(01-23-2015 07:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 05:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 01:09 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-21-2015 05:05 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 06:55 PM)XLance Wrote:  As JR stated when the Texas issue is settled, realignment will be over.

So what does Texas want that they already don't get in the Big 12?
What would they be willing to give up to get something different?

As small as it may seem, I think Texas wants close premier games against other national brand schools. Television already makes almost every game available for viewing. Brand name games will fill the stadium whether it is on television or not. That is why most schools with football cache will be playing more content games in the future. If they want to fill local hotels, sell concessions and product, and make local merchants happy and garner contributions for prime seating then they need at least 4 or 5 marquee games a year, and preferably most of those will be annual in conference games the road games of which are a reasonable driving distance from Austin. That is why I don't see Texas heading to the Big 10 or PAC unless there is a large block of Big 12 schools going with them. It is also why I think ultimately they will consider the SEC. An SEC West void of Alabama and Auburn, but containing Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, and either Baylor or Texas Tech will make their schedule very very fan friendly. Those games are all a reasonable driving distance for Horn fans. Those games will sell premium seating in Austin and fill their hotels, bookstores, and restaurants. Those games make sense in a way that Oregon, Washington and U.C.L.A. don't, or for that matter Iowa, Nebraska, or Wisconsin. In the end these will be the things that all national brand schools will have to consider. The trick to making money in the future will be both having games that television covets but also games that fans want to attend.

JR, I think that the SEC's best hope to add Texas would be as a partial member (similar to the set-up that Notre Dame has with the ACC).

Unless ESPN did some seriously heavy leaning what you suggest would never happen. Partial memberships are anathema to the SEC. It violates all of our business models.

Texas isn't really that valuable for the SEC. You guys already have The Aggies.

Texas has something that the ACC wants much more though.

H1, you do realize that JR has a good point about Texas and the SEC. Other than keeping the Big 12 alive, the SEC affords the Longhorns the best opportunity to keep the fans engaged in the conference season plus renewing rivalries with Arkansas and A&M. It's a very similar situation to Penn State. Schools are no longer connected with traditional rivals, and the size of realignment conferences makes it hard to re-connect. This leaves the fans longing for days gone by. Even for the casual fan a Texas v. Arkansas or Texas v. A&M game would be watchable whereas Texas v. Kansas or Texas v. Texas Tech wouldn't.
BTW, I hear and see a lot about Texas to the ACC from fans and message boards, but nothing from those on the "inside". There is either little enthusiasm for Texas from those folks, or they are really good at keeping their mouths shut. But there wasn't any chatter about Notre Dame before that deal was announced either.

(01-24-2015 11:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 07:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 05:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 01:09 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-21-2015 05:05 AM)JRsec Wrote:  As small as it may seem, I think Texas wants close premier games against other national brand schools. Television already makes almost every game available for viewing. Brand name games will fill the stadium whether it is on television or not. That is why most schools with football cache will be playing more content games in the future. If they want to fill local hotels, sell concessions and product, and make local merchants happy and garner contributions for prime seating then they need at least 4 or 5 marquee games a year, and preferably most of those will be annual in conference games the road games of which are a reasonable driving distance from Austin. That is why I don't see Texas heading to the Big 10 or PAC unless there is a large block of Big 12 schools going with them. It is also why I think ultimately they will consider the SEC. An SEC West void of Alabama and Auburn, but containing Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, and either Baylor or Texas Tech will make their schedule very very fan friendly. Those games are all a reasonable driving distance for Horn fans. Those games will sell premium seating in Austin and fill their hotels, bookstores, and restaurants. Those games make sense in a way that Oregon, Washington and U.C.L.A. don't, or for that matter Iowa, Nebraska, or Wisconsin. In the end these will be the things that all national brand schools will have to consider. The trick to making money in the future will be both having games that television covets but also games that fans want to attend.

JR, I think that the SEC's best hope to add Texas would be as a partial member (similar to the set-up that Notre Dame has with the ACC).

Unless ESPN did some seriously heavy leaning what you suggest would never happen. Partial memberships are anathema to the SEC. It violates all of our business models.

Texas isn't really that valuable for the SEC. You guys already have The Aggies.

Texas has something that the ACC wants much more though.

H1, you do realize that JR has a good point about Texas and the SEC. Other than keeping the Big 12 alive, the SEC affords the Longhorns the best opportunity to keep the fans engaged in the conference season plus renewing rivalries with Arkansas and A&M. It's a very similar situation to Penn State. Schools are no longer connected with traditional rivals, and the size of realignment conferences makes it hard to re-connect. This leaves the fans longing for days gone by. Even for the casual fan a Texas v. Arkansas or Texas v. A&M game would be watchable whereas Texas v. Kansas or Texas v. Texas Tech wouldn't.
BTW, I hear and see a lot about Texas to the ACC from fans and message boards, but nothing from those on the "inside". There is either little enthusiasm for Texas from those folks, or they are really good at keeping their mouths shut. But there wasn't any chatter about Notre Dame before that deal was announced either.

If you step back from the individual team analysis and look at the landscape then realignment tends to paint a different picture. The ACC has essentially become the Old ACC with Southern Independents added and the key components of the Old Big East added. The SEC's true expansion has been west into the SWC. Missouri in this case is the only Old Big 8 school that could fit with the SEC outside of Oklahoma and they certainly provide an acceptable game for the Sooners should they come on board. From the map West Virginia is obviously an SEC outlier, but completes the ACC line. The PAC has simply added one state at a time. Arizona, then Utah, then Colorado. The Big 10 is the conference that because of its mid continent position has spidered out a bit.

From that vantage point realignment makes more sense. Notre Dame was a natural for the ACC in that they preferred the overall emphasis of ACC schools in the same way that the core of the old Big East preferred it. So the ACC has been a consolidation of the Old Big East and ACC. The SEC has had more in common with the Old SWC. And within the Old Big 8 Oklahoma had more in common with the old SWC. In this regard Missouri was truly a border state. Iowa and Kansas are definitely more Big 10 states.

So if you were to look at any future realignment that fills in the gaps in the new conference portraits then I would speculate that West Virginia fits the ACC, Texas and Oklahoma (with possible tag a longs) the SEC, Kansas the Big 10, and Texas Tech, T.C.U., and possibly Rice the PAC.

It is not inconceivable that the ACC and SEC could wind up with 16 each and the PAC and Big 10 with 15 each after the GOR expires. At this juncture I think 18 would be the maximum any P4 conference would have and that all numbers will likely not be equal.

Should the Horns and Sooners eventually come to the SEC they will essentially become the Division that their fans dream about as a conference:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas A&M. What's more is that the SEC East will have become more of what the Old SEC looked like: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt. Even if Baylor and Oklahoma State are added the divisions still set up Oklahoma and Texas fans with games they would look forward to every year.

(01-24-2015 11:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 07:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 05:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 01:09 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-21-2015 05:05 AM)JRsec Wrote:  As small as it may seem, I think Texas wants close premier games against other national brand schools. Television already makes almost every game available for viewing. Brand name games will fill the stadium whether it is on television or not. That is why most schools with football cache will be playing more content games in the future. If they want to fill local hotels, sell concessions and product, and make local merchants happy and garner contributions for prime seating then they need at least 4 or 5 marquee games a year, and preferably most of those will be annual in conference games the road games of which are a reasonable driving distance from Austin. That is why I don't see Texas heading to the Big 10 or PAC unless there is a large block of Big 12 schools going with them. It is also why I think ultimately they will consider the SEC. An SEC West void of Alabama and Auburn, but containing Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, and either Baylor or Texas Tech will make their schedule very very fan friendly. Those games are all a reasonable driving distance for Horn fans. Those games will sell premium seating in Austin and fill their hotels, bookstores, and restaurants. Those games make sense in a way that Oregon, Washington and U.C.L.A. don't, or for that matter Iowa, Nebraska, or Wisconsin. In the end these will be the things that all national brand schools will have to consider. The trick to making money in the future will be both having games that television covets but also games that fans want to attend.

JR, I think that the SEC's best hope to add Texas would be as a partial member (similar to the set-up that Notre Dame has with the ACC).

Unless ESPN did some seriously heavy leaning what you suggest would never happen. Partial memberships are anathema to the SEC. It violates all of our business models.

Texas isn't really that valuable for the SEC. You guys already have The Aggies.

Texas has something that the ACC wants much more though.

H1, you do realize that JR has a good point about Texas and the SEC. Other than keeping the Big 12 alive, the SEC affords the Longhorns the best opportunity to keep the fans engaged in the conference season plus renewing rivalries with Arkansas and A&M. It's a very similar situation to Penn State. Schools are no longer connected with traditional rivals, and the size of realignment conferences makes it hard to re-connect. This leaves the fans longing for days gone by. Even for the casual fan a Texas v. Arkansas or Texas v. A&M game would be watchable whereas Texas v. Kansas or Texas v. Texas Tech wouldn't.
BTW, I hear and see a lot about Texas to the ACC from fans and message boards, but nothing from those on the "inside". There is either little enthusiasm for Texas from those folks, or they are really good at keeping their mouths shut. But there wasn't any chatter about Notre Dame before that deal was announced either.

There was very little chatter about Maryland as well but...what was I saying here? "We got dibs on Maryland" is what I was saying. How did that happen?

NDA's. People that think they should be hearing things because they always have in the past are some of the best witnesses for "nothing is happening" because their own Ego's betray them.

(01-24-2015 01:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 11:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 07:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 05:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 01:09 PM)XLance Wrote:  JR, I think that the SEC's best hope to add Texas would be as a partial member (similar to the set-up that Notre Dame has with the ACC).

Unless ESPN did some seriously heavy leaning what you suggest would never happen. Partial memberships are anathema to the SEC. It violates all of our business models.

Texas isn't really that valuable for the SEC. You guys already have The Aggies.

Texas has something that the ACC wants much more though.

H1, you do realize that JR has a good point about Texas and the SEC. Other than keeping the Big 12 alive, the SEC affords the Longhorns the best opportunity to keep the fans engaged in the conference season plus renewing rivalries with Arkansas and A&M. It's a very similar situation to Penn State. Schools are no longer connected with traditional rivals, and the size of realignment conferences makes it hard to re-connect. This leaves the fans longing for days gone by. Even for the casual fan a Texas v. Arkansas or Texas v. A&M game would be watchable whereas Texas v. Kansas or Texas v. Texas Tech wouldn't.
BTW, I hear and see a lot about Texas to the ACC from fans and message boards, but nothing from those on the "inside". There is either little enthusiasm for Texas from those folks, or they are really good at keeping their mouths shut. But there wasn't any chatter about Notre Dame before that deal was announced either.

There was very little chatter about Maryland as well but...what was I saying here? "We got dibs on Maryland" is what I was saying. How did that happen?

NDA's. People that think they should be hearing things because they always have in the past are some of the best witnesses for "nothing is happening" because their own Ego's betray them.

There was some talk about Maryland to the B1G back in 2009. But you are right ego kept people from believing it (plus the fact that the Maryland administration/athletic people were lying straight faced to everyone else in the ACC) and it was a huge surprise.

(01-24-2015 01:41 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 01:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 11:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 07:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 05:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Unless ESPN did some seriously heavy leaning what you suggest would never happen. Partial memberships are anathema to the SEC. It violates all of our business models.

Texas isn't really that valuable for the SEC. You guys already have The Aggies.

Texas has something that the ACC wants much more though.

H1, you do realize that JR has a good point about Texas and the SEC. Other than keeping the Big 12 alive, the SEC affords the Longhorns the best opportunity to keep the fans engaged in the conference season plus renewing rivalries with Arkansas and A&M. It's a very similar situation to Penn State. Schools are no longer connected with traditional rivals, and the size of realignment conferences makes it hard to re-connect. This leaves the fans longing for days gone by. Even for the casual fan a Texas v. Arkansas or Texas v. A&M game would be watchable whereas Texas v. Kansas or Texas v. Texas Tech wouldn't.
BTW, I hear and see a lot about Texas to the ACC from fans and message boards, but nothing from those on the "inside". There is either little enthusiasm for Texas from those folks, or they are really good at keeping their mouths shut. But there wasn't any chatter about Notre Dame before that deal was announced either.

There was very little chatter about Maryland as well but...what was I saying here? "We got dibs on Maryland" is what I was saying. How did that happen?

NDA's. People that think they should be hearing things because they always have in the past are some of the best witnesses for "nothing is happening" because their own Ego's betray them.

There was some talk about Maryland to the B1G back in 2009. But you are right ego kept people from believing it (plus the fact that the Maryland administration/athletic people were lying straight faced to everyone else in the ACC) and it was a huge surprise.

Because of the Penn State move and the Big 10's desire to build around them Maryland was a logical move on their part. Nebraska was a later logical move to keep them balanced and both added football gravitas. However once Nebraska was gone from the Big 12 it was only logical that Colorado would respond to PAC overtures. And, the the rush was on. A&M and Missouri traded up as well. None of them however made a move like West Virginia, one in which their travel would be overwhelming. That is another reason I believe the end of realignment (among the top schools anyway) will be geographically compatible as much as is possible. College administrations may have agendas that prefer one association over another, but the fan base will drive the ultimate decisions in all but the most desperate cases.

When it happens the final round of realignment will be used to restore much of what the previous rounds have destroyed. And the moves will be aimed to restore fan approval and to meet the needs of those same fans. After all football is a product with specific clients. Business will see to it that it heals the damage for the sake of everyone's bottom line.

Texas vs A&M, Missouri vs Kansas, and other such games will be restored as OOC games. The angst over such losses now will only make the reestablishment of such seem more like a triumph for the very networks that drove them apart.

The SEC will get Texas if they get OU IMO. If they don't get OU, they won't get Texas. If OU goes to the SEC there would be a ton of alumni pressure for the Longhorns to go to the SEC as all three of Texas's traditional rivals (OU, A&M, and Arkansas) would be there. Personally, I think that Texas and OU would avoid that as both going there means a gauntlet to make the playoffs and parity is likely to result as so many football powers in one conference would make it harder to be dominant consistently. The ACC, PAC, and B1G would be seen as much more winnable and an easier road to the playoffs.

In the end, I don't see Texas in the SEC. If the B12 is not viable, ESPN would want the Longhorns in the ACC as the ACC really needs more football powers to drive ratings and it means that most years either Texas or FSU is playing in the playoffs as the ACC rep. LHN becomes the ACC network and saves ESPN investing in all that infrastructure as well. Just depends on who from the B12 joins them. Texas prefers going east as well for exposure and the B1G and ACC control the eastern media markets for the most part.

(01-25-2015 10:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Texas vs A&M, Missouri vs Kansas, and other such games will be restored as OOC games. The angst over such losses now will only make the reestablishment of such seem more like a triumph for the very networks that drove them apart.

I agree. If Texas and Kansas move on from the B12, those rivalries are likely to be restored. There was just too much bad blood about how the MU and A&M moves went down and what was said for it to happen while the B12 exists. Time heals all wounds cliche as well.

(01-25-2015 10:05 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  The SEC will get Texas if they get OU IMO. If they don't get OU, they won't get Texas. If OU goes to the SEC there would be a ton of alumni pressure for the Longhorns to go to the SEC as all three of Texas's traditional rivals (OU, A&M, and Arkansas) would be there. Personally, I think that Texas and OU would avoid that as both going there means a gauntlet to make the playoffs and parity is likely to result as so many football powers in one conference would make it harder to be dominant consistently. The ACC, PAC, and B1G would be seen as much more winnable and an easier road to the playoffs.

In the end, I don't see Texas in the SEC. If the B12 is not viable, ESPN would want the Longhorns in the ACC as the ACC really needs more football powers to drive ratings and it means that most years either Texas or FSU is playing in the playoffs as the ACC rep. LHN becomes the ACC network and saves ESPN investing in all that infrastructure as well. Just depends on who from the B12 joins them. Texas prefers going east as well for exposure and the B1G and ACC control the eastern media markets for the most part.

I believe that if Texas goes to the ACC that you would have the only scenario in which Oklahoma could move the SEC without them. Oklahoma vs Texas then just becomes one more must see ACC vs SEC match that benefits the Mouse. If Texas goes to the ACC I don't see Oklahoma going to either the Big 10 or PAC. The Big 10 without Texas kills their recruiting and alienates their own fans. The PAC without Texas places them in less jeopardy but becomes a nightmare scenario for the travel of minor sports. The SEC with Missouri, A&M, Arkansas, and a second Texas school or Oklahoma State would be too tempting.

Once again the false propaganda point is put out there as if it is the absolute truth. Oklahoma without Texas in the same conference cannot recruit in Texas due to all of the Northern games except that...that is exactly how it was for Oklahoma before the Big 8 morphed into the Big 12.

It is a logic fallacy to say Oklahoma cannot recruit Texas if they head up North. I am sorry but the SEC guys don't truly know better on this jhawk.

(01-26-2015 12:46 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Once again the false propaganda point is put out there as if it is the absolute truth. Oklahoma without Texas in the same conference cannot recruit in Texas due to all of the Northern games except that...that is exactly how it was for Oklahoma before the Big 8 morphed into the Big 12.

It is a logic fallacy to say Oklahoma cannot recruit Texas if they head up North. I am sorry but the SEC guys don't truly know better on this jhawk.

We'll see soon enough H1. Geography is going to be the determinative factor here. Oklahoma's fans will make the decision because the Sooners will need them to buy into the move. Without Texas they won't.

(01-26-2015 03:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-26-2015 12:46 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Once again the false propaganda point is put out there as if it is the absolute truth. Oklahoma without Texas in the same conference cannot recruit in Texas due to all of the Northern games except that...that is exactly how it was for Oklahoma before the Big 8 morphed into the Big 12.

It is a logic fallacy to say Oklahoma cannot recruit Texas if they head up North. I am sorry but the SEC guys don't truly know better on this jhawk.

We'll see soon enough H1. Geography is going to be the determinative factor here. Oklahoma's fans will make the decision because the Sooners will need them to buy into the move. Without Texas they won't.

Maryland fans didn't have to buy into the move. Prior to Ohio State winning the National Championship, it would have been a tougher sell. The Big Ten did just fine for itself and Oklahoma's position in the Big Ten would insure that they would be in contention every year.

It isn't a bad deal at all.

(01-25-2015 10:05 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  The SEC will get Texas if they get OU IMO. If they don't get OU, they won't get Texas. If OU goes to the SEC there would be a ton of alumni pressure for the Longhorns to go to the SEC as all three of Texas's traditional rivals (OU, A&M, and Arkansas) would be there. Personally, I think that Texas and OU would avoid that as both going there means a gauntlet to make the playoffs and parity is likely to result as so many football powers in one conference would make it harder to be dominant consistently. The ACC, PAC, and B1G would be seen as much more winnable and an easier road to the playoffs.

In the end, I don't see Texas in the SEC. If the B12 is not viable, ESPN would want the Longhorns in the ACC as the ACC really needs more football powers to drive ratings and it means that most years either Texas or FSU is playing in the playoffs as the ACC rep. LHN becomes the ACC network and saves ESPN investing in all that infrastructure as well. Just depends on who from the B12 joins them. Texas prefers going east as well for exposure and the B1G and ACC control the eastern media markets for the most part.

The ACC already turned down the Texahoma deal and soon afterward announced the addition of Syracuse and Pitt.
If Texas does end up in the ACC, where do you see Oklahoma landing (it won't be the ACC).

(01-27-2015 08:27 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 10:05 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  The SEC will get Texas if they get OU IMO. If they don't get OU, they won't get Texas. If OU goes to the SEC there would be a ton of alumni pressure for the Longhorns to go to the SEC as all three of Texas's traditional rivals (OU, A&M, and Arkansas) would be there. Personally, I think that Texas and OU would avoid that as both going there means a gauntlet to make the playoffs and parity is likely to result as so many football powers in one conference would make it harder to be dominant consistently. The ACC, PAC, and B1G would be seen as much more winnable and an easier road to the playoffs.

In the end, I don't see Texas in the SEC. If the B12 is not viable, ESPN would want the Longhorns in the ACC as the ACC really needs more football powers to drive ratings and it means that most years either Texas or FSU is playing in the playoffs as the ACC rep. LHN becomes the ACC network and saves ESPN investing in all that infrastructure as well. Just depends on who from the B12 joins them. Texas prefers going east as well for exposure and the B1G and ACC control the eastern media markets for the most part.

The ACC already turned down the Texahoma deal and soon afterward announced the addition of Syracuse and Pitt.
If Texas does end up in the ACC, where do you see Oklahoma landing (it won't be the ACC).

I sure don't see Oklahoma heading anywhere without Texas other than the SEC (provided Texas is in the ACC). Now if neither Texas or Oklahoma join the ACC then the pair could wind up anywhere. But if Texas separates and stays in a Southeastern based conference I just don't see them headed to a region away from Texas.

(01-27-2015 04:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 08:27 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 10:05 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  The SEC will get Texas if they get OU IMO. If they don't get OU, they won't get Texas. If OU goes to the SEC there would be a ton of alumni pressure for the Longhorns to go to the SEC as all three of Texas's traditional rivals (OU, A&M, and Arkansas) would be there. Personally, I think that Texas and OU would avoid that as both going there means a gauntlet to make the playoffs and parity is likely to result as so many football powers in one conference would make it harder to be dominant consistently. The ACC, PAC, and B1G would be seen as much more winnable and an easier road to the playoffs.

In the end, I don't see Texas in the SEC. If the B12 is not viable, ESPN would want the Longhorns in the ACC as the ACC really needs more football powers to drive ratings and it means that most years either Texas or FSU is playing in the playoffs as the ACC rep. LHN becomes the ACC network and saves ESPN investing in all that infrastructure as well. Just depends on who from the B12 joins them. Texas prefers going east as well for exposure and the B1G and ACC control the eastern media markets for the most part.

The ACC already turned down the Texahoma deal and soon afterward announced the addition of Syracuse and Pitt.
If Texas does end up in the ACC, where do you see Oklahoma landing (it won't be the ACC).

I sure don't see Oklahoma heading anywhere without Texas other than the SEC (provided Texas is in the ACC). Now if neither Texas or Oklahoma join the ACC then the pair could wind up anywhere. But if Texas separates and stays in a Southeastern based conference I just don't see them headed to a region away from Texas.

Well that is your opinion, other's disagree. I remember you trying to throw Landthieves in my face. Many of the folks that turned against me there are now saying either Big Ten or PAC for them. A few still want the SEC but that opinion is no longer dominant. They already liked the PAC move but most folks there were against a move to the Big Ten.

Ohio State's success has done quite a bit for how The Big Ten is now viewed by Oklahoma fans.

Oklahoma has always recruited in Texas. Being members of the same conference as Texas teams is a new thing for Oklahoma. It isn't necessary and history says that. So stop trying to claim otherwise is fact.

(01-27-2015 08:27 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 10:05 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  The SEC will get Texas if they get OU IMO. If they don't get OU, they won't get Texas. If OU goes to the SEC there would be a ton of alumni pressure for the Longhorns to go to the SEC as all three of Texas's traditional rivals (OU, A&M, and Arkansas) would be there. Personally, I think that Texas and OU would avoid that as both going there means a gauntlet to make the playoffs and parity is likely to result as so many football powers in one conference would make it harder to be dominant consistently. The ACC, PAC, and B1G would be seen as much more winnable and an easier road to the playoffs.

In the end, I don't see Texas in the SEC. If the B12 is not viable, ESPN would want the Longhorns in the ACC as the ACC really needs more football powers to drive ratings and it means that most years either Texas or FSU is playing in the playoffs as the ACC rep. LHN becomes the ACC network and saves ESPN investing in all that infrastructure as well. Just depends on who from the B12 joins them. Texas prefers going east as well for exposure and the B1G and ACC control the eastern media markets for the most part.

The ACC already turned down the Texahoma deal and soon afterward announced the addition of Syracuse and Pitt.
If Texas does end up in the ACC, where do you see Oklahoma landing (it won't be the ACC).

Oklahoma under Boren is very determined to gather as much academic clout as they can. Oklahoma football is a blue blood elite program. Norman, Oklahoma is located only 2 1/2 hours away from Dallas/Ft. Worth. Oklahoma, as a blue blood program located that close to the strongest recruiting market in the entire country, will never have serious problems with recruiting. That leaves them the capability of making the academic minded decision. That isn't to say that Big Ten membership will suddenly cause a dramatic rise in Oklahoma's academic m arks but people are people and those people, if they had to choose, would rather be considered among peers with Big Ten schools.

They can win championships from within the Big Ten so why wouldn't they make that choice?

(01-27-2015 08:27 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 10:05 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  The SEC will get Texas if they get OU IMO. If they don't get OU, they won't get Texas. If OU goes to the SEC there would be a ton of alumni pressure for the Longhorns to go to the SEC as all three of Texas's traditional rivals (OU, A&M, and Arkansas) would be there. Personally, I think that Texas and OU would avoid that as both going there means a gauntlet to make the playoffs and parity is likely to result as so many football powers in one conference would make it harder to be dominant consistently. The ACC, PAC, and B1G would be seen as much more winnable and an easier road to the playoffs.

In the end, I don't see Texas in the SEC. If the B12 is not viable, ESPN would want the Longhorns in the ACC as the ACC really needs more football powers to drive ratings and it means that most years either Texas or FSU is playing in the playoffs as the ACC rep. LHN becomes the ACC network and saves ESPN investing in all that infrastructure as well. Just depends on who from the B12 joins them. Texas prefers going east as well for exposure and the B1G and ACC control the eastern media markets for the most part.

The ACC already turned down the Texahoma deal and soon afterward announced the addition of Syracuse and Pitt.
If Texas does end up in the ACC, where do you see Oklahoma landing (it won't be the ACC).

I think OU will be in the B1G or SEC. I think OU has no desire for the ACC (and has suitors in the B1G, SEC, and PAC which are much better fits) and that was more of Texas seeing what the ACC was willing to do. The PAC really should have taken them last go around, now the B1G is talking with them and the SEC has been whispering in their ear for awhile. I think the PAC window has closed unless they take 6-8 schools to put political pressure on Texas and OU to take care of the little brothers.

I would think that Texahoma deal to the ACC would be more likely now, than in 2011, since the ACC already bent on academics with the UL add, so maybe OSU and TTU would have company at the academic bottom there. Then again, maybe that was all the academic heavyweights (Duke, UNC, UVA) in the ACC were willing to allow and the next adds will have to be more to the original ACC standard. That said I think that combo of 4 schools as sailed. I really think the only schools that fit the original ACC mold (before UL add) in the B12 are Texas, Kansas, Baylor, and TCU. I think the last two would be the most likely candidates to head to the ACC with Texas.

(01-27-2015 09:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 04:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 08:27 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 10:05 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  The SEC will get Texas if they get OU IMO. If they don't get OU, they won't get Texas. If OU goes to the SEC there would be a ton of alumni pressure for the Longhorns to go to the SEC as all three of Texas's traditional rivals (OU, A&M, and Arkansas) would be there. Personally, I think that Texas and OU would avoid that as both going there means a gauntlet to make the playoffs and parity is likely to result as so many football powers in one conference would make it harder to be dominant consistently. The ACC, PAC, and B1G would be seen as much more winnable and an easier road to the playoffs.

In the end, I don't see Texas in the SEC. If the B12 is not viable, ESPN would want the Longhorns in the ACC as the ACC really needs more football powers to drive ratings and it means that most years either Texas or FSU is playing in the playoffs as the ACC rep. LHN becomes the ACC network and saves ESPN investing in all that infrastructure as well. Just depends on who from the B12 joins them. Texas prefers going east as well for exposure and the B1G and ACC control the eastern media markets for the most part.

The ACC already turned down the Texahoma deal and soon afterward announced the addition of Syracuse and Pitt.
If Texas does end up in the ACC, where do you see Oklahoma landing (it won't be the ACC).

I sure don't see Oklahoma heading anywhere without Texas other than the SEC (provided Texas is in the ACC). Now if neither Texas or Oklahoma join the ACC then the pair could wind up anywhere. But if Texas separates and stays in a Southeastern based conference I just don't see them headed to a region away from Texas.

Well that is your opinion, other's disagree. I remember you trying to throw Landthieves in my face. Many of the folks that turned against me there are now saying either Big Ten or PAC for them. A few still want the SEC but that opinion is no longer dominant. They already liked the PAC move but most folks there were against a move to the Big Ten.

Ohio State's success has done quite a bit for how The Big Ten is now viewed by Oklahoma fans.

Oklahoma has always recruited in Texas. Being members of the same conference as Texas teams is a new thing for Oklahoma. It isn't necessary and history says that. So stop trying to claim otherwise is fact.

H1 the realignment thread of Landthieves is dominated by about 5 or 6 posters of which Hamilton, and several others who have posted the entire thread are the cluster of Oklahoma posters who always favored the PAC and the Big 10. Posters from other threads pop in and out to disagree with them. They are hardly what I would call a scientific sampling of opinion from Sooner fans. But what the heck, it's a talk site and in that regard little different from Old Gold and Blue, or Eleven Warriors, or any others. Nobody there has any more authority to make decisions than we do.

But it is my opinion that geography will play the determining factor in the final realignment. We'll see.

(01-27-2015 09:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 09:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 04:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 08:27 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 10:05 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  The SEC will get Texas if they get OU IMO. If they don't get OU, they won't get Texas. If OU goes to the SEC there would be a ton of alumni pressure for the Longhorns to go to the SEC as all three of Texas's traditional rivals (OU, A&M, and Arkansas) would be there. Personally, I think that Texas and OU would avoid that as both going there means a gauntlet to make the playoffs and parity is likely to result as so many football powers in one conference would make it harder to be dominant consistently. The ACC, PAC, and B1G would be seen as much more winnable and an easier road to the playoffs.

In the end, I don't see Texas in the SEC. If the B12 is not viable, ESPN would want the Longhorns in the ACC as the ACC really needs more football powers to drive ratings and it means that most years either Texas or FSU is playing in the playoffs as the ACC rep. LHN becomes the ACC network and saves ESPN investing in all that infrastructure as well. Just depends on who from the B12 joins them. Texas prefers going east as well for exposure and the B1G and ACC control the eastern media markets for the most part.

The ACC already turned down the Texahoma deal and soon afterward announced the addition of Syracuse and Pitt.
If Texas does end up in the ACC, where do you see Oklahoma landing (it won't be the ACC).

I sure don't see Oklahoma heading anywhere without Texas other than the SEC (provided Texas is in the ACC). Now if neither Texas or Oklahoma join the ACC then the pair could wind up anywhere. But if Texas separates and stays in a Southeastern based conference I just don't see them headed to a region away from Texas.

Well that is your opinion, other's disagree. I remember you trying to throw Landthieves in my face. Many of the folks that turned against me there are now saying either Big Ten or PAC for them. A few still want the SEC but that opinion is no longer dominant. They already liked the PAC move but most folks there were against a move to the Big Ten.

Ohio State's success has done quite a bit for how The Big Ten is now viewed by Oklahoma fans.

Oklahoma has always recruited in Texas. Being members of the same conference as Texas teams is a new thing for Oklahoma. It isn't necessary and history says that. So stop trying to claim otherwise is fact.

H1 the realignment thread of Landthieves is dominated by about 5 or 6 posters of which Hamilton, and several others who have posted the entire thread are the cluster of Oklahoma posters who always favored the PAC and the Big 10. Posters from other threads pop in and out to disagree with them. They are hardly what I would call a scientific sampling of opinion from Sooner fans. But what the heck, it's a talk site and in that regard little different from Old Gold and Blue, or Eleven Warriors, or any others. Nobody there has any more authority to make decisions than we do.

But it is my opinion that geography will play the determining factor in the final realignment. We'll see.

I respect that it is your opinion. The things you state though during your opinion come across as you believing them because of certain assumptions that simply aren't true. I am not stating that because its simply my opinion, history is on my side and that is why it is my opinion. Oklahoma doesn't need to be in a Texas centric conference in order to recruit Texas.


In regards to the folks over at Landthieves, there have been plenty of folks there in the past that thought the SEC would be the best conference for Oklahoma to join because they thought that was the only conference that is competitive on the national level. They thought that Oklahoma would need to be part of it in order to have a true shot at any national championships.

Ohio State proved otherwise. That one win caused a remarkable shift on the Landthieves board. You can say that it doesn't represent the Sooner nation. I would say that it is likely to not identically represent the Sooner nation, those folks are more Sooner than either you or I so who are we to say they don't represent it well? Are you saying that simply because opinions have changed there?

(01-27-2015 09:14 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 08:27 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 10:05 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  The SEC will get Texas if they get OU IMO. If they don't get OU, they won't get Texas. If OU goes to the SEC there would be a ton of alumni pressure for the Longhorns to go to the SEC as all three of Texas's traditional rivals (OU, A&M, and Arkansas) would be there. Personally, I think that Texas and OU would avoid that as both going there means a gauntlet to make the playoffs and parity is likely to result as so many football powers in one conference would make it harder to be dominant consistently. The ACC, PAC, and B1G would be seen as much more winnable and an easier road to the playoffs.

In the end, I don't see Texas in the SEC. If the B12 is not viable, ESPN would want the Longhorns in the ACC as the ACC really needs more football powers to drive ratings and it means that most years either Texas or FSU is playing in the playoffs as the ACC rep. LHN becomes the ACC network and saves ESPN investing in all that infrastructure as well. Just depends on who from the B12 joins them. Texas prefers going east as well for exposure and the B1G and ACC control the eastern media markets for the most part.

The ACC already turned down the Texahoma deal and soon afterward announced the addition of Syracuse and Pitt.
If Texas does end up in the ACC, where do you see Oklahoma landing (it won't be the ACC).

Oklahoma under Boren is very determined to gather as much academic clout as they can. Oklahoma football is a blue blood elite program. Norman, Oklahoma is located only 2 1/2 hours away from Dallas/Ft. Worth. Oklahoma, as a blue blood program located that close to the strongest recruiting market in the entire country, will never have serious problems with recruiting. That leaves them the capability of making the academic minded decision. That isn't to say that Big Ten membership will suddenly cause a dramatic rise in Oklahoma's academic m arks but people are people and those people, if they had to choose, would rather be considered among peers with Big Ten schools.

They can win championships from within the Big Ten so why wouldn't they make that choice?

Because outside of Kansas, Nebraska and Iowa the rest is too danged far to drive. And if the additions are Kansas and Oklahoma then Nebraska is really the only game the Sooner fans would care about.

(01-27-2015 09:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 09:14 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 08:27 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 10:05 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  The SEC will get Texas if they get OU IMO. If they don't get OU, they won't get Texas. If OU goes to the SEC there would be a ton of alumni pressure for the Longhorns to go to the SEC as all three of Texas's traditional rivals (OU, A&M, and Arkansas) would be there. Personally, I think that Texas and OU would avoid that as both going there means a gauntlet to make the playoffs and parity is likely to result as so many football powers in one conference would make it harder to be dominant consistently. The ACC, PAC, and B1G would be seen as much more winnable and an easier road to the playoffs.

In the end, I don't see Texas in the SEC. If the B12 is not viable, ESPN would want the Longhorns in the ACC as the ACC really needs more football powers to drive ratings and it means that most years either Texas or FSU is playing in the playoffs as the ACC rep. LHN becomes the ACC network and saves ESPN investing in all that infrastructure as well. Just depends on who from the B12 joins them. Texas prefers going east as well for exposure and the B1G and ACC control the eastern media markets for the most part.

The ACC already turned down the Texahoma deal and soon afterward announced the addition of Syracuse and Pitt.
If Texas does end up in the ACC, where do you see Oklahoma landing (it won't be the ACC).

Oklahoma under Boren is very determined to gather as much academic clout as they can. Oklahoma football is a blue blood elite program. Norman, Oklahoma is located only 2 1/2 hours away from Dallas/Ft. Worth. Oklahoma, as a blue blood program located that close to the strongest recruiting market in the entire country, will never have serious problems with recruiting. That leaves them the capability of making the academic minded decision. That isn't to say that Big Ten membership will suddenly cause a dramatic rise in Oklahoma's academic m arks but people are people and those people, if they had to choose, would rather be considered among peers with Big Ten schools.

They can win championships from within the Big Ten so why wouldn't they make that choice?

Because outside of Kansas, Nebraska and Iowa the rest is too danged far to drive. And if the additions are Kansas and Oklahoma then Nebraska is really the only game the Sooner fans would care about.

Who needs to drive to every away game? You get 7 home games a year. Most of the SEC is a long drive too, so I don't see that argument as being all that viable. Sorry. Oklahoma fans really don't care all that much about the SEC nor for many of the teams in it. I guess I get why an SEC fan would think their teams would be more alluring to Oklahoma fans but I really don't think they care more for SEC match ups than they do for Big Ten or PAC match ups.

That is a low priority on the totem pole.