Realignment had come down to this:
Texas is not going to budge.
The only way to entice Oklahoma to break up the Big 12 is to also agree to take Oklahoma State.
It does not appear like the PAC or B1G are willing to do so and if the SEC takes both will they lose out on their opportunity to secure Texas, their dream.
The double switch, where the SEC was to take Texas, TT, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State was predicated on the B1G getting Missouri and the ACC taking South Carolina no longer seems to be an option.
And so we sit.....like a Mexican standoff

(01-22-2017 08:12 AM)XLance Wrote:  Realignment had come down to this:
Texas is not going to budge.
The only way to entice Oklahoma to break up the Big 12 is to also agree to take Oklahoma State.
It does not appear like the PAC or B1G are willing to do so and if the SEC takes both will they lose out on their opportunity to secure Texas, their dream.
The double switch, where the SEC was to take Texas, TT, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State was predicated on the B1G getting Missouri and the ACC taking South Carolina no longer seems to be an option.
And so we sit.....like a Mexican standoff

That's true if the conferences are constrained to 16 by the networks. But if we have latitude to move to 18 then we could easily take a Texa-homa type deal without even having to think about losing anyone.

If the SEC is faced with losing a member to accommodate a new one it will likely stay put as well. But, if a member institution was interested in another conference and of their own volition wanted to explore a move, then that would be fine.

I always reflect back to a comment that Mike Slive made a few years back, before the Aggies came on board. He said, "The SEC would be happy to have any, or all of the Texas state schools." He was specifically speaking about Texas, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech. If Oklahoma were part of that and the first statement was intended, then one would have to believe that we would seriously consider taking O.S.U. to lock down the entire region.

(01-22-2017 11:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 08:12 AM)XLance Wrote:  Realignment had come down to this:
Texas is not going to budge.
The only way to entice Oklahoma to break up the Big 12 is to also agree to take Oklahoma State.
It does not appear like the PAC or B1G are willing to do so and if the SEC takes both will they lose out on their opportunity to secure Texas, their dream.
The double switch, where the SEC was to take Texas, TT, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State was predicated on the B1G getting Missouri and the ACC taking South Carolina no longer seems to be an option.
And so we sit.....like a Mexican standoff

That's true if the conferences are constrained to 16 by the networks. But if we have latitude to move to 18 then we could easily take a Texa-homa type deal without even having to think about losing anyone.

If the SEC is faced with losing a member to accommodate a new one it will likely stay put as well. But, if a member institution was interested in another conference and of their own volition wanted to explore a move, then that would be fine.

I always reflect back to a comment that Mike Slive made a few years back, before the Aggies came on board. He said, "The SEC would be happy to have any, or all of the Texas state schools." He was specifically speaking about Texas, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech. If Oklahoma were part of that and the first statement was intended, then one would have to believe that we would seriously consider taking O.S.U. to lock down the entire region.

When or where was the Slive comment made?

(01-22-2017 08:12 AM)XLance Wrote:  Realignment had come down to this:
Texas is not going to budge.
no need or desire to budge. UT-A would also have to change their view of the SEC too.

The only way to entice Oklahoma to break up the Big 12 is to also agree to take Oklahoma State.
FIFY

It does not appear like the PAC or B1G are willing to do so and if the SEC takes both will they lose out on their opportunity to secure Texas, their dream.
taking OU &OSU might begin the process to land UT-A in the SEC if the B12 is no longer a good home after those departures

The double switch, where the SEC was to take Texas, TT, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State was predicated on the B1G getting Missouri and the ACC taking South Carolina no longer seems to be an option.
too much machevellian conspiracy strings to pull. The simple moves are most likely. The only time big break ups happen is when a conference no longer suits the needs of a vast majority like in the old SWC when TV deals became conference properties and the small footprint and poor support of some members made the bigger programs look for better homes.

And so we sit.....like a Mexican standoff

Comments made in italics.

(01-22-2017 04:12 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 11:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 08:12 AM)XLance Wrote:  Realignment had come down to this:
Texas is not going to budge.
The only way to entice Oklahoma to break up the Big 12 is to also agree to take Oklahoma State.
It does not appear like the PAC or B1G are willing to do so and if the SEC takes both will they lose out on their opportunity to secure Texas, their dream.
The double switch, where the SEC was to take Texas, TT, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State was predicated on the B1G getting Missouri and the ACC taking South Carolina no longer seems to be an option.
And so we sit.....like a Mexican standoff

That's true if the conferences are constrained to 16 by the networks. But if we have latitude to move to 18 then we could easily take a Texa-homa type deal without even having to think about losing anyone.

If the SEC is faced with losing a member to accommodate a new one it will likely stay put as well. But, if a member institution was interested in another conference and of their own volition wanted to explore a move, then that would be fine.

I always reflect back to a comment that Mike Slive made a few years back, before the Aggies came on board. He said, "The SEC would be happy to have any, or all of the Texas state schools." He was specifically speaking about Texas, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech. If Oklahoma were part of that and the first statement was intended, then one would have to believe that we would seriously consider taking O.S.U. to lock down the entire region.

When or where was the Slive comment made?

When? It all runs together for me but it was before A&M announced. Where? I think he was at a function in Houston or Dallas when he was asked if the SEC would ever have any interest in a Texas school. To my recollection the statement was diplomatic in function, intended to compliment the Texas schools, but probably born out of our interests at the time.

(01-22-2017 11:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 08:12 AM)XLance Wrote:  Realignment had come down to this:
Texas is not going to budge.
The only way to entice Oklahoma to break up the Big 12 is to also agree to take Oklahoma State.
It does not appear like the PAC or B1G are willing to do so and if the SEC takes both will they lose out on their opportunity to secure Texas, their dream.
The double switch, where the SEC was to take Texas, TT, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State was predicated on the B1G getting Missouri and the ACC taking South Carolina no longer seems to be an option.
And so we sit.....like a Mexican standoff

That's true if the conferences are constrained to 16 by the networks. But if we have latitude to move to 18 then we could easily take a Texa-homa type deal without even having to think about losing anyone.

If the SEC is faced with losing a member to accommodate a new one it will likely stay put as well. But, if a member institution was interested in another conference and of their own volition wanted to explore a move, then that would be fine.

I always reflect back to a comment that Mike Slive made a few years back, before the Aggies came on board. He said, "The SEC would be happy to have any, or all of the Texas state schools." He was specifically speaking about Texas, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech. If Oklahoma were part of that and the first statement was intended, then one would have to believe that we would seriously consider taking O.S.U. to lock down the entire region.

Interesting. Did not know he said that.

The Texahoma deal makes plenty of sense and I don't see why any network would be against it...having that content under one roof. Who knows though...


West: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Missouri

Central: LSU, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn

East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky


At that point, I like playing 9 games...5 division games, 1 permanent rival from each of the other divisions, and 1 rotating match-up from each.

I like the idea of adding OU and OSU, moving Mizzou to the West along with moving Bama and Auburn to the East, giving both divisions 8 games. While Bama has rivals in the Mississippi schools and LSU, I think they fit much better in the East division with Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida. Missouri geographically fits much better in the West, and its not like they've got long historic rivals in the East.

If the SEC were to agree to expand and Oklahoma was willing to come by themselves, I don't think there's any way they wouldn't be accepted. The problem however is that OU needs to stay conference members with either Oklahoma State or UT, allowing them to play the other out of conference. I don't think there's any way they go to a conference without either rival. While A&M would possibly vote against an OU/UT expansion, it would get overwhelming support from the other 13 schools and is arguably the best possible expansion the SEC could do. There's much speculation that UT wouldn't agree to come to the SEC though, primarily for academic reasons but also that they don't want to follow A&M.

That of course brings us to your question, would the SEC take Oklahoma State?

Academics: They're not an academic elite, but they're not a community college either. They fit in fairly well with the rest of the SEC.

Market: Duplicate market with OU doesn't bring much to the table. They do help solidify the DFW market however. There's also been speculation that market may not mean as much in changing "cord cutting" demographics, so while its a bit of a negative, it's not horrible.

Athletics: Basketball and football have been fairly consistent winners over the past 15 years or so, although basketball has not been as well lately. Their athletic budget is around 25th nationally, while they would be in the lower half of the SEC, they are very solid nationally and overall very competitive in a wide variety of sports. Baseball, golf, cross country, and equestrian teams could all been instant competitors in the SEC as well. While their football stadium was just expanded in 2008, only Vanderbilt's would be smaller in the SEC, slightly smaller than Kentucky and Mississippi State.

While they don't provide much in "market" - they provide quite a bit in "content" - they are rarely a conference doormat in any sport, and often competing for conference championships and even national championships in some of the smaller sports.

If they move with OSU and UT goes independent/ACC they can easily keep both rivalries intact. I could see UT/A&M rivalry resuming at that point as well (UT wouldn't have the excuse of not having open dates, and if OU is playing them out of conference every year I don't think A&M would refuse it).

If worried about OSU not providing enough market, I like the idea of OSU playing LSU every year in DFW. It would give the metroplex three SEC games with five different SEC schools (along with A&M-Arky and OU-UT) playing there annually which would be great for recruiting. Jerry World also hosts an opening week game every year, could easily be rotated through the Missouri, Mississippi, and Alabama schools, Bama and LSU have both played their recently. The SEC would dominate the DFW market at that point. UT and Tech would of course still get coverage, as well as TCU and SMU, but it would be an SEC market first and foremost.

If the SEC decides to expands to 16, I don't think the SEC could do much better than the two Oklahoma schools. While other individual schools may be more ideal to the SEC, they either are locked into the ACC GOR for the next 20 years, or they are too academically elitist to consider going to the SEC. Even if one of those schools was willing and able to come to the SEC, I'm still not sure the SEC would agree to expand. With multiple schools in the East having rivals out of conference they have to play every year, there't a big push against going to 9 conference games, and playing only 8 conference games in a 16 team conference means you only playschools from the other division once every 8 years.

If the SEC is really willing to take Oklahoma, I think they're willing to take Oklahoma State as well. I'm not sold on them being willing to take Oklahoma (or Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Texas etc) however.

(01-24-2017 12:46 AM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  I like the idea of adding OU and OSU, moving Mizzou to the West along with moving Bama and Auburn to the East, giving both divisions 8 games. While Bama has rivals in the Mississippi schools and LSU, I think they fit much better in the East division with Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida. Missouri geographically fits much better in the West, and its not like they've got long historic rivals in the East.

If the SEC were to agree to expand and Oklahoma was willing to come by themselves, I don't think there's any way they wouldn't be accepted. The problem however is that OU needs to stay conference members with either Oklahoma State or UT, allowing them to play the other out of conference. I don't think there's any way they go to a conference without either rival. While A&M would possibly vote against an OU/UT expansion, it would get overwhelming support from the other 13 schools and is arguably the best possible expansion the SEC could do. There's much speculation that UT wouldn't agree to come to the SEC though, primarily for academic reasons but also that they don't want to follow A&M.

That of course brings us to your question, would the SEC take Oklahoma State?

Academics: They're not an academic elite, but they're not a community college either. They fit in fairly well with the rest of the SEC.

Market: Duplicate market with OU doesn't bring much to the table. They do help solidify the DFW market however. There's also been speculation that market may not mean as much in changing "cord cutting" demographics, so while its a bit of a negative, it's not horrible.

Athletics: Basketball and football have been fairly consistent winners over the past 15 years or so, although basketball has not been as well lately. Their athletic budget is around 25th nationally, while they would be in the lower half of the SEC, they are very solid nationally and overall very competitive in a wide variety of sports. Baseball, golf, cross country, and equestrian teams could all been instant competitors in the SEC as well. While their football stadium was just expanded in 2008, only Vanderbilt's would be smaller in the SEC, slightly smaller than Kentucky and Mississippi State.

While they don't provide much in "market" - they provide quite a bit in "content" - they are rarely a conference doormat in any sport, and often competing for conference championships and even national championships in some of the smaller sports.

If they move with OSU and UT goes independent/ACC they can easily keep both rivalries intact. I could see UT/A&M rivalry resuming at that point as well (UT wouldn't have the excuse of not having open dates, and if OU is playing them out of conference every year I don't think A&M would refuse it).

If worried about OSU not providing enough market, I like the idea of OSU playing LSU every year in DFW. It would give the metroplex three SEC games with five different SEC schools (along with A&M-Arky and OU-UT) playing there annually which would be great for recruiting. Jerry World also hosts an opening week game every year, could easily be rotated through the Missouri, Mississippi, and Alabama schools, Bama and LSU have both played their recently. The SEC would dominate the DFW market at that point. UT and Tech would of course still get coverage, as well as TCU and SMU, but it would be an SEC market first and foremost.

If the SEC decides to expands to 16, I don't think the SEC could do much better than the two Oklahoma schools. While other individual schools may be more ideal to the SEC, they either are locked into the ACC GOR for the next 20 years, or they are too academically elitist to consider going to the SEC. Even if one of those schools was willing and able to come to the SEC, I'm still not sure the SEC would agree to expand. With multiple schools in the East having rivals out of conference they have to play every year, there't a big push against going to 9 conference games, and playing only 8 conference games in a 16 team conference means you only playschools from the other division once every 8 years.

If the SEC is really willing to take Oklahoma, I think they're willing to take Oklahoma State as well. I'm not sold on them being willing to take Oklahoma (or Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Texas etc) however.

I like the idea of playing more games in Dallas one way or the other.

I think if push came to shove though, if we offered all 4 then I think we'd get them. I can understand why A&M wouldn't want UT, but in the end I don't think it would be a net negative for the Aggies. A&M will never be under the thumb of UT again because if UT comes aboard then they'll have to be a part of the collective rather than the big on the block. Plus, all the extra games between UT, A&M, and TT would be great for the league. Ruling TX will pay dividends for everyone.

Personally, I'd rather go to 20 so we could have 4 divisions, but it's awfully hard to pull that off without the addition of ACC schools.

(01-24-2017 02:07 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 12:46 AM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  I like the idea of adding OU and OSU, moving Mizzou to the West along with moving Bama and Auburn to the East, giving both divisions 8 games. While Bama has rivals in the Mississippi schools and LSU, I think they fit much better in the East division with Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida. Missouri geographically fits much better in the West, and its not like they've got long historic rivals in the East.

If the SEC were to agree to expand and Oklahoma was willing to come by themselves, I don't think there's any way they wouldn't be accepted. The problem however is that OU needs to stay conference members with either Oklahoma State or UT, allowing them to play the other out of conference. I don't think there's any way they go to a conference without either rival. While A&M would possibly vote against an OU/UT expansion, it would get overwhelming support from the other 13 schools and is arguably the best possible expansion the SEC could do. There's much speculation that UT wouldn't agree to come to the SEC though, primarily for academic reasons but also that they don't want to follow A&M.

That of course brings us to your question, would the SEC take Oklahoma State?

Academics: They're not an academic elite, but they're not a community college either. They fit in fairly well with the rest of the SEC.

Market: Duplicate market with OU doesn't bring much to the table. They do help solidify the DFW market however. There's also been speculation that market may not mean as much in changing "cord cutting" demographics, so while its a bit of a negative, it's not horrible.

Athletics: Basketball and football have been fairly consistent winners over the past 15 years or so, although basketball has not been as well lately. Their athletic budget is around 25th nationally, while they would be in the lower half of the SEC, they are very solid nationally and overall very competitive in a wide variety of sports. Baseball, golf, cross country, and equestrian teams could all been instant competitors in the SEC as well. While their football stadium was just expanded in 2008, only Vanderbilt's would be smaller in the SEC, slightly smaller than Kentucky and Mississippi State.

While they don't provide much in "market" - they provide quite a bit in "content" - they are rarely a conference doormat in any sport, and often competing for conference championships and even national championships in some of the smaller sports.

If they move with OSU and UT goes independent/ACC they can easily keep both rivalries intact. I could see UT/A&M rivalry resuming at that point as well (UT wouldn't have the excuse of not having open dates, and if OU is playing them out of conference every year I don't think A&M would refuse it).

If worried about OSU not providing enough market, I like the idea of OSU playing LSU every year in DFW. It would give the metroplex three SEC games with five different SEC schools (along with A&M-Arky and OU-UT) playing there annually which would be great for recruiting. Jerry World also hosts an opening week game every year, could easily be rotated through the Missouri, Mississippi, and Alabama schools, Bama and LSU have both played their recently. The SEC would dominate the DFW market at that point. UT and Tech would of course still get coverage, as well as TCU and SMU, but it would be an SEC market first and foremost.

If the SEC decides to expands to 16, I don't think the SEC could do much better than the two Oklahoma schools. While other individual schools may be more ideal to the SEC, they either are locked into the ACC GOR for the next 20 years, or they are too academically elitist to consider going to the SEC. Even if one of those schools was willing and able to come to the SEC, I'm still not sure the SEC would agree to expand. With multiple schools in the East having rivals out of conference they have to play every year, there't a big push against going to 9 conference games, and playing only 8 conference games in a 16 team conference means you only playschools from the other division once every 8 years.

If the SEC is really willing to take Oklahoma, I think they're willing to take Oklahoma State as well. I'm not sold on them being willing to take Oklahoma (or Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Texas etc) however.

I like the idea of playing more games in Dallas one way or the other.

I think if push came to shove though, if we offered all 4 then I think we'd get them. I can understand why A&M wouldn't want UT, but in the end I don't think it would be a net negative for the Aggies. A&M will never be under the thumb of UT again because if UT comes aboard then they'll have to be a part of the collective rather than the big on the block. Plus, all the extra games between UT, A&M, and TT would be great for the league. Ruling TX will pay dividends for everyone.

Personally, I'd rather go to 20 so we could have 4 divisions, but it's awfully hard to pull that off without the addition of ACC schools.

20 would be a little easier than you think: Bevo, Tag along Tech, Boomer Sooner, T. Boone Pickens, KU, and KState. The B12 would be DOA. WVU begs the ACC to take them, probably to no avail. Baylor and TCU threatens to sue anyone and everyone. I doubt the B1G takes ISU.

(01-24-2017 09:19 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 02:07 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 12:46 AM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  I like the idea of adding OU and OSU, moving Mizzou to the West along with moving Bama and Auburn to the East, giving both divisions 8 games. While Bama has rivals in the Mississippi schools and LSU, I think they fit much better in the East division with Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida. Missouri geographically fits much better in the West, and its not like they've got long historic rivals in the East.

If the SEC were to agree to expand and Oklahoma was willing to come by themselves, I don't think there's any way they wouldn't be accepted. The problem however is that OU needs to stay conference members with either Oklahoma State or UT, allowing them to play the other out of conference. I don't think there's any way they go to a conference without either rival. While A&M would possibly vote against an OU/UT expansion, it would get overwhelming support from the other 13 schools and is arguably the best possible expansion the SEC could do. There's much speculation that UT wouldn't agree to come to the SEC though, primarily for academic reasons but also that they don't want to follow A&M.

That of course brings us to your question, would the SEC take Oklahoma State?

Academics: They're not an academic elite, but they're not a community college either. They fit in fairly well with the rest of the SEC.

Market: Duplicate market with OU doesn't bring much to the table. They do help solidify the DFW market however. There's also been speculation that market may not mean as much in changing "cord cutting" demographics, so while its a bit of a negative, it's not horrible.

Athletics: Basketball and football have been fairly consistent winners over the past 15 years or so, although basketball has not been as well lately. Their athletic budget is around 25th nationally, while they would be in the lower half of the SEC, they are very solid nationally and overall very competitive in a wide variety of sports. Baseball, golf, cross country, and equestrian teams could all been instant competitors in the SEC as well. While their football stadium was just expanded in 2008, only Vanderbilt's would be smaller in the SEC, slightly smaller than Kentucky and Mississippi State.

While they don't provide much in "market" - they provide quite a bit in "content" - they are rarely a conference doormat in any sport, and often competing for conference championships and even national championships in some of the smaller sports.

If they move with OSU and UT goes independent/ACC they can easily keep both rivalries intact. I could see UT/A&M rivalry resuming at that point as well (UT wouldn't have the excuse of not having open dates, and if OU is playing them out of conference every year I don't think A&M would refuse it).

If worried about OSU not providing enough market, I like the idea of OSU playing LSU every year in DFW. It would give the metroplex three SEC games with five different SEC schools (along with A&M-Arky and OU-UT) playing there annually which would be great for recruiting. Jerry World also hosts an opening week game every year, could easily be rotated through the Missouri, Mississippi, and Alabama schools, Bama and LSU have both played their recently. The SEC would dominate the DFW market at that point. UT and Tech would of course still get coverage, as well as TCU and SMU, but it would be an SEC market first and foremost.

If the SEC decides to expands to 16, I don't think the SEC could do much better than the two Oklahoma schools. While other individual schools may be more ideal to the SEC, they either are locked into the ACC GOR for the next 20 years, or they are too academically elitist to consider going to the SEC. Even if one of those schools was willing and able to come to the SEC, I'm still not sure the SEC would agree to expand. With multiple schools in the East having rivals out of conference they have to play every year, there't a big push against going to 9 conference games, and playing only 8 conference games in a 16 team conference means you only playschools from the other division once every 8 years.

If the SEC is really willing to take Oklahoma, I think they're willing to take Oklahoma State as well. I'm not sold on them being willing to take Oklahoma (or Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Texas etc) however.

I like the idea of playing more games in Dallas one way or the other.

I think if push came to shove though, if we offered all 4 then I think we'd get them. I can understand why A&M wouldn't want UT, but in the end I don't think it would be a net negative for the Aggies. A&M will never be under the thumb of UT again because if UT comes aboard then they'll have to be a part of the collective rather than the big on the block. Plus, all the extra games between UT, A&M, and TT would be great for the league. Ruling TX will pay dividends for everyone.

Personally, I'd rather go to 20 so we could have 4 divisions, but it's awfully hard to pull that off without the addition of ACC schools.

20 would be a little easier than you think: Bevo, Tag along Tech, Boomer Sooner, T. Boone Pickens, KU, and KState. The B12 would be DOA. WVU begs the ACC to take them, probably to no avail. Baylor and TCU threatens to sue anyone and everyone. I doubt the B1G takes ISU.

I actually don't mind that idea. Thing is the Kansas schools wouldn't be necessary to get the Texahoma combo. With that being the case, you have to wonder about the money at that point. With KS being a fairly small market and the SEC already having access to KC via Mizzou, it's possible we're taking on the problems that sunk the Big 12.

Wouldn't mind taking Kansas and Iowa State as those last 2, but not sure the SEC wants to go that far away from the core of the league. We'll see I guess.

On that thought, I actually wouldn't mind taking both Kansas and Cincinnati. I think KU is worth inclusion on their own, especially considering our basketball woes. UC is an intriguing option to me. I know they don't have a huge fan base, but I can't imagine that wouldn't change if they were in the SEC. It's a large school with a growing alumni base after all. They've got access to decent football recruits in native OH, good basketball, good academics, and a good market. And Cincy is not far from Lexington at all.

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

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

South: Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky, Cincinnati

(01-24-2017 12:27 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 09:19 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 02:07 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 12:46 AM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  I like the idea of adding OU and OSU, moving Mizzou to the West along with moving Bama and Auburn to the East, giving both divisions 8 games. While Bama has rivals in the Mississippi schools and LSU, I think they fit much better in the East division with Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida. Missouri geographically fits much better in the West, and its not like they've got long historic rivals in the East.

If the SEC were to agree to expand and Oklahoma was willing to come by themselves, I don't think there's any way they wouldn't be accepted. The problem however is that OU needs to stay conference members with either Oklahoma State or UT, allowing them to play the other out of conference. I don't think there's any way they go to a conference without either rival. While A&M would possibly vote against an OU/UT expansion, it would get overwhelming support from the other 13 schools and is arguably the best possible expansion the SEC could do. There's much speculation that UT wouldn't agree to come to the SEC though, primarily for academic reasons but also that they don't want to follow A&M.

That of course brings us to your question, would the SEC take Oklahoma State?

Academics: They're not an academic elite, but they're not a community college either. They fit in fairly well with the rest of the SEC.

Market: Duplicate market with OU doesn't bring much to the table. They do help solidify the DFW market however. There's also been speculation that market may not mean as much in changing "cord cutting" demographics, so while its a bit of a negative, it's not horrible.

Athletics: Basketball and football have been fairly consistent winners over the past 15 years or so, although basketball has not been as well lately. Their athletic budget is around 25th nationally, while they would be in the lower half of the SEC, they are very solid nationally and overall very competitive in a wide variety of sports. Baseball, golf, cross country, and equestrian teams could all been instant competitors in the SEC as well. While their football stadium was just expanded in 2008, only Vanderbilt's would be smaller in the SEC, slightly smaller than Kentucky and Mississippi State.

While they don't provide much in "market" - they provide quite a bit in "content" - they are rarely a conference doormat in any sport, and often competing for conference championships and even national championships in some of the smaller sports.

If they move with OSU and UT goes independent/ACC they can easily keep both rivalries intact. I could see UT/A&M rivalry resuming at that point as well (UT wouldn't have the excuse of not having open dates, and if OU is playing them out of conference every year I don't think A&M would refuse it).

If worried about OSU not providing enough market, I like the idea of OSU playing LSU every year in DFW. It would give the metroplex three SEC games with five different SEC schools (along with A&M-Arky and OU-UT) playing there annually which would be great for recruiting. Jerry World also hosts an opening week game every year, could easily be rotated through the Missouri, Mississippi, and Alabama schools, Bama and LSU have both played their recently. The SEC would dominate the DFW market at that point. UT and Tech would of course still get coverage, as well as TCU and SMU, but it would be an SEC market first and foremost.

If the SEC decides to expands to 16, I don't think the SEC could do much better than the two Oklahoma schools. While other individual schools may be more ideal to the SEC, they either are locked into the ACC GOR for the next 20 years, or they are too academically elitist to consider going to the SEC. Even if one of those schools was willing and able to come to the SEC, I'm still not sure the SEC would agree to expand. With multiple schools in the East having rivals out of conference they have to play every year, there't a big push against going to 9 conference games, and playing only 8 conference games in a 16 team conference means you only playschools from the other division once every 8 years.

If the SEC is really willing to take Oklahoma, I think they're willing to take Oklahoma State as well. I'm not sold on them being willing to take Oklahoma (or Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Texas etc) however.

I like the idea of playing more games in Dallas one way or the other.

I think if push came to shove though, if we offered all 4 then I think we'd get them. I can understand why A&M wouldn't want UT, but in the end I don't think it would be a net negative for the Aggies. A&M will never be under the thumb of UT again because if UT comes aboard then they'll have to be a part of the collective rather than the big on the block. Plus, all the extra games between UT, A&M, and TT would be great for the league. Ruling TX will pay dividends for everyone.

Personally, I'd rather go to 20 so we could have 4 divisions, but it's awfully hard to pull that off without the addition of ACC schools.

20 would be a little easier than you think: Bevo, Tag along Tech, Boomer Sooner, T. Boone Pickens, KU, and KState. The B12 would be DOA. WVU begs the ACC to take them, probably to no avail. Baylor and TCU threatens to sue anyone and everyone. I doubt the B1G takes ISU.

I actually don't mind that idea. Thing is the Kansas schools wouldn't be necessary to get the Texahoma combo. With that being the case, you have to wonder about the money at that point. With KS being a fairly small market and the SEC already having access to KC via Mizzou, it's possible we're taking on the problems that sunk the Big 12.

Wouldn't mind taking Kansas and Iowa State as those last 2, but not sure the SEC wants to go that far away from the core of the league. We'll see I guess.

On that thought, I actually wouldn't mind taking both Kansas and Cincinnati. I think KU is worth inclusion on their own, especially considering our basketball woes. UC is an intriguing option to me. I know they don't have a huge fan base, but I can't imagine that wouldn't change if they were in the SEC. It's a large school with a growing alumni base after all. They've got access to decent football recruits in native OH, good basketball, good academics, and a good market. And Cincy is not far from Lexington at all.

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

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

South: Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky, Cincinnati

how about this...ESPN wants to consolidate their power in the SEC and the ACC. move WVU, ND, USC, and Kentucky to the ACC. The SEC takes the Texahoma 4 plus the Kansas schools. Both are at 18 with nice, neat geographic footprints. and the B1G is left out in the cold.

this is admittedly absurd, but what else is there to do during the off season?

(01-24-2017 01:58 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  this is admittedly absurd, but what else is there to do during the off season?

Story of my life.

(01-24-2017 12:46 AM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  I like the idea of adding OU and OSU, moving Mizzou to the West along with moving Bama and Auburn to the East, giving both divisions 8 games. While Bama has rivals in the Mississippi schools and LSU, I think they fit much better in the East division with Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida. Missouri geographically fits much better in the West, and its not like they've got long historic rivals in the East.

If the SEC were to agree to expand and Oklahoma was willing to come by themselves, I don't think there's any way they wouldn't be accepted. The problem however is that OU needs to stay conference members with either Oklahoma State or UT, allowing them to play the other out of conference. I don't think there's any way they go to a conference without either rival. While A&M would possibly vote against an OU/UT expansion, it would get overwhelming support from the other 13 schools and is arguably the best possible expansion the SEC could do. There's much speculation that UT wouldn't agree to come to the SEC though, primarily for academic reasons but also that they don't want to follow A&M.

That of course brings us to your question, would the SEC take Oklahoma State?

Academics: They're not an academic elite, but they're not a community college either. They fit in fairly well with the rest of the SEC.

Market: Duplicate market with OU doesn't bring much to the table. They do help solidify the DFW market however. There's also been speculation that market may not mean as much in changing "cord cutting" demographics, so while its a bit of a negative, it's not horrible.

Athletics: Basketball and football have been fairly consistent winners over the past 15 years or so, although basketball has not been as well lately. Their athletic budget is around 25th nationally, while they would be in the lower half of the SEC, they are very solid nationally and overall very competitive in a wide variety of sports. Baseball, golf, cross country, and equestrian teams could all been instant competitors in the SEC as well. While their football stadium was just expanded in 2008, only Vanderbilt's would be smaller in the SEC, slightly smaller than Kentucky and Mississippi State.

While they don't provide much in "market" - they provide quite a bit in "content" - they are rarely a conference doormat in any sport, and often competing for conference championships and even national championships in some of the smaller sports.

If they move with OSU and UT goes independent/ACC they can easily keep both rivalries intact. I could see UT/A&M rivalry resuming at that point as well (UT wouldn't have the excuse of not having open dates, and if OU is playing them out of conference every year I don't think A&M would refuse it).

If worried about OSU not providing enough market, I like the idea of OSU playing LSU every year in DFW. It would give the metroplex three SEC games with five different SEC schools (along with A&M-Arky and OU-UT) playing there annually which would be great for recruiting. Jerry World also hosts an opening week game every year, could easily be rotated through the Missouri, Mississippi, and Alabama schools, Bama and LSU have both played their recently. The SEC would dominate the DFW market at that point. UT and Tech would of course still get coverage, as well as TCU and SMU, but it would be an SEC market first and foremost.

If the SEC decides to expands to 16, I don't think the SEC could do much better than the two Oklahoma schools. While other individual schools may be more ideal to the SEC, they either are locked into the ACC GOR for the next 20 years, or they are too academically elitist to consider going to the SEC. Even if one of those schools was willing and able to come to the SEC, I'm still not sure the SEC would agree to expand. With multiple schools in the East having rivals out of conference they have to play every year, there't a big push against going to 9 conference games, and playing only 8 conference games in a 16 team conference means you only playschools from the other division once every 8 years.

If the SEC is really willing to take Oklahoma, I think they're willing to take Oklahoma State as well. I'm not sold on them being willing to take Oklahoma (or Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Texas etc) however.

The only reason Missouri was assigned to the East was due to Alabama's desire to remain in the same division as Auburn. If Auburn moves east, Alabama would either lose the Iron Bowl game with Auburn, or Tennessee... neither which they would accept. Jr probably knows a lot more than me about this, but that is the way I understood the decision made when Missouri came to the SEC.

(01-27-2017 02:01 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 12:46 AM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  I like the idea of adding OU and OSU, moving Mizzou to the West along with moving Bama and Auburn to the East, giving both divisions 8 games. While Bama has rivals in the Mississippi schools and LSU, I think they fit much better in the East division with Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida. Missouri geographically fits much better in the West, and its not like they've got long historic rivals in the East.

If the SEC were to agree to expand and Oklahoma was willing to come by themselves, I don't think there's any way they wouldn't be accepted. The problem however is that OU needs to stay conference members with either Oklahoma State or UT, allowing them to play the other out of conference. I don't think there's any way they go to a conference without either rival. While A&M would possibly vote against an OU/UT expansion, it would get overwhelming support from the other 13 schools and is arguably the best possible expansion the SEC could do. There's much speculation that UT wouldn't agree to come to the SEC though, primarily for academic reasons but also that they don't want to follow A&M.

That of course brings us to your question, would the SEC take Oklahoma State?

Academics: They're not an academic elite, but they're not a community college either. They fit in fairly well with the rest of the SEC.

Market: Duplicate market with OU doesn't bring much to the table. They do help solidify the DFW market however. There's also been speculation that market may not mean as much in changing "cord cutting" demographics, so while its a bit of a negative, it's not horrible.

Athletics: Basketball and football have been fairly consistent winners over the past 15 years or so, although basketball has not been as well lately. Their athletic budget is around 25th nationally, while they would be in the lower half of the SEC, they are very solid nationally and overall very competitive in a wide variety of sports. Baseball, golf, cross country, and equestrian teams could all been instant competitors in the SEC as well. While their football stadium was just expanded in 2008, only Vanderbilt's would be smaller in the SEC, slightly smaller than Kentucky and Mississippi State.

While they don't provide much in "market" - they provide quite a bit in "content" - they are rarely a conference doormat in any sport, and often competing for conference championships and even national championships in some of the smaller sports.

If they move with OSU and UT goes independent/ACC they can easily keep both rivalries intact. I could see UT/A&M rivalry resuming at that point as well (UT wouldn't have the excuse of not having open dates, and if OU is playing them out of conference every year I don't think A&M would refuse it).

If worried about OSU not providing enough market, I like the idea of OSU playing LSU every year in DFW. It would give the metroplex three SEC games with five different SEC schools (along with A&M-Arky and OU-UT) playing there annually which would be great for recruiting. Jerry World also hosts an opening week game every year, could easily be rotated through the Missouri, Mississippi, and Alabama schools, Bama and LSU have both played their recently. The SEC would dominate the DFW market at that point. UT and Tech would of course still get coverage, as well as TCU and SMU, but it would be an SEC market first and foremost.

If the SEC decides to expands to 16, I don't think the SEC could do much better than the two Oklahoma schools. While other individual schools may be more ideal to the SEC, they either are locked into the ACC GOR for the next 20 years, or they are too academically elitist to consider going to the SEC. Even if one of those schools was willing and able to come to the SEC, I'm still not sure the SEC would agree to expand. With multiple schools in the East having rivals out of conference they have to play every year, there't a big push against going to 9 conference games, and playing only 8 conference games in a 16 team conference means you only playschools from the other division once every 8 years.

If the SEC is really willing to take Oklahoma, I think they're willing to take Oklahoma State as well. I'm not sold on them being willing to take Oklahoma (or Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Texas etc) however.

The only reason Missouri was assigned to the East was due to Alabama's desire to remain in the same division as Auburn. If Auburn moves east, Alabama would either lose the Iron Bowl game with Auburn, or Tennessee... neither which they would accept. Jr probably knows a lot more than me about this, but that is the way I understood the decision made when Missouri came to the SEC.

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.

(01-27-2017 03:53 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(01-27-2017 02:01 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 12:46 AM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  I like the idea of adding OU and OSU, moving Mizzou to the West along with moving Bama and Auburn to the East, giving both divisions 8 games. While Bama has rivals in the Mississippi schools and LSU, I think they fit much better in the East division with Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida. Missouri geographically fits much better in the West, and its not like they've got long historic rivals in the East.

If the SEC were to agree to expand and Oklahoma was willing to come by themselves, I don't think there's any way they wouldn't be accepted. The problem however is that OU needs to stay conference members with either Oklahoma State or UT, allowing them to play the other out of conference. I don't think there's any way they go to a conference without either rival. While A&M would possibly vote against an OU/UT expansion, it would get overwhelming support from the other 13 schools and is arguably the best possible expansion the SEC could do. There's much speculation that UT wouldn't agree to come to the SEC though, primarily for academic reasons but also that they don't want to follow A&M.

That of course brings us to your question, would the SEC take Oklahoma State?

Academics: They're not an academic elite, but they're not a community college either. They fit in fairly well with the rest of the SEC.

Market: Duplicate market with OU doesn't bring much to the table. They do help solidify the DFW market however. There's also been speculation that market may not mean as much in changing "cord cutting" demographics, so while its a bit of a negative, it's not horrible.

Athletics: Basketball and football have been fairly consistent winners over the past 15 years or so, although basketball has not been as well lately. Their athletic budget is around 25th nationally, while they would be in the lower half of the SEC, they are very solid nationally and overall very competitive in a wide variety of sports. Baseball, golf, cross country, and equestrian teams could all been instant competitors in the SEC as well. While their football stadium was just expanded in 2008, only Vanderbilt's would be smaller in the SEC, slightly smaller than Kentucky and Mississippi State.

While they don't provide much in "market" - they provide quite a bit in "content" - they are rarely a conference doormat in any sport, and often competing for conference championships and even national championships in some of the smaller sports.

If they move with OSU and UT goes independent/ACC they can easily keep both rivalries intact. I could see UT/A&M rivalry resuming at that point as well (UT wouldn't have the excuse of not having open dates, and if OU is playing them out of conference every year I don't think A&M would refuse it).

If worried about OSU not providing enough market, I like the idea of OSU playing LSU every year in DFW. It would give the metroplex three SEC games with five different SEC schools (along with A&M-Arky and OU-UT) playing there annually which would be great for recruiting. Jerry World also hosts an opening week game every year, could easily be rotated through the Missouri, Mississippi, and Alabama schools, Bama and LSU have both played their recently. The SEC would dominate the DFW market at that point. UT and Tech would of course still get coverage, as well as TCU and SMU, but it would be an SEC market first and foremost.

If the SEC decides to expands to 16, I don't think the SEC could do much better than the two Oklahoma schools. While other individual schools may be more ideal to the SEC, they either are locked into the ACC GOR for the next 20 years, or they are too academically elitist to consider going to the SEC. Even if one of those schools was willing and able to come to the SEC, I'm still not sure the SEC would agree to expand. With multiple schools in the East having rivals out of conference they have to play every year, there't a big push against going to 9 conference games, and playing only 8 conference games in a 16 team conference means you only playschools from the other division once every 8 years.

If the SEC is really willing to take Oklahoma, I think they're willing to take Oklahoma State as well. I'm not sold on them being willing to take Oklahoma (or Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Texas etc) however.

The only reason Missouri was assigned to the East was due to Alabama's desire to remain in the same division as Auburn. If Auburn moves east, Alabama would either lose the Iron Bowl game with Auburn, or Tennessee... neither which they would accept. Jr probably knows a lot more than me about this, but that is the way I understood the decision made when Missouri came to the SEC.

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

If you are looking at a 16 team conference, we have seen that there would have to be some sort of cooperation between conferences, because the Big 12 just does not break apart evenly.
Which two teams from the Big 12 would satisfy the B1G?
Which two are the must have for the SEC?
We already have seen that the PAC wants Texas or nothing.
The ACC either has to go with West Virginia and Notre Dame (or if Notre Dame stays semi-independent, has to peel off a school from the SEC or the B1G ((South Carolina or Maryland)) ).

If Texas decides on the SEC or B1G, more than likely the PAC stays at 12 and four schools are "out". Then we are down from 65 to 61.

So, which two schools satisfy the B1G?
Kansas and Missouri
The must haves for the SEC?
Oklahoma and Texas (plus one of Texas Tech, Oklahoma State or West Virginia). Would the SEC give up South Carolina to be able to take Oklahoma State or Texas Tech? I can't imagine that, nor could I imagine that the B1G giving up Maryland to acquire Iowa State or UConn.....could you?
This whole thing is like trying to put a puzzle together with no picture and missing pieces.

(01-27-2017 04:47 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-27-2017 03:53 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(01-27-2017 02:01 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 12:46 AM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  I like the idea of adding OU and OSU, moving Mizzou to the West along with moving Bama and Auburn to the East, giving both divisions 8 games. While Bama has rivals in the Mississippi schools and LSU, I think they fit much better in the East division with Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida. Missouri geographically fits much better in the West, and its not like they've got long historic rivals in the East.

If the SEC were to agree to expand and Oklahoma was willing to come by themselves, I don't think there's any way they wouldn't be accepted. The problem however is that OU needs to stay conference members with either Oklahoma State or UT, allowing them to play the other out of conference. I don't think there's any way they go to a conference without either rival. While A&M would possibly vote against an OU/UT expansion, it would get overwhelming support from the other 13 schools and is arguably the best possible expansion the SEC could do. There's much speculation that UT wouldn't agree to come to the SEC though, primarily for academic reasons but also that they don't want to follow A&M.

That of course brings us to your question, would the SEC take Oklahoma State?

Academics: They're not an academic elite, but they're not a community college either. They fit in fairly well with the rest of the SEC.

Market: Duplicate market with OU doesn't bring much to the table. They do help solidify the DFW market however. There's also been speculation that market may not mean as much in changing "cord cutting" demographics, so while its a bit of a negative, it's not horrible.

Athletics: Basketball and football have been fairly consistent winners over the past 15 years or so, although basketball has not been as well lately. Their athletic budget is around 25th nationally, while they would be in the lower half of the SEC, they are very solid nationally and overall very competitive in a wide variety of sports. Baseball, golf, cross country, and equestrian teams could all been instant competitors in the SEC as well. While their football stadium was just expanded in 2008, only Vanderbilt's would be smaller in the SEC, slightly smaller than Kentucky and Mississippi State.

While they don't provide much in "market" - they provide quite a bit in "content" - they are rarely a conference doormat in any sport, and often competing for conference championships and even national championships in some of the smaller sports.

If they move with OSU and UT goes independent/ACC they can easily keep both rivalries intact. I could see UT/A&M rivalry resuming at that point as well (UT wouldn't have the excuse of not having open dates, and if OU is playing them out of conference every year I don't think A&M would refuse it).

If worried about OSU not providing enough market, I like the idea of OSU playing LSU every year in DFW. It would give the metroplex three SEC games with five different SEC schools (along with A&M-Arky and OU-UT) playing there annually which would be great for recruiting. Jerry World also hosts an opening week game every year, could easily be rotated through the Missouri, Mississippi, and Alabama schools, Bama and LSU have both played their recently. The SEC would dominate the DFW market at that point. UT and Tech would of course still get coverage, as well as TCU and SMU, but it would be an SEC market first and foremost.

If the SEC decides to expands to 16, I don't think the SEC could do much better than the two Oklahoma schools. While other individual schools may be more ideal to the SEC, they either are locked into the ACC GOR for the next 20 years, or they are too academically elitist to consider going to the SEC. Even if one of those schools was willing and able to come to the SEC, I'm still not sure the SEC would agree to expand. With multiple schools in the East having rivals out of conference they have to play every year, there't a big push against going to 9 conference games, and playing only 8 conference games in a 16 team conference means you only playschools from the other division once every 8 years.

If the SEC is really willing to take Oklahoma, I think they're willing to take Oklahoma State as well. I'm not sold on them being willing to take Oklahoma (or Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Texas etc) however.

The only reason Missouri was assigned to the East was due to Alabama's desire to remain in the same division as Auburn. If Auburn moves east, Alabama would either lose the Iron Bowl game with Auburn, or Tennessee... neither which they would accept. Jr probably knows a lot more than me about this, but that is the way I understood the decision made when Missouri came to the SEC.

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.

(01-27-2017 03:53 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(01-27-2017 02:01 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 12:46 AM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  I like the idea of adding OU and OSU, moving Mizzou to the West along with moving Bama and Auburn to the East, giving both divisions 8 games. While Bama has rivals in the Mississippi schools and LSU, I think they fit much better in the East division with Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida. Missouri geographically fits much better in the West, and its not like they've got long historic rivals in the East.

If the SEC were to agree to expand and Oklahoma was willing to come by themselves, I don't think there's any way they wouldn't be accepted. The problem however is that OU needs to stay conference members with either Oklahoma State or UT, allowing them to play the other out of conference. I don't think there's any way they go to a conference without either rival. While A&M would possibly vote against an OU/UT expansion, it would get overwhelming support from the other 13 schools and is arguably the best possible expansion the SEC could do. There's much speculation that UT wouldn't agree to come to the SEC though, primarily for academic reasons but also that they don't want to follow A&M.

That of course brings us to your question, would the SEC take Oklahoma State?

Academics: They're not an academic elite, but they're not a community college either. They fit in fairly well with the rest of the SEC.

Market: Duplicate market with OU doesn't bring much to the table. They do help solidify the DFW market however. There's also been speculation that market may not mean as much in changing "cord cutting" demographics, so while its a bit of a negative, it's not horrible.

Athletics: Basketball and football have been fairly consistent winners over the past 15 years or so, although basketball has not been as well lately. Their athletic budget is around 25th nationally, while they would be in the lower half of the SEC, they are very solid nationally and overall very competitive in a wide variety of sports. Baseball, golf, cross country, and equestrian teams could all been instant competitors in the SEC as well. While their football stadium was just expanded in 2008, only Vanderbilt's would be smaller in the SEC, slightly smaller than Kentucky and Mississippi State.

While they don't provide much in "market" - they provide quite a bit in "content" - they are rarely a conference doormat in any sport, and often competing for conference championships and even national championships in some of the smaller sports.

If they move with OSU and UT goes independent/ACC they can easily keep both rivalries intact. I could see UT/A&M rivalry resuming at that point as well (UT wouldn't have the excuse of not having open dates, and if OU is playing them out of conference every year I don't think A&M would refuse it).

If worried about OSU not providing enough market, I like the idea of OSU playing LSU every year in DFW. It would give the metroplex three SEC games with five different SEC schools (along with A&M-Arky and OU-UT) playing there annually which would be great for recruiting. Jerry World also hosts an opening week game every year, could easily be rotated through the Missouri, Mississippi, and Alabama schools, Bama and LSU have both played their recently. The SEC would dominate the DFW market at that point. UT and Tech would of course still get coverage, as well as TCU and SMU, but it would be an SEC market first and foremost.

If the SEC decides to expands to 16, I don't think the SEC could do much better than the two Oklahoma schools. While other individual schools may be more ideal to the SEC, they either are locked into the ACC GOR for the next 20 years, or they are too academically elitist to consider going to the SEC. Even if one of those schools was willing and able to come to the SEC, I'm still not sure the SEC would agree to expand. With multiple schools in the East having rivals out of conference they have to play every year, there't a big push against going to 9 conference games, and playing only 8 conference games in a 16 team conference means you only playschools from the other division once every 8 years.

If the SEC is really willing to take Oklahoma, I think they're willing to take Oklahoma State as well. I'm not sold on them being willing to take Oklahoma (or Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Texas etc) however.

The only reason Missouri was assigned to the East was due to Alabama's desire to remain in the same division as Auburn. If Auburn moves east, Alabama would either lose the Iron Bowl game with Auburn, or Tennessee... neither which they would accept. Jr probably knows a lot more than me about this, but that is the way I understood the decision made when Missouri came to the SEC.

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.

my guess would be similar:
1. OU and OSU to SEC
2. Texas, TTagalong, Kansas, KState to PAC
3. Maybe the ACC throws WVU a lifeline

(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.