1.
SEC West:
Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U., Ole Miss, Miss State, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M
SEC East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
OR,
2.
SEC West:
Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U. Ole Miss, Miss State, Missouri, Texas A&M, T.C.U.
SEC East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Our options may come down to something very similar to these.
Not a fan of the TCU or Texas additions.
So are you thinking Oklahoma is going to the PAC Or B1G?
(09-30-2016 07:14 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]1.
SEC West:
Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U., Ole Miss, Miss State, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M
SEC East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
OR,
2.
SEC West:
Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U. Ole Miss, Miss State, Missouri, Texas A&M, T.C.U.
SEC East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Our options may come down to something very similar to these.
I like #1, but I think that #2 is more realistic and more likely.
(09-30-2016 08:54 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 07:14 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]1.
SEC West:
Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U., Ole Miss, Miss State, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M
SEC East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
OR,
2.
SEC West:
Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U. Ole Miss, Miss State, Missouri, Texas A&M, T.C.U.
SEC East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Our options may come down to something very similar to these.
I like #1, but I think that #2 is more realistic and more likely.
#1 is fine. But if the PAC decides to play ball it might be #2.
In truth the SEC will be fine with either in that both of our objectives are met either way. We get a greater presence in DFW. And we add another AAU and a much needed hoops blue blood.
OU & UConn/maybe ISU to the Big 10.
KU & TCU to the SEC.
WVU to the ACC.
Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas State, Oklahoma State to the PAC if the PAC gives in to ESPN. And the deal gets done soon.
OU & UConn/maybe ISU to the Big 10.
Texas & Kansas to the SEC.
WVU to the ACC if it doesn't get done and we wait until 2022 for the moves.
(09-30-2016 08:58 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 08:54 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 07:14 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]1.
SEC West:
Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U., Ole Miss, Miss State, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M
SEC East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
OR,
2.
SEC West:
Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U. Ole Miss, Miss State, Missouri, Texas A&M, T.C.U.
SEC East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Our options may come down to something very similar to these.
I like #1, but I think that #2 is more realistic and more likely.
#1 is fine. But if the PAC decides to play ball it might be #2.
In truth the SEC will be fine with either in that both of our objectives are met either way. We get a greater presence in DFW. And we add another AAU and a much needed hoops blue blood.
Tejas will end up in the ACC (I think as a partial).
We will have 14+2.
(09-30-2016 09:01 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 08:58 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 08:54 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 07:14 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]1.
SEC West:
Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U., Ole Miss, Miss State, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M
SEC East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
OR,
2.
SEC West:
Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U. Ole Miss, Miss State, Missouri, Texas A&M, T.C.U.
SEC East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Our options may come down to something very similar to these.
I like #1, but I think that #2 is more realistic and more likely.
#1 is fine. But if the PAC decides to play ball it might be #2.
In truth the SEC will be fine with either in that both of our objectives are met either way. We get a greater presence in DFW. And we add another AAU and a much needed hoops blue blood.
Tejas will end up in the ACC (I think as a partial).
We will have 14+2.
Then we still wait. But recently Texas has said they would rather not head to the ACC. The issue is minor sports. We'll see.
(09-30-2016 09:05 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 09:01 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 08:58 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 08:54 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 07:14 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]1.
SEC West:
Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U., Ole Miss, Miss State, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M
SEC East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
OR,
2.
SEC West:
Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U. Ole Miss, Miss State, Missouri, Texas A&M, T.C.U.
SEC East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Our options may come down to something very similar to these.
I like #1, but I think that #2 is more realistic and more likely.
#1 is fine. But if the PAC decides to play ball it might be #2.
In truth the SEC will be fine with either in that both of our objectives are met either way. We get a greater presence in DFW. And we add another AAU and a much needed hoops blue blood.
Tejas will end up in the ACC (I think as a partial).
We will have 14+2.
Then we still wait. But recently Texas has said they would rather not head to the ACC. The issue is minor sports. We'll see.
You can't believe message board fans.
(09-30-2016 09:14 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 09:05 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 09:01 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 08:58 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 08:54 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]I like #1, but I think that #2 is more realistic and more likely.
#1 is fine. But if the PAC decides to play ball it might be #2.
In truth the SEC will be fine with either in that both of our objectives are met either way. We get a greater presence in DFW. And we add another AAU and a much needed hoops blue blood.
Tejas will end up in the ACC (I think as a partial).
We will have 14+2.
Then we still wait. But recently Texas has said they would rather not head to the ACC. The issue is minor sports. We'll see.
You can't believe message board fans.
It came from their AD his reference was for either coast. But still logic says minor sports will be a concern.
(09-30-2016 09:23 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 09:14 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 09:05 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 09:01 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 08:58 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]#1 is fine. But if the PAC decides to play ball it might be #2.
In truth the SEC will be fine with either in that both of our objectives are met either way. We get a greater presence in DFW. And we add another AAU and a much needed hoops blue blood.
Tejas will end up in the ACC (I think as a partial).
We will have 14+2.
Then we still wait. But recently Texas has said they would rather not head to the ACC. The issue is minor sports. We'll see.
You can't believe message board fans.
It came from their AD his reference was for either coast. But still logic says minor sports will be a concern.
They don't have many.
Things like golf will only have to travel for conference championships.
Baseball and mid-week basketball create the biggest challenges.
(09-30-2016 09:40 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 09:23 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 09:14 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 09:05 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 09:01 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]Tejas will end up in the ACC (I think as a partial).
We will have 14+2.
Then we still wait. But recently Texas has said they would rather not head to the ACC. The issue is minor sports. We'll see.
You can't believe message board fans.
It came from their AD his reference was for either coast. But still logic says minor sports will be a concern.
They don't have many.
Things like golf will only have to travel for conference championships.
Baseball and mid-week basketball create the biggest challenges.
I'm cool with UT in the ACC. But women's volleball, soccer, track & field (indoor and outdoor), tennis, swimming & diving, softball, and the list goes on would get expensive. I think if they head to the ACC the deal will be all in for both Texas and N.D.. Anyway you cut it though if Texas heads to the ACC we wait until 2022 for the end of this mess.
(09-30-2016 08:58 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 08:54 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 07:14 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]1.
SEC West:
Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U., Ole Miss, Miss State, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M
SEC East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
OR,
2.
SEC West:
Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U. Ole Miss, Miss State, Missouri, Texas A&M, T.C.U.
SEC East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Our options may come down to something very similar to these.
I like #1, but I think that #2 is more realistic and more likely.
#1 is fine. But if the PAC decides to play ball it might be #2.
In truth the SEC will be fine with either in that both of our objectives are met either way. We get a greater presence in DFW. And we add another AAU and a much needed hoops blue blood.
OU & UConn/maybe ISU to the Big 10.
KU & TCU to the SEC.
WVU to the ACC.
Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas State, Oklahoma State to the PAC if the PAC gives in to ESPN. And the deal gets done soon.
OU & UConn/maybe ISU to the Big 10.
Texas & Kansas to the SEC.
WVU to the ACC if it doesn't get done and we wait until 2022 for the moves.
I hope the big 10 values AAU more because that would give us the nod over UConn
My choice would be #1. Concerned about UT obviously, but they wouldn't be bringing a host of serfs with them so I don't think they would make too many waves once they settled in.
Let's say it works out that way though. Do we still have a P5?
If the PAC 12 isn't gaining any serious weight and we have a ton of Big 12 leftovers then does the league simply backfill with a few decent G5s?
Something akin to:
BYU, Colorado State, Kansas State, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas Tech, Baylor, Houston, Memphis, Cincinnati, UCF
Not a bad league...too good of a league to be relegated I think and considering the contracts the league would maintain with ESPN, I don't think they would go anywhere.
Three different 16 team leagues and two 12 team leagues. That's 72.
I can live with option 2. Texas is on the wrong side of the crazy/hot matrix to consider getting into a LTR with.
(10-01-2016 09:19 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ]I can live with option 2. Texas is on the wrong side of the crazy/hot matrix to consider getting into a LTR with.
I think long term #2 is more stable because Texas is not. Also should #2 happen it would likely mean that Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and either Kansas State or Iowa State (depending on the Big 10 choice) would be headed to the PAC, the Big 10 and SEC would be satisfied, and we will have enough to dissolve the Big 12.
What #1 gives us however is as many top brands as the Eastern Division would have.
Texas, Texas A&M, L.S.U., a reemerging Arkansas, a Missouri capable of making a run, and a reemerging Ole Miss, and an occasionally flush Mississippi State augmented by Kansas's ineptitude in football balances then with what we have in the East & Vanderbilt.
TCU is a bad fit for the SEC...Oklahoma State or Iowa State would better additions with Kansas
(10-01-2016 10:57 AM)EvilVodka Wrote: [ -> ]TCU is a bad fit for the SEC...Oklahoma State or Iowa State would better additions with Kansas
Not if one of your stated objectives is a greater presence in Dallas / Ft. Worth.
(09-30-2016 09:43 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 09:40 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 09:23 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 09:14 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 09:05 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Then we still wait. But recently Texas has said they would rather not head to the ACC. The issue is minor sports. We'll see.
You can't believe message board fans.
It came from their AD his reference was for either coast. But still logic says minor sports will be a concern.
They don't have many.
Things like golf will only have to travel for conference championships.
Baseball and mid-week basketball create the biggest challenges.
I'm cool with UT in the ACC. But women's volleball, soccer, track & field (indoor and outdoor), tennis, swimming & diving, softball, and the list goes on would get expensive. I think if they head to the ACC the deal will be all in for both Texas and N.D.. Anyway you cut it though if Texas heads to the ACC we wait until 2022 for the end of this mess.
Texas apparently has endless money so travel is not a big issue, in my opinion.
(10-01-2016 09:05 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 09:43 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 09:40 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 09:23 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2016 09:14 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]You can't believe message board fans.
It came from their AD his reference was for either coast. But still logic says minor sports will be a concern.
They don't have many.
Things like golf will only have to travel for conference championships.
Baseball and mid-week basketball create the biggest challenges.
I'm cool with UT in the ACC. But women's volleball, soccer, track & field (indoor and outdoor), tennis, swimming & diving, softball, and the list goes on would get expensive. I think if they head to the ACC the deal will be all in for both Texas and N.D.. Anyway you cut it though if Texas heads to the ACC we wait until 2022 for the end of this mess.
Texas apparently has endless money so travel is not a big issue, in my opinion.
Not according to their A.D.. Plus with minor sports most of the travel crowds are family and travel means a lot to them.
(10-01-2016 10:30 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (10-01-2016 09:19 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ]I can live with option 2. Texas is on the wrong side of the crazy/hot matrix to consider getting into a LTR with.
I think long term #2 is more stable because Texas is not. Also should #2 happen it would likely mean that Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and either Kansas State or Iowa State (depending on the Big 10 choice) would be headed to the PAC, the Big 10 and SEC would be satisfied, and we will have enough to dissolve the Big 12.
What #1 gives us however is as many top brands as the Eastern Division would have.
Texas, Texas A&M, L.S.U., a reemerging Arkansas, a Missouri capable of making a run, and a reemerging Ole Miss, and an occasionally flush Mississippi State augmented by Kansas's ineptitude in football balances then with what we have in the East & Vanderbilt.
And 3 of those schools are in the SEC to expressly be somewhere the Longhorns aren't. I agree on paper they are a great brand addition but even if a member, UT will never act like an SEC school IMO.
(10-01-2016 09:52 PM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-01-2016 10:30 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (10-01-2016 09:19 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ]I can live with option 2. Texas is on the wrong side of the crazy/hot matrix to consider getting into a LTR with.
I think long term #2 is more stable because Texas is not. Also should #2 happen it would likely mean that Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and either Kansas State or Iowa State (depending on the Big 10 choice) would be headed to the PAC, the Big 10 and SEC would be satisfied, and we will have enough to dissolve the Big 12.
What #1 gives us however is as many top brands as the Eastern Division would have.
Texas, Texas A&M, L.S.U., a reemerging Arkansas, a Missouri capable of making a run, and a reemerging Ole Miss, and an occasionally flush Mississippi State augmented by Kansas's ineptitude in football balances then with what we have in the East & Vanderbilt.
And 3 of those schools are in the SEC to expressly be somewhere the Longhorns aren't. I agree on paper they are a great brand addition but even if a member, UT will never act like an SEC school IMO.
Arkansas not so much Vandiver. They were part of a six school negotiation in '91 and were quite happy to move with the Horns. A&M's fans are against it. Missouri too, but not as rabidly. IMO there would be no more than 2 votes against, and maybe not even that if ESPN and Sankey make a couple of phone calls.