CSNbbs

I gotta be honest, I just don't see anyone that makes sense for the SEC or Pac 12. IMO we get this:

Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big Ten
Texas goes Independent, ND style deal with leftovers
Leftovers add Houston, BYU, and Boise. Possibly SMU and Cincinnati down the line to get back to 12
MWC adds Utep to replace Boise
AAC adds various sun belt schools like Troy or Southern Miss to get back to 12.
SEC, ACC, and Pac 12 stand pat.

(10-21-2016 01:46 PM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]I gotta be honest, I just don't see anyone that makes sense for the SEC or Pac 12. IMO we get this:

Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big Ten
Texas goes Independent, ND style deal with leftovers
Leftovers add Houston, BYU, and Boise. Possibly SMU and Cincinnati down the line to get back to 12
MWC adds Utep to replace Boise
AAC adds various sun belt schools like Troy or Southern Miss to get back to 12.
SEC, ACC, and Pac 12 stand pat.

I disagree somewhat. I think OU and KU make a ton of sense for us. Of the available schools, outside of that, we'd be compromising to a certain degree.

I'm not including UT here because even though they'd be a good addition, they carry baggage that could potentially make them difficult to deal with.

What is the cheaper option for the networks?

It's probably to move a handful of schools out of the Big 12 and relegate the rest, but compensate them with an extended contract. Perhaps then make a few additions like BYU and Houston that make the league a little more viable in the long term.

I think that makes the most sense at this juncture. If there was an economical and equitable way to parse out the Big 12 then they probably would have done it by now. Waiting a few years to give certain schools a lifeline, however, puts pressure on the schools that need the Big 12 for survival. When the time comes where it's obvious things are falling apart then they'll be more willing to deal.

(10-21-2016 02:56 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 01:46 PM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]I gotta be honest, I just don't see anyone that makes sense for the SEC or Pac 12. IMO we get this:

Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big Ten
Texas goes Independent, ND style deal with leftovers
Leftovers add Houston, BYU, and Boise. Possibly SMU and Cincinnati down the line to get back to 12
MWC adds Utep to replace Boise
AAC adds various sun belt schools like Troy or Southern Miss to get back to 12.
SEC, ACC, and Pac 12 stand pat.

I disagree somewhat. I think OU and KU make a ton of sense for us. Of the available schools, outside of that, we'd be compromising to a certain degree.

I'm not including UT here because even though they'd be a good addition, they carry baggage that could potentially make them difficult to deal with.

question for anyone who knows the answer...is OU tethered to the assurance of OSU finding a soft landing spot? if so, then OU and OSU to the SEC becomes a near certainty. The B1G won't take both and the SEC won't take OSU without OU.

(10-21-2016 03:18 PM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 02:56 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 01:46 PM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]I gotta be honest, I just don't see anyone that makes sense for the SEC or Pac 12. IMO we get this:

Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big Ten
Texas goes Independent, ND style deal with leftovers
Leftovers add Houston, BYU, and Boise. Possibly SMU and Cincinnati down the line to get back to 12
MWC adds Utep to replace Boise
AAC adds various sun belt schools like Troy or Southern Miss to get back to 12.
SEC, ACC, and Pac 12 stand pat.

I disagree somewhat. I think OU and KU make a ton of sense for us. Of the available schools, outside of that, we'd be compromising to a certain degree.

I'm not including UT here because even though they'd be a good addition, they carry baggage that could potentially make them difficult to deal with.

question for anyone who knows the answer...is OU tethered to the assurance of OSU finding a soft landing spot? if so, then OU and OSU to the SEC becomes a near certainty. The B1G won't take both and the SEC won't take OSU without OU.

I seem to recall hearing at some point that OU and OSU do both fall under the general Oklahoma Board of Regents for Higher Education but that the body is only related to educational issues so not athletics.

System wise OU and OSU are two separate university systems with their own regents. So unless the governor or legislature pressured then in theory Oklahoma could move separate from Oklahoma State.

(10-21-2016 03:18 PM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 02:56 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 01:46 PM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]I gotta be honest, I just don't see anyone that makes sense for the SEC or Pac 12. IMO we get this:

Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big Ten
Texas goes Independent, ND style deal with leftovers
Leftovers add Houston, BYU, and Boise. Possibly SMU and Cincinnati down the line to get back to 12
MWC adds Utep to replace Boise
AAC adds various sun belt schools like Troy or Southern Miss to get back to 12.
SEC, ACC, and Pac 12 stand pat.

I disagree somewhat. I think OU and KU make a ton of sense for us. Of the available schools, outside of that, we'd be compromising to a certain degree.

I'm not including UT here because even though they'd be a good addition, they carry baggage that could potentially make them difficult to deal with.

question for anyone who knows the answer...is OU tethered to the assurance of OSU finding a soft landing spot? if so, then OU and OSU to the SEC becomes a near certainty. The B1G won't take both and the SEC won't take OSU without OU.

Ren here's the jumble with which we are dealing.

1. ESPN wants to hang onto Texas and will until at least 2031. I don't see how Texas goes Big 10 under those contractual circumstances.

2. Oklahoma is not as legally bound to OSU as they are politically bound to OSU. They will seek first to move as a pair for two reasons. 1. It is politically the only thing to do in a state that small where both schools are enmeshed in the fabric of Oklahoma socially. 2. It is the only way to guarantee that Oklahoma has but to spend 1 non conference game to keep the Texas game on their annual schedule.

3. Kansas just wants to go somewhere with one of them and it doesn't matter which one.

4. There is no way in hell Texas goes to the Big 10 without Oklahoma. They fear OU and A&M being in the same conference. If the SEC has Arkansas, L.S.U., Oklahoma and A&M in the same division that division owns Texas whether the Longhorns are a part of it or not. That's why ESPN has the 15 million (and escalating to 20 million) dollar contract for the LHN until 2031.

5. There is no way Oklahoma moves to the Big 10 without Texas, at least if their boosters can help it. They would assuredly face the loss of recruiting clout in Texas if they played in what is perceived to be a Northern Conference, especially if Texas isn't with them.

6. Texas to the SEC does create tensions in a conference that is otherwise fairly harmonious.

7. Moving to 18 solves some issues for either the Big 10 or SEC with regards to the Big 12, but it also opens either of those conferences who both have former Big 12 members already to losing vetoe power to a group of 5 or 6 former Big 12 schools who want to exercise power and with Texas in the group that is likely a certainty.

8. I wish the SEC wasn't so worried about cultural fit. If we weren't then taking Iowa State and Kansas along with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would end this jumble.

So you see the Big 10 won't get Texas: ESPN will say no.

Without Texas Oklahoma likely does not try to go Big 10: Too risky to the programs recruiting.

Oklahoma needs to move with OSU if possible anyway.

Kansas will go with either anywhere.

Texas if it chooses to move will only get approval from ESPN if ESPN has a majority or at least 50% stake in their new conference home. That means unless the PAC sells the mouse 50% of its network Texas has two options: ACC or SEC and anyone who thinks otherwise is a dolt.

The most likely outcome providing the stalemate lasts is for Oklahoma to move with Oklahoma State to the SEC. OSU will never be part of the Big 10.

ESPN's T3 investment in Kansas is roughly equivalent to FOX's T3 investment in the Sooners. Kansas and either UConn or Iowa State will wind up in the Big 10.

Texas if they consider the ACC will take another Texas school with them. The logical choice would be Baylor because Texas Tech and T.C.U. together are profitable for the PAC.

Now these arrangements can be tweaked certainly. But I think the linchpin of this is taking OU & OSU. With that pair goes any chance of Texas reforming the Big 12. When the Horns are gone everything else settles out.

But don't be confused, as that is not what the networks would likely prefer. That's just my thinking about the current situation and answering your question.

If the SEC lands Oklahoma (with or without OSU) we checkmate Texas in their home state.

At this point true justice would be served if ESPN let Texas go to the Big 10 but upon the condition that the SEC land OU. Let Texas and Kansas head to the Big 10. Kansas would be happy and Bevo would be going to his death!

(10-21-2016 02:56 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 01:46 PM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]I gotta be honest, I just don't see anyone that makes sense for the SEC or Pac 12. IMO we get this:

Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big Ten
Texas goes Independent, ND style deal with leftovers
Leftovers add Houston, BYU, and Boise. Possibly SMU and Cincinnati down the line to get back to 12
MWC adds Utep to replace Boise
AAC adds various sun belt schools like Troy or Southern Miss to get back to 12.
SEC, ACC, and Pac 12 stand pat.

I disagree somewhat. I think OU and KU make a ton of sense for us. Of the available schools, outside of that, we'd be compromising to a certain degree.

I'm not including UT here because even though they'd be a good addition, they carry baggage that could potentially make them difficult to deal with.

I'm beginning to change my tune.
I had always felt That Oklahoma and Baylor would be perfect additions for the SEC. But................today I think it's Kansas and Oklahoma State.
I think that A&M has been a hand in glove fit for the SEC. Could Texas made the sec more money...probably. Would they have fit better than A&M? NOPE not by a long shot. Was A&M grateful for an opportunity to prove their worth? Would Texas be?
I think Oklahoma State could be another A&M and Kansas could blossom into more than they have ever been. The perfect pair for a long term relationship with the SEC.

(10-21-2016 03:48 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 03:18 PM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 02:56 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 01:46 PM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]I gotta be honest, I just don't see anyone that makes sense for the SEC or Pac 12. IMO we get this:

Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big Ten
Texas goes Independent, ND style deal with leftovers
Leftovers add Houston, BYU, and Boise. Possibly SMU and Cincinnati down the line to get back to 12
MWC adds Utep to replace Boise
AAC adds various sun belt schools like Troy or Southern Miss to get back to 12.
SEC, ACC, and Pac 12 stand pat.

I disagree somewhat. I think OU and KU make a ton of sense for us. Of the available schools, outside of that, we'd be compromising to a certain degree.

I'm not including UT here because even though they'd be a good addition, they carry baggage that could potentially make them difficult to deal with.

question for anyone who knows the answer...is OU tethered to the assurance of OSU finding a soft landing spot? if so, then OU and OSU to the SEC becomes a near certainty. The B1G won't take both and the SEC won't take OSU without OU.

Ren here's the jumble with which we are dealing.

1. ESPN wants to hang onto Texas and will until at least 2031. I don't see how Texas goes Big 10 under those contractual circumstances.

2. Oklahoma is not as legally bound to OSU as they are politically bound to OSU. They will seek first to move as a pair for two reasons. 1. It is politically the only thing to do in a state that small where both schools are enmeshed in the fabric of Oklahoma socially. 2. It is the only way to guarantee that Oklahoma has but to spend 1 non conference game to keep the Texas game on their annual schedule.

3. Kansas just wants to go somewhere with one of them and it doesn't matter which one.

4. There is no way in hell Texas goes to the Big 10 without Oklahoma. They fear OU and A&M being in the same conference. If the SEC has Arkansas, L.S.U., Oklahoma and A&M in the same division that division owns Texas whether the Longhorns are a part of it or not. That's why ESPN has the 15 million (and escalating to 20 million) dollar contract for the LHN until 2031.

5. There is no way Oklahoma moves to the Big 10 without Texas, at least if their boosters can help it. They would assuredly face the loss of recruiting clout in Texas if they played in what is perceived to be a Northern Conference, especially if Texas isn't with them.

6. Texas to the SEC does create tensions in a conference that is otherwise fairly harmonious.

7. Moving to 18 solves some issues for either the Big 10 or SEC with regards to the Big 12, but it also opens either of those conferences who both have former Big 12 members already to losing vetoe power to a group of 5 or 6 former Big 12 schools who want to exercise power and with Texas in the group that is likely a certainty.

8. I wish the SEC wasn't so worried about cultural fit. If we weren't then taking Iowa State and Kansas along with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would end this jumble.

So you see the Big 10 won't get Texas: ESPN will say no.

Without Texas Oklahoma likely does not try to go Big 10: Too risky to the programs recruiting.

Oklahoma needs to move with OSU if possible anyway.

Kansas will go with either anywhere.

Texas if it chooses to move will only get approval from ESPN if ESPN has a majority or at least 50% stake in their new conference home. That means unless the PAC sells the mouse 50% of its network Texas has two options: ACC or SEC and anyone who thinks otherwise is a dolt.

The most likely outcome providing the stalemate lasts is for Oklahoma to move with Oklahoma State to the SEC. OSU will never be part of the Big 10.

ESPN's T3 investment in Kansas is roughly equivalent to FOX's T3 investment in the Sooners. Kansas and either UConn or Iowa State will wind up in the Big 10.

Texas if they consider the ACC will take another Texas school with them. The logical choice would be Baylor because Texas Tech and T.C.U. together are profitable for the PAC.

Now these arrangements can be tweaked certainly. But I think the linchpin of this is taking OU & OSU. With that pair goes any chance of Texas reforming the Big 12. When the Horns are gone everything else settles out.

But don't be confused, as that is not what the networks would likely prefer. That's just my thinking about the current situation and answering your question.

If the SEC lands Oklahoma (with or without OSU) we checkmate Texas in their home state.

At this point true justice would be served if ESPN let Texas go to the Big 10 but upon the condition that the SEC land OU. Let Texas and Kansas head to the Big 10. Kansas would be happy and Bevo would be going to his death!

JR, I'm not sure that Oklahoma will ever "buy into the SEC" (neither would Texas) and would be forever a source of conflict.
Besides, my 5 year old grandson likes the 'Pokes mascot, so they have that going for them.
Big budget state "second banana" with good athletic pedigree who would like nothing more than to "stick it" to big brother. Sound familiar? Plus, OSU has as good a Learfeld rating as any of the top SEC schools. Present value AND growth potential.....sounds like it's right up the SEC's alley.

the inclusion of Kansas changes everything!

(10-21-2016 03:18 PM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 02:56 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 01:46 PM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]I gotta be honest, I just don't see anyone that makes sense for the SEC or Pac 12. IMO we get this:

Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big Ten
Texas goes Independent, ND style deal with leftovers
Leftovers add Houston, BYU, and Boise. Possibly SMU and Cincinnati down the line to get back to 12
MWC adds Utep to replace Boise
AAC adds various sun belt schools like Troy or Southern Miss to get back to 12.
SEC, ACC, and Pac 12 stand pat.

I disagree somewhat. I think OU and KU make a ton of sense for us. Of the available schools, outside of that, we'd be compromising to a certain degree.

I'm not including UT here because even though they'd be a good addition, they carry baggage that could potentially make them difficult to deal with.

question for anyone who knows the answer...is OU tethered to the assurance of OSU finding a soft landing spot? if so, then OU and OSU to the SEC becomes a near certainty. The B1G won't take both and the SEC won't take OSU without OU.

T Boone Pickens is a big time political donor and Ok ST alum. Not sure state politicians can afford to let Ok State fall by the wayside

(10-21-2016 02:56 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 01:46 PM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]I gotta be honest, I just don't see anyone that makes sense for the SEC or Pac 12. IMO we get this:

Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big Ten
Texas goes Independent, ND style deal with leftovers
Leftovers add Houston, BYU, and Boise. Possibly SMU and Cincinnati down the line to get back to 12
MWC adds Utep to replace Boise
AAC adds various sun belt schools like Troy or Southern Miss to get back to 12.
SEC, ACC, and Pac 12 stand pat.

I disagree somewhat. I think OU and KU make a ton of sense for us. Of the available schools, outside of that, we'd be compromising to a certain degree.

I'm not including UT here because even though they'd be a good addition, they carry baggage that could potentially make them difficult to deal with.

Oklahoma plus one is the only scenario I can see

(10-21-2016 09:47 PM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 02:56 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 01:46 PM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]I gotta be honest, I just don't see anyone that makes sense for the SEC or Pac 12. IMO we get this:

Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big Ten
Texas goes Independent, ND style deal with leftovers
Leftovers add Houston, BYU, and Boise. Possibly SMU and Cincinnati down the line to get back to 12
MWC adds Utep to replace Boise
AAC adds various sun belt schools like Troy or Southern Miss to get back to 12.
SEC, ACC, and Pac 12 stand pat.

I disagree somewhat. I think OU and KU make a ton of sense for us. Of the available schools, outside of that, we'd be compromising to a certain degree.

I'm not including UT here because even though they'd be a good addition, they carry baggage that could potentially make them difficult to deal with.

Oklahoma plus one is the only scenario I can see

If we can get them they are the best possible outcome for us.

(10-21-2016 03:48 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 03:18 PM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 02:56 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 01:46 PM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]I gotta be honest, I just don't see anyone that makes sense for the SEC or Pac 12. IMO we get this:

Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big Ten
Texas goes Independent, ND style deal with leftovers
Leftovers add Houston, BYU, and Boise. Possibly SMU and Cincinnati down the line to get back to 12
MWC adds Utep to replace Boise
AAC adds various sun belt schools like Troy or Southern Miss to get back to 12.
SEC, ACC, and Pac 12 stand pat.

I disagree somewhat. I think OU and KU make a ton of sense for us. Of the available schools, outside of that, we'd be compromising to a certain degree.

I'm not including UT here because even though they'd be a good addition, they carry baggage that could potentially make them difficult to deal with.

question for anyone who knows the answer...is OU tethered to the assurance of OSU finding a soft landing spot? if so, then OU and OSU to the SEC becomes a near certainty. The B1G won't take both and the SEC won't take OSU without OU.

Ren here's the jumble with which we are dealing.

1. ESPN wants to hang onto Texas and will until at least 2031. I don't see how Texas goes Big 10 under those contractual circumstances.

2. Oklahoma is not as legally bound to OSU as they are politically bound to OSU. They will seek first to move as a pair for two reasons. 1. It is politically the only thing to do in a state that small where both schools are enmeshed in the fabric of Oklahoma socially. 2. It is the only way to guarantee that Oklahoma has but to spend 1 non conference game to keep the Texas game on their annual schedule.

3. Kansas just wants to go somewhere with one of them and it doesn't matter which one.

4. There is no way in hell Texas goes to the Big 10 without Oklahoma. They fear OU and A&M being in the same conference. If the SEC has Arkansas, L.S.U., Oklahoma and A&M in the same division that division owns Texas whether the Longhorns are a part of it or not. That's why ESPN has the 15 million (and escalating to 20 million) dollar contract for the LHN until 2031.

5. There is no way Oklahoma moves to the Big 10 without Texas, at least if their boosters can help it. They would assuredly face the loss of recruiting clout in Texas if they played in what is perceived to be a Northern Conference, especially if Texas isn't with them.

6. Texas to the SEC does create tensions in a conference that is otherwise fairly harmonious.

7. Moving to 18 solves some issues for either the Big 10 or SEC with regards to the Big 12, but it also opens either of those conferences who both have former Big 12 members already to losing vetoe power to a group of 5 or 6 former Big 12 schools who want to exercise power and with Texas in the group that is likely a certainty.

8. I wish the SEC wasn't so worried about cultural fit. If we weren't then taking Iowa State and Kansas along with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would end this jumble.

So you see the Big 10 won't get Texas: ESPN will say no.

Without Texas Oklahoma likely does not try to go Big 10: Too risky to the programs recruiting.

Oklahoma needs to move with OSU if possible anyway.

Kansas will go with either anywhere.

Texas if it chooses to move will only get approval from ESPN if ESPN has a majority or at least 50% stake in their new conference home. That means unless the PAC sells the mouse 50% of its network Texas has two options: ACC or SEC and anyone who thinks otherwise is a dolt.

The most likely outcome providing the stalemate lasts is for Oklahoma to move with Oklahoma State to the SEC. OSU will never be part of the Big 10.

ESPN's T3 investment in Kansas is roughly equivalent to FOX's T3 investment in the Sooners. Kansas and either UConn or Iowa State will wind up in the Big 10.

Texas if they consider the ACC will take another Texas school with them. The logical choice would be Baylor because Texas Tech and T.C.U. together are profitable for the PAC.

Now these arrangements can be tweaked certainly. But I think the linchpin of this is taking OU & OSU. With that pair goes any chance of Texas reforming the Big 12. When the Horns are gone everything else settles out.

But don't be confused, as that is not what the networks would likely prefer. That's just my thinking about the current situation and answering your question.

If the SEC lands Oklahoma (with or without OSU) we checkmate Texas in their home state.

At this point true justice would be served if ESPN let Texas go to the Big 10 but upon the condition that the SEC land OU. Let Texas and Kansas head to the Big 10. Kansas would be happy and Bevo would be going to his death!

That's a well thought out post, but I wouldn't be quite so quick to consign Texas to death with the last scenario. It would require cooperation among Big 10 members, but I can see a scenario where the B1G could draw up a 4 pod schedule with one permanent opponent in each other division and one rotating opponent. Texas would have Nebraska as a division partner, and then set them up with Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio State as those permanent opponents, retain OU as an out-of-conference opponent as the Red River Rivalry was for years, add in Notre Dame as an annual opponent and perhaps a rotation of SMU/TCU/Houston, and you'd have a pretty damned good baseline schedule, and one that would be at the very least on par with anything the ACC or PAC could offer.

It may be less Southern than an SEC schedule, but as an SEC member aTm will always have the edge in that area unless UT does go to the SEC, and of course half of those games against Northern schools would be taking place in TX. As stand-alone entities Texas' brand is stronger than aTm's, and if they're playing a schedule packed with blue bloods like Michigan and Ohio State I don't think their fanbase or TV partners would mind. That scenario also allows the B1G to setup a number of other attractive annual matchups that would be good for their profile and lucrative for their TV partners.

Would their fans be as excited about division games against Kansas and Iowa, or the occasional cross-division games with the likes of Purdue or Rutgers? Absolutely not - but they'd also be breathers, and every conference (even the SEC) has teams that are at the bottom. They'd also rotate through other attractive opponents like Penn State and Michigan State in addition to the likes of Purdue and Rutgers.

I'm certainly not saying that this is a likely scenario, but I also don't think that the B1G is quite the dead man walking some people want to portray it as being. There's still a lot of passion for football there with some very big stadiums and large fanbases, there are a lot of highly regarded academic institutions as members, and even if there are some economic issues in some of their states there's also still a hell of a lot of financial and intellectual capital there as well. As for Texas specifically, like many other schools if they make the right coaching hire a lot of their ills will go away, or at the least be minimized.

(10-21-2016 03:48 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 03:18 PM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 02:56 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 01:46 PM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]I gotta be honest, I just don't see anyone that makes sense for the SEC or Pac 12. IMO we get this:

Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big Ten
Texas goes Independent, ND style deal with leftovers
Leftovers add Houston, BYU, and Boise. Possibly SMU and Cincinnati down the line to get back to 12
MWC adds Utep to replace Boise
AAC adds various sun belt schools like Troy or Southern Miss to get back to 12.
SEC, ACC, and Pac 12 stand pat.

I disagree somewhat. I think OU and KU make a ton of sense for us. Of the available schools, outside of that, we'd be compromising to a certain degree.

I'm not including UT here because even though they'd be a good addition, they carry baggage that could potentially make them difficult to deal with.

question for anyone who knows the answer...is OU tethered to the assurance of OSU finding a soft landing spot? if so, then OU and OSU to the SEC becomes a near certainty. The B1G won't take both and the SEC won't take OSU without OU.

Ren here's the jumble with which we are dealing.

1. ESPN wants to hang onto Texas and will until at least 2031. I don't see how Texas goes Big 10 under those contractual circumstances.

2. Oklahoma is not as legally bound to OSU as they are politically bound to OSU. They will seek first to move as a pair for two reasons. 1. It is politically the only thing to do in a state that small where both schools are enmeshed in the fabric of Oklahoma socially. 2. It is the only way to guarantee that Oklahoma has but to spend 1 non conference game to keep the Texas game on their annual schedule.

3. Kansas just wants to go somewhere with one of them and it doesn't matter which one.

4. There is no way in hell Texas goes to the Big 10 without Oklahoma. They fear OU and A&M being in the same conference. If the SEC has Arkansas, L.S.U., Oklahoma and A&M in the same division that division owns Texas whether the Longhorns are a part of it or not. That's why ESPN has the 15 million (and escalating to 20 million) dollar contract for the LHN until 2031.

5. There is no way Oklahoma moves to the Big 10 without Texas, at least if their boosters can help it. They would assuredly face the loss of recruiting clout in Texas if they played in what is perceived to be a Northern Conference, especially if Texas isn't with them.

6. Texas to the SEC does create tensions in a conference that is otherwise fairly harmonious.

7. Moving to 18 solves some issues for either the Big 10 or SEC with regards to the Big 12, but it also opens either of those conferences who both have former Big 12 members already to losing vetoe power to a group of 5 or 6 former Big 12 schools who want to exercise power and with Texas in the group that is likely a certainty.

8. I wish the SEC wasn't so worried about cultural fit. If we weren't then taking Iowa State and Kansas along with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would end this jumble.

So you see the Big 10 won't get Texas: ESPN will say no.

Without Texas Oklahoma likely does not try to go Big 10: Too risky to the programs recruiting.

Oklahoma needs to move with OSU if possible anyway.

Kansas will go with either anywhere.

Texas if it chooses to move will only get approval from ESPN if ESPN has a majority or at least 50% stake in their new conference home. That means unless the PAC sells the mouse 50% of its network Texas has two options: ACC or SEC and anyone who thinks otherwise is a dolt.

The most likely outcome providing the stalemate lasts is for Oklahoma to move with Oklahoma State to the SEC. OSU will never be part of the Big 10.

ESPN's T3 investment in Kansas is roughly equivalent to FOX's T3 investment in the Sooners. Kansas and either UConn or Iowa State will wind up in the Big 10.

Texas if they consider the ACC will take another Texas school with them. The logical choice would be Baylor because Texas Tech and T.C.U. together are profitable for the PAC.

Now these arrangements can be tweaked certainly. But I think the linchpin of this is taking OU & OSU. With that pair goes any chance of Texas reforming the Big 12. When the Horns are gone everything else settles out.

But don't be confused, as that is not what the networks would likely prefer. That's just my thinking about the current situation and answering your question.

If the SEC lands Oklahoma (with or without OSU) we checkmate Texas in their home state.

At this point true justice would be served if ESPN let Texas go to the Big 10 but upon the condition that the SEC land OU. Let Texas and Kansas head to the Big 10. Kansas would be happy and Bevo would be going to his death!

Would you be happier with OK, Iowa St, Kansas + 2nd Texas team over OSU if SEC went to 18 in that scenario? I tend to agree that if we get OK we wind up with OK State, who while not a bad option isn't the academic caliber I would like compared to Kansas. But I also agree (if I am reading you right) that if we get OK we might not get Kansas.

Long term, I think the B1G will have some issues although there's time for some of that to be turned around. The problems weren't created over night and they can't be fixed over night.

I do agree with JR though that UT isn't going to the B1G. ESPN would never let them out of their LHN contract for a move like that. Not happening. Even if they were willing, I'm not sure UT would be that interested anyway. I think they'd choose the PAC if they could move to any league they want under their own terms.

I think the question for me is would the PAC sell their interest in the PACN in order to land a brand like Texas and more or less stabilize their situation for the foreseeable future.

How about this?

SEC takes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Cincinnati

ACC takes Texas, Texas Tech, West Virginia, and full membership for Notre Dame

PAC takes TCU and Houston

(10-21-2016 10:36 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 03:48 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 03:18 PM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 02:56 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 01:46 PM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]I gotta be honest, I just don't see anyone that makes sense for the SEC or Pac 12. IMO we get this:

Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big Ten
Texas goes Independent, ND style deal with leftovers
Leftovers add Houston, BYU, and Boise. Possibly SMU and Cincinnati down the line to get back to 12
MWC adds Utep to replace Boise
AAC adds various sun belt schools like Troy or Southern Miss to get back to 12.
SEC, ACC, and Pac 12 stand pat.

I disagree somewhat. I think OU and KU make a ton of sense for us. Of the available schools, outside of that, we'd be compromising to a certain degree.

I'm not including UT here because even though they'd be a good addition, they carry baggage that could potentially make them difficult to deal with.

question for anyone who knows the answer...is OU tethered to the assurance of OSU finding a soft landing spot? if so, then OU and OSU to the SEC becomes a near certainty. The B1G won't take both and the SEC won't take OSU without OU.

Ren here's the jumble with which we are dealing.

1. ESPN wants to hang onto Texas and will until at least 2031. I don't see how Texas goes Big 10 under those contractual circumstances.

2. Oklahoma is not as legally bound to OSU as they are politically bound to OSU. They will seek first to move as a pair for two reasons. 1. It is politically the only thing to do in a state that small where both schools are enmeshed in the fabric of Oklahoma socially. 2. It is the only way to guarantee that Oklahoma has but to spend 1 non conference game to keep the Texas game on their annual schedule.

3. Kansas just wants to go somewhere with one of them and it doesn't matter which one.

4. There is no way in hell Texas goes to the Big 10 without Oklahoma. They fear OU and A&M being in the same conference. If the SEC has Arkansas, L.S.U., Oklahoma and A&M in the same division that division owns Texas whether the Longhorns are a part of it or not. That's why ESPN has the 15 million (and escalating to 20 million) dollar contract for the LHN until 2031.

5. There is no way Oklahoma moves to the Big 10 without Texas, at least if their boosters can help it. They would assuredly face the loss of recruiting clout in Texas if they played in what is perceived to be a Northern Conference, especially if Texas isn't with them.

6. Texas to the SEC does create tensions in a conference that is otherwise fairly harmonious.

7. Moving to 18 solves some issues for either the Big 10 or SEC with regards to the Big 12, but it also opens either of those conferences who both have former Big 12 members already to losing vetoe power to a group of 5 or 6 former Big 12 schools who want to exercise power and with Texas in the group that is likely a certainty.

8. I wish the SEC wasn't so worried about cultural fit. If we weren't then taking Iowa State and Kansas along with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would end this jumble.

So you see the Big 10 won't get Texas: ESPN will say no.

Without Texas Oklahoma likely does not try to go Big 10: Too risky to the programs recruiting.

Oklahoma needs to move with OSU if possible anyway.

Kansas will go with either anywhere.

Texas if it chooses to move will only get approval from ESPN if ESPN has a majority or at least 50% stake in their new conference home. That means unless the PAC sells the mouse 50% of its network Texas has two options: ACC or SEC and anyone who thinks otherwise is a dolt.

The most likely outcome providing the stalemate lasts is for Oklahoma to move with Oklahoma State to the SEC. OSU will never be part of the Big 10.

ESPN's T3 investment in Kansas is roughly equivalent to FOX's T3 investment in the Sooners. Kansas and either UConn or Iowa State will wind up in the Big 10.

Texas if they consider the ACC will take another Texas school with them. The logical choice would be Baylor because Texas Tech and T.C.U. together are profitable for the PAC.

Now these arrangements can be tweaked certainly. But I think the linchpin of this is taking OU & OSU. With that pair goes any chance of Texas reforming the Big 12. When the Horns are gone everything else settles out.

But don't be confused, as that is not what the networks would likely prefer. That's just my thinking about the current situation and answering your question.

If the SEC lands Oklahoma (with or without OSU) we checkmate Texas in their home state.

At this point true justice would be served if ESPN let Texas go to the Big 10 but upon the condition that the SEC land OU. Let Texas and Kansas head to the Big 10. Kansas would be happy and Bevo would be going to his death!

That's a well thought out post, but I wouldn't be quite so quick to consign Texas to death with the last scenario. It would require cooperation among Big 10 members, but I can see a scenario where the B1G could draw up a 4 pod schedule with one permanent opponent in each other division and one rotating opponent. Texas would have Nebraska as a division partner, and then set them up with Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio State as those permanent opponents, retain OU as an out-of-conference opponent as the Red River Rivalry was for years, add in Notre Dame as an annual opponent and perhaps a rotation of SMU/TCU/Houston, and you'd have a pretty damned good baseline schedule, and one that would be at the very least on par with anything the ACC or PAC could offer.

It may be less Southern than an SEC schedule, but as an SEC member aTm will always have the edge in that area unless UT does go to the SEC, and of course half of those games against Northern schools would be taking place in TX. As stand-alone entities Texas' brand is stronger than aTm's, and if they're playing a schedule packed with blue bloods like Michigan and Ohio State I don't think their fanbase or TV partners would mind. That scenario also allows the B1G to setup a number of other attractive annual matchups that would be good for their profile and lucrative for their TV partners.

Would their fans be as excited about division games against Kansas and Iowa, or the occasional cross-division games with the likes of Purdue or Rutgers? Absolutely not - but they'd also be breathers, and every conference (even the SEC) has teams that are at the bottom. They'd also rotate through other attractive opponents like Penn State and Michigan State in addition to the likes of Purdue and Rutgers.

I'm certainly not saying that this is a likely scenario, but I also don't think that the B1G is quite the dead man walking some people want to portray it as being. There's still a lot of passion for football there with some very big stadiums and large fanbases, there are a lot of highly regarded academic institutions as members, and even if there are some economic issues in some of their states there's also still a hell of a lot of financial and intellectual capital there as well. As for Texas specifically, like many other schools if they make the right coaching hire a lot of their ills will go away, or at the least be minimized.

What the Big 10 has Phog is a heckuva lot of Federal Grant money. Eventually this is where shrinking representation will bite them. That's why they had the hots for Virginia and North Carolina. Those two large somewhat Southern states prop up the representatives for a while longer.

The networks are driven by profits. The conferences more by politics. And the folks that think otherwise don't understand the deep seeded desire to get to the Federal trough, or to stay there.

And no, I didn't underestimate what would happen to Texas. It would be palpably unpopular.

(10-26-2016 06:58 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 10:36 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 03:48 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 03:18 PM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 02:56 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree somewhat. I think OU and KU make a ton of sense for us. Of the available schools, outside of that, we'd be compromising to a certain degree.

I'm not including UT here because even though they'd be a good addition, they carry baggage that could potentially make them difficult to deal with.

question for anyone who knows the answer...is OU tethered to the assurance of OSU finding a soft landing spot? if so, then OU and OSU to the SEC becomes a near certainty. The B1G won't take both and the SEC won't take OSU without OU.

Ren here's the jumble with which we are dealing.

1. ESPN wants to hang onto Texas and will until at least 2031. I don't see how Texas goes Big 10 under those contractual circumstances.

2. Oklahoma is not as legally bound to OSU as they are politically bound to OSU. They will seek first to move as a pair for two reasons. 1. It is politically the only thing to do in a state that small where both schools are enmeshed in the fabric of Oklahoma socially. 2. It is the only way to guarantee that Oklahoma has but to spend 1 non conference game to keep the Texas game on their annual schedule.

3. Kansas just wants to go somewhere with one of them and it doesn't matter which one.

4. There is no way in hell Texas goes to the Big 10 without Oklahoma. They fear OU and A&M being in the same conference. If the SEC has Arkansas, L.S.U., Oklahoma and A&M in the same division that division owns Texas whether the Longhorns are a part of it or not. That's why ESPN has the 15 million (and escalating to 20 million) dollar contract for the LHN until 2031.

5. There is no way Oklahoma moves to the Big 10 without Texas, at least if their boosters can help it. They would assuredly face the loss of recruiting clout in Texas if they played in what is perceived to be a Northern Conference, especially if Texas isn't with them.

6. Texas to the SEC does create tensions in a conference that is otherwise fairly harmonious.

7. Moving to 18 solves some issues for either the Big 10 or SEC with regards to the Big 12, but it also opens either of those conferences who both have former Big 12 members already to losing vetoe power to a group of 5 or 6 former Big 12 schools who want to exercise power and with Texas in the group that is likely a certainty.

8. I wish the SEC wasn't so worried about cultural fit. If we weren't then taking Iowa State and Kansas along with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would end this jumble.

So you see the Big 10 won't get Texas: ESPN will say no.

Without Texas Oklahoma likely does not try to go Big 10: Too risky to the programs recruiting.

Oklahoma needs to move with OSU if possible anyway.

Kansas will go with either anywhere.

Texas if it chooses to move will only get approval from ESPN if ESPN has a majority or at least 50% stake in their new conference home. That means unless the PAC sells the mouse 50% of its network Texas has two options: ACC or SEC and anyone who thinks otherwise is a dolt.

The most likely outcome providing the stalemate lasts is for Oklahoma to move with Oklahoma State to the SEC. OSU will never be part of the Big 10.

ESPN's T3 investment in Kansas is roughly equivalent to FOX's T3 investment in the Sooners. Kansas and either UConn or Iowa State will wind up in the Big 10.

Texas if they consider the ACC will take another Texas school with them. The logical choice would be Baylor because Texas Tech and T.C.U. together are profitable for the PAC.

Now these arrangements can be tweaked certainly. But I think the linchpin of this is taking OU & OSU. With that pair goes any chance of Texas reforming the Big 12. When the Horns are gone everything else settles out.

But don't be confused, as that is not what the networks would likely prefer. That's just my thinking about the current situation and answering your question.

If the SEC lands Oklahoma (with or without OSU) we checkmate Texas in their home state.

At this point true justice would be served if ESPN let Texas go to the Big 10 but upon the condition that the SEC land OU. Let Texas and Kansas head to the Big 10. Kansas would be happy and Bevo would be going to his death!

That's a well thought out post, but I wouldn't be quite so quick to consign Texas to death with the last scenario. It would require cooperation among Big 10 members, but I can see a scenario where the B1G could draw up a 4 pod schedule with one permanent opponent in each other division and one rotating opponent. Texas would have Nebraska as a division partner, and then set them up with Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio State as those permanent opponents, retain OU as an out-of-conference opponent as the Red River Rivalry was for years, add in Notre Dame as an annual opponent and perhaps a rotation of SMU/TCU/Houston, and you'd have a pretty damned good baseline schedule, and one that would be at the very least on par with anything the ACC or PAC could offer.

It may be less Southern than an SEC schedule, but as an SEC member aTm will always have the edge in that area unless UT does go to the SEC, and of course half of those games against Northern schools would be taking place in TX. As stand-alone entities Texas' brand is stronger than aTm's, and if they're playing a schedule packed with blue bloods like Michigan and Ohio State I don't think their fanbase or TV partners would mind. That scenario also allows the B1G to setup a number of other attractive annual matchups that would be good for their profile and lucrative for their TV partners.

Would their fans be as excited about division games against Kansas and Iowa, or the occasional cross-division games with the likes of Purdue or Rutgers? Absolutely not - but they'd also be breathers, and every conference (even the SEC) has teams that are at the bottom. They'd also rotate through other attractive opponents like Penn State and Michigan State in addition to the likes of Purdue and Rutgers.

I'm certainly not saying that this is a likely scenario, but I also don't think that the B1G is quite the dead man walking some people want to portray it as being. There's still a lot of passion for football there with some very big stadiums and large fanbases, there are a lot of highly regarded academic institutions as members, and even if there are some economic issues in some of their states there's also still a hell of a lot of financial and intellectual capital there as well. As for Texas specifically, like many other schools if they make the right coaching hire a lot of their ills will go away, or at the least be minimized.

What the Big 10 has Phog is a heckuva lot of Federal Grant money. Eventually this is where shrinking representation will bite them. That's why they had the hots for Virginia and North Carolina. Those two large somewhat Southern states prop up the representatives for a while longer.

The networks are driven by profits. The conferences more by politics. And the folks that think otherwise don't understand the deep seeded desire to get to the Federal trough, or to stay there.

And no, I didn't underestimate what would happen to Texas. It would be palpably unpopular.

I get that a Big 10 schedule compared to an SEC schedule would be unpopular - but given the alternatives of the ACC and Pac12, do you really think that Texas fans would be more against the Big 10 than those alternatives? For the Pac for example, you may get USC and Oregon, but you're also mixing in Utah, Oregon State, Washington State, etc, whom I don't see as being particularly more palatable than the lower echelon of the Big 10.

(10-27-2016 02:35 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-26-2016 06:58 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 10:36 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 03:48 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 03:18 PM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]question for anyone who knows the answer...is OU tethered to the assurance of OSU finding a soft landing spot? if so, then OU and OSU to the SEC becomes a near certainty. The B1G won't take both and the SEC won't take OSU without OU.

Ren here's the jumble with which we are dealing.

1. ESPN wants to hang onto Texas and will until at least 2031. I don't see how Texas goes Big 10 under those contractual circumstances.

2. Oklahoma is not as legally bound to OSU as they are politically bound to OSU. They will seek first to move as a pair for two reasons. 1. It is politically the only thing to do in a state that small where both schools are enmeshed in the fabric of Oklahoma socially. 2. It is the only way to guarantee that Oklahoma has but to spend 1 non conference game to keep the Texas game on their annual schedule.

3. Kansas just wants to go somewhere with one of them and it doesn't matter which one.

4. There is no way in hell Texas goes to the Big 10 without Oklahoma. They fear OU and A&M being in the same conference. If the SEC has Arkansas, L.S.U., Oklahoma and A&M in the same division that division owns Texas whether the Longhorns are a part of it or not. That's why ESPN has the 15 million (and escalating to 20 million) dollar contract for the LHN until 2031.

5. There is no way Oklahoma moves to the Big 10 without Texas, at least if their boosters can help it. They would assuredly face the loss of recruiting clout in Texas if they played in what is perceived to be a Northern Conference, especially if Texas isn't with them.

6. Texas to the SEC does create tensions in a conference that is otherwise fairly harmonious.

7. Moving to 18 solves some issues for either the Big 10 or SEC with regards to the Big 12, but it also opens either of those conferences who both have former Big 12 members already to losing vetoe power to a group of 5 or 6 former Big 12 schools who want to exercise power and with Texas in the group that is likely a certainty.

8. I wish the SEC wasn't so worried about cultural fit. If we weren't then taking Iowa State and Kansas along with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would end this jumble.

So you see the Big 10 won't get Texas: ESPN will say no.

Without Texas Oklahoma likely does not try to go Big 10: Too risky to the programs recruiting.

Oklahoma needs to move with OSU if possible anyway.

Kansas will go with either anywhere.

Texas if it chooses to move will only get approval from ESPN if ESPN has a majority or at least 50% stake in their new conference home. That means unless the PAC sells the mouse 50% of its network Texas has two options: ACC or SEC and anyone who thinks otherwise is a dolt.

The most likely outcome providing the stalemate lasts is for Oklahoma to move with Oklahoma State to the SEC. OSU will never be part of the Big 10.

ESPN's T3 investment in Kansas is roughly equivalent to FOX's T3 investment in the Sooners. Kansas and either UConn or Iowa State will wind up in the Big 10.

Texas if they consider the ACC will take another Texas school with them. The logical choice would be Baylor because Texas Tech and T.C.U. together are profitable for the PAC.

Now these arrangements can be tweaked certainly. But I think the linchpin of this is taking OU & OSU. With that pair goes any chance of Texas reforming the Big 12. When the Horns are gone everything else settles out.

But don't be confused, as that is not what the networks would likely prefer. That's just my thinking about the current situation and answering your question.

If the SEC lands Oklahoma (with or without OSU) we checkmate Texas in their home state.

At this point true justice would be served if ESPN let Texas go to the Big 10 but upon the condition that the SEC land OU. Let Texas and Kansas head to the Big 10. Kansas would be happy and Bevo would be going to his death!

That's a well thought out post, but I wouldn't be quite so quick to consign Texas to death with the last scenario. It would require cooperation among Big 10 members, but I can see a scenario where the B1G could draw up a 4 pod schedule with one permanent opponent in each other division and one rotating opponent. Texas would have Nebraska as a division partner, and then set them up with Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio State as those permanent opponents, retain OU as an out-of-conference opponent as the Red River Rivalry was for years, add in Notre Dame as an annual opponent and perhaps a rotation of SMU/TCU/Houston, and you'd have a pretty damned good baseline schedule, and one that would be at the very least on par with anything the ACC or PAC could offer.

It may be less Southern than an SEC schedule, but as an SEC member aTm will always have the edge in that area unless UT does go to the SEC, and of course half of those games against Northern schools would be taking place in TX. As stand-alone entities Texas' brand is stronger than aTm's, and if they're playing a schedule packed with blue bloods like Michigan and Ohio State I don't think their fanbase or TV partners would mind. That scenario also allows the B1G to setup a number of other attractive annual matchups that would be good for their profile and lucrative for their TV partners.

Would their fans be as excited about division games against Kansas and Iowa, or the occasional cross-division games with the likes of Purdue or Rutgers? Absolutely not - but they'd also be breathers, and every conference (even the SEC) has teams that are at the bottom. They'd also rotate through other attractive opponents like Penn State and Michigan State in addition to the likes of Purdue and Rutgers.

I'm certainly not saying that this is a likely scenario, but I also don't think that the B1G is quite the dead man walking some people want to portray it as being. There's still a lot of passion for football there with some very big stadiums and large fanbases, there are a lot of highly regarded academic institutions as members, and even if there are some economic issues in some of their states there's also still a hell of a lot of financial and intellectual capital there as well. As for Texas specifically, like many other schools if they make the right coaching hire a lot of their ills will go away, or at the least be minimized.

What the Big 10 has Phog is a heckuva lot of Federal Grant money. Eventually this is where shrinking representation will bite them. That's why they had the hots for Virginia and North Carolina. Those two large somewhat Southern states prop up the representatives for a while longer.

The networks are driven by profits. The conferences more by politics. And the folks that think otherwise don't understand the deep seeded desire to get to the Federal trough, or to stay there.

And no, I didn't underestimate what would happen to Texas. It would be palpably unpopular.

I get that a Big 10 schedule compared to an SEC schedule would be unpopular - but given the alternatives of the ACC and Pac12, do you really think that Texas fans would be more against the Big 10 than those alternatives? For the Pac for example, you may get USC and Oregon, but you're also mixing in Utah, Oregon State, Washington State, etc, whom I don't see as being particularly more palatable than the lower echelon of the Big 10.

Texas will not move beyond their region. To do so would be to abandon the state to Texas A&M / L.S.U. / Arkansas and possibly Oklahoma. Those 4 schools cover the largest markets in Texas in sufficient numbers to carry the state without Texas.

If Texas moves and leaves 3 of those there it will hurt. But if Oklahoma is one of them it will be devastating. The Horns know this. That is why they won't leave on their own.

It's going to be extremely interesting to watch this whole thing play out.

Kansas will find a home. Where? It's anybody's guess right now.

(10-27-2016 03:34 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-27-2016 02:35 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-26-2016 06:58 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 10:36 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 03:48 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Ren here's the jumble with which we are dealing.

1. ESPN wants to hang onto Texas and will until at least 2031. I don't see how Texas goes Big 10 under those contractual circumstances.

2. Oklahoma is not as legally bound to OSU as they are politically bound to OSU. They will seek first to move as a pair for two reasons. 1. It is politically the only thing to do in a state that small where both schools are enmeshed in the fabric of Oklahoma socially. 2. It is the only way to guarantee that Oklahoma has but to spend 1 non conference game to keep the Texas game on their annual schedule.

3. Kansas just wants to go somewhere with one of them and it doesn't matter which one.

4. There is no way in hell Texas goes to the Big 10 without Oklahoma. They fear OU and A&M being in the same conference. If the SEC has Arkansas, L.S.U., Oklahoma and A&M in the same division that division owns Texas whether the Longhorns are a part of it or not. That's why ESPN has the 15 million (and escalating to 20 million) dollar contract for the LHN until 2031.

5. There is no way Oklahoma moves to the Big 10 without Texas, at least if their boosters can help it. They would assuredly face the loss of recruiting clout in Texas if they played in what is perceived to be a Northern Conference, especially if Texas isn't with them.

6. Texas to the SEC does create tensions in a conference that is otherwise fairly harmonious.

7. Moving to 18 solves some issues for either the Big 10 or SEC with regards to the Big 12, but it also opens either of those conferences who both have former Big 12 members already to losing vetoe power to a group of 5 or 6 former Big 12 schools who want to exercise power and with Texas in the group that is likely a certainty.

8. I wish the SEC wasn't so worried about cultural fit. If we weren't then taking Iowa State and Kansas along with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would end this jumble.

So you see the Big 10 won't get Texas: ESPN will say no.

Without Texas Oklahoma likely does not try to go Big 10: Too risky to the programs recruiting.

Oklahoma needs to move with OSU if possible anyway.

Kansas will go with either anywhere.

Texas if it chooses to move will only get approval from ESPN if ESPN has a majority or at least 50% stake in their new conference home. That means unless the PAC sells the mouse 50% of its network Texas has two options: ACC or SEC and anyone who thinks otherwise is a dolt.

The most likely outcome providing the stalemate lasts is for Oklahoma to move with Oklahoma State to the SEC. OSU will never be part of the Big 10.

ESPN's T3 investment in Kansas is roughly equivalent to FOX's T3 investment in the Sooners. Kansas and either UConn or Iowa State will wind up in the Big 10.

Texas if they consider the ACC will take another Texas school with them. The logical choice would be Baylor because Texas Tech and T.C.U. together are profitable for the PAC.

Now these arrangements can be tweaked certainly. But I think the linchpin of this is taking OU & OSU. With that pair goes any chance of Texas reforming the Big 12. When the Horns are gone everything else settles out.

But don't be confused, as that is not what the networks would likely prefer. That's just my thinking about the current situation and answering your question.

If the SEC lands Oklahoma (with or without OSU) we checkmate Texas in their home state.

At this point true justice would be served if ESPN let Texas go to the Big 10 but upon the condition that the SEC land OU. Let Texas and Kansas head to the Big 10. Kansas would be happy and Bevo would be going to his death!

That's a well thought out post, but I wouldn't be quite so quick to consign Texas to death with the last scenario. It would require cooperation among Big 10 members, but I can see a scenario where the B1G could draw up a 4 pod schedule with one permanent opponent in each other division and one rotating opponent. Texas would have Nebraska as a division partner, and then set them up with Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio State as those permanent opponents, retain OU as an out-of-conference opponent as the Red River Rivalry was for years, add in Notre Dame as an annual opponent and perhaps a rotation of SMU/TCU/Houston, and you'd have a pretty damned good baseline schedule, and one that would be at the very least on par with anything the ACC or PAC could offer.

It may be less Southern than an SEC schedule, but as an SEC member aTm will always have the edge in that area unless UT does go to the SEC, and of course half of those games against Northern schools would be taking place in TX. As stand-alone entities Texas' brand is stronger than aTm's, and if they're playing a schedule packed with blue bloods like Michigan and Ohio State I don't think their fanbase or TV partners would mind. That scenario also allows the B1G to setup a number of other attractive annual matchups that would be good for their profile and lucrative for their TV partners.

Would their fans be as excited about division games against Kansas and Iowa, or the occasional cross-division games with the likes of Purdue or Rutgers? Absolutely not - but they'd also be breathers, and every conference (even the SEC) has teams that are at the bottom. They'd also rotate through other attractive opponents like Penn State and Michigan State in addition to the likes of Purdue and Rutgers.

I'm certainly not saying that this is a likely scenario, but I also don't think that the B1G is quite the dead man walking some people want to portray it as being. There's still a lot of passion for football there with some very big stadiums and large fanbases, there are a lot of highly regarded academic institutions as members, and even if there are some economic issues in some of their states there's also still a hell of a lot of financial and intellectual capital there as well. As for Texas specifically, like many other schools if they make the right coaching hire a lot of their ills will go away, or at the least be minimized.

What the Big 10 has Phog is a heckuva lot of Federal Grant money. Eventually this is where shrinking representation will bite them. That's why they had the hots for Virginia and North Carolina. Those two large somewhat Southern states prop up the representatives for a while longer.

The networks are driven by profits. The conferences more by politics. And the folks that think otherwise don't understand the deep seeded desire to get to the Federal trough, or to stay there.

And no, I didn't underestimate what would happen to Texas. It would be palpably unpopular.

I get that a Big 10 schedule compared to an SEC schedule would be unpopular - but given the alternatives of the ACC and Pac12, do you really think that Texas fans would be more against the Big 10 than those alternatives? For the Pac for example, you may get USC and Oregon, but you're also mixing in Utah, Oregon State, Washington State, etc, whom I don't see as being particularly more palatable than the lower echelon of the Big 10.

Texas will not move beyond their region. To do so would be to abandon the state to Texas A&M / L.S.U. / Arkansas and possibly Oklahoma. Those 4 schools cover the largest markets in Texas in sufficient numbers to carry the state without Texas.

If Texas moves and leaves 3 of those there it will hurt. But if Oklahoma is one of them it will be devastating. The Horns know this. That is why they won't leave on their own.

It's going to be extremely interesting to watch this whole thing play out.

Kansas will find a home. Where? It's anybody's guess right now.

Texas' best bet is to reshape the B12 with schools that are fine with Austin ruling everything. Even if they sit 4th or 5th in term of P5 income which trumps MwC or Big East pay checks. I think Texas let's OU leave and a second B12 school go, then back fills as it wishes followed by redoing the TV contract for a longer term

(10-27-2016 05:36 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-27-2016 03:34 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-27-2016 02:35 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-26-2016 06:58 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2016 10:36 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote: [ -> ]That's a well thought out post, but I wouldn't be quite so quick to consign Texas to death with the last scenario. It would require cooperation among Big 10 members, but I can see a scenario where the B1G could draw up a 4 pod schedule with one permanent opponent in each other division and one rotating opponent. Texas would have Nebraska as a division partner, and then set them up with Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio State as those permanent opponents, retain OU as an out-of-conference opponent as the Red River Rivalry was for years, add in Notre Dame as an annual opponent and perhaps a rotation of SMU/TCU/Houston, and you'd have a pretty damned good baseline schedule, and one that would be at the very least on par with anything the ACC or PAC could offer.

It may be less Southern than an SEC schedule, but as an SEC member aTm will always have the edge in that area unless UT does go to the SEC, and of course half of those games against Northern schools would be taking place in TX. As stand-alone entities Texas' brand is stronger than aTm's, and if they're playing a schedule packed with blue bloods like Michigan and Ohio State I don't think their fanbase or TV partners would mind. That scenario also allows the B1G to setup a number of other attractive annual matchups that would be good for their profile and lucrative for their TV partners.

Would their fans be as excited about division games against Kansas and Iowa, or the occasional cross-division games with the likes of Purdue or Rutgers? Absolutely not - but they'd also be breathers, and every conference (even the SEC) has teams that are at the bottom. They'd also rotate through other attractive opponents like Penn State and Michigan State in addition to the likes of Purdue and Rutgers.

I'm certainly not saying that this is a likely scenario, but I also don't think that the B1G is quite the dead man walking some people want to portray it as being. There's still a lot of passion for football there with some very big stadiums and large fanbases, there are a lot of highly regarded academic institutions as members, and even if there are some economic issues in some of their states there's also still a hell of a lot of financial and intellectual capital there as well. As for Texas specifically, like many other schools if they make the right coaching hire a lot of their ills will go away, or at the least be minimized.

What the Big 10 has Phog is a heckuva lot of Federal Grant money. Eventually this is where shrinking representation will bite them. That's why they had the hots for Virginia and North Carolina. Those two large somewhat Southern states prop up the representatives for a while longer.

The networks are driven by profits. The conferences more by politics. And the folks that think otherwise don't understand the deep seeded desire to get to the Federal trough, or to stay there.

And no, I didn't underestimate what would happen to Texas. It would be palpably unpopular.

I get that a Big 10 schedule compared to an SEC schedule would be unpopular - but given the alternatives of the ACC and Pac12, do you really think that Texas fans would be more against the Big 10 than those alternatives? For the Pac for example, you may get USC and Oregon, but you're also mixing in Utah, Oregon State, Washington State, etc, whom I don't see as being particularly more palatable than the lower echelon of the Big 10.

Texas will not move beyond their region. To do so would be to abandon the state to Texas A&M / L.S.U. / Arkansas and possibly Oklahoma. Those 4 schools cover the largest markets in Texas in sufficient numbers to carry the state without Texas.

If Texas moves and leaves 3 of those there it will hurt. But if Oklahoma is one of them it will be devastating. The Horns know this. That is why they won't leave on their own.

It's going to be extremely interesting to watch this whole thing play out.

Kansas will find a home. Where? It's anybody's guess right now.

Texas' best bet is to reshape the B12 with schools that are fine with Austin ruling everything. Even if they sit 4th or 5th in term of P5 income which trumps MwC or Big East pay checks. I think Texas let's OU leave and a second B12 school go, then back fills as it wishes followed by redoing the TV contract for a longer term

The only problem with that is if the two schools that leave are both of the Oklahoma's. That cuts Texas off from Kansas and Iowa unless they pick up Colorado State. Now if the two that leave are Oklahoma and Kansas it's a different matter.