(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.

However, even though the Sugar Bowl SEC-Big 12 agreement started with the CFP/New Year's Six, the Sugar Bowl had an agreement with the SEC during the BCS, during the Bowl Coalition, and pre Bowl Coalition. My first Sugar Bowl and first Penn State bowl memory was Penn State's first national championship in the Sugar Bowl when they played and beat SEC Champion and #1 ranked at the time Georgia. The SEC and the Sugar Bowl tradition doesn't go as far back as the Rose with the Big Ten and Pac-12 (formerly -10 and -8) but they go back a long time. I wouldn't bet against the Sugar Bowl continuing some agreement with the SEC beyond this contract.

Now the Big 12 is a different story. The question is what Big 12? If the Big 12 is intact with Texas and Oklahoma, no doubt it will continue. But let's say Oklahoma leaves for the SEC or Big Ten. Is the Big 12 as valuable to the Sugar Bowl then? The Sugar Bowl, ESPN, and the SEC will have to make that decision. Maybe they would rather have the freedom to choose an at large team instead. Maybe they would rather take the Big Ten runner up instead of them going to the Orange Bowl. I'm sure the CFP will be consulted as will ESPN. If the other conferences don't think the Big 12 without Oklahoma is up to snuff, the Big 12 won't get a bid to the Sugar Bowl or any other NY6 bowl anymore. If the Sugar can count on Texas making regular appearances in New Orleans and their fans travel in huge crowds, they probably say OK no problem. If not, they'll probably look elsewhere. Don't forget ESPN could have an ulterior motive as well. They have an incentive to want Texas out of the Big 12 so they don't have to pay the Big 12. If so, they control the SEC, they control the Sugar Bowl, they'll get what they want, and the Big 12 will be out.

I welcome feedback on the issue from a Texas fan. I certainly can't speak for Texas. My impression is that Texas wants the Big 12 to remain intact. Is there any reason to believe that when Texas A&M was invited to the SEC that Texas wasn't welcome to come next and that they were saving the spot for Missouri? We know that Texas to the Pac-12 ("Pac-16") was a possibility. Texas certainly had every chance to kill the Big 12 already but didn't.

Now what's changed? The SEC got a lot richer. CBS was clearly underpaying for its college football. You could understand Texas not wanting to jump to the SEC when they were getting, I believe, just $55 million a year. It's a lot harder to say no to $300 million + a year (now imagine how much that would be with Texas+Oklahoma?). Also, the SEC Network hadn't been invented yet. The Big Ten will probably be worth a lot more too. Even if Texas and Oklahoma both stay in the Big 12, do you see their media deal being even close to the Big Ten's?

The original premise of the thread is "eliminating the Big 12 as a P5 conference". I'd probably guess Texas doesn't want that to happen. Who does?

SEC? They'd love Texas/Oklahoma, they'd make more money if they have Texas/Oklahoma, but they'll still make a ton of money without Texas. And the Big 12 isn't stopping them from getting into the CFP every year.

Big Ten? Same as the SEC financially. There were two of the last three years when the Big Ten missed out on the CFP semifinals. If Oklahoma were in the Big Ten those years, they would be in. If Oklahoma were in the SEC, they likely get knocked out by Alabama and/or LSU and the Big Ten (who was #5 the two years they missed) likely gets in so maybe there's that incentive.

ESPN? You can consolidate Texas into the SEC, Big Ten, or Pac 12 and you can pay the Big 12 like you pay the AAC. You do have to pay more for the specific conference but the games are better. I think ESPN would benefit from one fewer major conference. In general, you'd like the marquee names concentrated in fewer conferences. Even if you pay more, you get better games. Would you rather Texas and Oklahoma play Alabama and LSU or Iowa State?

Pac 12? They have by far the biggest incentive to "eliminate the Big 12 as a P5 conference". Texas/Oklahoma changes the SEC from super rich to super, super rich. They change the Pac-12 from not so rich to rich or maybe even super rich. Right now, they're in a race for third with the Pac 12 and ACC financially and you can certainly make a case for them being 5th. If they get Texas/Oklahoma, they're instantly third. Who was left out of the CFP more than anyone else? The Pac-12. Who would really really love to have Oklahoma in their conference? At least the Big Ten has Ohio State who has made the CFP twice in the last four seasons. The Pac-12 has had two teams made it once in six seasons. You tell me they couldn't use Oklahoma. Again, even if Oklahoma joins the SEC or Big Ten, they lose one more time than they do now or Alabama or Ohio State does. All of a sudden maybe Oregon has a better chance.

Why do I think this thread is relevant? ESPN is one reason. The Pac-12 is another. Larry Scott has every incentive to want to bring in Texas and he's tried before. Obviously back in the 2010's he and the Pac-10 was more in a position of strength. Now the Pac-12 Network is definitely looked at as a failure and the Pac-12 financially is way behind the SEC and Big Ten. It will be much harder for the Pac-12 to bring in Texas than the Big Ten or SEC. So why do I think they have a chance? They have the most to gain and are the most desperate. I've said before I think when it comes to the Big Ten that Texas Tech is a deal breaker and they won't budge there. There's also the issue of FOX and the Longhorn Network. Maybe the SEC doesn't want Tech either (although others here say Tech is fine in the SEC). What if Texas wants Baylor and/or TCU as well? I think the SEC eventually can and should put their foot down and say to Texas if you want in it has to be on our terms. The Pac 12? They can't make those demands. If they make those demands, they'll be laughed at by Texas/Oklahoma. Plus they only have 12. They can add four members and stay at 16 while the SEC and Big Ten would be 18 otherwise. If the SEC and Big Ten aren't willing to meet Texas's demands and the Pac 12 is, Texas is going to the Pac-12. Will it happen? You got me. It depends on what Texas wants and what the SEC, Big Ten, and Pac-12 are willing to give.

(02-25-2020 11:40 AM)bullet Wrote:  Texas and Texas A&M have cooperated with each other

Unfortunately there's one place I'd love for them to cooperate and they refuse to... the football field, ever since Texas A&M left for the SEC.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...n-timeline

https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/spt...77689.html

(02-25-2020 01:20 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  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.

Wouldn't 2 be even better for Texas (and Texas A&M)? Obviously 1 would be best for the 1 but Texas A&M isn't leaving the SEC and there's no way Texas wouldn't be excluded from the P5, P4, or P#.

(02-25-2020 01:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(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.

The respective conferences get the same money for each Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl, and neither the Rose Bowl nor the Sugar Bowl gets any of that ESPN money. I doubt that the SEC or Big 12 had other sites bid for any reason other than hoping someone like Jerry Jones would drive the price up to some astronomical level, because New Orleans is clearly the best location for that game, and a huge difference in money would be the only reason to go elsewhere.

The networks would absolutely prefer more conferences as opposed to less. The fewer conferences there are out there to negotiate with the higher the price because there are fewer alternatives out there if you fail to win the rights of a given conference.

Consolidating the other blue bloods into their conferences gives the SEC and Big Ten greater leverage over their media partners.

ESPN has been overpaying for Big 12 content for a decade now in order to try and prevent that consolidation but it’s getting expensive overpaying for 8 programs and as the SEC and Big Ten continue to negotiate bigger and bigger contracts that’s going to mean paying even more so that the Longhorns and Sooners can keep up with the Joneses.

Consolidating with the Pac 12 isn’t very likely because I don’t think there is enough money there to incentivize either of the two prizes to budge. Some might call me crazy but I think over the next quarter to half century the PAC 12 is going to start to look more and more like the Ivy League—lower attendance, less athletic spending, less relevance on the national scene, it will be more of a country club atmosphere where bragging rights for winning within that isolated core group is the emphasis.

I think the dollars and cents behind Oklahoma to the Big Ten cause the decision makers to look the other way on academics. All the Big Ten leaders knew Nebraska was on shaky ground with the AAU when they let them in (and I think a few Big Ten presidents even voted against them on the AAU vote). The Sooners being a genuine blue blood and anchor to the weaker Big Ten West and a much needed rival that will hopefully reinvigorate a fading Nebraska program.

(02-25-2020 06:40 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The networks would absolutely prefer more conferences as opposed to less. The fewer conferences there are out there to negotiate with the higher the price because there are fewer alternatives out there if you fail to win the rights of a given conference.

Consolidating the other blue bloods into their conferences gives the SEC and Big Ten greater leverage over their media partners.

ESPN has been overpaying for Big 12 content for a decade now in order to try and prevent that consolidation but it’s getting expensive overpaying for 8 programs and as the SEC and Big Ten continue to negotiate bigger and bigger contracts that’s going to mean paying even more so that the Longhorns and Sooners can keep up with the Joneses.

Consolidating with the Pac 12 isn’t very likely because I don’t think there is enough money there to incentivize either of the two prizes to budge. Some might call me crazy but I think over the next quarter to half century the PAC 12 is going to start to look more and more like the Ivy League—lower attendance, less athletic spending, less relevance on the national scene, it will be more of a country club atmosphere where bragging rights for winning within that isolated core group is the emphasis.

I think the dollars and cents behind Oklahoma to the Big Ten cause the decision makers to look the other way on academics. All the Big Ten leaders knew Nebraska was on shaky ground with the AAU when they let them in (and I think a few Big Ten presidents even voted against them on the AAU vote). The Sooners being a genuine blue blood and anchor to the weaker Big Ten West and a much needed rival that will hopefully reinvigorate a fading Nebraska program.

But, Muskie, if the aim as Schmolik suggests is for ESPN to access Texas and its brand and possibly Oklahoma with them, which gives them ~67% of the Big 12's total value, and since ESPN could make a lot more in content value with games of national interest between Texas, Oklahoma, and 7 brands in the SEC, why would it not be to their benefit to maximize their revenue for the cost of ~ an additional 100 million? Texas with the LHN makes around 51 million a year in media revenue with 32 million of it coming from ESPN already. Oklahoma makes 17.5 from ESPN and 26 million more from FOX So why wouldn't ESPN both cut the overhead of supporting the other 8 schools and maximize the content value of a property that is solely theirs rather than to keep them in a conference where the only money game is the one they have with each other or move them to a conference where ESPN has less of a control over the product and can't monetize them as effectively and has to pay for the upgrade of between 4 to 6 more schools?

So one might argue that Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC gives ESPN the biggest bang for their buck. And it gives them annually what is likely to be full value for 3 of the 4 CFP entrants, unless we move to a champs only format with 4 power conferences.

(02-25-2020 06:21 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(02-25-2020 01:20 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  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.

Wouldn't 2 be even better for Texas (and Texas A&M)? Obviously 1 would be best for the 1 but Texas A&M isn't leaving the SEC and there's no way Texas wouldn't be excluded from the P5, P4, or P#.

When Texas does well, the other Texas schools are irrelevant athletically. From 2000-2009, Texas basically got who it wanted in football recruiting. Oklahoma and A&M would compete for the same players but not win very often. Sometimes kids just wanted to go out of state and a Notre Dame or Miami would get someone. But Texas basically got who it wanted. Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech would only win recruiting battles if someone had a family tie. For those 3, it would be like Ohio St. and Cincinnati.

(02-25-2020 01:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  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.

There is another thread where the SC AD says "everything is on the table." If they wanted to create a conference that looked like the Big 10 or SEC, they would have to dump 3 or 4 members and pick up teams from the Big 12.
For example:
West
Washington
Oregon
USC
UCLA
Cal
Stanford (never going to be dumped-but probably doesn't add much value)
Arizona
East
Utah
Colorado
Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Oklahoma St.
Kansas

Then the Pac has 9 states.
6 states flagship only
1 state flagship and landgrant
1 state flagship and #3 school
1 state flagship, #2 school and 2 major privates
Top 15 states-#1, #2, #13, #14

(02-25-2020 08:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-25-2020 01:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  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.

There is another thread where the SC AD says "everything is on the table." If they wanted to create a conference that looked like the Big 10 or SEC, they would have to dump 3 or 4 members and pick up teams from the Big 12.
For example:
West
Washington
Oregon
USC
UCLA
Cal
Stanford (never going to be dumped-but probably doesn't add much value)
Arizona
East
Utah
Colorado
Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Oklahoma St.
Kansas

Then the Pac has 9 states.
6 states flagship only
1 state flagship and landgrant
1 state flagship and #3 school
1 state flagship, #2 school and 2 major privates
Top 15 states-#1, #2, #13, #14

Bullet that at least keeps the better brands together and you are covered on non disclosures by USC and Stanford's private status.

I don't think it would be SEC or Big 10 money, but it would certainly be closer than status quo.

It effectively trims the overall pie down to 57 to 60 teams depending upon what happens with T.C.U., W.V.U., Kansas State, and Iowa State.

What that would do is to put an inordinate amount of pressure on the ACC.

What's more the timing would be serendipitous considering both GOR's expire within the same year making the reformation of essentially a new conference, possibly needing a new branding very possible.

Sounds like you want the Pac-12 to "trim the fat". Maybe they do an A-Sun type maneuver?

(02-25-2020 09:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-25-2020 08:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-25-2020 01:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  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.

There is another thread where the SC AD says "everything is on the table." If they wanted to create a conference that looked like the Big 10 or SEC, they would have to dump 3 or 4 members and pick up teams from the Big 12.
For example:
West
Washington
Oregon
USC
UCLA
Cal
Stanford (never going to be dumped-but probably doesn't add much value)
Arizona
East
Utah
Colorado
Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Oklahoma St.
Kansas

Then the Pac has 9 states.
6 states flagship only
1 state flagship and landgrant
1 state flagship and #3 school
1 state flagship, #2 school and 2 major privates
Top 15 states-#1, #2, #13, #14

Bullet that at least keeps the better brands together and you are covered on non disclosures by USC and Stanford's private status.

I don't think it would be SEC or Big 10 money, but it would certainly be closer than status quo.

It effectively trims the overall pie down to 57 to 60 teams depending upon what happens with T.C.U., W.V.U., Kansas State, and Iowa State.

What that would do is to put an inordinate amount of pressure on the ACC.

What's more the timing would be serendipitous considering both GOR's expire within the same year making the reformation of essentially a new conference, possibly needing a new branding very possible.

Buy the WAC name!?

(02-25-2020 09:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-25-2020 09:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-25-2020 08:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-25-2020 01:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  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.

There is another thread where the SC AD says "everything is on the table." If they wanted to create a conference that looked like the Big 10 or SEC, they would have to dump 3 or 4 members and pick up teams from the Big 12.
For example:
West
Washington
Oregon
USC
UCLA
Cal
Stanford (never going to be dumped-but probably doesn't add much value)
Arizona
East
Utah
Colorado
Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Oklahoma St.
Kansas

Then the Pac has 9 states.
6 states flagship only
1 state flagship and landgrant
1 state flagship and #3 school
1 state flagship, #2 school and 2 major privates
Top 15 states-#1, #2, #13, #14

Bullet that at least keeps the better brands together and you are covered on non disclosures by USC and Stanford's private status.

I don't think it would be SEC or Big 10 money, but it would certainly be closer than status quo.

It effectively trims the overall pie down to 57 to 60 teams depending upon what happens with T.C.U., W.V.U., Kansas State, and Iowa State.

What that would do is to put an inordinate amount of pressure on the ACC.

What's more the timing would be serendipitous considering both GOR's expire within the same year making the reformation of essentially a new conference, possibly needing a new branding very possible.

Buy the WAC name!?

GFC: Great Frontier Conference

(02-25-2020 08:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  There is another thread where the SC AD says "everything is on the table." If they wanted to create a conference that looked like the Big 10 or SEC, they would have to dump 3 or 4 members and pick up teams from the Big 12.
For example:
West
Washington
Oregon
USC
UCLA
Cal
Stanford (never going to be dumped-but probably doesn't add much value)
Arizona
East
Utah
Colorado
Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Oklahoma St.
Kansas

Then the Pac has 9 states.
6 states flagship only
1 state flagship and landgrant
1 state flagship and #3 school
1 state flagship, #2 school and 2 major privates
Top 15 states-#1, #2, #13, #14

-- The Longhorns aren't interested, and IMO wouldn't be unless the Big 12 was in as bad shape as the final years of the SWC. Something like what you suggest would increase the TV money per school, but it's irrelevant unless UT goes along, and UT's athletic department has so much money that they don't have to move just for a bump in TV dollars.

-- The Pac isn't going to add central time zone schools unless the Horns are part of the deal, because the TV guys have told them that they'll only make more media money if the Horns are part of the deal.

-- The Big Ten isn't going to add Pac-12 schools, because the TV guys aren't offering to pay the Big Ten more money per school for doing that, and they sure aren't going to take less money per school just because expansion sounds like fun.

(02-25-2020 06:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-25-2020 06:40 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The networks would absolutely prefer more conferences as opposed to less. The fewer conferences there are out there to negotiate with the higher the price because there are fewer alternatives out there if you fail to win the rights of a given conference.

Consolidating the other blue bloods into their conferences gives the SEC and Big Ten greater leverage over their media partners.

ESPN has been overpaying for Big 12 content for a decade now in order to try and prevent that consolidation but it’s getting expensive overpaying for 8 programs and as the SEC and Big Ten continue to negotiate bigger and bigger contracts that’s going to mean paying even more so that the Longhorns and Sooners can keep up with the Joneses.

Consolidating with the Pac 12 isn’t very likely because I don’t think there is enough money there to incentivize either of the two prizes to budge. Some might call me crazy but I think over the next quarter to half century the PAC 12 is going to start to look more and more like the Ivy League—lower attendance, less athletic spending, less relevance on the national scene, it will be more of a country club atmosphere where bragging rights for winning within that isolated core group is the emphasis.

I think the dollars and cents behind Oklahoma to the Big Ten cause the decision makers to look the other way on academics. All the Big Ten leaders knew Nebraska was on shaky ground with the AAU when they let them in (and I think a few Big Ten presidents even voted against them on the AAU vote). The Sooners being a genuine blue blood and anchor to the weaker Big Ten West and a much needed rival that will hopefully reinvigorate a fading Nebraska program.

But, Muskie, if the aim as Schmolik suggests is for ESPN to access Texas and its brand and possibly Oklahoma with them, which gives them ~67% of the Big 12's total value, and since ESPN could make a lot more in content value with games of national interest between Texas, Oklahoma, and 7 brands in the SEC, why would it not be to their benefit to maximize their revenue for the cost of ~ an additional 100 million? Texas with the LHN makes around 51 million a year in media revenue with 32 million of it coming from ESPN already. Oklahoma makes 17.5 from ESPN and 26 million more from FOX So why wouldn't ESPN both cut the overhead of supporting the other 8 schools and maximize the content value of a property that is solely theirs rather than to keep them in a conference where the only money game is the one they have with each other or move them to a conference where ESPN has less of a control over the product and can't monetize them as effectively and has to pay for the upgrade of between 4 to 6 more schools?

So one might argue that Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC gives ESPN the biggest bang for their buck. And it gives them annually what is likely to be full value for 3 of the 4 CFP entrants, unless we move to a champs only format with 4 power conferences.

Texas and Oklahoma are every conference’s dream pair. If Texas wills it and they aren’t forced to take Tech by the politicians it’ll absolutely happen and heaven help the rest of us.

I have a gut feeling that Tech Is going to be a tag along and that Oklahoma and Texas will land in separate conferences.

Texas wouldn't move for money, anyway. So that's a moot point. What they don't want is a situation where either the SEC or Big Ten offer the #2 and #3 of the Big 12. They could tolerate the likes of Missouri and Colorado leaving but not Oklahoma, because there's no guarantee whether the RRR would continue without Oklahoma in the fold. Too much at stake. Plus going under 10 would affect the TV part of the deal so much that it would render the Big 12 not viable without a P5 replacement.

While a partial merger with the PAC is not ideal it certainly beats having to send the non-revenue sports to the Northeast, upper Midwest or Southeast. Something like this is going to be seriously consider the closer we get to 2024 or thereabouts.

(02-25-2020 08:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-25-2020 01:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  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.

There is another thread where the SC AD says "everything is on the table." If they wanted to create a conference that looked like the Big 10 or SEC, they would have to dump 3 or 4 members and pick up teams from the Big 12.
For example:
West
Washington
Oregon
USC
UCLA
Cal
Stanford (never going to be dumped-but probably doesn't add much value)
Arizona
East
Utah
Colorado
Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Oklahoma St.
Kansas

Then the Pac has 9 states.
6 states flagship only
1 state flagship and landgrant
1 state flagship and #3 school
1 state flagship, #2 school and 2 major privates
Top 15 states-#1, #2, #13, #14

Maybe Stanford and USC explore independence and the rest break off and partially merge with the Big 12.

Washington
Oregon
Cal
UCLA
Arizona State
Arizona
Utah

Texas
Texas Tech
TCU
Oklahoma
Kansas
Colorado
Oklahoma State

TCU covers the private school angle. Stanford and USC keep their non-revenue sports in the merged conference, plus scheduled games against their city rivals, while they explore games against ACC, Big Ten and SEC opponents.

And here's the big one: the PAC-B1G scheduling agreement is revived. With USC/Stanford removed there's no more Domer snag to pull the strings out. Everyone gets critical games in Texas and California without having to add any teams from there.

(02-26-2020 12:08 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(02-25-2020 08:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-25-2020 01:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  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.

There is another thread where the SC AD says "everything is on the table." If they wanted to create a conference that looked like the Big 10 or SEC, they would have to dump 3 or 4 members and pick up teams from the Big 12.
For example:
West
Washington
Oregon
USC
UCLA
Cal
Stanford (never going to be dumped-but probably doesn't add much value)
Arizona
East
Utah
Colorado
Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Oklahoma St.
Kansas

Then the Pac has 9 states.
6 states flagship only
1 state flagship and landgrant
1 state flagship and #3 school
1 state flagship, #2 school and 2 major privates
Top 15 states-#1, #2, #13, #14

Maybe Stanford and USC explore independence and the rest break off and partially merge with the Big 12.

Washington
Oregon
Cal
UCLA
Arizona State
Arizona
Utah

Texas
Texas Tech
TCU
Oklahoma
Kansas
Colorado
Oklahoma State

TCU covers the private school angle. Stanford and USC keep their non-revenue sports in the merged conference, plus scheduled games against their city rivals, while they explore games against ACC, Big Ten and SEC opponents.

And here's the big one: the PAC-B1G scheduling agreement is revived. With USC/Stanford removed there's no more Domer snag to pull the strings out. Everyone gets critical games in Texas and California without having to add any teams from there.

Or you can just keep USC and Stanford for a Pac-16 and move TCU to the Texas side. I'd also consider BYU instead of TCU. I think Arizona State is important. Even though Arizona is the #1 in Arizona, ASU is in the Phoenix metro and it's good to have a state school in the Phoenix area with a large student body. They'd be the one "second choice public" between the Big 12/Pac 12 I'd want most (other than A&M, who's off limits).

(02-25-2020 11:26 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Texas wouldn't move for money, anyway. So that's a moot point. What they don't want is a situation where either the SEC or Big Ten offer the #2 and #3 of the Big 12. They could tolerate the likes of Missouri and Colorado leaving but not Oklahoma, because there's no guarantee whether the RRR would continue without Oklahoma in the fold. Too much at stake. Plus going under 10 would affect the TV part of the deal so much that it would render the Big 12 not viable without a P5 replacement.

While a partial merger with the PAC is not ideal it certainly beats having to send the non-revenue sports to the Northeast, upper Midwest or Southeast. Something like this is going to be seriously consider the closer we get to 2024 or thereabouts.

Yep. That's why Oklahoma could be the big domino in all of this. The Big Ten, SEC, and Pac 12 could use Oklahoma as the bait to lure Texas in. Take Oklahoma and what's left in the Big 12? Of course the other question is will Oklahoma move to a conference without Texas? They certainly had chances to move to the SEC or Pac 12 when A&M moved and didn't.

(02-26-2020 05:18 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 12:08 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(02-25-2020 08:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-25-2020 01:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  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.

There is another thread where the SC AD says "everything is on the table." If they wanted to create a conference that looked like the Big 10 or SEC, they would have to dump 3 or 4 members and pick up teams from the Big 12.
For example:
West
Washington
Oregon
USC
UCLA
Cal
Stanford (never going to be dumped-but probably doesn't add much value)
Arizona
East
Utah
Colorado
Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Oklahoma St.
Kansas

Then the Pac has 9 states.
6 states flagship only
1 state flagship and landgrant
1 state flagship and #3 school
1 state flagship, #2 school and 2 major privates
Top 15 states-#1, #2, #13, #14

Maybe Stanford and USC explore independence and the rest break off and partially merge with the Big 12.

Washington
Oregon
Cal
UCLA
Arizona State
Arizona
Utah

Texas
Texas Tech
TCU
Oklahoma
Kansas
Colorado
Oklahoma State

TCU covers the private school angle. Stanford and USC keep their non-revenue sports in the merged conference, plus scheduled games against their city rivals, while they explore games against ACC, Big Ten and SEC opponents.

And here's the big one: the PAC-B1G scheduling agreement is revived. With USC/Stanford removed there's no more Domer snag to pull the strings out. Everyone gets critical games in Texas and California without having to add any teams from there.

Or you can just keep USC and Stanford for a Pac-16 and move TCU to the Texas side. I'd also consider BYU instead of TCU. I think Arizona State is important. Even though Arizona is the #1 in Arizona, ASU is in the Phoenix metro and it's good to have a state school in the Phoenix area with a large student body. They'd be the one "second choice public" between the Big 12/Pac 12 I'd want most (other than A&M, who's off limits).

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

Texahoma is possible by dropping TCU and Baylor. I put in the NW programs with the AZ programs so that neither gain an advantage with being put in with the CA programs. Btw, it would have to have a new name because both the Pac and Big XII names would have to be retired. Maybe Bullet's idea of buying up the WAC's trademark has merit.