(09-07-2019 08:37 PM)SouthSwamp Wrote: (09-06-2019 06:47 PM)JRsec Wrote: (09-06-2019 06:39 PM)SouthSwamp Wrote: Oklahoma and TCU
Okay, that's who, now tell us why.
If I’m not mistaken Oklahoma previously had 2 invites, definitely 1, and with TCU being in the metroplex that would be huge for their program and it makes a lot sense geographically and from a competitive standpoint.
In '90-2 Oklahoma was the silent interested party provided Texas came along. We were unofficially and quietly working on a 16 member conference and talking to Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Florida State, Clemson and Texas's silent partner. The Longhorns became more interested in exploring other options which included what would eventually become the Big 12. A&M couldn't shake loose for political reasons, Arkansas wanted in, Florida State pursued an ACC invitation and Clemson of course lost any interest they may have had with F.S.U.'s move. South Carolina heard we had been interested in Clemson and applied.
In 2010-1 we were willing to extend OU an invitation. Boren said he was made an offer, but SEC protocol requires the submission of an application before an invitation is officially made. Where we were with them was in discussing their coming as the school with A&M. If we were to renegotiate our ESPN deal we had to have 2 new markets in order to do so. That's why in 2012 we couldn't take Clemson and/or F.S.U.. So Boren said OU's interest had to include OSU. ESPN was only going to pay up for 2 new markets and OU/OSU didn't meet that requirement. So Missouri was recommended to the SEC and voila that's how we wound up where we are.
As to your proposed schools, I personally wouldn't have a problem with that arrangement. But, don't be surprised if Texas were to be in the mix. I think the general consensus is that truly only 2 schools pay their way in, Texas and Oklahoma. Both add enough value to cover a tag-along if we only landed one.
So the real question here is would Oklahoma really be free to move without OSU which would surely be relegated to a non P conference if OU and Texas left the Big 10.
If we land just one of Texas and Oklahoma then with our new CBS contract we will probably be no worse than assured that no other conference would surpass us in value and revenue.
So if that line of reasoning prevails that means our options would be:
1. Texas and Oklahoma period.
2. Either Texas or Oklahoma and 1 other.
If Texas insists that #2 is Tech, or Oklahoma insists that #2 is Oklahoma State, then we will find it difficult to turn down either counter offer.
I agree with you that Oklahoma and T.C.U. would be a terrific way to deliver the 11 million in the DFW market. But so too would UT & OU and that pairing would add between 5 to 7 million more per school in the SEC media payouts.
Just 1 of them would deliver between 2.5 - 3.5 million in added media revenue. But since Texas is a state school the pressure within the Texas House might be for Tech to be taken care of. The legislature there has recently kicked around a bill requiring that Tech / Texas / and A&M play each other annually. That could exclude a private like T.C.U..
If Oklahoma is free to move alone, then the pairing you suggest could serve the SEC well. But if they aren't free to move without O.S.U. then things change.
Personally I'll be waiting to see if Aresco gets his waiver to go divisionless, or whether we have a rule change to permit conferences to select whatever structure best suits their needs for determining a champion.
If we go divisionless there would be much less encumbrance to moving to 18 or even 20. That would free us up to take Texa-homa for instance.
Under present requirements of having to maintain two divisions mandated for divisional round robin play there is little way to expand beyond 16 and maintain any semblance of protecting old rivalries.
That is one reason I think this has a chance to pass. It would benefit the AAC, ACC, B1G, and the SEC.
If that passes within the next 2 years it will have a dramatic affect upon realignment. The Big 10 and SEC would have a much easier time expanding if traditional rivalries could be sheltered in a divisionless model.
For instance if the SEC wished to do so we could even consider offering Texa-homa, Kansas and T.C.U. and expanding to 20. That would effectively give the SEC the addition of 80% of the Big 12's value with roughly 6 schools. But I would still think the preferred approach would simply be Texa-homa where we get 70% of its value for the cost of just 4 schools which leaves us 2 slots to the East should a North Carolina or Virginia school eventually shake loose.
But either way you can see how that kind of flexibility would make shaking loose Texas and Oklahoma easier to accomplish.
Oklahoma needs to be in a conference with either Texas or Oklahoma State but both would be ideal. Texas wants to be able to play between 7 to 8 games in the state of Texas. So adding Texas Tech to A&M permits that if those two are alternated home and away in successive years. Having Oklahoma permits them to have 8 and would probably seal the deal. So being able to expand to 18 with the 2 Texas schools and the 2 Oklahoma schools accomplishes it all. I don't think there's another conference that could expand with all 4. The Big 10 can't handle OSU's and TTU's academics. The PAC can't make enough with the 4 of them to top what they make now in the Big 12, and certainly not enough to compete with what the SEC or Big 10 could offer monetarily. And the ACC is simply too far away to be practical even if they could at least match what the Big 12 is currently making.
So if that rule change happens things could get really significant for the SEC with the option to expand by 4 and essentially solve that set of problems. At that point the truly viable options for the Texas and Oklahoma would be to stay as they are, or for the 4 of them to join the SEC.