Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Would the SEC really agree to take Oklahoma State?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,911
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #21
RE: Would the SEC really agree to take Oklahoma State?
(01-27-2017 10:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-27-2017 08:23 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-27-2017 04:47 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-27-2017 03:53 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  Yes, the..."Missouri Compromise "...required certain rivalries be maintained before further expansion was allowed. If the SEC expands again it will face the same issues plus fight organizational issues in football. This is why I think either a pod model or yearly rivalries model with rotating conference members would be the only way to get approval for further expansion given current NCAA structural rules.

On a side note, if the B12 lost both OU and OSU to the SEC, I don't believe ESPN and Fox could afford to overpay the remaining eight B12 members at their projected current B12 payouts nor with any of last summer's exploded summer candidates.

I think the scrambling teams would look to join other conferences individually or as a group. Texas holds all the cards. They could go independent which would be great for football but terrible elsewhere athletically from a scheduling standpoint . They could add schools from the west like maybe from the low paying PAC. I think Kansas looks at both the B1G and SEC. WVU calls the SEC and ACC. The others are screwed or tied to Texas.

My guess to how the B12 could brake up would be:
1. OU and OSU join SEC at end of current TV contracts to avoid lawsuits for damages to the conference in case it collapses.

2a. Kansas and WVU join SEC after seeing pay cuts from new TV deal scenarios
2b. Texas joins PAC with Tech, Baylor, TCU

~~or~~


2a. B12 backfills with 2 schools to get back to ten members and accepts fair market value TV contract


Kansas could go B1G with all those academics and cornhuskers, but more of their rivals would be in the SEC.

I like the pod model at 16 and the rivalry issue is one of the reasons I don't really like 18 although I suppose I could live with it.

I think there's a remote possibility that Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia are the ones we end up with although that's just me spitballing. My main reasoning is I think that's who ESPN wants to protect because of their large or at least regionally relevant fan bases.

Texas may end up being boxed in and make a move they might not otherwise prefer due to their rivals being in the SEC.

West: Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri

Central: LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky, West Virginia

Play 5 division mates...1 permanent rival from each...1 rotating match-up from each. That's 9 games.

New AAC forms...

Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Houston Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State, Memphis, Tulane, Cincinnati, UCF, USF, East Carolina, Temple, UConn, Navy

This is why Florida and South Carolina wanted their in state rivals in the SEC. It's also why the blackball group was fiction. Everyone knew in 1992 that 18 member or even 20 member conferences were not out of the question moving forward. I refer everyone to Jackie Sherrill's take on a 20 member conference, which you can still find through Google.

At 18 you are almost forced to play 10 conference games (networks like this). You play 5 from your division, rotate two from each of the other two divisions so that you play everyone every three years, and play 1 permanent rival. That leaves a slot for a rent-a-kill homecoming game and one slot for another P5 OOC.

Florida and South Carolina have both built athletic contributions into the acquisition of away games with their in state rivals. They wanted FSU & Clemson in if we expanded further. Florida sponsored FSU in '92 and offered to again in 2010. Spurrier and the AD at South Carolina were not opposed to Clemson. The reasons were simple. House members in both states wanted the other state school making SEC revenue, and both feared the ever increasing difficulty in scheduling their rivals if expansion continued. This is why Slive asked for the "gentlemen's agreement" not to push for membership of in state rivals until the renegotiation clause was activated by adding members from two new markets which is what had to be done before the SEC could activate their contract clause and get more money for the expansion in 2012.

We are no longer under those restrictions, but FSU and Clemson are now under a GOR until forever, and ESPN refuses to pay for their move.

So if we expand West and add 4 look for us to move to 10 conference games (5 division, 4 annual rotation, and 1 permanent rival). Other than that Medic's divisions work well. Tennessee could keep Kentucky as a permanent, Alabama could keep Auburn, and Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina could keep their OOC in state rivals on the schedule as the P5 OOC opponent. But, it's not perfect. Kentucky would have a hard time keeping Tennessee as a permanent rival and playing Louisville every year.

I do remember Jackie Sherrill's statement. You think there is a possibility of 6 out there right now that the SEC would take? A 6 that wouldn't involve ACC schools that is?

I'm not sure, but this would work for me...

West: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas

Central: Texas A&M, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Ole Miss

South: Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky

East: Mississippi State, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, West Virginia

A little weird geographically, but I think it works better for preserving rivalries.

Play 4 division mates, 1 permanent rival from each other division, 1 rotating match-up from each other division. That's 10 games and you play everyone in the league at least once every 4 years. You've got 4 division winners for the conference semi-finals and you don't have to worry about tiebreakers to decide the 4th participant.

I think these divisions are pretty balanced regionally and competitively.

As for involving the ACC, probably not. Are there six we could take to move to 20? It's within the realm of possibility, but not likely. Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, Kansas, and West Virginia would be ideal for maximizing the markets left on the board. But if we ever went there then I think Texas would insist on another Texas school so WVU or ISU would be out.

I still think some version of Texa-homa would be the most likely.
01-27-2017 10:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lenvillecards Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,458
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 376
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #22
Would the SEC really agree to take Oklahoma State?
Would the puzzle work out this way?

SEC gets Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, WV & Miami

B1G gets Texas, Kansas & Missouri

ACC gets ND as full, South Carolina & Maryland.

SEC
Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Kentucky

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, Miss State

A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Vanderbilt

Florida, Georgia, Miami, WV

B1G
Texas, Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas

Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa

Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Northwestern

Ohio State, Penn State, Indiana, Rutgers

ACC
ND, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Maryland

NC, Duke, Virginia, WF

Louisville, VT, BC, NC State

FSU, Clemson, SC, GT
01-28-2017 01:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,911
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Would the SEC really agree to take Oklahoma State?
(01-28-2017 01:29 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Would the puzzle work out this way?

SEC gets Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, WV & Miami

B1G gets Texas, Kansas & Missouri

ACC gets ND as full, South Carolina & Maryland.

SEC
Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Kentucky

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, Miss State

A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Vanderbilt

Florida, Georgia, Miami, WV

B1G
Texas, Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas

Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa

Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Northwestern

Ohio State, Penn State, Indiana, Rutgers

ACC
ND, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Maryland

NC, Duke, Virginia, WF

Louisville, VT, BC, NC State

FSU, Clemson, SC, GT


The South Carolina for Miami swap is interesting but the SEC would be giving up a market in exchange for a larger grip on Florida. South Carolina travels with more fans, packs a larger venue, and has more in common with the SEC culture than folks from Miami.

Missouri for Oklahoma State is a non-starter, particularly if it permits Texas and Kansas to head to the Big 10 unencumbered.

But, it is an interesting new take on a swap.

I truly believe that in the end geography will trump most other considerations in realignment. Therefore I think what we might see is something more along these lines:

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC. After all, Texas vs Kansas and Texas vs Iowa State aren't long standing rivalries. Texas vs Arkansas, Texas vs A&M, Texas vs Oklahoma are their rivalries. They keep Tech for another in Texas game and Tech vs OSU could be a second annual Dallas game. Then in a scheduling alliance with the ACC Texas could have an annual with N.D. as well.

The ACC could pick up N.D. all in and W.V.U..

If the PAC wanted to polish this off they could take I.S.U., Kansas, T.C.U. and Rice.

That's 8 of the 10. It ends the Big 12 and forces the Big 10 to negotiate a scheduling alliance with a PAC that has more markets and more umph in the negotiations.

Then realignment could stop. If the ACC wanted to it could add Cincinnati and Connecticut to get to 18 as well. The Big 10 is too watered down in football to add ISU and KU. The Big 10 is too remote and culturally different to hope to land Texas. And, I don't think OU goes Big 10 without Texas or OSU.
01-28-2017 02:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TerpsNPhoenix Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,262
Joined: Nov 2014
Reputation: 78
I Root For: Maryland & Elon
Location: North Cackalacky
Post: #24
RE: Would the SEC really agree to take Oklahoma State?
(01-28-2017 01:29 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  ACC gets ND as full, South Carolina & Maryland.

If you're bringing back Maryland to the ACC, can we please bring PSU with us? Trade BC for PSU...that's fair right?! I think most of the ACC would be ok with that. The Big Ten would have another hockey school.
01-28-2017 09:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,911
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Would the SEC really agree to take Oklahoma State?
(01-28-2017 09:09 PM)TerpsNPhoenix Wrote:  
(01-28-2017 01:29 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  ACC gets ND as full, South Carolina & Maryland.

If you're bringing back Maryland to the ACC, can we please bring PSU with us? Trade BC for PSU...that's fair right?! I think most of the ACC would be ok with that. The Big Ten would have another hockey school.

I think that would be the OP's fantasy for sure. But for tighter regions you might look at something like this:

Big 10 East: Boston College, Connecticut, Indiana, Ohio State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Rutgers, Syracuse

Big 10 West: Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

ACC North: Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, N.C. State, Notre Dame, Penn State, Virginia, Virginia Tech

ACC South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, Louisville, Miami, South Carolina, Wake Forest

SEC East: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

SEC West: Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

PAC East: Arizona, Arizona State, B.Y.U. (football only), Colorado, Rice, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Utah

PAC West: California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Oregon State, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington, Washington State


Pure fantasy of course! But it would make for a reasonable alignment and tighter geography. It would also appeal to those who wished their conferences had never expanded. A lot of the old traditional schedules would be restored in the form of divisional play.

Left out: Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, West Virginia
01-28-2017 10:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lenvillecards Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,458
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 376
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #26
Would the SEC really agree to take Oklahoma State?
(01-28-2017 09:09 PM)TerpsNPhoenix Wrote:  
(01-28-2017 01:29 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  ACC gets ND as full, South Carolina & Maryland.

If you're bringing back Maryland to the ACC, can we please bring PSU with us? Trade BC for PSU...that's fair right?! I think most of the ACC would be ok with that. The Big Ten would have another hockey school.

I like that trade so yes, BC for Penn State. That would enhance ACC football.
01-29-2017 12:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #27
RE: Would the SEC really agree to take Oklahoma State?
(01-28-2017 10:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-28-2017 09:09 PM)TerpsNPhoenix Wrote:  
(01-28-2017 01:29 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  ACC gets ND as full, South Carolina & Maryland.

If you're bringing back Maryland to the ACC, can we please bring PSU with us? Trade BC for PSU...that's fair right?! I think most of the ACC would be ok with that. The Big Ten would have another hockey school.

I think that would be the OP's fantasy for sure. But for tighter regions you might look at something like this:

Big 10 East: Boston College, Connecticut, Indiana, Ohio State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Rutgers, Syracuse

Big 10 West: Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

ACC North: Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, N.C. State, Notre Dame, Penn State, Virginia, Virginia Tech

ACC South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, Louisville, Miami, South Carolina, Wake Forest

SEC East: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

SEC West: Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

PAC East: Arizona, Arizona State, B.Y.U. (football only), Colorado, Rice, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Utah

PAC West: California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Oregon State, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington, Washington State


Pure fantasy of course! But it would make for a reasonable alignment and tighter geography. It would also appeal to those who wished their conferences had never expanded. A lot of the old traditional schedules would be restored in the form of divisional play.

Left out: Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, West Virginia

ESPN and the SEC have maneuvered Texas into corner.
Go left or northeast and die a slow death, just like they are doing now. Go to the ACC and become an academic afterthought with no clout, or swallow pride and move to the SEC and rejoin A&M and Arkansas.
The trick of course is how to take Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech with them.
This is why Missouri will end up moving to the B1G with Kansas and South Carolina will end up moving to the ACC with West Virginia (and Notre Dame keeps their current status).
Out are TCU, Baylor, Kansas State, and Iowa State, and the PAC will stay at 12.
It's not personal, it's just business.
01-29-2017 08:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,911
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Would the SEC really agree to take Oklahoma State?
(01-29-2017 08:35 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-28-2017 10:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-28-2017 09:09 PM)TerpsNPhoenix Wrote:  
(01-28-2017 01:29 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  ACC gets ND as full, South Carolina & Maryland.

If you're bringing back Maryland to the ACC, can we please bring PSU with us? Trade BC for PSU...that's fair right?! I think most of the ACC would be ok with that. The Big Ten would have another hockey school.

I think that would be the OP's fantasy for sure. But for tighter regions you might look at something like this:

Big 10 East: Boston College, Connecticut, Indiana, Ohio State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Rutgers, Syracuse

Big 10 West: Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

ACC North: Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, N.C. State, Notre Dame, Penn State, Virginia, Virginia Tech

ACC South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, Louisville, Miami, South Carolina, Wake Forest

SEC East: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

SEC West: Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

PAC East: Arizona, Arizona State, B.Y.U. (football only), Colorado, Rice, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Utah

PAC West: California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Oregon State, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington, Washington State


Pure fantasy of course! But it would make for a reasonable alignment and tighter geography. It would also appeal to those who wished their conferences had never expanded. A lot of the old traditional schedules would be restored in the form of divisional play.

Left out: Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, West Virginia

ESPN and the SEC have maneuvered Texas into corner.
Go left or northeast and die a slow death, just like they are doing now. Go to the ACC and become an academic afterthought with no clout, or swallow pride and move to the SEC and rejoin A&M and Arkansas.
The trick of course is how to take Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech with them.
This is why Missouri will end up moving to the B1G with Kansas and South Carolina will end up moving to the ACC with West Virginia (and Notre Dame keeps their current status).
Out are TCU, Baylor, Kansas State, and Iowa State, and the PAC will stay at 12.
It's not personal, it's just business.

Or, asymmetry reigns. West Virginia moves to the ACC and you stop at 15 plus N.D. as a partial. The Texa-homa group moves to the SEC and we stop at 18. The PAC sticks at 12 and the Big 10 is forced to take Kansas and Iowa State to re-balance their divisions. Occam's razor says that this is just the business that transpires.
01-29-2017 10:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #29
RE: Would the SEC really agree to take Oklahoma State?
(01-29-2017 10:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-29-2017 08:35 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-28-2017 10:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-28-2017 09:09 PM)TerpsNPhoenix Wrote:  
(01-28-2017 01:29 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  ACC gets ND as full, South Carolina & Maryland.

If you're bringing back Maryland to the ACC, can we please bring PSU with us? Trade BC for PSU...that's fair right?! I think most of the ACC would be ok with that. The Big Ten would have another hockey school.

I think that would be the OP's fantasy for sure. But for tighter regions you might look at something like this:

Big 10 East: Boston College, Connecticut, Indiana, Ohio State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Rutgers, Syracuse

Big 10 West: Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

ACC North: Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, N.C. State, Notre Dame, Penn State, Virginia, Virginia Tech

ACC South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, Louisville, Miami, South Carolina, Wake Forest

SEC East: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

SEC West: Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

PAC East: Arizona, Arizona State, B.Y.U. (football only), Colorado, Rice, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Utah

PAC West: California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Oregon State, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington, Washington State


Pure fantasy of course! But it would make for a reasonable alignment and tighter geography. It would also appeal to those who wished their conferences had never expanded. A lot of the old traditional schedules would be restored in the form of divisional play.

Left out: Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, West Virginia

ESPN and the SEC have maneuvered Texas into corner.
Go left or northeast and die a slow death, just like they are doing now. Go to the ACC and become an academic afterthought with no clout, or swallow pride and move to the SEC and rejoin A&M and Arkansas.
The trick of course is how to take Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech with them.
This is why Missouri will end up moving to the B1G with Kansas and South Carolina will end up moving to the ACC with West Virginia (and Notre Dame keeps their current status).
Out are TCU, Baylor, Kansas State, and Iowa State, and the PAC will stay at 12.
It's not personal, it's just business.

Or, asymmetry reigns. West Virginia moves to the ACC and you stop at 15 plus N.D. as a partial. The Texa-homa group moves to the SEC and we stop at 18. The PAC sticks at 12 and the Big 10 is forced to take Kansas and Iowa State to re-balance their divisions. Occam's razor says that this is just the business that transpires.

While the possibility of an 18 team conference exists. Everyone realizes that it is just the first step in its eventual break up. An 18 team conference just will not be able to sustain itself because it's just too big.
The real kicker is the idea that the B1G would take Iowa State AND Kansas. It would be hard enough to think that the B1G would reverse every expansion tendency since they were a 10 team conference and take Kansas but to throw Iowa State in the mix and present them as a pair.........well you know what that gets you....yep 04-bs. Just ain't gonna happen.
01-29-2017 01:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #30
RE: Would the SEC really agree to take Oklahoma State?
(01-29-2017 01:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-29-2017 10:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-29-2017 08:35 AM)XLance Wrote:  ESPN and the SEC have maneuvered Texas into corner.
Go left or northeast and die a slow death, just like they are doing now. Go to the ACC and become an academic afterthought with no clout, or swallow pride and move to the SEC and rejoin A&M and Arkansas.
The trick of course is how to take Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech with them.
This is why Missouri will end up moving to the B1G with Kansas and South Carolina will end up moving to the ACC with West Virginia (and Notre Dame keeps their current status).
Out are TCU, Baylor, Kansas State, and Iowa State, and the PAC will stay at 12.
It's not personal, it's just business.

Or, asymmetry reigns. West Virginia moves to the ACC and you stop at 15 plus N.D. as a partial. The Texa-homa group moves to the SEC and we stop at 18. The PAC sticks at 12 and the Big 10 is forced to take Kansas and Iowa State to re-balance their divisions. Occam's razor says that this is just the business that transpires.

While the possibility of an 18 team conference exists. Everyone realizes that it is just the first step in its eventual break up. An 18 team conference just will not be able to sustain itself because it's just too big.
The real kicker is the idea that the B1G would take Iowa State AND Kansas. It would be hard enough to think that the B1G would reverse every expansion tendency since they were a 10 team conference and take Kansas but to throw Iowa State in the mix and present them as a pair.........well you know what that gets you....yep 04-bs. Just ain't gonna happen.

No reason the SEC can't just take UT, TT, OU, and OSU. There's nothing inherently unstable about the number 18. No reason for any of these leagues to break up if the money is there.

I do agree that the B1G is not likely taking ISU. I think there would have to be a big fish on the line while at the same time having a situation where Iowa has the power to essentially veto the expansion. They could use the leverage to get ISU in, but that's only if the state politicos really put pressure on them. That scenario is not very likely in my opinion.

Actually, I think Kansas will be there if the SEC wants them so I'm an advocate for 20. I think KU would be way more valuable to us than to the B1G anyway.
01-29-2017 04:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #31
RE: Would the SEC really agree to take Oklahoma State?
If you put the shoe on the other foot and: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State go to the PAC to make a 16, the B1G is successful in luring Missouri and takes Kansas too, then what does the SEC do?
The ACC is off of the table for at least another 20 years, so what you have to choose from is very limited (West Virginia, Cincinnati, Baylor, TCU, Houston, Iowa State, Tulane) and you need three to get to 16. TCU to get back to 14 (and a share of the Dallas market)?
Just WVU to have somebody for Tennessee to beat up on?
01-29-2017 06:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,911
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Would the SEC really agree to take Oklahoma State?
(01-29-2017 06:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  If you put the shoe on the other foot and: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State go to the PAC to make a 16, the B1G is successful in luring Missouri and takes Kansas too, then what does the SEC do?
The ACC is off of the table for at least another 20 years, so what you have to choose from is very limited (West Virginia, Cincinnati, Baylor, TCU, Houston, Iowa State, Tulane) and you need three to get to 16. TCU to get back to 14 (and a share of the Dallas market)?
Just WVU to have somebody for Tennessee to beat up on?

I don't have to think about it. It's not happening. Besides X, the big dog at the table isn't the Big 10. It's the SEC, at least in ESPN's house. We won't be put in that situation because ESPN will want to hang onto Texas's brand. The worst we do is either Texas or Oklahoma and 1 tag-along.
(This post was last modified: 01-29-2017 07:08 PM by JRsec.)
01-29-2017 07:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,911
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #33
RE: Would the SEC really agree to take Oklahoma State?
Hey guys, I'm going to say something that most would not say at this point. The SEC, more than any other P conference except the Big 12, needs solid additions, and needs them to the West.

Right now we do not have, and haven't had, balance between the East and West. Rivalries are straining the competitiveness of the two divisions with regard to record, and the distances to complete an annual slate of games is growing.

Now I don't care if it's Texas and Oklahoma or just one of them and a second fiddle, but the SEC needs at least 1 national brand addition in the West and for Alabama and Auburn to move East. If we had an Oklahoma in the West A&M and L.S.U. would shine more in the national spotlight, their fans would have easier travel, and nobody would have to have a permanent crossover game.

We are fine on money. We are fine as we are. But we are unbalanced as we are and it's hurting the public perception of us. We need to make this move while we are on top and command top dollar for the additions. In that regard we need this next expansion more than any other conference except the Big 12.
01-29-2017 08:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TerpsNPhoenix Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,262
Joined: Nov 2014
Reputation: 78
I Root For: Maryland & Elon
Location: North Cackalacky
Post: #34
RE: Would the SEC really agree to take Oklahoma State?
(01-29-2017 08:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Hey guys, I'm going to say something that most would not say at this point. The SEC, more than any other P conference except the Big 12, needs solid additions, and needs them to the West.

Right now we do not have, and haven't had, balance between the East and West. Rivalries are straining the competitiveness of the two divisions with regard to record, and the distances to complete an annual slate of games is growing.

Now I don't care if it's Texas and Oklahoma or just one of them and a second fiddle, but the SEC needs at least 1 national brand addition in the West and for Alabama and Auburn to move East. If we had an Oklahoma in the West A&M and L.S.U. would shine more in the national spotlight, their fans would have easier travel, and nobody would have to have a permanent crossover game.

We are fine on money. We are fine as we are. But we are unbalanced as we are and it's hurting the public perception of us. We need to make this move while we are on top and command top dollar for the additions. In that regard we need this next expansion more than any other conference except the Big 12.

Hey JR, why is expansion preferable to going divisionless? Yes, adding two in the west would help rebalance the power but seems like a big step instead of NCAA legislation to go divisionless. What's the thought process here? To be honest, I wish the Big Ten would but its not going to happen any time soon.
01-30-2017 06:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,911
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #35
RE: Would the SEC really agree to take Oklahoma State?
(01-30-2017 06:23 AM)TerpsNPhoenix Wrote:  
(01-29-2017 08:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Hey guys, I'm going to say something that most would not say at this point. The SEC, more than any other P conference except the Big 12, needs solid additions, and needs them to the West.

Right now we do not have, and haven't had, balance between the East and West. Rivalries are straining the competitiveness of the two divisions with regard to record, and the distances to complete an annual slate of games is growing.

Now I don't care if it's Texas and Oklahoma or just one of them and a second fiddle, but the SEC needs at least 1 national brand addition in the West and for Alabama and Auburn to move East. If we had an Oklahoma in the West A&M and L.S.U. would shine more in the national spotlight, their fans would have easier travel, and nobody would have to have a permanent crossover game.

We are fine on money. We are fine as we are. But we are unbalanced as we are and it's hurting the public perception of us. We need to make this move while we are on top and command top dollar for the additions. In that regard we need this next expansion more than any other conference except the Big 12.

Hey JR, why is expansion preferable to going divisionless? Yes, adding two in the west would help rebalance the power but seems like a big step instead of NCAA legislation to go divisionless. What's the thought process here? To be honest, I wish the Big Ten would but its not going to happen any time soon.

Going divisionless could work. But being assured of a core of 7 games that remain annuals, are within a reasonable commuting distance, and which would engender a sense of both regional rivalry and frequent enough play to become annual events a family might look forward to, would not only restore much of what has already been lost to realignment, but would also foster the return of the feel of the smaller conferences in that divisions would become a kind of smaller conference.

Let's take the Big 10 for instance. What is the one thing old time Big 10 guys frequently say about realignment? "I wish we were the original 10 and still playing our neighboring schools." With regards to the Eastern half you have indicated Maryland and Penn State's return to playing schools along the Eastern Seaboard. By keeping divisions both sentiments can be satisfied.

Xlance stated that he could see a Big 10 / ACC merger. I can in part, but not in full. But I could see one to the degree that many more fans could be satisfied and regionalism returned. For instance if the major schools of the old Big East and some Tobacco Road schools moved to the Big 10 and the truly Southern Southeastern schools came to the SEC we could have much better division of our two conferences. Let's say we go to 20 each. Here's what it could look like:

Big 10 West:
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue, Wisconsin

Big 10 East:
Boston College, Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse, Virginia

Your emphasis in research is maintained as are traditional rivalries.

SEC East:
Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, Louisville, Miami, North Carolina State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech

SEC West:
Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, Florida State, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Texas A&M


PAC East:
Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

PAC West:
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Oregon State, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington, Washington State


Now we have 60 schools in three conferences in divisions which are much more regional (even for the spread out PAC East) and which would engender a much greater sense of regional play.

Wake Forest, West Virginia, Baylor, T.C.U., and Utah would be out. Or, you could add 7 more to them and make each division in the 3 conferences 12 teams strong by adding Cincinnati, Connecticut, San Diego State, one of the Nevada's, East Carolina, South Florida or Central Florida, or Rice or Tulane to the mix. But in this case I think 10 team divisions playing a round robin with 1 permanent cross over rival within the conference would be best.
(This post was last modified: 01-30-2017 01:10 PM by JRsec.)
01-30-2017 07:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #36
RE: Would the SEC really agree to take Oklahoma State?
(01-30-2017 07:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-30-2017 06:23 AM)TerpsNPhoenix Wrote:  
(01-29-2017 08:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Hey guys, I'm going to say something that most would not say at this point. The SEC, more than any other P conference except the Big 12, needs solid additions, and needs them to the West.

Right now we do not have, and haven't had, balance between the East and West. Rivalries are straining the competitiveness of the two divisions with regard to record, and the distances to complete an annual slate of games is growing.

Now I don't care if it's Texas and Oklahoma or just one of them and a second fiddle, but the SEC needs at least 1 national brand addition in the West and for Alabama and Auburn to move East. If we had an Oklahoma in the West A&M and L.S.U. would shine more in the national spotlight, their fans would have easier travel, and nobody would have to have a permanent crossover game.

We are fine on money. We are fine as we are. But we are unbalanced as we are and it's hurting the public perception of us. We need to make this move while we are on top and command top dollar for the additions. In that regard we need this next expansion more than any other conference except the Big 12.

Hey JR, why is expansion preferable to going divisionless? Yes, adding two in the west would help rebalance the power but seems like a big step instead of NCAA legislation to go divisionless. What's the thought process here? To be honest, I wish the Big Ten would but its not going to happen any time soon.

Going divisionless could work. But being assured of a core of 7 games that remain annuals, are within a reasonable commuting distance, and which would engender a sense of both regional rivalry and frequent enough play to become annual events a family might look forward to, would not only restore much of what has already been lost to realignment, but would also foster the return of the feel of the smaller conferences in that divisions would become a kind of smaller conference.

Let's take the Big 10 for instance. What is the one thing old time Big 10 guys frequently say about realignment? "I wish we were the original 10 and still playing our neighboring schools." With regards to the Eastern half you have indicated Maryland and Penn State's return to playing schools along the Eastern Seaboard. By keeping divisions both sentiments can be satisfied.

Xlance stated that he could see a Big 10 / ACC merger. I can in part, but not in full. But I could see one to the degree that many more fans could be satisfied and regionalism returned. For instance if the major schools of the old Big East and some Tobacco Road schools moved to the Big 10 and the truly Southern Southeastern schools came to the SEC we could have much better division of our two conferences. Let's say we go to 20 each. Here's what it could look like:

Big 10 West:
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue, Wisconsin

Big 10 East:
Boston College, Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse, Virginia

Your emphasis in research is maintained as are traditional rivalries.

SEC East:
Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, Louisville, Miami, North Carolina State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech

SEC West:
Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, Florida State, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Texas A&M


PAC East:
Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

PAC West:
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Oregon State, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington, Washington State


Now we have 60 schools in three conferences in divisions which are much more regional (even for the spread out PAC East) and which would engender a much greater sense of regional play.

Wake Forest, West Virginia, Baylor, T.C.U., and Utah would be out. Or, you could add 7 more to them and make each division in the 3 conferences 12 teams strong by adding Cincinnati, Connecticut, San Diego State, one of the Nevada's, East Carolina, South Florida or Central Florida, or Rice or Tulane to the mix. But in this case I think 10 team divisions playing a round robin with 1 permanent cross over rival within the conference would be best.

You just never give up do you?
NC State and Va. Tech are not moving to the SEC PERIOD. Dream all you want, but it just isn't going to happen.
A re-formed "old ACC" would be ideal. Virginia Tech could fill the Maryland role in a 9 team division. (along with UVa, Carolina, Dook, State, Wake Forest, Clemson, Georgia Tech and Florida State). If we went to ten, Maryland or South Carolina could easily fill that spot.

You may want to start thinking in terms of a 15 team SEC.
Add Texas and Texas Tech and allow Missouri to go to the B1G as their number 15.
The PAC could then pick up Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Kansas.
West Virginia or Notre Dame full time for the ACC (my bet is that the Irish stay semi-independent).
(This post was last modified: 01-30-2017 01:10 PM by JRsec.)
01-30-2017 08:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,911
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #37
RE: Would the SEC really agree to take Oklahoma State?
(01-30-2017 08:14 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-30-2017 07:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-30-2017 06:23 AM)TerpsNPhoenix Wrote:  
(01-29-2017 08:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Hey guys, I'm going to say something that most would not say at this point. The SEC, more than any other P conference except the Big 12, needs solid additions, and needs them to the West.

Right now we do not have, and haven't had, balance between the East and West. Rivalries are straining the competitiveness of the two divisions with regard to record, and the distances to complete an annual slate of games is growing.

Now I don't care if it's Texas and Oklahoma or just one of them and a second fiddle, but the SEC needs at least 1 national brand addition in the West and for Alabama and Auburn to move East. If we had an Oklahoma in the West A&M and L.S.U. would shine more in the national spotlight, their fans would have easier travel, and nobody would have to have a permanent crossover game.

We are fine on money. We are fine as we are. But we are unbalanced as we are and it's hurting the public perception of us. We need to make this move while we are on top and command top dollar for the additions. In that regard we need this next expansion more than any other conference except the Big 12.

Hey JR, why is expansion preferable to going divisionless? Yes, adding two in the west would help rebalance the power but seems like a big step instead of NCAA legislation to go divisionless. What's the thought process here? To be honest, I wish the Big Ten would but its not going to happen any time soon.

Going divisionless could work. But being assured of a core of 7 games that remain annuals, are within a reasonable commuting distance, and which would engender a sense of both regional rivalry and frequent enough play to become annual events a family might look forward to, would not only restore much of what has already been lost to realignment, but would also foster the return of the feel of the smaller conferences in that divisions would become a kind of smaller conference.

Let's take the Big 10 for instance. What is the one thing old time Big 10 guys frequently say about realignment? "I wish we were the original 10 and still playing our neighboring schools." With regards to the Eastern half you have indicated Maryland and Penn State's return to playing schools along the Eastern Seaboard. By keeping divisions both sentiments can be satisfied.

Xlance stated that he could see a Big 10 / ACC merger. I can in part, but not in full. But I could see one to the degree that many more fans could be satisfied and regionalism returned. For instance if the major schools of the old Big East and some Tobacco Road schools moved to the Big 10 and the truly Southern Southeastern schools came to the SEC we could have much better division of our two conferences. Let's say we go to 20 each. Here's what it could look like:

Big 10 West:
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue, Wisconsin

Big 10 East:
Boston College, Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse, Virginia

Your emphasis in research is maintained as are traditional rivalries.

SEC East:
Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, Louisville, Miami, North Carolina State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech

SEC West:
Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, Florida State, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Texas A&M


PAC East:
Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

PAC West:
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Oregon State, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington, Washington State


Now we have 60 schools in three conferences in divisions which are much more regional (even for the spread out PAC East) and which would engender a much greater sense of regional play.

Wake Forest, West Virginia, Baylor, T.C.U., and Utah would be out. Or, you could add 7 more to them and make each division in the 3 conferences 12 teams strong by adding Cincinnati, Connecticut, San Diego State, one of the Nevada's, East Carolina, South Florida or Central Florida, or Rice or Tulane to the mix. But in this case I think 10 team divisions playing a round robin with 1 permanent cross over rival within the conference would be best.

You just never give up do you?
NC State and Va. Tech are not moving to the SEC PERIOD. Dream all you want, but it just isn't going to happen.
A re-formed "old ACC" would be ideal. Virginia Tech could fill the Maryland role in a 9 team division. (along with UVa, Carolina, Dook, State, Wake Forest, Clemson, Georgia Tech and Florida State). If we went to ten, Maryland or South Carolina could easily fill that spot.

You may want to start thinking in terms of a 15 team SEC.
Add Texas and Texas Tech and allow Missouri to go to the B1G as their number 15.
The PAC could then pick up Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Kansas.
West Virginia or Notre Dame full time for the ACC (my bet is that the Irish stay semi-independent).

What I never give up on is throwing a jab when somebody leads with a hook, and you lead with a hook fairly often. That said, I have no problem with a 15 member SEC by whatever reasonable deal leads to it. I also concede the 15 school format is the most efficient means to complete all of this. Terp was postulating a larger move. I just re-offered the 3 x 20 as being a pretty good return to the old alignments.
(This post was last modified: 01-30-2017 01:11 PM by JRsec.)
01-30-2017 12:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #38
RE: Would the SEC really agree to take Oklahoma State?
(01-30-2017 08:14 AM)XLance Wrote:  You just never give up do you?
NC State and Va. Tech are not moving to the SEC PERIOD. Dream all you want, but it just isn't going to happen.
A re-formed "old ACC" would be ideal. Virginia Tech could fill the Maryland role in a 9 team division. (along with UVa, Carolina, Dook, State, Wake Forest, Clemson, Georgia Tech and Florida State). If we went to ten, Maryland or South Carolina could easily fill that spot.

You may want to start thinking in terms of a 15 team SEC.
Add Texas and Texas Tech and allow Missouri to go to the B1G as their number 15.
The PAC could then pick up Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Kansas.
West Virginia or Notre Dame full time for the ACC (my bet is that the Irish stay semi-independent).

Neither are any ACC schools merging with the Big Ten, but that's another story.

For that matter, Missouri isn't leaving. South Carolina isn't leaving either.

But as Journey once sung, "Don't Stop Believin'"
01-30-2017 03:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,911
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #39
RE: Would the SEC really agree to take Oklahoma State?
(01-30-2017 03:12 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-30-2017 08:14 AM)XLance Wrote:  You just never give up do you?
NC State and Va. Tech are not moving to the SEC PERIOD. Dream all you want, but it just isn't going to happen.
A re-formed "old ACC" would be ideal. Virginia Tech could fill the Maryland role in a 9 team division. (along with UVa, Carolina, Dook, State, Wake Forest, Clemson, Georgia Tech and Florida State). If we went to ten, Maryland or South Carolina could easily fill that spot.

You may want to start thinking in terms of a 15 team SEC.
Add Texas and Texas Tech and allow Missouri to go to the B1G as their number 15.
The PAC could then pick up Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Kansas.
West Virginia or Notre Dame full time for the ACC (my bet is that the Irish stay semi-independent).

Neither are any ACC schools merging with the Big Ten, but that's another story.

For that matter, Missouri isn't leaving. South Carolina isn't leaving either.

But as Journey once sung, "Don't Stop Believin'"

I think he's only right about 1 thing, 15. If we have to wait 7 years for the Big 12 GOR to end then we likely finish things out with 15. I could see Kansas going Big 10, OU going SEC, and Texas heading to the PAC with Tech and 1 other Texas school in tow. N.D. goes all in with the ACC and we're done.

The saddest part of all of this is that the other schools of the Big 12 had a window when package deals might have been made. UT's reluctance to make a decision has now negated most of that. The Big 10, SEC and PAC will simply wait for who they want and will maximize their profits in doing so. The days to get package deals are most likely dead now.
(This post was last modified: 01-30-2017 03:36 PM by JRsec.)
01-30-2017 03:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #40
RE: Would the SEC really agree to take Oklahoma State?
(01-30-2017 03:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-30-2017 03:12 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-30-2017 08:14 AM)XLance Wrote:  You just never give up do you?
NC State and Va. Tech are not moving to the SEC PERIOD. Dream all you want, but it just isn't going to happen.
A re-formed "old ACC" would be ideal. Virginia Tech could fill the Maryland role in a 9 team division. (along with UVa, Carolina, Dook, State, Wake Forest, Clemson, Georgia Tech and Florida State). If we went to ten, Maryland or South Carolina could easily fill that spot.

You may want to start thinking in terms of a 15 team SEC.
Add Texas and Texas Tech and allow Missouri to go to the B1G as their number 15.
The PAC could then pick up Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Kansas.
West Virginia or Notre Dame full time for the ACC (my bet is that the Irish stay semi-independent).

Neither are any ACC schools merging with the Big Ten, but that's another story.

For that matter, Missouri isn't leaving. South Carolina isn't leaving either.

But as Journey once sung, "Don't Stop Believin'"

I think he's only right about 1 thing, 15. If we have to wait 7 years for the Big 12 GOR to end then we likely finish things out with 15. I could see Kansas going Big 10, OU going SEC, and Texas heading to the PAC with Tech and 1 other Texas school in tow. N.D. goes all in with the ACC and we're done.

The saddest part of all of this is that the other schools of the Big 12 had a window when package deals might have been made. UT's reluctance to make a decision has now negated most of that. The Big 10, SEC and PAC will simply wait for who they want and will maximize their profits in doing so. The days to get package deals are most likely dead now.

Divisions of 5 can be very regionally specific.
In your division JR, there would be Missouri, Arkansas, LSU, A&M and Oklahoma, that's pretty compact (in my version: Texas, Texas Tech, LSU, A&M and Arkansas).

Or not out of the realm of possibility:
PAC: Texas, Texas Tech, and Kansas (Texas would never have to play an OOC game out of the State of Texas)
SEC: Oklahoma and Oklahoma State (w/ Arkansas, A&M and LSU)
B1G: Missouri
(This post was last modified: 01-30-2017 05:07 PM by XLance.)
01-30-2017 03:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.