(12-06-2014 05:13 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-06-2014 03:43 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(12-06-2014 03:04 PM)completely_bias Wrote:  

(12-06-2014 02:10 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(12-06-2014 02:00 PM)completely_bias Wrote:  How can you add Cincinnati to South Eastern Conference when the when the program is located in a completely different geographic location?

Because Missouri and Texas just screams Southeastern.

anything west of Texas would be pushing it

Well, the Confederacy did invade New Mexico. How about New Mexico State?

(12-06-2014 03:16 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-06-2014 03:04 PM)completely_bias Wrote:  

(12-06-2014 02:10 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Because Missouri and Texas just screams Southeastern.

anything west of Texas would be pushing it

The Houston area of Texas could probably be considered more Southeastern in culture than Southwestern thus why The Aggies fit.

Anything west of that though, definitely Southwest not Southeast. Texas is far too large and far too diverse to make the statement that you did.

I do agree with you that the best bet for the SEC would be Texas and Oklahoma, that is a no brainer and would be the case for any conference.

My question to you though would be whether or not you actually believe that could happen?

As you said, culture doesn't always recognize geography. I cannot see Texas giving up its kingdom in the BIG 12 for a fiefdom in the SEC. Even the deposed emperors of the Latin Empire begged across Europe and sold holy relics to regain their kingdom instead of settling for a principality.

But with the ACC, Texas would still maintain complete control of scheduling 6-7 of their regular season games. They would still be able to play all the Big 12 teams that they actually care about while at the same time getting out of the Midwest and moving into more lucrative markets.

From XLance's overtones I don't think the Research Triangle crowd wants to give up their preeminence in the ACC by letting the Horns "hook" up with the Irish as special children.

You will have to pardon me for this but XLance's opinion in that does not mean that is the actual situation at hand. I don't see how Texas takes over in this situation. Sounds like a faulty argument to make.

(12-06-2014 06:14 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You will have to pardon me for this but XLance's opinion in that does not mean that is the actual situation at hand. I don't see how Texas takes over in this situation. Sounds like a faulty argument to make.

The irrationality of the powerful who must learn to fit into a more eclectic group is frequently faulty in premise but real nonetheless.

(12-06-2014 06:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-06-2014 06:14 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You will have to pardon me for this but XLance's opinion in that does not mean that is the actual situation at hand. I don't see how Texas takes over in this situation. Sounds like a faulty argument to make.

The irrationality of the powerful who must learn to fit into a more eclectic group is frequently faulty in premise but real nonetheless.

You think the Longhorn elite are more eclectic than Tar Heel Elite? I would definitely say Longhorn Elite are more full of themselves but eclectic?

(12-06-2014 05:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-06-2014 05:13 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-06-2014 03:43 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(12-06-2014 03:04 PM)completely_bias Wrote:  

(12-06-2014 02:10 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Because Missouri and Texas just screams Southeastern.

anything west of Texas would be pushing it

Well, the Confederacy did invade New Mexico. How about New Mexico State?

(12-06-2014 03:16 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-06-2014 03:04 PM)completely_bias Wrote:  anything west of Texas would be pushing it

The Houston area of Texas could probably be considered more Southeastern in culture than Southwestern thus why The Aggies fit.

Anything west of that though, definitely Southwest not Southeast. Texas is far too large and far too diverse to make the statement that you did.

I do agree with you that the best bet for the SEC would be Texas and Oklahoma, that is a no brainer and would be the case for any conference.

My question to you though would be whether or not you actually believe that could happen?

As you said, culture doesn't always recognize geography. I cannot see Texas giving up its kingdom in the BIG 12 for a fiefdom in the SEC. Even the deposed emperors of the Latin Empire begged across Europe and sold holy relics to regain their kingdom instead of settling for a principality.

But with the ACC, Texas would still maintain complete control of scheduling 6-7 of their regular season games. They would still be able to play all the Big 12 teams that they actually care about while at the same time getting out of the Midwest and moving into more lucrative markets.

From XLance's overtones I don't think the Research Triangle crowd wants to give up their preeminence in the ACC by letting the Horns "hook" up with the Irish as special children.

In their dreams!

(12-06-2014 04:06 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(12-06-2014 02:00 PM)completely_bias Wrote:  

(07-06-2013 10:21 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I would add Oklahoma for sure. But I would add Cincinnati before I added anyone else. The potential market is just to great to pass up.

How can you add Cincinnati to South Eastern Conference when the when the program is located in a completely different geographic location?

Not so completely different. Cincinnati is about 80 miles north of UK's campus in Lexington, KY. That said, UC probably wouldn't be a good fit with the SEC, and the SEC certainly wouldn't be interested in recruiting Greater Cincinnati's high school football talent. Better to let sleeping dogs lie.

A year or two ago we have a 12-15 page thread on whether Cincinnati was in the South or not. I think being a river city much like Louisville and St. Louis puts the Queen City at a cultural intersection that if you squint just right you could make them fit in multiple regions.

(12-07-2014 01:37 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-06-2014 04:06 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(12-06-2014 02:00 PM)completely_bias Wrote:  

(07-06-2013 10:21 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I would add Oklahoma for sure. But I would add Cincinnati before I added anyone else. The potential market is just to great to pass up.

How can you add Cincinnati to South Eastern Conference when the when the program is located in a completely different geographic location?

Not so completely different. Cincinnati is about 80 miles north of UK's campus in Lexington, KY. That said, UC probably wouldn't be a good fit with the SEC, and the SEC certainly wouldn't be interested in recruiting Greater Cincinnati's high school football talent. Better to let sleeping dogs lie.

A year or two ago we have a 12-15 page thread on whether Cincinnati was in the South or not. I think being a river city much like Louisville and St. Louis puts the Queen City at a cultural intersection that if you squint just right you could make them fit in multiple regions.

A river is all that separates Cincy from the SEC.

If the playoff committee rejects both T.C.U. and Baylor for Ohio State today the shock waves within the Big 12 could lead again to some deep thought. That could result in additions, or in division. The one possibility not discussed much to date has to be how the Big 10 and SEC could work together to end this.

The SEC could take Oklahoma, West Virginia, a second Texas school not named Longhorns, and Kansas State to move to 18.

The Big 10 could take Kansas, Iowa State, Texas and one of the top Texas privates who are currently Big 12 members (T.C.U. or Baylor).

The SEC compromises on Kansas State, gets a national brand in Oklahoma, and adds 3 new states to its footprint in addition to a bigger piece of the Texas audience. Let's say Baylor goes with Texas to the Big 10 (better academics than T.C.U.) the SEC might opt for the second state school in Texas Tech, or go for the better geographical bridge with T.C.U.

Oklahoma State and the remaining school could head West if the PAC wanted them.

If little brother is a sticking point then the solution becomes this:
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State/Oklahoma State, Texas to the Big 10 and
Oklahoma, Kansas State/Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and West Virginia to the SEC.

It could be an easy way for two power conferences to agree to dissolve another.

Well, you know how I think it goes in terms of where the schools go. I wont go into that again but I absolutely agree that this could very well turn into the public reason for the dissolution of the conference. It would be a good reason too.

I am watching Art Briles burn down the entire house this morning. He is calling out the Big 12.

(12-07-2014 02:23 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 01:37 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-06-2014 04:06 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(12-06-2014 02:00 PM)completely_bias Wrote:  

(07-06-2013 10:21 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I would add Oklahoma for sure. But I would add Cincinnati before I added anyone else. The potential market is just to great to pass up.

How can you add Cincinnati to South Eastern Conference when the when the program is located in a completely different geographic location?

Not so completely different. Cincinnati is about 80 miles north of UK's campus in Lexington, KY. That said, UC probably wouldn't be a good fit with the SEC, and the SEC certainly wouldn't be interested in recruiting Greater Cincinnati's high school football talent. Better to let sleeping dogs lie.

A year or two ago we have a 12-15 page thread on whether Cincinnati was in the South or not. I think being a river city much like Louisville and St. Louis puts the Queen City at a cultural intersection that if you squint just right you could make them fit in multiple regions.

A river is all that separates Cincy from the SEC.

Yeah, and due to the glacial history of the area, it's also a narrow river as it flows past the city. But that's not all that separates Cincy from the SEC: a lot of mistaken perceptions do, as well.

Geographically, though, UC could fit into either the ACC, the Big XII, or the SEC. Even, unfortunately, into the AAC.

(12-07-2014 12:44 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 02:23 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 01:37 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-06-2014 04:06 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(12-06-2014 02:00 PM)completely_bias Wrote:  How can you add Cincinnati to South Eastern Conference when the when the program is located in a completely different geographic location?

Not so completely different. Cincinnati is about 80 miles north of UK's campus in Lexington, KY. That said, UC probably wouldn't be a good fit with the SEC, and the SEC certainly wouldn't be interested in recruiting Greater Cincinnati's high school football talent. Better to let sleeping dogs lie.

A year or two ago we have a 12-15 page thread on whether Cincinnati was in the South or not. I think being a river city much like Louisville and St. Louis puts the Queen City at a cultural intersection that if you squint just right you could make them fit in multiple regions.

A river is all that separates Cincy from the SEC.

Yeah, and due to the glacial history of the area, it's also a narrow river as it flows past the city. But that's not all that separates Cincy from the SEC: a lot of mistaken perceptions do, as well.

Geographically, though, UC could fit into either the ACC, the Big XII, or the SEC. Even, unfortunately, into the AAC.

I think the Committee just punched a Big XII ticket for Cincy. lol

(12-07-2014 01:18 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 12:44 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 02:23 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 01:37 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-06-2014 04:06 PM)colohank Wrote:  Not so completely different. Cincinnati is about 80 miles north of UK's campus in Lexington, KY. That said, UC probably wouldn't be a good fit with the SEC, and the SEC certainly wouldn't be interested in recruiting Greater Cincinnati's high school football talent. Better to let sleeping dogs lie.

A year or two ago we have a 12-15 page thread on whether Cincinnati was in the South or not. I think being a river city much like Louisville and St. Louis puts the Queen City at a cultural intersection that if you squint just right you could make them fit in multiple regions.

A river is all that separates Cincy from the SEC.

Yeah, and due to the glacial history of the area, it's also a narrow river as it flows past the city. But that's not all that separates Cincy from the SEC: a lot of mistaken perceptions do, as well.

Geographically, though, UC could fit into either the ACC, the Big XII, or the SEC. Even, unfortunately, into the AAC.

I think the Committee just punched a Big XII ticket for Cincy. lol

I don't, I think they just gave the Big 12 a huge reason to rethink their whole future. Memphis and Cincinnati won't fix the Big 12's problems. Cincinnati eventually gets into a P5 once niche markets enter into the network negotiations. Then the Bearcats could be attractive to the ACC or SEC. But we have a few moves yet before we get down to adding peripheral niche markets.

The way realignment works is that each move brings on a contract extension with raise or a contract renegotiation with raise. Nobody is going to move quickly because they are going to milk every addition for cash. The Big 12 has received a shock that might well put them back on the market. When their fate is decided then Connecticut, Brigham Young, Cincinnati, and possibly one of the Southern Florida schools or Colorado State or East Carolina could come into play. But not yet, not now.

They'll work out the new structures, set the new monetary agenda for the P5 concerning stipends and other forms of support, set minimum requirements for the number of sports offered and then we will see a few defections. And then we will see niche market additions.

Leave the Big12 alone if the SEC expands again. Solidify the southeast and stake a claim in the middle of ACC territory with VT and ECU. (Yes I'm an ECU fan but its not entirely a homeristic idea.) SEC would own both North Carolina and Virginia within 3 years and would control markets from washington dc to Texas.

It will be an entertaining week on B12 boards. So much panic. Kind of cracks me up because this is what has always happened when schools without a CCG are competing with schools with a CCG and the same record. If the school with the CCG wins they almost always get in. The B1G and PAC used to get bit by it and the B12 helped by it previously. The B12 actually has an easier time most years backing in because of the extra 2 slots compared to the old days. This year was one of those years where all the conferences had a champ with 1 loss or better and all the CCG favs won. The B12 would have been a huge winner if a couple upsets had occurred as it would likely have gotten 2 B12 schools in. Since there were no upsets the B12 is on the outside looking in because all the other schools got another quality win. That's the hand dealt. That said if it results in the B12 coming apart, 4 power conferences with a champs only model, and getting the beauty pageant out of it all, then I am glad it happened this way; however, I think the B12 will stick with 10 and try to get a CCG approved for 10 schools, before they expand or divide. Personally, I hope the power conferences go in a room this winter and divide up the B12 so that every school gets a home.

(12-07-2014 08:02 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  It will be an entertaining week on B12 boards. So much panic. Kind of cracks me up because this is what has always happened when schools without a CCG are competing with schools with a CCG and the same record. If the school with the CCG wins they almost always get in. The B1G and PAC used to get bit by it and the B12 helped by it previously. The B12 actually has an easier time most years backing in because of the extra 2 slots compared to the old days. This year was one of those years where all the conferences had a champ with 1 loss or better and all the CCG favs won. The B12 would have been a huge winner if a couple upsets had occurred as it would likely have gotten 2 B12 schools in. Since there were no upsets the B12 is on the outside looking in because all the other schools got another quality win. That's the hand dealt. That said if it results in the B12 coming apart, 4 power conferences with a champs only model, and getting the beauty pageant out of it all, then I am glad it happened this way; however, I think the B12 will stick with 10 and try to get a CCG approved for 10 schools, before they expand or divide. Personally, I hope the power conferences go in a room this winter and divide up the B12 so that every school gets a home.

That's where ESPN jumped the shark with the LHN. That move took away any incentive Texas had to move. What you suggest with the other 4 agreeing to give all of the Big 12 a home could have already happened had Texas had any motivation to protect its long term interests. Instead they get a deal for 15 million a year that lasts until mid 2031, and therein lies the problem.

Maybe now they will be motivated to move. It should be clear that only 2 of the Big 12 can make a payday game in football and Texas should get tired of playing share the wealth on that. Still I think it will take an impatient Oklahoma to make it happen.

The realignment board is a good laugh right now. So much knee jerk.

I've said OU is the key for a long time. They want expansion (if reports are to be believed) and Texas does not. That clash at the B12 meetings in NY should be interesting. Wonder if Baylor and TCU leave the UT reservation, as previously, I am pretty sure they sided with Texas, as most of the B12 must have since we never added UL or BYU when they wanted in badly. I think it is lining up so that you will have the conference split like this on expansion:

Anti-expansion: Texas, TTU, KU
Not sure: KSU, ISU, BU, TCU
Pro-expansion: OU, WVU, OSU

The not sure are interesting because they are the 4 most likely to be left behind. KSU and ISU want games in Texas, but expanding with the right schools has a chance of stabilizing the B12 and making it harder politically for Texas, OU, and KU to leave. TCU and BU, I think, always voted with Texas since Texas was their protection from being left out as a happy Texas keeps the B12 alive and also their chance for a new home if UT left (requiring them in order to join the PAC or ACC). I think all 4 were previously against expansion with non-P5 schools, but I could be wrong.

Among the anti-expansions, Texas and KU are ESPN properties who are making good money with T3, and probably prefer 10 schools to keep their options open in the future. KU and UT have worked closely together on a lot of T3 stuff and have a good business relationship. KU obviously would like to keep games in Texas as well. TTU will vote with Texas as they are the most likely partner for UT as a Texas public university.

Among the pro-expansion schools, I am not sure why OU is so strong on expansion if reports are correct. You would think they would be in the UT and KU camp to keep options open or perhaps they have been told politically to take care of OSU. OSU will vote with them as being tied to OU helps their odds of getting a landing spot if things go bad. WVU would obviously like some travel partners and some of the candidates are from their old league.

If it requires a 75% vote then the anti-expansion block would be able to block it which would result in unhappy schools looking for other solutions such as dissolution if 8 or more can find homes or looking for ways to get out of the GoR if they have options alone in other conferences. Of course, this is all speculation on my part.

(12-07-2014 09:00 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  The realignment board is a good laugh right now. So much knee jerk.

I've said OU is the key for a long time. They want expansion (if reports are to be believed) and Texas does not. That clash at the B12 meetings in NY should be interesting. Wonder if Baylor and TCU leave the UT reservation, as previously, I am pretty sure they sided with Texas, as most of the B12 must have since we never added UL or BYU when they wanted in badly. I think it is lining up so that you will have the conference split like this on expansion:

Anti-expansion: Texas, TTU, KU
Not sure: KSU, ISU, BU, TCU
Pro-expansion: OU, WVU, OSU

The not sure are interesting because they are the 4 most likely to be left behind. KSU and ISU want games in Texas, but expanding with the right schools has a chance of stabilizing the B12 and making it harder politically for Texas, OU, and KU to leave. TCU and BU, I think, always voted with Texas since Texas was their protection from being left out as a happy Texas keeps the B12 alive and also their chance for a new home if UT left (requiring them in order to join the PAC or ACC). I think all 4 were previously against expansion with non-P5 schools, but I could be wrong.

Among the anti-expansions, Texas and KU are ESPN properties who are making good money with T3, and probably prefer 10 schools to keep their options open in the future. KU and UT have worked closely together on a lot of T3 stuff and have a good business relationship. KU obviously would like to keep games in Texas as well. TTU will vote with Texas as they are the most likely partner for UT as a Texas public university.

Among the pro-expansion schools, I am not sure why OU is so strong on expansion if reports are correct. You would think they would be in the UT and KU camp to keep options open or perhaps they have been told politically to take care of OSU. OSU will vote with them as being tied to OU helps their odds of getting a landing spot if things go bad. WVU would obviously like some travel partners and some of the candidates are from their old league.

If it requires a 75% vote then the anti-expansion block would be able to block it which would result in unhappy schools looking for other solutions such as dissolution if 8 or more can find homes or looking for ways to get out of the GoR if they have options alone in other conferences. Of course, this is all speculation on my part.

I am just shooting some ideas here but the realistic issue is that if the PAC doesn't want any of the Big 12 or the Big 12 doesn't really want the PAC (meaning Texas won't go) and if the ACC is too far away to be realistic the obvious answer is for the Big 10 and SEC to zipper their acquisitions and move to 18 each setting up three divisions of 6. But some compromise will have to be made.

For instance if Texas and Oklahoma go Big 10 then Kansas goes SEC, or if Kansas and Texas go Big 10 then Oklahoma goes SEC. Truly we could end this quickly that way.

Shoot even if the Big 10 and SEC ever wanted to move to twenty by splitting North Carolina and Virginia taking the Big 12 first is the best leverage.

Let's say Texas truly doesn't want to follow the Aggies and Kansas truly does fit better in the Big 10 then what has to happen is for the Big 10 to cover Iowa State and take the Cowboys or another Texas school while the SEC then takes Kansas State, Oklahoma, another Texas school and West Virginia. That's 8 and it's done. In that case to satisfy the big brother role the Big 10 waives its requirements only for Oklahoma State. The SEC takes Kansas State (a bit out of its profile) and either Texas Tech or Baylor to go with West Virginia. I think such an arrangement would solve many issues with little collateral damage. I figure if the PAC wanted to move to 14 then Texas Tech and T.C.U. would be a good bridge into Texas. Rice at that point becomes an option for Houston for the PAC.

Such a move hems the ACC into having to take either Cincinnati or UConn for further additions, sews up the midwest for a Big 10 / SEC rivalry like the SEC has to the East with the ACC and keeps the negotiations between conferences and FOX and ESPN on equal terms.

Mull that over and spit it back with your perspective Jayhawk.

That's a good question. I can't see it happening with just the B1G and SEC involved because I think the B1G just doesn't like enough B12 schools as additions (Texas, OU, and KU). I think another conference would be involved (likely the ACC, maybe the PAC); however, based on what you outlined in your post this is my opinion. The B1G would be the problem because to this point they have had every member be AAU at least at the time of joining (NU later booted out). Academics would keep some B12 schools from even being considered. If the SEC and B1G decided to kill the B12 by taking 4 each, but splitting OU and Texas, my wild ass guess would be:

B1G adds Texas, Kansas, ISU, and TCU.
SEC adds Oklahoma, WVU, TTU, and Oklahoma State.

B1G
Texas - AAU. National football brand. This is the largest money addition, by far, for them in CFB for their network. The B1G white whale above even ND. Seems averse to the SEC for some reason as well. Gets them the #1 program in the fertile FB recruiting grounds of Texas.
Kansas - AAU. National BB brand. Along with Texas the best B1G fit in the B12 as an AAU state flagship.
ISU - AAU. Doubles up in Iowa, but this is a compromise agreement and they have the academics to make it. WVU might also get consideration instead, but if I was the SEC I would insist on WVU since I think they are the 4th most valuable school in the B12. The value of the UT addition makes doubling up in Iowa more palatable.
TCU - Texas would require at least one Texas school, if OU is not with them IMO. TCU is a religious university in name only now and a good academic school), but maybe Texas Tech if they throw out academics (not likely). TCU is in DFW (their biggest positive) so it is an easy location to get to compared to Baylor or TTU. Rice would be the best school for this spot since they are AAU, but they are not in the B12 and would not kill the conference. OSU and TTU are just too far under the academics bar unless the B1G just said to hell with acadmics (never happening). TTU would have a chance if the state of Texas delivers on making them a T1 university in the next decade. Baylor is good academically, but I think the only religious school the B1G is willing to add would be ND. TTU would be Texas's first choice, but they know currently TTU academics are a no go for the B1G, and thus, the "Tech problem" tOSU former president referred too.

SEC
Oklahoma - National FB brand. The most SEC like program in the B12. Gets you influence in north Texas down to DFW.
WVU - Gets you more exposure in the north with some influence into D.C. and Pittsburgh. Fourth most valuable school in the B12.
Texas Tech (or Baylor) - TTU is the much larger school and should be a safer long term bet, plus between them and A&M you would have east and west Texas covered. Baylor is the hot school right now and has a lot of money and for a private school is fairly large, but can they maintain it. I have serious doubts, especially in the SEC and after Briles. They do have deep pockets though. TTU definitely has more fans. A&M and Baylor have a lot of bad blood and Baylor did not exactly endear themselves with SEC leadership with their threatened lawsuits over the A&M move which could hurt them.
OSU - I would choose them over KSU. You only lose out on a few million KS by not taking KSU for the SECN and Snyder is not going to be there much longer and outside of him they have been the worst FBS school in history. They do not deliver much of the state (this is just FB, in BB KU would bleed into other areas and KSU's small stronghold would shrink even more). OSU makes OU happy and means the SEC would have by far the strongest presence in Texahoma (4 schools vs. 2 for the B1G). OU can't play them and Texas both OOC without losing a ton of scheduling flexibility. This way Texas and OU now becomes a B1G/SEC rivalry game. The ratings would be crazy each year. The SEC and B1G fans would tune in for early season bragging rights. OU would probably require them to join (like they did in 2011). OSU also has more revenue and fans.

So my schools out of luck in this scenario are KSU and Baylor (or TTU). If it is KSU and TTU the PAC might take them eventually. Baylor is in a bad spot if it is them and the SEC is not interested. The PAC is not going to take them and they would be on an island in the ACC and probably would not draw enough interest on their own in Texas for them to be worth adding.

Drawbacks for the SEC are only adding OK and WV to their footprint and doubling up in Texas (a good idea) and OK (a negative), but they get the #2, #4, #5, and #6 schools in value in the B12 IMO. Since they already had a Texas school not as big a pay off for them as for the B1G as far as networks are concerned. Nationally for T1 and T2 they got the strongest B12 football program and a national power in OU and 3 solid ones. In bb they got 3 solids ones and 1 dog (TTU).

The B1G drawbacks are doubling up in IA (negative) and Texas (neutral since they have the whale Texas) and one schools is not AAU. The B1G gains in a big way by adding the state of Texas, with a KS bonus, to their network. Gets a major recruiting ground in their footprint. In B12 value gets the #1 (by far), #3, #7, and #10 programs. Add a national power in Texas in FB, 1 solid program and 2 dogs in FB (KU and ISU). In basketball they gain 1 national program, 2 good schools, and 1 dog (TCU).

(12-09-2014 12:39 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  That's a good question. I can't see it happening with just the B1G and SEC involved because I think the B1G just doesn't like enough B12 schools as additions (Texas, OU, and KU). I think another conference would be involved (likely the ACC, maybe the PAC); however, based on what you outlined in your post this is my opinion. The B1G would be the problem because to this point they have had every member be AAU at least at the time of joining (NU later booted out). Academics would keep some B12 schools from even being considered. If the SEC and B1G decided to kill the B12 by taking 4 each, but splitting OU and Texas, my wild ass guess would be:

B1G adds Texas, Kansas, ISU, and TCU.
SEC adds Oklahoma, WVU, TTU, and Oklahoma State.

B1G
Texas - AAU. National football brand. This is the largest money addition, by far, for them in CFB for their network. The B1G white whale above even ND. Seems averse to the SEC for some reason as well. Gets them the #1 program in the fertile FB recruiting grounds of Texas.
Kansas - AAU. National BB brand. Along with Texas the best B1G fit in the B12 as an AAU state flagship.
ISU - AAU. Doubles up in Iowa, but this is a compromise agreement and they have the academics to make it. WVU might also get consideration instead, but if I was the SEC I would insist on WVU since I think they are the 4th most valuable school in the B12. The value of the UT addition makes doubling up in Iowa more palatable.
TCU - Texas would require at least one Texas school, if OU is not with them IMO. TCU is a religious university in name only now and a good academic school), but maybe Texas Tech if they throw out academics (not likely). TCU is in DFW (their biggest positive) so it is an easy location to get to compared to Baylor or TTU. Rice would be the best school for this spot since they are AAU, but they are not in the B12 and would not kill the conference. OSU and TTU are just too far under the academics bar unless the B1G just said to hell with acadmics (never happening). TTU would have a chance if the state of Texas delivers on making them a T1 university in the next decade. Baylor is good academically, but I think the only religious school the B1G is willing to add would be ND. TTU would be Texas's first choice, but they know currently TTU academics are a no go for the B1G, and thus, the "Tech problem" tOSU former president referred too.

SEC
Oklahoma - National FB brand. The most SEC like program in the B12. Gets you influence in north Texas down to DFW.
WVU - Gets you more exposure in the north with some influence into D.C. and Pittsburgh. Fourth most valuable school in the B12.
Texas Tech (or Baylor) - TTU is the much larger school and should be a safer long term bet, plus between them and A&M you would have east and west Texas covered. Baylor is the hot school right now and has a lot of money and for a private school is fairly large, but can they maintain it. I have serious doubts, especially in the SEC and after Briles. They do have deep pockets though. TTU definitely has more fans. A&M and Baylor have a lot of bad blood and Baylor did not exactly endear themselves with SEC leadership with their threatened lawsuits over the A&M move which could hurt them.
OSU - I would choose them over KSU. You only lose out on a few million KS by not taking KSU for the SECN and Snyder is not going to be there much longer and outside of him they have been the worst FBS school in history. They do not deliver much of the state (this is just FB, in BB KU would bleed into other areas and KSU's small stronghold would shrink even more). OSU makes OU happy and means the SEC would have by far the strongest presence in Texahoma (4 schools vs. 2 for the B1G). OU can't play them and Texas both OOC without losing a ton of scheduling flexibility. This way Texas and OU now becomes a B1G/SEC rivalry game. The ratings would be crazy each year. The SEC and B1G fans would tune in for early season bragging rights. OU would probably require them to join (like they did in 2011). OSU also has more revenue and fans.

So my schools out of luck in this scenario are KSU and Baylor (or TTU). If it is KSU and TTU the PAC might take them eventually. Baylor is in a bad spot if it is them and the SEC is not interested. The PAC is not going to take them and they would be on an island in the ACC and probably would not draw enough interest on their own in Texas for them to be worth adding.

Drawbacks for the SEC are only adding OK and WV to their footprint and doubling up in Texas (a good idea) and OK (a negative), but they get the #2, #4, #5, and #6 schools in value in the B12 IMO. Since they already had a Texas school not as big a pay off for them as for the B1G as far as networks are concerned. Nationally for T1 and T2 they got the strongest B12 football program and a national power in OU and 3 solid ones. In bb they got 3 solids ones and 1 dog (TTU).

The B1G drawbacks are doubling up in IA (negative) and Texas (neutral since they have the whale Texas) and one schools is not AAU. The B1G gains in a big way by adding the state of Texas, with a KS bonus, to their network. Gets a major recruiting ground in their footprint. In B12 value gets the #1 (by far), #3, #7, and #10 programs. Add a national power in Texas in FB, 1 solid program and 2 dogs in FB (KU and ISU). In basketball they gain 1 national program, 2 good schools, and 1 dog (TCU).

The B1G also gains two conference locations for early season baseball games and two powerhouse baseball programs.

I did some thinking on TCU and Baylor being snubbed by the CFP committee over the weekend and then I realized that, regardless of whether they belonged in the top 4 or not, both have essentially enhanced their argument to be taken by another conference.

- Both are located in a fertile state for football purposes

- Both have been able to utilize the advantages being in a conference that gave them the best ability to compete to their benefit

I think the ACC, if they're not looking at the two of them, should start soon. TCU and Baylor fit the profile of the conference with schools such as Duke, Pitt, BC, Syracuse, Wake, GT and Miami. Both get the ACC into the central Texas and DFW areas. Finally, the ACC wouldn't need to offer a partial deal in order to get into a huge football recruiting state with programs already in a P5 conference.

With TCU and Baylor taken care of, the math becomes much easier for the B12 to disband. Texas can now include Kansas in a four-school, as both are familiar with each and would not want to separate. The PAC becomes the more likely destination for the two of them, taking Oklahoma and Texas Tech along for the ride. The PAC gets the major pieces in the deal, with only Tech as a hanger-on.

Oklahoma State becomes the SEC representative in that state, with West Virginia to fill the #16 spot and access to the D.C. market.

The Big 10 would have to go East and the most likely place to go is Virginia Tech as Virginia would not budge. So it's Virginia Tech and UConn to the B1G. It also fulfills the motto of Delany of being in two regions at the same time, which he reinforced in his press conference today at Madison Square Garden. The ACC fills in with either Cincinnati or Iowa State (probably take Cincinnati, Iowa State and Kansas State to account for all the remaining B12 schools).

UT, OU, TT, KU
AZ, ASU, CO, UU
Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA
WSU, UO, OSU, UW

NE, IA, MN, WI
IL, MSU, NU, IN
MI, OSU, PU, RU
CT, PSU, VT, UMD

TAMU, LSU, AR, OSU
MO, KY, VU, UT
MS, MSU, AL, AU
GA, FL, SC, WV

TCU, BU, FSU, Miami
GT, Clemson, NCSU, WF
Duke, UNC, UVA, Louisville
Pitt, Cincinnati, Syracuse, BC

or

TCU, Baylor, Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson
NC State, Wake Forest, Louisville, UNC, Duke, Virginia
Kansas State, Iowa State, Cincinnati, Pitt, Syracuse, BC