https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...735090002/

You begin to wonder whether Colorado would be more open to Big 10 membership as we get close to the GoR's expiring.

(02-12-2020 08:14 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...735090002/

You begin to wonder whether Colorado would be more open to Big 10 membership as we get close to the GoR's expiring.

At some point self preservation has to take precedence over simply desiring a West Coast presence.

(02-12-2020 08:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 08:14 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...735090002/

You begin to wonder whether Colorado would be more open to Big 10 membership as we get close to the GoR's expiring.

At some point self preservation has to take precedence over simply desiring a West Coast presence.

The Big Ten and the BTN could make a fortune off of subscribtion fees if they add a few PAC schools from the right states. If there is ever a want or need for a set of schools to evaluate realignment, the PAC schools are at that point. Not the Big 12. Not the ACC. The PAC.

(02-12-2020 09:37 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 08:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 08:14 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...735090002/

You begin to wonder whether Colorado would be more open to Big 10 membership as we get close to the GoR's expiring.

At some point self preservation has to take precedence over simply desiring a West Coast presence.

The Big Ten and the BTN could make a fortune off of subscribtion fees if they add a few PAC schools from the right states. If there is ever a want or need for a set of schools to evaluate realignment, the PAC schools are at that point. Not the Big 12. Not the ACC. The PAC.

Well, we're already technically in the Mountain Time Zone with a chunk of Nebraska. So Colorado would be an acceptable add. The question is do we add another school in that time zone or see if something opens up in CA or back East. Colorado and Oklahoma is something that the conference might swing for, to create a more familiar neighborhood for Nebraska.

However, my better idea would be Colorado and Utah to B1G, Kansas and Oklahoma to SEC and Texas & friends to PAC (possibly elevating Colorado State or New Mexico by necessity).

Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State
Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado State, Texas Tech
Texas, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State

Utah, Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Michigan
Northwestern, Illinois, Ohio State, Purdue
Indiana, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers

(02-13-2020 01:19 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 09:37 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 08:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 08:14 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...735090002/

You begin to wonder whether Colorado would be more open to Big 10 membership as we get close to the GoR's expiring.

At some point self preservation has to take precedence over simply desiring a West Coast presence.

The Big Ten and the BTN could make a fortune off of subscribtion fees if they add a few PAC schools from the right states. If there is ever a want or need for a set of schools to evaluate realignment, the PAC schools are at that point. Not the Big 12. Not the ACC. The PAC.

Well, we're already technically in the Mountain Time Zone with a chunk of Nebraska. So Colorado would be an acceptable add. The question is do we add another school in that time zone or see if something opens up in CA or back East. Colorado and Oklahoma is something that the conference might swing for, to create a more familiar neighborhood for Nebraska.

However, my better idea would be Colorado and Utah to B1G, Kansas and Oklahoma to SEC and Texas & friends to PAC (possibly elevating Colorado State or New Mexico by necessity).

Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State
Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado State, Texas Tech
Texas, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State

Utah, Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Michigan
Northwestern, Illinois, Ohio State, Purdue
Indiana, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers

Would Utah be worth it? And if you took Colorado and Utah, would that not cause a run on the rest? Texas could stabilize that but for how long?

There's a lot to think about here and none of it is particularly apparent right now. But with the gaps in 2025 it may be much more transparent.

(02-13-2020 01:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 01:19 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 09:37 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 08:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 08:14 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...735090002/

You begin to wonder whether Colorado would be more open to Big 10 membership as we get close to the GoR's expiring.

At some point self preservation has to take precedence over simply desiring a West Coast presence.

The Big Ten and the BTN could make a fortune off of subscribtion fees if they add a few PAC schools from the right states. If there is ever a want or need for a set of schools to evaluate realignment, the PAC schools are at that point. Not the Big 12. Not the ACC. The PAC.

Well, we're already technically in the Mountain Time Zone with a chunk of Nebraska. So Colorado would be an acceptable add. The question is do we add another school in that time zone or see if something opens up in CA or back East. Colorado and Oklahoma is something that the conference might swing for, to create a more familiar neighborhood for Nebraska.

However, my better idea would be Colorado and Utah to B1G, Kansas and Oklahoma to SEC and Texas & friends to PAC (possibly elevating Colorado State or New Mexico by necessity).

Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State
Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado State, Texas Tech
Texas, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State

Utah, Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Michigan
Northwestern, Illinois, Ohio State, Purdue
Indiana, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers

Would Utah be worth it? And if you took Colorado and Utah, would that not cause a run on the rest? Texas could stabilize that but for how long?

There's a lot to think about here and none of it is particularly apparent right now. But with the gaps in 2025 it may be much more transparent.

We could open up another time slot for games. For example: Ohio State-Michigan State at 1pm; Colorado-Nebraska at 4:30 pm and Iowa-Penn State at 8:00 pm. Utah and Colorado would be convenient for mid-afternoon kickoffs. Theoretically, that would create the opportunities for the noon kickoffs in the midwestern region to be pushed back to 1 to allow more time for traveling to games. That extra hour would also be convenient for pre-game events that campuses may host.

Taking them also removes two potential hangups in the PAC taking the entourage. As long as the West Coast schools don't go anywhere they could kind of re-do the expansion eastwards with UT in tow. Better than taking in another CA school or an academic dog like Boise State.

If Notre Dame were to join with Colorado then the opportunity to have a scheduling agreement with the Pac-12 would present itself. However, even with Utah, it can still happen, with PAC-B1G games in Texas, Colorado, California and Arizona.

(02-13-2020 05:03 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 01:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 01:19 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 09:37 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 08:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  At some point self preservation has to take precedence over simply desiring a West Coast presence.

The Big Ten and the BTN could make a fortune off of subscribtion fees if they add a few PAC schools from the right states. If there is ever a want or need for a set of schools to evaluate realignment, the PAC schools are at that point. Not the Big 12. Not the ACC. The PAC.

Well, we're already technically in the Mountain Time Zone with a chunk of Nebraska. So Colorado would be an acceptable add. The question is do we add another school in that time zone or see if something opens up in CA or back East. Colorado and Oklahoma is something that the conference might swing for, to create a more familiar neighborhood for Nebraska.

However, my better idea would be Colorado and Utah to B1G, Kansas and Oklahoma to SEC and Texas & friends to PAC (possibly elevating Colorado State or New Mexico by necessity).

Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State
Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado State, Texas Tech
Texas, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State

Utah, Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Michigan
Northwestern, Illinois, Ohio State, Purdue
Indiana, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers

Would Utah be worth it? And if you took Colorado and Utah, would that not cause a run on the rest? Texas could stabilize that but for how long?

There's a lot to think about here and none of it is particularly apparent right now. But with the gaps in 2025 it may be much more transparent.

We could open up another time slot for games. For example: Ohio State-Michigan State at 1pm; Colorado-Nebraska at 4:30 pm and Iowa-Penn State at 8:00 pm. Utah and Colorado would be convenient for mid-afternoon kickoffs. Theoretically, that would create the opportunities for the noon kickoffs in the midwestern region to be pushed back to 1 to allow more time for traveling to games. That extra hour would also be convenient for pre-game events that campuses may host.

Taking them also removes two potential hangups in the PAC taking the entourage. As long as the West Coast schools don't go anywhere they could kind of re-do the expansion eastwards with UT in tow. Better than taking in another CA school or an academic dog like Boise State.

If Notre Dame were to join with Colorado then the opportunity to have a scheduling agreement with the Pac-12 would present itself. However, even with Utah, it can still happen, with PAC-B1G games in Texas, Colorado, California and Arizona.

I was thinking more along the lines of the Big Ten grabbing the core of PAC AAU’s and branded schools like UCLA, USC, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Colorado snd an Arizona school. Essentially this would be the minders version of Larry Scott trying to expand to 16 with the “best” of the Big 12 except the roles are reversed and the acquiring conference would be the B1G.

PAC 12 revenue gap would close for those selected schools while the remainders have to find new homes. Would Texas and Oklahoma want to add PAC members to the Big 12 or would they want to explore their own options given that their little brothers would probably survive nicely in a PAC/Big 12 conference without them.

(02-13-2020 07:33 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 05:03 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 01:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 01:19 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 09:37 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  The Big Ten and the BTN could make a fortune off of subscribtion fees if they add a few PAC schools from the right states. If there is ever a want or need for a set of schools to evaluate realignment, the PAC schools are at that point. Not the Big 12. Not the ACC. The PAC.

Well, we're already technically in the Mountain Time Zone with a chunk of Nebraska. So Colorado would be an acceptable add. The question is do we add another school in that time zone or see if something opens up in CA or back East. Colorado and Oklahoma is something that the conference might swing for, to create a more familiar neighborhood for Nebraska.

However, my better idea would be Colorado and Utah to B1G, Kansas and Oklahoma to SEC and Texas & friends to PAC (possibly elevating Colorado State or New Mexico by necessity).

Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State
Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado State, Texas Tech
Texas, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State

Utah, Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Michigan
Northwestern, Illinois, Ohio State, Purdue
Indiana, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers

Would Utah be worth it? And if you took Colorado and Utah, would that not cause a run on the rest? Texas could stabilize that but for how long?

There's a lot to think about here and none of it is particularly apparent right now. But with the gaps in 2025 it may be much more transparent.

We could open up another time slot for games. For example: Ohio State-Michigan State at 1pm; Colorado-Nebraska at 4:30 pm and Iowa-Penn State at 8:00 pm. Utah and Colorado would be convenient for mid-afternoon kickoffs. Theoretically, that would create the opportunities for the noon kickoffs in the midwestern region to be pushed back to 1 to allow more time for traveling to games. That extra hour would also be convenient for pre-game events that campuses may host.

Taking them also removes two potential hangups in the PAC taking the entourage. As long as the West Coast schools don't go anywhere they could kind of re-do the expansion eastwards with UT in tow. Better than taking in another CA school or an academic dog like Boise State.

If Notre Dame were to join with Colorado then the opportunity to have a scheduling agreement with the Pac-12 would present itself. However, even with Utah, it can still happen, with PAC-B1G games in Texas, Colorado, California and Arizona.

I was thinking more along the lines of the Big Ten grabbing the core of PAC AAU’s and branded schools like UCLA, USC, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Colorado snd an Arizona school. Essentially this would be the minders version of Larry Scott trying to expand to 16 with the “best” of the Big 12 except the roles are reversed and the acquiring conference would be the B1G.

PAC 12 revenue gap would close for those selected schools while the remainders have to find new homes. Would Texas and Oklahoma want to add PAC members to the Big 12 or would they want to explore their own options given that their little brothers would probably survive nicely in a PAC/Big 12 conference without them.

I ran the idea by the B10 board and there doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm for it. However, I wouldn't discount something like this totally, being that those two conferences have a long-term relationship that also involves the Rose Bowl. That might motivate the B10 office if they knew that the Rose Bowl game would have to be taken completely under their control. For now I think a major conference based in the West Coast is still viable, depending on how they can reorganize.

In any case, a "Union-Pacific" conference would, by necessity, be without divisions, with locked opponents for up to 5 games a season. Games like USC-UCLA, Michigan-Ohio State, etc., need to be preserved to make it work.

Maybe Texas works out a deal with the Big 12 where they can play five or six CFB games a season with them and then schedule the rest how they wish. Oklahoma and Kansas would then be free to head to the SEC.

Big 12: Iowa State, Kansas State, TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech, West Virginia, Utah, Arizona State, Oklahoma State

They probably wouldn't need more than that. 8 regular season games allow them space to play regional games for fan interest.

(02-10-2020 09:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 09:15 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 05:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If Oklahoma and Kansas join the SEC the SEC would feel like they were done. They would however have gained a leg up on content over the Big 10. I don't see how the Big 10 can stand by in that regard.

So yes I think they make overtures to Notre Dame. But I don't see them pairing Iowa State with them. Colorado would be free to move if they haven't signed a new GOR. With the Denver market available and the media revenue twice as much in the Big 10 I would think that a play for Colorado and Notre Dame would trump a play for Iowa State paired with the same.

That makes things interesting for Texas to the PAC. Theoretically that means 5 Big 12 schools could make the move, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech make the move to the PAC which moves to 16 schools.

West Virginia and T.C.U. move to the ACC.

The PAC picks up 2 AAU schools with goliath Texas and Iowa State. Texas Tech is not a bad add. Kansas State's academics aren't bad. Only Oklahoma State would draw a raised brow.

Tech slips into Colorado's slot and Texas, Iowa State, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State become part of a quad.

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, Arizona State, Texas Tech, Utah
California, California Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford
Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas

They play the 3 in their division and 2 each from the other 3 divisions for a total of 9 conference games. They rotate through the conference every 2 years.

That solves the 2nd school issue for the Big 10 should Colorado go for the stability and money. It satisfies the SEC And it builds up the PAC. If the ACC adds T.C.U. and West Virginia to 16 should either B.C. or Wake opt out with pay for play Baylor is waiting in the wings.

But if Colorado isn't interested then the Big 10 will likely go after Virginia with Notre Dame. If Va Tech stays in the ACC at that point maybe that stabilizes things. If North Carolina wants out too for enhanced revenue then we are off to races as the SEC would start thinking of adding schools to defend its footprint. I think that's where the danger of moving to 2 leagues comes into play.

BTW: If the PAC was able to secure a major brand and 2 schools from a state of 28 million to help their sagging market penetration, and add 3 more states also in a different time zone in which to market their games, I think they would take other schools and really Iowa State and KState aren't detritus. They stand to gain a lot by taking OSU.

We might as well take Colorado and stick at 15 until the white whale says yes. Of course, the risk is that they'll say no to us again. However, the upside is we get a near optimal national exposure without risking academic standing too much.

KU and OU are programs that, especially if they stick together, can stand on their own and have a pick of two major conferences to go to.

What I see is an opportunity for both the PAC and Texas to satisfy their respective interests. Neither the Big 10, the SEC and probably not the ACC would agree to take an entourage with Texas. So the "Texas & Friends to PAC" scenario may be more viable than thought. Texas wants a group of programs in their immediate circle that are, more or less, amenable to their opinions. They don't want a situation where they'd feel isolated by the northern schools in the Big 10 or the big time football schools in the South. The PAC has enough programs out West that they wouldn't be easily bullied by UT and UT really likes an association with Stanford, UCLA, etc., anyway. UT may look into independence but then the rump Big 12 would have to bring in G programs to replace OU and KU, and the other power conferences don't want to elevate more programs to begin with. Therefore, I think the incentive is there for both sides to compromise.

I'd be fine with just taking Colorado and wait.

Contrary to what X states Notre Dame would likely jump at an opportunity to double their media revenue. What's more is if the Big 12 is parsed and Texas and friends do head West, it becomes much more likely that the CFP becomes a 4 champs affair. That means that Notre Dame has to join fully somewhere or they are just odd man out. And even if the playoff were to expand to 8 scheduling P games as the only independent would become extremely difficult to do which has what has led the Irish to these partial conference agreements. It actually helped them fill out their schedule, a task which all alone would be extremely hard to accomplish with top schools.

And look at it this way, if the ACC takes T.C.U. and West Virginia where the former adds key markets and the latter offers a competitive school with a loyal following that plays all 3 major sports very competitively then they have to open up their GOR to let them in and get new contracts signed and that gives N.D. a way out, particularly if ESPN augmented that transition to curry favor to keep 49% of the Big 10 contract.

And also remember, that with an exit fee, and the purchase back of 5 ACC games a year, a Notre Dame in the Big 10 would still be coming out ahead over where they are now until their obligation to the ACC expired, and that's worst case. What they could do is contract with the Big 10 for 4 games a season until 2035 as that would allow them to keep 3 games with which to schedule an SEC school which they have on the books, U.S.C., and Navy.

I have no crystal ball and have read everything posted on this subject, so I will just say this.

ND could have doubled its media revenues (it was only getting $15 million from NBC then) in 2012 by joining the Big Ten then, but did not.

It could have cashed in big, reduced travel costs, had local rivalries....everything that every school could want.

Why didn't it? It had no legal entanglements then, no GOR, no exit fee, etc...

People on the outside always seriously underestimate two things:

1) How much ND does not want to join any conference for football and,

2) How much ND people despise and do not want to fully join the Big Ten, especially in football.

ND has a five game deal with the ACC that satisfies their November scheduling needs, so nothing much has to change there.

If the playoffs are legally mandated as a P4 champs only thing, ND will likely join the ACC in full.

If the playoffs expand to eight, ND will stay the indy course indefinitely.

ND's NBC TV contract expires in 2025. It will be interesting to see if it merely re-ups in house with NBC as it has the past 30 years or puts the deal on the market. CBS? ESPN?

What can of stand alone deal can ND individually negotiate in light of rising contracts for the SEC and Big Ten?

(02-14-2020 01:12 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 09:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 09:15 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 05:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If Oklahoma and Kansas join the SEC the SEC would feel like they were done. They would however have gained a leg up on content over the Big 10. I don't see how the Big 10 can stand by in that regard.

So yes I think they make overtures to Notre Dame. But I don't see them pairing Iowa State with them. Colorado would be free to move if they haven't signed a new GOR. With the Denver market available and the media revenue twice as much in the Big 10 I would think that a play for Colorado and Notre Dame would trump a play for Iowa State paired with the same.

That makes things interesting for Texas to the PAC. Theoretically that means 5 Big 12 schools could make the move, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech make the move to the PAC which moves to 16 schools.

West Virginia and T.C.U. move to the ACC.

The PAC picks up 2 AAU schools with goliath Texas and Iowa State. Texas Tech is not a bad add. Kansas State's academics aren't bad. Only Oklahoma State would draw a raised brow.

Tech slips into Colorado's slot and Texas, Iowa State, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State become part of a quad.

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, Arizona State, Texas Tech, Utah
California, California Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford
Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas

They play the 3 in their division and 2 each from the other 3 divisions for a total of 9 conference games. They rotate through the conference every 2 years.

That solves the 2nd school issue for the Big 10 should Colorado go for the stability and money. It satisfies the SEC And it builds up the PAC. If the ACC adds T.C.U. and West Virginia to 16 should either B.C. or Wake opt out with pay for play Baylor is waiting in the wings.

But if Colorado isn't interested then the Big 10 will likely go after Virginia with Notre Dame. If Va Tech stays in the ACC at that point maybe that stabilizes things. If North Carolina wants out too for enhanced revenue then we are off to races as the SEC would start thinking of adding schools to defend its footprint. I think that's where the danger of moving to 2 leagues comes into play.

BTW: If the PAC was able to secure a major brand and 2 schools from a state of 28 million to help their sagging market penetration, and add 3 more states also in a different time zone in which to market their games, I think they would take other schools and really Iowa State and KState aren't detritus. They stand to gain a lot by taking OSU.

We might as well take Colorado and stick at 15 until the white whale says yes. Of course, the risk is that they'll say no to us again. However, the upside is we get a near optimal national exposure without risking academic standing too much.

KU and OU are programs that, especially if they stick together, can stand on their own and have a pick of two major conferences to go to.

What I see is an opportunity for both the PAC and Texas to satisfy their respective interests. Neither the Big 10, the SEC and probably not the ACC would agree to take an entourage with Texas. So the "Texas & Friends to PAC" scenario may be more viable than thought. Texas wants a group of programs in their immediate circle that are, more or less, amenable to their opinions. They don't want a situation where they'd feel isolated by the northern schools in the Big 10 or the big time football schools in the South. The PAC has enough programs out West that they wouldn't be easily bullied by UT and UT really likes an association with Stanford, UCLA, etc., anyway. UT may look into independence but then the rump Big 12 would have to bring in G programs to replace OU and KU, and the other power conferences don't want to elevate more programs to begin with. Therefore, I think the incentive is there for both sides to compromise.

I'd be fine with just taking Colorado and wait.

Contrary to what X states Notre Dame would likely jump at an opportunity to double their media revenue. What's more is if the Big 12 is parsed and Texas and friends do head West, it becomes much more likely that the CFP becomes a 4 champs affair. That means that Notre Dame has to join fully somewhere or they are just odd man out. And even if the playoff were to expand to 8 scheduling P games as the only independent would become extremely difficult to do which has what has led the Irish to these partial conference agreements. It actually helped them fill out their schedule, a task which all alone would be extremely hard to accomplish with top schools.

And look at it this way, if the ACC takes T.C.U. and West Virginia where the former adds key markets and the latter offers a competitive school with a loyal following that plays all 3 major sports very competitively then they have to open up their GOR to let them in and get new contracts signed and that gives N.D. a way out, particularly if ESPN augmented that transition to curry favor to keep 49% of the Big 10 contract.

And also remember, that with an exit fee, and the purchase back of 5 ACC games a year, a Notre Dame in the Big 10 would still be coming out ahead over where they are now until their obligation to the ACC expired, and that's worst case. What they could do is contract with the Big 10 for 4 games a season until 2035 as that would allow them to keep 3 games with which to schedule an SEC school which they have on the books, U.S.C., and Navy.

I have no crystal ball and have read everything posted on this subject, so I will just say this.

ND could have doubled its media revenues (it was only getting $15 million from NBC then) in 2012 by joining the Big Ten then, but did not.

It could have cashed in big, reduced travel costs, had local rivalries....everything that every school could want.

Why didn't it? It had no legal entanglements then, no GOR, no exit fee, etc...

People on the outside always seriously underestimate two things:

1) How much ND does not want to join any conference for football and,

2) How much ND people despise and do not want to fully join the Big Ten, especially in football.

ND has a five game deal with the ACC that satisfies their November scheduling needs, so nothing much has to change there.

If the playoffs are legally mandated as a P4 champs only thing, ND will likely join the ACC in full.

If the playoffs expand to eight, ND will stay the indy course indefinitely.

ND's NBC TV contract expires in 2025. It will be interesting to see if it merely re-ups in house with NBC as it has the past 30 years or puts the deal on the market. CBS? ESPN?

What can of stand alone deal can ND individually negotiate in light of rising contracts for the SEC and Big Ten?

Terry D even you know there will be ambivalence over sums reaching 75 million or more in media revenue.

And if there is movement out of the Big 12 and we move to a P4 a playoff slot could be the ultimate motivator.

I know you feelings on this matter and I also know nothing is set in stone. Perhaps Notre Dame does get another stand alone contract with a major network. Ironically that could be CBS. But there is much that could change in any direction and that's not withstanding the rights to image and pay for play. We'll see. But just as I might be wrong about your Irish so you could be as well. And we've both agreed that's a lot of money.

(02-14-2020 01:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-14-2020 01:12 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 09:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 09:15 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 05:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If Oklahoma and Kansas join the SEC the SEC would feel like they were done. They would however have gained a leg up on content over the Big 10. I don't see how the Big 10 can stand by in that regard.

So yes I think they make overtures to Notre Dame. But I don't see them pairing Iowa State with them. Colorado would be free to move if they haven't signed a new GOR. With the Denver market available and the media revenue twice as much in the Big 10 I would think that a play for Colorado and Notre Dame would trump a play for Iowa State paired with the same.

That makes things interesting for Texas to the PAC. Theoretically that means 5 Big 12 schools could make the move, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech make the move to the PAC which moves to 16 schools.

West Virginia and T.C.U. move to the ACC.

The PAC picks up 2 AAU schools with goliath Texas and Iowa State. Texas Tech is not a bad add. Kansas State's academics aren't bad. Only Oklahoma State would draw a raised brow.

Tech slips into Colorado's slot and Texas, Iowa State, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State become part of a quad.

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, Arizona State, Texas Tech, Utah
California, California Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford
Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas

They play the 3 in their division and 2 each from the other 3 divisions for a total of 9 conference games. They rotate through the conference every 2 years.

That solves the 2nd school issue for the Big 10 should Colorado go for the stability and money. It satisfies the SEC And it builds up the PAC. If the ACC adds T.C.U. and West Virginia to 16 should either B.C. or Wake opt out with pay for play Baylor is waiting in the wings.

But if Colorado isn't interested then the Big 10 will likely go after Virginia with Notre Dame. If Va Tech stays in the ACC at that point maybe that stabilizes things. If North Carolina wants out too for enhanced revenue then we are off to races as the SEC would start thinking of adding schools to defend its footprint. I think that's where the danger of moving to 2 leagues comes into play.

BTW: If the PAC was able to secure a major brand and 2 schools from a state of 28 million to help their sagging market penetration, and add 3 more states also in a different time zone in which to market their games, I think they would take other schools and really Iowa State and KState aren't detritus. They stand to gain a lot by taking OSU.

We might as well take Colorado and stick at 15 until the white whale says yes. Of course, the risk is that they'll say no to us again. However, the upside is we get a near optimal national exposure without risking academic standing too much.

KU and OU are programs that, especially if they stick together, can stand on their own and have a pick of two major conferences to go to.

What I see is an opportunity for both the PAC and Texas to satisfy their respective interests. Neither the Big 10, the SEC and probably not the ACC would agree to take an entourage with Texas. So the "Texas & Friends to PAC" scenario may be more viable than thought. Texas wants a group of programs in their immediate circle that are, more or less, amenable to their opinions. They don't want a situation where they'd feel isolated by the northern schools in the Big 10 or the big time football schools in the South. The PAC has enough programs out West that they wouldn't be easily bullied by UT and UT really likes an association with Stanford, UCLA, etc., anyway. UT may look into independence but then the rump Big 12 would have to bring in G programs to replace OU and KU, and the other power conferences don't want to elevate more programs to begin with. Therefore, I think the incentive is there for both sides to compromise.

I'd be fine with just taking Colorado and wait.

Contrary to what X states Notre Dame would likely jump at an opportunity to double their media revenue. What's more is if the Big 12 is parsed and Texas and friends do head West, it becomes much more likely that the CFP becomes a 4 champs affair. That means that Notre Dame has to join fully somewhere or they are just odd man out. And even if the playoff were to expand to 8 scheduling P games as the only independent would become extremely difficult to do which has what has led the Irish to these partial conference agreements. It actually helped them fill out their schedule, a task which all alone would be extremely hard to accomplish with top schools.

And look at it this way, if the ACC takes T.C.U. and West Virginia where the former adds key markets and the latter offers a competitive school with a loyal following that plays all 3 major sports very competitively then they have to open up their GOR to let them in and get new contracts signed and that gives N.D. a way out, particularly if ESPN augmented that transition to curry favor to keep 49% of the Big 10 contract.

And also remember, that with an exit fee, and the purchase back of 5 ACC games a year, a Notre Dame in the Big 10 would still be coming out ahead over where they are now until their obligation to the ACC expired, and that's worst case. What they could do is contract with the Big 10 for 4 games a season until 2035 as that would allow them to keep 3 games with which to schedule an SEC school which they have on the books, U.S.C., and Navy.

I have no crystal ball and have read everything posted on this subject, so I will just say this.

ND could have doubled its media revenues (it was only getting $15 million from NBC then) in 2012 by joining the Big Ten then, but did not.

It could have cashed in big, reduced travel costs, had local rivalries....everything that every school could want.

Why didn't it? It had no legal entanglements then, no GOR, no exit fee, etc...

People on the outside always seriously underestimate two things:

1) How much ND does not want to join any conference for football and,

2) How much ND people despise and do not want to fully join the Big Ten, especially in football.

ND has a five game deal with the ACC that satisfies their November scheduling needs, so nothing much has to change there.

If the playoffs are legally mandated as a P4 champs only thing, ND will likely join the ACC in full.

If the playoffs expand to eight, ND will stay the indy course indefinitely.

ND's NBC TV contract expires in 2025. It will be interesting to see if it merely re-ups in house with NBC as it has the past 30 years or puts the deal on the market. CBS? ESPN?

What can of stand alone deal can ND individually negotiate in light of rising contracts for the SEC and Big Ten?

Terry D even you know there will be ambivalence over sums reaching 75 million or more in media revenue.

And if there is movement out of the Big 12 and we move to a P4 a playoff slot could be the ultimate motivator.

I know you feelings on this matter and I also know nothing is set in stone. Perhaps Notre Dame does get another stand alone contract with a major network. Ironically that could be CBS. But there is much that could change in any direction and that's not withstanding the rights to image and pay for play. We'll see. But just as I might be wrong about your Irish so you could be as well. And we've both agreed that's a lot of money.

JR, I was a lawyer for 32 years and know that everyone is just negotiating the price.

Maybe ND will cave at $75 million, maybe not.

Maybe it will opt out of big time athletics if pay to play happens, maybe not.

Interesting times. We shall see.

Getting back to some interesting numbers regarding the Big 12.

If the SEC added Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Kansas we would be adding in football valuations 2.4 billion in value or 600,000,000 million per school on average which is ahead of the SEC average by about 60 million per school on average. And we would be adding about 2.8 billion in total for the basketball and football value combined or 400 million for the 4 schools in basketball which is also above the SEC's average by 29 million per school.

This would take the SEC north of 10 billion in collective valuation roughly doubling that of the Big 10.

So for those who wonder whether it would be profitable to add 4 schools, if we could add Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Tech the answer is yes it would be and would add value in both of the major revenue sports.

The same would be true if we added Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Oklahoma State.

Either of those foursomes is more profitable than adding Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, which is still profitable but doesn't add the value that Kansas brings mostly due to hoops.

Just some food for thought.

Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Vanderbilt

(02-29-2020 03:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Getting back to some interesting numbers regarding the Big 12.

If the SEC added Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Kansas we would be adding in football valuations 2.4 billion in value or 600,000,000 million per school on average which is ahead of the SEC average by about 60 million per school on average. And we would be adding about 2.8 billion in total for the basketball and football value combined or 400 million for the 4 schools in basketball which is also above the SEC's average by 29 million per school.

This would take the SEC north of 10 billion in collective valuation roughly doubling that of the Big 10.

So for those who wonder whether it would be profitable to add 4 schools, if we could add Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Tech the answer is yes it would be and would add value in both of the major revenue sports.

The same would be true if we added Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Oklahoma State.

Either of those foursomes is more profitable than adding Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, which is still profitable but doesn't add the value that Kansas brings mostly due to hoops.

Just some food for thought.

Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Vanderbilt

Good ideas and rationale, JR. Missouri and Arkansas would have to be thrilled with those additions. I could see Arkansas and TAMU switching divisions, though, for a few reasons.

1) Arkansas would be back with true neighbors and natural rivals. Although it borders Louisiana, Tennessee and Mississippi, the population, $$$, and influence reside in the northwest quadrant of the state (counting Little Rock as a neutral center that can be claimed by the whole state).
2) I don't think TAMU or Texas would want to compete for a division title every year, and TAMU just fits so well with that second division you laid out. They could still be cross-division annual rivals. I don't get the sense that TAMU and Texas Tech care a lick about each other.

(02-29-2020 03:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Getting back to some interesting numbers regarding the Big 12.

If the SEC added Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Kansas we would be adding in football valuations 2.4 billion in value or 600,000,000 million per school on average which is ahead of the SEC average by about 60 million per school on average. And we would be adding about 2.8 billion in total for the basketball and football value combined or 400 million for the 4 schools in basketball which is also above the SEC's average by 29 million per school.

This would take the SEC north of 10 billion in collective valuation roughly doubling that of the Big 10.

So for those who wonder whether it would be profitable to add 4 schools, if we could add Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Tech the answer is yes it would be and would add value in both of the major revenue sports.

The same would be true if we added Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Oklahoma State.

Either of those foursomes is more profitable than adding Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, which is still profitable but doesn't add the value that Kansas brings mostly due to hoops.

Just some food for thought.

Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Vanderbilt

If the true goal was not ESPN's viewership, then you might be looking at:

Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, LSU
Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, Old Miss, Mississippi State

AND

Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Kentucky, Louisville, Va. Tech, Vanderbilt, Miami
Carolina, UVa, Duke, Wake Forest, NC State, South Carolina, Clemson, Georgia Tech

My expectation that there will not be mammoth-size power conferences within the next several years. That's not saying there won't be expansion and significant realignment. I believe the secure conferences will approach expansion conservatively and pragmatically. One or multiple power conferences reaching sixteen members within five years is probable.

Some aspects of current designs, though, could clearly use re-structuring.

1. The SEC: In my opinion, this is the best designed conference. If the conference adds, I agree, it will be with athletic jewels such as Texas and/or Oklahoma.

Outside the B12, I don't see any viable prospects given the GoRs elsewhere. Would there be enough clout to land an ACC school (or two) among negotiating parties that include the ACC, individual schools, and the contracted network, ESPN, placing extraordinary money on the table to help buy a willing extraction? Not anytime soon would be the case. I am doubtful any SEC school would be open to being a part of a trade. Maybe Vanderbilt would if the 'pay to play' factor develops, forcing an overhaul approach and re-grouping mainly among private institutions.

2. The BIG: This has similar circumstances with the SEC and not great options right now to the east. They could attempt a move on schools such as Kansas, Oklahoma, and Colorado from the B12. If the SEC or the BIG goes to sixteen first, the other will probably move to sixteen fairly quickly afterwards if not at the same time period.

3. The ACC: The ACC is not unstable currently. However, it is not particularly well-balanced as to football. They could use some infusion. Notre Dame becoming a full participant in football and adding West Virginia, who usually has solid sports programs and is natural for the footprint, would boost the conference. Neither seems likely right now.

4. The PAC12: If they will settle administrative and broadcasting issues, they will assert themselves better. Expansion would be a plus for the PAC12 if they can land two to four schools in new markets eastward, and a couple of those schools are lofty gains. They screwed-up, in my opinion, by backing out of a scheduling agreement with the BIG a few years back. Trying something with the B12 schools could be advantageous, assuming the B12 basically remains together to establish a long-term agreement.

5. The B12: Who knows what these folks will do collectively or by school? If/when Texas and/or Oklahoma, or even Kansas, departs, it will leave a scrambling endeavor. If they stay intact, will they expand? They do appear to continue to embrace impasse.

I am not sure there needs to be such a huge dividing line between P5 powers and conference such as the AAC. Beyond the profound differences in monetary disbursements, with schools cast as being lesser by virtue of conference association; that leaves a somewhat artificial, if not physical, barrier for upward mobility. Schools can undergo major changes over time, and the system needs enough flexibility to accommodate such. Likewise, there are current P5 schools, due to resources and commitments, that are now misplaced being among the elite.

If one is looking for consensus change, academia is not one of those configurations and mindsets whereby it will come easy.

(03-02-2020 02:37 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  My expectation that there will not be mammoth-size power conferences within the next several years. That's not saying there won't be expansion and significant realignment. I believe the secure conferences will approach expansion conservatively and pragmatically. One or multiple power conferences reaching sixteen members within five years is probable.

Some aspects of current designs, though, could clearly use re-structuring.

1. The SEC: In my opinion, this is the best designed conference. If the conference adds, I agree, it will be with athletic jewels such as Texas and/or Oklahoma.

Outside the B12, I don't see any viable prospects given the GoRs elsewhere. Would there be enough clout to land an ACC school (or two) among negotiating parties that include the ACC, individual schools, and the contracted network, ESPN, placing extraordinary money on the table to help buy a willing extraction? Not anytime soon would be the case. I am doubtful any SEC school would be open to being a part of a trade. Maybe Vanderbilt would if the 'pay to play' factor develops, forcing an overhaul approach and re-grouping mainly among private institutions.

2. The BIG: This has similar circumstances with the SEC and not great options right now to the east. They could attempt a move on schools such as Kansas, Oklahoma, and Colorado from the B12. If the SEC or the BIG goes to sixteen first, the other will probably move to sixteen fairly quickly afterwards if not at the same time period.

3. The ACC: The ACC is not unstable currently. However, it is not particularly well-balanced as to football. They could use some infusion. Notre Dame becoming a full participant in football and adding West Virginia, who usually has solid sports programs and is natural for the footprint, would boost the conference. Neither seems likely right now.

4. The PAC12: If they will settle administrative and broadcasting issues, they will assert themselves better. Expansion would be a plus for the PAC12 if they can land two to four schools in new markets eastward, and a couple of those schools are lofty gains. They screwed-up, in my opinion, by backing out of a scheduling agreement with the BIG a few years back. Trying something with the B12 schools could be advantageous, assuming the B12 basically remains together to establish a long-term agreement.

5. The B12: Who knows what these folks will do collectively or by school? If/when Texas and/or Oklahoma, or even Kansas, departs, it will leave a scrambling endeavor. If they stay intact, will they expand? They do appear to continue to embrace impasse.

I am not sure there needs to be such a huge dividing line between P5 powers and conference such as the AAC. Beyond the profound differences in monetary disbursements, with schools cast as being lesser by virtue of conference association; that leaves a somewhat artificial, if not physical, barrier for upward mobility. Schools can undergo major changes over time, and the system needs enough flexibility to accommodate such. Likewise, there are current P5 schools, due to resources and commitments, that are now misplaced being among the elite.

If one is looking for consensus change, academia is not one of those configurations and mindsets whereby it will come easy.

Some things to consider when making the assertions you've made, which I do not substantially disagree with.

1. Mike Slive was correct when he said the restraint on the size of conferences is profitability.

That said should the SEC add Texas and Oklahoma, or should they add one of them an another, then our ability to add anyone else will be greatly reduced by our inability to add to the profit.

2. Security and the ACC are not synonymous terms. And when a conference has schools in it that decidedly desire to remain competitive in athletics, particularly football, a deficit in media earnings of 10 million was hard to stomach. A deficit in media earnings of 30 million will be catastrophic. And catastrophe is a major destabilizing force in any iteration.

3. The Big 10 will find that their additions of Maryland and Rutgers were premature as content intensifies as the driving force in realignment. While they are absolutely stable those two slots will prove to have been wasteful compared to who they might have given them to today.

4. The PAC will stabilize. But that may not get them in the ballpark financially.

5. If either Texas or Oklahoma leave, and possibly if even Kansas leaves, there will be no recovery for the Big 12. So little brothers will only have as much leverage as their big brothers have and beyond that none.

6. The level of investment in athletics and the levels of subsidy are what separate the so called Power schools from those called G5. That's not changing anytime soon and the boundary is clear and definable.

7. The greater the money has become, the more oblique the academic considerations have become.

Things have changed.
When ESPN completed the purchase of the SEC, things changed.
I now think that it is possible for Texas actually consider membership in the SEC.
I was re-reading an article from a little over a year ago and the thing that struck me was that the SEC, now has the same relationship with ESPN as does the ACC, which because of geography, would make a compelling argument for ESPN in trying to convince the Longhorns to move to the SEC.

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour...ports.aspx

If Texas ultimately decides to stray from the Big 12, that’s where things get interesting, and a bit chaotic.

"The most compelling scenario has the Longhorns becoming an independent in football, a la Notre Dame. By being in business with ESPN, which is paying the school $300 million over 20 years for the Longhorn Network rights through 2030, the Longhorns have a ready-made media partner that would ensure maximum exposure.
Texas is probably the only other school in the nation, along with Notre Dame, that could thrive as an independent because it has a blue-chip brand, a national following and a built-in media partner.

Some administrators in the college space argue that the Longhorns already enjoy quasi-independent status in the Big 12, based on their freedom to have their own network, while also enjoying the scheduling benefits of being in a conference.

If Texas looked for another conference, the ACC and Big Ten loom as the most likely landing spots. Remember, Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany and ACC Commissioner John Swofford were the first movers during the last round of realignment, both making surprise moves that put Nebraska in the Big Ten and Notre Dame in the ACC.

But what would happen to the Longhorn Network? Texas’ contract stipulates that the network must live on, even if UT leaves the Big 12.

The ACC’s alliance with ESPN makes the ACC a potential destination if the Longhorns go looking. ESPN owns all of the ACC’s media rights, which would make it easier to either absorb the ESPN-owned Longhorn Network or develop another option."

(03-02-2020 04:42 PM)XLance Wrote:  Things have changed.
When ESPN completed the purchase of the SEC, things changed.
I now think that it is possible for Texas actually consider membership in the SEC.
I was re-reading an article from a little over a year ago and the thing that struck me was that the SEC, now has the same relationship with ESPN as does the ACC, which because of geography, would make a compelling argument for ESPN in trying to convince the Longhorns to move to the SEC.

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour...ports.aspx

If Texas ultimately decides to stray from the Big 12, that’s where things get interesting, and a bit chaotic.

"The most compelling scenario has the Longhorns becoming an independent in football, a la Notre Dame. By being in business with ESPN, which is paying the school $300 million over 20 years for the Longhorn Network rights through 2030, the Longhorns have a ready-made media partner that would ensure maximum exposure.
Texas is probably the only other school in the nation, along with Notre Dame, that could thrive as an independent because it has a blue-chip brand, a national following and a built-in media partner.

Some administrators in the college space argue that the Longhorns already enjoy quasi-independent status in the Big 12, based on their freedom to have their own network, while also enjoying the scheduling benefits of being in a conference.

If Texas looked for another conference, the ACC and Big Ten loom as the most likely landing spots. Remember, Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany and ACC Commissioner John Swofford were the first movers during the last round of realignment, both making surprise moves that put Nebraska in the Big Ten and Notre Dame in the ACC.

But what would happen to the Longhorn Network? Texas’ contract stipulates that the network must live on, even if UT leaves the Big 12.

The ACC’s alliance with ESPN makes the ACC a potential destination if the Longhorns go looking. ESPN owns all of the ACC’s media rights, which would make it easier to either absorb the ESPN-owned Longhorn Network or develop another option."

They are Texas. They will want some concessions. The only concession we will likely give them is their preference of a travel mate. It is the only reason I discuss Tech.

(03-02-2020 06:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 04:42 PM)XLance Wrote:  Things have changed.
When ESPN completed the purchase of the SEC, things changed.
I now think that it is possible for Texas actually consider membership in the SEC.
I was re-reading an article from a little over a year ago and the thing that struck me was that the SEC, now has the same relationship with ESPN as does the ACC, which because of geography, would make a compelling argument for ESPN in trying to convince the Longhorns to move to the SEC.

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour...ports.aspx

If Texas ultimately decides to stray from the Big 12, that’s where things get interesting, and a bit chaotic.

"The most compelling scenario has the Longhorns becoming an independent in football, a la Notre Dame. By being in business with ESPN, which is paying the school $300 million over 20 years for the Longhorn Network rights through 2030, the Longhorns have a ready-made media partner that would ensure maximum exposure.
Texas is probably the only other school in the nation, along with Notre Dame, that could thrive as an independent because it has a blue-chip brand, a national following and a built-in media partner.

Some administrators in the college space argue that the Longhorns already enjoy quasi-independent status in the Big 12, based on their freedom to have their own network, while also enjoying the scheduling benefits of being in a conference.

If Texas looked for another conference, the ACC and Big Ten loom as the most likely landing spots. Remember, Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany and ACC Commissioner John Swofford were the first movers during the last round of realignment, both making surprise moves that put Nebraska in the Big Ten and Notre Dame in the ACC.

But what would happen to the Longhorn Network? Texas’ contract stipulates that the network must live on, even if UT leaves the Big 12.

The ACC’s alliance with ESPN makes the ACC a potential destination if the Longhorns go looking. ESPN owns all of the ACC’s media rights, which would make it easier to either absorb the ESPN-owned Longhorn Network or develop another option."

They are Texas. They will want some concessions. The only concession we will likely give them is their preference of a travel mate. It is the only reason I discuss Tech.

If Texas wants to move to the SEC then this is the key question...

Who do they really want to come along with them? That determines a lot and there are numerous factors that could sway their pick.

In the past, I have always been a believer in the state political machine putting pressure on them to take Texas Tech. I don't doubt an effort will be made in that area, but I'm not sure how effective it might be. The reason I say that is because the political machine might not have a unified voice.

You'll have the A&M faction that wouldn't want a 3rd TX team and considering this league isn't starting from scratch, they don't have a motivation to really play along as they're in the SEC either way. You'll have the UT faction that probably doesn't want a 3rd TX team. You'll have a Houston faction that probably wants it to be their school. Outside of that, you'd probably have some scattered voices that would consider the overall economic impact. Of course, anyone associated with Texas Tech will push for that move, but how powerful are they?

You've also got schools like UTEP, UT-San Antonio, and UT-Arlington in major cities and they have made a lot of strides in recent decades. Obviously, anyone associated with those schools is more beholden to the UT faction than anyone else.

There's a variety of economic interests to consider here for anyone that has influence inside TX politics.

I do think the SEC would take Texas Tech here, but if there's not a fairly united voice pushing UT in that direction then they may start looking out of state. Fewer competitors in TX does help them in certain respects.

(03-02-2020 06:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 04:42 PM)XLance Wrote:  Things have changed.
When ESPN completed the purchase of the SEC, things changed.
I now think that it is possible for Texas actually consider membership in the SEC.
I was re-reading an article from a little over a year ago and the thing that struck me was that the SEC, now has the same relationship with ESPN as does the ACC, which because of geography, would make a compelling argument for ESPN in trying to convince the Longhorns to move to the SEC.

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour...ports.aspx

If Texas ultimately decides to stray from the Big 12, that’s where things get interesting, and a bit chaotic.

"The most compelling scenario has the Longhorns becoming an independent in football, a la Notre Dame. By being in business with ESPN, which is paying the school $300 million over 20 years for the Longhorn Network rights through 2030, the Longhorns have a ready-made media partner that would ensure maximum exposure.
Texas is probably the only other school in the nation, along with Notre Dame, that could thrive as an independent because it has a blue-chip brand, a national following and a built-in media partner.

Some administrators in the college space argue that the Longhorns already enjoy quasi-independent status in the Big 12, based on their freedom to have their own network, while also enjoying the scheduling benefits of being in a conference.

If Texas looked for another conference, the ACC and Big Ten loom as the most likely landing spots. Remember, Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany and ACC Commissioner John Swofford were the first movers during the last round of realignment, both making surprise moves that put Nebraska in the Big Ten and Notre Dame in the ACC.

But what would happen to the Longhorn Network? Texas’ contract stipulates that the network must live on, even if UT leaves the Big 12.

The ACC’s alliance with ESPN makes the ACC a potential destination if the Longhorns go looking. ESPN owns all of the ACC’s media rights, which would make it easier to either absorb the ESPN-owned Longhorn Network or develop another option."

They are Texas. They will want some concessions. The only concession we will likely give them is their preference of a travel mate. It is the only reason I discuss Tech.

After all of this time, looking at a real opportunity to land the White Whale, you are concerned about concessions?
Your insecurities are starting to peek through your arrogant facade.