Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,969
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #1441
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-23-2018 10:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-23-2018 08:27 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(04-22-2018 01:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-22-2018 11:20 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  The SEC had interest in Texas (& Texas A&M) for 50+ years or so. Having secured half of that, one expects the other half, Texas, remains a potential target though the dynamics have changed. One day the SEC may go to sixteen, but not beyond, at least not immediately. Certainly Texas would be on the "jewel" list. UNC, OU, and no more than two or three others would make the list. That said, "availabilty" is the critical factor. Unlike some others, Texas has, comparatively, the greater "flexibility" to make the major change in a few years. That noted, Texas would need to have a change in attitude per the SEC and drop the grudges. The SEC would have to do some work in this regard as well. That can happen on a dime when conditions are ripe. I would not rule out Texas one day being in the SEC. Actually, it would be a great fit if minds opened to untainted reasoning.

Conference size matters. Getting too big is a concern. Willy-nilly additions of coattail schools aren't happening. Texas would not need sycophants to go to the SEC; not that they didn't love having them in the old SWC and the more recent B12 structures.

In 1992 I would have agreed with you 100%. But then in 1992 the conferences were growing by their own set of standards and to meet their own agenda.

By 2010 the heavy hand of networks working for the advertising dollar took us to a different tier of control, or lack thereof. I have nothing against Missouri, but they are not a jewel. What they were was a means of controlling markets, not for the SEC, but for ESPN.

If you look at the composition of the conferences none of us have been encouraged to grow by controlling or monopolizing our existing market footprints. Rather, we were encouraged by the subscription fee model to not take 2nd schools because they simply didn't add to the subscriber count. The same wasn't true for the network.

Look at what ESPN holds through the AAC, ACC, and SEC. They own every major and mid major program from Virginia over to Missouri and South to Texas. Not one single school with a viable fan base in that area belongs to FOX. This means that if an advertiser wants to reach out to football fans in that area they have to go through ESPN which translates into prime advertising rates for ESPN.

I don't think the end game for ESPN in Texas is just the Longhorns. It's a state of 28 million people and one of the most sought after college sports states in the nation. The trick to Texas is to monopolize the market for ESPN without letting the conferences involved do the same.

Texas in the SEC would be huge for us and has been the game since the SEC first thought of expanding to the West. And while Texas alone would be what we are after, I'm not so sure that Texas Tech would be excluded by ESPN. To do so would be a move that didn't follow their M.O.. ESPN would most likely want to have all of the schools of note in Texas divided between the AAC, ACC, and SEC if they are to follow what they have done everywhere else. And since Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are back doors into DFW I would expect they would be included.

Ideally we would expand to 16 with Texas and Oklahoma. Both are 1 plus billion dollar economic impact drivers within their sphere of influence. Both are blue blood football schools. Either is an excellent addition but the pair would massively change the value of the conference.

But the pair begs some questions. Do the networks really want that much leverage in the hand of one conference? Or do they see such a conference as being too powerful for the health of their other conference investments? Do they see the inequity of it as somehow damaging to the game?

Since 2010 every move any conference has made has been approved by one of the networks. They establish and communicate what the move is worth to them and set the proposed payouts for said move accordingly. If the move profits us, as did Missouri, it is made. Therein lies the control mechanism that has shifted realignment circa '92 into what we have today.

So what I am stating is that in the current climate the networks could well have other reasons for moving past 16, especially if they are looking to control every avenue into massive advertising regions, like Texas. And no, I don't believe for a moment that the Missouri addition was an SEC idea.

In '90-92 the conference carefully laid out its plans for expansion and the targets have remained essentially the same for us for these past 25 years plus. But with each successive addition the list not only grows shorter by the school involved but the added value removes other names as well.

I see North Carolina as a jewel, but I'm not sure now that the product value is changing if they would really add that much more to the bottom line.

I would sincerely hope you were right about the number, but not even Slive would commit to it. When asked he simply said conferences can be as large as they need to be so long as the moves were profitable.
What do you think if P5/FBS Conferences agree to impose limits on themselves in terms of conference size? Ok, off topic, but if the limit is 16 members per conference, that would be most interesting. The SEC, BIG, and the ACC would almost immediately go there. With this in mind, OU-oSu to the SEC could be looked at as expansion closure.

You spoke earlier of availability. Well if availability is an issue to the East that limits us to expanding out of the Big 12 or dipping into the lower tiers. I don't see much of value in the lower tiers, at least not any programs mature enough to be depended upon to carry their own weight in all areas of conference membership. So if the Big 12 is really it the SEC would work hard to land Texas and Oklahoma to finish out at 16. If we are somehow limited and can only take 1 of the two leaders the more economical move would be Texas. They along with the Aggies give us pretty much everything we would want out of the Lone Star state and it would free us for an addition from another state.

I really don't see a fit for Kansas or Iowa State with the SEC. So if we only take 1 of the preferred targets and it's Texas who's #2 if it isn't Oklahoma? Now I'm getting to your specific question here. Of the remaining options with Texas you would have Oklahoma State as the 4th/sometimes 5th most productive athletic department in the Big 12 and a top 30ish revenue producer in the NCAA, or T.C.U. small home attendance, large market, and competitive in the 3 money sports addition, or the 3rd State school in Texas, or West Virginia. Out of those Tech is a distance issue, and without Oklahoma the Cowboys make sense as the second pick athletically speaking. W.V.U. doesn't deliver the market size OSU would even though WVU is the flagship school of its state. Texas gives you Dallas so you don't need to duplicate with T.C.U..

So if you land Oklahoma and not Texas who should be #2? Perhaps the combo of Oklahoma and T.C.U. gives you the most market penetration in a large city, but Oklahoma and A&M give you that. Texas Tech is still too far away. W.V.U. keeps you from being able to make the divisional shifts you would like since one gets added to both sides Missouri is still an issue. OSU duplicates the state, but has competitive programs in almost all sports.

While not ideal, if OU wants to stay with OSU it is at least a marketable rivalry and together with Arkansas and A&M they deliver DFW. So if Oklahoma and State are the final SEC move it works for us on a number of levels although it is not ideal. Gaining the Sooners locks the SEC into the top position in revenue and branding hands down. The WSJ only has three schools valued at over 1 Billion in economic impact for their regions: Ohio State, Texas, and Oklahoma. Alabama is sniffing it but not quite in. So from a strategic point of view if the SEC can only have 1 of UT and OU and the one we can have is Oklahoma, there's not a statistically valid reason to take any of T.C.U., O.S.U., T.T.U., or W.V.U. over each other. They are all lesser brands with varying strengths and weaknesses. So what difference does it make which one is selected, especially if the prize favors one over another. If we round out to 16 with Oklahoma and Oklahoma state I can live with that.

But if we could have both Texas and OU, I believe that if Oklahoma commits to the SEC, and since no other conference will be taking OSU, that Texas will see the situation as their last chance to be reunited with historic rivals and that they will step into the #16 slot. Or that if Texas commits to the SEC that Oklahoma will be reticent to move North without regular games in Texas other than perhaps the RRR and that they will step into that #16 slot.

I hypothesized about the ideal situation for the SEC was to bring in OU at #15 and then let the cards play out with some kind of guarantee to OU if Texas could not be secured at 16 then OSU would get that spot. Now this could happen before or after welcoming press conferences; watching how Sankey keeps a lid on things, I’m sure he’d prefer it play out behind closed doors
04-24-2018 07:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1442
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-24-2018 07:27 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(04-23-2018 10:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-23-2018 08:27 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(04-22-2018 01:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-22-2018 11:20 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  The SEC had interest in Texas (& Texas A&M) for 50+ years or so. Having secured half of that, one expects the other half, Texas, remains a potential target though the dynamics have changed. One day the SEC may go to sixteen, but not beyond, at least not immediately. Certainly Texas would be on the "jewel" list. UNC, OU, and no more than two or three others would make the list. That said, "availabilty" is the critical factor. Unlike some others, Texas has, comparatively, the greater "flexibility" to make the major change in a few years. That noted, Texas would need to have a change in attitude per the SEC and drop the grudges. The SEC would have to do some work in this regard as well. That can happen on a dime when conditions are ripe. I would not rule out Texas one day being in the SEC. Actually, it would be a great fit if minds opened to untainted reasoning.

Conference size matters. Getting too big is a concern. Willy-nilly additions of coattail schools aren't happening. Texas would not need sycophants to go to the SEC; not that they didn't love having them in the old SWC and the more recent B12 structures.

In 1992 I would have agreed with you 100%. But then in 1992 the conferences were growing by their own set of standards and to meet their own agenda.

By 2010 the heavy hand of networks working for the advertising dollar took us to a different tier of control, or lack thereof. I have nothing against Missouri, but they are not a jewel. What they were was a means of controlling markets, not for the SEC, but for ESPN.

If you look at the composition of the conferences none of us have been encouraged to grow by controlling or monopolizing our existing market footprints. Rather, we were encouraged by the subscription fee model to not take 2nd schools because they simply didn't add to the subscriber count. The same wasn't true for the network.

Look at what ESPN holds through the AAC, ACC, and SEC. They own every major and mid major program from Virginia over to Missouri and South to Texas. Not one single school with a viable fan base in that area belongs to FOX. This means that if an advertiser wants to reach out to football fans in that area they have to go through ESPN which translates into prime advertising rates for ESPN.

I don't think the end game for ESPN in Texas is just the Longhorns. It's a state of 28 million people and one of the most sought after college sports states in the nation. The trick to Texas is to monopolize the market for ESPN without letting the conferences involved do the same.

Texas in the SEC would be huge for us and has been the game since the SEC first thought of expanding to the West. And while Texas alone would be what we are after, I'm not so sure that Texas Tech would be excluded by ESPN. To do so would be a move that didn't follow their M.O.. ESPN would most likely want to have all of the schools of note in Texas divided between the AAC, ACC, and SEC if they are to follow what they have done everywhere else. And since Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are back doors into DFW I would expect they would be included.

Ideally we would expand to 16 with Texas and Oklahoma. Both are 1 plus billion dollar economic impact drivers within their sphere of influence. Both are blue blood football schools. Either is an excellent addition but the pair would massively change the value of the conference.

But the pair begs some questions. Do the networks really want that much leverage in the hand of one conference? Or do they see such a conference as being too powerful for the health of their other conference investments? Do they see the inequity of it as somehow damaging to the game?

Since 2010 every move any conference has made has been approved by one of the networks. They establish and communicate what the move is worth to them and set the proposed payouts for said move accordingly. If the move profits us, as did Missouri, it is made. Therein lies the control mechanism that has shifted realignment circa '92 into what we have today.

So what I am stating is that in the current climate the networks could well have other reasons for moving past 16, especially if they are looking to control every avenue into massive advertising regions, like Texas. And no, I don't believe for a moment that the Missouri addition was an SEC idea.

In '90-92 the conference carefully laid out its plans for expansion and the targets have remained essentially the same for us for these past 25 years plus. But with each successive addition the list not only grows shorter by the school involved but the added value removes other names as well.

I see North Carolina as a jewel, but I'm not sure now that the product value is changing if they would really add that much more to the bottom line.

I would sincerely hope you were right about the number, but not even Slive would commit to it. When asked he simply said conferences can be as large as they need to be so long as the moves were profitable.
What do you think if P5/FBS Conferences agree to impose limits on themselves in terms of conference size? Ok, off topic, but if the limit is 16 members per conference, that would be most interesting. The SEC, BIG, and the ACC would almost immediately go there. With this in mind, OU-oSu to the SEC could be looked at as expansion closure.

You spoke earlier of availability. Well if availability is an issue to the East that limits us to expanding out of the Big 12 or dipping into the lower tiers. I don't see much of value in the lower tiers, at least not any programs mature enough to be depended upon to carry their own weight in all areas of conference membership. So if the Big 12 is really it the SEC would work hard to land Texas and Oklahoma to finish out at 16. If we are somehow limited and can only take 1 of the two leaders the more economical move would be Texas. They along with the Aggies give us pretty much everything we would want out of the Lone Star state and it would free us for an addition from another state.

I really don't see a fit for Kansas or Iowa State with the SEC. So if we only take 1 of the preferred targets and it's Texas who's #2 if it isn't Oklahoma? Now I'm getting to your specific question here. Of the remaining options with Texas you would have Oklahoma State as the 4th/sometimes 5th most productive athletic department in the Big 12 and a top 30ish revenue producer in the NCAA, or T.C.U. small home attendance, large market, and competitive in the 3 money sports addition, or the 3rd State school in Texas, or West Virginia. Out of those Tech is a distance issue, and without Oklahoma the Cowboys make sense as the second pick athletically speaking. W.V.U. doesn't deliver the market size OSU would even though WVU is the flagship school of its state. Texas gives you Dallas so you don't need to duplicate with T.C.U..

So if you land Oklahoma and not Texas who should be #2? Perhaps the combo of Oklahoma and T.C.U. gives you the most market penetration in a large city, but Oklahoma and A&M give you that. Texas Tech is still too far away. W.V.U. keeps you from being able to make the divisional shifts you would like since one gets added to both sides Missouri is still an issue. OSU duplicates the state, but has competitive programs in almost all sports.

While not ideal, if OU wants to stay with OSU it is at least a marketable rivalry and together with Arkansas and A&M they deliver DFW. So if Oklahoma and State are the final SEC move it works for us on a number of levels although it is not ideal. Gaining the Sooners locks the SEC into the top position in revenue and branding hands down. The WSJ only has three schools valued at over 1 Billion in economic impact for their regions: Ohio State, Texas, and Oklahoma. Alabama is sniffing it but not quite in. So from a strategic point of view if the SEC can only have 1 of UT and OU and the one we can have is Oklahoma, there's not a statistically valid reason to take any of T.C.U., O.S.U., T.T.U., or W.V.U. over each other. They are all lesser brands with varying strengths and weaknesses. So what difference does it make which one is selected, especially if the prize favors one over another. If we round out to 16 with Oklahoma and Oklahoma state I can live with that.

But if we could have both Texas and OU, I believe that if Oklahoma commits to the SEC, and since no other conference will be taking OSU, that Texas will see the situation as their last chance to be reunited with historic rivals and that they will step into the #16 slot. Or that if Texas commits to the SEC that Oklahoma will be reticent to move North without regular games in Texas other than perhaps the RRR and that they will step into that #16 slot.

I hypothesized about the ideal situation for the SEC was to bring in OU at #15 and then let the cards play out with some kind of guarantee to OU if Texas could not be secured at 16 then OSU would get that spot. Now this could happen before or after welcoming press conferences; watching how Sankey keeps a lid on things, I’m sure he’d prefer it play out behind closed doors

This time around the networks have a vested interest in getting it done in secret before new competitors can jump in. And ESPN/FOX are in a best position to work it out in secret, renegotiate deals, and extend contracts. Now how that might interfere with what the conferences may want is another matter.
04-24-2018 11:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,793
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 400
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #1443
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-24-2018 11:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-24-2018 07:27 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(04-23-2018 10:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-23-2018 08:27 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(04-22-2018 01:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  In 1992 I would have agreed with you 100%. But then in 1992 the conferences were growing by their own set of standards and to meet their own agenda.

By 2010 the heavy hand of networks working for the advertising dollar took us to a different tier of control, or lack thereof. I have nothing against Missouri, but they are not a jewel. What they were was a means of controlling markets, not for the SEC, but for ESPN.

If you look at the composition of the conferences none of us have been encouraged to grow by controlling or monopolizing our existing market footprints. Rather, we were encouraged by the subscription fee model to not take 2nd schools because they simply didn't add to the subscriber count. The same wasn't true for the network.

Look at what ESPN holds through the AAC, ACC, and SEC. They own every major and mid major program from Virginia over to Missouri and South to Texas. Not one single school with a viable fan base in that area belongs to FOX. This means that if an advertiser wants to reach out to football fans in that area they have to go through ESPN which translates into prime advertising rates for ESPN.

I don't think the end game for ESPN in Texas is just the Longhorns. It's a state of 28 million people and one of the most sought after college sports states in the nation. The trick to Texas is to monopolize the market for ESPN without letting the conferences involved do the same.

Texas in the SEC would be huge for us and has been the game since the SEC first thought of expanding to the West. And while Texas alone would be what we are after, I'm not so sure that Texas Tech would be excluded by ESPN. To do so would be a move that didn't follow their M.O.. ESPN would most likely want to have all of the schools of note in Texas divided between the AAC, ACC, and SEC if they are to follow what they have done everywhere else. And since Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are back doors into DFW I would expect they would be included.

Ideally we would expand to 16 with Texas and Oklahoma. Both are 1 plus billion dollar economic impact drivers within their sphere of influence. Both are blue blood football schools. Either is an excellent addition but the pair would massively change the value of the conference.

But the pair begs some questions. Do the networks really want that much leverage in the hand of one conference? Or do they see such a conference as being too powerful for the health of their other conference investments? Do they see the inequity of it as somehow damaging to the game?

Since 2010 every move any conference has made has been approved by one of the networks. They establish and communicate what the move is worth to them and set the proposed payouts for said move accordingly. If the move profits us, as did Missouri, it is made. Therein lies the control mechanism that has shifted realignment circa '92 into what we have today.

So what I am stating is that in the current climate the networks could well have other reasons for moving past 16, especially if they are looking to control every avenue into massive advertising regions, like Texas. And no, I don't believe for a moment that the Missouri addition was an SEC idea.

In '90-92 the conference carefully laid out its plans for expansion and the targets have remained essentially the same for us for these past 25 years plus. But with each successive addition the list not only grows shorter by the school involved but the added value removes other names as well.

I see North Carolina as a jewel, but I'm not sure now that the product value is changing if they would really add that much more to the bottom line.

I would sincerely hope you were right about the number, but not even Slive would commit to it. When asked he simply said conferences can be as large as they need to be so long as the moves were profitable.
What do you think if P5/FBS Conferences agree to impose limits on themselves in terms of conference size? Ok, off topic, but if the limit is 16 members per conference, that would be most interesting. The SEC, BIG, and the ACC would almost immediately go there. With this in mind, OU-oSu to the SEC could be looked at as expansion closure.

You spoke earlier of availability. Well if availability is an issue to the East that limits us to expanding out of the Big 12 or dipping into the lower tiers. I don't see much of value in the lower tiers, at least not any programs mature enough to be depended upon to carry their own weight in all areas of conference membership. So if the Big 12 is really it the SEC would work hard to land Texas and Oklahoma to finish out at 16. If we are somehow limited and can only take 1 of the two leaders the more economical move would be Texas. They along with the Aggies give us pretty much everything we would want out of the Lone Star state and it would free us for an addition from another state.

I really don't see a fit for Kansas or Iowa State with the SEC. So if we only take 1 of the preferred targets and it's Texas who's #2 if it isn't Oklahoma? Now I'm getting to your specific question here. Of the remaining options with Texas you would have Oklahoma State as the 4th/sometimes 5th most productive athletic department in the Big 12 and a top 30ish revenue producer in the NCAA, or T.C.U. small home attendance, large market, and competitive in the 3 money sports addition, or the 3rd State school in Texas, or West Virginia. Out of those Tech is a distance issue, and without Oklahoma the Cowboys make sense as the second pick athletically speaking. W.V.U. doesn't deliver the market size OSU would even though WVU is the flagship school of its state. Texas gives you Dallas so you don't need to duplicate with T.C.U..

So if you land Oklahoma and not Texas who should be #2? Perhaps the combo of Oklahoma and T.C.U. gives you the most market penetration in a large city, but Oklahoma and A&M give you that. Texas Tech is still too far away. W.V.U. keeps you from being able to make the divisional shifts you would like since one gets added to both sides Missouri is still an issue. OSU duplicates the state, but has competitive programs in almost all sports.

While not ideal, if OU wants to stay with OSU it is at least a marketable rivalry and together with Arkansas and A&M they deliver DFW. So if Oklahoma and State are the final SEC move it works for us on a number of levels although it is not ideal. Gaining the Sooners locks the SEC into the top position in revenue and branding hands down. The WSJ only has three schools valued at over 1 Billion in economic impact for their regions: Ohio State, Texas, and Oklahoma. Alabama is sniffing it but not quite in. So from a strategic point of view if the SEC can only have 1 of UT and OU and the one we can have is Oklahoma, there's not a statistically valid reason to take any of T.C.U., O.S.U., T.T.U., or W.V.U. over each other. They are all lesser brands with varying strengths and weaknesses. So what difference does it make which one is selected, especially if the prize favors one over another. If we round out to 16 with Oklahoma and Oklahoma state I can live with that.

But if we could have both Texas and OU, I believe that if Oklahoma commits to the SEC, and since no other conference will be taking OSU, that Texas will see the situation as their last chance to be reunited with historic rivals and that they will step into the #16 slot. Or that if Texas commits to the SEC that Oklahoma will be reticent to move North without regular games in Texas other than perhaps the RRR and that they will step into that #16 slot.

I hypothesized about the ideal situation for the SEC was to bring in OU at #15 and then let the cards play out with some kind of guarantee to OU if Texas could not be secured at 16 then OSU would get that spot. Now this could happen before or after welcoming press conferences; watching how Sankey keeps a lid on things, I’m sure he’d prefer it play out behind closed doors

This time around the networks have a vested interest in getting it done in secret before new competitors can jump in. And ESPN/FOX are in a best position to work it out in secret, renegotiate deals, and extend contracts. Now how that might interfere with what the conferences may want is another matter.
A couple of years or so back, the BIG & SEC led the effort to prevent the ACC proposal to pursue self-determination in choosiing the format for a fb conference championship. Thus, the option to create 3 pods, @ 5 teams each, wasn't approved. The majority vote was to retain divisions, plus allowing even a 10 member conference (B12) to stage a CCG.
So unless the rules change, adding #15 would essentially require #16.
Murdcu's idea could happen if #15 (say OU) becomes a commitment, and #16 is still in negotiation, with a back-up available if the prime preference for #16 does not materialize. So, the window to add #16 could technically remain open until the future conference scheduling becomes required. But any school that commits to leave, wants to depart as soon as eligible and get incorporated into the scheduling of the new conference. That usually means not playing more than one additional season in the old conference. Mizzou following Texas A&M to the SEC moved fast; and they do so in these situations.
Assuming OU garners #15, and Texas is the #16 uncommitted preference, the time period for Texas to remain on the fence would be a matter of weeks, maybe several months, but not longer due to scheduling logistics.
This OU-oSu-UT potential dilemma is understandable, but complex. Texas holds cards, as does OU, IF the BIG and/or the PAC12 are rendering competitive offers, with whatever network backing behind them, would be solidly on the table. On surface, the SEC would look to be in the driver's seat when it comes to revenue, options, geography, travel, established rivalries, etc.

Texas will be intriguing. My expectation is that they will first try to hold the B12 together if improved network backing happens. Texas has all the other major conference options, but none are ideal, but certainly stacked in terms of favorabilities.
04-28-2018 04:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #1444
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-28-2018 04:18 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(04-24-2018 11:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-24-2018 07:27 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(04-23-2018 10:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-23-2018 08:27 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  What do you think if P5/FBS Conferences agree to impose limits on themselves in terms of conference size? Ok, off topic, but if the limit is 16 members per conference, that would be most interesting. The SEC, BIG, and the ACC would almost immediately go there. With this in mind, OU-oSu to the SEC could be looked at as expansion closure.

You spoke earlier of availability. Well if availability is an issue to the East that limits us to expanding out of the Big 12 or dipping into the lower tiers. I don't see much of value in the lower tiers, at least not any programs mature enough to be depended upon to carry their own weight in all areas of conference membership. So if the Big 12 is really it the SEC would work hard to land Texas and Oklahoma to finish out at 16. If we are somehow limited and can only take 1 of the two leaders the more economical move would be Texas. They along with the Aggies give us pretty much everything we would want out of the Lone Star state and it would free us for an addition from another state.

I really don't see a fit for Kansas or Iowa State with the SEC. So if we only take 1 of the preferred targets and it's Texas who's #2 if it isn't Oklahoma? Now I'm getting to your specific question here. Of the remaining options with Texas you would have Oklahoma State as the 4th/sometimes 5th most productive athletic department in the Big 12 and a top 30ish revenue producer in the NCAA, or T.C.U. small home attendance, large market, and competitive in the 3 money sports addition, or the 3rd State school in Texas, or West Virginia. Out of those Tech is a distance issue, and without Oklahoma the Cowboys make sense as the second pick athletically speaking. W.V.U. doesn't deliver the market size OSU would even though WVU is the flagship school of its state. Texas gives you Dallas so you don't need to duplicate with T.C.U..

So if you land Oklahoma and not Texas who should be #2? Perhaps the combo of Oklahoma and T.C.U. gives you the most market penetration in a large city, but Oklahoma and A&M give you that. Texas Tech is still too far away. W.V.U. keeps you from being able to make the divisional shifts you would like since one gets added to both sides Missouri is still an issue. OSU duplicates the state, but has competitive programs in almost all sports.

While not ideal, if OU wants to stay with OSU it is at least a marketable rivalry and together with Arkansas and A&M they deliver DFW. So if Oklahoma and State are the final SEC move it works for us on a number of levels although it is not ideal. Gaining the Sooners locks the SEC into the top position in revenue and branding hands down. The WSJ only has three schools valued at over 1 Billion in economic impact for their regions: Ohio State, Texas, and Oklahoma. Alabama is sniffing it but not quite in. So from a strategic point of view if the SEC can only have 1 of UT and OU and the one we can have is Oklahoma, there's not a statistically valid reason to take any of T.C.U., O.S.U., T.T.U., or W.V.U. over each other. They are all lesser brands with varying strengths and weaknesses. So what difference does it make which one is selected, especially if the prize favors one over another. If we round out to 16 with Oklahoma and Oklahoma state I can live with that.

But if we could have both Texas and OU, I believe that if Oklahoma commits to the SEC, and since no other conference will be taking OSU, that Texas will see the situation as their last chance to be reunited with historic rivals and that they will step into the #16 slot. Or that if Texas commits to the SEC that Oklahoma will be reticent to move North without regular games in Texas other than perhaps the RRR and that they will step into that #16 slot.

I hypothesized about the ideal situation for the SEC was to bring in OU at #15 and then let the cards play out with some kind of guarantee to OU if Texas could not be secured at 16 then OSU would get that spot. Now this could happen before or after welcoming press conferences; watching how Sankey keeps a lid on things, I’m sure he’d prefer it play out behind closed doors

This time around the networks have a vested interest in getting it done in secret before new competitors can jump in. And ESPN/FOX are in a best position to work it out in secret, renegotiate deals, and extend contracts. Now how that might interfere with what the conferences may want is another matter.
A couple of years or so back, the BIG & SEC led the effort to prevent the ACC proposal to pursue self-determination in choosiing the format for a fb conference championship. Thus, the option to create 3 pods, @ 5 teams each, wasn't approved. The majority vote was to retain divisions, plus allowing even a 10 member conference (B12) to stage a CCG.
So unless the rules change, adding #15 would essentially require #16.
Murdcu's idea could happen if #15 (say OU) becomes a commitment, and #16 is still in negotiation, with a back-up available if the prime preference for #16 does not materialize. So, the window to add #16 could technically remain open until the future conference scheduling becomes required. But any school that commits to leave, wants to depart as soon as eligible and get incorporated into the scheduling of the new conference. That usually means not playing more than one additional season in the old conference. Mizzou following Texas A&M to the SEC moved fast; and they do so in these situations.
Assuming OU garners #15, and Texas is the #16 uncommitted preference, the time period for Texas to remain on the fence would be a matter of weeks, maybe several months, but not longer due to scheduling logistics.
This OU-oSu-UT pot ential dilemma is understandable, but complex. Texas holds cards, as does OU,
IF the BIG and/or the PAC12 are rendering competitive offers, with whatever network backing behind them, would be solidly on the table. On surface, the SEC would look to be in the driver's seat whe:
Texas will be intriguing. My expectation is that they will first try to hold the B12 together if improved network backing happens. Texas has all the other major conference options, but none are ideal, but certainly stacked in terms of favorabilities.

Texas holds all of the cards, and all that Oklahoma can do is wait for Texas to play their hand.
If Oklahoma could get an invitation to the B1G with Kansas.....then what?
Well for one they are in a division with Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern, and Illinois. Not bad, but for a fan base that has complained about poor home scheduling, that's not a lineup that would inspire a lot of folks in Oklahoma to rush out and buy season tickets.
The PAC? They have already been turned down by the PAC in the past, and then there is the money thing.
So in actuality there is not much that Oklahoma could do except wait to find out what Tejas will let them do.
In Texas' perfect world they would join the SEC on a Notre Dame type deal, but with fewer games that what Notre Dame plays. Maybe annual contests with A&M, Arkansas and Oklahoma and possibly one other floating game. Then they could still cherry pick the B1G (Michigan, Ohio State) the PAC (USC), and the AAC (USF, UCF) ad play the rest of their games against their Texas pals (TT, Baylor, TCU, Rice).
This deal is not really feasible in the ACC in that the ACC wants to increase Notre Dame's commitment not reduce it, Tejas wouldn't want to have to play 6 ACC schools, and the ACC couldn't get an extra game out of Notre Dame if Texas only committed to play 3 or 4.
Then the dilemma becomes would the SEC accept a partial?
JR screams NO! But look who the winner is.....ESPN.
They can use Texas and Notre Dame to access USC (the only PAC team that anyone east of the Rockies would ever watch) and access to the B1G without having to buy a huge chunk of programming.
The benefit for the SEC (and the ACC)? Adding a team (Oklahoma) or two guarantees a contract adjustment and wins an extension. Why would the SEC want an extension? Monetary security in an uncertain business environment.
So, ideally the SEC adds Oklahoma (alone) and Texas as a partial, and the ACC adds West Virginia (alone), and ESPN increases access to outside inventory without paying for it and locks up it's own inventory for the foreseeable future.
04-28-2018 08:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,793
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 400
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #1445
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-28-2018 08:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(04-28-2018 04:18 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(04-24-2018 11:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-24-2018 07:27 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(04-23-2018 10:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You spoke earlier of availability. Well if availability is an issue to the East that limits us to expanding out of the Big 12 or dipping into the lower tiers. I don't see much of value in the lower tiers, at least not any programs mature enough to be depended upon to carry their own weight in all areas of conference membership. So if the Big 12 is really it the SEC would work hard to land Texas and Oklahoma to finish out at 16. If we are somehow limited and can only take 1 of the two leaders the more economical move would be Texas. They along with the Aggies give us pretty much everything we would want out of the Lone Star state and it would free us for an addition from another state.

I really don't see a fit for Kansas or Iowa State with the SEC. So if we only take 1 of the preferred targets and it's Texas who's #2 if it isn't Oklahoma? Now I'm getting to your specific question here. Of the remaining options with Texas you would have Oklahoma State as the 4th/sometimes 5th most productive athletic department in the Big 12 and a top 30ish revenue producer in the NCAA, or T.C.U. small home attendance, large market, and competitive in the 3 money sports addition, or the 3rd State school in Texas, or West Virginia. Out of those Tech is a distance issue, and without Oklahoma the Cowboys make sense as the second pick athletically speaking. W.V.U. doesn't deliver the market size OSU would even though WVU is the flagship school of its state. Texas gives you Dallas so you don't need to duplicate with T.C.U..

So if you land Oklahoma and not Texas who should be #2? Perhaps the combo of Oklahoma and T.C.U. gives you the most market penetration in a large city, but Oklahoma and A&M give you that. Texas Tech is still too far away. W.V.U. keeps you from being able to make the divisional shifts you would like since one gets added to both sides Missouri is still an issue. OSU duplicates the state, but has competitive programs in almost all sports.

While not ideal, if OU wants to stay with OSU it is at least a marketable rivalry and together with Arkansas and A&M they deliver DFW. So if Oklahoma and State are the final SEC move it works for us on a number of levels although it is not ideal. Gaining the Sooners locks the SEC into the top position in revenue and branding hands down. The WSJ only has three schools valued at over 1 Billion in economic impact for their regions: Ohio State, Texas, and Oklahoma. Alabama is sniffing it but not quite in. So from a strategic point of view if the SEC can only have 1 of UT and OU and the one we can have is Oklahoma, there's not a statistically valid reason to take any of T.C.U., O.S.U., T.T.U., or W.V.U. over each other. They are all lesser brands with varying strengths and weaknesses. So what difference does it make which one is selected, especially if the prize favors one over another. If we round out to 16 with Oklahoma and Oklahoma state I can live with that.

But if we could have both Texas and OU, I believe that if Oklahoma commits to the SEC, and since no other conference will be taking OSU, that Texas will see the situation as their last chance to be reunited with historic rivals and that they will step into the #16 slot. Or that if Texas commits to the SEC that Oklahoma will be reticent to move North without regular games in Texas other than perhaps the RRR and that they will step into that #16 slot.

I hypothesized about the ideal situation for the SEC was to bring in OU at #15 and then let the cards play out with some kind of guarantee to OU if Texas could not be secured at 16 then OSU would get that spot. Now this could happen before or after welcoming press conferences; watching how Sankey keeps a lid on things, I’m sure he’d prefer it play out behind closed doors

This time around the networks have a vested interest in getting it done in secret before new competitors can jump in. And ESPN/FOX are in a best position to work it out in secret, renegotiate deals, and extend contracts. Now how that might interfere with what the conferences may want is another matter.
A couple of years or so back, the BIG & SEC led the effort to prevent the ACC proposal to pursue self-determination in choosiing the format for a fb conference championship. Thus, the option to create 3 pods, @ 5 teams each, wasn't approved. The majority vote was to retain divisions, plus allowing even a 10 member conference (B12) to stage a CCG.
So unless the rules change, adding #15 would essentially require #16.
Murdcu's idea could happen if #15 (say OU) becomes a commitment, and #16 is still in negotiation, with a back-up available if the prime preference for #16 does not materialize. So, the window to add #16 could technically remain open until the future conference scheduling becomes required. But any school that commits to leave, wants to depart as soon as eligible and get incorporated into the scheduling of the new conference. That usually means not playing more than one additional season in the old conference. Mizzou following Texas A&M to the SEC moved fast; and they do so in these situations.
Assuming OU garners #15, and Texas is the #16 uncommitted preference, the time period for Texas to remain on the fence would be a matter of weeks, maybe several months, but not longer due to scheduling logistics.
This OU-oSu-UT pot ential dilemma is understandable, but complex. Texas holds cards, as does OU,
IF the BIG and/or the PAC12 are rendering competitive offers, with whatever network backing behind them, would be solidly on the table. On surface, the SEC would look to be in the driver's seat whe:
Texas will be intriguing. My expectation is that they will first try to hold the B12 together if improved network backing happens. Texas has all the other major conference options, but none are ideal, but certainly stacked in terms of favorabilities.

Texas holds all of the cards, and all that Oklahoma can do is wait for Texas to play their hand.
If Oklahoma could get an invitation to the B1G with Kansas.....then what?
Well for one they are in a division with Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern, and Illinois. Not bad, but for a fan base that has complained about poor home scheduling, that's not a lineup that would inspire a lot of folks in Oklahoma to rush out and buy season tickets.
The PAC? They have already been turned down by the PAC in the past, and then there is the money thing.
So in actuality there is not much that Oklahoma could do except wait to find out what Tejas will let them do.
In Texas' perfect world they would join the SEC on a Notre Dame type deal, but with fewer games that what Notre Dame plays. Maybe annual contests with A&M, Arkansas and Oklahoma and possibly one other floating game. Then they could still cherry pick the B1G (Michigan, Ohio State) the PAC (USC), and the AAC (USF, UCF) ad play the rest of their games against their Texas pals (TT, Baylor, TCU, Rice).
This deal is not really feasible in the ACC in that the ACC wants to increase Notre Dame's commitment not reduce it, Tejas wouldn't want to have to play 6 ACC schools, and the ACC couldn't get an extra game out of Notre Dame if Texas only committed to play 3 or 4.
Then the dilemma becomes would the SEC accept a partial?
JR screams NO! But look who the winner is.....ESPN.
They can use Texas and Notre Dame to access USC (the only PAC team that anyone east of the Rockies would ever watch) and access to the B1G without having to buy a huge chunk of programming.
The benefit for the SEC (and the ACC)? Adding a team (Oklahoma) or two guarantees a contract adjustment and wins an extension. Why would the SEC want an extension? Monetary security in an uncertain business environment.
So, ideally the SEC adds Oklahoma (alone) and Texas as a partial, and the ACC adds West Virginia (alone), and ESPN increases access to outside inventory without paying for it and locks up it's own inventory for the foreseeable future.
Very doubtful the SEC would give a partial membership to anyone, including Texas with monetary incentives. Texas could have some resistance even for a full-time situation, especially if there is some LHN mess involved. The BIG would respond the same per a partial, and probably the PAC12 as well. I doubt the ACC would give Texas a Notre Dame-type deal.
Agree, WVU could become a viable ACC addition.
Frankly, I think the chance of Texas going to the SEC is low. I believe OU would bite if the SEC offered an OU-oSu combo, or alone if oSu gets a near equivalent (P4 status) offer elsewhere, which doesn't seem likely unless it is part of some unforseen PAC deal.
What Texas possibly could do is arrange a scheduling agreement with a major conference as an independent without housing all their other sports; and the conference that did so would be a drop-down. I can't see Texas seriously pursuing such.
(This post was last modified: 04-28-2018 11:22 AM by OdinFrigg.)
04-28-2018 11:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1446
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-28-2018 11:15 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(04-28-2018 08:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(04-28-2018 04:18 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(04-24-2018 11:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-24-2018 07:27 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  I hypothesized about the ideal situation for the SEC was to bring in OU at #15 and then let the cards play out with some kind of guarantee to OU if Texas could not be secured at 16 then OSU would get that spot. Now this could happen before or after welcoming press conferences; watching how Sankey keeps a lid on things, I’m sure he’d prefer it play out behind closed doors

This time around the networks have a vested interest in getting it done in secret before new competitors can jump in. And ESPN/FOX are in a best position to work it out in secret, renegotiate deals, and extend contracts. Now how that might interfere with what the conferences may want is another matter.
A couple of years or so back, the BIG & SEC led the effort to prevent the ACC proposal to pursue self-determination in choosiing the format for a fb conference championship. Thus, the option to create 3 pods, @ 5 teams each, wasn't approved. The majority vote was to retain divisions, plus allowing even a 10 member conference (B12) to stage a CCG.
So unless the rules change, adding #15 would essentially require #16.
Murdcu's idea could happen if #15 (say OU) becomes a commitment, and #16 is still in negotiation, with a back-up available if the prime preference for #16 does not materialize. So, the window to add #16 could technically remain open until the future conference scheduling becomes required. But any school that commits to leave, wants to depart as soon as eligible and get incorporated into the scheduling of the new conference. That usually means not playing more than one additional season in the old conference. Mizzou following Texas A&M to the SEC moved fast; and they do so in these situations.
Assuming OU garners #15, and Texas is the #16 uncommitted preference, the time period for Texas to remain on the fence would be a matter of weeks, maybe several months, but not longer due to scheduling logistics.
This OU-oSu-UT pot ential dilemma is understandable, but complex. Texas holds cards, as does OU,
IF the BIG and/or the PAC12 are rendering competitive offers, with whatever network backing behind them, would be solidly on the table. On surface, the SEC would look to be in the driver's seat whe:
Texas will be intriguing. My expectation is that they will first try to hold the B12 together if improved network backing happens. Texas has all the other major conference options, but none are ideal, but certainly stacked in terms of favorabilities.

Texas holds all of the cards, and all that Oklahoma can do is wait for Texas to play their hand.
If Oklahoma could get an invitation to the B1G with Kansas.....then what?
Well for one they are in a division with Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern, and Illinois. Not bad, but for a fan base that has complained about poor home scheduling, that's not a lineup that would inspire a lot of folks in Oklahoma to rush out and buy season tickets.
The PAC? They have already been turned down by the PAC in the past, and then there is the money thing.
So in actuality there is not much that Oklahoma could do except wait to find out what Tejas will let them do.
In Texas' perfect world they would join the SEC on a Notre Dame type deal, but with fewer games that what Notre Dame plays. Maybe annual contests with A&M, Arkansas and Oklahoma and possibly one other floating game. Then they could still cherry pick the B1G (Michigan, Ohio State) the PAC (USC), and the AAC (USF, UCF) ad play the rest of their games against their Texas pals (TT, Baylor, TCU, Rice).
This deal is not really feasible in the ACC in that the ACC wants to increase Notre Dame's commitment not reduce it, Tejas wouldn't want to have to play 6 ACC schools, and the ACC couldn't get an extra game out of Notre Dame if Texas only committed to play 3 or 4.
Then the dilemma becomes would the SEC accept a partial?
JR screams NO! But look who the winner is.....ESPN.
They can use Texas and Notre Dame to access USC (the only PAC team that anyone east of the Rockies would ever watch) and access to the B1G without having to buy a huge chunk of programming.
The benefit for the SEC (and the ACC)? Adding a team (Oklahoma) or two guarantees a contract adjustment and wins an extension. Why would the SEC want an extension? Monetary security in an uncertain business environment.
So, ideally the SEC adds Oklahoma (alone) and Texas as a partial, and the ACC adds West Virginia (alone), and ESPN increases access to outside inventory without paying for it and locks up it's own inventory for the foreseeable future.
Very doubtful the SEC would give a partial membership to anyone, including Texas with monetary incentives. Texas could have some resistance even for a full-time situation, especially if there is some LHN mess involved. The BIG would respond the same per a partial, and probably the PAC12 as well. I doubt the ACC would give Texas a Notre Dame-type deal.
Agree, WVU could become a viable ACC addition.
Frankly, I think the chance of Texas going to the SEC is low. I believe OU would bite if the SEC offered an OU-oSu combo, or alone if oSu gets a near equivalent (P4 status) offer elsewhere, which doesn't seem likely unless it is part of some unforseen PAC deal.
What Texas possibly could do is arrange a scheduling agreement with a major conference as an independent without housing all their other sports; and the conference that did so would be a drop-down. I can't see Texas seriously pursuing such.

I'm a bit more demonstrable about Texas as a partial. You were kind in saying there was little chance of them receiving a partial to the SEC. I would say there is no chance of it.

I think the last few years. with little leaks from beat writers and Finebaum floating the concept, has been a mild way of preconditioning the SEC fans that the two Oklahoma schools may be our best prospect to get to 16.

If Texas wanted in it could get a little sticky, but not over the LHN. That would be fairly easy to handle between ESPN and the SECN. Where it would get sticky might well be with regards to the numbers you've mentioned as they relate to the rigidity of two divisions.

But remember, the rules are in place, but currently unused, to allow for 16 schools to split into rotating half divisions, as it was once used by the WAC. The problem would be in going to more than two divisions. And one would have to wonder if the SEC and Big 10 wanted to grow, or needed to grow, larger than 16 if there wouldn't be enough support at that time to merely change the rule. We are talking about the two most powerful conferences who when they have worked in concert have been able to accomplish a good many things.

My hunch is that if Texas wanted in after Oklahoma had agreed to move with OSU there would be some network to network involvement to try to work something out. (Which of course could be avoided if the SEC simply moved to 18.) If the Big 10 wanted Kansas, which is something I have some doubts about, then finding a travel companion for them that was acceptable to the Big 10 might take some finagling.

Even with two 9 school divisions the SEC could average 7 home games per school by playing 8 divisional games 2 crossovers for a 10 conference game schedule, and scheduling two home games against lower tier schools. The issue with that is there would be no room for OOC P games unless a school was willing to have only 6 home games. I would see such an arrangement as being a temporary one until rule changes could be agreed upon.

But this has been the issue regarding expansion out of the Big 12 since defections from that conference first began. It is also the biggest reason that 20 team conferences are at least feasible within the current rule structure. 20 schools broken into 4 rotating half divisions can play all of the other schools every three years accounting for 9 conference games and leaving 3 slots in the normal schedule for OOC. That's what is attractive about 20 that is not attractive about 18 (profitability not withstanding).

But let's assume that the two Oklahoma's round out the SEC. What do you think would happen to the rest of the Big 12 assuming that West Virginia does indeed head to the ACC?

As I see it, there isn't enough added value for Texas to want the PAC, especially without A&M or Oklahoma with them. There isn't enough value in Kansas for the Big 10 to take them without Oklahoma or Texas accompanying them. I don't see just one Big 12 school becoming an outlier in the ACC whether as a partial or not. And there isn't enough value left in the Big 12 for the Horns to hold onto their payout advantage over everyone else. Texas will have to go somewhere. They could head to the Big 10 with Kansas, but at what cost to their fans? And do they really want OU and A&M in the role of the schools where the parents can afford to watch their sons play? No. Their minor sports need for it to be somewhere within a reasonable travel radius. So what does happen if they want in with Oklahoma and Oklahoma refuses a go without State?

Unpopular as the question may be to ask publicly, would the Big 10 be interested in the combination of Missouri and Kansas? I don't think so. They fit, they are both AAU, but in a content driven market where 80% of the value is in football what would they be getting that would compel this move?

I suppose if a network bought an interest in the PACN that pushing Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and perhaps Iowa State would be workable for the PAC. But is there a network that finds value enough in the PACN to pump money into it? If there was that potential it would have already happened. I don't think Scott is so incompetent as to stick with a losing model unless there was not really any interest from another source to purchase it.

The 2010 idea could be resurrected. Perhaps the ACC could let a couple of duplicated markets head West and create a Southwest half division. Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas could join with Louisville to create such a division and if Notre Dame tossed in at that point then WVU is simply out of luck, pun intended. This would give the ACCN content value and 34 million within it's footprint. But giving up Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC would probably be as unworkable today as it proved to be 8 years ago.

So it seems to me that unless a conference is willing to move beyond 16 there is no workable solution that would satisfy the major players where the Big 12 is concerned. The only move that could happen unilaterally that really makes good business sense would be Texas and Oklahoma heading together to the SEC. It's not a popular conclusion to reach, but it fits geographically, sports branding wise, monetarily, and in terms of the preservation of rivalries.

With Texas and Oklahoma assigned. The Big 10 holds to wait upon economic disparity to run its course with the ACC. With Texas and Oklahoma in the fold the SEC would not find any other additions that would earn them more money that that duo. The PAC may have to resort to adding lesser brands than they would normally desire, but in markets that would improve their bottom line via size and time zone.

I can see W.V.U. getting into the ACC under this circumstances but I would have to think that in 2036 Notre Dame would rethink its position if it is still inclined to push its athletics. Otherwise they could contently go all in with the ACC and accept that as the best compromise between its athletics and academics. The money for the ACC, while better, would not significantly change their positioning within the upper tier and their weakest links would remain Florida State and possibly Clemson, but at that point the SEC would have lost all interest in them, they would be out of the Big 10's geographical reach and still not academically justifiable for the Big 10. And, the Big 12 option would have been removed with the moving of Oklahoma and Texas. So the football first schools of the ACC would simply have to bite their tongues and abide their situation.

There would be two conference of 16, the SEC and ACC, one conference of 14, the Big 10, and one conference of between 12 to 16, the PAC.

If the SEC takes Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to finish out at 16 it really fouls up everyone else. It would still be a good move for the SEC, but it is not a move Texas wants to have to deal with. And it really leaves no real satisfying options left to the PAC or Big 10.
(This post was last modified: 04-28-2018 04:59 PM by JRsec.)
04-28-2018 02:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,793
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 400
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #1447
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-28-2018 02:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the SEC takes Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to finish out at 16 it really fouls up everyone else. It would still be a good move for the SEC, but it is not a move Texas wants to have to deal with. And it really leaves no real satisfying options left to the PAC or Big 10.

It would be a defensive move on the part of the SEC if other P conferences moved first in getting commitments from B12 schools, i. e. Texas, OU, or Kansas. It would be an offensive SEC move if, before another P conference, zeros-in on OU, and adding oSu is the deal-breaker for the SEC to land OU.

If OU & oSu committed to the SEC, I would not rule out the PAC12 still trying to land Texas. TTU with Texas would be expected. Whether or not, in this case, KU, KSU, or ISU become viable possibilities is not totally clear. I doubt it, in terms of logistics and geography. The PAC12 would have some non-B12 options if they really wanted to, such as UNM and/or Colo. State.

Then there is question if the PAC12 would accept other Texas schools beyond TTU with Texas. TCU, maybe Houston or Rice could be a part of some deal to commit UT.

It may be the BIG that's most limited in offers. Yep, they could add KU and ISU, but that's basically adding two more AAU schools essentially in markets they largely cover already. Texas is not really a good geographic fit for the BIG, and they know it.

Texas could end up re-vamping the B12 if the Oklahoma schools left. It will be more of the big fish in a small pond syndrome, but enough to stay viable conference-wise.
04-30-2018 05:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1448
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-30-2018 05:50 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(04-28-2018 02:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the SEC takes Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to finish out at 16 it really fouls up everyone else. It would still be a good move for the SEC, but it is not a move Texas wants to have to deal with. And it really leaves no real satisfying options left to the PAC or Big 10.

It would be a defensive move on the part of the SEC if other P conferences moved first in getting commitments from B12 schools, i. e. Texas, OU, or Kansas. It would be an offensive SEC move if, before another P conference, zeros-in on OU, and adding oSu is the deal-breaker for the SEC to land OU.

If OU & oSu committed to the SEC, I would not rule out the PAC12 still trying to land Texas. TTU with Texas would be expected. Whether or not, in this case, KU, KSU, or ISU become viable possibilities is not totally clear. I doubt it, in terms of logistics and geography. The PAC12 would have some non-B12 options if they really wanted to, such as UNM and/or Colo. State.

Then there is question if the PAC12 would accept other Texas schools beyond TTU with Texas. TCU, maybe Houston or Rice could be a part of some deal to commit UT.

It may be the BIG that's most limited in offers. Yep, they could add KU and ISU, but that's basically adding two more AAU schools essentially in markets they largely cover already. Texas is not really a good geographic fit for the BIG, and they know it.

Texas could end up re-vamping the B12 if the Oklahoma schools left. It will be more of the big fish in a small pond syndrome, but enough to stay viable conference-wise.

We agree on the offensive and defensive interpretation of an SEC move to take OU and OSU.

Texas could choose to head to the PAC, but the money isn't right and I don't see how it could be right for Texas if they have to surrender the LHN in the move. I agree that Texas Tech and possibly T.C.U. would be options for inclusion in such a move. But I would have to think that Kansas would be of interest to the PAC in that kind of move as well.

As to Texas surrounding itself with lesser schools, that was certainly an option before content started becoming so important. Now I think even Texas would have a hard time monetizing a TV contract in a conference where even more of their games were against lesser schools.

And then there is the marketing issue they face for local ticket sales. They need either major brands, or old rivals back on that schedule. There are really no major brands in the PAC which have been on top of their game since 2004, and there are no rivals there.

But I do agree Texas is Texas and anything is possible.

OU and OSU would be a very disruptive addition to all parties but the SEC.
04-30-2018 06:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #1449
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Texas will be a partial and keep the LHN.
They could be playing attached to a division made up of:
Tulsa
Houston
TCU
Baylor
Texas Tech
SMU
Tulane

West Virginia may even want in on this league as a replacement for UConn after they move to the Big East. That would give you this lineup on the other side:
West Virginia
Temple
East Carolina
Cincinnati
USF
UCF
Memphis

Adding Tejas to the American gives this 14 team league a lot of cred.
04-30-2018 08:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1450
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-30-2018 08:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  Texas will be a partial and keep the LHN.
They could be playing attached to a division made up of:
Tulsa
Houston
TCU
Baylor
Texas Tech
SMU
Tulane

West Virginia may even want in on this league as a replacement for UConn after they move to the Big East. That would give you this lineup on the other side:
West Virginia
Temple
East Carolina
Cincinnati
USF
UCF
Memphis

Adding Tejas to the American gives this 14 team league a lot of cred.

That's not happening. If they did that they might as well be UCF. The number of quality wins simply won't be there even with two or three brands scheduled as home & homes. Lose 1 and you're out.
04-30-2018 09:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,969
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #1451
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-30-2018 08:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  Texas will be a partial and keep the LHN.
They could be playing attached to a division made up of:
Tulsa
Houston
TCU
Baylor
Texas Tech
SMU
Tulane

West Virginia may even want in on this league as a replacement for UConn after they move to the Big East. That would give you this lineup on the other side:
West Virginia
Temple
East Carolina
Cincinnati
USF
UCF
Memphis

Adding Tejas to the American gives this 14 team league a lot of cred.

I think Texas would rebuild the Big 12 again if Oklahoma left. They would have to become a partial member in football just so they could schedule historic rivals and schedule teams the fans actually want to buy tickets for.

Let’s assume the Sec grabs OU and OSU while KU runs off to the B1G. Texas might be better off playing in a small 7 team conference with only six conference games and noCCG. The strength of schedule would then derive from adding tough OOC opponents. If this “conference” wanted to align with another conference in B.B. and the Olympic sports, then so be it.
04-30-2018 09:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1452
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-30-2018 09:35 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(04-30-2018 08:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  Texas will be a partial and keep the LHN.
They could be playing attached to a division made up of:
Tulsa
Houston
TCU
Baylor
Texas Tech
SMU
Tulane

West Virginia may even want in on this league as a replacement for UConn after they move to the Big East. That would give you this lineup on the other side:
West Virginia
Temple
East Carolina
Cincinnati
USF
UCF
Memphis

Adding Tejas to the American gives this 14 team league a lot of cred.

I think Texas would rebuild the Big 12 again if Oklahoma left. They would have to become a partial member in football just so they could schedule historic rivals and schedule teams the fans actually want to buy tickets for.

Let’s assume the Sec grabs OU and OSU while KU runs off to the B1G. Texas might be better off playing in a small 7 team conference with only six conference games and noCCG. The strength of schedule would then derive from adding tough OOC opponents. If this “conference” wanted to align with another conference in B.B. and the Olympic sports, then so be it.

It doesn't change your theory by much, but the NCAA requires 8 member schools to be called a conference.
04-30-2018 09:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #1453
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-30-2018 09:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-30-2018 08:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  Texas will be a partial and keep the LHN.
They could be playing attached to a division made up of:
Tulsa
Houston
TCU
Baylor
Texas Tech
SMU
Tulane

West Virginia may even want in on this league as a replacement for UConn after they move to the Big East. That would give you this lineup on the other side:
West Virginia
Temple
East Carolina
Cincinnati
USF
UCF
Memphis

Adding Tejas to the American gives this 14 team league a lot of cred.

That's not happening. If they did that they might as well be UCF. The number of quality wins simply won't be there even with two or three brands scheduled as home & homes. Lose 1 and you're out.

For what ever reason, Texas has a history with UCF. Not only do the 'Horns have them on their future schedules, Texas actually played in the opening game of UCF's on campus stadium.
Other notable future UCF opponents:
North Carolina
Stanford
Pitt
Georgia Tech
Louisville

USF is starting to "get around" too, with games scheduled with:
Georgia Tech
Louisville
Wisconsin
BYU
Illinois
NC State
Texas
05-01-2018 04:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Online
All American
*

Posts: 4,900
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 342
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #1454
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-01-2018 04:40 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(04-30-2018 09:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-30-2018 08:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  Texas will be a partial and keep the LHN.
They could be playing attached to a division made up of:
Tulsa
Houston
TCU
Baylor
Texas Tech
SMU
Tulane

West Virginia may even want in on this league as a replacement for UConn after they move to the Big East. That would give you this lineup on the other side:
West Virginia
Temple
East Carolina
Cincinnati
USF
UCF
Memphis

Adding Tejas to the American gives this 14 team league a lot of cred.

That's not happening. If they did that they might as well be UCF. The number of quality wins simply won't be there even with two or three brands scheduled as home & homes. Lose 1 and you're out.

For what ever reason, Texas has a history with UCF. Not only do the 'Horns have them on their future schedules, Texas actually played in the opening game of UCF's on campus stadium.
Other notable future UCF opponents:
North Carolina
Stanford
Pitt
Georgia Tech
Louisville

USF is starting to "get around" too, with games scheduled with:
Georgia Tech
Louisville
Wisconsin
BYU
Illinois
NC State
Texas

What are the years on the games? Most non-power schools have a similar list of power schools on their non-conference schedules. Granted it’s typically 1 per year, sometimes 2.
05-01-2018 07:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #1455
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-01-2018 07:34 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(05-01-2018 04:40 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(04-30-2018 09:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-30-2018 08:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  Texas will be a partial and keep the LHN.
They could be playing attached to a division made up of:
Tulsa
Houston
TCU
Baylor
Texas Tech
SMU
Tulane

West Virginia may even want in on this league as a replacement for UConn after they move to the Big East. That would give you this lineup on the other side:
West Virginia
Temple
East Carolina
Cincinnati
USF
UCF
Memphis

Adding Tejas to the American gives this 14 team league a lot of cred.

That's not happening. If they did that they might as well be UCF. The number of quality wins simply won't be there even with two or three brands scheduled as home & homes. Lose 1 and you're out.

For what ever reason, Texas has a history with UCF. Not only do the 'Horns have them on their future schedules, Texas actually played in the opening game of UCF's on campus stadium.
Other notable future UCF opponents:
North Carolina
Stanford
Pitt
Georgia Tech
Louisville

USF is starting to "get around" too, with games scheduled with:
Georgia Tech
Louisville
Wisconsin
BYU
Illinois
NC State
Texas

What are the years on the games? Most non-power schools have a similar list of power schools on their non-conference schedules. Granted it’s typically 1 per year, sometimes 2.


http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/ncaa-foo...edules.php
05-01-2018 08:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,793
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 400
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #1456
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-30-2018 09:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-30-2018 09:35 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(04-30-2018 08:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  Texas will be a partial and keep the LHN.
They could be playing attached to a division made up of:
Tulsa
Houston
TCU
Baylor
Texas Tech
SMU
Tulane

West Virginia may even want in on this league as a replacement for UConn after they move to the Big East. That would give you this lineup on the other side:
West Virginia
Temple
East Carolina
Cincinnati
USF
UCF
Memphis

Adding Tejas to the American gives this 14 team league a lot of cred.

I think Texas would rebuild the Big 12 again if Oklahoma left. They would have to become a partial member in football just so they could schedule historic rivals and schedule teams the fans actually want to buy tickets for.

Let’s assume the Sec grabs OU and OSU while KU runs off to the B1G. Texas might be better off playing in a small 7 team conference with only six conference games and noCCG. The strength of schedule would then derive from adding tough OOC opponents. If this “conference” wanted to align with another conference in B.B. and the Olympic sports, then so be it.

It doesn't change your theory by much, but the NCAA requires 8 member schools to be called a conference.
JR, I thought the minimum # was still 7. Do you know when it was changed or have a link? A few months back I went through a search of NCAA rules and did not find the specific rule, but didn't spend much time trying.
The ACC functioned at 7 for awhile when SC withdrew and before GT was added. I once heard 6 was required to formulate a conference, but that was long ago. The number factor impacts basketball moreso with the auto-bid requirements.
05-01-2018 08:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #1457
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-30-2018 09:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-30-2018 08:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  Texas will be a partial and keep the LHN.
They could be playing attached to a division made up of:
Tulsa
Houston
TCU
Baylor
Texas Tech
SMU
Tulane

West Virginia may even want in on this league as a replacement for UConn after they move to the Big East. That would give you this lineup on the other side:
West Virginia
Temple
East Carolina
Cincinnati
USF
UCF
Memphis

Adding Tejas to the American gives this 14 team league a lot of cred.

That's not happening. If they did that they might as well be UCF. The number of quality wins simply won't be there even with two or three brands scheduled as home & homes. Lose 1 and you're out.

Not if you are only playing 4/5 conference games a year, plus 2 B1G (already have Maryland, Ohio State and Michigan scheduled), 1/2 SEC (already have Arkansas and LSU scheduled, Arkansas would be a great annual) , 1/2 PAC, Oklahoma, 1 ACC/Rice.
National schedule, lots of games in Texas, SOS would be solid.
05-01-2018 09:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1458
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-01-2018 08:54 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(04-30-2018 09:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-30-2018 09:35 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(04-30-2018 08:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  Texas will be a partial and keep the LHN.
They could be playing attached to a division made up of:
Tulsa
Houston
TCU
Baylor
Texas Tech
SMU
Tulane

West Virginia may even want in on this league as a replacement for UConn after they move to the Big East. That would give you this lineup on the other side:
West Virginia
Temple
East Carolina
Cincinnati
USF
UCF
Memphis

Adding Tejas to the American gives this 14 team league a lot of cred.

I think Texas would rebuild the Big 12 again if Oklahoma left. They would have to become a partial member in football just so they could schedule historic rivals and schedule teams the fans actually want to buy tickets for.

Let’s assume the Sec grabs OU and OSU while KU runs off to the B1G. Texas might be better off playing in a small 7 team conference with only six conference games and noCCG. The strength of schedule would then derive from adding tough OOC opponents. If this “conference” wanted to align with another conference in B.B. and the Olympic sports, then so be it.

It doesn't change your theory by much, but the NCAA requires 8 member schools to be called a conference.
JR, I thought the minimum # was still 7. Do you know when it was changed or have a link? A few months back I went through a search of NCAA rules and did not find the specific rule, but didn't spend much time trying.
The ACC functioned at 7 for awhile when SC withdrew and before GT was added. I once heard 6 was required to formulate a conference, but that was long ago. The number factor impacts basketball moreso with the auto-bid requirements.

I've spent some time searching this morning and as of yet can't find a definitive answer. The last time this came up was in 2010-2 when the Big 12 was bleeding members. The two numbers discussed at that time were 10 members for the keeping of the television contract which was a minimum established by contract and had more to do with the total number of games purchased and some discussion centered around the dropping below 8 schools being the number to remain viable as a conference.

You could be correct on the number being 7, since the ACC sat at 7 for a little over 6 years before Georgia Tech was added. However the NCAA allows conferences that fall below the minimum to be able to spend a couple of years in acquiring a replacement before they lose their status. And just like with other NCAA minimum requirements they are very slow to enforce those standards, e.g. minimum attendance requirements for FBS inclusion.

If I can find the number I'll post it.

And as to X's post about about UCF you kind of missed my point. UT can't afford to play only a couple of key opponents a year. The CFP requirements would do to them what happened to UCF last year. My point was that regarding entry into the CFP a school needs to do more than surround themselves with ringers. I can't imagine Texas's donors and fans endorsing a plan that could put them on the outside looking in. A conference of essentially Texas and 7 other G5 level schools isn't going to get Texas in any faster than UCF's schedule got them in last year. And that's not a knock on UCF but the failure to play at least 8 P level games would get them passed over.
(This post was last modified: 05-01-2018 10:13 AM by JRsec.)
05-01-2018 10:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #1459
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
The SWC played with only 7 members until they added Houston in '72, and the ACC did play with only 7 from '71 until '79 when Georgia Tech entered the league.
05-01-2018 10:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #1460
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-01-2018 10:07 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-01-2018 08:54 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(04-30-2018 09:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-30-2018 09:35 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(04-30-2018 08:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  Texas will be a partial and keep the LHN.
They could be playing attached to a division made up of:
Tulsa
Houston
TCU
Baylor
Texas Tech
SMU
Tulane

West Virginia may even want in on this league as a replacement for UConn after they move to the Big East. That would give you this lineup on the other side:
West Virginia
Temple
East Carolina
Cincinnati
USF
UCF
Memphis

Adding Tejas to the American gives this 14 team league a lot of cred.

I think Texas would rebuild the Big 12 again if Oklahoma left. They would have to become a partial member in football just so they could schedule historic rivals and schedule teams the fans actually want to buy tickets for.

Let’s assume the Sec grabs OU and OSU while KU runs off to the B1G. Texas might be better off playing in a small 7 team conference with only six conference games and noCCG. The strength of schedule would then derive from adding tough OOC opponents. If this “conference” wanted to align with another conference in B.B. and the Olympic sports, then so be it.

It doesn't change your theory by much, but the NCAA requires 8 member schools to be called a conference.
JR, I thought the minimum # was still 7. Do you know when it was changed or have a link? A few months back I went through a search of NCAA rules and did not find the specific rule, but didn't spend much time trying.
The ACC functioned at 7 for awhile when SC withdrew and before GT was added. I once heard 6 was required to formulate a conference, but that was long ago. The number factor impacts basketball moreso with the auto-bid requirements.

I've spent some time searching this morning and as of yet can't find a definitive answer. The last time this came up was in 2010-2 when the Big 12 was bleeding members. The two numbers discussed at that time were 10 members for the keeping of the television contract which was a minimum established by contract and had more to do with the total number of games purchased and some discussion centered around the dropping below 8 schools being the number to remain viable as a conference.

You could be correct on the number being 7, since the ACC sat at 7 for a little over 6 years before Georgia Tech was added. However the NCAA allows conferences that fall below the minimum to be able to spend a couple of years in acquiring a replacement before they lose their status. And just like with other NCAA minimum requirements they are very slow to enforce those standards, e.g. minimum attendance requirements for FBS inclusion.

If I can find the number I'll post it.

And as to X's post about about UCF you kind of missed my point. UT can't afford to play only a couple of key opponents a year. The CFP requirements would do to them what happened to UCF last year. My point was that regarding entry into the CFP a school needs to do more than surround themselves with ringers. I can't imagine Texas's donors and fans endorsing a plan that could put them on the outside looking in. A conference of essentially Texas and 7 other G5 level schools isn't going to get Texas in any faster than UCF's schedule got them in last year. And that's not a knock on UCF but the failure to play at least 8 P level games would get them passed over.

I didn't miss your point, I just don't agree with it.
If the AAC added 4.5 schools that were all former P5 schools, the perception of the league would be changed to a more positive light.
The scheduling presented is better than most, and didn't have anything down on the level of Alabama State, Georgia State, Kent State, Mercer, Alabama A&M, Samford, or Western Kentucky that your school has chosen to play.
05-01-2018 10:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.