(05-10-2016 08:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 08:10 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 07:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Boren wants the Big 10. Many of the board may want the SEC. Boren maybe stalling because the SEC may be indeed willing to take both which is an offer the Big 10 simply cannot match. Land both Oklahoma schools and ESPN may find a home of fuller control for Texas. Also now the Horns are saying they don't want to make a move without OU or KU. If that's the case just take all 4 and be done with it. Two of them are AAU and three are national brands, and the tagalong has the 29th wealthiest athletic department in the nation. I'd say that's a small price to pay for the rest when ESPN is hot to land them and keep them out of FOX's hands and to keep them from further enhancing Big 10 payouts which only serve more as an enticement to ACC properties.

I've always felt like most of these OU officials would be happier in the SEC. The fit would be much tighter than with the B1G. More of a hunch than anything, but it's not surprising.

So let's say we took those 4.

West: Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas
Central: Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn
East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky

What does ESPN do to strengthen the ACC's financials to keep any of them from being tempted to go to the B1G?

They have to get a network obviously and the LHN could simply be converted, but other than that...

The ACC picks up Cincinnati and Connecticut for a market and a basketball content multiplier. They pick up W.V.U. to reconnect their footprint. Then they divide into 3 division of 6 and Notre Dame plugs into the North where if they win their division they get into the conference playoffs.

That gives you a football boost, a basketball boost, and part of Ohio. It also accomplishes something else. If UT, OU, OSU, and KU have moved to the SEC the Big 10 and therefore FOX have no place to go for value but to the PAC. If they move on the PAC they lessen ESPN's overhead and increase the value shares of the SEC & ACC's places in the CFP.

The ACC doesn't need West Virginia....

Expansion plans where Texas goes to the SEC, and West Virginia heads to the ACC are just fantasyland

If Texas is going to join a conference, and forego the LHN, why would it be the SEC? They'd be B1G bound

Texas will never never never EVER be in the SEC, period. square peg, round hole

B1G Academics > SEC

Texas is snobby, and they're not going to follow the Aggies into the SEC. That bridge was burnt badly

(05-10-2016 11:53 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 08:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 08:10 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 07:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Boren wants the Big 10. Many of the board may want the SEC. Boren maybe stalling because the SEC may be indeed willing to take both which is an offer the Big 10 simply cannot match. Land both Oklahoma schools and ESPN may find a home of fuller control for Texas. Also now the Horns are saying they don't want to make a move without OU or KU. If that's the case just take all 4 and be done with it. Two of them are AAU and three are national brands, and the tagalong has the 29th wealthiest athletic department in the nation. I'd say that's a small price to pay for the rest when ESPN is hot to land them and keep them out of FOX's hands and to keep them from further enhancing Big 10 payouts which only serve more as an enticement to ACC properties.

I've always felt like most of these OU officials would be happier in the SEC. The fit would be much tighter than with the B1G. More of a hunch than anything, but it's not surprising.

So let's say we took those 4.

West: Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas
Central: Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn
East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky

What does ESPN do to strengthen the ACC's financials to keep any of them from being tempted to go to the B1G?

They have to get a network obviously and the LHN could simply be converted, but other than that...

The ACC picks up Cincinnati and Connecticut for a market and a basketball content multiplier. They pick up W.V.U. to reconnect their footprint. Then they divide into 3 division of 6 and Notre Dame plugs into the North where if they win their division they get into the conference playoffs.

That gives you a football boost, a basketball boost, and part of Ohio. It also accomplishes something else. If UT, OU, OSU, and KU have moved to the SEC the Big 10 and therefore FOX have no place to go for value but to the PAC. If they move on the PAC they lessen ESPN's overhead and increase the value shares of the SEC & ACC's places in the CFP.

The ACC doesn't need West Virginia....

Expansion plans where Texas goes to the SEC, and West Virginia heads to the ACC are just fantasyland

If Texas is going to join a conference, and forego the LHN, why would it be the SEC? They'd be B1G bound

Texas will never never never EVER be in the SEC, period. square peg, round hole

B1G Academics > SEC

Texas is snobby, and they're not going to follow the Aggies into the SEC. That bridge was burnt badly

If Texas has desires to join the Big10 they will not be realistically able to act on them until near the end of the LHN contract in 2032. They could go to the PAC if the PAC sells a % of their network to ESPN, but that is only if ESPN is interested as the PAC has less national brands than the Big 10.

And you do realize that if ESPN landed Texas and Kansas to either of the its conferences that it would bring the ACC/SEC total of AAU schools to 11? If you start a Southern Academic Consortium and deliberately focus on research as opposed to athletics you can add Emory, Rice, Tulsa, and Tulane to that number. Hmm. Screw the CIC and stay South! The only reason the Big 10 wants to move down the Atlantic into the South is to prevent a lobbying group for research dollars that will one day represent many more votes than are left in the old Big 10 footprint. Big 10 realignment has a decidedly political bent in it. Maryland? Rutgers? One actual ACC AAU member and one potential ACC AAU member. They sure as hell didn't add them for the danged sports potential!

It's also why they want into the Big Apple and the Beltway. They want political leverage because as the demographics favor the Mid Atlantic states if they are to keep what they have amassed in the past they have to make a move toward those schools. That is why they won't waste a pick on Oklahoma or Virginia Tech, or N.C. State and why it is that the SEC went for two AAU schools last time around.

There is a much bigger game here than football, or basketball, that is being played. Texas knows this as does Rice. As long as the Southeast gets serious about academics and research as the ACC did long ago the incentive for these schools will be to remain on their native soil for sports.

The balance of political power in the United States is gradually shifting. The Big 10 is trying to stay ahead of the curve. And under the market footprint model they could take Maryland and Rutgers and get paid for doing both. Now not so much. It's going to get even more interesting as time passes.

(05-10-2016 11:53 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 08:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 08:10 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 07:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Boren wants the Big 10. Many of the board may want the SEC. Boren maybe stalling because the SEC may be indeed willing to take both which is an offer the Big 10 simply cannot match. Land both Oklahoma schools and ESPN may find a home of fuller control for Texas. Also now the Horns are saying they don't want to make a move without OU or KU. If that's the case just take all 4 and be done with it. Two of them are AAU and three are national brands, and the tagalong has the 29th wealthiest athletic department in the nation. I'd say that's a small price to pay for the rest when ESPN is hot to land them and keep them out of FOX's hands and to keep them from further enhancing Big 10 payouts which only serve more as an enticement to ACC properties.

I've always felt like most of these OU officials would be happier in the SEC. The fit would be much tighter than with the B1G. More of a hunch than anything, but it's not surprising.

So let's say we took those 4.

West: Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas
Central: Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn
East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky

What does ESPN do to strengthen the ACC's financials to keep any of them from being tempted to go to the B1G?

They have to get a network obviously and the LHN could simply be converted, but other than that...

The ACC picks up Cincinnati and Connecticut for a market and a basketball content multiplier. They pick up W.V.U. to reconnect their footprint. Then they divide into 3 division of 6 and Notre Dame plugs into the North where if they win their division they get into the conference playoffs.

That gives you a football boost, a basketball boost, and part of Ohio. It also accomplishes something else. If UT, OU, OSU, and KU have moved to the SEC the Big 10 and therefore FOX have no place to go for value but to the PAC. If they move on the PAC they lessen ESPN's overhead and increase the value shares of the SEC & ACC's places in the CFP.

The ACC doesn't need West Virginia....

Expansion plans where Texas goes to the SEC, and West Virginia heads to the ACC are just fantasyland

If Texas is going to join a conference, and forego the LHN, why would it be the SEC? They'd be B1G bound

Texas will never never never EVER be in the SEC, period. square peg, round hole

B1G Academics > SEC

Texas is snobby, and they're not going to follow the Aggies into the SEC. That bridge was burnt badly

Texas will never join the B1G. There are several reasons for that, but I want you to consider this one since you brought up academics...

Why has UT so doggedly striven to maintain membership in the Big 12 and in fact sought to control its affairs? How many great academic schools did UT advocate for membership in the Big 12 in the past?

Texas and the B1G are far more a mismatch than Texas and the SEC are.

I've seen the idea of abolishing division before and it is an attempt to solve a very basic problem of the current divisions are simply too large. I'm not a fan of 16 teams but one benefit is that it creates pods of 4, accomplishing the same thing as going without division does. Divisions, bring a about sense of competitiveness that I think would be lost if schools just picked protected rivalries. I mean who is actually going to choose Vandy and UK?

My issue with 16 is barring picking a team from NC/VA, there aren't two programs available that justify the increase. I think the Texas that was in discussion with the SEC back in the 90's is different from the one that exists today. The same can be said for the SEC, which now include members with a lot of antipathy for the Longhorns.

Finally, as long as the SEC is within spitting distance of the B1G with regards to money, I don't see the need to fracture the conference further just to convince someone to open up their pocketbook. The SEC has a lower cost of living and is a recruiting hotbed. If a program can't be competitive at $35M a year then they are doing it wrong.