The Big XII and Big East are both dead...
Big 10 takes Missouri and Nebraska(along with Pitt, Cuse and Rutgers)
SEC takes Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State(SEC would prefer Texas/Oklahoma and 2 out of FSU, Clemson, Va Tech, but through state politics you can't get Texas without A&M and can't get OU without OSU)
Pac 10 takes Colorado, Baylor, Texas Tech, Kansas State, Kansas, Iowa State.
The ACC definitely takes WVU and UCONN and then two out of the three of Cincy, Louisville and USF.
This creates four 16 team super conferences and unfortunately leaves one Big East team SOL(my feeling is USF).
The MWC(who is nearing AQ status as it is) invites Boise St, Houston, and Tulsa in an attempt to secure AQ status and get a championship game.
That leaves the MAC at 13, C-USA at 10, WAC at 8, Sun Belt at 9(10 with USA in the pipeline) Notre Dame, Army and Navy independent and USF without a conference.
Conventional wisdom would dictate that C-USA invites USF and one of Temple/Middle Tennessee/Western Kentucky/La Tech. However, this makes C-USA an east heavy league and puts UTEP on even more of an island. So...the question now becomes whether or not the remaining leagues can cooperate to make more geographical leagues. The WAC invites UTEP, Rice, SMU and UNT to get to 12. The MAC invites Marshall to get to 14. The Sun Belt, remaining C-USA schools and USF form a 16 team conference.
ACC-16
SEC-16
Pac 16
Big 16
MWC-12
WAC-12
MAC-16
SBC-16
Independent-Notre Dame, Army and Navy.
Seems like USF would get picked up by a bigger conference before taking a step back to that Sun Belt. Marshall would never go back to the MAC. And I don't see UTEP, Rice, and SMU rejoining a WAC that has lost Boise State. all just my opinion though.
(05-01-2010 10:57 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote: [ -> ]The Big XII and Big East are both dead...
Big 10 takes Missouri and Nebraska(along with Pitt, Cuse and Rutgers)
SEC takes Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State(SEC would prefer Texas/Oklahoma and 2 out of FSU, Clemson, Va Tech, but through state politics you can't get Texas without A&M and can't get OU without OSU)
Pac 10 takes Colorado, Baylor, Texas Tech, Kansas State, Kansas, Iowa State.
The ACC definitely takes WVU and UCONN and then two out of the three of Cincy, Louisville and USF.
This creates four 16 team super conferences and unfortunately leaves one Big East team SOL(my feeling is USF).
The MWC(who is nearing AQ status as it is) invites Boise St, Houston, and Tulsa in an attempt to secure AQ status and get a championship game.
That leaves the MAC at 13, C-USA at 10, WAC at 8, Sun Belt at 9(10 with USA in the pipeline) Notre Dame, Army and Navy independent and USF without a conference.
Conventional wisdom would dictate that C-USA invites USF and one of Temple/Middle Tennessee/Western Kentucky/La Tech. However, this makes C-USA an east heavy league and puts UTEP on even more of an island. So...the question now becomes whether or not the remaining leagues can cooperate to make more geographical leagues. The WAC invites UTEP, Rice, SMU and UNT to get to 12. The MAC invites Marshall to get to 14. The Sun Belt, remaining C-USA schools and USF form a 16 team conference.
ACC-16
SEC-16
Pac 16
Big 16
MWC-12
WAC-12
MAC-16
SBC-16
Independent-Notre Dame, Army and Navy.
The only way I see the SEC expanding is if the Big is able to bring in Notre Dame. If that is the case, I see the SEC not expanding East. Rather, the SEC will be in a better position to add Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Kansas. Oklahoma State bring no value. These additions will better the SEC in baseball (which is already strong but would not become a super baseball league), basketball and football.
New Look SEC:
East
Florida
S. Carolina
Georgia
Vandy
Tennessee
Auburn
Alabama
Kentucky
West
Ole Miss
MS State
LSU
Arkansas
Texas
Texas A&M
Oklahoma
Kansas
This lineup will allow the SEC to go back to ESPN and renegotiate its current tv contract, adding a few more years and a lot more dollars to the pot.
The Big XII will merge with the western members of CUSA, minus Tulane.
The Big East will merge with the eastern members of CUSA, minus UAB.
The SBC will take in UAB and Tulane, which will allow La Tech to transition into the SBC without much backlash. The SBC will also add UTSA to its portfolio for its market.
New Look SBC:
East
FIU
FAU
WKY
MTSU
Troy
UAB
USA
West
ULM
ULL
Tulane
Arkansas State
La Tech
UNT
UTSA
(05-02-2010 09:32 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2010 10:57 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote: [ -> ]The Big XII and Big East are both dead...
Big 10 takes Missouri and Nebraska(along with Pitt, Cuse and Rutgers)
SEC takes Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State(SEC would prefer Texas/Oklahoma and 2 out of FSU, Clemson, Va Tech, but through state politics you can't get Texas without A&M and can't get OU without OSU)
Pac 10 takes Colorado, Baylor, Texas Tech, Kansas State, Kansas, Iowa State.
The ACC definitely takes WVU and UCONN and then two out of the three of Cincy, Louisville and USF.
This creates four 16 team super conferences and unfortunately leaves one Big East team SOL(my feeling is USF).
The MWC(who is nearing AQ status as it is) invites Boise St, Houston, and Tulsa in an attempt to secure AQ status and get a championship game.
That leaves the MAC at 13, C-USA at 10, WAC at 8, Sun Belt at 9(10 with USA in the pipeline) Notre Dame, Army and Navy independent and USF without a conference.
Conventional wisdom would dictate that C-USA invites USF and one of Temple/Middle Tennessee/Western Kentucky/La Tech. However, this makes C-USA an east heavy league and puts UTEP on even more of an island. So...the question now becomes whether or not the remaining leagues can cooperate to make more geographical leagues. The WAC invites UTEP, Rice, SMU and UNT to get to 12. The MAC invites Marshall to get to 14. The Sun Belt, remaining C-USA schools and USF form a 16 team conference.
ACC-16
SEC-16
Pac 16
Big 16
MWC-12
WAC-12
MAC-16
SBC-16
Independent-Notre Dame, Army and Navy.
The only way I see the SEC expanding is if the Big is able to bring in Notre Dame. If that is the case, I see the SEC not expanding East. Rather, the SEC will be in a better position to add Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Kansas. Oklahoma State bring no value. These additions will better the SEC in baseball (which is already strong but would not become a super baseball league), basketball and football.
New Look SEC:
East
Florida
S. Carolina
Georgia
Vandy
Tennessee
Auburn
Alabama
Kentucky
West
Ole Miss
MS State
LSU
Arkansas
Texas
Texas A&M
Oklahoma
Kansas
This lineup will allow the SEC to go back to ESPN and renegotiate its current tv contract, adding a few more years and a lot more dollars to the pot.
The Big XII will merge with the western members of CUSA, minus Tulane.
I agree with you as far as Oklahoma State goes, but arkstfan seems to think that you can't get OU without taking OSU as well and I tend to defer to his knowledge in most things.
As far as the Big 12 merging with the western members of C-USA... I think the more likely move for remaining Big XII members is MWC plus a few key C-USA members.
I just can not see the SEC taking Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Kansas. I do see them taking FSU, Georgia Tech, Miami and Clemson.
(05-02-2010 11:49 AM)JoeJag Wrote: [ -> ]I just can not see the SEC taking Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Kansas. I do see them taking FSU, Georgia Tech, Miami and Clemson.
I don't think that's an unlikely outcome move either, but I'm not sure what you think makes one more likely than the other, nor are those the only ACC programs that could come into play for the SEC.
Just my perspective what could happen. I'm thinking region-wise, they would be a better fit. Clemson, FSU, Miami and Georgia Tech are Southeastern US schools as opposed to Kansas, Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma.
The SEC once considered Texas, it did not work out. I seriously doubt that will happen again. Or at least I hope not.
(05-02-2010 02:34 PM)SidJag Wrote: [ -> ]The SEC once considered Texas, it did not work out. I seriously doubt that will happen again. Or at least I hope not.
Texas-to-SEC has roots in reality
Conference realignment
Paul Finebaum of the Mobile Press-Register recounts how Texas
nearly joined the SEC back in 1990, when the league wanted to expand so it could hold a championship game.
"The one that made the most sense was Texas," former SEC commissioner Harvey Schiller told Finebaum. "I spent some time with DeLoss Dodds (the Texas athletic director) and he really wanted to join the conference."
But the Texas legislature found out about the plans and told the SEC that it couldn't take Texas without also taking Texas A&M, which is why the two are now always paired in realignment scenarios.
Well, Dodds is still the Longhorns athletic director, and while the school has a pretty good arrangement with the Big 12 (getting the largest share of revenue), it's not a huge leap to suggest that if the Big 12 appears to be on its way toward extinction (which would happen if the Pac-10 took Colorado and the Big Ten took Missouri and Nebraska), then Dodds would have no problem guiding his school to the SEC again.
While Texas academics will scream about joining the SEC, if you look at the original plan for the SWC it was Texas, A&M, Oklahoma, OK State, Arkansas, Mississippi and LSU along with a couple of the other Texas schools.
I can see Texas considering the PAC 10 and Big 10, but the SEC.....don't think so. Most PAC 10 and Big 10 schools are AAU members; as is Texas. SEC schools ? No. Texas is a fit academically for the PAC 10 and Big 10 but not the SEC. I don't beleive that in the past Teas ever considered the SEC. Texas A&M yes, Texas no.
(05-02-2010 05:24 PM)MeanGreen61 Wrote: [ -> ]I can see Texas considering the PAC 10 and Big 10, but the SEC.....don't think so. Most PAC 10 and Big 10 schools are AAU members; as is Texas. SEC schools ? No. Texas is a fit academically for the PAC 10 and Big 10 but not the SEC. I don't beleive that in the past Teas ever considered the SEC. Texas A&M yes, Texas no.
http://blog.al.com/press-register-sports..._join.html
(05-02-2010 06:57 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote: [ -> ] (05-02-2010 05:24 PM)MeanGreen61 Wrote: [ -> ]I can see Texas considering the PAC 10 and Big 10, but the SEC.....don't think so. Most PAC 10 and Big 10 schools are AAU members; as is Texas. SEC schools ? No. Texas is a fit academically for the PAC 10 and Big 10 but not the SEC. I don't beleive that in the past Teas ever considered the SEC. Texas A&M yes, Texas no.
http://blog.al.com/press-register-sports..._join.html
At one point during those early rounds of realignment Texas had set its mind to either go to the Big 10 or Pac-10 and TAMU was headed to the SEC. The Aggies and Horns were willing to go their own way until politics intervened.
Don't think TAMU is some ugly stepchild. They are in that elite group of less than 20 schools that average more than 75,000 per game in football. They are a land, sea and space grant school. TAMU is in the elite group of 63 schools in the Association of American Universities and only 38 of those schools play FBS football.
The SEC would take TAMU individually if they had the chance again.
Remember the conventional wisdom is that the Big 10 wants to expand to tap into the NY market. The combined DFW/Houston/San Antonio/Austin TV market is second only to NY, its as large as #3 Chicago and #4 Philadelphia combined and I'll wager a Shiner Bock that more people in Texas build their Saturday viewing around college football than do so in NY.
Texas is the holy grail of realignment, if the Big 10 could somehow make it work, no one in college athletics can even dream of catching the Big 10 financially. If the SEC can get the Texas schools they are the only league that can keep pace with the Big 10.
Oklahoma isn't a shabby addition either. Tulsa and OKC combined is the 22nd largest TV market.
Only way the SEC has qualms about adding all four of the schools is if they failed to draft their tv contracts to provide for renegotiation after expansion and that's not likely.
It's easy to point out the academics of the SEC but if the Big XII loses Mizzou, Nebraska, and Colorado the remaining Big XII has the same number of AAU schools other than UT/TAMU as the SEC. Florida and Vandy vs. Iowa State and Kansas.
(05-02-2010 07:17 PM)trojanbrutha Wrote: [ -> ] (05-02-2010 06:57 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote: [ -> ] (05-02-2010 05:24 PM)MeanGreen61 Wrote: [ -> ]I can see Texas considering the PAC 10 and Big 10, but the SEC.....don't think so. Most PAC 10 and Big 10 schools are AAU members; as is Texas. SEC schools ? No. Texas is a fit academically for the PAC 10 and Big 10 but not the SEC. I don't beleive that in the past Teas ever considered the SEC. Texas A&M yes, Texas no.
http://blog.al.com/press-register-sports..._join.html
So? Show me a direct quote from someone at UT in Austin. Where's the interview with Dodd to confirm this is true ? He shouldn't be too hard to contact. When Texas & Colorado were flirting with the PAC 10, A&M was said to be flirting with the SEC.