(03-02-2018 05:22 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 01:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 12:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 03:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 01:24 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think ND will go all in eventually, but I'm not sure it will be within the next few years.

Don't forget that ESPN might want to warm up to the Big 10 if they intend to go hard after their rights again.

So the division could be 3 ways instead of two.

It's just that I think it would be easier and probably a better long term strategy if ESPN absorbed the Big 12 into the ACC and SEC. And yes it would take two conferences of 20 to do it.

A 3 way division would be difficult though, not mathematically, but from the standpoint of profitability.

The B1G is going to have interest in the same programs we do, essentially. If they can't get at least one of them then I'm not sure they have motivation to be involved. Unfortunately, there are really only two such programs that move the need for any of these conferences. If the B1G can't get either UT or OU then I'm not sure they would be too interested.

I don't know if anyone would go for this, but what if the 3 leagues crafted a plan where the B1G took a couple of key pieces from the ACC?

-B1G takes a couple of nice properties from the ACC along with a couple of Big 12 little brothers.

-ACC backfills with Texas and others

-SEC gets the OK schools and a few new markets

The next realignment is going to answer a great many questions that divide opinion on realignment. How tied at the hip are OU and OSU, KU and KSU, UT and TTU. If these schools have political obligations to the other state schools then realignment to the Big 10 is dead. Heck, it might be why some of them aren't there already.

And given the economic reality of the what I discussed in the other thread here, at what point, especially in very small states, does the major state school separate from the less known state school?

Face it ATU, the Big 10 and SEC could easily split the Big 12 and leave the ACC out except for two issues. The Big 10's insistence on AAU status, and the fact that only two of those schools, or either one in combination with another, would add to our bottom line.

We talk about Missouri being a blocking move to the Big 10 expansion Southward in the Midwest. But the PAC's addition of Colorado was equally effective as when coupled with Missouri's move leaves the least profitable of the three as the Big 10's only path Southward, Kansas.

If partners are required in these moves and state schools try to stick together then the SEC wins at least the pair of Oklahoma schools. If it doesn't matter then the Big 10 might well land OU and KU or UT and KU. If the SEC and Big 10 split the schools then I could see UT and KU to the Big 10 and OU and either TTU, T.C.U., or WVU to the SEC. If the Big 10 took OU and KU then Texas and whoever they wanted might be what the SEC would do. But my point is we may be reaching a point where the smaller states can't support two large schools. And that could alter what we believe about realignment.

I also don't rule out the likelihood that the SEC and Big 10 would simply pass on the remainder of the Big 12 schools and look to 2036 for potential additions. Neither of our conferences is hurting for cash.

It is why however the safest play for the SEC would be to offer the Texa-homa 4. Our offer would be substantially more than that of the PAC, and I don't see the Big 10 making that offer.

If we made that play then the ACC has no path to growing financially and the Big 10 would realize that and wait to make a play for Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and would make another run at N.D..

I simply don't think the SEC could go wrong by taking 5 state schools that dominate the viewing of a population of 33 and soon to be 34 million.

I think what we generally think of as Power 5 state schools will probably survive. There has been such a great investment in these institutions over the generations by both taxpayers and donors that it will be hard to get rid of them. What I mean is that so many of them are integrated into local and state economies that I think we'd have to see a major economic depression before they would be found useless.

These smaller state schools though are living on borrowed time. Get rid of most of them and that at least frees up resources to keep the major schools afloat.

That's actually one of the reasons I think the state of TX will push hard to get Houston in because they at least have potential to survive into the next generation even if they don't have a top athletic brand. I think the time may be coming soon where outside of the Power schools, there won't be very many schools that impact their respective states. Athletic competition is too good of a marketing tool and without it, a lot of schools will struggle to gain attention or build alumni bases. There would be exceptions to that, of course, but in general those would be the dynamics.

From our perspective, I would consider this collection...

Texas, Texas Tech, Houston, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas

Taking all the major state schools for TX would cement that state as SEC territory not just from a market perspective, but politically. From a profitability standpoint, Texas and Texas A&M would allow for full penetration into the state, but doing them a favor and adding both Texas Tech and Houston would be better for their economy. Tying the league and the massive state of TX together should pay dividends for everyone. When a Legislator walks into the Capitol in Austin, it won't even matter what part of the state he's from as he'll be of the opinion that the SEC is their league and any other collection of schools is second fiddle on the pecking order.

It'd be the same for the state of OK although obviously the economic impact would be smaller. Taking Kansas would be securing the flagship of another state and helping our status among the AAU club. It's a small state, however, so I'm not sure Kansas State would be too attractive to anyone else.

I don't think the B1G would be interested in any of the others unless maybe they added Iowa State in conjunction with a broader move to the East. The ACC might take TCU to help with market penetration, but the impact for them wouldn't the same.

The biggest issue I see for Houston is that it has nowhere to grow. Like UAB it can only build high rise classrooms. There is no available space. Like UAB that is going to dog it's future. I totally got the plan for UAB to become essentially the Medical Collge of Alabama. It makes sense to focus all of your medical research resources as a state into that kind of endeavor. UAB has the opposite problem. It's the undergrad that is taking up valuable space when much cheaper undergraduate space is available in Tuscaloosa or Auburn, or even Troy, all of which have some options to grow.

It makes sense that Austin, Lubbock, and College Station also have some room to grow. I think holding Texas, A&M, Tech, OU, and OSU is all we need. I'm open to Kansas if for no other reason than to help cement Mizzou. And if you get out the map from Kansas to Missouri to Kentucky is a fairly definable line for a Northern Boundary.

(03-02-2018 01:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 12:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 03:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 01:24 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 11:24 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Also, adding another partial member to the ACC could really piss off some of their better football programs. ND was the necessary evil to keep the paychecks within reach of the other top conferences. Giving another school that treatment might get make a FSU or Clemson wonder why they shouldn’t do the same.

I think ND will go all in eventually, but I'm not sure it will be within the next few years.

Don't forget that ESPN might want to warm up to the Big 10 if they intend to go hard after their rights again.

So the division could be 3 ways instead of two.

It's just that I think it would be easier and probably a better long term strategy if ESPN absorbed the Big 12 into the ACC and SEC. And yes it would take two conferences of 20 to do it.

A 3 way division would be difficult though, not mathematically, but from the standpoint of profitability.

The B1G is going to have interest in the same programs we do, essentially. If they can't get at least one of them then I'm not sure they have motivation to be involved. Unfortunately, there are really only two such programs that move the need for any of these conferences. If the B1G can't get either UT or OU then I'm not sure they would be too interested.

I don't know if anyone would go for this, but what if the 3 leagues crafted a plan where the B1G took a couple of key pieces from the ACC?

-B1G takes a couple of nice properties from the ACC along with a couple of Big 12 little brothers.

-ACC backfills with Texas and others

-SEC gets the OK schools and a few new markets

The next realignment is going to answer a great many questions that divide opinion on realignment. How tied at the hip are OU and OSU, KU and KSU, UT and TTU. If these schools have political obligations to the other state schools then realignment to the Big 10 is dead. Heck, it might be why some of them aren't there already.

And given the economic reality of the what I discussed in the other thread here, at what point, especially in very small states, does the major state school separate from the less known state school?

Face it ATU, the Big 10 and SEC could easily split the Big 12 and leave the ACC out except for two issues. The Big 10's insistence on AAU status, and the fact that only two of those schools, or either one in combination with another, would add to our bottom line.

We talk about Missouri being a blocking move to the Big 10 expansion Southward in the Midwest. But the PAC's addition of Colorado was equally effective as when coupled with Missouri's move leaves the least profitable of the three as the Big 10's only path Southward, Kansas.

If partners are required in these moves and state schools try to stick together then the SEC wins at least the pair of Oklahoma schools. If it doesn't matter then the Big 10 might well land OU and KU or UT and KU. If the SEC and Big 10 split the schools then I could see UT and KU to the Big 10 and OU and either TTU, T.C.U., or WVU to the SEC. If the Big 10 took OU and KU then Texas and whoever they wanted might be what the SEC would do. But my point is we may be reaching a point where the smaller states can't support two large schools. And that could alter what we believe about realignment.

I also don't rule out the likelihood that the SEC and Big 10 would simply pass on the remainder of the Big 12 schools and look to 2036 for potential additions. Neither of our conferences is hurting for cash.

It is why however the safest play for the SEC would be to offer the Texa-homa 4. Our offer would be substantially more than that of the PAC, and I don't see the Big 10 making that offer.

If we made that play then the ACC has no path to growing financially and the Big 10 would realize that and wait to make a play for Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and would make another run at N.D..

I simply don't think the SEC could go wrong by taking 5 state schools that dominate the viewing of a population of 33 and soon to be 34 million.

If I were running the B1G expansion bureau, I would put my conference in park until 2036.
And I think you are correct JR in that you have a partial list of schools that the B1G would target.
#1 on my list would be Georgia Tech.
#2 North Carolina
#3 UVa
#4 Florida
#5 NC State (if necessary)