(08-20-2018 08:46 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 03:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 02:42 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 09:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 08:32 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The playoff question is an interesting one. How often is each league making an appearance?

SEC = 4/4
ACC = 4/4
Big Ten = 3/4
PAC 12 = 2/4
Big 12 = 2/4

Technically, you could say the SEC made 5 trips in 4 years, but you get the point.

For the Big Ten, their last two entrants were absolutely embarrassed and I believe that's part of the reason OSU got left out last year. That league may have more trouble than people expect when it comes to CFP appearances. They've got plenty of money though so it's not an urgent matter.

Interestingly enough, the PAC and Big 12 are competing for the league that's most likely to be left out in any given year.

We've got a few more years to see what this breakdown looks like. Right now, I don't think we have any solid trends with regard to how often a league like the Big 12 will get left out. One thing is for certain though, unless it's OU or UT, the odds of a Big 12 school getting in are slimmer unless they have a perfect record.

Which brings us back to the core problem that the Big 12 has, not enough market strength and too few bell cows. Those factors lend themselves to stronger conferences and that alone could drive OU and UT to abandon ship.

The most profitable thing for Oklahoma and Texas to do is to join the SEC as a pair with no tag-a-longs. After next year that would boost our payouts over the 51 million mark. Then Texas would split the recruits from Texas with only one other in state school, A&M. Oklahoma would continue to recruit DFW and both separate themselves from the schools they elevated to their status.

If the PAC takes Tech and T.C.U. fine, it still won't be the destination that holds the interest the way OU and UT would in the SEC with A&M and Arkansas and Missouri.

The future for college football is not rosy, but the future of college football will remain lucrative in the Southeast far beyond the life of college football in the Northeast and the West, and probably longer than around the mid Atlantic.

We have the recruits and between Texas and the SEC the lions share for the nation. Our culture will follow football longer than any other and we share diamond sports as a priority.

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

in the West and an East that looks like this:

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

would create one helluva super conference with enough branding in each division to sell those on a cable network separately and profitably.

We might easily take our earnings north of 60 million with the T3 rights on those two divisions bundled, or sold separately.

Each division has 5 solid brands and with the exception of Vandy, no real perennial cellar dweller.

Hands down that's the best conference in college football ever! And only improving on the current SEC.

If the schools get to move according to their self interest, and not strictly at the network's behest then this is still possible.

We profit with either and a little brother. We blows the walls off the sucker with both.

I certainly have no desire to get into a pissing match but I thought you might find this interesting in light of the tag along/little brother comments.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/s...09aa82798d

In 1990, the SEC considered expanding with UT, A&M, Arkansas, Florida St, Miami and South Carolina. Again, I have no desire to get into an internet fight but would like to point out a few things.

In 1990, A&M had 41,710 students enrolled and averaged 54,318 that year in the SWC ---- the Tech game having the highest attendance. I might add that the AAU invited A&M in 2001.

This past year Tech had 36,996 students enrolled and averaged 55,065 in football.

With SEC membership, I wouldn't rule out 40-45k students and an average attendance in football around 70k. IMHO, Tech is not a little brother but rather a big University.

For lack of a better term is it fair to say that Texas Tech is the #3 state school in Texas?

My point all along has been that if the SEC adds Oklahoma and Oklahoma State the move is profitable in that the combination still adds value, just not as much value as Oklahoma by themselves. Along the same lines the additions of Texas and Texas Tech add value to the SEC. Just not as much as Texas by themselves.

If the choice was between the two pairs then Clearly Texas and Texas Tech add more value than Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

In fact the order when studied is the following pairs add value in descending order:
1. Texas and Oklahoma (and by a very wide margin)
2. Texas and Kansas
3. Texas and Texas Tech
4. Texas and Iowa State
5. Texas and Kansas State
6. Oklahoma and Kansas
7. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State

There is no whizzing contest here. It boils down to revenue value.

There is no arguing that if the SEC is only expanding to 16 the best possible pairing is Texas and Oklahoma. Texas and Kansas is possible but I don't consider it as likely to transpire because of in state politics in Texas and Oklahoma.

Should the SEC move to 16 in the next round of musical chairs I expect that ESPN will push for Texas to move to either the SEC or ACC and since they hold the LHN until 2031 they will wield some influence.

If that's the case then it is also likely that Texas will push for the inclusion of Tech. There are some serious advantages in that pairing to ESPN for market control, and to the SEC for market leverage. It is much better to have 3 solid state schools in a rabid market of 28 million than it is to have 2 state schools in a market of 4 million.

But strictly from a SEC standpoint taking only Texas and Oklahoma adds 2.3 billion in economic impact to the conference as opposed to 1.5 billion with the pairing of Tech with Texas.

Realignment has to line up 3 moving targets: 1. The network's interest, 2. The conference's interest, and 3. The school's interest.

The likelihood of lining up #3 with #1 is probably the toughest. The SEC has one clear objective to the West. We want to have the largest share of the DFW market. Either Texas or Oklahoma gives us that. We want the most possible revenue we can get out of the additions. That means we would prefer a pairing that included Texas because they are more valuable than Oklahoma. Ideally we would take them both. If state politics get involved and Texas decides that the advantages the SEC offers them in being friendly to their minor sports, offering their fans less travel, offering their fans a more appealing schedule, and restoring their old rivals is what they decide to pursue and their politics necessitate Texas Tech it's obviously going to get done. Why? ESPN would control the 3 top state schools in Texas. The SEC would be making more revenue and would have the top ad rate in a state of 28 million and it plays into our Spanish language broadcasts in the 22 Mexican cities we already broadcast in. And in as much as it permits Texas to play the other two state schools annually, reunites them with Arkansas and opens up Louisiana to them for recruiting I think it would be a go for them as well.

The problem with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State is in doubling down in a small state. That's not as appealing to ESPN and is not preferable for the SEC, although we would do it if that was the only way to land OU and get the share of DFW we want should Texas show no interest.

Truthfully there wouldn't be much interest in Kansas as a market where the Network would be concerned. ESPN might go for that if OU and KU were the pair headed to the SEC, but I would think given the way they have organized their product that they would prefer to take two in Texas to add to A&M to dominate that market. It's much more lucrative in that they would get to triple dip for at least 9 weeks out of the season in that 28 million market.

I wondered before if Texas / Tech / OU / OSU wanted in as a foursome if the deal would be done? Again it's a no brainer for revenue. The issue will be does anyone want to deal with the issues surrounding a 18 member conference when the Big 10 and PAC would be pissed about it and would want to be obstructionists for rules changes permitting 3 divisions.

So for those reasons I think 16 is more likely. If so and Texas wants in there's a great chance Tech gets in too. I don't see UT sticking their necks out for Baylor at all. T.C.U. is a bit of a question mark considering their current A.D. But politics usually trump those kind of concerns so with any legislative push back Tech would probably be #16.

That's how I see it. I think Kansas would prefer the Big 10 and I think Texas might prefer that OU go with them. That really leaves Texas recruits 3 choices for playing in a conference that annually sends more players to the NFL than any other conference and it gives the Horns a leg up on the snowbound Sooners.

Quietly demoting T.C.U. and Baylor would also help the 3 state schools competitively.


And for the record in 1990 the SEC was looking at Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Florida State, and Clemson. Miami was mentioned but not part of the initial plan. I don't care what the Washington Post says (besides it was a speculative article). There was a 6th candidate however and that was one that was only talking through Texas and was only interested in joining if Texas did (Oklahoma).

Miami did have talks with us, but that was after Texas backed out and therefore OU, and after Clemson did as well then South Carolina applied. I don't remember now if we talked with Miami before or after F.S.U.'s decline.

There are a lot of political reasons that were complicating much of that period. But yeah, we were looking at moving to 16 in one swoop in 1990 and not everyone involved wanted to be mentioned (OU & Clemson). South Carolina and Miami were backups.

If you want a fun read then try to find Jackie Sherrill (then at Miss State) talking about our defensive plan to move to 20 should the Big 10 try to raid the ACC. That one mentions Miami as part of the 20 along with several other schools.

I'm OK with Tech being the #3 school in Texas as long as Miss St accepts being the #2 school in the state of Miss and Auburn being the #2 school in the state of Alabama. I also realize those #2's are long time fixtures in the SEC. All Universities start somewhere and some were handed a silver spoon by politics.

I also realize UT and OU bring more value but OU wants the BIG 10 conference(for reasons I have no clue about). Adding Tech and UT solidifies the state of Texas as an SEC state with viewers from El Paso to Orange and Amarillo to Brownsville.

If the SEC goes to 18, the PAC can add whoever they want along with the Big 10.

There have backroom talks between Texas and the SEC since prior to 1990. Stop and think about just why it is Oklahoma brass may prefer the Big 10?

Let's say that Texas during those backroom talks has already expressed a preference either to the SEC or to ESPN and that those discussions will never be disclosed to have happened. And let's say that Texas has expressed a preference to head to the SEC and to bring Tech, and that further Texas expressed no desire to see the Sooners in their new conference because Texas has realized that elevating T.C.U. and Baylor, and having the Sooners in the same conference, and by proxy elevating OSU in recruiting standing in Texas has been the #1 cause of Longhorn decline.

Remember in the old days before scholarship limits Texas could stockpile for Royal. Today the legitimization of Baylor, T.C.U., and Oklahoma State, and the inclusion of Oklahoma in conference have elevated all of those programs abilities to pick off key recruits and has diluted the talent pool available for Texas, Texas A&M and Tech. So let's say for the sake of argument that Texas wants to compete only with A&M and Tech for those recruits, that they want SEC branding, to regain the leverage of a monopoly of Texas schools under one conference banner at the P4 level, and that they want to distance their chief rival from feasting on Texas recruits. Therefore a backroom agreement that the SEC would not take Oklahoma if Texas heads our way, a deal that will never be mentioned, was done, and what's more Oklahoma has sensed a major cooling in talks with the SEC. To protect their standing with the Oklahoma fan base the President and certain BOR representatives might have to get out in front to spin the situation to make it seem like they wanted the Big 10 over the SEC (and they might anyway) and then to sell the need to separate from OSU even harder than is politically acceptable within that state because they already know they are off the table for the SEC and the only way they get into the Big 10 is without OSU. That would explain why some OU people who claim inside connections are (a) pushing the Big 10 so hard, and (b) why they are setting the stage for a separation from OSU.

Now ponder that and tell me what you think.

(08-20-2018 09:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 08:46 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 03:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 02:42 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 09:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The most profitable thing for Oklahoma and Texas to do is to join the SEC as a pair with no tag-a-longs. After next year that would boost our payouts over the 51 million mark. Then Texas would split the recruits from Texas with only one other in state school, A&M. Oklahoma would continue to recruit DFW and both separate themselves from the schools they elevated to their status.

If the PAC takes Tech and T.C.U. fine, it still won't be the destination that holds the interest the way OU and UT would in the SEC with A&M and Arkansas and Missouri.

The future for college football is not rosy, but the future of college football will remain lucrative in the Southeast far beyond the life of college football in the Northeast and the West, and probably longer than around the mid Atlantic.

We have the recruits and between Texas and the SEC the lions share for the nation. Our culture will follow football longer than any other and we share diamond sports as a priority.

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

in the West and an East that looks like this:

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

would create one helluva super conference with enough branding in each division to sell those on a cable network separately and profitably.

We might easily take our earnings north of 60 million with the T3 rights on those two divisions bundled, or sold separately.

Each division has 5 solid brands and with the exception of Vandy, no real perennial cellar dweller.

Hands down that's the best conference in college football ever! And only improving on the current SEC.

If the schools get to move according to their self interest, and not strictly at the network's behest then this is still possible.

We profit with either and a little brother. We blows the walls off the sucker with both.

I certainly have no desire to get into a pissing match but I thought you might find this interesting in light of the tag along/little brother comments.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/s...09aa82798d

In 1990, the SEC considered expanding with UT, A&M, Arkansas, Florida St, Miami and South Carolina. Again, I have no desire to get into an internet fight but would like to point out a few things.

In 1990, A&M had 41,710 students enrolled and averaged 54,318 that year in the SWC ---- the Tech game having the highest attendance. I might add that the AAU invited A&M in 2001.

This past year Tech had 36,996 students enrolled and averaged 55,065 in football.

With SEC membership, I wouldn't rule out 40-45k students and an average attendance in football around 70k. IMHO, Tech is not a little brother but rather a big University.

For lack of a better term is it fair to say that Texas Tech is the #3 state school in Texas?

My point all along has been that if the SEC adds Oklahoma and Oklahoma State the move is profitable in that the combination still adds value, just not as much value as Oklahoma by themselves. Along the same lines the additions of Texas and Texas Tech add value to the SEC. Just not as much as Texas by themselves.

If the choice was between the two pairs then Clearly Texas and Texas Tech add more value than Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

In fact the order when studied is the following pairs add value in descending order:
1. Texas and Oklahoma (and by a very wide margin)
2. Texas and Kansas
3. Texas and Texas Tech
4. Texas and Iowa State
5. Texas and Kansas State
6. Oklahoma and Kansas
7. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State

There is no whizzing contest here. It boils down to revenue value.

There is no arguing that if the SEC is only expanding to 16 the best possible pairing is Texas and Oklahoma. Texas and Kansas is possible but I don't consider it as likely to transpire because of in state politics in Texas and Oklahoma.

Should the SEC move to 16 in the next round of musical chairs I expect that ESPN will push for Texas to move to either the SEC or ACC and since they hold the LHN until 2031 they will wield some influence.

If that's the case then it is also likely that Texas will push for the inclusion of Tech. There are some serious advantages in that pairing to ESPN for market control, and to the SEC for market leverage. It is much better to have 3 solid state schools in a rabid market of 28 million than it is to have 2 state schools in a market of 4 million.

But strictly from a SEC standpoint taking only Texas and Oklahoma adds 2.3 billion in economic impact to the conference as opposed to 1.5 billion with the pairing of Tech with Texas.

Realignment has to line up 3 moving targets: 1. The network's interest, 2. The conference's interest, and 3. The school's interest.

The likelihood of lining up #3 with #1 is probably the toughest. The SEC has one clear objective to the West. We want to have the largest share of the DFW market. Either Texas or Oklahoma gives us that. We want the most possible revenue we can get out of the additions. That means we would prefer a pairing that included Texas because they are more valuable than Oklahoma. Ideally we would take them both. If state politics get involved and Texas decides that the advantages the SEC offers them in being friendly to their minor sports, offering their fans less travel, offering their fans a more appealing schedule, and restoring their old rivals is what they decide to pursue and their politics necessitate Texas Tech it's obviously going to get done. Why? ESPN would control the 3 top state schools in Texas. The SEC would be making more revenue and would have the top ad rate in a state of 28 million and it plays into our Spanish language broadcasts in the 22 Mexican cities we already broadcast in. And in as much as it permits Texas to play the other two state schools annually, reunites them with Arkansas and opens up Louisiana to them for recruiting I think it would be a go for them as well.

The problem with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State is in doubling down in a small state. That's not as appealing to ESPN and is not preferable for the SEC, although we would do it if that was the only way to land OU and get the share of DFW we want should Texas show no interest.

Truthfully there wouldn't be much interest in Kansas as a market where the Network would be concerned. ESPN might go for that if OU and KU were the pair headed to the SEC, but I would think given the way they have organized their product that they would prefer to take two in Texas to add to A&M to dominate that market. It's much more lucrative in that they would get to triple dip for at least 9 weeks out of the season in that 28 million market.

I wondered before if Texas / Tech / OU / OSU wanted in as a foursome if the deal would be done? Again it's a no brainer for revenue. The issue will be does anyone want to deal with the issues surrounding a 18 member conference when the Big 10 and PAC would be pissed about it and would want to be obstructionists for rules changes permitting 3 divisions.

So for those reasons I think 16 is more likely. If so and Texas wants in there's a great chance Tech gets in too. I don't see UT sticking their necks out for Baylor at all. T.C.U. is a bit of a question mark considering their current A.D. But politics usually trump those kind of concerns so with any legislative push back Tech would probably be #16.

That's how I see it. I think Kansas would prefer the Big 10 and I think Texas might prefer that OU go with them. That really leaves Texas recruits 3 choices for playing in a conference that annually sends more players to the NFL than any other conference and it gives the Horns a leg up on the snowbound Sooners.

Quietly demoting T.C.U. and Baylor would also help the 3 state schools competitively.


And for the record in 1990 the SEC was looking at Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Florida State, and Clemson. Miami was mentioned but not part of the initial plan. I don't care what the Washington Post says (besides it was a speculative article). There was a 6th candidate however and that was one that was only talking through Texas and was only interested in joining if Texas did (Oklahoma).

Miami did have talks with us, but that was after Texas backed out and therefore OU, and after Clemson did as well then South Carolina applied. I don't remember now if we talked with Miami before or after F.S.U.'s decline.

There are a lot of political reasons that were complicating much of that period. But yeah, we were looking at moving to 16 in one swoop in 1990 and not everyone involved wanted to be mentioned (OU & Clemson). South Carolina and Miami were backups.

If you want a fun read then try to find Jackie Sherrill (then at Miss State) talking about our defensive plan to move to 20 should the Big 10 try to raid the ACC. That one mentions Miami as part of the 20 along with several other schools.

I'm OK with Tech being the #3 school in Texas as long as Miss St accepts being the #2 school in the state of Miss and Auburn being the #2 school in the state of Alabama. I also realize those #2's are long time fixtures in the SEC. All Universities start somewhere and some were handed a silver spoon by politics.

I also realize UT and OU bring more value but OU wants the BIG 10 conference(for reasons I have no clue about). Adding Tech and UT solidifies the state of Texas as an SEC state with viewers from El Paso to Orange and Amarillo to Brownsville.

If the SEC goes to 18, the PAC can add whoever they want along with the Big 10.

There have backroom talks between Texas and the SEC since prior to 1990. Stop and think about just why it is Oklahoma brass may prefer the Big 10?

Let's say that Texas during those backroom talks has already expressed a preference either to the SEC or to ESPN and that those discussions will never be disclosed to have happened. And let's say that Texas has expressed a preference to head to the SEC and to bring Tech, and that further Texas expressed no desire to see the Sooners in their new conference because Texas has realized that elevating T.C.U. and Baylor, and having the Sooners in the same conference, and by proxy elevating OSU in recruiting standing in Texas has been the #1 cause of Longhorn decline.

Remember in the old days before scholarship limits Texas could stockpile for Royal. Today the legitimization of Baylor, T.C.U., and Oklahoma State, and the inclusion of Oklahoma in conference have elevated all of those programs abilities to pick off key recruits and has diluted the talent pool available for Texas, Texas A&M and Tech. So let's say for the sake of argument that Texas wants to compete only with A&M and Tech for those recruits, that they want SEC branding, to regain the leverage of a monopoly of Texas schools under one conference banner at the P4 level, and that they want to distance their chief rival from feasting on Texas recruits. Therefore a backroom agreement that the SEC would not take Oklahoma if Texas heads our way, a deal that will never be mentioned, was done, and what's more Oklahoma has sensed a major cooling in talks with the SEC. To protect their standing with the Oklahoma fan base the President and certain BOR representatives might have to get out in front to spin the situation to make it seem like they wanted the Big 10 over the SEC (and they might anyway) and then to sell the need to separate from OSU even harder than is politically acceptable within that state because they already know they are off the table for the SEC and the only way they get into the Big 10 is without OSU. That would explain why some OU people who claim inside connections are (a) pushing the Big 10 so hard, and (b) why they are setting the stage for a separation from OSU.

Now ponder that and tell me what you think.

That is an interesting theory. With TCU and Baylor out of the P5/P4 picture, UT, A&M and Tech will get the lions share of top Texas recruits. OU will always be OU regardless of whether they play in the Big 12 or Big 10.

(08-21-2018 11:39 AM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 09:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 08:46 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 03:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 02:42 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  I certainly have no desire to get into a pissing match but I thought you might find this interesting in light of the tag along/little brother comments.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/s...09aa82798d

In 1990, the SEC considered expanding with UT, A&M, Arkansas, Florida St, Miami and South Carolina. Again, I have no desire to get into an internet fight but would like to point out a few things.

In 1990, A&M had 41,710 students enrolled and averaged 54,318 that year in the SWC ---- the Tech game having the highest attendance. I might add that the AAU invited A&M in 2001.

This past year Tech had 36,996 students enrolled and averaged 55,065 in football.

With SEC membership, I wouldn't rule out 40-45k students and an average attendance in football around 70k. IMHO, Tech is not a little brother but rather a big University.

For lack of a better term is it fair to say that Texas Tech is the #3 state school in Texas?

My point all along has been that if the SEC adds Oklahoma and Oklahoma State the move is profitable in that the combination still adds value, just not as much value as Oklahoma by themselves. Along the same lines the additions of Texas and Texas Tech add value to the SEC. Just not as much as Texas by themselves.

If the choice was between the two pairs then Clearly Texas and Texas Tech add more value than Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

In fact the order when studied is the following pairs add value in descending order:
1. Texas and Oklahoma (and by a very wide margin)
2. Texas and Kansas
3. Texas and Texas Tech
4. Texas and Iowa State
5. Texas and Kansas State
6. Oklahoma and Kansas
7. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State

There is no whizzing contest here. It boils down to revenue value.

There is no arguing that if the SEC is only expanding to 16 the best possible pairing is Texas and Oklahoma. Texas and Kansas is possible but I don't consider it as likely to transpire because of in state politics in Texas and Oklahoma.

Should the SEC move to 16 in the next round of musical chairs I expect that ESPN will push for Texas to move to either the SEC or ACC and since they hold the LHN until 2031 they will wield some influence.

If that's the case then it is also likely that Texas will push for the inclusion of Tech. There are some serious advantages in that pairing to ESPN for market control, and to the SEC for market leverage. It is much better to have 3 solid state schools in a rabid market of 28 million than it is to have 2 state schools in a market of 4 million.

But strictly from a SEC standpoint taking only Texas and Oklahoma adds 2.3 billion in economic impact to the conference as opposed to 1.5 billion with the pairing of Tech with Texas.

Realignment has to line up 3 moving targets: 1. The network's interest, 2. The conference's interest, and 3. The school's interest.

The likelihood of lining up #3 with #1 is probably the toughest. The SEC has one clear objective to the West. We want to have the largest share of the DFW market. Either Texas or Oklahoma gives us that. We want the most possible revenue we can get out of the additions. That means we would prefer a pairing that included Texas because they are more valuable than Oklahoma. Ideally we would take them both. If state politics get involved and Texas decides that the advantages the SEC offers them in being friendly to their minor sports, offering their fans less travel, offering their fans a more appealing schedule, and restoring their old rivals is what they decide to pursue and their politics necessitate Texas Tech it's obviously going to get done. Why? ESPN would control the 3 top state schools in Texas. The SEC would be making more revenue and would have the top ad rate in a state of 28 million and it plays into our Spanish language broadcasts in the 22 Mexican cities we already broadcast in. And in as much as it permits Texas to play the other two state schools annually, reunites them with Arkansas and opens up Louisiana to them for recruiting I think it would be a go for them as well.

The problem with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State is in doubling down in a small state. That's not as appealing to ESPN and is not preferable for the SEC, although we would do it if that was the only way to land OU and get the share of DFW we want should Texas show no interest.

Truthfully there wouldn't be much interest in Kansas as a market where the Network would be concerned. ESPN might go for that if OU and KU were the pair headed to the SEC, but I would think given the way they have organized their product that they would prefer to take two in Texas to add to A&M to dominate that market. It's much more lucrative in that they would get to triple dip for at least 9 weeks out of the season in that 28 million market.

I wondered before if Texas / Tech / OU / OSU wanted in as a foursome if the deal would be done? Again it's a no brainer for revenue. The issue will be does anyone want to deal with the issues surrounding a 18 member conference when the Big 10 and PAC would be pissed about it and would want to be obstructionists for rules changes permitting 3 divisions.

So for those reasons I think 16 is more likely. If so and Texas wants in there's a great chance Tech gets in too. I don't see UT sticking their necks out for Baylor at all. T.C.U. is a bit of a question mark considering their current A.D. But politics usually trump those kind of concerns so with any legislative push back Tech would probably be #16.

That's how I see it. I think Kansas would prefer the Big 10 and I think Texas might prefer that OU go with them. That really leaves Texas recruits 3 choices for playing in a conference that annually sends more players to the NFL than any other conference and it gives the Horns a leg up on the snowbound Sooners.

Quietly demoting T.C.U. and Baylor would also help the 3 state schools competitively.


And for the record in 1990 the SEC was looking at Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Florida State, and Clemson. Miami was mentioned but not part of the initial plan. I don't care what the Washington Post says (besides it was a speculative article). There was a 6th candidate however and that was one that was only talking through Texas and was only interested in joining if Texas did (Oklahoma).

Miami did have talks with us, but that was after Texas backed out and therefore OU, and after Clemson did as well then South Carolina applied. I don't remember now if we talked with Miami before or after F.S.U.'s decline.

There are a lot of political reasons that were complicating much of that period. But yeah, we were looking at moving to 16 in one swoop in 1990 and not everyone involved wanted to be mentioned (OU & Clemson). South Carolina and Miami were backups.

If you want a fun read then try to find Jackie Sherrill (then at Miss State) talking about our defensive plan to move to 20 should the Big 10 try to raid the ACC. That one mentions Miami as part of the 20 along with several other schools.

I'm OK with Tech being the #3 school in Texas as long as Miss St accepts being the #2 school in the state of Miss and Auburn being the #2 school in the state of Alabama. I also realize those #2's are long time fixtures in the SEC. All Universities start somewhere and some were handed a silver spoon by politics.

I also realize UT and OU bring more value but OU wants the BIG 10 conference(for reasons I have no clue about). Adding Tech and UT solidifies the state of Texas as an SEC state with viewers from El Paso to Orange and Amarillo to Brownsville.

If the SEC goes to 18, the PAC can add whoever they want along with the Big 10.

There have backroom talks between Texas and the SEC since prior to 1990. Stop and think about just why it is Oklahoma brass may prefer the Big 10?

Let's say that Texas during those backroom talks has already expressed a preference either to the SEC or to ESPN and that those discussions will never be disclosed to have happened. And let's say that Texas has expressed a preference to head to the SEC and to bring Tech, and that further Texas expressed no desire to see the Sooners in their new conference because Texas has realized that elevating T.C.U. and Baylor, and having the Sooners in the same conference, and by proxy elevating OSU in recruiting standing in Texas has been the #1 cause of Longhorn decline.

Remember in the old days before scholarship limits Texas could stockpile for Royal. Today the legitimization of Baylor, T.C.U., and Oklahoma State, and the inclusion of Oklahoma in conference have elevated all of those programs abilities to pick off key recruits and has diluted the talent pool available for Texas, Texas A&M and Tech. So let's say for the sake of argument that Texas wants to compete only with A&M and Tech for those recruits, that they want SEC branding, to regain the leverage of a monopoly of Texas schools under one conference banner at the P4 level, and that they want to distance their chief rival from feasting on Texas recruits. Therefore a backroom agreement that the SEC would not take Oklahoma if Texas heads our way, a deal that will never be mentioned, was done, and what's more Oklahoma has sensed a major cooling in talks with the SEC. To protect their standing with the Oklahoma fan base the President and certain BOR representatives might have to get out in front to spin the situation to make it seem like they wanted the Big 10 over the SEC (and they might anyway) and then to sell the need to separate from OSU even harder than is politically acceptable within that state because they already know they are off the table for the SEC and the only way they get into the Big 10 is without OSU. That would explain why some OU people who claim inside connections are (a) pushing the Big 10 so hard, and (b) why they are setting the stage for a separation from OSU.

Now ponder that and tell me what you think.

That is an interesting theory. With TCU and Baylor out of the P5/P4 picture, UT, A&M and Tech will get the lions share of top Texas recruits. OU will always be OU regardless of whether they play in the Big 12 or Big 10.

Not really. Oklahoma benefited in the 50's and 60's from having converted WWII industry located in the heartland for security reasons and they had a lot of GI Bill type players. In the 60's they had integrated football teams when the South was still stuck in Jim Crow. In the early 70's that started shifting. As it shifted OU became more Texas dependent upon recruits. The RRR will always keep them in Texas to recruit so that's true. But the Big 8 was just across the State line. The Big 10 has the majority of its games much farther north than that. Kids want to play where (a) mom and dad can come watch, and (b) where they have the best shot of making the NFL.

Well if OU is in the Big 10 then (a) mom and dad have a helluva time traveling to the away games. And (b) the SEC leads the nation in NFL draftees and has for 3 decades. The ACC is now second most years. The Big 10 is near the bottom. And there's a C. here as well. Oklahoma will become less familiar to Texas kids if they aren't playing games in Texas as often.

Will they still get Texas recruits? Yes. Will they get as many? No. Will they have a good supply of kids from Ohio and Pennsylvania the other two Big 10 talent hotbeds? No!

I don't think Oklahoma falls as far as Nebraska has because they are a larger state and still will border the SEC and Texas. But they will be in an alien conference without much recruiting to tap. They will inevitably decline.

Meanwhile Texas will not only have Texas to recruit but they will become more familiar as a foe in Florida, Louisiana, and Georgia. So while OU's recruiting vista will shrink, the Texas recruiting vista will expand.

Well, we could look at it like this.

If the SEC is willing to take Oklahoma and Oklahoma State then the decision becomes much simpler for Texas. If that's the prospect they're dealing with then it's much easier to say "wait a minute, just take us and Texas Tech."

Texas would have to be pretty stubborn to allow themselves to be forced into a corner where they end up making the same move under less favorable terms.

I believe Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma St fit better in the PAC for 16 - especially the Longhorns and the People's Republic of Austin. I expect all four will end up in the SEC but that seems to be more of a decision based on economics, time zones, and exposure than cultural fit. Nothing wrong with that decision. Rutgers to the B1G was similarly done.

Out of the XII, and besides the four listed above, TCU and West Virginia seem to be the best fits in the SEC to me.

(08-21-2018 01:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, we could look at it like this.

If the SEC is willing to take Oklahoma and Oklahoma State then the decision becomes much simpler for Texas. If that's the prospect they're dealing with then it's much easier to say "wait a minute, just take us and Texas Tech."

Texas would have to be pretty stubborn to allow themselves to be forced into a corner where they end up making the same move under less favorable terms.

I don't follow your reasoning here. ESPN wants to hold onto to Texas. I think Texas already knows we would be willing to take OU and OSU. There have been enough leaks on this from Big 12 beat writers and Finebaum, etc. If these kinds of matters have been discussed they will never be mentioned publicly because of the GOR. And, if Texas has already expressed that preference they are hardly in a corner as they would be being proactive rather than reactive.

Monetarily and content wise the SEC would probably be more favorable with Texas/Tech over OU/OSU.

So if it is the intent of ESPN to hold onto to Texas (and the LHN contract expires in 2031) and it is the intent of Texas to move to their best advantage, and if they have any kind of political obligation to Tech, then I think given the nature of conversations in the past that these matters have already been discussed.

I agree Texas wouldn't be painted in a corner, I just don't think we need to do anymore with expressing the desire to take Oklahoma and the Pokes. That's what we have already done for the past two or three years. If Texas has an interest they've had ample time already to work out their angles and to have already discussed their interests via back channels, especially since they can talk to ESPN anytime without raising suspicions. And since ESPN is a business partner with the SEC they can easily pass along information should it be in their interest to do so.

My suspicions given the talk out of Norman is that their administration is trying to get out ahead on two issues one of which will not be discussed, they have more limited options now than they thought. The other is the drumbeat of having to move without OSU. Why would their administration push that angle unless they had to. It garners them no favors within their legislature to do so now unless the were having to acclimate people to the idea.

Now position on this is purely speculative, but speculation out of listening to the talking points coming out of Norman who otherwise at this juncture should be talking only about their wonderful multiple options instead of why they may have to move without Oklahoma State. And the silence out of Austin is to be expected. Those who already know what they are going to do have no reason to talk.

So this concept is just my thinking out loud while observing carefully what is and isn't being said, and who it is that is doing the talking. And while the University spokespersons haven't said a word in Norman, the chatter around the program and those claiming inside connections and to be donors are either full of hooey, or they've already been clued in and are merely trying to spin the issue.

Either way it's interesting.

(08-21-2018 01:33 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  I believe Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma St fit better in the PAC for 16 - especially the Longhorns and the People's Republic of Austin. I expect all four will end up in the SEC but that seems to be more of a decision based on economics, time zones, and exposure than cultural fit. Nothing wrong with that decision. Rutgers to the B1G was similarly done.

Out of the XII, and besides the four listed above, TCU and West Virginia seem to be the best fits in the SEC to me.

Oklahoma would fit well anywhere. Some destinations however would be more convenient to their fans than others.

Texas doesn't really fit anywhere. So what difference does it make where they wind up? And if that's the case convenience to their fans, scheduling that is familiar to their business model, and of course more money would all be familiar enough for their athletic department.

The question is what advantages will they seek in their moves? With the PAC it would probably be insistence on keeping their own network and bringing 3 friends. With the Big 10 it might be one friend. With the SEC it could well be who they wish to exclude since once they joined they would have no more rights than any other school. So from an SEC perspective it's easier to give them something we don't have (yet) than it is to cave into demands on what we already have.

Besides ESPN has an interest in Texas and FOX has one in Oklahoma. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and while I have no aversion to 18, that may not be what the networks want.

(08-21-2018 01:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 01:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, we could look at it like this.

If the SEC is willing to take Oklahoma and Oklahoma State then the decision becomes much simpler for Texas. If that's the prospect they're dealing with then it's much easier to say "wait a minute, just take us and Texas Tech."

Texas would have to be pretty stubborn to allow themselves to be forced into a corner where they end up making the same move under less favorable terms.

I don't follow your reasoning here. ESPN wants to hold onto to Texas. I think Texas already knows we would be willing to take OU and OSU. There have been enough leaks on this from Big 12 beat writers and Finebaum, etc. If these kinds of matters have been discussed they will never be mentioned publicly because of the GOR. And, if Texas has already expressed that preference they are hardly in a corner as they would be being proactive rather than reactive.

Monetarily and content wise the SEC would probably be more favorable with Texas/Tech over OU/OSU.

So if it is the intent of ESPN to hold onto to Texas (and the LHN contract expires in 2031) and it is the intent of Texas to move to their best advantage, and if they have any kind of political obligation to Tech, then I think given the nature of conversations in the past that these matters have already been discussed.

I agree Texas wouldn't be painted in a corner, I just don't think we need to do anymore with expressing the desire to take Oklahoma and the Pokes. That's what we have already done for the past two or three years. If Texas has an interest they've had ample time already to work out their angles and to have already discussed their interests via back channels, especially since they can talk to ESPN anytime without raising suspicions. And since ESPN is a business partner with the SEC they can easily pass along information should it be in their interest to do so.

My suspicions given the talk out of Norman is that their administration is trying to get out ahead on two issues one of which will not be discussed, they have more limited options now than they thought. The other is the drumbeat of having to move without OSU. Why would their administration push that angle unless they had to. It garners them no favors within their legislature to do so now unless the were having to acclimate people to the idea.

Now position on this is purely speculative, but speculation out of listening to the talking points coming out of Norman who otherwise at this juncture should be talking only about their wonderful multiple options instead of why they may have to move without Oklahoma State. And the silence out of Austin is to be expected. Those who already know what they are going to do have no reason to talk.

So this concept is just my thinking out loud while observing carefully what is and isn't being said, and who it is that is doing the talking. And while the University spokespersons haven't said a word in Norman, the chatter around the program and those claiming inside connections and to be donors are either full of hooey, or they've already been clued in and are merely trying to spin the issue.

Either way it's interesting.

What I'm saying is that if Texas has eyes on going anywhere else then our willingness to take OU and OSU limits their options.

If Texas knows what the end result is then there's no need to let it play out. From their perspective, it's probably better to not wait until their painted into that corner. Just cut OU off at the pass and move along with Texas Tech into the SEC.

That's assuming the SEC prefers to stop at 16. I think they do, but assuming 16 is more feasible then it is to UT's advantage to be #15 rather than waiting for the SEC to move on OU/OSU and force UT's hand further down the line.

(08-21-2018 02:14 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 01:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 01:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, we could look at it like this.

If the SEC is willing to take Oklahoma and Oklahoma State then the decision becomes much simpler for Texas. If that's the prospect they're dealing with then it's much easier to say "wait a minute, just take us and Texas Tech."

Texas would have to be pretty stubborn to allow themselves to be forced into a corner where they end up making the same move under less favorable terms.

I don't follow your reasoning here. ESPN wants to hold onto to Texas. I think Texas already knows we would be willing to take OU and OSU. There have been enough leaks on this from Big 12 beat writers and Finebaum, etc. If these kinds of matters have been discussed they will never be mentioned publicly because of the GOR. And, if Texas has already expressed that preference they are hardly in a corner as they would be being proactive rather than reactive.

Monetarily and content wise the SEC would probably be more favorable with Texas/Tech over OU/OSU.

So if it is the intent of ESPN to hold onto to Texas (and the LHN contract expires in 2031) and it is the intent of Texas to move to their best advantage, and if they have any kind of political obligation to Tech, then I think given the nature of conversations in the past that these matters have already been discussed.

I agree Texas wouldn't be painted in a corner, I just don't think we need to do anymore with expressing the desire to take Oklahoma and the Pokes. That's what we have already done for the past two or three years. If Texas has an interest they've had ample time already to work out their angles and to have already discussed their interests via back channels, especially since they can talk to ESPN anytime without raising suspicions. And since ESPN is a business partner with the SEC they can easily pass along information should it be in their interest to do so.

My suspicions given the talk out of Norman is that their administration is trying to get out ahead on two issues one of which will not be discussed, they have more limited options now than they thought. The other is the drumbeat of having to move without OSU. Why would their administration push that angle unless they had to. It garners them no favors within their legislature to do so now unless the were having to acclimate people to the idea.

Now position on this is purely speculative, but speculation out of listening to the talking points coming out of Norman who otherwise at this juncture should be talking only about their wonderful multiple options instead of why they may have to move without Oklahoma State. And the silence out of Austin is to be expected. Those who already know what they are going to do have no reason to talk.

So this concept is just my thinking out loud while observing carefully what is and isn't being said, and who it is that is doing the talking. And while the University spokespersons haven't said a word in Norman, the chatter around the program and those claiming inside connections and to be donors are either full of hooey, or they've already been clued in and are merely trying to spin the issue.

Either way it's interesting.

What I'm saying is that if Texas has eyes on going anywhere else then our willingness to take OU and OSU limits their options.

If Texas knows what the end result is then there's no need to let it play out. From their perspective, it's probably better to not wait until their painted into that corner. Just cut OU off at the pass and move along with Texas Tech into the SEC.

That's assuming the SEC prefers to stop at 16. I think they do, but assuming 16 is more feasible then it is to UT's advantage to be #15 rather than waiting for the SEC to move on OU/OSU and force UT's hand further down the line.

Yes I agree with that. But consider another facet of this. How can Texas facilitate Oklahoma's move to the Big 10 with Kansas so that their relationship with OU doesn't get too stressed and the RRR can remain on the schedule? The new OU administration knows there is deep division within their fan and alumni base over whether to change conferences, and if so which conference to go to. And that's before the OU / OSU not heading somewhere together issue even rears its head.

By seemingly waiting after lining things up carefully, if Oklahoma is permitted the dignity of appearing to choose the Big 10, sell it on academics, what's best for the university, etc, instead of making it look like their last best option, then that keeps things on the level between the two schools' administrations. It gives OU time to deal with the "we can't stay tied to OSU issue", time to sell their move to the unhappy portion of their fan and alumni base, and to make it all look like it was their preference.

That's why I have a feeling these matters may have already been decided.

(08-21-2018 02:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 02:14 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 01:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 01:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, we could look at it like this.

If the SEC is willing to take Oklahoma and Oklahoma State then the decision becomes much simpler for Texas. If that's the prospect they're dealing with then it's much easier to say "wait a minute, just take us and Texas Tech."

Texas would have to be pretty stubborn to allow themselves to be forced into a corner where they end up making the same move under less favorable terms.

I don't follow your reasoning here. ESPN wants to hold onto to Texas. I think Texas already knows we would be willing to take OU and OSU. There have been enough leaks on this from Big 12 beat writers and Finebaum, etc. If these kinds of matters have been discussed they will never be mentioned publicly because of the GOR. And, if Texas has already expressed that preference they are hardly in a corner as they would be being proactive rather than reactive.

Monetarily and content wise the SEC would probably be more favorable with Texas/Tech over OU/OSU.

So if it is the intent of ESPN to hold onto to Texas (and the LHN contract expires in 2031) and it is the intent of Texas to move to their best advantage, and if they have any kind of political obligation to Tech, then I think given the nature of conversations in the past that these matters have already been discussed.

I agree Texas wouldn't be painted in a corner, I just don't think we need to do anymore with expressing the desire to take Oklahoma and the Pokes. That's what we have already done for the past two or three years. If Texas has an interest they've had ample time already to work out their angles and to have already discussed their interests via back channels, especially since they can talk to ESPN anytime without raising suspicions. And since ESPN is a business partner with the SEC they can easily pass along information should it be in their interest to do so.

My suspicions given the talk out of Norman is that their administration is trying to get out ahead on two issues one of which will not be discussed, they have more limited options now than they thought. The other is the drumbeat of having to move without OSU. Why would their administration push that angle unless they had to. It garners them no favors within their legislature to do so now unless the were having to acclimate people to the idea.

Now position on this is purely speculative, but speculation out of listening to the talking points coming out of Norman who otherwise at this juncture should be talking only about their wonderful multiple options instead of why they may have to move without Oklahoma State. And the silence out of Austin is to be expected. Those who already know what they are going to do have no reason to talk.

So this concept is just my thinking out loud while observing carefully what is and isn't being said, and who it is that is doing the talking. And while the University spokespersons haven't said a word in Norman, the chatter around the program and those claiming inside connections and to be donors are either full of hooey, or they've already been clued in and are merely trying to spin the issue.

Either way it's interesting.

What I'm saying is that if Texas has eyes on going anywhere else then our willingness to take OU and OSU limits their options.

If Texas knows what the end result is then there's no need to let it play out. From their perspective, it's probably better to not wait until their painted into that corner. Just cut OU off at the pass and move along with Texas Tech into the SEC.

That's assuming the SEC prefers to stop at 16. I think they do, but assuming 16 is more feasible then it is to UT's advantage to be #15 rather than waiting for the SEC to move on OU/OSU and force UT's hand further down the line.

Yes I agree with that. But consider another facet of this. How can Texas facilitate Oklahoma's move to the Big 10 with Kansas so that their relationship with OU doesn't get too stressed and the RRR can remain on the schedule? The new OU administration knows there is deep division within their fan and alumni base over whether to change conferences, and if so which conference to go to. And that's before the OU / OSU not heading somewhere together issue even rears its head.

By seemingly waiting after lining things up carefully, if Oklahoma is permitted the dignity of appearing to choose the Big 10, sell it on academics, what's best for the university, etc, instead of making it look like their last best option, then that keeps things on the level between the two schools' administrations. It gives OU time to deal with the "we can't stay tied to OSU issue", time to sell their move to the unhappy portion of their fan and alumni base, and to make it all look like it was their preference.

That's why I have a feeling these matters may have already been decided.

Long term, the B1G will be in danger of losing competitiveness. They need credibility on the field and they need a bell cow that people across the country will watch. The Big Ten needs a school like Oklahoma and I think they probably need OU more than a school like Virginia or North Carolina. Kansas doesn't do a lot for them, but it's suitable under the circumstances.

I do agree that OU will wane a bit with a Big Ten schedule, but if anyone has a shot at maintaining relevance then it will be them. The money will still be nice and with schools like TCU and Baylor and evidently Oklahoma State being relegated, there will be a few more players to go around from the state of TX. If the people at OU are smart then they will parlay that cash into a more national recruiting strategy either way.

I'm not sure what moves the other leagues would be interested in making, but this outcome would work pretty well for the SEC and Big Ten.

(08-21-2018 03:36 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 02:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 02:14 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 01:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 01:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, we could look at it like this.

If the SEC is willing to take Oklahoma and Oklahoma State then the decision becomes much simpler for Texas. If that's the prospect they're dealing with then it's much easier to say "wait a minute, just take us and Texas Tech."

Texas would have to be pretty stubborn to allow themselves to be forced into a corner where they end up making the same move under less favorable terms.

I don't follow your reasoning here. ESPN wants to hold onto to Texas. I think Texas already knows we would be willing to take OU and OSU. There have been enough leaks on this from Big 12 beat writers and Finebaum, etc. If these kinds of matters have been discussed they will never be mentioned publicly because of the GOR. And, if Texas has already expressed that preference they are hardly in a corner as they would be being proactive rather than reactive.

Monetarily and content wise the SEC would probably be more favorable with Texas/Tech over OU/OSU.

So if it is the intent of ESPN to hold onto to Texas (and the LHN contract expires in 2031) and it is the intent of Texas to move to their best advantage, and if they have any kind of political obligation to Tech, then I think given the nature of conversations in the past that these matters have already been discussed.

I agree Texas wouldn't be painted in a corner, I just don't think we need to do anymore with expressing the desire to take Oklahoma and the Pokes. That's what we have already done for the past two or three years. If Texas has an interest they've had ample time already to work out their angles and to have already discussed their interests via back channels, especially since they can talk to ESPN anytime without raising suspicions. And since ESPN is a business partner with the SEC they can easily pass along information should it be in their interest to do so.

My suspicions given the talk out of Norman is that their administration is trying to get out ahead on two issues one of which will not be discussed, they have more limited options now than they thought. The other is the drumbeat of having to move without OSU. Why would their administration push that angle unless they had to. It garners them no favors within their legislature to do so now unless the were having to acclimate people to the idea.

Now position on this is purely speculative, but speculation out of listening to the talking points coming out of Norman who otherwise at this juncture should be talking only about their wonderful multiple options instead of why they may have to move without Oklahoma State. And the silence out of Austin is to be expected. Those who already know what they are going to do have no reason to talk.

So this concept is just my thinking out loud while observing carefully what is and isn't being said, and who it is that is doing the talking. And while the University spokespersons haven't said a word in Norman, the chatter around the program and those claiming inside connections and to be donors are either full of hooey, or they've already been clued in and are merely trying to spin the issue.

Either way it's interesting.

What I'm saying is that if Texas has eyes on going anywhere else then our willingness to take OU and OSU limits their options.

If Texas knows what the end result is then there's no need to let it play out. From their perspective, it's probably better to not wait until their painted into that corner. Just cut OU off at the pass and move along with Texas Tech into the SEC.

That's assuming the SEC prefers to stop at 16. I think they do, but assuming 16 is more feasible then it is to UT's advantage to be #15 rather than waiting for the SEC to move on OU/OSU and force UT's hand further down the line.

Yes I agree with that. But consider another facet of this. How can Texas facilitate Oklahoma's move to the Big 10 with Kansas so that their relationship with OU doesn't get too stressed and the RRR can remain on the schedule? The new OU administration knows there is deep division within their fan and alumni base over whether to change conferences, and if so which conference to go to. And that's before the OU / OSU not heading somewhere together issue even rears its head.

By seemingly waiting after lining things up carefully, if Oklahoma is permitted the dignity of appearing to choose the Big 10, sell it on academics, what's best for the university, etc, instead of making it look like their last best option, then that keeps things on the level between the two schools' administrations. It gives OU time to deal with the "we can't stay tied to OSU issue", time to sell their move to the unhappy portion of their fan and alumni base, and to make it all look like it was their preference.

That's why I have a feeling these matters may have already been decided.

Long term, the B1G will be in danger of losing competitiveness. They need credibility on the field and they need a bell cow that people across the country will watch. The Big Ten needs a school like Oklahoma and I think they probably need OU more than a school like Virginia or North Carolina. Kansas doesn't do a lot for them, but it's suitable under the circumstances.

I do agree that OU will wane a bit with a Big Ten schedule, but if anyone has a shot at maintaining relevance then it will be them. The money will still be nice and with schools like TCU and Baylor and evidently Oklahoma State being relegated, there will be a few more players to go around from the state of TX. If the people at OU are smart then they will parlay that cash into a more national recruiting strategy either way.

I'm not sure what moves the other leagues would be interested in making, but this outcome would work pretty well for the SEC and Big Ten.

It could work out well for the ACC as well. West Virginia and Notre Dame in a P4 that's likely to go champs only would likely round them out at 16.

The PAC can choose to stand pat, or they can pinch their noses and take T.C.U., O.S.U., I.S.U., and K.S.U.. Either way it won't matter a lot.

(08-21-2018 01:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, we could look at it like this.

If the SEC is willing to take Oklahoma and Oklahoma State then the decision becomes much simpler for Texas. If that's the prospect they're dealing with then it's much easier to say "wait a minute, just take us and Texas Tech."

Texas would have to be pretty stubborn to allow themselves to be forced into a corner where they end up making the same move under less favorable terms.

I've reread your post several times thinking about nuance. Could it be that Finebaum and other's have pushed the OU / OSU to the SEC thing in order to force Texas to think about what their world might be like if that indeed happened? Maybe so.

The approach here would be effective. So since that happened a couple of years ago when that hype was high, then where we are today it could be that
Texas has quietly sent their signals and now they are waiting for Oklahoma and Kansas to make the first move, while giving OU time to separate from OSU and that they will make their move afterward so that they can claim they are saving Texas Tech and were forced to make a solid move to keep pace with OU and that is why they chose the SEC.

When you put the different considerations we are exploring here into a timeline then a whole different strategy could be seen if it comes to pass.

(09-06-2018 05:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 01:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, we could look at it like this.

If the SEC is willing to take Oklahoma and Oklahoma State then the decision becomes much simpler for Texas. If that's the prospect they're dealing with then it's much easier to say "wait a minute, just take us and Texas Tech."

Texas would have to be pretty stubborn to allow themselves to be forced into a corner where they end up making the same move under less favorable terms.

I've reread your post several times thinking about nuance. Could it be that Finebaum and other's have pushed the OU / OSU to the SEC thing in order to force Texas to think about what their world might be like if that indeed happened? Maybe so.

The approach here would be effective. So since that happened a couple of years ago when that hype was high, then where we are today it could be that Texas has quietly sent their signals and now they are waiting for Oklahoma and Kansas to make the first move, while giving OU time to separate from OSU and that they will make their move afterward so that they can claim they are saving Texas Tech and were forced to make a solid move to keep pace with OU and that is why they chose the SEC.

When you put the different considerations we are exploring here into a timeline then a whole different strategy could be seen if it comes to pass.

I keep coming back to Kansas.

In the past, I've thought ESPN might try to move Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas into the SEC. Assuming they don't mind making the SEC the unquestioned leader in the clubhouse then that's the easiest way to keep the best content in-house.

If Texas Tech is to be protected in the SEC then I suppose there's more than way to do it, but I can't shake the feeling that Kansas will play a role in ESPN's plans.

(09-07-2018 08:09 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-06-2018 05:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 01:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, we could look at it like this.

If the SEC is willing to take Oklahoma and Oklahoma State then the decision becomes much simpler for Texas. If that's the prospect they're dealing with then it's much easier to say "wait a minute, just take us and Texas Tech."

Texas would have to be pretty stubborn to allow themselves to be forced into a corner where they end up making the same move under less favorable terms.

I've reread your post several times thinking about nuance. Could it be that Finebaum and other's have pushed the OU / OSU to the SEC thing in order to force Texas to think about what their world might be like if that indeed happened? Maybe so.

The approach here would be effective. So since that happened a couple of years ago when that hype was high, then where we are today it could be that Texas has quietly sent their signals and now they are waiting for Oklahoma and Kansas to make the first move, while giving OU time to separate from OSU and that they will make their move afterward so that they can claim they are saving Texas Tech and were forced to make a solid move to keep pace with OU and that is why they chose the SEC.

When you put the different considerations we are exploring here into a timeline then a whole different strategy could be seen if it comes to pass.

I keep coming back to Kansas.

In the past, I've thought ESPN might try to move Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas into the SEC. Assuming they don't mind making the SEC the unquestioned leader in the clubhouse then that's the easiest way to keep the best content in-house.

If Texas Tech is to be protected in the SEC then I suppose there's more than way to do it, but I can't shake the feeling that Kansas will play a role in ESPN's plans.

Pick up Texas and Texas Tech first. Then take Kansas and tell Oklahoma the last spot is yours if you come alone. If not....Iowa State, T.C.U., or West Virginia. I mean if thy are willing to leave OSU to head to the Big 10 with Kansas, then if there is only 1 slot left in the SEC it's take it or leave it.

(09-07-2018 08:09 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-06-2018 05:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 01:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, we could look at it like this.

If the SEC is willing to take Oklahoma and Oklahoma State then the decision becomes much simpler for Texas. If that's the prospect they're dealing with then it's much easier to say "wait a minute, just take us and Texas Tech."

Texas would have to be pretty stubborn to allow themselves to be forced into a corner where they end up making the same move under less favorable terms.

I've reread your post several times thinking about nuance. Could it be that Finebaum and other's have pushed the OU / OSU to the SEC thing in order to force Texas to think about what their world might be like if that indeed happened? Maybe so.

The approach here would be effective. So since that happened a couple of years ago when that hype was high, then where we are today it could be that Texas has quietly sent their signals and now they are waiting for Oklahoma and Kansas to make the first move, while giving OU time to separate from OSU and that they will make their move afterward so that they can claim they are saving Texas Tech and were forced to make a solid move to keep pace with OU and that is why they chose the SEC.

When you put the different considerations we are exploring here into a timeline then a whole different strategy could be seen if it comes to pass.

I keep coming back to Kansas.

In the past, I've thought ESPN might try to move Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas into the SEC. Assuming they don't mind making the SEC the unquestioned leader in the clubhouse then that's the easiest way to keep the best content in-house.

If Texas Tech is to be protected in the SEC then I suppose there's more than way to do it, but I can't shake the feeling that Kansas will play a role in ESPN's plans.

ESPN already has KU’s third Teir basketball rights. Their football program makes nothing. KU might be a better option in a basketball focused league if the Big 12 does fall apart—or in the Big Ten if they are ready to add more subpar football AAU programs.

Either way, the SEC needs to secure a major football brand to add more money in next round of realignment. OU or Texas.

(09-10-2018 12:22 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(09-07-2018 08:09 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-06-2018 05:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 01:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, we could look at it like this.

If the SEC is willing to take Oklahoma and Oklahoma State then the decision becomes much simpler for Texas. If that's the prospect they're dealing with then it's much easier to say "wait a minute, just take us and Texas Tech."

Texas would have to be pretty stubborn to allow themselves to be forced into a corner where they end up making the same move under less favorable terms.

I've reread your post several times thinking about nuance. Could it be that Finebaum and other's have pushed the OU / OSU to the SEC thing in order to force Texas to think about what their world might be like if that indeed happened? Maybe so.

The approach here would be effective. So since that happened a couple of years ago when that hype was high, then where we are today it could be that Texas has quietly sent their signals and now they are waiting for Oklahoma and Kansas to make the first move, while giving OU time to separate from OSU and that they will make their move afterward so that they can claim they are saving Texas Tech and were forced to make a solid move to keep pace with OU and that is why they chose the SEC.

When you put the different considerations we are exploring here into a timeline then a whole different strategy could be seen if it comes to pass.

I keep coming back to Kansas.

In the past, I've thought ESPN might try to move Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas into the SEC. Assuming they don't mind making the SEC the unquestioned leader in the clubhouse then that's the easiest way to keep the best content in-house.

If Texas Tech is to be protected in the SEC then I suppose there's more than way to do it, but I can't shake the feeling that Kansas will play a role in ESPN's plans.

ESPN already has KU’s third Teir basketball rights. Their football program makes nothing. KU might be a better option in a basketball focused league if the Big 12 does fall apart—or in the Big Ten if they are ready to add more subpar football AAU programs.

Either way, the SEC needs to secure a major football brand to add more money in next round of realignment. OU or Texas.

1. I think Texas politics will demand that Tech have a home in a P5 conference. So I think to get Texas we'll have to take Tech.

2. Oklahoma will face the same issue. So it's OSU to get OU.

3. Kansas is a nice get for basketball. They are as close to a buy game in football that a conference member ever could be.

4. If the PAC truly wants to improve their prospects then the best solution to the Big 12 would be for Texas / Texas Tech / Kansas / and Kansas State to head to the PAC while Oklahoma and Oklahoma State head to the SEC. West Virginia would do well in the ACC.

If the Big 10 wanted to expand then it would virtually have to be Iowa State and Connecticut. They might sit at 14.

5. That's always been the problem. Texas loses money heading to the PAC. The Big 10 isn't going to take just Iowa State. So what are the workarounds?

a. The Missouri and Kansas to the Big 10 swap that allows the SEC to take Texas and Oklahoma with Oklahoma State? That doesn't solve the problem of Texas Tech.

b. Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State and T.C.U. to the PAC won't fly.

c. Going to 18? That may not be popular with the networks. We'll have to see about it if the opportunity is right.

What if the networks want to try to create some balance between conferences? Could we see Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, and Kansas State headed to the PAC, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC, Iowa State and Kansas to the Big 10, and West Virginia to the ACC? That would improve the PAC and if the Irish could be brought into ACC with WVU that would add value to the ACC. Oklahoma would suit the SEC and Oklahoma State would be an acceptable sacrifice for the move. But would the Big 10 be satisfied with just Kansas paired with ISU? Probably not.

So I submit that the Big 12 GOR will expire and the best schools will be cherry picked. ESPN will want Texas so I like our chances for the Horns. FOX will want Oklahoma and the Big 10 is in dire need of a football brand for the Western division and they are a natural rival for Nebraska. I think that the presidents of the Big 10 would consider Iowa State as an AAU to offset OU and that might be a good compromise. ESPN has dibs on Kansas and Missouri is waiting for them.

It just seems to me to make a great deal of sense for the SEC to add Texas and Kansas while the Big 10 gets Oklahoma and I.S.U. Why I.S.U. and not Kansas for the Big 10? Does the Big 10 really want the SECN in Chicago? No. And that's what would happen with the SEC in Iowa. So the Big 10 will take Oklahoma and make a play for Notre Dame as their traveling companion. The SEC will take Texas and Kansas and when N.D. refuses the Big 10 again the Big 10 will finish out with ISU. If for any reason Kansas heads North then Tech makes sense and ISU is out of luck.

So WVU still heads to the ACC where N.D. will remain an independent a while longer.

If the PAC wants larger markets they'll have to look at Texas Tech and T.C.U. If not that's where things will stay.

The SEC at 16, the Big 10 at 16, the ACC at 15 plus N.D., and the PAC at 12.

The P4 essentially shrinks the total number of P schools from 65 to 60.

Baylor, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Kansas State and Oklahoma State are left out. If the PAC can be convinced to take 4 for the sake of athletic revenue then maybe we sit at 64.

If the Irish head to the Big 10 with the Sooners or Texas then Texas or Oklahoma and Kansas to the SEC is a good possibility. With a slot open then West Virginia, T.C.U. and Baylor could head to the ACC.

Right now that's about as well as I have it figured. That is if there is any movement at all in 2023-4.

(09-10-2018 12:22 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(09-07-2018 08:09 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I keep coming back to Kansas.

In the past, I've thought ESPN might try to move Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas into the SEC. Assuming they don't mind making the SEC the unquestioned leader in the clubhouse then that's the easiest way to keep the best content in-house.

If Texas Tech is to be protected in the SEC then I suppose there's more than way to do it, but I can't shake the feeling that Kansas will play a role in ESPN's plans.

ESPN already has KU’s third Teir basketball rights. Their football program makes nothing. KU might be a better option in a basketball focused league if the Big 12 does fall apart—or in the Big Ten if they are ready to add more subpar football AAU programs.

Either way, the SEC needs to secure a major football brand to add more money in next round of realignment. OU or Texas.

They'd lose those 3rd tier rights and most of the basketball games if KU went to the B1G or PAC though. Those leagues have already bundled their 3rd tier rights.

I get the argument that ESPN would rather own a program like Kansas in the American or something like that where they didn't have to pay as much for them, but regular season competition against name opponents is something they're used to with KU and that's part of the value.

For example, the old Big East was arguably the best basketball league to ever exist, but their ratings were always behind the B1G, ACC, and SEC because most of those schools were small and many of the ones that were of decent size didn't necessarily have the fan base. KU's fan base is huge so it's better served on the TV side if you match them against other flagship schools.

I absolutely agree the SEC needs another strong football program in order to expand, but I just think Kansas ends up playing a role in our strategy.

Another tangential benefit of KU is that our gauntlet is balanced a little better with a football program that's more like Vandy than Alabama. An easier win on the schedule will help matters especially in the event we go to 9 conference games.

(09-10-2018 03:12 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-10-2018 12:22 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(09-07-2018 08:09 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I keep coming back to Kansas.

In the past, I've thought ESPN might try to move Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas into the SEC. Assuming they don't mind making the SEC the unquestioned leader in the clubhouse then that's the easiest way to keep the best content in-house.

If Texas Tech is to be protected in the SEC then I suppose there's more than way to do it, but I can't shake the feeling that Kansas will play a role in ESPN's plans.

ESPN already has KU’s third Teir basketball rights. Their football program makes nothing. KU might be a better option in a basketball focused league if the Big 12 does fall apart—or in the Big Ten if they are ready to add more subpar football AAU programs.

Either way, the SEC needs to secure a major football brand to add more money in next round of realignment. OU or Texas.

They'd lose those 3rd tier rights and most of the basketball games if KU went to the B1G or PAC though. Those leagues have already bundled their 3rd tier rights.

I get the argument that ESPN would rather own a program like Kansas in the American or something like that where they didn't have to pay as much for them, but regular season competition against name opponents is something they're used to with KU and that's part of the value.

For example, the old Big East was arguably the best basketball league to ever exist, but their ratings were always behind the B1G, ACC, and SEC because most of those schools were small and many of the ones that were of decent size didn't necessarily have the fan base. KU's fan base is huge so it's better served on the TV side if you match them against other flagship schools.

I absolutely agree the SEC needs another strong football program in order to expand, but I just think Kansas ends up playing a role in our strategy.

Another tangential benefit of KU is that our gauntlet is balanced a little better with a football program that's more like Vandy than Alabama. An easier win on the schedule will help matters especially in the event we go to 9 conference games.

To me this is a win-win for the SEC: (a) improve basketball, and (b) a semi-automatic win for the SEC West powers.

(09-10-2018 03:12 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-10-2018 12:22 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(09-07-2018 08:09 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I keep coming back to Kansas.

In the past, I've thought ESPN might try to move Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas into the SEC. Assuming they don't mind making the SEC the unquestioned leader in the clubhouse then that's the easiest way to keep the best content in-house.

If Texas Tech is to be protected in the SEC then I suppose there's more than way to do it, but I can't shake the feeling that Kansas will play a role in ESPN's plans.

ESPN already has KU’s third Teir basketball rights. Their football program makes nothing. KU might be a better option in a basketball focused league if the Big 12 does fall apart—or in the Big Ten if they are ready to add more subpar football AAU programs.

Either way, the SEC needs to secure a major football brand to add more money in next round of realignment. OU or Texas.

They'd lose those 3rd tier rights and most of the basketball games if KU went to the B1G or PAC though. Those leagues have already bundled their 3rd tier rights.

I get the argument that ESPN would rather own a program like Kansas in the American or something like that where they didn't have to pay as much for them, but regular season competition against name opponents is something they're used to with KU and that's part of the value.

For example, the old Big East was arguably the best basketball league to ever exist, but their ratings were always behind the B1G, ACC, and SEC because most of those schools were small and many of the ones that were of decent size didn't necessarily have the fan base. KU's fan base is huge so it's better served on the TV side if you match them against other flagship schools.

I absolutely agree the SEC needs another strong football program in order to expand, but I just think Kansas ends up playing a role in our strategy.

Another tangential benefit of KU is that our gauntlet is balanced a little better with a football program that's more like Vandy than Alabama. An easier win on the schedule will help matters especially in the event we go to 9 conference games.

I would substitute that the word "brand" for program. Texas has not been a strong football program since 2008. But they are a strong football brand nonetheless.

It's the Big 10 that needs a strong football "program". The SEC needs another strong basketball "program" and the fact that Kansas is also a "brand" is also a major plus.

With Kansas the Kansas City market is maxed out. With Texas the Texas markets are maxed out. With Kansas the SEC's hoops image is enhanced dramatically increasing everyone's basketball revenue in the conference and selling more seats in each venue when the Jayhawks come to town in much the same way that Kentucky provides that huge bump now. Both additions increase advertising rates thereby increasing profitability.

With Kansas in the West we have a complimentary basketball program to Kentucky in the East and a major basketball rivalry in the old Big 8 region with KU/Mizzou. With Texas we get an in state rivalry with as much heat as Auburn/Alabama. We add a top brand without adding difficulty to a very strong football division.

Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M makes for one highly competitive division in football but without the uber dominant Alabama or a very strong Auburn. Kansas boosts the records of the middle schools in the division, and everyone but probably Kansas has a much better chance each season to compete for those championships.

So your year end games in the West become: Ark/LSU, Ole Miss/Miss St., Kansas/Mizzou, and Texas/Texas A&M.

I think that's a really strong close even for schools out of the running because those are all long standing rivalries except for L.S.U. / Ark which has been one of the best newly established rivalries.

Well there is a new and interesting possibility that could arise. Vanderbilt is not desirous of putting more money into its football facility. As things stand they are the smallest venue in the SEC and they still don't fill it for non conference games and rely heavily on conference games to fill it. What's more Vanderbilt doesn't participate in Women's Softball in the conference either.

Could this lead them to eventually move to where they could be more competitive? Possibly. The Big 10 has expressed interest in the past but they are trying to accomplish the same enhancements that the SEC has been trying to accomplish and right now they need a strong brand in football which Vandy isn't.

But, the ACC which is needing new markets might be the right fit for them.

If something like this came to pass that would open up a 3rd slot for the SEC to use in its Western expansion.

Why not go fro the trifecta of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas.

SEC West:
Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

SEC East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Tennessee

The balance between the two divisions would be very close.

The LHN could become the SEC Western Division Channel and the Charlotte Studio would become the SEC Eastern Division Channel.

A 9 game schedule with 7 division games and 2 crossovers would permit a rotation that would be completed every 4 years. Games like the Egg Bowl could be played in lieu of an OOC P game.

If for some reason something had to be sacrificed for Oklahoma to remain with OSU we could pull in T.C.U. or Texas Tech to accomplish the same ends.