, texas tech and Houston to the pac 12 but that probably would only occur if OU and KU went to the big 10 and texas picked the pac 12. I'm not sure who team 16 would be, maybe rice to double up in Houston.

The difference is that we know the PAC wants into the CTZ and Texas in particular. If UT/TT/OSU/OSU aren't an option then UH becomes the next best to look at

Like all conferences the PAC loves $$$. The PAC 12 would love to have Texas and a presence in the CTZ but only under the right circumstances.

If Texas isn't a possibility why would the PAC 12 add leftovers? There isn't enough value there. Like you said, if Houston or any westernish G5 school magically, or through the process of many years, transforms from an afterthought to a legitimate peer the PAC 12 will certainly show interest. But as it stands, the PAC 12 options are 1)Texas or 2)stay at 12.

(06-13-2014 03:42 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  Like all conferences the PAC loves $$$. The PAC 12 would love to have Texas and a presence in the CTZ but only under the right circumstances.

If Texas isn't a possibility why would the PAC 12 add leftovers? There isn't enough value there. Like you said, if Houston or any westernish G5 school magically, or through the process of many years, transforms from an afterthought to a legitimate peer the PAC 12 will certainly show interest. But as it stands, the PAC 12 options are 1)Texas or 2)stay at 12.

The theory is based on getting the Pac 12 network into the Texas market much like Rutgers and Maryland going to the B10.

A move with Houston and SMU would put the network into the two largest markets in the state.

Neither Rutgers or Maryland are FB powers. They are blessed with the gift of geography. Something that no matter how good we could be will forever prevent our consideration by the B10, B12, and the SEC. That same georgraphy is not a negative for the other two.

The only two P5 conferences that do not have a presence in Texas (besides the B10 who won’t come here without Texas) are the ACC and the P12.

Of those two the P12 has expressed interest in the Texas market. At this time the ACC has not expressed any interest in Texas.

Granted UH, SMU, or whomever are not the best choices in the state but they are the best available choices.

(06-13-2014 03:42 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  Like all conferences the PAC loves $$$. The PAC 12 would love to have Texas and a presence in the CTZ but only under the right circumstances.

If Texas isn't a possibility why would the PAC 12 add leftovers? There isn't enough value there. Like you said, if Houston or any westernish G5 school magically, or through the process of many years, transforms from an afterthought to a legitimate peer the PAC 12 will certainly show interest. But as it stands, the PAC 12 options are 1)Texas or 2)stay at 12.

Exactly right. If any conference commissioner claimed that they should be paid for the Texas TV markets even if they have neither UT nor TAMU, the TV networks and cable/satellite operators would laugh that commissioner out of the room. Unless, of course, some other athletic program grows so far beyond where they are now that they equal or surpass UT and TAMU.

Mr.SEC does a really fine job of framing the issues. He lays out scenarios well. But in the end he eschews the crystal ball and that is where he has credibility. Most of the other blog sites get into predicting (guessing) where things are headed. That's fun and fine for chat rooms, but not for sites that try to generate interest through news and ideas. Frank stays away from prognostication as well. But I'd say Frank's assessment of what the Big 10 might do and why is vastly superior to Mr. SEC's assessments of the SEC. Mr. SEC's connections were more to pro sports and his ties to the SEC are peripheral.

Where he is right and wrong on the issue of autonomy centers around priorities. Autonomy to set their own rules is the separate issue for the P5. All other matters are subordinate to that one. There is unity for autonomy. There will not be unity for what that means. That is why Slive is proposing 60% to pass rules. A greater percentage is probably unobtainable. The knowledge that it is unobtainable means that the P5 realizes and acknowledges their differences. I take this as a good sign for self governance, not as the seeds of future rifts. So Mr. SEC is correct in that there will be a push for the D4. I'm not so sure that such a push would mean further realignment other than perhaps in setting a conducive structure for playoffs.

What conference, if any, Texas or Notre Dame, or Ohio State, or Alabama are in is not going to change their votes. Coalitions are good in that they spur communication and compromise. In as much as schools will vote their self interest I don't see how seeking schools to join a conference will change their stance on votes that affect their self interest.

If there is a D4 and we do have further realignment I see it being compelled by monetary offers from the networks for the sake of creating a well defined structure, not by the need to possess schools to control their votes (an unrealistic concept).

I agree money is the driving meteoric for all conference realignment that has occurred or will occur in the future!.
.

(06-15-2014 12:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Mr.SEC does a really fine job of framing the issues. He lays out scenarios well. But in the end he eschews the crystal ball and that is where he has credibility. Most of the other blog sites get into predicting (guessing) where things are headed. That's fun and fine for chat rooms, but not for sites that try to generate interest through news and ideas. Frank stays away from prognostication as well. But I'd say Frank's assessment of what the Big 10 might do and why is vastly superior to Mr. SEC's assessments of the SEC. Mr. SEC's connections were more to pro sports and his ties to the SEC are peripheral.

Where he is right and wrong on the issue of autonomy centers around priorities. Autonomy to set their own rules is the separate issue for the P5. All other matters are subordinate to that one. There is unity for autonomy. There will not be unity for what that means. That is why Slive is proposing 60% to pass rules. A greater percentage is probably unobtainable. The knowledge that it is unobtainable means that the P5 realizes and acknowledges their differences. I take this as a good sign for self governance, not as the seeds of future rifts. So Mr. SEC is correct in that there will be a push for the D4. I'm not so sure that such a push would mean further realignment other than perhaps in setting a conducive structure for playoffs.

What conference, if any, Texas or Notre Dame, or Ohio State, or Alabama are in is not going to change their votes. Coalitions are good in that they spur communication and compromise. In as much as schools will vote their self interest I don't see how seeking schools to join a conference will change their stance on votes that affect their self interest.

If there is a D4 and we do have further realignment I see it being compelled by monetary offers from the networks for the sake of creating a well defined structure, not by the need to possess schools to control their votes (an unrealistic concept).

Returning to one-school-one-vote even if it is on the P5 level is long-term healthier.

With conference voting it was very easy for legislation to pass/fail without full involvement of members and for the legislation to not even have majority support. If a league's representative was a loose cannon or not engaged (or concerned) about the position of the league members the league's voting position could easily be a minority position of the league's membership. Likewise in a league like the B12 a strong member even if not the voting representative had the potential to push the representative to vote in a way that majority did not support.

The P5 is far more diverse than the media suggests, the voting structure of P5 in autonomy may actually slow the pace of change down.