(07-16-2020 09:44 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Oklahoma and Texas have some options open to them. The question is will a media partner pay them on par with the SEC and Big Ten to stay where they are.

If the answer is no, then they start shopping around.

When push comes to shove, I do think that they will get a boost with the conference in it's tier 1 and tier 2 deals. Where schools outside UT, ou, wv and ku, won't make as much for it's tier 3. So in a sense it's like unequal sharing and I'm pretty positive that the other schools won't raise an issue with that.

Oklahoma and Texas fans probably won’t like me framing it this way but those two are positioned to leverage huge concessions from the other 8 with each new media deal. In 2024 it might be unequal revenue sharing. In 2036 it could be retaining ALL of their own rights.

The other 8 have no choice but to tolerate it if they want to stay in a P5 conference meanwhile with each new financial concession it will be harder and harder for them to compete.

(07-16-2020 11:31 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Oklahoma and Texas fans probably won’t like me framing it this way but those two are positioned to leverage huge concessions from the other 8 with each new media deal. In 2024 it might be unequal revenue sharing. In 2036 it could be retaining ALL of their own rights.

The other 8 have no choice but to tolerate it if they want to stay in a P5 conference meanwhile with each new financial concession it will be harder and harder for them to compete.

OU and Texas are absolutely positioned to extract huge concessions from the other 8 schools with each new media deal. And, there's a lot to be said for staying with the familiar. If the networks can pay OU and UT SEC-type money to stay in the B12, OU and UT will stay. The other 8 may not like the revenue differential, but they'll go along as the price to remain in the P5. (I'm personally on board with OU to the SEC, but remaining in the B12 is definitely an option, and is the path of least resistance)

The other 8 schools are more than competitive outside of football. Texas Tech came within overtime of winning a national championship in men's basketball in 2019. Kansas is a blueblood in men's basketball. Baylor is a national power in women's basketball. Tech and TCU are nationally competitive in baseball. All of this and more is in jeopardy outside of the P5. The question is: will they be able to swallow their pride to allow OU and UT to claim a bigger difference in revenue with each new media deal?

(07-16-2020 12:31 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 11:31 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Oklahoma and Texas fans probably won’t like me framing it this way but those two are positioned to leverage huge concessions from the other 8 with each new media deal. In 2024 it might be unequal revenue sharing. In 2036 it could be retaining ALL of their own rights.

The other 8 have no choice but to tolerate it if they want to stay in a P5 conference meanwhile with each new financial concession it will be harder and harder for them to compete.

OU and Texas are absolutely positioned to extract huge concessions from the other 8 schools with each new media deal. And, there's a lot to be said for staying with the familiar. If the networks can pay OU and UT SEC-type money to stay in the B12, OU and UT will stay. The other 8 may not like the revenue differential, but they'll go along as the price to remain in the P5. (I'm personally on board with OU to the SEC, but remaining in the B12 is definitely an option, and is the path of least resistance)

The other 8 schools are more than competitive outside of football. Texas Tech came within overtime of winning a national championship in men's basketball in 2019. Kansas is a blueblood in men's basketball. Baylor is a national power in women's basketball. Tech and TCU are nationally competitive in baseball. All of this and more is in jeopardy outside of the P5. The question is: will they be able to swallow their pride to allow OU and UT to claim a bigger difference in revenue with each new media deal?

As to the matter of moving, the question changes significantly if accommodation is made for Oklahoma State and Texas Tech. Would the states of Oklahoma and Texas care about Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, West Virginia, or make a big fuss over two privates they don't fund if their 4 state schools were able to move to more security and greater payouts in a time where demographics and circumstances are aligned against revenue growth? To me that is the more germane question.

If it is merely a matter of Texas and Oklahoma bleeding concessions from the other 8 that is prima facia a non permanent arrangement loosely based on extortion which only breeds further acrimony and possibly misses a timing window of opportunity for much more. But if all 4 could access more within a window that guaranteed more stability and equity, and therefore more amicable relations it seems to me that the States of Texas and Oklahoma might feel better about such a decision.

We think of state schools as individual personalities, when in reality they are more like marriageable daughters of prominent sheiks of oil rich countries that permit polygamy. You don't always get to marry the most beautiful unless you marry both sisters at once. The parent state after all has to be concerned with the future provision for both, and not just the most attractive. And that reality exists in college football as well.

We think of schools and conferences making these decisions but in reality state legislatures will play a larger role in wanting to secure the best future of all its wards and the Presidents will feel their approval or disapproval palpably.

The public officiant of the marriage is the Network. Since 2 of the 4 schools have massive national viewership and a third has very strong regional numbers, and the fourth is competitive and does not flatly detract too much value I don't see any objection for the marriage.

Regionality is going to be a key factor in the future as the effect of COVID 19 will live on the public memory and institutional memory for quite some time. But supply and demand will also play a factor. Currently there are 5 P programs in Texas. Such a move would result in 3 and those 3 the only ones the state is essentially responsible for funding. So that consolidation also benefits the sports programs of those 3 state schools. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and L.S.U. also draw from the Texas recruiting pool but with less efficacy than at least 2 if not all 3 of the state schools. So no change there.

Therefore such a move keeps all of the rivals for UT, lessens the instate competition by degree, enhances their stability and revenue, and gives them a slate of schools to play in adjoining states which have enough clout of their own to bring large travel crowds, provide easy access to road games, and to hold the interest and imagination of their alumni keeping them engaged.

I don't see much downside at all.

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

The ingenious move for Texas, if their pride would allow it, would be for them to go to the SEC with Tech, but freeze out Oklahoma.

The Horns become part of ESPN’s great southern empire, they get 4 home conference games at home (in Texas) plus one away conference game (Tech or A&M) instate, probably an FCS and a G5 at home, and then they can offer to keep the RRR, ensuring yet another game in Texas.

Meanwhile arch rival Oklahoma has to choose between being the last tent pole left in a conference with a strong Texas presence/recruiting opportunities or Big Ten money but a loss of those recruiting grounds.

JR, that all makes a lot of sense. I see one problem.... convincing Texas to move to the SEC for all of the reasons I have previously stated. However, this just might do it. Getting Texas, A&M and Tech together would be politically desirable.

I would make adjustments to the divisions as follows:

Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, A&M and Tech.
Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Alabama and Auburn.
Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Florida and So. Carolina.

Puts three long time rivals from the Big 8 Schools together with three Texas SWC schools. Keeps Alabama and Auburn together along with current SEC West division schools. Keeps Vandy and Tennessee together.

(07-16-2020 02:07 PM)texoma Wrote:  JR, that all makes a lot of sense. I see one problem.... convincing Texas to move to the SEC for all of the reasons I have previously stated. However, this just might do it. Getting Texas, A&M and Tech together would be politically desirable.

I would make adjustments to the divisions as follows:

Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, A&M and Tech.
Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Alabama and Auburn.
Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Florida and So. Carolina.

Puts three long time rivals from the Big 8 Schools together with three Texas SWC schools. Keeps Alabama and Auburn together along with current SEC West division schools. Keeps Vandy and Tennessee together.

You may feel free to suggest changes to the Big 12 / Big 8 alignments, but I believe I understand the internal issues in the SEC better than you do. Auburn has been promised since 1992 to be moved back to its traditional rivals. I'm sure the SEC will find a way to preserve the Iron Bowl even if Auburn is in the East. Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee in addition to Alabama were Auburn's historical annual rivalries.

(07-16-2020 01:40 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The ingenious move for Texas, if their pride would allow it, would be for them to go to the SEC with Tech, but freeze out Oklahoma.

The Horns become part of ESPN’s great southern empire, they get 4 home conference games at home (in Texas) plus one away conference game (Tech or A&M) instate, probably an FCS and a G5 at home, and then they can offer to keep the RRR, ensuring yet another game in Texas.

Meanwhile arch rival Oklahoma has to choose between being the last tent pole left in a conference with a strong Texas presence/recruiting opportunities or Big Ten money but a loss of those recruiting grounds.

Muskie I seriously doubt Texas would leave the Big12 if OU stays. Personally, I think they are a lock if OU stays. In the Big12 Texas has the best situation in all of college football...I don't think they would willingly change a thing..

Texas cannot freeze out Oklahoma. The RRR means too much money for both teams, it is here to stay. OU's best recruiting days in Texas were when both teams were in difference conferences and OU only played one game per year in the State of Texas. If OU goes to the Big10 with only Kansas they will be just fine recruiting and otherwise.

Finally, Texas desire to play as many games as possible in the State is way overblown on this board. They desperately wanted out of the SWC, because of having to play all of the Texas teams.

There are a few good lessons we have learned about realignment so far:

1- scheduling matters. for anybody not in the Big 12, not playing the teams you want to play every year stinks.
It's why we will never see a 16 or an 18 team conference. Even 12 teams is too large (same reason)

2- travel matters. Expense to the schools, difficulty for the fans that want to visit for away games (any sport)

The solution is two conferences with four 8 team divisions. Each division plays a round robin within their division (7 games).
Set schedules. Even if Alabama and Tennessee are in different divisions, they would play every year on the 3rd Saturday in October. Consistency matters to the fans, it's something they can plan for.
3 or 4 out of division games within the same two conferences (could be permanent crossovers)
1 FBS and no more than 1 game OOC with the other conference.

(07-16-2020 02:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 02:07 PM)texoma Wrote:  JR, that all makes a lot of sense. I see one problem.... convincing Texas to move to the SEC for all of the reasons I have previously stated. However, this just might do it. Getting Texas, A&M and Tech together would be politically desirable.

I would make adjustments to the divisions as follows:

Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, A&M and Tech.
Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Alabama and Auburn.
Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Florida and So. Carolina.

Puts three long time rivals from the Big 8 Schools together with three Texas SWC schools. Keeps Alabama and Auburn together along with current SEC West division schools. Keeps Vandy and Tennessee together.

You may feel free to suggest changes to the Big 12 / Big 8 alignments, but I believe I understand the internal issues in the SEC better than you do. Auburn has been promised since 1992 to be moved back to its traditional rivals. I'm sure the SEC will find a way to preserve the Iron Bowl even if Auburn is in the East. Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee in addition to Alabama were Auburn's historical annual rivalries.

Being an Auburn man I understand where you are coming from. I guess I did not realize Auburn swung so much weight in the SEC.

Regardless of the divisions, as I said before, I still think your proposal makes a lot of sense.

(07-16-2020 02:47 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 02:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 02:07 PM)texoma Wrote:  JR, that all makes a lot of sense. I see one problem.... convincing Texas to move to the SEC for all of the reasons I have previously stated. However, this just might do it. Getting Texas, A&M and Tech together would be politically desirable.

I would make adjustments to the divisions as follows:

Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, A&M and Tech.
Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Alabama and Auburn.
Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Florida and So. Carolina.

Puts three long time rivals from the Big 8 Schools together with three Texas SWC schools. Keeps Alabama and Auburn together along with current SEC West division schools. Keeps Vandy and Tennessee together.

You may feel free to suggest changes to the Big 12 / Big 8 alignments, but I believe I understand the internal issues in the SEC better than you do. Auburn has been promised since 1992 to be moved back to its traditional rivals. I'm sure the SEC will find a way to preserve the Iron Bowl even if Auburn is in the East. Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee in addition to Alabama were Auburn's historical annual rivalries.

Being an Auburn man I understand where you are coming from. I guess I did not realize Auburn swung so much weight in the SEC.

Regardless of the divisions, as I said before, I still think your proposal makes a lot of sense.

Thank you for that, with things as they stand now I think keeping divisions regional makes a great deal of sense. And familiarity as the core of a ticket book does as well. We'll see. But I do believe that consolidation will continue and that the Big 10 and SEC will likely be utilized for some of that.

(07-16-2020 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 12:31 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 11:31 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Oklahoma and Texas fans probably won’t like me framing it this way but those two are positioned to leverage huge concessions from the other 8 with each new media deal. In 2024 it might be unequal revenue sharing. In 2036 it could be retaining ALL of their own rights.

The other 8 have no choice but to tolerate it if they want to stay in a P5 conference meanwhile with each new financial concession it will be harder and harder for them to compete.

OU and Texas are absolutely positioned to extract huge concessions from the other 8 schools with each new media deal. And, there's a lot to be said for staying with the familiar. If the networks can pay OU and UT SEC-type money to stay in the B12, OU and UT will stay. The other 8 may not like the revenue differential, but they'll go along as the price to remain in the P5. (I'm personally on board with OU to the SEC, but remaining in the B12 is definitely an option, and is the path of least resistance)

The other 8 schools are more than competitive outside of football. Texas Tech came within overtime of winning a national championship in men's basketball in 2019. Kansas is a blueblood in men's basketball. Baylor is a national power in women's basketball. Tech and TCU are nationally competitive in baseball. All of this and more is in jeopardy outside of the P5. The question is: will they be able to swallow their pride to allow OU and UT to claim a bigger difference in revenue with each new media deal?

As to the matter of moving, the question changes significantly if accommodation is made for Oklahoma State and Texas Tech. Would the states of Oklahoma and Texas care about Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, West Virginia, or make a big fuss over two privates they don't fund if their 4 state schools were able to move to more security and greater payouts in a time where demographics and circumstances are aligned against revenue growth? To me that is the more germane question.

If it is merely a matter of Texas and Oklahoma bleeding concessions from the other 8 that is prima facia a non permanent arrangement loosely based on extortion which only breeds further acrimony and possibly misses a timing window of opportunity for much more. But if all 4 could access more within a window that guaranteed more stability and equity, and therefore more amicable relations it seems to me that the States of Texas and Oklahoma might feel better about such a decision.

We think of state schools as individual personalities, when in reality they are more like marriageable daughters of prominent sheiks of oil rich countries that permit polygamy. You don't always get to marry the most beautiful unless you marry both sisters at once. The parent state after all has to be concerned with the future provision for both, and not just the most attractive. And that reality exists in college football as well.

We think of schools and conferences making these decisions but in reality state legislatures will play a larger role in wanting to secure the best future of all its wards and the Presidents will feel their approval or disapproval palpably.

The public officiant of the marriage is the Network. Since 2 of the 4 schools have massive national viewership and a third has very strong regional numbers, and the fourth is competitive and does not flatly detract too much value I don't see any objection for the marriage.

Regionality is going to be a key factor in the future as the effect of COVID 19 will live on the public memory and institutional memory for quite some time. But supply and demand will also play a factor. Currently there are 5 P programs in Texas. Such a move would result in 3 and those 3 the only ones the state is essentially responsible for funding. So that consolidation also benefits the sports programs of those 3 state schools. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and L.S.U. also draw from the Texas recruiting pool but with less efficacy than at least 2 if not all 3 of the state schools. So no change there.

Therefore such a move keeps all of the rivals for UT, lessens the instate competition by degree, enhances their stability and revenue, and gives them a slate of schools to play in adjoining states which have enough clout of their own to bring large travel crowds, provide easy access to road games, and to hold the interest and imagination of their alumni keeping them engaged.

I don't see much downside at all.

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

If UT and A&M are willing to be in the same room, much less the same conference, I'm ok with this. It's basically a new southwestern conference under the SEC media contract with some cross-division games against legacy SEC schools. DFW becomes a SEC core city. As you mention, it freezes out Baylor and TCU and splits the state of Texas up among three large public schools.

Getting UT and A&M to agree to this will be easier said than done, but a lot of it is public posturing. Neither side can be seen as giving in to the other.

To get A&M to go along with it, you might have to swap A&M and Mizzou. A&M didn't join the SEC just to have UT and OU follow them. There is a serious SEC pride and identity in College Station. But, if they're going to be in the same conference, UT and A&M will eventually have to play each other.

If ESPN waves enough money in the air, UT will listen.

(07-16-2020 04:13 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 12:31 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 11:31 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Oklahoma and Texas fans probably won’t like me framing it this way but those two are positioned to leverage huge concessions from the other 8 with each new media deal. In 2024 it might be unequal revenue sharing. In 2036 it could be retaining ALL of their own rights.

The other 8 have no choice but to tolerate it if they want to stay in a P5 conference meanwhile with each new financial concession it will be harder and harder for them to compete.

OU and Texas are absolutely positioned to extract huge concessions from the other 8 schools with each new media deal. And, there's a lot to be said for staying with the familiar. If the networks can pay OU and UT SEC-type money to stay in the B12, OU and UT will stay. The other 8 may not like the revenue differential, but they'll go along as the price to remain in the P5. (I'm personally on board with OU to the SEC, but remaining in the B12 is definitely an option, and is the path of least resistance)

The other 8 schools are more than competitive outside of football. Texas Tech came within overtime of winning a national championship in men's basketball in 2019. Kansas is a blueblood in men's basketball. Baylor is a national power in women's basketball. Tech and TCU are nationally competitive in baseball. All of this and more is in jeopardy outside of the P5. The question is: will they be able to swallow their pride to allow OU and UT to claim a bigger difference in revenue with each new media deal?

As to the matter of moving, the question changes significantly if accommodation is made for Oklahoma State and Texas Tech. Would the states of Oklahoma and Texas care about Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, West Virginia, or make a big fuss over two privates they don't fund if their 4 state schools were able to move to more security and greater payouts in a time where demographics and circumstances are aligned against revenue growth? To me that is the more germane question.

If it is merely a matter of Texas and Oklahoma bleeding concessions from the other 8 that is prima facia a non permanent arrangement loosely based on extortion which only breeds further acrimony and possibly misses a timing window of opportunity for much more. But if all 4 could access more within a window that guaranteed more stability and equity, and therefore more amicable relations it seems to me that the States of Texas and Oklahoma might feel better about such a decision.

We think of state schools as individual personalities, when in reality they are more like marriageable daughters of prominent sheiks of oil rich countries that permit polygamy. You don't always get to marry the most beautiful unless you marry both sisters at once. The parent state after all has to be concerned with the future provision for both, and not just the most attractive. And that reality exists in college football as well.

We think of schools and conferences making these decisions but in reality state legislatures will play a larger role in wanting to secure the best future of all its wards and the Presidents will feel their approval or disapproval palpably.

The public officiant of the marriage is the Network. Since 2 of the 4 schools have massive national viewership and a third has very strong regional numbers, and the fourth is competitive and does not flatly detract too much value I don't see any objection for the marriage.

Regionality is going to be a key factor in the future as the effect of COVID 19 will live on the public memory and institutional memory for quite some time. But supply and demand will also play a factor. Currently there are 5 P programs in Texas. Such a move would result in 3 and those 3 the only ones the state is essentially responsible for funding. So that consolidation also benefits the sports programs of those 3 state schools. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and L.S.U. also draw from the Texas recruiting pool but with less efficacy than at least 2 if not all 3 of the state schools. So no change there.

Therefore such a move keeps all of the rivals for UT, lessens the instate competition by degree, enhances their stability and revenue, and gives them a slate of schools to play in adjoining states which have enough clout of their own to bring large travel crowds, provide easy access to road games, and to hold the interest and imagination of their alumni keeping them engaged.

I don't see much downside at all.

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

If UT and A&M are willing to be in the same room, much less the same conference, I'm ok with this. It's basically a new southwestern conference under the SEC media contract with some cross-division games against legacy SEC schools. DFW becomes a SEC core city. As you mention, it freezes out Baylor and TCU and splits the state of Texas up among three large public schools.

Getting UT and A&M to agree to this will be easier said than done, but a lot of it is public posturing. Neither side can be seen as giving in to the other.

To get A&M to go along with it, you might have to swap A&M and Mizzou. A&M didn't join the SEC just to have UT and OU follow them. There is a serious SEC pride and identity in College Station. But, if they're going to be in the same conference, UT and A&M will eventually have to play each other.

If ESPN waves enough money in the air, UT will listen.

I thought of putting them in a different division but travel will important for A&M as well and face it event A&M/Tech will be a huge regional game. The money involved is as important to A&M as it is to Texas and advertising leverage in the state of Texas under the SEC banner which brings eyeballs of its own nationally is important to everyone: ESPN / SEC / Texas / Texas A&M / Texas Tech & quit frankly both Oklahoma's. The LHN becomes a separate channel of the SECN focusing on that Division and LSU and the Mississippi & Misouri. Charlotte can carry the East along with Alabama, & Vanderbilt & Miss State.

When the money in the Big10 and SEC gets big enough it might pressure a move more like this:

SEC:
East: Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, Miami, North Carolina State, Virginia Tech
SEast: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennesse
West: Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Vanderbilt
SWest: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

Big 10:
NEast: Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia
East: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue
NWest: Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin.
West: California, California Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

There are your two money conferences. It would be easy to form a competitive one with lesser brands for inclusion to amp up the coverage.

Army, Boston College, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Duke, Central Florida, Georgia Tech, Navy, South Florida, Wake Forest
Air Force, Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, T.C.U.
Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Oregon State, Utah, Washington State

If Texas, Tech moved to the SEC and ou went to the B16.. That will hurt ou long term. Sure ou has roots in the ever growing fertile recruiting grounds known as DFW, but they will have much stiffer competition with Tech, aggy and even Arkansas.

I also think Texas would listen to a pitch from the SEC, especially if it let them keep the LHN money. They can change the name but the money has to stay til the deal runs out or they get bought out.

Aggy can get mad but they won't be able to block the deal, especially if the move will gain the conference millions more in revenue (which it will).

It would be better for ou to join UT in the SEC. I like JR's set up with the teams and divisions. I thought Auburn and Vandy should be swapped but he explained how Auburn would want it that way. As a UT fan, it looks on paper to be a stout division that feels more Big12 South heavy than SEC. Great culture fit.

(07-16-2020 05:59 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  If Texas, Tech moved to the SEC and ou went to the B16.. That will hurt ou long term. Sure ou has roots in the ever growing fertile recruiting grounds known as DFW, but they will have much stiffer competition with Tech, aggy and even Arkansas.

I also think Texas would listen to a pitch from the SEC, especially if it let them keep the LHN money. They can change the name but the money has to stay til the deal runs out or they get bought out.

Aggy can get mad but they won't be able to block the deal, especially if the move will gain the conference millions more in revenue (which it will).

It would be better for ou to join UT in the SEC. I like JR's set up with the teams and divisions. I thought Auburn and Vandy should be swapped but he explained how Auburn would want it that way. As a UT fan, it looks on paper to be a stout division that feels more Big12 South heavy than SEC. Great culture fit.

Thiefery, the LHN contract would be bought out by a simple deduction lasting the remainder of the contract. ESPN would likely pick up half of it and each SEC school would just get $500,000 less of a raise until the other half was bought out. There would be some reduction of that as Texas would move into a full share of the SECN as well.

That's small potatoes for what would be happening and the money everyone would make from the union.

(07-16-2020 02:07 PM)texoma Wrote:  JR, that all makes a lot of sense. I see one problem.... convincing Texas to move to the SEC for all of the reasons I have previously stated. However, this just might do it. Getting Texas, A&M and Tech together would be politically desirable.

I would make adjustments to the divisions as follows:

Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, A&M and Tech.
Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Alabama and Auburn.
Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Florida and So. Carolina.

Puts three long time rivals from the Big 8 Schools together with three Texas SWC schools. Keeps Alabama and Auburn together along with current SEC West division schools. Keeps Vandy and Tennessee together.

This would be a very formidable conference. Swap Arkansas with Missouri though—keep the Hogs with their old SWC buddies.

Go after FSU and Clemson later for 20.

(07-16-2020 08:50 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 02:07 PM)texoma Wrote:  JR, that all makes a lot of sense. I see one problem.... convincing Texas to move to the SEC for all of the reasons I have previously stated. However, this just might do it. Getting Texas, A&M and Tech together would be politically desirable.

I would make adjustments to the divisions as follows:

Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, A&M and Tech.
Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Alabama and Auburn.
Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Florida and So. Carolina.

Puts three long time rivals from the Big 8 Schools together with three Texas SWC schools. Keeps Alabama and Auburn together along with current SEC West division schools. Keeps Vandy and Tennessee together.

This would be a very formidable conference. Swap Arkansas with Missouri though—keep the Hogs with their old SWC buddies.

Go after FSU and Clemson later for 20.

Where will the post Bowden FSU be in another 5-10 years. The bloom is off of that rose,and it may never grow back.
Clemson without Dabo could easily slip back to the Hatfield-Bowden days or they could go full SEC like the Pell-Ford years. The problem with going full SEC is that they just don't have to resources to match Alabama, Florida or Georgia for top players.

(07-16-2020 08:50 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  This would be a very formidable conference. Swap Arkansas with Missouri though—keep the Hogs with their old SWC buddies.

Go after FSU and Clemson later for 20.

Poor Mizzu, they still are a poor fit no matter what division or pod they get placed in.

(07-17-2020 07:27 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 08:50 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  This would be a very formidable conference. Swap Arkansas with Missouri though—keep the Hogs with their old SWC buddies.

Go after FSU and Clemson later for 20.

Poor Mizzu, they still are a poor fit no matter what division or pod they get placed in.

If the P5 stays intact (65 teams), Missouri may eventually be traded to the other side for West Virginia.

(07-16-2020 02:42 PM)XLance Wrote:  There are a few good lessons we have learned about realignment so far:

1- scheduling matters. for anybody not in the Big 12, not playing the teams you want to play every year stinks.
It's why we will never see a 16 or an 18 team conference. Even 12 teams is too large (same reason)

2- travel matters. Expense to the schools, difficulty for the fans that want to visit for away games (any sport)

The solution is two conferences with four 8 team divisions. Each division plays a round robin within their division (7 games).
Set schedules. Even if Alabama and Tennessee are in different divisions, they would play every year on the 3rd Saturday in October. Consistency matters to the fans, it's something they can plan for.
3 or 4 out of division games within the same two conferences (could be permanent crossovers)
1 FBS and no more than 1 game OOC with the other conference.

I don't see any way they go to 20 teams, although its interesting to speculate. Can you see any Big 10 team willing to play Ohio St. and Michigan only 2 times in 6 years as you would with pods? Similar situation with the SEC. And it mandates 9 conference games, leaving little room for conference rivalries that don't fit and out of conference games.

I think 18 with pods is too complicated for the fans. And the only way it would work would be if for the Big 10 they added 4 eastern or 4 western teams. In a 4-5-4-5 you play everyone in the opposite size divisions every other year and get teams in the same size division twice in 10 years. You could set it up so that Ohio St. and Michigan were in opposite size divisions from the rest of the current Big 10. But its complicated for fans and requires the right additions. Just don't see it.

(examples: Big 10 West-5 Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois; North-4 Northwestern, Michigan, Michigan St., Ohio St.; East-5 Indiana, Purdue, Penn St., Rutgers, Maryland; South-4 Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, TCU or Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech---SEC West-5 Ole Miss, Mississippi St., LSU, Arkansas, Texas A&M; South-4 Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt; East-5 Florida, Georgia South Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri; North-4 Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech or Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, TCU----and it all gets more complicated with the SEC if you add in state rivals, particularly FSU and Clemson).