(05-01-2018 10:31 AM)XLance Wrote:  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.

Whether it is 7 or 8 is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Texas will have a very hard time meeting the standards of the CFP playing as an independent, especially if they attach themselves to a G5 conference. So there won't be any attaching to the AAC. The members of the Big 12 already have a hard time stacking up by playing each other. Subtract Oklahoma and Oklahoma State as we are speaking of doing in the discussion in this thread and pick up a couple of G5 schools and it just doesn't do it for Texas with regards to the CFP, or with their fans and alums for selling season books and landing donations.

What is being posited here just isn't going to happen with the Texas business model. Now that Texas A&M, Colorado, Missouri and Nebraska have gone, there just aren't enough peers left in the Big 12. Take away the Oklahoma schools and Texas has to go somewhere. They need a strong place to park their basketball, baseball, and softball.

They are fine academically no matter where they go. But their athletic department needs compelling games that appeal to their fan base. Their whole game at this point is holding onto OU. If they lose that battle they move.

You give the Longhorn fans conference games with SMU, TCU, Texas Tech, Houston and Baylor with the RRS, and you think they won't be happy? Throw in a trip to NOLA or Central Florida to replace having to go to Iowa or Kansas and just who is going to complain?
Keep the LHN add in three more P5 schools and I would take my chances with the committee.
And if the SEC won't offer them a partial deal the AAC will and Tejas could avoid having to play A&M forever.
That's a slam dunk for anyone wearing Burnt Orange.

BTW.....I left Liberty off of Auburn's list.

(05-01-2018 11:59 AM)XLance Wrote:  

You give the Longhorn fans conference games with SMU, TCU, Texas Tech, Houston and Baylor with the RRS, and you think they won't be happy? Throw in a trip to NOLA or Central Florida to replace having to go to Iowa or Kansas and just who is going to complain?
Keep the LHN add in three more P5 schools and I would take my chances with the committee.
And if the SEC won't offer them a partial deal the AAC will and Tejas could avoid having to play A&M forever.
That's a slam dunk for anyone wearing Burnt Orange.

BTW.....I left Liberty off of Auburn's list.

X, 75%, or more, of the SEC plays nine P games a year, Auburn included. There is usually one stinker on the schedule for homecoming. Anything else you say is just obvious trolling. The RPI of the conference speaks for itself. When Auburn plays Clemson or F.S.U. as their OOC P game I defy you to find many schedules among the P5 that rival it in terms of strength.

I'm sure that Texas would play T.C.U., Baylor or Tech, but that doesn't constitute much in the way of strength of schedule. S.M.U. provides even less as does Rice. Houston is hit or miss. And at the end of a season in which the Longhorns have a single loss the committee would argue should that loss be against a P5 that the remainder of the schedule didn't merit consideration, like UCF, T.C.U., and Baylor before to name a few. If they lose to one of the lesser schools on their schedule the outcome is even worse.

Their athletic department grossed over 200 million last year. They aren't going to risk the model that put them there. They need OU and that will work as an OOC game. But OSU is a strong enough program to boost that RPI. Take them out of the equation and the schedule is diminished. Take WVU should they head to the ACC and it is diminished yet again. It's a losing proposition business wise to remain in a further diminished Big 12 and that's just a fact of life. Texas might try it, but it is going to get very old very fast for their fans.

Now if you want to present valid business reasons for them to remain I'll listen. But I see no upside there at all. Texas fans aren't basketball first fans either so don't give me any of that Tar Heel view of we can exist with less. It might work fine in Chapel Hill, but not in Austin where everything has to be bigger and better.

If Texas was going to bother with AAC schools then the simplest thing to do would be to add a few to the existing Big 12 framework for the purpose of filling out a league. There's no reason to "join" the American.

Texas takes in about as much T3 money as the entire AAC makes in aggregate.

I don't think it's that likely even if they took that route. Some other league will take the aforementioned TX schools and both the brand power and money will be better.

(05-01-2018 01:05 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If Texas was going to bother with AAC schools then the simplest thing to do would be to add a few to the existing Big 12 framework for the purpose of filling out a league. There's no reason to "join" the American.

Texas takes in about as much T3 money as the entire AAC makes in aggregate.

I don't think it's that likely even if they took that route. Some other league will take the aforementioned TX schools and both the brand power and money will be better.

That's a solid observation. If Texas was that bent on maintaining status quo they would have gone harder after a couple of schools last year. But, it was the networks (both FOX and ESPN) that gave a resounding no. If Texas wouldn't buck them then, there is no indication that they will do so with even less leverage moving forward.

(05-01-2018 01:05 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If Texas was going to bother with AAC schools then the simplest thing to do would be to add a few to the existing Big 12 framework for the purpose of filling out a league. There's no reason to "join" the American.

Texas takes in about as much T3 money as the entire AAC makes in aggregate.

I don't think it's that likely even if they took that route. Some other league will take the aforementioned TX schools and both the brand power and money will be better.

If Oklahoma is going to leave, which is the assumption, why oh why would Tejas want to keep Iowa State, and Kansas State on it's schedule? Kansas, Oklahoma State, Give me a break.
The old Big 8 schools (minus Oklahoma) hold nothing for Tejas. It's also not necessary to recreate a conference when there is already one taylor made for the Horns, that would accommodate them and their pals for less money expended by ESPN, plus they could keep the LHN. Your lucky that Tejas would condescend to play Missouri if they joined the SEC as a partial.

(05-01-2018 03:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 01:05 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If Texas was going to bother with AAC schools then the simplest thing to do would be to add a few to the existing Big 12 framework for the purpose of filling out a league. There's no reason to "join" the American.

Texas takes in about as much T3 money as the entire AAC makes in aggregate.

I don't think it's that likely even if they took that route. Some other league will take the aforementioned TX schools and both the brand power and money will be better.

If Oklahoma is going to leave, which is the assumption, why oh why would Tejas want to keep Iowa State, and Kansas State on it's schedule? Kansas, Oklahoma State, Give me a break.
The old Big 8 schools (minus Oklahoma) hold nothing for Tejas. It's also not necessary to recreate a conference when there is already one taylor made for the Horns, that would accommodate them and their pals for less money expended by ESPN, plus they could keep the LHN. Your lucky that Tejas would condescend to play Missouri if they joined the SEC as a partial.

Yeah, that doesn't make a lick of sense.

Why would Texas look to throw in with the AAC? Outside of maybe 3 or 4 schools, who in that conference would they ever remotely care about playing? Who would sell tickets?

I could see Texas interested in playing Houston, but you don't need to join the AAC to make that happen. Just ask UH to join you and it's a slam dunk. UCF or USF? That's a maybe and UT could get some recruiting value out of playing in FL regularly, but again, just ask them to join you.

I'll be generous and say SMU might have some sentimental value, but why join a league with them? That's wholly unnecessary to play a school like that. As it stands, UT could have SMU play in Austin every single season if they wanted. Texas already left them behind once to join the very Big 8 schools that you say they have no interest in playing.

The old Big 8 schools are not high on Texas' priority, granted, but at least those schools have some decent sized fan bases. Adding the current TX schools to the AAC wouldn't be a motivating factor. They'll stick with Texas no matter where they go.

While it's true that ESPN would love to spend less money, that's not exactly going to be a selling point for Texas.

ESPN: "Hey Horns, how about you go over here so we can pay you less money and still get all your content."

Texas: "Um...no."

(05-01-2018 03:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 01:05 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If Texas was going to bother with AAC schools then the simplest thing to do would be to add a few to the existing Big 12 framework for the purpose of filling out a league. There's no reason to "join" the American.

Texas takes in about as much T3 money as the entire AAC makes in aggregate.

I don't think it's that likely even if they took that route. Some other league will take the aforementioned TX schools and both the brand power and money will be better.

If Oklahoma is going to leave, which is the assumption, why oh why would Tejas want to keep Iowa State, and Kansas State on it's schedule? Kansas, Oklahoma State, Give me a break.
The old Big 8 schools (minus Oklahoma) hold nothing for Tejas. It's also not necessary to recreate a conference when there is already one taylor made for the Horns, that would accommodate them and their pals for less money expended by ESPN, plus they could keep the LHN. Your lucky that Tejas would condescend to play Missouri if they joined the SEC as a partial.

There are so many holes in the idea of Texas going partial with the AAC that it's laughable. If you want to start a thread about that then fine. But this thread is about Big 12 schools that may, or may not join the SEC.

But for starters if any of the current Big 12 schools joined the AAC then one of two things has to happen.

1. Everyone in the AAC gets paid 35 million which doesn't make it cheap ESPN, especially considering the low interest in any Texas game against non brand schools (which is not how ESPN desires to monetize Texas as a product).

2. All Big 12 schools including Texas gets a drop down to the 5 million range for T1 and T2 rights which almost doubles what the AAC is getting now. Monkeys will fly out Mack Brown's rear before Texas ever agrees to that, even if they keep get to keep the 15 million for the LHN and pick up something for the 7 games that would played independently of the AAC. They would lose revenue for T1 & T2 by having that arrangement and ESPN loses the value added when Texas plays other brand schools.

Total independence would be a vastly superior plan to joining the AAC and even that has too many drawbacks.

But to get back to the topic, if Oklahoma and Oklahoma State head to the SEC whatever else happens it won't matter to the SEC. We'll be set.

The only consideration that might have to be made is if Texas wanted to join too. If they don't, we really wouldn't care.

(05-01-2018 04:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 03:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 01:05 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If Texas was going to bother with AAC schools then the simplest thing to do would be to add a few to the existing Big 12 framework for the purpose of filling out a league. There's no reason to "join" the American.

Texas takes in about as much T3 money as the entire AAC makes in aggregate.

I don't think it's that likely even if they took that route. Some other league will take the aforementioned TX schools and both the brand power and money will be better.

If Oklahoma is going to leave, which is the assumption, why oh why would Tejas want to keep Iowa State, and Kansas State on it's schedule? Kansas, Oklahoma State, Give me a break.
The old Big 8 schools (minus Oklahoma) hold nothing for Tejas. It's also not necessary to recreate a conference when there is already one taylor made for the Horns, that would accommodate them and their pals for less money expended by ESPN, plus they could keep the LHN. Your lucky that Tejas would condescend to play Missouri if they joined the SEC as a partial.

There are so many holes in the idea of Texas going partial with the AAC that it's laughable. If you want to start a thread about that then fine. But this thread is about Big 12 schools that may, or may not join the SEC.

But for starters if any of the current Big 12 schools joined the AAC then one of two things has to happen.

1. Everyone in the AAC gets paid 35 million which doesn't make it cheap ESPN, especially considering the low interest in any Texas game against non brand schools (which is not how ESPN desires to monetize Texas as a product).

2. All Big 12 schools including Texas gets a drop down to the 5 million range for T1 and T2 rights which almost doubles what the AAC is getting now. Monkeys will fly out Mack Brown's rear before Texas ever agrees to that, even if they keep get to keep the 15 million for the LHN and pick up something for the 7 games that would played independently of the AAC. They would lose revenue for T1 & T2 by having that arrangement and ESPN loses the value added when Texas plays other brand schools.

Total independence would be a vastly superior plan to joining the AAC and even that has too many drawbacks.

But to get back to the topic, if Oklahoma and Oklahoma State head to the SEC whatever else happens it won't matter to the SEC. We'll be set.

The only consideration that might have to be made is if Texas wanted to join too. If they don't, we really wouldn't care.

Texas has strained relations with the SEC. They refuse to play Texas A&M. That doesn't create warmth.
Texas is talking to somebody about it's conference affiliation for the future. I'm confident it is not the SEC.

Texas could try a revamped conference with a few B12 remnants and a few old SWC associates. But they would need to lure a couple big names into the configuration. I seriously doubt Arizona and Arizona State would bite, for example. That requires much bigger network money to even seriously ponder.

However, working out a scheduling agreement with the PAC 12, or UT and TTU joining up with two other current B12 schools to add to the PAC12, is not unthinkable. It could be a new eastern division of the PAC. It would be tough negotiating, but the PAC needs to do something big to improve their TV assets and the goal of marketing eastward.

While PAC12 earnings don't reach BIG or SEC levels, they can close the gap a bit; enough so that Texas would not necessarily dismiss.

Texas, ironically enough, has issues because they won't get out of their own way.

Eventually, other schools figured out they didn't have to follow the Horns' lead and here we are.

Texas will always make huge money, but they've lost the ability to have everything they want because they lacked foresight. They lived for the moment for far too long and now their fiefdom is almost assuredly going to turn to dust.

Anyway, if OU and OSU join the SEC then Texas will have a diminished stature no matter what choice they make. They'll always make plenty of money, but they'll never again be the power player because there'll be no one left to manipulate.

(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.

I wanted to revisit this post to say, if the PAC were to land Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State that from the perspective of a fan of college football in general this would provide more balance than other possible moves and therefore would likely be good for the game.

If the SEC and Big 10 wanted to move to 16 then I could see the SEC possibly being interested in T.C.U.. Who would we get to go with them? I don't know. I would still assume that the ACC might take West Virginia in a break up.

Would we look at Kansas? Perhaps in this event the SEC and Big 10 both sit at 14.

(05-01-2018 04:13 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 03:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 01:05 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If Texas was going to bother with AAC schools then the simplest thing to do would be to add a few to the existing Big 12 framework for the purpose of filling out a league. There's no reason to "join" the American.

Texas takes in about as much T3 money as the entire AAC makes in aggregate.

I don't think it's that likely even if they took that route. Some other league will take the aforementioned TX schools and both the brand power and money will be better.

If Oklahoma is going to leave, which is the assumption, why oh why would Tejas want to keep Iowa State, and Kansas State on it's schedule? Kansas, Oklahoma State, Give me a break.
The old Big 8 schools (minus Oklahoma) hold nothing for Tejas. It's also not necessary to recreate a conference when there is already one taylor made for the Horns, that would accommodate them and their pals for less money expended by ESPN, plus they could keep the LHN. Your lucky that Tejas would condescend to play Missouri if they joined the SEC as a partial.

Yeah, that doesn't make a lick of sense.

Why would Texas look to throw in with the AAC? Outside of maybe 3 or 4 schools, who in that conference would they ever remotely care about playing? Who would sell tickets?

I could see Texas interested in playing Houston, but you don't need to join the AAC to make that happen. Just ask UH to join you and it's a slam dunk. UCF or USF? That's a maybe and UT could get some recruiting value out of playing in FL regularly, but again, just ask them to join you.

I'll be generous and say SMU might have some sentimental value, but why join a league with them? That's wholly unnecessary to play a school like that. As it stands, UT could have SMU play in Austin every single season if they wanted. Texas already left them behind once to join the very Big 8 schools that you say they have no interest in playing.

The old Big 8 schools are not high on Texas' priority, granted, but at least those schools have some decent sized fan bases. Adding the current TX schools to the AAC wouldn't be a motivating factor. They'll stick with Texas no matter where they go.

While it's true that ESPN would love to spend less money, that's not exactly going to be a selling point for Texas.

ESPN: "Hey Horns, how about you go over here so we can pay you less money and still get all your content."

Texas: "Um...no."

Not all partial relationships are the same. Notre Dame plays 5 games a year in the ACC, this includes playing every school in the conference at least once every three years. Before they agreed to this plan, the ACC offered them a package where the Irish would play six games a year including permanent yearly contests with Pitt and Boston College while rotating the other 4.
The point is this; if Tejas enters into a partial relationship (or if you prefer to call it a scheduling agreement), I believe it will be with selected teams (just like the deal Notre Dame was offered). So whether it is the PAC, SEC or American the bulk of "conference" games will be against teams of Tejas choosing. So in the American Tejas could play every year Houston, SMU, Baylor, Texas Tech, and TCU, plus attach their non-revenue sports to the American west where they will have familiar foes and minimal travel.
The American with Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU and West Virginia with Texas as a partial would have at least as much of a claim of being a "P" conference as the PAC based on recent performance.
Tejas has enough clout and can generate enough income to pull this off. And who does it help? ESPN. And just who has the marketing muscle to make the country believe the American has graduated into a "P" conference? ESPN.
It would cross pollinate the ACC, SEC and American in the majority of the country that cares about watching college football (and baseball). And all of this is regardless of what Oklahoma and Kansas do.
Get out of the box you are trying to put realignment in and think of strategies that ESPN might employ to solidify their markets and inventory for another 20 years. Even a brand like Oklahoma will fade in a market like Dallas over time without exposure. How many fans in Indiana, North Carolina or Kentucky would pay to stream Kansas basketball?
You guys can pooh-pooh all you like, but the next phase of realignment is not about the schools, it's about the networks (ESPN/FOX) and how they can secure and solidify their positions for the foreseeable future.

(05-02-2018 05:01 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 04:13 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 03:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 01:05 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If Texas was going to bother with AAC schools then the simplest thing to do would be to add a few to the existing Big 12 framework for the purpose of filling out a league. There's no reason to "join" the American.

Texas takes in about as much T3 money as the entire AAC makes in aggregate.

I don't think it's that likely even if they took that route. Some other league will take the aforementioned TX schools and both the brand power and money will be better.

If Oklahoma is going to leave, which is the assumption, why oh why would Tejas want to keep Iowa State, and Kansas State on it's schedule? Kansas, Oklahoma State, Give me a break.
The old Big 8 schools (minus Oklahoma) hold nothing for Tejas. It's also not necessary to recreate a conference when there is already one taylor made for the Horns, that would accommodate them and their pals for less money expended by ESPN, plus they could keep the LHN. Your lucky that Tejas would condescend to play Missouri if they joined the SEC as a partial.

Yeah, that doesn't make a lick of sense.

Why would Texas look to throw in with the AAC? Outside of maybe 3 or 4 schools, who in that conference would they ever remotely care about playing? Who would sell tickets?

I could see Texas interested in playing Houston, but you don't need to join the AAC to make that happen. Just ask UH to join you and it's a slam dunk. UCF or USF? That's a maybe and UT could get some recruiting value out of playing in FL regularly, but again, just ask them to join you.

I'll be generous and say SMU might have some sentimental value, but why join a league with them? That's wholly unnecessary to play a school like that. As it stands, UT could have SMU play in Austin every single season if they wanted. Texas already left them behind once to join the very Big 8 schools that you say they have no interest in playing.

The old Big 8 schools are not high on Texas' priority, granted, but at least those schools have some decent sized fan bases. Adding the current TX schools to the AAC wouldn't be a motivating factor. They'll stick with Texas no matter where they go.

While it's true that ESPN would love to spend less money, that's not exactly going to be a selling point for Texas.

ESPN: "Hey Horns, how about you go over here so we can pay you less money and still get all your content."

Texas: "Um...no."

Not all partial relationships are the same. Notre Dame plays 5 games a year in the ACC, this includes playing every school in the conference at least once every three years. Before they agreed to this plan, the ACC offered them a package where the Irish would play six games a year including permanent yearly contests with Pitt and Boston College while rotating the other 4.
The point is this; if Tejas enters into a partial relationship (or if you prefer to call it a scheduling agreement), I believe it will be with selected teams (just like the deal Notre Dame was offered). So whether it is the PAC, SEC or American the bulk of "conference" games will be against teams of Tejas choosing. So in the American Tejas could play every year Houston, SMU, Baylor, Texas Tech, and TCU, plus attach their non-revenue sports to the American west where they will have familiar foes and minimal travel.
The American with Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU and West Virginia with Texas as a partial would have at least as much of a claim of being a "P" conference as the PAC based on recent performance.
Tejas has enough clout and can generate enough income to pull this off. And who does it help? ESPN. And just who has the marketing muscle to make the country believe the American has graduated into a "P" conference? ESPN.
It would cross pollinate the ACC, SEC and American in the majority of the country that cares about watching college football (and baseball). And all of this is regardless of what Oklahoma and Kansas do.
Get out of the box you are trying to put realignment in and think of strategies that ESPN might employ to solidify their markets and inventory for another 20 years. Even a brand like Oklahoma will fade in a market like Dallas over time without exposure. How many fans in Indiana, North Carolina or Kentucky would pay to stream Kansas basketball?
You guys can pooh-pooh all you like, but the next phase of realignment is not about the schools, it's about the networks (ESPN/FOX) and how they can secure and solidify their positions for the foreseeable future.

The next realignment will be about rights and it will be centered around the networks and I'm among the first to say so, if not the first, going all the way back to 2012. Since then I've carefully laid out exactly how that has transpired. The why is what has shifted over the past 6 years. But it will be within the contexts of what the conferences are willing to do. The networks call the shots, but their guidelines for operation are within the parameters established by the conferences they represent.

The SEC won't offer a partial membership because it is against our core organizing principles and our internal pay model. We won't grow unless a school meets our metrics loosely, or grows the bottom line. And right now we would prefer a "jewel" as Machen once said, but one that is contiguous and as Mike Slive promised, culturally fits the identity and brand of the SEC.

The Big 10 would prefer large state land grant schools who are members of the AAU. Those schools have to add to their bottom line and they prefer contiguity the same as the SEC.

The PAC's criteria are a hybrid of the those of the Big 10 and SEC but they are more constrained on the geographical fit.

So far only the ACC has been willing to compromise and cut deals on their membership. Louisville was the compromise and Notre Dame got a deal.

That won't be how the Big 10 or SEC operates.

So yeah, the networks will be working the butts off to wrap up the product they want and I'm sure they hope to be able to do it before the Amazons of the world drive overhead costs up. But the work the networks will be doing is trying to come up with a plan that would get the SEC and Big 10 (the two biggest profit drivers) on board and which adds value to the PAC and ACC lineup.

So if you want to play the "Guess what the networks will do" game then those are the parameters you have to fit.

The ACC is probably the closest to being completed. 1 more addition and Notre Dame all in because of a champs only playoff model is the end game for the ACC.

For the SEC it will be whatever key additions are needed to add value to what through last year was the leader in earning power and two additions that allow the East and West divisions to be tweaked and balanced out a bit better.

For the Big 10 they need essentially the same thing as the SEC. They need two solid additions that add value and help them to balance their divisions.

In as much as Texas and Oklahoma are common targets of the SEC and Big 10 and in as much as neither Texas nor Oklahoma really want to abandon the Big 12 we have a mess in the West.

There is a solution that nobody wants to talk about which could happen in 2025.

But what if the Big 10 and SEC are simply done at 14 each? What if Wake Forest becomes the partial for the ACC and Notre Dame goes all in? And what if the PAC only takes Texas and Oklahoma?

Wake would be guaranteed 5 games a year against traditional AAC schools and would remain a member for all other sports. Notre Dame goes all in because we move to a champs only model for football. And essentially we wind up with 56 football schools in the upper tier.

In 2025 Texas and OU are free to move.

Kansas might be encouraged to drop football and join a basketball conference. The rest join up with the best of the AAC and form their own conference.

If you are the networks you can't satisfy both the Big 10 and SEC easily, so satisfy neither but keep both happy by not advantaging either.

Pump up the ACC by minimizing its weakest team and growing it with what adds the most value.

Pump up the PAC without bloating it.

PAC North: Colorado, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State, Utah

PAC South: Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Oklahoma, Southern Cal, Texas

If there are only two P4 schools in Texas and the SEC has one that satisfies us. If the Big 10 loses no advantage it satisfies them. If the ACC is bolstered it satisfies them. If the PAC gets the added branding and markets it satisfies them.

The problem of expanding out of the Big 12 has always been the 8 schools not named Texas and Oklahoma, or trying to send either Texas and/or Oklahoma to either the Big 10 or SEC without ticking off everyone.

This gets it done.

A poster on another site that I chat with says that the PAC has disbanded in the past and reorganized itself minus members. He suggests that the PAC could do this again dropping Washington State and Oregon State and adding Kansas and he suggested Texas Tech.

So in a move to P4 we could see something like this:

Big 10:
West: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

East: Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

SEC:
East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

West: Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M

ACC:
North: Boston College, Louisville, N.C. State, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh Syracuse, Virginia Tech

South: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Virginia

PAC:
West: Arizona, California, Colorado, Oregon, Stanford, Washington, Utah

East: Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Kansas, Oklahoma, Southern Cal, Texas, Texas Tech

*Wake Forest would be fully included in all ACC sports except football.

So the new P4 would be a champs only for 56 schools. That increases bowl payouts and CFP money for everyone involved.

Out and into an enhanced G5 would be Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Baylor, West Virginia and T.C.U. from the Big 12, Wake Forest from the ACC, and Oregon State and Washington State from the PAC.

Those 9 plus Boise State, Brigham Young, San Diego State, and Air Force would be well on their way to establishing another conference like the AAC which would serve as a true buffer against the lower tier FBS. We could be looking at two conferences that distinguish themselves from the rest. They certainly would have more value for TV contract purposes than the others.

(05-02-2018 05:01 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 04:13 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 03:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 01:05 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If Texas was going to bother with AAC schools then the simplest thing to do would be to add a few to the existing Big 12 framework for the purpose of filling out a league. There's no reason to "join" the American.

Texas takes in about as much T3 money as the entire AAC makes in aggregate.

I don't think it's that likely even if they took that route. Some other league will take the aforementioned TX schools and both the brand power and money will be better.

If Oklahoma is going to leave, which is the assumption, why oh why would Tejas want to keep Iowa State, and Kansas State on it's schedule? Kansas, Oklahoma State, Give me a break.
The old Big 8 schools (minus Oklahoma) hold nothing for Tejas. It's also not necessary to recreate a conference when there is already one taylor made for the Horns, that would accommodate them and their pals for less money expended by ESPN, plus they could keep the LHN. Your lucky that Tejas would condescend to play Missouri if they joined the SEC as a partial.

Yeah, that doesn't make a lick of sense.

Why would Texas look to throw in with the AAC? Outside of maybe 3 or 4 schools, who in that conference would they ever remotely care about playing? Who would sell tickets?

I could see Texas interested in playing Houston, but you don't need to join the AAC to make that happen. Just ask UH to join you and it's a slam dunk. UCF or USF? That's a maybe and UT could get some recruiting value out of playing in FL regularly, but again, just ask them to join you.

I'll be generous and say SMU might have some sentimental value, but why join a league with them? That's wholly unnecessary to play a school like that. As it stands, UT could have SMU play in Austin every single season if they wanted. Texas already left them behind once to join the very Big 8 schools that you say they have no interest in playing.

The old Big 8 schools are not high on Texas' priority, granted, but at least those schools have some decent sized fan bases. Adding the current TX schools to the AAC wouldn't be a motivating factor. They'll stick with Texas no matter where they go.

While it's true that ESPN would love to spend less money, that's not exactly going to be a selling point for Texas.

ESPN: "Hey Horns, how about you go over here so we can pay you less money and still get all your content."

Texas: "Um...no."

Not all partial relationships are the same. Notre Dame plays 5 games a year in the ACC, this includes playing every school in the conference at least once every three years. Before they agreed to this plan, the ACC offered them a package where the Irish would play six games a year including permanent yearly contests with Pitt and Boston College while rotating the other 4.
The point is this; if Tejas enters into a partial relationship (or if you prefer to call it a scheduling agreement), I believe it will be with selected teams (just like the deal Notre Dame was offered). So whether it is the PAC, SEC or American the bulk of "conference" games will be against teams of Tejas choosing. So in the American Tejas could play every year Houston, SMU, Baylor, Texas Tech, and TCU, plus attach their non-revenue sports to the American west where they will have familiar foes and minimal travel.
The American with Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU and West Virginia with Texas as a partial would have at least as much of a claim of being a "P" conference as the PAC based on recent performance.
Tejas has enough clout and can generate enough income to pull this off. And who does it help? ESPN. And just who has the marketing muscle to make the country believe the American has graduated into a "P" conference? ESPN.
It would cross pollinate the ACC, SEC and American in the majority of the country that cares about watching college football (and baseball). And all of this is regardless of what Oklahoma and Kansas do.
Get out of the box you are trying to put realignment in and think of strategies that ESPN might employ to solidify their markets and inventory for another 20 years. Even a brand like Oklahoma will fade in a market like Dallas over time without exposure. How many fans in Indiana, North Carolina or Kentucky would pay to stream Kansas basketball?
You guys can pooh-pooh all you like, but the next phase of realignment is not about the schools, it's about the networks (ESPN/FOX) and how they can secure and solidify their positions for the foreseeable future.

Marty! You're not thinking 4th dimensionally!

I doubt that Texas wants a partial agreement in the first place, but if they did then there's no still reason to leave the Big 12. They could get precisely the same arrangement with their current league and most of those schools would be happy to take it.

All they have to do is invite a couple of American schools to fill the numbers out. Simpler and far more effective.

ESPN's not going to be crazy about putting Texas into the American for several reasons, but one of them is that if UT is a partial then there's very little upside to most AAC games. You could theorize that the AAC would get a lot more play with UT and a few Texas schools on board, but if UT is only playing a handful and most of those are the games they were already playing then where's the gain? Texas as a full member would add a lot of value to the AAC, but as a partial...what's the point? None of those other AAC games are going to become interesting to a wider audience.

If Texas wanted to go Independent, they wouldn’t have any trouble getting a schedule in place. If they could, play these schools annually: Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Arkansas, and Baylor. Play these schools biannually: TCU, SMU, Houston, and Rice. I understand there’s issues with the Aggies and Cougars. Then fill the rest with power schools. They’d be able to do it.

(05-02-2018 06:32 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  If Texas wanted to go Independent, they wouldn’t have any trouble getting a schedule in place. If they could, play these schools annually: Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Arkansas, and Baylor. Play these schools biannually: TCU, SMU, Houston, and Rice. I understand there’s issues with the Aggies and Cougars. Then fill the rest with power schools. They’d be able to do it.

If everyone is in a P4 conference but Texas, the problem would be getting into the CFP. And getting that scheduling cooperation from schools who have access to the CFP who know by scheduling Texas they are giving them a chance to set up a special case for inclusion just wouldn't fly. I doubt seriously the cooperation would be there.

(05-02-2018 03:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  A poster on another site that I chat with says that the PAC has disbanded in the past and reorganized itself minus members. He suggests that the PAC could do this again dropping Washington State and Oregon State and adding Kansas and he suggested Texas Tech.

So in a move to P4 we could see something like this:

Big 10:
West: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

East: Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

SEC:
East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

West: Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M

ACC:
North: Boston College, Louisville, N.C. State, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh Syracuse, Virginia Tech

South: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Virginia

PAC:
West: Arizona, California, Colorado, Oregon, Stanford, Washington, Utah

East: Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Kansas, Oklahoma, Southern Cal, Texas, Texas Tech

*Wake Forest would be fully included in all ACC sports except football.

So the new P4 would be a champs only for 56 schools. That increases bowl payouts and CFP money for everyone involved.

Out and into an enhanced G5 would be Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Baylor, West Virginia and T.C.U. from the Big 12, Wake Forest from the ACC, and Oregon State and Washington State from the PAC.

Those 9 plus Boise State, Brigham Young, San Diego State, and Air Force would be well on their way to establishing another conference like the AAC which would serve as a true buffer against the lower tier FBS. We could be looking at two conferences that distinguish themselves from the rest. They certainly would have more value for TV contract purposes than the others.

We have talked about legislative pressure in Oklahoma re: Oklahoma State. Are there similar situations with the lawmakers in Washington and Oregon?

(05-02-2018 03:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  A poster on another site that I chat with says that the PAC has disbanded in the past and reorganized itself minus members. He suggests that the PAC could do this again dropping Washington State and Oregon State and adding Kansas and he suggested Texas Tech.

So in a move to P4 we could see something like this:

Big 10:
West: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

East: Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

SEC:
East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

West: Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M

ACC:
North: Boston College, Louisville, N.C. State, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh Syracuse, Virginia Tech

South: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Virginia

PAC:
West: Arizona, California, Colorado, Oregon, Stanford, Washington, Utah

East: Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Kansas, Oklahoma, Southern Cal, Texas, Texas Tech

*Wake Forest would be fully included in all ACC sports except football.

So the new P4 would be a champs only for 56 schools. That increases bowl payouts and CFP money for everyone involved.

Out and into an enhanced G5 would be Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Baylor, West Virginia and T.C.U. from the Big 12, Wake Forest from the ACC, and Oregon State and Washington State from the PAC.

Those 9 plus Boise State, Brigham Young, San Diego State, and Air Force would be well on their way to establishing another conference like the AAC which would serve as a true buffer against the lower tier FBS. We could be looking at two conferences that distinguish themselves from the rest. They certainly would have more value for TV contract purposes than the others.

It's a great concept.
The things the PAC needs are twofold:
1) a football program to match Southern Cal and energize PAC football (Oklahoma and Texas provide this)
2) a basketball program to do the same for PAC basketball (Kansas fills this need).

Kansas State has been scheduling fb series with SEC schools, including Vandy and Mississippi State. Unlike Kansas, KSU has reached out to Mizzou for future game possibilities. KSU is also scheduling some with the PAC.

KSU definitely wants connections if/when the Big12 has future depletions. In some interesting scenarios, KSU could be a default # 16. Oklahoma State and Kansas State may not sound charming, but if OU and UT are off the table, and a major conference is still looking to expand, they'd at least get a look.