(03-04-2020 02:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 02:21 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m not sure how Utah and Colorado would feel about being moved to the Big 12 division but getting included is better than being left out.

I see this as an 8 conference game league, particularly because the CTZ schools are going to want to schedule OOC in Texas.

Anyone know when the PAC 12 GOR is up? Does this even matter if 10 of 12 members vote to dissolve?

Where do you all think the revenue will stack up compared to say, what Texas or Oklahoma could make in the Big Ten or SEC?

Of course we know. It is just a matter of a google. They both expire in 2025. If the new conference is paid in the 60's and the Big 10 and SEC in the 70's would that not be enough for Texas and Oklahoma to want to keep most of the gang together and for Texas to rub elbows with the Cali schools? Probably

The issue however Muskie is that self interest drives all of this for Networks, Conferences and Schools and that prevents any comprehensive rational division of properties.

So would you say that there is only the faintest of chance that we get a Cali-Texlahoma marriage with the intent of trying to keep up with the Joneses, even if it helps keep the Big 12 core intact, if Texas and Oklahoma have the opportunity to join the SEC or Big Ten content empires?

(03-04-2020 02:21 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m not sure how Utah and Colorado would feel about being moved to the Big 12 division but getting included is better than being left out.

I see this as an 8 conference game league, particularly because the CTZ schools are going to want to schedule OOC in Texas.

Anyone know when the PAC 12 GOR is up? Does this even matter if 10 of 12 members vote to dissolve?

Where do you all think the revenue will stack up compared to say, what Texas or Oklahoma could make in the Big Ten or SEC?

I would assume it would be tied to the current media deal so 2023-24 season. GOR deals assume media rights go to the current conference so if there are no media rights then nothing goes to the current conference.

(03-04-2020 05:35 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 02:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 02:21 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m not sure how Utah and Colorado would feel about being moved to the Big 12 division but getting included is better than being left out.

I see this as an 8 conference game league, particularly because the CTZ schools are going to want to schedule OOC in Texas.

Anyone know when the PAC 12 GOR is up? Does this even matter if 10 of 12 members vote to dissolve?

Where do you all think the revenue will stack up compared to say, what Texas or Oklahoma could make in the Big Ten or SEC?

Of course we know. It is just a matter of a google. They both expire in 2025. If the new conference is paid in the 60's and the Big 10 and SEC in the 70's would that not be enough for Texas and Oklahoma to want to keep most of the gang together and for Texas to rub elbows with the Cali schools? Probably

The issue however Muskie is that self interest drives all of this for Networks, Conferences and Schools and that prevents any comprehensive rational division of properties.

So would you say that there is only the faintest of chance that we get a Cali-Texlahoma marriage with the intent of trying to keep up with the Joneses, even if it helps keep the Big 12 core intact, if Texas and Oklahoma have the opportunity to join the SEC or Big Ten content empires?

There's no rationale reason to think such a marriage would result in revenues remotely comparable to B1G/SEC.
So, why should OU/UT forgo an opportunity to join the B1G/SEC to promote a Cali/Texhoma marriage?

(03-04-2020 06:02 PM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 05:35 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 02:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 02:21 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m not sure how Utah and Colorado would feel about being moved to the Big 12 division but getting included is better than being left out.

I see this as an 8 conference game league, particularly because the CTZ schools are going to want to schedule OOC in Texas.

Anyone know when the PAC 12 GOR is up? Does this even matter if 10 of 12 members vote to dissolve?

Where do you all think the revenue will stack up compared to say, what Texas or Oklahoma could make in the Big Ten or SEC?

Of course we know. It is just a matter of a google. They both expire in 2025. If the new conference is paid in the 60's and the Big 10 and SEC in the 70's would that not be enough for Texas and Oklahoma to want to keep most of the gang together and for Texas to rub elbows with the Cali schools? Probably

The issue however Muskie is that self interest drives all of this for Networks, Conferences and Schools and that prevents any comprehensive rational division of properties.

So would you say that there is only the faintest of chance that we get a Cali-Texlahoma marriage with the intent of trying to keep up with the Joneses, even if it helps keep the Big 12 core intact, if Texas and Oklahoma have the opportunity to join the SEC or Big Ten content empires?

There's no rationale reason to think such a marriage would result in revenues remotely comparable to B1G/SEC.
So, why should OU/UT forgo an opportunity to join the B1G/SEC to promote a Cali/Texhoma marriage?

They shouldn't.

The reasoning of Texas to the Pac-12 and/or Pac-12/Big 12 merge is assuming the SEC and Big Ten are rich enough they won't need Texas/Oklahoma and/or they have no interest in inviting Texas Tech and/or other Texas schools to please Texas. No doubt the SEC and/or Big Ten will make more money if Texhoma come in but if the conferences are happy and rich enough as is they don't have as much incentive to add even if it makes them richer, especially if Texas insists on bringing on members the SEC/Big Ten doesn't want to add. The larger the conference, the fewer times/less often teams will meet in football, especially if the SEC wants to keep 8 game conference schedules. The Pac 12 has less bargaining power, less money so more money to gain, and two fewer members/more space. No doubt if the SEC and/or the Big Ten want Texas/Oklahoma, the Pac 12 has zero chance of getting them. The question is does either conference want them?

(03-04-2020 06:02 PM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  There's no rationale reason to think such a marriage would result in revenues remotely comparable to B1G/SEC.
So, why should OU/UT forgo an opportunity to join the B1G/SEC to promote a Cali/Texhoma marriage?

The TV networks use consultants as intermediaries to communicate how much any new combination of schools, or new addition to a conference, would be worth. The schools won't have to do much guessing about reasons.

And if the money difference is still that large, then not only do UT and OU have no reason to do it, but even if they did do it, every other school in that would-be conference would be crazy to join them unless they get an very long grant of rights, say, 25 years or more. They would have to protect themselves against UT or any other extremely valuable team leaving after 10 years. And conversely, UT has no reason to lock itself into such a deal, or into a new Big 12 deal, for longer than about 10 years. Everything might blow up again 10-15 years from now when teams like Clemson and Notre Dame become available at the end of the ACC GOR.

I’m not one to rush to conclusions, but with USC talking about shaking things up to keep up in the revenue game a PAC 12/Big 12 partial merger is worth playing with. USC could be willing to pull the trigger on something big.

Texas and Oklahoma are both far better off in the Big Ten or SEC if they want to be the kings of revenue.

(03-04-2020 08:11 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m not one to rush to conclusions, but with USC talking about shaking things up to keep up in the revenue game a PAC 12/Big 12 partial merger is worth playing with. USC could be willing to pull the trigger on something big.

Texas and Oklahoma are both far better off in the Big Ten or SEC if they want to be the kings of revenue.

But not kings of their conference.

(03-04-2020 08:11 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m not one to rush to conclusions, but with USC talking about shaking things up to keep up in the revenue game a PAC 12/Big 12 partial merger is worth playing with. USC could be willing to pull the trigger on something big.

Texas and Oklahoma are both far better off in the Big Ten or SEC if they want to be the kings of revenue.

They ARE kings of revenue. Texas is #1. OU is #7 and real close to #5 Alabama.

I think we should do a poll on which is more likely to happen: whether a highly-competitive conference can be built around Texas/Oklahoma/Kansas; or whether Texas/Oklahoma should leave to another conference, perhaps with Kansas in tow.

(03-04-2020 10:08 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  I think we should do a poll on which is more likely to happen: whether a highly-competitive conference can be built around Texas/Oklahoma/Kansas; or whether Texas/Oklahoma should leave to another conference, perhaps with Kansas in tow.

Hey Transic, if U.S.C., U.C.L.A., Arizona, and Arizona State want into the Big 12 do we call that deal Cal-zona? I mean that sounds so much better and more appetizing in an American-Italian pastry kind of way than Texa-homa sounded. Texa-homa always sounded like an assisted living facility in College Station, don't you think?

(03-04-2020 10:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 10:08 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  I think we should do a poll on which is more likely to happen: whether a highly-competitive conference can be built around Texas/Oklahoma/Kansas; or whether Texas/Oklahoma should leave to another conference, perhaps with Kansas in tow.

Hey Transic, if U.S.C., U.C.L.A., Arizona, and Arizona State want into the Big 12 do we call that deal Cal-zona? I mean that sounds so much better and more appetizing in an American-Italian pastry kind of way than Texa-homa sounded. Texa-homa always sounded like an assisted living facility in College Station, don't you think?

They could combine the 4 Cali programs and the 4 Texas programs and call it Cal-Tex and people would pretend a small, egghead private school in CA just joined.

It's debatable, but a Big 12/PAC 12 marriage would get maybe 80% or slightly more of the revenue that the current SEC or Big Ten contracts are pulling down.

I think you start with Andy Staples' basic premise of the Big 12 raiding the PAC. The Big 12 structure is the one that's more survivable at this time and more beneficial to a school like USC. For schools like Texas and Oklahoma, I don't know if they would prefer to get rid of any of the current Big 12 schools because they need the political balance in their favor or the whole plan doesn't serve much of a purpose.

If you're adding USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, and Arizona State then I think you're basically gutting the market value out of the PAC. Personally, I would throw Utah and BYU in there for a little extra political balance, but even if you didn't then you've added a lot of potential viewers.

The weakness of the Big 12 is the size of the market. The weakness of the PAC 12 is the quality of the product.

Now Texas and Oklahoma could certainly make more if they just moved East, but they wouldn't have the same pull in the conference office. The question is how much is that power worth?

All of this Big 12/PAC talk....

Remember Neuheisel speculated that UCLA should leave to get away from USC not move with them to the Big 12.

https://www.espn.com/blog/pac12/post/_/i...-to-big-12
Said Neuheisel, a former UCLA quarterback:

I wouldn’t be surprised to see UCLA say, "You know what? This deal with this USC thing? We’re gonna go and be our own guy, rather than always tied to the school here in Los Angeles." It wouldn’t shock me at all. I don’t have any inside information. I’m just saying from outside looking in.

(03-05-2020 01:44 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  It's debatable, but a Big 12/PAC 12 marriage would get maybe 80% or slightly more of the revenue that the current SEC or Big Ten contracts are pulling down.

I think you start with Andy Staples' basic premise of the Big 12 raiding the PAC. The Big 12 structure is the one that's more survivable at this time and more beneficial to a school like USC. For schools like Texas and Oklahoma, I don't know if they would prefer to get rid of any of the current Big 12 schools because they need the political balance in their favor or the whole plan doesn't serve much of a purpose.

If you're adding USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, and Arizona State then I think you're basically gutting the market value out of the PAC. Personally, I would throw Utah and BYU in there for a little extra political balance, but even if you didn't then you've added a lot of potential viewers.

The weakness of the Big 12 is the size of the market. The weakness of the PAC 12 is the quality of the product.

Now Texas and Oklahoma could certainly make more if they just moved East, but they wouldn't have the same pull in the conference office. The question is how much is that power worth?

The thread is "Eliminating the Big 12 as a P5 Conference". I think we all know how to do it, just take out Texas and Oklahoma (possibly even one would do the job).

Now let's consider the alternative: "Eliminating the Pac 12 as a P5 Conference". Who would have to leave? You mentioned six schools the Big 12 would take to "gut the market value out of the Pac". Would it take all six? Could it be accomplished with fewer than six? If so, which ones? If it's more than two, it certainly would be easier to move Texas/Oklahoma to the Pac-12 than three or more schools to the Big 12. Also, we all know Texas and Oklahoma are huge values. The Pac-12 has a lot of depth but no one really as valuable as Texas or possibly even Oklahoma. USC and maybe UCLA would be because of the LA area but their football programs are down. If you add Texas/Oklahoma to the Pac-12, the Pac-12's value skyrockets. If you add 2-3 Pac-12 teams to the Big 12, their value doesn't go up as much. If you really want to "eliminate the Pac-12" and you have to move 4-5 Pac 12 teams over, then the extra money you pay to the Big 12 now gets split 14, 15, or even 16 ways rather than 10. The California schools have less incentive to go to the Pac-12. Obviously distance is one issue but the Pac-12 is centered around California while the Big 12 is obviously around Texas and one specific member. You talk about Texas/Oklahoma wanting power, what about the California schools? They'd be leaving a conference that you can argue they own to a conference where they'd be bowing down to Texas. Now if they got a ton more money, I'm sure they would do it. For a small gain, not a chance. As for the other Pac-12 schools, they have to decide whether to bow down to California (the state, not Berkeley) or Texas (in the Big 12's case, you'd argue the state AND the school).

As for "eliminating" the Pac-12, they have something called the Rose Bowl which keeps them relevant. They've missed the CFP more often but the Rose Bowl is one of the biggest college football games of the year no matter who plays in it. You can say the same about the Sugar Bowl and the Big 12 but their deal is only been since January 2015 and the Rose Bowl and the Pac-12 has been around since all of us have been around. Since UCLA plays their home games in the Rose Bowl, I'd assume the Rose Bowl would stay with whatever conference has them. If the Big 12 successfully raids and gets UCLA to move, maybe the Rose Bowl switches to the Big 12. But as long as the Rose Bowl and the Pac-12 stay married, the Pac-12 will have relevance. That's something the Big 12 doesn't have.

(03-05-2020 04:43 PM)schmolik Wrote:  As for "eliminating" the Pac-12, they have something called the Rose Bowl which keeps them relevant. They've missed the CFP more often but the Rose Bowl is one of the biggest college football games of the year no matter who plays in it. You can say the same about the Sugar Bowl and the Big 12 but their deal is only been since January 2015 and the Rose Bowl and the Pac-12 has been around since all of us have been around. Since UCLA plays their home games in the Rose Bowl, I'd assume the Rose Bowl would stay with whatever conference has them. If the Big 12 successfully raids and gets UCLA to move, maybe the Rose Bowl switches to the Big 12. But as long as the Rose Bowl and the Pac-12 stay married, the Pac-12 will have relevance. That's something the Big 12 doesn't have.

The Rose Bowl will stay with the core group of West Coast schools, wherever they may reside. When USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, and Washington left the original Pacific Coast Conference, the Rose Bowl went with them to the newly formed conference. The same thing would happen in a future realignment if it came to pass.

UCLA is a tenant of the Rose Bowl stadium. I'm showing my age, but I remember when UCLA played home games at the LA Coliseum, sharing it with both USC and the Rams. (I was a boy, but I remember it.) I had to look it up, and the Bruins moved their home games to the Rose Bowl in 1982.

But, yes, the Rose Bowl is a huge thing that the Pac 12 has in its favor. Those of us not from the West Coast or Midwest don't get it. It really is the Granddaddy Of Them All. The rest of us are merely guests when we play in it. It's the Pac 12/B1G showcase. What is a hindrance to progress of the game for some is a Great Tradition for others.

(03-01-2020 03:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If we have further consolidation into 4 or fewer conferences the 2 division requirement will go away by virtue of the desires of those expanding. To date nothing has been denied to the SEC and Big 10 when together they have wanted it. I don't see that changing now.

And here's the thing. Whether the Big 10 or SEC expands out of the Big 12 and either takes all of the main prizes, what that means is limited slots for expansion to the East. If the SEC for instance did take Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas and another from the Big 12, there is no reason to assume that for 30 million more a year early movement from the ACC couldn't be accomplished by the Big 10 offering Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and Notre Dame.

Were that to happen there would literally be nobody left that they could possibly profit by taking.

What would then result is a new conference arising out of the remnant. The pursuit of schools from the PAC would not be profitable for the Big 10 in terms of membership, but a scheduling alliance would further enhance their value.

The markets of North Carolina and Virginia would be relatively close to approximating the value of Texas, Notre Dame slightly better than the value of Oklahoma, and I would think that brand wise for hoops Kansas and Duke would be a wash. Whoever the SEC picked up as the 4th whether it was Iowa State which would give them 3 AAU adds as well, or Tech which has Tier 2 value, wouldn't add enough value to create instability.

If Clemson, Virginia Tech, Louisville, Florida State, N.C. State, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Miami, were added to Baylor, T.C.U., Oklahoma State, Kansas State, West Virginia, and one of ISU or TTU they could also add Brigham Young and Cincinnati/Houston and have not only a nice footprint, but a very competitive conference as well.

And it seems to me this would be the much more natural direction for both the SEC and Big 10 anyway. And like the Big 10 having a scheduling alliance with the PAC the SEC could have a scheduling alliance with this new conference creation and the TV value would be enough to profit both.

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

Big 10:
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Virginia
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

New B12/ACC:
Cincinnati, Iowa State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State, Virginia Tech
Baylor, Brigham Young, Houston, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U.

I won't comment on the other two groupings but if I were to reconstruct the Big Ten line up it would go like this:

Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia, Rutgers
Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Minnesota
Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Northwestern, Iowa, Nebraska

Yes, the middle division is stacked but the programs share a similar profile. The Little Brown Jug gets played every year. Last year's Minnesota-Penn State game was great and they've had good games between them before. It's also a way to connect the eastern, central and western areas of the conference. Whoever comes out of this on top would stand a good chance of winning the conference championship.

(03-04-2020 06:02 PM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 05:35 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 02:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 02:21 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m not sure how Utah and Colorado would feel about being moved to the Big 12 division but getting included is better than being left out.

I see this as an 8 conference game league, particularly because the CTZ schools are going to want to schedule OOC in Texas.

Anyone know when the PAC 12 GOR is up? Does this even matter if 10 of 12 members vote to dissolve?

Where do you all think the revenue will stack up compared to say, what Texas or Oklahoma could make in the Big Ten or SEC?

Of course we know. It is just a matter of a google. They both expire in 2025. If the new conference is paid in the 60's and the Big 10 and SEC in the 70's would that not be enough for Texas and Oklahoma to want to keep most of the gang together and for Texas to rub elbows with the Cali schools? Probably

The issue however Muskie is that self interest drives all of this for Networks, Conferences and Schools and that prevents any comprehensive rational division of properties.

So would you say that there is only the faintest of chance that we get a Cali-Texlahoma marriage with the intent of trying to keep up with the Joneses, even if it helps keep the Big 12 core intact, if Texas and Oklahoma have the opportunity to join the SEC or Big Ten content empires?

There's no rationale reason to think such a marriage would result in revenues remotely comparable to B1G/SEC.
So, why should OU/UT forgo an opportunity to join the B1G/SEC to promote a Cali/Texhoma marriage?

You can not forgo something if the opportunity never comes.
If ESPN is indeed fixed on a P4, because we know as well as they, that the real money is in a playoff structure, they will not allow OU/UT to go to either the SEC or the B1G.
Pick 14 out of the 22 PAC and Big XII schools to form a new conference, the other 8 will have to do something else.

(03-07-2020 07:37 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 06:02 PM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  So, why should OU/UT forgo an opportunity to join the B1G/SEC to promote a Cali/Texhoma marriage?

You can not forgo something if the opportunity never comes.
If ESPN is indeed fixed on a P4, because we know as well as they, that the real money is in a playoff structure, they will not allow OU/UT to go to either the SEC or the B1G.
Pick 14 out of the 22 PAC and Big XII schools to form a new conference, the other 8 will have to do something else.

If the Big Ten and/or the SEC wanted to invite Texas and/or Oklahoma, do you think ESPN has any power whatsoever to stop them? Umm, NO! What could they do? In the case of the Big Ten, they literally have zero power because FOX can always take over media rights. In the SEC's case, the SEC can offer no additional money for UT/OU although the additional ratings and media exposure would still pay off for the schools even if they would have to accept a smaller share that they would be getting without them. Plus bringing Texas and Oklahoma could help the SEC schools who struggle with ticket sales sell more tickets. Could ESPN offer Texas and Oklahoma more money to stay with the Big 12 or move to the Pac-12 to keep them from the Big Ten/SEC? Yes, but that's paying lesser schools like Iowa State or Washington State more money. ESPN would be cutting their nose to spite their face.

(03-07-2020 08:00 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 07:37 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 06:02 PM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  So, why should OU/UT forgo an opportunity to join the B1G/SEC to promote a Cali/Texhoma marriage?

You can not forgo something if the opportunity never comes.
If ESPN is indeed fixed on a P4, because we know as well as they, that the real money is in a playoff structure, they will not allow OU/UT to go to either the SEC or the B1G.
Pick 14 out of the 22 PAC and Big XII schools to form a new conference, the other 8 will have to do something else.

If the Big Ten and/or the SEC wanted to invite Texas and/or Oklahoma, do you think ESPN has any power whatsoever to stop them? Umm, NO! What could they do? In the case of the Big Ten, they literally have zero power because FOX can always take over media rights. In the SEC's case, the SEC can offer no additional money for UT/OU although the additional ratings and media exposure would still pay off for the schools even if they would have to accept a smaller share that they would be getting without them. Plus bringing Texas and Oklahoma could help the SEC schools who struggle with ticket sales sell more tickets. Could ESPN offer Texas and Oklahoma more money to stay with the Big 12 or move to the Pac-12 to keep them from the Big Ten/SEC? Yes, but that's paying lesser schools like Iowa State or Washington State more money. ESPN would be cutting their nose to spite their face.

Absolutely!
ESPN controls the money.

(03-07-2020 07:37 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 06:02 PM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 05:35 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 02:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 02:21 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m not sure how Utah and Colorado would feel about being moved to the Big 12 division but getting included is better than being left out.

I see this as an 8 conference game league, particularly because the CTZ schools are going to want to schedule OOC in Texas.

Anyone know when the PAC 12 GOR is up? Does this even matter if 10 of 12 members vote to dissolve?

Where do you all think the revenue will stack up compared to say, what Texas or Oklahoma could make in the Big Ten or SEC?

Of course we know. It is just a matter of a google. They both expire in 2025. If the new conference is paid in the 60's and the Big 10 and SEC in the 70's would that not be enough for Texas and Oklahoma to want to keep most of the gang together and for Texas to rub elbows with the Cali schools? Probably

The issue however Muskie is that self interest drives all of this for Networks, Conferences and Schools and that prevents any comprehensive rational division of properties.

So would you say that there is only the faintest of chance that we get a Cali-Texlahoma marriage with the intent of trying to keep up with the Joneses, even if it helps keep the Big 12 core intact, if Texas and Oklahoma have the opportunity to join the SEC or Big Ten content empires?

There's no rationale reason to think such a marriage would result in revenues remotely comparable to B1G/SEC.
So, why should OU/UT forgo an opportunity to join the B1G/SEC to promote a Cali/Texhoma marriage?

You can not forgo something if the opportunity never comes.
If ESPN is indeed fixed on a P4, because we know as well as they, that the real money is in a playoff structure, they will not allow OU/UT to go to either the SEC or the B1G.
Pick 14 out of the 22 PAC and Big XII schools to form a new conference, the other 8 will have to do something else.

It’s completely the opposite of that. ESPN doesn’t want fewer P conferences. That would give the conferences more leverage to get even more TV money. ESPN showed 10 years ago that they prefer to not have more consolidation.

If it happens, then ESPN will deal with it, but they won’t be making it happen.