Awful Announcing article on Scott...

One of the more interesting notes in this article is that Scott seems to be upset with ESPN and is willing to say so publicly. Is that emblematic of the relationship between the PAC and ESPN? Perhaps

(12-08-2016 05:35 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Awful Announcing article on Scott...

One of the more interesting notes in this article is that Scott seems to be upset with ESPN and is willing to say so publicly. Is that emblematic of the relationship between the PAC and ESPN? Perhaps

Well if the remarks express an accurate accounting of the relationship between the PAC and ESPN I wouldn't be looking for Texas or Kansas to head to the PAC. And, I don't see OU going without one or both of those.

(12-08-2016 05:35 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Awful Announcing article on Scott...

One of the more interesting notes in this article is that Scott seems to be upset with ESPN and is willing to say so publicly. Is that emblematic of the relationship between the PAC and ESPN? Perhaps

He is correct in that ESPN spun the playoff story to make people think that the last spot was a battle between Michigan and Washington. The team that should have been left out is Ohio State.
Look, you are either going to have a tournament or revert back to "media darlings". It's obvious that ESPN favors media darlings and Scott called them out for manipulating the outcome.

(12-08-2016 06:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 05:35 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Awful Announcing article on Scott...

One of the more interesting notes in this article is that Scott seems to be upset with ESPN and is willing to say so publicly. Is that emblematic of the relationship between the PAC and ESPN? Perhaps

Well if the remarks express an accurate accounting of the relationship between the PAC and ESPN I wouldn't be looking for Texas or Kansas to head to the PAC. And, I don't see OU going without one or both of those.

If Scott is accurate and your assessment is correct JR, then H1 may be correct, because only the real dogs with no place left to go would be interested in joining the PAC.

(12-08-2016 06:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 05:35 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Awful Announcing article on Scott...

One of the more interesting notes in this article is that Scott seems to be upset with ESPN and is willing to say so publicly. Is that emblematic of the relationship between the PAC and ESPN? Perhaps

Well if the remarks express an accurate accounting of the relationship between the PAC and ESPN I wouldn't be looking for Texas or Kansas to head to the PAC. And, I don't see OU going without one or both of those.

I don't see OU leaving OSU unless everything else is fruitless. If I'm the SEC and the PAC is making a grab like that, I would offer Texas, OU, OSU and Kansas

(12-08-2016 08:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 06:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 05:35 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Awful Announcing article on Scott...

One of the more interesting notes in this article is that Scott seems to be upset with ESPN and is willing to say so publicly. Is that emblematic of the relationship between the PAC and ESPN? Perhaps

Well if the remarks express an accurate accounting of the relationship between the PAC and ESPN I wouldn't be looking for Texas or Kansas to head to the PAC. And, I don't see OU going without one or both of those.

If Scott is accurate and your assessment is correct JR, then H1 may be correct, because only the real dogs with no place left to go would be interested in joining the PAC.

Yes, except...I just don't see the PAC expanding to expand, nor do I see ESPN paying them to do so. I could see the PAC deciding to go for T.C.U., Houston, and Texas Tech to essentially cover the state. Then if they added a Nevada school it would kind of fill out the map.

What I don't see is Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech headed to the PAC.

As to Murdcu's suggestion below I'd love to have that 4, but I do think Texas will use their umph to get another Texas school out. If the SEC considers an addition of 4 I could see us taking a Texahoma type deal. But who knows really. It might well be in everyone's interest to simply wait, including the PAC.

(12-08-2016 08:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 08:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 06:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 05:35 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Awful Announcing article on Scott...

One of the more interesting notes in this article is that Scott seems to be upset with ESPN and is willing to say so publicly. Is that emblematic of the relationship between the PAC and ESPN? Perhaps

Well if the remarks express an accurate accounting of the relationship between the PAC and ESPN I wouldn't be looking for Texas or Kansas to head to the PAC. And, I don't see OU going without one or both of those.

If Scott is accurate and your assessment is correct JR, then H1 may be correct, because only the real dogs with no place left to go would be interested in joining the PAC.

Yes, except...I just don't see the PAC expanding to expand, nor do I see ESPN paying them to do so. I could see the PAC deciding to go for T.C.U., Houston, and Texas Tech to essentially cover the state. Then if they added a Nevada school it would kind of fill out the map.

What I don't see is Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech headed to the PAC.

As to Murdcu's suggestion below I'd love to have that 4, but I do think Texas will use their umph to get another Texas school out. If the SEC considers an addition of 4 I could see us taking a Texahoma type deal. But who knows really. It might well be in everyone's interest to simply wait, including the PAC.

I don't see H1 as being correct.

(12-08-2016 10:01 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 08:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 08:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 06:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 05:35 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Awful Announcing article on Scott...

One of the more interesting notes in this article is that Scott seems to be upset with ESPN and is willing to say so publicly. Is that emblematic of the relationship between the PAC and ESPN? Perhaps

Well if the remarks express an accurate accounting of the relationship between the PAC and ESPN I wouldn't be looking for Texas or Kansas to head to the PAC. And, I don't see OU going without one or both of those.

If Scott is accurate and your assessment is correct JR, then H1 may be correct, because only the real dogs with no place left to go would be interested in joining the PAC.

Yes, except...I just don't see the PAC expanding to expand, nor do I see ESPN paying them to do so. I could see the PAC deciding to go for T.C.U., Houston, and Texas Tech to essentially cover the state. Then if they added a Nevada school it would kind of fill out the map.

What I don't see is Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech headed to the PAC.

As to Murdcu's suggestion below I'd love to have that 4, but I do think Texas will use their umph to get another Texas school out. If the SEC considers an addition of 4 I could see us taking a Texahoma type deal. But who knows really. It might well be in everyone's interest to simply wait, including the PAC.

I don't see H1 as being correct.

Me either. But I could see the PAC blowing everything wide open again. Sea Blue posted a piece at LT talking about the poor performance of the PACN. What if they decided to merge with the Big 10? Or, offer wholesale membership to the Big 12? Or, what if they do eventually get raided? An unstable PAC has the ability to destabilize everything heretofore. It bears watching.

I get that no one wants to think like this. But expansion is probably done. What's more likely to happen is contraction. Especially if the playoff is pushed to 8 teams. Money is really almost a none issue. The Big 12 makes almost as much as the everyone else. It's biggest problems our the programs not in the states of Oklahoma and Texas.

(12-08-2016 06:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 05:35 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Awful Announcing article on Scott...

One of the more interesting notes in this article is that Scott seems to be upset with ESPN and is willing to say so publicly. Is that emblematic of the relationship between the PAC and ESPN? Perhaps

Well if the remarks express an accurate accounting of the relationship between the PAC and ESPN I wouldn't be looking for Texas or Kansas to head to the PAC. And, I don't see OU going without one or both of those.

(12-08-2016 10:01 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 08:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 08:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 06:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 05:35 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Awful Announcing article on Scott...

One of the more interesting notes in this article is that Scott seems to be upset with ESPN and is willing to say so publicly. Is that emblematic of the relationship between the PAC and ESPN? Perhaps

Well if the remarks express an accurate accounting of the relationship between the PAC and ESPN I wouldn't be looking for Texas or Kansas to head to the PAC. And, I don't see OU going without one or both of those.

If Scott is accurate and your assessment is correct JR, then H1 may be correct, because only the real dogs with no place left to go would be interested in joining the PAC.

Yes, except...I just don't see the PAC expanding to expand, nor do I see ESPN paying them to do so. I could see the PAC deciding to go for T.C.U., Houston, and Texas Tech to essentially cover the state. Then if they added a Nevada school it would kind of fill out the map.

What I don't see is Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech headed to the PAC.

As to Murdcu's suggestion below I'd love to have that 4, but I do think Texas will use their umph to get another Texas school out. If the SEC considers an addition of 4 I could see us taking a Texahoma type deal. But who knows really. It might well be in everyone's interest to simply wait, including the PAC.

I don't see H1 as being correct.

What is H1's prediction? Don't think he's ever said it, just bitched about others.

(12-09-2016 12:19 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 06:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 05:35 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Awful Announcing article on Scott...

One of the more interesting notes in this article is that Scott seems to be upset with ESPN and is willing to say so publicly. Is that emblematic of the relationship between the PAC and ESPN? Perhaps

Well if the remarks express an accurate accounting of the relationship between the PAC and ESPN I wouldn't be looking for Texas or Kansas to head to the PAC. And, I don't see OU going without one or both of those.

(12-08-2016 10:01 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 08:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 08:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 06:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well if the remarks express an accurate accounting of the relationship between the PAC and ESPN I wouldn't be looking for Texas or Kansas to head to the PAC. And, I don't see OU going without one or both of those.

If Scott is accurate and your assessment is correct JR, then H1 may be correct, because only the real dogs with no place left to go would be interested in joining the PAC.

Yes, except...I just don't see the PAC expanding to expand, nor do I see ESPN paying them to do so. I could see the PAC deciding to go for T.C.U., Houston, and Texas Tech to essentially cover the state. Then if they added a Nevada school it would kind of fill out the map.

What I don't see is Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech headed to the PAC.

As to Murdcu's suggestion below I'd love to have that 4, but I do think Texas will use their umph to get another Texas school out. If the SEC considers an addition of 4 I could see us taking a Texahoma type deal. But who knows really. It might well be in everyone's interest to simply wait, including the PAC.

I don't see H1 as being correct.

What is H1's prediction? Don't think he's ever said it, just bitched about others.

He says Kansas and Oklahoma will go to the Big 10.
Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech, and T.C.U. will go to the PAC.
Oklahoma State and West Virginia to the SEC.
Texas as a partial to the ACC.

(12-09-2016 12:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 12:19 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  What is H1's prediction? Don't think he's ever said it, just bitched about others.

He says Kansas and Oklahoma will go to the Big 10.
Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech, and T.C.U. will go to the PAC.
Oklahoma State and West Virginia to the SEC.
Texas as a partial to the ACC.

One of my biggest contentions with this plan was always this...why in the world would the SEC go along with a plan to allow the B1G to land their ideal selections? The SEC is not going to do something just so something gets done.

I think what's most interesting about Scott's statements is that he said he believed there will be further consolidation and that 16 team leagues will emerge.

So that's basically what's been talked about here...no more Big 12 and no promotions for G5 schools.

Is it really that simple though? None of the major leagues would be able to come down with the lion's share of the value. The moves would have to make sense geographically.

That brings me back to what we talked about a while back although this version is slightly different...

SEC gets KU and WVU
B1G gets OU and ISU
PAC gets TCU, TT, OSU, KSU
ACC gets UT and full membership from Notre Dame

(12-09-2016 12:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 12:19 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 06:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 05:35 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Awful Announcing article on Scott...

One of the more interesting notes in this article is that Scott seems to be upset with ESPN and is willing to say so publicly. Is that emblematic of the relationship between the PAC and ESPN? Perhaps

Well if the remarks express an accurate accounting of the relationship between the PAC and ESPN I wouldn't be looking for Texas or Kansas to head to the PAC. And, I don't see OU going without one or both of those.

(12-08-2016 10:01 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 08:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 08:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  If Scott is accurate and your assessment is correct JR, then H1 may be correct, because only the real dogs with no place left to go would be interested in joining the PAC.

Yes, except...I just don't see the PAC expanding to expand, nor do I see ESPN paying them to do so. I could see the PAC deciding to go for T.C.U., Houston, and Texas Tech to essentially cover the state. Then if they added a Nevada school it would kind of fill out the map.

What I don't see is Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech headed to the PAC.

As to Murdcu's suggestion below I'd love to have that 4, but I do think Texas will use their umph to get another Texas school out. If the SEC considers an addition of 4 I could see us taking a Texahoma type deal. But who knows really. It might well be in everyone's interest to simply wait, including the PAC.

I don't see H1 as being correct.

What is H1's prediction? Don't think he's ever said it, just bitched about others.

He says Kansas and Oklahoma will go to the Big 10.
Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech, and T.C.U. will go to the PAC.
Oklahoma State and West Virginia to the SEC.
Texas as a partial to the ACC.

Don't forget JR that H1 believes that ESPN will place UConn in the ACC as a payoff to the State Connecticut in exchange for tax incentives.

(12-09-2016 04:38 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think what's most interesting about Scott's statements is that he said he believed there will be further consolidation and that 16 team leagues will emerge.

So that's basically what's been talked about here...no more Big 12 and no promotions for G5 schools.

Is it really that simple though? None of the major leagues would be able to come down with the lion's share of the value. The moves would have to make sense geographically.

That brings me back to what we talked about a while back although this version is slightly different...

SEC gets KU and WVU
B1G gets OU and ISU
PAC gets TCU, TT, OSU, KSU
ACC gets UT and full membership from Notre Dame

The ACC would be a big winner there, I'll take it!