(09-24-2016 06:08 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 02:13 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Let's say the ACC doesn't want or need anymore. Outside of UT, there's really no one that could help their current situation anyway. They need both content and new markets that are devoted to college sports. They aren't going to take a host of Midwestern schools and that's pretty much what you're signing up for if you start down the road with OU.

The B1G could land OU and KU, but I think OU would prefer to stick with OSU.

The PAC would probably take most of the products worth having, but most of those schools could have better offers. Otherwise, they can't take enough to really make it worth the while of all the powers. They need assistance from a league like the SEC to make it work.

So what about this?

SEC takes Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech

PAC takes Texas, TCU, Kansas State, and Iowa State

Baylor and West Virginia are left out.

Tide', given your conditions (ACC won't add any B12 schools), I think that Texas would be quite content to just rebuild the SWC as opposed to heading out and be an "equal" member with the PAC schools. As far as how I think this would go down, I see the SEC and B1G battling over OU's signature. I think the SEC does what the B1G won't do and brings OSU in with OU. Now, since your example has the SEC going to 18, finding the two most valuable schools will have to be figured out. Adding AAU, basketball blue blood Kansas is a no-brainer and renews the rivalry with Mizzou. A&M doesn't want UT added so I seriously doubt Tech would join and leave a UT based SWC 2.0. If I'm the SEC looking to add one last piece, I would inquire with VT, NC State, WVU and Iowa State as ESPN won't let Clemson or FSU leave the ACC and significantly hurt that football product.

So my best guess would be:
SEC: OU, OSU, KU, WVU
SWC 2.0: Texas, Tech, Baylor, K State, Iowa State, Houston, BYU, Boise State, SMU and some other G5's.

That's probably more realistic.

Oklahoma and Kansas, I think, should be our true targets. Texas is a lot of trouble and we don't need them. I would really like a 2nd TX school, however, in order to have greater penetration in that state. Tech, TCU, Houston...I think any of them could work.

Iowa State or WVU, I don't mind, but I don't think they're optimal.

(09-24-2016 05:46 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  It's sad that there just is not any good schools out east to add, besides maybe the B12's WVU, since the ACC signed an extended GOR. But if we some how could, I think the two targets we'd realistically shoot for again would be Virginia Tech and NC State. VT listened to us last time but didn't bite. SEC fans were not at all thrilled with NC State, but if we were looking at adding that school and its market and recruiting, they might be worth looking at. The ACC needs stronger football brands. If the SEC took a duplicated market school from the state of NC, the ACC could add another stronger football program to improve their inventory. WVU would be a fine replacement to boost the ACC's football inventory. The SEC would add OU's brand and NC State's markets, while the ACC replaces NCSU with football brand WVU in the football heavy Atlantic division.

If we were going to make an addition to the East then I would strongly consider UCF or USF before WVU.

I know most of y'all don't buy into the argument for potential, but demographics alone, I think, should really be a consideration in something like that. Ironically, the academics are better too.

If we're not going to go after a 2nd TX school then a 2nd FL school wouldn't be bad.

(09-24-2016 06:13 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 05:46 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  It's sad that there just is not any good schools out east to add, besides maybe the B12's WVU, since the ACC signed an extended GOR. But if we some how could, I think the two targets we'd realistically shoot for again would be Virginia Tech and NC State. VT listened to us last time but didn't bite. SEC fans were not at all thrilled with NC State, but if we were looking at adding that school and its market and recruiting, they might be worth looking at. The ACC needs stronger football brands. If the SEC took a duplicated market school from the state of NC, the ACC could add another stronger football program to improve their inventory. WVU would be a fine replacement to boost the ACC's football inventory. The SEC would add OU's brand and NC State's markets, while the ACC replaces NCSU with football brand WVU in the football heavy Atlantic division.

If we were going to make an addition to the East then I would strongly consider UCF or USF before WVU.

I know most of y'all don't buy into the argument for potential, but demographics alone, I think, should really be a consideration in something like that. Ironically, the academics are better too.

If we're not going to go after a 2nd TX school then a 2nd FL school wouldn't be bad.

It's not a popular notion but having a second Florida school wearing the SEC logo would cut into both the Noles and Canes and would give us more recruiting presence in central to south Florida. Not to mention we'd have more games there.

If the SEC really wants OU the play might be to add OKST first. Sooners like to talk about improving their schools academic perceptions but the potential of their little brother enjoying greater football success would give them pause.

(09-24-2016 06:08 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 02:13 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Let's say the ACC doesn't want or need anymore. Outside of UT, there's really no one that could help their current situation anyway. They need both content and new markets that are devoted to college sports. They aren't going to take a host of Midwestern schools and that's pretty much what you're signing up for if you start down the road with OU.

The B1G could land OU and KU, but I think OU would prefer to stick with OSU.

The PAC would probably take most of the products worth having, but most of those schools could have better offers. Otherwise, they can't take enough to really make it worth the while of all the powers. They need assistance from a league like the SEC to make it work.

So what about this?

SEC takes Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech

PAC takes Texas, TCU, Kansas State, and Iowa State

Baylor and West Virginia are left out.

Tide', given your conditions (ACC won't add any B12 schools), I think that Texas would be quite content to just rebuild the SWC as opposed to heading out and be an "equal" member with the PAC schools. As far as how I think this would go down, I see the SEC and B1G battling over OU's signature. I think the SEC does what the B1G won't do and brings OSU in with OU. Now, since your example has the SEC going to 18, finding the two most valuable schools will have to be figured out. Adding AAU, basketball blue blood Kansas is a no-brainer and renews the rivalry with Mizzou. A&M doesn't want UT added so I seriously doubt Tech would join and leave a UT based SWC 2.0. If I'm the SEC looking to add one last piece, I would inquire with VT, NC State, WVU and Iowa State as ESPN won't let Clemson or FSU leave the ACC and significantly hurt that football product.

So my best guess would be:
SEC: OU, OSU, KU, WVU
SWC 2.0: Texas, Tech, Baylor, K State, Iowa State, Houston, BYU, Boise State, SMU and some other G5's.

Sigh. I really don't want to be in a Texas conference. I honestly wish there were more Midwest schools that Iowa State would fit in better with.

(09-25-2016 12:52 AM)CyclonePower Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 06:08 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 02:13 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Let's say the ACC doesn't want or need anymore. Outside of UT, there's really no one that could help their current situation anyway. They need both content and new markets that are devoted to college sports. They aren't going to take a host of Midwestern schools and that's pretty much what you're signing up for if you start down the road with OU.

The B1G could land OU and KU, but I think OU would prefer to stick with OSU.

The PAC would probably take most of the products worth having, but most of those schools could have better offers. Otherwise, they can't take enough to really make it worth the while of all the powers. They need assistance from a league like the SEC to make it work.

So what about this?

SEC takes Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech

PAC takes Texas, TCU, Kansas State, and Iowa State

Baylor and West Virginia are left out.

Tide', given your conditions (ACC won't add any B12 schools), I think that Texas would be quite content to just rebuild the SWC as opposed to heading out and be an "equal" member with the PAC schools. As far as how I think this would go down, I see the SEC and B1G battling over OU's signature. I think the SEC does what the B1G won't do and brings OSU in with OU. Now, since your example has the SEC going to 18, finding the two most valuable schools will have to be figured out. Adding AAU, basketball blue blood Kansas is a no-brainer and renews the rivalry with Mizzou. A&M doesn't want UT added so I seriously doubt Tech would join and leave a UT based SWC 2.0. If I'm the SEC looking to add one last piece, I would inquire with VT, NC State, WVU and Iowa State as ESPN won't let Clemson or FSU leave the ACC and significantly hurt that football product.

So my best guess would be:
SEC: OU, OSU, KU, WVU
SWC 2.0: Texas, Tech, Baylor, K State, Iowa State, Houston, BYU, Boise State, SMU and some other G5's.

Sigh. I really don't want to be in a Texas conference. I honestly wish there were more Midwest schools that Iowa State would fit in better with.

I feel you CP. ISU nor KSU for that matter don't deserve the also ran status that has been conferred upon them.

(09-25-2016 04:42 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-25-2016 12:52 AM)CyclonePower Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 06:08 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 02:13 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Let's say the ACC doesn't want or need anymore. Outside of UT, there's really no one that could help their current situation anyway. They need both content and new markets that are devoted to college sports. They aren't going to take a host of Midwestern schools and that's pretty much what you're signing up for if you start down the road with OU.

The B1G could land OU and KU, but I think OU would prefer to stick with OSU.

The PAC would probably take most of the products worth having, but most of those schools could have better offers. Otherwise, they can't take enough to really make it worth the while of all the powers. They need assistance from a league like the SEC to make it work.

So what about this?

SEC takes Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech

PAC takes Texas, TCU, Kansas State, and Iowa State

Baylor and West Virginia are left out.

Tide', given your conditions (ACC won't add any B12 schools), I think that Texas would be quite content to just rebuild the SWC as opposed to heading out and be an "equal" member with the PAC schools. As far as how I think this would go down, I see the SEC and B1G battling over OU's signature. I think the SEC does what the B1G won't do and brings OSU in with OU. Now, since your example has the SEC going to 18, finding the two most valuable schools will have to be figured out. Adding AAU, basketball blue blood Kansas is a no-brainer and renews the rivalry with Mizzou. A&M doesn't want UT added so I seriously doubt Tech would join and leave a UT based SWC 2.0. If I'm the SEC looking to add one last piece, I would inquire with VT, NC State, WVU and Iowa State as ESPN won't let Clemson or FSU leave the ACC and significantly hurt that football product.

So my best guess would be:
SEC: OU, OSU, KU, WVU
SWC 2.0: Texas, Tech, Baylor, K State, Iowa State, Houston, BYU, Boise State, SMU and some other G5's.

Sigh. I really don't want to be in a Texas conference. I honestly wish there were more Midwest schools that Iowa State would fit in better with.

I feel you CP. ISU nor KSU for that matter don't deserve the also ran status that has been conferred upon them.

Geography wise, market wise, and academically, if we could ignore cultural fit (and we won't) moving to 18 would be the best strategic move we could make. Let the SEC be the pioneer of Conference Semi finals and balance it's division with one wild card and three divisional champs.

Then forgetting little brothers and adding 4 could look like this: Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa State, and a second Texas school or West Virginia. That would add at least three new states, almost 11 million potential viewers, 2 AAU schools two solid brands, and could give us more games in a Texas a state where recruiting would be enhanced by such a move. One would have to wonder as well if an Iowa State in the SEC could draw more recruits out of Illinois, Iowa, and Ohio.

(09-25-2016 10:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-25-2016 04:42 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-25-2016 12:52 AM)CyclonePower Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 06:08 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 02:13 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Let's say the ACC doesn't want or need anymore. Outside of UT, there's really no one that could help their current situation anyway. They need both content and new markets that are devoted to college sports. They aren't going to take a host of Midwestern schools and that's pretty much what you're signing up for if you start down the road with OU.

The B1G could land OU and KU, but I think OU would prefer to stick with OSU.

The PAC would probably take most of the products worth having, but most of those schools could have better offers. Otherwise, they can't take enough to really make it worth the while of all the powers. They need assistance from a league like the SEC to make it work.

So what about this?

SEC takes Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech

PAC takes Texas, TCU, Kansas State, and Iowa State

Baylor and West Virginia are left out.

Tide', given your conditions (ACC won't add any B12 schools), I think that Texas would be quite content to just rebuild the SWC as opposed to heading out and be an "equal" member with the PAC schools. As far as how I think this would go down, I see the SEC and B1G battling over OU's signature. I think the SEC does what the B1G won't do and brings OSU in with OU. Now, since your example has the SEC going to 18, finding the two most valuable schools will have to be figured out. Adding AAU, basketball blue blood Kansas is a no-brainer and renews the rivalry with Mizzou. A&M doesn't want UT added so I seriously doubt Tech would join and leave a UT based SWC 2.0. If I'm the SEC looking to add one last piece, I would inquire with VT, NC State, WVU and Iowa State as ESPN won't let Clemson or FSU leave the ACC and significantly hurt that football product.

So my best guess would be:
SEC: OU, OSU, KU, WVU
SWC 2.0: Texas, Tech, Baylor, K State, Iowa State, Houston, BYU, Boise State, SMU and some other G5's.

Sigh. I really don't want to be in a Texas conference. I honestly wish there were more Midwest schools that Iowa State would fit in better with.

I feel you CP. ISU nor KSU for that matter don't deserve the also ran status that has been conferred upon them.

Geography wise, market wise, and academically, if we could ignore cultural fit (and we won't) moving to 18 would be the best strategic move we could make. Let the SEC be the pioneer of Conference Semi finals and balance it's division with one wild card and three divisional champs.

Then forgetting little brothers and adding 4 could look like this: Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa State, and a second Texas school or West Virginia. That would add at least three new states, almost 11 million potential viewers, 2 AAU schools two solid brands, and could give us more games in a Texas a state where recruiting would be enhanced by such a move. One would have to wonder as well if an Iowa State in the SEC could draw more recruits out of Illinois, Iowa, and Ohio.

IMO the goal of the SEC and ESPN is and always has been Kansas and Texas. Why take Missouri if you weren't going to follow with Kansas? The SEC NEEDS another basketball school and one in the west is a real bonus. ESPN invested a lot of money in third tier media rights for Kansas a long time ago for a reason.
And Texas? ESPN could lock everybody else out of the Texas market with the addition of Tejas to go along with A&M. It would also reduce Oklahoma to Nebraska status even in the B1G or the PAC. It gives Tejas access to a super regional pod (A&M, Arkansas, and LSU).
That tips the balance forever in ESPN's direction.
Add West Virginia to the ACC and with the impending capitulation of Notre Dame, it gives you three of the top 4 out of the Big 12, but the best football, basketball and baseball content in the country.

(09-25-2016 11:19 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-25-2016 10:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-25-2016 04:42 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-25-2016 12:52 AM)CyclonePower Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 06:08 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  Tide', given your conditions (ACC won't add any B12 schools), I think that Texas would be quite content to just rebuild the SWC as opposed to heading out and be an "equal" member with the PAC schools. As far as how I think this would go down, I see the SEC and B1G battling over OU's signature. I think the SEC does what the B1G won't do and brings OSU in with OU. Now, since your example has the SEC going to 18, finding the two most valuable schools will have to be figured out. Adding AAU, basketball blue blood Kansas is a no-brainer and renews the rivalry with Mizzou. A&M doesn't want UT added so I seriously doubt Tech would join and leave a UT based SWC 2.0. If I'm the SEC looking to add one last piece, I would inquire with VT, NC State, WVU and Iowa State as ESPN won't let Clemson or FSU leave the ACC and significantly hurt that football product.

So my best guess would be:
SEC: OU, OSU, KU, WVU
SWC 2.0: Texas, Tech, Baylor, K State, Iowa State, Houston, BYU, Boise State, SMU and some other G5's.

Sigh. I really don't want to be in a Texas conference. I honestly wish there were more Midwest schools that Iowa State would fit in better with.

I feel you CP. ISU nor KSU for that matter don't deserve the also ran status that has been conferred upon them.

Geography wise, market wise, and academically, if we could ignore cultural fit (and we won't) moving to 18 would be the best strategic move we could make. Let the SEC be the pioneer of Conference Semi finals and balance it's division with one wild card and three divisional champs.

Then forgetting little brothers and adding 4 could look like this: Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa State, and a second Texas school or West Virginia. That would add at least three new states, almost 11 million potential viewers, 2 AAU schools two solid brands, and could give us more games in a Texas a state where recruiting would be enhanced by such a move. One would have to wonder as well if an Iowa State in the SEC could draw more recruits out of Illinois, Iowa, and Ohio.

IMO the goal of the SEC and ESPN is and always has been Kansas and Texas. Why take Missouri if you weren't going to follow with Kansas? The SEC NEEDS another basketball school and one in the west is a real bonus. ESPN invested a lot of money in third tier media rights for Kansas a long time ago for a reason.
And Texas? ESPN could lock everybody else out of the Texas market with the addition of Tejas to go along with A&M. It would also reduce Oklahoma to Nebraska status even in the B1G or the PAC. It gives Tejas access to a super regional pod (A&M, Arkansas, and LSU).
That tips the balance forever in ESPN's direction.
Add West Virginia to the ACC and with the impending capitulation of Notre Dame, it gives you three of the top 4 out of the Big 12, but the best football, basketball and baseball content in the country.

That brings up some interesting compromises. Oklahoma and Iowa State to the B1G, West Virginia to the ACC.

(09-25-2016 01:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-25-2016 11:19 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-25-2016 10:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-25-2016 04:42 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-25-2016 12:52 AM)CyclonePower Wrote:  Sigh. I really don't want to be in a Texas conference. I honestly wish there were more Midwest schools that Iowa State would fit in better with.

I feel you CP. ISU nor KSU for that matter don't deserve the also ran status that has been conferred upon them.

Geography wise, market wise, and academically, if we could ignore cultural fit (and we won't) moving to 18 would be the best strategic move we could make. Let the SEC be the pioneer of Conference Semi finals and balance it's division with one wild card and three divisional champs.

Then forgetting little brothers and adding 4 could look like this: Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa State, and a second Texas school or West Virginia. That would add at least three new states, almost 11 million potential viewers, 2 AAU schools two solid brands, and could give us more games in a Texas a state where recruiting would be enhanced by such a move. One would have to wonder as well if an Iowa State in the SEC could draw more recruits out of Illinois, Iowa, and Ohio.

IMO the goal of the SEC and ESPN is and always has been Kansas and Texas. Why take Missouri if you weren't going to follow with Kansas? The SEC NEEDS another basketball school and one in the west is a real bonus. ESPN invested a lot of money in third tier media rights for Kansas a long time ago for a reason.
And Texas? ESPN could lock everybody else out of the Texas market with the addition of Tejas to go along with A&M. It would also reduce Oklahoma to Nebraska status even in the B1G or the PAC. It gives Tejas access to a super regional pod (A&M, Arkansas, and LSU).
That tips the balance forever in ESPN's direction.
Add West Virginia to the ACC and with the impending capitulation of Notre Dame, it gives you three of the top 4 out of the Big 12, but the best football, basketball and baseball content in the country.

That brings up some interesting compromises. Oklahoma and Iowa State to the B1G, West Virginia to the ACC.

One of us has to take West Virginia. The ACC (and ESPN) is in a position to make more money off of the Mountaineers than the SEC, so I guess we will get stuck with them.

(09-25-2016 10:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-25-2016 04:42 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-25-2016 12:52 AM)CyclonePower Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 06:08 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 02:13 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Let's say the ACC doesn't want or need anymore. Outside of UT, there's really no one that could help their current situation anyway. They need both content and new markets that are devoted to college sports. They aren't going to take a host of Midwestern schools and that's pretty much what you're signing up for if you start down the road with OU.

The B1G could land OU and KU, but I think OU would prefer to stick with OSU.

The PAC would probably take most of the products worth having, but most of those schools could have better offers. Otherwise, they can't take enough to really make it worth the while of all the powers. They need assistance from a league like the SEC to make it work.

So what about this?

SEC takes Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech

PAC takes Texas, TCU, Kansas State, and Iowa State

Baylor and West Virginia are left out.

Tide', given your conditions (ACC won't add any B12 schools), I think that Texas would be quite content to just rebuild the SWC as opposed to heading out and be an "equal" member with the PAC schools. As far as how I think this would go down, I see the SEC and B1G battling over OU's signature. I think the SEC does what the B1G won't do and brings OSU in with OU. Now, since your example has the SEC going to 18, finding the two most valuable schools will have to be figured out. Adding AAU, basketball blue blood Kansas is a no-brainer and renews the rivalry with Mizzou. A&M doesn't want UT added so I seriously doubt Tech would join and leave a UT based SWC 2.0. If I'm the SEC looking to add one last piece, I would inquire with VT, NC State, WVU and Iowa State as ESPN won't let Clemson or FSU leave the ACC and significantly hurt that football product.

So my best guess would be:
SEC: OU, OSU, KU, WVU
SWC 2.0: Texas, Tech, Baylor, K State, Iowa State, Houston, BYU, Boise State, SMU and some other G5's.

Sigh. I really don't want to be in a Texas conference. I honestly wish there were more Midwest schools that Iowa State would fit in better with.

I feel you CP. ISU nor KSU for that matter don't deserve the also ran status that has been conferred upon them.

Geography wise, market wise, and academically, if we could ignore cultural fit (and we won't) moving to 18 would be the best strategic move we could make. Let the SEC be the pioneer of Conference Semi finals and balance it's division with one wild card and three divisional champs.

Then forgetting little brothers and adding 4 could look like this: Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa State, and a second Texas school or West Virginia. That would add at least three new states, almost 11 million potential viewers, 2 AAU schools two solid brands, and could give us more games in a Texas a state where recruiting would be enhanced by such a move. One would have to wonder as well if an Iowa State in the SEC could draw more recruits out of Illinois, Iowa, and Ohio.

This is something I think is a real possibility. I say that because that is the whole goal of our new coaching staff. We started marketing ourselves as the Midwest option for the big 12. A lot of these kids up here in the corn belt and rust belt want to play southern players and have a chip on their shoulder to prove the north plays good football too.

Iowa state pulled in their best recruiting class last year and it looks like this year is going to be even better. We got a four star out of Ohio and another in Illinois. We also got some former big time recruits that had to go to JUCO for a year to come join our team too.

I think adding Iowa State to the SEC would open up those states to the SEC. Even some states that get under recruited too like Minnesota.

Now as I've said over the summer I would love to go big ten because Iowa state sits between Nebraska and Iowa plus we have similar cultures to them but my close second would be the SEC. If the SEC could grab KU and ISU you would have a pretty intense triangle of hate in the big 8 schools.

Also Iowa State has a huge fan base in Des Moines and most of our alumni live there so Iowa State is the #1 team there. It would quickly turn the city talking about SEC football and basketball year round.

I don't want to get my hopes up because here is always a chance we could get left out, I hope not for our basketball though.

Our future looks bright though, our OL had one career start at the beginning of the year and we hired the OL coach of the year to help us improve it. We didn't allow a single sack last game. Sophomore Georgia transfer Jacob Park is one of the best QBs I've seen at Iowa State for a while and maybe be starting sometime this season. He had a monster game vs SJSU. We are one of the youngest teams in the nation and our freshman are getting good reps and producing. I hope we can turn this around so in 4-5 years if the conference breaks up we are wining 7-9 games a year and are ready to compete in the SEC or B10.

I really like 16 as the endgame. The most plausible first move is OU to the SEC, since they would be able to bring OSU along. Kansas then punches their ticket to the B1G with ISU (an AAU school) as the 16th. The ACC finally capitulates and agrees to take WVU. The 16th will likely be Cincinnati unless ND joins (they won't). At that point, rebuilding the SWC isn't viable with only 5 Big12 schools remaining. Texas then takes 3 with them to the PAC - TTech, TCU, and KSU. Sorry, Baylor.

For Pete's sake, look at a map. If the SEC wants to recruit Ohio, it should invite Cincy (or somehow lure Ohio State away from the B1G). If the SEC wants to recruit Iowa, then it should invite ISU.

This could work

[attachment=8325]

(09-27-2016 09:02 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  This could work

OU and OSU is certainly the most plausible first move in the death of the Big12-2. The divisions shape up rather nicely.

(09-26-2016 07:37 PM)colohank Wrote:  For Pete's sake, look at a map. If the SEC wants to recruit Ohio, it should invite Cincy (or somehow lure Ohio State away from the B1G). If the SEC wants to recruit Iowa, then it should invite ISU.

It's not about recruiting IMO. It's about maximizing value for the properties that are still in play. Could the SEC make Cincy work? Sure, but ESPN isn't going to pay an acceptable multiplier for such an addition. Taking less than ideal schools from the B12 would help eliminate an obstacle to 4 conferences, which the ESPN would compensate the SEC handsomely for.

(09-27-2016 09:02 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  This could work

LSU would certainly be in favor of it. The MS schools would object.

(09-27-2016 05:40 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 07:37 PM)colohank Wrote:  For Pete's sake, look at a map. If the SEC wants to recruit Ohio, it should invite Cincy (or somehow lure Ohio State away from the B1G). If the SEC wants to recruit Iowa, then it should invite ISU.

It's not about recruiting IMO. It's about maximizing value for the properties that are still in play. Could the SEC make Cincy work? Sure, but ESPN isn't going to pay an acceptable multiplier for such an addition. Taking less than ideal schools from the B12 would help eliminate an obstacle to 4 conferences, which the ESPN would compensate the SEC handsomely for.

I wasn't suggesting UC to the SEC, though it's on the edge of the SEC footprint (90 miles or so from UK's campus in Lexington) and thus would make more sense geographically than a stretch of your conference into the far reaches of the corn belt or into wheat country. Rather, I was countering the silly notion that the addition of Iowa State to the SEC would somehow bolster SEC recruiting opportunities in Ohio.

Do you really think, in a quest to pare down to four so-called super conferences, that ESPN or any other media empire would compensate the SEC handsomely for adding perennial bottom feeders from a defunct Big XII? Knock yourselves out.

(09-28-2016 10:17 AM)colohank Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 05:40 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 07:37 PM)colohank Wrote:  For Pete's sake, look at a map. If the SEC wants to recruit Ohio, it should invite Cincy (or somehow lure Ohio State away from the B1G). If the SEC wants to recruit Iowa, then it should invite ISU.

It's not about recruiting IMO. It's about maximizing value for the properties that are still in play. Could the SEC make Cincy work? Sure, but ESPN isn't going to pay an acceptable multiplier for such an addition. Taking less than ideal schools from the B12 would help eliminate an obstacle to 4 conferences, which the ESPN would compensate the SEC handsomely for.

I wasn't suggesting UC to the SEC, though it's on the edge of the SEC footprint (90 miles or so from UK's campus in Lexington) and thus would make more sense geographically than a stretch of your conference into the far reaches of the corn belt or into wheat country. Rather, I was countering the silly notion that the addition of Iowa State to the SEC would somehow bolster SEC recruiting opportunities in Ohio.

Do you really think, in a quest to pare down to four so-called super conferences, that ESPN or any other media empire would compensate the SEC handsomely for adding perennial bottom feeders from a defunct Big XII? Knock yourselves out.

Well we aren't talking about plans that I find encouraging. But ESPN pays the bills and if they ask I'm sure it needs to be considered. ISU is an addition that would require getting UT and/or OU. Without either of those programs I would only want to add one school from the B12, specifically OKST.

(09-28-2016 10:17 AM)colohank Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 05:40 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 07:37 PM)colohank Wrote:  For Pete's sake, look at a map. If the SEC wants to recruit Ohio, it should invite Cincy (or somehow lure Ohio State away from the B1G). If the SEC wants to recruit Iowa, then it should invite ISU.

It's not about recruiting IMO. It's about maximizing value for the properties that are still in play. Could the SEC make Cincy work? Sure, but ESPN isn't going to pay an acceptable multiplier for such an addition. Taking less than ideal schools from the B12 would help eliminate an obstacle to 4 conferences, which the ESPN would compensate the SEC handsomely for.

I wasn't suggesting UC to the SEC, though it's on the edge of the SEC footprint (90 miles or so from UK's campus in Lexington) and thus would make more sense geographically than a stretch of your conference into the far reaches of the corn belt or into wheat country. Rather, I was countering the silly notion that the addition of Iowa State to the SEC would somehow bolster SEC recruiting opportunities in Ohio.

Do you really think, in a quest to pare down to four so-called super conferences, that ESPN or any other media empire would compensate the SEC handsomely for adding perennial bottom feeders from a defunct Big XII? Knock yourselves out.

Let's bring this issue to a swift and conclusive ending. I try to encourage as many posters as possible who come here to speculate. Most of the time I'm being either kind or facilitating that discussion. This site is a commercial enterprise so the more in discussion the better it is for the site.

That said in the pinned thread, "Realignment by the Numbers" I give my truest views on how this ends and I haven't changed an Iota's worth since it all got rolling. There are 4 schools that meet the SEC's metrics across the board: Attendance at or near SEC mean or higher, Academics at or near SEC mean or higher, Athletic Spending at or near the SEC mean or higher. Those schools are Texas, Oklahoma, Clemson, and Florida State all of which have brands that would multiply the content of the SEC significantly.

Two of those brands will not be headed this way because ESPN won't permit it. That leaves Texas and Oklahoma. Now let this sink in. All other brands fail in the categories listed and only a school from North Carolina or Virginia gives us market value enough to be considered for inclusion.

Now if you assume that the it isn't likely that any conference lands both Oklahoma and Texas then the SEC can logically hope to land one of them. The question then becomes who else do we take. It sure as crap isn't going to be West Virginia who tugs us down from all of our means including attendance. If the conference penchant for wanting academic upgrades is to be followed it will either be (all from the Big 12) and assuming that team #1 selected is either OU or UT, Kansas, Iowa State, or T.C.U./O.S.U. T.C.U. isn't needed if #1 is either OU or UT. O.S.U. may be required for OU but isn't wanted on its own. Between I.S.U. and Kansas we have Missouri's interest to consider and ESPN's emphasis in finishing realignment will likely be the restoration of split rivalries. That favors Kansas. Since OU will insist on OU and since Texas is grumbling about placement for minor sports, I'm leaning toward Texas and Kansas as a possible pairing for the SEC. OU's Boren will select the Big 10 & Nebraska if he can't get OSU in anywhere.

But whether I'm wrong or right about this the SEC will land either Texas or Oklahoma or we won't expand. If we land one then Kansas has a good shot.

Cincinnati is not AAU, is below the mean in attendance and athletic spending, and doesn't offer all the requisite sports. Neither did W.V.U. Iowa State would have to add baseball back. But they don't have a natural tie in with the SEC unless Kansas is here and since Kansas would be taking that slot, oh well. If the choice is OU you may as well bet OSU will be the tag-along. So if the SEC wants DFW and a new market Texas and Kansas has appeal.