Here's my question...

If Oklahoma doesn't leave then it seems entirely possible that Texas won't either.

Well, if someone doesn't take Oklahoma State then what are the chances OU bails on their own? That doesn't seem too likely to me.

Now, if OU and UT stick together on this then the Big 12 could survive a while longer.

The primary question is this...is there a more economically efficient way to crack the nut that is the Big 12 and force UT's hand?

(07-17-2018 08:06 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Here's my question...

If Oklahoma doesn't leave then it seems entirely possible that Texas won't either.

Well, if someone doesn't take Oklahoma State then what are the chances OU bails on their own? That doesn't seem too likely to me.

Now, if OU and UT stick together on this then the Big 12 could survive a while longer.

The primary question is this...is there a more economically efficient way to crack the nut that is the Big 12 and force UT's hand?

No. If you take Oklahoma State first then Oklahoma might well choose another option because they are free of their burden to take care of O.S.U.. If OU stays, as you have recognized, there is no reason for Texas to do anything since that fulfills their ideal situation. And as there are not other targets in the Big 12 that merit consideration simply on their own as a first choice then the answer is simply and emphatically, "No."

Offering both Oklahoma's may be the only way to crack them, and if somebody cracks the Big 12 for us most certainly that means that either Texas or Oklahoma, or both are headed elsewhere. But that wouldn't be the Big 10 for the reason that Texas will want to stay put unless forced out and Oklahoma does have an OSU problem and the Big 10 can't handle that.

IMO the only one who could crack them is the PAC even though the finances might not be as solid, because they have room for little brothers. They could easily take Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma by accepting Tech, OSU, and KSU. It could be any two pairs, or all three.

This is why I have often stressed the 3 conference of 20 schools option. I could even see the PAC taking 8 of the Big 12 if you add Iowa State and T.C.U. to the mix. That gives them 3 AAU schools, vastly expands the amount of PAC games that could be offered in a new time zone. Tech, KState, and a T.C.U. with a med school are all either acceptable or could more easily grow into acceptable members for the PAC, and Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas may well be worth the cost of those and OSU.

The Big 10 would rather expand into the larger markets of the Atlantic Seaboard. And the SEC's most natural expansion is also to the East.

So if we want expansion to the West (which is more what ESPN would want us to do) then our play to open it up is the 2 Oklahoma schools. If the SEC wants to resist to force different options then our play is to do nothing further to the West. Then the most likely option would be for the PAC to make a much larger move.

The risk is that Oklahoma escapes their obligation to OSU and does bolt to the Big 10 with Kansas. The Big 10's risk is that the SEC takes both OU and OSU. In either event one of the two top conferences could whiff on the next realignment if ESPN spends more to keep the ACC safe. However the big risk to the ACC is that under that scenario that ESPN in order to hold the top two conference products would divide the spoils of the ACC between the Big 10 and SEC in order to lock down both of those giants for years to come.

IMO, I prefer to see the two most destabilizing programs moving to the West Coast. I think that sets up a much better business arrangement and rivalry between the Big 10 and SEC.

Content wise OU and UT are a huge plus. But the SEC could gain a huge plus by monopolizing its territory to the East. Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State and Virginia Tech gives us two moderately large markets and an essential monopoly from South Carolina to Mississippi through Louisiana, Missouri and Arkansas and Tennessee all the way to the Florida Keys. Only the states of Texas, Kentucky, North Carolina and Virginia (the natural border states) would be split.

IMO this long term would be the best future for the SEC. If we can't have it then monopolizing Texas and Oklahoma is play #2. Either way the ad rate leverage is huge.

(07-17-2018 10:58 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 08:06 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Here's my question...

If Oklahoma doesn't leave then it seems entirely possible that Texas won't either.

Well, if someone doesn't take Oklahoma State then what are the chances OU bails on their own? That doesn't seem too likely to me.

Now, if OU and UT stick together on this then the Big 12 could survive a while longer.

The primary question is this...is there a more economically efficient way to crack the nut that is the Big 12 and force UT's hand?

Ditto.
No. If you take Oklahoma State first then Oklahoma might well choose another option because they are free of their burden to take care of O.S.U.. If OU stays, as you have recognized, there is no reason for Texas to do anything since that fulfills their ideal situation. And as there are not other targets in the Big 12 that merit consideration simply on their own as a first choice then the answer is simply and emphatically, "No."

Offering both Oklahoma's may be the only way to crack them, and if somebody cracks the Big 12 for us most certainly that means that either Texas or Oklahoma, or both are headed elsewhere. But that wouldn't be the Big 10 for the reason that Texas will want to stay put unless forced out and Oklahoma does have an OSU problem and the Big 10 can't handle that.

IMO the only one who could crack them is the PAC even though the finances might not be as solid, because they have room for little brothers. They could easily take Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma by accepting Tech, OSU, and KSU. It could be any two pairs, or all three.

This is why I have often stressed the 3 conference of 20 schools option. I could even see the PAC taking 8 of the Big 12 if you add Iowa State and T.C.U. to the mix. That gives them 3 AAU schools, vastly expands the amount of PAC games that could be offered in a new time zone. Tech, KState, and a T.C.U. with a med school are all either acceptable or could more easily grow into acceptable members for the PAC, and Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas may well be worth the cost of those and OSU.

The Big 10 would rather expand into the larger markets of the Atlantic Seaboard. And the SEC's most natural expansion is also to the East.

So if we want expansion to the West (which is more what ESPN would want us to do) then our play to open it up is the 2 Oklahoma schools. If the SEC wants to resist to force different options then our play is to do nothing further to the West. Then the most likely option would be for the PAC to make a much larger move.

The risk is that Oklahoma escapes their obligation to OSU and does bolt to the Big 10 with Kansas. The Big 10's risk is that the SEC takes both OU and OSU. In either event one of the two top conferences could whiff on the next realignment if ESPN spends more to keep the ACC safe. However the big risk to the ACC is that under that scenario that ESPN in order to hold the top two conference products would divide the spoils of the ACC between the Big 10 and SEC in order to lock down both of those giants for years to come.

IMO, I prefer to see the two most destabilizing programs moving to the West Coast. I think that sets up a much better business arrangement and rivalry between the Big 10 and SEC.

Content wise OU and UT are a huge plus. But the SEC could gain a huge plus by monopolizing its territory to the East. Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State and Virginia Tech gives us two moderately large markets and an essential monopoly from South Carolina to Mississippi through Louisiana, Missouri and Arkansas and Tennessee all the way to the Florida Keys. Only the states of Texas, Kentucky, North Carolina and Virginia (the natural border states) would be split.

IMO this long term would be the best future for the SEC. If we can't have it then monopolizing Texas and Oklahoma is play #2. Either way the ad rate leverage is huge.

Ditto. I prefer plan#1. What a conference that would be.

(07-17-2018 10:23 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 10:58 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 08:06 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Here's my question...

If Oklahoma doesn't leave then it seems entirely possible that Texas won't either.

Well, if someone doesn't take Oklahoma State then what are the chances OU bails on their own? That doesn't seem too likely to me.

Now, if OU and UT stick together on this then the Big 12 could survive a while longer.

The primary question is this...is there a more economically efficient way to crack the nut that is the Big 12 and force UT's hand?

Ditto.
No. If you take Oklahoma State first then Oklahoma might well choose another option because they are free of their burden to take care of O.S.U.. If OU stays, as you have recognized, there is no reason for Texas to do anything since that fulfills their ideal situation. And as there are not other targets in the Big 12 that merit consideration simply on their own as a first choice then the answer is simply and emphatically, "No."

Offering both Oklahoma's may be the only way to crack them, and if somebody cracks the Big 12 for us most certainly that means that either Texas or Oklahoma, or both are headed elsewhere. But that wouldn't be the Big 10 for the reason that Texas will want to stay put unless forced out and Oklahoma does have an OSU problem and the Big 10 can't handle that.

IMO the only one who could crack them is the PAC even though the finances might not be as solid, because they have room for little brothers. They could easily take Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma by accepting Tech, OSU, and KSU. It could be any two pairs, or all three.

This is why I have often stressed the 3 conference of 20 schools option. I could even see the PAC taking 8 of the Big 12 if you add Iowa State and T.C.U. to the mix. That gives them 3 AAU schools, vastly expands the amount of PAC games that could be offered in a new time zone. Tech, KState, and a T.C.U. with a med school are all either acceptable or could more easily grow into acceptable members for the PAC, and Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas may well be worth the cost of those and OSU.

The Big 10 would rather expand into the larger markets of the Atlantic Seaboard. And the SEC's most natural expansion is also to the East.

So if we want expansion to the West (which is more what ESPN would want us to do) then our play to open it up is the 2 Oklahoma schools. If the SEC wants to resist to force different options then our play is to do nothing further to the West. Then the most likely option would be for the PAC to make a much larger move.

The risk is that Oklahoma escapes their obligation to OSU and does bolt to the Big 10 with Kansas. The Big 10's risk is that the SEC takes both OU and OSU. In either event one of the two top conferences could whiff on the next realignment if ESPN spends more to keep the ACC safe. However the big risk to the ACC is that under that scenario that ESPN in order to hold the top two conference products would divide the spoils of the ACC between the Big 10 and SEC in order to lock down both of those giants for years to come.

IMO, I prefer to see the two most destabilizing programs moving to the West Coast. I think that sets up a much better business arrangement and rivalry between the Big 10 and SEC.

Content wise OU and UT are a huge plus. But the SEC could gain a huge plus by monopolizing its territory to the East. Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State and Virginia Tech gives us two moderately large markets and an essential monopoly from South Carolina to Mississippi through Louisiana, Missouri and Arkansas and Tennessee all the way to the Florida Keys. Only the states of Texas, Kentucky, North Carolina and Virginia (the natural border states) would be split.

IMO this long term would be the best future for the SEC. If we can't have it then monopolizing Texas and Oklahoma is play #2. Either way the ad rate leverage is huge.

Ditto. I prefer plan#1. What a conference that would be.

Plan #1 has risks as well. What if the PAC didn't offer enough to lure Texas & Oklahoma & Kansas, or refused to take their 2nd state schools? The Big 10 might expand with Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas and the ACC stands pat and the SEC falls behind.

This will be a huge game of chicken if movement actually occurs. The reward with Texas and Oklahoma is huge, so attempts will be made. But if the SEC and Big 10 worked together, with the disparity in income to the East we both could effectively secure what we would want without too much disagreement in the matter.

I still think this arrangement provides the game the most balance and the networks with the best possible set up to keep all regions of the country engaged:

PAC:
Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State

Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal

Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Colorado, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Utah


B1G:
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia

Ohio State, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Rutgers

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue

Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin


SEC:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech

Alabama, Mississippi State, Miami, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M

Florida State, Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech

(07-15-2018 09:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 09:47 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 08:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 07:50 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Speaking of Texas....


https://twitter.com/BDavisAAS/status/101...56611?s=20

Conversation
Brian Davis
Brian Davis
@BDavisAAS
I can tell you for fact that high-level Texas officials wanted Baylor out of the Big 12 on the spot. But they knew it was more wishful thinking than anything else.
Dennis Dodd
@dennisdoddcbs
Source: Baylor was worried about its ongoing membership in the Big 12 as scandal unfolded. NCAA and Big 12 investigations still going on. (link: https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...-unfolded/) cbssports.com/college-footba…

There's another issue wrapped up in all of this. Should Baylor be censured by the Big 12 and their membership pulled, the conference would have to open back up it's GOR to sign anyone else. And thy might even need to sign a new GOR even if they didn't add anyone else. I don't think Texas wants to touch that issue with a 10 foot pole until they know what the future disposition and or resolution of the conference will be. It could be the perfect cover of Oklahoma and Kansas, and any of their buddies to leave.

Unless something horrible is revealed beyond what is already known, Baylor will stay. If they wanted Baylor out, perhaps moving on it earlier would have been less complicated.
Baylor is tainted for a long time. If the B12 breaks, no other P5 program will touch them. Texas would not want them following anywhere.

I completely agree that if they wanted them out, and they might have, they would have pulled the trigger on this a year ago. Maybe that's why the interviewed the G5 applicants. Maybe they hoped to get rid of Baylor, pick up 3 schools, and quickly ink a new GOR while Boren was there to do it. But when FOX and ESPN didn't want to even pay pro rata for the G5's it kind of knocked that approach in the head.

Texas then realized that giving the Bear the boot would open the GOR anyway and decided to bite their lip and ride it out. At least when the present GOR expires Texas is free of them and then if everyone wants to renew the GOR they can, perhaps replacing Baylor at that time. If the members want to move elsewhere they are free to do so with no obligation whatsoever to the private schools but with some political pressure to take care of the lesser state schools.

I've been watching the Baylor situation since it hit because any action there could have been immediately pivotal. Because moving on it is so risky, and because there is zero political risk by waiting until 2023-4, I think Texas chose the least complicated strategy, which was wise.

Worst case scenario for Texas in a Big getting picked apart is at what point do you just have to abandon it? Let’s assume the SEC secures Tier I content multiplier Oklahoma with rival OSU. Kansas bolts for the Big Ten to secure their future. Would Texas want to rebuild a conference with just Tech, TCU, Kansas State, Iowa State and West Virginia? (Baylor gets booted in this scenario).

I think not.

Only portion there would be to promote some G5 schools and receive a smaller TV package or try to add schools from the PAC-12.

If those options are undesirable, it might be time for Texas to apply to the SEC. I assume their fanbase would be that catalyst.

(07-17-2018 11:09 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 09:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 09:47 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 08:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 07:50 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Speaking of Texas....


https://twitter.com/BDavisAAS/status/101...56611?s=20

Conversation
Brian Davis
Brian Davis
@BDavisAAS
I can tell you for fact that high-level Texas officials wanted Baylor out of the Big 12 on the spot. But they knew it was more wishful thinking than anything else.
Dennis Dodd
@dennisdoddcbs
Source: Baylor was worried about its ongoing membership in the Big 12 as scandal unfolded. NCAA and Big 12 investigations still going on. (link: https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...-unfolded/) cbssports.com/college-footba…

There's another issue wrapped up in all of this. Should Baylor be censured by the Big 12 and their membership pulled, the conference would have to open back up it's GOR to sign anyone else. And thy might even need to sign a new GOR even if they didn't add anyone else. I don't think Texas wants to touch that issue with a 10 foot pole until they know what the future disposition and or resolution of the conference will be. It could be the perfect cover of Oklahoma and Kansas, and any of their buddies to leave.

Unless something horrible is revealed beyond what is already known, Baylor will stay. If they wanted Baylor out, perhaps moving on it earlier would have been less complicated.
Baylor is tainted for a long time. If the B12 breaks, no other P5 program will touch them. Texas would not want them following anywhere.

I completely agree that if they wanted them out, and they might have, they would have pulled the trigger on this a year ago. Maybe that's why the interviewed the G5 applicants. Maybe they hoped to get rid of Baylor, pick up 3 schools, and quickly ink a new GOR while Boren was there to do it. But when FOX and ESPN didn't want to even pay pro rata for the G5's it kind of knocked that approach in the head.

Texas then realized that giving the Bear the boot would open the GOR anyway and decided to bite their lip and ride it out. At least when the present GOR expires Texas is free of them and then if everyone wants to renew the GOR they can, perhaps replacing Baylor at that time. If the members want to move elsewhere they are free to do so with no obligation whatsoever to the private schools but with some political pressure to take care of the lesser state schools.

I've been watching the Baylor situation since it hit because any action there could have been immediately pivotal. Because moving on it is so risky, and because there is zero political risk by waiting until 2023-4, I think Texas chose the least complicated strategy, which was wise.

Worst case scenario for Texas in a Big getting picked apart is at what point do you just have to abandon it? Let’s assume the SEC secures Tier I content multiplier Oklahoma with rival OSU. Kansas bolts for the Big Ten to secure their future. Would Texas want to rebuild a conference with just Tech, TCU, Kansas State, Iowa State and West Virginia? (Baylor gets booted in this scenario).

I think not.

Only portion there would be to promote some G5 schools and receive a smaller TV package or try to add schools from the PAC-12.

If those options are undesirable, it might be time for Texas to apply to the SEC. I assume their fanbase would be that catalyst.

Or their excuse would be they had to find Texas Tech a landing spot.

(07-17-2018 10:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 10:23 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 10:58 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 08:06 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Here's my question...

If Oklahoma doesn't leave then it seems entirely possible that Texas won't either.

Well, if someone doesn't take Oklahoma State then what are the chances OU bails on their own? That doesn't seem too likely to me.

Now, if OU and UT stick together on this then the Big 12 could survive a while longer.

The primary question is this...is there a more economically efficient way to crack the nut that is the Big 12 and force UT's hand?

Ditto.
No. If you take Oklahoma State first then Oklahoma might well choose another option because they are free of their burden to take care of O.S.U.. If OU stays, as you have recognized, there is no reason for Texas to do anything since that fulfills their ideal situation. And as there are not other targets in the Big 12 that merit consideration simply on their own as a first choice then the answer is simply and emphatically, "No."

Offering both Oklahoma's may be the only way to crack them, and if somebody cracks the Big 12 for us most certainly that means that either Texas or Oklahoma, or both are headed elsewhere. But that wouldn't be the Big 10 for the reason that Texas will want to stay put unless forced out and Oklahoma does have an OSU problem and the Big 10 can't handle that.

IMO the only one who could crack them is the PAC even though the finances might not be as solid, because they have room for little brothers. They could easily take Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma by accepting Tech, OSU, and KSU. It could be any two pairs, or all three.

This is why I have often stressed the 3 conference of 20 schools option. I could even see the PAC taking 8 of the Big 12 if you add Iowa State and T.C.U. to the mix. That gives them 3 AAU schools, vastly expands the amount of PAC games that could be offered in a new time zone. Tech, KState, and a T.C.U. with a med school are all either acceptable or could more easily grow into acceptable members for the PAC, and Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas may well be worth the cost of those and OSU.

The Big 10 would rather expand into the larger markets of the Atlantic Seaboard. And the SEC's most natural expansion is also to the East.

So if we want expansion to the West (which is more what ESPN would want us to do) then our play to open it up is the 2 Oklahoma schools. If the SEC wants to resist to force different options then our play is to do nothing further to the West. Then the most likely option would be for the PAC to make a much larger move.

The risk is that Oklahoma escapes their obligation to OSU and does bolt to the Big 10 with Kansas. The Big 10's risk is that the SEC takes both OU and OSU. In either event one of the two top conferences could whiff on the next realignment if ESPN spends more to keep the ACC safe. However the big risk to the ACC is that under that scenario that ESPN in order to hold the top two conference products would divide the spoils of the ACC between the Big 10 and SEC in order to lock down both of those giants for years to come.

IMO, I prefer to see the two most destabilizing programs moving to the West Coast. I think that sets up a much better business arrangement and rivalry between the Big 10 and SEC.

Content wise OU and UT are a huge plus. But the SEC could gain a huge plus by monopolizing its territory to the East. Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State and Virginia Tech gives us two moderately large markets and an essential monopoly from South Carolina to Mississippi through Louisiana, Missouri and Arkansas and Tennessee all the way to the Florida Keys. Only the states of Texas, Kentucky, North Carolina and Virginia (the natural border states) would be split.

IMO this long term would be the best future for the SEC. If we can't have it then monopolizing Texas and Oklahoma is play #2. Either way the ad rate leverage is huge.

Ditto. I prefer plan#1. What a conference that would be.

Plan #1 has risks as well. What if the PAC didn't offer enough to lure Texas & Oklahoma & Kansas, or refused to take their 2nd state schools? The Big 10 might expand with Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas and the ACC stands pat and the SEC falls behind.

This will be a huge game of chicken if movement actually occurs. The reward with Texas and Oklahoma is huge, so attempts will be made. But if the SEC and Big 10 worked together, with the disparity in income to the East we both could effectively secure what we would want without too much disagreement in the matter.

I still think this arrangement provides the game the most balance and the networks with the best possible set up to keep all regions of the country engaged:

PAC:
Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State

Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal

Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Colorado, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Utah


B1G:
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia

Ohio State, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Rutgers

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue

Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin


SEC:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech

Alabama, Mississippi State, Miami, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M

Florida State, Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech

I agree it would keep the leagues pretty equal and all parts of the country are represented and I like that part.

Would the post-season stay the same or would we have a 16 team playoff where conference championships are abolished? It makes no sense to have conference semi-finals and produce 3 conference champions only for one team like Alabama or Ohio St. to get a 2nd shot at the title after they lost their conference playoffs. That's the only part about a P3 I really hate the idea of.

Also, I wouldn't have conferences have divisions but rather a single set of standings so it would leave flexibility in the scheduling they need. In 20 team conferences its really not important that some teams play each other or at least that often.

(07-18-2018 10:08 AM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 10:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 10:23 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 10:58 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 08:06 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Here's my question...

If Oklahoma doesn't leave then it seems entirely possible that Texas won't either.

Well, if someone doesn't take Oklahoma State then what are the chances OU bails on their own? That doesn't seem too likely to me.

Now, if OU and UT stick together on this then the Big 12 could survive a while longer.

The primary question is this...is there a more economically efficient way to crack the nut that is the Big 12 and force UT's hand?

Ditto.
No. If you take Oklahoma State first then Oklahoma might well choose another option because they are free of their burden to take care of O.S.U.. If OU stays, as you have recognized, there is no reason for Texas to do anything since that fulfills their ideal situation. And as there are not other targets in the Big 12 that merit consideration simply on their own as a first choice then the answer is simply and emphatically, "No."

Offering both Oklahoma's may be the only way to crack them, and if somebody cracks the Big 12 for us most certainly that means that either Texas or Oklahoma, or both are headed elsewhere. But that wouldn't be the Big 10 for the reason that Texas will want to stay put unless forced out and Oklahoma does have an OSU problem and the Big 10 can't handle that.

IMO the only one who could crack them is the PAC even though the finances might not be as solid, because they have room for little brothers. They could easily take Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma by accepting Tech, OSU, and KSU. It could be any two pairs, or all three.

This is why I have often stressed the 3 conference of 20 schools option. I could even see the PAC taking 8 of the Big 12 if you add Iowa State and T.C.U. to the mix. That gives them 3 AAU schools, vastly expands the amount of PAC games that could be offered in a new time zone. Tech, KState, and a T.C.U. with a med school are all either acceptable or could more easily grow into acceptable members for the PAC, and Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas may well be worth the cost of those and OSU.

The Big 10 would rather expand into the larger markets of the Atlantic Seaboard. And the SEC's most natural expansion is also to the East.

So if we want expansion to the West (which is more what ESPN would want us to do) then our play to open it up is the 2 Oklahoma schools. If the SEC wants to resist to force different options then our play is to do nothing further to the West. Then the most likely option would be for the PAC to make a much larger move.

The risk is that Oklahoma escapes their obligation to OSU and does bolt to the Big 10 with Kansas. The Big 10's risk is that the SEC takes both OU and OSU. In either event one of the two top conferences could whiff on the next realignment if ESPN spends more to keep the ACC safe. However the big risk to the ACC is that under that scenario that ESPN in order to hold the top two conference products would divide the spoils of the ACC between the Big 10 and SEC in order to lock down both of those giants for years to come.

IMO, I prefer to see the two most destabilizing programs moving to the West Coast. I think that sets up a much better business arrangement and rivalry between the Big 10 and SEC.

Content wise OU and UT are a huge plus. But the SEC could gain a huge plus by monopolizing its territory to the East. Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State and Virginia Tech gives us two moderately large markets and an essential monopoly from South Carolina to Mississippi through Louisiana, Missouri and Arkansas and Tennessee all the way to the Florida Keys. Only the states of Texas, Kentucky, North Carolina and Virginia (the natural border states) would be split.

IMO this long term would be the best future for the SEC. If we can't have it then monopolizing Texas and Oklahoma is play #2. Either way the ad rate leverage is huge.

Ditto. I prefer plan#1. What a conference that would be.

Plan #1 has risks as well. What if the PAC didn't offer enough to lure Texas & Oklahoma & Kansas, or refused to take their 2nd state schools? The Big 10 might expand with Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas and the ACC stands pat and the SEC falls behind.

This will be a huge game of chicken if movement actually occurs. The reward with Texas and Oklahoma is huge, so attempts will be made. But if the SEC and Big 10 worked together, with the disparity in income to the East we both could effectively secure what we would want without too much disagreement in the matter.

I still think this arrangement provides the game the most balance and the networks with the best possible set up to keep all regions of the country engaged:

PAC:
Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State

Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal

Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Colorado, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Utah


B1G:
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia

Ohio State, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Rutgers

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue

Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin


SEC:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech

Alabama, Mississippi State, Miami, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M

Florida State, Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech

I agree it would keep the leagues pretty equal and all parts of the country are represented and I like that part.

Would the post-season stay the same or would we have a 16 team playoff where conference championships are abolished? It makes no sense to have conference semi-finals and produce 3 conference champions only for one team like Alabama or Ohio St. to get a 2nd shot at the title after they lost their conference playoffs. That's the only part about a P3 I really hate the idea of.

Also, I wouldn't have conferences have divisions but rather a single set of standings so it would leave flexibility in the scheduling they need. In 20 team conferences its really not important that some teams play each other or at least that often.

We wouldn't need a 16 team playoff. Internal the conferences the divisions are more or less set up to protect some rivalries. In a 20 team conference you could play 10 conference games (4 division games + 1 rotating division + 1 permanent rival) you would have 2 games for OOC scheduling. The 4 division champs would account for 12 playoff spots. The winners advance for the CCG finals and the champ advances to the CFP.

I think we could have a 4th P conference comprised of the best of the G5 and the 5 teams left out of these conferences. They would set up the same way and would account for the 4th CFP champ entrant.

I didn't want to pick that conference and have the thread derailed by folks arguing who should or shouldn't be in that conference. But clearly Boise State, the two Florida schools, ECU, Cincinnati, Connecticut, San Diego State, etc would be the kind of schools included there. Perhaps the service academies would feel more comfortable in such a conference.

But I do think a setup like this would be more productive in that it guarantees more access for the best of the G5, and continues to give full access to all the current members of the P5. In fact it's better access since it is a champs only format.

What if the SEC just considered OU and OSU in the west, then at least two eastern schools, and as many as the four previously mentioned? That is the 20 you like Jr.

(07-05-2018 10:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  .......really wanted to take advantages over all of their rivals and did so by making a move like this.

Texas joins the SEC without Tech and with Kansas.

What it would do:

1. Texas gains equal brand status with A&M.

2. Texas relegates Oklahoma to the Big 10.

3. Texas relegates Oklahoma State at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

4. Texas relegtes Texas Tech at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

5. Texas definitely relegates Baylor to the G5.

6. Texas relegates T.C.U. at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

7. Texas relegates Kansas State at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

8. Texas forces the Big 10 to seriously consider Iowa State as Oklahoma's partner in moving to the Big 10 which further isolates their rival away from Texas recruiting.

9. Texas forces West Virginia at best into the ACC and at worst into the G5.

10. What this does is reestablish in spades Texas dominance over all former Big 12 members and only elevates the weakest football product, Kansas.

11. Texas regains old rivals Arkansas, and Texas A&M and keeps Oklahoma as an OOC game in DFW. They renew an annual game with Missouri and they gain new regional foes with L.S.U. Mississippi State and Mississippi, all relatively easy to travel to. And they still have 2 OOC games with which to schedule other Texas schools.

12. Texas forces us into a P4 and likely a champs only format which means Notre Dame will have to join the ACC in full to be eligible. So this arrangement profits the ACC and ESPN by doing so.


West Division:

Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M


What it does for the SEC:

1. The end of season conference divisional rivalries end like this:
Texas/Texas A&M, Ole Miss/Miss St, Missouri/Kansas, Arkansas/L.S.U. and classic annual divisional games become Texas/Arkansas, Texas/L.S.U., A&M/LS.U..

That's a huge bonanza for just the Western Division and it would contain the same quality of year end games or more than what the Eastern division already has.

How it Impacts other conferences:

Iowa State & Oklahoma to the Big 10. They get a prize and a regional AAU school with a solid following.

West Virginia to the ACC. It gives them content in all money sports and fills a hole in their footprint. There will need to be a battery ban in Morgantown and all urine tossers need to lose their ticket privileges forever but it would be a good addition for their network content value.

The PAC can play snooty or get help with distribution and carriage by selling part interest in their network. And if they do adding CTZ schools is still in their best interest. Texas Tech is a natural bride and T.C.U. in DFW is too large a market to bypass. Toss in KState and OSU and everyone except Baylor may yet come out a winner.

I've never been a fan of Kansas in the SEC but they would become the Vanderbilt of the Western Division which would be useful in its own right, but they bring Kentucky level basektball gravitas and another AAU school in a new state.

The only duplicate for the SEC is the top content school in the nation that we can get (considering that Ohio State may not wish to join the SEC).

What has sold me on this notion are the last week end series of the regular season in the Western Division. Those games are massive content games. Even Missouri/Kansas probably edges out Tennessee/Vanderbilt.

Now the Eastern Division ends this way:
Alabama/Auburn, Georgia/Georgia Tech, South Carolina/Clemson, Tennessee/Vanderbilt, Florida/Florida State, and Kentucky/Louisville.

The SEC absolutely mops up the ratings on that weekend.

So in looking at those pairings I have to say I like it better than what the pairing of Oklahoma/Oklahoma State would bring us.

Thoughts?

The more I've thought about it and the more I've considered ESPN's interest in this, the more I think if Texas ever does make a move that much if not all of this will come into play.

I think the SEC would prefer Texas & Kansas but in this case we might have to settle for Texas Tech as a tag along.

Most bang... least bucks.

(07-21-2018 07:35 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Most bang... least bucks.

For ESPN, absolutely!

(07-13-2018 12:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 11:07 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  My expectation is that Texas and Oklahoma will end up in different conferences, whether just one moves or both. Before the B12 creation, they were in separate conferences and had already played the RRR ongoing for many years.

The SEC has been flexible in accommodating traditional OOCs. Not sure all the P4 with increased in-conference game requirements and related scheduling demands shall choose to be eager to let certain OCCs take some priority.

The problem for Oklahoma is that if they don't move with Texas then they must move with Oklahoma State in order to maintain the RRR. This would tend to put any move by Oklahoma on some restrictive footing. Only the PAC and SEC could accommodate the Pokes and Sooners. Of those only the SEC would be a step up in revenue. So I like our chances. The question then becomes essentially the same for Texas. Outside of the Big 12 where can they go and have at least 2 instate rivals with them, and play old rivals? And as conferences grow those OOC slots are now down to 3.

This is why an offer by the SEC to both Texas and Oklahoma that included OSU and Tech would be overwhelming enticing. Texas would regain Arkansas and A&M and would play OU in division as well as Tech. And then they would still have 3 OOC games they could use to schedule T.C.U., Baylor, Rice, or S.M.U. if that is what they desired.

So as much as they like to play the role of academic snob, and as much as they like to stick it to us with remarks, should they choose to head elsewhere they are literally cutting their noses off to spite their face where their sports are concerned.

This is why Oklahoma and Oklahoma State represent the best possible move by the SEC. It locks us into an economic category that would only have one rival among the P4, and it positions us for acquiring properties and branding that could make us preeminent. Where else in the SEC do we have 5 schools that command 32 million potential viewers? Only in the SEC east. But even there we don't exactly monopolize those markets. Florida is split, South Carolina is split, Tennessee and Georgia are firmly SEC and Kentucky is relatively SEC.

In Texas and Oklahoma having the 5 top state schools is essentially a monopoly.

I think UT, Tech, OU and Oklahoma St could be a financial windfall for those 4 schools. Tech basketball went to the Elite 8 in 2018 and the baseball team made the 2018 College World Series for the 3rd time in 5 years. I could only imagine the excitement with SEC schools coming to Lubbock for top 10 baseball match ups.

(07-31-2018 01:58 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 12:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 11:07 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  My expectation is that Texas and Oklahoma will end up in different conferences, whether just one moves or both. Before the B12 creation, they were in separate conferences and had already played the RRR ongoing for many years.

The SEC has been flexible in accommodating traditional OOCs. Not sure all the P4 with increased in-conference game requirements and related scheduling demands shall choose to be eager to let certain OCCs take some priority.

The problem for Oklahoma is that if they don't move with Texas then they must move with Oklahoma State in order to maintain the RRR. This would tend to put any move by Oklahoma on some restrictive footing. Only the PAC and SEC could accommodate the Pokes and Sooners. Of those only the SEC would be a step up in revenue. So I like our chances. The question then becomes essentially the same for Texas. Outside of the Big 12 where can they go and have at least 2 instate rivals with them, and play old rivals? And as conferences grow those OOC slots are now down to 3.

This is why an offer by the SEC to both Texas and Oklahoma that included OSU and Tech would be overwhelming enticing. Texas would regain Arkansas and A&M and would play OU in division as well as Tech. And then they would still have 3 OOC games they could use to schedule T.C.U., Baylor, Rice, or S.M.U. if that is what they desired.

So as much as they like to play the role of academic snob, and as much as they like to stick it to us with remarks, should they choose to head elsewhere they are literally cutting their noses off to spite their face where their sports are concerned.

This is why Oklahoma and Oklahoma State represent the best possible move by the SEC. It locks us into an economic category that would only have one rival among the P4, and it positions us for acquiring properties and branding that could make us preeminent. Where else in the SEC do we have 5 schools that command 32 million potential viewers? Only in the SEC east. But even there we don't exactly monopolize those markets. Florida is split, South Carolina is split, Tennessee and Georgia are firmly SEC and Kentucky is relatively SEC.

In Texas and Oklahoma having the 5 top state schools is essentially a monopoly.

I think UT, Tech, OU and Oklahoma St could be a financial windfall for those 4 schools. Tech basketball went to the Elite 8 in 2018 and the baseball team made the 2018 College World Series for the 3rd time in 5 years. I could only imagine the excitement with SEC schools coming to Lubbock for top 10 baseball match ups.

I think if Texas and Oklahoma pitched it that the SEC would be hard pressed to turn it down and that ESPN, while reluctant to have that much leverage in the hands of one conference, would go for it to lock down the Horns and Sooners and scoop that ad revenue.

I've always thought that as a business move it would be practical, and that from a scheduling standpoint it made even more sense.

If we did it I think we should push for a 3 division set up. Right now I believe that both the ACC and Big 10 would go along with that kind of latitude for internal structure.

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

In that set up Arkansas only enhances the regional value of that division. Nothing else changes much except that there will only be 5 divisional games.

(07-31-2018 03:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 01:58 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 12:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 11:07 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  My expectation is that Texas and Oklahoma will end up in different conferences, whether just one moves or both. Before the B12 creation, they were in separate conferences and had already played the RRR ongoing for many years.

The SEC has been flexible in accommodating traditional OOCs. Not sure all the P4 with increased in-conference game requirements and related scheduling demands shall choose to be eager to let certain OCCs take some priority.

The problem for Oklahoma is that if they don't move with Texas then they must move with Oklahoma State in order to maintain the RRR. This would tend to put any move by Oklahoma on some restrictive footing. Only the PAC and SEC could accommodate the Pokes and Sooners. Of those only the SEC would be a step up in revenue. So I like our chances. The question then becomes essentially the same for Texas. Outside of the Big 12 where can they go and have at least 2 instate rivals with them, and play old rivals? And as conferences grow those OOC slots are now down to 3.

This is why an offer by the SEC to both Texas and Oklahoma that included OSU and Tech would be overwhelming enticing. Texas would regain Arkansas and A&M and would play OU in division as well as Tech. And then they would still have 3 OOC games they could use to schedule T.C.U., Baylor, Rice, or S.M.U. if that is what they desired.

So as much as they like to play the role of academic snob, and as much as they like to stick it to us with remarks, should they choose to head elsewhere they are literally cutting their noses off to spite their face where their sports are concerned.

This is why Oklahoma and Oklahoma State represent the best possible move by the SEC. It locks us into an economic category that would only have one rival among the P4, and it positions us for acquiring properties and branding that could make us preeminent. Where else in the SEC do we have 5 schools that command 32 million potential viewers? Only in the SEC east. But even there we don't exactly monopolize those markets. Florida is split, South Carolina is split, Tennessee and Georgia are firmly SEC and Kentucky is relatively SEC.

In Texas and Oklahoma having the 5 top state schools is essentially a monopoly.

I think UT, Tech, OU and Oklahoma St could be a financial windfall for those 4 schools. Tech basketball went to the Elite 8 in 2018 and the baseball team made the 2018 College World Series for the 3rd time in 5 years. I could only imagine the excitement with SEC schools coming to Lubbock for top 10 baseball match ups.

I think if Texas and Oklahoma pitched it that the SEC would be hard pressed to turn it down and that ESPN, while reluctant to have that much leverage in the hands of one conference, would go for it to lock down the Horns and Sooners and scoop that ad revenue.

I've always thought that as a business move it would be practical, and that from a scheduling standpoint it made even more sense.

If we did it I think we should push for a 3 division set up. Right now I believe that both the ACC and Big 10 would go along with that kind of latitude for internal structure.

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

In that set up Arkansas only enhances the regional value of that division. Nothing else changes much except that there will only be 5 divisional games.

I'm good with that setup. Tech keeps the UT, OU, Oklahoma St series while picking up Mizzou and Arkansas.

While it is a diabolical plan on the SEC's part and would provide UTX with numerous positive benefits, I just don't see the Longhorn's entry being unconditional. I don't know who the huckleberry will be, but some Texas school will get wind of the SEC's offer and and expend every last ounce of political capital to either prevent the Longhorns from leaving the B12 or more likely, attach themselves like a lamprey to the 'Horns potential move.

(07-31-2018 06:50 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 03:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 01:58 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 12:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 11:07 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  My expectation is that Texas and Oklahoma will end up in different conferences, whether just one moves or both. Before the B12 creation, they were in separate conferences and had already played the RRR ongoing for many years.

The SEC has been flexible in accommodating traditional OOCs. Not sure all the P4 with increased in-conference game requirements and related scheduling demands shall choose to be eager to let certain OCCs take some priority.

The problem for Oklahoma is that if they don't move with Texas then they must move with Oklahoma State in order to maintain the RRR. This would tend to put any move by Oklahoma on some restrictive footing. Only the PAC and SEC could accommodate the Pokes and Sooners. Of those only the SEC would be a step up in revenue. So I like our chances. The question then becomes essentially the same for Texas. Outside of the Big 12 where can they go and have at least 2 instate rivals with them, and play old rivals? And as conferences grow those OOC slots are now down to 3.

This is why an offer by the SEC to both Texas and Oklahoma that included OSU and Tech would be overwhelming enticing. Texas would regain Arkansas and A&M and would play OU in division as well as Tech. And then they would still have 3 OOC games they could use to schedule T.C.U., Baylor, Rice, or S.M.U. if that is what they desired.

So as much as they like to play the role of academic snob, and as much as they like to stick it to us with remarks, should they choose to head elsewhere they are literally cutting their noses off to spite their face where their sports are concerned.

This is why Oklahoma and Oklahoma State represent the best possible move by the SEC. It locks us into an economic category that would only have one rival among the P4, and it positions us for acquiring properties and branding that could make us preeminent. Where else in the SEC do we have 5 schools that command 32 million potential viewers? Only in the SEC east. But even there we don't exactly monopolize those markets. Florida is split, South Carolina is split, Tennessee and Georgia are firmly SEC and Kentucky is relatively SEC.

In Texas and Oklahoma having the 5 top state schools is essentially a monopoly.

I think UT, Tech, OU and Oklahoma St could be a financial windfall for those 4 schools. Tech basketball went to the Elite 8 in 2018 and the baseball team made the 2018 College World Series for the 3rd time in 5 years. I could only imagine the excitement with SEC schools coming to Lubbock for top 10 baseball match ups.

I think if Texas and Oklahoma pitched it that the SEC would be hard pressed to turn it down and that ESPN, while reluctant to have that much leverage in the hands of one conference, would go for it to lock down the Horns and Sooners and scoop that ad revenue.

I've always thought that as a business move it would be practical, and that from a scheduling standpoint it made even more sense.

If we did it I think we should push for a 3 division set up. Right now I believe that both the ACC and Big 10 would go along with that kind of latitude for internal structure.

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

In that set up Arkansas only enhances the regional value of that division. Nothing else changes much except that there will only be 5 divisional games.

I'm good with that setup. Tech keeps the UT, OU, Oklahoma St series while picking up Mizzou and Arkansas.

Slive once said while speaking in Dallas that the SEC would be happy to have any or all of the Texas state (he meant P5) schools.

So let's say the SEC added two more Texas schools and stopped at 16.

How would you fell about a division of either:

Arkansas, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech in a 4 x 16 set up, or,

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

(07-31-2018 08:48 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  While it is a diabolical plan on the SEC's part and would provide UTX with numerous positive benefits, I just don't see the Longhorn's entry being unconditional. I don't know who the huckleberry will be, but some Texas school will get wind of the SEC's offer and and expend every last ounce of political capital to either prevent the Longhorns from leaving the B12 or more likely, attach themselves like a lamprey to the 'Horns potential move.

Baylor would sue. Tech would try to politic their way into another coattail ride like how they got into the Big 12. Not sure if UT could shake all the parasites clinging to them.

(07-31-2018 08:52 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 08:48 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  While it is a diabolical plan on the SEC's part and would provide UTX with numerous positive benefits, I just don't see the Longhorn's entry being unconditional. I don't know who the huckleberry will be, but some Texas school will get wind of the SEC's offer and and expend every last ounce of political capital to either prevent the Longhorns from leaving the B12 or more likely, attach themselves like a lamprey to the 'Horns potential move.

Baylor and TCU would sue. Tech would try to politic their way into another coattail ride like how they got into the Big 12.

Rape U and TCU have no say in what Texas P5 schools do. The Texas lege won't stick their nose out for small private schools over a large public P5 school who resides in west Texas.

(07-31-2018 08:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 06:50 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 03:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 01:58 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 12:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The problem for Oklahoma is that if they don't move with Texas then they must move with Oklahoma State in order to maintain the RRR. This would tend to put any move by Oklahoma on some restrictive footing. Only the PAC and SEC could accommodate the Pokes and Sooners. Of those only the SEC would be a step up in revenue. So I like our chances. The question then becomes essentially the same for Texas. Outside of the Big 12 where can they go and have at least 2 instate rivals with them, and play old rivals? And as conferences grow those OOC slots are now down to 3.

This is why an offer by the SEC to both Texas and Oklahoma that included OSU and Tech would be overwhelming enticing. Texas would regain Arkansas and A&M and would play OU in division as well as Tech. And then they would still have 3 OOC games they could use to schedule T.C.U., Baylor, Rice, or S.M.U. if that is what they desired.

So as much as they like to play the role of academic snob, and as much as they like to stick it to us with remarks, should they choose to head elsewhere they are literally cutting their noses off to spite their face where their sports are concerned.

This is why Oklahoma and Oklahoma State represent the best possible move by the SEC. It locks us into an economic category that would only have one rival among the P4, and it positions us for acquiring properties and branding that could make us preeminent. Where else in the SEC do we have 5 schools that command 32 million potential viewers? Only in the SEC east. But even there we don't exactly monopolize those markets. Florida is split, South Carolina is split, Tennessee and Georgia are firmly SEC and Kentucky is relatively SEC.

In Texas and Oklahoma having the 5 top state schools is essentially a monopoly.

I think UT, Tech, OU and Oklahoma St could be a financial windfall for those 4 schools. Tech basketball went to the Elite 8 in 2018 and the baseball team made the 2018 College World Series for the 3rd time in 5 years. I could only imagine the excitement with SEC schools coming to Lubbock for top 10 baseball match ups.

I think if Texas and Oklahoma pitched it that the SEC would be hard pressed to turn it down and that ESPN, while reluctant to have that much leverage in the hands of one conference, would go for it to lock down the Horns and Sooners and scoop that ad revenue.

I've always thought that as a business move it would be practical, and that from a scheduling standpoint it made even more sense.

If we did it I think we should push for a 3 division set up. Right now I believe that both the ACC and Big 10 would go along with that kind of latitude for internal structure.

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

In that set up Arkansas only enhances the regional value of that division. Nothing else changes much except that there will only be 5 divisional games.

I'm good with that setup. Tech keeps the UT, OU, Oklahoma St series while picking up Mizzou and Arkansas.

Slive once said while speaking in Dallas that the SEC would be happy to have any or all of the Texas state (he meant P5) schools.

So let's say the SEC added two more Texas schools and stopped at 16.

How would you fell about a division of either:

Arkansas, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech in a 4 x 16 set up, or,

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

Interesting. Let me think about it