CSNbbs

(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.

What is your deal with Baylor? You leave them out of almost every scenario you post. Do you think that if your scenario played out with the top teams of the Big 12 going to the PAC and the ACC gets poached before pulling in Cincy and UConn, that they would just leave KState, TCU and Baylor sitting there and relegate them to a non-power conference? Even if Baylor, TCU and KSU got left out of the big 3 in your scenario, adding them to the remaining ACC would give them some football credibility and added basketball content that the networks would pay for and would guarantee that the ACC stays a power conference. Beyond that it would give them two teams in Texas and arguably the two hottest football programs in the state. On top of that they get access to the coveted DFW market.

You can't tell me that as little respect that women's basketball gets, that conference games between UConn, Baylor, and Notre Dame wouldn't draw massive interest from the networks. Those teams regularly make the Elite 8 and many times the Final Four. UConn, Baylor and Notre Dame are all currently ranked in the Top 4 and Miami is ranked in the Top 20 as well.

(02-11-2016 01:37 PM)BaylorFerg Wrote: [ -> ]

(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.

What is your deal with Baylor? You leave them out of almost every scenario you post. Do you think that if your scenario played out with the top teams of the Big 12 going to the PAC and the ACC gets poached before pulling in Cincy and UConn, that they would just leave KState, TCU and Baylor sitting there and relegate them to a non-power conference? Even if Baylor, TCU and KSU got left out of the big 3 in your scenario, adding them to the remaining ACC would give them some football credibility and added basketball content that the networks would pay for and would guarantee that the ACC stays a power conference. Beyond that it would give them two teams in Texas and arguably the two hottest football programs in the state. On top of that they get access to the coveted DFW market.

You can't tell me that as little respect that women's basketball gets, that conference games between UConn, Baylor, and Notre Dame wouldn't draw massive interest from the networks. Those teams regularly make the Elite 8 and many times the Final Four. UConn, Baylor and Notre Dame are all currently ranked in the Top 4 and Miami is ranked in the Top 20 as well.

I hate to tell you, but women's basketball basically means nothing. It's not a revenue sport and even if it were it would be no higher on the list that 3rd most influential. Men's basketball is only marginally influential because football generates far more money than anything else. That's not my opinion, that's just a fact.

I have nothing in the world against Baylor, but you have to be realistic. Baylor is not a media powerhouse. It's great for them that football and basketball have been on the uptick for a few years now, but that doesn't guarantee anything. Networks want viewers. That's how they make money. They have no loyalty to a decent football club. Boise State has had a pretty darn good program for more than a decade now and they are still on the outside looking in.

This is how you get viewers when it comes to college sports...

1) Massive fan base due to alumni and large numbers of casual fans that identify with your school. Baylor doesn't have that.

2) Tradition of winning. Baylor doesn't have that either. A few years of hot play doesn't guarantee anything for the future whereas programs that have been doing it for decades can be reasonably expected to continue. Baylor, conversely, has been regarded as a bottom feeder for most of its existence.

3) A huge media market that can be capitalized upon due to local presence. Baylor doesn't really have that either. Think about Rutgers and NY/NJ. Rutgers doesn't really have a lot going for it, but no one else could reasonably claim the NY/NJ market so there you go. Baylor is close to Dallas, but DFW and most of TX is dominated by other programs.

Add to that the religious affiliation that Baylor takes seriously. I'm not faulting them at all for that. In fact, I think it's admirable, but most conferences won't agree. It's yet another strike against BU.

All I'm saying is that Baylor is behind the 8 ball if the Big 12 dissolves. There's a chance you could end up in the SEC I suppose, but I just don't know. I suppose it's also possible UT could step in and demand your inclusion in the ACC or PAC, but I just don't know.

I don't think the ACC would take Baylor or TCU or Kansas State. I'm not sure they would take anyone from that region because that league is peculiar in their dealings. That's not a knock against BU, that's just how the ACC is.

I think Baylor's best chance is for the Big 12 to stay together.

Given the present state of things and should the ACC remain unavailable, the SEC should agree to take Oklahoma and Oklahoma State with an eye toward moving to 18. The trick here is to offer Texas a division that they would relish. Agreeing to take Texas and another Big 12 member of their choosing to move to 18 would be essential to building the kind of SEC that could withstand remaining in a a cable footprint model or moving to a content based payout model based upon streaming.

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas (and Baylor/Texas Tech) would do fine for a division that gives both Oklahoma and Texas familiar games against rivals.

A&M would stay in the SEC central and continue to play L.S.U., Alabama, and the Mississippi schools. If the conference keeps the one permanent rival rule then A&M and Texas can renew their rivalry.

By moving to 18 with those selections the SEC still keeps two slots to 20 open for Virginia Tech or N.C. State should it ever come to that. But in this case I don't think it would.

It would be logical for the ACC to pick up Connecticut and West Virginia and wait on Notre Dame. If the Irish ever do join in full then Cincinnati will be there for #18 for them. That way the satisfy their basketball first and football first factions and those additions would not be as threatening to Chapel Hill's control.

The LHN can become the new headquarters for the SECN and Charlotte can become the new ACCN home. In areas outside of our footprint the two networks can be bundled. And offered at a reduced premium rate together within the footprint.

ESPN will control 36 schools in two conferences and will hold the vast majority of the top 20 revenue schools in the nation.

A scheduling agreement and partnership with the Sugar Bowl then cements the arrangement.

The Big 10 will have Kansas and with Connecticut gone Iowa State to get to 16.

The PAC can gain eyeballs in Texas should Baylor go SEC by taking Texas Tech and T.C.U..

The other 4 could split the Big 12 apart, but the number of winners there could be limited.

Outside of Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, I don't see a combo that works for the B1G. I don't see them taking Iowa State unless they are getting a bundle of the schools above. It would be kind of like us taking Mississippi State if we already had Ole Miss. Not that both of them together are a problem, but the market is small and ISU is not a top brand. I don't see them adding to the bottom line.

How about Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State coming aboard to the SEC. The SEC finishes at 18.

The Big Ten could still claim Kansas and add UConn as well. I would see UConn preferring the B1G to the ACC. The B1G finishes at 16.

The PAC can come in and claim Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas State, and Iowa State. They'll finish at 16.

The ACC can clean things up by taking West Virginia and Cincinnati. They finish at 16 + 1.

(02-20-2016 06:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]The other 4 could split the Big 12 apart, but the number of winners there could be limited.

Outside of Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, I don't see a combo that works for the B1G. I don't see them taking Iowa State unless they are getting a bundle of the schools above. It would be kind of like us taking Mississippi State if we already had Ole Miss. Not that both of them together are a problem, but the market is small and ISU is not a top brand. I don't see them adding to the bottom line.

How about Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State coming aboard to the SEC. The SEC finishes at 18.

The Big Ten could still claim Kansas and add UConn as well. I would see UConn preferring the B1G to the ACC. The B1G finishes at 16.

The PAC can come in and claim Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas State, and Iowa State. They'll finish at 16.

The ACC can clean things up by taking West Virginia and Cincinnati. They finish at 16 + 1.

The idea here is that with only Kansas and Iowa State left the Big 10's options are extremely limited. If they don't take Kansas or Iowa State then there would be a couple of more schools the PAC might claim.

(02-20-2016 04:10 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Given the present state of things and should the ACC remain unavailable, the SEC should agree to take Oklahoma and Oklahoma State with an eye toward moving to 18. The trick here is to offer Texas a division that they would relish. Agreeing to take Texas and another Big 12 member of their choosing to move to 18 would be essential to building the kind of SEC that could withstand remaining in a a cable footprint model or moving to a content based payout model based upon streaming.

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas (and Baylor/Texas Tech) would do fine for a division that gives both Oklahoma and Texas familiar games against rivals.

Interesting argument. If the SEC grabbed OU and OSU, that would force UT to either put another band aid on the B12 or wait for the GOR to end and move into independence for football. If UT joined the SEC, they could move into a defacto Southwestern division. I still hope that talks fail this summer to convert the LHN into the B12N so that we'll see if OU is leaving the B12 alone or will bring OSU with them. Either way, I think Boren makes his 100 year decision soon.

(02-22-2016 06:19 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-20-2016 04:10 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Given the present state of things and should the ACC remain unavailable, the SEC should agree to take Oklahoma and Oklahoma State with an eye toward moving to 18. The trick here is to offer Texas a division that they would relish. Agreeing to take Texas and another Big 12 member of their choosing to move to 18 would be essential to building the kind of SEC that could withstand remaining in a a cable footprint model or moving to a content based payout model based upon streaming.

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas (and Baylor/Texas Tech) would do fine for a division that gives both Oklahoma and Texas familiar games against rivals.

Interesting argument. If the SEC grabbed OU and OSU, that would force UT to either put another band aid on the B12 or wait for the GOR to end and move into independence for football. If UT joined the SEC, they could move into a defacto Southwestern division. I still hope that talks fail this summer to convert the LHN into the B12N so that we'll see if OU is leaving the B12 alone or will bring OSU with them. Either way, I think Boren makes his 100 year decision soon.

I do like the idea of bringing the Texahoma 4 aboard.

My gut instinct says Texas doesn't want to follow A&M or OU for that matter, but if we're selling the move as a home run for the SEC in taking the core of the Big 12 then perhaps that soothes the ego a little bit. I really don't think A&M would be against it even though I'm sure they don't really want UT in the league.

Then again, perhaps the simplest explanation is the most accurate. If UT doesn't really want to follow A&M and A&M doesn't really want UT then there may be an unbridgeable impasse.

If we do grab OU and OSU, and I think we would, then the ACC likely benefits as well from some additions. That's only true though if the UNC core wises up a little bit and realizes the league's weaknesses. If the GOR doesn't really hold water in the Big 12 then I guess there's still a chance we could land FSU, Clemson, NC State, and Virginia Tech. That's a really great 20. I'm still not sure the UNC Board would let us speak to NC State though.

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

The ACC could still survive as a basketball-centric East Coast league...

North: Boston College, Syracuse, Temple, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Louisville
South: Miami, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia

Notre Dame affiliates and stays independent in football. That's a decent Power league.

The B1G can take Kansas and UConn

I could see Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, and Iowa State going to the PAC.

Left out are Baylor, Kansas State, and West Virginia. Not sure the ACC would take any of those because if the football first members move out then the NC core will want to totally change the culture of the conference.

(02-22-2016 08:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-22-2016 06:19 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-20-2016 04:10 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Given the present state of things and should the ACC remain unavailable, the SEC should agree to take Oklahoma and Oklahoma State with an eye toward moving to 18. The trick here is to offer Texas a division that they would relish. Agreeing to take Texas and another Big 12 member of their choosing to move to 18 would be essential to building the kind of SEC that could withstand remaining in a a cable footprint model or moving to a content based payout model based upon streaming.

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas (and Baylor/Texas Tech) would do fine for a division that gives both Oklahoma and Texas familiar games against rivals.

Interesting argument. If the SEC grabbed OU and OSU, that would force UT to either put another band aid on the B12 or wait for the GOR to end and move into independence for football. If UT joined the SEC, they could move into a defacto Southwestern division. I still hope that talks fail this summer to convert the LHN into the B12N so that we'll see if OU is leaving the B12 alone or will bring OSU with them. Either way, I think Boren makes his 100 year decision soon.

I do like the idea of bringing the Texahoma 4 aboard.

My gut instinct says Texas doesn't want to follow A&M or OU for that matter, but if we're selling the move as a home run for the SEC in taking the core of the Big 12 then perhaps that soothes the ego a little bit. I really don't think A&M would be against it even though I'm sure they don't really want UT in the league.

Then again, perhaps the simplest explanation is the most accurate. If UT doesn't really want to follow A&M and A&M doesn't really want UT then there may be an unbridgeable impasse.

If we do grab OU and OSU, and I think we would, then the ACC likely benefits as well from some additions. That's only true though if the UNC core wises up a little bit and realizes the league's weaknesses. If the GOR doesn't really hold water in the Big 12 then I guess there's still a chance we could land FSU, Clemson, NC State, and Virginia Tech. That's a really great 20. I'm still not sure the UNC Board would let us speak to NC State though.

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

The ACC could still survive as a basketball-centric East Coast league...

North: Boston College, Syracuse, Temple, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Louisville
South: Miami, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia

Notre Dame affiliates and stays independent in football. That's a decent Power league.

The B1G can take Kansas and UConn

I could see Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, and Iowa State going to the PAC.

Left out are Baylor, Kansas State, and West Virginia. Not sure the ACC would take any of those because if the football first members move out then the NC core will want to totally change the culture of the conference.

What would you suggest if we could only take from the Big 12?

(02-22-2016 08:34 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-22-2016 08:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]I do like the idea of bringing the Texahoma 4 aboard.

My gut instinct says Texas doesn't want to follow A&M or OU for that matter, but if we're selling the move as a home run for the SEC in taking the core of the Big 12 then perhaps that soothes the ego a little bit. I really don't think A&M would be against it even though I'm sure they don't really want UT in the league.

Then again, perhaps the simplest explanation is the most accurate. If UT doesn't really want to follow A&M and A&M doesn't really want UT then there may be an unbridgeable impasse.

If we do grab OU and OSU, and I think we would, then the ACC likely benefits as well from some additions. That's only true though if the UNC core wises up a little bit and realizes the league's weaknesses. If the GOR doesn't really hold water in the Big 12 then I guess there's still a chance we could land FSU, Clemson, NC State, and Virginia Tech. That's a really great 20. I'm still not sure the UNC Board would let us speak to NC State though.

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

The ACC could still survive as a basketball-centric East Coast league...

North: Boston College, Syracuse, Temple, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Louisville
South: Miami, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia

Notre Dame affiliates and stays independent in football. That's a decent Power league.

The B1G can take Kansas and UConn

I could see Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, and Iowa State going to the PAC.

Left out are Baylor, Kansas State, and West Virginia. Not sure the ACC would take any of those because if the football first members move out then the NC core will want to totally change the culture of the conference.

What would you suggest if we could only take from the Big 12?

I do agree with you that if we're getting UT then we'd probably have to give them a prominent place in a Western division and that we'd probably need to take a 3rd TX school. I'd be ok with that.

My preferences for 4 from the Big 12:

1. OU, OSU, UT, TT...I like TT over Baylor because its public and would have a larger alumni base. I think they also have much higher attendance. Those fans are pretty passionate.

2. OU, OSU, UT, Baylor

If UT is not involved though then I'd go with WVU and KU.

(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.

(02-23-2016 02:12 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-22-2016 08:34 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-22-2016 08:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]I do like the idea of bringing the Texahoma 4 aboard.

My gut instinct says Texas doesn't want to follow A&M or OU for that matter, but if we're selling the move as a home run for the SEC in taking the core of the Big 12 then perhaps that soothes the ego a little bit. I really don't think A&M would be against it even though I'm sure they don't really want UT in the league.

Then again, perhaps the simplest explanation is the most accurate. If UT doesn't really want to follow A&M and A&M doesn't really want UT then there may be an unbridgeable impasse.

If we do grab OU and OSU, and I think we would, then the ACC likely benefits as well from some additions. That's only true though if the UNC core wises up a little bit and realizes the league's weaknesses. If the GOR doesn't really hold water in the Big 12 then I guess there's still a chance we could land FSU, Clemson, NC State, and Virginia Tech. That's a really great 20. I'm still not sure the UNC Board would let us speak to NC State though.

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

The ACC could still survive as a basketball-centric East Coast league...

North: Boston College, Syracuse, Temple, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Louisville
South: Miami, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia

Notre Dame affiliates and stays independent in football. That's a decent Power league.

The B1G can take Kansas and UConn

I could see Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, and Iowa State going to the PAC.

Left out are Baylor, Kansas State, and West Virginia. Not sure the ACC would take any of those because if the football first members move out then the NC core will want to totally change the culture of the conference.

What would you suggest if we could only take from the Big 12?

I do agree with you that if we're getting UT then we'd probably have to give them a prominent place in a Western division and that we'd probably need to take a 3rd TX school. I'd be ok with that.

My preferences for 4 from the Big 12:

1. OU, OSU, UT, TT...I like TT over Baylor because its public and would have a larger alumni base. I think they also have much higher attendance. Those fans are pretty passionate.

2. OU, OSU, UT, Baylor

If UT is not involved though then I'd go with WVU and KU.

B12 preferences: UT, OU, KU, WVU, everything after that would be rather bland.

(02-24-2016 05:24 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.

(02-23-2016 02:12 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-22-2016 08:34 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-22-2016 08:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]I do like the idea of bringing the Texahoma 4 aboard.

My gut instinct says Texas doesn't want to follow A&M or OU for that matter, but if we're selling the move as a home run for the SEC in taking the core of the Big 12 then perhaps that soothes the ego a little bit. I really don't think A&M would be against it even though I'm sure they don't really want UT in the league.

Then again, perhaps the simplest explanation is the most accurate. If UT doesn't really want to follow A&M and A&M doesn't really want UT then there may be an unbridgeable impasse.

If we do grab OU and OSU, and I think we would, then the ACC likely benefits as well from some additions. That's only true though if the UNC core wises up a little bit and realizes the league's weaknesses. If the GOR doesn't really hold water in the Big 12 then I guess there's still a chance we could land FSU, Clemson, NC State, and Virginia Tech. That's a really great 20. I'm still not sure the UNC Board would let us speak to NC State though.

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

The ACC could still survive as a basketball-centric East Coast league...

North: Boston College, Syracuse, Temple, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Louisville
South: Miami, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia

Notre Dame affiliates and stays independent in football. That's a decent Power league.

The B1G can take Kansas and UConn

I could see Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, and Iowa State going to the PAC.

Left out are Baylor, Kansas State, and West Virginia. Not sure the ACC would take any of those because if the football first members move out then the NC core will want to totally change the culture of the conference.

What would you suggest if we could only take from the Big 12?

I do agree with you that if we're getting UT then we'd probably have to give them a prominent place in a Western division and that we'd probably need to take a 3rd TX school. I'd be ok with that.

My preferences for 4 from the Big 12:

1. OU, OSU, UT, TT...I like TT over Baylor because its public and would have a larger alumni base. I think they also have much higher attendance. Those fans are pretty passionate.

2. OU, OSU, UT, Baylor

If UT is not involved though then I'd go with WVU and KU.

B12 preferences: UT, OU, KU, WVU, everything after that would be rather bland.

I don't think the SEC lands just OU without OSU, and if UT came on board I think they would insist on the third Texas school. It is my impression that UT's agenda would be to get Tech, TCU, and Baylor placed. Tech has a better chance of being appealing to the PAC if TCU goes with them. Dallas would be a nice add for the PACN and since their payouts lag those of the present Big 12 they might go for that market if that was all that was left to them.

So if I'm right and Texas is trying to place the rest of the Big 12 Texas contingent that is why I think their price to the SEC would be Baylor. The Bears can't really go anywhere else.

So UT, Baylor, OU, OSU would be what I would see as more likely.

But yeah, I would be naturally pleased if we could totally cherry pick and take UT, OU, KU, and WVU, it's just that I don't see it happening.

The good thing about Baylor is that with SEC money and exposure they could probably greatly increase their competitiveness. They are in the middle of a great recruiting web while Tech is far away from any of the recruiting hot spots. They are already in the $100M club so they do have a good bit of potential. I wouldn't be opposed at all to their inclusion.

(02-25-2016 12:41 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]The good thing about Baylor is that with SEC money and exposure they could probably greatly increase their competitiveness. They are in the middle of a great recruiting web while Tech is far away from any of the recruiting hot spots. They are already in the $100M club so they do have a good bit of potential. I wouldn't be opposed at all to their inclusion.

Obviously our ideal to 16 would be a combo of either OU/UT, UNC/UVa or Va Tech, or OU/FSU. To 18 it would be UT/OU/UNC/and a Virginia school. But if the ACC remains steadfast and the top two prizes insist on companions for their joining then we will be forced to weigh the following: Is gaining OU & UT worth taking OSU & another Texas school and if so is that more desirable than letting them slip away to a rival conference where their addition would give our rival an advantage?

Protecting an area, our brand, and maintaining our advantages would be paramount in the decision and I think we would accept. After all the next round is liable to be the last round of realignment for a very long time.

(02-25-2016 01:05 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-25-2016 12:41 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]The good thing about Baylor is that with SEC money and exposure they could probably greatly increase their competitiveness. They are in the middle of a great recruiting web while Tech is far away from any of the recruiting hot spots. They are already in the $100M club so they do have a good bit of potential. I wouldn't be opposed at all to their inclusion.

Obviously our ideal to 16 would be a combo of either OU/UT, UNC/UVa or Va Tech, or OU/FSU. To 18 it would be UT/OU/UNC/and a Virginia school. But if the ACC remains steadfast and the top two prizes insist on companions for their joining then we will be forced to weigh the following: Is gaining OU & UT worth taking OSU & another Texas school and if so is that more desirable than letting them slip away to a rival conference where their addition would give our rival an advantage?

Protecting an area, our brand, and maintaining our advantages would be paramount in the decision and I think we would accept. After all the next round is liable to be the last round of realignment for a very long time.

One of the things I like about taking the Texahoma 4 is that while we would take a couple of schools that are a little bit redundant, we would at least be taking schools with quality competitiveness. Baylor and OSU are both strong in football and basketball and that will help the content side of the equation.

The other thing I like is that it leaves us space to get a couple from the ACC later if we had the opportunity. Florida State and Clemson will both be ripe for the taking should we go to 20. Either that or Virginia Tech and NC State.

Question...do you think we would ever expand to an odd number like 21? If we got the Texahoma 4 then theoretically we could still take UVA, UNC, and Duke. That's 21 and we could divide into 3 divisions of 7. Someone would always have an off week, but with the way we stagger our football schedule right now someone always has an off week anyway.

Obviously we aren't going to support being essentially sent back to the Big 12 by adding half the B12 south. At best we'd support ONE Oklahoma school and MAYBE one more Texas school but probably not another public school (I can see us being OK with TCU or SMU to shore up DFW)

(02-26-2016 07:43 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]Obviously we aren't going to support being essentially sent back to the Big 12 by adding half the B12 south. At best we'd support ONE Oklahoma school and MAYBE one more Texas school but probably not another public school (I can see us being OK with TCU or SMU to shore up DFW)

Well, given your Sig I wouldn't have guessed that in a million years!

(02-26-2016 08:18 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-26-2016 07:43 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]Obviously we aren't going to support being essentially sent back to the Big 12 by adding half the B12 south. At best we'd support ONE Oklahoma school and MAYBE one more Texas school but probably not another public school (I can see us being OK with TCU or SMU to shore up DFW)

Well, given your Sig I wouldn't have guessed that in a million years!

True but you know from my history I've said for a long time now that IF another Texas school is considered absolutely necessary by the conference then our best move (and the one I believe A&M would throw its support behind rather than fight) would be one of the two DFW private schools to install a physical presence of the SEC there in what is otherwise largely a CFB no-man's land. Having a stake in the conference by having its members coming to your city all year long and spending money there on hotels, restaurants and entertainment is the best way to quickly get the papers and media there behind you and pumping you over another conference that only shows up to your city once a year.

Now yes, my bias leans toward TCU (though I think anyone else would consider them the better, more developed pick anyway) I also think that SMU could in fact be a viable pick. They have good academics and deep pockets...and with something to actually care about spending on again, I think they could quickly become as respectable in FB as they've made themselves in basketball.

(02-27-2016 12:57 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-26-2016 08:18 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-26-2016 07:43 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]Obviously we aren't going to support being essentially sent back to the Big 12 by adding half the B12 south. At best we'd support ONE Oklahoma school and MAYBE one more Texas school but probably not another public school (I can see us being OK with TCU or SMU to shore up DFW)

Well, given your Sig I wouldn't have guessed that in a million years!

True but you know from my history I've said for a long time now that IF another Texas school is considered absolutely necessary by the conference then our best move (and the one I believe A&M would throw its support behind rather than fight) would be one of the two DFW private schools to install a physical presence of the SEC there in what is otherwise largely a CFB no-man's land. Having a stake in the conference by having its members coming to your city all year long and spending money there on hotels, restaurants and entertainment is the best way to quickly get the papers and media there behind you and pumping you over another conference that only shows up to your city once a year.

Now yes, my bias leans toward TCU (though I think anyone else would consider them the better, more developed pick anyway) I also think that SMU could in fact be a viable pick. They have good academics and deep pockets...and with something to actually care about spending on again, I think they could quickly become as respectable in FB as they've made themselves in basketball.

And the only issue I would have with T.C.U. would be if Oklahoma was the other school then A&M and the Sooners give us enough of the DFW market anyway. Now if we aren't forced to take another Texas school along with the Sooners I think we could both agree that barring any possible ACC selection that West Virginia then starts to make some sense. And that could be why Gee is backing Boren here. I don't know as I haven't heard anything to that effect, but it would make some sense.

(02-27-2016 12:57 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-26-2016 08:18 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-26-2016 07:43 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]Obviously we aren't going to support being essentially sent back to the Big 12 by adding half the B12 south. At best we'd support ONE Oklahoma school and MAYBE one more Texas school but probably not another public school (I can see us being OK with TCU or SMU to shore up DFW)

Well, given your Sig I wouldn't have guessed that in a million years!

True but you know from my history I've said for a long time now that IF another Texas school is considered absolutely necessary by the conference then our best move (and the one I believe A&M would throw its support behind rather than fight) would be one of the two DFW private schools to install a physical presence of the SEC there in what is otherwise largely a CFB no-man's land. Having a stake in the conference by having its members coming to your city all year long and spending money there on hotels, restaurants and entertainment is the best way to quickly get the papers and media there behind you and pumping you over another conference that only shows up to your city once a year.

Now yes, my bias leans toward TCU (though I think anyone else would consider them the better, more developed pick anyway) I also think that SMU could in fact be a viable pick. They have good academics and deep pockets...and with something to actually care about spending on again, I think they could quickly become as respectable in FB as they've made themselves in basketball.

The man has a point. This is one of the reasons I would be all for TCU. I think TCU and Baylor both have a great argument for that spot should it materialize.

(02-27-2016 06:46 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-27-2016 12:57 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-26-2016 08:18 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-26-2016 07:43 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]Obviously we aren't going to support being essentially sent back to the Big 12 by adding half the B12 south. At best we'd support ONE Oklahoma school and MAYBE one more Texas school but probably not another public school (I can see us being OK with TCU or SMU to shore up DFW)

Well, given your Sig I wouldn't have guessed that in a million years!

True but you know from my history I've said for a long time now that IF another Texas school is considered absolutely necessary by the conference then our best move (and the one I believe A&M would throw its support behind rather than fight) would be one of the two DFW private schools to install a physical presence of the SEC there in what is otherwise largely a CFB no-man's land. Having a stake in the conference by having its members coming to your city all year long and spending money there on hotels, restaurants and entertainment is the best way to quickly get the papers and media there behind you and pumping you over another conference that only shows up to your city once a year.

Now yes, my bias leans toward TCU (though I think anyone else would consider them the better, more developed pick anyway) I also think that SMU could in fact be a viable pick. They have good academics and deep pockets...and with something to actually care about spending on again, I think they could quickly become as respectable in FB as they've made themselves in basketball.

The man has a point. This is one of the reasons I would be all for TCU. I think TCU and Baylor both have a great argument for that spot should it materialize.

The point All Tide Up is that if you have Oklahoma you have Dallas. You don't need T.C.U. who average attendance is a huge net negative to the SEC. In fact if you have Oklahoma you don't need a second Texas team at all.