(08-31-2018 02:37 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  A few things about Kansas. We are a good buy currently. Our FB is at it's worst point in our history, by a long shot, and it is really hurting our revenue. KU FB has been mostly mediocre historically, beaten by the conference leaders pretty easily, but usually competitive with the middle and bottom. Basically Oklahoma State and KU were similar programs historically until the last decade or so (they got Boone/Gundy and we got a bunch of circus clowns). When we were last competitive under Mangino we sold out. No school has fans that will show up when you do as badly has we have the last 8 years. Our AD revenue last year was $95M, a few years earlier it was around $110M. If our football was competitive we would be making $125-130M currently. Get competitive and throw in a new stadium, if it gets done (and if it does we were assured of a landing spot somewhere), and our WSJ valuation will jump probably a $100M or more (which is into KSU/OSU territory).

Our last AD, Sheahon Zenger, was an imbecile and our previous chancellor did not care for sports. Our new Chancellor, Douglas Girod, is a sports fan who has been attending KU FB games for years, and he helped turn a struggling KU Med around. The new AD Long will get FB competitive again. We are paying him among the highest salaries for an AD in the country and I am pretty confident KU will pay pretty well ($4M+) to our next football coach, which along with Long's connections should allow us to land a solid coach. When KU has a solid coach we are competitive (Gottfried, Mason, Mangino).

As far as the SEC goes, I think KU and the SEC are about a perfect fit athletically. SEC FB already has more than enough good to great teams. The SEC would gain by having more easy wins on the schedule of their top schools. KU would almost certainly remain mediocre, but would get more talent on the roster, win more out of conference, and play competitively with the middle and bottom schools each year, but be an easy win for the top of the conference. In basketball, no conference would gain more by adding Kansas than the SEC. It would give you one of the top BB brands to help drive ratings/ticket sales for all your BB programs when they play Kansas, while also giving both Kansas and Kentucky a foil of the same stature. The Kentucky/KU games have been ratings gold the last few years and would give the SEC it's Duke/UNC type BB rivalry. The KU and MU rivalry would be restored.

I have said on here before my hope is KU ends up in the SEC or B1G, if the B12 dies, because those conferences have passionate fans like the B12 has and are closer geographically. The ACC is too far away and I have lived in 2 PAC states and all sports talk/attention there is mostly centered on the pros.

I noticed you reading the who should we take from the Big 12 thread the other night.

I think the perfect additions for the SEC to 16 are Texas and Kansas. I also figure this might be the best thing that could happen to Iowa State. Should the Big 10 take Oklahoma then Iowa State may make the most appealing partner if Texas and Kansas are off the board.

Iowa State / Iowa (Cyhawk) becomes an annual Big 10 rivalry. Oklahoma / Nebraska are reunited. Texas / A&M and MU / KU are reunited and both conferences move to 16 in acceptable and profitable ways.

I would be very good with that ending. I just don't know how likely it is that Kansas would want to come to the SEC. Or how likely it would be that Texas would not care to bring along another Texas school.

I also figured if Texas and Kansas came to the SEC that it might well help Oklahoma politically to separate from OSU since the SEC was the only conference likely to take both.

Thoughts?

I have been saying for years OU is almost certain to be the first school to leave the B12 if it remains unstable. They are the most disgruntled member. KU has more political barriers to leaving unless it is obvious the B12 is no longer sustainable. Texas has the LHN money, a conference they mostly control, and a large financial advantage over the all the schools in the conferences, except for OU, whom they still hold a decent financial advantage over, so they have the least incentive to jump first. Plus they can wait and any conference will make room for them. I think the conference that wants to land Texas should focus on OU first, especially if it is the SEC.

Personally, if I was the SEC and going over 16 was not an issue and wanted to land Texas, I would go after OU first. I would start by saying OSU was not acceptable (like was done previously) and tell OU that you would prefer KU as it's partner. If the B1G counter offers OU/KU and they waffle, then tell OU that OSU is acceptable and the SEC would take the pair. That would probably trump the B1G offer, as if it got out OU declined, there would be political hell for them in OK. If the B1G doesn't counter, then hey you just got OU/KU.

Once you have OU, then Texas will face a fan revolt if they turn down a SEC offer. Oklahoma, Texas A&M, and Arkansas would be too much to walk away from. Offer Texas and TTU. If you did not land KU with OU, then try to get Texas to come with Kansas, but if they insist on a school from Texas then Tech is the clear choice. When the B12 formed, originally Texas wanted to only come with A&M before the Texas legislature got involved and foisted TTU and Baylor on them. They might be fine with just A&M and themselves being the only SEC schools in Texas. I think TTU will improve dramatically in academics in the future as supposedly Texas wants to emulate the CA system which means pumping some money into TTU. Texas is growing like crazy and having 3 schools there would not be a bad thing going forward. The SEC would end up with ideally OU/KU/Texas/TTU and if not that then OU/OSU/Texas/TTU.

I think OU/Texas for 16 would be too much incoming football power and some schools are going to be pushed down a notch or two in the pecking order. Landing both makes more sense for the status quo of the SEC if you went to 18-20.

(08-31-2018 02:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 02:37 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  A few things about Kansas. We are a good buy currently. Our FB is at it's worst point in our history, by a long shot, and it is really hurting our revenue. KU FB has been mostly mediocre historically, beaten by the conference leaders pretty easily, but usually competitive with the middle and bottom. Basically Oklahoma State and KU were similar programs historically until the last decade or so (they got Boone/Gundy and we got a bunch of circus clowns). When we were last competitive under Mangino we sold out. No school has fans that will show up when you do as badly has we have the last 8 years. Our AD revenue last year was $95M, a few years earlier it was around $110M. If our football was competitive we would be making $125-130M currently. Get competitive and throw in a new stadium, if it gets done (and if it does we were assured of a landing spot somewhere), and our WSJ valuation will jump probably a $100M or more (which is into KSU/OSU territory).

Our last AD, Sheahon Zenger, was an imbecile and our previous chancellor did not care for sports. Our new Chancellor, Douglas Girod, is a sports fan who has been attending KU FB games for years, and he helped turn a struggling KU Med around. The new AD Long will get FB competitive again. We are paying him among the highest salaries for an AD in the country and I am pretty confident KU will pay pretty well ($4M+) to our next football coach, which along with Long's connections should allow us to land a solid coach. When KU has a solid coach we are competitive (Gottfried, Mason, Mangino).

As far as the SEC goes, I think KU and the SEC are about a perfect fit athletically. SEC FB already has more than enough good to great teams. The SEC would gain by having more easy wins on the schedule of their top schools. KU would almost certainly remain mediocre, but would get more talent on the roster, win more out of conference, and play competitively with the middle and bottom schools each year, but be an easy win for the top of the conference. In basketball, no conference would gain more by adding Kansas than the SEC. It would give you one of the top BB brands to help drive ratings/ticket sales for all your BB programs when they play Kansas, while also giving both Kansas and Kentucky a foil of the same stature. The Kentucky/KU games have been ratings gold the last few years and would give the SEC it's Duke/UNC type BB rivalry. The KU and MU rivalry would be restored.

I have said on here before my hope is KU ends up in the SEC or B1G, if the B12 dies, because those conferences have passionate fans like the B12 has and are closer geographically. The ACC is too far away and I have lived in 2 PAC states and all sports talk/attention there is mostly centered on the pros.

I noticed you reading the who should we take from the Big 12 thread the other night.

I think the perfect additions for the SEC to 16 are Texas and Kansas. I also figure this might be the best thing that could happen to Iowa State. Should the Big 10 take Oklahoma then Iowa State may make the most appealing partner if Texas and Kansas are off the board.

Iowa State / Iowa (Cyhawk) becomes an annual Big 10 rivalry. Oklahoma / Nebraska are reunited. Texas / A&M and MU / KU are reunited and both conferences move to 16 in acceptable and profitable ways.

I would be very good with that ending. I just don't know how likely it is that Kansas would want to come to the SEC. Or how likely it would be that Texas would not care to bring along another Texas school.

I also figured if Texas and Kansas came to the SEC that it might well help Oklahoma politically to separate from OSU since the SEC was the only conference likely to take both.

Thoughts?

If you could only land 1 of OU/Texas and are stopping at 16. Then Texas is the obvious choice because it consolidates Texas, is worth the most to media, is in a massive state, AAU, and reunites two old SWC rivalries. Kansas is the best second (if no OU) because it helps you immensely where you are weak (BB) without disrupting anything where you are strong (FB) and has the AAU bonus. Making basketball stronger is a good hedge against football's likely decline (how much remains to be seen). In a decade, basketball might be wrested from the NCAA as well, so basketball could be 40-50% of conference revenue in the not too distant future if the CTE thing hurts football too much.

If OU did not move first (big upset) and Texas/Kansas moved first to the SEC then I think OU would be able to separate from OSU to go to the B1G, likely with ISU or perhaps CU as you and others have suggested. However, I think the PAC might come in with an offer of something like OU/OSU/TTU/Houston. I think if it was obvious to the PAC that Texas is gone, they will likely swoop in for some TX secondary brands because they want into the TX market and they will grab what they can out of it while making a last ditch effort to land OU. If the price of obtaining OU is OSU and their academics then Stanford and Cal will just have to hold their noses. They would have to offer OSU rather than a 3rd Texas school or OU would certainly go to the B1G. Then again the PAC might just sit steady (academic reasons) or merge with the B1G if Texas is off the board.

So much could happen once the first school leaves the B12 depending on which school and which conference. Probably why it is so fun to speculate even during this dead period.

(08-31-2018 03:16 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  I have been saying for years OU is almost certain to be the first school to leave the B12 if it remains unstable. They are the most disgruntled member. KU has more political barriers to leaving unless it is obvious the B12 is no longer sustainable. Texas has the LHN money, a conference they mostly control, and a large financial advantage over the all the schools in the conferences, except for OU, whom they still hold a decent financial advantage over, so they have the least incentive to jump first. Plus they can wait and any conference will make room for them. I think the conference that wants to land Texas should focus on OU first, especially if it is the SEC.

Personally, if I was the SEC and going over 16 was not an issue and wanted to land Texas, I would go after OU first. I would start by saying OSU was not acceptable (like was done previously) and tell OU that you would prefer KU as it's partner. If the B1G counter offers OU/KU and they waffle, then tell OU that OSU is acceptable and the SEC would take the pair. That would probably trump the B1G offer, as if it got out OU declined, there would be political hell for them in OK. If the B1G doesn't counter, then hey you just got OU/KU.

Once you have OU, then Texas will face a fan revolt if they turn down a SEC offer. Oklahoma, Texas A&M, and Arkansas would be too much to walk away from. Offer Texas and TTU. If you did not land KU with OU, then try to get Texas to come with Kansas, but if they insist on a school from Texas then Tech is the clear choice. When the B12 formed, originally Texas wanted to only come with A&M before the Texas legislature got involved and foisted TTU and Baylor on them. They might be fine with just A&M and themselves being the only SEC schools in Texas. I think TTU will improve dramatically in academics in the future as supposedly Texas wants to emulate the CA system which means pumping some money into TTU. Texas is growing like crazy and having 3 schools there would not be a bad thing going forward. The SEC would end up with ideally OU/KU/Texas/TTU and if not that then OU/OSU/Texas/TTU.

I think OU/Texas for 16 would be too much incoming football power and some schools are going to be pushed down a notch or two in the pecking order. Landing both makes more sense for the status quo of the SEC if you went to 18-20.

The article never got much attention as I think it focused more on the Longhorns' direction than anything, but ESPN published a piece several years ago around the time of all the upheaval that quoted an unnamed Kansas official. The official stated it would be ideal to land in the SEC if movement occurred. A subsequent quote from an unnamed SEC official said they didn't think we would go that direction.

Well, that was several years ago and the board has shuffled quite a bit since then. For one, I don't think the SEC was targeting KU in 2011 because our interests were focused on larger markets and there was also the potential we could land some ACC schools. That and KS was not a border state at that time. Only since the addition of Missouri have we successfully penetrated that region. In short, a lot has changed since then.

Sankey said not that long ago that our next expansion would mirror the last one and he specifically mentioned border states and AAU schools in his comments.

I've never bought the idea that KU was only interested in the Big Ten. Of course, I'm sure they would bolt for the B1G if invited, but I think the SEC works best for them actually and for some of the reasons you've stated.

1. The state of KS has a demographic problem which long term will lead to an enrollment problem for KU. Tapping into the growing Sun Belt states would help reverse some of those trends. The B1G has already proven that they won't band together and protect a school from losing AAU status(Nebraska). It's one of the reasons that these people who claim the B1G would be great for OU academics sound a bit foolish. KU's best bet for long term economic security lies in partnering with growing markets.

2. KS is a politically conservative state which actually puts it in stark contrast with the Chicago-based Big Ten. In my experience, once you move away from the Great Lakes states then the definition of "Midwestern" takes on a very different feel. The people I've met from states like KS, NE, and the Dakotas are much more "Southern" in their approach to life than people from OH, MI, or MN for example. I don't think there's a significant cultural divide between these regions in 2018 and so I think a school like KU would fit a lot better than some would first think.

3. As you've mentioned, athletically speaking, KU and the SEC fit like a glove. In the B1G, they tend to emphasize different minor sports and they also sponsor more of them which dings the bottom line. The approach in the SEC and at a school like KU is different. The only truly odd thing about KU is the lack of a strong football pedigree, but that could be improved. The passionate popularity of the Chiefs prove the people of that region will get behind football if they have a good competitive product. I also agree with your point about basketball potentially being a higher percentage of revenue if football really takes a hit one day. There's also the possibility that the NCAA loses control of the basketball championship and the economics of college basketball could change as more money is concentrated among the Power leagues. In that scenario, a school like KU becomes more attractive as well.

4. Kansas also has a national fan base and a strong relationship with ESPN. These go hand in hand as it tells us why each party is interested in the other. I think moving to the Big Ten would reduce opportunities for exposure overall. ESPN has the best national platform and the SEC is intertwined with the network. I think ESPN wants to keep KU in their fold and getting them into the SEC would be the easiest way to do it.

I'll even go so far as to say this. I wouldn't mind if the SEC made a strategic move and took Kansas first. For one, it would cut off the Big Ten to an even greater degree than the addition of Missouri did. You might still see Oklahoma in the B1G, of course, but it makes life difficult for everyone who doesn't want to deal with the SEC first.

At that point, maybe we end up with Texas and just stop at 16, but your notion of UT, TTU, OU, and KU would work very well also.

(08-31-2018 05:15 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 03:16 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  I have been saying for years OU is almost certain to be the first school to leave the B12 if it remains unstable. They are the most disgruntled member. KU has more political barriers to leaving unless it is obvious the B12 is no longer sustainable. Texas has the LHN money, a conference they mostly control, and a large financial advantage over the all the schools in the conferences, except for OU, whom they still hold a decent financial advantage over, so they have the least incentive to jump first. Plus they can wait and any conference will make room for them. I think the conference that wants to land Texas should focus on OU first, especially if it is the SEC.

Personally, if I was the SEC and going over 16 was not an issue and wanted to land Texas, I would go after OU first. I would start by saying OSU was not acceptable (like was done previously) and tell OU that you would prefer KU as it's partner. If the B1G counter offers OU/KU and they waffle, then tell OU that OSU is acceptable and the SEC would take the pair. That would probably trump the B1G offer, as if it got out OU declined, there would be political hell for them in OK. If the B1G doesn't counter, then hey you just got OU/KU.

Once you have OU, then Texas will face a fan revolt if they turn down a SEC offer. Oklahoma, Texas A&M, and Arkansas would be too much to walk away from. Offer Texas and TTU. If you did not land KU with OU, then try to get Texas to come with Kansas, but if they insist on a school from Texas then Tech is the clear choice. When the B12 formed, originally Texas wanted to only come with A&M before the Texas legislature got involved and foisted TTU and Baylor on them. They might be fine with just A&M and themselves being the only SEC schools in Texas. I think TTU will improve dramatically in academics in the future as supposedly Texas wants to emulate the CA system which means pumping some money into TTU. Texas is growing like crazy and having 3 schools there would not be a bad thing going forward. The SEC would end up with ideally OU/KU/Texas/TTU and if not that then OU/OSU/Texas/TTU.

I think OU/Texas for 16 would be too much incoming football power and some schools are going to be pushed down a notch or two in the pecking order. Landing both makes more sense for the status quo of the SEC if you went to 18-20.

The article never got much attention as I think it focused more on the Longhorns' direction than anything, but ESPN published a piece several years ago around the time of all the upheaval that quoted an unnamed Kansas official. The official stated it would be ideal to land in the SEC if movement occurred. A subsequent quote from an unnamed SEC official said they didn't think we would go that direction.

Well, that was several years ago and the board has shuffled quite a bit since then. For one, I don't think the SEC was targeting KU in 2011 because our interests were focused on larger markets and there was also the potential we could land some ACC schools. That and KS was not a border state at that time. Only since the addition of Missouri have we successfully penetrated that region. In short, a lot has changed since then.

Sankey said not that long ago that our next expansion would mirror the last one and he specifically mentioned border states and AAU schools in his comments.

I've never bought the idea that KU was only interested in the Big Ten. Of course, I'm sure they would bolt for the B1G if invited, but I think the SEC works best for them actually and for some of the reasons you've stated.

1. The state of KS has a demographic problem which long term will lead to an enrollment problem for KU. Tapping into the growing Sun Belt states would help reverse some of those trends. The B1G has already proven that they won't band together and protect a school from losing AAU status(Nebraska). It's one of the reasons that these people who claim the B1G would be great for OU academics sound a bit foolish. KU's best bet for long term economic security lies in partnering with growing markets.

2. KS is a politically conservative state which actually puts it in stark contrast with the Chicago-based Big Ten. In my experience, once you move away from the Great Lakes states then the definition of "Midwestern" takes on a very different feel. The people I've met from states like KS, NE, and the Dakotas are much more "Southern" in their approach to life than people from OH, MI, or MN for example. I don't think there's a significant cultural divide between these regions in 2018 and so I think a school like KU would fit a lot better than some would first think.

3. As you've mentioned, athletically speaking, KU and the SEC fit like a glove. In the B1G, they tend to emphasize different minor sports and they also sponsor more of them which dings the bottom line. The approach in the SEC and at a school like KU is different. The only truly odd thing about KU is the lack of a strong football pedigree, but that could be improved. The passionate popularity of the Chiefs prove the people of that region will get behind football if they have a good competitive product. I also agree with your point about basketball potentially being a higher percentage of revenue if football really takes a hit one day. There's also the possibility that the NCAA loses control of the basketball championship and the economics of college basketball could change as more money is concentrated among the Power leagues. In that scenario, a school like KU becomes more attractive as well.

4. Kansas also has a national fan base and a strong relationship with ESPN. These go hand in hand as it tells us why each party is interested in the other. I think moving to the Big Ten would reduce opportunities for exposure overall. ESPN has the best national platform and the SEC is intertwined with the network. I think ESPN wants to keep KU in their fold and getting them into the SEC would be the easiest way to do it.

I'll even go so far as to say this. I wouldn't mind if the SEC made a strategic move and took Kansas first. For one, it would cut off the Big Ten to an even greater degree than the addition of Missouri did. You might still see Oklahoma in the B1G, of course, but it makes life difficult for everyone who doesn't want to deal with the SEC first.

At that point, maybe we end up with Texas and just stop at 16, but your notion of UT, TTU, OU, and KU would work very well also.

Your four points are all valid and fair observations and I have a made a few of them myself.

I am pretty sure that KU got an assurance from at least one conference that if they wanted to leave the B12 or the B12 falls apart they will get an invite, but that they had to improve the football facilities.

A new stadium has been discussed for awhile since ours is approaching it's 100 year anniversary and is showing it's age. Originally the number that was being tossed around was $150-180M for a partial renovation, then out of the blue, KU announces a $300M tear down and rebuild including a new football-only indoor practice facility. That is a substantial jump over what had been discussed previously. If KU did not have an assurance from a conference, I can't see them spending nearly twice as much for a stadium as they previously had planned, especially when the program is suffering through the worst stretch of football in it's history and the B12 is in a precarious situation. If the B12 imploded, and they got left out, that stadium would be a huge waste of money and anchor of debt around KU's neck. Too much of a gamble if you do not have assurances of a safe landing spot if things go sideways.

The only conferences that would really care about our FB stadium would be the B1G (some gate revenue sharing) and the SEC due to the large traveling fan bases/FB reputation. For the ACC, B12, and PAC a smaller renovation or none would have been fine. After we hired Jeff Long, I lean towards the SEC being involved in some way in that much larger number. He knows the SEC very well. He has experience raising large funds. He would know how to sell decision makers in the SEC.

OU is seriously considering a change. They prefer the SEC/B1G. I think they are talking to both. I think KU is as well, especially after our stadium announcement and AD hire. Makes sense as KU makes the best 16th for OU, if Texas is not considered, and is acceptable to both conferences.

Inviting KU first might be a little risky because who do you pair with them if Texas or OU don't come? I think KU would not lose money for the SEC, but I think we are more a break even option alone. OU/UT are schools that increase the payout easily, so I'd want to be certain of landing one of them first.

(08-31-2018 09:36 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 05:15 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 03:16 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  I have been saying for years OU is almost certain to be the first school to leave the B12 if it remains unstable. They are the most disgruntled member. KU has more political barriers to leaving unless it is obvious the B12 is no longer sustainable. Texas has the LHN money, a conference they mostly control, and a large financial advantage over the all the schools in the conferences, except for OU, whom they still hold a decent financial advantage over, so they have the least incentive to jump first. Plus they can wait and any conference will make room for them. I think the conference that wants to land Texas should focus on OU first, especially if it is the SEC.

Personally, if I was the SEC and going over 16 was not an issue and wanted to land Texas, I would go after OU first. I would start by saying OSU was not acceptable (like was done previously) and tell OU that you would prefer KU as it's partner. If the B1G counter offers OU/KU and they waffle, then tell OU that OSU is acceptable and the SEC would take the pair. That would probably trump the B1G offer, as if it got out OU declined, there would be political hell for them in OK. If the B1G doesn't counter, then hey you just got OU/KU.

Once you have OU, then Texas will face a fan revolt if they turn down a SEC offer. Oklahoma, Texas A&M, and Arkansas would be too much to walk away from. Offer Texas and TTU. If you did not land KU with OU, then try to get Texas to come with Kansas, but if they insist on a school from Texas then Tech is the clear choice. When the B12 formed, originally Texas wanted to only come with A&M before the Texas legislature got involved and foisted TTU and Baylor on them. They might be fine with just A&M and themselves being the only SEC schools in Texas. I think TTU will improve dramatically in academics in the future as supposedly Texas wants to emulate the CA system which means pumping some money into TTU. Texas is growing like crazy and having 3 schools there would not be a bad thing going forward. The SEC would end up with ideally OU/KU/Texas/TTU and if not that then OU/OSU/Texas/TTU.

I think OU/Texas for 16 would be too much incoming football power and some schools are going to be pushed down a notch or two in the pecking order. Landing both makes more sense for the status quo of the SEC if you went to 18-20.

The article never got much attention as I think it focused more on the Longhorns' direction than anything, but ESPN published a piece several years ago around the time of all the upheaval that quoted an unnamed Kansas official. The official stated it would be ideal to land in the SEC if movement occurred. A subsequent quote from an unnamed SEC official said they didn't think we would go that direction.

Well, that was several years ago and the board has shuffled quite a bit since then. For one, I don't think the SEC was targeting KU in 2011 because our interests were focused on larger markets and there was also the potential we could land some ACC schools. That and KS was not a border state at that time. Only since the addition of Missouri have we successfully penetrated that region. In short, a lot has changed since then.

Sankey said not that long ago that our next expansion would mirror the last one and he specifically mentioned border states and AAU schools in his comments.

I've never bought the idea that KU was only interested in the Big Ten. Of course, I'm sure they would bolt for the B1G if invited, but I think the SEC works best for them actually and for some of the reasons you've stated.

1. The state of KS has a demographic problem which long term will lead to an enrollment problem for KU. Tapping into the growing Sun Belt states would help reverse some of those trends. The B1G has already proven that they won't band together and protect a school from losing AAU status(Nebraska). It's one of the reasons that these people who claim the B1G would be great for OU academics sound a bit foolish. KU's best bet for long term economic security lies in partnering with growing markets.

2. KS is a politically conservative state which actually puts it in stark contrast with the Chicago-based Big Ten. In my experience, once you move away from the Great Lakes states then the definition of "Midwestern" takes on a very different feel. The people I've met from states like KS, NE, and the Dakotas are much more "Southern" in their approach to life than people from OH, MI, or MN for example. I don't think there's a significant cultural divide between these regions in 2018 and so I think a school like KU would fit a lot better than some would first think.

3. As you've mentioned, athletically speaking, KU and the SEC fit like a glove. In the B1G, they tend to emphasize different minor sports and they also sponsor more of them which dings the bottom line. The approach in the SEC and at a school like KU is different. The only truly odd thing about KU is the lack of a strong football pedigree, but that could be improved. The passionate popularity of the Chiefs prove the people of that region will get behind football if they have a good competitive product. I also agree with your point about basketball potentially being a higher percentage of revenue if football really takes a hit one day. There's also the possibility that the NCAA loses control of the basketball championship and the economics of college basketball could change as more money is concentrated among the Power leagues. In that scenario, a school like KU becomes more attractive as well.

4. Kansas also has a national fan base and a strong relationship with ESPN. These go hand in hand as it tells us why each party is interested in the other. I think moving to the Big Ten would reduce opportunities for exposure overall. ESPN has the best national platform and the SEC is intertwined with the network. I think ESPN wants to keep KU in their fold and getting them into the SEC would be the easiest way to do it.

I'll even go so far as to say this. I wouldn't mind if the SEC made a strategic move and took Kansas first. For one, it would cut off the Big Ten to an even greater degree than the addition of Missouri did. You might still see Oklahoma in the B1G, of course, but it makes life difficult for everyone who doesn't want to deal with the SEC first.

At that point, maybe we end up with Texas and just stop at 16, but your notion of UT, TTU, OU, and KU would work very well also.

Your four points are all valid and fair observations and I have a made a few of them myself.

I am pretty sure that KU got an assurance from at least one conference that if they wanted to leave the B12 or the B12 falls apart they will get an invite, but that they had to improve the football facilities.

A new stadium has been discussed for awhile since ours is approaching it's 100 year anniversary and is showing it's age. Originally the number that was being tossed around was $150-180M for a partial renovation, then out of the blue, KU announces a $300M tear down and rebuild including a new football-only indoor practice facility. That is a substantial jump over what had been discussed previously. If KU did not have an assurance from a conference, I can't see them spending nearly twice as much for a stadium as they previously had planned, especially when the program is suffering through the worst stretch of football in it's history and the B12 is in a precarious situation. If the B12 imploded, and they got left out, that stadium would be a huge waste of money and anchor of debt around KU's neck. Too much of a gamble if you do not have assurances of a safe landing spot if things go sideways.

The only conferences that would really care about our FB stadium would be the B1G (some gate revenue sharing) and the SEC due to the large traveling fan bases/FB reputation. For the ACC, B12, and PAC a smaller renovation or none would have been fine. After we hired Jeff Long, I lean towards the SEC being involved in some way in that much larger number. He knows the SEC very well. He has experience raising large funds. He would know how to sell decision makers in the SEC.

OU is seriously considering a change. They prefer the SEC/B1G. I think they are talking to both. I think KU is as well, especially after our stadium announcement and AD hire. Makes sense as KU makes the best 16th for OU, if Texas is not considered, and is acceptable to both conferences.

Inviting KU first might be a little risky because who do you pair with them if Texas or OU don't come? I think KU would not lose money for the SEC, but I think we are more a break even option alone. OU/UT are schools that increase the payout easily, so I'd want to be certain of landing one of them first.

Well if the objective is to please ESPN and find an amenable way to eliminate the LHN by having it absorbed into a larger functioning network under their umbrella then I only see two options. Texas either goes to the SEC where the LHN can become a channel for the SEC West while the current main channel is dedicated to the SEC East and the overflow channel remains and is utilized more often for both. Or, Texas does join the ACC as a partial member and the LHN remains but might be shared with Notre Dame so that the appeal and reach is tremendously broadened. The latter option would be fraught with potential issues and Texas's main rivals would be in the SEC.

That leads to the question of would the SEC expand beyond 16 to at least 18? If so then the operative question becomes who is #18? Iowa State, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, or West Virginia?

I think West Virginia will be part of the ACC's final moves. I also think that Texas Tech has a greater upward potential than O.S.U., and Iowa State would be a bold move obliquely into the Chicago market with Kansas and Missouri to assist in the interest.

It poses some interesting dynamics. And perhaps at 20 it is more workable. By assuring Texas Tech and OSU we overcome most obstacles and add two more games a week that might draw the interest of the 32 million living within their region.

The only way the Big 10 would stay out of this would be if they truly had a line on the 9 PAC schools that connected their dots from Nebraska to Utah to Arizona an up the Coast and expanded their AAU influence.

The PAC and Big 12 then would be tied into the fan interest of the Big 10 and SEC and the ACC could be stabilized simply by monopolizing the East Coast. By use of divisions they could reinvigorate what was the Old Big East core.

(08-31-2018 09:36 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 05:15 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 03:16 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  I have been saying for years OU is almost certain to be the first school to leave the B12 if it remains unstable. They are the most disgruntled member. KU has more political barriers to leaving unless it is obvious the B12 is no longer sustainable. Texas has the LHN money, a conference they mostly control, and a large financial advantage over the all the schools in the conferences, except for OU, whom they still hold a decent financial advantage over, so they have the least incentive to jump first. Plus they can wait and any conference will make room for them. I think the conference that wants to land Texas should focus on OU first, especially if it is the SEC.

Personally, if I was the SEC and going over 16 was not an issue and wanted to land Texas, I would go after OU first. I would start by saying OSU was not acceptable (like was done previously) and tell OU that you would prefer KU as it's partner. If the B1G counter offers OU/KU and they waffle, then tell OU that OSU is acceptable and the SEC would take the pair. That would probably trump the B1G offer, as if it got out OU declined, there would be political hell for them in OK. If the B1G doesn't counter, then hey you just got OU/KU.

Once you have OU, then Texas will face a fan revolt if they turn down a SEC offer. Oklahoma, Texas A&M, and Arkansas would be too much to walk away from. Offer Texas and TTU. If you did not land KU with OU, then try to get Texas to come with Kansas, but if they insist on a school from Texas then Tech is the clear choice. When the B12 formed, originally Texas wanted to only come with A&M before the Texas legislature got involved and foisted TTU and Baylor on them. They might be fine with just A&M and themselves being the only SEC schools in Texas. I think TTU will improve dramatically in academics in the future as supposedly Texas wants to emulate the CA system which means pumping some money into TTU. Texas is growing like crazy and having 3 schools there would not be a bad thing going forward. The SEC would end up with ideally OU/KU/Texas/TTU and if not that then OU/OSU/Texas/TTU.

I think OU/Texas for 16 would be too much incoming football power and some schools are going to be pushed down a notch or two in the pecking order. Landing both makes more sense for the status quo of the SEC if you went to 18-20.

The article never got much attention as I think it focused more on the Longhorns' direction than anything, but ESPN published a piece several years ago around the time of all the upheaval that quoted an unnamed Kansas official. The official stated it would be ideal to land in the SEC if movement occurred. A subsequent quote from an unnamed SEC official said they didn't think we would go that direction.

Well, that was several years ago and the board has shuffled quite a bit since then. For one, I don't think the SEC was targeting KU in 2011 because our interests were focused on larger markets and there was also the potential we could land some ACC schools. That and KS was not a border state at that time. Only since the addition of Missouri have we successfully penetrated that region. In short, a lot has changed since then.

Sankey said not that long ago that our next expansion would mirror the last one and he specifically mentioned border states and AAU schools in his comments.

I've never bought the idea that KU was only interested in the Big Ten. Of course, I'm sure they would bolt for the B1G if invited, but I think the SEC works best for them actually and for some of the reasons you've stated.

1. The state of KS has a demographic problem which long term will lead to an enrollment problem for KU. Tapping into the growing Sun Belt states would help reverse some of those trends. The B1G has already proven that they won't band together and protect a school from losing AAU status(Nebraska). It's one of the reasons that these people who claim the B1G would be great for OU academics sound a bit foolish. KU's best bet for long term economic security lies in partnering with growing markets.

2. KS is a politically conservative state which actually puts it in stark contrast with the Chicago-based Big Ten. In my experience, once you move away from the Great Lakes states then the definition of "Midwestern" takes on a very different feel. The people I've met from states like KS, NE, and the Dakotas are much more "Southern" in their approach to life than people from OH, MI, or MN for example. I don't think there's a significant cultural divide between these regions in 2018 and so I think a school like KU would fit a lot better than some would first think.

3. As you've mentioned, athletically speaking, KU and the SEC fit like a glove. In the B1G, they tend to emphasize different minor sports and they also sponsor more of them which dings the bottom line. The approach in the SEC and at a school like KU is different. The only truly odd thing about KU is the lack of a strong football pedigree, but that could be improved. The passionate popularity of the Chiefs prove the people of that region will get behind football if they have a good competitive product. I also agree with your point about basketball potentially being a higher percentage of revenue if football really takes a hit one day. There's also the possibility that the NCAA loses control of the basketball championship and the economics of college basketball could change as more money is concentrated among the Power leagues. In that scenario, a school like KU becomes more attractive as well.

4. Kansas also has a national fan base and a strong relationship with ESPN. These go hand in hand as it tells us why each party is interested in the other. I think moving to the Big Ten would reduce opportunities for exposure overall. ESPN has the best national platform and the SEC is intertwined with the network. I think ESPN wants to keep KU in their fold and getting them into the SEC would be the easiest way to do it.

I'll even go so far as to say this. I wouldn't mind if the SEC made a strategic move and took Kansas first. For one, it would cut off the Big Ten to an even greater degree than the addition of Missouri did. You might still see Oklahoma in the B1G, of course, but it makes life difficult for everyone who doesn't want to deal with the SEC first.

At that point, maybe we end up with Texas and just stop at 16, but your notion of UT, TTU, OU, and KU would work very well also.

Your four points are all valid and fair observations and I have a made a few of them myself.

I am pretty sure that KU got an assurance from at least one conference that if they wanted to leave the B12 or the B12 falls apart they will get an invite, but that they had to improve the football facilities.

A new stadium has been discussed for awhile since ours is approaching it's 100 year anniversary and is showing it's age. Originally the number that was being tossed around was $150-180M for a partial renovation, then out of the blue, KU announces a $300M tear down and rebuild including a new football-only indoor practice facility. That is a substantial jump over what had been discussed previously. If KU did not have an assurance from a conference, I can't see them spending nearly twice as much for a stadium as they previously had planned, especially when the program is suffering through the worst stretch of football in it's history and the B12 is in a precarious situation. If the B12 imploded, and they got left out, that stadium would be a huge waste of money and anchor of debt around KU's neck. Too much of a gamble if you do not have assurances of a safe landing spot if things go sideways.

The only conferences that would really care about our FB stadium would be the B1G (some gate revenue sharing) and the SEC due to the large traveling fan bases/FB reputation. For the ACC, B12, and PAC a smaller renovation or none would have been fine. After we hired Jeff Long, I lean towards the SEC being involved in some way in that much larger number. He knows the SEC very well. He has experience raising large funds. He would know how to sell decision makers in the SEC.

OU is seriously considering a change. They prefer the SEC/B1G. I think they are talking to both. I think KU is as well, especially after our stadium announcement and AD hire. Makes sense as KU makes the best 16th for OU, if Texas is not considered, and is acceptable to both conferences.

Inviting KU first might be a little risky because who do you pair with them if Texas or OU don't come? I think KU would not lose money for the SEC, but I think we are more a break even option alone. OU/UT are schools that increase the payout easily, so I'd want to be certain of landing one of them first.

That was my thought as well on the stadium. It's an awful lot of money to spend on a mere possibility. JR also pointed out a few weeks ago that the KU stadium plans included a good deal of premium seating and that the SEC is really the only league that utilizes premium seating to any significant degree.

Makes a lot of sense...the SEC would want some improvements to your football facilities so that you'd have a better chance of holding your own as well as take full advantage of revenue opportunities. I think it's unlikely that sort of expenditure along with the amenities would be necessary to appeal to another league.

From a network perspective, my view has been that KU represents a cornerstone of ESPN college basketball coverage. It may be that basketball doesn't generate as much revenue as football, but a network like ESPN has committed a great deal of resources to covering the sport. That and they need good content for those Winter months when football is out of season. They need to sell advertising regardless of the date on the calendar and especially in an era when a la carte options are starting to alter the market, it's important to be content-diverse so fans aren't tempted to cancel subscriptions or watch other networks. KU is an easy sell for TV viewers during that time of year.

It's also a very efficient use of resources to just buy all that college content for one price. What I mean is that all ESPN or any network has to do is spend money on a college conference and they get live content throughout the year. It's a different dynamic than buying into a pro league so from the network perspective, I don't think they view football, basketball, and other sports in complete isolation from one another. In short, KU football might not be as valuable as some programs, but they pad the bottom line in other areas.

As you've mentioned, the SEC needs basketball blue bloods. Our league is on the upswing right now and I think that will bring more fans/viewers to our games, but we don't have very many programs that command national audiences. Adding Kansas to the fold greatly multiplies the value of a lot of our slate. It also keeps us in better balance with the ACC and that helps sell cross-conference content during that time of year.

There's a lot of factors here that line up very well and so I wouldn't be shocked at all to see Kansas in the SEC.

(08-31-2018 12:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well if the objective is to please ESPN and find an amenable way to eliminate the LHN by having it absorbed into a larger functioning network under their umbrella then I only see two options. Texas either goes to the SEC where the LHN can become a channel for the SEC West while the current main channel is dedicated to the SEC East and the overflow channel remains and is utilized more often for both. Or, Texas does join the ACC as a partial member and the LHN remains but might be shared with Notre Dame so that the appeal and reach is tremendously broadened. The latter option would be fraught with potential issues and Texas's main rivals would be in the SEC.

That leads to the question of would the SEC expand beyond 16 to at least 18? If so then the operative question becomes who is #18? Iowa State, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, or West Virginia?

I think West Virginia will be part of the ACC's final moves. I also think that Texas Tech has a greater upward potential than O.S.U., and Iowa State would be a bold move obliquely into the Chicago market with Kansas and Missouri to assist in the interest.

It poses some interesting dynamics. And perhaps at 20 it is more workable. By assuring Texas Tech and OSU we overcome most obstacles and add two more games a week that might draw the interest of the 32 million living within their region.

The only way the Big 10 would stay out of this would be if they truly had a line on the 9 PAC schools that connected their dots from Nebraska to Utah to Arizona an up the Coast and expanded their AAU influence.

The PAC and Big 12 then would be tied into the fan interest of the Big 10 and SEC and the ACC could be stabilized simply by monopolizing the East Coast. By use of divisions they could reinvigorate what was the Old Big East core.

I don't know that Texas would be terribly interested in the ACC, but it's really the only way to up the content value for that league and protect it from future raiding. I could also see Notre Dame agreeing to go all in if UT is in the fold which increases the value a little more.

This would certainly serve ESPN's purposes. I think they want a strong SEC and ACC to play off each other. The conference network investments would be solidified and they wouldn't have to allow any league to dominate TX. The diversity of markets across both leagues would help create cross-conference games and aid their marketing even more.

Let's say Texas committed to the ACC as long as Notre Dame agreed to go all in. That way, no one is getting a special deal of any type. There's your 16 and you don't create a situation where you need special approval from the other conferences to alter the postseason framework.

Oklahoma and Kansas fit well into the SEC and give us most of what we want. At that point, the ESPN conferences are pretty solid and both very rich. The B1G has nowhere to go and the PAC could take some leftovers if they want or they could stand pat.

I could easily see ESPN playing hardball with those leagues. The message could simply be that "we're not going to help you out if you're not fully committed to us." If ESPN is able to bend the situation completely in their favor then the B1G and PAC have no recourse other than to hope economic trends change. Maybe those leagues pick up some leftovers or maybe they don't. ESPN might not even care because they'll have the best platform for secondary and lesser leagues. At that, they'll be able to pay those leagues a smaller rights fee for the same content assuming individual schools don't get snapped up by the B1G and PAC.

There's a lot you could do with the LHN. ESPN could just buy out UT's side of the contract and "hook" them into the ACC Network already up and running. ESPN could use the infrastructure of the channel and alter the format...maybe turn it into a Spanish language feed for college sports.

This isn't really the ideal scenario for anyone other than ESPN, but it serves a lot of interests for all parties and that may be good enough to make everyone happy.

1. Texas gets top billing in the ACC which will yield them greater influence. They get a situation where all the other TX schools are relegated so their disconnection from their rivals doesn't sting as bad. Being that their key rivals are all in the SEC(ESPN managed), it means non-conference games with these foes will be easy to schedule, however, avoiding them on an annual basis reduces the pressure of direct comparison. If you get beat regularly by instate rival A&M or old rival Arkansas then that hurts your reputation more than competing against them on a semi-regular basis. That and the minor schools from TX will be eager to travel to Austin for exposure any time UT wants a softer opponent. They also don't have to follow the lead of Texas A&M and their ego could be salved by that.

2. Oklahoma gets the money, stability, and quality schedule they want. They keep a century old rival in Kansas on the schedule while almost certainly keeping the RRR as a non-conference game. Oklahoma State along with all the secondary TX schools are relegated and that helps the bottom line as well.

3. The SEC gets a blue blood football program and a bigger slice of TX in the process. The blue blood basketball program helps in other areas. They add 2 small markets, but both new schools have national fan bases so the quality of content increases even if the footprint doesn't grow by much. A&M gets to wear the badge of only SEC school in TX and there's no potential for a rift in the league should UT get uppity. The Border War is restored and that helps penetration in that region. The Big Ten's influence is also curtailed and that gives the SEC an edge.

4. For the ACC, they get greater security and prosperity. With 2 new football blue bloods competing for the conference title, their games gain greater value and the ACC Network has greater profitability most likely.

(08-31-2018 09:26 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 12:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well if the objective is to please ESPN and find an amenable way to eliminate the LHN by having it absorbed into a larger functioning network under their umbrella then I only see two options. Texas either goes to the SEC where the LHN can become a channel for the SEC West while the current main channel is dedicated to the SEC East and the overflow channel remains and is utilized more often for both. Or, Texas does join the ACC as a partial member and the LHN remains but might be shared with Notre Dame so that the appeal and reach is tremendously broadened. The latter option would be fraught with potential issues and Texas's main rivals would be in the SEC.

That leads to the question of would the SEC expand beyond 16 to at least 18? If so then the operative question becomes who is #18? Iowa State, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, or West Virginia?

I think West Virginia will be part of the ACC's final moves. I also think that Texas Tech has a greater upward potential than O.S.U., and Iowa State would be a bold move obliquely into the Chicago market with Kansas and Missouri to assist in the interest.

It poses some interesting dynamics. And perhaps at 20 it is more workable. By assuring Texas Tech and OSU we overcome most obstacles and add two more games a week that might draw the interest of the 32 million living within their region.

The only way the Big 10 would stay out of this would be if they truly had a line on the 9 PAC schools that connected their dots from Nebraska to Utah to Arizona an up the Coast and expanded their AAU influence.

The PAC and Big 12 then would be tied into the fan interest of the Big 10 and SEC and the ACC could be stabilized simply by monopolizing the East Coast. By use of divisions they could reinvigorate what was the Old Big East core.

I don't know that Texas would be terribly interested in the ACC, but it's really the only way to up the content value for that league and protect it from future raiding. I could also see Notre Dame agreeing to go all in if UT is in the fold which increases the value a little more.

This would certainly serve ESPN's purposes. I think they want a strong SEC and ACC to play off each other. The conference network investments would be solidified and they wouldn't have to allow any league to dominate TX. The diversity of markets across both leagues would help create cross-conference games and aid their marketing even more.

Let's say Texas committed to the ACC as long as Notre Dame agreed to go all in. That way, no one is getting a special deal of any type. There's your 16 and you don't create a situation where you need special approval from the other conferences to alter the postseason framework.

Oklahoma and Kansas fit well into the SEC and give us most of what we want. At that point, the ESPN conferences are pretty solid and both very rich. The B1G has nowhere to go and the PAC could take some leftovers if they want or they could stand pat.

I could easily see ESPN playing hardball with those leagues. The message could simply be that "we're not going to help you out if you're not fully committed to us." If ESPN is able to bend the situation completely in their favor then the B1G and PAC have no recourse other than to hope economic trends change. Maybe those leagues pick up some leftovers or maybe they don't. ESPN might not even care because they'll have the best platform for secondary and lesser leagues. At that, they'll be able to pay those leagues a smaller rights fee for the same content assuming individual schools don't get snapped up by the B1G and PAC.

There's a lot you could do with the LHN. ESPN could just buy out UT's side of the contract and "hook" them into the ACC Network already up and running. ESPN could use the infrastructure of the channel and alter the format...maybe turn it into a Spanish language feed for college sports.

This isn't really the ideal scenario for anyone other than ESPN, but it serves a lot of interests for all parties and that may be good enough to make everyone happy.

1. Texas gets top billing in the ACC which will yield them greater influence. They get a situation where all the other TX schools are relegated so their disconnection from their rivals doesn't sting as bad. Being that their key rivals are all in the SEC(ESPN managed), it means non-conference games with these foes will be easy to schedule, however, avoiding them on an annual basis reduces the pressure of direct comparison. If you get beat regularly by instate rival A&M or old rival Arkansas then that hurts your reputation more than competing against them on a semi-regular basis. That and the minor schools from TX will be eager to travel to Austin for exposure any time UT wants a softer opponent. They also don't have to follow the lead of Texas A&M and their ego could be salved by that.

2. Oklahoma gets the money, stability, and quality schedule they want. They keep a century old rival in Kansas on the schedule while almost certainly keeping the RRR as a non-conference game. Oklahoma State along with all the secondary TX schools are relegated and that helps the bottom line as well.

3. The SEC gets a blue blood football program and a bigger slice of TX in the process. The blue blood basketball program helps in other areas. They add 2 small markets, but both new schools have national fan bases so the quality of content increases even if the footprint doesn't grow by much. A&M gets to wear the badge of only SEC school in TX and there's no potential for a rift in the league should UT get uppity. The Border War is restored and that helps penetration in that region. The Big Ten's influence is also curtailed and that gives the SEC an edge.

4. For the ACC, they get greater security and prosperity. With 2 new football blue bloods competing for the conference title, their games gain greater value and the ACC Network has greater profitability most likely.

There is one major obstacle to this plan. Oklahoma has insisted from the beginning that Texas and Oklahoma State cannot be in different conferences from each other and the Sooners. Bedlam has to be played.

So the solution is either Texas or Oklahoma State have to be in a conference with the Sooners.

Now to do that and to still take Kansas that means we have to grow larger than 16.

I haven't found any wonderfully satisfactory ways to do that without 3 of the 4 members being Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas.

It's the biggest reason I keep going back to 20 members and the addition of a 4th P conference once the PAC and Big 12 are absorbed.

Now a more natural way to work this would be simply move to 16, and let the remnants of the Big 12 join the AAC and then promote them. We wouldn't have just 4 P conferences by doing that, but it would be simpler.

I think the easier thing to think is that if the SEC has made a promise to Kansas, then the best 2nd addition with them would be Texas.

And Texas isn't going to want their minor sports to play by having to fly across the SEC to participate in the ACC.

At 16 I could see the Big 10 take Oklahoma and Iowa State, and the SEC take Texas and Kansas. West Virginia adds value to the ACC and reconnects their footprint.

What happens to the rest at that point is either the PAC expands and takes some, but probably not, or the best of them are absorbed into the AAC, or they reform and take the best of the AAC to build a new conference.

ESPN gets the two schools they have invested more in out of the Big 12 (UT & KU) The SEC capitalizes on Texas market and gets a huge hoops draw. Texas and Oklahoma keep the RRR, but Oklahoma has to use one of their early season Big 10 games to play OSU. But that becomes a Big 10 problem, not an SEC one. Why would the Big 10 take Iowa State? It's a rivalry game for Iowa and they are the only AAU school left to take as a partner to an Oklahoma school that will immediately become the 16th best academic school in the 16 member Big 10, uhm, last. Which means of course that the Big 10 presidents wouldn't dare take a second non AAU program with the Sooners.

(08-31-2018 10:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 09:26 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 12:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well if the objective is to please ESPN and find an amenable way to eliminate the LHN by having it absorbed into a larger functioning network under their umbrella then I only see two options. Texas either goes to the SEC where the LHN can become a channel for the SEC West while the current main channel is dedicated to the SEC East and the overflow channel remains and is utilized more often for both. Or, Texas does join the ACC as a partial member and the LHN remains but might be shared with Notre Dame so that the appeal and reach is tremendously broadened. The latter option would be fraught with potential issues and Texas's main rivals would be in the SEC.

That leads to the question of would the SEC expand beyond 16 to at least 18? If so then the operative question becomes who is #18? Iowa State, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, or West Virginia?

I think West Virginia will be part of the ACC's final moves. I also think that Texas Tech has a greater upward potential than O.S.U., and Iowa State would be a bold move obliquely into the Chicago market with Kansas and Missouri to assist in the interest.

It poses some interesting dynamics. And perhaps at 20 it is more workable. By assuring Texas Tech and OSU we overcome most obstacles and add two more games a week that might draw the interest of the 32 million living within their region.

The only way the Big 10 would stay out of this would be if they truly had a line on the 9 PAC schools that connected their dots from Nebraska to Utah to Arizona an up the Coast and expanded their AAU influence.

The PAC and Big 12 then would be tied into the fan interest of the Big 10 and SEC and the ACC could be stabilized simply by monopolizing the East Coast. By use of divisions they could reinvigorate what was the Old Big East core.

I don't know that Texas would be terribly interested in the ACC, but it's really the only way to up the content value for that league and protect it from future raiding. I could also see Notre Dame agreeing to go all in if UT is in the fold which increases the value a little more.

This would certainly serve ESPN's purposes. I think they want a strong SEC and ACC to play off each other. The conference network investments would be solidified and they wouldn't have to allow any league to dominate TX. The diversity of markets across both leagues would help create cross-conference games and aid their marketing even more.

Let's say Texas committed to the ACC as long as Notre Dame agreed to go all in. That way, no one is getting a special deal of any type. There's your 16 and you don't create a situation where you need special approval from the other conferences to alter the postseason framework.

Oklahoma and Kansas fit well into the SEC and give us most of what we want. At that point, the ESPN conferences are pretty solid and both very rich. The B1G has nowhere to go and the PAC could take some leftovers if they want or they could stand pat.

I could easily see ESPN playing hardball with those leagues. The message could simply be that "we're not going to help you out if you're not fully committed to us." If ESPN is able to bend the situation completely in their favor then the B1G and PAC have no recourse other than to hope economic trends change. Maybe those leagues pick up some leftovers or maybe they don't. ESPN might not even care because they'll have the best platform for secondary and lesser leagues. At that, they'll be able to pay those leagues a smaller rights fee for the same content assuming individual schools don't get snapped up by the B1G and PAC.

There's a lot you could do with the LHN. ESPN could just buy out UT's side of the contract and "hook" them into the ACC Network already up and running. ESPN could use the infrastructure of the channel and alter the format...maybe turn it into a Spanish language feed for college sports.

This isn't really the ideal scenario for anyone other than ESPN, but it serves a lot of interests for all parties and that may be good enough to make everyone happy.

1. Texas gets top billing in the ACC which will yield them greater influence. They get a situation where all the other TX schools are relegated so their disconnection from their rivals doesn't sting as bad. Being that their key rivals are all in the SEC(ESPN managed), it means non-conference games with these foes will be easy to schedule, however, avoiding them on an annual basis reduces the pressure of direct comparison. If you get beat regularly by instate rival A&M or old rival Arkansas then that hurts your reputation more than competing against them on a semi-regular basis. That and the minor schools from TX will be eager to travel to Austin for exposure any time UT wants a softer opponent. They also don't have to follow the lead of Texas A&M and their ego could be salved by that.

2. Oklahoma gets the money, stability, and quality schedule they want. They keep a century old rival in Kansas on the schedule while almost certainly keeping the RRR as a non-conference game. Oklahoma State along with all the secondary TX schools are relegated and that helps the bottom line as well.

3. The SEC gets a blue blood football program and a bigger slice of TX in the process. The blue blood basketball program helps in other areas. They add 2 small markets, but both new schools have national fan bases so the quality of content increases even if the footprint doesn't grow by much. A&M gets to wear the badge of only SEC school in TX and there's no potential for a rift in the league should UT get uppity. The Border War is restored and that helps penetration in that region. The Big Ten's influence is also curtailed and that gives the SEC an edge.

4. For the ACC, they get greater security and prosperity. With 2 new football blue bloods competing for the conference title, their games gain greater value and the ACC Network has greater profitability most likely.

There is one major obstacle to this plan. Oklahoma has insisted from the beginning that Texas and Oklahoma State cannot be in different conferences from each other and the Sooners. Bedlam has to be played.

So the solution is either Texas or Oklahoma State have to be in a conference with the Sooners.

Now to do that and to still take Kansas that means we have to grow larger than 16.

I haven't found any wonderfully satisfactory ways to do that without 3 of the 4 members being Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas.

It's the biggest reason I keep going back to 20 members and the addition of a 4th P conference once the PAC and Big 12 are absorbed.

Now a more natural way to work this would be simply move to 16, and let the remnants of the Big 12 join the AAC and then promote them. We wouldn't have just 4 P conferences by doing that, but it would be simpler.

I think the easier thing to think is that if the SEC has made a promise to Kansas, then the best 2nd addition with them would be Texas.

And Texas isn't going to want their minor sports to play by having to fly across the SEC to participate in the ACC.

At 16 I could see the Big 10 take Oklahoma and Iowa State, and the SEC take Texas and Kansas. West Virginia adds value to the ACC and reconnects their footprint.

What happens to the rest at that point is either the PAC expands and takes some, but probably not, or the best of them are absorbed into the AAC, or they reform and take the best of the AAC to build a new conference.

ESPN gets the two schools they have invested more in out of the Big 12 (UT & KU) The SEC capitalizes on Texas market and gets a huge hoops draw. Texas and Oklahoma keep the RRR, but Oklahoma has to use one of their early season Big 10 games to play OSU. But that becomes a Big 10 problem, not an SEC one. Why would the Big 10 take Iowa State? It's a rivalry game for Iowa and they are the only AAU school left to take as a partner to an Oklahoma school that will immediately become the 16th best academic school in the 16 member Big 10, uhm, last. Which means of course that the Big 10 presidents wouldn't dare take a second non AAU program with the Sooners.

I think the question would be whether or not OU relinquishes their demand if their only other option ends up being the Big Ten and the same situation...with neither rival in the same conference.

Texas and Kansas is a good combo for us and might just be easier to bring down than getting OU to break their commitment to OSU. If Oklahoma comes back to the table in that situation then do we move to 18 or more? I really don't know. I worry about getting a favorable vote on altering the postseason if we're the only ones who benefit.

Regarding the OK schools, my question has always been why in the world would the ACC not take that combo? It's true that OSU is not a top tier school, but they don't exactly have great athletic schools beating their door down.

(08-31-2018 10:24 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 10:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 09:26 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 12:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well if the objective is to please ESPN and find an amenable way to eliminate the LHN by having it absorbed into a larger functioning network under their umbrella then I only see two options. Texas either goes to the SEC where the LHN can become a channel for the SEC West while the current main channel is dedicated to the SEC East and the overflow channel remains and is utilized more often for both. Or, Texas does join the ACC as a partial member and the LHN remains but might be shared with Notre Dame so that the appeal and reach is tremendously broadened. The latter option would be fraught with potential issues and Texas's main rivals would be in the SEC.

That leads to the question of would the SEC expand beyond 16 to at least 18? If so then the operative question becomes who is #18? Iowa State, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, or West Virginia?

I think West Virginia will be part of the ACC's final moves. I also think that Texas Tech has a greater upward potential than O.S.U., and Iowa State would be a bold move obliquely into the Chicago market with Kansas and Missouri to assist in the interest.

It poses some interesting dynamics. And perhaps at 20 it is more workable. By assuring Texas Tech and OSU we overcome most obstacles and add two more games a week that might draw the interest of the 32 million living within their region.

The only way the Big 10 would stay out of this would be if they truly had a line on the 9 PAC schools that connected their dots from Nebraska to Utah to Arizona an up the Coast and expanded their AAU influence.

The PAC and Big 12 then would be tied into the fan interest of the Big 10 and SEC and the ACC could be stabilized simply by monopolizing the East Coast. By use of divisions they could reinvigorate what was the Old Big East core.

I don't know that Texas would be terribly interested in the ACC, but it's really the only way to up the content value for that league and protect it from future raiding. I could also see Notre Dame agreeing to go all in if UT is in the fold which increases the value a little more.

This would certainly serve ESPN's purposes. I think they want a strong SEC and ACC to play off each other. The conference network investments would be solidified and they wouldn't have to allow any league to dominate TX. The diversity of markets across both leagues would help create cross-conference games and aid their marketing even more.

Let's say Texas committed to the ACC as long as Notre Dame agreed to go all in. That way, no one is getting a special deal of any type. There's your 16 and you don't create a situation where you need special approval from the other conferences to alter the postseason framework.

Oklahoma and Kansas fit well into the SEC and give us most of what we want. At that point, the ESPN conferences are pretty solid and both very rich. The B1G has nowhere to go and the PAC could take some leftovers if they want or they could stand pat.

I could easily see ESPN playing hardball with those leagues. The message could simply be that "we're not going to help you out if you're not fully committed to us." If ESPN is able to bend the situation completely in their favor then the B1G and PAC have no recourse other than to hope economic trends change. Maybe those leagues pick up some leftovers or maybe they don't. ESPN might not even care because they'll have the best platform for secondary and lesser leagues. At that, they'll be able to pay those leagues a smaller rights fee for the same content assuming individual schools don't get snapped up by the B1G and PAC.

There's a lot you could do with the LHN. ESPN could just buy out UT's side of the contract and "hook" them into the ACC Network already up and running. ESPN could use the infrastructure of the channel and alter the format...maybe turn it into a Spanish language feed for college sports.

This isn't really the ideal scenario for anyone other than ESPN, but it serves a lot of interests for all parties and that may be good enough to make everyone happy.

1. Texas gets top billing in the ACC which will yield them greater influence. They get a situation where all the other TX schools are relegated so their disconnection from their rivals doesn't sting as bad. Being that their key rivals are all in the SEC(ESPN managed), it means non-conference games with these foes will be easy to schedule, however, avoiding them on an annual basis reduces the pressure of direct comparison. If you get beat regularly by instate rival A&M or old rival Arkansas then that hurts your reputation more than competing against them on a semi-regular basis. That and the minor schools from TX will be eager to travel to Austin for exposure any time UT wants a softer opponent. They also don't have to follow the lead of Texas A&M and their ego could be salved by that.

2. Oklahoma gets the money, stability, and quality schedule they want. They keep a century old rival in Kansas on the schedule while almost certainly keeping the RRR as a non-conference game. Oklahoma State along with all the secondary TX schools are relegated and that helps the bottom line as well.

3. The SEC gets a blue blood football program and a bigger slice of TX in the process. The blue blood basketball program helps in other areas. They add 2 small markets, but both new schools have national fan bases so the quality of content increases even if the footprint doesn't grow by much. A&M gets to wear the badge of only SEC school in TX and there's no potential for a rift in the league should UT get uppity. The Border War is restored and that helps penetration in that region. The Big Ten's influence is also curtailed and that gives the SEC an edge.

4. For the ACC, they get greater security and prosperity. With 2 new football blue bloods competing for the conference title, their games gain greater value and the ACC Network has greater profitability most likely.

There is one major obstacle to this plan. Oklahoma has insisted from the beginning that Texas and Oklahoma State cannot be in different conferences from each other and the Sooners. Bedlam has to be played.

So the solution is either Texas or Oklahoma State have to be in a conference with the Sooners.

Now to do that and to still take Kansas that means we have to grow larger than 16.

I haven't found any wonderfully satisfactory ways to do that without 3 of the 4 members being Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas.

It's the biggest reason I keep going back to 20 members and the addition of a 4th P conference once the PAC and Big 12 are absorbed.

Now a more natural way to work this would be simply move to 16, and let the remnants of the Big 12 join the AAC and then promote them. We wouldn't have just 4 P conferences by doing that, but it would be simpler.

I think the easier thing to think is that if the SEC has made a promise to Kansas, then the best 2nd addition with them would be Texas.

And Texas isn't going to want their minor sports to play by having to fly across the SEC to participate in the ACC.

At 16 I could see the Big 10 take Oklahoma and Iowa State, and the SEC take Texas and Kansas. West Virginia adds value to the ACC and reconnects their footprint.

What happens to the rest at that point is either the PAC expands and takes some, but probably not, or the best of them are absorbed into the AAC, or they reform and take the best of the AAC to build a new conference.

ESPN gets the two schools they have invested more in out of the Big 12 (UT & KU) The SEC capitalizes on Texas market and gets a huge hoops draw. Texas and Oklahoma keep the RRR, but Oklahoma has to use one of their early season Big 10 games to play OSU. But that becomes a Big 10 problem, not an SEC one. Why would the Big 10 take Iowa State? It's a rivalry game for Iowa and they are the only AAU school left to take as a partner to an Oklahoma school that will immediately become the 16th best academic school in the 16 member Big 10, uhm, last. Which means of course that the Big 10 presidents wouldn't dare take a second non AAU program with the Sooners.

I think the question would be whether or not OU relinquishes their demand if their only other option ends up being the Big Ten and the same situation...with neither rival in the same conference.

Texas and Kansas is a good combo for us and might just be easier to bring down than getting OU to break their commitment to OSU. If Oklahoma comes back to the table in that situation then do we move to 18 or more? I really don't know. I worry about getting a favorable vote on altering the postseason if we're the only ones who benefit.

Regarding the OK schools, my question has always been why in the world would the ACC not take that combo? It's true that OSU is not a top tier school, but they don't exactly have great athletic schools beating their door down.

I think the trick if we move to 18 is to make sure the ACC does as well. The Big 12 would be gone and as a matter of "Autonomy" among the new P4 or P3 we would be deadlocked at 2 for 2 against and given the weight of the SEC, the # of schools the SEC and ACC would be representing, we could easily get the Big 10 to go along by threatening an in season and post season refusal to play them in scheduled games or in any bowls outside of the CFP.

My bet is we wouldn't even have to strong arm them as they might like knowing they had the freedom to realign divisions after a larger expansion too.

In that case the ACC could take the pair of Oklahoma schools provided they also take say T.C.U. and either Baylor or Texas Tech.

(08-31-2018 11:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 10:24 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think the question would be whether or not OU relinquishes their demand if their only other option ends up being the Big Ten and the same situation...with neither rival in the same conference.

Texas and Kansas is a good combo for us and might just be easier to bring down than getting OU to break their commitment to OSU. If Oklahoma comes back to the table in that situation then do we move to 18 or more? I really don't know. I worry about getting a favorable vote on altering the postseason if we're the only ones who benefit.

Regarding the OK schools, my question has always been why in the world would the ACC not take that combo? It's true that OSU is not a top tier school, but they don't exactly have great athletic schools beating their door down.

I think the trick if we move to 18 is to make sure the ACC does as well. The Big 12 would be gone and as a matter of "Autonomy" among the new P4 or P3 we would be deadlocked at 2 for 2 against and given the weight of the SEC, the # of schools the SEC and ACC would be representing, we could easily get the Big 10 to go along by threatening an in season and post season refusal to play them in scheduled games or in any bowls outside of the CFP.

My bet is we wouldn't even have to strong arm them as they might like knowing they had the freedom to realign divisions after a larger expansion too.

In that case the ACC could take the pair of Oklahoma schools provided they also take say T.C.U. and either Baylor or Texas Tech.

The Big Ten would be in a tricky position.

From their perspective, any future expansion would ideally include some ACC schools and maybe even the old white whale of Notre Dame. So if they vote for a system that makes life easier on the ACC or facilitates ND joining the ACC in football then for all intents and purposes the B1G would be closing the door on East Coast expansion.

I'm not sure they could be talked into that unless they had already expanded West with Oklahoma or had strong options for growth in PAC territory.

(09-01-2018 07:16 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 11:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 10:24 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think the question would be whether or not OU relinquishes their demand if their only other option ends up being the Big Ten and the same situation...with neither rival in the same conference.

Texas and Kansas is a good combo for us and might just be easier to bring down than getting OU to break their commitment to OSU. If Oklahoma comes back to the table in that situation then do we move to 18 or more? I really don't know. I worry about getting a favorable vote on altering the postseason if we're the only ones who benefit.

Regarding the OK schools, my question has always been why in the world would the ACC not take that combo? It's true that OSU is not a top tier school, but they don't exactly have great athletic schools beating their door down.

I think the trick if we move to 18 is to make sure the ACC does as well. The Big 12 would be gone and as a matter of "Autonomy" among the new P4 or P3 we would be deadlocked at 2 for 2 against and given the weight of the SEC, the # of schools the SEC and ACC would be representing, we could easily get the Big 10 to go along by threatening an in season and post season refusal to play them in scheduled games or in any bowls outside of the CFP.

My bet is we wouldn't even have to strong arm them as they might like knowing they had the freedom to realign divisions after a larger expansion too.

In that case the ACC could take the pair of Oklahoma schools provided they also take say T.C.U. and either Baylor or Texas Tech.

The Big Ten would be in a tricky position.

From their perspective, any future expansion would ideally include some ACC schools and maybe even the old white whale of Notre Dame. So if they vote for a system that makes life easier on the ACC or facilitates ND joining the ACC in football then for all intents and purposes the B1G would be closing the door on East Coast expansion.

I'm not sure they could be talked into that unless they had already expanded West with Oklahoma or had strong options for growth in PAC territory.

That's why this needs to be hush-hush and the vote to change the CCG rules needs to be in the books BEFORE the Big XII is divided up.

(09-01-2018 08:05 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(09-01-2018 07:16 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 11:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 10:24 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think the question would be whether or not OU relinquishes their demand if their only other option ends up being the Big Ten and the same situation...with neither rival in the same conference.

Texas and Kansas is a good combo for us and might just be easier to bring down than getting OU to break their commitment to OSU. If Oklahoma comes back to the table in that situation then do we move to 18 or more? I really don't know. I worry about getting a favorable vote on altering the postseason if we're the only ones who benefit.

Regarding the OK schools, my question has always been why in the world would the ACC not take that combo? It's true that OSU is not a top tier school, but they don't exactly have great athletic schools beating their door down.

I think the trick if we move to 18 is to make sure the ACC does as well. The Big 12 would be gone and as a matter of "Autonomy" among the new P4 or P3 we would be deadlocked at 2 for 2 against and given the weight of the SEC, the # of schools the SEC and ACC would be representing, we could easily get the Big 10 to go along by threatening an in season and post season refusal to play them in scheduled games or in any bowls outside of the CFP.

My bet is we wouldn't even have to strong arm them as they might like knowing they had the freedom to realign divisions after a larger expansion too.

In that case the ACC could take the pair of Oklahoma schools provided they also take say T.C.U. and either Baylor or Texas Tech.

The Big Ten would be in a tricky position.

From their perspective, any future expansion would ideally include some ACC schools and maybe even the old white whale of Notre Dame. So if they vote for a system that makes life easier on the ACC or facilitates ND joining the ACC in football then for all intents and purposes the B1G would be closing the door on East Coast expansion.

I'm not sure they could be talked into that unless they had already expanded West with Oklahoma or had strong options for growth in PAC territory.

That's why this needs to be hush-hush and the vote to change the CCG rules needs to be in the books BEFORE the Big XII is divided up.

I think you figured incorrectly on this one Mark. The Big 12 not named UT and OU would not vote with us. They don't trust their own ability to get into the P5 otherwise so they will obstruct. 36 schools in the SEC/ACC vs 26 in the B1G/PAC gets the job done.

(08-31-2018 10:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 09:26 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 12:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well if the objective is to please ESPN and find an amenable way to eliminate the LHN by having it absorbed into a larger functioning network under their umbrella then I only see two options. Texas either goes to the SEC where the LHN can become a channel for the SEC West while the current main channel is dedicated to the SEC East and the overflow channel remains and is utilized more often for both. Or, Texas does join the ACC as a partial member and the LHN remains but might be shared with Notre Dame so that the appeal and reach is tremendously broadened. The latter option would be fraught with potential issues and Texas's main rivals would be in the SEC.

That leads to the question of would the SEC expand beyond 16 to at least 18? If so then the operative question becomes who is #18? Iowa State, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, or West Virginia?

I think West Virginia will be part of the ACC's final moves. I also think that Texas Tech has a greater upward potential than O.S.U., and Iowa State would be a bold move obliquely into the Chicago market with Kansas and Missouri to assist in the interest.

It poses some interesting dynamics. And perhaps at 20 it is more workable. By assuring Texas Tech and OSU we overcome most obstacles and add two more games a week that might draw the interest of the 32 million living within their region.

The only way the Big 10 would stay out of this would be if they truly had a line on the 9 PAC schools that connected their dots from Nebraska to Utah to Arizona an up the Coast and expanded their AAU influence.

The PAC and Big 12 then would be tied into the fan interest of the Big 10 and SEC and the ACC could be stabilized simply by monopolizing the East Coast. By use of divisions they could reinvigorate what was the Old Big East core.

I don't know that Texas would be terribly interested in the ACC, but it's really the only way to up the content value for that league and protect it from future raiding. I could also see Notre Dame agreeing to go all in if UT is in the fold which increases the value a little more.

This would certainly serve ESPN's purposes. I think they want a strong SEC and ACC to play off each other. The conference network investments would be solidified and they wouldn't have to allow any league to dominate TX. The diversity of markets across both leagues would help create cross-conference games and aid their marketing even more.

Let's say Texas committed to the ACC as long as Notre Dame agreed to go all in. That way, no one is getting a special deal of any type. There's your 16 and you don't create a situation where you need special approval from the other conferences to alter the postseason framework.

Oklahoma and Kansas fit well into the SEC and give us most of what we want. At that point, the ESPN conferences are pretty solid and both very rich. The B1G has nowhere to go and the PAC could take some leftovers if they want or they could stand pat.

I could easily see ESPN playing hardball with those leagues. The message could simply be that "we're not going to help you out if you're not fully committed to us." If ESPN is able to bend the situation completely in their favor then the B1G and PAC have no recourse other than to hope economic trends change. Maybe those leagues pick up some leftovers or maybe they don't. ESPN might not even care because they'll have the best platform for secondary and lesser leagues. At that, they'll be able to pay those leagues a smaller rights fee for the same content assuming individual schools don't get snapped up by the B1G and PAC.

There's a lot you could do with the LHN. ESPN could just buy out UT's side of the contract and "hook" them into the ACC Network already up and running. ESPN could use the infrastructure of the channel and alter the format...maybe turn it into a Spanish language feed for college sports.

This isn't really the ideal scenario for anyone other than ESPN, but it serves a lot of interests for all parties and that may be good enough to make everyone happy.

1. Texas gets top billing in the ACC which will yield them greater influence. They get a situation where all the other TX schools are relegated so their disconnection from their rivals doesn't sting as bad. Being that their key rivals are all in the SEC(ESPN managed), it means non-conference games with these foes will be easy to schedule, however, avoiding them on an annual basis reduces the pressure of direct comparison. If you get beat regularly by instate rival A&M or old rival Arkansas then that hurts your reputation more than competing against them on a semi-regular basis. That and the minor schools from TX will be eager to travel to Austin for exposure any time UT wants a softer opponent. They also don't have to follow the lead of Texas A&M and their ego could be salved by that.

2. Oklahoma gets the money, stability, and quality schedule they want. They keep a century old rival in Kansas on the schedule while almost certainly keeping the RRR as a non-conference game. Oklahoma State along with all the secondary TX schools are relegated and that helps the bottom line as well.

3. The SEC gets a blue blood football program and a bigger slice of TX in the process. The blue blood basketball program helps in other areas. They add 2 small markets, but both new schools have national fan bases so the quality of content increases even if the footprint doesn't grow by much. A&M gets to wear the badge of only SEC school in TX and there's no potential for a rift in the league should UT get uppity. The Border War is restored and that helps penetration in that region. The Big Ten's influence is also curtailed and that gives the SEC an edge.

4. For the ACC, they get greater security and prosperity. With 2 new football blue bloods competing for the conference title, their games gain greater value and the ACC Network has greater profitability most likely.

There is one major obstacle to this plan. Oklahoma has insisted from the beginning that Texas and Oklahoma State cannot be in different conferences from each other and the Sooners. Bedlam has to be played.

So the solution is either Texas or Oklahoma State have to be in a conference with the Sooners.

Now to do that and to still take Kansas that means we have to grow larger than 16.

I haven't found any wonderfully satisfactory ways to do that without 3 of the 4 members being Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas.

It's the biggest reason I keep going back to 20 members and the addition of a 4th P conference once the PAC and Big 12 are absorbed.

Now a more natural way to work this would be simply move to 16, and let the remnants of the Big 12 join the AAC and then promote them. We wouldn't have just 4 P conferences by doing that, but it would be simpler.

I think the easier thing to think is that if the SEC has made a promise to Kansas, then the best 2nd addition with them would be Texas.

And Texas isn't going to want their minor sports to play by having to fly across the SEC to participate in the ACC.

At 16 I could see the Big 10 take Oklahoma and Iowa State, and the SEC take Texas and Kansas. West Virginia adds value to the ACC and reconnects their footprint.

What happens to the rest at that point is either the PAC expands and takes some, but probably not, or the best of them are absorbed into the AAC, or they reform and take the best of the AAC to build a new conference.

ESPN gets the two schools they have invested more in out of the Big 12 (UT & KU) The SEC capitalizes on Texas market and gets a huge hoops draw. Texas and Oklahoma keep the RRR, but Oklahoma has to use one of their early season Big 10 games to play OSU. But that becomes a Big 10 problem, not an SEC one. Why would the Big 10 take Iowa State? It's a rivalry game for Iowa and they are the only AAU school left to take as a partner to an Oklahoma school that will immediately become the 16th best academic school in the 16 member Big 10, uhm, last. Which means of course that the Big 10 presidents wouldn't dare take a second non AAU program with the Sooners.

Two obstacles. ND is unlikely to join the ACC in football absent a champs only, 4 team playoff.

(09-01-2018 07:16 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 11:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 10:24 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think the question would be whether or not OU relinquishes their demand if their only other option ends up being the Big Ten and the same situation...with neither rival in the same conference.

Texas and Kansas is a good combo for us and might just be easier to bring down than getting OU to break their commitment to OSU. If Oklahoma comes back to the table in that situation then do we move to 18 or more? I really don't know. I worry about getting a favorable vote on altering the postseason if we're the only ones who benefit.

Regarding the OK schools, my question has always been why in the world would the ACC not take that combo? It's true that OSU is not a top tier school, but they don't exactly have great athletic schools beating their door down.

I think the trick if we move to 18 is to make sure the ACC does as well. The Big 12 would be gone and as a matter of "Autonomy" among the new P4 or P3 we would be deadlocked at 2 for 2 against and given the weight of the SEC, the # of schools the SEC and ACC would be representing, we could easily get the Big 10 to go along by threatening an in season and post season refusal to play them in scheduled games or in any bowls outside of the CFP.

My bet is we wouldn't even have to strong arm them as they might like knowing they had the freedom to realign divisions after a larger expansion too.

In that case the ACC could take the pair of Oklahoma schools provided they also take say T.C.U. and either Baylor or Texas Tech.

The Big Ten would be in a tricky position.

From their perspective, any future expansion would ideally include some ACC schools and maybe even the old white whale of Notre Dame. So if they vote for a system that makes life easier on the ACC or facilitates ND joining the ACC in football then for all intents and purposes the B1G would be closing the door on East Coast expansion.

I'm not sure they could be talked into that unless they had already expanded West with Oklahoma or had strong options for growth in PAC territory.

ND is not going to join the Big Ten in full. It is unlikely to join the ACC in football.

Every move ND has made since 1991 (1991 NBC deal, 1995 Big East deal, 1999 refusal of Big Ten bid, 2012 ACC deal) is designed to keep ND football independent and out if the clutches of the Big Ten.

There is a slight chance ND football would join the ACC (champs only playoff). There is almost no chance ND football would ever join the Big Ten.

Delany thought he had ND "checkmated" in 2010, but here it is 8 years later and ND is no closer to joining than then, probably much further away, actually.

(09-02-2018 07:08 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-01-2018 07:16 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 11:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 10:24 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think the question would be whether or not OU relinquishes their demand if their only other option ends up being the Big Ten and the same situation...with neither rival in the same conference.

Texas and Kansas is a good combo for us and might just be easier to bring down than getting OU to break their commitment to OSU. If Oklahoma comes back to the table in that situation then do we move to 18 or more? I really don't know. I worry about getting a favorable vote on altering the postseason if we're the only ones who benefit.

Regarding the OK schools, my question has always been why in the world would the ACC not take that combo? It's true that OSU is not a top tier school, but they don't exactly have great athletic schools beating their door down.

I think the trick if we move to 18 is to make sure the ACC does as well. The Big 12 would be gone and as a matter of "Autonomy" among the new P4 or P3 we would be deadlocked at 2 for 2 against and given the weight of the SEC, the # of schools the SEC and ACC would be representing, we could easily get the Big 10 to go along by threatening an in season and post season refusal to play them in scheduled games or in any bowls outside of the CFP.

My bet is we wouldn't even have to strong arm them as they might like knowing they had the freedom to realign divisions after a larger expansion too.

In that case the ACC could take the pair of Oklahoma schools provided they also take say T.C.U. and either Baylor or Texas Tech.

The Big Ten would be in a tricky position.

From their perspective, any future expansion would ideally include some ACC schools and maybe even the old white whale of Notre Dame. So if they vote for a system that makes life easier on the ACC or facilitates ND joining the ACC in football then for all intents and purposes the B1G would be closing the door on East Coast expansion.

I'm not sure they could be talked into that unless they had already expanded West with Oklahoma or had strong options for growth in PAC territory.

ND is not going to join the Big Ten in full. It is unlikely to join the ACC in football.

Every move ND has made since 1991 (1991 NBC deal, 1995 Big East deal, 1999 refusal of Big Ten bid, 2012 ACC deal) is designed to keep ND football independent and out if the clutches of the Big Ten.

There is a slight chance ND football would join the ACC (champs only playoff). There is almost no chance ND football would ever join the Big Ten.

Delany thought he had ND "checkmated" in 2010, but here it is 8 years later and ND is no closer to joining than then, probably much further away, actually.

Whether ND would go to the Big Ten or not, that league would still want ACC schools in any large expansion. From their perspective, it's the same difference.

But in the scenario we're talking about, we'd end up with a Power 4. That's going to change the dynamics for Notre Dame if it happens. All of a sudden, the likelihood of a non-Power champion reaching the CFP plummets.

I'm not sure we'll ever see a day when champions-only would be the rule, but the elimination of the 5th Power conference would be one huge step in that direction.

(09-02-2018 01:11 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-02-2018 07:08 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-01-2018 07:16 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 11:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 10:24 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think the question would be whether or not OU relinquishes their demand if their only other option ends up being the Big Ten and the same situation...with neither rival in the same conference.

Texas and Kansas is a good combo for us and might just be easier to bring down than getting OU to break their commitment to OSU. If Oklahoma comes back to the table in that situation then do we move to 18 or more? I really don't know. I worry about getting a favorable vote on altering the postseason if we're the only ones who benefit.

Regarding the OK schools, my question has always been why in the world would the ACC not take that combo? It's true that OSU is not a top tier school, but they don't exactly have great athletic schools beating their door down.

I think the trick if we move to 18 is to make sure the ACC does as well. The Big 12 would be gone and as a matter of "Autonomy" among the new P4 or P3 we would be deadlocked at 2 for 2 against and given the weight of the SEC, the # of schools the SEC and ACC would be representing, we could easily get the Big 10 to go along by threatening an in season and post season refusal to play them in scheduled games or in any bowls outside of the CFP.

My bet is we wouldn't even have to strong arm them as they might like knowing they had the freedom to realign divisions after a larger expansion too.

In that case the ACC could take the pair of Oklahoma schools provided they also take say T.C.U. and either Baylor or Texas Tech.

The Big Ten would be in a tricky position.

From their perspective, any future expansion would ideally include some ACC schools and maybe even the old white whale of Notre Dame. So if they vote for a system that makes life easier on the ACC or facilitates ND joining the ACC in football then for all intents and purposes the B1G would be closing the door on East Coast expansion.

I'm not sure they could be talked into that unless they had already expanded West with Oklahoma or had strong options for growth in PAC territory.

ND is not going to join the Big Ten in full. It is unlikely to join the ACC in football.

Every move ND has made since 1991 (1991 NBC deal, 1995 Big East deal, 1999 refusal of Big Ten bid, 2012 ACC deal) is designed to keep ND football independent and out if the clutches of the Big Ten.

There is a slight chance ND football would join the ACC (champs only playoff). There is almost no chance ND football would ever join the Big Ten.

Delany thought he had ND "checkmated" in 2010, but here it is 8 years later and ND is no closer to joining than then, probably much further away, actually.

Whether ND would go to the Big Ten or not, that league would still want ACC schools in any large expansion. From their perspective, it's the same difference.

But in the scenario we're talking about, we'd end up with a Power 4. That's going to change the dynamics for Notre Dame if it happens. All of a sudden, the likelihood of a non-Power champion reaching the CFP plummets.

I'm not sure we'll ever see a day when champions-only would be the rule, but the elimination of the 5th Power conference would be one huge step in that direction.

Well should any current SEC member decide that a move to the ACC was in their best interest it solves all of the problems.

We stay at 16 taking Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. The two Texas flagships give us what we want in the Lone Star state and Oklahoma with Texas leaves them free to play OSU as an OOC game and Kansas finishes out the footprint and gives Missouri and Arkansas even more neighboring foes.

(09-25-2018 10:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well should any current SEC member decide that a move to the ACC was in their best interest it solves all of the problems.

We stay at 16 taking Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. The two Texas flagships give us what we want in the Lone Star state and Oklahoma with Texas leaves them free to play OSU as an OOC game and Kansas finishes out the footprint and gives Missouri and Arkansas even more neighboring foes.

I don't think any SEC schools wants to join the ACC. But if ESPN's dream is ensuring the long term stability of both conferences then I don't see any other option than a wholesale restructuring. The first move of that reorganization would swap UTN and AUB in exchange for NCST and UVA.

At this point both conferences can go to 18 in order to crave up the B12 with:

UTX, TT, WVU, ND ------> ACC
OU, OKST, KU, ISU -----> SEC

The WWL would need to delve deep into Mickey's pockets to make such a dream happen, but it would IMO provide sufficient protection against potential FAANG raids. The B1G and PAC can opt for those distribution models.

(09-29-2018 07:33 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 10:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well should any current SEC member decide that a move to the ACC was in their best interest it solves all of the problems.

We stay at 16 taking Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. The two Texas flagships give us what we want in the Lone Star state and Oklahoma with Texas leaves them free to play OSU as an OOC game and Kansas finishes out the footprint and gives Missouri and Arkansas even more neighboring foes.

I don't think any SEC schools wants to join the ACC. But if ESPN's dream is ensuring the long term stability of both conferences then I don't see any other option than a wholesale restructuring. The first move of that reorganization would swap UTN and AUB in exchange for NCST and UVA.

At this point both conferences can go to 18 in order to crave up the B12 with:

UTX, TT, WVU, ND ------> ACC
OU, OKST, KU, ISU -----> SEC

The WWL would need to delve deep into Mickey's pockets to make such a dream happen, but it would IMO provide sufficient protection against potential FAANG raids. The B1G and PAC can opt for those distribution models.

The ACC really needs to send UNC and UVA, IMO, but the basic premise is sound.