(05-26-2019 08:32 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(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.

I agree that it would meet a lot of objectives should OU & UT not come as a pair.

It would also free up the potential for Bevo to go into the West and diminish. Texas, Kansas, Texas Tech and either OSU, ISU, or KSU then become viable candidates for PAC expansion if ESPN gets into the PACN anyway, otherwise probably won't happen.

But as I said earlier a T.C.U./Oklahoma pairing to the SEC would be a Texas sized nightmare for the Horns.

It also reawakens the A&M vs TCU football rivalry which has been dormant for a long time (though a nasty baseball rivalry in recent years) which always had a fun North vs South, Houston vs Dallas quality

Fun fact: Texas A&M’s “Gig ‘Em Aggies!” The SWC’s first hand sign and warcry that was copied by all the other schools (Hook ‘Em, Wreck ‘Em Sick ‘Em etc) was inspired by a game against TCU when a Yell Leader shouted “What are we gonna do to them Frogs?! GIG EM!” (A gig being a barbed spear used to hunt frogs)

(05-26-2019 10:57 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  It also reawakens the A&M vs TCU football rivalry which has been dormant for a long time (though a nasty baseball rivalry in recent years) which always had a fun North vs South, Houston vs Dallas quality

Fun fact: Texas A&M’s “Gig ‘Em Aggies!” The SWC’s first hand sign and warcry that was copied by all the other schools (Hook ‘Em, Wreck ‘Em Sick ‘Em etc) was inspired by a game against TCU when a Yell Leader shouted “What are we gonna do to them Frogs?! GIG EM!” (A gig being a barbed spear used to hunt frogs)

Frog gigs need no explanation to country boys from the South. You might print that for our Yankee brethren on the main board.

I prefer a single prong to the fork shaped ones though. And it makes perfect sense for the Aggie "Gig 'em".

(05-26-2019 11:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-26-2019 10:57 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  It also reawakens the A&M vs TCU football rivalry which has been dormant for a long time (though a nasty baseball rivalry in recent years) which always had a fun North vs South, Houston vs Dallas quality

Fun fact: Texas A&M’s “Gig ‘Em Aggies!” The SWC’s first hand sign and warcry that was copied by all the other schools (Hook ‘Em, Wreck ‘Em Sick ‘Em etc) was inspired by a game against TCU when a Yell Leader shouted “What are we gonna do to them Frogs?! GIG EM!” (A gig being a barbed spear used to hunt frogs)

Frog gigs need no explanation to country boys from the South. You might print that for our Yankee brethren on the main board.

I prefer a single prong to the fork shaped ones though. And it makes perfect sense for the Aggie "Gig 'em".

Personally the gigging I did wasnt frogs but flounder fishing with my grandfather down around Mustang Island near Corpus Christi. Some of my favorite summer time memories

(05-27-2019 02:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(05-26-2019 11:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-26-2019 10:57 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  It also reawakens the A&M vs TCU football rivalry which has been dormant for a long time (though a nasty baseball rivalry in recent years) which always had a fun North vs South, Houston vs Dallas quality

Fun fact: Texas A&M’s “Gig ‘Em Aggies!” The SWC’s first hand sign and warcry that was copied by all the other schools (Hook ‘Em, Wreck ‘Em Sick ‘Em etc) was inspired by a game against TCU when a Yell Leader shouted “What are we gonna do to them Frogs?! GIG EM!” (A gig being a barbed spear used to hunt frogs)

Frog gigs need no explanation to country boys from the South. You might print that for our Yankee brethren on the main board.

I prefer a single prong to the fork shaped ones though. And it makes perfect sense for the Aggie "Gig 'em".

Personally the gigging I did wasnt frogs but flounder fishing with my grandfather down around Mustang Island near Corpus Christi. Some of my favorite summer time memories

Did you use the lights as well? Flounder gigging at night is a blast since the sun isn't beating down on you too.

(05-27-2019 02:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 02:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(05-26-2019 11:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-26-2019 10:57 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  It also reawakens the A&M vs TCU football rivalry which has been dormant for a long time (though a nasty baseball rivalry in recent years) which always had a fun North vs South, Houston vs Dallas quality

Fun fact: Texas A&M’s “Gig ‘Em Aggies!” The SWC’s first hand sign and warcry that was copied by all the other schools (Hook ‘Em, Wreck ‘Em Sick ‘Em etc) was inspired by a game against TCU when a Yell Leader shouted “What are we gonna do to them Frogs?! GIG EM!” (A gig being a barbed spear used to hunt frogs)

Frog gigs need no explanation to country boys from the South. You might print that for our Yankee brethren on the main board.

I prefer a single prong to the fork shaped ones though. And it makes perfect sense for the Aggie "Gig 'em".

Personally the gigging I did wasnt frogs but flounder fishing with my grandfather down around Mustang Island near Corpus Christi. Some of my favorite summer time memories

Did you use the lights as well? Flounder gigging at night is a blast since the sun isn't beating down on you too.

Oh yes, that’s how 10 year old me learned, gramps would point out the little spots in the salt marshes and shallows they liked to hang out and give me the light and say “okay boy go find us one” then he would spear it for us. Later on we reversed and he’d let me make the gig. He’d then cook them up blackened with this Cajun spice mix he made that was such good eating.

(05-27-2019 03:19 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 02:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2019 02:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(05-26-2019 11:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-26-2019 10:57 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  It also reawakens the A&M vs TCU football rivalry which has been dormant for a long time (though a nasty baseball rivalry in recent years) which always had a fun North vs South, Houston vs Dallas quality

Fun fact: Texas A&M’s “Gig ‘Em Aggies!” The SWC’s first hand sign and warcry that was copied by all the other schools (Hook ‘Em, Wreck ‘Em Sick ‘Em etc) was inspired by a game against TCU when a Yell Leader shouted “What are we gonna do to them Frogs?! GIG EM!” (A gig being a barbed spear used to hunt frogs)

Frog gigs need no explanation to country boys from the South. You might print that for our Yankee brethren on the main board.

I prefer a single prong to the fork shaped ones though. And it makes perfect sense for the Aggie "Gig 'em".

Personally the gigging I did wasnt frogs but flounder fishing with my grandfather down around Mustang Island near Corpus Christi. Some of my favorite summer time memories

Did you use the lights as well? Flounder gigging at night is a blast since the sun isn't beating down on you too.

Oh yes, that’s how 10 year old me learned, gramps would point out the little spots in the salt marshes and shallows they liked to hang out and give me the light and say “okay boy go find us one” then he would spear it for us. Later on we reversed and he’d let me make the gig. He’d then cook them up blackened with this Cajun spice mix he made that was such good eating.

That is an epic recipe for fish. That's all we use.

When circumstances change sometimes it is necessary to reflect on what you have believed to be important in the past and test it to see if it is still valid. I believe the climate around realignment has significantly changed since 2010, and is still changing.

College football has issues today that it didn't have in 2010. Among those are the stress on attendance since virtually every game is on television, another is travel distances since conferences have spread out, and another is the shaky ground upon which cable operates today as opposed to the robust market model in 2010 that was based upon cable subscription fees.

With streaming looming ever larger on the horizon, and with content replacing subscription fees for T1 and T2 games as the driving force behind revenue, branding will be significantly more important moving forward. But so too will be added inventory whether by scheduling more conference games or through addition. Having more to sell (and to multiple networks) will be key to earning more revenue and having more power in negotiations as well.

It will also be important for conferences to realize that if we stay divided into 5 or more collections of schools loosely based on regions that we will suffer leverage in dealing with networks which more and more want things on their terms.

So what we need to ponder are the moves that increase the regional nature of divisions, alleviate the travel distance issues, and raise content value, while increasing inventory, and which incorporate enough schools to gain leverage in our negotiations with the networks.

The next 6 years will see an opening up of rights for the PAC / Big 12 / Big 10 and for the T1 rights of the SEC. GOR's will expire closely enough to each other to make some wholesale moves possible without the heavy hand of networks working against it. And the networks right now are scrambling for all the rights they can get, well at least ESPN is.

Heretofore the logic has been for the SEC to pursue the "crown jewels" as Machen called them in 2011. Perhaps what we need to consider is the efficiency with which we can operate even with as many as 20 schools. Sounds nuts doesn't it, but not really.

Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma like the familiar games on their schedules and while everyone is after Texas, and likely Oklahoma, not everyone is after Kansas. If the SEC made a move on Oklahoma simultaneously with the Big 10 the deciding factor for the SEC might well be the taking of Oklahoma State as we've discussed many times before. But why stop with two when it leaves too little familiarity for the Sooners in their new conference scheduling? Why stop at 2 when it leaves Missouri without their chief rival. Why not add Kansas too? And if having the two Oklahoma schools, Arkansas, and Texas A&M is a lure too strong for the Horns to resist and if the Texas legislature won't approve a move for UT without Tech, why not take Tech as well?

I know, I know, market duplication is not good. But we are no longer living in a market driven pay model. We are in a content driven pay model where the number of eyes on the games determines the ad rates which determines the value to the networks. Kansas adds hoops and probably an easy win on the schedule for most SEC football schools. But add them to Kentucky and the SEC has an answer for Duke / UNC and in a league that is getting much stronger on the hardwood that pays dividends.

Create a half division with Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech and you get a division in which every divisional game could have up to 35 million potential viewers. No that couldn't really max out revenue for the Big 12, but in a division, or half division of the SEC it would be a T2 dynamo for every game except the RRR which would remain T1.

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas A&M would make another fine half division and if the old WAC system was adopted would play the division of the former Big 12 every 3rd year.

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Tennessee, and West Virginia would make another fine half division placing the SEC into the edge of the Beltway.

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Vanderbilt could be the other.

You would have 10 conference games (9 from divisional play and 1 permanent rival). The other 2 would be home OOC games that should help most schools keep 7 home games. We wouldn't play OOC P schools until the bowls or CFP.

That limits the expensive travel for neutral site games and long distance away games. It keeps play closer to home but rotates everyone through the conference every three years and it keeps the SEC CCG fresh.

The content value of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and even WVU would add not only markets, but interest in the regions (or half divisions) in which they are grouped. All of this should help with ticket sales and affordability to the consumer while providing enough content to keep the ESPN numbers static while having extra inventory to sell for T1 and T2 rights deals whether to ESPN or other networks. The T3 value would go up by utilizing the SECN for the Eastern Schools and converting the LHN to the SECN West and selling the subscription to both for 1 price.

The leverage for that depth of branding would pay off for all of the schools and likely force the Big 10 to consider expansion as well. At that point cooperation between the Big 10 and SEC would garner even more leverage for the schools, and might enable CFB to become a two league sport with between 40 to 48 schools which will operate more efficiently without having to pay for 3 more sets of conference employees, properties, and officials and where 24 schools might split the overhead as opposed to 10-14.

So before we say let's just move to 16 and stop, we need to pause and reflect upon what kind of move garners us not only the most revenue, but which also could address the other issues we currently face, all while returning some balance in power between the conference and network in the process, and to do it while the window for that kind of comprehensive move still exits.

JR, thanks for the thoughtful and provoking post about the SEC's future in light of the Big 12. I tend to agree that the whole can be greater than the sum of the parts when considering Texas Tech and Oklahoma State joining the fray. With more and more concern about actual viewership and attendance to ball games, it is high time that conference leaders consider compelling partnerships and competitions rather than forced ventures (see American Athletic Conference).

I am fully behind your strategy to getting to 20 schools out of the Big 12 as long as Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas all come together, but I think we have got to keep a strategy open for Florida State, Clemson, and perhaps a few others from the ACC to join in the coming decades as the opportunity arises. As public education continues to consolidate, I believe we will see more "State" schools rise to prominence and serve as a complementary partner to the flagships.

(06-16-2019 12:53 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  JR, thanks for the thoughtful and provoking post about the SEC's future in light of the Big 12. I tend to agree that the whole can be greater than the sum of the parts when considering Texas Tech and Oklahoma State joining the fray. With more and more concern about actual viewership and attendance to ball games, it is high time that conference leaders consider compelling partnerships and competitions rather than forced ventures (see American Athletic Conference).

I am fully behind your strategy to getting to 20 schools out of the Big 12 as long as Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas all come together, but I think we have got to keep a strategy open for Florida State, Clemson, and perhaps a few others from the ACC to join in the coming decades as the opportunity arises. As public education continues to consolidate, I believe we will see more "State" schools rise to prominence and serve as a complementary partner to the flagships.

I think 24 is a good end game. I also think that should the SEC move to 20 with the aforementioned that the Big 10 might well look at taking 6 from the PAC's West Coast: The 4 California schools, Oregon and Washington.

Then along about 2035 (2 years prior to the ACC GOR exipiring) that they would Eyeball UNC, Virginia, and Notre Dame and at that time they would probably take Colorado as a bridge. That would be their 24.

The SEC would take Florida State, Clemson, Virginia Tech, and North Carolina State.

I also believe that if that happened Miami, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Duke, Boston College, Syracuse, Pittsburgh and Louisville would join with Kansas State, Baylor, T.C.U., and Iowa State. And that Brigham Young, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Oregon State and Washington State would form a Pacific 6 for a new conference. Add U.S.F., Cincinnati, U.C.F., Houston, Memphis, and possibly Connecticut to form the final 24 member conference.

Central Florida, Georgia Tech, Memphis, Miami, South Florida, Wake Forest
Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Duke, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Baylor, Houston, Iowa State, Kansas State, Louisville, T.C.U.
Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Oregon State, Utah, Washington State

Make no mistake the B1G and the SEC would be the money makers. This new conference would be a better paid and enhanced version of the AAC supplanting the entirety of the G5 and become the new inbetween conference.

So yes BBB, there would be 4 slots left for the ACC. And if UNC and UVa would rather be in the new SEC then both Virginia Tech and N.C. State fit the Big 10 profile as well as any inasmuch as both are nearing AAU quality and both are large land grant schools.

There is a potential interesting variable being introduced by the AAC. Aresco is asking for a waiver on divisions. If granted this could be a very interesting development for the SEC.

Without Divisions it will be possible for the SEC not to have to worry about even numbers of teams, or necessarily having a cutoff at 16 due to 7 required division games.

Theoretically, the SEC would find it much easier to offer Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and move to 18, increasing our brand value, moving to a market domination over the 32 million in Texas and Oklahoma, and not having to do anything but move to 9 conference games.

Each school could have 3 protected rivals, and schedule 6 rotating schools per year.

That means that every school could be played within 3 years if you don't force immediate home and homes. You could rotate through the other 14 schools in three years and then flip the return visits on the next rotation cycle.

This would allow an Auburn to play Alabama, Georgia, and Florida or Tennessee annually and still play everyone else. It would permit an incoming Texas to schedule Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Oklahoma, and permit Oklahoma to schedule Texas, O.S.U., and Missouri annually.

I hope Aresco succeeds. This could be very advantageous for the SEC's position with regards to resolving our current scheduling issues, and with regards to the kind of accommodations that might make for a very fruitful realignment ~ 2024.

(08-28-2019 10:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There is a potential interesting variable being introduced by the AAC. Aresco is asking for a waver on divisions. If granted this could be a very interesting development for the SEC.

Without Divisions it will be possible for the SEC not to have to worry about even numbers of teams, or necessarily having a cutoff at 16 due to 7 required division games.

Theoretically, the SEC would find it much easier to offer Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and move to 18, increasing our brand value, moving to a market domination over the 32 million in Texas and Oklahoma, and not having to do anything but move to 9 conference games.

Each school could have 3 protected rivals, and schedule 6 rotating schools per year.

That means that every school could be played within 3 years if you don't force immediate home and homes. You could rotate through the other 14 schools in three years and then flip the return visits on the next rotation cycle.

This would allow an Auburn to play Alabama, Georgia, and Florida or Tennessee annually and still play everyone else. It would permit an incoming Texas to schedule Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Oklahoma, and permit Oklahoma to schedule Texas, O.S.U., and Missouri annually.

I hope Aresco succeeds. This could be very advantageous for the SEC's position with regards to resolving our current scheduling issues, and with regards to the kind of accommodations that might make for a very fruitful realignment ~ 2024.

I think we'd be better off with an even number, but I do agree that a division-less structure is an advantage in adding the 4 you're talking about.

I do think 9 conference games is more likely as we move towards the next contract so that should help with frequency.

Oklahoma and TCU

(09-06-2019 06:39 PM)SouthSwamp Wrote:  Oklahoma and TCU

Okay, that's who, now tell us why.

(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.

(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.

One has to wonder how the politics of OU's move might change with Boren gone. Then again, I suppose the real power is with the Legislature and they probably wouldn't see things any differently.

But if we're divisionless then I can't really think of a reason why 20 is an inherently better number than 18. As long as you've got even numbers, that's what will matter. My issue with 18 in the past has been the difficulty in creating 3 divisions. Strike out the divisions and it shouldn't matter.

(09-09-2019 12:08 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  One has to wonder how the politics of OU's move might change with Boren gone. Then again, I suppose the real power is with the Legislature and they probably wouldn't see things any differently.

But if we're divisionless then I can't really think of a reason why 20 is an inherently better number than 18. As long as you've got even numbers, that's what will matter. My issue with 18 in the past has been the difficulty in creating 3 divisions. Strike out the divisions and it shouldn't matter.

Divisionless with 18 you could easily do this:

9 conference games. 4 permanent rivals and rotate 5 games a year from the other 13. That still leaves you with 3 OOC games.

Or,
9 conference games. 3 permanent rivals and rotate 6 games a year from the other 14. That still leaves you with 3 OOC games.

Place an initial limit of two G5 opponents and 1 OOC P Game and you have it. No FCS.

That way Texas has 4 home conference games on the low year with a home P OOC game, and the next year 5 home conference games with no OOC P game. To that they add two Texas G5 schools and now they are playing 7 games in state plus the RRR if kept in Dallas. That's the deal closer!

(09-09-2019 12:45 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 12:08 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  One has to wonder how the politics of OU's move might change with Boren gone. Then again, I suppose the real power is with the Legislature and they probably wouldn't see things any differently.

But if we're divisionless then I can't really think of a reason why 20 is an inherently better number than 18. As long as you've got even numbers, that's what will matter. My issue with 18 in the past has been the difficulty in creating 3 divisions. Strike out the divisions and it shouldn't matter.

Divisionless with 18 you could easily do this:

9 conference games. 4 permanent rivals and rotate 5 games a year from the other 13. That still leaves you with 3 OOC games.

Or,
9 conference games. 3 permanent rivals and rotate 6 games a year from the other 14. That still leaves you with 3 OOC games.

Place an initial limit of two G5 opponents and 1 OOC P Game and you have it. No FCS.

That way Texas has 4 home conference games on the low year with a home P OOC game, and the next year 5 home conference games with no OOC P game. To that they add two Texas G5 schools and now they are playing 7 games in state plus the RRR if kept in Dallas. That's the deal closer!

I would go with 5 permanent games just so a lot of secondary rivalries can be preserved. Rotate the other 4 among the remaining 12 and everyone can play at least once every 3 years. I think the other benefit there is that the rotating games can maintain a little more congruency.

Lots of fascinating info in this thread. I always enjoy reading such material.

One thing worth noting: Jim Delaney, though retiring in 2020, and his successor are not going to "allow" the SEC to grab Texas and/or Oklahoma without a fight. For whatever it's worth ... my mother worked with Delaney in the 1980s when he oversaw the OVC (here in Nashville). My brother attended Indiana University for six years and now teaches at Vanderbilt (he's been there 11 years). So we talk about the "future" Big Ten and SEC on occasion. There are MANY potential future scenarios.

I look forward to seeing it unfold.