(07-31-2016 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm not missing the point. I just think that "ESPN will pay" is a simplistic answer to a more complicated problem. It is basically equivalent to "conferences will just have to accept a school they don't want" or "the networks will pay conferences to take schools they don't want" to resolve the issues with placing all the Big 12 schools in other conferences. And, JRs temper tantrum aside, I am not trying to mitigate the ACCs chances of landing Texas. I fully believe that this is a potential landing spot for them. I am only trying to suggest that there are other issues that need to be addressed and probably other dominoes that need to fall before it can happen. If you want to leave it at ESPN will just pay to solve all the is

Stating your particular bias as part of your reasoning is not a tantrum and if you tick me off I think you will know about it. Right now I'd say we are merely disagreeing on the severity of issues surrounding a Texas move. ESPN has that issue in house. It is their issue. Now there may well be other details surrounding a Texas move that do have to be worked out. So what I would ask is which ones come to your mind as there are several that come to mind for me:

1: Will they place enough schools to dissolve the GOR is the biggest?

2: What time frame are speaking of since mitigating those damages will probably be an issue as well?

3. How many schools get to come with Texas to the ACC and does Texas come as a full member if a couple of Texas schools come with them or do they come as a partial? If they come as a partial how many other schools will the ACC accept?

4. Do we guarantee the continuation of the RRR?

5. Is Oklahoma promised both the RRR and Bedlam should they move without OSU?

6. What does FOX get out of it if there is cooperation between networks? What do they get if there isn't?

Here's an idea. Instead of grossly overpaying for crap additions, Fox and ESPN disperse the B12 properties. Fox pays ESPN to enter into the ACC TV package that now contains some of the B12 schools.

7. Does the PAC demand brands if they take teams?

There are many many issues besides the LHN. I agree the LHN is a problem for the PAC and the Big 10 in larger ways than it would be for either the ACC or SEC due to ESPN's ownership of it. But that's where I said you were offering a red herring on the LHN issue. It's ESPN's baby and I'm sure they can tend to it. But it is a big deal for other parties.

So what issues other than the LHN did you have in mind?

(08-01-2016 12:27 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm not missing the point. I just think that "ESPN will pay" is a simplistic answer to a more complicated problem. It is basically equivalent to "conferences will just have to accept a school they don't want" or "the networks will pay conferences to take schools they don't want" to resolve the issues with placing all the Big 12 schools in other conferences. And, JRs temper tantrum aside, I am not trying to mitigate the ACCs chances of landing Texas. I fully believe that this is a potential landing spot for them. I am only trying to suggest that there are other issues that need to be addressed and probably other dominoes that need to fall before it can happen. If you want to leave it at ESPN will just pay to solve all the is

Stating your particular bias as part of your reasoning is not a tantrum and if you tick me off I think you will know about it. Right now I'd say we are merely disagreeing on the severity of issues surrounding a Texas move. ESPN has that issue in house. It is their issue. Now there may well be other details surrounding a Texas move that do have to be worked out. So what I would ask is which ones come to your mind as there are several that come to mind for me:

1: Will they place enough schools to dissolve the GOR is the biggest?

2: What time frame are speaking of since mitigating those damages will probably be an issue as well?

3. How many schools get to come with Texas to the ACC and does Texas come as a full member if a couple of Texas schools come with them or do they come as a partial? If they come as a partial how many other schools will the ACC accept?

4. Do we guarantee the continuation of the RRR?

5. Is Oklahoma promised both the RRR and Bedlam should they move without OSU?

6. What does FOX get out of it if there is cooperation between networks? What do they get if there isn't?

Here's an idea. Instead of grossly overpaying for crap additions, Fox and ESPN disperse the B12 properties. Fox pays ESPN to enter into the ACC TV package that now contains some of the B12 schools.

7. Does the PAC demand brands if they take teams?

There are many many issues besides the LHN. I agree the LHN is a problem for the PAC and the Big 10 in larger ways than it would be for either the ACC or SEC due to ESPN's ownership of it. But that's where I said you were offering a red herring on the LHN issue. It's ESPN's baby and I'm sure they can tend to it. But it is a big deal for other parties.

So what issues other than the LHN did you have in mind?

I like the out of the box thinking. I just wonder how much cooperation ESPN and FOX will have in this matter? I guess we'll see. The things I like about the proposal for the ACC & SEC to take 4 each are these:

The SEC East division has Kentucky and Vanderbilt. If the West adds the two Oklahoma's then having two basketball powers who are tepid at best in football would be a way of balancing the divisions. So Kansas and Iowa State would boost our hoops and help the bell curve on wins in the West.

The ACC on the other hand strengthens its overall football standing with additions from Texas.

And in both cases taking the 8 to end this issue locks the Big 10 into their present region. Market wise that's a win win for the ACC and SEC and a win for ESPN.