In the unlikely event that a chunk of the Big XII joins the ACC, I think Kansas would almost certainly be one of the ones to come along. The ACC was very interested in Kansas the last time to enhance its already high quality basketball package. If Kansas ever did join the ACC, it would be interesting to see what Kentucky would do.

(10-12-2014 06:41 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  In the unlikely event that a chunk of the Big XII joins the ACC, I think Kansas would almost certainly be one of the ones to come along. The ACC was very interested in Kansas the last time to enhance its already high quality basketball package. If Kansas ever did join the ACC, it would be interesting to see what Kentucky would do.

Except that basketball isn't exactly a need in the ACC (or even the Big Ten). Meanwhile, if OU and UT decide that they want to move they'd try to bring their fellow in-state schools with them. TT, OSU, UT and OU would enhance the football product already. Then the two private schools which are on rich recruiting grounds, BU and TCU, would further enhance the football product. That's what FSU and Clemson want the most.

Kansas would be fought over by SEC and Big Ten, with the Big Ten likely winning because of the cultural fit.

This scenario is only possible because neither KSU or ISU have the political pull that TT and OSU/BU do.

Whether they need them or not, the ACC is not going to pass up the opportunity to add a blue blood program like Kansas. The ACC is banking on their basketball driving demand for an ACC network.

All I'm saying is if more than one Big XII school ever joins the ACC, Kansas will be included.

Kansas will go for the Big Ten over the ACC all day, every day no matter whom from the Big 12 goes to the ACC if the Big Ten would have them.

(10-13-2014 08:26 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Kansas will go for the Big Ten over the ACC all day, every day no matter whom from the Big 12 goes to the ACC if the Big Ten would have them.

Agreed - but I think Kansas ends up in the ACC if a breakup ever does happen. Big Ten wants the big fish - Texas & Florida, Virginia, UNC, Duke, Florida State, and maybe Oklahoma. If they aren't getting one of those schools, I don't see them expanding at all, unless the agreement to get Texas includes Tech as well.

(10-13-2014 08:44 AM)AntiG Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 08:26 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Kansas will go for the Big Ten over the ACC all day, every day no matter whom from the Big 12 goes to the ACC if the Big Ten would have them.

Agreed - but I think Kansas ends up in the ACC if a breakup ever does happen. Big Ten wants the big fish - Texas & Florida, Virginia, UNC, Duke, Florida State, and maybe Oklahoma. If they aren't getting one of those schools, I don't see them expanding at all, unless the agreement to get Texas includes Tech as well.

The premise is the Big 12 breaking up. No one, except maybe Texas will be getting exactly what they want in that situation. It will be one massive compromise.

Kansas wont be alone in going to the Big Ten if the scenario happens.

(10-13-2014 08:53 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 08:44 AM)AntiG Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 08:26 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Kansas will go for the Big Ten over the ACC all day, every day no matter whom from the Big 12 goes to the ACC if the Big Ten would have them.

Agreed - but I think Kansas ends up in the ACC if a breakup ever does happen. Big Ten wants the big fish - Texas & Florida, Virginia, UNC, Duke, Florida State, and maybe Oklahoma. If they aren't getting one of those schools, I don't see them expanding at all, unless the agreement to get Texas includes Tech as well.

The premise is the Big 12 breaking up. No one, except maybe Texas will be getting exactly what they want in that situation. It will be one massive compromise.

Kansas wont be alone in going to the Big Ten if the scenario happens.

BINGO. IMO Kansas is a shoe-in for the Big Ten. BTN allows them to monetize Jayhawk basketball, and combined with, say, Oklahoma (?) you have a very nice 16-team conference.

The SEC is also going to be interested in those two, however, so it's not a slam dunk.

The beauty of the OU/KU combo package to either the B1G or SEC is that they're big national brands, one for football, and one for basketball. By only having one power in each major sport, it allows a conference to boost their profile in both, without providing too much competition for the old guard in either sport. We also have a good relationship with each other, so we wouldn't be bringing any intramural animosity from one conference to another.

The downside for OU to the B1G is that while the B1G has a lot of traditional football powers, they've underperformed as of late, which makes it a bit less attractive. The downside for KU to the SEC is the questionable cultural fit.

The future of the SEC is east if anywhere.

(10-13-2014 10:17 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  The beauty of the OU/KU combo package to either the B1G or SEC is that they're big national brands, one for football, and one for basketball. By only having one power in each major sport, it allows a conference to boost their profile in both, without providing too much competition for the old guard in either sport. We also have a good relationship with each other, so we wouldn't be bringing any intramural animosity from one conference to another.

The downside for OU to the B1G is that while the B1G has a lot of traditional football powers, they've underperformed as of late, which makes it a bit less attractive. The downside for KU to the SEC is the questionable cultural fit.

With Missouri already in the SEC, as well as TA&M a cultural fit isn't an issue. What looks great for Kansas is Being in the SEC West along with Kentucky in the SEC East, You have 2 of the most storied Basketball programs of all time probably playing annually for league championship. Almost surely to be a No.1 seed in Tournament for 1 school each year. I think Kansas and WVU would most likely be the 2 SEC picks with Missouri moving to the West.

(10-13-2014 09:45 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 08:53 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 08:44 AM)AntiG Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 08:26 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Kansas will go for the Big Ten over the ACC all day, every day no matter whom from the Big 12 goes to the ACC if the Big Ten would have them.

Agreed - but I think Kansas ends up in the ACC if a breakup ever does happen. Big Ten wants the big fish - Texas & Florida, Virginia, UNC, Duke, Florida State, and maybe Oklahoma. If they aren't getting one of those schools, I don't see them expanding at all, unless the agreement to get Texas includes Tech as well.

The premise is the Big 12 breaking up. No one, except maybe Texas will be getting exactly what they want in that situation. It will be one massive compromise.

Kansas wont be alone in going to the Big Ten if the scenario happens.

BINGO. IMO Kansas is a shoe-in for the Big Ten. BTN allows them to monetize Jayhawk basketball, and combined with, say, Oklahoma (?) you have a very nice 16-team conference.

The SEC is also going to be interested in those two, however, so it's not a slam dunk.

I think if Texas breaks it up, it will be to join the B1G. The conference has nothing but their peer institutions and for the most part the football competition is on the same level or less than the Big12 while still carrying the legendary reputation. Unless there is a package deal with Oklahoma, I think both OK schools join the SEC where they would be a perfect fit.

Kansas would really be the outlier for the B1G if they end game is to expand more eastward because they take up avaluable slot. It's the same reason why the conference didn't seriously consider Missouri. It would probably only work if the B1G were planning on going to 20 by adding Texas, Virginia, UNC, Duke, Kansas and Oklahoma.

The Big 12 has a major viewership problem. Yes, college football is cyclical, but that's not going to change the fact that the Big 12 doesn't have enough eyeballs within its borders to keep up with the other P5 conferences. Outdated thinking/philosophies run rampant among Big 12 administrators and their fan bases, and will probably eventually lead to its demise unless action is taken quickly. The ACC is in better position to survive the next round of realignment because of its demographics. The Big Ten, Pac 12, and SEC are safe regardless.

Another reason the Big 12 is not safe is simply because they are the fewest in numbers. Bowlsby and company seem to only be capable of short-sighted thinking. Short-term, having less teams = more money per school. Long term, having less teams means less interest in the conference from a national perspective and more vulnerability in realignment scenarios. Also, if I'm not mistaken, the Big 12 Grant of Rights expires for the ACC, meaning the other conferences may look to poach from the Big 12 before the ACC.

Simply put, the Big 12 will not survive the next round of realignment unless they either:

A - Add 2-4 G5 schools now from prime markets and build them up quickly.

B - Extend the grant of rights (likely not possible without a TV deal extension) and out-lawyer the ACC to steal a couple teams.

As soon as it is financially feasible, the other conferences will pillage the Big 12. And it won't be difficult when the Big Ten and SEC are paying out almost double what the Big 12 is being offered (this will happen after 10 years of being consistently trounced in TV ratings by the SEC and Big Ten). While the ACC may also be vulnerable to realignment, they have strength in numbers, better demographics, and a longer overall history which will help keep it together. It may lose a Florida State or Clemson, but will ultimately survive the next round by backfilling with Big 12 leftovers and/or up-and-coming AAC programs. When Texas and Oklahoma become fair game, the Big 12 will dissolve.

do we have the actual viewership numbers?

The only universities in the Big 12 with the juice to demand that teams be added are also the universities that are sure to find a new home in one of the other power conferences if the Big 12 implodes. For at least this reason, I don't see the Big 12 adding anyone.

(10-13-2014 12:03 PM)back2vinyl Wrote:  The only universities in the Big 12 with the juice to demand that teams be added are also the universities that are sure to find a new home in one of the other power conferences if the Big 12 implodes. For at least this reason, I don't see the Big 12 adding anyone.

^^^
Yup.

(10-13-2014 11:55 AM)john01992 Wrote:  do we have the actual viewership numbers?

I think the Texas v A&M numbers are a pretty good proxy. Texas v OU is the biggest game the conference can put together in terms of viewership on a year to year basis. The Aggies playing Alabama the last few years, Ole Miss this year, and such are pretty good numbers for it compared to some of the highest ones.

I think we can both agree that it is doubtful the Red River Whatever this year beat A&M v Ole Miss, at least for the first half.

I think it would be helpful to look at each team in the B12 and determine what value they would bring to each potential conference - P12/ACC/B10/SEC to begin to figure anything out.

Texas, on the surface, is a no brainer for all four conferences.

OU is a no brainer for the B10/SEC but would likely need the right partner for the ACC and P12
Kansas is a no brainer for the B10/SEC/ACC but would need the right partner for the P12

West Virginia would have value to the SEC and ACC - how much depends on the others in the mix
Iowa State would have value to the SEC and ACC, but probably not enough for the SEC to be interested - the ACC would like the proximity to Illinois and the ISU's academic reputation
Kansas State would have value to the SEC in tandem with the right partners and if no others were available and the SEC needed to expand - the ACC, SEC, and P12 are not likely interested
Oklahoma State would have value to the SEC and the P12 if Texas comes along - the ACC and B10 would pass
TT would have value to the SEC with the right partner - either Texas or Oklahoma and to the P12 with Texas
Baylor would have value to the SEC with the right partner - Texas or OU, but is not acceptable to the P12 or B10. The ACC would need the right partner but it could be Kansas.
TCU would have value probably only to the ACC with the right partners or the SEC with the right partners.

The problem as I see it, is that if you don't get Texas, OU, or Kansas, as one of your additions, you don't have an expansion package worth the share split of expansion.

(10-13-2014 10:59 AM)AntiG Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 09:45 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 08:53 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 08:44 AM)AntiG Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 08:26 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Kansas will go for the Big Ten over the ACC all day, every day no matter whom from the Big 12 goes to the ACC if the Big Ten would have them.

Agreed - but I think Kansas ends up in the ACC if a breakup ever does happen. Big Ten wants the big fish - Texas & Florida, Virginia, UNC, Duke, Florida State, and maybe Oklahoma. If they aren't getting one of those schools, I don't see them expanding at all, unless the agreement to get Texas includes Tech as well.

The premise is the Big 12 breaking up. No one, except maybe Texas will be getting exactly what they want in that situation. It will be one massive compromise.

Kansas wont be alone in going to the Big Ten if the scenario happens.

BINGO. IMO Kansas is a shoe-in for the Big Ten. BTN allows them to monetize Jayhawk basketball, and combined with, say, Oklahoma (?) you have a very nice 16-team conference.

The SEC is also going to be interested in those two, however, so it's not a slam dunk.

I think if Texas breaks it up, it will be to join the B1G. The conference has nothing but their power institutions and for the most part the football competition is on the same level or less than the Big12 while still carrying the legendary reputation. Unless there is a package deal with Oklahoma, I think both OK schools join the SEC where they would be a perfect fit.

Kansas would really be the outlier for the B1G if they end game is to expand more eastward because they take up avaluable slot. It's the same reason why the conference didn't seriously consider Missouri. It would probably only work if the B1G were planning on going to 20 by adding Texas, Virginia, UNC, Duke, Kansas and Oklahoma.

What's that expression about the perfect being the enemy of the good? If the Big Ten is going to have that stance...well, let's not forget that a bunch of people were baffled by Maryland and Rutgers, so let's not act like we're now hot stuff all of a sudden. Meanwhile, the real danger posed by the SEC is not football but in controlling all the growing markets. We need a national profile in the worst way. Somebody is going to have to knock the heads of the academic elites about the need for pragmatism.

Texas hasn't shown any inclination towards the Big Ten lately. Then there's the issue of the in-state schools in both Texas and Oklahoma. You haven't thought of Virginia Tech as a possibility. It has a rising status in academics. Most important, though, it is in a state with a growing population, which is a big problem for Oklahoma. A Kansas/VT combo would be a nice alternative. The ACC would accept Oklahoma as a replacement.

Let's face it: we no chance of getting either Texas or Florida. Let's get the better-supported Virginia school, if we can swing it.

I would be surprised if texas moved to another league, pac, big 10, or sec without demanding the league jump to 18 with some friends of texas in order to get texas to move such league. Texas will have the greatest leverage before moving so i'm sure they will use it + i can't see texas wanting to be an outpost. Granted the money might be less but they already make the most and they can change the rules to get a 2 game playoff of pod winners.

It's somewhat irritating when people talk about Kansas being a value-add to a P5 conference while UCONN would not, despite having incredibly similar profiles.