Working with the notion that we're going to a P4...

Assuming no one goes beyond 18...

Let's say there needs to be some level of cooperation between the SEC, Big 12, and ACC...

Working with the notion that ESPN wants to keep content out of the hands of the B1G and FOX if possible...

Step 1: ESPN needs a new 3rd Tier network in order to make enough schools happy to want to stick around in whatever amalgamated league results. They have that network in the LHN, but its carriage and profitability are low. ESPN convinces Texas to give up sole rights to the network in exchange for a new league that maximizes UT's exposure in the East while allowing them to play a large number of regional schools.

Step 2: ESPN moves some of its core ACC properties into the SEC to help its investment there, satisfy the SEC, and maintain key content. Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and Georgia Tech are added by the SEC. The SEC is done at 18.

Step 3: The B1G is certainly powerful enough to add a few key products though. Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Boston College, and Kansas are added. The B1G is done at 18.

Step 4: ESPN makes good on its promise to build a Texas-centric football league with Eastern exposure.

West: Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State
East: Miami, Florida State, Clemson, NC State, Wake Forest, Louisville, West Virginia, Pittsburgh

The Big 12 is done at 16.

No one from any of the 2 weaker leagues are left out. Notre Dame affiliates with the Big 12.

Final product equals

SEC - 18
Big Ten - 18
Big 12 - 16 + 1
PAC 12 - 12

(02-18-2016 02:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 07:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Where did I say partial membership? Nowhere.

I said we would work out a 6 game scheduling agreement with them. By that I mean they pick who they want to play. In return we (ESPN/SECN) get T2 & T3 rights to those games should they not appear on Notre Dame's Home NBC lineup. We don't get their minor sports and they keep their independence. In other words we schedule 6 games with them a year. They can play a Kentucky or Duke or Vandy for an easy P5, play a Florida, Georgia, Alabama, A&M etc. for their top games. They still have half of their schedule left for Navy, USC, or a Big 10 school if that is what they want.

They get access to games in areas they wish to play. We get a little more content when we have the home site. They play enough strong P schools to be considered for the CFP. They remain independent. We can work out similar arrangements for the other sports, but only if that is what they desire.

Look, with the kinds of moves that would motivate the SEC to move to 18 or 20 schools we would be perpetually strong enough not to be threatened by this kind of cooperation. And, it would appease our benefactor, ESPN, help Notre Dame remain independent, and drive a stake right through the heart of the Big 10 country. Northern Indiana (and Irish fans everywhere) would suddenly have a reason to tune into more SEC games if for no other reason than to visually scout an upcoming opponent. It's the kind of cooperation that two strong entities can enter into without major contracts and huge penalties.

I could see them being interested in a scheduling agreement, but they will need somewhere to store their minor sports. If they're not partnering with a league like the Big East that doesn't offer football then they will probably be obligated to several games with the Big 12 or a leftover league.

If we're not offering partial membership then I don't see us getting 6 games out of the deal. They'll still play USC, Stanford, and Navy so that's 3. I'd estimated at least 4 games from the other league as they will have the leverage of offering a home for the minor sports. There wouldn't be any reason to offer the bowl connections either as they would get that from the other football league. I'm not to opposed to the idea, but I don't see it being workable.

(02-19-2016 09:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-19-2016 09:17 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  Not sure if this question was posed before on another thread, but would SEC take the two VA schools and the four NC schools if that was the requirement? If so, that would give SEC twenty schools.

Now if the goal is to get to twenty-four schools, would SEC backfill with Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami and FSU or take a wait-and-see approach with respect to western expansion?

The SEC office worked the numbers on the Virginia and North Carolina Schools back in 2010. We could profit then (on the footprint model) with the two Virginia schools, Duke, North Carolina and N.C. State. But, Wake put us into negative territory on valuation for that combination. We determined that if the SEC didn't have to take Wake and could substitute another new state in place of them it would still bring a small profit. But why do it? If you want to block the Big 10 just add Clemson and Florida State. The Big 10 isn't going to take 4 of them let alone 6 and then the SEC still gets into Virginia and North Carolina.

And now that the cable model is in transition the content that Clemson and F.S.U. add is more valuable. Even in 2010 FSU projected a small profit for us and Clemson was a wash.

Jr,

Just wondering what/if the numbers were for Oklahoma State and some of the other B12 programs were. Thanks and great posts in this thread.

(02-20-2016 01:11 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 02:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 07:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Where did I say partial membership? Nowhere.

I said we would work out a 6 game scheduling agreement with them. By that I mean they pick who they want to play. In return we (ESPN/SECN) get T2 & T3 rights to those games should they not appear on Notre Dame's Home NBC lineup. We don't get their minor sports and they keep their independence. In other words we schedule 6 games with them a year. They can play a Kentucky or Duke or Vandy for an easy P5, play a Florida, Georgia, Alabama, A&M etc. for their top games. They still have half of their schedule left for Navy, USC, or a Big 10 school if that is what they want.

They get access to games in areas they wish to play. We get a little more content when we have the home site. They play enough strong P schools to be considered for the CFP. They remain independent. We can work out similar arrangements for the other sports, but only if that is what they desire.

Look, with the kinds of moves that would motivate the SEC to move to 18 or 20 schools we would be perpetually strong enough not to be threatened by this kind of cooperation. And, it would appease our benefactor, ESPN, help Notre Dame remain independent, and drive a stake right through the heart of the Big 10 country. Northern Indiana (and Irish fans everywhere) would suddenly have a reason to tune into more SEC games if for no other reason than to visually scout an upcoming opponent. It's the kind of cooperation that two strong entities can enter into without major contracts and huge penalties.

I could see them being interested in a scheduling agreement, but they will need somewhere to store their minor sports. If they're not partnering with a league like the Big East that doesn't offer football then they will probably be obligated to several games with the Big 12 or a leftover league.

If we're not offering partial membership then I don't see us getting 6 games out of the deal. They'll still play USC, Stanford, and Navy so that's 3. I'd estimated at least 4 games from the other league as they will have the leverage of offering a home for the minor sports. There wouldn't be any reason to offer the bowl connections either as they would get that from the other football league. I'm not to opposed to the idea, but I don't see it being workable.

(02-19-2016 09:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-19-2016 09:17 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  Not sure if this question was posed before on another thread, but would SEC take the two VA schools and the four NC schools if that was the requirement? If so, that would give SEC twenty schools.

Now if the goal is to get to twenty-four schools, would SEC backfill with Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami and FSU or take a wait-and-see approach with respect to western expansion?

The SEC office worked the numbers on the Virginia and North Carolina Schools back in 2010. We could profit then (on the footprint model) with the two Virginia schools, Duke, North Carolina and N.C. State. But, Wake put us into negative territory on valuation for that combination. We determined that if the SEC didn't have to take Wake and could substitute another new state in place of them it would still bring a small profit. But why do it? If you want to block the Big 10 just add Clemson and Florida State. The Big 10 isn't going to take 4 of them let alone 6 and then the SEC still gets into Virginia and North Carolina.

And now that the cable model is in transition the content that Clemson and F.S.U. add is more valuable. Even in 2010 FSU projected a small profit for us and Clemson was a wash.

Jr,

Just wondering what/if the numbers were for Oklahoma State and some of the other B12 programs were. Thanks and great posts in this thread.

One Oklahoma school is profitable. If it is OU then it adds content value, national appeal, and a new state and reasonable saturation into the Dallas / Ft. Worth market. If it is OSU it adds a new state and reasonable saturation into the Dallas / Ft. Worth area.

If we take them as a pair it means that we are willing to accept those properties as a necessary way to either complete Westward expansion. IMO taking the pair would be a move where one added value and the other is supported by a network that wants to accomplish something.

OSU does however offer a top 30 athletic department.

My speculation is that we only take the pair if (1) nobody is moving beyond 16 and the ACC is stable, or (2) if we are actually planning to take 4 and the ACC will be utilized to find homes for enough of them to dissolve that conference, or (3) if we are moving to 18 on our own and want to form a Western 6 team division that includes Texas. In that case the 4 might be the 2 Oklahomas and Texas with another Texas school, the 2 Oklahomas and Texas with West Virginia, or the 2 Oklahomas and Texas with Kansas. And I would put those options in that order.

If Oklahoma is the lure we need to finally complete our expansion plans from 1991, then 4 to the West with 2 slots reserved to the East (if we move to 20) is the approach we would take.

Look folks, it is not inconceivable that we could see something like this emerge:

Big 10:
Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Missouri, Northwestern

Boston College, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, Syracuse

Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Virginia


SEC:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami

Kentucky, Louisville, N.C. State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech, West Virginia


The PAC could pick up any or all of the following: Baylor, Kansas State, T.C.U., Texas Tech, or any other school already in the West.

The ACC takes Texas as a full member along with TCU, Baylor & Iowa State. This puts the ACC at 18 with ND still as a partial. ND adds a permanent game against Texas to their ACC contract. The ACC gets a network & the LHN is turned into a Texas based network within the ACCN.

West- Texas, TCU, Baylor, Iowa State, Miami & Louisville

North- Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC, NC State, WF & VT

South- FSU, Clemson, GT, NC, Duke & Virginia

The SEC takes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas & WV giving the SEC 18. The B12 dissolves, leaving TT & K State out.

West- Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Missouri, Texas A&M & Arkansas

East- Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, WV & Kentucky

South- Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Mississippi, Miss State & Vanderbilt

End of season rivalry games.
Florida & FSU
Georgia & GT
Texas & Oklahoma
Kentucky & Louisville
Clemson & South Carolina
Pittsburgh & West Virginia

(02-20-2016 12:09 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  The ACC takes Texas as a full member along with TCU, Baylor & Iowa State. This puts the ACC at 18 with ND still as a partial. ND adds a permanent game against Texas to their ACC contract. The ACC gets a network & the LHN is turned into a Texas based network within the ACCN.

West- Texas, TCU, Baylor, Iowa State, Miami & Louisville

North- Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC, NC State, WF & VT

South- FSU, Clemson, GT, NC, Duke & Virginia

The SEC takes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas & WV giving the SEC 18. The B12 dissolves, leaving TT & K State out.

West- Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Missouri, Texas A&M & Arkansas

East- Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, WV & Kentucky

South- Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Mississippi, Miss State & Vanderbilt

End of season rivalry games.
Florida & FSU
Georgia & GT
Texas & Oklahoma
Kentucky & Louisville
Clemson & South Carolina
Pittsburgh & West Virginia

The money would work that way too. But it is the kind of cooperation that will have to happen for the ACC to make up ground without detracting from the SEC's options.

So, why doesn't this get done? It still tilts the number of conference votes away from North Carolina's block, but also it may not be the amount of further investment ESPN is willing to commit. We'll have to wait and see about that last one.

I could see something like this play out at the end of the B12 GOR. There are only 2 teams in the B12 that are worth SEC/B1G kind of $$$, Texas & Oklahoma. They go to the SEC.

The ACC takes Kansas, Oklahoma St & TCU (?) & stops at 17. These schools are worth ACC $ & putting them in the ACC doesn't really cost ESPN anymore money.

Iowa State, WV, K State, Baylor & TT become available for the B1G & PAC, they both pass. They replenish the B12 with UCF, USF, Cincinnati, Memphis, UCONN, Temple, NAVY, Tulane, Houston, Air Force, BYU, Boise State & ECU to become the top of the G5's. They break into a 3x6 & replace the ACC in the Orange Bowl.

The SEC, ACC & the G5 (to prevent any further defections while gaining a few to their numbers & for a larger CFP share) pass a champs only CFP & 4 team CC. This forces ND fully into the ACC. The SEC splits into a 4x4 & the ACC into a 3x6. The SEC & the ACC bundle their networks & the ACC takes the B12 spot in the Sugar Bowl. While the ACC still makes less than the SEC & B1G, their additional network revenue & gentlemen agreement/alliance with the SEC keeps it stable from a B1G poaching.

(02-21-2016 10:15 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I could see something like this play out at the end of the B12 GOR. There are only 2 teams in the B12 that are worth SEC/B1G kind of $$$, Texas & Oklahoma. They go to the SEC.

The ACC takes Kansas, Oklahoma St & TCU (?) & stops at 17. These schools are worth ACC $ & putting them in the ACC doesn't really cost ESPN anymore money.

Iowa State, WV, K State, Baylor & TT become available for the B1G & PAC, they both pass. They replenish the B12 with UCF, USF, Cincinnati, Memphis, UCONN, Temple, NAVY, Tulane, Houston, Air Force, BYU, Boise State & ECU to become the top of the G5's. They break into a 3x6 & replace the ACC in the Orange Bowl.

The SEC, ACC & the G5 (to prevent any further defections while gaining a few to their numbers & for a larger CFP share) pass a champs only CFP & 4 team CC. This forces ND fully into the ACC. The SEC splits into a 4x4 & the ACC into a 3x6. The SEC & the ACC bundle their networks & the ACC takes the B12 spot in the Sugar Bowl. While the ACC still makes less than the SEC & B1G, their additional network revenue & gentlemen agreement/alliance with the SEC keeps it stable from a B1G poaching.

The break downs could be something like this:

SEC
Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas

Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State

Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, UK

ACC
ND, Kansas, Oklahoma State, TCU, Pittsburgh, Miami

FSU, Clemson, Louisville, NC State, WF, Syracuse

GT, VT, NC, Duke, Virginia, BC

New B12
Navy, UCF, UCONN, Temple, ECU, USF

WV, Cincinnati, Memphis, Tulane, Houston, Kansas State

TT, Baylor, Iowa St, BYU, Air Force, Boise State

The B1G & PAC would have a 4 team CC as well, 2 division winners & 2 wildcards.

(02-21-2016 10:15 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I could see something like this play out at the end of the B12 GOR. There are only 2 teams in the B12 that are worth SEC/B1G kind of $$$, Texas & Oklahoma. They go to the SEC.

The ACC takes Kansas, Oklahoma St & TCU (?) & stops at 17. These schools are worth ACC $ & putting them in the ACC doesn't really cost ESPN anymore money.

Iowa State, WV, K State, Baylor & TT become available for the B1G & PAC, they both pass. They replenish the B12 with UCF, USF, Cincinnati, Memphis, UCONN, Temple, NAVY, Tulane, Houston, Air Force, BYU, Boise State & ECU to become the top of the G5's. They break into a 3x6 & replace the ACC in the Orange Bowl.

The SEC, ACC & the G5 (to prevent any further defections while gaining a few to their numbers & for a larger CFP share) pass a champs only CFP & 4 team CC. This forces ND fully into the ACC. The SEC splits into a 4x4 & the ACC into a 3x6. The SEC & the ACC bundle their networks & the ACC takes the B12 spot in the Sugar Bowl. While the ACC still makes less than the SEC & B1G, their additional network revenue & gentlemen agreement/alliance with the SEC keeps it stable from a B1G poaching.

Why would the ACC take TCU over Baylor? Baylor is a larger school and has a much better athletic program, adding two solid basketball programs to the ACC.

(02-23-2016 03:14 PM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 10:15 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I could see something like this play out at the end of the B12 GOR. There are only 2 teams in the B12 that are worth SEC/B1G kind of $$$, Texas & Oklahoma. They go to the SEC.

The ACC takes Kansas, Oklahoma St & TCU (?) & stops at 17. These schools are worth ACC $ & putting them in the ACC doesn't really cost ESPN anymore money.

Iowa State, WV, K State, Baylor & TT become available for the B1G & PAC, they both pass. They replenish the B12 with UCF, USF, Cincinnati, Memphis, UCONN, Temple, NAVY, Tulane, Houston, Air Force, BYU, Boise State & ECU to become the top of the G5's. They break into a 3x6 & replace the ACC in the Orange Bowl.

The SEC, ACC & the G5 (to prevent any further defections while gaining a few to their numbers & for a larger CFP share) pass a champs only CFP & 4 team CC. This forces ND fully into the ACC. The SEC splits into a 4x4 & the ACC into a 3x6. The SEC & the ACC bundle their networks & the ACC takes the B12 spot in the Sugar Bowl. While the ACC still makes less than the SEC & B1G, their additional network revenue & gentlemen agreement/alliance with the SEC keeps it stable from a B1G poaching.

Why would the ACC take TCU over Baylor? Baylor is a larger school and has a much better athletic program, adding two solid basketball programs to the ACC.

The question in my mind is which school would UT request if it came over as part of a new Texahoma type deal to the SEC. Would they request Tech or Baylor? I discussed in another thread on here that TCU really did not offer to the SEC what Baylor could bring. But who do you think the Horns would request?

(02-23-2016 03:14 PM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 10:15 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I could see something like this play out at the end of the B12 GOR. There are only 2 teams in the B12 that are worth SEC/B1G kind of $$$, Texas & Oklahoma. They go to the SEC.

The ACC takes Kansas, Oklahoma St & TCU (?) & stops at 17. These schools are worth ACC $ & putting them in the ACC doesn't really cost ESPN anymore money.

Iowa State, WV, K State, Baylor & TT become available for the B1G & PAC, they both pass. They replenish the B12 with UCF, USF, Cincinnati, Memphis, UCONN, Temple, NAVY, Tulane, Houston, Air Force, BYU, Boise State & ECU to become the top of the G5's. They break into a 3x6 & replace the ACC in the Orange Bowl.

The SEC, ACC & the G5 (to prevent any further defections while gaining a few to their numbers & for a larger CFP share) pass a champs only CFP & 4 team CC. This forces ND fully into the ACC. The SEC splits into a 4x4 & the ACC into a 3x6. The SEC & the ACC bundle their networks & the ACC takes the B12 spot in the Sugar Bowl. While the ACC still makes less than the SEC & B1G, their additional network revenue & gentlemen agreement/alliance with the SEC keeps it stable from a B1G poaching.

Why would the ACC take TCU over Baylor? Baylor is a larger school and has a much better athletic program, adding two solid basketball programs to the ACC.

Why did I select TCU over Baylor? DFW for one & TCU has had a stronger football program over the last few decades. Baylor athletic success is more recent & I'm not sure that it will be sustained. The main reason though was the market. Having DFW would help a network & with only 1 Texas team I think that would be crucial. If the $ was the same I wouldn't have a preference but going to DFW for a game would be more fun. I do like Baylor a lot though & would be thrilled to have them, they do have the better all around athletic program right now.

(02-23-2016 03:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-23-2016 03:14 PM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 10:15 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I could see something like this play out at the end of the B12 GOR. There are only 2 teams in the B12 that are worth SEC/B1G kind of $$$, Texas & Oklahoma. They go to the SEC.

The ACC takes Kansas, Oklahoma St & TCU (?) & stops at 17. These schools are worth ACC $ & putting them in the ACC doesn't really cost ESPN anymore money.

Iowa State, WV, K State, Baylor & TT become available for the B1G & PAC, they both pass. They replenish the B12 with UCF, USF, Cincinnati, Memphis, UCONN, Temple, NAVY, Tulane, Houston, Air Force, BYU, Boise State & ECU to become the top of the G5's. They break into a 3x6 & replace the ACC in the Orange Bowl.

The SEC, ACC & the G5 (to prevent any further defections while gaining a few to their numbers & for a larger CFP share) pass a champs only CFP & 4 team CC. This forces ND fully into the ACC. The SEC splits into a 4x4 & the ACC into a 3x6. The SEC & the ACC bundle their networks & the ACC takes the B12 spot in the Sugar Bowl. While the ACC still makes less than the SEC & B1G, their additional network revenue & gentlemen agreement/alliance with the SEC keeps it stable from a B1G poaching.

Why would the ACC take TCU over Baylor? Baylor is a larger school and has a much better athletic program, adding two solid basketball programs to the ACC.

The question in my mind is which school would UT request if it came over as part of a new Texahoma type deal to the SEC. Would they request Tech or Baylor? I discussed in another thread on here that TCU really did not offer to the SEC what Baylor could bring. But who do you think the Horns would request?

Honestly, I think they would request Baylor. Tech is a public, but the odds of them staying in a Power Conference with the PAC is a lot greater than Baylor sticking in one. Also, the easy 1.5 hour drive North to Waco is a lot better than the flight to Lubbock. When you are factoring in all of the Olympic sports, a trip to Waco is better for not only their student athletes but fans as well. As much as Tech has a presence in the state, I don't think you can discount Baylor being the oldest university in the state and the history that it has had with Texas. If both moved to the SEC you would be reuniting them with A&M, with all 3 schools having played each other for over 100 years.

(02-23-2016 04:25 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(02-23-2016 03:14 PM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 10:15 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I could see something like this play out at the end of the B12 GOR. There are only 2 teams in the B12 that are worth SEC/B1G kind of $$$, Texas & Oklahoma. They go to the SEC.

The ACC takes Kansas, Oklahoma St & TCU (?) & stops at 17. These schools are worth ACC $ & putting them in the ACC doesn't really cost ESPN anymore money.

Iowa State, WV, K State, Baylor & TT become available for the B1G & PAC, they both pass. They replenish the B12 with UCF, USF, Cincinnati, Memphis, UCONN, Temple, NAVY, Tulane, Houston, Air Force, BYU, Boise State & ECU to become the top of the G5's. They break into a 3x6 & replace the ACC in the Orange Bowl.

The SEC, ACC & the G5 (to prevent any further defections while gaining a few to their numbers & for a larger CFP share) pass a champs only CFP & 4 team CC. This forces ND fully into the ACC. The SEC splits into a 4x4 & the ACC into a 3x6. The SEC & the ACC bundle their networks & the ACC takes the B12 spot in the Sugar Bowl. While the ACC still makes less than the SEC & B1G, their additional network revenue & gentlemen agreement/alliance with the SEC keeps it stable from a B1G poaching.

Why would the ACC take TCU over Baylor? Baylor is a larger school and has a much better athletic program, adding two solid basketball programs to the ACC.

Why did I select TCU over Baylor? DFW for one & TCU has had a stronger football program over the last few decades. Baylor athletic success is more recent & I'm not sure that it will be sustained. The main reason though was the market. Having DFW would help a network & with only 1 Texas team I think that would be crucial. If the $ was the same I wouldn't have a preference but going to DFW for a game would be more fun. I do like Baylor a lot though & would be thrilled to have them, they do have the better all around athletic program right now.

But if the ACC took OkSt, then taking Baylor would give them DFW and a presence in Houston, where a large portion of the Baylor Alumni live. TCU doesn't give the ACC DFW. it merely gives them games in the DFW area. However, Baylor allows recruits from every major city to easily attend. Waco is 2 hours or less from DFW, Austin and Houston and a little over 2 hours from San Antonio. As for TCU's success in football, before the break up of the SWC they sucked for decades while Baylor was 3-4 best in the SWC over the last 20 years. Baylor sucked for the first part of the Big 12, but since 2010 Baylor has won 2 conference titles, a Heisman, and been to 6 straight bowl games.

If your main reason for TCU is the market for a TV network then Baylor makes more sense because they have a much larger alumni base to pull from and it is scattered across the state more. On top of that, Baylor's basketball is a more desirable product for networks than TCU's.

(02-23-2016 05:41 PM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(02-23-2016 04:25 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(02-23-2016 03:14 PM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 10:15 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I could see something like this play out at the end of the B12 GOR. There are only 2 teams in the B12 that are worth SEC/B1G kind of $$$, Texas & Oklahoma. They go to the SEC.

The ACC takes Kansas, Oklahoma St & TCU (?) & stops at 17. These schools are worth ACC $ & putting them in the ACC doesn't really cost ESPN anymore money.

Iowa State, WV, K State, Baylor & TT become available for the B1G & PAC, they both pass. They replenish the B12 with UCF, USF, Cincinnati, Memphis, UCONN, Temple, NAVY, Tulane, Houston, Air Force, BYU, Boise State & ECU to become the top of the G5's. They break into a 3x6 & replace the ACC in the Orange Bowl.

The SEC, ACC & the G5 (to prevent any further defections while gaining a few to their numbers & for a larger CFP share) pass a champs only CFP & 4 team CC. This forces ND fully into the ACC. The SEC splits into a 4x4 & the ACC into a 3x6. The SEC & the ACC bundle their networks & the ACC takes the B12 spot in the Sugar Bowl. While the ACC still makes less than the SEC & B1G, their additional network revenue & gentlemen agreement/alliance with the SEC keeps it stable from a B1G poaching.

Why would the ACC take TCU over Baylor? Baylor is a larger school and has a much better athletic program, adding two solid basketball programs to the ACC.

Why did I select TCU over Baylor? DFW for one & TCU has had a stronger football program over the last few decades. Baylor athletic success is more recent & I'm not sure that it will be sustained. The main reason though was the market. Having DFW would help a network & with only 1 Texas team I think that would be crucial. If the $ was the same I wouldn't have a preference but going to DFW for a game would be more fun. I do like Baylor a lot though & would be thrilled to have them, they do have the better all around athletic program right now.

But if the ACC took OkSt, then taking Baylor would give them DFW and a presence in Houston, where a large portion of the Baylor Alumni live. TCU doesn't give the ACC DFW. it merely gives them games in the DFW area. However, Baylor allows recruits from every major city to easily attend. Waco is 2 hours or less from DFW, Austin and Houston and a little over 2 hours from San Antonio. As for TCU's success in football, before the break up of the SWC they sucked for decades while Baylor was 3-4 best in the SWC over the last 20 years. Baylor sucked for the first part of the Big 12, but since 2010 Baylor has won 2 conference titles, a Heisman, and been to 6 straight bowl games.

If your main reason for TCU is the market for a TV network then Baylor makes more sense because they have a much larger alumni base to pull from and it is scattered across the state more. On top of that, Baylor's basketball is a more desirable product for networks than TCU's.

I don't think the ACC will take any Big 12 schools not named West Virginia or possibly Texas as an independent. So if the SEC takes Oklahoma schools they have no need of T.C.U. who has lower average attendance and less prominent athletics as a whole than Baylor.

So my question stands, "if the SEC agreed to a Texahoma like deal" and we took Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and agreed to Texas and one other of their choosing would the Horns pick Baylor, or Texas Tech?

(02-23-2016 05:41 PM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(02-23-2016 04:25 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(02-23-2016 03:14 PM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 10:15 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I could see something like this play out at the end of the B12 GOR. There are only 2 teams in the B12 that are worth SEC/B1G kind of $$$, Texas & Oklahoma. They go to the SEC.

The ACC takes Kansas, Oklahoma St & TCU (?) & stops at 17. These schools are worth ACC $ & putting them in the ACC doesn't really cost ESPN anymore money.

Iowa State, WV, K State, Baylor & TT become available for the B1G & PAC, they both pass. They replenish the B12 with UCF, USF, Cincinnati, Memphis, UCONN, Temple, NAVY, Tulane, Houston, Air Force, BYU, Boise State & ECU to become the top of the G5's. They break into a 3x6 & replace the ACC in the Orange Bowl.

The SEC, ACC & the G5 (to prevent any further defections while gaining a few to their numbers & for a larger CFP share) pass a champs only CFP & 4 team CC. This forces ND fully into the ACC. The SEC splits into a 4x4 & the ACC into a 3x6. The SEC & the ACC bundle their networks & the ACC takes the B12 spot in the Sugar Bowl. While the ACC still makes less than the SEC & B1G, their additional network revenue & gentlemen agreement/alliance with the SEC keeps it stable from a B1G poaching.

Why would the ACC take TCU over Baylor? Baylor is a larger school and has a much better athletic program, adding two solid basketball programs to the ACC.

Why did I select TCU over Baylor? DFW for one & TCU has had a stronger football program over the last few decades. Baylor athletic success is more recent & I'm not sure that it will be sustained. The main reason though was the market. Having DFW would help a network & with only 1 Texas team I think that would be crucial. If the $ was the same I wouldn't have a preference but going to DFW for a game would be more fun. I do like Baylor a lot though & would be thrilled to have them, they do have the better all around athletic program right now.

But if the ACC took OkSt, then taking Baylor would give them DFW and a presence in Houston, where a large portion of the Baylor Alumni live. TCU doesn't give the ACC DFW. it merely gives them games in the DFW area. However, Baylor allows recruits from every major city to easily attend. Waco is 2 hours or less from DFW, Austin and Houston and a little over 2 hours from San Antonio. As for TCU's success in football, before the break up of the SWC they sucked for decades while Baylor was 3-4 best in the SWC over the last 20 years. Baylor sucked for the first part of the Big 12, but since 2010 Baylor has won 2 conference titles, a Heisman, and been to 6 straight bowl games.

If your main reason for TCU is the market for a TV network then Baylor makes more sense because they have a much larger alumni base to pull from and it is scattered across the state more. On top of that, Baylor's basketball is a more desirable product for networks than TCU's.

If ESPN said to take TCU, Baylor & Houston for a network I would be for it. In this scenario the ACC would have 20 & break into a 4x5.

TCU, Baylor, Houston, Oklahoma St, Kansas

ND, Pittsburgh, BC, Syracuse, Louisville

FSU, Clemson, GT, NC State, WF

Miami, NC, Duke, Virginia, VT

(02-23-2016 05:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I don't think the ACC will take any Big 12 schools not named West Virginia or possibly Texas as an independent. So if the SEC takes Oklahoma schools they have no need of T.C.U. who has lower average attendance and less prominent athletics as a whole than Baylor.

So my question stands, "if the SEC agreed to a Texahoma like deal" and we took Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and agreed to Texas and one other of their choosing would the Horns pick Baylor, or Texas Tech?

Ferg may be right when he says UT would prefer Baylor for travel if nothing else. TX is a huge state and that makes a lot of sense. The travel would be easier for the rest of the league as well.

Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Arkansas

Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn

Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky

Do you think there's any chance we take 6 from the Big 12? I know there aren't a lot of great options and 4 is stretching it a bit. Nonetheless, if we needed to take 6 to make a move work and we were definitely getting OU and UT then do you think we'd be willing to do it?

I don't think the ACC would take anyone actually as the conditions with which they took Louisville are very different than the ones in which they would be overlooking academics to take WVU. Right now, they don't need to replace anyone. UL has an elite basketball program. Their overall athletic program is better and they have a lot of potential to grow. None of that really describes WVU.

For the Big Ten, if they're not getting OU and KU then I'm not sure they make a move. Maybe they grab KU and UConn, but that does nothing for their football product.

I could see the PAC taking a few. Texas Tech, TCU, Iowa State...and maybe Kansas State? I don't know though. Would we compromise with the PAC to pull it off though? Maybe if they demanded Kansas then we could take Kansas State and West Virginia? I think KSU would probably fit with us culturally more so than KU.

(02-23-2016 09:11 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-23-2016 05:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I don't think the ACC will take any Big 12 schools not named West Virginia or possibly Texas as an independent. So if the SEC takes Oklahoma schools they have no need of T.C.U. who has lower average attendance and less prominent athletics as a whole than Baylor.

So my question stands, "if the SEC agreed to a Texahoma like deal" and we took Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and agreed to Texas and one other of their choosing would the Horns pick Baylor, or Texas Tech?

Ferg may be right when he says UT would prefer Baylor for travel if nothing else. TX is a huge state and that makes a lot of sense. The travel would be easier for the rest of the league as well.

Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Arkansas

Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn

Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky

Do you think there's any chance we take 6 from the Big 12? I know there aren't a lot of great options and 4 is stretching it a bit. Nonetheless, if we needed to take 6 to make a move work and we were definitely getting OU and UT then do you think we'd be willing to do it?

I don't think the ACC would take anyone actually as the conditions with which they took Louisville are very different than the ones in which they would be overlooking academics to take WVU. Right now, they don't need to replace anyone. UL has an elite basketball program. Their overall athletic program is better and they have a lot of potential to grow. None of that really describes WVU.

For the Big Ten, if they're not getting OU and KU then I'm not sure they make a move. Maybe they grab KU and UConn, but that does nothing for their football product.

I could see the PAC taking a few. Texas Tech, TCU, Iowa State...and maybe Kansas State? I don't know though. Would we compromise with the PAC to pull it off though? Maybe if they demanded Kansas then we could take Kansas State and West Virginia? I think KSU would probably fit with us culturally more so than KU.

I don't think we would take 6 from the Big 12. There just isn't enough value unless they were Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, West Virginia. I think Kansas goes Big 10 and WVU goes ACC.

As for the Big 10 not finding football value in Kansas and Connecticut how is that any different from Duke, Virginia and North Carolina? Or, Syracuse, Boston College?

I can tell you as for me I would 10 x rather have the Bears than the Frogs if we have an Oklahoma school, let alone 2.

And I'm not sure the PAC would take anybody but if they did I could see Texas Tech and T.C.U. before anyone.

(02-23-2016 10:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  As for the Big 10 not finding football value in Kansas and Connecticut how is that any different from Duke, Virginia and North Carolina? Or, Syracuse, Boston College?

Actually, I think it would be different in the case of UNC, Duke, or UVA.

They aren't football powers by any means, but Kansas is hapless in the sport. The other 3 do at least try to be competitive in their league while KU does not really support the program. That and the markets are very different. The recruiting opportunities are very different as well. There's a good bit of talent in NC and VA so if they ever decided to pony up and build great programs they have the ability to do it.

With UConn, they haven't even been playing D1 for 20 years yet. It's another program devoid of local talent and the B1G already has a presence in NYC whereas they don't in VA and NC.

I'm just basing my comment off the idea that the B1G needs football content with their current lack of brand power. Schools like OU and VT could help immediately. KU and UConn could actually regress the mean in the B1G's case. I'm not saying they wouldn't take them, but I just don't know that they would.

(02-25-2016 12:33 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-23-2016 10:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  As for the Big 10 not finding football value in Kansas and Connecticut how is that any different from Duke, Virginia and North Carolina? Or, Syracuse, Boston College?

Actually, I think it would be different in the case of UNC, Duke, or UVA.

They aren't football powers by any means, but Kansas is hapless in the sport. The other 3 do at least try to be competitive in their league while KU does not really support the program. That and the markets are very different. The recruiting opportunities are very different as well. There's a good bit of talent in NC and VA so if they ever decided to pony up and build great programs they have the ability to do it.

With UConn, they haven't even been playing D1 for 20 years yet. It's another program devoid of local talent and the B1G already has a presence in NYC whereas they don't in VA and NC.

I'm just basing my comment off the idea that the B1G needs football content with their current lack of brand power. Schools like OU and VT could help immediately. KU and UConn could actually regress the mean in the B1G's case. I'm not saying they wouldn't take them, but I just don't know that they would.

Okay! Now the reasoning you are using is exactly why I've never believed H1 or Nebraskafan or the twitter guys about OU & KU to the Big 10. Kansas adds nothing they don't already have. Great basketball? The Big 10 has it and has it with depth. Kansas viewing markets? The Big 10 already has those, just not at the increased rate but is a simple rate boost worth it for 3 million people when you can get double to triple that out of North Carolina or Virginia?

Oklahoma would be an academic outlier, a very small state, and the only Big 10 school they truly compliment is Nebraska.

Delany said they would look East. Who do we believe Delany or message board posters with an agenda to troll?

Now the reason I posed the question using the schools that I did is because N.C. State and Virginia Tech are closer to the profile of Big 10 schools than are UVa & UNC. Sure they lack the AAU status but they are more competitive in football, have larger campuses and larger graduating classes than their snootier counterparts, and they fill a Big 10 need. Virginia and North Carolina meet an SEC need for hoops. Virginia and North Carolina love their baseball too and in the SEC that sport would flourish, their football would be no worse than now, and their hoops would be elite with Kentucky added to their mix.

Now I'm not saying we get any of those or that any will move to the Big 10 or SEC, but they make a lot more sense for the Big 10, especially N.C. State and Virginia Tech.

So yeah there is still a lot to be worked out before we consolidate further.