(05-22-2017 05:31 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]2. Texas gets a Notre Dame deal with the ACC. A P5 conference gets eliminated the next time a CFP deal gets renegotiated.
3. Texas takes a cohort to the Pac 12. A rival league gets the gem of Austin but also some egg on their face because it likely means taking at minimum Texas Tech but also either a Baylor/TCU or Kansas/K St combo to seal the deal. It still works out ok because the Big 12 is left gutted and financially the SEC still stays way ahead of its competitors.
A 4th option might also exist and that is the SEC taking OU/Ok St leaves the door open for Texas and Texas Tech to join as members 17 & 18 if A&M is willing to allow it.
I don't get why Texas would want a Notre Dame deal with the ACC. Why affiliate all Olympic sports with an East Coast conference with the closest "neighbors" in Florida, Georgia, and Kentucky - 1,000 miles away?
If the ACC will take TCU, Houston, and Texas Tech as Olympic sports members, than may be...but I don't get why Texas would consider the ACC without bringing cohorts.
Or, is this for football only? If so, where does Texas take its Olympic sports? AAC?
(05-22-2017 03:32 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2017 03:02 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote: [ -> ]JR, great well thought out post. However, I respectfully question two things.
1---I do not see OU lowering the standards of the SEC. The Big10...yes, but I do not see it with the SEC.
2-- I do not see how Texas is not in play for the Big10.
1. The "Pair" of Oklahoma schools lowers the SEC mean academically. I distinctly said that OU would be around 7th position in the SEC with regards to academics and research. It's OSU at 15th (just above MSU but only by some metrics) that makes the pair of them lower our MEAN.
2. Texas is under obligation to ESPN until 2031 or six years past the GOR. I'm sure that could be negotiated but if ESPN thought the top product might move to a FOX held conference I question ESPN's desire to be cooperative in such a move. Also if Oklahoma headed to the SEC with OSU I'm not sure that Texas would head Big 10 even then. Texas, Kansas, Iowa State and Tech might make a reasonable grouping for the PAC. But certainly all of that is debatable.
I do not know much about the TV contracts, but I thought both FOX and ESPN have contracts with the Big10. I am probably missing something.
(05-22-2017 05:48 PM)YNot Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2017 05:31 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]2. Texas gets a Notre Dame deal with the ACC. A P5 conference gets eliminated the next time a CFP deal gets renegotiated.
3. Texas takes a cohort to the Pac 12. A rival league gets the gem of Austin but also some egg on their face because it likely means taking at minimum Texas Tech but also either a Baylor/TCU or Kansas/K St combo to seal the deal. It still works out ok because the Big 12 is left gutted and financially the SEC still stays way ahead of its competitors.
A 4th option might also exist and that is the SEC taking OU/Ok St leaves the door open for Texas and Texas Tech to join as members 17 & 18 if A&M is willing to allow it.
I don't get why Texas would want a Notre Dame deal with the ACC. Why affiliate all Olympic sports with an East Coast conference with the closest "neighbors" in Florida, Georgia, and Kentucky - 1,000 miles away?
If the ACC will take TCU, Houston, and Texas Tech as Olympic sports members, than may be...but I don't get why Texas would consider the ACC without bringing cohorts.
Or, is this for football only? If so, where does Texas take its Olympic sports? AAC?
I'm not saying that Texas would consider this the best path but it was rumored that the ACC floated the idea a few years ago. I think it saddles them with an unattractive schedule and lousy travel for Olympic sports.
Based on a 5 game deal Texas would get about 2 interesting opponents from a pool of FL St, Clemson, GT, VT, L'ville, & Miami. It also means 3 below avg to mediocre match ups between the rest of the league.
OOC you maybe have Tech, Baylor, TCU, and Oklahoma and maybe 2 marque match ups from P4 schools and the rest are G5 body bag games.
Personally, I think it's the least attractive option for Texas. I think it's a leveraging tool to use against their other suitors but it does allow them to stroke their own egos and maintain control of their media revenue.
(05-22-2017 02:50 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote: [ -> ]There will not be any political pressure on OU to bring OSU along.
In that case OU will go to the B1G. The long term health of the institution will dictate that (Football as we know it may only have 20 to 30 years of life left, but the school will be there longer)
(05-22-2017 05:53 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2017 03:32 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2017 03:02 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote: [ -> ]JR, great well thought out post. However, I respectfully question two things.
1---I do not see OU lowering the standards of the SEC. The Big10...yes, but I do not see it with the SEC.
2-- I do not see how Texas is not in play for the Big10.
1. The "Pair" of Oklahoma schools lowers the SEC mean academically. I distinctly said that OU would be around 7th position in the SEC with regards to academics and research. It's OSU at 15th (just above MSU but only by some metrics) that makes the pair of them lower our MEAN.
2. Texas is under obligation to ESPN until 2031 or six years past the GOR. I'm sure that could be negotiated but if ESPN thought the top product might move to a FOX held conference I question ESPN's desire to be cooperative in such a move. Also if Oklahoma headed to the SEC with OSU I'm not sure that Texas would head Big 10 even then. Texas, Kansas, Iowa State and Tech might make a reasonable grouping for the PAC. But certainly all of that is debatable.
I do not know much about the TV contracts, but I thought both FOX and ESPN have contracts with the Big10. I am probably missing something.
FOX has the greater interest and there are some rumblings that ESPN may not bid again in 6 years. We'll have to wait to see on the latter one. But suffice it to say I don't think ESPN would have thrown 15 million a year at the Horns via the LHN just to let them go to a competitor.
(05-22-2017 06:14 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2017 02:50 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote: [ -> ]There will not be any political pressure on OU to bring OSU along.
In that case OU will go to the B1G. The long term health of the institution will dictate that (Football as we know it may only have 20 to 30 years of life left, but the school will be there longer)
If the Big Ten lands Oklahoma and Kansas I think it increases pressure on Texas to take a group of 3 to the Pac 12 with them.
For the cost of just 2 conferences FOX could consolidate the best Big 12 properties in the Pac 16 and Big Ten.
(05-22-2017 06:14 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2017 02:50 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote: [ -> ]There will not be any political pressure on OU to bring OSU along.
In that case OU will go to the B1G. The long term health of the institution will dictate that (Football as we know it may only have 20 to 30 years of life left, but the school will be there longer)
And of all of the possible P conference choice there is only one that is bleeding representation to the other three and that is in the Northeast and Northern Midwest. It is hubris to assume that this choice is the obviously better one for the long range.
I submit that the Big 10 needs Oklahoma more than Oklahoma needs the Big 10. And there is much more involved here than football. The whole athletic program stresses the very sports that the SEC in which the SEC excels: Softball, Women's Gymnastics, Baseball, Basketball is a pick'em, Women's Basketball, Track & Field all are easier to get to and the competition far more compelling that anything the Big 10 can offer. And how much of a benefit would OU enjoy being the 16th rated academic institution in the conference and quite possibly the only member of the Big 10 to have never been in AAU? Right now the SEC would profit them a little over 10 million more per year than the B1G and that doesn't include the value they would add. If you are representative of the state of Oklahoma I think doubling that revenue with OSU will be very tempting.
Demographics are shifting West, down the Atlantic Seaboard, through the Southeast and into Texas. Those trends are firmly established.
Cord cutting has dramatically affected the value of the BTN because it has chosen market size over content for expansion. Nebraska is the exception here. The BTN lost 39.2% of it's valuation year over year from 2015-6. During that same period the SECN lost 1.67% of its value.
Now I'm not saying that the Big 10 is in dire straights, far from it, but I am saying that insinuations that choosing the Big 10 is a foregone conclusion is foolish. Boren clearly identifies with the North, but their regents have already slapped his hand for trying to make unilateral moves and many of their donors equally favor the SEC, as do their consumers, the fan base, and Tramel a pro Big 10 guy has stated the latter flatly. This fight is going to be close. And geography, neighboring states, and travel expenses will all play a factor along with the money, and the opportunities for OSU. Loh pulled a middle of the night deal with the Big 10 and because of the action's lack of transparency the fan base is still very divided and attendance which was poor has gotten weaker. You have to consider your market when you make a move, because they may not move with you if you don't.
(05-22-2017 06:43 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2017 06:14 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2017 02:50 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote: [ -> ]There will not be any political pressure on OU to bring OSU along.
In that case OU will go to the B1G. The long term health of the institution will dictate that (Football as we know it may only have 20 to 30 years of life left, but the school will be there longer)
If the Big Ten lands Oklahoma and Kansas I think it increases pressure on Texas to take a group of 3 to the Pac 12 with them.
For the cost of just 2 conferences FOX could consolidate the best Big 12 properties in the Pac 16 and Big Ten.
And the same can be said of ESPN and they have some hold over Texas and had greater profits by far than FOX last year. So...
And btw the PAC may not want ESPN or FOX if they can get Amazon to take their product, pay them a direct % of the ad revenue and any fees. They own 100% of the PACN and cutting out the middle man and directly keeping a % of the advertising may prove to be a huge upside.
(05-22-2017 06:49 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2017 06:43 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2017 06:14 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2017 02:50 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote: [ -> ]There will not be any political pressure on OU to bring OSU along.
In that case OU will go to the B1G. The long term health of the institution will dictate that (Football as we know it may only have 20 to 30 years of life left, but the school will be there longer)
If the Big Ten lands Oklahoma and Kansas I think it increases pressure on Texas to take a group of 3 to the Pac 12 with them.
For the cost of just 2 conferences FOX could consolidate the best Big 12 properties in the Pac 16 and Big Ten.
And the same can be said of ESPN and they have some hold over Texas and had greater profits by far than FOX last year. So...
And btw the PAC may not want ESPN or FOX if they can get Amazon to take their product, pay them a direct % of the ad revenue and any fees. They own 100% of the PACN and cutting out the middle man and directly keeping a % of the advertising may prove to be a huge upside.
So you're suggesting that ESPN would drive the Big Ten and Pac 12 raid on the big 12? Wouldn't that be a lot of expensive content when you combine it with what they have invested in the SEC and ACC?
As for Amazon I think it's only a matter of time before someone big goes the digital route and I hope it ends up being terribly successful and that the leagues realize that they don't need the 3 and 4 letter networks in this age. A Big Ten/Pac 12 digital platform joint venture would be huge for college sports.
(05-22-2017 09:43 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2017 06:49 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2017 06:43 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2017 06:14 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2017 02:50 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote: [ -> ]There will not be any political pressure on OU to bring OSU along.
In that case OU will go to the B1G. The long term health of the institution will dictate that (Football as we know it may only have 20 to 30 years of life left, but the school will be there longer)
If the Big Ten lands Oklahoma and Kansas I think it increases pressure on Texas to take a group of 3 to the Pac 12 with them.
For the cost of just 2 conferences FOX could consolidate the best Big 12 properties in the Pac 16 and Big Ten.
And the same can be said of ESPN and they have some hold over Texas and had greater profits by far than FOX last year. So...
And btw the PAC may not want ESPN or FOX if they can get Amazon to take their product, pay them a direct % of the ad revenue and any fees. They own 100% of the PACN and cutting out the middle man and directly keeping a % of the advertising may prove to be a huge upside.
So you're suggesting that ESPN would drive the Big Ten and Pac 12 raid on the big 12? Wouldn't that be a lot of expensive content when you combine it with what they have invested in the SEC and ACC?
As for Amazon I think it's only a matter of time before someone big goes the digital route and I hope it ends up being terribly successful and that the leagues realize that they don't need the 3 and 4 letter networks in this age. A Big Ten/Pac 12 digital platform joint venture would be huge for college sports.
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but ESPN would be the driver for any Big 12 product, particularly Texas, to move to one of the conferences they had a viable interest in. That could yet be the PAC, but likely would be the SEC or ACC.
FOX would make the push for Big 12 product moving to the Big 10.
I do think that both networks have a self interest angle that could drive the break up of the Big 12 sooner than the GOR's expiration. Should they place new product in the ACC, SEC, PAC and Big 10, and do it early, that gives them the opportunity to open the existing contracts, negotiate a new rate, and extend the contracts so that 2023-4 isn't such a pivotal year for Hulu and Amazon to poach rights. By doing this they avoid competition that could drive their overhead in the product even higher than the newly negotiated rates.
I also find the level of talk about this subject to be 4 years premature. It only makes sense if the buzz is to get people acclimated to a much sooner move.
We'll see.
JRsec,
I know you are a BIG SEC fan, and you DESPERATELY want Texas in the SEC. But ...
![[Image: DAdn3FLWsAQ6nRt.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAdn3FLWsAQ6nRt.jpg)
Reality check, ESPN cannot direct Texas, and more specifically the faculty senate, regents, research heads, deans, and Chancellor. They will go were they think it's best for the University of Texas at Austin, that is the institution of higher learning and research, for the next 100 years. The athletic department doesn't make that call. ESPN doesn't make that call.
I know it's painful for you, but the SEC is absolutely not where Texas will go.
(05-22-2017 11:37 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ]JRsec,
I know you are a BIG SEC fan, and you DESPERATELY want Texas in the SEC. But ...
Reality check, ESPN cannot direct Texas, and more specifically the faculty senate, regents, research heads, deans, and Chancellor. They will go were they think it's best for the University of Texas at Austin, that is the institution of higher learning and research, for the next 100 years. The athletic department doesn't make that call. ESPN doesn't make that call.
I know it's painful for you, but the SEC is absolutely not where Texas will go.
Have I smack talked to you? Do I openly mock your ideas? No. If you came here to troll we'll deal with it. Smack isn't part of this forum sport.
Texas is under obligation to ESPN until 2031. Nobody knows what Texas will or won't do but we have a pretty good idea about when they will be able to do whatever it is they will do and it will be after the GOR expires in the Big 12, way after.
The Big 10 isn't the slam dunk choice some of you think. It has some issues.
Explain the devaluation of your network by 39.2% year over year for FY 2015-6. Explain your 150 million dollar deficit in earnings compared to the SEC. Explain your nearly 14 million per school deficit in Gross Net Revenue as compared to the SEC and then show a little more respect. Explain carefully why any school who is making a 100 year decision as the parlance goes would choose to affiliate with the only conference centered in a region that is bleeding representation to the Atlantic Coast, the Southeast, Texas, and the West Coast? Why is it that your academic standards are being side stepped for the hopeful addition of Oklahoma? I'll tell you why. You need content and branding to sell a diminishing product in a diminishing region. Delany's expansion plan is for population centers and that's for a reason. Contiguity is out as a preference. Academic credentials are lowered as a requirement. And the Big 10 fanboy assaults on web sites speaking about these issues is at an all time high for the 7 years I've been following this. Now you can post what you like here but stick to the facts, keep it civil and you'll be fine.
Your conference went for market additions while the SEC went for market additions with content value. Your self owned network's profits aren't projected to continue to increase into the 2020's in fact they are projected to decline. I would submit that the 448 million paid out in profit sharing by the Big 10 was the same 448 million dollar devaluation in the BTN. So what indeed is going on with the BTN. It appears you are withdrawing the shares of the original 11 contributors and that it in fact it is a divestiture instead of a profit sharing distribution.
So deal with your own issues before you try to tell me mine. And clean up your approach in the process.
(05-21-2017 10:40 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (05-21-2017 07:33 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]An interesting study done in 2012 sheds a little light on how academics (i.e. University presidents and administrators) view Oklahoma (and vice versa). In the study, school leaders were asked to list the schools they consider to be their peers.
This is the same study in which the University of Phoenix listed Harvard as a peer institution.
I can tell you not every school bothered to pass the survey to the president, chancellor, or "significant official" to complete.
(05-23-2017 12:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ] (05-21-2017 10:40 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (05-21-2017 07:33 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]An interesting study done in 2012 sheds a little light on how academics (i.e. University presidents and administrators) view Oklahoma (and vice versa). In the study, school leaders were asked to list the schools they consider to be their peers.
This is the same study in which the University of Phoenix listed Harvard as a peer institution.
I can tell you not every school bothered to pass the survey to the president, chancellor, or "significant official" to complete.
I doubt that any school did. But I would be surprised if the presidents were kept out of the loop and unaware how his subordinate academics were responding (and why). I would guess such a survey would probably fall under the purview of the Provost or someone else viewed as the institution's chief academic officer, who would in turn include the Deans of the various colleges within the university in the decision making process.
But, do you suppose at a school like Oklahoma that Boren would stay quiet on the subject?
BTW, a number of notable schools, including Duke IIRC, didn't participate in the survey.
(05-22-2017 11:01 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2017 09:43 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2017 06:49 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2017 06:43 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2017 06:14 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ]In that case OU will go to the B1G. The long term health of the institution will dictate that (Football as we know it may only have 20 to 30 years of life left, but the school will be there longer)
If the Big Ten lands Oklahoma and Kansas I think it increases pressure on Texas to take a group of 3 to the Pac 12 with them.
For the cost of just 2 conferences FOX could consolidate the best Big 12 properties in the Pac 16 and Big Ten.
And the same can be said of ESPN and they have some hold over Texas and had greater profits by far than FOX last year. So...
And btw the PAC may not want ESPN or FOX if they can get Amazon to take their product, pay them a direct % of the ad revenue and any fees. They own 100% of the PACN and cutting out the middle man and directly keeping a % of the advertising may prove to be a huge upside.
So you're suggesting that ESPN would drive the Big Ten and Pac 12 raid on the big 12? Wouldn't that be a lot of expensive content when you combine it with what they have invested in the SEC and ACC?
As for Amazon I think it's only a matter of time before someone big goes the digital route and I hope it ends up being terribly successful and that the leagues realize that they don't need the 3 and 4 letter networks in this age. A Big Ten/Pac 12 digital platform joint venture would be huge for college sports.
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but ESPN would be the driver for any Big 12 product, particularly Texas, to move to one of the conferences they had a viable interest in. That could yet be the PAC, but likely would be the SEC or ACC.
FOX would make the push for Big 12 product moving to the Big 10.
I do think that both networks have a self interest angle that could drive the break up of the Big 12 sooner than the GOR's expiration. Should they place new product in the ACC, SEC, PAC and Big 10, and do it early, that gives them the opportunity to open the existing contracts, negotiate a new rate, and extend the contracts so that 2023-4 isn't such a pivotal year for Hulu and Amazon to poach rights. By doing this they avoid competition that could drive their overhead in the product even higher than the newly negotiated rates.
I also find the level of talk about this subject to be 4 years premature. It only makes sense if the buzz is to get people acclimated to a much sooner move.
We'll see.
Ok, I see what you are saying now--Texas goes to an ESPN controlled network. From the SECs perspective landing both Texas and Oklahoma would be a content coup and if they could do it without Tech and Okla St that would be huge.
Texas would have to want the move and A&M would have to sign off but in terms of adding content that viewers will watch you can't beat two blue bloods and their would be a ton of money involved. If the SEC Network can deliver Texas more money for tier 3 than the LHN than this is huge. ESPN wins big because they no longer have to pay P5 money for the rest of the Big 12, they dump the money losing LHN, and they are deeply entrenched and invested in the conference with the strongest brands. If they can leverage the SEC to let them manage their digital streaming rights even better--or the SEC tells Mickey that they are retaining those rights for facilitating the deal.
(05-23-2017 05:28 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2017 11:01 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2017 09:43 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2017 06:49 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2017 06:43 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]If the Big Ten lands Oklahoma and Kansas I think it increases pressure on Texas to take a group of 3 to the Pac 12 with them.
For the cost of just 2 conferences FOX could consolidate the best Big 12 properties in the Pac 16 and Big Ten.
And the same can be said of ESPN and they have some hold over Texas and had greater profits by far than FOX last year. So...
And btw the PAC may not want ESPN or FOX if they can get Amazon to take their product, pay them a direct % of the ad revenue and any fees. They own 100% of the PACN and cutting out the middle man and directly keeping a % of the advertising may prove to be a huge upside.
So you're suggesting that ESPN would drive the Big Ten and Pac 12 raid on the big 12? Wouldn't that be a lot of expensive content when you combine it with what they have invested in the SEC and ACC?
As for Amazon I think it's only a matter of time before someone big goes the digital route and I hope it ends up being terribly successful and that the leagues realize that they don't need the 3 and 4 letter networks in this age. A Big Ten/Pac 12 digital platform joint venture would be huge for college sports.
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but ESPN would be the driver for any Big 12 product, particularly Texas, to move to one of the conferences they had a viable interest in. That could yet be the PAC, but likely would be the SEC or ACC.
FOX would make the push for Big 12 product moving to the Big 10.
I do think that both networks have a self interest angle that could drive the break up of the Big 12 sooner than the GOR's expiration. Should they place new product in the ACC, SEC, PAC and Big 10, and do it early, that gives them the opportunity to open the existing contracts, negotiate a new rate, and extend the contracts so that 2023-4 isn't such a pivotal year for Hulu and Amazon to poach rights. By doing this they avoid competition that could drive their overhead in the product even higher than the newly negotiated rates.
I also find the level of talk about this subject to be 4 years premature. It only makes sense if the buzz is to get people acclimated to a much sooner move.
We'll see.
Ok, I see what you are saying now--Texas goes to an ESPN controlled network. From the SECs perspective landing both Texas and Oklahoma would be a content coup and if they could do it without Tech and Okla St that would be huge.
Texas would have to want the move and A&M would have to sign off but in terms of adding content that viewers will watch you can't beat two blue bloods and their would be a ton of money involved. If the SEC Network can deliver Texas more money for tier 3 than the LHN than this is huge. ESPN wins big because they no longer have to pay P5 money for the rest of the Big 12, they dump the money losing LHN, and they are deeply entrenched and invested in the conference with the strongest brands. If they can leverage the SEC to let them manage their digital streaming rights even better--or the SEC tells Mickey that they are retaining those rights for facilitating the deal.
In short yes, something similar to this. Conversely should the Big 10 pick up Kansas and Oklahoma the game is the same. It's just the wait on Texas would probably be longer. But there's a risk there for Oklahoma (none for Kansas). Texas theoretically could still choose the unthinkable (according to message board wisdom) and head to the SEC with Texas Tech. The LHN is still converted, the DFW area still goes to the SEC, and by making that move Texas still gets a profitable way out of the LHN (as could ESPN), and Texas has now limited the number of competing interests in Texas to 2. They negate the conference brand advantage that A&M currently holds and by taking Tech with them they once again reestablish preeminence in Texas. With OU in the B1G and the RRR still held annually Texas enjoys an edge over OU recruiting they haven't held in a while. They get Arkansas, A&M, and Missouri back, they keep Texas Tech in conference and OU out of conference and T.C.U./Rice becomes an OOC game as well. That's not too far off from what their AD wants as a schedule. Toss in an OOC game against a California school or N.D. and a permanent cross division rival in Florida and it becomes a fairly attractive package.
I think Texas and Tulane make more sense to the sec if that is what Texas wants post OU and KU join the big 10. That could appease the academic types and New Orleans sure is a better fit and travel spot than Lubbock. Texas tech might get a whiff from the PAC 12. This is a scernio ou might be worried about, they would be an outlier in the big 10, ok state is regulated to the aac and Texas + Tulane combo greatly increase the sec brand.
(05-23-2017 07:34 PM)bluesox Wrote: [ -> ]I think Texas and Tulane make more sense to the sec if that is what Texas wants post OU and KU join the big 10. That could appease the academic types and New Orleans sure is a better fit and travel spot than Lubbock. Texas tech might get a whiff from the PAC 12. This is a scernio ou might be worried about, they would be an outlier in the big 10, ok state is regulated to the aac and Texas + Tulane combo greatly increase the sec brand.
I have been shocked before in realignment (Rutgers to the Big10) but Tulane getting in the SEC has less of a chance than the whole Sunbelt conference getting invited into the Big10. LSU has made it clear for many years now that they would no longer associate themselves with the SEC if it ever got to the point that Tulane was even a consideration.
The new Orleans market already is LSU territory. Any local people from the area have more insight?
(05-23-2017 07:53 PM)StinkyDuck Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2017 07:34 PM)bluesox Wrote: [ -> ]I think Texas and Tulane make more sense to the sec if that is what Texas wants post OU and KU join the big 10. That could appease the academic types and New Orleans sure is a better fit and travel spot than Lubbock. Texas tech might get a whiff from the PAC 12. This is a scernio ou might be worried about, they would be an outlier in the big 10, ok state is regulated to the aac and Texas + Tulane combo greatly increase the sec brand.
I have been shocked before in realignment (Rutgers to the Big10) but Tulane getting in the SEC has less of a chance than the whole Sunbelt conference getting invited into the Big10. LSU has made it clear for many years now that they would no longer associate themselves with the SEC if it ever got to the point that Tulane was even a consideration.
The new Orleans market already is LSU territory. Any local people from the area have more insight?
This is absolutely the case. Even Georgia Tech would stand a poor chance of getting in under any circumstances short of some kind of merger. Neither deliver their city, both cities are controlled by the the SEC team in the respective states, and they are the only two schools to ever choose to leave the SEC.
Sewanne left the sec. Holding grudges is dumb in most cases. If Texas told the sec will join if you invite Tulane, than the sec will invite Tulane to partner with Texas. The whole point is Texas might want to beef up the academic image of the sec if they joined. Also, if they are in the fold, having a weaker athletic program as a partner is fine. You can replace Tulane with rice or smu if you want but I think Tulane works best
Sec west : ole miss, miss st, lsu, Tulane, Arkansas, Missouri, Texas, Texas a&m
Sec east: Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, Uga, UF, Alabama, auburn