(04-03-2017 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 11:39 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 09:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 08:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-02-2017 09:33 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If the ACC gets Texas, my bet is that they are also taking a couple of little brothers to go along with them. Not sure which ones it would be, but UT is going to want the guaranteed local competition that they're used to having in abundance. I think that would be especially true considering the distance between Austin and most ACC schools.

By contrast, the SEC doesn't really need Texas although it would be great to have them. The SEC does more or less need Oklahoma and a solid partner.

My theory on the network desires is predicated partly on pushing Notre Dame to go all in. If Notre Dame is willing to go all in anyway then I don't think ESPN will try to push UT to the ACC. That's all speculation and a lot of 'ifs', of course.

I wouldn't necessarily say the SEC needs a second TX school. The right one could pay significant benefits, I've always thought that, but if we have OU then we're tapping that region anyway.

Perhaps this...

SEC adds Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and TCU

ACC adds Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, and Notre Dame

In a two 18 team scenario you might see:

SEC adds: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Baylor and West Virginia

ACC adds: Texas, Texas Tech, TCU and Norte Dame.

West Virginia would become the ACC/SEC crossover for Pitt as well as Baylor and TCU.
Oklahoma and Texas would continue the RRSO.
Whoever gets Texas is going to have to take the Red Raiders. This scenario should cover all of the political bases in Texas and Oklahoma.

With Oklahoma, the SEC has all of the Dallas market they need and adding TCU to the ACC, it allows Texas to have a "stage" in the Dallas market.

For the SEC divisions, I would probably move Vanderbilt and Ole Miss west to go along with Missouri, Arkansas, LSU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and A&M.

We would have more reason to take Kansas State than Baylor, and we don't have much of a reason to take Kansas State. What's more X is that ESPN has no reason to want Baylor. They would be more likely to want Kansas. So I think AllTideUP's lineup to 18 w/o Texas is about right if we were going to 18.

Sorry JR, I have tried and tried but I just can't seem to be able to imagine a scenario where Kansas would join the SEC.
Kansas State? I could see Iowa State way before Kansas State.

We are only talking in terms of 4 school scenarios here. If Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are a given. And if Texas is off the board and Texas Tech is headed with them to the ACC along with T.C.U. (which we wouldn't need with both Oklahoma's) what then are our priorities? Kansas and Iowa State are both AAU and add 6 million more to the footprint. Baylor is not worth it as a second school in Texas. The Aggies deliver what they deliver and then there's the recent baggage. Kansas State can't give us anything that Kansas couldn't deliver better. So the question becomes Iowa State vs West Virginia? Iowa State has more than two million more people. Iowa State is AAU agriculturally based, with a Vet school and other than being in the Yankee heartland fits the SEC in disciplines quite well. They would have to rebirth their baseball program. They put as many butts in the seats as the Eers but do it without burning furniture. They've never been known to attack pregnant women. And if the choice is between WVU and ISU, both being tough geographically, I think we prefer farmers to hillbillies. Besides WVU is a better fit for the ACC culturally.

But truthfully X, once we have the Oklahoma's, and if Texas is not an option, then 16 is all we take and make a profit.

JR, it looks like the West Virginia burning syndrome has started to spread southwest from Morgantown, and has now invaded the SEC. But I am hopeful that the Kentucky fans have not taken to attacking pregnant women like their West Virginia kinfolk.

http://thespun.com/college-hoops/video-k...g-unc-loss

(04-03-2017 08:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-02-2017 09:33 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-02-2017 08:26 PM)XLance Wrote:  Even if Texas moves to the ACC, the SEC still needs a second Texas school.

If the ACC gets Texas, my bet is that they are also taking a couple of little brothers to go along with them. Not sure which ones it would be, but UT is going to want the guaranteed local competition that they're used to having in abundance. I think that would be especially true considering the distance between Austin and most ACC schools.

By contrast, the SEC doesn't really need Texas although it would be great to have them. The SEC does more or less need Oklahoma and a solid partner.

My theory on the network desires is predicated partly on pushing Notre Dame to go all in. If Notre Dame is willing to go all in anyway then I don't think ESPN will try to push UT to the ACC. That's all speculation and a lot of 'ifs', of course.

I wouldn't necessarily say the SEC needs a second TX school. The right one could pay significant benefits, I've always thought that, but if we have OU then we're tapping that region anyway.

Perhaps this...

SEC adds Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and TCU

ACC adds Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, and Notre Dame

In a two 18 team scenario you might see:

SEC adds: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Baylor and West Virginia

ACC adds: Texas, Texas Tech, TCU and Norte Dame.

West Virginia would become the ACC/SEC crossover for Pitt as well as Baylor and TCU.
Oklahoma and Texas would continue the RRSO.
Whoever gets Texas is going to have to take the Red Raiders. This scenario should cover all of the political bases in Texas and Oklahoma.

With Oklahoma, the SEC has all of the Dallas market they need and adding TCU to the ACC, it allows Texas to have a "stage" in the Dallas market.

For the SEC divisions, I would probably move Vanderbilt and Ole Miss west to go along with Missouri, Arkansas, LSU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and A&M.

Yeah, if Texas is not on the table then I don't see us moving to 18 without Kansas. West Virginia would not be a priority.

Honestly, I don't see why KU wouldn't be interested in the SEC. They might prefer the B1G, they might not...who knows? Even if they do prefer the B1G that doesn't necessarily mean the B1G will take them if OU and UT are off the table. The financials might not be workable.

Anyway, I even remember an article from a few years back where a KU official was quoted as saying the SEC was a very desirable option.

The Big 12 could have survived if the B1G had taken Missouri instead of Nebraska, I understand that. But I'll bet Delany curses ESPN and the SEC every day for taking the Tigers..

I'm still putting Vanderbilt and Ole Miss in the west in a 16 team SEC with Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Arkansas, LSU and A&M.

(04-03-2017 02:40 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 11:39 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 09:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 08:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  In a two 18 team scenario you might see:

SEC adds: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Baylor and West Virginia

ACC adds: Texas, Texas Tech, TCU and Norte Dame.

West Virginia would become the ACC/SEC crossover for Pitt as well as Baylor and TCU.
Oklahoma and Texas would continue the RRSO.
Whoever gets Texas is going to have to take the Red Raiders. This scenario should cover all of the political bases in Texas and Oklahoma.

With Oklahoma, the SEC has all of the Dallas market they need and adding TCU to the ACC, it allows Texas to have a "stage" in the Dallas market.

For the SEC divisions, I would probably move Vanderbilt and Ole Miss west to go along with Missouri, Arkansas, LSU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and A&M.

We would have more reason to take Kansas State than Baylor, and we don't have much of a reason to take Kansas State. What's more X is that ESPN has no reason to want Baylor. They would be more likely to want Kansas. So I think AllTideUP's lineup to 18 w/o Texas is about right if we were going to 18.

Sorry JR, I have tried and tried but I just can't seem to be able to imagine a scenario where Kansas would join the SEC.
Kansas State? I could see Iowa State way before Kansas State.

We are only talking in terms of 4 school scenarios here. If Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are a given. And if Texas is off the board and Texas Tech is headed with them to the ACC along with T.C.U. (which we wouldn't need with both Oklahoma's) what then are our priorities? Kansas and Iowa State are both AAU and add 6 million more to the footprint. Baylor is not worth it as a second school in Texas. The Aggies deliver what they deliver and then there's the recent baggage. Kansas State can't give us anything that Kansas couldn't deliver better. So the question becomes Iowa State vs West Virginia? Iowa State has more than two million more people. Iowa State is AAU agriculturally based, with a Vet school and other than being in the Yankee heartland fits the SEC in disciplines quite well. They would have to rebirth their baseball program. They put as many butts in the seats as the Eers but do it without burning furniture. They've never been known to attack pregnant women. And if the choice is between WVU and ISU, both being tough geographically, I think we prefer farmers to hillbillies. Besides WVU is a better fit for the ACC culturally.

But truthfully X, once we have the Oklahoma's, and if Texas is not an option, then 16 is all we take and make a profit.

JR, it looks like the West Virginia burning syndrome has started to spread southwest from Morgantown, and has now invaded the SEC. But I am hopeful that the Kentucky fans have not taken to attacking pregnant women like their West Virginia kinfolk.

http://thespun.com/college-hoops/video-k...g-unc-loss

Yeah, we were all disgusted by that. Why is it that the Hatfields and McCoys all hate couches? Is it because a piece of furniture 6 feet long can't be placed on a level in them thar hills?

(04-03-2017 02:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 08:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-02-2017 09:33 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-02-2017 08:26 PM)XLance Wrote:  Even if Texas moves to the ACC, the SEC still needs a second Texas school.

If the ACC gets Texas, my bet is that they are also taking a couple of little brothers to go along with them. Not sure which ones it would be, but UT is going to want the guaranteed local competition that they're used to having in abundance. I think that would be especially true considering the distance between Austin and most ACC schools.

By contrast, the SEC doesn't really need Texas although it would be great to have them. The SEC does more or less need Oklahoma and a solid partner.

My theory on the network desires is predicated partly on pushing Notre Dame to go all in. If Notre Dame is willing to go all in anyway then I don't think ESPN will try to push UT to the ACC. That's all speculation and a lot of 'ifs', of course.

I wouldn't necessarily say the SEC needs a second TX school. The right one could pay significant benefits, I've always thought that, but if we have OU then we're tapping that region anyway.

Perhaps this...

SEC adds Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and TCU

ACC adds Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, and Notre Dame

In a two 18 team scenario you might see:

SEC adds: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Baylor and West Virginia

ACC adds: Texas, Texas Tech, TCU and Norte Dame.

West Virginia would become the ACC/SEC crossover for Pitt as well as Baylor and TCU.
Oklahoma and Texas would continue the RRSO.
Whoever gets Texas is going to have to take the Red Raiders. This scenario should cover all of the political bases in Texas and Oklahoma.

With Oklahoma, the SEC has all of the Dallas market they need and adding TCU to the ACC, it allows Texas to have a "stage" in the Dallas market.

For the SEC divisions, I would probably move Vanderbilt and Ole Miss west to go along with Missouri, Arkansas, LSU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and A&M.

Yeah, if Texas is not on the table then I don't see us moving to 18 without Kansas. West Virginia would not be a priority.

Honestly, I don't see why KU wouldn't be interested in the SEC. They might prefer the B1G, they might not...who knows? Even if they do prefer the B1G that doesn't necessarily mean the B1G will take them if OU and UT are off the table. The financials might not be workable.

Anyway, I even remember an article from a few years back where a KU official was quoted as saying the SEC was a very desirable option.

Yep, if Texas is off the table the SEC will make a play for OU & KU and will settle for OU and OSU, IMO. If the Big 10 passed on Kansas, and I'm not sure the money is there, and if we wanted that basketball brand, then and only then do I see W.V.U. getting a look as #4. I think the Baylor scandal has hit them at the worst possible time.

(04-03-2017 03:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 02:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 08:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-02-2017 09:33 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-02-2017 08:26 PM)XLance Wrote:  Even if Texas moves to the ACC, the SEC still needs a second Texas school.

If the ACC gets Texas, my bet is that they are also taking a couple of little brothers to go along with them. Not sure which ones it would be, but UT is going to want the guaranteed local competition that they're used to having in abundance. I think that would be especially true considering the distance between Austin and most ACC schools.

By contrast, the SEC doesn't really need Texas although it would be great to have them. The SEC does more or less need Oklahoma and a solid partner.

My theory on the network desires is predicated partly on pushing Notre Dame to go all in. If Notre Dame is willing to go all in anyway then I don't think ESPN will try to push UT to the ACC. That's all speculation and a lot of 'ifs', of course.

I wouldn't necessarily say the SEC needs a second TX school. The right one could pay significant benefits, I've always thought that, but if we have OU then we're tapping that region anyway.

Perhaps this...

SEC adds Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and TCU

ACC adds Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, and Notre Dame

In a two 18 team scenario you might see:

SEC adds: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Baylor and West Virginia

ACC adds: Texas, Texas Tech, TCU and Norte Dame.

West Virginia would become the ACC/SEC crossover for Pitt as well as Baylor and TCU.
Oklahoma and Texas would continue the RRSO.
Whoever gets Texas is going to have to take the Red Raiders. This scenario should cover all of the political bases in Texas and Oklahoma.

With Oklahoma, the SEC has all of the Dallas market they need and adding TCU to the ACC, it allows Texas to have a "stage" in the Dallas market.

For the SEC divisions, I would probably move Vanderbilt and Ole Miss west to go along with Missouri, Arkansas, LSU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and A&M.

Yeah, if Texas is not on the table then I don't see us moving to 18 without Kansas. West Virginia would not be a priority.

Honestly, I don't see why KU wouldn't be interested in the SEC. They might prefer the B1G, they might not...who knows? Even if they do prefer the B1G that doesn't necessarily mean the B1G will take them if OU and UT are off the table. The financials might not be workable.

Anyway, I even remember an article from a few years back where a KU official was quoted as saying the SEC was a very desirable option.

Yep, if Texas is off the table the SEC will make a play for OU & KU and will settle for OU and OSU, IMO. If the Big 10 passed on Kansas, and I'm not sure the money is there, and if we wanted that basketball brand, then and only then do I see W.V.U. getting a look as #4. I think the Baylor scandal has hit them at the worst possible time.

My theory on Baylor is that not only is no one going to want to take them, but that the networks may actually prefer a school like Houston to take their place if the numbers need work. Then again, I'm not well-versed in TX politics so I guess we'll see.

The main reason I have stayed strong on the idea of Kansas in the SEC is because I think ESPN will want to keep them in the fold. Assuming 18 is realistic then I think there should be a decent enough 4th to make it worthwhile.

(04-03-2017 02:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  The Big 12 could have survived if the B1G had taken Missouri instead of Nebraska, I understand that. But I'll bet Delany curses ESPN and the SEC every day for taking the Tigers..

I'm still putting Vanderbilt and Ole Miss in the west in a 16 team SEC with Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Arkansas, LSU and A&M.

The B1G was convinced that the ACC was about to implode. They wanted those slots for more valuable schools to the East. The worm turned and they got caught holding the proverbial bag.

The Simple Truth here X is that they truly believed Missouri would always be there if needed, and Kansas doesn't pay their way into the Big 10. The Big 10 already has dominate carriage in some of their largest cities. Why buy the cow if you can steal the milk? Kansas may only be of value to the PAC if the were to get bold enough, and to the SEC as not only an in conference football patsy, but to also to cover our lack of depth in basketball and to give Kentucky it's version of Duke.

(04-03-2017 04:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 02:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  The Big 12 could have survived if the B1G had taken Missouri instead of Nebraska, I understand that. But I'll bet Delany curses ESPN and the SEC every day for taking the Tigers..

I'm still putting Vanderbilt and Ole Miss in the west in a 16 team SEC with Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Arkansas, LSU and A&M.

The B1G was convinced that the ACC was about to implode. They wanted those slots for more valuable schools to the East. The worm turned and they got caught holding the proverbial bag.

The Simple Truth here X is that they truly believed Missouri would always be there if needed, and Kansas doesn't pay their way into the Big 10. The Big 10 already has dominate carriage in some of their largest cities. Why buy the cow if you can steal the milk? Kansas may only be of value to the PAC if the were to get bold enough, and to the SEC as not only an in conference football patsy, but to also to cover our lack of depth in basketball and to give Kentucky it's version of Duke.

If I were King of the PAC, I would invite Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. You would get good, not great, access to the mid west. One football KING, one basketball KING and end up with 5/8 of the Big 8.
It's a good thing for the SEC that I'm not the king of the PAC.

(04-03-2017 06:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 04:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 02:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  The Big 12 could have survived if the B1G had taken Missouri instead of Nebraska, I understand that. But I'll bet Delany curses ESPN and the SEC every day for taking the Tigers..

I'm still putting Vanderbilt and Ole Miss in the west in a 16 team SEC with Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Arkansas, LSU and A&M.

The B1G was convinced that the ACC was about to implode. They wanted those slots for more valuable schools to the East. The worm turned and they got caught holding the proverbial bag.

The Simple Truth here X is that they truly believed Missouri would always be there if needed, and Kansas doesn't pay their way into the Big 10. The Big 10 already has dominate carriage in some of their largest cities. Why buy the cow if you can steal the milk? Kansas may only be of value to the PAC if the were to get bold enough, and to the SEC as not only an in conference football patsy, but to also to cover our lack of depth in basketball and to give Kentucky it's version of Duke.

If I were King of the PAC, I would invite Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. You would get good, not great, access to the mid west. One football KING, one basketball KING and end up with 5/8 of the Big 8.
It's a good thing for the SEC that I'm not the king of the PAC.

Since the PAC would have to operate unilaterally they would need to take 8 in order to land those schools. They won't of course do that. So when we wait until the end of the GOR for movement they will be outbid by their richer peers in the North and Deep South. And X, if you were King of the PAC you wouldn't have much of a kingdom would you? Lousy viewer numbers, poor payouts, terrible distribution for your network, and a conference only netting a couple of million each tops from that network.

If I were King of the SEC I would take Texa-homa, jack up my revenue, and then wait for the end of the ACC's GOR and make a wholesale pitch to the best 6 schools to close out my conference at 24 with 4 division of 6 thereby locking the Big 10 out the Southeast in any meaningful way, cementing my schools as the top paid in the nation, and settling down with the best the of all major sports.

(04-03-2017 07:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 06:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 04:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 02:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  The Big 12 could have survived if the B1G had taken Missouri instead of Nebraska, I understand that. But I'll bet Delany curses ESPN and the SEC every day for taking the Tigers..

I'm still putting Vanderbilt and Ole Miss in the west in a 16 team SEC with Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Arkansas, LSU and A&M.

The B1G was convinced that the ACC was about to implode. They wanted those slots for more valuable schools to the East. The worm turned and they got caught holding the proverbial bag.

The Simple Truth here X is that they truly believed Missouri would always be there if needed, and Kansas doesn't pay their way into the Big 10. The Big 10 already has dominate carriage in some of their largest cities. Why buy the cow if you can steal the milk? Kansas may only be of value to the PAC if the were to get bold enough, and to the SEC as not only an in conference football patsy, but to also to cover our lack of depth in basketball and to give Kentucky it's version of Duke.

If I were King of the PAC, I would invite Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. You would get good, not great, access to the mid west. One football KING, one basketball KING and end up with 5/8 of the Big 8.
It's a good thing for the SEC that I'm not the king of the PAC.

Since the PAC would have to operate unilaterally they would need to take 8 in order to land those schools. They won't of course do that. So when we wait until the end of the GOR for movement they will be outbid by their richer peers in the North and Deep South. And X, if you were King of the PAC you wouldn't have much of a kingdom would you? Lousy viewer numbers, poor payouts, terrible distribution for your network, and a conference only netting a couple of million each tops from that network.

If I were King of the SEC I would take Texa-homa, jack up my revenue, and then wait for the end of the ACC's GOR and make a wholesale pitch to the best 6 schools to close out my conference at 24 with 4 division of 6 thereby locking the Big 10 out the Southeast in any meaningful way, cementing my schools as the top paid in the nation, and settling down with the best the of all major sports.

When Kings were out of money, they only had two choices; go to war if there was a lesser kingdom near by that they could pillage , or marry into a greater kingdom and sponge off of the in-laws.
The Big 12 has been reaching out for scheduling partners, but no one is taking the bait. It won't be too long before the PAC will be doing the same. The question is: will they try to sell off some of their network to attract some attention or just go ahead and beg the B1G to take them in?

(04-04-2017 07:17 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 07:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 06:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 04:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 02:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  The Big 12 could have survived if the B1G had taken Missouri instead of Nebraska, I understand that. But I'll bet Delany curses ESPN and the SEC every day for taking the Tigers..

I'm still putting Vanderbilt and Ole Miss in the west in a 16 team SEC with Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Arkansas, LSU and A&M.

The B1G was convinced that the ACC was about to implode. They wanted those slots for more valuable schools to the East. The worm turned and they got caught holding the proverbial bag.

The Simple Truth here X is that they truly believed Missouri would always be there if needed, and Kansas doesn't pay their way into the Big 10. The Big 10 already has dominate carriage in some of their largest cities. Why buy the cow if you can steal the milk? Kansas may only be of value to the PAC if the were to get bold enough, and to the SEC as not only an in conference football patsy, but to also to cover our lack of depth in basketball and to give Kentucky it's version of Duke.

If I were King of the PAC, I would invite Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. You would get good, not great, access to the mid west. One football KING, one basketball KING and end up with 5/8 of the Big 8.
It's a good thing for the SEC that I'm not the king of the PAC.

Since the PAC would have to operate unilaterally they would need to take 8 in order to land those schools. They won't of course do that. So when we wait until the end of the GOR for movement they will be outbid by their richer peers in the North and Deep South. And X, if you were King of the PAC you wouldn't have much of a kingdom would you? Lousy viewer numbers, poor payouts, terrible distribution for your network, and a conference only netting a couple of million each tops from that network.

If I were King of the SEC I would take Texa-homa, jack up my revenue, and then wait for the end of the ACC's GOR and make a wholesale pitch to the best 6 schools to close out my conference at 24 with 4 division of 6 thereby locking the Big 10 out the Southeast in any meaningful way, cementing my schools as the top paid in the nation, and settling down with the best the of all major sports.

When Kings were out of money, they only had two choices; go to war if there was a lesser kingdom near by that they could pillage , or marry into a greater kingdom and sponge off of the in-laws.
The Big 12 has been reaching out for scheduling partners, but no one is taking the bait. It won't be too long before the PAC will be doing the same. The question is: will they try to sell off some of their network to attract some attention or just go ahead and beg the B1G to take them in?

So far FOX has taken the low hanging fruit. They overpaid the Big 10 to get a piece of it. That was much easier to do than (a) poaching the ACC, or (b) buying into the SEC. The PAC is the lowest hanging fruit there is. Why? They are too far away to be poached so they aren't going anywhere in piece meal fashion. They are also the lowest valued. I could see FOX buying the same % of the PAC that they bought of the Big 10 and then essentially merging the two. They could make more by merging them.

If that were to happen I could see ESPN taking the top 3 brands from the Big 12 (it's a lot cheaper to do) and merging (in a fashion) the four divisions of the SEC and ACC in some kind of scheduling merger. The two conferences keep their brand, eventually some of the schools may play in divisions which are even more geographically aligned, and we have 4 divisions producing 1 champion to play the one yielded by the PAC / B1G merger. Bowls will hang around but the 8 divisional champs of the two mergers would be your playoff field. But if we head in that direction there will be no more G5 or FCS games. You would play the 7 schools in your division and rotate 2 from each other division every year. That's 13 games. 2 more for the merged conference championship, and one for the final game. That's only 1 more game than the champion has to play now.

For the money it would produce I think the schools might compromise on 1 more game.

(04-04-2017 11:23 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 07:17 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 07:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 06:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 04:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The B1G was convinced that the ACC was about to implode. They wanted those slots for more valuable schools to the East. The worm turned and they got caught holding the proverbial bag.

The Simple Truth here X is that they truly believed Missouri would always be there if needed, and Kansas doesn't pay their way into the Big 10. The Big 10 already has dominate carriage in some of their largest cities. Why buy the cow if you can steal the milk? Kansas may only be of value to the PAC if the were to get bold enough, and to the SEC as not only an in conference football patsy, but to also to cover our lack of depth in basketball and to give Kentucky it's version of Duke.

If I were King of the PAC, I would invite Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. You would get good, not great, access to the mid west. One football KING, one basketball KING and end up with 5/8 of the Big 8.
It's a good thing for the SEC that I'm not the king of the PAC.

Since the PAC would have to operate unilaterally they would need to take 8 in order to land those schools. They won't of course do that. So when we wait until the end of the GOR for movement they will be outbid by their richer peers in the North and Deep South. And X, if you were King of the PAC you wouldn't have much of a kingdom would you? Lousy viewer numbers, poor payouts, terrible distribution for your network, and a conference only netting a couple of million each tops from that network.

If I were King of the SEC I would take Texa-homa, jack up my revenue, and then wait for the end of the ACC's GOR and make a wholesale pitch to the best 6 schools to close out my conference at 24 with 4 division of 6 thereby locking the Big 10 out the Southeast in any meaningful way, cementing my schools as the top paid in the nation, and settling down with the best the of all major sports.

When Kings were out of money, they only had two choices; go to war if there was a lesser kingdom near by that they could pillage , or marry into a greater kingdom and sponge off of the in-laws.
The Big 12 has been reaching out for scheduling partners, but no one is taking the bait. It won't be too long before the PAC will be doing the same. The question is: will they try to sell off some of their network to attract some attention or just go ahead and beg the B1G to take them in?

So far FOX has taken the low hanging fruit. They overpaid the Big 10 to get a piece of it. That was much easier to do than (a) poaching the ACC, or (b) buying into the SEC. The PAC is the lowest hanging fruit there is. Why? They are too far away to be poached so they aren't going anywhere in piece meal fashion. They are also the lowest valued. I could see FOX buying the same % of the PAC that they bought of the Big 10 and then essentially merging the two. They could make more by merging them.

If that were to happen I could see ESPN taking the top 3 brands from the Big 12 (it's a lot cheaper to do) and merging (in a fashion) the four divisions of the SEC and ACC in some kind of scheduling merger. The two conferences keep their brand, eventually some of the schools may play in divisions which are even more geographically aligned, and we have 4 divisions producing 1 champion to play the one yielded by the PAC / B1G merger. Bowls will hang around but the 8 divisional champs of the two mergers would be your playoff field. But if we head in that direction there will be no more G5 or FCS games. You would play the 7 schools in your division and rotate 2 from each other division every year. That's 13 games. 2 more for the merged conference championship, and one for the final game. That's only 1 more game than the champion has to play now.

For the money it would produce I think the schools might compromise on 1 more game.

The networks need home games they control that people want to watch. The conferences will decide how they want to schedule just like the networks will adjust compensation.

At some point, the rumblings of separate playoffs for the G5 and P5 might come to fruition. This might allow greater flexibility in P5 scheduling and determination of conference champions

(04-04-2017 11:23 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 07:17 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 07:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 06:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 04:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The B1G was convinced that the ACC was about to implode. They wanted those slots for more valuable schools to the East. The worm turned and they got caught holding the proverbial bag.

The Simple Truth here X is that they truly believed Missouri would always be there if needed, and Kansas doesn't pay their way into the Big 10. The Big 10 already has dominate carriage in some of their largest cities. Why buy the cow if you can steal the milk? Kansas may only be of value to the PAC if the were to get bold enough, and to the SEC as not only an in conference football patsy, but to also to cover our lack of depth in basketball and to give Kentucky it's version of Duke.

If I were King of the PAC, I would invite Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. You would get good, not great, access to the mid west. One football KING, one basketball KING and end up with 5/8 of the Big 8.
It's a good thing for the SEC that I'm not the king of the PAC.

Since the PAC would have to operate unilaterally they would need to take 8 in order to land those schools. They won't of course do that. So when we wait until the end of the GOR for movement they will be outbid by their richer peers in the North and Deep South. And X, if you were King of the PAC you wouldn't have much of a kingdom would you? Lousy viewer numbers, poor payouts, terrible distribution for your network, and a conference only netting a couple of million each tops from that network.

If I were King of the SEC I would take Texa-homa, jack up my revenue, and then wait for the end of the ACC's GOR and make a wholesale pitch to the best 6 schools to close out my conference at 24 with 4 division of 6 thereby locking the Big 10 out the Southeast in any meaningful way, cementing my schools as the top paid in the nation, and settling down with the best the of all major sports.

When Kings were out of money, they only had two choices; go to war if there was a lesser kingdom near by that they could pillage , or marry into a greater kingdom and sponge off of the in-laws.
The Big 12 has been reaching out for scheduling partners, but no one is taking the bait. It won't be too long before the PAC will be doing the same. The question is: will they try to sell off some of their network to attract some attention or just go ahead and beg the B1G to take them in?

So far FOX has taken the low hanging fruit. They overpaid the Big 10 to get a piece of it. That was much easier to do than (a) poaching the ACC, or (b) buying into the SEC. The PAC is the lowest hanging fruit there is. Why? They are too far away to be poached so they aren't going anywhere in piece meal fashion. They are also the lowest valued. I could see FOX buying the same % of the PAC that they bought of the Big 10 and then essentially merging the two. They could make more by merging them.

If that were to happen I could see ESPN taking the top 3 brands from the Big 12 (it's a lot cheaper to do) and merging (in a fashion) the four divisions of the SEC and ACC in some kind of scheduling merger. The two conferences keep their brand, eventually some of the schools may play in divisions which are even more geographically aligned, and we have 4 divisions producing 1 champion to play the one yielded by the PAC / B1G merger. Bowls will hang around but the 8 divisional champs of the two mergers would be your playoff field. But if we head in that direction there will be no more G5 or FCS games. You would play the 7 schools in your division and rotate 2 from each other division every year. That's 13 games. 2 more for the merged conference championship, and one for the final game. That's only 1 more game than the champion has to play now.

For the money it would produce I think the schools might compromise on 1 more game.

Ok, JR which top three?
32 for the SEC/ACC?
Notre Dame? In or partial?

(04-04-2017 08:51 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 11:23 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 07:17 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 07:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 06:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  If I were King of the PAC, I would invite Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. You would get good, not great, access to the mid west. One football KING, one basketball KING and end up with 5/8 of the Big 8.
It's a good thing for the SEC that I'm not the king of the PAC.

Since the PAC would have to operate unilaterally they would need to take 8 in order to land those schools. They won't of course do that. So when we wait until the end of the GOR for movement they will be outbid by their richer peers in the North and Deep South. And X, if you were King of the PAC you wouldn't have much of a kingdom would you? Lousy viewer numbers, poor payouts, terrible distribution for your network, and a conference only netting a couple of million each tops from that network.

If I were King of the SEC I would take Texa-homa, jack up my revenue, and then wait for the end of the ACC's GOR and make a wholesale pitch to the best 6 schools to close out my conference at 24 with 4 division of 6 thereby locking the Big 10 out the Southeast in any meaningful way, cementing my schools as the top paid in the nation, and settling down with the best the of all major sports.

When Kings were out of money, they only had two choices; go to war if there was a lesser kingdom near by that they could pillage , or marry into a greater kingdom and sponge off of the in-laws.
The Big 12 has been reaching out for scheduling partners, but no one is taking the bait. It won't be too long before the PAC will be doing the same. The question is: will they try to sell off some of their network to attract some attention or just go ahead and beg the B1G to take them in?

So far FOX has taken the low hanging fruit. They overpaid the Big 10 to get a piece of it. That was much easier to do than (a) poaching the ACC, or (b) buying into the SEC. The PAC is the lowest hanging fruit there is. Why? They are too far away to be poached so they aren't going anywhere in piece meal fashion. They are also the lowest valued. I could see FOX buying the same % of the PAC that they bought of the Big 10 and then essentially merging the two. They could make more by merging them.

If that were to happen I could see ESPN taking the top 3 brands from the Big 12 (it's a lot cheaper to do) and merging (in a fashion) the four divisions of the SEC and ACC in some kind of scheduling merger. The two conferences keep their brand, eventually some of the schools may play in divisions which are even more geographically aligned, and we have 4 divisions producing 1 champion to play the one yielded by the PAC / B1G merger. Bowls will hang around but the 8 divisional champs of the two mergers would be your playoff field. But if we head in that direction there will be no more G5 or FCS games. You would play the 7 schools in your division and rotate 2 from each other division every year. That's 13 games. 2 more for the merged conference championship, and one for the final game. That's only 1 more game than the champion has to play now.

For the money it would produce I think the schools might compromise on 1 more game.

Ok, JR which top three?
32 for the SEC/ACC?
Notre Dame? In or partial?

Notre Dame would be in along with Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas.

North Division:
Boston College, Kentucky, Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech

East Division:
Duke, Clemson, North Carolina, N.C. State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest

South Division:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami, Mississippi State

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

That's what I mean X. Four geographically grouped divisions.

We move to a 13 game regular season schedule. We play our 7 divisional mates, rotate 1 game a year from each of the other three divisions and have 1 permanent rival from each of the other three divisions.

The four division champs play it off. The others with a winning record all go to bowls. Only the champion would play a 16th game. Right now the two finalists play the 15th game.

The networks get all P competition. They get another 16 games worth of inventory. And, the conference champion is in the finals.

Most divisions could literally drive to all of their games with Miami being the possible exception.

JR, as much as I like your breakdown, I'm not sure it would fly in the minds of the public when it comes down to playoff time. I could see a 32 v 33 split or if you are intent of leaving Baylor out then 32-32.
The bad thing then is that you have to give up Oklahoma and beg the B1G/PAC to take West Virginia to help ease the embarrassment of the Rutgers/Maryland fiasco.

Then you might see:

WEST
Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Baylor, TCU, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri

SOUTH
Georgia, Florida, Miami, Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Florida State, Miss. State

MID-ATLANTIC
Georgia Tech, Clemson, South Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest, NC State, Carolina, UVa

NORTH
Kentucky, Louisville, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College

Would anyone be interested in a Missouri for Oklahoma swap?

(04-05-2017 11:13 AM)XLance Wrote:  JR, as much as I like your breakdown, I'm not sure it would fly in the minds of the public when it comes down to playoff time. I could see a 32 v 33 split or if you are intent of leaving Baylor out then 32-32.
The bad thing then is that you have to give up Oklahoma and beg the B1G/PAC to take West Virginia to help ease the embarrassment of the Rutgers/Maryland fiasco.

Then you might see:

WEST
Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Baylor, TCU, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri

SOUTH
Georgia, Florida, Miami, Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Florida State, Miss. State

MID-ATLANTIC
Georgia Tech, Clemson, South Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest, NC State, Carolina, UVa

NORTH
Kentucky, Louisville, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College

Would anyone be interested in a Missouri for Oklahoma swap?

It's not my favorite alignment but it still gives this grouping total control in DFW. In that regard it works. I'm still not sure I would have Baylor in this grouping.

And while you guys don't have the guts to tell N.D. all in or all out the new grouping would. Notre Dame for Baylor and it's done. No N.D. and the Big 10 / PAC gets plenty without having to have OU. So still drop Baylor and add the two Oklahoma's.

(04-04-2017 09:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 08:51 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 11:23 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 07:17 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-03-2017 07:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Since the PAC would have to operate unilaterally they would need to take 8 in order to land those schools. They won't of course do that. So when we wait until the end of the GOR for movement they will be outbid by their richer peers in the North and Deep South. And X, if you were King of the PAC you wouldn't have much of a kingdom would you? Lousy viewer numbers, poor payouts, terrible distribution for your network, and a conference only netting a couple of million each tops from that network.

If I were King of the SEC I would take Texa-homa, jack up my revenue, and then wait for the end of the ACC's GOR and make a wholesale pitch to the best 6 schools to close out my conference at 24 with 4 division of 6 thereby locking the Big 10 out the Southeast in any meaningful way, cementing my schools as the top paid in the nation, and settling down with the best the of all major sports.

When Kings were out of money, they only had two choices; go to war if there was a lesser kingdom near by that they could pillage , or marry into a greater kingdom and sponge off of the in-laws.
The Big 12 has been reaching out for scheduling partners, but no one is taking the bait. It won't be too long before the PAC will be doing the same. The question is: will they try to sell off some of their network to attract some attention or just go ahead and beg the B1G to take them in?

So far FOX has taken the low hanging fruit. They overpaid the Big 10 to get a piece of it. That was much easier to do than (a) poaching the ACC, or (b) buying into the SEC. The PAC is the lowest hanging fruit there is. Why? They are too far away to be poached so they aren't going anywhere in piece meal fashion. They are also the lowest valued. I could see FOX buying the same % of the PAC that they bought of the Big 10 and then essentially merging the two. They could make more by merging them.

If that were to happen I could see ESPN taking the top 3 brands from the Big 12 (it's a lot cheaper to do) and merging (in a fashion) the four divisions of the SEC and ACC in some kind of scheduling merger. The two conferences keep their brand, eventually some of the schools may play in divisions which are even more geographically aligned, and we have 4 divisions producing 1 champion to play the one yielded by the PAC / B1G merger. Bowls will hang around but the 8 divisional champs of the two mergers would be your playoff field. But if we head in that direction there will be no more G5 or FCS games. You would play the 7 schools in your division and rotate 2 from each other division every year. That's 13 games. 2 more for the merged conference championship, and one for the final game. That's only 1 more game than the champion has to play now.

For the money it would produce I think the schools might compromise on 1 more game.

Ok, JR which top three?
32 for the SEC/ACC?
Notre Dame? In or partial?

Notre Dame would be in along with Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas.

North Division:
Boston College, Kentucky, Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech

East Division:
Duke, Clemson, North Carolina, N.C. State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest

South Division:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami, Mississippi State

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

That's what I mean X. Four geographically grouped divisions.

We move to a 13 game regular season schedule. We play our 7 divisional mates, rotate 1 game a year from each of the other three divisions and have 1 permanent rival from each of the other three divisions.

The four division champs play it off. The others with a winning record all go to bowls. Only the champion would play a 16th game. Right now the two finalists play the 15th game.

The networks get all P competition. They get another 16 games worth of inventory. And, the conference champion is in the finals.

Most divisions could literally drive to all of their games with Miami being the possible exception.

From a Clemson perspective, I would not like this set up much. It would be fun to gain UT but most of our natural football rivals are in the South Division and we could only have one of these as a permanent cross over. Great for travel but not too exciting from a football game day perspective.