CSNbbs

(01-15-2016 12:12 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2016 11:58 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]In light of the recent vote on deregulation and yet another kind of ultimatum from Boren I think it's time to revisit the question.

My preference is still for the Sooners as a brand, a state, and the DFW area. Whose #2? Texas would be wonderful, but a long long shot. I think the only reason that Oklahoma would choose the SEC is to preserve Bedlam and save an OOC game for the RRR. So Oklahoma State still looks likely to me should the SEC take two from the Big 12, but only if the Big 12 is the only conference poached.

I thought this was interesting. Boren basically said he would rather remain in the Big 12 if that league could accomplish the goals he outlined the other day.

Boren expounds on his Big 12 vision

I don't expect that to happen at this point, but it does give insight into Boren's mindset.

I do think they would prefer their own conference. But what he asks for is not really doable and he knows it. So we'll wait and see. I do think the SEC will pass on OU if they think they can gain better prizes to the East. But if the Big 12 is the only game for expansion I think OU is our #1 pick. We'll see.

Let's say everything gets started only when the Big 12 GOR is up. What do you see? Under those conditions I'll make these predictions:

Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC

Kansas and UConn to the B1G

Texas gets a sweetheart deal with the ACC. The ACC GOR isn't extended though because several schools know they can get a better deal in a new conference before much longer.

PAC stays put

Everyone else gets stuck in a leftover conference.

Then the ACC GOR is up a couple of years later...

Texas and Notre Dame decide to build a league with which they can affiliate, but not join in full.

Florida State, Clemson, NC State, and Virginia Tech move to the SEC

North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and Georgia Tech move to the B1G

A leftover league emerges...

West: Iowa State, Kansas State, BYU, TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech
South: Houston, Memphis, Louisville, Miami, UCF, Wake Forest
North: Boston College, Syracuse, Temple, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Cincinnati

Texas and Notre Dame affiliate with this league and are obligated to play, say, 4 football games within the league every season.

(01-15-2016 12:21 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-15-2016 12:12 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2016 11:58 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]In light of the recent vote on deregulation and yet another kind of ultimatum from Boren I think it's time to revisit the question.

My preference is still for the Sooners as a brand, a state, and the DFW area. Whose #2? Texas would be wonderful, but a long long shot. I think the only reason that Oklahoma would choose the SEC is to preserve Bedlam and save an OOC game for the RRR. So Oklahoma State still looks likely to me should the SEC take two from the Big 12, but only if the Big 12 is the only conference poached.

I thought this was interesting. Boren basically said he would rather remain in the Big 12 if that league could accomplish the goals he outlined the other day.

Boren expounds on his Big 12 vision

I don't expect that to happen at this point, but it does give insight into Boren's mindset.

I do think they would prefer their own conference. But what he asks for is not really doable and he knows it. So we'll wait and see. I do think the SEC will pass on OU if they think they can gain better prizes to the East. But if the Big 12 is the only game for expansion I think OU is our #1 pick. We'll see.

So what would it take from the ACC for us to pass on OU?

Does the proximity of the ACC GOR's expiration and the Big 12 GOR's expiration have any bearing on it?

(01-15-2016 12:29 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]Let's say everything gets started only when the Big 12 GOR is up. What do you see? Under those conditions I'll make these predictions:

Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC

Kansas and UConn to the B1G

Texas gets a sweetheart deal with the ACC. The ACC GOR isn't extended though because several schools know they can get a better deal in a new conference before much longer.

PAC stays put

Everyone else gets stuck in a leftover conference.

Then the ACC GOR is up a couple of years later...

Texas and Notre Dame decide to build a league with which they can affiliate, but not join in full.

Florida State, Clemson, NC State, and Virginia Tech move to the SEC

North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and Georgia Tech move to the B1G

A leftover league emerges...

West: Iowa State, Kansas State, BYU, TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech
South: Houston, Memphis, Louisville, Miami, UCF, Wake Forest
North: Boston College, Syracuse, Temple, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Cincinnati

Texas and Notre Dame affiliate with this league and are obligated to play, say, 4 football games within the league every season.

A 3 x 20 is possible. I'm not sure if that many top brands are spread among the Big 10 and SEC that a 4th conference forms after the expiration of a GOR. Now prior to that it most certainly would be a condition of early departure.

But should we go to a 3 x 20 what you suggest is plausible IMO.

(01-15-2016 12:40 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-15-2016 12:29 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]Let's say everything gets started only when the Big 12 GOR is up. What do you see? Under those conditions I'll make these predictions:

Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC

Kansas and UConn to the B1G

Texas gets a sweetheart deal with the ACC. The ACC GOR isn't extended though because several schools know they can get a better deal in a new conference before much longer.

PAC stays put

Everyone else gets stuck in a leftover conference.

Then the ACC GOR is up a couple of years later...

Texas and Notre Dame decide to build a league with which they can affiliate, but not join in full.

Florida State, Clemson, NC State, and Virginia Tech move to the SEC

North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and Georgia Tech move to the B1G

A leftover league emerges...

West: Iowa State, Kansas State, BYU, TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech
South: Houston, Memphis, Louisville, Miami, UCF, Wake Forest
North: Boston College, Syracuse, Temple, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Cincinnati

Texas and Notre Dame affiliate with this league and are obligated to play, say, 4 football games within the league every season.

A 3 x 20 is possible. I'm not sure if that many top brands are spread among the Big 10 and SEC that a 4th conference forms after the expiration of a GOR. Now prior to that it most certainly would be a condition of early departure.

But should we go to a 3 x 20 what you suggest is plausible IMO.

My only contention with a 3x20 is I don't see enough strong brands in the Big 12 that would be palatable to the PAC. They would take OU and UT and probably a couple more, I don't doubt it. Would those brands even go to the PAC in the first place though? I don't see both the SEC and B1G turning down OU, UT, and KU.

I suppose there is a chance that OU, UT, and KU will want to move together to the PAC and take a few with them, but I think 8 is stretching it from the PAC's perspective. I don't see them assisting in the dissolution of the Big 12 to that degree. Apparently they weren't willing to do it last time so I'm not sure if anything has really changed from their perspective.

Maybe this?

UT, TT, OU, OSU, KU, and KSU or ISU head to the PAC

SEC takes FSU, Clemson, NC State, and VT. Perhaps then the SEC takes the combo of WVU and Pitt as I think they would be stronger together. It cements the SEC as a player in Metro DC as well as Western PA.

The Big Ten takes UNC, Duke, UVA, and Georgia Tech. Perhaps then they follow that up with Syracuse and UConn?

20, 20, and 18 with only a handful of schools left out. Not too many left behind for a decent leftover league though.

Miami, Louisville, Wake Forest, Boston College from the ACC
Baylor, TCU, KSU or ISU from the Big 12

Maybe throw in Houston, Memphis, Cincinnati, BYU, and one other for a halfway decent league. Not sure if Notre Dame would affiliate with that league or not. I suppose so.

(01-15-2016 01:10 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-15-2016 12:40 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-15-2016 12:29 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]Let's say everything gets started only when the Big 12 GOR is up. What do you see? Under those conditions I'll make these predictions:

Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC

Kansas and UConn to the B1G

Texas gets a sweetheart deal with the ACC. The ACC GOR isn't extended though because several schools know they can get a better deal in a new conference before much longer.

PAC stays put

Everyone else gets stuck in a leftover conference.

Then the ACC GOR is up a couple of years later...

Texas and Notre Dame decide to build a league with which they can affiliate, but not join in full.

Florida State, Clemson, NC State, and Virginia Tech move to the SEC

North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and Georgia Tech move to the B1G

A leftover league emerges...

West: Iowa State, Kansas State, BYU, TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech
South: Houston, Memphis, Louisville, Miami, UCF, Wake Forest
North: Boston College, Syracuse, Temple, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Cincinnati

Texas and Notre Dame affiliate with this league and are obligated to play, say, 4 football games within the league every season.

A 3 x 20 is possible. I'm not sure if that many top brands are spread among the Big 10 and SEC that a 4th conference forms after the expiration of a GOR. Now prior to that it most certainly would be a condition of early departure.

But should we go to a 3 x 20 what you suggest is plausible IMO.

My only contention with a 3x20 is I don't see enough strong brands in the Big 12 that would be palatable to the PAC. They would take OU and UT and probably a couple more, I don't doubt it. Would those brands even go to the PAC in the first place though? I don't see both the SEC and B1G turning down OU, UT, and KU.

I suppose there is a chance that OU, UT, and KU will want to move together to the PAC and take a few with them, but I think 8 is stretching it from the PAC's perspective. I don't see them assisting in the dissolution of the Big 12 to that degree. Apparently they weren't willing to do it last time so I'm not sure if anything has really changed from their perspective.

Maybe this?

UT, TT, OU, OSU, KU, and KSU or ISU head to the PAC

SEC takes FSU, Clemson, NC State, and VT. Perhaps then the SEC takes the combo of WVU and Pitt as I think they would be stronger together. It cements the SEC as a player in Metro DC as well as Western PA.

The Big Ten takes UNC, Duke, UVA, and Georgia Tech. Perhaps then they follow that up with Syracuse and UConn?

20, 20, and 18 with only a handful of schools left out. Not too many left behind for a decent leftover league though.

Miami, Louisville, Wake Forest, Boston College from the ACC
Baylor, TCU, KSU or ISU from the Big 12

Maybe throw in Houston, Memphis, Cincinnati, BYU, and one other for a halfway decent league. Not sure if Notre Dame would affiliate with that league or not. I suppose so.

You have to look at what 8 Big 12 schools do for the PAC:

It gives them a strong contingent of central time zone slots. That right there is worth oodles to the PAC. The only reason this hasn't happened is because no network owns a % of the PACN and therefore the move can't be monetized in a way that makes it profitable for either the PAC or the Big 12 schools involved. When a major network acquires rights then the money will be there.

Plus look what balance it would bring to the PAC:

Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State

Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal

Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Colorado, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Utah

(12-21-2015 03:38 PM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ]If I were the SEC, It would depend on what my goal was.

For 16: Kansas and Oklahoma
For 18: Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia

Kansas for basketball.
Oklahoma for football, basketball, and national appeal.
Texas because it's Texas.
West Virginia for its likeness to SEC programs along with a decent football program and a good basketball program.

I would consider Oklahoma St only if Oklahoma declined.
I would consider Baylor only if Texas declined.
I would not consider TCU or Texas Tech. TCU is football-centric while Baylor has strong football and basketball. Texas is too far away.
I would not consider Kansas St. Their football and basketball are both typically okay, but neither program are as Kansas is to basketball.
I would consider Iowa St if the goal was beyond 18.

(01-15-2016 12:21 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-15-2016 12:12 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2016 11:58 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]In light of the recent vote on deregulation and yet another kind of ultimatum from Boren I think it's time to revisit the question.

My preference is still for the Sooners as a brand, a state, and the DFW area. Whose #2? Texas would be wonderful, but a long long shot. I think the only reason that Oklahoma would choose the SEC is to preserve Bedlam and save an OOC game for the RRR. So Oklahoma State still looks likely to me should the SEC take two from the Big 12, but only if the Big 12 is the only conference poached.

I thought this was interesting. Boren basically said he would rather remain in the Big 12 if that league could accomplish the goals he outlined the other day.

Boren expounds on his Big 12 vision

I don't expect that to happen at this point, but it does give insight into Boren's mindset.

I do think they would prefer their own conference. But what he asks for is not really doable and he knows it. So we'll wait and see. I do think the SEC will pass on OU if they think they can gain better prizes to the East. But if the Big 12 is the only game for expansion I think OU is our #1 pick. We'll see.

Greg Sankey should be fired immediately if he passed on OU by themselves. The SEC already extended an invitation to OU at the same time they extended one to Texas A&M.

(01-15-2016 09:10 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2015 03:38 PM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ]If I were the SEC, It would depend on what my goal was.

For 16: Kansas and Oklahoma
For 18: Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia

Kansas for basketball.
Oklahoma for football, basketball, and national appeal.
Texas because it's Texas.
West Virginia for its likeness to SEC programs along with a decent football program and a good basketball program.

I would consider Oklahoma St only if Oklahoma declined.
I would consider Baylor only if Texas declined.
I would not consider TCU or Texas Tech. TCU is football-centric while Baylor has strong football and basketball. Texas is too far away.
I would not consider Kansas St. Their football and basketball are both typically okay, but neither program are as Kansas is to basketball.
I would consider Iowa St if the goal was beyond 18.

(01-15-2016 12:21 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-15-2016 12:12 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2016 11:58 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]In light of the recent vote on deregulation and yet another kind of ultimatum from Boren I think it's time to revisit the question.

My preference is still for the Sooners as a brand, a state, and the DFW area. Whose #2? Texas would be wonderful, but a long long shot. I think the only reason that Oklahoma would choose the SEC is to preserve Bedlam and save an OOC game for the RRR. So Oklahoma State still looks likely to me should the SEC take two from the Big 12, but only if the Big 12 is the only conference poached.

I thought this was interesting. Boren basically said he would rather remain in the Big 12 if that league could accomplish the goals he outlined the other day.

Boren expounds on his Big 12 vision

I don't expect that to happen at this point, but it does give insight into Boren's mindset.

I do think they would prefer their own conference. But what he asks for is not really doable and he knows it. So we'll wait and see. I do think the SEC will pass on OU if they think they can gain better prizes to the East. But if the Big 12 is the only game for expansion I think OU is our #1 pick. We'll see.

Greg Sankey should be fired immediately if he passed on OU by themselves. The SEC already extended an invitation to OU at the same time they extended one to Texas A&M.

And because they drug their feet we landed Missouri. That's two spots. If we took OU now, especially if we had targets to the East, it screws up traveling companions there.

The only scenario that I could see one addition to the West and one to the East that would be acceptable would be Oklahoma and Florida State, or perhaps Oklahoma and Virginia Tech.

(12-21-2015 03:38 PM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ]If I were the SEC, It would depend on what my goal was.

For 16: Kansas and Oklahoma
For 18: Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia

Kansas for basketball.
Oklahoma for football, basketball, and national appeal.
Texas because it's Texas.
West Virginia for its likeness to SEC programs along with a decent football program and a good basketball program.

I would consider Oklahoma St only if Oklahoma declined.
I would consider Baylor only if Texas declined.
I would not consider TCU or Texas Tech. TCU is football-centric while Baylor has strong football and basketball. Texas is too far away.
I would not consider Kansas St. Their football and basketball are both typically okay, but neither program are as Kansas is to basketball.
I would consider Iowa St if the goal was beyond 18.

(01-15-2016 09:35 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-15-2016 09:10 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2015 03:38 PM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ]If I were the SEC, It would depend on what my goal was.

For 16: Kansas and Oklahoma
For 18: Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia

Kansas for basketball.
Oklahoma for football, basketball, and national appeal.
Texas because it's Texas.
West Virginia for its likeness to SEC programs along with a decent football program and a good basketball program.

I would consider Oklahoma St only if Oklahoma declined.
I would consider Baylor only if Texas declined.
I would not consider TCU or Texas Tech. TCU is football-centric while Baylor has strong football and basketball. Texas is too far away.
I would not consider Kansas St. Their football and basketball are both typically okay, but neither program are as Kansas is to basketball.
I would consider Iowa St if the goal was beyond 18.

(01-15-2016 12:21 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-15-2016 12:12 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2016 11:58 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]In light of the recent vote on deregulation and yet another kind of ultimatum from Boren I think it's time to revisit the question.

My preference is still for the Sooners as a brand, a state, and the DFW area. Whose #2? Texas would be wonderful, but a long long shot. I think the only reason that Oklahoma would choose the SEC is to preserve Bedlam and save an OOC game for the RRR. So Oklahoma State still looks likely to me should the SEC take two from the Big 12, but only if the Big 12 is the only conference poached.

I thought this was interesting. Boren basically said he would rather remain in the Big 12 if that league could accomplish the goals he outlined the other day.

Boren expounds on his Big 12 vision

I don't expect that to happen at this point, but it does give insight into Boren's mindset.

I do think they would prefer their own conference. But what he asks for is not really doable and he knows it. So we'll wait and see. I do think the SEC will pass on OU if they think they can gain better prizes to the East. But if the Big 12 is the only game for expansion I think OU is our #1 pick. We'll see.

Greg Sankey should be fired immediately if he passed on OU by themselves. The SEC already extended an invitation to OU at the same time they extended one to Texas A&M.

And because they drug their feet we landed Missouri. That's two spots. If we took OU now, especially if we had targets to the East, it screws up traveling companions there.

The only scenario that I could see one addition to the West and one to the East that would be acceptable would be Oklahoma and Florida State, or perhaps Oklahoma and Virginia Tech.

Adding FSU would probably begin the break up of the ACC. Adding VT w/ OU would still give the SEC the chance to add UNC and Duke down the line.

(01-16-2016 06:25 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2015 03:38 PM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ]If I were the SEC, It would depend on what my goal was.

For 16: Kansas and Oklahoma
For 18: Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia

Kansas for basketball.
Oklahoma for football, basketball, and national appeal.
Texas because it's Texas.
West Virginia for its likeness to SEC programs along with a decent football program and a good basketball program.

I would consider Oklahoma St only if Oklahoma declined.
I would consider Baylor only if Texas declined.
I would not consider TCU or Texas Tech. TCU is football-centric while Baylor has strong football and basketball. Texas is too far away.
I would not consider Kansas St. Their football and basketball are both typically okay, but neither program are as Kansas is to basketball.
I would consider Iowa St if the goal was beyond 18.

(01-15-2016 09:35 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-15-2016 09:10 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2015 03:38 PM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ]If I were the SEC, It would depend on what my goal was.

For 16: Kansas and Oklahoma
For 18: Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia

Kansas for basketball.
Oklahoma for football, basketball, and national appeal.
Texas because it's Texas.
West Virginia for its likeness to SEC programs along with a decent football program and a good basketball program.

I would consider Oklahoma St only if Oklahoma declined.
I would consider Baylor only if Texas declined.
I would not consider TCU or Texas Tech. TCU is football-centric while Baylor has strong football and basketball. Texas is too far away.
I would not consider Kansas St. Their football and basketball are both typically okay, but neither program are as Kansas is to basketball.
I would consider Iowa St if the goal was beyond 18.

(01-15-2016 12:21 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-15-2016 12:12 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]I thought this was interesting. Boren basically said he would rather remain in the Big 12 if that league could accomplish the goals he outlined the other day.

Boren expounds on his Big 12 vision

I don't expect that to happen at this point, but it does give insight into Boren's mindset.

I do think they would prefer their own conference. But what he asks for is not really doable and he knows it. So we'll wait and see. I do think the SEC will pass on OU if they think they can gain better prizes to the East. But if the Big 12 is the only game for expansion I think OU is our #1 pick. We'll see.

Greg Sankey should be fired immediately if he passed on OU by themselves. The SEC already extended an invitation to OU at the same time they extended one to Texas A&M.

And because they drug their feet we landed Missouri. That's two spots. If we took OU now, especially if we had targets to the East, it screws up traveling companions there.

The only scenario that I could see one addition to the West and one to the East that would be acceptable would be Oklahoma and Florida State, or perhaps Oklahoma and Virginia Tech.

Adding FSU would probably begin the break up of the ACC. Adding VT w/ OU would still give the SEC the chance to add UNC and Duke down the line.

The two schools that add the most content value and total value would be Texas and Oklahoma. The two schools from the ACC that add the most content value would be Florida State and Clemson. The college football world won't let us do it, but imagine the value of a conference with all 4, especially if that conference was the SEC.

(12-21-2015 03:38 PM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ]If I were the SEC, It would depend on what my goal was.

For 16: Kansas and Oklahoma
For 18: Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia

Kansas for basketball.
Oklahoma for football, basketball, and national appeal.
Texas because it's Texas.
West Virginia for its likeness to SEC programs along with a decent football program and a good basketball program.

I would consider Oklahoma St only if Oklahoma declined.
I would consider Baylor only if Texas declined.
I would not consider TCU or Texas Tech. TCU is football-centric while Baylor has strong football and basketball. Texas is too far away.
I would not consider Kansas St. Their football and basketball are both typically okay, but neither program are as Kansas is to basketball.
I would consider Iowa St if the goal was beyond 18.

(01-16-2016 06:32 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-16-2016 06:25 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2015 03:38 PM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ]If I were the SEC, It would depend on what my goal was.

For 16: Kansas and Oklahoma
For 18: Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia

Kansas for basketball.
Oklahoma for football, basketball, and national appeal.
Texas because it's Texas.
West Virginia for its likeness to SEC programs along with a decent football program and a good basketball program.

I would consider Oklahoma St only if Oklahoma declined.
I would consider Baylor only if Texas declined.
I would not consider TCU or Texas Tech. TCU is football-centric while Baylor has strong football and basketball. Texas is too far away.
I would not consider Kansas St. Their football and basketball are both typically okay, but neither program are as Kansas is to basketball.
I would consider Iowa St if the goal was beyond 18.

(01-15-2016 09:35 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-15-2016 09:10 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2015 03:38 PM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ]If I were the SEC, It would depend on what my goal was.

For 16: Kansas and Oklahoma
For 18: Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia

Kansas for basketball.
Oklahoma for football, basketball, and national appeal.
Texas because it's Texas.
West Virginia for its likeness to SEC programs along with a decent football program and a good basketball program.

I would consider Oklahoma St only if Oklahoma declined.
I would consider Baylor only if Texas declined.
I would not consider TCU or Texas Tech. TCU is football-centric while Baylor has strong football and basketball. Texas is too far away.
I would not consider Kansas St. Their football and basketball are both typically okay, but neither program are as Kansas is to basketball.
I would consider Iowa St if the goal was beyond 18.

(01-15-2016 12:21 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]I do think they would prefer their own conference. But what he asks for is not really doable and he knows it. So we'll wait and see. I do think the SEC will pass on OU if they think they can gain better prizes to the East. But if the Big 12 is the only game for expansion I think OU is our #1 pick. We'll see.

Greg Sankey should be fired immediately if he passed on OU by themselves. The SEC already extended an invitation to OU at the same time they extended one to Texas A&M.

And because they drug their feet we landed Missouri. That's two spots. If we took OU now, especially if we had targets to the East, it screws up traveling companions there.

The only scenario that I could see one addition to the West and one to the East that would be acceptable would be Oklahoma and Florida State, or perhaps Oklahoma and Virginia Tech.

Adding FSU would probably begin the break up of the ACC. Adding VT w/ OU would still give the SEC the chance to add UNC and Duke down the line.

The two schools that add the most content value and total value would be Texas and Oklahoma. The two schools from the ACC that add the most content value would be Florida State and Clemson. The college football world won't let us do it, but imagine the value of a conference with all 4, especially if that conference was the SEC.

Content wise, you almost wouldn't even need the rest of the college football inventory to watch or broadcast.

(01-16-2016 06:41 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2015 03:38 PM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ]If I were the SEC, It would depend on what my goal was.

For 16: Kansas and Oklahoma
For 18: Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia

Kansas for basketball.
Oklahoma for football, basketball, and national appeal.
Texas because it's Texas.
West Virginia for its likeness to SEC programs along with a decent football program and a good basketball program.

I would consider Oklahoma St only if Oklahoma declined.
I would consider Baylor only if Texas declined.
I would not consider TCU or Texas Tech. TCU is football-centric while Baylor has strong football and basketball. Texas is too far away.
I would not consider Kansas St. Their football and basketball are both typically okay, but neither program are as Kansas is to basketball.
I would consider Iowa St if the goal was beyond 18.

(01-16-2016 06:32 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-16-2016 06:25 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-21-2015 03:38 PM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ]If I were the SEC, It would depend on what my goal was.

For 16: Kansas and Oklahoma
For 18: Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia

Kansas for basketball.
Oklahoma for football, basketball, and national appeal.
Texas because it's Texas.
West Virginia for its likeness to SEC programs along with a decent football program and a good basketball program.

I would consider Oklahoma St only if Oklahoma declined.
I would consider Baylor only if Texas declined.
I would not consider TCU or Texas Tech. TCU is football-centric while Baylor has strong football and basketball. Texas is too far away.
I would not consider Kansas St. Their football and basketball are both typically okay, but neither program are as Kansas is to basketball.
I would consider Iowa St if the goal was beyond 18.

(01-15-2016 09:35 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-15-2016 09:10 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]Greg Sankey should be fired immediately if he passed on OU by themselves. The SEC already extended an invitation to OU at the same time they extended one to Texas A&M.

And because they drug their feet we landed Missouri. That's two spots. If we took OU now, especially if we had targets to the East, it screws up traveling companions there.

The only scenario that I could see one addition to the West and one to the East that would be acceptable would be Oklahoma and Florida State, or perhaps Oklahoma and Virginia Tech.

Adding FSU would probably begin the break up of the ACC. Adding VT w/ OU would still give the SEC the chance to add UNC and Duke down the line.

The two schools that add the most content value and total value would be Texas and Oklahoma. The two schools from the ACC that add the most content value would be Florida State and Clemson. The college football world won't let us do it, but imagine the value of a conference with all 4, especially if that conference was the SEC.

Content wise, you almost wouldn't even need the rest of the college football inventory to watch or broadcast.

If the SEC commissioner is here to do what is best for the conference then I can't think of another four schools that would cement our sports broadcasting future any better than these four. And your assessment is exactly correct.

It's possible the Big 12 is waiting on potential ACC targets, but if the SEC and Big Ten split the ACC up with 4 or more each then the Big 12 will be limited in its growth opportunities. Mostly because the ACC targets after 8-10 have been taken are pretty paltry. If there were that many great targets then an ACC Network would be a no-brainer. I think the only real shot the Big 12 has is if the other leagues aren't willing to go beyond 16.

My opinion has been that both the ACC and the Big 12 will fail. There are too few good products in the Big 12 and the ACC has a host of issues. I think it would be hard for them to fail at the same time, but that's assuming the Big 12 GOR is much tougher. Obviously, there's debate about that.

We know that 8 are necessary to disband the league and break the GOR. It might be prudent to place all 10, but that wouldn't be terribly beneficial except for one league or maybe 2. So the incentive there is significantly less. I'm intrigued by the idea that the GOR could be broken with 5 or 6 teams leaving at the same time with the theory being that any future contract would be so devalued that the remaining members would play ball and not take the thing to court. Of course, that's a rumor from the Twitter mafia and the track record of reliability isn't great.

If the ACC crumbles first...and if the following moves are the more likely ones...

SEC takes Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, and Louisville...

Big Ten takes North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and Syracuse...

Notre Dame stays independent for now...

I suppose you could see the Big 12 grabbing Pitt and Miami and maybe throw in Cincinnati and UConn as well to increase their lot. I don't see that lasting long though. Eventually, the league is going to crumble. Assuming viewers are imminently more valuable by this time than markets, could we actually see the 2 major league expand again?

If it's not a host of schools moving to the PAC then maybe this?

Oklahoma moves to the SEC for a final total of 21. You get 3 divisions of 7 and one team always has a BYE week during conference play.

Big Ten adds Kansas and UConn to finish off an unbelievable basketball league. They stop at 20 unless Notre Dame comes calling.

The PAC finally responds by adding a few respectable brands that increase their overall viewership and tap the Central Time Zone...Texas Tech, TCU, Houston, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and Iowa State...

Texas goes independent. They along with Notre Dame affiliate with a leftover league.

A leftover league emerges that focuses on basketball...Baylor, SMU, Memphis, Miami, UCF, USF, East Carolina, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Temple, and Boston College

(02-08-2016 12:12 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]It's possible the Big 12 is waiting on potential ACC targets, but if the SEC and Big Ten split the ACC up with 4 or more each then the Big 12 will be limited in its growth opportunities. Mostly because the ACC targets after 8-10 have been taken are pretty paltry. If there were that many great targets then an ACC Network would be a no-brainer. I think the only real shot the Big 12 has is if the other leagues aren't willing to go beyond 16.

My opinion has been that both the ACC and the Big 12 will fail. There are too few good products in the Big 12 and the ACC has a host of issues. I think it would be hard for them to fail at the same time, but that's assuming the Big 12 GOR is much tougher. Obviously, there's debate about that.

My opinion, as according Mr. SEC, was that the SEC will not be the ones to breakup the ACC. That'll be the B1G when they grab four AAU ACC schools citing that the GOR is void due to no ACCN. Now assuming the B1G grabs UVA, UNC, Duke and GT, the only "valuable" schools to other conferences would be FSU, Clemson, VT, Louisville, NC State and Miami. Combine those six with the B12 and you have a good conference. Now, if the SEC takes two of those six, the B12 + ACC leftovers works, but if SEC takes 4, then there's not much for the B12 to add.

That's where I think the SEC might have some room to negotiate with ESPN. Now if ESPN only wants the SEC to expand to 16, then the SEC should get who they want; if it's OU and FSU or VT and NC State. Worse case for the B12 could be the SEC grabbing markets (VT and NC State) and content (FSU and Clemson); of course ESPN wouldn't be totally happy with those payouts if ESPN wants to keep the SEC at or under 16 teams. I could see OU/VT or OU/FSU being the end game to get to 16.

(02-09-2016 12:31 AM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-08-2016 12:12 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]It's possible the Big 12 is waiting on potential ACC targets, but if the SEC and Big Ten split the ACC up with 4 or more each then the Big 12 will be limited in its growth opportunities. Mostly because the ACC targets after 8-10 have been taken are pretty paltry. If there were that many great targets then an ACC Network would be a no-brainer. I think the only real shot the Big 12 has is if the other leagues aren't willing to go beyond 16.

My opinion has been that both the ACC and the Big 12 will fail. There are too few good products in the Big 12 and the ACC has a host of issues. I think it would be hard for them to fail at the same time, but that's assuming the Big 12 GOR is much tougher. Obviously, there's debate about that.

My opinion, as according Mr. SEC, was that the SEC will not be the ones to breakup the ACC. That'll be the B1G when they grab four AAU ACC schools citing that the GOR is void due to no ACCN. Now assuming the B1G grabs UVA, UNC, Duke and GT, the only "valuable" schools to other conferences would be FSU, Clemson, VT, Louisville, NC State and Miami. Combine those six with the B12 and you have a good conference. Now, if the SEC takes two of those six, the B12 + ACC leftovers works, but if SEC takes 4, then there's not much for the B12 to add.

That's where I think the SEC might have some room to negotiate with ESPN. Now if ESPN only wants the SEC to expand to 16, then the SEC should get who they want; if it's OU and FSU or VT and NC State. Worse case for the B12 could be the SEC grabbing markets (VT and NC State) and content (FSU and Clemson); of course ESPN wouldn't be totally happy with those payouts if ESPN wants to keep the SEC at or under 16 teams. I could see OU/VT or OU/FSU being the end game to get to 16.

I think you're probably right that the SEC wouldn't break up the ACC. I'm not sure there are very many current ACC schools that would bolt for the B1G though. The B1G's targets are limited and I think the core ACC schools would rather stay in the conference until it's clear that it is doomed.

My question would be what happens if the ACCN is definitely a no-go? Would ESPN then do some damage control and place a few ACC schools in the SEC to maintain the content? Would ESPN rather try to ride it out with the current ACC structure(as most of those schools would probably rather stick together and the only ones not so attached would cost more if they were moved to the SEC)?

I personally love the idea of taking 6 Southern schools from the ACC...

West: Texas A&M, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Ole Miss
South: Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia Tech, Florida State
East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Clemson, NC State
North: Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Louisville, Virginia Tech

Play 4 division games, 1 permanent rival from each of the other 3 divisions, 1 rotating match-up from each of the other 3 divisions. That's a total of 10 conference games. 5 home and 5 away. Play everyone at least once every 4 years.

Would ESPN go for that? I'm not sure. There could be an upside to it though that might actually save the networks some money.

The ACC could rebuild and stay together...take Cincinnati and UConn.

Miami, North Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Syracuse, UConn, Boston College, and Notre Dame as an affiliate.

The positive side of this for ESPN is they get a really strong basketball league of schools that would rather associate with one another for a bargain basement price in all likelihood. They could stuff the football schools in another league and maximize the value of the SEC.

No real growth opportunities for the Big 12 here. Perhaps they stay together in the long run or more likely the top brands find new homes. The major programs could all move to the PAC.

Let's say the PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Iowa State. ESPN could buy up the PAC Networks and make it profitable in the era of streaming by including good brands from the Central Time Zone. Four more schools get dropped though from the status of Power revenue. The PAC's revenue is still split between FOX and ESPN so no one really incurs new costs. ESPN could actually make a little extra from the PACN.

North: Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, California, Stanford
South: UCLA, USC, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado
East: Texas Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Iowa State

The B1G stays put because the networks don't really gain anything from pushing content their way. I understand JRs concept of putting basketball brands in the B1G and maximizing that revenue stream, but basketball just doesn't generate the profits that football does, thus the ACC's current woes.

We essentially have a Power 4, but a more cost efficient alignment that doesn't break the bank for any network.

(02-10-2016 03:30 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-09-2016 12:31 AM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-08-2016 12:12 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]It's possible the Big 12 is waiting on potential ACC targets, but if the SEC and Big Ten split the ACC up with 4 or more each then the Big 12 will be limited in its growth opportunities. Mostly because the ACC targets after 8-10 have been taken are pretty paltry. If there were that many great targets then an ACC Network would be a no-brainer. I think the only real shot the Big 12 has is if the other leagues aren't willing to go beyond 16.

My opinion has been that both the ACC and the Big 12 will fail. There are too few good products in the Big 12 and the ACC has a host of issues. I think it would be hard for them to fail at the same time, but that's assuming the Big 12 GOR is much tougher. Obviously, there's debate about that.

My opinion, as according Mr. SEC, was that the SEC will not be the ones to breakup the ACC. That'll be the B1G when they grab four AAU ACC schools citing that the GOR is void due to no ACCN. Now assuming the B1G grabs UVA, UNC, Duke and GT, the only "valuable" schools to other conferences would be FSU, Clemson, VT, Louisville, NC State and Miami. Combine those six with the B12 and you have a good conference. Now, if the SEC takes two of those six, the B12 + ACC leftovers works, but if SEC takes 4, then there's not much for the B12 to add.

That's where I think the SEC might have some room to negotiate with ESPN. Now if ESPN only wants the SEC to expand to 16, then the SEC should get who they want; if it's OU and FSU or VT and NC State. Worse case for the B12 could be the SEC grabbing markets (VT and NC State) and content (FSU and Clemson); of course ESPN wouldn't be totally happy with those payouts if ESPN wants to keep the SEC at or under 16 teams. I could see OU/VT or OU/FSU being the end game to get to 16.

I think you're probably right that the SEC wouldn't break up the ACC. I'm not sure there are very many current ACC schools that would bolt for the B1G though. The B1G's targets are limited and I think the core ACC schools would rather stay in the conference until it's clear that it is doomed.

My question would be what happens if the ACCN is definitely a no-go? Would ESPN then do some damage control and place a few ACC schools in the SEC to maintain the content? Would ESPN rather try to ride it out with the current ACC structure(as most of those schools would probably rather stick together and the only ones not so attached would cost more if they were moved to the SEC)?

I personally love the idea of taking 6 Southern schools from the ACC...

West: Texas A&M, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Ole Miss
South: Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia Tech, Florida State
East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Clemson, NC State
North: Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Louisville, Virginia Tech

Play 4 division games, 1 permanent rival from each of the other 3 divisions, 1 rotating match-up from each of the other 3 divisions. That's a total of 10 conference games. 5 home and 5 away. Play everyone at least once every 4 years.

Would ESPN go for that? I'm not sure. There could be an upside to it though that might actually save the networks some money.

The ACC could rebuild and stay together...take Cincinnati and UConn.

Miami, North Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Syracuse, UConn, Boston College, and Notre Dame as an affiliate.

The positive side of this for ESPN is they get a really strong basketball league of schools that would rather associate with one another for a bargain basement price in all likelihood. They could stuff the football schools in another league and maximize the value of the SEC.

No real growth opportunities for the Big 12 here. Perhaps they stay together in the long run or more likely the top brands find new homes. The major programs could all move to the PAC.

Let's say the PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Iowa State. ESPN could buy up the PAC Networks and make it profitable in the era of streaming by including good brands from the Central Time Zone. Four more schools get dropped though from the status of Power revenue. The PAC's revenue is still split between FOX and ESPN so no one really incurs new costs. ESPN could actually make a little extra from the PACN.

North: Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, California, Stanford
South: UCLA, USC, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado
East: Texas Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Iowa State

The B1G stays put because the networks don't really gain anything from pushing content their way. I understand JRs concept of putting basketball brands in the B1G and maximizing that revenue stream, but basketball just doesn't generate the profits that football does, thus the ACC's current woes.

We essentially have a Power 4, but a more cost efficient alignment that doesn't break the bank for any network.

I like the concept. The question is how much would that rebuilt ACC really be worth. The New Big East gets around 11 million per school I think, (better check those numbers). I think that basketball conference might make between that figure and 15 million each. So would they take that kind of hit to stay together? They might, but it would be a tough call for some of those schools.

(02-10-2016 08:33 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]I like the concept. The question is how much would that rebuilt ACC really be worth. The New Big East gets around 11 million per school I think, (better check those numbers). I think that basketball conference might make between that figure and 15 million each. So would they take that kind of hit to stay together? They might, but it would be a tough call for some of those schools.

This link states that the new Big East gets $500 million over 12 years.

Big East TV

That's about $41 million per year for the entire league - about $4 million per school.

(02-10-2016 02:50 PM)YNot Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-10-2016 08:33 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]I like the concept. The question is how much would that rebuilt ACC really be worth. The New Big East gets around 11 million per school I think, (better check those numbers). I think that basketball conference might make between that figure and 15 million each. So would they take that kind of hit to stay together? They might, but it would be a tough call for some of those schools.

This link states that the new Big East gets $500 million over 12 years.

Big East TV

That's about $41 million per year for the entire league - about $4 million per school.

I'll give the ACC core the benefit of the doubt then and say they would still get around 10 million, but it could certainly be less. So the question remains and is strengthened, "could, or would, this be acceptable if the football schools left?"

(02-10-2016 03:02 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-10-2016 02:50 PM)YNot Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-10-2016 08:33 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]I like the concept. The question is how much would that rebuilt ACC really be worth. The New Big East gets around 11 million per school I think, (better check those numbers). I think that basketball conference might make between that figure and 15 million each. So would they take that kind of hit to stay together? They might, but it would be a tough call for some of those schools.

This link states that the new Big East gets $500 million over 12 years.

Big East TV

That's about $41 million per year for the entire league - about $4 million per school.

I'll give the ACC core the benefit of the doubt then and say they would still get around 10 million, but it could certainly be less. So the question remains and is strengthened, "could, or would, this be acceptable if the football schools left?"

One of the reasons the Big East gets such a small sum is they are composed of nothing but small private schools that don't play football.

I think a rebuilt ACC would be worth more due to some decent football filler content and several large state schools being in the mix. The basketball brands would also be better...UNC, Duke, Syracuse, UConn...all schools that have won multiple national titles. Conversely, the brand power in the Big East is limited even if there is a deep basketball tradition.