From the time that the Big 10 added Penn State and the SEC added Arkansas and South Carolina it was clear to anyone who could read a map that the Big East and likely the Big 12 or ACC would be doomed. Penn State indicated the desire of the Big 10 to move into markets larger and more viable than those of their native states. Arkansas and South Carolina were bridges to alternate futures of the SEC. One future would lead into Texas, the other future into North Carolina. South Carolina and Arkansas were fine additions in their own right, but they were selected simultaneously for a reason. Which conference would weaken and provide the pieces needed to expand the SEC not only in size, but in prestige and strength?

2012 began to answer that question as we moved into Texas with A&M and into Missouri. Our immediate future would be in Westward expansion. With Arkansas in hand and Texas A&M added a case was being made for the acquisition of either Oklahoma or Texas or both. It has long been accepted that to catch the steer we would first have to corral him. Arkansas and A&M built part of that pen. I think it has always been assumed that Oklahoma would be the final piece needed to capture Bevo. Both represent the jewels to the West. If the SEC landed Oklahoma we would have cornered the market on Texas rivals. That's a nice strategy.

But what happens if Texas simply balks. We did weaken the SWC by taking Arkansas. We did weaken the Big 12 by taking A&M and Missouri. It's natural that a certain level of animosity toward the aggressor would be in order, right?

Well that's the conventional wisdom of oodles of posters and fans. But it's hooey! College football is foremost a business. Texas has the most successful business model in college football. They aren't going to want to alter it. We have already done the preliminary work to land them. We have Arkansas. We have A&M. Maybe we have to land Oklahoma to cinch the deal, or maybe not. Having the Sooners might be tempting to Texas but they are arch rivals who have managed to maintain that rivalry long before without Oklahoma being a member of the SWC.

Texas if it joins the SEC will join it because we are one of the two strongest conferences at the least and the strongest at the best. What we are not is second best. It just depends on what criteria you are using to attest to strength. So what it will come down to is proximity, familiar schools favored by Texas fans to play, and the right fit of sports. We have that. In the end the best business model in college football didn't get that way by jealously, envy, malice, or arrogance. They got that way by practically doing what was best for them. Of the options open to them now, outside of remaining in the Big 12, we are the best option for them because we will preserve the vast majority of their current highly successful business model, and nobody else can do that. If Texas wants to protect another Texas school then Oklahoma may not be essential to add. Preserving their game in Dallas would be all that would be required of our schedule makers and those at Texas.

Outside of us their best prospect might be to take the three other Big 12 Texas schools with them to the PAC. If that is the case our card to play is Oklahoma State to land Oklahoma. It's a viable card to play and it is one the Big 10 can't match. Why might that work? Because the state government of Oklahoma will want both schools accounted for in a healthy prosperous conference and because they are practical they will bring pressure to bear upon the OU administration to do what is in the best interest of their state. College Presidents don't make the decisions. The people they work for do whether that is a state, or a board of trustees for a private school. It is big business and decisions can't be made in a vacuum.

This is a practical world. Schools need revenue so thy will react to those needs practically. Schools need fans to fund their athletic programs. They will respond to those fans practically because of that need. Schools need to keep overhead low. They will respond to added travel practically. Maryland's move was not so much a poke in the eye to the ACC as it was a practical move towards revenue at a time when their athletic department could not see its way clear of its debt.

Texas has the opposite priority. The more we make a western division amenable to the Longhorn business model, the more likely it will be that they will find an excuse to join.

And what is practical for us is that we have a plan B. Oklahoma serves our needs about as well as Texas. And they will only require one other school to come.

But I don't think we really want more than two schools unless something really fortuitous comes our way.

Otherwise there to the East sits South Carolina and above them North Carolina another jewel. And all that one requires is a little bit of patience, and it would help to have a little bit of success to the West to encourage them should their conditions ever become uncomfortable.

90% of what I hear posted and of the blogs I read, and the pieces submitted by beat writers, pander to quick prejudices, animosities, and fears for the purpose of being noticed. That's how a 200 million dollar athletic department operates, or even a 100 million dollar athletic department. They are rational businessmen who know that if they don't maintain a successful model it will cost them their jobs. Who know if they alienate their fans they will suffer. And who know the best course if forced to change is the course that requires the least change.

That is why I'm confident that when further realignment occurs that the SEC is in a position of strength. Because for them to join us, means the least overall change from their current business models and also the least of the cultural adjustments for their fans.

This time our strategies in the past have already put us into a position where practicality now suggests that we are the best option if one has to be taken. All that is left to do is be patient, and gracious at least until we're teed up to play.

My question is how far would the SEC be willing to go to land UT?

I think it's safe to say we would add a school like Texas Tech to make it happen. I see no issue with that.

While 16 is an ideal number, I wonder if we would be willing to go higher if asked to do so?

I don't think UT would be particularly worried about being in a separate conference from OU. It's true it used to be that way for most of their history and consider that an OU that wasn't tied to the Sun Belt might have a bit more difficulty in recruiting. UT might actually appreciate that reality and prefer to move without OU. That and I doubt UT cares anything about playing Oklahoma State on a regular basis.

I don't think UT is particularly tied to Kansas or anyone else in the Big 12 outside of the other TX schools.

Thus my question...does UT care about protecting anyone else?

(06-25-2018 11:23 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  My question is how far would the SEC be willing to go to land UT?

I think it's safe to say we would add a school like Texas Tech to make it happen. I see no issue with that.

While 16 is an ideal number, I wonder if we would be willing to go higher if asked to do so?

I don't think UT would be particularly worried about being in a separate conference from OU. It's true it used to be that way for most of their history and consider that an OU that wasn't tied to the Sun Belt might have a bit more difficulty in recruiting. UT might actually appreciate that reality and prefer to move without OU. That and I doubt UT cares anything about playing Oklahoma State on a regular basis.

I don't think UT is particularly tied to Kansas or anyone else in the Big 12 outside of the other TX schools.

Thus my question...does UT care about protecting anyone else?

I truly believe that they once did, but have since realized that the more Texas schools they elevate, the less successful they are. A move to the SEC might be their best opportunity to restrict the state to 3 strong P schools instead of 5. I don't think they will ever publicly state this, but I think they are quite aware of it because one of the biggest rubs that Oklahoma had with them was the expansion with T.C.U. which elevated yet another Texas school's status, most particularly one in what had been Oklahoma's prime recruiting area. The rise of T.C.U. has weakened Oklahoma if ever so slightly, still enough to drop them a half peg down in strength. It has also weakened Texas and I think they realize that now. But for many reasons, not the least of which is that their new A.D. came from T.C.U., there will never be a public statement to that effect.

I don't think they enamored of Tech, but they are the only other state school which currently enjoys P status and there probably is some political pressure to keep it so.

(06-26-2018 06:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 11:23 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  My question is how far would the SEC be willing to go to land UT?

I think it's safe to say we would add a school like Texas Tech to make it happen. I see no issue with that.

While 16 is an ideal number, I wonder if we would be willing to go higher if asked to do so?

I don't think UT would be particularly worried about being in a separate conference from OU. It's true it used to be that way for most of their history and consider that an OU that wasn't tied to the Sun Belt might have a bit more difficulty in recruiting. UT might actually appreciate that reality and prefer to move without OU. That and I doubt UT cares anything about playing Oklahoma State on a regular basis.

I don't think UT is particularly tied to Kansas or anyone else in the Big 12 outside of the other TX schools.

Thus my question...does UT care about protecting anyone else?

I truly believe that they once did, but have since realized that the more Texas schools they elevate, the less successful they are. A move to the SEC might be their best opportunity to restrict the state to 3 strong P schools instead of 5. I don't think they will ever publicly state this, but I think they are quite aware of it because one of the biggest rubs that Oklahoma had with them was the expansion with T.C.U. which elevated yet another Texas school's status, most particularly one in what had been Oklahoma's prime recruiting area. The rise of T.C.U. has weakened Oklahoma if ever so slightly, still enough to drop them a half peg down in strength. It has also weakened Texas and I think they realize that now. But for many reasons, not the least of which is that their new A.D. came from T.C.U., there will never be a public statement to that effect.

I don't think they enamored of Tech, but they are the only other state school which currently enjoys P status and there probably is some political pressure to keep it so.

The thought also occurs to me...

As business people, they probably appreciate the inherent value of sticking with OU. That would imply a foursome including Texas Tech and Oklahoma State.

I do have questions about the structure of 18, but I can't argue that there's easily more value in 20.

(06-26-2018 07:08 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 06:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 11:23 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  My question is how far would the SEC be willing to go to land UT?

I think it's safe to say we would add a school like Texas Tech to make it happen. I see no issue with that.

While 16 is an ideal number, I wonder if we would be willing to go higher if asked to do so?

I don't think UT would be particularly worried about being in a separate conference from OU. It's true it used to be that way for most of their history and consider that an OU that wasn't tied to the Sun Belt might have a bit more difficulty in recruiting. UT might actually appreciate that reality and prefer to move without OU. That and I doubt UT cares anything about playing Oklahoma State on a regular basis.

I don't think UT is particularly tied to Kansas or anyone else in the Big 12 outside of the other TX schools.

Thus my question...does UT care about protecting anyone else?

I truly believe that they once did, but have since realized that the more Texas schools they elevate, the less successful they are. A move to the SEC might be their best opportunity to restrict the state to 3 strong P schools instead of 5. I don't think they will ever publicly state this, but I think they are quite aware of it because one of the biggest rubs that Oklahoma had with them was the expansion with T.C.U. which elevated yet another Texas school's status, most particularly one in what had been Oklahoma's prime recruiting area. The rise of T.C.U. has weakened Oklahoma if ever so slightly, still enough to drop them a half peg down in strength. It has also weakened Texas and I think they realize that now. But for many reasons, not the least of which is that their new A.D. came from T.C.U., there will never be a public statement to that effect.

I don't think they enamored of Tech, but they are the only other state school which currently enjoys P status and there probably is some political pressure to keep it so.

The thought also occurs to me...

As business people, they probably appreciate the inherent value of sticking with OU. That would imply a foursome including Texas Tech and Oklahoma State.

I do have questions about the structure of 18, but I can't argue that there's easily more value in 20.

I think that would be safest way financially, culturally, and content wise to end our realignment.

So I think the question then is acquiring Oklahoma.

If there's a lot of new money entering the college athletics world in a few years then OU needs motivation to pull the trigger. Taking OSU is a part of that equation, but I think they may need a reason beyond that. That is to say, the Big 12 could be financially viable if the right partner comes along.

So what is it that makes OU say they no longer care about saving the Big 12?

(06-27-2018 11:12 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  So I think the question then is acquiring Oklahoma.

If there's a lot of new money entering the college athletics world in a few years then OU needs motivation to pull the trigger. Taking OSU is a part of that equation, but I think they may need a reason beyond that. That is to say, the Big 12 could be financially viable if the right partner comes along.

So what is it that makes OU say they no longer care about saving the Big 12?

1. The uncertainty of living under the Texas whim.
2. Quite possibly the last chance to preserve themselves along with OSU.
3. Exposure in states in the Southeast that might provide a recruiting ground for students. Nobody in the Big 10 is going to head to Oklahoma if they are the last ranked academic school in the conference, and the only non AAU member. In the SEC they are 7th or 8th out of 16.
4. Sports fit.
5. We still give them an avenue to play in Texas.

(06-28-2018 12:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 11:12 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  So I think the question then is acquiring Oklahoma.

If there's a lot of new money entering the college athletics world in a few years then OU needs motivation to pull the trigger. Taking OSU is a part of that equation, but I think they may need a reason beyond that. That is to say, the Big 12 could be financially viable if the right partner comes along.

So what is it that makes OU say they no longer care about saving the Big 12?

1. The uncertainty of living under the Texas whim.
2. Quite possibly the last chance to preserve themselves along with OSU.
3. Exposure in states in the Southeast that might provide a recruiting ground for students. Nobody in the Big 10 is going to head to Oklahoma if they are the last ranked academic school in the conference, and the only non AAU member. In the SEC they are 7th or 8th out of 16.
4. Sports fit.
5. We still give them an avenue to play in Texas.

Oklahoma/Oklahoma St seems like the most realistic and likely option at this point. If think they would do and it so would the SEC. It would be a good fit.

In the revenue value list, the order of the top 4 are:
1. Texas, 2. Oklahoma, 3. Oklahoma State, 4. Kansas State.

Get the top two, or one of the top two; then it is Texas & KSU or OU & oSu.

Of course that's just one varible, but a very important one.

(06-30-2018 01:35 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  In the revenue value list, the order of the top 4 are:
1. Texas, 2. Oklahoma, 3. Oklahoma State, 4. Kansas State.

Get the top two, or one of the top two; then it is Texas & KSU or OU & oSu.

Of course that's just one varible, but a very important one.

That is one metric that would favor Kansas State. But clearly the dilemma of the SEC is in that #2 selection. Both Oklahoma State and Kansas State rank below Kentucky and above Mississippi State in valuation that puts either in 12th place in a 16 school SEC and well below our median valuation. But, the same is true in attendance. Where Oklahoma State distinguishes itself over Kansas State is in total revenue production. Quite simply put if we land only 1 of Texas and Oklahoma there is no ideal #2.

Kansas is a nil on the gridiron. Oklahoma State is a duplication from a small state. T.C.U. is a small private with only a great location. West Virginia is the best total athletic package but from a miniscule state and somewhat of an outlier. Texas Tech is too remote. Baylor is a leper. Iowa State could be argued to be the best all around for support and academics but is absolutely not a cultural fit and is a total outlier.

So really a case can be made for any of them or against any of them and 4 of them are so close in revenue production that it doesn't matter except for one of those is Baylor.

I could live with either pairing, but OU/OSU would probably graft better and if they are together I doubt they get happy feet later on.

(06-30-2018 01:35 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  In the revenue value list, the order of the top 4 are:
1. Texas, 2. Oklahoma, 3. Oklahoma State, 4. Kansas State.

Get the top two, or one of the top two; then it is Texas & KSU or OU & oSu.

Of course that's just one varible, but a very important one.

Kansas State is probably a better fit than Kansas anyway if for no more reason than it's a big ag school.

I'll say this about them, their football program is a point of pride for them. They've dedicated a lot of resources to build their cornerstone and I think there's a chance they could maintain decent success post-Snyder if they had access to better recruiting grounds. As it stands, they have to rely too much on JUCOs. There just aren't very many prospects in that part of the country.

(06-30-2018 02:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-30-2018 01:35 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  In the revenue value list, the order of the top 4 are:
1. Texas, 2. Oklahoma, 3. Oklahoma State, 4. Kansas State.

Get the top two, or one of the top two; then it is Texas & KSU or OU & oSu.

Of course that's just one varible, but a very important one.

That is one metric that would favor Kansas State. But clearly the dilemma of the SEC is in that #2 selection. Both Oklahoma State and Kansas State rank below Kentucky and above Mississippi State in valuation that puts either in 12th place in a 16 school SEC and well below our median valuation. But, the same is true in attendance. Where Oklahoma State distinguishes itself over Kansas State is in total revenue production. Quite simply put if we land only 1 of Texas and Oklahoma there is no ideal #2.

Kansas is a nil on the gridiron. Oklahoma State is a duplication from a small state. T.C.U. is a small private with only a great location. West Virginia is the best total athletic package but from a miniscule state and somewhat of an outlier. Texas Tech is too remote. Baylor is a leper. Iowa State could be argued to be the best all around for support and academics but is absolutely not a cultural fit and is a total outlier.

So really a case can be made for any of them or against any of them and 4 of them are so close in revenue production that it doesn't matter except for one of those is Baylor.

I could live with either pairing, but OU/OSU would probably graft better and if they are together I doubt they get happy feet later on.

It's true. There is no ideal product there outside of Texas and Oklahoma.

I think some distinction should be made in terms of what a program could accomplish given a better set of circumstances. At the end of the day, that is what the SEC would offer. Who would be in a position to take advantage of that? Who could make the most of the opportunity? I think that would lead us to a better decision more so than the proverbial flipping of a coin.

Iowa State

Positives: A flagship school in a state with no pro sports. AAU school. They have pretty good attendance actually even though they are the 2nd brand in the state. Decent basketball profile. Wouldn't take any political tricks to get them.

Negatives: Mediocre at best financials. Pretty far away from the core of the league. Culturally an outlier. Market size not particularly impressive.

What could the SEC do for them?

Other than artificially inflate their earnings, I don't think ISU is in a position to dramatically improve any of their negatives.

---------------

Kansas

Positives: Flagship school. AAU school. Elite basketball brand. Decent financials.

Negatives: Small state that is not growing. Terrible football. A bit incongruent culturally.

What could the SEC do for them?

The financials would improve, and it's possible they could make their football respectable given the proper prodding. That's about it.

---------------

Kansas State

Positives: Flagship school. Culturally similar to some SEC schools. Focus on football with decent attendance.

Negatives: 2nd brand in a small state. Essentially no long term record of success. Mediocre financials.

What could the SEC do for them?

Other than improve financials a little and perhaps help them not rely so much on JUCOs, there isn't much space to improve.

----------------

Baylor

No thanks.

---------------

TCU

Positives: Decent financials that have actually grown rapidly since attaining Power status. Pretty consistent success in football the last couple of decades. Decent football attendance. Location in the heart of major media market. Location in the heart of recruiting hotbed. Metro area is larger than most states. Similar athletic profile to SEC schools.

Negatives: Private school with small alumni base.

What could the SEC do for them?

Cement them among the Power ranks and ensure a steady flow of new money. Give them a leg up on in-state competition for money and recruits. Given their location and track record, I like the odds they could be a consistent winner in all the important sports. Their alumni will never dramatically increase, but the quality of content should be useful.

---------------

Texas Tech

Positives: State school in huge overall market. Similar athletic profile to the SEC. Culturally compatible. Pretty good attendance for football.

Negatives: Located far away from the core of the league. Mediocre financials. No long track record of success in revenue sports. At best, 3rd brand in the state.

What could the SEC do for them?

Elevate their profile outside the state of TX where they currently compete with a pack of schools for similar status. Solidify financials too, but nothing can be done about location. West Texas is hard to get to and I don't think there's a tall ceiling here.

-----------------

Oklahoma State

Positives: Flagship school. Decent financials. Pretty good track record in major sports in recent years. Growing state. Should be a solid cultural fit. Could be key to landing OU.

Negatives: 2nd brand in a smallish state.

What could the SEC do for them?

Elevate their profile a little and improve their financials. Long term, I'm not sure about their success in major sports simply because T. Boone Pickens' influence is so recent. They'll probably be ok though and if OU wants them included then there's not a significant downside.

--------------------

West Virginia

Positives: Flagship school. Pretty good performance in major sports. Good viewership in markets outside WV like DC and Pittsburgh. Decent cultural fit. Decent revenue.

Negatives: A very small state that is so poor that people generally leave which weakens legacy alumni numbers.

What could the SEC do for them?

This is debatable, I think. We could solidify their financials and give them easier access to recruits. WVU has always made a habit of recruiting other states anyway so that's not something they need to learn to do. Their state's economy could drag them down though and the SEC can't do anything about that. Travel wouldn't be ideal although I think a few decent rivalries could form and turn them into a better product regionally.

-------------

All in all, there are only a few options I think we should consider here if we need a 2nd or 4th. If we're landing OU then OSU is probably coming along so I'm not including them in this ranking.

My personal preference would be this...

1. TCU
2. West Virginia
3. Texas Tech is fine if UT really wants them.

I don't mind the idea of Kansas simply because they do have an elite brand in a revenue sport, but the quality of the school will not likely increase much. I think the others have so many downsides that it would be pointless to go in that direction.

(06-30-2018 03:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-30-2018 02:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-30-2018 01:35 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  In the revenue value list, the order of the top 4 are:
1. Texas, 2. Oklahoma, 3. Oklahoma State, 4. Kansas State.

Get the top two, or one of the top two; then it is Texas & KSU or OU & oSu.

Of course that's just one varible, but a very important one.

That is one metric that would favor Kansas State. But clearly the dilemma of the SEC is in that #2 selection. Both Oklahoma State and Kansas State rank below Kentucky and above Mississippi State in valuation that puts either in 12th place in a 16 school SEC and well below our median valuation. But, the same is true in attendance. Where Oklahoma State distinguishes itself over Kansas State is in total revenue production. Quite simply put if we land only 1 of Texas and Oklahoma there is no ideal #2.

Kansas is a nil on the gridiron. Oklahoma State is a duplication from a small state. T.C.U. is a small private with only a great location. West Virginia is the best total athletic package but from a miniscule state and somewhat of an outlier. Texas Tech is too remote. Baylor is a leper. Iowa State could be argued to be the best all around for support and academics but is absolutely not a cultural fit and is a total outlier.

So really a case can be made for any of them or against any of them and 4 of them are so close in revenue production that it doesn't matter except for one of those is Baylor.

I could live with either pairing, but OU/OSU would probably graft better and if they are together I doubt they get happy feet later on.

It's true. There is no ideal product there outside of Texas and Oklahoma.

I think some distinction should be made in terms of what a program could accomplish given a better set of circumstances. At the end of the day, that is what the SEC would offer. Who would be in a position to take advantage of that? Who could make the most of the opportunity? I think that would lead us to a better decision more so than the proverbial flipping of a coin.

Iowa State

Positives: A flagship school in a state with no pro sports. AAU school. They have pretty good attendance actually even though they are the 2nd brand in the state. Decent basketball profile. Wouldn't take any political tricks to get them.

Negatives: Mediocre at best financials. Pretty far away from the core of the league. Culturally an outlier. Market size not particularly impressive.

What could the SEC do for them?

Other than artificially inflate their earnings, I don't think ISU is in a position to dramatically improve any of their negatives.

---------------

Kansas

Positives: Flagship school. AAU school. Elite basketball brand. Decent financials.

Negatives: Small state that is not growing. Terrible football. A bit incongruent culturally.

What could the SEC do for them?

The financials would improve, and it's possible they could make their football respectable given the proper prodding. That's about it.

---------------

Kansas State

Positives: Flagship school. Culturally similar to some SEC schools. Focus on football with decent attendance.

Negatives: 2nd brand in a small state. Essentially no long term record of success. Mediocre financials.

What could the SEC do for them?

Other than improve financials a little and perhaps help them not rely so much on JUCOs, there isn't much space to improve.

----------------

Baylor

No thanks.

---------------

TCU

Positives: Decent financials that have actually grown rapidly since attaining Power status. Pretty consistent success in football the last couple of decades. Decent football attendance. Location in the heart of major media market. Location in the heart of recruiting hotbed. Metro area is larger than most states. Similar athletic profile to SEC schools.

Negatives: Private school with small alumni base.

What could the SEC do for them?

Cement them among the Power ranks and ensure a steady flow of new money. Give them a leg up on in-state competition for money and recruits. Given their location and track record, I like the odds they could be a consistent winner in all the important sports. Their alumni will never dramatically increase, but the quality of content should be useful.

---------------

Texas Tech

Positives: State school in huge overall market. Similar athletic profile to the SEC. Culturally compatible. Pretty good attendance for football.

Negatives: Located far away from the core of the league. Mediocre financials. No long track record of success in revenue sports. At best, 3rd brand in the state.

What could the SEC do for them?

Elevate their profile outside the state of TX where they currently compete with a pack of schools for similar status. Solidify financials too, but nothing can be done about location. West Texas is hard to get to and I don't think there's a tall ceiling here.

-----------------

Oklahoma State

Positives: Flagship school. Decent financials. Pretty good track record in major sports in recent years. Growing state. Should be a solid cultural fit. Could be key to landing OU.

Negatives: 2nd brand in a smallish state.

What could the SEC do for them?

Elevate their profile a little and improve their financials. Long term, I'm not sure about their success in major sports simply because T. Boone Pickens' influence is so recent. They'll probably be ok though and if OU wants them included then there's not a significant downside.

--------------------

West Virginia

Positives: Flagship school. Pretty good performance in major sports. Good viewership in markets outside WV like DC and Pittsburgh. Decent cultural fit. Decent revenue.

Negatives: A very small state that is so poor that people generally leave which weakens legacy alumni numbers.

What could the SEC do for them?

This is debatable, I think. We could solidify their financials and give them easier access to recruits. WVU has always made a habit of recruiting other states anyway so that's not something they need to learn to do. Their state's economy could drag them down though and the SEC can't do anything about that. Travel wouldn't be ideal although I think a few decent rivalries could form and turn them into a better product regionally.

-------------

All in all, there are only a few options I think we should consider here if we need a 2nd or 4th. If we're landing OU then OSU is probably coming along so I'm not including them in this ranking.

My personal preference would be this...

1. TCU
2. West Virginia
3. Texas Tech is fine if UT really wants them.

I don't mind the idea of Kansas simply because they do have an elite brand in a revenue sport, but the quality of the school will not likely increase much. I think the others have so many downsides that it would be pointless to go in that direction.

Good indicator list, AllTideUp.

Yes, there are a lot of question marks. If the ACC pursues WVU, and the PAC 12 and the BIG are making overtures along the same time, perhaps the choices become less ambiguous.

I have the perception these conferences are already privately talking to each other about expansion, and assessing the vibes being released by individual B12 schools.

If the SEC only finds one B12 school available AND acceptable (UT or OU), that may give them the option to look elsewhere for #16. But with the ACC's GoR running for another decade at that time, the options are not appealing. But most likely, the #16 would be from the B12.

Both prime candidates, OU and UT, could push for their preferred partners/sisters coming along. Only the PAC12 may consider taking more than two, and up to four perhaps. And obviously, they would seek Texas as part of it. Of course what the B1G is thinking will impact. Still, I believe the SEC holds the better cards.

Texas is going to entertain the lobbying from the prime bunch, and play one against the other, and then could go in a less predictable direction. Their history shows bargaining with them can be perplexing, if not frustrating. SEC, and maybe others, patience with Texas will get tested.

(06-30-2018 06:35 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(06-30-2018 03:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-30-2018 02:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-30-2018 01:35 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  In the revenue value list, the order of the top 4 are:
1. Texas, 2. Oklahoma, 3. Oklahoma State, 4. Kansas State.

Get the top two, or one of the top two; then it is Texas & KSU or OU & oSu.

Of course that's just one varible, but a very important one.

That is one metric that would favor Kansas State. But clearly the dilemma of the SEC is in that #2 selection. Both Oklahoma State and Kansas State rank below Kentucky and above Mississippi State in valuation that puts either in 12th place in a 16 school SEC and well below our median valuation. But, the same is true in attendance. Where Oklahoma State distinguishes itself over Kansas State is in total revenue production. Quite simply put if we land only 1 of Texas and Oklahoma there is no ideal #2.

Kansas is a nil on the gridiron. Oklahoma State is a duplication from a small state. T.C.U. is a small private with only a great location. West Virginia is the best total athletic package but from a miniscule state and somewhat of an outlier. Texas Tech is too remote. Baylor is a leper. Iowa State could be argued to be the best all around for support and academics but is absolutely not a cultural fit and is a total outlier.

So really a case can be made for any of them or against any of them and 4 of them are so close in revenue production that it doesn't matter except for one of those is Baylor.

I could live with either pairing, but OU/OSU would probably graft better and if they are together I doubt they get happy feet later on.

It's true. There is no ideal product there outside of Texas and Oklahoma.

I think some distinction should be made in terms of what a program could accomplish given a better set of circumstances. At the end of the day, that is what the SEC would offer. Who would be in a position to take advantage of that? Who could make the most of the opportunity? I think that would lead us to a better decision more so than the proverbial flipping of a coin.

Iowa State

Positives: A flagship school in a state with no pro sports. AAU school. They have pretty good attendance actually even though they are the 2nd brand in the state. Decent basketball profile. Wouldn't take any political tricks to get them.

Negatives: Mediocre at best financials. Pretty far away from the core of the league. Culturally an outlier. Market size not particularly impressive.

What could the SEC do for them?

Other than artificially inflate their earnings, I don't think ISU is in a position to dramatically improve any of their negatives.

---------------

Kansas

Positives: Flagship school. AAU school. Elite basketball brand. Decent financials.

Negatives: Small state that is not growing. Terrible football. A bit incongruent culturally.

What could the SEC do for them?

The financials would improve, and it's possible they could make their football respectable given the proper prodding. That's about it.

---------------

Kansas State

Positives: Flagship school. Culturally similar to some SEC schools. Focus on football with decent attendance.

Negatives: 2nd brand in a small state. Essentially no long term record of success. Mediocre financials.

What could the SEC do for them?

Other than improve financials a little and perhaps help them not rely so much on JUCOs, there isn't much space to improve.

----------------

Baylor

No thanks.

---------------

TCU

Positives: Decent financials that have actually grown rapidly since attaining Power status. Pretty consistent success in football the last couple of decades. Decent football attendance. Location in the heart of major media market. Location in the heart of recruiting hotbed. Metro area is larger than most states. Similar athletic profile to SEC schools.

Negatives: Private school with small alumni base.

What could the SEC do for them?

Cement them among the Power ranks and ensure a steady flow of new money. Give them a leg up on in-state competition for money and recruits. Given their location and track record, I like the odds they could be a consistent winner in all the important sports. Their alumni will never dramatically increase, but the quality of content should be useful.

---------------

Texas Tech

Positives: State school in huge overall market. Similar athletic profile to the SEC. Culturally compatible. Pretty good attendance for football.

Negatives: Located far away from the core of the league. Mediocre financials. No long track record of success in revenue sports. At best, 3rd brand in the state.

What could the SEC do for them?

Elevate their profile outside the state of TX where they currently compete with a pack of schools for similar status. Solidify financials too, but nothing can be done about location. West Texas is hard to get to and I don't think there's a tall ceiling here.

-----------------

Oklahoma State

Positives: Flagship school. Decent financials. Pretty good track record in major sports in recent years. Growing state. Should be a solid cultural fit. Could be key to landing OU.

Negatives: 2nd brand in a smallish state.

What could the SEC do for them?

Elevate their profile a little and improve their financials. Long term, I'm not sure about their success in major sports simply because T. Boone Pickens' influence is so recent. They'll probably be ok though and if OU wants them included then there's not a significant downside.

--------------------

West Virginia

Positives: Flagship school. Pretty good performance in major sports. Good viewership in markets outside WV like DC and Pittsburgh. Decent cultural fit. Decent revenue.

Negatives: A very small state that is so poor that people generally leave which weakens legacy alumni numbers.

What could the SEC do for them?

This is debatable, I think. We could solidify their financials and give them easier access to recruits. WVU has always made a habit of recruiting other states anyway so that's not something they need to learn to do. Their state's economy could drag them down though and the SEC can't do anything about that. Travel wouldn't be ideal although I think a few decent rivalries could form and turn them into a better product regionally.

-------------

All in all, there are only a few options I think we should consider here if we need a 2nd or 4th. If we're landing OU then OSU is probably coming along so I'm not including them in this ranking.

My personal preference would be this...

1. TCU
2. West Virginia
3. Texas Tech is fine if UT really wants them.

I don't mind the idea of Kansas simply because they do have an elite brand in a revenue sport, but the quality of the school will not likely increase much. I think the others have so many downsides that it would be pointless to go in that direction.

Yes, there are a lot of question marks. If the ACC pursues WVU, and the PAC 12 and the BIG are making overtures along the same time, perhaps the choices become less ambiguous.

I have the perception these conferences are already privately talking to each other about expansion, and assessing the vibes being released by individual B12 schools.

If the SEC only finds one B12 school available AND acceptable (UT,or OU), that may give them the option to look elsewhere for #16. But with the ACC's GoR running for another decade at that time, the options are not appealing. But most likely, the #16 would be from the B12.
Both prime candidates, OU and/or UT could push for their preferred partners/sisters coming along. Only the PAC12 may consider taking more than two, and up to four. And obviously, they would seek Texas as part of it. What the B1G is thinking will impact. Still, I believe the SEC holds the better cards.

Texas is going to entertain the lobbying from the prime bunch, and play one against the other, and then go in a less predictate direction. Their history shows bargaining with them can be perplexing, if not frustrating. SEC, and maybe others, patience with Texas will get tested.

ESPN has a tether on Texas until 2031. That will factor in as well.

(06-30-2018 06:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-30-2018 06:35 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(06-30-2018 03:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-30-2018 02:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-30-2018 01:35 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  In the revenue value list, the order of the top 4 are:
1. Texas, 2. Oklahoma, 3. Oklahoma State, 4. Kansas State.

Get the top two, or one of the top two; then it is Texas & KSU or OU & oSu.

Of course that's just one varible, but a very important one.

That is one metric that would favor Kansas State. But clearly the dilemma of the SEC is in that #2 selection. Both Oklahoma State and Kansas State rank below Kentucky and above Mississippi State in valuation that puts either in 12th place in a 16 school SEC and well below our median valuation. But, the same is true in attendance. Where Oklahoma State distinguishes itself over Kansas State is in total revenue production. Quite simply put if we land only 1 of Texas and Oklahoma there is no ideal #2.

Kansas is a nil on the gridiron. Oklahoma State is a duplication from a small state. T.C.U. is a small private with only a great location. West Virginia is the best total athletic package but from a miniscule state and somewhat of an outlier. Texas Tech is too remote. Baylor is a leper. Iowa State could be argued to be the best all around for support and academics but is absolutely not a cultural fit and is a total outlier.

So really a case can be made for any of them or against any of them and 4 of them are so close in revenue production that it doesn't matter except for one of those is Baylor.

I could live with either pairing, but OU/OSU would probably graft better and if they are together I doubt they get happy feet later on.

It's true. There is no ideal product there outside of Texas and Oklahoma.

I think some distinction should be made in terms of what a program could accomplish given a better set of circumstances. At the end of the day, that is what the SEC would offer. Who would be in a position to take advantage of that? Who could make the most of the opportunity? I think that would lead us to a better decision more so than the proverbial flipping of a coin.

Iowa State

Positives: A flagship school in a state with no pro sports. AAU school. They have pretty good attendance actually even though they are the 2nd brand in the state. Decent basketball profile. Wouldn't take any political tricks to get them.

Negatives: Mediocre at best financials. Pretty far away from the core of the league. Culturally an outlier. Market size not particularly impressive.

What could the SEC do for them?

Other than artificially inflate their earnings, I don't think ISU is in a position to dramatically improve any of their negatives.

---------------

Kansas

Positives: Flagship school. AAU school. Elite basketball brand. Decent financials.

Negatives: Small state that is not growing. Terrible football. A bit incongruent culturally.

What could the SEC do for them?

The financials would improve, and it's possible they could make their football respectable given the proper prodding. That's about it.

---------------

Kansas State

Positives: Flagship school. Culturally similar to some SEC schools. Focus on football with decent attendance.

Negatives: 2nd brand in a small state. Essentially no long term record of success. Mediocre financials.

What could the SEC do for them?

Other than improve financials a little and perhaps help them not rely so much on JUCOs, there isn't much space to improve.

----------------

Baylor

No thanks.

---------------

TCU

Positives: Decent financials that have actually grown rapidly since attaining Power status. Pretty consistent success in football the last couple of decades. Decent football attendance. Location in the heart of major media market. Location in the heart of recruiting hotbed. Metro area is larger than most states. Similar athletic profile to SEC schools.

Negatives: Private school with small alumni base.

What could the SEC do for them?

Cement them among the Power ranks and ensure a steady flow of new money. Give them a leg up on in-state competition for money and recruits. Given their location and track record, I like the odds they could be a consistent winner in all the important sports. Their alumni will never dramatically increase, but the quality of content should be useful.

---------------

Texas Tech

Positives: State school in huge overall market. Similar athletic profile to the SEC. Culturally compatible. Pretty good attendance for football.

Negatives: Located far away from the core of the league. Mediocre financials. No long track record of success in revenue sports. At best, 3rd brand in the state.

What could the SEC do for them?

Elevate their profile outside the state of TX where they currently compete with a pack of schools for similar status. Solidify financials too, but nothing can be done about location. West Texas is hard to get to and I don't think there's a tall ceiling here.

-----------------

Oklahoma State

Positives: Flagship school. Decent financials. Pretty good track record in major sports in recent years. Growing state. Should be a solid cultural fit. Could be key to landing OU.

Negatives: 2nd brand in a smallish state.

What could the SEC do for them?

Elevate their profile a little and improve their financials. Long term, I'm not sure about their success in major sports simply because T. Boone Pickens' influence is so recent. They'll probably be ok though and if OU wants them included then there's not a significant downside.

--------------------

West Virginia

Positives: Flagship school. Pretty good performance in major sports. Good viewership in markets outside WV like DC and Pittsburgh. Decent cultural fit. Decent revenue.

Negatives: A very small state that is so poor that people generally leave which weakens legacy alumni numbers.

What could the SEC do for them?

This is debatable, I think. We could solidify their financials and give them easier access to recruits. WVU has always made a habit of recruiting other states anyway so that's not something they need to learn to do. Their state's economy could drag them down though and the SEC can't do anything about that. Travel wouldn't be ideal although I think a few decent rivalries could form and turn them into a better product regionally.

-------------

All in all, there are only a few options I think we should consider here if we need a 2nd or 4th. If we're landing OU then OSU is probably coming along so I'm not including them in this ranking.

My personal preference would be this...

1. TCU
2. West Virginia
3. Texas Tech is fine if UT really wants them.

I don't mind the idea of Kansas simply because they do have an elite brand in a revenue sport, but the quality of the school will not likely increase much. I think the others have so many downsides that it would be pointless to go in that direction.

Yes, there are a lot of question marks. If the ACC pursues WVU, and the PAC 12 and the BIG are making overtures along the same time, perhaps the choices become less ambiguous.

I have the perception these conferences are already privately talking to each other about expansion, and assessing the vibes being released by individual B12 schools.

If the SEC only finds one B12 school available AND acceptable (UT,or OU), that may give them the option to look elsewhere for #16. But with the ACC's GoR running for another decade at that time, the options are not appealing. But most likely, the #16 would be from the B12.
Both prime candidates, OU and/or UT could push for their preferred partners/sisters coming along. Only the PAC12 may consider taking more than two, and up to four. And obviously, they would seek Texas as part of it. What the B1G is thinking will impact. Still, I believe the SEC holds the better cards.

Texas is going to entertain the lobbying from the prime bunch, and play one against the other, and then go in a less predictate direction. Their history shows bargaining with them can be perplexing, if not frustrating. SEC, and maybe others, patience with Texas will get tested.

ESPN has a tether on Texas until 2031. That will factor in as well.

That is why the SEC could limit concessions to Texas with other transition negotiating factors. That may indirectly relate to who will be #16. No way would the SEC agree to accommodating the LHN terms as is, and agree to Texas receiving a full-cut of SEC disbursements at the get-go. The SEC ain't the B12 or the ACC in this regard. The BIG wouldn't either, and the PAC12 balked at such before.
ESPN will need to be much more clever than the LHN financial fiasco they created in the first place.

(07-01-2018 11:07 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(06-30-2018 06:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-30-2018 06:35 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(06-30-2018 03:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-30-2018 02:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  That is one metric that would favor Kansas State. But clearly the dilemma of the SEC is in that #2 selection. Both Oklahoma State and Kansas State rank below Kentucky and above Mississippi State in valuation that puts either in 12th place in a 16 school SEC and well below our median valuation. But, the same is true in attendance. Where Oklahoma State distinguishes itself over Kansas State is in total revenue production. Quite simply put if we land only 1 of Texas and Oklahoma there is no ideal #2.

Kansas is a nil on the gridiron. Oklahoma State is a duplication from a small state. T.C.U. is a small private with only a great location. West Virginia is the best total athletic package but from a miniscule state and somewhat of an outlier. Texas Tech is too remote. Baylor is a leper. Iowa State could be argued to be the best all around for support and academics but is absolutely not a cultural fit and is a total outlier.

So really a case can be made for any of them or against any of them and 4 of them are so close in revenue production that it doesn't matter except for one of those is Baylor.

I could live with either pairing, but OU/OSU would probably graft better and if they are together I doubt they get happy feet later on.

It's true. There is no ideal product there outside of Texas and Oklahoma.

I think some distinction should be made in terms of what a program could accomplish given a better set of circumstances. At the end of the day, that is what the SEC would offer. Who would be in a position to take advantage of that? Who could make the most of the opportunity? I think that would lead us to a better decision more so than the proverbial flipping of a coin.

Iowa State

Positives: A flagship school in a state with no pro sports. AAU school. They have pretty good attendance actually even though they are the 2nd brand in the state. Decent basketball profile. Wouldn't take any political tricks to get them.

Negatives: Mediocre at best financials. Pretty far away from the core of the league. Culturally an outlier. Market size not particularly impressive.

What could the SEC do for them?

Other than artificially inflate their earnings, I don't think ISU is in a position to dramatically improve any of their negatives.

---------------

Kansas

Positives: Flagship school. AAU school. Elite basketball brand. Decent financials.

Negatives: Small state that is not growing. Terrible football. A bit incongruent culturally.

What could the SEC do for them?

The financials would improve, and it's possible they could make their football respectable given the proper prodding. That's about it.

---------------

Kansas State

Positives: Flagship school. Culturally similar to some SEC schools. Focus on football with decent attendance.

Negatives: 2nd brand in a small state. Essentially no long term record of success. Mediocre financials.

What could the SEC do for them?

Other than improve financials a little and perhaps help them not rely so much on JUCOs, there isn't much space to improve.

----------------

Baylor

No thanks.

---------------

TCU

Positives: Decent financials that have actually grown rapidly since attaining Power status. Pretty consistent success in football the last couple of decades. Decent football attendance. Location in the heart of major media market. Location in the heart of recruiting hotbed. Metro area is larger than most states. Similar athletic profile to SEC schools.

Negatives: Private school with small alumni base.

What could the SEC do for them?

Cement them among the Power ranks and ensure a steady flow of new money. Give them a leg up on in-state competition for money and recruits. Given their location and track record, I like the odds they could be a consistent winner in all the important sports. Their alumni will never dramatically increase, but the quality of content should be useful.

---------------

Texas Tech

Positives: State school in huge overall market. Similar athletic profile to the SEC. Culturally compatible. Pretty good attendance for football.

Negatives: Located far away from the core of the league. Mediocre financials. No long track record of success in revenue sports. At best, 3rd brand in the state.

What could the SEC do for them?

Elevate their profile outside the state of TX where they currently compete with a pack of schools for similar status. Solidify financials too, but nothing can be done about location. West Texas is hard to get to and I don't think there's a tall ceiling here.

-----------------

Oklahoma State

Positives: Flagship school. Decent financials. Pretty good track record in major sports in recent years. Growing state. Should be a solid cultural fit. Could be key to landing OU.

Negatives: 2nd brand in a smallish state.

What could the SEC do for them?

Elevate their profile a little and improve their financials. Long term, I'm not sure about their success in major sports simply because T. Boone Pickens' influence is so recent. They'll probably be ok though and if OU wants them included then there's not a significant downside.

--------------------

West Virginia

Positives: Flagship school. Pretty good performance in major sports. Good viewership in markets outside WV like DC and Pittsburgh. Decent cultural fit. Decent revenue.

Negatives: A very small state that is so poor that people generally leave which weakens legacy alumni numbers.

What could the SEC do for them?

This is debatable, I think. We could solidify their financials and give them easier access to recruits. WVU has always made a habit of recruiting other states anyway so that's not something they need to learn to do. Their state's economy could drag them down though and the SEC can't do anything about that. Travel wouldn't be ideal although I think a few decent rivalries could form and turn them into a better product regionally.

-------------

All in all, there are only a few options I think we should consider here if we need a 2nd or 4th. If we're landing OU then OSU is probably coming along so I'm not including them in this ranking.

My personal preference would be this...

1. TCU
2. West Virginia
3. Texas Tech is fine if UT really wants them.

I don't mind the idea of Kansas simply because they do have an elite brand in a revenue sport, but the quality of the school will not likely increase much. I think the others have so many downsides that it would be pointless to go in that direction.

Yes, there are a lot of question marks. If the ACC pursues WVU, and the PAC 12 and the BIG are making overtures along the same time, perhaps the choices become less ambiguous.

I have the perception these conferences are already privately talking to each other about expansion, and assessing the vibes being released by individual B12 schools.

If the SEC only finds one B12 school available AND acceptable (UT,or OU), that may give them the option to look elsewhere for #16. But with the ACC's GoR running for another decade at that time, the options are not appealing. But most likely, the #16 would be from the B12.
Both prime candidates, OU and/or UT could push for their preferred partners/sisters coming along. Only the PAC12 may consider taking more than two, and up to four. And obviously, they would seek Texas as part of it. What the B1G is thinking will impact. Still, I believe the SEC holds the better cards.

Texas is going to entertain the lobbying from the prime bunch, and play one against the other, and then go in a less predictate direction. Their history shows bargaining with them can be perplexing, if not frustrating. SEC, and maybe others, patience with Texas will get tested.

ESPN has a tether on Texas until 2031. That will factor in as well.

That is why the SEC could limit concessions to Texas with other transition negotiating factors. That may indirectly relate to who will be #16. No way would the SEC agree to accommodating the LHN terms as is, and agree to Texas receiving a full-cut of SEC disbursements at the get-go. The SEC ain't the B12 or the ACC in this regard. The BIG wouldn't either, and the PAC12 balked at such before.
ESPN will need to be much more clever than the LHN financial fiasco they created in the first place.

You are correct about an easier transition, less concessions, and not accepting the LHN in any form. But the SEC pays everyone a full disbursement from the get go. If a school borrowed from us to pay exit fees then of course the loan repayment would be withheld, but withheld from the full disbursement. We always have, and always will.

As for ESPN having to be clever the answer is not so much. We've handled these matters before (not with an LHN) but with other entry concessions. The LHN pays out 15 million. Let's say that each SEC school would receive a 5 million dollar bump per school for adding Texas and another. The way ESPN would handle this with the SEC office is that if the move occurred in 2024 then ESPN would owe Texas 7 years on the LHN contact. Every SEC school including the traveling companion of Texas would receive 4 million a year in boost until 2031 after which they would get 5. ESPN would cover any escalator in the contract and pay reimburse Texas the difference of 1 million per year in conference payouts for the next 7 years up front. So upon announcing that they were headed to the SEC ESPN would give Texas 7 million. And then would pay them 15 million more per year for the next 7 years independently of the SEC distributions from the delayed bump to 5 million per school in 2031.

All SEC schools would see a bump to by that time around 54 million in payouts, this would be a slight increase for Texas over and above their present TV revenue and the LHN revenue. So that would be a go for Texas. ESPN would have recouped everything they owe in the LHN except the 7 million dollar difference plus any escalated amount by deferring the full 5 million dollar bump to SEC member schools.

The LHN contract is honored even though the network goes away. Everyone in the SEC including Texas receives the 4 million dollar bump for the first 7 years plus escalators. The SEC keeps its policy of equal distributions. ESPN is off the hook for much of the LHN. Everybody wins.

This Odin Frigg is how these deals get done. What looks complex isn't as long as it remains in the same house. ESPN is the same house for the LHN and SECN.

And by the way 5 million is a very conservative bump for adding the Longhorn brand to the SEC. And perhaps even more conservative if their travel companion is someone of note.

(06-26-2018 06:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 11:23 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  My question is how far would the SEC be willing to go to land UT?

I think it's safe to say we would add a school like Texas Tech to make it happen. I see no issue with that.

While 16 is an ideal number, I wonder if we would be willing to go higher if asked to do so?

I don't think UT would be particularly worried about being in a separate conference from OU. It's true it used to be that way for most of their history and consider that an OU that wasn't tied to the Sun Belt might have a bit more difficulty in recruiting. UT might actually appreciate that reality and prefer to move without OU. That and I doubt UT cares anything about playing Oklahoma State on a regular basis.

I don't think UT is particularly tied to Kansas or anyone else in the Big 12 outside of the other TX schools.

Thus my question...does UT care about protecting anyone else?

I truly believe that they once did, but have since realized that the more Texas schools they elevate, the less successful they are. A move to the SEC might be their best opportunity to restrict the state to 3 strong P schools instead of 5. I don't think they will ever publicly state this, but I think they are quite aware of it because one of the biggest rubs that Oklahoma had with them was the expansion with T.C.U. which elevated yet another Texas school's status, most particularly one in what had been Oklahoma's prime recruiting area. The rise of T.C.U. has weakened Oklahoma if ever so slightly, still enough to drop them a half peg down in strength. It has also weakened Texas and I think they realize that now. But for many reasons, not the least of which is that their new A.D. came from T.C.U., there will never be a public statement to that effect.

I don't think they enamored of Tech, but they are the only other state school which currently enjoys P status and there probably is some political pressure to keep it so.

Texas, I am sure, would expect to move SEC HQ to Austin, and play the SEC championship in Dallas. Being top dog is rooted in their DNA. That said, maybe we can teach them to play well with others. I do believe the SEC can control them. I would much rather have OU.

(07-02-2018 12:31 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Texas, I am sure, would expect to move SEC HQ to Austin, and play the SEC championship in Dallas. Being top dog is rooted in their DNA. That said, maybe we can teach them to play well with others. I do believe the SEC can control them. I would much rather have OU.

The Big XII thought that, too - when it had OU, Nebraska and Texas A&M.

(07-03-2018 03:59 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 12:31 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Texas, I am sure, would expect to move SEC HQ to Austin, and play the SEC championship in Dallas. Being top dog is rooted in their DNA. That said, maybe we can teach them to play well with others. I do believe the SEC can control them. I would much rather have OU.

The Big XII thought that, too - when it had OU, Nebraska and Texas A&M.

Well the key there is that they would only have 1 vote and likely only 1 school (their travel companion) that they could control.

(07-03-2018 04:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-03-2018 03:59 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 12:31 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Texas, I am sure, would expect to move SEC HQ to Austin, and play the SEC championship in Dallas. Being top dog is rooted in their DNA. That said, maybe we can teach them to play well with others. I do believe the SEC can control them. I would much rather have OU.

The Big XII thought that, too - when it had OU, Nebraska and Texas A&M.

Well the key there is that they would only have 1 vote and likely only 1 school (their travel companion) that they could control.

Fair enough. Plus, if it comes down to butting heads with the likes of Alabama... that Longhorn might be powerful, but I like the elephant's chances!