(01-10-2016 01:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 12:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Told you guys they wouldn't. One thing that I understand very well that many do not, is the back and forth game that comes during the drawn out negotiation process. As we get nearer to the point of signing dotted lines, more of the actual truth of these conferences' positions will come to light. The Big Ten and The SEC are very much in lockstep together despite what most people want to believe.

Pretty much in lockstep on this one. Delany gets to play bad cop this time and Sankey gets to play good cop if he introduces a compromise position favorable to the Big 12 later on, and by favorable I mean the don't have to expand to host one.

It just means that the status quo stays in place. Now that still places pressure on both the ACC (no network and scheduling issues within the conference) and upon the Big 12 (no expansion for OU's Boren and the possibility of giving one of their top two teams and extra loss in the CCG).

In this regard, Sankey is simply taking over for Slive. This dance has been going on for quite awhile. I still think that the big 12 is the target. Not because The Big Ten and The SEC prefer them but because they are the overall best choice and that brings in The PAC and The ACC with them as well as ESPN. The big 12 becomes the odd man out. Fox isn't going to do much for them. Fox would rather get partial T1 rights for a Big Ten that includes Oklahoma as well as maintaining their partial T1 rights to The PAC that includes two Texas teams.

It is a compromise for everyone but it is a compromise everyone can live with and prosper from.

I thought that 6 months ago. I'm not so sure anymore. Things have changed and are continuing to change. I think that yet once again the goal is to stalemate action until the picture is clearer.

H1 the real objectives for the BTN are not in the Midwest. The first objectives for the SEC were in the Midwest, then that changed. Now they may be changing again to a degree.

ESPN has some pressure on it. Streaming is pointing the way toward considering brands over markets for future payouts.

The ACC is still grossly under utilizing their footprint, which is the largest of the P5 and yet is neck and neck with the PAC for last in % of households tuning in.

I see this as a way of permitting the Big 12 to do what they need to do with just 10. That keeps dissolution doable. I see it as actually placing more pressure on the ACC. With no network, scheduling difficulties, and a growing gap in revenue, and with ESPN having to answer some questions to Disney about revenue as well, I'd say things were fluid. And therein resides the reason to do nothing in 2017.

(01-10-2016 01:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:00 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Are we sure this wont pass? Sec and big 10 will cancel out acc and big 12. Where does the pac stand on this? Their conference title games have been underwhelming. Would they prefer the chance to matchup the two best teams? I have to think the American and MWC would prefer that option as having your 2 marque teams play would increase your odds for the access slot. The sunbelt might like to get rid of those flights to idaho which would be more likely if the acc version passes

One thing I liked about the original complete deregulation proposal was it would have allowed more than 2 divisions. Thus, large cross country conferences with regional pods would have been feasible. I'd like to see the actual language in the Big-10 amendment. If it simply requires "divisions"----and not specifically "2 divisions" like the current rule, then multiple regional pods or "divisions" could still be viable making large conferences comprised of 16-24 teams (or more) doable. You couldn't have an internal playoff---but you could pit the highest two ranking pod (division) winners against one another in the CCG. That could offer a conference a structural advantage over traditional 2 division conferences.

All the more reason to oppose it. Teams in conferences should actually play each other.

And they would. Some more often than others---just like every other 12 to 14 team conference, only the frequency would differ. It should be noted that the pod structure stemming from deregulation would actually allow for MORE interaction between teams in larger conferences than traditional divisions--even for conferences of 12 and 14 members. .

(01-10-2016 12:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 12:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 12:11 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  as originally proposed.

Source: Stewart Mandel quoting SEC Commish Sankey

I assume this means that deregulation won't pass as originally proposed, but might pass with the Big 10 rider requiring divisions.

There's nothing new here. The key words are "as proposed". Sankey has already said that divisions should be required with 12 or more schools, but that he had no problem with the those in divisions of 10 or less having a CCG. Some reports have called this the SEC compromise. So Sankey's remarks are more aimed at the ACC than they are the Big 12.

Yes, until either the SEC or B1G comes out and says they won't support a CCG for conferences with fewer than 12 teams, those hoping for forced Big 12 expansion don't have much reason to get excited.

Nevertheless, I hope all the admins at USF are working overtime to polish our resume and make our case.

The B12 itself has said it can't see how the two division format will be viable with 10 members. And frankly in the B12's case, it makes no sense since everyone plays everyone.

But try splitting the 10 teams into 2 divisions and then see what happens for a CG.

(01-10-2016 12:50 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

Sometimes folks...you have to learn to trust the one you hate. It is a difficult lesson for sure.

Translation: I HAVE ALL THE STROKE!! YOU WILL ALL BOW TO ME!!!!!! Wait, you mean I don't have all the stroke? Dang. YOU WILL STILL ALL BOW TO ME!!!!!!!

(01-10-2016 01:19 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:00 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Are we sure this wont pass? Sec and big 10 will cancel out acc and big 12. Where does the pac stand on this? Their conference title games have been underwhelming. Would they prefer the chance to matchup the two best teams? I have to think the American and MWC would prefer that option as having your 2 marque teams play would increase your odds for the access slot. The sunbelt might like to get rid of those flights to idaho which would be more likely if the acc version passes

One thing I liked about the original complete deregulation proposal was it would have allowed more than 2 divisions. Thus, large cross country conferences with regional pods would have been feasible. I'd like to see the actual language in the Big-10 amendment. If it simply requires "divisions"----and not specifically "2 divisions" like the current rule, then multiple regional pods or "divisions" could still be viable making large conferences comprised of 16-24 teams (or more) doable. You couldn't have an internal playoff---but you could pit the highest two ranking pod (division) winners against one another in the CCG. That could offer a conference a structural advantage over traditional 2 division conferences.

The way i read the big 10 proposal it required two round robin divisions

In every single statement I have seen about the proposal, it has always stated divisions, not two divisions. It opens the way to further realignment by using the ACC proposal to get rid of the two division system.

(01-10-2016 01:29 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 12:50 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

Sometimes folks...you have to learn to trust the one you hate. It is a difficult lesson for sure.

Translation: I HAVE ALL THE STROKE!! YOU WILL ALL BOW TO ME!!!!!! Wait, you mean I don't have all the stroke? Dang. YOU WILL STILL ALL BOW TO ME!!!!!!!

You don't have to bow, but it would be nice if you would bring me my coffee. Thank you!

(01-10-2016 01:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 12:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Told you guys they wouldn't. One thing that I understand very well that many do not, is the back and forth game that comes during the drawn out negotiation process. As we get nearer to the point of signing dotted lines, more of the actual truth of these conferences' positions will come to light. The Big Ten and The SEC are very much in lockstep together despite what most people want to believe.

Pretty much in lockstep on this one. Delany gets to play bad cop this time and Sankey gets to play good cop if he introduces a compromise position favorable to the Big 12 later on, and by favorable I mean the don't have to expand to host one.

It just means that the status quo stays in place. Now that still places pressure on both the ACC (no network and scheduling issues within the conference) and upon the Big 12 (no expansion for OU's Boren and the possibility of giving one of their top two teams and extra loss in the CCG).

In this regard, Sankey is simply taking over for Slive. This dance has been going on for quite awhile. I still think that the big 12 is the target. Not because The Big Ten and The SEC prefer them but because they are the overall best choice and that brings in The PAC and The ACC with them as well as ESPN. The big 12 becomes the odd man out. Fox isn't going to do much for them. Fox would rather get partial T1 rights for a Big Ten that includes Oklahoma as well as maintaining their partial T1 rights to The PAC that includes two Texas teams.

It is a compromise for everyone but it is a compromise everyone can live with and prosper from.

Except they and ESPN have already signed a contract agreeing to pay full price for 2 new Big-12 members.

If it was that cut and dry, it would already be done. The fact that it hasn't already been done just goes to show there are complications.

Big 10 contract coming up soon and if it has eyes for OU and KU, that has to be a factor at play here

(01-10-2016 01:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 12:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Told you guys they wouldn't. One thing that I understand very well that many do not, is the back and forth game that comes during the drawn out negotiation process. As we get nearer to the point of signing dotted lines, more of the actual truth of these conferences' positions will come to light. The Big Ten and The SEC are very much in lockstep together despite what most people want to believe.

Pretty much in lockstep on this one. Delany gets to play bad cop this time and Sankey gets to play good cop if he introduces a compromise position favorable to the Big 12 later on, and by favorable I mean the don't have to expand to host one.

It just means that the status quo stays in place. Now that still places pressure on both the ACC (no network and scheduling issues within the conference) and upon the Big 12 (no expansion for OU's Boren and the possibility of giving one of their top two teams and extra loss in the CCG).

In this regard, Sankey is simply taking over for Slive. This dance has been going on for quite awhile. I still think that the big 12 is the target. Not because The Big Ten and The SEC prefer them but because they are the overall best choice and that brings in The PAC and The ACC with them as well as ESPN. The big 12 becomes the odd man out. Fox isn't going to do much for them. Fox would rather get partial T1 rights for a Big Ten that includes Oklahoma as well as maintaining their partial T1 rights to The PAC that includes two Texas teams.

It is a compromise for everyone but it is a compromise everyone can live with and prosper from.

Except they and ESPN have already signed a contract agreeing to pay full price for 2 new Big-12 members.

If it was that cut and dry, it would already be done. The fact that it hasn't already been done just goes to show there are complications.

There are complications, but it doesnt have anything to do with the tv contracts. It has to do with not wanting to expand. Besides, automatic expansion of the media contract doesn't mean there isn't still dilution of income from other revenue sources (bowls, CFP, NCAA credits, etc).

Bob Bowlsby: "We do not want to add members or be forced to play two divisions."

(01-10-2016 01:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 12:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Told you guys they wouldn't. One thing that I understand very well that many do not, is the back and forth game that comes during the drawn out negotiation process. As we get nearer to the point of signing dotted lines, more of the actual truth of these conferences' positions will come to light. The Big Ten and The SEC are very much in lockstep together despite what most people want to believe.

Pretty much in lockstep on this one. Delany gets to play bad cop this time and Sankey gets to play good cop if he introduces a compromise position favorable to the Big 12 later on, and by favorable I mean the don't have to expand to host one.

It just means that the status quo stays in place. Now that still places pressure on both the ACC (no network and scheduling issues within the conference) and upon the Big 12 (no expansion for OU's Boren and the possibility of giving one of their top two teams and extra loss in the CCG).

In this regard, Sankey is simply taking over for Slive. This dance has been going on for quite awhile. I still think that the big 12 is the target. Not because The Big Ten and The SEC prefer them but because they are the overall best choice and that brings in The PAC and The ACC with them as well as ESPN. The big 12 becomes the odd man out. Fox isn't going to do much for them. Fox would rather get partial T1 rights for a Big Ten that includes Oklahoma as well as maintaining their partial T1 rights to The PAC that includes two Texas teams.

It is a compromise for everyone but it is a compromise everyone can live with and prosper from.

Except they and ESPN have already signed a contract agreeing to pay full price for 2 new Big-12 members.

If it was that cut and dry, it would already be done. The fact that it hasn't already been done just goes to show there are complications.

There can both be a contract as noted, and complications. For all we know the Big12 wants a raise in exchange for adding schools.

(01-10-2016 01:43 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Big 10 contract coming up soon and if it has eyes for OU and KU, that has to be a factor at play here

Why? That adds 6 million households and the Big 10 already carries a goodly portion of Kansas. It does provide two brands however. I don't think that's what the Big 10 really wants. They can pick up Kansas whenever they would like, so what's the rush? Oklahoma isn't leaving by themselves or even with Kansas. It will take 8 to make that move now. Where are they all going?

10th the situation hasn't changed an Iota's worth in the last 3 years. There's about 7 years to go before it is viable to break up the Big 12, maybe 5 if the money is right. So I seriously doubt, unless the other parts have truly been brokered, that anything is going to happen this year with regards to the Big 12. But as always we'll wait and see.

(01-10-2016 01:45 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Pretty much in lockstep on this one. Delany gets to play bad cop this time and Sankey gets to play good cop if he introduces a compromise position favorable to the Big 12 later on, and by favorable I mean the don't have to expand to host one.

It just means that the status quo stays in place. Now that still places pressure on both the ACC (no network and scheduling issues within the conference) and upon the Big 12 (no expansion for OU's Boren and the possibility of giving one of their top two teams and extra loss in the CCG).

In this regard, Sankey is simply taking over for Slive. This dance has been going on for quite awhile. I still think that the big 12 is the target. Not because The Big Ten and The SEC prefer them but because they are the overall best choice and that brings in The PAC and The ACC with them as well as ESPN. The big 12 becomes the odd man out. Fox isn't going to do much for them. Fox would rather get partial T1 rights for a Big Ten that includes Oklahoma as well as maintaining their partial T1 rights to The PAC that includes two Texas teams.

It is a compromise for everyone but it is a compromise everyone can live with and prosper from.

Except they and ESPN have already signed a contract agreeing to pay full price for 2 new Big-12 members.

If it was that cut and dry, it would already be done. The fact that it hasn't already been done just goes to show there are complications.

There can both be a contract as noted, and complications. For all we know the Big12 wants a raise in exchange for adding schools.

In which case they would summarily be laughed out of any board room within which they made such a proposal. They already got an over valued contract based upon the ratings numbers they have achieved in comparison to other conferences. To add two mid majors and expect a raise as well?

yeah....

(01-10-2016 01:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 12:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Told you guys they wouldn't. One thing that I understand very well that many do not, is the back and forth game that comes during the drawn out negotiation process. As we get nearer to the point of signing dotted lines, more of the actual truth of these conferences' positions will come to light. The Big Ten and The SEC are very much in lockstep together despite what most people want to believe.

Pretty much in lockstep on this one. Delany gets to play bad cop this time and Sankey gets to play good cop if he introduces a compromise position favorable to the Big 12 later on, and by favorable I mean the don't have to expand to host one.

It just means that the status quo stays in place. Now that still places pressure on both the ACC (no network and scheduling issues within the conference) and upon the Big 12 (no expansion for OU's Boren and the possibility of giving one of their top two teams and extra loss in the CCG).

In this regard, Sankey is simply taking over for Slive. This dance has been going on for quite awhile. I still think that the big 12 is the target. Not because The Big Ten and The SEC prefer them but because they are the overall best choice and that brings in The PAC and The ACC with them as well as ESPN. The big 12 becomes the odd man out. Fox isn't going to do much for them. Fox would rather get partial T1 rights for a Big Ten that includes Oklahoma as well as maintaining their partial T1 rights to The PAC that includes two Texas teams.

It is a compromise for everyone but it is a compromise everyone can live with and prosper from.

Except they and ESPN have already signed a contract agreeing to pay full price for 2 new Big-12 members.

If it was that cut and dry, it would already be done. The fact that it hasn't already been done just goes to show there are complications.

I've seen all kinds of assertions about what the B12 - ESPN contract says. Yet I'll bet nobody outside those two parties has ever actually seen the contract. To me, the idea that the B12 could add just any two FBS schools (or even current FCS schools) and ESPN will pay the same amount doesn't ring true. I have to believe that there is some clause giving ESPN the power to veto (i.e. dictate) the B12's choices.

I wouldn't rule out at this point the notion that ESPN would prefer chaos that leads to the breakup of the Big 12 (and maybe even the ACC) as a way to reduce the number of schools considered "power" worthy. The fewer such schools, the cheaper they can get the games they really want. In this regard, I don't think symmetry (like four 16 team leagues) is necessarily a goal. In fact, I suspect that three surviving power conferences might be their desired end game.

(01-10-2016 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:43 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Big 10 contract coming up soon and if it has eyes for OU and KU, that has to be a factor at play here

Why? That adds 6 million households and the Big 10 already carries a goodly portion of Kansas. It does provide two brands however. I don't think that's what the Big 10 really wants. They can pick up Kansas whenever they would like, so what's the rush? Oklahoma isn't leaving by themselves or even with Kansas. It will take 8 to make that move now. Where are they all going?

10th the situation hasn't changed an Iota's worth in the last 3 years. There's about 7 years to go before it is viable to break up the Big 12, maybe 5 if the money is right. So I seriously doubt, unless the other parts have truly been brokered, that anything is going to happen this year with regards to the Big 12. But as always we'll wait and see.

No, Oklahoma and Kansas is not what The Big Ten wants but could they be talked into that position should they gain what they want in other areas? Yes, I do believe they would.

(01-10-2016 01:44 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  Bob Bowlsby: "We do not want to add members or be forced to play two divisions."

Good night big 12, good night.

(01-10-2016 01:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Pretty much in lockstep on this one. Delany gets to play bad cop this time and Sankey gets to play good cop if he introduces a compromise position favorable to the Big 12 later on, and by favorable I mean the don't have to expand to host one.

It just means that the status quo stays in place. Now that still places pressure on both the ACC (no network and scheduling issues within the conference) and upon the Big 12 (no expansion for OU's Boren and the possibility of giving one of their top two teams and extra loss in the CCG).

In this regard, Sankey is simply taking over for Slive. This dance has been going on for quite awhile. I still think that the big 12 is the target. Not because The Big Ten and The SEC prefer them but because they are the overall best choice and that brings in The PAC and The ACC with them as well as ESPN. The big 12 becomes the odd man out. Fox isn't going to do much for them. Fox would rather get partial T1 rights for a Big Ten that includes Oklahoma as well as maintaining their partial T1 rights to The PAC that includes two Texas teams.

It is a compromise for everyone but it is a compromise everyone can live with and prosper from.

Except they and ESPN have already signed a contract agreeing to pay full price for 2 new Big-12 members.

If it was that cut and dry, it would already be done. The fact that it hasn't already been done just goes to show there are complications.

There are complications, but it doesnt have anything to do with the tv contracts. It has to do with not wanting to expand. Besides, automatic expansion of the media contract doesn't mean there isn't still dilution of income from other revenue sources (bowls, CFP, NCAA credits, etc).

The big 12 has always had the problem of figuring out how they would set up two divisions if they could actually make them. That wont change whether it is with 10 teams or 12 teams. It is a problem and they know it.

You addressed the contracts they have with Fox and ESPN though so that is what I replied about.

(01-10-2016 01:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Pretty much in lockstep on this one. Delany gets to play bad cop this time and Sankey gets to play good cop if he introduces a compromise position favorable to the Big 12 later on, and by favorable I mean the don't have to expand to host one.

It just means that the status quo stays in place. Now that still places pressure on both the ACC (no network and scheduling issues within the conference) and upon the Big 12 (no expansion for OU's Boren and the possibility of giving one of their top two teams and extra loss in the CCG).

In this regard, Sankey is simply taking over for Slive. This dance has been going on for quite awhile. I still think that the big 12 is the target. Not because The Big Ten and The SEC prefer them but because they are the overall best choice and that brings in The PAC and The ACC with them as well as ESPN. The big 12 becomes the odd man out. Fox isn't going to do much for them. Fox would rather get partial T1 rights for a Big Ten that includes Oklahoma as well as maintaining their partial T1 rights to The PAC that includes two Texas teams.

It is a compromise for everyone but it is a compromise everyone can live with and prosper from.

Except they and ESPN have already signed a contract agreeing to pay full price for 2 new Big-12 members.

If it was that cut and dry, it would already be done. The fact that it hasn't already been done just goes to show there are complications.

I've seen all kinds of assertions about what the B12 - ESPN contract says. Yet I'll bet nobody outside those two parties has ever actually seen the contract. To me, the idea that the B12 could add just any two FBS schools (or even current FCS schools) and ESPN will pay the same amount doesn't ring true. I have to believe that there is some clause giving ESPN the power to veto (i.e. dictate) the B12's choices.

I wouldn't rule out at this point the notion that ESPN would prefer chaos that leads to the breakup of the Big 12 (and maybe even the ACC) as a way to reduce the number of schools considered "power" worthy. The fewer such schools, the cheaper they can get the games they really want. In this regard, I don't think symmetry (like four 16 team leagues) is necessarily a goal. In fact, I suspect that three surviving power conferences might be their desired end game.

Yep, 60 or 54 could be just as easily the goal as 64 or 72.

(01-10-2016 01:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Pretty much in lockstep on this one. Delany gets to play bad cop this time and Sankey gets to play good cop if he introduces a compromise position favorable to the Big 12 later on, and by favorable I mean the don't have to expand to host one.

It just means that the status quo stays in place. Now that still places pressure on both the ACC (no network and scheduling issues within the conference) and upon the Big 12 (no expansion for OU's Boren and the possibility of giving one of their top two teams and extra loss in the CCG).

In this regard, Sankey is simply taking over for Slive. This dance has been going on for quite awhile. I still think that the big 12 is the target. Not because The Big Ten and The SEC prefer them but because they are the overall best choice and that brings in The PAC and The ACC with them as well as ESPN. The big 12 becomes the odd man out. Fox isn't going to do much for them. Fox would rather get partial T1 rights for a Big Ten that includes Oklahoma as well as maintaining their partial T1 rights to The PAC that includes two Texas teams.

It is a compromise for everyone but it is a compromise everyone can live with and prosper from.

Except they and ESPN have already signed a contract agreeing to pay full price for 2 new Big-12 members.

If it was that cut and dry, it would already be done. The fact that it hasn't already been done just goes to show there are complications.

I've seen all kinds of assertions about what the B12 - ESPN contract says. Yet I'll bet nobody outside those two parties has ever actually seen the contract. To me, the idea that the B12 could add just any two FBS schools (or even current FCS schools) and ESPN will pay the same amount doesn't ring true. I have to believe that there is some clause giving ESPN the power to veto (i.e. dictate) the B12's choices.

I wouldn't rule out at this point the notion that ESPN would prefer chaos that leads to the breakup of the Big 12 (and maybe even the ACC) as a way to reduce the number of schools considered "power" worthy. The fewer such schools, the cheaper they can get the games they really want. In this regard, I don't think symmetry (like four 16 team leagues) is necessarily a goal. In fact, I suspect that three surviving power conferences might be their desired end game.

I wont rule that out as a possibility. I wont yet stand behind such an idea as a probability but if it could work out that way would ESPN like that? Of course they would.

(01-10-2016 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  10th the situation hasn't changed an Iota's worth in the last 3 years. There's about 7 years to go before it is viable to break up the Big 12, maybe 5 if the money is right.

Which means, if OU (and UT) enjoy running their own conference, they need to strengthen the Big 12 ASAP.

Otherwise, they get shuffled off into some other larger pond with a lot of big fish.

This explains why Oklahoma is pushing expansion. Pushing a conference network.