Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,791
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 397
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #1761
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
The Jon Wefold proposal has generated much chat about the PAC12 & Big12 eventunally assimmulating in some fashion. There's going to be rumors when anything is advanced that suggests networking, inclusive of any advocacy for cooperative scheduling. Some are implying the perceived best of the PAC12, and the perceived best of the B12, will form a new conference.

The problem with identifying and predicting SEC member additions, is that indicators for change to come, have not come into focus yet. It is long obvious that OU, UT, and KU, present the best value. That may apply to multiple suitors.

Slive would have had a plan A and a plan B. We assume Sankey and staff have one also. That would take off-the-record collaboration even though a window of opportunity is a short few years away.

SEC has to be, in a confidential way, dialoguing with some degree of seriousness with OU and/or UT. Kansas and maybe one or two others, are engaged in informal contact.

I do believe ESPN in particular, along with other broadcast companies, have somewhat certain designs they want to push. They may differ as well.

There is going to be some kind of suprise, somewhere.

Right now, the PAC12 is showing a weakening of financial leverage, while the B12 continues to be perceived as vulnerable for near future expansion. Shall the two meet in a bold attempt to resolve both matters? Perhaps, if the SEC and/or the BIG just sit back. But that looks unlikely.

OU may hold more cards in this than Texas.
03-03-2019 01:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1762
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(03-03-2019 01:28 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  The Jon Wefold proposal has generated much chat about the PAC12 & Big12 eventunally assimmulating in some fashion. There's going to be rumors when anything is advanced that suggests networking, inclusive of any advocacy for cooperative scheduling. Some are implying the perceived best of the PAC12, and the perceived best of the B12, will form a new conference.

The problem with identifying and predicting SEC member additions, is that indicators for change to come, have not come into focus yet. It is long obvious that OU, UT, and KU, present the best value. That may apply to multiple suitors.

Slive would have had a plan A and a plan B. We assume Sankey and staff have one also. That would take off-the-record collaboration even though a window of opportunity is a short few years away.

SEC has to be, in a confidential way, dialoguing with some degree of seriousness with OU and/or UT. Kansas and maybe one or two others, are engaged in informal contact.

I do believe ESPN in particular, along with other broadcast companies, have somewhat certain designs they want to push. They may differ as well.

There is going to be some kind of suprise, somewhere.

Right now, the PAC12 is showing a weakening of financial leverage, while the B12 continues to be perceived as vulnerable for near future expansion. Shall the two meet in a bold attempt to resolve both matters? Perhaps, if the SEC and/or the BIG just sit back. But that looks unlikely.

OU may hold more cards in this than Texas.

Actually O.F., it's the one who feels the pressure to move that holds the fewest cards. Texas is more secure. What Oklahoma holds is the interest of the SEC / Big 10 / & PAC who all see acquiring them as a way to get Texas to move.

The SEC's motives will not be very different than those of ESPN because ESPN is the one who would have to monetize the move, perhaps with some help from CBS.

The issue for the Big 10 is truly that FOX is their backer and ESPN has ties on Texas until 2031. I think this is why the Big 10 will focus as often discussed on Oklahoma and Kansas. However the upcoming Oklahoma T3 rights deal will be interesting. Lately ESPN has been signing schools to T3 deals which had been under FOX due to the local RSNs.

The PAC really cannot monetize a deal to land Texas or Oklahoma profitably.

So, if their is movement and it involves Oklahoma the only destinations would be either to the Big 10 or SEC. Then it comes down to the question of whether OSU is indeed an obstacle, or does Oklahoma want to risk Texas moving to the SEC. Both of those are real problems for the Sooners. And they are problems that only the SEC could resolve fully.

Kansas is the door prize if Texas refuses to move anywhere.

As to your insinuation of risk in communications, that is easily sidestepped with communications between state schools. Texas / A&M scheduling talks is an apt cover. Kansas or Oklahoma would be a bit trickier. Like Missouri it would have to be carried on between former colleagues as it was with Bernie Machen and the Missouri president. That's much easier now with Long at Kansas. I don't know where the relationships line up with OU.
(This post was last modified: 03-03-2019 02:46 PM by JRsec.)
03-03-2019 02:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,791
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 397
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #1763
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(03-03-2019 02:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-03-2019 01:28 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  The Jon Wefold proposal has generated much chat about the PAC12 & Big12 eventunally assimmulating in some fashion. There's going to be rumors when anything is advanced that suggests networking, inclusive of any advocacy for cooperative scheduling. Some are implying the perceived best of the PAC12, and the perceived best of the B12, will form a new conference.

The problem with identifying and predicting SEC member additions, is that indicators for change to come, have not come into focus yet. It is long obvious that OU, UT, and KU, present the best value. That may apply to multiple suitors.

Slive would have had a plan A and a plan B. We assume Sankey and staff have one also. That would take off-the-record collaboration even though a window of opportunity is a short few years away.

SEC has to be, in a confidential way, dialoguing with some degree of seriousness with OU and/or UT. Kansas and maybe one or two others, are engaged in informal contact.

I do believe ESPN in particular, along with other broadcast companies, have somewhat certain designs they want to push. They may differ as well.

There is going to be some kind of suprise, somewhere.

Right now, the PAC12 is showing a weakening of financial leverage, while the B12 continues to be perceived as vulnerable for near future expansion. Shall the two meet in a bold attempt to resolve both matters? Perhaps, if the SEC and/or the BIG just sit back. But that looks unlikely.

OU may hold more cards in this than Texas.

Actually O.F., it's the one who feels the pressure to move that holds the fewest cards. Texas is more secure. What Oklahoma holds is the interest of the SEC / Big 10 / & PAC who all see acquiring them as a way to get Texas to move.

The SEC's motives will not be very different than those of ESPN because ESPN is the one who would have to monetize the move, perhaps with some help from CBS.

The issue for the Big 10 is truly that FOX is their backer and ESPN has ties on Texas until 2031. I think this is why the Big 10 will focus as often discussed on Oklahoma and Kansas. However the upcoming Oklahoma T3 rights deal will be interesting. Lately ESPN has been signing schools to T3 deals which had been under FOX due to the local RSNs.

The PAC really cannot monetize a deal to land Texas or Oklahoma profitably.

So, if their is movement and it involves Oklahoma the only destinations would be either to the Big 10 or SEC. Then it comes down to the question of whether OSU is indeed an obstacle, or does Oklahoma want to risk Texas moving to the SEC. Both of those are real problems for the Sooners. And they are problems that only the SEC could resolve fully.

Kansas is the door prize if Texas refuses to move anywhere.

As to your insinuation of risk in communications, that is easily sidestepped with communications between state schools. Texas / A&M scheduling talks is an apt cover. Kansas or Oklahoma would be a bit trickier. Like Missouri it would have to be carried on between former colleagues as it was with Bernie Machen and the Missouri president. That's much easier now with Long at Kansas. I don't know where the relationships line up with OU.

If the Commissioners of the P5, and several select Presidents, as well as pertinent broadcast executives, meet at a Dallas Marriott, and the powwow comes up with a plan whereby WVU (maybe Baylor too) heads to the ACC. OU and Kansas head to the BIG. Okie St., TTU, KSU, and TCU go to the PAC12, and the SEC gets Texas and Iowa State.

Nawh, OU wouldn't want to lose both Texas & oSu. The PAC12 would insist on more prime choices. BIG would take it, and the SEC and the ACC would probably take it.
The Big12 schools, excluding Baylor perhaps, may buy such.

Just a fantasy, I suppose.



:
(This post was last modified: 03-03-2019 05:59 PM by OdinFrigg.)
03-03-2019 05:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1764
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(03-03-2019 05:53 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(03-03-2019 02:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-03-2019 01:28 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  The Jon Wefold proposal has generated much chat about the PAC12 & Big12 eventunally assimmulating in some fashion. There's going to be rumors when anything is advanced that suggests networking, inclusive of any advocacy for cooperative scheduling. Some are implying the perceived best of the PAC12, and the perceived best of the B12, will form a new conference.

The problem with identifying and predicting SEC member additions, is that indicators for change to come, have not come into focus yet. It is long obvious that OU, UT, and KU, present the best value. That may apply to multiple suitors.

Slive would have had a plan A and a plan B. We assume Sankey and staff have one also. That would take off-the-record collaboration even though a window of opportunity is a short few years away.

SEC has to be, in a confidential way, dialoguing with some degree of seriousness with OU and/or UT. Kansas and maybe one or two others, are engaged in informal contact.

I do believe ESPN in particular, along with other broadcast companies, have somewhat certain designs they want to push. They may differ as well.

There is going to be some kind of suprise, somewhere.

Right now, the PAC12 is showing a weakening of financial leverage, while the B12 continues to be perceived as vulnerable for near future expansion. Shall the two meet in a bold attempt to resolve both matters? Perhaps, if the SEC and/or the BIG just sit back. But that looks unlikely.

OU may hold more cards in this than Texas.

Actually O.F., it's the one who feels the pressure to move that holds the fewest cards. Texas is more secure. What Oklahoma holds is the interest of the SEC / Big 10 / & PAC who all see acquiring them as a way to get Texas to move.

The SEC's motives will not be very different than those of ESPN because ESPN is the one who would have to monetize the move, perhaps with some help from CBS.

The issue for the Big 10 is truly that FOX is their backer and ESPN has ties on Texas until 2031. I think this is why the Big 10 will focus as often discussed on Oklahoma and Kansas. However the upcoming Oklahoma T3 rights deal will be interesting. Lately ESPN has been signing schools to T3 deals which had been under FOX due to the local RSNs.

The PAC really cannot monetize a deal to land Texas or Oklahoma profitably.

So, if their is movement and it involves Oklahoma the only destinations would be either to the Big 10 or SEC. Then it comes down to the question of whether OSU is indeed an obstacle, or does Oklahoma want to risk Texas moving to the SEC. Both of those are real problems for the Sooners. And they are problems that only the SEC could resolve fully.

Kansas is the door prize if Texas refuses to move anywhere.

As to your insinuation of risk in communications, that is easily sidestepped with communications between state schools. Texas / A&M scheduling talks is an apt cover. Kansas or Oklahoma would be a bit trickier. Like Missouri it would have to be carried on between former colleagues as it was with Bernie Machen and the Missouri president. That's much easier now with Long at Kansas. I don't know where the relationships line up with OU.

If the Commissioners of the P5, and several select Presidents, as well as pertinent broadcast executives, meet at a Dallas Marriott, and the powwow comes up with a plan whereby WVU (maybe Baylor too) heads to the ACC. OU and Kansas head to the BIG. Okie St., TTU, KSU, and TCU go to the PAC12, and the SEC gets Texas and Iowa State.

Nawh, OU wouldn't want to lose both Texas & oSu. The PAC12 would insist on more prime choices. BIG would take it, and the SEC and the ACC would probably take it.
The Big12 schools, excluding Baylor perhaps, may buy such.

Just a fantasy, I suppose.
:

If you are looking for a fantasy work around it would be more along these lines (although very unlikely) NO CHANGES DUE TO ALSTON:
Oklahoma and Colorado to the Big 10 (I know UC loves California but their revenue even compared to the current Big 12 is hurting and their GOR is up in 2024).
Texas and Texas Tech to the SEC
Baylor and West Virginia to the ACC
TCU, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Iowa State to the PAC

If we wind up with an all P4 schedule at some point in the future and each conference has 9 conference games then OU would be able to play OSU annually as their PAC game, and Texas as their SEC game.

SAME SCENARIO WITH ALSTON:

SEC adds Kansas, Texas, and Texas Tech (Vanderbilt moves to everything but football).

ACC adds Baylor, TCU, and West Virginia (Wake Forest moves to everything but football)

PAC adds Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Iowa State (Oklahoma can't justify the Big 10 because without OU the PAC takes nobody and OSU is left out.)

But that's the my new everybody from the Big 12 gets placed fantasy scenario, emphasis on fantasy.

REAL WORLD SCENARIO:

Texas wants regional play and Texas schools.
Texas and Texas Tech to the SEC.
Oklahoma wants prestige to salve that Grapes of Wrath psyche.
Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big 10.
The ACC wants the most profitable ending without upsetting Notre Dame.
T.C.U. and W.V.U. to the ACC. (WVU fills in the footprint and TCU provides a large market for the ACCN.)

Now the 1-5 largest revenue schools in the Big 12 are accounted for plus #9 Tech on the coattails of UT.

Kansas State, Baylor, Oklahoma State, and Iowa State merge with Central Florida, South Florida, Cincinnati, Houston, Memphis, Connecticut, Army, Navy, Air Force, and East Carolina, Colorado State, and Brigham Young to form a new P5. There's your escape net and umbrella to cover the moves.

Air Force, Brigham Young, Colorado State, Kansas State
Baylor, Houston, Iowa State, Oklahoma State
Army, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Memphis
Central Florida, East Carolina, Navy, South Florida
(This post was last modified: 03-03-2019 06:39 PM by JRsec.)
03-03-2019 06:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Win5002 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 617
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 31
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #1765
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
If you want to BALANCE CFB and keep it a national sport and there was some cooperation and the goal was not to continue to create 2 top heavy leagues in the SEC & B1G. I think there are two options, most have not thought of the 2nd. Each involve the B1G & SEC giving back a regional rival to UT & OU while picking up a traditional rival while the B1G picks up Virginia and the SEC NC St. I think it will be bad for the sport if the B1G & SEC continue to get even more top heavy than the rest of the leagues.

1.) B12/PAC merger where the B1G & SEC give back a traditional regional rival to UT & OU, while picking up a ACC property to replace(the ACC should be happy anything happens if they get ND).

Big 12/PAC (18):
UT, OU, Neb., Ark., TT or TCU, OSU, ISU, KSU, Col., USC, UCLA, Az., ASU, Wash., OR., Cal, Stanford, Utah

SEC: lose Ark., Missouri(mutual parting due to geography).
add 4 of: NC St., WVU or USF, TCU or TT,

B1G: lose Neb
add: Va., Missouri, KS

ACC: ND, WVU if SEC doesn't take, 2 of Cincy, UH, UCF, maybe eve someone else to replace WF depending on Alston.

2.) PAC gets old Big 8 and ACC gets Texas part of B12 and Arkansas for UT

PAC(18): OU, Neb., KU, OSU, ISU, KSU
***OU gets Neb. rivalry back
***OU & Neb gets access to California recruiting
***PAC gets CST programming.

ACC (16): UT, ND, TT, Baylor, Arkansas, Cincy
***UT plays a lot of Texas schools and gets back the Arkansas rivalry.
***ACC benefits are obvious

SEC (16): loses Arkansas
adds: NC St., TCU, USF
***The SEC keeps the B1G out of the south, adds a market in NC, strengthens Dallas/Fort Worth, already got their homerun addition in A&M.

B1G (16): loses Nebraska
adds: Va., Missouri, UCONN
*** B1G does adds Virginia market to be able to potentially dominate Va/MD/DC area helping PSU especially. Missouri makes sense geographically. UCONN could help NE presence.

In option 2 nobody loses their status as P4 now and it gives a chance at a more balanced competition as ACC & PAC improved chance for top tier teams in football.
(This post was last modified: 03-07-2019 02:37 PM by Win5002.)
03-07-2019 02:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1766
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(03-07-2019 02:36 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  If you want to BALANCE CFB and keep it a national sport and there was some cooperation and the goal was not to continue to create 2 top heavy leagues in the SEC & B1G. I think there are two options, most have not thought of the 2nd. Each involve the B1G & SEC giving back a regional rival to UT & OU while picking up a traditional rival while the B1G picks up Virginia and the SEC NC St. I think it will be bad for the sport if the B1G & SEC continue to get even more top heavy than the rest of the leagues.

1.) B12/PAC merger where the B1G & SEC give back a traditional regional rival to UT & OU, while picking up a ACC property to replace(the ACC should be happy anything happens if they get ND).

Big 12/PAC (18):
UT, OU, Neb., Ark., TT or TCU, OSU, ISU, KSU, Col., USC, UCLA, Az., ASU, Wash., OR., Cal, Stanford, Utah

SEC: lose Ark., Missouri(mutual parting due to geography).
add 4 of: NC St., WVU or USF, TCU or TT,

B1G: lose Neb
add: Va., Missouri, KS

ACC: ND, WVU if SEC doesn't take, 2 of Cincy, UH, UCF, maybe eve someone else to replace WF depending on Alston.

2.) PAC gets old Big 8 and ACC gets Texas part of B12 and Arkansas for UT

PAC(18): OU, Neb., KU, OSU, ISU, KSU
***OU gets Neb. rivalry back
***OU & Neb gets access to California recruiting
***PAC gets CST programming.

ACC (16): UT, ND, TT, Baylor, Arkansas, Cincy
***UT plays a lot of Texas schools and gets back the Arkansas rivalry.
***ACC benefits are obvious

SEC (16): loses Arkansas
adds: NC St., TCU, USF
***The SEC keeps the B1G out of the south, adds a market in NC, strengthens Dallas/Fort Worth, already got their homerun addition in A&M.

B1G (16): loses Nebraska
adds: Va., Missouri, UCONN
*** B1G does adds Virginia market to be able to potentially dominate Va/MD/DC area helping PSU especially. Missouri makes sense geographically. UCONN could help NE presence.

In option 2 nobody loses their status as P4 now and it gives a chance at a more balanced competition as ACC & PAC improved chance for top tier teams in football.
You can forget that cheese. Nobody is leaving the SEC or Big 10. There is no give back. The schools have to want to leave and they don't. A few message board fans perhaps may show interest, but not the administrations or trustees. They like the security of the two most powerful conferences.

The Big 12 will likely be parsed, the Big 10 and SEC will be competing for the top brands, and the ACC is locked up until 2037 and those are just cold hard facts.

Perhaps there is a chance for a Big 12 / PAC merger or formation of a new conference, but the money isn't there to make it happen and the action will follow the money.
(This post was last modified: 03-07-2019 04:17 PM by JRsec.)
03-07-2019 03:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Soobahk40050 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,555
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 103
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #1767
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(03-07-2019 03:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-07-2019 02:36 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  If you want to BALANCE CFB and keep it a national sport and there was some cooperation and the goal was not to continue to create 2 top heavy leagues in the SEC & B1G. I think there are two options, most have not thought of the 2nd. Each involve the B1G & SEC giving back a regional rival to UT & OU while picking up a traditional rival while the B1G picks up Virginia and the SEC NC St. I think it will be bad for the sport if the B1G & SEC continue to get even more top heavy than the rest of the leagues.

1.) B12/PAC merger where the B1G & SEC give back a traditional regional rival to UT & OU, while picking up a ACC property to replace(the ACC should be happy anything happens if they get ND).

Big 12/PAC (18):
UT, OU, Neb., Ark., TT or TCU, OSU, ISU, KSU, Col., USC, UCLA, Az., ASU, Wash., OR., Cal, Stanford, Utah

SEC: lose Ark., Missouri(mutual parting due to geography).
add 4 of: NC St., WVU or USF, TCU or TT,

B1G: lose Neb
add: Va., Missouri, KS

ACC: ND, WVU if SEC doesn't take, 2 of Cincy, UH, UCF, maybe eve someone else to replace WF depending on Alston.

2.) PAC gets old Big 8 and ACC gets Texas part of B12 and Arkansas for UT

PAC(18): OU, Neb., KU, OSU, ISU, KSU
***OU gets Neb. rivalry back
***OU & Neb gets access to California recruiting
***PAC gets CST programming.

ACC (16): UT, ND, TT, Baylor, Arkansas, Cincy
***UT plays a lot of Texas schools and gets back the Arkansas rivalry.
***ACC benefits are obvious

SEC (16): loses Arkansas
adds: NC St., TCU, USF
***The SEC keeps the B1G out of the south, adds a market in NC, strengthens Dallas/Fort Worth, already got their homerun addition in A&M.

B1G (16): loses Nebraska
adds: Va., Missouri, UCONN
*** B1G does adds Virginia market to be able to potentially dominate Va/MD/DC area helping PSU especially. Missouri makes sense geographically. UCONN could help NE presence.

In option 2 nobody loses their status as P4 now and it gives a chance at a more balanced competition as ACC & PAC improved chance for top tier teams in football.
You can forget that cheese. Nobody is leaving the SEC or Big 10. There is no give back. The schools have to want to leave and they don't. A few message board fans perhaps may show interest, but not the administrations or trustees. They like the security of the two most powerful conferences.

The Big 12 will likely be parsed, the Big 10 and SEC will be competing for the top brands, and the ACC is locked up until 2037 and those are just cold hard facts.

Perhaps there is a chance for a Big 12 / PAC merger or formation of a new conference, but the money isn't there to make it happen and the action will follow the money.

The money isn't there for a Big 12/PAC merger? If Texas stays, then I'd think a league with Texas/USC would be worth alot. Maybe $40-45 million per team per year? I know that doesn't catch up with the Big 12/SEC but it gets close. If OK and Kansas stay then you have Texas/OK/USC in football, and Kansas/UCLA in basketball.

Not trying to start an argument, just curious as to why this wouldn't work. If it doesn't work, will the Big 10 make a move for PAC 12 parts? I really can't see Colorado being happy about moving west only to move back east, but if the money is there it works. Oregon/Washington/UCLA/USC/Stanford/Cal/Arizona?
03-07-2019 05:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1768
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(03-07-2019 05:12 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(03-07-2019 03:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-07-2019 02:36 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  If you want to BALANCE CFB and keep it a national sport and there was some cooperation and the goal was not to continue to create 2 top heavy leagues in the SEC & B1G. I think there are two options, most have not thought of the 2nd. Each involve the B1G & SEC giving back a regional rival to UT & OU while picking up a traditional rival while the B1G picks up Virginia and the SEC NC St. I think it will be bad for the sport if the B1G & SEC continue to get even more top heavy than the rest of the leagues.

1.) B12/PAC merger where the B1G & SEC give back a traditional regional rival to UT & OU, while picking up a ACC property to replace(the ACC should be happy anything happens if they get ND).

Big 12/PAC (18):
UT, OU, Neb., Ark., TT or TCU, OSU, ISU, KSU, Col., USC, UCLA, Az., ASU, Wash., OR., Cal, Stanford, Utah

SEC: lose Ark., Missouri(mutual parting due to geography).
add 4 of: NC St., WVU or USF, TCU or TT,

B1G: lose Neb
add: Va., Missouri, KS

ACC: ND, WVU if SEC doesn't take, 2 of Cincy, UH, UCF, maybe eve someone else to replace WF depending on Alston.

2.) PAC gets old Big 8 and ACC gets Texas part of B12 and Arkansas for UT

PAC(18): OU, Neb., KU, OSU, ISU, KSU
***OU gets Neb. rivalry back
***OU & Neb gets access to California recruiting
***PAC gets CST programming.

ACC (16): UT, ND, TT, Baylor, Arkansas, Cincy
***UT plays a lot of Texas schools and gets back the Arkansas rivalry.
***ACC benefits are obvious

SEC (16): loses Arkansas
adds: NC St., TCU, USF
***The SEC keeps the B1G out of the south, adds a market in NC, strengthens Dallas/Fort Worth, already got their homerun addition in A&M.

B1G (16): loses Nebraska
adds: Va., Missouri, UCONN
*** B1G does adds Virginia market to be able to potentially dominate Va/MD/DC area helping PSU especially. Missouri makes sense geographically. UCONN could help NE presence.

In option 2 nobody loses their status as P4 now and it gives a chance at a more balanced competition as ACC & PAC improved chance for top tier teams in football.
You can forget that cheese. Nobody is leaving the SEC or Big 10. There is no give back. The schools have to want to leave and they don't. A few message board fans perhaps may show interest, but not the administrations or trustees. They like the security of the two most powerful conferences.

The Big 12 will likely be parsed, the Big 10 and SEC will be competing for the top brands, and the ACC is locked up until 2037 and those are just cold hard facts.

Perhaps there is a chance for a Big 12 / PAC merger or formation of a new conference, but the money isn't there to make it happen and the action will follow the money.

The money isn't there for a Big 12/PAC merger? If Texas stays, then I'd think a league with Texas/USC would be worth alot. Maybe $40-45 million per team per year? I know that doesn't catch up with the Big 12/SEC but it gets close. If OK and Kansas stay then you have Texas/OK/USC in football, and Kansas/UCLA in basketball.

Not trying to start an argument, just curious as to why this wouldn't work. If it doesn't work, will the Big 10 make a move for PAC 12 parts? I really can't see Colorado being happy about moving west only to move back east, but if the money is there it works. Oregon/Washington/UCLA/USC/Stanford/Cal/Arizona?

Please explain to me how a league with USC/UCLA, USC/Stanford, USC/UW, UW/Ore, is going to magically make that much more from adding Texas.

Texas to the Big 10 adds about 3 million per school to that conference so in an expansion to 16 that would be a total of 45 million for schools not named Texas plus their travel partner taking the Big 10 to 16. And since Texas already makes what the Big 10 makes it would be an additional 3 million for Texas. So the total cost would be 48 million plus the difference in what the Texas travel companion presently makes and what the Big 10 pays (50.1 million).

Texas to the SEC with A&M already in the fold adds about 2.5 million per school to our conference. That's 35 million more for the SEC schools plus the difference between their travel companion's payout and the SEC payout, (46.1 million).

Texas at tops adds 5 million to the PAC payouts per school, tops! That brings the total PAC payout to maybe 38 or 39 million. Texas makes 50 million now with the 35 from the Big 12 T1 & T2 rights and the 15 million from the LHN. Not happening.

And then there is the network angle. Texas's value is exponentially more profitable as an ad rate draw vs the SEC schedule which costs the network less in overhead and more closely fits the current Texas business model. Their travel isn't as much for the SEC West as in the Big 10 West or PAC South. Plus we have their old rivals.

To say Texas woud add even 40 million to every PAC school's payout means that 560 million would have to be added to the present PAC payout. The most valuable product in college sports is the SEC and they are only talking about giving us 300 million for the whole T1 rights contract when renewed with CBS. Added to our T2/T3 contract with ESPN that would be the only way we would exceed that 560 million total which is what you are suggesting would be added to the existing PAC contract which is around 400 million.

So, that gets us back to the second part of your question. I'm not sure that the old core of the PAC ever moves anywhere. The simply aren't as invested in sports as the rest of us and their priorities are quite different with regard to sports because of it.

If anyone leaves the PAC it would be a Utah or Colorado, and possibly the Arizona schools. Colorado makes a lot of sense for the Big 10. Denver is a huge market get for them and Colorado and Oklahoma were more rivals with Nebraska than the other old Big 8 members.

So Kansas and Texas to the SEC give us a nice balance and Colorado and Oklahoma to the Big 10 do the same for them. Will it happen? Who knows? Could it happen? It is at least feasible financially in both cases.

What I fear will hamper that scenario is not simply a Colorado rejection, but rather a Texas legislature's insistence that if Texas heads to the SEC we must take Tech instead of Kansas.

So yes Colorado would be a target of interest for B1G expansion if they were inclined to leave the PAC. And no I don't think that Texas to the PAC makes any financial sense for Texas or the networks. And I don't think the old PAC 8 heads anywhere.
03-07-2019 05:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,791
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 397
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #1769
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Conferences 2019 spring meetings will happen soon. The SEC meets starting May 27th. Any rumors that any of these conferences shall be discussing expansion/re-alignment in any substantive way?
My guess it is too soon for the P5 conferences. Doubtful even the B12 will discuss it again in an open, formal.way. That doesn't mean they shouldn't.
(This post was last modified: 04-09-2019 02:31 PM by OdinFrigg.)
04-09-2019 02:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1770
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-09-2019 02:30 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Conferences 2019 spring meetings will happen soon. The SEC meets starting May 27th. Any rumors that any of these conferences shall be discussing expansion/re-alignment in any substantive way?
My guess it is too soon for the P5 conferences. Doubtful even the B12 will discuss it again in an open, formal.way. That doesn't mean they shouldn't.

I can't see any confirmed discussions until at least 2021. The Big 12 GOR prohibits talk of a school leaving so I don't see anything becoming public until they reach the required 2 year pre-notification period. So if they want movement to happen coincident with the expiration of their GOR notice will be given sometime around the Summer of 2023. I have no doubts but what the main participants are having back channel discussions already, if for no other reason than to gauge their current valuations which is essential to making a comparison between their values to the Big 12 vs the other conferences. They need to know that just to renegotiate a contract for the Big 12. Knowing their value to the Big 10 / SEC are necessary for weighing the decisions to stay or go. If the determination is to stay together then at least they know whether the offers for their rights are high or low. If moving then by 2021 they will be in earnest discussions with prospective conferences.
04-09-2019 04:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,791
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 397
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #1771
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Reportedly, Oklahoma acknowledged providing intentional false information for years to US News to boost their rankings. This pertained essentially to alumni giving. Then there is publicity about sexual harassment allegations involving former top administrators.

It may not be any deal breaker per expansion contemplations, but doubtful the BIG and the SEC would overlook this matter in their discussions. It may be old news in three years, but these scandals can dampen enthusiasm.

From an academic, endowment, and market perspective, Texas is the better one to pursue. Of course there are touchy issues involved, but the quality of the product is not one of them.
(This post was last modified: 05-23-2019 07:32 PM by OdinFrigg.)
05-23-2019 07:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1772
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-23-2019 07:25 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Reportedly, Oklahoma acknowledged providing intentional false information for years to US News to boost their rankings. This pertained essentially to alumni giving. Then there is publicity about sexual harassment allegations involving former top administrators.

It may not be any deal breaker per expansion contemplations, but doubtful the BIG and the SEC would overlook this matter in their discussions. It may be old news in three years, but these scandals can dampen enthusiasm.

From an academic, endowment, and market perspective, Texas is the better one to pursue. Of course there are touchy issues involved, but the quality of the product is not one of them.

Article from Inside Higher Ed

They knowingly did it since 1999. It happened under Boren who is now in the crosshairs of a sexual harassment investigation.

Also, Gallogly resigned this month although I don't know if it has to do with this series of events or not.
05-23-2019 08:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1773
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-23-2019 08:13 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(05-23-2019 07:25 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Reportedly, Oklahoma acknowledged providing intentional false information for years to US News to boost their rankings. This pertained essentially to alumni giving. Then there is publicity about sexual harassment allegations involving former top administrators.

It may not be any deal breaker per expansion contemplations, but doubtful the BIG and the SEC would overlook this matter in their discussions. It may be old news in three years, but these scandals can dampen enthusiasm.

From an academic, endowment, and market perspective, Texas is the better one to pursue. Of course there are touchy issues involved, but the quality of the product is not one of them.


Article from Inside Higher Ed

They knowingly did it since 1999. It happened under Boren who is now in the crosshairs of a sexual harassment investigation.

Also, Gallogly resigned this month although I don't know if it has to do with this series of events or not.

Just got back from a trip where I ran into a Big 12 guy (academics) who is familiar with the Oklahoma situation. Gallogly has just run into entrenched Boren supporters and figures he's begun a clean up that another will finish, which is essentially what he was tasked with doing, but since some of this goes deeper into OU administration other than Boren, that's where the internal rancor exists. It seems that things have been so entrenched there for so long that a general cleaning out may be in order. Gallogly is okay and it's his decision to pass it to another to finish it.
05-24-2019 04:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1774
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-24-2019 04:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-23-2019 08:13 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(05-23-2019 07:25 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Reportedly, Oklahoma acknowledged providing intentional false information for years to US News to boost their rankings. This pertained essentially to alumni giving. Then there is publicity about sexual harassment allegations involving former top administrators.

It may not be any deal breaker per expansion contemplations, but doubtful the BIG and the SEC would overlook this matter in their discussions. It may be old news in three years, but these scandals can dampen enthusiasm.

From an academic, endowment, and market perspective, Texas is the better one to pursue. Of course there are touchy issues involved, but the quality of the product is not one of them.


Article from Inside Higher Ed

They knowingly did it since 1999. It happened under Boren who is now in the crosshairs of a sexual harassment investigation.

Also, Gallogly resigned this month although I don't know if it has to do with this series of events or not.

Just got back from a trip where I ran into a Big 12 guy (academics) who is familiar with the Oklahoma situation. Gallogly has just run into entrenched Boren supporters and figures he's begun a clean up that another will finish, which is essentially what he was tasked with doing, but since some of this goes deeper into OU administration other than Boren, that's where the internal rancor exists. It seems that things have been so entrenched there for so long that a general cleaning out may be in order. Gallogly is okay and it's his decision to pass it to another to finish it.

Assuming this topic was broached...

As far as administrators go, what would you say was the preference of the figures that may end up being cleaned out. Big Ten or SEC? Some combo of the two?
05-24-2019 08:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1775
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-24-2019 08:33 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(05-24-2019 04:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-23-2019 08:13 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(05-23-2019 07:25 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Reportedly, Oklahoma acknowledged providing intentional false information for years to US News to boost their rankings. This pertained essentially to alumni giving. Then there is publicity about sexual harassment allegations involving former top administrators.

It may not be any deal breaker per expansion contemplations, but doubtful the BIG and the SEC would overlook this matter in their discussions. It may be old news in three years, but these scandals can dampen enthusiasm.

From an academic, endowment, and market perspective, Texas is the better one to pursue. Of course there are touchy issues involved, but the quality of the product is not one of them.


Article from Inside Higher Ed

They knowingly did it since 1999. It happened under Boren who is now in the crosshairs of a sexual harassment investigation.

Also, Gallogly resigned this month although I don't know if it has to do with this series of events or not.

Just got back from a trip where I ran into a Big 12 guy (academics) who is familiar with the Oklahoma situation. Gallogly has just run into entrenched Boren supporters and figures he's begun a clean up that another will finish, which is essentially what he was tasked with doing, but since some of this goes deeper into OU administration other than Boren, that's where the internal rancor exists. It seems that things have been so entrenched there for so long that a general cleaning out may be in order. Gallogly is okay and it's his decision to pass it to another to finish it.

Assuming this topic was broached...

As far as administrators go, what would you say was the preference of the figures that may end up being cleaned out. Big Ten or SEC? Some combo of the two?

Boren's crew seemed to prefer the Big 10 but were willing to head where ever both OU and OSU could get in. Boren's wife was a Poke, and they had a building named after them at OSU.
05-25-2019 12:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1776
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
To be more particular to your question, most academics favor the Big 10 because it looks better on their resume'. Before the last replacement of their BOR members most of the key ones favored the SEC. There's probably more balance there now than there was but the SEC probably still has the edge. I didn't ask the guy about this because I wasn't thinking in that vein but it seems like the struggle all along has been somewhat between Academics and those who want what's best for OU sports which includes baseball, softball and women's gymnastics as well as football.

It also makes me think that if we get what we are expecting out of the CBS renewal (or a competitor's offer) that OU might be suddenly a lot more interested, and I wonder if that will make us more likely to consider just adding them and no one else.

Also given DFW's importance to OU recruiting it makes me wonder if pushed for a travel companion if it wouldn't be a good idea to explore OU/TCU, if Texas isn't interested or if they try to strong arm their way in? With A&M in the fold OU and T.C.U. would be a nightmare pairing for the SEC to add. That move could essentially turn DFW to Houston into solid SEC territory. More leverage on Texas? Maybe so.
(This post was last modified: 05-25-2019 04:50 PM by JRsec.)
05-25-2019 04:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1777
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-25-2019 04:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  To be more particular to your question, most academics favor the Big 10 because it looks better on their resume'. Before the last replacement of their BOR members most of the key ones favored the SEC. There's probably more balance there now than there was but the SEC probably still has the edge. I didn't ask the guy about this because I wasn't thinking in that vein but it seems like the struggle all along has been somewhat between Academics and those who want what's best for OU sports which includes baseball, softball and women's gymnastics as well as football.

It also makes me think that if we get what we are expecting out of the CBS renewal (or a competitor's offer) that OU might be suddenly a lot more interested, and I wonder if that will make us more likely to consider just adding them and no one else.

Also given DFW's importance to OU recruiting it makes me wonder if pushed for a travel companion if it wouldn't be a good idea to explore OU/TCU, if Texas isn't interested or if they try to strong arm their way in? With A&M in the fold OU and T.C.U. would be a nightmare pairing for the SEC to add. That move could essentially turn DFW to Houston into solid SEC territory. More leverage on Texas? Maybe so.

That combo would be perfectly fine with me.

Personally, I think even numbers are better regardless of how divisions are constructed. Scheduling will be more complicated with an odd number of schools.

That and planting a flag in DFW would be good for the league.
05-25-2019 07:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,791
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 397
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #1778
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-25-2019 04:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ....and I wonder if that will make us more likely to consider just adding them and no one else.

Actually, 15 can work with three 5-team pods. It could actually allow for better rotation.

The ACC could use it to better incorporate Notre Dame.

In basketball, just the regular season champion gets a first round bye for the conference tournament.

The BIG may not find two they really want to add. Securing one may be more plausible. Pods would help balance the groupings.

If the SEC just added Texas, I believe they would have all they would want or need.

*ATU, I posted my comments before your above post was read. Thus, it was not a direct response.
(This post was last modified: 05-25-2019 07:18 PM by OdinFrigg.)
05-25-2019 07:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
10thMountain Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,358
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 357
I Root For: A&M, TCU
Location:
Post: #1779
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-25-2019 04:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  To be more particular to your question, most academics favor the Big 10 because it looks better on their resume'. Before the last replacement of their BOR members most of the key ones favored the SEC. There's probably more balance there now than there was but the SEC probably still has the edge. I didn't ask the guy about this because I wasn't thinking in that vein but it seems like the struggle all along has been somewhat between Academics and those who want what's best for OU sports which includes baseball, softball and women's gymnastics as well as football.

It also makes me think that if we get what we are expecting out of the CBS renewal (or a competitor's offer) that OU might be suddenly a lot more interested, and I wonder if that will make us more likely to consider just adding them and no one else.

Also given DFW's importance to OU recruiting it makes me wonder if pushed for a travel companion if it wouldn't be a good idea to explore OU/TCU, if Texas isn't interested or if they try to strong arm their way in? With A&M in the fold OU and T.C.U. would be a nightmare pairing for the SEC to add. That move could essentially turn DFW to Houston into solid SEC territory. More leverage on Texas? Maybe so.

Obviously I’d be good with this

SEC West

Missouri
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Texas A&M
Texas Christian
Louisiana State
Ole Miss
Miss State

That’s a bunch of great regional/rivalry match ups that would good in basketball, great in football and epic in baseball
05-26-2019 12:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bigblueblindness Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,073
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 53
I Root For: UK, Lipscomb
Location: Kentucky
Post: #1780
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-26-2019 12:15 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  
(05-25-2019 04:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  To be more particular to your question, most academics favor the Big 10 because it looks better on their resume'. Before the last replacement of their BOR members most of the key ones favored the SEC. There's probably more balance there now than there was but the SEC probably still has the edge. I didn't ask the guy about this because I wasn't thinking in that vein but it seems like the struggle all along has been somewhat between Academics and those who want what's best for OU sports which includes baseball, softball and women's gymnastics as well as football.

It also makes me think that if we get what we are expecting out of the CBS renewal (or a competitor's offer) that OU might be suddenly a lot more interested, and I wonder if that will make us more likely to consider just adding them and no one else.

Also given DFW's importance to OU recruiting it makes me wonder if pushed for a travel companion if it wouldn't be a good idea to explore OU/TCU, if Texas isn't interested or if they try to strong arm their way in? With A&M in the fold OU and T.C.U. would be a nightmare pairing for the SEC to add. That move could essentially turn DFW to Houston into solid SEC territory. More leverage on Texas? Maybe so.

Obviously I’d be good with this

SEC West

Missouri
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Texas A&M
Texas Christian
Louisiana State
Ole Miss
Miss State

That’s a bunch of great regional/rivalry match ups that would good in basketball, great in football and epic in baseball

TCU also gives Vanderbilt a private school pal that could turn into a decent rivalry as cross divisional rivals. Nashville and Dallas have a lot of crossover in business, entertainment, pro sports, etc., so it may give both schools an anchor when that can be hard to come by as an only private. Obviously, OU/UT is the home run, but OU/TCU is a good triple to me for what the SEC needs.
05-26-2019 08:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


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