(03-22-2020 06:07 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  If one Arizona school has to be dropped it would be UA, not ASU. ASU is right smack in the Phoenix area, has a huge enrollment and is academically decent. Also, better football.

In most states, the "University of ___" is considered the top school vs. "____ State University". Pennsylvania is a big exception, the University of Pennsylvania is a private school. Ohio State is the big school in Ohio while Ohio University is the second choice at best. As for Arizona, the debate would be that Arizona State is in the Phoenix area and U of A is in Tucson, a big city but not Phoenix.

Someone else posted one of these for the AAC but I found the Pac-12 one. They ranked Arizona State as being more valuable to other conferences than the University of Arizona.

https://www.athleticdirectoru.com/articl...ex-pac-12/

(03-24-2020 11:33 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 10:47 AM)texoma Wrote:  Sactowndog, Pony94 and Stugray2. I would like to offer my opinions on your above post's without replicating all of them.

I agree that the money will force OU to leave the Big12. The Big10 is their first choice, with or without Texas, but preferably with Texas.
Texas may or may not be interested, but if Texas goes, they will want some of their old Big12 buddies....OU, KU, Missouri etc., to form a regional division. Texas will not require that any Texas schools go with them.

Texas will not be joining the SEC, because of the culture and they will not follow little brother anywhere. If they are not interested in the Big10 with OU. They will likely go independent in football and leave their other sports in the Big12 similar to what Notre Dame has with the ACC.

One other alternative is working out some kind of an an arrangement with the PAC i.e., merger etc. Again they will insist on other Big12 teams be included. Probably OU, OSU, Texas Tech at a minimum. The PAC will not accept religious affiliated schools, so no Baylor or TCU. Plus neither OU or Texas needs to play 3 or 4 games in Texas..

I have posted my opinions on this in other threads, so my apologies to those that have seen them before.

You gotta love CSNBBS, where people who live outside the region claim to know more than those who live right inside the region where speculation is ongoing.

Btw, if you don't mind mind answering, which do you think is more likely to happen, Texahoma to the current Pac-12 finally happening or a merger between programs from the PAC and Big 12?

I tend to agree at a high level with Texoma here:

1) The money forces OU to go. OU will go to the B1G if given the chance, but will go to the SEC otherwise, especially if the SEC offers first with no sign of an offer from the B1G, or if the SEC makes a better offer. If Texas goes, they'll want someone close to go with them, not necessarily in Texas.

2) Texas isn't going to the SEC. They've never liked the culture (academics is a smokescreen), and most importantly, they can't be seen as following A&M.

3) Some schools in the Pac (USC???) may try to set up some sort of alliance, merger, or new conference. The Airport conference mentioned elsewhere is a possibility, especially if USC, UCLA, Cal, and Stanford team up with UT to form it. Texas would be in more of a position to choose its regional partners to set up a more localized division, including Texas schools. Yes, Baylor would be out in this scenario, as the school retains a Christian identity and a Baptist affiliation. That would be a no-go for the West Coast schools. TCU would be more acceptable, as it has a much looser relationship with its denomination (Disciples of Christ), and has evolved into a more secular institution.

The Airport conference would be a third option for OU, but presents more risk, as it would be (similar to the Big 12) a new conference with uncertain value and a merger of cultures. OU may be more willing to go to an established conference such as the B1G (where the administration wants to go) or the SEC (where the fans want to go).

(03-24-2020 11:33 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 10:07 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Would the Pac-12 agree to Oklahoma + 3 of the Little 8? Would they even agree to Oklahoma + one of the Little 8? Would either of them result in a larger media contract for the Pac-12?

If I wanted to say Pac-12 then I would say Pac-12. Unless those schools are content with being well behind the SEC and Big Ten in revenues then they'll have to do something. Actually, neither the Pac-12 or Big 12 side have power over the other. If they don't care then that is fine with me. But the recent reports from PAC-land show that the presidents are getting concerned.

So speculation on a possible amalgamation between programs of these two different conferences is absolutely appropriate.

(03-24-2020 10:47 AM)texoma Wrote:  Sactowndog, Pony94 and Stugray2. I would like to offer my opinions on your above post's without replicating all of them.

I agree that the money will force OU to leave the Big12. The Big10 is their first choice, with or without Texas, but preferably with Texas.
Texas may or may not be interested, but if Texas goes, they will want some of their old Big12 buddies....OU, KU, Missouri etc., to form a regional division. Texas will not require that any Texas schools go with them.

Texas will not be joining the SEC, because of the culture and they will not follow little brother anywhere. If they are not interested in the Big10 with OU. They will likely go independent in football and leave their other sports in the Big12 similar to what Notre Dame has with the ACC.

One other alternative is working out some kind of an an arrangement with the PAC i.e., merger etc. Again they will insist on other Big12 teams be included. Probably OU, OSU, Texas Tech at a minimum. The PAC will not accept religious affiliated schools, so no Baylor or TCU. Plus neither OU or Texas needs to play 3 or 4 games in Texas..

I have posted my opinions on this in other threads, so my apologies to those that have seen them before.

You gotta love CSNBBS, where people who live outside the region claim to know more than those who live right inside the region where speculation is ongoing.

Btw, if you don't mind mind answering, which do you think is more likely to happen, Texhoma to the current Pac-12 finally happening or a merger between programs from the PAC and Big 12?

Thanks for the comment about people outside the area claiming to know more than people living in the local area. I have wanted to post that comment myself.

I think some form of Texhoma....OU, OSU, Texas, Texas Tech and possibly Kansas and Kansas State... to the Pac12 would be more likely than a merger, because it is more easily accomplished. A full merger would be more difficult, but possible. Now they might merge some form of scheduling alliance and/or TV contract etc.

Of course that is just my opinion. Thanks again.

(03-24-2020 12:58 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 11:33 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 10:47 AM)texoma Wrote:  Sactowndog, Pony94 and Stugray2. I would like to offer my opinions on your above post's without replicating all of them.

I agree that the money will force OU to leave the Big12. The Big10 is their first choice, with or without Texas, but preferably with Texas.
Texas may or may not be interested, but if Texas goes, they will want some of their old Big12 buddies....OU, KU, Missouri etc., to form a regional division. Texas will not require that any Texas schools go with them.

Texas will not be joining the SEC, because of the culture and they will not follow little brother anywhere. If they are not interested in the Big10 with OU. They will likely go independent in football and leave their other sports in the Big12 similar to what Notre Dame has with the ACC.

One other alternative is working out some kind of an an arrangement with the PAC i.e., merger etc. Again they will insist on other Big12 teams be included. Probably OU, OSU, Texas Tech at a minimum. The PAC will not accept religious affiliated schools, so no Baylor or TCU. Plus neither OU or Texas needs to play 3 or 4 games in Texas..

I have posted my opinions on this in other threads, so my apologies to those that have seen them before.

You gotta love CSNBBS, where people who live outside the region claim to know more than those who live right inside the region where speculation is ongoing.

Btw, if you don't mind mind answering, which do you think is more likely to happen, Texahoma to the current Pac-12 finally happening or a merger between programs from the PAC and Big 12?

I tend to agree at a high level with Texoma here:

1) The money forces OU to go. OU will go to the B1G if given the chance, but will go to the SEC otherwise, especially if the SEC offers first with no sign of an offer from the B1G, or if the SEC makes a better offer. If Texas goes, they'll want someone close to go with them, not necessarily in Texas.

2) Texas isn't going to the SEC. They've never liked the culture (academics is a smokescreen), and most importantly, they can't be seen as following A&M.

3) Some schools in the Pac (USC???) may try to set up some sort of alliance, merger, or new conference. The Airport conference mentioned elsewhere is a possibility, especially if USC, UCLA, Cal, and Stanford team up with UT to form it. Texas would be in more of a position to choose its regional partners to set up a more localized division, including Texas schools. Yes, Baylor would be out in this scenario, as the school retains a Christian identity and a Baptist affiliation. That would be a no-go for the West Coast schools. TCU would be more acceptable, as it has a much looser relationship with its denomination (Disciples of Christ), and has evolved into a more secular institution.

The Airport conference would be a third option for OU, but presents more risk, as it would be (similar to the Big 12) a new conference with uncertain value and a merger of cultures. OU may be more willing to go to an established conference such as the B1G (where the administration wants to go) or the SEC (where the fans want to go).

This is a similar conundrum that UNC would find itself in if it had to choose. Just like in the OU case, the fans would very much prefer the SEC if they had to choose which direction they would go. However, the academics at UNC might prefer the Big Ten and, especially, if the Big Ten is open to taking Duke and Virginia with them. The ACC gives them the opportunity to avoid either choice and have their own little fiefdom to boot.

Perhaps OU and UT are thinking in that direction. Until the Big 12 is deemed to no longer be viable for them they might stay put but if an opportunity presents itself that allows them some leeway and avoids a permanent division between the fans and the school, while allowing them the resources to compete for the playoffs, then I think they should explore that option before anything else. Yes, it's risky but if successfully done you could be peers with potentially up to eleven AAU institutions and still have a healthy sports budget.

(03-24-2020 02:08 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 11:33 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 10:07 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Would the Pac-12 agree to Oklahoma + 3 of the Little 8? Would they even agree to Oklahoma + one of the Little 8? Would either of them result in a larger media contract for the Pac-12?

If I wanted to say Pac-12 then I would say Pac-12. Unless those schools are content with being well behind the SEC and Big Ten in revenues then they'll have to do something. Actually, neither the Pac-12 or Big 12 side have power over the other. If they don't care then that is fine with me. But the recent reports from PAC-land show that the presidents are getting concerned.

So speculation on a possible amalgamation between programs of these two different conferences is absolutely appropriate.

(03-24-2020 10:47 AM)texoma Wrote:  Sactowndog, Pony94 and Stugray2. I would like to offer my opinions on your above post's without replicating all of them.

I agree that the money will force OU to leave the Big12. The Big10 is their first choice, with or without Texas, but preferably with Texas.
Texas may or may not be interested, but if Texas goes, they will want some of their old Big12 buddies....OU, KU, Missouri etc., to form a regional division. Texas will not require that any Texas schools go with them.

Texas will not be joining the SEC, because of the culture and they will not follow little brother anywhere. If they are not interested in the Big10 with OU. They will likely go independent in football and leave their other sports in the Big12 similar to what Notre Dame has with the ACC.

One other alternative is working out some kind of an an arrangement with the PAC i.e., merger etc. Again they will insist on other Big12 teams be included. Probably OU, OSU, Texas Tech at a minimum. The PAC will not accept religious affiliated schools, so no Baylor or TCU. Plus neither OU or Texas needs to play 3 or 4 games in Texas..

I have posted my opinions on this in other threads, so my apologies to those that have seen them before.

You gotta love CSNBBS, where people who live outside the region claim to know more than those who live right inside the region where speculation is ongoing.

Btw, if you don't mind mind answering, which do you think is more likely to happen, Texhoma to the current Pac-12 finally happening or a merger between programs from the PAC and Big 12?

Thanks for the comment about people outside the area claiming to know more than people living in the local area. I have wanted to post that comment myself.

I think some form of Texhoma....OU, OSU, Texas, Texas Tech and possibly Kansas and Kansas State... to the Pac12 would be more likely than a merger, because it is more easily accomplished. A full merger would be more difficult, but possible. Now they might merge some form of scheduling alliance and/or TV contract etc.

Of course that is just my opinion. Thanks again.

The 2018-9 Gross Total Revenuel numbers are out on Equity in Athletics. 4 conferences earned more in that time frame. The Big 12 lost an average of 2 million per school (though Texas had a big year at 215 million).

The Big 10 experienced its first full year under the FOX contract and crept within a million of the SEC's numbers. Should they get another boost like they did with the FOX contract in 2024 they will still lag the SEC by 10 million per school with the minimum numbers reported on the SEC's new contract.

The PAC 12 is now by far the lowest paying of all conferences due to the ACC seeing a per member bump of a shade over 3 million (no ACCN money in these numbers as that will be next year's tax filing) but their total increase was 8.5 million mostly due to a large donation to F.S.U. skewing the numbers.

I may be one of those "outside" of the region, although I did live in Texas for a while, but there is no way in hell that Texas and Oklahoma can afford the kind of payout cut they would suffer in moving to the PAC 12.

You can argue the merits of the SEC vs Big 10 as either would reward them. But you don't have to live in a region to know how the business end of things works.

Texas can move to the Big 10 but even should the Big 10 get a 10 million dollar boost in their contract renewal in 2024 (a larger one than they got last time by a skosh) Texas would still be at break even and they aren't giving up their current business model to take a flyer on breaking even in the Big 10. It would be a nice boost for OU, but then so too would the SEC.

Texas has another impediment. ESPN controls the LHN until 2031. That's going to peak out over 17 million a year and averages 15. So these ideas that they will move somewhere that ESPN doesn't favor are ludicrous even if you are a native to Texas.

I put my trust in Texas doing whatever is necessary to maintain their business model which is their top priority and should be since it is consistently top 2 in the nation and most years leads the nation in generating revenue.

The people in Austin are intelligent and highly successful. They'll think like a corporation, which is what they have done, and what Aggie did or didn't do may play well for their chat room crowds but in the end they will make a calculated business move but only if they have to do so.

I could see the Big 12 taking 8 to 10 PAC schools and keeping the business offices of the new conference in Texas. I can not see them moving to the PAC to suffer that suckwind leadership and to move at their detriment. That deal failed at least twice for a damn good reason, it's untenable.

If I'm wrong I'll publicly admit it in a post and reward either of you 3 rep points. The last time I made such a bet with 2 homeboys of the state of Texas their sorry butts disappeared from this board and they never publicly acknowledged their horse crap, let alone honored the bet. And that bet was that the Big 12 wouldn't expand again when they were interviewing the prospective G5 schools several years back. I bet them they wouldn't take any of them because it would keep UT's and OU's options open and expanding would allow with even just 2 new schools too many votes to control the destiny of the Big 12.

The Big 12 exists only until Texas and Oklahoma decide otherwise. Those 2 schools represent almost 2/3rds of the total value of the Big 12.

So the Big 12 either stays together, because that's what UT and OU want. Or, it takes some key PAC schools (which is still highly unlikely). Or Oklahoma leaves for wherever they wish and Texas heads either to the SEC or ACC.

So the question becomes this. Does Oklahoma and Kansas offer the Big 10 what it wants? Or, would the Big 10 prefer to wait for a decade to try to gain 20 million instead of 6 million by taking Virginia and North Carolina and getting two academic bluebloods instead of Oklahoma which would be dead last in the Big 10 academically and the flagship of a state of 4 million, and with Kansas which represents a state of 2.7 million?

In other words I'm not sure the Big 10's interest is that strong in either Kansas or Oklahoma. If that assumption is correct then Oklahoma won't have as much leverage in negotiations with the SEC.

Texas is the only piece that counts for the Big 10. They deliver 23 million by themselves, are an economic powerhouse, and an academic stalwart. My feeling is that if Texas is unwilling to move to the Big 10, or just unwilling to move period that the Big 10 will simply stand pat.

If Oklahoma wants to move they will be considered by both the Big 10 and SEC but I believe that the Big 10 academics will pass on them without the surety of Texas. Notre Dame does more for them and has more value. And when the SEC and Big 10 media revenue eclipses that of the ACC by ~30 million anything will become possible.

The questions that have to be answered for the SEC and Big 10 are these:
Which addition gives us the most advantages? Obviously Texas. Although for the SEC OU has a lot of value as well.

Which addition makes the most sense with them? Obviously Oklahoma. Although for the SEC the question of a second if OU is the first is up in the air. Kansas offers an AAU school, rival of Missouri, and basketball branding so they have value. But it still doesn't make them a slam dunk #2 to Oklahoma.

For the Big 10 the answer is Texas. For the SEC Texas may only be obtainable if they land Oklahoma. But the SEC has a major player in Texas. The SEC has major football branding. Oklahoma I think would be a priority to finish out Texas if possible. And on their own they give the SEC enough added value to keep them ahead of the Big 10 in that dynamic. So if Texas has no interest in moving Oklahoma still accomplishes things for the SEC. IMO the SEC is the only conference that Oklahoma can risk a move to without Texas.

So the likely priorities of the 2 conferences will be a fascinating dynamic to watch at work.

(03-24-2020 03:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 02:08 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 11:33 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 10:07 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Would the Pac-12 agree to Oklahoma + 3 of the Little 8? Would they even agree to Oklahoma + one of the Little 8? Would either of them result in a larger media contract for the Pac-12?

If I wanted to say Pac-12 then I would say Pac-12. Unless those schools are content with being well behind the SEC and Big Ten in revenues then they'll have to do something. Actually, neither the Pac-12 or Big 12 side have power over the other. If they don't care then that is fine with me. But the recent reports from PAC-land show that the presidents are getting concerned.

So speculation on a possible amalgamation between programs of these two different conferences is absolutely appropriate.

(03-24-2020 10:47 AM)texoma Wrote:  Sactowndog, Pony94 and Stugray2. I would like to offer my opinions on your above post's without replicating all of them.

I agree that the money will force OU to leave the Big12. The Big10 is their first choice, with or without Texas, but preferably with Texas.
Texas may or may not be interested, but if Texas goes, they will want some of their old Big12 buddies....OU, KU, Missouri etc., to form a regional division. Texas will not require that any Texas schools go with them.

Texas will not be joining the SEC, because of the culture and they will not follow little brother anywhere. If they are not interested in the Big10 with OU. They will likely go independent in football and leave their other sports in the Big12 similar to what Notre Dame has with the ACC.

One other alternative is working out some kind of an an arrangement with the PAC i.e., merger etc. Again they will insist on other Big12 teams be included. Probably OU, OSU, Texas Tech at a minimum. The PAC will not accept religious affiliated schools, so no Baylor or TCU. Plus neither OU or Texas needs to play 3 or 4 games in Texas..

I have posted my opinions on this in other threads, so my apologies to those that have seen them before.

You gotta love CSNBBS, where people who live outside the region claim to know more than those who live right inside the region where speculation is ongoing.

Btw, if you don't mind mind answering, which do you think is more likely to happen, Texhoma to the current Pac-12 finally happening or a merger between programs from the PAC and Big 12?

Thanks for the comment about people outside the area claiming to know more than people living in the local area. I have wanted to post that comment myself.

I think some form of Texhoma....OU, OSU, Texas, Texas Tech and possibly Kansas and Kansas State... to the Pac12 would be more likely than a merger, because it is more easily accomplished. A full merger would be more difficult, but possible. Now they might merge some form of scheduling alliance and/or TV contract etc.

Of course that is just my opinion. Thanks again.

The 2018-9 Gross Total Revenuel numbers are out on Equity in Athletics. 4 conferences earned more in that time frame. The Big 12 lost an average of 2 million per school (though Texas had a big year at 215 million).

The Big 10 experienced its first full year under the FOX contract and crept within a million of the SEC's numbers. Should they get another boost like they did with the FOX contract in 2024 they will still lag the SEC by 10 million per school with the minimum numbers reported on the SEC's new contract.

The PAC 12 is now by far the lowest paying of all conferences due to the ACC seeing a per member bump of a shade over 3 million (no ACCN money in these numbers as that will be next year's tax filing) but their total increase was 8.5 million mostly due to a large donation to F.S.U. skewing the numbers.

I may be one of those "outside" of the region, although I did live in Texas for a while, but there is no way in hell that Texas and Oklahoma can afford the kind of payout cut they would suffer in moving to the PAC 12.

You can argue the merits of the SEC vs Big 10 as either would reward them. But you don't have to live in a region to know how the business end of things works.

Texas can move to the Big 10 but even should the Big 10 get a 10 million dollar boost in their contract renewal in 2024 (a larger one than they got last time by a skosh) Texas would still be at break even and they aren't giving up their current business model to take a flyer on breaking even in the Big 10. It would be a nice boost for OU, but then so too would the SEC.

Texas has another impediment. ESPN controls the LHN until 2031. That's going to peak out over 17 million a year and averages 15. So these ideas that they will move somewhere that ESPN doesn't favor are ludicrous even if you are a native to Texas.

I put my trust in Texas doing whatever is necessary to maintain their business model which is their top priority and should be since it is consistently top 2 in the nation and most years leads the nation in generating revenue.

The people in Austin are intelligent and highly successful. They'll think like a corporation, which is what they have done, and what Aggie did or didn't do may play well for their chat room crowds but in the end they will make a calculated business move but only if they have to do so.

I could see the Big 12 taking 8 to 10 PAC schools and keeping the business offices of the new conference in Texas. I can not see them moving to the PAC to suffer that suckwind leadership and to move at their detriment. That deal failed at least twice for a damn good reason, it's untenable.

If I'm wrong I'll publicly admit it in a post and reward either of you 3 rep points. The last time I made such a bet with 2 homeboys of the state of Texas their sorry butts disappeared from this board and they never publicly acknowledged their horse crap, let alone honored the bet. And that bet was that the Big 12 wouldn't expand again when they were interviewing the prospective G5 schools several years back. I bet them they wouldn't take any of them because it would keep UT's and OU's options open and expanding would allow with even just 2 new schools too many votes to control the destiny of the Big 12.

The Big 12 exists only until Texas and Oklahoma decide otherwise. Those 2 schools represent almost 2/3rds of the total value of the Big 12.

So the Big 12 either stays together, because that's what UT and OU want. Or, it takes some key PAC schools (which is still highly unlikely). Or Oklahoma leaves for wherever they wish and Texas heads either to the SEC or ACC.

So the question becomes this. Does Oklahoma and Kansas offer the Big 10 what it wants? Or, would the Big 10 prefer to wait for a decade to try to gain 20 million instead of 6 million by taking Virginia and North Carolina and getting two academic bluebloods instead of Oklahoma which would be dead last in the Big 10 academically and the flagship of a state of 4 million, and with Kansas which represents a state of 2.7 million?

In other words I'm not sure the Big 10's interest is that strong in either Kansas or Oklahoma. If that assumption is correct then Oklahoma won't have as much leverage in negotiations with the SEC.

Texas is the only piece that counts for the Big 10. They deliver 23 million by themselves, are an economic powerhouse, and an academic stalwart. My feeling is that if Texas is unwilling to move to the Big 10, or just unwilling to move period that the Big 10 will simply stand pat.

If Oklahoma wants to move they will be considered by both the Big 10 and SEC but I believe that the Big 10 academics will pass on them without the surety of Texas. Notre Dame does more for them and has more value. And when the SEC and Big 10 media revenue eclipses that of the ACC by ~30 million anything will become possible.

The questions that have to be answered for the SEC and Big 10 are these:
Which addition gives us the most advantages? Obviously Texas. Although for the SEC OU has a lot of value as well.

Which addition makes the most sense with them? Obviously Oklahoma. Although for the SEC the question of a second if OU is the first is up in the air. Kansas offers an AAU school, rival of Missouri, and basketball branding so they have value. But it still doesn't make them a slam dunk #2 to Oklahoma.

For the Big 10 the answer is Texas. For the SEC Texas may only be obtainable if they land Oklahoma. But the SEC has a major player in Texas. The SEC has major football branding. Oklahoma I think would be a priority to finish out Texas if possible. And on their own they give the SEC enough added value to keep them ahead of the Big 10 in that dynamic. So if Texas has no interest in moving Oklahoma still accomplishes things for the SEC. IMO the SEC is the only conference that Oklahoma can risk a move to without Texas.

So the likely priorities of the 2 conferences will be a fascinating dynamic to watch at work.

JR, I agree with a lot of what you say, but not all. First, Transic asked me a question.... which did I think would happen first, Texhoma to the PAC or a merger of the two conferences and I answered his question the best that I could. I doubt either will happen as that will be the last resort.

My position has always been that OU prefers the Big10, but without Texas they might not be invited. In that event, OU would accept an invite to the SEC with no strings attached. If all of that failed, which is highly unlikely, they might consider some kind of arrangement, merger or whatever between Big12 and PAC12 teams. It goes without saying that if the money was not there, through new TV contracts or whatever, neither OU nor Texas would be interested.

For Texas, my position has always been that they may or may not be interested in going to the Big10. I have said the LHN would need to be addressed, plus who goes with them. Texas will not agree to be on an island. They would NOT require other Texas schools.

IMO Texas will not join the SEC, because of the culture and following A&M that they perceive as their little brother. If OU leaves for the Big or SEC, Texas will likely go Indy in football and leave their other sports teams in the Big12. A PAC 12 arrangement would be their last resort and the same as OU, new TV contracts etc., would have to make it economically feasible.

Finally, do not include me as one of the fanboys from Texas that thought the Big12 would expand.

I agree, it will be interesting to see how all of this plays out and regardless of our disagreements I always enjoy reading your thoughts.

(03-24-2020 03:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 02:08 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 11:33 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 10:07 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Would the Pac-12 agree to Oklahoma + 3 of the Little 8? Would they even agree to Oklahoma + one of the Little 8? Would either of them result in a larger media contract for the Pac-12?

If I wanted to say Pac-12 then I would say Pac-12. Unless those schools are content with being well behind the SEC and Big Ten in revenues then they'll have to do something. Actually, neither the Pac-12 or Big 12 side have power over the other. If they don't care then that is fine with me. But the recent reports from PAC-land show that the presidents are getting concerned.

So speculation on a possible amalgamation between programs of these two different conferences is absolutely appropriate.

(03-24-2020 10:47 AM)texoma Wrote:  Sactowndog, Pony94 and Stugray2. I would like to offer my opinions on your above post's without replicating all of them.

I agree that the money will force OU to leave the Big12. The Big10 is their first choice, with or without Texas, but preferably with Texas.
Texas may or may not be interested, but if Texas goes, they will want some of their old Big12 buddies....OU, KU, Missouri etc., to form a regional division. Texas will not require that any Texas schools go with them.

Texas will not be joining the SEC, because of the culture and they will not follow little brother anywhere. If they are not interested in the Big10 with OU. They will likely go independent in football and leave their other sports in the Big12 similar to what Notre Dame has with the ACC.

One other alternative is working out some kind of an an arrangement with the PAC i.e., merger etc. Again they will insist on other Big12 teams be included. Probably OU, OSU, Texas Tech at a minimum. The PAC will not accept religious affiliated schools, so no Baylor or TCU. Plus neither OU or Texas needs to play 3 or 4 games in Texas..

I have posted my opinions on this in other threads, so my apologies to those that have seen them before.

You gotta love CSNBBS, where people who live outside the region claim to know more than those who live right inside the region where speculation is ongoing.

Btw, if you don't mind mind answering, which do you think is more likely to happen, Texhoma to the current Pac-12 finally happening or a merger between programs from the PAC and Big 12?

Thanks for the comment about people outside the area claiming to know more than people living in the local area. I have wanted to post that comment myself.

I think some form of Texhoma....OU, OSU, Texas, Texas Tech and possibly Kansas and Kansas State... to the Pac12 would be more likely than a merger, because it is more easily accomplished. A full merger would be more difficult, but possible. Now they might merge some form of scheduling alliance and/or TV contract etc.

Of course that is just my opinion. Thanks again.

The 2018-9 Gross Total Revenuel numbers are out on Equity in Athletics. 4 conferences earned more in that time frame. The Big 12 lost an average of 2 million per school (though Texas had a big year at 215 million).

The Big 10 experienced its first full year under the FOX contract and crept within a million of the SEC's numbers. Should they get another boost like they did with the FOX contract in 2024 they will still lag the SEC by 10 million per school with the minimum numbers reported on the SEC's new contract.

The PAC 12 is now by far the lowest paying of all conferences due to the ACC seeing a per member bump of a shade over 3 million (no ACCN money in these numbers as that will be next year's tax filing) but their total increase was 8.5 million mostly due to a large donation to F.S.U. skewing the numbers.

I may be one of those "outside" of the region, although I did live in Texas for a while, but there is no way in hell that Texas and Oklahoma can afford the kind of payout cut they would suffer in moving to the PAC 12.

You can argue the merits of the SEC vs Big 10 as either would reward them. But you don't have to live in a region to know how the business end of things works.

Texas can move to the Big 10 but even should the Big 10 get a 10 million dollar boost in their contract renewal in 2024 (a larger one than they got last time by a skosh) Texas would still be at break even and they aren't giving up their current business model to take a flyer on breaking even in the Big 10. It would be a nice boost for OU, but then so too would the SEC.

Texas has another impediment. ESPN controls the LHN until 2031. That's going to peak out over 17 million a year and averages 15. So these ideas that they will move somewhere that ESPN doesn't favor are ludicrous even if you are a native to Texas.

I put my trust in Texas doing whatever is necessary to maintain their business model which is their top priority and should be since it is consistently top 2 in the nation and most years leads the nation in generating revenue.

The people in Austin are intelligent and highly successful. They'll think like a corporation, which is what they have done, and what Aggie did or didn't do may play well for their chat room crowds but in the end they will make a calculated business move but only if they have to do so.

I could see the Big 12 taking 8 to 10 PAC schools and keeping the business offices of the new conference in Texas. I can not see them moving to the PAC to suffer that suckwind leadership and to move at their detriment. That deal failed at least twice for a damn good reason, it's untenable.

If I'm wrong I'll publicly admit it in a post and reward either of you 3 rep points. The last time I made such a bet with 2 homeboys of the state of Texas their sorry butts disappeared from this board and they never publicly acknowledged their horse crap, let alone honored the bet. And that bet was that the Big 12 wouldn't expand again when they were interviewing the prospective G5 schools several years back. I bet them they wouldn't take any of them because it would keep UT's and OU's options open and expanding would allow with even just 2 new schools too many votes to control the destiny of the Big 12.

The Big 12 exists only until Texas and Oklahoma decide otherwise. Those 2 schools represent almost 2/3rds of the total value of the Big 12.

So the Big 12 either stays together, because that's what UT and OU want. Or, it takes some key PAC schools (which is still highly unlikely). Or Oklahoma leaves for wherever they wish and Texas heads either to the SEC or ACC.

So the question becomes this. Does Oklahoma and Kansas offer the Big 10 what it wants? Or, would the Big 10 prefer to wait for a decade to try to gain 20 million instead of 6 million by taking Virginia and North Carolina and getting two academic bluebloods instead of Oklahoma which would be dead last in the Big 10 academically and the flagship of a state of 4 million, and with Kansas which represents a state of 2.7 million?

In other words I'm not sure the Big 10's interest is that strong in either Kansas or Oklahoma. If that assumption is correct then Oklahoma won't have as much leverage in negotiations with the SEC.

Texas is the only piece that counts for the Big 10. They deliver 23 million by themselves, are an economic powerhouse, and an academic stalwart. My feeling is that if Texas is unwilling to move to the Big 10, or just unwilling to move period that the Big 10 will simply stand pat.

If Oklahoma wants to move they will be considered by both the Big 10 and SEC but I believe that the Big 10 academics will pass on them without the surety of Texas. Notre Dame does more for them and has more value. And when the SEC and Big 10 media revenue eclipses that of the ACC by ~30 million anything will become possible.

The questions that have to be answered for the SEC and Big 10 are these:
Which addition gives us the most advantages? Obviously Texas. Although for the SEC OU has a lot of value as well.

Which addition makes the most sense with them? Obviously Oklahoma. Although for the SEC the question of a second if OU is the first is up in the air. Kansas offers an AAU school, rival of Missouri, and basketball branding so they have value. But it still doesn't make them a slam dunk #2 to Oklahoma.

For the Big 10 the answer is Texas. For the SEC Texas may only be obtainable if they land Oklahoma. But the SEC has a major player in Texas. The SEC has major football branding. Oklahoma I think would be a priority to finish out Texas if possible. And on their own they give the SEC enough added value to keep them ahead of the Big 10 in that dynamic. So if Texas has no interest in moving Oklahoma still accomplishes things for the SEC. IMO the SEC is the only conference that Oklahoma can risk a move to without Texas.

So the likely priorities of the 2 conferences will be a fascinating dynamic to watch at work.

The PAC schools need to admit failure and radically change their leadership before even thinking about UT/OU. There's no way I would recommend that move if that doesn't happen. But, like I mentioned to a poster in another thread, I have a better chance at winning the Powerball than institutions with big egos like USC, UT, OU, Stanford, etc., working together.

However, something has to be done or they can forget about catching up to the Big Ten, let alone the SEC. If OU, UT or a combination of both with other programs go hat-in-hand to the SEC, then it's too late for the PAC stay in the conversation, long term, with the programs back East. It will also be too late for the Big Ten to put a dent in the SEC domination of the top sport in college and just concentrate more on basketball and other sports.

If further consolidation of major college sports is inevitable then I would like at least a third major force that would balance out the interests of the Big Ten and SEC. Barring that, it becomes the SEC's world and everyone else just living in it.

(03-24-2020 08:10 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 03:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 02:08 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 11:33 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 10:07 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Would the Pac-12 agree to Oklahoma + 3 of the Little 8? Would they even agree to Oklahoma + one of the Little 8? Would either of them result in a larger media contract for the Pac-12?

If I wanted to say Pac-12 then I would say Pac-12. Unless those schools are content with being well behind the SEC and Big Ten in revenues then they'll have to do something. Actually, neither the Pac-12 or Big 12 side have power over the other. If they don't care then that is fine with me. But the recent reports from PAC-land show that the presidents are getting concerned.

So speculation on a possible amalgamation between programs of these two different conferences is absolutely appropriate.

(03-24-2020 10:47 AM)texoma Wrote:  Sactowndog, Pony94 and Stugray2. I would like to offer my opinions on your above post's without replicating all of them.

I agree that the money will force OU to leave the Big12. The Big10 is their first choice, with or without Texas, but preferably with Texas.
Texas may or may not be interested, but if Texas goes, they will want some of their old Big12 buddies....OU, KU, Missouri etc., to form a regional division. Texas will not require that any Texas schools go with them.

Texas will not be joining the SEC, because of the culture and they will not follow little brother anywhere. If they are not interested in the Big10 with OU. They will likely go independent in football and leave their other sports in the Big12 similar to what Notre Dame has with the ACC.

One other alternative is working out some kind of an an arrangement with the PAC i.e., merger etc. Again they will insist on other Big12 teams be included. Probably OU, OSU, Texas Tech at a minimum. The PAC will not accept religious affiliated schools, so no Baylor or TCU. Plus neither OU or Texas needs to play 3 or 4 games in Texas..

I have posted my opinions on this in other threads, so my apologies to those that have seen them before.

You gotta love CSNBBS, where people who live outside the region claim to know more than those who live right inside the region where speculation is ongoing.

Btw, if you don't mind mind answering, which do you think is more likely to happen, Texhoma to the current Pac-12 finally happening or a merger between programs from the PAC and Big 12?

Thanks for the comment about people outside the area claiming to know more than people living in the local area. I have wanted to post that comment myself.

I think some form of Texhoma....OU, OSU, Texas, Texas Tech and possibly Kansas and Kansas State... to the Pac12 would be more likely than a merger, because it is more easily accomplished. A full merger would be more difficult, but possible. Now they might merge some form of scheduling alliance and/or TV contract etc.

Of course that is just my opinion. Thanks again.

The 2018-9 Gross Total Revenuel numbers are out on Equity in Athletics. 4 conferences earned more in that time frame. The Big 12 lost an average of 2 million per school (though Texas had a big year at 215 million).

The Big 10 experienced its first full year under the FOX contract and crept within a million of the SEC's numbers. Should they get another boost like they did with the FOX contract in 2024 they will still lag the SEC by 10 million per school with the minimum numbers reported on the SEC's new contract.

The PAC 12 is now by far the lowest paying of all conferences due to the ACC seeing a per member bump of a shade over 3 million (no ACCN money in these numbers as that will be next year's tax filing) but their total increase was 8.5 million mostly due to a large donation to F.S.U. skewing the numbers.

I may be one of those "outside" of the region, although I did live in Texas for a while, but there is no way in hell that Texas and Oklahoma can afford the kind of payout cut they would suffer in moving to the PAC 12.

You can argue the merits of the SEC vs Big 10 as either would reward them. But you don't have to live in a region to know how the business end of things works.

Texas can move to the Big 10 but even should the Big 10 get a 10 million dollar boost in their contract renewal in 2024 (a larger one than they got last time by a skosh) Texas would still be at break even and they aren't giving up their current business model to take a flyer on breaking even in the Big 10. It would be a nice boost for OU, but then so too would the SEC.

Texas has another impediment. ESPN controls the LHN until 2031. That's going to peak out over 17 million a year and averages 15. So these ideas that they will move somewhere that ESPN doesn't favor are ludicrous even if you are a native to Texas.

I put my trust in Texas doing whatever is necessary to maintain their business model which is their top priority and should be since it is consistently top 2 in the nation and most years leads the nation in generating revenue.

The people in Austin are intelligent and highly successful. They'll think like a corporation, which is what they have done, and what Aggie did or didn't do may play well for their chat room crowds but in the end they will make a calculated business move but only if they have to do so.

I could see the Big 12 taking 8 to 10 PAC schools and keeping the business offices of the new conference in Texas. I can not see them moving to the PAC to suffer that suckwind leadership and to move at their detriment. That deal failed at least twice for a damn good reason, it's untenable.

If I'm wrong I'll publicly admit it in a post and reward either of you 3 rep points. The last time I made such a bet with 2 homeboys of the state of Texas their sorry butts disappeared from this board and they never publicly acknowledged their horse crap, let alone honored the bet. And that bet was that the Big 12 wouldn't expand again when they were interviewing the prospective G5 schools several years back. I bet them they wouldn't take any of them because it would keep UT's and OU's options open and expanding would allow with even just 2 new schools too many votes to control the destiny of the Big 12.

The Big 12 exists only until Texas and Oklahoma decide otherwise. Those 2 schools represent almost 2/3rds of the total value of the Big 12.

So the Big 12 either stays together, because that's what UT and OU want. Or, it takes some key PAC schools (which is still highly unlikely). Or Oklahoma leaves for wherever they wish and Texas heads either to the SEC or ACC.

So the question becomes this. Does Oklahoma and Kansas offer the Big 10 what it wants? Or, would the Big 10 prefer to wait for a decade to try to gain 20 million instead of 6 million by taking Virginia and North Carolina and getting two academic bluebloods instead of Oklahoma which would be dead last in the Big 10 academically and the flagship of a state of 4 million, and with Kansas which represents a state of 2.7 million?

In other words I'm not sure the Big 10's interest is that strong in either Kansas or Oklahoma. If that assumption is correct then Oklahoma won't have as much leverage in negotiations with the SEC.

Texas is the only piece that counts for the Big 10. They deliver 23 million by themselves, are an economic powerhouse, and an academic stalwart. My feeling is that if Texas is unwilling to move to the Big 10, or just unwilling to move period that the Big 10 will simply stand pat.

If Oklahoma wants to move they will be considered by both the Big 10 and SEC but I believe that the Big 10 academics will pass on them without the surety of Texas. Notre Dame does more for them and has more value. And when the SEC and Big 10 media revenue eclipses that of the ACC by ~30 million anything will become possible.

The questions that have to be answered for the SEC and Big 10 are these:
Which addition gives us the most advantages? Obviously Texas. Although for the SEC OU has a lot of value as well.

Which addition makes the most sense with them? Obviously Oklahoma. Although for the SEC the question of a second if OU is the first is up in the air. Kansas offers an AAU school, rival of Missouri, and basketball branding so they have value. But it still doesn't make them a slam dunk #2 to Oklahoma.

For the Big 10 the answer is Texas. For the SEC Texas may only be obtainable if they land Oklahoma. But the SEC has a major player in Texas. The SEC has major football branding. Oklahoma I think would be a priority to finish out Texas if possible. And on their own they give the SEC enough added value to keep them ahead of the Big 10 in that dynamic. So if Texas has no interest in moving Oklahoma still accomplishes things for the SEC. IMO the SEC is the only conference that Oklahoma can risk a move to without Texas.

So the likely priorities of the 2 conferences will be a fascinating dynamic to watch at work.

The PAC schools need to admit failure and radically change their leadership before even thinking about UT/OU. There's no way I would recommend that move if that doesn't happen. But, like I mentioned to a poster in another thread, I have a better chance at winning the Powerball than institutions with big egos like USC, UT, OU, Stanford, etc., working together.

However, something has to be done or they can forget about catching up to the Big Ten, let alone the SEC. If OU, UT or a combination of both with other programs go hat-in-hand to the SEC, then it's too late for the PAC stay in the conversation, long term, with the programs back East. It will also be too late for the Big Ten to put a dent in the SEC domination of the top sport in college and just concentrate more on basketball and other sports.

If further consolidation of major college sports is inevitable then I would like at least a third major force that would balance out the interests of the Big Ten and SEC. Barring that, it becomes the SEC's world and everyone else just living in it.

I was an early proponent of the Big 12 to the PAC and the Big 10 and SEC dividing the ACC. That is still highly feasible but the Big 10 and SEC would need to work in concert.

Personally I believe 3 divisions of 20 work the best.

There is another way to go about it however.

The SEC would take 6 ACC schools, but would leave Clemson and Florida State alone.
The Big 10 would take 6 PAC schools but would leave USC and Arizona alone.

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

Big 10:
California, Oregon, Stanford, Washington, U.C.L.A.
Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Ohio State
Indiana, Maryland, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Big 12:
Arizona, Arizona State, Southern Cal, Texas Tech, Utah
Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, T.C.U.
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Pittsburgh, West Virginia
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Notre Dame

I think those conferences would be relatively equal in most regards.

Boston College, Oregon State, Syracuse, Wake Forest, Washington State are the odd ones out.

One thing I've learned reading this board over the years:

I would never debate either...

1. (were I to hypothetically have her as a lady friend) ... a vivacious, gorgeous, interesting, witty, clever, and well-rounded 42-year-old woman who wants sex all the time.

and

2. JRsec

With the former, it's worth losing the debate

With the latter, losing the debate is a given

(03-24-2020 10:22 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  One thing I've learned reading this board over the years:

I would never debate either...

1. (were I to hypothetically have her as a lady friend) ... a vivacious, gorgeous, interesting, witty, clever, and well-rounded 42-year-old woman who wants sex all the time.

and

2. JRsec

With the former, it's worth losing the debate

With the latter, losing the debate is a given

JR knows his stuff, that is for sure.

Perhaps after this plague has gone from us, we should all gather in Auburn, Alabama to realign college athletics once and for all.

(03-24-2020 10:47 AM)texoma Wrote:  Sactowndog, Pony94 and Stugray2. I would like to offer my opinions on your above post's without replicating all of them.

I agree that the money will force OU to leave the Big12. The Big10 is their first choice, with or without Texas, but preferably with Texas.
Texas may or may not be interested, but if Texas goes, they will want some of their old Big12 buddies....OU, KU, Missouri etc., to form a regional division. Texas will not require that any Texas schools go with them.

Texas will not be joining the SEC, because of the culture and they will not follow little brother anywhere. If they are not interested in the Big10 with OU. They will likely go independent in football and leave their other sports in the Big12 similar to what Notre Dame has with the ACC.

One other alternative is working out some kind of an an arrangement with the PAC i.e., merger etc. Again they will insist on other Big12 teams be included. Probably OU, OSU, Texas Tech at a minimum. The PAC will not accept religious affiliated schools, so no Baylor or TCU. Plus neither OU or Texas needs to play 3 or 4 games in Texas..

I have posted my opinions on this in other threads, so my apologies to those that have seen them before.

Yeah I agree Big 12 teams will be included.

The question is which ones. I would be interested in your thoughts and rationals. I would also assume as an AAU school, a school close by, and a school with history Colorado would flip East.

Specific questions I would appreciate your thoughts that I’ve wondered.

How much value would Texas and Oklahoma see in approaching Nebraska?

Same question with Missouri? Approaching either increases your risk so they have to matter.

Would Texas insist on 4 schools to balance the CA 4 or would 3 be okay and if so which 3? I’m not sure religious affiliation matters but scandal might.

How important is the Houston market and do they offer U of Houston?

Can Kansas be part of the initial group or are they like Washington/Oregon/Arizona?

Iowa State is AAU, is it worth adding them?

What makes this different ( if it occurred) is this time it really is a marriage of equals. I think USC and Texas would be the prime movers. Other than AZ, the west is pretty simple. It’s the East that has issues and how do you execute the merger without the SEC and Big12 from blowing it up.

(03-24-2020 10:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I was an early proponent of the Big 12 to the PAC and the Big 10 and SEC dividing the ACC. That is still highly feasible but the Big 10 and SEC would need to work in concert.

Personally I believe 3 divisions of 20 work the best.

There is another way to go about it however.

The SEC would take 6 ACC schools, but would leave Clemson and Florida State alone.
The Big 10 would take 6 PAC schools but would leave USC and Arizona alone.

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

Big 10:
California, Oregon, Stanford, Washington, U.C.L.A.
Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Ohio State
Indiana, Maryland, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Big 12:
Arizona, Arizona State, Southern Cal, Texas Tech, Utah
Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, T.C.U.
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Pittsburgh, West Virginia
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Notre Dame

I think those conferences would be relatively equal in most regards.

Boston College, Oregon State, Syracuse, Wake Forest, Washington State are the odd ones out.

I don’t think any scenario exists where the CA 4 are split. They refused to be in different divisions and are too powerful to be split apart. But I think the prospect of such a split could drive a partnership of equals merger with Texas.

If we're going to do 3 divisions, I like Transic_nyc's list.

(03-23-2020 10:52 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Rebuilt PAC/XII
West: Washington, Oregon, Stanford, California, USC, UCLA, Arizona, Utah
East: Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech, Texas Christian

Alternative B1G
West: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State
East: Ohio State, Penn State, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Pittsburgh

Alternative SEC
West: Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi State, Mississippi, Alabama, Auburn, Florida State, Vanderbilt
East: Kentucky, Virginia Tech, North Carolina State, Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Clemson, Georgia Tech


That's just one possible outcome. I'm not saying it's going to happen this way but both the SEC and Big Ten would rather look eastward if OU/UT are permanently off the table.

I definitely think Arizona State should be in instead of TCU. If you wanted to make it 18, see if BYU wants in, if not I guess Iowa State just because it's a new state although by then we're scraping the bottom.

In the Big Ten, I don't really like splitting Michigan and Ohio State but there really isn't any better way to do it. You could switch Michigan and Notre Dame to put them together and put Notre Dame with Indiana and Purdue but you'd be splitting Michigan and Michigan State which isn't much better.

In the SEC, I would definitely switch Tennessee and Florida State. Why have two states' rivals in opposite divisions? We don't have to have East and West be literal.

Let me do a 3 by 20.

To try to balance out the three conferences as much as possible and going by my principle of East is superior, all schools West of the Mississippi are in the Pac-12. If you're on the river, you get to stay in the Big Ten or SEC, otherwise, get lost.

Pac-12:
California, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah
Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri

Big Ten:
Boston College, Connecticut, Syracuse, Penn State, Temple, Pittsburgh, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke
Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Minnesota

SEC:
Virginia Tech, West Virginia, NC State, Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Florida, Florida State, Miami
Cincinnati, Kentucky, Louisville, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, LSU

Yeah Rutgers is out. Screw em! Iowa State, Baylor, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Wake Forest, Oregon State, and Washington State are the others out and Temple, Connecticut, and Cincinnati are in. I'd trade West Virginia for UCF too. The SEC could also add UCF instead of Cincinnati and move West Virginia into Cincinnati's place. Realistically UConn and Temple be fighting for the last Big Ten slot.

(03-24-2020 10:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I was an early proponent of the Big 12 to the PAC and the Big 10 and SEC dividing the ACC. That is still highly feasible but the Big 10 and SEC would need to work in concert.

Personally I believe 3 divisions of 20 work the best.

There is another way to go about it however.

The SEC would take 6 ACC schools, but would leave Clemson and Florida State alone.
The Big 10 would take 6 PAC schools but would leave USC and Arizona alone.

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

Big 10:
California, Oregon, Stanford, Washington, U.C.L.A.
Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Ohio State
Indiana, Maryland, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Big 12:
Arizona, Arizona State, Southern Cal, Texas Tech, Utah
Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, T.C.U.
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Pittsburgh, West Virginia
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Notre Dame

I think those conferences would be relatively equal in most regards.

Boston College, Oregon State, Syracuse, Wake Forest, Washington State are the odd ones out.

Another way of looking at the "Big 12" group: build a conference around Texas, USC, Florida State, Clemson, Oklahoma, Kansas, Notre Dame and Louisville/West Virginia. The Big East could pick up some of the leftovers and become even more solid in basketball.

(03-25-2020 07:15 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Let me do a 3 by 20.

To try to balance out the three conferences as much as possible and going by my principle of East is superior, all schools West of the Mississippi are in the Pac-12. If you're on the river, you get to stay in the Big Ten or SEC, otherwise, get lost.

Pac-12:
California, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah
Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri

Big Ten:
Boston College, Connecticut, Syracuse, Penn State, Temple, Pittsburgh, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke
Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Minnesota

SEC:
Virginia Tech, West Virginia, NC State, Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Florida, Florida State, Miami
Cincinnati, Kentucky, Louisville, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, LSU

Yeah Rutgers is out. Screw em! Iowa State, Baylor, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Wake Forest, Oregon State, and Washington State are the others out and Temple, Connecticut, and Cincinnati are in. I'd trade West Virginia for UCF too. The SEC could also add UCF instead of Cincinnati and move West Virginia into Cincinnati's place. Realistically UConn and Temple be fighting for the last Big Ten slot.

In a 3X20, no new members are admitted to the club when they are reducing from 65 to 60.

And other than BYU, its because the programs aren't as financially strong as the existing members, with the possible exception of Wake Forest and Washington St.

(03-24-2020 11:31 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Yeah I agree Big 12 teams will be included.

The question is which ones. I would be interested in your thoughts and rationals. I would also assume as an AAU school, a school close by, and a school with history Colorado would flip East.

Specific questions I would appreciate your thoughts that I’ve wondered.

How much value would Texas and Oklahoma see in approaching Nebraska?

Same question with Missouri? Approaching either increases your risk so they have to matter.

Would Texas insist on 4 schools to balance the CA 4 or would 3 be okay and if so which 3? I’m not sure religious affiliation matters but scandal might.

How important is the Houston market and do they offer U of Houston?

Can Kansas be part of the initial group or are they like Washington/Oregon/Arizona?

Iowa State is AAU, is it worth adding them?

What makes this different ( if it occurred) is this time it really is a marriage of equals. I think USC and Texas would be the prime movers. Other than AZ, the west is pretty simple. It’s the East that has issues and how do you execute the merger without the SEC and Big12 from blowing it up.

This discussion is valid. For college football to continue as a national sport (and to fund the biggest percentage of the rest of college athletics), there has to be a nationally relevant western conference. College football will always be more popular in the South and Midwest. There is a greater density of college football fans in those two regions. Yes, I'd prefer for my team to go east rather than west. But, the opportunity exists (with a few hoops to jump through) to create a new western conference. I do not know if it can generate the revenue needed to keep up with the SEC and B1G, but it could be an improvement over the current Pac-12 or B12. These questions have been raised regarding the formation of the "Airport" conference (working name after the airport meeting required to form it).

How much value would Texas and Oklahoma see in approaching Nebraska? It's worth it. I'm doubtful to whether Nebraska would consider it. They have gone through some pain to attain full membership in the B1G. They're not going to give that up unless mobs of Husker fans storm the campus demanding to play old Big 8 rivals.

Same question with Missouri? Approaching either increases your risk so they have to matter. They're worth approaching with the opportunity to bring the old Big 8 gang together again. Yes, they are a fish out of water in the SEC. But, they like being there, are secure there, and would choose to stay.

Would Texas insist on 4 schools to balance the CA 4 or would 3 be okay and if so which 3? I’m not sure religious affiliation matters but scandal might. Regarding Baylor, the combination of religious affiliation and scandal work against them. Tech would absolutely be included in this conference. TCU is secular enough to pass muster, is located in DFW, and is a faithful ally of UT..they're in. Oklahoma State, though not located in Texas, functions as a Texas school for these purposes.

How important is the Houston market and do they offer U of Houston? The Houston market is important. UT has a good portion of it by themselves. There is institutional rivalry between UT and UH that can better be explained by posters from those schools. Let's just say that there are plenty that regard UH as Cougar High. I personally believe that an "Airport" conference needs to compete with the SEC (A&M/LSU) in Houston, and UH would help them do that.

Can Kansas be part of the initial group or are they like Washington/Oregon/Arizona? KU will have the freedom to leave K-State, but like Washington/Oregon/Arizona, they can't be the instigators. The "Airport" conference would be an option for them.

Iowa State is AAU, is it worth adding them? If there was ever such thing as a strong second school in a small state, Iowa State is it. They are highly regarded academically, have a strong fan base and facilities, and are competitive on the field. The "Airport" conference would present its best opportunity to continue as a P school. I believe they would bring value to the "Airport" conference.

In my opinion, Colorado would present an issue. Yes, they would want to be part of this. But, they would rather travel west. They left the Big 12 for the Pac 12 so they could play in California, where their largest group of out-of-state alumni reside, and where they recruit large numbers of students. They would rather be in California than in Texas.

(03-24-2020 12:58 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 11:33 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 10:47 AM)texoma Wrote:  Sactowndog, Pony94 and Stugray2. I would like to offer my opinions on your above post's without replicating all of them.

I agree that the money will force OU to leave the Big12. The Big10 is their first choice, with or without Texas, but preferably with Texas.
Texas may or may not be interested, but if Texas goes, they will want some of their old Big12 buddies....OU, KU, Missouri etc., to form a regional division. Texas will not require that any Texas schools go with them.

Texas will not be joining the SEC, because of the culture and they will not follow little brother anywhere. If they are not interested in the Big10 with OU. They will likely go independent in football and leave their other sports in the Big12 similar to what Notre Dame has with the ACC.

One other alternative is working out some kind of an an arrangement with the PAC i.e., merger etc. Again they will insist on other Big12 teams be included. Probably OU, OSU, Texas Tech at a minimum. The PAC will not accept religious affiliated schools, so no Baylor or TCU. Plus neither OU or Texas needs to play 3 or 4 games in Texas..

I have posted my opinions on this in other threads, so my apologies to those that have seen them before.

You gotta love CSNBBS, where people who live outside the region claim to know more than those who live right inside the region where speculation is ongoing.

Btw, if you don't mind mind answering, which do you think is more likely to happen, Texahoma to the current Pac-12 finally happening or a merger between programs from the PAC and Big 12?

I tend to agree at a high level with Texoma here:

1) The money forces OU to go. OU will go to the B1G if given the chance, but will go to the SEC otherwise, especially if the SEC offers first with no sign of an offer from the B1G, or if the SEC makes a better offer. If Texas goes, they'll want someone close to go with them, not necessarily in Texas.

2) Texas isn't going to the SEC. They've never liked the culture (academics is a smokescreen), and most importantly, they can't be seen as following A&M.

3) Some schools in the Pac (USC???) may try to set up some sort of alliance, merger, or new conference. The Airport conference mentioned elsewhere is a possibility, especially if USC, UCLA, Cal, and Stanford team up with UT to form it. Texas would be in more of a position to choose its regional partners to set up a more localized division, including Texas schools. Yes, Baylor would be out in this scenario, as the school retains a Christian identity and a Baptist affiliation. That would be a no-go for the West Coast schools. TCU would be more acceptable, as it has a much looser relationship with its denomination (Disciples of Christ), and has evolved into a more secular institution.

The Airport conference would be a third option for OU, but presents more risk, as it would be (similar to the Big 12) a new conference with uncertain value and a merger of cultures. OU may be more willing to go to an established conference such as the B1G (where the administration wants to go) or the SEC (where the fans want to go).

I’m not sure their is much risk in value given the total eyeballs across both conferences is 106,609,500. That amount would grow higher if Nebraska or Missouri rejoined. That number is more aligned with the SEC and Big population sizes. The PAC-12 alone is 67,588,264. The Big 12 alone is 40,813,254. Not to mention the brand names involved in both Football and Basketball.

In either case, the conferences would have media consultants who could give them a dollar estimate from Fox or ESPN.

Culture is a risk but it retains the Midwest rivalries with Academics similiar to the Big. What it doesn’t do is provide the southern culture of the SEC.

(03-25-2020 12:25 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 11:31 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Yeah I agree Big 12 teams will be included.

The question is which ones. I would be interested in your thoughts and rationals. I would also assume as an AAU school, a school close by, and a school with history Colorado would flip East.

Specific questions I would appreciate your thoughts that I’ve wondered.

How much value would Texas and Oklahoma see in approaching Nebraska?

Same question with Missouri? Approaching either increases your risk so they have to matter.

Would Texas insist on 4 schools to balance the CA 4 or would 3 be okay and if so which 3? I’m not sure religious affiliation matters but scandal might.

How important is the Houston market and do they offer U of Houston?

Can Kansas be part of the initial group or are they like Washington/Oregon/Arizona?

Iowa State is AAU, is it worth adding them?

What makes this different ( if it occurred) is this time it really is a marriage of equals. I think USC and Texas would be the prime movers. Other than AZ, the west is pretty simple. It’s the East that has issues and how do you execute the merger without the SEC and Big12 from blowing it up.

This discussion is valid. For college football to continue as a national sport (and to fund the biggest percentage of the rest of college athletics), there has to be a nationally relevant western conference. College football will always be more popular in the South and Midwest. There is a greater density of college football fans in those two regions. Yes, I'd prefer for my team to go east rather than west. But, the opportunity exists (with a few hoops to jump through) to create a new western conference. I do not know if it can generate the revenue needed to keep up with the SEC and B1G, but it could be an improvement over the current Pac-12 or B12. These questions have been raised regarding the formation of the "Airport" conference (working name after the airport meeting required to form it).

How much value would Texas and Oklahoma see in approaching Nebraska? It's worth it. I'm doubtful to whether Nebraska would consider it. They have gone through some pain to attain full membership in the B1G. They're not going to give that up unless mobs of Husker fans storm the campus demanding to play old Big 8 rivals.

Same question with Missouri? Approaching either increases your risk so they have to matter. They're worth approaching with the opportunity to bring the old Big 8 gang together again. Yes, they are a fish out of water in the SEC. But, they like being there, are secure there, and would choose to stay.

Would Texas insist on 4 schools to balance the CA 4 or would 3 be okay and if so which 3? I’m not sure religious affiliation matters but scandal might. Regarding Baylor, the combination of religious affiliation and scandal work against them. Tech would absolutely be included in this conference. TCU is secular enough to pass muster, is located in DFW, and is a faithful ally of UT..they're in. Oklahoma State, though not located in Texas, functions as a Texas school for these purposes.

How important is the Houston market and do they offer U of Houston? The Houston market is important. UT has a good portion of it by themselves. There is institutional rivalry between UT and UH that can better be explained by posters from those schools. Let's just say that there are plenty that regard UH as Cougar High. I personally believe that an "Airport" conference needs to compete with the SEC (A&M/LSU) in Houston, and UH would help them do that.

Can Kansas be part of the initial group or are they like Washington/Oregon/Arizona? KU will have the freedom to leave K-State, but like Washington/Oregon/Arizona, they can't be the instigators. The "Airport" conference would be an option for them.

Iowa State is AAU, is it worth adding them? If there was ever such thing as a strong second school in a small state, Iowa State is it. They are highly regarded academically, have a strong fan base and facilities, and are competitive on the field. The "Airport" conference would present its best opportunity to continue as a P school. I believe they would bring value to the "Airport" conference.

In my opinion, Colorado would present an issue. Yes, they would want to be part of this. But, they would rather travel west. They left the Big 12 for the Pac 12 so they could play in California, where their largest group of out-of-state alumni reside, and where they recruit large numbers of students. They would rather be in California than in Texas.

Interesting points and insights. I’m not sure from your commentary who your initial gang and preferred 8 would be. I agree Colorado might want to be west and might be satisfied with a 7-2 model which could give them a CA game every other year. But I think if you look at the schools in the west you almost have to send them to the east side.

I can see the Pac 12 getting split between the Big 10 and the Big 12.