(08-26-2015 05:32 PM)YNot Wrote:  Would Oklahoma prefer to play:

1) Texas and Oklahoma St. and in Texas and the Plains?
2) A&M, Missouri and in the South? (room for RRR and Bedlam OOC?)
3) Nebraska and in the Mid-West? (room for RRR and Bedlam OOC?)

Is remaining in the Big 12 really a valid long term option for OU?

Could the B1G surprise and take a shot at Oklahoma and Missouri?

What about the B1G going after UVA, UNC, Duke, and Georgia Tech? Would that prompt the SEC to counter?

Oklahoma wants out. The talks have been ongoing for years now, but have really heated up.

Until ESPN confirms "no ACCN" the ACC isn't going anywhere. If they get their network they sure won't be going anywhere. Besides what they need they can get from a scheduling partnership with the SEC.

What your not asking is the right question. Would OU want to be in an SEC with Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa State, and Texas? Even if you sub OSU for Iowa State the question stands.

If a new SEC western division arose as essentially the elite schools of the present Big 12 and Texas anchored it, would that be better than the present Big 12? It gives Texas and OU access to the Florida & Georgia markets that Notre Dame craves in the ACC, it reunites them with regional rivals, and it gives them a division of old friends. Maybe that works for them? Maybe not. We'll see.

(08-26-2015 05:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 05:32 PM)YNot Wrote:  Would Oklahoma prefer to play:

1) Texas and Oklahoma St. and in Texas and the Plains?
2) A&M, Missouri and in the South? (room for RRR and Bedlam OOC?)
3) Nebraska and in the Mid-West? (room for RRR and Bedlam OOC?)

Is remaining in the Big 12 really a valid long term option for OU?

Could the B1G surprise and take a shot at Oklahoma and Missouri?

What about the B1G going after UVA, UNC, Duke, and Georgia Tech? Would that prompt the SEC to counter?

Oklahoma wants out. The talks have been ongoing for years now, but have really heated up.

Until ESPN confirms "no ACCN" the ACC isn't going anywhere. If they get their network they sure won't be going anywhere. Besides what they need they can get from a scheduling partnership with the SEC.

What your not asking is the right question. Would OU want to be in an SEC with Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa State, and Texas? Even if you sub OSU for Iowa State the question stands.

If a new SEC western division arose as essentially the elite schools of the present Big 12 and Texas anchored it, would that be better than the present Big 12? It gives Texas and OU access to the Florida & Georgia markets that Notre Dame craves in the ACC, it reunites them with regional rivals, and it gives them a division of old friends. Maybe that works for them? Maybe not. We'll see.

It's going to be interesting to see if it was only Dodds' desire for Texas to pair up with Kansas or if that attitude still exists in the Longhorn athletic department today.
It would also be interesting to know if Texas would be willing to go anywhere with three Big 8 teams IF they weren't in a situation that would reunite them with several old SWC pals (Arkansas and A&M).

(08-26-2015 08:14 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 05:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 05:32 PM)YNot Wrote:  Would Oklahoma prefer to play:

1) Texas and Oklahoma St. and in Texas and the Plains?
2) A&M, Missouri and in the South? (room for RRR and Bedlam OOC?)
3) Nebraska and in the Mid-West? (room for RRR and Bedlam OOC?)

Is remaining in the Big 12 really a valid long term option for OU?

Could the B1G surprise and take a shot at Oklahoma and Missouri?

What about the B1G going after UVA, UNC, Duke, and Georgia Tech? Would that prompt the SEC to counter?

Oklahoma wants out. The talks have been ongoing for years now, but have really heated up.

Until ESPN confirms "no ACCN" the ACC isn't going anywhere. If they get their network they sure won't be going anywhere. Besides what they need they can get from a scheduling partnership with the SEC.

What your not asking is the right question. Would OU want to be in an SEC with Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa State, and Texas? Even if you sub OSU for Iowa State the question stands.

If a new SEC western division arose as essentially the elite schools of the present Big 12 and Texas anchored it, would that be better than the present Big 12? It gives Texas and OU access to the Florida & Georgia markets that Notre Dame craves in the ACC, it reunites them with regional rivals, and it gives them a division of old friends. Maybe that works for them? Maybe not. We'll see.

It's going to be interesting to see if it was only Dodds' desire for Texas to pair up with Kansas or if that attitude still exists in the Longhorn athletic department today.
It would also be interesting to know if Texas would be willing to go anywhere with three Big 8 teams IF they weren't in a situation that would reunite them with several old SWC pals (Arkansas and A&M).

That is the 64 Thousand Dollar Question, so to speak.

I'm going to assume that one of the main reasons ESPN might want an SEC/ACC alliance is to create some solid content for both conference networks. The interchangeable content will make it easier to bundle and sell both networks while at the same time keeping more content in house rather than the SEC/ACC scheduling P5 teams in the B1G or Pac 12.

What might a scheduling agreement look like? An annual SEC/ACC series of football, basketball, and baseball probably?

Of course, we've got the current in-state rival match-ups. You could add numerous games and mix and match them on a semi-annual basis.

Lots of possibilities. This is becoming my favorite scenario.

(08-26-2015 08:31 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I'm going to assume that one of the main reasons ESPN might want an SEC/ACC alliance is to create some solid content for both conference networks. The interchangeable content will make it easier to bundle and sell both networks while at the same time keeping more content in house rather than the SEC/ACC scheduling P5 teams in the B1G or Pac 12.

What might a scheduling agreement look like? An annual SEC/ACC series of football, basketball, and baseball probably?

Of course, we've got the current in-state rival match-ups. You could add numerous games and mix and match them on a semi-annual basis.

Lots of possibilities. This is becoming my favorite scenario.

How about merged regional division in baseball to assist with the travel of the fans bases? Basketball can have a season starting and mid season crossover for each school in the conference. Football could easily dedicate 1 game (either an annual rival or rotating competition depending upon individual schools and their needs.

ESPN can provide both conferences with multitudes of scenarios to provide profits for all, generate fan interest across multiple sports, and provide ample inventory to support paired networks.

(08-26-2015 05:32 PM)YNot Wrote:  Would Oklahoma prefer to play:

1) Texas and Oklahoma St. and in Texas and the Plains?
2) A&M, Missouri and in the South? (room for RRR and Bedlam OOC?)
3) Nebraska and in the Mid-West? (room for RRR and Bedlam OOC?)

Is remaining in the Big 12 really a valid long term option for OU?

Could the B1G surprise and take a shot at Oklahoma and Missouri?

What about the B1G going after UVA, UNC, Duke, and Georgia Tech? Would that prompt the SEC to counter?

I think the Eastward expansion is not really an option for either the B1G or the SEC. Because if you get any program, there are strings attached. If either conference snags one or two, it destabilizes the conference and drives a gem school to the other.

As for Westward, it is quite a conundrum, but the most likely.

Texas is a giant...but a giant pain. kansas has terrible football. Iowa State seems too far for SEC, and has a Iowa problem for the B1G. Oklahoma seems great, has Okie State problem and potentially AAU problem for B1G.

B1G if going west, is almost assuredly going to get kansas. From there, Mizzou or Oklahoma are two options to pair. Would Missouri leave SEC? Would B1G take Oklahoma without AAU, and what about Okie State?

SEC going west, Oklahoma is almost assured. Do they bring along the Pokes, or get kansas?

Kinda seems weird that kansas is just as much of a lynchpin in the process as Oklahoma.

(08-25-2015 01:54 PM)5thTiger Wrote:  I know there are alot of ECU fans on this website... and I hate to break it to you, but ECU is nowhere near a SEC invite. Oklahoma State ON THEIR OWN is closer to an SEC invite than you.

If the SEC goes East, its not for some lackluster directional school...it is for one of the big boys.

The more likely scenario is to the West..somehow involving the Sooners.

No worries brother, we don't know much about Missouri on the East Coast as well. Even when it was announced Missouri went to the SEC, there were a lot of people scratching their heads. That said, I can't see OK or OKS leaving what is realistically an easier path to a Conference Championship and access to the CFP in the B12 for a much tougher road in the SEC.

You know historically our teams have played each other twice. The Pirates won a game and Missouri won a game. Peace!

http://www.winsipedia.com/east-carolina/vs/missouri

So if we have an 18 team league then how are we going to determine a champion for football?

I see the idea of 3 different 6 team divisions being thrown out, but how do you get down to 2 teams for the championship game?

(08-27-2015 09:29 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  So if we have an 18 team league then how are we going to determine a champion for football?

I see the idea of 3 different 6 team divisions being thrown out, but how do you get down to 2 teams for the championship game?

You take the best remaining school as a wild card and pit against the top seed in a semi.

That accomplishes several things. It keeps more fan bases energized deeper into the season. It helps the strongest division by possibly giving another great team that happens to be in a division with a greater one a way to get in. And it gives the conference another nationally televised game the proceeds of which are 100% theirs.

(08-27-2015 09:29 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  So if we have an 18 team league then how are we going to determine a champion for football?

I see the idea of 3 different 6 team divisions being thrown out, but how do you get down to 2 teams for the championship game?

Conferences have been reluctant to move to 16. 18 would be more than anyone would want to handle (even the SEC).
The conundrum for the SEC would be IF Texas, Oklahoma AND Kansas wanted to move to the SEC as a block and the conference still needed to stay at 16. Of course that same situation would be a nightmare for the B1G if those three (plus 1) decided to go as a group to the PAC.

(08-28-2015 07:28 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:29 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  So if we have an 18 team league then how are we going to determine a champion for football?

I see the idea of 3 different 6 team divisions being thrown out, but how do you get down to 2 teams for the championship game?

Conferences have been reluctant to move to 16. 18 would be more than anyone would want to handle (even the SEC).
The conundrum for the SEC would be IF Texas, Oklahoma AND Kansas wanted to move to the SEC as a block and the conference still needed to stay at 16. Of course that same situation would be a nightmare for the B1G if those three (plus 1) decided to go as a group to the PAC.

Eh...16 I think is a pretty good place to be. The only reason it failed in the WAC was because they didn't want divisions. 18 gets more tricky, but 16 is certainly a possibility with 9 game conference slates.

(08-27-2015 09:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:29 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  So if we have an 18 team league then how are we going to determine a champion for football?

I see the idea of 3 different 6 team divisions being thrown out, but how do you get down to 2 teams for the championship game?

You take the best remaining school as a wild card and pit against the top seed in a semi.

That accomplishes several things. It keeps more fan bases energized deeper into the season. It helps the strongest division by possibly giving another great team that happens to be in a division with a greater one a way to get in. And it gives the conference another nationally televised game the proceeds of which are 100% theirs.

So you think we would stay at 8 conference games then sacrifice 1 regular season game for conference semis? Would the revenue from the semis be enough to overcome lost revenue for a home game for everyone?

(08-28-2015 01:23 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You take the best remaining school as a wild card and pit against the top seed in a semi.

That accomplishes several things. It keeps more fan bases energized deeper into the season. It helps the strongest division by possibly giving another great team that happens to be in a division with a greater one a way to get in. And it gives the conference another nationally televised game the proceeds of which are 100% theirs.

So you think we would stay at 8 conference games then sacrifice 1 regular season game for conference semis? Would the revenue from the semis be enough to overcome lost revenue for a home game for everyone?

Why do you have to sacrifice a regular season game? I see this as exactly where major college football is heading. In fact, B1G, SEC, PAC, and ACC with 3 divisions each could make a ton of sense - helps broaden the footprint by accommodating western or eastern members/divisions while also creating TWO new, lucrative conference championship games while engaging more fan bases for longer.

CFP will adjust.

(08-31-2015 05:45 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 01:23 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You take the best remaining school as a wild card and pit against the top seed in a semi.

That accomplishes several things. It keeps more fan bases energized deeper into the season. It helps the strongest division by possibly giving another great team that happens to be in a division with a greater one a way to get in. And it gives the conference another nationally televised game the proceeds of which are 100% theirs.

So you think we would stay at 8 conference games then sacrifice 1 regular season game for conference semis? Would the revenue from the semis be enough to overcome lost revenue for a home game for everyone?

Why do you have to sacrifice a regular season game? I see this as exactly where major college football is heading. In fact, B1G, SEC, PAC, and ACC with 3 divisions each could make a ton of sense - helps broaden the footprint by accommodating western or eastern members/divisions while also creating TWO new, lucrative conference championship games while engaging more fan bases for longer.

CFP will adjust.

Well, you wouldn't have to, but the NCAA would have to sanction another game and probably add a week to the season.

It would work better than expanding the playoff itself which I think is inevitable unless some sort of deal is brokered to cap the number at 4.

I'm concerned about adding another game to the season, but it's certainly possible to do it that way.

You know that it would make so much more sense for everyone simply to move to 15 first before deciding on #16: For example:

ACC to 15 with N.D. all in.
Big 10 to 15 with Kansas.
PAC to 15 with Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, and Kansas State.
SEC to 15 with Oklahoma.

Once that was out of the way the rest would be easy.

ACC to 16 with Texas.
SEC to 16 with W.V.U.
Big 10 to 16 with I.S.U.
PAC to 16 with T.C.U.

The end.

(09-01-2015 12:08 AM)JRsec Wrote:  You know that it would make so much more sense for everyone simply to move to 15 first before deciding on #16: For example:

ACC to 15 with N.D. all in.
Big 10 to 15 with Kansas.
PAC to 15 with Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, and Kansas State.
SEC to 15 with Oklahoma.

Once that was out of the way the rest would be easy.



ACC to 16 with Texas.
SEC to 16 with W.V.U.
Big 10 to 16 with I.S.U.
PAC to 16 with T.C.U.

The end.

That kinda looks like it could happen JR.
Poor Baylor!

(09-01-2015 12:08 AM)JRsec Wrote:  You know that it would make so much more sense for everyone simply to move to 15 first before deciding on #16: For example:

ACC to 15 with N.D. all in.
Big 10 to 15 with Kansas.
PAC to 15 with Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, and Kansas State.
SEC to 15 with Oklahoma.

Once that was out of the way the rest would be easy.

ACC to 16 with Texas.
SEC to 16 with W.V.U.
Big 10 to 16 with I.S.U.
PAC to 16 with T.C.U.

The end.

Bolded moves with "no chance". SEC would likely take Kansas before WV. Pac was only considering the first two of that move if Texas and Oklahoma were there.

(09-01-2015 10:02 AM)5thTiger Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 12:08 AM)JRsec Wrote:  You know that it would make so much more sense for everyone simply to move to 15 first before deciding on #16: For example:

ACC to 15 with N.D. all in.
Big 10 to 15 with Kansas.
PAC to 15 with Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, and Kansas State.
SEC to 15 with Oklahoma.

Once that was out of the way the rest would be easy.

ACC to 16 with Texas.
SEC to 16 with W.V.U.
Big 10 to 16 with I.S.U.
PAC to 16 with T.C.U.

The end.

Bolded moves with "no chance". SEC would likely take Kansas before WV. Pac was only considering the first two of that move if Texas and Oklahoma were there.

Agree w/ 5thT on the Iowa State part. The B1G would have to just be searching for someone after taking Kansas and Iowa would have to campaign for them IMHO.

If the ACC got ND to join in full at 15. I think UT moving in at 16 would allow the B12 to breakup and let the other conferences to start adding 15th members. I also don't see the PAC adding the sisters of the poor just to add markets. That would probably be additions to the ACC to minimize damages from the breakup of the B12.

Except Texas is not going to join in full (or partial) and be on an island. Any scenario with Texas only in the ACC is not going to happen. If you want Texas you will need to bring in additional regional partners if you are the ACC.