(08-11-2014 09:06 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 04:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 03:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 03:18 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 12:06 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  The problem is that as long as the Longhorns have their own network, there is no Big12 network for the other 9 members. I understand that Kansas, Oklahoma and WVU already make considerable $$ already with their tier 3 content, but it does not approach the revenue or viewership that a consolidated Big12 network could generate. Of course Texas is happy...but that's where things get interesting in a few years as the B1G and SEC are cashing these large checks.

Any hypothetical proposal put on this board, I won't dismiss it as being outrageously wrong given recent events. But, if the SEC monies got so big that Texas and Oklahoma would think of leaving B12, I wonder if these two schools would look to SEC first and PAC would have no chance to get them? Interesting times, that's for sure. But if TAMU has veto power, then no SEC Longhorns!

I'm not saying Texas would move to the SEC but if that was a hypothetical issue Texas A&M would need 4 other votes to stop them. By themselves A&M doesn't have veto power over any school. I think that would make for some very heated discussion within the SEC and here's why. There is no doubt but what Texas as an addition would make the SEC money, and probably more money that any addition other than say U.N.C. at this point, maybe U.V.A./VaTech. So if Texas and say Oklahoma were being considered as the final pair, and the ACC was clearly off the board, I'm not so sure that A&M could count on Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, or South Carolina to vote with them. Florida has a good relationship with Texas. Georgia who desires along with the Gators a continued improvement of SEC academics wouldn't be against them. I don't think South Carolina would care except about the size of their paycheck. Ditto for Kentucky. The votes against Texas might likely be those of A&M and Missouri and I am not totally convinced that the Tigers would vote against them since it would guarantee a game in Texas every year if A&M and UT were alternated on their schedule. I think the two votes against Texas would wind up being A&M and Alabama. And I think their joining would cause a rift with those two. A&M would feel betrayed to certain extent and Alabama would be pissed that they were no longer the top name in the conference.

The other issue would be the addition of two more strong programs. While it ensures the SEC's cache going forward it does make gaining an SEC championship just that much harder. While others disagree with me on this point if the SEC had to expand out of the Big 12 I think the best pair for the SEC would be Baylor and Oklahoma. The Sooners add the cache and the Bears deliver the DFW market with A&M. Some of my SEC buddies would rather see T.C.U. but Baylor clearly has the superior fan base, academics, and all around sports program (at this time).

I have nothing against Kansas and see good things in Iowa State but both would be considered to Northern for our culture and I don't think they would be strongly considered. Brand protection is a top priority for the SEC. There is nothing wrong with Texas Tech but they are a great distance from the heart of the western division of the SEC. The Baylor and Oklahoma addition would give the SEC one school smack in the middle of SEC academics (Oklahoma) and one school that would elevate the standing slightly (Baylor).

The addition of a second Texas school opens up recruiting in Texas even more to most of the western division of the SEC as with proper scheduling each school would play in the Lone Star state annually.

A&M fans would vote no, but they don't have the vote. I'm pretty sure the A&M administration would welcome Texas into the SEC. Its the rest of the Texas schools they want to separate themselves from. They would fight Tech or Houston tooth and nail.

That's absurd and you know it.

We aren't voting you in under any circumstances ever. You aren't the one we secretly like and respect and want to join us. You're the LAST Texas team we would ever vote for (with Baylor a close second).

As for the votes, Mizzou isn't voting yes. They can't stand you either.

And not one of the SEC West teams are voting to make CFBs toughest division even more insane.

You might have options elsewhere but you're not joining this league.

Like I said. Aggie fans would vote no.

Don't worry. Texas has no interest in the SEC.

And you've hit on another reason why the SEC shouldn't expand. You either water down and dilute rivalries or you make things too tough. If the SEC added 2 teams in the west, you may have Alabama and Auburn move east with Georgia, Florida and Tennessee. That's not good for anyone.

(08-11-2014 10:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 09:06 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 04:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 03:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 03:18 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  Any hypothetical proposal put on this board, I won't dismiss it as being outrageously wrong given recent events. But, if the SEC monies got so big that Texas and Oklahoma would think of leaving B12, I wonder if these two schools would look to SEC first and PAC would have no chance to get them? Interesting times, that's for sure. But if TAMU has veto power, then no SEC Longhorns!

I'm not saying Texas would move to the SEC but if that was a hypothetical issue Texas A&M would need 4 other votes to stop them. By themselves A&M doesn't have veto power over any school. I think that would make for some very heated discussion within the SEC and here's why. There is no doubt but what Texas as an addition would make the SEC money, and probably more money that any addition other than say U.N.C. at this point, maybe U.V.A./VaTech. So if Texas and say Oklahoma were being considered as the final pair, and the ACC was clearly off the board, I'm not so sure that A&M could count on Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, or South Carolina to vote with them. Florida has a good relationship with Texas. Georgia who desires along with the Gators a continued improvement of SEC academics wouldn't be against them. I don't think South Carolina would care except about the size of their paycheck. Ditto for Kentucky. The votes against Texas might likely be those of A&M and Missouri and I am not totally convinced that the Tigers would vote against them since it would guarantee a game in Texas every year if A&M and UT were alternated on their schedule. I think the two votes against Texas would wind up being A&M and Alabama. And I think their joining would cause a rift with those two. A&M would feel betrayed to certain extent and Alabama would be pissed that they were no longer the top name in the conference.

The other issue would be the addition of two more strong programs. While it ensures the SEC's cache going forward it does make gaining an SEC championship just that much harder. While others disagree with me on this point if the SEC had to expand out of the Big 12 I think the best pair for the SEC would be Baylor and Oklahoma. The Sooners add the cache and the Bears deliver the DFW market with A&M. Some of my SEC buddies would rather see T.C.U. but Baylor clearly has the superior fan base, academics, and all around sports program (at this time).

I have nothing against Kansas and see good things in Iowa State but both would be considered to Northern for our culture and I don't think they would be strongly considered. Brand protection is a top priority for the SEC. There is nothing wrong with Texas Tech but they are a great distance from the heart of the western division of the SEC. The Baylor and Oklahoma addition would give the SEC one school smack in the middle of SEC academics (Oklahoma) and one school that would elevate the standing slightly (Baylor).

The addition of a second Texas school opens up recruiting in Texas even more to most of the western division of the SEC as with proper scheduling each school would play in the Lone Star state annually.

A&M fans would vote no, but they don't have the vote. I'm pretty sure the A&M administration would welcome Texas into the SEC. Its the rest of the Texas schools they want to separate themselves from. They would fight Tech or Houston tooth and nail.

That's absurd and you know it.

We aren't voting you in under any circumstances ever. You aren't the one we secretly like and respect and want to join us. You're the LAST Texas team we would ever vote for (with Baylor a close second).

As for the votes, Mizzou isn't voting yes. They can't stand you either.

And not one of the SEC West teams are voting to make CFBs toughest division even more insane.

You might have options elsewhere but you're not joining this league.

Like I said. Aggie fans would vote no.

Don't worry. Texas has no interest in the SEC.

And you've hit on another reason why the SEC shouldn't expand. You either water down and dilute rivalries or you make things too tough. If the SEC added 2 teams in the west, you may have Alabama and Auburn move east with Georgia, Florida and Tennessee. That's not good for anyone.

It's good for Auburn. Those are the schools we played every year until the 92 expansion.

(08-11-2014 10:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 10:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 09:06 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 04:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 03:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm not saying Texas would move to the SEC but if that was a hypothetical issue Texas A&M would need 4 other votes to stop them. By themselves A&M doesn't have veto power over any school. I think that would make for some very heated discussion within the SEC and here's why. There is no doubt but what Texas as an addition would make the SEC money, and probably more money that any addition other than say U.N.C. at this point, maybe U.V.A./VaTech. So if Texas and say Oklahoma were being considered as the final pair, and the ACC was clearly off the board, I'm not so sure that A&M could count on Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, or South Carolina to vote with them. Florida has a good relationship with Texas. Georgia who desires along with the Gators a continued improvement of SEC academics wouldn't be against them. I don't think South Carolina would care except about the size of their paycheck. Ditto for Kentucky. The votes against Texas might likely be those of A&M and Missouri and I am not totally convinced that the Tigers would vote against them since it would guarantee a game in Texas every year if A&M and UT were alternated on their schedule. I think the two votes against Texas would wind up being A&M and Alabama. And I think their joining would cause a rift with those two. A&M would feel betrayed to certain extent and Alabama would be pissed that they were no longer the top name in the conference.

The other issue would be the addition of two more strong programs. While it ensures the SEC's cache going forward it does make gaining an SEC championship just that much harder. While others disagree with me on this point if the SEC had to expand out of the Big 12 I think the best pair for the SEC would be Baylor and Oklahoma. The Sooners add the cache and the Bears deliver the DFW market with A&M. Some of my SEC buddies would rather see T.C.U. but Baylor clearly has the superior fan base, academics, and all around sports program (at this time).

I have nothing against Kansas and see good things in Iowa State but both would be considered to Northern for our culture and I don't think they would be strongly considered. Brand protection is a top priority for the SEC. There is nothing wrong with Texas Tech but they are a great distance from the heart of the western division of the SEC. The Baylor and Oklahoma addition would give the SEC one school smack in the middle of SEC academics (Oklahoma) and one school that would elevate the standing slightly (Baylor).

The addition of a second Texas school opens up recruiting in Texas even more to most of the western division of the SEC as with proper scheduling each school would play in the Lone Star state annually.

A&M fans would vote no, but they don't have the vote. I'm pretty sure the A&M administration would welcome Texas into the SEC. Its the rest of the Texas schools they want to separate themselves from. They would fight Tech or Houston tooth and nail.

That's absurd and you know it.

We aren't voting you in under any circumstances ever. You aren't the one we secretly like and respect and want to join us. You're the LAST Texas team we would ever vote for (with Baylor a close second).

As for the votes, Mizzou isn't voting yes. They can't stand you either.

And not one of the SEC West teams are voting to make CFBs toughest division even more insane.

You might have options elsewhere but you're not joining this league.

Like I said. Aggie fans would vote no.

Don't worry. Texas has no interest in the SEC.

And you've hit on another reason why the SEC shouldn't expand. You either water down and dilute rivalries or you make things too tough. If the SEC added 2 teams in the west, you may have Alabama and Auburn move east with Georgia, Florida and Tennessee. That's not good for anyone.

It's good for Auburn. Those are the schools we played every year until the 92 expansion.

Having 5 of the top 16-20 programs in the country in one division is not good. They would beat up on each other too much.

And that's kind of the reason Auburn supported the switch from 5-2-1 to 5-1-2. They were having to play Georgia AND Florida every year and were at a competitive disadvantage to the rest of the SEC West.

wouldn't call Tennessee one of the top 16-20 programs in the country right now. And, Auburn is just so inconsistent.

(08-11-2014 10:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 10:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 10:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 09:06 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 04:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  A&M fans would vote no, but they don't have the vote. I'm pretty sure the A&M administration would welcome Texas into the SEC. Its the rest of the Texas schools they want to separate themselves from. They would fight Tech or Houston tooth and nail.

That's absurd and you know it.

We aren't voting you in under any circumstances ever. You aren't the one we secretly like and respect and want to join us. You're the LAST Texas team we would ever vote for (with Baylor a close second).

As for the votes, Mizzou isn't voting yes. They can't stand you either.

And not one of the SEC West teams are voting to make CFBs toughest division even more insane.

You might have options elsewhere but you're not joining this league.

Like I said. Aggie fans would vote no.

Don't worry. Texas has no interest in the SEC.

And you've hit on another reason why the SEC shouldn't expand. You either water down and dilute rivalries or you make things too tough. If the SEC added 2 teams in the west, you may have Alabama and Auburn move east with Georgia, Florida and Tennessee. That's not good for anyone.

It's good for Auburn. Those are the schools we played every year until the 92 expansion.

Having 5 of the top 16-20 programs in the country in one division is not good. They would beat up on each other too much.

It's not much different in the West. Let Alabama stay in the West and Missouri move West and restore Auburn to the East. But hey, aren't you the guy always talking about the SEC's SOS? Vandy and Kentucky are in the East.

Bullet, if you want to tell yourself our admin is secretly pro-UT and would love to vote you in, you go ahead. I understand some adults still believe in Santa Clause too.

But back to the topic

Again, that's why Eastern expansion makes more sense. The VA/NC schools add a lot more markets and money while improving basketball more than football (VT excluded) and keeping competition reasonable.

I know JR wants western expansion mainly to get Auburn pushed back into the eastern division but if we simply got rid of divisions and gave everyone 3-4 permanent rivalry games and rotated through the rest, it wouldn't matter

(08-12-2014 07:56 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Bullet, if you want to tell yourself our admin is secretly pro-UT and would love to vote you in, you go ahead. I understand some adults still believe in Santa Clause too.

But back to the topic

Again, that's why Eastern expansion makes more sense. The VA/NC schools add a lot more markets and money while improving basketball more than football (VT excluded) and keeping competition reasonable.

I know JR wants western expansion mainly to get Auburn pushed back into the eastern division but if we simply got rid of divisions and gave everyone 3-4 permanent rivalry games and rotated through the rest, it wouldn't matter

Rotational pods work just as well. But, actually you have never gotten my position. I would much rather expand from the ACC but I would rather we move to 18 or even 20 if we did. You do realize that at 1.40 per subscriber that the emphasis now will be how well you saturate your markets? Yes adding North Carolina and Virginia Tech would add tremendously. But beyond those two how can the SEC optimize its profits? More of Florida. F.S.U. still has value for the SEC. The addition of F.S.U. locks down the Sunshine State at a much higher percentage of Central and North Florida cable homes subscribed. I would like to see us add Clemson as well because they simply are the only remaining school outside of the SEC that fits us. And because quite frankly I am one who believes that the way into North Carolina and Virginia only comes by neutering the football power of the ACC by taking F.S.U. and Clemson. No other move devalues their brand more or causes greater instability. But the problem there is ESPN. Until they want such moves it won't happen.

I am sure that ESPN would love to sew up Texas and Oklahoma. So if we can't expand to the East with a more natural fit, the last best two options are to the West and adding Texas more completely at 1.40 per household would go a long long way to making us all more money at a time when money is becoming a greater issue for schools. What you can't grasp is the business end of this enterprise.

Make no mistake I would love for my Tigers to be back with Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee since most of my life those were our annual games along with Alabama and Georgia Tech. Most Auburn fans can't get worked up over the Mississippi schools and Arkansas. L.S.U. is a different matter. And quite frankly there isn't much history with A&M. Now L.S.U. and Alabama both have connections to A&M and A&M has connections to Arkansas and Missouri. The divisions don't make any damned sense! But even my passion over that I would still prefer to add at least 4 from the ACC and lock down our market footprint by eliminating any attractive possibilities for other conferences. The South loves football. It is the most college friendly region of the country for support of athletics. It simply is the best area in which to expand because it enhances all aspects of the business model. It saturates the most natural market, it enhances attendance, it makes the revenue from rivalry games 100% that of the SEC with no splits and it gives us that revenue every year instead of every other year, and it locks out competition.

Now if A&M is going to be part of all of that then your state has more to glean as well. Now I don't care if that is Texas, Texas Tech, or Baylor. But IMO T.C.U. doesn't even belong in the P5. Their fan support is Miami-esque, they are a short duration one trick pony in a revenue sport and that is football. Baylor, Oklahoma, and even Oklahoma State deliver their market. It's always been just business 10th. And that's the way the SEC office operates.

It's absolutely business.

I may be wrong but I don't see extra teams from ANY current SEC state being added because the network model doesn't allow for more money to be made that way. The SEC is getting paid for the whole state of Florida, including Miami, without the help if FSU or UM.

So I don't see any other TX schools coming on board either.

Now that doesn't mean I don't think we could use a bigger presence in DFW. To that end I support Okie State as a western candidate IF we can't get the real prizes back east or only get one and need a counterpart.

OSU is realistic because OU won't leave UT ever. They are hurting for recruits badly now and can't only have one trip to TX a year even it's RRS (UT might threaten but won't give this game up ever, it's the only game left on their schedule anyone cares about)

Now OSU has no such compunctions and they have existing ties with A&M, Missouri and Arkansas (Stillwater is only a 2.5 hr drive to Fayetteville) They bring a solid FB, MBB and BB and a chunk of DFW as well as the all the smaller OK markets like OKC and TUL

To me they are the strongest of the realistic western candidates.

If Oklahoma is hurting for recruits now, why wouldn't they go SEC? I'd kind of think they would see what happened with A&M and Missouri and just salivate.

Plus, Oklahoma could do stuff like what they did scheduling Houston. If TCU doesn't want to play, schedule SMU. One thing- they'd get an extra OOC game which could make things easier as well.

Part of the issue as well for OU is that the SEC wont take 2 OK schools. One is more than enough and you simply cant waste the most valuable commodity in CFB (An expansion invite to the SEC/B1G/PAC) by doubling up in a state you already have a presence in.

So (maybe unfairly) while OSU could ditch OU because OU can still improve their situation and get an invite to another power conference like the B1G or PAC, OU cant simply abandon OSU who has much less hope of a B1G or PAC invite without OU there to demand them as tag-a-long. This is similar to how UT is now responsible for the fates of TTU/BU/TCU because none of them have any real prospects of Power Conference membership without UT.

That makes it rather implausible the OU could just leave OSU behind and join the SEC on their own.

(08-06-2014 03:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 03:18 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 12:06 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 11:59 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  The linked article states that each SEC school will receive $20 million per year from the SEC TV Network, $5 million more than the Texas Longhorn tv contract at $15 million per year.,

With the benefit of hindsight, the B12 was mocked because Texas Longhorn Network received a tv contract for $15 million and this was considered bribery by B12 critics to hold the B12 together. Well, maybe that's true. And maybe its not. With the benefit of hindsight, perhaps the Texas Longhorn Network tv contract of $15 million per year was an indicator of what BCS schools and conferences can generate in tv revenue.

The many critics of B12, primarily AAC fans, will probably do an 180 degree flip flop, from criticizing the B12 for "bribing" Texas Longhorns to stay in B12 so the conference survives to now Texas will just have to leave B12 because they are being short changed financially and the B12 will not survive. And, therefore, just as before, the B12 is doomed to failure.

My guess is Texas fans are pleased to have their Longhorn Network right along the B1G and SEC Networks in the tv listings. How the future plays out, that will be interesting to watch. Who knows what will happen in the future?

The problem is that as long as the Longhorns have their own network, there is no Big12 network for the other 9 members. I understand that Kansas, Oklahoma and WVU already make considerable $$ already with their tier 3 content, but it does not approach the revenue or viewership that a consolidated Big12 network could generate. Of course Texas is happy...but that's where things get interesting in a few years as the B1G and SEC are cashing these large checks.

Any hypothetical proposal put on this board, I won't dismiss it as being outrageously wrong given recent events. But, if the SEC monies got so big that Texas and Oklahoma would think of leaving B12, I wonder if these two schools would look to SEC first and PAC would have no chance to get them? Interesting times, that's for sure. But if TAMU has veto power, then no SEC Longhorns!

I'm not saying Texas would move to the SEC but if that was a hypothetical issue Texas A&M would need 4 other votes to stop them. By themselves A&M doesn't have veto power over any school. I think that would make for some very heated discussion within the SEC and here's why. There is no doubt but what Texas as an addition would make the SEC money, and probably more money that any addition other than say U.N.C. at this point, maybe U.V.A./VaTech. So if Texas and say Oklahoma were being considered as the final pair, and the ACC was clearly off the board, I'm not so sure that A&M could count on Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, or South Carolina to vote with them. Florida has a good relationship with Texas. Georgia who desires along with the Gators a continued improvement of SEC academics wouldn't be against them. I don't think South Carolina would care except about the size of their paycheck. Ditto for Kentucky. The votes against Texas might likely be those of A&M and Missouri and I am not totally convinced that the Tigers would vote against them since it would guarantee a game in Texas every year if A&M and UT were alternated on their schedule. I think the two votes against Texas would wind up being A&M and Alabama. And I think their joining would cause a rift with those two. A&M would feel betrayed to certain extent and Alabama would be pissed that they were no longer the top name in the conference.

The other issue would be the addition of two more strong programs. While it ensures the SEC's cache going forward it does make gaining an SEC championship just that much harder. While others disagree with me on this point if the SEC had to expand out of the Big 12 I think the best pair for the SEC would be Baylor and Oklahoma. The Sooners add the cache and the Bears deliver the DFW market with A&M. Some of my SEC buddies would rather see T.C.U. but Baylor clearly has the superior fan base, academics, and all around sports program (at this time).

I have nothing against Kansas and see good things in Iowa State but both would be considered to Northern for our culture and I don't think they would be strongly considered. Brand protection is a top priority for the SEC. There is nothing wrong with Texas Tech but they are a great distance from the heart of the western division of the SEC. The Baylor and Oklahoma addition would give the SEC one school smack in the middle of SEC academics (Oklahoma) and one school that would elevate the standing slightly (Baylor).

The addition of a second Texas school opens up recruiting in Texas even more to most of the western division of the SEC as with proper scheduling each school would play in the Lone Star state annually.

The SEC wouldn’t turn down the biggest $$$ maker in all of college sports to appease A&M. However, the LHN would have to be dropped. The only hypothetical reason that Texas would join the SEC in my opinion is if A&M never wins the conference by the time the B12’s GOR expires. I could see Texas joining to prove to that it can do what A&M couldn’t in the SEC....

(08-17-2014 07:18 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 03:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 03:18 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 12:06 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 11:59 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  The linked article states that each SEC school will receive $20 million per year from the SEC TV Network, $5 million more than the Texas Longhorn tv contract at $15 million per year.,

With the benefit of hindsight, the B12 was mocked because Texas Longhorn Network received a tv contract for $15 million and this was considered bribery by B12 critics to hold the B12 together. Well, maybe that's true. And maybe its not. With the benefit of hindsight, perhaps the Texas Longhorn Network tv contract of $15 million per year was an indicator of what BCS schools and conferences can generate in tv revenue.

The many critics of B12, primarily AAC fans, will probably do an 180 degree flip flop, from criticizing the B12 for "bribing" Texas Longhorns to stay in B12 so the conference survives to now Texas will just have to leave B12 because they are being short changed financially and the B12 will not survive. And, therefore, just as before, the B12 is doomed to failure.

My guess is Texas fans are pleased to have their Longhorn Network right along the B1G and SEC Networks in the tv listings. How the future plays out, that will be interesting to watch. Who knows what will happen in the future?

The problem is that as long as the Longhorns have their own network, there is no Big12 network for the other 9 members. I understand that Kansas, Oklahoma and WVU already make considerable $$ already with their tier 3 content, but it does not approach the revenue or viewership that a consolidated Big12 network could generate. Of course Texas is happy...but that's where things get interesting in a few years as the B1G and SEC are cashing these large checks.

Any hypothetical proposal put on this board, I won't dismiss it as being outrageously wrong given recent events. But, if the SEC monies got so big that Texas and Oklahoma would think of leaving B12, I wonder if these two schools would look to SEC first and PAC would have no chance to get them? Interesting times, that's for sure. But if TAMU has veto power, then no SEC Longhorns!

I'm not saying Texas would move to the SEC but if that was a hypothetical issue Texas A&M would need 4 other votes to stop them. By themselves A&M doesn't have veto power over any school. I think that would make for some very heated discussion within the SEC and here's why. There is no doubt but what Texas as an addition would make the SEC money, and probably more money that any addition other than say U.N.C. at this point, maybe U.V.A./VaTech. So if Texas and say Oklahoma were being considered as the final pair, and the ACC was clearly off the board, I'm not so sure that A&M could count on Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, or South Carolina to vote with them. Florida has a good relationship with Texas. Georgia who desires along with the Gators a continued improvement of SEC academics wouldn't be against them. I don't think South Carolina would care except about the size of their paycheck. Ditto for Kentucky. The votes against Texas might likely be those of A&M and Missouri and I am not totally convinced that the Tigers would vote against them since it would guarantee a game in Texas every year if A&M and UT were alternated on their schedule. I think the two votes against Texas would wind up being A&M and Alabama. And I think their joining would cause a rift with those two. A&M would feel betrayed to certain extent and Alabama would be pissed that they were no longer the top name in the conference.

The other issue would be the addition of two more strong programs. While it ensures the SEC's cache going forward it does make gaining an SEC championship just that much harder. While others disagree with me on this point if the SEC had to expand out of the Big 12 I think the best pair for the SEC would be Baylor and Oklahoma. The Sooners add the cache and the Bears deliver the DFW market with A&M. Some of my SEC buddies would rather see T.C.U. but Baylor clearly has the superior fan base, academics, and all around sports program (at this time).

I have nothing against Kansas and see good things in Iowa State but both would be considered to Northern for our culture and I don't think they would be strongly considered. Brand protection is a top priority for the SEC. There is nothing wrong with Texas Tech but they are a great distance from the heart of the western division of the SEC. The Baylor and Oklahoma addition would give the SEC one school smack in the middle of SEC academics (Oklahoma) and one school that would elevate the standing slightly (Baylor).

The addition of a second Texas school opens up recruiting in Texas even more to most of the western division of the SEC as with proper scheduling each school would play in the Lone Star state annually.

The SEC wouldn’t turn down the biggest $$$ maker in all of college sports to appease A&M. However, the LHN would have to be dropped. The only hypothetical reason that Texas would join the SEC in my opinion is if A&M never wins the conference by the time the B12’s GOR expires. I could see Texas joining to prove to that it can do what A&M couldn’t in the SEC....

Actually the biggest reasons for Texas to join the SEC would be these:

1. The opponents that would comprise their schedule should they join the West: Arkansas (old rival), Ole Miss and Mississippi State (two solid programs in lower to middle tier range and the Grove is a nice place to play and Ole Miss travels well and State travels fairly well too), Missouri (a recent familiar face and a peer institution), L.S.U. (a top rated classic in the making), Oklahoma (a top rival), and A&M (a hated rival).

2. In such a move Alabama and Auburn would most likely move east and Texas would be one of 4 stellar programs in the West and with very familiar faces.

3. Should the SECN payout 20 plus million it will be only 1 of two conferences that could eclipse the payout for the LHN and the only one that keeps Texas centered in its own region. Most Longhorn fans would be in reasonable driving distance from all of their divisional games and Missouri would be their longest trip.

(08-12-2014 12:04 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Part of the issue as well for OU is that the SEC wont take 2 OK schools. One is more than enough and you simply cant waste the most valuable commodity in CFB (An expansion invite to the SEC/B1G/PAC) by doubling up in a state you already have a presence in.

So (maybe unfairly) while OSU could ditch OU because OU can still improve their situation and get an invite to another power conference like the B1G or PAC, OU cant simply abandon OSU who has much less hope of a B1G or PAC invite without OU there to demand them as tag-a-long. This is similar to how UT is now responsible for the fates of TTU/BU/TCU because none of them have any real prospects of Power Conference membership without UT.

That makes it rather implausible the OU could just leave OSU behind and join the SEC on their own.

Which is why OSU to the SEC. It is a strong program, great facilities and a following that is growing. Stick them with LSU, Texas A&M and Arkansas in a division. That doesn't blow up any of the current hierarchy. Do that with Oklahoma and that could be different.

The SEC is the conference best situated to make the most of Oklahoma State.

Projected $19.7 million per team. Much like the B1G.


http://businessofcollegesports.com/2014/...ork-video/

(08-17-2014 09:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-17-2014 07:18 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 03:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 03:18 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 12:06 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  The problem is that as long as the Longhorns have their own network, there is no Big12 network for the other 9 members. I understand that Kansas, Oklahoma and WVU already make considerable $$ already with their tier 3 content, but it does not approach the revenue or viewership that a consolidated Big12 network could generate. Of course Texas is happy...but that's where things get interesting in a few years as the B1G and SEC are cashing these large checks.

Any hypothetical proposal put on this board, I won't dismiss it as being outrageously wrong given recent events. But, if the SEC monies got so big that Texas and Oklahoma would think of leaving B12, I wonder if these two schools would look to SEC first and PAC would have no chance to get them? Interesting times, that's for sure. But if TAMU has veto power, then no SEC Longhorns!

I'm not saying Texas would move to the SEC but if that was a hypothetical issue Texas A&M would need 4 other votes to stop them. By themselves A&M doesn't have veto power over any school. I think that would make for some very heated discussion within the SEC and here's why. There is no doubt but what Texas as an addition would make the SEC money, and probably more money that any addition other than say U.N.C. at this point, maybe U.V.A./VaTech. So if Texas and say Oklahoma were being considered as the final pair, and the ACC was clearly off the board, I'm not so sure that A&M could count on Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, or South Carolina to vote with them. Florida has a good relationship with Texas. Georgia who desires along with the Gators a continued improvement of SEC academics wouldn't be against them. I don't think South Carolina would care except about the size of their paycheck. Ditto for Kentucky. The votes against Texas might likely be those of A&M and Missouri and I am not totally convinced that the Tigers would vote against them since it would guarantee a game in Texas every year if A&M and UT were alternated on their schedule. I think the two votes against Texas would wind up being A&M and Alabama. And I think their joining would cause a rift with those two. A&M would feel betrayed to certain extent and Alabama would be pissed that they were no longer the top name in the conference.

The other issue would be the addition of two more strong programs. While it ensures the SEC's cache going forward it does make gaining an SEC championship just that much harder. While others disagree with me on this point if the SEC had to expand out of the Big 12 I think the best pair for the SEC would be Baylor and Oklahoma. The Sooners add the cache and the Bears deliver the DFW market with A&M. Some of my SEC buddies would rather see T.C.U. but Baylor clearly has the superior fan base, academics, and all around sports program (at this time).

I have nothing against Kansas and see good things in Iowa State but both would be considered to Northern for our culture and I don't think they would be strongly considered. Brand protection is a top priority for the SEC. There is nothing wrong with Texas Tech but they are a great distance from the heart of the western division of the SEC. The Baylor and Oklahoma addition would give the SEC one school smack in the middle of SEC academics (Oklahoma) and one school that would elevate the standing slightly (Baylor).

The addition of a second Texas school opens up recruiting in Texas even more to most of the western division of the SEC as with proper scheduling each school would play in the Lone Star state annually.

The SEC wouldn’t turn down the biggest $$$ maker in all of college sports to appease A&M. However, the LHN would have to be dropped. The only hypothetical reason that Texas would join the SEC in my opinion is if A&M never wins the conference by the time the B12’s GOR expires. I could see Texas joining to prove to that it can do what A&M couldn’t in the SEC....

Actually the biggest reasons for Texas to join the SEC would be these:

1. The opponents that would comprise their schedule should they join the West: Arkansas (old rival), Ole Miss and Mississippi State (two solid programs in lower to middle tier range and the Grove is a nice place to play and Ole Miss travels well and State travels fairly well too), Missouri (a recent familiar face and a peer institution), L.S.U. (a top rated classic in the making), Oklahoma (a top rival), and A&M (a hated rival).

2. In such a move Alabama and Auburn would most likely move east and Texas would be one of 4 stellar programs in the West and with very familiar faces.

3. Should the SECN payout 20 plus million it will be only 1 of two conferences that could eclipse the payout for the LHN and the only one that keeps Texas centered in its own region. Most Longhorn fans would be in reasonable driving distance from all of their divisional games and Missouri would be their longest trip.

The problem is that this scenario ignores political reality.

If OU and UT could just shrug off OSU and TTU with no fight or consequences, they'd both head to the B1G along with KU as the destination of choice for all 3 programs. A western division of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa, Northwestern, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas would suit both of them quite nicely (with someone like UCONN balancing out the East)

But no conference but the PAC is willing to take in the TX/OK tag-a-longs who are an inevitable part of the deal. In fact the PAC might have to take as many as 8 Big 12 teams to land UT and OU.

(08-19-2014 12:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(08-17-2014 09:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-17-2014 07:18 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 03:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 03:18 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  Any hypothetical proposal put on this board, I won't dismiss it as being outrageously wrong given recent events. But, if the SEC monies got so big that Texas and Oklahoma would think of leaving B12, I wonder if these two schools would look to SEC first and PAC would have no chance to get them? Interesting times, that's for sure. But if TAMU has veto power, then no SEC Longhorns!

I'm not saying Texas would move to the SEC but if that was a hypothetical issue Texas A&M would need 4 other votes to stop them. By themselves A&M doesn't have veto power over any school. I think that would make for some very heated discussion within the SEC and here's why. There is no doubt but what Texas as an addition would make the SEC money, and probably more money that any addition other than say U.N.C. at this point, maybe U.V.A./VaTech. So if Texas and say Oklahoma were being considered as the final pair, and the ACC was clearly off the board, I'm not so sure that A&M could count on Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, or South Carolina to vote with them. Florida has a good relationship with Texas. Georgia who desires along with the Gators a continued improvement of SEC academics wouldn't be against them. I don't think South Carolina would care except about the size of their paycheck. Ditto for Kentucky. The votes against Texas might likely be those of A&M and Missouri and I am not totally convinced that the Tigers would vote against them since it would guarantee a game in Texas every year if A&M and UT were alternated on their schedule. I think the two votes against Texas would wind up being A&M and Alabama. And I think their joining would cause a rift with those two. A&M would feel betrayed to certain extent and Alabama would be pissed that they were no longer the top name in the conference.

The other issue would be the addition of two more strong programs. While it ensures the SEC's cache going forward it does make gaining an SEC championship just that much harder. While others disagree with me on this point if the SEC had to expand out of the Big 12 I think the best pair for the SEC would be Baylor and Oklahoma. The Sooners add the cache and the Bears deliver the DFW market with A&M. Some of my SEC buddies would rather see T.C.U. but Baylor clearly has the superior fan base, academics, and all around sports program (at this time).

I have nothing against Kansas and see good things in Iowa State but both would be considered to Northern for our culture and I don't think they would be strongly considered. Brand protection is a top priority for the SEC. There is nothing wrong with Texas Tech but they are a great distance from the heart of the western division of the SEC. The Baylor and Oklahoma addition would give the SEC one school smack in the middle of SEC academics (Oklahoma) and one school that would elevate the standing slightly (Baylor).

The addition of a second Texas school opens up recruiting in Texas even more to most of the western division of the SEC as with proper scheduling each school would play in the Lone Star state annually.

The SEC wouldn’t turn down the biggest $$$ maker in all of college sports to appease A&M. However, the LHN would have to be dropped. The only hypothetical reason that Texas would join the SEC in my opinion is if A&M never wins the conference by the time the B12’s GOR expires. I could see Texas joining to prove to that it can do what A&M couldn’t in the SEC....

Actually the biggest reasons for Texas to join the SEC would be these:

1. The opponents that would comprise their schedule should they join the West: Arkansas (old rival), Ole Miss and Mississippi State (two solid programs in lower to middle tier range and the Grove is a nice place to play and Ole Miss travels well and State travels fairly well too), Missouri (a recent familiar face and a peer institution), L.S.U. (a top rated classic in the making), Oklahoma (a top rival), and A&M (a hated rival).

2. In such a move Alabama and Auburn would most likely move east and Texas would be one of 4 stellar programs in the West and with very familiar faces.

3. Should the SECN payout 20 plus million it will be only 1 of two conferences that could eclipse the payout for the LHN and the only one that keeps Texas centered in its own region. Most Longhorn fans would be in reasonable driving distance from all of their divisional games and Missouri would be their longest trip.

The problem is that this scenario ignores political reality.

If OU and UT could just shrug off OSU and TTU with no fight or consequences, they'd both head to the B1G along with KU as the destination of choice for all 3 programs. A western division of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa, Northwestern, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas would suit both of them quite nicely (with someone like UCONN balancing out the East)

But no conference but the PAC is willing to take in the TX/OK tag-a-longs who are an inevitable part of the deal. In fact the PAC might have to take as many as 8 Big 12 teams to land UT and OU.

Your statement that tagalongs are necessary has merit. Your statement that they would prefer the Big 10 does not. That portion is an Aggie pipe dream that won't come to pass. Texas, in spite of their myopic outlook, is not so blind as to fail to realize that a move to the Big 10 would cement A&M as the state of Texas's team. Even a move to the left coast might accomplish that. They will either remain the anchor of a handicapped Big 12, or realign or merge with other Southern schools. Besides you are ignoring the business realities in that ESPN will have much to say about the Longhorns future and right now that would preclude both the PAC and the Big 10. Oklahoma is a different matter as they do more business with FOX than with ESPN.

I don't know who said it first but the guy who stated we might just be headed for two large conferences (Conference ESPN and Conference FOX) might not be far from the truth.

As for political realities they are simple. The plan that earns the most money for the state schools will be the plan that is adopted.

(08-17-2014 09:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-17-2014 07:18 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 03:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 03:18 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 12:06 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  The problem is that as long as the Longhorns have their own network, there is no Big12 network for the other 9 members. I understand that Kansas, Oklahoma and WVU already make considerable $$ already with their tier 3 content, but it does not approach the revenue or viewership that a consolidated Big12 network could generate. Of course Texas is happy...but that's where things get interesting in a few years as the B1G and SEC are cashing these large checks.

Any hypothetical proposal put on this board, I won't dismiss it as being outrageously wrong given recent events. But, if the SEC monies got so big that Texas and Oklahoma would think of leaving B12, I wonder if these two schools would look to SEC first and PAC would have no chance to get them? Interesting times, that's for sure. But if TAMU has veto power, then no SEC Longhorns!

I'm not saying Texas would move to the SEC but if that was a hypothetical issue Texas A&M would need 4 other votes to stop them. By themselves A&M doesn't have veto power over any school. I think that would make for some very heated discussion within the SEC and here's why. There is no doubt but what Texas as an addition would make the SEC money, and probably more money that any addition other than say U.N.C. at this point, maybe U.V.A./VaTech. So if Texas and say Oklahoma were being considered as the final pair, and the ACC was clearly off the board, I'm not so sure that A&M could count on Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, or South Carolina to vote with them. Florida has a good relationship with Texas. Georgia who desires along with the Gators a continued improvement of SEC academics wouldn't be against them. I don't think South Carolina would care except about the size of their paycheck. Ditto for Kentucky. The votes against Texas might likely be those of A&M and Missouri and I am not totally convinced that the Tigers would vote against them since it would guarantee a game in Texas every year if A&M and UT were alternated on their schedule. I think the two votes against Texas would wind up being A&M and Alabama. And I think their joining would cause a rift with those two. A&M would feel betrayed to certain extent and Alabama would be pissed that they were no longer the top name in the conference.

The other issue would be the addition of two more strong programs. While it ensures the SEC's cache going forward it does make gaining an SEC championship just that much harder. While others disagree with me on this point if the SEC had to expand out of the Big 12 I think the best pair for the SEC would be Baylor and Oklahoma. The Sooners add the cache and the Bears deliver the DFW market with A&M. Some of my SEC buddies would rather see T.C.U. but Baylor clearly has the superior fan base, academics, and all around sports program (at this time).

I have nothing against Kansas and see good things in Iowa State but both would be considered to Northern for our culture and I don't think they would be strongly considered. Brand protection is a top priority for the SEC. There is nothing wrong with Texas Tech but they are a great distance from the heart of the western division of the SEC. The Baylor and Oklahoma addition would give the SEC one school smack in the middle of SEC academics (Oklahoma) and one school that would elevate the standing slightly (Baylor).

The addition of a second Texas school opens up recruiting in Texas even more to most of the western division of the SEC as with proper scheduling each school would play in the Lone Star state annually.

The SEC wouldn’t turn down the biggest $$$ maker in all of college sports to appease A&M. However, the LHN would have to be dropped. The only hypothetical reason that Texas would join the SEC in my opinion is if A&M never wins the conference by the time the B12’s GOR expires. I could see Texas joining to prove to that it can do what A&M couldn’t in the SEC....

Actually the biggest reasons for Texas to join the SEC would be these:

1. The opponents that would comprise their schedule should they join the West: Arkansas (old rival), Ole Miss and Mississippi State (two solid programs in lower to middle tier range and the Grove is a nice place to play and Ole Miss travels well and State travels fairly well too), Missouri (a recent familiar face and a peer institution), L.S.U. (a top rated classic in the making), Oklahoma (a top rival), and A&M (a hated rival).

2. In such a move Alabama and Auburn would most likely move east and Texas would be one of 4 stellar programs in the West and with very familiar faces.

3. Should the SECN payout 20 plus million it will be only 1 of two conferences that could eclipse the payout for the LHN and the only one that keeps Texas centered in its own region. Most Longhorn fans would be in reasonable driving distance from all of their divisional games and Missouri would be their longest trip.

You make very good points JRsec.... However, regarding each point, here's where we differ:

1. Texas was seriously considering leaving a dying B12 and joining the ACC. Consequently, it seems that Texas doesn't value rivalries more than it does the LHN.

2. The answer for #1 also applies here.....

3. Texas will still make more money than any school despite what conference it's in. The LHN is more of an ego boost for Texas than a necessity.

(08-21-2014 11:32 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-17-2014 09:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-17-2014 07:18 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 03:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 03:18 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  Any hypothetical proposal put on this board, I won't dismiss it as being outrageously wrong given recent events. But, if the SEC monies got so big that Texas and Oklahoma would think of leaving B12, I wonder if these two schools would look to SEC first and PAC would have no chance to get them? Interesting times, that's for sure. But if TAMU has veto power, then no SEC Longhorns!

I'm not saying Texas would move to the SEC but if that was a hypothetical issue Texas A&M would need 4 other votes to stop them. By themselves A&M doesn't have veto power over any school. I think that would make for some very heated discussion within the SEC and here's why. There is no doubt but what Texas as an addition would make the SEC money, and probably more money that any addition other than say U.N.C. at this point, maybe U.V.A./VaTech. So if Texas and say Oklahoma were being considered as the final pair, and the ACC was clearly off the board, I'm not so sure that A&M could count on Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, or South Carolina to vote with them. Florida has a good relationship with Texas. Georgia who desires along with the Gators a continued improvement of SEC academics wouldn't be against them. I don't think South Carolina would care except about the size of their paycheck. Ditto for Kentucky. The votes against Texas might likely be those of A&M and Missouri and I am not totally convinced that the Tigers would vote against them since it would guarantee a game in Texas every year if A&M and UT were alternated on their schedule. I think the two votes against Texas would wind up being A&M and Alabama. And I think their joining would cause a rift with those two. A&M would feel betrayed to certain extent and Alabama would be pissed that they were no longer the top name in the conference.

The other issue would be the addition of two more strong programs. While it ensures the SEC's cache going forward it does make gaining an SEC championship just that much harder. While others disagree with me on this point if the SEC had to expand out of the Big 12 I think the best pair for the SEC would be Baylor and Oklahoma. The Sooners add the cache and the Bears deliver the DFW market with A&M. Some of my SEC buddies would rather see T.C.U. but Baylor clearly has the superior fan base, academics, and all around sports program (at this time).

I have nothing against Kansas and see good things in Iowa State but both would be considered to Northern for our culture and I don't think they would be strongly considered. Brand protection is a top priority for the SEC. There is nothing wrong with Texas Tech but they are a great distance from the heart of the western division of the SEC. The Baylor and Oklahoma addition would give the SEC one school smack in the middle of SEC academics (Oklahoma) and one school that would elevate the standing slightly (Baylor).

The addition of a second Texas school opens up recruiting in Texas even more to most of the western division of the SEC as with proper scheduling each school would play in the Lone Star state annually.

The SEC wouldn’t turn down the biggest $$$ maker in all of college sports to appease A&M. However, the LHN would have to be dropped. The only hypothetical reason that Texas would join the SEC in my opinion is if A&M never wins the conference by the time the B12’s GOR expires. I could see Texas joining to prove to that it can do what A&M couldn’t in the SEC....

Actually the biggest reasons for Texas to join the SEC would be these:

1. The opponents that would comprise their schedule should they join the West: Arkansas (old rival), Ole Miss and Mississippi State (two solid programs in lower to middle tier range and the Grove is a nice place to play and Ole Miss travels well and State travels fairly well too), Missouri (a recent familiar face and a peer institution), L.S.U. (a top rated classic in the making), Oklahoma (a top rival), and A&M (a hated rival).

2. In such a move Alabama and Auburn would most likely move east and Texas would be one of 4 stellar programs in the West and with very familiar faces.

3. Should the SECN payout 20 plus million it will be only 1 of two conferences that could eclipse the payout for the LHN and the only one that keeps Texas centered in its own region. Most Longhorn fans would be in reasonable driving distance from all of their divisional games and Missouri would be their longest trip.

You make very good points JRsec.... However, regarding each point, here's where we differ:

1. Texas was seriously considering leaving a dying B12 and joining the ACC. Consequently, it seems that Texas doesn't value rivalries more than it does the LHN.

2. The answer for #1 also applies here.....

3. Texas will still make more money than any school despite what conference it's in. The LHN is more of an ego boost for Texas than a necessity.

Texas wasn't seriously considering joining the ACC. They were evaluating their options if OU/OSU/Tech went to the Pac. I suspect a lot was poker playing.

(08-21-2014 12:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 11:32 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-17-2014 09:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-17-2014 07:18 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 03:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm not saying Texas would move to the SEC but if that was a hypothetical issue Texas A&M would need 4 other votes to stop them. By themselves A&M doesn't have veto power over any school. I think that would make for some very heated discussion within the SEC and here's why. There is no doubt but what Texas as an addition would make the SEC money, and probably more money that any addition other than say U.N.C. at this point, maybe U.V.A./VaTech. So if Texas and say Oklahoma were being considered as the final pair, and the ACC was clearly off the board, I'm not so sure that A&M could count on Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, or South Carolina to vote with them. Florida has a good relationship with Texas. Georgia who desires along with the Gators a continued improvement of SEC academics wouldn't be against them. I don't think South Carolina would care except about the size of their paycheck. Ditto for Kentucky. The votes against Texas might likely be those of A&M and Missouri and I am not totally convinced that the Tigers would vote against them since it would guarantee a game in Texas every year if A&M and UT were alternated on their schedule. I think the two votes against Texas would wind up being A&M and Alabama. And I think their joining would cause a rift with those two. A&M would feel betrayed to certain extent and Alabama would be pissed that they were no longer the top name in the conference.

The other issue would be the addition of two more strong programs. While it ensures the SEC's cache going forward it does make gaining an SEC championship just that much harder. While others disagree with me on this point if the SEC had to expand out of the Big 12 I think the best pair for the SEC would be Baylor and Oklahoma. The Sooners add the cache and the Bears deliver the DFW market with A&M. Some of my SEC buddies would rather see T.C.U. but Baylor clearly has the superior fan base, academics, and all around sports program (at this time).

I have nothing against Kansas and see good things in Iowa State but both would be considered to Northern for our culture and I don't think they would be strongly considered. Brand protection is a top priority for the SEC. There is nothing wrong with Texas Tech but they are a great distance from the heart of the western division of the SEC. The Baylor and Oklahoma addition would give the SEC one school smack in the middle of SEC academics (Oklahoma) and one school that would elevate the standing slightly (Baylor).

The addition of a second Texas school opens up recruiting in Texas even more to most of the western division of the SEC as with proper scheduling each school would play in the Lone Star state annually.

The SEC wouldn’t turn down the biggest $$$ maker in all of college sports to appease A&M. However, the LHN would have to be dropped. The only hypothetical reason that Texas would join the SEC in my opinion is if A&M never wins the conference by the time the B12’s GOR expires. I could see Texas joining to prove to that it can do what A&M couldn’t in the SEC....

Actually the biggest reasons for Texas to join the SEC would be these:

1. The opponents that would comprise their schedule should they join the West: Arkansas (old rival), Ole Miss and Mississippi State (two solid programs in lower to middle tier range and the Grove is a nice place to play and Ole Miss travels well and State travels fairly well too), Missouri (a recent familiar face and a peer institution), L.S.U. (a top rated classic in the making), Oklahoma (a top rival), and A&M (a hated rival).

2. In such a move Alabama and Auburn would most likely move east and Texas would be one of 4 stellar programs in the West and with very familiar faces.

3. Should the SECN payout 20 plus million it will be only 1 of two conferences that could eclipse the payout for the LHN and the only one that keeps Texas centered in its own region. Most Longhorn fans would be in reasonable driving distance from all of their divisional games and Missouri would be their longest trip.

You make very good points JRsec.... However, regarding each point, here's where we differ:

1. Texas was seriously considering leaving a dying B12 and joining the ACC. Consequently, it seems that Texas doesn't value rivalries more than it does the LHN.

2. The answer for #1 also applies here.....

3. Texas will still make more money than any school despite what conference it's in. The LHN is more of an ego boost for Texas than a necessity.

Texas wasn't seriously considering joining the ACC. They were evaluating their options if OU/OSU/Tech went to the Pac. I suspect a lot was poker playing.

That's not what your former AD said, and you know he was serious because most of the college sports world thought the PAC 12 would take OU and OSU. In fact, the Big East offered to take the rest of the conference except Texas because it assumed the Longhorns were going somewhere else (the ACC). Moreoever, both OU and OSU were suprised that the PAC 12 turned them down....