(11-06-2013 04:36 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Viewed from a network perspective, I think both FOX/ESPN have as winnable hands as one could get with events that are within their control. Neither can influence the economy nor can either do anything about dwindling attendance. But I think both have maximized viewership as best as the can within the CFB sphere. FOX has the PAC and the B1G and B12 partially while ESPN has the ACC, SEC and the other half of the B12. Each has a rabid fan base (SEC, B1G) along with major population centers(ACC, PAC).

JR, I know you mentioned in another thread that while the ACC geographically has the largest population base that hasn't been monetized, but ESPN doesn't need fans at games to get paid. They just need to be able to justify the WWL stations on basic cable packages. You don't need rabid fans to make that happen, just enough who give a damn to threaten to cancel their cable if it's picked up. Its the same strategy FOX will use on the West Coast with the PAC and their various RSN's.

FOX doesn't have the Big Ten. They are partners in the Big Ten Network but ESPN, once again, has first choice of all Big Ten matchups.

Just because The Big Ten doesn't fully sell out to ESPN doesn't mean they don't have a strong relationship.

H1,

You're correct and I'm not ignoring the relationship the B1G with ESPN. Clearly the WWL is #1 and with the distribution the Mouse can leverage, Delaney is not so prideful to alienate that partnership.

JR,

You don't think 2.65 million is enough viewers for ESPN to leverage? FOX seems to be making inroad on the West Coast with only the 2.1 million you mentioned.

(11-07-2013 09:21 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  H1,

You're correct and I'm not ignoring the relationship the B1G with ESPN. Clearly the WWL is #1 and with the distribution the Mouse can leverage, Delaney is not so prideful to alienate that partnership.

JR,

You don't think 2.65 million is enough viewers for ESPN to leverage? FOX seems to be making inroad on the West Coast with only the 2.1 million you mentioned.

Vandiver, the PAC couldn't enhance anyone's payouts so far this year with what the PAC network is producing, which is very little. It is mostly due to viewership. I think in the end that is why Texas is reticent for a move to the West, but a big reason that the networks may relent on that move eventually. You can't do anything with the PAC. They are too remote to break up and parse out and the only conference out there that could help them in ratings is the Big 12. Which at 2.3 million viewers for such a small footprint could help the PAC achieve some semblance of parity with the Big 10 should the two be essentially merged. While the business model in the Big 12 is totally different from that of the PAC the network involvement is essentially the same. FOX and ESPN are fairly close to 50/50 involvement in both. I can see the networks leveraging such a move into partial ownership of the PAC. I strongly suspect that each detests the self ownership that the PAC has to a certain extent, and due to their low numbers may conversely be glad they don't currently have ownership.

As to the ACC they have the greatest footprint in the U.S. and can't do much with it. ESPN is trimming overhead. Eventually they will package their best product in the ACC with the SEC and Big 10. They'll do that to leverage waning control in the Big 10 and cement the best product in the nation not by adding football strength per se as much as basketball credentials for the SECN that they are heavily invested in.

As much as I would love to see a 4 x 16 model it would always have 1 conference significantly weaker than the others. I still think that within a matter of 5 - 8 years we will see the beginnings of a shift to a 3 x 20 model in which one or two of the conferences could go to 3 x 24.

I know it's huge but the upper level control over college football is in place through the networks. In that regard we are becoming more NFL like albeit very slowly and we will never, because of the diversity of schools, be exactly like the NFL which is a good thing. But with management at the top structuring college ball into a more marketable product we are nevertheless going to see bigger conferences in which our old version of conferences will become divisions. If there is a 24 team conference it will happen in the SEC or PAC, especially should the PAC make a bold move like simply merging with the Big 12 and then inviting to market additions like Nevada and New Mexico. (I think taking 7 Big 12 schools is more likely should they make this kind of move and therefore a 20 team PAC is more likely). 24 in the SEC is likely because we have too many state schools that don't fit into the Big 10 and the PAC is to remote to be an option. West Virginia, Louisville, and Miami are three such schools that may need a home in a 3 x 20 world.

But none of this is being driven by conference presidents, commissioners, or pride. It is all being driven by colleges who need new revenue streams and networks who are taking advantage of a window of opportunity to provide that revenue in exchange for restructuring the product into a more marketable and profitable product.

(11-07-2013 11:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-07-2013 09:21 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  H1,

You're correct and I'm not ignoring the relationship the B1G with ESPN. Clearly the WWL is #1 and with the distribution the Mouse can leverage, Delaney is not so prideful to alienate that partnership.

JR,

You don't think 2.65 million is enough viewers for ESPN to leverage? FOX seems to be making inroad on the West Coast with only the 2.1 million you mentioned.

Vandiver, the PAC couldn't enhance anyone's payouts so far this year with what the PAC network is producing, which is very little. It is mostly due to viewership. I think in the end that is why Texas is reticent for a move to the West, but a big reason that the networks may relent on that move eventually. You can't do anything with the PAC. They are too remote to break up and parse out and the only conference out there that could help them in ratings is the Big 12. Which at 2.3 million viewers for such a small footprint could help the PAC achieve some semblance of parity with the Big 10 should the two be essentially merged. While the business model in the Big 12 is totally different from that of the PAC the network involvement is essentially the same. FOX and ESPN are fairly close to 50/50 involvement in both. I can see the networks leveraging such a move into partial ownership of the PAC. I strongly suspect that each detests the self ownership that the PAC has to a certain extent, and due to their low numbers may conversely be glad they don't currently have ownership.

As to the ACC they have the greatest footprint in the U.S. and can't do much with it. ESPN is trimming overhead. Eventually they will package their best product in the ACC with the SEC and Big 10. They'll do that to leverage waning control in the Big 10 and cement the best product in the nation not by adding football strength per se as much as basketball credentials for the SECN that they are heavily invested in.

As much as I would love to see a 4 x 16 model it would always have 1 conference significantly weaker than the others. I still think that within a matter of 5 - 8 years we will see the beginnings of a shift to a 3 x 20 model in which one or two of the conferences could go to 3 x 24.

I know it's huge but the upper level control over college football is in place through the networks. In that regard we are becoming more NFL like albeit very slowly and we will never, because of the diversity of schools, be exactly like the NFL which is a good thing. But with management at the top structuring college ball into a more marketable product we are nevertheless going to see bigger conferences in which our old version of conferences will become divisions. If there is a 24 team conference it will happen in the SEC or PAC, especially should the PAC make a bold move like simply merging with the Big 12 and then inviting two market additions like Nevada and New Mexico. (I think taking 7 Big 12 schools is more likely should they make this kind of move and therefore a 20 team PAC is more likely). 24 in the SEC is likely because we have too many state schools that don't fit into the Big 10 and the PAC is too remote to be an option. West Virginia, Louisville, and Miami are three such schools that may need a home in a 3 x 20 world.

But none of this is being driven by conference presidents, commissioners, or pride. It is all being driven by colleges who need new revenue streams and networks who are taking advantage of a window of opportunity to provide that revenue in exchange for restructuring the product into a more marketable and profitable product.

You and I agree on everything in this post. We usually do until you start talking about the SEC adding Pitt, Cinn, TCU, Baylor or OSU without UT and OU.

Again, nice succinct post on where we might be heading.

(11-09-2013 01:30 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(11-07-2013 11:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-07-2013 09:21 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  H1,

You're correct and I'm not ignoring the relationship the B1G with ESPN. Clearly the WWL is #1 and with the distribution the Mouse can leverage, Delaney is not so prideful to alienate that partnership.

JR,

You don't think 2.65 million is enough viewers for ESPN to leverage? FOX seems to be making inroad on the West Coast with only the 2.1 million you mentioned.

Vandiver, the PAC couldn't enhance anyone's payouts so far this year with what the PAC network is producing, which is very little. It is mostly due to viewership. I think in the end that is why Texas is reticent for a move to the West, but a big reason that the networks may relent on that move eventually. You can't do anything with the PAC. They are too remote to break up and parse out and the only conference out there that could help them in ratings is the Big 12. Which at 2.3 million viewers for such a small footprint could help the PAC achieve some semblance of parity with the Big 10 should the two be essentially merged. While the business model in the Big 12 is totally different from that of the PAC the network involvement is essentially the same. FOX and ESPN are fairly close to 50/50 involvement in both. I can see the networks leveraging such a move into partial ownership of the PAC. I strongly suspect that each detests the self ownership that the PAC has to a certain extent, and due to their low numbers may conversely be glad they don't currently have ownership.

As to the ACC they have the greatest footprint in the U.S. and can't do much with it. ESPN is trimming overhead. Eventually they will package their best product in the ACC with the SEC and Big 10. They'll do that to leverage waning control in the Big 10 and cement the best product in the nation not by adding football strength per se as much as basketball credentials for the SECN that they are heavily invested in.

As much as I would love to see a 4 x 16 model it would always have 1 conference significantly weaker than the others. I still think that within a matter of 5 - 8 years we will see the beginnings of a shift to a 3 x 20 model in which one or two of the conferences could go to 3 x 24.

I know it's huge but the upper level control over college football is in place through the networks. In that regard we are becoming more NFL like albeit very slowly and we will never, because of the diversity of schools, be exactly like the NFL which is a good thing. But with management at the top structuring college ball into a more marketable product we are nevertheless going to see bigger conferences in which our old version of conferences will become divisions. If there is a 24 team conference it will happen in the SEC or PAC, especially should the PAC make a bold move like simply merging with the Big 12 and then inviting two market additions like Nevada and New Mexico. (I think taking 7 Big 12 schools is more likely should they make this kind of move and therefore a 20 team PAC is more likely). 24 in the SEC is likely because we have too many state schools that don't fit into the Big 10 and the PAC is too remote to be an option. West Virginia, Louisville, and Miami are three such schools that may need a home in a 3 x 20 world.

But none of this is being driven by conference presidents, commissioners, or pride. It is all being driven by colleges who need new revenue streams and networks who are taking advantage of a window of opportunity to provide that revenue in exchange for restructuring the product into a more marketable and profitable product.

You and I agree on everything in this post. We usually do until you start talking about the SEC adding Pitt, Cinn, TCU, Baylor or OSU without UT and OU.

Again, nice succinct post on where we might be heading.

Yeah, I only talk about Baylor, Pitt, Cincy, TCU, etc, when I'm discussing a situation in which no further movement from the ACC is possible. In that scenario the elimination of the 5th division nets all remaining teams in the new P4 about 1.5 million per year additionally by eliminating 1 share of the pie and then dividing that among slightly fewer teams without the former conference's overhead share. 4 is much more economical than 5.

But what I said above is true. There will never be 4 conferences on fairly equal footing. The only model that brings any balance between the conferences is the 3 conference model. And that will be lucrative because the groupings will save on travel, preserve what most fans want, cut out yet another share of bureaucratic overhead, (plus the sale of former conference properties for revenue division), and make the purchase of all three conference networks essential to the sports fan. With increased playoff shares and increase markets, together we can make much more than we do now. Reaching payouts of 50 million per team per conference per year is not unobtainable even as the market levels out. True separation would mean more basketball revenue, and the trimming of the networks' costs in paying television contracts to so many different FBS schools will enable their streamlined and enhanced investment in the top 60 to 72 schools to reach a higher rate while their overall investment will be lower in college football is lower.

***********************************************

[/size]
There has been a new rumor making its rounds on some other sites lately that is stating that Oklahoma and Oklahoma State may be in discussion again about coming to the SEC as a pair. Unrelated rumors have the ACC looking still at the possibility of moving to 18 with Texas and two other possible schools, perhaps Navy and West Virginia or another.

How would this board feel about the SEC making a move to 18 by taking additional schools from the Big 12? Would you like to move to 16 and stop with 4 divisions of 4, or 2 divisions of 8? If you favor 18 would you prefer three divisions of 6?

If we took just two schools from the Big 12 who would you want?

If we took 4 schools from the Big 12 who would you want?

Oklahoma and Texas, or Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, or Oklahoma and Kansas, or Oklahoma and West Virginia would all be suitable to me in varying degrees.

At 4 I think it's just mop up time. Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and West Virginia are the most profitable programs in that order in the Big 12. I would be fine with taking the four. But if Texas went to the ACC who would we take? [/font][/b]

(12-11-2013 10:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ***********************************************

[/size]
There has been a new rumor making its rounds on some other sites lately that is stating that Oklahoma and Oklahoma State may be in discussion again about coming to the SEC as a pair. Unrelated rumors have the ACC looking still at the possibility of moving to 18 with Texas and two other possible schools, perhaps Navy and West Virginia or another.

How would this board feel about the SEC making a move to 18 by taking additional schools from the Big 12? Would you like to move to 16 and stop with 4 divisions of 4, or 2 divisions of 8? If you favor 18 would you prefer three divisions of 6?

If we took just two schools from the Big 12 who would you want?

If we took 4 schools from the Big 12 who would you want?

Oklahoma and Texas, or Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, or Oklahoma and Kansas, or Oklahoma and West Virginia would all be suitable to me in varying degrees.

At 4 I think it's just mop up time. Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and West Virginia are the most profitable programs in that order in the Big 12. I would be fine with taking the four. But if Texas went to the ACC who would we take? [/font][/b]

Two Okie schools are fine. That takes us to 16 and leaves room for a couple eastern schools if the opportunity arises down the road., but I would take Kansas too if the deal comes to that. OU, OSU, KU, bundle nicely with Arky, Missouri, and The Aggies. Just keep Texas out of this.

(12-11-2013 10:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There has been a new rumor making its rounds on some other sites lately that is stating that Oklahoma and Oklahoma State may be in discussion again about coming to the SEC as a pair. Unrelated rumors have the ACC looking still at the possibility of moving to 18 with Texas and two other possible schools, perhaps Navy and West Virginia or another.

How would this board feel about the SEC making a move to 18 by taking additional schools from the Big 12? Would you like to move to 16 and stop with 4 divisions of 4, or 2 divisions of 8? If you favor 18 would you prefer three divisions of 6?

If we took just two schools from the Big 12 who would you want?

If we took 4 schools from the Big 12 who would you want?

Oklahoma and Texas, or Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, or Oklahoma and Kansas, or Oklahoma and West Virginia would all be suitable to me in varying degrees.

At 4 I think it's just mop up time. Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and West Virginia are the most profitable programs in that order in the Big 12. I would be fine with taking the four. But if Texas went to the ACC who would we take?

As you know I'm a fan of the 3 division set-up. So if the SEC expands again it should be to 18. Second, I would only expand if the conference was getting a King and a couple of princes. OU and OKST obviously fit the bill. If the ACC is able to give Texas a ND type deal, then the last two picks would be WVU and ECU as I think getting into NC is key for the SEC.

Finally, I have no idea where these rumors of Navy football to the ACC are coming from, but they are illogical and short-sighted. This isn't to say that Navy AD would be against it, or that the relationship Annapolis has with ND isn't being leveraged as it certainly appears to be. But the last thing the ACC needs is weaker version of WF, which is all Navy would amount to in the ACC.

(12-12-2013 12:29 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 10:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There has been a new rumor making its rounds on some other sites lately that is stating that Oklahoma and Oklahoma State may be in discussion again about coming to the SEC as a pair. Unrelated rumors have the ACC looking still at the possibility of moving to 18 with Texas and two other possible schools, perhaps Navy and West Virginia or another.

How would this board feel about the SEC making a move to 18 by taking additional schools from the Big 12? Would you like to move to 16 and stop with 4 divisions of 4, or 2 divisions of 8? If you favor 18 would you prefer three divisions of 6?

If we took just two schools from the Big 12 who would you want?

If we took 4 schools from the Big 12 who would you want?

Oklahoma and Texas, or Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, or Oklahoma and Kansas, or Oklahoma and West Virginia would all be suitable to me in varying degrees.

At 4 I think it's just mop up time. Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and West Virginia are the most profitable programs in that order in the Big 12. I would be fine with taking the four. But if Texas went to the ACC who would we take?

As you know I'm a fan of the 3 division set-up. So if the SEC expands again it should be to 18. Second, I would only expand if the conference was getting a King and a couple of princes. OU and OKST obviously fit the bill. If the ACC is able to give Texas a ND type deal, then the last two picks would be WVU and ECU as I think getting into NC is key for the SEC.

Finally, I have no idea where these rumors of Navy football to the ACC are coming from, but they are illogical and short-sighted. This isn't to say that Navy AD would be against it, or that the relationship Annapolis has with ND isn't being leveraged as it certainly appears to be. But the last thing the ACC needs is weaker version of WF, which is all Navy would amount to in the ACC.

It's not my rumor, but the ties to ND and a presence in the state of Maryland I think are behind it. I'm still not sold that the academies want to be in any division higher than what the G5 would be without the BCS conferences. Personally I think the Texas deal would work a lot better with Baylor and T.C.U..

I would be keen on OU, OSU, KU or KSU, and WVU to get to 18. That allows Mizzou to be in the West and Auburn and Alabama to be in a Central with L.S.U. the Mississippi's, and Vanderbilt.

Another wild thought I've had is OU, OSU, KU, and Rice. The Owls would balance Vandy fairly well. That gives us one King, one King in waiting, one Prince, and Bonafide academics.

(12-12-2013 12:28 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 10:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ***********************************************

[/size]
There has been a new rumor making its rounds on some other sites lately that is stating that Oklahoma and Oklahoma State may be in discussion again about coming to the SEC as a pair. Unrelated rumors have the ACC looking still at the possibility of moving to 18 with Texas and two other possible schools, perhaps Navy and West Virginia or another.

How would this board feel about the SEC making a move to 18 by taking additional schools from the Big 12? Would you like to move to 16 and stop with 4 divisions of 4, or 2 divisions of 8? If you favor 18 would you prefer three divisions of 6?

If we took just two schools from the Big 12 who would you want?

If we took 4 schools from the Big 12 who would you want?

Oklahoma and Texas, or Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, or Oklahoma and Kansas, or Oklahoma and West Virginia would all be suitable to me in varying degrees.

At 4 I think it's just mop up time. Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and West Virginia are the most profitable programs in that order in the Big 12. I would be fine with taking the four. But if Texas went to the ACC who would we take? [/font][/b]

Two Okie schools are fine. That takes us to 16 and leaves room for a couple eastern schools if the opportunity arises down the road., but I would take Kansas too if the deal comes to that. OU, OSU, KU, bundle nicely with Arky, Missouri, and The Aggies. Just keep Texas out of this.

Cool, but who's #4?

My thought, JR, is if the SEC is seeking to double up in a state with a relatively low population, a lower end academic (OSU), and a cultural outlier status, they are building toward a league, not a conference. A conference in the sense that we are familiar with over the last 120 years would hold out for just Oklahoma, Texas, UNC, or UVA. A league, though, seeks to dominate, even if it means trimming off the fat cats to feed the alley cats (see MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, etc.). What constitutes an SEC league? Including every major university in what is considered (1) the Southeast, then (2) Southern, then (3) borderline Southern.

If we bring in only Oklahoma, no problem; we are still a selective conference. If we bring in only Oklahoma State but land another king as a result (Texas or Kansas), fine; we made a concession that is still a positive outcome. If we bring in both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State without anything else attached, though, I have serious issues with not having brought in FSU and Clemson when the ACC was all but dead save for the Holy Ghost of ESPN filling their nostrils and keeping the other conferences at bay. I am fine with bringing in OU/OSU as a pair as long as we are on the road to at least 24 schools in a league that absolutely has every major Southeastern school in it (FSU, Clemson, GT, Miami, UNC, NC State, Duke, and Wake Forest). Inclusion of Southern schools to get to 32 should also be in the long term plan (Tulane,Texas, Baylor, Rice, Texas Tech, Va. Tech, UVA, Louisville). Borderline southern should then be the next goal (WVU, Maryland, Delaware, fills in from next tier Southern like TCU).

Maybe I am reading too much into it or overreacting, but taking in OU and OSU as a standalone pair is a big departure from the SEC expansion results since the early 90's. Don't get me wrong; I would love to have an SEC league. I just don't see it.

(12-12-2013 12:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It's not my rumor, but the ties to ND and a presence in the state of Maryland I think are behind it. I'm still not sold that the academies want to be in any division higher than what the G5 would be without the BCS conferences. Personally I think the Texas deal would work a lot better with Baylor and T.C.U..

I would be keen on OU, OSU, KU or KSU, and WVU to get to 18. That allows Mizzou to be in the West and Auburn and Alabama to be in a Central with L.S.U. the Mississippi's, and Vanderbilt.

Another wild thought I've had is OU, OSU, KU, and Rice. The Owls would balance Vandy fairly well. That gives us one King, one King in waiting, one Prince, and Bonafide academics.

I know its not your rumor, I've seen it in the ACC boards as well. Its just hard to take seriously considering Navy hasn't even started AAC conference play yet. I think G5 on the East Coast might be out of Navy's reach, but we'll see.

As for Rice in the SEC, while they do bring the academic cache, I don't know if such credentials are worth spending the slot on in a replicated market.

(12-12-2013 12:09 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 12:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It's not my rumor, but the ties to ND and a presence in the state of Maryland I think are behind it. I'm still not sold that the academies want to be in any division higher than what the G5 would be without the BCS conferences. Personally I think the Texas deal would work a lot better with Baylor and T.C.U..

I would be keen on OU, OSU, KU or KSU, and WVU to get to 18. That allows Mizzou to be in the West and Auburn and Alabama to be in a Central with L.S.U. the Mississippi's, and Vanderbilt.

Another wild thought I've had is OU, OSU, KU, and Rice. The Owls would balance Vandy fairly well. That gives us one King, one King in waiting, one Prince, and Bonafide academics.

I know its not your rumor, I've seen it in the ACC boards as well. Its just hard to take seriously considering Navy hasn't even started AAC conference play yet. I think G5 on the East Coast might be out of Navy's reach, but we'll see.

As for Rice in the SEC, while they do bring the academic cache, I don't know if such credentials are worth spending the slot on in a replicated market.

I'm sorry to jump in on a good discussion, but..........

Conference=replicated markets
League=New markets

You just can't have it both ways. In a lot of ways, I think that is why we have hit a pause. Hard choices will have to be made, in that if we all go the league route, the only way to get conferences back is to blow everything up and start over........again.

(12-12-2013 01:04 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 12:09 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 12:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It's not my rumor, but the ties to ND and a presence in the state of Maryland I think are behind it. I'm still not sold that the academies want to be in any division higher than what the G5 would be without the BCS conferences. Personally I think the Texas deal would work a lot better with Baylor and T.C.U..

I would be keen on OU, OSU, KU or KSU, and WVU to get to 18. That allows Mizzou to be in the West and Auburn and Alabama to be in a Central with L.S.U. the Mississippi's, and Vanderbilt.

Another wild thought I've had is OU, OSU, KU, and Rice. The Owls would balance Vandy fairly well. That gives us one King, one King in waiting, one Prince, and Bonafide academics.

I know its not your rumor, I've seen it in the ACC boards as well. Its just hard to take seriously considering Navy hasn't even started AAC conference play yet. I think G5 on the East Coast might be out of Navy's reach, but we'll see.

As for Rice in the SEC, while they do bring the academic cache, I don't know if such credentials are worth spending the slot on in a replicated market.

I'm sorry to jump in on a good discussion, but..........

Conference=replicated markets
League=New markets

You just can't have it both ways. In a lot of ways, I think that is why we have hit a pause. Hard choices will have to be made, in that if we all go the league route, the only way to get conferences back is to blow everything up and start over........again.

Bolded is not always true... both come down to value. Markets are replicated in New York, Chicago, L.A., and the Bay Area for MLB, NBA, NHL, and/or NFL. Those are leagues. College conferences probably mimic professional league divisions as much as anything. Usually, geography is a driving factor, but the lines are blurred to take in cultural or other considerations (e.g. Cowboys in NFC East, Red Wings in Atlantic, Astros to AL West to be with the Rangers).

(12-12-2013 11:14 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  My thought, JR, is if the SEC is seeking to double up in a state with a relatively low population, a lower end academic (OSU), and a cultural outlier status, they are building toward a league, not a conference. A conference in the sense that we are familiar with over the last 120 years would hold out for just Oklahoma, Texas, UNC, or UVA. A league, though, seeks to dominate, even if it means trimming off the fat cats to feed the alley cats (see MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, etc.). What constitutes an SEC league? Including every major university in what is considered (1) the Southeast, then (2) Southern, then (3) borderline Southern.

If we bring in only Oklahoma, no problem; we are still a selective conference. If we bring in only Oklahoma State but land another king as a result (Texas or Kansas), fine; we made a concession that is still a positive outcome. If we bring in both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State without anything else attached, though, I have serious issues with not having brought in FSU and Clemson when the ACC was all but dead save for the Holy Ghost of ESPN filling their nostrils and keeping the other conferences at bay. I am fine with bringing in OU/OSU as a pair as long as we are on the road to at least 24 schools in a league that absolutely has every major Southeastern school in it (FSU, Clemson, GT, Miami, UNC, NC State, Duke, and Wake Forest). Inclusion of Southern schools to get to 32 should also be in the long term plan (Tulane,Texas, Baylor, Rice, Texas Tech, Va. Tech, UVA, Louisville). Borderline southern should then be the next goal (WVU, Maryland, Delaware, fills in from next tier Southern like TCU).

Maybe I am reading too much into it or overreacting, but taking in OU and OSU as a standalone pair is a big departure from the SEC expansion results since the early 90's. Don't get me wrong; I would love to have an SEC league. I just don't see it.

Well, if the ACC is off the table the top 5 schools of the Big 12 ten are in order: Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, West Virginia. If we are moving to 16 the choices would be Texas and Oklahoma. If Texas wants an indy deal then the two choices might be Oklahoma and Kansas/West Virginia. But if West Virginia goes to the ACC with Texas and one other your choices are now Oklahoma/Kansas, or Oklahoma/Oklahoma State. If it is truly terminal at 16 then yes you take Oklahoma and Kansas if you can. If there is the possibility for further expansion beyond 16 you take Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. That builds a wall in between the Big 10 and Texas and the PAC 12 and Texas.

That wall is both physical and psychological. If Texas goes anywhere else and leaves the two Oklahoma schools and A&M in the SEC then they can kiss their state status goodbye. All the eyes of Texas would be upon the games between the Aggies, Cowboys and Sooners. They certainly won't be upon the Big 10, PAC, or even the ACC unless Texas takes several Texas schools with them.

As long as Texas is in either the ACC or SEC future alliances will keep their avenues to play Oklahoma and A&M open and thereby keep them in the good graces of their home state. You take Oklahoma State to get Oklahoma and when you do that you keep Texas in an ESPN conference and the corporate Mouse will pay you for that.

(12-12-2013 12:09 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 12:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It's not my rumor, but the ties to ND and a presence in the state of Maryland I think are behind it. I'm still not sold that the academies want to be in any division higher than what the G5 would be without the BCS conferences. Personally I think the Texas deal would work a lot better with Baylor and T.C.U..

I would be keen on OU, OSU, KU or KSU, and WVU to get to 18. That allows Mizzou to be in the West and Auburn and Alabama to be in a Central with L.S.U. the Mississippi's, and Vanderbilt.

Another wild thought I've had is OU, OSU, KU, and Rice. The Owls would balance Vandy fairly well. That gives us one King, one King in waiting, one Prince, and Bonafide academics.

I know its not your rumor, I've seen it in the ACC boards as well. Its just hard to take seriously considering Navy hasn't even started AAC conference play yet. I think G5 on the East Coast might be out of Navy's reach, but we'll see.

As for Rice in the SEC, while they do bring the academic cache, I don't know if such credentials are worth spending the slot on in a replicated market.

What you say is true, but we also have to develop the SECU if we are to be enticing to future top academic schools that we are interested in acquiring. But I do agree that at this juncture another pedigree school with a new market would be better. In the end I think if we do supersize that we will need slots for schools like Georgia Tech, Rice, and Tulane.

Where would Texas Tech go in these scenarios? I could see the state legislature eventually allowing UT and Tech to leave TCU and Baylor behind if it meant more money for the two publics, but I don't see UT getting to leave without Tech finding a solid landing ground.

OU, OSU, Tech, and either Kansas or West Virginia to the SEC? Could Tech tag along with UT to the ACC? I'd think the SEC would be the more likely possibility for Tech than the ACC.

(12-12-2013 02:40 PM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  Where would Texas Tech go in these scenarios? I could see the state legislature eventually allowing UT and Tech to leave TCU and Baylor behind if it meant more money for the two publics, but I don't see UT getting to leave without Tech finding a solid landing ground.

OU, OSU, Tech, and either Kansas or West Virginia to the SEC? Could Tech tag along with UT to the ACC? I'd think the SEC would be the more likely possibility for Tech than the ACC.

If we see a move of Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State to the SEC then certainly Tech could be a part of that. But getting the SEC to agree to take a 3rd school from a state could be difficult at this time. I believe that if we see the SEC or ACC or both grow to 18 teams each that eventually what you will see is what BBB was talking about, a league. Inside that league would be essentially 2 conferences. If we come to that then Texas Tech, Baylor, Oklahoma Oklahoma State, Texas, and West Virginia might all get included. But that is much further down the line.

Initially the SEC and to a lesser extent the ACC will go after Flagship schools, Top earners, and Top content generators, and always they will try to pair those qualities with new markets.

What if we took Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to get to 16 understanding that the pressure would build upon Texas to join as well. Then as a traveling partner to Texas we help Florida State financially to get out of the ACC. By doing that we lock down the two most populous states in the South and own 6 of the top 10 most profitable programs in the nation. That is twice as many as the Big 10 would have. At 18 we could then afford to wait on North Carolina and either Virginia Tech or Duke since the result of the loss of Florida State would severely curtail their football revenue.

Well nothing is going to happen on this front without ESPN properties taking matters into their own hands. There are a couple of approaches to that which could be quite effective, but they would require going beyond 16 schools each in the SEC and ACC to accomplish the feat without having to rely on the Big 10 or PAC's cooperation. Remember 8 votes dissolves the Big 12. Let's ignore Notre Dame's status for these purposes and understand that both the ACC and SEC could move to 18 each full members and accomplish our purposes.

Option 1. The SEC takes Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Baylor. Why?

That gives us three new states, two AAU members, two national brands, and 4 solid basketball programs.

The ACC takes Texas, Oklahoma State, Kansas State and West Virginia. Why? That's 4 new states and a network just waiting to get morphed into something more profitable. It is also 4 decent football teams to add to ACC's profile.

The problems:

For the SEC it seems a bit out of our footprint but actually they are all contiguous so once you get used to the idea the extra presence in Texas and the addition of 8 million more viewers is still a good thing.

For the ACC West Virginia reconnects their footprint, but Texas, Oklahoma State and Kansas State become outliers. However they could be paired with F.S.U., Miami and Georgia Tech to form a six team division.

Option 2. The SEC adds Kansas, and Oklahoma/Oklahoma State. They also add Virginia Tech and N.C. State.

The ACC adds Texas, Oklahoma State/Oklahoma, Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, West Virginia.

ACC West:
Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Miami, Oklahoma, Texas
(this gives Oklahoma and Texas access to Florida recruiting and keeps the RRR intact. Oklahoma, Kansas State, and Texas have cross over end of season rivalries with Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Texas A&M of the SEC.)
ACC South:
Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Wake Forest

ACC North:
Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, West Virginia

SEC West:
Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M

SEC Central:
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

SEC East:
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech

The Big 12 is defunct and the ACC and SEC split 1/4 of 1/5 in playoff money plus added bowl contracts. The ACC adds 38 million viewers in 5 states, get a network and in one move reaches economic parity with the Big 10 and SEC. Texas Tech and T.C.U. are eventually absorbed into the PAC. The SEC gains over 19 million viewers and keeps its footprint contiguous.