(02-13-2017 08:33 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I can see Oklahoma & Oklahoma State to the SEC. The ACC could go to 18 with Texas, ND, TT & TCU if allowed to go to a 3x6. Those 4 plus Louisville & Miami(?) would make a strong western division. In that scenario the SEC could go to 18 as well with Kansas & 1 other. The B1G & PAC would then become extremely limited.

Lenville, it is this kind of thinking that must be done if the Big 12 is to receive enough votes to dissolve. Yes, the ACC could think in terms of taking 3 with Notre Dame.

Let's say that Baylor is expelled, or simply put on a probation where their voting power is also suspended. Now 7 votes is all you need to dissolve the Big 12. Remember also that a scheduling alliance between the SEC and ACC would enable present Big 12 members to still play each other annually if the SEC and ACC accounted for 7 of those members between them.

Texas, T.C.U. & T.Tech along with Notre Dame would form a nice addition for the ACCN. Oklahoma, Kansas, Oklahoma State and either Iowa State or West Virginia could then be considered for the SEC. ESPN could manage this in house and such a move might well cement the competitiveness of the ACC with regards to revenue for quite some time. It would at least bring more balance between the Big 10 / SEC and ACC with respect to revenue. The PAC would become even more of a distant 4th, but they would still remain. They could partner with the Big 10 to help themselves a bit.

(02-13-2017 12:11 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 02:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 01:22 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 09:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 09:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It's possible, but no longer as likely as before. Minor sports are the issue.

Yep!
No lacrosse or field hockey.

If the ACC was willing to create a pod in the central portion of the country then I would say maybe Texas to the ACC was likely given the ESPN connection. If Texas has to travel to the East Coast for all their minor sports though then I don't see it.

This. Because Texas doesn't want their minor sports in a non P conference. They have to join a P conference in full. I could see the PAC if they can take enough schools from the Big 12 to have their own division. And, only if ESPN gets a share of the PACN.

The Big 10 can't take enough schools from the Big 12 to make Texas a comfy local home.

They aren't joining the ACC by themselves and flying over old rivals to get to them.

That leaves us.

ok, JR, let me throw you a curve ball. what if the SEC ceded two eastern schools to the ACC to make room for the Texahoma4? admittedly, this is crazy off-season talk, but you could send Kentucky to the ACC without ruffling too many feathers. heck, the UK crowd would probably love the basketball side of it. Maybe USC or Vandy could be the other one. it would solidify the best football and basketball under ESPN.

The only problem with this kind of thinking is revenue. Kentucky won't cede 40.4 million, or next year's projections of 43 million unless the ACC could ball park that figure, and that's if Kentucky wants the tougher slate of competition. They do get to game the system in hoops a bit by playing a bottom half of the SEC in a sport most SEC schools don't truly care enough about. Could their ego's stand a dogfight for a conference crown every year?

But that said from a purely geographically rational point of view what you suggest makes a lot of sense. If something like that happened it would be imminently easier to lure the key brands of the Big 12 into the ESPN family by utilizing the SEC. From a purely SEC football first perspective watching Kentucky and Vanderbilt head to the ACC where they might join a West Virginia and Notre Dame to give the ACC three divisions of six, and to permit the SEC to add 6 to the West breaks down nicely.

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Iowa State then become a very nice way with WVU to the ACC to break up and dissolve the Big 12, especially if Baylor is on probation without voting rights. Because if they are it only requires 7 votes to dissolve the conference.

NEW SEC: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee

Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech

Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Oklahoma St., Texas A&M

New ACC: Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Va Tech, W. Virginia

Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Wake Forest

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, Miami, Vanderbilt

Ideally that solves a lot of issues for both conferences. Practically it presents some revenue issues. Those additions for the ACC add value, but not in the areas that closes the gap. The SEC adds value with three brands, and dilutes it with the other three. It might be close to a wash for us with Texas and OU. We lose a sports laggard in Vanderbilt, but also loose academic prowess. Kentucky might be a wash with Kansas.

But from a geographical and rivals standpoint it's a winner.

(02-13-2017 01:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 12:11 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 02:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 01:22 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 09:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  Yep!
No lacrosse or field hockey.

If the ACC was willing to create a pod in the central portion of the country then I would say maybe Texas to the ACC was likely given the ESPN connection. If Texas has to travel to the East Coast for all their minor sports though then I don't see it.

This. Because Texas doesn't want their minor sports in a non P conference. They have to join a P conference in full. I could see the PAC if they can take enough schools from the Big 12 to have their own division. And, only if ESPN gets a share of the PACN.

The Big 10 can't take enough schools from the Big 12 to make Texas a comfy local home.

They aren't joining the ACC by themselves and flying over old rivals to get to them.

That leaves us.

ok, JR, let me throw you a curve ball. what if the SEC ceded two eastern schools to the ACC to make room for the Texahoma4? admittedly, this is crazy off-season talk, but you could send Kentucky to the ACC without ruffling too many feathers. heck, the UK crowd would probably love the basketball side of it. Maybe USC or Vandy could be the other one. it would solidify the best football and basketball under ESPN.

The only problem with this kind of thinking is revenue. Kentucky won't cede 40.4 million, or next year's projections of 43 million unless the ACC could ball park that figure, and that's if Kentucky wants the tougher slate of competition. They do get to game the system in hoops a bit by playing a bottom half of the SEC in a sport most SEC schools don't truly care enough about. Could their ego's stand a dogfight for a conference crown every year?

But that said from a purely geographically rational point of view what you suggest makes a lot of sense. If something like that happened it would be imminently easier to lure the key brands of the Big 12 into the ESPN family by utilizing the SEC. From a purely SEC football first perspective watching Kentucky and Vanderbilt head to the ACC where they might join a West Virginia and Notre Dame to give the ACC three divisions of six, and to permit the SEC to add 6 to the West breaks down nicely.

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Iowa State then become a very nice way with WVU to the ACC to break up and dissolve the Big 12, especially if Baylor is on probation without voting rights. Because if they are it only requires 7 votes to dissolve the conference.

NEW SEC: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee

Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech

Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Oklahoma St., Texas A&M

New ACC: Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Va Tech, W. Virginia

Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Wake Forest

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, Miami, Vanderbilt

Ideally that solves a lot of issues for both conferences. Practically it presents some revenue issues. Those additions for the ACC add value, but not in the areas that closes the gap. The SEC adds value with three brands, and dilutes it with the other three. It might be close to a wash for us with Texas and OU. We lose a sports laggard in Vanderbilt, but also loose academic prowess. Kentucky might be a wash with Kansas.

But from a geographical and rivals standpoint it's a winner.

In a couple of years there won't be an unmanageable revenue gap between the ACC and the SEC, but Kentucky still won't want the competition.

(02-13-2017 08:56 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 08:36 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 08:26 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 02:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 01:22 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If the ACC was willing to create a pod in the central portion of the country then I would say maybe Texas to the ACC was likely given the ESPN connection. If Texas has to travel to the East Coast for all their minor sports though then I don't see it.

This. Because Texas doesn't want their minor sports in a non P conference. They have to join a P conference in full. I could see the PAC if they can take enough schools from the Big 12 to have their own division. And, only if ESPN gets a share of the PACN.

The Big 10 can't take enough schools from the Big 12 to make Texas a comfy local home.

They aren't joining the ACC by themselves and flying over old rivals to get to them.

That leaves us.

Or Texas can reconstruct the SWC with as many Texas schools as they want after Oklahoma moves to the SEC. They already have a network and only need ten to hold a championship game.
Even if Kansas moves to the B1G and Oklahoma is gone adding the "best of the rest" (Cincinnati, Houston and BYU) gets you a viable conference. Need more numbers? SMU, Rice, Tulane and New Mexico and you are at 15 just like the B1G, SEC and ACC.
There are a lot of options open to Texas before "that leaves us".
Plus Texas is the undisputed KING and every other school in the conference would be beholding to them.

They very well could reconstruct their own league, but do they want to? If they allow their own league to be downgraded in relevance and money every few years then eventually they're going to have some serious issues financially. There's a reason they left the original SWC.

I think a more likely scenario than that would be a quasi-independence with a rebuilt Big 12. They want to play regional rivals, yes, but they aren't going to allow their football program to be downgraded in prestige.

It's not very impressive to be the king when your dominion is a dumpster fire.

Texas' financial future is set as long as the LHN contract is in force, it's only the other guys that will be making less which even strengthens Texas' dominance.

Compared to their conference mates? True. Compared to other elite programs nationally? They'll start to lag behind.

Remember that their 1st and 2nd Tier contracts are still worth more than their LHN deal. That's also true in terms of exposure. Weaker conference mates will lead to weaker viewership and less favorable time slots. The value of the LHN takes a dive as well. It can't compare to a strong conference network as it is and all that is assuming ESPN plans to maintain the contract in the long term.

I think the whole goal of giving UT the LHN was to force them into a conference of ESPN's choosing. I doubt it was a long term solution.

Additionally, place all of this in the context that all their key rivals will be in stronger conferences elsewhere. That's a recipe for disaster.

SEC needs...

1. Oklahoma...may have to take Oklahoma State to get them

2. Another TX school...would prefer UT, but TCU might do if UT is in the ACC and the 2 conferences can essentially share TX like they share other states

3. Some basketball quality...you get some of that with the OK schools although Kansas is a slam dunk here. See what I did there?

4. Greater national exposure in order to increase already strong revenue base line.

At least, that is the way I see it.

How about this...

SEC takes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and TCU

ACC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Iowa State, and Notre Dame

Lots of opportunities for crossover content.

(02-13-2017 04:53 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  SEC needs...

1. Oklahoma...may have to take Oklahoma State to get them

2. Another TX school...would prefer UT, but TCU might do if UT is in the ACC and the 2 conferences can essentially share TX like they share other states

3. Some basketball quality...you get some of that with the OK schools although Kansas is a slam dunk here. See what I did there?

4. Greater national exposure in order to increase already strong revenue base line.

At least, that is the way I see it.

How about this...

SEC takes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and TCU

ACC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Iowa State, and Notre Dame

Lots of opportunities for crossover content.

If the SEC gets #1, they don't need #2

(02-13-2017 09:42 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 04:53 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  SEC needs...

1. Oklahoma...may have to take Oklahoma State to get them

2. Another TX school...would prefer UT, but TCU might do if UT is in the ACC and the 2 conferences can essentially share TX like they share other states

3. Some basketball quality...you get some of that with the OK schools although Kansas is a slam dunk here. See what I did there?

4. Greater national exposure in order to increase already strong revenue base line.

At least, that is the way I see it.

How about this...

SEC takes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and TCU

ACC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Iowa State, and Notre Dame

Lots of opportunities for crossover content.

If the SEC gets #1, they don't need #2

I understand why people say that and I can't say for certain they are wrong. However, I can't see a downside in owning an additional presence in TX. The state is so large and populous that I think a 2nd school is a net positive.

(02-14-2017 03:39 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 09:42 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 04:53 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  SEC needs...

1. Oklahoma...may have to take Oklahoma State to get them

2. Another TX school...would prefer UT, but TCU might do if UT is in the ACC and the 2 conferences can essentially share TX like they share other states

3. Some basketball quality...you get some of that with the OK schools although Kansas is a slam dunk here. See what I did there?

4. Greater national exposure in order to increase already strong revenue base line.

At least, that is the way I see it.

How about this...

SEC takes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and TCU

ACC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Iowa State, and Notre Dame

Lots of opportunities for crossover content.

If the SEC gets #1, they don't need #2

I understand why people say that and I can't say for certain they are wrong. However, I can't see a downside in owning an additional presence in TX. The state is so large and populous that I think a 2nd school is a net positive.

Wouldn't the OK schools give you what TCU would without TCU? For another slice of Texas wouldn't TT be better? I think that with A&M, TT & the OK schools that the SEC could pretty much have the entire state of Texas covered, or as well as they can without the Longhorns.

The ACC could then take in Texas, TCU & either Baylor or Houston, depending on the Bears situation, with ND. Houston maybe more palatable to Tobacco Road since they aren't as likely to be a Longhorn lackey. I don't think that TCU would be as under Texas thumb as TT or Baylor would be either.

(02-14-2017 09:14 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 03:39 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 09:42 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 04:53 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  SEC needs...

1. Oklahoma...may have to take Oklahoma State to get them

2. Another TX school...would prefer UT, but TCU might do if UT is in the ACC and the 2 conferences can essentially share TX like they share other states

3. Some basketball quality...you get some of that with the OK schools although Kansas is a slam dunk here. See what I did there?

4. Greater national exposure in order to increase already strong revenue base line.

At least, that is the way I see it.

How about this...

SEC takes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and TCU

ACC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Iowa State, and Notre Dame

Lots of opportunities for crossover content.

If the SEC gets #1, they don't need #2

I understand why people say that and I can't say for certain they are wrong. However, I can't see a downside in owning an additional presence in TX. The state is so large and populous that I think a 2nd school is a net positive.

Wouldn't the OK schools give you what TCU would without TCU? For another slice of Texas wouldn't TT be better? I think that with A&M, TT & the OK schools that the SEC could pretty much have the entire state of Texas covered, or as well as they can without the Longhorns.

The ACC could then take in Texas, TCU & either Baylor or Houston, depending on the Bears situation, with ND. Houston maybe more palatable to Tobacco Road since they aren't as likely to be a Longhorn lackey. I don't think that TCU would be as under Texas thumb as TT or Baylor would be either.

As far as actual viewership in the state, Tech probably has as many or more than TCU does. I think you're right about that. At the same time, I like TCU's locale when it comes to potential.

DFW is a huge city and having a presence there, I think, would pay off in a variety of ways...media coverage, recruiting. Also, I think there's the quality of content that TCU could bring by being associated with the SEC. It would become a major destination for recruits. TCU has taken a lot of strides since being promoted to the Big 12. Tech has been in the Big 12 all along and rarely has a successful season. For one, they are located hundreds of miles from any major population center. It's hard to get recruits there. The fans are passionate so it's not like I think Tech would be a bad addition, but I would prefer TCU if given the choice.

Also, I don't think anyone is taking Baylor at this stage.

Here's why I say we need a 2nd TX school...

I get that there are tons of Oklahoma fans in DFW, but DFW is not in Oklahoma. In fact, there are more people in DFW than in the entire state of Oklahoma. Where do you think most OU fans reside? Not in Dallas.

For an example closer to home, let's look at Atlanta. DFW and Atlanta are of similar size. There are tons of Bama fans in Atlanta and there are tons of Auburn fans as well. If some conference were to claim Bama and Auburn as a part of their roster then their viewership in Atlanta would go up, no doubt. They would not, however, be able to claim the market. The market is too large and diverse, there is too much competition, and ultimately the market would not be in the same state.

Consider also that TX is a huge population state and is still growing by leaps and bounds. Having Texas A&M is a fantastic addition, there is no doubt about that. They have a serious presence in Houston, DFW, and every other part of the state. There's a lot of competition though in such a large and diverse state. UT is #1 with A&M being the #2. If we were to land UT then this is a moot point, but if we don't then I think we are well served tapping this market a second time. Let's not just think in terms of viewership now, but what the demographics will be in 50 years. The state of TX is a behemoth and it's only getting bigger.

(02-13-2017 04:53 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  SEC needs...

1. Oklahoma...may have to take Oklahoma State to get them

2. Another TX school...would prefer UT, but TCU might do if UT is in the ACC and the 2 conferences can essentially share TX like they share other states

3. Some basketball quality...you get some of that with the OK schools although Kansas is a slam dunk here. See what I did there?

4. Greater national exposure in order to increase already strong revenue base line.

At least, that is the way I see it.

How about this...

SEC takes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and TCU

ACC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Iowa State, and Notre Dame

Lots of opportunities for crossover content.

The only thing I would add to this is: 5. Schools that can contribute or at the very least not hurt academically (as has been posted on here again and again, academics can keep you out but not necessarily get you in.)

For example, one my main concerns about OK State isn't market duplication, but academics. Even though they are the odder fit, Kansas as an AAU and a basketball powerhouse fits in better. Which is why we have heard SEC prefers Kansas/OK to OK/State.

But using that criteria, I'm not sure there is a second Texas team outside of Austin that adds value (basketball and academics). And while I recognize the value of Texas, I really want to be fair to A&M and wonder about cultural fits (then again, I just advocated for Kansas, so culture may be out the window anyway).

Based on that criteria, I wonder how the SEC would view an Iowa State team (AAU and basketball) versus a TCU or Texas Tech.

Also, though I know it is much further down the road, if at all, I wonder if Buzz Williams can do for VT basketball what Beamer did for football. If that becomes the case and the ACC ever does become a legitimate option, a solid basketball team in Blacksburg seems to shoot them up the list (even more so than they already are on forums like this).

(02-14-2017 11:43 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 04:53 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  SEC needs...

1. Oklahoma...may have to take Oklahoma State to get them

2. Another TX school...would prefer UT, but TCU might do if UT is in the ACC and the 2 conferences can essentially share TX like they share other states

3. Some basketball quality...you get some of that with the OK schools although Kansas is a slam dunk here. See what I did there?

4. Greater national exposure in order to increase already strong revenue base line.

At least, that is the way I see it.

How about this...

SEC takes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and TCU

ACC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Iowa State, and Notre Dame

Lots of opportunities for crossover content.

The only thing I would add to this is: 5. Schools that can contribute or at the very least not hurt academically (as has been posted on here again and again, academics can keep you out but not necessarily get you in.)

For example, one my main concerns about OK State isn't market duplication, but academics. Even though they are the odder fit, Kansas as an AAU and a basketball powerhouse fits in better. Which is why we have heard SEC prefers Kansas/OK to OK/State.

But using that criteria, I'm not sure there is a second Texas team outside of Austin that adds value (basketball and academics). And while I recognize the value of Texas, I really want to be fair to A&M and wonder about cultural fits (then again, I just advocated for Kansas, so culture may be out the window anyway).

Based on that criteria, I wonder how the SEC would view an Iowa State team (AAU and basketball) versus a TCU or Texas Tech.

Also, though I know it is much further down the road, if at all, I wonder if Buzz Williams can do for VT basketball what Beamer did for football. If that becomes the case and the ACC ever does become a legitimate option, a solid basketball team in Blacksburg seems to shoot them up the list (even more so than they already are on forums like this).

1. If we had gotten a second Florida school (either F.S.U. or Miami) we have a much stronger hold on Florida recruits. It's pretty much 50/50 there now thanks to Florida's slide. We don't want to make the same mistake in Texas. If Texas and Oklahoma were to head to the Big 10 the best thing the SEC could do is to add either T.C.U. or Texas Tech or both and make Texas an SEC state outright.

2. I would think that in the event we don't land Oklahoma or Texas that T.C.U/Kansas becomes a viable option. I like Iowa State and we have much in common with them from an Ag Science Land Grant point of view. But that's about it. I think WVU is out due to academics. I can't see Kansas State or Oklahoma State alone. Tech has made academic strides and is a state school in Texas, but they are a long way out there.

3. Remember that if OU and UT were to go Big 10 (and I really don't believe Texas would) that it will give the Big 10 a bigger advantage in payout over the SEC, and the same would be true in reverse if OU & UT came to us. So if we don't land at least one of OU and UT we would be at a disadvantage in going after a school like Virginia Tech should they become available. Remember that geography would not be an advantage for either the SEC or Big 10 in going after the Hokies. At least geography is in our favor with regard to Oklahoma & UT.

It's going to be an interesting battle for these two brands and the outcome will be more profound than any previous additions have afforded.

I got news for ya'll in the sec, Texas will never join the sec as long as the aggies are there, I mean ya'll just don't understand how big and hateful the rift between the two schools really is.
When A&M joined the sec is when that Texas to the sec door was slammed shut !
I know there was interest back in the 90s but that was before A&M got there
Ya'll are much better off having A&M than the longhorns by a million miles
Just my opinion as a Texan...

(02-15-2017 07:49 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  I got news for ya'll in the sec, Texas will never join the sec as long as the aggies are there, I mean ya'll just don't understand how big and hateful the rift between the two schools really is.
When A&M joined the sec is when that Texas to the sec door was slammed shut !
I know there was interest back in the 90s but that was before A&M got there
Just my opinion as a Texan...

ESPN holds Bevo's leash until 2034. Let that sink in. It's a decade past the expiration of the GOR for the Big 12. So unless the PAC sells a % of their network to ESPN the Horns will have 2 choices when the dust settles: ACC or SEC. I don't see them headed to the ACC by themselves, even as an independent, which by the way was a rumor started here as a speculation.

They could head to the Big 10 since the payout will be close to the total Texas receives for all media rights starting next year. But, ESPN still has a say in that. And as a Texas just how much would it benefit the Aggies to play a slate of more local schools while Texas played a slate of games in Minnesota, Michigan, Nebraska, Iowa, and Ohio?

For all the woofing UT alums will buy tickets to games with L.S.U., Arkansas, and A&M. Does that mean they will wind up in the SEC? No. But it does mean that in spite of what Texas says they will do what profits them the most and that might well be to make a move that appeases their fan base and a move that steals the Aggies thunder a little bit. And that move would be to the SEC, rift or not rift. Austin can't afford a move to a conference where there are no other Texas schools. The PAC could accommodate them if they would sell that % to ESPN and then offer a couple of schools to which they might otherwise turn there noses up (TCU / T.Tech). There's no way in hell that the Big 10 would take another Texas school save for Rice, which would be one heckuva long shot.

So you see the Horns can fly over the SEC to play in the coastal states, or they could stay local, probably bring at least one friend and renew rivalries by joining the SEC. Texas notoriously talks Blue, votes Red, and only reacts to Green.

I don't agree with you, as to espn telling Texas where they will play football, well all I can say is if you believe that then you don't really know what UT is all about. the last sentence is funny and true but only to a point
Texas is all about green but not in this case

(02-15-2017 08:39 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  I don't agree with you, as to espn telling Texas where they will play football, well all I can say is if you believe that then you don't really know what UT is all about. the last sentence is funny and true but only to a point
Texas is all about green but not in this case

We'll see when the dust settles.

Yeah

(02-14-2017 03:39 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 09:42 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 04:53 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  SEC needs...

1. Oklahoma...may have to take Oklahoma State to get them

2. Another TX school...would prefer UT, but TCU might do if UT is in the ACC and the 2 conferences can essentially share TX like they share other states

3. Some basketball quality...you get some of that with the OK schools although Kansas is a slam dunk here. See what I did there?

4. Greater national exposure in order to increase already strong revenue base line.

At least, that is the way I see it.

How about this...

SEC takes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and TCU

ACC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Iowa State, and Notre Dame

Lots of opportunities for crossover content.

If the SEC gets #1, they don't need #2

I understand why people say that and I can't say for certain they are wrong. However, I can't see a downside in owning an additional presence in TX. The state is so large and populous that I think a 2nd school is a net positive.

Trying to capture "the Texas market" is like trying to do the same with New York City. It's fools gold!
The SEC would be smart to invite another school (Oklahoma) that is a cultural fit, let that capture as much of the state of Texas as it will and be satisfied. Anything else and you will start to go against the culture of your own conference which will eventually lead to problems.

(02-16-2017 08:06 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 03:39 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 09:42 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 04:53 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  SEC needs...

1. Oklahoma...may have to take Oklahoma State to get them

2. Another TX school...would prefer UT, but TCU might do if UT is in the ACC and the 2 conferences can essentially share TX like they share other states

3. Some basketball quality...you get some of that with the OK schools although Kansas is a slam dunk here. See what I did there?

4. Greater national exposure in order to increase already strong revenue base line.

At least, that is the way I see it.

How about this...

SEC takes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and TCU

ACC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Iowa State, and Notre Dame

Lots of opportunities for crossover content.

If the SEC gets #1, they don't need #2

I understand why people say that and I can't say for certain they are wrong. However, I can't see a downside in owning an additional presence in TX. The state is so large and populous that I think a 2nd school is a net positive.

Trying to capture "the Texas market" is like trying to do the same with New York City. It's fools gold!
The SEC would be smart to invite another school (Oklahoma) that is a cultural fit, let that capture as much of the state of Texas as it will and be satisfied. Anything else and you will start to go against the culture of your own conference which will eventually lead to problems.

I don't see that as an apt comparison. The cultures of the Big 12 and SEC aren't that different.

For the SEC to try to capture NYC, that would be fool's gold. We're already in TX, however, and I think there's a few options that would fit nicely.

(02-16-2017 12:27 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 08:06 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 03:39 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 09:42 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 04:53 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  SEC needs...

1. Oklahoma...may have to take Oklahoma State to get them

2. Another TX school...would prefer UT, but TCU might do if UT is in the ACC and the 2 conferences can essentially share TX like they share other states

3. Some basketball quality...you get some of that with the OK schools although Kansas is a slam dunk here. See what I did there?

4. Greater national exposure in order to increase already strong revenue base line.

At least, that is the way I see it.

How about this...

SEC takes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and TCU

ACC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Iowa State, and Notre Dame

Lots of opportunities for crossover content.

If the SEC gets #1, they don't need #2

I understand why people say that and I can't say for certain they are wrong. However, I can't see a downside in owning an additional presence in TX. The state is so large and populous that I think a 2nd school is a net positive.

Trying to capture "the Texas market" is like trying to do the same with New York City. It's fools gold!
The SEC would be smart to invite another school (Oklahoma) that is a cultural fit, let that capture as much of the state of Texas as it will and be satisfied. Anything else and you will start to go against the culture of your own conference which will eventually lead to problems.

I don't see that as an apt comparison. The cultures of the Big 12 and SEC aren't that different.

For the SEC to try to capture NYC, that would be fool's gold. We're already in TX, however, and I think there's a few options that would fit nicely.

Ironically what Xlance is referring to is the ability of UT to beg for their buddies and become a voting block that is toxic to the rest of the conference. It's why Arkansas wanted out of the SWC and why essentially a Texas conference was so backbiting and corrupt. But having 33-40% of the Big 12 was poison to Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri too. So from that angle he's right about seeking too many Texas schools. Ideally Oklahoma does give us all we need.

I said "ironically" because the rest of the ACC had those issues with 4 schools in an 8 school conference coming from North Carolina. They still own 25% of the voting edge and since they are more or less allied with Virginia they actually control 6 of 15 votes now and when Clemson votes with them 7. The additions they have made however have actually settled things down rather than causing them to be more divisive. But it is why they have to rely upon ESPN to keep the football first schools in line by refusing to pay the SEC for taking them. Since none of those schools save Georgia Tech have any appeal to the Big 10 academically they are essentially locked in.

If UT did come to the SEC, other than as a brand and content multiplier, we don't need Oklahoma either. The issue here for Texas is an interesting one. While in the same conference with the Aggies, A&M never challenged their status within the state. The only rival that gained ground on them was Oklahoma. If Texas joined the SEC they would negate part of the Aggies present advantage. And, if they watched Oklahoma and Kansas move to the Big 10 the Sooners would never again seriously threaten them for N. Texas and Houston recruits. By alienating OU but keeping the RRR and by joining the SEC Texas has its only path back to prominence within their state. And even if Texas brought TTU along with them they would still only be 2 votes out 16 provided A&M didn't vote with them.

So the question is does Texas give up its power for greater revenue, and to gain an advantage over two rivals, or do they further isolate themselves from the people of Texas by moving to the PAC or Big 10, two conference that nobody in the state of Texas cares about unless they are academicians within the UT system? So they can choose to be snooty and isolated, or humbled and successful. That will be the fascinating social study to watch.