(02-24-2020 02:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-24-2020 02:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Permitting Conference Semi-Finals would be a huge game changer and one where the rich get richer.

3 x 6 = 18 is a formula that allows for a lot of expansion. The Big 12 and ACC Probably collectively lose 8 members to the SEC and Big Ten in the opening salvos of that realignment.

Things get interesting after that. The PAC 12 could step in and try to get 6 of the remaining schools who have high academic standards to become their third division. You could also see the Big 12 and ACC remnants join forces.

I don't see Texas and Oklahoma leaving the Big 12 if it could expand out of the ACC's remnants, so I don't think anyone anybody leaves the Big 12 in that scenario. And if Texas and Oklahoma leave in that round of moves then North Carolina and Virginia would hunker down. I think it's a game of who blinks first.

Whatever that conference becomes you have to have a couple of brand anchors to build around. Now if you wanted another buffer conference created then you might be able to do some thing like this:
Notre Dame, Virginia, Kansas and Oklahoma to the Big 10. North Carolina, Duke, Texas, and Florida State to the SEC.

That would leave this for the reformed conference whatever you decide to call it:
Boston College, Iowa State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
Baylor, Brigham Young, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U., Texas Tech

The problem with this would be that the new conference wouldn't make nearly as much. It might edge out the PAC, but the result is still a super P2 and lower P2.

It really comes down to the order of announcement. If the first strike, be it by the Big Ten or SEC, is solely taking ACC teams then the Big 12 might be able to hold tight and grab up pieces.

In all likelihood, Big 12 schools are probably going to be among the first to be announced as moving since their GOR is up first and as soon as Texas or Oklahoma announces that they are moving then the Big 12 is toast.

(02-24-2020 03:41 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(02-24-2020 02:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-24-2020 02:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Permitting Conference Semi-Finals would be a huge game changer and one where the rich get richer.

3 x 6 = 18 is a formula that allows for a lot of expansion. The Big 12 and ACC Probably collectively lose 8 members to the SEC and Big Ten in the opening salvos of that realignment.

Things get interesting after that. The PAC 12 could step in and try to get 6 of the remaining schools who have high academic standards to become their third division. You could also see the Big 12 and ACC remnants join forces.

I don't see Texas and Oklahoma leaving the Big 12 if it could expand out of the ACC's remnants, so I don't think anyone anybody leaves the Big 12 in that scenario. And if Texas and Oklahoma leave in that round of moves then North Carolina and Virginia would hunker down. I think it's a game of who blinks first.

Whatever that conference becomes you have to have a couple of brand anchors to build around. Now if you wanted another buffer conference created then you might be able to do some thing like this:
Notre Dame, Virginia, Kansas and Oklahoma to the Big 10. North Carolina, Duke, Texas, and Florida State to the SEC.

That would leave this for the reformed conference whatever you decide to call it:
Boston College, Iowa State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
Baylor, Brigham Young, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U., Texas Tech

The problem with this would be that the new conference wouldn't make nearly as much. It might edge out the PAC, but the result is still a super P2 and lower P2.

It really comes down to the order of announcement. If the first strike, be it by the Big Ten or SEC, is solely taking ACC teams then the Big 12 might be able to hold tight and grab up pieces.

In all likelihood, Big 12 schools are probably going to be among the first to be announced as moving since their GOR is up first and as soon as Texas or Oklahoma announces that they are moving then the Big 12 is toast.

Now follow that through to its logical conclusion. The SEC probably wouldn't take more than 2 if it struck first and neither would the Big 10 because there just isn't enough there to merit more, and if one of them took all 4 it only leaves the other conference with more slots to use for taking the ACC schools they want later. I don't think the Big 10 would overreach there, nor would the SEC for that sole reason. These presidents and commissioners are counting profitable slots remaining and they aren't going to bun them lightly.

I agree the Big 12 will be pressured to move first. And I'm pretty sure we agree on which ones are the likeliest prospects for each conference.

But if the division goes as we suspect Texas and Tech to the SEC and Kansas and Oklahoma to the Big 10 it might well prove to be valuable enough to make any additions from the ACC (short of ND) not profitable enough to make.

I think both the SEC and Big Ten secure their Big 12 inventory as you said.

The next move would be for the SEC to approach Florida St and Clemson once they’ve secured the ok from the NCAA for conference semi finals.

Once those 2 are off the board is when the Big Ten approaches ND. If ND is amenable and sees that they are going to be miserably behind the Big 2 in revenue than ND and a school of their choice become #s 17 and 18.

I don't feel that the Big Ten will "settle" for Oklahoma/Kansas. I'm not as confident but fairly confident. There are two scenarios one conference adds only Oklahoma and Kansas: a) A conference adds Oklahoma and uses them as a power move to get Texas to come without Texas Tech or any other member but Texas won't budge and Kansas is the consolation prize, b) Texas moves to another conference without Oklahoma and Oklahoma and Kansas are essentially both consolation prizes for not getting Texas.

I tend to pride myself on academics and the Big Ten's academic reputation. Remember they've never admitted a non AAU member (Nebraska was voted out of the AAU but was an AAU at the time they were admitted to the Big Ten). Oklahoma certainly has a lot of value as a football member but their market/state is limited, they aren't AAU, and they are outside the top 100 in US News & World Report. I can see the Big Ten lowering their academic standards for Oklahoma if Texas comes along but Oklahoma/Kansas (who is AAU but also sub 100 doesn't) look appetizing to the academics, especially if the Big Ten knows Texas is off the board. I am more sure the Big Ten will never lower their standards for Texas Tech. Are they the right financial decisions? Probably not. Sure they'd like to make more money but the Big Ten is happy where they are. This isn't the first time the Big 12 schools were on the market. The Big Ten takes a lot of pride in academics and I don't see them lowering their standards nor should they (plus why add more teams in the west and add more travel for Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State unless it's a blockbuster financially, athletically, AND academically)? If I'm the Big Ten, I say Texas/Oklahoma, Texas/Kansas, or nothing (and I'm OK with nothing, the Big Ten will be rich no matter what happens). Oklahoma/Kansas and Texas/Texas Tech are not acceptable.

Now how does the SEC feel about academics? I can't answer that.

(02-24-2020 04:44 PM)schmolik Wrote:  I don't feel that the Big Ten will "settle" for Oklahoma/Kansas. I'm not as confident but fairly confident. There are two scenarios one conference adds only Oklahoma and Kansas: a) A conference adds Oklahoma and uses them as a power move to get Texas to come without Texas Tech or any other member but Texas won't budge and Kansas is the consolation prize, b) Texas moves to another conference without Oklahoma and Oklahoma and Kansas are essentially both consolation prizes for not getting Texas.

I tend to pride myself on academics and the Big Ten's academic reputation. Remember they've never admitted a non AAU member (Nebraska was voted out of the AAU but was an AAU at the time they were admitted to the Big Ten). Oklahoma certainly has a lot of value as a football member but their market/state is limited, they aren't AAU, and they are outside the top 100 in US News & World Report. I can see the Big Ten lowering their academic standards for Oklahoma if Texas comes along but Oklahoma/Kansas (who is AAU but also sub 100 doesn't) look appetizing to the academics, especially if the Big Ten knows Texas is off the board. I am more sure the Big Ten will never lower their standards for Texas Tech. Are they the right financial decisions? Probably not. Sure they'd like to make more money but the Big Ten is happy where they are. This isn't the first time the Big 12 schools were on the market. The Big Ten takes a lot of pride in academics and I don't see them lowering their standards nor should they (plus why add more teams in the west and add more travel for Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State unless it's a blockbuster financially, athletically, AND academically)? If I'm the Big Ten, I say Texas/Oklahoma, Texas/Kansas, or nothing (and I'm OK with nothing, the Big Ten will be rich no matter what happens). Oklahoma/Kansas and Texas/Texas Tech are not acceptable.

Now how does the SEC feel about academics? I can't answer that.

I'm not arguing your assumptions or conclusions, but you made an incorrect statement when you said the B1G has never admitted a non-AAU member. Michigan State University joined what is now the B1G in 1950 but did not become an AAU member until 1964 and Purdue, a "founding member" of what is now the B1G only became an AAU member in 1958, though obviously the AAU did not exist at the "founding" of what is now the B1G.

(02-24-2020 04:16 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think both the SEC and Big Ten secure their Big 12 inventory as you said.

The next move would be for the SEC to approach Florida St and Clemson once they’ve secured the ok from the NCAA for conference semi finals.

Once those 2 are off the board is when the Big Ten approaches ND. If ND is amenable and sees that they are going to be miserably behind the Big 2 in revenue than ND and a school of their choice become #s 17 and 18.

I think JR's point was that an SEC with Texas added to it is no longer interested in FSU or Clemson - they wouldn't meet the ">= average value" criterion any more.

The question in my mind is: how much would the remaining Big XII scraps boost the value of the ACC? I assume WVU, Baylor and TCU would still be available, and there might be some interest in either Oklahoma State or Iowa State (sorry, K-State).

(02-24-2020 05:19 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-24-2020 04:16 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think both the SEC and Big Ten secure their Big 12 inventory as you said.

The next move would be for the SEC to approach Florida St and Clemson once they’ve secured the ok from the NCAA for conference semi finals.

Once those 2 are off the board is when the Big Ten approaches ND. If ND is amenable and sees that they are going to be miserably behind the Big 2 in revenue than ND and a school of their choice become #s 17 and 18.

I think JR's point was that an SEC with Texas added to it is no longer interested in FSU or Clemson - they wouldn't meet the ">= average value" criterion any more.

The question in my mind is: how much would the remaining Big XII scraps boost the value of the ACC? I assume WVU, Baylor and TCU would still be available, and there might be some interest in either Oklahoma State or Iowa State (sorry, K-State).

Better check those WSJ valuations for basketball and football add the totals and then rethink who adds value.

I think T.C.U. would be a solid fit with the ACC. WVU is a natural fit. And both add value in all 3 revenue sports (counting baseball).

I seriously doubt that with Kansas and Oklahoma the Big 10 would find value in anyone in the ACC except for Notre Dame. And the key for survival for the ACC is getting the maximum value out of N.D. which means getting them all in. And you do that if we move to a P4 where only conference champs advance to the CFP. If the Big 10 has nobody to partner them with then N.D.'s options are up and the leverage falls to the ACC. How do you do that? Move to 18 with Iowa State.

So if Oklahoma and Kansas round out a 16 member Big 10 and Texas and Tech rounded out a 16 member SEC. Moving to 18 and soliciting the NCAA for 3 divisions of 6 could work quite nicely for the ACC. Add Iowa State in the North and T.C.U. in the South and you do 2 important things. You eliminate any real and profitable entrance into Texas for anyone outside of the SEC and ACC which ESPN will like, and you take the last available AAU school.

If the PAC wants to grow financially they'll need penetration into the CTZ. Now you've cut them off at the knees also which helps to insulate the ACC from Big 10 expansion and cements your position at no worse than 3rd in the remaining P4. Really the only place left for the Big 10 to go at that time is to the PAC with which I think they would rather just have a scheduling agreement than a merger or raid.

So N.D. has no traveling companion to the Big 10, the Big 10 is profitable enough and with a scheduling alliance with the PAC gets more exposure on their terms. And the ACC is safe.


Now for things that are probably too beneficial to happen there is only one way I see for realignment to come out in any kind of a balanced fashion and it would look like this:

Big 10:
Duke, Georgia Tech, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia
Notre Dame, Ohio State Penn State, (Pittsburgh or Syracuse), Rutgers
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC:
Kentucky, Louisville, N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia Tech
Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, South Carolina
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Miami, Missouri, Texas A&M

PAC:
Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, California, California Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford
Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Arizona State, Kansas State, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech

Each conference has a conference semi final and a championship game. The champions advance and the best at large is selected for the 4th CFP slot. The pie shrinks to 60. It doesn't have to be exactly these schools, but it gives you a good idea for balance. The SEC picks up branding more than markets and the Big 10 picks up markets more than branding. The PAC / Big 12 balance out to a competitive 3rd conference.

But conferences and networks don't think that way. They each act in their own self interest so I expect the SEC and Big 10 to act accordingly the Big 12 to be the victim of the next realignment, and for the ACC to survive but in disadvantaged economic state with the PAC even worse off.

It seems like you are once again forgetting the academic side of realignment JRsec (and in the case of the ACC, the geographic). I've said before that I don't consider Texas to the ACC feasible geographically even though no doubt financially Texas would help the ACC. The ACC's academic reputation is as strong as the Big Ten's. Yes, they did throw it out the window to add Louisville. I think adding West Virginia is a totally different beast. What would the ACC accomplish by adding West Virginia now? Or Texas Tech? Or Baylor? A presence in Texas? Is it worth UNC/Duke's Olympic Sports having to go all the way to Lubbock? My answer is a big fat no. Texas and Oklahoma are the only Big 12 schools worth it financially to add to to the ACC and both would be a geographic nightmare. I don't see the ACC expanding just to keep up with the Big Ten/SEC number wise and if they wanted to, UConn's available as are Cincinnati, Temple, and UCF (the latter three aren't great academically but at least geographically better than anyone in the Big 12 not named West Virginia). I'd even go with Villanova as a non football school (Philly market, top academic school, top basketball program, imagine the Big East without 'Nova, the ACC would have 16 members in men's/women's basketball).

Just remember that university presidents have a lot of say in these decisions and academics matter. Also, the Big Ten Academic Alliance makes a ton of money as well. They don't want to ruin their reputation by adding Texas Tech. It's not just athletics (at least in the Big Ten and likely in the ACC as well). The ACC is the only major conference without any western crap. Let's keep it that way.

(02-24-2020 06:03 PM)schmolik Wrote:  It seems like you are once again forgetting the academic side of realignment JRsec (and in the case of the ACC, the geographic). I've said before that I don't consider Texas to the ACC feasible geographically even though no doubt financially Texas would help the ACC. The ACC's academic reputation is as strong as the Big Ten's. Yes, they did throw it out the window to add Louisville. I think adding West Virginia is a totally different beast. What would the ACC accomplish by adding West Virginia now? Or Texas Tech? Or Baylor? A presence in Texas? Is it worth UNC/Duke's Olympic Sports having to go all the way to Lubbock? My answer is a big fat no. Texas and Oklahoma are the only Big 12 schools worth it financially to add to to the ACC and both would be a geographic nightmare. I don't see the ACC expanding just to keep up with the Big Ten/SEC number wise and if they wanted to, UConn's available as are Cincinnati, Temple, and UCF (the latter three aren't great academically but at least geographically better than anyone in the Big 12 not named West Virginia). I'd even go with Villanova as a non football school (Philly market, top academic school, top basketball program, imagine the Big East without 'Nova, the ACC would have 16 members in men's/women's basketball).

Just remember that university presidents have a lot of say in these decisions and academics matter. Also, the Big Ten Academic Alliance makes a ton of money as well. They don't want to ruin their reputation by adding Texas Tech. It's not just athletics (at least in the Big Ten and likely in the ACC as well). The ACC is the only major conference without any western crap. Let's keep it that way.

What are you citing? I don't see Texas or Oklahoma headed to the ACC period, nor Texas Tech. I believe I suggested that Iowa State and T.C.U. would be defensive moves and West Virginia does reconnect a broken footprint left by Maryland's departure.

And nobody seems to agree with you about Kansas and Oklahoma which are the pair Frank the Tank has touted in the past. Oklahoma has nearly a billion dollar value so I don't think the Big 10 ignores them.

And for the record when the Big 10 added Nebraska they were aware they were losing AAU status and they've dropped since then.

The ACC added Louisville as overall sports enhancement and to appease the ACC schools.

It was the SEC that picked up a pair of AAU schools last time out.

What you are forgetting is that all of this is about revenue and standards have been compromised all the way around.

Only in that regard has the PAC been fairly uniformed. Utah was their greatest academic stretch since they added Arizona State. But then their options are truly geographically challenged.

The ACC is boxed in by the Big 10 and SEC. What can they do? If Notre Dame goes all in they need to add somebody and it won't be UConn. WVU is the most reasonable fit, regardless of academics and like Louisville they add athletic gravitas and competitive teams in all 3 major men's sports.

So far what I've seen from you is the propensity to paint conferences into a corner based on standards that existed in '92 but were bypassed in 2010. The SEC made a stretch for Missouri, not academically, but rather culturally.

What's at play are the desires of networks and the parameters of conferences. The point at which those two priorities intersect is where possible movement can occur.

As I see it Texas and Oklahoma are in play everywhere and Kansas is as a travel companion of one of those two. Outside of Texas to the right conference (PAC or SEC) Tech has few options. And the Texas legislature is well aware of this.

Donors more than presidents will determine some of this. Schools can't afford to alienate their top patrons in a move.

So you are going to find that things will be intentionally much more flexible than you seem to want them to be.

There are schools who can add to the ACC's bottom line besides Texas and Oklahoma, but there is only 1 other which can add to the Big 10 or SEC's bottom line and that is Notre Dame and as odd as it seems the Irish are contiguous to all 3 Eastern conferences. I just don't for a second see them as a SEC prospect as there is no mutual interest.

So no matter who this shakes out if the SEC and Big 10 split Oklahoma and Texas there isn't really anyone who adds to our bottom lines left out there regardless of who travels with them and if Notre Dame winds up anywhere besides the ACC it will be the Big 10 and the lure would be the superior revenue.

Beyond that there really isn't anything that is significant.

Now if you want to get into it from the perspective of trying to garner as many house members to possibly boost a conference's chances at Federal Grant money via political influence which would require their representatives to be on the correct House committee then you could justify different additions. But outside of that North Carolina and Duke and Virginia don't really add revenue to the Big 10 because the market footprint model is dead as a pay model for everything but the BTN and SECN. And on their athletic merit in a sport that represents only 20% of the total media value of a major conference they don't pay their way in at 65 million let alone 75 million or more.

If we were expanding for balanced competition you can see my edited post above, but that's purely an idealistic view and in no way resembles what is going to happen in the real world.

(02-24-2020 06:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What are you citing? I don't see Texas or Oklahoma headed to the ACC period, nor Texas Tech. I believe I suggested that Iowa State and T.C.U. would be defensive moves and West Virginia does reconnect a broken footprint left by Maryland's departure.

And that would be absolutely stupid by the ACC to add ISU/TCU. Those schools would be liabilities to the ACC. Defensive moves? Defensive against what?

Playing out my scenario:

SEC adds Texas and TTU, then Clemson and Florida St

Big Ten adds Oklahoma and Kansas, then ND and Pitt/BC/Cuse/UNC/UVA (pick any one of those you like)

ACC sits at 11
Big 12 sits at 6

Those 2 could merge and add Houston for their own 18 team league.

Or the PAC 12 sweeps in and finds 6 academic/AAU types to be their East division

Big Ten East: Penn St, ND, Rutgers, M’land, Purdue, ACC Pick Em
Big Ten Central: Mich, Mich St, Ohio St, Ind, Ill, N’western
Big Ten West: Wisconsin, Minn, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma

SEC West: Texas, TAMU, TTU, Mizz, Ark, LSU
SEC Central: Ole Miss, Miss St, Alabama, Auburn, Tenn, UK
SEC East: Vandy, SC, Clem, UGA, UF, FSU

ACC North: BC, Pitt, Cuse, WVU, L’ville, Miami
ACC South: VT, UVA, UNC, Duke, NC St, WF, GT
ACC West: Iowa St, Kan St, Okla St, TCU, Baylor, Houston
(Yes, the South has 7—somebody in that mess or the North will be in the Big Ten)

(02-24-2020 07:20 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(02-24-2020 06:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What are you citing? I don't see Texas or Oklahoma headed to the ACC period, nor Texas Tech. I believe I suggested that Iowa State and T.C.U. would be defensive moves and West Virginia does reconnect a broken footprint left by Maryland's departure.

And that would be absolutely stupid by the ACC to add ISU/TCU. Those schools would be liabilities to the ACC. Defensive moves? Defensive against what?

If the SEC takes Clemson and FSU, I don't see what the ACC can defend with TCU and/or ISU. Defending it's place in the P4 vis-a-vis the Pac-12? Defending it's status as the landing place for Notre Dame if Notre Dame is finally forced into a FB conference? Defending its Second-Place status in Florida, one of the big three FB recruiting states? Defending its territory on the hinge of the SEC and the Big Ten now held by UVA and Pitt and Louisville?

I am not going to put down the idea of the ACC making a defensive move. They held their nose and took Louisville as a defensive move against the earlier threat of Clemson and/or FSU bolting. It just seems like there are various things that UCF or WVU or UC might help to defend and I don't see how ISU or TCU actually defends against anything in particular (nothing against either school ... if offered a position at either I'd take it in a heartbeat).

Let me go at a different angle here. Now I don't know about the Texas politicians and will anyone fight for Texas Tech or Baylor in the 2020's like they did in circa 1994 (or for TCU or Houston or someone else). But let's do this from U of Texas's side. If I'm UT-Austin, do I really want Tech and/or Baylor taken care of/in Power conferences? Wouldn't I like to separate myself from them? Now I'm more of a bracketologist than a college football follower. Texas Tech made the national championship last year and the Elite 8 the previous year and although down this year their coach Chris Beard is clearly a winner and the team isn't going anywhere. Baylor is the 2nd best team in the country right now. If Texas Tech and Baylor weren't in the Big 12, do you think either of them would be where they are today? Why isn't Houston or SMU that good right now? In football, Baylor made the Sugar Bowl this past season. If I'm Texas, I would want to be the dominant team in the state and let everyone else in Texas be also rans. It's the same reason why I think Penn State doesn't want to play Pitt in football. Imagine if Texas Tech or Baylor never got to play Texas or didn't play every year. Once Texas A&M left for the SEC, they stopped playing. Of course the #1 reason was because there was anger between the two. But if you're Texas, why give A&M the chance to show you're better? So I feel taking care of Texas Tech and Baylor and demanding any new conference take one or both of them isn't in Texas's best interest. You can say "8 games in Texas" but I said all of the conferences can accommodate that as long as they only have to play 4 conference games out of state and as long as Oklahoma goes with them then even if they have to play 5 conference road games in a year one of them could be "at Oklahoma" in Dallas. Texas would love to be in a better conference than everyone else, including A&M. The problem is Texas A&M isn't leaving the SEC anytime soon. So Texas can either join the SEC and be on equal footing or join a comparable conference. In terms of football, no conference can match the SEC. In terms of academics, the Big Ten (and ACC) are the tops, with the Big Ten more desirable geographically and financially. In terms of finances, the SEC likely will pull away in the next contracts (especially if it nabs Oklahoma) but if Texas goes to the Big Ten it will make out pretty well too even if it goes with Kansas instead of Oklahoma (Big Ten + Texas + Oklahoma would be gangbusters, close to if not more $ than the SEC, who will most likely be forced to stand pat at 14 until the ACC GOR expires). Obviously the Longhorn Network and FOX become an issue with the Big Ten.

I'm not saying Texas won't defend Tech (whether it's because Texas wants to or politicians force them to). But if Texas wants to win, they shouldn't be. I'd love for Texas+Oklahoma in the Big Ten but the Longhorn Network is a problem. I think Texas+Oklahoma to the SEC is the cleanest option, the SEC is happy, Texas and Oklahoma are happy, ESPN is happy, LHN is intact, college football fans get Oklahoma and Texas playing the big boys and Texas and Texas A&M playing annually again. It makes too much sense ... and CENTS. Which means of course it's never going to happen:) Besides, it's too boring and what else would we discuss around here?

(02-23-2020 07:16 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 06:50 PM)texoma Wrote:  First, the Big12 does not get an auto bid to the CFP, no one does.

This is true. But no one said the Sugar Bowl has to renew with the Big 12 in the next cycle either. The Big Ten and the Pac-12 will have the Rose, the SEC will have the Sugar, and the ACC will have the Orange. What if the Big 12 doesn't have a guaranteed New Year's Six bowl? That would put them below the others. Maybe the Cotton signs them and they'll be OK. But it would depend on who's still in the Big 12. What if Oklahoma's not there? This year the Sugar Bowl got Baylor and drew 55,211. Coincidence? I guarantee you they're not going to want Baylor every year.

This year's Sugar Bowl had more Baylor fans than Georgia fans (in fairness to Georgia, they had been to the Sugar the year before and the Rose the year before that).

If the Sugar doesn't renew with the Big 12, they don't have a bowl. The SEC-Big 12 game is owned by the SEC and Big 12. They allowed the Sugar to host it in a bidding process. This is very different than the Rose where it seems like they "own" the Pac 12 and Big 10.

"We're Texas." "What starts here changes the world."

It may be arrogant, but Texas doesn't think about other schools impinging on them. You may hear Aggies ascribing their thoughts to Texas.

Texas wants Texas Tech to succeed. Texas doesn't want the political pressure to expand to what they consider a size that will compromise their quality. That means Texas Tech (and Houston and UT-Dallas) need to be viewed as good alternatives in the state. A&M has already bowed to that pressure and grown from 45k to nearly 70k in just about 10 years. It has corresponded with some (small) slippage of their rankings in various college ratings systems.

In addition, a concentration of research institutions generates more for everyone. Texas and Texas A&M have cooperated with each other and at times Houston, Rice and/or Texas Tech, on proposals.

Tech also still has some political power. That is on top of Texas's own desire to see Tech succeed in order to help Texas.

(02-25-2020 11:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 07:16 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 06:50 PM)texoma Wrote:  First, the Big12 does not get an auto bid to the CFP, no one does.

This is true. But no one said the Sugar Bowl has to renew with the Big 12 in the next cycle either. The Big Ten and the Pac-12 will have the Rose, the SEC will have the Sugar, and the ACC will have the Orange. What if the Big 12 doesn't have a guaranteed New Year's Six bowl? That would put them below the others. Maybe the Cotton signs them and they'll be OK. But it would depend on who's still in the Big 12. What if Oklahoma's not there? This year the Sugar Bowl got Baylor and drew 55,211. Coincidence? I guarantee you they're not going to want Baylor every year.

This year's Sugar Bowl had more Baylor fans than Georgia fans (in fairness to Georgia, they had been to the Sugar the year before and the Rose the year before that).

If the Sugar doesn't renew with the Big 12, they don't have a bowl. The SEC-Big 12 game is owned by the SEC and Big 12. They allowed the Sugar to host it in a bidding process. This is very different than the Rose where it seems like they "own" the Pac 12 and Big 10.

The only differences between the Rose Bowl ties and the Sugar Bowl ties are semantics.

The agreements for both games expire at the end of the current CFP cycle. At that point, both bowls and all four conferences are free to do whatever, with respect to any future agreements for bowls or playoff games.

Having 5 P5 schools in Texas certainly has an impact on the University of Texas athletic program. If they could trim that figure down to 3 that would be good for Texas.

Ideally, they have TTU and TAMU as conference mates, guaranteeing 1 away conference game on state and only 3 out-of-state conference games.

Keeping an OOC neutral site game in Dallas against Oklahoma would be good as well. If the Sooners say no, then maybe you see if Arkansas wants a similar set up for their conference game since they’ve shown interest in neutral site games in Dallas in the past.

Then you have a list of schools in-state you can do 2 for 1s with: TCU, Baylor, Rice, Houston, SMU

And in-state schools you’d host but never visit: UTEP, UTSA, Texas St, UNT

all in all, I think Texas can leave the Big 12 and still have a strong presence across the state.

(02-25-2020 12:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-25-2020 11:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 07:16 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 06:50 PM)texoma Wrote:  First, the Big12 does not get an auto bid to the CFP, no one does.

This is true. But no one said the Sugar Bowl has to renew with the Big 12 in the next cycle either. The Big Ten and the Pac-12 will have the Rose, the SEC will have the Sugar, and the ACC will have the Orange. What if the Big 12 doesn't have a guaranteed New Year's Six bowl? That would put them below the others. Maybe the Cotton signs them and they'll be OK. But it would depend on who's still in the Big 12. What if Oklahoma's not there? This year the Sugar Bowl got Baylor and drew 55,211. Coincidence? I guarantee you they're not going to want Baylor every year.

This year's Sugar Bowl had more Baylor fans than Georgia fans (in fairness to Georgia, they had been to the Sugar the year before and the Rose the year before that).

If the Sugar doesn't renew with the Big 12, they don't have a bowl. The SEC-Big 12 game is owned by the SEC and Big 12. They allowed the Sugar to host it in a bidding process. This is very different than the Rose where it seems like they "own" the Pac 12 and Big 10.

The only differences between the Rose Bowl ties and the Sugar Bowl ties are semantics.

The agreements for both games expire at the end of the current CFP cycle. At that point, both bowls and all four conferences are free to do whatever, with respect to any future agreements for bowls or playoff games.

Yes, but the Pac 12 and Big 10 keep trying to do things to please the Rose Bowl and act if they are "owned." The Big 12 and SEC told the Sugar they had to bid. They seriously considered other sites.

The SEC has such value in the Sugar Bowl because they have the Big 12 as a partner. So some of the suggestions above would be self-defeating.

Its hard for any of the other 3 to match the value of the SEC and Big 10. None have the dominance in their markets. The ACC and Pac 12 don't have the same interest in college sports in their areas.

The Big 10 and SEC are each in 11 states and have dominant institutions in nearly all of them.

The Big 10:
2 states flagship and also land grant
1 state sole flagship/land grant and major private
6 states sole flagship/land grant
2 states flagship
They have the 5,6,7, 10 and 11 states in population.

The SEC:
2 states flagship and also land grant
1 state sole flagship/land grant and major private
6 states sole flagship/land grant (although FL, GA and KY have strong secondary schools unlike MO, AR, LA)
1 state flagship
1 state landgrant
They have states 2,3 and 8 in population.

Contrast that with the others:
Pac 12-6 states
2 states flagship and also land grant
1 state flagship and also near flagship 2nd school
1 state flagship and also near flgaship 2nd school plus 2 major privates
2 states flagship
Top 15 states 1, 13 and 14 in population

Big 12-5 states
2 states flagship and also land grant
1 state flagship and also #3 school and 2 major privates
1 state flagship
1 state land grant
Top 15 States #2 in population

ACC-9 states
1 state flagship and also land grant
1 state flagship and also land grant and 2 major privates
1 state land grant
1 state #2 school and major private
3 states #2 school (GT, UL, Pitt)
2 states major private (where it is a bigger program than flagship-but being private still limits appeal)
Top 15 States 3,4,5,8, 9, 12 and 15 in population