When asked about realignment he said that he didn't think it was over and that he thought there was a good chance in 4 or 5 years that Oklahoma and Texas would leave the Big 12 like Texas A&M did. The thought was they would head for the money in either the SEC or Big 10. Previously the writer had wondered if Oklahoma was angling for an SEC invite and that he saw OU and OSU as being likely to head to the SEC if they left the Big 12.

But, Corso letting that slip is probably at least a sign of where ESPN leans if not some primary knowledge of how things are developing.

http://gridironnow.com/lee-corso-wouldnt...ve-big-12/

OU and Texas will always make money. They don't need the SEC or anyone else. I can't imagine either wanting to join a conference with any real competition. They like the schedule they have.

(04-06-2017 05:52 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  OU and Texas will always make money. They don't need the SEC or anyone else. I can't imagine either wanting to join a conference with any real competition. They like the schedule they have.

True, but OU and UT have publicly clashed over issues for ages. The chances of one or both leaving is possible, but the next realistic window for leaving is in about 5-7 years at the end of some TV contracts.

Nebraska left over disagreeing for decades over scheduling and prop 42's and too much Texas centric conference decisions.

Colorado left to be more connected with their alumni base in California.

A&M left when Texas was trying to run over the Big 12 with its network demands; more conference games, showing recruit's games on LHN.

Missouri left for a more stable and profitable conference after years of possible Big 12 break ups leaving Mizzou possibly looking for s new home and much lower paycheck.

(04-06-2017 01:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  When asked about realignment he said that he didn't think it was over and that he thought there was a good chance in 4 or 5 years that Oklahoma and Texas would leave the Big 12 like Texas A&M did. The thought was they would head for the money in either the SEC or Big 10. Previously the writer had wondered if Oklahoma was angling for an SEC invite and that he saw OU and OSU as being likely to head to the SEC if they left the Big 12.

But, Corso letting that slip is probably at least a sign of where ESPN leans if not some primary knowledge of how things are developing.

http://gridironnow.com/lee-corso-wouldnt...ve-big-12/

We can thank Chaddd Scott's article due to his twitter account following the Fluge.

(04-06-2017 05:52 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  OU and Texas will always make money. They don't need the SEC or anyone else. I can't imagine either wanting to join a conference with any real competition. They like the schedule they have.

They never would have joined the Big 12 in the first place had they only been interested in easy paths to a championship. Remember that the Big 8 and the SWC were pretty light on competition.

More to the point, the fans don't like the schedule. Fans want to see big games and rivals. Ultimately, fans pay the bills.

(04-06-2017 01:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  When asked about realignment he said that he didn't think it was over and that he thought there was a good chance in 4 or 5 years that Oklahoma and Texas would leave the Big 12 like Texas A&M did. The thought was they would head for the money in either the SEC or Big 10. Previously the writer had wondered if Oklahoma was angling for an SEC invite and that he saw OU and OSU as being likely to head to the SEC if they left the Big 12.

But, Corso letting that slip is probably at least a sign of where ESPN leans if not some primary knowledge of how things are developing.

http://gridironnow.com/lee-corso-wouldnt...ve-big-12/

Corso is just saying what ESPN has told him to say. Remember the night they they had Holtz spouting off about how Notre Dame should join a conference.

(04-06-2017 12:02 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 01:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  When asked about realignment he said that he didn't think it was over and that he thought there was a good chance in 4 or 5 years that Oklahoma and Texas would leave the Big 12 like Texas A&M did. The thought was they would head for the money in either the SEC or Big 10. Previously the writer had wondered if Oklahoma was angling for an SEC invite and that he saw OU and OSU as being likely to head to the SEC if they left the Big 12.

But, Corso letting that slip is probably at least a sign of where ESPN leans if not some primary knowledge of how things are developing.

http://gridironnow.com/lee-corso-wouldnt...ve-big-12/

Corso is just saying what ESPN has told him to say. Remember the night they they had Holtz spouting off about how Notre Dame should join a conference.

That's pretty much my take with one minor glitch to think about. Corso is having some memory issues. It's hard to know if ESPN wanted him to say it, or if he is talking out of school. Holtz was just doing master's bidding.

If I'm ESPN what can I take away from the Big 12 that makes me more money in the future? Texas, Oklahoma, and to a much lesser extent Kansas. So it doesn't take rocket science to figure out the game plan here.

(04-06-2017 12:02 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 01:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  When asked about realignment he said that he didn't think it was over and that he thought there was a good chance in 4 or 5 years that Oklahoma and Texas would leave the Big 12 like Texas A&M did. The thought was they would head for the money in either the SEC or Big 10. Previously the writer had wondered if Oklahoma was angling for an SEC invite and that he saw OU and OSU as being likely to head to the SEC if they left the Big 12.

But, Corso letting that slip is probably at least a sign of where ESPN leans if not some primary knowledge of how things are developing.

http://gridironnow.com/lee-corso-wouldnt...ve-big-12/

Corso is just saying what ESPN has told him to say. Remember the night they they had Holtz spouting off about how Notre Dame should join a conference.

Well, there is a difference between a talking head giving his opinion of what should happen as opposed to being more definitive about what he thinks will happen.

Corso wouldn't be the first to say that realignment isn't done.

(04-06-2017 01:04 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 12:02 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 01:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  When asked about realignment he said that he didn't think it was over and that he thought there was a good chance in 4 or 5 years that Oklahoma and Texas would leave the Big 12 like Texas A&M did. The thought was they would head for the money in either the SEC or Big 10. Previously the writer had wondered if Oklahoma was angling for an SEC invite and that he saw OU and OSU as being likely to head to the SEC if they left the Big 12.

But, Corso letting that slip is probably at least a sign of where ESPN leans if not some primary knowledge of how things are developing.

http://gridironnow.com/lee-corso-wouldnt...ve-big-12/

Corso is just saying what ESPN has told him to say. Remember the night they they had Holtz spouting off about how Notre Dame should join a conference.

Well, there is a difference between a talking head giving his opinion of what should happen as opposed to being more definitive about what he thinks will happen.

Corso wouldn't be the first to say that realignment isn't done.

The thing about all realignment discussion that I find interesting is the depth of denial of the obvious that fans will go to in order to preserve their own world view.

If we could divorce ourselves from our passions and just look at everything objectively and logically it really isn't hard to see where things are going.

The PAC for instance has consistently been protective rather than proactive. Therefore the predictions about their future behavior are for a continued caution by the California schools and Washington in the protection of that which they find comfortable. The truth is they aren't a sports crazy conference and they like things the way they are. So expansion for them has to fit the PAC way of life. I doubt that they care to dive into the heartland for expansion because it is so very different from their culture and their emphasis on athletics.

The Big 12 has been about what's best for Texas and to a slightly lesser extent Oklahoma. The result is that their mid-level and autonomous schools have departed.

The SEC added Arkansas, Texas A&M and Missouri. They also added South Carolina. When we added S.Carolina and Arkansas we discussed openly in our meetings that both of those schools were valuable to us on their own, but also as bridges to other schools of interest. ESPN shut off expansion to the East by refusing to pay for it. They tried to work out a deal that would permit the SECN to gain access to North Carolina and Virginia but certain ACC schools balked at the idea even though it would have landed them brands and markets sufficient to support a network.

So, the last additions were to the West. That strongly suggests that the SEC will be used to acquire more Western schools. Which schools to the West can add value to the existing SEC? Texas, Oklahoma, and possibly Kansas.

The ACC expanded into the Northeast and into the Southeast. Louisville was a bridge to Indiana and therefore Notre Dame. Their next move is highly debatable. There are no more brands to the North or South that are beneficial to them and they are not in a financial situation to attract brands away from another conference.

The Big 10 wanted into the East. Their additions in the 90's were like those of the SEC. They added one to the East and one to the Southwest. The last two were to the East. They will look East again and will go after the only brands available there which happen to be ACC schools. They would take Texas but they won't take Kansas and Oklahoma without Texas. Texas won't head to the Big 10 and they know it. So they will look East.

Mike Slive said the next round of realignment could lead to some very, very large conferences.

So the practical projections that I would make are these:
1. The PAC will likely stay put. If they do expand they might now look at U.N.L.V. and Hawaii. The latter because of Scott's interest in tying into the Asian market. The former because it will now have a venue worthy of being a destination for PAC fans. So if the PAC moves to 14 that now becomes the way to do it. If Texas and Oklahoma leave the Big 12 in the future then Texas Tech and T.C.U. become a way to get into a much larger market if the PAC decides that's something thy want to do.

2. The Big 12 hangs in until the GOR expires and then it goes away. Why? It is the most profitable outcome for Texas and Oklahoma.

3. ESPN has two options with regard to Texas and Oklahoma. They could simply use the SEC to attract both of them and then build its Western division around those two brands giving them the RRR to anchor the West with tremendous help from Arkansas, A&M an L.S.U. to keep it as successful of a division as it has been for the past two decades. Then they could move Auburn and Alabama to the East to rebuild the strength of that division. If Texas and Oklahoma can't have their own conference, perhaps they would love their own division, especially if it consists of former rivals.

Or, they could revisit the original deal that was offered in 2011. N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC. Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Notre Dame all in for the ACC. This would sufficiently enhance the ACC to the status of being a viable rival for the SEC and that would make the schools of the ACC a lot more money, give the most successful sports network the SECN two large new markets, and provide Texas a 4 school division in which Miami would allow those Western schools access to Florida.

But, if the same selfishness is exhibited by the old core of the ACC that was exhibited in 2011 the option of adding Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC is still viable.

The ACC needs to be very careful about its decision because in 2034 the Big 10 might come calling with much larger coffers and with determination to get what they are after. Because of that....

4. The Big 10 will again make a play for Notre Dame, North Carolina, and Virginia and if taking Duke too ensures the move they will. They might even look at adding Pittsburgh and Georgia Tech to that strategy to move to 20. Why? The population and money is much greater there than in Kansas and Oklahoma without Texas.

If that happens the SEC will be likely able to land Clemson, Florida State, N.C. State and Virginia Tech anyway. Then if we can get Oklahoma and Texas to the West we can stand at a formidable 20. If during that kind of massive move the PAC does take an uncharacteristic plunge into the Big 12 and takes 8 of those schools they can move to 20 as well (UT, TTU, OU, OSU, ISU, KU, KSU, TCU). The SEC in that case might look at two of Louisville, West Virginia and Miami (provided Texas and Oklahoma are part of the contingent moving to the PAC).

So much indeed will depend upon what the ACC chooses to do next. It really might come down to deal, or no deal. If they deal it is long range security. If they don't it may be a short future.

5. What I don't buy into:
a. The PAC simply taking the leftovers of the Big 12.
b. The Big 10 being truly interested in the Southern Midwest.
c. The SEC having to do anything if they don't get what they want.
e. The ACC having a lot of options beyond N.D. and maybe one other, unless they make a deal and take a group from the Big 12.
f. The Big 12 expanding. It's simply not going to be paid for by the networks and expansion isn't profitable from the pool at hand.

So much of what we've already talked about has been the proverbial two blind guys feeling the elephant to determine what it is. Virtually all aspects are in play.

I think the Big 10 talk about taking OU and KU is merely like their talk once before about Missouri. It's a misdirection from their logical alternatives. If they took 6 Eastern schools they could essentially have a Big 10 East that would be two divisions of their new additions plus Purdue. Their two Western divisions would be the Old Big 10 plus Nebraska. That's really fairly ideal.

Ditto for the SEC with regard to Texas and OU, but for us it would still work if we took 4 more schools to the East.

But, if the ACC makes the deal that was originally considered, then they would be an equal partner with the Big 10 and SEC all of which likely would stop at 16.

We'll see.

(04-06-2017 01:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 01:04 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 12:02 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 01:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  When asked about realignment he said that he didn't think it was over and that he thought there was a good chance in 4 or 5 years that Oklahoma and Texas would leave the Big 12 like Texas A&M did. The thought was they would head for the money in either the SEC or Big 10. Previously the writer had wondered if Oklahoma was angling for an SEC invite and that he saw OU and OSU as being likely to head to the SEC if they left the Big 12.

But, Corso letting that slip is probably at least a sign of where ESPN leans if not some primary knowledge of how things are developing.

http://gridironnow.com/lee-corso-wouldnt...ve-big-12/

Corso is just saying what ESPN has told him to say. Remember the night they they had Holtz spouting off about how Notre Dame should join a conference.

Well, there is a difference between a talking head giving his opinion of what should happen as opposed to being more definitive about what he thinks will happen.

Corso wouldn't be the first to say that realignment isn't done.

The thing about all realignment discussion that I find interesting is the depth of denial of the obvious that fans will go to in order to preserve their own world view.

If we could divorce ourselves from our passions and just look at everything objectively and logically it really isn't hard to see where things are going.

The PAC for instance has consistently been protective rather than proactive. Therefore the predictions about their future behavior are for a continued caution by the California schools and Washington in the protection of that which they find comfortable. The truth is they aren't a sports crazy conference and they like things the way they are. So expansion for them has to fit the PAC way of life. I doubt that they care to dive into the heartland for expansion because it is so very different from their culture and their emphasis on athletics.

The Big 12 has been about what's best for Texas and to a slightly lesser extent Oklahoma. The result is that their mid-level and autonomous schools have departed.

The SEC added Arkansas, Texas A&M and Missouri. They also added South Carolina. When we added S.Carolina and Arkansas we discussed openly in our meetings that both of those schools were valuable to us on their own, but also as bridges to other schools of interest. ESPN shut off expansion to the East by refusing to pay for it. They tried to work out a deal that would permit the SECN to gain access to North Carolina and Virginia but certain ACC schools balked at the idea even though it would have landed them brands and markets sufficient to support a network.

So, the last additions were to the West. That strongly suggests that the SEC will be used to acquire more Western schools. Which schools to the West can add value to the existing SEC? Texas, Oklahoma, and possibly Kansas.

The ACC expanded into the Northeast and into the Southeast. Louisville was a bridge to Indiana and therefore Notre Dame. Their next move is highly debatable. There are no more brands to the North or South that are beneficial to them and they are not in a financial situation to attract brands away from another conference.

The Big 10 wanted into the East. Their additions in the 90's were like those of the SEC. They added one to the East and one to the Southwest. The last two were to the East. They will look East again and will go after the only brands available there which happen to be ACC schools. They would take Texas but they won't take Kansas and Oklahoma without Texas. Texas won't head to the Big 10 and they know it. So they will look East.

Mike Slive said the next round of realignment could lead to some very, very large conferences.

So the practical projections that I would make are these:
1. The PAC will likely stay put. If they do expand they might now look at U.N.L.V. and Hawaii. The latter because of Scott's interest in tying into the Asian market. The former because it will now have a venue worthy of being a destination for PAC fans. So if the PAC moves to 14 that now becomes the way to do it. If Texas and Oklahoma leave the Big 12 in the future then Texas Tech and T.C.U. become a way to get into a much larger market if the PAC decides that's something thy want to do.

2. The Big 12 hangs in until the GOR expires and then it goes away. Why? It is the most profitable outcome for Texas and Oklahoma.

3. ESPN has two options with regard to Texas and Oklahoma. They could simply use the SEC to attract both of them and then build its Western division around those two brands giving them the RRR to anchor the West with tremendous help from Arkansas, A&M an L.S.U. to keep it as successful of a division as it has been for the past two decades. Then they could move Auburn and Alabama to the East to rebuild the strength of that division. If Texas and Oklahoma can't have their own conference, perhaps they would love their own division, especially if it consists of former rivals.

Or, they could revisit the original deal that was offered in 2011. N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC. Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Notre Dame all in for the ACC. This would sufficiently enhance the ACC to the status of being a viable rival for the SEC and that would make the schools of the ACC a lot more money, give the most successful sports network the SECN two large new markets, and provide Texas a 4 school division in which Miami would allow those Western schools access to Florida.

But, if the same selfishness is exhibited by the old core of the ACC that was exhibited in 2011 the option of adding Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC is still viable.

The ACC needs to be very careful about its decision because in 2034 the Big 10 might come calling with much larger coffers and with determination to get what they are after. Because of that....

4. The Big 10 will again make a play for Notre Dame, North Carolina, and Virginia and if taking Duke too ensures the move they will. They might even look at adding Pittsburgh and Georgia Tech to that strategy to move to 20. Why? The population and money is much greater there than in Kansas and Oklahoma without Texas.

If that happens the SEC will be likely able to land Clemson, Florida State, N.C. State and Virginia Tech anyway. Then if we can get Oklahoma and Texas to the West we can stand at a formidable 20. If during that kind of massive move the PAC does take an uncharacteristic plunge into the Big 12 and takes 8 of those schools they can move to 20 as well (UT, TTU, OU, OSU, ISU, KU, KSU, TCU). The SEC in that case might look at two of Louisville, West Virginia and Miami (provided Texas and Oklahoma are part of the contingent moving to the PAC).

So much indeed will depend upon what the ACC chooses to do next. It really might come down to deal, or no deal. If they deal it is long range security. If they don't it may be a short future.

5. What I don't buy into:
a. The PAC simply taking the leftovers of the Big 12.
b. The Big 10 being truly interested in the Southern Midwest.
c. The SEC having to do anything if they don't get what they want.
e. The ACC having a lot of options beyond N.D. and maybe one other, unless they make a deal and take a group from the Big 12.
f. The Big 12 expanding. It's simply not going to be paid for by the networks and expansion isn't profitable from the pool at hand.

So much of what we've already talked about has been the proverbial two blind guys feeling the elephant to determine what it is. Virtually all aspects are in play.

I think the Big 10 talk about taking OU and KU is merely like their talk once before about Missouri. It's a misdirection from their logical alternatives. If they took 6 Eastern schools they could essentially have a Big 10 East that would be two divisions of their new additions plus Purdue. Their two Western divisions would be the Old Big 10 plus Nebraska. That's really fairly ideal.

Ditto for the SEC with regard to Texas and OU, but for us it would still work if we took 4 more schools to the East.

But, if the ACC makes the deal that was originally considered, then they would be an equal partner with the Big 10 and SEC all of which likely would stop at 16.

We'll see.

Interesting take JR.
I'll mention a couple of things that you probably have thought of already, but I will throw them out just for public consideration.
ESPN's overall Vision is a WWL without the B1G and possible the PAC (at least for football). They have implemented strategies to shore up the product that they control and desire see: Texas-LHN, and Kansas-tier 3 broadcast rights, the SEC and the ACC I believe the partial with Notre Dame is a part of these strategies in an attempt to keep the Irish out of the B1G. So in that regard, I am looking for Notre Dame to remain a partial with the ACC and start to rotate in some SEC games (see Georgia/Notre Dame series).
So as a part of the ESPN vision, they will want to capture the 4 most valuable properties (at a minimum) that remain. Then they can realign the schools within that block of 32. That configuration, I think is yet to be determined, but I don't think it's out of the question to have 4 X 8, 6 X 5 or 5 X 6 (with an additional partial school for football only), or even 8 X 4 all with Notre Dame remaining a partial member for football (maybe with an increased game commitment).
There are just not enough time slots on a Saturday to do multiple conferences justice and it is of note that the B1G is reducing their Friday night availability.
Which 4? Well the feeling has long been held that the 4 most valuable properties in the Big 12 were, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia. Those 4 would be a good place to start. Would anyone defect from the B1G? Doubtful, there is no telling what their contract restrictions are. The PAC? A risky investment for ESPN.
Anyway....just food for thought.

(04-06-2017 03:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 01:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 01:04 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 12:02 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 01:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  When asked about realignment he said that he didn't think it was over and that he thought there was a good chance in 4 or 5 years that Oklahoma and Texas would leave the Big 12 like Texas A&M did. The thought was they would head for the money in either the SEC or Big 10. Previously the writer had wondered if Oklahoma was angling for an SEC invite and that he saw OU and OSU as being likely to head to the SEC if they left the Big 12.

But, Corso letting that slip is probably at least a sign of where ESPN leans if not some primary knowledge of how things are developing.

http://gridironnow.com/lee-corso-wouldnt...ve-big-12/

Corso is just saying what ESPN has told him to say. Remember the night they they had Holtz spouting off about how Notre Dame should join a conference.

Well, there is a difference between a talking head giving his opinion of what should happen as opposed to being more definitive about what he thinks will happen.

Corso wouldn't be the first to say that realignment isn't done.

The thing about all realignment discussion that I find interesting is the depth of denial of the obvious that fans will go to in order to preserve their own world view.

If we could divorce ourselves from our passions and just look at everything objectively and logically it really isn't hard to see where things are going.

The PAC for instance has consistently been protective rather than proactive. Therefore the predictions about their future behavior are for a continued caution by the California schools and Washington in the protection of that which they find comfortable. The truth is they aren't a sports crazy conference and they like things the way they are. So expansion for them has to fit the PAC way of life. I doubt that they care to dive into the heartland for expansion because it is so very different from their culture and their emphasis on athletics.

The Big 12 has been about what's best for Texas and to a slightly lesser extent Oklahoma. The result is that their mid-level and autonomous schools have departed.

The SEC added Arkansas, Texas A&M and Missouri. They also added South Carolina. When we added S.Carolina and Arkansas we discussed openly in our meetings that both of those schools were valuable to us on their own, but also as bridges to other schools of interest. ESPN shut off expansion to the East by refusing to pay for it. They tried to work out a deal that would permit the SECN to gain access to North Carolina and Virginia but certain ACC schools balked at the idea even though it would have landed them brands and markets sufficient to support a network.

So, the last additions were to the West. That strongly suggests that the SEC will be used to acquire more Western schools. Which schools to the West can add value to the existing SEC? Texas, Oklahoma, and possibly Kansas.

The ACC expanded into the Northeast and into the Southeast. Louisville was a bridge to Indiana and therefore Notre Dame. Their next move is highly debatable. There are no more brands to the North or South that are beneficial to them and they are not in a financial situation to attract brands away from another conference.

The Big 10 wanted into the East. Their additions in the 90's were like those of the SEC. They added one to the East and one to the Southwest. The last two were to the East. They will look East again and will go after the only brands available there which happen to be ACC schools. They would take Texas but they won't take Kansas and Oklahoma without Texas. Texas won't head to the Big 10 and they know it. So they will look East.

Mike Slive said the next round of realignment could lead to some very, very large conferences.

So the practical projections that I would make are these:
1. The PAC will likely stay put. If they do expand they might now look at U.N.L.V. and Hawaii. The latter because of Scott's interest in tying into the Asian market. The former because it will now have a venue worthy of being a destination for PAC fans. So if the PAC moves to 14 that now becomes the way to do it. If Texas and Oklahoma leave the Big 12 in the future then Texas Tech and T.C.U. become a way to get into a much larger market if the PAC decides that's something thy want to do.

2. The Big 12 hangs in until the GOR expires and then it goes away. Why? It is the most profitable outcome for Texas and Oklahoma.

3. ESPN has two options with regard to Texas and Oklahoma. They could simply use the SEC to attract both of them and then build its Western division around those two brands giving them the RRR to anchor the West with tremendous help from Arkansas, A&M an L.S.U. to keep it as successful of a division as it has been for the past two decades. Then they could move Auburn and Alabama to the East to rebuild the strength of that division. If Texas and Oklahoma can't have their own conference, perhaps they would love their own division, especially if it consists of former rivals.

Or, they could revisit the original deal that was offered in 2011. N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC. Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Notre Dame all in for the ACC. This would sufficiently enhance the ACC to the status of being a viable rival for the SEC and that would make the schools of the ACC a lot more money, give the most successful sports network the SECN two large new markets, and provide Texas a 4 school division in which Miami would allow those Western schools access to Florida.

But, if the same selfishness is exhibited by the old core of the ACC that was exhibited in 2011 the option of adding Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC is still viable.

The ACC needs to be very careful about its decision because in 2034 the Big 10 might come calling with much larger coffers and with determination to get what they are after. Because of that....

4. The Big 10 will again make a play for Notre Dame, North Carolina, and Virginia and if taking Duke too ensures the move they will. They might even look at adding Pittsburgh and Georgia Tech to that strategy to move to 20. Why? The population and money is much greater there than in Kansas and Oklahoma without Texas.

If that happens the SEC will be likely able to land Clemson, Florida State, N.C. State and Virginia Tech anyway. Then if we can get Oklahoma and Texas to the West we can stand at a formidable 20. If during that kind of massive move the PAC does take an uncharacteristic plunge into the Big 12 and takes 8 of those schools they can move to 20 as well (UT, TTU, OU, OSU, ISU, KU, KSU, TCU). The SEC in that case might look at two of Louisville, West Virginia and Miami (provided Texas and Oklahoma are part of the contingent moving to the PAC).

So much indeed will depend upon what the ACC chooses to do next. It really might come down to deal, or no deal. If they deal it is long range security. If they don't it may be a short future.

5. What I don't buy into:
a. The PAC simply taking the leftovers of the Big 12.
b. The Big 10 being truly interested in the Southern Midwest.
c. The SEC having to do anything if they don't get what they want.
e. The ACC having a lot of options beyond N.D. and maybe one other, unless they make a deal and take a group from the Big 12.
f. The Big 12 expanding. It's simply not going to be paid for by the networks and expansion isn't profitable from the pool at hand.

So much of what we've already talked about has been the proverbial two blind guys feeling the elephant to determine what it is. Virtually all aspects are in play.

I think the Big 10 talk about taking OU and KU is merely like their talk once before about Missouri. It's a misdirection from their logical alternatives. If they took 6 Eastern schools they could essentially have a Big 10 East that would be two divisions of their new additions plus Purdue. Their two Western divisions would be the Old Big 10 plus Nebraska. That's really fairly ideal.

Ditto for the SEC with regard to Texas and OU, but for us it would still work if we took 4 more schools to the East.

But, if the ACC makes the deal that was originally considered, then they would be an equal partner with the Big 10 and SEC all of which likely would stop at 16.

We'll see.

Interesting take JR.
I'll mention a couple of things that you probably have thought of already, but I will throw them out just for public consideration.
ESPN's overall Vision is a WWL without the B1G and possible the PAC (at least for football). They have implemented strategies to shore up the product that they control and desire see: Texas-LHN, and Kansas-tier 3 broadcast rights, the SEC and the ACC I believe the partial with Notre Dame is a part of these strategies in an attempt to keep the Irish out of the B1G. So in that regard, I am looking for Notre Dame to remain a partial with the ACC and start to rotate in some SEC games (see Georgia/Notre Dame series).
So as a part of the ESPN vision, they will want to capture the 4 most valuable properties (at a minimum) that remain. Then they can realign the schools within that block of 32. That configuration, I think is yet to be determined, but I don't think it's out of the question to have 4 X 8, 6 X 5 or 5 X 6 (with an additional partial school for football only), or even 8 X 4 all with Notre Dame remaining a partial member for football (maybe with an increased game commitment).
There are just not enough time slots on a Saturday to do multiple conferences justice and it is of note that the B1G is reducing their Friday night availability.
Which 4? Well the feeling has long been held that the 4 most valuable properties in the Big 12 were, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia. Those 4 would be a good place to start. Would anyone defect from the B1G? Doubtful, there is no telling what their contract restrictions are. The PAC? A risky investment for ESPN.
Anyway....just food for thought.

I think a 4 x 8, or even a 6 x 6 are more likely. Actually Oklahoma State is more valuable than West Virginia in terms of revenue. ESPN has West Virginia covered with Virginia Tech and Pittsburgh. So if Notre Dame keeps their independence and four are added Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas make sense. But, that leaves some political issues on the table for the fourth unless it is Iowa State. If Texas were to be given a N.D. style deal by the ACC. then the issue is less problematic with the numbers. Your new four could be Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State and West Virginia and that way nobody gets a little brother in so there is less to quibble about.

I still think the PAC would be remiss not to take T.C.U. and Tech in order to get into Texas and DFW specifically.

I do think it is only a matter of time before ESPN cajoles the SEC and ACC into essentially sharing networks, if not a merger into a league. It simply eliminates too many duplicated expenses and the regional grouping of schools between the two save the programs too much money in travel, while encouraging more fan travel to be passed up. Truly if Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma are on board who needs the Big 10 and PAC for product? You'll have the best football, baseball, softball, and basketball in the country, and in the most rabid sports states, inclusive of the largest population centers in that region. Birmingham, Atlanta, Dallas-Ft.Worth, and New Orleans are just the cherries. The mid sized cities are plumbs too!

And don't forget that Missouri, Iowa State and Kansas when coupled with Notre Dame, Louisville and Kentucky will draw well from Indianapolis to Chicago.

I had already noted N.D.'s scheduling of SEC schools in their future.

People will say that it's crazy but as the demographic trends continue a shift to the East and South such an alignment would eventually be awfully enticing to Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nebraska, Penn State and Michigan State. The schools like Purdue, Indiana, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern, Rutgers, and yes Maryland would simply be two rungs down the ladder from the aforementioned which tomorrow might be facing the same issues that Oklahoma and Texas face today (namely a lousy schedule from which to fill venues and waning fan interest because of it).

So while I agree that for the time being the Big 10 is not approachable if the ACC and SEC were tacitly merged the clout, the demographics, the athletics, and the combined academic clout will become an enticement to the best of the Big 10 eventually. Short term if we played only P schools for all sports in a combined SEC/ACC/Best of the Big 12 you have a regional sports bonanza with national appeal. And, as you pointed out, that's compellingly appealing.

(04-06-2017 04:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 03:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 01:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 01:04 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 12:02 PM)XLance Wrote:  Corso is just saying what ESPN has told him to say. Remember the night they they had Holtz spouting off about how Notre Dame should join a conference.

Well, there is a difference between a talking head giving his opinion of what should happen as opposed to being more definitive about what he thinks will happen.

Corso wouldn't be the first to say that realignment isn't done.

The thing about all realignment discussion that I find interesting is the depth of denial of the obvious that fans will go to in order to preserve their own world view.

If we could divorce ourselves from our passions and just look at everything objectively and logically it really isn't hard to see where things are going.

The PAC for instance has consistently been protective rather than proactive. Therefore the predictions about their future behavior are for a continued caution by the California schools and Washington in the protection of that which they find comfortable. The truth is they aren't a sports crazy conference and they like things the way they are. So expansion for them has to fit the PAC way of life. I doubt that they care to dive into the heartland for expansion because it is so very different from their culture and their emphasis on athletics.

The Big 12 has been about what's best for Texas and to a slightly lesser extent Oklahoma. The result is that their mid-level and autonomous schools have departed.

The SEC added Arkansas, Texas A&M and Missouri. They also added South Carolina. When we added S.Carolina and Arkansas we discussed openly in our meetings that both of those schools were valuable to us on their own, but also as bridges to other schools of interest. ESPN shut off expansion to the East by refusing to pay for it. They tried to work out a deal that would permit the SECN to gain access to North Carolina and Virginia but certain ACC schools balked at the idea even though it would have landed them brands and markets sufficient to support a network.

So, the last additions were to the West. That strongly suggests that the SEC will be used to acquire more Western schools. Which schools to the West can add value to the existing SEC? Texas, Oklahoma, and possibly Kansas.

The ACC expanded into the Northeast and into the Southeast. Louisville was a bridge to Indiana and therefore Notre Dame. Their next move is highly debatable. There are no more brands to the North or South that are beneficial to them and they are not in a financial situation to attract brands away from another conference.

The Big 10 wanted into the East. Their additions in the 90's were like those of the SEC. They added one to the East and one to the Southwest. The last two were to the East. They will look East again and will go after the only brands available there which happen to be ACC schools. They would take Texas but they won't take Kansas and Oklahoma without Texas. Texas won't head to the Big 10 and they know it. So they will look East.

Mike Slive said the next round of realignment could lead to some very, very large conferences.

So the practical projections that I would make are these:
1. The PAC will likely stay put. If they do expand they might now look at U.N.L.V. and Hawaii. The latter because of Scott's interest in tying into the Asian market. The former because it will now have a venue worthy of being a destination for PAC fans. So if the PAC moves to 14 that now becomes the way to do it. If Texas and Oklahoma leave the Big 12 in the future then Texas Tech and T.C.U. become a way to get into a much larger market if the PAC decides that's something thy want to do.

2. The Big 12 hangs in until the GOR expires and then it goes away. Why? It is the most profitable outcome for Texas and Oklahoma.

3. ESPN has two options with regard to Texas and Oklahoma. They could simply use the SEC to attract both of them and then build its Western division around those two brands giving them the RRR to anchor the West with tremendous help from Arkansas, A&M an L.S.U. to keep it as successful of a division as it has been for the past two decades. Then they could move Auburn and Alabama to the East to rebuild the strength of that division. If Texas and Oklahoma can't have their own conference, perhaps they would love their own division, especially if it consists of former rivals.

Or, they could revisit the original deal that was offered in 2011. N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC. Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Notre Dame all in for the ACC. This would sufficiently enhance the ACC to the status of being a viable rival for the SEC and that would make the schools of the ACC a lot more money, give the most successful sports network the SECN two large new markets, and provide Texas a 4 school division in which Miami would allow those Western schools access to Florida.

But, if the same selfishness is exhibited by the old core of the ACC that was exhibited in 2011 the option of adding Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC is still viable.

The ACC needs to be very careful about its decision because in 2034 the Big 10 might come calling with much larger coffers and with determination to get what they are after. Because of that....

4. The Big 10 will again make a play for Notre Dame, North Carolina, and Virginia and if taking Duke too ensures the move they will. They might even look at adding Pittsburgh and Georgia Tech to that strategy to move to 20. Why? The population and money is much greater there than in Kansas and Oklahoma without Texas.

If that happens the SEC will be likely able to land Clemson, Florida State, N.C. State and Virginia Tech anyway. Then if we can get Oklahoma and Texas to the West we can stand at a formidable 20. If during that kind of massive move the PAC does take an uncharacteristic plunge into the Big 12 and takes 8 of those schools they can move to 20 as well (UT, TTU, OU, OSU, ISU, KU, KSU, TCU). The SEC in that case might look at two of Louisville, West Virginia and Miami (provided Texas and Oklahoma are part of the contingent moving to the PAC).

So much indeed will depend upon what the ACC chooses to do next. It really might come down to deal, or no deal. If they deal it is long range security. If they don't it may be a short future.

5. What I don't buy into:
a. The PAC simply taking the leftovers of the Big 12.
b. The Big 10 being truly interested in the Southern Midwest.
c. The SEC having to do anything if they don't get what they want.
e. The ACC having a lot of options beyond N.D. and maybe one other, unless they make a deal and take a group from the Big 12.
f. The Big 12 expanding. It's simply not going to be paid for by the networks and expansion isn't profitable from the pool at hand.

So much of what we've already talked about has been the proverbial two blind guys feeling the elephant to determine what it is. Virtually all aspects are in play.

I think the Big 10 talk about taking OU and KU is merely like their talk once before about Missouri. It's a misdirection from their logical alternatives. If they took 6 Eastern schools they could essentially have a Big 10 East that would be two divisions of their new additions plus Purdue. Their two Western divisions would be the Old Big 10 plus Nebraska. That's really fairly ideal.

Ditto for the SEC with regard to Texas and OU, but for us it would still work if we took 4 more schools to the East.

But, if the ACC makes the deal that was originally considered, then they would be an equal partner with the Big 10 and SEC all of which likely would stop at 16.

We'll see.

Interesting take JR.
I'll mention a couple of things that you probably have thought of already, but I will throw them out just for public consideration.
ESPN's overall Vision is a WWL without the B1G and possible the PAC (at least for football). They have implemented strategies to shore up the product that they control and desire see: Texas-LHN, and Kansas-tier 3 broadcast rights, the SEC and the ACC I believe the partial with Notre Dame is a part of these strategies in an attempt to keep the Irish out of the B1G. So in that regard, I am looking for Notre Dame to remain a partial with the ACC and start to rotate in some SEC games (see Georgia/Notre Dame series).
So as a part of the ESPN vision, they will want to capture the 4 most valuable properties (at a minimum) that remain. Then they can realign the schools within that block of 32. That configuration, I think is yet to be determined, but I don't think it's out of the question to have 4 X 8, 6 X 5 or 5 X 6 (with an additional partial school for football only), or even 8 X 4 all with Notre Dame remaining a partial member for football (maybe with an increased game commitment).
There are just not enough time slots on a Saturday to do multiple conferences justice and it is of note that the B1G is reducing their Friday night availability.
Which 4? Well the feeling has long been held that the 4 most valuable properties in the Big 12 were, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia. Those 4 would be a good place to start. Would anyone defect from the B1G? Doubtful, there is no telling what their contract restrictions are. The PAC? A risky investment for ESPN.
Anyway....just food for thought.

I think a 4 x 8, or even a 6 x 6 are more likely. Actually Oklahoma State is more valuable than West Virginia in terms of revenue. ESPN has West Virginia covered with Virginia Tech and Pittsburgh. So if Notre Dame keeps their independence and four are added Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas make sense. But, that leaves some political issues on the table for the fourth unless it is Iowa State. If Texas were to be given a N.D. style deal by the ACC. then the issue is less problematic with the numbers. Your new four could be Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State and West Virginia and that way nobody gets a little brother in so there is less to quibble about.

I still think the PAC would be remiss not to take T.C.U. and Tech in order to get into Texas and DFW specifically.

I do think it is only a matter of time before ESPN cajoles the SEC and ACC into essentially sharing networks, if not a merger into a league. It simply eliminates too many duplicated expenses and the regional grouping of schools between the two save the programs too much money in travel, while encouraging more fan travel to be passed up. Truly if Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma are on board who needs the Big 10 and PAC for product? You'll have the best football, baseball, softball, and basketball in the country, and in the most rabid sports states, inclusive of the largest population centers in that region. Birmingham, Atlanta, Dallas-Ft.Worth, and New Orleans are just the cherries. The mid sized cities are plumbs too!

And don't forget that Missouri, Iowa State and Kansas when coupled with Notre Dame, Louisville and Kentucky will draw well from Indianapolis to Chicago.

I had already noted N.D.'s scheduling of SEC schools in their future.

People will say that it's crazy but as the demographic trends continue a shift to the East and South such an alignment would eventually be awfully enticing to Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nebraska, Penn State and Michigan State. The schools like Purdue, Indiana, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern, Rutgers, and yes Maryland would simply be two rungs down the ladder from the aforementioned which tomorrow might be facing the same issues that Oklahoma and Texas face today (namely a lousy schedule from which to fill venues and waning fan interest because of it).

So while I agree that for the time being the Big 10 is not approachable if the ACC and SEC were tacitly merged the clout, the demographics, the athletics, and the combined academic clout will become an enticement to the best of the Big 10 eventually. Short term if we played only P schools for all sports in a combined SEC/ACC/Best of the Big 12 you have a regional sports bonanza with national appeal. And, as you pointed out, that's compellingly appealing.

Texas would be more efficient attached to the SEC with annual games with Oklahoma, Arkansas and Texas A&M and rotate the other 2 throughout the league.

(04-06-2017 08:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 04:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 03:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 01:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 01:04 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, there is a difference between a talking head giving his opinion of what should happen as opposed to being more definitive about what he thinks will happen.

Corso wouldn't be the first to say that realignment isn't done.

The thing about all realignment discussion that I find interesting is the depth of denial of the obvious that fans will go to in order to preserve their own world view.

If we could divorce ourselves from our passions and just look at everything objectively and logically it really isn't hard to see where things are going.

The PAC for instance has consistently been protective rather than proactive. Therefore the predictions about their future behavior are for a continued caution by the California schools and Washington in the protection of that which they find comfortable. The truth is they aren't a sports crazy conference and they like things the way they are. So expansion for them has to fit the PAC way of life. I doubt that they care to dive into the heartland for expansion because it is so very different from their culture and their emphasis on athletics.

The Big 12 has been about what's best for Texas and to a slightly lesser extent Oklahoma. The result is that their mid-level and autonomous schools have departed.

The SEC added Arkansas, Texas A&M and Missouri. They also added South Carolina. When we added S.Carolina and Arkansas we discussed openly in our meetings that both of those schools were valuable to us on their own, but also as bridges to other schools of interest. ESPN shut off expansion to the East by refusing to pay for it. They tried to work out a deal that would permit the SECN to gain access to North Carolina and Virginia but certain ACC schools balked at the idea even though it would have landed them brands and markets sufficient to support a network.

So, the last additions were to the West. That strongly suggests that the SEC will be used to acquire more Western schools. Which schools to the West can add value to the existing SEC? Texas, Oklahoma, and possibly Kansas.

The ACC expanded into the Northeast and into the Southeast. Louisville was a bridge to Indiana and therefore Notre Dame. Their next move is highly debatable. There are no more brands to the North or South that are beneficial to them and they are not in a financial situation to attract brands away from another conference.

The Big 10 wanted into the East. Their additions in the 90's were like those of the SEC. They added one to the East and one to the Southwest. The last two were to the East. They will look East again and will go after the only brands available there which happen to be ACC schools. They would take Texas but they won't take Kansas and Oklahoma without Texas. Texas won't head to the Big 10 and they know it. So they will look East.

Mike Slive said the next round of realignment could lead to some very, very large conferences.

So the practical projections that I would make are these:
1. The PAC will likely stay put. If they do expand they might now look at U.N.L.V. and Hawaii. The latter because of Scott's interest in tying into the Asian market. The former because it will now have a venue worthy of being a destination for PAC fans. So if the PAC moves to 14 that now becomes the way to do it. If Texas and Oklahoma leave the Big 12 in the future then Texas Tech and T.C.U. become a way to get into a much larger market if the PAC decides that's something thy want to do.

2. The Big 12 hangs in until the GOR expires and then it goes away. Why? It is the most profitable outcome for Texas and Oklahoma.

3. ESPN has two options with regard to Texas and Oklahoma. They could simply use the SEC to attract both of them and then build its Western division around those two brands giving them the RRR to anchor the West with tremendous help from Arkansas, A&M an L.S.U. to keep it as successful of a division as it has been for the past two decades. Then they could move Auburn and Alabama to the East to rebuild the strength of that division. If Texas and Oklahoma can't have their own conference, perhaps they would love their own division, especially if it consists of former rivals.

Or, they could revisit the original deal that was offered in 2011. N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC. Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Notre Dame all in for the ACC. This would sufficiently enhance the ACC to the status of being a viable rival for the SEC and that would make the schools of the ACC a lot more money, give the most successful sports network the SECN two large new markets, and provide Texas a 4 school division in which Miami would allow those Western schools access to Florida.

But, if the same selfishness is exhibited by the old core of the ACC that was exhibited in 2011 the option of adding Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC is still viable.

The ACC needs to be very careful about its decision because in 2034 the Big 10 might come calling with much larger coffers and with determination to get what they are after. Because of that....

4. The Big 10 will again make a play for Notre Dame, North Carolina, and Virginia and if taking Duke too ensures the move they will. They might even look at adding Pittsburgh and Georgia Tech to that strategy to move to 20. Why? The population and money is much greater there than in Kansas and Oklahoma without Texas.

If that happens the SEC will be likely able to land Clemson, Florida State, N.C. State and Virginia Tech anyway. Then if we can get Oklahoma and Texas to the West we can stand at a formidable 20. If during that kind of massive move the PAC does take an uncharacteristic plunge into the Big 12 and takes 8 of those schools they can move to 20 as well (UT, TTU, OU, OSU, ISU, KU, KSU, TCU). The SEC in that case might look at two of Louisville, West Virginia and Miami (provided Texas and Oklahoma are part of the contingent moving to the PAC).

So much indeed will depend upon what the ACC chooses to do next. It really might come down to deal, or no deal. If they deal it is long range security. If they don't it may be a short future.

5. What I don't buy into:
a. The PAC simply taking the leftovers of the Big 12.
b. The Big 10 being truly interested in the Southern Midwest.
c. The SEC having to do anything if they don't get what they want.
e. The ACC having a lot of options beyond N.D. and maybe one other, unless they make a deal and take a group from the Big 12.
f. The Big 12 expanding. It's simply not going to be paid for by the networks and expansion isn't profitable from the pool at hand.

So much of what we've already talked about has been the proverbial two blind guys feeling the elephant to determine what it is. Virtually all aspects are in play.

I think the Big 10 talk about taking OU and KU is merely like their talk once before about Missouri. It's a misdirection from their logical alternatives. If they took 6 Eastern schools they could essentially have a Big 10 East that would be two divisions of their new additions plus Purdue. Their two Western divisions would be the Old Big 10 plus Nebraska. That's really fairly ideal.

Ditto for the SEC with regard to Texas and OU, but for us it would still work if we took 4 more schools to the East.

But, if the ACC makes the deal that was originally considered, then they would be an equal partner with the Big 10 and SEC all of which likely would stop at 16.

We'll see.

Interesting take JR.
I'll mention a couple of things that you probably have thought of already, but I will throw them out just for public consideration.
ESPN's overall Vision is a WWL without the B1G and possible the PAC (at least for football). They have implemented strategies to shore up the product that they control and desire see: Texas-LHN, and Kansas-tier 3 broadcast rights, the SEC and the ACC I believe the partial with Notre Dame is a part of these strategies in an attempt to keep the Irish out of the B1G. So in that regard, I am looking for Notre Dame to remain a partial with the ACC and start to rotate in some SEC games (see Georgia/Notre Dame series).
So as a part of the ESPN vision, they will want to capture the 4 most valuable properties (at a minimum) that remain. Then they can realign the schools within that block of 32. That configuration, I think is yet to be determined, but I don't think it's out of the question to have 4 X 8, 6 X 5 or 5 X 6 (with an additional partial school for football only), or even 8 X 4 all with Notre Dame remaining a partial member for football (maybe with an increased game commitment).
There are just not enough time slots on a Saturday to do multiple conferences justice and it is of note that the B1G is reducing their Friday night availability.
Which 4? Well the feeling has long been held that the 4 most valuable properties in the Big 12 were, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia. Those 4 would be a good place to start. Would anyone defect from the B1G? Doubtful, there is no telling what their contract restrictions are. The PAC? A risky investment for ESPN.
Anyway....just food for thought.

I think a 4 x 8, or even a 6 x 6 are more likely. Actually Oklahoma State is more valuable than West Virginia in terms of revenue. ESPN has West Virginia covered with Virginia Tech and Pittsburgh. So if Notre Dame keeps their independence and four are added Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas make sense. But, that leaves some political issues on the table for the fourth unless it is Iowa State. If Texas were to be given a N.D. style deal by the ACC. then the issue is less problematic with the numbers. Your new four could be Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State and West Virginia and that way nobody gets a little brother in so there is less to quibble about.

I still think the PAC would be remiss not to take T.C.U. and Tech in order to get into Texas and DFW specifically.

I do think it is only a matter of time before ESPN cajoles the SEC and ACC into essentially sharing networks, if not a merger into a league. It simply eliminates too many duplicated expenses and the regional grouping of schools between the two save the programs too much money in travel, while encouraging more fan travel to be passed up. Truly if Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma are on board who needs the Big 10 and PAC for product? You'll have the best football, baseball, softball, and basketball in the country, and in the most rabid sports states, inclusive of the largest population centers in that region. Birmingham, Atlanta, Dallas-Ft.Worth, and New Orleans are just the cherries. The mid sized cities are plumbs too!

And don't forget that Missouri, Iowa State and Kansas when coupled with Notre Dame, Louisville and Kentucky will draw well from Indianapolis to Chicago.

I had already noted N.D.'s scheduling of SEC schools in their future.

People will say that it's crazy but as the demographic trends continue a shift to the East and South such an alignment would eventually be awfully enticing to Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nebraska, Penn State and Michigan State. The schools like Purdue, Indiana, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern, Rutgers, and yes Maryland would simply be two rungs down the ladder from the aforementioned which tomorrow might be facing the same issues that Oklahoma and Texas face today (namely a lousy schedule from which to fill venues and waning fan interest because of it).

So while I agree that for the time being the Big 10 is not approachable if the ACC and SEC were tacitly merged the clout, the demographics, the athletics, and the combined academic clout will become an enticement to the best of the Big 10 eventually. Short term if we played only P schools for all sports in a combined SEC/ACC/Best of the Big 12 you have a regional sports bonanza with national appeal. And, as you pointed out, that's compellingly appealing.

Texas would be more efficient attached to the SEC with annual games with Oklahoma, Arkansas and Texas A&M and rotate the other 2 throughout the league.

In the SEC that would not be possible. If we were a league it probably could be done. That being said I would prefer to offer Notre Dame and Texas these terms. You may act as an independent until your present contracts expire. For Texas that is 2031. I'm not sure what N.D.'s are. But after that you are either all in or you are out. Given the landscape that would exist beyond the league we are discussing I would have to think they would both go all in. Why? Because what we would be offering would hands down beat anything else they could find at that point.

(04-06-2017 08:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 04:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 03:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 01:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 01:04 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, there is a difference between a talking head giving his opinion of what should happen as opposed to being more definitive about what he thinks will happen.

Corso wouldn't be the first to say that realignment isn't done.

The thing about all realignment discussion that I find interesting is the depth of denial of the obvious that fans will go to in order to preserve their own world view.

If we could divorce ourselves from our passions and just look at everything objectively and logically it really isn't hard to see where things are going.

The PAC for instance has consistently been protective rather than proactive. Therefore the predictions about their future behavior are for a continued caution by the California schools and Washington in the protection of that which they find comfortable. The truth is they aren't a sports crazy conference and they like things the way they are. So expansion for them has to fit the PAC way of life. I doubt that they care to dive into the heartland for expansion because it is so very different from their culture and their emphasis on athletics.

The Big 12 has been about what's best for Texas and to a slightly lesser extent Oklahoma. The result is that their mid-level and autonomous schools have departed.

The SEC added Arkansas, Texas A&M and Missouri. They also added South Carolina. When we added S.Carolina and Arkansas we discussed openly in our meetings that both of those schools were valuable to us on their own, but also as bridges to other schools of interest. ESPN shut off expansion to the East by refusing to pay for it. They tried to work out a deal that would permit the SECN to gain access to North Carolina and Virginia but certain ACC schools balked at the idea even though it would have landed them brands and markets sufficient to support a network.

So, the last additions were to the West. That strongly suggests that the SEC will be used to acquire more Western schools. Which schools to the West can add value to the existing SEC? Texas, Oklahoma, and possibly Kansas.

The ACC expanded into the Northeast and into the Southeast. Louisville was a bridge to Indiana and therefore Notre Dame. Their next move is highly debatable. There are no more brands to the North or South that are beneficial to them and they are not in a financial situation to attract brands away from another conference.

The Big 10 wanted into the East. Their additions in the 90's were like those of the SEC. They added one to the East and one to the Southwest. The last two were to the East. They will look East again and will go after the only brands available there which happen to be ACC schools. They would take Texas but they won't take Kansas and Oklahoma without Texas. Texas won't head to the Big 10 and they know it. So they will look East.

Mike Slive said the next round of realignment could lead to some very, very large conferences.

So the practical projections that I would make are these:
1. The PAC will likely stay put. If they do expand they might now look at U.N.L.V. and Hawaii. The latter because of Scott's interest in tying into the Asian market. The former because it will now have a venue worthy of being a destination for PAC fans. So if the PAC moves to 14 that now becomes the way to do it. If Texas and Oklahoma leave the Big 12 in the future then Texas Tech and T.C.U. become a way to get into a much larger market if the PAC decides that's something thy want to do.

2. The Big 12 hangs in until the GOR expires and then it goes away. Why? It is the most profitable outcome for Texas and Oklahoma.

3. ESPN has two options with regard to Texas and Oklahoma. They could simply use the SEC to attract both of them and then build its Western division around those two brands giving them the RRR to anchor the West with tremendous help from Arkansas, A&M an L.S.U. to keep it as successful of a division as it has been for the past two decades. Then they could move Auburn and Alabama to the East to rebuild the strength of that division. If Texas and Oklahoma can't have their own conference, perhaps they would love their own division, especially if it consists of former rivals.

Or, they could revisit the original deal that was offered in 2011. N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC. Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Notre Dame all in for the ACC. This would sufficiently enhance the ACC to the status of being a viable rival for the SEC and that would make the schools of the ACC a lot more money, give the most successful sports network the SECN two large new markets, and provide Texas a 4 school division in which Miami would allow those Western schools access to Florida.

But, if the same selfishness is exhibited by the old core of the ACC that was exhibited in 2011 the option of adding Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC is still viable.

The ACC needs to be very careful about its decision because in 2034 the Big 10 might come calling with much larger coffers and with determination to get what they are after. Because of that....

4. The Big 10 will again make a play for Notre Dame, North Carolina, and Virginia and if taking Duke too ensures the move they will. They might even look at adding Pittsburgh and Georgia Tech to that strategy to move to 20. Why? The population and money is much greater there than in Kansas and Oklahoma without Texas.

If that happens the SEC will be likely able to land Clemson, Florida State, N.C. State and Virginia Tech anyway. Then if we can get Oklahoma and Texas to the West we can stand at a formidable 20. If during that kind of massive move the PAC does take an uncharacteristic plunge into the Big 12 and takes 8 of those schools they can move to 20 as well (UT, TTU, OU, OSU, ISU, KU, KSU, TCU). The SEC in that case might look at two of Louisville, West Virginia and Miami (provided Texas and Oklahoma are part of the contingent moving to the PAC).

So much indeed will depend upon what the ACC chooses to do next. It really might come down to deal, or no deal. If they deal it is long range security. If they don't it may be a short future.

5. What I don't buy into:
a. The PAC simply taking the leftovers of the Big 12.
b. The Big 10 being truly interested in the Southern Midwest.
c. The SEC having to do anything if they don't get what they want.
e. The ACC having a lot of options beyond N.D. and maybe one other, unless they make a deal and take a group from the Big 12.
f. The Big 12 expanding. It's simply not going to be paid for by the networks and expansion isn't profitable from the pool at hand.

So much of what we've already talked about has been the proverbial two blind guys feeling the elephant to determine what it is. Virtually all aspects are in play.

I think the Big 10 talk about taking OU and KU is merely like their talk once before about Missouri. It's a misdirection from their logical alternatives. If they took 6 Eastern schools they could essentially have a Big 10 East that would be two divisions of their new additions plus Purdue. Their two Western divisions would be the Old Big 10 plus Nebraska. That's really fairly ideal.

Ditto for the SEC with regard to Texas and OU, but for us it would still work if we took 4 more schools to the East.

But, if the ACC makes the deal that was originally considered, then they would be an equal partner with the Big 10 and SEC all of which likely would stop at 16.

We'll see.

Interesting take JR.
I'll mention a couple of things that you probably have thought of already, but I will throw them out just for public consideration.
ESPN's overall Vision is a WWL without the B1G and possible the PAC (at least for football). They have implemented strategies to shore up the product that they control and desire see: Texas-LHN, and Kansas-tier 3 broadcast rights, the SEC and the ACC I believe the partial with Notre Dame is a part of these strategies in an attempt to keep the Irish out of the B1G. So in that regard, I am looking for Notre Dame to remain a partial with the ACC and start to rotate in some SEC games (see Georgia/Notre Dame series).
So as a part of the ESPN vision, they will want to capture the 4 most valuable properties (at a minimum) that remain. Then they can realign the schools within that block of 32. That configuration, I think is yet to be determined, but I don't think it's out of the question to have 4 X 8, 6 X 5 or 5 X 6 (with an additional partial school for football only), or even 8 X 4 all with Notre Dame remaining a partial member for football (maybe with an increased game commitment).
There are just not enough time slots on a Saturday to do multiple conferences justice and it is of note that the B1G is reducing their Friday night availability.
Which 4? Well the feeling has long been held that the 4 most valuable properties in the Big 12 were, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia. Those 4 would be a good place to start. Would anyone defect from the B1G? Doubtful, there is no telling what their contract restrictions are. The PAC? A risky investment for ESPN.
Anyway....just food for thought.

I think a 4 x 8, or even a 6 x 6 are more likely. Actually Oklahoma State is more valuable than West Virginia in terms of revenue. ESPN has West Virginia covered with Virginia Tech and Pittsburgh. So if Notre Dame keeps their independence and four are added Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas make sense. But, that leaves some political issues on the table for the fourth unless it is Iowa State. If Texas were to be given a N.D. style deal by the ACC. then the issue is less problematic with the numbers. Your new four could be Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State and West Virginia and that way nobody gets a little brother in so there is less to quibble about.

I still think the PAC would be remiss not to take T.C.U. and Tech in order to get into Texas and DFW specifically.

I do think it is only a matter of time before ESPN cajoles the SEC and ACC into essentially sharing networks, if not a merger into a league. It simply eliminates too many duplicated expenses and the regional grouping of schools between the two save the programs too much money in travel, while encouraging more fan travel to be passed up. Truly if Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma are on board who needs the Big 10 and PAC for product? You'll have the best football, baseball, softball, and basketball in the country, and in the most rabid sports states, inclusive of the largest population centers in that region. Birmingham, Atlanta, Dallas-Ft.Worth, and New Orleans are just the cherries. The mid sized cities are plumbs too!

And don't forget that Missouri, Iowa State and Kansas when coupled with Notre Dame, Louisville and Kentucky will draw well from Indianapolis to Chicago.

I had already noted N.D.'s scheduling of SEC schools in their future.

People will say that it's crazy but as the demographic trends continue a shift to the East and South such an alignment would eventually be awfully enticing to Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nebraska, Penn State and Michigan State. The schools like Purdue, Indiana, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern, Rutgers, and yes Maryland would simply be two rungs down the ladder from the aforementioned which tomorrow might be facing the same issues that Oklahoma and Texas face today (namely a lousy schedule from which to fill venues and waning fan interest because of it).

So while I agree that for the time being the Big 10 is not approachable if the ACC and SEC were tacitly merged the clout, the demographics, the athletics, and the combined academic clout will become an enticement to the best of the Big 10 eventually. Short term if we played only P schools for all sports in a combined SEC/ACC/Best of the Big 12 you have a regional sports bonanza with national appeal. And, as you pointed out, that's compellingly appealing.

Texas would be more efficient attached to the SEC with annual games with Oklahoma, Arkansas and Texas A&M and rotate the other 2 throughout the league.

That would be an awesome SEC 16. Even better in pods:
Southwest
Arkansas
Missouri
Oklahoma
Texas

West
LSU
Mississippi State
Ole Miss
Texas A&M

Central
Alabama
Auburn
Tennessee
Vanderbilt

East
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
South Carolina

Anyway, if the PAC doesn't get better distribution of their network, I could see their schools looking elsewhere or forcing the sale of their network to either fox or espn.
Cal is running defiects, sounds like Maryland prior to their bolting to the B1G.

The Big 12 will always be up for grabs at the right price.

(04-06-2017 08:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 08:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 04:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 03:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 01:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The thing about all realignment discussion that I find interesting is the depth of denial of the obvious that fans will go to in order to preserve their own world view.

If we could divorce ourselves from our passions and just look at everything objectively and logically it really isn't hard to see where things are going.

The PAC for instance has consistently been protective rather than proactive. Therefore the predictions about their future behavior are for a continued caution by the California schools and Washington in the protection of that which they find comfortable. The truth is they aren't a sports crazy conference and they like things the way they are. So expansion for them has to fit the PAC way of life. I doubt that they care to dive into the heartland for expansion because it is so very different from their culture and their emphasis on athletics.

The Big 12 has been about what's best for Texas and to a slightly lesser extent Oklahoma. The result is that their mid-level and autonomous schools have departed.

The SEC added Arkansas, Texas A&M and Missouri. They also added South Carolina. When we added S.Carolina and Arkansas we discussed openly in our meetings that both of those schools were valuable to us on their own, but also as bridges to other schools of interest. ESPN shut off expansion to the East by refusing to pay for it. They tried to work out a deal that would permit the SECN to gain access to North Carolina and Virginia but certain ACC schools balked at the idea even though it would have landed them brands and markets sufficient to support a network.

So, the last additions were to the West. That strongly suggests that the SEC will be used to acquire more Western schools. Which schools to the West can add value to the existing SEC? Texas, Oklahoma, and possibly Kansas.

The ACC expanded into the Northeast and into the Southeast. Louisville was a bridge to Indiana and therefore Notre Dame. Their next move is highly debatable. There are no more brands to the North or South that are beneficial to them and they are not in a financial situation to attract brands away from another conference.

The Big 10 wanted into the East. Their additions in the 90's were like those of the SEC. They added one to the East and one to the Southwest. The last two were to the East. They will look East again and will go after the only brands available there which happen to be ACC schools. They would take Texas but they won't take Kansas and Oklahoma without Texas. Texas won't head to the Big 10 and they know it. So they will look East.

Mike Slive said the next round of realignment could lead to some very, very large conferences.

So the practical projections that I would make are these:
1. The PAC will likely stay put. If they do expand they might now look at U.N.L.V. and Hawaii. The latter because of Scott's interest in tying into the Asian market. The former because it will now have a venue worthy of being a destination for PAC fans. So if the PAC moves to 14 that now becomes the way to do it. If Texas and Oklahoma leave the Big 12 in the future then Texas Tech and T.C.U. become a way to get into a much larger market if the PAC decides that's something thy want to do.

2. The Big 12 hangs in until the GOR expires and then it goes away. Why? It is the most profitable outcome for Texas and Oklahoma.

3. ESPN has two options with regard to Texas and Oklahoma. They could simply use the SEC to attract both of them and then build its Western division around those two brands giving them the RRR to anchor the West with tremendous help from Arkansas, A&M an L.S.U. to keep it as successful of a division as it has been for the past two decades. Then they could move Auburn and Alabama to the East to rebuild the strength of that division. If Texas and Oklahoma can't have their own conference, perhaps they would love their own division, especially if it consists of former rivals.

Or, they could revisit the original deal that was offered in 2011. N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC. Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Notre Dame all in for the ACC. This would sufficiently enhance the ACC to the status of being a viable rival for the SEC and that would make the schools of the ACC a lot more money, give the most successful sports network the SECN two large new markets, and provide Texas a 4 school division in which Miami would allow those Western schools access to Florida.

But, if the same selfishness is exhibited by the old core of the ACC that was exhibited in 2011 the option of adding Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC is still viable.

The ACC needs to be very careful about its decision because in 2034 the Big 10 might come calling with much larger coffers and with determination to get what they are after. Because of that....

4. The Big 10 will again make a play for Notre Dame, North Carolina, and Virginia and if taking Duke too ensures the move they will. They might even look at adding Pittsburgh and Georgia Tech to that strategy to move to 20. Why? The population and money is much greater there than in Kansas and Oklahoma without Texas.

If that happens the SEC will be likely able to land Clemson, Florida State, N.C. State and Virginia Tech anyway. Then if we can get Oklahoma and Texas to the West we can stand at a formidable 20. If during that kind of massive move the PAC does take an uncharacteristic plunge into the Big 12 and takes 8 of those schools they can move to 20 as well (UT, TTU, OU, OSU, ISU, KU, KSU, TCU). The SEC in that case might look at two of Louisville, West Virginia and Miami (provided Texas and Oklahoma are part of the contingent moving to the PAC).

So much indeed will depend upon what the ACC chooses to do next. It really might come down to deal, or no deal. If they deal it is long range security. If they don't it may be a short future.

5. What I don't buy into:
a. The PAC simply taking the leftovers of the Big 12.
b. The Big 10 being truly interested in the Southern Midwest.
c. The SEC having to do anything if they don't get what they want.
e. The ACC having a lot of options beyond N.D. and maybe one other, unless they make a deal and take a group from the Big 12.
f. The Big 12 expanding. It's simply not going to be paid for by the networks and expansion isn't profitable from the pool at hand.

So much of what we've already talked about has been the proverbial two blind guys feeling the elephant to determine what it is. Virtually all aspects are in play.

I think the Big 10 talk about taking OU and KU is merely like their talk once before about Missouri. It's a misdirection from their logical alternatives. If they took 6 Eastern schools they could essentially have a Big 10 East that would be two divisions of their new additions plus Purdue. Their two Western divisions would be the Old Big 10 plus Nebraska. That's really fairly ideal.

Ditto for the SEC with regard to Texas and OU, but for us it would still work if we took 4 more schools to the East.

But, if the ACC makes the deal that was originally considered, then they would be an equal partner with the Big 10 and SEC all of which likely would stop at 16.

We'll see.

Interesting take JR.
I'll mention a couple of things that you probably have thought of already, but I will throw them out just for public consideration.
ESPN's overall Vision is a WWL without the B1G and possible the PAC (at least for football). They have implemented strategies to shore up the product that they control and desire see: Texas-LHN, and Kansas-tier 3 broadcast rights, the SEC and the ACC I believe the partial with Notre Dame is a part of these strategies in an attempt to keep the Irish out of the B1G. So in that regard, I am looking for Notre Dame to remain a partial with the ACC and start to rotate in some SEC games (see Georgia/Notre Dame series).
So as a part of the ESPN vision, they will want to capture the 4 most valuable properties (at a minimum) that remain. Then they can realign the schools within that block of 32. That configuration, I think is yet to be determined, but I don't think it's out of the question to have 4 X 8, 6 X 5 or 5 X 6 (with an additional partial school for football only), or even 8 X 4 all with Notre Dame remaining a partial member for football (maybe with an increased game commitment).
There are just not enough time slots on a Saturday to do multiple conferences justice and it is of note that the B1G is reducing their Friday night availability.
Which 4? Well the feeling has long been held that the 4 most valuable properties in the Big 12 were, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia. Those 4 would be a good place to start. Would anyone defect from the B1G? Doubtful, there is no telling what their contract restrictions are. The PAC? A risky investment for ESPN.
Anyway....just food for thought.

I think a 4 x 8, or even a 6 x 6 are more likely. Actually Oklahoma State is more valuable than West Virginia in terms of revenue. ESPN has West Virginia covered with Virginia Tech and Pittsburgh. So if Notre Dame keeps their independence and four are added Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas make sense. But, that leaves some political issues on the table for the fourth unless it is Iowa State. If Texas were to be given a N.D. style deal by the ACC. then the issue is less problematic with the numbers. Your new four could be Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State and West Virginia and that way nobody gets a little brother in so there is less to quibble about.

I still think the PAC would be remiss not to take T.C.U. and Tech in order to get into Texas and DFW specifically.

I do think it is only a matter of time before ESPN cajoles the SEC and ACC into essentially sharing networks, if not a merger into a league. It simply eliminates too many duplicated expenses and the regional grouping of schools between the two save the programs too much money in travel, while encouraging more fan travel to be passed up. Truly if Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma are on board who needs the Big 10 and PAC for product? You'll have the best football, baseball, softball, and basketball in the country, and in the most rabid sports states, inclusive of the largest population centers in that region. Birmingham, Atlanta, Dallas-Ft.Worth, and New Orleans are just the cherries. The mid sized cities are plumbs too!

And don't forget that Missouri, Iowa State and Kansas when coupled with Notre Dame, Louisville and Kentucky will draw well from Indianapolis to Chicago.

I had already noted N.D.'s scheduling of SEC schools in their future.

People will say that it's crazy but as the demographic trends continue a shift to the East and South such an alignment would eventually be awfully enticing to Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nebraska, Penn State and Michigan State. The schools like Purdue, Indiana, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern, Rutgers, and yes Maryland would simply be two rungs down the ladder from the aforementioned which tomorrow might be facing the same issues that Oklahoma and Texas face today (namely a lousy schedule from which to fill venues and waning fan interest because of it).

So while I agree that for the time being the Big 10 is not approachable if the ACC and SEC were tacitly merged the clout, the demographics, the athletics, and the combined academic clout will become an enticement to the best of the Big 10 eventually. Short term if we played only P schools for all sports in a combined SEC/ACC/Best of the Big 12 you have a regional sports bonanza with national appeal. And, as you pointed out, that's compellingly appealing.

Texas would be more efficient attached to the SEC with annual games with Oklahoma, Arkansas and Texas A&M and rotate the other 2 throughout the league.

In the SEC that would not be possible. If we were a league it probably could be done. That being said I would prefer to offer Notre Dame and Texas these terms. You may act as an independent until your present contracts expire. For Texas that is 2031. I'm not sure what N.D.'s are. But after that you are either all in our you are out. Given the landscape that would exist beyond the league we are discussing I would have to think they would both go all in. Why? Because what we would be offering would hands down beat anything else they could find at that point.

There you go with that small time sec thinking again. You have to adjust your thought process to a merged ACC/sec with ESPN as a backbone. Then anything is possible as long as it meets the goals of the entire group.
Now I think it's possible to put a full membership stipulation for the next contract, but for the time being, it serves multiple purposes that are much more important than ego.
BTW, Notre Dame's contract dates coincide with those of the ACC.

Murrdcu,
If both Texas and Notre Dame are semi-independent, your pods may look like this: (it's only a first run through, but you may get the idea)

Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri

Texas A&M, LSU, Arkansas, Ole Miss

Miss. State, Alabama, Auburn, Vanderbilt

Louisville, Kentucky, Virginia Tech, Tennessee

Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia

UVa, Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech

Wake Forest, NC State, Clemson, South Carolina

Georgia, Florida, Florida State, Miami


You may be able to move a few teams around to get better rivalries or prolong traditions, again this is just a first run through.

(04-07-2017 07:07 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 08:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 08:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 04:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 03:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  Interesting take JR.
I'll mention a couple of things that you probably have thought of already, but I will throw them out just for public consideration.
ESPN's overall Vision is a WWL without the B1G and possible the PAC (at least for football). They have implemented strategies to shore up the product that they control and desire see: Texas-LHN, and Kansas-tier 3 broadcast rights, the SEC and the ACC I believe the partial with Notre Dame is a part of these strategies in an attempt to keep the Irish out of the B1G. So in that regard, I am looking for Notre Dame to remain a partial with the ACC and start to rotate in some SEC games (see Georgia/Notre Dame series).
So as a part of the ESPN vision, they will want to capture the 4 most valuable properties (at a minimum) that remain. Then they can realign the schools within that block of 32. That configuration, I think is yet to be determined, but I don't think it's out of the question to have 4 X 8, 6 X 5 or 5 X 6 (with an additional partial school for football only), or even 8 X 4 all with Notre Dame remaining a partial member for football (maybe with an increased game commitment).
There are just not enough time slots on a Saturday to do multiple conferences justice and it is of note that the B1G is reducing their Friday night availability.
Which 4? Well the feeling has long been held that the 4 most valuable properties in the Big 12 were, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia. Those 4 would be a good place to start. Would anyone defect from the B1G? Doubtful, there is no telling what their contract restrictions are. The PAC? A risky investment for ESPN.
Anyway....just food for thought.

I think a 4 x 8, or even a 6 x 6 are more likely. Actually Oklahoma State is more valuable than West Virginia in terms of revenue. ESPN has West Virginia covered with Virginia Tech and Pittsburgh. So if Notre Dame keeps their independence and four are added Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas make sense. But, that leaves some political issues on the table for the fourth unless it is Iowa State. If Texas were to be given a N.D. style deal by the ACC. then the issue is less problematic with the numbers. Your new four could be Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State and West Virginia and that way nobody gets a little brother in so there is less to quibble about.

I still think the PAC would be remiss not to take T.C.U. and Tech in order to get into Texas and DFW specifically.

I do think it is only a matter of time before ESPN cajoles the SEC and ACC into essentially sharing networks, if not a merger into a league. It simply eliminates too many duplicated expenses and the regional grouping of schools between the two save the programs too much money in travel, while encouraging more fan travel to be passed up. Truly if Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma are on board who needs the Big 10 and PAC for product? You'll have the best football, baseball, softball, and basketball in the country, and in the most rabid sports states, inclusive of the largest population centers in that region. Birmingham, Atlanta, Dallas-Ft.Worth, and New Orleans are just the cherries. The mid sized cities are plumbs too!

And don't forget that Missouri, Iowa State and Kansas when coupled with Notre Dame, Louisville and Kentucky will draw well from Indianapolis to Chicago.

I had already noted N.D.'s scheduling of SEC schools in their future.

People will say that it's crazy but as the demographic trends continue a shift to the East and South such an alignment would eventually be awfully enticing to Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nebraska, Penn State and Michigan State. The schools like Purdue, Indiana, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern, Rutgers, and yes Maryland would simply be two rungs down the ladder from the aforementioned which tomorrow might be facing the same issues that Oklahoma and Texas face today (namely a lousy schedule from which to fill venues and waning fan interest because of it).

So while I agree that for the time being the Big 10 is not approachable if the ACC and SEC were tacitly merged the clout, the demographics, the athletics, and the combined academic clout will become an enticement to the best of the Big 10 eventually. Short term if we played only P schools for all sports in a combined SEC/ACC/Best of the Big 12 you have a regional sports bonanza with national appeal. And, as you pointed out, that's compellingly appealing.

Texas would be more efficient attached to the SEC with annual games with Oklahoma, Arkansas and Texas A&M and rotate the other 2 throughout the league.

In the SEC that would not be possible. If we were a league it probably could be done. That being said I would prefer to offer Notre Dame and Texas these terms. You may act as an independent until your present contracts expire. For Texas that is 2031. I'm not sure what N.D.'s are. But after that you are either all in our you are out. Given the landscape that would exist beyond the league we are discussing I would have to think they would both go all in. Why? Because what we would be offering would hands down beat anything else they could find at that point.

There you go with that small time sec thinking again. You have to adjust your thought process to a merged ACC/sec with ESPN as a backbone. Then anything is possible as long as it meets the goals of the entire group.
Now I think it's possible to put a full membership stipulation for the next contract, but for the time being, it serves multiple purposes that are much more important than ego.
BTW, Notre Dame's contract dates coincide with those of the ACC.

Small time thinking is what happened in 2011. Besides the SEC, as things stand now, will eventually get everything they want anyway. The only thing we are talking about is speeding the efficiency of that end goal up.

If we're really combining the ACC and SEC into a league then I think we should abandon some of the conventions we're used to.

For one, the champion of the league should come from a pitting of the ACC winner versus the SEC winner...similar to how pro-leagues divides their leagues into 2 subdivisions. For one, we could never expect a realistic rotation of teams that would allow all your rivals to be played while playing everyone else in the league within a reasonable amount of time. There's just not enough games to go around.

Also, don't align the divisions so much regionally as much as what maximizes regional interests...


SEC

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

Central: LSU, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Mississippi State

South: Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky

ACC

West: Texas, Notre Dame, Louisville, Pittsburgh

South: Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson

Central: North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest

North: Virginia, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Boston College


1. 3 games against your own pod

2. 1 permanent rival from each of the other 3 pods in your conference

3. Rotate divisions within your conference annually in order to mix and match pods

4. 2 games from the other conference

5. Leave one game for OOC match-ups.

That's 12 games. You take the winners of each division(combo of pods) and you have 4 contestants for a league playoff. Winners of the ACC match up with the winners of the SEC.

(04-07-2017 01:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If we're really combining the ACC and SEC into a league then I think we should abandon some of the conventions we're used to.

For one, the champion of the league should come from a pitting of the ACC winner versus the SEC winner...similar to how pro-leagues divides their leagues into 2 subdivisions. For one, we could never expect a realistic rotation of teams that would allow all your rivals to be played while playing everyone else in the league within a reasonable amount of time. There's just not enough games to go around.

Also, don't align the divisions so much regionally as much as what maximizes regional interests...


SEC

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

Central: LSU, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Mississippi State

South: Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky

ACC

West: Texas, Notre Dame, Louisville, Pittsburgh

South: Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson

Central: North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest

North: Virginia, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Boston College


1. 3 games against your own pod

2. 1 permanent rival from each of the other 3 pods in your conference

3. Rotate divisions within your conference annually in order to mix and match pods

4. 2 games from the other conference

5. Leave one game for OOC match-ups.

That's 12 games. You take the winners of each division(combo of pods) and you have 4 contestants for a league playoff. Winners of the ACC match up with the winners of the SEC.

I don't know that I really like pods but either model could work. However, I think it's time we drop the Spring Games and just add a 13th. And, I think all 12 or 13 games should be contained within the League. But, I think we should start with 12 for the first merged contract, and then expand to 13 down the road for the content bump in revenue. Never give away what you can sell later.

(04-07-2017 02:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 01:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If we're really combining the ACC and SEC into a league then I think we should abandon some of the conventions we're used to.

For one, the champion of the league should come from a pitting of the ACC winner versus the SEC winner...similar to how pro-leagues divides their leagues into 2 subdivisions. For one, we could never expect a realistic rotation of teams that would allow all your rivals to be played while playing everyone else in the league within a reasonable amount of time. There's just not enough games to go around.

Also, don't align the divisions so much regionally as much as what maximizes regional interests...


SEC

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

Central: LSU, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Mississippi State

South: Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky

ACC

West: Texas, Notre Dame, Louisville, Pittsburgh

South: Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson

Central: North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest

North: Virginia, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Boston College


1. 3 games against your own pod

2. 1 permanent rival from each of the other 3 pods in your conference

3. Rotate divisions within your conference annually in order to mix and match pods

4. 2 games from the other conference

5. Leave one game for OOC match-ups.

That's 12 games. You take the winners of each division(combo of pods) and you have 4 contestants for a league playoff. Winners of the ACC match up with the winners of the SEC.

I don't know that I really like pods but either model could work. However, I think it's time we drop the Spring Games and just add a 13th. And, I think all 12 or 13 games should be contained within the League. But, I think we should start with 12 for the first merged contract, and then expand to 13 down the road for the content bump in revenue. Never give away what you can sell later.

Only thing I'm worried about when it comes to keeping all the games within the league is how many rivals have to be sacrificed?

If they can't be sacrificed then do more teams have to be included? Where does the cutoff happen? It's pretty murky water to dive into.

I think it's easier to keep an OOC game and give some schools flexibility. Notre Dame has several rivals that wouldn't be in this league...so do Oklahoma and Texas. There are probably others too.