Redhawk is a poster on landthieves and has posted stuff from his Oklahoma contact. Here is what he posted 9-14-17:

Quote:For some of you with contacts at OU, and hear rumors, I wonder if you can chime in on what I heard from my used to be very connected friend, who isn't as much.

He said, right now, OU along with Texas and some market TV consultants are running the math/numbers on a number of possible scenarios and many different conference configurations for the future. The timing they are looking at is after the Big 12 current TV deal (and Grant of Rights expire).

They are really looking at what the landscape of college football, could be, or should be in the near future, considering the decline of cable as we currently know it. One thing they seem to agree on, is the Big 12 schedule for home games for OU and Texas, isn't going to work (we don't play each other at home....obviously) and that is a big issue at both schools.

Options my friend mentioned, a few schools going to the PAC, a few going to the B1G, a lot of schools going to the PAC (almost a PAC/B12 merger) & a couple going to the B1G, scheduling arraignments with the PAC, the B1G, and/or the PAC AND the B1G. OU is the point group talking to the B1G, UT is point on the PAC, but that's just a matter of relationships, not where one side is leaning.

The few goals they have seemed to identify: More games with different teams in Norman and Austin and in college football in general, regular games between OU and Nebraska hopefully that have something on the line like a division championship (Regional Rivals...real rivalries sell tickets, breaking up those hurt both sides), make the Big Ten Network, and the PAC network, desirable as over the top add on subscriptions beyond their current footprint (they might get combined)...for example if you are a college football fan in Dallas, and you have cut the cable cord, they want that guy to want to pay $X a month to add those networks either al a cart or as a package add on to say basic Sling.

College football and how people consume media is going through a major restructuring. The folks in charge are really looking at how best to stay relevant and to keep money coming in with that changing landscape. Nothing is off the table, and creative, out of the box ideas are being looked at.

The SEC has a few hardcore supporters, but seems to have hardcore "never SEC" supporters as well. What my friend was saying was the landscape of college football would/could be very different than what we know today, but the folks in the athletic department are looking west and north.

And to get the fans pissed off, he said Nebraska isn't completely satisfied with what they have in the B1G, and neither is Missouri in the SEC. This seems to have OU and UT officials a pause in just running off and joining another conference, and since we have time, to look at many different combinations, some conventional, some very not. One option is OU, KU, Missouri, and Texas joining the Big Ten. 18 teams, 3 division so of 6 was one (of many) option. (Big Ten West: Texas, OU, Missouri, KU, Nebraska, Iowa)

Quote:Since my friend's connection was in the "SEC SEC SEC" camp, here's their thinking: OU is a football power. Our athletic budget is driven by football. Football ticket sales, donations to make sure you get tickets to the big football games fuels/pays for all of OU's Athletic Department. It trickles down to academic side, with football success being a direct correlation to how easy or hard it is to raise money for academics. The better the football team is doing, the more people donate all around including academic stuff (sad but true). So they look at the SEC and see the best football factory conference, and think that it will drive the entire university including, eventually and importantly, academics. Also, they see regional schools like LSU and Arkansas.....Arkansas gives in-state tuition to kids from the Tulsa area, so the SEC flag is planted in the Tulsa area, and the SEC sphere of influence is present. You can also see college football becoming more regionalized in the south, much like NASCAR. If you want to continue to make money off of college football like OU has for decades, the SEC is the one trending the right way.

Those against the SEC seem to really see the whole conference as dirty, and so dirty that it will taint every university that is associated with it as being dirty, or at best "just a football school" which are two images OU is trying real hard to leave behind.

The upside is OU's SEC folks were responsible for getting OU to re-do L. Dale Mitchell, which was inspired by Auburn's redo of their baseball stadium. (my friend on a "business trip" was one of the OU people to tour Auburn's baseball stadium while OU was planning the remodel)

Quote:1) I wouldn't say the SEC is off the table per say, the SEC does have it's supporters, it's just not the main focus or choice at the moment at OU. My contact is with a person in the the pro-SEC group, and I think the SEC is the fall back, if all else fails option.
2) Let's just say options with the B1G and PAC are the main focus
3) I think you mistook me. OU-UT in Dallas as far as I know is still the cornerstone of OU athletics...it's just that leaves a pretty dull home schedule for OU and Texas in the Big 12, and they want to figure out how to fix the home schedules, but moving OU-Texas to home and home not being one of the options.....I mean maybe they have run the numbers, but there would be a full revolt if that game went H/H. Dallas is a tradition...so much orbits around that weekend.

Quote:What if, OU (in the Big 12, and NU in the Big Ten still) counted towards the conference or division championship? Like an NFL style where an AFC vs NFC game still counts to the conference? There are a lot of different ways to get what everyone wants (more exciting home schedules, regional rivals, exposure of schools and conference in new areas) and do it creatively without just one or two schools changing conferences like has been done to this point.

The PAC/B1G past situation is a good point....something like this has been thought about before obviously.

http://www.landthieves.com/board/showthr...ers/page13

(10-02-2017 04:26 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Redhawk is a poster on landthieves and has posted stuff from his Oklahoma contact. Here is what he posted 9-14-17:

Quote:For some of you with contacts at OU, and hear rumors, I wonder if you can chime in on what I heard from my used to be very connected friend, who isn't as much.

He said, right now, OU along with Texas and some market TV consultants are running the math/numbers on a number of possible scenarios and many different conference configurations for the future. The timing they are looking at is after the Big 12 current TV deal (and Grant of Rights expire).

They are really looking at what the landscape of college football, could be, or should be in the near future, considering the decline of cable as we currently know it. One thing they seem to agree on, is the Big 12 schedule for home games for OU and Texas, isn't going to work (we don't play each other at home....obviously) and that is a big issue at both schools.

Options my friend mentioned, a few schools going to the PAC, a few going to the B1G, a lot of schools going to the PAC (almost a PAC/B12 merger) & a couple going to the B1G, scheduling arraignments with the PAC, the B1G, and/or the PAC AND the B1G. OU is the point group talking to the B1G, UT is point on the PAC, but that's just a matter of relationships, not where one side is leaning.

The few goals they have seemed to identify: More games with different teams in Norman and Austin and in college football in general, regular games between OU and Nebraska hopefully that have something on the line like a division championship (Regional Rivals...real rivalries sell tickets, breaking up those hurt both sides), make the Big Ten Network, and the PAC network, desirable as over the top add on subscriptions beyond their current footprint (they might get combined)...for example if you are a college football fan in Dallas, and you have cut the cable cord, they want that guy to want to pay $X a month to add those networks either al a cart or as a package add on to say basic Sling.

College football and how people consume media is going through a major restructuring. The folks in charge are really looking at how best to stay relevant and to keep money coming in with that changing landscape. Nothing is off the table, and creative, out of the box ideas are being looked at.

The SEC has a few hardcore supporters, but seems to have hardcore "never SEC" supporters as well. What my friend was saying was the landscape of college football would/could be very different than what we know today, but the folks in the athletic department are looking west and north.

And to get the fans pissed off, he said Nebraska isn't completely satisfied with what they have in the B1G, and neither is Missouri in the SEC. This seems to have OU and UT officials a pause in just running off and joining another conference, and since we have time, to look at many different combinations, some conventional, some very not. One option is OU, KU, Missouri, and Texas joining the Big Ten. 18 teams, 3 division so of 6 was one (of many) option. (Big Ten West: Texas, OU, Missouri, KU, Nebraska, Iowa)

Quote:Since my friend's connection was in the "SEC SEC SEC" camp, here's their thinking: OU is a football power. Our athletic budget is driven by football. Football ticket sales, donations to make sure you get tickets to the big football games fuels/pays for all of OU's Athletic Department. It trickles down to academic side, with football success being a direct correlation to how easy or hard it is to raise money for academics. The better the football team is doing, the more people donate all around including academic stuff (sad but true). So they look at the SEC and see the best football factory conference, and think that it will drive the entire university including, eventually and importantly, academics. Also, they see regional schools like LSU and Arkansas.....Arkansas gives in-state tuition to kids from the Tulsa area, so the SEC flag is planted in the Tulsa area, and the SEC sphere of influence is present. You can also see college football becoming more regionalized in the south, much like NASCAR. If you want to continue to make money off of college football like OU has for decades, the SEC is the one trending the right way.

Those against the SEC seem to really see the whole conference as dirty, and so dirty that it will taint every university that is associated with it as being dirty, or at best "just a football school" which are two images OU is trying real hard to leave behind.

The upside is OU's SEC folks were responsible for getting OU to re-do L. Dale Mitchell, which was inspired by Auburn's redo of their baseball stadium. (my friend on a "business trip" was one of the OU people to tour Auburn's baseball stadium while OU was planning the remodel)

Quote:1) I wouldn't say the SEC is off the table per say, the SEC does have it's supporters, it's just not the main focus or choice at the moment at OU. My contact is with a person in the the pro-SEC group, and I think the SEC is the fall back, if all else fails option.
2) Let's just say options with the B1G and PAC are the main focus
3) I think you mistook me. OU-UT in Dallas as far as I know is still the cornerstone of OU athletics...it's just that leaves a pretty dull home schedule for OU and Texas in the Big 12, and they want to figure out how to fix the home schedules, but moving OU-Texas to home and home not being one of the options.....I mean maybe they have run the numbers, but there would be a full revolt if that game went H/H. Dallas is a tradition...so much orbits around that weekend.

Quote:What if, OU (in the Big 12, and NU in the Big Ten still) counted towards the conference or division championship? Like an NFL style where an AFC vs NFC game still counts to the conference? There are a lot of different ways to get what everyone wants (more exciting home schedules, regional rivals, exposure of schools and conference in new areas) and do it creatively without just one or two schools changing conferences like has been done to this point.

The PAC/B1G past situation is a good point....something like this has been thought about before obviously.

http://www.landthieves.com/board/showthr...ers/page13

Redhawk's sources have never panned out, at least not yet. I believe he is a sincere poster and believes what he posts to be true. And I enjoy his posts. But like so many who know a booster or trustee they get a version always tainted by that persons' leanings.

It's simply a matter of due diligence for UT and OU to evaluate their value together to any network or conference. If it were Auburn and Alabama it would be the same. I promise you that by the time OU and UT make a move, if they make a move, everyone and I mean everyone will have had talks with them. In the end this will be a business decision. The talk about who they like and don't like and who cheats and who doesn't cheat is pure malarkey! Everyone of them has cheated, and at various times expressed like or hate for other conferences. It doesn't mean a damned thing when it comes to the bottom line. And while business decisions are not totally bottom line decisions the bottom line is the main determining factor and the other factors are ancillary.

In the end it will be who pays them the most, how many of their buddies they get to keep on their schedules, and probably what sells the best to the local state legislature. That's why the SEC will always be in the running. We are the most valuable conference by 2.5 billion dollars. Our schools out earn our closest competitor (B1G) by 16 million a year per school average more. We have two of their old rivals, and I promise you if we take Tech and Okie State to get OU and UT it will be as close to a slam dunk deal as we could ever offer. At that point walking away leaves them political trouble, earns them less, matches their minor sports the least, and increases their overhead in travel more, and affords their fans less familiar faces to play.

Now smoke that over and tell me where I'm wrong?

But, if they don't move as a pair then anything is possible. It is possible that the SEC only lands 1 of them, or if we get neither we find ways to get what we want anyway.

Quote:The few goals they have seemed to identify: More games with different teams in Norman and Austin and in college football in general, regular games between OU and Nebraska hopefully that have something on the line like a division championship (Regional Rivals...real rivalries sell tickets, breaking up those hurt both sides), make the Big Ten Network, and the PAC network, desirable as over the top add on subscriptions beyond their current footprint (they might get combined)...for example if you are a college football fan in Dallas, and you have cut the cable cord, they want that guy to want to pay $X a month to add those networks either al a cart or as a package add on to say basic Sling.

I honestly can't think of a reason why OU or UT would be particularly concerned with making sure the PAC or B1G networks have a good OTT rate in Dallas or any other Big 12 market.

Those networks are what they are whether OU or UT are a part of them or not. This doesn't sound remotely like a goal, this sounds like something a business partner is working on to make sure his investment is sound. There's a big distinction between the two. The PAC and B1G want to make sure their OTT rate in a place like DFW is good...that's part of the reason they want the schools in question. OU and UT, by contrast, want whatever league they're associated with to have the best rate they can get in DFW.

Frankly, the PAC Network shouldn't even be an option at this point. That plan has more or less failed. OU and UT's inclusion would make it salvageable, not maximize its profitability in a place like DFW.

The BTN is a nice operation, but it's still not as valuable as the SECN is.

(10-02-2017 04:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Redhawk's sources have never panned out, at least not yet. I believe he is a sincere poster and believes what he posts to be true. And I enjoy his posts. But like so many who know a booster or trustee they get a version always tainted by that persons' leanings.

It's simply a matter of due diligence for UT and OU to evaluate their value together to any network or conference. If it were Auburn and Alabama it would be the same. I promise you that by the time OU and UT make a move, if they make a move, everyone and I mean everyone will have had talks with them. In the end this will be a business decision. The talk about who they like and don't like and who cheats and who doesn't cheat is pure malarkey! Everyone of them has cheated, and at various times expressed like or hate for other conferences. It doesn't mean a damned thing when it comes to the bottom line. And while business decisions are not totally bottom line decisions the bottom line is the main determining factor and the other factors are ancillary.

In the end it will be who pays them the most, how many of their buddies they get to keep on their schedules, and probably what sells the best to the local state legislature. That's why the SEC will always be in the running. We are the most valuable conference by 2.5 billion dollars. Our schools out earn our closest competitor (B1G) by 16 million a year per school average more. We have two of their old rivals, and I promise you if we take Tech and Okie State to get OU and UT it will be as close to a slam dunk deal as we could ever offer. At that point walking away leaves them political trouble, earns them less, matches their minor sports the least, and increases their overhead in travel more, and affords their fans less familiar faces to play.

Now smoke that over and tell me where I'm wrong?

But, if they don't move as a pair then anything is possible. It is possible that the SEC only lands 1 of them, or if we get neither we find ways to get what we want anyway.

It almost sounds like the SEC is willing only to take OU and UT and cap it off at 16.

Assuming all this information is true....

For schools that are apparently so dead set on not joining the SEC, there seems to be an awful lot of hemming and hawing. What exactly is stopping them from pulling up shop and either moving to the PAC or moving to the B1G with their select partners? The B1G will obviously pay more money at that so why is there a discussion?

And there's literally nothing keeping Missouri in the SEC if they don't want to be here...no GOR.

Doesn't sound terribly legit to me.

(10-02-2017 05:09 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-02-2017 04:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Redhawk's sources have never panned out, at least not yet. I believe he is a sincere poster and believes what he posts to be true. And I enjoy his posts. But like so many who know a booster or trustee they get a version always tainted by that persons' leanings.

It's simply a matter of due diligence for UT and OU to evaluate their value together to any network or conference. If it were Auburn and Alabama it would be the same. I promise you that by the time OU and UT make a move, if they make a move, everyone and I mean everyone will have had talks with them. In the end this will be a business decision. The talk about who they like and don't like and who cheats and who doesn't cheat is pure malarkey! Everyone of them has cheated, and at various times expressed like or hate for other conferences. It doesn't mean a damned thing when it comes to the bottom line. And while business decisions are not totally bottom line decisions the bottom line is the main determining factor and the other factors are ancillary.

In the end it will be who pays them the most, how many of their buddies they get to keep on their schedules, and probably what sells the best to the local state legislature. That's why the SEC will always be in the running. We are the most valuable conference by 2.5 billion dollars. Our schools out earn our closest competitor (B1G) by 16 million a year per school average more. We have two of their old rivals, and I promise you if we take Tech and Okie State to get OU and UT it will be as close to a slam dunk deal as we could ever offer. At that point walking away leaves them political trouble, earns them less, matches their minor sports the least, and increases their overhead in travel more, and affords their fans less familiar faces to play.

Now smoke that over and tell me where I'm wrong?

But, if they don't move as a pair then anything is possible. It is possible that the SEC only lands 1 of them, or if we get neither we find ways to get what we want anyway.

It almost sounds like the SEC is willing only to take OU and UT and cap it off at 16.

Assuming all this information is true....

For schools that are apparently so dead set on not joining the SEC, there seems to be an awful lot of hemming and hawing. What exactly is stopping them from pulling up shop and either moving to the PAC or moving to the B1G with their select partners? The B1G will obviously pay more money at that so why is there a discussion?

here...no GOR.And there's literally nothing keeping Missouri in the SEC if they don't want to be

Doesn't sound terribly legit to me.

The Big 10 would pay more than the PAC, but nobody earns their schools more total revenue than does the SEC and it's not even close. Even with the Big 10's 5 million per school pop in TV rights money in 2018 the SEC will still average 13 million more in projected gross revenue than the Big 10 in 2018. That's 130 million a decade! If they joined the SEC we would have a valuation over 11 billion! If they join the Big 10 they pass the SEC in valuation by 500 million and that's if we don't add anyone else.

So they can be part of an 8.3 billion dollar enterprise in the Big 10 or an 11 billion dollar enterprise in the SEC.

They can at least reunite with Arkansas, A&M and Missouri in the SEC or just join Nebraska in the Big 10.

And it is my understanding that we will shoot to get just the two, but are willing to as a fallback if necessary to consider all 4. Slive was on record in 2011 as saying the SEC would be proud to any of the 3 Texas state universities. Finebaum was pushing the OU/OSU deal pretty heavily this Spring and early Summer.

I think that those two illustrations say all they need to say about where the SEC stands in the process. I do know that Texas has been in talks with us earnestly at least 3 times since '91. So for all of their anti SEC talking points they always call us to see where they stand.

As to Missouri they are bound by a GOR as are we all, but not with the SEC. Our GOR is with ESPN over the SECN. It is not with CBS & ESPN over T1 & T2 rights.

(10-02-2017 05:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-02-2017 05:09 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-02-2017 04:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Redhawk's sources have never panned out, at least not yet. I believe he is a sincere poster and believes what he posts to be true. And I enjoy his posts. But like so many who know a booster or trustee they get a version always tainted by that persons' leanings.

It's simply a matter of due diligence for UT and OU to evaluate their value together to any network or conference. If it were Auburn and Alabama it would be the same. I promise you that by the time OU and UT make a move, if they make a move, everyone and I mean everyone will have had talks with them. In the end this will be a business decision. The talk about who they like and don't like and who cheats and who doesn't cheat is pure malarkey! Everyone of them has cheated, and at various times expressed like or hate for other conferences. It doesn't mean a damned thing when it comes to the bottom line. And while business decisions are not totally bottom line decisions the bottom line is the main determining factor and the other factors are ancillary.

In the end it will be who pays them the most, how many of their buddies they get to keep on their schedules, and probably what sells the best to the local state legislature. That's why the SEC will always be in the running. We are the most valuable conference by 2.5 billion dollars. Our schools out earn our closest competitor (B1G) by 16 million a year per school average more. We have two of their old rivals, and I promise you if we take Tech and Okie State to get OU and UT it will be as close to a slam dunk deal as we could ever offer. At that point walking away leaves them political trouble, earns them less, matches their minor sports the least, and increases their overhead in travel more, and affords their fans less familiar faces to play.

Now smoke that over and tell me where I'm wrong?

But, if they don't move as a pair then anything is possible. It is possible that the SEC only lands 1 of them, or if we get neither we find ways to get what we want anyway.

It almost sounds like the SEC is willing only to take OU and UT and cap it off at 16.

Assuming all this information is true....

For schools that are apparently so dead set on not joining the SEC, there seems to be an awful lot of hemming and hawing. What exactly is stopping them from pulling up shop and either moving to the PAC or moving to the B1G with their select partners? The B1G will obviously pay more money at that so why is there a discussion?

here...no GOR.And there's literally nothing keeping Missouri in the SEC if they don't want to be

Doesn't sound terribly legit to me.

The Big 10 would pay more than the PAC, but nobody earns their schools more total revenue than does the SEC and it's not even close. Even with the Big 10's 5 million per school pop in TV rights money in 2018 the SEC will still average 13 million more in projected gross revenue than the Big 10 in 2018. That's 130 million a decade! If they joined the SEC we would have a valuation over 11 billion! If they join the Big 10 they pass the SEC in valuation by 500 million and that's if we don't add anyone else.

So they can be part of an 8.3 billion dollar enterprise in the Big 10 or an 11 billion dollar enterprise in the SEC.

They can at least reunite with Arkansas, A&M and Missouri in the SEC or just join Nebraska in the Big 10.

And it is my understanding that we will shoot to get just the two, but are willing to as a fallback if necessary to consider all 4. Slive was on record in 2011 as saying the SEC would be proud to any of the 3 Texas state universities. Finebaum was pushing the OU/OSU deal pretty heavily this Spring and early Summer.

I think that those two illustrations say all they need to say about where the SEC stands in the process. I do know that Texas has been in talks with us earnestly at least 3 times since '91. So for all of their anti SEC talking points they always call us to see where they stand.

As to Missouri they are bound by a GOR as are we all, but not with the SEC. Our GOR is with ESPN over the SECN. It is not with CBS & ESPN over T1 & T2 rights.

I meant that the B1G would pay more than the PAC.

I guess what really gets me is this...

How can the SEC be a fallback option? Why would you need one? Is the PAC going to reject you? What about the B1G? Seems like this should all be pretty well a done deal. Nothing really makes sense here.

Seems like this sort of info being spread is a negotiating tactic.

(10-02-2017 11:25 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-02-2017 05:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-02-2017 05:09 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-02-2017 04:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Redhawk's sources have never panned out, at least not yet. I believe he is a sincere poster and believes what he posts to be true. And I enjoy his posts. But like so many who know a booster or trustee they get a version always tainted by that persons' leanings.

It's simply a matter of due diligence for UT and OU to evaluate their value together to any network or conference. If it were Auburn and Alabama it would be the same. I promise you that by the time OU and UT make a move, if they make a move, everyone and I mean everyone will have had talks with them. In the end this will be a business decision. The talk about who they like and don't like and who cheats and who doesn't cheat is pure malarkey! Everyone of them has cheated, and at various times expressed like or hate for other conferences. It doesn't mean a damned thing when it comes to the bottom line. And while business decisions are not totally bottom line decisions the bottom line is the main determining factor and the other factors are ancillary.

In the end it will be who pays them the most, how many of their buddies they get to keep on their schedules, and probably what sells the best to the local state legislature. That's why the SEC will always be in the running. We are the most valuable conference by 2.5 billion dollars. Our schools out earn our closest competitor (B1G) by 16 million a year per school average more. We have two of their old rivals, and I promise you if we take Tech and Okie State to get OU and UT it will be as close to a slam dunk deal as we could ever offer. At that point walking away leaves them political trouble, earns them less, matches their minor sports the least, and increases their overhead in travel more, and affords their fans less familiar faces to play.

Now smoke that over and tell me where I'm wrong?

But, if they don't move as a pair then anything is possible. It is possible that the SEC only lands 1 of them, or if we get neither we find ways to get what we want anyway.

It almost sounds like the SEC is willing only to take OU and UT and cap it off at 16.

Assuming all this information is true....

For schools that are apparently so dead set on not joining the SEC, there seems to be an awful lot of hemming and hawing. What exactly is stopping them from pulling up shop and either moving to the PAC or moving to the B1G with their select partners? The B1G will obviously pay more money at that so why is there a discussion?

here...no GOR.And there's literally nothing keeping Missouri in the SEC if they don't want to be

Doesn't sound terribly legit to me.

The Big 10 would pay more than the PAC, but nobody earns their schools more total revenue than does the SEC and it's not even close. Even with the Big 10's 5 million per school pop in TV rights money in 2018 the SEC will still average 13 million more in projected gross revenue than the Big 10 in 2018. That's 130 million a decade! If they joined the SEC we would have a valuation over 11 billion! If they join the Big 10 they pass the SEC in valuation by 500 million and that's if we don't add anyone else.

So they can be part of an 8.3 billion dollar enterprise in the Big 10 or an 11 billion dollar enterprise in the SEC.

They can at least reunite with Arkansas, A&M and Missouri in the SEC or just join Nebraska in the Big 10.

And it is my understanding that we will shoot to get just the two, but are willing to as a fallback if necessary to consider all 4. Slive was on record in 2011 as saying the SEC would be proud to any of the 3 Texas state universities. Finebaum was pushing the OU/OSU deal pretty heavily this Spring and early Summer.

I think that those two illustrations say all they need to say about where the SEC stands in the process. I do know that Texas has been in talks with us earnestly at least 3 times since '91. So for all of their anti SEC talking points they always call us to see where they stand.

As to Missouri they are bound by a GOR as are we all, but not with the SEC. Our GOR is with ESPN over the SECN. It is not with CBS & ESPN over T1 & T2 rights.

I meant that the B1G would pay more than the PAC.

I guess what really gets me is this...

How can the SEC be a fallback option? Why would you need one? Is the PAC going to reject you? What about the B1G? Seems like this should all be pretty well a done deal. Nothing really makes sense here.

Seems like this sort of info being spread is a negotiating tactic.

Because if they don't make ESPN think they are headed elsewhere they won't have the leverage to get the little brothers in. With Texas they may be pushing for more than just Tech. I think they know our best bet is to offer the two Oklahomas and put the pressure on them since they would be effectively cut off from all rivals.

Either ESPN or the SEC is going to push for OU & UT alone to 16. We'll probably settle for Tech & OSU as travel mates to take us to 18. A lot of folks like the 3 division of 6 set ups. The Big 10 might look at that angle too. So if Texas and OU make it look like they are going to jump with Kansas and one other then the SEC will have to go to plan B, Texa-homa.

I don't think that would be a huge hang up except for Texas could be pushing for Kansas and Kansas State, or Texas privates. I think both of those would be a deal killer. Kansas with WVU might work but the valuations and return are getting too low with 6.

Realistically only the PAC could handle that deal but if they headed there they wouldn't earn nearly as much money and OU and OSU might head our way anyway.

So I think that's what all the lip is about. They are trying to sell us on the notion that we have to meet their demands. I still think the settling point will be Texa-homa.

1. Texas, Tx Tech, OU and OSU all to the SEC --> 18
2. S Carolina and WVU to the ACC --> 16.5 (SEC drops to 17)
3. Kansas to the SEC --> back to 18
DONE FOREVER (unless Notre Dame joins ACC for football).

Restored rivalries, SEC:
Texas vs. A&M
Texas vs. Arkansas
OU vs. Missouri
Kansas vs. Missouri

Preserved rivalries, SEC:
Texas vs. OU
OU vs. OSU
Texas vs. Tx Tech

Restored rivalries, ACC:
S Car vs. UNC, NC State, etc. (everyone but Clemson)
WVU vs Pitt, Syracuse, BC, VT, etc.

Great for TV - therefore, they would pay for this, IMO

(10-03-2017 06:41 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  1. Texas, Tx Tech, OU and OSU all to the SEC --> 18
2. S Carolina and WVU to the ACC --> 16.5 (SEC drops to 17)
3. Kansas to the SEC --> back to 18
DONE FOREVER (unless Notre Dame joins ACC for football).

Restored rivalries, SEC:
Texas vs. A&M
Texas vs. Arkansas
OU vs. Missouri
Kansas vs. Missouri

Preserved rivalries, SEC:
Texas vs. OU
OU vs. OSU
Texas vs. Tx Tech

Restored rivalries, ACC:
S Car vs. UNC, NC State, etc. (everyone but Clemson)
WVU vs Pitt, Syracuse, BC, VT, etc.

Great for TV - therefore, they would pay for this, IMO

Holy Moly! Brilliant!
The wisest of the wise has long declared that South Carolina and West Virginia would be the best expansion candidates for the ACC....for years.

and that 5 team expansion for the SEC knocks the suggestion out of the park! What more could any in that group hope for?

All right, I've got to ask you guys; where does this desire for SCAR to the ACC come from? I've seen GTS advocate for the Vols to the ACC as well, but at least I can understand that one. I'm just baffled by the Cocky move

(10-03-2017 07:03 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 06:41 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  1. Texas, Tx Tech, OU and OSU all to the SEC --> 18
2. S Carolina and WVU to the ACC --> 16.5 (SEC drops to 17)
3. Kansas to the SEC --> back to 18
DONE FOREVER (unless Notre Dame joins ACC for football).

Restored rivalries, SEC:
Texas vs. A&M
Texas vs. Arkansas
OU vs. Missouri
Kansas vs. Missouri

Preserved rivalries, SEC:
Texas vs. OU
OU vs. OSU
Texas vs. Tx Tech

Restored rivalries, ACC:
S Car vs. UNC, NC State, etc. (everyone but Clemson)
WVU vs Pitt, Syracuse, BC, VT, etc.

Great for TV - therefore, they would pay for this, IMO

Holy Moly! Brilliant!
The wisest of the wise has long declared that South Carolina and West Virginia would be the best expansion candidates for the ACC....for years.

and that 5 team expansion for the SEC knocks the suggestion out of the park! What more could any in that group hope for?

Brilliant is taking South Carolina???

Why should we give up anyone???

We'll simply wait and take who we want to take.

Besides, South Carolina earns us more money than Kansas would. Hardly brilliant in that regard!

(10-03-2017 09:39 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  All right, I've got to ask you guys; where does this desire for SCAR to the ACC come from? I've seen GTS advocate for the Vols to the ACC as well, but at least I can understand that one. I'm just baffled by the Cocky move

Having three SEC states on their border makes the Baby Blue Mafia nervous. Now that two of those states have a strong hoops program it makes them even more nervous. In the ACC North Carolina can put restrictions on South Carolina and they know they'll never get Kentucky so it's a protectionist move. The funny part is that's why South Carolina left in the first place.

Smart El Cid has surrounded their city and the disparity between those within and those without is enormous. If we lay siege to them then all we have to do to win is to dangle the bread over the wall and they'll come out eventually and join us to eat.

They'll eventually have to choose between the Barbarians to the North or Us.

(10-03-2017 09:39 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  All right, I've got to ask you guys; where does this desire for SCAR to the ACC come from? I've seen GTS advocate for the Vols to the ACC as well, but at least I can understand that one. I'm just baffled by the Cocky move

With the exception of being hot headed and foolishly putting mustard in BBQ, South Carolinians are just like us.
Folks at the base of the Appalachians (Atlanta) can identify with both sides of the mountains, hence the "love" for Tennessee, but anything too far west of the Blue Ridge Escarpment is a foreign country (It's why North Carolina gave all of that land ((to the Mississippi River)) back to the Federal Government.
In a nutshell....it's cultural.

(10-03-2017 11:08 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 09:39 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  All right, I've got to ask you guys; where does this desire for SCAR to the ACC come from? I've seen GTS advocate for the Vols to the ACC as well, but at least I can understand that one. I'm just baffled by the Cocky move

Having three SEC states on their border makes the Baby Blue Mafia nervous. Now that two of those states have a strong hoops program it makes them even more nervous. In the ACC North Carolina can put restrictions on South Carolina and they know they'll never get Kentucky so it's a protectionist move. The funny part is that's why South Carolina left in the first place.

Smart El Cid has surrounded their city and the disparity between those within and those without is enormous. If we lay siege to them then all we have to do to win is to dangle the bread over the wall and they'll come out eventually and join us to eat.

They'll eventually have to choose between the Barbarians to the North or Us.

That's a quick and easy decision if it ever has to be made, JR.....we'll take the Barbarians over you guys in a heartbeat!

(10-03-2017 10:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 07:03 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 06:41 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  1. Texas, Tx Tech, OU and OSU all to the SEC --> 18
2. S Carolina and WVU to the ACC --> 16.5 (SEC drops to 17)
3. Kansas to the SEC --> back to 18
DONE FOREVER (unless Notre Dame joins ACC for football).

Restored rivalries, SEC:
Texas vs. A&M
Texas vs. Arkansas
OU vs. Missouri
Kansas vs. Missouri

Preserved rivalries, SEC:
Texas vs. OU
OU vs. OSU
Texas vs. Tx Tech

Restored rivalries, ACC:
S Car vs. UNC, NC State, etc. (everyone but Clemson)
WVU vs Pitt, Syracuse, BC, VT, etc.

Great for TV - therefore, they would pay for this, IMO

Holy Moly! Brilliant!
The wisest of the wise has long declared that South Carolina and West Virginia would be the best expansion candidates for the ACC....for years.

and that 5 team expansion for the SEC knocks the suggestion out of the park! What more could any in that group hope for?

Brilliant is taking South Carolina???

Why should we give up anyone???

We'll simply wait and take who we want to take.

Besides, South Carolina earns us more money than Kansas would. Hardly brilliant in that regard!

I don't think it's very likely, but the idea is to make room for another Big XII team.

The reason you give them up is because they are another mouth to feed.

(10-03-2017 12:44 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 11:08 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 09:39 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  All right, I've got to ask you guys; where does this desire for SCAR to the ACC come from? I've seen GTS advocate for the Vols to the ACC as well, but at least I can understand that one. I'm just baffled by the Cocky move

Having three SEC states on their border makes the Baby Blue Mafia nervous. Now that two of those states have a strong hoops program it makes them even more nervous. In the ACC North Carolina can put restrictions on South Carolina and they know they'll never get Kentucky so it's a protectionist move. The funny part is that's why South Carolina left in the first place.

Smart El Cid has surrounded their city and the disparity between those within and those without is enormous. If we lay siege to them then all we have to do to win is to dangle the bread over the wall and they'll come out eventually and join us to eat.

They'll eventually have to choose between the Barbarians to the North or Us.

That's a quick and easy decision if it ever has to be made, JR.....we'll take the Barbarians over you guys in a heartbeat!

(I'm not so sure about that, XLance; hopefully that decision never has to be faced!)

(10-03-2017 12:51 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 10:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 07:03 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 06:41 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  1. Texas, Tx Tech, OU and OSU all to the SEC --> 18
2. S Carolina and WVU to the ACC --> 16.5 (SEC drops to 17)
3. Kansas to the SEC --> back to 18
DONE FOREVER (unless Notre Dame joins ACC for football).

Restored rivalries, SEC:
Texas vs. A&M
Texas vs. Arkansas
OU vs. Missouri
Kansas vs. Missouri

Preserved rivalries, SEC:
Texas vs. OU
OU vs. OSU
Texas vs. Tx Tech

Restored rivalries, ACC:
S Car vs. UNC, NC State, etc. (everyone but Clemson)
WVU vs Pitt, Syracuse, BC, VT, etc.

Great for TV - therefore, they would pay for this, IMO

Holy Moly! Brilliant!
The wisest of the wise has long declared that South Carolina and West Virginia would be the best expansion candidates for the ACC....for years.

and that 5 team expansion for the SEC knocks the suggestion out of the park! What more could any in that group hope for?

Brilliant is taking South Carolina???

Why should we give up anyone???

We'll simply wait and take who we want to take.

Besides, South Carolina earns us more money than Kansas would. Hardly brilliant in that regard!

I don't think it's very likely, but the idea is to make room for another Big XII team.

The reason you give them up is because they are another mouth to feed.

Actually, South Carolina is a pretty strong money making brand. Traditionally, they don't win that much in football, but they still have stellar fan support.

(10-03-2017 12:53 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 12:44 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 11:08 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 09:39 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  All right, I've got to ask you guys; where does this desire for SCAR to the ACC come from? I've seen GTS advocate for the Vols to the ACC as well, but at least I can understand that one. I'm just baffled by the Cocky move

Having three SEC states on their border makes the Baby Blue Mafia nervous. Now that two of those states have a strong hoops program it makes them even more nervous. In the ACC North Carolina can put restrictions on South Carolina and they know they'll never get Kentucky so it's a protectionist move. The funny part is that's why South Carolina left in the first place.

Smart El Cid has surrounded their city and the disparity between those within and those without is enormous. If we lay siege to them then all we have to do to win is to dangle the bread over the wall and they'll come out eventually and join us to eat.

They'll eventually have to choose between the Barbarians to the North or Us.

That's a quick and easy decision if it ever has to be made, JR.....we'll take the Barbarians over you guys in a heartbeat!

(I'm not so sure about that, XLance; hopefully that decision never has to be faced!)

Lance can seek asylum among the Barbarians if he likes. I think the rest of the Tar Heels are coming this way.

(10-03-2017 12:51 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 10:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 07:03 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 06:41 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  1. Texas, Tx Tech, OU and OSU all to the SEC --> 18
2. S Carolina and WVU to the ACC --> 16.5 (SEC drops to 17)
3. Kansas to the SEC --> back to 18
DONE FOREVER (unless Notre Dame joins ACC for football).

Restored rivalries, SEC:
Texas vs. A&M
Texas vs. Arkansas
OU vs. Missouri
Kansas vs. Missouri

Preserved rivalries, SEC:
Texas vs. OU
OU vs. OSU
Texas vs. Tx Tech

Restored rivalries, ACC:
S Car vs. UNC, NC State, etc. (everyone but Clemson)
WVU vs Pitt, Syracuse, BC, VT, etc.

Great for TV - therefore, they would pay for this, IMO

Holy Moly! Brilliant!
The wisest of the wise has long declared that South Carolina and West Virginia would be the best expansion candidates for the ACC....for years.

and that 5 team expansion for the SEC knocks the suggestion out of the park! What more could any in that group hope for?

Brilliant is taking South Carolina???

Why should we give up anyone???

We'll simply wait and take who we want to take.

Besides, South Carolina earns us more money than Kansas would. Hardly brilliant in that regard!

I don't think it's very likely, but the idea is to make room for another Big XII team.

The reason you give them up is because they are another mouth to feed.

But we have schools in duplicated markets that we have to feed even more. Vanderbilt?

The SEC has never asked anyone to leave, and never will. We do not believe in addition by subtraction. We will either add or replace. We won't subtract. In the history of the SEC three schools left of their own choice: Sewanee, Georgia Tech, and Tulane. Are any of them better off?

Message board hoopla aside, if the SEC expands again it will be with schools that add to our bottom line, our football history, and hopefully with academic standings that improve our own. That's it.

(10-03-2017 06:41 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  1. Texas, Tx Tech, OU and OSU all to the SEC --> 18
2. S Carolina and WVU to the ACC --> 16.5 (SEC drops to 17)
3. Kansas to the SEC --> back to 18
DONE FOREVER (unless Notre Dame joins ACC for football).

Restored rivalries, SEC:
Texas vs. A&M
Texas vs. Arkansas
OU vs. Missouri
Kansas vs. Missouri

Preserved rivalries, SEC:
Texas vs. OU
OU vs. OSU
Texas vs. Tx Tech

Restored rivalries, ACC:
S Car vs. UNC, NC State, etc. (everyone but Clemson)
WVU vs Pitt, Syracuse, BC, VT, etc.

Great for TV - therefore, they would pay for this, IMO

South Carolina is not leaving the SEC.