(09-30-2020 11:53 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(09-30-2020 05:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  There are several scenarios where ESPN could shift multiple schools around if they can get complete control of the Big 12.
One such scenario would involve moving TCU to the SEC (2nd Texas presence, DFW market) with Missouri moving to the Big 12 along with Louisville from the ACC and Cincinnati from the AAC. Notre Dame then slides into a permanent home in the ACC.
SEC=14
ACC=14
Big 12=12.

I don’t see anyone making a voluntary shift away from the SEC unless Vanderbilt deempasizes sports.

I would disagree.

In the hypothetical situation where Oklahoma and Kansas join the B1G as the Big 12 starts to fall apart. What does the rest of the Big 12 do?
The question actually becomes: what does Texas do?
That answer would determine outcomes for multiple schools.
What if Texas agrees to move to the SEC, but with the stipulation that they bring two friends with them (17 is not a good number for a conference, the SEC won't take Texas as a partial, and ESPN won't make payments for an 18 team SEC)?
Does the SEC turn them down or ask one school to transfer to the ACC?
The Texas leverage is that they could always join the ACC as a partial ,take their two friends and bypass the SEC all together.

(10-11-2020 11:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-30-2020 11:53 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(09-30-2020 05:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  There are several scenarios where ESPN could shift multiple schools around if they can get complete control of the Big 12.
One such scenario would involve moving TCU to the SEC (2nd Texas presence, DFW market) with Missouri moving to the Big 12 along with Louisville from the ACC and Cincinnati from the AAC. Notre Dame then slides into a permanent home in the ACC.
SEC=14
ACC=14
Big 12=12.

I don’t see anyone making a voluntary shift away from the SEC unless Vanderbilt deempasizes sports.

I would disagree.

In the hypothetical situation where Oklahoma and Kansas join the B1G as the Big 12 starts to fall apart. What does the rest of the Big 12 do?
The question actually becomes: what does Texas do?
That answer would determine outcomes for multiple schools.
What if Texas agrees to move to the SEC, but with the stipulation that they bring two friends with them (17 is not a good number for a conference, the SEC won't take Texas as a partial, and ESPN won't make payments for an 18 team SEC)?
Does the SEC turn them down or ask one school to transfer to the ACC?
The Texas leverage is that they could always join the ACC as a partial ,take their two friends and bypass the SEC all together.

Texas wouldn't make the stipulation to bring 2 other schools, just one in Tech.. Which coincidentally was the way they envisioned it when forming the Big12. UT/Tech/aggy.

I also wonder if ESPN does a deal to let UT keep the LHN network til the deal runs out.. Or maybe flips it to a SEC/TX SEC/West package. Where they will show tier 3 games between the Tx schools/arkansas? Espn writes a check to make the difference?

(10-11-2020 01:14 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 11:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-30-2020 11:53 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(09-30-2020 05:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  There are several scenarios where ESPN could shift multiple schools around if they can get complete control of the Big 12.
One such scenario would involve moving TCU to the SEC (2nd Texas presence, DFW market) with Missouri moving to the Big 12 along with Louisville from the ACC and Cincinnati from the AAC. Notre Dame then slides into a permanent home in the ACC.
SEC=14
ACC=14
Big 12=12.

I don’t see anyone making a voluntary shift away from the SEC unless Vanderbilt deempasizes sports.

I would disagree.

In the hypothetical situation where Oklahoma and Kansas join the B1G as the Big 12 starts to fall apart. What does the rest of the Big 12 do?
The question actually becomes: what does Texas do?
That answer would determine outcomes for multiple schools.
What if Texas agrees to move to the SEC, but with the stipulation that they bring two friends with them (17 is not a good number for a conference, the SEC won't take Texas as a partial, and ESPN won't make payments for an 18 team SEC)?
Does the SEC turn them down or ask one school to transfer to the ACC?
The Texas leverage is that they could always join the ACC as a partial ,take their two friends and bypass the SEC all together.

Texas wouldn't make the stipulation to bring 2 other schools, just one in Tech.. Which coincidentally was the way they envisioned it when forming the Big12. UT/Tech/aggy.

I also wonder if ESPN does a deal to let UT keep the LHN network til the deal runs out.. Or maybe flips it to a SEC/TX SEC/West package. Where they will show tier 3 games between the Tx schools/arkansas? Espn writes a check to make the difference?

If Texas should decide to leave the Big 12 and join another conference, and that's a big if, Texas and Tech to the SEC actually makes the most sense for them for a number of reasons. Oklahoma in the Big 10 with Kansas also fits that Texas narrative in that scenario.

Texas and Tech and A&M guarantee Texas 7 games inside Texas annually, their 6 home games which includes one of Tech & A&M at home and one away. If they keep the RRR, and there is no reason not to do so, that's 8.

Oklahoma to the Big 10 gives Texas a relatively undisputed prominence in recruiting the region. L.S.U. has always done well in Houston and Arkansas used to do well in Dallas. With Oklahoma in the Big 10 their presence recruiting Texas will diminish a little bit. At least enough that any gains by Arkansas wouldn't be as great as gains by Texas.

And if Texas joins the SEC they negate the A&M branding advantage which is also to their favor.

furthermore if Auburn and Alabama move to the East then the West becomes Texas, L.S.U. (solid but not Oklahoma caliber) and A&M as their primary obstacles.

The moves would satisfy everyone but A&M. ESPN has control of Texas the school and state more completely. The SEC does as well. Arkansas would relish a return to more of their history and l.S.U. out from under Alabama's shadow may be better off to boot.

The Big 10 would be happy to have Oklahoma to bolster the West and Kansas is a solid enough traveling companion.

With those matters settled perhaps W.V.U. makes a move to the ACC. It would benefit the conference, but old animus may reign.

Why would the SECs take Tech to get Texas? Because without Texas we likely have to take OSU to get Oklahoma. Either way we double up a state. It's probably more profitable to take Tech as a third school in a state of 27 million than it is to take the Pokes as a 2nd school in a state of 4 million.

JR’s response to XLance is one I whole heartedly agree with. If the Big Ten move is Oklahoma and Kansas, then the most sensible SEC move is Texas and TTU.

If Texas demands multiple companion schools, I’m assuming Baylor and TCU are who they want. I’m not 100% sure the SEC takes that deal. If anything, claiming to want spots for Baylor and TCU might be a leveraging tactic to get something else from the SEC, like LHN money.

(10-11-2020 02:28 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  JR’s response to XLance is one I whole heartedly agree with. If the Big Ten move is Oklahoma and Kansas, then the most sensible SEC move is Texas and TTU.

If Texas demands multiple companion schools, I’m assuming Baylor and TCU are who they want. I’m not 100% sure the SEC takes that deal. If anything, claiming to want spots for Baylor and TCU might be a leveraging tactic to get something else from the SEC, like LHN money.

They won't need LHN money Muskie. When the SEC payouts are 68 million per school that will be 13 million more than Texas makes for all of their rights including the LHN. They can probably insist on Tech, but the SEC wouldn't take more than that. I'd say we might consider T.C.U. instead of Tech but the Texas Legislature will be looking after Tech, not T.C.U. which isn't their responsibility.

What could change all of this is the suspension of divisional requirements or perhaps even the removal of restrictions on the number of divisions.

If that happens it isn't unlikely at all that the SEC might consider a Texa-homa deal of Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech. The market interest is sufficient to make it profitable for both ESPN and the SEC.

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

With the liberty to have conference semi-finals that sets up very nicely with the best remaining record at large.

But as things stand what I presented earlier stands as the most logical resolution.

(10-11-2020 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 01:14 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 11:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-30-2020 11:53 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(09-30-2020 05:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  There are several scenarios where ESPN could shift multiple schools around if they can get complete control of the Big 12.
One such scenario would involve moving TCU to the SEC (2nd Texas presence, DFW market) with Missouri moving to the Big 12 along with Louisville from the ACC and Cincinnati from the AAC. Notre Dame then slides into a permanent home in the ACC.
SEC=14
ACC=14
Big 12=12.

I don’t see anyone making a voluntary shift away from the SEC unless Vanderbilt deempasizes sports.

I would disagree.

In the hypothetical situation where Oklahoma and Kansas join the B1G as the Big 12 starts to fall apart. What does the rest of the Big 12 do?
The question actually becomes: what does Texas do?
That answer would determine outcomes for multiple schools.
What if Texas agrees to move to the SEC, but with the stipulation that they bring two friends with them (17 is not a good number for a conference, the SEC won't take Texas as a partial, and ESPN won't make payments for an 18 team SEC)?
Does the SEC turn them down or ask one school to transfer to the ACC?
The Texas leverage is that they could always join the ACC as a partial ,take their two friends and bypass the SEC all together.

Texas wouldn't make the stipulation to bring 2 other schools, just one in Tech.. Which coincidentally was the way they envisioned it when forming the Big12. UT/Tech/aggy.

I also wonder if ESPN does a deal to let UT keep the LHN network til the deal runs out.. Or maybe flips it to a SEC/TX SEC/West package. Where they will show tier 3 games between the Tx schools/arkansas? Espn writes a check to make the difference?

If Texas should decide to leave the Big 12 and join another conference, and that's a big if, Texas and Tech to the SEC actually makes the most sense for them for a number of reasons. Oklahoma in the Big 10 with Kansas also fits that Texas narrative in that scenario.

Texas and Tech and A&M guarantee Texas 7 games inside Texas annually, their 6 home games which includes one of Tech & A&M at home and one away. If they keep the RRR, and there is no reason not to do so, that's 8.

Oklahoma to the Big 10 gives Texas a relatively undisputed prominence in recruiting the region. L.S.U. has always done well in Houston and Arkansas used to do well in Dallas. With Oklahoma in the Big 10 their presence recruiting Texas will diminish a little bit. At least enough that any gains by Arkansas wouldn't be as great as gains by Texas.

And if Texas joins the SEC they negate the A&M branding advantage which is also to their favor.

furthermore if Auburn and Alabama move to the East then the West becomes Texas, L.S.U. (solid but not Oklahoma caliber) and A&M as their primary obstacles.

The moves would satisfy everyone but A&M. ESPN has control of Texas the school and state more completely. The SEC does as well. Arkansas would relish a return to more of their history and l.S.U. out from under Alabama's shadow may be better off to boot.

The Big 10 would be happy to have Oklahoma to bolster the West and Kansas is a solid enough traveling companion.

With those matters settled perhaps W.V.U. makes a move to the ACC. It would benefit the conference, but old animus may reign.

Why would the SECs take Tech to get Texas? Because without Texas we likely have to take OSU to get Oklahoma. Either way we double up a state. It's probably more profitable to take Tech as a third school in a state of 27 million than it is to take the Pokes as a 2nd school in a state of 4 million.

First of all, let's take money off of the table, because we all know that ESPN can slide income to any school as easily as a SEC booster can slip $100 dollar bills into a players helmet.

What does ESPN own? The SEC, the ACC and the AAC.
If Oklahoma and Kansas exit the Big 12 for the B1G......Not even Texas could hold together an eight team conference and maintain P status.
So if (BIG IF) the SEC could somehow convince Texas to lower themselves to join the SEC with Texas Tech, that leaves 6 orphans.
The AAC with 10 full members and one football only member (Navy) could easily absorb all of the orphans provided one school could be moved to the ACC to pair up with a full time Notre Dame.
This would give ESPN three 16 team conferences (SEC, ACC and AAC) which would include almost all of the content of the Big 12 (sans Oklahoma and Kansas).

I would imagine this would give us a SEC west of : Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Ole Miss and Mississippi State; with Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky and South Carolina in the east.

The ACC/AAC split could be simple. Navy moves to the ACC in an attempt to placate Notre Dame and solve to extra Big 12 school problem. Voila.....3 X 16 in a marketable format for ESPN that encompasses the majority of the college football watching population in the USA.


This gives a west division of the AAC as: Tulsa, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, SMU, TCU, Baylor, and Houston. In the east: Tulane, Memphis, UCF, USF, Cincinnati, Louisville, East Carolina and Temple.

In the ACC (where divisions are always a challenge) I'll just throw out these two:
Notre Dame, Navy, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, Miami, West Virginia and Virginia Tech. Plus: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, UVa, Carolina, Wake Forest, Duke, and NCSU.

I moved Louisville to the AAC as a tribute to CardinalJim, who, in an earlier post lamented the the sacrifice the Cardinals had to make when they were separated from traditional rivals Memphis and Cincinnati. Who wouldn't want to see some of those Louisville/Memphis basketball classics?

(10-06-2020 08:45 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  BTW people serious about UT playing in the ACC?!?

(10-11-2020 11:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-30-2020 11:53 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(09-30-2020 05:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  There are several scenarios where ESPN could shift multiple schools around if they can get complete control of the Big 12.
One such scenario would involve moving TCU to the SEC (2nd Texas presence, DFW market) with Missouri moving to the Big 12 along with Louisville from the ACC and Cincinnati from the AAC. Notre Dame then slides into a permanent home in the ACC.
SEC=14
ACC=14
Big 12=12.

I don’t see anyone making a voluntary shift away from the SEC unless Vanderbilt deempasizes sports.

I would disagree.

In the hypothetical situation where Oklahoma and Kansas join the B1G as the Big 12 starts to fall apart. What does the rest of the Big 12 do?
The question actually becomes: what does Texas do?
That answer would determine outcomes for multiple schools.
What if Texas agrees to move to the SEC, but with the stipulation that they bring two friends with them (17 is not a good number for a conference, the SEC won't take Texas as a partial, and ESPN won't make payments for an 18 team SEC)?
Does the SEC turn them down or ask one school to transfer to the ACC?
The Texas leverage is that they could always join the ACC as a partial ,take their two friends and bypass the SEC all together.

(10-11-2020 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 01:14 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 11:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-30-2020 11:53 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(09-30-2020 05:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  There are several scenarios where ESPN could shift multiple schools around if they can get complete control of the Big 12.
One such scenario would involve moving TCU to the SEC (2nd Texas presence, DFW market) with Missouri moving to the Big 12 along with Louisville from the ACC and Cincinnati from the AAC. Notre Dame then slides into a permanent home in the ACC.
SEC=14
ACC=14
Big 12=12.

I don’t see anyone making a voluntary shift away from the SEC unless Vanderbilt deempasizes sports.

I would disagree.

In the hypothetical situation where Oklahoma and Kansas join the B1G as the Big 12 starts to fall apart. What does the rest of the Big 12 do?
The question actually becomes: what does Texas do?
That answer would determine outcomes for multiple schools.
What if Texas agrees to move to the SEC, but with the stipulation that they bring two friends with them (17 is not a good number for a conference, the SEC won't take Texas as a partial, and ESPN won't make payments for an 18 team SEC)?
Does the SEC turn them down or ask one school to transfer to the ACC?
The Texas leverage is that they could always join the ACC as a partial ,take their two friends and bypass the SEC all together.

Texas wouldn't make the stipulation to bring 2 other schools, just one in Tech.. Which coincidentally was the way they envisioned it when forming the Big12. UT/Tech/aggy.

I also wonder if ESPN does a deal to let UT keep the LHN network til the deal runs out.. Or maybe flips it to a SEC/TX SEC/West package. Where they will show tier 3 games between the Tx schools/arkansas? Espn writes a check to make the difference?

If Texas should decide to leave the Big 12 and join another conference, and that's a big if, Texas and Tech to the SEC actually makes the most sense for them for a number of reasons. Oklahoma in the Big 10 with Kansas also fits that Texas narrative in that scenario.

Texas and Tech and A&M guarantee Texas 7 games inside Texas annually, their 6 home games which includes one of Tech & A&M at home and one away. If they keep the RRR, and there is no reason not to do so, that's 8.

Oklahoma to the Big 10 gives Texas a relatively undisputed prominence in recruiting the region. L.S.U. has always done well in Houston and Arkansas used to do well in Dallas. With Oklahoma in the Big 10 their presence recruiting Texas will diminish a little bit. At least enough that any gains by Arkansas wouldn't be as great as gains by Texas.

And if Texas joins the SEC they negate the A&M branding advantage which is also to their favor.

furthermore if Auburn and Alabama move to the East then the West becomes Texas, L.S.U. (solid but not Oklahoma caliber) and A&M as their primary obstacles.

The moves would satisfy everyone but A&M. ESPN has control of Texas the school and state more completely. The SEC does as well. Arkansas would relish a return to more of their history and l.S.U. out from under Alabama's shadow may be better off to boot.

The Big 10 would be happy to have Oklahoma to bolster the West and Kansas is a solid enough traveling companion.

With those matters settled perhaps W.V.U. makes a move to the ACC. It would benefit the conference, but old animus may reign.

Why would the SECs take Tech to get Texas? Because without Texas we likely have to take OSU to get Oklahoma. Either way we double up a state. It's probably more profitable to take Tech as a third school in a state of 27 million than it is to take the Pokes as a 2nd school in a state of 4 million.

As always your thoughts make a lot of sense. I agree with most of what you say, however I would disagree with some comments.

I do not believe Oklahoma joining the Big10 will diminish their recruiting in Texas. In fact I think it will be enhanced. Their best recruiting years in Texas were when they were in the Big8 and only played one team from Texas, that being UT. When OU and Texas were in different conferences the RRR seemed to take on even more importance, because it was considered somewhat of an inter-sectional game, rather than just a conference game.

There always seemed to be a mystique for the high school recruits in Texas to go out of State and play in different places around the country. They have played all of their lives in Texas and seemed to relish the opportunity to travel around the country to play else where. OU offered that opportunity and for many Texas players OU is as close or even closer to home than some of the Universities in Texas. So they could attend school close to home and travel other places and their families friends could see them play games in Norman or in Dallas.

If Oklahoma and Kansas do move to the Big10, I believe Texas will do one of three things.

1 - Join the Big10 also.
2 - Join the SEC along with Texas Tech.
3 - Go Indy in football and leave their other sports in the Big12 with an arrangement similar to the Notre Dame deal has with the ACC.

IMO they would do No. 3. They keep the LHN and are in total control.....which is important to Texas. In the Big10 or the SEC they are just another voice and the LHN is an issue.

Right or wrong it seems like Texas has always frowned on the win at all cost culture in the SEC. That would be a hard pill for them to swallow.

As an Indy in football they could schedule six games with the Big12 teams and six with any combo they desire. If Houston is added to the Big12 and I think they would be, Texas would have two of the four Texas Big12 teams on their schedule every year and could schedule others as they desire. They have stated they would like to schedule more nationally rated teams which they could then do.

For certain, Texas would not stay in the Big12 and add Cincy and Louisville or any other G5 teams and they would not join the ACC as a partial or otherwise. The remaining Big12 schools would cherry pick schools from the AAC and the MWC.

(10-11-2020 03:24 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(10-06-2020 08:45 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  BTW people serious about UT playing in the ACC?!?

(10-11-2020 11:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-30-2020 11:53 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(09-30-2020 05:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  There are several scenarios where ESPN could shift multiple schools around if they can get complete control of the Big 12.
One such scenario would involve moving TCU to the SEC (2nd Texas presence, DFW market) with Missouri moving to the Big 12 along with Louisville from the ACC and Cincinnati from the AAC. Notre Dame then slides into a permanent home in the ACC.
SEC=14
ACC=14
Big 12=12.

I don’t see anyone making a voluntary shift away from the SEC unless Vanderbilt deempasizes sports.

I would disagree.

In the hypothetical situation where Oklahoma and Kansas join the B1G as the Big 12 starts to fall apart. What does the rest of the Big 12 do?
The question actually becomes: what does Texas do?
That answer would determine outcomes for multiple schools.
What if Texas agrees to move to the SEC, but with the stipulation that they bring two friends with them (17 is not a good number for a conference, the SEC won't take Texas as a partial, and ESPN won't make payments for an 18 team SEC)?
Does the SEC turn them down or ask one school to transfer to the ACC?
The Texas leverage is that they could always join the ACC as a partial ,take their two friends and bypass the SEC all together.

(10-11-2020 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 01:14 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 11:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-30-2020 11:53 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I don’t see anyone making a voluntary shift away from the SEC unless Vanderbilt deempasizes sports.

I would disagree.

In the hypothetical situation where Oklahoma and Kansas join the B1G as the Big 12 starts to fall apart. What does the rest of the Big 12 do?
The question actually becomes: what does Texas do?
That answer would determine outcomes for multiple schools.
What if Texas agrees to move to the SEC, but with the stipulation that they bring two friends with them (17 is not a good number for a conference, the SEC won't take Texas as a partial, and ESPN won't make payments for an 18 team SEC)?
Does the SEC turn them down or ask one school to transfer to the ACC?
The Texas leverage is that they could always join the ACC as a partial ,take their two friends and bypass the SEC all together.

Texas wouldn't make the stipulation to bring 2 other schools, just one in Tech.. Which coincidentally was the way they envisioned it when forming the Big12. UT/Tech/aggy.

I also wonder if ESPN does a deal to let UT keep the LHN network til the deal runs out.. Or maybe flips it to a SEC/TX SEC/West package. Where they will show tier 3 games between the Tx schools/arkansas? Espn writes a check to make the difference?

If Texas should decide to leave the Big 12 and join another conference, and that's a big if, Texas and Tech to the SEC actually makes the most sense for them for a number of reasons. Oklahoma in the Big 10 with Kansas also fits that Texas narrative in that scenario.

Texas and Tech and A&M guarantee Texas 7 games inside Texas annually, their 6 home games which includes one of Tech & A&M at home and one away. If they keep the RRR, and there is no reason not to do so, that's 8.

Oklahoma to the Big 10 gives Texas a relatively undisputed prominence in recruiting the region. L.S.U. has always done well in Houston and Arkansas used to do well in Dallas. With Oklahoma in the Big 10 their presence recruiting Texas will diminish a little bit. At least enough that any gains by Arkansas wouldn't be as great as gains by Texas.

And if Texas joins the SEC they negate the A&M branding advantage which is also to their favor.

furthermore if Auburn and Alabama move to the East then the West becomes Texas, L.S.U. (solid but not Oklahoma caliber) and A&M as their primary obstacles.

The moves would satisfy everyone but A&M. ESPN has control of Texas the school and state more completely. The SEC does as well. Arkansas would relish a return to more of their history and l.S.U. out from under Alabama's shadow may be better off to boot.

The Big 10 would be happy to have Oklahoma to bolster the West and Kansas is a solid enough traveling companion.

With those matters settled perhaps W.V.U. makes a move to the ACC. It would benefit the conference, but old animus may reign.

Why would the SECs take Tech to get Texas? Because without Texas we likely have to take OSU to get Oklahoma. Either way we double up a state. It's probably more profitable to take Tech as a third school in a state of 27 million than it is to take the Pokes as a 2nd school in a state of 4 million.

As always your thoughts make a lot of sense. I agree with most of what you say, however I would disagree with some comments.

I do not believe Oklahoma joining the Big10 will diminish their recruiting in Texas. In fact I think it will be enhanced. Their best recruiting years in Texas were when they were in the Big8 and only played one team from Texas, that being UT. When OU and Texas were in different conferences the RRR seemed to take on even more importance, because it was considered somewhat of an inter-sectional game, rather than just a conference game.

There always seemed to be a mystique for the high school recruits in Texas to go out of State and play in different places around the country. They have played all of their lives in Texas and seemed to relish the opportunity to travel around the country to play else where. OU offered that opportunity and for many Texas players OU is as close or even closer to home than some of the Universities in Texas. So they could attend school close to home and travel other places and their families friends could see them play games in Norman or in Dallas.

If Oklahoma and Kansas do move to the Big10, I believe Texas will do one of three things.

1 - Join the Big10 also.
2 - Join the SEC along with Texas Tech.
3 - Go Indy in football and leave their other sports in the Big12 with an arrangement similar to the Notre Dame deal has with the ACC.

IMO they would do No. 3. They keep the LHN and are in total control.....which is important to Texas. In the Big10 or the SEC they are just another voice and the LHN is an issue.

Right or wrong it seems like Texas has always frowned on the win at all cost culture in the SEC. That would be a hard pill for them to swallow.

As an Indy in football they could schedule six games with the Big12 teams and six with any combo they desire. If Houston is added to the Big12 and I think they would be, Texas would have two of the four Texas Big12 teams on their schedule every year and could schedule others as they desire. They have stated they would like to schedule more nationally rated teams which they could then do.

For certain, Texas would not stay in the Big12 and add Cincy and Louisville or any other G5 teams and they would not join the ACC as a partial or otherwise.

1. The win at all cost mentality of the SEC? We have one more major infraction than the Big 10 and have never had a conference ending scandal like SMU in the SWC.

2. Oklahoma recruited the nation in the days they were in the Big 8 and Nebraska did as well. At that time California was still generating lots of recruits as was the Industrial Midwest. Not anymore.

3. I could see option #3 with the remaining Big 12 members. What it wouldn't do is generate the Horns the most money or return their fanbase a particularly desirable schedule because the SEC would quietly opt out of scheduling them and A&M is fine with that. They'd probably be able to schedule Clemson, F.S.U. and Miami.

There's leverage and then there's leverage. Locally their schedule wouldn't improve. I do think they could keep OU and the RRR. But the SEC would know before hand if that was Texas's preference because the Network wouldn't want to miss out on OU and Kansas if that was going to be the case. So the SEC would take Oklahoma with a better financial offer than the Big 10 could muster and while they might prefer to have Kansas they could live with OSU as both Oklahoma schools provide more of a DFW presence with A&M and Arky.

ESPN would be paying for the moves so they will have particular interest in finding out what UT wants to do before the offers go out. When I present this scenario it is predicated upon Texas wanting to make the move in order to reunite with Arkansas and A&M and to bring Tech in with them to recreate the home & homes with the other 2 Texas state schools of size.

(10-11-2020 03:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 03:24 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(10-06-2020 08:45 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  BTW people serious about UT playing in the ACC?!?

(10-11-2020 11:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-30-2020 11:53 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(09-30-2020 05:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  There are several scenarios where ESPN could shift multiple schools around if they can get complete control of the Big 12.
One such scenario would involve moving TCU to the SEC (2nd Texas presence, DFW market) with Missouri moving to the Big 12 along with Louisville from the ACC and Cincinnati from the AAC. Notre Dame then slides into a permanent home in the ACC.
SEC=14
ACC=14
Big 12=12.

I don’t see anyone making a voluntary shift away from the SEC unless Vanderbilt deempasizes sports.

I would disagree.

In the hypothetical situation where Oklahoma and Kansas join the B1G as the Big 12 starts to fall apart. What does the rest of the Big 12 do?
The question actually becomes: what does Texas do?
That answer would determine outcomes for multiple schools.
What if Texas agrees to move to the SEC, but with the stipulation that they bring two friends with them (17 is not a good number for a conference, the SEC won't take Texas as a partial, and ESPN won't make payments for an 18 team SEC)?
Does the SEC turn them down or ask one school to transfer to the ACC?
The Texas leverage is that they could always join the ACC as a partial ,take their two friends and bypass the SEC all together.

(10-11-2020 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 01:14 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 11:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  I would disagree.

In the hypothetical situation where Oklahoma and Kansas join the B1G as the Big 12 starts to fall apart. What does the rest of the Big 12 do?
The question actually becomes: what does Texas do?
That answer would determine outcomes for multiple schools.
What if Texas agrees to move to the SEC, but with the stipulation that they bring two friends with them (17 is not a good number for a conference, the SEC won't take Texas as a partial, and ESPN won't make payments for an 18 team SEC)?
Does the SEC turn them down or ask one school to transfer to the ACC?
The Texas leverage is that they could always join the ACC as a partial ,take their two friends and bypass the SEC all together.

Texas wouldn't make the stipulation to bring 2 other schools, just one in Tech.. Which coincidentally was the way they envisioned it when forming the Big12. UT/Tech/aggy.

I also wonder if ESPN does a deal to let UT keep the LHN network til the deal runs out.. Or maybe flips it to a SEC/TX SEC/West package. Where they will show tier 3 games between the Tx schools/arkansas? Espn writes a check to make the difference?

If Texas should decide to leave the Big 12 and join another conference, and that's a big if, Texas and Tech to the SEC actually makes the most sense for them for a number of reasons. Oklahoma in the Big 10 with Kansas also fits that Texas narrative in that scenario.

Texas and Tech and A&M guarantee Texas 7 games inside Texas annually, their 6 home games which includes one of Tech & A&M at home and one away. If they keep the RRR, and there is no reason not to do so, that's 8.

Oklahoma to the Big 10 gives Texas a relatively undisputed prominence in recruiting the region. L.S.U. has always done well in Houston and Arkansas used to do well in Dallas. With Oklahoma in the Big 10 their presence recruiting Texas will diminish a little bit. At least enough that any gains by Arkansas wouldn't be as great as gains by Texas.

And if Texas joins the SEC they negate the A&M branding advantage which is also to their favor.

furthermore if Auburn and Alabama move to the East then the West becomes Texas, L.S.U. (solid but not Oklahoma caliber) and A&M as their primary obstacles.

The moves would satisfy everyone but A&M. ESPN has control of Texas the school and state more completely. The SEC does as well. Arkansas would relish a return to more of their history and l.S.U. out from under Alabama's shadow may be better off to boot.

The Big 10 would be happy to have Oklahoma to bolster the West and Kansas is a solid enough traveling companion.

With those matters settled perhaps W.V.U. makes a move to the ACC. It would benefit the conference, but old animus may reign.

Why would the SECs take Tech to get Texas? Because without Texas we likely have to take OSU to get Oklahoma. Either way we double up a state. It's probably more profitable to take Tech as a third school in a state of 27 million than it is to take the Pokes as a 2nd school in a state of 4 million.

As always your thoughts make a lot of sense. I agree with most of what you say, however I would disagree with some comments.

I do not believe Oklahoma joining the Big10 will diminish their recruiting in Texas. In fact I think it will be enhanced. Their best recruiting years in Texas were when they were in the Big8 and only played one team from Texas, that being UT. When OU and Texas were in different conferences the RRR seemed to take on even more importance, because it was considered somewhat of an inter-sectional game, rather than just a conference game.

There always seemed to be a mystique for the high school recruits in Texas to go out of State and play in different places around the country. They have played all of their lives in Texas and seemed to relish the opportunity to travel around the country to play else where. OU offered that opportunity and for many Texas players OU is as close or even closer to home than some of the Universities in Texas. So they could attend school close to home and travel other places and their families friends could see them play games in Norman or in Dallas.

If Oklahoma and Kansas do move to the Big10, I believe Texas will do one of three things.

1 - Join the Big10 also.
2 - Join the SEC along with Texas Tech.
3 - Go Indy in football and leave their other sports in the Big12 with an arrangement similar to the Notre Dame deal has with the ACC.

IMO they would do No. 3. They keep the LHN and are in total control.....which is important to Texas. In the Big10 or the SEC they are just another voice and the LHN is an issue.

Right or wrong it seems like Texas has always frowned on the win at all cost culture in the SEC. That would be a hard pill for them to swallow.

As an Indy in football they could schedule six games with the Big12 teams and six with any combo they desire. If Houston is added to the Big12 and I think they would be, Texas would have two of the four Texas Big12 teams on their schedule every year and could schedule others as they desire. They have stated they would like to schedule more nationally rated teams which they could then do.

For certain, Texas would not stay in the Big12 and add Cincy and Louisville or any other G5 teams and they would not join the ACC as a partial or otherwise.

1. The win at all cost mentality of the SEC? We have one more major infraction than the Big 10 and have never had a conference ending scandal like SMU in the SWC.

2. Oklahoma recruited the nation in the days they were in the Big 8 and Nebraska did as well. At that time California was still generating lots of recruits as was the Industrial Midwest. Not anymore.

3. I could see option #3 with the remaining Big 12 members. What it wouldn't do is generate the Horns the most money or return their fanbase a particularly desirable schedule because the SEC would quietly opt out of scheduling them and A&M is fine with that. They'd probably be able to schedule Clemson, F.S.U. and Miami.

There's leverage and then there's leverage. Locally their schedule wouldn't improve. I do think they could keep OU and the RRR. But the SEC would know before hand if that was Texas's preference because the Network wouldn't want to miss out on OU and Kansas if that was going to be the case. So the SEC would take Oklahoma with a better financial offer than the Big 10 could muster and while they might prefer to have Kansas they could live with OSU as both Oklahoma schools provide more of a DFW presence with A&M and Arky.

ESPN would be paying for the moves so they will have particular interest in finding out what UT wants to do before the offers go out. When I present this scenario it is predicated upon Texas wanting to make the move in order to reunite with Arkansas and A&M and to bring Tech in with them to recreate the home & homes with the other 2 Texas state schools of size.

I think that Notre Dame would want to schedule some games with Texas as well.

(10-11-2020 03:53 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 03:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 03:24 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(10-06-2020 08:45 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  BTW people serious about UT playing in the ACC?!?

(10-11-2020 11:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-30-2020 11:53 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I don’t see anyone making a voluntary shift away from the SEC unless Vanderbilt deempasizes sports.

I would disagree.

In the hypothetical situation where Oklahoma and Kansas join the B1G as the Big 12 starts to fall apart. What does the rest of the Big 12 do?
The question actually becomes: what does Texas do?
That answer would determine outcomes for multiple schools.
What if Texas agrees to move to the SEC, but with the stipulation that they bring two friends with them (17 is not a good number for a conference, the SEC won't take Texas as a partial, and ESPN won't make payments for an 18 team SEC)?
Does the SEC turn them down or ask one school to transfer to the ACC?
The Texas leverage is that they could always join the ACC as a partial ,take their two friends and bypass the SEC all together.

(10-11-2020 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 01:14 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  Texas wouldn't make the stipulation to bring 2 other schools, just one in Tech.. Which coincidentally was the way they envisioned it when forming the Big12. UT/Tech/aggy.

I also wonder if ESPN does a deal to let UT keep the LHN network til the deal runs out.. Or maybe flips it to a SEC/TX SEC/West package. Where they will show tier 3 games between the Tx schools/arkansas? Espn writes a check to make the difference?

If Texas should decide to leave the Big 12 and join another conference, and that's a big if, Texas and Tech to the SEC actually makes the most sense for them for a number of reasons. Oklahoma in the Big 10 with Kansas also fits that Texas narrative in that scenario.

Texas and Tech and A&M guarantee Texas 7 games inside Texas annually, their 6 home games which includes one of Tech & A&M at home and one away. If they keep the RRR, and there is no reason not to do so, that's 8.

Oklahoma to the Big 10 gives Texas a relatively undisputed prominence in recruiting the region. L.S.U. has always done well in Houston and Arkansas used to do well in Dallas. With Oklahoma in the Big 10 their presence recruiting Texas will diminish a little bit. At least enough that any gains by Arkansas wouldn't be as great as gains by Texas.

And if Texas joins the SEC they negate the A&M branding advantage which is also to their favor.

furthermore if Auburn and Alabama move to the East then the West becomes Texas, L.S.U. (solid but not Oklahoma caliber) and A&M as their primary obstacles.

The moves would satisfy everyone but A&M. ESPN has control of Texas the school and state more completely. The SEC does as well. Arkansas would relish a return to more of their history and l.S.U. out from under Alabama's shadow may be better off to boot.

The Big 10 would be happy to have Oklahoma to bolster the West and Kansas is a solid enough traveling companion.

With those matters settled perhaps W.V.U. makes a move to the ACC. It would benefit the conference, but old animus may reign.

Why would the SECs take Tech to get Texas? Because without Texas we likely have to take OSU to get Oklahoma. Either way we double up a state. It's probably more profitable to take Tech as a third school in a state of 27 million than it is to take the Pokes as a 2nd school in a state of 4 million.

As always your thoughts make a lot of sense. I agree with most of what you say, however I would disagree with some comments.

I do not believe Oklahoma joining the Big10 will diminish their recruiting in Texas. In fact I think it will be enhanced. Their best recruiting years in Texas were when they were in the Big8 and only played one team from Texas, that being UT. When OU and Texas were in different conferences the RRR seemed to take on even more importance, because it was considered somewhat of an inter-sectional game, rather than just a conference game.

There always seemed to be a mystique for the high school recruits in Texas to go out of State and play in different places around the country. They have played all of their lives in Texas and seemed to relish the opportunity to travel around the country to play else where. OU offered that opportunity and for many Texas players OU is as close or even closer to home than some of the Universities in Texas. So they could attend school close to home and travel other places and their families friends could see them play games in Norman or in Dallas.

If Oklahoma and Kansas do move to the Big10, I believe Texas will do one of three things.

1 - Join the Big10 also.
2 - Join the SEC along with Texas Tech.
3 - Go Indy in football and leave their other sports in the Big12 with an arrangement similar to the Notre Dame deal has with the ACC.

IMO they would do No. 3. They keep the LHN and are in total control.....which is important to Texas. In the Big10 or the SEC they are just another voice and the LHN is an issue.

Right or wrong it seems like Texas has always frowned on the win at all cost culture in the SEC. That would be a hard pill for them to swallow.

As an Indy in football they could schedule six games with the Big12 teams and six with any combo they desire. If Houston is added to the Big12 and I think they would be, Texas would have two of the four Texas Big12 teams on their schedule every year and could schedule others as they desire. They have stated they would like to schedule more nationally rated teams which they could then do.

For certain, Texas would not stay in the Big12 and add Cincy and Louisville or any other G5 teams and they would not join the ACC as a partial or otherwise.

1. The win at all cost mentality of the SEC? We have one more major infraction than the Big 10 and have never had a conference ending scandal like SMU in the SWC.

2. Oklahoma recruited the nation in the days they were in the Big 8 and Nebraska did as well. At that time California was still generating lots of recruits as was the Industrial Midwest. Not anymore.

3. I could see option #3 with the remaining Big 12 members. What it wouldn't do is generate the Horns the most money or return their fanbase a particularly desirable schedule because the SEC would quietly opt out of scheduling them and A&M is fine with that. They'd probably be able to schedule Clemson, F.S.U. and Miami.

There's leverage and then there's leverage. Locally their schedule wouldn't improve. I do think they could keep OU and the RRR. But the SEC would know before hand if that was Texas's preference because the Network wouldn't want to miss out on OU and Kansas if that was going to be the case. So the SEC would take Oklahoma with a better financial offer than the Big 10 could muster and while they might prefer to have Kansas they could live with OSU as both Oklahoma schools provide more of a DFW presence with A&M and Arky.

ESPN would be paying for the moves so they will have particular interest in finding out what UT wants to do before the offers go out. When I present this scenario it is predicated upon Texas wanting to make the move in order to reunite with Arkansas and A&M and to bring Tech in with them to recreate the home & homes with the other 2 Texas state schools of size.

I think that Notre Dame would want to schedule some games with Texas as well.

Pardon me, but I wasn't counting Notre Dame as an ACC member Terry. Did I miss something? I was looking at which schools within the ESPN family from the Southeast might be willing to schedule an independent Texas. Last I checked the prime N.D. games were still on NBC and you weren't located in the Southeast. Recruiting access outside of Texas will be an issue for an independent Texas the same way it is for an independent Notre Dame.

(10-11-2020 04:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 03:53 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 03:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 03:24 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(10-06-2020 08:45 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  BTW people serious about UT playing in the ACC?!?

(10-11-2020 11:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  I would disagree.

In the hypothetical situation where Oklahoma and Kansas join the B1G as the Big 12 starts to fall apart. What does the rest of the Big 12 do?
The question actually becomes: what does Texas do?
That answer would determine outcomes for multiple schools.
What if Texas agrees to move to the SEC, but with the stipulation that they bring two friends with them (17 is not a good number for a conference, the SEC won't take Texas as a partial, and ESPN won't make payments for an 18 team SEC)?
Does the SEC turn them down or ask one school to transfer to the ACC?
The Texas leverage is that they could always join the ACC as a partial ,take their two friends and bypass the SEC all together.

(10-11-2020 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If Texas should decide to leave the Big 12 and join another conference, and that's a big if, Texas and Tech to the SEC actually makes the most sense for them for a number of reasons. Oklahoma in the Big 10 with Kansas also fits that Texas narrative in that scenario.

Texas and Tech and A&M guarantee Texas 7 games inside Texas annually, their 6 home games which includes one of Tech & A&M at home and one away. If they keep the RRR, and there is no reason not to do so, that's 8.

Oklahoma to the Big 10 gives Texas a relatively undisputed prominence in recruiting the region. L.S.U. has always done well in Houston and Arkansas used to do well in Dallas. With Oklahoma in the Big 10 their presence recruiting Texas will diminish a little bit. At least enough that any gains by Arkansas wouldn't be as great as gains by Texas.

And if Texas joins the SEC they negate the A&M branding advantage which is also to their favor.

furthermore if Auburn and Alabama move to the East then the West becomes Texas, L.S.U. (solid but not Oklahoma caliber) and A&M as their primary obstacles.

The moves would satisfy everyone but A&M. ESPN has control of Texas the school and state more completely. The SEC does as well. Arkansas would relish a return to more of their history and l.S.U. out from under Alabama's shadow may be better off to boot.

The Big 10 would be happy to have Oklahoma to bolster the West and Kansas is a solid enough traveling companion.

With those matters settled perhaps W.V.U. makes a move to the ACC. It would benefit the conference, but old animus may reign.

Why would the SECs take Tech to get Texas? Because without Texas we likely have to take OSU to get Oklahoma. Either way we double up a state. It's probably more profitable to take Tech as a third school in a state of 27 million than it is to take the Pokes as a 2nd school in a state of 4 million.

As always your thoughts make a lot of sense. I agree with most of what you say, however I would disagree with some comments.

I do not believe Oklahoma joining the Big10 will diminish their recruiting in Texas. In fact I think it will be enhanced. Their best recruiting years in Texas were when they were in the Big8 and only played one team from Texas, that being UT. When OU and Texas were in different conferences the RRR seemed to take on even more importance, because it was considered somewhat of an inter-sectional game, rather than just a conference game.

There always seemed to be a mystique for the high school recruits in Texas to go out of State and play in different places around the country. They have played all of their lives in Texas and seemed to relish the opportunity to travel around the country to play else where. OU offered that opportunity and for many Texas players OU is as close or even closer to home than some of the Universities in Texas. So they could attend school close to home and travel other places and their families friends could see them play games in Norman or in Dallas.

If Oklahoma and Kansas do move to the Big10, I believe Texas will do one of three things.

1 - Join the Big10 also.
2 - Join the SEC along with Texas Tech.
3 - Go Indy in football and leave their other sports in the Big12 with an arrangement similar to the Notre Dame deal has with the ACC.

IMO they would do No. 3. They keep the LHN and are in total control.....which is important to Texas. In the Big10 or the SEC they are just another voice and the LHN is an issue.

Right or wrong it seems like Texas has always frowned on the win at all cost culture in the SEC. That would be a hard pill for them to swallow.

As an Indy in football they could schedule six games with the Big12 teams and six with any combo they desire. If Houston is added to the Big12 and I think they would be, Texas would have two of the four Texas Big12 teams on their schedule every year and could schedule others as they desire. They have stated they would like to schedule more nationally rated teams which they could then do.

For certain, Texas would not stay in the Big12 and add Cincy and Louisville or any other G5 teams and they would not join the ACC as a partial or otherwise.

1. The win at all cost mentality of the SEC? We have one more major infraction than the Big 10 and have never had a conference ending scandal like SMU in the SWC.

2. Oklahoma recruited the nation in the days they were in the Big 8 and Nebraska did as well. At that time California was still generating lots of recruits as was the Industrial Midwest. Not anymore.

3. I could see option #3 with the remaining Big 12 members. What it wouldn't do is generate the Horns the most money or return their fanbase a particularly desirable schedule because the SEC would quietly opt out of scheduling them and A&M is fine with that. They'd probably be able to schedule Clemson, F.S.U. and Miami.

There's leverage and then there's leverage. Locally their schedule wouldn't improve. I do think they could keep OU and the RRR. But the SEC would know before hand if that was Texas's preference because the Network wouldn't want to miss out on OU and Kansas if that was going to be the case. So the SEC would take Oklahoma with a better financial offer than the Big 10 could muster and while they might prefer to have Kansas they could live with OSU as both Oklahoma schools provide more of a DFW presence with A&M and Arky.

ESPN would be paying for the moves so they will have particular interest in finding out what UT wants to do before the offers go out. When I present this scenario it is predicated upon Texas wanting to make the move in order to reunite with Arkansas and A&M and to bring Tech in with them to recreate the home & homes with the other 2 Texas state schools of size.

I think that Notre Dame would want to schedule some games with Texas as well.

Pardon me, but I wasn't counting Notre Dame as an ACC member Terry. Did I miss something? I was looking at which schools within the ESPN family from the Southeast might be willing to schedule an independent Texas. Last I checked the prime N.D. games were still on NBC and you weren't located in the Southeast. Recruiting access outside of Texas will be an issue for an independent Texas the same way it is for an independent Notre Dame.

I was talking generally. I do not feel bound by your limited (and unstated) criteria.

The original option 3 talked about an INDEPENDENT Texas with an ND/ACC arrangement.

It didn't say that we can only discuss ACC opponents for an independent Texas.

(See all of the bolded text above)

An independent Texas can always find games with ND was my point.

Scheduling as such an independent is not restricted to ACC games.

There seems a lot of unnecessary snark in your reply, JR.

Sorry not sorry if you don't like my post.

(10-11-2020 03:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 03:24 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(10-06-2020 08:45 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  BTW people serious about UT playing in the ACC?!?

(10-11-2020 11:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-30-2020 11:53 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(09-30-2020 05:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  There are several scenarios where ESPN could shift multiple schools around if they can get complete control of the Big 12.
One such scenario would involve moving TCU to the SEC (2nd Texas presence, DFW market) with Missouri moving to the Big 12 along with Louisville from the ACC and Cincinnati from the AAC. Notre Dame then slides into a permanent home in the ACC.
SEC=14
ACC=14
Big 12=12.

I don’t see anyone making a voluntary shift away from the SEC unless Vanderbilt deempasizes sports.

I would disagree.

In the hypothetical situation where Oklahoma and Kansas join the B1G as the Big 12 starts to fall apart. What does the rest of the Big 12 do?
The question actually becomes: what does Texas do?
That answer would determine outcomes for multiple schools.
What if Texas agrees to move to the SEC, but with the stipulation that they bring two friends with them (17 is not a good number for a conference, the SEC won't take Texas as a partial, and ESPN won't make payments for an 18 team SEC)?
Does the SEC turn them down or ask one school to transfer to the ACC?
The Texas leverage is that they could always join the ACC as a partial ,take their two friends and bypass the SEC all together.

(10-11-2020 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 01:14 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 11:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  I would disagree.

In the hypothetical situation where Oklahoma and Kansas join the B1G as the Big 12 starts to fall apart. What does the rest of the Big 12 do?
The question actually becomes: what does Texas do?
That answer would determine outcomes for multiple schools.
What if Texas agrees to move to the SEC, but with the stipulation that they bring two friends with them (17 is not a good number for a conference, the SEC won't take Texas as a partial, and ESPN won't make payments for an 18 team SEC)?
Does the SEC turn them down or ask one school to transfer to the ACC?
The Texas leverage is that they could always join the ACC as a partial ,take their two friends and bypass the SEC all together.

Texas wouldn't make the stipulation to bring 2 other schools, just one in Tech.. Which coincidentally was the way they envisioned it when forming the Big12. UT/Tech/aggy.

I also wonder if ESPN does a deal to let UT keep the LHN network til the deal runs out.. Or maybe flips it to a SEC/TX SEC/West package. Where they will show tier 3 games between the Tx schools/arkansas? Espn writes a check to make the difference?

If Texas should decide to leave the Big 12 and join another conference, and that's a big if, Texas and Tech to the SEC actually makes the most sense for them for a number of reasons. Oklahoma in the Big 10 with Kansas also fits that Texas narrative in that scenario.

Texas and Tech and A&M guarantee Texas 7 games inside Texas annually, their 6 home games which includes one of Tech & A&M at home and one away. If they keep the RRR, and there is no reason not to do so, that's 8.

Oklahoma to the Big 10 gives Texas a relatively undisputed prominence in recruiting the region. L.S.U. has always done well in Houston and Arkansas used to do well in Dallas. With Oklahoma in the Big 10 their presence recruiting Texas will diminish a little bit. At least enough that any gains by Arkansas wouldn't be as great as gains by Texas.

And if Texas joins the SEC they negate the A&M branding advantage which is also to their favor.

furthermore if Auburn and Alabama move to the East then the West becomes Texas, L.S.U. (solid but not Oklahoma caliber) and A&M as their primary obstacles.

The moves would satisfy everyone but A&M. ESPN has control of Texas the school and state more completely. The SEC does as well. Arkansas would relish a return to more of their history and l.S.U. out from under Alabama's shadow may be better off to boot.

The Big 10 would be happy to have Oklahoma to bolster the West and Kansas is a solid enough traveling companion.

With those matters settled perhaps W.V.U. makes a move to the ACC. It would benefit the conference, but old animus may reign.

Why would the SECs take Tech to get Texas? Because without Texas we likely have to take OSU to get Oklahoma. Either way we double up a state. It's probably more profitable to take Tech as a third school in a state of 27 million than it is to take the Pokes as a 2nd school in a state of 4 million.

As always your thoughts make a lot of sense. I agree with most of what you say, however I would disagree with some comments.

I do not believe Oklahoma joining the Big10 will diminish their recruiting in Texas. In fact I think it will be enhanced. Their best recruiting years in Texas were when they were in the Big8 and only played one team from Texas, that being UT. When OU and Texas were in different conferences the RRR seemed to take on even more importance, because it was considered somewhat of an inter-sectional game, rather than just a conference game.

There always seemed to be a mystique for the high school recruits in Texas to go out of State and play in different places around the country. They have played all of their lives in Texas and seemed to relish the opportunity to travel around the country to play else where. OU offered that opportunity and for many Texas players OU is as close or even closer to home than some of the Universities in Texas. So they could attend school close to home and travel other places and their families friends could see them play games in Norman or in Dallas.

If Oklahoma and Kansas do move to the Big10, I believe Texas will do one of three things.

1 - Join the Big10 also.
2 - Join the SEC along with Texas Tech.
3 - Go Indy in football and leave their other sports in the Big12 with an arrangement similar to the Notre Dame deal has with the ACC.

IMO they would do No. 3. They keep the LHN and are in total control.....which is important to Texas. In the Big10 or the SEC they are just another voice and the LHN is an issue.

Right or wrong it seems like Texas has always frowned on the win at all cost culture in the SEC. That would be a hard pill for them to swallow.

As an Indy in football they could schedule six games with the Big12 teams and six with any combo they desire. If Houston is added to the Big12 and I think they would be, Texas would have two of the four Texas Big12 teams on their schedule every year and could schedule others as they desire. They have stated they would like to schedule more nationally rated teams which they could then do.

For certain, Texas would not stay in the Big12 and add Cincy and Louisville or any other G5 teams and they would not join the ACC as a partial or otherwise.

1. The win at all cost mentality of the SEC? We have one more major infraction than the Big 10 and have never had a conference ending scandal like SMU in the SWC.

2. Oklahoma recruited the nation in the days they were in the Big 8 and Nebraska did as well. At that time California was still generating lots of recruits as was the Industrial Midwest. Not anymore.

3. I could see option #3 with the remaining Big 12 members. What it wouldn't do is generate the Horns the most money or return their fanbase a particularly desirable schedule because the SEC would quietly opt out of scheduling them and A&M is fine with that. They'd probably be able to schedule Clemson, F.S.U. and Miami.

There's leverage and then there's leverage. Locally their schedule wouldn't improve. I do think they could keep OU and the RRR. But the SEC would know before hand if that was Texas's preference because the Network wouldn't want to miss out on OU and Kansas if that was going to be the case. So the SEC would take Oklahoma with a better financial offer than the Big 10 could muster and while they might prefer to have Kansas they could live with OSU as both Oklahoma schools provide more of a DFW presence with A&M and Arky.

ESPN would be paying for the moves so they will have particular interest in finding out what UT wants to do before the offers go out. When I present this scenario it is predicated upon Texas wanting to make the move in order to reunite with Arkansas and A&M and to bring Tech in with them to recreate the home & homes with the other 2 Texas state schools of size.

(10-11-2020 03:53 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 03:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 03:24 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(10-06-2020 08:45 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  BTW people serious about UT playing in the ACC?!?

(10-11-2020 11:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-30-2020 11:53 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I don’t see anyone making a voluntary shift away from the SEC unless Vanderbilt deempasizes sports.

I would disagree.

In the hypothetical situation where Oklahoma and Kansas join the B1G as the Big 12 starts to fall apart. What does the rest of the Big 12 do?
The question actually becomes: what does Texas do?
That answer would determine outcomes for multiple schools.
What if Texas agrees to move to the SEC, but with the stipulation that they bring two friends with them (17 is not a good number for a conference, the SEC won't take Texas as a partial, and ESPN won't make payments for an 18 team SEC)?
Does the SEC turn them down or ask one school to transfer to the ACC?
The Texas leverage is that they could always join the ACC as a partial ,take their two friends and bypass the SEC all together.

(10-11-2020 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 01:14 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  Texas wouldn't make the stipulation to bring 2 other schools, just one in Tech.. Which coincidentally was the way they envisioned it when forming the Big12. UT/Tech/aggy.

I also wonder if ESPN does a deal to let UT keep the LHN network til the deal runs out.. Or maybe flips it to a SEC/TX SEC/West package. Where they will show tier 3 games between the Tx schools/arkansas? Espn writes a check to make the difference?

If Texas should decide to leave the Big 12 and join another conference, and that's a big if, Texas and Tech to the SEC actually makes the most sense for them for a number of reasons. Oklahoma in the Big 10 with Kansas also fits that Texas narrative in that scenario.

Texas and Tech and A&M guarantee Texas 7 games inside Texas annually, their 6 home games which includes one of Tech & A&M at home and one away. If they keep the RRR, and there is no reason not to do so, that's 8.

Oklahoma to the Big 10 gives Texas a relatively undisputed prominence in recruiting the region. L.S.U. has always done well in Houston and Arkansas used to do well in Dallas. With Oklahoma in the Big 10 their presence recruiting Texas will diminish a little bit. At least enough that any gains by Arkansas wouldn't be as great as gains by Texas.

And if Texas joins the SEC they negate the A&M branding advantage which is also to their favor.

furthermore if Auburn and Alabama move to the East then the West becomes Texas, L.S.U. (solid but not Oklahoma caliber) and A&M as their primary obstacles.

The moves would satisfy everyone but A&M. ESPN has control of Texas the school and state more completely. The SEC does as well. Arkansas would relish a return to more of their history and l.S.U. out from under Alabama's shadow may be better off to boot.

The Big 10 would be happy to have Oklahoma to bolster the West and Kansas is a solid enough traveling companion.

With those matters settled perhaps W.V.U. makes a move to the ACC. It would benefit the conference, but old animus may reign.

Why would the SECs take Tech to get Texas? Because without Texas we likely have to take OSU to get Oklahoma. Either way we double up a state. It's probably more profitable to take Tech as a third school in a state of 27 million than it is to take the Pokes as a 2nd school in a state of 4 million.

As always your thoughts make a lot of sense. I agree with most of what you say, however I would disagree with some comments.

I do not believe Oklahoma joining the Big10 will diminish their recruiting in Texas. In fact I think it will be enhanced. Their best recruiting years in Texas were when they were in the Big8 and only played one team from Texas, that being UT. When OU and Texas were in different conferences the RRR seemed to take on even more importance, because it was considered somewhat of an inter-sectional game, rather than just a conference game.

There always seemed to be a mystique for the high school recruits in Texas to go out of State and play in different places around the country. They have played all of their lives in Texas and seemed to relish the opportunity to travel around the country to play else where. OU offered that opportunity and for many Texas players OU is as close or even closer to home than some of the Universities in Texas. So they could attend school close to home and travel other places and their families friends could see them play games in Norman or in Dallas.

If Oklahoma and Kansas do move to the Big10, I believe Texas will do one of three things.

1 - Join the Big10 also.
2 - Join the SEC along with Texas Tech.
3 - Go Indy in football and leave their other sports in the Big12 with an arrangement similar to the Notre Dame deal has with the ACC.

IMO they would do No. 3. They keep the LHN and are in total control.....which is important to Texas. In the Big10 or the SEC they are just another voice and the LHN is an issue.

Right or wrong it seems like Texas has always frowned on the win at all cost culture in the SEC. That would be a hard pill for them to swallow.

As an Indy in football they could schedule six games with the Big12 teams and six with any combo they desire. If Houston is added to the Big12 and I think they would be, Texas would have two of the four Texas Big12 teams on their schedule every year and could schedule others as they desire. They have stated they would like to schedule more nationally rated teams which they could then do.

For certain, Texas would not stay in the Big12 and add Cincy and Louisville or any other G5 teams and they would not join the ACC as a partial or otherwise.

1. The win at all cost mentality of the SEC? We have one more major infraction than the Big 10 and have never had a conference ending scandal like SMU in the SWC.

2. Oklahoma recruited the nation in the days they were in the Big 8 and Nebraska did as well. At that time California was still generating lots of recruits as was the Industrial Midwest. Not anymore.

3. I could see option #3 with the remaining Big 12 members. What it wouldn't do is generate the Horns the most money or return their fanbase a particularly desirable schedule because the SEC would quietly opt out of scheduling them and A&M is fine with that. They'd probably be able to schedule Clemson, F.S.U. and Miami.

There's leverage and then there's leverage. Locally their schedule wouldn't improve. I do think they could keep OU and the RRR. But the SEC would know before hand if that was Texas's preference because the Network wouldn't want to miss out on OU and Kansas if that was going to be the case. So the SEC would take Oklahoma with a better financial offer than the Big 10 could muster and while they might prefer to have Kansas they could live with OSU as both Oklahoma schools provide more of a DFW presence with A&M and Arky.

ESPN would be paying for the moves so they will have particular interest in finding out what UT wants to do before the offers go out. When I present this scenario it is predicated upon Texas wanting to make the move in order to reunite with Arkansas and A&M and to bring Tech in with them to recreate the home & homes with the other 2 Texas state schools of size.

I think that Notre Dame would want to schedule some games with Texas as well.

No. 1 - JR the reason I qualified my culture statement ...as right or wrong....is because of just what you state.

No. 2 - In the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's, OU pretty much limited their recruiting to Oklahoma and Texas. Bud Wilkinson and Barry Switzer did little recruiting nationally, they did not have to. in the 90's the Big8 ended and they had some losing seasons and they did recruit some nationally. However, even then they got most of their players from Oklahoma and Texas and still do. The Oklahoma papers often have articles listing the players home state and normally of the 85 player roster about 40-50 are from Texas and 20-30 from Oklahoma and about 15 from other states. Their best are mostly from Texas and Oklahoma. I agree that Nebraska always recruited nationally, but not Oklahoma.

Texas has owed Arkansas a game for the last 10-15 years and have continually postponed it. They are suppose to play it in the next year or two, but most Arkansas fans are convinced Texas will never play it.

I do not think Texas will ever have a problem scheduling nationally rated teams with 100,000 seat stadium plenty of money and a huge TV audience.

(10-11-2020 05:02 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 03:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 03:24 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(10-06-2020 08:45 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  BTW people serious about UT playing in the ACC?!?

(10-11-2020 11:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-30-2020 11:53 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I don’t see anyone making a voluntary shift away from the SEC unless Vanderbilt deempasizes sports.

I would disagree.

In the hypothetical situation where Oklahoma and Kansas join the B1G as the Big 12 starts to fall apart. What does the rest of the Big 12 do?
The question actually becomes: what does Texas do?
That answer would determine outcomes for multiple schools.
What if Texas agrees to move to the SEC, but with the stipulation that they bring two friends with them (17 is not a good number for a conference, the SEC won't take Texas as a partial, and ESPN won't make payments for an 18 team SEC)?
Does the SEC turn them down or ask one school to transfer to the ACC?
The Texas leverage is that they could always join the ACC as a partial ,take their two friends and bypass the SEC all together.

(10-11-2020 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 01:14 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  Texas wouldn't make the stipulation to bring 2 other schools, just one in Tech.. Which coincidentally was the way they envisioned it when forming the Big12. UT/Tech/aggy.

I also wonder if ESPN does a deal to let UT keep the LHN network til the deal runs out.. Or maybe flips it to a SEC/TX SEC/West package. Where they will show tier 3 games between the Tx schools/arkansas? Espn writes a check to make the difference?

If Texas should decide to leave the Big 12 and join another conference, and that's a big if, Texas and Tech to the SEC actually makes the most sense for them for a number of reasons. Oklahoma in the Big 10 with Kansas also fits that Texas narrative in that scenario.

Texas and Tech and A&M guarantee Texas 7 games inside Texas annually, their 6 home games which includes one of Tech & A&M at home and one away. If they keep the RRR, and there is no reason not to do so, that's 8.

Oklahoma to the Big 10 gives Texas a relatively undisputed prominence in recruiting the region. L.S.U. has always done well in Houston and Arkansas used to do well in Dallas. With Oklahoma in the Big 10 their presence recruiting Texas will diminish a little bit. At least enough that any gains by Arkansas wouldn't be as great as gains by Texas.

And if Texas joins the SEC they negate the A&M branding advantage which is also to their favor.

furthermore if Auburn and Alabama move to the East then the West becomes Texas, L.S.U. (solid but not Oklahoma caliber) and A&M as their primary obstacles.

The moves would satisfy everyone but A&M. ESPN has control of Texas the school and state more completely. The SEC does as well. Arkansas would relish a return to more of their history and l.S.U. out from under Alabama's shadow may be better off to boot.

The Big 10 would be happy to have Oklahoma to bolster the West and Kansas is a solid enough traveling companion.

With those matters settled perhaps W.V.U. makes a move to the ACC. It would benefit the conference, but old animus may reign.

Why would the SECs take Tech to get Texas? Because without Texas we likely have to take OSU to get Oklahoma. Either way we double up a state. It's probably more profitable to take Tech as a third school in a state of 27 million than it is to take the Pokes as a 2nd school in a state of 4 million.

As always your thoughts make a lot of sense. I agree with most of what you say, however I would disagree with some comments.

I do not believe Oklahoma joining the Big10 will diminish their recruiting in Texas. In fact I think it will be enhanced. Their best recruiting years in Texas were when they were in the Big8 and only played one team from Texas, that being UT. When OU and Texas were in different conferences the RRR seemed to take on even more importance, because it was considered somewhat of an inter-sectional game, rather than just a conference game.

There always seemed to be a mystique for the high school recruits in Texas to go out of State and play in different places around the country. They have played all of their lives in Texas and seemed to relish the opportunity to travel around the country to play else where. OU offered that opportunity and for many Texas players OU is as close or even closer to home than some of the Universities in Texas. So they could attend school close to home and travel other places and their families friends could see them play games in Norman or in Dallas.

If Oklahoma and Kansas do move to the Big10, I believe Texas will do one of three things.

1 - Join the Big10 also.
2 - Join the SEC along with Texas Tech.
3 - Go Indy in football and leave their other sports in the Big12 with an arrangement similar to the Notre Dame deal has with the ACC.

IMO they would do No. 3. They keep the LHN and are in total control.....which is important to Texas. In the Big10 or the SEC they are just another voice and the LHN is an issue.

Right or wrong it seems like Texas has always frowned on the win at all cost culture in the SEC. That would be a hard pill for them to swallow.

As an Indy in football they could schedule six games with the Big12 teams and six with any combo they desire. If Houston is added to the Big12 and I think they would be, Texas would have two of the four Texas Big12 teams on their schedule every year and could schedule others as they desire. They have stated they would like to schedule more nationally rated teams which they could then do.

For certain, Texas would not stay in the Big12 and add Cincy and Louisville or any other G5 teams and they would not join the ACC as a partial or otherwise.

1. The win at all cost mentality of the SEC? We have one more major infraction than the Big 10 and have never had a conference ending scandal like SMU in the SWC.

2. Oklahoma recruited the nation in the days they were in the Big 8 and Nebraska did as well. At that time California was still generating lots of recruits as was the Industrial Midwest. Not anymore.

3. I could see option #3 with the remaining Big 12 members. What it wouldn't do is generate the Horns the most money or return their fanbase a particularly desirable schedule because the SEC would quietly opt out of scheduling them and A&M is fine with that. They'd probably be able to schedule Clemson, F.S.U. and Miami.

There's leverage and then there's leverage. Locally their schedule wouldn't improve. I do think they could keep OU and the RRR. But the SEC would know before hand if that was Texas's preference because the Network wouldn't want to miss out on OU and Kansas if that was going to be the case. So the SEC would take Oklahoma with a better financial offer than the Big 10 could muster and while they might prefer to have Kansas they could live with OSU as both Oklahoma schools provide more of a DFW presence with A&M and Arky.

ESPN would be paying for the moves so they will have particular interest in finding out what UT wants to do before the offers go out. When I present this scenario it is predicated upon Texas wanting to make the move in order to reunite with Arkansas and A&M and to bring Tech in with them to recreate the home & homes with the other 2 Texas state schools of size.

(10-11-2020 03:53 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 03:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 03:24 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(10-06-2020 08:45 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  BTW people serious about UT playing in the ACC?!?

(10-11-2020 11:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  I would disagree.

In the hypothetical situation where Oklahoma and Kansas join the B1G as the Big 12 starts to fall apart. What does the rest of the Big 12 do?
The question actually becomes: what does Texas do?
That answer would determine outcomes for multiple schools.
What if Texas agrees to move to the SEC, but with the stipulation that they bring two friends with them (17 is not a good number for a conference, the SEC won't take Texas as a partial, and ESPN won't make payments for an 18 team SEC)?
Does the SEC turn them down or ask one school to transfer to the ACC?
The Texas leverage is that they could always join the ACC as a partial ,take their two friends and bypass the SEC all together.

(10-11-2020 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If Texas should decide to leave the Big 12 and join another conference, and that's a big if, Texas and Tech to the SEC actually makes the most sense for them for a number of reasons. Oklahoma in the Big 10 with Kansas also fits that Texas narrative in that scenario.

Texas and Tech and A&M guarantee Texas 7 games inside Texas annually, their 6 home games which includes one of Tech & A&M at home and one away. If they keep the RRR, and there is no reason not to do so, that's 8.

Oklahoma to the Big 10 gives Texas a relatively undisputed prominence in recruiting the region. L.S.U. has always done well in Houston and Arkansas used to do well in Dallas. With Oklahoma in the Big 10 their presence recruiting Texas will diminish a little bit. At least enough that any gains by Arkansas wouldn't be as great as gains by Texas.

And if Texas joins the SEC they negate the A&M branding advantage which is also to their favor.

furthermore if Auburn and Alabama move to the East then the West becomes Texas, L.S.U. (solid but not Oklahoma caliber) and A&M as their primary obstacles.

The moves would satisfy everyone but A&M. ESPN has control of Texas the school and state more completely. The SEC does as well. Arkansas would relish a return to more of their history and l.S.U. out from under Alabama's shadow may be better off to boot.

The Big 10 would be happy to have Oklahoma to bolster the West and Kansas is a solid enough traveling companion.

With those matters settled perhaps W.V.U. makes a move to the ACC. It would benefit the conference, but old animus may reign.

Why would the SECs take Tech to get Texas? Because without Texas we likely have to take OSU to get Oklahoma. Either way we double up a state. It's probably more profitable to take Tech as a third school in a state of 27 million than it is to take the Pokes as a 2nd school in a state of 4 million.

As always your thoughts make a lot of sense. I agree with most of what you say, however I would disagree with some comments.

I do not believe Oklahoma joining the Big10 will diminish their recruiting in Texas. In fact I think it will be enhanced. Their best recruiting years in Texas were when they were in the Big8 and only played one team from Texas, that being UT. When OU and Texas were in different conferences the RRR seemed to take on even more importance, because it was considered somewhat of an inter-sectional game, rather than just a conference game.

There always seemed to be a mystique for the high school recruits in Texas to go out of State and play in different places around the country. They have played all of their lives in Texas and seemed to relish the opportunity to travel around the country to play else where. OU offered that opportunity and for many Texas players OU is as close or even closer to home than some of the Universities in Texas. So they could attend school close to home and travel other places and their families friends could see them play games in Norman or in Dallas.

If Oklahoma and Kansas do move to the Big10, I believe Texas will do one of three things.

1 - Join the Big10 also.
2 - Join the SEC along with Texas Tech.
3 - Go Indy in football and leave their other sports in the Big12 with an arrangement similar to the Notre Dame deal has with the ACC.

IMO they would do No. 3. They keep the LHN and are in total control.....which is important to Texas. In the Big10 or the SEC they are just another voice and the LHN is an issue.

Right or wrong it seems like Texas has always frowned on the win at all cost culture in the SEC. That would be a hard pill for them to swallow.

As an Indy in football they could schedule six games with the Big12 teams and six with any combo they desire. If Houston is added to the Big12 and I think they would be, Texas would have two of the four Texas Big12 teams on their schedule every year and could schedule others as they desire. They have stated they would like to schedule more nationally rated teams which they could then do.

For certain, Texas would not stay in the Big12 and add Cincy and Louisville or any other G5 teams and they would not join the ACC as a partial or otherwise.

1. The win at all cost mentality of the SEC? We have one more major infraction than the Big 10 and have never had a conference ending scandal like SMU in the SWC.

2. Oklahoma recruited the nation in the days they were in the Big 8 and Nebraska did as well. At that time California was still generating lots of recruits as was the Industrial Midwest. Not anymore.

3. I could see option #3 with the remaining Big 12 members. What it wouldn't do is generate the Horns the most money or return their fanbase a particularly desirable schedule because the SEC would quietly opt out of scheduling them and A&M is fine with that. They'd probably be able to schedule Clemson, F.S.U. and Miami.

There's leverage and then there's leverage. Locally their schedule wouldn't improve. I do think they could keep OU and the RRR. But the SEC would know before hand if that was Texas's preference because the Network wouldn't want to miss out on OU and Kansas if that was going to be the case. So the SEC would take Oklahoma with a better financial offer than the Big 10 could muster and while they might prefer to have Kansas they could live with OSU as both Oklahoma schools provide more of a DFW presence with A&M and Arky.

ESPN would be paying for the moves so they will have particular interest in finding out what UT wants to do before the offers go out. When I present this scenario it is predicated upon Texas wanting to make the move in order to reunite with Arkansas and A&M and to bring Tech in with them to recreate the home & homes with the other 2 Texas state schools of size.

I think that Notre Dame would want to schedule some games with Texas as well.

No. 1 - JR the reason I qualified my culture statement ...as right or wrong....is because of just what you state.

No. 2 - In the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's, OU pretty much limited their recruiting to Oklahoma and Texas. Bud Wilkinson and Barry Switzer did little recruiting nationally, they did not have to. in the 90's the Big8 ended and they had some losing seasons and they did recruit some nationally. However, even then they got most of their players from Oklahoma and Texas and still do. The Oklahoma papers often have articles listing the players home state and normally of the 85 player roster about 40-50 are from Texas and 20-30 from Oklahoma and about 15 from other states. Their best are mostly from Texas and Oklahoma. I agree that Nebraska always recruited nationally, but not Oklahoma.

Texas has owed Arkansas a game for the last 10-15 years and have continually postponed it. They are suppose to play it in the next year or two, but most Arkansas fans are convinced Texas will never play it.

I do not think Texas will ever have a problem scheduling nationally rated teams with 100,000 seat stadium plenty of money and a huge TV audience.

Hey, let them try. If the SEC's new contract doesn't require it they won't be playing in the SEC as an independent. Now SEC has baked games into the new numbers that's a different matter and means the issue has already been decided.

As to Oklahoma recruiting mainly in Texas and Oklahoma that's mostly true but they did recruit California and the Southeast under Switzer looking for skill players. I know because I policed violators in the Deep South when they broke NCAA recruiting regulations and Barry was involved, but not in any way that was too out of bounds. Sherrill at A&M was another matter. I'll put it this way, for all of the conferences that recruited the Southeast of almost 2 decades where I checked on recruiting only Georgia Tech under Bill Curry was clean, at least as far as I could tell. All of the rest were guilty of something and a few more than a handful seriously.

I've said before I don't think the Big Ten will take Oklahoma and Kansas. They'll take Oklahoma and Texas. They won't invite Oklahoma unless they know they can get Texas. I don't know the SEC as well as others. Maybe they will be interested in Oklahoma without Texas and if Texas doesn't budge they'll settle for Kansas or Oklahoma State. Oklahoma of course is the big domino. I'm sure Texas will do whatever they can to convince Okie to stay in the Big 12. If Boomer stays, nothing changes. If the SEC (or the Big Ten) can get them away from the Big 12, then things get interesting. The Big 10, SEC, ACC, and Pac 12 would love to "eliminate the Big 12". If they do so, they can have the CFP be the four champions and tell Texas (and Notre Dame) to join one of the four conferences or kiss the CFP goodbye.

(10-11-2020 06:17 PM)schmolik Wrote:  I've said before I don't think the Big Ten will take Oklahoma and Kansas. They'll take Oklahoma and Texas. They won't invite Oklahoma unless they know they can get Texas. I don't know the SEC as well as others. Maybe they will be interested in Oklahoma without Texas and if Texas doesn't budge they'll settle for Kansas or Oklahoma State. Oklahoma of course is the big domino. I'm sure Texas will do whatever they can to convince Okie to stay in the Big 12. If Boomer stays, nothing changes. If the SEC (or the Big Ten) can get them away from the Big 12, then things get interesting. The Big 10, SEC, ACC, and Pac 12 would love to "eliminate the Big 12". If they do so, they can have the CFP be the four champions and tell Texas (and Notre Dame) to join one of the four conferences or kiss the CFP goodbye.

I suspect you may be correct about the Big 10 only being interested in Oklahoma as a lure for Texas.

As for the SEC they won't expand unless they are getting one of those two schools. If we don't have Texas or Oklahoma as a headliner there will be no additions made. With Texas or Oklahoma we could consider a decent travel companion. The Big 10 isn't really in that position.

The real issue is not Big 10 or SEC related but ESPN related. The LHN contract doesn't expire until 2031. Texas isn't going anywhere until it does unless ESPN agrees and ESPN isn't going to agree for them to move to another network. Oklahoma's T3 is up in 2022. What they do with that contract might well be a tell.

Then there is the issue of do we continue with divisions. If we don't expansion with 1 team becomes workable.

But would the SEC take Oklahoma? Yes. Would they take Texas? Yes Beyond that is where it gets dicey depending upon the value of the companion. But without companions and being able to take just 1 because divisions are no longer necessary the mystery ends with just those two.

OU ain’t joining the Big 10 .. and NOBODYS recruiting Texas Tech ... However , RIGHT NOW .. The PAC is talking to SMU and Houston .. They want some Central Time Zone Games and Access to Texas recruiting .. We will see what happens


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

(10-11-2020 07:54 PM)Cowboy Frog Wrote:  OU ain’t joining the Big 10 .. and NOBODYS recruiting Texas Tech ... However , RIGHT NOW .. The PAC is talking to SMU and Houston .. They want some Central Time Zone Games and Access to Texas recruiting .. We will see what happens


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Link?

Stay tuned ... Ads trying to regroup as we speak .. The PAC could dissolve tonight


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

(10-11-2020 08:01 PM)Cowboy Frog Wrote:  Stay tuned ... Ads trying to regroup as we speak .. The PAC could dissolve tonight


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

What happens if they dissolve tonight? Does the network suddenly go dark?

Lots of different agendas .... Wash State brings nothing Oregon State brings nothing ... USC is big Daddy rabbit but LA County is gestapo .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro